Sitting of 11 May 1815

EXCHEQUER BILLS.
The report of the Committee of Ways and Means being brought up, the first Resolution was agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as to the second Resolution, which respected Exchequer bills, he should move that it be re-committed, in order to make an alteration in the form of it, as it appeared that the old subscribers, who were allowed to subscribe to the amount of 80 per cent, on their former subscriptions, had not come forward with subscriptions enough to fill up the whole sum which it was intended to raise.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that in consequence of the change in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the short space of two hours on Monday morning, several persons had been losers to a considerable extent. The right hon. gentleman had at first sent a letter to the city, in which it was said that Exchequer bills only would be received in the hew subscriptions; in consequence of which Exchequer bills rose 7 and 8, and even 10 shillings. Shortly, after, however, a new letter was sent, in which it was said that Exchequer bills were not at all necessary. The consequence was, that Exchequer bills fell as much as they had before
[246
risen, and the purchasers had thus incurred a heavy loss.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had been induced to make the change in consequence of a representation that the subscription would not be filled up under the former plan. The purchasers of Exchequer bills would not be losers, as the original subscribers would still be at liberty, as before, to set down their names to the amount of 80 per cent, on their former subscriptions.
The Resolution was ordered to be recommitted to-morrow week.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid:—Sir; I hold in my hand a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The gentlemen who intrusted it to my care have informed me, that the Roman Catholics are particularly anxious that the merits of their claims should be taken into consideration during the present session. I think it proper, therefore, to give notice, that I shall move, on this day fortnight, that the House do form itself into a committee, to take into consideration the laws affecting the Roman Catholics. Prior to that period, if the courtesy of the House will allow me, I shall submit certain Resolutions, containing the full extent of the claims of the Catholic body. I do not mean to introduce them for the purpose of provoking a premature discussion; but from a desire to pot the House in possession of every thing relating to those claims. I shall afterwards more the Resolutions in the committee, if it be conceded. At present I shall merely move, "That the Petition be now read."
Mr. Tierney—If I understand the hon. baronet, he has mentioned, that claims of a definitive nature will be submitted to the House, in formal resolutions, if the committee be granted. Now, I wish to know whether those resolutions speak the sense of the whole Catholic body, or only of at part of it? And if the latter be the case of what portion does it speak the sentiments?
Sir Henry Parnell.—I can answer the questions of the right hon. gentleman, I think satisfactorily. This is the petition of certain Roman Catholics of Ireland, whose signatures are affixed thereto, on behalf of themselves and the Catholic body of Ireland. It comes exactly from the same description of persons with whom the other petitions, on the same subjects

247]
which have been discussed by the House, originated: and, as far as that opinion can be expressed, under the existing restraint which the law puts on them, and which prevents them from sending delegates to meetings, it does express the sense of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. With respect to the extent of unanimity which the sentiments contained in the resolutions meet with, I can state, from communications I have had on the subject, that they speak the correct and unequivocal opinion of the mass of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. With regard to the claims of the Catholics, and the propriety of laying those claims before the House, in the shape of Resolutions, before the main discussion came on, the reason is this—it appears to be very desirable, that, in entering on a new discussion of the Petition of the Catholic body, the House should be put in possession—and, as far as is practicable, they ought to be put hi exact possession—of all that the Roman Catholics require from the House. I have it in my power to state decidedly to the House, that I shall submit to them resolutions, that express correctly the opinion of the Catholic body, with respect to the extent of their claims; so that if the House accede to what is contained in those Resolutions, they will give perfect satisfaction to that great body of their fellow-subjects.
The Petition was then brought up and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners are excluded from the enjoyment of the free constitution of these realms, and are subjected to the endurance of such exclusion not on account of any imputed deficiency of disposition or of ability in the service of the Crown or support of the State, but solely on account of their conscientious adherence to that religion which was professed by those princes and patriots of Great Britain who originated and matured her justly-boasted constitution; and that the petitioners again implore the House to grant to them the redress of the oppressive grievances of which they so justly complain, and to restore them to the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the rank of free subjects of the empire." On the motion, that the Petition do lie on the table,
Sir J. C Hippisleyobserved, that he should be very ready to enter into an adequate investigation of the claims of so considerable a body as the Catholics of Ireland, as far as could tend to the fulfil-
[248
ment of the resolution of the House in a former session, that of a conciliatory adjustment which might be conducive to the strength and peace of the kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects: but he thought it incumbent upon him, at the same time, thus early to declare, that he should oppose the claims, such as announced in the petition, of unqualified concession.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Bankesgave notice that he should to-morrow move that the House be called over on this day fortnight, as every one must be of opinion that on such an important question as would then come on, a full attendance was requisite.
Sir H. Parnellgave notice, that he should on this day week move the resolutions pro forma, and that on this day fortnight he should move that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.
Mr. Bankessaid he did not hold himself bound to give his assent to the previous stage which had been given notice of by the hon. baronet, as the case was not one in which the House was ignorant of what it was required (as the hon. baronet had termed it) they should do. He felt it his duty to resist, on every opportunity, the claims of the petitioners, if they insisted on them in their full extent.

