presented a Petition from the Merchants, Brokers, and others in the city of London engaged in the American trade, praying that an Act might be passed to regulate the Post-office revenue, and to leave parties at liberty to send their letters for foreign parts to the outports of this country, by whatever means they might think proper, without any control or interference on the part of the Postmaster-General. The petitioners had been in the habit of sending letters intended for America, since 1814—to Liverpool, for instance—by the most convenient conveyances, to be sent by the earliest despatch; that had gone on until the Postmaster-General had interfered and threatened prosecutions if it were longer persisted in, requiring that the letters should be transmitted through the Post-office. Every person in business must be aware how important it was for merchants to have their letters at the outports by given periods, as no one could stay the wind and tides. The Post-office could not insure the earliest and most certain despatch; and it might be most important that individuals should be at liberty to embrace the opportunity of sending off their letters early in the morning, instead of waiting till the evening. No doubt, by granting what the petitioners now asked for, a little postage revenue would be lost; but surely the postage of two or three thousand letters ought not to be put in competition with the interests of this great commercial country. He had had an interview with the petitioners, and with the Postmaster-General, and he found that his grace was disposed to render every facility to the petitioners in his power, but the petitioners were decidedly of opinion that he could not affrod them the required facilities without an alteration being made in the law as it now stood.

wished that some person more intimately connected with the Post-office than he was had been present to give an explanation. The hon. Gentleman had done justice to the noble Postmaster-General in saying he was desirous of affording every facility in his power to the transmission of letters by merchants here to their foreign correspondents; but there was nothing more unpleasant than that an executive officer should be charged with a discretionary power. It was very well known, that it was a great annoyance to be put to the trouble of answering letters—it was equally well known, that it was a great annoyance to be put to the trouble of paying the postage of them, and the anxiety shown to get franks pretty clearly proved how desirous persons were that their friends should not be put to the latter annoyance. On the other hand, it was the duty of the Postmaster-General to take care that all the revenue that ought fairly to come from the transmission of letters should be obtained. The mode of trans mitting ship letters to the outports, adverted to by the hon. Member who had presented this petition, had gone on until a most glaring abuse had been detected. An irregular Post-office had in fact been established at a coffee-house, without the knowledge of the Postmaster-General, for the convenience of persons sending to their foreign correspondents; that post-office actually charged the inland postage upon the letters so transmitted; and even that practice might have gone on to this day, but it was found that the bag belonging to that post-office actually contained letters for persons merely residing at the outports, and thereby a direct fraud was committed on the revenue. Upon this discovery taking place, it was impossible to suffer the practice to be continued.

did not mean to bring any charge against the Postmaster-General, but quite the contrary. With respect to the abuse which had been mentioned by the right hon. Baronet, only one letter of the description alluded to had been discovered in the foreign bag; and that had found its way there without the cognizance of those who had the ostensible charge of making it up—the proprietors of the North and South American Coffee-house. However, as the trade of London was deeply concerned, he hoped the authorities of the Post-office would do every thing in their power to satisfy the merchants and the trade generally.

presented a Petition from the National Political Union of Newcastle-on-Tyne, against the system of Police adopted in the Metropolis. The Petition staled the abhorrence of the Petitioners at the conduct of Popay, who was a member of that novel and unconstitutional force called the New Police, the members of which were employed as spies, as instigators of mischief, ensnaring, betraying, and coercing the people. In those opinions, and in that description, he most cordially concurred, and the whole of it had been proved to be correct, by the evidence taken before the Committee, whose report was presented last night. He did not approve of that report, and so he told the rest of the Committee, and he told them also that he would say so in the House; it fell so far short of what he approved of, and of what he felt due to the petitioners, to the House, and the country, that he could never give his consent to it. He knew, when he first presented the petition, that not a Member of the House could have believed the facts stated in it were true. The petition divided itself into eighteen different allegations, every one of which had been distinctly substantiated. If the petitioners had gone further, if they had multiplied their allegations tenfold, they would not have exceeded the truth. The witnesses, without exception, proved themselves to be men of good character; and after the indulgence of a fortnight given to Government and the Commissioners, nothing could be brought forward to impeach their character or testimony. They had before them the most infamous spy ever employed by any government in the world, and he was proved to be guilty of the grossest prevarication and barefaced falsehood. The superintendent also had been found guilty of equal prevarication, which must be taken notice of by the House. They had traced the money into the hands of the spy, from the Secretary of State himself, and the only comfort they received was, that it had not come out of the parish funds, but from the Home-office, out of that secret service money which that House voted every year. They had fixed the same prevarication, though not to the same extent, on the Commissioners themselves; and he did not see how the House could refuse calling them to the bar. Government had been clearly convicted of encouraging and supporting a notorious system of espionage. The word was unknown to our language; happy would it be if the thing itself were unknown to our Government. He did not ascribe to his Majesty's Ministers any wish to establish such a system. He never had ascribed it to them. But something must be done. The House must either say, that the spy system was proper, and that Government could not go on without it, or they must put a stop to it at once and for ever. It might be supposed that he was prejudiced against the police. But could any prejudice do away with the effect of the evidence taken before the Committee? When hon. Members read that evidence, they would be satisfied, either that the system must be put an end to, or that Government must become the detestation of the people. The whole of the allegations in the original petition had been proved, mainly by the confessions of the person principally implicated, and that of the superintendents; as well as by the acknowledgments of the Commissioners. It was at first declared that it was only the working classes whose proceedings spies were sent to observe. It was denied that they were sent to such assemblies as the Political Union at Saville House, or to any such meeting as one at which Mr. Hume would preside. But on the second examination reports were produced from spies who had attended at parochial meetings; and also at a meeting at which Mr. Hume had presided; and a statement was given of what had been said by that hon. Gentleman in the chair. The openness of this spy system was extraordinary. At the funeral of Mr. Hardy, the spy walked arm in arm in the procession with a member of the Political Union of the working classes. Arrived in the churchyard, he perched himself on a tomb-stone (fit place for such an occupant), while Mr. Thelwall pronounced the funeral oration. He then reported what he had witnessed to his employers. By accident this report was mixed up with the report of another spy; and in the latter this curious expression was attributed to Mr. Thelwall:—"Now Reform is come; where are your tyrants now? Where are your spies now?" Little did that gentleman know that there were at that moment at his elbow two spies; prepared to curry to the Secretary of State everything that fell from his lips. He (Mr. Cobbett) did not believe that the noble Lord was at all desirous of subjecting the people of England to such a system. He believed that what had occurred had not proceeded from any settled design. But it was for that House to take care that the system should be put an end to. He had, on a former occasion, observed to the Solicitor-General, that if the peace-officers carried swords, the people would carry knives. If the system was not put an end to. Government would become irretrievably the detestation of the people. The hon. Member then presented another petition from the town of Nottingham, to the same effect, declaring, that the petitioners saw with detestation and disgust, that the odious system of spies had recommenced. He was persuaded that the noble Lord would do what justice, humanity, and a wish to preserve the peace of the country required; but he should certainly be glad to receive Some pledge on the subject.

