Page images
PDF
EPUB

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Monday, July 16, 1838.

MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-Church Appoint

ments Suspension.-Read a second time:-Land Tax Re-
duction; Sea-coast Fisheries (Ireland).-Read a third
time:-Port of London; Coal Trade; Highways.

ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL.] Sir M.
Wood moved the third reading of the
Royal Exchange Bill.

Mr. Pryme objected to the bill, that it proposed a tax upon coals; and he had always thought, that improvements in buildings-whether Ramsgate Pier or Royal Exchange-ought not to be carried into effect by a tax levied on one of the necessaries of life. He therefore moved, that this bill be read a third time that day six months.

which were necessarily carried on in the vicinity of a large town, were obliged to compete at a great disadvantage, with the productions of establishments at a distance. It was to be observed, that this duty was levied, not only on the inhabitants of the city of London, but on all residing within a circle of about twenty miles; and he maintained, that there was no just ground for subjecting them to the burthen of this tax, and all the accompanying disadvantages, for the purpose of improving the city of London.

Mr. Labouchere felt it his duty to say a few words, because he thought the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, had rather mis-stated the case. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that the bill which he (Mr. Labouchere) had introduced, imposed a duty upon coals for seven years; and that then it contemplated the cessation of those duties after those seven years; whereas the bill before the House, proposed to continue those duties for a much longer period. He had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman in the committee, upon whose recommendation the bill was introduced; and the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that the Coal Trade Bill, so far from imposing duties for any fixed period, only commuted the duties which already existed, and which must exist for a much longer period. The bill provided, that for the next seven years, a much more simple machinery should be applied to the collection of these duties, and one more conducive to the public advantage. That was the sole and simple object of the bill; and it was optional with Parliament, at the end of those seven years, to consider that commutation, and renew it if it were found to work well. He thought it necessary to say so much, lest the House should be led away by the statements of the hon. Gentleman. He would now address himself to the bill before the House; and he so far agreed with the hon. Member, that he thought it extremely desirable those duties should cease altogether. He should be very glad to see the time when the 8d. duty would cease, and he had strong hopes that that would speedily be effected. The House should recollect the circumstances under which this tax was levied. It was originally contemplated, that this duty of 8d. per ton should be continued for certain purposes until the year 18% including the paymol of certain money borrowed on the ties. T

Mr. Wolverly Attwood seconded the amendment. It appeared to him, that in passing this bill, the House would, so far as the coal duty which the bill imposed was concerned, be acting in a manner entirely inconsistent with the provisions of another measure which was before the House the Coal Trade Bill. The Coal Trade Bill was founded on the recommendation of a committee expressly appointed to consider the subject; and that bill, which was a public measure, provided that the duties on coals should be renewed for seven years, and should then be subject to the revision of the House. By the present bill, it was proposed to continue the coal duties for twenty years. Upon principle, too, he objected entirely to the providing by a coal duty for the improvement of the streets in the city of London; for that was the object, and not the re-building of the Royal Exchange, to which the sums to be raised by the tax on coals was to be applied. It was the most objectionable and oppressive tax which could be levied. It had been said, that the amount was so trifling, that the pressure upon the poor was not felt; but even the direct amount paid by the poor man yearly would be equivalent to the cost of his supply of fuel for a week or a fortnight; and indirectly, the cost of every article he consumed, his beer, his bread, his clothes, was augmented. The principle recognised was, that in the case of a city, distant as London was from the coal district, everything should be done to reduce the price of fuel, instead of increasing the cost, by taxes of this nature. The breweries, the distilleries, all the trades

[graphic]

160

quence, however, of the great increase of
trade in the port of London, it was found
that the duty might be dispensed with
before that period; and that it would be
but just, to provide for its ceasing. The
House would admit, that it was of great
general importance and interest, that the
Royal Exchange, which had been de-
stroyed by a late unfortunate accident,
should be built upon a scale of splendor
worthy of the importance of this great
commercial metropolis; and the only ques-culty they were then under.
tion was, how the funds could be most
conveniently provided for this purpose.
Upon the whole, he was inclined to believe,
that the recommendation of the Committee
was the best course to adopt, namely, to
allow the duty to continue for the full
time; and it was upon that ground he
should go with the proposition of the hon.
Member opposite, if it was thought neces-
sary to divide the House.

