Sitting of 5 March 1805

Preamble
[MINUTES.]
Mr. Baker obtained leave to bring in a bill for enabling Mr. Bowyer, proprietor of the Historic Gallery, in Pail-Mall, to dispose of the same by way of lottery or chances.—Mr. Williams, from the board of naval inquiry, presented a. copy of the correspondence between that board and the admiralty, on the subject of the papers relating to the squadron under sir Home Popham, with the dates of the papers, and the examinations taken before the commissioners of naval inquiry. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. —Mr. May gave notice, that on Thursday next he should move for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the duty of 61. per cent, imposed upon the imports of the retail dealers in Ireland.—Mr. Dickenson brought up the marine mutiny bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.—Sir J. B. Warren brought up a petition from the town and corporation of Birmingham, praying for a repeal of the late corn bill; which was ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Young, from the customs brought up an account of the tonnage and number of ships employed in the We6t India trade during the last year. Ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the resolutions of the committee on the expiring laws; and obtained leave to bring in a bill on them.—Mr. Forster brought up an account of the ordinary and extraordinary revenues of Ireland, from the 1st of Jan. 1804, to the 1st of Jan. 1805, with several other accounts, preparatory to the Irish budget; which were ordered to be printed.—Mr. Huskisson moved, that there be laid before the house, a copy of the warrant for granting any rents, leases, or other grants of the Lordships of Fife and Strathern, in Scotland, to the hon. John Hope, in trust for lady Jane Melville; as also accounts of the balances and arrears due from the rents of said lordships and manors by the late John Crawford, Esq. deceased; which being a-greed to, the account was presented, and ordered to lie on the table. He also brought up, an account of the charges and discharges on the said rents, and a return to the order of the 12th of Feb. last, giving an account of the balances remaining in the hands of John Hamilton, Esq. receiver-general of the customs in Scotland; which were ordered to lie on the table,—
706
Lord Marsham brought up the report of the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition from the Middlesex electors, complaining of the last return for Middlesex. The report was read, and the following are its resolutions: "That George Bolton Mainwaring, Esq. was not duly returned for the said county; that sir Francis Burdett, Bart, ought to have been returned. That neither the petition of the freeholders, nor the opposition made to it, was frivolous or vexatious." The report being agreed to, it was ordered, on the motion of lord Marsham, that the clerk of the crown should attend to-morrow, to cancel the name of G. B. Mainwaring, and. insert that of sir Francis Burdett.

CORN REGULATION BILL.
Petitions were presented by lord Archibald Hamilton, from Lanerk, Ruthuglen, and other places in Scotland, praying a repeal of the corn act of last session.
The Secretaryat War took occasion to call the attention of the house to the subject of those petitions. It appeared to him that the petitioners complained of the evils of a, bill, which, in point of fact, had not yet come into action. The bill was hot to operate until corn was at a certain price; and as no such case had yet occurred, he thought the people were deluded, and persuaded to feel a grievance of which they had yet had no experience.
Lord Archibald Hamiltonvidicated the right of the people to petition even where, the evil of which they complained was but likely to arise. In this case, however, the evil was actually experienced. The very passing of the act had done considerable mischief. It had created an alarm that had not yet subsided. It had raised the price of corn. But, even supposing that it had not produced that effect, if the object of the bill were exception able, it was of course such as the people were entitled to deprecate, and against which it was their right, interest, and duty to. petition.
Sir W Elfordstated the object of the act to which the petitions referred, to be to promote agriculture by encouraging the farmers. But as the act had not yet been in operation, he maintained that the price of corn was not fairly attributable to it, and that corn would have been, from various circumstances, at its present rate, if that act had never existed. This he thought it necessary to mention, as a great delusion, had gone forth among the people