thought the hon. member for Oldham had not acted fairly towards the House in making garbled and exaggerated statements of the evidence given on the Committee. With every respect for the hon. Member's talents, he could not think he could in five minutes give the pith of the evidence which it had taken the Committee a month to obtain. When the evidence was before the House, the House would judge of the conduct of the police. In the mean time, he would only say, that he disbelieved the statements of the hon. Gentleman, and that he had in another Committee, heard testimony to the good conduct of the police.

said, that a more exaggerated statement than that which had been made by the hon. member for Oldham he had never heard. What could the hon. Member mean, or expect, by thus prejudging the case? It was a most unfair attempt on his part to create an unfair impression within those walls, and a popular clamour out of doors. He hoped, however, that at least the House would not be carried away by any such misrepresentation.

said, that at the time this report was agreed upon, some conversation took place respecting the propriety of raising a discussion upon its being brought up to the House; and he knew it was the decided opinion of the Committee that it would be most unfair and improper—not to say unusual—that when a Report was presented to the House, accompanied by voluminous evidence, any individual Member of the Committee should endeavour to impress on the minds of the House, and of the public, any opinion on the subject. The hon. member for Oldham certainly did not scruple to let the Committee know that he thought differently; but that hon. Gentleman stood alone. It appeared to him that the discussion of the subject at present was inconvenient, and might be productive of mischief. The best course would be to say nothing more about it. Before sitting down, however, he would observe, that the hon. member for Oldham had most irregularly taken away the police Reports which had been furnished to the Government, and by the Government to the Committee, without having any right so to do, and of which Reports he had kept possession for at least two days.

observed, with respect to the Reports to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, that when it was found that the police spies had written reports, it was of course the duty of the Committee to require their production. Having been produced, they became evidence; and he was for laying them before the House. The Committee, however, determined otherwise. The day after they had been laid before the Committee, he inquired of the hon. Alderman who filled the Chair, (and who had exhibited the utmost diligence in his office), what had become of them? Who replied that they were at his house, and that he had read through a great part of them during the previous night. He (Mr. Cobbett) then said to the hon. Alderman, "Well, Wood, suppose I sit up, and read a good part of them to night." He got them, and did read a good part of them that night. On bringing them back to the Committee, he intended, if possible, to read them through, and remained in the room after the Committee had all dispersed, perusing those reports. Mr. Witham, the Clerk, probably preferring his (Mr. Cobbett's) room to his company, told him they would not be wanted again till Monday, and that he had better take them home with him, where he could read them more conveniently. He did so, and brought them back to the Committee on the Monday, having in the interim, the House might be sure, read every syllable, and having indexed them, and numbered them throughout. If the other Members of the Committee had not read them as attentively as he had, that was their fault.

rose to order, and submitted that these observations could not be considered to fall within the hon. Gentleman's reply.

What the hon. member for Oldham is saying, does fall within the orders of the House. But even if it did not do so, the statements of the hon. Member are of very great importance. After the very candid avowal which the hoa. member for Oldham has made, with reference both to himself and to another hon. Member, it is clear that he and that other hon. Member have been acting under the purest, although under the grossest misapprehension. No Member of a Select Committee has the slightest right to carry away any of the public documents which may have been furnished that Committee. The hon. member for Oldham says, that the Clerk of the Committee told him that he might take home the papers in question. If the hon. Member had applied to me, I should have told him that I had no power to authorise him to do so; and that I could never give my sanction to such a proceeding. When a Select Committee of this House is engaged in the investigation of any public question, and sends for information on the subject to any public officer, that public officer may frequently think it the best way to give entire the documents in which the required information is to be found. But if, when the entire documents are so committed into the hands of hon. Gentlemen, they are to be taken away to their houses, to be looked through, and sifted, and commented upon, one of two things must be the result—either that the public officers will in future stingily confine themselves to the production of the precise papers required by a Committee, or that, if they give the entire documents, it must be with the understanding that no Member of that Committee will use them for any purpose except that for which the Committee was appointed. After the candid avowal of the hon. member for Oldham, it is evident that both he and the hon. member for the city of London, to whom he has alluded, have proceeded on an entire misunderstanding in this matter; but such having been the case, the House will not perhaps think it inconvenient, on so important a subject, that I have taken the opportunity to make these remarks.

said, in objecting to the Motion, he hoped the hon. Member and the House would believe, that his opposition did not affect the principle involved, and that he fully acquiesced in every feeling of reprobation which had been expressed on the subject of the disgraceful attacks on the religious establishments of one of the colonies. But the object which the hon. Member had in view, however desirable in itself, was totally distinct from the object of the present Bill. Incidentally with the present Bill, to be sure, the general toleration principles which obtained in England were to be sanctioned in the colonies; but the hon. Member wished to apply a specific Act where circumstances did not warrant the interference. It should be recollected that the disgraceful outrages which were referred to had occurred, not in all, but in one colony only, and it would be throwing an imputation on the other colonies, in which religious toleration was not only professed but practised, to introduce the clause into this general Bill. It was, how- ever, a subject which must early come under the consideration of the Local Assembly; and he assured the hon. Gentleman, that unless the Assembly listened to the Government, and gave such fair protection to places of worship, as they were entitled to demand—Ministers themselves would take such stops in the next Session as would be necessary fully to accomplish that purpose. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion under such an assurance as that which, on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, he then gave.

