aimed; yet these were the men who were now to be put in the judgment-seat, while ministers were to be tried on their accusation and condemned by their evidence -[Loud cries of Hear!]. And this was recommended to the House as the due course of retributive justice!

But the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) had made, it seems, a most ingenious discovery; he had found out, that as the whole nation were determined on parlia mentary reform, ministers had no other means of saving themselves from the consequences of that mighty change, than by inventing plots and fomenting conspiracies. Did the hon. baronet imagine that he could persuade any one that this was the real state of the case? Did he imagine that, by any mode of division or multiplication which he might adopt for his reform petitions, whether he presented them in tens and signed by thousands, or in thousands and signed by tens; did he really flatter himself, that he could persuade the House or himself, that parliamentary reform was a favourite measure with the people of England? Did he suppose that the great body of the nation cared one jot about his wild plans of annual parliaments and universal suffrage? Nay, could he reconcile to himself the justice or consistency of his plan of universal suffrage, as it was called? How could he excuse the omission of females and of the insane, from the classes of electors and representatives? Oh! calumniated females! Oh! calumniated insane!-was it from dread of the power of the female sex, or from jealousy of the wisdom of insanity? [A laugh]. For his part, he felt assured, that, whatever measure of exclusion might be dealt to the women, the insane portion of the community were excluded from the petitions hitherto presented, only that they might come forward, hereafter, with the more weight and effect, in a petition subscribed exclusively by themselves; and that the day was not far distant, when the hon. baronet would present to the House a petition for reform, from the inhabitants of the receptacle near Kennington, vouching for the respectful tenor of its language, and pledging himself for the constitutional temperance, of its argument [A laugh].

But, if this were consistent in the honourable baronet, what could be said of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down; of him who in his heart laughed at all these schemes of reform,

and looked with the profoundest scorn on all who entertained them; of him who knew that every petition on the subject came either from deluders or deluded; yet, under a pretence that he was a friend to something like a reform, would, every now and then, present such petitions, for the mere purpose of popularity? [Hear, hear!]. That hon. and learned gentleman had apologised for pronouncing an eloquent panegyric on the constitution : there was no need of any apology; he should be glad to join in it, if he saw that the constitution was in danger; but, he trusted, the danger was past; sure, very sure, he was, that it was a danger of a very different sort from any which could be cured by inflaming and maddening the people. Who were the best friends of the people? Those who were always ringing in their ears the extent and imprescriptibility of their rights; or those who, while they told them of their rights, told them they had duties also? He would say to the real friends of the people, instruct, enlighten them, and there would be no danger. But do not teach them to nourish an envious jealousy of wealth, hatred of rank, and a general malignity at all superiority. It was, indeed, the proud boast of our glorious constitution, that the poorest peasant might emerge from the meanest hut, and himself, or in his descendants, rise to the highest rank in the state [Hear!]. But let there, at least, remain high ranks for them to rise to. To level ranks, would not be to equalize, but to destroy [Hear]! to confound the elements of society, and to produce universal degradation. But he asked whether every man who heard him did not know, that either in his own immediate neighbourhood, or in districts of which he had knowledge, a sedulous and wicked activity had been employed in disseminating the doctrines of discontent, and exasperating suffering into malignity? He asked whether hatred to government as government; not merely to particular individuals (a tax which those who fill ostensible situations in the state must make up their minds to bear as they may), but to government by whomsoever administered; to eminence as eminence ; to rank as rank, had not been industriously inculcated? Whether the Crown and its ministers had not been proscribed as the natural enemies of the people? and this House held up to peculiar hatred and horror, as the tyrants of the Commons, whom they were especially bound to protect? The

starving artisan was told by his mischiev- | ous seducer, that all his distress arose from an imperfect representation in parliament. If this assertion meant any thing, it must be this: that parliament, as at present constituted, encouraged unnecessary wars; that unnecessary wars produced extravagant expenditure; that extravagant expenditure produced exorbitant taxation; and that exorbitant taxation produced overwhelming misery. Now, what was the inference of the parliamentary reformers? Was it that parliament, more popularized, more democratically constituted, would be less inclined to war? He would appeal to all history, ancient or modern, whether democratic states were not always the fondest of war. Look at Athens, look at Rome, look at the petty republics of more modern times. Was not the appetite for war in all those governments perpetually excited and perpetually indulged? Would the case be different among ourselves? Was it not notorious, that the humblest peasants in this country had been used to sympathize with the victories of its warriors, and to feel themselves partakers in their honour? True it was, that, of late, a chill philosophy had been busy in numbing even this, the natural enthusiasm of a brave people, in sophisticating their feelings and bewildering their reason; in rendering them dead to the glories of Waterloo, but tremblingly alive to the imperfections of Old Sarum-But it would not do; and he must say, that he distrusted the sense of any man who could build a hope of discomfiture to ministers on the popularity of parliamentary reform.

