Star.
London, England, 1821-06-15 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Petitions were presented from .the Counties of Stafford and
Wilts, and from St. Mary's, Newington, in f..vour of the Bill
now pending for preventing Cruelty to Animals.
.Ir. SCARLETT postponed, till Wethiesday next, his mO-
tioii for the ftlrther consideration of the Pour Laws Amend-
ment 11111.

The Thirteen Millions Loan Rill was read a second time, and
committed for to-morrow; as were the Za9,000,000 Exche.
qurr Bills Bill, and the .X 1,000,000 Irish 'Pre.:: or , Bills Bill.
Mr. PEA ItSR presented a Petition front the loh:tbltinta of
Devizes, in favour of the Bill for the Protection of Horses.—
Laid on the table, and ordered•to be primed.
Mr. (7A LCIIA prcseined a Petition rtnt the Vestrymen
of the Parish ,of St. -(tics in the Fields ar..!.ttst t!}.! Poor• Laws
Relief Bill.—Laid on the table, and crderetl to be printed.
Captain DY moved fur a series of Return.; retating
to the Court of Exelit,tpter in Ircbmd, and the modest appoint.
tug Sheriffs in th.lt part of the 15:iired Kitigtiont.—Ordered.
Mr. DICKINSON preFtnted a Petition front Walton,-in So-
mers::tshire, in favour of tit? Poor Laws Amendment
Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
3lr. WILLIAM WILMA MS presented a Petitirin to the
sante effect from the Inhabitants of liattwtsea.—Laid on the.ta-
ble, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. W. WYNN brought up the Report of the Welch Jury
Bill. The Honourable Member said it was not his intention to
found any measure upon it.—Laid on the tables and ordered to
be printed.

on the motion of Lord MILTON, the Woollen Cloths Stamping
Bill was read a third time.

Lord MILTON, set4ng an Honourable Member, the Chair.
man of the Agricultural Committee, in his place, wished to ask
him, if any.lteport was to be made by that Committee in the
present Session, and at what time? •

•
?.Jr. GOOCiI said, that the Report would be presented as
'soon as possible. The Hon. Member at the same time com-
plained that the Noble Lord hail put the came question two or
three times, when lie (Mr. Gooch) was not in his place.
Lord MI LTON denied having done so, and assured the 110.
nourable Member that he must be under aMistake.'

HARBOUR DU nt ES.
Sir I. COFFIN presented a Petition, signed,by
certain Inhabitants of Margate, Ramsgate, HYthe,
&c. complaining of the excessive harbour duties, and
charges for lights made on ships navigating tbe
Channel. The lion. Member said, he had navigated
the Channel, man and boy, upwards of fifty years,
and, during that period, had remarked various in-
stances corroborative of the statements made by
these Petitioners. Ile had known instances in which
these dues exceeded the value of the cargoes of the
vessels called on to pay them. He had particularly
to notice the heavy import duties imposed on many
French articles, a practice which, in his opinion, ope-
rated most injuriously to our commercial interests.
The French, in war, were certain:y a people who, as
mariners, we despised, and, genetaLy si:cak;n2,-, beat,
whenever we met them; but no one could deny,
that, in time of peace, the French were a great corn.
mercial people, and that, as such, it was peculiarly
our interest to endeavour to aconite their good opi.
niun and friendship. How was it then that we im.
ppsed such heavy duties on their commodities? It
was well known that the French had wires, and that
Champagne was as good, and even better, than Port !
How was it then that we imposed double duties on
French wines, which came from a country able to do
us service, to what we do the wine coming from such
a beggarly country as Portugal ? Having thus ex-
pressed his opinion, he should move, that the Peti-
tion be brought up.—The Petition was received, and
ordered.to be printed.
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. HpIIHOUSE held in his hand the Petition of
a much-injured individual, to the contents, of which
he invited the particular attention ache House. The
Petitioner was one of those who had suffered from
:the unjttstifiable persecution of that body of men who
:called themselves the Constitutional Association ;
and he (Mr. Hobhouse) had some hope that an expo-
sition of the means which they resorted to to seduce

