Star. — London, England, 1822-07-03 00:00:00

1 F x got to mention the misery of those children whose • marriages had been dissolved. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know on what authority the Noble Lord quoted the opinion of the RiAt Reverend Prelates ? and he w ished to ask those Revei end Prelates whether they would consent to validate all marriages since 1754, in which both parties knew that the putative father was livins at the time and did not give his consent to the marriage? The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that the Bishops had in no one instance declared that without the consent of the putative father marriages were valid. Lord ELLENBOROUGH grounded the whole orr this declaration of the Bishops, that marriages once solemnized ought never to be dissolved ; and on those words of still higher authority—" Those whom GOD bath joined, let no man put asunder. Toe Bishop of LLANDAFF thought it very desi rable to establish that principle, bit objected to the connection of the retrospective with the prospective part of the measure. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that in the ad mission in the principle for the future lay the ground and the necessity for the retrospective clause. He need not remind the Right Reverend Prelates of those wor.is which they must so often have repeated ; but, when they recollected those w.rds, they must know that to separate persons so joined is a profanation of the most solemn ceremony of religion. Lord HOLLAND maintained that the present Bill would only replace the law in the state in which it was before 1754. Those who said that it would be a state of confusion and immorality must therefore be prepaied to contend that until the passing of the Marriage Act at that period, confusion and immo rality had formed the characteristics of the law and of the country. The Noble and Learned Lord had sppken of giving premiums to earlyand improper mar riages. The present Bill would be effective in check ing them. It was the Marriage Act that gave such premiums, and gave them to the guilty ; for it made their crime the means of relieving themselves, it in flicted punishment and misery on those who were in nocent, and inevitably vi • ited in all cases those who' could be no parties to guilt, because they were then unborn—the progeny arising from such marriages. The clauses of the present Bill, on the contrary, wet e founded on the broad principle of justice, that of only punishing those who had really offended. It was said that if it passed, adventurers had only to get to church to obtain all their objects this was not the case, the church would only prove to them the toad to Botany Ilay. Ile conceived it would be a great cala mity if the House should adopt the proposition of the Noble and Learned Lord, and should omit the first clause, which, besides, would render die Bill wholly retrospective. The question—That the first clause be omitted, was then put, and negatived without a division. The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the fol lowing provi , o to the retrospective clause: " Provided rwvartheless that no marriages had by license herthefore, without the consent of the putative father, shall be deemed to be valid, when butt parties at the time of their mar riage knew th.t the putative father was living, and did not give his consent to the inatriitge." Lo,d ELLEN EOROUGH thought that when the Noble and Learned Lord considered the difficulty of obtaining pool's that such knowledge was possessed by the parties at die time uf their marriage, lie would see that his clause could only wild to create con fusion. and would easily anticipate the judgment of the House upon it. The Eatl of LIVERPOOL was certainly not a fiend to the retrospective clause, as far as it was car ried by the pr esent Bill, and if the Amendment pro posed had been one embracing suits now pending, it would have had his support ; but considering the dif• ficulty of procuring proofs of the personal kaow ledge of patties at a distance of sixty or seventy years, he could not agi ee to such a clause as that moved by the Noble and Learned Lord. The House divided— Contents 18 Not Contents - 6 8 Majority against the proviso — 5O On the re-admission of strangers it was found that the LORD CHANCELLOR had proposed a clause re specting real and personal property, which was ne oatived without a division. The LORD CHANCELLOR then proposed again the clause which had been rejected in the Committee, to validate all sales and conveyances of reversional v rights which had been made before the passing of the Bill. He stated that he had omitted the words " for a good and valuable consideration," as they might lead to litigation in order to prove what the consi detation had been, but expressed his intention, if the clause should be rejected without those words, to move it again after re-inserting them. The Earl of LIVERPOOL supported the clause. The Earl of WESTMOIRLAND conceived that it would lead to an inextricable labyrinth, and would, in a still more odious manner than the clause whiCh had just been rejected, legalize marriages, but de prive children declared legitimate of the property to hich they were entitled, because a third person had willed or conveyed a..s ay what had never been his own ! The Marquis of LA NSDOWN contended that the clause proposed by the Noble and Leained Lord would produce a monstrous state of things. It would declare children legitimate, but would disinherit them of their property : it would people that House with