presented the petition against the renewal of the property tax, which, he said, had been adopted at a meeting of the freeholders of the county of Surrey, called by the high sheriff, and numerously and most respectably attended. The petitioners stated, that they had as yet seen no symptoms of the economy held out as necessary for the country in the speech from the throne; and complained of the great standing army proposed to be kept up in time of peace. It would be doing injustice to the petitioners if it was not fairly and fully admitted, that a most respectful and impartial hearing was given to all parties at the meeting in question; and that after a free and fair discussion, the result was, that an infinitely great majority concurred in adopting the present petition. While he differed in opinion with the petitioners as to the propriety of the measures which they recommended, he could not however but feel pleasure in, presenting a petition so respectably signed.

lamented that he had, from severe indisposition, been obliged to absent himself from his duty in the House, and to apply a week ago for leave of absence. He had, from the same cause, been unable to attend the county meeting of Surrey; but, having looked over the petition, he must bear his testimony to the weight and respectability of the signatures.

presented the petition against the property tax from the inhabitants of Colchester. He said the petitioners concluded the prayer of their petition, by entreating the House to reject any proposition for the renewal of that oppressive and detested measure, under any modification whatever. The inhabitants were convened by the mayor, to take the subject into consideration. The meeting was very numerous and respectable, and the petition was unanimously adopted.

presented the petition from the farmers of the county of Berwick, against the property tax, and praying, if the tax should nevertheless be renewed, that some modification should be introduced in favour of the tenant. He certainly differed from the petitioners in opinion, but he was not the less anxious to bear testimony to the high respectability of the petitioners.

presented a petition from the town of Nottingham, signed, he said, by upwards of 4000 persons. The petitioners complained of the oppressive and inquisitorial tax on income, particularly as they had been led to expect, that after the heavy burthens they had suffered during the war, they should now be able to reap the blessings of peace, without the imposition of the war taxes. The petitioners regarded with indignation the quibble which had been resorted to by the minister; and on that subject the hon. member conceived that his constituents had a right to complain, because a universal sentiment prevailed throughout the country, that the property tax was a measure only to be imposed in time of war. As to the omission of the words, "and no longer," for his part he was perfectly unacquainted with the fact that they had been left out of the last act. He was sorry he did not now see the chancellor of the exchequer in his place, as he felt it his duty to say that during the whole course of his parliamentary duties, he never felt more surprised or concerned than when he heard the statement of that right hon. gentleman. There was a part of the petition, which he held in his hand, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, as being a fact of a novel description, and mentioned in very few petitions which had yet been presented. The petitioners complained that at the very moment that the country was exposed to these inquisitorial measures and weighed down by the load of taxation—at that very instant, his majesty's ministers had thought fit to excuse the payment of a very large debt due to this country by one of the foreign powers. It did appear that the noble lord had not insisted upon the payment of this loan, and he conceived that it was too much to be endured, that the people should be oppressed and borne down with taxation, and that foreigners should be the object of the relief to be afforded. The very extravagant military establishment to be supported during the time of profound peace, was also complained of by the petitioners, and the hon. member could assure the House, that his constituents had paid the minutest attention to this subject as well as that of the finances: they expressly complained of the excess in the civil list: they did not place any reliance in the idle professions of the ministers, but they did rely on the attention of parliament for the maintenance of their rights and their liberties.

could not help taking this opportunity of remarking upon what had fallen from the noble lord over the way (lord Castlereagh) last night in the course of his speech, as it appeared to him a most extraordinary thing that the continuance of this tax should bring prosperity to the country. How this could be maintained he had not the smallest conception; but he would recommend to that noble lord to go round the country, and be an eye-witness to the misery that there existed, and not be contented with merely surveying the outside of the habitations of the poor wretches, but enter the houses and judge for himself, if he would not believe the statements contained in the petitions. With respect to the pledge given to the House by the chancellor of the exchequer, he would recall to the memory of hon. members what had been asserted by the chancellor of the exchequer in his speech in 1809, completely contradicting all the statements which had been now made. In that speech the right hon. gentleman declared that no one proposed to continue this tax in time of peace, not even as an annual grant. This was a curious fact when contrasted with the speeches which had been lately made on the subject of this odious measure.

