Commons Sitting of 21 March 1821

AMERICAN LOYALISTS.
The entry in the Journals of the 17th February 1793, of a resolution for an address on behalf of the American Loyalists, having been read,
Mr. W. Courtenaysaid, that the address which had been just read stated, that it would have been superfluous for the House to express the regard of the nation for every description of men who had, in the cause of his majesty, risked their lives and forfeited their properties, during a long and calamitous war. It was in conformity with the sentiments contained in that address, that he rose to bring before parliament, the case of persons who had so risked their lives and forfeited their properties. The House would see the difficulties he had to meet in bringing forward claims in 1821, which had their foundation so long ago as the peace of 1783. But he hoped to satisfy the House that the lapse of time could not create a bar to those claims. At the commencement of the American war, the legislature of America took every means to prevail on persons of property and influence in that country, to raise what was then called the standard of rebellion. It was, on the other hand, the duty of the government of this country to call on the exertions of individuals in America, who owed allegiance to the king of England. I Accordingly, royal proclamations and re-I solutions of that House were issued from 1776 to 1783, calling upon individuals to join the royal standard. At the person of 1783, there were two classes of persons who had lost their property or the service J of England, and who therefore had claims

1381
for compensation on this country. The House was aware that by several acts of the legislature of America, the persons of the loyalists had been attainted, and their property confiscated. By the 4th and 5th articles of the treaty of 1783 it was agreed that there should be no impediments thrown in the-way of the mutual recovery of debts, and that the congress should do all in its power to have restitution made to the loyalists. The persons who had suffered in consequence of their attachment to the cause of England, were persons who had resided in America, and whose property had been confiscated, and English merchants who had lost their property, in consequence of commercial transactions with America. At the time when the address which had been read by the clerk was agreed to by the House, it was the general understanding, that full and complete compensation should be made to those who had suffered in the cause of England. In evidence of this, he might refer to the speeches of the late lord Through, the late chief baron Macdonald, then solicitor general to Mr. Wilberforce, and many others. By an act passed in 1783, certain commissioners were appointed to carry the treaty into effect, and to ascertain who were the loyalists who had claims upon the country. There was one class of loyalists to whom the commissioners refused compensation, namely, those who had vested their property in America. To those persons the commissioners said, "We will not listen to your claims until you first get from America what you can." By a treaty which was entered into in 1794, America undertook to make full compensation to British creditors, and to prevent legal impediments from being thrown in their way. In 1789, Mr. Pitt called upon that House to make compensation to those who had lost their lands in America, and also to those who had been ruined in their professions in consequence of their attachment to the English interest: the House up to the present hour were in the habit of making good that compensation by an annual vote. But for the British creditors no compensation was made, no redress was granted to them—if he excepted their share of a 6um of 600,000 l. which, by a treaty entered into in 1811, America bound itself to pay, and which was accordingly paid. It was material to observe, that it never was considered that the sum of 600,000 l. was to be taken as
1382
full compensation; if it were, flint, indeed, would be a full answer to the claim which he now put forth. It was allowed on all hands, and it was so decided in a court of justice in America, that all the treaties entered into between America and England, subsequent to the peace of 1783, recognized the claims; of the loyalists. The government of this country, he contended, was bound to make compensation to them, as from America they had no expectation whatever. It was true a very considerable time had elapsed; still, the House would recollect the material fact, that they had never ceased to put forth their claims. After contending, that the case which he now brought before the House had never been decided upon, and urging, that there was much greater danger of a bad example from refusing, than from granting the claims, the hon. member moved for "An Account of the Dates and Descriptions of all Communications that have taken place between his Majesty's Government and any of the persons styling themselves American Loyalists, or their agents, since the 4th of April 1812, to the present time; together with Copies of such of the said Communications as bear date respectively on or about the 5th of April and 3rd Dec. 1812; the 21st April, 6th and 10th July 1813; 26th May and 2nd Sept. 1814; 31st Jan. and 17th May 1815; 19th June 1817; 8th April 1819; and 1st May 1820."
Mr. Dickinsonsupported the motion, and contended, that as the claimants had done every thing to keep their claims alive, they were not to be opposed by a sort of statute of limitation, which was set up in the mind of the chancellor of the exchequer. He knew no stronger claim upon this country, than that of persons who had sacrificed their property and the interests of their families from attachment to its cause.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that these gentlemen had for forty years been entitled to compensation, and now the very length of time during which justice had beer! withheld, was made an argument against their demand. When they saw every day compensation made for the loss of offices which those who had lost them had no right to expect to retain it seemed extraordinary that so great a renitence should exist to accede to the claims of those who had lost every thing through their attachment to this country He re-