said, that many instances of severe punishment inflicted on men merely for their religious opinions might be found in the colonies. The case of Henry Williams was one of that kind, and he was not aware that the man had in that case committed any other offence than that of professing his religious opinions. These oppressions were practised by men of high rank in society in the colonies. They were permitted, if not practised, by Magistrates, and he knew no instance in which they had been removed from their situations. Nor was he aware that justice had yet been done upon those who had attacked and demolished the meeting-houses. No language was strong enough to reprobate misconduct such as that he had noticed, and he hoped it would meet with its fitting punishment. He recommended the hon. Member, however, under present circumstances, to withdraw the Motion.

could not consent to do so.

said, that the House could not, at the present time, do what the hon. Member required. There was no doubt that Parliament possessed the right of legislating in case of necessity for the colonies; but there was no man who would not be ready to say, that that right was one which ought to be exercised only in extreme cases, and when nothing else would effect the important objects of the Mother Country. The question was, whether there was such a cause for interference at the present moment? Another House of Assembly had just been summoned, and it would be premature for the Parliament to interfere till it was known what that House would do. He agreed with the hon. member for Weymouth, that no expressions were too strong to be applied to the conduct of those who had attacked and destroyed the Meeting Houses. If such conduct was still perse- vered in, it would be necessary to see what means could be adopted to punish it.

said, that if the Local Legislatures did not agree to some measures for the protection of religious worship, he should not offer any obstacles to any measure that the Government might introduce on the subject.

, in the belief that the Government would introduce some measure, if it should be rendered necessary, would withdraw the present Motion.

objected to the Bill—not because it removed penalties which he allowed were severe in the extreme, and which he desired to see mitigated—but because it did not substitute any more mild and adequate ones in their stead. It would give impunity to the Roman Catholic priest who might solemnize a clandestine marriage, while it left the minister of the Established Church liable to punishment. The 6th Anne, ch. 16, for the protection of minors, made it highly penal, both in the clergy of the Established Church, and in Roman Catholic priests, to celebrate marriages in the cases there specified; but this Bill was to relieve the Roman Catholic priest, while it would allow the Established clergy to remain subject to the penalty: for the 12th George 1st extended it, in its utmost severity, to a degraded clergyman of the establishment—and, if he was not degraded, the canons and rules of his church were a sufficient control over him; but that statute, also, was only to be repealed so far as it regarded the Roman Catholic priest. He felt that the whole marriage law called loudly for revision, and he hoped that would soon be undertaken; but, in the mean time, he objected to the penalties being removed for performing clandestine marriages by Roman Catholic priests. He thought that the offence should be made a misdemeanor, as proposed by the Solicitor General for Ireland last year; otherwise he was persuaded that clandestine marriages would be greatly multiplied, and all the mischief and confusion arise to which they inevitably lead.

said, that his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) principally confined his objections to the 6th Anne—but this Bill left that Act as it stood at present. The clause in that Act subjected Protestant clergymen solemnising a clandestine marriage to degradation, and all other persons, and those assisting at same, to transportation. It was another clause that this respected.

said, the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) were quite inapplicable to the present stage of the Bill. His objections were to the principle of the Bill; and there was no one recital in it to which his observations applied. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained, that the Bill placed Protestant and Roman Catholic clergymen on a different footing. Its object certainly was to place them on precisely the same footing, and if any clause in it affected a Protestant, or a dissenting clergyman, let the hon. Gentleman point it out and amend it. The law, as it at present stood, was cruel in the extreme. How was a Roman Catholic priest to know who was a Roman Catholic, or who was not? And yet the law inflicted the penalty, not merely in the case of the person being a Protestant at the time, but if he happened to have been one twelve months before. In Galway a priest married a couple—the man was a soldier, and both parties declared that they were Roman Catholics. A serjeant of the regiment corroborated the man's statement, and it turned out afterwards that the man was a Protestant. As the case stood, the priest, nevertheless, was subject to the penalty.

said, that his great objection to the Bill as it stood was, that while it remitted all penalty with respect to the priest celebrating the marriage, it admitted that the marriage itself must he null. It inflicted the severest possible penalty on the parties contracting the marriage—it stamped the female as a concubine, and bastardized the children, while it inflicted no penalty whatsoever upon the clergyman. Now he would ask was that a Bill which the Committee was prepared to sanction? Should the Bill pass, it would give the greatest possible encouragement to seduction of the worst description—namely, that perpetrated under the form of marriage. A few years since a Protestant clergyman was tried at Maryborough (he believed) for improperly solemnizing a marriage. He was tried for the offence—was convicted, imprisoned, and deprived of his benefice. It was, therefore, not correct, as stated in the preamble of the Bill, that no clergyman but Roman Catholic clergymen were subject to penalties. In the case of Mr. Macarry, who had been prosecuted at Deny, the form of the certificate that he required to be signed by the parties was as follows:—"We, the undersigned, profess ourselves members of the Irish Roman Catholic Church in all its purity." If the parties signed this, a licensed seduction could be perpetrated by this Bill.

said, that the country owed much to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Perrin) for bringing forward a measure to repeal laws which were a disgrace to the Statute-book. Would the House believe, that as the law now stood, a Roman Catholic priest found guilty of marrying a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, might suffer the penalty of death. There was some doubt as to whether or no the Act of 1792 repealed that statute, but in his opinion it did not; and if any one were so ill advised as to frame an indictment upon it, a conviction might be had, and the penalty of death be incurred. Be this as it might, however, there was no doubt that another Act was in existence, which inflicted a penalty of 500l. upon the priest. It reflected little credit upon the Parliament which had passed these statutes, a Parliament which the hon. and learned member for Dublin was anxious to revive. He considered them as the last existing remnant of the infamous penal code, and the sooner they were expunged from the Statute-book the better. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by stating, that the Bill then before the Committee had his entire approbation.

