1 bell then proceeded briefly to sum up and comment upon the evidence.-On the question for the third reading of the bill, Aitions. earl to have been received, that house knew nothing of it, and therefore it could not form a ground for supporting this measure. Lord Boringdon contended, that the principle upon which supplies were cut off from a besieged town equally applied to this measure, and to the measures of which it formed a part: and he thought it highly probable, that they would have a similar effect with the cutting off supplies from a besieged town, within a period not longer even than some of the sieges during the last war, by forcing the enemy to repeal his decrees against the commerce of this country. The principle of prohibiting the exportation of bark, was not here in question; as, under the operation of this measure, France might have bark if she chose, that is to say, if she chose to take along with it articles of British manufacture or Earl Bathurst stated the object of the bill, which, he said, had been miscalled a bill of privation, as it went to allow the exportation of bark upon certain condiInformation had been received, that the French government, wishing to obtain a supply of this article, had given directions that this article should be admitted into the French ports, although coming from this country, provided it formed the sole cargo of the vessel. It was thought a little too much, that the enemy should not only obtain this article of which he stood in need, but should also obtain it upon his own terms; and therefore this measure was resorted to, in order that the enemy might be prevented from obtaining a supply of this article, unless he took with it British colonial produce, or British manufactures. He could not conceive, therefore, that this bill was liable to any of those objections which had been urged against it. A noble and learned lord had, on a former night, urged an objection to it on the ground of religion; but surely there could be nothing inconsistent with the dispensations of Providence in assist-ly to operate on the sick and disabled; it ing and promoting human industry. Lord Erskine, notwithstanding the arguments of the noble earl, still maintained the opinion which he before urged, that this measure was contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity; and so strongly did he feel upon this subject, that he intended, in case the house agreed to the bill, to embody the reasons which operated in his mind against it in the form of a protest, that they might remain upon the journals of the house, and go down to posterity. It could not be said to be analogous to the case of a siege, because there the object was, in forcing the besieged to endure privations, to compel them to surrender, by which they might put an end to those privations; but by this measure, sickness and disease were to be bereft of a medicine, which was an effectual remedy, and this without any object to be attained, but that of distressing the innocent inhabitants of the continent. Such a mode of warfare was inconsistent with the dictates of the christian religion; and he rejoiced, that on this occasion, the reverend prelates who usually attended that house, did not attend to vote in favour of this measure. As to the information stated by the noble commerce. The Earl of Albemarle wholly reprobated this measure, which he considered as utterly indefensible, it being contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity, highly impolitic, and at the same time inefficacious, even in the view of those who proposed it. What effect could it have on the armies of France? It was mere was carring on war with hospitals, and not so much with the sick and disabled soldiers, as the innocent peasant. It had been said in a former debate by a noble lord, that if we had the hands of Europe against us, we had with us the hearts of many of its inhabitants; but if this measure was to be carried into effect, we should have both the hands and hearts of all Europe against us. It would be besides of no avail: there was already a sufficient quantity of bark on the continent. The noble earl quoted the prices of jesuits' bark in Feb. at Paris, to prove that it was not higher at that period, than the price in this country. This bill therefore could not have the effect attributed to it by a noble lord, of operating with any compulsory effect upon the enemy, he having already a sufficient supply of this article; it could only have the effect of displaying a principle of warfare wholly inconsistent with those feelings of justice and honour, which had hitherto formed distinguishing features in the British cha racter. The Earl of Westmoreland contended, that noble lords on the other side, when in administration, had by their blockade excluded bark, as well as other things (bark not being excepted), from the continent, measure must and that therefore that not believe that any British peer, or, indeed, that any British subject, could be found, at the present moment, vile enough even in idea to countenance the enemies of the country. If however such a sentiment could be imputed to any one, it must be to those who could support an administration capable of introducing measures like the present. Lord Redesdale supported the bill, as consistent with sound policy, and the law of nature. Lord Grenville took a comprehensive 'view of the subject. He particularly cautioned the house to look well at the consideration they were to receive as the price of the honour, justice, and humanity of the country. The assertion of the noble