It was not against parliamentary reform, but against the frantic follies circulated under its pretext, and the mischief attempted to be perpetrated in its name, that government had appealed to parliament, and that parliament had had recourse to the Suspension act. That act was, happily at an end. He was not disposed to undervalue the evil of its enactment, whether in itself, or whether considered as a precedent for other times. But they, surely, read but ill the signs of the present times who thought, that, in or out of parliament, there was a leaning against the people. It was not more idle for the rhetoricians of imperial Rome to declaim about Brutus and Tarquin, than it was now to talk about ser. vile parliaments or an usurping crown. The dangers which now threatened society were of a different kind, and came in a

}

different direction; and it was the duty of parliament to guard, with equal watchfulness aud courage, not only against the blast of the lightning from above, but against the destructive explosion from below. But, once more, let him hope, that the danger was for the present, passed away. If, in the hour of peril, the statue of Liberty had been veiled for a moment, let it be confessed, in justice, that the hands whose painful duty it was to spread that veil, had not been the least prompt to remove it. If the palladium of the constitution had, for a moment, trembled in its shrine, let it be acknowledged that, through the vigilance and constancy of those whose duty it was to see that the fabric took no harm, the shrine itself had been preserved from profanation, and the temple stood firm and unimpaired.-[Loud and long cheering].

Mr. Lambton rose to ask an explanation as to the terms dolt and idiot, so liberally applied by the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. Canning said, that the words had dropped from him unintentionally in the heat of the debate, and that he had no design of applying them in their common acceptation.

Mr. Lambton supposed so: indeed, it was not of any consequence, except in one sense-and that was, a sort of fear that as the right hon. gentleman had applied the same terms to the dear friends now united with him in office, the use of them might be a prelude to an intimate union between him and the right hon. gentleman [a laugh]. But he rose chiefly to say, that he would pledge himself for the respectability of the person who had given him the information respecting Oliver. He was a person not connected with any plot or conspiracy, but a mercantile gentleman of consideration. If the House would let him, he would pledge his honour to prove all he had asserted, unless the right hon. gentleman should be disposed wantonly to depreciate his (Mr. Lambton's) honour and character, as he had already that night cruelly sported with the disease and agony of an unfortunate petitioner [Hear, hear!]. The right hon. gentleman had made many severe and unfair allusions to the conduct of that individual, in suppressing, as he (Mr. Canning) asserted, the information he could have given with regard to Oliver's conduct on the 28th of January, and had stigmatized him as a traitor for not having

communicated with government on the subject. Neither of those charges had the slightest foundation. That person communicated, on the same evening, to several respectable witnesses, whom he (Mr. L.) could produce, what had occurred in the park. The facts were the subject of general conversation amongst his acquaintance, and continued to be so for several months. With regard to the gentleman's motives for not acquainting ford Sidmouth with those facts, he could say nothing; but he thought a sufficient justification might be found in the notoriety which existed of Oliver's being employed and patronized by that noble lord. That those were the motives of the person in question he would not assert; but to his (Mr. L.'s) mind, they would have appeared of sufficient weight to induce him | to adopt the same course. The right hon. gentleman had asserted, that the whole story was destitute of foundation. He (Mr. L.) remained of a directly contrary opinion. He challenged inquiry into the case-he demanded to be allowed to prove his allegations at the bar of the House. If that inquiry was not instituted, the country would be enabled to see clearly enough, that the facts asserted by him were such as could not be disproved.

Mr. Croker said, that in order in any degree to justify the silence of the anonymous individual, it was necessary to believe that he knew Oliver to be in the employment of lord Sidmouth at the time when the transaction alleged was said to have taken place-a fact which it was manifest was impossible. If this anonymous person was a man of respectability, how was it to be accounted for that he had not communicated his information at a time when the House was engaged in an inquiry upon the subject-when addresses were presented on the subject? It was said, he was deterred by fear of the Suspension act. Now he begged it to be observed, that the outrage on the Prince Regent was perpetrated on the 28th January-the Suspension act passed on the 4th of March. During that interval, proclamations were issued, offering large rewards to any person who could give information as to the persons concerned in the outrage. An investigation was going on for six weeks at the public office at Bow. street. Why, then, was information not given when it was so loudly called for? If Oliver, since that time, had done any mischief to his fellow-citizens, the man (VOL. XXXVII.)

who knew his conduct, and concealed it, was answerable for such subsequent mischief; for he, by doing that which the proclamation called for, which the law enjoined, which the feeling of every good man would dictate, might have stopped Oliver in his career. Upon his head, therefore, must be charged all that had been subsequently done by Oliver.

