knowledged to be good and just. So often as they agitate this question, with all its cant, for the relief of 500,000 blacks; so often will I remind them of the 1,200,000 white paupers of England and Wales.. INDIA AFFAIRS. SIR,-The ministry and their friends in their opposition to the inquiry that is called for into the conduct of the late governor-general of India appear, of late, to have shifted their ground of opposition, and now resist an impeachment, not on the score of its not being warranted by the facts that have already been brought to light, but because the loss of time such a mode of inquiry would. occasion to the public functionaries, would produce greater inconvenience than the suftering Lord Wellesley's conduct to pass altogether uninvestigated. In regard to the case in question, there seems a doctrine so monstrous, and so pregnant with public mischief, that it seems matter of surprize the public should so long have failed to receive the benefit of its exposure from your nervous and luminous pen. No man can for a moment doubt that the suspension of other business, occasioned by the prosecution of an impeachment, is a great and serious grievance: but will any nian say that the case in question is a case of this nature? Will any man say that in this instance, the violation of the laws, and the ostentatious and lavish expenditure of the public money, has not been carried to a sufficient extent, to entitle the public to know, under what pretences those laws have been violated, in what degree such an expenditure has been warranted, and to be satisfied whether or no they have a right to call upon the late governor-general to refund any part of such money? We have just witnessed an impeachment, in the course of which it was said, that the non-observance of the law was the only point necessarily to be attended to, and were that satisfactorily proved, conviction must follow of course. law been observed in India? At least the suspicions in the public mind are so strong of its having been violated, as to entitle them to know, whether those suspicions are well grounded or not. The Court of Directors are, it seems, against impeachment: they have, by their organs in the House of Commons expressed, it appears, their unwillingness to carry things so far; and an opinion coming from such a source would naturally have considerable weight. But when it comes to be considered, that the expenses for carrying on the wars in India come (as you, sir, have so ably shewn) not out of the And has the revenues supplied by India, but out of the pockets of the people of Great Britain; and when it also comes to be considered, that by the system of aggrandizement carried on by the late governor-general, the patronage of the Court of Directors has proportionably been increased, it will scarcely be expected that they, deriving such advantage from the system that has of late been pursued, and that too without being at the expense of the attainment of it, should, by heartily supporting an inquiry, appear to discountenance a similar line of conduct by any future governor-general-But, sir, by stiffing the present inquiry we do not merely give impunity to one alleged delinquent, but to delinquents as unlimited in number, as in the enormity of their crimes. We cannot consider this merely as an insulated case; we cannot say, that by sitting quiet on this occasion, the only loss we shall suffer will be that of a clearly liquidable sum; a sum composed of the difference between the sum to which the expenditure ought to have been confined and the actual expenditure. No: you are offering a premium for delinquency, for delinquency in proportion to its magnitude. For what is it but saying to every future governor-general, "Whatever crime you commit, take care that you involve your conduct in a sufficient degree of complication. and we shall never be able to reach you: such is the nature of the constitution, that if the facts to prove your delinquency are intricate and difficult to be come at, we have no means of bringing you to punishment.” Upon this occasion Mr. Hasting's case has been appealed to as an unanswerable argument against the adoption of a similar mode of inquiry in the present instance. Unfortunately, Mr. Hasting's case, like the French revolution, seems likely to serve as a scarecrow to terrify all future ages from prosecuting measures for the attainment of justice. We boast of our glorious constitution: but is it not a most alarming defect in it, that the nature of it is such, as that without suffering great public inconvenience, it is impossible to bring great public offenders tojustice? Seeing this defect, the Legislature has attempted to remedy it. But you, sir, have observed, that the act having for one of its objects the providing a means for bringing East-India delinquents to justice is inadequate to its object, because the persons for constituting this judicature therein directed to be chosen out of the two Houses of Parliament, would be of the nomination of the minister. This, to a certain degree, would probably be the case.. An opinion coming from you on this, as on any other INCOME