rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain parts of an act passed in the 26th Geo. 2nd, commonly called the Marriage act. By the eleventh section of that act the marriages of infants by licence without the consent of their parents or guardians were void ab initio, and the ecclesiastical courts were obliged to pronounce such marriages to be void at whatever distance of time a suit for the avoidance of them might happen to be commenced, if both parties were alive. It frequently happened that such suits were instituted after the parties had cohabited for many years, and had had children. In such cases it was scandalous that either of the parties should be allowed to come before the ecclesiastical court to have the marriage annulled. He therefore proposed to amend this part of the law, by an enactment limiting the time within which an application could be made to annul the marriage. The bill which he wished to introduce would contain an enactment, that unless proceedings to annul a marriage solemnised by licence were adopted during the minority of either of the parties, or within one year from the time they attained the age of 21, such marriage should stand as valid, and should not be annulled by any court. There was, besides this, another amendment in the act, which he had been pressed to introduce into his bill. The act requires that banns should be published in the parish in which the parties resided; but it enacted, that after the banns were published, it should not be necessary to prove the actual residence of the parties within the parish. Many abuses took place in consequence of this enactment, especially in populous towns, and in the metropolis, by the banns being published in parishes where the parties did not reside. He therefore intended to introduce a clause into his bill, by which the ecclesiastical court should be empowered to inquire whether the parties actually resided in the parish in which the banns were published, and also enacting, that no evidence on that head should be receivable after the parties had cohabited for one year. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain provisions in the Marriage act.

The motion was agreed to, and Dr. Phillimore and sir John Nicholl were ordered to bring in the said bill.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the practice of the court of Great Session in Wales, and to amend certain parts of it. He felt that this was a late period of the session to introduce such a measure, but he wished to have the bill brought in and printed, that members might have an opportunity of examining it. The committee which had been appointed on this subject had given in a lengthened report on the evils which arose from the present practice of the court of Great Session. To some of these, the object of his bill would be to propose a remedy. The first thing which his bill should embrace was, the giving a power to the court of Great session of issuing subpœnas to witnesses not within its immediate jurisdiction. From the want of this power several evils had already arisen. The next object of it would be to check an evil which was daily gaining ground, and from which great inconveniences had already been felt. He meant the practice of taking out writs of certiorari from the court of King's bench, for the purpose of removing causes thither from the court of Great Session. By this practice, which was a very general one, the most vexatious delays of justice had been occasioned. He should propose, as a remedy for this, that no such writ should be issued, except upon an affidavit on the merits of the case, and a due notice to the other parties concerned. The third object which the bill had, was, to give to the court of session the power of issuing writs for levying fines and recovery four times a-year, instead of twice, as at present. The fourth would be, to equalise the expense of levying a fine and recovery to the cost of such a proceeding in the court of Common Pleas at Westminster. The House was not perhaps aware, that the expense of such a proceeding was at present ten times as great in the court of Great Session in Wales as it was in Westminster Hall. The other objects which he had in view, and which would be embraced by the bill, were to alter the amount of the sum for which an action might be brought; at present it was 10l., which he considered too low; to compel householders rated at 10l. to serve as jurors, as in this country; and to enable his majesty to grant pensions to the judges of the court of Great Session on their retiring from office, as in England. He saw no reason why this should not be the case with the Welsh judges as with the judges of the courts in England. There were other evils attendant upon the present practice of the court of Great Session, to which he would wish to apply some remedy; but he felt that could not be done without an alteration of the whole system of Welsh jurisdiction. He, however, conceived that if such a measure were carried into effect, it would be much for the advantage of the principality. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill, which was agreed to.

rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move that an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that Thomas Ferguson, who was declared to have been guilty of a corrupt attempt to violate the freedom of election and the independence of parliament, and also of a high breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, be removed from his present situation of surveyor of taxes. The hon. member observed, that he should not, on the present occasion, feel it necessary to trouble the House at any length. By a resolution which was unanimously carried on a former evening, the House had declared that Thomas Ferguson had been guilty of corruption, and of a high breach of the privileges of the House, and they had already inflicted a punishment upon him. It appeared that this man was a surveyor of taxes, who, by a particular act, was as such rendered incapable not only of voting at an election, but of interfering directly or indirectly with the election of any member to serve in parliament. The House, he conceived, could not, without extreme danger to its own privileges, pass over such an act as that of which Ferguson had been declared guilty, without resorting to that punishment which had been inflicted by parliament on similar occasions. It appeared from the prisoner's own account before the committee, that he had, without any authority, used the name of another, in order to influence a voter at an expected election. The inducement which he held out was at least plausible, Ferguson being then in such a situation where he might be supposed, at first sight to have acted from authority. It appeared, however, that he had no authority for his conduct. The constant practice of the House had been to mark its sense of such conduct, not only by ordering the person so offending to be taken into custody, but also by moving an address for his dismissal from any situation which he held under the Crown. The hon. member then cited a variety of cases, where individuals, interfering improperly in the election of a member of parliament, were removed from the offices which they then held in consequence of addresses from the House. By the 5th of William and Mary, he observed, all officers of excise were not only declared to be liable to dismissal for interference in an election for a member of parliament, but also to a fine of 100l. This was by an act (the 12th of William and Mary) extended to officers of the customs, and by statute (9th Anne) it was declared that no persons belonging to the post or stamp office could interfere in such election except at his own peril. Other acts of later date enforced the former acts in a stronger manner. With these examples and the acts of the legislature before them, he did not see how the House could refrain from following up their former resolution on the present occasion. He was aware that it must be painful to the feelings of members to inflict an additional punishment upon an individual who was already suffering one punishment for his misconduct; but the House should look to the circumstances of the case, to former precedents, and to their own dignity. He begged to call to their recollection, the case of an hon. member of the House, who had three years ago been found guilty of being concerned in the fraud upon the stock exchange. He was not only sentenced to an immediate punishment for that offence, but was afterwards deprived of all his honours. This was not with the view of inflicting an additional punishment for the same offence, but to show, that a person who could be guilty of such an action was rendered by it unworthy of a continuance in his former situations of rank and confidence. The case which had occurred in 1809, could not be a precedent for the present, for there the House did not think fit to go into the question, and of course gave no decision upon it. But here they had decided, that a gross attempt at corruption, and a violation of the privileges of parliament had been committed. Would the House permit, by refusing his motion, the man whom they had already declared guilty to go back to the same situation, and enjoy the means of corruption which he had before so much abused? The hon. member concluded by moving,

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that he will give directions that Thomas Ferguson, who hath been guilty of a corrupt attempt to subvert the freedom and independence of election, and a high breach of the privileges of the House, be removed from the office of Surveyor of Taxes for the county of Lanark."

immediately rose and moved, that the Petition^* presented on the 6th of May 1793 by Mr. Grey from the Society of the Friends of the People, be read.