this mane into the commission of crime, would not be
entirely loss upon such Gentlemen of that House as
happened to be connected with the body in question.
A person !limed King was the man whose Petition
he was about to offer, and with him, perhaps, the
House were not entirely unacquainted, from some
circumstances of publicity which had lately been
given to his case. Mr. King was a news-vender in
Chancery-lane, and the misnamed Constitutional So-
ciety had thought proper to prefer an indictment
against him for selling a libel. Mr. King had no
notice of any proceeding until he saw, by the public
papers, that the Grand Jury had thrown out the Bill.
He then set some inquiries on foot; and, on referring
to the indictment, he found that theie was endorsed
only the name of one witness; who was called Ho-
ratio Orton. Indignant that a criminal proceeding
of so much consequence to himself and family should
have been set on foot, supported by such testimony,
Mr. King laid his whole case before the Public,
through the medium of the newspapers. A reply
• was challenged, and a reply came forth : Orton pub-,
lished an affidavit, which contained, as he (Mr. Hob-
house) was led to believe, nothing but the grossest
falsehoods. He could not say that perjury, in the
legal sense of the word, bad been committed; but
sure he was, that, in the moral sense, Orton was
guilty of wilful perjury.—For what were the facts ?
In his affidavit, Orton stated that when he called at
King's shop, and saw the book on the counter, being
ignorant who was the publisher of it, he had asked-
king for information : but Oi top could not then be
ignorant of the publisher's name, and for this reason:
this, according to his own account, took.place on the
15th; but, on the 17th, an indictment was preferred
against Mr. Dolby, as publisher of this work ; so that,
as Orton was a confidential clerk in the office, and per-
haps a witness in the case against Dolby, he could not
be ignorant that such a thing was in preparation.—
The name of the publisher, ton, was on the back of
the pamphlet; and it was after having seen the pam-
phlet (and, it may be presumed, the back of it also)
that he swore he was still in ignorance of the. pub-
lisher's name ! The first part was purchased with
the publisher's name endorsed, on the 15th ; Mr.
King was then applied to to procure more numbers.
It was from comparing these facts with Orton'saffi-
davit, that he (Mr. llobliouse) was induced to think
that some one had suborned Orton to commit per-
pay, and to seduce King to the commission of an
offence. One thing, at all events, was clear—that
when Orton called at King's shop, King then bad
committed no crime: on the 15th he bad not the'
book in his possession, and it was not had till the
evening of the 16th. If Orton had never called,
King, perhaps, would never have had the book in
his possession; and did it not follow, therefore, that
Orton was sent. to betray him into the commission'
of an act for which he would have become amenable
to the Society's prosecution?—(hear, hear).—The
object of King's Petition now to the House was, that
he might be enabled, through its interference, to get
at the names of the Committee, from whom he would
seek legal redress; for, as to Orton, he looked upon
him only as their agent and tool. And the House
o'ight not to overlook this atrocious attempt at ruin•
Lig an unfortunate man, by la) ing a snare for him
to commit a crime for which he would be brought
before a Cow t of Justice, and grounding an infa-
mous and ruinous chargo•of libel against him—not
for having the libel in his possession when called
for, but for procuring it at the earnest solicitation
of a stranger, who afterwards turned out to be the
agent of the prosecutors—(Hear, hear, hear.)— I
Was the country still to bear with an Association,
who, if they did not find crime, would make it?—
(near, hear.)—The efforts of individuals, indigent,
generally, like this poor news-vender, were not able
to cope with the a•tacks of a great and wealthy So-
ciety ; and a prosecution, whatever might be the fate
of it, would ruin them. It would be seen, that the
Society for the Suppression of Vice stated, that the
prosecution of Davidson cost them £l7O ; and if a
prosecution cost so much, what would a defence cost?
hear).—There were also disadvantages at
tending a prosecution by this Society, which did not
exist io other cases. By the law of libel, the Law
Officers of the Crown were obliged to withdraw a
prosecution after a year; but that law not applying
to this Society, an unfortunate mall might have in-
dictments hanging in Lerrorem over his head almost
for ever. Neither were the Society obliged to fur-
nish the defendant with office copies of all papers
against him, as the Attorney-General was obliged to
do by the new Acts: and this was a dreadful hard-
ship—for these office copies, in some cases, cost £2O.
hear).—The House would see the dreadful
effe-
cts of this, whilst the party might still be acquit-
ted ; and lie was sure, whatever difference of opinion
might exist on politics, no Gentleman of English
feeling would give his sanction to so much injustice
hear).—The Society were also more terri-
ble,- because they were invisible, and therefore not
amenable to the tribunal of public opinion, which
nes er failed of having some effect on the worst men.
The person who was called Murray, was a person of
to consideration : it was little satisfaction to an in-
j:n-ed marl to have Murray as a mark ; he would
wish naturally to come at the fountain-head. if a
man was prosecuted by Government, the thing would
be neither so galling nor so unsafe, for Government
have responsible agents, and sometimes a regard for
public opinion !—(Hear).—Another disadvantage at-
tending defendants prosecuted by this Society was,
• that it having been held that, under the 60th Geo.
HI. cap. 9, clause 16, the defendant was obliged to
give bail, not for his appearance alone, but also for
Lis good behaviour, there was the greatest difficulty
in obtaining bail. Many a man would give bail in
£lOO for his friend's coming forward, who would not
tun the risk if that sum was to be forfeited in the
event of
.a second indictment being preferred against
lii:n. It, then, all these facts were true which he had
stated, surely the House of Commons were called
1.; von to put a stop to such unfair and oppressive pro-
secutions by these individuals, and leave that task to
the Attorney and Solicitor-General alone, if this was'
a free country. With regard to the illegality of this
Association, he would now take an opportunity of
adverting to what fell from the Solicitor-General in
a. former debate. That Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, on a former night, had said, that the
dodges of the Court of King's Bench pronounced this
Association legal. This was not the fact; the Learned
Judges did not say a word as to its legality or ifle-

