The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-11 00:00:00

WATER COMPANIES.

Lord R. GROSVENOR, not seeing the right hon.
the President of the Board of Trade in his place,
wished to ask the noble lord at the head of the Home
Department what were the intentions of the Government
with regard to bills for the supply of water to the metropo-
lis, introduced, or to be introduced, in the present ses-
sion. It was understood last session that no new Water Bill
was to be passed until the existing companies had had
an opportunity of testing their plans, and he wanted to
know if that understanding was to be adhered to ?
Lord PALMERSTONwas not aware of any stipu-
lation having been come to which should prevent
the present Parliament from dealing with any water bill,
and passing it if they so thought fit, but if he was asked
what were the opinions of the Government with regard
to the expediency of granting such new bills; he should
say that it was most desirable that no new bill should
be passed until the existing companies had
had a fair trial, and had been allowed sufficient
time to test the feasibility of their scheme for supplying
the metropolis with an ample quantity of good water.
The Government would there're be disposed to recommend
the house to abstain from establishing any new water
company for the present.
VALUE OF GOLD.

Mr. DRUMMOND said, in the year 1810, the report
of a committee which sat upon the subject of the value
of gold was laid upon the table of the hduse. Upon
that committee the late Sir R. Peel was placed by the
Government of the day to support their erroneous
opinions, but he (Sir Robert Peel) became a convert
to the sound principles of Locke and Newton, and
from that period down to the present time the same
views had been taken by various Governments of the
value of gold. Recently, however, circumstances had
occurred of an unprecedented character, which were cal-
culated to overthrow those principles ; and he wished to
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether her Majesty's
Government had taken into consideration the effects of
the reduced value of gold, the consequences of this re-
duction of value upon the industrious classes, and espe-
cially upon contributors to savings banks ; and whether
he did not think it advisable to appoint a committee to
inquire into the altered value of the standard, and to
suggest some remedy for any evil that may be likely to
arise.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in
answer to his honourable friend, he had to state that
the Government had carefully watched and observed the
course of recent transactions, especially with respect to
the influx and efflux of gold into and out of this country ;
but they had failed to perceive so clearly as the hon.
member that they were calculated to depreciate the value
of gold, and therefore they had no intention of appoint-
ing a committee of inquiry into the matter. (Hear.)

ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY.

