wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether, as had been promised, any inquiry had been made into the case of Nathaniel Cave?

said, that he had, by direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, written a letter, requesting an explanation of the circumstances connected with the case of Nathaniel Cave. It appeared from the answer which he had received, that Mr. Mountain had done nothing against the law. It also appeared, however, that the laws in the House of Correction were extremely improper, as persons committed for trial were treated in the same way as persons convicted.

thought Mr. Bradshaw's claim for compensation was a just one.

said, the Government had allowed Mr. Bradshaw to go on for more than a year and a-half, and then suddenly came upon him; decidedly there was a case for inquiry at all events, and he should press his motion for a committee.

said, that as that bill imposed a taxation of more than 2,000,000l. upon the already impoverished people of this country, he would avail himself of the present opportunity to state his objections to the foreign policy of the Government, which was alleged as the cause for the necessity of that increased taxation. The people of England were going to be punished to support the policy which the British Government was erroneously pursuing with regard both to Turkey and to Egypt. If the policy of the British Government were erroneous, as he sincerely believed it to be, the House of Commons ought to withhold the supplies from that Government until it saw clearly what that policy was, and what object it was intended to attain. In the most gracious Speech which was delivered from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, Ministers claimed credit for the peace which had been maintained in the East, owing to the union of the Five Powers. The collective note of the Five Powers, delivered on the 27th of July, had prevented the Divan from concluding peace without their concurrence. He had, on a former occasion, made such comments as he thought fit upon that note; and the noble Lord had not felt himself in a situation to deny any of the positions which he had then laid down. All that the noble Lord had then said was, that he had been completely misinformed on all the points which he had noticed, and that he was consequently totally unacquainted with the policy pursued by the Five Powers. Since that time an important event had occurred. The French ministry had been changed. The French Chamber, before they would consent to vote the money which the new minister, M. Thiers, had called for, required him to declare explicitly the policy on which France was acting towards Turkey and Egypt. M. Thiers then stated what his policy was, observing that he had made it known to the British Government and to others, and added that France was strong enough to maintain it, whether the other Powers concurred with France or not. He would read to the House one or two sentences from the speech of M. Thiers, as reported in the Moniteur, to show how different was the policy professed by that statesman from that followed by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He was sorry to say that we had estranged ourselves from France, that we had allied ourselves with the great enemy of Turkey, that we had joined in supporting the policy of Russia, and that in so doing we had promoted and forwarded the ambitious projects of that Power. For those projects we were now maintaining a fleet in the Mediterranean at the expense of half a million sterling a-year, and, instead of forwarding, we were positively preventing peace between Turkey and Egypt—which was essentially a Russian object. Now, if it were true that France had offered to withdraw ten sail of the line from the Mediterranean if we would do the same, it was quite clear that France had no idea of war or of the necessity of war. He, therefore, thought, that as the French Chambers had called upon M. Thiers, so the British House of Commons ought to call upon the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for a declaration of his policy before it voted the taxation requisite to support it. M. Thiers, in his address to the Chamber of Peers, on the 14th April, 1840, said—

"The opinion of France is, that the independence of Turkey should be maintained; but by the word independence, we do not mean an impossibility. France believes, at least her cabinets have believed, that to maintain the Turkish empire, could not mean the restoration to the Turkish empire of all the provinces which have been successively detached from it; but we have thought, that to maintain the Turkish empire was to prevent any new dismemberment; and, if by the side of the Turkish empire a new empire had risen up which consented to the bond of vassalage which consented, as in other times, to be the faithful vassal of the Turkish empire—that if Egypt had succeeded better than Constantinople in arranging her finances and in creating an army which, though they do not resemble our finances nor our army, are yet superior to, those of Constantinople, it would be a real service to the Turkish empire to give to it the Pacha of Egypt as an ally, for besides the Turkish empire, which might defend itself, you would have the rear guard of a powerful vassal, useful and able to support the Sultan in moments of difficulty."

The dispute between France and England upon this question seemed to be this: that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, insisted that the Divan should not make peace with Mehemet Ali, by yielding up to him Egypt and Syria. The noble Lord was willing to let the Divan yield up Egypt. France, however, was desirous that Syria, as well as Egypt, should be yielded up to Mehemet Ali, and that for Syria he should pay tribute, own his vassalage to the Porte, and consent to assist the Sultan, whenever he was required to do so. M. Thiers further said, that if the Powers should attempt to take Syria from Mehemet Ali, he would interfere on his behalf, and would prevent it from being taken from him. Such being the case, he thought that our Government was the cause of the present state not of peace but of suspended hostilities, and of the large naval and military establishments now kept up in the Mediterranean and along its coasts. He called upon the House, as it valued the interests of England, and those of free and liberal Governments, to act in concert with France, and to cease from being the ally of Russia. Why was there this difference of policy between England and France, the two countries, of all others, which ought to be united? He complained that the present policy of the British Government was hostile not only to a strict alliance with France, but also to the interest of Egypt, which we of all others ought to maintain. He maintained that, in the year 1833, the Sultan had given Mehemet Alia Syria as a Pashalic, and had afterwards given him Adana and other places as an appendage to it. He likewise maintained, that it was in consequence of the Sultan's having attempted to take back those provinces from Mehemet Ali, and of his having landed troops in Asia Minor to enforce his attempt, that Mehemet Ali had been compelled to put his own forces in motion, and that in the progress of events the Turkish fleet had deserted to him from the Sultan. What he further complained of was, that the policy of the British Government had not only stopped the negotiations for peace, but that when Mehemet Ali had offered to give back the Turkish fleet on certain terms, to be guaranteed by France and England, England had refused to guarantee those terms. The hon. Member read an extract from the speech of M. Thiers on the 14th of April last, but we could not collect even the substance of it. It was his opinion that it would not be in the power of France and England united to take Syria from Mehemet Ali, and as the sentiments of M. Thiers were in direct opposition to those of Lord Palmerston, it became a question of great importance whether we should persevere in our present erroneous course at so heavy an expense to the British people, and whether we ought not to promote an union between Turkey and Egypt, and allow the heavy armaments to be put down which were now kept up at an immense expense to every country. He understood that within the last six months Redschid Pasha had made a proposition for peace to Mehemet Ali, which would have been accepted, had not the British Government interfered to prevent it. These were points into which it was necessary that the House should inquire, before it gave the means of supporting so large a naval force as was deemed necessary to support our negotiations with Turkey and Egypt. He wished that the noble Lord would satisfy him and the country that he was proceeding in the right course. He would, in conclusion, ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any proposition had been made to him from the government of France for the purpose of promoting peace and withdrawing the heavy armaments now in the Mediterranean?

