stocks at which, in the first year of the war in 1793, with all the accumulating resources of ten years of peace, we made a loan for only four millions. I think, therefore, the hon. gentleman might have chosen some other day to call upon me to do penance, and to admit the destruction of that solid "system of finance."-With respect to the proposed tax upon beer, if it was in its nature bad, it ought to be given up; but ought certainly not to be made up by a tax upon malt, which could not relieve the brewers, except by extinguishing the private breweries, and thereby giving to the public brewers a monopoly of the trade. The hon. gentleman had omitted to state how many barrels of beer might be made from a bushel of malt. If his recollection was correct, a bushel would make three barrels and a quarter, or three and a half. At the period when the brewers raised their prices, he believed they were justified in so doing; but he thought that, previous to that period, their profits were such as ought to have prevented them from being in haste to complain, if sometimes those profits sunk below the common rate of mercantile gain; and certainly, when the price of corn fell, they must have been reimbursed in a considerable degree for their previous loss.-With respect to the modification of the sinking fund, there was no man who could look with more jealousy than he did upon any thing that appeared like a deviation from the system upon which that fund was established. If the plan of his right hon. friend was found to break in upon that system, it would be much better at once to provide 900,000l. in taxes. The proposal seemed to him to be attended with no inconvenience, but offered an additional aid to the sinking fund, which, after rendering all the direct benefits which the public had derived from it during sixteen years, now presented the means of deriving out of it a collateral aid, by which a great public burthen would be saved: it was at once the fruit and the test of the resources and the perseverance of the country.

Mr. Grey said :-The right hon. gentleman, taking advantage of one or two points of my hon. friend's speech, avails himself of them to pronounce a general panegyric on his own administration. With respect to the plan proposed this night, I will take notice of two remarkable features in it: first, that it is a total abandonment of that solid system of finance so much built upon by the late

chancellor of the exchequer, and secondly, manifest infringement of an act brought in by that minister, and laid down by him as a rule by which all future chancellors of the exchequer were to be invariably guided. On the point of the abandonment of the solid system of finance, I wish to ask, whether it be consistent with the public faith, that stock, which, according to the original terms of subscription, was to be redeemed in eight or nine years, is now only to be paid off at a time coeval with the extinction of the whole debt? What, I would wish to know, can have produced such an extraordinary change in the public engagements to a part of the public creditors, as the repeal of the income tax will produce? In my apprehension, it is to be ascribed solely to the consideration that the tax had been found so oppressive, so intolerable, so detestable, that not even its being pledged to the public creditor can prevent its repeal. I will now follow the right hon. gentleman into what he has adduced of the general success of the war. In what, Sir, does this success consist? We have gained, forsooth, all that we have not lost; but how does it appear that we have gained what we would otherwise have lost? Have we gained what has been a recompence for the sacrifices of the war? Let the people of England answer this question. The object of the war has been stated to be twofold, to check the progress of French power, and to counteract the influence of French principles. Has French power suffered any decrease? or has not the right hon. gentleman, by unnecessarily plunging the nation into a war, enabled France to reach a degree of power far beyond what was ever projected? Is the influence of French principles exploded, or will the right hon. gentleman say that the first consul's title is not founded on those very principles which he has so often condemned? Is he prepared to say, that Buonaparté is not now, as much as at any former period, "the child and champion of Jacobinism"? Or has he, by some sort of mysterious purification, purged France of it in principle and in conduct? Does his dominion present less formidable dangers now than at the period of his elevation? The right hon. gentleman accuses us of calumny; but have not all our assertions respecting the war, its origin, its progress, as well as its objects, been canvassed, and have not all furnished the subject of a direct charge?-On the subject of his

sion on them to the public; or, if they cannot be fairly estimated by the public now, I leave them to the decision of an impartial posterity. If the right hon. gentleman looks back with pleasure to the whole conduct of his administration, I assure him, that I look back to the share I have had in opposition to his general system with no less satisfaction.

Mr. Jones said, that whatever collusion might have been charged on the late and present ministers, this night afforded proof that there was none; whatever coincidence there might be in their language, they were at variance in fact; one sung the Te Deum of victory in repealing the income tax, the other pronounced its funeral oration. The nation had so un. equivocally expressed their indignation at the degrading and oppressive nature of the tax, that he was sure no minister would ever dare to reinflict it on the country. He gave the minister credit for honest intentions, and would vote for other taxes to the amount, which every Englishman would bear rather than submit to that diabolical impost.

speech in 1792, the recollection of the right hon. gentleman seems a good deal to have failed. I happen to recollect the language which he then held. So far was he from apprehending any danger from the French revolution, that he declared he saw in that very revolution that the French government might become more powerful, but less dangerous. But admitting that in 1792 the right hon. gentleman was desirous of peace, no fair reasoner will argue, that the disposition to peace existed in 1793, because it existed in the preceding year. In the interval, false calculations of the resources of France had been formed, and false estimates had been adopted of the effect of coalitions to subvert the liberty and independence of a great and powerful people. -But the right hon. gentleman is not content with defending his own conduct: he accuses us of despairing of the resources of the country, of leaving the House under such an impression, and of returning only for the purpose of obstructing the measures of government. I am not accountable to the right hon. gentleman for any part of my conduct. I wish, however, to say, that neither I, nor any of those with whom I acted, ever despaired of the resources of the country. We reprobated the system pursued by the late ministers; we opposed, to the utmost of our power, their destructive measures; and we predicted consequences of the most disastrous kind, and even ruin, as the result of adherence to such measures. But, with a system of moderation to foreign powers instead of insult and indignity, of laudable economy instead of lavish profusion, of constitutional liberty instead of unjustifiable infringements of the liberty of the subject, we never despaired of the fortunes of our country. We left parliament, not because we despaired of the national resources, but because our views and the views of ministers, supported by a great majority of the House, were so different, that we saw no good could be derived from our attendance. Since that time, occasions have occurred, where we have thought it our duty to resume our places in this House. I, for one, must however declare, that I have never attended without reluctance; and that my attendance has been dictated by an imperious sense of duty. Any apology for my conduct at present would be impertinent. My reasons for taking the step are sufficiently well known, and I leave the deci

