brought up the bill for warehousing home-made spirits in Ireland, intended for exportation, and for regulating the exportation of spirits not so warehoused. On the motion that the bill be read a first time,

, in pursuance of the notice he had given yesterday, rose and spoke as follows: Sir, the formal question before the house entitles me to say a few words on a subject connected with the business of the day, and which, if it deserves consideration, ought to be considered now: previously, I mean, to our going into any discussion of the affairs of Ireland. The doubt which I wish to submit to the house has no personal relation whatever to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster), to whom the govt. of that kingdom is committed, though it has to the character and situation in which he appears. Nothing can be farther from my thoughts than to attach any blame, or to throw out any reflections on that gent. If at the time when a change was made in this branch of the administration, it could by any possibility have depended on me to have appointed a successor to the office which he represents, his name, I think, would have been one of the first that would have occurred to me. My question is not founded in private curiosity, nor will he receive it, I hope, as any mark of disrespect to him; though I believe there are many persons in this house besides myself who naturally wish to know which of the two right hon. gents. (Mr. Foster or Mr. Corry,) is the true Amphitryon in this drama. But mine, Sir, is a parliamentary inquiry, material, as I think, to the regularity and safety of our proceedings. The right. hon. gent. (Mr. Foster,) executes the office of chancellor of the exchequer of Ireland. He lays before us the official documents necessary for our information, and we have had the benefit and pleasure of hearing many speeches from him full of official information on the business of that department. How the house has been enlightened by those speeches, I need not say. On one particular point, I mean the balances supposed to remain in the hands of the collectors, we heard a variety of contradictory assertions, but the question is by no means cleared up to the satisfaction of the house.—My question is, by what title or authority does the right hon. gent. perform the functions of chancellor of the exchequer of Ireland? If he does not hold the office, on what ground does he claim or expect parliamentary credit to official statements, or assertions made by him in that character? The house does not permit a written document of any kind, particularly in matters of account, to be laid on the table, unless it be properly an official account, officially authenticated. Gent. may remember that, some time ago, an account of shipping was delivered from the board of admiralty, in which there appeared to be a considerable mistake in the computation, and it was not signed. That account was consequently withdrawn, and another presented, in which the error was corrected, and that 2d account was signed. Why does the house invariably observe this caution, and adhere to these forms? First, I presume, it is to insure the accuracy of the documents laid before them; and 2dly, that if they be erroneous, that there may be somebody answerable for the error, and liable to the censure of the house. The case which is now in our view is new, and as far as I can find, without example; consequently the reasoning upon it cannot be governed by precedent. The question, whether the practice now adopted be parliamentary or not, can only be determined by a reference to the forms and principles of our proceedings in cases similar, or equivalent, to the present. Now, Sir, I contend, that official statements made, or measures proposed orally in this house, in any department of govt. ought to be authenticated by the proper officer, just as must as written documents, and exactly for the same reason, namely, that in case of error, we may have some person officially answerable to parliament for having misled us. Whether the right hon. gent. who lately held the office of chancellor of the Irish exchequer, (Mr. Corry,) holds it now or not, I do not know; but I do know with certainty, that the right hon. gent. on the other side, (Mr. Foster,) has not accepted that place; because, if he had, he must have vacated his seat in this house. Now, Sir, allow me to submit a possible case to your consideration, merely for the purpose of my argument, and by no means to convey or insinuate any idea to his disadvantage. I have no wish that the management of Irish affrays should be taken out of his hands, or to interrupt him in the duties that belong to it. Suppose the right hon. gent. or any other in a similar situation, that is, performing the functions of an office of which another is in possession, should be discovered to have, wilfully or ignorantly, misinformed the house in some article of consequence, and led us thereby into some material error, I ask, Sir, on whom would the censure of the house attach, and what would be our remedy? The representative of the office might say, "I am only a private person. The information I gave the house ought not to be considered as official; and, if I have misled you, I am very sorry for it." If you turned to the principal, he would naturally tell you that he had not misled you, because, though he continued to hold the office, it was, in effect, by a nominal tenure only; and that he had not exercised the functions of it. Here then there might be a breach of duty committed, and nobody to answer for it. Whereas, when the proper officer does the business of the office, you know where your censure ought to attach; and, if the case of misconduct should appear to require it, you might address the king to remove the party offending. The practice now pursued does not leave you that remedy, or any other.—Sir, I declare most solemnly, that I attach no dishonourable suspicion to the present transaction. I consider it only as a dangerous precedent, inadvertently established, and liable to be willfully abused hereafter. There is one consideration more which may deserve attention, and with that I shall conclude. For the purpose of securing the independence of the house of commons, the law provides, that members of this house accepting certain places of profit under govt. shall vacate their seats, and be sent back to their constituents, who may re-elect or reject them. But if it be once admitted that one man may hold the office while another does the duty, may it not happen, that by collusion between the parties the intention of the law may be defeated? They may tacitly understand one another on the subject; the seat is not vacated, and two persons for the same office may be retained in the service of govt. without its appearing that the profits are received by more than one of them. I now submit the whole case to the wisdom of the house, who, I hope, will not think that I have troubled them on this occasion without sufficient reason.

