19tbata anti' Procerbing1in Vatliament.

1. MINISTERIAL DIFFICULTIES. The House of Commons, on Monday, was thronged with members at an early hour, and the anxiety to hear the announcement of the plan which the Ministry had resolved to adopt was unusually great. The Speaker, soon after taking the chair, at five o'clock, called upon Lord ALTHORP; who said, that he was aware of the anxiety which prevailed to hear what he had to state on that occasion. The circum- stances in which Ministers were placed by the vote of the House on Friday last, were, as he bad before stated, extremely embarrassing. Government, after taking all the circumstances into consideration, had determined to bring the question again before the House, in order that the whole state of the case might be laid before them, and the conse- quences which would result from persevering in their vote of Friday be clearly explained and considered. It was there fore his intention to move the next day, as an amendment to Sir John Key's motion for the repeal of the House and Window duties- " That the deficiency of the Revenue which would be occasioned by a reduc- tion of the tax on Malt to 10s. a quarter, and by the repeal of the taxes on Houses and Windows, could only be supplied by the substitution of a general tax on Pro- perty, and would occasion an extensive change in our whole financial system, which would at present be inexpedient." (Loud cheers and cries of " No, no !") Lord ALTHORP having sat down, the Speaker again called upon him ; when he moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. He took that opportunity of requesting Mr. Wolryche Whitmore, whose motion respecting the Corn-laws had precedence of that of Sir John Key, to postpone his motion; because it was not only desirable, but necessary that the question respecting the Taxes should be settled without delay.

Mr. W. Wrirrmom, with some hesitation, agreed to postpone his motion ; but only on the understanding that he should be allowed a day next week to bring it before the House.

Sir W. INGILBY then asked Lord Althorp what he intended to do re- specting the vote of Friday last? He could assure the House, that he had not brought forward his motion with any view of embarrassing Ministers. The resolution having been carried by a majority, the manner in which Lord Althorp had taken it up had gone through the country, and the country expected that the measure would be carried into effect. He asked if it was his intention to carry that resolution into effect, or what it was he intended to do?

Lord ALTHORP said, that his remarks on Friday night appeared to have been misunderstood. He said, or meant to say, that although the question had been carried by a small majority, he would not take advan- tage of the support of such gentlemen as had subsequently entered the House, by again dividing it at that hour of the morning. He had, as every one acquainted with the forms of the House must know, a full right to do so, but declined exercising it. The motion of which he had given notice would, he thought, sufficiently explain the course which he meant to pursue relative to that decision. The Marquis of CHANDOS said, that he had misunderstood Lord Althorp in the same way as Sir W. INGILBY. He regretted that Mi- nisters should attempt to get rid of a vote of the House in the manner they proposed to do. They bad had abundant notice that the question would be brought forward, and ought to have been prepared to meet it. He very much regretted that such should be the conduct of any Minister in the Reformed House of Commons ; and for his own part, should feel perfectly ashamed of himself, if he altered his vote on so important a question ; and would rather at once give, up his seat at the call of the Minister of the Crown, than vote one way on Friday, and directly the reverse on the Tuesday following.

A Member said, that he had voted in the majority; but he now found that the stability of the present Administration, which was the only one that could carry on the affairs of the country, was involved in it ; and that was of more consequence than the repeal of the Malt- duty.

Mr. TENNYSON had understood Lord Althorp to say, in very dis- tinct terms, that notwithstanding the smallness of the majority, he should feel it his duty to carry the resolution for the repeal of the Malt- duty into effect. (Loud cries of "No, no I") He should like to know whether those members who cried " No " were present Of course he should abide by the explanation which Lord Althorp had given. As to the stability of the Ministry, no such question in the Reformed Parliament ought to affect it. The Parliament, if it truly represented the people, might fairly' say, say, " We do not wish to be taxed in the particular way you propose, but prefer another way." He should be ashamed himself, if, after having voted for the repeal of the Malt-tax, and of the House and Window taxes, he was not ready to vote for a substitute for them. He did not think with Mr. Hume, that by any screwing they could reduce the expenditure by six or seven millions. A Property-tax, in short, was necessary : it was the only measure which would satisfy the people, or render the country prosperous.

Mr. ROBINSON agreed with Mr. Tennyson in his understanding of what bad fallen from Lord Altborp on Friday. He approved of the resolution which Ministers had taken. The House would now see what they were about. He wished, however, that members would con- sider the consequences of overturning their vote of Friday. It would be said that forty members could impose taxes on the people, and there was no idea of revising their votes ; but when a House, consisting of three hundred members took off a tax, then they were called upon to rescind their decision.

Sir JoHN WROTTESLEY believed that Lord Althorp had stated cor- rectly the substance of his remarks on Friday. He did not think that because 162 members had come to a decision on a certain matter, the remainder of the 658 were to have no opinion.

Mr. M. ATTWOOD would accept Lord Althorp's explanation of his own meaning; but he certainly had declared that he would offer no opposition to carrying the resolution into effect. If this principle of reconsidering and rescinding resolutions were adopted, he should like to move that the resolution passed a few evenings ago upon his motion should be rescinded.

Mr. BENETT said, that Lord Althorp had given a correct explanation of what he had said on Friday.

Mr. HALL DARE thought, it would be a very bad precedent to re- scind a vote which the House had deliberately passed. He was pre- pared to look at the question with his eyes open ; to vote for a Pro- perty-tax, and consider the existing taxation of the country.

Mr. BARING was of opinion that Lord Althorp's declaration might have been taken to mean one thing or the other. He was no advocate for a commutation of taxes, and objected to being brought to decide upon so important a matter on twenty-four hours' notice. Lord Althorp proposed to them this question—will you be relieved from the Malt-tax, and the House and Window tax, and have in lieu of them a tax on Property and Income—not a tax on Property or Income, but on both ?

He thought the reduction of the Malt-tax, for which he voted on Friday, might have been afforded without bringing on the necessity of a general commu- tation of taxation; but even allowing that it were put to him distinctly whether he would have the Malt-duty reduced and a Property-tax imposed, or the Malt- duty left alone, he should certainly say, leave the Malt-duty alone, and spare him the Property-tax. (C/leers and laughter.) Sir ROBERT PEEL would not give an opinion on the great question till the proper time arrived. Had he been in the House on Friday, he should have decidedly opposed the reduction of the Malt-duty. He would have done that, not because he did not entertain a sincere desire to see that tax abated, if possible, but because he should have looked forward to the consequences of that abatement ; he should have looked forward to its bear- ing on the question of commutation of taxes—to its bearing on the question of the Corn-laws—to its bearing on the question of the substitution of a Property- tax. The substitution of a Property-tax would lead to a complete revolution in the whole of our financial system ; and he would not consent to inflict an injury upon the .public creditor by the repeal of any tax, till he felt assured of obtaining a substitute. He must say, that he certainly did entertain serious doubts of the success of any attempt to establish a Property and Income Tax in lieu of any other taxes whatever. He did not mean to say, that virtually to rescind on one night, a vote of the House come to on another, was a course free from evil ; but it would be a far greater evil to maintain the doctrine, that questions of such immense importance could be finally determined by a House consisting of only half the number of the members. Lord ALTHORP said, that when the situation, in which the affairs of the country were placed was taken into consideration, he was sure that the notice would appear any thing but too short. Lord SANDON, Lord EBRINGTON, and Sir W. FOLKES made a few observations; and the conversation dropped.

