(Mr. Windham) to say whether in the great sporting county where he occasionally resided, it was usual for farmers to warn gentlemen off their grounds? The reverse, he believed, was the fact. Thus was the game, he insisted, diminished in consequence of the acts passed by our ancestors for its protection, as the farmers were indifferent as to the persons by whom it was destroyed. The vote he should give that night, certainly would be for the second reading of the bill, which might be amended in the committee, and lie over to another session, until it was maturely considered by the members of the House.

The House divided on the motion, "That the bill be now read a second time:

Tellers.

YEAS { Mr. Curwen

Mr. Crewe

Tellers.

'} 17.- NOES {Captain Berkeley

}48.

The motion that the bill be read that day three months was then put and carried.

DUTIES ON LEGACIES OF PERSONAL ESTATES.

March 22.

N the order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the committee on the bill for repealing certain duties on legacies and shares of personal estates, and granting other duties thereon, Mr. Pitt moved, That the said report be now taken into consideration; as an amendment to which, Mr. Alderman Newnham moved, that it be taken into consideration on this day four months.

Mr. Fox said, he should concur in the motion for postponing this bill. As to the time, perhaps he might differ from the worthy magistrate who made the motion. With respect to the bill itself, he had considered it from the very beginning to be a measure altogether impracticable in the present state of the country. He did not think that any clause could be introduced into the bill which would do away the objections to it; for the whole principle of the bill was radically unjust. He was exceedingly sorry, however, that he had been prevented by indisposition from attending when the bill was in the committee, and examining the different clauses as they were proposed, for he now professed himself

incapable of understanding them. Objections, however, to the whole bill were too obvious to pass unnoticed. Every species of commercial property must by this bill be laid hold of and exposed by government. He was told formerly, that this inconvenience might be avoided. His answer was, "that is morally impossible;" for the very idea of making a man pay a profit to government for his property ad valorem, must necessarily imply that the value of that property shall be ascertained. This must also necessarily make public the value of all the bequests in the kingdom. It was not necessary for him to dilate upon this subject. This ascertainment of the value of every thing hereafter to be bequeathed, must necessarily depend upon a balance between debts and credits. Now, there might, and there must be, cases in which this system would be attended with great injustice. It was said, that as we cannot ascertain the value of a person's property, it shall be taken according to the profits afterwards received. The House should consider the tendency of this system. There must be thus annually laid before parliament the whole state of our commercial prosperity and adversity. A man might lose upon one branch and gain upon another; he might have a partner in the one case, and he might be concerned alone in the other, and he might bequeath a legacy to the partner who had sustained this loss; then there must be a deduction of six per cent. out of such bequest. This, perhaps, was an injustice which was not intended, but it was an evil that was inseparable from the very nature of the bill, and therefore could not be avoided. Now, he would ask, how it was possible for a man to give an account ad valorem of the profits of a trade complicated with a thousand circumstances? And how this account was to be made to government without the whole of the circumstances of that trade being made known to the public? In short, made known to every man in the world who should choose to inquire into them? With regard to the practicability of estimating the value of property under this bill, suppose, for instance, a certain capital left between six persons, the interest of which only was to be enjoyed by one at a time: suppose it should go to the uncle in the first instance, the brother in the second, the nephew in the third, until the whole capital be made absolutely in the sixth person in succession. How could the claim be made on the part of government? If it be laid upon the capital in the first instance, it must reduce the value of the interest of the legacy to the first annuitant, while a calculation must be made of the lives of the other parties, which could never be precisely determined, on account of various accidents. In case of any contingency happening to

the second or third annuitant after the death of the first, if restitution be made to the third or fourth, what restitution could be made to the first annuitant? Or how was any restitution provided for?

There were many other objections to the provisions of the bill. It was well observed by the worthy magistrate, that a great hardship would be cast on children who had the misfortune to be of illegitimate birth. How was this to be managed? Was there to be a power to institute an inquiry into the legitimacy of the children? Was there to be an inquiry into the legality of the marriage of the father, or the grandfather. Had government that power? If they had, what a scene of confusion and intolerable vexation would follow from the exercise of that power! If this bill was consented to, there would be other taxes of the same kind brought forward, and no good argument could then be found for opposing them. Admitting the principle of this to be just, he could not see any good reason why it should not be extended; for what was this but a mere shift to levy a duty on all species of bequeathed property? If this should succeed, he would dare to say the mode would be deemed an eligible one. He then took notice of property in the funds. There was, indeed, a solitary act of parliament which recognized the practice of recurring to it as an object of taxation. But he did not think that just; for when we funded a debt we contracted with the holder of it, that he should enjoy it without diminution by a tax while he lived, and that he should bequeath it to his posterity. He thought, therefore, there was a considerable objection to that measure; but there was a great deal more to this. He thought, also, that there was a great deal of force in the objection of the worthy magistrate about not bringing forward the other bill with regard to the tax on landed property. He saw no good reason why they should be separated, but many why they should be kept together, and chiefly that the House might see the real extent of the plan upon this subject; and by applying it to landed property, the impracticability of doing any thing like justice in the execution of it would be more striking.

