Commons Sitting of 5 May 1815

PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day for the third reading of the Property-tax Bill, The question having been put from the chair,
Mr. Dickensonrose, and said he did not think he should be performing his duty to the country, if he did not declare his hostility to this Bill. He thought it was particularly oppressive to the agriculturist, upon whose prosperity the main interests of the state depended. He lamented to state, that within the last six months this class of society had experienced the greatest hardships, and these were not alone confined to one particular county, but were felt universally throughout the country. In support of his assertion, he would give an instance which came within his own knowledge. Having heard that the farmers of the county of Somerset had been material sufferers from the distresses of the times, he had the curiosity to write to the gaoler of the county to ascertain the proportion of debtors that had come under his notice within the last six months. The result of this inquiry was as follows: on the 23d of last November, there were twenty-three debtors in prison: on December the 23d, there were thirty: on January the 23d, forty-five: on February the 23d, forty-seven: on March the 23d, forty-three; and on the 23d of the last month, fifty-two—and of that number, the proportion of farmers was one-fourth. Under such circumstances, he thought the burthen which this tax was about again to throw on this useful class of the community was highly reprehensible; and the more so from the mode of assessing their property, which was taken at three-fourths of their rental; This plan of assessment he thought peculiarly objectionable, inasmuch as no allowance whatever was made for the probable loss of the farmer in the pursuit of his business. The profits of the farmer, he contended, were as easily ascertained as those of a merchant or tradesman, and he saw no reason why he should not have similar advantages with those individuals. Unfortunately, however, he had no means of escaping the tax, whatever might be the extent of his loss, or however disproportionate his profits might be to the scale upon which his assessment was taken. These observations struck him

161]
so forcibly, that he considered it of the utmost importance, if the Bill before the House was to pass, that it should pass in a shape as little objectionable as possible With this feeling, he wished to propose an amendment, the object of which would be to render the farmer liable to the same mode of assessment as the merchant or trader.
Alderman C. Smithdid not consider that the farmers had more reason to complain of the operation of the tax than any other class of individuals. With respect to the principle of the tax itself, he considered, under existing circumstances, and the necessity of empowering his Majesty's ministers to uphold the interests and general welfare of the country, that it was unobjectionable.
Mr. Hornerregarded the tax as not more injurious to the commercial than to all the other great interests in which the safety and stability of the state were involved. He feared that the description given by his hon. friend of the county in which he resided was but too generally applicable, and certainly understood that in Scotland the tenantry were in a declining state. No one who looked upon the prosperous state of agriculture as the source and fountain-head of our national resources, could contemplate this state of things without alarm for the consequences. The opinions of the House had not long since been divided upon a measure intended for the relief of the agricultural interest, but there was then no dispute as to the fact of the distress which existed. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was now about to establish, without any modification, an imposition, which in their flourishing condition was found grievous and oppressive; and which, therefore, in their present circumstances of embarrassment, must prove odious and intolerable. It was a singular time for selecting rent as the ground of assessment to a tax on income, when the difficulty or inability of the farmer to pay his rents at present was notorious and undisputed. If rent was in some years a fair criterion of farming profits, it could not be fair in a year during which there were no profits. If farmers could produce their accounts in the same regular form in which the accounts of commercial men were preserved, he could not imagine what objections existed against administering to the former the same relief, and applying the same regulations as
[162
those under which the assessment of trading profits was conducted. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer might turn a deaf ear to the complaints against a measure not more injurious to individuals than dangerous to the true interest of the state; but he would venture to predict that those complaints would soon reach him in a far different tone, and in a tone far less desirable with a view to the general advantage of the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in point of form the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman could not then be received: he was not at all desirous of taking shelter, however, under that circumstance, conceiving, as he did, that the proposition was one which admitted of the best possible answer. If it were not so, the House could easily find a remedy for the evil complained of by a separate bill. Although he was ready to admit that the agriculture of the country had for some time past been in a state of depression, yet he by no means thought the remedy proposed by the hon. gentleman was one likely to produce any very beneficial effect. If ever there was a time in which the House could justly be accused of not paying due attention to the interests of the agriculturist, he thought it was not in the present session. When the Property-tax was first introduced, great difficulties were encountered in suggesting a mode of ascertaining the profit of the farmer. At first it was proposed to assess that class of individuals in the same manner with other persons liable to the tax; but when it was considered, that upwards of a million of returns were made annually, it was at once concluded that it would be impossible for the commissioners to give that sort of attention to those returns, which, to render the tax at all productive, would be necessary. It was at length, therefore, resolved, as the most equitable mode of proceeding, to take the assessments upon that general average of profit as compared with the rent, which experience had justified. This, he imagined, would still be found the best as well as the fairest plan. It was for the House to decide, however, whether the amendment of the hon. gentleman was now admissible. It appeared to him, that, in point of form, no amendment could now be introduced, as the committee on the Bill had only been instructed to revive and continue it.
The Speakersaid, that at that moment

