The Sun. — London, England, 1833-03-27 00:00:00

ttrnount of 14,000,000/. ; this amount proposed p ‘ l,s by the tax en property. It bad been nicht that • "ion of the taxation would he incom ztoble with the laf ety of the stare; but he himself thought that genera' 'slew hrr .a ,,:; l " l 'l l t4y would, on the contrary, be consulted a j : . ..";" the ° PrPseed people of their galling burd-no were 'at from thinking that the prospects of the country. acv"pt„ewraPt in so impenetrable a gloom as haul been In't • l °We, but he certainly felt that we were in tuaymeritical state, and that none but prompt and effee iroui t ouclis.ures would be of any service in extricating us i atindthiefih. r ,eju dt, y , , ! Ther e were ample resources and in-aos quite su ffi cient to meet all these difficulties. of e"old Prevail upon the House to avail themselves Clal r;:tihsou tees, they would soon produc e the most benefi heatust He was sorry to troub ' e the House longer, but g od h eto :V . s fete words words on t h e su bj ect of the property tax, h e H. 41441 " on t hen he most anxious to elicit the feelings of the nrin •;, of his oion eore the get, He' 'arl , e 'lat no doubt but that Government b w f ould feel (4. 144,144 v on the natter, and that the gentlemen Waffo i d Pt.° Prlty w ou ld cry out, •‘ But, good God I can tur e • to n och ray a property tax in addition to all those the just%are,now cal ed upon to pay aoreemd to tur t , • o r the q uestion but he would ask the I if th e , • , • • . ensation to be 1 ,," f ror. shou l d consider it no crimp • i utH the assessed taxes, from the . malt and hip "vet elas4l,Y consider it no compensation to see the 'ent 'gain contented and happy, and t h e rinse 'giro • h cts would be Pritcl ue , d . Y to themselv es ? all whic • e e th tt, !r em the measur e he proposed. He contended . ohj, et a or an act of justice, property ought to be the o h al a t i))s • and that labour and industry ought At pr),e ourdened', excep t cases of imminent necessity. Ma ; :exit, according to a itery close calculation be haul 4 Plai t Pn°r man earning but a few shillings a week for the thse,tthitrdhitnself his wife, and children, pail n less ,°lll,B earnings to the service of the State. This t P r bst p : I t l !° , Poor man ;aid ; but he would be glad to know ' c 'n the rich man Totributeci. C-riflemen who, d of 1 ' ekti ll'ir a ' ge property in land, the funds, or any other b ath d ' n ; of Property —who kept up w ould ism Pt 4o v rt ' i kr4 gings or club houses, be ask what fort y • "did they pay? Many of these held large pro m' iti c 4 o,, ti !' fun ds, and it was the large funded d• bt which, 11 , equenei.s, principally caused the distress. Was ' re t just i oolitic to allow such an enor• ar °"tint r a r ' el isses ? ei t ,i, 0. tax to rest upon the la bouring a l ) to th e P ' ° t• Hitherto the poor classes, who had looked , v 'ete pr e higher orders for assistance and protection, 'et a leVoll,ly .ointed, and the higher classes had ti costoined tu P i i' look upon the lower orders with /ly t h i. e and dislike, as intruders aiming at their property. tiattily'hintrdnfkortunate state of things, the security of the Ptct b o th ea much weakened, the natural regard and t tit a l. ' "" e l'tvses had for the Crown toeing forgotten in INist: ' r "aP Py dissenSions with earl) other. As to the : 4 '115 , wh ieh thi s property tax should be levied— e k got that i t s h ould he levied at a per ten tage on v.lu e d ; others, mom income derived ;',Louchi`akm P r operty ; and a thi.d party proposed that Pt a " t lev ied upon realized property itself of every a A 'ht ti , lm• Some nientioned a certain fixed rate, and 'tiat4tEd tagzraduated rare. He himself should suggest a gra ti,'"iption °I a Per tentage upon realized property of every 1 1, 4 v er ,, He would have it on a graduated scale, so 11 ' 1 °114 'nail with only 2001 a•year should not p iy at ly et p ros rat e With a loan of 20,000/. a• ear. He would Thu 4 re : e o n : i t°, "n . tion the amount of his graduated scale, ti t friotocti the 20,000/. a-y ar gentlemen. tl oo l ”ur a hi e , •-teto leman then, adverting to the th ':1), 4 .4 1; ' .isaid that the interest if it was 28 millions, ( off w ere ht 7 millions-35 millions altogether ; yet t. N 7ait te n 'Y 11 millions upon which we can operate in It a F'tgi u not B aPply . H e cont-nded that the excessive ° which our people were now exposed, made . "ee, ar Y to . farticles of subsist. thou p 1 re ice the price to all t p ut e !gn nation s were successfully encroa ching on v a ßli t h '",ts which were once exclusively our own. r i drti ah 0.4 08, and English machinery, and the espied t '"tto -"" hail all gone abroad, and enabled other 1 :0 41 , 4 : 4 a • to overtake this in the career of of k ,l'tirt 4 r Hear.) The consequence was, that ts,rsfit,ls,-- shad becom e excessive, hence lowness hild i , (ll th e a t r a d . lowness of wages, and anl hence all the to rt l 'ers or _ (-tory system, and of that pauperism which of ithj e tit the land. It was becoming the Legisla t'it t on ' h rer to loo k fairly and manfully into the state . They ought, without procrastination, 4 ,r tt evasio n such as had heretofore been used, to t e ti k H !stress ' of the country with a view to giving e te ee ~ e Otß Nobl e Lord, the other evening, admitted t °f I resto and he certainly was afraid, ift . h e I oti-PPoietrall'd away t without inquiry, that they would d s ,„ the"Pectations of the people and produre cones ibend „ 'host taral ro the interesta of the country. He t4 tl4", , lir v , l 't the Noble Lord desired to do what e could wick t he condition of the people, and he cou ld . not t hat s• tthe Hon. Member for Bridport, that if any the r ,:," Gocl lC tnul were canoed against the Government, we re se re ',: t '"tsrit must retire. He had no reluctance th e %tied " I 'ke such a motion, and trusted that i ta kl , t i t 'est ry might be found to ease tli p e re b . u s r t u ir e e , oh s t : 1 , 451 °, 4 Thae°o lighten t e nmetml, Member presentcotgreaticluded by moving— thooka,°4l.4.let Committee be appointed to consider a l nui f 41 1e -s- „lstl eh ' lnt t'ag taxation, with a view to the repea l 1 !- '' press most heavily on productive in k tP i tt th e 1 ' subst t • of an equitable tax on property ,oueof . ,, ution re k WA r , 4 ' ll hi tt s e c on d e d the motion. After the It, the BU RTON Hon. M em b er f or W orces t er haul made d •t ' 4 ' 1 00 . Member could hardly expect that he cu e t 1 , 4, to se cond his motion ; hut h e was desirous of lo t ' w lie could assure the Hou-e that there was no 11 4 t ail) " 4 the Hon Member and him. He had no t ' fil tb 4 ° l 4 ' d 414 ' a rnotic • n for a specific inquiry ; but he ek t tvid the Motion the other evening, because it was ee,iitad com prehensive a nature, that, had it been 101 ' l4l th e th e Petitions complaining of grievances, pre nitie4arl t wh ° l e session ought nece ssarily to have been 4 no t e tha t • d to that motion roorsthe •- , onitnittee. co, oi Jecte wil t rkt'::ally, because there was one subject of the in koO'Y, l- li " 'vent to rescind all the contracts of the Ili tg ° ' ll the — n . t , °VA:tett to the extensive nature of the Sloti '4" eV erling, but tie approved of the princ i ple t' h tt ent, e ' ti • He considered it specific enough to eng age for ad f or 2 ° f a C ommittee, and therefore he seconded rt e °!. L slol atin Y beau taunted, when he introdu ced . a Bill blo r : c h ilto the single subject of tobacco, with taking . his t he offic e of the Chancellor of the Exchequer , ar ld r' W 4l, t)tici a Were liable to that objection, how much to ! w hich Vnotion li a bl e to i t wh i ch haul just been ma n e, i Ph s econded? It sho u ld, hewever, be we ll cheated• ; d fitir system of taxation was more ci!tn t3C Was II ; tho u2h it undoubtedv required modificat . ion, t ht t' t a ', had . je at difficulty in meddliug with it. tro v 't co e f d 4 "ttended itself into all branches of bus i ness, eo,, t lt ) 0 rarcely be touched in any branc . h, wit i o f u Itte, i '''lsa ti .