TAX. SIR; There are two objections to the Property Tax, which in my mind never can be satisfactorily apologised for; one of them for striking at the root of our independence and liberty, and the other as being notoriously unjust. The first is our being subjected to a complete disclosure of our most private concerns. To this, however obnoxious, we are now arrived, we are told, at that state, that there is an absolute necessity for our submitting to it. Be it so: but there cer subject, cannot fail to have considerable weight. But supposing an impeachment to be decided against, such a mode of inquiry as this, however insufficient it might be, would at least in some degree operate as a preservation against the mischief that no inquiry at all be calculated to occasion. The expectations of the public might not perhaps be completely disappointed by this Board of Judicature. It is scarcely to be presumed that the present ministry would display less candour than the late. During the late ministry, Mr. Whitbread was ap-tainly is no necessity for our submitting to pointed one of the managers to conduct the impeachment of Lord Melville: could the present ministry refuse the giving Mr. Paull, were he disposed to accept of it, (and the undaunted perseverance he has already displayed forces one to be persuaded he would) a place in such a Board of Judicature? Ten of this Board are to form a quorum; and among such a number (for probably no more than absolutely required by the act would actually sit), the influence of one man, were there to be but one among them, determined conscientiously to do his duty, could not fail of giving the public, if not a fair chance of seeing substantial justice administered, yet of knowing at least to whom and to what causes they were to ascribe the failure of the means of bringing an offender, 'accused of great crimes, to the punishment to which, if those crimes were satisfactorily proved, he might merit. And even the inquiry itself, were nothing to come of it, would not be altogether without its use for besides that it would shew the futility of resorting to any such means in future, and the necessity of preparing, if the nature of things admits of it, a real efficient tribunal, the vexation occasioned by such an investigation (and merely the suspicion is strong enough to warrant the infliction of such vexation) would of itself operate in the way of punish-year 10, and were he to pay the tenth part injustice, nor do I think the legislature, if they saw it in the light which I do, would impose it upon us; and I trust that the bill, which I imagine is now on its way through the House of Lords, will be amended in this particular. What I complain of, is, the making one set of the people pay two hundred times more than another; or, in other words, making them pay one-tenth of their whole property, while the other pays only one-tenth of the annual produce of their property. This is an objection which I have never yet seen fairly stated; and, I think if it had, it is impossible that the House of Commons could have authorised such a law, at least the supporters of the bill must have changed their ground, and have used very different arguments in support of it than they did. Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Fox and others, repeatedly reminded the House, and desired them to keep it constantly in view, that it was a tax not upon income, but upon property. Now, Sir, allow me to put the case, if a man who from his industry has during the year earned a sum of money amounting to 200, and that this is the whole property he has in the world (hundreds of which cases could be adduced). This man, by laying out his £200 at legal interest, would receive by the of this last sum, or £1 of property tax, be would pay equally and at the same rate with the most opulent man in the country. But what does this bill, which is now fast hasten ment, and would thereby act as a warning to all future governors-general. Providing means for investigating into the public accounts, and thereby securing the public against future loss, appears to be the ordering into a law, do? It takes from this man's of the day. Why Indian accounts are to be exempted from passing such an ordeal is not altogether clear: the most obvious, and the motive to which it will accordingly be ascribed, is party friendship; a conduct, the adherence to which is represented in private life as a virtue, but which ceases to be a virtue, when a great public mischief, or even the apprehension of a great public mischief, is the consequence of the observance of it-I am, sir, your's, &c.-DECIUS.