The Sun.
London, England, 1815-05-02 00:00:00

GAOL FEES.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN, in.the absence of a- Noble
Friend, moved the committal of the awl Fees Bill:
The House accordingly went into the said Committee; an.l
Lord ELLENBOROt'<iII nor-pl.:aced a clause to protect
_
Sherin again.O a liability to plyas io case of an escape, which
he Nvas sublect to und.fr the Bill as it tiwit stood. The clause
-was agreed to. _ _

'rite Marquis. of •BUCKENVI-1/4111 remarked, that there
was a clause to exempt the City Prisons; the-King's Bench
and Palace Caul-is, •from the operation of the Bill. He was
of ophlion; before the flonsc could agree to that exemptioh
they should see. the Report of Committee of the I-lous,e
oftonnuons, appointed to inquire into the Fees of those
Gools.•

The LORI) CHANCELLOR adverted to the donations in.
the City Prisons, and, observcd. if. in those prisons.nu fees
were paid, the consivience would be, that the City Prisons
would constantly be as full as they could hold. His Lordship
stiggeytvd the propriety of introducing a distinct measure tor
the regulation of Prisons exempt, rather than load the Bill
with clauses. •

'The Ma'rquii of LANSDOWN acquicleed in the Noble and
I:vat-lied Lord's sutt,'-e4iort. • ' -
•

The Marquis of BUCKINGHAM then intlinated, that he
should wove nr for the report, to ,which he had al-
luded.—The House then adjourne.l.

1 HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The House opened later than usual; b it the call wa; not
enforced.

Mr. Serjennt BEST withdrew the Insolvent Bill, on an ob-.
jection on the ground of it:fort:n.llll. , and obtained I:ave to
bring in another.

LONDON PETITION.

Sir Wm, CUaTIS stated, that he held a Petition,
signed by the Lord Mayor, and the Liverymen of
Loudon, not a sentiment of which coincided with
Lis awn. •As it. had been given him by his Con,-
stituents, i)o‘L'QVCr, be thought it his duty to pre_
,sent it. He cousidered,ialso his duty, however,
to inform the House, thAt ,some-part of be Peti-
tion might be regarded upplying to the Property
Tix, that the linse'might.4now what course it
was to pursue.
The SPEAKER observed, that the lion. Blronet
having stated that the Petition%.‘,as in port upinst
a Tax now-pending, aCcoiding to the forms of 014
Ltonse, it could not be received.

Sir \l7m. CURTIS' eXplai tied , that the prayer in-
'chided the ‘thole inais of tneasui-es adopted by his
Majesty's Ministers.
The SP2 thought it iIdViS:IIIIC that the
Hon. Gentleman should read• the part which •he
conceived not ht prove objectionable.
Sir Wm. CURTIS then read part of the prayer' of
the Petition, sti,teintig,ntl:arst
hail it 'vas
1.5%%;
indilznation the i tio
jesty's iNlini“ers auctlytillZ to revive. au odious

1

taY, arid prziying,theiroust to stop the course of
n %l ea. rash, and infatuated Administration, and
preserve the peace of the country.
he SPEAER said, that it was now for the
Douse to judge front what thev_had heard wh-e.
tiler the Petition was tor the Property Tax, or
against it.

After a few words from the Chancellor of the
Ex clitvier,

Mr. iIOHNER stated, that ,he Was certain the
feeling of the House would be, that the rifles
should not be enforced when a Petition came from
a most numerous and respectable portion of our
fellow.citizens. In the 'Petition, the Property
TAx s'us merely stated as one of the grievances of
which they complainell against his Majesty's Mi-
nisters, but no deSire was expressed that the Bill
1,1;n1d not pass into a law. The Petition merely
.prayed, that a weak; rash, and infmuated Admi,
nistra-tion be no longer allowed to rule the coun-
try. He,, herefore, did not think the:objection
in point of form could attach to it.
Mr. B. BATHURST contended that the Petition
eas not meter' directed against the Administra-
tion; /if so, it might be received without any,ob-
jection. The converse, however, appeared to be
the case, and the Property Tax was opposed as
OF measure of Ministers. He therefore thought
the Petition fell within: the rule which would pre-
vent its being i•eceived.%
Sir J. NEWPORT thOiVit the House would de-,
mean itself if it gave to the rules an interpreta-
tion by. no means intended.
Mr. Serjeant BEST said, that if the two first
lines of. the Petition were read, they would be
found to contain one of the trrossest and most in-
-
(anions libels son the Constitution of the Country-.
Those who had, signed the Petition knew it would
not be received, and intended it merely as an in-
• sult to the House.,

