§ Lord Henry Pettymoved the third reading of the bill for imposing an additional Duty on Property.
§ Mr. Francisobserved, that he had some serious observations to make on one of the clauses which he before objected to in the 395 committee, and wished to know whether this was the proper opportunity?
§ The Speakerinformed him, that if he intended to object to the principle of the bill altogether, this was the proper stage for doing so; but if his objections went only to a particular clause, he must wait till the new clauses were disposed of—After some little conversation, the hon. gent. acquiesced in this arrangement.
Mr. Vansittartproposed a clause for allowing the commissioners acting under the act, to take out certificates to exempt them from serving on juries or in parish offices.
§ Sir R. Buxton,wished to know the grounds on which the exemption was proposed.
Mr. Vansittartreplied, that it was meant as a relief to a set of gentlemen laboriously employed in the service of the public, without emolument.
§ Sir R. Buxtonsaid, that he had no other objection to the clause than a fear that, if that principle was introduced here, it might render magistrates, and others in similar circumstances, discontented for not having the same advantages.—The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. Vansittartthen proposed another clause for rendering complete the assessments of former years, in districts where they had not been made out.
§ Mr. Johnstoneasked if this clause would not have the effect of obliging some persons to pay at the rate of 16½per cent. within one year?
Mr. Vansittartreplied, that a provision was made for obliging no person to pay in any one quarter, more than two quarters of arrears. After this, the clause was agreed to.—He then proposed a third clause, providing, that the same commissioners and assessors who had acted under former bills, should also make out the assessments under this.
§ Mr. Johnstoneapprehended the effect of this clause might be to compel some persons in the course of a year and a half to pay 21l. per cent.; and lamented that clauses of so much importance had not been proposed at an earlier time, when there would have been a better opportunity of discussing them.
§ Lord H. Pettyreplied, that on so comprehensive and voluminous a measure, a great variety of suggestions must have been expected, which had not been thought of at an earlier period. The effect of this clause, he said, would only be, that those who had before contrived to evade the tax, 396 should not be allowed to continue always in arrears.—The clause was then added.
§ On coming to the clause which exempted from the duty any sums held by foreigners in the funds,
§ Mr. Francisrose and spoke as follows:— Sir, before I enter into the considerations, which I mean to submit to the house, respecting a very important clause in the present bill, I beg leave to state to you the circumstances, which have led me into this situation. It is painful to me, at all times, to differ from my right hon. friend (Mr. Fox), and still more to find myself compelled to maintain an opinion, which I know he will oppose. In fact, however, I have not provoked this question, nor was it possible for me to foresee that I should have to maintain it against my right hon. friend. Some time, I think, before the Property bill was in print, and when I knew little or nothing of its contents, a right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose), whose assiduous attendance in general on the business of the house, and particularly on subjects of this nature, is much to be commended, took some occasion, I forget what, to declare his opinion, that if the foreign property in our funds were not exempted from the Income tax, the owners would sell out, and transfer their capital to some other country. This was the proposition, which I resisted without reflection in the first instance, and that was the quarter it came from. Until the debate in the committee of the 12th of this month, I did never know what opinion my right hon. friend entertained on the subject. Then, indeed, I found myself between the hammer and the anvil; but that malleation has served only to harden me in my opinion. I state the facts; but I make no apology. The part I take, and my resolution to adhere to it, I hope will entitle me to this conclusion at least, that, if I am in an error, it is the serious error of my judgment, and that I think the object of considerable importance. I am not so thoughtless as to look for a dispute with such an opponent, on doubtful ground, or for a trivial object. All I desire of him, and I am sure he is too liberal to do otherwise, is to answer me as he understands me, and not to avail himself of any lapse of expression, in my hasty way of speaking, as long as he knows what I mean. He wants no advantage of that kind over me or any man.—For the convenience of the house, and still more for my own, I mean 397 to consider the whole subject of the foreign property under three distinct heads. First, the policy of the exemption; secondly, the inconveniences and abuses, which are likely to attend it; and finally, the justice due to the parties concerned, and the good faith which ought to be preserved to them. I reserve that question for the last, because I think it the most material. A conclusion, fairly deduced from principles of justice, cannot have greater weight with my right hon. friend than it will have, and ought to have, with myself and with the house. I wish to have each of these heads of discussion considered distinctly, and on its own separate merits; that is, that arguments drawn from policy or abuse, shall not be answered by topics that belong strictly to the justice of the case, or vice versâ.