The Sun. — London, England, 1821-04-04 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 3. Tar e JOHNSON, from the Office of the Irish Treasury, presented certain Accounts, pursuant to the- Order of the House., Mr. GREEN, from the Commissioners of the Holyhead Roads, pre sented an account of the improvements made be tween Shrewsbury. and.. B.arrgor-ferry.—Lord RearyoN preseated a Petition from Sudbury against the Roman" Catholic Claims. His Lor:1- "trip said he fully coincided in the sentiments - of ERMiiNE presented two Petitioris'front Owners and Occupiers Of Land in Ole neighboUrhood o f H ors h am and Arundel, pra'ying relief from Agricultural Distress.—The etshop of Lb:enbar presented a Petition from the ortifeArchdeaCoriry of Hereford against I. l .'se•Rehiair . Catholic Claims.—The Irish Witch craft 'Bill isas read a third time and passed. • .-.••••• 'CATHOLIC QUESTION:. - aMessage was received from the Commons, la.larei,Sir J. Neweone,attended by an unusually age number of Members, presented the Roman ;a'Sitholic Disabinties Removal Bill. • • 'Tr he.. Earl of Doaceonaroae, in rising to move I.l'4ltate Bill be'read a first time, said he was imply impressed-with a sense of the important situation in which-he was placed by being se inted 14 advocate the Claims of the Roman ,Ca abolics iza.tfigt House. He had lately had some ceanyameieations with some of •the first men in the &ingdana on both sides of the question; the result ef-:which induced -him to: believe- that in the pro gress of the Bill thresgh the House such material amendrnents• would be made as would remove every material objection that might be entertain ed on the part of the Catholics- to-the measure, wittopt at,,the, same time failing, to give those securities which every man in that House must think the ,Protest Tit Establishment in Church sad State had a.right, to require. Ills Lordship concluded by moving that the Bill be read a first • ::we' arid . ptintedea-(Hear, hear!) • ...The Earl of, LIVERPOOL did not rise. for the pa pose of offering any opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord. Corning before their Lord thips a-6 the result' of the deliberations of the q-ther House of Parliament, it was fitting that the Bill should receive most mature consideration ; erd he trusted' that the discussions to which it would give. rise would be diitinguished for the ke,rzie mecleration which had distinguished the da.hates on the same subject in another place. Ffaving on former occasions taken an active part in the discussion of this question, he felt that he ought eel to delay to make his sentiments known with respect to the Bill- before the House. He therefore •r, :.s induced to state that he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.—(Hear !)—He particularly ob jected to two parts of the Bill. The first was the, provision for the repeal of the political dis abilities of the , Roman Catholics, and the second the regulation for their Ecclesiastical establish ments. He could not agree to grant the proposed privileges to Roman Catholic subjects.; but even if he were disposed to grant them, or their Lord ships should be of opinion that they ought to be granted, still he should feel it his duty to object te, die clauses in-the Bill which relate to Roman catholic clergymen, because they would have the effect of taking from the Bill (to which those 1•/"..0 had agreed must agree on the principle that there was not that danger to be apprehended from It which he had anticipated) all appearance trace. He thought the clauses to which he ai:eded were most impolitic, and would defeat ti - e 2: object of those individuals who had intro da:ced the present Bill, He had taken the liber ty- to throw out . . these observations as an indi vdual who had been accustomed to take an active peel in the discussion of the subject before the house. The Earl pf D.ONOUGHMORE said,.that with res pect to one of the points alluded to by the Noble Earl, he felt exactly as he (Lord Liverpool) did; bfit he was sorry the Noble Earl did not - agree with him in the general principle of the Bill.— Lid the . Romatt Catholics entertain. sentiments 'Opesed•to the principles of the •Constitution, he s;:culd object to grant them theproposethrelief ;. wvt he was convinced they were as loyal subjects as the members of any other persuasion. The gc , ble Lord proceeded tO allude,.