The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-04 00:00:00

CATHOLIC BILL

Sir JOHN NEWPORT said that, before he proceeded with
the Catholic Bill to the House of Lords, he must be leave to
return his thanks. to the House for the indulgent-kindness
which they had shown him throughout the arduous task which
he had had to perform. The task of conducting it had been
thrown upon him unexpectedly in the course of their.procee.d-
ings, and he should have never been able to have gone on with
the measure, were it not for the uniform kindness, moderation,
and temper of the House, during the repeated . discussions
which had been had upon the subject. He could not take leave
of this question without expressing his opinion, founded upon
a residence of upwards of forty years in Ireland, which was,
that by the passing of this Bill, they were conferring a greater
benefit upon the community than any legislative power ever be-
fore had an opportunity of conferring upon any of the subjects
of a state.. . -
Sir JOHN NEWPORT then. went forth with the Bill to
the House of Lords, attended by a large body of the. Members
of the Commons.
AGRICULTURAL PETITIONS.
Mr. J. BENETT presented a Petilion-from. the-Agricultu-
rists of flighworth, Wilts, in favour of the repeal of the late
War Malt Tax.—Laid on the table. . .
Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented a similar Petition froth the
Landholders of Northampton. The Hon. Member begged to
state his dissent from the sentiments and prayer of the Petition.
Laid on the table.
Lord A LTHORP presented similar Petitions from Work-
sop and Doncaster, and the County of Nottingham. In allu-
sion to the declaration of the Noble Lord (Lord Castlereagh)
that he should exert his influence to throw out the Bill fcir the
repeal of the last Malt Tax on the second reading, he said he
hoped the Noble Lord and his supporters would reflect on the
appearance it would have to the country to negative the first
measure proposed for the relief of the agriculturists upon the
Petitions crowding the table of the House.—Laid on the table.
The Noble Lord also presented a Petition from occupiers of
land in Northamptonshire, complaining of agricultural dis•
tress, and praying for relief the table

_ praying 1, _ on Ae.
Mr. F. PALMER presented a similar Petiti(

mention from Big-
-
gleswade, which, in consequence of some informality in the
mode of signature, was withdrawn.
Similar Petitions were presented and laid on the table, from
Great Stanmore, Middlesex, and Royston, in Hertfordshire.
Mr. GOOCH presented Petitions relative to the Repeal of
the Malt Tax, from Market-Deeping, Hadleigh, and Ipswich.
The Honourable Gentleman said he had hoped the Honour-
able Member for Essex would have postponed his motion for
to-night, till after the Report of the Agricultural Committee.
In order to clear himself from the charge of inconsistency in
having voted for a reduction of Estimate, and refusing to vote
for the repeal of this tax, he had only to say, that although he
desired a reduction of expenditure, he did not think he was
bound to oppose any (the first) taxes that might be mentioned.
He left it to the Ministers to determine upon what taxes they
might choose to repeal, and if he did not think that it would be
prejudicial to his Constituents or the Country, he would vote
or it.—The Petitions were laid on the table.
The Irish Lunatic Asylum Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Monday next.
CARLISLE ELECTION.

~n f'

Mr. WYNNE, as Chairman-, hrought.up the Report of the
Committee appointed to inquire into the truth Of the allegation
of the Petition from the Freemen at Carlisle, complaining of
the interference of the-Militarrin the late Election. •
The Report was read by. the Clerk to the following effect
" That it appears to this Committee that a body of armed
soldiers did, on the 24th of May last, in pursuance of an order
from J. Lawry, Esq. and others, Magistrates of. the City of
Carlisle, come in a military, manner, and. post themselves in
view of the Town Hall of the said City, when the poll for a
Citizen to serve in Parliament was carried bn, before-the electors
had left the place,. and before the poll was finally closed. . That
the Committee did not impute corrupt motives to the Magis-
trates as the Petitioners did: • That it appeared to the Com-
mittee• that the civil power of Carlisle was inefficient ; but that
the Magistrates did not use all the means they had in their
power to preserve the peace; and that it did not appear that
the riot was of that uncontrollable magnitude to justify the re-
sort to the, military interference complained.of. But that un-
der all the circumstances of tbe.case, considering the difficult
situation in which the Magistrates were placed on that occa-
sion, the Committee did not feel disposed to recommend.that
any.measnre should be adopted by the I-louse on the subject."
Mr. WYNNE.eulogised the impartiality of the Committee
which had been appointed to investigate this matter. He had
never been Chairman of say Committed the . conduct Of which
had given him greater satissactien. The lion: Member stated,
thatalthough -the Committee had found that the Constables of
the city of Carlisle had not done their duty,, but that the civil
force was very inefficient ; -and althdugh the peace of the tofirn
had been unwarrantably disturbed by the introduction of an
armed force, the Committee did not think fit to propose any
penal proceedings, trusting that what had already taken place
in the -House would Operate as a warning: Before he pr0,,,0 sed
a Resolution for the .House to Adopt, he: moved that the Rasp-
Itttions of that in 1741, on a similar oecalion, be read. ,
This Resoliition,.dediaring an Interference of armedsoldiers
in an deeded to,have been a high violittiondf the-privileges of
-the,frolt4e, and an-invasion
.of. the freedom of: election and the
rights of the subject, having been read,
Mr. AV VNNE Moved as a Reselution—That this House
Ways look with. jealdusy upon the violation-of the freedom of
elections.; but upder the.circurostancea of the case are disposed
to proceed no further in this matter.
'Mr.. BENNETT bore teStithonfto the peaceable disposition
of the electors of. Carlisle on the occasion in
_question, and.
,yrer.ated theinterference of theadlitary. , Alluding to the new,
barratle about to' be built in that city, he thought -if would be
better to make an augmentation to the Police.
• Mr: sT.AXES said hefele atiSgedwitli having done his:.duty
in bringing this matter befqre the House, and- refrained from
makiiig,quiy.o4)lisitlon to the notion.
• - After 'a few wordiffrom -Sir- J. Graham, Sir P. Musorave,
Mr...Cyrwen, and Mr..AVYnne,the,Resolution was agreed tO.
:The County Rates AmendMent Bill was read a second time.
Sir R. HERON' pr&tnted a petition-from the AgricultdristS
ih the Botough of Great Grimsby, complaining of Agricultu-
aul,Distress.—Laid on thetable.
Sir R. JIERON likewise presental a petition'froin the town,
of. Lincoln ar,ainst the Malt Duties.-Laid 'oh' the table: -

