The Sun. — London, England, 1822-07-03 00:00:00

~~- z V; .4. 0)1,/9J 'NUMBER 9315.] ROYAL-EXCHANGE ASSURANCE OFFICE. ~stablithed by Royal Charter, in the Reign of King George the First. June, 1822. pERSONS, whose annual Premiums fall due - "on the 24th instant, are h e reby informed, that Receipts ti -r le e .aow ready to be delivered at the Company's Offices, over sof : ° Yal Exchange and in Pall-Mall, as well as by their re ii — " Y e Agents in the several Counties ; and the Parties as ti r ed are regnested to apply for the Renewal of their Poli ttes on or before the 9th of July next, as the usual Fif litl., will Days al en lowed fori Payment, .beyond the date of each Po th ex. t SAMUEL FENNING. Jun. Secretary. the Attendance is given, daily , at the said Offices, for i o ` I , A ssurance of Buildings, Goods , M erchandize, and Ships, -0-`' a t h ottr, in Dock, or while Building, from Loss of Da tage byFire ; and also for the Assurance of, and granting *;: ll ',,,ties - on, Lives. •• Fire Policies will be issued free of Expence to the As ,va:duz Where the Annual Premiunt amounts to is. or up . QUARTERLY REVIEW, No. LIII. WILL BE PUBLISHED TO-MORROW. . , 16TH OF THIS MONTH (JULY.) ti a nd J. SIVEWRIGHT have great plea - • 7 sure in offering to their Friends and the Public an opportunity of gaining the TEN CAPITAL PRIZES sure to drawniv the First Day (16th Inst.) , a t the followin g tri- N Risk, viz. :—. • . • A Whole Ticket only 11. ISs. Half . 11. ss. Eighth 73.6 d. I A y Quarter 13s. Si xteen th 4s. bay L .P HURCASERS, after taking the chance of the First ti n w ,l l be allowed to re turn their Tickets or Shares (at 7.litue on or before 26th July), whether d rawn or undrawn, ' the above very trifling Reduction. THE SCHEME CONTAINS TWO tes.iu_, • TWO Besides other Capitals of £2,000, £l,OOO, &C. &c. Consols and Money, and Nut Two Blan ks to a Prize. Ticketsit and Shares are Selling at J. and J. SIVE- Girl's' olices, 37, Cornhill ; I 39, Haymarket , w he , 11, Holborn ; I Corner of Coventry-street. tre they sold ALL the £20,0 00 PRIZES in a recent Lot .2,and in their Last Contract 4 , 421, a Pri ze of £25,000. 13 RANIAH'S PATENT PORTABLE PENS: ALSPURIOUS Imitation of these PENS hay ine recently hes:it introduced for Public Sale, J. 11, R 4„ o r ;"AH and SONS, 124, PICCADILLY , t he Manufac rsand Proprietors of the Invention, acquaint its nume pacl,Patrons and the Public, that in future every Box or t t of their Genuine Pens will be stamped with a fac si her nf the Signature of the Inseator " JOSEPH BRA; s o , 4, " by which means the Counterfeit will he easily die "ed.—January 24, 1822. , . MESSRS. BROWELL AND COMPANY, Ship Harmony. esti June, 1822. SIRS —Last October I had a Topmast Stud sail made of Scotch Brown Canvas. I was u p on a , I ° Y 4 ge of 71 Months to Barbadoes and St. Lucia.—We had kinds of Weather with a great deal of Rain; consequently re Sail laid several Days at a time in the Long• Boat, and I it entirely free from Mildew. Any other Canvas that e ver 1 have seen made use of under the same circumstances,. W klld have been Mildewed, if not Rotten. lam of a decided °Pinion, that the Scotch Brown Canvas, prepared by you, W i ll outlast either Coker or any other Canvas unprepared. I am, &c. • JOHN CURRY, lessrs. Browell & Co. Owner & Captain. PARLIAMENT, ROUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, JULY 2. 'ravers were not read till nearly five o'clock 110 ° 1 1 after which strangers were admitted. i The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a Petition from an ridual of the name of James Rice, of the city of Edinburgh, ia stated what in his opinion, if true, amounted to a corn. re n . l. denial of justice. The complaint of the petitioner set 1 , - "'" Abe monstrous fact, that under certain pretexts, he its denied the privilege of administering . his own affairs. was desirous to appeal to their Lordships from the de ton of the Jury Court.—Referred to the Committee for Ap- Peals. The 'Middlesex Police Bill was read a second time. dills the Scotch Distilleries and West India Improvement " were respectively read a third time, and passed, and mes ps sent to i n f orm the other House. o the motio of the Earl of , the ° d Corn Bill n passed througha Committee, SHAFTESBIJRY and was re- Ported without an amendment. AGRICULTURE. E arl GREY presented a Petition from certain of the Owners Z ll si Occupiers of Land in the County of York against the 3 / °111 , 4 Importation Bill. He' himself saw no prospect of alle -` 6411 to the sufferings of the country, as connected with agri ulture, from the provisions of the pending Bill. While no eig this point, he wished to remind their Lordships that he b ad intended to have moved for a further and greater reduction the taxes, and that he ostponed this motion in contem finati°ll'of what might poss ib ly b e accomplished by the other Lj u se• The measures so expected had since come before their r "thips, but proved most inadequate to the desired end; and if he at present had abandoned his intention, he begged theii tiordsliips to understand that this relinquishment was not in de e!ence to an unworthy juggle in any form. Let things only 144 , their course, and their Lordships would presently have to d e klre the transfer of landed property to other hands' to the 4 t riment, if not the destruction, of the authority of that House. He hoped that after this remark, it would not hereafter be Voted against himself, that he had failed to protest , as far as I ,s °Pinion c ou ld go , against this measure ; but he despaired, "Y making a sp ec ifi c appeal to their Lordships, of doing any 4 "I, th ou g h h e h ope d mos t sincerely that the results might Prove better than his present fears. The Earl of LIVERPOOL had not risen to take up their 4 .