gality; nor, indeed, was the question brought beroie
them. A Learned Counsel, Mr. Blackburn, did cer-
tainly move in that Court for a list of the Associa-
tion, but he, properly, did not call it an illegal As-
sociation, for the Judges would then answer, that they
could not call upon any men to criminate themselves,
as they would, if they were members of an illegal So-
ciety. The Learned Judges, therefore, did not say a
word respecting the legality of this Society ; and the
lion. Solicitor was incorrect in saying they did so.—
But this Association had been likened to a Society for
prosecuting Felons, which was a fallacious mode of
arguing. In no respect did they resemble each other.
Where a felony had been committed there was clearly
a corpus delicti—a crime was committed, and the
question was, who was guilty? Ilere the crime was
to be first established, and then die identity of the
criminal; and surely no man, no set of men, were
ever yet allowed to come forward to prosecute a rob-
ber, or a murderer, when they, or their agents, had
seduced him to the commission of the crime— (Hear).
It was clear, too, that the objects of the Society were
directed more to punish one class of men than to sup-
press libels. If their aim had been to suppress the
work for which King was indicted as a vender, surely
the prosecution of Dolby, who was the publisher,
might have effectually done it. But ruin was their
watch-word—they should have venders and pub-
lishers, and involve them all in indiscriminate de-
struction. There was also another rigour in their,
proceedings which he would notice. In prosecutions
by the Crown there had been a fortnight allowed for
striking Juries ; but in this case they required the de-
fendant to strike the Jury in forty-eight hours after.
They had also prosecuted the editors of two or three
newspapers, who had published some speeches made
at a Reform Dinner ; but even if some intemperate
language was used there, it was hardly a subject for
prosecution. The Law Officers of the Crown had
not thought proper to take any notice of it. He (Mr.
Hobhouse) wondered that they did not prosecute
him, for he was Chairman of the Meeting, and he
wished they had done so. But so far from that, they
had asked him to become a subscriber, and he .did
not know whether this was a hoax or not. The list
of subscribers was certainly large, and there were se-
veral anonymous contributors to the .funds of the So-
ciety. But then there were inducements, and the tide
of "Loyal Constitutional Association," together with
4n alphabetical arrangement of the names, made
many join the ranks. Amongst others there was a
widow, who had sent her mite of 1.:30. lint lie was
sure those Ladies and Gentlemen would not subset ibe
if they thought their money would be applied to carry
discord into private society. Ile was sure the Duke
of Wellington, who enjoyed a great share of die
money of a generous people, would be far from turn•
ing that money against the people themselves. The
Honourable Member concluded by hoping that the
Petitioner would obtain some redress at the hands of
the House, otherwi,e " thc•re would be a wrong
ss it 110144 a remedy," %%Lich was contrary to the maxim
of English law.
The Petition sr.; then read, and its ,übstance corresponded
with the statement ra.td: bi the Honourable Member.—lt Wai
ordered

