Sitting of 3 April 1818

IRISH WINDOW TAX.
Mr. Maypresented a petition from Belfast praying the repeal of the Window tax, which being ordered to lie on the table, the hon. member took occasion to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether the understanding in Ireland was correct, that it was his intention to propose the repeal of this unpopular tax?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was glad that the hon. gentleman had afforded him an opportunity of giving some explanation upon the subject to which the petition referred. He understood it to have been generally stated in the Irish papers, as a communication from authority, that it was his intention to move the repeal of the tax alluded to. This statement he had read with surprise, as he certainly never entertained such an intention, nor was he conscious of having ever uttered a word to induce the expectation so generally expressed in the Irish journals. He regretted that he felt himself compelled upon this subject to oppose the wishes of a great proportion of the people of Ireland; but he could not concur in the propriety of repealing this tax, considering the material deficiency of the Irish revenue, and the great amount of the public debt of that country upon the consolidation of the two treasuries.

SLAVE TRADE BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Slave Trade Acts,
Mr. Holmesobserved, that doubts had arisen whether the acts allowing the transfer of slaves from one of our colonies to another, extended to Demerara and Berbice; and with a view to remove those doubts, he proposed that the chairman be instructed to move "for leave to bring in a bill to explain three acts passed in the 46th, 47th, and 51st years of his majesty's reign respectively, for the abolition of the Slave Trade;" to which motion he understood the hon. member for Bramber did not mean to object.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, he should not object to the motion, but he was persuaded that when the object of the bill came to be considered, it would be found to menace the worst effects to the interests of Great Britain, as well as to those of the colonies. Yet he would not oppose the
1186
introduction of this bill, because it was his wish to have the subject fully discussed.
Mr. Marryatstrongly deprecated the object of this bill, being convinced that if the transfer of slaves to Demerara and Berbice were allowed, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent them from being smuggled into other parts of the continent over which we had no dominion, and especially to Surinam. But on the score of that humanity which had produced the abolition of the slave trade, he would resist a measure which proposed to transport slaves from the scene of their early connexions to distant and unhealthy regions. Such transportation, it should be recollected, was but too likely to benefit foreigners, to the prejudice of our own colonies; for there could be little doubt that if the transportation to Demerara and Berbice were tolerated, the slaves would be seduced, and clandestinely taken away to Surinam, where, from the peculiar fertility of the soil, great temptation was held out to capitalists.—Leave was given to bring in the bill, which was brought in accordingly, and read a first time.

SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he had been informed by some of his tenants that a coalition had taken place between some of the Water Companies in the metropolis, by which four had been reduced to three, who had divided great part of the town between them, and the consequence was that the water was, in several instances,
1184
very bad. Some of his tenants who had been served by the Chelsea company were now compelled to take the Grand Junction water, which was of a bad quality, discoloured, and very disagreeable to the taste. He had thought it right to call the attention of the House to this subject, which was of very considerable importance. He was glad that notice had been taken of it in the other House, and he trusted some measure would be adopted to prevent the evil consequences of this monopoly.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that the object of parliament, in passing different bills for supplying the metropolis with water, with a view to a competition, had been by these companies completely defeated, and a monopoly substituted. The consequences of this conduct were not merely increased price to the consumer and bad water, but still more, they might be productive of great loss of property. When the pipes of two companies ran parallel in the same streets, in case of fires, for instance, in two different quarters of the town at the same time, each might be extinguished by the water supplied by the different companies; but now, when only one company supplied one quarter of the town, suppose a fire to happen in Soho, and then immediately afterwards another in the neighbourhood of Carlton-house, the first would have exhausted all the supply of water, and a great number of houses might be destroyed in the other situation before a supply of water could be obtained. He trusted this subject, which had been taken up in the other House, would be effectually persevered in until the evil was remedied.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the subject was one of great importance, and if the objects of the legislature in passing the different bills for the supply of water in the metropolis, which must be supposed to be that of creating a competition, had been defeated by the different companies joining together to establish a monopoly, he trusted their lordships would not separate without its being distinctly understood, that it was perfectly within the competence of parliament to set that matter right.
The Earl of Shaftesburyexpressed his satisfaction at what had been said, and declared his intention, when the bill came before the House, of contributing all in his power to remedy the evil.