1383
collected the American war, and had differed from these1 loyalists as to the part they had taken;—nay, he had thought at the tim£ that they deserved punishment; but that punishment would never have amounted to one-fiftieth part Of what they had since endured
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, if ever any set of men Were deserving of consideration, it was these claimants, who had drunk to the very dreg the bitter cup of that "hope deferred," which "maketh the heart sick."
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted, that men in office were obliged to look with more scrupulousness, and perhaps want-of liberality, upon the demands of individuals, than they would be disposed to do if the claim were upon then-Own private funds. The case made out by the lion, member was unquestionably very strong. He by no means meant to contend that the lapse of time was a bar to the demands now made, because those demands had been unremittingly pressed; but it Was high time to come to a final decision whether any thing or nothing should be granted. Neither did he mean to argue that any thing more than a partial compensation had hitherto been afforded to any of the parties. He then proceeded to notice the precise stipulations of the treaty of commerce with the United States in 1794, and followed it by some observations upon the breach of faith of which America had been guilty with regard to the creditors whose demands she thereby undertook to satisfy. The dispute upon this point had been finally, amicably adjusted; and the total amount of the claims was settled by commissioners, at about 1,450,000 l., out of which the loyalists, exclusive of commercial creditors, required 250,000 l. He combated the position, that the attorney-general for the United States had contended in the courts of the republic, that the claimants were barred in limine by the attainder upon them for their conduct. In illustration, he referred to various documents, and especially to the report of a board of joint commissioners, appointed under the 6th article of the treaty; of 11794. He was ready to produce the papers now called for; but he thought it right to state that there were many grounds On which these claims ought to be resisted. To those documents he should beg leave to add others, that would bring the case fully before parliament.
1384
It was painful to resist the claims of those who were not only suffering, but meritorious; but he could not separate the case of the loyalists from that of the merchant creditors; and he considered both of them as suffering from the common fate of war.
Dr. Phillimoreconsidered the case made out by the hon. and learned mover as strong a one as ever came before the House. The chancellor of the exchequer had, in his view of the question, been led into a confusion of the rights of the loyalists with those of the American creditor. But, according to all national law, the two were quite distinct, and their claims rested upon a very different foundation.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, that he was an advocate for compensation to that description of American loyalists who, being domiciled in America, had sacrificed their property to their allegiance: while he would protest against any attempt to indemnify the mere British merchant, who might have made unsuccessful speculations in America at the period alluded to.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, he had no objection whatever to the distinction which his hon. friend had desired to establish.
The motion was agreed to.

REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.
Mr. Westernrose to move for the repeal of the late additional Malt tax, and maintained that upon every consideration of feeling, justice, and policy, that motion ought to be agreed to; for no tax existed which was so injurious to the comforts of the people or to the interests of agriculture. He protested against the idea generally held out, that any member who called for the repeal of a tax was bound to propose a substitute, for that would imply that he who discovered the oppression or injustice of a tax was not entitled to complain unless he were disposed to I become a second chancellor of the exchequer, whose peculiar duty it was, to provide for the financial exigencies of the country. But he the more objected to this idea, because he was an advocate for the reduction of the aggregate amount of taxation. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood, that he did not desire this reduction, by the exemption 'of the agriculturists, or any particular class, from the general pressure. He was not one of those who would tax the funds for the support of the poor-rates, or who would recommend any violation of the

