rose to move for an account of the number of persons confined in the Petworth House of Correction, in Sussex. He made this motion on account of the manner in which these persons were confined, which was such as could not fail to meet the reprobation of the House. The prisoners in that House of Correction, who of course were not committed for felony, but for crimes which called only for correctional punishment, were kept in a state of the most complete solitude, in cells without casements, and without any kind of occupation or mode of passing their time. They were allowed to walk separately in the court-yard for a quarter of an hour only in each day. In this dreary manner did these unfortunate wretches pass their days, though confined for crimes that were far from meriting the utmost degree of severity. An unfortunate female had been committed to this prison, because she had been unable to find bail for some alleged assault, and was confined for three whole years till mental derangement ensued, and she was now actually in a mad-house. It had been said, however, that this female had been previously afflicted in the same manner, but that did not make the case less open to censure; for it was surely a most improper measure to confine a person in that state in a house of correction, where the proper medical assistance could not be afforded. He did not pretend that any personal blame was to be imputed to the magistrates, but the system was certainly defective, and when the case was before the House, he should make some motion on the subject. The hon. member then moved for an account of the number of persons confined in Pet-worth House of Correction during the last three years, specifying their crimes and the dates of their commitments.

said, the female alluded to had acted in a most outrageous manner, by threatening to burn the house of a gentleman, so that he had been compelled to swear the peace against her: no one offering to become security for her, she was committed; and she had afterwards acted in the most violent manner, having assaulted in open court the person who had made the charge against her; so that her mental derangement, which he was of opinion had existed from the first moment, became manifest. The system of solitary confinement arose from the manner in which the prison was built, there being no common room. The magistrates were however building two rooms of that description. He did not object to the motion.

said, the system of solitary confinement was carried to such an extent, that even during divine service the prisoners were cooped in wooden boxes, so that no prisoner could see another.

The motion was carried; as was also a motion for the rules and regulations of the said House of Correction.

said, that among the orders of the day was the report of the Soap Excise Bill. He had not been aware of the importance of the bill, which had advanced so far without observation, as indeed the bill had not been printed. Some constituents of his, who would be much injured by the duty, had applied to him on the subject, and he hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would not press forward the bill that day, that the persons affected by it might have an opportunity to state their case.

said, he had no objection to postpone the report of the bill till to-morrow. He should be able to show that manufacturers would not be injured by the bill.

said, he should thank the chancellor of the exchequer for any delay, but so short a postponement would be of little benefit, as there would be no time for the manufacturers to appoint a deputation. Surely those persons who used hard soap would be much affected by the duty being doubled.

said, there was a clause in the bill by which the duty was to take place on the 1st of May, instead of from the time when the bill passed.

said, he had no objection to alter that clause. He then moved that the report be received to-morrow.

objected to the precipitancy with which the bill was intended to be carried through the House.

A short conversation ensued, in which the chancellor of the exchequer, lord Milton, Mr. D. Giddy, lord Stanley, sir M. W. Ridley, Mr. Finlay, Mr. G. Langton, general Gascoyne, Mr. Philips, and Mr. Ponsonby, took a part. The result was, that the report was then received, and ordered to be taken into further consideration tills day week.

