that he wishes to repress increasing power and encourage protecting liberty. In the first place, I wish to know what he means by these terms. I here remark the same uncertainty and ambiguity that appear in most of his professions, and which occasion distrust and alarm in those who do not enter so readily into his views as those immediately around him. I wish to know what is this increasing power he wishes to reprobate, and what this protecting liberty he means to encourage? In another part of his speech he says, that the authority of parliament ought to be such as it was before the American war. Here also I am at a loss to reach the meaning of his words. I know of no liberty then possessed that is not now equally enjoyed. On professions so loose and indefinite, it would be absurd to rely. Unless they are circumscribed by distinct meaning, they never can be adopted as a safe and rational ground of action. judged: the words he uses will be un-ther expressed, as a general principle, stood, unless otherwise restricted, by ideas and views of things now receivand surely he cannot deny that the pressions he has this night made use to signify his wishes, constitute the tch-words of a party out of doors, whose al meaning is well understood, and adts of no doubt. Is it not known that ey couple their ideas with his words, d hail him as a convert to their system, da champion in their cause? If, indeed, e right hon. gentleman does mean someing in a more limited and rational sense, are I am, he must be thankful for that crupulous vigilance and alarm that wishes distinguish bis views of a radical reform parliament from those entertained by e Corresponding Society, expressing imself, as he accidentally does, in preisely the same words which that body as thought proper to adopt. It happens, however, that there is a farther coincilence subsisting between that body and he right hon. gentleman than mere words. If we pass the bill, the right hon. genHe has not only, they seem to think, ex- tleman says we shall not be considered as alted, like them, the representative go- the representatives of the people; intivernment, but looks with a jealous eye to mating thereby some doubt, at least, that nobility and hereditary honours; in short, we are not now the substantial and virtual disclaims every principle of government, representatives of that body. How does he but the representative species. This, I make that assertion good? Because, he believe, is well known to be their opinion says, large meetings of the people have exof him, though undoubtedly he will con pressed their disapprobation of the bill; tend that they misconceive the meaning and therefore, if we do not adopt their opiof his words, and that they do not imply nions, he infers we have no sympathy with the object they suppose. Whatever may them, and in no sense whatever can be be his meaning on other 'points, he has called their representatives. In the first now, however, fully explained the views place, I must observe, that these meetings be entertains of parliamentary reform; were only held in the metropolis: that in and I must declare that I would forego for other parts of the kingdom no disapproever all prospect of reform, rather than bation has been expressed; and that, even incur the risk of such a one as he wishes, in the metropolis itself, the opposition has by his own confession, may take place. a good deal subsided since the modificaWhat is it he contends for? No less than tions. In the next place, I can never that the whole elective franchise should be agree, that this House, as the representataken from those in whom it has long re- tives of the people, are bound to bend to sided, and transferred to all the house- every partial and unsettled opinion of that holders in the kingdom. This is the pre- body. I mean not to deny that we should liminary, not only to all supply and exer- give due weight to the public opinion; tion, but to other changes hitherto unli- but it never was a principle of the constimited by any designation of their objects. tution, that the representatives of the peoAfter concealing his opinion for fourteen ple should shift with every breath of poyears, as to the specific plan of reform, pular desire. Nothing could be more init now appears no less than a total change consistent with public utility, than that of the old system of election, and a sub- legislators should be influenced by every stitute that will at once demolish all the fleeting and partial expression of the pubbenefits connected with it. In short, helic will. How easy was it in the present would take from the old electors all their rights, and invest them, without reserve in new The right hon. gentleman has far case by misrepresentation, and an imperfect views of the bill in its operation, to raise in the first instance a popular cla mour against it! A general disinclination towards it appeared in the public meet ings within the metropolis; but no sooner was the subject fully understood, and its particular hardships removed, than it was regarded in a very different light, as ap peared by the proceedings of the common hall in the city. The gentlemen opposite are ready enough, on all occasions, not only to condemn the conduct of ministers, but to make the public a party to their cause. I have not only a right to consider them as prejudiced in this respect, but, from frequent experience, erroneous also; for in many cases where they have as loudly maintained that the public opinion was with them, on a fair inquiry the fact has been found to be directly