, on presenting a petition from the inhabitants of the parishes bordering on Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, and Bedfordshire, said, it stated the great distress that prevailed, of which taxation was the cause, and of which the reduction of taxation could be the only remedy. The petition proceeded to pray the House to take such measures as would put an end to that odious, inquisitorial, and detestable measure the property tax, a measure so destructive of that constitution which their forefathers had bled to maintain. He had trespassed on the time of the House in describing the nature of the petition that he might avoid the errors and misrepresentations so prevalent on the subject.

in presenting a petition from Boston, insisted on the entire contents of it being read. It was signed, he said, by a number of persons, all of great respectability, and the signatures would have been much more numerous had the petitioners not been afraid of being too late. He was directed by his constituents—especially charged—to give every support in his power to their petition, and to lose no opportunity of accomplishing its object, namely, that of preventing the continuance or renewal of the income tax—the most odious burthen that was ever imposed on this or any other country—a burthen to be submitted to only in cases of imperious necessity in time of war, and to be discontinued on the first recurrence of peace, even though the faith of parliament did not stand, as in the present instance, so solemnly pledged to that effect. He obeyed his constituents, not only from a due attention to their wishes, but from a full conviction of the propriety of their prayer, the justness of their complaints, the extent of their distresses, and the reasonableness of their view, as to the various modes of relief therein stated. He felt, with the petitioners, that much might be done by reducing the expenditure of the country to its lowest possible scale, and by resorting to retrenchment and economy, the two best features of finance, except those other measures now become indispensably necessary, namely the checking the extravagance of the court, and the suppressing the corruptions and overgrown patronage of the government. He participated in their just apprehensions of danger to their finances and their liberties from the large military establishments in contemplation of ministers, and their constitutional and well-founded jealousy of a vast standing army, at all times the fear of good men, and the ready instruments of bad He was astonished at the obstinacy and pertinacity of the chancellor of the exchequer. He was surprised, too, at his shortsighted policy in shaking the reliance of the country, on the promise of ministers, and on the word of parliament, in the event of having to draw largely on the resources and efforts of the nation, on future exigencies. He complained of the chancellor of the exchequer pressing this great subject with such indecent haste through the House, with so little respect to the voice and feelings of the people, and with such ungrateful return for their unexampled patience in the time of need and peril. The chancellor of the exchequer had said it was necessary to get the bill into the House, without loss of time, because the 6th of April was so near at hand. Why was not parliament summoned sooner to take these two great questions into full consideration, namely, the property tax, and the amount of the standing army. He thought the disposition shown by ministers to consult parliament as little as possible, their proneness to get the country into difficulties, and their practice of hurrying these measures through the House at so late a period of the year, without due deliberation and information, was a system that ought to be resisted and amended, and that parliament ought to be considered any thing rather than a mere registry of their edicts, and their ready instrument for laying burthens on the nation. Surely, a main part of the functions of the House of Commons was, to cherish the industry of the people, to better their condition, encourage knowledge and improvement, to foster genius and reward merit in every department of the state, and in every calling of human life. For these important objects the great council of the nation was instituted, and it ought to have time and opportunity to sit and deliberate upon these important subjects, the means of glory in peace and of strength in war. The hon. gentleman said, that the case of his constituents, and the people in the neighbourhood of Boston, was peculiarly hard, as it regarded the income tax. So much land in that district had of late years been brought into cultivation for the benefit of the state, and for its demands in time of need, that in the year 1802, although the port of Boston exported 90,000 quarters of oats, and 8,000 of wheat, yet in the year 1812, only ten years after, she exported 360,000 of oats, and 32,000 of wheat, being an increase of fourfold in ten years. The capital and industry necessary to bring about so favourable a result to the resources of the country, were no doubt embarked in these useful enterprises under a confidence in the word of parliament, that on the return of peace the income tax paid on these lands, to the amount of 17½ per cent. would cease, even when the present low price of grain, and the great and sudden fall in the price of the produce of land were not anticipated. But now, under the extreme depression of the land in all respects, was it not incumbent on parliament to keep their faith with those spirited agriculturists, those true practical patriots, and not permit their capitals to be deteriorated, their spirits broken, and their lands to return to the barren and drowned state in which they had been for centuries? He hoped they would listen to the petitioners, and not to be deaf to the prayer of the nation. He wished the House to have a return of all those farmers and families who had been sold up to pay the King's taxes, and who were reduced to poverty and emigration. Last year, where it took fifty bushels of wheat to pay the King's taxes, it now required more than one hundred. Would parliament, then, be deaf to the petitioners? Would it not turn its attention to the great evils of a suddenly contracted currency? Would this House not do something on the subject of poor-rates and tythes, those great checks to public prosperity? In fact, in addition to the 17½ per cent. income tax, the landed interest paid all the direct taxes to the full, and as principal consumers, a greater part of the indirect burthens. They maintained the poor and the clergy, kept up the roads and bridges, and provided buildings and establishments for all the civil wants and necessities of the country. The income tax was not only a system of state inquisition; but it was a check equally to the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial industry of the people. It was the unjust confounder of ephemeral profits with perpetual wealth, the blight of professional talent, and the scourge of stipendiary genius and labour. It was to be hoped the House would imperatively interfere with the obstinacy of ministers, that they would not compromise the faith of parliament, nor abuse the confidence of the people, but that they would in gratitude prevent them from being ground to the bone, in return for their patience, their spirit, their loyalty, and their valour. Mr. M. stated a case of a farmer being sold up to pay the King's, taxes; the produce of the distress went to discharge the landlord's and tenant's income tax, when, in fact, the landlord had obtained no rent nor the tenant made any profit. He wished, before he concluded, to ask ministers three questions, which he thought they might answer without any violent injury to the public service—1st, Whether under the new income tax, the landlord was to pay any tax, if he received no rent? 2dly, Was the tenant to pay any tax if he made no profit? 3dly, Was the tax to continue one or two years more positively?

observed, that without some modification, the property tax was quite out of the question. He believed, in his conscience, that the country had not power to bear it. He objected to it on two grounds; first, that it was a breach of faith towards the people on the part of government; secondly, that in many cases it was a tax on no income—a tax, not on profit, but on absolute loss. An hon. member had said, that it was not a tax on the poor. He wished to ask that hon. member, when gentlemen received no rents from their estates, and when tenants were distrained, how the labourers were to find work, and how the paupers were to be prevented from starving? The argument of the right hon. gentleman, derived from the expediency of not pressing on the money market, might be very good in theory, but it was very bad in practice. In fact, the measure, if persevered in, in its present state, would ultimately be much more injurious to the money market than any abandonment of it could be.

saw that it was in vain to expect any answer from the gentlemen opposite. As his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) had said the other night, their infirmity was dumbness. If what had been urged by the two hon. members who had last spoken failed to open their mouths, he almost despaired of success in doing so; yet he would make another attempt on the subject. He could not help suggesting to the right hon. gentleman, for his own sake, and for the sake of the government of which he was the financial organ in that House, and for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of the country, to reconsider the propriety of hurrying this odious measure through parliament. Day after day intelligence reached the metropolis of meetings in the country appointed to be held, some so late as the 8th of March. All, however, would be in vain, if the right hon. gentleman persevered in his intention. Viewing this question as one of no ordinary description, but as an attempt on the part of his majesty's government to stifle that voice which, if once raised, neither they nor those whom they served dare oppose, he would frankly and candidly forewarn the right hon. gentleman, that he would do that which on no other occasion he would be induced to do,—he would have recourse to those privileges which every member possessed, for the purpose of interrupting and staying the business before them. He considered this as a just, fair, and necessary proceeding; and though no other member should stand by him, he would use all the means which the forms of parliament put into his hands, for the best object for which they were framed by their ancestors—the protection of the rights of the subject. The right hon. gentleman might attempt to bring forward his proposition on Friday, but he should be immediately met by the question of adjournment, and that for the avowed purpose of stemming at the outset this attempt to smother the voice of the people—[Hear, hear! from all parts of the House].

was satisfied, that whenever the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, or any other member, might come down with a studied design to interrupt the proceedings of the House, the House would know how to protect itself, and how to assert its own dignity. Confident of this, he should neither fear nor shrink from any measure to which the hon. and learned gentleman might think it his duty to have recourse, With respect to the questions which had been asked, he had only waited for the bringing up of the petition to reply to them. As to the modifications which were spoken of, he had to observe, that these could not be made till the bill had been brought in; and when it was in progress he should not be wanting in his duty by failing to attend to the suggestions which might be thrown out. As to hurrying of the measure, which had been complained of, it was proper to remark, that if the House waited to receive all the petitions which might be sent up, they would probably wait till the latter end of next month, as till then it was probable these proceedings would not terminate; and if they were to do this, what time would remain for carrying a measure through the House, which ought to be complete before the 5th of April? In answer to the questions put by an hon. gentleman opposite, he begged to say, that the regulations which were suggested by the two first of them, could only be properly considered in the committee. It would be for the House to introduce such modifications when the bill reached that stage, if they should appear proper to be adopted. With respect to the questions as to the duration of the tax, he had no hesitation in saying it was intended to propose that it should continue for two years, and this he thought would be more satisfactory, than if it were stated that its duration was to be limited to one, as if renewed from year to year, it would wear more of the aspect of a permanent tax. From the present situation of the country, there was reason to hope that at the end of two years it would not be necessary to renew it. If much discontent had been excited out of doors on that subject, it arose, not from the tax itself, but from the gross misrepresentations which had gone abroad, and from the unfounded assertion which had been made, that to renew it would be a breach of the good faith of parliament. He contended, that in renewing it there would be no breach of good faith. The words with which the act had formerly closed "and no longer," which declared the tax should terminate with the war, had been omitted in the act of last year.