rose for the purpose of submitting a motion to which he trusted their would be no objection on the other side of the House. Before the recess, he had occasion to make a complaint of the unnecessary and unconstitutional interference of the military, and of an assault committed by them on himself, and a noble friend of his. After what passed in the House on that occasion, he little imagined, that in less than a month, he should have such a cause for complaint as he was about to state. What he had to mention did not concern himself personally, but was made on behalf of the same noble friend, who with himself had occasion to complain at the time before alluded to. Perhaps gentlemen were not aware, that guards had been stationed in several parts of the metropolis, in the course of the morning. He himself had not been aware of it until late in the day, but so it was. Guards were stationed about Pall-Mall and the Haymarket, so that the free passage of his Majesty's subjects was interrupted. His noble friend (the earl of Essex) was going from the Haymarket to Pall-Mall, when he was stopped by a soldier, who told him he should not pass. His noble friend demanded the reason, and was answered by the soldier, that such were his orders. He then inquired for the commanding officer, and was told that he was at Carlton-house. His noble friend then demanded, whether there was a peace officer in attendance? To this the soldier replied, that he had nothing to do with the peace officer. He regretted that he did not see the hon. member for Devonshire, (sir T. Acland), in his place, as he should expect his vote on the present occasion; that hon. member having declared, when a former complaint was made on this subject, that if another such occurrence should take place, he would second any motion made on the subject. However, he trusted, that after what passed on the former occasion, he should have the votes of several gentlemen who then opposed his motion. The House would recollect, that on the occasion alluded to, the noble lord opposite had promised to take such steps as would prevent a future recurrence of the abuse then complained of. They now saw how that pledge had been redeemed. He would ask the noble lord, whether he had been privy to the stationing of those troops? He believed he had not. The order, in his opinion, had arisen from another source, and that was the reason why the House should more strictly inquire into the subject. It was incumbent on the House to take such steps as would effectually prevent the liberty of his Majesty's subjects from being thus arbitrarily encroached on. On the occasion of the former complaint of the present nature, it had been said, that it was made from party motives and with party spirit. The same would probably be said on the present occasion. But he begged to deny the existence of any such motive in bringing forward the motion. The noble lord opposite seemed by his gestures to doubt what he thus advanced; but he would repeat, that the motion was in no degree connected with party. Party should not interfere in the decision of the House on the present occasion, for it was of the utmost importance to the country, and it was incumbent on the House to check this disposition to military government in limine, for if not so checked, it might lead to very fatal consequences. He again disclaimed, that either in the former or present occasion, there was any party spirit in the complaints he had made. The nature of the assault which was made on him, when not only his horse, but himself, was threatened to be cut down if he advanced, was such as rendered a complaint to the House absolutely necessary, and it was more necessary on the present occasion, when, as the House must perceive, the evil had not been checked by the former notice which was taken of it. He should like to know how the noble lord himself would have acted if such an attack had been made on him? He knew the noble lord was high-spirited, and would not have borne it without resentment. He did not mean to charge ministers with wishing to introduce military government, but there were persons somewhere who were anxious to introduce it, who wished for the prevalence of military power for mischievous purposes, and who in imitation of the pomp of foreign sovereigns, would wish to live surrounded by military guards [Hear, hear!]. But it should bere collected, that the person at the head of the civil magistracy reigned by law and civil right, and that his authority was not to depend on his military guards. The throne of this country was not to be permanently upheld by any other than the civil power. He felt that he was warm on the subject, but it was impossible he could feel otherwise, when he considered the nature of the complaint he had made. There was another case which had that day come to his knowledge, of the undue interference of the military, but to which he would not then call the attention of the House, as he had not sufficient time to inquire into it, but he certainly should inform the House of it if the circumstance was repeated. He trusted the House would go with him in thinking that this was a case where it was incumbent on them to interfere. Great evils frequently had their rise in small beginnings, which by being suffered to pass unnoticed, increased in magnitude, while those who were accustomed to witness them became callous to their magnitude or dangerous tendency. The interference which he complained of was contrary to law, and that was one of his chief objections to it. The noble lord expressed a hope that he should have the votes of several members who voted against his former motion, and concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the House a copy of the orders issued to such of his Majesty's Life-Guards as were on duty this day, within the city and liberties of Westminster."

could not but be anxious to second the motion of his noble friend. He called upon the noble lord opposite to redeem the pledge which he had given to the House when this subject was last before them. From what had just occurred he was strongly inclined to think, that no other conduct could be pursued by him—no other excuse could be alleged, than that he had not influence enough to control the military mania which now prevailed. He could not agree in opinion that these were trifling complaints against the executive government. It was not on account of the ridiculous parade of troops on many occasions—it was not on account of the height to which this madness had gone—it was not because all our places of public amusement were perpetually infested with soldiers, that he thought it necessary to support the motion: it was because an English citizen could not pass through the streets of the metropolis, without seeing the sword of an English soldier drawn against him. He considered this as a growing system of military influence altogether adverse to the princi- ples and practice of the British constitution, and extremely hostile to the liberties of the English people. It was quite a new system, which had grown up within the last five or six years, and ought not to be suffered to continue. The House of Commons, the representatives of the people, were the true guardians of British liberty; and he hoped we should still find courage enough to defend ourselves against the military despotism which ministers, or those for whom they were responsible, seemed desirous of imposing on us. The noble lord had acquired the love of military parade from the splendid sights which he had seen abroad; but he ought not to forget that the strength and glory of the British constitution had arisen from the people, who were the best defenders of the throne, and who had enabled this country to attain that exalted pre-eminence which she now enjoyed over the nations of the world [Hear, hear!].