^* See Parliamentary History, Vol. 30, p. 787.

said, he would not oppose this proposition, but he submitted to the hon. baronet, that although any declaration on the part of the House might with propriety be appealed to as authority, a petition was no authority, and the mere circumstance of its being allowed to lie on the table, involved no acknowledgment on the part of the House of the truth of its allegations.

said, that as the hon. gentleman had declared he did not mean to oppose the motion, it was only necessary for him to say, that when this petition and another record which he meant to move for, were read, the House would see the inconsistency of the present course of proceeding.

The clerk having read the said Petition nearly to the end,

said, that he would not trouble the House with hearing any more of it. Enough had been read for his purpose, in that part which stated that a majority of the House had been nominated to their seats by the members of the House of Peers. He then moved, that the Resolution of the 18th of April, 1793, relating to the Great Grimsby Election be read.

The said Resolution was accordingly read by the clerk, and is as follows: "Resolved, That it appears to this committee that the hon. W. W. Pole, was, by his agent, guilty of bribery at the last election of members to serve in this present parliament for the borough of Great Grimsby in the county of Lincoln."

then said, that he had not moved for the reading of these documents with the view of offering any observations upon them. They needed no comment. He had desired them to be read merely to show the gross injustice of any farther proceedings against Mr. Ferguson for his offence, when so many others of a much more heinous nature had been suffered to pass with impunity.

rose, not so much to oppose this motion, as to object to the mode of inquiry which had been adopted in the committee, though he had no doubt that that mode was conformable to precedent. It appeared from the evidence, that the delinquent was brought before the committee, and immediately converted into a witness against himself, to the length of answers which filled up 15 folio pages. It did not appear that the delinquent was cautioned, as he would have been in our courts of justice against giving answers which would criminate himself. He had been brought before the House, and treated with the utmost severity. He was, in the first place, committed to the custody of the Serjeant at arms—no trifling punishment, when the expense attendant upon it was considered; and he had afterwards been sent to the most ignominious prison in the kingdom. It was now proposed to take from this individual, as a farther measure of punishment, the trifling office which he held. He by no means wished to be understood as thinking that this person should be allowed to go without adequate punishment, but he certainly regretted, that the practice of the House, in the mode of examining a witness before a committee, was so different from the course pursued in courts of law. If it had been (which he hoped was not the case) the original intention of the House to pursue this course towards Ferguson, it would have been but candid in the first instance to have warned him as to his answers. This surely might have been done, as the committee could have gone elsewhere for evidence against the individual.

apprehended his right hon. friend was mistaken in his view of the case. The proceedings against Ferguson were not founded upon his own confessions before the committee, but upon the letter he had written, which was in itself sufficient to draw the punishment of parliament upon him. The examinations before the committee were not made with the view of getting any additional proof of Ferguson's guilt, but in order to ascertain whether any other person was Concerned in the transaction. The House should recollect, that the name of another individual was first mentioned as connected with the letter. The object, then, of the committee in examining Ferguson was, to ascertain whether he had any, and what authority, for making the otter for which he was now imprisoned. He was aware of the hardship of Ferguson's case, but he could not see how, after the instances which had been mentioned by the hon. mover of similar punishments having been inflicted in so many other cases, the House could dissent from the motion.

said, that as the individual had been already imprisoned, he might be supposed to have been sufficiently punished. As the motion of the hon. gentleman, if carried, would throw Ferguson out of bread, he must give it his negative.

conceived, that when Ferguson was before the committee, if contumacious he might have been sent to Newgate; but he had answered all the questions put to him. Since then, he had not only been punished by being sent to Newgate, but it was now proposed to take from him every thing that he possessed [No, no!]. He understood that he derived his whole subsistence from being surveyor of taxes [No, no!]. He had another objection to this mode of proceeding, and that was, that it would be taking away the benefit of the trial by jury. If convicted under an act of parliament, he would be declared incapable of holding any office under the Crown. But what did they do to him? They first extracted from him a confession of guilt, and punished him by sending him to Newgate, and then they proposed to punish him a second time, by depriving him of his office.

thought that Ferguson had been already punished severely enough, and that any farther punishment would amount to persecution. At all events, he thought it would not redound much to the credit of the House to visit a humble individual with so severe a punishment as the loss of office, when they had allowed a member of his majesty's government, convicted of the same offence, to escape without punishment.

believed that the House would not suspect him of being inclined to favour bribery and corruption. He could not, however, vote in favour of the motion. He thought that any farther proceeding would be on all grounds, extremely objectionable. He could not see upon what sound and correct principle the hon. gentleman had moved the address. Did he mean to say that the offence was really deserving of so much punishment; or, if it was, that it ought not to be more certain and more equal in its application than at present? But he would ask him, whether the punishment he proposed would have any, the least, tendency to prevent similar offences? [Hear, hear! from Mr. Wynn.] The hon. gentleman, by his cheers, seemed to imply that, in his opinion, it would. It was a mere matter of opinion, however; and his was, that unless there was a more equal punishment, the use of great severity, in occasional instances, would have the effect of turning the attention of the people to the more vulnerable parts of the constitution of that House, rather than to prevent the character of the House from being liable to suspicion. These were the only obvious reflections that the motion produced. He did not think that any final good consequence would result from it. It would not prevent the repetition of the offence; still less would it have any effect in strengthening or advancing the character of that House in the public mind; and for these reasons, he was inclined to vote for the rejection of the motion. Before he sat down, however, he should make one other remark. If the hon. member meant to ground on his motion any general measure, there might be some greater reason for supporting it, than if, when he had spent his wrath upon Ferguson, he took no farther proceeding. But he had not mentioned any general result whatever, and therefore he could not concur in his motion.