—In considering the policy of the exemption, the first point to be settled is, the value of the object which is meant to be relinquished. If the amount were inconsiderable, or if the actual necessities of the country, compared with its resources, permitted us to be careless about little or immaterial savings, the question perhaps might not be worth arguing, nor should I have troubled the house about it. But do his majesty's ministers know, have they ascertained by sufficient enquiry, or by any probable calculation, what is the amount of the real and pretented foreign property in our funds, that is, of stock held under foreign names? Do they know the value of the concession they are going to make? what sort of persons are to have the benefit of it, and what the public will lose by it? The return from the tax-office, dated the 8th of this month, exhibits a capital of about 12 millions in different stocks. The duty on the income of this capital, including the long and short annuities, cannot be less than 50,000l. a year; and we are told by the public officers who make the return, "that these accounts are coming in daily to a great amount!" Then, I ask, do we know what we are doing? Is the chancellor of the exchequer sure that, when the bill shall be once passed, the return of foreign stock, real or pretended, may not reach to double or treble its present amount? The temptations to fraud are obvious am powerful; and, as to the penalty, I shall only observe that government will have to inforce it, not upon awkward, clumsy delinquents, but on many of the most dexterous and experienced practitioners in concealments of this, kind. How the real 398 and bonâ fide foreign property, supposing it right that such property should be exempted, can with any certainty be distinguished from the rest, will form, as I believe, a serious difficulty in the execution of the act, and ought to be seriously considered.—It is argued, or rather it is threatened, that, if we tax this income. foreigners will sell out, and carry their capital into some other country, and that this will be attended with a material depreciation in the market price of our funds. I, for one, do not believe it. Nor is any man entitled to threaten us with that consequence, until he has shewn, to what other fund these foreigners can transmit their property, and where else they can now place it, I will not say with security, but without manifest risk and the greatest danger. Is there a place left on the continent, subject to the power of France, or within reach of its influence, where the income of funded property will not be taxed? or indeed where the capital itself is safe from confiscation? In former times, when banks existed in some of the free states of Europe, where it was thought that private fortunes might be safely deposited, while there was a public bank at Genoa, at Venice, and above all, at Amsterdam, still the security of our funds was preferred by foreigners to all other. To this country they remitted their savings, and here many of them left their capital, not merely to improve or to producer, but to be safe. Where can they carry it now? Is there another kingdom or republic, or state of any kind left in Europe, to which a rational being would remove, or where he would deposit his fortune, if he had the choice? But, besides the real permanent proprietors, a great quantity of stock is held by other foreigners, who do not fall within that description. I speak of speculators and jobbers, who watch and understand, and avail themselves of the fluctuations in our funds, with as much skill as the Jews in Change Alley. This trade goes on at Amsterdam just as it does in London; or rather the parties correspond with, and understand one another at the expence of those whom it concerns. These are the people, into whose pockets you pay a great part of the produce of your sinking fund, for the pretended purpose of keeping up the price of the 3 per cents. All these foreign speculations are governed by the course of exchange between London and Amsterdam, by the state of our funds or by the proba- 399 bilities of peace and war. Their profits whatever they may be, are always at the expence of this country. At the close the American war, they sold out with clear gain of 20 per cent. on the capital they had vested during the war. And do you think that speculations of this extent, and with such great objects in view, will be affected by a tax on the income? that dealers of this quality will be deterred from such lucrative dealings in capital by a tax of 10 per cent. on the interest? Are these speculations carried on for the sake of 3 per cent. annuity, and will they be abandoned, because this interest is reduced from; 60s. to 54s.? To such persons, sir, the difference of the interest is no object, compared with the speculation in the capital. On the policy of the exemption, another material question arises. Who are the proprietors whom you intend to favour? In a political sense, what is their claim to it, or, in other words, where do they spend their fortunes, and the very income, which they receive from the heavy taxes laid upon our own people? My answer is, In France, in Flanders, or in Holland. The place makes no difference. All those countries, and many more, are in a direct subjection to Buonaparte. As far as the expenditure of this income goes, the taxes of England contribute to the support of the French government, and to assist Buonaparte with the means of an attempt, which, if it succeeded, would annihilate this species of property as well as all the rest. If an alien spends his income in England, you tax him. If he spends it in France, you grant him an exemption. I wish to hear, in some plain intelligible language, what the merit of such a person is, what his title is to so much favour, what rational claim he has to particular indulgence, from the circumstance of his contributing, as far as his expence and consumption go, to increase a hostile power already too formidable to this country. While he does so, you favour him. But if he were to change his residence, and spend his fortune in England, you would make him pay for doing that, for which in common sense you ought rather to reward him.