FREEMEN'S ELECTION RIGHTS BILL.
Mr. Lockhart,according to notice, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the right of freemen and burgesses to vote at elections of members to serve in parliament. He observed that the object of the measure which he had to propose was to oblige freemen to take out their freedom a certain short time before they could vote. Such a measure was called for by the great number of persons who took an opportunity to become freemen of boroughs immediately before a contested election, whereby the expense of those contests was increased to an extravagant amounts. Whether the period was three months, one month, or even a fortnight, it would answer the purpose which he had in view.
Mr. Tierneysaid the proposed measure being one which would deprive persons who had a perfect right from exercising it

249]
during a certain time, was such a partial disfranchisement that could not be justifiable unless a strong case were made out.
Mr. Rosesaid a faw words in favour of the measure.
Mr. Wetherellthought the Bill could not be rendered justifiable by any particular case of inconvenience.
Sir M. W. Ridleydisapproved of the measure.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that the Bill would disfranchise many of his constituents, and other voters, who were sea-faring men, and therefore had often no opportunity to take out their freedom before the time of election, although on that account there could be no reasonable objection to their votes.
Mr. Wynngave no opinion on the measure before the House, but thought that the great source of the expense and criminality at contested elections, arose from the non-resident voters, with respect to whom some measure should be adopted.
Sir J. Newportthought some measure was necessary to put it out of the power of the mayor to act partially with respect to the admission of freemen. It was now in the power of the mayor in many places to refuse to admit a freeman at a particular time, by declining to call a court for his admission.
Leave was given, and the Bill being brought in was read a first time.

IRISH MALT DUTIES BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Irish Malt Duties Bill,
Sir John Newportsaid, it had long been the anxious wish of the House to discourage the consumption of spirits in Ireland, and to introduce malt liquor, as a more wholesome beverage. This feeling was founded in a laudable desire to promote habits of morality and industry amongst the lower classes in that country. Now, he feared, that the increased malt duty, under this Bill, would have the effect of bringing the Irish population back to the use of spirits. The right hon. gentleman, he was aware, had laid an additional tax on the distilleries, proportioned to the augmentation of the duty on the brewery; but this was likely materially to encourage the practice of illicit distillation.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldsaid, the difficulties of the sister country were such, that it was impossible to adopt any measure that would be entirely effectual, or to which some objection could not be offered. He
[250
entirely concurred with the right hon. baronet in the desirableness of introducing malt liquor, instead of spirits. But, from the manners and habits of a great part of the population of that country—habits growing out of their peculiar occupation, vast numbers of them being employed in agriculture, and necessarily scattered over a large extent of country—it was impossible always to supply them with malt liquor. To counteract the effect of the additional duty on malt, an increased tax had been laid on the distillery. This the right hon. baronet seemed to think would induce an extension of illicit distillation. The laws, however, to prevent that evil were put in force with the most unrelaxed activity. And when it was found that government were determined to follow up those measures, which, however severe in the beginning, were, in the end, the most merciful, he hoped the good sense and hottest feeling of the country, would operate to remove the evil of illicit distillation.
Mr. W. Smithdenied the justice of the right hon. gentleman's observation, when he said, that it was impossible, because the population of Ireland was much scattered, to introduce malt liquor amongst them. The very contrary of his inference was the fact. Where great numbers of persons met together, in cities, far more spirits were consumed, than the same number would make use of, if they were scattered through the country. One hundred thousand people spread over the country, and engaged in agricultural pursuits, would not consume one-tenth part of the spirits, in a given time, that would be drunk by the like number of persons in London or Manchester.
Sir J. Newportpointed out the necessity of establishing large breweries in those districts where illicit distillation was known to be most prevalent.
Mr. W. Smithobserved, that the general consumption of malt liquor in this country did not originate in the formation, of large breweries, but was effected by the small farmers, who brewed their own beer.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldsaid, the small farmers in Ireland had it not in their power to brew their own beer; they were really incapable. He was friendly to the establishment of breweries in that country, which was proved by his having preferred a tax on malt, to a direct beer duty, which would be more likely to pre-

251]
vent the growth of breweries. Whatever measure Parliament thought fit to adopt, to give encouragement to the establishment of breweries, should receive his support.
The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received tomorrow.

LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT.
Mr. SerjeantOnslow moved, "That a committee be appointed to inspect the Journals of the House of Lords, with relation to any proceeding upon the Bill, intituled, 'An 'Act for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject;' and to make report thereof to the House:"—and a committee was appointed accordingly.

ALIEN BILL.
On the question for the third reading of the Aliens Regulation Bill,
Earl Stanhopemade a variety of observations, but particularly upon the language and diction of the Bill, which he contended was erroneous, and liable to much misconstruction. He dwelt a good deal on what be conceived the necessity of having certain parentheses in the Bill, properly distinguished in the Bill. It was well known that all the stops, colons, commas, semicolons, and so on, were introduced by the King's printer, when Bills came under his hands; but never the parentheses, for which proper blanks were left in the original Bill or Record; and he defied either of the noble and learned lords (Redesdale and Ellenborough) on the right and on the left of a much better judge than either of them, (the Lord Chancellor) to controvert what he said. By his construction of the part of the Bill to which he more especially

241]
referred, an individual might be indicted for the non-commission of an offence against the Act, as well as for the commission of one; and to obviate this glaring defect, as he Considered it to be, he moved for the omission of certain words in that part of Bill.
The Bill being read a third time, the question was formally put on the amendment proposed by the noble earl, which was negatived, and the Bill was then passed.

PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
The Duke of Norfolkrepeated his approbation of the principle of the Bill, and his conviction that the clamours and out-cries which had been raised against it were unfounded. The Executive Government ought not to suffer itself to be influenced improperly by such means, and the firmness which they had displayed during the outcry against the Corn-bill was much to their credit; for, whether that measure was right or not, the decision ought not to be influenced by such clamours. But while he approved of the principle of the Bill, he was aware that it required much modification in the details. There could not be a more equal and proper tax than this, if it were confined to property secured—he meant land, properly in the funds, mortgages, bonds, &c.: but income derived from trade and personal exertion, which was uncertain in its nature, ought not to be so taxed. The Bill required amendment, too, in the case of the occupiers of land, who paid according to a very uncertain and unfair criterion. He recommended it, therefore, to ministers to consider whether several very material amendments and modifications might not be made in this plan of taxation, in case it were necessary to continue it beyond the year. He considered the situation of the country to be such as to require this great financial measure, and he hoped the eventual use of the extensive powers entrusted to his Majesty's Government, would be the establishment of a secure peace upon fair and honourable terms, such as a- nation like this had a right to expect. Upon these grounds it was that he now voted for the third reading of the Bill.
The Earl of Darnleyexpressed his concurrence in the general scope and tendency of the noble duke's opinions; and alluding to the particular description of
[242
persons whom he, with the noble duke, thought were so pressed upon by the Bill, he expressed his hope that justice would be afforded to a class of men always remarkable for their loyalty and exertions, and who were at all times ready to bear; their due proportion of the public burthens.
The Marquis of Douglasthought the tax most unjust and impolitic in its principle and in its operation. It was unjust in its principle because it took a certain proportion of the whole income of the country, and when they once came to take 10 per cent, in this way, they might, on the same principle, take 99 per cent. It was unjust in its operation, because it imposed the burthen most unequally and unfairly on the different kinds of property. He considered this, therefore, as an unjust and unconstitutional tax. Articles of luxury and matters of that kind were the proper objects of taxation, because they limited themselves. He objected, also, to the tax, because he considered it as amounting to a declaration of war. He could not agree that it was to be regarded merely as the means of enabling the Government to place the country in a proper state of preparation with a view to negociations for peace, but as the means of commencing hostilities, to which he was adverse, if peace could be preserved. He was the more convinced of this when-he considered it in connexion with the Declaration of the Allies, the Treaty of Vienna, and the Declaration of the King of France. This last Declaration stated, that war was ready to be commenced to replace that King on his throne, and the Declaration of the Allies contained words which appeared very like giving a sanction to assassination. He regretted that this Declaration had been signed by the duke of Wellington, who certainly did not understand it in any such sense. The Declaration, too, was monstrously absurd, because it put all the adherents of Buonaparté out of the pale of law; and by this means outlawed thirty millions of people. If any other noble lord, wished to divide the House against the tax, he should be ready to join in giving a negative to the Bill.
The Earl of Darnleyexplained, that the vote he should give on this occasion had no reference to the question of peace or war; nor would it go to imply any thing like approbation on his part of the Declaration of Vienna, or that of Louis 18;

