Star.
London, England, 1817-03-01 00:00:00

PdRLI..4MENTART PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, PRERD4RY
Earl GPOsVENOR presented a Petition from the Lord
Mayor, Aldermen, and Comma: Council of the City of London,
In Common Council nobied praying the concurrence of their
Lordships in measure i emus:Meal slid Parliamentary Re-
form, and also ag mist the Mil fur the Suspension of the !fallen
Corpus Act. 1 he NoSle Part hi Icily touched upon the re-pvcts •
Nifty of the Petitioners: and. upon his motion, the a'efiTinn was
tea I, and ordered to lie on the table.
1 he Earl of DERBY rte....wed a Petition from the Gentle-
men, Cferey, and other- hthahltaiits of the Huntltel of ilack-
borne, in the Coon:y other-,
of I.aneister, setting terh the
fears and apprehensions entertained by them from the evensive
seditious practices winch prevailed, and the tnodi:iiie machi.ia-
lions of persons who, under the mask of obtaining Parl.amen-
taty Reform, aimed at nothing les. than the sub..e, over-
throw
of the huts, Itherto-s, and Cistneilitinn ut the conntry,
mid whose &vivify and influence were such as enable I them to
11-aw, though from the very pit, ter Ciages of the const.
&ruble pecutlial y cuntributin,s, in the aggrepte, for the set). I
port and furtherance .o their neat Litr• designs, dtc. praying tor
the interference of Parliament is the adoption of such measures
se would moo effectually tend to c',.utfteract and put cloven the
same. The N .ble Earl, in presenting the document, which he
ag ;red to do, un Mist I ev:ctahle r. q..isitions obsnved, Ile by no
IMAMS acquiesced to a g .eat pats st what was advanced by the
Petitioners, who, though to hi. idea Matakeu, were numerous
and relseetable.

The-Velma was read, and after a few words of an otplana-
tory nature between the Noble Earl And the I.outo CIIA NCLL.
1.01, it era( agreed that ilea Petite n phiould b.- received es ttia:
ni those who had signed on the first -kw of wh eh the Petition
romiced.

CONTRIBUTIONS INIOSI PUBLIC PITICZI AND PINSIoNS.

Their Lordships resolved into a Committee on the
Malt Dusty and Contributilii Bull. The Earl of
SHAFTESBURY in the Chair:

Lord REDESDALE rose, pursuant to the notice
he had given, for the purpose of objecting to a clause
of a very particular and unusual description, which
had been introduced into the print bill. The clause
referred to by him was that which went to authorize
the payment, as voluntary conttibuions, of certain
sums, out of the income derived by certain indivi-
duals, from public offices, pensions, ant other situa-
tions lit public emolument, in proportion to the 'pro-
ceeds of those sources of emolument respectively,
and authorizing the Lords of his Majesty's freasury
to receive the same. To a clause of such a nature he
entertained strong and various objections : it pur-
ported to authorise the reco-ipt of certain proportions
'r.! the income of individuals derivable from such
sources, as voluntary cootributions. The difficulty
of a precise interpretation of such an enacting clause
Was not the least objection ;
,whatever may be the in-
tention, it may be difficult to say, how fat an Exche-
quer process should issue under some construction of
it, as law, and yet it was styled voluntary cootribu.'
tion. But of what nature may such a voluntary
contribution be considered Much in the same way,
he believed, as what used sometimes to take place
formerly among their Lordships' servants. A new
servant was called on to contribute what was termed
beer money, which contribution, if he declined pay-
, ing, he was hood by the others. He disapproved of
every thing like an attempt to levy a partialttax upon
certain individuals; this alone would constitute a se-
rious objection ; but he would not entettain this
measure were it ever propoied to lay it on generally.
Certain descriptions ut individuals were called upon
by the clause, to contribute to the necessities of the
public, under soch circumstances, and he must think,
under such a compuision as he had alluded to. For
Its own part, wire it propt.sed to continua a property
tax to such an Amount, which would be a clear and
equitabie principle, he would concur in its adoption,
as he had before declared his willingness so to do;
but he never could submit to an attempt to be taxed
individually by a clause, upon a part of his property,
along with certain other individuals. He was not to
be hooted out of his money. He would stand firm
6tl that ground, and he trusted many others would
do the same, and not submit to hove part of their
emoluments taken away from them, under Fre-
tence of a voluntary contribution. The persons de-
scribed as the objects of the clause, were those holding
offices and places in his Majesty's service, or those
possessing emoluments derived from the public reve-
nue. Was it meant to extend the operation of the
clause to the emoluments of his Grace the Duke of
Marlborough, which were conferred on his ancestor,
for his gre it and signal services ; to those of Lord
Nelson, for his great services ; to Lord St. Vincent,
and a variety of other eminent persons ? Were all
those to be considered as liable to contribute ? Mr.
Palmer too, may he called upon to contribute from
the annuity which he received for his public services.
As the clause was worded, it might exteod to almost.
every description of persons in the country, if the
words coupled with emoluments were taken in their
lull sense ; for where was the person who, in some
way or other, might not. be said to derive his ensolu-
malts from the public ? Holders in the public funds,
loan-jobbers, contractors, and all others of that de-
scription, derive their emoluments from the public.
Were all these to be called upon All such persons
we* expected to pay in proportion to their emote-
merits. Were a general Property Tax enacted he
should not object ; but to this partial and individual'
mode of taxation he had the strongest objection.
Why should the person who devoted his time. and
labour to the public service, more than any other,
pay a part of their properties ? Why shnuld not ,
' others, such as great co:ton mantsfactufers, or great;
mercantile men, be as well called upon, persons who
have made millions of money ? Why should,for in-
! stance, his Majesty's first Minister, who could not part ,
with a single shilling of his inadequate emoluments, I
, and who was obliged to spend, in supporoof the rank
1 and dignity of his situation, much more than it yielded
to him, be called on to make contribution ? History
' would prove this asset Lion. What did the Duke of
Newcastle, who was long in that situation, gain by
his being its the.pubtic service ? Nothing. On the
I contrary, he greatly injured his private fortune,
which, uu his quitting, win much less mats iE was on
his ctyning into she public service. The greit Lord
Chadian was else a long time iu the public service.