to be the sentiments of the Powers with whom we were in alliance. We ought not to consider that an instrument under one set of circumstances, necessarily involved the same conclusions under another. At the proper time he would readily state all that would be necessary for his justification.

Mr. Whitbread-I wish to say one word more. A single ray of light has broken in upon us from the speech of the noble lord. The noble lord says, that when he sees no notice on the book, he shall always conclude that I have no grounds for censure. I may have sufficient grounds for censure; but I have also had sufficient experience not to adopt such a measure, knowing as I do the extent of the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Methuen was proud to declare, without any particular partiality for Ministers, that this was a time when every man ought to join heart and hand in their support. He firmly believed that the noble lord enjoyed the entire confidence of the country; and he also believed that that confidence would not in any degree be shaken by the conduct of the gentlemen opposite.

Sir James Mackintosh said, he could not follow the hon. gentleman who spoke last, in bestowing his approbation alike under any circumstances without any exception, and without any guard. Here he begged to be understood as differing from him. He agreed in the position, that all hearts and hands should be united on an occasion like, the present; but then our hearts and hands ought to be guided by reason and conscience. The noble lord himself had advanced what was little less than treason to the constitution, when he talked of the responsibility of ministers. The House of Commons were a great council to give advice, and they were not to be precluded from the exercise of that right under any idea of the ministers responsibility. But the noble lord's mode of arguing had a tendency to destroy all free and deliberate discussion. What would be the consequence? How could any member bring forward a motion on the subject? The noble lord would move an Address to lay a copy of the Convention before the House. Now what was the Convention? According to the noble lord, the one we had seen contained substantial inaccuracies. This document appeared so doubtful in its meaning as to require an explanation on the part of the Crown of Great Britain, to

take away its dangerous qualities. Now what was it that the noble lord proposed ? He proposed nothing less than to take away all equality of discussion to subject his opponents to bring forward a motion on grounds which might not be correct; and to give himself an opportunity of taking us by surprise, and obtaining the House's approbation of that Convention, on a statement made by him in the course of debate; which approbation might afterwards influence their future judgment. He begged to ask the noble lord, if the matter was to be fairly discussed, whether it would not be much more desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the Treaty in a correct state. The noble lord might lay it informally upon the table, as he had done the papers relating to Genoa and Sweden. The Treaty of Chaumont had also been laid in substance before the House, although it had not been ratified, and the same course might now be pursued. This was the fair and only way of meeting the question, unless the noble lord meant to obtain the approbation of the House by stratagem. If, as the noble lord had said, the genuine Treaty had been so misrepresented, was it not the more necessary that a correct statement of its contents should be furnished? He therefore put it sincerely and respectfully to the noble lord, whether, even for his own sake, it would not be advisable to produce an accurate statement of the substance of the Treaty ?

Mr. Methuen denied that he had given any abstract applause to the conduct of lord Castlereagh-in this instance it received his full approbation. He thought he might fairly accuse the other side of the House with giving abstract and systematic opposition to every measure of Government, under whatever circumstances it might be adopted.

Lord Castlereagh observed, that for the reasons he had before stated, he should decline laying the substance of the Treaty before the House, unless a distinct motion were made upon the subject; and then he could state his opinion, and adopt such conduct as he might deem expedient.

Lord Milton begged to know on what day the Treaty in question had been received by Government.

Lord Castlereagh answered, that he should be prepared to give every infor mation on a future day.

Mr. Bennet inquired whether that part

he should not think it inconsistent with his duty to lay the substance of the Treaty upon the table. All he would say at present was, that he should be preparedon Monday to give the hon. gentleman a distinct answer.

of the published copy were contained in the authentic document, in which the Allies were made to declare that they would bring to justice all such persons as shall have joined, or may hereafter join, the party of Napoleon?" He wished to know whether that provision had been ratified by the British Government

Lord Castlereagh had no objection to state, that that part was decidedly incorrect substantially inaccurate.

Lord Milton asked, whether this Treaty was in the hands of ministers before the 7th of April, the day on which the noble lord had obtained the Address?

Lord Castlereagh replied in the affirmative, and added, that he was prepared to contend that there was nothing at all inconsistent between the terms of the Address and of the Treaty.

Mr. Tierney wished to know if the noble lord had any objection to the substance of the Treaty being given?

Lord Castlereagh had no objection to a motion being made to that effect by any hon. member who might think such a measure desirable.

