The Sun.
London, England, 1806-05-29 00:00:00

PROPERTY DUTY BILL.

The Order of the Day for the third reading of the
Property Duty Bill having been read,
Lord H. PETTY moved, that the Bill be now
read a third time:

Mr. FRANCIS was proceeding to,state his objec-
tions to an important part of the Bill, when, at the
suggestion of the SPEAKER, as he 'did not oppose
the principle of the Bill, he deferred his remarks to
the subsequent stage. The Bill was then read a
third time.

Mr. VANSITTART introduced three clauses, which
were added to the Bill by way of riders.
The first was for exempting the Commissioners
under the MI from Parish Offices, and frum`serving
on Juries.

The second was for enacting, that assessments
under his Aet should not be suspended, because
former assessments were not complete. '
The third.was for facilitating the .making of as-
sessments for former years.
An insertion was also made with respect to the
payment of the duty on the interest of certain bonds
of the East India Company.
Mr. FRANCIS then rose to make his promised
Motion, with regard to the exemptions granted by
this Bill to the property of Foreigners in the British
Funds. He lamented that he had to contend on
this subje& with such ability as that, possessed by
his Right Honourable Friend ; but he trusted that
his Right-Honourable Friend, imitating the exam-
ple of a late Right Honourable Gentleman, would
candidly supply any defeCts which might exist in his
'own. statement.—He divided the subject into three
distin& branches. The first, the policy of the meas.
sure—the second'the inconveniencies and abuses that
would attend it—and the third. the essential justice
or injustice of it. With. respect to the policy, he
would ask, whether Ministers were aware of the
amount of the property which they were desirous to
release from the operation of the had been
%calculated six ,months-ago that there
,was.a, foreign
capital in the Funds, the produetive income of Which.
was between 40 and .50,6001. a year; and this corn-
putation was made at a time when the accounts were
not complete. He firmly believed "that it would be
eventually found an income of not less than 100,0061,
would be given up by this It had been
said, that. if the duty were irnposed on foreign pro-
perty it would induce foreigners to sell out. He be-
lieved that would not be the case. It was for their
own Convenience that Foreigners vested their pro-
perty in the English Funds ; it was because they here
found a security which was not to be met with else,
where.- They, sent it for, speculation, and ought to
be considered in the same light as any other jobbers.
Besides, where was the interest of this property
spent ?—ingrance, in Holland, on the Continent. It
went to support the Government of Bonaparte. Did
that entitle it to the proposed exemption ? Now, with
regard to the second point, namely, the inconvenien-
'cies and abuses that would attend this exemption, he
would first ask, how it would be possible in a great
many instances to distinguiSh real from fictitious fo-
reign property? Great quantities would be placed in
the English, Funds in the names of Foreigners, for
the purpose of claiming the exemption. A consider-
able part of the funded property apparently foreign,
was, at this moment, of a description which ought to
be doubly and trebly taxed, for he was, well assured
that great sums were sent from France during the Re-
volution, to English Agents, to be invested in the
English Funds ; that they were so invested, and, for
the, purpoSe of secrecy, in filse names; and that
when the real
,owners came to claim their property,
these flagitious Agents, availing themselves of the
absence of evidence, withheld it from the lawful
owners. Now, with regard to the third point, the
justice of the exemption, he was aware that if this
could be established, all other considerations ought
to have no Weight. 'He would inquire into the
justice of the exemption on particular and, on gene-
ral grounds. First, on particular : with respect to
the contra& entered into with the national credi-.
tors. Were Foreigners:the original subscribers to
this.contra& ? What were the terms of the contra& ?
Were they not expressly that the sums lent to Go-
vernment should be free from all taxes whatever ?
If this contra& were violated with natives he, could'
not see why, it should be preserved with foreigners.
Now, on the principles of general justice he would
ask—For what purpose taxes were imposed at all ?
For 'the support of Government. Why is Govern-
ment entitled' to support ?' Because Government
gives proteEtion:- to persons and properly.. Why,
therefore, a distin&ion should.be made between fo-
reign and domestic property he could not conceive.
Foreigners were,- in his opinion, boUnd by every
principle ofjustice td pay for the security which
their property received. If a foreigner resided for
any time" in England he would- be liable to the
Tax ; and,. therefore surely the property of a fo-.
reigner, not a resident, should not be exempt, when
it was considered that it went to the support of
hostility against the Country. It had been. insisted
that foreigners ought not to he taxed,. because they
were pot-represented in Pai liameat. If it were once
admitted, that no man should be taxed who. was
not represented, how :many WoUld be free from all
taxation whatever'! In the case of a foreigner re-
siding in England, he would not be a whit More
represented in Parliament than if he lived in France,
and yet he would be directly taxed. This was
therethre an abstra& principle not acted upon. He
quoted the opinion of Mr. Grenville on khe right
Of Great Britain .to tax America, and appealed to his
descendants to support that opinion ; and alluded to
,the declarations formerly made by many Of those,
now high in office—silt:li as the Lord Chancellor, the,
First Lord-of the Admiralty, the Attorney-General,
the Paymaster of the Navy, &c. of the inadequacy
of the Representation ins Parliament in this Country;
and yet it was never contended by those ;Who as.
serted the most strongly the ina:leqwcy of that Re=
presentation, that the individuals unrepresented were
not bound to obey the Legislature, or were not fit
subjects for. taxation-; On the whole he submitted
it to the serious con4ideration of His Majesty's, Mi-
nisters, whether, at' a time when the Country was