observed, that the two noble lords who had preceded him, appeared to him to entertain very unfounded fears of the growth of a military government, and even seemed anxious to search for proofs that a military spirit was prevalent. An individual might have been stopped in his passage through the street, or obliged to go a particular way by a soldier, but that was no proof of the prevalence of a military spirit; the soldier who had done so had acted under the orders of his officer. The noble lord who made the present motion, disclaimed any party motives in bringing it forward; and if he (lord C.) had smiled on the occasion, it was because he had some doubts on the subject. The noble mover had expressed his fears of danger to the constitution, but the smallness of the subject which excited them, and the magnitude of the tone which the noble lord had assumed, were calculated to render questions of constitutional principle of little importance to the public. He could not see why such alarm should be excited by the appearance of a red coat. Was it that it was stained with any degree of infamy, or that our soldiers had disgraced themselves in the late war, that their presence on any public occasion should be so much dreaded? He denied that he had on any former occasion given a pledge that soldiers should not be employed on court days. He had promised that he would apply to the secretary of state, that on such occasions the military should be under the direction of the civil authority, and that civil officers should attend in: proper numbers. He had done so, and the secretary for the home department had made arrangements to that effect. He thought it would not be prudent in the House to accede to the present motion, as it would be giving a ridiculous importance to a matter trivial in itself. The noble individual who conceived himself injured by the soldier, could apply to the commanding officer; or, if he did not choose to do so, he could have recourse to the law; but to apply to the legislature on such an occasion was grotesque and ridiculous. He concluded by moving the previous question.

hoped he should be the last man in the House to sanction any breach of the law, or departure from the principles of the constitution, but as he did not think that either were violated in; the instance alluded to, in such a manner as to call for the interference of parliament, he could not support the motion. The military, he observed, were not unnecessarily called out on such occasions as that, which required their attendance this day. On the contrary, their presence was absolutely required to preserve order. He had seen several occasions where their absence was severely felt, and when the marshalmen who were stationed to keep order, were struck and whipped by rascally coachmen, whom they could not control. So little did he think there was too great an interference of the military, that he wished to see it extended. [Hear! from the opposition benches]. He would repeat it, he wished to see the presence of the military in other places, besides those at which they were usually stationed. He wished to have them not only in Pall-Mall, but up as far as Dover-street, in Piccadilly, where the accumulation of stage coaches was a constant source of riot and disorder [Hear, hear!]. The number of coaches which were usually stationed opposite the White Horse Cellar, was the cause of this disorder. These were attended by several runners, who, in their anxiety to get passengers, frequently dragged respectable females, from one to another, so as sometimes to tear their clothes, and oblige them to fly for shelter to the neighbouring houses. These circumstances he had been informed of by a public spirited jeweller in that neighbourhood, who had himself been very active in putting an end to the abuse. He (sir C. Burrell) thought that as the police did not do their duty, soldiers should be stationed to perform it, and two soldiers would be more efficient in such a place than one hundred constables. With regard to the conduct of the soldiers this day at Carlton House, he could attest that it was not irregular. He had seen them, and observed that it was with difficulty they could keep a passage clear. He himself had often found it difficult to get a passage on court days, from the very great pressure of the crowd. The soldiers at Carlton House were under the control of their officers, and would, even if disposed, be prevented from any abuse or insult to passengers. At the same time, he admitted that it was the duty of the officers to be in attendance in the street with them.

rose to explain. He insisted that the noble lord (Castlereagh) had given an assurance to the House, and he now called upon him to state what that assurance was. The noble lord had contented himself with throwing out an aspersion, which was not new from that side of the House: he had insinuated, that it was the object of honourable members to attack the conduct of the army. He (lord N.) would not permit such an imputation to pass unnoticed He repelled it with the utmost indignation: there was no one who loved the British army more than he did; he admired their bravery, and gloried in the success of their arms; but, as a member of parliament, as one of the representatives of the British people, he would not be deterred from saying, that he should be sorry to see the civil authority laid at the feet of the military power. (Loud cheers.) He called again upon the noble lord to state the pledge which he had given to the House, and it would then remain for them to decide whether that pledge had been redeemed.

