sions. His precedents and examples were more applicable. It would be seen, he said, on reference to Hatsell, that ladies had been admitted to the debates in 1716, not only in the gallery, but in the lower part of the House. The practice had prevailed in the Irish parliament; it still existed in the French Chambers; and it was recognised in our House of Lords. He thought, too, that the character of the debates, which during the session had exhibited too many specimens of coarse personalities, would be improved by being carried on in the presence of a purer audience. There was a sort of competition among a number of members for the honour of seconding the motion; and although lord John Russell met it with a direct and decided negative, it was car ried by a majority of 153 over 104. The committee was named, amid much mirth, containing, however, various grave and elderly gentlemen; and it was invested, amid still louder mirth, with the usual powers to send for persons as well as papers and records. On the 28th of July it presented its report, containing regulations by which ladies, not exceeding twentyfour in number, whose names were daily to be previously entered in a book, might be admitted into a portion of the gallery, not more than one-fourth of the whole, to be separated from the remainder for that purpose. On the 4th of August, however, when it was moved that the report should be approved of, the House decided in the negative, by a majority of 86 to 83. CHAP. XIII. Motion for the Relief of the Agricultural Interest-Discussion regarding the Currency-Motion for the Repeal of the Window-TaxProposal for a general Revision of Taxation-Alleration of the Duties on Tea-Discussions regarding the Grant to the West-Indian Planters-Motion for the Repeal of the Stamp-duty on Newspapers-The Budget-Discussions regarding Canada-Prorogation. Tcommerce occupied propor NOPICS of finance, trade, and tionally only a small share of the attention of parliament. On the 25th of May, lord Chandos again brought before the House the distresses of the agricultural interest, which he had already attempted to relieve by moving the repeal of the malt duty. The object of his present motion was, to give relief by diminishing the pressure of the local burdens towhich land was subject. He proceeded upon the ground that many heavy expenses were laid exclusively upon the land, which ought to be general charges. Thus, in the general charges of county rates, the farmer severely felt the heavy pressure of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, and building and repairing the bridges in the county; and he, likewise, was compelled to perform statute labour on the highway. These expenses should be taken off the land, and thrown on the general taxation of the country. Was it not fair that the public, who passed over bridges constructed at an expense of 100,000l., or 200,000l., should contribute their quota towards defraying their costs? Again, the prosecution of felons and the maintenance of prisoners in gaol should not be forced upon the farmer; that also should be a national charge. The same observations applied to the performance of statute labour on the highways. It was most unfair that the farmer should be obliged to send men, whom he could be profitably employing on his own farm, to make roads for the convenience of the public, who contributed nothing towards the expense of keeping them in repair. In general taxation, lord Althorp had made some reductions in favour of the farmer, which, though small, were to a certain degree very beneficial. He took off the duty on windows in farmhouses under 2001., and on horses used in husbandry on farms under 500l., and reduced the duty on farm servants under 18 years of age. Now, trifling as this was, he hoped the House would agree to take off the remainder of these taxes. If a farmer went to market in a cart without springs, he was not taxed for it; but if it should so happen that it had springs or a cushion, he was immediately taxed. This ought not to be. He moved, "That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, expressing the deep regret this House feels at the continuing distressed state of the agricultural interests of this country, to which the attention of parliament was called by His Majesty's most gracious speeches from the throne at the commencement of the preceding and of the present session of parliament, and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this House that the attention of His Majesty's government may be directed, with out delay, to this subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation." The motion was seconded by the earl of Darlington. The government opposed the motion, on the ground that what was proposed would give no effectual relief, and that the suggestions at which it pointed required to be much more deliberately considered, although it was admitted that some of them appeared to be founded in justice. During earl Grey's administration, a committee had been .appointed to inquire into the agricultural distresses of the country. The committee, after a laborious investigation, made a report, which ended in saying that they reckoned more on the forbearance than the active interposition of parliament, in order to effect relief to the distressed agriculturists. The report made another assertion, the accuracy of which no person could doubt, and which went to the very foundation of agricultural distress namely, that while the outgoings of the farmer were considerable, and the price of his produce much diminished, the burdens, consisting of county-rates, and so on, had very much increased. This un In 1791, doubtedly was the case. the general average of wheat was about 47s.; in the beginning of 1793 it was 41s. In 1833 and 1834 the prices had not been very different; the present average price was below 40s. While the prices had come back to what