was surprised, that the learned Solicitor General wasted the time of the Committee in so vehemently declaiming against penalties which he (Mr. Shaw) had not defended; on the contrary, he had last year supported the Bill which the Irish Solicitor General brought in, abolishing those penalties, but making the offence a misdemeanour. That was all he (Mr. Shaw) desired now. It was the Government and their supporters who had changed, not him, (Mr. Shaw). With respect to the 6th of Anne, he relied not only on his own opinion—for he had communicated on the subject with some of the highest legal authorities in Ireland, and they were of opinion, that the present Bill would repeal the provisions of that Act which were remedial, as well as those which were protective.

said, that if any proof were wanting of the necessity that existed of revising the law of marriage, it had been afforded in the course of the discussion that evening. When he found, that the validity of a marriage might depend upon the religion of one of the parties twenty-five years before, he owned he considered a case was made out to demand the interference of the Legislature. His objection to the present Bill was, that it did not go far enough. He knew of no statute inflicting penalties on clergymen of the established religion. [Mr. Shaw: The 6th of Anne.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the Bill would relieve the priest from a penalty, and leave the Protestant clergyman subject to one, let him bring up a clause in the Report to place them on an equality, and the hon. Member should have his support. The only extent to which this Bill went, was to relieve the priest from the penalty of 500l,. and from that penalty he ought to be relieved. He hoped another Session would not pass over their heads without taking the whole marriage law into consideration.

said, no exemption was required in favour of the Roman Catholic priest that was not equally shared by the Protestant clergyman.

said, he would adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) respecting the 6th of Anne, and, on the Report, bring up a clause declaring, that the Bill should not affect the fifth section of that Act. He would also, to save the time of the Committee, defer till the Report proposing his other clause, which should be in the words of the Solicitor General for Ireland last year, simply making the offence a misdemeanour in all cases.

