The Sun. — London, England, 1836-03-25 00:00:00

TITHES' BILLS. The great public interest excited by the proposec measure of Government for the commutation of tithes and the curious circumstance of a rival Bill upon th same subject having been i n t ro d uce d by th e l ea der the Opposition, induces us to afford our readers a: comparative view of the changes proposed by the two • Bills, so far as it may be practicable to do so within the compass of a leading article. The machinery for working the two Bills is the same—namely, a Commission consisting of three per sons, two to be appointed by the Government and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and these Commis sioners are to appoint Assistant Commissioners. Both Bills make provision for a voluntary commu tation. By the 12th clause of Lord J. Russell's Bill, it is provided that the owner of any lands and owner of any tithe may contract with each other for the commutation of tithe for an annual rent charge, to be agreed upon between the con tracting parties, in full satisfaction for the tithe. The 18,th 19th, and 20th clauses provide for the form of contracts of commutation, and declare that the lands mentioned therein shall be absolutely discharged from the payment of tithe during the continuance of the contract, and a rent charge shall be paid in lieu thereof by half-yearly payments. The legal remedy provided for the recovery of the rent charge is by distress and entry, a remedy which does not lie for the recovery of tithe. To avoid repetition, we may here mention that the same remedy is given for the rent charge, whether it be voluntary or compulsory. Sir Robert Peel's Bill limits the legal means of recovery of the rent charge to a suit in Equity, or a personal action of debt or assumsit. Clause 22 of Lord John Russell's Bill provides that one-fourth of the titheotuners of any parish, may call a general meet ing of landowners for the purpose of mal:ing an agreement for the general commutation of t ithes within the - parish, and at this meeting the owners of three fourths in value of the lands of the parish may make an agreement to bind the whole, provided the agree ment be not appealed from. The Commissioners un der the Bill shall confirm this ag reement, and notice is to be sent to the Patron and Ordinary ; but even without their sanction the agreement may be perfected. So far Lord John Russell's Bill proceeds upon the voluntary system. Sir Robert Peel's Bill does not leave the adjustment to an application on the part of any titheowner, but proiides (clause 28) that the Commissioners shall cause meetings of titheowners and landowners in every parish to be held for entering into agreements for the commutation of tithes, at which meetings an Assist ant-Commissioner is to attend, and there the owners of the lands, or of two-thirds of the lands, subject to tithe in, the parish may agree to a rent charge to bind the whole. A great number of clauses follow this relating to the nature of the agreement to be made, and providing for particular circumstances which are likely to occur. The confirmation of the a g reements by the Commissioners, and the settlsinent of disputes, is provided for, clause 48 giving the power to persons dissatisfied with the determination of the Commis sioners to try the disputed matter in a Court of Law ; and clause 49 enahling the parties concerned to have the judgment of a Court of Equity for the determina• Lon of such disputes. An.l after all the previous ccoditions of these adjustments have been complied xvith, it is provided (clause G 2) that the commutaton of tithes agreed and intended to be effected shall be conideted as perfected to and for all intents hand p!!r. pses ; and the tithe.; so commuted shall for ever, from and after the Christinas-dav next after sue!) twEements shall have been completed, be deemed to beextmgt• shed. There is a poxer Sulx;equentiv given (elau 81) to tithe-ownLq3 and land-own'ers to agree upon a comrnutatio:i of land for tithes where that may be deemed the more desirab!e mode. We must now revert ".o Lord John Russell's 13i11, at that part where it ceases to proceed upon the principle of a voluntary agreement between titheowners and land-owners. It is provided by clause 23, that if notice shall have been given of any intended fleeting fur voluntary ad justment, or if, at any such meeting, no adjustment shall ]nave been made, any landowner or titheowner may apply to the Tithe Coinmission2rs for an award as to his interest in tithe, or lands subject to tithe ; and by the next clause it is enacted, that in every case of application for an award, the award to he made and confirmed by the Commissioners as thereinafter set forth, shall be binding for.ever on all persons interested ia the said land or tithe, wheth er i n possess i on, expec tiney, or reversion. The ground upon which this award is to be made constitute the matters of dispute, or rather of com plaint, for every one seems agreed in condemning them in the Gover nmen t measure. They have recently been so much discussed that we do not think it needful to recapitu:ate them, 'bit prefer pointing out some of the more impottant points in which they differ from the grounds set forth in Sir Robert Peel's Bill, as the basis of voluntary commutation. Lord J. Russell's Bill takes, as the basis of com mutation, the fair annual value of the tithe payable in respect of the land for the last seven years. To this it is objected, that it fastens a perpetual rent-charge upon land, which charge will be high in proportion to the industry and capital employed for the last seven years, and may possibly, and even probably, bear not just proportion to that which lawyers call ‘< the value of the land to be let." By Sir Robert Peel's Bill, on the other hand, it is provided (clauses 37 and 38) that the parties to any agreement to be made may, if they think it necessary or expedient, express therein upon what principle, or in what manner, as regards the different natures and qualities and culture of the lands to which the agreement relates, and other like incidents, the annual sum or sums thereby agreed to be paid as commutation rent for the tithes thereby intended to be commuted, shall be afterwards assessed and ap plotted upon and amongst such several and respective lands ; and there may also be expressed in any such agreement any other such reasonable matters and things, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as the parties shall deem to be necessary or expedient for ex plaining and giving effect to the contract between them ; and any tithe-owner or land-owner, parties to the agreement to be made, may, if they think fit, agree upon the annual sum or sums to be charged upon any lands of such landowner as commutation rent for the tithes of such lands, payable to such tithe owner ; and every such special agreement, and all the particulars thereof, shall be expressed in the general agreement for the commutation of the tithes of the parish. With regard to moduses, or claims of exemption, Lord J. Russell's Bill provides that, if such moduses or exemptions shall have been decided by competent authority, within the last seven years, the Commis sioners shall value the tithes, and make their award as if such decision had been made at the beginning of the seven years. Sir Robert Peel's Bill provides (clause 50) that, in assessing and applotting under the powers given by the Bill, the annual sums agreed to be paid as commutation rent upon the lands to which the same relate, due regard shall be paid to all exemp tions from, and non-liabilities to, the payment of tithes, and to all such compositions, real and moduses, as shall, in such agreements, be expressed to be enjoyed, or to be