The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-13 00:00:00

voice of the country having called for, and accomplished, its
suppression, it would be now most difficult and injurious to
revive it; and, in the present circumstances of the country,
therefore, he was not prepared to carry out the theory of such
a measure into practice. 'With these considerations he should
oppose the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. PEASE did not charge the present Government with
any want of disposition to reduce taxation, for he had always
borne testimony to their readiness to do so. No man, he be-
lieved, approved of a property tax in the abstract, as it had a
peculiar tendency to cripple industry and destroy the manu-
facturing energies of the country. Ile was not an advocate
for an income tax ; but he believed the people were already
beginning to see that the real property of the country paid
nothing in direct taxation, bearing any corresponding propor-
tion to the indirect taxes which they themselves paid, and
would be very likely soon to call aloud for a more fair appor-
tionment of the burt hens of the country. He should vote for
the present motion.
Mr. YOUNG shortly supported the motion.
Mr. GOUL B URN said, it had been said that the present
motion was distinct from a property tax ; but such clearly was
not the fact, because every Hon. Member who had spoken
upon it dwelt on it as connected directly with a property tax.
Hon. Members appeared to have entirely forgotten the cir-
cumstances under which the former property tax was imposed
and afterwards repealed. Now, was it true that the opposi-
tion to the tax at the time it was repealed proceeded from the
aristocracy ? Quite the contrary. It proceeded from the
present Lord Chancellor.—( Laughter.) He begged pardon,
from Lord Brougham, and he opposed it expressly on the
ground of its tendency to fetter the industry of the country.
The Hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) was not then in Parlia-
ment, and of course did not hear, as he did, the speeches then
made by the Noble Lord against this tax, week after week
and month after month. The arguments employed against it
were, that it threw impediments in the way of trade and com-
merce, and interfered most injuriously with the industry
of the labouring classes. How came it to pass, then,
that at that time this tax was selected as the one most desirable
to be removed, notwithstanding the variety of other taxes that
pressed upon industry ? It certainly was not in deference to
the wishes of the higher classes. He fully concurred in what
was said on the present occasion, that, if imposed again, it
should apply alike to all parts of the empire, to Ireland as well
as to Engitt.td. IL: still continued of the opinion u!:i211 he
expressed. on a former occasion, that the task of inquiring and
determining what taxes it would be most advisable to repeal, or
to alter or to provide substitutes for, belonged to the Go-
vernment, and not to a Committee. To refer such questions
,o a Committee would only be to increase the difficulties.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —63
SUPPLY.

The Speaker having left the Chair, and a vote of 7,6481. in
in the supplementary Army Estimates, for increase of pay to
certain Officers having been agreed to,
Mr. BARING proceeded to move the Miscellaneous .Esti-
mates. The first vote proposed was a sum of 41,0001., to defray
the expense of public works and the repairs of public buildings.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the late Government were
anxious to diminish this head of expense as much as possible.
In proof of this the Noble Lord mentioned one or two trifling
items that were not heard in the gallery.
After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON and Major BEAU-
CLERK,
Mr. POTTER said, in the vote before the House, of
41,2001. for public works in England, he observed some part
of it was for the Tower of London. This he did not ob;Ject
to ; but as the public money was applied to keep that ancient
edifice in proper repair, he thought the public ought to have
admission to see through that building without living required
to pay the exorbitant fees which were now demanded. No
person could look through the Tower without being required
to pay at least 7s. This he considered most improper, when
the fends required to keep it up were taken from the pockets
of the people. The case was very different on the Continent,
where public buildings were open free of any charge ; and he
saw no reason why the same practice ought not to prevail in
this country, not only as respects the Tower, but 'Westminster
Abbey, and all other public buildings.
Mr. BARING would make inquiry into the subject.
The vote was agreed to.
A vote of 19,750/. having been proposed for Kingston har-
bour,
Mr. PRYME would not oppose the grant now. On prin-
ciple, however, he was opposed to the grant of public money
for local improvements.
Mr. RUTHVEN regretted to hear the Hon. Member
upon this occasion talking like a pawnbroker.—( A laugh. )
He did not expect to have heard him opposing this small
grant for an object that was as beneficial to England as to
Ireland.
Mr. FINN said that 50,000/. a year was drawn from the
Royal demesnes of Ireland and expended here. The expense
of the Charing-cross improvements was extracted from Ire-
land. He should consider that no less than five millions of
Irish rental were expended here.
An Hon. MEMBER said this work was one of great pub-
lic utility to England as well as to Ireland. It could not be
called a mere local improvement.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN said no person could view the break-
water. at Plymouth and Portsmouth without being- eonvinced-
of the great utility of such works. Kingston harbour was
one of the same kind; useful, not to the mere locality, but to
the nation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
that on such subjects there should be no national jealousy, and
that buildings should be erected where they were required,
without reference to the particular country.
Mr. O'BRIEN was satisfied that if an investigation were
made by a Committee a large balance would be found to be
owing to Ireland.
The vote was agreed to.
11,775/. for the expenses of Portpatrick harbour, and
5,417/. for Holyhead and Howth harbour were then Voted.
On the vote of 16,0001. for buildings connected with the
British Museum,
Mr. HAWES said that they ought to have some knowledge
of the ultimate expense.
Mr. GOULBUItN said that as yet the work which bad
been executed was rather under the estimates.
On the vote of 12,0001. for the National Gallery,
Mr. EWART made some some remarks as to the regula-
tions which he hoped would be laid down for the National
Gallery. He trusted that it would be placed on a better con-
dition than the Royal Academy.
An Hon. MEMBER briefly defended the Committee of
Management of the Royal Academy.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 7,6651. for finishing the interior of White-
hall banquetting room,
Mr. WARBURTON protested against applying the
public money to so preposterous a purpose as the restoration
of a banquetting room, in order to its being used as a chapel.
Mr. EWART concurred with the Hon. Member, and sug-
gested that the building should be devoted to the purposes of
a public library. At all events the building might be con-
verted to some useful purpose,
Mr. F. BARING stated that for many years past the
building had been used for the purposes of a chapel. The es-
timate, which was that of his predecessor in office, comprised
every expense which would be necessary.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that a smaller sum might have
sufficed for the repairs, but not for producing the same archi-
tectural effect which the application of the present sum would
produce.
Major BEAUCLERK wished to know whether or not the
chapel was intended for the humble classes as well as for the
rich.
Mr. WARBURTON expressed his intention to divide
the Committee if the Government persevered in the vote.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said the Hon. Member was an utilita-
rian philosopher, but yet he had omitted to show what practi-
cal utility, there would be in restoring the building to its ori-
ginal state as a banquetting-room. The building was practi-
cally applied to a useful and beneficial purpose in being used as
a chapel.
Mr. A. TREVOR said the building had been used as a
chapel for the last century ; it was always well-attended ; and
to what better purpose it could be applied, he really could
not see.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Government were proposing no new application of the
building, and why should they agree to discontinue that appli-
cation in the absence of any suggestion for converting it to a
purpose of more practical utility ?
Mr. WARBURTON on a former occasion recommended
that it should be turned into a concert room.—( Hear, hear. )
After the musical festival at Westminster Abbey, the managers
of several charitable societies applied for similar accommoda-
tion, but were refused by the Dean and Chapter. Now this
building would be admirably adapted for the purposes of cha-
ritable societies. The use of it as a chapel was preposterous,
and the beauty of the interior was certainly spoilt by the un-
sightly pews.
Lord SAN DON considered the Hon. Member's objection
hypercritical. The thousands who for the last century had at-
tended the chapel never complained of the unsightliness which
was offensive to the good taste of some Hon. Members.
Major BEAUCLERK said that as the public money was
to be voted away he should move that one half the scats be
formed into free seats for the use of the poor.—( Hear.) He
was well acquainted with the parish, and such an arrangement
he knew would be a great boon.
Mr. BARING said it would be better if the proper autho-
rities were applied to, and the point well considered, before
they came to a decision.
Major BEAUCLERK was willing to leave the affair in
the hands of the Hon. Gentleman.
After a few words from Messrs. Jackson, Ruthven,
O'Brien, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the grant

Against it

.... 24

Majority for the grant -92
PRESENT HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
When we re-entered the Gallery we found the House dis-
cussing the estimate of 44,0001. for building the present tem.
porary Houses.
Mr. CURTFIS objected to the vote, as a most enormous
PACIA
Mr, BARING was of opinion that Wl' °o;n Hon. Members
considered the rapiditpvith ;le buildings were erected,
the cleating awl's'
the rubbish, and other circumstances,
kite vote would not be deemed so extravagant.
Mr. WAKLEY wished to know what arrangements were
made for taking the divisions ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, referring
to Mr. Ward's proposition on that subject, when he was Chair-
man of the Divisions, said that he had at first feared the pro-
position of two lobbies might interfere with the views which