- in terms of pr se, to the manner 'in - which the other House' met the wishes of the friends of the Catholics, azd , obserited th at if the Catholics were not grate :4t nor the conduct ref-Ifie - . Protestants, who had iatriACed many prejudices In their behalf,- they elid‘not deserve the support which they had .re . cmiiredliorn-thie Parliament. : :The: Lb RD CILINCTZ LI,O ft said he ought to. apo- P/Kize to the- - -HOuse for. presuming to trouble .tn..arn - at that time' with any observations, eit-en on Ao•interestinff - a , subjec..t: The oplitions of some at MS. Nabl:Friends, and the declaration of the .6...4 , .' , H0u - se, , with respect to this Till, would be sufficient 'to' ioduee • him to consider the.subject vvith- :the grcatest attention. -Their Lords-hips imeta the Opiniong ultichlhe had formerly enter tl:ired on the pres‹-nt queStiob, and he felt that, }:ad any circurnsttace - arisen -to cause him•to &: - ..ange - those opinians v he should act inconsistent-, y in.not:avowing: such 'change: -But he fyit him- seit called upon - to declare, upon the fullest , eon-, victlOu; that the - great •interests7,bf the toubtry •watid not perMit ' of , • any alteiltion• in the laves •airetting'the Reman•Cathotics.- He worvid: state :iris objections to-the 'proposed Bill , fully on the' -day appointed for . . OM ~s econd- , reading. At .preSent he should- - Irrilytobsertethat it-teas itn.; •pozsible••to • retencife 'the !proVisionsArf :the Bill with the - principles on'Twhictezit vas t ,Bite . ea, . and . that :it' was itnpOssible lie oGuicl bivt't~i cm ~ sQn-t. to it, consistently. with• his. dirty to•the7-prib lic,'• under althost any • mcidificz s tion. - The' Ain • was: then head a first time. , • '•-•••• • -:•• • the , Earl of • DOWO udinroult :gave' n.otice-t-hat o he wcn:d• on - Tuesday' neit , tho - ve- pre; second-read.. --=Adjourned'. • . , . HOUSE •o•F'c_msl.oN-s: . . A.s soon 3d the Sr EA E E took the iair ,'sir ELLIS - rose tiaolir6ct a misfa%!enient which -hi& 'Appeared' itradnie of the pui:Z'.; papers rmpecting what had fallen from him7hult : night in, tp - t . rourati. of debate. .F. was awaretat the raist.ake was quite unintenti4nal, • for he *u *qiiia'satisfiethtrith t! enezal ac curacy, hnpartialiti, And ability wits which the reports of the ' proceedings were usuallysent forth. What he was represented in the papers—by mistake he was quite sure—to have said re specting a Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) who took an active part in Catholic proceedings in Ireland; was, that. he was a mush room 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, re spectable 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 no thing could be further from his intentions than to hurt the feel ings of any man under the privileges of Parliament. The allu tion, in the way in which it was published, was quite unde served by the active Gentleman in question ; and as certainly unintended by him (Mr. Ellis.) In reply to a question from the SPEAKER, the Hon. Mem ber said he had no motion to make en the subject, being con vincalLthe mistake arose fro m i na d ver t ency . Mr. LENNARD presented a Petition from the .bankers and merchants "of Ipswich, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a repe a l o f the Malt Duties.—Laid on the table. _ Mr. ASTLEY presented a Petition from the 'Woollen Ma nufacturers of the County of Wilts, praying for a repeal of the Duty on Foreign Wool.. He also presented a Petition to the same effect from Leeds. 1 • These Petitions were laid on the table. BLACKPRIARS-BRIDGE BILL Mr. Alderman WOOD moved the second reading of the 13.]ackfriars-bridge Bill. • Mr. HOLME SUMNER saw no necessity whatever for this Bill. They had no right to come upon the public at large for an additional loan, when a former one for the same purpose was not properly expended. ' Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that the original intention of a toll was abandoned, to suit the views of the Constituents of the Hon. Member. If the bridge were not to be - repaired in the way pointed out.by this how. was it to be paid ? I Mr. moMAs WILSON said a few words in support of the Bill. Mr. Alderman BRIDGES was also in favour of the Bill. Sir JAMES GRAHAM was so opposed to the Bill, that he Must move that it be read a second time that day three months. The House then divided, when the numbers were-;- For' the recond reading of the Bill, 19i, Against it, 19. ThaSPEAKER then gave the casting vote against the second reading. CATHOLIC BILL Sir JOHN NEWPORT said that, before he proceeded with the Catholic Bill to the House of Lords, he must be leave to return his thanks. to the House for the indulgent - kindness which they had shown him throughout the arduous task which he had had to perform. The task of conducting