The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-13 00:00:00

'l4'lE- SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 1835

hear.) As it appelred the House acquiesced in the propo-
sition, he N 'ould beg to move that the ballot be taken a quar-
ter of an hour' previous to the Speaker taking the Chair:
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. BUCKINGHAM thought if the imposition were ac-
ceded to, they would have no ballot at all. On one occasion
the names were entered seriatim, but this practice was
abused. He suggested that any Hon. Member bringing
down a petition to the• House should be allowed to enter his
name on the list, and that any person being absent when
called, his name should be put at the bottom of list.
Mr. GOULBURN suggested, as the subject was likely
to lead to discussion, the Hon. Member should give notice of a
motion on the subject.
Mr. WA K LEY had no objection to withdraw his motion,
and would now give notice that he should bring the subject
before the House on Monday next.
DORSETSHIRE LABOURERS.
The same Hox. MEMBER then presented three petitions from
Glasgow, from Camberwell and Walworth, and from the tan-
ners of London, praying for the recall of the Dorsetshire la-
bourers. He would not then enter into any discussion upon
' this subject, as it would be regularly brought on on the 25th 0'
next month.

IMPORTATION OF WINES.
The Ho:4. MEMBER also gave notice that he would move
for a return of all wines imported into this country through
the ports of Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Weymouth,
and Rochester, from January, 1834, to January, 1835.

COMMISSION.
The House was here summoned by the Usher of the Black
Rod, to hear his Majesty's assent given, by Commission, to va-
rious Bills, for which see Lords' report.
INVERNESS ELECTION.
Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petition from John
M' Queen (Agent for the petitioners against the election of
the sitting member) praying for an extension of the time for
considering the Inverness-shire Petition, and moved that the
Order of the Day for taking the petition into consideration
be discharged ; and that they be taken into consideration on
Monday, July 1.
Sir GEORGE CLERK made rob objection to the dis-
charge of the order, but thought that the time mentioned was
too distant.
Mr. BANNERMAN said that the petitioners required a
great deal of time, on account of the distance which
the petitioners had to go to collect evidence in support of their
petition.
It was then agreed that the consideration of the petition
should be postponed until Monday next.
IRISH TITHES.
Lord MORPETH gave notice, that he should postpone
his motion on Irish Tithes, which stood for Friday, the 19th
instant, to the 26th instant.
Sir G. CLERK wished to know from the Noble Lord
whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill ?
Lord MORPETH replied that he should bring forward
his motion with a view to the introduction of a Bill, but he
could not enter into the details until the time arrived.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Mr. SINCLAIR wished to ask the Noble Lord if his Ma-
jesty's Government had received any official accounts of an
alleged famine prevailing in the west of Ireland?
Lord MORPETH said that the Government had re-
ceived official intelligence of a very painful nature on the sub-
ject alluded to, and that the matter was under the most
anxious, but at the same time the most cautious, consideration
of the Government. Whilst they had every desire to afford
all the relief they could to the sufferers, they felt the propriety
of avoiding, in the interim, raising hopes which might subse-
quently not be realised.
Mr. SINCLAIR said that as the subject was in the bands
of Government, he was satisfied.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed that he feared, if any expec-
tation were held out of relief from the Government, the landed
proprietors in the neighbourhood of the distressed districts
would throw the burthen of relief, which should naturally fall
upon themselves, entirely off their bands.
IPSWICH ELECTION.
Colonel PERCIVAL made some observations, which
were not heard, respecting the Resolution of the House, that
certain parties concerned in the conduct of the late election,
should be brought up in custody.—( Hear.) We understood
him to give some explanation why some of them had not sur-

rendered.
The Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the Bar, and, having
been questioned by the Speaker, announced that in obedience
to a resolution of the House and the Speaker's warrant, he
had taken Mr. J. D. Dasent into custody. He then advanced
to the table, bore out the mace, and returned to the bar accom-
companied by Mr. Dasent.