lord (Mulgrave) that we were entitled to resort to whatever species of warfare might be adopted against us, he confessed surprized him not a little. Were we, if at war with a nation of Indians, because they might scalp our men who fell into their hands, to retaliate on them by scalping their people in return? If at war with the Persians, and they poured poisoned weapons into our tents, were we too to poison the weapons with which we fought? If they poisoned our streams of water, were we to retaliate by poisoning their fountains? If they employed assassination against us, were we to turn our swords from fair and honourable warfare, to match them in deeds of treachery and disgrace? Such, he thanked God, had never been our system of waging Lord Mulgrave vindicated the present war; nor, till the present measures were bill as one of those measures which were introduced, had we ever sacrificed a particalled for by the aggressions of our enemy.cle of our national character. It had been If he would resort to an unusual and unau- remarked, that one of the greatest ornathorised mode of warfare, nothing remain-ments of the city of Lyons was an hospital ed for us but to follow his example, and, by retaliation, to compel him to return into the common and established track. Lord Holland combated the general principle of the measure, which was not calculated so much to affect the armies of our enemies, as to distress the women, children, and peasantry, in Spain and Portugal, in which countries it was well known with what care and humanity the landholders made it their business to provide their tenantry with this necessary article. The French armies, it must be known to every one, would not want, so long as a supply was to be had; it must, therefore, be by the helpless and oppressed inhabitants that this privation would be chiefly felt. The Earl of Lauderdale could not forbear noticing the highly unparliamentary conduct of the noble lord who bore his majesty's privy seal, in charging noble lords on that side of the house, with having made it their business, for the last month, to do nothing else but repeat the language of the enemies of the country. Such language was highly indecorous at any time; but it was still more so, at a moment when the manufacturers and merchants of the country were seen at their lordships bar, professing, and adducing evidence in support of similar arguments to those which he and other noble lords had maintained. His lordship could for the sick and infirm; when that city was attacked by Robespierre, he ordered his cannon to be directed principally against this structure, as being an object the destruction of which gave peculiar delight to his sanguinary and inhuman disposition. In adopting the present measure, we endeavoured to assimilate ourselves to that monster of inhumanity; for what else was the present bill, but a cannon directed against the hospitals on the continent? The bill, however, had this additional disadvantage, that it was com pletely futile and inadequate. So that all we should gain by the measure would be, to evince the inclination, without possessing the power, to do evil. The Lord Chancellor, in answer to the noble lord who spoke last, referred to an act of the administration of which that no- | ble lord was a member, by which the importation of provisions into France was prohibited, and asked, if it was possible for any person to have acquiesced in that measure, and yet to argue as the noble lord had done against that now under consideration? Lord Hawkesbury defended the bill with great force and animation. He contended, that in no respect was it inconsistent with justice and humanity, or sound policy, but conformable to the practice of this country at all times. The present measure was but a link in the series of measures which had been imperiously called for, by the urgent necessity of retaliation, and of the agency of every means that could bring the enemy to a sense of his own blind violence and injustice; in short, it was one which promised to operate the salvation of the country -an effect which experience already began to prove had taken place to no small extent. As to the charges of inhumanity and cruelty which were affixed to the measure by the noble lords opposite, he could not but be surprised to hear them from the lips of the noble baron (Grenville), who was himself the author of a measure in 1794, which evidently tended to starve the population of France without any dis tinction. Lord Rosslyn could not help making this observation; that the price at which bark had been procured for the British army in 1805, was only one shilling lower than that at which it was known to be now selling at Paris. What, then, could be expected from the pressure which it was likely to produce on the enemy? The question was now eagerly called for, and the house divided on the third reading of the bill. Contents, 54; Proxies, 56-110: Non-contents, 22; Proxies, 22-44: Majority, 66. Lord Grenville presented a clause by way of rider, with a view to indemnify individuals, who should be injured by the bill. Lord Hawkesbury opposed the clause, as laying down a bad precedent. It was rejected without a division.-The bill was then passed. [PROTEST AGAINST THE JESUITS BARK BILL.] "Dissentient; 1. Because the jesuits' bark, the exportation of which is prohibited by this bill, has been found by long experience to be a specific for many dangerous diseases which war has a tendency to spread and to exasperate; and because to employ as an engine of war the any privation of the only remedy for some of the greatest sufferings which war is capable of inflicting, is manifestly repugnant to the principles of the christian religion, contrary to humanity, and not justified by any practice of civilized nations.