Commons Sitting of 21 April 1815

POSTAGE OF EAST INDIA LETTERS.
Mr. Tierneypresented a Petition from the merchants, ship-owners, and others, interested in the trade of India, praying relief in a matter of which the petitioners complained relative to the postage of letters to India. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to an Act which had passed last session, subjecting letters sent to India with a charge of postage. Up to the time of the passing of that Act, the letters to India had always been carried out by the regular ships of the India Company, which were all known to have their voyages ascertained and fixed, and by which of course those who had friends, relatives, or commercial connexions in India could be certain of their letters being carried safe and direct to the place they wished to send them; or if their correspondents should happen to be in the interior of the country, they were sure their letters would be landed at the port

767]
to which the ship was dispatched, and from thence forwarded immediately to those to whom they were directed. By the Act in question, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, always feelingly alive to the increase of the revenue, had provided, that in future all letters should be liable to a certain rate of postage to be paid for each letter, which was to be conveyed in the best manner the Post-office could find out; for there was no regular mode even yet established by which there was the smallest certainty of such letters thus charged reaching the place of their destination. On the payment of one third part of the postage thus fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, such persons as wished to write to India were allowed to send their letters by any ships which they could themselves find out were destined to the part of India to which they had occasion to write, or to the nearest port, from which they must trust to chance, whether their letters might ever reach the place to which they were addressed. Country ships were now almost the only medium through which letters could be conveyed, and nothing could be more uncertain than that conveyance. It happened frequently, that the owners of a country ship advertised their intention of sailing to a certain settlement; but before their departure, and after great numbers of letters had been sent on board them, addressed to persons residing in that settlement—for instance, Bombay—the owners of the ship, from intelligence in the mean time received, or from various concurring circumstances, were obliged to change the first destination, and the ship was sent to Madras: perhaps she would arrive at the latter place just before the monsoons set in, and then she could not leave Madras, or at least could not get round to Bombay in less than three or four months; so that all intelligence of a commercial nature was rendered perfectly nugatory and useless, and those which bore the affectionate effusions and communications of relatives or friends, were in a state of the greatest doubt and uncertainty of ever being received at all by those who would naturally be waiting for and expecting them with the keenest solicitude and anxiety. This was the awkward and extraordinary situation of hundreds of parents, relatives, and commercial communicants, in return for being charged with the postage of their letters, and from which they now by
[768
their petition prayed the House to relieve them. It was impossible to enter into all the minutiae of calculation which might have influenced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to increase the revenue of the Post-office by such uncommon ingenuity;—but he believed it would be thought extremely hard by the people of this country—for instance, those residing at Greenwich, Richmond, Putney, and many other towns at a greater distance where no mail-coaches travel,—if, in addition to an extra charge on their letters, he was to deprive them of the post-boys with their horns and ponies, or that by a payment of one-third of such postage he should allow them to send their letters by any means which they might themselves find out. This was exactly the case with those who had correspondents in India, and who might now be in a manner said to be actually cut off from all communication by letters that could by any means be depended on. Having stated these circumstances, he would not longer take up the time of the House. There were several gentlemen present who were better acquainted with the circumstances of the case than he was, and who were infinitely more deeply interested in the business. In fact, he was no way concerned in it; but as he had been applied to for the purpose of presenting the petition, he felt it his duty to make the short statement he had submitted to the attention of the House; and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would so far consider the hardships of the case as to suspend this postage and restriction in sending out letters to India, at least till the Post-office could perfect the plan they had in contemplation, by which correspondence might be conveyed to India with as much certainty and security as it was to any or all of our colonies in distant parts of the globe.
The Petition being brought up and read, he moved that it do lie on the table.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that he hoped very soon to be able to present to the House some provisions for the conveyance of letters to India, which would give that great branch of the empire the same facilities of correspondence as were enjoyed by our other colonial possessions. He hoped that gentlemen who might be concerned in this question, would suspend their opinions till the measure should be produced.
Mr. Finlayobserved, that we had at

769]
present no means of communication with the foreign colonies, except by merchant ships; he was convinced that the commerce of the country had materially suffered by this Act, and that it would be better to repeal it altogether.
Mr. Forbesspoke in favour of the prayer of the petition, and urged the illiberality of subjecting persons with small incomes, as were most of the families whose children were in India, to the payment of heavy postage, in order to correspond with them.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that certainly revenue was a great object with the Post-office; but it was unquestionably a matter of the greatest injustice, that persons so deeply interested as those were who had connexions of interest or affection in so distant a part as India, should not only be subjected to the many grievous inconveniences and anxieties they must of course suffer, but that they should be made to pay for it into the bargain. He mentioned an instance within his own knowledge, of a clergyman with a large family, a friend of his, and a considerable part of whose family was in India, who had mentioned to him the numerous vexations and anxious doubts he had suffered from this novel and unmatured plan of raising a new branch of revenue; and could not help giving it as his opinion, that it was highly unjust that the Post-office, which was originally instituted for the purposes of public convenience, should be converted into a mere instrument of revenue.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, that India was the only part of our colonial possessions with the communications and correspondence of which he was at all acquainted, and he thought it was not only unjust to charge a rate of postage on letters for which no certain conveyance was yet provided, though the act had passed nearly a twelvemonth, but it was also extremely cruel and impolitic to cut off the means of conveying affectionate remembrances to those who had left their native country, and would be a means of cutting asunder the knot which, as long as it remained entire, could not fail to make the natale solum the grand object of affectionate recollection, and so place the mother country as the object of most pleasing remembrance, while absent, and of the most ardent wishes to return to it as soon as circumstances and opportunity would permit. He therefore hoped the postage would be suspended till the plan
[770
and accommodation could be made ready. As it was situated at present, he repeated it was both impolitic and unjust, and tended to tear asunder the tenderest and most powerful feelings of human nature.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, it was premature to judge of the operation of the Act as yet. The plan was in great forwardness, and would be completed as expeditiously as possible.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. After which Mr. Tierney then presented another Petition, from the parents, friends, and relatives of those persons who bad quitted this country to reside in India; which was also ordered to lie on the table.