the reverse. Is it in the nature of things, that a heavy and general tax can, in the first instance, be popular? It ever must be the casiest of all things, by artifice and misrepresentation, to raise a clamour against any such measure on its first breaking upon the public mind. It does not enter into my ideas of public duty, that the legislature should consult the popular opinion at the expense of public safety. There was one part of the right hon. gentleman's speech that I am impelled to notice, from the extraordinary request it contained. He admitted the great use of unanimity, and allowed, that in this critical period in particular it was highly desirable. The mode, however, in which he wishes to obtain it is, in my opinion, somewhat singular. He says, "We the minority, conceiving ourselves right, will not yield to you the majority: but as unanimity is desirable, you should undoubtedly come over to our opinion." So that the majority are thus called upon at once to forego their opinions, though adopted after long and frequent debate, to tread back all their steps, and admit themselves to be wrong, although they know them selves to be right! This was the reasonable request his argument conveyed; and we were told that a zealous unanimity was to be expected on no other terms. In like manner, be requires us to postpone the bill indefinitely, though arising from urgent necessity, and calculated for secu⚫ rity and defence, until he shall in his own good time return to his parliamentary duty, and, as occasion suits, unfold to our view, for separate discussion, all the parts of that radical change in our system which he projects. As to the principles of indi vidual conduct in this House, it is not now a general question of bow far a members authorized to secede from his attendance; but, in my opinion, that virtual represent ation, of which the right hon. gentlem isso fond, cannot be more completely violated than by a dereliction of duty particularly in ax moments of imminent danger to the country. And this is doubt less aggravated, if it should be done with a view of depreciating the body of which he is a member, and to alienate the affee tions of the people from it. decan hardly conceive how a man can act in grosser violation of his duty as a member of par liament than by such a conduct. Much of the fact, in such a case must be col lected from attendant circumstances shall not now inquire by what motives those gentlemen acted (Mr. Burke and others), alluded to by the right hon. gen tleman who seceded in the American war; but 1 recollect that his own secession s announced after the motion made by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Grey) for parlia mentary reform; and that, in the course of that debate, the right hon. gentleman said, that, unless the measures were adopted, the House would not be any longer entitled to the respect of the people out of doors. As to the ge neral principle, nothing can be more cer tain than that it is a violation of duty to desert a post committed to one's charge, and that it increases in exact proportion to the danger of those for whom we un dertake the charge. Now, it did so hap pen, that the right hon. gentleman could not, in his whole political career, have chosen a moment of secession more encompassed with danger than the one in which he actually did secede. The mo tive, therefore, is at best suspicious, and the declining to attend under such circum stances led at least to inquiry, whether by keeping away he sought opportunities to effect that, by inflaming the people with out these walls, which no exertion of his talents could achieve within. He retired just as the rancour of our enemy became most inveterate, and exclusively directed to this country, and when the manifesta tion of their malice called forth the spirit and zeal of all classes in support of our national independence and honour. Just at this juncture it was that the right hon. gentleman thought proper to retires-On what ground, is it that gentlemen oppose this bill? Do they deny the danger that surrounds usten Dorthey maintain that exertion is not necessary ?sthat it can be ended with safety No; they do not mpt to do either; but, as the means of ining their own objects, they are ing to risk the honour, welfare, and stence of the country The tight hon. tleman had asserted his right to secede his own motives of expediency, and, of irse those who surround him will not ect if I take their justification on the me principles but the right hon. gen man, it seems, retains his opinion of at expediency, and only now appears at e particular injunction of his constitu-. ts, to defend their local interests. How mes it, then, that he appears so sur unded with friends, who, adopting his inciple of secession, have not, in the esire of their constituents, the same otive for his particular exception? Can ay thing show in a stronger light the lind acquiescence of party zeal, when, in efiance of every avowed principle of their ublic conduct, they now attend to add o the splendor of their leader's entry? -There is one point in the constitution of this country, in which difference of pinion arises, namely, concerning the instructions of constituents to their representatives. Some think themselves bound to obey them, whatever their individual opinion may be on the subject. Others think those instructions entitled to their respect, yet follow the dictates of their own consciences. Of this latter class the right hon. gentleman professes himself to be. According, therefore, to his own admission, he