163]
no question could arise beyond that before the House, namely, whether the Bill should then be read the third time or not? If the Bill was read the third time, an opportunity would then offer fur proposing any amendment consistent with the title of the Bill.
Mr. Frankland Lewisagreed to the measure in its present state, only on the principle of its enactment for a limited time, and that if necessity should demand its continuance, a full opportunity would be afforded of discussing what improvements, it was capable of receiving. He had always thought the principle of assessment applied to the profits of cultivation most preposterous: it, in fact, resolved itself into this, that if the tenant did not pay his proportion, the landlord must pay it for him. Now, if it was seriously meant that the proprietors of land ought to pay 15 or 20 instead of 10 l. per cent., the object should be stated openly, and fairly discussed. For his own part, he could conceive no argument by which such a principle could be justified. There was a prevalent belief, and nothing could he more erroneous, that the profits of Stock or capital vested in the cultivation of land were very large. There were, undoubtedly some very wealthy farmers; but he could state, on goad authority, that in many counties both of England and Scotland, the farmers tilled their land with their own hands, and encountered the greatest difficulties, after paying taxes and poor-rates, in making out their subsistence. He was satisfied that in many instances, a tax of 1s. 6d. in the pound upon the tent, had amounted to not less than 35 l. per cent. on the farmer's profits.
Mr. Calcraftconcurred with the last speaker, that the measure was liable to many objections, not only as it affected commercial and farming capitalists, but as it affected professional men, and the profits of skill and industry. He should give it his support at present, because he Believed no substitute could be found for it, and because he did not believe it could be so modified this year as to meet the very different wishes of the different classes of the community.
Mr. D. Giddywished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any abatement would be made to landlords and tenants in the assessment under this Bill, for reductions made in their rents during the present period of distress?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered,
[164
that both landlord and tenant would certainly by this Bill be entitled to every fair deduction under such circumstances.
Mr. Grenfellexplained, that he meant the remarks he had made on commissioners, on a former occasion, to apply only to those who belonged to the Board of Taxes in Somerset-place.
Sir M. W. Ridleyobserved, that his objections to the measure were insuperable, and he should therefore take the sense of the House upon it. He looked at it in no other light than as a war tax; and believing the war to be unnecessary, he would not put into the hands of ministers the facilities and the temptation for carrying it on. If the Executive had less means, they would have less disposition for again plunging the country into hostilities; and he, for one, would rather pay towards the limited expense of maintaining an armed truce than contribute to the wasteful expenditure of an impolitic and unnecessary war: he, for one, would rather suffer the "ills we have, than fly to others which we know not of;" and with these impressions, should move that the Bill be read a third that day six months.
Mr. Lockhartconsidered the Bill necessary to strengthen the hands of Government with the view of preventing an unnecessary effusion of blood. He thought, however, that some method should be adopted to relieve the agriculturist from the oppressive manner in which the Bill at present bore on his interests.
Sir John Newportsaid, he could not conceive how many of those gentlemen, who at its first introduction had opposed the Bill, could now reconcile themselves to their support of it. It bad been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a reason for not making any modifications, or giving any opportunity for appeal against the assessments, that if complaints were listened to, a million would be poured in. Was the House, therefore, to pass a measure which was so widely oppressive, and was it to be stated in support of legislative injustice, that it was not limited in its extent? His own objection to the tax was to the principles—that it was unequal and oppressive in its operation—that it granted power to certain persons, which, in a free country, should never be granted, but he did not see how those who had grounded their support to it, on the idea that they would be able to obtain modifications, could persist in their support

165]
when the Bill was to be read a third time without those modifications, which from the first, to do him justice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to grant. Neither could he consent to propagate so manifest a delusion, that by passing the Tax, the House showed that the resources of the country were inexhaustible, when their tottering state, even with the aid of this most oppressive measure, must have been manifest to every one who attended the debates of the House. He should, therefore, vote against the Bill.
Mr. Sturges Bournewished to ask the right hon. baronet, whether he would prefer the plan of resorting to the funding system, to that of raising the supplies within the year; and whether he thought it was possible to raise the supplies within the year by any other principle of taxation? With respect to the facilities which the tax furnished to the Executive Government for entering upon and carrying on wars, he had often heard the same argument formerly applied to the funding system; and the character of the Income-tax originally was, that it would serve to teach the country what were the real consequences and cost of war. As to the observation of the right hon. baronet, that there were no circumstances which could justify the present measure, he was considerably surprised at it, as he understood him to have concurred in it, in the year 1806. The right hon. baronet had voted for the Address, promising to enable Government to carry on war, if it should be necessary; and yet he now opposed the only means by which war could be effectually maintained.
Sir John Newportexplained, that he bad not said no circumstances, bat that scarcely any circumstances could justify such a tax as that now proposed. He begged also to state, that his vote an a former night was given under a delusion.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, he could not concur with his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport) in opposing the third reading of this Bill; because, by doing so, he should be withdrawing that credit from the Executive Government which he had already confided in them. When last he was in the House, his right hon. friend, as well as the House in general, had concurred in voting an Address to the Prince Regent, declaring their conviction of the necessity of augmenting our forces by sea and land, and of a cordial co-operation with our Allies. Was if the pleasure of the House that this
[166
pledge should be redeemed? If so, on what ground was the present tax opposed? He did not wish to anticipate the question of peace or war, however willing he might be at a proper season to deliver his sentiments upon that subject; but he should be glad to know whether any person was of opinion, that without this tax, an augmentation of our forces by sea and land could be effected? Was it the opinion of his right hon. friend, or of any other member in the House, that we should disarm at the present moment? Would his right hon. friend say, whether, situated as we at present were with regard to France, we should desist from an augmentation of our forces by sea and land—or whether, in a state of offence or defence, this measure was not necessary? He was satisfied his right hon. friend acted from a conscientious feeling of duty; he should think he departed from his duty, however, if he failed to enable his Majesty's, Government to do that which he had already declared he considered necessary. His right hon. friend had declared, that his vote of a former night had been obtained by delusion. Recurring to the vote which he (Mr. P.) had given on that night, he could only say he was under no delusion—he was not imposed upon or deceived. The ground of deception stated by his right hon. friend was, that when called upon to vote the resolution of an augmentation of our forces by sea and land, by the noble lord (Castlereagh), that noble lord had not slated to the House, that at that time he was in possession of the Treaty with the Allies, which had been ratified on the part of this country. His (Mr. Plunkett's) opinion was, that if the noble lord had communicated that Treaty to the House, he would have departed from his duty, because he would have thereby evinced a determination to go to war, and have induced the other Powers of Europe, to call more imperiously on this country for its assistance —consequences which would not have been grateful to his right hon. friend. So far as the noble lord had gone, the question of peace or war was doubtful; and the noble lord only pledged the House to augment our forces by sea and land, and cordially to co-operate with our Allies in whatever measures the safety of Europe might seem to require. Parliament was now called upon to fulfil that pledge— for one, he was willing to abide by his vote of a former night, and he would

167]
vote the same way, if the opportunity occurred again.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the powders granted under the Property tax were such as had never been found tolerable at any former period. They had been granted with a tax at the time of King William, but the tax was soon dropped. The greatest recommendation to the Bill was that it would continue but for a year.
Mr. J. P. Grantopposed the motion, and observed that no circumstances would justify the imposition of a tax which did not attach solely on property or expenditure, but fell with equal severity on the annuitant and on the freeholder, on the professional man and the man of property.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion, that it was not because the time of receiving petitions had passed, that the different towns had not met for the consideration of this measure. It was still competent for them to meet, and instruct their representatives how to act; but the real fact was, that the same honourable motive which induced the country to submit to it on a late occcasion, now fully subsisted to reconcile them to its revival. He was not so sanguine as an hon. alderman in the idea, that the tax could be made "a comfortable thing" to the people; at the same time he regretted, in justice to their feelings, that the noble lord's (Milton) proposition, on a former night, to empower the committee to amend the Act, if they thought proper, had not met the concurrence of the House. If the Act required modification, its existence being limited to one year ought not to prevent the amendment from taking place. As the Bill had gone on so far as the third reading, and as no alternative remained, but either to adopt it as it stood, or reject it altogether, he felt it his duty to support the tax, believing it the only one likely to be effective under the present crisis of public affairs.
The House then divided:

For the third reading of the Bill

160

Against it

29

Majority

—131

The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.

List of the Minority.

Atkins, J.

Cavendish, C.

Atherly, A.

Grant, J. P.

Brand, hon. T.

Gordon, R.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Greenhill, R.

Calvert, C.

Hornby, E.

[168

Lefevre, C. S.

Rowley y sir Wm.

Lloyd, J. M.

Russell, lord Wm.

Langton, Gore

Shaw, R.

Monck, sir C.

Stanley, lord

Moore, P.

Smith, W.

Martin, J.

Walpole, hon. G.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Whitbread, S.

Newport, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Plummer, W.

C. C. Western

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

Sir M. W. Ridley.

Piggott, sir A.

FOREIGN SLAVE TRADE BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Bill to prohibit British subjects, or persons resident in the United Kingdom, from lending capital or doing other acts to assist the carrying on of the Slave Trade to colonies belonging to foreign states,
Mr. Baringrose to object to the Bill in its present state, particularly as it was to have an immediate operation in the different quarters of the world. He was ready to concur in any measure which tended to crush this odious traffick. Let the measure of punishment be capital, if they pleased, although he saw no reason to think the last Act had proved inoperative; but let it not at once confound the innocent with the guilty. The clause to which he particularly objected, was that which rendered it penal, and punished as felons, those who lent any money upon mortgage, bond, or loan, in any of the islands which still trafficked in slaves. This unqualified sweep would at once extinguish the trade which existed between this country and the Spanish settlements; for it was impossible to carry on this trade without that species of credit, which would be made criminal by this Act.
Mr. Barhamsuggested the propriety of allowing the Bill to go through its present stage; he would then be ready to adopt any suggestion which his hon. friend might deem expedient.
Mr. Baringsuggested, that with reference to the time of the Bill's operation, "from and after the 1st of August," would be a desirable introduction.
Mr. Barhamreplied, that the reason why he wished it to stand from the present period was, that there were persons now in London endeavouring to procure money for the Slave traffick, who would thereby be deterred from following up their speculation.
Mr. Forbessaid, that the 1st of August would not be a sufficient time for our subjects in the East Indies.
Sir J. Mackintoshwas of the same opinion.
Sir J. Newportcould see no necessity for this notice, as the Legislature was not introducing a new punishment for a new offence, but augmenting a penalty already enacted for an old one.
Mr. Finlaythought it advisable that persons who had pecuniary concerns with the colonies, should know how they might be affected by this Act.
Mr. Douglasthought an arrangement might be made which would unite the wishes of all parties.
Mr. W. Smithagreed with his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport), that there was no necessity for granting this concession—it would be quite different if they were about to punish a new species of offence. They might as well expect, that, if an increase of punishment was about to be attached upon pick-pockets, those worthy persons should have the privilege of their ingenuity with impunity, until they could be courteously informed of the additional penalty which they would incur. If the Act was already forbidden, that was notification enough. Suppose, for instance, the present penalty for being connected with the Slave Trade, was 50 l. per man, and it was intended to make it 100 l. would it be deemed necessary to slay the enactment until due notice were served upon the probable delinquents? The principle was inadmissible, and seemed, indeed, to savour a little of that spirit which looked on the Slave Trade as if it were not a crime.
Mr. Baringregretted that any thing which fell from him in the committee, could be so misconstrued as to imply his toleration of so odious a crime. It was a little too hard that gentlemen who merely wished to amend the form of a measure, should be stigmatised with a charge so seriously affecting their character, as that of being friendly to this detestable traffick. They only wanted that the clause should be filled up consistently with justice, and that an Act passed in England on the 5th of May, should not commence its operation in India, on the day after, it had been argued as if it were a mere question of a pecuniary nature, when, in fact, it was the application of a crime of felony, towards persons who had no knowledge of the consequences they were incurring, by a disposal of money in the fair course of trade with those islands, but who were thereby exposed to the in-
[170
fliction of a severe punishment, for the commission of an offence of which they were wholly ignorant. Was this consistent with common sense, common justice, or common law?
Mr. Douglasthought the case of offenders under the present Act, was different from that of persons who had notoriously violated the law.
Mr. D. Giddycontended for the safe principle of promulgating a law, before it was called into active operation.
Mr. Forbesdisavowed having any interest in countenancing the Slave-trade, but thought it advisable that his friends in the Cape of Good Hope and the East Indies should be aware of the alteration proposed, for the purpose of guarding themselves against its consequences.
Mr. W. Smithapplauded the manly feeling which pervaded all who had already spoken upon this subject, and fully disavowed having meant to cast any improper reflection on any of those with whom he differed, particularly his hon. friend (Mr. Baring).
After a few words from lord Milton and sir James Mackintosh, relative to the regulation of the foreign boundaries, the following clause was adopted: "That the Bill should have operation within three months after its enactment, in all parts of Europe, Africa, the West Indies, and the Eastern coasts of the Mediterranean; and, in six months, in all the parts of the world beyond the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, the East Indies," &c.
On the clause making it felony in any British subject to lend money on the security of any land or other property in any foreign island or colony, in which the Slave-trade is not abolished,
Mr. Baringobjected strongly to the extent of this provision, because it would serve to put an end to all traffick on our part with the places alluded to, for without credit trade could not go on. There were, it was notorious, several British and other merchants in those places, who were engaged in many commercial transactions unconnected with the Slave-trade; and would it be just to prohibit British subjects from making any advance to, or receiving any security from such places? He was aware of the motives which gave birth to this clause. An apprehension prevailed among British planters, and probably in the mind of the hon. mover, that British merchants were in the same habit of making loans to the planters of

