Sitting of 20 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, an Account of the Number of Commitments in England and Wales, for Horse-stealing, for the years ending 11th July, 1832, and 1855: the same for Sheep Stealing.—On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, the Assessment for the Inhabited House Duty, for the year ending 5th April, 1833, at which a hundred of the highest Rated Private Houses in the Metropolis are Assessed: the same for Houses, the Occupiers of which are engaged in Trade: the same from Brighton, Bath, Birmingham, &c.—On the Motion of Mr. BETHELL, a Copy of the Memorial from the Committee of Country Bankers, delivered to the Duke of WELLINGTON and Mr. GOULBURN, dated 9th May, 1828: of a Letter written by Command of the Lords of the Treasury by Mr. DAWSON, in reference to the above Memorial, dated 19th May, 1828: also of a Memorial from the Committee of Country Bankers to Earl GREY and Viscount ALTHORP, dated 12th June, 1833.—On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, an Account of the Nature and Amount of all Taxes Repealed, since the 1st January, 1814: and of those Taxes which have been only partially Repealed within the same period.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, an Account of the Places of Burial belonging to each Paris under the Authority of the Bishop of LONDON, with the Bills of Mortality also of such as belong to Dissanters—On the Motion of Mr. ROERUOX,

1019
the Amount of Sums subscribed by Nominees, now dead, of Life Annuities, or Tontines, created in Ireland, in 1773,1775, and 1777: also the Amount at present paid to the surviving Nominees in each Class, in 1802, 1812, 1822, and 1852, upon the Sums originally subscribed by them.—On the Motion of Mr. LOWTHER CHAPMAN, Copies of a Correspondence between Sir WILLIAM GOSSETT, and different Individuals relative to the Levying of Tithes due only on the 1st of May last.
Bills. Read a third time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Mr. ABERCROMBY, from a Congregation in Edinburgh, against Slavery.—By Mr. MURRAY, from the Incorporated Tailors of Edinburgh, for Alterations in the Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill; from the Merchants' Company, Leith, for Separating the Dock and Harbour of Leith in its Management and Revenues from Edinburgh; from the Shipbuilders on the Frith of Forth, against the unequal Taxation on Shipbuilding Materials.—By Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH, from Buckland and Monachorum, against the Tithes' Commutation Bill; and for the Exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords.—By Sir RICHARD SIMEON, from the Licensed Victuallers of the Isle of Wight, for Extending to them the proposed Measure of Relief from the House Tax.—By Mr. COBBETT, from Merthyr Tydvil, to be Relieved from the Burthen of Taxation; from certain Inhabitants of Marylebone, for an Alteration in the Currency; from certain Individuals of Manchester, for Extending the Right of Voting to all Householders; from the Political Union of Chatham, for an Inquiry into the Case of Richard News-ham; from the Cartwright Club, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot; from Salford, for an Address to his Majesty, for the Dismissal of his present Ministers.—By E. B. CLIVE from Hereford, for an Inquiry into the Management of the Funds of the Corporation of that City.—By Mr. DOBBIN, from Armagh, for the Amendment of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. E. J. COOPER, from Sligo, for the Repeal of Act 9th Geo. 4th, cap. 88., and the Amendment of Act 10th Geo. 4th, cap. 41, for the Regulation of the Butter Trade.—By Mr. BARNARD, from such of the Trades of London, Greenwich, &c, as are connected with the Sugar Refining Trade, for such Alterations in the Laws respecting Foreign Sugars as will enable the Refiners of this Country to compete with Foreign Markets.—By Sir ROBERT PRICE, from Pem-bridge, against Slavery—By Major BEAUCLERK, from a Dissenting Congregation, Horsham, for Relief from their Grievances; from the Brewers of Surrey, to place the Retailers of Beer on a Footing with the Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. RYLE, from the Medical Men of Macclesfield, against the Apothecaries Bill.

