presented Petitions from Essex, signed by the occupiers of 16,000 acres of land, praying that the Corn-laws might not be repealed; also from the Hundred of Rochford, same county; also from the Hundred of Denby, same county, signed by the occupiers of 9,815 acres of land; also from the owners and occupiers of land, in the parish of Asheldean, in the same county. The petitioners stated, that they laboured under the greatest possible depression, and prayed, that the House would repeal some of those taxes which pressed so heavily on agricultural industry. They also prayed, that the Malt-tax might be repealed; and some of the petitions suggested, that, if the finances of the country required any substitute, a tax should be laid upon property. After that House had echoed the language of his Majesty's Speech, in regard to the distressed state of the agricultural interests, it would be unnecessary for him to occupy any of its time in describing that distress; but he could not present these petitions without expressing a confident hope that, after the result of the Motion brought forward by the noble Lord, the member for Buckingham, on Friday night last, on the subject of agricultural distress, his Majesty's Ministers would see the necessity of making some alteration in the financial scheme announced to that House a few nights since,—an alteration not more necessary than just towards those interests, which were labouring under depression.

entirely concurred in the prayer of these petitions; and expressed a hope, that the important Motion which was to come on that night would meet with the support of the House. He did not think that the Government could resist a Motion to inquire into the oppressive tax on malt.

observed, that the petitions prayed for the repeal of the Malt-duty, and against the repeal of the Corn-laws; and, what, in his opinion, was a very rational prayer, they prayed for a property-tax. In this respect he trusted, that they would not be regarded as supporting this measure from factious views. While they prayed for the repeal of the Malt-tax, which would make the revenue of the country deficient, they suggested a mode by which that deficiency might be supplied. This was a very important point for consideration. He was not aware that all the petitions contained this prayer for a property-tax, but some of them contained that prayer. He took it for granted, that no one in Essex wished unnecessarily to incur a new tax. He was well aware, that the greater part of his Majesty's subjects had too much good sense to entertain such a project. He would impress upon the House that these petitions advocated the repeal of a tax which would create a deficiency of 4,000,000l., when his Majesty's Government announced that they had only 1,200,000l. to deal with. Now, those who recommended that must be prepared to recognise a property-tax. If he had had the good fortune to be in the House sufficiently early to put his name down as having to present a petition, he should have had an opportunity of stating, that a considerable number of the fanners of the county of Essex had intrusted him with a petition upon the same subject. Their reasons for doing so was, as they said, that, on a recent occasion, out of the ten Members from the county of Essex, no one besides himself had voted for an inquiry into the Pension-list. They found the Members from that county most disinterestedly pressing for a repeal of the Malt-tax, with a negative feeling towards the House-tax, whilst for the continual ion of pensions they were eager and uniform advocates.

was one of those who opposed the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester upon the subject of the Pension-list. He held in his hand a petition upon the subject of agricultural distress, signed by a large number of the constituents of the hon. member for Colchester, and he would only make one remark upon this subject, which was worthy the attention of the House; these petitioners did not point cut the Pension-list as a particular object of reduction. After the Motion, the other night, for an inquiry into the Pension-list, he would give the hon. Member fair warning, that, whenever that question again came before the House, he should be ready to draw down upon himself all the indignation and unpopularity that would attach to a vote in support of the prerogatives of the Crown. His reason for not supporting the hon. member for Colchester was, because he felt that, when hon. Members now on the Treasury Bench sat on the Opposition side, they had taken a very different course with respect to the Pension-list; and he was willing to see them dragged by their own friends through the mire, as had happened on a late occasion.

said, that the more the subject of the reduction of taxes came before the House, the more its importance would be seen by hon. Members. Every dispassionate observer must see, that, should any alteration of the present system of taxation take place to the extent demanded, the only alternative must be the substitution of a property, or income tax, or both. If the taxes of the country pressed so heavily on the people that they could no longer endure them, the only way left to meet this question was by a commutation of taxes. The taxes, at present, fell with unequal weight upon the lower classes of society. There were three classes of individuals affected by the taxes; first, the operative and labouring classes, who were grievously burthened by the present system of taxation; the second were the middle classes, who, if a commutation of taxes took place, would not probably be relieved to any great extent in respect to the amount of taxation; but they would be considerably convenienced by means of the new and improved machinery, which would follow any commutation of taxes. The next class were the mercantile and opulent men of this country; and his complaint against this class of persons was this, that they came down to the House to demand a repeal of the Malt-tax, without being prepared to agree to a Property-tax, or some substitution, to meet this reduction in the revenue of the country. He (Mr. Robinson) would vote for the reduction of the Malt-tax, because he was anxious that a pressure should be made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which he would be forced to agree to a commutation of taxes. He wished to draw the attention of the House to what would be the probable consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreeing to the abolition of the Malt-tax, instead of the House and Window-tax. Why, considering the excitement in the public mind on the latter tax, and the part promise made by the noble Lord to remit the House-tax, that there would be such a pressure upon the Government that it would be impossible for it to go on without agreeing to a commutation of taxes. Even if the Malt-tax were repealed, such would be the pressure upon Government from without, after the promises they had already made, that they would be obliged to repeal the House-tax. They must come at last to the question of commutation. Let not hon. Gentlemen deceive themselves by thinking that any great reduction of taxation could take place without commutation. He did not see any good which that House could derive from dragging the Government through a series of paltry experiments. No serious or important reduction of taxation could take place until they first came to the question of commutation; and it would be better that the wealthy classes should at once contribute their fair share to the exigences of the State, than continue to hold their property in the uncertain state in which it was at present, owing to the clamour of a reduction of taxation, or the discontent of those classes upon whom its burthens pressed most heavily.

considered that those who thought the adoption of a property tax, previous to the repeal of so many other taxes, would be the most just, as well as the safest, course for the House to pursue, ought to bring forward that proposition at once; for, if it were carried, it would save the Chancellor of the Exchequer a great deal of trouble.

alluding to the observations of the hon. member for Colchester, on the Pension-list said, that the uniform tenor of his conduct was sufficient testimony that, if he considered the inquiry into the Pension-list compatible with the implied contract between the State and those who enjoyed pensions, he would have voted for the Motion.

presented a Petition from 32,000 inhabitants of Glasgow, on the subject of lay patronage in the Church of Scotland. He believed that, with one exception (a petition from the ladies of the empire, on the question of slavery), this was the most numerously signed petition which had been submitted to the present Parliament. It emanated from a public meeting, called by regular advertisement, and composed of the most respectable, intelligent, and influential classes. It stated that the appointment of Christian pastors was a spiritual privilege; that patronage was contrary to the avowed principles and constitution of the Church of Scotland; that it was declared by the Scottish Parliament to be unlawful, unwarrantable, and opposed to the rights and liberties of the Church; that the Act of Queen Anne, establishing the system of patronage, was an injurious infringement on public rights, contrary to the Articles of Union, and productive of manifold discontent and divisions; and, therefore, praying that this Act might be repealed, and the election of ministers (according to such rules as might be prescribed by the General Assembly) should be a sufficient title to any benefices. He was happy to hear that the Government intended this evening to accede to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state and effects of patronage. He should, therefore, abstain from now entering into the general question, and would merely say, there was no subject on which the Scottish community felt a deeper and warmer interest; and that, after Parliamentary and Municipal Reform had both been granted, he trusted that ecclesiastical improvement would not be denied.

would not let that opportunity pass without saying a few words. He rose more for the purpose of expressing the encouragement he felt from the presentation of the petition, than with any view to support its prayer. A petition so numerously and respectably signed, and emanating from the city of Glasgow, which was superior almost to any other in intelligence and independence, required no support from him. There was no question on which the people of Scotland felt a deeper interest, and to which they were more opposed, in consequence of unpopular ministers having been inducted in to many parishes. He would, on that point, mention an instance or two. A correspondent wrote to him:—' in 1823. towards the close of that incumbent's ministry, there were 347 families in the parish, consisting of 1,852 persons, and of these 111 families, consisting of 602 persons, remained attached to the Establishment; the rest (with a few exceptions, belonging to the Reformed Presbytery), belonged to the Secession. A subsequent event has not only blasted a fair prospect of the return of many of the Dissenters to the bosom of the Church, but still further inroads have been made on the Establishment, by a fresh desertion to the ranks of the Secession. And the first meeting-house having been found far too small to accommodate the individuals of this denomination, a new one has been lately erected of nearly double the size, which is completely filled. And it is a melancholy fact, that those persons who first dissented, or their descendants, who ought to have, and would have, in other circumstances, rallied round the Church for her defence, are all placed in hostile array against her, crying, "Down with establishments; raze her, raze her." Another case of a violent settlement, in the adjoining parish, took place almost immediately after that to which I have alluded, and was attended with the same melancholy result; the late incumbent there having been literally settled at the point of the bayonet, the Presbytery being protected by a military force; and during the minister's incumbency, which lasted sixteen years, the Church was all but deserted.' Such reckless acts of tyranny deeply injured the cause of true religion; and, in consequence of no redress having been obtained, those who were formerly most strenuous in support of the Church Establishment were now arrayed against it. The system was not peculiar to Scotland; he would also show how it worked in England; and he would read a few words from a charge lately delivered by the Bishop of Exeter, and they would hear what the right reverend Prelate said relative to the law of patronage. The hon. Member read the following extract:—'I once (says his Lordship) had occasion to seek advice on this point from a very high authority, in the case of a populous and important parish, where the clergyman presented to the living, besides being very deaf, was utterly unable to move without assistance; yet, as his mind was sound, and he could read the service, the great lawyer whom I consulted told me, that he could not advise me to refuse to admit him. An aged and paralytic clergyman has been presented to another very important parish; and as he, too, can read the service, and is in possession of his intellect,—though he trembles in every limb, and is unable to perform with efficiency any one of the offices of the Church, he could not lawfully be refused. There is a third instance of a rich parish, including a large town, with a population of near 4,000 souls, to which a superannuated clergyman was presented, who, being utterly incapable of discharging any of the active duties of the parish, was, of necessity, suffered, immediately after his institution, to retire for ever, leaving his house and flock to a curate. Now, in two, at least, of these cases, the patrons had avowedly selected individuals, not for their fitness, but for their unfitness; that unfitness arising from causes which implied the probability of a speedy decease, thus enabling them to dispose of the next presentation to greater advantage.' The hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope, that the grievances complained of by the petitioners would be speedily redressed.

said, that, though he was not prepared to go the length of breaking down all ecclesiastical establishments, either in England or Scotland, he would give his support to the general statement, that there ought to be a change respecting Church patronage. He thought that a measure ought to be introduced which would give parishioners a voice in the election of their clergymen. Such a measure he would most heartily support; but he declined being a party to the destruction of the Established Church in Scotland, to which that country owed so much, and to which, he was sure, the great mass of the people were firmly opposed.

presented a Petition, very numerously signed, from the Provost, Town Council, and Burgesses of Ayr, in the county of Ayrshire, praying for the abolition of the system of Church patronage in Scotland. He could not allow this opportunity to pass, without respectfully, but distinctly and unequivocally, denying the statement of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, that only a small fraction of the members of the Church of Scotland were opposed to the connexion of Church and State. A large majority of them were opposed to that union, and they looked upon it as unjust, unchristian, and impolitic. It was not the Established Church only to which they were opposed, but the compulsory assessment imposed by a dominant and privileged sect on all other persons in the State. He was a member of the Establishment, and it was putting the Church in an invidious situation to say, that it was not sufficiently strong to maintain itself, without imposing a compulsory and obnoxious tax upon other branches of the community. His constituents felt the objectionable manner in which Church patronage had been latterly abused, and were induced to call loudly for the repeal of the present law.

would not contradict what the hon. Member had stated, but he would say, that his (Mr. Fergusson's) information was very different, and that he believed it to be correct. The hon. Member said, he was a member of the Church of Scotland, and yet wished for the destruction of that establishment, which by the universal voice of the people succeeded the Roman Catholic religion, which had been approved of by their forefathers, and venerated from that day to this. The desire for the destruction of this Establishment was a thing of yesterday; there was a large body of men who thought it necessary to separate from the Establishment, in consequence of the manner in which the ministers of the Establishment were appointed. But to say that a member of the Church of Scotland wished well to that Church, and yet wished for its destruction, was language which he could not hear without entering his solemn protest against it. As to the obnoxious nature of the payment alluded to, he would say, their estates had descended to them charged with that payment; that they had purchased their estates under that charge; and that if they attempted to pocket that sum, it would be, in his opinion, an unprincipled proceeding, as it would be robbing the Church of Scotland of a payment which had been allotted to it in lieu of tithes, for which now they gave no consideration. He would take that opportunity to say, that there were broached in Scotland doctrines respecting Church and State, to which he for one would never give his support. Principles were carried to an extreme that would soon put an end to all Government. The first attempt was made upon the Church, the next would be an attack upon property; and he hoped that Scotch Members would never give their sanction to any proposition, which in any way tended to the destruction of the Church of Scotland.

was greatly surprised at the observations of the hon. Member. He could say, that the voluntary principle was not so general in Scotland as had been asserted. Out of a population of 2,300,000, about 500,000 were dissenters; so that the majority of the people of Scotland were in favour of the Establishment. He wished that hon. Gentleman would deal with facts, and not in general assertions. Whenever he brought forward the question of voluntary support to the Clergymen, he should be prepared to meet the hon. Member.

said, that when he had stated on a former occasion, that he was opposed to the Church, what he meant was, that he was opposed to a compulsory assessment for its support; but he denied entertaining any desire to witness the destruction of the Church. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright must know that the Church consisted of the people,—that it was not the edifice or the Clergy, but the congregation. What he wished was, that the principle should be carried from politics to religion, and that no money should be paid except where services were rendered. It was of great consequence, that those Members who entertained opinions similar to his own should not be misapprehended, or misrepresented. There was an assumption of sanctity by certain hon. Members on the other side of the House, when any suggestions were given on the Reform of the Church, and they arrogated to themselves a kind of superiority, as though they contained in themselves the whole religion of the House. Surely, hon. Members might be very religious on that side of the House, and yet entertain particular opinions on the Church Establishment. He thought, in such extraordinary zeal for the Established Church, instead of evincing that Christian charity peculiarly inculcated by the doctrines they professed, he observed a spirit of narrow and bigoted intolerance.

was surprised to hear the hon. member for Lanark say, that the union of Church and State was unscriptural and unchristian; and that the people of Scotland were opposed to the compulsory maintenance of them. He must deny both these statements. He denied that the payment of Church dues was a compulsory payment, in the proper sense of the word; it could not be said to be a compulsory contribution, to require men to pay that which was never theirs. As to the connexion of the Church and State, he contended that it was both Christian and Scriptural. That question had been fully discussed out of doors, and he (Mr. Finch) would say, that those who were opposed to the Established Church, and to what they called a compulsory payment, had not come out of the controversy with much credit to themselves.

totally disapproved of the sentiments which had been expressed by the hon. member for St. Andrew's. He agreed with the hon. member for Bath, that it was most unfair to assume, that hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of voluntary contributions, were opposed to the principles of the Church of Scotland. For his own part, he begged distinctly to state, that he did not consider that he was entitled, nor did he desire to put into his own pockets the money which his lands were subject to. Previous to the Reformation, this property belonged to the Roman Catholics, and from the period of the Reformation, he considered the Church property was vested in the State, and that it should be appropriated as that House should think fit.

must beg leave to reply to the charge of arrogance or assumption of exclusive religion, which had been urged against him by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The observations which he felt it necessary to offer on this subject, were spoken by him as an elder of the Church of Scotland; as such, he felt that the subject of religion should not be adverted to but in a grave and becoming manner; and he did not think that because he had adopted this course, he should be met by the taunts and sneers of the hon. Member opposite.

