said, that the Bill now before the House was any thing but the bill which the hon. and learned Serjeant had described, when he obtained leave of the House to bring it in. He understood from the hon. and learned gentleman since, however, that two of the most material clauses had been omitted. As it was material that the measure should come before the House in a perfect form, antecedent to their being called upon to deliver their opinion upon it, he thought in the present instance an unfair advantage would be gained by obtaining the consent to the second reading of a Bill, the essence of which was subsequently to be changed. With these feelings, as well as from an insuperable objection to the preamble, he should object to the motion. The measure proposed was very different from what the House expected, and instead of being of a softer, was of a severer nature than the last. He thought the best thing would be to withdraw the Bill, and ask leave to bring in another.

objected to this course, as likely to give additional trouble to the House.

thought that the vital forms of the House would be evaded, by the manner in which it was attempted to pass this Bill through the second and most material stage. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. and learned gentleman ought to withdraw the Bill altogether, and bring it in again, in a complete shape, so that the House might be able to consider it in its perfect bearings.

said, that in all cases where the objects of a bill had not been properly explained to, or understood by the House, the introducer had the option of withdrawing it, in whatever stage it might be, and bringing in another, consonant with his own views, and in an intelligible shape.

then agreed to withdraw the present Bill, and the order for the second reading was discharged. Leave was then given to bring in a Bill in a perfect form.

said, he had a petition to present from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of London, in Common-hall assembled, which might appear, in some respects, of an extraordinary nature. He was bound in duty to his constituents to present it, and it was couched in terms that might probably ensure its reception by the House. It was also his duty to say, that there was scarcely a sentiment contained in it in which he concurred. The meeting was, however, called in the constitutional and proper way. The petition was a kind of omnium, embracing a great variety of matter; one part of it related to the Property-tax. He moved for leave to present the petition.

observed, that the hon. baronet having stated that the Petition was in part against a tax now pending, it could not, consistently with the forms of the House, be received.

said, that he did not know whether it could be said that the Petition was exactly directed against the Property-tax.

thought it advisable that the hon. baronet should read the part which he conceived might prove objectionable.

then read part of the prayer of the Petition, stating, that it was with feelings of indignation the petitioners had perceived his Majesty's ministers had proposed to revive an odious tax, and praying the House to stop the course of a weak, rash, and infatuated Administration in their mad career, and preserve the peace and prosperity of the nation.

said, that it was now for the House to judge from what they had heard, whether the Petition was for the Property-tax or against it.

said, that he thought the House had heard enough to induce them to reject it.

observed, that the rule of the House ought only to be applied practically to the case for which it was intended. Coming from so great and respectable a body—[A laugh on the Ministerial side of the House]—coming, he repeated, from a most numerous and respectable body, the Petition ought not to be rejected on a mere point of form, unless it came strictly and indisputably ] within the rule. The prayer of the Petition said nothing regarding the Property-tax, and only required that the House should take the matters stated in the body of the instrument into consideration. The prayer of the Petition was against his Majesty's Government, who were termed weak, rash, and infatuated. The Property-tax was stated as one of the complaints against them, but it was not made the substantive object of the Petition. If the citizens of London had petitioned against the Property-tax, they would have prayed to be heard by counsel, and that the Bill might not be passed into a law.

was willing to give the petitioners all the respect they deserved. He did not think that the words employed at all warranted the construction put upon them by the hon. gentleman. The object was not so much to complain of ministers, as of the tax which was mentioned, eo nomine, as an intolerable grievance. The prayer was, that the matters above stated should be considered, and one of those matters was the Property-tax.

referred to the memorable dictum of the Speaker on a former occasion, that the doors of the House ought to be opened wide for the admission of petitions, and contended that this great object ought not to be defeated by technical objections. Complaint was against ministers for proposing the Property-tax, and not specifically against that measure, which was still pending; the petitioners required that the country should be protected against the consequences of the misconduct of a weak, rash, and infatuated Administration. It was not difficult to discover the motive for the opposition now given—it was to screen Government for a time against the indignation of a large and most respectable body of persons who were convinced of its incapacity.

contended, that the Petition expressly prayed the rejection of the Property-tax Bill—[A cry of 'No, no!']. Whether it did or did not, was a matter of very little consequence, since the instrument could not be received, as it was couched in the most disrespectful terms—the first two lines contained a most gross and infamous libel upon the House and upon the constitution. The individuals who have signed it must have known that it could not be received; and he could not conceive that it was the duty of any member to present a petition designed to insult the House. He was sure the House would not permit it to lie on the table.