said, that his hon. Friend had placed him in considerable difficulty, by endeavouring to draw him into what he regarded as a premature discussion of the details of a negotiation which had not been concluded, and it would be very prejudicial to the public interests if he were to discuss it in the manner in which his hon. Friend had invited him. It would not be consistent with the public interests, with those interests especially of which the department over which he presided was charged with the conduct, to state to his hon. Friend all the particulars which he wished to know; yet he did feel t his duty to assure the House that almost very assertion which his hon. Friend had made as to the folly of the course pursued by this country, as to the communications which had taken place between this country and other powers, as to the conduct of her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and as to the desires and wishes of the Turkish government, were all founded on the most extraordinary misinformation, and he might really venture to say, that not one of them had the remotest resemblance to what had really taken place. The hon. Member had told the House, that the French government had notified to us, that they would have recourse to arms if we attempted to take Syria from Mehemet Ali. No such communication had ever been made to us by the French government. The hon. Member had also said, that the British Government had been informed, that if any attack were made by the British on the Egyptian fleet, it would be protected by the fleet of France. No such communication had ever been made. This method of denial came to almost the same result as that of assertion, and if he were to deny, and explain why he denied, all the information on which the hon. Member had proceeded, and which he was sure the hon. Member fully believed, he would be led very nearly to the point to which the hon. Member wished to bring him. He had denied the basis on which the hon. Member had founded his observations. The hon. Member said, the House had been called on to vote a very large amount of additional taxation, and that it was rendered necessary by the mistaken policy which he had endeavoured to pursue. Had the hon. Member forgotten that the great bulk of this increased taxation arose from measures which he himself had urged on the Government, and which he admitted were not founded on an erroneous policy? A great part of it arose from the reduction of the rates of postage; a great part of it also arose from the wants of the public service in Canada, and the question in which we had been involved with China; and a very small proportion of the whole amount now proposed to be raised was required, as the hon. Member wished to represent, for the service of the navy. But he would tell the hon. Member further, that the increased demand for the service of the navy did not arise, as he imagined, from the particular question now pending in the Mediterranean. The reasons which rendered it necessary were stated by Government when the condition of the navy was discussed. Larger supplies were required to place the navy on a footing more consistent with that which ought to be its standing with reference to the navies of the other great powers of Europe. So far was it from having been stated by the French government, as the hon. Member supposed, that if this question were settled ten French sail of the line would be withdrawn from active service, that he was not aware that the settlement of this question would lead to any reduction whatever in the aggregate amount of the French navy. He believed the contrary to be true;—he believed that if France and Britain were entirely agreed upon every matter of detail that could arise in connexion with this question, there would not be, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose, any reduction whatever in the naval force of France, and he said that, independently of the Eastern question. When we looked at the various important questions now pending in every quarter of the globe, and considered the amount of the naval armaments of other powers, it must be seen that a very small portion only of the increase of taxation had been called for owing to the state of affairs in Egypt. He objected no less strongly to the other principle which seemed to have furnished the staple of the reasonings of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that if he could show to the House that the French government or any French minister entertained a particular opinion on any question, it became a duty and obligation on the British Government immediately to adopt and follow that opinion in all respects. Now, no man in the House attached greater value than he did to the intimate alliance of Britain and France. He believed it was not more advantageous to the interests of the two countries than beneficial to the security of the peace of Europe; and since he had had the honour of holding his present office he had zealously endeavoured to promote the continuance of that alliance. On more than one occasion he had had to defend himself in that House against a charge of doing the very thing which the hon. Member thought he should now have done—that was placing the British Government entirely at the beck of France, and serving the interest of France, whether or not it was consistent with our own. On those occasions he had always stated that he thought nothing was more to be wished for the interests of both countries, than that the alliance should continue as long as it was consistent with those interests; but he had at the same time not concealed the consideration which must force itself upon every mind, that the two nations were too great, two powerful, and too high-spirited, and had too many important interests at stake, which each Government was bound in duty to protect, to allow of their being coupled in any such indissoluble bond as would induce them to follow each other's policy invariably. The Government of Britain should neither follow the policy of France, as contradistinguished from that of Britain, nor that of Prussia, nor that of Austria, but they ought to look to the interests of Britain, without paying any regard to the opinions that might be entertained by any foreign government or minister. The point was to show that any proposed policy was consistent with the interests of Great Britain, and if that could be made out, the denegation of it would become a matter of charge against a government. But the mere fact of a foreign minister holding a particular opinion on any point was no argument, and proved nothing as to the soundness of its policy. He utterly denied, and so far the House would believe him, that the French government had at any time intimated any intention of taking up arms against the other four Powers on this question. He was assuming the statement made by his hon. Friend to be correct, that France differed on some points from the other four Powers but he assured the hon. Member that he was mistaken if he thought that difference if difference existed, likely to lead to a war between Britain and France. He thought that was very improbable, independent of the other relations existing between Britain and France, which would be sufficiently strong to prevent the French government from breaking them, and rushing into the other extreme of hostility. Looking at the other great interests of France, and the questions she now had on her hands, it was not to be supposed that France would enter into a chivalrous crusade in defence of interests not her own, which she could not reconcile with the national faith and honour, and with the obligations she had entered into with the other Powers. The hon. Member had done him the honour of supposing that the collective note presented in July last to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople was entirely the work of his (Lord Palmerston's) own hand. The hon. Member said it was by that note that he had prevented an amicable arrangement being concluded between Mehemet Ali and the Porte. If the hon. Member supposed that we had such an entire influence and control over the other four great Powers, as to be able to persude them all, France included, to sign and deliver that note, he must admit that the hon. Member paid a compliment to the influence of the British Government. It was not for him to explain from what quarter the note arose. All he would say was, that the British Ambassador immediately and most cordially joined in it; but the suggestion did not come originally from him. The French government had never retracted or disowned that note, and when the hon. Member asked him to state to the House what had been the policy of Britain on this question he could only refer him to the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the Session, in which it was said that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was an object which it was thought deserving of every endeavour on our part to defend. That opinion he still held, and the more he thought of it, the more satisfied he was that it was sound doctrine. He was fully persuaded that the interests of this country required the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire, and that those interests would be sacrificed if the policy which the hon. Member wished for were to be adopted. The integrity of the Ottoman empire would at once be destroyed by the dismemberment of some of its most fertile and rich provinces, and consequently its independence would be reduced to the mere shadow of a shade. He was convinced that even taking that view, which was so much a favourite of the hon. Member, bearing on the naval expenses of the country, if what the hon. Member called peace, which was a mere surrender to Mehemet Ali, had taken place at the time mentioned by him, this country would have been compelled in order to prevent the consequences that would have ensued, to keep up a large naval force in the Mediterranean. Thus, as far as we were concerned, peace would have taken place without any of the advantages which peace ought to bring with it. He could not conclude without expressing a hope that we should be able to make some arrangement, in conjunction with the other powers of Europe, which would restore amicable arrangements between Turkey and Egypt, and prevent the recurrence of that unfortunate policy which once brought the Russian army to Constantinople, and if it were resumed, would in a short time bring another to the shores of the Bosphorus. He could only say, that when negotiations of this importance, complicated from their very nature, from the number of interests concerned and the distance which separated the Powers who were acting in them, were made the subject of discussion before they were finished, and when hon. Members, acting, like his hon. Friend on misinformation made statements which were entirely unfounded, and incorrect regarding those transactions, persons holding the situation he filled were placed in great difficulty. He might, perhaps, not have answered the expectations of his hon. Friend, and he was afraid he should not be able to do so until matters came to something more like a termination; but till that time he should be compelled to refuse to go into the points on which explanation was sought by his hon. Friend, and confine himself to setting him right as to the misinformation he had received. He trusted, however, that the House would not take for granted that the facts were as his hon. Friend had stated, for he could assure them that his hon. Friend had received the most extraordinary misinformation on all the material points to which in the course of his speech he adverted.

