(Eighth Inclosure in No. 18.)-Translation. To the King of Naples. duct. head. March 5. Sir, my Brother; I have already communicated to you my opinion of your conYour situation had turned your My reverses have finished you. You have surrounded yourself with men who hate France, and who wish to ruin you. I formerly gave you useful warnings. What you write to me is at variance with your actions. I shall, however, see by your manner of acting at Ancona, if your heart be still French, and if you yield to necessity alone. I write to the Minister at War, in order to tranquillize him with respect to your conduct. Recollect that your kingdom, which has cost so much blood and trouble to France, is yours only for the benefit of those who gave it you. It is needless to send me an answer, unless you have something important to communicate. Remember that I made you a King solely for the interest of my system. Don't de ceive yourself; if you should cease to be a Frenchman, you would be nothing for Continue to correspond with the Viceroy, taking care that your letters be not intercepted. me. A correct Copy. (Signed) BLACAS D'AULPS. No. 19. Extract of a Letter from Lord William Bentinck to Marshal Belle garde, dated Verona, March 25, 1814; transmitted officially by lord William Bentinck to Viscount Castlereagh. It is now necessary to consider what has been the conduct of Murat. 1. Has he fulfilled his Treaty with Austria, the object and sole object of which was his immediate co-operation? 2. Was not this immediate co-operation, if he were sincere, as necessary to his own safety, as to the success of the common cause? 3. But has he not rather acted, as if his apprehensions were not of Buonaparte, but of the Allies? 4. Was it not the natural feeling and policy of a deserter from the cause of Buonaparté, to throw himself with all his weight into the scale, and be the most forward in the contest ?-He would have no hope of escaping the effects of the vengeance of Buonaparte, it successful. 5. In what manner has he occupied the different parts of Italy evacuated by the French Has not his occupation had more the air of permanent than temporary possession? 6. Is it not the language of all his officers, and of himself, that all Italy should be united, and that he should be the chief of Italian independence? 7. Is not this sentiment in exact accord with that of Buonaparté ? 8. What mean his great endeavours to retain in his service the French officers, who, he knows, will never serve against his countrymen ? 9. What means either his continual friendly intercourse with all the French authorities-with Fouché-with the advanced posts-and latterly, with peculiar activity, direct with the bead-quarters of the Viceroy, without the knowledge and participation of the Austrian Minister? 10. Finally, is there any man in Italyis there any man or officer in the Austrian army south of the Po-has your Excellency, or have I myself, any confidence whatever in his sincerity? Do not all believe, that his sole object is to gain time; that he is making and will make use of every pretext to do nothing until the issue of the present struggle shall have been decided, when he will throw him self into the strongest side? HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, May 3. MOTION RESPECTING THE PELHAM AND MONTAGU PACKETS] Lord Nugens rose, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the oppression and injustice shown, and to the artifices employed by the Post-office against captain Perring of the Lady Mary Pelham. They had raised, he said, this case to a degree of importance that would not otherwise belong to it. The papers laid upon the table confirmed the opinion he had formerly entertained, and showed that what at first seemed neglect, was in truth system. His lordship then went into a statement of the facts of the case already before the . public, regarding the sailing of the Pelham and Montagu packets in companytheir being attacked by an American privateer, the Montagu at first sustaining the brunt of the action; the striking of the colours by the Montagu, the relief afforded by the Pelham, and the subsequent rewards given to captain Watkins of the Montagu, and the crew, for their gallantry. A portion of these rewards his lordship argued, ought to have been extended to captain Perring, and the crew of the Pelham, instead of which, he had been discontinued, and not even headmoney had been given to his crew. After some animadversions upon the conduct of Mr. Freeling, who, the noble lord contended, had acted with partiality and unfairness, he concluded by moving, "That the Papers relating to the action between the Pelham and Montagu packets, and the Globe American privateer, which were presented to the House by Mr. Winchester upon the 23rd of February last, be referred to a Select Committee." Mr. Lushington felt it his duty to oppose the motion of the noble lord. He did not charge the captain of the Pelham with cowardice, but with mismanagement; the consequence of which was, that the Montagu was much distressed and nearly taken. He then went into a statement of the facts, by which it appeared that captain Watkins had behaved with the utmost gallantry, and had been promoted to the command of the Montagu, the captain having been killed in the action. He detailed to the House the evidence taken before two Boards of Inquiry upon the subject, which, he contended, showed that captain Watkins was highly deserving of the rewards he had received. Mr. Preston bore testimony to the high merits of the individual who now came before the House as a complainant, observing, that captain Perring's object was not to obtain any reward, but to vindicate his character, and secure remuneration for