became the duty of the government to pro- | -vide indemnity, and to give satisfactory compensation. In the agreement made by lord Hawkesbury, to take the 600,000l. without the consent of the claimants, whilst they demanded 1,400,000l. he could discover nothing like indemnity or compensation he combated the arguments of his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his opinion, had been imposed upon, for he was sure he would ever be foremost to concede what was actually due, provided it was consistent with his duty to the country. The present was a question of right and not of policy, and if the sum of money demanded was large for the country to pay, it was large for the individuals to be deprived of. He referred to the article of the treaty, and contended that the British government had not done all that became a great and generous nation. The claim was equitable, and although the petitioners might require much more, their patience had been exhausted, their fortunes had been ruined, and they now were willing to take any thing that would be offered. He ridiculed the futile remedy of applying to the American courts when documents were lost, witnesses dead, and hostilities pending. He deprecated a refusal of the claims; those who made them came forward relying, perhaps, more on the liberality than the justice of parliament, with spirits worn down and exhausted, suffering under that "hope deferred which maketh the heart sick;" and he trusted they were not doomed to experience ultimate disappointment. Lord Castlereagh was quite disposed to admit, that if the justice of the claims were once established, the magnitude of the sum claimed could form no objection to its being granted; but he could not recognise the justice of it, nor could he admit that liberality was a virtue which parliament could exercise in granting without, at the same time, becoming guilty of very great injustice to the public. If, moreover, they did exercise such liberality, it would have a tendency to preclude the government from hereafter entering into any contract with a foreign state, on behalf of persons of this realm trading to it; and thus a few individuals would be now served at the expence of a future injury to a considerable class in society. It had been asserted, that there was manifest injustice in the debts on one side being paid, while on the other so heavy a loss was suffered to be incurred. On this he had to remark, that the state had become debtor in this case, inasmuch as the government had authorised the capture of American vessels, and they were accordingly bound to make compensation; but the claims now brought forward were founded on transactions between individuals, transactions with which the government had no necessary concern, and with respect to which they could not with propriety have made any further stipulation, however anxious they might be to do so, with the American government on behalf of the persons concerned, than that the courts of law in the United States should be open to them. If it were to be laid down as a rule that a government should never go to war without incurring such a responsibility as they must incur if the present claims were just, that would be little short of an effectual prohibition to go to war at all. In the present instance, he would repeat, the one agreement was between state and state, the other between individual and individual; it was true the American government had guarantied the present claimants at the instance of this government, and it reflected much disgrace on them that they had not fulfilled what they had thus undertaken, but no stigma could attach to the government here, who had done all they were bound to do in interfering as they had done. There was no ground for assuming that when by their voluntary exertions they had procured 600,000l. the balance which remained should be necessarily charged on the country; he conceived, therefore, that his hon. friend had gone too far in requiring from the liberality of the House an acquiescence in the claims now preferred. As to the justice of the case, if that were acknowledged it would, as he had already observed, tie up the hands of government from any beneficial interference with a foreign state on behalf of the mercantile classes of the community. Mr. Findlay spoke in favour of the motion. He felt for the situation of the claimants, a very great number of whom he represented; but he felt more for the justice and honour of parliament. Upon an attentive consideration of their case he could conceive none that had more equitable foundations. Mr. Marryat observed, that in questions of this nature, respecting claims of individuals, the members of that House were always exposed to a considerable deal of private solicitation. After bestow. ing a good deal of attention to this subject, he must say, that it appeared to him that the claim was not well founded. He would ask, what was the real value of those debts acknowledged due in 1782, but of which not a farthing had been received in 1794. Yet it was on account of those bad debts that 600,000l. had been obtained in 1794, but that was now sought to be made a foundation for a much larger claim upon this country. He thought that many other merchants who had suffered by the ill faith of foreign governments, had an equal right to claim compensation from the government of this country. Mr. Lockhart replied, that if the debts had become desperate in 1794, America on that account owed a reparation to this country, which if government did not think proper to insist upon, individuals ought not to suffer upon that account. The House then divided. For the motion, 87 Against it, 100: Majority 13. LEATHER TAX.] Mr. Benson moved the second reading of the Bill for repealing the Tax on Leather. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the motion. He contended that the repeal could not produce any public benefit, but would only be advantageous to a few individuals. A much greater alleviation would be produced by the repeal of other taxes, such as the tax on houses and windows, or that on coals, which operated with a grievous inequality in the metropolis. He had every hope of the most beneficial results from the plan of finance which he had the honour of submitting to the House, but at present the country was far from being able to spare any of the existing revenue, which in the last year fell short of sixty millions, whereas in the preceding one it had amounted to 61,300,000l. This, however, was not a subject for alarm, as it might have proceeded from temporary causes; but it showed the necessity of resisting private solicitations for the repeal of a tax which was as little burdensome as any that could be substituted for it. Previous to the death of Mr. Perceval, that excellent person had it in contemplation to lay a tax on private breweries; and though all who heard him were well acquainted with the amiable and benevolent character of Mr. Perceval, and his unwillingness to increase any pressure on the poor, yet he had thought of imposing this tax on pri vate breweries in the nature of a licence, at 5s. a head of each person in a family. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought the tax would have borne too hard upon the poor, and conceived the present would be of milder operation. The evidence, as far as he had examined it, appeared to him to establish ground for varying the mode of collecting the duty rather than repealing the tax. It did not appear that the tanners had suffered, and the distress of the shoemakers arose from the general state of trade and not from the pressure of the tax. He hoped, however, that the revival of our intercourse with the continent would effect what the motion of the hon. gentleman was not likely to do. The want of South American hides did not arise from the tax, but from the troubles in the river Plate. The deficiency stated to exist in the amount of the tax was always the case with a new tax, and he, therefore, only asked for one year's trial of it, seeing that artificial combination and other causes now tended to decrease the amount. Lord Althorpe recapitulated some parts of the evidence as substantiating the facts which had been advanced in opposition to the tax, and charged ministers with having carried it at a late period of the last session, by a majority of eight, when most of the members had left town. The tanners now appealed from that decision of a part of the House to the judgment of the whole House, and as far as the matter had gone that judgment was in their favour. Were ministers to proceed as they had done with respect to this tax in other instances, it would be virtually to take the right of taxation out of the hands of the House of Commons altogether. Mr. G. Phillips supported the motion. The present tax he considered highly objectionable; it was at variance with the true principle of taxation, as the sum which it produced to the Treasury bore no proportion to that which it took out of the pockets of the people, on the lowest orders of whom it fell with the greatest severity. Lord Castlereagh said, he was convinced, if his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) conceived, that, by a repeal of the tax, he would be substantially acting as the poor man's friend, he would most gladly perform so agreeable a part of his duty: but, on the other hand, he thought the House ought to consider, whether the country could spare such a portion of its revenue; for if this principle give way to their voice. Tax Bills ought to be carried through the House, not by three, or four, or five voices, but by considerable majorities; if they were not, the people would never bear their burthen with cheerfulness. He hoped the House, on the present occasion, would compel ministers to return to that practice which had always hitherto prevailed. Mr. W. Smith said, that for the thirty years which he had been in that House, he never recollected a single tax, carried originally by so small a majority, and the repeal afterwards called for by so large a proportion of the House, which was ultimately persisted in by ministers. of tenderness were admitted here, it might with equal propriety be extended to other taxes, of a far more oppressive nature. In considering the operation of the tax, it was not fair to look only to the shoes of the poor man. Perhaps, on an individual pair of shoes, the duty might be higher than on a single pair worn by a rich man; but then they ought to consider that the wealthy person consumed a much greater quantity, and consequently paid to a larger amount. And, when they recollected the quantity of leather used in carriages, sadlery, and a variety of other articles, which wealth alone made use of, it became a very nice question, whether the tax did not fall as equally on the rich man, as any Mr. A. Baring said, it was evident the other which could be devised. The argu- country must, in some way or other, bear ment of his right hon. friend, that no duty taxation, it mattered not whether it fell had been imposed on leather since the on the shoes or stockings. He had read reign of queen Anne, was worthy of par- attentively all the documents connected ticular attention. For, in selecting an ar- with this subject, and he agreed with the ticle for a new tax, he thought it was a right hon. the Chancellor of the Exche fair criterion of its propriety, when it ap-quer, that the tax was as little liable to peared, that, for more than 100 years, it had not been meddled with. The great plea of those who opposed the tax was, that they wished to relieve the poor man; but the duty had now lasted sufficiently long, if not to produce the full benefit to the revenue, yet long enough to permit the manufacturer to impose the additional charge on the consumer. And, therefore, in this period, when increased exertion was necessary, and when the difficulty of finding new taxes was greatly augmented, if they repealed the leather tax, they would be obliged to lay another equally oppressive, without affording any relief to the lower classes of society. Under these circumstances, he should not be doing his duty to the House and to the public, if he did not strongly represent the necessity of continuing this tax. Lord Milton expressed in strong terms, his disapprobation of the pertinacity manifested by ministers on this occasion. He considered it no longer a question between the people and parliament, but between the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House having expressed an opinion that the tax should be repealed, it was the duty of ministers to objection as any other that could be proposed. No great bodies of the people had petitioned against the measure; all the remonstrances came from the tanners, curriers, &c. who laboured under an entire mistake as to the injury they were likely to receive from the tax. He had conversed with persons connected with those trades, who had stated their opinion, that the tax would not operate against them. And it was plain that it would not, as it did not encourage any foreign nation to rival us in the manufacture abroad, nor did it tend to decrease the consumption at home; for he did not suppose it would be argued, that the tax