would take that opportunity of bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He could assure the House that, in offering himself to its notice at that moment he felt he was doing that which, no doubt, many Members would think unnecessary after the decisions to which the House had already come with respect to the House and Window-tax. But he would admit, that he was not altogether in a situation in which he could wholly judge for himself. A large and highly respectable portion of his constituents felt, that they were placed by the course which Government had adopted in a situation, to justify them n again calling upon the House to re-consider some of its proceedings in which their interests had not been sufficiently attended to. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had in an early period of the Session admitted the severe pressure of the House and Window-tax, and expressed himself favourable to the repeal of the whole as soon as the financial circumstances of the country would permit, but that at present it was impossible to dispense with so large an amount of taxation. After that declaration of the noble Lord, and after the decisions to which the House had come on the subject, he (Mr. Hume) should not have felt it necessary to urge the matter again on its consideration if, as he had said, a great number of his constituents had not pressed upon him a subject which he fully admitted deserved the serious consideration of the House—namely, the great inequality, and therefore the great unfairness and injustice, with which the House-tax particularly fell upon them as compared with its pressure upon other parts of the community, not only in the metropolis, but in other parts of the kingdom. The noble Lord had at one time proposed to give relief as to the House-tax to the extent of 300,000l. of its amount; but some change was for a time made in his plan by the decision to which the House had come with respect to the Malt-tax. That decision was, however, subsequently set aside, in the fear that it would induce the necessity of imposing a Property-tax. The people, however, were in that state that they thought the whole of the tax on houses ought to be taken off. The whole amount was about 1,250,000l., and of this the noble Lord consented to give up about 470,000l.; but the complaint against the tax was not so much as to its amount as to its mode of collection, and the unequal manner in which it was levied. That mode and that inequality were the constant sources of annoyance and irritation to a large majority of those who were called on to pay it; and it was on that ground that he would press it on the attention of the noble Lord. It would, he thought, be difficult to point out any tax in the whole range of taxation which was more unequal in its operation than that to which he now referred. He would state a few examples taken from returns lately placed on the table of the House, showing the comparative amount of rating on 100 of the highest rated houses of persons not engaged in trade, in London, in Middlesex, Brighton, Bath, Bristol, and in ten counties in England. From these it would appear that the pressure of this tax was most unequal, and he held that every tax which pressed unequally was unjust. From the returns to which he had referred, it appeared that the House of the Duke of Devonshire in the county of Derby, which everybody knew was a most splendid mansion, was rated at only 100l. a-year, and paid a House-duty of no more than 14l. 3s. 4d. Lord Scarsdale's house, Kedleston Hall, was rated at the same amount, and paid the same tax. The house of the Earl of Harrington was rated at only 60l. That of the Earl of Chesterfield paid little more. The Earl of New-burgh's was rated at only 60l., while his (Mr. Hume's) own house, in Bryanstonsquare, which was only a very moderately sized house, was rated at 350l.; so that, in fact, he had to pay about five times as much House-duty as the owners of those splendid residences which he had named. In other parts of the country the disproportion in the rating was equally evident. The splendid residence of Sir Thomas Baring was rated at only 150l.; that of the Earl of Carnarvon at no more than 80l. The hon. Member went through a list of houses, in order to show the great inequality of the tax. London paid about half the amount of House-duty raised in all England. In 1792, the tax amounted to 192,000l.; in 1815, the sum raised had increased to 1,088,000l.; in 1820, it was 1,156,000l.; and last year it reached 1,296,000l.; these were the amounts levied in England. In Scotland, the tax amounted in 1792 only to 6,703l.; in 1815, it had risen to 73,500l.; in 1820, it was 86,700l.; and, 1832, 94,700l. The progressive increase of the tax would be perceived from this statement. He had further to complain that the tax was not equally imposed on different parts of the kingdom. The House-tax was laid on in Ireland in 1808, and taken off in 1817, and the Window-tax was remitted in that country in 1823–4. In addition to those indulgences, we were now going to pay tithes for Ireland. Was it to be supposed that the English people would be satisfied with such a course. The value of property in London, more especially House-property, had decreased up to the present time, in a greater ratio than in other parts of the country. The observation applied with particular force to the eastern part of London—for instance, the Tower Hamlets. This tax, which had been borne cheerfully in times of prosperity, now fell heavily upon the inhabitants in their depressed condition, and threatened to depopulate that part of the town. Under such circumstances, it was equally the duty and policy of Ministers to relax the burthens of the people. The pressure of the tax in question fell with peculiar weight on the Metropolitan districts. According to a paper which he held in his hand, and which contained statements that varied little, if at all, from those made by the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury a short time ago, it appeared, that Middlesex stood first in the amount of House and Window-duty paid in 1832. In that year, there was paid in Middlesex alone, on account of the taxes specified, 1,039,878l. Surrey came next—its payment being 192,000l. With the exception of York and Lancaster, the other English counties paid comparatively trifling sums. Thus it appeared that the question of relief from the tax related more especially to the metropolitan districts. In no other place could relief be more required. The retail shops, that had hitherto paid the greater proportion of the rates, had gradually been deprived of their custom by the establishment of immense houses, which carried on business to the extent of some millions in the year. The profits of retail dealers were lessened, and the business formerly divided among a considerable number was now confined to a few. Under such circumstances, the pressure of a tax like the present was most severely felt. A question had arisen as to the party who paid the tax; some maintaining that it was paid by the landlord, others that the burthen was borne by the tenant. The question did not appear to him very material. He thought, that at the present moment, the tax fell upon the landlord: when houses were in demand, undoubtedly it fell upon the tenant. He considered the impost to operate as a Property-tax of 14½ per cent, upon houses, from which other species of property were exempt. Whether the tax fell upon landlord or tenant, or was divided between both, relief was loudly demanded by considerations of justice and policy. The number of inhabited houses in Great Britain was 2,326,000. of which 369,163 were rated to the House-tax. Farmhouses, to a very considerable number, were exempt. He objected to the exemption, and contended, that if this were a Property-tax, it ought to be general. But the tax proceeded on no intelligible principle—it was objectionable as being unequally levied and partially applied. Taking the general house rental at 11,000,000l., it would be found that London, Middlesex, and Surrey, paid House-tax upon 6,170,000l., considerably more than half of the entire rental. The alterations about to be made in the trade with India, taken in connexion with other commercial changes, must tend to impoverish the metropolis, and upon that ground, if not on any other, the inhabitants were entitled to every indulgence. The tax of which he complained was not only partial and unequal, but, in the highest degree, vexatious. No other tax was levied under such aggravating circumstances. The surveyors or assessors had an interest in raising the assessment as high as possible, and they were so situated as scarcely to be exempt from the influence of the wealthy in their respective districts. It followed as a matter of course that the wealthy were favoured. In Middlesex alone 3,637l. was paid to the surveyors for surcharges in 1830; in 1826, the sum paid on the same account was 3,498l. An aggregate sum of 27,339l. was paid on account of surcharges in 1830 as a premium to men acting in the capacity of spies. Every surveyor who could make out a surcharge of 100l. obtained 20l. for himself. He must call it an absurd tax, as long as the Duke of Devonshire's splendid palace at Chatsworth was valued at 100l., while a small shop in the Strand was rated at twice the amount. The amount of surcharges in eight years, from 1820 to 1829, was 677,000l. (there being no return for 1821 or 1822); which gave an average of 85,000l. for each year. Since the passing of the Reform Bill he had reason to believe, that the average of surcharge was double the former amount. 2,379 persons were surcharged in London and Middlesex in the year ending April, 1832. Many persons (particular professional men) paid the surcharges, however unjust, rather than attend for the purpose of resisting them. Such proceedings must give rise to great dissatisfaction; and it was unwise to continue a tax which excited such strong objections among the community at large. To insist upon the tax under such circumstances was running the risk of losing the whole of it—as in the case of tithes in Ireland. In some parishes resolutions had been proposed, pledging the inhabitants not to pay Assessed Taxes; and he called upon the noble Lord (Althorp) to reflect upon this, and decline to persist in enforcing an unpopular tax. The Revenue would not lose the whole amount of the tax, should it be remitted, the deficiency being made up in part, if not altogether, by an increase in other branches of the Revenue. Such had been the result in former cases of reduction of taxation, and, no doubt, the same thing would happen again if the House-duty were taken off. The reduction for which he asked would not occasion a diminution of more than 500,000l. in the Revenue; he put it to the noble Lord, whether it was worth his while to contend against the united feelings of the inhabitants of the Metropolis for the sake of a few hundred thousand pounds, particularly at a time when the Government had given millions to the colonies and Ireland. It might be said, that this was a late period of the Session to propose reductions; but was it too lute to practise economy? It was never too late to vote away money, as appeared by the Bill granting 20,000,000l. to the planters, which had only just left the House. The House had voted 89,760 men for the army, although the number in 1822 was only 68,802; 12,237 for the artillery (one-third of which force might be dispensed with); and 28,75,9 for the navy, the number in 1822 being 21,000. In these three items alone the noble Lord, might without difficulty, make reductions sufficient to cover the proposed remission of taxation. The circumstances connected with the state of Turkey, and Holland, and Belgium, which might have justified us in maintaining a large fleet and army, had now passed away; and the time was favourable for reduction. The people expected relief from taxation, though he acknowledged that, from the period of the accession to office of the present Ministers up to January last, upwards of 2,500,000l. had been taken off. What might have been done since January he could not exactly say, but doubted not that the amount of reduction would appear considerable. There were, however, yet a great number of items of expense, in which reductions might be made so as to admit of remissions of taxation. Government might deal with pensions and sinecures on a much more extensive scale. The expenses of Courts of Justice (987,476l. per annum), which were incurred without administering equal and effectual justice to the great mass of the community, might be considerably lessened. He might here observe, that he did not object so much to the expense of our judicial system, as to its inequality and inefficiency. He regretted that a Bill recently proposed, which would have carried justice to every man's door, had not become the law. The expense of the diplomatic service for 1832 was 330,000l., and, of that, not less than 150,000l. might be dispensed with. The miscellaneous estimates came to 1,800,000l., in which considerable reductions might be made. Assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the proposed remission of the House-duty, the noble Lord would not require the money till the end of next year, as the Assessed-taxes of the year were always in arrear: under these circumstances, there would be plenty of time to provide for the deficiency by reductions in the next Session of Parliament. He asked the noble Lord to take off the tax prospectively from the 5th of October. The noble Lord had stated, that the Revenue was in an improving state, and that the improvement was likely to continue. In this he agreed with the noble Lord; being satisfied, if the people were employed and fairly remunerated, as he trusted they would be, that the Revenue must go on increasing; and he, therefore, apprehended no danger of a deficiency in the Exchequer from the adoption of his proposition. He must again remind the noble Lord of the objectionable nature of the tax, the expectations entertained that it would be remitted, and the disappointment which must result from its maintenance. He meant to propose, that a Committee of the whole House should be formed to consider the Assessed-taxes Act, with a view to a Resolution declaratory of an intention to repeal the House-duty. That would be all that would be at present required to satisfy the people. He was convinced that the noble Lord could adopt the proposition without danger to the Exchequer, without impairing the efficiency of the public service, or risking a violation of the public faith; and he was also convinced, that the noble Lord could not oppose the proposition without some danger. The hon. Member moved, accordingly, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House.