`Ships' time, but he would not suffer the remarks of the u Ac 'ble Lord to escape all - notice from the side of the House I ) °, 11 which he had the honour to sit. Whenever an oppor ,„iil'lldY should occur for meeting the discussion, on even the ost despairing view, he trusted that he should be found ready enter the lists, and support his own opinion. No man could r'ssibly regret that change of property which the Noble Lord tirnated more than himself ; but it was one of those calami - tr e4 more likely to ensue from pushing our reductions to an ex . eble than f rom an y other cause. Before he sat down, how rer, he wish e d to advert to what he understood to have passed i n his absence. He had stated, with respect to the second read ing of the (Co r n I m port a tion) Bill, that he was ready to have , .Petted his opini o n a t th e second stage of it ; but it was wished a' defer th e debate till Friday, and not to debate it to-morrow, mh all day s were alike to him. Ater a few wo r d s f r o m the Earls of LAUDERDALE and i 0.. 7 P,P00r., it was agreed that the Bill should be committed Mood ridaY, and also that the third reading should 'stand for i.—Noble Lords were directed to 'be summoned. _ MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. p,..l"° l 'd STOWELL presented a Petition from William Fettellard' proctor in the Arches Court of Canterbury. The petition related to the marriage of a minor, named Frederick Might, the client of the Petitioner, with a woman whom he ''', 4 u l.o become acquainted with in France, and who had prevailed l ity birn to marry her by license at Dover. Sentence of ofnul ,s__,. the marriage had been obtained, against which an ap peal had been entered founded on this The Petitioner • lion prayed that his client might not suffer by the opera - "or the Act. tio l i ti h t : Earl of LAUDERDALE stated, that he had a Peti te ;Resent front the Proctor of the Lady. It stated that eo aft met Mr. Knight in France, was married to him by p,„ ; ! _ s r e at Dover, without any idea on her part that he was a She had, since her marriage, one child, and was I t 7plant of another. Her husband having left her, she came 11. s ?lcion, and supported herself by making straw bonnets. 44 rdshi b if this the 0 saved, that ;fleet Loai, b. 0%. 4 21 reign' 250 cwt. 549 cr yr• r yr. ;wt. 51 O. 31 66 41,4$ 4s (34., ..4q o :3311 45 °lll _, 95 SP 41 lOs 59 ° 4 109 C gi 1 5 5 p d 165 od 05 ° a 1 I 5 0. , A SOS °4 ) 2s 64 A os Pr, °so" too t 4 , 34" TAO.' 6d, ?S. 0 i i ti o J dr Ire"i er rale' tb ° r of Pr .. of t i" ;01' tv 1.7 one :Oa!! VSCO PO:f, exit nl t t i e S Unit Pa tel s tre et LaTe' S l J l4 ' it (i-t/i application in favour of a person who must have committed perjury was not a very reasonable one. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that these Peti tions showed in what situation persons supposed themselves to be placed by the retrospective clause in the Bill. He admitted, however, that this case would not be affected by it, nothwith standing that, from what the Noble Earl had stated, the Lady was likely to be soon in the straw. The Petitions, he however thought, could not be regularly received, as they were not from the parties who complained, but from their Proctors.— The Petitions were withdrawn. Lord ELLENBOROUGLI moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Marriage Act Amendthent Bill. Lord STOWELL rose and opposed the Bill in a very long speech, of which, from the low tone of his Lordship's voice, very little was distinctly heard below the bar. He objected particularly to the first clause, which makes marriage indisso luble. Notwithstanding the respect he entertained for the Right Reverend Prelates who had on a former occasion spoken on this point, he could not concur with them in opinion. Mar riages which were accomplished by fraud ought not to be main tained. The fear of such marriages being annulled was a great means of preventing them. The Bill, as it stood, gave a pre mium to unlimited marriages, which would more than counter balance all the security for which its supporters gip - pasta it was calculated to provide. He concluded by moving the rejection of the first clause. Lord ELLENBOROUGH confessed that,after an interval of fourteen days since their • Lordships rejected the principle of nullity, he was not prepared to hear a funeral oration pronounc ed upon it. Since that decision, he had not before, either in or out of the House, heard any objection urged to the principle of the indissolubility of marriage. He was convinced that the clause gave great satisfaction to the country, and he would rest satisfied with what the Right Reverend Prelate near the Noble and Learned Lord had said on the subject on a former night, as sufficient answer to that Noble and Learned Lord's argu ment.. ' The Noble and Learned Lord asserted that the Bill gave a premium for the commission of the offence ; but so far from that, it on the one hand contained a clause for the punish. ment of perjury in taking out a fraudulent license, and if the offender finally accomplished his purpose, he must go to Botany Bay to enjoy the advantage of his fraud. From what the Noble and Learned Lord had stated, he should almost suppose that he proceeded on some of those systems of political economy which had for their object to prevent the increase of the human species. Throughout the whole of the Noble and Learned Lord's argument, he seemed to think that marriage was not at all intended for the happiness of the parties who were united by it, but for that of their fathers and mothers. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know whether the Right Reverend Prelate who had been referred to wished to legalize all marriages which had taken place without consent of parents since the year 1754. For his part he was resolved to propose a clause to render the montage invalid, if the father had been living at the time, and the parties knew he had re fused his consent. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY'S reply was not wholly heard. He said, however, that neither he nor those near him had considered the consent of a putative father necessary to the validity of marriage. After some observations interchanged' between the Lour) CHANCELLOR, the Archbishop of. CANTERBURY, and the Bishop of LANDAFF, Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that he understood the Right Rev. Prelate to hold, that with a view to good morals as well as religion, it was proper that marriages, once celebrated, should not be made void. They said, " thOse whom God has . joined, let no man put asunder." Lord HOLLAND observed, that the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack put questions to the-Right Rev. Prelates, and received answers to them. The case was different on a former occasion, when he (Lord H.) had thought it'necessary to ask some questions on a subject of great ecclesiastical import.. ance. Then it was not thought fit that any answer should be given. It was with much surprise he had heard another Noble and Learned Lord describe this Bill as a repeal of the ancient law of marriage. What, the ancient law which =commenced in 1754 ? The fact was, that the Bill restored a part of the an cient law of the country. The- course *of -argument of the Noble and Learned Lord on this subject was not a little sin. gular. After all their appTobation of every thing old, they now told the House that the introduction of the ancient law of the country, as it existed previous to 1754, must lead to con fusion and. immorality. The Noble and Learned Lord woilld punish every fraudulent marriage with nullity, but that 'very nullity which he thought capable of preventing fraud was really the premium - for committing it. In a few instances the dread of nullity might affect the guilty part, but in 99 cases out of 100 it fell only on an innocent victim. The Noble Lord ex ' pressed his approbation of the retrospective clause, and referred to acts which had already legalized marriages by sweeping clauses, without any of the exceptions made by this Bill. Hence, he contended that both on the ground of reason and pre cedent their Lordships were justified in passi,ng it. He there fore voted against the motion of the Noble and, Learned Lord. The question ibeing put, Lord STOWELL'S motion was negatived. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved an amendment on the retrospective clause to the following effect—viz. :—" Provided that no-marriage by licence heretofore concluded without con. sent of the natural or putative father, shall be deemed to be valid if the parties did at the time of the marriage know that such father was living, and.had refused his consent." Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected to the proviso, on the difficulty of finding any proof referable .to the cases which the Noble and Learned Lord comtemplated. The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated his intention of taking the sense of the House on his amendment. The Earl of LIVERPOOL was not friendly to the retros pective clause as it stood. He wished an exception had been made, saving all suits pending, but that had not been done.— He confessed, however, that he could not approve a clause such as that proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, which de pended upon proof of a nature extremely 'difficult to be ob tained. The House then divided— Contents - 18 a Not Contents - 68 Majority against the Proviso —5O On being re-admitted we found that the LORD CHAwcrt.- LOll had proposed a Clause respecting real and personal pro perty, which was negatived without a division. The LORD CHANCELLOR then proposed again the Clause which had been rejected in the Committee, to validate all sales and conveyances of reversionary rights which had been made before the passing of the Bill. He stated that he had omitted i the words for a good and valuable considera tion," as they might lead to litigation in orde, to prove what the consideration had been, but expressed his intention, if the clause should be rejected without these words, to move it again' after re-inserting them. The Earl of LIVERPOOL supported the clank. The Earl of WESTMORELAND conceived that it would lead to an inextricable labyrinth, and would, in a still more odious manner than the clause which had just been rejected, legalize marriages, but deprive children declared legitimate of the property to which they were entitled, because a third per son had willed or conveyed away what had never been his own. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE contended that the clause proposed by the Noble and Learned Lord would produce a monstrous state of things. It would declare children legiti mate, but would disinherit them of their property.; it would people that House with titled beggars, enjoying the honours of their ancestors, but stripped of the means of supporting-those honours,—and all this to give the estates of their fathers to per sons who had never enjoyed them, and who would thus be pla ced in a still better situation than if this Bill had never passed. If their Lordships were to adopt this proviso, instead of securing they would leave existing possession subject to a system of end less litigation and fraud. The Earl of HARROWBY defended the proviso. Lord ELLENBOROUGH hoped, after their Lordships had agreed to the retrospective clause, that any attempt to ren der it nugatory by provisos like the present, would prove un:. availing. The course proposed was one, which, as guardians of public 'morals, their Lordships could not adopt, for it would introduce a system of left-handed marriages in the true German style, marriages which Save legitimacy, but not property. Lord REDESDALL contended that to destroy reversionary rights retrospectively, would be downright robbery. The House then divided. Contents . • • . . . . 