MALT DUTY'.
Mr.. WESTERN rose tcr7present •three petitions from dif-
ferent quarters against the additional Duty on Malt.; One.. wal
signed bYs,5OO landholders in the counties of Essex andllert-
ford-; 'another was from the town- of Cambridge •; and'the third
front the parish. of Hans ton, containing the signatures of 170
wealt4y and mpst respectable occupiecs of' Jana in that parish'.
Those petitions stated that the agricultural interest was almost
korne down-by the excessive weight of taxation,•but more par-
ticulacly by the tax on malt; which, by diniinishing; the con-
sumption of corn, had the most direct and .mos,,pernicious.in-
flutrice on the growers of that article:. They prayed the House
to repeal the tax, or afford thew sonic other substantial relief

without delay.—The petitions were' ordered to lie upon the table
and. be printed.

IRISH TRADE.
Mr. CANNING presented, a Petition very numerously and
respectably signed 'from -Liverpool,- praying that the. House
would take into its consideration the -state. of . the protecting du-
ties upon Irish commodities., with a. view to lighten the preS-
sure of the same. He hoped the. Chancellor of the Exchequer
would not object to the petition being referred to a select
Committee.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, as well as
we were able to hear him, dissuaded his Right Honourable
Friend moving that the petition be referred to a Committee.:—
He vtould;bring the question before Parliament at some time
not very distant.

.EL L stated that he had received letters from
some of the principal Irish Merchants, wishing' that. some of
['these duties should be taken -oft, and expressing a oonvict ion
that if that were done, it would be beneficial to the revenue.—
'He believed as it was, that instead of .C 180,009, it only produe-
ed an annual revenue of £120,000. He hoped the Right Hon.
Gentleman would not allow • the Session to pass over without
bringing forward some motion on this subject.
r. CANNING joined his prayer to that of the7Honour-
able Baronet 'who had just spoke. He hoped .it would be un-
derstood, • thatif they did not press the question to a Commit
tee then, that the' Chancellor of the Exchequer would stand
pledged to propose Some favourable measure at a future period.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured his
Right. Hoh. Friendithat in order to set the minds. of the Irish
Merchants at rest, and to prevent frequent agitation of the mat-
ter' in that House, he pledged himself to bring the matter
.for-
ward at no distant period. The Pptition was then ordered to
be printed.

TIMBER TRADE. • -
Lord ALTHORP inquired of. the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Wallace) what duty it was intended to impose on certain
articles connected with the timber trade not mentioned in the
schedule. Were the articles to whiCli he alluded, whether
coming from Canada or the north of Europe, to be protected
equally ?
Mr. WALLACE answered, that the same practice would
prevail with respect to tholes articles not specifically mentioned,
as had heretofore prevailed when new duties were imposed.
MALT DUTIES' REPEAL BILL.
Mr. WESTERN moved the order of the day -for
the second reading of the above Bill. Before
the House proceeded to the immediate considera-
tion of this measure, he wished to make a few
preparatory observations, chiefly with reference
to the duty levied on ScotCh Barley. He would,
in the first instance, take the liberty
_to state that
the new tax, which was estimated to produce
1,400,000/. per annum, had not brought that Sum
into . the Exchequer. Up to the year 1819 the
duty on Scotch .barley was Bd. per bushel less
than that imposed, on English barley. In 1804 a
committee was appointed to consider whether Scot
land was entitled to the privilege which it then
enjoyed, of paying this reduced duty. The corn-
mittee decided• that Scotland was so entitled, and
it continued to enjoy this diminution of Bd. per
bushel till 1819; and then, when an addition of
s. 2d. was made to the English duty, the charge
on. Scotch barley was advanced Is. • 10d. ; thus
doing, away the benefit which. Scotland had pre-
viously enjoyed, and which was confirmed b,y the
committee of 1814. He would not take upon him
to say that the decision of the committee was
right or wrong ; but it was rather extraordinary
that, in the face of the committee, and with a full
knowledge of th© advantage so long enjoyed by
Scotland, the Right Hon. Gentleman should in a
moment set it aside. He understood that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had thrown out a hope to
the Members for Scotland that he would re-con-
sider this measure, He had heard (for he was
not present when the circumstance occurred)
that the Right lion. Gentleman had expressed
such a sentiment, and his (Sir. Western's) object
was to disengage this part of the question from
the Bill now before the House. The object of
the present measure was to repeal the new duty
of Is. 2d. per bushel, which pressed alike on
England, Scotland and. Ireland, and which was
imposed in 1819. It was, to all intents and pur-
poses, a war tax, for the repeal of which the
faith of Parliament was pledged.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated,
that though in the first year the new tax had
fallen short of its fair average produce by about
150,0001., still in the last year it exceeded the
average. With respect to what the Hon. Gent.
had.said as to the duty imposed on Scotch Barley,
it should -be recollected that the Act of 1819 was
specially made for Scotland, under peculiar cir-
cumstances. He, however,- had no objection to
go into a committee, to re-consider that subject,
and to inquire whether the reasons adduced by
the committee of 1804 were satisfactory. The
question -divided itself into two points--namely;
whether .any good gronnds could be stated for
making a general distinction between England
and Scotland ; and it'so, to what extent that dis-
tinction ought to be
_allowed. He was perfectly
ready to inquire fully into both subjeCts.
Lord A. HAMILTON
.declared. that he always
thought the additional duty upon .Scotch Barley
most unfair, -inasmuch as it was inferior to the
EngliSh. 'ln consequence of what had been
done by Parliament in the last Session, he had no
hope that any thing specific would be done for
Scotland. The cause of Scotland was indeed
become hopeless. For that reason he should
support the reduction of this duty of Is. 2d. per
quarter upon English Barley, because he should
so far .be.doing something for Scotland. Having
done so, he • should confidently call on Country
Gentleman to support him in procuring a Com-
mittee, ,which -he bad—hitherto- been unable to
procure.