— 26th May, 1809, hard earned property no less than £20, being one-tenth of all that he has, while from the man who has 4000 lent out upon mortgage or otherwise, and which yields him £200 a year, it takes no more than £20, being one-tenth of the annual produce of his property, leaving his capital untouched. No man surely, will say, that what you or I get by our labour is not as much our property as this man's £4000; nor can any one maintain that it is just to take from me one-tenth of my property of £200, while they take from this man a sum equal to the two-hundredth part only of his 4000. We have always been taught to look up with respect and coufidence to the dignity and justice of the House of Lords, and should they view this bill as I do, it is not possible that they can give it their sanction. If it is necessary that, besides all other taxes, we should pay to the extent of one-tenth of our property, let it be laid on all, but do not take from one set of the subjects one-tenth, while from others the two-hundreth part only is taken, and that from the most opulent.There is one part of the bill which does not fall under my objections to it, but which I notice, merely to remark upon Lord Henry Petty's answer upon this point. This is the scale of the tax, some contending that it ought to increase with the property to the extent perhaps of twenty per cent. Lord Henry's reason for all having £150 and upwards paying equally; namely, one-tenth, was, that this is proper on account of the different ranks in society, the distinctions in which ought always to be attended to. (I have not at present access to his precise words). Can his lordship from this mean, that those with small fortunes are more interested in the welfare of the state than those who have great; and, therefore, that they ought to be more heavily burdened? I confess I do not see any sound reasoning in this. I am rather inclined to think that his lordship said this, because upon some other occasion he had heard the same thing said before, and thought it would sufficiently an swer his purpose, which it certainly did. I should imagine it to be the duty and interest of the man of rank and fortune, possessed of £60,000 a year, to pay under this tax £12,000 which would leave him £48,000 a year to spend, and his estate untouched, as much as it is the duty of a man possessed of an estate of £150 a year to pay £15, which would leave him only £135 for all other taxes, and for the annual maintenance of him and his family. But, as the bill at present stands, the man of £60,000 a year will pay only 26000, leaving him the immense sum of £54,000 for his taxes and other expenses within the year.-To advise the obstinate is in vain. But, were advice to be listened to, and if it be really necessary to raise annually the ten millions proposed to be got by this bill, I would decidedly recommend at once to abandon this abominable tax, borrow the ten millions each year as we used to do of old, and levy by taxes for payment of the interest. (Even without any new tax this interest might be discharged, were the East India Company to pay the £500,000 an nually due by them to the country). Unless this good old plan be followed, I am much afraid that the discontent occasioned by this inquisitorial, unjust, and obnoxious law, will daily increase, till the British spirit can no longer endure it. No wise ministers for a paltry sum of money, should put to risk the unanimity of the great body of the people, particularly at a period when our whole support is so necessary. Little do they know, while cheering and congratulating each other upon the excellent qualities, and great benefits to be derived from this law, the real sentiments of the people upon it, nor are the many groans and execrations which it occasions communicated to them. If they were, I am fully convinced that both the proposers and supporters of the bill, would see the propriety of instantly arresting the further progress of it.I am, with great esteem, your obedient servant,-D.Edinburgh, May 31, 1806. INCOME AND BREWING TAXES. SIR-Entertaining as I do the highest opinion of your very valuable Political Register, I am induced to request the insertion of a few remarks, not only on the oppressive tendency of the income tax, but also on that of private brewing, should you think them worthy of a place therein.Before I proceed, it appears to me necessary to question the accuracy of your correspondent Lex, who, in your last number appeals to you, by asking you whether landed property, houses, &c. have not within the last twenty years, advanced in value at least one-third; he presumes to think, not only that you will admit it to be really the fact, but that every body in answering his question, whether the war taxes together with the depreciation of money, exceed the above one-third rise in landed property, will say no.-Now, Sir, as a proprietor of land, I must not only be permitted to doubt, but to express my decided opinion to be, that land has not in general increased in value equal to that proportion, and further, that the depreciation of money, added to the increased expense of necessary reparations belonging to a landed estate, are fully equal to the rise that has actually taken place in the value thereof. With regard to houses, from all the circumstances that have come within my knowledge, I have always understood that the renis, so far from increasing in the degree above mentioned, have actually decreased, and from the circumstance of the enormous window duty (nearly amounting to a rent) to which the Occupier is subject. When I reflect on the comparison of the two widows, in a former the rate of charge on the