Sitting of 10 May 1824

DERRY CATHEDRAL BILL.
Sir George Hill,on moving the second reading, said, that the bill had two objects. The first was to vest in the bishop, dean, mayor, and representatives of the city and county of Derry, subscriptions, which had been entered into, for the rebuilding of the spire, and repairing and embellishing the cathedral. The estimate of the expense
604
of carrying this work into effect, was 5,000 l. The bishop had subscribed 850 l, the corporation 80 l. per annum for ever; and the parishioners proposed to assess themselves, at vestry, in the sum of 60 l. per annum, for 25 years; they having already, in part of the estimate of 5,000 l., put a new roof upon the cathedral. The remainder of this sum was supplied by private subscriptions. The object of the bill was to vest the whole of these funds in trustees, to secure their care, application and the immediate execution of the plan. The second object of the bill was to create a permanent fund for the future maintenance of the cathedral. It did not appear that there was any fund at the disposal of the dean and chapter applicable to the cathedral. It was therefore proposed, by the bill, to charge the deacons of Derry, after the present incumbency, with an annual payment sufficient for that purpose. The anxiety to render the church not only fit for divine service, but to embellish it, and to rebuild the spire, was general. Good-will and co-operation existed locally to carry into effect the measure now proposed, which had for precedent a similar measure carried in the Irish parliament, for the cathedral of Down in 1791, and another for the cathedral of Litchfield in 1797.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, it was quite clear that since the erection of the cathedral there must have been some specific fund set apart for its repair, because it was impossible that it could have remained from that period up to the present, without receiving repairs. What, then, had become of that fund? Why should parliament be called on to furnish the means of repairing the cathedral, when it was clearly the duty of the bishop or the dean and chapter to do so? He defied the right hon. bart. to point out any instance in which parliament had been requested to tax the people at large for the sustentation of a church. The bishop had formerly built the spire. Now, it was clear, from this fact, that there was some regulation which bound him to do so; and the same regulation, he presumed, would apply to the repairs of the cathedral generally. He could not suppose that the building of the spire was a mere voluntary act. He could not suffer the onus of repairing the cathedral to be transferred from the dean and chapter, where it properly rested, to the shoulders of the people at large. Such was the criminal neglect of those under

605
whose superintendence the cathedral was placed, that it was suffered to fall into decay, and the service, for two years, had been actually performed in the Presbyterian meeting-house. Nothing tended more to bring the clergy into disrepute, than their overlooking the repairs of places of worship. It was quite unworthy of their character. The bishop was bound to compel measures to be taken for the repair of the cathedral. A letter, written by an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Dawson), on this subject, had been published in the newspapers. That letter contained an opinion which should have satisfied the promoters of the bill that it was an inexpedient measure, and ought to have induced them to abandon it. The sentiments expressed in that letter did credit to the feelings of the hon. writer. The whole of the bill was most obnoxious. He should therefore move as an amendment," that it be read a second time this day six months."
Alderman Woodobserved, that the Irish Society felt considerable objections to this measure. That society had been reproached for not advancing funds for the repairs of the cathedral, but they had no right to appropriate their funds to that purpose. A series of resolutions had been agreed to by the corporation of Derry, which reflected on the corporation of London and the Irish society. Those resolutions charged the corporation with holding estates, in perpetuity, to the amount of 8,000 l. or 10,000 l. a-year, and with laying out the money in eating and drinking. The fact, however, was different. The Irish society received, in perpetuity, 2,300 l. a-year for property which was worth 20,000 l. a-year. Almost the whole city of Londonderry, which belonged to the corporation of London, had been disposed of by very improvident persons, at a rate greatly below its true value. For his own part, he believed that some of their ancestors had received an Irish bribe. From the other leases, the Irish Society received 3,300 l. These two sums of 2,300 l. and 3,300 l. were the total amount of their receipts, with the exception of the Fishery. It was let for 1,200 l. a-year; but he could prove, that individuals at the present moment were willing to give 6,000 l. a-year for it. The Irish society had, out of this income of 6,000 l. a-year, built a school and rectory on the Coleraine estate.
Mr. S. Bournecould not agree to es-
606
tablish such a precedent as would unquestionably be established if this bill were agreed to. It was the duty of the dean and chapter to repair the church. That was the primary object for which their revenues were granted. He recollected, when part of the cathedral of Hereford fell down, that it was repaired without any application being made to parliament for assistance; and it was a well-known fact, that the dean and chapter of Winchester were spending thousands annually on the repairs of the cathedral. How was it proposed to carry on the repairs of the cathedral of Derry in future? Why, the expense was to be thrown on the successors of the present dean and chapter. This, he thought, was not a very decorous mode of proceeding. In his opinion, the dean and chapter were not entitled to touch a farthing of their revenues until the cathedral was repaired. If a precedent of this kind were once established, it would be the means of inducing deans and chapters to neglect the repairs of those magnificent pieces of architecture, to which they were paying so much attention at present.
Mr. Littletonsaid, it was most disgraceful in those whose duty it was to repair the cathedral, to suffer it almost to fall, and then, with unblushing effrontery, to apply to parliament for assistance. The right hon. baronet had alluded to the cathedral of Lichfield; but the fact was, not only that bishop Cornwallis contributed to the repairs to almost the whole extent of his revenue, but that a great proportion of the chapter revenue, now and hereafter, was available for such repairs as were necessary. The dean and chapter of that cathedral would feel ashamed to come to parliament with such an application as the present.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that in consequence of the carelessness of those who should keep those sacred edifices in repair, many of the most ancient of them had vanished. Funds which should have been applied to the repairs of cathedrals had too often been appropriated to purposes of private emolument; and then the House was called on to furnish money for repairs, because no inquiry was instituted as to what had become of those funds. Sums were levied on entire parishes for this purpose; but from those parochial proceedings the whole body of the Roman Catholics were excluded. They were liable to contribute their money; but they

607
had no control whatever over the disbursement. It was a great hardship to throw the burthen of repairing a church on individuals who were of a different religion. It was a shame that, in so rich a diocess as Derry, it had become necessary to apply to the Presbyterian body for the use of their chapel. Gentlemen were taunted with entertaining a wish to degrade the church of Ireland; but, was it not degraded in the eyes of the community, by coming to parliament with such a demand as this?
Mr. Dawsonsaid, he feared the citizens of Derry would be left without a place of worship, unless the House came to "some prompt decision on this subject. At present, they had in fact no church; for it happened that the cathedral, which was in a dilapidated state, was the only church within the walls, and no service had been performed there for two years. The consequence was, that it was found necessary to apply to the Presbyterian congregation for the use of their chapel. The citizens were not able to repair the cathedral; and thus 7,000 or 8,000 people were without a regular place of worship. The difficulty of the case was, to devise some mode of giving them a church, without saddling them with the expense. A letter written by him had been alluded to. It was a letter written for a private and local purpose, and he was sorry that it had been published: but, as it had been given to the public, he was prepared to support the opinions therein stated. He thought the revenues of the church should, when it was necessary, be applied to the purpose of repairs. That this was not done, in the present case, was the more extraordinary, as the riches of that diocess were notorious. He concurred in the sentiments which had fallen from gentlemen. He trusted those sentiments would bring the dean and chapter to a proper sense of their duty. The intention of the bill was, to make the parishioners liable for present and future repairs; and he could wish, whether it was agreed to or not, that the House would take some step to see this ancient edifice put into repair.
Mr. Plunkettexpressed his entire concurrence in the opinions of the hon. members The church of Ireland ought to be vindicated from any participation in a measure of this kind. He was glad to have that opportunity of rendering justice to the bishop of Derry. It was but justice to
608
say, that there was not an individual who was more regardless of private interest, or who delighted more in works of charity and benevolence. He (Mr. P.) thought it was a most improper thing, that those economy funds, as they were called, were not sought after, and properly bestowed. Those funds, he believed, were frequently misappropriated. No person could do the church greater service at the present moment, than by showing the clergy the necessity of entrenching themselves on public opinion by their good conduct.
Sir George Hillexpressed his deep regret, that a measure which he had prepared in consequence of the unanimous vote of vestry, and a liberal grant of the corporation supported by a petition from the bishop, dean, chief magistrate, and principal inhabitants of Derry, and intended to accomplish so excellent and so necessary an object, should meet with such discouragement from the House as to prevent him from persevering in it. It was now clear, that the House disapproved of the measure, from an impression that the clergy had not done their duty. The occupation of some other place of worship than the cathedral could not be avoided, whilst the parishioners were putting on a new roof. The dean, who was a zealous, charitable divine, and constantly resident, was liable in this respect to no reproach. It having been believed, that Derry cathedral had no economy fund, and was no more than any other parish church in the diocess, this measure of creating one was resorted to. The diocess of Derry presented a body of clergy, not merely irreproachable, but, by their conscientious discharge of their professional duties, entitled to his humble praise. He did not believe there was in the whole diocess a single non-resident. With these explanations he would withdraw his motion.
The bill was withdrawn.

CORPORATE COMPANIES.
Lord Stanley having moved the second reading of the bill for incorporating the Manchester and Salford Loan Company,
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that he should certainly object to bills of incorporation, unless where charter was first regularly obtained from the Crown. This was the old and the regular course of parliamentary proceeding.—Having obtained their charter from the king in council, the company came to the House of Commons

609
for further powers; and he saw no reason for deviating from the established practice. Legislative incorporations involved numberless difficulties, many of which could scarcely be dealt with. A charter from the Crown might be revoked, if it was abused, or if the company failed to fulfil their undertakings with the public; but this could not be done in the case of a legislative enactment. To authorize an unlimited number of trading companies in such a manner, would be to do a material mischief to the country. He held in his hand the charter of the first company formed for lighting London with gas. According to the letter of that document, the power was given by the king and might be revoked in case the company abused it. Here, then, was a means by which that particular company could be dealt with; but how could government deal with about forty companies (not royally chartered) which had been since formed for lighting different parts of England by gas? companies were going on to form themselves into corporations for every purpose—no matter what—of trade. How was the public to proceed in case they neglected to fulfil their conditions? Parties might go to law, and get a verdict; but how and where were they to levy? He would not object to giving bodies who might be about to do business on a large scale, the power of suing and being sued collectively; but he certainly should oppose the taking every wild and idle speculation that might offer itself, out of the general operation of the laws of the country.

WEST-INDIA COMPANY BILL.
Mr. Manning moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Huskissondid not mean to say, that there might not exist a strong case on the part of this particular company for incorporation; but he could see nothing at present which took it out of the rule which he had just laid down. Without attempting to question the policy of incorporating a West-India company, he took the objection which he had before urged generally—that the origin of it was irregular, and that the parties must be required to begin with obtaining first of all their charter from the Crown; and if it should be found that its powers were insufficient, they would then be intitled to come to parliament either for the enlarging or confirming of those powers.
Mr. Elliceunderstood from the right hon. gentleman, that the gas bill to which he had referred had been granted conditionally; that was to say, if the company could not obtain a charter from the Crown then the powers of the bill were to be inoperative. Why not allow this bill to proceed upon the same conditions?
Mr. Huskissonrepeated his objection to allowing any bill for incorporation, which was not preceded by a charter obtained from the Crown.
Mr. Sykesthought that the present bill could not be allowed to proceed to a second reading. He looked upon it as an aggressive and encroaching measure introduced under the modest garb of a private bill, to the great prejudice of the public interests. He could not at all conjecture how it tended to give any relief to the West-India proprietors, which they could not obtain quite as easily at present. His chief objections to it were on public grounds. He disliked the command which the accumulation of so large a capital as four millions would give the company over the West-India trade. He knew that no undertaking could be more hazardous than such an investment and it was a still stronger objection that the creditors of the company would have no security for their debts, excepting the property comprised in the act of incorporation. The separate members would be rendered individually irresponsible. Was it to be endured that the unfortunate people who might be induced to intrust them with their property without ever supposing that they were not responsible individually, should be left in a state so disadvantageous? He himself knew of parties who had sued a mayor and corporation and recovered from them: but still the mayor and corporation laughed at the success of the suitor, because their corporate property and responsibility only being in question, there was nothing upon which he could seize of sufficient value to meet his demand. Not one in a thousand who might deal with this company would be aware, that the members were not answerable individually for their debts. But they had more than this to dread. This influence of so formidable a company over the West-India trade would be extremely detrimental. What individual merchant could compete with a company possessing four millions of capital? Then it was to be observed, that this capital was to be divided into

611
40,000 shares at 100 l. each. He did not wish to say any thing at present upon the West-India system; but he could not but observe, that, against the dictates of reason and sound policy, it was yet very strongly supported. It was a subject, the interest of which had crept into that House, and held many to it on both sides of it. He did not wish for the success of this new plan, which would tend to spread its influence over the whole population of the country, and by that means become a considerable accession of power in a quarter already too strong. It was apian in short for enlisting 40,000 persons on the side of the present West-India system. What necessity could there be for making these new levies to serve under the banners of the West-Indian army? If money were wanted, it could be borrowed on terms quite as reasonable as this company could afford. The ulterior dangers, however, which were greatest, were those of injuring the West-India trade and the interests of our manufactures as far at they were connected with it, and strengthening another interest, which, with respect to justice and humanity, might be regretted as being already too strong.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, it was suggested, that the establishment of this company would tend to make the condition of negro-slavery in the West Indies worse than at present. If it should turn out, on examination of the subject at any future time, that he could be brought to that opinion, he would instantly withdraw his name from it. But as he thought there was a good opportunity for employing a portion of that capital which was now fleating about for want of some opportunity of' investment, he would support it; especially as he had heard nothing to induce him to believe that it would make the condition of slavery worse in the West Indies.
Mr. T. Wilsondefended the plan, as one of peculiar accommodation to the West-India proprietors, who would, but for this establishment, be obliged to go hawking about their securities, and by that means incur the disagreeable suspicion of being in insolvent circumstances.
Mr. W. Williamswould oppose the bill in every stage. How could a company carry on the business of plantations better than expert individuals? Did it become parliament to sanction the pretence of a more profitable investment of capital, which might sweep scores of help-
612
less families into its vortex if it should not be successful? But he chiefly objected to it because it offered an obstacle to the finai abolition of slavery. It was in vain to look for any such result, if the estates in the West Indies should have to be managed by a company residing here, actuated solely by a sense of pecuniary interest, instead of being subjected, as at present, to the occasional visits of an enlightened and humane proprietor, educated with all the moral advantages which generally went to form the character of an English gentleman. Instead of this, should the company be incorporated, every thing would be left to sordid and unfeeling agents; and all the hopes which had been entertained in regard to the unfortunate slaves would give place to the abuses which had been the subject of complaint in parliament for thirty years past.
Mr. W. Whitmorestrongly opposed the bill, because it threatened the freedom and general interests of the sugar-trade, and tended to establish a baneful monopoly. It was well known, that the West-India sugar market had produced an excess of the article for several years past, which was now, however, rapidly diminishing. Let this company once be established, and not only would the excess be diminished to nothing, but the public might be called upon to pay from 50 to 100 per cent beyond the natural value of the commodity. He thought it extraordinary, after the lamentable example of the South-Sea scheme, that there should be any attempt to renew the experiment. There should be the most unquestionable proof, before granting the charter, that there was no mode of carrying on the trade so safe or convenient as by an incorporated company. For want of this precaution, Adam Smith, in commenting on the South-Sea scheme, had asserted on the authority of a French author, that from the year 1680, to his time, there had been no less than fifty-five joint-stock companies incorporated in Europe, every one of which had failed.
Mr C. R. Ellis,though indirectly interested in this question, would only give his consideration to it upon public grounds, upon which grounds he wished it every success. The House had it in their power to pledge his hon. friend, either to obtain a charter before the bill should come out of the committee, or to withdraw it altogether. He approved of it as an admi-

613
rable means for the employment of barren capital; and the names of successful capitalists in the direction gave a sufficient promise of advantage and success. He approved of the bill, because it tended to diffuse more widely a sense of the importance of the West-India islands, and be-cause it would act as a caution among the people of this country, not to be too ready to interpose in the internal government of those colonies, to the evident risk of their natural interests; and he could not have anticipated that this would have been urged as any objection to the bill.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the system the colonies were pursuing, was one which must end in their complete ruin; and the effect of the measure now proposed would be, to involve them in far greater misery than what they now suffered. Looking at the proposed company only as a private one, he could not but think, that whatever advantages of local knowledge they might possess would be more than counterbalanced by the prejudices which might be supposed to actuate them. In nine cases out of ten, they would consider what might be the interests of the company rather than those of the planters. But there was another point of view in which this measure seemed still more objectionable. At present the West-India interests enjoyed the advantage of a monopoly of sugar, supported by a high protecting duty. Now, the only means by which this company could hope to gain any advantage from their enterprise must be by raising the price of sugar; and to this end they were to be allowed to buy and sell to the amount of four millions. This consideration, if it were the only one, ought to induce the House to pause before they agreed to the present bill.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that if he understood that the bill was to have the operation which the hon. gentleman had ascribed to it, he should think it highly objectionable on the general principle. The hon. gentleman had argued as if the effect of the bill would be, to secure the whole trade of the West Indies to the company proposed to be formed. He had stated, that it could not fail to raise the price of sugar, because the company were to become great dealers in it; and with a capital of four millions, to unite in themselves a monopoly both as planters and as traders. This was, however, not the intention of the company. They did not propose to trade at all. They never in-
614
tended to become either the buyers or sellers of sugar, but to be in precisely the same situation as what were now called West-India houses of agency; that was to say, they were to receive the consignments of the produce of West-India estates, as West-India agents did, and in that capacity they were to sell them: but they were not, in any case, to go into the market as dealers, or to employ their capital for the purpose of dealing in West-India commodities. The authorities of Adam Smith and the Abbé Maury had been thrust forward, and all the arguments urged against monopolies and joint-stock companies had been applied to this. It was, however, not only no monopoly, but, when the circumstances in which the West-India interests were placed were fully considered, he thought the House would be induced to permit the plan to be carried into effect, in the hope of relieving those interests. He would not support any company, whose object it should be to raise the price of sugar by means of a monopoly. But, was there, at this moment, nothing in the condition of the West-India proprietors, that made it desirable for the House to encourage—if they could do so without the violation of any sound principle—any plan which should appear likely to afford them relief, by furnishing them with a loan of money? The occasional unproductiveness of their estates, and the consequently insufficient security, had prevented the owners from borrowing money at the legal rate of interest. He appealed to the landed interest of England, whether, if such a state of things prevailed here—if they were pressed by their creditors, and without the means of raising money—they would not gladly adopt an expedient devised for affording them relief, by a mortgage of their estates? This was the whole intent of the present bill. As it was admitted, that the loan of money would afford important relief to the West-India interests, and that individuals were disposed to furnish that relief, he was at a loss to guess upon what good ground it could be objected to. It had been said elsewhere, that nothing could be more likely to produce the amelioration of the condition of the slaves than the distress of the West-India proprietors. If he entertained any such belief, he might perhaps be induced to oppose the bill; but he besought the House to look at the situation of the planters, and to say, whether, unable as

615
they were to live but by means of loans at exorbitant interests, the slaves were more likely to be taken care of, than if a more prosperous state of things could be restored to the colonies? The distress of the masters must naturally aggravate the distress of the slaves; and any relief to the former would be relief to both; because it would enable and induce the masters to co-operate with the government at home to alleviate the condition of their slaves. With respect to the capital of the proposed company, he believed there were agency houses now in England, who employed nearly as large an amount. Upon these grounds, and without pledging himself wholly to the support of the bill, he thought it ought to proceed to the second reading.
Dr. Lushingtonobjected to the principle of the bill, and reminded the House that if they consented to give this company what they now asked, it would be easy for them to obtain the sanction of the Crown to become a corporation. The right hon. gentleman had not stated, in the course of his observations, what was too well known; namely, that the colonies had been a losing concern for some years back; and he had no less carefully abstained from stating his own opinion, that this proposed advance of capital would be enough to keep the system alive. The legal rate of interest on West-India property was now 6 per cent; but, was that the rate at which money was ever lent? Was not, in reality, the interest on advances of money by consignees, and the insurance of the stores, nearer to 10 per cent? It was said, that West-India property was insecure. True, it was so; and why? Because the returns of the estates were insufficient, and therefore advances were never made but under the circumstances, and upon the terms he had stated. And how was the proposed company to relieve this state of things? It must be either by raising the price of sugar, or by their becoming the holders of the West-India estates. If they should become the holders of those estates, they would, in their character of mortgagees, be unable to exercise all that privilege of manumitting the slaves, which was exercised by the proprietors, and which was, in every point of view, of the deepest importance. There were other grounds upon which he felt obliged to oppose the bill. It empowered the company to lend money in any part of the globe; there
616
was no limitation to the West Indies nor to any other colony [Mr. Huskisson said, across the table, that any persons might, at present, lend money on any security they thought proper]. The right hon. gentleman was quite correct; any person might do so; but this company asked to do it under the authority of parliament, and in the form of a corporation. Be-sides, if so much good was to be expect-ed from such a measure, why had it not already been tried? What had prevented those gentlemen who proposed to form the new company from having made advances? He objected particularly to that clause in the bill, which, under certain circumstances, would enable the company to hold the estates on which they were to lend money, in mortua manu, until the attorney-general should file an information, or a foreclosure of the mortgage should be decreed by a court of equity. He should certainly vote against the further progress of the bill.
Mr. F. Buxton,after the length to which the discussion had proceeded, would, in a few words, enter his protest against the measure, as highly detrimental to the interests of the slaves. In the first place, by enhancing their value, it would make the chance of their manumission more remote; and in the second, by placing them in the power—not of their owners, but—of persons who would not have the power, even if they had the inclination, to give them their freedom, it would render their situation far more hopeless than it was at present. He should, therefore, feel it to be his duty to oppose the bill at every possible opportunity.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonwas convinced that the bill would be rather beneficial than; injurious to the slaves. If by any means the value of West-India property was in-creased, and if at the same time the slaves were allowed to work out their freedom, the increased value given for their labour would the sooner enable them to accomplish their emancipation. His learned friend had contended, that the bill would cause a forced influx of capital into the West-Indies. Now, it would not cause an influx, but a transfer only. There was no difference, as regarded the quantity of capital, whether the mortgages of West-India property were in the hands of individuals, or of a corporation; but, if the West-India proprietors were pressed upon by the private mortgage, it might be a great relief to him to be able to transfer

617
his mortgage to a company, which could deal with him liberally. He saw no difficulty in adopting the principle of the bill; which was merely to allow a company to make advances of money in a manner in which it was now perfectly lawful for individuals to make them.
Mr. Evanssaid, he felt it his duty to throw every obstacle in his power in the way of the passing of this bill. The supporters of it professed to raise the value of West-India property. He could not conceive how this could be done, without raising the price of the produce; unless, which the projectors disclaimed, by lowering the duties on sugar. The bill gave to a greater number of persons in this country, an interest in the West-India colonies, and would thus render more difficult any improvement in the condition of the slaves.
Mr. Manningsupported the bill, and said, that it would only enable the company to do collectively, what the members of it might now do individually.
Mr. Sykesapprehended, that the immense capital of the company, and the influence which it would consequently procure them, would enable them to obtain a monopoly of the market for West-India produce. The West-India merchants already possessed a monopoly of the home-market; there would, therefore, be a monopoly within a monopoly, an imperium in imperio. Another consequence of the passing of the bill would be, an increase of the quantity of sugar; which could not, he conceived, be beneficial to any party. Under these circumstances, he would move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."
The House divided: For the second reading 102: Against it 30.

REPEAL OF THE ASSESSED TAXES.
Mr. Maberlyrose, to bring forward his motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes. It was his intention, he said, to deal with this subject on the largest possible scale. He should first take a view of the financial statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, and should then lay before the House his own views of the sinking fund, and endeavour to demonstrate the absurdity of continuing it. From the view which the right hon. gentleman had taken of the revenue and expenditure of the country for the next four years, it was evident that there was no chance of a repeal of taxation to any extent until
618
the year 1829. The right hon. gentleman had calculated, from an estimate of the revenue and expenditure for four years, that we should have a balance for that period of 4,135,999 l. The right hon. gentleman had not included in this estimate the savings which would arise from the reduction of the interest of Exchequer bills from 2d. to 1½d., which would amount to about 700,000 l. for the four years. The statement would then stand thus. The surplus for four years over and above the expenditure, without reference to the sinking fund, would amount to 4,135,999 l. The estimate of the amount of sinking fund for four years would make a total of 21,515,832 l. Now, if he added the savings arising from the reduction of the interest on Exchequer bills amounting to 700,000 l. the total balance of surplus over and above expenditure for four years would be 26,351,831 l. Now, the right hon. gentleman proposed to apply 5,000,000 l. to the purchase of unfunded debt; the other part of the surplus was applied to the reduction of taxation—in the articles of rum, 150,000 l.; coals, 100,000 l.; wool, 350,000 l.; silk, 462,000 l.; making a total of 1,062,000 l. There was also the reduction of taxes on law proceedings; but this reduction, the right hon. gentleman had stated, would not affect the financial statement which he had originally made. Subsequently, the right hon. gentleman had decided, that it would be expedient, in order to do justice to silk-dealers holding stock in hand, to repay duties to the amount of 500,000 l. From this statement, it appeared that there would be an available balance, over these four years in favour of the state, amounting to 22,133,931 l.; a balance which would be sufficient to relieve the public from the burthen of the taxes which he proposed to repeal. The amount of available surplus in each year would be 5,533,482/. Having laid before the House this statement of the finances of the country, he trusted he should satisfy the House, that if they would forego the sinking fund, all the taxes which pressed most heavily on the country might be repealed. It would not be necessary for him to dwell on the arguments which had been brought forward, to shew the benefits of the sinking fund, because, in point of fact, from 1792 up to 1819, there had been no sinking fund in this country. Of late years, people had grown wise enough to believe, that a sinking fund meant an ex-

619
cess of revenue over expenditure. Now, as the public debt in 1792 amounted to upwards of 200,000,000 l., and in 1819, to upwards of 800,000,000 l., how could any man argue, that there had really been a sinking fund, during a period in which there had been an accumulation of 600,000,000 l. of debt? If the country had increased in prosperity, that prosperity must be attributed to other causes, and not to the existence of a sinking fund during the period to which he alluded. In 1819, it was deemed expedient to put on taxes to the amount of 3,000,000 l. for the purpose of keeping up a sinking fund of 5,000,000 l. Since that period, the sinking fund had been operating, not indeed to that extent, but to an extent which he should presently state, up to the 5th January, 1824. The; funded debt of Great Britain and Ireland amounted, on the 5th Jan. 1819, to 791,867,313 l., and the interest payable on this nominal debt, amounted to 29,355,974 l. Taking this interest at 25 years purchase, at the rate of value from the price of the funds of that day, the real money debt due from the country in 1819, amounted to 733,899,350 l. Since 1819, we had reduced 9,592,174 l., leaving the present nominal amount of funded debt, 782,275,139 l. The interest upon the debt in 1823, amounted to 27,689,882 l., making a reduction of interest to the amount of 1,666,092 l. since 1819. The application of the 5,000,000 l. to the reduction of the debt, had effected nothing, in comparison with the progressive improvement which had taken place in the country, arising out of the increase of capital, and the industry and talents of the people. But, how stood the money value at present? It was no less than 152,176,874 l. more than it was in 1819; to diminish which, the sum of 5,000,000 l. annually would be like a drop of water taken from the sea. In point of fact, of what consequence was it, whether the debt amounted to 100 millions more, or 100 millions less, as far as the public was concerned? It was to the interest of the debt and the reduction of it, that the country must look for relief. Now, he happened to think, whether rightly or not, at least honestly, that by taking this sum of five millions annually out of the pockets of the people, we retarded, instead of, accelerating the period, when we might arrive at a reduction. He was perfectly aware, that five millions of money taken
620
annually from the people, and appropriated to the reduction of the debt, would redeem five millions; but, in the present state of the funds, it would redeem no more. Now, it was absurd to suppose that the maintenance of public credit required this annual draught upon the resources of the people. If public credit was in a tottering condition, then, indeed, it might be deemed necessary; but, in the present state of things, it was entirely a matter of expediency; and the simple question was, whether it was or was not expedient to continue this mode of reducing the national debt? It was a matter of trifling importance, as far as the argument was concerned, whether this sum of money was sacred, or expended by the public. If it was spent in articles of consumption, then, of course the public would lose the most; but if they applied it to some object of re-production, then the public would be most materially benefitted. If a large portion of this sum was invested in re-productive objects, he contended, that the capital of the nation would be increased to a much greater degree by repealing those taxes than by continuing them. He did not mean to assert, that the benefits which he anticipated, would arise to-day or to-morrow; but he maintained, that there was every fair expectation, if the country continued in a state of peace, and capital should go on accumulating as it had done, we should arrive much sooner by repealing than by continuing those taxes, at the period when we should be enabled to reduce the interest of the 3 per cents. The 3 per cents amounted to 527 millions; the interest of which was 15,810,000 l. If we remained at peace, there could be very little doubt that the government would be enabled, in a short time, to reduce the interest of the 3 per cents. If the interest were reduced to 2¾, a saving of 1,330,000 l. would be effected; but if it were reduced to 2½, the saving would be 2,635,000 l.—He thought it necessary to say a few words respecting the danger of trusting the chancellor of the Exchequer with a large surplus. In such a case, the estimates were never cut down so low as they ought to be. Every one knew, from his own experience, that, when a private individual possessed a considerable surplus of income over expenditure, he became imprudent and extravagant. Although the chancellor of the Exchequer had repealed part of the assessed taxes, he believed the expense of

621
collection was greater now than it had formerly been. Another proof of the impropriety of trusting the chancellor of the Exchequer with a large surplus was to be found in the improvident bargain which he had made respecting the dead weight, by which the country had lost 2,000,000 l. When the right hon. gentleman had stated that he wanted 900,000 l. for churches, palaces, and pictures, there was a strong feeling in the House that the wants of the country had been trifled with,—He would now state to the House the taxes which he proposed to repeal. They were the house and window duties, the horse and agricultural horse-tax, the tax on carriages and carts, the tax on coachmakers' licenses, the tax on hair-powder and armorial bearings, the composition for the above, &c, amounting altogether to 3,560,000 l. a year. If the House should think proper to vote for the repeal of those taxes, he could see no reason why the whole expense of collecting them, amounting to 300,000 l., should not also be got rid of. If the taxes should be repealed, there could be no pretence for retaining any part of the expense of collecting them, except for retired allowances to those who had been engaged in that service. He would be the last man to propose that a servant should be turned adrift without reward, because his services were no longer required. It was not by such paltry savings as might be effected by such a proceeding that the country would be benefitted. On the contrary, he thought that men who had spent a considerable portion of their lives in the public service, should be adequately provided for, when the period of their retirement arrived. There was no chance that the chancellor of the Exchequer, if left to himself, would remit the taxes now proposed to be repealed. That, indeed, was pretty evident from what had occurred, shortly after the late repeal of a portion of the house and window duties. At that time, the commissioners of taxes sent letters to the assessors, directing them to survey the houses in the district, and telling them, that if they used their utmost diligence, and increased the amount of the returns, they would be favourably recommended to the Treasury. This proceeding had created the utmost alarm throughout the country, and representations poured in upon government on the subject from all quarters. The chancellor of the Exchequer, under those circumstances, had
622
wisely put a stop to the proposed survey, which he declared was only thought of for the purpose of equalizing the duties. But, if there was any import in words, the object of the commissioners of taxes was to increase and not to equalize the duties. The assessed taxes must be considered as direct taxes. But, how would the House receive a proposition for the imposition of an income or property tax; which was the only fair mode of direct taxation? The House, he believed, would scarcely allow such a plan to be stated. The strong feeling which prevailed against assessed taxes was owing to the inquisitorial system by which they were collected. The whole of the machinery by which they were collected was most oppressive. In three-fourths of the cases in which penalties were incurred on account of not filling up the returns, people erred, not intentionally, but from ignorance. Poor people were frequently deterred from appealing against the decision of the collectors, on account of the loss of time which generally attended such a proceeding. It might be said, that carriages were articles of luxury, and therefore were proper objects of taxation. But, looking-glasses were quite as much articles of luxury as carriages, and yet the former did pay an annual duty, whilst the latter did not. The hon. member then alluded to Ireland, which was relieved from the assessed taxes. In Ireland, the taxation amounted to no more than 10 s. per head, whilst in England it amounted to 3l. 105. per head. Nearly the whole expense of Ireland fell upon the people of England. This was to be attributed to the want of employment which prevailed in that country. He feared that if some mode of relieving the distresses of Ireland was not devised, she would become a dangerous enemy to England. The unfortunate situation of Ireland would induce her to rebel, and to place herself under the protection of any foreign power that appeared to sympathize with her sufferings. Although he proposed to repeal upwards of three millions of taxes, relief would be afforded to the country of nearly four millions. But, then, would there be an entire loss to the revenue of 3,500,000 l? He thought not. It would of course lose a proportion, but he thought it would not be more than 3,000,000 l.; and this would still leave the country a surplus of 2,500,000 l. This repeal would produce increased consumption, and many other advantages, besides

623
the health and comfort to the people, by the removal of the window-tax. He should now beg leave to propose, the following resolutions:—"1. That it is expedient, that from and after the 5th day of January 1825, the duties now payable on houses and windows should cease. 2. That it is expedient, that from and after the 5th day of January, 1825, the duties on servants, carriages, carts, coachmakers', licenses, horses, mules, together with all compositions for the said duties, should cease."
The first resolution being put,
Mr. Leycestersaid, he was anxious to abolish a system which had converted the sturdy squire into a pliant place-hunter. He looked upon the sinking fund to be as mischievous as the restrictions upon free trade. It might be necessary for Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose despots would soon imitate the conduct of Ferdinand of Spain, to adopt such a system; but for this country, whose resources and public credit stood so high, to persevere in its continuance was absurd and mischievous. As to the debt, there were two ways of dealing with it. One way was, to diminish the debt itself; the other, to increase the wealth of the debtor. In neither of these ways would the keeping up of a sinking fund operate. It was an artificial proceeding altogether unworthy of this country, and therefore with great satisfaction he seconded the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. mover had merely agitated the same question, which had come under the consideration of the House about six weeks ago, upon a motion made by the hon. member for Westminster. Upon that occasion he had stated the reasons why he could not consent to the repeal of the assessed taxes, and nothing had since occurred to invalidate those reasons. The grounds upon which the hon. member for Westminster rested his motion were precisely similar to those which the hon. member for Abingdon had just advanced in support of his propositions. The hon. member for Westminster, however, had not been able to persuade the House to agree to his proposition, and he could see no reason why the efforts of the hon. member for Abingdon should be attended with a happier result. He was not quite accurate when he said that the motion of the hon. member was precisely the same as that which had been made by the hon. member for Westminster. The latter
624
hon. member had proposed the repeal of the house and window duties only, but the hon. member for Abingdon wished to extend the repeal to every others article constituting the assessed taxes. If the arguments which had been used, applied with any strength against a motion which had for its object a repeal of taxation, to the amount of two millions, they must apply with greater force to one which was intended to effect a repeal of taxes to the extent of three millions and a half. The hon. member had asserted, that the sinking fund, or, more properly speaking, the excess of revenue over expenditure, had produced no diminution of debt. The hon. member had compared the amount of the debt at the present moment with its amount in 1819. That was not a fair mode of dealing with the subject. He should have gone back to 1816, when a surplus of revenue first existed. Since 1816, 25,000,000 l. of funded debt had been redeemed, together with 14,500,000 l of unfunded debt. This reduction had been effected by means of the surplus of revenue over expenditure, let it be called by what name, or nickname, it might. The hon. member had also alluded to the Exchequer bills which, on the first of January, 1816, were, for great Britain and Ireland, 52,082,000 l. They now were 34,944,000 l. Besides this, it was perfectly true that there was a considerable diminution of charge, for which they were indebted to the sinking fund. He alluded to the reduction of the interest; for though it might be thought that that was not referable to the sinking fund, yet it was impossible to say, that the sinking fund had nothing to do with that saving; for had not the sinking fund been in existence, he doubted if he would have been in the situation to have allowed of the operation taking place. The hon. member said, that by adopting his plan, it would give such an elevation to the funds that they might be enabled to reduce the interest of the 3 per cents. He (the chancellor of the Exchequer) could not say what the pleasure of parliament might be under the circumstances stated, but this he knew, that with the sinking fund they had reduced the interest of the debt 1,700,000 l. There were many knowing persons who were speculating on the advance of the 3 per cents to par, and the hon. member seemed to think that a probable result of his plan. But, was the existence of the sinking fund to preclude