NELSON ESTATE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the House do at its rising adjourn to Monday.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, before the question was put, he begged leave to call the attention of the House to a subject which he thought deserving their consideration. It was well known to the House, that a large sum of money had long since been voted by the House, for the purpose of providing a suitable mansion, &c. for the heirs of the late lord Nelson: that such money had been long ready; but a proper estate, &c. could not be fixed on. Lately, however, it seemed that a place which was deemed in every respect answerable for the purpose had been agreed upon by the commissioners, and it was hinted that an additional sum of 9,000 l. would be wanting to complete the purchase. He had been informed that within a very short time a memorial had been presented to the Treasury, from a Mr. Kemp, stating, that he conceived a purchase had been made of an estate, mansion-house, &c. which belonged to him in the county of Suffolk, which had been viewed by the present lord Nelson, who had taken down Mr. Bolton with him, for the purpose of ascertaining its value, and that both of them having approved of the whole of the premises, the price had been finally fixed, and the sum was somewhat within, that granted by Parliament for the purpose of remunerating the services of the gallant officer on whom the title of lord Nelson had been conferred. He thought, therefore, the House should hesitate a little before they would sanction a grant for an additional 9,000 l. when a claim was put in for the money agreed on as a purchase of an estate agreeable to the present lord Nelson and his advisers, and which

771]
would come within the sum granted by Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he would explain the subject to the House on a future day.

TREATY BETWEEN THE ALLIES SIGNED AT VIENNA.
On the motion, that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next,
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that feeling as he did, from a consideration of all the circumstances, from a consideration of the alleged parties, from a consideration of the supposed conditions, that the paper which had that day been published in a partial manner, in the Times, purporting to be a Treaty between the Allied Powers, signed at Vienna on the 25th March, could be no other than a forgery; he nevertheless could not refrain from asking the noble lord the question. If it should turn out not to be so, this most extraordinary fact would appear—that it was actually signed at the time when the noble lord declared in that House, that the question of peace or war was wholly undecided!
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he certainly felt it his duty to avoid, if possible entering into an argument on subjects which could not with propriety be yet brought before the House. But with respect to the question of the hon. gentleman, if he conceived that it was his duty to offer an advice to the Crown on the subject to which it related, and intended to bring that subject before the House in a regular way, he (lord Castlereagh) should consider that circumstance as a justification for his giving an answer to the question.
Mr. Whitbread.— Then the inference from what has fallen just now from the noble lord is, that the Treaty which has appeared in one of the papers of this day is a genuine Treaty?
Lord Castlereagh.—Does the hon. gentleman mean to say, that it is his intention to call the attention of the House to it? If so, I have no hesitation in admitting that a Treaty was signed at Vienna on the 25th of March; and that the newspaper alluded to by the hon. gentleman, with some inaccuracies, contains the substance of that Treaty. The Treaty, however, is not yet ratified by all of the Allied Powers, and therefore not in a state to be submitted to Parliament. But if the hon. gentleman thinks proper to call the attention of Parliament to it in a regular way, I shall cer-
[772
tainly consider it my duty to be prepared to meet him in any discussion on the subject.
Mr. WhitbreadThe noble lord has said that the Treaty is not yet ratified by all the Allied Powers; but we find now that the substance of it is true. The noble lord has told us that there are inaccuracies; but then he has not told us what the nature of these inaccuracies are; whether they are all inaccuracies of language. I shall pause till I see what these inaccuracies are; because I cannot conceive how any person, if the Treaty which we have seen is accurate in substance, could possibly put his hand to it. I would ask those who expect that we should abstain from all argument on the present occasion, to read that Treaty.
Lord Castlereagh.—I think that I have shown a sufficient disposition to candour in my conduct towards the hon. gentleman this evening, however much he may be indisposed to give me, or those who act with me, credit for candour on any occasion. I have told the hon. gentleman that if he can show that any practical purpose can possibly be answered by it, I shall be prepared to answer his question. But when I have given him this answer, upon what principle does he conceive himself entitled, contrary to all the rules of Parliament, to enter into a premature discussion, or endeavour to throw out calumnies not supported by argument, against any proceedings of which he disapproves?—I certainly consider such a mode of proceeding a gross violation of propriety.
Mr. Whitbread.—The noble lord has thought proper to call me to order, in a speech which is itself extremely disorderly. I contend, that I have a perfect right to deliver my sentiments on this subject, on the question of the adjournment of the House. I have a right to express my approbation or disapprobation of the Treaty, on the avowal of it by the noble lord, and to oppose the adjournment of the House, if I think proper. The noble lord has accused me of making use of the language of calumny. It is impossible to speak of the proceedings of the Congress in terms of calumny. I might, if I thought proper, move, that the House should sit to-morrow. But as the noble lord has avowed the Treaty, I am rather disposed to put the question—That the supplies be withheld, which by our former votes we expressed our resolution to confide to the Crown. I wish farther to ask the noble