Sir John Newport rose amidst such ve hement cries of question! that not a word could be heard for some time. The right hon. baronet animadverted on those who were so anxious to pass to the vote and decide without hearing. He expressed some displeasure at the right hon. gentleman for presuming to anticipate his line of argument, and observed, that that right hon. gentleman, in his zeal to prove the truth of one of his assertions, that a very absurd argument might be made on a very grave subject, had himself kindly illustrated it in his own speech. The right hon. baronet strenuously opposed the commitment of the bill.

Mr. Barnett said, he could not suffer this bill to go into a committee without entering his protest against the justice of it. He trusted that the House would have honesty and firmness enough to reject so iniquitous a measure.

The question being put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," the House divided:

Ayes, 238-Noes, 65.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, viscount
Abercromby, hon. J.
Aubrey, sir John
Baillie, J. E.
Baker, John
Birch, Jos.
Brand, hon. T.
Brougham, Henry
Burdett, sir F.
Burroughs, sir W.
Burrell, hon. P. D.
Byng, George
Calcraft, John
Calvert, C.
Campbell, hon. J.
Carter, John
Duncannon, visc.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Guise, sir W.
Gaskell, Benjamin
Hamilton, lord A.
Heron, sir. Rob.
Howard, hon. W.
(3 X)

Howorth, H.
Hughes, W. L.
Hornby, E.
Hurst, R.

Latouche, Robt. jun.
Lambton, J. G.
Lloyd, sir Ed.
Macdonald, Jas.
Madocks, W. A.
Markham, admiral
Martin, John
Monk, sir C.
Mostyn, sir T.
Neville, hon. R.
Newport, sir John
Ord, W.
Piggot, sir A.
Pym, Francis
Ramsbottom, John
Ridley, sir M. W.
Robarts, W. T.
Romilly, sir S.
Scudamore, Robt.
Sharp, Richard
Shelley, sir John

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, March 12.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE LEATHER TAX.] After a great many Petitions for the Repeal of the Leather Tax had been presented to the House,

Lord Althorp rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a most important branch of British manufacture-he meant the Leather trade. The subject having been fully before them last session, he felt it less necessary to enter much at large on the present occasion; he would therefore confine himself to the object he had immediately in view, namely, the extraordinary grievance which that trade sustained by the additional duties imposed on it, and the necessity of repealing those duties. In proposing the motion he had in view, he felt it necessary to point out to the House the comparative state of the leather trade, before and since those additional duties were imposed. In doing so, he was sure he should have the concurrence of the honourable members on the other side of the House. There might be some difference of opinion as to the state of depression in which the leather trade was known to be at present, compared with former periods. It might be argued, that that trade was not in a state of depression, and therefore there was no occasion to take off the additional tax. But if he showed that since the additional tax in 1812, the leather trade was depressed from the flourishing state in which it was previously, and that such depression was caused by the tax, he trusted he should have the support of every member who knew the value of that manufacture. The numerous petitions which had been presented from all parts of the country, were in themselves a proof that the additional duties were severely felt by that trade. It might be said, that

people of all trades were ready to petition parliament for whatever they might consider beneficial to themselves. But he would say, in answer to that argument, that when more than one hundred petitions were presented from the different places where that trade was carried on, it evinced pretty strong evidence, that there must be some hardship felt more than those usually complained of by manufacturers. The next point to which he would call their attention was, the increased number of bankruptcies since the tax, compared with the number before its imposition. During the five years previous to the additional duties being imposed, there were forty-five bankruptcies in the leather trade, making an average of nine in each year. Whereas in the five years immediately subsequent to that period, there were 75 bankruptcies, making 15 in each year, and a surplus of 30 bankruptcies in the five years. In 1808 there were 1725 licences for the manufacturing of leather; in 1812 there were 1760; but in the course of five years after the additional tax, there was a reduction of 889 licences, which showed that the additional duty was oppressive. Within the last half year, there had been thrown out of the trade no less than 189 tanners, 338 tawers, 41 oil-dressers, and 12 parchment-makers. This, indeed, appeared from the accounts on the table, which also showed that the trade had gradually declined ever since the additional tax was imposed, notwithstanding the last five years and a half included the years of the late war, when its consumption was the greatest; and showed the number of master manufacturers which had been driven out of the trade, up to January 5th, 1818; and the number of tan-yards which remained unoccupied. He stated, that those yards which were still occupied were not in full work, and that the trade had declined equal to oneseventh, instead of having increased with the population of the country, as it had always done before the imposition of the double tax. The decrease of this trade, the noble lord deduced also from the diminution of the import of foreign hides, which diminution was nearly equal to onehalf the quantity imported in 1812. When the import of the raw material used in this trade had thus fallen off, it must, he thought, be inferred, that that trade itself had fallen off also. Was it possible, then, that any considerate man would put the receipt of a comparatively insignificant