SCOTCtt BURGHS.
Lord A. HAMILTON brought up the Report of
the Select Committee on Scotch Burghs. The Noble
Lord said, that this Report was neither concocted by
nor concurred in by him. He had been induced to
bring the matter before Parliament originally, in
consequence of Petitic,ns from Scotland, the most
numerous that ever were presented on any subject.
His complaint was, not that the majority of the Com-
mittee had dissented from him, hut that they had not
gone into what he considered a full and impartial in-
quiry. The Committee had decided, but not inquired.
Ile was tot prepared to say that there was anything
false in the Report, but they had not taken the proper
steps to inform themselves fully on the subject. He
would state bow he did not agree in the Report.—
About three weeks ago, the House would recollect,
he asked leave of absence for ten days. Another
G.ntleman filled the Chair. in his absence. He had
engaged to write the Report a week after his return,
but he was surprised to find that a Report had been
made out in the meantime. It was unusual for a
Chairman, in presenting a Report, to dissent from it,
but lie felt it due to himself to state his views on the
subject. lie did not complain of the Report so much
for what it contained, as for what it omitted. If there
was no objection stated, he said, he would move for
the production of the Minutes of Evidence taken be-
before the Coinmittee. The House would be then
enabled to judge of what had been done by the Com-
mittee. The N. bye Lord concluded by mc.-aig, that
the Report should be then read.
Lord BINNING said, he had no objection to the
production of the minutes, and the Nc,ble Lord might
have them if he pleased ; but they u'ere harmless and
useless. It the Noble Lord had confined himself
to calling fur the evidence alone, he (Lord Ruining)
would have assented to their pi oduction, and no more;
but when the Noble Lord thought proper to arraign
the conduct of the Committee, he (Lot d Binning) was
obliged to speak in his own defence. The-Noble Lord
could not expect that a Committee would stand still
whilst he absented himself from its meetings for a
fortnight. But, at all events, the Report was not the
Report of the Chairman, but of the Committee. In
fact, the Report was not brought forward till the
Noble Lord's return. There was great difference of
opinion is the Committee, and some Members went
so far as to require that evidence should be gone into
for each town ; but this proposition was not accepted.
—The Committee had now concluded, and they
thought that if the Report which they had made was
acted upon, it would afford an effectual remedy for
1, every grievance.
Mr. ABERCROMBY said, he agreed entirely with
the Noble Lord who had brought up this Report.—'
' The Noble Lord near him had been intrusted with
the interests of a great number of Petitioners, but.he
found the Committee decidedly against all fair inquiry.
The Noble Lord opposite had said, that, if the mi-
nutes were produced, they would be found harmless
and useless. But why were they so?—Because the
Committee had taken care to shut out everything
that was useful—(Hear, hear).—The Noble Lord was
under a necessity of going to Scotland, and the Com-
mittee, in courtesy, ought to have waited his return.
This was the practice in every case, but it ought to
have beew stronger in this; and indeed some Gentle-
men had gone into the Committee who had already
pledged themselves in the House to oppose this mea-

