512 
Chincfe Empire, boatts, not without fome 
reafon, the fuperiority of his compilation 
over other abridgements which have been 
publithed of Sir George Staunton’s work : 
the “Differtation on the Antiquityof China’ 
is ftated to have been communicated tothe 
editor by a writer of celebrity, who has 
paid more than ordinary atrention to the 
Chinefe hiftory, and who wil!, in a fhort 
time, favour the world with the refult of 
his obfervations and enquiries. From Hif- 
tory, we proceed, according to our wonted 
arrangement, to 
FINANCE. 
The inequitable progreffion of Mr. 
Pitt’s affeflment upon income is fo ge- 
-nerally felt and acknowledged, that it ts 
hardly worth while to revive the fubje& : 
but in a retrofpeét of literature we cannot 
avoid noticing Mr. Frenp’s Principles of 
Taxation, in which work the author has 
difplayed this irregularity with peculiar 
clearnefs ; it may be feen from the fol- 
lowing view of it, where the upper line 
gives the annual incomes, and the under 
line gives the fcale of progreffion ufed in 
the taxing of them: 
Ann. Inc. 60, 70, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350. 
Prog. Tax. 1, 2, 5, 15; 40, 50, 60, 70. 
Thus, an income of £.70, pays double; 
-of £.100, five times; of £. 150, fifteen 
times, what an income-of £.60 pays, and 
foon. The irregularity is moft ftriking 
in the three incomes of £. 150, £. 200, and 
£.250, where the correfponding rates of 
taxation, are ‘15,40, and so. “hus,” 
fays Mr. Frend, ‘if an induftrious man of 
£-«50 a year increafes his income to £.200, 
he increafes his tax in the proportion of 3 
to 8 : if an induftrious man of £.200a year 
increafes his income to £.250, he increafes 
-his tax only in the proportion of 4 to 5.” 
The abfurdity in this inftance is obvious, 
nor Is it difficult to guefs the reafon why 
Mr. Pitt did not carry his feale higher ; 
that 1s to fay, why he adopted a common 
progreffion for all incomes of above £.200 
a year, and a peculiar progrefficn for thofe 
below it. ‘ Had he aéted upon thofe 
principles, which it would be ridiculous to 
fuppofe he did not entertain in his clofer,” 
fays Mr. F. ** the rich_muft have driven 
him headlong from his ftation.” 
The Speeches are publifhed of Lord 
AUCKLAND and Sir JoHN SINCLAIR, 
on the income bill: they are neither of 
them to be diftinguithed for oratorical ex- 
cellence, or argumentative acutenefs. 
Much difcuffion. has been excited by 
Mr. Prtv’s Income Bill: we cannot enu- 
merate the many pamphlets which haye 
RetrofpeF of Domeftie Literature...Finances 
been written on the fubjeét; but it would 
be improper to omit the mention of two ~ 
anonymous productions, both of which have - 
confiderable merit; the one is entitied, 
Thoughis on Taxation ; in the Courfe of which 
the Policy of a Tax on Income is impartially 
invefigated; the other, Obfervutions on the 
Taxation of Property. 
Mr. Abam’s Plan for raifing the Taxes 
impartially, and almoft free of Expence in 
Time of War, evinces that its author is by 
no means a novice in financial fpeculation ; 
be thus {peaks of the nationai Debt; 
** Great Britain 1s frequently reprefented 
by the figure of a lion: in allufion to that 
fimile, the caufes for apprehenfion ftrike 
me in the following light: the invafion is 
a feratch that muft aroufe the lion; the 
national debt is an internal gangrene, con- 
tinually gnawing the vitals. and maft in 
the end deftroy the animal.” 
Mr. Cooxe’s Jeff of Taxation is a 
pamphlet which fhews fome financial 
knowledge: the bafis of taxation: is here 
ftated to be the value of property in the 
poffeffion of individuals. To afcertain this 
value, property in general is divided into 
two heads: namely, permanent property 
fubjeét to cafualties ; and induftry in la- 
bour, trade, or commerce: it is evidently 
equitable that the latter fhould be more 
hghtly taxed than the former. a 
Mr. KInGsBuRy, in his Addrefs te the 
People of Great Britain, on the Subje? of 
Ar. Pitt's propofed Tax on Income, &e. 
betrays much violence: his reprobation of 
the unequal cperation of the tax, however, 
muft not be objeéted againft. 
So numerous are the plans which have 
been offered, with very fanguine confic 
dence, to the premier’s confideration for 
liquidating the national debt, that one 
would think it a moft eafy achievement : 
Mr. HeNry Martins Brrp, in the 
Propofals which he has publifhed for pay 
ing off, the whole of the nationa! debt, and 
for reducing taxes immediately, tells us 
nothing more is requifite than to take a 
twelfth of every man’s property ! Mr. Bird 
is quite right in anticipating an immediate 
reduction of taxes whea this plan hail be 
adopted: take away the means of paying 
them, and taxes will foon be reduced. Mr. 
B. prognofticates many evils to the flate if 
his propofals fhall be rejeéted ; the mea- 
fure of mifery, however, will not be filled 
up before a peace is concluded, and if the 
minifter were to take counfel from our 
author, the prefent gereration, at leaft, 
would have but little reafon for apprehen- 
fion, for he very gravely hopes that Mr. 
Pitt will “ advifé his Majefty and the na- 
tsOR 