confessed that he should have rather felt awkward if he had acted as an official person without, at the same time, holding any office; but his conduct, he argued, was not inconsistent with the character of a private member of that house; and he could not help regarding the conduct of the gent. who had just sat down, as unconstitutional in the highest degree. If no gent. had a right to interfere in public affairs but such as were in office, the privileges of the house would be abridged in a manner that would operate against the spirit of the constitution. The part he had lately acted did not necessarily imply an official capacity. He had interfered still more two years ago, when he had moved for various papers, and proposed several public measures, and when no objection had been offered to his conduct. He certainly was not, he said, in office; but, as a member of parliament, he conceived that he had not only a right, but that it was his duty to act the part he was now pursuing. In regard to the responsibility that had been alluded to, he conceived it repugnant to every principle of the constitution, and as having a tendency to check freedom of debate, to imagine that a petition could be presented to his Majesty to remove any gent. from office for what he might say in that house. Such a petition could only be presented for conduct out of that house, as the responsibility of the chancellor of the exchequer could relate only to his office out of that house, and not to his conduct in it. Had he acted, he said, in any instance, as chancellor of the exchequer out of the house, there might, perhaps, have been some room for the animadversions of the hon. member; but any such conduct, or any such possible construction of conduct, he positively denied. He concluded with expressing a hope, that the hon. gent. would see the propriety of here dropping the matter, as the discussion could lead to no beneficial object; and begged that the hon. gent. would not persist in pushing him into an office which he was not eager to enter upon.