it had been thrown upon him unexpectedly in the course of their.procee.d ings, and he should have never been able to have gone on with the measure, were it not for the uniform kindness, moderation, and temper of the House, during the repeated . discussions which had been had upon the subject. He could not take leave of this question without expressing his opinion, founded upon a residence of upwards of forty years in Ireland, which was, that by the passing of this Bill, they were conferring a greater benefit upon the community than any legislative power ever be fore had an opportunity of conferring upon any of the subjects of a state.. . - Sir JOHN NEWPORT then. went forth with the Bill to the House of Lords, a tt en d e d b y a l arge b o d y of the. Members of the Commons. AGRICULTURAL PETITIONS. Mr. J. BENETT presented a Petilion - from . the-Agricultu rists of flighworth, Wilts, in favour of the repeal of the late War Malt Tax.—Laid on the table. . . Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented a similar Petition froth the Landholders of Northampton. The Hon. Member begged to state his dissent from the sentiments and prayer of the Petition. Laid on the table. Lord A LTHORP presented similar Petitions from Work sop and Doncaster, and the County of Nottingham. In allu sion to the declaration of the Noble Lord (Lord Castlereagh) that he should exert his influence to throw out the Bill fcir the repeal of the last Malt Tax on the second reading, he said he hoped the Noble Lord and his supporters would reflect on the appearance it would have to the country to negative the first measure proposed for the relief of the agriculturists upon the Petitions crowding the table of the House.—Laid on the table. The Noble Lord also presented a Petition from occupiers of land in Northamptonshire, complaining of agricultu ra l di s• tress, and prayin g fo r relief the table _ praying 1, _ on Ae. Mr. F. PALMER presented a similar Petiti( mention from Big - gleswade, which, in consequence of some informality in the mode of signature, was withdrawn. Similar Petitions were presented and laid on the table, from Great Stanmore, Middlesex, and Royston, in Hertfordshire. Mr. GOOCH presented Petitions relative to the Repeal of the Malt Tax, from Market-Deeping, Hadleigh, and Ipswich. The Honourable G en tl eman sa id h e h a d h oped the Honour able Member for Essex would have postponed his motion for to-night, till after the Report of the Agricultural Committee. In order to clear himself from the charge of inconsistency in having voted for a reduction of Estimate, and refusing to vote for the repeal of this tax, he had only to say, that although he desired a reduction of expenditure, he did not think he was bound to oppose any (the first) taxes that might be mentioned. He left it to the Ministers to determine upon what taxes they might choose to repeal, and if he did not think that it would be prejudicial to his Constit ue nt s or t h e C ountry, h e would vote or it.—The Petitions were laid on the table. The Irish Lunatic Asylum Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. CARLISLE ELECTION. ~n f' Mr. WYNNE, as Chairman-, hrought.up the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the truth Of the allegation of the Petition from the Freemen at Carlisle, complaining of the interference of the-Militarrin the late Election. • The Report was read by . the Clerk to the following effect " That it appears to this Committee that a body of armed soldiers did, on the 24th of May last, in pursuance of an order from J. Lawry, Esq. and others, Magistrates of. the City of Carlisle, come in a military, manner, and. post themselves in view of the Town Hall of the said City, when the poll for a Citizen to serve in Parliament was carried bn, before - the electors had left the place,. and before the poll was finally closed. . That the Committee did not impute corrupt motives to the Magis trates as the Petitioners did: • That it appeared to the Com mittee• that the civil power of Carlisle was inefficient ; but that the Magistrates did not use all the means they had in their power to preserve the peace; and that it did not appear that the riot was of that uncontrollable m a gni t ude to justify the re sort to the, military interference complained.of. But that un der all the circumstances of tbe.case, considering the difficult situation in which the Magistrates were placed on that occa sion, the Committee did not feel disposed to recommend.that any.measnre should be adopted by the I-louse on the subject." Mr. WYNNE.eulogised the impartiality of