on coals at the pit's mouth, what was the meaning of the term equalization, which was to be found in all the petitions. Whether they meant to impose a duty on coals at the pit's mouth or not, he believed they would not be able to alter the present system. This he was convinced of, whether he looked to the spirit which was every where rising against the alteration, or to the impracticability of the thing itself. So far back as 1785, Mr. Pitt had made a similar plan of equalization, part of his budget; but, in a few days, he was obliged to give it up; for he found, that, if the manufacturers were exempted from the tax, as in justice they ought to be, the modifications would be so numerous as to create great confusion and inconvenience. The hon. member for Southwark inquired, whether he would recommend a partial tax? That was a question which it was not necessary for him to answer. Of this he was sure, that an alteration of the nature intended could not be made in the existing laws, without producing a most injurious revulsion in trade. He begged also to remind the hon. member for Southwark, that though his constituents paid a considerable duty on coals, they derived many advantages from their situation which individuals in the country parts of the kingdom did not possess. Almost all the workers of coals in that part of the country which he represented were lessees, and they had recently experienced considerable hardships. Two honest and upright individuals had been obliged to throw up their leases, and the landlords were compelled to keep on working the mines at a great expense. The poor-rates also were so extravagantly high in that part of the country, that the utmost difficulty was found in their collection. Had it not been for a noble peer, whose name, from motives of delicacy, he would not mention (lord Dudley and Ward), the state of the poor would have been deplorable indeed. That humane individual had sacrificed a great portion of his income, for the purpose of keeping the poor employed; and the population thus assisted exhibited an instance of order and loyalty (industry they could not exhibit, for it was not within their reach), which was scarcely to be witnessed in any other part of England. Sir R. Wilson conceived it to be a great hardship, that the poor of Southwark and of London should pay 9s. 10d. duty per chaldron on their coals, while the poor in some parts of the country did not pay one farthing. Mr. Alderman Waithman said, there was at present no proposition before the House for laying a tax generally on coals; but, having attended several meetings in the city, assembled for the purpose of considering the propriety of carrying into effect an equalization of the duty on coals, he wished briefly to state his sentiments on the subject. At none of those meetings did he perceive a wish or feeling to heap any burthen in the shape of a tax on their fellow subjects in the country. Those who met to consult on the subject wished to be relieved from this duty altogether. He was not himself a friend to taxation, and he felt its pressure pretty severely; but he had no desire, in getting rid of it, that other persons should bear the burthen for him. They wished to protect themselves from a very serious grievance. The citizens of London paid 9s. 10d. per chaldron on coals; added to which were the expense of freightage, the profit to the merchant, and other incidental charges, all which ultimately fell on the poor consumer, as well as on the rich one; therefore, it was that the city of London prayed for an alteration. Now, if the tax were not wholly given up, it was but fair that it should be equalized. It was not fair for gentlemen who procured coals, without any duty whatever, and manufacturers who had iron, lime, and coal, ready to their hands, to complain that they would be grievously oppressed if an equalization took place. The manufacturers in London were obliged to bear up against a variety of heavy expenses, not one of which affected the manufacturer in the country. The fact was, that in London the poor could not buy coals for their necessary consumption. Subscriptions were tered into every winter, either to purchase coals to be given away to the poor gratis, or to let them have that necessary of life at a very cheap rate. The manufacturers in the country should recollect, when they opposed an alteration in the duty on coals, that the citizens of London, who suffered so much from the existing tax, were very extensive customers for their commodities. Would those individuals who owned coal mines, and who had a monopoly of the coal trade, feel well pleased if the city of London were allowed to procure coals en elsewhere? He had been told that there have coals cheap. There was a large were coals in the soil of Blackheath stone on the river Thames, below Staines. [Hear, and a laugh]-and in various Now, if they would remove that stone a parts of Sussex. It mattered not whe- little down the river, as far, for instance, ther the statement were true or not; but as Blackfriars-bridge, he would answer for he would ask, whether the coal owners it that coals would be sold in Lon would be pleased, if their customers en- don at as cheap a rate as they were now deavoured to serve themselves from procured in the country. sources nearer home? On one small stream, the Wandle, in the vicinity of London, there was a greater extent of manufactures carried on, than on any other river of the same size in his majesty's dominions. The property employed in that district was considerably lessened in value, in consequence of the duty on coals; and, he believed, precisely the same observation would apply to all the manufactories in and near London. Now, he could see no good