said, he had hitherto avoided expressing his sentiments on the subject of the property tax, wishing first to see whether any of his hon. countrymen would take any part in support of that tax; but he was glad to find that, with the exception of two ministers, none of his countrymen had taken any part in favour of so odious and detestable a measure. He had seen in the public prints what he considered as a libel on his countrymen. It had been stated that ministers could not possibly get a majority without the assistance of the Irish members, his countrymen, who, for the sake of the exemption with respect to Ireland, were to enable them to cram the tax down the throats of the English. His countrymen, he was sure, would never lend themselves to assist in cramming down the throats of any people a tax which they were not ready to share with them. He was sorry to say, however, that this had already had a great effect on the public mind in England against his countrymen. He was sorry he had not been present in the House when the petition from the county of Surrey was presented, as he had seen in an account of the proceedings at Epsom, that, when a worthy and most respected friend of his (Mr. Denison) did say something in favour of the Irish, and of that country which from having given birth to that distinguished general the duke of Wellington, whenever its name was mentioned, was usually followed by acclamations, the meeting received that compliment with groans and hisses. This was a question altogether English, and did not affect the Irish. He thought they were called on in liberality not to take any share whatever in the question. He had heard it said, that the Irish members were deeply interested in shifting the burthens from their own shoulders to the shoulders of the English; and many hon. gentlemen thought the Irish members had no right to vote on the subject. As, however, they had the misfortune of being brought over here contrary to their own will, their own interest, and the interest of their nation, they could not in fairness be precluded from voting on all questions before the House. The Union was the source of all the misfortunes and distresses which had befallen his country, and unless it was repealed this great empire would be shaken to its foundation. So long as the Irish representatives staid here, they certainly had a right to vote, but he thought in common with many of his countrymen within these walls, that on the present occasion, interested as they were, they ought to wave their right; and as they were obliged to remain here, at least for the present, it would be better to conciliate than to irritate the people of England. This odious tax could not be carried without the assistance of the Irish members. The Irish nation hated tyranny and oppression too much to assist in subjecting others to it And what could this tax be called but tyrannical and oppressive? If his countrymen did not vote against the tax, he thought they ought not to vote at all.

wished to set the House right with respect to a statement made last night when the petitions from Glasgow were presented. It had been said, that part of the country, and the city of Glasgow more particularly, paid less than their share of the property tax; and that the property tax paid by them did not amount to so much as their house tax. He thought it right to state, that in Scotland, at least in the city of Glasgow, the people paid as much in proportion to their means as in London, or in any other part of England. It was only necessary for him, in support of this averment, to mention that the proportion of the tax paid by persons engaged in trade and manufactures, &c. in Glasgow, amounted to double the sum raised from the same class in Manchester, though the trade of Manchester was double that of Glasgow. The statement in question had therefore been made with a total absence of all knowledge on the subject.

stated, that at the Surrey meeting the compliment paid to Ireland, instead of being received with groans and hisses, was warmly applauded.

expressed his satisfaction at finding the occurrence in question bad not taken place.

presented a petition from the town of Hay against the continuance of the war taxes during peace and large military establishments. Brecknockshire in general was, he said, more interested in the repeal of the malt tax than the property tax, and he could have wished that the subject of the malt tax had been discussed previous to the property tax, for if the latter should be rejected they would have no chance of getting rid of the malt tax. The farmers of Brecknockshire suffered greater inconvenience from the tax on agricultural horses than from the property tax. Indeed the amount of property tax paid by them was less than their horse taxes. Though the prayer of the petition was against all war taxes, he thought it right to state that he believed the property tax was more particularly meant. The hon. member expressed himself as being entirely in favour both of the property tax and the army estimates: the one, because he conceived there were many other taxes, which, if taken off, would afford much more relief to the poor; and the other, because he considered the military establishment not as a permanent measure, but as an intermediate establishment between war and peace.

said, that the distress of the county of Brecknock was so great, that it was impossible the farmers could pay the property tax, without selling off their stock. He had supported the military establishments through confidence in the ministers who had brought the war to a glorious termination, and on them was the responsibility of those establishments. He had also voted against the reduction of the household troops, not on the ground that they were necessary for parade or show, but because they had nobly distinguished themselves in war by invincible courage. They had also shown such moderation when called on to support the civil power, that we had nothing to fear for our constitution.

