Star. — London, England, 1818-05-14 00:00:00

••_ f i il i i , i. i . I I ~ ..1 ) I f :' • . :t 11 , 1 . ), ~ t t 4 1 • , 4 1 , .Ipf k • ~• i ! I, I '1 i t i I ‘ ' 11 le ' t ' A' 11 , ~.., ~_ .., •.•4 -,. •, , ..... *~_^~~. ~'.~ \ nee officers was so much increased? Such an inter-' Terence as that on the ll= of Mr. Fergusson would have been criminal in any nan , but was doubly so in him, on account of the office which he held. It was no doubt painful for the House to inflict any additional punishment on an individual who had already suffered very severely—(hear, hear). But that it had been usual to follow up the punishment of such offences by the removal of the individual from his offite, it was only necessary for him to al. lude to a case which had occurred within the last four years, in which the guilty individual had been deprived - of all those high honours which he had earned in his profession. The motion, indeed, which had been made some days ago for the discharge of Thomas Fergusson, was supported by an allusion to' what the House had done in a case which occurred in 1809, somewhat similar to the present. In 1809 the House declined coming to any decision on the case. But in the present instance it was recorded on their Joucnals that Mr. F e rgusson had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House ; and it also appeared in evidence that he held an office un der the Crown. How then could the House, con sistently with its dignity, stop short, after having such evidence before it, and having proceeded so far? On these grounds he moved—" That an humble Address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he may give directions that Thomas Fergusson, who has been guilty of cor rupt interference to prevent the freedom of election, and has been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of this House, be removed from the office of Surveyor of Taxes for the County of Lanark." Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that in order to er.able the House to judge of the justice and pro priety of such a motion, he felt it necessary to move that the Petition of the Friends of the People, pre sented to the House in 1793, be read by the Clerk. The Clerk read the Petition, which was of consi derable length, and which minutely described the alleged corrupt constitution of the House. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT then moved, that the Resolution of the House in the same year, on the case of the Great Grimsby Election, be read. The Clerk then read this Resolution, which.stated it to he the opinion of the House, that'the Honour able William Wellesley Pole had been guilty of gross bribery and corruption in the case of the Great Grimsby Election—(Laughter). Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, he would not trouble the House with any thing farther, erupt stating that the Resolution which had just been read had not been followed by any steps taken against . the individual named in it, as guilty of the offences rnentionei. Nr. STURGES BOURNE said, he could not help thinking that the offender in the case I e ;ire the House had already been punished with much seve rity, and that the House would not be justified in taking any further proceedings against him, and especially not in agreeing to the present motion.— The delinquent had been called before a Committee of Privileges, and though he appeared as a willing witness, he was not told whether he was at liberty to decline any questions which might tend to criminate himself. After having given -full answers to all the questions which were thus put to him, he was upon his own evidence called before the House, and treat ed with the utmost possible severity—(hear, hear). — In the first place he was committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms—no slight punishment when the heavy expenses there'iy cast upon him were considered. Then he was committed to Newgate, the most 4nomi Mous receptacle of prisoners. And after visiting with these heavy punishments, the Ilouse was now called upon to follow up these other proceedings, by depriving him of the situation which he held, and on which his means of subsistence. de pended. All this was to be done on the evidence of the delinquent himself, given as a willing witness, and without his being Warned of the consequence of eriminating himself. He could not think that it was the practice of the House to act on principles so dif ferent from those which guided the proceedings in our Courts of Law. The examination of the indivi dual occupied no less than fifteen foliO pages, and when the circumstances under which it was given were duly weighed, as well as the severity of the punishment which had been already inflicted, he trusted the House would see that the present motion ought not to be agreed to. 11-. BATHURST said he could not think that his llonourable Friend who spoke last was quite right in the view he took of the case before the House. The delinquency of Mr. gergusson was not in the cir camstances stated in his evidence, but was m ide out solely from the letter which lie had written. It was also to be considered that it appeared by the evidence that the office from which it was the object of the present motion to have him removed, was not his only means of subsistence. He was aware o. the 1 hardship of the case, but still he thought the ..ig nity of the House required it to pursue that course vel.ith had been usual in all such cases. Mr. DENNIS IJIWWNE opposed the motion on the ground that the punishment already inflicted on the offender was sufficient. Mr. JONES thought there was more harshness in the motion than the case warranted. The case of a 'run in the situation of Mr. Fergusson, when called before the Committee, was one of peculiar hardship; for he could not answer the questions put to him without criminating himself; and if he had refused to answer, he would have been reported to the House as contumacious, and thereupon at once have been committed to Newgate. As it was, he had not only teen committed to Newgate, but the present motion sought to deprive him of all that constituted the com fort of his life--of his whole means of subsistence —(No, no, from several Members).