2. HOUSE AND WINDOW TAXES. On Tuesday, Sir JOHN KEY moved that such portion of the Assessed Taxes as related to Houses and Windows should be repealed. The House-tax at present in force purported to be assessed upon the annual value of all inhabited houses above 101. per annum, upon thefollowing graduated scale :-10/. and under 201., 1s. 6d. in the pound ; 201. and under 401., 2s. 3d. ; 401. and upwards, 2s. 10d. It was not necessary for him to enter into an historical account of the rise and progress of this tax : it was sufficient to say, that, like most other bad measures, it was at its first introduction so mild in. operation and so moderate in amount, that it excited but little opposition. When first imposed, together with the Window-tax, it amounted to only 2s., and thence to Ss. each house; and it had gradually progressed to the present period, when its enormous amount exercised a most deadening and destructive influence upon trade-. In the year ending in January last, the House-tax had produced up- wards of 1,357,000/. ; of which more than half was paid by the city of London, and the surburban districts within the bills of mortality; and if the three.counties of York, Lancaster, and Somerset were added, it would be found that they paid more than three fourths of the tax for

the whole fifty-two counties. These taxes were almost its expensive in collection as the Assessed Taxes, and fell upon consumable com- modities, inasmuch as they were principally paid by tradesmen, who charged the-outlay in taxes upon the articles they dealt in. He denied that these duties could fairly be called a Property-tax. If that were the case, the present order of things would be inverted. The tax would be calculated upon the cost of the building materials and labour employed in the erection of mansions.

Adam Smith said, that if the House-tax were imposed upon that principle, and applied by that rule, it would ruin half the nobility of the county; for that it was the savings of generations which were expended- in the et nstruction of

their palaces and mansions. Supposing that would be the consequence of the tax if equally enforced, let the House reflect low many hundreds of industrious tradesmen had actually been ruined by the extreme severity which was the con- sequence of its unequal pressure. If noblemen and gentlemen clio:c to abstract from productiVe employments the savings of generations, and to invest large masses of wealth, as it were, in mortmain, society had no right to complain, for they had a right to do what they would with their own ; but society had a right to claim as much in taxes for the protection it afforded to those masses of property, as it would to demand for the same quantity of wealth invested in houses employed for the purposes of trade, or by its interchange contributing to the wealth of the whole community.

Highly taxed houses were the residences of producers—the lightly taxed of the consumers. The tradesman and mechanic, and merchant —the creators of wealth—must live where they could ; the consumers of wealth, at Brussels, Paris, Rome, or Naples,—just where they pleased. Mere shops and warehouses were not the only instruments of trade, as Lord Althorp seemed to imagine.

No ; the numberless houses of all sorts and sizes, which were adjacent to the shop dreeping part of the community, were equally houses used for the purposes of trade; the proprietors of many—perhaps most of them—resorted daily to the more crowded parts of London in the pursuit of their means of subsistence. It was almost impossible for persons, with a due regard to the health of themselves and families, to bear the close confinement of the more densely populated parts of the metropolis. Merchants, tradesmen, clerks, shopmen, porters, workmen, warehousemen, all pressed from the scenes of their daily toil, to the suburbs of the metropolis, to obtain in a pure atmosphere relief, by healthful relaxation from the penalties which waited upon laborious and unhealthy employment in close and confined situations.

The Income-tax was a heavenly tax compared with this.

If it did tax the property of a man's trade, it was only in common with in- comes derived from other sources, and in the calculation of profits, it made an allowance for the expenses of his trade. The House-tax not only taxed income obtained, in an enormously disproportioncd degree, but it positively taxed the house, the very instrument, the expensive instrument by which that income was made. The taxgatherer made no allowance for the depression of trade : it was in vain the tradesman spoke of his bad debts, of his reduced rate of profit, of his diminished business; he lived in the house whether he was prosperous or unprosperous, whether he throve or whether he was ruined—the taxes must be paid.

In conclusion, lie declared that these taxes were liable to every ob- jection which applied to every tax, without possessing the advantages of any.

Alderman WOOD seconded the motion. One shopkeeper out of every three had become bankrupt, or had compounded with his creditors. Lord Althorp's measure respecting shop-windows was in a high degree unsatisfactory. He had received letters from many shopkeepers who treated it as being altogether illusory, and they said that they would rather forego it for the repeal of some other tax.

It seemed, however, that they came to the discussion of the question this evening under peculiar circumstances. The vote of the gentlemen of the landed interest was mixed up with the Malt-tax and the Property-tax; and he had some little alarm that some persons might change their minds. If they did so, he thought it would be a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Re- presentatives of the People. How those gentlemen could appear before their constituents, he could not imagine. He knew, for his own part, that his posi- tion would not be a little singular if one night he voted for the reduction of a tax, and a few nights afterwards voted for its continuance. [A Member—" But you are pledged."] The Member for Yorkshire, he believed, was certainly mistaken ; he was pledged to nothing ; but his opinion had always been de- cidedly against the House and Window Taxes.

He saw no difficulty in taking off every tax except those on Spirits and Tobacco, and substituting a Property-tax in lieu of them. He trusted that the House would repeal the House and Window Taxes, and persevere in their reduction of the Malt-duty also.

Lord ALTHORP said, the proposition which he was about to make was certainly a very unusual one, and one which he was fully aware was liable to great objections. He would not call the division of Fri- day last a complete surprise, for the notice of the motion was on the books.

" But gentlemen must recollect, that for the evening in question there were four notices on the Order-book ; and every gentleman who knew the forms of the House knew that, on the question of going into a Committee of Supply, only two motions could be made—one on the Order of the Day, and the other on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. Therefore, I myself did not expect the motion of the Member for Lincolnshire would have been brought forward that evening." One of the motions which preceded it, that of Mr. Cobbett, went off in consequence of his not having given notice in the proper form. Mr. O'Connell withdrew his, and for that reason the motion of Sir William Ingilby came on. The number of members in the House, when the question was decided, did not amount to one-half of the whole number.

He did not think that he was justified, under those circumstances, in changing the whole financial policy of the country, nor in giving way to those who would make such a change. He had, he was aware, only a choice of difficulties. He wished to Make the House fully aware of the circumstances of the case, in order to leave them a choice of the alternative.

" I stated in the debate on the former occasion, and I did not state it hastily, that I did not think it of very great consequence whether the proposition of the ;Member for Lincolnshire was for a reduction of half the duty, or of the whole. am certainly prepared to say, that it is absolutely necessary, if that proposition be earned, that a substitution of other taxation should take place, and that it would be a wiser course, under such circumstances, for the House to take off the whole lax. (Loud cheers.) With the same views I look at the question pro- posed by the honourable Baronet to-nig.ht. I think it must be evident to the House, that it is utterly impossible, in fair justice, to the inhabitants of this country, to give so large a relief to one class of the community, without also giving a large relief to another class. Therefore I do think, that if the House does persevere in the reduction of the Malt-duty, it will be their i duty to take into favourable consideration, and, in fact, to adopt, the proposition of the honourable Baronet."

It was clear that the House in that case must adopt a Property-tax, as the only alternative. He did not think it would be prudent to have a small Property-tax ; but if the system were adopted at all, it ought to be adopted as a system. " It would he desirable, in the situation in which this couutry is placed, never to raise less than 10,000,0001. or 12,000,0001. by a Property-tax, to be imposed as a substitute far other taxes. This, it is quite clear, must be a pro- perty tax applying generally, as stated in my resolution. Now, I .am not prepared to argue this question as to whether it would be politic or not to impo;:t

such a tax. At present, I simply say that it would be inexpedient. But it certainly would he impolitic to propose such a tax, unless it were extended to the whole of the United Kingdom."

Now the objections to a Property-tax, which in 1816, lie recollected, was an extremely unpopular one, were many.