„ 4 th e part of some of the people, d eman d • l ur f 411,, — . 4, Or a cause of complaint. Thus, to a - •. t i f '4 4 „ `;' auction duties which the Hon. Member . lvh a . t lity . w .l b ad on a former evening brought under notice diesel p a i d er e taken off, would not all the shopk eepers . toY h eavy house and window taxes 'time ? Would they not say that they were . t 51•.: h ytax es for everything they sold in their e ‘ 1, .1 3 , 4 ••) Is 'tahv who sold by auction, and kept up no elate shines thillAt,t)tv, those w ho exempt from such duties ? e of ‘ ' , e t as an example to show that it was not so easy, el'oliN,4°Portant it was, to give facility to the transfer . eit 4 t :tily t 4 Y '•••-to make changes as . to propose them. This Ala n d 'ample of the complicated system which ha d th e ' u t 4 Et f l-'° f over the whole country. The Honourable \ ‘'al .ak tai; 4 k () ld . hun i had complained of the inequality of tni ee r, .'at It belonged to this complicated system—it 4 ,' 4ll y.''''',"'rY part of it—that the taxes should press ' ' 1,1 :1 44 Of Wio3 not necessary to specify the unequa l b 44 • s?trticular taxes, for that was a vice wiiic • 4, 1 '4 system. It was the nature of taxa t ion 5, Ours, that it was not easily alt ere d, t vhs o rd -?1,1• tona was liable in every part to seriou s Honourable Member for Worcester tatty' ° t tlit tfil Property, though he did not know ert Pr ` t lis 1 444 trable Member meant to tax property y e Z er ,ely Par‘:l)4yl:_and income. He would say, that if t were not I l at ( p were to be permanent, if • stice to !°atieptislim'- it would not be doing any injustice 11 4 „ vi , °4 ld °Ligh , , e ll as property. If such a tax were ri fo i r tY. e ll fall on annuitant, as well as others, kere ; 11 , 5 l ith them as long as they received the an tititi'4l' tIL ` '41)"" o nchi efly made to the tax formerly eke th ‘ ‘v a 6 3 made tir the tax formerly 0t b: 55 5yW55 Unequal to tax property and °4'e; tetae%.mternunpeeqrmaanent, and not temporary, let 14° Priet. VV itl l ',! war tax, and that obj ction would dui ieteee(ll4)ell'..f.. enterin g into any question as to the tai "le (Seated u b g 'mall incomes, though perhaps sm all . t el empt, he saw no stice in taxing ,'mind ten Per t 41 funded a s well as other property. A y tl4. fallin g far one year on au annuitant 1, 44 e ats' te n Put Per c ent away f • rn the income ; but at Z e inel en t t li ::::trilr,,,: u eh . a tax wou ld ln only take e 200th o 0,°•••••.441 It had been proposed by a very 4 1 u p gat tft4 entioia whom was to praise hun—Mr. Nat,,n„sll , t' Should be made by a general tax.a speeie3"`f be rek°Perty of the country to pay o ff the rriptino Pr "Pertj'';'' Plan was to lay a tax on every 'vat ') th — . l l? !. t he IA capital, and incom e, for the re it te tt , it • The leading objection to that pl at ,eytkr'Practicatile.--.(A laugh.) The have been brought to consent to re new and change all their mortgages to attain such an ob ject. A new modification of Mr. Ricardo~ plan hid I irely been proposed by a gentleman who had been sen ploved in colleeting the income. tax. That gentleman's none was, we understood Saer, and he would recommend liis book to the perusal of Hon. Members. His plan dila' r e d from Mr. Rirardo'e by his proposing to leave it () e nemal with every capitalist and landlord to pay off his el m ire of tae national debt. If the person was unaole or unwilling to redeem his share, why, it was to remain, roil he collected as before, but if he chose to wash his hands this tax, why, it w is to be at his option to re deem it: If the subject should ever he fairly taken into censideration, this plan of giving landlords the option of red enption would relieve it of its impracticability, arid make the scheme be thought desirable , The land tax 'night be taken as an illusnevion, the redemption of which had been allowed on a similar principle. It had been 01,- ji.c , etl to a primerty tax—that it wee one which any Go vermnent could easily extend. In his opinion it was much mitre difficult for a Government to increase such a tax than indirect taxes. The indirect taxes were mixed up with the prices of the articles. an'i the tax-payer never knew either when he was paying a tax, or how much he was paying But the tax collected on property brou lit the tax collector immediately into contact with the citizens; and in the collection of no tax did so touch friction in terfere between the citizen and the payment, to stop the Government from running too fist as in a property tax. In his opinion, the plan proposed by the Hon. Member for Wurcestet was not comprehensive enough. If a property tax were established at all, it ought to supersede all other taxes, otherwise the change was scarcely desirable. If they raised the same amount of taxes, it was nor of much importance whether it were raised by one method or another; for the ability of the people to pay fifty millions of taxes would not ire much increased or diminished by the method of collecting it. The Hon. Member's plan left three millions behind for collection. It left all the evils and expenses of indirect taxation—all the expense of Boards and Collectors—which ought to be got rid of as far as possible. Should the Noirle Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consider it proper to recommend a property tax, he hoped the Noble Lord would make so extensive, so sweeping a change, that he would remove the whole mass of indirect taxation. The plan of an income tax, redeemable at option, would not be liable to any objections of being a breach of faith, such as was implied, he believed, in the motion of the Hon. Member for Birmingham. It would leave ail ex• isting contracts untouched—it would remove taxes from the industry of the country, and it would place these taxes where they could he best borne—on the large capitalists, and on the large tended proprietors, and on those who ought to bear the heaviest taxation. Against any motions male with a view to break faith with the public ere• ditor, or to commit a breach of contract, he should come armed with this suggestion of Mr. Ricardo, and say, that it would be far better to impose au income and property tax, than consent to any such motion. To any motion implying a breach of faith, he should always give his opposition ; and that was one reason why he opposed the motion already alluded to on a former evening. —Ques tion put. Lord ALTHORP did not accuse the Hon. Member who brought forward the motion of any intention to eine berrass the Government. On the contrary, he thought it was a fair motion, and the Hon. Gentleman had brought it forward only, he believed, with a view of stating his own opinions to the House. lie did not obi et to the motion, because it was his duty, as a Member of his Majesty's Government, to bring forward, if neces sary, such motions; for if the 'lmmovable Member chose to save him the trouble of making a financial statement to the House, he should nit m ke any set ious objection.—( Cries of " H. ar, hear.") He must first allude to what the Hon. Gentleman said of the duties of his situation. He admitted that the duty of his situation was to state tee ttu h of the affiirs of the country. He had always endeavoured to do that. Nothing was so ab surd or so injurious as for a Statesman to boast of a pro sperity which did not exist, at the same time it was his duty not to overlook any advantages. He was net bound nm make the pub is distress greater than it really was. It was his du•y at all tinter, and on every topic, to state to the House. fully and faTly, exactly what he thought on the subject.