Mr. GISBORNE had a petition to present from the pri-
soner at the bar. The petition, which he would beg to read to
the House, stated—( Cries of " Withdraw ;" the prisoner was
then ordered to withdraw)—Mr. Gisborne proceeded. The
Hon. Member then read the petition, which in substance set
forth that he stood charged with absconding in order to avoid
giving evidence before the Committee. Though he might
have been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, he
did not mean to act in contempt of its authority. He was pre-
sent at the election for the representation of Ipswich, and took
an active part in it in favour of the late Members. But hear-
ing of the petition, and unwilling to appear as evidence, as he
was given to understand he would be required to 4 ; and
anxious besides to give the sitting Members an opportunity of
selecting the time for his examination, if this examination were
thought advisable, he left the country of his own free accord,
without the suggestion or dictation of any other person what-
ever. But, hearing afterwards from Mr. Kelly that certain
charges were made, which his presence was necessary to refute,
he again voluntarily returned, and appeared before the Com-
mittee, and gave his evidence freely and without reserve. The
Committee had (so we understood) come to a resolution that
the case of bribery was not made out, and that the sitting
Members were duly elected. That resolution on further in..
vestigation they subsequently rescinded, and agreed to other
resolutions, which included petitioner with others in the offence
of abscondingato avoid giving evidence. That accusation the
petitioner humbly submitted did not apply strictly to him, as
he voluntarily came before the Committee to give his evidence,
and he should not be confounded with Pilgrim and others,
who were stated to have given their evidence by compulsion.
In conclusion, be begged to say that he did not evade the exe-
cution of the Speaker's warrant, but voluntarily surrendered
when he heard there was an order issued by the House to have
him taken into custody.
Mr. GISBORNE having only done a simple act of justice
in submitting the prisoner's defensive statement to the House,
would offer no objection to a proposition that he be discharged
from custody, if it were consonant with the feelings of the
House. He would then move, " That the prisoner be repri-
manded and discharged."
Mr. P. STE WA RT did not hear the Hon. Member's mo-
tion, but he supposed it was to have the prisoner discharged.
To that he would not object, as he would be glad that the pri-
soner was leniently dealt with, for his case should be considered
apart from the other witnesses.
Mr. CAMPBELL thought if he were reprimanded and
discharged it would serve all purposes.
Mr. AGLIONBY took a different view of the case. The,
amount of the prisoner's explanation, so far from being an ex-
culpation, was a justification of his offence, and an aggravation
of it.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought tho witness was entitled to con-
siderable indulgence and favour.
Lord J. RU SSE LL said this was a case that ought not to
be so lightly disposed of. It was one deeply involving the
priv;!..4zes of the House and the freedom of election. After
the Comnaltie".9 had deliberately resolved that the conduct of
the prisoner was such as to warrant his arrest, it was not right
he should now, on such grounds as those of his petition, be let
off. It was asserted by the last speaker that the petitioner
acted with a fine feeling of honour in returning to give evi-
dence. But was he not before guilty of bribery? and what
could be said of such a man's sense of honour? The peti-
tioner besides said that he absconded from regard for the sit-
ting Members, and came back to serve them. Surely the
House should receive such an exculpation with great caution.
He professed to act from a sense of justice, yet it seemed he
acted the partisan all through. The excuse of the petitioner.
should not be received by the House. He .( Lord J. Russell)
did not wish for any severe punishment against the petitioner,
but he thought, however, that some punishment was called for.
As the petition was to be re-considered onMonday, he thought
it would be better to have him on that day at the Bar, to be
dealt with as the House thought proper. It was not consis-
tent with the dignity of the House to let him off so easily,
and if, on a future occasion, they dealt leniently with him, it
would be in consideration of his ignorance.