presented a Petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Maldon. Their prayer was for relief from what he thought every one must admit to be practical evils. The first of these was their being compelled to pay Church-rates. He thought this was a subject which ought to engage the earliest attention of the House, and which could not be postponed without great inconvenience. It was well known, that, in many places, the imposition of those rates had already been effectually resisted. The same spirit was spreading far and wide; and it would be found impossible to levy them in any places where Dissenters were numerous. They had but one of two courses to pursue,—either to give the Dissenters the relief they so justly sought, or to enact a law which should be more forcible and stringent than the present was; but to effect the latter course would be impossible. He did not think any Government, however popular with the House, could adopt it. He would, therefore, strongly urge upon the House the necessity of yielding with a good grace to the Dissenters that relief which ultimately must be given; and he urged this no less for the sake of the members of the Establishment, than for the Dissenters. Nothing could be more annoying than the disputes to which this claim on the Dissenter gave rise in many parishes, and he knew several gentlemen of great influence and property in their respective parishes, who had hitherto been in the habit of acting as churchwardens, but who had now determined to decline doing so again, being; unwilling to be brought into collision with their neighbours. He could imagine no motive for withholding from the Dissenters the relief which they sought; for many of the Ecclesiastical sinecures connected with our cathedrals, would supply a fund, which, among other purposes, might, he thought, be most properly applied to the maintenance of the fabric of our church. The next grievance the petitioners complained of was, their exclusion from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which they the more complained of, having been hitherto disappointed in their hopes that a Charter would be granted to the London University. No one, he thought, would deny that it was a great practical inconvenience to the Dissenter, that he could not obtain an academical education in this country; that if he desired to take a degree at a University, he must go either to Scotland or to the continent. He thought they had a right to have expected from a Government like the present, relief upon this head; and he must confess himself surprised at the delay which had taken place, for he could only consider it was a delay, in granting a charter to the London University. He agreed, too, with the petitioners in lamenting that they were excluded from our two Universities, for he could not but look upon our Universities as affording inducements to study, and conveniences and opportunities for education, not likely to be equalled in any other place. The more strongly he felt this, the more he was bound to admit the disadvantages which the Dissenter was placed under, by being excluded from them. He trusted that both our Universities would show that they were fully imbued with the liberal spirit of the age, and that, of their own accord, they would remove those obstacles which, at present, excluded the Dissenters from the advantage of graduating within their walls. He could not but think that a measure of this sort would reflect as much credit upon the Universities as it would give pleasure to many of the most sincere admirers of those institutions. The petitioners further prayed for relief in regard to the celebration of marriages, from the registration of marriages, births, and burials, and to be allowed to bury their dead in the parish churches.

said, that the application for a Charter to the University of London was now before the King in Council, and he hoped the result would be favourable, which would enable Dissenters to avail themselves of an academic education. If the Charter should not be granted, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject under the consideration of the House in the same form as he had before done.

rose for the purpose of bringing forward a question of vast importance, in doing which last year, he had the satisfaction of receiving the support of a majority of the House. He now came to the subject a little better prepared than he had been on that occasion, in consequence of the reply then made to him by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was an improper mode of proceeding for any Gentleman to come down to that House altogether unprepared to propose something as a substitute to meet the deficiency of 4,000,000l. in the revenue, which would be created by the repeal of the Malt-tax. He (Sir William Ingilby) therefore, on the present occasion, stood there in a better character, and, for a little while, he would supersede the noble Lord, and take upon himself the office of Chancellor of the Exchechequer. He was quite aware of the difficulty that there was in saying, how far it might be practicable to procure so large a sum of money for the Exchequer, but, he begged to observe to his hon. friend, the member for Cricklade, that so far from pursuing this Motion for the purpose of embarrassing his Majesty's Government, he would tell him, that he took as much pains to support the present Administration as any man in the country, He, therefore, disclaimed any motive of hostility to the Government; his object was to support it, and to render it the best assistance in his power, by finding: the funds to supply the sum of money required to carry into effect the repeal of the Malt-tax. It might, perhaps, appear singular to many hon. Gentlemen who were more accustomed to look at the finances of the country than he was, that he should set himself up as a financier; but he would produce a budget, and he hoped that it would give satisfaction, if not to the noble Lord, to the country. To the country he hoped it would give greater satisfaction than any other budget which had been brought forward for the last seven years. He need not, perhaps, repeat the arguments made use of in the course of last Session, and to the hundred arguments urged in favour of the repeal of the Malt-tax: nor would he refer to the desolation and misery which reigned throughout the country, from the accumulation of beer-houses, those abominable sources of incendiarism and acts of violence. Who had not heard of the evils of the "Tidley Wink," as the game played at these houses was called? He did not mean to deny, indeed, that there were some decent respectable beer-houses to be found; but where there was one house of a decent description, there were 50 or 100 to be found of a contrary sort? Now, his object was, to get rid of the Malt-tax, and, by so doing, get rid of these houses. In doing this, he should also enable his countrymen to drink a wholesome beverage, which would induce them to leave off dram-drinking; thus rendering a great service to the noble Lord and the country at large, which would be highly delighted in getting rid of this most odious tax. He could not understand the argument, that because a tax was there, it was, therefore, to last till the day of judgment. The noble Lord said last year, that he might take the question into consideration, if any hon. Member could devise a reasonable mode of supplying the deficit which must be caused by the repeal of this odious tax. He would not only do that for the noble Lord—he would not only enable the noble Lord to take off the Malt-tax, but he would place him on the high road to take off more taxes than the House and Window-duty only. He was glad to see that hon. Gentlemen opposite were in such good humour, because it showed that some good was likely to come from this Motion. He was sorry that the hon. and gallant officer, the member for Westminster (Colonel Evans) had, on a former occasion, left the House, and thus left in his hands the task of relieving the people of Westminster from the Window-tax. He thought that the hon. and gallant Colonel would have done better to have remained at his post when his Motion for the repeal of the Window-tax was to come on, than to leave him, a rural man, to fight the battle of the towns' people. The towns were still, he supposed, to be arrayed against the landed interest. This system would not hold good with him, for he meant to stand up against taxation for his brothers of towns as well as of the country; and if a contrary policy were adopted, he thought it would be pursued with a view to array the ville against the village. When he should have the honour to bring forward his budget, he should not only propose the reduction of the Malt-tax, but, taking the precedence of all the metropolitan Members, he would give them, of his own gracious accord, the remission of the House and Window-tax, and all that he would do without people coming to his house in Berkeley-square, and without any outcry whatever. His Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session referred to agricultural distress, and he thought that part of it deserved their attention. He hoped the noble Lord would give full consideration to his Majesty's Speech by paying attention to that portion of it which alluded to the state of the agricultural interest. [Here Sir Robert Peel entered the House.] He was happy to see the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tarn worth, enter the House, upon whose powerful aid and assistance he looked to earnestly—[Mr. Stanley; "Hear, hear"]. He did not understand, perhaps, what parliamentary tactics required, and he did not know what the cheer of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) meant. If the right hon. Gentleman supposed that he—an ancient Whig, not of many days, but of many years standing—had joined gratuitously the power of his eloquence to—if the right hon. Gentleman supposed that he sought to bring in his eloquence to the aid of an ancient Tory camp, that right hon. Gentleman was greatly mistaken. He did not acknowledge any distinct party—he came down there to do his duty at all hazards; he had taken this question up with a view to relieve the agricultural and the commercial interests, and not to put a sixpence into his own pocket, or those of the squirearchy; nor did he believe that the reduction or remission of the Malt-duty would have the effect of increasing rents. The reduction of the Malt-duty would, no doubt, place barley on another footing, because there would be a better market for it. But for what purpose was it he asked for the remission of the duty on malt? Why it was to relieve the middling and the lower classes of society, and it was for their relief that he was induced again to bring forward a Motion to repeal this tax. Hon. Gentlemen were not aware, perhaps, that in many parts of the country the poor and feeble were reduced to one of two grievous alternatives. The one was that which hon. Gentlemen would not like—namely, to drink water; the other was worse, because it was more unwholesome—namely, to drink gin. Gin was a beverage in every way prejudicial, but unfortunately it was at that pleasing price that for half-a-crown a man might swim in it. No gin or other ardent spirit could be wholesome for the community at large, and he thought that in his opinion the noble Lord would agree with him. Now he wanted, by the remission of this tax, to secure to the cottager such a wholesome beverage as he had one-and-twenty years ago. By the evidence given before the Committee of 1821, it appeared that in a parish, the property of Mr. Elmore, there was not a man who had not a barrel of ale in his house. Now he would ask how many men now had a barrel of ale? Not one, either in the place referred to, or in any part of the country he believed. The consequence was that the men now went to the Tom and Jerry shops, or the "tidley wink," or alehouses, to get cheap gin. Having said thus much on the necessity of taking off the duty on malt, he thought he could not do better than produce his budget, which would, perhaps, astonish the noble Lord and the House; but he had arranged it after full thought, and after discovering taxes which would be more than adequate to meet the deficiency caused by the remission of the Malt-tax. He had done this in consequence of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, who, on the former occasion, had said that he did not understand how hon. Gentlemen could propose to take off a tax without suggesting the means to replace its amount. He did not mean to pretend to quote the words of the right hon. Baronet, but he believed that his declaration was tantamount to this; and upon that ground he had understood the right hon. Gentleman opposed his Motion. He would now not further waste the time of the House, but would at once produce his budget. He headed his budget, for the purposes of the evening, the budget of "the Knight of Lindsey, promoted to the office pro tem. of Chancellor of the Exchequer." In the budget which he was about to submit to the House every thing was laid as low as possible. Let the House increase the calculations as they liked for many of the items were able to bear this. The tax on malt in the United Kingdom for the year 1832 yielded 4,845,000l. odd, the duty on malt being 2s. 7d. per bushel. He would here state that the repeal of this tax would go far to relieve the cottagers. The objection to the repeal of this tax was, that the public burthens would not bear its abolition. Now how was this to be remedied? This was the mighty puzzle which his Majesty's Government had been in for some time; because if they had had any intention to relieve the country from this excessive and tremendous burthen upon the working classes they would have taken the matter into their serious consideration, and they would have come down to that House with a liberal measure of reduction; and this reduction could be made. The first article he took then was the Beer-duty, for they must partly re-enact the former Beer Bill. It certainly was an odious thing for a man placed in the situation of the noble Lord—it was an odious thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down and tax his Majesty's lieges; and it was particularly so to propose a tax upon a man who had been relieved from a tax. The brewers had been relieved from the Beer-duty; but then he meant to give them good malt for nothing; they had none of the abominations of excisemen; they had no inquisitorial visits to submit to; and therefore they could bear a tax upon each barrel of beer of thirty-six gallons. So far he must have a partial re-enactment of the Beer Bill—[cries of "Oh! oh!"] He would beg hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh!" whether they were brewers or not, to hear the case out. He was quite aware that, upon the repeal of the Malt-tax, the brewer could afford to be taxed. He only proposed to take a small tax of 6s. per barrel of thirty-six gallons. Granting the repeal of the Malt-duty, the duty on beer might be 12s. per barrel easily; but he wished to place the tax as low as possible, and not to levy more money on the people than was really necessary to supply the coffers of the Treasury, therefore, he proposed 6s. upon each barrel of thirty-six gallons. This would produce a sum of 1,500,000l. The second article which he had to produce from his budget was a new duty on foreign wines. He took, in the first instance, the more costly wines—wines of a more generous description, such as were used by members of Parliament, and others in their station of life. By doing so, he should be enabled to let the middling and more humble classes have the wines which they drank at a fair and moderate price. It had long been a remark amongst the people, that the Members of that House, while they freely assented to tax the people, watched with a jealous eye any measure which made an attack upon their own pockets. He had no objection, however, to pay a tax on his champagne or claret, and, therefore, in imposing a duty on these wines, he taxed himself. His plan, then, was to impose a tax upon all foreign wines, except Cape. He was thus minute upon this part of the subject, because it was quite necessary that his budget should not only be heard, but clearly understood by hon. Members. He excepted Cape, then, but upon the other foreign wines he would rise in exact proportion. Upon the Portuguese and Spanish wines, which were most generally used by the middling classes, and those of a more humble class who could afford to drink wine, he would impose but a small additional duty. But, upon French, Rhenish, and the nobler wines used by the wealthier classes, he would impose a heavy duty. Gentlemen might look out, for he was going to swim them up at once from 5s. 6d. to 15s. per gallon. By agreeing to this tax it would be only courteous on their parts to show the people that they could tax themselves a little, in order to allow the middling classes to have their port and other such wines cheaper. By the adoption of this tax, too, the House would nobly repel the charge of being jealous of any impost which affected themselves. He calculated that the produce of this tax would amount to 273,000l. There was another tax which he meant to propose, which he thought worthy of the most serious attention of the House and the country; it was a tax, too, which it was incumbent upon every lover of order and good government to support. It was a tax upon gin—called, par excellence, gin royal, or gin imperial. Now, he would tax, not only this gin, but the gin palaces. He would have been inclined to go pretty high in his taxation upon this article, were it not that he feared the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he resumed his office, would be pointing out to him the injury to the distillers as well as to the revenue, by giving encouragement to illicit distillation on the one hand, and smuggling on the other. This it was that prevented him from proposing from 5s. to 7s. addition per gallon. He must, therefore, in visiting these gin temples, content himself with adding one-half per gallon to the present duty. He was not sure how much this would make according to his figures, as he had no specific account; but he calculated it in round numbers at the incredible sum of 2,500,000l. According to the best accounts he had received of the consumption of gin, the tax certainly would amount to this within an odd 50,000l. or perhaps 100,000l. This increase of tax, while it would not raise the price sufficiently high to encourage the private distiller or the smuggler, would be efficient in its produce, and might be looked upon as the happy medium by which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he resumed office, would be able to afford that relief which he was so anxious to extend to a suffering people, and at the same time give up the Malt-tax, which was a still more oppressive imposition upon the agricultural interests, who were already borne down by distress. He had now to propose another, which was quite novel in its nature, and which might, in some measure, excite the risible faculties of the House. Well, never mind that, let Ministers hearken to what he was about to say, and profit by the regulations he was about to adopt in his budget. Every hon. Member who heard him, must be aware of the enormous profligacy and wickedness which existed in London. Now he was not going to take, walks through London, to give an account of the vice and wickedness which was to be found in every hole and corner. He would for the present content himself with what took place in the neighbourhood of the Athenæum, He was going to pronounce a fearful word—he scarcely knew how to trust himself with it—he was going to let fly at the Hells of London! He did not know why it was, that, in this country, after the law had been found insufficient to put those hellish establishments—those sinks of indecency—down, we should not be enabled to render them a source of revenue to the country. He knew not why or how it was, that a pair of the greatest scoundrels in Europe should be allowed to come down with impunity, night after night, and, with masked faces, pretend to play for thousands of pounds, and this for the sole purpose of entrapping young men from Cambridge or Oxford, or of seducing apprentices or clerks to rob their masters. He knew not how, he repeated, it was that these vagabonds should be allowed to act thus, without paying in the shape of a tax, the penalty of their iniquity. A pair of villains had been openly doing this; and if the law, as it existed, could not reach them, let it get at them in the shape of taxation. This was a matter worthy of the serious attention of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had a great mind to be tenacious upon this point, but wished to act courteously to the ex-Chancellor. Let, however, one of two things be done—let them close their houses, or let them pay the tax. At present the west-end of the town was infested with these dens of thieves—he believed there was a notorious one next door to the house of the Bishop of London. Now, upon each vagabond keeping one of these hells, he would impose a tax of 1,000l. per annum. He had seldom or never gone into one of them; but perhaps it was his duty to have done so previously to the introduction of his budget, in order to ascertain the extent of the wickedness going on. Or he might have taken another course, and sought information from the police; but he believed the police received very little information on the subject, except, perhaps, where a throat was cut, or some other such trifling accident took place. He would put these vagabond hell-keepers down at fifty, which, at 1,000l. each, would make 50,000l. He now came to those gentlemen (for he supposed he must call them gentlemen) the Bonds, the Rookes, and so on, who attended such places—why should not such rascals take out licenses, in the same manner as gentlemen did when going a shooting? Thus a vagabond of the worst character might take out a license to go to hell.

rose to order. He put it to the hon. Baronet whether it was becoming to indulge in such a strain?