—The abuses, to which this measure is liable, come next to be considered. I have spoken already of the difficulty of distinguishing the real from the pretented foreign property. Laws, made to prevent or punish fraud, suppose the fact, or they presume the intention. Do you mean to trust to the declarations 400 of such persons? or how can you convict those declarations of falsehood? Will you examine the books of an alien merchant, who holds stock in the name of foreigners? There may be some difficulty, I do not doubt, in the operation of the fraud, and some danger in the attempt. So there is in every criminal act. Yet danger will be hazarded, and difficulties will be overcome, and penalties will be evaded, and lucrative frauds will be committed. Consider too, that the persons, most liable to this suspicion, must have been engaged in these practices already, and that they cannot make a true return now, without discovering that they had made a false one heretofore. On this part of the subject I can state a fact, very well known in the city of London, which, I believe, will startle the most determined friends of this exemption. While the French Revolution was depending, many natives of that country, on motives of prudence, or under the natural influence of terror, thought the best way to secure some portion of their property from the fangs of their domestic tyrants, was to remit it to England, as secretly as they could, in order to have it vested in our funds. As the transaction was dangerous in itself, all manner of precautions were taken to conceal it. The names of the real proprietors could not appear. Whatever stock was purchased on this account, stood in the names of their agents in London. Many of the right owners perished in the Revolution. Neither their children, if they left any, nor their lawful heirs, could prove their title. Even the proprietors themselves, it any of them survived and made their escape to England, were at the mercy of the persons, whom they had trusted. They had no proofs to produce, or none that would avail them in a court of justice. In many instances, as I am well assured, the parties, who purchased the stock, kept it for their own use, received the interest, returned the whole as foreign property, and evaded even the tax upon the income, while the real owners were cheated without remedy, and left to perish without mercy. Whatever the amount of stock obtained in this manner may be, the exemption you propose is not only an injury to the public, but a reward held out to the basest personal treachery.—I come now, sir, to the strict right of the claim, and to the principles of justice, by which it is supported. On this part of the question a great deal was said on a former 401 occasion and, if the arguments I then heard had really altered, or even shaken my opinion, I should have yielded at once, as I always do, to that conviction. Can it be necessary for me to say, that I have no more interest in the event of this discussion than any other member of the community? His majesty's ministers indeed have an interest in it, and a duty too, which I thought I was contributing to assist. I could not foresee that, in endeavouring to inforce the due collection of this part of the public revenue, I should have them to contend with. But this is an æra of virtue, and justice must be done, without looking to the right or left, without regard to consequences, to policy, to abuse, to inconvenience, or to any loss of revenue. Justice and power are so rarely united in the same hand, that, in me at least, it would be particularly criminal to attempt to divide them, when they happen to act together. I submit to the principle. Let the fact, that is, the application of the principle to the case, be fairly tried. This is the question, on which we are at issue. In all money transactions, whether the recovery of a debt, or the exaction of a tax, the right to refuse payment must be founded either on a special contract, or on general principles of justice. Produce the contract, if it exists, by which an exception is made, and an exemption secured or promised to the property of aliens living out of the kingdom, and I shall desire no other answer. Whether the supposed concession in their favour was reasonable or not, whether it was just or unjust to other parties, I am not at all disposed to plead any general argument against a specific parliamentary engagement. I have looked for it diligently in all the acts for raising money by loan, and creating annuities, and I can find no such contract, nor any thing like it. The act of the first of queen Anne says, that no money lent on security of this act shall be rated or assessed by virtue of this act, or any other act of parliament whatsoever." Another act of the 4th of queen Anne says, "that the purchasers, their executors, administrators, and assigns, shall have good and sure estates and interests in the several annuities so by them to be purchased, and that the said annuities shall be free from all taxes, charges, and impositions whatsoever." Since that time, all the acts for granting annuities, expressly and uniformly say, that they shall be paid at the bank of England, without deduction. 