773]
lord, whether the Treaty has not been ratified by England, if it has not been ratified by all the other allied Powers? Because the duke of Wellington, if the Treaty has not been ratified by England, must have acted on his own authority. We ought to know the instructions which have been given to the duke of Wellington—or whether he has acted without any instructions at all. The noble lord has acknowledged, that the Treaty which we have seen is substantially correct, and he has also owned that it contains inaccuracies. What sort of inaccuracies are they? Are they inaccuracies of language? ["Substantial inaccuracies," said lord Castlereagh, across the table.] No; it seems they were inaccuracies of another kind. Will the noble lord give us the Treaty, or tell us whether it has been ratified by Great Britain? Will he put me and the House in a condition of knowing how much we are to except from, or add to, this Treaty, which we have seen in an article from Vienna in one of the papers? I conceive, Sir, that my conduct has not appeared to you as disorderly, from your not interrupting me. I conceive that I have a right to move, that the House should not adjourn even till Monday next, till the House should come to a knowledge of this document.
Lord Castlereagh.—The hon. gentleman may bring forward his motion as early as he thinks it his duty to do so. I have no right to complain of him for this; but what I complain of, is his attempt to enter into that sort of unsupported observation which cannot be said to be a fair examination of the subject, and which can lead to no practical good. The hon. gentleman has asked me, whether the Treaty has been ratified on the part of Great Britain? I have no hesitation in returning for answer to the hon. gentleman, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, with an explanation of one of the articles, did intend to ratify this Treaty with the Allied Powers.
Mr. Whitbread.—I wish, Sir, to put this question in a shape that the House may take it into consideration without delay; because, by adopting a different line of conduct, we may find, when we wish to express our disapprobation, that it is too late, when we are already involved in an unfortunate and calamitous war. Does the noble lord intend to involve the country in a war first, and then ask the House to strengthen the hands of Government? Our situation will be very different between one alternative and the other. I am sure
[774
the House will not consent to vote any supplies on the principle of this Treaty; but I am not sure, when we are once engaged in war, even under this foolish Treaty, that we shall not be disposed to grant them.
Lord Archibald Hamiltonasked, whether any discussion now could be productive of greater harm than what had been done by the appearance of such documents as the public had lately seen? What would be the use of the information promised by the noble lord, when the country was already involved in war? No discussion could be so injurious to the noble lord as the belief entertained by the public, that his conduct was such as it appeared to have been from these documents, which had created a disagreeable impression against him throughout the whole country.
Mr. Ponsonby.—I am not sure, from what fell from the noble lord, whether this subject is soon to be brought forward in such a shape as will afford us an opportunity of discussing it; for if I am silent upon the present occasion, it is from the circumstance of the subject not yet being before us in such a shape that we can take parliamentary notice of it. Is it the intention of the noble lord to bring the Treaty soon before us in a shape that we can take parliamentary notice of it? If such is not his intention, I must proceed to some other course. I do not choose to trust myself at this moment with the expression of the sentiments which arose in my mind when I read this instrument. I certainly did not think it was genuine. But if the noble lord will not bring the business before us in a shape that will enable us to discuss it in a parliamentary-way, we must proceed to its discussion out of the parliamentary way. There is not a man in the House who has read that paper, who will not say that the House of Commons will abandon its duty, if it does not take the earliest opportunity of offering its advice to the Crown on this subject.
Lord Castlereagh.—It is not out of the course of parliamentary usage, to bring forward a motion for the discussion of this Treaty, in the shape in which the right hon. gentleman finds it; and Parliament may, if it thinks proper, give its advice to the Crown, on the supposition of the Crown being on the point of entering into any engagement which it may consider injurious to the interests of the country. What I mean to say is this, that it would be improper in me to bring the document