said, that the learned member could not be sure what the House would do with the Petition, till they had come to a vote. The learned member had not yet read the Petition, and yet he had termed it a gross libel. He hoped to find him mistaken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had become very humorous about the city when they turned against him: at other times they were found very useful both by him and the worthy alderman. The prayer was to stop the career of ministers, which occasioned grievances, and would bring on the Property-tax. Nice and fine distinctions should be avoided respecting the receiving of Petitions. The livery were most unhappy in their representative, who said he was bound to present the Petition, but yet evinced so much reluctance in doing his duty. If he was their representative in Guildhall, he certainly was counsel against them in that House. His pleading against the Petition was even more able and effectual than the learned serjeant's; and surely, had he seen a libel such as the learned serjeant mentioned, he would have pounced upon it at once. The House would not, either in compliment to him, or to ministers, do so violent an act as to reject a petition which the worthy alderman himself said came from a body constitutionally convened.

observed, that the tax was distinctly stated, and then came a prayer for the consideration of divers matters, in order to stop the career of rash ministers. The objection to the Petition did not proceed from any desire to prevent the expression of the petitioners' sentiments, but for the purpose of supporting the rules of the House.

said, that there were two modes of presenting petitions; one to obtain its reception, and the other to secure its rejection by the House: which the worthy baronet had adopted, the House could easily determine. The Petition complained of a weak, rash, and infatuated Administration, that had resorted to an odious tax, from which they hoped to have been free; but the prayer was not directed against the tax, whatever ingenuity might be displayed to show the contrary. If there were any valid objection, it could not have happened that gentlemen on the other side should take such different grounds. It ] was true that the name of the Property-tax was mentioned, but the aim was against the members of the Government. The object was to remove the present Government; and he would undertake, without communication with them, that the petitioners would be fully satisfied if that object were accomplished. He took a distinction between a new tax and the revival of an old tax, and doubted whether on that account the rule in the present instance could be applied—[Laughter from ministers]. It was a matter well worth consideration, and he was sorry to see that the grievous complaints of the metropolis of the empire, were the ridicule of the ministers. This technical objection was very welcome to the other side of the House; it was a good expedient to screen unpopular ministers from public execration. He was willing to rest the whole upon this point; whether the citizens of London, in resolving upon the Petition, meant it as a Petition against the Property-tax?

said, certainly.

said, that there never was a stronger ground of rejection. The Petion desired the consideration of the proposed tax; and it grossly misrepresented the situation and character of the House with the public.

said, the circumstance that the Petition was presented by the worthy alderman, was primâ facie evidence that no disrespect was intended to the House. As to its being a Petition against a new tax, it was to be considered, in the first place, that the Property-tax was not a new tax, but a continuation of an old tax, which alone would induce him to entertain considerable doubts till he heard the opinion of the chair: in the next place, in the prayer of the Petition there was not a word of the tax, which was merely mentioned incidentally; he should therefore vote for the bringing up the Petition. Let the House hear what it was; and reject it, if it should prove improper. As far as he had looked at it, there was in it that which he did not concur in, and nothing to induce him to regard it with much favour; but the objection respecting the tax seemed rather a stretch of the rule.

observed, that when there was a doubt as to the meaning of a petition, the natural course was to bring it up and suffer it to be read. There was another reason why it should be received, which was, that it was said to be extremely improper for the House to receive. If that was the case, he should be very unwilling that it should be got rid of simply by a technical objection.

said, that the usual course was to call on the member who presented the petition, to read the prayer of it. In that prayer there was nothing to be objected to. The House, therefore, should not refuse to hear the Petition read, because a member who unwillingly presented it quarrelled with some of its sentiments.

observed, that he had entertained doubts as to the admissibility of the Petition, which he had communicated to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who entertained more than doubts respecting it. He had communicated, therefore, his doubts to the House, but he did not wish to prejudice them against the Petition.

said, that if the Petition was against the ministers and their measures generally, it could not be objected to; but if it objected to certain specific measures, of which the Property-tax was one, it would be inconsistent with the rule of the House to receive it. It would be an assistance to the judgment of the House, if the worthy alderman would state more fully the substance of the whole Petition, or the circumstances which took place when it was agreed to;—as, for instance, whether any mention had been made of the Property-tax at the time.

said, he had never witnessed such a debate as the present—the presenter of a petition diligently finding objections to it, and the minister ferreting out reasons in support of him. Instead of astuteness in finding out reasons for rejection, the astuteness would be better employed in discovering causes for receiving a petition. He did not understand a petition against a tax by implication. Probably no two would agree on the exact point of objection. The rule was, not to receive a petition against a tax proposed for the ways and means of the present year; but, then, the prayer must distinctly express that request. Inference and deduction were not fair grounds of rejection. He had seen many petitions more offensive than the present; but the House ought to know its contents. Were he on the opposite bench in such a case, he should be desirous of receiving it.

