Sitting of 3 April 1821

MR. O'CONNELL.
Mr. Ellis, of Dublin,as soon as the Speaker had taken the chair, rose to correct a mis-statement which had appeared in some of the public papers, respecting what had fallen from him during the debate of last night. He was aware, that the error was quite unintentional, for he was satisfied with the general accuracy, impartiality and ability with which the reports of the proceedings of that House were sent forth to the world. "What he was represented to have said of a gentleman, who took an active part in Catholic proceedings in Ireland, was, that he (Mr. O'Connell) was a mushroom orator. Now, he had said no such thing. What he said was this—in allusion to the Catholic aristocracy of Ireland, that as to the antiquity of that gentleman's family pretensions, respectable as they were, when compared with that aristocracy, they were of the mushroom celebrity of a day. He made the allusion, not for the purpose of reflecting on that gentleman's family pretensions, which, he repeated, were respectable, but merely comparatively as to their relation to the aristocracy. He was the more anxious to have the mistake corrected, as nothing could be further from his intentions than to hurt the
4
feelings of any man under the privileges of Parliament. The allusion, in the way in which it was published, was quite undeserved by the respectable gentleman in question, and as certainly unintended by him. He had no motion to make on the subject, being convinced that the mistake arose from inadvertency.

CARLISLE ELECTION—REPORT OF PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE.
Mr. Wynnbrought up the Report of the Committee of privilege, appointed to inquire into the interference of the military at the late election of Carlisle. The report was read as follows:—
"That it appears to this committee, that a body of armed soldiers did, on the 24th of May last, in pursuance of a requisition addressed to the commanding officer, and signed by Thomas Lowry, D. D. John Heysham, M. D. and James Foster, esq. justices of peace for the county of Cumberland, come in a military manner, and post themselves near the Town Hall, where the poll for the election of a citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the city of Carlisle was taken, before the freemen there assembled for the said election had quitted the said hall, and before that the said election was finally closed:—That it appears to this committee, that there is no reason whatever to impute to the magistrates, collectively or individually, any corrupt or criminal motive, or any design to overawe or influence the said election, as stated in the petition of the freemen of Carlisle:—That it appears that the civil power in the city of Carlisle is extremely inefficient; but that your committee are of opinion, that the magistrates did not make use of all those powers with which the law has invested them for the preservation of the public peace:—That it does not appear to this committee, that there was any riot or tumult of that dangerous and uncontrollable magnitude, which alone can excuse the introduction of an armed force during the period of an election, without a previous resort to the utmost exertion of the civil power:—That under all these circumstances, considering the difficulty of the situation in which the magistrates were placed, the committee are not pre-prepared to recommend any further proceedings in this case."
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he had never sat in a committee in which more impartiality was manifested, or more, anxiety

5
to get at the whole facts upon which the merits of the inquiry depended. It was impossible not lo disapprove of the introduction of the military; but it was proved, that, at the particular time when that took place, the civil power was placed upon a very inadequate footing. The committee was not, under all the circum., stances of the case, desirous to recommend any ulterior measure; but they were anxious to mark their sense of the impropriety of the proceeding. The introduction of the military was at all times to be avoided, but especially during an election.—He then moved, that the resolution of the House of the 22nd of December 1741, be read, prohibiting the interference of the military at elections. The said resolution being read, he next moved. "That this House will always maintain, with the most jealous attention, the freedom of election, and resent any violation of the same; but that, under the circumstances stated in the report of the committee of privileges, they are content to proceed no further on the matter of the complaint of the freemen of Carlisle."
Mr. Bennetwould venture to say, that, although at most elections political feeling was necessarily excited, yet there never was an election at which it was less observable than at the election for Carlisle. Certainly, nothing had occurred there which could justify the introduction of the military. He did not know in whose hands the regulation and employment of the civil power of Carlisle were placed; but, in his opinion, something ought to be done for the effectual revision of the system.
Mr. Jamessaid, he had felt it necessary to bring this subject before the House; but, after the decision of the committee, he was not inclined to press it further.
The resolution was agreed to.

UNION DUTIES.
Mr. Canningpresented a petition from the merchants and traders of Liverpool, praying for a repeal of the Union duties. He was instructed to support the petition on three grounds: First, on the ground, that the duties were productive of an inconsiderable revenue; Secondly, that much inconvenience was sustained in their collection; and lastly, that by their discontinuance great assistance would be rendered to the Irish manufacturers. He wished to know, from the chancellor of the exchequer whether it was his intention speedily to bring the subject before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he had received a communication from the chamber of commerce in Dublin, intimating, that it would be more agreeable, if the consideration of the subject were deferred for the present session.
Sir H. Parnellprotested against any further delay. He was convinced that, by a repeal of the duties, the Irish manufacture would be considerably benefited. He hoped the session would not pass without some step bring taken.
Mr. Canningexpressed a wish, if it were resolved that the subject should not be considered in the preset session, that it should be understood by all parties, that it would certainly be taken into consideration in the course of the next.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerpledged himself to bring the subject before the House at as early a period as possible.
Ordered to lie on the table.

MALT DUTIES REPEAL BILL.
Mr. Western Mr. Western moved the second reading of this bill. He wished to make a few observations, chiefly with reference to the duty levied on Scotch barley. Up to the year 1819, the duty on Scotch barley was 8d. per bushel less than that imposed on English barley. In 1804, a committee was appointed to consider, whether Scotland was intitled to the privilege which it then en-enjoyed, of paying this reduced duty. The committee decided, that Scotland was so entitled; and it continued to enjoy this diminution of 8d. per bushel till 1819; and then, when an addition of 1s. 2d. was made to the English duty, the charge on Scotch barley was advanced to 1s. 10 d.; thus doing away the benefit which Scotland had previously enjoyed. He would not take upon him to say, that the committee was right or wrong; but it was rather extraordinary, that, with a full knowledge of the advantage so long enjoyed by Scotland, the right hon. gentleman should in a moment set it aside. He understood, that the right hon. gentleman had thrown out a hope to the members for Scotland, that he would re-consider this measure. The object of the present measure was, to repeal the new duty of 1s. 2d. per bushel, which pressed alike on England, Scotland, and Ireland, and which was imposed in 1819. It was, to all intents and purposes, a war tax, for the repeal of which the faith of parliament was pledged.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had no objection to go into a committee, to re-consider the subject. The question divided itself into two points—namely, whether any good grounds could be stated for making a general distinction between England and Scotland; and if so, to what extent that distinction ought to be allowed.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, he had on a former occasion, moved a string of resolutions relative to the duty on Scotch barley, which appeared to him to be most unfair and disproportionate, with reference to the barley of this country. He had done so, because he conceived, that the bad quality of the Scotch barley required a considerable reduction of the duty. With regard to the discussion of that night, he should certainly give his vote for the motion; for by repealing the tax there would be a saving of 1s. 2d. per bushel to Scotland; and he hoped, when he called the attention of the House to the remaining 8d. per bushel, he should be supported by those gentlemen who gave their support to the present motion. The notion seemed to have been circulated, that the English members would not be willing, if this measure was carried, to take the Scots duties into consideration; and it had been attributed to the member for Norfolk, that he was of this opinion. He believed this assertion was unfounded, and he therefore wished his hon. friend to state what his opinion was.
Mr. Cokesaid, the noble lord had asked his opinion on this subject, and he would endeavour to answer him. The Scotch gentlemen, it should seem, were expected to vote one way on one night, and another way upon another. The chancellor of the exchequer had dextrously held out a sort of hope, that, if those hon. members would not vote against him to-night, he would do something for them at a future opportunity; but he advised them to put no trust in the right hon. gentleman. If the friends of economy and retrenchment in all departments of the public expenditure would this evening keep together, there could be no doubt they would carry their question; but if they split and separated, ministers would take advantage of their disunion. For himself, he had been uniformly in favour of the repeal of every tax, so long as it could be with propriety reduced; and though he highly approved of the proposed repeal, he was of opinion, that it did not do so much for the agricul-
8
tural interest as he should like to see done.
Sir J. Shelley,in allusion to a former speech of Mr. Huskisson, contended, that the agricultural distress was now general. The right hon. gentleman was speaking on the experience of the western part of Sussex, where the farmers were not in an absolute state of ruin; but if he looked to the eastern parts of the same county, there he would find the ruin complete. He would there find many hundred acres which he might occupy merely on paying the poor rates and taxes, and this not very bad land, or land newly brought into tillage, but land which had been cultivated for centuries. The distress did not fall on the farmers alone. The moderate landed proprietors suffered as much. They had their farms thrown back upon their hands, and were obliged to get them tilled by hired bailiffs, who had no interest in them. It had been asked how, if this tax was repealed, the interest of the debt could be paid? The chancellor of the exchequer had told them, that this year there was a saving of a million. The country would not find any benefit from, this, unless there was a proportionate reduction of taxes. It was better therefore to repeal the tax in question, than to add in some small degree to the inefficient Sinking Fund, by which the country had been for a long time humbugged. The agriculturists could not expect relief from the fund holders. They must therefore look to ministers. If an absolute reduction of the amount of taxes could not be suffered, he should propose a limited property tax of two per cent, by which three millions might be raised; other taxes to an equal amount being repealed. It had been said, that if this tax was repealed, his majesty's ministers would resign. He did not wish to see them resign their places, he only wished them to resign a few of their oppressive taxes.
The Hon. J. W. Wardobserved, that the resolution of gentlemen on the other side to persist in the course of proceeding, of which the repeal of the malt tax seemed to form a part, appeared to be founded on three positions: the first, that we could go on with 1,500,000 l. less income, and yet keep up the same expenditure; the second, that the expenditure could be so diminished as to bear that decrease of income; and the third, that some tax less burdensome and objectionable in its character could be imposed in lieu of this. The first of these objects

