murder, &c. With respect, he said, to the first part of this bill, which related to the civil proceeding, he had never heard any doubt expressed of the propriety of The only difficulty felt with regard to the total abolition of that part of our law, had reference to the right of appeal and wager of battle in cases that resembled criminal proceedings. This part of our law was very ancient, and their lordships ought not to be required to surrender it without some statement of the causes that induced him to propose this measure. With respect to civil cases, the trial by battle was permitted only in real actions, and even in these the parties to the action were not suffered to fight in propriâ personá; they were compelled to confide their interests to champions, on the principle that if one of the parties were slain, the suit must abate. They were, therefore, under the necessity of appointing champions, and these were to fight until one of them used what the law writers called the be considered to retain that power with respect to laws passed since the Union as well as before; especially if, as he always understood, laws relating to Scotland passed after the Union were to affect Scot-repealing the right of waging battle. land, and be administered there precisely as the laws formerly passed by the Scottish parliament. As to the manner in which the courts of Scotland might think proper to act in this matter-if, in fact, desuetude were part of the lex terræ of Scotland, it could not be competent to them to abrogate it with respect to any particular class of laws, either by abstaining from the practice of determining laws to be in desuetude, and therefore of no validity, or even by the most positive declaration; and to insist that they were competent to this, would be to make a much broader admission respecting the objectionable powers of Scottish courts, than was necessary to support the bill of his honourable friend. But if the hon. gentleman was correct in his opinion, that liability to desuetude in Scotland resulted from a known principle of legislation, formerly recognized in the" horrible word" craven, and according Scottish parliament, and thus attached itself to the law at the period of its enactment, and not at a period subsequent to legislation, namely, in its administration, then, however extraordinary a legislative principle, which contemplated non-observance, might appear to him, he was constrained to admit that the present bill was unnecessary. Mr. Scarlett thought the measure unnecessary. It was not usual in legislation to provide for the removal of doubts that might possibly arise. He apprehended it would be an anomaly to say, when the united parliament had passed an act intended to apply to all the kingdom, that it should be binding on this side of the Tweed, and not on the other. The preferable mode of proceeding would be, to postpone the measure till a doubt should arise on the subject, when a declaratory act might be necessary. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was consequently lost. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, June 18. WAGER OF BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.] The Lord Chancellor moved, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the bill for the Abolition of Wager of Battle upon issue joined in a writ of right, and appeals of treason, to the result of the battle the right of property was determined. In consequence of the principle adopted by the courts of Scotland of suffering laws to fall into desuetude, the present measure was unnecessary in that part of the kingdom. The learned lord then read a long extract from Mr. Kendal's learned and able work on this subject, giving a detailed account of the proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas, in 1570, in a writ of right, when champions were appointed, and appeared on the ground in the presence of the judges, but the fight did not take place. The names of the champions were Thorne and Naylor; one a brawny thick-set fellow, the other slight in body, but an expert fighter. Thorne seemed disappointed that the fight did not take place, and challenged Naylor "to play with him some half-dozen blows for the amusement of the lord chief justice," but Naylor replied, that "he had come to fight, and not to play." The learned lord thought nothing further was necessary on this point to show the necessity of abolishing the law, in civil cases. With respect to criminal cases, no doubt this law was very ancient, and there were many who were unwilling to give up the right of appeal. In former times, many applications had been made to take away trial by battle, but it was a different thing to abolish trial by battle and trial by appeal; for those had been no previous criminal proceedings. This the learned lord maintained by reference to the sentiments of many eminent lawyers, whose opinions he read at length. In case of conviction on such a proceeding, the Crown could not grant a pardon; and even in the event of an acquittal for murder, for instance, or other crime on indictment by the Crown, still the widow or heir of the deceased might proceed by appeal against the appellee, while, in the event of an acquittal on an appeal, the king was bound by a plea of this fact, and could not proceed by indictment. The appellor was therefore more favoured by the law than the Crown itself. The learned lord then showed, by reference to several cases, and the opinions of the judges, that the right of wager of battle rested with the appellee, and thence argued, that the right of wager of battle was necessarily connected with the law of appeal. Those persons, therefore, who meant to take away the right of battle, proposed a very great change in the constitution of the country in this respect; for, according to the old law, those who made the appeal were obliged to do so at the