Star.
London, England, 1824-05-11 00:00:00

Mr. WILMOT-lIORTON objected to the questicnn!
of the slaves being mixed up with the piinciple of the'
Bill before the Howe. He looked upon measure
as one which would place the West India planter's in the
same situation as a mortgagee in this country, and it
afforded them this additional ad vantage, that they ht
transfer their seem it;es with facility and advanta.
He considered that this was not the time to go at any
length into the details of the Bill, which there would be
many other opportunities of discussing, and expressed
his intention of voting for the second reading.
Mr. EVANS considered the Bill to be so objection-
able, that he was determined to oppose it in every stage.
He would therefore take the sense of the House on the
question of reading the Order of the Day..
The gaikry was then cleared for a division, hot Mr. Evaes de-
clined to press it, anti the Order of the Day as therefore read.
On the question that the Bill be read a secuni time,
Mr. SYKES opposed the Bill.—l le apprehended that
the immense ca?ital of the Company, and the influence
which it would consequently procure them, would en-
able them to obtain a monopoly of the ma, ket for \Veit
India produce. The West Indian merchants already
possessed a monopoly of the home market; there would
therefore be a monopoly within a monopoly—an bixe-
rium iu imperio. Under these circumstances, he felt it
his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time
this day six m,mtlig.
Mr. HUSKISSON said a few word; in expllnatinn.
The Hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. W. Smizh had, in
his opinion, misundentood the ii:eanin:; of the c!
which he teletred in the coni se of his spe'.:,_!•. The
clan,e in trreqion conferred no porter beyond that o:
agency upon the Company.
Mr. W. SMITH differed from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman with tespect to the construction of the clause.

Mr. P. MOOItE opposed the !louse then
divided. The uumbe►s weic—For the second reading,
102; against it, 30. _

The bill was then read a second time.
ASSESS eD TAXES.

Lord lIGTII A M ruse to present A petition from Leominster,
praying for the Repeal of the !louse and Window Tax.
Mr. Secretary CANNING suggested the propriety of postpon-
ing the petition, as had been done in the former case.
Lord MILTON said the subject of both petitions was different.
The present was on public business.
The petition was then read and ordered to be printed.
Similar petitions were presented from Salisbury, Winchester,
and Southampton.—Ordered to be printed.
_ .

Many Honourable Membe. s IRhi petitions on the same subject.
Sir J. SEBRIGI IT observed, that it would take up much time
if all these Petition: were to be read.