9
could only be achieved by taking up the sinking fund. He would not enter into that question now, because, in the first place, he in truth knew but little about it; and in the next, a subject really so scientific as in itself it was, was not the best calculated to be discussed in a public assembly. But if parliament, were to decide, that we should so take the sinking fund now, it would evidently be a very disastrous expedient. Nothing would betray more weakness and folly than that we should shrink from carrying our own principles into effect. Not only would such a measure expose us to all the ill effects which might follow upon the adoption of a mere speculative principle, but to the charge of pusillanimous vacillation, and fatal infirmity of purpose. They had heard, that the sinking fund was all a fallacy. If it was, it was a fallacy certainly of some standing. It had deceived the most able and acute statesmen; it had deceived all who were most conversant with finance; it had deceived several successive governments, ten parliaments, and all parties in the state. But still, he was open to argument upon this subject, if argument were adduced to show the fallacy of this system; for he could never oppose authority to demonstration. But, in the absence of argument or demonstration, he could not be influenced, by mere abuse, to become the opponent of the sinking fund, or an advocate for reducing its amount. At least he should not agree to this until some new discovery were made to convince him of its justice and expediency. What might be the nature of that discovery he could not anticipate. The world at one time believed, that the sun moved round the earth—but it had been since discovered, that the earth had moved round the sun. Possibly too, it might yet be discovered, that it would be rather better not to make any provision for a sinking fund to discharge the national debt; but until that discovery were made, he must be excused for retaining his present opinion. Looking a little at some, not all, of the re, trenchments which had been proposed, he found, that they proceeded upon the supposition of a considerable reduction of our force. Now, it was but a very little time ago, since, after a lengthened and very mature debate, the House had determined what the military establishment should be, yet now they were to refuse to ministers the means of paying for it. Never was inconsistency more evident
10
than in the conduct of those gentlemen, who, after supporting the rate of establishment brought forward by ministers, now turned their backs upon them, and were for withdrawing the means by which the charge was to be defrayed. The peace of Europe so recently disturbed, after five and twenty years of war, calamity, and bloodshed, succeeded by an interval of tranquillity too short for her repose and her happiness, should teach us the necessity of keeping arms in our hands, instead of inducing us to take away from the government the means of providing for the national safety. This was the only way in which we could with success oppose the progress or the designs of despotic monarchs, whose proceedings every day demonstrated their ambition, though their power was happily not commensurate with it- It was evident, that an obstinate struggle still existed, and was likely to exist, between the inordinate ambition of enterprising monarchs on the one hand, and the awakened vengeance and exhausted patience of suffering and indignant nations on the other. He would seriously call the attention of the House to this most important fact; and then let them judge of the expediency of such a measure as they were called on to adopt. The hon. baronet had said, that he would prefer, as a substitute for this tax, a little income tax. Now, if he must have any, he would prefer a large one. One of the greatest objections to the late income tax was, its inquisitorial and vexatious machinery. Now the proposition of the hon. baronet would require the same machinery to get it up, without producing any thing like those extensively beneficial results, which in the other case could alone, perhaps, atone for the defects of its assessment. Under the present circumstances, when one hon. gentleman proposed the repeal of a malt tax, and another advocated the repeal of all taxes, to impose a large income tax was a measure of obvious impossibility. The hon. mover had observed, that it was not his business to find a substitue for this tax; that that was an onus which rested with the chancellor of the Exchequer; and that, one chancellor of the Exchequer was enough. He agreed with him; but, he would wish to take the full benefit of the propositions, and say, that neither was it his business to ascertain what grounds could be adduced; and yet he desired to see sufficient grounds shown for this bill, before

11
he could give his vote for it. To all this he fully agreed; but then he felt, that they were bound to know, that some other provision had been made by the the chancellor of the exchequer before they created a deficiency in the means of car-Tying on the government. To consent to the proposed repeal would be, in his judgment, a most inconsistent proceeding. A few days only had elapsed since the House had voted certain establishments and would it not be extraordinary if the bill sanctioning that vote should be overtaken at the foot of the throne by another bill refusing the means of support to such establishments? But would it not be still more extraordinary if such inconsistency should be maintained by the advocates of the Pitt system; nay, that even members of the Pitt club should be among the foremost to starve the means of government to support those very measures for which they themselves had voted? He trusted, that those gentlemen who had voted for the present bill on a former night, would reconsider their conduct, and take a course that evening more consistent with their own principles, and with the general interests of the country.
Mr. Grenfellagreed with the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, but more particularly on the subject of the sinking fund. As for the fallacy to which the hon. gentleman had adverted, he wished to get rid of that part of the sinking fund that was kept up by borrowing; for this part of the system must of necessity be a fallacy. The only sinking fund that could ever be applicable to the reduction of the debt, must be the surplus of the income above the expenditure of the country; and, from the finance papers before the House, it certainly did appear, that there was at this moment a clear, actual, and real sinking fund. If, however, the fact were otherwise, it behoved ministers to establish one, and an efficient one too, without a day's delay. He was one of those who, in 1819, gave their consent and support to the imposition of certain new taxes, amounting to 3,500,000 l. per annum; and he did so, for the purpose of putting the finances in that state which appeared to him to be essential to the welfare of the country. Under these circumstances, he should not only be obnoxious to the charge of gross inconsistency, but should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if he did not oppose the second reading of this bill. He had heard it
12
affirmed, that by taking off taxes they forced ministers to adopt measures of economy and retrenchment, which they never would adopt, if the House left them the means of expenditure in their hands. But this surely was beginning at the wrong end. Ministers, he thought, were just as likely to adopt such measures, if they left them the taxes, as they would be, if they took any taxes away. Let him suppose the case of a private gentleman, who found himself involved in pecuniary difficulties. Would he best retrieve himself by lowering, in the first place, the rents of his tenants? He was one of those who never had despaired of the resources of the country, provided the country had fair play. By fair play, he meant something very different from that reduction of the interest of the debt, which had been proposed to be put in execution against the fundholders; and which he could never regard as any thing but a system of plunder and spoliation which would entail inevitable ruin upon the country. He must therefore repeat, that any tampering with the interest of the public debt could be regarded in no other light than as a breach of faith; and a system of finance which was made to rest upon a compulsory reduction of that interest would deserve to be called a system of plunder and spoliation. Complaints had been made, that some individuals were fond of representing the land as mortgaged to the stockholder: he could only say, that, in his opinion, if the stockholder had no claim on the property of the land-owner, the latter could not by any possibility set up a title to that of the former. Justice and honour required, that all property should be protected, as well agricultural as funded; but without taxes, it would be impossible to do so. If the country could now dispense with any taxes, which he was convinced it could not, there were many other taxes more oppressive to the people which could much more usefully be repealed. The malt tax produced much benefit, without being the cause of the great evils attributed to it. The gentlemen who fancied, that much benefit would arise from the repeal of the malt tax, would find themselves disappointed.
Mr. Lockhartdeclared, that he never heard in that House any recommendation to violate the public faith, or to commit any spoliation upon the public creditor: but he had heard much in that House,