707
that the existence of this act had produced an enhancement in the price of corn. The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. Charles Wynneobserved, that an hour had elapsed after the usual time of meeting, and yet no progress had been made with the public business. Without meaning any thing harsh; therefore, he proposed to move the house to proceed, with the orders of the day, as considerable inconvenience was felt by gentlemen: from such delays.
Mr. Fullersaid, if the public business was thus unnecessarily delayed, it would be difficult for a member to get a dinner more than one day in the week.
Mr. Huskissonreplied, that there had been no delay of business on this day, and that, he had been at the bar to present certain papers that had been ordered by the house, when the motion was made by the hon. member. He appealed to the expedience of those gentlemen who were longest acquainted with the procedings of the house, whether five o'clock was not the usual time of proceeding with the public business.
Mr. C. Wynnestated, that four o'clock was the hour appointed for meeting, and that it had frequently been half past five, during the present session, before public business was proceed with. The house could not be formed without 40 members, and when 40 members came down at four o'clock, he submitted whether it was not extremely inconvenient to keep them waiting till half past five.
Mr. Martin (of Tewkesbury)declared, that there had been an extreme waste of time lately, and that the delay was highly disrespectful to the house, and to the chair.

MUTINY BILL.
The Secretary at Warproceeded to move the third reading of the mutiny bill. In making this motion he was afraid that lie should disappoint the expectation of the hon. officer on the other side, (general Fitzpatrick) as he was not prepared to submit the propositions which that hon. officer recommended on a former flay. For himself, he was ready to confess, that those propositions appeared to be perfectly reasonable. They were, according to his recollection, that the members of regimental courts martial should be sworn, that they should be authorized to administer oaths to witnesses, &c. and that no president of such a court martial should be under 21 years of age. However, al-
708
though they were unexceptionable in his opinion, there were many officers of considerable experience and high rank who entertained doubts of the propriety of introducing such innovations into the old established system of the army. To the doubts of such persons he. thought it proper to defer, although he was free to own, that in the objections they advanced he saw no force. Yet it was due to them to allow time for fuller deliberation on the subject, and with a view to that he would propose a slight alteration in this bill, which could not be conveniently delayed in its progress, to this effect, "that it might be altered or amended within the session." This alteration would, he hoped, meet the concurrence of the hon. officer, as it would afford an opportunity of introducing the amendments he suggested.
General Fitzpatricksaid, that in consequence of the conference he had had with the right hon. gent. and the obvious justice and necessity of the propositions he suggested, which met that right hon. gent.'s entire concurrence, he had thought it unnecessary to trespass on the attention of the house, by stating the grounds upon which he was urged to submit those propositions. Those grounds were such as he had very little doubt would convince the majority of the house of the propriety of adopting the amendments he proposed. He had, indeed, never heard any serious objection urged against them. It therefore struck him as rather extraordinary, after the declared coincidence of the right hon. gent, to be told that some military officers entertained doubts upon the subject. No doubt was expressed by any person of that house; not a sentence of objection was heard from any member; and yet those salutary improvements, for the adoption of which policy, humanity, and justice equally called, were to be rejected or delayed, because some military officers doubted. How, he would ask, were the objections of such military persons to be brought before the house in a parliamentary form? and the mere statement of their objections, unaccompanied by any reason for such objections, was not, he contended, a parliamentary ground for the delay on the promotion of any measure. The time required in the opinion of the right hon. gent, to deliberate upon the propositions he had felt it his duty to recommend, was attainable in his judgment, with out proposing the alteration the right hon. gent, alluded to,