hazard of their own lives, and, in many cases, it was very proper that they should do so. It was, he thought, a very great absurdity, that a man who had been acquitted by the unanimous opinion of a grand jury, there appearing on the face of the accusation no sufficient ground for proceeding against him, or by a petty jury, by whom the whole case had been fully and satisfactorily investigated-that this individual should again be put into jeopardy of his life, provided any person standing in a certain degree of relationship to a deceased, or being himself the person injured, thought proper, from motives either of vengeance or of avarice, to proceed against him by way of a civil proceeding. The well-known principle of our law, that no man shall be twice put into jeopardy This of his life for the same offence, was in direct opposition to such a mode of procedure. Was it not also a very gross absurdity, that the Crown, in which the power of pardoning offences against the public was invested, should not have the right of pardoning in the case of an appeal, and yet that the appellor, if successful in his appeal, might grant life and liberty for a sum of money? In an indictment at the suit of the Crown, the prosecutor would expose himself to a very who wished to take away the trial by battle, only meant to alter the mode of trial by battle. In the case of Allen, who was murdered in St. George's-fields, an attempt was made to take away the trial by battle, and also to abolish the law in the colonies. The House must no doubt be aware, that some very eminent lawyers and judges had expressed themselves strongly in favour of the right of appeal, and even lord Ashburton declared it to be one of the strongest pillars of the constitution. His opinion of its excellence differed widely from that of this highly distinguished character; for he could not separate the consideration of it from that of trial by battle, and so connected it presented many striking inconsistencies with the whole system of our laws and constitution. Were their lordships aware that, notwithstanding their proud boast that they could be tried for treason, murder, or other felonies, only by their peers in Westminster-hall, yet if any one of them were acquitted by their peers, such noble lord would still be liable to be appealed of treason or murder; and as he would not, in respect of his dignity, be permitted to wage battle, the consequence would be, that he would be tried by an ordinary jury. Two petitions had been presented to the House on this subject, one of which was from the city of London, praying that the right of appeal in criminal cases might not be taken away from the people. The petitioners stated, that the citizens of London could not be compelled to accept of wager of battle. This was true, the citizens of London and of Dublin were so far exempt from the operation of the law; hut he thought it impossible to separate wager of battle from the right of appeal, so that the removal of the one must involve the removal of both; and it was for the House to consider, how far it might be, in the present state of society, proper to establish anew the right of appeal. It then became a question, what an appeal was? question was the more necessary, because some persons entertained a belief that the right of appeal contemplated in the bill was that which was technically called an appeal, namely, a complaint of one judgment to another court. But this was a very erroneous supposition; because this right of appeal, although it had reference to criminal matters, was yet in the nature of a civil proceeding, and might be instituted by the appellor, even although there severe punishment, if he were, in the words of the law, to compound the felony; and yet, let the prosecutor bring an appeal, if entitled to do so, and he might barter the right of proceeding for any sum within his discretion. Was it fitting that a law containing so many absurdities, and principles so different from those most revered in the general system of our law, should be suffered longer to exist? Indeed, it was surprising how such a law had so long cuntinued a part of our system. The learned lord concluded by moving that the bill be committed. The motion was agreed to, and the bill went through the committee. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 18. EXCISE DUTIES BILL.] The order of the day having been read for going into a committee on this bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the Speaker should leave the chair. The Marquis of Tavistock could not allow the motion to be disposed of without making a few observations. Was it not a grievous reflection, that when ministers proposed to the House of Commons a tax like the income tax, which was to have its effects on the pockets of hon. members themselves-a tax, by the former repeal of which parliament relieved itself, and not the nation-was it not shameful that the House of Commons, when such a tax was again proposed, rejected it with indignation; and yet, when other taxes, operating on the poor and defenceless classes of the community, were proposed, carried them by acclamation, and nothing was heard of but the triumphant majority of ministers on the subject!-The language of the noble lord opposite when he took off the war malt duty was, that as parliament had relieved itself from the property tax, it was the duty of ministers to relieve the country by taking off the malt tax. If, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that fresh burthens should be imposed on the country, why did not ministers propose their favourite income tax?