opinion, not much attended to, a tax on places of public amusement; without an over-sanguine estimation, the tax might well be taken at 20,000l. The right hon. gentleman had not attended to the situation and circumstances of those who were generally concerned in retail shops, or he would know they mostly consisted of servants, who had, by being industrious, saved as much as enabled them to enter into some line of business; sometimes persons depending on the charity of Chelsea, and other hospitals, or interests on small annuities. These people, though little within the knowledge of the right hon. gentleman, and unattended to of course, were often obliged to stint themselves of some meals in the week in order to make their little property answer, and should the present addition succeed to their other burthens, would be totally ruined. He therefore submitted to the humanity of the right hon. gentleman, whether he would persevere in a tax so oppressive, so odious, and so unequal.

Mr. Alderman Sawbridge said, he had every disposition to resist a tax so partial in its operation, and abandoned in its principle; yet understanding that some modifications were to take place in the committee, he was willing to try how far they might extend, at the same time reminding the House, that while the tax bore hard on the lower orders of the community, there were not, perhaps, five members of parliament whom it would

affect.

Mr. Alderman Townshend said, he understood proposals had been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for extending the operation of the tax to all persons subject to the bankrupt laws, by laying a duty of 5 per cent. on their houses. Should this mode be adopted, much of the objection on the score of partiality would be removed.

Mr. Alderman Newnham said, while he disapproved of the tax in toto, he thought such a modification as that now mentioned would make the burthen more tolerable to those who should otherwise consider themselves peculiarly and unjustly oppressed; he was therefore induced not to take the sense of the House previous to going into

a committee.

Mr. Pitt acknowledged that proposals had been made to him for extending this tax to all subject to the bankrupt laws: but he had many objections to this; one of the principal of which was, the difficulty

of ascertaining, with any degree of accuracy, who were and who were not liable to them.

After this the House went into the committee; when, on the first clause being read, Mr. Alderman Newnham moved an amendment, the effect of which would be, to separate the assessment of the shop from the house, and make the tax operate on the former only. On this, much conversation ensued, in which Mr. Fox and others contended, that the tax being entitled a shop tax, it would be proper to find some other criterion of estimating the value of the shop than by the rent of the house. Mr. Pitt persevered in defending the original mode. A division took place alderman Newnham's amendment: Yeas, 38; Noes, 79. The Bill being gone through, the House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received tomorrow.

on

May 30. The order of the day for the third reading of the Bill being read,

The Earl of Surrey rose once more to object to the tax, and to state that he was authorized by a meeting of shopkeepers and tradesmen to propose it to the right hon. gentleman to change his tax, and instead of keeping it, as at present, at the rate of 10 per cent. on all the shopkeepers, to lay it at 5 per cent. and extend it to all warehouses, repositories, &c. After saying, that if the proposition he had stated were acceded to, the tax would be much more generally palatable than it was, he concluded with moving, by way of amendment, to leave out the word now,' and insert Thursday next.'

Mr. Rose said, that to accede to the noble lord's proposition would be to relinquish a very considerable part of the sum for which the tax had been given, and therefore it would be in the highest degree impolitic to adopt the alteration.

Mr. Alderman Newnham strenuously contended against the tax as extremely hard and partial, and as one of the worst that had ever been proposed. To his knowledge, a tax had been suggested to the right hon. gentleman, which would produce a larger sum, would be easily collected, would scarcely be felt by the public, and was every way a more eligible tax. He hoped, therefore, he would consent to give up the proposed tax, and substitute in the place of it that to which he alluded.

Mr. Mainwaring said, he held it to be

his duty to oppose the tax in every stage of it, from motives of justice to a great number of individuals, who would be deeply injured by it.

Mr. Hammet opposed the tax. From the first moment it had been proposed, he considered it as partial and unjust in the extreme since he had the honour of delivering his sentiments to the House upon the measure, he had had the pleasure of receiving instructions from his constituents to oppose the Bill in every stage. He suggested a tax of sixpence in the pound on houses, as a tax that would bear more equally on property. He said, in proposing this tax, instead of that on shops, he had no view to any thing but equality and fairness.

Mr. Drake admitted that taxes were now become a mere option of evils; the taxes on luxuries, he said, were liable to the imputation of not being productive, and the taxes on necessaries nearly exhausted; nevertheless, there was some choice left. He exclaimed against the present tax he paid Mr. Pitt compliments on his eminent abilities, his patriotic heart, and his excellent understanding; he expressed his surprise, therefore, at his persisting to enforce a tax so universally odious and unpopular.

Mr. Smyth (member for Pontefract) said, he had received instructions from his constituents to oppose the tax; and though he thought the paying a blind and implicit obedience to constituents in all cases, was not only to admit a doctrine dangerous to the independence of that House, but to sacrifice their own judgment, yet he was of opinion, that the utmost deference should, on every occasion, be paid to the wishes of those who were to be materially and personally affected by any measures of government that were in agitation in parliament; he therefore should vote against the tax.