London follow the example of their bre-
thren of Liverpool, and raise the money
among themselves. He would ask the
hon. Member to withdraw his opposition
to the third reading of the bill, and to
allow the sense of the House to be taken
on the amendment, which would take
away the power of continuing the 8d. tax
on coals. When the bill was read a third
time, he would propose that alteration,
which would relieve them from the diffi-

Mr. Warburton agreed with his hon. Friend as to the propriety of the merchants of London raising a fund for the building. Those who used it ought to pay for it.

The Speaker said, the object of the hon. Member for Kilkenny appeared to be to take a burthen from one fund and to lay it upon another; he (the Speaker) doubted if such an object could be effected upon the third reading of the bill.

Mr. Hume thought it was quite compe- Sir R. Inglis said, it had been contended tent for the House to pass the bill for the that the object of the bill was the imposition purpose of making the improvement al- of a tax for the erection of a Royal Exchange. luded to in the city of London, without Such was not the case. The Royal Exany additional tax being made upon coals. change was not to be erected with the He objected to the poor man being taxed funds arising from the coal duty continued for any such purpose. And, as a proof of by this bill. The object of the bill was, to the validity of that objection, he had only make approaches to the Royal Exchange. to refer to what took place in 1830, when It had been said, that the merchants of the a security was given upon the tax on coals, city of London ought to be as willing to in order to enable the parties to proceed contribute to the formation of a building with the erection of London Bridge. By for their accommodation as the merchants the bill to enable the erection of that great of Bristol or of Liverpool. He did not undertaking, a tax of 8d. was to be levied think the London merchants would dissent on coals till the whole amount was paid. from that; but he did not suppose they would Such a tax, he considered, sufficient on pay for making new streets. He did not the poor man, without increasing it fur-wish to depreciate the importance of lowerther, as proposed by the present bill. Outing the price of coals; but he thought it of 137,000, which was the produce of the tax, 84,000l. was applied to the repayment of the borrowed money; if that liquidation went on, it would all be paid up in 1851 or 1852; and then, if the House did not think fit to renew the grant, then, of course, the City would revert to the 4d. per ton granted them by charter. The question for the House to consider was, whether they would continue a tax upon that which was a necessary of life to all the people of England, and the two neighbouring countries. If they passed the bill, they ale that tax 1ponsible for another 150,, which, vests, would continue [1. lax Vears. He protested tinued for any such p te neceshants of

[ocr errors]

would be much better to effect that desirable object by doing away with the monopoly which added forty per cent. to the price of the articles, than to stop this useful project.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he had supported the bill in Committee, and was still prepared to support it. He did so because the bill did not impose the coal duty for the erection of an Exchange, but to make the approaches thereto. If the former had been the case there might have been some ground for the opposition. To the building of the Exchange, the city itself was to contribute. What were the purposes for which this coal tax was appropriated? Were they purposes in which the general trade and convenience of the community I

Sir M. Wood did not think it necessary to detain the House for a moment in reply to the unjust attacks which had been made upon the authors of the bill. The attack of the hon. Member for Greenwich was at least ungracious, as the city, in the bill then on the table of the House, had given up 5,000l. which would go into the pockets of the owners of steam-boats. The city were called upon to lay out a vast sum of money to improve the approaches to the Bank of England, which would be a benefit to persons in all parts of London.

The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 102; Noes 38. Majority 64. List of the AYES.

were to be consulted? It was in evidence, and was notorious to every one who passed through the city, that there was no greater thoroughfare and no greater embarrassment than between the Bank and the old Exchange. On these general grounds it was but just to assent to the present bill, but he did think, that the existing generation owed a species of debt to those who had been before them which they ought to pay for the benefit of posterity. It was the duty of the public at large to make the calamity which had occurred the source of convenience of the community. Had the great fire of London been turned to account in former days, and the schemes then proposed been carried into effect, conveniences would have been in existence which the public had been deprived of. If the House refused to assent to the present bill it would deprive itself of an opportunity which would never occur again, of seeing the Exchange re-built, not by the burthen of the coal tax nor by burthens on the people at large, but by the efforts of the Mercers' Company. On these grounds he gave his hearty assent to the bill. At the same time he meant to propose some verbal amendments to one of the clauses, to which he thought the introducers of the bill would not object. Mr. Barnard, seeing that the city of London had behaved so generously, thought that the sum provided for by the present bill ought to be granted.

Sir E. Codrington, as one of the committee, would give his support to the bill. At the same time he must say, that if any other tax could be found he should prefer it. Money for similar purposes had been raised in former years by lotteries.