was in favour of reading it. The tax might be so introduced as to be incidental to the chief object of the prayer. Though he did not concur in the use of the word 'execration,' yet he did not think that sufficient to exclude it. A general courtesy should be observed towards petitions when they were not offensive, or when particular points might be liberally construed. He should, vote against the rejection, unless the Speaker said it might be read as part of the worthy alderman's speech.

observed, that the member who presented a petition to the House was bound to state the substance of it; but if the House wished to hear the words, the course was, that the clerk at the table should read it. As to the rule against receiving petitions against taxes, it clearly was, that no petition should be received against any tax voted in the committee of Ways and Means for the year. The Petition was then presented and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners, having so recently witnessed the marked disregard shown to the petitions from the City of London, and those of the nation at large, could not fail to have been confirmed in their conviction of the corrupt state of the representation, and of the want of sympathy in the House with the feelings and opinions of the people; and that these considerations would, under circumstances of less importance, have deterred the petitioners from the exercise of a right which appears to have been rendered nugatory; but, hopeless as they fear it is again to address the House, yet at a crisis so momentous, when a determination has been so strongly manifested by the ministers of the Crown again to plunge this devoted country into the horrors of war, the petitioners feel it to be an imperious duty to their country, themselves, and posterity, to use every constitutional means towards averting from the nation the overwhelming calamities with which it is menaced; and that they have seen, with feelings of abhorrence, the declarations and treaties of the Allied Powers, and to which are affixed the names of British ministers, wherein are avowed and promulgated the monstrous and unheard-of principles, that the breach of a convention by a Sovereign destroys the only legal title on which his existence depended, places him without the pale of civil and social relations, renders him liable to public vengeance, and that, consequently, there can be neither peace nor truce with him; principles revolting to the feelings of civilized society, repugnant to the rights, liberties, and security of all states, and evincing a combination, or rather a conspiracy, which, if once sanctioned, would lead to consequences the most dreadful and alarming, and for which there is no parallel in the history of the world; and that, recollecting the noble struggles which our ancestors have made for re-establishing and preserving their liberties, recollecting the frequent reformations they have made in the Government, that they have always maintained and exercised this right, and that the august Family now on the Throne derived the right to the crown, not by hereditary claims, but upon the legitimate foundation of all authority, the choice of the people, and indignantly disclaiming, as our ancestors have done, all right in Foreign Powers to interfere in our internal concerns, the petitioners cannot but consider any attempt to dictate to France, or any other country, the form or mode of its government, the person who shall or shall not be at the head of such government, or in any way to interfere in its internal policy and regulations, as highly impolitic and manifestly unjust: The petitioners, therefore, deprecate any designs to involve this country in a war for such an object, a war against those principles which this nation has always maintained and acted upon; and that, torn by the miseries and calamities of the late devastating war, still tasting the bitter fruits of that protracted conflict, and no means having been adopted to lessen our burthens, by those necessary retrenchments in the national expenditure so earnestly and so repeatedly called for by the people, but, on the contrary, an Act has been passed restricting the importation of corn, by which a tax is virtually imposed of several millions per annum upon food, entailing upon us, in times of peace, one of the greatest evils produced by the war: before, therefore, we are plunged into another war, and in support of such principles, the petitioners might ask the House, what has been gained by the immense sacrifices we have already made; and, contemplating the disastrous consequences of a failure in this new contest the people have a right to demand, what advantages are proposed even in the event ] of its success, or, at least, to be satisfied that hostilities are unavoidable, and that every means of honourable and fair negociation have been exerted and proved ineffectual; for to enter into such a contest in the present state of the country, with all our national funds mortgaged to their utmost bearing, and that without an effort at negociation or to refuse to conclude a Treaty with any Power under the presumption that such Treaty may at some remote period be broken, appears to us an act of insanity, putting to hazard not only the property and happiness of families, but even the very existence of the British empire, and tending to exclude for ever from the world the blessings of peace; and that, were the impolicy of a new war upon such principles and under such circumstances at all doubtful, or were governments at all to be benefited by the result of experience, the petitioners need but recall to their recollection the memorable Manifesto of the duke of Brunswick at the commencement of the late conflict; a manifesto which had the effect of arousing and uniting all the energies of the French nation, and gave that victorious impulse to her arms which endangered the liberties of Europe; the petitioners need but call to recollection, that, during the progress of that war, notwithstanding the immense sacrifice of British blood, and the wanton waste of British treasure lavished in subsidizing allies to fight in their own cause, the petitioners have not unfrequently seen those powers who entered the contest in alliance with us, abandon that alliance, and join the league with France, endeavouring to exclude us from the continent of Europe; that, after all our sacrifices and all our exertions in the common cause, we failed to procure from one sovereign that tribute to humanity, the abolition of the Slave-trade, and beheld another monarch commence his career by reestablishing the Inquisition, persecuting the best patriots of the country, and even prohibiting the introduction of British manufactures into his dominions; and that the petitioners ever have been, and now are, ready to support the honour, the character, and the interests of the British empire, and to resist every act of aggression; but seeing all the consequences of the late war, looking at the depressed state of the country, the burthens and privations of the people, the financial difficulties, the uncertainty and hazards of war, seeing likewise that France has disclaimed all intention of interfering in the concerns of other nations, that she has declared her determination to adhere to the Treaty of Paris, that she has made pacific overtures to the different Allied Powers, has already abolished the Slave-trade, and given other indications of returning to principles of equity and moderation, and holding, as the petitioners do, all wars to be unjust, unless the injury sustained is clearly defined, and redress by negociation cannot be obtained, and more particularly holding in abhorrence all attempts to dictate to, or interfere with other nations in their internal concerns, they cannot but protest against the renewal of hostilities, as founded neither in justice or necessity; and that it is with feelings of indignation they perceive his Majesty's ministers have proposed the renewal of that most galling, oppressive, and hateful inquisition—the tax upon income; an inquisition which had, in consequence of the universal execration it had excited, been reluctantly abandoned, and which the petitioners had hoped could never have been again renewed, at least during the existence of that generation who remember its oppressions; and praying the House to take these matters into their most serious consideration, and that they would interpose their authority to stop a weak, rash, and infatuated Administration in their mad and frightful career, and adopt such measures as may best preserve the peace and promote the prosperity of the nation."