was by no means satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. gent. There seemed to be a total mistake, both as to the nature of the question, and as to the objections urged by his hon. friend. It was never supposed that the conduct of the right hon. gent. was to become the subject of a representation to the crown, or to be made cognizable by any tribunal other than that of the house itself. What was the idea then of any breach of privilege, or of any thing unconstitutional in the present proceeding? It was surely not unconstitutional, or inconsistent with privilege, for the house to take cognizance of its own proceedings. With respect to the nature of the objection, nobody had ever maintained, that what had been done was illegal, or contrary even, so far as the letter was concerned, to any order or regulation of the house. Upon the point of right, the hon. gent. was impregnable; but there, let it be recollected, he had never been attacked. It was admitted, that he had the law on his side: the question was, whether he had propriety and usage on his side: and, on that point, there was something more than a doubt, there was next to a certainty that he had not.—In whose memory had it ever happened, that the business of any of the principal departments of govt. had been carried on by one person, while the office had been really held by another? What a confusion would such a course of proceeding introduce, even in the forms which he (the Speaker) would have to observe! It was lucky that the same practice did not subsist with respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland as did in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this country, namely, that of addressing him by his official title, as the Speaker might have been at a loss to know, which of the two hon. gent. he ought so to address. The confusion in the conduct of business, and in what was necessary for the guidance of the house, was equally real, and much more important. The house naturally expected that all official statements should be made to it by those who possessed the means of official information. This expectation was, he observed, founded upon practice, and that practice upon principle. If a member not holding the official situation, was to give to the house information that was incorrect, he might plead for his incorrectness the want of having been duly informed himself: but not so, the person who actually filled the office. His misstatements must either be wilful, or the result of ignorance for which he was responsible. The house had therefore something to trust to, and was not left without security or remedy on points which it could not know of itself, and on which nevertheless it was necessary that it should judge and act.—If these were the objections on one side, let it be seen how that matter stood in another view. The law required that every member who accepted a situation to be held during pleasure, should be sent back to his constituents, to know whether they were willing in the new circumstances to confirm their former choice. It could hardly be said, that a person in expectation of an office, was less dependant on the crown than one in actual possession, even though removable at pleasure. However easy the operation of turning out might be, it could not be easier than to refuse originally to appoint. But it would be said, and said truly, that though we knew, and could take cognizance, of those who held offices, we could not be equally certain of those who were only expectants. The list might be very large, yet the names not easily ascertained. But, even this objection did not apply in the present case. The question here was not of a person generally supposed to have views upon an office; but of one actually exercising its functions; of a person designatus, who gave a pretty good proof both of what he himself wished, and of what others intended for him, when he was willing, and was allowed, to discharge duties which few were found ready to undertake for nothing, and which others did not usually consent to leave to them, if it had not been previously agreed that they were to fill certain situations. A person so circumstanced, not only came within the scope and meaning of the law; as was in truth the case with many of whom it was not possible to take notice; but presented a distinct and sensible object, on which the rules of the house might be made to operate, even if the law did not. Under the law, as it stood, the seat of the hon. gent. was perhaps not vacated; because the letter of statutes must in these cases be pursued; but according to the spirit of the law, the seat ought to be vacated, and to that spirit the house might give effect by only determining to discountenance a practice, which, with nothing to recommend it, had obviously much that might be objected to it. In such circumstances could the house hesitate? Was it for the house to shew an indifference about a law which was meant to support its own purity; or could it be thought consistent with the spirit of that law, that a person exercising all the functions, and with them all the powers of a high office, confessing his own wishes, and manifesting in the clearest manner his connection with the servants of the crown, should yet continue to act and vote, merely because the act of his appointment was not yet delivered to him, and that he had not touched as yet the first quarter of his salary? If this were allowed, the law on which many were disposed to lay so much stress, on which it became the house at least to feel so much delicacy, might soon, with a little management, be made a mere name. These were the real and solid objections to the course which had been pursued. But, were all these out of the question, the very novelty of the proceeding must be thought objection sufficient, combined, as it must be, with numerous suspicions and conjectures which could not fail to arise out of it. When was so extraordinary a phænomenon ever seen before in the political sky, as that of two suns shining at once in the same sphere—two chancellors of the exchequer acting at the same time for the same kingdom? In smaller concerns, indeed, the case was common. We were accustomed to firms and partnerships, and an acting partner and a sleeping partner; but an acting and a sleeping chancellor of the exchequer, was something not yet familiar to us. It was not customary, at least in the case of the present office, for the great officers of state to appear in pairs. The nature of the office did not seem to admit of it. A chancellorship of the exchequer with two heads, was as monstrous a production as a cow with two heads, and would as much embarrass the naturalists to explain the manner in which the functions were to be performed. It happened, he supposed, as in most of these cases, that only one of the mouths eat; and he should be curious to know which of the two it was; whether the same that they had oftenest heard of late, or the other? For here a new prodigy occurred, not only each of the mouths spoke, but what was more extraordinary, spoke a different language. Instead of connextion or sympathy, the two heads seemed to be actuated by the most adverse spirit, and to be nothing less than butting against each other. In this state, how was the house to distinguish? To which of the two were they to resort for instruction? Which was that whose lowings they were to listen to, as conveying the true oracle? It was impossible for the house to sit down contented in such a state of things. They ought by their disapprobation to force matters back into their regular course, and not to suffer the usages of parliament to be set at nought, the law of the land to be eluded, the course of business to be disturbed, and themselves placed in a ridiculous and embarrassing situation, merely to answer the purpose of individual, or perhaps, ministerial convenience, and which, however innocent it might be in the present, might, in other instances, not happen to be of the sort most entitled to consideration. He thought the house was not a little indebted to his hon. friend for having brought this matter before them.

said, much entertainment had been introduced upon a dull point, while scarcely any thing was said to the question before the house, which merely regarded the warehousing of home-made spirits in Ireland. He could see very little danger in the precedent from which so much mischief was apprehended, for the example could not be very contagious of those who undertook the labors of office without the emoluments, which was the case of his right hon. friend. Neither had his right hon. friend proceeded to originate any one measure which it was not equally competent for any other member of the house to have undertaken. He was therefore at a loss to see how any law had been violated; and until the time came when he could receive the emoluments of office, and fully enter on the discharge of all its duties, he did not feel that his right hon. friend was bound to vacate his seat. The whole of the conversation, he conceived to be altogether irregular.

was convinced, that if the conversation had been altogether irregular, the speaker would not have permitted it to go so far; the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Windham) had been a humorous one, but really the situation of the two Irish chancellors of the Exchequer was ridiculous, and at least the country might get rid of the incumbrance of the one who did nothing; the acting partner came down to the house and denounced his sleeping partner, for balances in the collector's hands, and at length the sleeping partner was obliged to come and defend himself. The thing was something like Caliban in the play, that had two mouths, and Trinculo remarked, "if I could but bring this island monster into England, I should make a fortune by shewing him." He wished to know of the partnership which was the real Simon Pure? When men hold ostensible situations, such as the noble lord opposite to him (Lord Castlereagh), who, with his predecessor in that office, had been deceiving us for fifteen years with flourishing accounts of the state of India, we may believe more or less, as much as we can of their statements, because we know that they have official means of information, but when a member speaks officially, without even pretending to official information, the case was very different.