said, he was quite aware that there were certain expressions which must not be mentioned to "ears polite." He certainly had not asked the hon. Baronet to take out a license for one of these places, but as he meant to tax them, he must be at liberty to allude to them. Taking the number of gentlemen, tradesmen, blacklegs, &c, who frequented these places at 5,000, and charging 10l. for each certificate, the tax would produce 50,000l. This was, however, a mere outline. There were many details and regulations into which he could not at present enter. For instance, he would impose a heavy penalty where gambling was found to take place in private houses; but this was matter for subsequent consideration. As far as he had gone with his budget, he hoped the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied with his progress of taxation, of which, however, he had as yet but a slight and indistinct glimpse. He had now to propose a tax which he considered a fair and equitable one, but which would beat the invention even of the notorious William Pitt. The hon. representative for Westminster, and the hon. Members who represented the metropolitan boroughs, need no longer fear how they were to give their votes respecting the disposal of the 1,200,000l.; it mattered little whether they consented to give it to the landed, or to the repeal of the" House-duty. He would not trouble his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, on the present occasion, much as he valued his calculating powers, because, perhaps, that hon. Member would be talking of some 10,000,000l. or 12,000,000l. He wanted no such sums; he would provide enough without them, by which the noble Lord would be enabled to extend that relief which the agriculturists and the other interests of the country required; for they might make up their minds to this, that, to that remedy they must come at last, and he, for one, was ready to meet it. His other items had excited the risible faculties of some hon. Members; but what would they say, or feel, when they heard the monstrum horrendum which he was now about to produce? Hon. Members need not any longer fear that he was going to say anything wicked—all that was gone by; and he now came to a source of revenue different from that to be raised in the neighbourhood of the Athenaeum. The noble Lord, his predecessor in office, had placed a small tax upon titles or distinctions. Thus, if a man were a traveller, he was taxed—if he were a shopman or clerk, or other servant, he was taxed. Why not also impose a tax upon Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, Baronets, Knights?—he would not go below Knights—on the whole he would make it an ad valorem duty. Now, he would show them how this tax could be rendered productive, without being at all oppressive. He would not include ladies of title, no matter whether by birth, right, or courtesy, or even widows, in this tax. The tax upon titled personages he would make a small one—nay, he would go further, and provide that any titled personage who objected to the payment of the tax, might get rid of it, upon a condition, namely, that he should give up his title—that he should solemnly renounce it in the Gazette. So that if a Duke objected to the tax, he had only to give up his title for once and all, by a public act of relinquishment inserted in the Gazette, and thus he would save himself some fifty or one hundred pounds a-year. Let it not be supposed that he (Sir William Ingilby) was a disinterested person on the occasion. If the tax were carried, he must pay too. Though he confessed that it would be a question with him, whether he would continue to keep a handle to his name, or go at once into the Gazette. At present he only valued a ducal title at 50l, a-year, although the Duke ought to pay 100l.; a Marquess he valued at 30l.; and so on, on a graduated scale. On looking over his list, he found that this would produce a great sum to the revenue. There might be some grave objections raised to this mode of taxation, but he hoped not, at a period like the present, when they were about to extend a great boon to the people, by relieving them from taxation. The amount of the tax on titles, he estimated at 120,000l.! Titles, if they were not so common as at Vienna, were still quite common enough to render them available in a Government budget. Another item which he proposed, was, the re-enactment of the leather-tax, for he found that no advantage had been derived to the people either in town or country from its removal. This amount he calculated at 150,000l. He found that, thus far, his budget stood as follows:—

	£
1. An additional duty of 2s. 9d. a gallon on Portugal, Madeira, and Spanish wines, would leave, according to the Returns referred to, and after allowing for drawback	415,000
2. An advanced duty of 9s. 6d. per gallon, that is from 5s. 6d. to 15s. on French, Rhenish, Canary, and Sicilian wines	237,000
3. An additional duty of 2s. 6l. per gallon on all ardent British spirits; leaving the duty 9s. 6d. per gallon for England, and 5s. 10d. per gallon for Ireland and Scotland, instead of 7s. and 3s. 4d., as it is at present	2,500,000
4. Partial re-enactment of the Beertax, of 6s. instead of 9s. 4d. the barrel of thirty-six gallons, after allowing a strong drawback for less consumption in beer-shops and public-houses, in consequence of the consumption of home-brewed beer over a poor man's fireside	1,500,000
5. Suppose the number of hells at fifty in the metropolis, at 1,000l. each	50,000
Take the number of frequenters, including gentlemen, tradesmen, and blacklegs, at 5,000, the certificates, at 10l. each, would be	50,000
6. To re-enact the Leather-tax, as its partial repeal was scarcely a public benefit	150,000
	£4,902,000
Exact amount of Malt-tax, for year ending 10th October, 1832, was	4,976,694
Produce of annexed scale	4,902,000
Difference	74,694
Estimate of tax on titles	120,000
Surplus	£45,306

Thus the House would see that, instead of a deficiency of 74,000l., he had a surplus of 45,000l. in his pocket. He would now move to another part of the metropolis, and visit a certain quarter, where he perhaps might be told that, whatever pains he might have taken to do good to the agriculturists, they did not want him there. But he contended that the measures he had in view would be equally beneficial to the metropolis and to agriculture. The hon. member for Westminster might have deserted his Motion with safety, for he (Sir William Ingilby) had in his Budget that which would enable the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he resumed office, to dispose of the 1,200,000l. in reduction of the House and Window-tax if he pleased. And what was it he was going to do? He had not yet touched upon the Civil and Military Establishments—he had not come to them. He meant not to touch public credit, neither would he interfere with the banker's shop. He begged the attention of the right hon. member for Tamworth, who was well skilled in calculation, to what he was going to say. He was now going to another house of play, and he would tax the transfer of accounts. He would tax the transactions between the bull and the bear; and would that, he asked, affect public credit? He would say, certainly not. He hoped to receive an answer to this question by and by. Was it likely that such a tax would operate so as to frighten the speculator, the dealer in the funds, from the Exchange? [An hon. Member: "Oh, but you can't get at those accounts!"] Could he not? He would let them see, by and by, that he could, and that by doing so, he would be enabled to remove the House and Window-tax, as well as the Malt-tax. But hon. Members might ask how was this to be done? He would, in his turn, ask how everything else was done? Nothing more easy when once they set properly about it. In the first place he would have sworn brokers, who, upon inquiry, would be compelled to give the necessary information on the subject, and this could not be called in any way a tax upon, or an interference with, public credit; it was only a fair and equitable mode of providing for the reductions called for, and nothing was more easy to be done. He would not carry on his Budget much further. He was not quite satisfied as to his knowledge on the subject of reciprocity dealing, or he would ask why it was that French shoes and French gloves were not taxed upon being imported into this country. He only threw this out as a matter for inquiry. He believed he had now nearly discharged the duties of his newly-acquired office, and, without any hesitation or prevarication, he begged to call upon the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to resume it, and he trusted that he might live long to enjoy it in health and happiness for the benefit of the country at large. For himself he would say, that he resigned his new honours with a much better grace than some hon. Gentlemen who left office. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, with a view to taking into consideration the propriety of partially or totally repealing the duty on Malt."

said, he most willingly seconded the Motion as far as it went, but he had nothing to do with the humorous observations introduced by the hon. Baronet. When the Motion was made last year on this subject, and carried, the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to it that the Budget for the year had, at that time, been made up and passed, but this year no such objection could be made. He was most anxious to press this Motion upon the attention of the House with a view to its being carried. He was well acquainted with the distresses of the agriculturists, and it was not the first time he had had occasion to call the attention of the House to them. It was, at one time, his hope that a measure of relief, such as that now contemplated, would have emanated from Ministers; but as, unfortunately, that was not the case, he was determined to go along with his constituents in seeking relief from the burthens under which they laboured. The question for the consideration of the House was not how much or how little of this was to be taken off, but merely for a Committee of Inquiry to see if any, and what part of it could be removed with propriety. Was there any hon. Member in that House who could put his hand to his heart and say, that such an inquiry ought not to take place? Were they prepared to send Members back to their constituents to tell them that nothing was to be done for them—that even an inquiry into their distresses had been refused? The distress which existed amongst the agriculturists was not stationary—it was progressing fast; new cases of suffering were occurring daily, which, he feared, would soon create a spirit of discontent and disorganization, which it would in a short time be difficult to check. After the kindness he had experienced from the House on a former evening, when speaking on this subject, it was not his intention to take up much of their time, but he could not resist the opportunity of calling upon them to go along with the tide of petitions which had flown in from the agriculturists, and allow this inquiry. Should the result be such as he hoped it might, he trusted the noble Lord opposite would be enabled to meet any deficiency which might arise by availing himself of other resources. In the name of the agriculturists he implored the House not to turn a deaf ear to their prayer.

said, that he should not have risen then had he seen the slightest disposition on the part of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) to address the House. If the object of the hon. Baronet's Motion had been to abolish any monopoly, or to repeal any tax which operated injuriously towards the industrious classes of the community, it would have received his most willing support; but he could only regard the hon. Baronet's proposition as an attempt on the part of the agricultural interest to put their hands into the pockets of the people. [Cries of" No."] It appeared to him that the agricultural interest wished to raise a revenue from the other interests in the state, in order to place that revenue in their own pockets. ["No, no."] He believed the substance of the hon. Baronet's comical budget was a proposal to repeal the Malt-tax, and reimpose on the people the Beer-tax. The hon. Baronet had also suggested the expediency of imposing additional duties on spirits and wine, and the hon. Baronet went so far that he might easily have been mistaken for a member of the Temperance Society, had he not concluded by proposing the repeal of the Malt-tax. He had certainly no objection to lower the price of beer to agricultural labourers, notwithstanding that the Magistrates and clergymen who had given evidence before the Beer Committee last Session, attributed all the crimes committed in the country to the low price of beer, in conjunction with the establishment of beer-shops; but he was opposed to the hon. Baronet's plan, because it was essentially a proposition to impose a tax on the consumers of beer in towns who were too poor to brew for themselves, in order that the growers of barley might place the produce in their own pockets. He trusted, therefore, that the Representatives of towns would protect the interest of the poorer classes of their constituents by refusing to give their sanction to the proposed partial system of taxation. The repeal of the Malt-tax would not have any tendency, in his opinion, to reduce the price of beer or malt to any considerable extent, unless that measure was accompanied by the removal of the duties on the importation of foreign barley. The simple repeal of the Malt-tax would only benefit the occupiers of barley-growing districts; and as he did not see the expediency of conferring exclusive advantages on any one separate interest in the State, he should vote against the Motion.

denied that the removal of the Malt-duty would raise the price of beer to the consumers in towns, and said that the interests, not of the lower classes of the people, but of the great brewers alone, were considered in the continuance of that tax. The House had been told that the landed interest wanted to obtain the repeal of the Malt-tax in order to put the money in their own pockets. Now, he was ready to admit that the landed interest would obtain some relief by the removal of the duty, and in their present distressed condition they were entitled to relief; but the benefit would not be exclusively theirs, for it would be shared equally between the consumer and the producer. If the landowners took his advice, they would adopt every measure having a tendency to lower prices. Many years back they had neglected to prepare for a return to a metallic currency, and they had suffered severely for their want of prudence. Let them not betray a similar want of foresight with regard to the Corn-laws. Persevering endeavours would be made to obtain the repeal of those laws, and that those endeavours would be successful in the end he could not but believe. Under these circumstances, it was the interest of the landowners to prepare for the evil day, by lowering the price of the articles which they produced, and they could only effect this object by reducing the cost of cultivation. He considered it to be the interest of the landowners to repeal every tax affecting the production of the articles of life, and for this reason he was an advocate for a Property-tax, which pressed upon the rich, and not upon the poor. He recollected that when a Property-tax existed in this country it was run down by the clamour of itinerant orators, who possessed no property whatever. Since that period the people had become more enlightened, and a Property-tax would, he had no doubt, be now not unpopular in the country. He certainly thought that every Gentleman, before he voted in favour of the hon. Baronet's Motion, ought to be prepared with a substitute to supply the deficiency in the revenue which the repeal of the Malt-duty would create, for unless that deficiency was supplied, the national faith, the maintenance of which ought to be the first care of Parliament, could not be preserved. He was prepared with a substitute in the shape of a Property-tax, and he, therefore, considered himself at liberty to vote in favour of the hon. Baronet's Motion.

said, he now rose principally for the purpose of explaining how it happened that he was not in his place on Tuesday evening, to bring forward his Motion for a repeal of the duty on windows. The cause was this—a deputation from Marylebone had waited on him in the course of that day, requesting him not to bring it forward. The Central Committee of Westminster made a similar request; a large public meeting, at which at least 1,000 persons were present, made a similar request—all objecting to that tax, but yet all agreeing that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not afford it now, he might be prepared for it in the course of the ensuing year. These meetings were thankful for the remission of 1,200,000l., as promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; they were thankful for the promised repeal of the odious and partial House-duty—and owing to these circumstances, and not from any consultation with the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had not brought forward his Motion. He might at all events be now permitted to say why he should vote against the proposed Motion. He thought that the agricultural interest had the east claim fora reduction of taxes, and that five-sixths of the Members of the House were its professed advocates. Too much caution, therefore, could not be used in watching so powerful a body. The remission of the Property-tax alone gave a benefit of many millions to the agricultural interest.

said, there was no distinction of interests engaged in this question. He looked upon it as one involving the moral interests of the people, and as such, worthy of the best attention of that House. The beer-shops were established by the late Ministers, who also reduced the duty upon ardent spirits; and the result was, that the people were in as great a state of demoralisation, as in the bad times of Sir R. Walpole. He believed it would be unavailable to put a tax upon spirits; but his object was to give the people a taste of homely comforts, and thereby save their characters. The quantity of spirits consumed had increased to an extraordinary extent throughout the United Kingdom since the reduction of the duty on spirits from 11s. 8d. to 7s. In England, the increase was from 3,400,000 to 7,000,000, according to the last return; in Scotland, from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 gallons; and, in Ireland, from 2,000,000 to 9,000,000 gallons. If any remission were to take place in the Malt-tax, it should be altogether remitted; but even the remission of 2s. 6d. a bushel, would afford considerable relief to the agricultural interest. He was the Representative of a large constituency, of a large manufacturing and commercial community; and he could say for himself, and, he believed, for his constituents, that no injury could arise to them from acceding to the present Motion. If the duty upon malt were taken off, the beer would be stronger and better than it was at present, and the towns would get the benefit of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had 500,000l. surplus. He would call it 300,000l.; and he would venture to add, that such diminutions might be made in the expenses of the army and colonies, as would supply the amount of the Malt-tax. Believing that, he had no hesitation, whatever, in supporting the Motion; and, though the repeal of the tax might tend to the advantage of the barley lands, he could not say, that the agriculturists were not entitled to any relief which that would give them.

was of opinion, that this Motion was not only singular in itself, but most singularly supported. Indeed, it appeared as if the hon. Baronet and his Motion were both to be thrown overboard together. As the Motion originally stood, it was for the total repeal of the Malt-tax; but as it was now shaped, it was merely for inquiry in a Committee up stairs—[" No, no, in a Committee of the whole House"]. Well, be it so, but his mistake was not unreasonable after the change which had been made in the terms of the Motion. He could not vote for this Motion—not because he did not know and feel for the sufferings of the agricultural interest, but because he thought, that the repeal of the Malt-tax would not answer the expected purpose. Such relief as its repeal would give, would go into the pockets of the agriculturist—would benefit the barley-growers, but would in no degree confer any benefit upon the poorer consumers of beer. There was at present a redundant supply of all sorts of labour in the market, and the only means of giving relief would be, by taking off taxes, and thereby giving greater employment to the people. The repeal of the Malt-duty would do no general good; and he verily believed, that distress would not be relieved, till "the old owners and occupiers of the soil were worn out." He meant, in saying this, to speak of those persons who "were tied down by old engagements;" those persons who contracted to pay two bushels, and were now paying at the rate of five; and he could assure the House, that the wearing-out system was now very rapidly on the advance. He knew a tract of land, the forest of Needwood, in the county of Stafford, comprising 10,000 acres, upon which there was not a single occupier who had been there twenty years ago. This he spoke of from his own knowledge—in fact, they were altogether annihilated, or swept away to gaols or to lunatic asylums. "Their places knew them no more;" they borrowed upon paper-money—upon unstandard-money, which, by a vote of this House, was voted to be equal to standard-money. The people then confided in this House, and this confidence was their ruin. He would not participate in the act of 1819, for he considered it one of the greatest acts of fraud, as well as of cruelty, that was ever inflicted upon civilised man. He was not much in the habit of trespassing upon the attention of the House, and on the present occasion he was strictly confining himself to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and only stating why he could not give his support to the Motion. He admitted the distress of the agriculturists, and that this Motion would give them relief; but he thought that that relief would be extremely small unless the whole of the Malt-tax were taken off. He did not think this an occasion upon which we could go into an inquiry of the general fiscal system of the country. He did not think, that this Motion was likely to produce the benefits which the hon. Baronet intended, and for this reason he could not give it his support.

