On re-entering the gallery, Sir John Newport was on his legs, pointing out to the gentlemen opposite the propriety of acceding to a motion, for the production of documents on the subject of the Property-tax, which, we understood, from what fell from him, he had made during our exclusion, and, in opposition to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved the previous question. The right hon. baronet, argued strongly against the House being called on to give an opinion as to the renewal of the Tax, in its old form, until proper information had been afforded, with reference to the produce derived from it, during a series of years, from the different classes of society who were subject to its operation. If information on such a necessary point were withheld-if gentlemen agreed to vote without proper data being submitted to them, on which they might form their opinions-then, he contended, they became rather the agents of the ministry, than the honest guardians of the rights of their constituents. Alderman Atkins argued, that the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already laid before the House, was as copious as the right hon. baronet could fairly demand. Mr. Huskisson coincided in the sentiments of the last speaker. The information already placed on their table was, he conceived, all that could at the present moment, be expected. At the same time, he did not profess to know, on what documents, or in what manner, the right hon. baronet wished or intended to form his opinion. The worthy alderman had already said, and said very justly, that the accounts were produced up to a period, beyond which it was impossible they could at present be brought. The right hon. baronet had already information, lying on the table of the House, on which he might form his judgment. He canplained, indeed, that it was too general it did not enter sufficiently into detail; but he (Mr. Huskisson) thought it was sufficient for every necessary purpose, and, therefore, it appeared to him that no further information need be called for. Sir John Newport said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, he would move the second reading of the Property-tax Bill on Monday, on which day it should be remembered, the latest information which he had called for, could be laid on the table. Now, how the right hon. gentleman could suppose that any hon. member could come prepared to debate the question on Monday, when documents, connected with it, were only placed in their hands on that day, really surprised him. He had no objection to leaving the word districts' out of his motion; but he conceived it was right the produce of the Tax from the various classes' on whom it operated should be clearly understood. The House, by looking at such a document as that which he called for, would see whether the produce of the Tax had increased or diminished, during a series of years, in any of those classes that were subject to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, his statement merely went to this that all the information called for by the right hon. baronet, except that relative to the last year, would be, if possible, laid on the table by Monday next. Much useful information would be derived from those documents. Sir John Newport said, he had, over and over again, stated, that he was not wedded to any particular mode in which the necessary information might be laid before them, so that the information was produced. All he wished for was, that the right hon. gentleman would give him, in substance, the produce of the Propertytax, with reference to certain distinct classes, up to the latest possible period. That which the right hon. gentleman appeared to think of no moment, he (sir J. Newport) conceived to be of the utmost consequence. He must, therefore, persist in calling for those documents, which he conceived to be necessary to justify the vote he should give on the renewal of the Property-tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, it would be very difficult to produce the accounts exactly in the shape called for by the right hon. baronet. Mr. Gordon was unwilling to suppose, that his Majesty's ministers would press forward, with unnecessary haste, any had been used was perfectly correct. He felt himself justified in saying, that the question was pressed through the House in an indecent manner. It was, he might assert, hurried forward in defiance of the sentiments of the people. Could the House forget the number of petitions that were presented against the renewal of the Property-tax? Could they avoid thinking of the immense numbers that would have been presented, if he had not abandoned the Tax? What was there, under these circumstances, in the conduct or the language of his right hon. friend who made the motion, that deserved censure? His measure which was decidedly unpopular. At the same time it appeared rather awkward, that ministers would only agree to lay the necessary information on the subject of the Property-tax before the House, in the course of a few days, and yet they would not consent to delay the farther progress of the Bill at present pending. Now, he wished to remind them, that many gentlemen were desirous of a modification of the Tax, and he hoped that ministers would not pertinaciously refuse to impart that information, which it was necessary gentlemen should possess, before they could propose a proper modification of the measure. He was astonish-right hon. friend said, "You propose to ed how the Government, almost under any circumstances, could propose this Tax to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, he had no objection to