Lord STANLEY said his Noble Friend anticipated him in
the view he took of the subject. If the House were to pass
over such conduct lightly—if the punishment due to such in-
fringements on the privileges of Parliament and the freedom
of election—were to be mitigated by the declarations of a pri-
soner at the bar, who it was natural to think would gloss over
his own offence, and subdue it to the most venial peccadillo,
that would only open the doors for rendering the purity of
election perfectly ludicrous, a mere mockery. The present
discussion was the result of the injudicious and improper haste
with which the question was thus forced on the House. First
a proposition was made to have the parties taken into custody ;
next, when one of them was brought to the bar a proposition
was made to forgive him. Another error committed was,
that the House entered on an investigation of the case before
the evidence was placed before it, by which alone it could come
to a sound and just conclusion. Though it might be right to
act at times, and in a partial way, on the representation of the
Committee, still it was a bad precedent to leave so much to
discretion of a Committee as to fix the amount of penalty ;
that power should be left to the House, acting on the evidence
before them. Hie opinion was that the prisoner should not at
once be discharged, but remanded till Monday; and he hoped
that by that day the evidence, on which alone the House should
act, would be laid on the table.
Mr. GISBORNE did not well understand the Noble Lord.
Ile seemed to think that many unnecessary steps were taken
Intohe table, the ends of Ru-
in this business ; yet really only one step was taken, that of
torderingaken t
till
the parties custody. If no step be
eteo
be
ee takenl
aid e
n t
tice would be likely to be defeated, as the evidence would
evin
not, in all probability, be before the House for a month.
Much of the general evidence tendered before the Committee
was inapplicable to the present inquiry, that which referred tO
the scrutiny of the votes, for instance. Why, then, require
the production of this mass of evidence, much of which was
irrelevant, before coming to a conclusion ?
Mr. P. STEWART thought the dignity of the House and
the ends of justice would be sufficiently consulted by having
him reprimanded.
Mr. C. FIT Z SIMON said, all the other persons mentioned
in the resolutions of the Committee were evidently engaged
in a conspiracy to set the House at defiance, and foil the
ends of justice; but the prisoner at the bar was undoobtediy

au exception, for he freely came forward, and declared all he
kn w.

Lord J. RUSSELL made a remark, which was inaudible.
Mr. O'C 0 NNE LI. said he could not agree in the view
taken of the prisoner's mitigated offence. The House should
not sacrifice justice to this mock clemency. The prisoner
was a lawyer, the tendency and bias of whose profession led
him to support particular parties. He (Mr. O'Connell) knew
lawyers had these leanings. He himself was a lawyer, yet he
would say that he never leant to any party.—(A laugh.)
This was a question that should be shifted.—( A laugh.) If
it were not shed—(Laughter)—lnd that deliberately and
rigidly, there could be no hope that the purity of election
would be preserved. The prisoner was guilty of a grave of-
fence, and to prevent the recurrence of such misdeeds, and
inflict condign punishment on the parties implicated in the
present transaction, it was positively necessary for the dig-
nity of the House, and the defence of the freedom of elec-
tion, that there should be a complete sleffting of the case.—
( Renewed laughter, which we apprehend was caused by the
Hon. Member pronouncing the word sifting as if written or
spelt shifting.)
Mr. HARDY said as the party at the bar was guilty of an
offence that would subject him to a criminal prosecution in a
Court of law, at the suit of Mr. Wason or the Attorney-
General, it would then be rather severe to send him to judg-
ment with the brand of condemnation fixed on him by that
House. He trusted the House would not act severely towards
him, so as to raise a prejudice against him in any ulterior
proceedings.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said the question was one of vast
importance to the House, as affecting its privileges, and to
the country, as affecting the right of the people to choose,
without restraint or fear, their own Representatives. If it
were a good that the purity of election should be preserved,
then it was a good that any invasion on it should be punished.
An invasion, then, was clearly proved to be committed in the
present case, and the House, in its duty to the public, should
not overlook it. Before the passing of the Reform Bill
bribery was so common and undisguised, that it might be
thought, and was thought, an act of injustice to visit a few
with the penalties of the delinquencies of the many. What
was publicly practised was considered no crime, and the uni-
versality cf the practice gave a shelter and impunity to the
few who were detected. 'But this kind of scut:l,lllg of guilt
should be put a stop to. Such a proceeding was a mockery of
justice. The eyes of the people were now open—( Question,
question), and if ample justice were not dealt out to those
who violated the freedom and purity of election, it woul'l
cause general offence and dissatisfaction throughout the
country.—( Cries of " Question," and symptoms of impatience.)