replied to the arguments of his hon. friends near him. He could not agree with them that it followed, because great offenders escaped, smaller ones should be allowed to plead this escape to secure their own impunity. He fully agreed that the larger offender ought to have been punished, but he could not come to the conclusion, that the smaller one ought now to be permitted to escape. It was contended, that the present offender had been already severely punished. But this argument should have been urged a little earlier in this business. The question now was simply, whether the guilty man should not be dealt with in the same manner, as by the precedent's it appeared others were for similar offences; and whether, after his guilt was recorded, he should not be dismissed from an office under the Crown, which, after what had passed, he was unworthy to hold? By negativing this address, the House would affirm the unconstitutional proposition, that persons holding official situations in the revenue may use the influence these situations gave them in their neighbourhood at elections. If Ferguson was stripped of this influence, he would then merely possess that which he might have either as a writer at Glasgow, or a writer's clerk, for this was his business; and it was evident that he did not depend for subsistence on his tax office, though he, of course, derived his influence from the latter. His offence was a serious one; he had gone to Mr. Dykes, and promised him a place for his vote; he afterwards went to sir Alexander Cochrane's agent to state what he had done, and a letter in furtherance of the bribe had been actually sent to a right hon. gentleman in office, who in answer wrote down to know what situation Mr. Dykes would accept. It was clear, then, that the public situation of the delinquent gave him an influence which it was evident he ought no longer to hold. For these reasons he should vote for the motion. If the House did not sanction it, they would affirm the proposition which he had already stated.

said, that the House were aware of the unwillingness with which he offered himself to their notice, but he was anxious on the present occasion to make a few observations. He had been the person who had taken the objection to the motion for the instruction to the chairman in the committee, for moving that address. He had objected to it on the grounds that every individual case should stand on its own merits, and all unnecessary harshness ought to be avoided. On that he had moved the previous question, which was agreed to by the committee, who by that had given a sort of negative to the mode of proceeding in the present instance. His hon. friend had adduced certain precedents, on one or two of which he should shortly advert; and he thought he could show, that scarcely one of them applied to the present proceeding. There was but one case in which a man had been both sent to Newgate and deprived of his office. In considering that part of the subject, he thought the shortest way would be to go directly to the cases themselves. The first on which he should observe was that of the bishop of Worcester, who was lord almoner to the Crown, and who had interfered in an election. The House deprived him of the office of almoner with a salary of 100l. per annum. It was only necessary to state the fact, to show the difference between the direct interference of the bishop, and the present case of a poor man, between the reverend prelate interfering in his capacity and the person in question, who was merely led away by his own corrupt zeal to serve his friend. The next case was that of the mayor of Winchester, the returning officer, who had been guilty of threats and such other improper conduct in an election. Had he been sent to Newgate, and afterwards deprived of his office in the Customs? He had been taken into custody, but he had not been sent to Newgate: but they had sent Ferguson to Newgate, and, in his opinion, there was not an atom of ground for depriving him of what was almost his only subsistence. The next case was that of the receiver-general of the county of Stafford. And what had happened to him? He had been guilty of money-bribery at an election, and two members were elected chiefly in consequence of his proceedings. Had the House sent him to Newgate? It had been advised to remove him from his office, and he had been removed; they had taken him into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, but he had not been imprisoned. The next case was that of a person who had been inspector of the Customs between Berwick-upon-Tweed and Hull. He had engaged to pay annually a part of his yearly salary to a voter, for his vote, for the borough of Haydon. He had not been taken into custody at all; but the Crown had been advised to remove him from his office, which he believed had been done. Another case was that of Mr. Middleton, high-sheriff for the county of Denbigh, for having returned sir John Middleton, contrary to a majority of votes, taken by him upon the poll, contrary to the state of the votes at the close of the poll, without any examination of the voters, and with having presumed to alter the poll, by giving a false colour to the returns. It would be wasting the time of the House to attempt to show the difference between that case and that of Ferguson. The sheriff had acted partially, unjustly, and illegally. The rights of freeholders, and, their most important privileges, were attacked by his conduct. And for such conduct he had lost the situation of receiver which he held, and had been sent to Newgate. It was their duty to meet every violation of the law in such cases with proper severity, in order to discourage such proceedings; and he trusted he should not be taken for one of those who wished at all to relax such severity. He trusted that necessary severity would not be relaxed; but he submitted whether imprisonment in Newgate was not sufficient, if not to prevent such offences, at least to inform that man and all others that they could not play tricks of that kind with impunity? Ferguson had been surveyor of taxes for the county of Lanark for about nine years, and it was no where stated that that was not his main subsistence. The hon. member had referred to acts of parliament, and had said they ought to punish the offence in such and such a manner: but it was coming to a judgment upon inference, and punishing because the spirit of certain laws tended to militate against the offence. His great means of subsistence would be taken from him if he should lose his office. He had 120l. a year by that, and he was not a writer as had been stated. He wrote in the office of a gentleman of the name of Campbell, formerly a member in that House. The office was in Glasgow; but how that gentleman came to have a writing office there he knew not, unless it was that he had a considerable quantity of business there which rendered it necessary to keep accounts in that place. Under that gentleman's management Ferguson wrote in his office, he did not know whether permanently or not, and if he lost his office of surveyor, he would be reduced to a situation of extreme penury. With regard to the letter, about which a good deal had been said at the commencement of the proceeding against Ferguson, he believed that it was the conviction of every man, that his noble friend, lord Douglas, had nothing to do with it. The noble lord apologised for detaining the House so long, and concluded by moving the previous question.

said, with respect to the inquiry in the committee, it was quite decided to his satisfaction, that lord Douglas had not committed any breach of the privileges of parliament. It was necessary that he should state this, as he, for one, when the case was first stated to the House by his noble friend; thought that prima facie, there was enough against lord Douglas to call on him to challenge farther inquiry. The result of the inquiry had given satisfaction to himself on this subject. There was no evidence of any interference on the part of lord Douglas.