wished to know if the British Government were acting in accordance with the French, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne?

said, what the speech stated was, that the concord of the five Powers on the Belgian question had led to satisfactory results, and it was hoped that the same concord would bring the questions pending between Turkey and Egypt to an amicable termination. He had not abandoned that hope.

rose, in pursuance of notice to move, "that it is the opinion of this House (as the people of Ireland do not contribute to the assessed taxes) that in any additional taxation that may be required to make up the deficiency of the revenue of the United Kingdom it is unjust and inexpedient to impose any tax which will fall exclusively on the people of Great Britain." He could not see the justice of such a partial system of taxation as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted. He might come forward, as the representative of a large agricultural constituency, and say, that they were very little benefitted by the reduction of the penny postage, but would be exposed to much inconvenience by the increase of assessed taxes. The only ground which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could take was, that the people of Ireland were in such a state of poverty and distress that it would be wrong to impose on them the same amount of taxation as on other divisions of the empire. That was a very dangerous argument to introduce. But he would not waste the time of the House in dwelling upon arguments of this description, because he could show that the people of Ireland were as able as the people of England to contribute towards the taxation of the country. Now, if it could be proved that Ireland derived as much advantage from the colonies as England—and the colonies, it should be recollected, were a main source of the increase in our expenditure—and also that Ireland had derived a greater advantage than England from the Penny-postage Act, because she was brought into closer communication with the commercial towns of England, then it would follow, that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced principles of taxation which were partial and unfair. He wished to call for an expression of opinion on the part of the House, that the system proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unjust and inconsistent. He could show that it was so, for he held in his hand a convincing proof of the increasing prosperity of the people of Ireland. Ireland might be looked upon as a purely agricultural district, and if he could show from official returns that the agriculture of Ireland had increased since the union to an amazing extent, that was a sufficient proof of the increasing prosperity of the people of Ireland. He held in his hand a return of the exports of every description of grain shipped from Ireland from the year 1800 to the year 1839. In the year 1801 the quantity of grain of every description exported from Ireland was 525 quarters; in 1802, the year after the union, the quantity ex- ported was 461,371 quarters; in 1810 the quantity had increased to 631,227 quarters; in 1820 the exports were 1,415,722 quarters; in 1830 they had increased to the extent of 2,215,521 quarters; in 1835 the exports were 2,679,000 quarters; in 1836, 2,900,000 quarters; in 1837, 3,030,000 quarters; and in 1838 they were 3,474,000 quarters. Thus it was evident, that in the last thirty-eight years the quantity of grain exported had increased from 525 quarters to the enormous extent of 3,474,000 quarters. He thought that there could not be a greater proof than this of the increasing prosperity of that country, and he believed that if Ireland were free from the continual state of agitation which was now kept up there, there would be very little difference in the condition of the people of England and Ireland. He was convinced, that whatever might be the motives by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been influenced in proposing his plan, the people of England and Ireland would attribute it to the important support which the Government received from the Irish Members in that House. He thought that he should not have done his duty towards his constituents if he had failed to bring this question under the consideration of the House, and he should conclude, therefore, by proposing the resolution which he had already placed in the Speaker's hands.