-2. Because the means to which recourse has been hitherto had in war, have no analogy to the barbarous enactment of this bill; inasmuch as it is not even contended that the privation to be created by it has tendency whatever to self-defence, or to compel the enemy to the restoration of peace; the only legitimate object by which the infliction of the calamities of war can in any case be justified.—3. Because the only possible answer to these objections is, that the bill will not produce the privation which is held forth as its ostensible object, inasmuch as the jesuits bark may be exported under licences from the crown; but such an answer would only prove the bill to be wholly useless to its purposes, whilst it would still leave in its full operation the odious precedent of having resorted, in cold blood, for the mere speculative sale of our manufactures, even to the possible infliction of miseries not to be vindicated but by the view of self-preservation, or, in the extremities of war, directed to that justifiable object.4. Because, as no scarcity of the jesuits' bark appears to exist in France, and as, in the contrary case, no possible exertion on the part of this country could effectually prevent its importation into the numerous ports under the dominion or controul of the French government, the bill appears to us to be grossly vicious in principle, whilst it is absolutely nugatory in prac tice, and therefore in every point of view, disgraceful and absurd.-5. Because if it were even just, expedient, or practicable, to force the importation of our manufac tures upon our enemies, by withholding the jesuits' bark but upon condition of their permitting such importation, that principle should have been distinctly expressed in the bill, and the conditions specifically declared in it, instead of vesting in the crown an arbitrary discretion to dispense with the prohibition by licences, a power destructive of the equality of British commerce, and dangerous to the freedom of the British constitution. (Signed,) Erskine, Cholmondeley, Upper Ossory, Bedford, Ponsonby, (earl of Besborough), Albemarle, Ponsonby, (of Immokilly), Essex, Carrington, Grenville, Rosslyn, Lauderdale, Clifton, (earl of Darnley,)" HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, April 7. [ASSESSED TAXES BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day, for the second reading of the Assessed Taxes bill. Mr. Biddulph begged to call the attention of the house to this bill, which was about to pass without that degree of notice which its importance required. This bill went to repeal all the existing Assessed Taxes, and to grant others in lieu thereof, and as the constitutional mode of proceeding had not been taken with respect to it, and no parliamentary ground had been laid for the imposition of new taxes, however unusual it was to take such a course, he should oppose the further progress of the bill, unless some satisfactory ground should be shewn in support of the measure. The forms of the house were the constitutional barriers against innovations, such as this measure; and he should therefore oppose the measure, unless a constitutional ground should be laid for its adoption. Mr. Huskisson, not understanding what the hon. gent. meant by constitutional ground, begged to state to the house the grounds upon which his right hon. friend had brought forward this measure. The house would be aware that it was due to the public creditor, when an addition was made to the public debt, to make a provision for the interest and charges accruing from such an addition. It would be recollected that a sum of four millions of Exchequer bills had been funded in the course of the present session, the charge for interest and sinking fund upon which amounted to 252,000l. The sum to be raised by the bill before the house was something more than 100,000l. as part of the ways and means for defraying the charge alluded to; as the Assessed Taxes were to be collected from the 5th of April it was desirable, however, small as the addition might be, to bring forward the proposition in time, so that the house might be aware of the extent of it. As he was on his legs he took occasion to state, that there was a clause in the bill for reducing the allowance of poundage to the collectors one fourth, by which there would be a saving to the public of fifteen thousand pounds. Mr. Biddulph was not satisfied with the explanation of the hon. gent. who had not communicated any thing but what the house knew before. Parliament was a great council of finance to the government, and ought to be constitutionably consulted upon all subjects of new taxes. It was from a conviction, that so far as related to the 252,000l. the annual charge upon the funded exchequer bills, no new taxes were necessary, as he could shew, and on that account he should oppose the further progress of the bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not sensible of any unconstitutional circumstance connected with this measure. If the hon. gent. believed that he could point out a mode of providing for the payment of the interest of the addition to the public debt, without new taxes, that was a sufficient reason for his taking the course he adopted, or preferring his own suggestion. But the house must expect that the hon. gent. should state his proposition before it would interfere with the progress of