thought that the measure of punishment had been sufficient. It had been originally in the option of the House, whether they would send Ferguson to prison, or move an address to the Crown for removal from his office. But he thought, as it was, his punishment had been all that justice demanded. A noble lord had tried to make out a case, which, if true would go far to influence a concurrence with the motion, namely, that it had been in his official character that Ferguson had committed the crime. It was true, that being in office he had committed it; but there was no evidence that the influence of the office had been made use of in its commission. There was not any peculiar propriety in apportioning the punishment to particular offences of the kind. There were precedents on which the hon. member relied; but surely he would not say that the peccant part alone of each person had been punished. He would not say that it was as almoner that the bishop of Worcester was punished. He had been removed from his situation as a general punishment, as the only mark of displeasure which the House could inflict on him: and they had given a substantial mark of their displeasure by sending Ferguson to prison. Upon full consideration, after a fair and complete examination, the House had made its option; and therefore, not as it would be a mark of its displeasure, but as it would be the utter ruin of the individual, he could not consent to the motion.

vindicated the course of proceedings in the present case, as being con sonant to the invariable practice of the House. In a court of law, the inquiry was, was a certain person guilty or not guilty? But here the matter for inquiry was, who was the guilty person? In the ease of an objectionable publication, it was not enough, when a printer was called to their bar, that he admitted he was the printer of such publication; the House did not stop there, but endeavoured also to ascertain who was the author, and who was the publisher. The object of the committee, in the present case, was, to ascertain if any higher person was behind the curtain. It would have made a difference in their views, if they had thought Ferguson a tool of some powerful person, but this was not proved. It appeared, however, that he had means of communication with government, and that he was very near getting the office for which he asked. He had been asked by an hon. gentleman, if he intended to follow up this proceeding with any farther measure. To this he should certainly answer in the negative. He did not see the necessity of introducing new measures for the punishment of that for which there was already a sufficient punishment, if the House chose to exercise the powers with which it was vested. He was not surprised at the noble lord moving the previous question. That noble lord had also moved the previous question in the case of lord Castlereagh nine years ago [Hear, hear!]. But, though the House then felt a strong wish to favour the noble lord (Castlereagh), the previous question was negatived almost unanimously. Whether the right of election should be with householders or freeholders, or with whatever part, of the community, it was equally necessary to watch over that right, and to punish those who attempted to violate it. Whether we had Septennial or Triennial parliaments, or, according to the reformer^* who lately discovered Mr. Prynne to be in favour of annual parliaments as" Brevia Parliamentiaria Rediviva," meant "short parliaments revived," [a laugh!] we were to have annual parliaments—still it would become the House to watch over the purity of elections, and to punish those who attempted to corrupt them. With respect to reform, the very measure was one of reform. The House had always the power of reforming itself, when it did its duty by applying the existing law to the punishment of offences. It had been said that the House having made the option, and having committed Ferguson, ought not to vote his removal from office. But from the beginning, he had intimated that it was his intention to follow up the motion for commitment with another for removal. He intreated the House to consider that it was no immaterial consideration for them, when they were on the verge of a general election, whether they would visit an offence of this kind with the punishment which would be most severely felt by the individual. They all knew that commitment to Newgate was a punishment, which would soon be forgot ten; in fact, it was lighter than remaining in the custody of the Serjeant at arms as the daily fees were so heavy, that it formed a much more severe punishment than commitment to Newgate.

^*"If Prynne did not mean to advocate short parliaments, how came he to entitle his treatise on the subject 'Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva,' which in plain English is short parliaments revived." Major Cartwright's Letter to lord Holland.

The previous question being put, "That the question be now put," the House divided:

Mr. Wynn's motion was consequently lost.

said, it had been supposed in Ireland that parliament was pledged to the repeal of the Window Tax, in consequence of the declaration made by Mr. Corry, at the time he first proposed the tax as chancellor of the exchequer in the Irish parliament, and on subsequent occasions. But whatever had been the original intention of the author of it, nothing then held out could afford a reasonable hope of its repeal at a time when the necessities of the empire absolutely required its continuance as a permanent source of income. The same plea might be put forward for England; but: it was well known that many of the customs, originally for the period of the war, had been rendered permanent since its termination, and made a part of the consolidated fund. Parliament could not, in justice to the public creditor, take off the Window Tax, till another equivalent fund, was created for the payment of the interest of the National Debt. The fair question was, how much ought Ireland to contribute to the resources of the empire? And if the portion allotted to her at the time of the Union was a fail one, she was now greatly deficient. The produce of her present taxes was far below the charge on her. The charge amounted to six millions and a half; while her income, last year, was but five, leaving a deficiency of a million and a half. He felt, however, that it must be the wish of parliament so to proportion the charge on each country, as would, in the result, be most beneficial to all. In that view, looking to the distressed situation of Ireland for the last three years, he thought it be coming the justice and liberality of par- liament to afford her some relief. Of the Window Tax accordingly he was prepared to grant a reduction, and he would very shortly explain the nature of his proposition for that purpose—noticing also the principal alterations he proposed to introduce under other heads. But he must first state, that he had no intention of proposing any alteration in the Hearth Tax. From the Window Tax, which was necessarily felt to be very severe in its pressure, he proposed to make a reduction of 25 per cent, bringing it to what it had been before the last augmentation: since which, he was obliged to allow there had been a continual falling off in the proceeds of the tax. That sprang, perhaps, from the general stagnation in business, which peculiarly affected Ireland—she feeling, in a much higher degree than this country, the loss occasioned by the want of consumption consequent on the war. It might seem that an entirely new scheme was more advisable; but considering the fate of that proposed by the gentleman at the head of the department in Ireland, he was led to believe that an abatement of the tax, as already existing, would give more general satisfaction. By the law, as it before stood, no house in Ireland having less than seven windows paid a duty. It was now moreover proposed, that in houses with more than that number, of which a great proportion was let in lodgings to poor people, 1s. a window only should be charged, but with the condition that this indulgence could be granted only in such, cases where the windows were used not only for light, but also for the admission of air. Of late years great additions had been made to all the taxes on carriages, servants, and all the rest pressing more peculiarly on the higher orders. The laws imposing them had been looked upon as sumptuary laws, necessary for prohibiting imprudent show and ostentation. On each of these he now intended a great relief, in the hope that diminishing the duty on carriages, would produce employment" for the manufacturer, and that a general abatement in the taxes would operate as an inducement to gentlemen of property, now absentees, to reside at home. On all descriptions of carriages a great abatement of duty would be made, but more particularly on one class, which he might call the national one, jaunting cars. The duty on keeping that vehicle, which had been 6l. 10s. was how to be reduced to two guineas; and he had reason to believe that that boon would be received with the greatest satisfaction. Having given this short view of the most material alterations he would more, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that the Taxes imposed by former Acts of Parliament on horses servants, carriages, &c. do from henceforth cease and determine; and that the duties specified in the Schedule annexed be substituted in lieu of them."