1385
faith pledged to the public creditor. The amount of the poor-rates was undoubtedly a subject requiring the attention of parliament; but be would not embarrass his present object by any reference to that subject. The purpose of his motion was, to produce the removal of a tax most oppressive in its operation, and in consequence comparatively unproductive to the revenue. In order to show that the tax was unproductive the hon. gentleman then entered into a detailed comparison of the tax upon malt, the growth of barley, and the extent of produce and consumption from the year 1791 down to the present day, showing that in England, Ireland, and Scotland, the produce of barley, and the consumption of malt had diminished, as the tax upon the latter had been advanced. Hence, he concluded, that this branch of the revenue had been egregiously mismanaged. He thought some means might be found to remedy the evil of excessive importation, without infringing upon the spirit of the act of 1815. As to the speculative opinions which had been broached upon the subject of free trade, gentlemen might as well talk of the abstract rights of man as of the abstract principles of free trade. To constitute a free trade, the British agriculturist must possess the same advantages as the foreign grower but if he started with such a load as the aggregate amount of taxation in this country, while the foreign grower laboured under no such disadvantages, this was any thing but a free trade. Another great source of pressure upon the agriculturist, and indeed upon all classes of the community, was, the operation of the act passed in 1819, vulgarly called Mr. Peel's Bill. He was aware that it would be considered almost profane in that House to call in question the wisdom of that measure, but without impeaching the wisdom of the act, or the abilities of the persons who advised it, he must be permitted to declare his firm conviction that it would never be a permanent act. He called upon the House, as it regarded the principles of justice and policy, and as it valued the prosperity and morals of the country, to agree to the measure which he had the honour to propose. He concluded by moving for the repeal of so much of the act of 1819 as imposed the Additional Duties on Malt.
Mr. Mackenziesaid, that the extent to which illicit distillation had been carried
1386
in Scotland in 1816, had occasioned the act to establish small stills for the express purpose of consuming the inferior grain raised in the remoter districts of Scotland. In consequence of this change of system, a great increase of the quantity of spirits distilled had taken place up to the period of imposing the additional duties on malt, when the inferior species of barley was rendered perfectly unsaleable, because it was only barley of the best quality which could afford to pay the duty. The barley in the greater part of Scotland was of an inferior quality, and the consequence of imposing the additional duties was, that almost the whole of this barley was thrown into the hands of the illegal distiller. The duty on ten gallons of English spirits was 3l. 5s. 6d.and in the northern districts of Scotland the same quantity of illicit spirit could be purchased for 9l 10 s. It was almost unnecessary to say any thing more in order to show that this was a premium on smuggling, and that such a policy affected the revenue no less than the morals of the country. With regard to the effect of this tax in reducing the consumption, it appeared that on the quantity of spirits made in Scotland during the last year, there was a diminution of 100,000 gallons, as compared with that of the preceding year. He believed he stated the uniform sentiments of the magistrates of Scotland, when he said, that there was no increase of revenue to be purchased by this tax, which was not more than counterbalanced by the evils which it brought upon the, country.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that if he could reconcile to himself that the tax might be dispensed with, without injustice to the public creditor, or injury to the- wants of the state; and if there could be any rational hope, that the distress of the landed interest could be relieved by the repeal, he would support it; and he could do so with the more consistency, as he had reprobated its imposition in 1S19; when the other measures then determined upon with respect to the currency, rendered the country less able to. bear the additional 3 millions of taxes. Now, with respect to the expediency of repealing any tax, he had often stated his opinion, that, under the peculiar circumstances in which we were placed, and with a view to the permanent benefit and security of the fundholder, if the country was really able to wade through the difficulties

1387
of our situation, that it would be both just and politic to relieve the present pressure, to the extent of the supposed sinking fund—looking to the effects of such a measure, and the future prosperity which was anticipated in some quarters, to cause us hereafter to establish a more efficient fund for the redemption of debt—and as his hon. friend had stated that the additional taxation on malt had considerably reduced the consumption—this was to him an undeniable proof that the present tax was excessive and injurious, both to the grower and consumer; and he had therefore no hesitation in saying this was a case in which we were justified in commencing our reduction of the public burthens. He would put it to the House, whether the sinking fund, as it was now managed, was really a fund for the benefit of the stock-holder. All his hopes on this subject had vanished, when the necessities of the country required the great inroads already made upon it. The nominal amount was said to be now between 2 and 3 millions, and appeared more to be viewed as a fund to satisfy the extravagant exigencies of a profuse government, than as applicable to the object under pretence of which it was drained out of the pockets of the people. What was the necessity for so much intricacy and complication in our accounts relative to the sinking fund? An account was laid on the table, by which, in various sums, and under different denominations, about 17 millions of money appeared to pass and repass between the commissioners, and the Bank and Exchequer, of which, last year, according to the admission of the chancellor of the exchequer, only about a million and a half was applied to the reduction of debt; and, according to other accounts, not above half that sum. What was the meaning of all this complex operation—merely to keep up useless establishments and sinecure offices? He had another objection to the accounts as they were now kept—that the country was represented as owing a third more than, bad as was our situation, the debt amounted to. Why not at once cancel the redeemed, debt;—and, if there was really a surlus at the end of the quarter, apply that simply in reduction of the arrears of the consolidated fund; or, in the further redemption of such stock, as it appeared most beneficial to the country to purchase? The truth was, that nothing tending to economy could be expected
1388
from the administration; and all this machinery was, to keep out of sight the jobs and waste of the ruinous system on which the administration of our affairs was conducted. Would the House believe, that the same amount of excise and customs duties—for the collection at the two periods was nearly equal,—34 millions cost in 1807 1,100,000 l.; and in 1820, 2,400,000 l.? Part of this difference might arise from the abolition of fees; but that could not amount to a million; and, in fact, if there was no surplus on the sinking fund, he thought the repeal of this tax was desirable, to force on government the absolute necessity of retrenchment. The House ought now to make, the experiment, how far a limitation of means might affect the object which all parties appeared to desire. He could not coincide in the opinions of the exclusive pressure with which this tax bore on the agricultural interest. It was mainly felt, until our arrival at a diminution of consumption, by the consumer, at which point it began to press on the producer. There were many better reasons for its repeal, but none more cogent than the effects to be apprehended from them, on the moral habits and comforts of the agricultural labourer; but he was content to ground his vote on the occasion, on his hon. friend's showing on this part of the case, and upon the statement generally, that the agricultural petitioner selected this tax, as that from the repeal of which, at present, they expected some relief. His hon. friend had talked of rendering the act of 1815 more effectual for the protection of the home grower. He had thought, on the contrary, that the useful experience which the agriculturists had hitherto had of that system, would have induced them now to be the foremost in praying for its repeal; and if he could venture to recommend to gentlemen so tenderly alive to their own interests, the measure most likely to promote them, he would suggest to the committee up stairs, the repeal of that law as peculiarly adapted to that purpose. What good had the advance of the price of corn to 80 done in 1817, 1818, and 1819? It had oppressed, the consumer, for the temporary advantage of the grower; and this last, in his turn, was still more grievously oppressed by the forced importation, from the temptation which a double price held out, not only of all the surplus corn of other countries, but by our creating a