27 Not Contents • • • . . . 51 Majority against the Clause . . . —24 A second division then took place on the same clause, but 41 41 1/14/ 0 / /V tii:W4o'i 7 ;1 • • - % Ai., _1! :` • . 4 ki;llA.P:rt'' ///' , 7 j a/t't WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1822. with the addition of the words, "for a - good and,vatuable con= sideration." . • Contents - - Not Contents - - - 48 Majority against the Clause - —l7 The LORD QHANCELLOR—My Lords, ten days ago, I believe, this-House possessed the good opinion of the Public , as the mediator between them.and the' laws of the country. If this Bill pass to-night, I hope in God that this House may still have that good opinion ten days hence. But to say the best of this measure, it is neither more nor less than a legal robbery; so help me God. I have but a short time to remain with you, but I trust it will be hereafter known that I did not lend my assistance to this Act, but used every means in my power to piiTent its passing into a law. Several verbal amendments having been made in the preamble, Lord ELLENBOROUGH. roved that this Bill do pass. The House divided. • Contents . . . • • Not Contents . . . • Majority in favour of the Bill . Adjourned at Half-past Nine. 41 18 HOUSE OF COMMONS. MISCELLANEOUS. General GROSVENOR presented a Petition from Preston, in Lancashire, praying for the repeal of the Leather Tax.— Ordered to lie on thetable. Mr. DENMAN presented a Petitiot from a Person who has contributed to the relief of the suffering Irish, requesting that Ministers will state to the country why they have not foreseen and prevented the calamities under which that country suffers. Ordered to lie on the table. The Salt Duties Repeal Bill was read a second time,-and ordered to be committed to-morrow, after a few words from Mr. CunAVEN, in favour of a total repeal of the Tax. The IriSh Grand Jury Presentments Bill was read a third time and passed. The Scotch Registers Bill went through a Committee.—Re port to-morrow. The Stamp Duties Bill went through a Committee.-Re port to be taken into consideration on Monday. The Scotch Juries Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. KENNEDY presented a Petition from the Tanners of Kilmarnock, praying for a total repeal of the Leather Tax.— Ordered to lie on the table. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the-Small Notes Bill. • Mr, JAMES wished to know whether this Bill would have the effect of making Bank notes'a legal tender ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : repIied in the nea tive. Lord FOLKESTONE said, he thought this was a partial repeal of Mr. Peel's Bill. Its object was to get one-pound notes into circulation. The House by passing it would incur afresh all the dangers of multiplied forgeries, and he therefore trusted they would pause before they gave their sanction to it. Mr. HART DAVIS defended the Bill. Mr. JAMES said, he should take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill. He thought it would sanction a return to everlasting payments in paper. Mr. CURWEN hoped his Hon. Friend would not do so. He was satisfied the people preferred paper to sold. Mr. CALCRAFT spoke in favour of the Bill. 'l.lte Houie then divided, when there appeared— For the second Reading - - • : Against it - . - Majority - - The Bill was then read a second time. Mr. LENNARD presented a petition from Ipswich, corn plaining of an Act passed in the present Session, imposing an additional Duty upon Malt Licences.—Ordered to lie on the table. Sir J. MACKINTOSH. presented a petition from an At torney at Knaresborough, stating that he had been appointed an Attorney of the Insolvent Cotirt, that he was desired to re turn his appointment, in order to its being qualified ; and that it was then returned to him, limiting his practice to Knaresbo. rough. He contended that the Court had no power to limit his practice ; though it might strike him off the Roll if he were • guilty. of ma-practice. The 'Petition was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. 47 4 -43 SALT TAX. Mr. CURWEN wished to know whether the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite was determined to oppose his (Mr..C.'s) proposal for the total repeal of the Salt Tax at the end of two years ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he was happy to say, that on account of the probably increasing state of the Revenue; he thought he might safely consent to the re peal at the end of the time mentioned by the Honourable Mem ber.—(Hear, hear, hear !) Mr: BENNET presented a petition from the Mutual In surance Office, praying that they might be protected from the effect of the Stamp Duties Bill. After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER, Mr. BE - I,INET, and Mr. CALCRAFT, the Petition was ordered to be printed: MALT LICENSES. • Mr. WODEHOUSE called the attention of the House to the duty imposed on Malt Licenses. The dealers were, under a new regulation, compelled, in many cases, to take out sepa rate licenses for separate buildings. This last regulation had, he thought, been smuggled through the House, without any notice whatever. The persons suffering under this griev ance had been advised to memorial the Treasury ; but this was, at the best, an inconvenient remedy. As for his indi vidual support to Ministers,_ he could not suppose that they cared Much about it ; but he must he permitted to observe, that that indifference towards the complaints of those suffering under taxation of which he was now stating an instance, could not fail to create a disgust, which, when it was too late, Minis ters would be very glad to remove. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the last additional Duty on Malt Licenses. Mr. W. SMITH seconded the motion. Mr. BRIGHT said that when the Bill in question was brought forward, he (Mr. Bright) had been given to understand that it contained merely a trifling alteration in the old Bill. He thought the House, ought to consider the case de novo. Mr. LOCKHART spoke in favour of the motion. He should next Stssion move that a Standing Order be adopted for the printing of all Bills relative to Taxation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,' that when so much of the time of the House was taken up in ex traneous discussion, it was not a matter of surprize that many Bills passed the House in silence. The Bill complained of was brought in on the Ist of April, and did not receive the Royal Assent until the middle of May ; but as it had been so much condemned, he was perfectly willing to have the particular clause in 1t repealed.—(Hear, hear, hear !)--He ought, how ever to state to the House, that the custom of making Li cences local as well as personal, was by no means a new prac tice. He found at once a case of this kind, which occurred in 1784. Mr. WESTERN condemned the Act imposing a tax of 41. 10s. upon each building in which a Maltster had his malt. —lt was quite time it should be repealed, and he was glad a motion for that purrase had been brought forward. Mr. ROBERT bMITH said, this was an instance of the many Bills and clauses originating . with the Treasury which were passed through that House without the knowledge of the parties interested. He did not mean to defend, the inattention of one side of the House, but he complained of the great at tention which existed on the other side to take advantage of that inattention. Mr. LUSHINGTON said, that there never was an occa sion in which observations such as those which had just fallen from the Hon. Member opposite, were less applicable. He begged to retort on the Hon. Member for Bristol, that he was the cause of this Bill passing without notice : for at his express request, he had actually, postponed the third reading for a month, in order that he might have an opportunity of examin ing it. If there was any thing improper in it, therefore, he ought to have informed the House of it; but to his (Mr. Lushington's) surprise, it passed in complete silence. Mr. BRIGHT explained. Mr. HUME spoke in favour of the repeal of the duty, as levied under the provisions of the existing Act. After a few words from Mr. BENNET and Mr. P. MOORE, leave was given to bring in the Bill. - HOUSE AND WINDOW DUTIES' REPEAL. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that in coming down to the House to move the repeal of so considerable a portion of the revenue, he should ill perform his duty to the House were he to give them a mere dry proposition, witbout'entering . into the question at some length, and tracing the history and rise of the taxes he now N• _ objected to. His first Resolution went generally to put on record, that our present taxation was so oppressive, that it was highly expedie.nt to endeavour to repeal as much as possible of it, consistently with safety to the service of the country. The public had run into excess perhaps in their demands for a reduc tion of taxation, but he was equally satisfied the House,and par ticularly the Servants of the Crown, had obstinately persisted throughout the Session in the opposite extreme, of shewing an unwillingness to elect distress by reduction of taxation. It was reserved for our times to hear it asserted that taxation was not only not prejudicial to the State, but not prejudicial to the party paying the tax, so that taxationnow a'-days, like charity, was twice blessed, blessing him that took and him who gave. Indeed they had heard from the Right Hon. Gentleman, that, to remit taxation might tend finally to aggravate the distress. Far as this paradox had been pushed, the country, notwithstand ing the-assurance of Ministers that they would resign their places if the system of retrenchment were followed farther, the House and the people triumphed over the resolution of the Members of his Majesty's Ministry not to reduce taxation. He referred to the conduct of Ministers on the motion of Mr. Curwen for the repeal of the Horse Duty, and alio on the first motion for the repeal of the Malt Duty, when the Noble Marquis said he would 'no longer continue to hold his situation if the repeal were carried; yet in this very session that Noble Marquis had founded a claim to the confidence of the country upon , the voluntary sur render of that part of the tax then-proposed to be reduced. From the panegyrics pronounced "on nature, in the various speeches of the Noble Lord, as the only . means of remedy for the 'distresses complained of by the agriculturists, one would have been inclined to imagine the Noble Lord in his plan was no other than thehoasted poet of antiquity, Lucretius, whose work was a splendid encomium on the operations of natureas a divinity. But .it was not extraordinary to hear any thing sur prising from drat Noble Lord, when it was recollected that Hume, the great historian, had stated it as a distinguishing part and feature of our national character, that a man of the most ordinary qualifications should be able to secure to himself the ascendancy and chief conduct of the Counsels of his Sovereign so, strongly that no one could possibly, with all the aid of supe rior talent, remove him from his envied eminence, whilst that Minister was totally unable to express his sentiments in any lan guage, but that of which the common est peasant would have been ashamed. After such a vacillation of conduct, the House was not surprised to find that in two short months after,' altho' there had been no change in affairs to render it probable he should have adopted a contrary course to that he had pursued, the Noble Mar qu is consented to repeal takes to the amount of 1,800,000/. So far it Would appear that the Noble Lord's actions were sufficiently in dicative of his being obliged to change his resolution ; but in his opinion the very words of the Noble Lord might be quoted against his consistency. The. Noble Lord had confessed in one of his speeches that the country was groaning under the dead weight of five millions of taxes : this was admitting the neces sity of a moderate retrenchment, at least. The mere transfer of money from individual to individual necessarily presupposed an existing necessity, or an inconvenience which compelled the change of property from one to another; although Hume had considered that there was nothing lost in a State under the cir cumstances of a rapid transfer of property, where it might be considered only like a man's passing a portion of his property out of his right hand into his left.