said, that in point of fact, his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Foster) had not made any motion without informing the house that he held no official situation. He had owned, in every measure he had proposed, that he had got no official communication. This he had done in order that the house might canvass the matter with greater attention. So far, therefore, the house had the evil in their own power. He asked if it was to be imputed to the right. hon. gent. as a crime, that, by a previous discharge of any office he had proved to his constituents his fitness and ability fully to execute its duties, whenever they were officially and formally imposed upon him.

said, that this discussion was material, because it had arisen out of a measure, against which gent. might be induced to vote, if it should appear the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster) had no better information upon the business question than other hon. members. It appeared to him to be an anomalous and a new situation, and it was exceedingly proper that some notice should be taken of it, so as to draw forth the censure of parliament.

, in explanation, said; Sir, I did never assert that, summon jure, any individual might not do all the acts done by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster.) My objection was founded on the usage of parliament, the inconvenience of such a proceeding, the danger of the precedent, and the abuses to which it was liable; and to all this it is thought quite sufficient to answer, that any member has a strict right to act in this manner if he thinks fit.

said, that when the right hon. gent. opposite to him (Mr. Foster) brought forward the Irish budget, he (Mr. Kinnaird) had considered all the various statements therein as proceeding from official information. Had he conceived it to be otherwise, he would have refused his consent. His Majesty and the country were badly served, and Ireland was left in a disgraceful situation. The right hon. gent was in the situation of a person who had purchased an estate, the titles to which were not completed. There was a miserable evasion somewhere. This question would have a very useful tendency, as it would lead to shew whom we were to look to for responsibility, in regard to these matters. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer presumed himself responsible for the affairs of this country. As to the monster with two heads, he dared to say that the print-shops would soon take care to caricature it in the manner it deserved.

said, he wished to know if the right hon. gent. or any other was responsible; for if there was none of this description, then the crown wanted an official person in the house, and the house had none to rely on for necessary information that might occur.

complained also of the equivocal character of the right hon. gent. who seemed at present to transact the Irish business.—The bill was then read a 1st time, and ordered to be read a 2d time to-morrow.

rose for the purpose of observing, that it had been allowed that the question that had just been agitated would have been regular, had the right hon. gent. acted as Chancellor out of the house. But he recollected, that in answer to a question respecting the issue of Exchequer bills, the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster) had formerly stated that arrangements had been taken to provide that none of these bills should be issued, and that those arrangements would be followed up. He wished, therefore, to have an answer, if the right hon. gent. had said, that those engagements would be kept, on the authority of the late Chancellor (Mr. Corry), or his own?

answered, that what he had said on the occasion alluded to, was only that he had understood that some arrangement had been made in Ireland to that effect. If the hon. gent. wished to have a serious answer, he would say, that he had no authority to make any such statement.—The bill was then read a 1st time.

, in consequence of what fell in the last conversation from Mr. Foster, asked him, whether he had, in his individual capacity, undertaken to assure the Bank of Ireland, that the govt. of this country would make good the 800,000l. for the vote of credit?

.—Sir; I remember when was Speaker in the Irish parliament, there was one night a great number of questions asked about finance, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place: the answer that was given at last was this; it you will have the patience to wait till the gent. who is in the habit of answering these questions comes in, you will probably receive an answer. This is precisely the answer I shall give on the present occasion.

thought this was making bad worse; it was something strange for a member of that house to say, when he was asked a question, "Wait till I get into office, and then I'll answer you."

also put some questions to Mr. Foster about the same arrangement; when the latter replied there was no such arrangetnent.—The bill was then read a 1st time.

observed, that being unavoidably absent from his attendance when the late discussion took place on this subject, he did not wish now to detain the house longer than to do what he now felt it to be his duty, namely, to reassert his former opinions, that the holders of stork in that loan were not entitled to payment before April, 1805; a majority of the house had so decided upon a former night; and relying, as he did, upon the opinions of the first law authorities in the land, he was still of the same opinion.—The report was then agreed to.