titled beggars, enjoying the honours of their an ce.tors, but stripped of the means of supporting those honours, and all this to give the es! ates of their fa thers to persons who bad never enjoyed them, and who would thus be placed in a still better situation than if this Bill had never passed. If their Lordships were to adopt this proviso, instead of securing, they would leave existing possessions subject to a system of endless litigation and fraud. Lord ELLENBOROUGH hoped, after their Lord ships had agreed to the retrospective clause, that any attempt to render it nugatory by provisos like the present, would prove unavailing. The course pro., posed was one, which, as guardians of public morals, their Lordships could not adopt, for it would intro duce a system of left-handed marriages in the true German style, mai riages which gave legitimacy, but not property. Lord ItEDESDALE contended, that to destroy reversionary rights retrospectively, would be down. right robbery.—The House then divided— Contents - 27 Not Contents Majority against the Clause —24 A second division then took place on the same !clause, but with, the addition of the words, ig for a 'good and valuable consideration." The Earl of HARROWBY defended the proviso. Contents Not Contents 48 Majority against the Clause —l7 The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" My Lords, ten days ago, I believe, this House possessed the good opinion of the Public, as the mediator between them, and the laws of the country. If this Bill pass to-night, I hope in GOD that this House may still have that good opinion ten days hence ; but, to say the best of this measure, it is neither mere nor less than a legal robbery, so help me Got)! I have but a short time to remain with you, but I trust it will be hereafter known that I dies not lend my assistance to this Act, r but used every means in my power to prevent its pass ing into a law."---Some verbal amendments having been made in the preamble. Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved that this Bill do pass.—The House then divided: Contents 41 Not Contents 18 Majority in favour of the Bill —23 The House adjourned at Half-past Nine. HOUSE OF COMMONS. General GROSVENOR presented a Petition from Preston; in Lancashire, praying for the repeal of the Leather Tax.—Or- Idered to lie on the table. Mr. DENMAN presented a Petition front a Person who has contributed to the relief of the suffering Irish, requesting that Mi nisters will state to the country why they have not foreseen and prevented the calamities under which that country suffers.—Or dered to Ile on the table. The Salt Duties Repeal Bill was read a second time and or dered to be committed to-morrow, after a few words from Mr. Cuftwxs, in favour of a total repeal of the Tax. The Irish Grand Jury Presentments Bill was read a third time.ind passed. The Scotch Registers Bill went through a Committee.—Re port to-ntorrow. The Stamp Duties Bill went through a Committee.—Report to he taken into consideration on Monday. The Scotch Juries Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. K F.N NE DV presented a Petition from the Tanners of Kilmarnock, praying for a total repeal of the Leather Tax.—Or dered to lie on the table. Mr. LEN NA RD presented a Petition front Ipswich, com plaining of an Act passed in the present Session, imposing an ad- 1 ditionii duty on Malt Licenses.—Ordered to lie on the table. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH presented a Petition front an Attorney at Knaresborough, stating that he bad been appointed an Attorney of the Insolvent Court; that he was desired to re turn his appointment, in order to its being qualified ; and that it was then returned to him, limiting his practice to Knaresbo rough. Ile contended that the Court had no power to limit his practice, though it ntilit strike hint off the Roll if he were guilty of malpractices.—The Petition was ordered to lie on the table and be pruned. Mr. CU It WEN .wished to know whether the Right lion. Gentleman opposiw, was determined to oppose his (Mr. Cur wen's) proposal fur the total repeal of the Salt Tax at the end of two years? The CII A NCE.LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he was happy to sly, that on account of tilt• probably increasing state of the littrettile, he thought he might safely consent to the repeal at flu end of the time mentioned by the llenuurable Meinher—( [fear, hear). Mr. N rresented a Petition from the Mutual In surance Office, praying that they might be protected front the effect of the Stamp Duties Bill. After a few words front the Cnnsicit.xon of the EXCIIIQUER, Mr. 13nornr, and 37.. CALCMA t, the Petiticn was ordered to be printed. SMALL. NOTES BILL. The CHANCELLOU of the EXCIIEQUF.R moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Small Notes Bill. Mr. JAMES wished to know whether this Bill would have the effect of ntakie,.l ;:ink notes a legal tender? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied iu the negative. Lord roz,KsTosr. said, he thought this was a partial re- Mr. Peers Bill. Its object was to get onopotuid notes into circulation. The I Tome, by passing it, would incur afresh all the dangers of multiplied forgeries, and lie therefore trusted they would palls,- before. they gave their sanction to It. Ni. Il.\ ler DAVIS defended the Bill. Mr. JA MES said, he should take the sense of the house on the second reading of the Bill. He thought it would sanction a return to evert wing payments in paper. Mr. CUR WEN boiied his llon. Friend would not do so. Ile was satisfied the people vefet red paper to gold. Mr. CA LUBA FT spoke in favour of the Bill.