, adverting to the statement made by the chancellor of the exchequer, that there was no time to delay the proceeding, because the existing act would expire on the 5th of April, observed, that that was the fault of his majesty's ministers, who had thought proper to call parliament together at a period later than that recollected by any person living. It was for that that the measure was to be hurried through the House with haste so indecent, as not to allow the representatives of the people time to be instructed by their constituents. At the time that they prolonged the prorogation of parliament, ministers knew the distresses of the country; they knew also their own intention of proposing the continuance of that tax, which, oppressive as it was in itself, was rendered still more irksome by the mode of its collection; and they must also have felt, that the proposition was one calculated to excite the greatest alarm and opposition. The right hon. gentleman had asserted that it was a gross misrepresentation to say that the faith of parliament was pledged to the continuance of the tax only during the war; and he had maintained this assertion by stating, that in the last act the words "and no longer," after the words "during the war," were omitted. Unquestionably, the House was last year given to understand, that the measure was to terminate in a year; and if it was at that time the intention of the right hon. gentleman to propose, at the end of the year, a prolongation of its existence, it ought not to have been announced by a mere omission only. The right hon. gentleman ought at once to have declared that it was intended to make it a permanent tax. That it certainly would be, if the present proposition were agreed to; for could the House or the public be so deceived, as to imagine, that if parliament voted the tax for two years longer, it would actually terminate at the expiration of that period, and that it would not be made a permanent measure? It was important to consider under what circumstances this tax had been originally imposed, and under what circumstances it was now proposed to continue it. It had been imposed because it had been deemed indispensable by the country to maintain a vigorous war for our own security, and for the destruction of the power of that individual, who in his gigantic progress towards universal empire, threatened to wield the immense means which were placed at his disposal, for the purpose of excluding Great Britain from all continental commerce, and who had nearly effected this, one of the wildest of the wild projects in the execution of which he had engaged. That war, avowedly carried on for the purposes which he had described, had a very different object before its conclusion. Let it be strongly impressed on the minds of the House, that if the property tax was now to be continued, it was because we had a great military establishment, and that we had a great military establishment because we had seated Louis 18th on the throne of France, and because by treaty we had guaranteed his possession of that throne. Our enormous military establishment had no British object in view—it was not directed to the defence of our liberties, nor to the establishment of our security—it existed solely for the maintenance in France of an arbitrary government. For that object was the country to undergo all the oppression of that severe and inquisitorial imposition, the property tax. It was because his majesty's ministers had made a peace on the continent, which could not be maintained without a standing army, and because that standing army was necessary for the maintenance of oppression. All the comforts, and many of the necessaries of life, were to be sacrificed in England, for the support in France of a government which had destroyed the liberty of the press, which had abolished all security for personal freedom, which, in the mode in which it had called together the legislative assembly, had grossly violated the elective franchise, which had connived at the persecution of the unhappy protestants [Hear, hear!]. He would not make this last assertion had he not good grounds for it. He was the more anxious to describe them, because the noble lord (in perfect sincerity he had no doubt) had declared that all the reports and statements with respect to the persecution of the protestants in France, were void of foundation. He repeated, that the government of France had acquiesced in that persecution. The duke of Wellington had said in his letter, that the French government did all they could to suppress the proceedings in the department of the Garde. He (Sir S. Romilly) said that the French government did nothing to suppress them, except in mere words. They issued a proclamation of professions. It was a fact which he had too good information for a moment to doubt, that notwithstanding all the crimes which had been committed in the department of the Garde, notwithstanding the murder of above two hundred persons, notwithstanding the plundering and burning of two thousand houses, notwithstanding the whipping of many of the protestants with a severity so great that eight persons actually died under the infliction, not a single individual in that department had been punished—not a single individual in that department had even been prosecuted. Was not this a criminal acquiescence on the part of the French government? Let the House recollect what took place in this country in the year 1780, when the intemperate fury of the populace was directed against the catholics. What course had our government pursued in consequence? They prosecuted with a just severity the individuals offending. They prosecuted even the chief magistrate of the city, whose only crime was cowardice. Had any of the magistrates at Nismes been punished? Not one of them had even been removed. Not the slightest disposition had been evinced to detect the criminals. When general Legarde was shot, the prefect of the department published a proclamation, not for the apprehension of the individual by whom it was notorious that the murder had been committed, a Serjeant of infantry, well known to the whole population of that district; but for the apprehension of "the unknown author" of the crime; thus affecting not to know what was thoroughly known to every one. And then the proclamation stated, that "an atrocious crime had been committed." An atrocious crime! Hundreds of atrocious crimes had been committed; but not a single prosecution had been instituted against the criminals. The noble lord talked of those who denounced those enormities in this country having received a lesson. He (sir S. Romilly) declared, on information as much to be relied upon as any that the noble lord could possess, that the interposition of the public opinion of England in favour of the persecuted protestants of France, had been attended with the most advantageous effects; and that to that interposition the French protestants were indebted for the comparative toleration they now enjoyed. He used the word comparative, for positive toleration they had none. He could further take upon himself to state, that a Roman Catholic church, which, during the revolution had been converted into a fish-market, was every day beheld by the people without the least indignation, though it still continued appropriated to the same prophane purpose; and this took place at a time when the agents of the French government pretended that, in order to quiet the minds of the people, it was absolutely requisite that two protestant temples should be robbed from those to whose religious worship they had for years been consecrated, it might be said, that all this was not relevant to the subject immediately before the House. He would answer, that it had quite as much connection with the question before them as all that which had been spoken by a noble lord some nights ago, with regard to the persecution of the Protestants in France. But he would further observe, that it bore materially on the question, since the property tax was deemed necessary by ministers, in order to support an immense standing army in time of peace, and the only object for which that army could be deemed requisite, was to keep on the throne of France a bigotted family, that were odious to their own subjects. He wished to show, therefore, that such a government had no connexion with British interests or British feeling.

maintained, in opposition to what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchquer, that a most explicit promise had been given of the removal of the property tax after the 5th of April, in case the war should have terminated before that time. He would ask the right hon. gentleman, why he had omitted the words to which he alluded in the act, unless he himself was conscious that the act, as originally framed, contained a pledge that the tax would be removed? But this was not the only solemn declaration made by that right hon. gentleman to the public, which had been deliberately broken. The predictions and promises of the right hon. gentleman were never fulfilled. Last year he had told the House, he had no doubt it would be unnecessary to continue the bank restriction act after the present year; yet the first measure of the present session had been to renew it; and he had in this instance wisely abstained from promising again that it should be taken off. He now told them, he hoped it would not be necessary to continue the property tax for more than two years. Last year he had told the right hon. gentleman, that he deceived the House or himself, when he expressed an opinion that the bank restriction act would not be necessary this year, and he would now tell him, that from the system of extravagance on which ministers were acting, it would be impossible, if that system was adhered to, for the property tax to cease at the expiration of the period which had been mentioned. The tax was now resorted to—less for the revenue it would give, than for the purpose of keeping in the hands of ministers the machinery of oppression. Possessing this tax, they could at any time raise it from five to six or seven per cent. If it was now submitted to, he did not believe any man in that House would live to see it again taken off.

declared it to be his opinion, that the House had been pledged to remove the tax, and as a confirmation that the chancellor of the exchequer had made a promise to that effect, he reminded him of what had passed in a committee of ways and means, when the tax was proposed. When it was renewed last year, he had expected it would end with the contest which caused it to be revived. That contest having terminated much sooner than might have been expected, he was astonished that every man in that House did not hold himself bound as a party to the pledge which had been given, to oppose the renewal of the tax by every means in his power.

said, that the House was in the constant habit of looking back to the circumstances under which an act was framed. It was always done in the assessed taxes, and ought not to be neglected in this instance. With respect to this bill, no man could doubt that the sole object of the right hon. gentleman was, to preclude the people from stating their grievances, and to prevent their petitions from being heard. Was not this adding insult to injury? One member of the administration had said, that there existed an ignorant impatience for a relaxation of taxation; and another declared that the public feeling was not excited by the tax itself, but by the exaggerated statements that were made in that House. Gracious God! had not all the meetings been held before any discussion had taken place? Every man in the country felt the grievous effects of this tax, and was anxious that it should be abolished. Persons in town could not conceive the distressed state of the country; but he wondered that none of the friends of ministers had informed them of it. Every person raised his voice in detestation of this odious and oppressive impost, and humbly requested the House not to renew it. He perfectly agreed with his hon. and learned friend, that every parliamentary form should be opposed to the progress of the bill. For what purpose were those forms established by our forefathers? It was, that some honest and faithful representatives of the people might put them in force, whenever the country wanted time to state their opinions to that House. There was no danger whatever in encouraging his hon. and learned friend to enforce those regulations; the whole population of the country was at his back, and applauding him. He trusted, therefore, that he would persist, and that he would succeed, in resisting this most unconstitutional mode of hurrying the bill through the House.

said, he had stated particularly, in the last session of parliament, that the necessity of the occasion induced him to vote for the tax for that year, on the faith that it was not to exist longer than that necessity continued. This might, perhaps, be called a misrepresentation, but he had certainly communicated it to his constituents as the feeling of his mind, and the reason of his consenting to that tax. He really believed, that the majority of the House would feel that the faith of parliament had been pledged. It was astonishing the right hon. gentleman should say, that the words "no longer" had been purposely omitted in the act. He had differed with the right hon. gentleman on many occasions, but had always thought him a plain, honest, fair-dealing man; but he now turned round upon the House with his new act of parliament in his pocket, and said it contained words which none of them were aware of. He now stated that he never meant the tax to be given up. But why did he not say so at the time it was imposed? Why not say, I fear the tax must be continued? It appeared, however, that he had concealed his intention under that ambiguous sort of statement which had deceived not only the people, but their representatives. According to the plan of finance now proposed by him, it was totally impossible that this tax could be taken off. It was a breach of faith to the people, to the amount of six millions. He defied any reasonable man to say, that the customs and excise would be sufficient; but if the House should be induced to concede the property tax in this instance, he should think himself a very fortunate man, if the chancellor of the exchequer, instead of taking it off at the end of two years, did not propose to increase it. He most solemnly declared, that he voted for this tax on an express understanding that it should be taken off at the end of the year, if the war should be then concluded.

could see no inconvenience likely to result from the measure being delayed till the petitions now preparing against it could be received. The bill could act retrospectively as it had done when it was passed in August 1803.

said, that if the hon. gentleman who spoke last had voted for the bill of last year, understanding him to give an assurance that it should in no case be renewed but in time of war, he could only regret that he had been misled, and declared that what had fallen from him did not go to justify this confident expectation. He had come down to the House on the 20th of February, and submitted to them his plan for the peace establishment, and had then given it as his opinion, that though he should not then propose to continue it, circumstances might arise under which it would be wise to renew it for a limited time; and when subsequently he brought in the bill, he had but expressed a hope, that it would not be necessary to continue it beyond a year. He had said it ought not to be kept in force beyond that period which was prescribed to the necessity of the case, and to this opinion he still adhered. On a future evening it would be for him to show that this necessity existed; and should he fail to convince the House of this, of course it would not be in his power to press the tax. The gentlemen opposite went further than he did, when they declared the necessity for this tax would be perpetual. He thought it would soon cease, if the other branches of the revenue were properly collected. He had distinctly objected to the assumption that the House would in no case recur to this tax at the close of the year. When an hon. member, whose loss they all lamented, the late member for Bedford, proposed to introduce the words "and no longer," from the former bill, he had opposed their insertion, on the ground that there might possibly be a necessity for doing so. Of the bank restriction act, at the commencement of the last session, he had said he saw no reason at that time why the bank should not resume cash payments in the next July, but had very considerable hopes that this would be practicable. The return of Buonaparté to France had quite changed the aspect of affairs. On this subject, however, he would not now detain the House, as it would be his duty to go largely into it at no distant period.

