-
Articles/Ads
Article BRITISH PARLIAMENT. ← Page 2 of 5 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
British Parliament.
the next chss , with this difference , that the little capital they have will be diminished continually in endeavouring to exist . The next point of objection which occurred to him was , that this measure would cause emigration , which , he maintained , would ensue upon the making people disclose their income or property , and then severely taxing them for it > The next head of objection was , that this impost was to affect propert y that was in other parts of his Majesty ' s dominions . This was , he said , : ; n
unexampled measure of severity , in as much as . it applied to property in the West Indies and in Ireland . The inquisitorial power which this tax r , ave to those whowere to assess it , was another objection in his mind . He rhouirlit some provision might be made to prevent evasion ; but the provisions ofthe bill as they stood he hesitated not to declare as totally repugnant to all the principles of our constitution . He concluded a long and argumentative speech , by saying that he was as little disposed as any man to give way to the
ambition of the French Directory , and lie would go as great lengths as any man to oppose them : but because the French Directory are ambitious , were the people of this country to be oppressed and ruined r Mr . Simeon combated the arguments of Sir j . Sinclair , and felt no appro , liensions from what seemed to alarm the Baronet upon the bill , being passed into _ a law . He defended the provisions of the bill , and ' concluded with oh . serving , that the measure appeared to him exceedingly good , and that the Opposition to it would only tend to damp the ardour of the people .
Mr . M . A . Taylor said , that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could satisfy him that this measure would be attended with- none of the incon . veniencies he was going to state , he would certainly give him his . vote , foj he had no fixed hatred against the Chancellor of the Exchequer , nor hael lit any pistol in his pocket to shoot the Minister . He objected to the measure , in the first place , because , it would render a general disclosure of propertynecessary ' . It was indeed urged that the state of each individual ' s propeitj
should be kept a secret ; but how was this secrecy to be kept up ? Did no ( every man give his answer to the tax-gatherers at the door ? Secrecy in . su . ch a . case was absolutely impossible . He then enumerated several instances , to prove that the measure would bear hard upon the merchant , the manufac , turer , and the private gentleman , upon such as might have expectations from rich relations , who were very averse to the idea of leaving their property to any but those whom they considered prudent . Another objection he but
to the measure was of a constitutional nature . The genius of the constitution of England was , that a man ' s property is sacred . But if excise Jaws were odious in this country , what was to be thought cf the bill then before the House ? Here a spy comes not only info the house of every man , but opens his cabinet , and becomes acquainted with ail bis most secret concerns . He took a review of the different species of property most likely to be injured materiall y by the passing ofthe bill into a law . He observed that if the bill was supposc-ei to affect chiefly the rich , it was a great mistake , and he thought it would be better to levy a tax , to be borne generally by all classes of the
¦ community . The Attorney-General replied to Mr . M . A . Taylor , and Sir William Young professed himself a warm friend to the bill . Mr . Ellison spoke on the same side . Sir Francis Baring did not oppose the object of the bill , but was averse to several parts of it . II ; especially observed .. the tenor of it with respect to commercial objedts , and there , he was convinced , it would be evaded , and frauds committed beyond any thing it was possible to conceive . Mr . W . Smith cornplained of the indecent precipitation with which the Minister seemed to hurry a measure of such importance through the House . arid hiving rtprobated many abuses , to which the provision ofthe bill might
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
British Parliament.
the next chss , with this difference , that the little capital they have will be diminished continually in endeavouring to exist . The next point of objection which occurred to him was , that this measure would cause emigration , which , he maintained , would ensue upon the making people disclose their income or property , and then severely taxing them for it > The next head of objection was , that this impost was to affect propert y that was in other parts of his Majesty ' s dominions . This was , he said , : ; n
unexampled measure of severity , in as much as . it applied to property in the West Indies and in Ireland . The inquisitorial power which this tax r , ave to those whowere to assess it , was another objection in his mind . He rhouirlit some provision might be made to prevent evasion ; but the provisions ofthe bill as they stood he hesitated not to declare as totally repugnant to all the principles of our constitution . He concluded a long and argumentative speech , by saying that he was as little disposed as any man to give way to the
ambition of the French Directory , and lie would go as great lengths as any man to oppose them : but because the French Directory are ambitious , were the people of this country to be oppressed and ruined r Mr . Simeon combated the arguments of Sir j . Sinclair , and felt no appro , liensions from what seemed to alarm the Baronet upon the bill , being passed into _ a law . He defended the provisions of the bill , and ' concluded with oh . serving , that the measure appeared to him exceedingly good , and that the Opposition to it would only tend to damp the ardour of the people .
Mr . M . A . Taylor said , that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could satisfy him that this measure would be attended with- none of the incon . veniencies he was going to state , he would certainly give him his . vote , foj he had no fixed hatred against the Chancellor of the Exchequer , nor hael lit any pistol in his pocket to shoot the Minister . He objected to the measure , in the first place , because , it would render a general disclosure of propertynecessary ' . It was indeed urged that the state of each individual ' s propeitj
should be kept a secret ; but how was this secrecy to be kept up ? Did no ( every man give his answer to the tax-gatherers at the door ? Secrecy in . su . ch a . case was absolutely impossible . He then enumerated several instances , to prove that the measure would bear hard upon the merchant , the manufac , turer , and the private gentleman , upon such as might have expectations from rich relations , who were very averse to the idea of leaving their property to any but those whom they considered prudent . Another objection he but
to the measure was of a constitutional nature . The genius of the constitution of England was , that a man ' s property is sacred . But if excise Jaws were odious in this country , what was to be thought cf the bill then before the House ? Here a spy comes not only info the house of every man , but opens his cabinet , and becomes acquainted with ail bis most secret concerns . He took a review of the different species of property most likely to be injured materiall y by the passing ofthe bill into a law . He observed that if the bill was supposc-ei to affect chiefly the rich , it was a great mistake , and he thought it would be better to levy a tax , to be borne generally by all classes of the
¦ community . The Attorney-General replied to Mr . M . A . Taylor , and Sir William Young professed himself a warm friend to the bill . Mr . Ellison spoke on the same side . Sir Francis Baring did not oppose the object of the bill , but was averse to several parts of it . II ; especially observed .. the tenor of it with respect to commercial objedts , and there , he was convinced , it would be evaded , and frauds committed beyond any thing it was possible to conceive . Mr . W . Smith cornplained of the indecent precipitation with which the Minister seemed to hurry a measure of such importance through the House . arid hiving rtprobated many abuses , to which the provision ofthe bill might