would compel people to go without shoes, The House then divided, when there appeared-Ayes, 120; Noes, 125; Majority against the second reading, 5. Ordered, That the Bill to repeal the Leather Tax be read a second time this day six months. COPY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL, AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE.] The Roman Catholic Relief Bill, as amended by the Committee, was ordered to be printed, and is as follows: Preamble. A BILL [AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE] To provide for the removal of the Civil and Military Disqualifications, under which His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects now labour. N. B. The Clauses (No. 1 to No. 20 inclusive) were added by the Committee. Whereas the Protestant Succession to the Crown is, by the Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and the better securing the liberties of the People, established permanently and inviolably: And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the Doctrine, Discipline and Government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Doctrine, Discipline and Government thereof, are established permanently and inviolably : And whereas it would tend to promote the interest of the same, and strengthen our free Constitution, of which they are an essential part, if the Civil and Military Disqualifications, under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects now labour, were removed : And whereas, after due consideration of the Petitions of the said Roman Catholics, it appears highly advisable to communicate to them the blessings of our free form of Government; and, with a view to put an end to all religious jealousies between his Majesty's Subjects, and to bury in oblivion all animosities between Great Britain and Ireland, so that the inhabitants of the respective countries may be bound together, in all times to come, by the same privileges, and the same interest, in defence of their common Liberties and Government, against all the enemies of the British Empire. May it please Your MAJESTY, That it may be Enacted; And be it Enacted, by The KING's Most Excellent MAJESTY, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Persons professing the Roman Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, THAT, vote in either House of Parlla- from and after the passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful duly qualifed, upon taking the for persons professing the Roman Catholic Religion, to sit and vote Catholic Religion, may sit and ment, being in other respects following in either House of Parliament, being in all other respects duly qualified so to sit and vote, upon making, taking and subscribing, the following Declaration and Oath, instead of the Oaths of Alle giance, Abjuration and Supremacy, and instead of making and subscribing the Declaration against Transubstantiation, and against the Invocation of Saints, and instead of swearing and subscribing the Formula now by Law required; "I A. B. do hereby declare, That I do profess the Roman "Catholic Religion; and I do sincerely promise and swear "that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Third, and Him will defend, to "the utmost of my power, against all conspiracies and at"tempts whatever, that shall be made against His person "crown or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to "disclose and make known to His Majesty His Heirs and "Successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, which "may be formed against Him or them; and I do faithfully "promise to maintain support and defend, to the utmost of "my power, the Succession of the Crown, which Succession, "by an Act intituled, An Act for the further limitation of "the Crown, and the better securing the rights and liberties "of the Subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, "Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of "her body, being Protestants;' hereby utterly renouncing "and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other "person, claiming or pretending a right to the Crown of "this Realm: I do declare, that I do not believe that the "Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state "or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil 'jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly "or indirectly, within this Realm; I do further declare, "that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, "reject and abjure the opinion, that princes excommuni"cated by the Pope or Council, or by the Pope and Coun"cil, or by any authority of the See of Rome, or by any "authority whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by "their subjects, or any person whatsoever: I do swear, that "I will defend to the utmost of my power, the settlement "and arrangement of property within this Realm, as "established by the Laws: I do swear, that I do abjure, "condemn and detest, as unchristian and impious, the "principle, that it is lawful to destroy or anyways injure any person whatsoever, for or under the pretence of such person being an Heretic: I do declare solemnly before "God, that I believe that no act, in itself, unjust or immoral, " can ever be justified or excused by or under the pretence "or colour, that it was done, either for the good of the "Church, or in obedience to any Ecclesiastical power "whatsoever: I also declare, that it is not an article of the "Roman Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to "believe or profess, that the Pope is infallible; or that I am "bound to obey any order, in its own nature immoral, "though the Pope or any Ecclesiastical power should issue "or direct such order; but, on the contrary, I hold that it "would be sinful in me, to pay any respect or obedience "thereto I further declare, that I do not believe, that any "sin whatsoever committed by me, can be forgiven, at the "mere will of any Pope or of any Priest, or any person or "persons whatsoever; but that sincere sorrow for past sins, "a firm and sincere resolution to avoid future guilt, and to "atone to God, are previous and indispensable requisites to "establish a well founded expectation of forgiveness; and "that any person who receives absolution without these " previous requisites, so far from obtaining thereby any re"mission of his sins, incurs the additional guilt of violating "a sacrament: I do reject and detest, as an unchristian and "impious principle, that faith is not to be kept with "heretics or infidels: I do hereby disclaim, disavow and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present (VOL. XXVI.) (T). 66 " |