--(Here the Honourable Member reviewed the progress of the . public debt since the American war, under the various administrations of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, and Mr. Pitt's second administration.)—These Ministers, he observed, successively assailed the mine of pub lic wealth, until they at last lived on, or rather, kept their places at an expence to the country amounting to 438,6331. a-day, taking the year as composed of only 300 working days, making a total expence of 1,404,360,7941. in 30 succeeding years. It was impossible to form any conception of such sums of wealth, unless one had, like Caligula, a disposition to wal low in heaps of gold strewed on the floor. In following up the funded system, 587,493,158 1 . was unnecessarily and wastefully added to the debt of the country. The result of all.this avas, a reduction of the active capital of the country so far. No one could deny that the existence f t ohis de t was an evil, a (tr thou g h there was a eat .quantity of property undoubtedly vested in certain wealthyb individuals in towns of note, and in the metropolis. This latter sort of wealth was often a proof of the decrease of the absorption and distribution of capital and profits of business, as had been remarked by Monsieur Jaye, which might clearly be exemplified by the condition of the coun try for the better part of the last 30 years. As to the causes of the existing distress in the agricultural body, he firmly believ ed that it arose out of low prices, which low prices arose out of the glut of farm . produce. He did not, however, despair of those prices rising in a short time. There were laws, such as the Corn Law, which must in their effect raise the prices of the produce-of the land. With a view to effect some relief to the agriculturists, he had introduced his, first Resolution. The ob jector would ask, no doubt, how he intended to make a prac tical use of that Resolution ? He would candidly state, that it was his opinion that the benefits of the Sinking Fund were illu sory, and that to go to any expense to support it would be un wise and impolitic. He hoped that the days of illusion on the subject of the Sinking Fund were at an end, and that this age had forgotten the reverie of Dr. Price's farthing, which by compound interest was to become at length a ball of solid gold as large as our earth. It was impossible a large State could lend several millions at compound interest, because there was no sufficient field for its occupation; although in America, a rising State, they had paid by a similar fund to our Sinking Fund above 67 millions of dollars off within the last seven years ; but the Sinking Fund system produced at least fund ing, and funding begat power for the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentleman, who appeared to have set their minds wholly on its acquisition. Ile contended the system was alto gether erroneous which was now adopted by tie Right Hon. Gent., who, as he admitted that we had a surplus revenue of 3,000 1 000/. above the expenditure of the country, ought to re linquish taxes at least to an equal amount of 3,000,000/. He would argue further, that owing to the, change which had taken place in the currency, he felt a proportionate decrease of taxa tion ought to take place of a sti._ further sum of between two and three millions, making in all a reduction of between five or 6,000,0001. He now rose to make a proposal to the House of a reduction of taxation of only 1,500,0001. being a reduction im periously called for by those whom he felt • himself bound to obey, namely, his constituents. The House and Window Tax was the genuine descendant, in the rightline, of that odious tax called the Hearth Money, which was "repealed, so much to the satisfaction of the country, in the Ist of William and Mary, chapter 10. The commutation of the Act of the 24th Geo. 111. chapter 84, was the most singular modification of this 'tax.— Mr. Pitt substituted - an ad valorem duty on tea, and raised a heavy tax on windows. That tax for which Mr. Pitt was so lauded, increased the tax on tea by 1001. per cent.; and instead of the duties on windows being reduced, they were, in fact, aug mented. He recollected having read in a speech of Mr. Fox's at that time some observations, applying to that case. Mr. Fox said, that tea had no more to do with windows than with horses, or any thing else, no matter how foreign. In the years 1785 and 1786 Mr. Pitt tried-his famous Shop Tax, which was neither more nor less than a House and Window Tax. So unpopular did that tax become, that Mr. Pitt felt himself obliged to repeal .it. But he supplied the loss—in what way ? By trebling the tax on windows ; and that also he called a commutation.