said, he would not object to the Speaker's leaving the chair, but he wished that the committee should have power to divide the bill. He had still to object, that the old duties were not stated in the schedule, together with the new items of the same description. Without such a view, it was impossible to ascertain either the object or the effect of every distinct increase, or the amount of the whole. "This duty was estimated at 800,000l. by the late chancellor of the exchequer, including an ad valorem stamp on conveyances, which would yield 300,000l. This stamp was omitted by the present chancellor of the exchequer, who yet took credit for a produce of 750,000l. The worst effect of this tax would be, that the courts of justice would be less accessible in consequence of it. The right hon. gent. said, he found this measure already in existence, he had not instituted it. This was entirely a question of degree, and when degree was lost sight of in such things, there was no longer any equitable principle. There were several species of taxation which might be increased in any degree without any mischief, such as game licenses, taxes on spirits, and several others; but when the govt. looked towards the administration of justice with a greedy eye, the administration of justice must be affected. If we were told that no man should pursue a suit at law without a license of the expense of 5 per cent. every one would say, that such a tax would be shocking in any country, but intolerable in this; but he saw no deterrence between such a license and the necessity of using stamps to that amount. It was on this ground that he was always an enemy to the stamp duty on newspapers, for though it was contended that the liberty of the press would not be affected, if the duty was carried to an extreme it would be ruinous. On this principle it had been said by one of the most acute men of this country, Mr. Horne Tooke, and the observation was worthy of note, "the courts of justice are open to every man in this country, and so is the London Tavern; but if one cannot afford the expense, it is as useless for him to look for justice in the one as for the means of satisfying his hunger in the other." Of the whole sum of 750,000l. to be raised by the increase of stamp duties, 500,000l. would be on law proceedings. In the chancery proceeding the addition would be 25 per cent. If a man could not defend his right without a license, or what amounted to it, this was virtually selling justice. It was a breach of the principle of Magna Charta, nulli vendere justiciam, by which equal justice was to have been secured to the rich and the poor. This was intended to prevent the imposition on those who were not allowed to remove their suits out of the county court to the king's court, without paying the crown for the privilege. The money levied by the govt. for these stamps would be exactly similar to that exacted by the crown in the former instance, and prohibited by Magna Charta. The poorer classes would be entirely excluded from the court by the vast expences superadded to the process. It might be contended, that it was a good thing to discourage litigation; he allowed it was, but it should not be prevented by extreme expence in the course of justice, which would equally repress the pursuit of right and the spirit of contention. He condemned the annual licenses required for attorneys, as illegal and oppressive; there were good and bad in all professions, and why should that be selected for this burden; why might it not as well be laid on physicians and merchants? He allowed that the 100l. stamp on the indenture was very proper, as it was a security of some property or connection in the person. He condemned the increase of duty on the policies for life insurance; persons sacrificing a part of their present income to secure a provision to their surviving relatives, should not be so burdened. He was the more surprised that the right hon. gent. imposed this burden, as in his own income tax, he allowed the sums paid for life insurances to be deducted from the income. He concluded with moving, "that the committee be instructed that they had power to divide the bill into two bills."

thought that the most proper place for the discussion of particular clauses would be in the committee, and therefore he would decline going into them in the present stage of the bill. But if the hon. gent. who had been at the trouble to direct his attention to the papers on the table, had given any part of that attention to the schedule itself, which had been so filled with anxiety for a week past, about the examination of the paper, he would not have fallen into such egregious misconceptions of its contents. Indeed, he himself felt some regret that the paper had not been printed, because, in that case, the hon. gent. might have found some friend to read it for him, and prevent him falling into the egregious error of estimating at 500,000l. the tax on conveyances, which, in the former schedule was estimated only at 60,000l. The discussion of this day, he observed, opened on a very different ground from that which had been taken by the opponents of the bill on a former night. They had attacked the bill on the principle that it would act most oppressively on that profession of which he had the honour once to be a member, and to whose interests certainly he could not wish to offer any injury; but he could now say, that in the conversation he had held with certain members of that profession, they seemed to have very different feelings from those professed for them by their advocates in that house; and though each individual might not exactly approve all the items of increase in the schedule, yet, in general, they were acceded to as circumstances called for by the exigencies of the times.—With respect to the very enormous increase that was stated by a learned and hon. member (Dr. Laurence), to accrue under this schedule, upon proceedings in the civil, courts, it was an effect certainly not intended, but arose out of a misconception in wording the schedule, and not precisely considering the number of lines and words which constitute a folio in the proceedings of those courts: and if the tax were to attach, in the manner expressed in the schedule, upon those who sought the luxury of prosecuting suits in those courts, it certainly would, like most luxuries, be pretty much enhanced by the excess of expense: for, upon enquiry, it appeared, that in some cases, it was necessary to begin a suit in one of those courts by a statement occupying 400 pages, as preliminary to the commencement of any actual proceedings. It was, however, an error he would own, and, fortunately, one of a nature not very likely to escape detection; for, in fact, the only increase intended to be made, was a general proportion of one-third upon the rates in general. Now, as to the objection against the principle of taxing law proceedings, gent. would recollect that it was one of no very modern adoption, but commenced in the reign of King William, a period of our history not very favourable to unconstitutional measures and since taken up and adopted by successive parliaments; and he could see no reason why law proceedings were not as fairly objects of taxation, as other transactions of intercourse between men in society. With respect to the plea of injury to the poor, it was the peculiar characteristic of our constitution, to assign a mode to them of seeking justice in forma pauperis. But he utterly denied that this was a tax on justice, as the cost must fall upon the party maintaining an unjust suit; and so far was he from coinciding in the argument of the hon. member, for opening the law courts for litigation without expence, that he thought it a good thing to discourage it. The hon. member had said, that a tax on law proceedings was a violation of Magna Charta, and a sale of public justice. He totally denied the inference, and asserted, that the principle of Magna Charta was only against the practice of setting up justice to auction, and deciding in favour of the highest bidder. He would not, for the present, go more into the arguments of the hon. gent.; but regretted the hon. member had not resorted to the information he might have had from the paper on the table.