709
There was no necessity to hurry the bill through the house. This was only the 5th of the month, and there was yet time enough to pass it even should the right hon. gent. consent to postpone the third reading until some day next week. For himself, he must say, that he felt he was at present rather awkwardly circumstanced. He had declined to prepare the clauses he wished to introduce into the bill, relying that the right hon. gent, would bring them forward. The right hon. gent. would, however, he trusted, agree to postpone his motion; particularly as no inconvenience could result from such postponement. He also trusted that the right hon. gent. would not withhold his assistance from him in drawing up the necessary clauses; further, that the right hon. gent, would manfully maintain his declared opinion, and second his endeavours to promote the adoption of those clauses.
Colonel Stuartthought the principle of the propositions recommended by the hon. officer ought to be carried farther, and that the degrees of punishment to be inflicted by regimental courts martial ought to be limited. The number of members on such courts martial ought, in his opinion, to be in no case less than 7, unless where a field officer presided, and, in such case, not less than 5. This was a regulation, which appeared to him highly necessary, but he particularly enforced the propriety of prohibiting the sentences of regimental courts martial from inflicting beyond a certain degree of punishment, not more than 2 or 300 lashes.
The Secretary at Warexpressed his readiness to assist the right hon. officer in drawing up the clauses wish respect to the propositions he mentioned, and in which he perfectly concurred. He also assented to his wish for postponing the motion, and should therefore move the third reading on Monday next.
Sir Eyre Cootecordially approved the propositions of the right hon. officer, and thought that no officer should be admitted a member of any court martial who was under 21 years of age. This alteration would, he was persuaded, be very grateful to the feelings and conducive to the interests of the army.—The order for the third reading of the bill was postponed till Monday.

SALT DUTY BILL.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair; in order to go into a committee op the salt duty bill,
Mr. Johnstonerose, not, he said to-repeat the general arguments on this measure, which the house had heard so forcibly urged yesterday, but to call the attention of gentlemen to the operation of the salt tax in Scotland. When this tax was imposed in 1795, it was reduced in Scotland from 6s. 6d. to 4s. per bushel. This reduction took place in consequence of a consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the people of that country. Now, he wished to understand how it was proposed to draw the additional tax contained in this bill from a country so circumstanced. If in 1795 it was incapable of paying more than 4s. per bushel, why was it now deemed capable of affording 9s.? Considering, indeed, the situation of Scotland fully and fairly, it was his opinion that it. would be much wiser to remit the salt duty in that country altogether. That duty produced but 47,0001. per annum, and there was a bounty allowed from the excise amounting to 29,000l. which, with a considerable; bounty from the customs, exceeded the produce of the tax. For these reasons, he submitted, that a repeal of the duty as to Scotland would be not less advantageous, to the revenue than to the people of Scotland. If so, then, bow could ministers justify the imposition of a farther salt tax upon that country?
Mr. Huskissonstated the reason for the former reduction of the salt tax in favour of Scotland to be this, that as the Scotch people manufactured their salt from sea water, they were subject to an increased expence for fuel. On that account this allowance was made, which it was still proposed to continue, and he contended, there, fore, that the people of Scotland had no reason to complain. As to the produce of the revenue arising from the salt duty in Scotland contrasted with the bounty, he admitted that it was not considerable; but then its reduced amount proceeded from the frauds that were known to exist, and the smuggling with Ireland, If, however, the hon. gent., would look into the, bill before the house, he would see that such provisions were introduced into it as were calculated effectually to prevent those frauds in future.—A. division took place upon the motion, ayes, 128; noes, 58 5 rnajority,70.

PROPERTY TAX BILL.
The house resolved itself into a committee on the property tax bill.
Earl Templegave notice, that he would to-morrow more for the exemption of mi-

