Sitting of 22 March 1805

MINUTES.
—The house having attended the house of lords, pursuant to a summons by the Usher of the Black Rod, the Speaker, on their return, informed them that the Royal Assent had been given by Commission to the Marine Mutiny, and Lord J. Thynne's Indemnity Bills.—Mr. Johnson, from the Chief Secretary's Office in Ireland, presented an Account of the Irish 61. per Cent. Duties. Ordered to lie on the Table.—Mr. Irving, from the Customs in Scotland, presented an Account of the Exports and Imports to and from Scotland; and also of all Arrears and Balances in the hands of the Commissioners. Or-

87
dered to lie on the Table.—Mr. Huskisson presented an Account of the public Expenditure for the last year. Ordered to lie on the Table.—Similar Accounts with those from Scotland were presented from the Commissioners of Customs in England, and disposed of in the same manner.—Mr. Stavelly, from the Post Office, presented an Account of the Arrears and Balances in the hands of the Postmasters-General, up to the 5th of January, 1805. Ordered to lie on the table.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that there be laid before the House, in consequence of the 10th Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, an Account of the money paid in discharge of the balance of 433,000, 17s. 6d. in the hands of John Fordyce, Esq. and also of the proposals made by him, and the securities offered for the liquidation thereof. Ordered.—Mr. H. Thornton, after stating the various proceedings that had taken place in regard to the days appointed for receiving the several petitions upon both sides of the subject of this petition; the proceedings also in former petitions, the comparative number of freeholders to be enquired into, &c. &c. moved that the order for taking into consideration the remaining petition of Sir Francis Burdett against G. B. Mainwaring, Esq. On the 9th of April, be discharged; which being agreed to, he next moved that it be taken into consideration on the 23d of April.—A long conversation then took place between Mr. Fox, who thought the lists should be first given in upon the last petition; and that the 23d would be an unlikely day for a full attendance, on account of a festival on that day; Mr. Thornton, Mr. Creevey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others. Mr. Thornton proposed to appoint the 25th of April, to which Mr. Creevey moved as an amendment the 1st day of June. On which the gallery was cleared for a division, which did not however take place, and Mr. Thornton's motion was agreed to. Mr. Thornton then moved, that the lists of freeholders objected to on both sides, upon Mr. Mainwairing's late petition, preparatory to the scrutiny, should be delivered in, on or before the 15th of April, which was also a greed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means the Secretary at War in the Chair, spoke as follows:—Sir, it is now my duty to sub-
88
mit to the Committee those taxes by which I propose to supply the deficiency of the Ways and Means for defraying the charge for interest on the loan, in consequence of the decision of the House in rejecting the tax upon Horses used in Husbandry, and the alteration which has taken place in the tax upon Salt, with regard to the export of that article. The estimate of the produce of that part of the tax on Salt was little short of 65,000l. and the tax on Horses employed in Husbandry was estimated at 340,000l. making together a sum of 405,000l. for which it is necessary to substitute other taxes. Feeling myself called upon to do so with as little delay as possible, it must be, obvious to the Committee, that it is not easy without sufficient time being allowed, to resort to a source of taxation founded on a distinct plan consistent with the means of providing for the deficiency, without material augmentation to the public burthens. The proposal I have to make will consist of more numerous taxes, to a small extent each, over certain articles of the Customs, and some of the Excise. I shall begin with those of the Excise. The principal article is that of Glass, on which I propose an addition of 50 per cent. to the existing duties. The duties at present paid are on the cwt. 11. 12s. 8d. for plate glass, 8s. 2d. on what is called Streadwinter's glass, and 4s. 8d. on crown glass. The additional duties I expect will produce 80,000l.—The next article is that of Bricks and Tiles. The present duty on bricks and tiles is five shillings a thousand, which will produce 37,000l. This is an article on which there is an allowance made for bricks and tiles used for sheds and erections for the purpose of farming and husbandry, and consequently the pressure of the additional tax will be the less felt. The next article is an augmentation of the duty on Auctions.—6d. in additon to the present duty on the sale of Estates, and 10d. on the sale of goods. The augmentation is 1-6th part of the present duties on the first, and 1-5th of the present duties on the second: the produce I estimate at 31,000l. The next article is Coffee. It will be recollected that when the duty was last advanced Upon Tea, there was not a proportionate tax imposed on Coffee. It does not occur to me that there is any reason which applies to one of these articles, as an object of taxation, that does not equally apply to the other, except that, with respect to tea, it is an article of distinct consumption by the lower orders of the people, while cof-