—(alear, hear.) Wi h re-pect to what the Hon. Gentlem in said of his having given his assent to a similar motion in 1830. when made by his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peulett Thomson), it should, however, he remem bered that the motion then made was ter the revision of t xition, ant it did not apply to a property tax. At the same time he would fairly admit, that he hail on that oc casion used expressions such as those the Hon. Member alluded to, and had expressed himself fivionable to a property tax. He knew that he had sta ed, that, though he was opposed to a property tax in 1819, yet sub-rquent experience taught him that it might be adopted. He stated then in 1830, that this chance of opinion had been brought about by longer experi , nce. But since 1930, he had had a greet deal mine experience, and experience of a kind calculated to take mere effect on his mind than any experience he had had h•fore. His opinion, in 1830, was certainly that a change [night be made in the tax ition of the countiy ; but it he had then seen the many difficulties which had since been thrown in the way of making such an experiment, he should prebebly not have been of that opinion. Wiiat was the first financial statement he masle to the Reuse? Was it not for a commutation of taxes? Certainly it was, and tl e experieece he then acquired, showed him that such a proposition was not so easily carried into effect. What did he find, then ? Every facility was giv, n hitn try time House to take aff a tax; but there was an extreme difficulty to impose taxi-s in lieu of those removed.— (Hear, hear.) He recollected the objections then made by the Hun. Member fur Whitehaven : the Hon. Member said, it was " half peace, half war." He wag ready to admit that a commutation of taxes sounded well —a commutation that was to make a more equal distri• Imution—to take off the taxes which pressed on industry, ar.d lay them on more equally ; but in practice that was not found so easy or so desirable. The (lest' uction of capital which that produced, the disturbance of trade, tine imposing a new tax on one, and taking it off another class, made the commutation of taxes interfere with many interests. It was not so good in practice as it was perfect in theory. With respect to the principles of taxation laid down by the Hon. Gentleman, he agreed in them. The taxes should certainly be removed from the labouring classes, and laid on property. But the difficult question was to know what taxes pressed most on labour.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that taxes should not be laid on ar ticles of the labourers' consumption ; but in his opinion, taxes which interfeted with the employment of labuur, pressed more severely on the labourer than taxes on arti cles of his consumption.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore he thought that in taking off taxes they ought rather to cone sider whether the taxes to be remover! interfered with the employment of labour, than whether they fell on what time labourer cousumed. Another point to be considered was, whether a tax was popular or not ; for certainly one object should be so to regulate taxation, that it should be paid in such a manner as to give satisfaction to the people. It was not necessary for him then to go into the question of the inequality of taxation ; he acknowledged that it ex isted, but that he believed was a necessary part of the system. It was impossible, he believed, to regulate taxation so as to fall only upon the rich.—(Hear, hear.) The great mass of taxation must necessarily fall on the middle classes, and at least a small part on the labouring classes. The Hon. Gentleman proposed a large, an enormous re duction of taxation. The Hon. Gentleman stated it at 15,000,060/. He should, however, say that the propo sition of the Hon. Gentleman would go the length of reducing taxation 17,000,0001. The Hon. Gentleman said that the whole sum of 15,000,000/. or 17,000,0001. would not be lost to the revenue, but a part of it would be made up by increased consumption.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He admitted that, and even thought that the increased consumption would furnish a larger com pensation than the Honourable Gentleman supposed. The Hon. Gentleman supposed that the 15,000,0(10/. reduced would, in fact, only take away 14,000,000/. from the re venue, but he should say, that it would not take away above 12,000,000/. But in the case of a property tax, proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, there would be no increased power of consumption. It would remain the same. That tax would fall on the rich, and the amount they consume would remain about the same. By removing a property tax, they would not increase the consumption of the rich in the same manner as they would increase the consumption of the poor, if they took off razes which raised the price of what they consumed. His Hon. Friend had not adverted to the amount of taxation which lie pro posed to raise ; he presumed, however, that the intention was to raise, by means of a propetty tax, an amount o f taxation equal to the sums levied by the taxes to be reduced. He would, therefore, call the attention of the House fora taw minutes to the property tax which was t aken off in 1816. The amount raised by this tax was 11,500,000/. It they looked to the sources whence that sum was de rived, they would find that the tax was intended to hear on pro essional incomes, and on the profits of trade, as well as on incomes arising from reaiized property. From the various evasions to which this mode or taxation was liable, it became difficult to ascertain the true amount of profits 'tonal incomes, or trading profits; and the conse quence was, that a very iiieptupurtiuna e part of the whole amount was derived from fixed incomes.— (Hear, hear.) He would also call on the House to re member what was the value of money at the time when a propery tax existed ? If they would look to that poin•, it would lead them to the conclusion that an incom tax of 10 per cent. would not now pr duce so much a. , the property tax in 1816. Now, he would ask any gen tleman of experience, whether the introduction of such a tax would not have the effect of driving capital out of the country ? A property tax was suited to a period of war, rather than to a period of peace. During war, there werc many counteracting. circumstances which prevented capital from being withdrawn. But if in a period of peace, property were to be deprived of so large a proportio n of its emolumen's, the natural cons (pence would the with. drawal of capital.—(Hiar.) His Hon. Friend hail said that he would take off all indirect taxes, and substitut e a property tax. But Le (Lord Althorn) was assured that any attempt to raise 52,000 0001. per annum by means of a property tax, would produce such an effect num; capital, as would strike a most f cal blow at th e pro,pe'ritN, of this country.—(Hear.) His HAI. Friend said di a , the property tax which he proposed was to be a graduated Now he was pereectly free to admit that every man should pay taxes in proportion to what he enjoy e d ; and if it were possible to invent any system which, without these disadvantages, could effect that object, it would be the perfection of taxation.—(Hear.) But, in reference to a graduated propery tax, he could not see upon what principle they were to go. It was notliine more nor less than saying what amount of income a man ought to h lye. When they laid on a greater tax on a Irian possessing 20,0001. per annum than on a man pos sessing 1,0001. a-year, what was it but saying than to ot man of 20,0001. a-year had too much property? If tl , e principle were to be carried out to that extent, it wouloi corne eventually to the equalization of all property.