sere. From a Committee so constituted, it could not
be expected that much inquiry would take place.
Sir G. CLERK spoke in defence of the Committee. ,
Sir R. FERGUSON detailed the circumstances
relating to the Committee appointed in 1819, to in- ,
quire into the abuses in Scotch Burghs, and said,
that the Government took the question into their
hands, and placed official men on the Committee,
whom they knew to be devoted to their interest. It
was but justice to such men to say, that they had at
least the merit of consistency, for they uniformly de-
fended every species of abuse—(Hear, hear).
Mr. K. DOUGLAS vindicated the conduct of the
Committee, and said, that if the measures were
adopted which they had proposed, every practical
evil would be remedied.
Mr. HUME contended that his Noble Friend (Lord
A. Hamilton) had not been fairly treated with respect
to this question. Ile (Mr. Hume) had been the only
Member of the Committee who was in a minority.—
His friends were so disgusted with the want of cour-
tesy shew•n by Ministers towards his Noble Friend,
that they went off and left him (Mr. Hume) to stand
alone. The Honourable Member then commented
on the obstinacy of Ministers and their adherents, in
keeping up the old order of things in Scotland, where
the system grew worse in the exact proportion that
it grew older.
Mr. W. DUNDAS deprecated any discussion on
the subject before the Report was brought up.
The Report was then received, and on the question
that it do lie on the table,
Lord A. HAMILTON rose, and observed in reply,
that his object was to call the attention of the house
to the Report, and to procure the production of the
Minutes of Evidence.—The Report was then ordered
to lie on the table, and be printed.

LONDON WATER COMPANIES.
Mr. MUM A NTLE said he now held in his hand
a Bill for regulating the Water Companies of the
Metropolis. This Bill was now brought in in pur-
suance of the recommendation of the Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into and investigate this subject at
the early part of the present Session. It was not his
intention to press this Bill through the Howe in the
present Session. He defended the Report of the Com-
mittee, and contended that the Public ought to be
satisfied with it. Ile saw no use in publishing the
evidence taken before the Committee' because it
would only Wad to endless discussion. It would be
found full of dry calculation, and could not be de-
cided by any other than practical experience. It in-
cluded more than I ,(xX) folio pages, which would
put the Public to an enormous expense to publish.—
1 le then moved for leave to bring in a Bill for regu-
lating the Water Companies of the Metropolis.
Mr. HUME said, it was not his intention to offer
any opposition to the Bill in its present state, but
would reserve himself for a future opportunity.
Mr. Alderman BRIDGES spoke in commendation
of the mode in which London was supplied with water.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which
was done, and it was read a first time.
Mr. HUME, in rising to submit a motion to the
House, said he had not heard of any Report of the
Committee on this Bill, which shelved that London
was better supplied with water, or on that account it
was healthier than any other city of the empire. The
Report stated that the Water Companies had for-
feited their charters, by acting contrary to the spirit
of various Acts of Parliament; and yet the Bill just
introduced was intended to support these Companies.
For this reason, he thought the House ought to be
put in possession of all the information which had
been laid before the Committee. Up to the year
1810, the Water Companies only made a fair and
proper profit; but since that time the new Compa-
nies had, instead of supporting competition, divided
London into districts, which enabled them to charge
what they pleased ; yet the expense of iron pipes, in-
stead of wooden ones, was less, and the proprietors
were not liable to an income tax on their profits. He
was glad that this Bill was not to pass through Par-
liament during this Session; and he therefore thought
the evidence should be laid before the House, in order
that a fair judgment might be made of this Bill.—
The 1,000 pages would go info very small compass
in print. Ile then moved that the Minutes of Evi-
dence taken before the Committee on the Water Com-
panies should be laid on the table and printed.
Mr. I-lOBHOUSE supported the motion. There
was at present a very considerable degree of irrita-
tion on the public mind on the question, and nothing
could appease it but the production of the evidence.
Mr. WILMOT was certain, that if this Report was
rejected, it would be much more difficult for the
Committee to fix a maximum on the rate hereafter.
As a Member of the Committee, he had no objection
to the printing of the evidence.
• Mr. Alderman BRIDGES defended the Report of
the Committee, and made a few observations in an-
swer to the Hon. Member for Aberdeen.
The motion was then agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL HORSE TAX._