The first Resolution respecting the hearth duty having been read,

said, that it was the regulation for the collection of the hearth tax which had made it so obnoxious to the people of Ireland. For the purpose Collecting this duty, a power was given to enter all houses, and take an account of the number of the hearths. If it was said that for many years after the enactment of this tax there had been no complaints respecting this power, he should answer, that there had been formerly much leniency in the collection of the taxes in Ireland, and therefore the power had not been complained of, which now that the laws were rigorously enforced, had been found very grievous. The hon. baronet then read the proceedings respecting the hearth tax in England, in the first year of the reign of William and Mary. The king, in that year, sent a Message to the House of Commons, in which he offered, as he had heard that the hearth tax was grievous to the people, to consent to its regulation and entire appeal. The Commons expressed their admiration and gratitude at this unprecedented offer, and an act was passed to repeal it, which recited the king's message, and stated, that the tax was "not only a grievance to the poorer sort, but a badge of slavery to the whole people," by allowing every man's house to be searched by persons not known to him. He hoped, therefore, the House would dispense equal justice to Ireland, and relieve it from "this badge of slavery."

observed, that he certainly could not object to any argument which proceeded on the justice of applying the same principles of revenue and government to Ireland which had been established in Great Britain. There was, however, a very material difference, in a constitutional point of view, between the present hearth tax in Ireland, and the mode in which it was formerly levied in this country. The collecting officer in Ireland could not enter into every room of a house in order to make a correct return, but was obliged to form an estimate upon a general view, the tenant being obliged to show the contrary if he objected to it. It should be recollected, that if Ireland were relieved from the burthen in question, some equivalent measure, probably in the shape of a house tax, must be resorted to. Much consideration had been given to the question of how far it might be expedient to substitute a tax on houses for the window tax, but he had great reason to believe that the people of that country would not approve of such a commutation.

said, that if the Irish hearth tax were repealed, he should not at present press for the repeal of the window tax.

said, that the hearth duty of Ireland was one of the most ancient taxes in that country, having been levied so long ago as the reign of Charles 2nd. It was also that which had undergone the smallest increase from time to time. Considerable reduction had even been made in it. At the period of the Union, every house having more than two hearths was taxed; but, since the Union, none under four. This regulation went to exempt almost the whole of the agricultural population; for there was scarcely a farm-house which possessed more than four hearths or seven windows. It was in every respect, both with regard to the duty imposed, and the mode of collection, a measure of less severity than that which went formerly by the same name in England. He would ask the hon. baronet, if he was prepared to propose a tax which would press in a lighter degree upon Ireland than the ancient one to which he had thought proper to object?

was not aware of any of the abuses complained of in the collection of the tax. It had been represented as unconstitutional; but he could not call any thing established by law unconstitutional. Should it be abolished, the chancellor of the exchequer must stand up in his place and propose a tax on leather, or some other that would be ten times more burthensome to the lower orders than the hearth tax. He supposed it would be deemed constitutional to throw the burthen from the rich upon the poor [a laugh].

was of opinion, that the continuance of such a tax was an indignity thrown on Ireland. When it was found that such a tax bore heavily in England, it was repealed; but no matter how heavily it pressed on Ireland, still it must be Continued. But it was their interest to relieve Ireland as much as possible from her burthens, as the more she possessed, the more she would have to share with England. Ireland ought not to be kept in slavery by the weight of a tax which was in England found insupportable. Ireland had expended her blood and her treasure in the defence of this country, and was entitled to some little consideration. He was astonished to hear Irish gentlemen opposing a measure which was intended to afford relief to their constituents. He thought some of those hon. members would make rather an awkward figure when they re-appeared before their constituents, and had nothing to say, but "I have given a great vote against you when your interests came under discussion"—[Hear! and a laugh].—The continuance of the present tax was a hardship; it was as much as to say, "You, Ireland, shall be kept in slavery, though we relieve ourselves from it, and though the tax we now impose on you was, in the time of king William, declared to be a badge of slavery too oppressive to be borne."

repelled the idea of Ireland being subjected either to oppression or slavery. The measure he was about to propose was for the relief of the people of that country, and was not intended to oppress them.

thought it was unfair to propose the repeal of the Irish hearth tax, at a time when England was saddled with Ireland's debts, without offering some other means by which the amount of the tax might be made good. He did not hear that any complaints existed in Ireland relative to the tax, save by the lower classes, and on that ground he had himself the honour of proposing a new regulation. He was rather surprised that, when those taxes, the hearth and window tax, had been raised some time past, neither the hon. baronet (sir H. Parnell) nor his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport) seemed inclined to propose a repeal or a reduction of them; but now, when his right hon. friend proposed a reduction, a total repeal was demanded. He hoped the House would not depart from its duty by any observations relative to the opinions of their constituents. He, for one, should not be affected by such observations. He was aware that he might be considered as bound to support the tax, but those who knew him must be convinced that no consideration could induce him to support a tax or any other measure which he did not fully conceive to be necessary.

was surprised that he should have been alluded to, or insinuations thrown out against him, when he had not offered a word on the subject.

declared, that he had no intention whatever of throwing out any insinuation against the right hon. baronet.

said, he must have mistaken the right hon. member with respect to the question before them. He conceived that the tax having been repealed in England in consequence of the severity with which its pressure was felt, might show to the House the impropriety of its continuance in Ireland. He acknowledged that as the tax was to be modified it would not be easy to find out one which pressed less heavily on the people; but as it appeared on the Statute Book that such a tax was an oppressive one, he wished, for the sake of consistency, that the chancellor of the exchequer would raise the annual sum of 40,000l. in some other manner. He should, however, protest against that doctrine, which said that no repeal of a tax, however grievous, ought to take place, unless the person proposing that repeal pointed out other means of raising a similar sum.

thought it would be better not to force his right hon. friend to substitute the house tax in lieu of the hearth tax, which must be the consequence of agreeing to the present amendment. The best course would be to continue the old duty until the next session, and then to consider whether some substitute could not be adopted.

