his constituents, the inhabitants of Westminster, to make, showed that they were. And, would any person maintain such an absurdity as that they desired the repeal of a tax from which they derived a profit ? of the time of the House in going over the arguments formerly urged against the Tax. Of those arguments every member of the House was in complete possession, and they would now be recollected with additional weight, as that which before might-Such were the general grounds on which have been considered by some as a sort of hypothetical reasoning, had now been confirmed by experience. The original argument against the Tax was, that it was not a general tax which affected every member of the community equally, but a partial and oppressive tax that bore only on a particular body of men. In answer to this, it had been urged, that the shopkeepers would be able to levy the amount of the tax on their customers, and by that means shift the burthen from their own shoulders to those of the consumer. Experience had proved the complete fallacy of this argument, and shown that the shopkeepers alone were affected by it, without a possibility of levying it on the community at large. If they could have done this, how were they to effect it? Undoubtedly, by raising the prices of their respective commodities in proportion to the amount of the Tax. But, had they done this? He defied any man to show that there was the least degree of coincidence between the Tax and the rise in the price of goods. If, then, there had been no rise in the price of goods, the Tax was borne by the shopkeeper only, and not by the community at large. And yet, in this instance, although he was ready to admit that, in all cases, the opinion of the persons to be taxed was not a sufficient ground of objection to a tax, the opinion of the shopkeepers themselves was a strong and a convincing argument against the Tax. Had they been able to raise the price of goods to the full amount of what they paid, they would not have stopped there. They would have added something more; and having thus converted into a means of profit what they at first exclaimed against as a burthen, their complaints would have been at an end: they would have acquiesced in the Tax as a thing which was not merely a burthen, but an instrument in their hands of considerable advantage. Had this beeen the case? Had their complaints against the Tax ceased? Were they not now as loud and as earnest in their remonstrances against it as they had been at the first moment of its being proposed? The present application, the petitions on the table, and the motion which he was now instructed by the impolicy and oppressive tendency of the Tax had been formerly argued. There were now some which might be considered as new grounds. In the first place, there was a petition from the commissioners appointed to collect the Tax, stating that they found from experience that it was a personal rather than a general Tax, and that they were unable to levy it, according to the tenour of the Act, without oppression to individuals. The case of the bankers was a striking proof of this. Had they any means of levying the Tax on their customers? Or were their profits greater now than they were before? Another reason was its total inequality, and that it fell heavier on the lower class of shopkeepers than on the more opulent, and that a man who had less business and a less capital, being assessed according to the rent of his shop, paid more than a man whose capital was larger, and his trade more extensive. It frequently happened that a person, for the sake of a shop to carry on his business, was obliged to take a large house, for no part of which he had any occasion but the shop. This person was assessed, not according to the rent of the shop, which was necessary to his business, but the rent of the house, which was not necessary. In answer to this objection it had been said, that such person might levy part of the tax upon his lodgers. But how was this to be done? The shop in the first instance was no recommendation to lodgers, but the contrary; and if he attempted to raise the price of his lodgings, his neighbour, who had no shop, and consequently did not pay the Tax, would effectually prevent him by a competition. In this point of view he challenged any man to show that it was not partial and unequal, and that, contrary to the operation of every wise and judicious tax, it did not fall heaviest on those who were the least able to bear it.-Mr. Fox said, he was in possession of some particular instances which he would state; and in what he was going to mention he desired to be understood as not meaning to say that the grievance was not felt in as great a degree in other places; for, undoubtedly, the unequal and oppressive tendency of the Tax was not local. In the city of Bath, a poulterer paid 19s.; in the same street, and but a few doors distant, another poulterer, whose capital was not near so large, nor his business near so extensive, paid 5. 