said, he had to present a petition, very numerously signed, from the inhabitants of the towns of Manchester and Salford, against the income or property tax and the existence of a large standing army in time of peace. The petitioners also pressed on the House the necessity of rigid economy in the whole administration of the state, and especially the abolition of useless and sinecure places. He completely concurred with the petitioners in their reprobation of the continuance of the property tax, because it was fully understood in the course of the debates last year, that it should not be continued in time of peace, and because it was impossible that it could be carried into execution, without being injurious to commerce and to private honour, by a minute investigation of the concerns of individuals. He also concurred in the opinion of the petitioners as to the large standing army now kept up; the existence of which was hostile to the true interests of the constitution, by the vast increase of the influence of the Crown over the many persons connected with the military establishments. The most comprehensive system of economy should be boldly extended, not only to this, but to all other branches of public expenditure, and more especially to that part of public expense, which was looked to with universal distaste by the country, the sums applied to the gratification of royal caprice. He hoped they should hear no more of that squanderous and lavish profusion which, in a certain quarter, resembled more the pomp and magnificence of a Persian satrap, seated in all the splendour of oriental state, than the sober dignity of a British prince, seated in the bosom of his subjects. He also hoped they would hear no more of expenditures on thatched cottages, that were hardly fit for princes in the best days of this country, but which were in these times a mockery upon public reduction, A great source of saving would be found in the reduction of those offices, now executed by two or more individuals. For instance, there were two postmasters-general, of whom one had long been employed abroad as an ambassador. Yet there had been no difficulty or deficiency in the duties of that department, which proved that the place of one of these paymasters was useless. As to the petition which he held in his hand, he did not present it as the petition of the whole towns of Manchester and Salford, because the borough-reeves of those towns had refused to call a general meeting. A requisition had been sent to these magistrates, requiring them to call a meeting on the subject, signed by some of the most respectable persons in the town, but a counter-requisition had been sent to the borough-reeves, and though this counter-requisition was not so numerously signed as the requisition, they had refused to call a meeting. The petition had been agreed on subsequently at a meeting convened without the sanction of the magistrates, and could only be taken as the petition of the individuals who signed it. The number of signatures would have been greater, if a sheet had not been cancelled, on which two or three names had incautiously been admitted, which it was not thought proper should be allowed to remain. On the sheet so cancelled, were some hundreds of unexceptionable signatures.