Sir H. Parnell having consented to withdraw his amendment, the resolution was agreed to.

then moved, That a tax of 15s. per window, be paid on certain windows in Ireland, specified in the schedule.

said, that without then entering into the detail of the window tax, or of the solemn pledges given that it was to be repealed, as it was considered only a war tax, he meant to propose a farther reduction than that proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer. If a reduction of 50 per cent were to be made, it would be most beneficial to the poor, as it would reduce the tax upon seven windows from 15s. to 10s. He wished to inform the House, that in comparing the accounts of 1814 and 1818, it was found that no less than one-tenth of the windows of the kingdom of Ireland within that period had been closed up to avoid the tax, and he should appeal to the House whether such a circumstance was not calculated to have a most injurious effect, particularly on the poorer classes, by depriving them of air and light? Taxation in Ireland had within a short period increased with a rapidity which was grievously felt; and, if the taxes of England had increased with equal rapidity, that country, great as it was, must have severely felt the pressure of her taxes. It was stated, that there was a deficiency in the revenue of Ireland; but what was the cause of it? Inducements ought to be held out to absentees to return and reside in Ireland, by which measure there would be means afforded to the poor of procuring employment, and of paying their taxes. If the absentees paid their portion of the assessed taxes in Ireland, the benefit arising to that depressed country would be great. To England the pressure of the taxes in Ireland was very injurious, as Ireland was her best, or at least, one of her best customers. In 1813, the amount of the importation from this country into the different ports of Ireland, including the produce of the woollen manufactories and of the potteries, exceeded three millions, while in 1817, when the effects of taxation were severely felt, it amounted to a sum not much greater than 1,100,00l. The right hon. baronet concluded by moving, That the reduction of the window tax should be 50 instead of 25 per cent.

said, they had now, he trusted, come to their strong ground. By the returns on their table it appeared, that last year the tax had produced 54,311l. 6s. 2½d. less than it had in the preceding year. This was a proof that it was an improper tax, and not likely, at the present rate, to be beneficial. By allowing a reduction of 25 per cent, the chancellor of the exchequer admitted that the tax was heavier than the people could sustain; and, therefore, he trusted the right hon. gentleman would agree to the proposition of his right hon. friend, and lower it in a ratio of 50 per cent. No Jess than seven millions a year were taken from Ireland; which he conceived to be a sort of income tax. He begrudged, from his heart, the spending of that money in a hostile country, and he hoped every one who went there, from principles of curiosity or dissipation, would be disappointed in their views. The right hon. gentleman had a benevolent heart, and he hoped he would so far extend his benevolence, as to take off another 25 per cent in addition to that which he had already conceded. If he did so, he could assure him, that the people of Ireland would be both happy and grateful for the favour.

said, that if, as had been asserted, the faith of the Irish parliament was pledged not to continue this tax, on the conclusion of peace, then the House had scarcely any discretion on the subject. The legislature ought, as it appeared to him, in that case, to give up the tax. But he denied that this was the fact. When, on a former occasion, a right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunkett) had argued, from the preamble of the act of 1800, granting this tax; that it was meant to be continued only in time of war, not having the act by him, he was obliged to pass over that part of his statement. The preamble of that act sat forth, that, to support a certain number of men, the window tax was granted to his majesty for a year. This the right hon. and learned gentleman stated—but he forgot to state also, that, by the same act, many other duties and customs, on tea, sugar, wine, tobacco, &c. were also granted. So that if the right hon. and learned gentleman's argument proved any thing, it proved this, that all these duties, as well as that on windows, should be removed at the return of peace—a proposition that could not be maintained by any individual. If there were any intention to repeal this tax, some trace would be found of that intention in the proceedings of parliament. But none such could be discovered. He conceived, therefore, that the argument relative to the good faith of parliament having been pledged, fell to the ground. When he said this, he begged to observe, that he was sure the right hon. and learned gentleman, in making the statement he had done, was not influenced by a desire to mislead the House, but that he had quoted the preamble of the act, believing it to refer alone to the window tax. If it were considered merely as a war tax, it was very extraordinary, that in the years 1806–7, when the right hon. baronet rendered various annual taxes permanent, and this amongst the number, he never thought of making a special reservation with respect to it. As to the policy of doing away the tax, it was a subject that could alone be considered by a general reference to the state of the country. Now, in the last year, the total charge for Ireland, interest of the debt, miscellaneous services, &c. was 4,885,000l. The total revenue was 4,388,000l., leaving a deficiency of 497,000l. This would be increased to a very considerable extent by the redaction proposed by his right hon. friend; and, if a reduction of 50 per cent was agreed to, on the suggestion of the right hon. baronet, the additional deficit would be about 153,000l. Supposing, in future years, the finances of Ireland not to increase, this sum, added to the amount of the existing deficiency, would leave a sum of 560,000l.—a deficiency of revenue to meet existing charges in Ireland, which must be supplied by remittances from this country. The charge payable in England, on account of the Irish debt, was 4,476,000l. That extent of burthen, for which Ireland was pledged at the time of the Union, this country had taken on herself. If to that were added the deficiency in the consolidated fund of Ireland, the whole extent of burthen, for which this country had become liable on account of Ireland, would be found not less than 5,000,000l. per annum. What was the amount of the debt of Ireland, previous to the Union, the interest of which was chargeable on the revenue of Ireland? The interest, at the time of the Union, was 1,682,000l. The interest of the debt which Ireland at present paid was 1,690,000l., being only a difference of 8,000l. between the interest of the debt paid before the Union, and that which was paid at present. The expense of the civil list, the army establishment, &c. of Ireland, was, independent of the debt, 3,100,000l., and the income to meet it was 4,388,000l.—leaving the sum of 1,288,000l. applicable to the payment of the interest of the debt, and various other charges. Beyond that sum of 1,288,000l. Great Britain was bound to make good every deficiency. He did not mean to say, that she had not a right to do so. Undoubtedly she had, as the treasuries were consolidated. But he thought it was necessary to bring the fact distinctly before the House. These were considerations they could not leave out of the question, when they were called on to repeal a tax of this kind. It was useless to say, that his right hon. friend ought to repeal taxes, and also to find a substitute for them—as if he had any more interest in the repeal and application of taxes than any other individual in the country. The fact was, when he was called on to give up taxes, it ought to be considered how the exigencies of the country were to be provided for without them. Let the House recollect the number of taxes parliament had been asked to repeal in the present session. Discussions had taken place on the leather tax, the salt duties, the window tax, and several others. Now, he would put it to gentlemen, when it was stated, a few days since, that the public service required 21,000,000l. while the supply to meet it amounted to only 7,000;000l. whether they would compel his right hon. friend to give up sources of revenue, which were essentially necessary to the welfare of the state?