his crew. He said, it appeared by the evidence, and might be proved if the Committee was granted, that the colours of the Montagu were struck and not shot away, and that the conduct of the commander in firing on the American after that event was unwarrantable. The mail also, it would be proved, had been thrown overboard by the gunner of the Montagu, in the disorder in which that ship was after her colours were struck, and not by the orders of captain Watkins. It would also appear that the log-book of the Montagu had been falsified, as it was there stated that the action lasted more than an hour, which lasted only ten minutes. The Montagu had, in fact, been re-captured by the Pelham. He should therefore vote for the Committee, as the only means of doing justice to captain Perring. Mr. Rose thought there was no cause for parliamentary interference in the case which had been brought before the House. It certainly appeared from the evidence, that there had been a defect of judgment in the late captain Norman, in ordering the Pelham to take her station on the lee bow of the Montagu, so that she could not bring her guns to bear on the enemy. The Montagu, therefore, bore the brunt of the action, 17 men out of her crew, which was only 24, being killed or wounded: 50 out of SO of the American ship were killed or wounded; while only one man of the Pelham was wounded. The promotion of captain Watkins, who had so gallantly fought the ship, was justified, though it was premature. He believed it was owing to the ignorance of captain Perring, that the Pelham had not before been brought into action. He should oppose the motion. Mr. R. Gordon opposed the motion, as captain Perring might, if he chose, have been tried before the regular tribunal. Mr. J. P. Grant supported the motion. Lord Nugent, in his reply, described the motives by which he was actuated upon this subject, namely, a desire to place on fair grounds the case of an officer who had been impeached, and in his judgment oppressed, by an office against whose decision there was no appeal but in that House itself. Indeed, he could not conceive where an officer officially slandered as captain Perring had been, could look for redress, if he could not find it in that House. The motion was negatived without a division. HOUSE OF LORDS. HELLESTON ELECTION BILL.] The order of the day for the second reading of the Helleston Election Bill being read, The Lord Chancellor said, that if frequent and anxious consideration could have brought him to think that this Bill ought to pass, he should certainly have by this time been of that opinion; but the more he considered the nature of the Bill, the more he was convinced that it ought to be discussed on the principle, before they adopted any further proceedings. Considering the Bill in this view, the only motion which he could recommend to their lordships on this subject was, that the Bill should be read a second time this day six months. His lordship then repeated the objections which he | Their lordships could not pass it on the had before stated. Taking the allegations evidence sent up from the Commons, for in the Bill to be true, it appeared to him this reason, among others, that there was to be one which the House could not pass. hardly a page in which questions did not It differed essentially from all the Bills appear, which the House of Lords, acting for the punishment or remedy of such on the principles which he had stated, practices that had ever passed that House. would suffer to be put, or at least to be. There had been four bills of the descrip- the foundation of any penal proceeding. tion to which he had alluded; the first It had been most justly observed by a, case, that of Stockbridge, afforded no pre- noble lord (Grenville), who had paid cedent for this Bill: the next case was great attention to this case, that though a that of Shoreham, where it was proved corporation might be forfeited by the act that there was a society called the Chris- of the majority, yet the elective franchise tian Society, the object of which was to did not belong to the freemen in their secure the return of members of parlia- corporate but in their individual capacity, ment in an improper manner. This was and therefore there was no pretence for proved against 68 of them individually, involving the innocent with the guilty. and these 68 were disfranchised; and for On these grounds, and on others to which the purpose of preventing the recurrence he had before adverted, it appeared to of the evil, freeholders were added as him impossible for their lordships to pass voters along with those innocent persons this Bill. It might be said that they whose franchises were continued. The might make the alterations in the comcase of Shoreham, then, was one in which mittee; but it was far from being a dethe guilty only, on proof of the guilt of sirable course of proceeding to make the each, had been disfranchised: but this necessary alterations in the Bill after its afforded no ground whatever for a Bill coming from the other House, though like the present, which went to disfran- their lordships had the power, he prechise the whole of the electors, innocent sumed, to do so. Where they could not and guilty. Then came the cases of hope to alter the Bill so as to make it fit Cricklade and Aylesbury, where none to pass, it was useless to go to the comwere disfranchised, not even the guilty, mittee with it; and therefore he conthough to prevent the recurrence of such cluded by moving, That it be read a corrupt practices in future, the right of second time this day six months. voting was extended to some of the adjoining hundreds. The first objection, then, was, that this was partly a bill of pains