13
as well as elsewhere, upon the extraordinary character of the system by which those who were the great receivers of the public revenue were exempted from paying their due share of the charges upon that revenue; and certainly it was monstrous to suppose, that such a system could go on—that while the receivers of the revenue, or the fundholders, enjoyed the whole, those who owned the property from which that revenue was derived, should be called upon to pay the whole, although all their property was reduced no less than 50 per cent in value. The continuance of such a system, indeed, would serve to render the latter the as-cripti glebæ or the mere serfs of the former. With respect to the establishments which had been voted, it might be necessary to keep them up; but it did not follow, that the expense of those establishments might not be reduced. As all the necessaries and comforts of life had fallen in price, why might not an army be maintained in this country at a cheaper rate now than formerly? An hon. gentleman had, in his solicitude for the sinking fund, pronounced an eulogium upon Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, as the advocates of that system; but the hon. gentleman had omitted to class the present chancellor of the exchequer with the objects of praise. This, indeed, was a very proper omission, for that right hon. gentleman had reduced a sinking fund of 17 millions to about 2½ millions, which sum bore so small a proportion to 900 millions, that this reduced sum might be very expediently applied to present exigencies. He would therefore supply a proportion of that sum, if necessary, to make good any deficit created by the repeal of this malt tax. He was an advocate for the repeal of this tax, not because he thought it would afford any great relief to the agriculturists, but because he thought it the only relief which, from all appearances, they had reason to expect. He saw a committee sitting for some weeks to examine evidence as to agricultural distress, which was matter of notoriety; and from the proceedings of that committee, or from any other legislative measure, he was much afraid, that no relief was to be expected. For this bill, then, as it offered the only relief which the agriculturists had to expect, he should give his vote.—Here the hon. member presented an impressive picture of the extent of the agricultural distress. But the peti-
14
tions upon this subject furnished ample information upon that subject. The condition of agriculture was, indeed, such, that the farmer had no, profit, and the landlord had therefore no rent, but what he derived from the farmer's capital, and as that capital diminished, the means of course fell oft' of employing the labouring poor. How, he would ask, was it possible that such a state of things should continue? or who could answer for the tranquillity of the country, if an increasing proportion of the millions employed in agriculture were thrown out of employment, and if those who could not find employment, could not obtain provision from the poor's rate? He had heard much of the political economy of the chancellor of the exchequer and that of the gentlemen near him, who so often said, that those things would right themselves; but he wished to know from these economists by what process such things could be righted, or the equilibrium so much desired could be restored? It signified not whether this system was the result of positive law, or a combination of events: the fact was, that in the midst of plenty the country was suffering all the inconveniences of want; the agricultural poor were unable to procure that to which they not only felt a natural right, but which they had amply merited. He would also remind the chancellor of the exchequer, that he had once voluntarily given up this tax as a boon to the poorer classes, and had afterwards restored it in order to make good a deficiency of revenue. Was the right hon. gentleman ignorant, that the consumption of beer was very much diminished by this excess of duty? The consequence of it, was to establish little monopolies in every direction, by which the beer was in the first instance deteriorated in quality, and in the second, fraudulently measured out. By these means its consumption was greatly discouraged, and the public injured, without any corresponding advantage to the revenue. The right hon. gentleman might compensate by measures for correcting these abuses amongst the publicans for any loss which the revenue might sustain from the abolition of this tax. It was his firm belief, that ministers were not cognisant of the whole extent of the distress by which agriculture was at present weighed down. When commerce and manufactures languished, the fact was soon perceived through the non-payment of bills; but

15
the decline of agriculture was not the subject of such immediate observation, and was only now and then noticed on seeing a more than usual number of farms advertised to be let. It was notorious, however, that farmers had recently been paying their rent out of their capital; and it was equally certain, that they could not do this for another year. The value of the stock on a farm, or the stock requisite for its cultivation, was generally in proportion to the quality of the land; it might be 3l. per acre on poor, and 5l. on rich land. It was time, then, for ministers to step in, and, either by reducing the establishment, or by some direct relief, change this situation of affairs, and restore an equilibrium which had been too long overthrown. He was willing, that the land-owner should make his fair sacrifice, but he could not listen without regret to language which manifested hostility to whole classes of the community. It was said, that the agriculturists had had their day, and that they had been the authors and supporters of the war. He repudiated these charges: the present race of agriculturists were the successors of those who were in existence at the commencement of the late wars. In thus addressing himself to the House, he was speaking on behalf of helpless millions, who must be reduced to the depths of misery unless saved by the wisdom of parliament. If something were not done, the time was not far distant when the poor would be unable either to procure employment from the yeomanry or relief from the magistrate.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that after [the fullest examination which he could give this subject, he had come to a conclusion opposite to that of the hon. member who had last spoken. That he felt deeply for the distress under which agriculture laboured, he could assure the House; but then his first inquiry referred to the quantum of relief which was to be expected from the adoption of this measure. Now, he believedthat, it would not do more than extend relief to particular districts. It was represented to him, that a reduction of 8s. in the price of the quarter of malt would scarcely lower the price of the pot of ale or porter one half-penny. This, therefore, would necessarily fall into the pockets of the public and private brewer. It was his fixed opinion, that the only mode of assisting agriculture effectually, was by some revision of the poor laws. He had himself filled the of-
16
fice of overseer, and did think it possible to devise a plan by which, when labourers applied for aid, employment should be furnished to them on land, at wages lower than those given by the farmer, so as to stimulate them to seek and obtain it through their own exertions. It would afford him much satisfaction to learn, that a right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne), who had rendered an important service to his country by dedicating his attention to this subject was again employed in its consideration. But, another obvious source of relief, and greatly preferable to this measure was, a rigid system of economy. The more he reflected on this part of the question, the more he felt satisfied, that not only had his majesty's ministers deserved blame, but that parliament had much to reproach themselves with in their frequent departures from that system. What unnecessary sums had not been squandered on the Penitentiary, and in various unprofitable experiments! A million of money had been thrown away on the Caledonian canal—a work which would never repay the expense that had been incurred in executing it. A sum of 1,200,000 l. had been lavished on improvements at Sheerness and at Milford Haven. Unless we governed ourselves by very different principles, and circumscribed our views by the amount of our means, the agricultural would not be the only distress of which we should soon hear loud and general complaints. It had been justly observed, that not to keep strict faith with the stockholder, would be to disable ourselves from ever going to war again. For his own part, he had been accustomed to regard this country as mighty in its real strength, and mighty from its moral example. But some of the sentiments which had been promulgated in that house, with regard to the claims of the public creditor, appeared to him utterly inconsistent with the principles and the high character which we had hitherto maintained. The inconvenience of the national debt was described as so great by some honourable gentlemen, that it would be idle to talk of our honour requiring its punctual liquidation. Such an opinion must originate in erroneous views. In any case, the present time was most ill chosen for the promulgation of the doctrine. Whether right or wrong, our system had been imitated by the other nations of Europe; and they were all now paying a larger rate of interest than ourselves. That foreigners who