4s. If this man were to attempt reimbursing himself by raising the price on his small trade, what would be the consequence? His customers would leave him, and go to his neighbour, who, with a large trade, and paying a tax comparatively next to nothing, would be under no such necessity of raising his prices. In the same city, and in the same street, one silversmith paid 4l., another 8/., and a third 8l. 5s. The reason of this inequality was, that the Tax was not what it professed to be, a shop-tax, but a tax on houses!-Upon the whole, as the discontents concerning the Tax had gradually increased as the operation of it had been more generally felt, and as it was absurd to suppose that any description of men would persist in their complaints against a measure which they did not feel to be a burthen, it ought to be repealed, and some other less partial and less oppressive substituted for it. For, although he admitted that it was not a general rule for repealing a tax that there were complaints against it, yet, in such a case as the present, where the complaints were evidently well founded, as experience had shown them to be, it would much better become the wisdom and the justice of the legislature to listen to them, than to disregard them.-A report had lately prevailed, that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose either a repeal, or such a modification of the Tax as would obviate the objections which had been urged against it. This report he had never believed, and had always discountenanced, because, if it had been true, the right hon. gentleman, either when he gave notice of his motion or since that time, would have signified such his intention. If that had been done, he would have delayed his motion till he had heard what that modification was to be, or if it were done now, he would withdraw it. Mr. Fox concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Shop-tax. Lord Hood seconded the motion, and hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not pertinaciously adhere to a measure which experience had shown to be oppressive and unpopular. Sir Benjamin Hammet said, that the Shop-tax, had been accompanied by another; a tax on maid servants. He had approved of that tax, because he knew the tax would be paid by those who kept them. He was convinced it would be paid by the members of that House. But the Shop-tax was not a tax of that description, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give it up, he would, if called upon, propose another much more productive, which would be borne without a murmur, and prove beneficial to trade and navigation. If he could, in any degree, contribute to remove the burthen of so unequal a Tax from the shop-keepers, he should consider his life as not having altogether been uselessly employed. Sir G. P. Turner said, that two motives induced him to vote for the repeal of the tax. First, his constituents had instructed him to vote for it. His next reason was, that he thought all persons ought to be taxed equally, and to pay according to what they possessed. Sir John Miller said, that he had not, before this day, troubled the House with any opinion of his respecting the Shop-tax, nor should he now take up much of their time, for that indeed neither time nor talents were requisite to convince every unprejudiced auditor, that it was most clearly a partial and an oppressive tax. He said he had voted once, and but once, for this Tax, partly from being deceived, and thereby misconceiving what he now found to be the true principle, effect, and operation; and partly from a consideration of national embarrassment, which required, at that season, a strained revenue, however it could be raised, to encounter the public exigencies. The minister's difficulties had been very great; he had faced them with exertion and fortitude, and he had at this moment the happiness to see them completely subdued. Sir John called emphatically upon the independent gentlemen then present, who, like him, had been, heretofore deluded by specious statements, or by regards to public necessity, to come forward with him manfully upon the present occasion, and by retracting, to atone for their former error and unintentional oppression. From whatever point of view he looked at this tax, he declared he could discover in it nothing that was not highly exceptionable. If it was a personal tax attaching only upon a particular description of the community, (and that that was its true bearing he had not a doubt in his mind) there was not a colour of argument that could uphold it; no, not for an instant. If it was admitted that it the advantages were obvious and indisput able, which the present Tax would afford the wealthy shop-keeper over his neighbour who traded upon a more slender credit or capital; which had a necessary tendency to prevent competition, and of course to promote monopoly, one of the most baneful principles that had ever obtained admission into a commercial country. Was there not a petition now upon their table, signed by 120 out of 150 of the very persons who are appointed assessors by commission, stating their experience of the oppression of the Tax, with their conviction, that the shop-keepers cannot raise it upon their customers by advancing the price of their goods. Sir John said, that he would cheerfully submit to bear his proportion of any imposition in whatever shape it should reach him, that should supply the place of the Shop-tax, which he asserted to be unjust, oppressive, and impolitic in