the measure. It was desirable, if the bill was to pass in the present session, that it should be passed with all convenient expedition. When the bill should go into the committee, the hon. gent. would have an opportunity of making any suggestion that occurred to him upon it. But the house would not interrupt the progress of the bill upon the bare assertion of any hon. member, that there was a something preferable to the bill, which, upon another occasion, he would state to the house. Mr. Tierney observed, that the house had not been called upon, on this occasion, to vote new taxes. The notice referred merely to regulation. As the right hon. gent. had before voted regulations under the pretence of duty, he now voted duties under the pretence of regulation. He would not say that this was absolutely smuggling the measure, but certainly the proper course had not been taken. His majesty's speech had congratulated the house that a mode had been discovered by which the public service could be carried on without any additional taxes; and yet the right hon. gent. had proposed a new and heavy tax, without notice of his intention in that particular; without laying any ground for it, and without having brought forward the budget in the usual way. He merely disputed the regularity at present, but, whatever mode might ultimately turn out to be the proper one, he thought there were good reasons for delaying the progress of the bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the design of the bill was to regulate the collection of these taxes, to lower the rates in some cases, and raise them in others, and he saw no objection to the mode that had been adopted. Sufficient time would be given to examine it when it came into the committee. Dr. Laurence observed, that the objection was to the principle, and not to the specific bill. Money was to be raised to answer a new charge on the consolidated fund, without any statement in the committee of ways and means that it was for that object. The whole that was wanted for the year ought to be brought under the review of the house at once, in order that it might judge whether any, and what taxes were necessary. Mr. Rose said, that the great principle was, not to allow the ways and means to exceed the supply, and this principle was not violated in the present instance. The consolidation act went a great deal further than this bill, and yet no objection had been made to it. Mr. Whitbread observed, that the notice which had been given of the design to lay this duty was not at all sufficient, even in point of fairness to those who were to be subject to it. There was certainly no occasion for any particular haste, in providing for the interest of the four millions, considering the flourishing state of the consolidated fund, as stated by the gentlemen on the other side. As to the consolidation act, he recollected that there had been a great outcry among the public that taxation was carried on under cover of consolidation. This bill was less extensive in its operation, but both were liable to strong objecjections. No injury would result from delaying this bill. The Bill was then read a second time. This this account, that he had brought in a bill' with a limitation in point of time. If this was carried, it would at least secure one object, namely, the prevention of any new grant during the limited period, which might affect the proceedings of the committee. With respect to the great measure of absolutely restricting the crown from granting Offices in Reversion, his object was now to proceed in the most conciliating manner possible, without sacrificing the principle of the measure. In opening his views as to the limitation of time, he thought it in vain to propose a longer period than that which had been proposed in the house of lords. period (two years) was too short in his opinion; but if he were to introduce a longer period, he rather feared it would it off all chance of the passing of the bill, and disturb the harmony of the two houses. But it had been suggested to him, that this period of two years would be the most offensive that could be introduced, for it was exactly that which the lords themselves had rejected. This consideration had determined him to relinquish this period, and to propose one which he hoped would be equally useful, without subjecting the bill to so much risk. He intended, therefore, that the blank should be filled up, with a provision that the bill should be in force for one year from the passing of the act, and from the close of that period to the end of six weeks from the commencement of the subsequent session of parliament. This would secure the remaining part of the present session, the whole of the next session, and six weeks of the session following. He hoped the house would be satisfied with this at present, with the understanding, that they gave up no part of the principle; but still looked forward to the further object of having the measure rendered permanent. The term would be sufficient for some of the purposes which the committee had in view, and therefore was applicable to the situation in which the house had been placed. He had heard that some objection had been taken, on the ground that the reasons for the bill had not been stated in the preamble. In the spirit of conciliation which he wished to preserve, he would move that it should be stated in the preamble, that the measure was connected with something at present pending in the house of commons, and that the words, suspended for a limited time,' should be substituted for the absolute pro4 Q |