payable in respect of any such lands. Lord J. Russell's Bill provides that every year time sum of money payable in lieu of tithes may vary ac cording to the price of wheat, barley, and oats, so as always to consist of the price of the same quantity of wheat, barley, and oats, in proportions of one-third of each, as the rent charge first determined upon would purchase. Sir R. Peel's Bill provides that every seven years a similar change may take place, provided it be sought for by the owners of one-third of the lands in any parish. It is erhaps, needless to carry the comparison further. No one can study the two Bills together without seeing th a t w hil e in Lord J. Russell's Bill there is much strictness in compelling, or in the inter• tion to compel, adjustme n t, t h ere is an absence of de tail and particular directiOn as to the modes of procedure which, in practice, would lead to great inconvenience ; while in the Bill of Sir It. Peel there is every possible freedom left as to the will of either party to commute their payments or receipts for others of a different kind, and every possible precaution to make that commuta tion perfect in all its details, when once it has been agreed upon. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MACE 24. Our object in this article has been merely to lay some facts before our readers for the purpose of con venient comparison. We have, therefore, abstained from commentary upon them for the present, and leave the decision between them open to the operation of unbiassed judgment.—Morning Herald. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Mr. BERNAL and others, from the House of Commons, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Bribery and Corruption at Elections, with the minutes of the-evi dence taken before that Committee. CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND.) Mr. BERNAL and others, from the House of Commons, brought up the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, to which their Lordships' concurrence was requested. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--ENGLAND AND WALES. Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Municipal Cor porations Amendment Bill, to which their Lordships' con currence was requested. Mr. PENDARVES, and others from the Commons, brought up the Cornwall Assize Hall Bill. Mr. Spicer presented returns from Chelsea Hospital. Mr. Prize presented returns from the Court of Chancery. CCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition against certain parts of the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill. FACTORIES REGULATION. The NOBLE EARL next presented a petition on the sub ject of the Factories' Regulation Bill. NEWSPAPER DUTIES. Lord LANGDALE presented a petition from the town and county of the town of Drogheda in favour of the abolition of the Newspaper Stamp Duties. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The Earl of WESTMORELAND presented a peti tion from the Northamptonshire Law Society against the regulation in the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill which takes away all jurisdiction from the Diocesan Courts. The peti tion having been read at length, was referred to the Com mittee. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1836. LOCAL COURTS. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from a parish in Sussex, in favour of the Local Courts Bill. The BISHOP of CHESTER presented a petition on the same subject. CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL. Lord DUNCANNON rose to move the first reading of this Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to the Bill being read a first time, as it had not been printed. There were many Noble Lords who were then absent, and would not be able to attend till after the recess, who might wish to take part in any discussion that might arise upon its clauses, and therefore lie considered , the better way would be to postpone the first reading till after the recess. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT. Lord MELBOURNE said if there was no chance of passing the 13i11 before the holidays, he would not then press the first reading. But there was another Bill which it was very desirable to pass as speedily as possible,*and which was an Act to amend and explain an Act for the Regulation of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales. This Bill was only to explain certain clauses, to supply deficien des in the Act of last Session, and which had given rise to a great dea'l of litigation, and unless the Bill was passed LeFore the commencement of next term, much more litigation •would arise. He would therefore propose that it should be read a first time to-night, a second time to-morro7.-, an.l that it should be committed on Monday. If there was no serious objection to it, it would be highly desirable that, the Bill, if possible, should pass bati)re the Easter recess. The Duke of WELLINGTON believed it had been the custom to adjeurn the House on the Wednesday before Good Friday. lie had no desire to itnpede the progress of this measure, and there would be ample time for it to pass bolero the Ist of May. This Bill referred to the Bill which had been passed last Session, and there were many Noble Lords who might be desirous of comparing the Bill with the former Act, and of considering the several clauses as comp ired with the clauses of the Bill it was in tended to amend. The Bill was not yet printed, and yet the Noble Lord desired to have it read a first time to-night, a second time tomorrow, and to have it committed for murder!—(A laugh) —to have it committed for Monday. Lord MELBOURNE only wished that it should be passed speedily, as it would save litigation and expense. The Bill could be printed by Saturday, and he believed it had been the practice to give up the debate on the second reading of Bills of far more importance this. Bat undoubt edly if the Noble Duke thought he had not stated sufficient grounds, he may, if he thinks proper, oppose the first read ing now. _ _ _ The Duke of WELLINGTON said that all he de sired was, that the house should have fair play, and should have the opportunity of discussing this and the other measure, according to the usual form of Paha nent, upon the principle, before they proceeded to allow it t• be read a second time. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the great object of the Bill was to set right some doubts as to the election of many officers in Corporations whose titles were now ques tioned by quo warrant°. It was important to have the Bill passed on the 18th of April, otherwise great expense would be incurred.' l / 4 Lord ELLENI3OROUGH did not know that the Bill would not be passed by that date, but he had looked into the Bill, and he felt bound to say their Lordships could not come to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject before the recess. The Earl of H ARROW BY said if there was such dan ger to the public from delay on this Bill, how did it happen that the Bill did not come up before the 24th March ? It was the Government who must bear the responsibility, and not the Noble Duke. The Bill was printed only on Satur day—how was it possible for their Lordships to come to a decision upon it on Monday? Lord MELBOURNE had never proposed that their Lordships should absolutely pass the Bill. He had pro. posed that the Bill should go into Committee, in order to sec whether their Lordships had any objection to it or not. If they bad, of course, he would not press the passing of the Bill ; but, if not, then the public were entitled to some consideration from their Lordships. [Here the Noble Lord sat down ; after a pause no one having arisen he said] • Can there be any objection to your Lordships taking the second reading of the Bill on Wednesday next ?" The Duke of WELLINGTON (without rising)—l object to its being taken till after the holidays. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not think the Bill contained any principle of such importance as to ren der it necessary to have a discussion upon the second read ing. It had been usual on many more important Bills to postpone the discussion till a later stage. _ _ - The - Earl of WINCHILSEA said there had been enough before their Lordships to render it necessary that the Bill should be postponed, in order to afford their Lord ships time to consider its details. This Bill was rendered necessary, from the indecent haste with which the Bill of last year was passed. L w ord MELBOURNE—WiII the Noble Duke still ob ject to proceeding with the Bill on Wednesday ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said his mind had not been altered by the discussion which had taken place. It was for the Noble Lord to fix the day for bringing on his motion, as he (the Duke of W.) would then state his rea; sons for objecting to it. Lord HOLLAND—Does the Noble Duke object to the second reading of the Bill before the recess ? The Duke of WELLINGTON—I do. Lord HOLLAND—There was nothing unusual in the course proposed by the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) ; the Bill was merely an explanatory one, and surely good rea sons had already been given for going on with it. Lord HOLLAND said all that they required was to let the Bill be advanced one stage, and he thought it was a most captious objection. After a few words from the Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord LANSDOWNE, it was arranged that the Bill should be read a first time, and that the second reading should take place on Tuesday. IRISH CHANCERY REFORM. Lord PLUNKETT brought in a Bill to reform the Irish Court of Chancery. By the Bill it was intended to abolish the office of Six Clerks. The duty of these officers was to read certain documents to the Court, and to receive certain notices. The saving to the public would be 15,000/. a year ; the present salary of the officer amounted to 18,000/. a year, but it was proposed to appoint persons who would perform the duties for 3,000/, a year ; of course it was intended that the clerks should receive compensation, but the whole of the compensation would not fall upon the public, as there were certain funds upon which certain funds would be chargeable. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—From what the Noble Lord had stated, he did not think that this Bill would prove so beneficial to the public. In his opinion the whole of these officers should not be dispensed with, but there ought to be a different distribution of duties, and com pensation should only be given to those for whom no employment could be found. He would not now enter further into the details of the mearr c e, but he i thought th at a s s ia t s r t t i t c e a that these s 1r s a p s ri a n l e s i o ni t e h . e 11, involved a dthainsgßeriollu, It Compensation Clauses, an what guarantee had theyth ey , dif t p h a a s t se t c h l es b e y e t i h a c u i s r es L i o v r o d u s l l d fip bse , adopted by the Commons. Lord PLUNKETT wished to set the Noble and Learned Lord right relative to the appointment of these officers. The Noble and Learned Lord here entered into some details relative to the provisions of the Bill, but in so low a tone of voice that we could not catch their import. Lord ELLENBORO UGH admitted that the arrange ments, as they had been just stated by the Noble and Learned Lord, were quite consistent with justice, propriety, the public service, and economy. - The Marquis f LANSDO WNE observed that it was most important that a Bill of that nature should ori ginate with their Lordships. If there was no question but that of the number of officers to be displaced, or the amount of compensation, it would be merely hi the nature of an amendment which their Lordships could afterwards take into consideration. Lord ELLENBOROUGH had not the slightest idea' of throwing any obstacles in the way of the measure. The conversation then dropped. The Bishop of LONDON moved the second reading of the Bill for facilitating the granting of sites for schools. After a few words the Bill was ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. SLAVERY ABOLITION (SPAIN) BILL. On the motion of Lord GLENELG, this Bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday. The NOBLE LORD also moved the third reading of the Bill for the Improvement of Justice in the West Indies. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The other bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 24. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. NEW MEMBER. Mr. HAsTIE, the new Member for Paisley, took the oaths and his scat. SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS. Mr. B. HOY presented a petition, signed by 1,297 inhabitants of Southampton, in favour of the Southampton Duty Bill. Lord GEORGE LENNOX presented petitions from several Town Councils ag,aidst the Southampton Docks Bill. On- the motion of Mr. B. HOY, the Southampton Docks Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed NORTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY. Sir T. BARING presented a petition from Great Yar mouth, most numerously signed in favour of the Northern and Western Railway Bill. NEWCASTLE AND SHIELDS RAILWAY. Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from the pro prietors of the Shields Water Works against part of the Bill for making the above railway. DUKE OF BRIDGEWATER'S ESTATES. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from James Southern, in answer to one which had been presented by Lord F. Egerton some time ago, complaining of the con duct of the petitioner. It appeared there was a Bill before the House for joining the Rochdale canal with the River • Ern. Mr. Southern, in his capacity of sole represen tative and acting trustee of the late Duke's pro perty, presented a petition against the Bill on the 10th March last, and subsequently a petition was presented by the Noble Lord from the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Devon, which complained of Mr. Southern's conduct. First they complained that no communication had been made to them, his co-trustees, of his intention to petition against the Bill. Second, that he had made no such com munication to Lord Francis Egerton, who was much and deeply interested in the property ; turd ; thirdly, that in spite of a negociation which was pending between the trustees, Mr. Southern had presented the petition against the B il. In answer to the first objec tion, he said that though the Noble Petitioners were co trustees, they were merely nominally so, and had no connec— tion with or control over the property in any sense, The SPEAKER enquired what the prayer of the peti tion was ? Mr. 1.1 A RVEY replied, that the prayer was that the petition might be referred to the Committee on the Bill : the Object at Mr. Southern was to set himself right with the Noble Lord, who was so deeply interested in the pro perty he superintended. As to the second object— that he did not communicate with the Noble Lord in the petition—he stated that he caused a communication to be made to the Noble Lord of his in tention to oppose the Bill, and that communication was delivered at the residence of the Noble Lord. As to the negociations which had been represented by the Noble Lord between the parties, Mr. Southern stated he was not aware of any such negotiations, end tharif he had been, he should not have been inflnenced by them, inasmuch as being appointed under the Duke of Bridgewater's will