Mr. COKE said, that if Scotch Gentleine.n,who
voted against this.measure the other night,- would
now vote for it, they might then expect to be
supported in the interests of their own country.
They could only carry such a measure by union
and co-operation. But if they split and divided
their votes as ihey had done, and a large propor-
tion.was found voting for the Minister, they had
no claim On others 'to support them. lie cer-
tainly now wished for union, so as to throw out
this additional duty upon malt, and then he
should be pellectly ready to support theliNoble
Lord. in getting the appointment of a Committee.
If the Noble Lord supposed that he was ever
agairAst• that proposition, he was quite misin-
formed. Hs had always been ready to support
any measure for the reduction of a tax, as far as
it could possibly be done with safety.
- The Order of ,the.' Day 'was then read. Mr.
WESTERN moved that the Bill be now read a
second time.-

Sir J. SfifiLLY would vote for the motion, be-
cause it went to relieve the country from burdens
which could no longer .be borne. Ile described

the state of. agriculture to be most distressed—
many farms, and those not bad lands, but of very
long cultivation, not being ab)e to remunerate
the expenses of cultivating thew; and the taxes

and poor rates. A great deal had been said about
farmers having lived like gentlemen in their pros;;
perity, and the- necessity for their returning to
the rank which they before held. But it all
amounted to this, that farmers who had'uot much
capital. were quite ruined 'by the cultivation of
the land. If the system went on, the owners
must be content with a very different 'tenantry
from the respectable persons who had hitherto
held their estates. After the American war the
Government assisted the distresses of the mer-
chants. Why then not assist the agriculturists,.
whose claim was equally urgent ? He wished at
any rate to see the taxes more equally borne
by alt. He was therefore in favour of a small
property, such as two per cent. rather than the
continuance of this Malt Tax. lie supported the
motion.
Mr. J. WA:I6 took the subject under three
points of view : First, that of going on with the
pres4rit expenditure, accompanied with the re-
peal' or this tax; Second, that of reducing the
expenditure to the amount of the tax to be re-
pealed ; Third, that of laying on a more equal
tax in its place. As to the first, it was too intri-
cate and scientific a subject for him to enter into.
It implied, of course, the alienation of the Sink-
ing Fund. He did not approve of this, beCause
after all that had been said about the establish-
ment of the finances, it would look so like vacil-
lation. Some persons, it was true, represented
the Sinking Fund as a fallacy----one lion. Member
hdd deserThed it by a coarser epithet. If it was a
fallacy,. it had deceived the greatest nation ;CI
the world, and the wisest statesmen that ever
existed in that nation- : no delusion had ever been
so general, for it had been iMplicitly* confided in
by the people of this country for thirty-five years
past, and among them by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox.
He could not consent,' for his own part, to do
away with the Sinking Fund. _ As to retrench--
ments, as far as he had heard them proposed,
they went to a considerable reduction of the
establishments, which, he thought, ought not to
be lowered. The peace of Europe had been
already violently interrupted, and could only be
preserved, as far as this country was concerned,
by retaining arms in their hands. The am-
bition of monarchs and the vengeance of the
people might yet eMbroil Europe in a, con-
siderable degree of difficulty. As to the
Income Tax in any shape, the Hon. Baronet
could scarcely hope that it would be borne more
patiently, or be felt as lightly by the agricul-
turists as the Malt Tax. The machinery of
the Income Tax had been described as inquisi-
torial and Vexatiom lie had no inclination to
restore it. 'What was he to do then ? As he
thought. the taxes esssential to the" maintenance
of the establiShments, and that the establish-
ments were indispensable, he hoped he would be
excused if he should continue to support the Malt
Tax until some better substitnte should be offer-
ed. Their only choice lay then between the
redaction of the establishments and shaking the
foundation of the financial system. The friends
of Government, who had supported them in
every measure of expenditure, ought 'not to de-
sert them now. It was only for those who
were generally hostile to the measures of Mini-
sters to be able consistently to starve them :as to

means.
Mr. GRENFELL had no,faith in a Sinking Fund
kept up by borrowing. He thought that a great
delusion. He was a friend, however, to a Sink-
ing Fund, when the principle of that fund was,
what only a true Sinking Fund could be, the ex-
cess of income over expenditure ; that was the
character of the present Sinking Fund, and Mi-
nisters should. 00 all in their power to augment
its resources as well by retrenchment as by every
other means. He was sorry to be obliged to
differ from his Hon.. Friends near him on the
'present occasion. He was one of those who, in
1819, gave his humble vote for the levying of
new. taxes, to put the finances of the country on
their best footing. It would be the greatest in-
consistency in him to vote for the repeal of one of.
those taxes, when his opinions had undergone no
change. It would 'be a. gross dereliction in him
not to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
A great many topics had been introduced into
the .diseussion of this subject. It had been
stated as a reason to justify the repeal of this
tax, that by, reducing 'the income, Ministers
would be obliged to adopt measures of eco-
nomy. This was beginning at the wrong end.
Ministers were as likely .to adopt those measures
while the tax was in force as afterward.s. What
would they say of a private gentleman who, hav-
ing resolved on retrenching his expences, cut
short his income as.the first step towards it? He
deprecated. the frequent introduction of :sucr,es-
tlons as-to a breach of the public faith. 11-s;did
not know how it was, but those hints came more
frequently from landed proprietors in that House
than from any other class. He would have them
be aware, that in proposing the invasionif the
funded property, they were endangering their
own. They ought to know that the fundholders
had as good a right to propose the invasion of
the landed property, as the landholders had to
propose the invasion of funded property. He did
not think the malt duty the first tax which ought
to be repealed ; he thought the salt tax was
much more oppressive, and ought to be the first
repealed. He considered it as a complete mis-
take to • suppose that the repeal of the malt tax
would give any relief to the agriculturist.
Mr. LoCKHART corrected the understanding
Which his Hon. Friend near him had taken up, of
any suggestions as, to the treatment of the fund-
ed property. He bad never heard among all
the suggestions.of any more Violent than a propo-
sition for laying a small tax on that property,
and making.the holders take their fair share of
the burdens of the:State. This was securing, in-
stead of endangering their property, for it was,
impossible that things could go on much longer as
at present—one party nominally holding the pro-
perty of the lands, while the produce of it was
all gathered up and given to another party, to
which the first were but, as it were, atiscripti,
glebce,
,mere serfs, to gather in the_ rents for the
advantage of the fundholders. It was not the.
reduction, of the establishment, which he and
his Honourable Friends contended for, but a
duction of the expenses of the establishments.