said, that it was very far from his intention to rise for the purpose of seconding the motion of his hon. Friend. There was very little indeed of what had fallen from him in which he could concur; but he could concur with him on one point, and that was, that in his opinion the mode by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to supply the deficiency in the revenue was a partial one, but it was by no means partial towards Ireland. He conceived that the mode adopted was both unjust and inconsistent. The assessed taxes had indeed been remitted to Ireland, but it was not from any feeling of liberality, but because those taxes had not been productive. An immense staff was necessary for their collection, and he believed that the income received was exceedingly small, and that was the ground on which the remission had been made. But his hon. Friend had said, that Ireland had been benefitted by those causes which had led to the present deficiency. His hon. Friend said that Ireland derivd very great advantage from the colonies. Now, could any assertion be more extravagant than this? Ireland had no import or export trade with the colonies. He admitted that she received benefit from emigration, but England received as much. As to trade, however, with the colonies, Belfast was almost the only town in Ireland which carried on any foreign trade worth speaking of. His hon. Friend said, that taxation ought to be imposed equally on the two countries. Was his hon. Friend aware of the mode in which spirits were taxed by the plan of the right hon. Gentleman? The duty would operate much more oppressively on Ireland than either Scotland or England. An equal duty of 4d. per gallon was to be laid on spirits of all kinds. Now, the present duty on French brandy was 22s. 6d. per gallon, and the increased duty would only be 1½ per cent. On the spirits distilled in Ireland the duty was now 2s. 4d., so that an increase of 4d. per gallon would amount to 14½ per cent. The duty on English spirits was 7s. 6d., and the proposed increase would only amount to 4½ per cent. This, therefore, afforded a just ground of complaint on the part of Ireland, and he submitted that he had clearly made out, that though the mode by which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to supply the deficiency was a partial one, the partiality shown was not in favour of Ireland.

said, that the hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to regard Ireland, in one respect, as an English country—but had Ireland the same privileges—had she the same franchises—had she the same liberties, as if she were an English country? The hon. Gentleman would, indeed, give to Ireland an equality of burdens with England, but he would at the same time deny to her an equality of rights. The hon. Gentleman would give an equality in the burden, but an inequality in the relief. The financial was a different question from the political, and yet by the Union they were to be secured an equality of political rights, while they were told that they were to be free from an equality of fiscal burdens. But, then, the hon. Gentleman talked of the prosperity of Ireland! He said that Ireland was prosperous because it exported the prime necessaries of life! Now, if the hon. Gentleman spoke of its imports, it would then be known that the country was prosperous, because it was a consumer of those necessaries of life. On the contrary, it was a proof of the poverty of the people. Did the manufactures of England go to Ireland in return for their exports, or did money return to Ireland for them? No; the provisions went to Liverpool—they were turned into money, and it was sent to the banking-house of the absentees. And it was for this cause that the hon. Gentleman talked of the prosperity of Ireland! The hon. and learned Member for Brandon had truly said, that the assessed taxes were given up in Ireland because they were not productive. But, now, let them look a little closer to this question. Since the peace the amount of taxes reduced in England was 40,000,000l. and in Ireland but 1,000,000l. including even this miserable portion of the assessed taxes. On one article—that of spirits, the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had shown what was the proportion of the rise. Taking it in round numbers, the rise on English spirits was 5 per cent.; on Scotch 10 per cent.; and on Irish 15 per cent. This, then, was the partial taxation of which the hon. Gentleman complained, as unfavourable to England, and favourable to Ireland! He admitted that the duty was smaller on Irish spirits, and that it was in the same money the calculation was made. But, why was the duty smaller? Was it as a matter of favour to Ireland that it was smaller? No; but because the smuggler had corrected the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was to make it productive to the revenue that the small duty was imposed and substituted for the large duty. In England, the spirits were allowed to be transferred to the rectifying distiller without paying duty. It was not necessary that it should pay duty on leaving the King's stores, as in Ireland; and at the time that it was announced that the new taxes should be imposed, it happened, by a very fortunate accident, that there was no stock of spirits in Scotland, there was no stock in England, and there was an enormous stock in Ireland. In the latter place it arose from two causes; first, the badness of corn last season, and next the cessation of the use of spirits, owing to the exertions of Father Mathew. There would then, of course, be a great deal of taxation on the spirits in Ireland; while there was scarcely any stock in Scotland, and he was assured that there was none in England. This was a very fortunate accident both for Scotland and England. If hon. Gentlemen would look into this subject (and he trusted that they would, now that the question had been mooted by the hon. Gentleman opposite) they would find that the grossest wrong and the greatest injustice had been done to Ireland on the subject of taxation. What was the relative state of the debts of the two countries at the time of the Union? Ireland then owed 20,000,000l. and England owed 446,000,000l. Now, England had had a bonus of ten millions on this. The debt of Ireland, as to that of England, was as one to twenty-two, and that was the proportion of the burden which she ought to have borne; but instead of being as twenty-two to one, it was as eight and a half to one. Lord Castlereagh made these flourishing premises on the subject on the 5th February, 1800.

"In respect to the past expenses, Ireland had no concern whatever with the debt of Great Britain, but the two countries were to unite as to future expenses, on a strict measure of relative ability. He should have considered it a most valuable circumstance in this arrangement if the countries could have been so completely incorporated as not to have had distinct revenues, a part of the system of the Scots' union, which had been felt to be of such importance that a great effort was made to equalize the circumstances of the two countries for that purpose. England had a large debt, Scotland had none charged upon her revenues; an accurate calculation was made of the sum to be paid to Scotland, to justify her in accepting her share of the debt, and the sum was paid accordingly by England. The taxation of the two countries was accordingly fixed at the same proportion, except in the instance of the land-tax, which was fixed at a different ratio, because the land-tax in England was imposed so unequally, that had Scotland paid in the same rate as the nominal tax of England, she would really have been taxed much higher than her just proportion. He mentioned this to show the pains that had been taken to incorporate the two countries, as well in point of finance as other circumstances; but in the present situation of these countries, this part of the system could not be adopted. Great Britain now paid in taxes for interest on her debt ten millions annually (it was nearly 17,000,000l. for funded and unfunded debt in the January of the next year, according to the Parliamentary papers endorsed to be printed 15th April, 1824,) for any proportion of this she could not call upon Ireland, nor could she offer, as in the case of Scotland, any equivalent; it was, therefore, necessary, that the respective debts of the countries should remain distinct, and of course, that their taxation should continue separate."