observed, that if any doubt remained on the minds of the House, it must now be completely removed. The petition was directly against the renewal of the Property-tax. The petition went through a variety of matter, stating different grounds of complaint involving the Property-tax, and concluded by praying the House to take those matters into consideration, and to interpose its authority. Although it was desirable to throw the doors wide open to petitions, he thought the present was not entitled to be received.

thought that this petition contained two distinct propositions. The first was a sort of apology for coming to that House after the little attention that had lately been paid to petitions. Upon this point he must say, that he believed ] that the inattention which had been evinced in the course of the present session, not only to the petitions of the city of London, but to the petitions of the great body of the people of this country, was altogether unprecedented in the annals of parliament. Upon the other point, it appeared as if it was the disposition of the House to construe their rules as strictly as possible against the petitioners. The whole of the petition was an argument against the conduct of ministers, in plunging the country into a war, which appeared to the petitioners unnecessary and improper, at least before the experiment of negociation had been tried. The fact respecting the renewal of the Property-tax was only stated incidentally, and as a consequence of that conduct of ministers of which they complained; for how could the subject of the renewal of the war be considered, without the mind being at once turned to the renewal of the Property-tax? Technical rules, he thought, should not be strictly applied to such a momentous subject, and especially to a petition coming from the largest city in his Majesty's dominions.

opposed the receiving the petition, on what he conceived to be much higher grounds than those suggested by the hon. baronet. He should put it to the House, whether they would submit to be told by any petitioners, that they were not in the habit of listening to petitions from the people. Every body who was at all in the habit of attending the House, and witnessing its proceedings, must know that this was a most false and infamous misrepresentation. It was well known, that as to the particular point, the Property-tax, the House had in the course of the present session received a vast number of petitions,—but under other circumstances, and when such petitions could be received without violating their established rules and usages. Could it then be said, that the House paid no attention to those petitions, or could it be denied that those petitions had a considerable influence? An hon. gentleman had asked, was it decent for the House to reject the petition of the City of London, on such grounds as had been suggested? He should ask, was it decent in the City of London to talk to that House of the corrupt state of the representation? If such language had come from a small obscure place in the country, he should not by any means feel so strong an objec- tion, as he did from its coming from the City of London. If it was stated, that petitions from so respectable a body as the City of London were entitled to peculiar attention, then he would say, that it became that body to be attentive to use proper and decent language in their petitions. He wished distinctly to express, that his reason for voting for the rejection of the petition, was not that it was a petition against a money bill, but because he conceived that in its language it was a gross insult to the House.

saw nothing in the language of this petition that was stronger than what had been used in many petitions which had been received by that House. As to the charges which it contained against the system of representation by which the House was now constituted, he apprehended the rejection of the petition would have rather the effect of impressing those opinions more generally on the minds of the people out of doors.

opposed the reception of the petition, as he conceived that the language used in it was untrue, and intended as an insult to that House.

said, that if the petition, was rejected on the grounds on which it was opposed, it would afford a precedent most fatal to the right of petition.

thought the petition was merely to be considered as a petition against the Administration, and not as particularly directed against the Property-tax.

said, that he conceived the petition was highly disrespectful. It accused the House of totally neglecting its duties, and contained such sentiments as ought not to be received from any place, and least of all from the City of London. If a petition containing such sentiments was received from the City of London, it would be an example to any other place, that might feel disposed to address the House in unbecoming language.