" I have heard gentlemen speak of laying a Property-tax only on capital invested!—as rent, interest of money, mortgages, annuities, &e., and leaving productive capital exempt. But I ask them to consider, what would be the effect of this ? I ask them to consider the number of persons there arc of small incomes of this description. Figure to yourselves a small fundhohler living in the neighbourhood of a great manufacturer; what would be his :e.,lings at finding himself taxed by a Property-tax, and yet beholding his wealthy neigh- bour exempt. It is utterly impossible that this House, or any Legislature, can seriously adopt such a proposition as this. It is absolutely necessary that the property of all classes of people in this country should be taxed. I low far, then, would this differ from the Property-tax of 1810, which every gentleman who recollects it, must remember to have been a most unpopular tax ?"

To rest the financial resources of the country upon such a tax, would be highly dangerous. Government were by no means prepared to come forward with any such proposition, whatever the opinions of sonic in- dividuals might be.

" It has been held by many gentlemen, that in consequence of the Reform in Parliament, Ministers are to follow the directions of the House of Commons as to the course of policy which they are to pursue, more especially in financial

affairs. Now, I am perfectly ready to at this doctrine, that Ministers, taking them in the abstract, are bound to follow the orders of the House ; but I do not think that as an individual Minister, I am under any such obligation."

He was aware that he had united many parties against him—those who were in favour of a Property-tax, those who wished for the repeal of the Malt and the House and Window Taxes, and those who thought that there ought to be a larger reduction of taxation—without any substitute whatever. He had perhaps acted imprudently in uniting so many parties against him ; but if a majority should unite in voting against him to-night, it would be clear that the House disapproved of his financial policy, and he could no longer remain Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not think the House and Window Tax, although so very unpopular, was after all so objectionable as it was represented to be. As to the expense of collecting it, it was the the lowest of all except that of the Stamps.

" I may now be allowed to make some observations (and indeed it would be wrong if I were not to do so) with regard to the proposition for granting a certain degree of relief to shoplceepers which I brought forward on a former oc- casion. Two objections have been made to this mode of proceeding. TI:s first is, that the relief will be but trilling ; the second is, that it will operate as a relief only to the larger shopkeepers, and will be of no benefit whatever to the smaller. I have considered these objections, and I think, that the latter has considerable force. I think that the objection may be obviated, with respect to the windows, by not deducting three or any particular number of windows which the shop may have ; but by enacting, that in all houses having shops attached to them, one half of the duty shall be taken off. That is simpler than my original plan, and will be less difficult to carry into effect ; and it will relieve the large and the small shopkeepers in equal proportions, without a much greater sacrifice of revenue than I at first estimated.'

He repeated his great regret at appealing again to the House on a point on which it had already come to a vote ; but be thought that he was not justified, under all the circumstances, in taking that vote as the final expression of the opinion of the House. He therefore moved the following amendment.

" That the deficiency in the revenue, which would he occasioned by a reduction of the tax on Malt to 10s. tip. quarter, and by the repeal of the tax on Houses and Windows, could only be supplied by the substitution of a general tax upon Property and Income, and an extensive change in our whole general system, which would at present be inexpedient."

Mr. HUZ,IE said, that no one was more anxious than himself to keep faith with the public creditor, and he would propose nothing having a contrary tendency. It had been taken for granted, that if the Malt and House and Window taxes were repealed, recourse must be had to a Property-tax, which was designated as unpopular and inquisitorial. He believed that it was more unpopular among the higher than the lower classes of society, and it was not more inquisitorial than the Window-tax. The House was called upon to repeal the House and Window tax, which yielded 2,500,0001., and to reduce the Malt- duty by 2,400,000—together 4,000,0001. ; but he was certain that the increase in the consumption of Malt would diminish the de- ficiency which) the reduction of the duty would occasion, by at least a million, thus leaving a deficiency of 3,900,000/. only. He went into some calculations to prove that a considerably increased consumption had uniformly followed the diminution of duty on malt, tea, and spirits. He had no doubt that the deficiency which would actually occur might in a great measure be made up by reducing the Civil List expenditure, and the cost of our Military Establishments, especially in Canada. He would then lay on a Stamp-tax on the descent of real property, which should yield about two millions, and the account would stand thus. The deficiency, as be had stated, would be 3,900,0001. ; Lord Althorp had a surplus of .500,0001. ; to which was to be added the 100,0001. for the Window-duty, which Lord Althorp himself proposed to take off; that would leave 3,300,0001; the tax on real property, according to Mr. flume's proposition, would. yield two millions, leaving only 1,300,0004 to be provided for by savings out of an expenditure of twenty-two millions. This saving might easily be effected. He would say to the Ministers, as they had said to the East India Directors, who complained that they could not carry on the government of India without money --cc We will cut off your supplies, and force you to be economical.'. Mr. G. HEATHCOTE was very desirous to repeal the Malt-duty, although he did not think that home-brewing among the middle classes would be much increased by it. But then, when he considered that the imposition of a Property-tax would be the consequence of a repeal of that duty, he coulehot bring himself to vote for it. As the repre- sentative of an agricultural district, he was utterly opposed to the repeal of the Assessed Taxes. There were 100,000 farm-houses in England wholly exempt from them : why then should he vote for the repeal, and consent to give up a tax to which his constituents contributed scarcely any thing ?

Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY reminded the House of the extreme dis- satisfaction caused by the last Income-tax ; and went into some long calculations to show that the different properties upon which it would he imposed, would not yield by any means so much now as they did when it was last in operation. He contended that this impost, which formerly yielded nine, would not at present produce more than six millions.

Mr. ROBINSON said, that Lord Althorp had put the question upon a fair and manly footing.

But then, there were so many things mixed up with that matter. First of

all, the House were called on to consider the expediency of rescinding the vote of the other night in a fuller House ; then the House were called on to affirm or reject the proposition of Sir John Key. Thirdly, the Members were called on to do this with all the horrors of a Property-tax in full prospect ; and

fourthly, Lord Althorp had mixed up with all these other matters an intima- tion—he would not call it a threat—of resignation. Now, he must say that he did not like this part of the proceeding : for Lord Althorp knew very well that, in making such an intimation, he made an appeal to the members likely to in- fluence the judgment of many of them. Still, however, he could not blame him for doing it; all he regretted was, that he should have thought it neces- sary.

. His own opinion with regard to a Property-tax was well known. The people generally called for it; and he should be willing to extend the vote of Friday last to the total abolition of the Malt-duty, to give up the Hop-duty, the House and Window tax, and to provide for the de- ficiency in the revenue by a Property-tax.

Mr. BENETT considered the vote of Friday night as the first fruits of the Reform Bill. The House had passed a vote against the most popular Administration that had ever existed, and this proved their in- dependence. He regretted his utter inability to vote with Ministers ; and although he should consider Lord Althorp's retirement from office a great misfortune, still, let the consequence be what it would, he could not vote with him on this occasion. He thought that a Pro- pertv-tax might be adopted; but at any rate, the deficiency occasioned by the reduction of the Malt-duty might be made good by a tax on beer.

Mr. COBBETT began by remarking on the stress which some mem- bers laid on the authority of Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Huskisson ; and reminded the House that they had both of them misled the House and the country respecting the consequences of Peel's Bill. Moreover, the Whigs all wished the Bank to resume cash payments within tWo years from 1811; although every body now saw that it would have been titter madness to do so ; and Mr. Huskisson was the Coryphmus of that band of blunderers. With respect to the vote of Friday night, it could not fairly be called a surprise—the notice of the motion was three months old, and the discussion was deliberate. There were only two opinions on one side as to the repeal—whether the tax should be wholly or only half repealed ; and the only reply made by Ministers was, that they could not spare the money. He thought it of more con- sequence to learn whether or not the People could spare it. He agreed with Lord Althorp in what he had said respecting the old Income-tax ; which was the most unjust and the foulest tax ever levied, and if re- imposed in its old form, it could not be collected for half a year. But Lord Althorp had said, you cannot exempt one class of persons from taxation and not another, and that a man ought to pay taxes according to the amount of his property and the protection it required. He agreed with this proposition in every vein of his body. " This position may be disputed by some, and very likely it will be met by my right honourable opponent (Mr. S. Rice). I am pledged to show, and I will do it on the proper occasion, that millions a year were collected from per- sons possessing nothing but personal property, while real property escapes from the payment of a single farthing. I am pledged to show a great deal more than that to be sure. ( Cheers and laughter.) Ministers have always promised a great deal to the people : they have dealt in speeches which remind me of a line of Swift- ' Fine words! I wonder where you stole 'em.'