produce such documents, as, without greatly interfering with the progress of the measure, would afford gentlemen a basis for modifying it. For his own part, he wished they would point out a beneficial modification of the Tax. renew this Property-tax-it will, in its present state, bear hard on particular classes of society-many members wish it to be modified-therefore, that we may proceed fairly and truly in this system of modification, give us an account of the produce of the Property-tax, at different periods, with reference to the various classes whom it affects." Now, the right hon. gentleman was very liberal in his concession. According to him, this account would certainly be producedwhen it was too late! He would give it, when there was no opportunity of debat Sir J. Newport said, if the right hon. gentleman really wished the Tax to be modified, he ought himself to propose some plan of modification, and not leave it to others; he ought to point out specifi-ing on it when no resolution, for any cally what his wishes were. He (sir John) called for accounts, which he conceived vitally necessary to a just consideration of the question; and he hoped even those gentlemen who differed from him in opinion, would see the impropriety of attempting to bear down a member of that House who called for what he considered constitutional information. Mr. Huskisson objected to the language which had been used in the course of the discussion. He denied that Government had any intention of pressing forward, unnecessarily, the measure which gave rise to this debate: and he equally denied, that any intention existed of bearing down a member of that House, when he was discharging his duty. He could assure the gentlemen opposite, that the bringing forward this measure was as painful to his right hon. friend, as it would be to them to give it their support-if, indeed, it were possible for them to support it. But he would never be deterred from doing his duty, with reference to this Tax, bearing hard, as it certainly must, on his colleagues, because gentlemen were pleased to assert, that it was unpopular. Mr. H. Martin said, the language which efficient purpose, could be founded on it. Was it not reasonable, then, that the precipitancy with which the measure was urged forward, should be reprehended? Was it not just that some remonstrance should be made on the part of those, who, it appeared, were not to be heard until the Bill has passed into a law? This was the true state of the case; and he denied that those who had placed it in its most striking light, had made use of language they were not warranted to hold. Mr. Huskisson said, he did not complain of the language which had been used; but he did complain of the insinuation, that ministers, in proceeding as they had done, with the renewal of the Property-tax, acted from unworthy motives. It was broadly insinuated, that the measure was pressed forward, because ministers dreaded the effects which might arise from the unpopularity of the Tax, if the consideration of it were protracted. He denied the truth of this insinuation. Ministers, in doing what they had done, looked merely to the execution of their duty. Sir J. Newport utterly disclaimed having ever imputed any improper motives to ministers.. i Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald said, that although the right hon. baronet had disclaimed, on his part, the having imputed any improper motives to his Majesty's ministers, yet the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Gordon) surely could not deny, that he had accused ministers, in an indirect way, of having acted with gross indecency in pressing the measure. If, however, this censure arose from the refusal of his right hon. friend to agree to the motion for farther information, his right hon. friend, and those who agreed with him in opinion, had this consolation, and it would enable them to support the obloquy cast upon them with philosophy, that, on a very recent occasion-the discussion of the Corn Bill when delay was requested and was opposed, both by the hon. gentleman and the right hon. baronet, each of them declared, that he was willing to bear any imputation to which his conduct might give rise. Mr. Gordon said, he certainly did conceive, when information was refused which appeared necessary before members decided on the vote they ought to give, and the measure connected with that information was still pressed forward, that it looked like a determination to hurry the measure through the House, lest the popular voice might arrest it in its progress. With respect to the case alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, it should be observed, that every information had been given on that subject; but here the complaint was, that necessary information was denied. This made the great difference between the two cases. pursuance of his notice, moved, that it should be a standing order of their lordships, that appeals from the three several parts of the United Kingdom should be taken in regular succession-first one from Scotland, then one from Ireland, and lastly one from England.