HOUSE AND WINDOW TAXES.
Colonel Evanspresented a Petition from the inhabitant householders and other persons of the parish of St. Ann, Westminster, for the Repeal of the House and Window Taxes. Seeing a Member of his Majesty's Government present, he would state his conviction, that if the House did not immediately pass a measure for the repeal of these obnoxious taxes, which fell so heavily on the great mass of the industrious inhabitants of the metropolis, the want of confidence, and the breach between the people and their representatives, would become as great as it was now supposed to be between two branches of the Legislature. The petition, he believed, represented the sentiments not only of the parish from which it came, but of the whole population of London. He had the highest authority for saying the Assessed-
1020
taxes were most obnoxious; the noble Lord opposite having himself voted for the repeal of them when out of office.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had voted against them, but not advocated the repeal of these taxes.
Colonel Evansfound the name of the noble Lord in several lists.
Lord Althorp: I believe not—the gallant Officer must be mistaken.
Colonel Evans: Whatever might be the noble Lord's opinion, the taxes always would be obnoxious while the industrious part of the metropolis groaned under the oppression of their inequality. For instance, Northumberland-house was rated at 1,500 l. and paid 4½d. per square foot, while Lord Burlington's, which occupied about the same space of ground, was rated at 1,300 l. and paid only 2½d. the square foot. Lord Londonderry paid 2s. 6d. per foot, and Mr. Baring only 1s. 3d.; and he was sure Mr. Baring was as well able to pay his share of taxation as the noble Marquess; and although he was a Tory, it was very hard to make him pay so much more than he ought. Again, the proprietors of new theatres were made to pay for the same space of ground which had been previously occupied by private houses. He could not conceive on what principle this system of inequality was carried on; to him it appeared the most absurd thing on the face of the earth. He now came to the Bank of England, which was rated at 1,673 l. a-year; Drummond's banking-house being rated at 800 l. Indeed, the more humble the dwelling, he found they were rated the higher. He found that all the banking-houses were rated at about 300,000 l. or 400,000 l. [Lord Althorp: Half a million.] Perhaps it was as much as half a million. There was a very moderately-sized house at the corner of Cockspur-street, that was occupied as a shop by Messrs. Hailing, Pearce, and Stone, which was rated at one-half of Northumberland-house—viz. 750 l a-year. He found that the rates fell most unequally on innkeepers, who were certainly not in a flourishing condition, and were moreover put to a very heavy expense. While Northumberland-house was rated at only 1,500 l. a-year, Morley's Hotel, which was a small house on the opposite side of the way, only about twenty yards in extent, was rated at 600 l. A small shop at the corner of the Lowther-arcade, was rated at 7s. per foot, while Northumberland-