402 It is not for me to deny that these declarations constitute or amount to a contract, virtually and in terms, on the part of parliament. But who were the other contracting parties? Why, all the subscribers generally, or their representatives, who lent their money with this condition, and on the faith of parliament. I see no exception in favour of aliens. When foreigners purchase into our funds, they do it on the same terms, under the same conditions, and subject to all the contingencies, to which the original subscribers, and all those who inherited or purchased under them, were liable. If there be no breach of faith in taxing the annuities payable to natives, there can be none to foreigners. The laws say that such annuities, that such money lent, shall not be rated or assessed. They say nothing of the exempting annuities themselves, nothing personally about the proprietors. But, if you admit that it is a breach of faith to deduct 10 per cent. from that interest, which you promised to pay without deduction, then, I say, make no distinction. A general act of positive injustice may be defended by necessity, and, on that principle alone, may be endured with patience, as long as it is impartial. But, if you add partiality to injustice, if you employ your power to favour a few, while the many are oppressed, the consequence is that, so far forth, you abandon the plea of necessity, which is full as good against aliens as natives, and then that you have nothing to trust to, but direct and absolute power, to insure submission to arbitrary distinctions. So much for the obligation of a supposed contract. But perhaps some stronger arguments, in favour of the exemption, may be deduced from general principles of government, or from those of the English constitution. In the first place then, I ask, for what purpose are taxes levied on the people? For the support of government. But why should, government be supported? Because, in return for support, it gives protection. To whom and to what? Generally to persons, and principally property. Persons, in some cases, may protect themselves; in others, they may evade or escape. Mere property can do neither. Persons who do not live under our jurisdiction, do not want our protection, nor are they within the reach of it. But their property lives here, and ought to contribute to its own defence. If the owner, when he remitted his fortune to England, had followed it himself, I sup- 403 pose you would hardly exempt him from taxation, because he was an alien. What sort of merit he derives from the circulation of his income in an enemy's country or what reasonable or equitable claim to exemption the residence of the proprietor abroad gives to his property here has not been stated. Who knows that many of those aliens, whose income is not to be diminished even for the security of the capital may not be employed in that very army, which we are told is destined to invade us? On this part of the subject, I have heard some general declamations, and loose inferences from ancient forms to present practice that is, from times when the case not only did not exist, but could not have been fore seen or thought of. As to sound reason or solid argument, I have heard none.— In the last resort, however, an appeal is made to a fundamental principle in the constitution, which is supposed to furnish a final and triumphant answer to all my objections on the score of policy, convenience, and abuse, and even to the obvious claims of equity, by which the natural relation between service and payment, between protection and contribution, are established and acknowledged. Undoubtedly the power that protects, may relinquish its right to a return of support, by positive concession, or by any other gratuitous or discretionary act of its own. No such specific act has been alledged. We must look to the constitution then, and see what sort of countenance it gives, what shelter it affords to the proposition, that foreign property in our funds ought not to be subject to the same duty with all the rest, because the proprietors are not represented in parliament. That principle, if it prevails, will include other objects, for which, I believe, no exemption is intended. The foreign merchant, who sends his goods or merchandise into England, for sale or security, is no more represented than the foreign owner of stock. But even these are inconsiderable objects, compared with the consequences, which must be admitted, if you reason right on your own premises. They who establish the principle, must let it take its course. In fair and honourable argument, they have no discretionary power to govern the conclusion by any rule external to the principle, or to limit the operation by arbitrary exceptions. This is not the first time that the general question between representation and taxation has been agitated in this 404 country. In the general theory of this constitution, I am as ready as any man to maintain the affirmative; and for that reason I have at all times endeavoured to promote a reform in the construction of the house of commons, by extending the right of voting, as far as property could be found to support it. But, in the times I allude to, that abstract principle was very far from prevailing in this house, or generally in this kingdom; much less did it ever govern the practice of parliament. The strongest case that can be imagined, in support of the practice against the principle, or to prove the sense of parliament on the right, was that of America; because it hardly furnished a colourable pretence for affirming, that the people who were to be taxed were really, or virtually, or even by contact or sympathy, represented in the house of commons. Yet the right, even over America, was maintained by very great authorities. I remember the Stamp act, and I believe I have read every word that was written on the merits and effects of that measure. One of the great men of that period, I mean Mr. Grenville whose principles, I imagine, will not be quite discarded or discountenanced, as long as his name shall be preserved, would hear of no disqualification, much less of a limitation to the right of taxation in this legislature over every colony or dependence of the empire. My opinion certainly has never gone that length. I think that his powerful logic led him to an indefensible, as well as a dangerous result, in practice. But it led him fairly and in earnest to his conclusion. They, who think that he had nothing to say for his opinion, are very ill informed. To say merely that it was a debateable question, is not