reason for protecting the country manufacturer, at the same time that no such encouragement was extended to him who carried on business in town. Colonel Wood hoped that the agitators of this question would make up their minds with respect to what they really wanted, before they came to parliament. If he rightly understood the hon. alderman, the citizens of London wished for a total repeal of the tax. If this were the case, those who opposed the alteration, need not trouble themselves further about the mat-ter, the hon. alderman and the chancellor of the exchequer could settle it between them. If, however, the hon. alderman did not succeed in his object, he hoped he would not attempt to throw the burthen from his own shoulders, and place it on the backs of others. When the question came to be debated, it would be found that the city of London had not a shadow of foundation for the complaints that were made. The citizens of London had the advantage of the cheapness of manufactures, and were not affected by those unfavourable circumstances which operated in the country. The duty on sea-borne coal was equal throughout the kingdom. It was, he believed, 6s. per chaldron. Three shillings. had been laid on in the port of London, to form a fund for the building of fifty churches. What he would ask, had the people of Wales to do with this? Why, should they pay a tax on that account? There was 1s. 3d. added for the Orphans' Fund; 2s per chaldron for another charge; and 6d. per chaldron for the duke of Richmond's tax. But he would tell the Corporation of London, how they could Mr. W. Littelton thought this a very serious question. If he ever knew a period in which it would be harsh and cruel to lay an additional tax on the coal districts, it was at this time, when so much distress prevailed throughout the country. The equalization of taxes had, indeed, a great appearance of justice, but at this period of our history it was not practicable. If any new measure were to be adopted, he thought a far greater proportion should be borne by the metropolis than any other part of the kingdom. He wished to know if there any intention on the part of ministers tó make this a question of theirs. As he did not see the chancellor of the exchequer in his place, he hoped the hon. secretary of the treasury would be able to give an answer. It was essential to know whether ministers, with the knowledge which they had of the distress of the country meant to impose any new tax. was Mr. Lushington said, he was not aware that it was the intention of ministers to propose any alteration whatever in the present duties. Sir C. Mordaunt said, he should not be performing his duty towards his constituents, if he did not protest against any alteration in the coal tax. The evil which this equalization, as it was called, would produce, could not be contemplated without feelings of alarm. He gave every credit to the hon. alderman, to the gallant officer, and to those who acted with them, for the purity of their intentions; but he trusted they never would be able to induce ministers to take up a question which would be most injurious to the country. Sir M. W. Ridley said, he would not enter into a discussion on the merits of the question, but would merely state the nature of the communication he had received from Newcastle on Tyne that day. The individuals connected with the trade, felt, as far as their own interests were concerned, that the equalization of the coal duty was very important; but they were of opinion that if such a plan were adopted, it would throw on their neigh bours, and on the manufacturers of all England, situated near coal-mines, a most unjust and most oppressive burthen. He had received notice, that, in the course of a few days, a petition from the great body of the coal trade on the river Tyne, against such a measure would be transmitted to him. He had been attacked by a public writer, on account of his conduct at a meeting held on this subject. That writer asserted, that he had refused to agree to a tax on the coal at the pit's mouth because he was the proprietor of a glasshouse in the north. This was a matter of very little importance to the House; but having been unjustly attacked, he deemed it necessary to repel the accusation. The fact was, he had a small frac tional share in a glass house, so trifling, that if the tax were laid on at the pit's mouth, it would make scarcely any difference to him. He was hostile to the plan not from any private feeling, but because his public duty dictated to him the impropriety of sanctioning a measure which he believed would have very injurious effects. Mr. Curwen said, that, even in the coal counties, at a distance of twenty-five miles from the pit's-mouth, the consumer paid as much for his coals as the inhabitant of London. If this equalization took place, it would act as a most unjust and heavy impost. Mr. Canning took the liberty of sug. gesting to the House, whether the revival of this discussion on every petition that was presented, by which the regular course of business was interrupted, could be considered the best mode of bringing the question to a rational conclusion? Was it not more likely to disgust the House, and prevent them from entertaining the subject cordially, when it came before them in a regular shape? As there was no objection to laying the petition on the table, he trusted the discussion would end here. Mr. Bennet wished to correct a very idle and absurd idea which was entertained in the city of London, namely, that coals were to be found in the neighbourhood of Blackheath, and that a monopoly was granted to the coal owners in the north, which was still more absurd if possible. Such stories put him in mind of an