1021
house paid but 4½d. Again, next door to Northumberland-house was a grocer's shop which was charged at 7s. per foot. He asked, with these instances of inequality before them, was it possible for the people to submit to the House-tax? He did not wish the great mansions to be charged at any excessive rate; but if they were Charged equally, in proportion with the humbler tenements, Burlington and Northumberland houses would be rated at 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. He wished for no disparity; but if there were to be any, let it be in favour of the poor, and not of the rich. He had already mentioned the peculiar hardship with which these taxes fell upon tavern-keepers; and in reference to that part of the subject, he would add that the mansion of the Duke of Norfolk, in St. James's-square was rated at 1,000 l., being precisely the amount at which the London Tavern was assessed. Then, with respect to the country, at Brighton a moderate-sized linen draper's shop was rated at 160 l., whereas the fine mansion of a noble Duke, at that place, was assessed at only 200 l. a-year; notwithstanding which, the value of the former house was not more than 5,000 l., whereas that of the Duke's was 20,000 l. The Albion Hotel, at Brighton, was rated at 1,000 l, while the house of a noble Marquess near it was assessed at only 410 l. There seemed indeed to be a great delicacy observed towards the rich in the scheme of these capricious assessments. He would mention a still more marked instance of inequality, for which no possible justification could be assigned. There was a grocer's shop at Brighton rated at 160 l., while the mansion of Lord Chichester, four miles from the town, was rated at only 60 l. He contended that these unequal assessments ought not to be submitted to. Then with respect to surcharges: promises were held out by the noble Lord which led the people to expect that a great reduction would be made in the House-tax; and that the question of surcharges would be strictly examined into. In the very zenith of the hopes of reduction, all the surcharges were persisted in. The mode, too, of surcharging was most oppressive and injurious. In St. Paul's, Covent-garden, for instance, there were but 500 ratepayers, out of whom no less a number than 374 had been surcharged, and more than 100 of them compelled to seek redress in the Court of King's Bench. He would
1022
remind the House and the Government, that this was not a temporary clamour, but had been earnestly pressed for the last twenty years. Certainly so many demands had not been made upon the attention of the House recently, because the people had been told by their representatives to wait, for a Reformed House of Commons to redress their grievances; and that, when a Reform in Parliament had taken place, the repeal of these taxes would speedily follow. But the country was not so easily to be deluded, for be could inform the House, that this was a subject on which men's minds had long been made up. Many of the newspapers had expressed a great deal of concern for the existence of the present Ministry, and had said that the country would be threatened with a revolution if the Whig Ministry was defeated in another place upon the Irish Church Bill; but he believed, if Government would not relax some of these burthens upon the people, the people would rather see them go out; and he could assure the Tories, that if they were willing to pledge themselves to a repeal of some of the most odious taxes, they might take the reins of government with perfect safety. The returns of the assessment of 100 houses in the metropolis, and of 100 in the country, were not so made as to give the information desired by him at the time he moved for them. The question was not, as had been assumed, one of contest, between the town and the country; for, from the information he had received, the interest was nearly as great in the country as in the town. He knew a professional man in the country, who, by extreme exertion, made 1,000 l. a-year; he was rated for a merely comfortable house at 100 l. per annum, while several splendid mansions in the same neighbourhood were rated at only 200 l. a-year each: two or three of them occupied by gentlemen possessed of incomes of 10,000 l. per annum. The return of country houses had been made up to a large extent for houses in large towns, instead of those in the country. By presenting the petition, he hoped still more to direct the attention of Government to the necessity of repealing these taxes, and of pausing before they came to any final determination to the contrary.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had attended in consequence of the notice he had received from the hon. and gallant Colonel of his