— That tax was necessarily raised in 1792, 1795, and 1797, but had on every occasion been introduced as a war tax. So far from being reduced at the perio4of the peace,:it was again increased in 1802, and then, again, it was called a commutation. Mr. Combe, Member for London, and others, came down to the House, and declared, that if they had thought the Window Tax were to be increased they would not have Voted for the Income Tax. To prove the inequality of its operation, he should take the liberty of referring to a scale which he held in his hand. [The Hon. Gentleman here quoted the scale of Window Tax, contending from it, that the higher the rent the lower was the rate of Window Tax paid ; so that, consequently; the in ferior class of houses paid a greater duty than those of a higher denomination.] The increase of the tax from 1792 to 1822, . was from 150 to 200 per cent. or rather of an average - of 36 per cent. In the year 1816 a calculation of house rents (as we un w derstood) was made, by which it appeared that they amounted to 8,574,6931., while the amount of' the duty was 3,074,6481., so that the amount of the tax was something more, than 36 per cent,, which proved the inequality *of its operation. It might be said that if the occupier of a house felt himself too highly taxed, he might leave it; but in the case of traders, that step could not be taken without great inconvenience and loss of their esta-‘ blishments. Every person must have observed the number of houses of the respectable class that - were hourly going to decay, and he claimed the attention of the House to an instance. A person who owned a house of 351. per annum rent, on which the duty was 601., was unable to let it. Some depredations having been committed, he sent a person to take care of it, when the taxman immediately made his demand for the duty. , In consequence the owner of the house had it pulled to pieces ; the sale of the materials produced only PRICE S.EVENPEN CE, 8001. so that he lost 16001. ; the difference between that sum an, the original cost of it (24001.), a loss to which he preferred sub. ' milting in preference to the payment of the duty: The talcula- tions and the inquiries of tenants, when about to take houses, were not the amount of rents, but that of taxes. The consequence was, that in building houses, the builders or architects sought, by snaking a few large windows, instead of a number of moderate sized ones, to evade the duty, and which was done at the sacri fice of all taste, and, to the outrage of all proportion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer well knew that 20 houses in .To. thill-street paid as much in duty as 20 houses in Lombard street, where the number of window's was the same, although the rent of one might be only 101. while that of the other was 1001. So that supposing the income of the former to be worth' 501. par, and the owner of the latter s,oool.'par, one paid one seventh of his - income, and the other only one seven-hundredth part. He would ask, therefore, .ought a tax of such unequal operation to be continued? The House should consider, also, that in consequence of that tax rents were so increased that many persons were obliged to crowd together into one house, to the consequent injury of their health. So far had that sys tem been carried in Ireland,- that it formed a strong argument for the reduction of that tax, as far as respected that country ; and the House would recollect, that so general had the effect been felt in generating fever, that the tax was at last termed the typhus tax. The tax had been repealed as far as re garded Ireland, and he rejoiced in it. An instance of the severity with which the tax pressed on the poor came within his own knowledge. A poor man occupied a house with six rooms and six windows, on which the duty was Bs. He wished to build a wash-house, which would. have enabled him to live more comfortably, but he found, that if he did so, the duty would be 20s. ; in consequence of which the poor man was obliged to forego his intention, and consequently that which would have contributed to his subsistence and his comfort for life. The House had the power of removing that odious and obnoxious tax, and it ought to repeal it. He might be asked, how, in that case, was the deficiency to be made up ? It was not his province to consider that ; but he would answer at once—take it from the sinking fund, as he had already pro posed : but had he not proposed that mode, he should propose, in preference, reduction of our expenses. From an army and a navy which cost the country 15,000,0001. annually, he would contend some decrease ought to be made. The lion. Gentle man then quoted a case which occurred in one of the islands of the Archipelago, when taxes were demanded in these words— "We bring two gods—Force and Necessity."—To which the inhabitants replied, "We have two gods to oppose to them— Want and Impossibility ;" and such was the case of the people of England at.this moment. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that more difficulty attended the collection of the revenue than hitherto, and he believed that the consumption of exciseable articles had considerably increas ,ed.—(Hear, hear, hear !—amidst the cheering the explanation of the Hon. Gentleman did not reach us.) --Ile recollected a quotation from Scripture made by Lord Bacon, that " Want came first as a wayfaring man, but he next came as an armed man." He thought that in a very short time the people of this country must assume the latter character; and as from no country that ever existed such sums had been exacted, so it be hoved Ministers and that House to see in what manner it could be speedily reduced. He felt himself obliged to refer to the - late scheme of Ministers for removing the dead weiglit,and which he should call a mere juggle—a fraud, contravening their own principles, and in opposition to their own declarations. He regretted the absence of the agricultural Gentlemen on that c.c.: casion, and more particularly the great Coryphkeus of the party. He begged to remind the House of a speech delivered by a Noble Lord. The Minister for Foreign Affairs declared in that House on the 3d of April, 1821, that if it were practicable to reduce 2,000,0001. of taxes, he should prefer the repeal of the Window Tax to that of the Duty on Malt. Although, per haps, it might not be fair, now that the Malt Tax had been re duced, to demand the repeal of the Duty on Windows also, yet . he quoted the words of the Noble Lord to prove that he himself thought the Window Tax .one which ought to be repealed.