775]
before Parliament in the unratified shape in which it is, and when it is not binding on those Powers who are the parties to it. This would be taking the sense of Parliament on a step which could not come properly before it, in relief of our own responsibility. His Majesty's ministers, however, take a more correct and constitutional line. We have obtained the sanction of Parliament for the adoption of precautionary measures, but no sanction for any other measures: and for these we rest on our own responsibility. But it will be allowed that it is always competent to the ministers of the Crown to advise war if they think proper, subject to their own responsibility. His Majesty's ministers would be acting in a most unconstitutional, and not only in an unconstitutional, but a pusillanimous manner, if they endeavoured to extort from Parliament in an imperfect state of information, a sanction for those measures which they might ultimately adopt. But if any honourable member conceives that advice ought to be given to the Crown, not to act in a manner which he conceives is likely to compromise the country, and lead to measures injurious to our own interest and the general interest of Europe, it is certainly competent to such hon. gentleman to raise the question in the House, and to bring it under discussion. But it is not competent to his Majesty's ministers to take the initiative of bringing it before Parliament, and of taking the sense of Parliament on imperfect information.
Mr. Whitbread.—The noble lord has used a new word, which he seems to have borrowed from Congress; for I do not recollect to have ever heard the word 'initiative' made use of in this House before. If he will not take the initiative, as he is pleased to call it, in this measure; in the choice of difficulties to which we are reduced from that circumstance, knowing, as we do, the deep plunge made by his Majesty's Government towards war, without the question being regularly before it, the House must pause before it grants any further supply for what are called defensive preparations, when it knows that the Government will convert those measures of defence into measures of offence—and into a war which will be prosecuted not only in the most disgraceful, but the most hopeless manner. My duty calls on me to propose an adjournment of the House, till the noble lord is able to come before us with the terms of this Treaty; and I hope Parliament will
[776
not be guilty of such indiscretion, as to suffer the noble lord to proceed until he has plunged the country into a situation without remedy—when he will come before us with the whole weight of his responsibility, and which responsibility, I hope, the House will make him feel is not a mere parliamentary term, but a word of real weight; and that after talking of it, and vapouring about it for years, the time is now come when we shall turn the name into the thing, and make him feel what it really is. Under these circumstances, my proper course is, in a constitutional and parliamentary manner, to prevent the supplies from being granted, till I know the situation in which the country is.
Lord Castlereagh.—The hon. gentleman will never find me disposed to shrink from any responsibility which I have incurred. With respect to the course of the hon. member, I must say that it certainly does not consist in arming the executive government with those powers which are necessary for it in the present arduous situation of affairs. If the hon. gentleman is not disposed to concur in those measures which his Majesty's Government have thought advisable in the present situation of the country, it is not on the subject of supply that he ought to raise the question—he ought to raise it on its own merits. If the hon. gentleman is determined to persist in this course, it is a proof that he shrinks from the merits of the question, a [Hear! Hear! from the Opposition.] I repeat it again—it is a proof of his shrinking from the merits of the question— while I, on the contrary, have this night afforded him every facility for bringing the question forward in a regular manner. Every person must be convinced that the Treaty cannot be laid before the House in its present state by his Majesty's ministers, without their acting in a manner inconsistent with the duty which they owe to their country; and I consider, therefore, the measure which the hon. gentleman has chosen to pursue, with the view of obstructing his Majosty's Government, as only granting with a bad grace what must at last be granted, and rendering that strength which the House have committed to the Crown inadequate to its object. If the hon. gentleman is sincere in the intention which he has announced of impeaching me; and if he wishes at the same time to strengthen the Executive, let him bring the question forward on its own merits; but let him not make this a pretext for

777]
weakening the arms of the Executive Government in the arduous crisis in which the country is at present placed.
Mr. Whitbreadadded, that when the supplies were granted, both the noble lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that there was an alternative of peace or war; but it was now found that there was no alternative; and if any farther support were given, it must be for offensive operations of the most desperate nature. The ministers who could be parties to such a treaty as this, he would no longer consent to entrust with the supplies of the country. He denied that the noble lord had given him any facilities; but the House must go to the discussion of the question, trusting to be informed by the noble lord what difference there was between the real and the unauthenticated copy of the Treaty. It was not to the noble lord that he should go for advice how to conduct himself in Parliament, at the time when he should wish the House of Commons to pass on the noble lord that sentence which his conduct had justified.
Lord Castlereaghdeclared, that he had no wish to protract this conversation; but with respect to that species of taunt which had been so often thrown out against himself and the rest of his Majesty's ministers, he should only say, that whenever there was not a notice of censure against him entered on the books of that House, he should feel perfectly satisfied that, in the hon. member's mind, there was no chance of making such a motion with the least possibility of success. He would put it to the House whether they ought to listen to such opinions as had been that night stated.
Sir John Newport.—I had a right when I dissented from ray hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) on a late occasion, to consider that there was still an alternative left—that war was not then determined on;—but I now find out that I am duped by the noble lord, and that to the noble lord I ought not to have given credence; for the question which he told me was pending, was actually determined. The noble lord tells us now, that the Treaty, with some substantial inaccuracies, is correct. He now says, that we ought not to refuse the supplies which were given for an alternative, but which alternative did not exist. I cannot very well conceive what the noble lord means by using the words "not shrinking from responsibility," because he is certainly shrinking from responsi-
[778
bility if he does not give in this document. When will the noble lord give it to us? When it will be too late for us to save the country from destruction—from a renewal of a war which has sunk our finances to the state in which they now are—which has ground to the dust every class of the community. Then the noble lord will give it when it is too late. As to the boasted responsibility of the noble lord at such a period, it would be nothing worth. What compensation would it be then to the country, even if we were to follow the noble lord to the block? Before war is determined on, the House ought to have an opportunity of interposing their advice. The course of my hon. friend is perfectly regular and constitutional. When Parliament has not sufficient documents to enable it to form a judgment, it is the only legal mode of preventing an abuse of power. When one sees ministers treating in a double sense, with the public—when we see ourselves on the point of a renewal of the calamities which were brought on us by the war of 1793, and involved again by the very same acts which were then practised; a war which has reduced every man's income to a third of its value, and then are told of the responsibility of ministers, it is impossible to preserve our tempers. Sir, I scorn such a responsibility. My hon. friend, whom the noble lord has thought fit to advise, has sat in this House infinitely longer than the noble lord himself; and he has done the duty of the country, unpaid, unsalaried, und unstipended, and the love and gratitude of his country will follow him wherever he goes.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he should not have troubled the House any further, if particular pains had not been taken to misrepresent what he had said. The noble lord repeated what he had said, as to the course that was open to the hon. gentleman, of giving advice to the Crown; and added, that he would peremptorily deny that any thing like delusion had been practised by his Majesty's ministers on a former occasion. They gave no opinion to the House on the degree of probability as to war of peace; but they had said, that the case-was of such a nature as rendered it necessary for them to come to Parliament on their own responsibility. He would also deny that even now there was no alternative. The principle on which ministers placed the alternative was, that they would be mainly influenced by what they found