the sole superintendent of the property, be was given a power and authority by that will at any time to bring forward any measures in that House which were calculated to improve and to oppose any measure which were likely to injure the property. He conceived that he was only discharging an important duty in presenting this petition, believing that if the Bill were allowed to pass, it would greatly prejudice the property over which he was guardian. Lord F. EGERTON did not object to the prayer of the petition, that it might be referred to the Committee ; still less was it his intention to occupy the time of the nOUS3 with any details of the circumstances bearing on any question between the person who signed it and himself, as it would be impossible for him to explain those circumstances in such a manner to the House, as would enable it to form anyjudg ment, if called upon to do so. With regard to what fell from him, which might have hurt the feelings of the petitioner, it was quite out of his power to suppress the simple fact, that there was a difference loaween that gentleman and himself as to the mode in which the affairs of that great property should be conducted. If the House formed any opinion prejudicial to the petitioner from that information, he must be allowed to say, that it was not an opinion for which he called. On that occasion, it was no part of his wish or duty to call for the judgment of the House upon that individual.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") He did say that a petition on a subject on which, as a Member of Parliament, and as an individual out of Parlia ment, he felt deeply interested, had been put into the hands of another Member of that House, in a manner which he considered, and still considered surreptitious, and bearing a character which he would not further specify. He said this petition had been put into the hands of the Member for Bradford, without the smallest intimation that he (Lord F. Egerton) was concerned in its prayer ; and he thought that no gentleman in that House would present such a petition without informing him of its contents, and, as the Louth Gentleman opposite had on this occasion behaved, giving him an opportunity of stating his opinion when the petition was presented. This was the conduct of the attorney of Mr. Southern, Mr. Stokes, and it was of this conduct that he complained, and which entitled him (Lord F. E.) to call for censure upon this per son. With regard to the operation of the present proceed ing being to remove any bad feeling that existed between the petitioner and himself, he could not perceive that this result would be obtained by the proceeding which the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Harvey) had under taken on the part of the petitioner. It was out of all question that he should call the attention of the House to any matters that were at issue between him (Lord F. E.), and that Gentleman. He intended to call for judgment upon these points from a proper and competent tribunal, from a Court of Equity.—(Hear, hear, hear.) To that Court it was his intention to look for redress —to th a t tribunal he felt himself, very reluctantly undoubtedly—f or he did not know that any one would approa c h i t without considerable reluctance—(Hear, hear)—to t h at tribunal he was driven ; an d i n th a t co urse he int en d e d to proceed, with a view to th e i n t eres t s o f the publi c as much as his own. Wh a t e v er th e resu lt o f th e i r decision might b w e a , y he hoped his cr t n od o ifficulties ffieu t l r t i i b e u s n s val. o of ouldbnethpislaocceein placed Te e would say appealing nothingfurther than as before, th a t be hopedn the petition would be referred t o th e C omm i ttee. He would look to that Committee for such protection as they would be able to afford him against any accumulation expense for an object in which he did not concur; _ of but not the whe ther they afforded that protection or not, h e h ad smallest objection that this petition, as well as the others, should be placed under their consideration. MIDLAND RAILWAY. An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition in favou r of the Midland Railway Bill, but against the particular line con templated. MEDWAY NAVIGATION. Sir E. KNATCH BULL moved that a petition presented by him yesterday against the Medway Navigation Bill be referred to the Committee. • TODMORDEN ENCLOSURE BILL. Mr. WILBRAHAM moved the third reading of this Bill. Mr. FIELDEN opposed the Bill on public grounds, although as far as it related to him, it was a good Bill. So far as he could see th e o bjects of the Bill, it would be a disgrace to that House if it would allow it to pass into a law. Not less than 46 of the freeholders possessing three fourths of the property, had petitioned against it, and he (Mr. Fielden) had been advised that another petition to the same effect was now upon the road, to stop, if possible, its further progress. It would inflict a grievous injury upon the poor of thut neighbourhood in which there were a number of cottagers -employed in handloom weaving, and who would be all turned out.—(Hear, hear.) He opposed the Bill from a solid conviction that he was properly doing his duty. Ile therefore moved that it be read a third time that day six months. Mr. POTTER said the lands to be inclosed were very unequally divided, which would oblige him to vote against the Bill, though he had no other objection. The Bill gave the Lord of the Manor a right to enter on any enclosure to search for minerals and open mines ; yet there was no provision for making him pay anything for such a right. He had been told in the Committee that the common law of the land gave com pensation, but he main tained that it oug h t to b e spec i a ll y prov id e d for. Mr. B. WILBRAHAM complained that the' Hon. Member for Oldham had not attended the Committee after his preliminary objections had been over-ruled, and it was hard that he should oppose the Bill in its present stage, when he could do so in the Committee in another place. Mr. H. HUGHES thought the case advanced by the Hon. Gentleman who proposed the third reading of the Bill ought rather to tell in favour of those who opposed it. It was said by him that the poor people whose rights would be affected by its provisions had not opposed it. Now, he thought their poor condition ought to account for their not coming forward by counsel ; and he must say that giving the Bill his best consideration it was liable to the same objections which were urged against similar measures which were rejected last year by the House. He should feel bound to oppose the third reading of the Bill. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that some better reason than any as yet brought forward should be given, before the House assented to the third reading of the Bill. He agreed in most of what had fallen from his Hon. Friend, the Mem ber for Oldham. He begged to know if an alle gation contained in the petition against the Bill was true, namely, that the majority of the persons affected by it, in number and value, had• not given their assent to it, and he confessed he heard that they assented to a mea sure quite different in principle and detail. He found in page 19, a clause allowing the Lord of the Manor com pensation equivalent to the loss sustained by him for free warren and chase ; and yet in the 25th page, there is a reservation to him of all game. In a manufac -turing populous, district the Bill would undoubtedly be found to be very prejudicial indeed to trade.