—The House :hen divided, when th.-re appeared— For the second reading - - 47 Against it - 4 - —43 The Bill was then read a snond time. MALT LICKNSES ACT. Mr. WOI)EIIOUSE called the attention of the Ilou,e to the duty imposed on Malt Licenses. The dealers weie, under a new regulation, compelled, in many cases, to take ont separate licen , es for sepa rate buildings. This last regulation had, he thought, been smuggled through the House, without any no tice whatever. The persons suffering under this grievance had been advi , ed to memorialize the Trea sury ; but this was, at the best, an inconvenient re medy. Ai for this individual support to Ministers, he could not suppose that they cared much about it; but he must be permitted to observe, that that fe+cnce towards the complaints of those suffering under taxation, of which he was now stating an in stance, could not fail to create a disgust, which, when it was too late, Ministers would Le very glad to re move. Ile moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re peal the last additional Duty on Malt Licenses. Mr. W. SMITH seconded the motion. Mr. BRIGHT said, that when the Bill in question was brought lomat d, he (Mr. Bright) had been given to understand that it contained merely a trifling alte ration in the old Bill. He thought the House ought to consider the case de novo. Mr. LOCKHART spoke in favour of the motion. He should next S:!ssion move that a Standing Order be adopted for the printing of all Bills relative to Taxation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that u hen so much of the time of the House was taken up in extraneous discustion, it was not a mat ter of surpi ize that many Bills passed the House in silence. The Bill complained of was brought in on the Ist of April, and did not receive the Royal As sent until the middle of May ; but as it had been so much condemned, he was perfectly willing to have the particular clause in it repealed—(Hcar, hear). — He ought, however, to state to the House, that the custom of making Licenses local as well as personal, was by no means a new practice. He found at once a case of this kind, which occurred in 1784. Mr. WESTERN condemned the Act imposing a tax of 41. 10s. upon each building in which a Malt ster had his malt. It was quite tame it should be re pealed, and he was glad a motion for tlst purpose had been brought forward. Mr. ROBERT SMITH said, this was an instance of the many Bills and clauses originating with the Treasury which were passed through that House without the knowledge of the parties interested. He did not mean to defend the inattention of one side of the House, but he complained of the great attention which existed on the other side to take advantage .or , that inattention. Mr. LUSHINGTON said, that there never was an occasion in which observations such as thnse which had just fallen from the Hon. Member opposite, were less applicable. He begged to retort on the Hon. Member for Bristol, that he was the cause of this Bill passing without notice; for, at his express re quest, he had actually postponed the third reading for a month, in order that he might have an oppor tunity of examining it. If there was anything im proper in it, therefore, he ought to have informed the House of it ; but to his (Mr. Lushington's) sur- . prise, it passed in complete silence. Mr. BRIGHT explained. Mr. HUME spoke in favour of the repeal of the duty, as levied under the provisions of the existtngAct. After a few words from Mr. BENNIT and Mr. P. Moons, leave was given to bring in the Bill. noose AND WINDOW TAX. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that in moving for a large reduction of taxation, he had not come down to the House with a mere meagre statement of figures; but he had thought the most proper course would be to propose it in the shape of Resolutions, tending to the repeal of the House and Window Tax. These were very short-and very simple. The first was, " That the present amount of taxation is so burdensome and oppressive, that it is incumbent on the House, by every z means not detrimental to the State, to endeavour to redu ce it . - 7 -1-le knew that every wish to reduce taxation had foil. some time been ascribed to stupidity, ignorance, and impatience; but he would not go further into that subject, because his Hon. and Learned Friend near him had, in the beginning of the Session, very ably exploded the idea that taxation was necessary to the prosperity of the nation. It had since been ad mitted that the nation might flourish under a reduc tion of taxes. In 1820 the Hon. Member for Cum berland (Mr. Cur wen) made the first motion for the repeal of taxes. He moved for and obtained the re peal of the Horse Tax, notwithstanding all that was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Noble Marquis opposite—the one declaring that no Finance Minister could ga on if such a system were pursued, and the other, that he would resign if it were persisted in. Next came the motion for the re peal- of the Malt Tax, upon which question these things were repeated ; notwithstanding which, the Noble Mat quis afterwards came down to the House and called for a continuance of their confidence by proposing the repeal of that Tax. He stated these things merely to shew that whatever the People of England resolutely raised their voice to obtain, they would not fail in. They had all heard delivered in that House, on a former occasion, the strangest no- tions about the principles of resurrection restoring the depressed interests of the country to former pro sperity; that the distress of the country was to be at tributed to the operations of Nature, and Paovr- DENCE to be looked to as the source of hope and re lief. This the Noble Lord called the true nature of political economy: Nature was to do everything.