__ (Hear.) Nothing could be so dangerous as to hold rout such a prospect. He did not, however, mean to pledg e himself that to a certain extent he might not go along with the Hon. Gentleman—(Hear, hear)—but he did not think it desirable at the present time that the House should en tertain the subject of the commutation of taxes with the view proposed by the Hors. Gentleman. If the Hen. Gentleman possessed the experience of himself (the Noble Lord), he would know that, by taking off taxes, great in dividual distress was produced. That, certainly, he ad mitted, was no reason for not taking them off, though, unless the case were one which particularly called for it, he thought it desirable that the House should not encourage such commutation. He did think, however, that in one case where he commuted a tax, the commutation had proved ad vantageous to the country. The case he alluded to was that of taking the duty off printed calicoes, and placing it on the raw material ; although he admitted, that to place a duty on the row material was contrary to general principles. He could not consent to this motion. Were he to do se he should be throwing on a Committee of hat House a duty which was properly imposed upon himself. It was his duty to inquire into and consider what taxes could be reduced most advantageously to the public, and that was one of the first objects to which he must and should always apply himself. He Was anxious, perhaps too anxious, when be first entered office, to efford imme diate relief to the people; but he had now giined a little more experience, and be could assure the House, that he felt it his duty to gee this subject his most serious coa sid• ration. —( Hear. ) Mr. COI3IIETT should vote fir the motion, not be cause he thought it right to impose a graduated property tax, hut because he wished to get rid of the pre.eitt system. A graduated property tax was n. ither more nor less than contio.cation.—(Hear.) He complimented the Hun. Mem ber for Worcester Gn the ab e mariner in which he brought forward his motion, and said that he would not detain the House by any further observations. Mr H UME said the Hon. Member for Oldham h ad said a graduated property tax was a confiscation. Why, all taxation was a coontiscation.—(Hear.) The only question was, how they were to raise the taxes necessary for the support of the state, so as to inflict the least possi ble evil on the community that paid them ? And he would ask the lion. Gentleman, whether experience had not proved that a direct tax on property was levied for about one per cent. ; and whether it was not a greater coefiscatiou to levy t axes as they were now levied, indi rectly, at a coat of 6/., el., or 16i. per cent.? The princip!es, with regard to taxation, which he laid down, and to which he ro quested the concurrence of the Hon. Member fur Oldham, were, that net one shilling more should be raised than was absolutely necessary ; and, se condly, that the necessary amount should he raised at tie least possible sacuitice. The only objection he had to a graduated property tax was, its utter impracticaiiility, on account ot the evasion to which it was hi dole. He thought, however, that by taking off the taxes on soap. pate r, and other exciseable articles, and laying oa a property tax in their reead, the Noble Lord would afford great relies to the clocking classes. He hoped the Heu•e would not suffer itself too be led away by the oeservation that a property tax would lead to au equalization of pro perty. The tact was, th+t ultimately the whole of the tax a of the couutry were paid by capital; and he was satisfied that the capitalst, w be • her agriculturist or otherwise, would find lama elf much better if by paying taxes directly than indirectly. He agreed with much that had fal en trOLII the Noble bird opposite, and also from the lion. Member for Worces•ei ; lout he thought it was a subject which would be brought forward by the Treasury Bench with mere advantage than if it proceeded from a Committee. Approving, as be did, of time general principles laid down by the Noble Lord, he could only express a hope that be would act on them as speedily as Colonel TORRENS would vote for time motion of the Hon. Member tor Worcester. It was well known that Air. Huskisson, in one of his late speeches to his consti tuents at Liverpool, had declared it to be his opinion that the industry of the country was so much oppressed, that it had become necessary to raise the public revenue by transmuting taxation front active capital which gave em ployment to labour, to the fixed and dormant property from which more revenue was derived. The principle of relieving - the country from ire oppressive burdens had also been propounded by the late Mr. Ricardo, whose memory ought nut to be lighty treated in that House. —(Hear, hear.) Born without fortune, he created a princely one ; self-educated, he attained the highest place in political philosophy; coining late into that House, he gradually acquired a lead and an ascendancy in it ; arid, be it remember.al, that that ascendancy was acquired in other days than these. It was acquired when Romany and Mac intosh—when Tierney and when Brougham sat on those seats—and when Husleiss :n and Canning occupied the Treasury Bench. His moral worth was equal to his in tellectual power. He had an ardent desire for esteem, and no human being ever succeeded more completely in ob taining it. Too his family and friends he was an object of affectionttoe admit ation ; and it was impossible to approach him without feeling that he was a man made to be loved. He left his place in that House not likely soon to be occu pied, and a void in the hearts of his friends which never could be filled. He (Colonel Torrens) would now direct himself to the question before the House. Throughout the country there existed amongst the industrious classes gen-ral and grievous distress. It was acknowledged that a large portion of this distress arose from the pressure of taxation ; and it was admitted that the most effectual relief which this House could affurd, was taking off the pres sure of taxation. But how was this pressure to be re moved ? Thirty-four millions of th e t a xes were absorbed by the interest - of the Debt, and there remained only 20,000,0001. which could be diminished by the reduction of the public establishments. Now, no possible reduction in the establishments of the country could afford any ade quate relief while the people paid, out of the produce of their industry, 31,000,000/. for the interest of the Debt. Relief could be obtained only by shifting taxation from in dustry and placing it upon the fixed and immoveable pro perty which was expended without putting industry in motion. And here be must dissent from the Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord had just said, that if the proprietors of fixed property were taxed, their revenue would be diminished ; they would consume less, and therefore the indirect taxes would be come less productive. He (Colonel Torrens) dissented from this. If a landed proprietor who received 100,000/. a-year paid 10,000/. a-year as a property tax, this 10,000/. a-year would still exist as revenue in the hands of those to whom the Treasury paid it; the whole unproduc tive income of the country, though oifferently dittlibuted, would remain exactly the same in amount ; and the con sumption could not be diminished, nor the revenue derived from indirect taxation be reduced. The Noble Lord had stated another position, from which he (Coeonel Torrens) roust dissent. The Noble Lord had said, that were a tax upon property imposed, capital would immediately be erawn front the country, in order to evade the tax. Timis could nut be, were taxation confiued, as it ought to be, to fixed and immoveable property. Such a lax, instead of driving capital out of the country, would draw capital into it. What was the great evil of taxation ? The evil con sisted in this : Taxation, as ne.v imposed, took so large a portion of the produce of industry from the producers, that profits and w oges were reduced. But it you too:e off all taxes from productive and active capital giving employ ment to labour, and placed them upon tne rent of land and upon the dividends received from the debt, neither profits nor wages would h e reduced. On the contrary, the profits derived from the employment of active capital would io mediately ineroase, and to obtaiu die increased profits capital would flow into the country, trade in all its branches would improve, and the detnaud for labour and th e wn eg of the labouter would both increme. 