-4Hdar.) By this Bill the Lord of the Manor was to have the power of impounding all streams and rivulets. Now, who, he asked, ever heard of such a power being given to an indi vidual by any private Bill. In conclusion, he called upon the House to throw out the Bill, unless it could be shown that the parties had all assented to it, by deed of agreement en tered into between them. Mr. WILSON PATTEN spoke in support of the Bill, and read certain portions of the evidence taken before the Committee, which he thought was proof of an agree ment. if there were such great objection to the preamble of the Bill, let it be removed, and another preamble be substi tuted in its stead. He however, could not see any objection to the preamble. The present was the common case of an inclosure Bill, and liable to all the objections to which such Bills were liable. The facts, however, were such as he had stated. Mr. HARVEY said tl at there were two objections to which he would call the attention of the House—the one was, that this Bill established rights. which did not exist ; and the other that it destroyed interests which ought to be intact. If this Bill passed unnoticed great wrong would be the consequence. This Bill entitled the right of the Lord of the Manor not only to the manorial interest over the property enclosed, but he claimed to being Lord of the Manor over the entire parish of Rochdale. This parish was very extensive, and might contain many townships ; the effect of the Bill, therefore, would be to establish rights which had no foundation in existence. —(Hear, hear.) But his chief objection was that it disregarded rights which it ought to be their peculiar solici tude to protect. While there were Gentlemen in that House who 'were men of property, there were few who might be presumed to be influenced by this strong sympathy of not being prepared to disregard and. despise the simple interests of the .poor especially when by a Poor Law they turned every person into the workhouse who was not capable by his labour of maintaining himself. After some further conversation, the House divided— For the Motion For the Amendment Majorit -39 Lord ASHLEY said a A.v words respecting the Facto ries Bill, which were not audible. We understood the Noble Lord to complain of delay. Colonel PERCEVAL was desirous to put a question to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. It appeared that a man named Sly was lated tried at the Carlow As sizes for the murder of a person Rained Walsh. One of the witnesses agaicst him was a constable of the name of Corrigan, who was acquainted, as he stated, with the cir cumstances as far back as July, but kept them back at the inquest, and it was only in November last that he revealed them to his priest. The question he would ask the Noble Lord was, whether the man had been dismissed from the constabulary ? Lord MORPETH received information since the trial, that it was meant to prosecute the Witnesses for perjury. He had yet received no information whether Corrigan was actually dismissed or not. _ _ Mr. - O'CONNELL said it was impossible to read the trial, without seeing that the jury could not have done otherwise than acquit the prisoner. _ _ _ Lord ASHLEY wished to know whether it was in tended to postpor.c, till after Easter, the Factories Ac Amendment Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was absent from illness. He did not know whether he would be able to attend that evening. He should inquire. TAXATION. Mr. ROBINSON rose to bring forward his motion re lative to the present system of taxation. In submitting this motion to the House, lie should, as the most convenient course, read each resolution in succession, and offer upon each the observations which occurred to him in support of it. tie meant to take the sense of the House upon the first resolution. It was to this effect—that the existing taxes, .having been imposed at different times, and under circumstances quite different to the present, a review of the whole system was desirable. He believed it. would be difficult to find any one who would deny the proposition. In 1830 the subject was brought forward by the President of tee Board of Trade. The opinions then expressed by him were the same as he (Mr. Robinson) now advanced. Upon the division which took place on that occasion 380 Members voted, independently of all party considera tion. (hear, hear.) Of these 157 supported the mo tion, and 243 voted against it. The majority, therefore, was only 66. This he might consider as being virtually an opinion expressed by the House against the present system o f taxation. The Right Hon - . Gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer might, perhaps, say that lie was now employed in trying how far the system might be im proved ; and he was bound to admit that many improve ments had been made, The Right Hon. Gentleman would naturally say, "-I cannot reduce taxes until such time as I have a surplus." When he (Mr. Robinson) brought for waird• the subject before, the President of the Board of Trade said it was not the actual amount of the revenue, or the extent of taxation, that was so much to be complained of, as the manner in which the taxes were laid on, so as to check the industry of the country and to press upon the labouring classes. They had heard much about reform in various branches of the public service. He (Mr. Robinson) maintained that in no thi ng was reform more required than in this department of the revenue. The revenue of the country was improving every year, their resources were extending, and hopes of relief were held out. The mo ment, however, that the Government became possessed of a surplus, they found it impossible to apply that sur plus to the best purpose for the general interests of the country. They were not left to their own judgment.— (Hear, hear.) They were forced onwards by the pressure from without.—(Hear.) Lord Althorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that he gave up the window tax, at least the part of it which was remitted, in consequence of this pressure. He did not mean to say that it was to this sort of pressure the Chancellor of the Exchequer yielded lately, when he brought forward his proposition relative to the stamp duty on newspapers. He should not, however, be at all surprised to find him again coming down to the House and yielding up the whole of that duty. His present proposal, for reviewing the system of taxation imposed during a war, and under circumstances quite different from the present, involved neither a property nor any new tax whatever, and, therefore, he saw no reason why the House should refuse to concur in it. His second resolution was this, that taxes levied on articles of neces sary consumption, which increased the burdens of the people, and added to those burdens they had otherwise to sustain, were impolitic. It might be said that the people were not aware of burdens of this kind ; that, being im posed upon articles of consumption , they we re thus ren dered light, and, not being felt, were paid without repining. That this indirect mode of raising a tax was an easy one he would admit. For instance,the tax upon soap, beer, sugar, tea, and other such taxes ; but they did not, on that ac count, press the less heavily in the end. It was calcu lated that not a less sum than 11/. 