said, he could give the House a more detailed account of the manner in which the petition had been adopted, from information which he could not doubt. A requisition had been sent to the borough-reeves, signed by 120 inhabitants. Now, it had been usual in the town of Manchester, when the adoption of any measure unpleasant to the existing administration was apprehended, to quash the proceedings at the outset, by a counter-requisition more numerously signed than the requisition. In the present instance other means had been resorted to. In the first meeting of the requisitionists with the magistrates, a fatal objection was urged against the requisition of the same description. The requisition desired a meeting of the inhabitants "of the towns of Manchester, Salford, and their vicinity;" which was the usual form in which meetings were called together at Manchester. The magistrate, however, said that the word vicinity rendered the requisition of no avail. Another requisition was immediately drawn up and signed by 120 persons. No answer was given to this paper, till after three days the counter-requisitionists, who had been incessantly busy in obtaining signatures, presented their counter requisition with 111 names. It was not in the power of the magistrates to refuse the meeting, on the ground that the counter-requisition was more numerously signed. What, then, was the pretence to which they resorted? They said that they would not call a meeting "because the subject had already been, much discussed in the House of Commons, and they had no doubt it would be maturely considered without the interference of petitions, which could be attended with no beneficial result whatever." There could be no severer libel than this on the House of Commons, for it included a supposition that they paid no attention to the petitions of the people. On this pretence, in opposition to the majority of the inhabitants, had these magistrates refused to call a meeting, and done all in their power to prevent the subject from exercising his constitutional right of petitioning. A number of the inhabitants had, however, called a meeting, and the petition in the hand of his noble friend was unanimously resolved upon. At that meeting two of the magistrates had attended, one of whom said, he had been adverse to the refusal of a town meeting, but he had conceived himself bound by the majority. The secret of the want of unanimity in the town was, that if there was a town which most dreaded the effects of the threats of the chancellor of the exchequer, it was Manchester. The taxes with which the country had been threatened last year if the income tax had not been continued, would have pressed on many individuals in that town more heavily than an income tax of 10 per cent. The petition was, nevertheless, now signed by 1600 persons, though 500 names had been cancelled on account of the introduction, by want of caution or excess of zeal, of the names of some boys. The petition was adopted on Thursday, and sent off on Friday; it being thought necessary to send it off thus early. It would otherwise have been signed by as many thousands as there were hundreds at present. The commercial distress at Manchester was in direct contradiction to the description of the prosperity of the country given in the speech from the throne. Where was this prosperity to be found? not among the commercial classes—not among the manufacturing classes—certainly not among the agriculturists. This prosperity, in short, was to be found among none but men in office; and if the picture had been drawn by ministers from a view of their own small class, it was correct; for while all prices had fallen, their salaries had remained the same. There was no trust to be put in the promises of economy, which had been put forth by ministers. The household troops, which were twice the expense of other troops, were kept up to an unexampled amount, and the whole expenditure was on such a scale of extravagance, that they seemed deluded by their own false statements as to the prosperity of the kingdom. So thoughtlessly had the ministers distributed the treasure of the country, that the states of Wirtemberg had made a representation to their king, the object of which was, that the subsidy paid by us to Wirtemberg should be applied to the relief of the distresses of that country. The subsidies to Brunswick and Hanover had been much greater than that to Wirtemberg, and formed premiums for the encouragement of that military spirit which our ministers affected so much to lament. After the enormous grant of last year, for the liquidation of the debt on the civil list, what regard to economy was proved by the excess of 277,000l. which was now laid before the House? Every impartial man would see that the property tax was required, not by the necessities of the country, but for the purpose of supporting lavish expenditure. He could not abstain from imputing to ministers a disposition to extravagance; and the tax, if granted by the House, would tend to encourage that disposition. By this impost, property was often taxed when it afforded no income; and the class of persons who were least able to pay, namely, small tradesmen, were induced to pay more than they were obliged by law to contribute, for the purpose of saving their credit. He hoped the landholders would not be deluded by the indulgence which it was said would be extended to them; for if the tax was once fixed on the rest of the community, their necks might soon again be bent under the yoke.

said, he did not blame the wide range taken by the hon. gentleman who had spoken last, but he hoped it would not be considered that all the arguments in that and similar speeches were unanswerable, because they were not immediately answered. He wished to speak merely at present of the misconception of the hon. member, as to the subsidy to Wirtemberg. That subsidy was at the rate of 11l. 2s. a man on the force brought into the field by that power. That sum, far from being more than what was necessary to bring a man into the field, was only a fourth or fifth part of that expense. It was true that the states of Wirtemberg might require this sum to be applied to the relief of their burthens, if they had before provided for the whole expense of that force. In this country a military force could not be brought into the field under 80l. or 100l. a man. On the continent the cheapest rate was 40l. or 50l. a man. There was no distinction between the sum paid to Hanover and Brunswick and the other powers, on their contingent, but we had thought it economical to take entirely into our pay an additional number of the troops of those nations to complete our own contingent. He hoped therefore, that as it was found the hon. gentleman had been so mistaken in one point, that it would not be thought that the rest of his arguments were inexpugnable. The hon. member had chosen to set up his own judgment against the judgment of the House, on the question of the military force, but it was too much to assume facts which were quite incorrect.

explained. It was apparent from the proceedings of the states of Wirtemberg, that they had been able to bring their troops into the field without our aid. The subsidy, therefore, had not been required by necessity, but had been given because it was thought more essential to alleviate the burthens of the people of Germany than those of the people of England.

explained, that the larger powers of the continent, in addition to the force paid for in part by us, had sent twice that number into the field.