89
fee is exclusively confined to the higher—the additional tax I shall produce is 6d. per 1b. which will produce 28,000l. The next articles fall within the description of those of luxurious consumption; they are articles which hitherto have not borne their fair share of taxation—I mean Cider and Perry, which certainly have not been taxed in proportion with other commodities. Let it, however, be understood, that I mean the tax only to apply to cider and perry made for sale, and not to extend to those places where it is the usual drink of the people, and is made by the consumer. I propose an additional tax of 10s. per hogshead. I estimate it will produce 15,000l.—There is another article which I shall propose to the Committee, because the same principle applies to it, as an object of taxation, which applies to some of the articles I have named—I mean the article of Vinegar. The produce of the additional tax is 11,000l.—There is only one other article, the consumption of which is a matter of choice and luxury, I me an Gold and Silver Wire: I propose to double the present duties. The produce will be about 5000l. I trust the Committee will be of opinion, that these additional taxes may be levied without any very great pressure upon, or inconvenience to the Public. The whole amount of their produce will be 207,000l.—With regard to the Duties of Custom, the first articles on Which I propose an addition, are Slates and Stones carried coastways. It must be evident to the Committee, that if a tax is laid on Bricks and Tiles, it is necessary that a corresponding one should be imposed on those articles which may be substituted for them. I propose an additional duty of 20 per cent. on Slate and Stones. The sum I estimate this tax at is 4,400l. There are only a few other articles on which I shall propose a duty of 10 per cent. The principal are, Iron, Barilla, and Turpentine. On these articles, from the information I have obtained from persons conversant with the trade, I think I am justified in taking credit for 22,000.; on all other goods, Wares, and merchandizes imported, I shall propose an addition of 2½ per cent. beyond the existing duties: the produce I estimate at 176,000l. The whole amount of the produce of the Additional Duties on Customs will be 202,400l. and those of the Excise 207,000l. making together the sum of 409,400l. The sum I want is 405,000l. So that the Committee will see that what have taken will be more than sufficient.
90
I shall only trouble the Committee with moving the Resolution.—The Resolution was agreed to, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday.

LEGACY DUTY BILL.
Sir Henry Mildmaysaid, the tax under this bill imposed upon legacies to children, could be considered in its operation only as a tax upon landed property. If a man had 4000l. annual rent from his land, with a numerous family to support, a very small part of it would be apportioned to the younger children in the will of the parent, and those who were protected during the life of the father, under the patrimonial mansion, when they were driven into poverty by the awful event to which he had adverted, were to be rendered subject to this new imposition. Estimating their fortune at 4000l. their income could not exceed 200l. and besides the income Tax to be deducted from this small pittance, they must make a further sacrifice the first year of 40l. Another objection to the tax was, that instead of tending to discourage celibacy, it imposed a tax upon population, and the more numerous the progeny, the weightier the burthen. The house had lately shewn the influence of its humanity towards mules and cart-horses, he hoped it would not be less indulgent towards the children of the state. The tax, in every point of view, was unjust and impolitic, and he should propose an amendment, in order that younger children might be relieved from the pressure of this imposition.
The Speakerinformed the hon. member that no amendment could be proposed till after the house had agreed to the third reading of the bill.
Lord George Cavendishobserved, that it would operate as a check on persons giving away property, and though there were none that reprobated more than he did the practice of giving away property to the prejudice of those to whom it properly belonged, yet there were instances when such legacies were highly proper and necessary to the discharge of the duties of humanity and gratitude. His lordship appealed to the experience of the mercantile part of the house. There were many foreigners in this country who had either made fortunes by their long industry, or inherited them from the industry of their fathers, and whose long industry here, and the habits they had acquired, had detached them from any relations on the continent. These would very naturally leave their property to the friends they had formed in this country; and it was hard, he