said, he felt considerable unwillingness to speak on a subject, in the discussion of which, every thing he could possibly offer, had been already so ably urged by other gentlemen; but he could not refrain from congratulating the House and the public on the subdued tone adopted by the chancellor of the exchequer, in his second address, and he indulged in the hope, that, if the people did not relax in their endeavours to make known their abhorrence of this odious burthen—if, instead of suffering their efforts to be impaired, they derived encouragement from the altered tone of the right hon. gentleman, to persevere in making known their sentiments throughout the country, they would come out victorious from this great struggle. The right hon. gentleman had asserted, that exaggerated statements had been propagated through the country, and that the popular spirit which had been evinced was the result of those exaggerations. Now, he believed there were individuals in that House, who, if they stated their situation to the right hon. gentleman, would prove to him, that the general distress had not been exaggerated. Those individuals could inform him, that they made no profit by their estates—they could tell him, that, from the various taxes which were imposed on the cultivators of the soil, they had no tenants to occupy their lands. He should allude to one case particularly, because it had appeared in the public prints. The gentleman whom it respected, though placed in the situation he had just described, was called on to pay the landlord's and the tenant's property tax. This demand was made on him at a time, when, instead of making any profit by his estate, he was suffering considerable loss. Sir Francis said, he was acquainted with a clergyman, who was possessed of a very large living, which formerly produced 1,000l. a year. This gentleman had recently been called on to pay 100l. property tax, and 150l. poor-rates, although the produce of the living had only produced 120l. in the year for which the assessment was made. Such was the state of the country; and yet they were told by one member of the administration, that the people manifested "an ignorant impatience for relief from taxation;" and by another, that their feelings were roused in consequence of exaggerated statements, which were, in fact, totally unfounded. The right hon. gentleman said, they all laboured under a mistake, when they supposed that the property tax was not to be renewed after the termination of the war. He, for one, never was mistaken on the subject; for he never did believe that ministers intended to let the tax die away. He was quite convinced the majorities which supported the right hon. gentleman would not abandon him, in consequence of any expression of the public voice. He despaired of making the majorities of that House, constituted as the House at present was, feel for the distresses of the country. But he hoped that the sentiments of the people would be so expressed as to compel ministers, and through them, their adherents, to abandon the measure. The right hon. gentleman said, the tax was only justified by the necessity of the case. Was not that the language always used on such occasions? Where was that necessity to be found, and who was the judge of it? The right hon. gentleman himself was the judge. The right hon. gentleman stated, that he wanted the tax; and his opinion, that it was necessary, was the cause assigned to the House as proving the propriety of its renewal. It was a proceeding like this which caused the rebellion in the time of Charles 1st. That monarch always enforced his exactions under the plea of necessity. Ship-money, it was said, was necessary; but of that necessity he was the sole judge. The most intolerable burthens had been imposed under the specious cloak of necessity. The land tax was one of these; and the property tax was nothing but a more extensive land tax. That tax was introduced as a war tax; it was, at different times, removed; but gentlemen now saw permanently established an annual confiscation of property to its full amount. What, then, was to prevent ministers, if they proceeded in the profligate course they had so long continued in, from leasing out this new land tax—the property tax? If ministers continued to act as they had done—if the House were dupes enough to suffer it—what gentleman could take upon him to say, that he would possess more of his estate, in the course of a few years, than the mere title deeds? here was no standing against necessity; it implied something that left no alternative. This was not the case here. A loan of six millions would prevent the renewal of this tax—although, probably, the right hon. gentleman might argue, that it would be inconvenient to raise the price of stocks. He had also heard it stated, in that House that thirty million of property, the right to which was not decided, lay dormant in chancery. This was a disgrace to the court, a disgrace to the country, a disgrace to humanity! What dreadful misery must this procrastination inflict on the suitors! It was, in his opinion, an infraction of the constitution—it was a breach of the King's oath—it was, at once, a selling and a denial of justice.—Justice was sold at so dear a rate, that one-half the property was swallowed up before the suitor could recover a part of it. In many instances, the amount of the property was spent over and over again before a decision of that court could be obtained. Why should not the public make use of this money? Why should not the country stand in the place of the court of chancery. Again there were the unclaimed dividends in the bank of England. Why were they not used? The present distress was said to be temporary—here was also a temporary fund to meet it. Gentlemen who had opposed this system of waste and profusion, were told, triumphantly, that all their prophecies (for so their opinions delivered without that decided confidence which belonged to prophecy, were denominated) had completely failed. [Hear, from the ministerial benches.] Why, good God! what had they prophecied? That distress and ruin would inevitably follow, if a course of uncontrolled extravagance were persisted in! Was it not so? Was not the country plunged in the deepest distress? Unfortunately their prophecies on this point were but too correct. It was true, that one great event—an event which had occurred contrary to all calculation, and which, for ages, would hold up British skill and valour to the applause of an admiring world — the ever-memorable battle of Waterloo—had saved the country from impending destruction! But he could not fairly be described as an ignorant or unthinking man, who expressed his fears before the battle took place, that the victory would incline to the other side. If that had been the case, what would then have been the situation of the country? Or what would have been our circumstances, if, as almost every person, supposed France had been able to keep the field, and to fight three or four more sanguinary conflicts? But what praise could ministers claim, in consequence of this fortunate event? Like lucky gamesters, they played double or quit, and brought themselves home again! To give them credit for this great event was ridiculous. They talked of it themselves, as if they were amazed at its magnitude. They were astonished at their own success. Now what was the result? There were other prophecies to be noticed—one of which was, that, whether England succeeded in the war or not, the result would be ruin to the people. That the lower orders would be ground down—that, instead of the constitution we ought to possess, a military government would be established—and that barracks and garrisons would cover the face of the country. [Hear, hear!] He recollected a speech of the great lord Chatham, at a period when that nobleman despaired of the liberties of his country. "When the time comes," said he, striking his crutch upon the floor, "that a barrack shall be erected in England, then adieu to the liberties of England!" But now they sat in the midst of barracks. Hyde Park had its barracks. Woolwich, Chatham, and the contiguous places, presented a line of barracks. What was the use of those barracks? An hon. gentleman on the floor had said, and said with justice, that they were necessary for the purpose of keeping up despotism in France—because we had entered into a treaty to keep on the throne of that country, a bigotted and most odious tyranny. But ministers said, "there shall be a standing army in England, and another in Ireland—it is necessary to keep up great military establishments!" He denied this. In his opinion it was necessary to destroy them all; and if liberty was to exist in England, it could only be by doing away those immense establishments, for the support of which these oppressive taxes were now demanded. Was there ever a time in which a great military force was less necessary? What had this country to fear from Europe? What had she to dread from France? Ireland, it was said, was in a discontented state. That country had not derived those benefits, which were promised to her, by gentlemen opposite, when they proposed what they called a union—a measure which was bribed and paid for—and which, though a union in a legal point of view, was not so with reference to the spirit and feelings of the people. But Ireland, in consequence of this want of harmony, was to be governed by the sword; and though the sword was not necessary in England, yet the same force was to be stationed here. The preten- sions of the chancellor of the exchequer, on which he grounded the necessity for efforts the country was unable to make, arose out of circumstances which the ministers themselves chose to create. The country gentlemen of England, who now felt the pressure of those circumstances, which, till this time, they never believed, would, he trusted, assume their natural situation in the state, and exert themselves in defence of their property, and, what was infinitely dearer, in support of the liberties of their country.

agreed in many of the sentiments which the hon. baronet had expressed; but there was one point in his speech, which, he conceived, called for observation. The hon. baronet had expressed a hope, that such a clamour and tumult would be made, as should prevent the chancellor of the exchequer from renewing the property tax. The noble lord said he wished that such representations should be made as would operate against the continuance of the measure, but not in the manner alluded to by the hon. baronet. He viewed those representations as acting on that House, and not on ministers. He was persuaded, that the chancellor of the exchequer, unless he had no regard for his own dignity, or for the interests of his country, if he should abandon the tax (and he thought he would abandon it), would do so, not from fear of clamour out of doors, but for fear of losing a majority in that House, Because, he was convinced, if the right hon. gentleman slighted the people, those who nominally, or virtually represented them, would support their cause. The noble lord then observed, that he had voted for the property tax last session, because the circumstances of the country called for exertions that could not have been effectual without it: but those circumstances having ceased, he now felt himself bound to oppose it.

said, the noble lord had put words into his mouth, which he had not made use of. The noble lord said, he had expressed a wish that the clamours of the public would prevent ministers from carrying this measure. He was in the recollection of the House, when he asserted that he had uttered no such thing. On the contrary, he mainly relied on the landed proprietors, those who now began to feel the critical situation of the country, in directing the public voice against the measure, and compelling ministers to abandon it. He certainly felt, that the majorities would not fall off, as long as ministers thought proper to go on with the tax.

I may have mistaken the words of the hon. baronet, but I have not misrepresented his meaning. He is of opinion that the representations of the people will cause ministers to abandon the measure, instead of having their constitutional effect on the House.

The noble lord says, the representations made by the people will operate on the House. I say they will operate on ministers. This is the difference between us, and has nothing to do with tumult or clamour.

observed, that those who talked of exaggerations having gone abroad, with respect to the state of the country, could not be aware of the extreme distress which at present prevailed. If they waited till a paper, moved for by an hon. friend of his was laid on the table, which would show the number of executions, in consequence of distress for rent throughout the country, they would find that what was termed exaggeration, fell far short of the truth. He thought differently from his hon. friend (sir F. Burdett), when he stated his opinion, that the expression of the popular feeling would operate only on ministers. He conceived they would make a great impression on the majority he had alluded to, for he thought better of the individuals who composed the House, than to suppose that such an application would be made in vain. The country, at the present time, must look to the country gentlemen for support. Their time had not, like that of the noble lord opposite, been entirely taken up with diplomatic affairs; they had not, as the noble lord had, he feared, imbibed new ideas on the subject of legitimate government, and on the propriety of supporting a standing army, that greatest evil that could be inflicted on a state. He trusted the people would promptly exert themselves. Not a day, not an hour was to be lost. They ought to vent their complaints from every quarter of the country. And, he hoped, if time were given them, that their efforts would prevent the enactment of this most unconstitutional, most oppressive, and, after what had been said, most unexpected tax.

rose and addressed himself to the chancellor of the exchequer. He said he wished, if it were possible, to rouse that right hon. gentleman to action, that he might see things in a true light; and if he would only attend, he would read him a history of the distresses of the country. He saw that the right hon. gentleman smiled because he had his minions around him. It was a mistake to say, that he (Mr. Preston) thought the distresses of the country were occasioned by its resources being impaired, he did not think that the resources of the country were impaired, but he thought that the present distresses were occasioned by our having a miserable, miscalculating, puny chancellor of the exchequer who did not know the resources of the country, owing to the ignorance and want of power of his little mind.[Cries of Order and Question!] He did not mean to retract what he had said; his opinion was justified by the ignorance and total inefficiency of that minister; he did not know the real situation of the country; he did not understand how to call its resources into action. The state of the country was this—it was incapable of paying what was imposed, and was suffering under a climax of distress [a cry of Question, question!] He would soon come to a close, but he wished to bring certain gentlemen to their senses: the system of the chancellor of the exchequer was radically wrong, and he thought that every species of delay might fairly be employed in order to give time for the petitions to come in. He was resolved to do all he could in order to rouse the country to a sense of its danger. At the same time in respect to any excitement of the people, although he had influence over several parishes in the county of Devon, he scorned to exercise that influence upon this occasion.

, in answer to what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchequer, who had stated, that the late Mr. Whitbread had, in the committee on the existing income-tax bill, moved that the words "and no longer," should be added to the period fixed for its duration, observed, that he was present on the occasion adverted to, and that he recollected no such circumstance. He had looked into the committee books, and found that no proposition of that kind had been made. On the bank restriction bill indeed, when in committee, on the 2d of March, it was proposed to insert the words "and no longer;" but when the property tax bill was in committee, on the 1st of May, nothing of the kind took place. The same remark applied to the third reading of the bill. It therefore appeared to him that the right hon. gentleman had fallen into a mistake, and confounded the property tax bill with that authorizing the bank restriction. Besides this, it seemed that a little trick had been played (he did not mean to say with the concurrence of the chancellor of the exchequer) by omitting, in the property tax act of last year, without noticing the fact, the words "and no longer," to make it appear that the faith of parliament was not pledged to the people with reference to the abandonment of the measure, on the expiration of that act.

admitted it was possible that he might have mistaken the one bill for the other; but he was sure that much discussion took place on the propriety of inserting in the property tax bill the words "and no longer." Many gentlemen must recollect this fact as well as he did.

rose merely to contradict the assertion, that some inducement had been, thrown out to make his constituents sign this petition. This was a groundless statement—it was their own spontaneous act. With respect to the observation, that there was a studied attempt, on the part of gentlemen on that side of the House, to procrastinate, he should only say, that it was owing to the late meeting of parliament, and to the precipitation of ministers, who would not allow a sufficient time for the full consideration of two important subjects—the military establishment, and the property tax.

said, he did not wish to intrude long upon the time of the House, nor to prevent the resumption of the adjourned debate, which was the order of the day; but he could not refrain from rising to express his regret at the feeling which had been manifested on the other side of the House. He had hoped, that the number of meetings in every part of the kingdom, for the purpose of preparing petitions to be presented to the House against this odious tax would have induced the right hon. gentleman opposite not to bring forward this measure in a way that would make the House shut its ears against the voice of the country. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he had given notice the week before last of his intention to bring forward the measure immediately; and on this was founded an assertion, that there had been sufficient time to consider the subject. But the best proof that sufficient time had not been given, was the fact, that at this moment meetings were advertised in almost every county in England. There were many reasons, too, why, in the present instance, the time afforded was not sufficient for the purpose of the more speedy convention of these meetings. The new sheriffs had only just been appointed:—the county newspapers, those vehicles of information to people in the country, were for the most part published only once at the end of every week, and therefore the disastrous news of the measure which the right hon. gentleman meditated, was yet scarcely known in many remote districts. Surely, therefore, it was but reasonable to beg, that there should be no indecent precipitation in calling upon the House to decide upon the measure. For himself, he would be the last man to support any proposition merely for the sake of delay. But on the present occasion, every faithful representative of the people was bound in duty to his constituents to avail himself of every possible means afforded by the forms of the House, to prevent the proposition from being brought forward on so early a day as Friday next. He regretted very much the nature of the language which had been used towards the country by many members on the other side of the House. Instead of showing a due respect to the opinions of the people, already so unequivocally expressed,—instead of attending to it, what was the language which had been used? Why, a noble lord talked of the "ignorant impatience for the relaxation of taxes." Was this language to be held on such a subject? Another right hon. member on the same side of the House said, that there had been many exaggerations in the representations which had been given of the evils of this tax. When the people for ten years of war had so cheerfully borne the pressure of this grievous tax, was it now to be said that they were "ignorant" of its nature? Were they to be accused of exaggerating its evils when they complained of it as an intolerable burthen? Could any thing more be said of its nature than every man had felt in his own pocket? He regretted the tone which had been assumed on the other side of the House. What was to be thought when a secretary of state talked of the "ignorant impatience" of the people?—when the chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of "exaggerations in representing the evils of the property tax?"— when the secretary at war said that the House was in "an economical mood?" An economical mood! Was this a phrase fit for such an occasion? The noble lord, too, in speaking of the great question respecting the agricultural distresses of the kingdom, which was to come on in a few days, had called it "the debate on farming." The country had naturally been anxious for the meeting of parliament. What, then, would be thought when it was heard that such expressions had been used in discussing the most vitally important questions; and when, in addition to these, questions were pressed upon the House before they could receive the expression of the sentiments of the people? Such conduct evinced a want of sympathy and mutual feeling between the people and their representatives, which he considered as one of the worst symptoms of the times.