said, that the advantage of the debates which took place on the petitions was evident, notwithstanding the objections so often made to them. What was the substance of the noble lord's objection to them on the present occasion? Among many statements perfectly unanswerable, his hon. friend had advanced a proposition which was founded on an erroneous calculation; but the noble lord had been able immediately to refute this error, and he would have been also at liberty to refute the other statements of his hon. friend, if they had not been so firmly grounded that it was not in the power of the noble lord to shake them.

thought that the property tax, with proper modifications, might be tolerated for two years.

said, that any tax affecting, as this did, the manufactures of the country, was a most unfortunate measure. The mischief felt by it was indescribable; and he would suggest, that whatever measure was deemed necessary to extricate us from the state of things created by a long war, it should be one calculated to take as little as possible from the pocket of the manufacturer, after the burthens which he had borne in support of the war. The greatest hatred had formerly existed towards this tax in the town of Manchester; and if the inhabitants were less hostile to it now, it must have been from weighty reasons which they had received, or from the fear of some taxes more oppressive to them individually. The property tax was most oppressive to the poor as well as to the rich, for it prevented them from obtaining employment, and no worse mode could be adopted of raising money.

said, he agreed with his noble friend (lord Castlereagh), that all the assertions advanced in these debates on the other side of the House, were not to be taken for proved, because they were for the moment uncontradicted. He wished to say a few words with regard to the excess of the civil list, as to which an hon. gentleman had been mistaken. By casting his eye on the abstract of the civil list accounts, the hon. member would have seen that the only branch of the civil list in which there had been any excess, either over the estimates of the last year, or the average of the two first years of the regency, was the diplomatic establishment, in which, as well in consequence of our negociations all over Europe, as from the additional allowances to ambassadors recommended by the last civil list committee, there had been an increase. The other branches, viz. the expense of the royal family, and the allowances to the judges, did not exceed the average of 1812 and 1813, or the estimates of last year. The excess in the diplomatic branch of the civil list had, of course, nothing to do with the regal splendor or expenses. The right hon. gentleman, reverting to the observations of sir Robert Peel, on the effects of the property tax upon the manufacturers, contended that they were affected by it less than any other classes of the community. He referred to the general statements, to show what proportion of these persons paid to the tax, and asserted, that there was no class on which it fell so severely as on the higher orders of society. The House had been told, that the continuance of the tax would be a conspiracy of the rich against the poor. He would say, on the contrary, that the rejection of this tax would be very much of this description, as it would throw upon the poor a burthen which they would otherwise avoid. If the tax should take place, the imposition upon the poorer classes would be as nothing, or next to nothing; but no other tax could be substituted which would not materially affect them. The very circumstance of this tax falling on persons of great incomes only, showed that the poorer classes were entirely exempt from it. Whether it were wanted for the purposes of winding up the expenses of the war, or for any other occasion, he would persist that there was no tax so advantageous. He was willing to state in the preamble of the bill that this was the object of it, and to limit its duration to two years. He was not ashamed to say, notwithstanding the repeated assertions of gentlemen on the opposite side, that no parliamentary pledge had been given last year for the annihilation of the tax. It was a pledge no member of this House, no minister of the Crown, not any body of ministers could give. The interests of parliament were inseparable from those of the country, and was it consistent with those interests for any minister to pledge himself that he would not do this or that, provided he afterwards saw it necessary? He trusted that this declaration would satisfy the House; and he would again enter his protest against the supposition, that because he and his friends declined answering any particular question put to them, their silence was to be considered as an acquiescence in the truth of what was asserted.

wished to know whether the excess of 277,000l. arose from the deficiency of last year, or from the debts of former years?

replied, that the sum of 530,000l. voted last year, had been expended in paying the arrears of former years.

said, it was certainly impossible to pledge parliament, which must act on its own views of the immediate case; but he would say, that the bearing of every speech he had heard last year was, that the property tax was to be for one year, and no longer; and so it was understood by the whole country.

was of opinion, that the argument relative to what was called a pledge, had better be reserved for another opportunity. He believed it was perfectly understood that the vote of the last year for the civil list was to discharge the arrears of the last seven years, during a great portion of which time the annual provision was acknowledged to be inadequate.