17
had property invested in our funds were under some alarm, from the reiteration of principles which went to violate what was always before considered sacred, he had himself the means of knowing. He had lately received a letter from an individual to whom that description belonged, and who earnestly inquired, whether it was true, that after having so long been the bulwark of Europe, we at last entertained the design of committing a breach of faith. The non-payment even of any part of the national debt must be attended with the utter subversation of public credit. Corporations, hospitals, insurance offices, many of them had their whole property thus invested; and so intimately connected was every speciesof circulating property with the funds, that to interfere with them in any way, so as to depreciate their value, would belittle less than to commit an act of felo de se. There was one period in the course of the late wars on the continent, when he was ready to admit, that we saved both ourselves and civil society. Not only was the character of Great Britain raised to proud preeminence, but it became an asylum for property thoughout Europe. We had acted in a spirit of magnanimity and disinterestedness, of which he doubted whether history furnished any example; for whilst we taxed ourselves, we abstained from taxing those foreigners who had placed their property in our funds; more honourable policy never was adopted; and it would be with deep regret, that he should see the credit which it had procured us lost or tarnished by a course so different as that which had been recommended. He feared, that a large sum was owing to the East India company for the entertainment of Buonaparte; which sum was not included in the accounts before the House. With regard to the repeal of the present tax, he objected to it, because he thought it would not relieve the agriculturists, and would very materially diminish the revenue. The only way of extricating the country from its distresses, would be, to cut off, boldly and firmly, all expenditures which were not essentially necessary. The army ought unquestionably to be farther reduced. The navy estimates were not yet before the House, but very large reductions might and must be made in that department.
Sir J. Bougheycould not feel himself justified in supporting the repeal of this fax, unless he were assured, by those who
18
voted for the repeal, that it was looked upon as a measure of economy, and not as a substitute for any other measure of taxation.
Mr. Curwenwished, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, instead of merely talking about his feeling for agricultural distress, would afford relief to the farmer by some practical measure. With regard to the existence of that distress, there could be no doubt. The committee which was pursuing its labours up stairs, was not designed to convince the farmers of their wants, or the landlords of the sufferings of their tenants, but, to satisfy and overcome the unbelief of ministers. On the subject of alleviation, he admitted, that to lower the poor rates would afford great relief; but it was still a mystery how that desirable object was to be effected. There was a great difference between the condition of the fund holder and of the landowner; the fundholder received his 100 l. or 1,000 l. per annum, clear of all deductions, while the landowner paid no less than 32½ per cent in burdens and deductions of various kinds; for instance, he paid 20 per cent for poor rates, 5 per cent for county and highway rates, 5 per cent for repairs, and 2½ per cent for collection. Estates in the best condition were liable to these heavy deductions. There was no way so effectual for relieving them as removing those taxes that bore hardest upon them; such, for instance, as the leather tax, the tax upon soap and candles, and several others. Do away these, which would occasion a defalcation of 5 millions, and he for one would support a property tax of 5 per cent with all his heart. He never should repent having declared his opinion, that the fund-holder was bound to pay for the protection of his property as much as any other individual. As to the particular tax, it bore peculiarly on the great body of the people; its removal would not give any great relief to the farmer, except by relieving the consumers of his produce; and that perhaps was the most effectual way of ameliorating the condition of the grower.
Mr. Benett,of Wiltshire, earnestly recommended, that nothing should be done to destroy or to endanger the connexion between the landowner and the fund-holder. He was well convinced, that the best customers of the manufacturers were the farmers, and the best customers of the farmers the manufacturers. The interests of the productive classes of the country

19
ought never to be separated, much less placed in opposition to each other. He did not imagine, that at that time of day, the agricultural distress would be disputed. The petitions that had recently loaded the table had been referred to a committee. He doubted whether their inquiries would be productive of the advantage expected; because, after the declarations in various quarters, after the powerful voices upraised in opposition to any change in the corn laws, after the farmers had been told, that the burden of taxation was not to be removed from agriculture, little hope could be indulged I of support in the quarter most capable of affording it. It was time for the land-owners to take the cause of agriculture into their own hands, and to endeavour to accomplish their own relief. He was as unwilling as any man to break the national faith; but, if the income of the country were so reduced as to leave it unable to pay the interest of the national debt, that result was inevitable. To keep the national faith, taxation must be reduced; yet to reduce taxation was to diminish the means of payment. In what way, then, was general relief to be obtained? With regard to the measure before the House, he did not believe it would afford all the relief to the agricultural interests which some gentlemen imagined. It was calculated rather to relieve the consumer, than the grower of barley. One beneficial effect of it would be, that it would enable the labouring classes of the community, who were the great consumers of this commodity, to brew beer in their own houses; a comfort of which they had for many years been deprived, and a return to which, by removing the temptation of resorting to ale-houses, would tend materially to the improvement of their moral habits. He supposed he should be told, that this bill could not pass, because it would occasion a defalcation in the revenue of 1,200,000 l. or 1,400,000 l.; but, when it was recollected, that if the price were reduced the consumption would be increased, he had no doubt, that the deficiency would be but trifling.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, he was as sensible as any member, of the difficulties tinder which the agriculturists laboured, and would go as far as any other to relieve them. The present measure, however, he did not think calculated for their relief. Indeed, no honourable member
20
had pointed out in what way it could be of service to the farmer. He himself could not view it as a measure beneficial to that class. From the returns, he found, that the consumption of malt, since the imposition of this tax, was as great as it was when the tax had not existed. It was a tax which spread over a very large portion of the community, and did not press heavily on any particular class.
Mr. Brightsaid, that he was one of those who admitted the existence of great agricultural distress; at the same time he could not deny, that there were many taxes, the abolition of which would be of more importance to the community than that which was now sought to be repealed. The repeal of many of these taxes was loudly called for by the present situation of the country; yet he felt himself bound to vote for the repeal of the tax. Considering the present state of the country and of Europe, he would say, that it ought to be repealed; for he was convinced, that if the resources of government were diminished their vigilance would be increased. It was said, that this principle of reduction began at the wrong end; that the House had first voted the men, and it would be necessary to vote the money for their support. He was not one of those who had joined in such large votes; but let those who so voted look to it; for he considered, that if this burden was removed, reductions might be afterwards made in those estimates which were to come, fully equal to its amount. He called, then, upon those members who were favourable to the repeal of the tax, and who might have joined in the vote for the large military force, to look to every item which was yet unvoted. All classes were distressed; and he was satisfied that the only effectual mode of relief—the only means to place this country in the proud situation in which she had been accustomed to stand, and which, he trusted she would long continue to hold among the nations of Europe, would be, effectual economy and retrenchment. He was not one of those who would tax the funds to relieve the land, or the land to relieve the funds. The interests of both were so "mixed up, that the injury of one would be the depression of the other. In this view of the case, he would repeal this tax, in the hope of being able effectually to resist the improvidence of ministers. It was said, that the landholder had reason to complain of the Poor laws and of Tithes,

21
and that those burdens were not shared equally by the commercial and funded interests. He, however, thought they had no just cause of complaint on this ground. They had received or purchased their estates with a full knowledge of the charges by which they were to be burdened; and they ought not to turn round on the commercial interests, and insist upon their bearing a part of those burdens. The measure of relief for all would be that of effectual economy; and if gentlemen would imitate the example of the lion, member for Aberdeen, they might, in the estimates which were still to be voted, retrench as much as would supply the place of this tax.
Colonel Woodadmitted, that the interests of the agricultural and commercial classes were the same, and that nothing could be more fatal than to separate them; but he could not believe that the reduction of our finances would be the means of making us more respectable in the eyes of the other powers of Europe. He admitted that the malt tax, as a general measure, pressed hard on the comforts of the poor; but he could not see how this bill was calculated to relieve them. The whole of the tax now proposed to be taken of would not make the difference of one farthing in the price of a pot of beer; but even of that difference the consumers would not get the benefit. The brewers had first to dispose of their large stock on hand; and as very little malt was made after the month of May, this would carry them on to nearly the next sitting of parliament; and then, before they reduced their price, they would wait to see whether the chancellor of the exchequer would propose a renewal of the tax; so that if the present bill were carried, it would be nearly a year before the consumers could derive any benefit from it, however small. The system adopted on the other side seemed to be that of taking a round at every tax, in the hope that with some one they might be able to succeed. There was the motion for the repeal of the tax on malt; for the repeal of that on windows; for a repeal of the wool tax; and, for the repeal of the agricultural horse duty. Now, he contended that the repeal of those taxes would be a great injury to the country. The present tax was proposed to be repealed for the relief of the agriculturists; but the House should recollect that there was a committee sitting up stairs on that
22
subject; and he thought it was not treating that committee with common courtesy not to wait until they had delivered in their report. Honourable members had talked of the property tax. Now, he was one of those who thought the House had committed a great error in the repeal of that tax. If that were to be restored with proper modifications, he would be willing to repeal the malt tax altogether.
Mr. Frankland Lewissaid, he thought it was a decidedly wise step in the House to have gotten rid of the property tax, because it operated upon too few subjects. This objection did not apply to the malt tax. To render a property tax at all endurable, it ought to exclude from any share of the burden it cast on society, those persons who had merely a life interest in their property. He would not consent to shake the security of the country by making any diminution rashly in the revenue. He could not therefore consent, under the present circumstances, to take off this tax. If establishments of a great extent were necessary for the public security, suitable means ought to be given to his majesty's government to support the charges. He should be particularly averse to this repeal, as the reduction of the tax would necessarily affect the sinking fund. From what he had witnessed of the disposition of ministers to reduce our establishments, he had no doubt, that suitable reductions from time to time would be acceded to. The repeal of the present tax would not, after all, afford relief to the extent of one farthing in the pot of porter.
Captain Gordoncorroborated the statements with respect to Scotland, and wished for an equalization of the duties. He objected to this bill, that it did not extend to Scotland.
Mr. Smythstrongly recommended economy, both in our military establishments and in the expense of collecting the revenue. The best preparation for war was, to husband our resources in peace. He should certainly vote for the repeal of the tax.
Lord Castlereagh,before he made the observations which occurred to him, requested the clerk to read the following entry on the Journals of the 8th June, 1819, of the sixth Resolution of the Committee on Public Income and Expenditure:
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that to provide for the exigencies of the public service, to make