Mr. WHITBREAD contended that wiser people
thin the Learned Gentleman could not know whe-
ther the Petition Might-not be received, as it would
remain for a majority of that House to decide. It
only prayed to stop the course of a weak
niatration, ready to plunge the country into a
Nvar, which would create the necessity of renew-
ing the Property. Tax. The Liverymen of London
had been unhappy this time in having the Hon.
karonet for their Representative. If he was their
representative. in that House, be was also Coun-
sel against them, and his pleading -against the
wishes of his own Constituents had been more
able than that of the Right Hon. Gentleman op,
Posite He could not believe that any lines of
Petition contained a gross libel on the Constitu-
tion, as the Hen. Alder Man, whilst earnestly
praying the House trot to admit.it, would certain-,
/17_ have pounced upon them. He trusted that the
Hoti,e-„,tit of complacency to the Hon. Barotiet,
and the Ministers, would not commit an
‘injus,
tice towards the Liverymen of London, who it
WaS acknowledged bad been legally convened.-
Mr. Pct, contended, that the Petition recited
several grievances, this tax among the rest, from
which it prayed to be relieved, by stopping the
career of Government. This was a-direct prayer
'against the tax. How dangerous the consequences
of establishing sucii a pie.cedent, as would be cre-
ated by receiving this Petition. A. Petition may
be received against any pending _tax, mergly by
mixing it up with other matters, if this were al-
lowecl. He would :lilt whether the removal of Mi-
nisters would content the petitioners.
Mr. TIERNEY maintained that it was merely a
Petition for Peace,. and against the conduct of
the Administration. Every Gentleman who op-
posed it stated a different ground. He hoped the
House would not screen unpopular Ministers from
baying their unpopularity recorded. Would the
Hon. Alderman say, that the Petition 'had been
voted as a Petition against the Priverty Tax, for
on this. rested the whole question'? -
Mr. WALLACE opposed the I'ctitioa.
3,1 r. BARING, althotigh he differed with the sen-
timents of the Petition, with 'respect- to war,
nearly as much as the lion. Alderman, thought
doubts might be entertained whether the Petition,
even it it were positive against the Tax,
might not be received, as that Tax was not a new
one, but Merely to be continued. The best plan
would be. to allow the Petition to be read, and
then to decide upon it.
'Lord COMPTON thought the only way to clear
the point as so many eminent men -entertained
doubts upon it, would be to allow the Petition to
be read. As it had been seated that it contained
offensive matter, it would ,be an act of. pusillani-
mity to get rid of it in any other manner.
After a few IV 0 lids front Mr. Wm. SMITH and
the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER,
• Mr.- PoNsoNnydeclared that he hail never wit-
nessed .such
,a debate, nor seen an Hon. Member
a presenting Petition and endeavouring to per-
suade the House not to allow him to perform the
duty which he • had engaged to perform. The
House ought to be rather astute in. finding rea-
sons to receive instead of rejecting the petitions of,
the people. The petition did not prey directly
tipt the •tax.should not be enacted. It was di-
rected against the war and his Majesty's Mi-
uiters fur the-course which they were pursuing,
and it cub not 'be wise or prudent in them to-
endcavtiur to strain the rules of the House in
der to oppose its adinission.•
Mr. lIOLME SUMNER saw no objection to read-
the Petition, as he thought the mention of the
l'soperty Tax in it was incidental with the rest of
ti:e ItleaStirer complained of.
The SPEA"KER said, it was a clear rule of the
House, that every Hon.i\letnber presenting.a,Pe-
tition, was bound to state its -embstance, on which
the House would form its judgment, whether it
sliotit‘tl be read by the. Clerk of the House. The
role was cleat-; the °House would not receive any
Petition against any Tax-voted in the Ways and
.i'leans of the yeal.