doing justice to the great abilities, which were universally engaged in discussing it. Never was there a question so debated as that was, both in and out of parliament. Another administration, professing different principles, succeeded Mr. Grenville; that of the marquis of Rockingham: and what was the first measure of that administration? The, declaratory act of 1766, by which the right of parliament to make laws to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, was asserted. At that time, no case was in question, but that of taxation. By a later act which passed in 1778, the exercise of the right was given up as to America; but the original right itself was not disclaimed or renounced. The legislature claimed it, 405 not on the principle of representation; for how could it be seriously maintained that the Americans were, bonæ fide, represented in the house of commons? No. The ground they took, and the only tenable ground they could take, was, that protection and contribution were reciprocal; that America was protected, and therefore bound to contribute. Since I have had a seat in parliament, various schemes have been proposed for a reform in the election of members to represent the commonalty, and to serve in this house. Most of them a assumed it as a fact, and asserted it as a principle, that the people of this kingdom were not represented as they ought to be. After many attempts, recommended by the highest individual authorities, and the greatest personal abilities, had failed, a plan was formed, in 1792, to try what could be done by combination. For this purpose, no little pains were taken to institute a society, called " The Friends of the People," to extend the operations, and to promote the success of it. Many persons, now highly stationed in his majesty's councils and service, were the leaders of this association: my noble friend the lord high chancellor, my noble friend the first lord of the admiralty, my right hon. friends the present and preceding treasurer of the navy (Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Tierney), all of them privy-councillors; my learned friend (sir A. Pigott), his majesty's attorney-general; and, among many others, my noble friend the earl of Lauderdale, at whose house the original engagement was drawn, at whose table it was signed. It was my lot too, sir, to be one of the "Friends of the People;" at all times the least considerable, and now, I believe, the last of them. My right hon. friend was not a member of that society; but, I think, his subsequent conduct has proved that he concurred in our principles. The institution itself has gone into oblivion. A feeble memory is one of those human infirmities, which sometimes accompany the most exalted faculties. But I have no doubt that the principles still live in the hearts of my noble friends, though they are not aware of it, and that, some time or other, they will be resorted to again. From this society, a petition was presented to the house on the 6th of May 1793, and is recorded on our journals. Some persons, I presume, are yet in existence here, Who may remember how it was received. Among other allegations, the petitioners asserted, 406 That the house of commons did not fully and fairly represent the people of England; that this hon. house is not an adequate representation of the people of England; and that if this hon. house should be pleased to determine that the people of England ought not to be fully represented, they prayed that such our determination should be made known." The plain amount of these declarations is, that the people are not represented, or very slightly and partially at the utmost, by the house of commons; and this must have been, more or less, the principle of every preceding project of reform, which proposed to increase the number of voters at elections. But I never heard that among those, who carried their opinion on this point as far as it would go, there was a single individual so absurd or so depraved as to contend, that he ought not to be taxed, because he was not represented. For that duty at least, he would have found the house of commons, as it stands, perfectly sufficient to impose the duty, and to compel obedience.—The only article, that remains to be considered, and with that I shall conclude, is the prudence of making this exception in favour of foreigners, in the present times and circumstances of the country. The chancellor of the exchequer has been obliged to abandon the first tax he has proposed on iron; and I suspect that the home brewery is very likely to share the same fate. The fact, I fear, is, that we are arrived at the final limit of taxation on consumption, or very near it. The multitude can pay no more, without crushing and confounding the gradations of society, when no distinction of rank or fortune will be left, but between the many and the few. I wish I could remember and repeat the eloquent language, with which this opinion, or the conclusion I would draw from it, was urged and enforced a few days ago, by my hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), who closed the Impeachment of lord Melville. Speaking of the treasure of the navy, he said, what I say of all the public revenue, "that it has its fibrous root in the meal of every peasant; in the cloth of the coat he wears; in the implements, with which he earns his daily bread; in every article he consumes.' The actual burthen of the taxes is enough to drive the mass of the people to despair. If you do not wish and intend to drive them to madness, you will not aggravate their sufferings by this unjust exemption 407 of strangers from contributing even to the protection of their own property. I therefore move you, sir, that the clause in the present bill, which provides "an exemption for the annuities, dividends, or shares belonging to aliens, not resident in Great Britain, or elsewhere within the dominions of his majesty," may be omitted.