779]
to be the sentiments of the Powers with whom we were in alliance. We ought not to consider that an instrument under one set of circumstances, necessarily involved the same conclusions under another. At the proper time he would readily state all that would be necessary for his justification.
Mr. Whitbread.—I wish to say one word more. A single ray of light has broken in upon us from the speech of the noble lord. The noble lord says, that when he sees no notice on the book, he shall always conclude that I have no grounds for censure. I may have sufficient grounds for censure; but I have also had sufficient experience not to adopt such a measure, knowing as I do the extent of the influence of the Crown.
Mr. Methuenwas proud to declare, without any particular partiality for Ministers, that this was a time when every man ought to join heart and hand in their support. He firmly believed that the noble lord enjoyed the entire confidence of the country; and he also believed that that confidence would not in any degree be shaken by the conduct of the gentlemen opposite.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he could not follow the hon. gentleman who spoke last, in bestowing his approbation alike under any circumstances without any exception, and without any guard. Here he begged to be understood as differing from him. He agreed in the position, that all hearts and hands should be united on an occasion like the present; but then our hearts and hands ought to be guided by reason and conscience. The noble lord himself had advanced what was little less than treason to the constitution, when he talked of the responsibility of ministers. The House of Commons were a great council to give advice, and they were not to be precluded from the exercise of that right under any idea of the ministers responsibility. But the noble lord's mode of arguing had a tendency to destroy all free and deliberate discussion. What would be the consequence? How could any member bring forward a motion on the subject? The noble lord would move an Address to lay a copy of the Convention before the House. Now what was the Convention? According to the noble lord, the one we had seen contained substantial inaccuracies. This document appeared so doubtful in its meaning as to require an explanation on the part of the Crown of Great Britain, to
[780
take away its dangerous qualities. Now what was it that the noble lord proposed? He proposed nothing less than to take away all equality of discussion—to subject his opponents to bring forward a motion on grounds which might not be correct; and to give himself an opportunity of taking us by surprise, and obtaining the House's approbation of that Convention, on a statement made by him in the course of debate; which approbation might afterwards influence their future judgment. He begged to ask the noble lord, if the matter was to be fairly discussed, whether it would not be much more desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the Treaty in a correct state. The noble lord might lay it informally upon the table, as he had done the papers relating to Genoa and Sweden. The Treaty of Chaumont had also been laid in substance before the House, although it had not been ratified, and the same course might now be pursued. This was the fair and only way of meeting the question, unless the noble lord meant to obtain the approbation of the House by stratagem. If, as the noble lord bad said, the genuine Treaty had been so misrepresented, was it not the more necessary that a correct statement of its contents should be furnished? He therefore put it sincerely and respectfully to the noble lord, whether, even for his own sake, it would not be advisable to produce an accurate statement of the substance of the Treaty?
Mr. Methuendenied that he had given any abstract applause to the conduct of lord Castlereagh—in this instance it received his full approbation. He thought he might fairly accuse the other side of the House with giving abstract and systematic opposition to every measure of Government, under whatever circumstances it might be adopted.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that for the reasons he had before stated, he should decline laying the substance of the Treaty before the House, unless a distinct motion were made upon the subject; and then he could state his opinion, and adopt such conduct as he might deem expedient.
Lord Miltonbegged to know on what day the Treaty in question had been received by Government.
Lord Castlereaghanswered, that he should be prepared to give every information on a future day.
Mr. Bennetinquired whether that part

781]
of the published copy were contained in the authentic document, in which the Allies were made to declare that they would "bring to justice all such persons as shall have joined, or may hereafter join, the party of Napoleon?" He wished to know whether that provision had been ratified by the British Government?
Lord Castlereaghhad no objection to state, that that part was decidedly incorrect—substantially inaccurate.
Lord Miltonasked, whether this Treaty was in the hands of ministers before the 7th of April, the day on which the noble lord had obtained the Address?
Lord Castlereaghreplied in the affirmative, and added, that he was prepared to contend that there was nothing at all inconsistent between the terms of the Address and of the Treaty.
Mr. Tierneywished to know if the noble lord had any objection to the substance of the Treaty being given?
Lord Castlereaghhad no objection to a motion being made to that effect by any hon. member who might think such a measure desirable.
Mr. Whitbreadwished the noble lord to state if, in saying he had no objection to such a motion, he desired it should be understood that he would grant the papers if such a motion were made. If he now moved for the substance of the Treaty, would the noble lord grant it?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, no, not now, as it was totally out of the common course of proceeding to give treaties before the ratifications were exchanged. He could not consent to such a motion on the instant. This refusal for the present was due to his colleagues; and while he felt he owed much to them, he could not but feel he owed still more to the representatives of the Allied Sovereigns now in this country.
Mr. Whitbreadregretted that the noble lord had not saved the time of the House by earlier making such a statement. Was he now to understand, that if a motion were made on Monday for the substance of the Treaty, it would meet with the compliance of the noble lord? If so, he would of course move for it, and then the subject would be fairly and clearly before the House.
Lord Castlereagk,said that he would enter into no compact. He was surprised that the hon. member should so long have remained in the dark; for the whole course of his (lord Castlereagh's) reasoning was intended to show, that at the proper time
[782
he should not think it inconsistent with his duty to lay the substance of the Treaty upon the table. All he would say at present was, that he should be prepared on Monday to give the hon. gentleman a distinct answer.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, there was a great difference between the present language of the noble lord and that which he had before held. He would move for the papers on Monday, to ascertain if the noble lord would give them or not. He wished the question to be answered before the House went into the committee of supply, but he did not wish to plunge unnecessarily into a discussion that might be injurious to the country.
Mr. Ponsonbyremarked, that in former instances the substance of a treaty had been communicated to enable the House to decide on the policy on which it was founded, before a communication could formally be made. Would the noble lord do so on the present occasion? The noble lord, if he had no objection to engage to give them the substance of it on Monday, could enable them to enter upon the discussion of some of the topics connected with it; but he protested against being called upon to give an opinion on a treaty before it was accurately known to them. This the noble lord himself must feel would be most improper, for nothing could be so absurd as to demand an opinion of the House on that which had not been laid before them.
Lord Castlereaghwas sure no one was more disposed than himself to hail the pacific tone which had suddenly broke in upon the House. He was glad to find the wishes of gentlemen opposite were what they now proved to be. It was often practicable to communicate to the House the substance of a document, before the document itself could be produced in an official form. In reply to the inquiry of the right hon. gentleman, as to whether he would be bound to give the substance of the Treaty on Monday, he could only refer him to the answer he had given to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), that on that day he could give a distinct answer on this point. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it would be wrong to call for the sense of the House on a treaty before that treaty could be produced. He had no intention of calling upon the House to pronounce an opinion, or had he supposed the hon. gentleman could do that when he sug-