The question N‘ias then put for the reading of
the Petition, and carried -Without The
1-'et it ion harin been read,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed,
that it any.donbt remained on the minds of the
}louse, it must now be completely removed. The
Ntition was directly against the renewal of the
rroperty Tax.—(No, no, from the Opposition.)
The Petition went through a variety of matter,
stating different grounds or complaiAt involving
the Property Tax, and concluded by praying the
House to take those matter's into consideration,•

and to interpose its authority. Although it was
desirable.to throw the doors open to Petitions, lie
thought the present was mot entitled to be re-
ceived.
Mr. ASERCROMBIS said, that the Petition was
not against the Property Tax, which was only in-
cidentally mentioned. The body of the Petition
contained an argument to prove that the 'Ministers
of tlis Majesty's'Government were totally wanting
to economy, asd as an instance of this mentioned
the Property Tax. 'the prayer of the Petition
was, that the House would stop the rash career.
of his Majesty's Ministers. Even if the Petition
was technically wrong, was it decent towards the
people to reject their Petition on the principle of
technicality;- there ought, on the contrary, to be
a leaning to receive the Petition of any portion of
the people, if not very much infringing the rules
of the House.
-Mr..Serjeaut 12.F5.7. had conceived - that there
were stronger grounds of objecting to
,the Peti-
tion on account of its prayer. But though the
prayer of the Petition 'was not objectionable, the
hotly of it was most highly so.. The language was
most disrespectful, and he thought it was the more
disrespeclia, as coining from the City of London.
It accused the House of being in the habit of not
attending to the Petitions of the people, and of
being .a corrupt Representation. 'He would vote
against the Petition, not :4S praying against the
Property 'Tax,. but as containing the most objec-
timiable and disrespectful language.
Sir Fit A S'Z;TS BU IMETT said, that there had been
Petitions with much 3trongerianguage received
often before, :and that it this was rejected, it
would slim, as strongly as any thing could do,
the occasion of such Petitions. He apprehended

lie should shortly have many Petitions, complain_
iug of the same grievances, to present to the
timi.t,e. • •

Mr. Gr(g/sTFtLL spoke in favour of receiving the
Petition.,

Mr. LITTLETON said, that if the Petition was re-
jected on the grounds on which it was•opposed, it
would, be a precedent most fatal to the right of
petition. _

Mr. LOCKHART said, fth.c,it he conceived the Pe-
tition was highly disrkspectful—it -accused the
House of totally neglecting-its duties. It con.
tallied such sentiments as ought not to be receiv-
ed from any place, and least of all as emanating
from the City of. London. If a Petition contain..
ingisueb sentiments-was received from the City of
London, it would be an example to any other
place that should chuse to address the House in
unbecoming language.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS said, that the Petition.
contained language, which he was sorry to see in
a Petition from the city of London. But it was
the language of those who had been habitually in
the custom,bf opposing every measure of Govern-.
went. He was convinced the sentiments were far
from being those of the majority of the Livery of-
London. He hoped the house would receive the
-Petition. He thought it beneath the dignity of
the House to reject the Petition, when he could
assure.them that it contained Only the sentiments
of a small minority of the Livery of London.
Mr. Alderman SMITH said, that the last Speaker •
-had made use of the oddest argument for receiv-
ing the Petition that could be conceived. He
thought that instead of its being received for be-
ing the language of a few, -and being against the
sentiments of the majority, it should be rejected
in this House. •

Mr. PRESTON spoke against the Petition.
Mr. HOME SUMNER said, that he had delivered
his opinion; that the Petition should not be re-
jected on account of techukaiities. But
he
would
now vote that it be not received on much stronger
grounds. The first paragraph he conceive:l-con-
tained :the most scandalous libel that could he
uttered against the House. Tile insult was the
grosser,. on account, of coming• front the City of
London. It was not because the City of Lou-
don was great, that disrestiectfnl language (o-
wards that [louse should be received from it. The
City of. London had petitioned against the Corn
Laws, and prophesied that if the Bill should be
passed, corn would immediately be above 88s. It
was no great disparagement to the House, that it
did not yield to the prayer,uor, believe in the pro-
phecy of that Petition.