See, then, how far the premises of Lord Castlereagh were realised. By the Parliamentary paper ordered to be printed on the 15th April, 1824, it appears that the amount of the funded and unfunded debt of Great Britain, and the annual interest payable thereupon, were, in January, 1801, or when the act of union became first operative, as follows:—

BRITISH DEBT AT THE UNION.
Funded debt	£420,305,000
Unfunded debt	26,080,000
Total debt	£446,385,000
ANNUAL INTEREST.
Charge of funded debt	£15,800,000
Ditto of unfunded	1,021,000
Total charge	£16,821,000

Thus it appears that the amount of revenue Great Britain was compelled exclusively to raise at the union was nearly 17,000,000l. in a single year. There being a junction of debts, and a power to levy indiscriminate taxation, Great Britain does not now raise 17,000,000l. exclusively, or, as far as can be conjectured, 7,000,000l. According to the finance accounts of the last year, the following were the items of her separate taxation:—

Land and assessed taxes	£3,939,000
Bricks	463,000
Soap	782,000
Post-horse duty	224,000
Total	£5,408,000

In certain stamp duties and home-made spirit duties there is a higher rate of taxation in England than in Ireland. Its produce is at present uncertain, but should be ascertained. Assuming it to add a fourth to the foregoing items, the total is 6,775,000l., which leaves a balance of relief from exclusive taxation to Great Britain exceeding ten millions annually. Thus it was that the promise and the pledge of Lord Castlereagh were redeemed. Here was a plain and a palpable wrong done to Ireland; and yet with the fact falsified by Lord Castlereagh of what it was that England was liable to pay, it being 17,000,000l. and not 10,000,000l., as he had stated, the hon. Gentleman, perceiving this, talked of both countries being equally taxed. Now, when the union took place, the first thing that was done was to raise the taxes as rapidly as possible. The report of the select com- mittee on the income and expenditure of Ireland, which was ordered to be printed on the 19th of June, 1815, would show how a united Parliament dealt with Ireland, for it would be found that that report said this:—

"Your committee cannot but remark, that for several years Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain itself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, and including the extraordinary and war taxes; the permanent revenue of Great Britain having increased from the year 1801, when the accounts of both countries were first made to correspond in the proportion of 16½ to 10—the whole revenue of Great Britain, including war taxes, in the proportion of 21¾ to 10, and the revenues of Ireland in the proportion of 23 to 10. But in the twenty-four years referred to by your committee, the increase of Irish revenue has been in the proportion of 46¾ to 10."

But let him now refer to the opinion of the chief governor of Canada, Mr. Thomson, who, on the 26th March, 1830, in moving for a Select Committee for a revision of taxes, said:—

"A case is established in the instance of Ireland, which was written in characters too legible not to serve as a guide to future financiers—one which ought to bring shame upon the memory of its authors. The revenue of Ireland, in the year 1807, amounted to 4,378,000l.; between that year and the conclusion of the war, taxes were successively imposed, which, according to the calculations of Chancellors of the Exchequer, were to produce 3,400,000l., or to augment the revenue to the extent of 7,700,000l. What was the result? Why, that in the year 1821, when that amount, less about 400,000l. for taxes afterwards repealed, ought to have been paid into the Exchequer, the whole revenue of Ireland amounted only to 3,844,000l., being 533,000l. less than in 1807, previous to one farthing of these additional taxes having been imposed. Here is an example to prove that an increase of taxation does not tend to produce a corresponding increase of revenue, but, on the contrary, an actual diminution,"

In 1821, however, the Irish revenue fell to 3,844,000l., which proved that the English Government had put burden upon burden upon Ireland, until she actually broke down under the load. Then, with regard to the balance arising from the remittance of public money, to and from the Irish and British Exchequers, he held in his hand a Parliamentary document, dated the 24th of August, 1833, from which it appeared, that from 1796 to 1800 there had been a balance of 435,637l., and up to 1833 a balance of 11,389,178l. in favour of Ireland. He would now beg the attention of the House to an extract from the report of the committee of 1814:—

"Your committee have employed a considerable portion of their time and attention in the investigation of the expenditure of the United Kingdom, with a view to the settlement of the account of proportionate contribution between the two countries. They have not yet the means of stating an account with so much exactness as to serve as the foundation of a definitive settlement between Great Britain and Ireland, as the accounts which they have directed to be made up in Ireland are not yet completed. While they have been in preparation your committee have to state that they could not be more usefully employed during those several sittings than in discussing and settling, subject to the final judgment of Parliament, the principle by which the account ought to be regulated, with respect to certain articles as to which the sense of the Act of Union appeared to admit of question. With respect to these points your committee are of opinion, that in the adjustment of the payments made on account of the joint charge of Great Britain and Ireland, the payments made from the consolidated fund (Ireland), since the union, under the act of 40 George 3rd, ch. 34, so far as relates to any composition to any bodies corporate or individuals, in respect to any city or borough which may have ceased to send Members to Parliament in consequence of the union, should not be a joint charge."

This "joint charge," the gentle name intended to include the bribing money, with which the Act of Union was purchased, amounts to 1,275,000l.; and the sole payment of this sum was cast, as it were, as a brand of infamy upon the people of Ireland. According to Lord Castlereagh, there were seventeen millions which ought to be paid by the people of England, the people of Ireland being left untouched; whereas he had shown that the people of Ireland paid ten millions to England's seven millions. All he asked for the people of Ireland was, that if they were to be thus taxed, they should, at least, have the credit of it, and enjoy equal rights in every respect with the people of England.

said, that Ireland was already sufficiently taxed, and he thought the proposition of the hon. Member would be unproductive of any real good, he could not support it.

expressed his regret at being compelled to differ with the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, but he must do so upon this occasion. The assessed taxes in Ireland had not produced more than 120,000l., while they cost 70,000l. in the collection. Then, again, with regard to the duty on spirits, the abatement of that duty from 6s. to 2s. 4d. per gallon was found to have a most beneficial effect, inasmuch as it very nearly extirpated the illicit trade. He trusted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear that latter fact, in mind, and that the House would see that no advantage could possibly arise from laying fresh taxation upon Ireland.