observed, that the expressions which came from the other side of the House were only used in the hope of making some impressions on government. He conceived that any discussion on the property tax was at present premature, because, until the necessities of the country were known, no question could regularly arise as to the way in which they were to be provided for. The details which would enable the House to form its judgment on this subject would soon be in due course presented for their consideration, and then it would be for them to decide as to the means by which the wants of the country were to be provided for. For his own part, he did not see that any better measure could be proposed than a modified continuation of the property tax. If the House approved of the estimates—[Hear, hear! from the opposition]—he stated the case hypothetically, he did not believe it possible to devise any tax which would fall upon the population more generally and more equally. As to the question of the reduction of the establishment, he begged the House to observe, that if it were reduced as low as any man would say was consistent with safety to the country, it would make a difference in the expenditure of somewhere about 600,000l. He was aware of the feeling that was against this tax, but he would be glad to hear what the hon. gentleman on the other side would substitute for it. It was perfectly natural that numerous petitions would be presented against it. But it would be found that in those parts of the country where the assessed taxes, or any others, happened to be particularly felt, the people would be found to say that these were worse than the property tax. If this tax were to be given up, it would be necessary to have recourse to some other of a much more grievous nature. There was not a man existing who paid more attention to the feelings and opinions of the people than himself; but with all the respect he felt for them, he knew that there were cases in which it was the duty of ministers, for the sake of the real interests of the nation, to act quite contrary to the wishes of the people, as at the time they might be expressed. With this impression strong on his mind, he implored the House to be patient, and to go to the discussion coolly, deliberately, and temperately.

was sure that there was every disposition on the part of gentlemen on his side of the House to take the advice with which the right hon. gentleman had concluded his speech, and he wished to God that the eloquence of the right hon. gentleman had been as persuasive towards his own friends. But so little was it the case, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree to put it off even beyond Friday, and this was what he supposed the right hon. gentleman called proceeding patiently. According to the course prescribed by the right hon. gentleman, the House was only first to have the measure passed, and then to allow the people to petition. He would however tell the right hon. gentleman, that this was not proceeding patiently, but ludicrously and ineffectually. The course of proceeding was completely illusory, and could produce no good effect in parliament. But the right hon. gentleman showed that it was his intention to terrify the people. The right hon. gentleman seemed to say, "the chancellor of the exchequer is a more ingenious man than you take him to be; you are acting impatiently,—and if you are so foolish as to throw out this measure of his—if you reject the property tax, you will find that he will come upon you with worse and harder burthens in the shape of taxes;—perhaps you may think that he is not a very persuasive or energetic man in debate, but it is not in this way that you are to judge of his talents—this is not the test of his ingenuity—if you wish to feel his abilities, you must try him in the imposition of taxes." For his own part, he thought there could be no worse tax. He gave the right hon. gentleman credit for his desire to defend the conduct of his friend the chancellor of the exchequer, but in defending his mistake, he had been led into one of his own.

had no wish to prevent the expression of the sentiments of the people from reaching the House.

only wished to state that, having attended to the debate during the evening, he was more and more fortified in the resolution which he had expressed early in the evening as to the line he meant to pursue, if the chancellor of the exchequer was resolved to persist in his course. He was sensible that a few days delay must prove fatal to the tax. Indeed, so great was the alarm on the other side of the House, that they now began to have recourse to the desperate expedient of saying, that if this tax were rejected there was something much more dreadful in store: that if they were already afraid of the chancellor of the exchequer's little finger, and refused to bear it, he would make them feel the weight of his whole hand.

remarked on the loud tone in which imputations without foundation had been brought forward against the chancellor of the exchequer, who, it had been pretended, wished to stifle the voice of the people, because he persevered in bringing forward his motion. To the hon. gentlemen who said so, he begged to observe, that the House had now been sitting nearly a month, and that he himself had repeatedly, since the commencement of the session, heard his right hon. friend say in the House, that he meant to persevere in the property tax; and the first time that he had heard him say so was on the very day the session commenced. Nay, he recollected, that when on that day he for the first time mentioned it to the House, he had almost gone out of his way to do so. What, then, was to be thought of those who preferred such unfounded charges? Again, as to what had been said of a pledge being given for the non-continuance of this tax, he could only say, that he never heard any such pledge, and foolish indeed must that minister have been who would have attempted to give any such pledge. But there was no such thing. It was all a groundless, unfounded assertion. As to the expression of "ignorant impatience," imputed to a noble lord, whom he was very sorry not to see in his place, he had not himself heard the expression used by the noble lord, nor had he met with any gentlemen on his side of the House, who had heard it used. He wished the noble lord was present, to state to the House what the fact was; but this he would venture to say, that the phrase had never been used in the sense in which it was noticed. He was sure the other side of the House would give them credit for participating in an equal degree in feeling for the distresses of the country; but they seemed to advance that the chancellor of the exchequer felt a malicious delight in inflicting on the people the most oppressive modes of taxation; he was certain, however, that no man would be more sensibly delighted than his right hon. friend, at having it in his power to lessen the burthens of the people.

said, it was not till the notice had been given that the principle of the property-tax was to be brought before the House for their decision on Friday next, that the charge of a wish to stifle the voice of the people was urged on his side of the House. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had been told of the precedent of the property-tax bill having been first passed in the month of August, while its operation was carried back to the month of April; and when he did not reply to that, and still persisted in bringing forward this most important question on such an early day, they were justly entitled to charge him with precipitation, and a wish to stifle the voice of the people. With regard to what had been stated by the chancellor of the exchequer as to the termination of the tax, he would put it to the sense of the House, when that tax was agreed to by them last year, whether they had not a full understanding that they would be able to justify that tax to the country from its terminating with the war? Could he believe that the chancellor of the exchequer, because the words "and no longer" had been omitted, would shuffle in this manner with the people, and misrepresent what was the feeling of the House? They had renewed the tax because a danger existed, which called for exertions that could be met by no other means. Let them not attempt to deceive the people. He was sure the chancellor of the exchequer was above this. He called on any gentleman over the way, to say that he believed the property tax was to be continued in a time of peace. With respect to another phrase, which a noble lord (Castlereagh) was stated to have used, and which the right hon. gentleman who spoke last said he had never heard, namely, the "ignorant impatience of the people with respect to taxation," would that right hon. gentleman presume to say that the noble lord had not made use of the expression? The right hon. gentleman might not have heard it—he was sure he had not heard it, as he said so—but he would call on the colleagues of the noble lord, to say if the expression in question had not been uttered by him? He declared that he had heard him utter it; and that it was a cool and premeditated phrase, which did not escape the noble lord in an unguarded moment, or in the heat of argument, but at a time when he had sufficient leisure to weigh the force of his words, and when he was taunting gentlemen on this side of the House with the zeal which they were displaying in the exercise of their duty as guardians of the public purse; and therefore they had a right to charge the noble lord with the deliberate use of language injurious to the public feeling. The right hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. Rose) had told them, that he disapproved of the discussion of the question of the property tax at present, because it was premature. Why, they were now receiving petitions from every part of the country, complaining of the distresses under which they were labouring from this very tax, and imploring the interference of the House; and yet the right hon. gentleman, who was old in parliament and knowing in all parliamentary practice, chose to tell them that they could not with propriety consider these petitions now—that the petitioners ought to wait till the bill was passed, and that then their representatives might tell them, that the House had considered the question, but that they had not taken their view of the question. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that if the property tax was put by they must have some other, because if they had not that tax the establishment could not be kept up. He fixed, therefore, the establishments of the country on the question of the property tax [Cries of Hear, and No!] The right hon. gentleman said No. Why, he had allowed, that the establishments were to be of such magnitude, that if the property tax should be put by, some other of equal amount must be found to supply its place. The chancellor of the exchequer was now proposing to levy in a time of profound peace, 70 millions of taxes from the people of this country. There had been levied during the most extravagantly expensive war which had ever been carried on by this country, only six millions more of taxes, which six millions were to constitute the only difference between war and peace. This was the return to the people of this country, for the patriotism which they had displayed during the most extraordinary contest that had ever been maintained by any country—a reduction merely to the amount of six millions. The noble lord had quoted some nights ago, an opinion said to have been expressed by the late Mr. Pitt, and had talked of his feeling with regard to the establishments of the country, in 1793, the lowness of which he had deplored. The noble lord might quote the opinions of Mr. Pitt; he could not deny them; but he could answer, that those who knew Mr. Pitt, as well as the noble lord, and who had been as much consulted by him, assured him, that however much in the last year of his life, from the extraordinary and most unfortunate turn which the war then took, he might deplore the insufficiency of the establishments of the country to meet the danger, he had never ceased to applaud the economical arrangements which he had made from 1786 to 1793. This was what he had been given to understand from those who knew Mr. Pitt as well as the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman. He approved of the determination of an hon. and learned gentleman, who had stated that he felt himself called on to throw every difficulty in the way of the precipitation of this question. No man would accuse him of factious views in his opposition to the government; but he thought he might conscientiously act up to that principle, and he would so do.

, in explanation, maintained, that he had not said the property tax was necessary on account of the estimates. What he had said was, that the estimates were yet to be considered, as to which, he had pronounced no opinion; and that if the estimates should be adopted, it would be necessary to find, either in the property tax or some other, so large a sum of money as would cover them.

said, that nothing in the course which the gentlemen on the other side of the House were pursuing in the least surprised him, after the knowledge they had taken care to give of the system on which they acted. The heaviest accusations, the most unfavourable representations of the motives and measures of government, were so much within their usual practice, were so much their stock in trade, as he might express it, that he thought any appeal to their candour would be useless, and any explanation perfectly ineffectual. He therefore would make no such appeal, but would merely endeavour to correct their statements in a few things which he thought essential in the present discussion. His hon. friend who spoke last had appealed to the recollection of the members of the House, whether the chancellor of the exchequer had not distinctly stated, that the property tax, when renewed last year, was to continue only for one year, and had given a pledge that, at the end of that period, it would be abolished? He desired them to tax their memories, and gave the evidence of his own in favour of the pledge. He (lord B.), with all his powers of recollection, could recall no such saying, and was of opinion, that there must have been some mistake in interpreting what fell from his right hon. friend on that occasion. He did not believe, that as circumstances then stood, such a pledge could be given, consistently with any degree of political prudence or common calculation of probabilities. His hon. friend had accused the chancellor of the exchequer of endeavouring, by the rapidity with which he pressed the discussion of the property tax to stifle the public voice, and prevent the people from laying their petitions before parliament. This was an accusation that was always brought when taxes were in question. There was not an impost against the continuance of which, petitions would not be presented, if any prospect was entertained that they would be effectual; and whenever they were resisted, the charge of stifling the voice of the people might be brought against government. The noble lord contended, that there was no intention at present to stifle the voice of the people, nor did he believe that the attempt would be practicable if it were made. So far from wishing to press matters with an unjustifiable degree of precipitation, and to deprive the country of an opportunity of expressing its sentiments, his right hon. friend had allowed ample time for the most deliberate expression of its wishes and opinions. What was his conduct? On the first night of the session he had declared his intention of proposing a renewal of the property tax. The people had now enjoyed about a month to discuss the measures they felt themselves called upon to pursue—to meet, to deliberate, and to petition the legislature. How long a period would be required, if this was not sufficient? What government measures could be carried into execution, if we were to wait with the avowed purpose of allowing time for the marshalling of all the opposition, however tardy, that might be made to them? Adverting to the observations made by Mr. Freemantle on what fell from Mr. Rose, he said that gentlemen ought to be allowed to explain their own meaning; and that, when that privilege was granted to his right hon. friend, his opinions would be found perfectly tenable. His right hon. friend, had stated, that if the property tax was not renewed or continued, it might be found necessary to raise the supplies which it was calculated to yield, from sources not less objectionable than a tax upon income. A clamour was here raised, as if this opinion conveyed a monstrous and alarming proposition. Notwithstanding that clamour, he was prepared to contend, that a revenue equal to the proposed modification of the property tax must be raised; and the question was, whether we should resort to it, or whether we could find any substitute less burthensome or oppressive? There was no threat conveyed in this alternative beyond what was heard last year, when nearly the same identical expressions were employed by his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer.