the largest sense of these words. could be levied upon the consumer, even in that case, it fails in one of the most essential qualities of a good tax, for a good tax is that which takes and keeps out of the pockets of the people as little as possible above what it returns into the public treasury. In a former administration, when a penny a bottle duty was laid on Port wine, how did the retail traders meet this Tax? Why, by raising the price of their wine in many places six-pence, in most places three-pence per bottle. Was not this a mischievous imposition upon the consumer, taking from him from 200 to 500 per cent. more than found its way into the public treasury? If the present Tax had admitted of being levied upon the consumer in the manner above stated in the Wine-tax, they would not, after three years experience of it, have had all the retail shop-keepers petitioning the House for its repeal. Very few, if any, shopkeepers can, and none that he knew of had yet attempted, by advancing the price of his commodities, to indemnify himself against the Tax; he was sure he never had paid the Tax in the price of the articles he had purchased. Would any gentleman assert, that he had paid the Shop-tax in the price of the articles he has purchased? Let him but demonstrate that to him, and he would vote with him that night. What bookseller, for instance, could raise the price of his shop-goods, without drawing down ruin and bankruptcy upon himself and his family? Would he not, in that case, be immediately undersold by those of larger capitals, of longer established and more extensive credit and custom, who can not only live but prosper upon profits so small as must be his inevitable undoing? The prime cost of the trader's goods, is the only true guide to their sale. Has the Shop-tax the most distant reference to this? Most certainly not; but very much the contrary. It was held out to be a Shop-tax, while in reality it was an additional House-tax. It had invariably fallen short of 120,000l. for which it was given in: and made no very distinguished figure amongst their articles of finance. Sir John asked, if any man in that House had a right to deliver over as victims to a tax any particular description of his fellow citizens, from which he takes especial care to see himself totally exempted? Is this just? is it honest? is it constitutional? Where, Sir, is the man amongst us hardy enough to risk the assertion. Sir John proceeded to state, that Mr. Pitt said, that it was so painful to him to impose fresh burthens on the people, or to adhere pertinaciously to any tax already imposed when represented as oppressive, that he should be extremely ready to acquiesce in the repeal, were he not prevented by his duty to the public, which required that he should relinquish no means of putting the finances of the country on the most advantageous footing. The Tax, in his opinion, was not such as the complaints had represented it; and while he retained that opinion, he could not, consistently with his duty, give it up, whatever degree of unpopularity his conduct might incur. Those who supported, and those who opposed the measure had already been at issue on the principal question, that the Tax must operate as a personal tax, unless the shop-keepers had the means of levying it on the consumers. He had heard no argument to convince him that this was not in their power, or that they had not done it; for the rise on the price of any single article that would be sufficient to pay the Tax must prove so small as to be scarcely felt. That they had it in their power to make a greater rise, so as to derive a profit from it, he did not believe; for their mutual competition would always compel them to sell at such a profit as would defray the expense of carrying on their respective trades, and afford a reasonable overplus to maintain themselves. With less than this, no trade could be carried on, and more mutual competition would prevent them from | Alderman Sawbridge expressed his astonishment to hear a tax defended, the principle of which was abandoned. The Receipt Tax had at first given rise to complaints; but as soon as it was understood and felt to be fair, those complaints ceased. This had not been the case with the Shop-tax; but, on the contrary, the complaints against it increased every day. Alderman Watson said, that the Tax was unequal and oppressive. Ship-yards and dock-yards had been considered as shops: even Greenland-dock had been stated to As be a shop, on account of some things that Sir James Johnstone said, that the Shoptax had put to death 3000 pedlars, and unless the repeal of it could effect their resurrection, it ought not to take place. Sir Watkin Lewes said, that as evidence against the Tax had been produced at the bar, and none to refute that evidence, there was, prima facie, ground for repealing it. Alderman Newnham said, that the Act was construed to extend to persons whom it was not meant to comprehend: dyers were made shop-keepers, and the barber who cut the hair from a porter's chin. A member of that House had formerly said that the bankers wished to be included in the Tax. He knew of no such desire on the part of the bankers: the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressly declared, that it never was in contemplation to include bankers; and yet the surveyor of the Crown, under that very Act, had assessed the bankers. The commissioners, indeed, had given them redress; but the judges had decided against them: a very extraordinary decision he considered it to be; for no judge could ever convince him that he was a shop-keeper. He held the right hon. gentleman to be pledged, that the bankers should not be included; and he repeated the question which he had last year put to him, without obtaining an answer, whether it was his intention that they should be included. Mr. Pitt replied, that it certainly never was his intention to include the bankers; but he could neither direct nor over-rule the decision of the judges; and if the hon. gentleman chose to bring in a bill for exempting the bankers from the Tax, he would not oppose it. Mr. Mainwaring wished to know from Mr. Pitt, if there was any probability that the circumstances of the country would soon permit him to abandon this tax. Mr. Pitt answered, that although the revenue was in an improving state, yet he could never admit that as a sufficient reason for abandoning any tax, if the principle of that tax was such as could be defended. ration of Mr. Rolle, that he had always conceived that the Act of 1784, would admit of the construction put upon it by the Bill in agitation, and mentioned that gentleman's having, when called upon to state why he was of that opinion, affirmed that he grounded it entirely upon the wording of a particular section of the Act of 1784; the construction of which, Mr. Powys said, had never conveyed to his mind any such idea. He expatiated on the nature of confidence and faith in a minister, observing that faith was the evidence of things unseen. Matters of so much importance as the powers which had in the course of the debates on the present Bill been claimed, ought to be clearly stated and defined, and not to rest on the interpretation of ministers on the one hand, or on the blind confidence of their friends and supporters on the other. The Board of Control claimed powers far be Mr. Fox said, that he could not avoid considering with surprise the extraordinary manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that the Tax was paid circuitously by the consumers. The shop-keepers had universally declared, that they could not levy it on their customers; their customers said they did not pay it; of course, then, the shopkeeper received it, and the consumer paid it, without knowing any thing of the matter. He contended, that it was a tax, unequal both in a general and in a parti-yond any which the Court of Directors cular view: it was unequal with respect to the different streets of the metropolis; it was unequal with respect to the cities of London and Westminster; for Westminster paid more than London, and London more than all the rest of the kingdom.. The House divided on Mr. Fox's motion: Debate in the Commons on the East India Declaratory Bill.] March 12. The House proceeded to take into consideration the Report of the East India Declaratory Bill. Mr. Powys said, that the words of the Bill stated, that doubts had arisen respecting the powers of the Board of Control, as given in the Act of 1784. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had contended, that the Bill afforded a true construction and exposition of that Act: a learned gentleman had asserted the same, but confined himself solely to the legal construction of the Act. It had since been debated on different grounds, and various opinions had been maintained on both sides of the House. Mr. Powys briefly adverted to the sort of line which the arguments had taken, marking their several contradictions and inconsistencies. He particularly noticed the broad decla[VOL. XXVII. ] had conceived them to possess under the Act of 1784. He should therefore move to insert after the words "impowered to," the words "exercise all and singular the powers and authorities, touching the civil or military government or revenues of the said possessions, which at the time of passing the said Act were vested in, or lawfully exercised by, the said Directors, together with such further powers as are by the said Act conferred on the said Board of Commissioners." Mr. Flood said, that he agreed that the House ought not by any declaratory law to make any alteration in a previously existing compact, neither ought the EastIndia Company to be deprived of their chartered rights. He had professed himself a friend to chartered rights four years ago, and he was a friend to chartered rights still. The Act of 1784 did not deprive the Company of their chartered rights, but the present Bill did, and therefore it could not be a true declaration of the law of 1784. The charter of the Company had been guaranteed to them by different acts of parliament, and should be considered as sacred. To take it away upon light grounds, upon a problematical view, or upon motives of political expediency, would tend only to create confusion, and to induce the most dangerous consequences. He had approved of the arguments urged against Mr. Fox's Bill. The country had also approved of them. The same arguments, he conceived, closely applied to the present Bill. He wished [N] |