the Committee which had been appointed to investigate this matter. He had never been Chairm a n o f say Committed the . c o n d uc t Of which had given him greater satissactien. The lion: Member stated, thatalthough - the Committee had found that the Constables of the city of Carlisle had not done their duty,, but that the civil force was very inefficient ; - and althdugh the peace of the tofirn had been unwarrantably disturbed by the int ro d uc ti on of an armed force, the Committee did not think fit to propose any penal proceedings, trusting that what had already taken place in the - House would Operate as a warning: Before he pr0, , ,0 sed a Resolution for th e . House to Adopt, he: moved that the Rasp- Itttions of that in 1741, on a similar oecalion, be read. , This Resoliition,.dediaring an Interference of armedsoldiers in an deeded to , have been a high violittiondf the-privileges of - the , frolt4e, and an-invasion .of. the freedom of: election and the rights of the subject, having been read, Mr. AV VNNE Moved as a Reselution—That this House Ways look with. jealdusy upon the violation - of the freedom of elections.; but upder the.circurostancea of the case are disposed to proceed no further in this matter. 'Mr.. BENNETT bore teStithonfto the peaceable disposition of the electors of. Carlisle on the occasion in _question, and. ,yrer.ated theinterference of theadlitary. , Alluding to the new, barratle about to' be built in that city, he thought -if would be better to make an augmentation to the Police. • Mr: sT.AXES said hefele atiSgedwitli having done his:.duty in bringing this matter befqre the House, and- refrained from makiiig,quiy.o4)lisitlon to the notion. • - After 'a few wordiffrom -Sir- J. Graham, Sir P. Musorave, Mr...Cyrwen, and Mr..AVYnne,the,Resolution was agreed tO. :The County Rates AmendMent Bill was read a second time. Sir R. HERON' pr&tnted a petition - from the AgricultdristS ih the Botough of Great Grimsby, complaining of Agricultu aul,Distress.—Laid on thetable. Sir R. JIERON likewise presental a petition'froin the town, of. Lincoln ar , ainst the Malt Duties.-Laid 'oh' the table: - MALT DUTY'. Mr.. WESTERN rose tcr7present •three petitions from dif ferent quarters against the additional Duty on Malt.; One.. wal signed bY s ,5OO landholders in the counti es o f Essex andllert ford-; 'another was from the town- of Cambridge •; and'the third front the parish. of Hans ton, containing the signatures of 170 wealt4y and mpst respectable occupiecs of' Jana in that parish'. Those petitions stated that the agricultural interest was almost korne down-by the excessive weight of taxation,•but more par ticulacly by the tax on malt; which, by diniinishing ; the con sumption of corn, had the most direct and .mos,,pernicious.in flutrice on the growers of that article:. They prayed the House to repeal the tax, or afford thew sonic other substantial relief without delay.—The petiti ons were' ordered to lie upon the table and. be printed. IRISH TRADE. Mr. CANNING presented, a Petition very numerously and respectably signed 'from - Liverpool, - praying that the. House would take into its consideration the - state. of . the protecting du ties upon Irish commodities., with a. view to lighten the preS sure of the same. He hoped the. Chancellor of the Exchequer would not object to the petition being referred to a select Committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, as well as we were able to hear him, dissuaded his Right Honourable Friend moving that the petition be referred to a Committee.:— He vtould;bring the question before Parliament at some time not very distant. .EL L stated that he had received letters from some of the principal Irish Merchants, wishing' that. some of ['these duties should be taken - oft, and expressing a oonvict ion that if that were done, it would be beneficial to the revenue.— 'He believed as it was, that instead of .C 180,009, it only produe ed an annual revenue of £120,000. H e h o p e d t h e Ri g h t Hon. Gentleman would not allow • the Se ss i on to pass over w i t h out bringing forward some motion on this subject. r. CANNING joined his prayer to that of the7Honour able Baronet 'who had just spoke. He hoped .it would be un derstood, • thatif they did not press the question to a Commit tee then, that the' Chancellor of the Exchequer would stand pledged to propose Some favourable measure at a future period. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured his Right. Hoh. Friendithat in order to set the minds. of the Irish Merchants at rest, and to prevent frequent agitation of the mat ter' in that House, he pledged himself to bring the matter .for ward at no distant period. The Pptition was then ordered to be printed. TIMBER TRADE. • - Lord ALTHORP inquired of. the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wallace) what duty it was intended to impose on certain articles connected with the timber trade not mentioned in the schedule. Were th e art i c l es to whiCli he alluded, whether coming from Canada or the north of Europe, to be protected equally ? Mr. WALLACE answered, that the same practice would prevail with respect to tholes articles not specifically mentioned, as had heretofore prevailed when new duties were imposed. MALT DUTIES' REPEAL BILL. Mr. WESTERN moved the order of the day - for the second reading of the above Bill. Before the House proceeded to the immediate considera tion of this measure, he wished to make a few preparatory observations, chiefly with reference to the duty levied on ScotCh Barley. He would, in the first instance, take the liberty _to state that the new tax, which was estimated to produce 1,400,000/. per annum, had not brought that Sum into . the Exchequer. Up to the year 1819 the duty on Scotch .barley was Bd. per bushel less than that imposed, on English barley. In 1804 a committee was appointed to consider whether Scot land was entitled to the privilege which it then enjoyed, of paying this reduced duty. The corn mittee decided• that Scotland was so entitled, and it continued to enjoy this diminution of Bd. per bushel till 1819; and then, when an addition of s. 2d. was made to the English duty, the charge on. Scotch barley was advanced Is. • 10d. ; thus doing, away the benefit which. Scotland had pre viously enjoyed, and which was confirmed b,y the committee of 1814. He would not take upon him to say that the decision of the committee was right or wrong ; but it was rather extraordinary that, in the face of the committee, and with a full knowledge of th© 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-con sider this measure, He had heard (for he was not present when the circumstance occurred) that the Right lion. Gentleman had expressed such a sentiment, and his (Sir. Western's) object was to disengage this part of the question from the Bill now before the House. The object of the present measure was to repeal the new duty of Is. 2d. per bushel, which pressed alike on England, Scotland and. Ireland, and which was imposed in 1819. It was, to all intents and pur poses, a war tax, for the repeal of which the faith of Parliament was pledged. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that though in the first year the new tax had fallen short of its fair average produce by about 150,0001., still in the last year it exceeded the average. With respect to what the Hon. Gent. had.said as to the duty imposed on Scotch Barley, it should -be recollected that the Act of 1819 was specially made for Scotland, under peculiar cir cumstances. He, however,- had no objection to go into a committee, to re-consider that subject, and to inquire whether the reasons adduced by the committee of 1804 were satisfactory. The question - divided itself into two points--namely; whether .any good gronnds could be stated for making a general distinction between England and Scotland ; and it'so, to what extent that dis tinction ought to be _allowed. He was perfectly ready to inquire fully into both subjeCts. Lord A. HAMILTON .declared . that he always thought the additional duty upon .Scotch Barley most unfair, -inasmuch as it was inferior to the EngliSh. 'ln consequence of what had been done by Parliament in the last Session, he had no hope that any thing sp ec ifi c would be done for Scotland. The cause of Scotland was indeed become hopeless. For that reason he should support the reduction of this duty of Is. 2d. per quarter upon English Barley, because he should so far .be.doing something for Scotland. Having done so, he • should con fid e ntl y call on Country Gentleman to support him in procuring a Com mittee, ,which -he bad—hitherto- been unable to procure. Mr. COKE said, that if Scotch Gentleine.n,who voted against this.measure the other night,- would now vote for it, they might then expect to be supported in the interests of their own country. They could only carry such a measure by union and co-operation. But if they split and divided their votes as ihey had done, and a large propor tion.was found voting for the Minister, they had no claim On others 'to support them. lie cer tainly now wished for union, so as to throw out this additional duty upon malt, and then he should be pellectly ready to support theliNoble Lord. in getting the appointment of a Committee. If the Noble Lord supposed that he was ever agairAst• that proposition, he was quite misin formed. Hs had always been ready to support any measure for the reduction of a tax, as far as it could possibly be done with safety. - The Order of ,the.' Day 'was then read. Mr. WEST E RN moved that the Bill be now read a second time.