\'r. Secretary CANNING said he did not sce how they could
stop now, after having disposed of one.
The SPILAKM.It said it was competent to any Hon. Member to
stand up and proceed with his motion—(Cries of Mr. Maberly).
Air. MA BERLY immediately rose, and at the same time several
Members, with Petitions in their hands, also rose. There was,
however, a loud cry for Mr. Alaberly, and after some time the
ilonpurahle Members who had risen gave way, and
Mr. MABEItLY rose, pursuant to notice, to move
for the Repeal of the Asstased Taxes ; and he would
look at the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and then at the Sinking Fund. At the commencement
of the Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ex-
hibited a precis ellich contained his plan respecting the
expenditure and revenue for the next four years, which.
if adhered to, it would be in vain for the country to hope
for the repeal of any taxes until the year 1829. The
Right Honourable Gentleman had estimated that on
the sth of January, 1828, he would have a balance of
revenue over expenditure, amounting to 4,135,999/.
The Right Honourable Gentleman had formed this esti-
mate with reference to the. existence of a sinking fund
of five millions. The view which he (Mr. Moberly)
entertained was, that it would be better, in the present
situation of the country, to get rid of the sinking fund,
and to remit taxes to that amount. He challenged any
Member of that House to prove that a sinking fund had
been in existence from the year 1792 down to 1819.
In 1792, the amount of the debt was 200,000,0001. and
in 1819 it was 800,000,000/. An increase of debt of
about 600,000,000/. had, therefore, taken place during
the period when, as it was asserted, the sinking fund
had been in operation. The Honourable Member then
proceeded to argue, that owing to the recent rise in the
price of the funds, it would require a considerably larger
sum to pay off the funded debt of the United King•,
don] (taking the value at '2O years' purchase) at the,
present moment, than it would have required in 1819.
It was not to much to the amount of the debt as the rate
of interest which was paid upon it, that Parliament
ought to direct its attention. liy reducing the rate of
interest, the Public would be immediately relieved. It
was wrong to suppose that the amount of a tax which
was abandoned was lost to the Revenue. The capital
which was thus left in the hands of the Public was em-
ployed in sktch a way as to prove beneficial to the Revenue.
The amount of the three per cents. was 527,000,0001.
and the interest paid upon them was 15,810,0001. If
we remained at peace, there could be very little doubt
that the Government would be enabled in a short time
to reduce the interest of the Three per Cents. If the
interest were reduced to 21, a saving of 1,330,0001.
would be effected ; but if it were reduced to 21, the
saving would be 2,635,0001. Notwithstanding that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had repealed part of the
Assessed Taxes, he believed that the expense of collec-
tion was actually greater now than it had formerly been.
He would now state to the House the taxes which he
proposed to repeal. They were the House and Window
Duties, the Horse and Agricultural Horse Tax, the tax
on Carriages and Carts, the tax on Coachmalccrs' Li-
censes, the tax on Hairpowder and Armorial Bearings,
the Composition for the above, &c. amounting alto-
gether to £3,560,000 a-year. If the House should think
proper to vote for the repeal of those taxes, he could
see no r eason why the whole expense of collecting them,
amounting to £300,000, should not also be got rid of.
If the taxes should be repealed, there could be no pre-
tence for retaining any part et the expense. of collect-
ing them, except, indeed, for the purpose of affording
retired allowances to tho,c ho had bun engaged in
that service. He v.ould be the last mall to propose
that a servant should be turned adrift without re-
ard, because his services Isere no longer required.
There was no chance that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, if left to hirnsed, would remit the taxes which he
(Mr. Moberly) proposed to repeal. That, indeed, was
pretty evident from what had occurred shortly after the'
late repeal of a portion of the House and Window Du-
ties. At that time the Commissioners of Taxes sent let-
ters to the Assessors in all parts of the country, direct-
ing them to survey the houses in their districts, and telling
them that if they used tlair utmost diligence, and in-
creased the anreuat oi. tire returns, they woul3 be fa-
vourably recommended to the Treasury. This pro-
ceeding created the utmost alarm thr onghout the coun-
try, and representations poured in rii:on the Govern-
ment on the subject (torn all quirt ter s. Tire Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, under thane circurnstauces,wisely
put a stop to the pi opwed survey, which lie declared was

,~.

only thought of for the.purpoteot ktualizing the duties;
The Assessed. Taxes must be considered as direct taxes.
But how would the House receive a propositials for the
imposition of an Income or Property Tax, which was
the only fair mute of direct taxation? The I louse would,
he believed, scarcely a1i0.... such a rlaii to be stated. It
might be said that can iages were articles of luxury,
and therefore were proper objects of t r:ation• nut
looking-glasses were quite as mica articles of luxury;ls
carli iges, attd yet the former did not pay an anni!al
duty, whilst the latter did. 'fl,e Hon. Nlember con.
cluded by movirg the folloss ing Resolution:
" That It Is expedient, that from and after the sth .!.v, of
sty, 1825, the duties now payable on houses wintiows ihzll
cease and determine. That it is expedient, that from an.!..fter the
Stb day of JannaryllB2s, the duties on servant., ctrthie.,
makers' licenses, horses, mules, together with all composi:i.r,s far
the said duties, shall cense and.determine."