-Why, but because they were afraid of the House of Commons? Why did they, in lieu of the income tax, select the taxes which, of all others, were calculated to operate most severely on the poor? Would ministers have dared to do this; or, if they had done it, would it have been endured by the House in the last year of the last parlia ment? Was it surprising that discontent and disaffection should discover themselves, when the people saw those who ought to be their representatives shelter themselves from the property tax, while they did not hesitate to tax the tea, the tobacco, and the malt of the poor? It had, however, long been his firm persuasion, that until the House of Commons should be fairly elected by the people, it would be useless to protest against such practices. The only remedies for them would be a shortening of the duration of parliament, and a full and equal representation of the people. If any thing had been wanting to convince him of this truth, he should have found it in the support which the new parliament had given to every measure proposed by ministers, The dissatisfaction existing at the present system was notoriously manifested during the last election, whenever the sense of the country could be heard. He did not wish to speak on this subject with any party feeling. He wished to speak with truth, which was paramount to all party feeling. The people did not exclaim so much for a change of men; but they exclaimed loudly for a change of measures. They expressed a decided hostility to great peace establishments, and to that influence which had been so fatally exercised by ministers in the last parliament. While, however, the people called for economy and retrenchment, ministers and their majorities answered by increasing the burthens of the country. In his mind, the existing system was supported by the present state of the representation-by corrupt borough influence, and by parliaments being elected for seven years. Until he could see a disposition manifested to meet the wishes of the nation by a reduction of our establishments, and by the substitution of a system of reform, retrenchment, and economy, in every department of the state, he, for one, would not consent to lay a single additional tax on the people. He would therefore move, as an amendment, to the original motion, "That the House should resolve itself into the committee on that day six months." The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that the proposed taxes would fall exclusively on the lower classes. They would fall on the whole community. The fact was, they would produce very little pressure on the lower classes. The tax on malt would not have the effect of raising the price of beer. It would affect the rich, not the poor. The beer drank by the poor was manufactured by the public brewer, and the public brewer would have no occasion to make any rise in the price of his beer in consequence of the tax. The duty on spirits also, would not induce the distillers to raise their prices. Thus, of the three millions of new taxes, two millions would be levied without adding to the burthens of the poor; a circumstance almost unprecedented in the history of taxation. Mr. C. Calvert insisted that the tax on malt would affect the poor and not the rich. The exciseman was excluded by law from coming into private premises; and all who were in the habit of brewing for themselves, would procure the malt they might require, before the imposition of the proposed duty on the stock in hand. But, although the immediate price of beer brewed by the public brewer might not be increased by the duty, would it not, at all events, retard the diminution of the present price? The price of beer must always depend on the price of the raw material. If the right hon. gentleman laid a duty on the stock in hand of the raw material, would he not retard the cheapening of the manufactured article? The right hon. gentleman might lay duties, but was he quite sure he could collect them? Mr. Bennet compared the present conundrum of the right hon. gentleman on the subject of the malt duty not affecting the public, to his conundrum some years ago, that a pound and a shilling were equivalent to a guinea. On second thoughts, the right hon. gentleman might perhaps discover, that if taxation prevented the price of any article from falling, the dif ference between the price maintained, and the price to which it would have fallen, was so much loss to the public. The tea tax would also be felt severely by the poor, with whom tea had almost become one of the necessaries of life. The gross revenue at present derived from tea was 3,300,000l. The East India Company made 2,000,000l. annually by their monopoly of the tea trade. The people of England were thus already taxed above 5,000,000l. on this single article. There was no country in which the labouring classes enjoyed so little from their labour as in England. Under these circumstances, he thought the taxes proposed ought not to be adopted. Mr. Grenfell said, he should vote for the amendment, not because he thought the state of the representation corrupt, but because this was not, in his opinion, the proper moment to resort to a system of taxation. Mr. Gooch remonstrated against the duty on malt, which was a tax on the poverty, and not on the wealth of the country. It was a tax affecting the best interests of the country, as must ever be the case when the agricultural interest was affected. The farmers were already borne down by the competition of foreign growers, and other circumstances. Mr. Price objected to the whole measure-to the principle-and not to any particular tax. Ministers had, on various occasions, exhibited their indisposition to retrenchment, until forced by the House; and he would vote for the amendment, as another means of producing so desirable an effect. Lord Ebrington not only objected to the bill because he had a total want of confidence in the present administration, and was persuaded that any money granted to them would be improvidently expended, but because the country could not bear additional taxation. Lord Compton supported the tax; but if