1389
scarcity in those countries; the inducement being so great, as to insure our receiving any grain, which could be scraped together for exportation. Make this bill, as his hon. friend called it, more effectual—raise the price, if you please, to 90, and what are the consequences? They must be additionally oppressive to both consumer and agriculturist. The same scarcity, or apprehension of scarcity, which would carry the price to 80, would raise it speedily to 90. The increased price is an additional temptation to the foreign merchant. And again, your markets must be overstocked and overloaded, with a surplus beyond our wants, which will press with double weight upon the farmer, in the one or two subsequent seasons, and more particularly after he has been led to expect the high price to which corn must have arrived, to encourage this importation. This absurd system was not only injurious to ourselves, but to the rest of the world, at least, to the foreign consumer, and, indeed, in the end, to the grower, although he may temporarily reap the benefits of our folly, by the extravagant, instead of the moderate price at which, if we required it, we might purchase his produce. In short, he should only tire the House by following all the details of absurdity and mischief which the continuance of this system was calculated to produce. Then, as to those other propositions for what was called protecting the agricultural interest—they must lead to the same results. High prices are the remedy most in vogue; but then, how are these to be procured? The price of grain in this market, now exceeded that of any other market in Europe, on an average about 25 per cent. Would any disinterested person say, that was not a sufficient prohibition against the particular or partial taxation, oppressing the cultivator of the soil in England beyond the farmer in other countries? If, then, this protection is sufficient against over-taxation especially bearing on land, how far do the agriculturists desire us to push this principle for their relief? Would they wish us to force the average value of wheat to what was called the remunerating price of 1815, to 80, and to make the cost of the labourer's subsistence in England more than double that at which the artisan in Flanders or France is maintained, and with which countries we have now to compete in manufactures and commerce?
1390
Or, do they think, if the legislature should be absurd enough to pass laws for this purpose, that any government could at the moment when this application became necessary, enforce them? The simple truth was, that with the depreciation of our currency went high prices; and since the rejection of the motion of his hon. friend (Mr. Baring) a few nights ago, the agriculturists might safely banish any expectation of again seeing them, and prepare, as best they might be able, for the change of circumstances, by which not only their interests, but most of all the trading part of the community had been so seriously affected. The farmer, it was true, could easily escape. He must reduce his expenses, as his capital had been reduced to one-half, and then call upon his landlord and the parson to diminish in the same proportion their rent and tithes. In short, if he could venture to recommend any course of inquiry to the committee up stairs, as that from which any beneficial results could be expected by the farmer, it would be to give up all hope of high prices, and to bend their attention entirely to the reduction of expenses. Let them take the account read in the House by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Wodehouse), of the comparative produce and expenses of a farm in 1792 and 1820. The price of wheat was now, and would remain much the same as at the former period; and the expenses of rent, tithes, taxes, and tradesmen's bills must be reduced to the same standard. The farmer, although in his own estimation he may not be so great a personage, or appear of so much consequence in the eyes of his inconsiderate neighbour, from the reduction in his style and mode of life, will be equally comfortable and more independent, unless he has contracted debts, instead of laying by a provision for altered times—when his case like that of any other debtor, whose burthen has been so much aggravated, and whose means have been so much diminished by the enhanced value of money, will indeed be desperate; and no remedy to be expected from the legislature, after their former determination, can relieve him. With respect to the landed proprietor, where he is entirely unencumbered, he may submit to the depreciation with the perfect assurance that a diminution in his expenditure, equivalent to it, will, at no distant period, follow the reduction of his rent, from the fall in the price of all other

