“

taken place into the whole conduct of the war. At that time an immense armament was preparing to set out for the West Indies, and, had he then made his motions, it would have been said— "Do you wish to disclose to the enemy the state of the islands? do you wish to make known their wants at the very moment when means are taking to afford them the requisite supply ?" Now the campaign was over, and the season for action past, it could not be urged that any danger could arise from disclosure. The whole speech of the right hon. gentleman went to accuse him with delay, and want of candour in bringing forward his motions. He had not attempted to show that any communication which he demanded, could, in the smallest degree, be injurious to the public. He hoped that when he had considered the motions, he would be prepared, precisely, to state in what respect they could be productive of danger. The right hon. gentleman had contested his assertion with respect to Sir Charles Grey. It now, however, appeared, from his own admission, that Sir Charles Grey had not the use of one single man. What was the argument of the right hon. gentleman? that Sir Charles Grey did not want reinforcements, else he would not have sent three regiments to St. Domingo, and afterwards dispatched a fourth to the same quarter. Except Sir Charles Grey had dispatched this force from the instruction of ministers, or in the confidence of larger reinforcements being sent out for the security of the islands, the right hon. gentleman attached to him a heavy responsibility. If he had been so miserably mistaken with respect to the security of the islands, if he had acted on his own authority and judgement, then undoubtedly he, and not ministers, was responsible. But having the solemn assurance, and being in the daily expectation of the arrival of a larger force, he took upon himself to dispatch those four regiments, then ministers were accountable why they had neglected to send out that force which was essential for the security of the islands. On this subject he should feel it necessary to bring forward an additional motion, "That Sir Charles Grey be directed to attend at the bar of this house."

General Tarleton asked whether, in sending the regiments to St. Domingo, Sir Charles Grey followed his own inclinations or the instructions of ministers?

Mr. Sheridan remarked, that this was a delicate point. He understood that Sir Charles Grey was always of opinion, that

the force which he had was insufficient for the security of the islands. Sir Charles Grey never did, never could make a declaration that those islands could be retained without an additional force. But was not the inference which the right hon. gentleman obviously meant to draw from his statement-that Sir Charles Grey, on leaving the islands, was perfectly satisfied with respect to their security, and the adequacy of the force left to protect them? But would Sir Charles Grey, he asked, have acted as he did, except in the conviction that a larger force was to be sent for their protection? He must persist therefore in his motion for the attendance of Sir Charles Grey, and the only question he should ask him at the bar was,-" Whether, upon sending away the regiments, and leaving the islands, he thought them in a state of security, except on the supposition of the arrival of additional reinforcements ?"

The debate was adjourned to the 28th.

APRIL 22.

DOG TAX BILL.

Mr. Dent moved, that the committee on the dog tax be deferred till Monday on account of the absence of the minister, when he would propose entering into that stage of the bill, whether he was present or not. He would also take the sense of the house that no difference should be made between assessed and unassessed houses; and also upon the application of the whole produce of the tax to the relief of the poor rates.

MR. SHERIDAN said, he did not know how the bill concerned the chancellor of the exchequer at all, except there was some special provision in it against a destructive animal, with "William Pitt," upon his collar, which had been found killing sheep. He was not at all surprised that any creature of that right hon. gentleman should live upon the public. He seriously advised, however, the secretary of the treasury to have another bill prepared; for the clauses of the present were so absurd, that he was confident the bill would be thrown out.

APRIL 25.

DOG TAX BILL.

The order of the day for the commitment of this bill was read. Mr. Dent moved, "That the speaker leave the chair."

MR. SHERIDAN expected that a motion would have been made to withdraw the bill, and on that account he formerly recom

mended his Majesty's ministers to have another ready, for he conceived it would be losing time to attempt to amend it. He had never before seen a bill so absurd and objectionable throughout, and indeed he was not sorry that it was so, for it appeared to him a just punishment for the pride and presumption of those persons who, because they retain a seat in that house, imagine themselves so many chancellors of exchequer, and impatiently step forward to propose new taxes. Instead of being desirous to take the management of finance out of minister's hands, he thought it would be better for them to leave it where it is; because, by leaving ministers in the undisturbed possession of the privilege of imposing taxes, they left them a responsibility for the heavy burdens they laid upon the people, to defray the enormous expenses of those wars their indiscreet ambition occasioned, and consequently all the odium. Now, in regard to the bill itself, he never met with one more extraordinarily worded; and the folly of it extended even to the title; for, whereas the title should have been "A tax bill," it was entitled, "A bill for the better protection of the persons and property of his Majesty's subjects against the evil arising from the increase of dogs, by subjecting the keeping or having such dogs to a duty." Hence, instead of supposing, as it generally had been supposed, that dogs were better than watchmen for the protection of property, people might be led to imagine that dogs were guilty of all the burglaries usually committed. In the preamble, also, there was the same species of phraseology: for it begins"Whereas many dangers, accidents, and inconveniences,” which, to be sure, was a beautiful climax! "had happened to the cattle, and other property of his Majesty's subjects." Now, he had never before heard of any particular accidents happening to property from the hydrophobia, except in the case of cattle. In the Adventurer, a periodical paper published by the ingenious Dr. Hawkesworth, he remembered, indeed, a sort of humorous account of a dog that bit a hog in the streets; the hog bit a farmer, and the farmer bit a cow; and, what was very extraordinary, each conveyed his peculiar quality to the other: for the hog barked like a dog, the farmer grunted like a hog, and the cow did her best to talk like the farmer. Now, he thought, there must have been something like this disposition in inanimate things also, by the conduct of the hon. gentleman in

