Commons Sitting of 25 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WAR-BURTON, an Account of the Money received in 1832 by the Royal Colleges of Surgeons in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, for Diplomas granted, and how that Money was Appropriated.
Petitions presented. By Mr. E. J. STANLEY, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Lynn, in favour of the Parochial Rates Exemption Bill.—By Lord ASHLEY, from Glasgow, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—By Mr. EGERTON, from the Surgeons and Apothecaries of Blackburn and Stockport, against the Apothecaries Bill.—By Colonel TORRENS, from Bolton, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill By Mr. BANNERMAN, from Cork, for Extending the Provisions of the Apothecaries Bill to Ireland.—By Mr. BELL, from the Clergy of Northumberland, against the Church Temporalities (Ireland)—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Hammersmith, for the Liberation of Messrs. Taylor, Twort, and Ward.—By Mr. FAITHFUL, from the Dissenters of South Shields, for Redress of their Grievances; from the Independents of Colchester, for the Immediate Abolition of Slavery; and from Brighton and Strathmiglo, for disuniting Church and State—By Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, from Birmingham, for a Repeal of all Taxes on Knowledge; and from the same Place, for an Alteration in the Law of Ejectment—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Bristol, for the Reduction of Taxation.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
On Mr. Buckingham, whose Motion relative to flogging in the army and navy stood for this evening, being called,
Mr. Ellicerose and said, that, before the hon. Gentleman proceeded to make his Motion, he wished to inform the House, that since the subject had been under discussion in the House, it had occupied the serious attention of his Majesty's Government, and that an order had been framed, he could not as yet say it had been issued, but, if not issued, no delay would take place in issuing it, restricting the practice of inflicting corporal punishment as nearly as possible to those cases specified in the Amendment moved by the hon. member for Middlesex on a former occasion, and which had been seconded by the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster. Although he might mislead the House by stating that the Resolution in question had been couched in the very terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member; yet he believed it was nearly so; and of this he could assure the House, that his Majesty's Government were most anxious that the infliction of corporal punishment should be restricted within the utmost possible limits that were supposed to be consistent with the maintenance of discipline in the army. He hoped, therefore, under such circumstances, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and that he would not renew it during the present Session. it was most important that they should not have a discussion again upon it during the present Session, and he therefore trusted, that the hon. Member would be disposed to place confidence in his Majesty's Government, who were most anxious to do all in their power to restrain the practice in question, and that he would not renew his notice on the subject during this Session.
Mr. Buckinghamhad heard the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman with very great satisfaction, and he was sure, that it would be satisfactory both to the House and to the country. To the right hon. Gentleman himself, in no small degree, was due the credit that attached to the conduct of the Government in this instance. He was willing to give a proof of the confidence which he placed in the good intentions of his Majesty's Ministers by withdrawing his Motion for the present Session, and thus giving a trial to the experiment which they proposed of reducing the amount of corporal punishment in the army. He begged, however, in doing so, to give

1231
notice, that if it should be found that the system which they now proposed did not work well, he would renew his Motion next Session for the abolition altogether of corporal punishment in the army.

JURIES (IRELAND).