I am sure they are not to be found in the 55th of George the Third, nor in the 107th chapter of the 3d of George the Fourth, both relating to stamps, and only differing as the one is more profligate than the other. *Under those statutes, a man leaving an estate of 200,0001. value, pays no more for stamps than a man who has a piece of land of only 2001. value." He remarked upon the vexatious operation of the Assessed Taxes. He had paid a tax for two years for a shopman, although he only kept a shopwoman ; and when he lived at Barn Elms, he was charged with a tax for a bailiff, which he would not pay, and therefore received God only knew how many letters from a Mr. Bates, he thought his name was—(" Question!")—He maintained that he was speaking to the question, which was the repeal of the Assessed Taxes, whose inquisi- torial and vexatious character he was exposing. He never did and he never would pay that bailiff-tax. The great cause of the French Revo- lution was the unequal assessment of taxes—not the weight, but the unequal assessment of taxation. The Government in reply to applica- tions for the taking off taxes, always said, " We want the money, we can- not do without it." But when it was recollected that the establishments, which at the end of the last peace cost only 4,200,0001., now cost 14,000,0001., there was no occasion to go into particulars to prove that the money was not actually wanted for the service of the country. Mr. Sraisra RICE said, that there would be much less inconsistency in rescinding the resolution of Friday, then in adopting the principle of a Property-tax, which they had formally decided against by a ma- bjority of 220 to 125. Lord Althorp had stated that it would be much etter to repeal the whole than the half of the Malt-duty; and that, in common justice, the House and Window tax must be given up to the towns if the Malt-duty was given up to the country. Now they both together yielded a revenue of 6,800,0001. As the Government could not go on if its means were to be so materially diminished, a substitute of course must be provided ; and the only substitute proposed was a Pro- perty-tax. He was certain, however, that this tax would not be borne by the people, and that to attempt its reimposition would be in a high degree impolitic. He went into a statement of some length to prove that the operation of the House and Window tax was by no means so unfair as had been represented. The repeal of the tax would be no relief to the poor. There were no fewer than 2,468,708 houses in Great Britain exempt entirely from it. He said that the valuation of the town houses of the Aristocracy was overlooked by those who dwelt so much on the low rate at which the country houses were assessed. He would trouble the house with a short list.

He concluded by calling upon them not to join in a disagraceful scramble for out-of-door popularity, but to consider the best means of honestly relieving the country from its burdens.

Colonel WOOD expressed his opinion strongly against a Property- tax.

Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE was also strongly opposed to a Property-tax and although he was prepared to vote for the repeal of the House and Window taxes, he thought it little short of insanity to substitute a Pro- perty-tax for them.

Sir JOHN TYRRELL would vote against Sir John Key's motion, although he did not like Lord Althorp's amendment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it far better to rescind the vote of Friday, than to persevere in it, if it were unwise. Considering the present

financial state of the country, he could not consent to the repeal of so large an amount of taxes as was proposed. The only alternative would be a Property-tax, and if there was a Property-tax there must also be an Income-tax, for it would be establishing a principle of spoliation to tax property and spare income. He should certainly vote for Lord Althorp's amendment.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that Sir Robert Peel thought only of one class of public creditors—those who had money in the Funds ; but he forgot that more numerous class of public creditors to whom the House owed free institutions.

The House owed it to the people to relieve them from some of their burdens —to remit a large part of the taxation. Sir Robert Peel said that they could not reduce the taxation, because the Army was voted, and the Navy was voted. He said—rescind those votes. Was the House to rescind no other votes than those which were favourable to the people?

It was said that if a Property-tax was imposed, it would be extended to Ireland. This was said to catch the Irish members : but would they be so unjust as to take off a tax from England a tax which Ire- land did not pay, and impose a general tax which she did pay?

Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY moved an adjournment ; but this was opposed by Lord ALTHORP, who said it was absolutely necessary to close the debate at that sitting. Sir S. WHALLEY then argued at considerable length in favour of Sir John Key's motion ; and insisted upon the ini- quitous operation of the House and Window taxes, upon the middle classes of the Metropolis.

Sir FRANCIS BUItDETT had at first determined to support Sir John Key's motion ; but the question, he said, had assumed a different shape from that which it bore when it was merely one of the continuance or repeal of the House and Window tax. The existence of the Ministry and the imposition of a Property-tax were now involved in it.

Under such circumstances, feeling not only that gratitude to them which the Member for Marylebone had expressed for passing the Reform Bill, but also thinking that, independent of that, they were the honestest Administration that we ever had, unswayed as they were by private motives, and solely desirous to promote the good of the country, it was his opinion that every honest man was called upon to give them his support. He did not see how they could supply their places.

Lord SANDON, under all the circumstances of the case, thought it his duty to vote with Ministers. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, Sir Robert Peel had remarked that at this late period of the session it would be inexpedient to resort to a Pro- perty-tax.

Now, he would say, that, for all practical purposes, they were in the very infancy of the session. What had Parliament done during the present sitting, so far as the public interest was concerned ? The Government, from which they had been taught to expect so much, had, it appeared, gone to the full mea- sure of relief. It was evident that, with respect to the Malt-tax, the House and Window tax, or any other tax, it was not intended to take such a view of the situation of the people as would lead to any solid and substantial reduction. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Dr. LUSHINGTON, and Mr. W. BROUGHAM, would all vote for Lord Althorp's amendment, and against the repeal of the House and Window tax.

Mr. TENNYSON spoke strongly in favour of Sir John Key's motion ; and expressed his surprise that Sir Francis Burdett, who was in favour of a Property-tax, and pledged to support the repeal of the Assessed Taxes, should notwithstanding vote against it.

The House decided : for Sir John Key's motion, 157; against it, 355; Lord Althorp's majority, 198. Sir W. INGILBY then moved that all the words in Lord Althorp's resolution relative to the duty on malt be struck out. The House divided on this : for Sir W. Ingilby's amendment, 131; against it, 985; Lord Althorp's majority, 154. Sir W. Noisy then moved for leave to bring in a bill founded upon the resolution which was passed by the House on Friday last. A third division took place on this question: for it, 76; against it, 238 ; Lord Althorp's majority, 162. The House adjourned at four o'clock on Wednesday morning.

3. POOR-LAws IN IRELAND. Mr. &mums, on Thursday, moved the following resolution. That-it is the opinion of this House, that the establishment of a provision for the Poor of Ireland, on the principle of the act of the 43d of Elizabeth, with such alterations and improvements as time and circumstances may require, is. expedient and necessary to the interests of the United Kingdon4".

Devonshire House £1,500 Apsley llouse £1,850 Northumberland House... 1,500 Mr. Baring's House in Picea.

Stafford House

3,940

dilly... 1,320 Hertford House 1,500 Norfolk House 1,000 Chesterfield House 2,000 Burlington House 1,300

Lansdown House 1,650

He brought forward the subject of Irish Poor-laws, because the Government, with whom it ought to have originated, had declined doing so. The condition of the poorer classes in Ireland was described in the Report of the Select Committee appointed in 1830 to inquire into the subject. It was stated in that report, that one fifth of the popula- tion were destitute of employment, and that their cabins were the abodes of misery and disease, which it was hardly possible to exaggerate. He thought that the introduction of Poor-laws would go far to remedy this state of suffering.