said, that his reason for not making an express reservation with respect to this tax in 1806–7, was, because he knew not, at the time of the existence of any such thing as a war tax in Ireland. No reservation was therefore necessary. He conceived that parliament was pledged, at the conclusion of peace, to remove this impost, whether they made good the sum for which it was said to be pledged by new regulations, or by imposing other taxes. But what he might have done in 1806–7 had nothing to do with the subject under consideration. Whatever his con duct might formerly have been, it could not preclude him from expressing his opinion now, as to that which appeared to him to be best for the public interest. This he should always do, as his consci ence dictated, without any view to popularity.

thought that some other mode of taxation would be preferable to the present; he left it to the fertile mind of the chancellor of the exchequer to devise what; he should only state, that 900 four wheel carriages, and 5,000 two wheel carriages, had been put down in Ireland in the last year. The same amount of taxation might be easily raised where the mode was not unpleasant. He knew a parish in Kilkenny where there had existed the greatest difficulty in collecting tithes, till the recter agreed to take 2s. 6d. an acre, and afterwards they were regularly paid.

said, it was unnecessary for him to touch on the subject of the good faith of parliament being pledged for the repeal of the window tax in time of war, that argument having been triumphantly refuted by his right hon. friend In adverting to this question, if they allowed themselves to be guided by the statements contained in the petitions of their constituents, they would have little discretion, left. No man lamented more deeply than he did the accumulated distresses to which different parts of Ireland had been subjected. But, when they were called on to remove taxes, this was not the only point they were to consider; it was for them to look to the state of the empire at large. He admitted that taxation had been laid on in Ireland, to an extent which defeated: its object; but when this was complained of, it should be recollected, that, if the system had not been resorted to, the consolidation of the treasuries could not have taken place. He contended that this country had acted most fairly towards Ireland. If the assessed taxes had not been raised to a level, nominally, with those of Great Britain, Ireland would, in the last year, have been chargeable with a sum of 6,800,000l., which England became accountable for, in consequence of the consolidation of the treasuries. When this was the fact, it was not fair to say, that the evils of Ireland were all attributable to the assessed taxes. It had been made a source of complaint, that, while England was freed from seventeen million of war taxes, none had been remitted in Ireland. The answer to this was evident Ireland, as the right hon. baronet had stated, had no war taxes, and, therefore, could be relieved from none. With respect to the subject immediately under consideration, he should only observe, that the House ought not to act from their feelings, but with a view to a conscientious though painful discharge of their duty. He should support the proposition of his right hon. friend for a diminution of 25 per cent, but he must oppose the motion which the right hon. baronet wished the House to accede to.

having expressed his sentiments fully on a former occasion, did not feel it necessary now to address the House at any length; but he wished to Call their attention to the speech of Mr. Corry, the chancellor of the Irish exchequer, when the window tax was first introduced by him, in which it was distinctly stated to be a war tax. So far from the proposed alleviation of the tax being likely to deteriorate the revenue, he felt satisfied that it would increase it. The hon. gentleman, in proof of this statement, quoted the returns, for several years, under the assessed taxes, from which it appeared, that, in every department, as the impost was increased, the sum derived from it was diminished, He felt it would be policy in the right hon. gentleman to agree to his right hon. friend's motion. He had received several communications from Dublin since the debate in that House on the window tax, and had particularly received one that morning from a physician, who stated that the offer which had been made from the board of excise, allowing persons, on application, to open those windows which had been closed to avoid the window tax, and which might be supposed necessary for the pro motion of health, had not been generally known, otherwise many more applications would have been made. Besides, as those windows were generally built up with lime and mortar, a certain inconvenience would ensue from taking advantage of this temporary accommodation.

observed, that no less than five chancellors of the exchequer for Ireland since the pledge was supposed to have been made respecting the removal of the window tax on the return of peace, and although some of them were known to entertain political sentiments very different from those of others, they all concurred in continuing the window tax, without ever supposing that they were violating the faith of parliament. He was convinced that his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer would feel a very sensible gratification in reducing in any way the burthens that pressed on Ire land; and of this a very manifest proof was given in the schedule now proposed, and which gave exemptions to every class of the people who could be supposed absolutely incapable of enduring the weight of the tax, It would not, however, be doing justice to his right hon. friend to confine their view to the window, tax alone; for if gentlemen would tafee the trouble of looking over the schedule of the assessed duties, they would find that the reduction of 25 per cent was fix-tended throughout. The value of this remission, he was convinced, would, be duly felt by the people of Ireland, and indeed his right hon. friend would perhaps require rather to justify himself to the English and Scotch members, for not ex- tending an equal remission to their constituents, than find a difficulty in excusing himself to the members for Ireland for not proceeding farther.

said, that after what had been stated by his right hon. friend, the secretary for Ireland, of the deficiency which actually existed in the public income of Ireland, it might appear absurd in him to vote for a farther diminution of 25 per cent on the window tax; but as members who had given that opinion, had been repeatedly called on to came any mode of supplying the deficiency thus created, he felt himself justified in the vote which he gave, by recommending to the chancellor of the exchequer a complete revision of the distillery system; as he was convinced that that branch of the revenue might, under due regulations, be made a source of supply for more than was wanted, instead of being, as now, productive in many instances of expense, and in some of much vexation.