looking so carefully after property; for, unless an instance had occurred of furniture's behaving in a disorderly manner, or a dumb waiter's barking in consequence of the hydrophobia, he conceived such a phrase could not have been introduced. The next part he had to notice was a clause-the blank of which he hoped would never be filled-that very solemnly stated, "For and in respect of every such dog, and for and in respect of every such bitch," a sum hereafter to be fixed was to be paid, and a register of such payments fixed on the church-door where the parties reside. So that, if the bill passed, they ought to pass another to enlarge all the church and chapel doors throughout the kingdom, for what with one tax and another, no modern church or chapel door was capable of containing a register of them all.

There was another clause, which was to enact that, whenever a person did not pay the duty, no action should apply against any person or persons, for destroying, or converting such dog or dogs, bitch or bitches, to their own use, as were not paid for. Now, if this clause was absolutely to remain, and any person did destroy or convert, as the phrase is, another person's dog, he would most probably assume that it was not paid for; or otherwise, by what means could it commonly be proved? So far the bill was repugnant to the principles of humanity; for it was nothing less than a death-warrant against that valuable race of animals. Besides, he wanted to know what principle the bill proceeded upon, that the same privilege should not be also allowed with respect to horses, since there was a certain species of dogs, such as pointers, setters, &c. that were scarcely less valuable. According to the same mode of reasoning too, he did not see why there should not be a general scramble for all the hats upon the heads of those gentlemen who did not pay the hat duty; nor why any person should not convert to his own use the powder another man wore, if he suspected that man had not taken out a license. It was true, that after any person had lost his dog in this manner, a clause was provided whereby he might bring an action and maintain a right to recover damages from the converter; but how would it happen if the dog, still fond of his former attachments, should follow his old master? That master might, in such a case, be whipped as a dog-stealer, though he should afterwards gain an action and prove the prosecutor the thief. He abhorred the

bill for its inhumanity, because it was an encouragement to massacre; and even if the inhumanity of it were entirely out of the question, he should consider it ill-timed, in point of policy, inasmuch as it was brought forward at a time when a part of this useful species was co-operating with the combined powers, by maintaining. with unparalleled ferocity, the cause of religion and humanity. In short, it was showing such ingratitude to our allies as could never be justified. He came at last to one qualifying clause, which was intended to enact that puppies, when born, should not be liable to the penalty. But he wished to know at what time they were to be made liable, and by what parish register they were to ascertain the birth of puppies, for he thought there would be some difficulty in getting people to come forward and record precisely every hour what bitch litters. A doctrine had been inculcated that dogs devour the sustenance of the poor, and therefore we were now to be in the state of a besieged garrison, and feed upon the fare of dogs and cats. The bill, in this instance, tended to defeat its own object; for could it be supposed that the poor, at this moment of dearth and scarcity, could afford to divide their scanty meal with such animals? and if they did, what was the conclusion but that they would rather deprive themselves of some of the necessaries of life than lose their dumb but faithful companions? Upon the score of humanity, he had still another objection to offer. If the bill passed, there would be so many dogs knocked on the head, that it would tend to harden the minds of the common people, and familiarize them to scenes of cruelty and murder; and the mere sight of so many curs hanging at the doors of the lower orders of the people, already too frequently complained of on account of their brutality to speechless animals, might lead to far more fatal consequences. If the tax were levied only upon hounds and sporting dogs, he should not oppose it, because it would only tend to the diminution of the few pleasures which induce gentlemen to spend their fortunes on their own estates. Upon these grounds he wished the bill might not be persisted in.

The question being put that the speaker do now leave the chair, it was carried in the negative. Mr. Sheridan then moved, “That this house will, on this day three months, resolve itself into a committee."- Carried.