The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-04-09 00:00:00

N.

awl the motion was therefore unstrtiressfnl. In the
mean tine, the estimates of the rear's expence was
!aid before Par!lament; and that Parlimitent, blebrit-
ia..; Me conqd lidioy: Ludt,!holders, voTcn EV FRI*
WAN i: A that was asked by the Minister, notwithstand-
ing the appeals whieb were ma& by :sir. Hume and
: other Indep.suilent Members, to the coomaan sense,
Vie commo:i devout-a• of th.. Ilouse id. Commons.
'Never was any tltino so barefa-eil as the cominet and
I the complaints of the Parliamentary Landholders.
!They wont,' styport the Minister as usual; but. if
1 possible. thee would shift the taxes from themselves.
They hare tortured their stupid heads to devise means
for the accomplishment and yet the concealment of
their object; and certainly a mo.ion for the repeal of
the Malt fluty sneeeeded in dying many of those
who are MA Landholders. This motion Wa% proposed
he Mr. WESTERN, who boldly stated that it was in-
tended for the relief of the Landholders; and their
relief alone. The Cmaxcettint of the Excu roue's,
of course, opposed the repeal ; but, to our great stir- i
prise, his omosition was grounded, not upon this mid
just and impudent attempt to benefit one class at the I
expense of another; but upon the fact that the tax
falls upon the general body of the people who pay it
in the price of their beer. This is perfectly true:
hut if the tax were now taken off, the price of beer
wouhl nut be reduced: because the Landholders were
in a holy resolved to tuep up the price of Malt. In
cause pien.:e of this strange opposition of the Minister,
otany independent Members, and even many Cond.
holders were deceived: and voted for Mr. It' rayeax's
'notion, treating hoe a measure ay' ermsomy: and
in consequence. the Minister was outvoted, and
Mr. WESTERN carried his motion. Numerous have
``been the measures of inconsistency, of absur-
-1 1!:?y, and of folly, which have been fairly recorded
I and boned up into Acts of Parliament ; but no mea-
sure of this description, that we ever heard of,
could possibte epsl the result of Mr.ll'EsTruN's 'no-
tion. If the Soluns of St. Stephen's Chapel bad given
Otetuselves a moments reflection, they would have seen
that :he day following the repeal of the Malt Tax, the
Minister would have come down with a new tax for
its sitbstitute. Thix lg.r ernext hare been ern-nit-II ; for
the llouse had pledged itself to grant the supplies :
and a., the landholders had voted for those an Wiles,
and lia,l vet rated that they ought not to pay for them,
it followed that the snowy must be made good by the
other classes.—At this iusportant crisis, the Minister,
however. collected his dependents. and severely
pictured such of them as had been so unruly
as to vote for themselves. Hut even this was not
thought solficient to ensure SileiTSS ; :IDA it Was deemed
advisable to usake an example of oat: of the mutineers,
in order to terrify the others. The Earl of FIVE, a
landholder, was dismissed from his office of Lord of the
Pe 'chamber; and accordingly the Minister came off
triumphant out the second reading of the Will : nut one
of Ow court landholders (river the discarded Lord),
daring: to vsge Car the Repeal.