23
such progressive reduction of the national debt, as may adequately support public credit, and to afford to the country a prospect of future relief from a part of its present burthens, it is absolutely necessary, that there should be a clear surplus of the income of the country beyond the expenditure, of not less than 5,000,000 l.; and that, with a view to the attainment of this important object, it is expedient now to increase the income of the country, by the imposition of taxes. to the amount of 3,000,000 l. per annum."
The resolution having been read, the noble lord said, he could assure the hon. member for Essex, that in rising to re- I deem his pledge when the bill was introduced; namely, that he would give it his most strenuous opposition, he did so with great pain. It was no inconsiderable source of regret to a person standing in I the situation of responsibility which he occupied, to resist, at a moment of pressure, a suggestion from so respectable a member, which had fop its object the diminution of the public burthens. But he felt, that in doing so on the present occasion, he was discharging an important public duty to all classes of the community, and to none more than to that great class of the people who were now peculiarly under circumstances of difficulty. Arduous and painful as his task was, it would have been still more so, could he persuade himself, that the repeal of the duty in question would really give relief to those for whose relief it was intended. But, while on the one hand he was convinced, that the interest of the community at large was the true interest of the landholder, so on the other hand he was also persuaded, that if the country were in a situation to allow of the remission of any tax, the duty on malt was not the tax which ought to be selected for that purpose. He had listened with great pain to many of the topics which had fallen from hon. gentlemen in the course of this and preceding debates. He thanked God, however, that the time was now come when sentiments injurious to the credit of the country, or subversive of the great principles of public faith, would not be listened to with favour. He even endeavoured to persuade himself, that those by Whom such sentiments were uttered, recoiled from their avowal, and endeavoured to explain them away. He was not afraid, that a British parliament would ever forget those principles of justice and
24
good faith by which this country had been so long upheld. But, what they had to guard against was, being induced to do that indirectly which no consideration would tempt them to do directly. Now those principles of public faith would be p. effectually violated by diminishing the public revenue to such a degree as would compel the government to depend upon precarious loans raised upon a bankrupt exchequer, as they would be by supporting one interest at the expense and to the exclusion of every other. At the outset, therefore, he warned the House, at a moment when the surplus of the revenue was not sufficient to allow of any progress being made in the reduction of the debt, and when the House was quite unable to redeem its pledge of 1819, to guard the public credit against the calamity which a bad year of revenue might suddenly inflict. The line of duty was strictly compatible with the best interests of the country; for it was demonstrable, that the question of relief which the proposition of the hon. member for Essex would afford, would not be such as any individual would be conscious of, and therefore would not carry with it any consolation for an infraction of those principles, the maintenance of which the public credit demanded.
Having thus stated the general principles by which he was influenced in his consideration of this question, he should next proceed to state the grounds on which he should found his opposition to the present bill. There were three points which appeared to him to be particularly deserving the attention of the House. The first was this—Was the country in such a situation with regard to the public creditor, its revenue, its expenditure, as justified it in remitting any particular tax? The next was—Supposing the country to be in such a situation as he had described, was the present the peculiar tax which ought to be remitted? and the third was, whether there was any thing in the working of this tax that afforded to the House a financial motive for repealing it. In his consideration of these three points he would reverse the order in which he had placed them, and would commence with the examination of the last of them. He would ask honourable members who were most conversant with the agriculture of the country, whether they could point out any inconvenience or any injury aris-

25
ing out of the working of the tax as a ground for its repeal? He trusted, that even those gentlemen would agree with him in this position, that nothing could be more inconsistent with financial wisdom than to impose a tax as the support of a particular system of finance, and then to repeal it without any adequate motive being shown for so doing. Now, the present tax formed the leading feature in the system of finance, which his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer had submitted to parliament in 1819, and therefore ought not to be touched unless the most convincing necessity could be shown for meddling with it. He wished those gentlemen to inform him, what there was in the returns, that could lead any man to suppose, that this tax had injured the sale of barley so much as to diminish the sale of the article on which the tax was laid; and also what reason there was, supposing the sale of the article not to have been diminished by it, either for proposing or consenting to the repeal of it. The market for barley had scarcely ever been so well stocked as during the last year; indeed, the quantity of malt consumed during that period exceeded the quantity of any year during the last 30 years—and he would not except even the last four, during two of which this tax had not existed by no less than 600,000 or 700,000 bushels. This was as clear a demonstration as could be given, that the consumption of barley had not been narrowed by the operation of the malt tax; and if the consumption had not been narrowed; he wished to be informed, where it was that the hon. member for Essex had discovered that the farmer had suffered so materially by it. Honourable members would doubtless recollect, that when this tax was first proposed to parliament, his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer had predicted, that it would not inflict any additional pressure upon the country. That prediction had been completely verified; for, so far was the price of beer from having risen under its operation, that it had absolutely suffered reduction twice since June 1819, in which month it was first imposed, so that this tax had actually been a considerable resource to the exchequer, without placing any additional burthen upon the consumer.
He would next call upon the House to consider what would be the effect of taking it off at present. And here he
26
would ask the hon. member for Essex, whether, in case no other tax were to be imposed in lieu of it, he would guarantee its remaining off for two ears? Indeed, if it did not remain off for that period, what benefit would accrue from it to the consumer? The amount of the tax to the consumer was three farthings a gallon. Now, when beer was sold in retail, how would the person who bought it by the quart feel the reduction? He for one was at a loss to discover how such a person could be benefitted by it; and, indeed, it was his opinion, that if the tax were taken off to-morrow, the only effect of it would be to diminish the revenue by a million and a half of money, without giving the slightest fraction of relief to the consumer of the article. The barrels of beer brewed since this tax had been laid on exceeded the average number of those brewed in the three preceding years by 120,000 barrels; so that all the evil produced by the tax was the suggestion of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who would take it off without stating what tax they would impose in its stead. Besides, any person who would look at what had regularly been the case during the last thirty years, would find, that the market for barley had not been regulated by the amount of the duty to which it had been subjected but by other incidental and extraneous circumstances. In 1814, when the duty was 4s. 4d. per bushel, the quantity consumed was 24 millions; in 1817, when, the duty was only 2s. 4d. per bushel, the quantity consumed was only 17 millions; and at present, in the year 1821, when the duty was only 3s. 6d. per bushel, 24,600,000 bushels were consumed. He had never seen a fact from which it was more decidedly proved, that the agricultural interest had not been injured—but rather benefitted—by the tax which the hon. member for Essex now sought so eagerly to repeal. One of the reasons which that hon. member had urged in favour of repealing it was, the heavy burthens under which the agricultural interest at present laboured. But if that reason were to be admitted as having considerable weight, it would be a much better reason for repealing the agricultural horse-tax, which pressed without exception upon every person engaged in husbandry. For that reason alone, if he had no other, he would not consent to repeal the malt tax, for he loved the agricultural interest. [Loud