Ireland uns just now in the situation England was in the period itnmediately precedirg 11.e enactment of the Poor-laws, and would continue so till the ',tune just and wise policy was pursued towards her. The working classes of Irelami were uncertain of the means of existence. The' were as a mass without em- ployment—without the certainty of food—almost without hope. Was it to he wondered at that they were the ready tools and victims of the trader in sedition, the sordid agitator ? Cheers, in which M. O'Connell joined. ) The state of Scotland, which had been so often referred to as furnish- ing an argument against Poor-laws, on the contrary, told in favour of them. Previously to 160S, when Poor-laws were established, there was but little safety for life or property in that country. Subsequently, the country was admitted, even by Dr. Chalmers, to be peaceful and flourishing. Voluntary contributions were quite inadequate to the wants of the Irish poor : this was pioved to be the case, by the evidence in the Reports of the Poor-laws Committees: After fifteen years' laborious and unceasing efforts, the Mendicity Society of Dublin had come to the resolution to petition the Legislature to institute a com- pulsory provision for the poor of Ireland, as all merely voluntary bad been tried and found insufficient. He therefore called upon that House to make the com- pulsory provision. He did not ask it of them in the mere tone of humanity, but of justice and sound policy.

Mr. JAMES GRATTAN seconded the resolution. He declared that it was in vain to expect tranquillity in Ireland, as long as the present system was continued. A starving man was necessarily a savage.

Lord ALTHORP said, the question before the House was one of the very greatest importance; and he certainly thought, that, considering the evils arising from the English system of Poor-laws, a resolution ought not to have been proposed declaring, that that system should be extended to Ireland, without explaining in what way those evils were to be avoided in the latter country. He hoped that the House would not be influenced by the argument that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would lessen the influx of paupers into this country. It would be unworthy of the English members to listen to any proposal which would not be beneficial to Ireland, merely because it was benefi- cial to England.

Mr. Richards had given a very extraordinary description of the effect of the Poor-laws in this country when he said that they separated the virtuous from the dissolute, and the idle from the industrious. He was sorry to say that his experience of the Poor laws in England led him to quite an opposite conclusion. However, he was perfectly satisfied that much of the evil which was complained of as arising from the Poor-laws depended upon their maladministration. This, of course, would be obviated by a better administration of them ; but, certainly, lie was satisfied that as the laws were at present administered they took away all inducement to industry, and placed the idle and the industrious on the same footing.

It would be necessary to inquire what probability there was of avoid- ing the abuses connected with the administration of the laws in Eng- land, previously to their being extended to Ireland. He had thought much upon the subject, and entertained great doubts whether the intro- duction of the English system would be beneficial to Ireland. He thought, however, that the subject ought to be fully inquired into; and therefore he would move, as an amendment to Mr. Richards's motion, " That an humble address be presented to his Majesty,praying that he would be graciously pleased to give directions that a commission do issue, to inquire into the condition of the poorer classes of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland, and into the various institutions at present established by law for their relief."

Mr. O'CONNELL wished to he permitted to second the amendment. Ile approved of the view of the case which Lord Althorp had taken. Deliberate inquiry Was necessary before Ireland was plunged into all the horrors of the English Poor-laws.

The distress of the Irish peasantry had not been exaggerated. It would soon, however, be augmented ; for, under the coercive measure lately passed by the House, more notices to quit had been served upon tenants between the 25th of March and the 1st of May than had been known in Ireland for the last fifteen or twenty years. There was not a single demand upon the peasantry which the landlords would not en- force tinder the Coercive Bill.

The peace and prosperity of Scotland was not owing to the Peer- laws, but to the removal of all causes for religious discord. An end was put to the persecution of the Episcopalians—it was liberty of conscience, not a Poor-law that gave peace to Scotland. The opera- tion of the English Poor-law system was terrible.

It was, as the House well knew, in some parts of the country, an extremely good speculation for a man to marry a woman who had had two bastards. Good God could he then be speaking of Englishmen ! He did not for a moment mean to insinuate that Englishmen did not naturally entertain as just a sense of personal propriety and domestic honour as other men; but, merciful Heaven ! how they must have been degraded and demoralized by the Poor-laws, before they could have sunk to such a depth below the moral dignity of other nations, as thus to speculate for subsistence upon a double prostitution, and live upon the produce of their wife's dishonour !

He implored the House, whatever restrictions they might impose upon Irish freedom, not to destroy the sense of personal independence which still remained in that country, by the demoralizing influence of Poor-laws.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY regretted that Mr. O'Connell should use his vast influence in Ireland in opposing the only means of affording effectual relief to the peasantry of his native country. He was de- cidedly of opinion, that Ireland at present was in a most favourable condition for the establishment of a good system of Poor-laws.

Mr. SLANEY trusted, that whatever provision might be made for the Irish poor, it would not include the able-bodied. He highly ap- proved of the Ministerial proposition for the appointment of a Com- mission to inquire into the subject. Mr. H. GRATTAN, Mr. C. FERGUSSON, Lord ACHESON, Lord SAN.-

DON, Mr. CLAY, and Mr. BARRON, were in favour of a modified system of Poor-laws for Ireland.

Mr. HUME, Mr. SHAW, and Colonel CONOLLY, opposed it. The latter said that there was no machinery in Ireland to carry the Poor . laws into effect.

Mr. ESTCOURT said, that Lord Althorp's amendment did not go far enough, and was intended to give the go-by to the question. But he would agree to it, if he would add some such words as these :

" And to report whether it is expedient to have any and what sums of money, to provide for the support of the lame, the blind, and the impotent, and those who are not able to work."

Lord ALTIIORP denied that he intended to give the go-by to the question. He objected to give the Commission the powers which Mr. Estcourt proposed. Mr. RICHARDS replied. He was astonished to find Mr. O'Connell among the opponents to his measure.

He held a paper in his hand, containing a report of the proceedings of a meeting held in Dublin a few years ago on this very subject of the application of a system of Poor-laws to Ireland. At that meeting Lord Cloncurry presided ; and the meeting was addressed, amongst others, by a Mr. O'Connell, he did not know whether it was the same honourable and learned gentleman who was now opposed to his motion. That Mr. O'Connell declared that he was in favour of a system of Poor-laws for Ireland. He said that the poor must be sup- ported either by voluntary contributions or by the Government, and that it was the first duty of a well-regulated Government, to provide for the poor. That Mr. O'Connell went on to say that he would have a well-regulated system of Poor-laws for Ireland ; and he thought that such a system was necessary, parti- cularly in the then circumstances of Ireland. In the conclusion of that speech, the Mr. O'Connell whom he quoted apologized for having detained the ',meting So long ; but, as a convert to the opinion which he then entertained, be came to the question with all the fervour of a renegado. [Loud cheers and laughter ; which were renewed when Mr. Richards threw down the paper from which he quoted, with much vehemence on the table.] He did not know— supposing that it was the same Mr. O'Connell who had made that speech, and who haetamight opposed it—he did not know which opinion he should prefer— whether he should have the opinion of the renegado of that day from a former opinion, or the renegado of the present from that opinion. He supposed he must let the one neutralize the other, and come to the conclusion that both were worth nothing. He concluded by expressing his hopes, that Lord Althorp would select men for his Commission, not from among the political econo- mists, but from among those who would collect and report facts with- out prejudice.

Sir Ronal. Parr. recommended that the Commission should extend . their inquiries into the systems prevailing in foreign countries for pro- viding for the poor.

The original motion was then negatived, and Lord Althorp's amend- ment adopted.

The House adjourned at half-past two.