~h

in suci, • state 1 hat the vet 7 First. Tax proposed by
the l'i,ble Lon' opposite was obliged to be relin-
quished, and
'ivLon the merest necessaries- of life
were subjected 1
o tamtion, it was Idvisable to
take hivmite fron:l the wretch in the cottage, and
to, remit to thosewho:p*ossessed thousands that
which-was due from them in return for the secu-

thy' which they
,e.njoyed. The People of England
were almost in despair ;\ he trusted that they would
not be driven to absolute madness. He concluded

aye out that part, of the Bill which
grant leodving to
exemptions to the .funded property of fo-

reigners...
Mr. Secreary FOX declared that it was utterly
impossible any one could suspeEt His Majesty's
Ministevs -4- any peculiar tenderness for foreigners,

or suppose that they were not desirous of availing
themselves 4 every fair, and honourable source of
Revenue. lie replied to the arguments that had
been 'adducid by the Hon. Gentleman, in order',
first, as to :he policy of the exemption : he certainly. ,
should thnk it extremely , impolitic 'to discourage
foreigners from purchasing in our FundS, or, drive
those out who had already property in them. .4.-
4:the speculation of foreigners in the
_Funds, he
knew of none that were not allowable by the Law,;
for if all ,the speculations in the Funds were pre-
vented, a great number, both of English and of fo-
reio'ners, would be discouraged from making any
purchases in them. As to the obserVation that
foreigners would continue to vest their property
in the English Funds, because there .was no se
curity elsewhere : if this. were the fiia he Would
ask—Was it worthy of 'a great Nation thus to
take advantage of a temporary superiority ?
Now, as to the frauds that might he pradtsed,he did
not think it possible they could be very extensive.
If money were placed in the funds in the name of a
foreigner which was not his property, what would
be the consequence of the,death of 'that foreigner ?
Why; that it would go to his heirs., And that by
the Law of France, of Holland, or of Flanders, and,
not by, the' LaW of Great Britain. And did the
Hon. Gentleman really believe that .many people
would be found willing to incur this risk- for the
CoMparatiVely trifling saving that it would,produce ?
Now with regard to the main point, the justice of
the exeMption, be was firmly. of opinion that it .
would be highlytinjust not to allow it. With re-‘
gard to what the Hon. Gentleman had said of the
violation of the original
_ contraet, he. -could-oot but
allow, that in the Property Tax, the Income Tax„
and even the Assessed Taxes, there was a principle
Which by no very violent straining- might be repre-
sented as a Tax upon the Funds.. It had, however,
always been called by another name, and no Tax
on Funded Property had ever been distin6.lly im- •
poSed, although, he must Confess; that the distinc-
tion was much nicer than he could wish it to be;
but if the Tax were laid on Foreigners, as suggested
by the HOD. Gentleman, it would, at once be adireat
Tax on the Funds, and on the Funds alone, for no
one would pretend to tax other Foreign Property.
As to the assistance which the income derived by
Foreigners from property in the English Funds gave
to the Enemies of Great Britain, he wished to
know, whether the effe& would. not be infinitely
more injurious were Foreigners induced to with-
draw that property, and place it in the funds of our
immediate Enemies ? The Foreigner lent his money
to this Country on the faith of its being secure; and
yet the Hon. Gentleman would have it taxed be- .
cause it was secure. As to what the Hon. Gentle-
man had said about the representation of Foreigners,
he was one of those who thought this Country not
adequately and fully repreiented in Parliament, and