1391
commodities. The incumbent proprietor will at last feel the effect of all his blind confidence in the ministers who have unfortunately brought the country to its present crisis, and regret in vain the support he has given them, in enabling them to anticipate and waste the resources of the country in ruinous and unnecessary wars, successful possibly as far as the page of our history may relate them, but the fruits of which are only now seen in the distress and suffering by which the nation is so universally oppressed. To say that he felt equally for that portion of the landed interest, who had, with constant subserviency supported the principles and resolutions brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer in 1813, with respect to our currency, and the proposition of the right hon. member for Oxford in 1819, without exercising their own judgments or opinion on so momentous a subject, would be to disguise his real feelings. The effects of the last measure they would not so easily shake off, as they derived temporary advantage from the first; and among the necessary and unavoidable effects must be, the reduction in the price of agricultural produce to about the same relative price it bore to that of other countries in the ten years preceding 1796. He had foreseen and foretold all these difficulties, on the proposition for restoring the standard in 1819; and although he concurred entirely in the principles of the committee, in the dilemma in which the country was then placed, he doubted much, whether the injustice of restoring the standard was not as great to one class of individuals who had been led into contracts, under grievous circumstances, as it would have been to another class, whose interests had been so much and so unjustly affected by the paper system, if parliament had then rendered the depreciation permanent. Depreciation to the extent of the necessities of the state,—if the alternative of depreciation had been adopted—to which opinion he was then inclined, from a full sense of the difficulties which surrounded us, and from no desire on any other ground than the absolute necessity of the case to defend himself, as advocating a measure so apparently and otherwise really unjust—was a portentous question; and he was satisfied that any lesser proposition than making the standard 5l. 10 s instead of 3l. 17 s. l0 d. could not have cured the evil. This opinion, however, he so singularly maintain-
1392
ed, that he was unable to find an individual in that House who would second a proposition for recording it on the Journals; and he had always objected to any half measure of relief, by depreciating the standard to any lesser amount, from which great mischief would naturally result, without any adequate compensation for the sacrifice of principle it necessarily involved. It was on these grounds, that having once agreed to the restoration of the standard, he would be the last to recede from it. He had voted against the proposal of the hon. member for Taunton, by which, although not directly or openly, and therefore the more objectionably, lie effectually sought again to depreciate; the standard. If there was a question, on which his mind was more decidedly made up than another, it was, that no temptation of expediency: should now whatever might have been his feeling in 1819, induce us to deviate from the course we had chosen; and he should, if our future experience confirmed his apprehensions of the difficulties we had still to contend with—prefer any other distressing expedient which necessity might force upon us, to any fresh tampering with the currency. One benefit had already resulted from the restoration of our standard—the relief which a depression, of prices had generally given to the industrious classes, and as the distress still to be borne, would lean on those Who, in a great measure were the promoter of it, they had only now to look back with bitter lamentations on they past confidence, and make, amends for it to the public, and seek relief for themselves in a determination, to enforce economy and retrenchment to the utmost extent on the government. On this occasion and on, all others, he would assist, them on this principle to the utmost of his power, he would be most ready to listen to and consider any suggestions which might be offered, to take off those taxes which partially affected them, although the present, one did not so directly as was alleged—even if compelled to substitute others to their place—and.no person could; regret more than he did, that by the short sight edness of their own policy, they had in some measure, sacrificed to the monied, the old landed interest of country on the independence and prosperity of which our liberties and institution so mainly depend On these grounds differing as his opinions, did essentially from those of

1393
the hon. gentleman who introduced this] motion, he gave it his entire consent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that when the hon. mover stated, that the produce of the tax on malt had been diminished by the additional duties imposed in 1819, he had by no means accurately stated the accounts before the House. Now, the first inference which lie should draw from the accounts on the table was, that the repeal of the war duties on malt in 1816, did not relieve the agriculture of the country, which he should prove by an argument of the same nature as that of the hon. member, for he should shew that the repeal of those duties did not increase the consumption of malt in the succeeding years. The average quantity of malt between July, 1816, when the; duties were taken off, and July, 1819, when a considerable part of those duties was reimposed, was less than 22,980,000 bushels; whereas, in the three preceding years, it amounted to 26,469,000 bushels, so that there was a diminution of upwards of 3,000,000 bushels, after the tax was taken off. But if the repeal of the tax had not the effect of increasing the consumption, neither had the reimposition of it the effect of producing any further diminution of consumption. On the contrary, since 1819, there has been an increase of 1,200,000 bushels. The quantity of beer consumed by a large portion of the community was for the most part so uniform, that a moderate fluctuation in the price of barley did not materially affect the amount of consumption. From a computation which had been made, it appeared that the strong beer brewed within the last year, exceeded by 40,000 barrels the average of the three years before. He maintained that the malt duty fell not upon the farmer, but upon the community at large; and if this position was clearly established, as he contended it was, he would ask, whether any tax could be more equally levied upon the mass of the people. He would also contend, that no unfair proportion of the tax had been raised from Scotland he could not therefore consent to any partial diminution of the malt tax with respect to that country. It was argued that the malt tax tended to encourage illicit distillation in Scotland. He was not, however, aware, that any general diminution had taken place in the distillation of spirits. There
1394
might, perhaps, have been a partial diminution but if so it arose from another cause. Under these circumstances, her must oppose the motion.
Lord A. Hamiltonpointed out the severe hardships which the increased malt duty imposed upon the landholders of Scotland. It was unfortunately discovered that a small portion of land in. the neighbourhood of Edinburgh was equal in its produce to good English land, and therefore the whole produce of Scotland was taxed equally with the produce of the most fertile laud in England.
Lord G. Cavendishsupported the motion, from a conviction that it would alleviate the distresses under which the agriculturists laboured. It might be in vidious, in the present state of the country, to state how the operation of any particular tax was felt. But take the operation of the taxes generally; let them look to the manufacturing and the commercial interests, and they would find that both were able, according to the vulgar phrase, to hold their heads above water. Could the same be said of the agricultural interest. Let them look back for the last twenty years. Let them recollect the burdens which had been laid upon the landholder within that period,' and then let any gentleman put it to him self how it was possible for the land holder or farmer to bear up against those burdens.
Mr. Wodehosesaid, that the tax in question was the most objectionable of all our taxes both in a moral and political point of view. He knew of his own knowledge, that it prevented many persons altogether from growing barley. It was impossible to deny, that it went in fact to destroy the cultivation of barley altogether. Landholders now turned themselves to growing of wheat as the most productive grain, the consequence of which would be the speedy exhaustion of the land, and from this would arise that greatest of all curses, a high price of bread. The only way to avert this evil would be, to encourage the cultivation of the lighter soil, by which means a permanent stock would be secured. Some might wish to reduce one tax and same another, but the main question to be considered was, which portion of the community was labouring under the greatest distress? He would any the greatest distress was felt by the arable land farmer.