- Sir J. SfifiLLY would vote for the motion, be cause it went to relieve the country from burdens which could no longer .be borne. Ile described the state of. agriculture to be most distressed— many farms, and those not bad lands, but of very long cultivation, not being ab)e to remunerate the expenses of cultivating thew ; and the taxes and poor rates. A great deal had been said about farmers having lived like gentlemen in their pros;; perity, and the - necessity for their returning to the rank which they before held. But it all amounted to this, that farmers who had'uot much capital. were quite ruined 'by the cultivation of the land. If the system went on, the owners must be content with a very different 'tenantry from the respectable persons who had hitherto held their estates. After the American war the Government assisted the distresses of the mer chants. Why then not assist the agriculturists,. whose claim was equally urgent ? He wished at any rate to see the taxes more equally borne by alt. He was therefore in favour of a small property, such as two per cent. rather than the continuance of this Malt Tax. lie supported the motion. Mr. J. WA:I6 took the subject under three points of view : First, that of going on with the pres4rit expenditure, accompanied with the re peal' or this tax; Second, that of reducing the expenditure to the amount of the tax to be re pealed ; Third, that of laying on a more equal tax in its place. As to the first, it was too intri cate and scientific a subject for him t o en t er i n t o . It implied, o f course, the alienation of the Sink ing Fund. He did not approve of this, beCause after all that had been said about the establish ment of the finances, it would look so like vacil lation. Some persons, it was true, represented the Sinking Fund as a fallacy----one lion. Member hdd deserThed it by a coarser epithet. If it was a fallacy,. it had deceived the greatest nation ;CI the world, and the wisest statesmen that ever existed in that nation - : no delusion had ever been so general, for it had been iMplicitly* confided in by the people of this country for thirty-five years past, and among them by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. He could not consent,' for his own part, to do away with the Sinking Fund. _ As to retrench - - ments, as far as he had heard them proposed, they went to a considerable reduction of the establishments, which, he thought, ought not to be lowered. The peace of Europe h a d b een already vi o l en tly i n t e rrupted, and could only be preserved, as far as this country was concerned, by retaining arms in their hands. The am bition of monarchs and the vengeance of the people might yet eMbroil Europe in a, con siderable degree of difficulty. As to the Income Tax in any shape, the Hon. Baronet could scarcely hope that it would be borne more patiently, or be felt as lightly by the agricul turists as the Malt Tax. The machinery of the Income Tax had been described as inquisi torial and Vexatiom lie had no inclination to restore it. 'What was he to do then ? As he thought . the taxes esssential to the" maintenance of the establiShments, and that the establish ments were indispensable, he hoped he would be excused if he should continue to support the Malt Tax until some better substitnte should be offer ed. Their only choice lay then between the redaction of the establishments and shaking the foundation of the financial system. The friends of Government, who had supported them in every measure of expenditure, ought 'not to de sert them now. It was only for those who were generally hostile to the measures of Mini sters to be able consistently to starve them :as to means. Mr. GRENFELL had no , faith in a Sinking Fund kept up by borrowing. He thought that a great delusion. He was a friend, however, to a Sink ing Fund, when the principle of that fund was, what only a true Sinking Fund could be, the ex cess of income over expenditure ; that was the character of the present Sinking Fund, and Mi nisters should . 