who yet thought that the -House of Commons had
an undoubted right to legislate for the Country, be-
cause the individuals who were really represented,
and the individuals who were not really represented,
had a community of interests. But what commu•
nity of interests was there between the English and
Foreigners ? The Bill professed to ,give and grant.
-Whose property Surely only our own. .We had
no right to give and grant the property of the Sub-
jects of other Countries resident in those Countries.
No one was more disposed than he to relieve, if pos.
sible, the lower classes; but he was not desirous to
do so on such terms., Let not the English Stock-
holder imagine, that because the funded property df
the Foreigner escaped in this Country, it would con-
sequently go: scot tree: Eery shilling' of it would
be sufficiently taxed on the Continent. With all.
his deference for the opinion of hiS Hon. Friend,
he must express his total dissent from him on this;
subjea.
The SPEAKER submitted to the House, before
the Debate should be entered into, whether the
Motion of the Hon. Gentleman could be.entertained.
The object of the Motion was to take away Exemp-
tions, and, in so much to increase the amount of
the Tax. The proper stage for such a prnCeeding
would have been in the Committee on the Bill. But
as it had not been proposed in that stage, and the
Bill had then been read a third time, be appre-
hended, that it must appear to the House, that they
could- not entertain the Motion in this stage, wi.a-
out departing from their usual, regular, and recog-
nised pra6tice on all Bills for imposing Taxes.
Mr. FUANCIS and Mr. 13,,,xins expressed their re-,
gret that the forms of the House precluded the dis-
cussion of the question,* and lamented that whilst
they felt so sensibly -on the subjeat, they were
thus left without a remedy. •
Lord HENRY PETTY suggested' to the Hon.
Gentlemen, that if they were so anxious for the
discussion of the question,' it might be brought be-
fore the House, in virtue of the Clause for the ,
AmendMent or Repeal of the Bill, by aMotion in
the Committee of Ways and Means for a new Tax,
namely, 'upon the Profits of Stock the property of
Foreigners.
OD the Motion of Mr. VANSITTART, Amend-
ments were made to exempt Stock or Dividends, the
property of His Majesty, in whatever name they
may stand e and also .Stock the property of ,accre-
dited Ministers from-Foreign States, when properly
authenticated.
' On the Question that the Bill do pass,

Sir ROBERT BUXTON could not suffer the
fill to receive the final sanatioti`of the House, with-
Out entering hiS protest against it, as imposing
an unequal 'l'ax on the Country, and particularly on ,
Landed Property, which would, be taxed 13 per cent.
Underit. The Hon. Gentleman opposite[Mr. Van-
sittart) had argue* 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 is.

Nr—VANS/TTA ET and Lord HENRY PETTY were
not aware-of any, objection to leaVitig the Bill-made
annual, date suggestion hal been thrown out in
the proper stage. Rut the ClatiSe of Repeal• in the
Bill would ..nswer every ob,ed of the Hon Baronet,
because, by virtue of that, tile 'Bill might be brought
again under- the consideration of the House.
Wt SMITH thotight- that notwithstanding
the ameliorations that had been introduced into the
Bill, nothing could reconcile him to it as it then
Sood. He had. that clay received a letter which
called his attention peculiarly to the severity of the.
tax. The letter was froth a person who had a large
family-, and whose only support depended upon a
small income from the Short' Annuities, which
would expire in 1808, and yet that income was to be
subjected to the whole of the tax .as well as perma-
nent income.