He lamented, indeed, that the House was so indifferently attended; but that was a thing which he had reason to lament upon subjects of greater moment, even than the present. He did not see any necessity of postponing this bill for four months; four weeks would be sufficient for the House to make up its mind on the subject. But both the bills should be debated together, and the House ought not to pass this without knowing whether they could ever pass the other. He had many objections to the particular provisions of the bill, but

man

they were all as nothing when compared to his objections to the general principle. The idea of an ad valorem estimate of taxation on a man's property was repugnant to sense and justice in any country, but particularly in such a state as ours, where it was impossible to calculate the inconveniences to which it would give birth. It might, for aught any could say to the contrary, endanger even the very existence of our commerce. Indeed, he wondered that the House, which had in it so many men well acquainted with the nature of commerce, felt so easy under a measure so alarming as this. Feeling so many objections as he did to this tax, and wishing the people to understand its nature better than he believed they did at present, he should at all events vote for some delay in this business. He, indeed, was confident that a sense of his duty to the public would command him to vote for the rejection of the bill altogether. He should now, however, only desire that this bill should be delayed until the other bill for taxing landed property should be laid before the

House.

Mr. Alderman Newnham's motion was rejected, on a division, by 46 against 16.

April 5..

On the motion, that the bill do pass,

Mr. Fox said, that he did not mean to trouble the House with any observations, either upon the principle of the bill or any of its clauses, though he was clearly of opinion, that if the principle was followed up to its full extent, it would put an end to that commercial prosperity, which, impaired as it at present was, still enabled us to support those burdens to which we were subjected. It had been said, that this bill was of a similar nature with another intended to be brought into parliament, proposing a corresponding tax upon land. What he meant now to propose, was to postpone the third reading of this bill, till the propriety and practicability of the other should have been discussed. The principle of both was allowed to be the same; but the provisions of each, from their nature, must be different. Allowing the principle to be just, if the provisions of the other bill were found, upon discussion, to be impracticable, he asked, in what situation the House would be placed? They would have sanctioned a tax upon personal property, which, it was allowed, ought equally to attach upon real property; but, perhaps, the tax upon real property might be found to be impracticable, and then the present tax would incur the charge, at least, of being partial. Upon this ground he moved, "That the debate be adjourned till this day fortnight."

The House divided on Mr. Fox's motion:

GENERAL SMITH'S MOTION RESPECTING THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN BARRACKS.

T

April 8.

HIS day General Smith moved, "That it be referred to a committee, to examine into the expenditure of public money in the construction and furnishing of barracks since the year 1790; as also to investigate by what authority such an expence, amounting to upwards of one million sterling, has been incurred." The general affirmed, that 1,400,000l. had been employed upon them. The patronage accruing from them to ministry was the appointment of no less than fifty-six officers for their management, with considerable salaries. The number of barracks already constructed were sufficient for the reception of 34,000 men, which were more than a peace-establishment by 14,000. Did not such a measure, he asked, tend to impress the strongest conviction upon the public, that ministry were determined, in the words of one of their principal members, to exert "a vigour beyond the law?"- Mr. Windham, the secretary at war, admitted the expences of the barracks to be great, but the importance of the object in view required them: their intent was to exonerate publicans, and people of that description, from the heavy charges to which they had so long and so unreasonably been liable, and of which they had so often and so justly complained. The necessity of procuring public-houses for the reception of soldiers on their march occasioned sundry inconveniences, which these barracks were calculated to remove: they would afford shelter, and a temporary stay, when necessary, without producing trouble and expence to innkeepers and others, who kept places of accommodation on the roads. In the event of a peace, they need not contain any larger numbers than would be requisite for the usual establishment; but while the war lasted, the indispensible necessity of holding men in readiness, in such critical times as the present, and the lesser expence at which they were kept together, with much more comfort and convenience to them