Mr. LEIESTEIt seconded the motion. Ili thoirell
it calculated to diffuse and increase prospeait,-,
present system was like the restrictioas free tra.ie.
The Sinking Fend -.las not necessary for 6iir
but if it ever was •,ecessary it was net so ;
public credit had stood the teat of the seve:est ttia:s,
nor could the most factious objector say that if v..e ?e,
pealed the Sinking Fund now, we did it from comp .1.
sion or necessity. The diminution of the debt r.f.:!:z
take place in two ways, either by dimird.hiog the
itself, or increasing the wealth of the debtor. Ile
astorishei that Gentlemen who aivocatedp', f
free trade should think of adhering to the Sinking
or acs:st its ,uppoi tins it against wealth, prosperity,
improve-oeot.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 5.4,!
that the Honour ible Member who had bt ought forw.ed
the motion had merely agitated the same cptesti-a
:which had come under the consideration of tl:e
about six wrxks ago, upon a nee on made by the Ilea.
Member for Westminster (Mr. I lohhonse.) Linen tha:
occasion he had stated the reasons why he mild me;
consent to the proposed repeal ef the Assessed TaieF,
and nothing haitsince occurred to invalidate those rea-
sons. The mounds upon which the Honourable' Mem-
ber for 'Westminster rested his motion were precisely
similar to those which the lion. Nls.mber for Abingdon
had that night advanced in support of his proposition:,
The Hen. Member for Westminster, however, had not
been able to persuade the House to agree to his proper.
sition, and he could see no reas 'a why the efforts of the
Honourable Member for Abingdon should be a tensed
with a happier result—(fkar).—lle was not quite ac-
curate when he said that the motion of the Honnurable
Member was precisely the same as that which had been
made by the Honourable Member (or Westminster.—
The latter Honourable Member proposed the repeal of
the House and Window Duties only, but the Honour-
able Member for Abingdon wished to extend the repeal
to every other article constituent.; the Assessed Taxes.
If the arguments which he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) had u•.ed applied with any strength against a
motion which had for L 3 object a repeal of taxation
the amount of two millions, they must apply with
greater force to tile which was intended to effect a re-
peal of taws to the e%terit of three millions a..d a half.
Ile really thought h.: was not called on to argue tl:e
crestioa at ad after the recent decision of die House—
( Year, hcar ).-1-le would detain the House for a very
short time whilst he alluded to one or two points of
the Honourable Member's speech. The Honourable
Member had asserted, that the Sinking Fund, or,
more properly speaking, the excess of revenue over
expenditure, had produced no diminution of debt.—
The Honourable Member had compared the amount of
the debt at the present moment with its amount in ISI9.
That was not a fair mode of dealing with the subject.
He should have gone back to 1816, when a surplus of
renew ie first existed. Since 1816. 25,000.0001 s of one
fielded debt had been redeemed, together with
14,500,0001. unfunded debt. This reduction had been
effected by means of the surplus of revenue over ex-
penditure, let it be called by what name, or nickname,
if it would please the Honourable Member, it might.
The llonourable Member had also alluded to the Ex-
chequer Bills, which on the Ist of January, 1816, %sere,
for Great Britain and Ireland, 52,082,000/. They now
were 54,944,0001. being a greater reduction than he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had spoken of. Be-
sides this, it was perfectly true that there was a consi-
derable diminution of charge, for which they were in-
debted to the Sinking Fund. lie alluded to the reduc-
tion of the interest, for though it might be thought that
that was not referable to the Sinking Fund, yet it was
impossible to say that the Sinking Fund had nothing
to do with that saving ; for had not the Sinking Fund
been in existence, he doubted if he would have been in
the situation to have ell: of ;he operation taking
place. The Hon. Member said that by adopting his plan.
it would give such an elevation to the funds that they
might be enabled to reduce the interest of the 3 per cents.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not say what
the pleasure of Parliament might be under the circum-
stances stated ; but this he knew, that with the Sinking
Fund they had reduced the interest of the debt 1,700,0001.
There wet e many knowing persons who were speculatiag
on the advance of the Three per Cents, to par, and the
Hon. Member seemed to think that a probable result of
his plan. Blit was the existence of the Siekiag Fend to
preclude that? On the cone: am y, were not the Funds in
that state to lead to the probability of greater redac-
tions? lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not
think that the lion. Member had made out a very Along
case against his old frieni, the Sinking Fund. The Hon.
Member had told the House that, according to his (die
Chancellor of the Exchequer's) statement, they had the
gloomy prospect of no farther reduction of taxation for
the next lour years. He (the Chancellor of the Exchc-
quet) would rather not de it in prospects either gloomy
or brilliant; but he wonld suppose last year, wren
34'00,0001. of taxes were remitted, the Hon. Member
might have said, u Ay, this is all very well, but if you
keep the Sinking Fund you can repeal no more takes;"
.yet 3,200,000/. had been repealed, and they were hew
in the situation of repealing 1,250,006. more, and the
House had not found him indisposed to bring it forte a. d.
If the increasing prosperity of the country would do
what the Honourable Member said it would do, he tdie
Chancellor of the Exchequer) would find himself in the
same situation as he had already been, when the House
might expect, if lie had the honour to fill the same situa-
tion, that his conduit would be guided by the same
principles as hitherto it had. Every principle that he
had hitherto laid down must lead to the conclusion—
which indeed lie had always expressed in the most un-
reserved manner—that if a tax was very high in propor-
tion to the value of the article, it wasner se a very good
thing to get rid of such tax. Ile hoped, therefore, t:e;
House would not be led away by the statements of t!e:
Honourable Member, but that they:would !vier to tier
principles on which he had already acted. One W,'"4l
before he sat down, on the subject of the