could not be supposed that he could be very well disposed to any tax whatever. However he had no particular objection to this mode beyond what he would have to any other.

Mr. Dent observed, that the principle of exemption of foreign property in the funds from the property-tax, applied to the parish taxes. He was proceeding to complain of the hardships under which small annuities laboured, when he was stopped by the chairman (Mr. Hobbouse), who stated, that the only question at present was with regard to the assessed taxes.

Mr. Baker contended that the honourable gentleman over the way (Mr. Huskisson) was incorrect in his statement as to the effects which the raising of the property-tax would have on the produce of the tax now proposed. The fact was that every one must give an account of his establishment as it was the preceding year, and therefore could not avoid this tax for the present.

Mr. Bastard suggested that the grounds and waste lands which were called public property might furnish a resource for the public expenditure.

Mr. Huskisson observed that it would be proper to consider whether, as the balances in the hands of the collectors would be increased by the addition to the tax, they ought not to have less poundage than before, or whether they should have any.

Lord Henry Petty replied that the balances had been very much diminished.

After some further observations from Mr. Rose, Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Bastard, Mr. Dent, and Mr. Huskisson, the resolution was agreed to, and the House resumed. Report the next day.

Lord Henry Petty then moved that the House should, the next day, resolve itself into a committee on the act of 43d of the King relative to the taxes, with a view to refer to that committee his plan of exemptions for persons having small incomes and large families. Ordered.

ELECTION TREATING ACT..

Mr. Tierney moved the third reading of the election treating bill.

Mr. Blackburne observed, that this bill was more than a declaratory bill, for it allowed carriages to be provided for conveying the voters to the hustings, which was more than

M 2

was

was warranted by the act of King William. He concurred with the honourable gentleman in his view of this subject, as it was found in the bill in its original state. But the honourable gentleman had agreed to an amendment which altered the nature of his bill, and which would leave him without support from either side of the House. He concluded by moving that the bill be read a third time that day three months.

Lord Archibald Hamilton differed entirely from the honourable gentleman who spoke last. He had the strongest objections to the bill as it originally stood. Now he thought it was perfectly nugatory; and on that ground he would vote against it.

Mr. Morris contended that this was barely a declaratory bill, and that there ought to be no declaratory bill, except in cases of serious doubt. Now here, he contended, there was no good ground for doubt, for the spirit and letter of the act of King William was against giving money on any pretence. It was true committees had decided that giving compensation for loss of time, and so forth, was not bribery; but no committce had decided that the giving of money was legal. He opposed the bill, therefore, as nugatory.

Sir William Dolben thought that if money was to be given, it ought to be lodged by both candidates with the returning officer, so that there could be no bribery on either side.

Sir Robert Euxton expressed his surprise at what had fallen from the respectable baronet, and contended that no money ought to be given by the candidate on any pretence whatever. Whoever gave money was not a constitutional representative of the people.

Sir W. Dolben explained.

Mr. Baker dwelt upon the inconsistency of providing carriages for the voters, and not supplying them with meat and drink on the road, and contended that those who did not reside in the places where their franchises lay, would suffer no hardships though allowed no conveyance whatever. He opposed the bill.

Mr. Tierney, though not in an unpleasant situation, because be was doing his duty, yet felt himself in an extraordinary one, for having brought in a bill to which there were some objections, by agreeing to remove those objections he lost the support he had before, without gaining any thing to counterbalance the loss. He entered at some

5

length

length into the decisions of the committees, and drew the conclusion from the whole, that the principles on which they decided were very unsettled. He contended, therefore, that there was a strong necessity for a bill of this nature to set the point at rest. This was his object. He himself had as little interest in the question as any body. He had often received letters on many subjects which he brought before the House, abusing him in severe terms, but all the letters he received on this subject were filled with thanks. If the House did not pass this bill, great mischief would be done, for it would be understood that henceforth money might be freely given.