Mr. Pulteney reasoned against the tax: he said it was liable to much objection; if it was paid by the shopkeepers it would operate personally and partially on a particular description of persons, and would be too heavy a burthen for them to bear; if it fell upon consumption, then it would be impossible for the public ever to know how much they paid; they would, however, pay a great deal more than the tax was given for, which was a bad consequence of taxation.

Mr. Sawbridge desired to ask a question before he proceeded to argue against the

Bill. Had not the right hon. gentleman had another tax proposed to him by the shopkeepers, which would produce more, without being equally liable to objection?

Mr. Pitt said, he undoubtedly had heard of another tax, a tax on shoes, to which a worthy magistrate had alluded.

That

Mr. Sawbridge said, as the right hon. gentleman had admitted that another tax had been proposed, and as he had named it, he would explain to the House upon what sort of computation the sum stated to be produced by such a tax was to be ascertained. The alderman then said, that it was calculated, that there were eight millions of people in this kingdom; four millions were allowed for children or poor, whose shoes were exceedingly low priced; of the rest, two millions of people bought two pair of shoes each a year, of the value of from four to five shillings the pair; on these it was suggested that a two-penny stamp might be impressed, which would raise 33,000l. 6s. 8d. one million of persons purchased three pair yearly, from five to six shillings, upon which a four-penny stamp might be placed, and that would produce 50,000. that one million of persons purchased three pair yearly of six shillings value and upwards; upon these it was proposed to affix a stamp of sixpence, which would produce 75,000l. A million pair of boots it was also supposed were bought annually; upon these it was designed to impose a stamp duty of one shilling per pair, which altogether would amount to 280,3331. 6s. 8d. The alderman reasoned on this new proposition, and asked to what was it the public were to attribute it, but to the obstinacy of the right hon. gentleman, which made him so pertinaciously adhere to what he had once proposed, that he persisted in forcing a tax upon them that was universally complained of as partial, oppressive, and unjust?

and

Colonel Phipps said, the only objection to the tax that seemed to have any weight was, that it would fall wholly on the shopkeeper; this, he thought, would not be complained of, if shopkeepers were allowed to put a per-centage on all book debts.

Mr. Medley defended the tax, and observed, that he liked it the better because it was likely to be paid by the shopkeeper himself.

Mr. Windham spoke against the tax. He began by declaring, that he was instructed by his constituents to oppose it, and that their instructions were perfectly

consistent with his own private sentiments. He said the argument had got into a dilemma; that on the one hand it was con tended, that it would fall personally on the shopkeeper, which if it did, it was pretty generally admitted that it would be entitled to the epithets of partial, oppressive, and unjust, with regard to the particular set of individuals it would press upon. On the other hand it was urged, that if it fell upon consumption, the public would pay a great deal more towards it than the revenue would receive. Mr. Windham asked upon what principle of taxation was the shop-tax founded? It was a general maxim that equality was the right principle of taxation; but in the present case, it appeared that inequality was the principle adopted. He reasoned upon this, and illustrated his observation by reminding the House, that when the house-tax was passed, it was found to bear equally upon shopkeepers, and it had been admitted that it did so accidentally: that inequality, however, strange to tell, was here made the basis of another tax, and carried much farther. This, Mr. Windham reprobated as the extreme of injustice. He was aware, he said, at the same time, that perfect equality was a mere chimera, and not to be hoped for or expected; but something nearer to equality might be had, and ought to have been sought after. There were, he remarked, two modes of imposing taxes; either to lay them specifically and immediately, or to lay them generally, and leave them to be distributed on articles of consumption by those who were to pay them in the first instance. This latter mode was often convenient to ministers, but it was generally inconvenient to the public, because it exposed them to pay the taxes imposed over and over again.

Mr. Pitt said, that it was by no means fair, to consider the tax simply as one either on the income of the trader or on the general consumption, but of a mixed nature, comprehending in it the principle of each of these two species of taxation. Where the profit on the articles of trade was such as would bear the payment of the tax, there the trader would pay it for his own sake, and it was fair that he should. But where, on the contrary, the profit was inconsiderable, the tax would be levied by the shopkeeper on his customers. He disputed Mr. Windham's idea, that the practice and views of shopkeepers were merely to obtain such a profit as they could live on; on the eon

trary, their object always would be, to make as great an advantage by the sale of their commodities, as the necessity of a competition with other traders would permit. Hence, then, there was no greater danger, after the passing of this tax, of the smaller traders falling a prey to the more opulent, by laying them under burthens which the latter could bear better than the former; because the richer shopkeeper being still governed by the principle of trade (that of acquiring the greatest profit he could safely look for), would not be more ready to abate in his prices now that the competition with the poorer trader had become still more unfavourable to him in consequence of the increased proportion of the burthen which comparatively he was to bear.