rich, agreeably to every principle of equity and honour, would have an equalizing tendency with regard to the different classes of society. I am very much mistaken if the pain that all commissioners, who are independent men, will experience in thus reducing the property of their poor neighbours, is not considered by them as a sufficient embarrassment to compel them to withdraw from such a scene of oppressive taxation; and should it unfortunately happen, that the people have nobody to look to in the management of the taxes, but those who are the tools of government, I shall tremble for the fate of my country.With regard to the duty on beer brewed in private families, the first observation that will naturally strike an Englishman, is, the hint thrown out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the obvious method would number, I am inclined to think that your sentiments correspond with mine, and that you will think with me, that if the gay lady had expended no more of her income from the funds, than the landed widow could af ford to do, from the same capital in land, that the saving from the former would certainly, have increased in a greater degree than that of land has done. I have no other motive for these observations than that of placing the landed interest on a footing with that of the fund holder and mortgagee, and I have formed a most erroneous opinion, if the clear income of the two latter, from a capital of the same amount, is not nearly double; if so, why wish to favour one part of the community at the expense of the other? In these times of public difficulty all ought to bear the burthen equally, of whatever description their property may be. All I contend for at present is equity in adjust-be to carry the excise into every private faing this oppressive tax, which in the plan proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting small incomes, does not appear to have been attended to, or he never under any circumstances could have proposed to take from the small income of £100, so large a proportion as a 10th, nor could he have expected that an income of £50 should contribute to the support of the state, when it must be admitted by every impartial man, that in these times it is barely sufficient to provide necessaries for a moderate sized family. The principles upon which Mr. Fox argued in support of this tax (as reported in the public papers) is what I little expected ever to hear fall from the lips of this liberal, enlightened, and humane statesman, for it seems to convey an idea that every thing might be taken from the person of small income, but what was actually necessary for his existence; in short, so that he was not driven to public or private charity for support; this is elucidated by stances, that if a person possessed of 1000, from which he derived £30 a year, was called upon for the tax, it could not be said that with a capital of £1000 he could set up a title to your charitable assistance; and he further said, that to levy the tax on this description of people could not embarrass commissioners. Shocking reflection! The honest, industrious, saving individual, who, willing to lay by a part of his earnings for his support in old age, should be thus reduced to the necessity of taking every year, a part of his little capital to supply the exigencies of the state; and whilst this oppression is exercised on the most valuable part of the community, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that to increase mily, but on account of the odium that his lordship confesses would attach on such a measure, permission is given to enter into a composition by way of assessed taxes. The bare mention of such a detestable proposition coming from a quarter that I so highly respect, I must confess fills my mind with consternation; I have, however, too high an opinion of the present ministers, to think that they will ever consent to carry it into effect; for where are our boasted liberties to be looked for, should the homes of Englishmen be made familiar to the inspection of excisemen?—This odious tax is nothing less than an additional burthen on the barley counties, which will scarcely be felt in those where cider is in general use, and with what propriety this proposition comes, when the duty on malt has been so lately doubled, is very far beyond my comprehension. The duty also of 10s. per bushel appears to me enormous, and when the different materials of home brewed, and brewers' beer is considered, I presume the balance will be very much in favour of the public brewer; I cannot, however, for a moment suppose that this truly respectable nobleman would wish to benefit the public brewer at the expense of the public at large. I am free to grant that the imposing of taxes in a country already so drained, is a most difficult and odious task, yet I cannot but think that there is one privilege enjoyed by our representatives, as well as the peers, which at this time of public distress and difficulty, it would reflect much honour on them to give up; it would, I presume, produce a very considerable sum, and could not be attended with even a serious inconvenience to