27
cheering, intermingled with some laughter.] He repeated it, he loved the agricultural interest; for habit no less than interest attached him to it; and yet, not-withstanding the attachment which he felt towards it, he would say, that there was not any one class of persons in the country less interested in the repeal of the malt-tax than the landed interest. That I certainly was not a tax which he would take off to relieve the farmer, supposing that he were inclined to consent to a reduction of taxation to the amount of a million and a half annually. If he thought it practicable to reduce the annual amount of the taxes by that sum—which he did not—and the House had expressed its opinion to be in concurrence with his own on a motion recently made by the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Ma-berly), he should propose the repeal of the window-tax in preference to that of the malt-tax. There were many other taxes by which the poorer classes were more immediately affected; for instance, the salt-tax; and, if he stood in a situation in which he could at once gratify his own feelings and indulge the wishes of the people by reducing the taxes under which they laboured, he should certainly fix upon that tax before the malt-tax. He must, however, protest against this method of taking off taxes in the present state of the finances of the country, without any adequate reason being shown for the reduction. He must always resist any attempt to propagate a belief that the House was unwilling to alleviate the burthens of the people. At present it was willing, but totally unable to alleviate them. Taxes might indeed. be taken off; but would any member contend, that the remission of 2,000,000 l. of taxes would give a relief to the community equal to the detriment which would be inflicted upon it by the breach of faith with the public creditor, which would inevitably result from such a remission?
The course of his argument had now brought him to the consideration of the third point which he had stated to belong to this subject; and he was certain, that it required no appeal from him to induce the House to do its duty, according to the plan to which it had pledged itself in the resolution which the clerk had read. He was sure that the hon. member for Essex would not contend, that though it was requisite in 1819 to have a surplus of revenue to support the public credit, it was
28
not requisite to have such surplus at present. Certainly the pressure on the agricultural interest had been great since that period, and its acuteness had been considerably aggravated by the length of its continuance. He thought, however, that it had been greatly exaggerated, though he would allow, that in some parts of the country it was so excessive, that it would be impossible to colour it too highly. In those parts of the country that portion of relief which a measure like the present would afford, would be too inconsiderable for any person to feel it; and, whilst making such a declaration, he must be permitted to observe, that it was a superficial expectation to hold out to the country that it was from the remission of taxation that the farmer was to obtain relief. Now, from the evidence already taken before the committee appointed to examine into the causes of agricultural distress, it was proved to demonstration that it was not taxation but the price of produce that was the cause of the farmer's distress. It was proved, that if you could withdraw all taxation from his expenses, he would hardly be eased by such a reduction. To state, therefore, that a repeal of the malt-tax which did not touch them as farmers, but only as consumers, would be a great benefit to them, was not to act the part of a real friend to the interest of the farmer. In 1819, when that resolution was passed, the manufacturer was in a state of great distress; he had not, however, asked for the enactment of any measure which was calculated to overturn it; and yet he was now in a state of considerable improvement. The agriculturist was now in the same state that the manufacturer was then, and he trusted, nay he was confident, that if he showed equal reliance on the wisdom of parliament, the day was not far distant when similar amelioration would betide him.
Having now performed his first duty to the House, in showing that there was nothing in the working of the malt tax that rendered it necessary to repeal it, and also that if any tax ought to be repealed, it must be some other than the malt tax, he would proceed to show the state in which the country would be placed supposing the tax to be repealed. The House would recollect that this tax was the principal one on which his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, had relied, to carry into effect the system

29
of his budget, though that system had not produced a surplus of 5,000,000 l. as had been anticipated, he was sure that the noble lord opposite would not say, that because the surplus was only two millions and a half, therefore they ought to part with it altogether. He was of opinion that the noble lord would agree with him in thinking that they ought to maintain the progress which they had already made, and not relax in their exertions; for by so doing the period could not be far distant when the salutary views of parliament in passing that resolution would be accomplished. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow him shortly to enter into the arrangements which had been made, to create that surplus of revenue. It had long been a subject of reproach to his majesty's ministers, that they allowed the revenue to float on without any fixed or constant system, supporting it by exchequer bills or loans, just as might be convenient to them; so that there was nothing like a sinking fund, and no real surplus of visible revenue. It was said, that ministers acted upon such a system in order that they might continue to swim quietly down the stream of power, and refrain from changing it from a fear of losing their places. This he denied to have been the case; for, right or wrong, ministers had then maintained, that it was not proper to impose fresh taxes upon the community at a moment under which they were suffering considerable pressure. They had therefore, to avoid the necessity of imposing such taxes, made at that time considerable reductions. In the present year also they had made a reduction to the amount of a million and a half. They were still occupied in making further reductions, nor would they cease to make them until they reached that point, at which, by the dilapidation occasioned by pushing reduction too far, greater mischief would occur than at present. What, then, was the law which ministers had observed in the imposition of fresh taxes? They had not imposed them until 1819; because, if they had proposed them at an earlier period, parliament might have said to them—"We will not give in to your system of taxation, until you show that it is not only rational and practicable, but also sufficient for your purposes." They had therefore waited until they knew what contingencies it was probable they would have to meet; and
30
he would now put it to the hon. member for Essex, whether he thought that it would contribute to the public credit of the country either at home or abroad, if the House of Commons were now, within two years from the time in which it passed the resolution, stating the necessity of having a surplus revenue of 5,000,000 l. to turn round and say, that the country was so I bankrupt in means and expectances as to be obliged to abandon the pledge which it had solemnly given to its creditors, and by the repeal of the malt tax to repeal the system of finance which it had previously adopted? What would be the consequence of such a measure among foreign nations? Would the influence of I the country in the preservation of peace be increased by the knowledge that it had I changed the whole system, which it had only adopted in the last two years, for the sake of diffusing amongst its population the benefits to be derived from the remission of 2,000,000 l. of taxes? What would be the consequence with regard to the fund holder if such an avowal were to be made—if he were to be informed, that his dividend was to be paid not out of any surplus revenue, but some new and precarious loan? The repeal of the malt tax, therefore, could not operate as a practical relief. On the contrary, it would create considerable pressure by weakening, if it did not entirely subvert, the foundations upon which public credit rested.
He trusted that the House, in their consideration of the present question, would put the government entirely out of its view; for it was not a question between the House and the government, but a question between the House and the country. It ought therefore to be decided, after a reference of its bearings upon all the great public interests of the country. He must, however, say for himself, that if the House should think fit to repeal the tax, he should not wish to continue a member of the government of the country, whilst it was under the degraded situation of having a revenue only equal to its expenditure, and under the dangerous contingency of having that revenue even below it. The credit of the country had generally been placed high above the waters, and not in places where the waves could break over it. He had now submitted to the House the grounds on which he thought it would be a suicidal measure to repeal the malt tax. As far as reductions could be made, the hon. member for

31
Essex had a right to call upon government to make them; but it was not consistent with the duty of government to make such reductions as would leave the country in a helpless situation. No man felt more than he did the pressure under which it laboured at present; but he had never been more convinced of any truth than he was of this—that he was serving the agricultural interest of the country by refusing his assent to a measure which would shake public credit from its basis without affording any relief to that interest which it was especially intended to benefit.—The noble lord sat down amidst considerable cheering.
Mr. Coke,of Norfolk, said, he gave his cordial support to the bill. The system which had been acted upon, and which he had opposed for the last IB years, had brought the country to the state to which he had always expected it would be brought. He almost regretted that he had lived thus long to see the country in its present state. Dire taxation was the cause of the existing distress. But it was said, the public debt must not be reduced. God forbid, that it should be improperly reduced but in time, if something were not done, Hits might become unavoidable. It was said, the House must not break faith with the public creditor. But had that House not already broken its faith? He had been a member of it for 40 years, and had never known it to keep faith in any case. In his opinion, a reform of the system was necessary. The noble lord had said, that the repeal of the malt tax would not benefit the landed interest. In reply to this he would refer the noble lord to the experience of the years 1815 and 1817-In those years barley was only 18s. the quarter. The malt tax was repealed, and the barley rose to a remunerating price, and no complaint was heard on the subject until the chancellor of the exchequer imposed a new malt tax. The price of barley upon this again declined.
Lord A. Hamiltonrose amid loud cries of "question." After the reception he had encountered, he felt little disposition to occupy their time; but although he might have some difficulty in justifying to the House a trespass upon its attention, he should have still more in justifying, when he met his constituents, a silent vote upon the subject in debate. The noble lord then went on to answer the arguments employed against the bill. He
32
wished to know from the noble lord opposite, who treated expenditure as a question of convenience, whether absolute necessity might not compel a reduction in the expenses of the country. The noble lord talked of the impossibility of remaining in office under any deficiency of the needful supplies; but he remembered the fate of the income tax; he remembered the instances in which the estimates for the year had been sent back by the House; and his experience of what had happened upon those occasions guarded him from being alarmed at the hints which the noble lord had thrown out. He next adverted to a noble lord near him (lord Fife) who had voted against ministers upon the present question, and who had since been removed from a situation which he held about the royal person. That noble lord had been actuated by a regard for the interests of his country, and the wishes of his constituents: he could not have voted otherwise consistently with his own honour and with the principles which he had always professed. He trusted that the example of that noble lord would operate as a lesson to members of parliament, and that it would teach them that there were situations the maintenance of which was inconsistent with parliamentary independence.
The Earl of Fifestated the reluctance he felt to be obliged to intreat the indulgence of the House for a short time; but placed as he was by what had fallen from the noble lord, it was impossible to avoid making a few observations. He was not often ambitious of engaging the attention, or occupying the valuable time of the House, and it would be more congenial to his feelings not to speak on the subject alluded to. Occasions might occur, when to be silent would warrant a conclusion to be drawn which he little wished, and hoped not to deserve. He had no hesitation, however, in declaring, that the hasty mode adopted lately regarding the office he held in the king's family, was not rendered more necessary at the present moment than for a year past—and certainly by no change of conduct on his part. Sufficiently did he announce a considerable time ago, by communications and explanations addressed to a proper quarter, his desire and readiness to retire, from his inability to attend regularly to the duties, and some of them in parliament, to prevent disagreement—owing much to being obliged to watch over the