Mr. CURWEN rose, in pursuance of notice, to
move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Tax
upon Ilorses used in Agriculture. He could not but
regret that the lateness of the Session made it impe-
rative on him to bring forward this motion in the
absence of the Noble Marquis (Londonderry). This
was a subject most material to the agricultural inte-
rests, and stood on very different ground now from
what it stood when he had formerly brought this
question before the House. The proceedings of the
Committee on this subject proved that the distress of
the agriculturists was great beyond precedent ; and
they had come to a resolution unanimously, that the
distress of the country was actually proved—(Hear).
—Under these circumstances, it remained for Parlia-
ment to consider what was the best method of re-
moving that distress. He was sorry to believe that
the present Administration had no reeling of sym-
pathy with the agricultural interests. Indeed, so in-
different were they on that subject, that an Hon.
Member, who usually supported that Administration,
told the Noble Lord at the head of it, that not one
of the Gentlemen who usually supported them would
and his way back to this House if there were now a
dissolution of Parliament; at least, so far as the agri-
cultural interests were concerned. He hoped, how-
ever, that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would
even now think it incumbent upon him to grant this
boon to the country—a boon which, in its present
circumstances, would be very acceptable to it. The
Agricultural Committee had instructed their Chair-
man to move for the repeal of this tax ; but repeated

attempts were made, and wishes expressed, to ba,se
this question put off to next Session. lie, for 0;.;
could not aree to such a postponement, seeing
necessity which already existed for having sonic 4.1'c,"
extended as soon as possible to the Agricultural
rests. If he was told that that could not be

consistently with ;he present public expenditwe a);
answer he was prepared to give to that was, that they
should cut down the whole establishment, beginning
with the Crown and going down to the lowest ()ekes
in the State—(Hear, her.; ).—lle contended that tie;
tax was particularly oppressive, since it would he
equally just to tax the loom of the weaver as the
horse of the farmer. It also subjected the farmer to
endless vexations. In this department there were Tie
fewer than 539,000 surcharges, a stretch of the law .
that could never have been in the contemplation of
the Legislature—(Hear).— A case had lately corn,
to his knowledge which shewed the spirit in which
these laws were executed. A poor woman at Ber-
wick had, at the back of her cottage, a fruit tree,
which was at once a source of pleasure and of profs
to her. It wanted pruning, and she employed fee
paid sixpence
for purpose a gardener, to whom she '
for the job. '1 he consequence was, that she was
taxed as employing an occasional gardener, and, is
order to make up the assessment, part of the little
furniture of her house was sold—Wear, hear).—TLis
shewed the spirit in which the laws were colored,
and the extent to which they increased the nisei
of the country. One of the great causes of the suf-
ferings of the country at this moment was the scan;
of employment. He was decidedly hostile to any
system which would allow the importation of cons;
he believed the People now began to see that cheap
bread, without employment, not so desiraYe a
thing as might, at the first biitch. he suppmed—
(Hear, hrur).—lf the House wished to shew that it
was anxious to afford any relief to the distress of the
country, here was an opportunity offered for d,,ieg
so, and the only opportunity it would have this Sg:,-
sion—(lleur).—The lion. Member concluded with
moving for leave to bi in 7 in a Bill to repeal so much
of the .11d and 42d of George 111. as related to the
Duty on Agricultural Horses. •
Mr. GOOCH said, that, as the Chairman of t!:e
Agricultural Committee, he would second the mr—
don, and, at the same time, say that he had beta
striicted by the Committee, on a former day, to come
down to the House to move fox the repeal of tip; T.ix
in question, but that, in the meantime, the Cien-
mittee bad changed their mind. He confirmed the
statements of the Hon. Member who preceded him,
and expressed his opinion, that since the means of
Government were not equal to their expenditure,
they ought to cut down their establishments, so as to.
square with the resources which they had at their
command—( Hear, /scar).—'['hough he differed is
politics from the Hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr.
Hume), yet he could not but say, that, in his opi-
nion, that Hon. Member, by his indefatigable and •
valuable exertions, had done eminent services to his
country—( Loud chcering).—He did not say this for
the purpose of courting popularity ; it was his candid .
opinion, and he hoped he should obtain credit for
expressing it—(Hear, hear).
Mr. DAVENPORT conceived that this Tax was
the most oppressive one in existence, except the Salt
Tax--(Hear, heat).—He cordially concurred in the I
views taken of it by the Hon. Member opposite, and
hoped it would be repealed.
Mr. COKE declared that it was quite delightful
to him to hear on this occasion the language which
was held by the Gentlemen opposite; and the cern-
pliment paid by the Chairman of the Agricultural
Committee to the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, must
be, no doubt, highly gratifying to him. For himself,
he was an old Member of that House ; and be could
take upon himself to say, that since he first came
into it, he did not remember any Gentleman to %horn
the country was so much indebted as to his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume), whose exertions had been as im. '
portant as they were unremitting—(Hear, hear).—
But he was perfectly charmed with the language of
the Hon. Member for Suffolk—( A laugh, and cries
of Hear, hear).—That Hon. Gentleman, who had
for so many years always supported his Majesty:
Ministers—who had stood by them imposing every
Tax during that period, and in passing every pal
brought in by them—was now for repealing the Agri-
cultural Horse Duty—(Hear, hear).
Mr. GIPPS said, that when, on a former occasloo•
he supported the motion for a repeal of this Tax, he
thought that a substitute might be found for it ins
small tax on the transfer of Stock. He was not the.
awaie that a Statute was already in existence, which
prohibited the imposition of any tax on transfers of
that description; and, though he was since informed
of the effect of that Statute, lie could not help think•
ing that a slight tax might be imposed of the nature
he had mentioned. The Hon. Member was proceed-
ing to make some comments upon the propriety"
introducing some measure of relief to the Agricul•
turists, founded on the principle of the Cornßill—
when he was called to order by
Mr. BARING, who said, that the observations of
the Hon. Member did not apply to the question
mediately before the House.
The SPEAKER observed, that it was for the Wm
Member to state to the House how far his presee
course of argument was meant to apply to the question.
Mr. GIPPS was ready to admit that the sulliect
upon which he had entered was not strictly aPPIP
cable ; and he would of course bow to the judgaunit
of the House. He would content himself, then,"
observing, that if the Agricultural Horse ra Pere
taken off, it would be a great boon to the fannletn
and would prove of little injury to the Revenue.
Mr. BARING said, that having done his best to
press the Ministers to retrenchment, without ttleee!l
he felt it to be his duty (the judgment of the Row!
having fixed upon a certain extent of experlebteZ
not to vote for weakening their resourceas. H
her!,
astonished at the conduct of those who,after
voted for every extravagant grant that Ministers ;e
quired of the House, would now seek to take at.
a part of the resources which were in contemple
at the time of these extravagant grants, bccansselt:
removal of it would be advantageous to them
—(Hear, hear). He conceived that those Gentle
after having refused to vote with the Iloriounirat:
Member for Aberdeen, cons
whom they praised s° O.
upon any one division, would go before their boat
tuents with a very ill grace indeed to take to
tdd bc or -
.—(llcar). liowcTer, opportunivy
of their admission favour of his Honourable Friel:ia,