unfortunate gentleman, who imagined he had discovered a coal mine near Oxford, and who, in consequence, formed a rail-way and almost excavated a canal, but after an immense expense, he was obliged to give up the speculation as a mere chimera. Mr. Littleton observed, that the way by which his right hon friend could most effectually put an end to this question, was, by exerting his influence with the chancellor of the exchequer, and getting him to come down to the House with an open and manly declaration, that government had not only no intention of resorting to such a measure, but were so deeply impressed with the evils it would create, that they would oppose any attempt at an equalization of the coal tax. Ordered to lie on the table. DISCHARGE OF THOMAS GRADY.] On the Motion of sir Robert Wilson, Mr. Thomas Grady was brought to the bar, where he received a reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees. The reprimand was as followeth; viz. "Thomas Grady; you have been guilty of writing and sending a letter, the contents of which are a high breach of the privileges of this House; for this offence you were committed to his majes ty's gaol of Newgate. Your petition praying for release from further confinement, has been received by this House, and the terms in which it is conveyed, the deep regret you express for having offended this House and the solemn assurance you give that it was farthest from your intention to trespass upon its privileges,-relieve me from the duty (which, considering the rank and station you have held in life, would have indeed been a most painful duty) of enlarging upon the nature and character of this offence. I will only add, that this House, at all times determined to vindicate its own honour and dignity, and to uphold and maintain its privileges, as the best security for the rights and liberties of the subject, is at all times anxious to measure the severity of its punishment by the necessity which calls for it. This necessity, in your instance, has been satisfied; and I am commanded, therefore, to ac quaint you, that you are discharged, upon payment of your fees." each of which a particular branch of the great enquiry on which he had embarked the House, would be confided. This was contrary to the rules and practice of parliament for at least one hundred years, and he now wished to know whether the noble lord intended to move that such power be granted to his committee. Lord Castlereagh said, that he had no such intention, and that the members of the committee would make the best arrangements amongst themselves to examine the information which had been or should be collected. Mr. Wynn wished to inquire of the Chair, whether such proceedings could be carried on, and whether committees were to be allowed to divide themselves into sub-committees. He contended that it could not be done without the special consent of the House. He had looked over the Journals, and found that in 1640, such a power had been declared to reside in grand committees only. In 1661, and 1667, several instances had occurred, in which that power had been granted by the House upon very particular grounds being shown. But since that period, no other instance whatever had taken place. Regarding such a practice as of a most dangerous tendency, if such a motion was to be made, he trusted that a day would be fixed for its consideration, in order that he might take the sense of the House upon it. The Speaker, if the appeal of the hon. member was intended for him, had no doubt in stating, that when a subject was delegated to a committee, it was delegated entire to every member of which that committee was composed. The House limited the numbers of the committee for that purpose. gated to a committee for the same purpose-I should have proceeded, I say, to state at once why I think such an inquiry necessary, had it not been for some concessions made by the noble lord last night, which tend much to narrow the grounds of difference between us, and to simplify the question before the House. If I considered the only subject of discussion to be that which exists between the noble lord and myself, it would be reduced to this narrow compass; namely, whether the noble lord's proposal or mine be the more convenient for the conduct of the same inquiry; but as every member in this House is a party to the question, I shall make some preliminary observations on the noble lord's statements. If I understood the noble lord rightly, he confesses that the growth of crimes. and the state of the criminal law in this country call for investigation; he proposes that those subjects shall be investigated by a select committe, which I also admit to be the most expedient course, and he expressly asserts his disposition to make the inquiry as extensive as I wish it to be. As far therefore as the noble lord is concerned, I am relieved from the necessity of proving that an inquiry is necessary; that the appointment of a select committee is the proper course for proceeding to the inquiry; that the inquiry ought to be extensive. I am thus brought to the narrower question - Whether the committee of the noble lord or that which I propose be the more convenient instrument for conducting an inquiry on the special subject to which my motion refers? I shall endeavour briefly to show, that the mode of proceeding proposed by the noble lord, although embracing another and excellent subject of inquiry, must be considered as precluding an inquiry into that part of the criminal law which forms the subject of my motion, for two reasons. The first is, a physical Sir; now rise, in pursuance of the impossibility, and having stated that, I notice which I gave, to bring before the may perhaps dispense with