Mr. Mainwaring thanked the chancellor of the exchequer for repealing the income tax-a tax so oppressive and odious as to excite the horror and indignation of every class of the people; but he could not forbear to express the deep regret with which he heard the right hon. gentleman declare, that this odious tax was to be held as a rod of iron, in petto, when the country might have the misfortune to be again involved in war. So strongly did the people of all classes detest this tax, and the mode of its exaction, that they would rather pay nine-tenths of their whole property in any other way, than be forced to pay this odious impost.

The several resolutions were agreed to.

Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy.] April 6. The following resolutions were moved by the chancellor of the exchequer, seconded by lord Hawkesbury, and agreed to by the House nem. con,

1. "That the thanks of this House be given to the officers of the navy, army, and marines, for the meritorious and eminent services which they have rendered to their king and country during the course of the war. 2. That this House doth highly approve of, and acknowledge, the services of the petty and non-commissioned officers and men employed in his majesty's navy, army, and marines, during the course of

were agreed to, and had the royal assent. The king intended by this to let the pope see what he could do if he went on to offend him, and how willingly his parliament would concur with him if he went on to extremities."

Under this ferment of passions was this statute conceived: and if it did come into the world with the characters of wis- | dom and propriety appearing in its constitution, it would add one more instance to the number, which the experience of mankind has certainly furnished, of good effects produced by questionable and mixed causes. I have ventured to doubt the existence of such characters. The very policy of throwing matters of this nature into the general tribunals of the country is, in my apprehension, subject to very reasonable doubt. I shall speak with the less reserve upon this policy, because, finding it here established, it is not my intention to attempt to remove it, guarded, as I propose it should be, by the correctives which I propose to apply to it. I cannot help remarking, that it was a violent innovation on the practice of the church, not only of the church then existing, but upon the general practice of the Christian church, which has considered matters of this nature as administrable in the course of ecclesiastical discipline only. Take, for instance, the matter of residence. The power of enforcing, or dispensing with residence, belonged de jure communi to the bishop. "Super residentiâ faciendâ potest ordinarius gratiam dispensative ad tempus facere, prout causa rationabilis id exposcit." Such was the rule of the Christian church. The oath of vicars taken at institution, which has existed in this kingdom for 600 years down to the present hour, is, that they will reside unless dispensed with by their ordinary. In the Reformatio Legum, a code drawn up for the use of the Reformed Church of England, by some of the most considerable persons of the age, both laymen and churchmen, the rule is, that absence is excused if the party is " annis gravis, morborum incursione extenuatus, vel ob quamcunque justam aliam causam episcopo approbandum." And in fact, the power of dispensing with residence continued to be formally exercised by Cranmer, and other eminent prelates of the Reformed Church, down to a very late period, notwithstanding the apparent prohibition of this statute, as appears from the records of the office of faculties, and

from episcopal registers. I take such to be the practice of the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches. In that most respectable branch of the Calvinistic Church, the Church of Scotland, I understand it to be a matter of consistorial discipline: nor does this practice found itself merely upon high and exclusive notions of the immunities of the church: it is no more than what the policy of the law has found it convenient to apply to the regulation of the conduct of men in other professions, the peculiar duties of which are enforced not in the ordinary course of judicial proceeding; but in forums of their own, and in a course of official administration, confided to the vigilance and integrity of their respective superiors: nor is it to be alleged (as one sometimes hears), that the interest which the laity has in the good conduct of the clergy makes this absolutely necessary, because, in the first place, no one will deny that they have a pretty considerable interest in the good conduct of other professions; in that, for instance, of their naval and military defenders; and, in the next place, because their interest, give it what comparative magnitude you please, seemed to be sufficiently secured by the power which the laity then possessed, and still possess, of applying to the consistorial tribunals, and there enforcing a specific performance of canonical duties, in all cases where it was fit it should be enforced.

I do not, however, object merely on the ground of this policy being a novelty, and a novelty without a necessity (though this alone is no contemptible objection in acts of legislation), but because it is a novelty that is unavoidably productive of practical injustice and inconvenience. When I use these words, let no man be perverse enough to impute to me that I am hazarding irreverent expressions against the great tribunals of my country; no man venerates more, either the wise constitution, or the honourable administration of them. They have both of them, at all times, and at no times more than the present, been amongst the best securities, and the proudest ornaments of our country. But I may be permitted to express a doubt, whether, in consequence of the very fact of their being so admirably adapted to the administration of general justice, they may not be less conveniently framed for wielding the peculiar discipline of a peculiar profession.-Take, in illustration again, this matter of residence.