observed, that he could not in justice to his own feelings and to the dignity of the House, omit noticing what had been lately stated by the chancellor of the exchequer, namely, that no refusal of his to answer was to be considered as an acknowledgment of the truth of what was asserted by the opposite side of the House. The noble lord said, he was of opinion, that the gentlemen opposite never refused to answer but when they could not do it. Their silence was the effect of inability, not of inclination. No man could witness the extravagance of the civil list without reprobating, in the severest terms, the conduct of all connected with it. Really the conduct of the right hon. gentleman was somewhat ludicrous, and one part of his speech was an excellent comment on the other. In one part of his speech he denies the possibility of any minister having the power of giving a pledge to the country respecting any thing, and yet, with a singular inconsistency, he proceeded to tell the House, in the latter end of that very speech, that he proposed giving a pledge in his new act—[Hear, hear!]. He denied the assertion of the chancellor of the exchequer, that this tax did not affect the manufacturer. Every man knew that it did. He also deprecated the attempt so often made to separate the interests of rich and poor. It was an attempt detestable and base in the extreme, pregnant with the most mischievous consequences to the country. Were we to be told that the poor were not affected by the tax. Go then to the habitations of such people—see the wretchedness they are at present labouring under from want of employment—see the catalogue of crimes swelled to an unparalleled size, and ask whether in the seizure of the rich man's property, the poor man was not stript of his all. The crime, for example, of poaching, had increased to an extravagant degree, and this, with every other crime which the poor industrious starving mechanic was often driven to perpetrate, was the baneful consequence, not certainly of the property tax alone, but of the general pressure of taxation, of which the property tax was the head and chief.

said, he would not then follow the noble lord in his inquiry into the increase of crimes, and particularly that of poaching, for such an examination would prove too extensive. He would, however, remark on another part of the noble lord's observations, in which he represented ministers as avoiding some questions, and answering readily to others. In such a distinction, he conceived that his right hon. friends were very justifiable, for not replying to the speeches occasioned by the petitions against the property tax, which were only repetitions of the same expressions and the same sentiments, night after night. They took particular care to refute any unfounded assertions that might originate on the opposite side. For instance, on the present night, one hon. gentleman had censured them for extravagance in their engagements with the Wirtemberg and Hanoverian troops, and that misrepresentation had been immediately refuted. The hon. member had, in that statement, unfairly assumed the very question which the House would have, on a future occasion, to decide on. With respect to the pledge alleged to have been given for the discontinuance of the property tax, he never remembered such a circumstance. He however felt that the words promised to be introduced by the chancellor of the exchequer into the preamble of the bill, intimating that the tax was imposed for two years, or to raise 12 millions, to wind up the arrears of the war expenditure, would be received by the House and the country as a proof of the sincerity of his majesty's ministers not to continue it longer than they promised.

could not suppress his astonishment at the unfounded statement made by the chancellor of the exchequer at the commencement of this business, namely, that the tax was not oppressive to manufacturers. Indeed, if the tax was levied according to law it would not, but the manner in which that law was enforced, was ruinous to manufacturer and mechanic. No argument could be adduced to prove the contrary. With respect to manufacturers, it was well known that the law made no exception in their favour, in consequence of any loss they might sustain in machinery. Now, it was well known that many manufacturers were compelled to pay when they were actually considerable losers. Besides the tax was not on property but on income, and of consequence was the source of many evils. It became the prelude to every deliberate fraud and deceit. He abhorred the idea of thus separating the otherwise indissoluble interests of poor and rich, and contended, there was not a tradesmen in London who earned 25 or 30 shillings a week, who was not hurt by it. Two modes of supplying the deficiency had been suggested, one by borrowing, which was certainly a preferable way to the tax, as the people could more readily pay three or four hundred thousand a year than six millions. The other mode was, by allowing the commissioners of the act of the 26th of the King, respecting the redemption of the national debt, to appropriate part of that sum. He denied the necessity of any addition being made to the other taxes, should the one on property be abolished. The poor were labouring under extreme distress, from which they certainly were entitled to a little respite.

alluded to what had fallen from lord Folkestone relative to the increased extent of poaching. He acceded altogether to the sentiments of the noble lord, and thought that taxation induced pauperism, pauperism poaching, and that poaching was one of the greatest practical evils; for persons went armed through the country, in defiance of the laws. Could a greater evil exist than not to be able to sleep in one's bed in peace, for fear of the outrages which gangs of poachers, of more than 20 in number, might be induced to commit?