00 all in their power to augment its resources as well by retrenchment as by every other means. He was sorry to be obliged to differ from his Hon.. Friends near him on the 'present occasion. He was one of those who, in 1819, gave his h um bl e vo te f or the levying of new. taxes, to put the finances of the country on their best footing. It would be the greatest in consistency in him to vote for the repeal of one of. those taxes, when his opinions had undergone no change. It would 'be a. gross dereliction in him not to oppose the second reading of the Bill. A great many topics had been introduced into the . diseussion of this subject. It had been stated as a reason to justify the repeal of this tax, that by, reducing 'the income, Ministers would be obliged to adopt measures of eco nomy. This was beginning at the wrong end. Ministers were as likely .to adopt those measures while the tax was in force as afterward.s. What would they say of a private gentleman who, hav ing resolved on retrenching his expences, cut short his income as.the first step towards it? He deprecated. the frequent introduction of :sucr,es tlons as - to a breach of th e p u bli c faith. 11-s;did not know how it was, but those hints came more frequently from landed proprietors in that House than from any other class. He would have them be aware, that in proposing the invasionif the funded property, they were endangering their own. They ought to know that the fundholders had as good a right to propose the invasion of the landed property, as the landholders had to propose the invasion of funded property. He did not think the malt duty the first tax which ought to be repealed ; he thought the salt tax was much more oppressive, and ought to be the first repealed. He considered it as a complete mis take to • suppose that the repeal of the malt tax would give any relief to the agriculturist. Mr. LoCKHART corrected the understanding Which his Hon. Friend near him had taken up, of any suggestions as, to the treatment of the fund ed property. He bad never heard among all the suggestions.of any more Violent than a propo sition for laying a small tax on that property, and making.the holders take their fair share of the burdens of the:State. This was securing, in stead of endangering their property, for it was, impossible that things could go on much longer as at present —one party nominally holding the pro perty of the lands, while the produce of it was all gathered up and given to another party, to which the first were but, as it were, atiscripti , glebce, ,mere serfs, to gather in the_ rents for the advantage of the fundholders. It was not the . reduction, of the establi s h men t, w hi c h he and his Honourable Friends contended for, but a duction of the expenses of the establishments. . . —Was it net o u t o f all ..reaSon , that when the necessaries and lux,uries of life were all reduced in value, the expellees of those establishments remained the same ? Great eulogibm had been passed on the Sinking Fund, but the Honourable Member who made that eulogiurn was in reality reproving the Right lion. Gentleman whom he wished to support. That Right Hon. Gentle man had reduced the Sinking Fund of 17 mil lions, left by his predecessor, to 2i millions.— He would vote for the repeal of this tax, because he was convinced that agriculture would get no_ other relief. The Committee had been sitting and listening to details of distress perfectly well. known before. The only use of the Petitions on this subject Was to give the House some informa tion, and to show that the landlords Were receiv ing no rents, the farmers were making no profit, and that the labourers must be without employ ment. The Clergy, the Magistracy, and the yeomanry reduced, Where were they to look for the means of securing the tranquillity of the country ? Commodities had deteriorated 50 per• cent.—taxes ought to be reduced in the like pro porlion. As to the argument of Ministers, that all these things would right themselves, he re quired to know by what process ? How was property to be secured—bow was order to be. preserved when the distress of the farmers was as great as if an invading army had marched through the land ? He would beg. to remind the Right Honourable Gentleman ; (the Chancel:or of the Exchequer) that, 1816, he himself gave up as a bogs to the poor, when the Property Tax was repealed, this tax which he now proposes to restore. This tax presses peculiarly hard on the poor. The quality of the beer is considerably deteriorated, and even, the measure is not fairly regulated, in consequence of. the monopoly of publicans. If it. were repealed,, the poor would have this useful commodity at• a much more reduced rate, and in a better con dition, which would