711
litary officers, below a certain rank, from the payment of this tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerannounced his intention of opposing any proposition for the exemption of any class of men from this tax, as contrary to the spirit and equity of the measure, and calculated to undermine the whole contribution.
Sir John Newportcalled the attention of the committee to this tax, as it affected the property in the funds, belonging to persons resident in Ireland. This, he conceived, to be contrary to the principle of the union, which, proposed to leave the resources of each country applicable to the treasury of that country. It would be also contrary to the policy which dictated an exemption in favour of the funded property of foreigners, which arose from a wish to induce foreigners to vest their money in our funds. The operation of this, tax with respect to persons resident in Ireland would, he observed, be still more severe, for this reason, that according to the act, the English agent would be obliged to make a return of the whole property of his principal, and thus the same person might be subject to the payment of the same tax in both countries. Under those circumstances, the hon. baronet proposed a clause to exempt from the tux such property in the funds as belonged to persons who pay the hearth money and the window tax in Ireland.
Mr. Alexanderdid not think the object of the lion, baronet attainable in the, way he proposed.
Sir John Newportstated, that when he before mentioned the subject, he was told that the committee would be the proper place' to bring forward this proposition
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the proposition of the hon. baronet could not be entertained, as no previous instruction to the committee had been voted. As to the proposition itself, he was surprised to hear it stated, that it involved a violation of the principle of the union. It was not less agreeable to that principle than to the precepts of common equity, that the property in each country should be subject to the taxation, and appropriate to the treasury of that country. This was precisely what this tax, objected to by the hon. bart. proposed; and, on the same principle, the property in the funds of Ireland, belonging, to persons resident in this country, would be subject to the taxation, and applicable to the purposes of that country, should it be through proper to lay a tak on
712
such funds. By the same parity of reasoning the land in each country would, incase of a land-tax, be subject to the tax imposed in that country. He recollected that the Irish parliament had laid an additional tax on the land of absentees; and therefore they proceeded upon quite a contrary principle to that on which the proposition of the hon. baronet was grounded: Indeed, he never heard of any project of exemption, similar to that proposed by the hon. baronet.
Sir John Newportpersisted in maintaining that it was contrary to the principle of the union to draw these resources from the use of Ireland which would be otherwise sent into it. Independently of this ground of objection, however, he claimed' the exemption he proposed, upon the same principle as that which induced the house to exempt the funded property of foreigners. Unless the property of the latter were deemed more sacred than that of the Irish, he saw no reason why this proposition should be resisted. If the hon. gent. should persist in opposing his object, he declared he would move to expunge from the bill the exemption in favour of foreigners.
Mr. Bankesbrought up a clause, to exempt from the payment of this tax all lands, money, or other property, vested in trustees for the use of almshouses, or other charitable purposes only.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he should shortly have occasion to move for leave to bring in another bill relating to regulations which would give his hon. friend an opportunity of submitting this exemption; but, if he thought proper to offer it now, he did not suppose it would meet with any opposition.—The clause was then brought up and, agreed to, and the bill having passed the committed, was ordered to be reported to-morrow.

Preamble
[MINUTES.]
The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages.—One of the masters in chancery reported the answer of the house of commons to their lordships' message, desiring the permission of the house to the right hon. sir John Stewart, bait, one of its members, to attend a committee of their lordships, importing, that the house had granted permission accordingly. Sir John Stewart was afterwards sworn at the bar, with respect to his proposed evidence before the committee of their lordships, to whose consideration the matters alleged in charge against Mr. Justice Fox were referred.— Lord Mulgrave, seeing a noble baron in his place, on whose motion their lordships stood summoned for Friday next, For the discussion of a subject of considerable importance, observed, that it would tend greatly to the convenience of several noble lords, were the noble baron, should it make no material difference to him, to postpone his intended motion until the following Monday. Lord King, in reply adverted to what had already taken place with respect to postponing the discussion in question; it had been twice posponed, and very lately on the requisition of a noble lord, a colleague of the noble secretary's. His lordship alluded to the inconvenience it would be to several noble lords on his side of the house, were the discussion farther postponed. He was willing to make every reasonable concession to the convenience of noble lords; but, as the present case stood, he should, unless some strong reason for a further postponement were assigned, adhere to his intention of bringing forward his motion on Friday.— Lord Walsingham acquainted their lordships, that he should have to-morrow, a proposition to submit to the house, respecting a power hi the committee to whom the matters alleged in charge against Mr. Justice Fox was referred, to report from time, to to time, &c. And moved, that their lordships be summoned on the occasion; which was ordered accordingly.—Mr. Alexander brought up from the commons, the additional postage duties bill, and the new loan bill, which were severally read a first time.—Adjourned.