HC Deb 12 February 1821 vol 4 cc580-3
Mr. Serjeant Onslow

rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Guilford, setting forth the deep alarm they felt at what they conceived to be a great infraction of the law of the land, namely, the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, which they viewed as likely to lead to other infractions. They called on the House, therefore, to interpose; and also, to take into consideration, the present distressed state of the country, and the necessity of effecting a reform of parliament. The striking of the Queen's name from the Liturgy was one of the most important circumstances that had occurred for years. After hearing all the arguments that had been adduced respecting it, he felt more and more confirmed in the opinion that it was an illegal act. Much reliance had been placed on the case of the queen of George 1st, but that case was not at all in point, as there had; been a dissolution of the marriage in the Consistorial court. At that time also, there were two very strong factions in the country, one in favour of the house of Hanover, the other in favour of the house of Stuart, and history plainly showed how powerful the influence of the latter was. In such a state of things, care was of course taken, not to do any act that seemed likely to increase that influence. Besides, the wife of George 1st, never was recognised as possessing any of the rights of the queen of Great Britain, while her present majesty was admitted to be Queen-consort, and was so spoken of. Now, if her right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy was denied, what was there to prevent the abstraction of her other rights? He called the attention of the House to the Act of Uniformity, as being decisive on the subject. What did that act say? It provided "that in all those prayers, litanies, and collects, which do in any way relate to the king, queen, or royal progeny, the names be altered, and changed from time to time, and fitted to the present occasion, according to the direction of lawful authority." On these grounds he conceived the omission to be illegal. With respect to parliamentary reform, he thought that a wholesome reform was necessary.

Mr. Butterworth

presented a petition from Dover, praying that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy, that a reform of parliament might be effected, and that the House would turn its attention to the business of the country. He begged leave to correct a gross misrepresentation of a few words which he had used in that House a short time since. An hon. member for Yorkshire had stated, on the night to which he alluded, that many individuals had been actuated by party views in supporting the motion of a noble lord. On that occasion, he (Mr. B.) felt himself called on to state his motive for giving the vote he had done on the noble lord's motion; but, in doing so, he did not say one word respecting the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, although he had been represented as giving a very strong opinion on that subject.

Mr. Littleton

, as the hon. member had entered into some explanation of his own opinions, in consequence of a misapprehension which existed with respect to them, hoped he might also be permitted to explain a very general misrepresentation as to what had fallen from him on the night on which the petition from Birmingham was presented. What he had suggested on that occasion was, whether it might not be possible, with reference to the relief of the agriculturists and the poor manufacturer, to substitute for some of the existing taxes a tax on land and on the holders of the national debt, which should have the shape of a modified property tax? The proposition of the hon. member for Cumberland, to reduce the interest of the debt, was a distinct proposition, in which he utterly disclaimed all participation or partnership. Without, of course, meaning to impute to the hon. member any intention of an unjust nature, he must say, that he thought the proposition to reduce the interests of the national debt highly dishonourable, and subversive of all those principles by which a great nation ought to be guided in the maintenance of its public faith.

Mr. Curwen

said, that what he had stated on the occasion alluded to, resolved itself into two points. He had stated, that he conceived funded property to be equally liable, in reason, law, and principle, as any other species of property, to be applied to the exigencies of the state. He knew of no distinction of property that should exempt that of the fundholder; and if that House had thought proper to call on him to support the expenses of war, he did not think it was at all unfair to call on him to contribute towards the expenses of peace. The Bank Restriction act had raised the value of funded property, and depressed that of land at least 25 per cent. An hon. member had, some time since, observed, that the land ought not to be let at such high rents. If the hon. member had examined the subject, he would have found that the rents had been very much lowered. He thought it was nothing more than just that the funded proprietor should fare as other bodies did, and that they should share in that depreciation which every other species of property had suffered.

Sir C. Burrell

said, he would be one of the last men in the world to propose any thing that might appear to be a breach of the public credit. At the same time, he thought a remedy might be devised for the existing evil without any such breach. An intelligent individual had suggested to him that a considerable sum might be raised by imposing a tax, perhaps to the value of a shilling percent, on the transfer of stock. It would assist in discouraging speculation, would afford some relief from the pressure of existing taxation, and would do no injury to public credit.

Mr. Grenfell

did hope his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, had risen, to explain some misapprehension of his meaning on a former night. To reduce the interest of the national debt would be a direct breach of public faith. For himself, he had never despaired of the national resources. He believed that the country was in possession of resources, which, if properly managed, would carry us through all our difficulties. The greatest evil that could befal the state, would be, to violate its faith to the public creditor. There were two courses, however, which he considered it indispensable to pursue; the one was to restore public tranquillity; and he knew of no mode of doing that, but by the reinsertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy: the other, to resort to every description of rigid retrenchment.

Ordered to lie on the table.