observed, that he was ready to allow that no charge of want of impartiality existed against the government on the ground of taxation, as they had taken the fullest means to impose taxes upon England, Scotland, and Ireland to the utmost limit of their respective capacities. With regard to the tax then under discussion, the general impression in Ireland was, that it was a tax to continue only during the war; that though no bond was signed to that effect, it was understood that it should determine and cease with the return of peace. But then it was alleged, that it remained unrepealed during the short peace of Amiens, and that therefore, because the Irish people did not betray what was called "an ignotant impatience of taxation," they were not justified at this time in demanding its repeal. That was not, be it as it may, the strongest part of the case. It was a tax cruelly oppressive, barren in the production of revenue, but most fatally fertile in a harvest of disease, pestilence, and death. When the revenue was so trivial, and the direful effects so aggravated and destructive, he could not but wonder at the attempt to persevere. But of all the strange arguments in its support, none equalled that of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzgerald), who grounded the necessity of its continuance on the generous sacrifices made by England, in taking upon itself to pay the debt, as he called it, of Ireland. That was, in plain words, that ministers had made the people of England pay that debt, which the same ministers had incurred in Ireland. Gentlemen talked of the engagements of Ireland, and of her inability to discharge them. At what time, and under what circumstances, did these engagements take place? Were they not imposed by that foul act called the Union? An act which outraged every feeling of public honour and good faith. At the period of that forced connexion Ireland owed little or no debt. What the ministers had since incurred it was nonsense to call the debt of Ireland. But, forsooth, they were unwilling to press farther. For that determination the country owed them no obligation. They could not extend their taxes, because they had gone to their utmost limit. It was not, as had been said, the duty of the committee to find a substitute for the repeal of a tax. Parliament had a right to demand of the chancellor of the exchequer, before he sought an equivalent, to show that there existed no great sinecures, no unmerited pensions, no large military establishments, maintained for no good purpose. He would tell the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer that by reducing this tax and other hateful taxes such as that on illicit distillation, he would obtain a substitute, not indeed likely to give much to the exchequer, but which would prevent the necessity of much being taken out of it, namely, that tranquillity in Ireland, which would render a large military force in that country unnecessary.

expressed his decided hostility to the window tax, but in its place recommended an extension of the hearth tax. He was induced to propose this measure from having known that in Ireland, a running account was usually kept between the landlord and his tenants, in balancing which the unfortunate tenant was never known to see a single shilling in his favour. However, when the hearth tax was more extended, the balance in favour of the poor farmer was usually found to be two shillings, which the unfortunate man had the satisfaction of being enabled to hand over to the tax-gatherer.

observed, that nothing could be more painful to the feelings of his right hon. friend and his colleagues in office, than that of imposing burthens upon any part of the people, or more grateful to their wishes than that of al- leviating the imposts of the people of Ire-land, who had of late submitted to severe privations in a manner that highly redounded to the honour of the national character. But unfortunately it was not possible, consistently with their duty, to gratify their wishes to the fullest extent. They had, however, done all that was in their power. But this would not satisfy the hon. baronet. For, according to him, the reduction of places and pensions would enable the government to make still farther abatement. But that question had, he apprehended, been already amply discussed, and the impracticability of any material reduction of the public burthens from that quarter made sufficiently manifest. It, however, suited the hon. baronet still to maintain this language. He who recommended the country to abandon the prosecution of a necessary and glorious war rather than submit to some additional taxation might consistently advise, with the same professed view, the abandonment of that system which was necessary to secure the advantages of peace. But a great majority of that House would, he was persuaded, come to a very different conclusion, however the hon. baronet might delight in those pictures which he was so much in the habit of laying before that House. As to the window tax, he maintained that the Irish were as much, if not more, able to bear that burthen than the Scotch; and it was besides to be recollected, that the tax could not be said to bear hard on the poor of Ireland, as it never extended to houses having less than seven windows; yet it was now proposed to exempt certain houses from this tax altogether, while it was universally to be reduced to no less than 25 per cent. This amount of reduction was, indeed, to take place in all the Irish assessed taxes. How, then, could it be said that every thing practicable was not done to lighten the burthens of Ireland? It was indeed pretty obvious, considering the exigencies of the state, that if any farther abatement of the taxation of Ireland were adopted, a substitute must be provided in some other part of the empire, or the revenue would become very inadequate; and it would not surely be argued, that Ireland should not bear its fair share of the public burthens. England was notoriously kind towards Ireland, and it would not be equitable that the latter should trespass upon that kindness. With respect to the amount of the debt of Ireland, he was prepared to maintain, that that debt would have been much greater if it were not for the Union; for Ireland must have continued throughout the war to maintain its due share of the public expense, especially as it was the most exposed point of the empire to the attack of the enemy, and consequently its debt would have gone on increasing. It was idle, therefore, to assume that its advanced debt was in any degree owing to the Union; and the gentlemen of Ireland would much better employ their talents and influence in producing this impression upon the minds of their countrymen, than in encouraging that dissatisfaction which was felt in Ireland, as it was but too likely to be felt among any people, with regard to the pressure of taxes. These taxes did not, he contended, bear more in proportion upon Ireland than upon any other part of the empire, while instead of suffering any additional pressure from the Union, she was actually so much relieved by the operation of that measure, that no less than half a million of her proportion of the public taxes was at present defrayed from the resources of England. On these grounds he felt himself bound to take his share of the unpopularity which might attach to the objection expressed against the reduction of taxes proposed on the other side of the House.

approved of the course taken by ministers, and wished to take his full share of unpopularity for voting with them on the present question.

rose to rescue the resident gentry of Ireland from the reflection cast upon them by lord Carhampton. He could assure the House, that whatever might have been the practice at other times in Ireland, no such thing as was that night stated, was ever heard of, since the noble lord had sold his property in that country.

The committee divided: For the original motion, 80; Against it, 55; Majority, 25. The several Resolutions were then agreed to.