171]
foreign colonies as to our own planters, but this he knew to be an unfounded, or at least, a very exaggerated apprehension. From the Brazils, however, our merchants were obliged to receive securities to a considerable amount in return for our exports, and our trade from that quarter must cease, if the acceptance of such securities were made a felony. Another point to which he objected, was the summary tribunal, which was to judge of the guilt of transactions, often, from their nature, very complicated. The supposed offenders were to be tried in the same manner as pirates; that is, it was competent for any naval captain, afloat or ashore, to call together a council of seven persons, not under the rank of mates (which was little better than a common sailor's station), and to decide as they thought proper upon the quality of an offence for which such a punishment was prepared. Let the Act be made as strong as possible to visit those who might be found connected with the Slave-trade, but let it not be open to the introduction of so many abuses.
Mr. Wynnproposed the addition of the words "or other dominions or territories," in order to render the clause sufficiently comprehensive.
Mr. Baringthought the clause unnecessarily extensive, even with a view to the hon. mover's object, and, declaring that he should have no objection to the measure, if duly limited, proposed the insertion of these words, "for the purpose of carrying on the Slave-trade:" To this trade, he was as averse as any gentleman in that House; but he felt it just and expedient to protect other commercial dealings from the visitation of this law.
Mr. Barhamopposed this amendment. He first corrected a mistake of his hon. friend, relative to the mode of trying offenders. The tribunal which had been stated, could only exist where the parties Were tried on the high seas. If the amendment were adopted, the whole Bill would be rendered nugatory. It would be then a declaratory, not a binding enactment. With reference to the trade which the hon. member supposed would be interrupted by this Bill, unless it had lately become greatly altered indeed, so far from protecting it, its discouragement would, in a political sense, be highly salutary. The House would not, he trusted, after their efforts for twenty years, enter into
[172
this question with a view of discussing it upon its quantum of profit, instead of its quantum of guilt. The clause as it then stood was actually necessary, otherwise the greatest temptation to evasion would be afforded, with the utmost facility of success. The Bill was, in fact, to prevent, as far as legislative interposition, could accomplish, the crime of the Slave-trade where it still existed. Suppose, for instance, a planter at Cuba, St. Croix, or any other place, wants to raise money from a merchant to carry on this traffick— they knew well a respectable individual would not enter into a connexion of this sort, but they also knew there were many others who would. The planter will not say, "Lend me 10,000 l. to buy 40O slaves," for be knows the merchant could not make that contract; but he will say, "You shall have a mortgage for that sum, on your own terms, upon my estate." This at once decided the matter—the money bargain was closed. Now let the House look to the temptation for entering into such contracts. The price of slaves for Cuba, including every expense of risky, except that which this Bill imposed, was about 25 l. each: for our own islands, the price was 100 l.; it followed, therefore, that the price of labour was four times cheaper in the former, and the profit four times as great as in our own islands. If it created a profit of 10 per cent. in the latter, it produced 40 in the other, thereby leaving to the planter and merchant a dividend of 20 per cent. By British capital, all the Spanish Slave-trade, a great part of the Portuguese, and one half the Danish, was carried on. Eleven millions had been sent to Demerara upon a former occasion to form a capital for this trade, and considerable sums had been sent out since the last peace for a similar purpose. He was well informed, that there were persons in this town at the present moment negociating for loans, with a view to gain by the nefarious traffick to which the Bill applied. But it was impossible that Parliament would allow such speculations to succeed; for, exclusive of its desire to discountenance the Slave-trade, there were various considerations of general policy applicable to both war and peace, which should urge us to discourage the investment of British capital in foreign dominions. He concluded with observing, that the original clause would render the general measure effective, show the world that we were sincere in our professions,

173]
