all parties by time and patience. He reposed all confidence in government that every means would be adopted to accomplish this object.

Sir G. Hill hoped that no distinct and separate measure would be adopted as to Ireland; but that, in church matters, the law of the two countries would continue the

same.

Mr. Herbert supported the arguments of gentlemen in favour of the commutation. He stated that the evils which the yeomanry of Ireland suffered did not arise from the government or the landlord, but from certain customs and other circumstances which he might have occasion to allude to at some future period.

Mr. Burton bore testimony to the difficulty of devising any mode for the levying of tithes in lieu of that now in practice.

Mr. Sheridan could not see that the object proposed laboured under the insupportable and accumulated difficulties, to which so many gentlemen had alluded. All that was necessary was, that gentlemen should shew that they were in earnest, and there was little danger but a mode of effecting it would be devised. The great statesman, now no more, promised a commutation of tithes at the time of the union. He hoped petitions would accumulate, and that the protestant clergy of Ireland particularly would join in the application. Being on the subject, he wished to say a few words as an explanation why he had not brought forward the motion he had promised last session, as to the state of Ireland. Two bills had then passed, during the existence of which, it must be impossible to allege that Ireland enjoyed the blessings of the British constitution. While the petitions for catholic emancipation, however, were before the house, he was not so presumptuous as to think of agitating the question; and since they had been disposed of, he had been applied to by a right honourable friend still to postpone his motion till a fitter period. It was not, therefore,

his intention to submit a motion on the state of Ireland during the present session, but he did not pledge himself that he might not bring it forward on some future occa

sion.

Mr. Ponsonby thanked his right honourable friend for his condescension; stating that he had made the application, from an unwillingness again so suddenly to agitaté

a question which, so far from tranquillizing the people of Ireland, must have had a contrary effect.

Mr. Rose, Mr. Bastard, Sir W. Elford, and Mr. Lockhart, each said a few words.

Mr. Fitzgerald obtained leave to withdraw his motion.

EXPIRING LAWS.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the house going into a committee on the bill for remedying inconveniences resulting from the expira tion of certain laws.

Mr. Sheridan objected to the speaker's leaving the chair. Why did not mininsters prevent those inconveniences which they now called upon parliament to remedy? It was in their power to have prevented the evil, why had they not done so? They knew what laws were about to expire, and why had they not provided in due time? It appeared to be a bill which might be well entitled, A bill for the better encouraging the laziness, indolence, and neglect, of his majesty's ministers (a laugh). It was too uniformly assumed that the bill would pass. The act which was to be continued might have expired before the bill for reviving it had passed, and thus the offence prescribed against cease to be criminal; or, on the other hand, what was infinitely more serious, that which had ceased to be criminal, might, by a sort of latent revival, become suddenly penal, and thus a man might inadvertently be guilty of a crime, and hanged in a parenthesis (a laugh). He thought the bill replete with absurdities, and no consideration would incline him to yield to the motion for the speaker's leaving the chair, unless it was that of having the advantage of his high authority and parliamentary experience in the committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended, that this measure was not a violation of the usages of parliament for centuries; because the session of parliament, according to parliamentary usage, was considered but as one day. It was only a few years ago that an act was passed to provide that acts of parliament were to have effect from the day of passing; whereas, antecedently, all acts had reference to the first day of the session in which they were passed. The right honourable gentleman seemed to think

every

that it was the duty of ministers to attend to the acts that were likely to expire, but did not seem to be aware that a committee was appointed at the commencement of session to inquire what bills were likely to expire, and if any neglect took place, it was the act of the house. But in the view taken by the right honourable gentleman, he did not seem to be aware that this bill was not to have effect by imposing penalties, confiscations, or forfeitures, it was only to continue authorities to maintain jurisdic tions, until the enactment of the continuing bill. Therefore the execution in the parenthesis alluded to by the right honourable gentleman, could not take place under this bill. It would do much good, and could do no injury.