said, that the petition contained language which he was sorry to see in a petition from the City of London; but it was the language of those who had been habitually opposing every measure of Government. He was convinced the sentiments were far from being those of the majority of the livery of London. He hoped the House would receive the petition. He thought it beneath their dignity to reject the petition, ] when he could assure them that it contained only the sentiments of a small minority of the livery of London.

said, that the last speaker had made use of the oddest argument for receiving the petition that could be conceived. Now, he thought that instead of its being received for being the language of a few, and being against the sentiments of the majority, it should therefore be rejected by the House.

said, that as it was stated to be the legal petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Liverymen, it should be treated with respect as such. He therefore supported the motion.

said, that he had delivered his opinion, that the petition should not be rejected on account of technicalities; but he would now vote that it be not received on much stronger grounds. The first paragraph contained, he conceived, the most scandalous libel that could be uttered against the House. The insult was the grosser, on account of coming from the City of London. It was not because the City of London was great, that direspectful language towards that House should be received from it. The City of London had petitioned against the Corn Bill, and had prophesied that if the Bill should be passed, corn would immediately be above 80s. It was no great disparagement to the House, that it did not yield to the prayer, nor believe in the prophecy of that petition. An hon. alderman had said, that the sentiments of this petition were only the sentiments of a few of the liverymen. He should then ask, where were the many? Were they present, or were they not present? If they were absent, why were they absent; and if they were present, why did they not express their sentiments by their votes? If those were really the sentiments of only a few of the livery, he should like to see their signatures, that he might know who they were, and what was their situation in life.

observed, that if what had been stated about the representation was to be considered an insult to the House, he did not know in what manner a petition for parliamentary reform could be drawn, without stating what the petitioners complained of in the present mode of representation. As the objection to the petition seemed at present mainly grounded on the first paragraph, which conveyed imputations against the House; he should read a passage from a petition which had been presented, and which had been received and entered on the Journals. This petition stated—that many members of the House of Commons were appointed by the direct authority of the Executive Government, or by powerful individuals or bodies of men;—that innumerable illegal returns were procured by bribery;—and that a House of Commons so constituted could not be considered as a true representative of the national will or a faithful guardian of the interests of the people. If in the case of that petition such language was not considered as a sufficient ground for rejecting it, the language of that which had been just read, could not afford any objection to its being received.

observed, that the ground on which the petition was objected to had been shifted by its opponents. Hundreds of petitions had been presented against the passing of the Corn Bill, which had not been attended to; and some of those petitions had stated that the opinions of the petitioners of the necessity of a reform in the representation would be confirmed if that Bill passed. The imputation of the liverymen had therefore some foundation, and he did not believe it would have been at all objected to, if it had not been coupled with disrespectful language towards the Administration.

said, he would oppose the reception of the petition, on the ground of its being a petition against the Property-tax.