now attends in spite of his own opinion of the expediency of secession, to discuss the local interest of his constituents. He, nevertheless, declined attending in that stage of the bill, in which alone he could be of service in that particular, by proposing reliefs for the particular hardships his constituents might sustain; and now, without noticing the modifications made, he objects to other particulars, without suggesting or moving any remedy! He came here to oppose its local and partial effect, yet in dalges only in a general and indiscriminate opposition to it and professing to come for the express purpose of discussing this bill, he introduces every topic that has been decided during the long period of Anson, Thomas 1081 Jefferys, N01o0itor Astley, Jacob sils bost Jervoise, J. Cistac Aubrey, sir Johnds be Knight, R. Plimiasm Barclay, GeoEW i el Langton, W. G. Is Barlow, Hugh 1979wor Lemon, John older Beauclerk, Cigo y ni Mainwaring Wesdai Biddulph, Rob. Milner, sir Wm, lad Brogden, J. Bouverie, hon. E. Evlse Nicholls, J. North, Dudley blety Bunbury, sir T. Co Northey, Wm. Burch, J. Rubidore Norton, generali ih Burdett, sir F. "noiniPeirse, Henry Byng, Georgeoqu bell Plumer, Wydin Cavendish, lord G. HnRawdon, hon. Jyo Clayton, sir R.deb as Rawdon, hon. Gasfle Coke, Eed timbs bas Richardson, Jose Colhoun, Wmveda de Russell, lord Wed a Russell, lord J. Copley, sir Combe, H. Craw airT Russell, lord 14 gavles Scudamore, John Courtenay, no 309Sheridan, R. B. Denison, WJ suolaosShuckburgh, sir G Dickenson, Wm.to on Shum, George 90 os Edwards, Bryan 89rin Spencer lord R. 9! Fitzpatrick, geniquors Stanley, lord flid s Fletcher, sir Holo bSt. John, hon. Sto Ad Foley, hon: Asda od lisSturt, Charles his absence! The House must therefore Folkes, sir M. B. Taylor, W. Hare, James ano Debate in the Lords on the Assessed Taxes Bill.] Jan. 9. The bill having been read a second time, Lord Grenville said, he would refer to their Address of the 15th of November last to his majesty. [See p. 986.] That address contained the unanimous sense of both Houses of Parliament upon the state of affairs at this eventful crisis: they had there given their solemn pledge to support his majesty against the enemy, and to prosecute the war, to an honourable and secure peace. It had been deemed necessary, in order successfully to counteract the exertions of the enemy, to raise a certain portion of the supplies within the year. This necessary determination produced the present measure. From the operations of the bill, the poorer classes of society were entirely exempt, and the middling ranks were touched as lightly as possible. The great weight of the burthen fell, therefore, as in justice it ought to fall upon the higher orders of society. In this view of the subject, he must think that no serious objections could lie against the bill: it was not therefore his intention to take up their lordships time any farther; but reserving himself for the refutation of what might be objected to the measure he would move," That the bill be committed." Lord Carrington said, that the necessity of making a vigorous effort by raising a large sum within the year, to prevent too heavy an addition to the funded debt, was generally admitted; and any plan effectual to that purpose, would receive his hearty support; but his own opinion was, that this plan did not go far enough. The criterion of assessed taxes was not an adequate test of expenditure, much less was expenditure an adequate test of clear income. In consequence of this defect in the principle, the bill in its passage through the other House had received every modification, which the most scrupulous consideration could furnish to relieve those amongst the lower ranks, who would have been too much affected by its operation. But then, on the other hand to make the produce fully adequate to the exigency, the burthen was of necessity increased on the higher orders beyond the sum which it might, in many cases be con 1 戲 D venient for them to pay, without a consi« derable reduction of their expenditure All this, he conceived, might have bee avoided, if, instead of raising the m ney in this indirect, circuitous and un equal manner, every individual had hea called upon to contribute in direct portion to his income; but the higher s classes are larger in proportion than thei lower. He conceived that one twentieth of real income would produce a larger contribution than one-tenth in the manner proposed by the bill. The only material objection which he had heard stated to such a plan, was, that it would occasiona public disclosure of the income of indivi, se duals. He had ideas of a way to prevent yds this inconvenience; but as the plan was not before the House, he would not enter minutely into the subject. He would only by observe, that if this disclosure of income su was an objection, it was also an objection though not, perhaps, in the same de gree, to the present bill; for certainly something very like a disclosure of in come might be necessary by the ope ration of this bill, in cases even where it might be the least desirable. He owned, m that much of the inequality in this bill might be corrected, if it were admitted that the principle on which it was founded imposed on the public the duty of renders ing it effectual, by affording, in the shape of voluntary contribution, a tenth part of their income in every case where the tax did not sufficiently reach them. His lordship then adverted to the situation of the country, and said, that at no time since the subversion of Europe by