the necessity House a motion for the appointment of a of showing any other. We have heard select committee, to consider of so much from an honourable friend of mine whose of the Criminal Laws as relates to Capi- authority is the highest that can be retal Punishment in Felonies; and to report sorted to on this subject, that an inquiry their observations and opinion thereon to into the state of two or three gaols occuthe House; and I should have immedi- pied a committee during a whole session. ately proceeded to explain the grounds My hon. friend, a magistrate of the city, and objects of such a motion, which is has stated, that an inquiry into the state almost verbatim the same as a resolution of the prisons of the metropolis occupied entered on the Journals of the House in during a whole session the assiduous comthe year 1770, when authority was dele-mittee over which he presided. When, CRIMINAL LAWS.] Sir James Mackintosh rose and addressed the House to the following effect: therefore, the noble lord refers to one committee not only the state of the law but the state of gaols, of transportation, and of that little adjunct the Hulks, he refers to it an inquiry which it can never conduct to an end; he proposes, as my hon. friend has said, to institute an investigation which must outlive a parliament. The noble lord has, in fact, acknowledged, by the proposal to subdivide his committee, that it is impossible one committee can inquire into all the subjects which, at his recommendation, have been referred to it; and this impossibility he would evade by a violation of the usages of the House; as you, Sir, with the authority due to your opinions, have declared the proposition for subdividing a committee to be. I, in accordance with the usages of the House, propose that the House shall itself nominate separate committees; the noble lord, by his unparliamentary and unconstitutional suggestion, proposes that the committee which has been named shall again nominate three committees.My second objection is, that the noble lord's notice, and the order made by the House yesterday upon it, do not embrace the purpose which I have in view. To prove this, I might content myself with a reference to the words of the instruction under which the noble lord's committee is to proceed. That committee is directed "to inquire into the state and description of gaols and other places of confinement, and into the best method of providing for the reformation as well as for the safe custody and punishment of offenders." Now, what is the plain meaning of those expressions? Are they not the same offenders whose punishment as well as whose reformation and safe custody is contemplated? And does not the instruction thus directly exclude from the consideration of the committee the subject of capi tal punishments? The matter is too plain to be insisted on; but must not the meaning, on any fair and liberal construction, be taken to be, that the committee is to consider the reformation and safe custody of those offenders of whom imprisonment forms the whole or the greatest part of the punishment? It would be absurd to suppose that the question of capital punishments should be made an inferior branch of the secondary question of imprisonment; and that the great subject of criminal law should skulk into the committee under the cover of one vague and equivocal word. On these grounds, Sir, I have a right to say that there is no comparison as to the convenience or the efficacy of the mode of proceeding proposed by the noble lord, and that which I recommend. Let us now see whether my proposition casts a greater censure on the law of the country than that of the noble lord, Every motion for inquiry assumes that inquiry is necessary-that some evil exists which may be remedied. The motion of the noble lord assumes thus much: mine assumes no more. It cast no reflection on the law or on the magistrates by whom it is administered. With respect to the question, whether the secondary punishments should be inquired into before we dispose of the primary, I have thus much to say. In proposing the present investigation, I have not been guided by my own feelings, nor have I trusted entirely to my own judgment. My steps have been directed and assured by examples set in other parliaments. The first of these examples is the notable one in 1750, when, in consequence of the alarm created by the increase of some species of crimes, a committee was appointed by the House," to examine into and consider the state of the laws relating to felonies, and to report to the House their opinion as to the defects of those laws, and as to the propriety of amending or repealing them." What does the noble lord say to this large reference, this ample delegation, this attack on the laws of our ancestors? Was it made in bad times, by men of no note, and of indifferent principles? I will mention the persons of whom the committee was composed. They were, Mr. Pelham, then chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, Mr. G. Grenville, afterwards lord Grenville, Mr. Lyttleton and Mr. C. Townshend, afterwards secretaries of state, and sir Dudley Ryder, the attorney-general, afterwards chief justice of England. Those great lawyers and statesmen will, at least, not be accused of having been rash theorists, or, according to the new word, ultra-philosophers. But it will be thought remarkable that those great men, who were, in liberality, as superior to some statesmen of the present day, as in practical wisdom they were perhaps not inferior to them, found two sessions of parliament necessary for the inquiry into which they entered. The first resolution to which those eminent and enlightened individuals agreed, was," that it was rea 津 |