hon. gentlemen on the other side would vote for a modified property tax, he would consent to abandon not only the malt tax, but many others. Lord A. Hamilton had great doubts whether the new projects of the chancellor of the exchequer would produce an effective revenue. He admitted that it was very desirable to have a sinking fund; but as far as it had gone, its effect had been rather to induce ministers to increase than diminish the expenditure. The malt-tax was peculiarly impolitic, because it encouraged the consumption of spirits, which promoted the growth of the worst vices. Government were laying on new taxes in direct contradiction to the promises they had held out of augmenting revenue and growing prosperity. Mr. Coke, of Norfolk, argued, that the oppression upon the landed interest by the new malt tax, would be severely felt. It was the duty of every man to oppose this attempt to arm ministers with new powers of collecting money. He was an old member of parliament, and well knew the profligate mode in which the public money was squandered. He would go the full length of asserting, that this was a corrupt House, from which no good could Lord Milton said, that there was not one of the taxes in which the House ought to concur. At the agriculture and manufactures, at the industry and physical strength of the nation, these new taxes were levelled. Perhaps the higher orders were not in a situation to contribute more; but the new taxes were calculated to press hard upon the poor, and upon the poor only. It would be a much more effectual sinking fund to leave the 3,000,000l. in the pockets of those who would be able to apply it to beneficial purposes, and to increase it much faster than by compound be expected! [Order, order!]. Ministers | the first time in which the country had had nothing to do but to summon their been reduced to a similar state of exhaustroops, and they had a majority instantly tion. Indeed, such always had been, at their command: it was in fact a joke and always would be, the effect of long upon the country, and the people felt it wars, especially upon the system. on to be so from one end of the kingdom to which we conducted them-the system of the other. He trusted that the day was borrowing large loans, and then anticipatnot far distant when triennial parliaments ing our future revenue. If ever we had would be established; for ministers would the misfortune to be engaged in hostilities not have dared to have proposed these again, he trusted that this system, if not taxes last year. As the time approached altogether abandoned, would at least when members were to meet their con- meet with considerable modification; bestituents, they behaved a great deal better. cause, if it did not, it would produce evils In the first year they cared very little even still more serious than those which about their constituents. Reform in par- we were now suffering, or those which we liament was the only true remedy for most had suffered upon former occasions. The of the present grievances. war of the succession, which occurred at the beginning of the last century, and the American war, which had occurred in a period much nearer to our own times, both left us in a situation of great embar rassment; and it therefore might be advantageous to recollect what was then done, before we determined on what we should now do. Both during the continuance and at the close of the American war, it was the opinion of Mr. Fox, and those who acted with him, engaged as they were in one of the warmest political contests which ever occurred between any of the factions into which this country had been divided, that every measure for the maintenance of public credit ought to be supported by every party in the state. That illustrious statesman had never made any opposition to any tax, except in one or two instances [Hear!]. In 1785, when 1,000,000l. was proposed for the sinking-fund by his great political rival, Mr. Fox supported the measure. 1792, Mr. Fox had stated in the House, that it was not to the supporters of Mr. Pitt alone that credit was due for the supplies which were raised, but also to those gentlemen who took the same side in politics as he did himself. The same line of conduct which was then pursued by those distinguished individuals, he should have wished, if it had been consistent with the duty which he owed to himself and his constituents, to have pursued now. But at the same time that he looked at the similarity of the two cases, he was also bound to look at their difference. There were strong reasons why, if fresh taxes were to be imposed on the country, the present year should be the time fixed for making that necessary effort which was to arrange the finances of the country, and to place them once more upon interest. Mr. Wilson said, he had given a conscientious vote for 3,000,000l. of taxes, in order to put the country in a state to meet its difficulties, and to repel attacks, should any new enemies arise. He contended, however, that the sinking fund ought not to have been reduced below 5,000,000l., and that the consequent deficiency of 3,000,000l. ought to have been made up among the ways and means. Mr. Alderman Waithman repeated his protest against additional taxes, opposed as they were by the general sense of the nation. During four years of peace, no efficient attempt had been made to reduce the expenditure. He would not vote for a single new tax, until the minister had tried the experiment of retrenchment. Mr. Lamb said, it was admitted by almost every gentleman, that we had not a revenue more than sufficient to meet the expenditure of the country; this circumstance, added to the insufficiency of the consolidated fund to meet the charges upon it, afforded no very flattering prospect of our finances. If, however, we looked back to the history of the last century, we should find that this was not In |