said, the only thing to be regretted upon this occasion was, that there should have been so much discussion. Had the petition been received quietly, and laid upon the table, he had no doubt but the petitioners would have been extremely disappointed.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the non-extension of the tax to officers of the army and navy, while on foreign service. It was necessary, that that description of persons, after the long contest in which we had been engaged, and which we were now about to ] renew, should have some relief. To exempt them altogether from the operations of the Bill was not what he intended to propose; neither would he submit his motion at all to the House, if he did not feel confident that there was not one who heard him that would say it was a case that did not merit attention. In order, however, to convince the House of the particular claims which that description of persons had on their consideration, he would define the situations in which officers of the army were placed. He would not state the distinct pay or allowance; but a captain when he was sent on foreign service was allowed 22l..; a subaltern 8l. 15s; out of this money they were under the necessity of providing clothes and camp equipage, the expenses of which were frequently so great that a captain could not take the field under 80l. and a subaltern under 30l. This hardship had, indeed, been represented to Government, and it was then thought proper to give the officers two months pay in advance. But even with this benefit, what was the situation of the army in the Peninsula? For six months afterwards they did not receive a farthing. Where a considerable body of troops was marched into a foreign country, the price of provisions was generally double, and they usually gave 100 to 200 dollars for a mule, which they must either provide or leave their baggage behind. It was not, however, to be supposed, that they could supply themselves with all requisites from their pay alone: they were frequently obliged to draw upon the their friends, and to distress their families. There was, besides, the loss which they suffered from the difference of exchange. The exchange against this country was at this time 25 per cent.; so that, upon every 100l. for which an officer drew, he was subject to a loss of 35l.; 25l. for the difference of exchange, and 10l. for the Property-tax. Surely, then, if there was any description of men entitled to the regard and consideration of that House, it was the officers of the army and navy; men who held their tenure of life only from day to day, and with whose deaths, as they could not insure their lives for the benefit of their families, all the capital which they had expended in their profession generally expired. The motion which he intended to submit to the House was extracted from the Records of Parliament in the time of William and Mary. In the year 1695, a contribution was raised upon the country, as similar as could be to the tax now before the House; it applied to profits of every description, but exempted the army and navy. He wished the House, however, to consider the different situations or our military and naval officers at this time. In 1695, the pay of a lieut.-colonel was 17s. per diem—the very same pay which they received at present. But, if the calculation of sir George Shuckburgh was correct, namely, that 8s. 9d. in 1700, was equal to 1l. in 1803, how much more were the officers of the army and navy entitled to exemption at this period? They had formerly derived some advantage from what were called Stock-purses, but this benefit no longer existed. On going abroad; they were obliged to make certain allowances to their families; and many of those who had fought in the Peninsula were afterwards sent to America, and had not yet received their arrears. He would next advert to the Colonial service, which was by no means pleasing to the army. So great, indeed, was their dislike of it, that it was recently a usual practice, in exchanging on Colonial service, to make a difference in price from 500l. to 1000l. for what was only intrinsically worth 1,500l. Nor was this to be wondered at when we considered the effects of foreign climates on different regiments. The 18th regiment of foot was composed of 34 officers, and 1000 men; but in the space of eight years and a half, it lost 71 officers, and upwards of 2000 men. A resident in the Colonies, though only for temporary affairs, was not liable to the Property duty; he might stay there for three years, and then send his property to this country, which was not subject to taxation: but officers of the army and navy who remained abroad for ten years, and were frequently under the necessity of selling their commissions on their return, were not entitled to any exemption. As far as he had been able to ascertain, the deduction for Property-tax on the pay of officers in a regiment of 1000 men was 780l.; so that, supposing 100 battalions of 1000 strong, the whole would amount to 68,000l. per annum. It was necessary also to state, that when an officer was ordered abroad to join his regiment, he was assisted with a sum of money to lake his passage. The usual sum for a captain who was appointed to a regiment in the West Indies, was 28l.; but the price of the cabin was 50l., and it generally appeared, on his first landing there, that the ] whole of his expenses amounted to 100l. instead of 28l. Having detailed these striking facts, he would not occupy the attention of the House any longer with respect to the army: and he would leave the subject, as far as it related to the navy, to the hon. admiral who intended to second his motion. He felt persuaded there was no gentleman who would not think the officers of the army and navy entitled to the consideration and liberality of the House: if the smallest doubt existed in any mind, it must arise from the manner in which he had expressed himself, and not from the merits of the case. There was not one person out of doors, whether he were a merchant, a stock-broker, a land-holder, or any other description, who would not he glad to see that a distinction had been made in this case. The army and navy had always deserved well of their country; but they were more entitled to our consideration at this period, than they were to that of our ancestors in 1695. He should, therefore, conclude with moving, "That it be an instruction to the Committee, to amend the Act, by exempting from the operation of the Tax on Property, the pay of such military and naval officers, as are actually mustered on foreign service, and not otherwise."

rose to second the motion. He said, that the observations which the gallant officer had made with regard to the army applied in a double ratio to the navy. In the equipment of a ship, the necessaries they were obliged to provide amounted to almost as much as the expenses incurred by any person beginning a new establishment. He had thought that the renewal of the Property-tax was necessary under the present situation of the country, but that certain modifications ougnt to have been adopted. As to the measure now proposed, he did not think it went far enough. In looking at the estimates which had been lately submitted to the House, it must alarm any man to add to the burthen of the people; but he was quite sure that great savings might be made in several departments of the navy, especially with regard to superannuations on the civil service. Government had acted with great liberality in augmenting the half-pay of naval officers; but it went at this moment to make the full pay and half-pay so nearly on a par, that there was only a difference of 3l. in the pay of a lieutenant of the navy. In the pay of a purser there was no difference at all. He considered it necessary, therefore, to revise the state of the full and half-pay, particularly as superannuated officers were now receiving within 40l. of their full salary. On these accounts, he should support the motion.

expressed his hearty and entire concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. friend who made the motion.

having himself experienced many of the disadvantages which the hon. general who proposed the motion had detailed, could not withhold his complete acquiescence in the motion.

