The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-01 00:00:00

AGRICULTURISTS.

Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE presented a Petition from
certain Landholders, Farmers, &c. in the neighbourhood of
a Somerset, -complaininc, of agriculturil distress, and praying for
a further reduction of taxes than had been announced by his
Majesty's Ministers. He ex-I:tressed his regret at being obliged
to dissent In this question with the highly talented persons who
composed his Majesty's Government. The Petitioners ex-
pressed themselves in the most respectful manner, and threw
th-emselves, on the wisdonr and consideration of Parliament for
relief.

Mr. Alderman C. SMITH szizl he entirely concurred in the
sentiments of the Petition; and he was satisfied that the coun-
try in general was rot satisfied with what had been done by
his Majesty's Ministers towards the relief of the aactrieultural
classes.

Mr. CURWEN said, that if nothing further were done by
Government, lie shOuld after Easter bring forward a motion
for the equaliotion of the diity on RUssian tallow, with the
tax on soap and candles. . •
Mr. SYKES soicf, lie rose. to congratulate the public on the
cheering prospect which was how dawning on the louse in the
'sentbrients, which - had' fallen from the Hon. 'Member for
Somerset (Sir Lethbridge); anti the lion. Alderman. They!
.had hound themselves by their sentiments not to support the.
present Administration unless they carried economy to a greater
extent than they seemed disposed MAD", arid he was sure that.
She House would not only have the benefit 'of . their speeches,
but of, their votes also. lie wassure the country could not go
on without fOrther relizf, from a reduction of taxation.
The Petition was then read, andordered to be printed. .
Mr. HEATIICOTE presented a petition from certain
Landholders in the neighbourhood of Louth, Lincolnshire, com-
plaining of agricultural dist ".Ss. lie begged to state, that.
many proofs had. come under his own observation of The dis-
appointment of tile country at the small relief from taxation
which Government intended to give, and surprise at the over
Aorming majorities of that house, which StiprOrted Ministers
in reftisiug further relief.—( Hear !)
The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. .
ADMIRALTY.
• Sir M. RIDLE Y, with reference to a notice of motion he
bad given. for thelth of March, relative to the Lords of the.'
Admiralty; begged to state, that in consequence of the Navy
Estimates coming on to-morrow, which was earlier than he
expected, he should take that opportunity of making his
motion. . .
APPOINTMENT OF SHERIFFS—SCOTLAND.
An Hon. MEMBER (whose name' could not be learned),
said he had a question to put to any of his Majesty's Ministers,
which was of some inmortance in the part of the kingdom from
which he came. He begged to refer to the Act for abolishing
Heritable Jurisdiction in Scotland, which enacted that the
Sheriff should reside four months in Ins shrievalty in the year.
There was, hoirever, a report, that it was the intention of Go.
Ternment to enforce a longer residence on the Sheriff in his
.county. He hoped it was not so. The report had been raised
with reference to a late appointment in the county of Lanark. _
' Mr. PEEL said, that the subject alluded to by the Honour-
'able Meinbet had lately attracted the attention of his Majesty's
Gekvernment, and received the fullest consideration from them.
illeSteong Report which had been made on that point by the
Commissioners of Inquiry, together with the circumstances
which had occurred in the neighbourhood Of Glasgow and Pais-
ley on.the occasion of some late disturbances of the public peace;
and the opinions expressed by Gentlemen • on the other side of
the House on the subject, hld contributed to direct the often-
-don cf Government to it, and he had no hesitation in saying,
that after the fullest attention it was their impression that the
Sheriff of a County shoUld'he -a resident Officer. The Act al-
lowed to fixed four months as theminiimim, and' he apprehend-
.ed that should Goyernment annexe the ;condition of residence to
the appointment of Sheriff, thercotild beno objection to it.—
(Hear, hear.)"
SINKINWFUND. , • •.
Mr. ZANKES gave no4c,e-of a motion on the subject of the

Sinking Irun(l, at an early period, but from the low tone of
voice in which he spoke, the exact day could not be heard.
SCOTCH BURGHS. _ _

The LORD ADVOCATE, pursuant to notice, moved for
leave to bring in a Bill for the regulation of the accounts and
of the expenditure of the Royal Burghs of Scotland. His
Lordship said that the Bill he proposed to introduce would be
founded, in its provision, uppu the recommendation of the Com-
mittees which had sat for-three successive yearsAs investigate
the nature of the abuses alleged to exist in the management of
the funds, and other grievanees complained of in the mode of
Election in the Royal Burghs of Scotland. rn obedience to
these recommendations, contained, as he had stated a few nights
ago, in the Reports of the Committees in question, the Bill
would first provide that the accounts of the Burghs should
be public, so that those who managed the fundywell, would
receive the approbation dtie to their discretion and inte-
grity, whilst it would operate as a check upon any undue
administration of them. The Bill would also oblige the :Ma-
gistrates to reside in the Burghs, and prevent all illegal con-
tra-CIS relatiie to elections to' offices in the • boroughs.—Such
being the :objects of the Bill, he felt persuaded that the Noble
Lord opposite (Lord Hamilton) would not object to its intro
-
Auction, and he therefore should refrain from' troubling the
House at greater length on the subject,- and move fur leave to
bring in the Bill. . .
Lord A. HAMILTON said, that his objections on 6e pre-
sent occasion were not to what the. Bill enacted, but to what
it left untouched;, and he must here express his surprise that
after theyhad had three Reports from, Committees, on the sub-
ject, when there were so many Petitions, and such' a weight of
grievances, the Lord Advocate of Scolland• should stand up
with such a scanty Bill, and so short a speech. The _ Bill
did not touch- one-twentieth part of the abuses requiring to
be remedied; Ile appealed' to the Members of the Commit-
'tee, who had subscribed to the existence of these abuses, if
what he stated was not correct. He was sorry the House was
so little acquainted with the subject, on which account those, on
behalf he stood wp, would suffer. But if it it had been
:the case of England instead of Scotland, it would have been
differently treated. He no more believed that the Learned
'Lord viewed this Bill as an effectual relief than he. did that he
could pay off the National Debt. And it was for this reason he
introduced it to the attention of the House, as he would do in
the case of a Road Bill. . .

_ .
The LORD ADVOCATE said the Noble Lord-was mis-
taken as to the provisions of the Bill he moved foe leave to bring
in, and had better. defer his objection. till it .was- before the
House.—Leave was then given.
' . DISTURBANCE AT KNIGHTSBRIDGE.

Mr.-Aldeunan WOOD called the attention of the House to
the notice of a- motion he had given 'relative to the Pe-
tition of the City of London- He had .presented that Petition
on aforMerday at the request of many of his Constituents-, and
he had now to. engage the consideration of the House to the
facts contained init, to which he would endeavour to confine
himself. In the motion he had to make he-understood he was
to expect the support of an Hon. Colleague of his,with whom, as
he'did not Often agree in that House he presumed that he was
actuated by different motives 'for desiring an inquiry into the
statement of the Petitioners, than those by which he (Mr. Ald.
Wood) was influenced. de fully concurred in the sentiments
expresSed- by the Committee upon Which the Petition was
founded,- and -notwithstanding what had been said of the,
evidence on, which they were formed, on a late occasion,
he Would contend that it was entitled to full credit. The
inquiry had not been confined amongst one particular class
pf- persons. On the Resolution of the Common Council the
matter was referred for investigation to a Committee of
three or four years- standing, • composed of Meanbers Who en-
tertained very different politics -amongst each other. It was
not to the statement of facts he was about to make, that
the attention of the House alone was (hie ; but he called.
upon them to consider whether those who had been, or were
hereafter to be, Sheriffs of Counties, when called out in their
official capacity for the preservation of the peace, were to be
subject to violent attacks on their persons. It appeared in
the present case, that the sheriff of Middlesex, in the discharge
of his public duty, had been so attacked. The Hon. Alderman
then went on to relate, that in consequence of its appearing
that the funeral of the two men who had been killed on the
14th Of August, was to be a public one, his Majesty's Govern-
ment took the precaution to write to the Lord Mayor of the
City of London, to advise him of a large meeting to be held
in Smithfield,- at which he was to take steps to keep the peace.
They had also sent a letter to a Gentleman in- his. ward, saying,
thatas it wassunderstood to be the intention to take the funeral
through Hyde Park, the writer gaVe notice that he should not
permit- it to go through. Not one Word of all this, however,
had bCen communicated to the Sheriff; the proper officer for
the -preservation of the peace of. the county. And as the
.processiou was to assemble iii the neighbourhood of Red
Lion-square, there was as much ground for apprelienSion- for
the peace of Middlesex as-.of the City of London. On hearing
of this, however, the Sheriff; considering the irritation exist-
ing in consequence of the misunderstanding between the
people and the soldiers; and knowing that the procession was to
pass by the Horse Guards, was- fearful' that some disturbances
might occur, and therefore took the precaution of summoning
all the officers and constables of the Hundreds of the County of
Middlesex, and placed them in a situation where they were most
likely to be available for the public service. On Mr. Sheriff
Waithman observing that the funeral was to take place at
Hammersmith, he took measures to prevent it. The letter
which appeared in the Sunday Newspapers of. the day on
which it took place, sheaved his anxious desire to prevent
it. The Honourable Alderman then read the letter in queS-
tion, as follows :—" Seeing a paragrapk in your paper, that a
procession is to assemble to-morrow in Smithfield for the pur-
pose of accompanying the funeral of the men who were shot
on the 14th August at Cumberland-gate ; as I was appointed
by their relations to attend at the investigation into the cir-
cumstances of their death, I feel myself called upon to depre-
cate such a proceeding,. and particularly as the matter is now
under a course of judipial inquiry, and I earnestly hope the
public will refrain from attending this meeting.' -Now what
could be thine more than that ? No one after that could charge
that Hon. Gentleman with an intention to create a disturbance,
as some had done. The Sheriff's colleague was abient froin
town, but he had the assistance of his Under Sheriff, with whom
he arranged all the officers he had been able to get together in
a proper place, and attended himself in the neighboUrliOod of
Knightsbridge. placed himself opposite Sloane street,
where he saw the procession pass, but he never went near it,
further than to station his officers. The procession went quietly
past the barracks, and nothing occurred till a briek 'was
thrown from the barracks among the people. They their felt
indignant, and began hissing at the soldiers. But the moment
Sheriff Weidman went up the hissing ceased—he begged them
to pass on quietly, and according to the testimony of all, he
was constantly employed during the whole day in endeavoin-
_ing to keep the people quiet. He went on in the rear of the
procession, and, remained at some distance from the barracks,
when lie heard that something demanded his attendance at the
barracks. He went back, and at 'the gates he saw soldiers
contending with the people, some with swords, and others with
sticks, in their full dress and undress. He remonstrated with
the soldiers on their conduct, and they were unwilling to listen.
to authority, but he at length succeeded in making them shut
the gates. At another period of the day, when he wasnear
Hyde Park Corner, he was inforrned that a breaCh of the peace
was committed near the Barracks, and upon returning to the
spot, the first thing- that he witnessed was, soldiers jumping
over the wall, and the gates were • shortly after thrown open,
and fifty or sixty soldiers rushed out.. As he perceived the
Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) • had got the evidence in his
hand, lie would take up his time by. detailing what then took
place. 111 r. Sheriff Waithman perceived that there was a great
contention amongst the people and the Military--44everat were
knocked down, and the swords were flourishing about. The
Sheriff rode up on the path-way, and endeavoured to persuade
the soldiers to go away. Whilst thus engaged his horse was
seized, hold of, and -several attempts were made to strike him.
In:the violence which was used towards him; he and his horse
Were shoved off' the pavement. During this time a soldier_ was
observed presenting his carbine, not immediately at the Sheriff,
but in that direction. Several persons who gave evidenCe be-
fcre the Committee gave their-opinions that if -the people had
not been in the way, from the position of the carbine, it.might
have shot Mr. Sheriff Waithinan, if it had been- fired off: Such
was the state in which the Sheriff was placed according to the
evidence; and, during the whole of that time the Sheriff was
represented as conducting himself in a most conciliatory and
proper manner. This was stated by all the witnesses but one,
and, that one was a reporter to the Morning Post Newspaper,
(Mr. Derbishire) and 'even he stated, at the close of his exa-
mination, that be was not quite sure that the words he at-
tributed to the Sheriff were used by him. No one but
that Gentleman spoke of his conducting himself in -a af-
ferent way. The Sheriff tried his utmost to get,to speak
to an Officer, and during the whole time, 'according
to Mr. Derbishire's account,' the conduct of the military
was most violent. In answer to a message from the Sheriff,
one of the. Officers said ":,The Sheriff may be d—__d !"
He had one remark to make. The persons examined on this
occasion were not the same as'had been examined in the former
-proceeding. He believed it would- be found that not one
among them all had given evidence before the Coroner. Most
of them were persons who had happened to be on the Coroner.,
at-
tending to their business. The first person he 'should mention
was a most respectable individual, who was high in the office to
which he was attached. Mr. Mortimer had been in attendance
:on Mr. Sheriff Waithman during the whole of the day, had
given evidence which,-if it could not be shaken, and as yet it had
'not been, made very strongly in favour of the Sheriff: Se-
veral Sheriff's officers who were likewise on the spot had con_
- curred in representing the conduct of Mr. Waithman to have
been most proper. These persons were all respectable men,

