-
Articles/Ads
Article HOUSE OF COMMONS. Page 1 of 5 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
House Of Commons.
HOUSE OF COMMONS .
. MONDAY , April 4 , 1196 . MR . FRANCIS gave notice , that on the nth he would bring forward a motion respecting slaves . On the motion of General SMITH , ordered that such Members- of the House , as were Members of the Privy Council , should present an Address to his Majesty , praying that he would order a Copy of the sentence against E . Cawthorne , Esq . to be laid before the House . the order for the Committee ad
On the motion of Mr . L ECHMERE , Corn was - journed to the 12 th ; when he brings forward an enquiry into the adulteration of TUESDAY April 5 . —Read a third time , and passed , tho Tamer Navigation Bill . The Newspaper , and Votes of Parliament Conveyance Bills , were deferred till the 13 th , and the Pe-Mer Pol Bill to the 15 th . LEGACY TAX BILL . —On the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill , it hihlexceptionablethe Minister
Alderman N EWNIIAM observed , though was gy , if he was determined , would carry it ; in which case he should say , this was a good Country to live , but a bad Country to die , in . Mr . R ASHLEIGH opposed the Bill : as did General SMITH , alledging it was an inquisition into every man ' s property . .,,,,, Mr Fox said the Bill was not equitable , as it did not include landed property which when taxed , ought , to be included ; though possibly it could not be subject to the same ' provisions . , „„ . „„ MrPITT said he agreed in the proprietythough not to the necessity , of
exten-. , ding the tax to real property , which had not been included , though personal property had been taxed so long since as the year 1783 . , . Mr GREY observed that the tax of 1783 had little resemblance to the propped one and that it was the established principle in all Governments , not to tax national capitals . On a division , there appeared for passing the Bill , 64 . —Against ''' TAX —The House in a Committee , Mr . DENT said , this was the first insle of Country having demanded to be taxed He observed
t .-mce of the peop any th- ' t the friends of the Bill were actuated by a desire to diminish the difficulties of the- poor He expatiated on the consumption of provisions , which- consequently added to their price ; aud said he was prepared to prove that in the Infirmary of Manchester , alone , thirty-three persons had in one . month died of canine madness . Mr Dent calculated the population of Great Britain at ten millions ot persons , or two millions of families , and averaged one dog to each He proposed to tax than those ing to blind menat half-a-crownby which tu .
every other dog belong , , supposed the number might be reduced one half , when the residue would create a revenue of i ' 2 oool . Mr . Dent supposed the populat . on ot Britain had increased one fourth , since the year 1750 . He said , that one Gentlemanhad paid 400 I . Jid another , by contract , paid a mealman Sool . a year , tor providing his hound , w 1 . flour , Scnotwithstandingwhich , the depredations of dogs ces royed . 50 , 000 . s heep annually . Mr . Dent concluded by moving a tax of two shillings and
six-P Mr P ITT agreed to the principle of the motion ,, but wished that it should not operate to the extirpation of dogs . He conceived there should be a discrimination be wee , the opulent and the poor , whose dogs added . 0 their society , and to their comfort The poor , he thought , should not pay more than one shilling , 10 be colled bV the parish for the use of the indigent ; whilst persons whose houses were of a rental . 0 be assessed , should pay three shillings , which should be coliecother taxes 0 the of the State Mr . PH .
conclued and applied like , . purposes ded by moving , that the words < three shillings' be substituted for 'two shillings a Mr ! ' WILEERFORCE said , he comfort the poor derived from the possession of dogs , was not equal to what they lost by keeping them .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
House Of Commons.
HOUSE OF COMMONS .
. MONDAY , April 4 , 1196 . MR . FRANCIS gave notice , that on the nth he would bring forward a motion respecting slaves . On the motion of General SMITH , ordered that such Members- of the House , as were Members of the Privy Council , should present an Address to his Majesty , praying that he would order a Copy of the sentence against E . Cawthorne , Esq . to be laid before the House . the order for the Committee ad
On the motion of Mr . L ECHMERE , Corn was - journed to the 12 th ; when he brings forward an enquiry into the adulteration of TUESDAY April 5 . —Read a third time , and passed , tho Tamer Navigation Bill . The Newspaper , and Votes of Parliament Conveyance Bills , were deferred till the 13 th , and the Pe-Mer Pol Bill to the 15 th . LEGACY TAX BILL . —On the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill , it hihlexceptionablethe Minister
Alderman N EWNIIAM observed , though was gy , if he was determined , would carry it ; in which case he should say , this was a good Country to live , but a bad Country to die , in . Mr . R ASHLEIGH opposed the Bill : as did General SMITH , alledging it was an inquisition into every man ' s property . .,,,,, Mr Fox said the Bill was not equitable , as it did not include landed property which when taxed , ought , to be included ; though possibly it could not be subject to the same ' provisions . , „„ . „„ MrPITT said he agreed in the proprietythough not to the necessity , of
exten-. , ding the tax to real property , which had not been included , though personal property had been taxed so long since as the year 1783 . , . Mr GREY observed that the tax of 1783 had little resemblance to the propped one and that it was the established principle in all Governments , not to tax national capitals . On a division , there appeared for passing the Bill , 64 . —Against ''' TAX —The House in a Committee , Mr . DENT said , this was the first insle of Country having demanded to be taxed He observed
t .-mce of the peop any th- ' t the friends of the Bill were actuated by a desire to diminish the difficulties of the- poor He expatiated on the consumption of provisions , which- consequently added to their price ; aud said he was prepared to prove that in the Infirmary of Manchester , alone , thirty-three persons had in one . month died of canine madness . Mr Dent calculated the population of Great Britain at ten millions ot persons , or two millions of families , and averaged one dog to each He proposed to tax than those ing to blind menat half-a-crownby which tu .
every other dog belong , , supposed the number might be reduced one half , when the residue would create a revenue of i ' 2 oool . Mr . Dent supposed the populat . on ot Britain had increased one fourth , since the year 1750 . He said , that one Gentlemanhad paid 400 I . Jid another , by contract , paid a mealman Sool . a year , tor providing his hound , w 1 . flour , Scnotwithstandingwhich , the depredations of dogs ces royed . 50 , 000 . s heep annually . Mr . Dent concluded by moving a tax of two shillings and
six-P Mr P ITT agreed to the principle of the motion ,, but wished that it should not operate to the extirpation of dogs . He conceived there should be a discrimination be wee , the opulent and the poor , whose dogs added . 0 their society , and to their comfort The poor , he thought , should not pay more than one shilling , 10 be colled bV the parish for the use of the indigent ; whilst persons whose houses were of a rental . 0 be assessed , should pay three shillings , which should be coliecother taxes 0 the of the State Mr . PH .
conclued and applied like , . purposes ded by moving , that the words < three shillings' be substituted for 'two shillings a Mr ! ' WILEERFORCE said , he comfort the poor derived from the possession of dogs , was not equal to what they lost by keeping them .