congratulated the noble lord opposite on the great acquisition of strength to his arguments, in those of his magnanimous ally, the hon. baronet who spoke the last but one. It appeared to that hon. baronet, that the active interference of the military, instead of being curtailed should be increased, because a number of stage coaches had accumulated in Piccadilly, and because the runners belonging to them were in the habit of dragging respectable females, in their anxiety to get passengers. And all this disorder, which the hon. baronet had so well described, would have been much worse, but for the active exertions of a public spirited jeweller. [Hear! and a laugh]. These were indeed excellent arguments to prove that the interference of the military should be extended! But the nuisance complained of by the hon. baronet might surely be remedied without the application of a military force. Were there no constables in the metropolis? Were they gone out of fashion? Was the police called upon to do its duty? It was their business, and certainly did not require the interference of the military. But the hon. baronet could find no remedy except in a red coat. That was his panacea. Now with regard to the question immediately before the House, he, for one, did not think it ought to be pressed beyond what it would bear. He was not prepared to say, neither did his noble friend mean to say, that the constitution was endangered because a dragoon had refused permission to an individual to pass along Pall-Mall; his noble friend had only affirmed, that an inconvenience was sustained by that military parade, the introduction of which was wholly new in the metropolis, and that no one had ventured to deny. Formerly there were only two occasions in the course of a year in which the military Were employed—on the birth-days of his majesty and the queen; and then they were called out temperately and in moderation. But now, instead of confining the employment of them to such purposes, whole regiments, rank and file, were paraded about when there was not even a necessity for a peace officer. His noble friend, therefore, was justified in the inference, that somewhere or other there did exist a tendency, as was proved by every day's experience during the last five or six years, to alter the customs of the people, and habituate them more and more to the sight of the military. No one would deny that; and it would be for the noble lord to state whether, on a former occasion, when a similar subject was brought under the notice of the House, he did not promise that the military should in future be called out only in case of absolute necessity, adding, that he was himself ignorant by whose orders they had been employed, but that he would inquire, and put a stop to the practice. At all events, he believed the present was the first time the military had ever been called out on the occasion of the sovereign receiving an address from the City of Lon- don. The crowd itself, in his opinion, was caused by the soldiers, who stopped his majesty's liege subjects in passing through the streets. There would otherwise have been no more crowd on the present occasion than on former occasions. He had himself seen at least half a dozen city addresses carried in procession to Carlton House, and never witnessed any remarkable crowd or assemblage of persons: and it should be remembered that the citizens were enabled to pass through Fleet-street and the Strand, without any impediment, but the moment they came within sight of that quarter of the town where Carlton House was situated, a band of music was prepared, and a regiment of soldiers were in waiting, not to keep the peace, but to gratify that foolish love of military parade, which, to use the words of his noble friend, existed somewhere, though he did not mean to accuse ministers of creating it.

said, he confessed he felt no such alarm as was entertained by his hon. and learned friend, and the noble lord upon the subject of the employment of the military, as growing out of what had occurred that day. He believed his hon. and learned friend knew, as well as any one, that if a man, whether dressed in a red or a blue coat, invaded the personal liberty of the subject, or stopped illegally upon the king's highway, the courts of justice were open for redress, either by a criminal prosecution, or by an action for damages. He certainly did not think the question was one of a sufficiently grave complexion to merit the attention of parliament. It had been said by his hon. and learned friend, that this was the first time the military had ever been so employed. He was old enough to remember, that during seven long years, while an impeachment was going on in Westminster-hall, he was regularly met by the military, and told, that he could not go the way he wished, though he might by some other road, and he could without the least difficulty, on those occasions, have permitted the person who was driving him to get into a quarrel. To speak, therefore, of the present being the first time, was really to fall into a mistake upon a point which could hardly be unknown to any member of that House. His hon. and learned friend complained of the place where the soldiers were assembled, and stated that no necessity for them was discovered, until they arrived in the neigh- bourhood of Carlton House. But could he possibly require to be informed that that was precisely the spot where the multitude were most likely to assemble, from idleness, from vague curiosity, or from a natural desire to witness the citizens of London going up to the Prince Regent in their corporate capacity, to congratulate him upon an event which had diffused general joy and satisfaction throughout the country. He had no doubt that if a sufficient power had not been provided, uproar and confusion would have ensued, and perhaps even lives might have been destroyed. It did not, however, therefore follow, that the military were to have a licence to abuse and insult peaceable subjects going along upon their own private affairs. The answer which had been given by the soldier, was one which surely need not excite surprise. He was unquestionably under the command of his superior officer, and he might state so knowing that his officer was under the control of the civil power. Upon the whole, it really appeared to him that the discussion of questions of this kind was calculated to advance neither the character of the constitution nor the character of that House [Hear, hear!]. He thought they might occupy themselves more consistently with their own dignity, than in inquiring, day after day, whether this or that soldier had conducted himself with becoming courtesy towards certain individuals, in allowing or in refusing their permission to pass.