Mr. Shawrose to move for a copy of the correspondence between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish fudges, relative to the Irish. Juries Bill. He would be the last person to ask for such a document if it could be considered a confidential communication, or one advising the discretion of the Executive. But a moment's consideration of the nature of the paper in question would show, that a refusal to produce it could not be cloaked under the plea of its being a confidential communication. The Bill to which it had reference passed the House last Session, and afterwards was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords—while the Bill was in that state, the Secretary for Ireland addressed an official communication to the twelve Irish Judges, requesting their opinion how far its principle could be carried into effect without endangering the due execution of Justice. The Judges had written an official answer, the existence of which was not only admitted, but their opinion had been represented by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as favourable to the measure, while five peers who had read the opinion solemnly and expressly recorded their dissent from the measure because the opinion of the Judges was unfavourable to it, and he (Mr. Shaw) would add, that having been permitted by the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lamb), to read the opinion himself, that while the Judges admitted that some of the enactments of the Bill might be introduced with advantage, they conveyed their most distinct disapprobation of its principal provisions. The main feature was the establishment of a Juror's book. That was the important and material change made by the Bill; and the Judges declared, that in the present state of Ireland that alteration in the Jury system was most objectionable, and must lead to consequences endangering the administration of justice in that country. They also said, that in their opinion the great majority of persons who would, under the Bill, be qualified in respect of property to serve as Jurors, would in all other requisites of a Juror be unfit to be returned on a
1232
panel. In strictness he was ready to admit that the House was not bound by the opinions of others, however competent they might be to form a correct opinion but that was more in theory than in practice, for, above all other times, at the present were Commissions issued without end to advise the House on questions with regard to which it was about to legislate. He might instance the factories, the Poor-laws, the Law Amendments, Commissioners, whose opinions were constantly quoted, and in many instances, were made the groundwork of legislation. He would ask, then, could there be any subject-matter of legislation more needing sound advice and consideration than that which must so vitally affect the Administration of the Law in Ireland as the Jury Bill in question, or a body of individuals more competent to form a just opinion on any subject than the Irish Judges were as to the execution of the laws in which they were daily and hourly engaged? The question, however, was not whether their opinion should ever have been taken, or whether it was in itself right or wrong, but when it had not only been taken, but subsequently referred to by members of the Irish Government, and when contradictory constructions had been put upon it, whether it was not just as regarded the Judges that their deliberately pronounced opinion should be allowed to speak for itself; and fair towards the House that so valuable and important a document should not be withheld, when they were called upon at such a period as the present, and under the existing circumstances of Ireland, to pass a law which would unsettle the whole Jury system of that country? He trusted the Government would not resist the Motion. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for a copy of the document in question.
Mr. Littletonwas sorry that he felt obliged to object to the Motion. He sincerely wished, that he could, consistent with sound principle and precedent lay the paper which the hon. and learned Gentleman called for on the Table of the House; for though the Judges expressed their disapprobation of one part of the Bill, it would be found, that they bore valuable testimony to the utility and advantage of other parts of it. There was no precedent for granting such a return as this; on the score of convenience, too,

1233
the Motion was objectionable, and if they should grant such a return as this, similar returns must be granted in every other similar instance.
Colonel Conollywas sorry to find, that the right hon. Gentleman objected to the production of the document in question. He had had several conversations with the Judges in Ireland upon the subject, and they all were of opinion the Bill in question, in many of its details, must operate anything but beneficially. The constitution of Juries in Ireland was a subject than which nothing could be of greater importance, and he, therefore, could not help regretting, that the right hon. Gentleman should object to the production of a document which would enable the House to come to a sound decision on the subject. He was there authorized to give utterance to the sentiments of the Judges, and he had no hesitation in stating, that they all reprobated that part of the measure which appeared to give so much satisfaction to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin.
Mr. Ruthvenhighly approved of the conduct of the Government in refusing to grant this return. Such a document should not be produced for the purpose of influencing the determination of the Legislature.
Mr. O'Connellprotested against the production of this document for the purpose of influencing Parliament, and must say, that he doubted whether the Judges should have been consulted at all upon the Bill. He was sorry to hear, that they approved so much of the Bill. He would much rather that they had altogether disapproved of it.
Mr. Anthony Lefroyregretted very much, that his Majesty's Government had come to the decision of opposing the Motion of his hon. and learned friend. He thought the Government was bound to give the House every information upon the subject, before they called upon hon. Members to pronounce an opinion on the Bill.
Mr. Stanleywas ready to agree in the statement that the opinion of the Judges should not be brought forward in order to influence the decisions of that House. After what had passed on the subject of this Bill last Session, the Government had thought it necessary to take the opinion of the Judges in Ireland as to the practical working and effect of the measure.