33
interests of a vast number of people, under circumstances cruel and vexatious. Delicacy alone prevented him last year from relinquishing, till after the coronation, a place he had accepted under particular circumstances; and it was a satisfaction to be released from it for various reasons. But the time selected was not the most suitable, having received orders to attend the king to Ireland—and after a vote given in the House, advised by his constituents, in unison with one on a similar occasion last year, urged by the state of the country, and the dictates of his judgment. As the resolution communicated so abruptly was considered as a reprimand for that vote (he had it from authority), he must own he did not repent it. If it was intended as a signal of terror to alarm others, he left to hon. gentlemen the mode of appreciating it, to whom it might apply. He always understood that resistance when successful was not called a crime; but in that House it seemed to be construed otherwise. Voting with the minority of last year, no notice was taken—but acting I with the majority of the present, he was visited with high displeasure. He did not feel hurt—he was not offended, he trusted—he would ever be ready to act when necessary, in a fearless, independent, and, as far as depended on his abilities, in a becoming manner. And that his loyalty to the throne (for such a proceeding would in no ways alter his conduct)—his devotion to the House of the monarch, to whose gracious will he was indebted solely for the favour he lately enjoyed, would always appear, "true as the dial to the sun, although it was not always shone upon."—In referring to the question, he was bound to observe, that in whatever light he viewed it, he considered the tax impolitic and unjust in principle—baneful in the effects—dangerous and ruinous in the result. He appealed then to members belonging to England, who had ever shewn a disposition not only to listen to the complaints of their fellow subjects, but to commiserate and assist people from all parts of the world—he requested the gentlemen from Ireland, from what had passed—and was passing there, not to tarry—he called on those connected with Scotland to consider the state of their country and the distresses of the people, whose eyes were on the votes and resolutions or that night—he implored his majesty's ministers to think
34
well on the danger to be apprehended, in times of restless irritability, caused often by no imaginary grievances, to conciliate when policy and interest dictated, to be contented with moderate taxes, instead of attempting to force the payment of enormous ones. He concluded in the energetic language of the Scottish poet Thomson—
"——Ye masters, then,
Be mindful of the rough laborious hand
That sinks you soft in elegance and ease—
Be mindful of those limbs, in russet clad,
Whose toil to yours is warmth and graceful pride.
And, oh, be mindful of that sparing board,
Which covers yours with luxury profuse,
Makes your glass sparkle and your sense rejoice,
Nor cruelly demand what the deep rains
And all-involving winds have swept away."
Lord Folkestonewished to offer a few words, in consequence of the allusions which had been made to him. Those allusions referred to an assertion which he had made on a former occasion. All the gentlemen who had alluded to it, had argued as if it was a matter of option with the country whether it would pay the interest of the debt or not. What he had stated was, that in the government of countries there was a moral as well as physical impossibility, which must excuse a breach of faith with the public creditor; and this proposition he would not retract. He had asked if a case might not occur in which it would be a breach of faith to the whole to keep faith with a part, as in the event of invasion by a foreign enemy. Again, he had asked, if the country were reduced by excessive taxation to such a state of commotion that it should be necessary to suspend the habeas corpus act, whether the government would not be compelled to break that faith. If the liberty of the country were violated, what faith could be kept with the fund-holder? He had never said that the withholding of the interest on the funded debt would not be an act of injustice under ordinary circumstances; but he maintained, that in the cases which he had supposed, it would be injustice not to withhold it.
After a short reply from Mr. Western, the House divided, Ayes 144. Noes 242. Majority against the motion 98. The second reading of the bill was then put off for six months.

List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.

Acland, sir T.

Curzon, hon. R.

A'Court, E. H.

Cust, hon. E:

Alexander, J.

Cust, hon. W.

Alexander, J. D.

Cust, hon. P.

Ancram, lord

Daly, J.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Davis, R. H.

Ashurst, W.

Dawkins, J.

Astell, W.

Dawkins, H.

Bagwell, rt. hon. W.

Dawson, J. M.

Bankes, H.

Divett, T.

Baring, A.

Dodson, J.

Barne, M.

Douglas, J.

Bathurst, rt. hon. B.

Douglas, W. R. K.

Bathurst, hon. S.

Doveton, G.

Beckett, rt. hon. J.

Dowdeswell, J. E.

Bective, lord

Drummond, J.

Belfast, earl of

Dugdale, D. S.

Bent, J.

Duncombe, C.

Beresford, lord G.

Duncombe, W.

Beresford, sir J.

Dundas, rt. hon. W.

Bernard, lord

Dunlop, J.

Blackburne, J.

Elliot, hon. W.

Blair, J.

Ellis, hon. G. A.

Bourne, rt. hon. S.

Ellis, C. R.

Brandling, C.

Ellis, T.

Brogden, J.

Ellison, C.

Browne, rt. hon. D.

Estcourt, T.

Browne, P.

Evans, W.

Browne, J.

Fane, V.

Brownlow, C.

Fane, T.

Buchanan, J.

Farrand, R.

Bruen, H.

Finch, G.

Burgh, sir H.

Fleming, J.

Buxton, J. J.

Forrester, C. W.

Calvert, J.

Forster, rt. hon. J.

Canning, rt. hon. G.

Gifford, sir R.

Castlereagh, visc.

Gilbert, D. G.

Cheere, E. M.

Gipps, G.

Chichester, A.

Gladstone, J.

Cherry, G.

Gordon, hon. W.

Childe, W. E.

Goulburn, H.

Cholmeley, sir M.

Grant, A. C.

Clerk, sir G.

Grant, rt. hon. C.

Clements, hon. J.

Graves, lord

Clinton, sir W.

Grenfell, P.

Clive, lord

Greville, sir C.

Clive, hon. R.

Gossett, W.

Clive, H.

Hamilton, H.

Cockburn, sir G.

Handley, H.

Cockerell, sir C.

Harding, sir H.

Cocks, hon. J. S.

Hart, gen.

Cocks, hon. J.

Harvey, C.

Collett, E. J.

Heygate, aid.

Congreve, sir W.

Hill, sir G.

Cooper, E. B.

Holford, G. P.

Cooper, E. S. Copley, sir J.

Holmes, W.

Copley, sir W.

Hope, sir W.

Courtenay, W.

Horrocks, S.

Courtenay, T. P.

Hotham, lord

Crawley, S.

Holdsworth T.

Croker, J. W.

Howard, hon. F. G

Crosby, J.

Hudson, H.

36

Hulse, sir C

Ray, sir W.

Huskisson, rt. hon. W.

Rice, hon. G.

Innes, sir H.

Ricketts, C. M.

Innes, J.

Robertson, A.

Irving, J.

Rohinson, rt. hon. F.

Jenkinson, hon. C.

Rochf'ord, G.

Kerr, D.

Rocksavage, lord

Kingsborough, lord

Russell, J. W.

Kinnersley, W.

Ryder, rt. hon. R.

Knatchbull, sir E.

Scott, hon. W.

Lawley, F.

Scott, S.

Legge, hon. H.

Shaw, R.

Leigh, J. H.

Sheldon, R.

Lenox, lord G.

Smith, J.

Leslie, C. P.

Smith, G.

Lewis, T. F.

Smith, S.

Lewis, W.

Smith, R.

Long, rt. hon. C.

Sneyd, N.

Lowther, vise.

Somerset, lord G.

Lowther, hon. H. C.

Somerville, sir M.

Lowther, J. H.

Stewart, sir J.

Luttrell, J. F.

Stewart, A.

Lygon, hon. H.

Stopford, lord

Macdonald, H. G.

St. Paul, sir H.

Macnaghten, E. A.

Strutt, J. H.

Magennis, R.

Suttie, sir J.

Mansfield, J.