783]
gested to him that he could bring a motion on the subject. He had not expected him to call for an opinion on the Treaty; but he had thought that he knew enough of it to found a proposition on it, which should go to advise the Crown to pursue a line of policy different from that in which that Treaty originated, if he thought it his duty to give the Sovereign such advice. On Monday he would answer the question of the hon. gentleman without discussion, and in the mean time he trusted it would not be considered unbecoming conduct on his part, if he seized the opportunity the intervening time afforded, to possess himself of the sentiments of the representatives of the Allies of the country.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that as the noble lord had been the God of the Storm, now he was metamorphosed into the Genius of the Calm. From what the noble lord had at first said, no man could have anticipated what had recently fallen from his lips. Now he was perfectly ready to grant every thing that was required—[No, no! from lord Castlereagh]. Yes, he would grant all that was wanted—the substance of the Treaty—[No, no!]. Well, then, the fact would be known on Monday, and he had no disposition to raise a new storm by further contention.
Lord Castlereagh.—I cannot see that there is any matter of difference between us now. The hon. member does not, however, quite approve of my conduct; and I am not sorry for it, because there is nothing that I am so much afraid of as his praise.
Mr. Whitbread.—The fear expressed by the noble lord is quite as unfounded as my praise would have been if I had ever bestowed it; for the fact is, that he never received a scintilla of applause from me during the whole course of his political life.
The question on the adjournment to Monday was then put and carried.

PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a Bill to revive and continue the duties and contributions on the profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices, which expired on the 5th of April 1815. On the motion, that it be read a first time,
Mr. J. P. Grant,stated, that he had intended to oppose the Bill in every stage, and to have taken the sense of the House upon it; but in consequence of what had
[784
passed that night, he should abstain from so doing until the second reading.
Mr. Grenfellwas favourable, to the renewal of the Property-tax for another year, but he thought certain modifications were necessary. It did not appear to him to be just that a person of small income —say from 200 l. to 500 l. a year, should pay as much to this tax, or at least be taxed on the same scale as those whose annual incomes amounted to as many thousands. In the next place, it was not right that incomes arising from trades and professions should be taxed as high as those which were derived from freehold and other property. He thought also that the requisitorial powers of the commissioners ought to be limited. If such modifications were made, he should feel it his duty to the public to support the Bill in the present emergency.
Mr. Ellisthought the Bill ought not to pass in its present state. He doubted if any modifications would make it what an hon. alderman conceived it might be made—a comfortable measure; but he was convinced such modifications might be introduced as would have the effect of causing it to be cheerfully borne by the people in the present circumstances of the country. A proposition which should have this effect, would, he thought, come with peculiar good grace from the hon. alderman (Atkins), and should not fail to have his support.
Mr. Gordoncautioned those hon. gentlemen who had last spoken, against giving the Bill their support in the present instance, on the supposition that the modifications which they recommended would be subsequently adopted, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared himself against such an alteration of the measure. There was a determination to overpower all that might be said against it by that irresistible argument a majority, or the amendment of the hon. member for Hertford, would have been carried on a former evening, asking, as it did, only time sufficient to ascertain whether or not the measure was necessary. He thought the public were duped by ministers, seeing that they had the Treaty of Vienna in their possession, when they told the House that an alternative still existed between peace and war. He should oppose the Bill in every stage, and he hoped the House would now divide upon the first reading.
Sir John Newporthoped the House