could not abstain from alluding to the nature of the agricultural relief which had been suggested by the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him. The hon. Member had spoken as if he proposed to sweep away all the old occupiers of land. Till this event took place—till all the old occupiers of land had been Swept away—he had predicted that there would be no relief afforded to agriculture. He (Colonel Wood) certainly could not acquiesce in this opinion, which did not comprehend the principles calculated to furnish agricultural relief. The total Repeal of the Malt-tax was practically impossible, for it would be hopeless to raise in its place a tantamount income. He knew of nothing so likely to remedy the difficulties under which the agriculturists were now suffering as a partial repeal of the tax. If the House agreed to repeal half the Malt-tax, and impose a duty of 5s. a barrel on beer, those Gentlemen who advocated the cause of the consumer might rely, it would not increase the price of beer one halfpenny. If this 5s. were imposed upon beer, and a correspondent 5s. deducted from the Malt-tax, it would be attended with an advantage to the moral interests of society, in addition to that of the agricultural interests, in having a tendency to suppress those beer-shops in the bye paths which were calculated to exercise a deteriorating influence on the morals of the people. In the opinion which had been expressed that an advance in the price of barley, which this Motion, if carried into effect, was intended to produce, would operate to the disadvantage of the labouring classes of the community, he could not agree. Wheat was the customary food of the people of England; and he should be sorry to see them reduced to the necessity of using any other bread I than what was made from that sort of grain. But this was barley, the price of which he wished to raise, and it was certain that an advance of two or three shillings per quarter upon it, which would probably be effected by the method he had proposed, would effect much relief to the agriculturist. This would be more especially the case in the barley districts; and those districts were great; and in truth it would hardly be confined to them alone, for there were few districts in which barley was not more or less grown. Under the existing prices, bad samples were unsaleable; but these would be rendered saleable by any means which could be devised to advance the prices. Any measure, therefore, calculated to elevate the prices of barley was certainly of the utmost importance to the general interests of agriculture, and, guided by this principle, he must vote for the Repeal of the Malt-tax.

had come down under the impression that the proposition to be made was for a total repeal of the Malt-tax; and he must say, there was considerable inconvenience, a notice having been given, that a specific proposal was to be made, in any hon. Member coming forward, and, in an instant, without any previous intimation of the change, introducing great and essential alterations in the purport and design of the original Motion. At the same time, he was not sure that the nature of the proposition had been in the present case substantially altered; because the hon. Baronet who introduced it stated his conviction, that little, if any relief, could be derived from a partial repeal of the Malt-duty; and his proposal, in fact, was to abolish the whole, promising to supply the deficiency of revenue that might result from its total abolition by substituting certain other taxes, which the hon. Baronet had detailed with some facetiousness. He did not apprehend, that the proposal of the hon. Baronet for a Committee, was with the view of maturely considering the subject, and calmly investigating how the interests of agriculture would be influenced by a partial, or total repeal of the Malt-tax. He feared, that on going into the Committee, a specific and sweeping proposition would at once be submitted to it for the repeal of the whole tax, and that the hon. Baronet had therefore only altered the forms of his Motion. With respect to the total repeal of the Malt-duty, he still adhered to the opinion he had stated in the last Session. It was impossible to decide on such a proposition without looking at the state of the revenue; although he did not consider it necessary to refer to it in detail, as every Gentleman must bear in mind the statement of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a few nights before. His opinion, taking into consideration the present state of the revenue of the country, was, that the House could not consent to such an extensive reduction of taxation as would be implied in the total repeal of the Malt-tax. The noble Lord, in his financial statement, had calculated, that the entire surplus of revenue during the present year would be 2,600,000l., of which 800,000l. was to be reserved, in order to defray the interest of the 20,000,000l. voted to the West-India proprietors, and for which the national honour was pledged. There remained, therefore, a sum of 1,800,000l.; and as the noble Lord proposed giving relief by the reduction of taxation to the amount of 1,200,000l. the entire surplus would be only 600,000l., which he for one, taking into consideration the state of the country, the extent of its revenue, and the possibly increased demands which might be made on it—did not think constituted too large a sum to leave as a margin, as it was popularly called, to meet contingencies. He thought, however, that the noble Lord had greatly overrated the surplus on which he calculated. There was 1,500,000l. estimated to be derived from a difference between the expenditure and revenue of last year; there was 500,000l. to be derived from savings in the Estimates; and 600,000l. calculated as the increase of the duty on tea. He had stated on a former occasion, and subsequent reflection had more firmly convinced him, that the noble Lord had no right to calculate on such an increase arising to the revenue from an alteration in the duty on tea. The noble Lord seemed perfectly satisfied, that he should be able to dispose of 36,000,000 lbs. of tea a year; and it would, of course, be great presumption in him to utter any counter-prediction to that of the noble Lord; but he would venture to say, that the noble Lord would not realize 600,000l. from the change in the system, as the noble Lord calculated. The noble Lord, in his opinion, had made a great mistake; the great probability was, that he would not be able to realize nearly one-half of what he had stated. The noble Lord was not entitled to promote the sale of tea by reducing the upset prices; and if they were continued, 36,000,000 lbs. could never be disposed of; and, in the most favourable state of matters, it was very doubtful more than doubtful, whether 600,000l. would be realized of increased revenue. There was to be a graduated scale of duties according to the qualities of the tea imported; had the noble Lord taken into consideration that it would be necessary on that account materially to increase the number of Excise Officers, the expense of which would no doubt deduct from the income which would be derived from the new scale of duties? Besides, another deduction should be made on account of the inevitable increase which would take place of smuggling. Upon the whole, he did not think that the result would justify the calculation of the noble Lord, and therefore the state of the revenue, and the probable vicissitudes to which it might be subjected, would not warrant the House in repealing the Malttax, and, in his opinion, the agricultural interest would have a much better chance of obtaining relief by maintaining public credit, than by pressing for such a reduction of the revenue as would endanger it. So far as personal motives could weigh with any man, it must be with him a primary object to protect the agricultural interest; but looking at the present price of the funds, considering the chance there was that an early and legitimate reduction of the public burthens would take place by diminishing the interest on those funds, his fixed and deliberate opinion was, that public credit should not be endangered or lessened by any rash and precipitate attempt to obtain the repeal of the tax in question. He had been astonished to hear no reference made by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to the state of the four per cents in his financial statement. The hon. Baronet who introduced the Motion, had reminded him of an observation he had made, that those who proposed a measure by which any considerable diminution of the revenue would be occasioned, were bound to provide a feasible substitute; and the hon. Baronet said, that he, of course, came prepared with a substitute. He had not 'the least objection to consider the propriety of adopting the proposition of laying an increased tax on gin; there was nothing very novel in that; he was, in fact, disposed to lay as heavy a duty on that; noxious fluid as could possibly be collected from it, consistently with the interests of the fair trader, and the maintenance of the present amount of the public revenue. But if, by laying on an enormous tax on gin, an indirect advantage was given to illicit distillation, it was very difficult to see in what way the revenue would be increased, or the cause of public morality improved, by the change. Certainly, the interests of the industrious classes of society ought to be considered; and if it could be shown that any increase of taxation on a luxury like foreign wine would not diminish its consumption, and increase the public revenue, it would be a very convenient argument in favour of the present motion; but when the hon. Baronet had a little more experience in his office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would find, that whatever it might be in arithmetic, two and two did not in matters of revenue always make four. The hon. Baronet had also talked of imposing a tax on a certain class of mountebanks, and, perhaps, it might be possible to find out a worse tax. Certainly, if it would be an ad valorem tax, after listening to the speech of the hon. Baronet, he should be strongly inclined to support it. He must say, that if the hon. Baronet really meant to support the agricultural interest, he had treated the subject with a degree of ridicule which, considering the importance of it, and the distressed condition of that part of the community, was unwise and unseemly. The hon. member for Wiltshire (Mr. Bennet) had stated, that he would support the Motion, because, although he did not approve of the substitutes proposed by the hon. Baronet, yet he was prepared to find a substitute for the diminished revenue in a Property-tax. If he could concur in that view—if he could bring himself to think it would be desirable or expedient in the present state of the country to impose such a tax—he might have been induced to go along with him on the present occasion; but deprecating as he did, above all things, the re-imposition, in times of peace, of such an inquisitorial tax, without the most serious and overwhelming necessity, he could neither adopt the proposal nor act on the motives of the hon. Member. The hon. member for Breconshire (Colonel Wood) had urged the House to repeal one-half of the Malt-tax, and impose a new duty of 5s. on beer; but what would be the consequence of that? The Beer-tax had been repealed now two years; and would there not be great vexation in re-establishing it? Would not the greatest inconvenience result from any fresh interference with it, now that much capital had been invested in the trade, and had adjusted itself to the present scale of taxation. Would not the re-imposition of that tax occasion more inconvenience than advantage? He remembered well, that the strongest outcry was raised against the Beer-tax, because it was said, that it fell very heavily upon the poor, who were unable to brew themselves, and were compelled to purchase their beer of the brewers, and that the repeal of the Malt-tax would only benefit noblemen and gentlemen who brewed and consumed their own beer, but would be no relief to the poorer classes, whose consumption of beer was much greater than theirs. There was, indeed, no other reason for abolishing the Beer-tax than a strong conviction, that it was most unjust towards the labouring classes of society; in fact, that the rich man paid no more than twenty, while the poor man paid, at least, 100 per cent. One of the great reasons for abolishing that tax was, that it operated unjustly towards the industrious and labouring classes of society; but if the proposition of the hon. Member was agreed to, it would revive that tax, and substitute for the duty on malt, now in operation, an impost which would have the same effect precisely, as far as agriculture was concerned, although in an altered form. He still adhered to the opinion, that to the extent to which taxes could be removed, consistently with the maintenance of the public credit, the agriculturists had the first claim; and he hoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consider the proposition he had made the other night, to appoint a Committee for the purpose of maturely considering what was the real effect of public and local taxation on the agricultural classes. There could be no possible objection to such an inquiry, embracing, as it would, specific facts, in order to see how far, and whether fairly or unfairly, the pressure of taxation fell on the rural population. He very much doubted, whether the abolition of the Malt-tax would produce the relief to the landed interest which was generally imagined. The Malt-tax produced about 5,000,000l. The actual Poor-rates from the land much about the same amount. He was speaking strictly of the Poor-rate—of that part of the Poor-rates which pressed upon the land. And if he were asked this question—whether it would be of greater advantage to the landed interest to get rid of the Malt-tax of 5,000,000l., or to get rid of the Poor-rates; he should not have the slightest hesitation in answering the latter. Suppose they could apply the produce of the Malt-tax to the provision of the poor out of the public funds, would there be any hesitation in saying which would prove the most effectual relief to the agriculturists. Certainly, the removal of the Poor-rate would be one of infinitely greater, more general, and more just relief to the landed interest, than the mere repeal of the tax upon barley. In uttering these opinions, he did not intend to preclude himself from fully considering, whether there might not, with advantage, be a partial remission of the Malt-tax to the extent of the surplus which the noble Lord could afford to bestow. He said, afford to bestow, because he believed the noble Lord had not above 1,200,000l. to give away. He was not prepared, at once, to say, that taking off a fourth of the Malt-tax would operate as any great relief to agriculture. If only one-fourth were reduced, all the vexation attendant upon the collection of the tax would still continue. He must certainly bear in mind, that we were living in a country where there were great quantities of barley grown; but he much doubted whether, by the remission of the Barley-tax to that amount, though he knew the barley growers were suffering, they would give relief to that class of the agriculturists who were most in want of it. It was established before the Committee last year, that the cold wet clay districts in which barley was not much grown, were the most suffering. In some of those districts the rent used to be 20s., and the charges 50s.; now the rent was 50s. and the charges were 20s. These lands would get no relief from a partial remission of the Malt-tax. Considering the manner in which the hon. Baronet had brought the question forward, and the deep importance of the interests at stake, he certainly hoped, that the whole subject would receive the early attention of that House (and certainly none deserved it more), with a view of establishing some permanent system of relief. Though he could not, at present, concur in the total repeal of the Malt-tax, and though he thought the advantages of a partial repeal somewhat doubtful, yet he considered, that whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, consistently with the state of the revenue, and the maintenance of public credit, make any remission of taxation, the agricultural interest had the very first claim to the benefit of that remission.

would state, that his opinion with respect to the Repeal of the Malt-tax did not agree with that of the right hon. Baronet at all. For he could not conceive him to be guided by correct principles for the relief of the farmer, when he stated, that he would choose the abolition of the Poor-rates in preference to the Repeal of the Malt-tax. He feared, indeed, that he had fallen into the same error as the noble Lord had done when he stated, that the Poor-rates pressed heavily on the occupiers of the soil. In what way, he would ask, did they press heavily on the occupiers of the soil? It could not be said, that they pressed more heavily upon them than the tithes. They could, in truth, be only regarded as a part of the rent, and as such produced no pressure on the farmers. In illustration of this point, he would say, that he might as well call upon the House for relief from the payment of stamps at the Stamp-office. To say, that the occupiers of the soil were the payers of the Poor-rates would indeed be false and absurd. They did no such thing. It was the consumer who paid the Poor-rates. Instead, therefore, of going into a General Committee of Inquiry into the natural and local burthens of the occupier of land, as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet, it would be more convenient for the House to consider one thing at a time, and in the meantime to take into their serious consideration the Repeal of the Malt-tax. He had no doubt but that it would be argued by some, that the Repeal of the Malt-tax was putting the money into the pockets of the landlords. No such thing. The idea was preposterous, and wholly unfounded, unless it could be shown that the landlords drank all the beer. Those who maintained the opinion that all the profits arising from the Repeal of this tax would accrue to the landowners, had a very erroneous view of the subject; for it was clear the money would be put into the pocket of the consumer, and into his pocket only. It was true, many of the witnesses examined by the Committee said, that beer-shops were a great evil, but many witnesses also gave it as their opinion, that the proper remedy for this evil would be the Repeal of the Malt-tax. Beer-shops were an evil, but the real correction of that evil would be the repeal of the Malt-tax. The amount of this tax was the great objection stated against it. Now, his objection was not so much to the amount as to the mischief produced by the tax. It was not just to say, that this tax bore more heavily than other taxes upon particular classes. The fact was, that all taxes spread themselves over the whole of society, and if a tax were imposed on titles of nobility, that tax would eventually fall upon the poor as well as the rich. The amount of the Malt-tax would be a matter of indifference to him if there were no injurious circumstances connected with it besides the amount. The first evil was, that it drove the working people to the beer-shops, and a still greater evil that it drove the farming servants from the houses of the farmers. They must be all aware what a great change had taken place in this respect from the old custom. Formerly the servants were kept and maintained from their youth in the farming houses, and no person would deny that they were much better off under the care of the farmer and his wife than under that of their father and mother, because they were not so much indulged. This change of custom had operated a great and lamentable change in the character and manners of the rural population, and the great cause of this was the Malt-tax. One of the greatest sources of expense in keeping men servants in farmhouses was the beer they drank. Beer they must have, and beer they ought to have. They must have ale, too, occasionally, and they ought to have it. This being the case, the farmer now, in place of keeping labourers in the house, hired the servants by the week, one boy for one week, another boy for another, to save the expense of beer. Another evil was, that the Malt-tax created a monstrous monopoly. Eight bushels of barley would produce nine bushels of malt. Now, any farmer, were it not for this tax, could make his own malt as well as a maltster; and what a great difference would it make to him, having his own barley in the house, if he could convert as much or as little of it as he pleased into malt when he had occasion for it. The price of malt now was 64s. the quarter, or 8s. a bushel. The present price of barley was 24s. a quarter, and the tax 20s. 8d.; making together 44s. 8d. Now the whole difference between this and 64s. went into the pocket of the maltster. This difference went to pay the maltster's profit and licence, and interest on his capital. But what was the maltster's capital to the farmer? The farmer did not want it, and would, indeed, be better without it; for, by the operation of this tax, it was clear that 20s. per quarter was added to the price of the barley, and the duty; for the increase gained in malting was quite sufficient to produce a handsome profit. He was surprised at some of the observations of the hon. member for Bridport. Did the hon. Member imagine that the people belonging to barley lands, were the only people that liked beer? The hon. Member would find that half the beer was drunk in the towns; and when the hon. member for Westminster expressed his intention of voting against this Motion, because it would be injurious to his constituents, by depriving them of the 1,200,000l. which the noble Lord had in his pocket to dispose of, he would ask him if he did not believe that his constituents drank beer? Yes; and the tax which they paid in consequence of the duty upon malt, he would pledge himself to show, by figures, amounted to four times as much as the sum which they paid for House and Window-duties. Imagine an artisan, or little tradesman, paying 4l. or 5l. a-year for the House and Window-tax, and sending for three or four pots of beer every day of his life—let him brew his own beer—let him get his malt at 26s. a quarter instead of 64s., and then, he asked, would such a man gain more by the abolition of the House and Window-duty, or by ceasing to pay the tax upon malt. With regard to the Motion, he was very much divided as to whether he should vote for the Motion or not. He had great respect for the hon. Baronet who made this Motion, but it depended on whether the repeal of the Malt-tax was to be total or partial. He doubted whether a partial repeal would produce any sensible good. Suppose 10s., half the duty, were taken off, all the rest remained—all the monopoly—all the vexation—all remained. The working man would still have to pay 54s. a quarter for malt, whilst he wanted him to pay only 24s. If the price were only reduced to 54s. instead of 24s., he would almost as lieve pay 64s. He should, however, reserve to himself the right of voting as he thought most advantageous. The hon. member for Westminster had made some of the strangest observations he ever heard in his life. What strange hostility the Members for some of the Metropolitan constituencies seemed to bear to the land! One would almost think they never ate. The hon. Member had reminded the House, that the landlords were greatly relieved by the taking off the Property-tax. What! did it relieve the land and the land alone? Why, surely this must have taken place before the hon. and gallant Member was born. He had no land then, and yet he paid a Property-tax. He paid a good 100l. a-year Property-tax for a certain publication which should be nameless in that House. That was not landed property, and yet he knew that he felt a most sensible relief. Surely they were not to be told, that the landlords alone derived relief from the repeal of that tax. He thanked the House for the attention with which he was heard, and would not trespass longer on their time.