4. Coax LAWS. Earl FITZWILLIAM, on Tuesday, laid the follow- ing resolutions on the table; saying he would cull the attention of the House to them on Tuesday next. Earl GREY regretted very much that Earl Fitzwilliam bad brought forward the subject at that particular. tune. Ile wished him at any rate to defer the consideration of his re. solutions to Tuesday fortnight. This was agreed to, and time resolu- tions were laid on the table.

1. It esolved.—That it appears to this House that the weekly average price of wheat, as fixed subsequent to the passing of the 9 George IV. c. 60, was on the following clays, viz.—

rer Quarter.

s. d.

Ter Quarter.

s. d.

1823.—July 11 55 7 1831.—Jan. 7 69 3 Oct. 3

65 0

April 1 7" 4 1829.—Jan. 2 75 11 July 1

66 7

April 3 70 3 Oct. 7 61 0 July 3 68 2 1932 —Jan. 6 53 1

Oct. °

60 0 April 6 59 6 1830.—Jam 1 55 5 Judy 6 63 2

April 2

65 1 Oct. 5 . 54 7 Julv 2 68 6 1833.—Jan. 4 58 6 Oct. 1 62 0 April 5 53 10

And that en the 19th of September, 1828. he average was fixed at 3.s. Gd.; and again, an the 21111 of October, 1823, at 76s.; that on the 5th of Julie, 1889, it was fixed at 71s. 5d. ; and again, on the Seth of Octal), r, 18.29, at 55s. 4d.; that I ■ i I the 6th of Au- gust, 1830, it Was fixed tut 71s. 11d.; and on the 17th of September, 1830, at Gigs. 2d.; and. further. that the highest average t.ntlet the provisions oldie said Act was 76s. 78.; as fixed on the 14th of November, 1b28; and that the lowest average was 51s. 38., as fixed un the 19th of October, 1832.

2. That it Maher appears to this House, from the returns of his Majesty's Consuls abroad, that the nivan prices of wheat, at the following times and places wer.• :—

Donnie.

s. d.

Hamburg.

s. d.

Leghorn. l'ht,,!elpl■ia.

s. d. a. d .

July. 1818 24 3

23 0 s

39 7 to 9 October, 1923 56 6 41 8

44 9 :17 2

January, 1829 5) 2 49 7 61 0

53 0

:April, 180 43 2 46 11 52 4 51 0 Judy, 1889 36 9 36 11 47 10 42 6 October. 1889 38 1 34 6 33 7 32 0 January, 1830 29 9 31 3 35 11

36 0

April, 1830 33 9 31 0 :39 7 0 0

3::!y , 1830

93 3 35 2 36 4 31 9

0,•1ober, 1830

33 10 33 7 41 5

:3310

3:7 :teary, 1331 47 5 46 9 47 4 38 11

A ;,111, 1831

48 7 49 0 4.3 1 47 :3 .t ay, 1831 45 7 37 6 98 2 34 0 °molter, 1931 41 1 45 0 45 3 35 8

January, 1832

42 4 37 10 41 9 35 3 April, 1832 38 3 37 10 43 8 33 s 4 July, 1832 42 6 39 3 41 2 40 10 October, 1832 30 7 28 4 39 5 36 7 December, 1832 . , .. 29 0 89 3 41 0 33 9 3. That it further appears to this House, from the returns of his Majesty's Consuls abroad, that the mean prices of wheat at the following times and places were-

Amsterdom. Rotterdam. Antwerp. Havre. Met,eilles,.

s. d. s. d. s. 8. s. d. a (1.

July, 1623 30 9 ... 33 4 ... 34 6 50 52 0 October, 1823. 41 1 ... 54 0 ... 47 10 56 10 ... 60 2 January, 1829 55 0 ... 0 0 ... 58 10 53 63 9 April, lo:29 45 8 ... 50 5 ... 55 8 61 10 59 6

ittly, 1829

45 11 ... 48 11 ... 52 1 60 6 ... 56 11

Sept. or October, 1829.

43 2 ... 41 9 .„ 51 4 51 58 6 January, 1830 0 0 ... 0 0 ... 41 1 44 0 ... 57 10 April, 1830 36 0 ... 36 0 ... 40 0 45 8 ... 61 5 July, 1830

41 10 ...

43 2 ... 43 10 47 1 ... 58 7 October, 1820 46 9 ... 48 0 ... 51 5 53 0 ... 59 10 January, 1831

41 1 ... 0 0

... 54 5

47 52 11

April, 1831 47 3 ...

57 9 . „ 52 9

49 0 ...

53 3

July, 1831 October, 1831 January, 1832 April, 1832 July. 1832 October, 1832 December, 1832 41 43 43 38 44 39 38 10 ...

2 ...

5 ...

3 ...

8 ...

...

... 51 50 0 41 41 37 4 ... 6 ... 0 ...

4 ... 6 ...

3 ... 55 57 43 47 5U 43 2 0 0 11 6 4 ... 50 ... 54 ... 49 ... 52 ... 52 ... 51 ... 48 3 ...

6 ...

0 ... 1 ... 1 ...

6 ...

6 ...

imixtrted-

6. That it therefore appears the supply of foreign wheat afforded to the people of Great Britain, antler the provisions of the 9th Geo. IV. cap. 60, has been at the rate of 1,008,860 quarters per annum. or thereabouts ; and that the revenue derived therefrom has been at the rate of 337,4791. per annum, or thereabouts. 7. That nothing is more injurious to those classes of the community which are en- gaged iu the cultivation of the soil, than great and rapid fluctuations in the value of the commoditieu.

8. That such fluctuations cannot altogether be prevented in the price of an article whose production is necessarily affected by the variations of the seasons ; but that it does not appear to that House that the existing regulations for the trade in foreign corn have succeeded in diminishing those fluctuations; but on the contrary. they have a tendency to aggravate them, by placing occasional and unnecessary obstitelea in the way of a free trade in corn with foreign countries. 9..That ally disparity between the price of provisions in one country aced another has a tendency to give comparative encouragement to the industry of that country in which the subsistence of man is obtained at the lower rate, and to impose difficulties upon that of the country in which it is obtained at the higher rate. 10. That the price of wheat in Great Britain stands generally at a higher level than in the other countries of' Europe, whose inhabitants are engaged iu similar pursuits with those of the British Empire.

11. That such higher price is in a great measure to be ascribed to theliaws which regulate the trade in foreign corn.

12, That the varying scale or duties imposed by the said laws operates frequently as a prohibition upon the import of foreign grain, aud consequently upon the export of British commodities.

13. That, therefore, the manifest effects of the corn-laws are to leave the agricultural interest exposed to all the difficulties which arise from frequent and sudden fluctuations in price—to discourage the export, and consequently productions of British commodi- ties—to increase the cost of cultivating the soil and of producing the manufactures of the tinted Kingdom—to render the industry of the nation less capable of competing with that of other nations—aud to make the people less competent to support the seve- ral burdens which the various exigencies of the State have imposed upon them. 14. That. tis it is expcdient to revise the said laws and to place them upon a footing more consistent with justice, and more conducive to the welfare of the most important interests of the country.

5. STAMP AND AUCTION DUTY. Mr. COBBETT, on Friday, brought forward a string of resolutions respecting the unequal pressure of the Stamp and Appraisement duties on the different classes in this country. He contended at great length, that the wealthy reafly escaped from time payment of any thing approaching to a fair tax on ti:.' decent and transfer of property ; that this was•proved by the Leg:-....-tiaties, by the ditties on Conveyances, i\lortgages, Annuity-deeds,

notes, Receipts, and Appraisemeats,—all of them levied (41 a scide which diminished in amount as the property became more This was the way, he said, in which the rich were unvariably favoured at the expense of the poor, on whom a double or treble amount of taxa- tion was imposed. However, he would not refer to old grievances, but hoped that tardy justice would now be done. He concluded by moving his first resolution,—to the effect, that an impost which pressed un- equally upon different classes of men, was not a tax, but a confiscation; and that the law which imposed it was virtually a penal law.