-Ordered to be taken into consideration that day se'nnight. The Earl of Lauderdale, in order to enable their lordships to form a better judgment of the proposed change of arrangement on this subject, moved for a statement of all the appeals that had been brought before them, distinguishing the Scotch, the Irish, and the English. The Lord Chancellor suggested limiting the retrospective effect of the motion to two years. The Earl of Lauderdale agreed to limit it to three years, and for that period the motion was agreed to. TREATY BETWEEN THE ALLIES SIGNED AT VIENNA.] Earl Stanhope wished to ask the noble lord opposite, two questions. He had scarcely ever felt more concern than since their lordships last meeting, having read in the public prints a paper purporting to be a Treaty signed by the four great Allied Powers at Vienna on the 25th of March. The first question he would ask the noble lord was, whether he would object to produce this Treaty ? If so, he thought their lordships should insist on its production. There was a clause in the Treaty which he had heard was not correctly published. He believed it was not; for if such a clause was really in the Treaty, it was not a treaty for making war, but for introducing a system of universal massacre. He meant the clause by which the Allied Powers bound themselves to bring to justice all those individuals who took part with the person who was at present the ruler of France. He wished to ask the noble earl if there really was any such clause in the treaty? If not, he considered it essential to the honour of the country that the negative should be known. The clause was exceptionable, not only in point of justice, humanity, and expediency, but also in point of law. He denied the right of kings, or the representatives of kings, to make such a treaty with such a clause in it. It totally altered the situation of the army and navy, and all officers employed in both services. When they enrolled APPEAL CAUSES.] Lord Redesdale, in themselves, it was to meet the enemy The Chancellor of the Exchequer then agreed to withdraw his amendment, provided sir John Newport would allow a certain modification of his original motion. The following motion was then put and carried, "That there be laid before this House, an account or estimate of the gross and net assessment of the Property-tax, for five years, ending the 5th of April 1814, distinguishing the several classes." Sir John Newport said, that as he could not allow a bill which imposed 14 millions of taxes on the country in a manner generally odious, without a full attendance, at least in one stage, he should give notice that he would on Monday move the call of the House for Thursday next. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, April 24. fairly, and die in the field of honour, but not to be exposed to the fate of being murdered by being hanged in cold blood. He objected to the clause in point of law on another ground. One of the most wise and most humane of our statutes was that of the 11th of Henry 7, by which it was enacted, that it was not only not high treason, but not even criminal to adhere to any king de facto, whether he was king de jure or not. He, therefore, on this ground, denied our right to agree to such a clause. His third objection to the clause on the ground of its being illegal was, that if any commander-in-chief, civil authority, king, or emperor, were to put to death a person for supporting the cause of an existing sovereign, such act would, by the law of England, be deemed murder; and he, therefore, denied the right of the Executive Government to make a treaty comprehending such a clause. Another objection to it was, that it was contrary to the rules of war recognised among civilized nations. And his fifth and last reason against the clause was, that it was illegal, because it was contrary to the law of God. He hoped that the noble earl❘ would consent to produce the Treaty, or at least that, for the honour of the country, he would inform their lordships whether it did or did not contain such a clause as he bad described. The Earl of Liverpool replied, that he had no difficulty in stating to the noble earl, that a treaty had been signed at Vienna on the 25th of March, by the four great Allied Powers. Nor had he any difficulty in stating, that the copy which had been published in the newspapers was not correct, and on that point particularly to which the noble earl had adverted; there were no words in the real Treaty, such as the noble earl had described, or which would bear a similar interpretation. Their lordships were aware that it was not usual for the Executive Government to lay before Parliament any treaty which had not been ratified. When this Treaty should be ratified, it would be his duty, or that of some of his noble colleagues, to receive his royal highness the Prince Regent's commands to lay it on the table of the House. If, however, the noble earl chose to move for the substance of the Treaty, he would not object to its production. Earl Stanhope observed, that a motion for a copy of the Treaty had been acceded to in the other House, and he hoped the noble earl would not be stiffer than his noble colleague. He would, therefore, move for a copy of the Treaty. The Earl of Liverpool repeated, that a copy of the Treaty could not be laid on the table of the House until its ratification. He begged the noble lord would confine himself to moving for the substance of it, which for his purpose would be precisely the same thing. Earl Stanhope exclaimed, that he did not care whether it was copy or substance, provided it was correct. An Address, therefore, to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying for the substance of the Treaty, was agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, April 24, SLAVE TRADE.] The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the several Acts relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Mr. Robinson rose to move certain clauses to provide for the care and maintenance of negroes captured in foreign vessels, between the period of their being carried into any port belonging to this country, and that of the