1234
He quite agreed with his right hon. friend, that it would be most inconvenient to bring forward such an opinion, especially with a view to influence the decision of that House. The Judges should be strictly confined to the discharge of their judicial functions. He repeated, that it would be a most inconvenient precedent to drag forward an opinion of the Judges, given in a confidential manner to the Government, with a view to influence the proceedings of the Legislature. He regretted that it had been noticed in any way for such a purpose in another place.
Mr. Shawsaid, that if the opinion of the Judges was not to be produced, he certainly concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it ought not to have been referred to, and he could only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first person who had referred to the opinion for the purpose of supporting his own views (though if produced it must have the very contrary effect) was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He did not deny, that in a constitutional point of view it was the province of Juries to check and control Judges, but no one knew better than the honorable and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) that that was not the only duty Irish Juries had to perform; and upon that account he readily believed the hon. Gentleman when he said, that the less the Judges liked the Bill, the better it would please the hon. and learned Member. He (Mr. Shaw) had heard no good reason given for the non-production of the correspondence, but he would leave with the Government the responsibility of refusing his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
The House on the Motion of Mr. Secretary Stanley resolved itself into a Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyon moving the first part of schedule A, fixing the yearly tax chargeable upon all benefices, observed that the schedule had been formed on the principle of a per centage, increasing according to the value of the living, and commencing at five per cent, upon livings of 200 l, annual value. It had, however, been suggested by the right hon. Baronet (the member for Tamworth) by the notice of motion which he had given, that this taxation ought only to commence on livings of 300 l. per annum; but by that course

1235
this inconvenience would arise—namely, that by the scale as it at present stood, a living exceeding 300 l.—say, amounting to 301 l. annually, would be diminished by the amount of 7l. 10 s. annually, while a living worth 299 l. would not be taxed at all, and subject to no deduction whatever. The principle the Government had adopted was, to increase the amount of taxation according to the increased annual revenue of each party, and to this principle he did not apprehend there could be any objection.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he would call the particular attention of the House to the few observations, and the proposition he was about to make. He must first give his opinion as a general proposition—that this was a most unfortunate time for setting about to impose a fixed tax upon the incomes of the Church of Ireland, when there existed such peculiar uncertainty as to the amount of that income. Why, the House had, within no extended period, been under the necessity of voting two separate sums of money to the Irish Church, in order to relieve them from the necessity of going to the trouble and expense of law for the attainment of their legal rights. For all he could see, they would still labour under the same difficulties, even after November this year. Whatever might be the result of this measure, he was very sorry that the charge should be defrayed by a graduated Income-tax; and he the more particularly objected to it from the precedent which it would be establishing. It was the more extraordinary, too, after the strong manner in which the idea of a graduated Property or Income-tax had been repudiated by Ministers themselves only the other night. But the great question he wished to speak to was, whether it was right, proper, or expedient, that benefices under the value of 300 l. a-year should be taxed at all? He did not believe, that the Ministers themselves were very much inclined to insist upon this point; and he felt certain that the unbiassed opinion of the House would be in accordance with his Amendment—that no benefice under 300 l. a-year should be taxed. But there could really be no beneficial result from commencing the taxation upon livings exceeding 200 l.; the tax upon such would not raise more than 732 l. annually, or only one-fortieth part of the revenue expected to be thus raised. From this the expenses of the collection and of litigation must be deducted; and when this was done, he felt
1236