explained. Under correction of the chair, he stated, that if the resolution for the continuance of the property tax was agreed to on Friday, it would be impossible after that day for the House, consistently with parliamentary usage, to receive any petitions against the tax. The noble lord did not seem to understand that this was what he (Mr. Wynn) alluded to, when he complained that the measure would be indecently hurried if brought forward on Friday, as it would be impossible for the numerous petitions now preparing against the tax, to be presented before that time.

contended, that sufficient time was not allowed for the full expression of the sentiments of the country on this odious and oppressive tax, Nume- rous meetings were called, and numerous petitions were preparing to be presented to the legislature, the object of which would be defeated by the precipitate course which the ministers wished to pursue. It had been again and again repeated in that House, that the chancellor of the exchequer had declared his intention, at an early period of the session, to propose a renewal of the property tax. This alarming intelligence, he allowed, was given by the right hon. gentleman at the time specified by his friends, but he was following the annunciation of the obnoxious measure too rapidly with its accomplishment to allow the sentiments of the people to be collected and laid before the legislature against it. The chancellor of the exchequer had expressed his intention and his opinion; and all that he (Mr. B.) now contended for was, that the country might have an opportunity of expressing its sentiments and prayer. He would contend for the propriety of the construction put on the words of the right hon. treasurer of the navy by Mr. Freemantle. He was not prepared to allow the dilemma to which the hon. gentleman on the other side attempted to drive him, of either voting the reduction of our establishments, or the renewal of the property-tax. These establishments, he hoped, would not meet with the sanction of parliament; but supposing they did, he would maintain, that there was no necessary connexion, even upon the chancellor of the exchequer's own showing, between them and the obnoxious tax. If our finances were in as flourishing a condition as the right hon. gentleman represented them to be, and if, as he gave out, he meant to propose the continuance of the property tax for a period of only two years, then some other substitute might be found; a loan might be resorted to, or some other scheme adopted, less odious to the country, and less injurious to its resources than the tax in question. All these things, however, remained for future consideration, and would be decided upon more properly, after the discussion upon the estimates, and in the committee of ways and means. What he had now in view was, to show, that there was every reason for delay till the petitions of the people should have time to reach the table of the House, and no reason for the precipitate course proposed by ministers. What valid argument had been offered against a short delay? The only one that at first sight seemed to have any force was, that the act by which the tax was raised was about to expire. This was satisfactorily answered, and shown to be unfounded, by a right hon. friend of his, who stated, that the act for imposing it was not passed till the beginning of August. The act had a retrospective effect from the 5th of April in the same year, and consequently, as the same course might be again pursued, there could no danger or inconvenience result from the delay demanded. The chancellor of the exchequer came out with a notable discovery to the House in the course of the present debate. He informed the House, that in the last act the words "and no longer," which were inserted in the two former acts, were omitted, and he took great credit to himself for the cunning device by which he was enabled to rebut the charge of a breach of faith to the public, and gave all the advantages of it to the government. His friends likewise supported and commended this wise policy, of which the House was ignorant until the present evening. But this was not all the information that had been gathered from the right hon. gentleman's speech in the course of this debate. He had mentioned, that he meant to propose the property tax for two years, and to be then abolished, if no necessity should exist for its continuance to a further term. It might easily be conjectured what ministers would declare a case of necessity, and consequently what circumstances would entail upon us this tax as a permanent source of revenue. When ministers spoke of the wealth and happiness of the country, they could only refer to that small portion of it to which their own travels extended. He admitted that all might be smiling between London and Brighton: that there might be no signs of distress, and no necessity of retrenchment felt in certain quarters; but this did not prove that the petitions on the table were without foundation, or that there were no grievances to be redressed in the other parts of the country. On these grounds, he thought further time necessary than could be obtained by fixing Friday for the discussion of the ways and means.

said, it was in vain to talk of the voice of the people being stifled, as there were so many other ways in which their sentiments might be expressed, besides petitions to the House. But whatever objection there might be to bring on the question of the property tax on a particular day, it was impossible to say that any pledge had been given by ministers as to the discontinuance of the tax; for his own part he heard no such pledge. He did, indeed, recollect that when the bill was brought in, the tax was imposed only for a single year, and it had been expressly stated that this was done for this reason, that if the renewal of the tax was again thought expedient, parliament might have an opportunity of exercising its discretion on the subject. He thought there could not be a more unobjectionable tax. It was evident, that if the property tax were abandoned, another, and probably a more oppressive one, would be substituted in its place.

said, the right hon. gentleman had assumed an assertion made by a noble lord last night (Palmerston), as a fact incapable of contradiction, namely, that the proposed establishments could admit of no reduction to a greater amount than 600,000l. This assertion of the noble lord had not been contradicted, merely because no one had had an opportunity, from the adjournment of the debate immediately afterwards, of contradicting it; but the assertion would be contradicted and deprived of all authority as soon as examined. The connexion between the establishment and the continuance of the property-tax had not been stated on his side of the House; it had been stated by the treasurer of the navy; for what was the language of the right hon. gentleman? His language was, that if the House adopted the establishment, the country must have an income tax, or a tax of equal amount in the room of it—[Hear, hear!] Could any thing be more clear than that this was a connexion between the establishment and the income tax? Was it not a statement of the treasurer of the navy, that if the establishment was adopted, the House could only escape from the income tax by having recourse to still more grievous taxes? His statement was, that we must either have the income tax or worse. The right hon. gentleman had professed infinite respect for the opinion of the people, provided that opinion should be postponed till it was useless—till it could have no effect whatever on the debates of parliament—[Hear, hear!] He did not wish to derogate from the rights of the House, or to say that every indication of the will of the people was to be imperative on them. He did not mean to say there might not be times and occasions when they were bound to thwart the will of the people; but this he would say, that he had never before heard it maintained that the House were not bound to ascertain that will: that the opinions of the people were a matter of perfect insignificance; and that they were bound to proceed with the question without caring what that opinion might be—[Hear, hear!] He heard the right hon. gentleman now say—"no—directly the contrary." As by the rules of the House the right hon. gentleman could not be so audible at the present moment as himself, he would undertake the task of being his reporter, and in doing so he entitled himself to some thanks from those of the House who might not hear with the same distinctness as he did, this interlocutory interruption of "directly the contrary"—a use of words on the part of that right hon. gentleman altogether unknown to him. Almost the whole of England was called to deliver their opinions on this subject within seven or eight days. In that state of things the chancellor of the exchequer proposed proceeding with the property tax on Friday next, which would render it impossible for any part of the country to express their opinion afterwards to any practical purpose, because the House would then be pledged to the principle of the property-tax. The House could not fail to see that this was virtually depriving the people of the right of petitioning, an opposition as to the exercise of which right had been the cause of the revolution, but which had been discovered in the new philosophy of the right hon. gentleman to be a matter of insignificance. But though the people could not petition, they might, according to the right hon. gentleman, write a paragraph in some newspaper or other—for these were the only substitutes left by the right hon. gentleman. This was the substitute which he proposed for a privilege which had been held of such importance by our forefathers, and justly regarded by them as one of the bulwarks of the constitution. He had heard in worse times than the present, times which might again occur, times of servility, of a blind acquiescence on the part of great majorities of the House in whatever came from the treasury bench. Sir James then alluded to the strange circumstance, that none of the gentlemen opposite had heard the noble secretary's contemptuous expression of the popular anxiety for a relaxation of taxes. The right hon. gentleman on that bench had, he said, been stricken with deafness, a deafness which he seemed to share with all the noble and honourable friends by whom he was surrounded—all of them seemed to be seized with the same contagious malady. He had often heard of men being required to sacrifice their understanding to others, but this was the first time he had ever heard that men in official situations, were required to make a sacrifice of their outward senses—[A laugh].

The petition was then brought up and read, and ordered to lie on the table.

said, he had never addressed himself on any question to the House with the same emotion as that which he at present felt. The question was neither more nor less than whether the House would sanction the introduction into the country of a military government and a large establishment. He should not go into minute details on the question, because he would not offer such an insult to his understanding, as to suppose it could be established by any satisfactory proofs, that the proposed establishment was necessary [some laughing on the ministerial side of the House]. The gentlemen opposite him might have spared their mirth on such a question; they must suppose that the members on that side of the House were destitute of all knowledge and experience not to know that the maintenance of an enormous army was inconsistent with the constitution of the country. During the last century, the peace establishment had seldom exceeded 30,000 men, and before the last century it had been much smaller, never had it exceeded 50,000 men, and now it was matter of derision that an attempt to treble that estab- lishment should on principle be objected to. Yet, with our former moderate establishments had we defied our foes, and risen to the rank in Europe which we now enjoyed, and which, with the same establishment, we might still maintain. If he accompanied the gentlemen opposite into some details, the case would be found to press still more strongly against them. It was now proposed to maintain 53,000 men in Great Britain and Ireland, while the utmost which at former times had been maintained in these islands was 33,000. This gave an increase of two thirds beyond the utmost amount of force formerly kept up; and yet it was matter of derision to say, that this case was evident without details! Our colonies, it was true, had been increased from 17 to 24; but it was impossible that an addition of one-third to our colonies could have been the cause of the enormous increase proposed, unless some other means of our defence could be stated to have failed us on the sudden. The House was told that it could not admit the proposition that the force in question could be used against the people. In arguing a constitutional question, it was not necessary to go into invidious and personal discussions; but he should protest against reposing a confidence which the constitution denied; and should not be content to look for the security of our liberties either in the forbearance of the ministry, or the character of the soldiery. It was the business of the House to look that whatever might be the disposition of the ministry, they might not possess power which might be employed in a manner hostile to the constitution. It was now a question of respect to precedents, and of maintaining or breaking down barriers which had been held sacred, and that not by small degrees. This was a new era, in which we were advancing rapidly in innovation, and if the proposition of the ministry were agreed to, the House would give its consent to adopt as its models the despotic powers on the continent. It was no palliation of the measure to say that the establishment was voted for one year, and that next year it might be withheld. A military force had always been voted in this way, and the present establishment would not on that account be less permanent. He would not vest a power in the Crown in the hope of reducing it at some future time, but should oppose, as far as his power went, an attempt to justify by necessity that which no necessity could justify. If a peace es- tablishment, two-thirds greater than any former one, were now voted on the plea of necessity, it might be again doubled on the same plea. He therefore could not consent to refer the estimates in their present shape to the committee, because no details could justify an infraction of the constitution. Of the course which we had hitherto pursued, of our victories and the splendor of our name, was this the result, in return for all we had done and suffered, that our safety as a nation could not be preserved, without sacrificing the liberties of the people? for who could suppose that our liberties could be preserved, when, within two or three hundred miles of the capital, there were 80 or 90,000 men at the disposal of the Crown? As to the force in France, it was said that this force was justified by the treaty which had been approved of. He was not present at the discussion of those treaties, and was therefore not precluded from opposing that part of the estimates. The stipulation for the maintenance of an armed force in France, was impolitic with regard to the interests of the family established on the throne of France and of this country, and prejudicial to the balance of power in Europe. He had not believed that it would have been ventured by any minister to establish the family of the Bourbons on the throne of France in opposition to the wishes of the people. This, however, had not only been done, but formed the foundation of the whole policy of the administration. But if we were bound to keep the Bourbons on the throne by arms, it would be better, as well with a view to economy as on other more important grounds, to withdraw our own countrymen and replace them with foreign troops. It was not a fit employment for the British soldiers who had fought at Waterloo to support in France a king imposed on that nation, to act as police officers in France, to qualify them for acting as police officers in England. As to Ireland, he deeply regretted that the state of that country required the presence of an armed force, and was convinced that it was by civil and not by military measures that that country was to be tranquillized. If Ireland was governed as it ought to be governed, it would become our strongest defence instead of being a source of weakness; but even now it remained to be proved that 25,000 men were absolutely necessary to preserve tranquillity. But even if a large force was necessary in Ireland, was the same force necessary in England, unless some horrible and unseen source of disturbance was rankling in some quarter of the island? But the House was filled with individuals from every part of the kingdom, who could say from their own experience that no such force was necessary? It had been said that our arsenals had increased. Certainly, they contained more lumber, and had larger walls in some instances. It had been said, too, that our population had increased, and that the great strength of the militia and volunteers, and the military spirit of the country, rendered a larger standing army necessary to defend it. If, indeed, our constitution had been formed on the model of the despotic governments of the continent, in which an armed force was the foundation and the organ of the monarchy, an increase of the people would render an, increase necessary of the force which was to keep them in subjection; but in England an increase of our numbers and of the pervading military spirit was nothing but an increase of strength, and a sufficient reason for the reduction of our standing armies. It had been said, that the frontiers of our colonies had been extended. Was the frontier of England extended, that the force to be kept in this country, exceeded by one half that of 1791? this, too, at a time when a friendly family was on the throne of France—when the man was a prisoner to whose talents such a compliment was paid by the government of this country, in the war directed against him alone? In this tremendous compliment, great as he thought the military talents of that man; he had never been disposed to concur, and had blushed to hear it asserted, that the destruction of that man was a sufficient ground for plunging this country into a war. But that man was now in our custody, and we were bound in close and firm league with all the continental powers. If all this was true, why should not our peace establishment be smaller than at any former period? and if it was not true, why did the ministers take merit to themselves, that we were reduced to such a state, that a force was necessary, which would be fatal to British liberty, and would beggar the people? This was the amount of their services, this was the acme of their glory! The high praise they had claimed was not due to them, or the estimates were wrong. He cared not which branch of the dilemma they made choice of, but he would implore gen- tlemen, of whatever party, seriously to consider whether the establishments were absolutely necessary—whether they could consent to declare that all their ancestors were possessed with vain apprehensions as to the nature of a military force, and had sacrificed themselves as fools to oppose it—that all we knew of past times was folly, and that the true system of polity was a military despotism of which they were then called on to lay a broad, deep, and firm foundation. They should consider that on the one hand the utmost loss to be apprehended, was some paltry island or some unimportant garrison—on the other hand, the destruction of our constitution was inevitable; they should consider that under our former system we had held the balance of power, and still might hold it—that we owed our predominance to the unconquered spirit of our people; and not to calculations of our comparative force with that of the powers of the continent. If we were determined to limp in the rear of great military powers, we might provoke their contempt, but we could not fairly copy them, even if we consented to forego all the security derived from that constitution, which was so firmly fixed in the hearts of the nation.