7s. 6d. was drawn by these indirect taxes out of the labourers' 221. or 23/. a year. He fully admitted that a lar g e p ortion of t hese taxes must necessarily be levied on the great mass of the people. What he now complained of was that they paid much too large a proportion. Suppose a man to possess 10,000/. a year, and that he spends only 500/. a year : he is taxed only to the amount of that 500/., though the whole of his pr o p ert y be under the protection of the State. Se may let the rest safely accumulate, and if he be an ab sentee the whole of his property is protected at the ex pense of the people, he himself not contributing a single farthing towards the expenses of the State. He did not mean to deny that since the peace taxes to the amount of thirty-two millions had been repealed, of which twenty eight millions affected the landed interest. He would ad mit also that during the last four years Parliament, in deal ing with taxes, had been proceeding upon a more just prin ciple by repealing taxes which affected the labouring and industrious classes, such as the tax on calico, on soap, and other articles, but they ought to look to the pressure from other sources. The 'Chancellor of the Exchequer must himself see clearly how necessary it was to get rid of the odious excise laws. A tax upon articles of necessary con sumption was far more injurious than a property tax. The third resolution he sbould propose referred to the excise laws, and was declaratory of the injustice and the impolicy of those laws. He would mention a few of the most ob noxious. The duty on paper was one. It should not be allowed to exist an hour beyond the demands of an absolute necessity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that to repeal this or any other duty he must have a surplus. This he admitted, and he was prepared to wait till there was some prospect of a surplus. The duty on glass was equally liable to objection. Nothing could be more impolitic. The .duty on bricks was another instance of the same kind. The Commissioners in their report stated that fifty years back Mr. Pitt said the duty on bricks pressed so unequally it should not be allowed to continue in existence a moment longer, and yet it was retained up to the present time. The next resolution had reference to the aggravation of inequality and injury occasioned by there being a rated duty on articles of the customs instead of an ad valorem duty. He (Mr. Robinson) thought that it was most unfair to add to the necessary inequality caused by the present ope ration of these duties by the additional burthen of a rated duty which caused articles differing widely in value to be charged with the same tax. The operation of this rated duty was most unfair. In sugar, for instance, the article priced at 30s. per cwt. and that valued at 60s. bore the same proportion of duty, so that no distinction was made between inferior sugars and the finest. The same thing was the case in teas, in coffee, in tobacco, and in wines. In the alteration made in the tea duties the promoters of that alteration had, in his opinion, gone from a bad principle to a worse. It was too much the practice to reduce or augment taxes not upon grounds of advantage to the community generally to be derived from the alte ration, but in obedience to pressure from without. In the case of the house duty this had been done. The fifth resolution which he should submit to the House had re ference to the stamp duties ; and on this subject his obser vations had materially been forestalled by What had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, on a former evening. He was in the recollection of a debate which occurred on a former occasion, when the late Mr. Cobbett brought forward a motion almost precisely similar to that brought forward the other evening by the Right Hon. Gentleman : and he also bore in mind the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman_ in answering hi m , an d in opposing his motion. He (Mr. Robinson) could not but say that he was surprised at the manner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman, in the present session, came forward and proposed the very measure which he had formerly opposed, at least, if he could be surprised at any thing which took place ih that House.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the stamp duties, he would only say that no alteration would satisfy him that did not include a provision to affix the same proportion of probate, legacy, or administration duty on all real property devised by will or inherited as should be fixed upon personal property under the same circumstances. He knew of cases where legacies had been left, where no less than three or four years' income had been absorbed in order to pay the estimated legacy duty, the legatees being of course deprived of the benefits of the bequest during that period. The sixth resolution referred to the expense of collecting the revenue. It ap peared that the amount of charge for collecting the revenue was no less than 3,582,635/., besides an additional pay ment of 738,7791., making in all 4,321,4141.—m0re than the whole revenue of the United States Government, and within a million and a half of the revenue of this country in the reign of George 111. The seventh resolution had reference to the state of the currency. The effect of the alteration of the standard of value had been nominally to raise the value of money, and if an argument for a reduc tion of taxation were wanted one could be drawn from the result of the alteration of the standard of value. He found that in ISI2, when the taxation amounted to seventy one millions, that amount of money was represented by seventeen millions of quarters of wheat and fifty-one millions of various sorts of merchandize. But now, when the taxation amounted to 48,000,0001., it was represented by twenty-four millions of quarters of wheat, and ninety-two millions of various sorts of merchandize—showing that there had been an increase in the proportion of seven millions as regarded the agricultural interest, and of forty-one millions, as regarded the manufacturing interest. These were the resolutions which he should place upon record, and it now became unnecessary for him to add more than a very few observations to those which be had already 'offered to the House. A main feature in any remodelling of the system of taxation must be the imposition of a 'property tax. He held a property tax to be as just as it was necessary ; for, if the State pledged itself (as it did) to the preservation of property, surely the holders of property were bound to pay their fair proportion of taxation. Such a tax as that which he now proposed had been designated as a confiscation of pro perty ; but it appeared to him that the present system of taxation was a confiscation—a confiscation of the worst kind. The great objection to a property tax was, the reluct ance which the rich showed to putting their hands in their own pockets. It might be said that it had virtually been tried, and had failed ; but what was the fact ? Why, that when it was done away with the feeling of the public was by no means universal against it ; that a compara tively small proportion of the towns and counties in the kingdom were opposed to it, and that the majority which carried the abolition in the House was one of 39 only out of 480 Members.—(Hear.) The principles he had advocated were by no means new to Hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had been supported by them when out of office, for those Hon. Gentlemen had virtually supported a motion similar in principle to the resolutions he now pro posed. In 1828 the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Huskisson, for whose integrity and sound ness of principle no man had a greater respect than be (Mr. Robinson) had. had both expressed themselves favourable to a direct tax on property—a declaration in which the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite joined. He should take the sense of the House in the first resolution, and allow the others to be taken seriatim, his object being to place on record his sentiments upon this question, and thus to give the House the means of addressin g itself to this impor tant question, should it think proper. The Hon. Member then placed his resolutions in the hands of the Speaker, by whom they were put. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the Hon. Member had left it to be inferred that the whole of the present public income was raised through the me dium of taxes imposed during war, from which would natu- rally follow the supposition that the public were being called upon to vote war taxes to support a peace establishment. But this fallacy excluded the fact that, while many of the war taxes bad been repealed, a great portion of the ex penses of the war had been defrayed by debts con tracted during its continuance; the interest of which debts was now paid out of the taxes levied. To the present peace expenditure, therefore must be added the amount of interest paid on the debts thus contracted, when the national existence was threatened, and when it became necessary to defend the liberties of the country. Since the war, every attempt had been made to reduce the national expenditure. Almost every budget of late years had contained a proposition to reduce some portion of it ; and the question now was, whether it was better to continue that course, and to apply the residue in the best manner possible for the relief of the country, or at once to act upon the conclusion that the whole system of taxation required revision. That was the real question raised by the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had on a former occa sion objected to the views of the Hon. Gentleman when he moved for a Committee, as he still more did to the pro position he now made, although the Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government were bound to sup port his motion and accede to his views, because his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and himself had in 1830 supported a proposition for an in quiry into the taxation of the country. The argument of the Hon. Gentleman might have been a very good one had the circumstances continued the same ; but they were now very different. The Hon. Gentleman, in referring to the speech of the Right Honourable President of the Board of Trade, had taken great pains to refer to the general proposition there laid down, but had alto gether excluded from his enumeration the practical recommendations contained in that speech, and on which the Right Honourable Gentleman's argument pro ceeded. The recommendations of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) Right Hon. Friend in March 1830, were that there should be a reduction in the following articles, as the first class :—Hemp, barilla, coals, glass, paper, and printed cottons. Now on every one of these distinct arti cles of taxation a reduction had already been carried into effect.—(Hear.) The second class of articles to which the Right Hon. Gentleman then proposed reductions com prised the following :—Soap, sugar, French wines, marine policies, fire insurances, newspapers, and advertisements. Now in all these articles, with the exception of newspapers, reductions had since been effected, and, as regarded news papers, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already intimated his intention of laying a proposition before the House. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) remem bered that the Hon. Member opposed the principles laid down by the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade on the occasion referred to ; yet he now came down and supported the arguments which he then opposed, and which an alteration of circumstances now rendered no longer available. If it was to be said that they had not gone to the full extent of their former professions, he would say, let them be allowed to go on—to mature and follow out their plans ; and it would be found that they would em ploy every surplus they could possibly produce in the reduction of taxation and the reliefofthepeople. This was th e sys t em proposed by the Government ; but it seemed it did not suit the Honourable Member. The Honourable Member was for a total disturbing of the system of taxation—a measure not rashly to be resorted to, because prejudicial to the internal prosperity of then on try. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hopet.l, the Hon. Member, and those who might be preparedbtaot vote with him, had read a paper which had been on r t e , during_ a given number of •years. From this paper it ape day circul a t e d, showing the amount of taxation retnitt n peared that the gross amount of taxation remitted since thit beginning of 1831 had been 8,092,0001. less a small amour (600,0001.) which had been imposed. Was any Hon. Gentleman prepared to say that any disturbing of the sys tem of taxation could lead to better results than this 1- --- (Hear, hear.) He should state in passing that he Me', tioned the period from 1831, because it was since then thlat the relief to which he alluded had been afforded ; but ie , was bound also say, that they had done no more than haul. been done by former Governments. It was only the Ye, a ._ before Lord Grey's Government came into office that lu , Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, who then held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer,' effected a reduciiou of taxation to the extent of 3,000,0 The Hon. Gentleman contended that the art icles chiefly taxed were those which might be considered necessaries of life.—( Hear, hear.) Had the Honourable Gentleman_ been in the House the other night, he would have learne that the tax on spirits was not regarded as a tax on a: articles of necessary consumption. Neither cou ld the ta . on malt be so considered ; but for argument sake he would, admit malt to be a necessary of life. Tobacco, silk, licenses, post office, stamp duties, timber duties, articles of necessary consumption. The total a mount , those taxes was 31,000,000/. sterling per annum, and cleans it could not be thought, he said, that these were and which affected only the industrious classes. With respect to the bonded system, the Hon. Gentleman was also la bouring under an error. That system had been so arrange: indeee__ as that the duty was not required in advance, nor, until the article was actually about to be brought into gen,u: 80. &c., were nor ral consumption. The third resolution proceeded to the question of the Excise Laws. No one could deny that the Excise Laws required revision ; but had not the overn' they ment taken steps for effecting that purpose ? Had ar' not appointed a Commission, with a view of giving clethe ness and certainty to those laws ? The first Report of its Commissioners recommended the abolition of wine Per;d and surveys, and that recommendation had been earrL t into effect. The Commissioners had also recommended tnovila the establishment of the Board of Excise sh e in be reduced.--(Hear.) A reduction had taken plac e . „.. that establishment, as the Government acted in antielyt7t tion of the recommendation of the Commissioners; l i .„ until the final Report had been received it would be inI,P,,T O Bible to say how far other reductions could be carried. -I_.". T.:gee:. tefs611:111: c o ° fourth resolution applied to the question of the Custom s ' was but no man could read it without supposing that there Gentleman ought to know was not the case, one uniform duty applicable to each class. This the Ho a b eca use 0 as great mass of articles the duties varied ; some Pa); : i e t e at ad valorem duty, while others were rated in a ""-- a t manner. As a general proposition, therefore, the staternde it contained in this resolution was contrary to the filet' a ,.. n w a was literally good for nothing, unless.• it could be scow, that an ad valorem duty was applicable in all c ases. dut y the Hon. Gentleman must know that an ad valorem could not be rendered applicable to wine, for instance.