and penalties, and therefore to be proceeded upon according to those strict rules on which the House acted in the discharge of its judicial functions; and looking at the Bill as one which went to punish the innocent along with the guilty, it was impossible their lordships, in any consistency with these rules, could give it their sanction. Then another difficulty was, that, even if they were disposed to proceed with the Bill, they might pass it on evidence which the other House had not heard, and which if they had heard they might not have passed it on that ground. He did not mean to say that this was insuperable, or that their lordships were by any constitutional principle prevented from passing it on their own grounds if they thought proper, whether those grounds had been brought before the Commons or not; but in a legislative measure of this description and importance, it was desirable that the two Houses should proceed upon the same grounds. Lord Grenville said, that after the attention he had paid to this Bill, and the steps he had suggested with respect to it, he thought it due to the House now to state his decided conviction, that on the principle of the Bill the course recommended by the noble and learned lord was the only one that could be at present safely adopted. The great objection in point of principle to this Bill was, that it was a bill partly of pains and penalties, and had for its object to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. He agreed with the noble and learned lord that, in this view of it, they must proceed with a rigid attention to those rules which govern them in the exercise of their judicial functions; and looking at the Bill with these rules in view, he asked, on what principle were they to punish the innocent with the guilty? The great difficulty in this novel case arose from the combining the two distinct objects of punishment and remedy in one bill; whereas they ought to be the subject of separate bills. The rules applied to them must be different, and rendered the proceeding extremely difficult where they were united in the same measure. With regard to the bringing in of a new bill, his opinion was, that considering it as a bill of pains and penalties, it ought to originate with those who constituted the grand inquest of the nation, and not with their lordships, who were more accustomed to the exercise of the judicial functions with respect to such matters. There was another objection to this measure, which was this, that no ground whatever was laid for the application of the specific remedy recommended rather than another; for when they were thus, in effect, putting an end completely to the elective franchises of the borough of Helleston, he meant putting an end to them if the Bill were to pass,-there appeared hardly any reason why any other place as well as these Cornish hundreds might not return the two members of parliament who were before returned by this borough. If they were to proceed upon the principle of taxation, or population, or property, as at the Union, other places might have a better claim, supposing it necessary that the numbers of the House of Commons should be exactly the same as at present. He came to the consideration of this mea. sure, with an opinion that it was one of the same description with those which had formerly passed; and, therefore, as he had before stated, with a general impression in its favour: but finding this to be quite a novel proceeding, sanctioned by no precedent, and glaringly objectionable in point of principle, his opinion was, that it ought not to be passed by their lordships in its present shape, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to make the requisite alterations and amendments, supposing they were to suffer it to proceed to the committee. It was at any rate desirable that the proper measure should originate in the other House; and for these reasons and others he concurred in the motion. Lord De Dunstanville coincided in the propriety of the noble and learned lord's motion; but suggested that it would be proper to have the expenses defrayed of those witnesses who had come up, on account of the Bill, from so great a distance. The Lord Chancellor observed, that what the noble lord suggested might be the subject of separate consideration. The question was then put, and the Bill ordered to be read a second time that day six months. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 5. PROPERTY TAX BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Propertytax Bill. The question having been put from the chair, Mr. Dickenson rose, and said he did not' think he should be performing his duty to the country, if he did not declare his hostility to this Bill. He thought it was particularly oppressive to the agriculturist, upon whose prosperity the main interests of the state depended. He lamented to state, that within the last six months this class of society had experienced the greatest hardships, and these were not alone confined to one particular county, but were felt universally throughout the country. In support of his assertion, he would give an instance which came within his own knowledge. Having heard that the farmers of the county of Somerset had been material sufferers from the distresses of the times, he had the curiosity to write to the gaoler of the county to ascertain the proportion of debtors that had come under his notice within the last six months. The result of this inquiry was as follows: on the 23d of last November, there were twenty-three debtors in prison on December the 23d, there were thirty: on January the 23d, fortyfive: on February the 23d, forty-seven: on March the 23d, forty-three; and on the 23d of the last