Hutton, R.
Inglis, Sir R. H.
James, W.
James, Sir W. C.

Kelly, F.
Knight, H. G.
Labouchere, H.

Langdale, hon. C.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Y.

Alsager, Capt.
Archbold, R.
Baillie, Col.
Baines, E.
Barnard, E. G.
Bradshaw, J.
Blair, J.
Braniston, T. W.
Bruges, W. H. L.
Buller, Sir John
Callaghan, D.
Campbell, Sir H.
Chapman, A.
Chute, W. L. W.
Clay, W.
Clive, E. B.
Codrington, Sir E.
Copeland, Alderman
Crawford, W.
Darby, George
De Horsey, S.
Dick, Q.
Divett, E.
Douglass, Sir C.
Eastnor, Lord
Ebrington, Lord
Estcourt, T.
Ferguson, Sir R.
Ferguson, R.
Freshfield, J. W.
Gordon, R.
Goulburn, H.
Graham, Sir J.
Grant, F. W.
Grimsditch, T.
Hastie, A.
Hawkes, T.
Hawkins, J. H.
Hayter, W. G.
Heathcote, G. J.
Hillsborough, Earl
Hobhouse, Sir J.

Sir B. Hall* hoped, that he should never see lotteries instituted in the country again. He could never give his consent to the bill, as he thought that a tax on coals was most objectionable. He thought that the promoters ofthe bill, who had been so loud for the reduction of taxation, were acting in rather an inconsistent manner. Mr. A. White denied, that there was any monopoly in the coal trade: he thought the making a duty on coals for such a purpose unjust in principle, and that it would be far more creditable to the mer-Hodges, T. L chants of London if they would follow the example of the merchants of Liverpool, and erect the Royal Exchange and its approaches at their own expense.

Created a Baronet at the Coronation.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Lockhart, A. M.
Lucas, E.
Mackenzie, T.
M'Taggart, J.
Miles, P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Murray, J. A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Paget, Lord A.

Pakington, J. S.

Palmer, G.

Parker, J.
Parker, R. T.
Patten, J.

Pattison, J.
Peel, Sir R.
Pendarves, E. W. W.
Phillpots, J.
Praed, W. T.
Protheroe, E.
Redington, T. N.
Rice, T. S.
Richards, R.
Rushbrooke, R.
Russell, Lord J.
Sanford, E. A.
Sinclair, Sir G.
Stanley, Lord
Stansfield, C.
Steuart, R.
Stewart, J.
Sturt, H. C.
Sugden, Sir E.
Teignmouth, Lord
Thornley, T.
Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Vivian, J. II.

Westenra, H. R.

Wilnot, Sir J. E

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

TITHES (IRELAND) THE MILLION ACT.] Lord J. Russell said, that the House would doubtless expect, that he should make some communication with respect to the deliberations of the Government in consequence of the debate that took place in the House the last time the tithe bill for Ireland was debated. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin having made a proposition to the House with respect to the arrears of tithe, and his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire having supported a proposition, not the same, but of a similar kind, he then stated to the House, that there were in his opinion three objections to the course proposed to be pursued; that was to say, that there were three objections to a course which required a sacrifice of public money in order to satisfy the owners of tithes in Ireland as to part of the bill which they proposed to pass this year upon the subject of the future arrangement of tithe composition in Ireland. He stated, first, that no sums had been stated as the amount which was ascertained to be due, or was likely to satisfy the claims due. He stated, in the second place, that on the hon. and learned Member for Dublin's own showing, it was not likely, that this would be considered by the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland as a final and satisfactory settlement of the question relating to the