they were in 1792 or 1793, the present burdens was much more heavy. A sub-committee of that committee had reported that the expense of prosecutions, the prosecutions being of a public nature, ought to be defrayed, at all events in part, by the public, and recommended that the expense should be the expense of the assizes, and not of the quarter sessions. To that proposition there was the objection, that such a system would hold out a direct inducement to commit prisoners to the assizes and not to the quarter sessions, although perhaps an answer to that might be, that it would be necessary and requisite to distinguish between offences. Another question of the very highest importance, upon which the recommendation of the committee could not be adopted, without the very fullest consideration, was, the expediency of introducing a public prosecutor into all trials. Besides, it appeared that greater relief would be afforded in a different way. For instance, that committee proposed to relieve counties from the expenses incidental to assize prosecutions, to the amount of 67,000l. ; from the expenses of convicts, to the amount of 15,000l. ; and from county-rates and expenses at quarter-sessions to the extent of 64,000l., making in all 146,0002. The proposal of the government was, to take the half of that whole sum, including the expenses of assizes and quarter-sessions, and pay one-half this House will direct its early attention to the recommendations of the committee which sat last session of parliament upon the subject of county-rates, with a view to the utmost practicable alleviation of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of local taxation." Sir R. Peel supported the amendment, because the resolution pledged the House to objects which must excite expectations on the part of the agriculturalists, in whose distresses he sympathized, but which he was not willing to aggravate, as he thought must be the case, by exciting hopes which, consistently with public credit, could not be fulfilled. As he had recently been in a position in which it might have been his duty to bring forward what was called a budget, he could not now be a party to raising any hopes in the breasts of the agriculturists, which as a minister he would not have felt himself justified in encouraging, and in endeavouring to realize. Even if he were disposed to sacrifice a certain amount of income and to trust to the productiveness of the revenue, he did not know that it would not be a matter of extreme doubt to him, whether he might not benefit the agriculturists much more by other means than a reduction of direct taxation. Lord Chandos, however, pressed his motion to a division, when it was lost by a majority of 150 to 211. In the course of this discussion, some members repeated the opinion so often expressed by one party in the House, that all the evil had arisen from the resumption of cash payments, and could be cured only by some alteration of the currency. On the 1st of June this opinion was embodied in a formal motion by Mr. Cayley, one of the members for the North Riding of Yorkshire, who moved the appointment of "a select committee (based on the parliamentary declaration of agricultural distress) to inquire if there be not effectual means within the reach of parliament to afford substantial relief to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to recommend to the attention of such committee the subject of a silver standard or conjoined standard of silver and gold." The debate was principally maintained, in opposition to the motion, by Mr. P. Thomson, the chancellor of the exchequer, and sir R. Peel, whose bill of 1819 was chiefly aimed at ; while the appointment of the committee was supported by Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. Bennett, sir C. Burrell, and Mr. O'Connell. The arguments were a repetition of those which had led, in the session of 1833, after a three nights' debate, to the resolution, "That it is the opinion of this House, that any alteration of the monetary system of the country, which would have the effect of lowering the standard of value, would be highly inexpedient." The result, too, was the same, the motion being negatived by a majority of 216 against 126. On the 11th of June, sir Samuel Whalley, one of the representatives of the metropolitan district of Marylebone, moved a resolution pledging the house to repeal the window tax, which he described as a severe, and almost intolerable pressure upon that which to the middle classes formed one of the first necessaries of life, while it yielded only 1,200,000l.; a deficit which he thought could easily be made up by economy and retrenchment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, that sir R. Peel, early in the session, had stated the expected surplus of the year at not more than 250,000l. ; that he himself had no reason to suppose it would be larger; and that, in such circumstances, a reduction of taxation to the extent of 1,200,000l. was an impossibility. Moreover, the pressure of this tax had already been greatly relieved. In 1820 the number of houses paying window tax was 968,000. In 1832 the number was only 380,000, the difference being 58,000. In the last year a house-tax, amounting to 1,491,000l., was repealed, the full benefit of which was enjoyed by the parties who now claimed relief from the window-tax. The repeal of the house-tax formed in itself the strongest proof which could be offered that the interest of the householders was not neglected. Sir Samuel expressed his willingness to withdraw the motion, but a division was called for, and it was rejected by 204 votes to 16. The whole system of taxation was brought under the notice of the House, on the 12th June, by Mr. Robinson, member for Worcester, who moved a resolution, "That it is expedient to refer the general taxation of the country to the investigation of a select com- |