'lhere was one ohjecti , m to the transfer of taxation front in dustry to fixed and dormant property, which, before he sat down, he would notice. It was contended that such a transmutation of taxation would he contrary to the principle of justice. He (Colonel Torren.,) con tended that it would he conformable to the stn iciest principle of justice. In the first place, the value of fixed and flut - taut property wis regulat•d by the quantity of floating and active capital employed in con junction with it. It was the capital of the farmer which gave value to the land of the proprietor. It wan the capital employed in setting productive lab-tor which paid the rent of the houses i❑ our manufacturing and commertial towns. When you taxed active capital, and thereby re duced profits and wages, you thereby diminished the rout of land and of houses ; and when you relieved industry from taxation, and thereby increased the surplus pro , 'ut, er,atcd, you at the same time increased the only fund from which the revenue of fixed property and of dorm ant capital could he derived. But there was another most im portant consideration connected with the principle of justice. !Joon what principle of justice could we tax the produce of the labourers yet unborn ? The possessors ef fixed property might dispose of th it property as they pleased, and to protect the whole, might mortgage a pact. But by what right could any existing generation preserve their property by taxing the industry of future genera tions? It was contrary to all the principles of national justice to call upon the industrious classes of this country to pay the interest of a debt incurred for the protection of fixed property. The people must be relieved, and they could not be effectually relieved while industry paid the interest of the debt. The fixed property of the country, for the protection of which the debt was incurred, should be made to pay the debt. This was what justice de manded, and from the Reformed ParliAtnent the people ex pected justice. If relief were not afforded, and if justice were not done, a spirit of discontent would arise fir greater than that which the Reform Bill ha I allaye I. On these grounds he should vote for the motion of the lion. Alealber for Worcester. An HON. MEIIHEIL (name unknown to us) was glad that Lord Althorp had taken that view of the subject, which it appeared he had done. If fifteen millions of taxes were remitted to fifteen millions of tax pryers, the relief to each would not be more than three farthings a day. It was, therefore, elear that employment was of much more importance to the labouring classFs than a di minution of taxation. He agreed with the Hon. Member for Oldham that a graduated property tax would be no thing more nor less than a system of confiscation. Mr. WALTER said, te motion brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman was of a nature totally different from that made by the Hon. Member for Birmingham last week, and was not liable to the same exceptions. That motion was general ; and on that account was, he thought, properly rejected, as it proposed inquiry only. This motion was specific, recommending to the considera tion of the House a method of alleviating the public di, tress, or at least of abating the public dissatisfaction. He begged the House to consider what were the feelings of the country "on the present state of taxation. No one imagined that the taxes could he wholly relin quished, that the government of the country could be carried on without them ; yet the cry against taxation was universal, and in many respects, he thought just. An Hon. Baronet had a few days ago pro posed the abrogation of the malt tax ; he meant to have included the tax on hops in his proposition. The ass,-ssed taxes were generally and earnestly di-claimed against ; that portion of them which pressed unfairly on the houses and windows of the middle and industrious classes could nor, he believed, he maintained much longer. The duty on fire insurances, on soap, on stamps, on pro bates of wills, were all exclaimed against and execrated as partial, oppressive, and cruel ; yet if all these were repealed, where would be the revenue to carry on the Government, and to pay the interest of the public debt? It followed, then, as an incontrovertible inference—as an undeniable logical conclusion—that if the people of this country acknowledged, as in common justice they most, the necessity of a revenue for the support of Government, and yet expressed their abhorrence of almost every existing tax f. ir which revenue was raised as un just or impolitic, that, in order to give relief and produce satisfaction, the whole system of taxation must be changed ; it must be fixed upon other objects, or the burden muse he so placed. after tieing lightened as much as possible, as to hear in a very different ratio from the present on the several classes of the community. What could be the result of all this, but that a tax upon property—no upon industry, not upon ingenuity and talents, which were the most productive forms in which industry dim played itself—but that a property tax, fitly graduated, should supply the place of all other taxes against which there was so just and general an outcry. In speaking of a graduated property tax, he meant such should apply only in the case of smaller incomes; he thought it would be objec tionable to apply the principle to the case of large fortunes. Whosoever in that House was an advocate for the repeal of any of the obnoxious taxes which be had just described, the malt t ix, the assessed taxes, or any of the remain ing host of nameless tax's by which the middle orders of society were oppressed, and social life disturbed and ha rassed, must, he should conceive, vote in support of the present motion ; or, by opposing it, deny to the Govern went the necessary means of self preservation. He con• ceived then, upon every ground, affecting as well the popularity at the King's Government as the character of time Reformed Parliament and the feelings of the whole constitu.ncy by which it had been elected, that the present moti-m ought to command the assent of his Majesty's Mi nisters and the House of Commons. The question was one which went home to the common sense of every order of men in the nation. It was eminen•ly a practical sub jest ; there was nothing speculative, nothing fanciful, no thing Utopian in it. The people from one end of the kingdom to the other were anxiously looking forward to some measure which should conduce to their solid and permanent relief ; and considering to what little purpose two months of the session had been already expended, and how small a portion of the public expectation bad to that hour been satisfied, he &and their constituents, if a motion of this nature were rejected, would ask universally, " Of what use is your boasted Reform ?" Mr. O'CONNELL would vote for this inquiry. The motion did not pledge them to a property tax. All they had to do was to consider if it was proper to institute au inquiry whether the system of taxation might not be so altered as to press more upon property anti less upon in dustry. The system of taxation at present was extretnely unequal. The assessed taxes pressed heavier on the poorer classes than on the richer ; and the small house in town was rated high, while the great house in the country was assessed at a comparatively low rate. The stamp duties also bore heavier on the lower classes than tin