said, the conduct of ministers was somewhat like that of two persons on a road, one of whom carried a heavy burthen, which he wished to lay down and obtain a little rest. No, says his neighbour, you must go on though you should sink, as when you come on two miles further, your journey will be over. The voice of the country was at present directed against the tax, and no wonder, when its horrid nature was considered. The people had made numberless sacrifices; they had patiently borne many ills; and was it not consonant to common sense, that their feelings should be roused when they saw no end to their hardships? He trusted that the country would still persevere. He hoped, from the sentiments already expressed in the House, and the numerous petitions presented, that there would be no more to do on Monday next, when the question would come before the House, than to vote and throw it out.

what he had said on former occasions, that as the right hon. gentleman only wanted to raise twelve millions, he could get them in various ways, without continuing the property tax. It was a fact that could not be denied, that the public had at that moment in the hands of their bankers, the bank of England, a sum nearly equal to what was required, or almost twelve millions. There was no just reason to be given why this sum ought not to be resorted to. What should we say of a man in private life, who, having 12,000l. lying at his banker's, and wanting to raise that amount, should pretend that he did not know how to drag it out of his hands? The comparison might appear ludicrous, but the cases were in point of fact the same. He would ask the right hon. gentleman whether he was sure, in the event of his carrying the measure, that he would find that respectable and honourable class of individuals, the country magistrates, ready to come forward and lend themselves, as they had hitherto done, to carry it into execution?

said a few words against the property tax.

praised ministers for the zeal they had showed in finding means for raising taxes; but he could not see on what principle they could apply to the bank for assistance to save the property tax. They had already taken nine millions from the bank, and what with one arrangement or another, the proprietors of bank stock had for several years been kept without any bonus whatever.

expressed his surprise that the hon. gentleman, who was a bank stock proprietor, should not have been better informed on the subject. The public had not had nine, but only three millions from the bank. It was true that we were to have three millions more, and the bank had the modesty to want us to pay four per cent. for it.

said, that when three millions were borrowed from the bank, they were but a part of the money belonging to the nation. He considered the financial system of the country as base and despicable in the extreme. In every department of that system, there was the grossest, and most culpable defect. He had repeatedly stated this to the House, and had no hesitation in again saying it was the case. There was no doubt, one treasury which was governed by the lord high treasurer, and five other lords, but really when any parliamentary grant was made, there was actually a scramble among the friends of government for the money, and wherever any sum was granted there was a treasury there. Thus one department became independent of another, each saying, "This quota was mine, and you shan't have one farthing of it." He contended, that the first lord of the treasury should have all the charge, as in fact he had all the responsibility. Government ought to be like a net, the leaders of which should be in the hands of the treasury. The system in which the loans from the bank were carried on, was a system of fraud and nothing else. Let any man examine the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer, and he would find this to be the case, "I condition with you," says he, in one of his letters to the bank, which he (Mr. Moore) now held in his hand, "for the loan of three millions, and you shall keep 12 of mine for two, three, or five years." Was this, in the name of wonder, any thing else than a political bribe to the bank? Let the circumstances he had mentioned be examined; let this system of iniquity be probed to the bottom, and the truth would, however reluctantly, come out. When he looked around the House he saw many persons who might be considered as treasurers of public money; let them be narrowly examined. It was the duty of every honest hearted man to try every establishment, and to search for every thing which might develope the truth. He was ashamed for ministers when he considered that notwithstanding this sum of 12 millions lying dormant, they chose to oppress the already exhausted inhabitants of the country. The difficulties, no doubt, which the country had to encounter in defraying this expense of the war might be great, but he wished these difficulties to be met on proper grounds, in a constitutional manner, not at the caprice of any minister or body of ministers. He was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject, and he trusted this would be an apology for having so long engaged the attention of the House.

expressed his hope, that the effect of these, and other petitions that were forthcoming, would be, to induce the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the tax.