Lord J. RUSSELL (as we understood) moved that the
portion of the evidence relating to the prisoner be laid before
the House.
An Hon. MEMBER thought it would be well to make a
selection of his evidence, and he hoped the Hon. Member
(Mr. Gisborne) would make it.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought all the evidence, except the part
relating to the scrutiny, should be laid before the House.
After a few remarks from some Hon. Members in a collo-
quial and inaudible tone, the proposition of Lord J. Russell
was agreed to.
SPAIN AND THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.
Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to some questions from
an Hon. Member, which did not reach us, said that the pre-
sent Government and the late Whig Government were anxious
that Spain should recognise the independence of the South
American States, and so prevent the uncertainty of the relations
that existed between the parent country and her colonies. But
the Hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the nego-
tiations between the parent Government and the Agent of the
South American States, were undertaken under the patronage
or dictation of the British Government. The British Go-
vernment was not consulted on this point, but was, however,
most happy to give its counsel and aid to carry it into effect.
The present Government could not answer for the progress of
this negotiation ; it did not yet know that any exchange of
good feeling had taken place on either side. He hoped both
parties would come to an amicable arrangement.
Lord MAHON was glad to hear such sentiments from the
Noble Lord. He hoped the wish of the Government was to
carry such resolutions into effect.
GENERAL TAXATION.
Mr. ROBINSON rose to bring forward the following mo-
tion On the question that the House resolve into Com-
mittee of Supply, to move the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee to investigate the general taxation of the country, with
the view to a repeal or reduction in such imposts as injuriously
affect the interests of agriculture, trade, manufactures, and
navigation, or those which may be found to press with unusual
severity upon any portion of the community, especially on the
working and productive classes. And further, to consider
the propriety of instituting, if necessary, other taxes less ob-
jectionable in their operation, so as to simplify and economise
the enormous cost of collection, and lessen the pressure by a
more just and equitable distribution of the public burdens."
(The rush of Members from the House when the Hon.
Member rose to speak prevented us from catching his com-
mencing remarks.) The Hon. Member, at great length, pro-
ceeded to lay before the House the condition of the several
manufacturing and commercial interests of the country, and
then contended that at all events an inquiry into its cause
ought, without further delay, to take place. Distress mani-
festly existed, and the country could not much longer con-
ttaite to bear the amount of taxation.. at present un-
posed. The poorer classes certainly could not bear it,
and it behoved the Legislature to inquire whether it could
not be more equally proportioned. The landed proprietors
said that their estates were so deeply mortgaged they could
not bear a property tax ; but they seemed to forget that the
mortgagee would hare to bear the taxation on his mortgage.
Why should not the funded property of the country be made
to contribute its quota of taxation. He protested against
the property of absentees being expended abroad without con-
tributing something towards the revenue of the country from
which their incomes were derived. He was also disposed to
inquire whether the corn laws ought not to be repealed? He
was sufficiently candid to admit that, if the Select Committee
were appointed, the ultimate object he should have in view
would be the introduction of a property tax.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord Althorp had entertained fluctuating opinions on this sub-
ject. In 1819 he had been against the imposition of a pro-
perty tax : in 1830, out of office, he was in favour of it ; and
in 1833, in office, he was opposed to it. The Hon. Member
concluded by thanking the House for the attention it had
afforded him.