said, he had felt it his duty to second the motion, and after listening to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House, he must say that the motion had not been fully and fairly discussed. These hon. Gentlemen, who came from the other side of the channel had carefully watched their own interests, and showed zeal for their country; but all parties had suffered the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to escape both on this and on former occasions. The right hon. Gentleman, ay, the whole of the Ministers ought to be told, that they had no business to entail upon either England or Ireland any new lax at all. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that there had been gross mismanagement of the finances of the country, and hence had arisen the necessity for this new taxation. He was astonished to see the public money voted away in so thin a House. To be sure, hon. Gentlemen pleaded that it was their dinner hour, but let them remember that they might deprive many a poor man of his dinner. He observed a noble Lord smiling. Why, did not the noble Lord know that very often there was not a single Minister in his place to answer a question? He was sorry that steps were not taken to oust such Ministers altogether. Some people might say we cannot find better. One thing he knew, it was impossible to find worse. They had got into place and power by professing to be friends and promoters of economy and retrenchment. What taxes had they reduced? Why, the duty on balsam of copaiba, and on shepherd's dogs, and such like trumpery matters. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the increase of taxation was only the beginning of the mischief. He could foretell that in the next Session of Parliament 3,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. more would probably be demanded. And all this was the consequence of the mismanagement of the finances of the country during the last six or seven years. Instead of retrenchment, the present Ministers had favoured the country with the grossest extravagance. Look at their commissions. Why, 119,000l. went in one year for new commissioners, who, he believed, were chiefly employed in doing nothing. Well, the consequence was, that there must be an increase of public taxation. But why did they tax the poor, and not the rich? He wanted to see 10, or 20 or 30 per cent, laid upon all salaries of 800l. per annum and upwards, and not upon the poor under clerks. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, then might be made to contribute his share to the public burdens, for he received a very good salary, although he spent half his time in cutting capers and dancing quadrilles. Oh, he did not blame the noble Lord for that; he was fond of dancing himself. But if the noble Lord was wanted in Ireland, why did he not go thither? and if nor, if a deputy could do his duty there, why was not his deputy better paid, and he compelled to pay a percentage upon his income. He thought a small absentee tax upon some persons would have a very wholesome effect. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken a better mode of increasing the revenue. It must be increased, it appeared, but the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to care how, so the poor were to be taxed as heavily as the rich. He did not wish to say anything rude of the right hon., the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he believed him to be a very good man in private life, but he was wholly unfit for his present office, and knew not how to manage the finances of the country. He did not think it was quite fair to saddle this country alone with the proposed increase of taxation. He could not acquit her Majesty's Ministers of partiality in this or in other matters in which Ireland was concerned. He perceived that they were the complete slaves of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He saw that they watched his eye, and his every feature, and were entirely at his control. His nod was positive law to them, and they were nothing more nor less than his absolute slaves. That state of things might not be agreeable to some of them, and he confessed that he wished he could see a division amongst them, as it would be a sign of their breaking up. Whatever became of the motion, he was satisfied that he and the hon. mover had done their duty to their constituents.

wished to asked the right hon. Gentleman whether gentlemen who came from Ireland, bringing their own carriages, horses, servants, &c. with them, were exempt from the payment of assessed taxes while they remained in this country?

replied, that they were protected under a special act; but gentlemen arriving earlier than the opening of the Parliamentary session, and staying after its close, would be liable.

thought it a hard case upon English gentlemen that Irish gentlemen should be thus exempted, and on bringing up the report he should move the insertion of a clause for the purpose of taxing the horses and carriages of Irishmen resident in England to the same extent as the horses and carriages of Englishmen were taxed, which was not the case at present.

thought this was a proper subject for inquiry, as the first step to equal justice to Ireland, for he could not see why Irishmen living under the protection of British laws should not be taxed to an equal extent with Englishmen. He could not understand what objection there could be to equal taxation. If, however, this motion came to a division now, he was afraid the minority would be such as to compromise the question in some degree, and he therefore hoped it would not be pressed at present.

said, that if the hon. Alderman near him (Alderman Humphrey) proposed to tax Irishmen residing in England higher than Englishmen, he should be glad to second that motion, as such a course would, he hoped, have the effect of inducing Irishmen to reside in their own country, and to spend their money there.

said, he would avail himself of that opportunity to state the course which he intended to pursue with respect to Baltic timber, which was one of the articles affected by this bill. He had received many communications on the subject, and he had endeavoured to ascertain the real facts of the case by every means in his power. He was bound to say, according to the best information which he had been able to obtain from those for whose opinions he had the highest respect, that the effect of any addition to the present duty on Baltic timber would not only be injurious to the trade, but would also tend to diminish, instead of increase, the revenue of the country. The duty on Baltic timber at present was 55s. a load, and on Canadian timber it was only 10s.; so, that if by an increase of the duty on Baltic timber he should prevent the introduction of one load from the Baltic, to be supplied from Canada instead, it was clear that he should lose the difference between the amount of duty on a load of Baltic and a load of Canadian timber. It was not his intention, however, to postpone the present bill. He should go on with that measure, but it was his intention to bring the article of timber separately under the consideration of the House, with the view of getting the same amount of revenue from that article as at present, which, in fact, he could not give up, but he would not attempt to obtain that amount by a percentage on the present duty, but by assimilating the duty in certain cases between Baltic and Canadian timber. He would not then enter into details, but by the end of the week he would be prepared to state the plan he proposed to adopt for levying the revenue from timber.

was glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to alter this bill so far as it related to Baltic timber. He was sure if an increased duty was placed on timber from the Baltic, as was originally proposed, that such a course would not only cause a serious loss or ruin to many persons engaged in the trade, but would also have the worst effect upon the revenue. He was, therefore, happy that an alteration in respect to timber was to be made in the bill.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman admitted a distinction with respect to timber from the fear that an increase of duty would cause a loss to the revenue, he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that the same principle would be found to apply to other articles, and that he would be asked to make other exemptions from the operation of this bill. For himself, if timber were exempted, he should feel considerable difficulty with respect to spirits, on which the difference of the duty was far greater than on timber. With respect to the differential duties between Canada and other timber, he should not give an opinion; but if there was any intention to deprive Canada timber of the advantage it had enjoyed, there never was a time when it was less called for than when we were trying to adjust the differences with Canada, when, whilst we persevered in maintaining our rights, it should be our object to do every thing that would conciliate the colony.

wished it to be distinctly understood that it was not at all with reference to an alteration of the scale of duties that he made the proposition; so far from it, that he believed that by the alteration he should propose, he should leave the question which had been mooted, and respecting which a great variety of opinions prevailed, in a better state for Canadian interests; for he was satisfied, from the communications he had received, that the additional burthen which by the bill he originally had imposed on Baltic timber would have caused more difficulty and doubt than by the course he now proposed to take.

said, the object of the differential duty had been, not to put one penny more into the Exchequer, but to give employment to 1,000 ships, and 15,000 seamen, at a time when they were debarred from employment in the Baltic. This was the consideration which had induced the Timber committee to come to the resolution, and he thought no measure had been more satisfactory to the country generally than the present scale of duties. Timber was an article of such importance to us, that we must draw it from every part of the globe.

as one of that committee, must say, that the present scale of duty was considered unfair and unequal, and a reduction had been recommended. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not now state the course he intended to take; it was of great importance that the trade should know it.

was surprised that the hon. Member for Whitby should have stated, that the present scale of duty was satisfactory; every consumer of timber disapproved of it. He hoped the time was not far distant when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could equalize the duty, and thereby increase the revenue.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) that this would be an inauspicious moment to deprive Canadian timber of any advantage. With respect to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a person largely concerned in the timber trade with the Baltic, as well as Canada, had stated to him, that the proposed alteration would diminish instead of augment the revenue. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he contemplated any further alteration in the bill, or intended to adhere to it with this single exception?

said, he did not intend to propose any other alteration in the bill except verbal alterations, and if any should be proposed, he meant to oppose them.

said, the bill was so unfair and unequal in its operation, that he could not believe the House would adopt it without further alteration. In the clause before the Committee the original proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that the additional duty should be levied from the 15th of May, but he submitted, that although that arrangement might seem to be fair, it inflicted a hardship on parties dealing in the articles. Though there was a proviso with respect to contracts, yet there might be virtual agreements made, which would not have the benefit of the clause. Instead of fixing a particular day when the duty should commence, the fairest way would be to levy it from and after the passing of the bill. It was bad both in principle and practice to charge the duty from the passing of the resolution of this House.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give a schedule to show how the five per cent, would bear upon particular articles.

rose to propose certain amendments, limiting the increase of duty on Scotch and Irish spirits to five per cent, on the existing duties. He did not propose to interfere with English spirits, rum and brandy; Irish spirits, or Scotch spirits, coming to England would be subject to the 4d, duty. He was bound to give some reason, and it was this—that Irish spirits were taxed to the utmost at present. The reports of the commissioners on the subject of Irish excise showed beyond the least possibility of cavil, that Irish spirits had already been taxed to the utmost. If the present duty were augmented, the effect would not fail to be an increase of illicit distillation. In another point of view, he wished the House to look at the probable effect of such a proceeding. A general complaint would be raised, that justice had not been done to Ireland. For some time past it had been found impossible to levy assessed taxes upon Ireland, and he did not hesitate to say, that any attempt to levy them there must be unsuccessful. For these reasons he proposed to leave out the words "United Kingdom," and should that proposition be agreed to, he intended to propose such additional words as might be necessary for carrying the object which he had in view into effect.

observed, that by some means or other the English distillers obtained information beforehand, which enabled them to get rid of their stocks of spirits, and the result would be, that not 500l. in duty would be collected in England during the present year. By some arts of divination the Scotch distillers arrived at the same knowledge, but the Irish distillers remained in ignorance, retained their stocks on hand, and were therefore in great danger of losing severely. The measure would therefore be an ex post facto law.

was understood to say, it was impossible, that any of the parties concerned could have obtained the least information upon this subject one hour earlier than the others. Knowing the state of the revenue, it was perfectly natural, that persons engaged in the manufacture of spirits should anticipate the possibility of being subjected to increased taxation, and, apprehensive that they could not escape the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took their measures accordingly. The question which the House had to decide was, whether there should be a per centage or not. Now, he contended, that spirits were a very proper object of taxation, and then the only practical question which remained was, whether 4d. would be too heavy. On this point he arrived at a different conclusion from that put forth by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The present duty was 2s. 4d. From 1831 to 1834 it was 3s. 4d. He was far from saying, that it would now be expedient to bring back the amount to 3s. 4d. by the addition of 1s., but what he pro- posed to do was, to raise it from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 8d., not 2s. 10d., as in the year 1826, yet it was worthy of observation, that when the duty was 2s. 10d. the revenue was a rising revenue, at the same time that he thought the addition of 1s. would now make it a falling revenue.

said it was true, that in 1830 the duty was 2s. 10d., and the revenue was then rising. An impression at that time prevailed, that the remission of 6d. would put an end to illicit distillation, but the change which then took place had not produced the effect which had been expected. Although he could not profess himself favourable to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he felt, that not possessing the official information which was accessible to him, he (Mr. Goulburn) ought not to oppose the measure which had been submitted to the House by her Majesty's Government, nevertheless, he felt all the responsibility with the right hon. Gentleman.

said, it was quite clear, that the English and Scottish distillers were not likely to suffer, whereas the Irish had not been aware of the measure intended. There was not less than 20,000 puncheons of spirits now on the hands of the distillers in Ireland which would be affected by this proposed increase of duty, and he would contend, that never had there been any duty which was so unpalatable to the capitalists in spirits in Ireland as this would be. The unanimous opinion in that country was, that the additional duty would not be of any advantage to the revenue, but that, on the contrary, it would encourage illicit distillation. He therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press the proposition he had made.