785]
would be divided on every stage of the Bill. He besought those who had recently presented such numerous petitions from their constituents against the Property-tax, to come forward and say whether or not they had changed the opinions which they then avowed. He, for one, had not changed his mind on the subject, and should therefore give the Bill all the opposition in his power.
Mr. Bensonnoticed the call made by the right hon. baronet, for those who bad changed their minds to come forward, and said he had been much pleased with the conduct of the hon. member for Liverpool, who had stated the inhabitants of that great town to have changed their sentiments on it. He believed nine-tenths of the country had changed in the same way in its favour.
Mr. Wynnthought the tax, whether we went to war or remained at peace, was necessary, and he did not see that the public service could be provided for in any other way. He knew of no substitute for it, which would not be more oppressive. The assessed taxes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though less productive, would, he thought, be found more vexatious to the people.
Mr. Baringwas of opinion that the last speaker but one would find himself mistaken if he could canvass the whole country, with respect to the sentiments of the people on the Property-tax, which was still considered a most obnoxious impost, on account of the annual disclosure of private affairs which it involved. Notwithstanding this, he felt it to be his duty to vote for it. If he saw any thing in the conduct of ministers that gave him alarm, he might not do this; but conceiving as he did that vigorous exertions on the part of this country, and on that of the Allies, gave us the best chance of being able to do without the tax altogether, he felt bound to give the Bill his support. Without it there was no chance of getting rid of it soon, and of returning to a state of peace and comfort. As it was to be enacted but for one year, he thought it would be better that the old machinery should be revived, than that new expedients should be devised; as reviving it in its former state for one year would best satisfy the public it was not intended to be a permanent measure.
Mr. Ponsonbylamented his difference of opinion from his hon. friend, who spoke last. He retained his objections to the
[786
tax. Nothing was more erroneous than to imagine, that if it were imposed for one year, it could afterwards be immediately taken off. It was supposed by some that it would give the means of acting with vigour, and that thereby its duration would be short. Good God!—how, after the experience of twenty years, could an excellent understanding be led to believe, that the duration of a renewed income-tax and a renewed war would be short? Easy as it was to plunge into war, experience showed how difficult it was to come out of it. Let the House look at the last war with America, which it was prophesied by some would be a short one. We had no choice there: though he always considered our Orders in Council as leading to it, yet, in the immediate steps to war, he always thought America the aggressor. She should certainly have stopped when she heard of our repeal of those Orders. But that war was much longer than most people expected, and different in its results.
Mr. Alderman Atkinswas against the revival of the Property-tax, unless some modifications were introduced. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer the subject to a committee. He did not wish to make the tax less productive, but he wished it to be so altered that it should be felt less by persons of limited and moderate incomes. The gentlemen in the landed interest, who had lately received a favour of the House, would, he hoped, step forward on this occasion, and offer to bear a portion of the burthen, which would otherwise fall on the middling and lower classes of society.
Mr. W. Smiththought the proposition of the hon. alderman so reasonable that it ought to be acceded to; and this not being adopted, he should vote against the Bill. If it were only to be revived for one year, he should not care much about the proposed modifications, but the probability was, that it was now to be saddled on the country for ever. He referred to the commencement of the old American war, which it was said would be ended in a week or a fortnight, to prove the folly of supposing that the war now about to be commenced would be ended in a year, especially when the means which France possessed were so important, if a calculation were made only of the number of prisoners returned.
The House divided: Yeas, 79: Noes, 17: Majority, 62.—The Bill was then read a first time.

List of the Minority.

Atkins, alderman

Piggott, sir A.

Grant, J. P.

Prittie, hon. F.

Howorth, H.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Halsey, John

Romilly, sir S.

Montgomery, Sir H.

Smith, Wm.

Martin, H.

Western, Charles

Moore, P.

Wilkins, W.

Nugent, lord

TELLERS.

Newport, sir J.

H. G. Bennet

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

R. Gordon.

On re-entering the gallery,
Sir John Newportwas on his legs, pointing out to the gentlemen opposite the propriety of acceding to a motion, for the production of documents on the subject of the Property-tax, which, we understood, from what fell from him, he had made during our exclusion, and, in opposition to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved the previous question. The right hon. baronet, argued strongly against the House being called on to give an opinion as to the renewal of the Tax, in its old form, until proper information had been afforded, with reference to the produce derived from it, during a series of years, from the different classes of society who were subject to its operation. If information on such a necessary point were withheld—if gentlemen agreed to vote without proper data being submitted to them, on which they might form their opinions—then, he contended, they became rather the agents of the ministry, than the honest guardians of the rights of their constituents.
Alderman Atkinsargued, that the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already laid before the House, was as copious as the right hon. baronet could fairly demand.
Mr. Huskissoncoincided in the sentiments of the last speaker. The information already placed on their table was, he conceived, all that could at the present moment, be expected. At the same time, he did not profess to know, on what documents, or in what manner, the right hon. baronet wished or intended to form his opinion. The worthy alderman had already said, and said very justly, that the accounts were produced up to a period, beyond which it was impossible they could at present be brought. The right bon. baronet had already information, lying on the table of the House, on which be might form his judgment. He complained, indeed, that it was too general— it did not enter sufficiently into detail;
[788
but he (Mr. Huskisson) thought it was sufficient for every necessary purpose, and, therefore, it appeared to him that no further information need be called for.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, he would move the second reading of the Property-tax Bill on Monday, on which day it should be remembered, the latest information which he had called for, could be laid on the table. Now, how the right hon. gentleman could suppose that any hon. member could come prepared to debate the question on Monday, when documents, connected with it, were only placed in their hands on that day, really surprised him. He had no objection to leaving the word 'districts' out of his motion; but he conceived it was right the produce of the Tax from the various 'classes' on whom it operated should be clearly understood. The House, by looking at such a document as that which he called for, would see whether the produce of the Tax had increased or diminished, during a series of years, in any of those classes that were subject to it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his statement merely went to this—that all the information called for by the right hon. baronet, except that relative to the last year, would be, if possible, laid on the table by Monday next. Much useful information would be derived from those documents.
Sir John Newportsaid, be had, over and over again, stated, that he was not wedded to any particular mode in which the necessary information might be laid before them, so that the information was produced. All he wished for was, that the right hon. gentleman would give him, in substance, the produce of the Property-tax, with reference to certain distinct classes, up to the latest possible period. That which the right hon. gentleman appeared to think of no moment, he (sir J. Newport) conceived to be of the utmost consequence. He must, therefore, persist in calling for those documents, which he conceived to be necessary to justify the vote he should give on the renewal of the Property-tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, it would be very difficult to produce the accounts exactly in the shape called for by the right hon. baronet.
Mr. Gordonwas unwilling to suppose, that his Majesty's ministers would press forward, with unnecessary haste, any