— Since the days of his early youth, when he had read Lucretius, he never heard so much attributed to the operations of Nature. He thought, when the Noble Lord was propounding such doctrines, to have heard him exclaim, " Rerum primordia pandam, " Uncle omnes Natura cruet rue, auctet, alatque, Quove eadem rursum Nature perempta resolvat !" Extraordinary as that language was, he begged to say that he did not attribute it to inability in the person using it; for he knew that Hume had said of a cele brated character in the history of this country, that by splendid talents he had risen from the lowest sta tion to be the head of the State, without having at tained the power of expressing himself in language which would not disgrace the meanest peasant in the country. Ile believed the confusion of language he had quoted rather arose from the critical situation of the speaker, than from his inability, unshackled, to clothe his thoughts in other words. He has, how ever, since that period, admitted that taxation, not belonging to the causes of Nature, might have a share in operating the distress of the country, for he had himself proposed a reduction of 1,800,000/. of taxes. By a calculation which he had made, he found that from the year 1793 to 1822, a sum of money in direct taxes had been extorted from the nation equal to 1,404.,360,7944. This was an immense sum, of which it was scarcely possible to have a distinct con ception, except that, like the Roman Emperor Cali gula, they were to wish to wallow in gold. By this continued draining from taxation, the capital of the productive classes was taken away, and given to those who were not connected with them. No one, he believed, could now be found who did not admit that this debt was a great national calamity. He knew that persons might answer him by pointing to certain signs of wealth. But he should say these were equivocal, and often the indication of great evils, arising from the destruction of capital, which was the necessary consequence of taxation. For his own part, he did not think that agricultural distress arose from any thing but low prices. The Landed Gentlemen would not allow them to keep corn down as low as it would go; and the only method, therefore, of re lieving the country was by reducing taxation. High taxes produced high prices; and the reason that we now had high taxes and low prices, was in conse quence of the existing glut of farm produce. He knew very well that great misery must accrue in the restoration of things to their proper standard. The poor lands must go out of cultivation, and the last layer of capital must, in fact, be taken off the land. It was with a view to the prevention of this misery that he now came fors% and to propose some mode of relief, and for that purpose he proposed his first Re. solution. He knew that there were many arguments for opposing the reduction of taxation. In time of war, they were told that they must not take away the means of contending against a potent enemy; and in time of peace the maxim was quoted to them— " :leis perm, pare &Ilan( C and thus, with those who so reasoned, they must have taxes to perpetuity. He knew, however, that he should be asked his means of reducing taxes, and upon that point he would read his second Resolution. The Hon. Member then read, u 'That the benefits supposed to be derived from the Sinking Fund are illusory; and that to impose or continue any additional burthens upon the People for the support oitit would be unwise and inexpedient." —This was the proper fund to apply to for this pur- pose. In a small State, such a mode.of liquidating a public debt might avail; hilt in a State like this, it could never answer the end pro Hear). — The Sinking Fund was useful to Ministers, by aiding them to fund. He believed all the nonsense about compound intetest had been long since exploded, and with it ooght also to have been the system of a Sink. ing Fund. The thirty millions to be taken for this purpose . in a certain number of 'years had much better remain in the pockets of the People, the best treasury of the Crown. He contended they had . a right to the repeal of taxation to the amount of 3,000,0001. at least, which was the amount at which the Stnking Fund was rated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Besides this, they had a right to a diminution of tax ation to the extent of five or six millions, in consider. atifon of the rise in the value of money from the al. terarion of the currency. The moderate amount which he asked, therefore, ought certainly' to b e granted. He knew it might be urged by the Nobl e Marquis opposite, that this was ungenerous after the taxes they had already conceded, and thatit would interfere with the finance'plan of the Government—. This he could not help—it was his business to pe r . form his duty in obedience to the directions of hi: constituents. With regard to the choice of this par: titular tax for repeal, he believed it had long been desired by the country. It was a kind of Propel t) Tax, and had been held by Mr. Pitt in the light of a war tax. It was first levied in commutation for a tax upon tea, which was taken off. Shortly after this a shop-tax wa s proposed, but from the outcry against it was so )1 obliged to be given up, when the amount of it again levied upon windows. The operation of the tax was unequal, for by a calculation he had made, it appeared that upon low rented houses it was at a higher rate than upon the higher rented. Thus it pressed hardest on the lower order of housekeei and was at an average of thirty-six per cent. on all that kind of property in the country. SLch was the nature of it, that it was impossible an individual could escape this tax. Many houses had been built before the Bill of Assessment was resorted to, and these contained mote windows than would have h e e l thought necessary if they had been built subsequently. They consequently paid much more in propiatio l thin others which had been more recently e. e, zed. The evil effects of this tax might be traced in ;:.. t • r y direction. Numbers of s indows were blocked and thus houses were made uncomfortable and na wholesome ; or in building, fioni the efforts made t, avoid paying largely to this obnoxious tax, were rendered damp or exposed to the dr y rot. Many houses which had been inhabited by persona in t i reel circumstances, wee abandoned on account c; the window tax. He knew a case o bete a peesc:: had a house, the rent of which was 5.51 per an!oan-,, which was augmented to GO/. by the window The consequence of this was, that nobody won.d the house. Part of the property was stolen thrt,os'i its being left unoccupied. A person s% as the , , put to take care of it, but the tax-gatherer coming lcund to collect the window duty, the proprietor, ratl:er than pay it, determined on pulling the house dow. , . This resolution he carried into effect. The hoir•e, year before, had been considered woad) £2000. Pulled down, the materials sold for but £M00: and thus, through this tax, the proprietor had in one rear lost £lOOO or £l2OO ! Many disadvantages grew out of this tax. A house that was considered c,ieop as to rent, would remain untenanted oil account the taxes. Its inequality was grievous, and this ine quality had been admitted by Mr. Pitt in 1797. Two houses standing next door to each other, paying the same rent, would contribute in very different pr ()por tions to the Income 'lax. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer knew that twenty houses in Tothill-suet; would pay as much on a cerain number of windows as twenty houses in Lombard. street ; yet, as there wds no comparison het i.% een the importance of the trade carried on in the two places, it was not to be suprosed the inhabitants were equally able to pay. The sarne amount being charged on houses differing in value. took from the owner of one, in a case 5%1,i6 stated, a seventeenth part of his income, while ir“rt the owner of the other it took but a seven hundredz:i part of his means. In the metropolis, the 11,1 yis houses, to enable themselves to pay this tax, let o.!: part of their houses to lodgers, and squeezed toern selves into dal k back rooms !—(Hear, hear). — The consequence of being thus stilled up was and often premature death. In Ireland this tax liad been so injurious that it had been called the fever tax. Ministers had thought it right to give it up in Ire land. He approved of their conduct in this instance, and felt convinced that no greater relief comd L e forded to the people of this country than that v.hic:i would be derived from a repeal of the Window ax. The tax prevented improvements being tria.te were necessary for the comforts of the People. A poor man wished to build a warehouse, which l!e could have done for ten pounds, but he was pi eseatc,l from doing so, because had he built one, instead of paying 6s. for his house of six windows, he must have paid '2os. to this tax, from the addition of the ware house window. The tax he regarded as pressing very heavily on shopkeepers. Whatever the state of their trade they were compelled to pay this impost. 1:1:;" shopkeepers in this country, from the manner in which the demand for all consumable articles varied, and declined under the pressure of calamity, could b.. sure of no I eturn, but the return of the ax-gathei ci ! The House had the means of relieving the country from this impost. It would be asked what he wuuld substitute for it? This, he niainta:ned, it was not for him to do, and he might leave that task to ele Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would, however, recommend, that the amount of the %Vinuow Tax should be taken from the Sinking Fui,d--(Hear).— If this were not done, he was of opinion that a TeJoc tion might be made iu the expenditure of the coun try, which would admit of being taken off. When In time of peace,.we had an Army and a Navy hich cost the annual sum of £15,000,000, er somewhere thereabouts, he thought he had a light to assume that very considerable reductions wee practicable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to consider that there were no limits to the power of the people to pay taxes. It reminded him of an ancient story told of Themistocles, he believed, who, going to an island where the people were not more parial to ex actions than we were now, told them, to enforce his demands, that he had brought with him two gods whip must be obeyed—Force and Aecessity. To this the people replied, that they had also two god. who must be opposed to his--Waist and impossibility! The people of this country had submitted to stealer btirdens than had ever been imposed on any other nation ; but he thought he saw now indications of a determination not to continue to endure taxation