Mr. Whitbread wished the noble lord to state if, in saying he had no objection to such a motion, he desired it should be understood that he would grant the papers if such a motion were made. If he now moved for the substance of the Treaty, would the noble lord grant it?

Lord Castlereagh said, no, not now, as it was totally out of the common course of proceeding to give treaties before the ratifications were exchanged. He could not consent to such a motion on the instant. This refusal for the present was due to his colleagues; and while he felt he owed much to them, he could not but feel he owed still more to the representatives of the Allied Sovereigns now in this country. Mr. Whitbread regretted that the noble lord had not saved the time of the House by earlier making such a statement. Was he now to understand, that if a motion were made on Monday for the substance of the Treaty, it would meet with the compliance of the noble lord? If so, he would of course move for it, and then the subject would be fairly and clearly before the House.

Lord Castlereagh, said that he would enter into no compact. He was surprised that the hon. member should so long have remained in the dark; for the whole course of his (lord Castlereagh's) reasoning was intended to show, that at the proper time

Mr. Whitbread said, there was a great difference between the present language of the noble lord and that which he had before held. He would move for the papers on Monday, to ascertain if the noble lord would give them or not. He wished the question to be auswered be fore the House went into the committee of supply, but he did not wish to plunge unnecessarily into a discussion that might be injurious to the country.

Mr. Ponsonby remarked, that in former instances the substance of a treaty had been communicated to enable the House to decide on the policy on which it was founded, before a communication could formally be made. Would the noble lord do so on the present, occasion? The noble lord, if he had no objection to en gage to give them the substance of it on Monday, could enable them to enter upon the discussion of some of the topics connected with it; but he protested against being called upon to give an opinion on a treaty before it was accurately known to them. This the noble lord himself must feel would be most improper, for nothing could be so absurd as to demand an opi nion of the House on that which had not been laid before them.

Lord Castlereagh was sure no one was more disposed than himself to hail the pacific tone which had suddenly broke in upon the House. He was glad to find the wishes of gentlemen opposite were what they now proved to be. It was often practicable to communicate to the House the substance of a document, before the document itself could be produced in an official form. In reply to the inquiry of the right hon. gentleman, as to whether he would be bound to give the substance of the Treaty on Monday, he could only refer him to the answer he had given to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), that on that day he could give a distinct answer on this point. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it would be wrong to call for the sense of the House on a treaty before that treaty could be produced. He had no intention of calling upon the House to pronounce an opinion, or had he supposed the hon. gentleman could do that when he sug

gested to him that he could bring a motion on the subject. He had not expected him to call for an opinion on the Treaty; but he had thought that he knew enough of it to found a proposition on it, which should go to advise the Crown to pursue a line of policy different from that in which that Treaty originated, if he thought it his duty to give the Sovereign such advice. On Monday he would answer the question of the hon. gentleman without discussion, and in the mean time he trusted it would not be considered unbecoming conduct on his part, if he seized the opportunity the intervening time afforded, to possess himself of the sentiments of the representatives of the Allies of the country.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that as the noble lord had been the God of the Storm, now he was metamorphosed into the Genius of the Calm. From what the noble lord had at first said, no man could have anticipated what had recently fallen from his lips. Now he was perfectly ready to grant every thing that was required-[No, no! from lord Castlereagh]. Yes, he would grant all that was wanted-the substance of the Treaty-[No, no!]. Well, then, the fact would be known on Monday, and he had no disposition to raise a new storm by further contention.

Lord Castlereagh.--I cannot see that there is any matter of difference between us now. The hon. member does not, however, quite approve of my conduct; and I am not sorry for it, because there is nothing that I am so much afraid of as his praise.

Mr. Whitbread. The fear expressed by the noble lord is quite as unfounded as my praise would have been if I had ever bestowed it; for the fact is, that he never received a scintilla of applause from me during the whole course of his political life.

The question on the adjournment to Monday was then put and carried.

PROPERTY-TAX BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a Bill to revive and continue the duties and contributions on the profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices, which expired on the 5th of April 1815. On the motion, that it be read a first time,

Mr. J. P. Grant, stated, that he had intended to oppose the Bill in every stage, and to have taken the sense of the House upon it; but in consequence of what had

passed that night, he should abstain from so doing until the second reading.