the higher ; and the excise in general was liable to the same objection Nothing, indeed, was so blomeable in point of principle as the excise with respect to improvements in manu factures. It seemed, in fact, actually to prohibit improve ment, by introducing into the workshop a species of tyranny exercised by excise officers, without whom the imposts could not be enforced, and a legal despotism which ren dered changes in the process of manufactures almost im possible. The motion did not, of necessity, involve any consideration of a property or income tax. It was merely a motion for an inquiry. The House had already rejected a motion for an inquiry into the distress of the country; aryl since no relief hitherto had been promised, it was at least the duty of a Reformed House of Commons to in quire. For these reasons he should vote for the motion. Mr. P. THOMSON observed, that from the wanner in which the Hon. Member fir Dublin had expressed him self respecting the object of the motion, he could scarcely believe that he had heard the proposition. He had said that this was merely a motion to inquire into the distri bution of taxation without having for its object the intro duction of any particular de.cription of tax, hut what was the account given of That matter by the Hon. Member himself who made the motion ? He had proposed the re peal of 15,000,0001. of taxes, and the substitution of a tax on property. That was a sufficient ground, in his opinion, for opposing the motion; but there were other groumls, and he would mention two. In the first place, he did not think it advisable to refer the consideration of a great principle to a Committee of the House instead of having it decided by the whole House. Let the plan be freely debated within these walls. Let the Hun. Member who proposed these changes come down with some feasible plan, and not talk vaguely of a property or income tax, when no man can tell what sort of a measure they intend to designate by these terms. Another ground ou which he objected to the motion was, that they did not now stand in the same situation as they were placed in at the time when he brought forward his motion, to which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had given his concurrence, and which, he had expressly stated at the time, had not the introduction of a property tax for its object, inasmuch as several of the taxes which he had proposed to repeal had, since that tune, been repealed. He had proposed , o take off the taxes on six articles to the amount of 211,000/. The taxes on four of these articli-s had been repealed ; and it bad been attempted to repeal another (that on glass); but no means having been found to supply the deficiency of the revenue which would have ari-en, his Majesty's Ministers had been compelled to abandon their intentions in that respect. There was no part of the spe e ch of his Noble Friend (th e Chancellor of the Exchequer) with wbieli be more cordially agreed than that in which he observed, that although great advantage would ultimate;: result from a change in the system of tax aim, the item - diate of would be the disturbance and unsettling o f ti great interests of the country; and that they ought not, th,refore, to have recours e to any such scheme until the; had long considered the subject in as its bearings. lit believed, he repeated, that the effect of a change in thi mode of taxation would, for a time, unhinge all the grea' interests of the country. At the same time he was not unfriendly to the principle of change, and to the substitu tion of whet taxes fer those which press too heavily to: the lower classes. He reeretted that no gentleman hart favoured the House wi'h an explanation of the nature or the property tax which was spoken of. He would not forestal the duello which was promised hetw•en the Hon. Member for Oldham anti his Right lion. Friend, but would merely observe, that if the stamp duty on bills were increased in the ratio recommended by the Hon. Member for Oldham, the duty on a bill . of Exchange fro 10,0001. would be about 751. ; the consequence of which of course would be that no bills to a large amount n ould be drawn, and that recourse must he ha I to the old system of barter. There was one point of the deepest importance which he called upon the House to consider. If a pro• perty tax were imposed to the full extent which Hon. Gentlemen advised, what would become of the capital of the country? It was said that such a tax would reach absentees. Why they would take all their property with them. He hail been that morning looking at an account of the taxes which had been remitted since the war. He had examined them under two heads—the taxes pressing on productive industry, and the taxes on property. It , made that division, however, in compliance with the ex pressions used by others rather than with reference to his own view of the subject; tor to him it appeared that all taxes, however levied, must be eventually paid by labour. In order, however, to prevent lion. Gentlemen from running away with the idea that the country had experi enced no relief fret) taxation, he begged leave to state that the total amount of the taxes which had been repealed since the war was 34,137,000/. In that sum was inclu - ted the property tax, the amount of which was 14,600,0001. Since the year 1819 or 1820,there had been repealed taxes on articles principally consumed by ,the lower classes, or which in his opinion was a matter of more importance, on the raw material, and other articles used in ma nufactured, no less a sum than 16.864,000/. Thos, articles had been principally soap, coffee, tobacco, silk, windows, beer, le-ether, candles, printed cotton, &c. Under the present circumstances, when the revenue •ery little exceeded the expenditure, the utmost caution ought to be used on the subject. When it was proposed to repeal at once a tax producing 4 500,0001., h. hoped Han. Gen . tlemen would have some little regard for the engagements which the country had contracted; and that they would not allow themselves, in consequence of any immediate call on the part of their constituents, to do any thing which might materially affect public credit ; for he w,04 persuaded that those constituents were far too honest and upright to entertain a deliberate wish to relieve themselves from taxation at such a price. It should he always kept in memory, that all but fourteen millions of the revenue was engaged in a manner to which the public faith was solemnly pledged. In disposing of that fourteen millions, he trusted that the Government with which he nad the honour to be connected, had not shown any indisposition to economise as far as was possible. Mr. D. W. HARVEY proceeded to observe that the speech of the Right Hun. Vice-President of the Board of Trade, although, as uste , l, one of considerith'e had littb• bearing on the qui stion before the House. In the first pl ice, the Right Hon. Gentleman accus• d the Hon. Member for Worcester of not sufficiently defining his notion of what the proposed property tax ought to be. It was not necessary that the Hon. Member for Worcester should do so ; that was a subject to be consideted in the Committee. The Right Hon. Gentleman had assailed the proposition for a tax on property, because he knew that, on that point, at least, he was addressing a partial audience. Among other arguments, he had urged that it would not touch absentees. But if people went away from the country, they must leave their property behind them subject to taxation, or they must find customers for it, which customers would also be sub ject to taxation. And as to the funds, it was the twenty• eight millions of interest on the funds which would be taxed, and the amount of that tax would be the same whether consols were at 60 or at par. Ai to the notion f abs ntees carrying away their property, unless they could 'ravel like snails with their