Mr Secretary Foxsaid, he was convinced that his hon. friend was actuated by the best intentions, in proposing his present motion, though something like a tone of reproach seemed to run through his speech. It would be impossible for any man to believe, that his majesty's ministers were influenced by any peculiar tenderness for foreigners, in proposing to exempt their funded property from the tax. They could only be actuated by what appeared to them just and politic. The present measure, considered with regard to its policy, would have the effect of discouraging foreigners from vesting their property in the British funds, and of inducing them to withdraw it altogether, and therefore must be ultimately injurious to this country. Their motives for preferring the British funds were their superior security, together with the high rate of interest which they derived from them; but the hon. gent. seemed desirous of removing these motives at once. He had also given them the invidious name of speculators, and had observed, that during the American war they bought in when the funds were low, and had sold out at the conclusion of peace, to great advantage. But, every man who purchased an estate a view of rendering it more valuable, might equally be considered as a speculator; and he could not see how the conduct of foreigners, in this instance, should draw upon them the resentment of this country. Unless speculations of this kind were left unfettered, the whole funded system would be annihilated. One great advantage of that system was, that any man could invest his property without risk or delay, and could buy in or sell out whenever it suited his convenience. And as it was desirable that foreigners should purchase into our funds, he considered it as exceedingly impolitic to subject them to the tax. The hon. gent. had dwelt upon the frauds that would be practised, in vesting domestic property in the names of foreigners, and it was certainly possible that such frauds might take place; but it was to be observed, that the property tax had now existed for three years, and frauds 408 had not been hitherto discovered. He could not help thinking, that there was little danger of the defalcation of the tax from fraudulent practices in that way. The British creditor must be aware of the consequences that might ensue from them. Suppose the foreigner, in whose name the property was fraudulently vested, to die, the property would descend to his heirs, and according to the laws of the country in which he resided. In regard to the justice of such a proceeding, he could not see how it was just in parliament to tax any but the property of its own subjects. As to the act of queen Anne, which the hon. gent. referred to, as exempting the funds from taxation, it must be confessed, that the present tax might perhaps be justly considered as a tax on the funds, and as only to be justified from the necessity of the times. But the tax in itself was properly a tax on every species of property; and were the property of foreigners in the funds to be now taxed, it might justly be considered, in that case, as a tax on the funds, since parliament could not pretend to tax the property of foreigners. It had been represented as provoking, that foreigners should be exempted from the tax; but would they not, by being deterred from purchasing in our funds, be enabled to give the hostile governments, under which they lived, more active assistance, by lending them their money, than we could derive benefit from extending the tax to them? Such governments also, as far as he knew, might have a property tax, and thus the property of such foreigners might be doubly rated. In truth, the hostile foreigner, were he subject to this tax, might justly complain, that we took a part of his property in order to deprive him of the whole. As to what the hon. gent. had said on the subject of representation, no one who had said that the representation of the country was inadequate, except perhaps a few eccentric men, had denied that the people owed obedience to that house as their representatives. The very phrase "inadequate representatation" proved, that the friends of reform conceived, that the people were represented, that the virtual representation, indeed, was not complete, and that it ought to approach more to what was real. Every person with whom he had been connected, disclaimed the idea of universal suffrage; but he did not know on what the constitution of the country depended, if the people were not considered as virtually represented in parliament. It 409 was because America was neither virtually nor really represented in parliament, and that the Americans had no complete, communion of interests with this country, that our right to tax America was denied; and it was on precisely the same grounds, that he now objected to taxing the property of foreigners in our funds. Would it be consistent with the constitution of parliament to say, we give and grant the property of foreigners, in addition to that of those we represent? And how could his majesty be represented as thanking his good subjects for their benevolence, as was done in giving, the royal assent to tax bills, while he would at the same time be thanking the subjects of France, or of foreign powers subject to her influence? The very tenour of the royal acceptance would render the imposition of tax on the property of foreigners absurd. The commons could only give and grant what was their own, and not that which belonged to others, who had, perhaps, a perfect opposition of interests. With regard to the hon. gentleman's peroration on the case of the poor, no one could doubt that they were entitled to every relief in the power of parliament to give; but recourse ought not therefore to be had to a measure radically unjust. The case of foreigners residing in this country was totally different: they enjoyed the protection of government, and of the laws, and, therefore, were bound to contribute to the support of that government, and of those laws. On the whole, he thought that this proposed extension would be a complete departure from that system that had been followed since the Property Tax had been introduced; and concluded with observing, that the hon. gentleman's arguments had not produced the slightest conviction on his mind.