replied, that it would be a tedious operation indeed for members to be obliged to read the paper, one after another, instead of having it printed.

said, the right hon. gent. had the advantage of combining with his other great talents a high degree of wit, which was seldom found in union with them. These long proceedings in the civil law courts, on which the right hon. gent. had been so witty, took place only in matrimonial cases, which there was reason to hope the right hon. gent. would never incur the burden of. The reason of moving for the instruction to divide the bill, was, that if one part of it could not be amended, it might be excluded. From the different modes in which papers were presented, it was not surprising that some of them escaped notice. Sometimes they were presented by a sec. of state at the bar, in volumes almost bulky enough to require a wheelbarrow to carry them; at another time they were brought slyly in the pocket of a sec. of the treasury, and suffered to lie on the table, or in some of the drawers under it, with no other notification than the titles of them being once read at the table. It was complained of as a great hardship, that in the court of Chancery the additional stamps would only amount to 25l. per cent. while in the Ecclesiastical court they would amount to 50 per cent. A great deal had been said of the benefit the poor had in being able to sue in forma pauperis: it was fit the house should know that this advantage was enjoyed only by those who could swear themselves not worth 5l. after the payment of their just debts. The gratuitous assistance of the bar was frequently given to persons not so entirely poor; but if govt. imposed this burden upon them, they would be entirely debarred from justice. He wished the judges to have a power of giving relief from stamps in such cases. As to the idea of costs falling on those who were in the wrong, it should be recollected, that there were many cases, in which each individual paid his own costs; and that when there was no object in litigation but the decision of an important point. In testamentary cases this burden would fall so heavy, that wills of small properties would not be worth establishing, and the falsification of wills would be encouraged by the barriers which were opposed to inquiry and conviction. In the Admiralty court also this burden would be severely felt. In cases of complaint between husband and wife, where the costs on both sides must always fall on the husband; in prize causes, where the parties on one side were that gallant set of men, British sailors, and on the other, foreign merchants, who were obliged to follow their ships into our ports, and vindicate themselves in our courts against the charges on which they were seized; in suits instituted on the subject of wills, the fees on the admission of proctors, and a vast variety, of other, cases, the expense of stamps would be so enormous, as to deter men from seeking justice or redress, and fall most heavily on those who were least able to bear it, and mostly on the injured party.

said, the schedule was the counterpart of that which he should have recommended, if he had continued in office, and therefore he considered himself bound to take upon himself even a larger proportion of any obloquy to which it may give rise, than the right hon. gent. who now brought the measure before the house. The learned gent. who spoke last was in error, in thinking that the charge was increased on all the proceedings in the Admiralty court. There was no increase on appeals in prize causes, nor on libel, on declaration, nor on many other important proceedings. Neither was there a general augmentation on policies, or life insurance; on the contrary, the expense was diminished on small sums, and when it was increased, it was in proportion to the property. He acknowledged that costs on law proceedings could be justified only by absolute necessity; and he would recommend, that if substitute taxes could be found, these taxes should be reduced, or at least not increased. He thought the whole of this discussion best adapted to the committee, and was adverse to the instruction to divide the bill.

was of opinion, that objections which went so much to the principle of the measure, came best before the house before they went into the committee. He thought the new stamps on law proceedings totally unconstitutional and unwise. There were a number of taxes proposed and adopted in the reign of King William, from the necessity of raising money, and ignorance of the principles of taxation, which would not now be tolerated for a moment. There were a number of things in this schedule which ought to be omitted, and a number of other taxes of the right hon. gent. which ought to be repealed.