add considerably to their comforts. He really did_ not believe that the Ministers were sufficiently conversant with agri cultural affairs ; if they were, They would take some steps to relieve it. The rent of the farmer is paid out of his capital, and it must appear quite.obvious that such a system cannot be of , long conti nuance . Th e agr i culturist has ma d e every sacrifice that could be made, and it was the duty of Ministers to - interfere, and make every part of the State bear the burdens, and restore the equilibrium ; and here he could not avoid. expressing his sorrow and regret at. the language he heard held by some Gentlemen in that House. He had heard it said that.the: agriculturists have had their day, that they con-. tributed to support the war, and must now sub mit to the consequences of it. But he repudiated, that doctrine on these grouods : these agriculturists are not the same now ; for ought he knew they may have completely changed sides, and now become. the capitalists. But he spoke of those who wer e now the landholders; he spoke of the three millions who were now in the .deepest distress and were stretching out their bands to get assis, tance.—(Hear, hear!)—He looked upon their condition at present to be the most miserable and degrading that can well be imagined. He there-' : fore sincerely trusted the House ,would turn their most serious attention to the question, and not .be misled by the speech of the Hon. Gentleman op posite (Mr.. Ward), who seemed merely to ad dress himself to those Gentlemen who had been *. the supporters of Mr. Pitt, as if Gentlemen were to shut their eyes to decenCy and justice. He. did not think that having been a member of a Pitt Club, or on account of any prior vote a man may have given, be should now feel reluctant.to change his opinions, and manfully avow therm—, (Hear.) Mr. J. Smut said he had exagsined the wholes s of the case now before -the House with the ut-: most attention, and had arrived at quite different ,conclusions from the Hon. Gentleman that just sat down. In common with many others who were holders of land, helfelt the great distress. that prevail e d, an d if h e t h oug h t t h at the repeal. of this tax could afford any material relief, hd,.. should most c er t a i n l y vote f or i t. But he would appeal to'an Hon. Baronet opposite, 'Member for Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull), who had considerable information on these subjects, whether he thought it would afford any great relief. In some parti- • cular parts it may remove some partial distress, but it would be by no means general. But there was a still greater objection than that. We have been told that if a reduction of Ss. a quarter On malt took place, yet the price of beer'or ale would not be reduced one halfpenny -,..50 that, in fact, all the advantages of thiS measure Would fall into tile pocket of the public and private *brewer. There, were no classes of men had stronger claims on our sympathies than the labouring poor ; but even if this tax were repealed, it could not 1 afford them any material relief. There was another question-- to which he wished. to call / the attention of the House—he meant the Popr Laws. In these laws he thought some alteration might be made that would afford great relief; . indeed he felt convinced it was the only mode in which any real or substantial relief could be extended. Several opinions have been given an this subject. He thought that if the poor were employed in the cultivation of the land instead of receiving m one y, i t wou ld b e a considerable improvement. And he had no doubt if the RI- Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Bourne, we presume), to whom the country is so much in debted, would bring forward some such measure, he bad no doubt he shouli be met with the good wishes of the Parliament and the Country.T (Hear!)----There was no man in that. House a more strenuous advocate than he was for the most rigid system of economy. We are very much in the habit of indulging in opinions about the extravagance of Ministers, but he did not think that they were alone to blame. . Gentlemen on his side of the House Were as culpable as others for their supineness and • sloth in giving their support to the squan ti c t i e r ;" ing of milli on s : Th ere was th e Penitea . lately erected, the canal in Scotlaut...a .cni r o l l ; never yet heard a ma n s p ea k o f th a t c l i( i canal, that did not say it WaS the most absu thing that ever was-done. There were also ,ie4l works at Sheerness, W oo l w i c h, Milford . Haven, i !i v! 11, a 11„1