Mr. SPRING Rica allowed, without hesitation, that the Stamp Acts required amendment ; and reminded Mr. Cobbctt that Lord Althorp had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill for their amelioration. He thought that Mr. Cobbett would have acted more wisely if he had waited for the Ministerial proposition, and have addressed himself closely and fairly to it. He charged Mr. Cobbett with having taken all his statements from Dunn's Law and Daily Commercial Advertiser : Dunn and he were identical—lie had made Dunn his own. But then the book was filled with the grossest calumnies, and the most daring misrepresentations. He called the attention of the House to the fact, that while real estate was subject to heavy expenses upon every moister, personal property might be transferred at a very trifling cost ; that' Pro- bates under 201. were exempt from all duty; and that the duties on Leases, Annuity-deeds and Mortgages, fell almost exclusively upon people of property. He referred to the sums paid on the grants of titles, on the duties on presentations and advowsons of livings. He

concluded by giving a strong denial to the assertion of Mr. Cobbett, that it had been the policy of the House and of the higher classes to oppress the poor and humble ; and passed a high eulogium on the vir- tues and patriotism of the English hereditary nobility. ( Cheers.) Mr. How: remarked, that Mr. Rice's eulogy on the Peerage might be cheered within the walls of the House, but it would not be cheered out of them. He thought that Mr. Cobbett had made out his case, that in the legislation of this country a disposition had been shown to load the poor and relieve the rich. Mr. Rice had treated the subject with ribaldry and levity, but had completely failed in argument. He would vote for the resolution of Mr. Cobbett, for its substance was borne out by facts.

Mr. M. ATTWOOD, Lord ALTHORP, and Mr. WARRE opposed, and Mr. O'CONNELL defended the resolutions.

The House divided : for the resolutions, 26; against them, 250. Ministerial majority, 224.

6. REPEAL OF TAXES ON CAPITAL AND LABOUR. Colonel Toil- Jaws, on Thursday, moved the repeal of those taxes which lower the profits of capital and the wages of labour. He was aware that the patience of the House had been wearied lately with discussions on the subject of a Property-tax; but as it had been misunderstood, he would endeavour briefly to explain its actual operation, and answer the objec-

Quarters. Bush. In 1829 per Quarter. 1.260,633 1 at an average rate of duty of et. Os. 4d. 1830 1,494,381 7 0 6 7 1831 1,088,797 3 0 4 9 1832 169,607 7 1 3 9

5. That of the total quantity of 4,759,744 quarters 1 bushel, so entered for home con- sumption, under the provisions afire 9th of George IV. cup 60, there were admitted—

d.

0 per quarter. 8 ditto.

8 ditto.

8 ditto.

8 ditto, or under. 8 ditto, or upwards.

Quarters. Bush. s.

1,571.311 5 at a duty of 1 1,248.1397 2 2

5E4,437 0 6

503,217 7 10

viz. 3,892,653 6 10

903,092 3 13 4. That it farther appears to this House that the total quantity of foreign wheat en- tered for home consumption under the provisions of the 9: li George IV. cap. 60; to the 5th of April, 1833, has been 4,795,746 quarters and 1 bushel: and that the total amount of duty paid thereon has been 1,604,1901. 10s. 10d.. and that the average rate of such dnty is 6s. 81d. per quarter or thereabouts. That of the aforesaid tidal quantities were

51 7 53 7 60 6 64 3 0 0

56 10

57 . tions which had been urged against it. He then proceeded to explain the difference between fixed and floating capital, and the laws which regulated the revenue derived from them ; and maintained, that, accord.. ing to his view of the subject, all objections to a tax upon fixed pro- perty fell to the ground. He concluded by apologizing to the House for calling their attention to so dry and uninteresting a subject, and by stating that he 'would not press his motion to a division. Mr. MAX- WELL supported the motion. It was opposed by Mr. COBBETT and Lord ALTIJORP, and negatived without a division.

7. COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY. Lord ALTIIORP, On Friday, moved that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of Agriculture, and of the persons employed in agriculture, in the United Kingdom." He also moved for a Select Committee " to inquire into the present state of the Manufacturing, Commercial, and Shipping interests." He stated, that he did not anticipate much benefit from the appointment of these Committees ; but there had been since the com- mencement of the session a great desire expressed for an inquiry into the distress of the country ; and he acceded to it in the belief that at least great benefit would arise from the fact being established that little practical relief would result from such inquiry.

The Committees were then appointed.

8. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. The House, on Monday, having re- solved itself into a Committee of Supply, Colonel MABERLY proposed the Ordnance Estimates. In 1792, the Estimates amounted to 1,500,000/. ; in 1830, to 1,800,700/. ; in 1831, to 1,714,0001. ; in 1832, to 1,699,0001. ; and in 1833 and 1834, with the Supplemental Estimates, to 1,604,0001. Thus, a saving would be ef- fected to the amount of 88,0001. He then moved the first resolution, that a sum not exceeding 71,996/. be granted for the Civil Establish- ments of the Tower, Pall Mall, and Dublin.

Mr. HUME objected to the extravagant scale on which these estimates were always framed. He wished to simplify the system, and assimilate it some respects: to the more economical and efficient one adopted in Frimee.

Lord Ammar considered that the Estimates were as low as the public service could safely admit of.

The vote was then agreed to.

Several votes for the departments at Woolwich, stations in Ireland, and salaries of Barrackmasters, were passed.

The next vote proposed was 277,156, for the charge of the Artillery. Mr. HUME moved as an amendment, that the number of men be re- duced from 6,000 to 4,000, and the amount of they vote to 184,7711. Upon this amendment the House divided ; for it 31 ; against it, 140; Ministerial majority, 109.

The other votes were then agreed to.

9. ARMY ESTIMATES. Mr. ELLICE, on Friday, in a Committee of Supply, brought forward the Army Estimates ; and briefly recapi- tulated the statements made by his predecessor, Sir John l-lobhouse. The increase in the Army was from 6,000 to 7,000 men, stationed in Ireland and the Colonies ; there was a decrease in the number of troops stationed in England. He moved that :3,168,216/. 14s. ld. be voted for defraying the charges of the Land Forces for the year ending 31st April 1834. Mr. HL-ME complained of the unnecessary magnitude of the sum. Ile objected to a number of the items ; particulzidy the charges for the Recruiting service, the Depot at Chatham, and the expensive parapher- nalia of six Field-Marshals, seven Adjutants, six Paymasters, and the enormous Staff. He moved to reduce the vote by 270,000/. ; which would leave 2,888,779/., the amount that was found sufficient in 182?, 1823, and 1894.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE said that the reduction proposed by Mr. Hume was quite preposterous.

Sir HENRY PARNELL thought that the best way to reduce the Army, would be to adopt the Duke of Wellington's plan, of not filling up the casualties ; which average from 10,000 to 11,000 per annum. He said that the different departments of the Army accounts ought to be con- solidated. At present it was impossible for the House to understand them.

Lord ALTHORP approved of Sir Henry Parnell's suggestion ; and if there was any opportunity of acting upon it during the present year, he would certainly lay bold of it. Major BEALTCLERX, Mr. LENNAItD, and Mr. O'CONNELL, supported Mr. Hume's amendment. It was opposed by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Sir JOHN BYNG, and Mr. HODGES.

The Committee divided; for Mr. Hume's amendment, 70; against it, 938; Ministerial majority, 168.

The original resolutions were then agreed to.

10. PENSIONS. Lord EBRINGTON moved, on Friday, for a Select Committee, " To inquire into the state of the Garrisons at home and abroad ; into every branch of their Pay and Emoluments, and also into the Pay and Emoluments of Vice-Admirals and Admirals, Generals and Colonels; and to report whether any diminution can be made in the same without detriment to the efficiency of the public service, or the just rewards of professional men."