satisfied, that not more than 500 l. clear would accrue from the taxation of these small livings. He, therefore, would urge his proposition on the ground of good financial policy, which was, to avoid raising such a tax in payments of 5s. or 10 s. from each individual. But, apart from all financial questions, he would put it to the House whether a man of liberal education, zealously performing his spiritual duties, not very capable of managing pecuniary affairs, and having a family, with an income of 300 l. a-year, was a fit subject for taxation. Such a man had also to answer the demands of charity, and the tax would draw from his means to answer them. On all these grounds he hoped the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) would consent to leave untouched the clergyman of 300 l. per annum—an income only sufficient to support his family with decency.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the point was not one to which he really attached much importance, but was one altogether for the feeling and judgment of the House. The grounds upon which 200 l. incomes had been made the minimum at which taxation should commence was because that was the maximum amount of augmentation, and, he thought, that no injustice was done by the proposed scale of taxation. The sacrifice of income by the adoption of the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was most certainly very trifling in amount, and the point was one on which each Member might exercise his own discretion; in short, it was for the House to say whether the limit for taxation should be 300 l. or 200 l. incomes. The sum of 200 l. had been selected as the point to begin at, because that was the point where the augmentation was to stop. It was, he considered, neither unjust nor unfair that taxation should begin where augmentation ended. He admitted, that the subject was open to consideration; but he thought that the sum levied on 200 l. was not unfair. The right hon. Baronet had said, that Ministers could not, upon their own principles—they having objected, and properly objected, to a graduated tax on property—consent to a graduated tax on the incomes of the clergy. But there was, in his opinion, a great difference between the property of the Church and the property of individuals. To whomsoever the property of the Church might go, it did not belong to them as individuals—it belonged to the corporation. The principle

1237
of a graduated Property-tax had a tendency to equalize property among individuals, but the tendency of a graduated scheme of taxation on the income of the clergy had no tendency to equalize property. A graduated Property-tax to equalize property, was an object at which the Legislature ought not to aim. To say, that one man had too little, and another too much, was not within the competency of Parliament, and the attempt which would carry it beyond its power would be as unjust as it would be ruinous. The Church property by being taxed on this graduated scale, was only more equally distributed among the members of the same Corporation, but for the State to take from the rich and give to the poor, was confiscation. He thought that no comparison could be instituted between the graduated tax proposed on the clergy, and a graduated Property-tax. A property-tax on the principle of graduation had a tendency to determine one rate of income for the whole community. The graduated tax on the clergy was only an equitable distribution of an allotted fund—the other was an unjust spoliation. If the House thought the rate he had mentioned too high, he was sure that his Majesty's Government would make no objection, and he should certainly make none, to adopting the more liberal proposition of the right hon. Baronet. He would leave it entirely to the House.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, though that was not the time to discuss the principle of a graduated Property-tax, he was prepared to show, upon a first rate authority, that such a tax was most equitable. The question had been discussed by La Place in his "Theory of Probabilities," and whenever the subject should be discussed he should be prepared to support his views by that authority.
Sir Robert Peelwould readily bow to the authority of La Place on a question of pure mathematics, but on the question of a graduated Property-tax, there were two other elements to be taken into consideration besides those on which La Place had reasoned. La Place supposed the incomes to be fixed, and did not consider the means of acquiring them. La Place did not estimate the influence of such a tax on industry. And he (Sir Robert Peel) was afraid that the desire to accumulate wealth would be greatly abated by a graduated Property-tax.
Mr. Heathcoterecommended the Government to acquiesce in what he thought
1238
was the universal wish of the House. The sum of 300 l. seemed little enough to begin the taxation.
Mr. O'Connellalso approved of the alteration. It was not the small incomes of the lower clergy, but the large incomes of the Archbishops and Bishops which ought to he reduced.
Mr. Sheilasked if the whole sum would remain as it was before the proposed alteration?
Mr. Secretary Stanleyreplied, that the scale would remain the same, except cutting off the lower part of it.
Mr. Humewas glad that the right hon. Baronet had not fixed the amount at 500 l. instead of 300 l. as the Gentlemen opposite would have been ready to grant it. The great point, however, was to take care that no man got 300 l. who did nothing for it.
The suggestion of Sir Robert Peel was agreed to, and the schedule as amended was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Bill to be reported.
The House resumed, the Report brought up, read, and to be taken into further consideration.