-7 distinctive r ate of dat3 t (Hear, hear.) They had made a with respect to three classes of the article of tea, bu t i `: l t l i:t had been the result of that experiment ? Why' bath turned out a complete failure, and that they bad beer' would n i a id to retrace their steps. Perhaps the Hon. Gentleman sy n.. ROBINSON—N lonly doubt that doubt the failure of that experiment it ryas ever o ; tried. n u' it The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-'&- ;t- If the Honourable Gentleman had the slightest acnna'ac,.. a . nce with the tea trade he must have known that the ey e riment had been tried--that it had not only been t ried 'O-1.) of the S on ta . m G p en d t u l t e i m es a , n bu h h convicted, H after a trial of two years.—(Hear, and a la e t i l oo Hon. Gentleman had misrepresented, him (the Chancellor of the t a d h i p l v s s h e a d t l l il e h a t na l y oi dt . be o ' f r c t hadol i . Exchequer) quite jus .e "vg inten tionally, what had fallen from him on the occasion o v,, motion brought forward by the late Mr. Cobbett in 18 l on the subject of the Stamp laws ' •r• i 1 Chan ce ...ut as he k t le tha t for the Exchequer), stated then what he asserted now' 1 's these laws did require am en d men t, th ere was no ince a - 0 e tency between the vote which he thengave and tbee°„so which he had now taken.—( Hear, ln the 6 c ol' ration the •at letting the revenue ; but. he altogether excluded from ;f, a t the savings which had been effected in this respeet• m oi. a saving amounted between 1820 and 1835 to 67 7, v' - tota l year, and, taking the period from 1817 to 1833, t he 4l ; o - s'.. reduction was I,l3o,oool.—(Hear, hear.) I t w as no'le'e e.ver, so easy to effect reductions in the charge for c°- , l s ly t o i f onas it was in individual taxes, because of the nee the keeping up custom-houses and apthmachinery for , er . purpose, and his great doubt I chat, purpose, was whether, in t le ~,t tions made in t . He been carried too far.the salaries of must say that of the the officers, who had cha of the colle c t i on revenue, had, if anything bene reduced too low-- - Ol ear ; 0, ht it better that hear, hear)—and, therefore, he thought . the Government should keep the power which they . 1 1 0 : 5 sessed in their own hands than that resolutions slic;i„,,. these should be ado ted. B his next resolution the nu . y Gentleman called P upon them to discuss the w id , tion r • elative to the currency—to affirm the question criras respectf to the standard and one-pound n otes. Tile r .% he aallacy in the argument of the Hon. Gentleman wn' stated could not pass unnoticed. The .Gentleman e Hon. t itag that the change ' '.n the standard was a great disadvaroceto to . the h working classes ; but whatever weight his erg'' oc ° t migt have with respect to other points, it was in refer tr ' t b, o this not only unfounded, but the contrary of th e las ses as from the restoration of the standard the worlcing c' 0 0 received nothi ng b ut b ene fi t.— (H ear , hear, hea r.) , eon now came t o th e B t h reso l ut i on an d, un less they ` ver- m ust tent to go the whole length of ! the property tax , ' le t hat say that nothing could be more futile than esea t which it proposed—namely, • • of tbn V . of y, a revision ositte n system of taxation, with a view to the inn. b t ote. adirect taxation on property, by way of sta 5 o pe Of those For his own part he was ready to confess that he w as ow e ose who was by no means anxious to make such a n t i a n, riment.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that, o n refle e osi ., the Hon. Gentleman would be convinced that the in:I:lo tion of a tax on either income or property would be b a o t in gerous as it could not fail to be prejudicial to the 0 1 terests of the country. Now what would be th e nag the effect of it ? Why, that it would operate to discount t he employment of capital in this country, and encourag pro, exportation . of money out of it.—(Hear, hear.) , lai portion to the limitation of capital there would nie. a Or nutria of employment for the working classes, an n f l rna 1 " 9 nufacturer who was receivin 10,0001. year l — j the g a at on • business were to be obliged to pay 10 Per c e losl n '' amount of his income, would " not his means of et" de co , workmen be to that extent reduced? The Ho n. G ta xe" man had drawn corn a • between and Pea ce e ver p mons war , __. w h a t _. but surely Ire must be aware that no a nalogy , at win existed ,h between England at peace and E u glana did ant 1 e circumstances were totally different. He an' ° G that . know whatthe " 1 • division on the Hon. - e 116 motion would be, but this he would says , wil t) should pity the Chancellor of the Excheque;apertl brought forward a mo ti on for imposing a „P s pell''' . tax.—( Hear, he a r.) I n di re ct taxes were generale., tlle f ing paid voluntarily, but that was not the case wi,,,ectly of tax gatherer was employed to collect the taxes (' l ' et to the people. As a general, principle, therefore, ch re N,thig ation was to be avoided - a much as possible. _ w hich could be more fallacious than the equality of tax` a pro the Hon. Gentleman imagined would be obtained I' d aris, e perty tax. But, even, supposing such a result w• e „„ s e I , t , from its imposition, did the Hon. Gentleman sufg oa er I would be palatable to either the landowner or tlft, Pay it Would it be any boon to the farmer to be o blige° pa id, 0 per cent in addition to the rates which he n ew w i t o o' er° could it be supposed that the people of Ireland, as a boon looking for relief, would consider a property t„., 3% r.) rho conferred upon them ? He thought not.- - (“ e tn 3 te of t ., a , Hon. Gentleman had spoken of the present s"- rosp eroo r country. He had said that although it sva.a u l:. so for now they should not rely too much on its continsoan6bccauso. ever. That was perfectly true, for it was no re c er tainly a te the country was now prosperous that it was erp eta , He did not, however, think that the best way - to F etoa tioli that prosperity was by turning the whole systole' las te . t o upside down, as the Hon. Gentleman proposc t ' let use 0- of adopting such visionary projects he should seem t o u r relief wherever we can—wherever occasion inaY s corne a " the der it expedient. Let us apply the surpl us of in a r to b e ve l a disposal in the repeal of those taxes which aPP% _ t o y sn it most burthensome, but do not call upon u s to an Phear.) b° principles as these resolutions em brace.- - (H ear ', c oul d be y was mere delusion to suppose that a propertY 7, o „ c d t o f introduced in time of peace ; and, therefore, 1, f t r o -stea l , 0 would not be required to tamper with the prese" ty tax 0: 1.. taxation. They should not forget that a PreP e left Is uld be ax a war tax—a tax consequently which s hould of of t hat o.l .. touched in time of peace. It was by mean its o f 0 0 re , that the honour of this country—that the ' rig ' while itie of tion—were to be maintained ; and thereforet,o w' the wil° a re' l mained unresorted to, it would be appareut __ vas preP t i a Europe that the army of England was ready y ar s. bea r.) ; et whenever the hour for hostility arrived. t 1( e ' of N egr o in the tn n cs protested against imposing a war tax ,, lot pa , , iec t and he therefore trusted that the House v! , o ,, tf t u ieintta 's be 01 0 ,„1.1 resolutions. As, however, the Hon. u hoped be fbe 000., lle would be answered by this discussion, 11e , id not press his motion to a division ; but i . becaus%aa ose it , Chancellor of the Exchequer) must opp , o f tbe C t he e st§ wi d e r considered it to be detrimental to the inter beca use, try, prejudicial to its prosperity ; and