, in explanation, denied that he had argued on the necessity of an increased peace establishment in consequence of an increased population. He had merely asserted, that the constitutional danger of a standing army was considerably lessened, when counterbalanced by a numerous and martial people.

expressed his entire concurrence in the sentiments advanced by gentlemen on the opposite side, respecting the propriety of a constitutional jealousy constantly existing in that House. The question, however, was, how far that jealousy should proceed? The hon. gentlemen opposite had admitted the necessity of some military establishment; consequently there was no difference in principle, and the House were driven to the question of degree. It was strange, therefore, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last should declare that he would not listen to any arguments on the subject. It was admitted that Ireland should have some military force, but still the detail necessarily connected with that subject was avoided. This conduct manifested a great inconsistency; but, perhaps, it was also prudent; for the hon. gentlemen, knowing that on the detail rested the essence of the question, were well aware, that if they once entered upon it, they must be routed horse and foot. But while they avoided directly the question of degree, they evinced no hesitation in referring to former peace establishments; it therefore remained for the House to compare the present with them, as it was for that purpose they were ordered by the gentlemen opposite. They were fond of dwelling on the peace establishment of 1791, and they likewise assumed the fact, that the establishment now proposed was permanent. When the establishment in 1791 was proposed, peace had been concluded for seven years; and in assuming that 149,000 men were to be continued permanently, they forgot that the 30,000 in France must be deducted, and also the 20,000 in India, for the pacification of that country did not depend on the same circumstances that restored Europe to tranquillity. Thus, then, 50,000 men were to be deducted from what had been called a permanent peace establishment. The question, therefore, rested solely on the propriety of keeping up the remaining 99,000 men. The 25,000 destined for the service of Great Britain were represented as within 5 or 6,000 of the entire establishment Of 1791; but where the information that could warrant such an assertion was derived, he could not imagine, as the returns laid on the table of the House stated the establishment of 1791 at 48,000 men, of whom 17,000 were for Great Britain, and 15,000 for Ireland. The declaration made on a former occasion by his noble friend (lord Castlereagh), seemed to have been altogether forgotten. It was then stated, that the troops at home must ever bear a great proportion to those in the colonies, both for the sake of rotation and supply, and that the number of troops kept floating for the reliefs amounted to 6,000 men. An hon. and learned member (Mr. Brougham) had on the former night of this discussion treated with great contempt the idea of keeping up an increased force for the guards and garrisons of our increased arsenals, observing, with more brilliancy than judgment, that larger establishments of that nature did not require more men to guard them. Independent, however, of the inconsistency of saying, that an arsenal of some miles in circumference could be protected by the same number as one of only a few furlongs, the House was to be informed, that the arsenals and dockyards had not only increased in extent, but become more numerous. The number and extent of these were certainly fit subjects for parliamentary control, and how could they be better ascertained than when the House should resolve itself into a committee? Many reflections had been cast on ministers, for their motives in increasing the army of the country, and it had been intimated, that their designs were hostile to the constitution. He warmly deprecated such an ungenerous, unfair supposition, and declared, that, for his part, if he could for a moment entertain such a suspicion of the designs of the ministers, he would no longer act with them. He freed from misrepresentation an assertion advanced on the former night, respecting the defence required for Canada. He observed, that Canada, by increased cultivation and good roads, gave the enemy a great facility of invasion, and consequently required increased means of defence. He said, he would go as far as any one in that House in commendation of our constitution. He would freely acknowledge, that to it might be attributed our own safety and that of Europe, and to nothing else; but he likewise felt a conviction, that the people of England, who invariably judged right after the mists of prejudice had time to dispel, would not deny the necessity of the present measure, and would not in consequence of it, consider the ministers as enemies of the constitution.

observed, that there were two questions which it was material to consider upon this occasion; first, whether the proposed establishment was necessary and consistent with our constitutional habits; and, secondly, whether the means of the country were competent to defray the expenses of such an establishment. As to the first, he entirely concurred with what had been already said by several gentlemen upon his side of the House; and as to the second, he recommended the precedent of 1786. Upon that occasion Mr. Pitt proposed a committee to inquire into the revenue and resources of the country, conceiving it necessary to ascertain their actual situation before a peace establishment was fixed. When the amount of the establishment then determined upon was taken into consideration, it was surely proper to adopt a similar proceeding of inquiry, as to our means, before an establishment was voted so comparatively enormous as that of 150,000 men. It was, however, said, that this establishment was only meant to be temporary. But recollecting what the secretary of war had stated as to the necessity of the force proposed to garrison our colonies, and to protect our works at home, coupled with the declaration of the noble secretary for foreign affairs, that until the continental powers should lay down their military habits, and allow the civil authority to resume its due influence, a large military force was essential to our security, Mr. Fremantle said, he must consider the force under consideration as our permanent establishment. Now with respect to our means for supporting such an establishment, the House had that night heard quite enough as to the state of the country, from the petitions presented against the property tax. Yet it was alleged by gentlemen on the other side, that if the property tax were repealed, other taxes must be substituted; and this allegation was repeated, notwithstanding the undeniable distresses of the country, because, truly, as these gentlemen stated, the proposed establishment of 150,000 men was necessary to our safety. But upon the plea of necessity, he fully agreed with what had fallen from an hon. member behind him (sir F. Burdett), namely, that the idea of necessity depended upon the peculiar conception of our own minds. For himself, he was ready to declare, that he saw no necessity for the existence of an increased military force in this country at present. If it were pretended that this necessity arose out of the military character of the continental powers, he would ask, whether those powers, Russia, or Prussia, or Austria had not been always of a military character; consequently, the alleged necessity could not be created by any change in those powers, while France having become less military than at any former period, the necessity of maintaining an increased military force in this country was rather reduced than augmented by existing circumstances. Indeed, if the pacific disposition of the principal continental powers could be so confidently relied upon, as the noble secretary for foreign affairs alleged, he could see no ground whatever for the pretence of necessity to incumber this country with the expense of twenty-nine millions, to maintain a peace establishment. But the whole of our expense during peace, was, it appeared, to be no less than nearly seventy millions per annum; and he would appeal to any considerate man country was capable of sustaining such an enormous expenditure; nay, whether it would be fair at the close of a war of such unexampled duration, to relieve the nation from only six millions of taxes, and to saddle it with a peace establishment far exceeding that which it was called upon to defray within the most expensive year of the American war. Would it not, then, be common justice at least, before such an extraordinary measure was determined upon, to imitate the example of Mr. Pitt in 1786, by proposing a committee to inquire country were able to bear it? If that inquiry were instituted, it would be found, that all our establishments were on a war footing, and that peace being restored, many millions might be saved in retrenchments. It would be found, in fact, that the military establishments of this country were much more expensive than those of any country in Europe, especially in the arrangements with regard to the pay of the army. For there were no less than five or six establishments through which that pay passed, before it reached the hands of the soldier. Would it not, then, be expedient to have those establishments reduced, and the whole business managed by one? The change was, he understood, very easily practicable, and it was the more necessary, as he was assured that the present mode of paying the army, cost the country more than the bank of England charged for paying all the dividends upon the national debt. Now, as to the expense of garrisoning the colonies, he should like to know, whether some of these colonies should not themselves be called upon to defray that expense? For instance, the Cape of Good Hope, Malta, and Ceylon, were fully competent to pay their own military, as well as civil establishments. The capability of those colonies could not indeed be doubted by any one who considered the nature of their trade, and the amount of their exports and imports. But the secretary at war had besides stated, that the colonists of Jamaica had themselves expressed a readiness to maintain their own military establishment. Upon what ground, then, was this country to be encumbered with the maintenance of such establishments, while that incumbrance was so much to be deprecated, considering the amount of taxes which had been levied upon us during the continuance of the late war? That amount had been actually no less than 1033 millions, which added to loans and exchequer bills; formed a total of 1750 millions for the public expenditure within the war. After such an extent of expenditure—after all the sacrifices and privations to which the country had submitted throughout the war—he called upon the House to consider the propriety of affording it every practicable relief now that peace was restored, instead of encumbering it with an annual, and he would repeat it a permanent expenditure of seventy millions, especially instead of voting for an unnecessary extravagant military establishment.

said, that if the savings to which the hon. gentleman adverted were really practicable, that furnished an additional reason for going into the proposed committee, with a view to consider the subject. An hon. and learned member (Mr. J. P. Grant) had exhorted gentlemen to suppress all party feelings, and to decide upon this great question according to its real merits; and he concurred in that exhortation. The proposed establishment was not at all, in his mind, to be viewed, as the gentlemen on the other side had looked at it, especially on constitutional grounds: for it was merely a question of time and circumstances. To the constitution, indeed, it appeared to him quite chimerical to apprehend any danger from the proposed increase of our military force beyond that mentioned at former periods, which bore no analogy to the circumstances of the present day. The gentlemen on the other side had therefore gained nothing by their comparisons. For who could conceive it dangerous to the constitution, or beyond the necessity of the case, to fix our peace establishment for Great Britain at 25,000 men, while that of 1792 amounted to 17,000? But he would now appeal to the House, whether it would be consistent with common policy at once to reduce our military establishment before the peace was consolidated? Such a reduction would indeed be tantamount to a confession of our weakness, and serve to diminish the idea of our rank and importance in the eyes of continental nations. As to the retrenching of our new colonies, that point ought to be decided according to their value, and not with a reference to the present question. We were justified in increasing the troops in the West Indies in consequence of the existence of a great Black empire, and in Canada, on account of the situation of the United States.