said, that, as the question seemed to be reduced to the point of considering which of certain modes of taxation was most expedient, he felt himself bound to declare, that in his opinion the budget of the noble Lord opposite was preferable to that of the hon. Baronet on his side of the House. He could not believe, that this Motion was supported by its promoters on the ground, that it would afford relief to the people at large. Considering the proposition which had been brought forward on a former evening by the noble Marquess who had seconded this Motion, he must look at the Motion of that night as one intended for the exclusive benefit of the agricultural interest. He thought, that his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, had indisputably proved that the taking off the Beer-tax was more calculated to benefit the people than the taking off the Malt-tax. He looked upon those who now proposed this Motion as persons eminently wise in their generation, for they had brought it forward to benefit the class to which they themselves belonged, namely—the agricultural. Now, he put it to the House, whether the Members of that class were entitled to such a boon,—they who were now in possession of the greatest and the most monstrous monopoly that had ever been known in any country in the world. He had that day taken the trouble of making some inquiries respecting that monopoly; and he found, upon comparing the price of grain in bond with the duty which must now be paid before it could be let out of bond, that the agriculturists had a protecting duty on wheat of 140 per cent, and on barley of 130 per cent. With such a protecting duty on an article which was justly considered the staff of life, with such a monopoly too as they possessed of the domestic Corn Market, they had still the assurance to come down to the House and ask for the remission of a tax, every farthing of which would be put exclusively into their own pockets. The hon. and gallant member for Breconshire had stated, that the mere agitation of this question last Session had raised the price of barley several shillings—8s. or 9s. at least, in the quarter. That was the very reason why he opposed the Motion. The hon. member for Oldham stated, that the price of a quarter of barley was 24s. and of a quarter of malt was 64s. Now, he had that morning inquired into the point himself, and he found that barley, according to its quality, was 27s., 30s., and 34s. a quarter, and that malt was 53s., 55s., and 58s.; so that the difference between the price of barley and of malt was nothing like so enormous as that which the hon. Member had stated. The hon. Member concluded by declaring his intention to vote against the Motion.

considered the subject under debate as one of extreme importance, notwithstanding the manner, highly unfortunate for the cause, in which the hon. Baronet had thought proper to introduce it. He trusted, however, that the merits of the question would not be permitted to suffer on that account. There were some who thought, that a partial repeal of the Malt-tax was desirable; some who were of opinion, that the repeal ought to be total. Under such circumstances, there was but one course of proceeding which could be considered perfectly justifiable. Here were a great many Gentlemen all ready to afford relief, but not agreeing as to the extent of that relief. The only proper course, therefore, was to put the Motion in a shape which should enable all who agreed in the general principle, that relief to some extent or other should be afforded, fully to discuss to what extent it should be carried. In all the recent proceedings of that House, it had been the uniform rule and practice to deal with all questions affecting our commerce, our agriculture, our manufactures, or any other of our great interests, in a Committee of the whole House; it being obvious, that a debate upon any subject of that kind could be carried on more conveniently and more satisfactorily in a Committee of the House, than in the House itself. He thought, therefore, that the change which the hon. Baronet had made in the form of his Motion, was a discreet one; and he wished that the rest of the course pursued by the hon. Baronet had been equally discreet. On one point he perfectly concurred with his right hon. friend, the Member for Tamworth; and he trusted that the great majority of that House would never be of any other opinion, than that the public faith of the country must be supported, at whatever expense, and with whatever sacrifices. If the public engagements of the country were not performed—if the country ceased to respect its engagements—the example would operate on all private transactions, and no individual whatever would be secure in the enjoyment of his rights. He held, that the maintenance of national faith was the only proof of civilization; and that, to permit the good faith of this country to be overborne by clamour or party would be to ensure the downfall of the country itself. He trusted, therefore, that the House, however constituted, would never take any step which might place the finances of this country in a situation to expose us to the danger of such a catastrophe. The great change proposed, involving no less than 4,500,000l. of revenue, rendered it necessary to consider what the general state of our finances was. He begged for a moment to take a view of their state at the end of the last war. That war left us with tremendous debt. With that debt we were still loaded; for, with the exception of the higher stocks, which had been reduced, there had been little diminution in it. At the period to which he adverted, many persons, and he among the number, thought that it would have been a wise course if the country had had the fortitude to look to the gradual diminution of the debt, and to provide the means for that purpose. That, in his opinion, would have been sound policy. He believed it was the policy that had been recommended by the noble Lord now at the head of his Majesty's Government. He was perfectly convinced, that if that policy had been pursued, the House would not, at the present moment, be debating whether or not it was prudent to make the reduction of taxation proposed. He was perfectly convinced, that if that policy had been pursued, and a very moderate support had been given to public credit, there would have been no such thing at the present moment as any stock bearing an interest of three per cent; for it would have been practicable to reduce that interest to at most two-and-a-half per cent. Had such reduction occurred, we might, at the present moment be reducing all our taxes on spirits, wine, and other articles of extensive consumption. What was the reason that Exchequer-bills bore so small an interest? Because the moneyed public had confidence in the short engagements of Government; and the Exchequer-bills coming round quick, they had no doubts with respect to them. But the moneyed public had no such confidence in the long engagements of Government; for, seeing that the Legislature made no provision for the diminution of the debt, they naturally asked themselves what might eventually become of their property. If, at the termination of the war, a wiser policy had been adopted—if a moderate sinking fund had been reserved, the country would, at the present moment, be enjoying, by its operation, a relief of ten per cent on its burthens. They had recently made an engagement to pay 20,000,000l, to the West-India proprietors. The noble Lord had very properly estimated the interest on that money at four per cent, being 800,000l. Now, he was convinced, that if, at the termination of the war, we had put our credit into the state in which it ought to have been put, that 800,000l. would have been reduced to 400,000l. It appeared to him, therefore, to have been exceedingly unfortunate that another course had not been adopted. Parliament, however, having decided that point otherwise, and it being impossible for us to retrace our steps, he was prepared to deal with the question on the principle upon which Parliament had determined that it should be dealt with; namely, that the country was entitled to every sixpence of relief from taxation which the Treasury could grant it. Under such circumstances, it was natural that hon. Members should claim the particular relief which would be beneficial to their particular constituents. They then came to the simple question before the House. He thought it would be exceedingly proper for the House to go into a Committee on the Malt-tax. All who thought that any relief could be afforded by a reduction of the Malt-tax must vote for the Committee; always leaving it open to them to declare, whether that relief should be 5s. or 10s., or the whole tax. In the first instance, he was inclined to think, that a reduction of 10s. in the duty was the most advisable. He confessed, however, that, on considering the question more carefully, he became of opinion, that it was desirable the whole duty should be got rid of. For, although a reduction of 10s. would be, pro tanto, relief, yet the repeal of the whole tax would be productive of such extensive relief by restoring freedom to the manufacturers of malt, and would so largely benefit agriculture, that he should certainly prefer it. If a reduction of 10s. were made in the duty, the relief afforded would be only to the extent of 10s.; but if the whole duty were repealed, the relief would be not only 1l. 0s. 8d. (the amount of the duty), but of all the additional expense and incumbrance endured by the manufacturer of malt, and which had been so well explained by the hon. member for Oldham. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had contradicted the statements of the hon. member for Oldham, respecting the comparative prices of barley and malt. He had taken some trouble to obtain information on the subject, and, he believed, that the mistake of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had arisen from his having made his inquiries of the wholesale dealers in Mark-lane, instead of the persons engaged in the operation of malting in the country. If he inquired among small dealers in the country, and in country towns, he would find, that the utmost price of barley per quarter was 25s. or 26s., and the price of malt from 60s. to 64s. If, as had been said, the inhabitants of towns would derive advantage from it, that would be an additional reason for repealing the tax. The price of barley being 25s. a quarter, and the duty 20s. 8d., the real price of the quarter of malt was 45s. 8d. Now, instead of malt being 46s. a quarter, it was 64s. Thus there was a waste of 18s. in every quarter. What the profit of the maltster was he could not say, but he knew that the expense of making barley into malt was comparatively trifling. He presumed, however, that the profit in that trade could not be greater than it was in others, Now, in taking off taxes, they ought always to take into consideration the cost of collection; that was, the difference in the amount of the money taken from the pockets of the people and the sum that was received by the Crown. It was one of the great problems in finance to impose taxes so, that the cost of collection should be as little as possible. Here, however, they found that the actual expense of a quarter of malt, as was clearly shown by the hon. member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett) was only 45s; whereas the consumer in this country had an additional tax of 18s. a quarter imposed on him for the charge of collection. He thought, that no person who had listened to the very luminous speech of the hon. member for Oldham could have a doubt as to the oppressive operation of that tax. The Government, for the protection of the revenue, imposed restrictions as to the mode in which the article should be manufactured. To carry on the business of malting with success, it was necessary to employ a large capital; for, in many instances, the maltster was obliged to pay large sums in advance to the Government. He was also obliged to keep a large establishment, and was exposed to the most inconvenient, and, in many instances, oppressive, interference in the manufacture; of course such interference, and the advance of capital, made a very considerable additional charge to the consumer. A distinction had that night been drawn between the interests of the agricultural population and the inhabitants of large towns. Now, that was not the first time he had heard such observations, but, he confessed, that he was always sorry to hear them. His hon. friend, the member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) seemed to consider, that it was his duty to carp at everything connected with the landed interest, and was anxious on all occasions to draw a line between the interests of the town and country population. Now, he thought, that drawing such lines of distinction could only be attended with mischief. He admitted, that if the labouring population of the country was in a state of distress, and labouring under great privations, there must he danger. It had been said, that proper attention had not been paid to the interests of the labouring classes, and, above all, to those of the peasantry. He did not think, that the House was justly liable to the reproach cast upon it by the hon. Baronet. In the long period during which he had been in Parliament, he had never seen that House—whether reformed or unreformed—exhibit any such inattention or indifference. But, in the present case, what was the difference between the situation of the labouring classes in towns, and the labouring classes in the country? And here he begged to observe, that as, in the early part of his life, he enjoyed the benefits accruing from labourers in commerce, so now he enjoyed the benefits accruing from labourers in agriculture. He had no motive, therefore, for leaning either to one party or the other, but he felt entirely free from prejudice in estimating the situation of both. But it was impossible to look at that situation and not see the great advantage which the labouring classes in towns possessed over the labouring classes in the country. In the newspapers of that very morning, a witness in a Court of Justice was reported to have stated, that a journeyman bookbinder, in London, could earn from 36s. to 21. 2s. a week. Now, let the House look at the labouring classes in the country. Such was their distress, and such was the unfortunate operation of the Poor-laws, that the labouring classes in the country were scarcely able, with all their efforts, to earn the scantiest means of existence. Therefore, although it might be perfectly true, that to make beer cheap would be no great object to the labouring classes in towns, it ought to be recollected, that at its present price, it seldom reached the lips of the labouring classes in the country. The proposed alteration would remove this disparity. If it could be accomplished, more would be achieved for the benefit of the poorer classes engaged in agriculture, than by any other measure of a similar description. He repeated what had been so forcibly stated by the hon. member for Oldham, that it was highly desirable that the country labourers should live in the houses of the farmers; but that the effect of the Malt-tax was to drive them out of those houses. If, instead of the labourer living out of the house of his employer, he were to live in it, great moral benefits would result. In the cider counties this benefit had, in many cases, been the result of the repeal of the duty on cider; the labourers lived in the house of the farmer; the labourer and the farmer were drawn more closely together; and the consequence was, that a better feeling was produced between the master and the servant. It was evident, therefore, that if, consistently with the great principle of preserving the national faith, and of maintaining the various establishments of the country in their necessary vigour, they would take such a step, they would certainly be doing a great and important good. He spoke hypothetically; for, admitting that great and creditable reductions had been made in the national expenditure, both by the present Administration and by their predecessors, he was apprehensive that the House and the country must anticipate the speedy arrival of the period when little or nothing more could be accomplished in the shape of economy. What the actual case was with respect to the financial prospects of the country, he could not say. He would not venture to anticipate the noble Lord's budget. He would only declare, that if those prospects were such as to justify such a proceeding, without the danger of occasioning a deficiency in the revenue, he was of opinion, that the proposition made to the House ought to be acquiesced in. If any hesitation existed on the subject, the expediency of it ought to be inquired into. That was the principle which regulated his conduct on this question. He entirely agreed with his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, in the imperative necessity of maintaining the national faith; and if he saw, upon investigation, that the proposed repeal was impracticable without endangering the public credit, he should be guilty of gross dereliction of his duty, if he were, for one moment, to give that repeal his countenance and support. The hon. Baronet had suggested the removal of part of the charge from malt to beer—a removal which, in his (Mr. Baring's) opinion, would be desirable. In no case, however, would he increase the price of beer, for what the consumer would lose by increasing the duty on beer he would gain by the reduction of the price of malt. If the noble Lord put a tax on beer producing 2,500,000l., and took off the Malt-tax, there would be a saving to the consumers of beer to the amount of 2,000,000l. He had reason to believe, that the repeal of the Beer-tax had not enabled the Government to make any considerable reductions as to the charge for supervision, and he did not believe that, if his suggestion was adopted, it would lead to a very serious charge for collection. Again, at present, malt paying duty to the amount of 500,000l. was consumed by the distillers. A tax to that amount might be put on spirits without any additional charge to the purchaser. He had also reason to believe, that the constant interference with the distiller, in consequence of the Malt-tax, was attended with so much annoyance and trouble, that the removal of it would almost justify the imposition of another 500,000l. on spirits. Indeed, he had been told by a Scotch distiller, that persons in his trade would willingly consent to have the duty increased from 2s. 9d. to 4s,. provided the Malt-tax were got rid of. By adopting the course, he had suggested the noble Lord would get 2,500,000l. by a duty on beer, 1,000,000l. on spirits, and to that the noble Lord might add the present surplus of 1,800,000l. Thus he would have 5,000,000l. to dispose of. The noble Lord certainly had not pledged himself to the repeal of the House-tax, but had committed himself to a certain extent; and he was prepared to admit, after what had taken place, that it would be an ungracious thing if the agriculturists were to get relief by the repeal of the Malt-duty, and they left on the House-tax. He really thought that, by adopting the course he had suggested, the noble Lord could take off both those taxes. The noble Lord had promised that the agricultural classes should be relieved by an alteration in the Poor-laws. He did not wish to go into that question, but he would tell the noble Lord, if he expected anything like extensive relief, by adopting the regulations recommended by the Poor-laws Commissioners in their Report, he was sure that the noble Lord would be greatly disappointed. Some of those suggestions were beneficial; but others were of a harsh nature, and would only excite ill-feeling, if attempted to be enforced. He would, however, call upon the noble Lord to consider with what grace he could commence imposing fresh hardships on the labouring classes, if he were unable to allow them to exchange cold water for wholesome beer. They must make the labouring classes comfortable before they could look for much improvement. He would only add, that all those who entertained such sentiments would give their rote for the Committee. Lord Althorp, before he went into the general question before the House, was anxious to refer to an observation that fell from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) with regard to the tea trade. He (Lord Althorp) would here observe, that he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman generally in what fell from him, and he was extremely glad to hear many of his observations. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that the new mode of collecting the duty on tea would require a large increase in the number of officers, and also a probable diminution in the amount of the receipts. He did not anticipate any such results. At any rate, during the present year, there was no necessity for going into the subject, as the new arrangements would not come into operation. His hon. friend, the member for Essex (Mr. Baring), commenced his speech by expressing his opinions as to a surplus revenue. Now, his hon. friend was aware that, last year, they differed on that point, and since then he had seen no reason to alter his opinion. His hon. friend had said, and not for the first time in that House, that the reason that Exchequer bills bore less interest than the funds, was, because there was an opinion, that there was a want of security in the funds. He regretted to hear such an opinion expressed by a man of the experience and knowledge of his hon. friend. He was satisfied that his hon. friend was entirely wrong in the view that he had taken of the subject, and the reason he had assigned had nothing to do with the case. In his opinion, the difference of price did not arise from any want of security, but from the greater convenience of Exchequer-bills. His hon. friend had also said, that if after the war we had continued to extract money from the pockets of the people, with the view of keeping up a large surplus, that, at the present time, a low interest would be paid on the funds. Now he did not agree in the opinion that had been expressed; but the consequence of not extracting more taxes from the pockets of the people with the view of keeping up a large surplus revenue was, that the capital of the country had increased, and the people were much more able to pay the interest of the debt than they formerly were. He thought, that Government had acted wisely in pursuing the course which they had, rather than in adopting the plan of his hon. friend. It was well known, that he had long made up his mind as to the impolicy of keeping up a large surplus revenue, and he was satisfied that if attempts had been made to do so from the peace, the result must have been most unsatisfactory. The probability was, that the Government would have been resisted, and that confusion would have ensued. His hon. friend then went to the question as proposed by the hon. member for Lincolnshire. He felt pretty confident, knowing as he did his hon. friend, the member for Lincolnshire, that the course which he would propose, would be straight and plain. But he (Lord Althorp) could not help feeling that, in the mode which the hon. Baronet had adopted in proposing the Repeal of the Malt-tax, he was advised by certain persons who were much better tacticians than his hon. friend. He must say, that his hon. friend had adopted advice which was not calculated to forward his views, and he was sure, that if his hon. friend had brought forward his Motion as he intended, he would have been likely to have got more supporters to his Motion. Now what was the Motion before the House? It was for a Committee of the whole House to inquire whether a reduction could be made in taxation, and, incidentally, what practical reductions could be made in the expenditure. Now, what were the topics which the House would have to consider? Different suggestions had been made as to the course which ought to be pursued. One suggestion was, that reduction should be made by taking away a portion of the interest of the National Debt. Another was, how far the expenditure of the country as regarded our establishments could be reduced to effect the object in view. Indeed, it would appear the inquiries of the Committee would extend to the whole income and expenditure of the country. Again, some questions were to be considered as to the taxes which were to be placed on in commutation of some which it was proposed to take off. His hon. friend, the member for Lincolnshire, stated what course he would pursue; and he could not help observing on this part of the subject, that his hon. friend who spoke last, did not take a view of the subject so different from that taken by the hon. Baronet as he (Lord Althorp) had expected. His hon. friend, the member for Wiltshire, had suggested, that a Property-tax should be imposed. He would only say, if the Committee was appointed, and took upon itself the imposition of taxes, it would, in point of fact, assume the whole functions of the Executive Government; and it ought not to be forgotten that the inquiry was to take place before a Committee of the whole House. For his part, he did not see how, by any possibility, such an inquiry could be conducted in such a way. He recollected, that some years ago, his right hon. friend, the member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson), brought forward a motion for the House to inquire into the whole system of taxation. Now, what was the ground for opposing that Motion? The right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that no Government could consent to a Motion of the kind without a complete abandonment of its duty; and the only ground for supporting the Motion was, that the Government had not acted consistently with the interests of the country, and that, therefore, the House took the management of the financial affairs of the country out of their hands. Therefore, taking such a view of the case, he felt that it would be utterly disgraceful to him if he did not resist the Motion to the utmost. On these grounds, he hoped the House would not consent to a Motion which implied a censure on the Government. His hon. friend who had spoken last, recommended that a tax on beer should be imposed, and said, that it would not press on the consumer so much as the Malt-tax. Now, he (Lord Althorp) would say, without hesitation, that that would not be the case as regarded the poorer class of consumers; and, in addition, it would be an unequal tax, and, therefore, must press more unfairly than the tax on malt. The hon. member for Oldham recommended that the House should repeal the whole tax. He agreed with the hon. Member, that it would be better to get rid of the whole tax than reduce it, for if the whole was not got rid of, the expense of collection, and all the vexation and difficulty now in the way of the trade, would still be retained. He agreed with the hon. Member, that the full benefit would not be given to agriculture, if they did not get rid of the whole tax, and, above all, as regarded farmers making their own malt. With respect to the observations that had been made as to the improvements that would take place in the condition of the agricultural peasantry from taking off the Malt-tax, he had a few observations to make. It had been stated, that the agricultural labourers would be induced to brew their own beer; but, however desirable that might appear, he did not believe that a change of that kind would be brought about in the present state of things. He repeated, that he did not believe that a Repeal of the Malt-tax would produce such a state of things; on the contrary, he was satisfied that the labouring classes would find it more worth their while to buy their beer of brewers than to brew it themselves. Indeed, it was hardly possible for labourers to make beer as cheap as those persons could afford to sell it who had large capitals. He was also much afraid, that the system was at an end of farm servants living in the houses of their employers, and that it was not very likely to be revived. He did not believe, that the Repeal of the Malt-tax would be productive of any such result. With respect to the recommendation, that a tax should be imposed on beer in lieu of the Malt-tax, he wished to observe, that he very well recollected the arguments which were urged with reference to the Repeal of the Beer-tax. It was then shown, that the regulations necessary in the collection of that tax were most vexatious; and it was also proved to the satisfaction of the House, that the consumers of beer would gain much more by getting rid of that tax, than by reducing the Malt-tax. Indeed he was satisfied, that any attempt to re-impose that tax, or impose a tax of a similar nature on the country, would give rise to the most serious opposition. He (Lord Althorp) had said, that the imposing a tax on beer in the room of the Malt-tax would be unfair, as it would throw a burthen on the poorer classes of the consumers of beer. If the plan suggested was adopted, a person with a large house in the country and a numerous establishment would be enabled to make his own beer, and at any rate pay but a small amount to the revenue; whereas the poorer classes, who in nearly all cases would not have the means of brewing, would have to pay nearly the whole of the proposed Beer-tax. He did not think, that a House of Commons would ever accede to a proposition tending to such a result. His hon. friend had suggested, that there should be an increase in the duty laid on spirits. He agreed, he believed, with almost every Gentleman in the House that the utmost amount of duty should be raised on spirits that could be collected; but he did not think that it would be possible to increase the duty with any prospect of increasing the revenue. From all that he had heard, he was satisfied the adoption of such a course as that suggested would encourage illicit distillation, and which he did not think would tend to improve the morals of the people. In corroboration of what he had just stated, he would mention a circumstance to the House which must be in the recollection of many who heard him. In 1830, there was an increase in the duty on spirits. It was calculated, that the increased duty would produce 600,000l. to the revenue, whereas, instead of such a result, there was an actual falling-off to the amount of 100,000l. He had reason to believe, that that result had not arisen from a falling off in the consumption of spirits, but in consequence of the increase of illicit distillation. Under these circumstances, however desirable it might appear, he did not think that they could calculate upon getting any counterbalance for the reduction of the Malt-tax by increasing the duty on spirits. His hon. friend must, on reflection, recollect that the reduction of the Malt-tax would in some degree operate as a temptation to the smuggler. The smuggler and fair trader would start on equal terms if they at present bought malt, and the smuggler would only save the amount of the duty on spirits. It did not make any difference to the fair trader whether he paid the whole duty on the spirits, or partially on the spirits and partially on the malt. If, however, the duty on the malt was taken off, the smuggler would be able to avail himself of the benefit of the reduction, and to make a larger profit by his illicit distillation, It was on this ground, therefore, he was satisfied, that the adoption of the course suggested by his hon. friend would be productive of mischief. Seeing, therefore, the subject in that point of view, and feeling that going into Committee would be productive of no good, but that it would only occasion unnecessary alarm, and believing also, that it was of the utmost importance in the present state of the finances of the country, to maintain confidence in the national faith, he felt called upon to resist the Motion. He repeated, that the state of our finances did not warrant a reduction of the whole of the Malt-tax, and that taking off one-half, or one-quarter of the duty would be only so much loss to the revenue, without anything like an equivalent advantage to the country. He was most anxious to give every relief to the agricultural classes, although he was not prepared to propose such relief as some hon. Members connected with the agriculture of the country demanded; but it was, however, his intention to recommend to the House, that a number of minor fiscal regulations which pressed in a vexatious manner should be got rid of. The adoption of that course would be attended with little loss to the revenue, and he hoped that, together with other arrangements which he should not then go into, something effective would be done towards affording relief to that important interest. He believed, that on a Motion made in another place, a Committee was appointed to inquire into this part of the subject, and an hon. Gentleman well acquainted with country matters intended to adopt a similar course in that House. He could assure the House, that he was as anxious as any man to do all in his power to relieve the country from the burthens under which it laboured, and all he could say, was, that if any means of effecting that object, without endangering the public credit, or injuring the finances of the country, could be pointed out, he for one, and as a Minister of the Crown, should be most willing to assent to the adoption of it. With these views, he hoped the Motion, notwithstanding the altered shape in which it had been brought forward, would be rejected; for, without seeing their way clearly, a Committee would be useless, and if they did see their way clearly, it would be altogether unnecessary. If they saw their way clearly, the worst course they could pursue would be to go into a Committee, for if they were to take that course, at least twenty different propositions, each in collision with the other, would be brought under consideration, and the result would be interminable discussion and waste of time, without any good being effected. Under these circumstances, he hoped and trusted the House would resist the Motion.