and anxious to do what we called on other nations to perform.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowthought the adoption of the amendment would render the Bill a solemn mockery, and make it wholly nugatory. He said that Spain and Portugal were more than usually desirous to stock their colonies with slaves, which they never could accomplish without the assistance of British capital. In support of this opinion, the learned Serjeant, mentioned the sentiments of the Spanish ambassador. In allusion to Cuba particularly, British capital was advanced to proprietors in that island, upon mortgages of land and other property; and by means of that, Cuba was rapidly advancing in agricultural improvement, and in the increase of its slaves. If the committee did not pass the Bill as it originally stood, they would hold out a premium to other nations, to the detriment of our own colonies. But, independent of all commercial considerations, the Bill ought to receive their assent, as it would be a complete answer to all the calumnies thrown out by other countries, on the motives which influenced England in desiring the general abolition of the Slave Trade, and who said that it was a measure rather of policy than of humanity. He declared, that sooner than admit the amendment, he would reject the Bill altogether.
Mr. Marryatthought that the other clauses of the Bill were effectual and valid provisions, and would have a beneficial operation, even though the particular one under discussion, to which he had a decided objection, were thrown out. If that clause were agreed to, it would interdict all our trade with the Brazils, the Caraccas, and Buenos Ayres; and when it was remembered, according to documents before the House, that the amount of that trade was ten millions annually, would it be said it was not an object worth retaining? He was at a loss to conceive for what purpose it was introduced. It could not be for the sake of abolishing the Slave-trade, because it related to a trade which was perfectly innocent and legitimate.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he really could not comprehend the proposition that British capital being vested in the transactions of foreign planters in islands where the Slave-trade was still carried on, did not tend to encourage and promote that trade. Suppose those planters, by the use and application of that capital, were enabled to increase their plantations
[174
five or tenfold, would they hot require a proportionate increase of slaves to cultivate the soil? Would any man say, that permitting such an application of British capital was not perpetuating that detestable traffic? But it was doing more also; it was positively affording a premium on the produce of those islands, belonging to governments which had not yet abolished the Slave-trade, and, at the same time, inflicting a penalty on the colonies of such sovereigns as had listened to the voice of justice and humanity, spoken to them by the British nation. He was quite sure that the predictions of commercial loss that would be sustained by abolishing that supplementary and auxiliary Slave-trade, would prove as groundless as the prophecies that were uttered when the original measure was discussed. If they rejected the principle of the clause, they might as well reject the Bill, for where the strength; of temptation, and the facility of evasion were so great, nothing but making the practice penal could prevent its existence.
Mr. Douglascontended, that while the Spanish trade was supported by British capital, it was England who carried on the Slave-trade; and said that it was the opinon of sir Henry Wellesley, that the Spanish trade was carried on solely by British capital. He thought the House ought to consider whether the clause was necessary, and if necessary, it ought to be adopted. For his part, he conceived it his duty to connect it with the original abolition.
Mr. Baringlamented that the gentlemen who had opposed the amendment had such little practical knowledge of trade, for he was convinced that their objections arose from misconception. He disclaimed every wish of increasing the Stave-trade, and believed, most conscientiously, that not an additional slave would be created by it. He could not think any commercial advantages a sufficient justification for the revival of that traffick. He said, that the Slave-trade was regarded with the utmost abhorrence, by every English merchant, and nothing could induce them to afford it the least support; but he was convinced, that if the clause in the Bill were known generally, every commercial body in England would send petitions against its enactment.
Sir S. Romillyargued against the amendment, which, he said was a solemn mockery, and tended to destroy the prin