Taylor, sir H.

Marryat, J.

Townshend, hon. H.

Martin, R.

Tremayne, J. H.

Martin, sir T. B.

Trench, hon. F. W.

Metcalfe, H.

Thompson, W.

Mills, C.

Ure, M.

Monteith, H.

Uxbridge, earl of

Morland, sir S. B.

Valletort, lord.

Mountcharles, earl

Vansittart, rt. hon. N.

Musgrove, sir P.

Vernon, G. V.

Neale, sir H.

Villiers, rt. hon. G.

Needham, hon. F.

Vivian, sir H.

Nolan, M.

Walker, S.

Osborne, sir J.

Wallace, rt. hon. T.

Ommaney, sir F.

Wall, C. B.

Onslow, A.

Walpole, lord.

Paxton, W. G.

Ward, hon. W.

Paget, sir C.

Ward, R.

Paget, hon. B.

Warrender, sir G.

Palk, sir L.

Wetherell, C.

Palmerston, lord

Westenra, hon. H;

Pearce, J.

Wigram, sir R.

Pechel, sir T.

Wigram, W.

Peel, rt. hon. R.

Williams, W.

Pellew, hon. P. B.

Williams, R.

Phipps, hon. G.

Wood, col.

Pitt, W. M.

Worlley, J. S.

Plumber, J.

Wroltesley, H.

Pole, rt. hon. W. W

Wilson, sir H.

Pole, sir P.

Yarmouth, lord.

Pollington, lord

Yorke, sir J.

Powler, hon. W.

TELLERS.

Prendergast, J.

Binning, lord

Pringle, sir W.

Lushington, S. R.

PAIRED OFF.

Apsley, lord

Manners, lord C.

Bouverie, hon. B.

Morgan, G.

Bradshaw, R. H.

Money, W.

Chaplin, C.

Northey, W.

Dalrymple, A.

Price, R.

Evelyn, L.

Seymour, H.

37

MINORITY

Allen, J. H.

Gurney, R. H.

Althorp, visc.

Haldimand, W.

Astley, J. D.

Hamilton, sir H. D.

Beaumont, T. W.

Harbord, hon. E.

Barham, J. F.

Heathcote, G. J.

Barham, J. F. jun.

Heron, sir R.

Barnard, visc.

Hill, lord A.

Barrett, S. M.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Becher, W. W.

Honywood, W. P.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hornby, E.

Benyon, B.

Hughes, W. L.

Bernal, R.

Hume, J.

Birch, J.

Hurst, R.

Browne, D.

James, W.

Bright, H.

Johnson, col.

Bury, visc.

Jervoise, G. P.

Blair, J. H.

Keck, G. A. L.

Bruce, R.

Lamb, hon. W.

Baillie, J.

Latouche, R.

Belgrave, visc.

Lemon, sir W.

Buxton, T. F.

Lennard, T. B.

Bastard, E. P.

Lethbridge, sir T.

Boughton, W. E. B.

Lloyd, sir E. P.

Boughey, sir J. F.

Lloyd, J. M.

Benett, J.

Lockhart, J. J.

Chaloner, R.

Maberly, J.

Calcraft, J.

Maberly, W. L.

Campbell, hon. J.

Mackenzie, T.

Cavendish, lord G.

Mahon, hon. S.

Cavendish, H.

Majoribanks, S.

Cavendish, C.

Martin, J.

Clifton, visc.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Coke, T. W.

Monck, J. B.

Colburne, N. R.

Moore, A.

Concannon, L.

Ord, W.

Crespigny, sir W.

Osborne, lord F.

Crompton, S.

Ossulston, lord

Curwen, J. C.

O'Grady, S.

Creevey, T.

Palmer, col.

Curteis, J. E.

Palmer, C. F.

Chetwynd, G.

Pares, T.

Corbett, P.

Parnell, sir H.

Davies, T. H.

Price, R.

Deerhurst, visc.

Pryse, P.

Denison, VV. J.

Pym, F.

Duncannon, visc.

Portman, E. B.

Dickenson, W.

Ramsay, sir A.

Davenport, D.

Ramsbottom, J.

Ellice, E.

Ramsden, J. C.

Farquharson, A.

Ricardo, D.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Rickford, W.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Fitzroy, lord J.

Robarts, W. A.

Folkestone, visc.

Robarts, A.

Fairlie, sir W. C.

Robinson, sir G.

Fife, earl of

Rogers, E.

Forbes, C.

Rowley, sir W.

Fellows, W. H.

Rumbold, C.

Glenorchy, lord

Russell, R. G.

Gooch, T. S.

Scott, J.

Graham, sir J.

Scourfield W. H.

Grattan, J.

Scudamore, R. P.

Grant, J. P.

Sebright, sir J.

Grant, F. W.

Smith, hon. R.

Grant, G. M.

Smith, W.

38

Smyth, J. H.

Wemyss, J.

Stanley, lord

Western, C. C.

Stewart, W.

Whitbread, S. C.

Stuart, lord

Wodehouse, E.

Sykes, D.

Wood, ald.

Talbot, R. W.

Wynn, sir W.

Temple, earl of

Wyvill, M.

Tennyson, C.

TELLERS.

Townshend, lord C.

Hamilton, lord A.

Tynte, C. K.

Shelley, sir J.

Wells, J.

PAIRED OFF.

Daly, J.

Ponsonby, hon. F. C.

Fitzgerald, M.

Plumer, W.

Heathcote, sir C.

Russell, lord W.

Macdonald, J.

Russell, lord J.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Sefton, earl of

Milton, lord

Tavistock, marq.

Neville, hon. R.

Whitbread, W. H.

Newport, sir J.

Wilkins, W.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.
The Roman Catholic Disability Removal bill, was brought from the Commons by sir John Newport, attended by an unusually large number of members.
The Earl of Donoughmore,in rising to move that the bill be read a first time, said, he was deeply impressed with a sense of the important situation in which he was placed, by being selected to advocate the claims of the Roman Catholics in that House. He had lately had communications with some of the first men in the kingdom on both sides of the question, the result of which induced him to believe, that in the progress of the bill through the House such amendments would be made as would remove every material objection that might be entertained on the part of the Catholics to the measure, without at the same time failing to give those securities which the Protestant establishment in church and state had a right to require.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the bill was itself of the greatest importance, and coming, as it did, recommended by the House of Commons, it was in every respect entitled to their most serious consideration. That consideration he was certain it would receive, and whatever their lordships' decision might be, he trusted, that the question would be discussed with all that moderation which had hitherto characterised its progress. Having him-
2
self taken an active part in many former discussions, he felt that, he should not act candidly towards the House or the noble lord, if he did not declare, that when it came to the second reading, he should feel it his duty to object, as an individual, to the measure. The bill was divided into two parts; the first went to the removal of the political disabilities imposed on the Catholics; the second, to the regulation of their ecclesiastical establishment. To both those parts, as they now stood, he should be under the necessity of objecting. He could not agree to confer upon them privileges to the extent proposed, and even if his mind were made up to grant those privileges, he should still be obliged to object to the clauses relating to the Roman Catholic clergy. Those enactments appeared to him to take away all the grace of concession; many of them were unjust and many impolitic, and calculated to defeat the ends of those by whom the bill was proposed.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, that with respect to one of the points alluded to by the noble earl, he felt exactly as he did; but he was sorry the noble earl did not agree with him in the general principle or the bill. If the Roman Catholics entertained sentiments opposed to the principles of the constitution, he should object to grant them the proposed relief; but he was convinced, they were as loyal as the members of any other persuasion. The noble lord alluded, in terms of praise, to the manner in which the other House had met the wishes of the friends of the Catholics, and observed, that if the Catholics were not grateful for the conduct of

3
the Protestants, who had sacrificed many prejudices in their behalf, they did not deserve the support which they had received.
The Lord Chancellorapologised to the House for troubling them in such a stage, even upon so interesting a subject; but, having read the bill, and looked at that part of it which referred to the office which he had the honour to fulfil, he thought it necessary to state, that he could not agree to a measure of such vast alteration. Notwithstanding his great respect for many noble lords from whom he differed, and for the recommendation of the other House, he had no difficulty in stating, that though, on retracing his former opinions, he would not hesitate to change them if he thought they were wrong, he had every reason to conclude, that it would be impossible to introduce any modifications which could induce him to consent to the bill. He would, however, bestow his best reflection oh the subject between this and the second reading.
The bill was read a first time.