the barba rians of the North, had Providence per mitted the infliction of such evils on so cial life, as had been produced by the French Revolution. Great Britain had hi therto been preserved; but how long she might enjoy the envied and happy free dom which she at present possessed, was uncertain. Her inveterate enemy wascol lecting on the coast a formidable force, with the avowed intentions of destroying her. These presumptuous hopes were eu dently founded on our intestine divisions His lordship had no doubt, but that if the experiment should be made, it would come pletely fail. He would venture to prod nounce, that, violent as the spirit of party now appeared to be, the moment of the enemy's landing in this country would be the moment of perfect union. With one heart and one mind we should go forth to meet them, and should prove to the world rresistible energy of a high spirited and int nation contending for its religion, ws, and its liberties. If this rash proshould meet with the fate he had ured to perdict, then we might really ect, on the part of the enemy, a dispon to peace on just and honourable ns. But should these expectations he hoped that, in another session, bill would be repealed, and that more prous efforts would be made to meet the ergencies of the war, on the plan he presumed to mention. Lord Holland addressed the House for first time. He said, that the address both Houses, stated by the noble secrey of state to have been voted unaniusly, appeared to him to be a mere itement of the exigencies of the times, ider the circumstances of the country, it did not warrant any such measure as at which was now before them. I am st ready, said his lordship, to dispute ith the noble secretary, that under the dministration of which he forms a coniderable part, for the last five years the ondition of this country has grown worse nd worse; for that is too plain a propoition to be debated either here or any where else. If it were enough for a memper of parliament to see that the exigency of the country was great, that its distress was general, and that he was to be excused from examining the system that produced the calamity, that it was no part of his duty to inquire how money had been already applied, or what probability there was of its being duly applied in future then, perhaps, I might agree with the noble secretary, in the truth of the preamble of the bill which is now before you; but even then I should find it my duty to oppose the enactments, because I do not think that they agree with the preamble. When you are called upon to vote for a measure that has for its object the raising so large a sum as is here proposed to be raised, and when you aust necessarily lay upon the people a much heavier burthen than any they have yet felt, it is necessary you should inquire whether those to whom millions upon millions of the money of the people have been entrusted, and who have hitherto heaped upon them in return for it distress upon distress, are about to change their system. They should hold out to you some hopes that the tremendous sacrifices which the public are now called upon to make, will be employed in a manner very different from those millions which have hitherto been used with so little effect. That our situation is now a dreadful one, is a proposition which I believe I shall not hear denied. I shall hear, no doubt, that such situation has been brought upon us by extraordinary misfortunes. Certainly, they are extraordinary misfortunes; but to whose fault are they chiefly owing? Was it not the duty of ministers not to have plunged us into a war, without considering what these misfortunes were likely to be? But having entered into the war, ministers affect to be surprised at the exertions of the enemy. Is that wonderful, my lords? Have not sentiments been uttered in this House, and in other places, the natural effect of which is, to unite all those who have any value for the liberties of mankind? When, therefore, we hear of our present situation being such as requires great exertions, I wish the argument to have a retrospective effect, that you may see the causes of your present calamity, otherwise you will have no chance of avoiding future ruin. But I would ask, how it is possible for any rational being to expect that the people will approve of the measure now before you? Can you expect that they will go hand in hand with you in pursuing that mode which a confiding parliament has, with uniform reliance upon ministers, adopted from time to time, when you know, that in no one instance have those ministers answered the expectation of the public? I certainly do think this country ought not to grant any more money without a proper pledge, not only that ministers are to be changed, but that the present system is to be changed also. I think that change of system comprehends a true representation of the people in parliament; an entire and radical reform of abuses. You can never rationally hope for the cordial co-operation of the people without making them importantly interested in the constitution. At least allow them all the power they had at the commencement of the present contest. This is the only way to procure a safe and an honourable peace. I know it is a very common argument in favour of adminis tration to say, "No ministers were ever in such a situation as the present are, and therefore great allowances are due to them. Why will you therefore endeavour to stop the supplies? that can only tend to encourage the enemy." I know that such an argument is frivolous in itself. I |