1395
As long as the Poor laws remained in force So long would the landholder have a paramount claim upon parliament when exigencies required their interference. Was stated that the proprietors of certain lands extorted high rents from the farmer; now the average produce of the lands alluded to was 40 bushels of Wheat or barley per acre;—the rent was 26 s. and he should leave it to hon. members to say if that rent was exorbitant. Never was there a period of greater, agricultural distress than the present. He felt it a duty which he owed to the magistracy and yeomanry of the country to state, that the effects of that distress were only warded off by the mutual cooperation of both; and he feared that unless some remedy was devised, we should be reduced to such a situation that magistrates would be obliged to order the maintenance of the poor on men whose substance was gone, and whose fortunes were ruined. On these grounds he would support the motion; guarding himself however, against any implied censure on the conduct of government.
Mr. Sumnersaid, that the war which had required the present heavy taxation had been supported by the people. Never since man became a pugnacious animal had a war been more cordially supported by the people. He had voted for the repeal of the horse-tax; and he would vote with every member who proposed any reduction of taxes that might relieve agriculture; yet he would vote against the present motion.
Lord Folkestonedid not think that the repeal of this tax would relieve agriculture; but it would relieve the community, which was a much more desirable result. With respect to the necessity so often contended for, of keeping good faith with the public creditor, under all circumstances, he could not help regarding it as fallacious. The maxim, "nemo tenetur ad impossibile," was one of universal application, and he could easily conceive cases in1 which a perseverance in what was called good faith might ultimately prove to be had faith. If the advantage of the public creditor was to be purchased by the injury of the whole community, he conceived that the obligation to preserve that faith was at an end; for the greater must be the more binding duty. Every day's experience rendered it more and more evident, that the country could not go on maintaining its faith at such an ex-
1396
pense; it was, therefore an act of duty that good faith Should submit to necessity. Suppose the County were threatened with invasion; and that it wife impossible to prepare for its defence If we persisted in paying the public creditor—would it not, in that case, be a breach of duty towards the nation at large not to break faith with the public creditor? Suppose the public debt had accumulated to such an amount, that the taxes necessary to pay the interest created such distress among the people, as to require the suspension Of our liberties, in Order to preserve tranquillity—was not that a ease also in which they would be justified in breaking faith with the public; creditor? [Here there was a good deal of confusion in the House.] He would interest the House not to be driven by any alarm at the opinions which he had expressed, from voting for the motion. The best way of avoiding any breach of faith was, to support every motion for economy.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he would call upon the House to recollect that it was only two years ago since government had come down, and recommended an addition of three millions to the taxes for the maintenance of the public credit, and that taxes to that amount were passed by a majority of 327 to 129. Would any one say, that such a change had taken place since that period in the circumstances of the country as to render it necessary that they should repeal four-fifths of the addition then made—for that was the proportion which the tax under consideration bore to the whole amount? If we were in a Situation to reduce any of the public burthens, this was not the first tax which ought to be removed. But when hon. members attributed all the distress under which the agricultural interest laboured, to its operation, they were guilty of great inconsistency: for the distress had not only existed before it had been imposed; but during the war, when it was Is. a bushel more than it was at present, the agricultural interest was in its most flourishing condition. Whatever other objections there might be to this tax, he did not think that any could be made to its unequal operation. Hon. gentlemen had argued, that it ought to be removed' on account of the general distress which prevailed. Now, when he heard it asserted, that the manufacturer, the artisan, the agriculturist, and the land-owner Were all involved in extreme distress; he was in-