expressed his opinion, that the arguments of his gallant friend applied rather to some general revision of the naval and military service, than to the specific motion which he had brought forward. With respect to the clause which had been introduced in the time of king William, he willingly admitted that the pay was higher then than now; but it should also be recollected, how very different the service of the army was in the two periods. In the reign of king William their service was only occasional, and no half-pay was established; consequently, it was desirable that their reward should be not only a compensation for actual duty, but, as far as might be practicable, a provision for the future. The gallant general had alluded to the case of civil officers in the Colonies, as being exempted from the operation of the Property-tax; but he could assure him that they enjoyed no such exemption, where they derived their salaries from this country. Those who drew colonial allowances were of course exempt, because Parliament did not think it expedient to extend the operation of the Act to our Colonies. With respect to the relief which officers would derive, in any hardships they might now sustain, by exempting them from the Property-tax, he thought it would be very inadequate; and, besides, the House would surely feel the delicacy of extending that description of relief to a particular class of individuals. The very principle upon which the tax was recommended, in some degree, to public favour, was its universal operation; and to exempt the army and navy would neither be beneficial to the public service, nor conducive, in his apprehension, to their honour. If the proposition were entertained, in respect to them, many other classes, the inferior clergy for instance, whose profits were ] equally contingent and precarious, might justly claim the same exemption. But the House had determined, and wisely, in his opinion, that no modification of the tax should take place, distinguishing permanent from temporary profits; and even if such an exemption in favour of the army and navy were thought necessary on general grounds, the present occasion was the very last in which he should recommend it. The tax was now to be revived, without any alterations or inquiries, which would only perplex the collecting of it. It was to be given to the public again simply in the form to which the public had been accustomed; and, with that view, as soon as the House should have disposed of the question then before it, it was his intention to submit a proposition, which would simplify the operation of the tax. It was, that the assessments of last year should be the basis of the present one. Parties would not be called upon to make any fresh returns, but merely to pay the same amount as they paid the preceding year, unless where they might think themselves aggrieved. This proposition, he was happy to say, had met with the approbation of all to whom he had communicated it. At first he thought it might diminish the produce of the tax; but upon consulting with those who were better acquainted with its details than himself, they were of opinion that it would have no such effect. That principle had been adopted since the year 1806, in taking the assessments upon landed property, no fresh returns being called for: but in commercial property, which was necessarily fluctuating, cases might occur in which it would be necessary to make a reduction. Those, however, were not numerous enough to create any solid objection to the arrangement. With respect to the motion of the hon. general, he thought its objects would be better effected by bringing the subjects under the notice of Parliament, when the army and navy estimates were before the House, instead of that indirect and collateral mode.

entirely concurred in the opinions of the hon. mover, and thought them not at all weakened by the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was to be remembered that when an officer fell in the service of his country, his commission, perhaps his only provision, was immediately lost to his family. The House had been flattered with hopes that the approaching war would be but of short duration. Such a result, however desirable, might be very disadvantageous to military men, as they would be put to all the necessary expenses of an outfit, with a less chance of remuneration. He held it due to the honour of the House, as well as to that of the country at large, to express, in the most decided manner, the just sense entertained by them of the services of the army.

wished to offer a very few words upon what had been urged by the hon. mover, and the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. He apprehended, in the first place, that it was an entire misconception to suppose that officers were less able to provide for themselves and families on foreign service than at home. The fact was, that on foreign stations they were much more advantageously situated, as, in addition to their ordinary full pay, they were at no expense for quarters, they drew rations from the magazines both for themselves and their servants, and obtained forage for their horses. It had been observed that long arrears were sometimes due, viz. for six or twelve months, but this was only an additional proof that the incomes of officers were much improved abroad, as they had been particularly in the peninsular warfare, or it would have been impossible for them to have given such long credit to Government. With respect to the hardship alluded to by an hon. and learned gentleman, when officers purchased their commissions and were killed in battle, or died on foreign service, he could only say, that though it might be an act of liberality to allow their families to dispose of their commissions, it would be an act of great injustice to the corps. Many cases, however, had occurred, in which, the families of officers being left in great distress, grants were made to them in addition to the usual allowances. He certainly thought, if any distinction was to be made, the officers serving at home were most entitled to it.

confessed that he thought the arguments of the right hon. gentleman opposite were unanswerable against the proposition of introducing any clause to exempt particular classes from the operation of the Property-tax. As long as the the measure should be deemed necessary, its operation ought to be uniform, reserving the power only, if in the course of time it should unfortunately be made a permanent impost, to consider how far it ] might then be expedient to introduce modifications. He agreed with the noble lord, that if any description of officers were more peculiarly entitled to the consideration of Government than another, it was those who were placed upon the home service; and, the refore, if the House entertained the proposition of the gallant general at all, it ought to be reversed in its application. He had briefly stated his opinions, because, if the question were pressed to a division, he should be compelled to vote against the motion.

supported the motion, and, adverting to the situation of the navy on foreign stations, especially the East Indies, expressed a wish that some practicable mode could be devised for enabling the sailors to receive their pay through the medium of the East India Company. At present, the only way they could obtain it was, by taking slops of the purser at nearly double their value, and turning them into money by afterwards selling them at one half.