men who were obliged to give security to the amount of some
thousands when entering on the situations which they held, and
these were not at all likely to be under the influence of the
late Sheriff'. Then with respect to the persons connected with
the public press, what interest •could. they be supposed to have
in disguising the truth ? ',lt could not be contended that they
were at all under the influence-of the individual to whose con-
duct they had spoken, yet of these Mr. Woods and Mr. Tyas
had given very strong evidence in favour of the Sheriff. These
individuals had come forward merely because they happened
to be on the spot ; they had not been selected for the occasion,
and there was nothing, in their situation to make it probable
that they were under any improper bias. After the inquiry
was known to be going on, letters had been received from in-
dividuals who offered to come forward with much stronger evi-
dence than any that appeared on those minutes which had
been printed, but the evidence actually appended to the re.
port was, in his judgment, strong enough to justify the House
in acceding to the present motion, which would be for. the ap.-
pointment of a Select Committee. He expected to hear it
stated that the Sheriff had no business at Knightsbridge.—
His Honourable Colleague (Sir William Curtis) would itro-
bably get up and state this to be his opinion. He, how-
ever, would contend that it was his dxity to go there, and
had he not done so, he •doubted not the Hon. Baronet would
have been sufficiently ready xo say, " p,• Mr. Sheriff' Waith-
man could be busy enough attending the Coroner's Inquest,
but here, where the public peace was broken, he was not to
be found.' Even Lord Bathurst went almost as far. In a
letter, not of a very compliment.ary character, which he had •
written to, Mr. Sheriff Waithman, he had made a sort of com-
plaint, that he had not remained at' -Knightsbridge till' after
eight o'clock when the Riot Act was read. He could state
that it had long been the practice for the Sheriffs of Lon-
don to attend on all extraordinary calls when the peace of the
county was endangered. In 1810, when an Honourable Bart.
was committed by that , House -to the Tower, his Col-,
league at that time (Mr. Alderman Atkins), though differ-
ing widely from 'him in the view which he took of- the
proceeding he had alluded to, had attended with him, where
the public peace was thought to be endangered, from seven in
the morning until eleven at night. He wished.to ask, from the
view which seemed to be taken of Mr. Sheriff Waithman's con-
duct by Ministers, how it happened that he 'had received no
communication-from Government on the occasion ? From them
he had received no instructions ; but when a communication
was made from him to Lord Bathurst, it was answered by that
which amounted almost to a reprimand. In that letter, how-
ever, it svAs promised that an inquiry should take place. What
inquiry, he wished to ask, had since taken place ? If any had
been instituted, it might be well that they should know what
the resnit had been ; if none had been set on foot, it was desir-
able that one should be concerted now. Having heard nothing
of the promised inquiry, the Corporation of the City of Lon- •
don had judged it right to call on the House to institute one,
with a view of doing them justice, and of affording them
some reparation for the outrage which had been offered to
them, by allowing the military, to assault their Sheriff. If the
evidence which had been obtained was at all to be depended
Aton, a more violent attack could not have been made on
that officer thisn that which had actually taken place. If Mi-
nisters were satisfied that the military were all right and the
Sheriff all wrong, he was confident that they would be willing
to sanction the inquiry now called for. To him it was clear
that the Sheriff had a right to act as he had done. The pUblic
peace was•in danger, and- in cases of riot, the Sheriff had, a
right to call on all persons above the age of fifteen to assisthim,
and when he had legally a right to exercise in the case sup-
posed such' power, was it fitting that he should be assaulted by
a body of military, not under the controul of their Comman-
ders, with impunity ? The riotous manner in which they rushed
from the barracks had been fully established. It had been
stated by Mr. Derbishire, in his eiridence, that some of the
soldiers acted very manfully, coming forward to attack those
opposed to them with, their fists ; but he had described others
to have acted a very different part, and to have rushed out with
carbines and swords in their hands, and attacking the people in
the most violent manner. Mr. D. he believed. al said that he
had never seen any thing more violent. He had represented
them as rushing out with carbines, swords, and sticks, and' to
have struck several of the crowd. In the eVidence which had
been given, a very remarkable coincidence would be found.—
This was the more extraordinary, as the parties by whom it
had been furnished had not had opportunities of seeing each
other on the subject, with the exception of the Gentlemen con-
nected with the Press, who might very naturally communicate
with each other on: what had come under their observation.—
From the whole mass of evidence it appeared, that in no in-
stance had the slightest offence been offered on the part of the
Sheriff towards the Military, but wherever he went he was
found constantly addressing the crowd on the necessity of their
conducting themselves peaceably towards the soldiers. If the
Sheriff might be attacked as he had been on this occasion, while
watching a funeral procession, which had been arranged as a
mark of respect to certain individuala who had lost their lives
on a former melancholy- occasion—if the highest officer in the
City of London was thus to be put down by the Military, there
must be an end of all civil government. He should now con-
tent himself with making his inotion, which he should expect
would not be opposed by the. Right Hon. Gentleman, as he
considered that he had so excellent a case in his hands He
should rather expect, such being the case, that he would be
happy- to go into the proposed inquiry, for the purpose of re-
pelling the charges brought against the soldiers. He concluded
by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to in-
quire into the facts stated in a Petition presented to the House
on the Bth inst., from the Corporation of the City of London,
complaining of an outrage offered to them in the person of Mr.
Sheriff Waithman on the 26th of August, 1821, while engaged
in the execution of his official duty for the preservation of the
public peace.
• Sir W. CURTIS rose to second the motion of the Worthy-
Alderman for sending the Petition to a Committee, but he did
this on very different grounds from those on which it had been
brought forward. He wished the Petition sent to a Committee
that it might be proved the allegations contained in the same
rested on no authority whatever. The two Sheriffs must be to-
gether to act for the county; and Mr. Sheriff Waithman,
as he could not act in the absence of his colleague, who
was not then in town, would have been better at home. It
had been said that the Court Or Common Council had fairly
taken the evidence offered to them, and that all the witnesses
.came voluntarily forward. Now he would shew the House,
if they would allow him to refer to the,evidence, that this could
not be the case. Ile had no doubt that questions had been put
in order to draw forth answers that suited the views of certain
Members of the Common Council, and the evidence taken al-
together, led him to a conclusion very different from that at
which the Worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Wood) had ar-
rived. He, therefore, wished the present motion to be
carried, that the • whole of the circumstances of the case
might be seen in a proper light, and he thought it would not
be wrong to give the Common Council a hint, that in this
instance they had over-acted their part. To shew what sort
of evidence had been procured, as well as in what way it had
been obtained, he would read the statement of one of the wit-
nesses, that it might be seen what description of information
was thought worthy Of being received by that enlightened and
venerable body the Court of Common Council. The evidence
of Mr. Thomas Oliff ran as follows:

Where do you livo ? —At No. 90, Fore-street.
What are you ?—I superintend the business for Mr. Smith, a
corn-chandler.

vV
You were at Knightsbridge at the time the affray-happened
with the soldiers and the populace ?—No, I was not there.—
(A laugh.)
Then what do you know about it ?—I got a note about it.
All that I know was, that I was in company with a friend of
mine on the Monday or Tuesday evening, and he said, that he
bad been into the shop of a person of the name of Crabb—(A
laugh)—and heard a man of the name of Properjohn—(A laugh)
—or his man—(excessive laughter)—tell Mr. Crabb, that he
heard a corporal of the Life Guardsmen say—(increased laugh-
ter)—" D—n Alderman Waithman ;we are prepared for him,
and have got a ball ieady for him."—(Loud laughter.)
He stated this, but to show of what folly the Court of Com-
mon Council were, capable, and would now leave the House to
determine for themselves how far they would be justified in
' acting on the report of that Committee.