Lord R. GROSVENOR then rose for leave to bring
in a bill to repeal the attorneys' and solicitors' annual
certificate duty. Before he went into the merits of the
case he wished to bring under the notice of the house
the position in which the question was now placed.
For twenty years the attorneys and solicitors of England
had never ceased to petition the house to be relieved
from this tax, and in 1849 he gave notice of his inten-
tion to move for the repeal of the tax. In 1849, how-
ever, he was not able to bring the question before the
house, but in the following year, 1850, he then asked
for leave to bring in his bill ; and although he was op-
posed by the Government of the day, the house yet ac-
ceded to the propriety of his motion. He carried the
bill through several stages with the assistance of the
house, until the end of the session drew near, when,
owing to the difficulties that were incidental to every
private member who attempted individual legislation, the
measure fell through. In the following year, 1851, owing
to the Ministerial crisis, and the debate on the Ecclesias-
tical Titles Bill, he was unable to bring his motion on ;
but last year he successfully renewed his motion, and no
doubt, had his friends remained in office, there would
have been no necessity for his troubling the house now.
Thus stood the question then, and were the present not
a new Parliament, which had not pronounced its opinion
upon the matter, he should have contented himself with
simply moving his motion as it stood upon the paper.
The history of the certificate duty was very simple.
Towards the close of the last century Mr. Pitt was in
great distress for money, and he proposed this and seve-
ral other taxes—not as a part of any general scheme of
finance, but because they were more likely to obtain the
sanction of the house. From that time up to
the present the tax had been gradually augmented,
and it now amounted to 121. for metropolitan, and Si.
for provincial solicitors. The operation of the tax was
most unjust to the profession, for while the more
wealthy members of it only paid at the rate
of a quarter or a half per cent, on their profits, the
poorer members had to pay five, six, and sometimes
even seven (per cent. He did not see -why attorneys
should be taxed any more than barristers, surgeons,
apothecaries, painters, or architects. In fact, they
might be more fairly taxed, as they had not
to contribute to the State at the outset of their
m
career so large a sum as solicitors. It was sometimes
said that attorneys were extortioners, blood-suckers,
ande
vampires ; indeed, a certain member of the house on
being asked what was the difference between an attorney
and a solicitor, said the difference between a crocodile
and an alligator. So far, however, from the attorney, being extortioners, he thougahnt
unfair
ealrand Executive deserved
that character, in retaining
unjust tax of
that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer
wHeneldhiaid hoped
avehoeeneen
consented to its repeal, and thus
this
relieved him (Lord H. Grosvenor) from tl i again addressing the house on the sub jeeet . n elcfe s
hs iet y a of
hi
Ise
umgobtti,on,evietnw oifuldthere was not a suffi-
cient
SU only i
acendded
ht h
eo
thought,
surplus to enable that nvolve 120,000/.,
a case had notwithstanding been
made
t ooubt ewhrielhe awlea
odr:,
ranted the house in at
once relieving the profession I
the burden which they had now to bear.
considered that
Mr• COWAN •
The
any circumsta
tax u • briefly seconded the motion.
CHANCELLOR of the
no person holding his officeEX couldC,,li
nces consent to the repeal of undo •
ts tits aboli-
ntal he had heard the argungenc— fthre abolition
tion in connection with the arguments `°tirrely disagreed
of other taxes. (Hear, hear.) - !
in the opinion that the annual Irincaetne duty was
cerrtny trades, and to
EartQljjcuEl:
un-
just. Tha imposts which were
Which they had been accustoniedb,owere far from being

the worst description of duties. There were many other
Which had a far stronger claim for abolition. (Hear,
hear.) He admittes, however, that when the proper
time arrived, the whole of the different duties which
pressed on attorneys would well deserve consid,r-
tion, such as the duty of 1251. on the admission
of attorneys, which was excluded from the noble lord's
motion, but which had the effect of making the
profession a monopoly by operating as a great burden
on young men Who were about entering upon it. He
thought that it would be much better to diminish this
duty on admissions, in order to give the public the
benefit of freer competition in the profession, rather than
abolish the annual certificate duty. He protested against
the practice of dealing with isolated cases of taxation,
as if persevered in it would prove most destructive to
the finances of the country. If, however, the noble
lord thought there was such an exception as to require
particular discussion, the proper time to submit it to
the consideration of the house was after the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had laid his financial plans before
the house. He should on these grounds oppose the
motion of the noble lord.
Sir F. THESIGER considered that if the noble
lord consented to postpone his motion to an in-
definite period, as suggested by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer he would entirely fail in ever attaining his
object. He thought there was no batter time than the
present to bring forward this subject, ELS it was desirable
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have an
opportunity of hearing the opinions of the house upon it,
before he presented his Budget. He saw no reason
whatever why the noble lord should not be allowed to
bring in a bill for the abolition of such a gross and
shameful tax.

Mr. FITZGERALD supported the Motion.
Mr. HUME would give the noble lord his support if
he would propose the abolition of the imposts on all the
other thirty-five trades which were compelled to pay duty
to the state, but he could not think of relieving one elan
while others were liable to similar burdens.
After a words in reply to Lord R. GROSVENOR,
The house divided, when there appeared—
_

219
167

For the motion.
Against it

Majority in favour of the bi 11... 52
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.
OATHS.