—• He begged the Ilouse to recollect that the amount of the Win , dow Tax in Great Britain was 2,565,2751. The Hon. Gentle , man then concluded by moving certain Resolutions in substance F as follows : _ _ " Ist. That it appears to this,House, that the present amount of taxation b so burdensome and oppressive, as to make it the duty of this House to adopt every means by which, without de triment to the State, that taxation may be reduced. " 2d. That the.benefits supposed to be derived front the esta.._ blishment of a Sinking Fund are illusory; and that to impose or continue any additional burthens on the people, for the pur- poses of its support, is highly inexpedient and unwise. " 3d. That the tax levied on windows in Great Britain is unjust, unequal in its operation, and most oppressive to those. especially who are least able to bear it ; and that it appears to this House that the said tax should be forthwith immediately repealed." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it was not his intention to follow the Hon. Gentleman through observa tions which had often been niade before, and to combat argu ments, which in his judgment had already been satisfactorily an swered. lie, however, felt it to be his duty to Oppose the proposi tion of the Hon. Gentleinan, as he took for its basis the destruc tion of the Sinking Fund, which, in his opinion, would go to the annihilation of public credit. He should therefore give a decid ed negative to the second resolution of the Hon. Gentleman. To the first, which stated it to be the duty of the House to re peal taxes as far as this could be done without detriment to the public interest, no objection could be urged. It expressed a. trueism, and merely considering that it was unnecessary for . .the House to affirm such a trueism at this moment, he should meet it with the previous question. To the third propositionof .. Hon. Gentleman, as well as the second, he should oppose his most decided negative. He should now more particularly apply himself to the practical Resolution submitted by the Hon. Gentleman to the House. He admitted that the Win. , dow Tax formed one of the heaviest of'the remaining burdens of the people. It had been largely augmented in the last thin . ) , years, and the 'epeal of that impost in Ireland had given great relief to that country. But Ireland never having paid the Property Tax, had not experienced the same relief from taxa tion which England had enjoyed since the return of peace, and the Irish Window Tax had been found peculiarly heavy in con sequence of circumstances growing out of the Union, however beneficial that measure might be in other respects. The Union had caused more of the Gentry to absent themselves from Ire. , land. The removal of the Parliament had taken many persons of opulence from Dublin, and thus superior houses in that city had become of comparatively little value, and had fallen into. the hands of those who otherwise would not have occupied bitations of such splendour. By these persons the Window Tax - was severely felt, and it was found the number of windows stopped often made the house dark, unwholesome, and un., comfortable. He, however, denied that such consequence had resulted from the operation of the Window Tax in England-2- The Honourable Gentleman who had brought forward the Window Tax m Ireland, wasenabled to show mat the Tax was in many instances recovered by legal process. This had not been shewn in the present - case, for there never was a period when the revenue was collected with less difficuLy. He could .also state that the produce of the tax had not fallen off, and that the people were not deprived of the comforts they had been accustomed to enjoy, was evident from the returns from the Excise laid before the House in the course of the Session, which shewed an increase in every instance, with the exception of three districts ? where the falling off was easily accounted for from the failure of . the hops. He would not argue that the Window Tax ought not to be taken into consi deration if a large remission of taxes were now to take place ; but taxes amounting to nearly three millions and a half haying already been taken off in the course of the Session, a further reduction was not now to be contemplated. In the beginning of the Session no expectation had been held out that taxes to such an amount would be given up, nor had the means of af• folding such relief been at that time foreseen. This, however, had been accomplished through the improvement of public credit, by adhering to that system of policy which Gentlemen , on the opposite side of the House were anxious to overturn. So long as Parliament continued to apply a considerable sum in each year to the reduction of debt, they might hope for a diminution of the public burden, but to adopt the plan suggested by the Honourable Gentleman, and other Members on that side of the House, would be to exemplify the old adage, would be killing the goose to get at the eggs. That the establishment of the country might be reduced was very much in the mouths of Gentlemen opposite. Let them point out where such reductions could be effected. The Hon. Gentleman had exaggerated when he spoke of the army and navy creating a charge of 15,000,0001. The charge, how ever, for the army, navy, and ordnance, amounted to between fourteen and fifteen millions • but of this sum, it should be re membered that above 4,000,0001. was for pensions which could not be touched without a breach of good faith, and this taken from the total, reduced the actual expence for those . services to