seconded the Motion; and observed, that it might be disputed whether the House-duty was a Property-tax or not, but it could not be denied that it was an unequal tax on industry. As an unjust and an unequal Property-tax, which he maintained it to be, no less than it was a war-tax, he opposed its continuance. If a Property-tax were established, it should embrace all the fixed property of the country, land as well as houses. Some contended that a Property-tax ought to extend to capital in the public funds, while others denied that proposition. But, however that might be, there could be no doubt that a Property-tax ought to be discontinued in reference to houses, or else such a tax ought to be applied to land. He pressed upon the noble Lord that, if the tax must be continued, at least it was not too late to correct the gross irregularities and inequalities that existed in its application. He had heard of an instance of two houses of business at Liverpool being rated at 350l. or 380l. a-year, while the splendid mansions of noblemen in the immediate neighbourhood were rated considerably lower. The instances of unequal and disproportionate assessment were so well known and so numerous that it would be tedious and unnecessary to dwell upon them. He would mention the case of a small house, next to Northumberland-house, which occupied a space of fourteen feet by twelve, and paid a rate that, computed on the ground it covered, amounted to 7s. a-foot, whilst Northumberland-house was only rated at 4d. a-foot. It was true, that by the Bill passed last night partially relaxing the Assessed-taxes, the rate upon the small house in question would be reduced to 3s. 6d. a-foot. Still the inequality between it and Northumberland-house would be immense. In case the Motion of his hon. friend should be negatived, he would move two Resolutions—the one to the effect that all taxes should be justly and equally applied; and the second that the House-duty in particular, and the Window-duty in a lesser degree, as at present assessed, were levied and recovered from individuals, towns, and districts, in a most grievous, unequal, unjust, and oppressive manner.