Mr. PELLAIT then rose to move the appointment

of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of Oaths,

and the operation of the Act 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 4, and
the Act 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 62, for the substitu-
tion of Declarations in liew of Oaths in the Customs,
Excise, Public Offices, and Corporations named in
the said acts, and the advantage of extending the
principle of those acts to the courts of law, and further
to inquire into the oaths now taken by members of
Parliament at the table of the house, with the view of
substituting one uniform declaration for members of all
' • rel igious persuasions, and to report thereon from time to
time. He said he attached a paramount degree of im-
portance to the motion of whibh had given notice.
It was eminently a question of truthfulness, and con-
cerned the stability of our political and social institu-
tions. It was his desire, in connection with this great
subject, to furnish the committee which he sought to
obtain with ample means of inquiry and with full in-
structions, in order that they might arrive at a proper
conclusion upon the subject. The present condition of
the law in reference to this question abounded with in-
equalities. The people called Quakers, Moravians, and
Separatists objected to oaths on principle, and they had
been relieved ; but there were numerous other classes of
subjects to whom no relief had been granted. The
various reports which had emanated from the House of
Lords had thrown considerable light on the subject. In
1834 the lords made a report in which they concurred
in following out the principle which had been adopted
with very considerable success in the customs and ex-
cise, namely, the substitution of affirmations for oaths
in almost all cases, from which a large amount of
commercial benefit had accrued. The hon. member
proceeded to describe the various forms of oaths and
adjurations in use among the ancient Greeks, Romans,
and Egyptians, which, irrespective of their bearing upon
the subject in hand, he characterised as curiosities
of literature. He also quoted the opinion of Paley,
who said that in no country in the world were the
_ .