opposed the tax, as absolutely barring the doors of justice against all the poor, as well as the middling orders of society. He said, that no man could venture to seek justice for a moderate sum of money, without an expense of a stamp more than it was worth his while to pay. He denied that the costs of suit fell upon the losing party; for that party frequently became insolvent during the course of litigation and not only the costs of prosecution, but the enormous expense of stamps, was to be added to the loss of debt already sustained. In many cases the circumstances were so equally poised, that no costs were allowed by the court to either side, and in this case the incurred charge of stamps would fall heavily on both. He considered it as in effect a sale of justice, and a measure which would deter men from seeking justice. He always understood the fair principle of taxation to be, that taxes should be laid on those who were most able to bear them; but in this case the principle would be inverted, and the burden of the tax thrown where it could least be borne, upon the indigent and distressed. It was a tax on distress, and not opulence, as in the instance of mortgage: if a man wanted to borrow 10,000l. on mortgage, he would be obliged to pay 100l. by this tax. A person who owed 20,000l. paid more than one who had 20,000l. to spare. He asked the gent. of the landed interest whether this was right? He also observed, that this would be extremely burdensome on copyhold tenures, where the heir could not be admitted without suing in the Lord's court. He contended that the principle of Magna Charta was violated, inasmuch as the suiter could not come into court without paying. Law proceedings were already too heavily taxed, and suits were, in other respects, too expensive, and it was among the first principles of taxation to consider the prior state of what was to be taxed. With respect to costs falling always on those who were in the wrong, he had to observe, and those conversant with the courts knew it, that defences were frequently set up by persons unable to pay, and unwilling to confess their inability, who, when judgment was at length given, could satisfy the demand no otherwise than by going to prison, leaving the person for whom judgment was given to pay his costs, in addition to the loss of the debt. The measure would have the effect of impeding the progress of justice, by multiplying the expense, and of course augmenting the difficulties. Paupers, it was true, who could swear they were not worth 5l. would still have access to the courts, without being affected by the operation of the act; but there was a description of persons between the rich and the poor, who were peculiarly entitled to the considerate attention of the house, that would be materially and severely burdened by it. On these grounds, therefore, he felt himself under an obligation of supporting the amendment.

, jun. thought it would have been well if the learned serjeant, before he made his speech, had taken into his consideration, that if there was any thing which more particularly distinguished this country, it was the purity and equity of its law proceedings. As to the tax falling heavily upon the poor, if the learned serjeant had taken time to reflect, he would certainly have made no such statement, seeing that there was a very considerable part of the administration of justice in this country which was totally unfettered by stamp duties, namely, all that valuable part which was left in the hands of the justices of the peace.

contended, that the argument of his learned friend applied rather against the laws already existing for levying a stamp duty, than against the augmentation proposed in the present instance. Did the learned member mean to state, that the laying an ad velorem duty in a certain proportion to the duties already existing on all legacies, bequests, conveyances, and promissory notes, would interfere with the course of law proceedings? The litigations that arose from having such instruments executed on an improper stamp, would be done away by the arrangement of the present measure, and on that ground it ought to have the support of his learned friend. All the arguments he had drawn from the effect the measure would have on the opinion of foreign nations, with respect to the difficulty of prosecuting suits, or obtaining justice in this country, applied generally to the policy of levying any stamp duty at all on such proceedings, and therefore did not bear on the present occasion.

could not subscribe to the opinions of the learned gent. either that, in point of fact, the arguments of the learned serjeant were arguments against duties on law proceedings in general, and not against the particular duty in question; or that, being arguments against such duties in general, they were not applicable to the present occasion. If duties on law proceedings had been heretofore improperly imposed, that was no reason why they should now be renewed and extended. If the objections to such duties had, in former instances, been with propriety over-ruled, that was no reason why those objections might not be urged with effect now. It was an odd argument in favour of any principle wrong in itself, that the same had in fact, on former occasions, been acted upon; or, on the other hand, that what was right in a certain degree, might therefore be pursued to any extent at pleasure. In the present instance, he should be inclined to say the direct contrary; and that law proceedings having been already heavily taxed, there was an additional reason why nothing farther should be added. In his opinion, law proceedings never ought to have been taxed at all. A tax upon law was, as had been well observed by an ingenious writer, a tax upon necessaries. It was a tax upon that by which the means of existence were, in many instances, to be procured. It was a tax in consequence, that fell fatally upon the poor. To them it was nothing less than a denial of justice; and, of consequence, of all that which justice was to give. The disadvantages of the poor, in that respect, were already sufficiently great; and that from no fault either on the part of the law, or of the govt. or of those by whom the law or the govt. was to be administered; but from the necessary condition and constitution of things. As had been well observed by a great writer (Dr. Johnson), to bring a rich man and a poor man upon equal terms into a court of justice, was a desideratum in human policy, that had never yet been fully supplied. But the difficulty was, in most cases, to enable the poor man to come into a court of justice at all. This difficulty, instead of alleviating, we were taking means, deliberately, to augment, and thus to defeat the very end and object of law, which was to give protection to the poor against the rich, to the weak against the strong, to the helpless against the powerful. Even as it was at present, no liberal or conscientious lawyer would advise a client to have recourse to law, for any object of less value than 40 or 50l.; a value bearing a large proportion to the fortunes of most in the community, and affording, therefore, an extensive range, within which injustice might operate with impunity. This circle we were now about to enlarge. If any plea could be urged for increasing the difficulties of legal proceedings, it would be in cases of a far different description; cases, namely, of penal justice, where prosecutions for petty offences were to be carried on against individuals on the part of the public. There arguments might not be wanting to shew, that too great facility in giving effect to law, might be to the full as injurious as too great difficulty; particularly if certain societies were likely to come in for a part. But in these cases, on the contrary, it he were to judge from a bill that had been projected lately, the opinion of many was, that every impediment was to be removed, and nothing omitted that might give to justice the most free and unrestrained course. It was only in questions of mcum & tuum where redress was to be sought for private wrongs, and men were endeavouring to recover what was their own, that difficulties were to be thrown in the way, and such impediments created, as in the case of those who ought peculiarly to be the objects of our protection, would amount to nothing less than a prohibition. He was amazed that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, for the sake of such a sum as this tax would bring, be willing to profit by the wrong of his, predecessors, and to persist in a measure so contrary to every principle of justice, and pregnant with such serious injury.—The question was then called for, and strangers ordered to withdraw. The question, however, was not pressed to a division, and the house forthwith resolved itself into a committee.