The motion was agreed to, and a Committee appointed.

II. FRENCH OCCUPATION OF ALGIERS. The Earl of ABERDEEN, on Friday, moved for extracts from the correspondence of the Foreign , Secretary with the French Government relative to the evacuation of Algiers. He took the opportunity of expressing his strong disappro- bation of the Foreign policy of Ministers. He had also stated his be- lief, that it Would appear from the papers which lie moved for, that the French Government had entered into engagements respecting the evacu- tion of Algiers, which they had not fulfilled.' Earl GREY replied, that both the French and English Ministers were desirous of bringing this affair to an amicable issue. It was well known that a party in the French Legislature were urging the Ministry to retain Algiers; and if the British Government were at the same time pressed to insist upon its evacuation, a disagreeable collision might ensue. He did not object to the production of the principal papers moved for. Lord ABERDEEN made a few remaks ; and the conversation dropped.

12. halt JURIES BILL Lord MELBOURNE, on Monday, moved that this bill should pass. The Earl of LONGFORD, Lord CARBERY, and the Earl of RODEN, objected to the bill, as putting additional power into the hands of a class of persons who were already too strong for the law. Lord CLONCURRY generally approved of the bill ; although he objected to their amendments which gave so much power to the Sheriff —a person who, owing to political prejudices, was nine times out of ten unfit to exercise it.

After a few remarks from Lord MELBOURNE, in reply, the bill was passed.

IA DEBTOR AND CREDITOR IN SCOTLAND. Mr. JEFFREY the Lord Advocate) on Thursday obtained leave to bring in a bill "for rendering the Payment of Creditors more certain and expeditious, and for the better Regulation of Mercantile Bankruptcies in that part of

Great Britain called Scotland."

14. GLASGOW LOTTERY BILL. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, on Monday, asked Lord Althorp whether Ministers were aware that this bill had passed the House ? Lord ALTHORP was not aware of it till it had passed. The word "lottery" did not occur in it. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, the bill ought to be repealed. [A Member said, that the lottery had already been drawn.] Sir Robert than said, that the parties should be punished.

15. DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL. Mr. BARING, On Monday, presented a petition from the Committee of Management of Drury Lane and from the proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre, against Mr. Bulwer's Bill for regulating dramatic performances. The petitioners said that the bill would not purify the stage, but on the contrary, greatly demoralize it. Mr. Baring thought that the House should take care how they invaded the patent rights of the large theatres, which were as sacred as any rights of Property.

Mr. E. L. BULLER said, that the Committee had come to the reso- lution that the patent rights of the two theatres ought to be withheld. There was in his bill a protection against licentiousness ; for all the theatres would be placed under surveillance of the Censor and the Lord Chamberlain.

16. ADVERTISEMENT DUTY. Mr. SPRING RICE, 011 Thursday, when the report of the bill repealing in part the duty on Advertisements was brought up, moved that it be recommitted, in order that a fixed duty of Is. 6d. for each insertion might be substituted for the graduated scale previously proposed. This was agreed to.

17. MR. MARSHALL'S STATISTICS. Mr. HUME, on Monday, the House being in a Committee of Supply, moved that the sum of 2,6251. be paid to Mr. Marshall, for 1,250 copies of his Digest of Public Do- cuments since the year 1799. For twelve years previously to the ap- pointment of the Committee of Public Documents, Mr. Marshall, at a great expense, and with great labour, bad been engaged in the compi- lation of the largest and most useful body of English statistics that had ever been collected in one publication. There was no chance of his being remunerated for his labours by the sale of his book ; and as they were of great national benefit, he had no hesitation in making the motion above mentioned.

Lord ALT oar would leave the House to deride as it thought fit a on this vote. He had himself agreed to pay Mr. Marshall a previous sum of 500/. ; a pretty good proof that he thought well of his work. The vote was opposed by Mr. _METHUEN and Mr. AGE-TONEY ; and supported by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. SLANEY, Mr. M. ATTWOOD, and Mr. O'CoNNELL.

Lord SANDON moved that 1,0001. should be the sum voted, instead of 2,625/. The book would be mere waste paper to the great body of the members, except perhaps to about a hundred of them ; • as they would exchange their copies with their booksellers for works more to their taste and edification.

The House divided : for Lord Sandon's motion, 75; against 117; majority, 42.

Mr. O'CoxxEr,t. moved that 1,500/. be granted ; which was rejected, in a division, by 116 to 78.

Mr. Hume's original motion for a grant of 2,6251. was then passed, by a majority of 106 to 88.

18. LAUNCESTON ELECTION. Mr. C. BULLER, On Monday, presented a petition from Launceston, complaining of the bribery and intimida- tion exercised at the last election ; and stating, that the great expense of petitioning against the return was the only reason why they had not persevered in doing so. They complained, that notwithstanding the passage of the Reform Bill, Launceston was still a nomination borough of the Duke of Northumberland.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE strenuously denied that corrupt practices bad been used by his supporters at the late election. Want of money was not the true reason why the petition against his return had been aban- doned. Between 500/. and 600/. had been subscribed by various persons among others, by Sir W. Molesworth's agent, in order to unseat him. But the petitioners feared, and with good reason, that their petition would be declared frivolous and vexatious. He reminded the House, that there were other boroughs which the Reform Bill had left under aristocratic influence ; and mentioned Tavistoek, 3Ialton, Knaresborough, and Totness, as being quite as much so as Launceston.

Sir W. Mot.r.swortrn supported the prayer of the petition. There was much intimidation and undue influence exercised at Launceston ; and the chief cause, the arch criminal, was the Duke of Northum- berland.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE—" It is false : (" Order, order!") If the honourable member means and continues to assert that the Duke of Northumberland is the arch criminal in these demoralizing practices, I again meet it, and say that such an assertion is false."

The SPEAKER was certain that the House would see that Sir Henry Hardinge meant only to negative the assertion in the strongest terms that the forms of House would allow.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH repeated that the system of intimidation did prevail; and that he who exercised it was worse than those over whom at was exercised. Sir HENRY HARDINGE would still repudiate the assertion.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH reasserted, that the contents of the petition: were true.

Mr. C. BULLER made a few remarks ; and the petition was laid upon the table.

19. BOROUGH or HERTFORD. Mr. BERNAL, on Thursday, moved that the issuing of the writ for a new election for Hertford be provi- sionally postponed to Monday next, which was agreed to.

20. NEW WRIT FOR WESTMINSTER. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, on Tuesday, moved for a new writ for the city of Westminster, in the room of Sir John Hobhouse, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

Having accepted office under the present Administration chiefly with a view and the hope that lie could more efficiently promote the interests of his consti-• tuents and the country, Sir John found himself placed on the present occasion in such a situation,.hy the discussion of the repeal of the House and Window tax that was fixed for this evening, that he could not, consistent with his official duty and character as a Minister of the Crown, discharge his duty to his con- stituents; and he felt himself therefore under the painful necessity of resigning his seat.

21. SIR ROBERT PEEL AND MR. COBBETT. Sir ROBERT PEEL, on Thursday, asked Mr. Cobbett when he intended to bring forward his motion for an address to the Crown to remove him from the Privy. Council ? Mr. Colo= said, that the motion stood for Tuesday last, but as the House did not break up till after four o'clock in the morning,. it was impossible to bring it on. He would now give notice for the IStli of May. Sir ROBERT PEEL observed that that was on Order day, and there was no probability of its being brought on upon that day. Mr. CORBETT begged Sir Robert would fix the day himself.

22. GRAVESEND PIER Btu. The second reading of this bill was carried on Tuesday, by a majority of 161 to 49.