Mr. Ponsonby thanked the right honourable gentleman for having attended to the suggestion made by him respecting the inexpediency of continuing penalties by this bill, when he had first mentioned the subject. The ob jections of his right honourable friend would have been unanswerable against the original bill, if it had not been for the proviso introduced by the right honourable gentleman, for excepting penalties. But, certainly, the introduction of that proviso removed a great part of these objections; and, with this proviso, he thought that the bill might be productive of benefit in certain cases.

The house then went into a committee.

Mr. Sheridan renewed his objections to the principle, and thought it was an admission of the indolence of his majesty's ministers. He was inclined to think, if the chairman of the finance committee had no objection, that a new office should be instituted, that of flapper-general to his majesty's ministers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if such a place was to be created, he should be happy to see it filled by the right honourable gentleman.

Mr. Sheridan answered across the table, that it would not be a sinecure employment.

The bill then passed through the committee; and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

The pilots bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to the lords.

Sir William Curtis moved that the cinque ports bill be recommitted on Monday. Ordered.

The house then went into a committee to consider the

45th of the king, and the chairman was ordered to move the house for leave for a bill to permit the importation of corn and flour from the continent of America to any of our colonies.

The house then resumed, and Mr. Wharton obtained leave to bring in the same.

The prize court bill went through a committee, and there being no amendment, was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

The stamp duties bill went through a committee. On the clause relating to the limiting the date of large notes to three years, a desultory conversation took place on the propriety of extending the same to small notes, as saggested by sir William Curtis, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Curtis, Mr. Robert Dundas, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Davies Giddy, Mr. Spencer Stanhope, Sir William Elford, Mr. Beresford, and Mr. Dickenson; when Sir William Curtis signified his intention of dividing the committee on the clause. Strángers were then excluded, and the numbers were, that the clause stand part of the bill:

Ayes
Noes

Majority

59

16

43

Upon the reading of the clause requiring bankers to take out licences, Mr. Horner disapproved extremely of mixing matter of regulation and revenue together, as in that case there was a danger of forgetting the principles that belonged to both. He thought the money trade, like every other, ought, as much as possible, to be let alone.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that when abuses mischievous to the public occurred in any trade, it was proper to apply a remedy. If the regulation was a proper one, there was no harm in making it a matter of revenue. The licence for banking would point out the names of the parties, and their places of residence, so that no shoe-black who chose to put Co. at the end of his name, would be enabled to carry on this trade and deceive the public.

Sir William Elford said that this would be a hard tax on bankers, as they had not, like other traders, the means of throwing a part of it on their customers.

The clause was agreed to.

On the reading of the clause, imposing the tax upon the conveyance of land, Mr. Spencer Stanhope objected to it as a most oppressive measure, with respect to the landed interest. If a man, having a mortgage upon an estate of 50,0007., wished to sell it, partly owing to the mortgage, partly to the desire of making a provision for younger children, he must, by this tax of one per cent. upon that sum, lose 5007., which perhaps might be the whole that he would receive.

Mr. Brand opposed the clause, on similar grounds.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer affirmed that the tax was a just one, and that the burden of 41. upon the sale of a cottage worth 201. was much more severe than 5007. upon the sale of an estate of 50,000.

Sir Samuel Romilly thought the tax extremely objectionable. It was not properly a tax upon any property in general, but a tax upon the owners of landed property in distress. Landed property was seldom sold except in cases of distress. The tax was very unjust and unequal in this view; but it was more particularly so when coupled with another tax. In cases where landed property was sold for the benefit of creditors it was generally done by auction. The estate then became liable both to the auction duty and to this tax; so that this would be a duty upon the dividends of creditors.

The Solicitor General contended that this was a fair and equal tax. He denied that it was confined to real property. It also extended to all personal property that passed by conveyance. Shares of canals, ships, &c. came under this description; upon all which the tax would be much heavier in proportion to the value than upon real property. Before this, the tax upon the sale of a cottage was the same as upon an estate of 100,000. Was this equal or just? The smaller sort of property was now exempted, and a scale was introduced rendering the tax much more equal on the whole.

Lord Henry Petty observed, that this tax was not optional like taxes on consumption; nor had it, the equality of the income tax. The landed gentlemen were read to pay their share of the taxes; but this was not a tax upon the landed property in general, but upon that part of it which was least able to bear it, and therefore peculiarly objectionable.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the tax