regretted that he had not received more information from the hon. and learned gentleman, whose high authority and knowledge in the law would have been entitled to so much attention. With respect to the employment of the military, he apprehended it could never be justified, except when under the direct control of the peace officer. Neither the authority of the officer commanding, nor the authority of the sovereign himself, could justify a soldier, in stopping an individual on the high way, unless called in expressly by a peace officer. If the constable, with his staff, found himself unable to maintain the peace, then he might call upon the soldier to aid him, as he might any other person. That was the only order that could justify the military in interfering. The hon. and learned gentleman had compared the present case to that of the impeachment of Mr. Hastings. On that occasion, however, there was a competent authority. Parliament had ordered the streets to be kept clear; and this was one of their standing orders. But what took place with respect to the military? A complaint was made by lord Kenyon, and they were withdrawn. The constables alone were first to act; and if they were unable to discharge their duties, the military were then to assist them. It could not be justified by the laws of this country, that soldiers should impede the progress of any subject, before the civil power had been called in. Would the hon. and learned gentleman say that the soldier in this case could justify stopping the noble lord, merely because he acted under the orders of his officer? Even the civil officer had no right to order the soldiers to stop all people who were passing the streets. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that the House would descend from its dignity by entertaining the discussion of this matter; but, surely, the same might have been said of Hampden and his ship-money. The appropriation of five shillings was not perhaps, in itself, deserving of notice; but the inquiry was valuable, because it was a violation of the constitution. If this was the act of the soldier himself, it might be proper to refer it to the courts of law; but if it was done by the orders of government, that House was the only place in which it ought to be discussed.

observed, that he was anxious to have order preserved on all occasions, but did not wish to alarm the public, or to endanger the liberties of the country.

said, that when on a former occasion, a similar question to the present, had been agitated in another place, a noble relative of his had promised to exert his endeavours to prevent a recurrence of the inconvenience, and he could state, that every means had been taken to do so. On the very next morning after the complaint was made, general directions were sent to the police magistrates, desiring, that on all similar occasions, at least two of them should attend in person, together with a proper number of police officers. In addition to that general direction, special instructions had also been given upon particular days, and if none had been given on the present occasion (though he did not doubt but they might), it could only be because no extraordinary assemblage of persons was probably anticipated.

observed, that he did not feel the present question in the same way that it seemed to be felt by many honourable gentlemen. He was much surprised at what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who spoke last. He said he was not apprized of what had been done that day, though he took credit for his noble relative in having given general orders upon the subject. That very circumstance, in his opinion, made it necessary that the House should know what orders had been given, and by whom they were given. By what authority were soldiers spread all over the town? Who gave directions? And were they under the control of the peace officers? It appeared, from the speech of the noble lord opposite, as if some person seemed to feel that on the last occasion, his majesty's ministers had gone too far in the way of concession, as if too much had been said about the control of peace officers, and as if an opportunity had been expressly taken to convince the House and the public that that was not the spirit in which the military were to be employed. Could the right hon. gentleman state by whose orders the military had been called out, what duty had been confided to them, or what they conceived to be their duty that day? Could he answer those questions, or could the noble lord answer them? He did not mean to complain of the Life Guards. He had frequently observed their conduct, and thought they always exercised the greatest forbearance and temper. He had indeed seen them so situated, that he wondered any human being could hear the provocations they submitted to. But still that was no justification of their employment without sufficient necessity. He thought there was sufficient ground for the charge that a disposition did exist somewhere or other to employ the military on all occasions, whether they were needed or not, and that disposition ought to be discountenanced. He did not find that any necessity had been stated, and therefore he really thought some further inquiry should be made. It was not a matter which ought to be got rid of merely by moving the previous question.

protested against calling a few soldiers, posted before the royal residence to enforce order, a military force spreading over the whole town. He rose merely to say, that the hon. and learned member for Winchilsea (Mr. Brougham) had placed the question in its true light, when he stated that the soldier should have been brought before a magistrate, and examined with regard to his conduct. This appeared to him to be consistent with good sense, and the best course to be pursued. It was well known, from the public prints, that a sentinel had lately behaved ill in exceeding the limits in Pall-Mall, and that he was punished by the usual authority of law. An application should have been made to the same quarter on the present occasion, and he had no doubt a satisfactory decision might have been obtained. If there could be no redress obtained from the proper tribunal, the House was the proper quarter in which to make an application, and under these circumstances its interference would not be refused. He, therefore, saw no ground for the noble lord's motion, and would vote for the previous question.