month, fifty-two--and of that number, the proportion of farmers was one-fourth. Under such circumstances, he thought the burthen which this tax was about again to throw on this useful class of the community was highly reprehensible; and the more so from the mode of assessing their property, which was taken at three-fourths of their rental. This plan of assessment he thought peculiarly objectionable, inasmuch as no allowance whatever was made for the probable loss of the farmer in the pursuit of his business. The profits of the farmer, he contended, were as easily ascertained as those of a merchant or tradesman, and he saw no reason why he should not have similar advantages with those individuals. Unfortunately, however, he had no means of escaping the tax, whatever might be the extent of his loss, or however disproportionate his profits might be to the scale upon which his assessment was taken. These observations struck him so forcibly, that he considered it of the utmost importance, if the Bill before the House was to pass, that it should pass in a shape as little objectionable as possible. With this feeling, he wished to propose an amendment, the object of which would be to render the farmer liable to the same mode of assessment as the merchant or trader. Alderman C. Smith did not consider that the farmers had more reason to complain of the operation of the tax than any other class of individuals. With respect to the principle of the tax itself, he considered, under existing circumstances, and the necessity of empowering his Majesty's ministers to uphold the interests and general welfare of the country, that it was unobjectionable. Mr. Horner regarded the tax as not more injurious to the commercial than to all the other great interests in which the safety and stability of the state were involved. He feared that the description given by his hon. friend of the county in which fre resided was but too generally applicable, and certainly understood that in Scotland the tenantry were in a declining state. No one who looked upon the prosperous state of agriculture as the source and fountain-head of our national resources, could contemplate this state of things without alarm for the consequences. The opinions of the House had not long since been divided upon a measure intended for the relief of the agricultural interest, but there was then no dispute as to the fact of the distress which existed. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was now about to establish, without any modification, an imposition, which in their flourishing condition was found grievous and oppressive; and which, therefore, in their present circumstances of embarrassment, must prove odious and intolerable. It was a singular time for selecting rent as the ground of assessment to a tax on income, when the difficulty or inability of the farmer to pay his rents at present was notorious and undisputed. If rent was in some years a fair criterion of farming profits, it could not be fair in a year during which there were no profits. If farmers could produce their accounts in the saine regular form in which the accounts of commercial men were preserved, he could not imagine what objections existed against administering to the former the same relief, and applying the same regulations as (VOL. XXXI.) those under which the assessment of trading profits was conducted. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer might turn a deaf ear to the complaints against a measure not more injurious to individuals than dangerous to the true interest of the state; but he would venture to predict that those complaints would soon reach him in a far different tone, and in a tone far less desirable with a view to the general advantage of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that in point of form the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman could not then be received: he was not at all desirous of taking shelter, however, under that circumstance, conceiving, as he did, that the proposition was one which admitted of the best possible answer. If it were not so, the House could easily find a remedy for the evil complained of by a separate bill. Although he was ready to admit that the agriculture of the country had for some time past been in a state of depression, yet he by no means thought the remedy proposed by the hon. gentleman was one likely to produce any very beneficial effect. If ever there was a time in which the House could justly be accused of not paying due attention to the interests of the agriculturist, he thought it was not in the present session. When the Property-tax was first introduced, great difficulties were encountered in suggesting a mode of ascertaining the profit of the farmer. At first it was proposed to assess that class of individuals in the same manner with other persons liable to the tax; but when it was considered, that upwards of a million of returns were made annually, it was at once concluded that it would be impossible for the commissioners to give that sort of attention to those returns, which, to render the tax at all productive, would be necessary. was at length, therefore, resolved, as the most equitable mode of proceeding, to take the assessments upon that general average of profit as compared with the rent, which experience had justified. This, he imagined, would still be found. the best as well as the fairest plan. It was for the House to decide, however, whether the amendment of the hon. gentleman was now admissible. It appeared to him, that, in point of form, no amendment could now be introduced, as the committee on the Bill had only been instructed to revive and continue it. It The Speaker said, that at that moment (M) |