W. SMITH said, that there *ere Petitions
containing the same accusations that this Petition
did, on" the Journals of the House. there
should be any Petitions presented for a Reform in
Parliament, they could be on no other grounds
than that the representation was dctectii•e and
corrupt, and that such a representation could not
be a faithful guardian of the interests
_of the
people.

Mr, BARING did not think that there were the
slightest grounds for objecting to the Petitioh.
111 r. BRACGE BATHURST would Oppose the re-
ception of the Petition, on the ground of its be.
ing a Petition against the Property Tax.
Mr. FORBES said, that lie saw no reason for not
receiving the Petition.
The House then divided, and the numbers
Against the reception of the Petition .... 107
For it ,
Majority ....

• -.4 8

NAPLES. '
Mr. llottivEn said, that he had last peat• moved
for papers concerning the negnciations witit Na -
pies, but it had occurred to him that those nego-
ciations may not be concluded, or that they may
have been renewed : he wished to know whether
either was the case ? as in that case he would in-
sist on hiS motion for to-morrow.
Lord CASTLEREAGH saw no .Objection to the
Hon. Gentleman's, bringing on his motion in due
course. «het► it should come on, lie should act
according to his opinion of his duty.
INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT.
Mr. BENNET said, be had that day received a letter from
a prisoner in the King's Bench Prison, complaining
,that he
and GO others were detained in conancment on account of Ser-
jeant Palmer's death. Ile wished therefore to know front
the Noble Lord, whether there had Lee❑ any pet son appoint-
ed in his room.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that he could not answer the
Hon. Gentleman's question, but that there Would be nu time
lost on the occasion.

PROPERTY TAX.
On the motion that the House do go into a
Committee on the Property Tax,
General GASCOYNE rose to move that there should
he an exception with regard to the Army and Navy
serving abroad. The gallant General went into
a detail of the expeuces of an. Qiljcer going on

' foreign duty. &, Lieutenant could not take the
field on the Continent under 80t. ; for this he had
only an advance of ,twonnotalis' pay.. The ex=
change against him was twenty-five per cent. and
the Property Tax was a deduction of ten per cent.;
so that he received his pay under a loss of thirty-
five per cent. If the situation of the Military
Officer in 1695, under William and Mary,. was
looked at; it would most strongly 'plead for an
exemption of the Military from the Property Tax
at present. In that year there was for carrying
on the war a contribution, which was nearly
exactly what the Property Tax is now: But there
was an exemption then in faVour of the army and
navy ; yet the situation of the Military Officer
was much stiperior at that time to what it is now.
The pay of a Major was then seventeen shillings a
day, the very same as it. is now ; and Bs. 6d. of the
money of that time was equal to
.1/. now. A Cap:,
tain at that time had 10s. a day,, and now he has
but 10s. .6d. The military officer was therefore
much less entitled to an exemption from any tax
than he is now. The gallant General then ad-
verted to the situation of the military in the colo-
nies, and that going there was not only running
the risque of the life, but absolute ruin. It would
seem that the exemption in favour of the army
would be a great diminution of the tax, but it
would be no such thing. would take the army
on foreign service at 100 battalions, consisting
each of 1000 men,
.and certainly this was takirw it
at the very greatest extent. The exemption in 'fa-
your of those
,worild be but 68,0001. per annum.
He was convinced there was not one person ill the
country, outside of the House, who would not re-
joice at this distinction in favour of those gallant
fellows, who were fighting the battles of their
country. He concluded by moving, that there be
instructions given to the Corrimittee to except
from the Property Tax those Officers of the Army -
and Navy who were serving on fOreign service,
and no others.
Sir CHARLES POLE, in seconding the motion,
said, that he had no other objection to it than
that he did not think it went far enough. He
should wish for a revision of the pay of the navy,
and he was convinced it would be productive of
great bene'fit. He highly applauded the liberality
of Government in increasing the half-pay of the
Officers of the Navy. But it- shoidd be consi-
dered that the Officer on service was at !eau
equally deserving of an incr'ea'se of pay. , Thedif-
ference of the half-'pay and full-pay of a Lieute-
nant of the Navy was now only,Bd. a thy, this
was 'hardly fair. He then adverted to the sirper=.
animated list, and said that he was convinced of
the great benefit that would be derived from a
revision of the whole. tie concluded by Again
expressing that his only objection to the inotion.
was, that it did. not go tar enough, though tie
seconded it. . .

General GROSVENOR and General lIAR.VEY sup-
poked the inot;on. \

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCH7O.OER said,
that the House had lit`tely paid so Many and such
just tributes of praise to the Army-and Navy, that
it could not be suppoFed that they would not pay
the greatest attention to any measure. proposed for
their benefit ; but on the present occasion, as the
TaX was tßlast but for k year, be thought an ex-,
eruption from it in their favour would he subject-
ing them to an invidious distinction. Indeed he
thought that the revision mentioned by the Hon.
Baronet (Sir Charles Pole) Would he .4woductive
of much benefit. When the present motion- shonid
be disposed of,. he Should propose something .on
the subject. The Right lion. Gentleman de-
clared his readiness to admit that the condition of
those gallant Officers deserved every considera-
tion ; but that recommendations in their be-
half mighi be better effected when the collateral
services of the Army and Navy came together un-
der the consideration of the House.

Serjeant ONsLow adverted to the sacrifiCes of
health and comfort which Officers were obliged
to a►ake, as entitling them to every consideration.
He particularly descanted on the hardship which
the family of an Officer in the army was subjected
to by his being killed in ,battle, as they were not
entitled tb the advantage of the sale of his com-
mission, it not being vendible. He, also was of
opinion that such Gentlemen were entitled to
some consideration on account of the expence of
their outfits, when going on foreign service; and
added, that their re►nuneration ought not to be
put in competition with the sense that Should-be
entertained of their services, and therefore they
ought to be exempt.

. .
Lord PALIVIERSTONE was of a contrary opinion
to those who thought that Officers were enabled
to provide less for themselves when on service
than other persons. He instanced the accom-
modations with which they were furnished in the
Peninsula, where they had not to•pay fQr lodgings
or forage. It was impossible for Officers •em-
ployed at home to be as well oft in their circuit"-

... .
stances as those employedon foreign service. The
disposal of the commissions of officers killed in
battle might be an act of liberality towart!s their
families, but it would be considered as an insult
An the corps to which they belonged. On the
whole, -if any exceptions were to be claimed, it
ought to be in favour of the Officers at home.
. Mr. ABERCROMBIE was in favour of the motion.
E he thought that the renewed tax was only in-
tended to be a temporary measure, he slniald vote
he should wish that
against any alteration; but if it was ever to be-
ir)co'stponed till they came
ca
loluei ex
ea_mppetriontilasiiseliii(t)
ari»de,ii)seu
on in form. The little remains of spay which Of-
ficers ba-d to receive wh'en they returned from ser-
vice must be quite inadequate to their necessities.
They wsre, therefore, pkoper objects of attention.
from the Government;. and he felt convinced,
that the Commander in Chief would lend his in-
fluence to ‘vhatever might coml.:blue to, the relief
by some new regulation respect-
ot their families,
iug the sale of the comMisslons of smell as were
unfortunately killed.
Mr. FounEs was in favour of the'exemption to
inferior Officers of the Navy, on account of their paying so high a price for their slops, which they
were not.allowed to sell on shore.
Mr. it:lE assured the Hon. Gentleman that
those articles were purchased by contract at the
cheapest possible
price; and that the Officers were
not obliged to phy for t kuri any snore than they
were literally worth.
After a few words from fronds INJazoN and