denied that he had stated that the soldiery had extended over the whole metropolis. He merely had said that they were posted in places where they were unnecessary to preserve order, considering the quarter from whence the city procession came.

said, that the real question before the House was not, whether soldiers had or had not been employed, but whether any orders had been issued for their employment by the executive government. He certainly considered it as highly unconstitutional to call out the military except in aid of the civil power.

in reply, observed, that with respect to the advice which had been given by the honourable secretary to the admiralty, he did not know whether his noble friend would or would not think it necessary to adopt that course. That, however, was a personal question between his noble friend and the soldier. The object of the complaint, and of his motion was, to ascertain under what orders the military acted. For his own part, he doubted whether, if they even originated in the office of the secretary for the home department, they would be legal. He had no complaint to make against the soldiers themselves; it was the system which placed them there to which he objected. With respect to the insinuations of the noble lord opposite about seeking opportunities for being impeded and molested, he had no hesitation in stating, that his noble friend did go that way on purpose to ascertain whether he would be stopped or not.

The House then divided;

opposed the bill. The tax upon farm horses fell, he said, unequally and oppressively upon different classes of farmers. He put the case of two farmers, the one having a good farm, highly cultivated, and comparatively requiring little labour to obtain all the produce it was capable of yielding; the other managing land of difficult cultivation, rugged and unequal in its surface, and demanding perpetual toil; in the latter instance a great number of horses would be required in proportion to the extent of ground, in the former a small number; and the farmers liable to pay the tax would of course be bound to contribute, not in proportion to their ability, but in proportion to their poverty, or the other disadvantages with which they had to contend. The person who possessed the worst farm would pay the most, although the least able to pay; and he who had the best land would pay the least, though the goodness of his soil augmented his gains. This tax, therefore, ought to be abolished altogether, as it oppressed the farmer in proportion to the diminution of his profits. The hon. member concluded by moving, that the tax be wholly repealed.

said, he had always thought the property tax the best that could possibly be devised, and attended with the fewest objections. Unfortunately for the country that tax had been repealed; [a laugh] although his right hon. friend had proposed to modify it. It was a tax indeed very much reprobated, but reprobated, as he believed, by those only whose share in paying it was very small. He objected to the continuance of the tax on agricultural horses, as absurd in the extreme. It had once been argued in favour of that tax, that it was better to employ oxen than horses in agriculture. That argument, however, was futile in every point of view. As, however, the property tax had been abandoned, it became parliament to inquire whether they could consistently with the state of the finances of the country, give up any other tax. Had the property tax not been repealed, it perhaps might have been easy for the chancellor of the exchequer to have given up the salt, soap, and candle duties, and to have alleviated the pressure of the assessed taxes. But making every allowance for the situation in which that right hon. gentleman was placed by the unfortunate abolition of the property tax, he would support the motion for the repeal of the agricultural horse tax.

fully agreed with the last speaker on the disadvantages resulting to the country from the abolition of the property tax. With respect to the tax on agricultural horses, he was aware there were many objections. Yet anxious as he was to give relief to all classes of his Majesty's subjects, he could not agree to give any further relief in this particular instance than what he had mentioned in the bill. When the property tax had been repealed by the House, he certainly thought it his duty to grant the smaller class of farmers, who were not affected by that tax, some relief; and it was solely with that view he had proposed to alleviate the pressure of the agricultural horse tax. His proposal was, that those under 50l. of rent should pay 3s., those above 50l. and under 100l. should pay 5s., and those above 100l. and below 150l. should pay 7s. The accounts on the table showed the vast number of small farms occupied in the country, and the plan he thus proposed would, he had no doubt, materially relieve those. It was objected, that the persons who occupied farms of greater extent would not be benefited. Let the House remember that those persons were exempted from the property tax, and that it was just that those whose farms were so inconsiderable as not to be charged with the property tax, should be relieved. He thought it very hard not to grant them some indulgence. Seventeen millions of taxes had this year been repealed, and he trusted the House would give him credit when he assured them, that it was his earnest wish to extend relief, as far as relief could possibly be extended, to every individual in the empire. He knew very well that many of the taxes he proposed to continue were objectionable, but the repeal of the property and malt war taxes left him no alternative.