1397
clined to refer to facts to ascertain how, far that position was made out. He could not state his views of the subject better than by showing the effect which the fall of prices had produced upon the different classes of the community. These classes were of three kinds: first, those who obtained their subsistence by their daily labour; second, those who lived upon accumulated and dormant capital; third, those who by their industry and intelligence in the use of their capital gave employment to those who composed the first class. Now, he apprehended, that though considerable distress might exist in some parts of the country, from want of employment, the fall of prices, occasioned by the late: improvement of the currency, had considerably benefited those who were in the first class. The condition of the second class, was also ameliorated. That class consisted of the public creditor, of annuitants, and of persons whose income was derived from monies placed out at interest. The persons of whom this class was composed, had been taunted as the idle part of the community. He would call them persons, who, after a life of slow gains and patient industry, had confided their earnings to the care of the public honour; and he trusted that to a British parliament it was not necessary to make any appeal in their behalf. During the war, a depreciation of 25 per cent had taken place in the value of money: under that depreciation these individuals had suffered; and it was not too much to allow them to enjoy in quiet the alteration of circumstances which had since occurred. If the depreciation of money during the war had not equally affected the landlord, it was only fitting that it should so affect him now. But the truth was, that the land-owner had benefited greatly by that depreciation: he had raised the rent of his land in consequence of it, and he must now lower it in consequence of the fall of prices. The third class included merchants, ship-owners, farmers, and those who gave employment to capital; and on them: the change in the currency had operated severely. It was, however, to be recollected that this was the class which had received so much benefit from the diminution in the value of money. They were, he believed, in a state of considerable distress; but that distress had been chiefly created by the facility with which I it they had obtained; money during the war The land-owner wished to compensate
1398
himself for the burthens under which., he laboured, and, in order to do so, availed himself of the speculations into which the farmer, who was his tenant, was perpetually running. Many of these speculations had since plunged those who hat! made them into great difficulties. These, difficulties had then recoiled upon the landowner, and had brought him to that House for redress. But the House would be deceiving itself, if it thought that it was in the power of any human legislation to change the course of events like these, which arose from unalterable causes. The difficulties of the land-owner, arising from this source, were, however, aggravated by others, in which the course of events had also placed him. He had fixed upon his estates, jointures, mortgages, rent-charges, &c. which he found himself unable to discharge. This led to a struggle about rent, between him and his tenant, and thus increased the evil condition of both.—It was, however, maintained by some, that all this distress was the effect of taxation alone. He maintained that it was not, and would give a practical illustration of the correctness of his position. No gentleman would say that the pressure of those difficulties which at present almost overwhelmed America was the effect of taxation. The poor-rates bore with great weight upon this country; but that could not be considered as one of the causes of the distress which prevailed in America; where a still greater fall of prices had taken place than had taken place in England. He regretted the state to which that country was reduced, both on the score of common humanity, and because our own prosperity was connected with that of others. The same causes that produced this unequalled distress there, had operated here; hut he thanked God in a less degree; but still the effect was so severely felt, as to make people too gloomy and despondent about the result if the country maintained public faith with its creditors; if it Was true to the principles upon which, up to the present period, it had always acted; if disentangled itself from those branches of trade which, instead of promoting, impeded its interests; if it avoided those infamous expedients to which other nations had thought it requisite to resort it would come out of the distress in which it was involved with unimpeached. honour with a character; rendered more brilliant by the very dangers to which it had been

1399
exposed the right hon gentleman concluded with moving the previous questions.
Mr. Witber forcesaid, he was anxious to see the public burthens alleviated as much as possible; at the but at the same time he was persuaded of the necessity of keeping faith public creditor. He would not aggravate, unnecessarily, the burthens of the country for he was convinced that the best strength of a government was the good will and hearts of the people [Here the hon gentleman proceeded for several minutes, in the midst of loud cries of "Question!"]; He complained of this interruption, and said, that gentlemen who came down late should have come consideration, if not for those who sat there patiently all night at least for the nature of the question itself. It was not one to be disposed of in a cursory and summary way if it was not one they ought to proceed With "pedib us ire in sententiam" He hoped the subject would be temperately discussed, He should support the motion.
Mr. Moneksaid, that the right hon. gentleman had asked, what difference there was this question now and at a former period to which he had alluded. He would tell hnm—the difference would be found in the reduced state of the country. In proportion as the rent-roll of the country declined, in the same proportion ought the taxation which bore upon it the right hon. gentleman had said, why complain now, seeing that the duty was much higher during the war? Because the prices which Were then high were now low, He had talked of America; but he should recollect that there the salaries of men in office and also the standing army, had been reduced one-half. There were two modes of relieving the agricultural interests; one by high duties and bounties—to that mode he objected; for to benefit one class it must fall upon another the only real good could be effected by economy and retrenchment and the only way to induce ministers to resort to that was by a removal of a part of the taxation, by which a system of extragance Upheld.
Mr. Littletonthought that taxation should be generally distributed; and that this tax therefore was not the one which ought to be continued.
Lord Castlereaghsaid he could not help complaining that the nations of his hon friend (Mr. Wilberforce which were he know those of benevotence, ap-
1400
peared rather contracted with reference to a principle of humanity; for his hon. friend should recollect, that the best mode of securing the satisfaction of the was to uphold the public credit which was so essential to its prosperity the noble lord then complained that the present time should be axed upon for withdrawing this tax. Would the House tolerate such an attempt, when the country, was in a course of restoring its currency? The House had pledged the government to that course, and could not now, when the manufacturing distresses were not so great as they were some time back, call upon them to reduce its revenue two millions, without knowing whether c they could reckon upon the same state of the revenue in the ensuing year.
Mr. K. Douglasthought that if present scale of taxation was necessary at more general tax than this could not selected. The, previous question; being put, the House divided: Ayes 149,:;Noes 125. Mr. Western's motion was consequently agreed to, and a bill ordered to be brought in.