625
that? On the contrary, were not the funds in that state to lead to the probability of greater reductions? He did not think the hon. member had made out a very strong case against his old friend the sinking fund. The hon. member had told the House, that they had the gloomy prospect of no further reduction of taxation for the next four years. Now, he would rather not deal in prospects either gloomy or brilliant. But he would suppose last year, when 3,200,000 l. of taxes were remitted, the hon. member might have said, "Ay, this is all very well, but if you keep the sinking fund you can repeal no more taxes;" yet 3,200,000 l. had been repealed, and they were now in the situation of repealing 1,250,000 l. more. If the increasing prosperity of the country would do what the hon. member said it would do, he (the chancellor of the Exchequer) would find himself in the same situation as he had already been, when his conduct would be guided by the same principles as hitherto it had been. Every principle that he had laid down must lead to the conclusion—which indeed he had always expressed in the most unreserved manner—that if a tax was very high, in proportion to the value of the article, it was per se a very good thing to get rid of such tax. He hoped, therefore, the House would not be led away by the statements of the hon. member, but that they would refer to the principles on which he had already acted.—One word on the subject of the house-tax. It had been reported to him, that, in many parts of the country, the tax was unjustly and unequally levied; houses of the same size and quality—in the same street, being differently rated. This appeared to him to be the very essence of injustice, though no one was charged more than the law allowed; and he had considered that, on a re-survey, the increase in the total amount would have enabled him to have proposed a general decrease of taxation. In that view he had directed the resurvey; but when he heard that it was complained of, he gave directions that no surcharges should be made.
Mr. Humesaid, the right hon, gentleman had made some observations which had much surprised him. He had, on a former occasion, stated the reduction of debt to be 24,000,000 l., but he had now advanced it to 39,000,000 l. How he had arrived at that conclusion it was impossible to say. The amount of surplus from 1816
626
up to lost year, was only 7,000,000 l., and the difference of figures must arise from the change of the denomination of the stock. During that period, also, we had been borrowing money on deferred annuities, which the right hon. gentleman had not taken into the account. He would pledge himself to prove, that the assertion of the right hon. gentleman, that there had been a reduction of 39 millions, and a corresponding reduction of interest, was entirely unfounded. The aggregate of the surplus of "the different years did not amount to so much. It was, in fact, a very small sum. The right hon. gentleman hoped that the House would not be so inconsistent as to accede to the motion; but the House had already sanctioned greater inconsistencies. They had declared, that not a shilling of taxes could be repealed, and yet the right hon. gentleman was now taking credit to himself for the amount of taxes which had been taken off. What had taken place since the motion made by the hon. member for Westminster? Since that period the table of the House had been covered with petitions, praying for the repeal of those taxes; and the House was bound to consider whether the prayer of the people could not be complied with. Taking the sinking fund, which the right hon. gentleman called the surplus fund, at three millions, he would ask, was it fit that it should be employed in paying off the three per cents at 96, 97, and 98? Could any person suppose that would be of the same utility as if it were remitted from the general burthen of taxation? If it were considered, that the assessed taxes were the impediment to the return of thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands, of persons at present residing abroad, that alone would be sufficient to induce the right hon. gentleman to repeal them. If the right hon. gentleman would extend his liberal views on commercial subjects to affairs of finance, he would find that the three millions, if left in the pockets of the people, would be productive of ten times the benefit they were of at present. The public credit stood too high to need any such bolstering up as the sinking-fund. Besides, it was a matter of great concern to be relieved from the expense of collection; exclusive of exactions, which never could be entirely prevented.
Mr. Alderman Heygatefelt it his duty to state his reasons for not voting for the motion. He disliked the assessed taxes

627
as much as any one. He thought them bad in principle, and odious in practice. They brought the people into constant collision with the government. They harassed the country with surcharges and appeals. They maintained a whole army of assessors, surveyors, inspectors, and collectors, and, unlike the indirect taxes, they interfered with the comfort and retirement of every householder. Until they were repealed, peace could not be said to have produced its full effect. He would venture to add, that the country was more grateful to ministers for the repeal of one half of them last year, than for any other measure of their government. But the House was pledged to the maintenance of a sinking fund. So lately as 1819, they had, by a large majority, declared it to be essential to the public safety. To the sinking fund we were mainly indebted for the important reductions of the interest of the debt. To it, if honestly maintained, we might look for a reduction of the 3 per cents at no distant period. But without this, he trusted, that by the reductions just effected, the growing increase of the population and revenue, and the utmost economy in every public establishment, we might reasonably look shortly to a repeal of the most odious of the assessed taxes. This object he had always had in view, and had therefore not been friendly in general to the repeal of indirect taxation, firmly believing that every such repeal placed at a greater distance that of the assessed taxes; which were so odious to the feelings of a free and enlightened nation.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, there was a general cry in the country at present for cheap labour, cheap bread, and cheap manufactures, and he did not know how these could be cheap, unless the things which the labourer consumed were cheap. He would therefore rather seethe taxes on soap, leather, and salt reduced, which particularly pressed on the lower clases, than the assessed taxes. He therefore felt himself compelled to vote against the motion.
Lord Miltonsaid, he would vote for the motion upon this principle—that the only chance there was of driving ministers to a general repeal of taxes, was by voting for the repeal of every particular tax that it might be proposed so to deal with.
After a short reply from Mr. Maberly, the House divided. Ayes 78: Noes 171.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, lord

Osborne, lord F. G.

Anson, hon. G.

Palmer, C.

Barrett, S. M.

Palmer, C. F.

Becher, W. W.

Pares, T.

Bernal, R.

Poyntz, W. S.

Birch, J.

Portman J. B.

Bond,

Proby, hon. G. L.

Blight, H.

Pryse, P.

Brougham, H.

Ramsay, sir A.

Calcraft, J.

Rickford, W.

Calvert, C.

Robarts, G. J.

Carter, J.

Robinson, sir G.

Caulfield, hon. H.

Rowley, sir W.

Cavendish, C. C.

Russell, lord W.

Chaloner, R.

Scarlett, J.

Cradock, S.

Scott, J.

Davenport, D.

Sefton, earl

De Crespigny, sir W.

Shelley, sir J

Denison, W. J.

Smith, hon. R.

Denman, T.

Stanley, lord

Dundas, hon. T.

Stewart, W. (Tyrone)

Folkeston, visc.

Stuart, lord J.

Gordon, R.

Sykes, Daniel

Grosvenor, hon. R.

Talbot, R. W.

Heron, Sir R.

Taylor, M. A.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Townshend, lord C

Honywood, W. P.

Tynte, C. K.

Hornby, E.

Warre, J. A.

Howard, lord H. M.

Western, C. C.

James, W.

Whitbread, S. C.

Jervoise, G. P.

Whitbread W. H.

Knight, R.

Williams, J.

Lambton J. G.

Williams, T. P.

Leycester, R.

Williams, W.

Maberly, W. L.

Winnington, sir T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wood, M.

Maxwell, J.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Milton, visc.

TELLERS

Monck, J. B.

Maberly, J.

Moore, Peter

Hume, J.

Newport, sir J.