denied that this tax was called for; and before it or any others were agreed to, it was the bounden duty of the right hon. gentleman and his friends to lay before the House the true state of its financial condition, and the whole system of taxation, that it might be judged what species of taxation was necessary. He would oppose every measure of this kind, till such statements were brought forward, when he was sure the House would not hesitate in affording whatever aid was required.

was ready to admit, that what had been conceded by the chancellor of the exchequer would be of great advantage to the small farmer; and it was not likely that the whole tax could be given up. Every horse that was unnecessarily kept required a share of ground whose produce was sufficient for a human being, and it was therefore desirable that the number of horses should be diminished as much as possible. He objected to certain vexations in the collection of the tax, which he hoped would be remedied, particularly that which subjected farmers to the duty for riding-horses, and the charge for a groom. In one district 97 appeals had been made on this subject, and 94 of them had been deemed invalid. This was a great oppression.

said, it was no argument for a tax, to say that a certain sum of money was wanted and must be made up. He gave no praise to the chancellor of the exchequer for the repeal of the seventeen millions of taxes, as in fact that repeal was a matter of necessity, not of choice. The faith of parliament had been pledged to the abolition of the income tax, and besides, he believed in his conscience the people were not able to pay it. The tax on agricultural horses ought to be repealed, as it was in fact a tax on machinery. It would be as fair for the chancellor of the exchequer to tax the plough as it was to tax the horse. He entered his protest against its continuance, on the ground of its being hostile to all the principles of taxation.

was sorry to feel it his duty to oppose any tax which appeared to have been maturely considered by his majesty's ministers.

reminded the right hon. gentleman that he had voted in a minority of five, twenty years ago, against Mr. Pitt on the triple assessment bill, when it was proposed to extend it to husbandry horses. No tax could be more unjust or unequal. In many parts of the country, on what were called upland farms, small horses only could be employed, and their deficiency of strength was of course made up by an increase in their number.

condemned the tax as oppressive and unequal. Many soils required double the proportion of horses necessary to others. The right hon. gentleman should turn his attention rather to luxuries than to the hard earnings of husbandry.

The committee divided

took that opportunity of expressing his approbation of it. The attorney-general had the other night adverted to the King's prerogative of preventing the entrance of aliens into this country; and he (general T.) wished now to remind ministers of another prerogative of the crown—that of preventing our own subjects from going abroad, or of recalling them when there, under penalty of confiscating their property. This evil of men of property going abroad, and avoiding the taxes which their fellow-subjects had to pay, was every day increasing; this branch of the kings prerogative should, therefore be attended to, and a bill brought in for taxing absentees. It would be the duty of ministers to bring in a bill for preventing persons from going abroad to spend their money, and for recalling those who were there, on penalty of confiscation of property—[A laugh!].

was unwilling to let the bill pass through this stage without declaring his sense of it. Whatever might be the reasons for an alien bill in time of war, the change of times and circumstances had entirely removed them. The alien-office since 1798 had cost the country 120,000l. Now, indeed, we were told, it was reduced to 3,000l. a year; but even this expense should not be continued for the support of what he must call a useless and illiberal office. He thought the bill quite unnecessary, and the only reason he could conjecture for its continuance was, the unwillingness of ministers to relinquish any power once placed in their hands. He could not rest satisfied without entering his protest against it.

defended the measure as being essential to the security of the country.

remarked that the hon. general might settle with his friends the ministers as to the extent and wisdom of his confiscatory bill. He himself should not occupy the time of the House on the present measure, but would reserve what he had to say upon it till the bringing up of the report.

The bill then went through the committee.

moved the second reading of this Bill. He hoped the House would permit it to pass through this stage, that it might be committed pro forma, and the blanks filled up, as at the same time he wished to make an amendment in the machinery of the bill, which subsequent information had proved to him to be necessary.

said, if the object of the hon. baronet was totally to new cast his bill, he should be sorry to prevent any thing which made it new in form and substance, for at present it appeared to him so objectionable, that nothing short of the greatest and most complete change in it could make it, in his opinion, palatable. It was at once vexatious and useless: it imposed on executors and administrators great trouble, to answer no good end that he could find out; it furnished nothing which parish registers and other documents did not furnish already; and seemed calculated only to gratify an idle curiosity by vexatious processes, which called on persons to give a useless history of families and their connexions, which they might be neither qualified nor at leisure to give.