—lf the House agreed to this Motion, it would take upon itself to' do that which, as he understood it, the Act of the 10th of Queen Anne directed should only be done by the verdict of a Jury. Ia this case, the House Lad not only extorted evidence, but was called to vote an Address for the removal of the individual (tom his office, without substituting any remunera tion in lieu of it. On these grounds he should op pose the motion. Mr. METHUEN remarked, that a Noble Lord opposite had been guilty of the same offence for which Mr. Fergusson had been already so severely punished, and yet the House passed over the offence • gos Noble 4.9,rd without punisigneut. For the House to proceed further. in this - 'ease would 1A an unwarrantable persecution, and he should therefore vote against the Address. Mr. LYTTLETON did not conceive the offence to be so atrocious, morally speaking, as to require that the House should punish it with the utmost pos sible rigour. He did not suppose that any severity which might be used towards the present offender would in any degree operate to prevent such offences for the future. Instead of thinking that the dignity of the House required that it should agree to the Address, he thought that it would injure the House very much in the opinion of the country if it should pass such a vote. Whether his Honourable Friend meant to ground any general measure on the present proceedings he did not know. At all events he should vote against the motion. Lord FOLKESTONE was in favour of the Ad-, dress. It appeared that the office which Mr. Fer-, gusson held was not his only means of subsistence; but that he was a writer or clerk to a writer. It also appeared that he had made use of the influence of his office to obtain the vote of an elector—(No, from many Members).—lf the House negatived this Address, it would imply an approbation of the in terference at elections of persons holding Govern ment offices. Lord BINNING said, he was the person who took the objection to the motion in the Committee, that it be an instruction to the Chairman to move an Address to remove Fergusson from his office. He had moved the previous question. This motion came unrecom , mended from the Committee. There had been but one case of an interference with the purity of Elea; tion, in which the person offending was sent to New gate, and also deprived of his office. The first case was that of the Bishop of Worcester, who was Al moner of the Crown, and who, having interfered in the freedom of Election, his office of Almoner was taken {rem him, the salary of which was £1 00 a year. But what a differencebetween the punishment in this case and that now proposed. Fergusson did not, as a Noble Lord (Folkestone) had asserted, interfere .in his capacity of Surveyor of Taxes, but wrote the ob jectionable letter in his absurd zeal to serve a friend. The next case was that of the Mayor of Winchester, who was Returning Officer, and who endeavoured, by threats and menaces, to procure an Election.— Ile was ordered to be taken into custody, but he was not sent to Newgate; and an Address was voted to take from him his situation in the Customs. The next was the case of the Receiver-General for the County of Stafford, who was sent to Newgate, but what affinity between his situation and this paltry office of 12t.Y. a year held by Fergusson? The next l case was that of the Inspector of Customs between! Berwick and Hull, who interfered in the Election of! Haydon, giving a bond for a certain sum to be paid! out of his salary, to procure the return of a certain indiv;dua'. The next culprit was the Receiver-Ge neral for the C ninty of Den'ngh, Mr. Middleton, who was also High Sheriff for the County of Den- 1 high. This person had taken on himself to return Sir John Middleton, contrary to the majority on the Pull, and without having made any subsequent exa mination, and who had afterwards altered the said Poll to give a colo•.hr to the return. The House decided, that he had acted partially and illegally, to the ma nifest viol ititn of the lawfail rights of the Freeholders, and the privilege of Parlian►ent; and for this offence he was struck out of the Peace, and deprived of the office of Receiver-General. What similarity between this case and that of Thomas Fergusson ? It was necessary for the House to punish such offences, to prevent attempts of this kind in future. But still the House would nut consult its own dignity if it went beyond a proper severity. He believed ►f the office of Surveyor of Taxes were taken from Fergusson, the bulk of his income would be taken from him.— The salary of this office was 120/. a year. He was not a writer, but a clerk in the office of Mr. Camp bell, of Blytheswood, formerly a Member of that House. He had only farther to say, that it was his conviction, and he believed the conviction of every IP:ember in the Committee, that his Noble Friend, Lord Douglas, had nothing to du with this inter ference. The Noble Lord concluded with moving the previous question. Mr. BROUGHAM said, with respect to the in quiry into the Committee, in was quite decided to his satisfaction, that Lord Douglas had not com mitted any breach of the privileges of Parliament.— It was necessary that he should state this, as he, for one, when the case was first stated to the House by his Noble Friend, thought that prima facie, there was enough against Lord Douglas to call on him to chal lenge farther inquiry. The result of the inquiry had given satisfaction to himself on this subject. There was no evidence of any interference on the part of Lord Douglas. Mr. CANNING said, from the best consideration which he was a)le to give to the whole case, it ap peared to him that the measure of punishment was already sufficient. A Noble Lord (Folkestone) had said, that it was in his character of officer of Govern ment, that he had committed the crime. But theie was nothing like evidence to shew that Fergurson's office was made use of to influence Mr. Dykes ; and there was not, therefore, any peculiar propriety iu the application of the peculiar punishment now pro. posed to this peculiar offence. It could not be said, that when the Bishop of Worcester interfered, that he had interfered as Lord Almoner, and yet he had been removed from that office, as a mark of their displeasure at such interference, But in the case of this individual, they would nearly deprive him of his subsistence if they displaced him. On a full con sideration of all that had come out, he was of opi nion that the House had already made its option, and that this accession of punishment would not, as in the case of the Bishop of Worcester, be a mark of! their displeasure, but the utter ruin of the individual. Mr. C. W. WYNN vindicated the course of pro ceeding in the present case, as being, consonant to the invariable practice of the House. in a Court of Law the inquiry was, was a certain person guilty or not guilty ? But here the matter for inquiry was, who was the guilty person? In the case of an objection able publication, it was not enough when a Printer was called to their Bar, that he admitted he was the printer of such publication ; the House did not stop there, but endeavoured also to ascertain who was the Author, and who was the Publisher. The objectl of the Committee, in the present case, was to ascer tam if any higher person was behind the curtain. It would have made a difference in their views, if they had thought Ferpsson a tool of some powerful per• ' son ; but this was not proved. It appeared, how • ever, that he had means of communication with Go vernment, and that he was very near getting the office for which he asked. He had been asked by an lion. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton), if he intended to follow up this proceeding with any further measure?— To this he should certainly answer in the negative. He did not see the necessity of introducing new mea ; urea for the punishment of that for which there was already a sufficient punishment, if the House chose' to exercise the powers with which it was vested. He was not surprized at the Noble Lord (Binning) moving the previous question. That Noble Lord had also moved the previous question in the case of Lord Castlereagh, rune years ago—(Hear, hear).—But though the House then felt a strong with to favour the Noble Lord (Castlereagh), the previous question was negatived almost unanimously. Whether the right of election should be with Householders or Freeholders, or whatever part of the community, it was equally necessary to watch Over that right of election, and to punish those who attempted to vio late it. Whether we had Septennial or Triennial Parliaments, or, according to the Reformer, who lately discovered Mr. Prynne to be in favour of An nual Parliaments, as Brevia Parlian►entaria rediviva, meant " short Parliaments divided"—(Larfhter)— we were to have annual Parliaments—still at would become the House to watch over the purity of elec tions, and to punish those who attempted to corrupt them. With respect to Reform, the very measure was the beginning of Reform. The House had al ways the power of reforming itself, when it did its duty by applying the existing law to the punishment of offences. It had been said, that the House having made the option, and having committed Fergusson, ought not to vote his removal from office. But from the beginning, he had intimated that it was his in tention to follow up the motion for commitment with another for removal. He intreated the House to con sider that it was no immaterial consideration for them, when they were on the verge of a General Election, whether they would visit an offence of this kind with the punishment which would be most se verely felt by the individual. They all knew that commitment to Newgate was a punishment which would soon be forgotten ; in fact, it was lighter than remaining in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, as the daily fees were so heavy, that it formed a much more severe punishment than commitment to New gate. The House then divided— For the previous question - 106 Aphsat it 57—Majority 19. ROrAL MESSAGF. Lord CASTLEREAGH appeared at the Bar of the House with a Message from his Royal Highness the Prince Regent respecting the Marriage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, for which see the Lords. When the Message had been read from the Chair, an Address of Thanks was, on Lord CASTLEREAGH'S motion, ordered to be presented to the Prince Regent for his most gracious communication, and to assure him, that the House would immediately proceed to the consideration of his Royal highness's Message. Lord CASTLEREAGH then moved that the said Message be referred to a Committee of the while House to-morrow..