final adjudication of the prizes. A considerable time had sometimes elapsed after they were carried into port, before the vessel was condemned; and the consequences of this delay, and of there having been no regular provision made for the care and maintenance of the negroes, had, in one instance, pressed very severely on the unfortunate victims who were taken in the prize. The governor of the colony where the cause was to be tried, had, much to his credit, taken upon himself to cause certain issues to be made from the funds of the island, and thus saved the lives of some of the captives, but several of them unfortunately died. He then moved two resolutions: viz. 1. "That it is expedient that provision should be made for the care and maintenance of any Negroes condemned in any court of Vice-Admiralty during the period of appeal from the decision of any such Court. 2. That it is expedient that provision should be made for the care and maintenance of Negroes brought in for adjudication to any of his Majesty's possessions between the period of their being so brought in and any adjudication of the Court.' The Resolutions were agreed to, and ordered to be reported to-morrow. SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY ENTERED INTO AT VIENNA.] Mr. Whitbread, seeing the noble lord in his place, rose to read the motion which he proposed to submit to the House. He then read his intended motion, viz. "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, the substance of any treaty or engagement entered into at Vienna on or about the 25th day of March last between the ambassadors of his Majesty and his Majesty's Allies, together with the substance of any note of explanation of any article or articles of the said Treaty or engagement, or of any declaration transmitted by his Majesty's Government to the Court of Vienna explanatory of the views of his Majesty's Government touching such Treaty or engagement, together with the date of the receipt of the said Treaty, and the transmission of the answer thereto on the part of his Majesty's Government, and also of any subsidiary arrangements connected therewith." Lord Castlereagh said, he had no objection to give the substance of the Treaty made at Vienna. He would only protest for himself against the course pursued on this occasion being drawn into a precedent. It was the prerogative of the Crown to withhold such information till it could be communicated in a ratified form, and it was much for the public advantage that generally till that time arrived the substance of the engagements entered into should not be made known. At present, however, as he was extremely anxious to guard against any misrepresentation on this subject, he had no hesitation in agreeing to give the information called for by the hon. gentleman. Mr. Whitbread, as he understood the noble lord to consent to grant the papers he wished to be laid before the House, supposed he would have no objection to the Address. The motion was then read and agreed to. The following is a copy of the Paper laid before the House in consequence of Mr. Whitbread's motion. Substance of Treaties between his Bri tannic Majesty, and the Emperors of Austria and Russia, and the King of Prussia, respectively; signed at Vienna, on the 25th of March, 1815. His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his Majesty the having taken into consideration the consequences which the invasion of France by Napoleon Buonaparté, and the actual situation of that kingdom, may produce with respect to the safety of Europe, have resolved in conjunction with his Majesty the, &c. &c. &c. to apply to that important circumstance, the principles of the Treaty of Chaumont. "They have consequently resolved to renew, by a solemn Treaty, signed separately by each of the four Powers with each of the three others, the engagement to preserve, against every attack, the order of things so happily established in Europe, and to determine upon the most effectual means of fulfilling that engage. ment, as well as of giving it all the extension which the present circumstances so imperiously call for. "Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties above mentioned, solemnly engage to unite the resources of their respective States for the purpose of maintaining entire the conditions of the Treaty of Peace concluded at Paris the 30th of May, 1814; as also, the stipulations determined upon and signed at the Congress of Vienna, with the view to complete the disposition of that Treaty, to preserve them against all infringement, and particularly against the designs of Napoleon Buonaparté. For this purpose they engage, in the spirit of the Declaration of the 13th March last, to direct in common, and with one accord, should the case require it, all their efforts against him, and against all those who should already have joined his faction, or shall hereafter join it, in order to force him to desist from his projects, and to render him unable to disturb in future the tranquillity of Europe, and the general peace under the protection of which the rights, the liberty, and independence of nations had been recently placed and secured. "Art. 2. Although the means destined for the attainment of so great and salutary an object ought not to be subjected to limitation, and although the High Contracting Parties are resolved to devote thereto all those means which, in their respective situations, they are enabled to dispose of, they have, nevertheless, agreed force of 150,000 men complete, including to keep constantly in the field, each, a cavalry, in the proportion of at least onetenth, and a just proportion of artillery, |