1023
intention to present this petition. With reference to the variation existing in the amount of house-duty paid by certain houses which had been enumerated by the gallant officer, he begged to remind the House, that the principle of rating was founded upon the amount each house was supposed to be worth at a yearly rental. The surcharges alluded to were the natural consequences of an attempt to equalize the operation of the tax, which could only be effected in that way. With regard to the allusions which had been made to the circumstance of his (Lord Althorp's) votes and previously expressed opinions, it would be in the recollection of the House that he had never supported the idea of repealing the whole of these taxes at once. He had always contended that there ought not to be a surplus revenue kept up for the purposes of the State, but then, when the repeal of one tax was impracticable, he would vote for the repeal of another. He had never voted for the repeal of them altogether, but separately, and by such a course he did not think his consistency could be much injured. That a tax was extremely unpopular was certainly a strong reason for its repeal, but it was not right to allow of such repeals as would effect a serious diminution of the revenue.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that the noble Lord might have heard it stated by the hon. member for Durham that one-third of the inhabitants of that town were surcharged. The House would also recollect the case of the Duke of Newcastle. His Grace was rated at no more than 800 l. for Nottingham Castle. That castle was burnt down, and he recovered, by an action in the Court of King's Bench, the value of the castle, which was then stated to be 21,000 l.
An Hon. Member, who lived in the county, said, that the rating of 800 l. was on account of the castle being then uninhabited, but it was thought by a Jury that the castle could not be rebuilt for a less sum than 21,000 l.
Mr. Coopersaid, he was of Tory principles, and he could assure the hon. and gallant member for Westminster, that no alarm need be apprehended of the Tories taking office under a pledge to reduce taxation in a way injurious to the public revenue.
Mr. Robinsondid not thing that any Government could effect a sufficient deduction in the taxes so as to be falt by the
1024
public, and fully to satisfy them, without a general commutation. The fault of the whole system was that those persons were the most taxed who were least able to bear it. He earnestly recommended a Committee to take the whole subject of taxation into consideration with a view to equalizing them, and declared, that if the subject was not noticed by the Government, he should give notice, before the close of the present Session, of his intention to move, early in the next Session, for a Committee to revise the whole system of taxation.
Mr. Fergus O'Connordid not see the question in the same point of view as many other Members did; with him it appeared to be certain, that as long as the present Ministers remained in office, there was no hope for relief from taxation. The Government had come in upon the cry of Reform, and had not redeemed a single pledge they had previously made. He defied any hon. Member to show an instance to the contrary. The objection to the Duke of Wellington was, that he would not give up to popular opinion; the objection to the present Ministry was, that they conceded nothing to popular opinion; and they should always have his opposition.
Colonel Evanssubmitted that the reductions in the army and navy were amply sufficient to admit of the giving up of these taxes. With respect to the surcharges, the mere per-centage in the additional charges was 5,000 l. With respect to the hon. Gentleman who represented the Tory party, he hoped that the obduracy of that Gentleman on the subject of those taxes was not participated in so largely by the Tory party.
Petition to lie on the Table.

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
Mr. Cobbett, after presenting a variety of other petitions stated, that he had also to present a petition which he was sure the House would pay great attention to, and he was sure that there was not one man in the kingdom who did not remember the name of Major Cartwright with blushes. Major Cartwright had left behind a name which a great number of persons were resolved should be always held in respect, and the petition was from the Cartwright Club. It was signed by twenty persons, and prayed for Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments. They had found the Reform Act

1025
did them no good, and they now wanted it to be carried further. They began by telling the House that it had no sympathy with the people. There could be no doubt that it was so—there existed no sympathy between the middle classes and the higher; and the nobility of this country made a grievous mistake when they neglected to take care of the interests of the working classes upon the occasion of the passing of the Reform Bill. Those who were the nearest to the nobility in rank naturally envied them, and the man who had money looked upon the ancient parks and castles, and listened to the sounding titles of the nobility with a feeling which alienated each class from the other. The man of money naturally said to himself, why should not I be a Lord? Not so the poor man; he was the ally of the Peer, and the interests of the higher orders would be safer in the hands of the lower than in those of the middle. Again, if they asked the working people, who were alone capable of defending the country from riots at home, or from the chances of war abroad—if they asked those people to stand forward in defence of the country, they would, of course, ask what country, and in defence of what? We have no property—we have nothing but the labour that lies in our carcases—we have nothing to defend. But give them their rights, and their language would instantly change. If he were a Lord, he would have a very different constituency from that under the Reform Bill. There would be no difficulty in taking votes with universal suffrage, and all who were called upon to defend the country, or were liable, ought to have the elective franchise. On the subject of Annual Parliaments, he could see no objection whatever either as regarded the electors or the elected. With Annual Parliaments, there would be no necessity for these now daily meetings, because to petition would be unnecessary when the Members could receive the vivâ voce directions of their constituents. There would be no petitions then, except on some very extraordinary matter. He thought if the King was to dissolve the present Parliament, and tell the people he should continue to do so annually, his Majesty would become the most popular of men.
Sir Harry Verneyexpressed the opinion that the constant complaints, as now represented, respecting the distresses of the
1026
people were of the most injurious tendency; they were calculated to make all classes politicians. When persons were combining, and were travelling through the country destroying property, he could not forget that the hon. member for Oldham had pointed out where the torch ought to be really applied. He declared that there was no country in which justice was so equally distributed between the rich and the poor as in this country, and he hoped that the lower classes would not be unduly influenced by the hon. member for Oldham.
Mr. Philip Howardwould not follow the hon. Member at any length, and still less allude, as the last speaker had done, to the writings of that hon. Member; but he must say, that Annual Parliaments would represent the passions rather than the opinions of the people; under such a system canvassing would never cease, and enmities never subside; the ceaseless confusion ensuing therefrom would dry up the sources of labour, check industry, and consequently prove to be highly injurious to the welfare and interests of the working classes. Those who expatiated on the merits of the government of the United States should recollect, that in that country a portion of the population were actually in a state of bondage, and groaning under the yoke of slavery, whilst in England the peasant as well as the prince enjoyed the benefit of equal law.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Militia Ballot Suspension.—Committed:—Limitation of Actions.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of MALMESBURY, from the Isle of Wight, for one regular Standard Measure throughout the United Kingdom.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Ennis, for a Revision of the Criminal Code.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Wellington (Somerset); and by the Earl of GOSFORD, from several Places,—against Slavery.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from a Dissenting Congregation at Preston, for Relief to the Dissenters as regards Marriages, Registration, and Church Rates.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Stockport, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from Gillingham, against the 19th Clause of the Local Jurisdiction Bill.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
A Conference was held with the Commons, when the following Resolutions were communicated, to which their Lordships' concurrence was desired:—

1.—"That immediate and effectual measures be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies, under such provisions for regulating the condition of the negroes, as may combine

1015
their welfare with the interests of the proprietors.

2.—"That it is expedient that all children born after the passing of any act, or who shall be under the age of six years at the time of passing any act of Parliament for this purpose, be declared free; subject, nevertheless, to such temporary restrictions as may be deemed necessary for their support and maintenance.

3.—"That all persons, now slaves, shall be registered as apprenticed labourers, and acquire thereby all rights and privileges of freemen; subject to the restriction of labouring, under conditions, and for a time to be fixed by Parliament, for their present owners.

4.—"That, towards the compensation of the proprietors, his Majesty be enabled to grant to them a sum not exceeding 20,000,000 l. sterling, to be appropriated as Parliament shall direct.

5.—"That his Majesty be enabled to defray any such expense as he may incur in establishing an efficient stipendiary Magistracy in the colonies, and in aiding the Local Legislatures in providing, upon liberal and comprehensive principles, for the religious and moral education of the negro population to be emancipated."

The Resolutions were ordered to be printed.

QUAKERS AND MORAVIANS.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved the second reading of the Quakers' and Moravians' Affirmation Bill.
Lord Wynfordhad some objection to Quakers sitting on Juries, though none to their holding offices, because they had scruples of conscience about inflicting punishment. He wished, also, that the sects who were sought to be relieved by this Bill, should also be called upon when they wished to take the benefit of it, to prove that they belong to the sect whose outward appearance they adopted.
The Bishop of Londondid not mean to make any observations upon the Bill then before their Lordships; but he wished to offer a few observations on the subject of oaths in general, as they were administered in this country. It was a matter of very great importance, both in a religious and moral point of view, and he was extremely sorry that the attention of the Legislature had not been more directly called to it. A Bill had been brought in
1016
about two years ago by the Lord President of the Council, which, in some degree, lessened the evil to which he was adverting. He thanked the noble Lord for that measure, because any measure which tended to diminish the number of oaths to be taken by individuals or public officers was a public benefit. He could assure their Lordships that there was a strong feeling on this subject amongst the religious part of the community in this country. He did not think, that he was going too far when he said, that there was no country in the world in which this most solemn and sacred obligation was administered with less gravity, with less impressiveness, with less decorousness of manner, than it was in this country. The effect of the system had been well and truly described by Dr. Paley, who observed that "the obscure and elliptical form, together with the levity and frequency with which oaths are administered, have brought about a general inadvertency to the obligation of oaths, which, both in a religious and political view, is much to be lamented, and it merits public consideration whether the requiring of oaths on so many frivolous occasions, especially in the Customs, and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other effect than to make them cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly from the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at least, and the same security for the due discharge of their office, namely, that of an oath—is required from a churchwarden and an Archbishop, from a Petty Constable and the Chief Justice of England." Dr. Paley contended, that "they ought to abstain from calling into requisition the sacred sanction of an oath, except on the most important occasions." There were two species of oaths; and he did not think that the difference between them was sufficiently attended to—assertory oaths and promissory oaths. Assertory oaths were necessary for the discovery and punishment of offences: whilst promissory oaths were not only not necessary, but were, in truth, productive of the worst effects. To this subject, Dr. Paley had called the attention of the public more than forty years ago. The Bill brought in by the noble Marquess, to whom he had before alluded had done away with the necessity for taking 10,000 oaths in a year, but still much of the evil remained. The municipal oaths ought to