agreed with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson), who had supported his views with no inconsiderable ability, that this was only a question of degree. For no one would contend that we should have no standing army whatever; but there was a considerable difference between the amount of force which the circumstances of the country appeared to require, and that now proposed. But while he agreed with the right hon. gentleman, he was quite at issue with the noble lord who spoke last, and who professed to think that the proposed military establishment was in no degree calculated to endanger the constitution and liberties of the people; for it was from a strong impression of that danger that he felt it his duty to oppose the principle and developement of the measure which ministers announced their intention to press upon the House. He could not see the propriety of entering into the details of such a measure, convinced as he was that the country was unable to defray the expense of supporting it. The fact was, that the country could not pay the taxes, as appeared from the petitions on the table; and therefore, if it were attempted to enforce their payment, the utmost variety of oppression and distress must ensue, and the final result would be national bankruptcy. If indeed, after the country had been so distressed and drained by the war, the proposed establishment was persisted in, and a new war should occur, he was quite as ignorant, as he presumed the chanchellor of the exchequer himself, how it could be possible to raise 200 millions to defray the expense of it for two or three campaigns. He firmly believed, that the most sanguine man in the country could not calculate upon our capacity to do so. As to the question of the noble lord, whether we should have any connexion with the continent, he had no hesitation in answering in the affirmative; but then he would be an advocate for that sort of connexion which our ancestors maintained at the revolution: namely, a connexion calculated to preserve our own liberty, and to promote the happiness of other nations. On no occasion, however, would he plead for any alliance with foreign despots, tending to endanger our liberties at home, or to prevent other people from making any effort to assert their rights. Against such an alliance he, as a friend to the principles of general justice and the British constitution, should be ever forward to protest; and therefore he deprecated the character of our present connexion with the continental powers. But it appeared that since the battle of Waterloo the objects of our government had undergone a great change. The restoration of the Bourbons to the throne of France, without any regard to the wishes of the people, was, it now turned out, the object of the war; although that object was, at the outset, distinctly disavowed, especially by the noble secretary for foreign affairs, who was the most conspicuous advocate for the new morality, which was to be supported by the alliance of despots, who pleaded so earnestly for that system, which, to use the "mere jargon of modern philosophy," for such was the language applied by the noble lord to the sovereignty of the people, which was in fact the only legitimate source of government, and the main foundation of a free state, as all great statesmen maintained, who held that all power was derived immediately or ultimately from the people, as our own revolution demonstrated—The phrase, then, of the noble lord, "the mere jargon of modern philosophy," was much more applicable to the noble lord's favourrite doctrine with regard to that legitimate right of kings, of which lord Wellington was, it seemed, the chief constable, and the noble lord himself the gentleman usher. But still the noble lord could occasionally relax in his adherence to this doctrine when it suited his views. For instance, he could dispense with it when he wished to depress the king of Saxony, while he strenuously maintained it in favour of the "beloved Ferdinand," when, he desired to preserve an alliance with despots and their odious institutions. Yet he would ask, what advantage this country derived from that alliance? What had these despots done for us? They had done, truly, what the noble lord desired, for they had accepted our money to fight for their own defence—they had contended against their own enemy at our expense. And who could doubt that such sovereigns would accept British money to furnish any one of their subjects with arms, accoutrements, and pay? Such, indeed, had been the disposition evinced towards us by our magnanimous and most rapacious allies [a laugh, and hear, hear!]—by the peculiar favourites of the noble lord. These allies had, in fact, according to the papers before the House, been supplied from the purse of England with 11l. 2s. per man, whether absent or present, lost or found, dead or alive. Nay, these allies had been supplied with our money to defray the expense of their armies, not only on their march to meet the enemy, but on their return home, while they were favoured with the first fruits of the contributions levied in France. Such was the liberality of the noble lord, and such the manner in which his allies accepted his bounty. But the liberality of the noble lord went farther. For none of those allies were ever called upon to return any part of the loans they had obtained from this country. Nay, not a hint was thrown out upon the subject. It seemed, on the noble lord's view, that this nation of shopkeepers was not to attempt to dun its magnificent allies—that even shopkeepers upon the verge of bankruptcy, were not to presume to apply for the payment of old debts. Such was the noble lord's course of policy to cement the grand alliance! Yet the seeds of dissention were sown among the allies, and were too likely to ripen into hostilities. The private character of those allies was a topic not unworthy of consideration. Perhaps indeed, he should rather say their political character, for the private character of the emperor Alexander, when in this country, was such as to procure him the esteem and admiration of every one. That same Alexander, however, swore upon an altar or tomb at Berlin, and invoked the manes of the great Frederic, to witness his oath of eternal enmity against all the enemies of his successor. The next time the successor of the great Frederic heard of his imperial majesty, was as an enemy, who did not hesitate to accept a portion of his dominions, as an indemnification for his hostility. After that, he leagued himself with Prussia against Austria, and very kindly consented to accept also a portion of her territory to augment his own. Soon after, he formed another alliance with his old friends or enemies, (for he did not know which to call them) England, Austria, and Prussia, against France, and in that alliance he had, to be sure, been uncommonly steady, for it had already lasted two years; how much longer it would continue he would not venture to predict. He had received, indeed, a pretty good price for his co-operation, in the possession of Poland, that most infamous and dishonourable price. The ambition of the emperor Alexander, he believed to be little inferior to that of his namesake, and he would ask, therefore, how long it was likely he would remain at peace, without his wanting more kingdoms to conquer.

said, he wished to avail himself of that opportunity to explain the grounds upon which it was thought necessary to maintain a force of 25,000 men in Ireland; but if it was the opinion of the House that he should defer the explanation till they went into the committee, he would abstain from occupying their attention at that moment. On the contrary, if they thought it desirable to have the explanation then, especially as several of his hon. and right hon. friends had referred to him as the proper person to enter upon those details, and as the military establishment of Ireland was the only branch that now remained unexplained, he should be most happy to seize that opportunity of discharging his duty. [Hear, hear!] With respect to what he had to offer, he should certainly feel much less apprehension if he had to address the legislature of that country whose interests were more immediately involved in the discussion. There was no representative of Ireland, however, who then heard him, who would not admit that the civil power of that country was perfectly inadequate to maintain public order and tranquillity, and that a force of at least twenty-five thousand men was absolutely necessary for that purpose. He knew, indeed, the difficulties under which he laboured, in having to address an assembly, the majority of whom would be likely to form their judgment from a comparison of the circumstances which were daily passing under their own eyes. He must, however, beg all those who were not aware of the peculiar condition, government, habits, and manners of Ireland, to recollect that they were not providing for the wants of England. It had been emphatically said, by an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), on a preceding evening, when using the language in which he presumed an honest counsellor might address the sovereign of these realms, "that England was not Germany;" and in the same sense he would beg the House to recollect that Ireland was not England.

In entering upon the discussion he, should most anxiously avoid all topics of a political character, and only refer to the known and actual causes which required the employment of that military force without inquiring what particular events might have occasioned the necessity for it. He believed no one would deny that the situation of the two countries was widely different. In Ireland they did not possess that greatest of all blessings, a resident gentry, possessing a community of interest with the cultivators of the soil. Whatever might be the disposition of the landed proprietors in Ireland—and he was far from meaning to insinuate any thing to their prejudice,—it was obviously impossible that absentee landlords could bestow the same unremitting attention—could feel the same unceasing solicitude—could exercise the same paternal care, or exhibit the same example to their tenantry which it was in the power of resident proprietors to do. From this cause, also, it resulted, that in Ireland, there were many large districts in which there existed no alternative but to deny to the poorer classes all the benefits which flowed from the superintendance of an enlightened and independent magistracy, or to select for that function, persons to whom, under other circumstances, the important trust would not be confided. In Ireland there was a large and active population, without adequate means of employment—a population to whose industry it was impossible to give that direction upon which the peace and tranquillity of every country must mainly depend. He did not mean to inquire into the causes which occasioned so large a proportion of absentee gentry; his only object at present was to state the fact. There were other circumstances, also, of a character too notorious to require elucidation; and he must therefore entreat those gentlemen who were not inhabitants of that country—in the happiness, the comfort, and the prosperity of which, he solemnly declared he felt as deep an interest as if he were himself a native of it—to pause, before they concluded that any particular measures were bad in themselves, because they would not perhaps be applicable to England.

With respect to the military force in Ireland, it was usually appropriated to three descriptions of employment. In stating the nature of those employments, he should perhaps be compelled to draw a melancholy picture of the country; but however melancholy or distressing, if it was a true one, it ought to be displayed to that House. The first description of those employments was that which he strictly considered as military duty; the second included the aid and assist- ance which it was necessary to give to the civil power, in order to preserve the public peace; the third was also a service which might be considered in the light of aid afforded to the civil power, as it was employed in the suppression of that grievous bane to Ireland—illicit, distillation. Before going more minutely into the subject, he wished to guard against the supposition, that he was of opinion that a much larger military force might not be beneficially employed in Ireland. He certainly thought it might; but all that he had to do on the present occasion was, to look to the 25,000 men proposed to be maintained there—and, with respect to that 25,000 nominal force, it was to be recollected, that from the nature of the military duties to be performed, it could not be fairly estimated at more than, 20,000 effective men. Upon that part of the subject however, it would occur to every one, how extremely difficult it was to ascertain what amount would be required for the performance of strictly military duties. But he could state, upon the authority of military men, some of them commanders of districts, and well qualified to deliver a correct opinion, that every attention had been paid, and every exertion made to reduce those military duties as much as possible. He would take one instance as an example. The nightly guard at Dublin required no less than 659 men, and very considerable reductions had recently been made in the amount. Soon after the rebellion, the seat of government in Ireland was surrounded by barriers which prevented all access to the city, except under such restrictions as were known to those gentler men who had visited similar towns and cities on the continent. Those, however, were all abandoned. The amount which he had stated was thus apportioned. Dublin Castle, the residence of the lord lieutenant in the Phœnix-park, and the patrole of that park, 164; stores of various kinds, and other military buildings, 350; for prisoners, public departments, &c, 145 making a total of 659. In time of peace it might be calculated that they would have no greater duty to perform than at the rate of one night in four, which would require, for ordinary reliefs, not less than 3000 men to be kept up. He merely mentioned that, as an instance to show that every possible attention had been paid to reducing the amount of the military guards.

He came now to touch upon another and a much more delicate appropriation of the military force, namely, its employment in aiding the civil power to preserve the peace of the country. In considering that branch of the subject, it would be necessary to refer to the amount of the establishment at former periods. In 1802, during the short peace of Amiens, the force kept up in Ireland was not less than 22,000 men. From the year 1803 to 1807 a military force was maintained, exclusively of the militia, to the amount of 32,000, upon the general average; and since 1811, there had been an effective force in Ireland of not less than 35,000. He was aware that, in answer to that statement, it would be urged that those were the establishments during a time of war, and that they could be no criterion for a time of peace. He was most ready to admit the distinction, though he must at the same time observe, that a great part of that force was employed, not for the purpose of repelling invasion, but in aiding the civil power to maintain the public peace of the kingdom.

The army of Ireland, at the present moment, was divided into 441 stations, and he would shortly explain upon what grounds it was so divided. The House must not suppose that the government of Ireland listened to every hasty application from magistrates for a military force—applications which often sprung from groundless fears. The answer invariably returned to such applications was, that it was impossible to attend to every individual who made them, and the same broad line of distinction must be drawn. They were then directed, if the state of the county or district was threatening, to call a general meeting of the magistrates, who discussed the necessity of interposing a military force; but as it was supposed those discussions would have a necessary tendency and bias towards the employment of the military, a further reference was always made to the commander in chief of the district, who was likely, on the other hand, to bring to the consideration of the subject, prejudices against the interference of his soldiery; nor was that interference permitted by the government, unless the necessity was sanctioned by his acquiescence. Generally speaking, the applications for military aid were not successful But, notwithstanding all that precaution and reluctance, the disturbances were carried to such an excess as led to the establishment of no less than 441 military quarters. It was necessary he should state, however, that on the reduction of the army, more than 200 of those quarters would be abandoned, if only a force of 25,000 was kept up. He trusted it would not be supposed that he had any undue predilection for the employment of a military force; but he must say, it was better that justice should be executed by a military force than not executed at all. Surely it would not be denied, that the midnight murderer and the incendiary should be apprehended, and stopped in their dreadful career; and he hoped that those who felt so much sympathy for the sanctity and inviolability of our constitution, would keep some of it for the protection of the well-disposed, the honest, and the industrious, who could not afford to work for their families by day and provide for their adequate protection by night. If it was required of the magistrates that they should act in the execution of the laws, we were bound in justice to adopt some measures to secure them and their property from danger and destruction.