. .
—Was it net out of all
..reaSon, that when the
necessaries and lux,uries of life were all reduced
in value, the expellees of those establishments
remained the same ? Great eulogibm had been
passed on the Sinking Fund, but the Honourable
Member who made that eulogiurn was in reality
reproving the Right lion. Gentleman whom he
wished to support. That Right Hon. Gentle-
man had reduced the Sinking Fund of 17 mil-
lions, left by his predecessor, to 2i millions.—
He would vote for the repeal of this tax, because
he was convinced that agriculture would get no_
other relief. The Committee had been sitting
and listening to details of distress perfectly well.
known before. The only use of the Petitions on
this subject Was to give the House some informa-
tion, and to show that the landlords Were receiv-
ing no rents, the farmers were making no profit,
and that the labourers must be without employ-
ment. The Clergy, the Magistracy, and the
yeomanry reduced, Where were they to look for
the means of securing the tranquillity of the
country ? Commodities had deteriorated 50 per•
cent.—taxes ought to be reduced in the like pro-
porlion. As to the argument of Ministers, that
all these things would right themselves, he re-
quired to know by what process ? How was
property to be secured—bow was order to be.
preserved when the distress of the farmers
was as great as if an invading army had
marched through the land ? He would beg.
to remind the Right Honourable Gentleman;
(the Chancel:or of the Exchequer) that,
1816, he himself gave up as a bogs to the poor,
when the Property Tax was repealed, this tax
which he now proposes to restore. This tax presses
peculiarly hard on the poor. The quality of the
beer is considerably deteriorated, and even, the
measure is not fairly regulated, in consequence of.
the monopoly of publicans. If it. were repealed,,
the poor would have this useful commodity at•
a much more reduced rate, and in a better con-
dition, which would add considerably to their
comforts. He really did_ not believe that the
Ministers were sufficiently conversant with agri-
cultural affairs ; if they were, They would take
some steps to relieve it. The rent of the farmer
is paid out of his capital, and it must appear
quite.obvious that such a system cannot be of,
long continuance. The agriculturist has made
every sacrifice that could be made, and it was
the duty of Ministers to -interfere, and make
every part of the State bear the burdens,
and restore the equilibrium ; and here he could
not avoid. expressing his sorrow and regret at.
the language he heard held by some Gentlemen
in that House. He had heard it said that.the:
agriculturists have had their day, that they con-.
tributed to support the war, and must now sub-
mit to the consequences of it. But he repudiated,
that doctrine on these grouods : these agriculturists
are not the same now ; for ought he knew they may
have completely changed sides, and now become.
the capitalists. But he spoke of those who were
now the landholders; he spoke of the three
millions who were now in the
.deepest distress
and were stretching out their bands to get assis,
tance.—(Hear, hear!)—He looked upon their
condition at present to be the most miserable and
degrading that can well be imagined. He there-':
fore sincerely trusted the House
,would turn their
most serious attention to the question, and not .be
misled by the speech of the Hon. Gentleman op-
posite (Mr.. Ward), who seemed merely to ad-
dress himself to those Gentlemen who had been *.
the supporters of Mr. Pitt, as if Gentlemen were
to shut their eyes to decenCy and justice. He.
did not think that having been a member of a
Pitt Club, or on account of any prior vote a man
may have given, be should now feel reluctant.to-
change his opinions, and manfully avow therm—,
(Hear.)
Mr. J. Smut said he had exagsined the wholes
sof the case now before -the House with the ut-:
most attention, and had arrived at quite different
,conclusions from the Hon. Gentleman that just
sat down. In common with many others who
were holders of land, helfelt the great distress.
that prevailed, and if he thought that the repeal.
of this tax could afford any material relief, hd,..
should most certainly vote for it. But he would
appeal to'an Hon. Baronet opposite, 'Member for
Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull), who had considerable
information on these subjects, whether he thought
it would afford any great relief. In some parti- •
cular parts it may remove some partial distress,
but it would be by no means general. But there
was a still greater objection than that. We have
been told that if a reduction of Ss. a quarter On
malt took place, yet the price of beer'or ale would
not be reduced one halfpenny-,..50 that, in fact,
all the advantages of thiS measure Would fall into
tile pocket of the public and private *brewer.
There, were no classes of men had stronger claims
on our sympathies than the labouring poor ; but
even if this tax were repealed, it could not 1
afford them any material relief. There was
another question-- to which he wished. to call /
the attention of the House—he meant the Popr
Laws. In these laws he thought some alteration
might be made that would afford great relief;.
indeed he felt convinced it was the only mode in
which any real or substantial relief could be
extended. Several opinions have been given an
this subject. He thought that if the poor were
employed in the cultivation of the land instead
of receiving money, it would be a considerable
improvement. And he had no doubt if the RI-
Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Bourne, we
presume), to whom the country is so much in-
debted, would bring forward some such measure,
he bad no doubt he shouli be met with the good
wishes of the Parliament and the Country.T
(Hear!)----There was no man in that. House a
more strenuous advocate than he was for the
most rigid system of economy. We are very
much in the habit of indulging in opinions
about the extravagance of Ministers, but he
did not think that they were alone to blame. .
Gentlemen on his side of the House Were as
culpable as others for their supineness and •
sloth in giving their support to the squantictier;"
ing of millions: There was the Penitea .
lately erected, the canal in Scotlaut...a.cnirol l;
never yet heard a man speak of that cli( i
canal, that did not say it WaS the
most absu
thing that ever was-done. There were also ,ie4l
works at Sheerness, Woolwich, Milford. Haven,
i