—Agreed to. IRISH ASSESSED TAXES. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House went into a Committee on the Irish Assessed Taxes. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in rising to propose some modification of these taxes, combated the opinion that Parliament had pledged itself to repeal the tax on windows. It had origi nally, like all other Irish imposts, been enacted for a year ; but the necessities of the State had long since caused it to be pledged for the permanent charges. There was no gra/n(1, therefore, for considering it as a war tax, that ought to terminate at the conclusion of peace. It could not be remitted entirely in justice to the Public, unless some provision had been made to supply its place ; but it became au object of some importance to consider to what amount it ought to be reduced. He had prepared a proposition to re concile the interests of Ireland to what was due to those of the empire in general. It must not be forgot ten that the Irish Debt amounted to six milhoss and a halt, Irish money, and that the produce of her taxes was only five millions, leaving 1,500,0001. to be provided for from other sources. It be came, however, the British Parliament to afford relief to Ireland as largely as would be compatible with the general welfare. Among the Taxes most complained of was, the Hearth Duty, on which he did not intend at present to effect any alteration.-- The next was the IVinclow Tax; it was one of the most productive, and he should propose to make a very considerable reduction in it, no t than 25 per cent. so that it would be replaced on the footing on which it stood previous to its last augmentation. In Scotland, houses with more than four windows, in England with more than six, and in Ireland with more than seven, were assessed to this tax. He should propose that in lodging-houses and others occupied by the lower classes, one shilling should only be charged for each window, whatever their number ; but this indulgence should only be extended where the window was not only for light, but also for air. As to the taxes which affected carriages, horses, and Men, they had been considered as sumptuary laws, intended to repress extravagance, as well as to swell the revenue. As they stood, both in Great Britain and Ireland, the duties went on increasing with every additional carriage, horse, or servant. By taking away this progressive increase in Ireland, he propos ed to afford considerable relief. Such a measure might also lead to more important results. It would yield employment for the lower classes, and by ena bling the Irish absentees to live in greater style under a reduction of taxes in their own country, it might induce them to return to Ireland and to reside among their tenants. If this were to happen, he should think that the purpose of Parliament had been amply an swered. On all these duties there should be a con siderable reduction. But on one class of carriages he was disposed to extend it still farther. He meant the national carriage of Ireland—the jaunting car,' the duties on which would in every case be reduced from 61. 10s. to 21.25. He concluded by putting in the hands of the Chairman of the Committee Mr. Brogden) a series of Resolutions for carrying the plans he had mentioned into effect. On reading these Resolutions, Sir lILNItY PilliN44L stated, that it was the manner is which the Hearth Tax was collected yak rendered it so objectionable. The power give n u the officer was not only unconstitutional, tut by been ill used, and much complained of. He then re. ferred to the offer made by king William to Ned & meat, to regulate or take away the English Ik Tar, which produced at the time VOO,OOOl . House of Comm ons h a d expresse d i n an Addre% itx gratitude for " this m os t generous ad unprecedelb. ted offer."—He app eA l e i to the justice t. 4 eat H ou*, whether the people of Ireland should not also b e re . lieved from an impost which had been de , crili c t, is the transaction to which he had alluded, as “ op p ,„, sive, and a badge o 4 slavery." He then morel dot so much be left out of the Resolution As tebt,J to the Hearth Tax. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIII4IT4 tended, that the Officer had not the power t„ every room, provided he was allowed Cr, cLar g , those which he thooglit might cont a i n a h earth. 