was of opinion, that if the additional duty of 4d. per gallon did not answer the object that was in view, the Government would then find it necessary to take off a larger sum than was now added to the rate of duty. He should support the amendment.

supported the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would have been better pleased if a heavier duty on spirits had been proposed, so that the system of gin drinking might be checked.

could not support the proposed increase of duty, as in his opinion it would give a great stimulus to smuggling, to the great injury of the country.

deprecated the plan, as falling more heavily on Ireland and Scotland than on England, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had listened to reason on one item of his proposed taxation—namely, the timber trade—he hoped he would also take into consideration the inequality with which this tax would bear on the three kingdoms.

had no fear of this additional tax leading to smuggling in Scotland, as that system had received a most effectual check by the last enactment on this subject.

so far agreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Kent, that if he thought an increased duty would lead to a diminution in the consumption of spirits, he would give his vote in favour of the additional rate, but as he believed, that it would not have that effect, and that on the contrary it would encourage illicit distillation, he should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry.

rose to propose the omission of a clause. Its effect was, to impose the extra duty upon the buyer, where a contract for the sale of goods was not completed at the time fixed for the act to come into operation. This would operate very unjustly where the bargain was made upon the understanding, that the duty was included in the price.

said, it was difficult to frame a provision which should not in some individual cases produce hardship, but a similar clause had been introduced into other acts by which duties had been increased, and upon the whole it appeared fairer, that the buyer should pay the extra duty, which was not taken into account when the bargain was made.

proposed to add a proviso, excepting windows from the proposed additional tax of 2s. in the pound. He could not agree in the statement which was often made, that this tax affected mainly the more opulent classes, for although it was true, that the cottage of the agricultural labourer was exempt from the duty, yet artisans, who formed the largest body of the working classes, felt the pressure of the tax in the shape of the increased rent of the lodgings which they occupied. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation as to what was meant by the surveys which were intended to be made, as, notwithstanding the explanation which had been given, some alarm still existed upon the subject.

did not think the hon. Member could expect to succeed in his proposition. Considerable reduction had been made in this tax, and he could not make any concession with respect to it upon the present occasion. He admitted the tax was unpopular. He did not enter into the defence of any single item. The bill must be taken as a whole.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had givan no answer to the question respecting the assessment of reopened windows. Would old windows opened since the passing of the act of 4th and 5th William 4th on this subject, be liable to assessment under the new survey? Lord Althorp had given a distinct pledge that they should not be assessed.

said, the provisions of the act alluded to should be strictly adhered to, and the attention of the surveyors had been directed to them. The assurance given by the act of Parliament would not in the slightest degree be infringed by the present bill.

could find no clause in the act of Parliament carrying out the pledge which the hon. Member for Kilkenny said, had been given by Lord Althorp. All reopened windows would consequently be assessed under the new survey.

said, that the pledge given by Lord Althorp was to the effect, not merely that these re-opened windows should be free from assessment, but that the first tax repealed should be the window tax. Instead of this being done, an increased duty was now laid on windows.

thought the increase of the assessed taxes would restrict the present franchise under the registration law, and he trusted the new act for the registration of voters would pass, and relieve the voters from the present restriction of the franchise.

observed, that innkeepers felt it to be a grievance, that while the duty on shop windows had been repealed, their bar windows still remained liable to tax.

referred to the last act, and quoted a clause exempting all windows re-opened since the passing of that act from assessment. The same exemption did not apply to newly built windows.

said, the exemption did not apply to the property, but to the person. He thought it desirable to add a clause to the present bill to carry into effect the object intended to be secured by the last act on the subject.

said, that if the House thought such a clause desirable, he had no objection to its introduction.

proposed as an amendment, that the words referring to carriages kept to be let on hire be omitted, which would exonerate them from all taxation.

considered, that this tax pressed very unfairly, and was for taking it off altogether.

said, that he would be very much disposed to do so; but that as it amounted to the sum of 154,000l. per annum, the present state of the revenue would not permit the reduction.

was of opinion, that if the carriage tax were removed altogether, the horse tax would more than make up the difference.

observed, that the number of post-horses on the road to Windsor, had amazingly diminished of late.

expressed a hope that the Habeas Corpus Act would no longer remain suspended in this province, as a most respectable Gentleman, seventy-five years of age, had now been immured in a dungeon for more than three years, and had never been brought to trial even before a court-martial. The sufferings of the Italian prisoners in the dungeons of Austria, had not been more atrocious than the sufferings inflicted by the British Government on some of the most virtuous citizens in Lower Canada.

felt, that he should be acting a most unmanly part, if he did not support the proposition that Mr. Bejet, whose acquaintance and hospitality he had enjoyed whilst acting as a commissioner in Canada, should be immediately discharged. He believed it was the mode in which his property was implicated with the ecclesiastical seigneuries of Canada, that had prevented him from giving to the British Government the sureties, which it had demanded as a preliminary condition to his liberation.

felt, that it was quite impossible for him to speak with any certainty as to the measures which might be taken with respect to Mr. Bejet; the Governor-general of the colony, who was on the spot, must judge of the danger to be apprehended to the province from the liberation of any persons now in custody. He was led to believe that Mr. Bejet, who was one of the richest men in Lower Canada, had been concerned in giving aid to a most atrocious rebellion, which had been accompanied with some most cruel, revolting, and sanguinary murders. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just acknowledged, Mr. Bejet, if he had given the required sureties, would not have been detained in custody. If this bill should be passed, and if a representative form of government should again be restored to Canada, he was quite sure that there would be a desire to overlook all that had occurred, so far as was consistent with the security of the province. He had no doubt that under such circumstances, the restrictive system would no longer be continued.

said, that his impression with respect to Mr. Bejet was, that he,. being one of the richest men in Lower Canada, had given encouragement not to those who had embarked in the rebellion, but to the setting up of those newspapers, which had supported the same principles that were avowed by those who were concerned in that dangerous and delusive enterprise.