The several petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in two bills—the one for the more effectually detaining in custody Napoleon Buonaparté, and the other for regulating the intercourse with the island of St. Helena, while Buonaparté should be detained in that island. Doubts had been entertained, whether it was competent to the Crown to detain Buonaparté a prisoner after the termination of the war; of which doubts, however, he himself did not partake; but yet the bill he proposed was deemed necessary, with a view to remove those doubts. As to the justice and policy of detaining Buonaparté in custody, he apprehended that no doubt could exist; and as to the legality of the proceeding, with reference to the law of nations, he was fully satisfied of the propriety and necessity of the measure. As a sovereign prince, we were warranted in detaining him, in consequence of his breach of treaty, and incapacity to afford any guarantee for the observance of any treaty; but we had this additional ground to justify our conduct, that he was a prisoner of war, who, as a native of Corsica, was a subject of France, which power had declined to claim his restoration. Therefore, independently of his general character, this country was justified in detaining this individual in custody according to the law of nations. But the circumstance of Buonaparté having withdrawn from Elba, where he had pledged himself by a solemn treaty to remain, and his utter inability to afford any assurance for the observance of any engagements, warranted his detention. Thus, whether regarded as a sovereign prince, or a prisoner of war, his detention was justifiable in a technical view, according to the law of nation, and that detention was imperiously called for by a due consideration for public safety and general peace. With regard to the treatment of Buonaparté, it was proposed to extend to him every indulgence that was consistent with his safe custody, and that he should experience the most liberal treatment as a prisoner of war. But it was material that the officers appointed to superintend his custody should be aware in what light to consider Buonaparté; what opinion they were to entertain of the character of their prisoner. Now, with respect to the intercourse of foreign nations with St. Helena, the object of the second bill which he proposed was to regulate the execution of the measure which had been already notified by government, to neutral powers. When these two bills were brought in, gentlemen would have an opportunity of considering their details, and suggesting any amendments they might think proper, but he apprehended that their introduction would not be opposed.

On the motion for leave to bring in the first bill,

said, he did not rise for the purpose of giving any opposition to this bill; for whatever opinion he entertained upon the subject, he should wish to see the bill before he delivered it. But he had no hesitation in saying that he conceived no harm could result from the measure; he had no objection to it whatever, as far as he could judge at present; on the contrary, he thought that the opinions about it must be almost unanimous, as far as related to the securing the custody of Buonaparté's person; and if any doubts arose, it would be best to settle it by a legislative act. For whether we considered Buonaparté as a prisoner of war, not claimed by his own government, or in any other light, we had, under the circumstances which had occurred, an unquestionable right to detain him, even by the law of nations, without any act of parliament. He could conceive no difficulty whatever in this object, coupled, however, with all possible lenity, and with the probability of such a period being put to his custody, however remote, as any state of affairs, which could not now be contemplated, might render necessary.

asked, whether it was intended by the noble lord to propose any compensation to those settlers or others, who had property on the island of St. Helena, for the loss they were likely to sustain through the exclusion of the trade of neutrals from that island?

expressed his belief that the persons alluded to would rather gain than lose by the operation of the proposed measures.

inquired whether Buonaparté was to be regarded by the officers appointed to superintend his custody, as an independent sovereign or as a prisoner of war?

replied, that he was to be regarded by those officers as a prisoner of war, to be treated with the utmost liberality.

having supposed Mr. Brougham to express an idea that the time of Buonaparté's detention was to be limited, and having asked for explanation,

expressly denied that he had uttered any such opinion. The period of his custody he had particularly thought was a question wholly premature. No term, he conceived, could be put to it, except under circumstances which it was impossible to anticipate. But still this bill might be made to provide for such an emergency.

wished to know whether general Bertrand, and the other persons who had accompanied Buonaparté to St. Helena, were also to be considered as prisoners, or whether they were to be allowed to go where they liked?

said it was obvious that the bill would be left open to any gentleman to make his observations upon, and to propose any alterations in it at the proper time. At present, the hon. general must be aware that the measure was not likely to extend to any body else than Buonaparté.

repeated the question, whether the persons in the suite of Buonaparté were to be allowed to go where they pleased?

replied, that the custody of Buonaparté was the object of the bill, and it certainly was not in contemplation to detain any body else.

Here the conversation dropped, and leave was given to bring in the bills.