objected to the schedule becoming part of the bill, until members had had an opportunity of examining it after it should be printed.

said, to leave out the schedule would be to omit one of the most important and efficient portions of the bill. If the hon. gent. wanted information of the existing stamps, a list was printed, which was in the hands of every stationer. The hon. gent. he said, seemed to neglect every ordinary means of gaining intelligence, and to be disposed to call for documents which will give him no explanation whatever.

was surprised to hear the sense and understanding of the committee was thus to be employed on loose, irregular papers, instead of being assisted by the production of authenticated instruments. This bill, which was to disappoint all the ends of justice in the country, was introduced under circumstances peculiarly suited to its nature and design.

attributed the difficulty felt by the hon. gent. not to any deficiency in the papers on the table, but to some inattention on his part in regard to the contents of those papers.—A desultory conversation of some length took place; Mr. Serjeant Best, Mr. Fonblanque, and Mr. W. Smith, contending, that the schedule ought to have been printed, pursuant to what was known to have been the intention of the late right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the information of gent. previous to the discussion of so important a measure; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, M. Huskisson, and Mr. S. Bourne, insisting that it was the business of any hon. gent. who wished the paper to be printed, to have moved the house to that effect, but at the same time not expressing any reluctance to have the paper adverted to, containing a comparative statement of the old and the new stamp duties, ordered to be printed, when the house should be resumed, though they would not consent to delay the progress of the bill for that purpose.

maintained, that it was the duty of the hon. gent. who had moved for, or brought up the account, to have moved that it should be printed, for the accommodation of gent. who seldom paid attention to papers until they came in that form before the house, and complained that on a former occasion, his attention had not been directed to the papers now alluded to.

replied, that the laying the paper on the table was a public act of the house, with which every member must be supposed to be acquainted, and it was therefore the right hon. gent's own fault, if he wished it to be printed, not to have moved for it. The fact, however, was, that the hon. gent. had committed a blunder with respect to this paper in the first instance, that he had repeated his blunder in the last discussion, and that he was now in the 3d instance guilty of the same blunder.

observed, that the right hon. gent. had the happiness to belong to a country where they possessed the second sight: he unfortunately was of a blundering race in the West, and might reasonably expect some compassion for his hereditary infirmities. With all that respect he felt for the superior discernment of the right hon. sec. it was his duty to say the bill was calculated to prevent the attainment of justice in our public courts; it was not to impose large sums on hackney coaches, quack medicines, and lavender water. It was not on the constitutional grounds connected with the use of Dr. Anderson's pills, that he objected to it, but it infringed the sacred principles of our political constitution, which no pharmaceutic remedy could subsequently restore. Four or five hundred thousand pounds were, in multifarious forms, to be raised by these stamps, and the poor were to be deprived of that protection of the law to which they were entitled.

thought the present not the proper stage to enter into the general principles of the bill. The hon. gent. seemed to have very soon forgotten, that his motion was not to abrogate but to divide the bill. The figures he had also misstated; and what was most unlucky for him was, that he could not correct his arithmetic, without stultifying his argument.—A considerable part of the bill was then gone through, when the house being resumed, progress was reported, and the committee appointed to sit again on Friday.