any one individual; it is obvious that I allude to the pri vilege of franking. There is a description "of property, which if taken proper advantage of might be converted to the most es sential service, both of his Majesty and the people; I mean the sale of the crown lands. In viewing this subject there does not appear to me one single objection, and the benefits are so many and visible, that it does strike me as strange that no one of our great patriots (to whom the country are now looking up with doubt as to their views) has preferred this measure, to one so ruinous and oppressive as the tax on private brewing; a measure that would add so essentially to the produce of the necessaries of life, by bringing into cultivation large tracts of good land, and at a time too, when we seem to be shut out from the Continent for supply. One' very great advantage that this proposition possesses is, that instead of considering it a Lurthen, the people would in parting with their money for the support of government receive an actual valuable consideration in return. I really cannot discover any possible objection to this proposition, unless the depriving the minister of the day of the of inficencing gentlemen by grants of these lands, or the giving salaries, taken out of our pockets by taxes, to persons for the supposed management of them, can be considered as such.I ain, Sir, your most obedient, servant.-AN ENGLISHMAN.-Godalming, May 22, 1906. BREWING TAX. power SIR; -There is something so revolting to the feelings of an Englishman, in the es-. tablishment of a private excise, that it is presumed Lord H. Petty will gladly adopt any other mode of collecting the tax, proposed to be laid upon private brewers, that may be less obnoxious to the public than the domiciliary visit of the exciseman. The good old saying," That every Englishman's house "is his Castle, not to be attacked or violated "except in cases of crime," is deeply rooted in the minds of the country gentlemen and yeomanry of this kingdom. Their disgust is already vehemently excited, at the bare proposition of this abominable inquisition, and their decided hostility is not to be braved with impunity by any minister. "Is it to be born," they exclan," that we must " surrender up the dearest of the rights bequeathed to us by our forefathers, or sub"mit to pay an exorbitant, an unequal, a disgraceful commutation. And, who are "the men who demand from us this sacri"fice? Those whom we have been accus"tomed to look to as the champions of qar liberties, the best friends of the peo 66 66 66 ple. This too," they add, " is one of the first measures of their administration. "Where will this system end? The step' "from the cellar to the parlour is a very "short one; and in the next year a government appraiser treading upon the heels of "the exciseman, will be introduced into every room, and secret chamber of our houses, to assess the value of our furniture, our moveables and stock of every` kind."-Such, but clothed in moderate terms, is the language of every man residing in the country; it would be indecent to add the invectives, the execrations, the comparisons to our French neighbours, which are heard on every side. If this measure be less unpopular in the metropolis, and other large towns, where individuals seldom have the conveniencies requisite for private brewing, and of course will not be affected by it in their purses; it is because unfortunately in the evil days on which we are fallen, the selfish principle is too apt to prevail over the patriotic, and makes men blind to consequences. The inhabitants of manufacturing towns too, are led to accede to this odious imposition, from a naturally entertained apprehension, that if this tax be laid aside the substitute will probably affect soine branch of trade with which they are connected. Shutting their eyes therefore, to the extent of the threatened evil, they affect to be surprised at the indignation of their country neighbours, telling them that if they are averse to the exciseman's visits, they may avail themselves of the modifications proposed. But vain is the attempt to soften down a measure so radically bad, by the deJusive and treacherous palliative of a commutation. No modification, no qualification whatever, can ever render it palatable to the free and independent yeomanry of the kingdom, they know that it is decidedly hostile to the whole spirit of the British constitution; and, they feel that if it is once adopted all their honest pride is gone, a vital stab is given to their liberties. As to the proposed commutation they turn from it with horror, they dread, and not without reason, that it is only an artifice to make the measure pass, and that it will subsequently be found convenient to withdraw it. What, it may now be asked, will some members of his Majesty's present government have to urge in their defence, when their declamations on a former occasion (a measure of somewhat similar nature being under discussion) are brought up in judgment against them? How will they explain away the doctrines they have held concerning the right of resistance? But, let it be hoped they will |