11 onus of proving th a t th e c ha rge was strong th ea re . mained with the propriet o r. H e h a d some timesirke suggested a commutation of th e Heir!, T at k e a duty on Houses, but that had nut mgt adz th e probation of Oddness'. rater Sir HENRY PARNELL would be disposed to give up the pro p osed reduction iu the Moiler I s , if that on Hearths were repealed. Mr. L. FOSTLIt and Mr. D Bitowxc supported tle Tar as it now stood. Sir F. FLOOD was not so much aglinst the seem; of the tar, as against the indignity o:fere.' to in charging her with a tax which had been declasti oppressive and a badge of slavery in England. H e was astonished that - Irishmen should be found sr: * voted against every measure for the relief cf tltrir I country. Those who represented great citiLl a r j great counties would feel rather awkward when they should go buck to their constituents and tar, tee have given a great vote against your relief: After a few words from Mr. V. Firtntaato. Re J. NIWYORT, Mr. PARNELL, and Mr. PEEL Sir IL Paawatt, with the consent of the Committee, with drew his Amendment—The Resolution was thra read and agreed to. On the third reading of the Resolution ttlecting windows, Sir J. NEWPORT said, that without entering at present into the question of pledge, he shouid pro- pose, and with a v►ew of conc►liaung the ititertlt ►f the Irish people with that of the revenue, gut tlie reduction an the present rate of the Wind►,w Tax extended from 25 to 50 per cent. The Rig:lt Ho nourable Baronet urged, w►th much aoinution, is proof of the necessity of affording relief, the gmt pressure on Ireland from diminutions of elpris within the last three years, which amounted to more than two millions. Sir FILEI)FRIC FLOOD concurred in all that Li been said of the miseries of Ireland, which cuual proved by the First Commissioner of Elate to LI . io such a degree, as to make every man oho tri-ht hear him shudder. In the last p.m- the w jl Tax fell short upwards of 54,0001-principally ari lag from its pressure, and which had tended to pti dory the typhus fewer. On these grounds he argued far 'its reduction. He wished the Chancellor ot the Es chequer to visit Ireland again and again ; for the of 4 tuner he saw its miseries the more he would do to relieve them. He grudged from las heart the money spent by absentees in a hostile country. and hoped that ever!' man who went abroad front soriquir would suffer. It was the interest of every IlnliLh Member to join in supporting the amendment. Mr. PEEL argued, that if a pledge had been git t"*. we had no other alternative but to redeem the pledgs. AO repeal this tax on the return of peace. lit' Wert 'over the different arguments that had been u5...1, and napressed his opinion, that if such a pledge had bera Drum in the Act of the Irish Parliament, in PIK by which the Window Tax was imposed, we had os discretion to use. But the Honourable Baronet hal omitted to state, that by this Act every other us as continued, the Act being annually renewed h . . therefore, there was an obligation to discontiatiethn tax, there was the same obligation fur discontinuing all the other annual duties witich were included is this Act. But there was a separate Act in 1799, fie posing the Window Tax (the other which continued it being passed in 1800), and in this there was no pledge for discontinuing it on return of peace. Thus all that had been imputed to us of a breach of faith was overturned. When the Right Honourable Ba ronet continued this Act in 1806, why did be so make some special exception in favour of the WW- I dow TAX ? Because he could have no idea that there was a pledge to separate it from the others. — The general wish in Ireland fur the repeal of a tat was a very fallacious criterion of the distress of tbe country. England had taken upon herself heavy burthens by the union of the two Exchequers, and it was necessary that she should pay Assessed Taxes, to go towards the deficiencies that England hadto make good. The total charge of Ireland in the last Tex amounted to 4,887,0004 and the total revenue to 4,988,0001. The deficiency was therefore 497,00 00 and this deficiency would be increased to the amours of 90,0001. by the measure proFosed by tl.e Hom Ba ronet, and by the whole amount of the propmed re ductions, 150,000/. consequently the sum must be added to the deficiencies of this year. This ssoxica would be required to meet the existing charger, and which must be supplied by this 'country. The charge payable in England for the interest of the Irish Debt was 4,476,0004 This was the extent of the burdes England had taken on herself, and to which Ireland %voted have been liable. In addition to this must be added the deficiency in the Con olidated Fund, and then it would be found that the whole extent cf the burden was at least five millions per annum. — The interest of the debt at the time of the Union tiro 1,600,000/. The interest of tie debt. which Ireland now pays, is 1,680,000/. so that there was no greater difference than 80,0001. between the amount now ate. then. The charges for the Army, the Miscellanects Services, the Ordnance, and others exclusively I rish, were 3,100,0001.; so that the charges being upwards of 3,000,0001. and the income only 4,000,0 014 31 ', 3 odd, the whole of the remainder of about 1, 3 b 0,006 was to be made good. Then where was a substitute to be found for any tax that might be abolished' — It was the duty ache House, when they pressed the repeal of a tax on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. to consider whether he could find a substitute; and was it probable that he could find one for this Ws if it were repealed ? The Right lion. Gentleman can- I do/ all bib • aid lIIn tae 00 11l I : t U t SOL CO" eljni i s a the and oae wou tl , II • en ion 1 c p 011! agat 1111 tl it cre•T' tube cum plat' Lite Met but sulid lure with cite Se sow The Aso btu debt ran; elar 11 t! c• chi.] seri t' rt o.o‘.