"One thirty-second part of such income, if the same shall amount to 120. but shall be under 1251. "One thirtieth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1257. but shall be under 180/. "One twenty-eighth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 130. but shall be under 1351. "One twenty-sixth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1357. but shall be under 140%. "One twenty-fourth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1407. but shall be under 1451. "One twenty-second part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1457. but shall be under 150%. "One twentieth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 150l. but shall be under 155l. "One nineteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1557. but shall be under 160/. "One eighteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1607. but shall be under 1657. "One seventeenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1657. but shall be under 1701. "One sixteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 170l. but shall be under 1751. "One fifteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1757. but shall be under 180/. "One fourteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1807. but shall be under 1857. "One thirteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1857. but shall be under 1907. "One twelfth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 190l. but shall be under 1951. "One eleventh part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1957. but shall be under 2001. "And One tenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 2001. or upwards." Some few objections were made to the proposed tax by Mr. Tierney, who insisted that while it professed to fall equally on all descriptions of property, it would be very little felt by the monied interest; and that it would affect a material change in society, by compelling persons of small property to sell what they possessed. The resolutions, however, were passed without a division. It might reasonably have been objected to the plan, that it made its maximum of contribution begin at too low a rate of income; and that, on that account, it lost much of its character of Equality. For instance, to take twenty pounds a year from a man who had only two hundred, might compel him to give up housekeeping, and to alter his whole style. of living. At all events, it would deprive him not of luxuries (for such he could not have the means of enjoying,) but of many of the comforts, if not of the necessaries, of life. Whereas the deduction of two thousand pounds from an income of twenty thousand, would produce no such alteration; it would only reduce some fewarticles of luxury, or curtail the means of accumulation. If, however, the exigencies of the State rendered this sacrifice necessary in persons of slender income, the tax should have been so contrived as to make men of large income feel the inconvenience, and the pressure, in at least an equal degree, which could not be done, by only subjecting them to the sacrifice of an equal portion of income. In order to achieve this desirable purpose, it would have been necessary to increase the scale of contribution in incomes above a certain sum. It is probable, however, that Mr. Pitt was aware that such a proposal would prove destructive of his whole plan, by the opposition which it would excite; and he was too good a practical politician to sacrifice a great public advantage, by a doubtful attempt to obtain one still greater. The debate on the subject was renewed on the tenth of December, when the Report was brought up. The Bill was then opposed by Sir John Sinclair, Mr. William Smith, and others. The Baronet was of opinion, that only five per cent. should be levied on income, and one-half per cent. on capital. He objected to the measure on three grounds: First, as it would promote emigration;- Secondly, as it would diminish the produce of the old taxes;and, Thirdly, as it would raise the price of all the necessaries of life. He observed that, formerly, our principal taxes, arising from consumption, and not extending to many of the real comforts and necessaries of life, were, in a manner, voluntary. The exchequer was enriched; the people were happy; and the profusion of government was happily checked by the conviction, that, if the taxes were carried beyond a certain point, the produce, instead of increasing, would be diminished. But if this Bill passed, he contended, the whole property of the country would, in future, lie at the mercy of the Minister.-For, though he now, very moderately, required only a tenth part of their income, he established a principle, that the government of the country was entitled to demand a certain portion of the income of each individual, and was also entitled to enforce that compulsive requisition by the strictest and harshest regulations. The Bill was opposed by Sir Francis Baring, on the ground of its greater liability to evasions than the assessed taxes; and our commerce, he said, would be exposed to frauds without end. Such an insinuation from a commercial man, who must be supposed to have been master of the subject, in that respect, was entitled to serious consideration.-But he was no better a logician than a prophet, when he stated his dislike of the measure as a sufficient reason for predicting its failure. Sir John Sinclair here substituted the Minister for the Legislature, and praised a mode of taxation for the very reason which proved its inadequacy to the purpose for which alone any taxes are justifiable—the good of the State; or, in other words, the welfare of the Community. Assuredly the Minister could. have no right or title to demand one sixpence from the people; but it is evident, that unless the Legislature had a right to demand whatever was necessary for defending the honour and security of the country against the attacks of |