and others, on Which millions have been expCnd-
ed. it was impt,sible then, unless we retrace
our steps, that the country ca❑ be restored to
any thing like ..a flourishing condition. This
country has always been distitiuished for che-
rishing the principles of liberty, for moral as
well as mental improvement, and for holding
111, to other nations an example of all that
.`'"s great • and good. It was for this reason
lie felt the great regret he did at the senti-
ments of some Gentlemen. lie alluded to the
fears- that were entertained about the national
eeht. Ile had heard it said, it was idle to talk
of preserving the national honour, and that it
was impossible to preserve it by the course
we were now pursuiu,:. Nothing could be more
erroneous than those opinions, nor. there never
was a time more badly chosen for them than'
the Present. The promulgation of these senti-
ments had a considerable tendency to withdraw
the confidence of other countries from Log-
land, lie had heard a gentleman of the first
distinction in another country, say, "Is it
P,°ssible that Great Britain, after having been
ae bulWark of other countries, should now
is the time of peace desert its own prin-
ciples?"_(Hear, hear !)—But di'd Gentlemen
"7nside)' the consequences of such an act ?
le-re are now eight or nine hundred thousand
liedsholders in the country, besides the num-
t.r of corporations, insurance companieS, and
m
aers, whose property is so vested that it must
actually appear little short of madness to enter-
" such an idea. England has always been con-
'idesed the asylum of property throughout the
; and to the everlasting honour of this coun-
sry he-it said, that during the War, when we were
fta.(ing ourselves to defray our expences, we care-
Ody and religiously abstained from taxing the
Property •of foreigners.—(Hear !)—He knew of
Tthing more highly creditable to the national
character. With respect to the present tax, he
thought the repeal of it could not relieve the dis-
tress, and would considerably diminish our re-
Venue. There was but one way to remove the
'rational. distress, and that was by 'reducing our
that Ministers would add strength and vigour to
leMselves, and have a, much greater prospect of
j'etainingflte'sr places, if they introduce a system
of retr.eticisment : any thing else cannot be effec-
.t al• Retrenchment in every department, both
I:.the Army and Navy, should be resorted to.
Ith respect to the latter, in the proper time,
1 7eri the . estimates were before the House,
reduction
be able. to shew 'that a-cOnsiderahle
“'"4ctionthay and must take place in that de-,
Parths.
—(Hear, hear !)
Sir j. BOtOHEY could not support the motion-
for the.rePeat of the .Malt Tax unless the Gen-
tleman who advocated it could give him some as-4
surance that it was a measure of economy, and
Would not be substituted by some other tax.
/•
ir • CUnIrEN wished that his lion. Friend.
▪ Smith), who had gone so fully into agricul-
✓raldistress,.and' yet who opposed the repeal of
uee-presenttax,. would show some practical mode
4.uisslng it. There has been for some time a
"mmittee sitting on this. question, and be had no
4 dobubt that 'as. such a, body of evidence had been
-to;.thern, a most distressing case of
'cultural distress would be made Out; With,
b`sPeCt to the-POor Laws, it would undpubtedlr
,he tnost desirable-. that some favourable change
k,°11(.1 be effected, but he was quite at a loss to
si:°`%," how that :could be done. The expences of
ytt; landholder were enormous, and he begged the
es"tion of the House to it. .He payed :2.0 Ter
pe-"t• • poor, rates,. 5 per cent.; county rates, 5
toicenttepairs, and 24 per cent..fOr collection,
11:'ing in the whole -324; per 'cent.--(Hear,
e•
it then in the. nature of things that
sr,' farmer could keep land on such conditions ?
4111.; country- is every day- getting into a worse
111:.1 worse condition. The fundholder should be
aotde to bear his share of the burdens. lie did
11, ''lean to diMiniSh his interest or security, all
tliirlwished for. 'was, that there should be some-,
the' fair 'proportion. With respect to
No' Present tax, it :bears. particularly hard on the.
tortrer classes; and the removal of it would add
1,0 siderably to their comforts. He, therefore,
4"h,(1 that Alinitters would consent to its repeal,
-the okfairly at the state of the country; for
-.must be prepared to prove that the country
111,7 a state of prosperity and • plenty, before
Coofl';il ask' us to' continue this tax ; unless they
IN,i4 no that he should vote against it.--(hear;)
toff BENETT contended that the landed and
cs3s-aercial interests were inseparable. The itle-
ttl:f the one was identified with that of the
hire the agriculturist was asked, who was
'Who
llist customer, his answer would be, the man
411' engaged in trade ; and in the same man-
anssr. the question was put to the latter, his
from would be, that he got most of his money
to h he landholder. if the national faith was e h
.tteh rl'eserved, taxation must be reduced to
atiso "its as would enable us to support it. The
itt eates of free trade had found more difficulty
.4eco„..
qo Phshing their object than they expected.
npo„ enuction had yet taken place in articles ,
etiti; !thich a reduction was looked for. It was
Pres.elY ridiculous to say that no extraordinary
atioli'llre was felt by the present system of tax"-
ito as well might it be said that there was
th Pressure when a sword was applied to
isstr reast.—(Hear, hear !)—What was the ob-
ititt.,°r which all Governments had been originally
tistil'uted ? It was to adMinister as great a por-
-Ist of happiness as possible to the people at
The tax in question was most injurious to
the 'corals of the- lower orders. 'Who were now
Principal consumers of beer ?—.the poor and
sio‘tell recollected the time,
.when laboUrers,
S,/ at the present period, were obliged to re-
(11.:11( _to the public house for their beverage,- could
kit at their own homes where they had an
of ntittant, supply.
Under all the circumstances
.case, he felt inclined to concur most cor-
i'Lxity irt, the repeal of the tax.
! r„ DouGr
as opposed the repeal. Nothing,
'e conceived I
list 'ad been shewn to induce a belief
it would 'particularly
"ler -
, and: he air D ) relieve the
•Land-,
qtr
thought it 'teas a tax
atfectinrp th
iIC Barour said he silo of the community.
ttahught..the
,n se uld support the motion.,
army we had was not