Colonel LYGON begged the indulgence of. the House while
he was,saying a few words on the motion before them, as he
was an eye-witness to the greater part of what happened on that
day at the barracks. He, would confine himself to that part of
the petition which regarded the Commanding Officer. It stated
that a brickbat had been thrown by the soldiers from the para.
pet wall, That was very doubtful, and he believed incorrect,
and those who lived in the neighbourhood denied that they saw
any thing of the sort thrown. He denied that he received
any communication from Mr. Sheriff Waithman. He was
at the barrack all that day, and never left it from the 25th
till the 27th. lie d saw groups people about the gates,
which had been shut,at first. There was a w..y through the
barracks from the road into the park, where the people
were in the habit of passing. He declared, upon his honour
that the gates were opened for the accomModation of the peo-
ple. There was no disturbance until after ten o'clock. ' After
that he thought the soldiers, so far from being the aggressors,
shewed the greatest forbearance. There were not less than 282
windows broken in the barricks, although it was stated that
constables were stationed in front with orders to apprehend
any persons who were found committing any breach of the
peace. Soon after six o'clock he heard dies of " murder," and
on going out he fotind the trumpeter knocked down—(Hear,
hear !)—by the people who were assaulting the soldiers. The
conduct of the soldiers was most forbearing. At his orders thly
'returned within their barrack, which was a proof of their for-
bearance—(Hear, hear !)—and good order.—(Hear, hear !)
' He shortly 'after sent for a Magistrate (Sir N. Conant); who

read the Riot Act, and dispersed the populace. He wished as
much as any one for an inquiry, because then it would appear
that the soldiers conducted themselves in the most forbearing
and orderly manner.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. FIOBHOUSE contended that as a Committee had been
granted to inquire into any thing that furnished a pretext for
taking away the liberties of the people, that now when the
people complained of outrage, and that through a body so re-
speetable as the'Corporation of the City of London, an inquiry
ought to be institutedvithout delay. He anticipated that it
would be objected that the evidence given before the Common
Council was forgiven On oath. But whose fault was it that
evidence on this subject had not been obtained, on oath ? The
fault rested with the Government, who had neglected to set on
foot that inquiry which had been promised. Having examined
the evidence, he did not think the subject so laughable as it
had seemed to the Honourable Baronet. The evidence which
he had read merely proved that the parties were were not much
in the habit of examining witnesses, and had therefore not
stopped the examination so soon as it ought to have been stop-
ped, but the publication of this, with the rest, shewed in a'
striking point of view the fairness of the Committee. It
appeared on the whole, that stones had been thrown from the
crowd-to the Barracks, but it also appeared that stones had
been thrown from' the Barracks at the crowd. This appeared
from the evidence of several witnesses, and from that of
one who could not be suspected of any political bias in fa-
vour of Mr. Sheriff Waithman—the Reporter of the Morning
Post. That witness had used an expression which he (Mr.
Hobhouse) would hot repeat after him—he had said that some
of them came forward in a cowardly monner. This was a strong
expression to be applied to British soldiers, and one that he
would not repeat. He'controvertedthe assertion of the Hon.
Baronet, that the Sheriff for London, unless atended by his
Colleague, could do nothing towards preserving the peace of the
County of Middlesex ; and maintained, on the authority of
Blackstone, whose oriinion he quoted, that the Sheriff had a
right to command the soldiers to keep the peace—to follow
them into their bairacks, and more than that to raise the posse
commitatus, and take every soldier into custody in. he barracks,
who had been guilty of a breach of the peace. He might
be told that one of the witnesses, the Reporter to the Morn-
ing Post, thought the Sheriff had endangered the peace. But
the Sheriff was the only judge when the peace was broken,
and that which he did' was done in pursuance of his duty.
He vindicated the importance and respectability of the Com-
mon Council, and then proceeded to argue that all the mea-
sures of Ministers were calculated to introduce a military Go-
vernment. It had been said that the witnesses on one of the
late inquiries were perjured. He would wish to ask the Hon.
Officer who had made that assertion, what means he had of
knowing such to be the fact? He might believe (and he doubted
not he did) that the parties in question had acted the part he
described, but could he take upon himself to say that it actu-
ally was so ? The present case for an inqiiiry was most im-
portant. If a fortress was established, in what he might call
the heart of the metropolis, it was fit that the people should
know whether they might cut their throats or not with im-
punity—(Hear, hear !)—He did not say they would do so,
but it was proper to know if they might be so employed. in-
quiry was now called for—inquiry had been promised on the
part of Ministers, and the pledge which they had given ought
now to be repealed.
Mr. PEEL said the vote he should give, and the view whch
he took of this question, must be regulated by the general pfin-
ciples on which the House had been accustomed to act when
similar propositions came before them. The course he took, he
could assure the Hon. •Alderman, would be quite distinct from
that which a wish to criminate Mr. Waithman might suggest.
Respecting 4 as lie did, the feelings of the Hon. Officer who had
taken part in the debate, he could easily comprehend that anx-
iety for the reputation' of his Regiment would make him desire
that an inquiry should be promptly instituted. But honour-
able as these feelings were to that Honourable Officer, he could
not yield to his wishes in the present call, neither could he ad.
mit, as a good ground for an inquiry,the wish avowed by the Hon.
Bart. near him—that of exposing the Court of Common Council.
The proper course for them to take was, as he conceived, to inquire
had any event occurred—had any document been laid before the
House, or referred to by its 'M embers, that could lay a ground
for their deviating from their usual course, to institute an in-
quiryinto the circumstances of the case to which their attention
had beencalled? That there were allegations of outrages said to
haste:been committed he would admit. These appeared in the
letter written by Mr. Waithman to the Secretary of State, and in
the Petition from the Corporation of the City of London. But
the evidence to which they were referred, ex parte as it was,
proved to him that -these allegations were not founded urfact.—
The inquiry which Earl -.Bathurst had intimated would take
place, had been made. Depositions had been given on oath,
but to these, on the present occasion, he did not mean to refer.
Nor would he raise the technical objection which had been
anticipated, on the ground that the evidence taken before the
Court of Common Council had not been on oath ; but sup-
posing it to have been given on oath, and making no use of the
counter evidence which had been obtained, he would repeat,
that the evidence to which' their attention had been called,
and that alone; carried conviction to his mind, that the alle-
gations of the letter and Petitions were not" founded in fact.—
It was important that it should be understood, he did not mean
to say that no outrage had been committed. But from the evi-
dence, he would say that such outrages as had been described
did not appear to have been committed. They had been re-
ferred to the evidence of Thomas Oliff, and he would direct the
attention of the -House to it again. This person stated that he
was not at Knightsbridge on the day of the funeral, and all that
he knew of it was, that he (the witness), in company with a
friend, had gone on the Monday or the Tuesday after-
wards, he conkl not say which—(A laugh)—into the shop
of a, person of the name of Crabb, and heard a man of the
name of Propeijohn, or his man—(A laugh)—tell Mr. Crabb
that he heard a Corporal• of the Life Guardsmen say,—" D—n
I Alderman Waithman." Why, instead of bringing forward
this person, who did not know whether it was on the Mon-
day or the Tuesday that he went into a shop kept by a man
of the name of Crabb, and heard another man, or that
other man's man, say he had heard a man D—n Alderman
Waithinan—(A laugh.) —why, instead of bringing forward
this person, did they not call Mr. Praperjohn or his man to
prove what had been said ? When such evidence was resorted
to, it might fairly be inferred that they found some difficulty in
getting that sort of testimony which was wanted. He wished
the House to divest themselves of any feeling growing out of
the particular character of the evidence, and to see how far it
supported the allegations which had been advanced. In the
letter of Mr. Waithman he found it stated that a public funeral
had been determined on, and that the funeral was to be per-
formed at Hammersmith. • The House would bear in mind
that this was the funeral of two unfortunate men who
had lost their lives on the occasion of the Queen's funeral.-
- Now, as Mr. Waithman was anxious to preserve the peace,
he eMr. Peel) could not but lament, as the procession
was to- pass to Hammersmith, with which parish neither
of the parties had any connection, that he did not use his
influence over those who conducted it, to make them under-
•stand that the worst thing they could do was to proceed to
Hammersmith by that particular road. He would now proceed
to notice the statements put forth in the letter from Mr. Wraith-
man to Lord Bathurst. The first allegation of importance
was contained in these` words :—" The funeral, in consequence
of these precautions, passed the barracks in an orderly and quiet
manner, marked by no other peculiar circumstance than that
of a' brick being throWn from the barracks, which fell near my
horse, and wounded, as I am informed, a young girl."—
Now before Mr. Waithman gave 'publicity to that statement,
which he had no doubt he believed, before he set forth that a
" wanton act," like this, had been committed, which he must
have known was most likely to inflame the populace, he ought
to have ascertained beyond all doubt that the brick came from
the barracks, and had actually injured a girl. Had the pro-
cession been moving along in a peaceable manner, and been
interrupted in the manner described, such an incident, he ad-
mitted, though it could not have justified, would in some
degree have palliated, the outrage which followed. But when
they looked at the evidence, what proof was there that the brick
bad been thrown from the barracks, or that it had wounded
a " young girl ?"—ln the letter of Mr. Mortimer, what did
they find to confirm it : All that that Gentleman stated on the
subject was this :—" The only provocation given to tumult on
its passage thither was a brick-bat being thrown, as it was
said, from the barracks at Knightsbridge, by the individual
who produced it to you, and who appeared to have been cut by
the same." He said nothing stroner than this, and here it
Would be seen nothing was said of the girl reported to have
been wounded. He, however, found that a woman bad been
wounded by a stone, and it was attempted to show that this
woman and the girl were the same. But the woman was hit
on the return of the funeral from Hammersmith ; she was a
widow, and the injury she received was not from a brickbat
but from a stone. He mentioned this as a specimen of the
manner in which questions had been put to gay' particular
answers. He would now refer to the evidence given by Mrs.
Brooks, the friend of the woman who was wounded. The
House should hear her account of the person who had been sup-
posed to be the young girl. The examination ran thus :
Is she a married woman ?—She is a widow.'
" Was she a small sized woman ?—She is about the size that
I am, rather slight."
This was the person who had been attempted to be passed
off for a.young girl. The unfortunate woman who had been
wounded, and who was in the Hospital on another account,
was then called. The following questions and answers then
occurred :
" Were you at the funeral before the procession went by ?
I was,_ I went by with it.
" Did any thing happen at the time /—Not as the funeral was
going on ; nothing that I could observe, but a soldier shook
his fist at the windows, and one of the men hallooed out some

outrageous words, such as, you coward stay there,' or some-
thing of that kind.
" Be good enough to stare what happened to you, and about
what time. You received a blow ?—Yes, 1 did'; I was cut be-
tween the two shoulders.

" Describe hew it happened ?-1 was going home towards
the Park-gate, and in gong on a lad hallooed out, Take care
ma'am, take care.' I thought I was taking care. I saw no-
thing when the Slow seized me : it threw me as far as from this
to that seat (abut three yards). I did not fall but I felt my-
self in that state that I cannot describe at present. I went into
a gateway, and some female looked at the back of my neck and
saw I was cut,and I went on as fast as I could home.
" It struck rou behind ?—Yes.

" Therefordyou could not see where it came from ? —No.
" Which way was your face ?••Coming up towards Oxford-
street : they did say that the stone came over the barrack wall,
but I did not ice it myself.
" Did you hear the people about you say that at the time ?
Yes. •

" Were yon in that position that it might .come from the
barrack wall '—Yes, it might come from the barrack wall, for
I was not very far from it at the time ; I did not see the stone,
but it must hive been a large one."
This, the Right Hon. Gentleman contended, proved that the
woman who was wounded could not be the girl who was said
to have been struck with a brickbat ; and no proof was afford-
ed of that which was called a wanton act having occurred at
all in the course of the funeral. The next specific statement
in Mr. Waithman's latter that demanded attention was the for.
lowing :—" Several of the soldiers rushed at me with their
swords drawn, and one actually loaded his carbine, and di-
rected it towards me ; but it was, as I have been informed,
knocked davn by one of the constables."—This was an alle-
gation of meat imFortance for if a soldier on duty, or off
duty, had directed a loaded carbine against the Shenff, till it
was knocked down, the moral guilt of such conduct was as
great as if he had fired. But from reading the evidence, and
that, too, on which Mr. Waithman most relied, he came to
this conclusion, that whether the conduct of the man were pro-
per or not, he had no design on the Sheriff's life. He should
have thought the officer who knocked down the carbine, would
have been the best person to prove what was charged. He had
spoken to the conduct of 111 r. Waithman having been most
conciliatory throughout the day, and could have no bias against
the Sheriff) bttt-what said this person ? He stated that he had
seen a man level his piece, that he had knocked it down with
his staff. He went on—
" I then laid hold of him, and said, you villain, has there
not been bloodshed sufficient without your spilling more ?"
The examination proceeded—
" What was your idea of his presenting, was it that he was
singling Gut the Sheriff?"—l cannot say that, I was so irritated
with seeing him with the piece, and the people squalling on
the opposite side ; but he had it in different directions.
" Was it in that position that it appeared to be presented at
Mr. Sheriff Waithman ?—lf I were upon my oath, I could not
state that."

This was the eridence of the man who had knocked the piece
down, and this he thought conclusive, that there had been no
attempt on the Sheriff's life ; and was the further confirmed by
what afterwards fell from the same witness.

" If I wanted to shoot a person directly opposite to me, I
should not elevate my piece ; but this was held up in this man-
ner," (describing it.) Mr. Waithman's letter contained one
other allegation of great importance. It was this :—" When
I desired some of the constables to represent to the Officers, in
the most respectful terms, my desire that the soldiers should
be kept within the barracks, the message returned was, " that
the Sheriff might be d—cf; they would not make their men
prisoners for him." God forbid that he should contend that
such an answer, if returned, was other than most improper,
whoever might send it. But what proof, he would ask, was
there of the fact ? The officer had stated that the message
he had . taken was not by desire of the Sheriff, but was deli-
vered of his men accord, because he saw danger from what
was then going on. The man might possibly exercise a good
discretion in acting such a part, but there was a material diffe-
rence between his carrying a message from the Sheriff and tak-
ing one from himself. These allegations then he contended
were not made out. He passed over those of a more general
character, such as speaking of the soldiers being " left to their
own exasperated feelings" and " manifesting a lawless spirit;"
but when the soldiers were described to have rushed out with
carbines and swords, to commence an attack upon the people,
without distirction of age or sex, he must beg to ask, was
it possible that such an attack could have been made with-
out producing more mischief ? To such a general asser-
tion he would oppose the fact, that but one single case had been
furnished on that day to the Middlesex Hospital. There might
have been one or two more accidents, but only one patient
had been given to the Middlesex Hospital that day, nor was
there any proof that a serious wound had been inflicted
in any instance. He then must contend that no case for inquiry
had been made out., If the affair had been such as they had
heard, it was singular that no action had been brought in any of
the Courts below. When he reflected on this, and remembered
how the military had been attacked—when he recalled the fact,
that at the Barracks 282 windows had been broken, he must say
the soldiers hadacted with great forbearance. He must add, that
as Mr. Waithman stated an adequate force to have been in at-
tendance to preserve the peace, it was a most remarkable fact that
not a single rioter had been taken. Not wishing to accuse Mr.
Waithman of misrepresentation, or to criminate him in any way,
he thought that he had taken a more active part than was pre-
scribed to him by his duty, and considered the speech which
he had addressed to the crowd, calling on them not to hiss,
as the soldiers would be more annoyed by their remaining
quiet, was well calculated to increase the popular feeling, be-
fore sufficiently inflamed against the military. He re-
gretted the violences that had occurred, but when he remem-
bered that the soldiers had heard tne cry of murder, and had
seen two of their companions overpowered, he 'was not sur-
prised that under the 'impression that their comrades were
about to be murdered, they had rushed to their rescue
provided with such arms as they could find ; and that with-
out having all that regard for the public peace that might be
desirable. Considering these things, and bearing in mind the
fact that one Life Guardsman had been struck by the Sheriff,
without being provoked to any act of violence, he must come
to the honest and conscientious conclusion, from that very evi-
dence on which the petition was founded, that the soldiers had
acted with as much forbearance as could be expected ; and
he therefore saw no grounds for acceding to the present motion.
Mr. DENMAN contended the evidence had been tnost un-
fairly dealt with, defended the conduct of Mr. Waithman, and
insisted on the propriety of going into the inquiry proposed by
the present motion. He was of opinion that it was by no means
proved that the female known to have, been wounded, was not
the same that had been described to have been struck with a
brick. The Right Hon. Secretary had was no neetof
that the brick had been thrown from the barracks ; but it he
turneA to pag 54, he would find in the evidence given by Charles
Cootes it was stated—" 1 saw a brick thrown from behind the
barrack wall on that day. Just at the head of the procession,
it went in amongst some females close against a lamp post ;
the brick was picked up and shown to Mr. Sheriff Waithman.
I can't say whether it hurt any body, there was such a quan-
tity of people by at the time, but I heard afterwards that it
did hurt a person. I saw the person throw it ; he was in his shirt
sleeves." He would ask whether Lord Bathurst, with all his de-
positions, had ordered the prosecution of any of the individuals
concerned in the alleged riot ?—a riot which was described to be
of such a nature as to render it necessary for the soldierS to
come out of the barracks to defend the life of the trumpeter who
had been attacked. The fact was, that only one person had been
tried at the Quarter Sessions upon a charge arising out of the
occurrence of that day, and he was acquitted. Mr. Sheriff
Waithman had endeavoured to obtain investigation, and he,
hid been rebuked for not preventing the, riotous conduct of the
people, when it turned out that he had left the place before
those riots occurred. He was rebuked because he only did his
tually did save the effusion of blood ; that he saved the duty; and he (Mr. Denman) had tio doubt that the Sheriff
Offi-
cersac-
and the gallant soldiers from the painful feeling of having
shed the blood of their countrymen, which feeling must be to
them most afflicting, whether they had done so in the ne-
cessary discharge of their duty, or from the irritation of the
moment. Of a similar character with the treatment of the
Sheriff had been that of his Gallant Friend near him (Sir
Robert Wilson) and the late Chief Magistrate, Sir R. Baker.
The latter public officer did not attend the Queen's funeral.
as a mere undertaker's man, but in the exercise of due autho-
rity, for the preserVation of the public peace. He thought
that peace could only be kept by changing the route of the pro
cession ; and with that object in view, he was fully justified
in changing it.. The Hon. and Learned Member then alluded
to the notorious Manchester proceedings, and contrasted the
conduct of Government on the two occasions. Here, he said,
a Magistrate had been removed from his office, and the Sheriff'
rebuked for doing their duty, while in the other case the
Magistrates had been thanked for slaughtering the people.
He was sorry to hear the proceedings of Coroners' Liquests re-
flected upon as they had been. It was one of the most neces-
sary and valuable institutions of the country ; and if the pro-
ceedings of their own Committees were reported with such
searching accuracy, they would sometimes stand much in the
same light. It was not justifiable to stigmatize the evidence
as perjured, because a Noble Lord opposite had stated, upon
his own ascertained knowledge, that ten persons were ready
to swear that he shot the man who was killed. The Hon. and.
Learned Member concluded by saying, that respect for the,
Constitution and Laws, and justice to the people, demanded
that the House should go into the inquiry.
Mr. PEEL explained. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had stated, that he admitted the conciliatory conduct of Mr.
the
eSvihedrienffclei.w'aiiithchmilanir..
sNheriowff,
lwvhaaitht
mheansahiadd
wbraosu'gthaht ftourwPain, it

►me-

bout
be-

'ards
care
no-
this
my-
into
and

ford-
wall,

1 the
for
tone,

there

.:. was
tated
1g on

ed at
d not

piece
:n no
by

ssage
deli..

tleman
:f
,on the
rani, it

did apion pea
ofr that
own. this conduct was conciliator. He expressed no
°pin his
Mr. DENMAN understood that the Right Hon. Gentleman
, had founded all his opinions upon the evidence.—(Hear !)
Mr. PEEL.--" My arguments."—(Hear, hear !)
An Hose MENBER, whose name could not be learnt, spoke
a few words in favour of the motion,
Mr. G. BANKES said, thatas the Hon. and Learned Mere-
ber (Mr. Denman) had asserted that the Sheriff's attendance
11pOn the inquest did not affect the question of his conduct at
Ithightsbridge,he was anxious to state his reasons for dissent-
ing from that proposition. He would say that Mr. Sheriff
Waithman's having been for six days the public prosecutor of
li
a particular body, namely, the Life Guards, he was not a very kely person to keep. the peace betwixt them and the people
upon the occasion in question.—(Hear, hear !)—The Hon.
Member for Westminster had quoted Mr. Justice Blackstone
in support of his argument, but he was surprised that he did
not go to a part which bore directly upon the case at issue.
He could not pledge himself to the words, but in the sense lie
was correct in stating that it would be found in that authority,
that it was determined in the great Charter of our Liber-
ties that no Sheriff should hold fees of the Crown. In
other words, that he should not interfere in criminal mat-
ters.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—lf then a fortiori he could not
appear in criminal, matters, a fortiori he could not appear
as a public prosecutor. That he was at the Inquest in that ca-
pacity might be drawn from his own confession. He said in
answer to the questions put to him by the Counsel,, that he ap-
Peered there on the part of the relatives of the man who had
been slaughtered, and consequently to endeavour to prove
Who was the murderer. In referring to the evidence of the
Proceedings of the inquest as given in the Times, he found in
one place where Mr. Sheriff Waithman had given a flat
contradictior, to the Coroner, which he frequently did,
about what a witness had said, the question was repeated,
and the Coroner's impression was found tb -be correct;
whereupon Mr. Waithman remarked, " the witness is swear-
ing to a. negative." One of the Jury immediately inter-
• fered and observed, that the witnesses ought to be pro-
tected from such reflections. It was said that
elr. Waithman
attended at Knightsbridge in the discharge of a duty which he
tiould trotavoid. But was it not a fact that only a fortnight
before, he had attended another procession where outrages
Were committed, without moving from his carriage, or inter-
fering in any way whatever, while the procession was turned
inteethe very heart of the city of which he was Sheriff; in de-
fiance of the constituted authorities; He did not, therefore, go
to Knightsbridge with the view to discharge what he thought
to- be an imperative duty, or he neglected to perform that
dutrupon the antecedent occasion. He believed that if.he had
asked any man in the kingdom whether he was likely to pre-
Jerye the peace by going to Knightsbridge, he would have been
told that that was the last possible consequence which his pre-
aence svpuld have been likely to have.—(Cheers.)—The Hon.
Member concluded by stating, that he could not refrain from
ing to express his abhorrence at a nigh Public Officer acting
wiMproperly and so illegally in the performance of his duty.—
(Cheers.)
Me. G. BENNETT contended that Mr. Sheriff Waithman
(lid not disqualify himself from attending the funeral of these
tileneby having previously taken a part in the proceedings of
the Inquest. He acted in the discharge of an imperious duty in
attending to preserve the peace. The means of most ef-
fectually doing , that lay with his Majesty's Govern-
Went-. They ought to have marched the troops out of the
t:°Nvn on that clay.—(A laugh.)—He contended that every
tittle of Mr.lVaithman's letter was borne out by the evidence.
Ile pointed to that of Mr. John Tyas, whom he highly corn-
Plimented upon his account of the Manchester transactions. The
Honourable Member then described what he considered to
be the occupation of Reporters, and argued that the value of
their- testimony was augmented thereby. Mr. Tyas's evidence
although not.condusive upon the front of the carbine having
beenpresented at the Sheriff, was sufficiently strong, backed
asit wai by six or eight other witnesses, to support Mr. Waith-
kan's statement, and to call for inquiry in that House. The
lion. Member declared his admiration and respect for the Life
Gear* to be as great as that of any person ; and it was in
justice to them as well as to the people that the motion ought
to-be agreed to.
Mr. .W. LAMB said, he was aware that any gentleman
who ventured •to affirm in his place in that House that
there were persons in the country who were desirous of pro-
moting disturbances, and inciting the people to break the
peace, exposed himself to rebuke as a libeller of the people
of England. But what possible motive, he would ask,
could have led to the determination of conveying the bodies
of these two unfortunate persons, with the pomp and tumult
of a public procession, to Hammersmith for interment ?
By whom was the expense of such a proceeding defrayed, for
without expence it could note be conducted ? And what could
it have been-the inducement to embark in such a project, unless
wag to invite an attack from the soldiery, who were supposed,
lane temper of the time, to be too readyeto engage m such an
or to risk the chance of a movement on the part of the ir-
riseh
ta
populace against the military, in order that persons of
t
!sch a description as he had alluded to might take advantage of
thoile disorder consequent upon such an occurrence to promote
se ends which they imagined likely to be best advanced by
anarchy and confusion ?—(Hear, hear !)—Notwithstanding the
Observation of the Hon. Member for IVestminster, he would
affirm that the persons engaged in the riotous proceedings at
Knightsbridge, were not those who could, in the correct accep-
tation of the term, be properly called the people of England.—
(Rear !)—He happened to see the vast concourse of persons who
attended that funeral • and he was sure, from his own observe
twins, that the greath'ody of the people assembled on that occa-
sion were most quietly and peaceably disposed, and, in their
teaPective situations in life, highly respectable in character ; but he saw that they were also attended in their progress by a
great mob of persons of that description,who, from warmth of tern-
Per, or worse motives,were always ready to take advantage ofevery.
Pretext thatoffered for creatinghot anddisturbance, and by no in-
considerable number of those who are found to seek an advan-
tage in the confusion that ensues from every violent movement
°fa/nob in this metropolis.—(Hear, hear !)--And he must
saY, that unless breaches of the peace in the metropolis, oc-
casioned for the most part by the conduct of such mis-
efeants, were firmly resisted out of doors, and scouted in that
IlouseL(Hear, hear !)—if they were to be called acts of the
People, and protected by that feeling of constitutional respect
which he trusted would ever be entertained in that House to-
wards the people of England, properly so called, it would be
the to prevent outrage, riot, and bloodshed, either from
e violence of the people, or the resistance of the military.—
(Chem.)
a Mr. HOBHOUSE explained, that when he spoke of justice
ing done to the people, he meant the people at large, as
fepresented by the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH said, that the conduct of the sol-
vers was above all praise, and that they really acted in de-
ence of their lives.' That Mr. Sheriff Waithman he consi-
dered to be highly criminal, as connected with the whole pro-
It%dings in his official capacity. To prove that he did not
tend the funeral of d the Queen as a private individual, as
that Gentleman wrote to the Under-Sheriff. It ran as fol-
irse--"Sir,—Altheugh I cannot attend the funeral of her
~,niestT in a corporate capacity, I mean to attend as Sheriff
t.l the county, and shall be at. Hyde Park-corner at half-past
een o'clock to-morrow morning." This letter did not reach
Tr. Sheriff Williams until half-past nine in the morning of
Tit funeral ; for although it was sent the night before, yet
Z'r. Waithruan, knowing that Mr. Williams went to his
,lintry-honse in the evening, was aware that he would not
eeive it until the next day, unless a special messenger were
'tit With it. He opposed the motion.
Mr. HUME said that the Honourable Member for'Dover
~qd opposed the motion for an inquiry, and then attacked the
!I-sons who were concerned in the transactions. This was
irect insult to religion. If there ever was such a degree
hypocrisy
gas for men to have religion in their -mouths, and
thing but Christian charity in their hearts this was an
eance of it.—(Hear, hear ! ftoni some of th'e "Opposition
e'fiches.)—lie contended that Mr. Sheriff Waithmate was at
',Oc funeral of her Majesty as a private individual. He cared
tiet see the letter which the Honourable Gentleman pro-
hiked, he stood upon the fact.---(Loud laughter.)—lt was the
; eh°Pie of England and not the Corporation of London alone,
° demanded the present inquiry. The appeal which the
Z°Pourable Member for Dover had made was neither found-
,' 111 fairness nor injustice, and he could only attribute it
'1 the motive.=
he'rtie SPEAKER here called the Hon. Member to orderes-
proceeded with some remarks which were inaudible, and
wt again addressed by the Chair to order.
!dr. HUME concluded by supporting the motion.
Mr. C. SMITH said a few words in favour of the motion.
Mr. Alderman WOOD replied, and the House divided.
For the Motion. 56
Against it..
184
Majority.
—l2B
SALLX.
NtIier.CALCRAFT, rose to bring forward the question of
I,_c: he had given notice • a question of the greatest impor-
li, ; vire in which he he'd long felt an interest, and which
t r had taken much to heart, and one which was calculated
liebduce the most beneficial effects to a large portion, in-
b!"l be might say to the whole, of the community. It would
‘.
ctl
7iie.the recoliection of the House, that in the year 1816,
this question first engaged his attention, lie moved for
!;,?Minittee on the laws relating to the Salt Duties, wh;ch
;47.tion he lost by a very small majority—a majority of only 9;
e_clretimstance of rare and extraordinary occurrence or any
orioposition proceeding from the place in which he stood (the
in those iytei oanr 1
8
1
eB,of a
the kivuse). On a renewal of his motion
Committee was granted without coming to

the question at all. That Committee, which was not one of
his own selection, but what was considered a fair Committee,
selected from all parts of the House, leaving a bare majority
with the Ministers, had agre,Fd; to four Resolutions, of which
be would take the liberty-of ' reading,one, on which the
motion with which he 'was about to -conclude would be
founded :7- • = . -• . •'
" Resolved--That it is-the opinion of this Continittee,-that
the repeal of the' Salt. Duties Would be. pioductive of the
greatest and most importapt, advantiges tip All descriptions of
persons in this kingdom; and that-the present state of the
income and expenditure of the United Kingdom alone pre-
vents your Committee- froM instructing their Chairman to
move for leave to bring in a Bill for such total repeal."
This Resolution that Committee, after two months of perse-
vering and diligent inquiry, came to_; he did not recollect
whether on a division or unanimously. On the Ist of June,
1818; that Resolution.; with three others, were reported to
the House. Thoseresolutions having been so long standing
'on the Journals of the -House, it became him to explain the
reasons which had induced- him to refrain from moving the
total repeal of the tax, a motion to that effect having been
so recommended by the Committee. He was exceedingly
pressed to do so in 1811, by many of his friends who were on
the Committee, and by many other Gentlemen whose support
he hoped to have that night. But, be stated to them that
he did not think the conditiOn of the country and the
state of its income and finances were such as would warrant
him in moving for the repeat of those duties at that time.
The same opinion governed his Conduct-in this respect in
1820 and in 1821 ; and it was not until 1822 that he saw the
country so improved in its financial 'resources, as to make it
perfectly consistent with the view which he had always taken
of the subject, that be should come forward with a notice of
this motion. The motion with which lie should conclude
would be for leave to bring in a Bill for the gradual reduc-
tion of the duties on salt. He begged the House to remark,
that he proposed that the reduction should be gradual. As
the House had been pleased -to sanction the adoption of a
Sinking Fund of 5,000,0001. in.which be entirely concurred,
he thought it incumbent on him not to interfere with that
decision by any vote or motion which' be had to make.- 'l and
on tbat account, thinking that a total abolition of these tuties
might interfere with that Resolution, be should abstain from
proposing it. If a gradual reduction of the duties, which
amounted to 15s. a bushel, at the rate of ss. a year, were
agreed on until the whole were reduced, he thought that
would he as gradual as any of those who agreed with
him and the Committee in opinion, as to the obnoxious
nature and weight of the taxi- could expect. This tax,
like a great many others, began at 'first as a merely tem-
porary tax in the reign of William and Mary, at-the rate
of three-pence per gallon. Soon afterlards it was doubled
and in the reign of George 11. was made perpetual, and
raised to eight-pence per gallon, or ss. per bushel. IL was
not until the 38th George 111. that it was raised to 10s. a
bushel; and in the 45th year of the same reign it was raised
to its present amount of 15s. a bushel, on a raw material, the
produce of this country, which mixed itself up with all the
necessaries of life, and with all the articles of daily consump-
tion of every man in the country, and operated as a poll-tax
on every individual. Every person at all conversant with the
subject knew that the poorest day-labourer in Isis daily
consumption used as much of this article as any rich' man
could. Thus did this tax--a tax upon raw material, which
could only be justified by the strongest and most overwhelm-
ing necessity, press in a•MOst unequal 'proportion On the
poor man. No man in the country , could be found to say
that this tax affected him ilta lower degree than the.rate of
255. a year; and when they looked at the price of labour—
of agricultural lahouriti particular—they would see what an
immense proportion of the earnings of the poor man this tax
drew out of his pocket. -The article was also rendered-, by the
operation of this tax, to the country where it was produced
in great plenty, a curse rather than a blessing. For from
the temptations which it held out- to persons in the neigh-
bourhood to engage in smuggling, he did maintain, and the
testimony of the late Mr. Burton, who had been many years
Chief Justice of that district,, and Sir John Stanley, the
Chairmanjof the Quarter Sessions, with that of several other
good authorities, bore bins oust in the opinjon, that it Was
rendered one of the greatest sources of crime, and immo-
rality in the county of Chester, where it ought to have been
considered as one of I he. greatest blessings. that Providence
could bestow upon it: It might, perhaps, be said, that under
so strong a conviction as he expressed of the advantages to
be derived from the reduction of the tax, he ought to move
for its totalirepeal ; but lie contended that he ought not to do
so, according to the -principle of the resolutions of the Com-
mittee. He knew, besides, that there were large capitals
engaged in the trade in this commodity, and he was cone-
dent that if he could carry the immediate repeal of the whole
tax, it would be productive of extensive loss, and great detri-,
ment to the persons engaged in t lie trade. One of the great
inconveniences of burdensome taxation was, that it drove the
trade into a monopoly, and that was the case with the salt
trade. Many houses its that trade- Ise knew who paid front
100;0001. to 200,0001, for duty; therefore, in a trade so shack-
led, he did not think it would he proper to interfere violent-
ly or abruptly. If his proposition was acceded to, it would
undoubtedly reduce the revenue 500,0001. Now, by the Reso-
lution of the House, (in the propriety of which he agreed,)
there was to be a sinking fund of fire millions. At present
there was 5,200,0001. Surplus revenue, and though he was
sanguine as to the increase which might be made to that sur-
plus by reductions and economy; yet, taking it as it stood at
- present, in the first instance it would reduce the sinking fund
to 4,700,0001. ; and he should like to know from any finan-
cier in that House, whether that could be considered incon-
venient or injurious to public credit. Certainly he would
have it understood, that future savings should go to make
up the sinking fund to 5,000,0001. If he understood the
Noble Lord correctly, it was his intention to snake annually
a reduction from the taxation ; this, therefore, would be
merely an anticipation of that ,proposition of the Noble
Lord, and' would, he was pertuaded, increase the general
prosperity in a far greater degree than' it would. impoverish
either the sinking fund or the revenue. -He had given but a
stunt notice of this question, and why? because humble as
the individual was who made it, if it should remain in sus-
pense, it would be a great inconvenience to trade and a
great loss to the revenue. Among other evils this tax had
entirely driven the trade of salting provisions from this
country to others, where salt was either smuggled or was
otherwise to be cheaply obtained. If he would halm post-
poned Isis motion, then be was sure the table would
have,been covered with petitions in fat-oar of a repeal of,
the tax. When he brought forward this subject in 1817, it
was said by the Hon. Gentleman opposite that he overstated
the advantages resulting from this measuve. The thing had
been tried : fur in 1729 Sir Robert Walpole, took off the tax,
and in 1732 it was again put on, because of the small relief
obtained from its repeal. But the reason why Sir Robert
Walpole renewed this tax was, that he was contemplating his
excise sclteme-at that time, and lie thought on the renewal
of an old tax it might more easily be placed under that sys-
tem than a new tax. He mentioned this, lest the objection
should be again revived. The Hon. Member then referred
to the opinion of Mr. Burton, in 1769, in which he made it
a ground of congratulations, on comparing the labourers of
England and France, that the former ate their salt at 2d. a
pound, whilst the latter paid sd. That acute writer knew
that this article, though apparently trivial, pervaded every
necessary of life ; and he thought it matter of boast that this
country should be so lightly taxed on so important an article,
in comparison of the Gabel& of France. Yet at this time we
were paying a heavier tax than that imposed by the then arbi.
trary Government of France. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving " for leave to bring in a Bill for 'gradually repeal-
ing the Duty upon Salt."
Mr. DAVENPORT seconded the motion. He concurred
in all the observations of the Honourable Mover, and thought
that he would receive the thanks of the farmer and the bless-
ings of the poor for his'endeavours to get this Tax removed.
He thought it was a Tax which could never have been con-
templated but by a narrow-minded Statesman ; and as to its
effect upon the morals of the people, he could speak with
confidence from his own observation. It offered a tempta-
tion to perjury, to petty theft, and to those other crimes
which led on to the greatest; and he was so convinced of its
mischievous consequences, that he sincerely hoped he should
see the day when it should be entirely abolished.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
but justice to the 'Honourable Mover to admit that lie had
brought the question forward in the most candid manner.
It certainly was desirable to dispose of it as early as possible,
inasmuch as its suspension might prove highly inconvenient
to the Salt. Trade. He differed in all the conclusions which
had been drawn by the Honourable Member; and after
what Parliament bad already done to reduce taxation, and
after it had pledged itself to maintain the Sinking Fund, he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) called upon the House to
resist any further encroachments upon the revenue. The
Honourable Mover had contended that the repeal of this
tax could not materially affect the Sinking Fund ; but by
Sinking Fund, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) meant
a clear excess of revenue, and hot something made up by an
addition to the UnfundedDebt.—(Hear, bear!)-Parliament
had already gone to the greatest possible extent in the
way of reduction. The atnount of the repeal on the
English and Irish Malt Tax would be little less' than
1,400,0001.; and to meet this sum, the saving in paying
off the Five per Cents, would he scarcely sufficient.—
Even if a further reduction could be made, ha was by
no means prepared to say that the present would be the
most, proper tax to repeal. The choice of the tax, when
a further reduction could be made, must depend entirely
upon circumstances; but, at all events, he did not agree
in the polity of a gradual repeal; for tie salt trade would be

as much stagnated and contracted !.-4 a partial as by a total
repeal ; and he should not at any time approve.of the con-
demnation of the tax by p gradual repeal of it. He should
prefer •giving up", the tax at once. The 'Hon. Member had
compared it tna Poll Tax. Assuming, for the sake of argti-
ment.(though he by no means -admiited the fact) that the
poor man paid. as much as the rich man, the amount stated
by. the Hon. Aleinher was greatly exaggerated. .If each pet-
SOP paid so much as 255. a year, the tax ivotild:prodttee not
less. than 14 millions. a year. He: (the Chancellor.of the Ex-
'cheqtier) believed it might amount .to about 2s. a head per,
annum, but-certainly not any more; The Hon. Member had
referred to•Alr. Burke's Pamphlet. bat it was well known that
in 'France the objection to the Gabelle- was not so much to its
amount as to
,the oppressive regulations by. which .it was
exacted. The Hon. Member had also referred to the time of
Walpole, to skew that the tax was repealed, to promote an
Excise scheme of Sir It. 'Walpole. .Why•then bad not
_Sir.
Robert Walpole, on the revival of the tax, placed it under
Excise management ? It was not brought'under the Excise
until nearly 60 years afterwards. Rut he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) resisted the motion upon general grounds;
upon the Resolutions which the Muse had adopted this Ses-
sion, and which could not he departed from consistently with
public honour or public interest. He should, therefore,
move the previous question. . •
Lord NORMANBY supported the original motion. Sir
Robert Walpole had moved the renewal of the tax, as a relief
to the landed interest, in lieu of Is. in the pound on the Land
Tax. He (Lord N.) considered taxation as the principal cause
of our present distress. He was aware of the decision of the
House 'this Session with respect to the Sinking Fund. He
lamented that decision; and he hoped the House also would
not have cause to lament it.

Mr. EGERTON spoke in favour of the original motion, but
in a tone of voice scarcely audible. He considered the tax as
a grievous tax; and as one affecting rents to the amount of
10 per cent. The relief afforded to the agriculturists would,
be thought, bear no comparison with the taxes upon agricul-
ture;- The reduction of the Malt Tax would amount to little
more than a million, while. the taxes affecting agriculture
amounted to fifty millioos. He_ trusted the country gentle-
men would compel the Ministers to afford a-more effectual
'relief to agriculture byreducing taxation.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN agreed that the tax operated as an in-
centive to crime. Some time ago, he wished to export a quan-
tity of salt from Liverpool ; and the men whom he employed
stole a considerable-quantity, by occasionally concealing it in
their breeclies.—(A latigh).
Dr. PHILLIMORE concurred in opinion with the Hon.
Mover, that the tax pressed heavily upon the lower orders,
and caused considerable injury to the Fisheries. It was on.
ly on account of
,the then state of the expenditure that the
Committee alluded to had forborne calling fur a repeal of the
tax at that period. Ica 1819 he (the Doctor) had submitted
to the House a Resolution upon the subject, to which the
House did not agree. Had that Resolution been assented to
by the House, he had no doubt the tax would, ere this, have.
been abolished. He preferred a total to a gradual repeal;;
but the present question was, when the repeal could take
place. As the House_ had agreed to maintain the SiPliiitg •
Fund, he could not vote for the repeal at present. He
thought it would be more advisable to abstain a little; and he
confidently trusted that the abolition. would not he opposed
next year. For the reason he bad given be could not support
the motion of the Hon. Member, but he declared himself an
enemy to the principle of the tax.

, Mr. CURWEN said his Hon. Friend,f,when speaking of the
effect of the tax, had intended to say, that every family paid
255. a year, and
.not every individual. This tax, in his opi-
nion, bore most heavily upon the bembler-classes, and took
away. 1-84th of a man's wages, while it did not take away
more than loOOdth of the income of a rich man. Hp was saT
tisfied the tax might be repealed without affecting the Sink-
ing Fund, as Ministers, if compelled', would retretich'to meet
the reduction in the revenue. It was impossible, he thought,
`for the country to go on in its present situation. He trusted
that Parliament, by reducing taxation, would enable the far-
mer to supply corn at moderate prices. The partial repeal of
the Malt Tax would be thought to he productive of little or
no good; and it certainly would not make one farthing diffe-
rence in the price of a pot of porter. The taking' off the Pre-
sent tax was to be preferred to the repeal of that mien Malt.
Salt was used to improve land, and was highly necessary for
the encouragement ,of our fisheries ; but he feared the re-
luctance of Ministers to give it rip arose in .a great measure
from the circumstance of its being a source of considerable
patronage.
Mr. JOHN SMITH agreed that the Repeal of this Tax was
more desirable than that of the Malt Tax ; though in gene-
ral he doubted whether much practical relief could be ob-
tained under our present difficulties by the reduction of taxes.,
He should, however, support the original Motion ; because
salt was in such general consumption among the poor. The
tax met them at every step. It had not un frequently happened
that pigs which he had offered to poor persons had been re-
fused-because they could not purchase the salt wherewith to
cure them. He thought that Ministers, supported as they
were by a powerful majority, were too apt to despise thegeneral
opinion of the country; but he assured them they were un-
wise in doing so, and that the present was an opportunity
(of which they might well avail themselves,) to obtain deserved
popularity by consenting to the proposed repeal.
Mr. HENDLEY opposed the motion. He thought the tax
could not be repealed without injury to public credit. With
respect to the agricultural distresses of the country, lie felt
confident that the only cause of them was an excess of produce.
General GASCOYNE complained that false hopes had been
held out with respect to the salt tax. 'lt had always been dt?-
scribed as a tax which was not to be permanent, and the
constant argument had been that the time had not arrived
for repealing it. He heard with no small degree of surprise
an Hon. and learned Member, who had formerly been of
opinion that the tax ought to be repealed, support it on the
present occasion. The reduction of one shilling on the malt
tax was not beneficial t 6 the farmer, Nothing 'would give so
much relief in taxation as taking off the tax on salt. There
was no man more desirous of giving relief to the landed in-
terest than hieriself. Any relaiation of duties paid by the
farmer was acceptable at this time, but he contidered the
reduction of the- Malt Tax no relief at all. The brewer re-
ceived little advantage, and the public could nut expect a
difference of a halfpenny in the.pot of beer. To the motion
he gave his steady support.

Sir F. OMNIANNEY supported the motion. He wished to
see the poor man able to salt his pigs, which in many in-
stances could not be done.—(Latighter.)--He came into that
House as the representative of a poor sort of people. His
care was to uphold the poor, and he should support them in
spite of all derision. Those who considered him capable of
deserting the poor did not know his character. He did not
approve of the reduction of the Five per Cents., because it
would occasion distress among certain individuals. The
greater part of the money from the Five per Cents. would go
into foreign stock, and they Would never see it'again. They
would not have enough left to buy salt.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT rose to protest against the doctrine of
the Right 'Honourable Gentleman He stood forward the
advocate not only of the agricultural interest, hut the inte-
rest of the community. Whatever might be the present state
of the finances. it was plain to common understanding that
agriculture could not be kept up. if something was not
dune, it must soon be relinquished. The 'result of all the
inquiry he had made on the subject was this :—The ploughed
lands of England not only failed to produce the amount of
rent, "but they could not be kept in cultivation.
consi-
dered the reduction of the Malt Tax an insult offered the
public. It would afford no relief. Having heard that the
Country Gentlemen would do all in their power to ame-
liorate the distresses of the country, lie called upon them
to come forward, if they did not wish to see the land of their
forefathers uncultivated. He called upon them to come for-.
ward and oblige his Majesty's Ministers to take off the taxes.
If they did not, Ministers would be obliged at last to do
that which the people of England had a right, not to ask, but
demand.
Mr. LYI'TLETON considered it his duty to oppose the mo-
tion. He was ready to admit there was not a tax which fell
heavier on the farmer than the tax on Salt. All the dairy
farmers w;!re deeply affected by -it, but, unfortunately, ob-
noxious as the tax was, it could not be repealed without giv-
ing up the Sinking Fund. Upon an honest consideration of
the advantages the Sinkin Funtlafforded for supporting the
credit of the country, lie could not consent to abandon it.—
The preservation of that fund made it impossible for him to
support the motion.

Mr, BRIGHT agreed with these Hon. Gentlemen who ar-
gued that the Sinking Fnnd could not be touched; but he
had come to a conclusion that the Chancellor of the 'Exche-
quer had over-rated the amount of the Sinking Fund. He
found that the Sinking Fund, on R former occasion, had not
been so great as the present Fund; and that it was sufficient
to support the credit 'of the country. If that was so, a deduc-
tion might be made ; 300,0001. might be struck off without
inconvenience. Many deductions in the estimates of the
public service might also be made to supply the deduction.
The country Gentlemen, by repealing the Salt Tax, would
essentially serve their constituents.
Alderman HEYGATE opposed the motion, on the ground
that a repeal of the tax would prevent that support they
were bound to give to public credit. He congratulated the
House on the sincere efforts which bad been made to reduce
taxation.

Mr. GIPPS snid he should rote for the repeal of the tax.
Mr. C. BURRELL said relief from thr Salt Tax would be
more beneficial thin the reduction of the Malt Tax.
Mr. BENNETr(of Wilts) considered the Salt Tax ob-

noxious and oppressive, and he called on the country Gentle-
men to repeal it. •
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose, to, state shortly
• •
' the grounds of his opinion. He did not wish to disguise that
it would afford him great satisfaction to say, they had arrived
at the period when, consistent with "the discharge of their
. public day, his .Majesty's Ministers could recommend 'the re-
peat Of the Salt Duty. The Hon: Member for Nottingham
had mode: an appeal to the House, in-. Order to prove how
popular the Kin's Ministers might be, if they repealed this
,tax.; but the Noble:Marquis held that Ministers 'would be
unworthy the confidence of the country; if they were to sacri-
fice the larger. nterest or the nation to popularity. The Hon.
Member for Wareham had stated, that he was nut askingthe
House to rescind the Vote they gave on 'a
for Mer night, but to
recommend them to rescind, In point of policy, what they had
r:lone in the Committee. The first question was, whether the
House were satisfied that the repeal of the tax in question
would injurr the income of the country. On this point the
Noble Marquis was prepared 'to ••'trove the repeal would be
injurious to the hest interests of the country. Could the tax
be repealed at a OtoMent When all classes were looking to the
consistency of Parliament,. which alone could support the mea-
sure then pending in the Money market ? The Member fur
Wareham, who is agreat tact iciap, had recommended the repeal
of the tax in three years, by proposed gradations of 500,0001.
The Noble Marquis did not- understand the financial ground
upon which the Hon. Member acted, but if it was advisable vo
repeal the tax, the progressive payments proposed-by the
Hon. Gentleman were certainly objectionable. He then came
to amore general view of the bearing of this question, amid
contended that without information of what Parliament had
done, they could not repeal the tax.' A compliance with the
motion would lay prostrate the credit of .the country. If
Gentlemen were sincere in the opinions they expressed on
Friday night, with reference to the Sinking Fund, they would
not become allies of the common enemy, whose object was to
get a repeal of all taxes. If the Salt Tax were repealed, the
Hon. Member would come forward with his Leather Tax.
After what passed the. other night, it was impossible they
could repeal the salt Tax. The Noble Marquis. then adverted
to the retrenchments Made by the Goiernment, and the pros-
pect,of still 'greater savings. If, upon an investigation, a'
surplus remained, then he would allow the House to discuss
the propriety of repealing the tax.- If public faith' would
allow the repeal, due attention would be paid to the sobject.
The House at that time would run thli risk of losing confi-
dence in Parliament, and perhaps destroythe advantage to be.
derived from the rethiction Of the Five per Centi. if they suf-
fered themselves to appear'yegardless.uf :public credit and
their own opinions. It was impossible they could rescind the
pledge they had given not to interfere With the Sinking Fund-.
•Sir T. LETHBRIDGE considered it his duty to speak
plainly to Ministers. • He felt 'that the landed interest was
likely to be sacrificed to the National Debt, and he called 'on
the country gentlemen to come forward at- this paiticular
period in stipport of theirown interest ; if they did not they
would turn their backi on. themSelres..--(A langh.)—They
had biiconfidence on. their general: policy, and he believed
in that they had the support of the legitimate people of
England. He .knew well that men •of their 'great. minds'
could not long continue to pursue any course not meeting the
• concurrence of the landed interest. Had he caught the
Speaker's eye sooner, lie should have proposed an Amend'•
ment, that the words " total and immediate" be substituted
for graduated. He hoped the repeal of the tax, would be car.
tied; but he hoped it would not end there. He was-bound to
report the sentiments of the people oflingland who sent him
there, and in doing so, he was bound to say his Majesty's
nisters must reduce more. taxes.—(Hear, bear!)
Mr. J. MARTIN followed up the observations of the last
Member, and maintained -that a reduction of the Civil List
expenditure ought to he effected. .
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that irtheMotiOn bad been to
reduce five millions of taxes, instead of the-motion before the
House, he would have voted (dr it. The Representatives of
the landed interest • in, that House would do their duty and
oblige further reduction. They Would do it uninfluenced,
and unawed ; and be.zubst here say, that if they did enforce a
remission of taxes, to the extent.of. five millions, he did not
believe the Sinking Fund watild be touched. ' He' was Con,
vinced other means, in allusion to the Pension and other
Lists, would be found to corer the loss of them.
Mr. T. %VILSON said, he thought the principle of the
motion good, but that the motion itself was far from Wise Ot
that moment. •
Mr. BROUGHAM could not help remarking on the ex-
traordinary course of the debate. •If any person had heard
all the language of every speaker that night, with the excep-
tion of the Noble Marquis, 'and 'not: heard-the coneltision of
each speech, he would think
.that a more harmonious as-

sembly never got together -to discuss any question. Every
• one agreed with his Honourable Friend in deprecating the.
principle of the tax, and even agreed in the propriety of re-
pealing it, only one party were for doing' it now, and the
other at a future period. But this he would venture to say,
that if they did:not carry the motion that night, :they'would
hear no more of repealing the odious tax than they would
hear of retrenchment; and they never. would -see any thing
of retrenchment if, they did not oblige it tube effected by
repeating this and 'Other taxes. Reduce the Ways and Means
of Ministers, and they will. soon- see a reduction of expendi-
tfire.--(Hear, hear!)—He begged the House to look at the
tactics of the Noble Marquis opposite, in beguiling the House
in an unwary moment into the Resolution on the occasion of
the motion of the Honourable Menther(Ltird Althorp.)' He
now turned round upon those ..who voted for the Resolution
of that night; and told theistthey were bound hand and foot
by that vote never to vote for the repeal of any tax. till there
-wits another surplus of revenue to the extent of five millions.
This was a specimen of his :Lordship's Parliamentary tactics,
and he`entteated the Hinise to force the 'Noble Marquis to
put his .good :intentions of reducing more taxes, if he was
so disposed, into effect. Let them repeal a tax which no
onerharl,been'found bold enough heretofore, or at present, to
defend.-=-(Hear, hear !)
Mr. PEEL rose 'for the purpose 'of entering his protest
against the doctrines which his-Learned Friend who last spoke
hall laid down in' the conclusion of his speech. Thy Learned
Gentleman-might deceive the How.e.with ingenious argnment,-
bUt he appealed to every man of common sense whether the
House had not, on the motion of, the Noble land (Alt burp) on
a preceding evening rmed the resolution of 1 819, viz. that.
it was desirable that a surplus of 5,000,0001. shoultl'lle -anntral-'
ly applied to the reduction of the national debt. But if the first-
resolution was not sufficiently plain, it had been fallyeginfirm-
ed bytbe second. Could'any man doubt the construction of that
resolution? He objected to the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man because he thonght it a doubtful policy for Government
to pledge itself to the repeal of any tax whatever. No one could
say what might be the effect on the country, not only with re-
gard to the revenue but with regard to trade, .in consequence
of a direct pledge being given that' any particular tax should
be repealed, On that ground he should resist the motion of
the Hon. Gentleman, He was disposed also to,ohject to the
ElMendment Which'. another Hon. Gentleman had suggested,
because he thought it impossible; at the present moment, for
GorernMent 'to bear the reduction of a tax amounting to
_1,100,0001. The question *as - how far the estiinates of the
year would bear a reduction to the amount of the tax now
sought to be reduced: The revenue of the country amounted
altogether to 55 millions, the expenditure amounted to 50 mil-
lions, 33 of which went to pay the interest' of the natiinial
debt, leaving the sum of seventeen millions for the public
expences. The Navy, .the Ain*, 'the 'Ordnance, and 'Mis-
cellaneous Estimates consumed nearly the whole of that
sum, and in what department then 'could Government at
Present make any reduction? Could the Army be reduced?
So tar was that 'front - being *practicable that it had' been
one of the charges against Government by the Gentle-
men on the Opposition side, when the: state of Ireland was
under consideration, that the army was inadequate. In what
manner then could further retrenchment be introduced
in the Army? Let the House look .to.the state of the Army in
Scotland, and lie would ask them, not whether it ought to be •
reduced, but' whether it ought nut to be inci eased ? Then, as to
the Navy,theHouse must. know that they had scarcely ever pass-
ed a vote regarding that establishment, without some Mem-
ber ekpressing his regret that its reduction had been carried to
so great an extenti With regard to the Ordnance and the
Miscellaneous Estimates, it was impossible for the'most rigid
economy to propose any further reduction. The Hon. Baronet
(sir T. Lethbridge) had concluded his address by compliment- ,
ing the Members of Government on the general line of poli-
cy which they had pursued; of Coarse he did not consider him- -
self included in thaicompliment ; but if it was true that the
Governthent had acquired the confidence of the country—if
they had
,maintained a. fair character throughout the arduous
period during which the duties of Administration had • been
discharged by them, it had been by pursuing, through a sea-
son of difficulty, a course directly opposite to ,that 'tow pro-
posed. They had'done it by maintaining the national faith,
and upholding the public character.—(Loud clreers.)
—Mr. MABERLY -as'slired the House, that the amount of
the tax in question might be saved in the collection of the'
Revenue.

Mr. CALCRAFT briefly replied. He begged the House
to bear in mind, that the NOble Mariinis was refniing the
reduction of 508,0001. only, when he had promised a reduc-
tion to the amount of one million for next year.—(Hear.)
' The Houie then divided, when the numbers were—ln favour of the Motion
Against it
Majority

The Gallery was not again opened, and • upon a motion of
Mr. Forbes, that fr.. Drummond be added to the ❑umber of
the Committee •on Foreign Trade, a division was called for,
when there appearing to be but four Members in the House,
it was of course adjourned at HALF-PAST TWO.

THE FIVE PER CENTS.

•
The following ,Resolutions. were reported in
the .rouse of Comnions on Wednesday night .•
1. " That all and every person and persons, Bodies Politic
and Corporate, who now is or are, or hereafter may be, inte-
rested in; or entitled unto, any , part of
.the National Debt re-
deemable by Law Which now carries in • Interest after the rate
of Five Pounds per Centum per Annum; and is ikautilly kiiciWn
by the name of Navy Five per Cents., or by the name Irish
-live per Cent. Annuities, payable at the Bank of England,
and who .shall not signify his, her, or their dissent; inAhe man-
ner hereinafter mentioned, shall; in lieu of every £lOO of au-eh
Five per Centum Annuities, receive, and be entitled. to,"the
sum of £lO5 in a new Stock, to be called the New Four Pounds.
per Centum Annuities,' and to carry an Interest after the rate
of Four Pounds per Cept. Ann., and so in proportion for iiny
greater or less amount of such Five per Cent. Annuities
that the Dividends thereof shall be payable half-yearly at the
Bank of England, upon the sth day of Jan., and the sth day of.
July, in each and every year :=And the first. half-yearly
Divi-
dead on the •. id New Four Pounds per Cent. Annuities shrill be
payable on tne sth day of January 1823 :—And that the said
New Four Pounds per centutn Annuities shall not be liable to
be paid off until the sth day of Jarniary 1829. '• . • • .
2. " That the Interest and Dividends payable in respect,of
the said New' Four Pounds per Centuni Annuities 'shall be
charged and chargeable upon the Consolidated Fend 'of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland., in the 'Sallie
manner as the Interest 'and Dividends of, the Five Merida per.
Centum Annuities how stand charged on the said Flind. •
3. "'That all and every person and persons, Bodies Politic
or Corporate, who shall not within the period commencing On
Monday the 4th day of March, and ending
,on Satorday the
16th day of March; 1822, both days inclusive, signify his, her,
or their dissent from accepting an.; receiving a Share in the.
said new Four Pounds per Centuni Annuities in lieu of
her, or their respective shares in the said Five Poitrids per ten-
Wm Annuities, in the 'Manner hereinafter directed, shall be
deemed and taken to have consented to accept and receive the
same; provided always, that if any Proprietor or Proprietors a
Five Pounds per Cent. Annuities shall not be within the limits
of the United Kingdom at any time between the 22d.day of Feb.
and the 16th day of 'March 1822, but shall be in any Other •
part of Europe, it shall be lawful for such Proprietor or. Pro-
prietors to signify such dissent at any time before the Ist day. of
Junee 1822 ; and if any such Proprietor or Proprietors shall
not,•at any time between the 22d day of February, 1822; and
the Ist day of June 1822, be within any part of Europe,•,it shall
be lawful for him, her, or them, to signify such dissent.at any
time before'the Ist day of March 1823, Such P:oprietor.or Pro-
prietors proving to the satisfaction of the Governor and Direc-
tors of the Bank of England, or any two or more of them, hiS,
her, or their absence froth the United Kingdom, 'or out :of
Europe as above specified ; and that his, her, or their share or
shares pf such Five Pounds per Centum Annuities stood
her, or their name or names respectively on the 22d day Of
February 1822, in the books of the Governor and Company of
the Bank-of England, provided also that such Proprietor •or
Proprietors so absent from the United Kingdom, or out of
Europe, shall signify such his, her, or their dissent within ten
days after'his, her, or their return to the United Kingdoin.7
4. " That.provision should be made by this House for pay-
ing off such Proprietor or Proprietors of the said Five Pounds
per Centum Annuities as shall signify his, her, or their dissent
from accepting and receiving any share in the said New Four
Pounds per Cent= Annuities in lieu.thereof."
5. That all persons, Bodies Politic and. Corporate,..pos-
ifessed. of any part of the said Five Pounds per Centum
Annuities, and who shall. desire to signify such dissent as -
aforesaid, shall, between the 4th and 16th days of March 1802;
both inclusive, by themselves, or some agent or agents for
that
.purpose duly authorized, signify to the Governor ,and
Coinpany of the Bank of England such dissent in writing
under his, her, _or their hand or hands, 'together with:: the •
amount of his, her, or their respective shares in the said. Five
Pounds • per Cent= Annuities, and which said dissent` ahrill
be' entered in a book or books• to be opened and kept by,tht
said Governor and Company for that purpose, and numbered
in the order in which his, her, or their dissent shall be received
by the said Governor and Company ; and in case of any
transfer of such shares, or any part or parts thereof, after such
dissent, the part or part-4 so transferred shall be entered in
the said books under the same numbers as were affixed to such
shares when the dissent was so signified ; and every such dis-
sentient proprietor or proprietors, or his, her, or their assigns,
under any such transfer, shall be paid off in the numerical
order in Which his, her, or their name or names shall he. en._
tered in such book, such payi sent to commence on the sth day'
of July 1822, and to be continued at such periods and in such
manner as' Parliathent may direct." •
6. " That every PrOprietor or Proprietors of the Naiy Pive
Pounds per Centum Annuities aforesaid, shall receive the
Diri-
dehds due thereon on the sth day of July, 1822; and‘that every
Proprietor or Proprietors of the Irish Five Pounds per Centuni
Annuities aforesaid, shall receive the Dividend due'theretiPdri
on the sth day of April, 1822, and shall also receive one,quars,
ter's Dividend thereon on the sth day of July, 1822, and the
said last-mentioned Five Pounds per Cent= Annuities shall •
be paid off; or converted into Four Pounds per Centum Arinui-
, ties, in Manner aferesaid, from and after the said sth day of
July, 1822, and no transfer of the said Irish Five Pounds per
Centum Annuities, or of any Annuities at the rate of I,We"
Pounds per Cent= per Annum, payable in Ireland, to or limn:,
the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of Eng-
land, or to .or from the books of the Governor and Cotnpany of ..
the Bank of Ireland, shall take place from and after the 26th
day of February, 1822."
7.." That all Executors, Administrators, Guardians, and
Trustees, may signify such.dissent in respect of suchshirres.•of
the said Five Pounds per Centutu Annuities, for the holding
of which their names are made use of respectively, and all Ex-
ecutors, Administrators, Guardians, and Trustees, not signify;
ing such dissent, shall be deemed to have assented as aforesaid, •
and shall, be indemnified in respect thereof." . •