Mr. Grenfell was favourable to the renewal of the Property-tax for another year, but he thought certain modifications were necessary. It did not appear to him to be just that a person of small income say from 200l. to 500l. a year, should pay as much to this tax, or at least be taxed on the same scale as those whose annual incomes amounted to as many thousands. In the next place, it was not right that incomes arising from trades and professions should be taxed as high as those which were derived from freehold and other property. He thought also that the requisitorial powers of the commissioners ought to be limited. If such modifications were made, he should feel it his duty to the public to support the Bill in the present emergency.

Mr. Ellis thought the Bill ought not to pass in its present state. He doubted if any modifications would make it what an hon. alderman conceived it might be made-a comfortable measure; but he was convinced such modifications might be introduced as would have the effect of causing it to be cheerfully borne by the people in the present circumstances of the country. A proposition which should have this effect, would, he thought, come with peculiar good grace from the hon. alderman (Atkins), and should not fail to have his support.

Mr. Gordon cautioned those hon. gentlemen who had last spoken, against giving the Bill their support in the present instance, on the supposition that the modifications which they recommended would be subsequently adopted, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared himself against such an alteration of the measure. There was a determination to overpower all that might be said against it by that irresistible argument majority,

or the amendment of the hon. member for Hertford, would have been carried on a former evening, asking, as it did, only time sufficient to ascertain whether or not the measure was necessary. He thought the public were duped by ministers, seeing that they had the Treaty of Vienna in their possession, when they told the House that an alternative still existed between peace and war. He should oppose the Bill in every stage, and he hoped the House would now divide upon the first reading.

Sir John Newport hoped the House

would be divided on every stage of the Bill. He besought those who had recently presented such numerous petitions from their constituents against the Property-tax, to come forward and say whether or not they had changed the opinions which they then avowed. He, for one, had not changed his mind on the subject, and should therefore give the Bill all the opposition in his power.

Mr. Wynn thought the tax, whether we went to war or remained at peace, was necessary, and he did not see that the public service could be provided for in any other way. He knew of no substitute for it, which would not be more oppres sive. The assessed taxes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though less productive, would, he thought, be found more vexatious to the people.

Mr. Baring was of opinion that the last speaker but one would find himself mistaken if he could canvass the whole country, with respect to the sentiments of the people on the Property-tax, which was still considered a most obnoxious impost, on account of the annual disclosure of private affairs which it involved. Notwithstanding this, he felt it to be his duty to vote for it. If he saw any thing in the conduct of ministers that gave him alarm, he might not do this; but conceiving as be did that vigorous exertions on the part of this country, and on that of the Allies, gave us the best chance of being able to do without the tax altogether, he felt bound to give the Bill his support. With out it there was no chance of getting rid of it soon, and of returning to a state of peace and comfort. As it was to be enacted but for one year, he thought it would be better that the old machinery should be revived, than that new expedients should be devised; as reviving it in its former state for one year would best satisfy the public it was not intended to be a permanent measure.

Mr. Ponsonby lamented his difference of opinion from his hon. friend, who spoke last. He retained his objections to the (VOL. XXX. )

showed how difficult it was to come out of it. Let the House look at the last war with America, which it was prophesied by some would be a short one. We had no choice there: though he always consi. dered our Orders in Council as leading to it, yet, in the immediate steps to war, be always thought America the aggressor, She should certainly have stopped when she heard of our repeal of those Orders. But that war was much longer than most people expected, and different in its results.

Mr. Alderman Atkins was against the revival of the Property-tax, unless some modifications were introduced. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer the subject to a committee. He did not wish to make the tax less productive, but he wished it to be so altered that it should be felt less by persons of limited and moderate incomes. The gentlemen in the landed interest, who had lately received a favour of the House, would, he hoped, step forward on this occasion, and offer to bear a portion of the burthen, which would otherwise fall on the middling and lower classes of society.

Mr. W. Smith thought the proposition of the hon. alderman so reasonable that it ought to be acceded to; and this not being adopted, he should vote against the Bill. If it were only to be revived for one year, he should not care much about the proposed modifications, but the probability was, that it was now to be saddled on the country for ever. He referred to the commencement of the old American war, which it was said would be ended in a week or a fortnight, to prove the folly of supposing that the war now about to be commenced would be ended in a year, especially when the means which France possessed were so important, if a calculation were made only of the number of prisoners returned.

The House divided: Yeas, 79: Noes, 17: Majority, 62.-The Bill was then read a first time.

(3 E)