l

necessary to the colintry, and the still enormaus
estimates might be curtailed 'liciently to equal
this enormous malt tax. :He denied that the
commercial interest was not equally diStressed
with the Agriculturists, and therefore he could
not give his consent to tax the funds to relieve
the land. The landed interest bad no right to
shake off the bUrden of tithes or poor's rates, as
they held their estates subject to those burdens,
lie trusted the House would follow the exam-
ple set theni by the lion. MeMber for Aberdeen,
and narrowly look into theestiMates, which were
still to come before them.
Mr. BENNET and Mr. Bnrciir mutually ex-
plained.
Colonel Noon admitted that the tax pressed
upon the comforts Of the poorer classes, but
thought the, repeal of the .tax would not benefit
them to any extent ; and, judging from what
took place in,1816, he did not think the brewers
would reduce the price of their beer, even if the
tax were to be repealed—and should they re-
duce the price equal to the duty taken off, it
would not amount to a farthing per pot of porter.
Ife. thought the Bill was not quite fair towards
the Agricultural Committee ; it would, in his
opinion, have been proper to have waited to ,see
what they would propose to the House. Ile
would be willing to-morrow to vote for the re-
peal of the whole of the Malt Tax, if he could
see a modified Property Tax ; but at present he
could not consent to repeal a tax by which so
Much of the income of the country as 1,500,0001.
(which this tax produced) would be broken
down. For. these reasons, and because it was a
half measure, he should vote against it.
Mr. F. "Awls thought it was wise to have got
rid of the Property Tax, both on account of its
amount and the mode of its operation. The great
fault of that tax was being on too,narrow a basis.
The Malt Tax was not liable to that objection,
as it spread itself over a much wider surface. If
he could think the repeal of the tax would be a
relief to agriculture, that would have great weight
with him ; but he never would, in any vote which
he should give in that House, confine himself to
the consideration of one interest only. But he
denied that it would operate as an immediate
relief to the distress -which was felt. It might
operate on a long average of years, but the ques-
tion was how to give relief directly, and it was
saying nothing, therefore, to affirm that this mea-
sure would be a relief in ten or fifteen years. If
he were called upon to give an opinion as to what
tax would operate the greatest relief to the
landed interest, he should say, relieve them from
the pressure of stamps : the stamp duties, in his
opinion, were most oppressive on the landed

terest.
COIDDeI WOOD explained.
Captain GORDON rose to corroborate the ac-.
count which had been given of the distressed
state of the North of Scotland. He objected to
the Bill, because the duties imposed by it were
the same for Scotland as for this country. He
objected to the Bill, therefore, on the ground
that justice would not be done by it to the latter
country.
Mr. SMYTHE conceived the' best preparation
for war was to husband our resources ; be should
therefore vote for the repeal of the tax.
Lord CASTLEREAGH, after calling the attention
of the House to the resolution agreed to by the
House in 1819, to the effect that there ought to
be an excess of income over the expenditure of
the country by five millions, and with that view
fresh taxes should be imposed to the amount
of three millions per annum, said that he felt
great pain in opposing this Bill. ' There was
no man in the Hodse who was more anxious
for the happiness and prOsperity of the landed
interest than himself ; and if be could per-
suade himself that that interest had in it
any thing
,distinct from the rest of the
community, he should feel the duty he had to
perform still more arduous. He regretted very
much to have heard many topics which had been
touched upon during late debates—he meant the
suggestions which were thrown out for taxing
the public funds. No greater breach of the
public faith could be committed than this, and he
was convinced that a British Parliament would
never come to adopt the immoral maxim of de-
fending one interest by betraying another. He
then proceeded to contend, that the revenue of
the country was not at present in a situation to
bear the repeal of this tax; that even if it were
able to allow the removal of any tax which it was
most expedient to dispense with, and that there
was nothing in the returns on the table which
showed that this tax bore with any particular se-
verity on agriculture, it had not narrowed the
market for barley as applied to malt. With re-
spect to the consumer, the Malt tax did not in-
crease the price of the article ; for since that
tax was laid on in 1819, the price of beer was
twice lowered. The removal of this tax
would sacrifice near a million and a half
of revenue, while to the consumer, suppos-
ing the beer should be proportionally lowered
in price, it would produce no more than a fall of
three farthings in the gallon of beer, He was
convinced from the returns, it was demonstrable
that as the tax on malt was high, the consump-
tion of beer was more abundant, so that in point
of fact there was no tax in the removal of which
the landed interest was less concerned than this.
Had it been otherwise he would go a great way to
meet their wishes, for he loved the landed interest.