said, that he did not see how it was possible to introduce anything of novelty into a discussion of this kind, as this was the fourth time that the question had been under the consideration of the House during the present Session. The first discussion was upon a general Motion brought forward by the hon. member for Worcester; there was another discussion on it on a Motion brought forward by one of the honorable members for the city of London; there was a third discussion of it upon a Motion introduced by the hon. member for Marylebone; and now it was for the fourth time brought under discussion on the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. Seeing, therefore, that the question had been so repeatedly discussed during the present Session, he did not think that much novelty of argument was to be anticipated on it, or that the House could expect much novelty in what he (Lord Althorp) had to say on the subject. His hon. friend had said, that this tax had formed the subject of very general complaint. He did not deny that,—especially the surcharges connected with it; and yet a great reduction had been made in the amount of the tax from 1822 to 1825. During that time there had been the extraordinary number of 643,240 houses left out of the assessment; so that, in point of fact, the number of houses subject to the tax in 1822 was, 999,880, and in 1825 that number was reduced to 348,855; so considerable had been the reduction which had been made in the number of houses taxed. He was ready to admit that one effect of this tax was—that it pressed heavier upon the metropolis than it did upon the country districts, and for this, amongst other reasons, that being a tax merely upon the rental of the house, without reference to the land attached to it, the rental of houses in Town was much higher in proportion (and the tax of course proportionally heavier) than that of similar houses in the country. He was also ready to allow, that there were circumstances at present in the existing posture of affairs that might render the metropolitan districts less prosperous, and therefore less able to bear the burthen of this tax, than they had heretofore been. There might be a tendency in some of the new measures that were in progress—in that especially which regarded the East-India Company—to diminish for a time the prosperity of at least one portion of those districts; and they might therefore, on that account, seek for the reduction of this tax, which pressed peculiarly upon them. But it should not be forgotten, that with regard to one impost greater relief had been within the last few years afforded to the metropolis than to other parts of the country—he alluded to the reduction of the Coal-tax, a very large proportion of which was levied upon the metropolitan districts. From that tax they had been relieved. His hon friend seemed to think, that the same objection applied to a House-tax as to a Property tax, but his hon. friend was mistaken in that opinion. The objection to a Property tax—the objection on the ground of which that tax was abolished in 1816—was of quite a different description, and could not be applied at all to the House-tax. His hon. friend had complained of the severe nature of the revenue laws, with respect to the collection of this tax. He (Lord Al thorp) was afraid that whatever system of taxation should be adopted, it would be necessary to have severe revenue laws in existence, in order to enforce the payment of such taxes when due. Mere justice to those who willingly paid their proportion of the public taxes required the strict enforcement of their payment from all. Could any laws be more severe, and necessarily severe, than the excise laws? He would admit, that the system of surcharges was one that had caused great vexation, and he would only say, that, as far as he could, he wished to discourage the system of vexatious surcharges. The House, however, must be aware that it was almost impossible for a person filling the situation he did to throw such a discouragement upon the officers of the revenue as might tend to render them remiss in the discharge of their duties. He was ready to admit that, under the present system of surcharges, the pay of the surveyors was made too much to depend upon the amount of the surcharges. He hoped, that an arrangement would be made with regard to the collection of the Assessed Taxes, so that surveyors would be made to depend more upon a fixed annual income for their remuneration than upon the amount of surcharges. This tax could not be defended as a good thing in itself—it could only be defended as necessary to keep up the amount of the revenue required to meet the expenditure of the country. His hon. friend had quoted the estimate which he (Lord Althorp) had made in bringing forward the budget, of the probable amount of surplus revenue at the end of the year, as if it was to be assumed as the actual amount that would be found to exist then. The estimate of surplus revenue which he (Lord Althorp) had then made was, he believed, the lowest that had ever been made by any person filling the situation that he did as an estimate for the future year; and since it had been made the abolition of a portion of the House-tax had considerably diminished the amount of surplus which he had calculated upon. In making his financial statement, he had calculated the amount to be deducted from the revenue in consequence of the partial abolition of the House-tax, to which he had alluded, at 100,000l.; but, according to the statement of his hon. friend, which he did not believe to be exaggerated, the amount of reduction which would be effected by the Bill passed last night would approach to nearly 500,000l. The surplus revenue therefore at the end of the year would be pro tanto smaller than he had estimated it at. As far as the revenue had gone at present, he was happy to say, that it had gone on fairly and well. With the reduction of taxes that had taken place, it could not be expected to go on as well as it had last year; but it had, however, gone on fairly and well; and he was pretty confident that the surplus would, at the end of the year, come up to the amount at which he had calculated it. He did not think, however, that it could possibly be safe at the present time to calculate so precisely the amount of revenue that would then accrue, as to come to the determination that a particular tax should cease in the course of next year. His hon. friend had gone into the question of the supplies that had been recently voted by the House, and he had argued, that as considerable reductions might be made in those supplies next year, this tax could then he spared. Looking at the general state of affairs at present, he certainly had sanguine hopes that the country would be enabled to make considerable reductions in its military establishments in the course of next year. He hoped, also, that in pursuance of measures which would be brought forward, it would be in his power to make some considerable reductions in the expenses attendant upon the collection of the revenue; and he would only add, that the constant efforts of the Government would be directed to effect every reduction that possibly could be effected in every other branch of the public expenditure. But, notwithstanding that, he did not think that at the present time it would be safe to calculate precisely upon what the amount of reduction would be before they knew what reductions could really be made. He therefore trusted, that the House would not assent to the proposition which his hon. friend had brought forward at the present time. His hon. friend said, that the plan contained in the Bill which was passed last night was one that it would be extremely difficult to carry into effect. He could assure his hon. friend, that there would not be the slightest difficulty in carrying it into effect, as the difficulties specified in it were such as were well known to all collectors of taxes. He had, upon three or four occasions, stated the principles upon which he thought the taxation of the country ought to be levied. In the statement which he then made, he said, that he would prefer a direct tax of this nature to a tax that would press upon the industry of the manufactures of the country; considering that the pressure and operation of the former were by no means so injurious as that of the latter burthen to the general interests. He had then also stated that there was one ground on which the Government ought to look to a tax, in order to consider whether it should be reduced—namely, as to the question of its popularity or unpopularity. With regard to the question of popularity however, he feared that no taxes would be found to be popular, but he was ready to admit, that the unpopularity of this particular tax was excessive and extreme at the present moment. He was fairly ready to say, therefore, that though, if left to his own opinion, and acting upon the financial principles which he entertained, he would not select this tax as one of the first that he would propose to reduce; yet, looking at the views of the country on the subject, he did think that it would be the duty of Government, whenever it should be enabled to do so, to reduce this tax, and that whenever its place could be supplied, either by some different arrangement of the Assessed Taxes, or by the substitution of some other tax, the tax upon houses ought to be reduced. He believed that he had said more now than he had ever before at any time stated on this subject. On the ground, then, that he had mentioned, not on account of the nature of the tax, but considering the unpopularity of it, and that the extreme unpopularity of any tax was a reason for the Government looking to it, for the purpose of reducing it, he was prepared to go as far as he had just stated. But he was not prepared to say at the present moment that a certain reduction should hereafter take place, so as to sink the revenue below the expenditure, before he knew what the revenue would be, and before other taxes could be supplied to maintain it above the expenditure. He must therefore oppose the Motion of his hon. friend.

, as a proof of the inequality of the tax, referred to the Bank of England, which, while it charged the public 40,000l. a-year as its rental, was only rated under this tax at a rental of 5,000l. a-year. It was a tax the injurious effects of which had been felt throughout the metropolis. One of the effects of it in the City of London was, that houses were now let for two-thirds less than they were seven years ago; and in the great thoroughfares of Fleet-street and Cheapside every fourth house was at present unlet. If the Motion went to a division, he would certainly vote for it.

was glad to hear, that the time would shortly come when this tax would be abolished. He did not know what new circumstances had arisen, as regarded the revenue of the country, since the noble Lord had resisted his (Sir Samuel Whalley's) Motion this Session for the abolition of this tax, to induce the noble Lord now to promise its reduction. The Government had since that time given 20,000,000l. to the West-India proprietors, and 1,000,000l. to the people who had resisted tithes in Ireland ["No."]. He was aware, that at present it was a loan, but the Treasury had the knack of converting a loan into a grant. He was glad to find that the Government was at length obliged to yield to the unpopularity of this tax. He, for one, would wish to see it abolished immediately. He would vote for the Motion.

said, he wished to know whether he understood the noble Lord to state, that considering the extreme unpopularity of this tax, he thought it was one that the Government should look to as the first to be reduced in the next Session of Parliament, its place to be supplied either by a corresponding reduction of expenditure, or by the substitution of some other tax? [Lord Althorp was understood to answer affirmatively.] Under such circumstances, anxious as he might be to press his Motion, he felt it his duty to withdraw it.

said, he was not prepared to agree to such a Motion at present, as, if it were carried, it would be absolutely necessary to go further than it did, and abolish the tax at once.

begged to say a word in explanation as to what had been stated by his hon. friend, the member for the City of London, with respect to the Bank of England. The Bank of England paid to this tax as much as it was liable to pay by law, for though the value of the rental of the building was calculated at 40,000l. per annum, yet there were only four or five inhabited houses which were occupied by officers of the establishment, and which were detached from the building itself. He fully concurred in thinking that the manner in which these taxes were levied was extremely partial. He could show that individuals employed in Government situations had perverted their powers in respect to these taxes, and lent themselves to an interference with the freedom of election. On the ground alone of the tax being used for such a purpose, he was of opinion it ought to be repealed.