4

TijheiwtAnn.l.lro_rot.'RiololGlnvu.retii.%l.nl,E.eßralo il ed, an
ii(hi)iloyaitic,tc)l‘lsiit.lboel roleci( :If:el-1)3/11:r
ley,
igi.
Mr was negatived.
a close' the: 13;01.Y`iocct
0---,GAsc;y-- NE I;riefl Y reP
of which was to impo,e. on the Commisslun- 5 the
the Affairs of 'Faxes the same restrictions gie to,
Commissioners for the Income Tax wets in liable to,
resPeeting their being bound to secrecy,
affairs that came before them. e
i • h tli'
A long conversation .ensued, in s"lei that
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHECIVER ObSerVet
,_
as
as
it was his object to tnakre tiie Bill s sinittelerog
possible,- he did not see any'necessity for 3
andllas- _ proposed by the-Hon. Gentleman, oreir
Mr• BARING seconded the motionol3°'
1 1 bread
fell, which was also supported by Mr• 11'i..1 IV,
—mith, 1 MIS. Littleton Oil 1 r"
Wynne, and finally agreed to. 4,0511
tho s e p e rnisisloitnile.ocdtonlese,dat (f)tec'o. moved,ti la Toeuril tti 1 ii! ‘t' el 1
authority
tr riii: 5-I.:aril:.
_instruction to the CommittteheatttohearemseitTtlutkhl:rseolocri
uislsa,itoianonen(ii.sto.toclgleivcek
gtil.ieeater
.
u hjeetel
The CHANCELLOR of the Excitstitio-- ° .os
to it, as no 'regulation would be proclucti"
....._ARCLAY urged the necessity Mr. 11
pal rticularly on account" of' the high Pr'llt n 'es
the very
a lowed to Commissioners on all the 510601'14e5.
which they made.. He lamented thePcii.i°sceerflitrinotto
necessaries of life.
tilitien of small property, from whom theories,tax is
of the elatiose;
frequently took not so much the lux
d• - ana
Mr.
L OcKHART spoke to the same eineCty
vcro
observed, that while the lower tradesmeg: her
colvechaiged, it was pretty evident that the lt.git.
a,ses of commerce did not pay what they 00.4ci31
By schedule D. it appeared that the conimeros
returns were only three millions, though. it t 5
:possible to suppose that the commerc.al pr°'
of this country were no more than 34 millions.
Lordr. C. SMITH was against the chase. . cto
MILTON recommended a Coomitrep aid,
considerc the Act, as the forms of the kit/us7i of.
I a in any other way allow of sittlicient. tletai! „s,
conversation to attain all the requisite alteratt°7
of this measure.
c After some conversation between the CUA4tr:
_ELLOR of the EX.CHEGLUER, Mr, Iltistt.""l' 01)
CijoaboN, Mr. W. e.,
QinITH, and Mr. LYTV,or
A I:.PROTHEROE withdrew his clause. ~. ore
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCIIEQUES then
/roc.
posed. his-clause, which he-said, after the (~,,.s„-ieitt
mon which had taken place, it woulciPe st"e- s..
merely to read. Its object was, that the 'iss-,,sid
ment made, or to be made for April,lBls, si“l,--is,
be the basis of the assessments of the c°alli.,"essc
sioners for the ensuing year, without auY ...
_assle.;.7.aesitlwt.rt conversation between Mr. J. Swit
bc7eirri 14.
`,`,.:•!thlley, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mf • A se 04
:gTeleP.is,toMr. Lockhart, And Mr. Marryat, the Clau
0,-, A
(It3lfilettdctiNios.,lnlgiLniritsOtteiNoentnoltolaisidee l,intolui atsitra islaiinds
Act.tructi on should be b.re
to
received, and
the Motion
divided, when the ou
AA:uaginiainst it ....................... ........ ••
15514/ '
and the ntetli:eiodnriouieevriel:estid}:titptolritilvicitoleYtue.fgtd.:rit. a1.1e.Cr.0.0031. ......................... t.0h.a.e7:11.7:111°, est t trall"
, a atto
The other Orders of the Da}, were then disposed el/ -°
House adjourned.
____------'-^.