—(Hear hear, and loud laughter !)--It Would
be a great reproach to the landed interest if they
should be the cause of breaking down the
finances of the country ; and that on au occa-
sion when it was quite clear that the • mea-
sure proposed could not in the least •bene-

fit the Agriculturist. If it were proposed to
repeal taxes, before the debts, for the payment.
of which they were imposed, had been liqui-
dated ; and before the terms of the resolution

into which the House had entered, only two
years ago, had been complied with, if it
were proposed to repeal any taxes, that was not
the tax which it would be proper to repeal. If
one million and a half (and that was the utmost
that could be gained by the repeal of the malt
tax)—if one million and. a half of taxes were to
be reduced, he. would rather take it, from the
'window tax, or from some other tax which he

could Mention, the removal'Of weeld
more universally beneficial than" that of the malt
tax. 'He would protest against the false notien
which was held Opt, that' the repeal orthat tax
could -give anY relief to the diStresseS'ef the
country. Nothing could triare fallacious than
the hope of such relief. Under present circum-
stances, what relief, he would ask, could the
taking off of one, or, .at.most, two millions and
a half of taxes afford the country ? Any man who
well understood the true interests of the people,
could not maintain that that was the mode which
sitould be followed for promoting the' indepen.
deuce and welfare of the country. it did not
devolve on him to maintain the propriety
of the resolution into which the House had
entered —it was enough that the House
had so resolved, and the Honourable Mem-
ber for Eisex could not say -that any thing
happened since. 1819 to induce the House to alter
that resolution. He (Lord Castlereagh) was
aware of, and felt as much as any man the de.
pressed .state of the agricultural interests; but
Hon. Gentlemen were in.the habit of generaliz-
ing—and not only of generalizing, but of exag-
gerating and colouring them too highly., But he
would repeat it, that it was a false and most fal-
lacious notion, that the .agriculturists. could ob-
tain any, relief from the proposed repeal. It was
on the question of low prices, and not of .taxation,
that the depression of theagricultural interests rest-
ed. Although that tax did pot-go to the realiza-
tion of a surplus of 5,000,0001. as proposed in the
resolution of 1819, yet there was much difference
between having a surplus of 3,000„0001. and having
none at all. It was their duty to maintain the pro-
gress they had already made. The House would
'allow him to call to their attention the reason why
that tax had been originally proposed. It had been
a matter of reproach to his Majesty's Ministers,
and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particu-
larly that they had suffered the finances of the
country to relax, and allowed a quantity of Esc
Chequer' Bills to float. That. had been made
matter of reproach, and no' defence was made.----
Ministers did not wish to call on Parliament
until they saw. what reductions could be made,
and what 'sums would be necessary. On the pre-
sent there 'was -a reduction of 1,500,0001. com-
pared with last year, and they were examining
what • further.- reductions'.., could be made..—
(Hear, hear!)—Ministers-.had forborne to call
on Parliament until they could see. what. could be
done in the way of reduCtion, notwithstand-
ing that they . were often reproached with
relaxing. the finances of the country.. It was on
these grounds they. felt justified in the proposi-
tion
.of 1819 to raise.3,ooo,Qool. to meet the ne-
cessary demands.. He. Would ask if the country
'could stand 'well at home or abroad; if after two
years
.they, should be obliged to retrace 'their
steps. and repeal, through the Malt tax, the ope-
rative system,.which they had thencommenced ?
tiVaS the Hon. 'Member for Essex prepared to
measure the inconvenience such conduct would
prove to those whose cause he advocated ? What
hopes would such an avowal give the public Credi-
tor ? He would contend that the measure itself
would not operate any' practical relief; hut
mate and deplorable distress. He would repeat
what he had said" before, that the :question Was
not between the House and tlie*GOVeroment, but
betweenthe:House-and the country. He would
not think it proper to be responsible for the Go-
vernment under the hazardous consideration that
the public creditor ivas not placed beyond-danger:
And he would:be sorry to be a party to theadininis
tratiop if Parliament would refuse to place beyond-
despondency or danger the claims of the public
creditor.. He thought it unbecoming in the Le-
gislature to recede, after declaring in 1819 that
they .would not relax their efforts until they
would . have established a surplus fund of five
millions. The Noble Lord concluded. by say-
ing,: that he felt. he should on the present occa-
sion best performhis duty to the country, both
to the manufacturers and agriculturists, by op-
posing a.measure, the effect of which would be,
.to shake the public credit of the country, with-
out conferring any benefit on any class.
Mr. COKE (of Norfolk) differed from the
Noble Lord, as he considered the distress com-
plained of to arise from the .pressure of taxation.
He gave his. most cordial support to the Bill be-
fore the House. The system which had been
acted upon, and which.he had opposed for the
last 25 years, had broughtthe country to the state
to which he had always expected it would be
brought., lie almost. regretted that he-had lived
thus long to see the country in its present
state. Dire taxation was the cause of the exist.
ing distress. But it was said the public debt
must not be reduced. God foibid that it
should be. improperly reduced ; but in time,
if something were not done, this might be-
come unavoidable. It was said the House must
not break faith with the Public Creditor. But
had this House not already.broken its faith ?
He had been a Member of. the House for forty
years,.and had uever known it to keep faith in any
case, so that for his part he, had no faith in it at
all. In his opinion a. reform of the 'system was
necessary.. The Noble Lord had .said the re-
,peal of the Malt Tax would'not benefit the iand-
ed interest. In reply, to this, he .would refer the
Noble Lord to the experience of the years 1,815
and 1817. In those years barley was only 18s. the
quarter.. The Malt. Tax was repealed, the.barley
rose to a retnurierating price, and .no complaipt
was heard On the subject till the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, imposed a new. Malt. Tax.. The
prico of barley upon this again. declined. He
knew not.how the Noble Lord could answer the
argurnent.su.pplied by these facts against his po-
sition,.and in favoursof the present Bill. . .
Lord AJlAmtriroN :supported, the,. Bill, and
was surprised to .hear it. contended. that the re-
peal of the Malt Tax. could afford no relief to the
landed interdt. If, the Petitions, on the table
did not convince the Noble Lord of the contrary,
he knew not ,what could produce that effect. A
Noble Lord 'who favoured the repealof tbe Malt.
Tax had recently been removed. from a situation
which be-held.. It must be iqferred. that lie had.
been' so removed on account of. his. havinc., :voted
for this: Bill. In, his opinion 'that Noble Lord"
had 'done himself honour by the course he had
taken in conformity with the wishes of the coun-