hoped that, whatever change was effected, nothing would be done which would in any way endanger public credit. Although he differed in his view of the question from the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) he should at all times strenuously resist any attempt that might be made to break down the confidence which the public creditor reposed in his Majesty's Government. By the reference which the noble Lord had made to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he had placed himself in an awkward predicament; and if he Mr. Hume were to refer to a vote which the noble Lord had given on a Motion similar to the present, that awkwardness would not be lessened, for he would defy the noble Lord to explain the difference of the two cases. But the noble Lord had only himself to blame for the unenviable situation in which he was now placed; he had brought himself into the dilemma, and he must get out of it how he could. If, instead of allowing conflicting interests to fight their own battles, the noble Lord had made up his mind, as he ought to have done, to apply the surplus revenue he had in hand in the reduction of taxation, he never would have been placed in the difficulty in which he now stood. The policy in which the noble Lord had acted was most erroneous, and it was because he (Mr. Hume) desired the industry of the country to be relieved from the heavy burthens under which it laboured, that he should give his support to the Motion of his hon. friend the member for Lincolnshire. It was an error to suppose that this was purely an agricultural question, for the repeal of the Malt-tax would be advantageous alike to all classes. The repeal of 4,500,000l. of taxation would be good for all parties, whether living in country or towns. If the Malt-tax were taken off, the agriculturists must consent to a plan for the free importation of grain. That, however, was another question; but if they supported the present Motion, he, for one, would consider them bound, nay, pledged, to advocate the free importation of corn. Being satisfied, that the time was near at hand when the Corn-laws must be altered, he considered the inquiry proposed by this Motion one of paramount importance, and as the noble Lord opposite—as his Majesty's Government—had declined to do anything for the benefit of the people, it was the duty of that House to take the matter into its own hands. He freely acknowledged that the Motion of his hon. friend did trench upon the functions of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), but if the noble Lord threw the duty which he ought to perform, upon that House, the noble Lord might expect that the House would not shrink from discharging it. No man could deny that the present system of taxation pressed most unequally, and that it was the bounden duty of that House to see whether some better and more equitable mode of taxation could not be devised. He did not hesitate to say, that if what the Committee sought for by the Motion of his hon. friend were granted, instead of injuring the public credit, the Committee would show how public credit could be best sustained. It was not true that the remission of this tax, amounting only to 4,500,000l., would endanger public credit; but, even if it were true, that was not the question which they had now to deal with. The question was, could not the present system of taxation be changed for one that was more equitable? And if that House did not take the subject into its own hands, the country could not hope that any relief would be afforded to it. The subject of reduction could, however, be better considered in a Committee than anywhere else; and if the noble Lord would only call to recollection the sentiments he had formerly expressed, he would not now resist the Motion of the hon. Baronet. Did the noble Lord suppose, that if he was able to show that no better tax could be substituted for the Malt-tax, the House would not go along with him? He (Mr. Hume) believed that no more injurious tax existed; but still, if the noble Lord could convince a Committee that it could not be spared, they would not demand its remission. It had ever been his opinion, that it was bad policy on the part of the Government to raise the price of beer, and by that means to increase the consumption of spirits. They had all seen the baneful effects of the change, and how the morality of the lower classes had been endangered by it; and if they meant to bring society back to those moral habits from which, by the use of spirits, the people had unfortunately departed, that House must allow the poor to be supplied with a more wholesome, and at the same time, a cheaper beverage. He knew of no means by which spirit-drinking could be got rid of but by the removal of the Malt-tax; and if, on the one-hand, it was said that the remission of that tax would benefit only the landed proprietor, he, on the other, asserted, that it would be equally advantageous to every other class of the community. It was idle to say, that the benefit would be partial. Although the outcry against beer-shops had been very great, he had always approved of the conduct of Government in that respect; but, notwithstanding, he did not wish them to retrace their steps in this particular, he could see no reason why the Committee now sought for should not be granted, if not to attain any positive good, at least to convince the public that they were well disposed to do their duty. He contended that the inquiry would be as much for the benefit of the commercial interest as for that of the landed interest. Both parties were implicated in the question of over taxation, and he believed that unless something was speedily done to relieve the country from the burthens which oppressed it the consequences would be most lamentable. One means of effecting that object would be the repeal of the tax upon Malt. It was a mistake on the part of his hon. friend to suppose that the imposition of an additional duty of 2s. 6d. a gallon on gin would not lead to an increase of illicit distillation. They had only to refer to Ireland and to Scotland to be convinced that the notion of his hon. friend on the point was fallacious. An additional duty of 6d. a gallon had been laid on Scotch and Irish spirits, and what was the result? Why, that illicit distillation was renewed to an incredible extent in the Highlands of Scotland, and in several parts of Ireland. Instead of endangering the public credit, or occasioning dissatisfaction, going into a Committee would rather fortify the one and prevent the other. It would induce the country still to place confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, and convince the people that their complaints were not unattended to by that House. This was the opinion which he entertained, and therefore he should vote for the inquiry.