Mr. HUDDLESTONE had strong apprehen-
sions that the Bill Would not be palatable tp the pub-•
lic. , He wqs sorry that 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 incomes under 501.
per annum. /Alt as the Bill now stood the tax
would apply to all property in the Funds of what-
ever amount. He had ascertained the number. of
persons holding property in the Funds under 501.
a year to be 220,0001. 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 201, a year as oh 20,0001. Forhis own
part) he Would cheerfully submit to a larger pro-
portion. of duty upon the class to which he be
cT -
loned, provided-it should be the means of exempting
the lower classes. •

•
• Lor4 DE BLAQUIERE did not think it either
fair or Parliamentary for Gentlemen to give these
parting blows to the measure in its last stage, when
it could not be'debated. There was no tax which
would not be attended with casek of individual hard-
He did not therefore think it fair in Gentle-
!men to .send the-Bill from that House with a canis-
'ter tied-to its tail.

Mr. I'ANSITURT contended, that his Noble
Friend had adhered to all his principles, except
'where he had been induced to waive them in favour
of ipdulgencies. The application of the tax to the
sower description ,of proprietors of funded, and other
lo rope rty , was absolutely necessary to make it pro-
`ductiire.

_______
After a few words from Mr. ATKINS WRIGHT.
'whom we 'understood to say, that he knew of an
instatice in which a person receiving assistance from
his -Parish would be affetted by this tax if the Bill
Was
Mr.passed,
,ALEXANDE4t brought up the Iteport of the
Irish Stamp Duties' Bill.

'NEIPPORT observed, that there was a
tlause in 'this Bill imposing'a Stamp Duty on Bills'
'of Entry in the Irish Ports, with respect to the - pro-
priety, of Which considerable doubts were' enter-
tainedc,:as it might aft-ea the British Trader, and
.thereftire contravene the provisions of the Union.
consequence of those doubts he proposed to re-
linquish this Tax; which was but inconsiderable;
'and hogave notice, that hoshould, on Friday, in the
Cominitteeof _Ways- -and. Means, take occasion to
• taropOsea substitute. ',EI Clause was accordingly in-
troduced.. , - - - .• __

A Clause was also introduced by the Right Finn.
X;ronet to repeal a Clause in the Stamp Ail of.
,the .43a-of -procent Majesty, by which a Printer
of a Newspaper who 'altould be absent from Ireland
ten days, .or a Proprietor who should be absent three
iuonths, was incapacitated to continue such
cat ion.
The Report,, `at ainendea, Was Agreed to, and the
Bill ordered to be read a third time on Friday.
Ordered, on the Motibn of Mr. PARNELt, that
the ACcounts on s the Table relative to the quantity
'of Irish.. Bank Nato in tirculatien should be
printea..
The Hditse %Vent into a Cot tnittee,On the Motion
of Mr. VANSITTART, to consider of the Salaries to be
•rfruitti to the new COmthissioners for auditing Pub-
ip •
lie -Accounts. Fifteen hundred pounds a year were
voted to the First .Commissioners-10001. to each
of the others-=and an additional allowance to any
Of them who should be sent to the West Indies,
of SOUI. out of the Consolidated Fund and also
such reasonable Salaries to the Clerks and 'ethen
'employed under 'the Conitnission as the Conithis-
sioTters of the Treasury might .think lit. The House
'resumed, and the Report was ordered to be.received
on Friday. •
'Sir JOHN Ntwi,oni. gave notice, that he should
on Friday, in the Cotinnittee of Ways and Means.,
move a .subs-titute for the Tax he abandoned on

Entries.
Mr. ALEXANDER brought up the Report r)f the
'Committee of Supply. The Vote of sOO,OOOl. to
the Officers and Seamen engaged in the • M:tion off
Trafalgar was agreed to, and a Bill ordered ac-
boraingly. . . .
The other Orders of the Day were then dhpobed
of.—Acijourned ;,) Friday.