objected to the renewal of a Bill in its present form, from which so many injurious effects had arisen. The consequence of the former measure, which it was sought to renew, was, that vessels were constructed in such a way as to be enabled to carry more cargo than their ad- measured tonnage, and therefore, inferior vessels were built. The effect of this Act was, that British ships were so constructed, that they could no more compete with American-built ships than could a carthorse with a race-horse, and yet this was not to be attributed to any want of skill in the shipbuilders of this country. He was of opinion, that a Committee ought to have been appointed before the Bill had been proceeded with, particularly as the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the subject had as yet delayed making any Report on which the House could legislate. In the mean time he was of opinion, that the measurement of vessels should be taken in such a way as accurately to give the cubic amount of tonnage. The hon. Member moved the insertion of a clause to that effect.

said, that it was from no indifference to the subject that he had not anticipated the hon. Member in this Motion. As a shipowner, he practically knew the evils of the present system, but he had understood from those who were better acquainted than he was with the business of that House, that it would be highly inconvenient to propose the introduction of a clause like the present in a Consolidation Bill. He had for that reason abstained from attempting it. He recommended the hon. Member near him, on the same ground to withdraw the Motion at this moment, and he might advantageously bring it forward next Session, and should then have his (Mr. Young's) cordial support.

had stated in strong terms his opinion on the present system of admeasurement of vessels, and his conviction, that that system required alteration. Commissioners bad been appointed to inquire into the subject, and their Report was not yet made, but it would be before the next Session, and then they should be able most conveniently to revise the law on this matter. He must moreover observe, that the House had already agreed to this Bill, on the express understanding, that it was to be confined to consolidate the laws, and not to alter them. He therefore could not consent to the Motion.

, after commenting on the enormous duty upon currants, moved that the duty of 44s. 4d. per cwt., established by the Bill, should be reduced to 28s. per cwt.

begged his hon. friend to withdraw his Motion, because the revenue could not spare the reduction. He should himself be willing to propose the reduction if the duty could be spared, and he should be happy next year to take the whole of the class of fruits into his consideration, with a view to reduce the duties on them all.

recommended, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the hon. Member for the City of London to withdraw his Motion.

contended, that on account of the increased consumption which would take place in consequence of the reduction of duty, the revenue would lose nothing by that proceeding. He would almost venture to give an undertaking to Government to that effect.

approved of a reduction in the duty on currants, and contended, that such a reduction would have a beneficial effect on the shipping-interest of the country.

supported the Amendment.

said, that he did not feel himself justified, with the small surplus revenue which existed, in agreeing to the Motion. While he admitted the onerous nature of the tax, he yet thought that so great an increase in the consumption of the article would not ensue from the reduction of the duty as was anticipated by the hon. member for Middlesex.

supported the Amendment. He conceived it to be the duty of every Member towards his constituents to press for a reduction of the tax on all articles of consumption.

opposed the Motion on the ground that it would occasion great loss to the revenue.

thought the high duty on seeds prejudicial to agriculture, he would support the Motion.

said, that he felt himself bound to resist this Motion for the same reasons as he had opposed the last.

supported the Motion because it would be for the advantage of all those who sowed these seeds.

objected to going into the Committee at that late hour (past one), and without explanation of the object of the Bill.

said, he had explained the subject of the Bill on introducing it.

said, he should move the adjournment of the House.

was not prepared to vote for the large sum of money this Bill proposed to give without first looking into the title of the City of London to these duties, and ascertaining the amount the House would be justified in bestowing.

said, he would explain the object of the Bill, it was twofold; to relieve the trade of the port of London and the country generally from a heavy imposition, and to take away a considerable charge upon the revenue of the country. These dues were of ancient standing; they had been given by charter of Charles 2nd., confirmed by Acts of Parliament, and were the undoubted property of the City of London. It had happened that the right of the city had been disputed; an action was tried, and the result was, that the right was fully confirmed, and the obligation of payment on the merchant was distinctly recognized. So much for the right: then as to the dues themselves. They were, in the first instance, insignificant, but at the close of the last war they had become onerous, and they acted as an embarrassment on trade as well as a burthen. It was no small inconvenience that the trade of London should be so embarrassed; but there was another point of great importance. Mr. Bates, in his evidence before the Committee on trade, had stated that he knew of upwards of a hundred cargoes of sugar and other articles which would have been brought to London and bonded here if this tax had not existed. He knew of similar instances; they were of daily occurrence. The repeal of these dues would have no prejudicial effect on the reciprocity system, and if it had any effect on British shipping, it would be a beneficial one; for foreign cargoes, when they were bonded here would be carried to the Continent, for which they were intended, in British shipping. With respect to the revenue part of the subject, the average annual amount of these dues was 14,836l. of which the amount paid by Government in the last three years was 11,000l. yearly. Suppose the Legislature gave for them 162,000l. there would then be an interest paid of 4,000l. a-year; and, allowing for a sinking fund, there would be an annual saving of 3,000l. or 4,000l. a-year.

observed, that this explanation should have been given on the second reading. It was, however, full of fallacies, and he should persist in moving the adjournment of the House.

thought, that the House ought to be made fully aware that the claims of the city for these dues were strictly just before they agreed to vote away 160,000l. of the public money, and for that purpose he would, therefore, move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

would have no objection to that Motion if he were assured that the Committee would not delay the Bill. He, however, stated, that the course which had been adopted with the Bill was perfectly in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House in cases of a similar description, particularly in the case of the repeal of the butlerage and prizeage dues by a Customs' Bill relating to the Duchy of Lancaster. He thought that, under the course proposed by the hon. Member, if the Committee entered into a full inquiry into the Charter of the City of London, with a view to ascertain- ing their legal right and title to the dues, so much time would necessarily be consumed as in effect to throw over the Bill until the next Session. He would, therefore, propose that the evidence to be offered to the Committee, if that course should be adopted should consist of the documents upon which the bargain had originally been entered into by the Government, which would be found to contain all that would be requisite for the purpose of such a Committee.

supported the Motion for the Select Committee on the ground that the inquiry into the title of the City in the mode referred to was highly necessary.