Mr. Hobhouse, in presenting a Petition from the Parish of St. Paul, Covent-Garden, against the unjust and 9 unequal method of imposing the Land-tax, took occasion to observe, that the parish of St. Paul actually paid a Land-tax of 2s. 4d. in the pound, while the rich and populous parish of Mary-la-bonne paid only three farthings in the pound, and the extensive parish of St. Pancras not more than 2d. in the pound. In order to show how unequally the Land-tax was imposed in particular districts, he would take leave to read a short account of the sums levied in different places, lying, in some cases, in the immediate neighbourhood of each other. In the whole of the City of Westminster the sum collected yearly on account of Land-tax was 63,000l. In the county of Sussex, with the exception of one or two of the Cinque Ports, but including Brighton, Lewes, and Chichester, the sum was 57,560l. In Lancashire, including Liverpool and Lancaster, the sum was only 20,989l. In the city of London the amount collected was, however, 123,000l. In the Town of Rye the sum was 473l., while in the Town of Hastings, which was treble the size, the sum was only 378l. In the city of Bath the sum was 433l. 6s., while in Winchelsea, where there were not more than sixty or seventy inhabited Houses, the sum was 405l. After observing that the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, was rated at the sum of 1s. 2d. in the pound, and commenting on the hardship inflicted on that parish, and on St. Paul's, Covent-garden, the hon. Member proceeded to say, that the whole sum redeemed under the plan of Mr. Pitt was only 713,000l. while the amount remaining was only 1,263,000l. a-year. He thought it would be very easy to deal with this sum if the Government were disposed to do so, and that a tax of 2s. in the pound would produce 3,000,000l. to the State, while 4s.produccd little more than 1,000,000l. He trusted that, if the present Session had too much business before it to allow the Government an opportunity of dealing with the subject now, that it would be brought forward at an early period of the next Session, and some relief afforded to the petitioners.
§ The Petition to be printed.
§ Mr. Humewas of opinion that the Parliament ought not to interfere in this case. In many places the Land-tax had been redeemed, and the House had no right, after one person had redeemed his share of the Tax, to call on him to pay a part of his neighbour's share who may not have 10 had the prudence or the power to relieve himself.
Mr. Hobhousealluded only to the unredeemed Land-tax; in his opinion, Parliament ought to consider whether or not some more equitable mode of raising the unredeemed Land-tax could be adopted.