said, that an arrangement such as was alluded to by the hon. member had been under the consideration of Government, but was found impracticable. With respect to the necessity of taking slops from the purser, those slops were contracted for by the Navy-board, at the lowest possible price, and they were of the best materials.

adverted to the difficulty which seamen encountered in procuring their pay, after having been engaged in the service for a number of years. Some regulation ought to be made on this subject.

thought the situation of officers, he meant subaltern and not general officers, required relief, and was at present discreditable to the country, and prejudicial to the service. It was true that the object of a military life was not money, or the accumulation of a large fortune; but it was necessary that there should be what was sufficient to enable officers to live like gentlemen, and this sufficiency was not yet accorded. The hon. general was, however, certainly wrong in supposing that officers abroad were less advantageously circumstanced than those at home.

replied, and said he had no reluctance, if that would satisfy the noble lord (Palmerston), to extend his motion for exemption, and make it general to the whole army.

recommended to the hon. general to withdraw his motion.

persevered, when the question was put, and negatived without a division.

rose, and observed, that according to the provisions of the Act as it was now framed, there was no clause in it to restrain the Commissioners of the Property-tax from disclosing the information they obtained in the discharge of their duty. He thought this a defect, which, in many instances, might lead to unpleasant occurrences; in some cases, indeed, he knew such occurrences had taken place. He should therefore, move, "That it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a clause imposing the same restraint upon the Commissioners for the Affairs of Taxes as existed with regard to the Commissioners for General Purposes under the Property-tax Act."

objected to the motion, because he thought his hon. friend and the House were hardly aware of all the consequences to which the principle would go. He apprehended that improvident disclosures were very rare, as he had heard but few complaints. Unless a case of real necessity were made out, he should certainly be averse to any such clause.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman had stated any specific inconvenience likely to result from the motion of his hon. friend, he, for one, should be prepared to oppose it; but, as that had not been done, he hoped the House would reflect before they rejected it.

contended, that as the intended duration of the Bill was only for one year, a very strong case of actual in-convenience ought to be made out to induce the House to take any step which might have the effect of casting a stigma on so respectable a body of men as the Commissioners of Taxes. He thought it would be very difficult to devise any kind of oath which would exactly answer the purpose of the hon. member.

observed, that no arguments had been advanced against the proposition of his hon. friend (Mr. Grenfell), which he was confident could not be attended with any inconvenience, and would certainly produce many beneficial consequences. He could not forbear remarking on the constant recurrence made by gentlemen on the opposite side to the ] assertion, that the Property-tax was to continue for only one year. He felt very sure, that it would be proposed from year to year, and at length riveted upon the people for ever. He observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took advantage of its present temporary nature to obviate discussion. He thought the clause proposed very unobjectionable, and said, he had often heard of very unjustifiable disclosures made of the private property and circumstances of individuals, which might be prevented by the restraint of an oath. On these grounds, he hoped his hon. friend would press the motion to a division.

, certain as he was that the tax would be renewed the next year, and the year after, thought that Parliament ought not to spare themselves the trouble of modifying it in the best possible way. He had always opposed the tax on the ground of its inquisitorial and oppressive nature; but he was by no means persuaded, that by an extensive pruning, it might not be rendered tolerable.

, in reply to the request made to him by his hon. friend, to relate the anecdote to which he had alluded, stated, that a friend of his, travelling in a common stage coach from London to Oxford, was entertained by a fellow passenger with a minute account of the diminution of income, and of the other affairs of a gentleman whose residence they passed. On his arrival at Oxford, his friend inquired who his fellow passenger was, and was informed that he was a commissioner of the Property-tax. He (Mr. Gienfell) had subsequently a long correspondence with him on the subject, and had acquainted him that if ever an opportunity occurred, he would introduce into the House of Commons some measure to check so great an abuse. It was in consequence that he then submitted the clause, and would take the sense of the House upon it.

asked, whether in the correspondence which the hon. gentleman had had with the commis- sioner, any satisfactory explanation was given of his conduct?

replied, that he had received no explanation, which, in his view of it, was satisfactory.

maintained, that a single circumstance such as that which had just been mentioned by his hon. friend, ought to be sufficient to induce the House to agree to the motion.

was at a loss to conjecture on what the opposition to the motion was founded. The expediency of it was palpably clear. It would be a most important improvement in the Act. If it were rejected, it would cause a very serious impression upon the public mind, as if that House would countenance such a proceeding.

proceeded to make the motion which he had already described. It was to the following effect—"That it be an instruction to the Committee, that it be empowered to make provision in the said Bill, That the assessments of the year ending the 5th of April, 1815, be the basis of all assessments to be made by the commissioners for the year ending the 5th of April, 1816; and that no new assessments be made;" which, after a short conversation, was carried in the affirmative.

, convinced as he was of the numerous deficiencies of the measure, moved as a general proposition, "that it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to amend the said Act."