had not many observations to offer to the House, but, coming as he did, from a remote part of the empire, where great distress prevailed, he felt it to be his particular duty to call the attention of the House to one or two points. In the first place, what was the question which they were called upon to decide? The question was, not that they should pledge themselves to the remission of any tax, but simply that they should grant an inquiry. This he understood to be the object of the hon. Baronet's Motion. Now, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resisted the inquiry; but what was the argument he used? Why, he said that as the case was not clear, inquiry would be fruitless; but if they were clear as to the course they ought to pursue, would there be any necessity for the appointment of a Committee? It was because the case was not clear, that inquiry was called for; and he must say, that, if they refused this inquiry, the rejection of the Motion of the hon. Baronet would amount to a declaration that they did not intend to afford any relief to the agricultural interest—["No, no."] Hon. Gentleman said, "No, no;" but he would ask the House whether it was not on behalf of the agricultural interest that the inquiry was sought? This could not be denied; and he was therefore right when he said, that refusing the Committee would be tantamount to declaring that they did not mean to do anything for the agricultural interest. Perhaps the agricultural interest had no claim upon the sympathies of Parliament; but if they would look at the Agricultural Reports of 1821 and 1833, they would find that that interest was labouring under accumulated distress. Indeed, if they would only refer to his Majesty's Speech, they would find the same fact stated, for although in that document the Ministers triumphed in the commercial prosperity that obtained, they admitted and regretted the existence of great agricultural distress. That agricultural distress prevailed in all parts of Ireland, was disputed by no one; but still it would appear that his Majesty's Government had no intention to propose any measure for the relief of that country. The only tax proposed to be taken off, was the House-tax; but the remission of that tax would afford no relief to Ireland. The duty on glass and the Window-tax had been extended to Ireland; but such was the poverty of the country, that they were found wholly unproductive, and consequently repealed. He stood there in behalf of the agricultural interest of Ireland. Perhaps the naming of anything connected with Ireland, might create a laugh in that Houses—["No, no."] Well, then, he supposed there was no laugh. But, even supposing the House and Window-duties were both repealed, he would ask how such a remission could benefit Ireland? He had a right to call on that House to institute such an inquiry as would relieve the agricultural interest of Ireland as well as that of this country. But if it were intended that no relief should be afforded to Ireland, it would be only fair on the part of the Government to say so. The Committee, if granted, would not be called upon to decide the amount of relief which should be granted. Its duty would only be to point out how that relief could best be obtained. Although no direct taxes existed in Ireland, still taxation was severely felt in that part of the empire. One of the objects which the Committee proposed by the hon. Baronet should consider, was, whether it would not be possible to commute the present system of taxation into a property, not an income-tax. He had no disposition whatever to lean on one part of the empire more than another. But of this he was convinced, that a Property-tax alone would be of advantage to Ireland. He knew he should be assailed with brutality out of doors, and fiercely attacked in that House; but still he would declare the sentiments which he had before expressed, and affix on others the charge and the responsibility of that gross and arbitrary robbery which had been committed by the Legislature in favour of the public creditor on the public debtor. The public debt had been contracted in one species of currency, and paid in another, and therefore he insisted that robbery had been committed on the one hand, and that national faith had been violated on the other. Was it "cant" then to say if the national faith had been violated on one hand, it should be violated on the other? Was it "cant" that both parties should equally suffer from the transitions which had taken place in the currency? Why should the debtor be placed in a worse situation than the creditor. The debt was contracted in a paper currency. Why was it to be paid in gold. But to show that it was not cant to say that the fundholders should hear their share of the public burthens, he had only to refer to the proposition of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who proposed a tax on the transfer of Stock. If he had been denounced for his views, why should the noble Lord escape, who, by that tax, touched the sanctity of the cherished interest. He had been met by a unanimity of attack from the other side of the House for merely wishing to discuss the question, while the noble Lord who made a formal proposal, passed unrebuked. He was called a profligate—a political profligate; but he shared that profligacy with a right hon. Baronet opposite, a near neighbour of his accusers. He had only proposed a reduction of five per cent; the right hon. Gentleman had, in a pamphlet published by him, declared that the claim of the fundholders ought to be reduced to the extent of twenty-five per cent. Why did the hon. Gentlemen who had so unmeasuredly assailed him, sit so close to a political profligate? Why suffer the contamination of his contact? He (Mr. O'Connell) trusted the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) would not consider what he then uttered was meant to give personal offence. Nothing was further from his intentions; but the inconsistency was so glaring, that he should be unjust to himself if he allowed it to escape observation. Whether his plan were spurned or not, the House was bound, as the Representatives of the people, to relieve the landed interests. Ireland had no commerce; she had only her soil for her support: a Property-tax would search and find what property was out of the country—what property ought to be taxed. The noble Lord said, he would refuse the inquiry, because, if granted, they would be abdicating the functions of Government. Why had they not already abdicated? They had often yielded; still they were not deterred from holding the reins of power in their hands. They, indeed, possessed a dexterity and an evasiveness that were not creditable to any Government. They sought to play off the Metropolitan boroughs against the country interest. They looked for stray votes here, and stray votes there. It was a Government of shifts and expedients. They shifted to one side—they moved to another. Defeated in one place, they attempted to rally elsewhere. They put their helm a-lee. They cautiously moved by Sylla—they scarcely dared to approach Charybdis. The House had made them amenable. It was right a Government should be under the influence of the House. He besought them now to exercise that influence, and compel the inquiry so urgently and emphatically prayed for.

in reply, said, that not a single satisfactory objection had been urged against his budget, even by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth. He sought the total annihilation of the Malt-tax, and, as he was actuated by no other motive than a desire to alleviate the distresses of the poor, he hoped the result of his Motion would be a triumph over his opponents.

said, that the subject to which he should now have the honour to call the attention of the House, was one which, at the present moment, excited throughout Scotland an intense and universal interest. In proof of this assertion, he might appeal, first, to the personal knowledge of all the Scotch Members, whom he saw around him; next, to the many public meetings lately held in every quarter of this country, and which had been attended by many eminent ministers, enlightened elders, and other individuals distinguished by their piety, their intelligence, and their attachment to that admirable and Apostolic Church, which God had planted in our land; and lastly, to the multiplicity of petitions transmitted to the House, during the present and former Sessions, remarkable not only for the number, but the respectability, of the signatures appended to them. It had been his intention, and he should only have done his duty, to have entered at great length into the merits of the question; but as his Majesty's Ministers, with a readiness which reflected the highest credit on their patriotism, and which must secure to them the grateful attachment of the people of Scotland, had acceded to his proposition for the appointment of a Committee to investigate the subject, he thought it better to abstain from any remarks, which might lead to unnecessary discussion, and should, therefore, content himself with moving "for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the right of patronage of Churches in Scotland."

said, that having determined not to oppose going into a Committee, and being anxious that gentlemen should go into it as free as possible from pledges to a particular course, and with minds open to the impressions which the evidence, and discussions which awaited them were fitted to produce, he should follow the example of his hon. friend in abstaining from any argument or statement of opinion on the present occasion. As his hon. friend however, had had the advantage of explaining to the House, on a variety of former occasions, the views he entertained on the subject, it was right that, in acceding to the Motion, he should so far guard himself from misconstruction as to state that he did so accede to it, and did go into the committee, with different views, different wishes, and different anticipations of the result, from those of his hon. friend. He concurred entirely in opinion as to the importance of the subject; and would add his testimony as to the extraordinary interest it now excited in every part of Scotland—an interest and an excitement which, in his opinion, made the parliamentary discussion of the subject no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity. He also believed that his hon. friend and he, however they might now differ as to the means, had but one end in view—the removal of abuses in the appointment of the ministers of religion, and the restoration of the Established Church of Scotland to the highest possible degree both of purity and popularity. In consenting to the appointment of a committee, he did not deny that it was substantially' implied that some change or correction was necessary in the existing law, or the practice under that law; and such was undoubtedly his impression. But even those who were most convinced of that necessity, must admit that there was great hazard in such changes, and that the correction, in order to be either safe or salutary, must be gone about with the utmost caution, and with as close an adherence as possible to the known principles and most approved usage of the ecclesiastical constitution. He should not trespass further on the attention of the House than merely to express his confident expectation, that those who went into the Committee with these ends and these principles in view, would come out of it much more nearly agreed as to the practical measures that should be adopted, than any debate in the present immature state of the question could give reason to believe. He had great pleasure, therefore, in acceding to the motion of his hon. friend.

opposed the Motion, and expressed his surprise that it should have originated in the quarter it had, as well as at the manner in which it had been supported by the learned Lord opposite. He conceived, that the subject to which the present Motion was directed could be much more properly discussed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland—a body to which the hon. Mover himself belonged, and which was fully competent to alter and arrange the discipline of that Church. If any alteration should be thought necessary by the General Assembly, it would be then ample time to apply for the intervention of the Legislature. He was at a loss to know what was the object sought to be attained by the Motion; for, in the first place the system of patronage now existing had been established for the last hundred and twenty years, and had been fully recognized by the Church Courts in Scotland. If the inquiry was to be directed to individual appointments, he felt satisfied that the clergy of Scotland would be found to be most unexceptionable both as to character and conduct. He knew very well that, upon inquiry it would be found, that since the accession of the present Ministry to office, the Crown patronge had been applied and disposed of for political considerations, and, in particular, he knew such an instance in a parish in the county he had the honour to represent, where a noble Lord was proprietor of four-fifths of the parish; another proprietor, the possessor of only two farms in the parish, and whose residence was at a distance of seven miles, had obtained the presentation from the political support his family had given to the present Government; and if the object of the Motion was an investigation into this matter with a view to an amendment in the system, he confessed he should not regret the inquiry being commenced; but, on the other hand, if the object of the present Motion went to disturb the whole system of Church patronage (which had existed from the days of John Knox up to the present moment with only two short interruptions), and to substitute in its stead a mode of popular election, he entertained a perfect conviction that it would lead to the utter destruction of the whole Church establishment in Scotland. He therefore must object to the appointment of any Committee of inquiry, as not only premature, but because the House could not properly legislate upon the subject without the entire approbation and consent of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

supported the Motion. He would not have said a word on the subject in its present stage, had it not been for the very pointed allusion made by his hon. friend the member for Aberdeenshire, to a case in which a near relative of his own was concerned. His hon. friend must be aware, that he had mis-stated the real facts of that case. He must be aware that no presentation had in that instance yet taken place, and that the delay was occasioned by the forms necessarily gone through to do away an annexation carried in to effect by a former Administration, at the earnest request of the noble Lord, for the purposes of personal convenience; such annexation being at variance with the interests of the community, and one that upon every principle of reason and expediency, as well as in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of both parishes, ought to be done away. When such an arrangement had been effected, he (Colonel Leith Hay) had reason to believe the nomination mentioned by the gallant Member would be carried into effect; and when it was, he should be prepared to prove in the first place, that it was granted from no unworthy motives; and, secondly, bestowed upon a person calculated to satisfactorily perform his important duties. He thought his hon. friend who had spoken last had laid down no good grounds against going into an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that since the present Government had come into office improper dispositions had been made of the Crown patronage in Scotland. He did not believe that in reality there had been any such case, but, whether or not, it most assuredly could not be considered an argument against granting the Committee moved for by the hon. member for Caithness. The subject of Church patronage now engrossed the attention of a large portion of the people of Scotland. He never had agreed with the party in the Church of which his hon. friend, the member for Caithness was one, but disagreeing as he did on the extent of innovation proposed in the system of election, he also considered he had an important duty to perform in advocating inquiry, and if possible devising such alterations as might prove satisfactory to the conscientious feelings of a large body of excited and enlightened men, and practically useful in strengthening that Church which had for ages conferred benefits of inestimable value upon the community over whom its pure and unassuming influence had been exercised. He was confirmed in supporting the present Motion by a letter lately received from a highly respected individual, one of the leaders of what had been denominated the moderate party in the Church of Scotland, who said, that the subject ought to be taken up by Parliament, and dealt with accordingly. With regard to the point raised, that it would be improper to interfere without the approbation of the General Assembly, he would merely say, that the Committee, if appointed by the House (as he trusted it would) could not have concluded its labours before the next meeting of the General Assembly.

felt assured that if the Motion were carried it would produce the greatest evils to the Church of Scotland. It was very well known to the House and to the public that, practically, the appointment of such a committee as that now moved for would imply a condemnation of the system of that Church. The question had already been before the general Assembly of the Church, and, by taking it out of their hands, and placing it in those of the House, they would be taking it out of the hands of a much better, and putting it into the hands of a much worse, tribunal. He did not think that even his hon. friend who called upon the House to appoint a Committee would assert that any persons could be found better acquainted with the constitution of the Church, more zealously attached to its interests, or more desirous to uphold its highest objects—the maintenance of true religion—than the General Assembly, or that it was possible to supply from that House a tribunal possessing such qualifications in a higher degree. Who were to be the Committee? Was it to be composed of persons of the communion of the Church of Scotland? or were they to submit its affairs and interests to gentlemen of so many opposite and extreme opinions? He would say, that, in common wisdom, they were bound to avoid all these difficulties, and to leave the experiment of curing the defects in the system of patronage to be tried by the General Assembly. The adoption of the Motion might put the House in a very awkward predicament hereafter. The Committee might come to a Resolution which the General Assembly might think it inconsistent with their duty to adopt. This was a difficulty which had at all events be better avoided, by the House waiting to see what course of proceeding the General Assembly would recommend. Upon these grounds he was sorry the motion had been made, and must oppose it. He would admit, that there were abuses in the mode in which lay patronage was administered in Scotland; but that did not arise from the existing state of the law, but from the abuse of the law. He thought therefore great caution should be used before any step should be taken at all calculated to interfere with the ecclesiastical constitution of the country. There were certain powerful parties in Scotland, who had undoubtedly in some instances taken away from the people the power they ought to exercise upon an election of their ministers. He wished to sec their just power restored and maintained; but he denied that they ever legally exercised, or were entitled to the power of nomination. Before incurring the dangers involved in this Motion he thought the House had better consider the effects which had been produced by the Church of Scotland even under the system in which such abuses did exist. If any man took a fair and candid view of the condition of Scotland—of the character of the people—their advancement in moral education, and their disposition to obey the laws, he must admit that the ecclesiastical constitution as it at present stood had worked substantial benefits for that country. The subject was, as he had already stated, under the consideration of the General Assembly, by whom much progress would be made with regard to it without any legislative interference. The last time the question was brought before the General Assembly, it was lost by a very small majority, and the majority of the clerical members of that body voted for it.

said, that the opposition which was made to the appointment of a Committee, on the part of the hon. members for Aberdeenshire and Inverness, was grounded on the assumption that the matter of Church patronage was fit for the consideration of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and not of Parliament, and that they ought to wait for the decision of that body in a matter which was peculiarly of their cognizance; and the hon. member for Aberdeenshire seemed to say, that the General Assembly of the Church, acknowledging no head of the Church upon earth, might not consider themselves bound to abide by what might be done in Parliament on the subject of this question. To this extraordinary doctrine, he (Mr. Fergusson) would only say, that the General Assembly had no power or authority to legislate in the matter; and that if the lights of patronage were to be in any way touched or affected by the measure which was contemplated, the General Assembly was wholly powerless in such a matter. But did the hon. Member not know, that this was not the first occasion on which Parliament had been called upon to legislate, and, without any sanction from the General Assembly of the Church, did legislate in this very matter. If Parliament had never legislated in this matter, the House would not have been called upon that day, to deliberate on the subject. In the reign of Queen Anne, during the Jacobite Administration of that Queen, and with the express purpose, as the memoirs of that time inform us, of exciting discontent in that country, and of favouring the cause of the Pretender, and obstructing the expected succession of the House of Hanover, the right of the parish, through the elders and heritors, to present o the vacant benefices, which right they lad exercised and enjoyed, without abuse, under the control of the Church Courts, and by the authority of the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1690, was taken from them, and given, or, as it is said, restored to the patron. The preamble of the Act of Queen Anne, asserted an untruth, namely—" that the Act of 1690 bad occasioned great heats and divisions among those who by that Act were instructed to call Ministers," whereas, in point of fact, as had been shown by Sir Harry Moncrief, in his work on the Constitution of the Church of Scotland, there never was a period, during which the settlements of ministers were so free from such beats and animosities, and when they gave such great satisfaction to the people of Scotland, as during the period from the passing of the Act of 1690, to that of the Act of Queen Anne, It appears, that although there were many cases, during that period, appealed to the Church Courts, the final decision was always acquiesced in, and that there was no instance in those days of a church being deserted on account of the settlement of any Minister. He regretted to say, that a very different state of things had prevailed since the restoration, as it was called, of the ancient right of patrons. He would give no opinion on the best means of remedying the abuses, which were admitted by all to rest on the exercise of that right. Whether the parish, or the heritor and elders representing the parish, should solicit and propose to the patron the persons whom they should deem fit to succeed to vacant livings, and such choice should be subject to the approbation or rejection of the patron, or whether the patron should propose, and the parish approve or reject, and whether any difference, or want of concurrence between the parties, should be submitted to the decision of the Church Courts—and whether such selection of the ministers should partake more or less of the nature of popular elections—were questions for the Committee, on which he would not then offer any opinion. All he was then disposed to contend for, was, that every means should be taken to prevent the intrusion upon a parish of a minister, against the declared sense and will of the congregation. This had been at all times considered as the leading principle of the constitution of the Church of Scotland; and he had often said, and he would then repeat it, that no plan should have his support, that did not give to the people of Scotland a real, substantial, and, he was inclined to add, a prevailing voice in the nomination of the ministers of religion. He need not impress upon the House the great importance of the subject. No question had ever excited so intense and deep an interest as this question, in the country to which he belonged. The universal voice of the people of Scotland called for some important change in the system of patronage. He was a determined friend to the establishment of the Church of Scotland; and it was as a friend to that establishment, that he supported the proposition of his hon. friend, for the appointment of this Committee; and he earnestly hoped and believed, that the result of the labours of that Committee would be to maintain and strengthen the foundation of that Church, to which he considered Scotland to be chiefly indebted for her present condition of moral and religious welfare. To maintain and preserve the true principles of the constitution of that Church, he would give his cordial assent to the inquiry sought to be instituted by his hon. friend, the member for Caithness.