List of the Majority.

Allen, J. H.

Creevey, Thos.

Althorp, viscount

Cripps, J.

Anson, hon. G.

Curteis, J. E.

Astley, J. D.

Claughton, Thos.

Bruce, Robt.

Corbett, Panton

Beaumont, T. P.

Chetwynd, G.

Barham, J.F.

Calvert, N.

Barham, J. F. jun.

Davies, T. H.

Barnard, viscount

Denison, Wm. J.

Barrett, S. M.

Duncannon, visc.

Becher, W. W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Dundas, Charles

Bernal, R.

Drummond, J.

Birch, Joseph

Davenport, D.

Bury, visct.

Ellice, Ed.

Burrell, Walter

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Blair, J.H.

Farquharson, A.

Benett, John

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Buchanan, John

Fitzgerald, rt. hon.M.

Bentinck, lord, W.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Bastard, E.P.

Fane, John

Buxton, T. F.

File, earl of

Blake, Robt.

Forbes, C.

Chaloner, Robt.

Fox, G. Lane

Calcraft, J.

Fellowes, W. H.

Calvert, C.

Gordon, R.

Campbell, hon. J.

Grattan, J.

Carew, R. S.

Grant, J. P.

Cavendish, lord G.

Guise, sir Wm.

Cavendish, H.

Grant, G.M.

Cavendish, Charles

Gooch, T. S.

Clifton, visc.

Grant, col.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Gordon, hon. W.

Crompton, Sam.

Hamilton, lord A.

Curwen, J. C.

Harbord, hon. Ed.

1401

Heathcote, G. J.

Robinson, sir G.

Heron, sir Robt.

Rowley, sir W.

Hill, lord A.

Russell, lord John

Hobhouse, J. C.

Russell, lord W.

Hornby, Ed.

Rickford, W.

Hume, Jos.

Ramsay, sir A.

Hurst, Robt.

Rogers, E.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Rumbold, C.

Harvey, sir E.

Scott, James

James, Wm.

Smith, hon. R.

Jervoise, G. P.

Smith, W.

Johnson, colonel

Smyth, J. H.

Lennard, T. B.

Stanley, lord

Lambton, J. G.

Sykes, D.

Latouche, Robt.

Scourfield, W. A.

Lemon, sir W.

Shelley, sir John

Lloyd, J. M.

Sebright, sir J.

Lushington, Dr.

Stepford, visct.

Lockhart, J. J.

Talbot, R. W.

Littleton, Ed.

Tavistock, marq.

Maberly, J.

Townshend, lord C.

Macdonald, J.

Tennyson, C.

Martin, John

Warre, J. A.

Mildmay, P.

Webbe, Ed.

Monck, A.

Whitbread, S. C.

Monteith, H.

Whitbread,W. H.

Majoribanks, S.

Wilkins, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Wilson, sir R.

Neville, hon. R.

Wood, ald.

Nightingale, sir M.

Wyvill, M.

Ossulston, lord

Wodehouse, Ed.

O'Grady, Standish

Wynn, sir W. W.

Palmer, col.

Wemyss, J.

Palmer, C. F.

Wilberforce, W.

Parnell, sir H.

TELLERS.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Western, C. C.

Power, R.

Folkestone, visct.

Price, Robt.

PAIRED OFF.

Pym, Francis

Coffin, sir Isaac

Pollen, sir John

Colburne, N. R.

Pitt, J.

Maberly, W. L.

Penruddock, T.

Newport, sir J.

Rice, T. S.

Nugent, lord

Ramsden, J. C.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Ricardo, D.

Sefton, earl

Robarts, A.