Church and tithes, and that, therefore, it would be inexpedient to make a large sacrifice of public money on that account, He stated, in the third place, that he thought, as to the future working of the (measure, that it would be a bad precedent to begin with a grant to the tithe-owners which must likewise be a remission to all those who had resisted the law, and who had refused to pay tithes in compliance with the provisions of the law, while those who had complied with the law, and who had paid their tithes, were to be losers by so doing. He had stated, also, that one consequence he thought would be, that in any future collection of rent-charge, the landlord would be likely to look to Parliament in case of a deficiency, or in case of obstacles being thrown in the way of the collection, Parliament having once before in such a case interfered, and by a grant from the public treasury, satisfied the debt. But, those statements of his, although he thought them well founded, did not meet with the general acceptance of the House. With regard to one of them, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, made a proposition, by which he proposed to limit the amount to be devoted to this purpose. The first objection which he had stated, was not applicable to that proposal. The right hon. Baronet also entered into a detail as to the manner in which the object was to be accomplished. Now, the motive which induced him and his colleagues to modify the course which he before took upon this subject was, that it did appear to them to be a very general opinion in the Ilouse that some sacrifice on the part of the pub lic, of the nature proposed, would tend to the general settlement of this question, and would promote the cause of peace and harmony between the different parties in Ireland. He thought, whatever their opinions were, or whatever his own individual opinion might be, that if there was a feeling in that House on the part of those persons who entertained very different political sentiments, and different sentiments with regard to the Church of Ireland, that a proposition of this kind, of a limited amount, would afford a better chance for the future peace and tranquillity of Ireland, it did not become the Government to stand in the way of such a proposal, but they should endeavour to conform to what they took to be the opinion of the House, and attempt to adjust the sub

ject of the arrears of tithes, and if possible, | debate. As he had already stated, the to set the matter at rest. In the proposition sum of 640,000l. had been actually adwhich he would make on this subject, he had vanced to the owners of tithes. A further thought it in the first place necessary, that sum had been applied by a subsequent act he should deviate so far from the right of Parliament; and in consequence of a hon. Baronet's proposition as that it loan made by the Treasury out of a sum should not be optional with the tithe- granted for public works, for the use of owners to accept the sum proposed to be the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Iregranted or not. If they made it optional, land, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and a certain number accepted the offer, not being enabled to meet the demands and another portion enforced their claims, made upon them, were allowed to receive the main object which he had in view 100,000l. from the Treasury and by a would be defeated, and they would be subsequent act proposed by his right hon. making a sacrifice to very little purpose. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, He thought, with regard to another point, that sum of 100,000l. was not to be renamely, the issuing of a commission for paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the purpose of settling the claims, that but was to be appropriated to public works the object might, perhaps, be effected by out of the remainder of the million voted some persons holding official situations. by Parliament; and, therefore, the sum He should now proceed to state the pro- altogether was, not 640,000l., but position which he intended to make to the 740,000l. which had been already voted House, and upon which he should propose by Parliament. The remaining sum, that the House go into Committee, with therefore, was 260,000l. What he prothe view of agreeing to a resolution. The posed was, that this 260,0007., together first part of the subject would be the with that part of the 640,000l. which amount of 640,000l. which had been might be recovered from the landlords, already advanced under the authority of should be applied to the liquidation of the a former act to the tithe-owners of Ireland. | arrears of the tithe composition for the Combining, as he should do, this propo- years 1836 and 1837. He believed he sition with another which would affect the had already stated, and he wished now to arrears of tithe, since the passing of that state more explicitly, that with regard to act, it did not seem expedient to him to the sum of 260,000l. and the other make a proposition similar to the clause sums to be repaid, he proposed, that of the former act, namely, the doing away they should only go to the liquidation with the repayment of this sum by instal- of those arrears of tithe composition ments, but that the sum should be entirely which were due from the occupying remitted and forgiven to the occupying tenant. With regard to the landtenant, while the landlords and the per- lords who had undertaken to pay tithe sons liable for rent-charge under the pre- composition, and with regard to those sent bill should be obliged to pay by instal- landlords from whom, by the operation of ments, and that the Treasury should be his noble friend's (Lord Stanley's) act, empowered to collect the payments. But tithe compositions were due-with respect when he said, that with regard to the to those persons there should be no relandlords, the sums were to be collected mission of arrears. The amount, thereby the Treasury, he did not mean to pro- fore, of his proposition was this, that to pose, that the Treasury should collect cover the payment of the arrears of tithe these sums for the benefit of the State, or composition for the years 1836 and 1837 that the repayments should finally remain due by the occupying tenant, there should with the Exchequer; what he proposed, be appled the sum of 260,000l., the rewas, that these sims should go in part to mainder of the million, and that portion the satisfaction of those persons who had of the 640,000%, which was due by the claims for arrears of tithes, which had landlord, and likewise, he should say, creed since, and which were to be paid what was due from lay impropriators who by the evapen. The next part of his held property in their own hands. It priated to the remainder of was impossible for him to say certainly Ne milion as connected with the arrears of what these sums would amount to, but he the tide commerce. The amount was thought he was making a low estimate de de som that which was when he said, that, adding the 260,000/., stated the echee dre in the course of the the whole wgether would, pippual to

« PreviousContinue »