%WC re---

try Forttmic‘lf, .at,l..Pro..•e'd of the present
13W, and waS 7coriSeq den t opposed, to the fax-whiCh it wa intended to:repeal. A.4eductioti-of
ekpenditure was ':necessary, but it was in•vain-to
hone for this from the present Ministers, unless
the means of.continuiaig-it were taken from them
by repeal of the taxes.- • - •
Lord 'FIFE rose amidst a loud and general call

•
rei. the question. Ire was riot
,ambitions of oc-
cupying ..the valuable time. of ..the Mouse. He
assured them he felt.disposed to .go home to his
bed, but he could not well keep silence after the
allusions made to him. He had no hesitation in
saying, with regard to the place he lately held,
that a diSmissal from it
.was not necessary at the
present time, unless it:was to serve some political
motives. A considerable time ago, was.. his,
wish,..and he was in readiness to retire„ being
convinced it was impossible to dis Charge the du-
satisfaction. Last year he felt desirous
to leave it, and it was 'no .ihcohvenience...to.be
deprived of it, but
,he considered the time chosen
to make the communication that his'Majesty'S
Ministers had no further use for his services, was
not the proper time. He was ordered to attend
his Majesty to Ireland, and iMmediately.after a
vote Oren in that Reuse, the communication was
Made .dispensing with his 'services. The vote he
gave was without Party spirit. It 'did not differ
from the vote he gave last year on the same 'ques-
tion. He considered fhe'rePeal'of the Malt Tax
rendered necessary by the state of the country ;
he did not repent the vote he had give& Having
troubled the House upon the allusion of the Noble
Lord, he expressed a hope that G entlemen would
indulge-him with the opportunity of 'stating why
he -gave that vote:- •It had . hitherto been held
that resistance,- when not successful, was not IL
crime,- but in the present instance the case
differed: -Acting- last -year with the minority,
no observation was made ; but voting- with the
majority, he was visited by censure. However,
his future conduct would shew that he was with-
out feeling of enmity. He should always do his
duty independently, as, far as it was possible.—
In. _loyalty to, the Throne and attachment to the
Monarch, he would bp true as the dial to the sun.
With reference to the Measurewhich he opposed,
it appeared unjust and impolitic in principle; and
painful and ruinous in the result. The Rt. Hon.
Gentleman had no reason tO 'complain of fixed
opposition from Gentlemen 'Who came North of
the Tweed; blit with respect to the Malt Tax,
it was opposed in the North because it was a
measure which greatly-increased the-distresses of
agriculture.
Lord- FOLKESTONE rose amidst loud cries of
question. lie began by defending himself-against
some imputations that had been thrown out
'against him on a former night, relative to whathe
had said of the fundholders, and- then proceeded
to discuss the subject before the House. It
had been said this tax was intended to pro-
duce a Sinking Fund ; and he wished to know.
where this Sinking Fund was to be found.
It had been said that there would be a sur-,
plus of five millions a , year for that fund,
and now it appeared • that the surplus did not
amount to two millions. How absurd then must
it be to. talk of a Sinking _Fund, when no such
thing'. could
,be. created. 'As to the_ imputa-
tion against him that he had recommended a
deduction from the interest of the national debt,
he had not said that there should be annnwil-
lingness to pay the interest, but that it would be.
impossible to pay it; and that instances might
occur in which it would be' a greater breach of
faith' to the public to pay the interest, than it
would be to the -fundholders tO stop the payment
of intereit. Therefore the withholding the inter
rest would not at.all times " be a breach of faith.
—lt had been said, that one might as well
come and take away the property of- the land-
owner. Indeed we were coming' to that state
at last, for the_owners of land were now nothing
more than tenants at will, obliged to band over
all their income to the. fnndholders, who were
now enjoying the advantages that could be en-
joyed in the country. • •
Mr. WODEIIOeSE said, he should persist in
giving his vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. WESTERN rose to speak in reply.. He de-
nied the assertion of the Noble Lord, that he bad
taught the farmers to be dissatisfied with this tax;
but, on the contrary, the farmers had deputed
him to bring. for Ward this measure, in Order to do
away the tax. He could assure the then -Minis-
ters, that if the burthens of-the people 'were not
soon lowered, the people would very soon
struct that House. There could be no econoinY
or - retrenchment, unless the' Members, 'of that
House came forward and insisted on its taking place.
He had already stated, and he would-re Peat 'his
statement, that this tax had the effect of reducing
the consnmptibn of corn, and therefore. operated
to the ruin ofthe,agriculturist ;, and if the Go-
vernment went
,oh :taxing the country, they
would every, day be..exhansting its productive
powerS, and 'taxes, instead 61increasing,..Woald
be every day diminiShed.

The quetion was now loudly called for, and
.he House proceeded .to a divisioni the nurabrs.

For the Second Reading
!Against it .% 7 - 242
- Majority against the..3;i4. 7r - - 7-7- 98

It :was consequently lost...,4tnangers
.were not
again. admitted 0,411e.n. Gallery, at, P
o'CLocii,the Mouse Adjourned, „

The laws appear to hold out no terror to the really wicked;
for in spite of the clreadful sentences which many were
ceiving for their crimes at the Kent Assizes; others were burly
employed in picking the lioel-efs'of the'spectators and those who
were engaged in the tisiness..oS tho.C"rt ;
.Zarportoli axe the,
instance of this kind which haye occurred dy.ring the last week,
and same of-them to a I,:irre'arriount.' • -- -

A Requisition, most uurneronsly and 'respec=

tP,bly signed, Was on Friday-presente'd. to •the
Mayor, requesting him to convene a- :Meet-
ing of the Inhabitants of to• take
into consideration the propriety. -of petition-
ing the House -of Lords to reject -the 13i11'
now pending in Parliametit for Catholic Emanci-
pation. The .Mayor. has.
_given notice. That a'

tirig" for this. pli,rpos.e.. lie' hoTiden the'
Coiiit' Ilall to-morrow morning' (this day), ..at
eleveu o'clock.—(Maidstone Journal; dpril 3.)