175]
ciple of the Bill. He asked, would any man in lending his money insist on knowing for what purpose it was designed? and contended, that by permitting money to be borrowed on any security, would facilitate the stocking of the Spanish islands with slaves. He objected to the extent of punishment proposed in the Bill; felony was much too severe, as it was attended with the forfeiture of all a man's goods and chattels. This, he was aware, was the usual routine of legislation; but it arose from the inattention of gentlemen to its nature, and by its extreme severity, rendered many laws totally ineffectual. He thought the offence should be designated a misdemeanour, punishable by fine and imprisonment; the forfeiture being to the amount of two or three times the sum advanced.
Mr. W. Smiththought that the object would be as much defeated by allowing those securities to be taken for goods sold, as if it was for money lent. It would require no great ingenuity or contrivance to lend money to promote the Slave-trade, under the appearance of sending goods to the Spanish collates, which were to be secured by mortgage.
Mr. Marryatsaid, that it was often necessary, in payment for goods sent out, to take such security as could be got. No British merchant would voluntarily lend money on the security of Spanish plantations, as the legal rate of interest there would not reimburse them. To prevent British merchants, however, from getting any security for the payment of goods sent out there, would be highly injurious to the general interests of British trade.
Mr. Forbesstated his reasons for supporting the amendment; he conceived that the original clause was attended with many disadvantages, without attaining the great object it professed to have in view. He was aware that no British merchant would advance capital to support the Slave-trade, but there was nothing to prevent the application of it indirectly to that purpose.
Sir J. Newportsupported, the clause. This country, he said, had already made great and meritorious sacrifices for the destruction of the trade. In order to convince the other nations of Europe that we were thoroughly sincere, he thought we should not object to this further sacrifice.
Mr. Barhamcomplained that gentlemen would not assist him in framing such amendments as would attain the object of
[176
their general wishes. He would, however, with, a desire of gratifying all, propose to the committee, that no security should be taken of lands, houses, slaves, or growing crops, leaving still open all the floating capital. This, he hoped, would meet their approbation.
Mr. Wilberforcesupported the clause. As to what had been said of the Spanish laws being an obstruction to British merchants lending on such security, it must be recollected, that the Spaniards could alter their laws when it suited their interests. They had very lately, in the case of the Slave-trade, altered their laws, so as to allow slaves to be imported in foreign ships.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, that a persevering legislature would bear down every attempt to evade their enactments. He thought that if they now showed themselves determined to apply a remedy, to the evil pointed out to them, there was no danger of their not being able to prevent an evasion of their laws.
The Committee divided: For the Amendment 7; Against it 52. Mr. Barham then proposed his amendment on the original clause, to which Mr. Baring objected, and proposed to amend the amendment, by leaving out 'growing crops and buildings.'
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, the whole object of the clause would be defeated, if it did not apply to growing crops. He hoped the amendment would be negatived.
Mr. Marryatsaid, that if the Bill were to pass without this amendment, it would destroy the foundation of all our commerce with the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. The great advantage possessed by Great Britain in trading with these colonies consisted in the power of making advances.
Mr. Barhamthought the conduct of the gentlemen who opposed the clause was most extraordinary. He had agreed to leave out ships, buildings, and other matters which they considered objectionable, but this would not satisfy them; they now demanded that growing crops should be exempted from the operation of the Bill; to which he could not consent.
Mr. Baringcontended, that the exemption of growing crops, while it would be a great convenience to the commerce of the country, would not at all interfere with the object of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowopposed, the amendment.
Mr. Finlayconceived, if the security of the growing crop were not excepted, the effect would be to curtail very important branches of commerce.
The Committee then divided: For the Amendment 11; Against it 49.
Sir James Mackintoshmoved an amendment to the clause, providing that persons offending against the Act should be treated as felons, which went to enact that they should be punished by fine and imprisonment; the fine in all cases to be three times the amount of the sum lent; a moiety of it to go to the King, and the other moiety to the informer, provided the information should be given within five years after the commission of the offence.
A desultory conversation took place between sir J. Mackintosh, Mr. Serjeant Onslow, and Messrs. Bathurst, J. P. Grant, Baring, Finlay, and Marryat, which ended in sir J. Mackintosh agreeing to substitute three years instead of five, and omitting any mention of action for debt. The clause, thus amended, was carried. On the clause, pointing out the mode of trial for offenders against the provisions of the Bill, being read, Mr. Baring objected to it, as trenching on the liberty of the subject. Unless some learned gentleman could explain it satisfactorily to him, he should divide the committee on it. After some observations from Mr. Barham, Mr. J. P. Grant, and sir J. Mackintosh, the Committee divided: For the clause 33; Against it 11. The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Tuesday.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION TO THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR RELATIVE TO THE DELIVERANCE AND SECURITY OF EUROPE.
Lord Castlereaghmoved, That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be pleased to give directions, that there be laid before the House a paper, intituled "Official Communication made to the Russian Ambassador at London on the 19th of January 1805, explanatory of the views which his Majesty and the Emperor of Russia formed for the deliverance and security of Europe." The motion was agreed to, the said Paper was laid on the table of the House, and is as follows:
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONmade to the Russian Ambassador at London, on the 19th January, 1805, explanatory
[178
of the views which his Majesty and the Emperor of Russia formed for the deliverance and security of Europe.
The result of the communications which have been made by Prince Czartoriski to his Majesty's Ambassador at St. Peters-burgh, and of the confidential explanations which have been received from your Excellency, has been laid before the; King; and his Majesty has seen with inexpressible satisfaction, the wise, dignified, and generous policy, which the Emperor of Russia is disposed to adopt, under the present calamitous situation of Europe. His Majesty is also happy to perceive, that the views and sentiments of the Emperor respecting the deliverance of Europe, and providing for its future tranquillity and safety, correspond so entirely with his own. He is therefore desirous of entering into the most explicit and unreserved explanations on every point, connected with this great object, and of forming the closest union of councils, and concert of measures, with his Imperial Majesty, in order, by their joint influence and exertions, to insure the cooperation and assistance of other Powers of the continent, on a scale adequate to the magnitude and importance of an undertaking, on the success of which the future safety of Europe must depend.
For this purpose, the first step must be, to fix as precisely as possible, the distinct objects to which such a concert is to be directed.
These, according to the explanation given of the sentiments of the Emperor, in which his Majesty entirely concurs, appear to be three:

1. To rescue from the dominion of France those countries which it has subjugated since the beginning of the Revolution, and to reduce France within its former limits, as they stood before that time.

2. To make such an arrangement with respect to the territories recovered from France, as may provide for their security and happiness, and may at the same time constitute a more effectual barrier in future against encroachments on the part of France.

3. To form, at the restoration of peace, a general agreement and guarantee for the mutual protection and security of different Powers, and for re-establishing a general system of public law in Europe.

The first and second objects are stated

179]
generally, and in their broadest extent; but neither of them can be properly considered in detail without, reference to the nature and extent of the means by which they may be accomplished.—The first is certainly that to which, without any modification or exception, his Majesty's wishes, as well as those of the Emperor, would be preferably directed, and nothing short of it can completely satisfy the views which both Sovereigns form for the deliverance and security of Europe. Should it be possible to unite in concert with Great Britain and Russia, the two other great military Powers of the Continent, there seems little doubt that such a union of force would enable them to accomplish all that is proposed. But if (as there is too much reason to imagine may be the case) it should be found impossible to engage Prussia in the Confederacy, it may be doubted whether such operations could be carried on in all the quarters of Europe, as would be necessary for the success of the whole of this project.
The second point of itself involves in it many important considerations. The views and sentiments by which his Majesty and the Emperor of Russia are equally animated in endeavouring to establish this concert, are pure and disinterested.
The first view, therefore, with respect to any of the countries which may be recovered from France, must be to restore, as far as possible, their ancient rights, and provide for the internal happiness of their inhabitants; but in looking at this object, they must not lose sight of the general security of Europe, on which even that separate object must principally depend.
Pursuant to this principle, there can be no question that, whenever any of these countries are capable of being restored to their former independence, and of being placed in a situation in which they can protect it, such an arrangement must be most congenial to the policy and the feelings on which this system is founded: but there will be found to be other countries among those now under the dominion of France, to which these considerations cannot apply, where either the ancient relations of the country are so completely destroyed that they cannot be restored, or where independence would be merely nominal, and alike inconsistent with security for the country itself, or for Europe: happily, the larger number is of the first description. Should the arms of
[180
the Allies be successful to the full extent of expelling France from all the dominions she has acquired since the Revolution, it would certainly be the first object, as has already been stated, to re-establish the republics of the United Provinces and Switzerland, the territories of the King of Sardinia, Tuscany, Modena, (under the protection of Austria), and Naples. But the territories of Genoa, of the Italian republic, including the three Legations, Parma, and Placentia; and on the other side of Europe, the Austrian Netherlands, and the States which have been detached from the German Empire on the left bank of the Rhine, evidently belong to the second class. With respect to the territories enumerated in Italy, experience has shown, how little disposition existed in some, and how little means in any, to resist the aggression or influence of France. The King of Spain was certainly too much a party to the system of which so large a part of Europe has been a victim, to entitle the former interests of his family in Italy to any consideration; nor does the past conduct of Genoa, or any of the other States, give them any claim, either of justice or liberality. It is also obvious that these separate petty sovereignties would never again have any solid existence in themselves, and would only serve to weaken and impair the force which ought to be, as much as possible, concentrated in the hands of the chief powers of Italy.
It is needless to dwell particularly on the slate of the Netherlands. Events have put out of the question the restoration of them to the House of Austria; they are therefore necessarily open to new arrangements, and evidently can never exist separate and independent. Nearly the same considerations apply to the Ecclesiastical Electorates, and the other territories on the left bank of the Rhine, after their being once detached from the Empire, and the former possessors of them indemnified. There appears, therefore, to be no possible objection, on the strictest principles of justice and public morality, to making1 such a disposition with respect to any of these territories as may be most conducive to the general interests; and there is evidently no other mode of accomplishing the great and beneficent object of reestablishing (after so much misery and bloodshed) the safety and repose of Europe on a solid and permanent basis. It is fortunate too that such a plan of arrangement as is in itself essential to the

181]
end proposed, is also likely to contribute, in the greatest degree, to secure the means by which that great end can best be promoted.
It is evidently of the utmost importance, if not absolutely indispensable for this purpose, to secure the vigorous and effectual co-operation both of Austria and Prussia; but there is little reason to hope, that either of those Powers will be brought to embark in the common cause, without the prospect of obtaining some important acquisition to compensate for its exertions. On the grounds which have been already stated, his Majesty conceives that nothing could so much contribute to the general security, as giving to Austria fresh means of resisting the views of France on the side of Italy, and placing Prussia in a similar situation with respect to the Low Countries; and the relative situations of the two Powers would naturally make those the quarters to which their views would respectively be directed.
In Italy, sound policy would require, that the power and influence of the King of Sardinia should be augmented, and that Austria should be replaced in a situation which may enable her to afford an immediate and effectual support to his dominions, in case of their being attacked. His Majesty sees with satisfaction, from the secret and confidential communications recently received through your Excellency, that the views of the Court of Vienna are perfectly conformable to this general principle, and that the extension at which she aims, might not only safely be admitted, but might even be increased, with advantage to the general interest. In other respects his Majesty entirely concurs in the outline of the arrangement which he understands the Emperor of Russia to be desirous of seeing effected in this quarter. His Majesty considers it as absolutely necessary for the general security, that Italy should be completely rescued both from the occupation and influence of France, and that no powers should be left within it, who are not likely to enter into a general system of defence for maintaining its independence. For this purpose, it is essential, that the countries now composing what is called the Italian Republic, should be transferred to other Powers. In distributing these territories, an increase of wealth and power should undoubtedly be given to the King of Sardinia; and it seems material that his possessions, as well as the
[182
Duchy of Tuscany (which it is proposed to restore to the Grand Duke), should be brought into immediate contact, or ready, communication with those of Austria. On this principle, the whole of the territories which now compose the Ligurian Republic, might, it is conceived, be annexed to Piedmont.
Supposing the efforts of the Allies to have been completely successful, and the two objects already discussed to have been fully obtained, his Majesty would nevertheless consider this salutary work as still imperfect, if the restoration of peace were not accompanied by the most effectual measures for giving solidity and permanence to the system which shall thus have been established. Much will undoubtedly be effected for the future repose of Europe by these territorial arrangements, which, will furnish a more effectual barrier than has before existed against the ambition of France. But in order to render this security as complete as possible, it seems necessary, at the period of a general pacification, to form a treaty to which all the, principal Powers of Europe should be parties, by which their respective rights and possessions, as they shall then have been established, shall be fixed and recognized; and they should all bind themselves mutually to protect and support each, other, against any attempt to infringe them:—It should re-establish a general and comprehensive system of public law in Europe, and provide, as far as possible, for repressing future attempts to disturb, the general tranquillity; and above all, for restraining any projects of aggrandizement and ambition similar to those, which have produced all the calamities inflicted on Europe since the disastrous sera of the French Revolution.