Star.
London, England, 1816-03-13 00:00:00

hta 'considerably increased. while every thing else
had experienced a very, great reduction. The
country was is a state of calamitous adversity, and
eosin prosperity. as the people were told at the open.
ing of the Session. There had been no evidence of
economy on the part of the Ministers. The house-
hold troops, the most expensive of ally, were doubled,
and there was an increase in the Civil List of
di'277,000, yet econntre; was recommended by the
Prince Regent. He could not anticipate an end to
the multiplied expenses which the c-suntry was likely
to groan under, and imputed to the Government a
constant inclination for I..vish expenditure. It had
been said that the Property rax was not a tax on in.
come ; but he maintained it was nos oily a tax on
income. but a tax where there was no come at all.
He hoped the landholders would not be deluded to
separate their interest from the commercial body, hut,
that both would unite in opposing that system tie op.
pressive taxation which was carried to so akirming an
extent. So large was the sum given for the Wirtern-
berg Army, that the States claimed the surplus; in
fact, he would agtin repeat, that be could see no end
of this profusion.
Lord CASTLEREAGH would submit it to the
candour of the House if al I 2s. a man, the propor-
tion granted for the Wirtemburg at my, was not as
low as could be allowed, considering that in this coon.
try we could not bring a soldier into the field uuder
£BO, and the expense on the Continent could not be
less than from £4O to 4150. With respect to the
Hanoverian troops, they only received the difference
between Jej I 2s. and their actual expenditure.
Mr. PIIILLIPS and Lord CASTLEReAdlltzalAined.

Mr. BROUGHAM said. the Nob Lord van..
plained of inconvenience arising from the discussion
on the petitions, but he wished to refute this ductrme,
and would tell the Noble Lord that his nsistAkes
could no be corrected without it.

Sir WALTER STIRLING supported the Pro.
poly Tax, and gave Ministers credit for their whole
conduct.

Sir ROBERT PEEL adverted to the general dis.
tress of the manufacturers, and said, that the pres.
sure of the times was particularly felt in Manch< st:•r.
He hoped Ministers wuuid not continue to oppress a
class of people who were ever ready to lend them
their willing support.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
cautioned the House against giving credit to loose
assertions. He mainta►ned, that the only excestes rn
the Civil List, during the years 1812 and 1813, were
those arising from our various and complex mega
ciations. The salAries of the Judges, and of the per.
sons composing the Royal H )usehold continued the
same, and it was the diplomatic branches alone by
which extraordinary expenses had been incurred. H•
did not believe the assertion, though it certainly had
the appearance, that this was a conspiracy of the ricts
against the poor ; but he would insist, twit no tax
could be proposed which would come with less weight
on the poorer classes. The Right Hon. G •ntlem.tn
observed, that he would specify in the Preamble of a
13ill what his intentions were.

Mr. BROUGHAM wished to know if any part of
the 277 thousand pounds was to be applied to pay off
formr arrears ? .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
said. there west: no aunts. during the years 1812
and 1813.
Mr. BENNET expressed his deep astonieument,
that notwithstanding the general cruiviciion which
pervaded his side of the Hause, and indeed the whole
country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
persist in denying he had given any pledge to the
Country for the annihilation of the Property rat.—
He could appeal to every dispassionate candid per-
son, who was then present, whether such a ple ,gs
was not given in the most pointed manner?—(Hear).
Lord FOLKESTONE said, no than could witness
the extravagance of the Civil List without reprobat.
ing, in the severest terms, the conduct of all connect-
ed with it. He denied the assertion of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that this Tax did not affect the
manufacturer. Every man knew that it did. He
also deprecated the attempt so often made to separate
the interests of 'rich and poor. It was an attempt
detestable and base, in the extreme,- pregnant with
the most mischievous consequences to the country...-.
Were we to be told that the poor were not affected
by it ? Go then to the habitations of such people,
see the wretchedness they are at present labouring
under from want of employment—see the catalogue
,of crimes swollen to an unparalleled size, and ask
whether in the seizure of the rich man's property,
the poor man is not script of his all ?—(Hear, Hear.)
The crime, for example, of poaching, had increased
to an extravagant degree, and this, with every other
crime to which the poor industrious starving media.
nic was often driven to perpetrate, was the baneful
consequence, not merely of the Property Tar, but of
all the burdens imposed by the War.—(Near, hear.)
Lord BINNING was decidedly of opinion, that
no pledge whatever had been given. or could be
given, by Ministers ; and he ousted that what his
Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had
proposed, would be accepted by the House and coun.
try as a proof of his sincere desire to promote the best
interests of all.

Mr. FINLAY could not suppress his astonishment
at the unfunded statement given by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer at the commencement of this busi-
ness, namely, that the tax was not oppressive to ma.
nufacturers. Indeed if the tax was levied accertling
to law -it would nor, but the 'mariner in which that
law was practised, was ruinous to manufacturer and
mechanic. (Rear, law) No argument could be
brought to prove the contrary. With respect to ma.
nufacturers, it was well known that the law made no
exception in their favour, in cOnsequence of any less
tLey might sustain in machinery. Now it was well
known that many manufacturers were compelled to
pay when they were actually considerable 'them
Besides, the 'l'ax was not on property but on income
(kar), and of consequence was the source of many
evils. It became the prelude to every deliberate !rand
and deceit. He abhorred the idea of thus sep.lrating
;he otherwise indissoluble interests of pr ,r and rich,
' And contended, there was not a is-Acuson in London
who earned 25 or Su shillings a week, who w.ss not
:run by it. He denied the neccsiiir of alai audition
wing made to the other taxes, sh,nrid the one on pro.
perty be abolished. Tit,• pour w4re laboorinb 'paler
extreme distress, from which they certainly were en.
:Wed to a little re yite.
' Mr. me,THuEN said, that taxation Woolf