forms of oaths so circuitous and ridiculous as those in
England. He (Mr. Pellatt) contended that the constant
practice of administering oaths in courts of justice, and
especially in the various police-courts, had the effect of
bringing the ceremony into contempt. In the year
1831 an act was passed which opened a better prospect
with regard to the abuse of oaths. He need not remind
the house that before this time oaths were taken by the
bushel, as it were, and without discrimination, not only
in public offices, but in counting-houses and other private
establishments. This act of 1831 afforded relief in this
particular to members of the Society of Friends and
other separatists, by enabling them to affirm. In re-
ference to this subject, he would take the liberty of
asking the house upon what ground the Society of
Friends were to enjoy a superior degree of freedom to
himself and other dissenters, who might wish to have
the option of affirming I There was no justice in pre-
serving such distinctions, especially as their continuance
was a sore injury to tender consciences. At one period
the Society of Friends had no resting place owing to the
requirement of oaths ; and nearly 500 of their members
were on this account confined in prisons in various parts
of the kingdom, some of whom only obtained their re-
lease upon the accession of William and Mary. Whilst
on this subject, he would state his conviction that the
house might safely dispense with that part of the oath
required from members on taking their seats which
had the effect of excluding a particular class of reli-
gionists. Why not have a common declaration which
all could adopt, and no oath whatever ? He did not
think their loyalty would be the less, or that they would
be less anxious for the promotion of the interests and the
happiness of their fellow-subjects. (Hear, hear.) He
was anxious, then, to extend the principle which had
been recognised in 1849. The truth was that oaths were
not wanted. They did not increase truthfulness. They
were only demanded by governments and corporations
for purposes of their own, and were totally unnecessary
between man and man—between merchant and merchant
—between banker and banker. At the same time he
must admit that the corporation of the city of London
had in this respect set an example to the Commons
House of Parliament, inasmuch as they had enabled any
person to take up his freedom and settle in London upon
taking an oath according to the form sanctioned by his
own religion, and in the manner most binding upon his
conscience. Previously to this, they would not allow a
Jew to trade in the City although he might be British
born. In one case, a Jew had been converted to Chris-
tianity ; he had a son, who was born in London and
married a British woman, yet the son was refused the
freedom of the City because his father was a Jew. This
man was put to an expense of 1,0001. before he could
establish his claim so as to enable him to open a shop in
Whitechapel. This, however, was now changed ; and
if the House of Commons would follow the example of
the city of London, there would be no difficulty in ad-
mitting Jews into Parliament. It appeared to him -
therefore, without anticipating the question of the ad-
mission of Jews, that the question as to oaths ought
now to be finally settled, and with that view he trusted
the Government would consent to the motion for a com-
mittee. In conclusion, he called upon the house to aid
him in unrolling this dark mummy of by-gone supersti-
tion in respect to unnecessary oaths ; for by so doing
they would only be expanding a principle which had
already received parliamentary sanction. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME seconded the motion. His hon. friend
was quite right in bringing the subject under the consi-
deration of the house. Our laws were made, or ought
to be made, for the benefit of the community without
reference to religious distinctions or to oaths ; and, being
of opinion that a bad man would take an oath while a
good man would refuse, he thought it was hard that laws
should exist for the punishment of good men which had
no influence upon bad. (Hear, hear.) He could not
tell how many millions of oaths had been saved by tire
late change in the law ; but he was sure that the effect'
had been to increase the respect of the people for reli-
gion. (Hear, hear.) He trusted her Majesty's Govern-
ment would not object to the committee ; for in his opi-
nion it would be the means of proving that great advan-
tage could arise from the abolition of all oaths. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was well known that the attention of the house had been
directed from time to time, in a long series of years, to
great
important
eae
tadvanta sugehbect of unnecessaryadjundouhiyatte oathsndedt ; andhe very
operation
of the measures which had been passed in that respect.
He entirely agreed with his hon. friend who spoke last,
and he was quite sure there was a general concurrence
in the sentiment, that unnecessary oaths were a very
great evil—firat of all by the positive temptation they
offered to bad men, and even to men who could not be
secoil d l y,
forbecause
tthe
sacredth ey
the reverence
hcaaldledthealetffogecetthoefrdb,adiminmisheinng;
He as sure that, for the purposes
name of the Deity.
he had expressed, the hon. gentleman who moved the
the house. At the sameP?n
resolution might count u
man would rest satisfied the universal sympathy of
time he hoped the hon. gentle-
had of pressing
house ; and that he
his •
three objects, whichwith the opportunity be had
to the motion. vistas upon the attention of the
Would not call upon them to assent
The motion, he perceived, P
appearedthe honourable gentle-
man had in
of declarationsinquire
operation to inquire
view. First, it wasproposed
into the operation of certain sed for the ointed to
sub-
stitution acts p_
publicproposed t 0
inquire into the advantage of extending the_
tiidepartmerda.secoinndlliyeu
it
in certain
princi-
ple of those acts to the courts of law d
it was proposed to inquire into the oathfsn;
members of Parliament at the
could hardly be made a mattehrelft
not necessary therefore to make
With regard to the second
which the hon. member proposedtolaw,
table house. It
and it was
argument,a
subject of inquiry.
theo wan
tak en
?:),'
branch of the motion, in
thextend his inquiry
would submit to
to the oaths taken iu chounr.s f
member conclusive reasons
the judgment of the
why a commission was appointed
Some time ago
at present.
ent, of which his noble friend the mem-
ber he should not Take° such a reference to a committee
by the Governm
of the courts of common law. That
into the procedure
one report, and he was
I had already made
ber for the city of London was at the head, to inquire
commission ,
in a condition to state on the authority of the Attorney-
General, that it was now ready to present its second
report, in which there was contained a full considera-
tion of this very question. (Hear, hear.) When that
report
was laid upon the table, the hon. gentleman
wOuld find that the subject was dealt with in such a,
manner as even he would pronounce to be efficient.
With regard to the third part of his motion—the inquiry
into the oaths taken by members at the table of this
house—he would submit to the hon. member that that
fithesuthbejrectthfeoroaathcosmininowttrakoefuthbiys househ.ersThoef
question,was not
a w
Parliament should be repealed, and one members
uniform declara-
tion to Ye taken by members of