91
thought, to lay such a tax on this expression of friendship. The question had not been sufficiently canvassed. He concluded, therefore, by urging the propriety of postponing the third reading, that they might have farther time to give the subject due consideration.
Mr. Spencer Stanhopesaid, he had as large a family to maintain as almost any gentleman in that house, with the exception of the hon. baronet (sir Henry Mildmay,) yet he should oppose the tax, from pure and disinterested motives. On every principle of taxation, to which he had attended, he should object that the younger children should be taxed, and that the elder should on free, who were best able to answer the public demand. It was, however, some satisfaction to him to discover, that there were various ways of avoiding this imposition; and he could assure the hon. gent. that he should not pay one farthing to the tax, from the duty he felt to provide for his family. He would say nothing of the distress of the times, of the calamities during war, of the aggravated system of taxation; he did not wish to oppose the minister, but he flattered himself, in resisting this tax, he did him an essential service. He had formerly read a book, entitled, "Private Vices, Public Benefits," and the advantages of general intoxication were insisted on in that work as a great source of national revenue. The waste and profusion of a general election were likewise contended for as conducive to the public interests, by enlarging the income of the state. It was on some such principles that the present tax could be justified. The inequality of the tax was another objection. It was peculiarly directed against the ill-favoured, and against the ancient maiden, against the diseased, the lame, and the blind. These were more properly objects of pity, than of taxation. If the tax were to be imposed, the two first years of the income of it ought to he laid out in hospitals and nunneries, that the objects of it might be permitted to starve decently. He had said, the tax might be eluded. It does not extend to Irish property; and a father, by investing his money in the Irish funds, would avoid it. Again, fathers seeing the consequence, of this tax, would leave the fortunes of their younger children to the duty, fidelity, and honour of the eldest, who would provide for his brethren according to the wishes of his deceased parent. Further, the father might in his dying hour dispose of his property to his children by gift, and exclude them from his will. He hoped the
92
right hon. gentleman would not persevere in a tax directly opposed to every principle of state policy, justice, and humanity.
The chancellor of the Exchequeradverted with great precision to different arguments that had been urged against the bill; but our limits will not allow us to follow him at great length. As the house had already decided on the general principle of the bill, he did not think it necessary to go into it at so much length as otherwise he should have felt it his duty.—The noble lord opposite, (lord G. Cavendish) had objected to the clause relating to such legacies as were left to absolute strangers; but surely no part of the bill could be considered less obnoxious than that. In this case the advantage was unexpected, and it was natural to suppose that persons under this impression would part, without much reluctance, with such a portion of it as the tax required, and at any rate their claims to it must be considered much less strong than in other cases it would be. The attack which had been made direct legacies, he conceived to have proceeded from misapprehension, or a very partial view of the subject. Much had been said of its falling heavy on the younger children of a family, but when gentlemen used this language they seemed to forget that the tax was very trifling in itself—not more than one for a hundred. Suppose a father should wish to leave to a younger child a legacy of 5000l. it would be easy for him to add 50l. to this sum for the payment of the tax, and so in proportion with any other sum, taking the addition from what would have otherwise belonged to the eldest, so that in this case the younger branches of the family are completely exempted, and the tax comes from a quarter that is best able to bear it. An hon. gentleman had supposed, that in order to evade the tax a father might be induced to leave the provision of the younger part of his family to the generosity of the oldest, but of the two alternatives he thought the one he had just mentioned the most likely to be adopted. It had been objected also to the measure, that it affected the provision made for a family at the death of the father, while any settlement made during his life was exempted. The object of the measure was certainly not to affect transactions, though the propriety of such a measure might open a wide field for discussion, but transactions were in many instances taxed ad valorem. It was urged that it would fall heavy on the landed part of the community, as it might be necessary often to dispose of the legacy, in order to

93
be able to pay the tax; but a landed proprietor might always find some savings from which he could annex to the legacy the sum necessary to pay the duty. The monied man in this respect, could be no loss, and even suppose the landed man had not the means of leaving the ready money for the purpose he had mentioned, the 50l. he still supposes the legacy at the value of 5,000l. could be raised by insurance at not more than 30s. or 40s. a year, according to the age of the person insuring. On the whole the right honourable gentleman did not think that objections that had been stated, ought to make any impression on the house, to the prejudice of the bill.
Mr. Greyobserved, that if he was disposed to enter at large into the bill before the house, the speech of the right honourable gentleman furnished him. argument enough to prove the injustice of the tax. The general heir of landed property was exempt from its operation, whilst personal property was subject to it. He did not disapprove of the exemption, but he must say, that a direct tax on capital (as this was) would necessarily discourage that enterprising spirit in commerce which was so essential to its extension. He considered the tax also objectionable in a mixed monarchy like ours, in which the Aristocracy constituted one of the branches; but this must be sustained by property, for without it there would be little importance attached to rank. But, said the right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Pitt) landed property is not chargeable 'with this ditty; he agreed that it was not chargeable in words; but was it not so in substance? The right honourable gentleman referred to the prudence and tenderness of fathers, and argued that they would leave the legacies to younger children free from this tax. If they did so, how was it to be done? By charging the amount of this tax on the legacies granted, to the estate of the eldest son. Thus it was evident from the words of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the operation of the tax would be eventually on landed property. He contended, therefore, that the house ought to pause and reflect seriously before it acceded to a measure, which, by indirect wording, would have the effect of a positive duty on the land throughout the kingdom. He begged to remind the right honourable gentleman, that taxes of this description had been always censured by those who had written and thought most upon subjects of this kind; it should not be forgotten that they ascribed the imposing of them to evident symptoms
94
of a decline; this is was not only true in the abstract, but confirmed by the experiences of ages, and the history of those countries Which fell to rise no more. But if he objected to the bill on this ground, he was still more averse to it in a political view. In a mixed government, like this, the credit of an hereditary aristocracy could only be kept up by great possessions and extensive influence. These possessions and this influence were both attacked by the bill, which, for the first time, attached to legacies of land, as well as to personal property. Such taxes had ever been condemned by the wisest political economists. They had always been considered as evidences, when resorted to, of a declining state. He hoped and trusted that such was not yet the situation of this country; but it was impossible for any considerate man to see such taxes introduced without a considerable degree of anxiety. The tax was one of the most glaring inequality. It was indeed a direct tax on misfortune, and calculated to aggravate affliction. Every fresh death called forth its operation; and it was impossible to say how often or to what amount it might be paid. The right honourable gentleman's argument, therefore, of the smallness of the sum to be paid, was altogether nugatory. He fully entered into all that had been said about the hardships to which it would subject a younger brother. The right honourable gentleman had said, that if their portion was in land they would not be called on to pay. This was mere evasion; for every one knew that small divisions of land were not nearly so valuable, and therefore the younger brothers would have a strong temptation to sell their shares, even at a very disadvantageous price. But the right honourable gentleman had further contended, that a small additional sum would cover the tax, and remove the difficulty complained of. What was this but in other words to say, that the land was to pay the tax, and if so, why did not the right honourable gentleman propose the tax in this direct form? He strongly condemned the bill, as establishing a monstrous difference between heirs by settlement, and heirs by birth and consanguinity. This was an objection which had great weight in his mind. It was contrary to every principle of justice to place those on a worse footing, who derived their rights from nature, than those which arose out of positive appointment. The honourable member then replied to the defence of the right honourable gentleman, grounded on the smallness of the imposition. He said, with much artifice the principle of