243]
but he voted upon his conviction, that the measure was necessary, under the present circumstances, for the security of the country.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he considered no noble lord as pledged to support a war by agreeing to this Bill, for whether with a view to war, or an armed preparation for negociation, the sum was necessary; and it could not be raised in any other way so advantageously as by this plan. With respect to the clamours against the tax, he admitted that they were in a great degree unfounded: but it certainly had been understood by many respectable individuals, that Government was pledged not to continue this tax beyond the first month of April after the close of the war. This was certainly not intended by those who introduced the measure at the commencement of the last war; but as it had been so understood by many, and as there were words of termination in the Act which were not to be found in the other war-tax acts, Government, in order to avoid even the appearance of breach of faith, were willing to abandon the tax, if possible, because the pledge was supposed to extend to its not being continued under any modification or shape whatever. It had been introduced by a noble friend of his (viscount Sidmouth) about 11 years ago, at a rate of 5 per cent. That had been increased by Mr. Pitt to 7½ per cent, and it had been raised to 10 per cent, when the noble marquis opposite (Lansdowne) was Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he did not know that it was understood by any administration that there was a pledge for its ceasing entirely at the conclusion of the war. That no such pledge was intended when it was first introduced by Mr. Pitt, was clear to demonstration, for the tax was then partly pledged for loans, though that part had been afterwards redeemed by his noble friend (viscount Sidmouth). It was singular, too, that those on whom the tax bore least heavily—he meant the commercial classes—had been the loudest in their opposition to it. With respect to the present state of affairs, he did not think this the proper time for him to enter upon any discussion of that kind: but as to the observation of the noble marquis that the duke of Wellington had signed a declaration which appeared to have a tendency to encourage assassination, he was sure no one could imagine that the duke of Wellington would ever
[244
sign a declaration having such a tendency. Nothing could be more abhorrent to his nature. The Declaration in question had no such tendency or object, and certainly none such bad ever entered into the contemplation of the, duke of Wellington. As to the tax itself, he could only repeat what he had said on a former day, that it appeared to him the plan beat calculated to raise so large a sum with the least possible inequality; and its great recommendation was, that it reached property of every kind. The tax was, besides, only continued for one year, which was an answer to many of the objections which had been urged against it.
The Marquis of Lansdownestated, that it had certainly been understood by him and those with whom he acted at the period to which the noble earl alluded, that the tax was to be re-considered at the close of the war; and he BOW stated it as his opinion, that this tax was one calculated for an exigency, and ought to be re-considered on every occasion when that exigency terminated. At the close of a war, it might, perhaps, be advisable, under particular circumstances, to continue it to a certain extent and under various modifications; but it was early right and proper, that at the close of a; war, it should be re-considered for the purpose of reducing its amount, and altering as far as that might be expedient the mode of its operation. But, admitting that the sum must be raised, he could not conceive any plan by which it could be so raised in a more fair and equal way than the present. Inequality, in some respects, there must be in every method of taxation; but it was desirable, that every tax should be as equal as it could possibly be made, having a due regard-to the produce; for even additional equality might be too dearly purchased by the sacrifice of too great a proportion of the produce.
The Earl of Liverpoolfully concurred with the noble marquis, that at the close of a war the tax ought to be re-considered before it was continued in any extent, and declared that he had never intended to say any thing that could bear a contrary interpretation.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that one great recommendation of the tax was, that it could not be evaded. When a tax was imposed on servants, persons might lawfully evade it to a certain degree by keeping but few servants: but this reached

245]
the property of those who, instead of living in a style of magnificence suited to their fortunes, and spending their money liberally and virtuously as he contended, were hoarding it up for the purpose of entails for three or four generations. A part of these hoards would, by this tax, be got for the service of the State.
Earl Stanhopeproposed, as an amendment, that schedule B, being that which related to the occupiers of land, or the tenants, and schedule D, which related to manufactures and trade, should be left out. This he did, not on account of the tenants and manufacturers, but on account of the consumers, who really paid the tax. This tax, as far as concerned the classes in the other three schedules, land-owners like himself, stock-holders, and placemen and pensioners, he thought a very proper tax, and far preferable to the assessed taxes which had been in contemplation to substitute in lieu of it.
The amendment was negatived, and the Bill read a third time, and passed.