houses on their backs, he could oot conceive such a pos4ibiiity. The Hon. Member for Oldham had en le4voured to throw an odium upon the proposition of the Hon. Member for Worcester, by th , use of a single word ;he h-id declared that a graduated property tax would be a confiscation. Why, all taxes, in one sense of the expression, were a confiscation. His (Mr. Harvey's) notion of a graduated property tax was, Pot a tax which would seize the whole of any property, but a t a which would apply with equal weight to prop-rty of equal amount. For instance, that if property hf 2001. a year weretaxed two per cent., tkat pr-prty of 10,000/. a year might be taxed five per cent., and property of 20.000/. a year twenty per cent. Confi.catiou ! Could there be a more infamous system of confi cation than that which, by the present system, was carrying on against the industry of the country ? The average wages of a labourer were 12s. a week, or 30/. a year. Of this sum it had been ascertained, by able calculators, that 33 per cent. was struck off for taxes paid by the labourer on neces sary articles or consumption; in other words, that 101. out of 30/ were taken from him. But what was the case with a man of 30,000/. a year? To suhj.•ct him to equal confisca tion, 10,000/. of his income ou2ht to be taken from him. But as matters stood, he !MLitt, if he chose, live on 3001. a-year, and invest the remaining 29,700/. in the funds, which were protected from all taxation. He would ask the Hon. Member for Essex anti his colleague, if there was any subject in the district which they represented, on which so intense an interest was excited, as on this sub ject of a graduated property tax ? The public mind was impressed with an idea that there was a general di•po.si tton on the part of his M ijesty's Government to look at the subject of taxa'ion with a generous wish to relieve the industrious classes of the community ; and yet his 11.1 - jesty's Ministers now opposed a motion fora Committee to inquire into the subject, and to substitute for the present oppressive taxation a graduated property tax. tinder such circumstances, what relief could the public expect? 'There were two classes of individuals in that Housy, both eager for the repeal of taxation, but rivals with respect to the mode by which that rep .al was to be effected. The representatives of the landed interest claimed the repeal of the malt tax; while those connected wish towns and manufactures were equally pressing for the repeal of the assessed taxes.—(Hear.) But how could either of these parties redeem the pledges which they had made to their constituents, if they recognised the validity of the declaration made by his Majesty's Govern ment, that they were not prepared even to sanction the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject ? He would advise the country Members to tell their consti tuents at once that they need not trouble themselves upon the subject, for that his Majesty's Ministers would not take off the tax on malt ; and he would advise town Members to tell theit constituents to be quiet, for that his Majesty's Ministers would not take off the tax on houses and windows. According to the doctrine maintained by the Right Hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade, it was impossible to hope that any efficient relief would be afforded to the people; for that Right lion. Gentleman ban truly stated, that the amount of revenue on which a dimi nution could be effected was only fourteen millions. The most, therefore, that could be expected from that source was but a million or so, and that would go but little way— five baskets of fishes would go but little way among so many. Nothing could be more clear to him than this, hat although they might drive the matter off for one session, the time was rapidly approaching when they must either diminish the burdens of the people, or give theta the means of sustaining those burdens. " But (said the Right Hon. Gentleman), how restless you all are ! Thirty-four millions of taxes have been repealed since the war." True ; but did the Hon. Gentleman recollect that the burden of taxation depended, nut so much upon the amount of the taxation, as upon the means which the people had to support it; and that the people might be better able to pay the larger taxation in 1514 that the smaller taxation of the present slay? Let the House re collect, that if they acceded to the present motion for r Committee to inquire into the expediency of repealing taxes, and substituting a graduated property tax, they would do so as free agents. But would that be the case two or three years hence? Now we Inight substitute such a tax—then we must do so. But it was always the evil of British legislation that it came too late. Our mea sures were always adopted in hurry and alarm; they were never the result of sober and dispose ovate reasoning, but were hatched in the dark, and under adverse and adventi titan • circumstances. Instead of conceding with a good grace, we deferred concession until it was wrung from us by necessity and violence. Mr. -HALCOMBE said that the object of the present motion was not to embarrass or inconvenience Ministerp, and that he should vote for it, on the general ground that i. was expedient to institute an inquiry into the subject. No man would be pledged to the result of the investiga. tion, and it would affGrd the means of ascertaining whetht any substitute could be found fur 17 millions of tixe•, The Noble Lord (Aithorp) had not declared himself altogi, her adverse to a property tax, and the Right Hon. Vic, Yi esident of the Board of Trade had not expressed hiitisel d ceitledly hostile to an income tar; and this very incer • n , comp iris with the ainty afforded a strong motion of the Hon. Member for Worcester. As the Church Property Bill had been mentioned, he hoped to b . allowed to request Hon. Members to look very care fully into its provisions. —(Question. question.) A s h e was new Member, he threw himself on the u nal c urrisy of the House, especially as he was only advert nv t , a topic eady introdu• ed by others.—(Hear, end Q I was not to be disputed that the King was th- eiiard'an of church property.— (Cr es of " Qu-stion," d r toms of impatience.) Th it 811 would at oo a put an ul to the trustee,hip of the Crown as ',garde(' chi re!, .iroperty—(Question)—and he believed that many of its a tvocates were not aware that it would estab l ish what was at present contrary to the law of the land.—(Hear, and Question.) Mr. PEASE tho ug ht th a t the ap. ointment of a Com mittee !nigt lead to some desirable cool ~ u t aion of taxei , , and if th e i nqu i ry too k p l ace w i t h out d e l ay , th e r e sult h would possifily have an important effect up..n the forth coming bud ge t. M uc h o f t h e present taxat i on b ore w ith unjust and unnecessary severity upon the lower orders, md the inequality called loudly for a remelt'. He illus trated this po nt by reference to the opera ion of the tax u p on pest-her-es and the duty upon bricks, and contended that there was a clear and an important distinction be tween a property tax and an income tax, much in favour of the former. One great advantage of a property tax would be, that it could be collected -o cheaply; for at pre sent, of the 16 or 17 millions imposed. not more than, perhaps, 12 or 13 millions found its way into the Treasury. Mr. ROBINSON, in reply, said that, supported as 11c, was by the general feelin-ls of the Hulse, a nd by what he must consider the concessions which hail been made 1:y ninisters in favour of the principle of a pr, perry tax, he would press his motiin to a division. The Honce then divided— For Mr. Robinson's motion Against it Majority THE REV G. DWYER. Mr. RUTHVEN moved for a return of the copy of the record of the cnnviction and sentence of the Rev. G. Dwyer at the Loughrea Quarter Sessions, with a copy of the Indictni,nt upon which he was tried ; also a copy of the written information belore the said Court of the com plaint of the widow Kempesay against the Rev. Gentle man for an assaub, of which he h id been convicted. Mr. STANLEY opposed the motion, and characterised it as a paltry and - personal proceeding, which the }louse ought not to sanction. klr. O'CONNELL hoped his Hon. Colleague would withdraw his motion. SIR EDWARD CODRINGTON. Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would allow him that opportunity of entering into the explanation which an lion. and Gallant Admiral (Sir E. Co , rington) had de , mantled of him last night.—(Hear.) By the Hon. and Gallant Admiral's own admission he had delayed calling for the explanation for years, and the reason be had as signed for not bringing it forward sooner was, because he did not entertain any hope that his appeal for justice could b , made with effect to any hut a Reformed Parliarstent.—i (Cheers, and " No, uo.")—Did the Hon. and Gailont Admiral deny that he had said this ? Sir E. CODRINGTON had never wished to postpone the matter. On the contrary, be had written letters to Lord Melville on the subject, and he had had sever.:l interviews with his Lordship, who promised to speak to the Ri c bt Han. Baronet abo'tt it ; but, not being saisfi,id that Lord Melville had done so, he (Sir E. Cudrington) :iad himself spoken to Mr. W. Peel, and requested that he would men tion it to the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir R. PEEL—What was the tim;:, what was the date, of these communications ? sir E CODRINGTON could not recollect the precise dates, but he thought the communications alluded to took place within the la three years. Sir R. PEEL had understool from the manner in which the Hon. and Gallant Admiral had spoken, • that they were much more recent. The Hon. and Gallant Admiral looked with confidence to the Reformed PArlia. , aient for redress ; but, although he (Sir Robert Peel) Oad opposed Reform, he still would with equal confidence also appeal to the same tribunal in his own vindication, as lie knew he was addressing a body of English gentlemen, who would be guided in their decision by the evidence and facie laid before them, and not by pirty feelings or bias.— (Hear.) The question was, not whether certain expre,- sions were attributed to him in Galignani's Messenger, or any other newspaper, but the point at issue between them was, d:d he (Sir R. Peel), in performance of his duty a , a r,..potisilile Minister of the Crown, make a statement to !hat anise inconsistent with fact, and bearing hardly and illiberally upon the Hon. and Gallant Admiral ? That was the real question, and the statement to which the Hon. and Gallant Admiral had alluded was made about five years ago, on the 3d of April, 1828. . _ Str E. CODRINGTON said that that w is the date. Sir R. PEEL had never before taken such pains to ar rive at the exact truth, and it was his intention to refer to the reports of his speech upon the occasion adverted to, contained in two Morning Papers which had ever been opposed to him in politics, arid to adopt them. The papers to which he referred were the Times and the Morning Chronicle. He was not responsible for what appeared in those papers, but he would not shield himself by stating that the speeches attributed to him were inaccurate. On the contrary, he would at mice say that he was ready to stand by the substance of those reports, and having done so, he would undertake to vindicate that substance. The whole question would turn upon whether, in the speeches to which the ch irge of the Gallant Admiral referred, they were faithful interpretations of the intentions of his Ma jesty's Ministers, and to prove that they were so would be the object to which he would strictly confine himself. The filet occasion on which Parliament was callea upon to express an opinion regarding the battle of Navarin was on the motion for a vote of thanks to the Hun. and Gal lant Admiral for his services on that occasion. The =- tier) he (Sir R. Peel) felt called upon to oppose; but he put it to those who remembered his speech in doing so whether his opposition was offered in such a temper as to induce the supposition that he was induced to act with injustice to the Hon. and Gallant Admiral.—(Hear, hear.) Even the mover of the vote of thanks, the present Secretary at War (Sir J. C. Hoblioutte), and his colleague, the Hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir F. Burdett), admitted that he (Sir R. Peel) had placed the qtiestion on such grounds as fully warranted the withdrawal of the motion.—(Hear, hear.) The more immediate charge of the Hon. and Gallant Admiral related, however, to a speech delivered on the 3d of April, 1825, in reply to a ques tion proposed by Sir Robert Wilson, as to whether any official advices had been received by the Government, or any information giving an explanation of the liberty give") to the Egyptian fleet, while laden with Greek captives, to pass unmolested, and also as to whether any measures had been taken by England, in concert with her allies, for redeeming the Greek slaves? To this question what was his (Sir Robert Peel's) reply ?—(The Right Hun. Baronet here read, from Mr. Hansard's Padiarnentary Debates, a long extract from the report attributed to him on that occasion, the purport of which was, that instructions had been given previous to the battle of Navarin, which of course were to be considered as remaining in force after that battle, to prevent any removal of the Egyptian Beet, except for time removal of the army from the Morea to Alexandria or Constan tinople.)—One of the main charges which the Hon. and Gallant Admiral had made, relived to the over-statement at the number of the Greek captives which it was proved had been conveyel to and sold at Alexandria. Now so fur from such a charge being applicable to him, he did dietincily deny the assertion of Sir Robert Wilson that the number of Greek captives amounted to sixteen or seventeen thousand souls, alleging, what be still believed was much nearer the real fact, that the number at the very utmost amounted to but six hundred.—(Cries of " Hear, he tr, hear.") The next charge he had brought against htm• related to the period at which positive instructions were sent out to the British Admiral to prevent a continuance of Inc transportation of these Greek captives. The Hon. and Gallant Admiral had found fault, great fault, with him for saying that direct instructions were despatched within forty-eight hours after the confirmation of the sale of the Greeks at Alexandria had reached the British Government. Whether be had made use of the words " forty-eight" be was not able to say ; but he cer tainly bad said that the instructions were issued " imme diately" upon the communication to which he alluded being received.—( Hear, hear, from Sir E. Colrington.) Now he appealed to the House to decide what was the meaning of that term " immediately." At all events the meaning which he affixed to it was, that as soon as the requisite arrangements, namely, a conference and the issuing of a protocol, could be gone through, the instruction was despatched.—(Hear, hear.) But what, in point of tact, was the interval which elapsed between the receipt of the communication and the issuing of the instructions? Al the utmost, sixty hours.—(Hear, bear.) On the 19th of March the communication was received, and on the 23d ot March the instructions were issued.—(hear.) Having thus, he conceived, refuted the two charges which the Hon. and Gallant Admiral had brought a gainst him, he had only to observe that, if he (Sir E. Codrington) felt inclined to move for any docum tits calculated . to throw a light upon the subject, be would he most happy to second his motion.--( Hear, hear.) Sir E. CODRINGTON said if the Right Hon. Bar net bad given his explanation at the pero.l that iae (Sir E.