95
this tax had been enforced upon the house, and the intention seemed evidently to be, to carry its operation much farther, so that neither the monied, nor the landed interest, could be able to ascertain what new sacrifices would be required under the pretence of supplying the demands of the state.
Dr. Laurenceasked, whether those sums which were to be distributed among the next of kin, when there was a will, should not be liable to the tax, as well as legacies mentioned in the will?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that that would, be a subject for future consideration.
The question was then put on the motion, that the bill be read a third time, which was carried in the affirmative.
Sir H. Mildmaythen proposed an amendment, that all the clauses in the bill directly affecting legacies to younger children should be left out. On this a division took place; for the original motion 164—Against it 72—Majority for the bill 92.

PANCRAS POOR BILL.
—A petition of several of the directors of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras, in the county of Middlesex, appointed in and by virtue of an act, made in the last session of parliament, was presented to the house, and read; taking notice of the bill for repealing the said act, and for making other provisions in lieu there of; and setting forth, that the petitioners conceive the said act, is, adequate to every purpose of parochial regulation and building a work-house, and the powers thereof sufficiently extensive; and that the present bill has originated with only a few of the directors, unknown to the major part of such directors and the parish at large; and the same contains powers and provisions which, if passed into a law, will in many respects be highly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners; and therefore praying, that they may be heard, by themselves or counsel, against the said bill passing into a law." Ordered to lie upon the table, until the said bill be read a second time; and that the petitioners be then heard, by themselves or counsel, against the said bill, upon their petition, if they think fit.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
—Counsel were further heard at considerable length, relative, to the
86
Scotch Appeal, Rochied v. kinloch, bart, Viz. Mr. Erskine, in continuation, on half of the Appellant; and Mr. Clark, in part, on the side of the Respondent. The farther hearing was deferred till to-morrow.—The hearing of counsel was temporarily adjourned, for the purpose of the Royal Assent being given by Commission to the Marine Mutiny Bill, to lord John Thynne's Indemnity, arid to six Naturalisation Bills. The lords Commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hawkesbury, and Lord Walsingham.—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. Among these, the Exchequer Bills bill; the British Sugar Duties Drawback, the Spirits Warehousing, and the following Irish Finance bills, the Stamp Duties, Postage Rates, Excise Duties, Malt Tax, Custom Duties Drawback, and the Irish Expiring Law bills, were severally read a second time.—Mr. Alexander brought up from the commons the Irish Sugar Bounty bills, which together with a few Private bills, presented by other gentlemen, were read a first time.—Mr. Irving, Inspector-General of the Customs, presented an Account of the Imports of Great Britain, for 18 years, ending 5th January, 1805.—Mr. Mitford, from the Treasury, presented an, Account of the public expenditure for the last year, and of the Unfunded Debt on the 5th of January last.—Mr. Young, from the Custom House, presented certain Accounts relative to the Trade and Navigation of Great Britain, directed to be annually laid before Parliament; and certain Accounts were presented from the Post Office. These accounts were severally ordered to lie on the table, Adjourned.