Mr. For scarcely thought it necessary to say any thing, as this bill did not appear to be very favourably received. He opposed it, however, on the general principle, that it went to diminish the number of electors, a thing which he thought ought particularly to be guarded against. The letters which the honourable gentleman had received on this subject were probably from persons who intended to be candidates. The clause he did not conceive to be so uncertain as it had been represented, and at any rate he thought it no great evil that some latitude was allowed, as the committees acting as juries would examine every case on its own merits. If, however, any thing was to be done in this case, something more would be necessary than mere explanation. The House then divided.

For the third reading

Against it

Majority

The bill was accordingly thrown out.

CHELSEA HOSPITAL BILL.

17

42

25

When strangers were admitted into the gallery, it appeared that Mr. Windham had moved the recommitment of the Chelsea hospital bill.

Mr. Bastard mentioned that orders had been sent to the Secretary at War for the issue of the June allowances to some of the volunteer corps, and that the issues had actually been made. He wished to know whether it was intended to extend this to other corps?

Mr. Windham replied, that nothing had been done but what was intended to be done according to the plan which

he

he had stated to the House, which had not been altered in this respect.

The bill was then recommitted.

In the committee a conversation of some length took place relative to the propriety of Parliament being called upon to engage to make good the expences arising from certain regulations before they knew what these regulations Mr. Huskisson, on the one hand, contended that this was not proper. While Mr. Windham, Mr Fox, and Dr. Laurence, on the other side, argued that it was a reasonable degree of discretion to be allowed to the crown, and a thing that had often been done before.

Sir James Pulteney expressed his hope that soldiers who misbehaved should not have the pensions.

Mr. Windham said that, according to his present idea, this would be decided by a court martial. At all events, this point might be discussed when the regulations came before the House.

After some observations from Mr. Huskisson, General Tarleton, the Attorney General, and Mr. Bastard, one clause was left out, and the others agreed to. Report the next day.

The thread-lace bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed the next day."

Mr. Foster moved the second reading of the linen drawback bill. But, as the House was so thin, he proposed to those who were against it to postpone it till Wednesday.

Lord Archihald Hamilton saw no reason to expect a fuller attendance then, and would move the second reading this day three months, with a view to put the matter off till next session.

After a few words from Mr. Magens,

Lord Temple agreed that the bill was proper at some future period; but at present that he must support the amendment. The resolution of the last board of trade was, that the drawback should be extended only to coloured and checked linens, and not to plain; but, by a mistake in carrying the measure through the House, it had been extended to plain also. Therefore, however just the restriction might be, as it was only to the authority of the legislature that the merchants could look, it was but fair that they should have time to have the orders executed which they had given on the faith of Parliament.

Mr. Foster agreed in the propriety of the noble lord's

observation;

observation; and said, that he himself had proposed the 1st of November, as the period of commencement of the

bill.

After some farther observations from Lord Henry Petty, who wished the bill to go into a committee, where, as it was merely a question of time, the period of the commencement of the act might be fixed at the 1st of March, or any other day; and from Mr. Rose and Sir J. Newport, who begged of Lord A. Hamilton to withdraw his amendment for reading the bill a second time this day three months.

The amendment and the original motion were both allowed to be withdrawn ; the bill was read a second time,, and ordered to be committed on Thursday; and counsel was ordered to be heard on the report of the bill.

The order of the day for the House going into a committee on the excise-office regulation bill, and the other orders of the day, were then postponed, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, JUNE 10.

The House proceeded in the appeal from the court of chancery, "Mary Georgiana Seymour, an infant, by her next friend, against the Earl of Euston and Lord Henry Seymour." The solicitor.general, at considerable length, went over most of the arguments urged in this cause in the court of chancery, and was followed on the same side by Mr. Agar. The further consideration of the appeal was then postponed till the next day.

During the hearing of the appeal, the Bishop of Winchester addressed the House in further confirmation of an affidavit made by his lordship, which had been referred to by the solicitor-general relative to the education of Miss Seymour in the faith of the church of England.

The Lord Chancellor observed, that whatever degree of respect they might entertain for the opinions of the right reverend prelate, their lordships could only look to what was in evidence before them.

The Irish stamp duties bill was read a third time and passed, and a message sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Strangers were excluded, whilst their lordships discussed

some