There was another material point to consider—they never could succeed in inducing the gentry of Ireland to reside upon their estates, unless they were secure when there. If that were not the case, if there was more safety, more protection to be found in England, then England would continue to be the residence of the Irish gentry.

Nor should it be forgotten, that the employment of a military force in Ireland, under existing circumstances, was calculated to save the government of that country from the necessity of recurring to those measures of civil rigour which parliament had sanctioned with its approbation. In some districts where the military was not employed, they had been compelled to suspend the trial by jury, under the operation of the insurrection act. But every one would allow that it was better to deter from the commission of crime than to transport for it. If they could succeed in deterring, then there was no necessity to proclaim certain districts. What he asserted was no Visionary speculation. Events such as he described were passing at this very moment. The act to which he alluded had been applied to several baronies in Tipperary, upon the unanimous application of forty of the magistrates. He believed he was right in saying the unanimous application. In some cases, indeed, it had been refused; but he knew, as a fact, that not less than seventy-six magistrates of that county, united for the great and paramount object of maintaining the public peace, had applied to government for the application of that bill. A similar course had been pursued in the county of Westmeath. It was proposed, in some counties, to remove the military, but the unanimous answer of the magistrates was, if you remove the soldiers, you must give us the insurrection act, as it will be impossible to do without it. Even on constitutional grounds, therefore, and as calculated to prevent a recurrence to those measures, he would venture to appeal to the House for its approbation of the employment of a military force in aid of the civil power. With respect to its employment in another way, by doing the duty of custom-house officers, he wished to observe, that that system prevailed in Ireland at least as far back as 1779. At that period a regulation was adopted for the employment of a military force in that service; it was stated to be absolutely necessary for the suppression of illicit distillation; and it was further ordered, that any officer refusing so to employ his men should be brought to a court-martial for a disobedience of orders. He stated that fact to show the propriety of a remark which he made at the commencement of his speech, that even if it should be thought the introduction of a military force was a bad practice, it was at least unavoidable, without the accomplishment of other essential reforms.

He should now state the extent to which the military force had been so employed; and in order also to show that it had not been the policy of one single government merely, he would mention, that in 1806, under the government of the hon. gentlemen opposite, 448 military parties were employed in detecting and frustrating the practice of illicit distillation; in 1807, there were 598 military parties; in 1808, 431: in later periods, still more; and in the half year ending the 31st December 1815, there were 1889. No one, he presumed, would deny that the morals and habits of the lower classes were not only corrupted by the dreadful extent to which that illicit distillation was carried, but that the laws of the country were violated, and that the revenue was greatly diminished by it. In order that the House might be enabled to judge of the character of those who carried on those practices, as well as of the danger attending their detection or apprehension, he would mention one circumstance that came within his own knowledge. In a district in the north-west of Ireland, well known to the gentlemen of that country, as one where illicit distillation is carried on to an enormous excess, frequent seizures were made by parties of twenty or forty men, who generally had to risk an actual engagement with the offenders. In one instance, he recollected, the soldiers were fired at, and no less than two hundred rounds of musketry were discharged in their own defence. They succeeded in their seizures, however, but on their return, they were attacked again, their seizures taken from them, and they themselves obliged to seek shelter in a house on the road, where they maintained a contest with the assailants, till they were relieved by two hundred men, who were marched to their assistance. Such an occurrence would sufficiently show the necessity of employing a military force; but he would again guard against its being supposed that he considered those temporary remedies as at all calculated to afford any permanent relief. He was as fully convinced of their inadequacy in that respect as any hon. member could be; but while that disposition to turbulence existed, would it be contended that the crimes connected with it ought to go unpunished? Would it be said that the desperate bands, who roamed about the country at night, ought to remain unmolested?

Perhaps it would be said that the course of policy hitherto pursued in Ireland was a bad one. [Hear, hear! from the opposition benches.] Let it be granted, then, for the sake of argument; still, was it possible to remove the evils of that bad and imperfect policy in an hour, or by the 25th of April? Would it be possible even for the hon. gentlemen opposite, to change, on a sudden, the whole habits and manners of so large a class of the community, to introduce, as if by magic, a radical and an effectual reform? It would be utterly impossible. He was perfectly satisfied as to the inefficiency of those temporary remedies, but meanwhile the hand of the robber must be averted, or the whole frame of civilised society must be dissolved, and a residence in Ireland be rendered absolutely impracticable. [Hear, hear!] He was of opinion that much good might be done in that country by a reformation of the police, and he should prefer an army of police, if he might so call it, to a mili- tary army. He deeply regretted the imperfect character of the police of Ireland, but any accusation upon that subject would probably apply less to the existing government than to any preceding one. Since he had the honour of filling the station which he occupied, he had turned much of his attention to the subject of the police, and had proposed some improvements and alterations which had been since sanctioned by that House. Real, substantial, and permanent reform, however, among the lower classes, could be looked for only from the general diffusion of knowledge, and from enlightening their minds. [Hear, hear!] From such sources of reform he should anticipate the grandest and the noblest results. He could state as a fact, within his own knowledge, that the greatest eagerness prevailed among the lower orders for the benefits of instruction; and he regarded it as the imperious duty of every one, in these times of general economy, not to obstruct the progress or the limits of education, which ought to be as generally and as widely diffused as possible. It would be infinitely better for Ireland and for this country to have a well instructed and an enlightened Catholic population, than an ignorant and bigotted one. [Hear, hear!] While, however, he looked for permanent relief from remedies of that kind, he could not, at the same time, consent to compromise the dignity of the government or the safety of the country, by suffering the daring spirit of insubordination to walk abroad unchecked. To execute with rigour the just sentence of the laws upon such crimes as might appear inconsistent with mercy, but he was sure that in the end it would prove the greatest mercy. That system of internal policy which would apply to England could not apply to Ireland. It was absolutely impossible. What would a watch and ward do in Tipperary, for example? Yet that was a plan admirably adapted for a country where there were no fastnesses to which the guilty could retire, where an efficient and highly respectable magistracy was maintained, where the intercourse between that magistracy was uninterrupted, and where there existed a general combination in the people for the support of the laws; but would it therefore do for Ireland? [Hear, hear!].

He hoped in what he had said, that he had at least convinced the House that a military establishment of 25,000 men was not too much for Ireland in her actual condition; if he had produced that conviction, then the only object he had in view was accomplished, and he should sit down with returning, thanks for the attention with which they had listened to; him. [Loud cheers from both sides of the House.]

observed, that the terrible picture which the right hon. gentleman had just drawn in so able a manner of the situation of Ireland, was one which loudly called upon every member of that House, to insist upon a full and deliberate inquiry into the subject. If the picture was a correct one, it represented a total dissolution of every tie and every allegiance due to the laws in that unfortunate country. He doubted, however, whether the introduction of a military force in the way described by the right hon. gentleman had not a tendency to paralyze the civil authorities, and to destroy all confidence in their power and energy. With respect to the general question before the House, he must say that he objected entirely to the manner in which the estimates had been presented, because they contained no distribution of the force intended to be kept up, which had always been the practice till within the last thirteen or fourteen years. There was another subject of infinite importance in a constitutional point of view: he meant the force which was to be maintained in France. It appeared that no vote was to be submitted to parliament for that force, because its pay was to be provided out of the contributions which we were to receive from France. The consequence of that arrangement was, that parliament gave up its control over that army, and therefore he should prefer to have the contributions from France paid into the treasury of this country, and that we should vote in the usual way the sums necessary for the maintenance of our army in France. What control, in fact, could we exercise over it, except by keeping in, our hands the power of refusing its pay? He should therefore feel it his duty to submit a motion to that effect, when the House went into a committee [Hear, hear!]. The hon. gentleman then, adverted to the extent of military patronage which was in the hands of the ministers, and expressed his wish that that patronage should be reduced. With respect to a question which had been asked by a right hon. gentleman on a preceding evening, whether they would have the army so reduced that the grenadiers were to be con- verted into scavengers, he, for his own part, could see no degradation in their becoming, what they had been before, coal-heavers. At least, if the sword was now to be turned into a ploughshare, why might not the soldiers be turned into ploughmen? With respect to the extent of the peace establishment, Mr. Pitt had not proposed nearly so large a one, at a time when this country was exposed to the ill-will of many of the continental powers. In considering the means of defence which we possessed, the honourable gentlemen opposite had totally overlooked the yeomanry, a force much better adapted than regular troops to the suppression of any popular disturbance. Adverting to the garrisons proposed for our possessions in the Mediterranean, he contended that they were too large. He approved, however, of the number of marines to be retained, but contended that there ought to be a proportionate diminution of land forces. As to the fortifications of our dock-yards, the militia would be the best garrison for them. To the force to be sent to Canada he had no objection, as that waste of human life which took place in the West Indies did not there occur. But if such a force was necessary for the latter as had been proposed, he maintained that they were not worth keeping. Under the former system of reducing our establishments in time of peace, the country had grown up to its present colossal greatness; and it was a system infinitely preferable to that of consuming those resources which ought to be carefully preserved for the demands of war. At whatever department of the estimates he looked, he saw a wasteful expenditure of the public money. This was in no case more apparent than in the staff. At the peace of Amiens, when the domestic establishment consisted of 70,000 men, the staff consisted of 18 generals; now that the domestic establishment consisted of 50,000 men, the staff consisted of 36 generals [Hear, hear!] But this increase of a military disposition pervaded every part of the empire. To keep up the military mania, already too prevalent, every part of the globe was ransacked, in order to find some excuse for patronage. The hon. gentleman concluded by saying, that when the estimates went into the committee, he should move an instruction of the nature which he had before described.

begged to call the attention of the House for a few moments to a subject which imperiously demanded their attention—the tranquillity and happiness of a large portion of the empire which required the patient deliberation of the legislature, in order to ascertain whether or not a permanent, not a temporary, remedy could be discovered for the evils under which it laboured. He concurred with the right hon. secretary, that under the existing circumstances of Ireland, a less military force in that country would be insufficient. With reference to that part of it which was to be applied to the putting down of illicit distillation, he confessed that he wished other remedies could be applied. Great as were our financial distresses, the revenue we derived from that source was purchased at too dear a rate by the continuance of the present system. He concurred in almost all that had been said by the right hon. gentleman, and his inference was, that parliament should apply its collective wisdom to the subject. What was the present state of Ireland? A great mass of unemployed population. If habits of labour were not impressed on them, the House might depend upon it that they would not be idle. The right hon. baronet concluded by expressing the astonishment which he had felt on hearing in the speech from the throne at the opening of the session, nothing said of so large a portion of the empire as Ireland, labouring under so much distress. Under these circumstances the attention of the legislature ought unquestionably to have been called to Ireland. Unless some proposition of that nature was made by the right hon. gentleman opposite, or by some individual more competent than himself, he pledged himself to bring the subject under the consideration of Parliament.

observed, that at so late an hour, he would not take up the time of the House at any considerable length. With what had fallen from the right hon. secretary for Ireland he expressed an almost total coincidence. He proceeded to draw a picture of the distresses in Ireland, and concluded by stating, that 25,000 men would be required for at least five counties in Ireland.

Lord Folkestone, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, moved an adjournment of the debate till to-morrow; which was put and carried.

Mr. Brougham gave notice that he should to-morrow call the attention of the House to a most extraordinary return made by the commissioners of the taxes.

The other orders of the day being disposed of, the House adjourned at half past one o'clock.