said, that, in his opinion, it would be waste of time to enter into arguments on the subject of Church patronage at this time, when a Committee was about to be appointed for the purpose of inquiry. Any arguments which he might be prepared to state against the Committee when the learned Lord had consented to the Motion, he was sure would be overruled. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright said, that the question must be decided by argument, but he (Sir Robert Peel) had not heard a single argument on the subject. The hon. Member also said, that there was a universal demand in Scotland for a change in the system of patronage. How was the House to judge of that feeling?—By petitions. There had been only ten petitions on the subject of Church patronage from Scotland presented during the whole of the present Session. The feeling was, therefore, not so strong as the advocates of a change would have them to believe. But supposing, that many petitions were presented, yet it was plain, that the object of them was to deprive one class of men of their rights, in order that they should be transferred to others. These rights had been recognised for upwards of 130 years, and they were as sacred as the rights of advowson in the Established Church of England. No inquiry could now be instituted into the conduct of the Parliament which established those rights, because such inquiry would lead to the destruction of the rights by which every species of property was held. If, as had been admitted, the patronage of the Crown was exercised with proper judgment—if there was a disposition to conciliate the prevailing feelings of the people, but, at the same time, to maintain such a control over them as to prevent an improper appointment—he thought such a privilege existed for a most useful purpose, serving as the link between the Church and the Crown which was sanctioned by the law. If that power and authority were exercised for the purposes of political partisanship, he would say such conduct constituted good grounds for investigation; but if it were honestly exercised for the purpose of rewarding young men of merit, who, though they might be unknown to, and unconnected with any parish, might still, if appointed to it, be of great service to the inhabitants, he would maintain, that the power of the Crown, so far from being diminished, should, if possible, he extended. But the real object of this Committee, was to introduce popular elections into the Church of Scotland, and he much doubted if the change would be found of advantage. It would lead to canvassing, and all the other evils of that species of election. If the result of the labours of the Committee were to destroy the patronage of the Crown, and place it in the hands of heritors, so far would the change be from doing good, that it would give less security for the choice of proper persons to officiate in the ministry than at present. Nay, more, by such a change, the harmony of parishes would be risked, in consequence of the bitter enmities which the opposing interests in a canvass would engender. For these reasons, he could see no prospect of improvement in the state of the Church of Scotland, from any alteration in the present laws.

said, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had complained, that his hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) had not stated sufficient grounds for his Motion for a Committee. His hon. friend had unquestionably felt, that in a case, at once so simple and so strong, it was sufficient to rest upon the proposal itself as its own justification; and so strong, indeed, had the case appeared to his Majesty's Government, that however averse they were to entertain the question, they had felt it impossible, with any colour of reason, to refuse his hon. friend's motion. What was his hon. friend's proposal? An Act of Parliament, the law of the land, was declared to be at variance with the canons and express constitution of the Church of Scotland. His hon. friend did not call upon them to repeal this—that was not then his proposal; he called upon them to inquire, through a Select Committee, whether the law was thus, indeed, at variance with the constitution of the Church, and what effect such a state of law produced upon the efficacy of the Church, and the feelings of the people. The right hon. Baronet compared this to an attack upon the right of advowson in the Church of England. Was there any canon in the discipline of the Church of England—was there any part of the constitution of that Church, which declared the right of advowson to be inconsistent with her principles? Yet, in the Church of Scotland, the right of patronage was specifically declared to be inconsistent with her discipline, and publicly denounced. Here, then, was an evident distinction between the two cases—in the one, a legal right to which the Church entirely conformed; in the other, a legal right, with which the constitution of the Church, and that the Established Church of part of this empire, was at direct variance. Was it unreasonable, that his hon. friend should call upon them to inquire into this singular anomaly—to examine, and, at least, to appreciate this diversity between the law of the land, and the law of the Church. His hon. friend sought for no declaration of opinion from the House, against the rights of patrons—he sought for nothing but a Committee of Inquiry, to discover what these rights were, and what the constitution of the Church was, to which they were said to be opposed. He would not follow hon. Members into the discussion of the question of patronage, nor would he be induced to take up the question mooted by the right hon. Baronet, of popular election of ministers. This only he would observe, that many individuals in the Church of Scotland, ministers of that Church, eminent in it for learning, were as opposed as the right hon. Baronet could be to a plan of popular election; and yet, holding that opinion, they not the less strongly maintained, that the rights of patrons were inconsistent with the principles of the Church, and ought to be extinguished. The question of popular election, therefore, was in no way involved in the present discussion. Believing, therefore, that his hon. friend's proposal was one so simple and equitable, that no reasonable opposition could be made to it, he trusted, that the House would feel, that his hon. friend had a fair and adequate claim for the Committee which he sought.

said, that if the General Assembly were inclined to legislate on the subject, they had not power; and if they had the power, still they had not the inclination. The demand for a change was universal, from one end of the country to the other, and he thought, that it was then full time to make inquiry regarding it. The right hon. Baronet had objected to the election being put in the hands of the heritors; but did the right hon. Baronet know, that the heritors were but a very small portion of the intelligent inhabitants of a parish? There were many among the inhabitants of Scotch parishes, who were not heritors, yet were as intelligent, as well educated, and as proper judges of the qualifications requisite in their pastors, as any heritors could possibly be. He did not think, that the powers of election should be confined to the higher classes of society. If an Established Church meant anything, it meant, that the Church was established, not for the advantage of any particular class, but for the whole body of the people. He was confident, that nothing would satisfy the people of Scotland but giving to householders the right of choosing their own ministers. This was the feeling abroad. The call for a change was loud and incessant. He would support the Motion of the hon. member for Caithness, for he thought it would tend to detach the Church from the aristocracy, whose influence had always been baneful to its interests, as they employed the patronage for the purposes of political partizanship, rather than morality.

said, he had been reproached for having adduced no arguments in support of the proposition which he had submitted. He had adopted this course in order to save the time of the House, especially at so late an hour, and because he was not aware that any opposition would be offered to the Motion, or that any Scotch Members would turn a deaf ear to the prayers of so large a portion of the Scotch people. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeenshire, had justly stated, that the Church of Scotland acknowledged no head but Jesus Christ. He wished that this doctrine had been held and acted on by the Tories of 1712. He should then have been spared the task of endeavouring to rescue the Christian population of Scotland from that galling yoke which Jacobite high-churchmen had imposed at that most inauspicious period. It had been maintained that patronage had at all times existed in the Church of Scotland. He had intended to have tried that system by the three-fold test of Scripture, Church usage, and expediency; but should not now enter on so wide a field, as he had so much reason to hope, that the subject was about to undergo a complete and dispassionate investigation. He himself had often expressed, and still continued to entertain, a strong opinion in favour of the rights of Christian people; but he should listen with the utmost attention to the sentiments of others, whose knowledge and experience entitled them to deference and respect. The General Assembly, whose sittings were limited to a few days, and which was employed, not only in debating many other important questions, but in hearing appeals from the decisions of the inferior judicatories, could not devote to the consideration of this question all the time which its importance required. In fact, he was only following up the views entertained and expressed by former Assemblies, from the reign of Queen Anne, until 1784, when the opposition to patronage was suspended, partly from the spiritual apathy which that system engenders, and partly from the utter hopelessness of success, whilst a Tory faction continued to lord it with a high hand over the dearest rights of the Scotch people. He had in his possession abundant proofs of the abhorrence in which this Church held patronage in her better and purer days; but should only read at present a few extracts from the declaration of the General Assembly in 1736. The hon. Member read the following extract:—

Edinburgh, May 22, 1736.

The General Assembly having taken in to their serious and deliberate consideration the Report of the Commissioners from the last General Assembly, sent to London to apply for redress of the grievance of patronage; and that in order to deliberate what resolution was proper for this assembly or this church to take, as to their future conduct with relation to this grievance; did thereupon agree upon this opinion and resolution—'That the Church of Scotland is, by her duty and interest, obliged still to persist in using her best endeavours, from time to time, to be relieved from the grievance of patronage, until the same shall, by the blessing of God, prove successful, and, for that end, that this Assembly shall impower and direct the commission to be appointed by them, to make due application to the King and Parliament for redress of the said grievance, in case a favourable opportunity for so doing shall occur during the subsistence of that commission. And this Assembly doubts not that future General Assemblies of this Church will, from time to time, be watchful and attentive to this weighty concern, and will not fail to make the like proper applications, whenever, by the Providence of God, a fit occasion shall offer itself. And as the intent of such applications are in order to procure to be restored to this Church a valuable right and privilege she was possessed of at the Union of the two Kingdoms; so the grounds and reasons of the claim of this Church to be restored to the enjoyment of that right are so strong and pregnant, that notwithstanding the unsuccessful event of the late applications, this Assembly cannot but hope, that some like application, renewed at a proper season, will prove successful.

That notwithstanding the security of this our happy Establishment, in all its parts, was as great and as solemn as it was possible for human laws and constitutions to devise or execute, yet in prejudice of that security, as we apprehend, the Act in the tenth year of Queen Anne was passed, restoring to patrons the power of presenting, and suffering them at the same time to retain the valuable equivalent which they received by the 23rd Act 1690. And this act, 10th Anna;, it is well known, and always has been declared, was imposed upon this Church by means of persons of our own country, who were enemies to the Protestant succession, as they soon after discovered, in the strongest manner, and enemies to this Church, and to create discontents amongst the people therein, and to open a door for patrons arbitrarily to impose upon the people, as Ministers, persons proper for instilling into their minds principles of disloyalty and disaffection to the present happy constitution; which circumstance of the season and design of imposing this grievance, which appears to us an infringement on our established constitution, must ever afford an additional argument and encouragement in our applications to the Royal Family now reigning, and whom we daily pray to God ever to preserve and prosper."

This precious memorial (he continued) of the fond attachment which our ancestors cherished towards the liberties of this Christtian people, bore him out in the assertion, that, by calling for the interposition of Parliament, he was only invoking the aid of that tribunal, to which former assemblies, from year to year, had instructed their Commissioners to appeal. Another object, which he had much at heart, was, to ascertain with precision, not only the grounds on which the original seeeders had left the Church, at the time of that unhappy and unhallowed contest, which had driven some of the ablest and most zealous champions of the Establishment from its pale (chiefly on account of the grievance of patronage); but also whether any reasonable concessions and salutary arrangements could be devised, which might enable those seceding congregations to return to the bosom of the Establishment, which had not yet cast off their allegiance to one of the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism, that there should be an indissoluble union between Church and State. Instead of entering upon any calculations of his own, he should read an extract from a communication sent to him by his excellent friend, Dr. M'Crie. The hon. Member again read the following extract:—

Of Presbyterian dissenting congregations in Scotland there are 498 settled, or having Ministers, according to the Almanack. Of these, nineteen are in England, and seventy-four vacant congregations have to be added, making in all 553 congregations—half the number of parish Churches in Scotland, and 100 more. How many of these would return to the Establishment, if patronage were abolished, I cannot pretend to say; but I have no hesitation in saying that, if the abolition had taken place twenty or thirty years ago, the number would have been much greater, and every year that it is allowed to remain will render the hope of return less, and increase the ranks of those who are hostile to all Church Establishments.

That surely demonstrated the expediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into this branch of the subject; one into which, for obvious reasons, the General Assembly itself could not be expected to enter. There were many other observations, which he should have been anxious to have made, but he could not think of further intruding on the attention of the House at so unseasonable an hour. He augured much benefit to the Church and people of Scotland from the appointment of this Committee. He trusted that its labours would be conducted in a spirit of calmness and forbearance, and of that wisdom which it is profitable to submit to, so that its results might be conducive to the glory of God, and to the prosperity and permanence of our Establishment.

said, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the appointment of Procurators Fiscal, similar to that which was brought forward during the last Session, he did not think it necessary to take up much of the time of the House, further than to explain very shortly the nature of the appointment. In every Sheriff's Court there is a Procurator Fiscal, who, with the exception of cases which are conducted by private parties, and these are very few in number, is the prosecutor in all criminal proceedings. Before the Rebellion which took place in 1745, the office of Sheriff had become hereditary, but by the Jurisdiction Act, which was passed in the 20th of Geo. 2nd, the hereditary Sheriffs were abolished, and it was provided that Sheriffs Depute, of certain prescribed legal qualifications, should in future be appointed by the Crown. In the old Courts, the Procurators Fiscal, and all the other officers of Court, were appointed by the heritable Sheriffs. In establishing the sheriffs depute, no provision had been made with regard to the appointment of procurators fiscal and the sheriffs depute some how or other came to appoint them. The sheriff, who is a Magistrate and a Judge, claimed the right of appointing, in at least nineteen out of twenty cases, perhaps the average of ninety-nine out of 100 would be nearer the truth—the prosecutor, both in the cases which came before him as a Magistrate, and in those which he was to try as a Judge; and the Sheriffs have declared, that they consider it necessary that the Procurator Fiscal should be a person on whom the Sheriff' can repose implicit confidence, and who is completely under his control. This was what he objected to. In every proceeding before a Magistrate or a judge, the prosecutor and the judge ought to be kept perfectly separate and distinct. If the prosecutor was to be always under the control of the Judge, and in his implicit confidence, the prosecution must be regarded, in many instances, as the prosecution of the Magistrate, not that of the apparent prosecutor, for the party must feel that if the Judge was averse to the prosecution it would not have been instituted; and if, on the other hand, it was a case in which the person whose apparent function it was to prosecute was averse from prosecution, he could not venture to disobey the intimation of the Judge, that it was a case in which the Judge thought there ought to be a prosecution. The question for the House to consider was whether this were consistent with the due administration of justice in any country. Many of the Members of the House were well acquainted with every part of judicial proceedings. Would it be endured for one day in England, that the Magistrate or the Judge should exercise the right of appointing the prosecutor or the prosecutor's attorney, and that he must be a person in his implicit confidence, and under his immediate control. No doubt where any abuse had crept in, arguments might be found to support and defend it. If the Judges had been accustomed in any Court to appoint the attorneys and counsel both for the plaintiff and defendant, it might be contended that this contributed greatly to the good of the proceedings—that the Judge was better acquainted than any other person with the character and talent of the attorneys and counsel in his own Court—that he would appoint none but those who were well qualified—and that any change would deprive him of the proper control over the proceedings. He (Mr. Murray) had no doubt that if such a practice bad any where crept in, these and similar arguments would be used to defend it; but they could not weigh against the unalterable principles upon which all legal proceedings ought to take place in order to put the accused on an equal footing with the accuser, and give confidence to the country in the administration of justice. The only objection he had heard stated against this measure was, that it would increase the influence of the Crown; but it must be recollected that all the Sheriffs were appointed by the Crown. The only difference, therefore, was, whether the Crown appointed the Sheriffs, who appointed the procurator fiscals, or whether the Crown should appoint them directly; but there seemed at the present time no reason to apprehend that the influence of the Crown was increasing. On the contrary, it had been materially diminished. The House had been informed that upwards of 1,300 offices in the appointment of the Crown had been abolished, and no person could deny that the lights, privileges, and power of the people had been gradually augmented. To state the objection, that this would increase the influence of the Crown, was to resume an argument which, in former times, might be entitled to great weight, but which never could have less than in the present time. But if this measure had come before Parliament, even in those times when the influence of the Crown was most to be dreaded, he did not conceive it would operate against a change which was necessary to place the administration of justice on a footing which would put it beyond all suspicion; and remove from it a glaring and manifest defect which it appeared impossible for any fair or reasonable man to defend, and without which it could never be said to possess that entire confidence and veneration which was the best support of judicial establishments.

declared that if the Bill were similar to one upon the same subject which was introduced last Session, he should oppose it.—Leave was given.