On the question being put--
Mr. RICHARDS, in seconding the motion, expressed it
as his opinion, that the country could not be maintained in a
flourishing condition, unless some measure were adopted for
augmenting the price of labour.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER alluded
to the reductions effected by the repeal of the duty on drugs,
on marine insurances, the abolition of the house tax, and the
reduction of the duty on soap, adducing them as instances of
the conformity of the actions of the Government of Earl Grey
with their professions. He then complimented the Hon. Gen-
tleman on the singular adroitness with which he had avoided
entering into the debateable question of a property tax. His
Hon. Friend had on former occasions proposed the repeal of
the assessed taxes, and of other taxes, to the amount of
15,710,0001. per annum, and from which it was clear that his
wish had been to substitute a property tax for those which he
had wanted to abolish. He would put it to his Hon. Friend
whether the alteration of any tax upon any commodity did
not so affect all who dealt in that commodity, that it was in-
cumbent upon Ministers to keep their plans a secret until they
were prepared to lay them before that House? 'He called upon
the House, therefore, to repose confidence in his Majesty's
Ministers, on the grounds of the disposition they had already
evinced to relieve the:country of taxation to the utmost prac-
ticable amount. The session was by far too advanced to
enter into the Hon. Member's motion with any chance what-
ever of coming to any conclusion, and in the interval of the
two sessions every branch of trade would be thrown into a
state of confusion. He would remind the House that Parlia-
ment had never expressed its determination against any tax
so strongly as it had against the property tax ; and it was
upon that occasion that the then Mr. Brougham had made a
motion, that all records of so odious a tax should be burnt by
.the hands of the common hangman, or at least he went very
near to that old Parliamentary precedent. He (Mr. Spring
Rice) maintained that a property taz was to be reserved for
the greatest troubles, and that in a time of peace it ought
never to be resorted to. He was of opinion that the motion
was altogether inopportune, and that it was totally inapplicable
to his Majesty's Ministers, as they had given to the country
every proof of their disposition to economy. If the motion
I before the House had been a substantive motion, he should
I have opposed it by a direct negative, but ho should now con-
tent himself with moving that certain words be left out of the
motion. The Right Hon. Gentleman's amendment was moved
in a voice totally inaudible, and as it was not put from the
Chair, it was altogether lost to the gallery, and, as we after-
wards found, to the House itself.
Mr. HARDY addressed the House in favour of a property
tax.
Mr. H AWE S said that the motion was only for an inquiry,
which did not involve the necessity of carrying into effect the
recommendations of the Committee.
Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words in support of the motion.
Mr. P. THOMSON said, it was not to the motion itself of
his Hon. Friend that ho so much objected as to the result ap-
pended to it—a property-tax. Now he wished his Hon. Friend
had stated, in a defined manner, what it was he meant by a pro-
perty-tax. Some men's minds viewed a property-tax in one
shape, and others in another shape. It would be therefore
very necessary in considering such a subject to define what was
meant by a property-tax. Were Hon. Gentlemen prepared
for the renewal of the whole system of inquisition that existed,
and operated so banefully when the property-tax was in being
during the war? He for one should never consider it fair to
levy a p!eperty..i.tax solely upon what was termed a fixed in-
come, without at the same time levying it upon property in.
vested in manufacturing and other interests, and he did not be-
lieve that this glass of capitalists was prepared to submit to such
a tax at the present time. In considering this tax it would
always be necessary to keep in view the effect it was likely to
have upon home industry. It could not be denied that its ten-
dency must be to drive capital abroad, and such an effect could
not fall to bo Mutt CaluipitA9B t 9 tilP 9per4thrt3 Pluses, whose
interests that House was always beund-to hold in its best con-
sideration. It must inevitably tend to a reduction of wages
by expelling capital, and his main objection, therefore, to
die riccellt mQtlAri WaS that it implied tt ppaperty tax ov an
income tax. One of theiia taKe4 ho locked upon as a very
just tax, if it could be levied, but he did not think it could;
and the other he viewed as a tax injurious and unjust in its
operation on the labouring classes. An income tp.
sidered a good tux sbern.„.
—.. Lie con.
, tne difficulty was to expose
capital Of every sort to the operation of such a tax without
great injustice to those who had embarked capital, without
the slightest expectation that such a tax would be laid on it.
It might have been good to have continued this tax, but the