789]
measure which was decidedly unpopular. At the same time it appeared rather awkward, that ministers would only agree to lay the necessary information on the subject of the Property-tax before the House, in the course of a few days, and yet they would not consent to delay the farther progress of the Bill at present pending. Now, he wished to remind them, that many gentlemen were desirous of a modification of the Tax, and he hoped that ministers would not pertinaciously refuse to impart that information, which it was necessary gentlemen should possess, before they could propose a proper modification of the measure. He was astonished how the Government, almost under any circumstances, could propose this Tax to the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, he had no objection to produce such documents, as, without greatly interfering with the progress of the measure, would afford gentlemen a basis for modifying it. For his own part, he wished they would point out a beneficial modification of the Tax.
Sir J. Newportsaid, if the right hon. gentleman really wished the Tax to be modified, he ought himself to propose some plan of modification, and not leave it to others; he ought to point out specifically what his wishes were. He (sir John) called for accounts, which he conceived vitally necessary to a just consideration of the question; and he hoped even those gentlemen who differed from him in opinion, would see the impropriety of attempting to bear down a member of that House who called for what he considered constitutional information.
Mr. Huskissonobjected to the language which had been used in the course of the discussion. He denied that Government bad any intention of pressing forward, unnecessarily, the measure which gave rise to this debate: and he equally denied, that any intention existed of bearing down a member of that House, when he was discharging his duty. He could assure the gentlemen opposite, that the bringing forward this measure was as painful to his right hon. friend, as it would be to them to give it their support—if, indeed, it were possible for them to support it. But he would never be deterred from doing his duty, with reference to this Tax, bearing hard, as it certainly must, on his colleagues, because gentlemen were pleased to assert, that it was unpopular.
Mr. H. Martinsaid, the language which
[790
had been used was perfectly correct. He felt himself justified in saying, that the question was pressed through the House in an indecent manner. It was, he might assert, hurried forward in defiance of the sentiments of the people. Could the House forget the number of petitions that were presented against the renewal of the Property-tax? Could they avoid thinking of the immense numbers that would have been presented, if he had not abandoned the Tax? What was there, under these circumstances, in the conduct or the language of his right hon. friend who made the motion, that deserved censure? His right hon. friend said, "You propose to renew this Property-tax—it will, in its present state, bear hard on particular classes of society—many members wish it to be modified—therefore, that we may proceed fairly and truly in this system of modification, give us an account of the produce of the Property-tax, at different periods, with reference to the various classes whom it affects." Now, the right hon. gentleman was very liberal in his concession. According to him, this account would certainly be produced— when it was too late! He would give it, when there was no opportunity of debating on it—when no resolution, for any efficient purpose, could be founded on it. Was it not reasonable, then, that the precipitancy with which the measure was urged forward, should be reprehended? Was it not just that some remonstrance should be made on the part of those, who, it appeared, were not to be heard until the Bill has passed into a law? This was the true state of the case; and he denied that those who had placed it in its most striking light, had made use of language they were not warranted to hold.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he did not complain of the language which had been used; but he did complain of the insinuation, that ministers, in proceeding as they had done, with the renewal of the Property-tax, acted from unworthy motives. It was broadly insinuated, that the measure was pressed forward, because ministers dreaded the effects which might arise from the unpopularity of the TAX, if the consideration of it were protracted. He denied the truth of this insinuation. Ministers, in doing what they had done, looked merely to the execution of their duty.
Sir J. Newportutterly disclaimed having ever imputed any improper motives to ministers.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldsaid, that although the right hon. baronet had disclaimed, on his part, the having imputed any improper motives to his Majesty's ministers, yet the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Gordon) surely could not deny, that he had accused ministers, in an indirect way, of having acted with gross indecency in pressing the measure. If, however, this censure arose from the refusal of his right hon. friend to agree to the motion for farther information, his right hon. friend, and those who agreed with him in opinion, had this, consolation, and it would enable them to support the obloquy cast upon them with philosophy, that, on a very recent occasion—the discussion of the Corn Bill—when delay was requested and was opposed, both by the hon. gentleman and the right hon. baronet, each of them declared, that he was willing to bear any imputation to which his might give rise.
Mr. Gordonsaid, he certainly did conceive, when information was refused which appeared necessary before members decided on the vote they ought to give, and the measure connected with that information was still pressed forward, that it looked like a determination to hurry the measure through the House, lest the popular voice might arrest it in its progress. With respect to the case alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, it should be observed, that every information had been given on that subject; but here the complaint was, that necessary information was denied. This made the great difference between the two cases.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer then agreed to withdraw his amendment, provided sir John Newport would allow a certain modification of his original motion. The following motion was then put and carried, "That there be laid before this House, an account or estimate of the gross and net assessment of the Property-tax, for five years, ending the 5th of April 1814, distinguishing the several classes."
Sir John Newportsaid, that as he could not allow a bill which imposed 14 millions of taxes on the country in a manner generally odious, without a full attendance, at least in one stage, he should give notice that he would on Monday move the call of the House for Thursday next.