§ The Speakerthen begged to state to the house, whether the motion, in the present stage of the bill, could at all be entertained by the house. It went to take away the exemption granted to foreigners, and thus tended to a material increase of the produce of the tax. But, agreeably to the established usages of the house, no measure of this kind could be proposed, except in a committee. When the bill, therefore, had already been read a third time, he submitted to the house, whether the present motion was not irregular.
§ Mr. Bankeswished the discussion to continue, though his hon. friend had perhaps unadvisedly postponed his motion, as it was a question in which the country 410 at large would feel materially interested. He said, it was his intention to have delivered his sentiments on this measure. He had examined the bill minutely, and he did not find a single sound or solid principle in it.
§ Lord Henry Pettyspoke to order. After the very clear statement on the subject, which they had heard from the chair, he did not think it correct to go into any farther discussion at present. The only mode he could see for gentlemen to attain their object, and have the matter fully considered, was, for some member to give notice, that he would, on a future day, move, that the house should resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the propriety of subjecting foreign property to this tax.—After a few words from Mr. Francis, the motion then fell to the ground.—On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, clauses were brought up to exempt stock, or dividends, the property of his majesty, in whatever name they may stand; and also stock the property of accredited ministers from foreign states, when duly authenticated.—On the question that the bill do pass,
§ Sir R. Burtonsaid, that he could not omit that last opportunity of entering his decided protest against the bill, inasmuch as it charged the landed interest with what he thought equivalent to 13 per cent., and the funds with 10 per cent.; while on professional men, it operated only as a voluntary tax. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Vansittart) had argued the measure as if it was a land-tax; if so, he should have liked to have the bill made annual, as the land-tax always was.
Mr. Vansittartcould not see the utility of its being merely an annual bill. Besides, it would be always subject to the revision of parliament.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that, looking upon the bill as unjust in most of its provisions, nothing should ever reconcile him to it. He had, very lately, received a letter, from a family whose small annuity would expire in 18O8, that is, in little more than a year and a half, and yet they would be compelled to pay as much, in proportion, as the man who had a permanent income, arising from landed or funded property.
Mr. Hudlestoneagreed with every syllable that had fallen from his hon. friend; and contended, that it would oblige the man who derived a small income from the funds, to sell his capital, and, ultimately, drive him to the workhouse. He was sorry 411 the noble lord had departed from the two principles with which he had set out, namely, that the tax should not interfere with the necessaries of life, nor apply to income under 50l. per annum. But, as the bill now stood, the tax would apply to all property in the funds, of whatever amount. He had ascertained the number of persons holding property in the funds under 50l. a year, to be 220,000, who, he was afraid, would be compelled to sell out their stock, and live upon their capital. He was ashamed to ask, whether, in justice, they ought to levy the same proportion of duty on 20l. a year, as on 20,000l.? For his own part, he would cheerfully submit to a larger proportion of duty upon the class to which he belonged, provided it should be the means of exempting the lower classes.
§ Lord De Blaquieredeprecated the conduct of those gentlemen who, just at the moment the bill was about to take its departure from the house, were so anxious to give it a death-blow. Such conduct was the more to be condemned, as it could not be supposed to operate against the adoption of the bill, and could serve only, as it were, to send out the measure to the world with a canister tied to its tail.
Mr. Vansittartcontradicted the assertion, that his noble friend (Petty) had departed from the principles he had stated upon his first proposition of this bill, in any other instance than that in which he had acceded to some deductions, which were deemed necessary to satisfy the claims of justice and humanity. The right hon. gent. argued against the notion, that if the scale of taxation were agreed to, which some gentlemen recommended, namely, the removal of it altogether, from the poor, and the consequent advance upon the rich; if that scale were adopted, he was satisfied that the burthen upon the richer classes Would be much greater, in proportion, than the relief to be afforded to the poorer. He would, indeed, ask the house, in answer to all that had been said, within and without, upon the subject, whether it was possible to devise a tax, which it would be practicable to collect, and which would be productive to the state, without being imposed upon the different classes of the community?
Mr. A. Wrightexpressed his hope that, if a man who had a small interest from the funds, should, notwithstanding, be obliged to resort to parish relief, he should, not be still liable to this tax —The bill was read a third time and passed.