Mr. For repeated the arguments he had formerly urged, in proof that it was a partial house-tax, and not, as it was called, a tax on shops. He enforced Mr. Windham's position, that it was an extension of that inequality which had been the characteristic of the house-tax, and contended, that it would be impracticable for the tax to be distributed among the articles of consumption, because a twenty, or even a thirty-pound tax, could be better afforded to be paid or given away, as it were, by the large shopkeeper, whose returns were quick and to a large amount, than the petty shopkeeper could afford to pay the small tax; and if the petty shopkeeper attempted to distribute the tax on the several articles he dealt in, inevitable ruin must follow; because, undoubtedly the public would not buy at the petty shop where the articles were all sold at an advanced price, but at the capital shop where they were sold cheaper, and thus the capital shopkeeper would be enabled. to ruin the lesser. For these reasons he should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Coke said, he had received instructions from his constituents to oppose the tax, which he considered as a smaller injury preceding the very material one that was going to be done the commercial and trading interests of the country, by voting the resolutions founded on the Irish propositions, that in two hours time would come under the consideration of the House. He had that day presented a petition from 2,500 of his constituents against those resolutions; and added some remarks to prove, that the shop-tax and the Irish business were both fatal attacks on the trade and commerce of the country.

existence. Such are the most material of those alterations that are proposed with a view of giving uniformity and system to the old law. I believe they will be found, in all respects, considerable improve

ments.

I come now, Sir, to the third, and unquestionably the principal object of the Bill, which is, the giving to the subject, on certain conditions, and with certain exceptions that are necessary for the security of the revenue, an optional right of trial by jury in questions of excise. The reasons that have led me to propose this change in the law-a change which the learned gentleman near me, in the few words he has used on this occasion, has represented as of such fearful consequence, I shall gladly submit to the consideration of the committee when this part of the Bill is read. I respect, at all times, the abilities and the character of the learned gentleman; but, with the ancient common law of the land, and our venerable constitution on my side, I am much more disposed to meet than to decline the con

test.

The Bill went through the committee. June 14. The report from the committee on the Excise Jurisdiction Bill, being brought up,

The Attorney General said :-I have many objections to the Bill: it is impossible, at any rate, that I should give my consent to its passing this year, for it is a Bill of the greatest importance, and requires much consideration. The hon. gentleman who framed it, stated with great eloquence, at the time he introduced it to the House, the principal objects of his intended reform. Two of them every man must approve. I mean the introducing into one act the provisions of former acts, and the reconciling those provisions to each other. This part of the Bill is executed with great ability, and, if unconnected with his third object, would receive universal approbation. But the hon. gentlemon is not contented with this limited plan: he wishes to extend to excise cases the trial by jury: he wishes to give the subject an optional right to that trial in all questions of excise. Now, Sir, it is impossible not to foresee infinite mischief from this part of the Bill. The revenue could never be collected; the trial by jury is not sufficient to enforce the collection, and every man, if there was an information against him, would

claim the right of trial by jury. It would be impossible for the court of Exchequer to go on. Why, Sir, there are 6,000 causes tried every year in the summary courts. Now, if all these causes were to be brought into the court of Exchequer, how would it be possible for the court to proceed? Sir, it is very dangerous to disturb the settled order of things, and to reverse establishments that have stood the test of a century. For these reasons, I should have objected to the Bill as it originally stood; but the alterations that were made in it in the committee oblige me to object to it for another reason, which is, that while it may do a great deal of mischief, it can do no good whatever. The principal articles of excise are excepted from the general operation of the Bill. Now it may do å great deal of mischief by making those uneasy who are concerned in the excepted trade, and who will think they have as good a right as their neighbours to the trial by jury; and it can do no good, because the number of articles on which the Bill will be permitted to operate will not be sufficient for the purpose even of experiment. For these reasons,. I move" that the farther consideration of this Bill be adjourned till this day three months."

Mr. Beaufoy said:-In rising to combat the doubts, and answer the objections of the learned gentleman, I am sensible I shall speak under circumstances of unusual disadvantage: for, independently of the apprehension I naturally feel of his talents and professional knowledge; independently, too, of the weight which his personal character, in other respects, gives to his arguments, I have also to contend with the authority he derives from the high office which he holds in the state. It is, however, an encouragement to me to know that he wishes his opinions should be fairly examined and unreservedly discussed, and that he does not require that any thing should be conceded to authority which is not established by argument. From the doubts expressed by the learned gentleman, three questions arise-1. Whether there be any just reason to complain of the law as it now stands? 2. Whether the adopting the principle of this Bill will, in practice, be attended with any hazard to the revenue, or with any other inconvenience in practice? 3. Whether the alterations made in the Bill, in its progress through the committee, have not destroyed the possibility of its being useful?