1017
be revised; nine-tenths of them might, he was of opinion, be done away with, and a simple declaration introduced in their place. This very serious question had been pressed on the attention of the British people long before the time of Dr. Paley. It had been forcibly taken up by one of the most virtuous, learned, and eloquent men that ever adorned the Protestant Church—he alluded to Bishop Jeremy Taylor. It was a subject well worthy of grave consideration, and in the next Session of Parliament, if his life were so long spared, he would call the attention of the House to it, unless it were taken up by some noble Lord more competent than he was to undertake the task. The consideration of this subject ought, in his opinion, to be intrusted to a Select Committee, or to a Royal Commission. He would also refer to another class of oaths, which appeared to him to be liable to great objection—he meant the oaths taken in universities and schools. He felt, that to administer an oath to a young man, not of full age, except in cases where truth was judicially sought, was very objectionable. Certainly, promissory oaths should not be exacted from them. He now publicly expressed a hope that, as this subject had been taken up in one of the universities, it would as soon as possible be entertained by the Legislature, who ought to inquire how far it was consistent with sound religion and right principles to enforce on young men, not of age, an obligation for the observance of duties, the performance of which might be exacted by easier means.
The Lord Chancelloronly spoke the sense of those persons who had turned their attention to this subject, when he expressed his opinion, that a thorough revision of the present system ought to take place. Far from thinking that the question should be intrusted to other hands, he felt that it could not be taken up by any individual more capable of doing justice to it than the right reverend Prelate himself. There was another description of oaths which, in his opinion, ought to be discouraged: he meant voluntary oaths or affidavits. A penalty should be inflicted for administering such oaths, or a penalty should be levied on the individual taking them, if it appeared that he had been guilty of false swearing. As the law at present stood, it did not meet those cases.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that he had not mentioned the class of oaths—voluntary affidavits—noticed by the noble and learned Lord, because he had, on a former occasion, called the attention of their Lordships at some length to that branch of the subject.
Lord Bexleyexpressed himself in favour of a diminution of the number of oaths which individuals were now, under a variety of circumstances, compelled to take.
The Duke of Richmond, in order to show that the persons intended to be relieved by this Bill, would not scruple to do their duty as was stated by the noble and learned Lord, would beg leave to remind their Lordships, that a Quaker was on a Jury last January at the Old Bailey, and did not hesitate to find a man guilty of felony.
Lord Suffieldsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wynford) seemed to think, that from some religious scruple a large body of men would violate their affirmations. Now, he thought, that the parties alluded to were as incapable of violating their affirmations as any noble Lord was incapable of violating his oath.
Lord Wynforddenied, that he had made any such assertion. He was unwilling to place the Quakers in the situation in which that Bill would place them.
Bill read a second time.