rose, with evident warmth, to repel those charges. If the hon. and learned gentleman's consent to a sufferance of the bill was to be founded on the supposition, that he meant mainly and substantially to alter its nature, or even its form, he begged not to mislead the House by an inference that such was his intention. He boldly and distinctly avowed, that his intention was nothing more than an amendment in one part of the machinery of the bill. He thought the hon. and learned gentleman was harsh and unfounded in the character he had given to it. Sir E. rather conceived that he must be ignorant of the contents and objects of the measure which he thus opposed. It was not a fair and liberal treatment. The contempt and ridicule attempted to be fixed upon the bill, and on himself, the mover of it, he repelled with indignation. It was as unmerited as it was uncandid.—Sir E. was proceeding in these warm terms of resentment, when

rose to order. He meant nothing personal: it was to the measure, and not to the hon. mover of it that his remarks were applied.

proceeded in the same warm and indignant tone, and intimated his determination to take the sense of the House.—The Attorney General then moved as an amendment, that this bill be read a second time this day six months.

again rose. If the forms of the House would allow, he begged the indulgence of the House a few minutes, while he defended the objects and character of the bill from the attacks of the attorney-general. He said, that the measure was the reverse of being vexatious and the reverse of being useless. It gave scarcely any trouble to the executor or administrator. It only called on him to answer a few questions, of which it was impossible he could be ignorant; and for this slight trouble the public would gain a set of the most complete and perfect documents that human invention could imagine for the purposes proposed. And what were those purposes? Not the gratification of idle curiosity; not the flattery of silly pride; but a ready and cheap and satisfactory mode of furnishing information, which was required in the examination of the title of almost every estate in the kingdom; and which could now only be procured at hazard, after long expense and long delay, dispersed all over the kingdom in obscure corners, at the mercy of the damp, neglect, and vermin. But this was not all. It was not true that parish registers, even when found, could give the information these documents could afford. In parish registers there was a want of proof of identity; and what was more, a want of that negative testimony which the nature of a funeral certificate would supply. After a parish register had furnished the inquirer with proof, perhaps of ten children of any one, whose heirs were to be discovered, it did not follow that he might not have ten more baptised elsewhere. A funeral certificate would furnish not only what he had, but what he had not. But this sort of document was considered by the attorney general as novel. It had existed for 200 years: not indeed under a legislative enactment, but under the earl marshal's orders. Thirty volumes of these documents existed in the Herald's college, and had been found the most satisfactory, and the least liable to error, of any thing that had ever been offered in proof of claims of inheritance, either to estates or honours. Was the hon. and learned gentleman ignorant of this If he was, sir E. was furnished with the means of returning that contempt upon the hon. and learned gentleman which he had so harshly attempted to fix on him: for in the high station which he filled, it was most extraordinary that his experience had not taught him to be acquainted with them, and to know their value.

repelled the charge of personality, and hinted that he would not have charged any member filling the high official situation which himself filled, with ignorance of his profession.

The motion and the amendment were then put, when the numbers were: For the second reading now, 3: For the amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months, 82: Majority for the amendment, 79.

then gave notice that he would abandon his two poor bills, which stood for Wednesday, stating with strong chagrin and agitation, that from the manner in which his present bill had been treated, it was vain for him to hope to carry bills, on more important matters, affecting the happiness and moral condition of millions, on which there was so much difference of opinion.

remonstrated against this sudden resolve under temporary feeling, for which there was no just foundation.

persisted in thinking that he had been treated with contempt, and said, as he had still a character to support with his constituents, he would withdraw himself from all further exertions in the House.

said, that what had fallen from the hon. baronet showed that he altogether misunderstood the grounds on which the bill had been rejected. Nothing could be more injurious to the dignity and character of the House, than the supposition that any personal motives influenced their votes on public measures; and in the present case no such imputation could be more unfounded. Therefore, if it were only for the sake of giving to the House some assurance on this subject, he hoped that the hon. baronet would refrain from withdrawing any of his notices at present.

observed, that after what had been said by the right hon. gentleman, he hoped the hon. baronet would be persuaded to refrain for the present from taking any measure with respect to his notices which stood for a future day.

After a few words from sir E. Brydges, the Speaker said that the House would perceive with satisfaction that the hon. baronet acquiesced in the suggestion. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned.