Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

mittees. Those of their Lordships who hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced had experience in dealing with questions of the other Bill, of having his measure placed that kind would also be further of opinion, in juxtaposition and comparison with the that in order properly to discuss measures Bills of the Attorney General for Ireland. which involved such details, it was expe- and of sending them to be investigated by dient that they should be referred, not to a the same Committee. Therefore, it might Committee of the whole House, but, in the be technically true, though he (the Earl of first instance, to a Select Committee. Now, Derby) was not certain that it was so, that if the second reading of those Bills had the second reading of that Bill was moved been postponed until after Christmas, con- by a Member of the Government; but if it sidering that Easter would fall very early were so moved, he was confident it was on next year, and that very few days would the distinct and positive declaration made be at the disposal of the Government be- at the time that the taking of the second tween Christmas and Easter, there might reading of that Bill was merely pro formá, be considerable risk that the second read- for the purpose of referring it, together ing would not take place until after the with the other measures, to the consideraEaster recess; and in that case they must tion of the Select Committee; that it inbe aware that the passing of the Bills in volved no assent to the principle of that that Session would be absolutely impossi- measure, and that Her Majesty's Governble. It was thought desirable, therefore, ment were so far from sanctioning the printhat these Bills should procced to a second ciple of that measure, that they were dereading, and be referred to the considera- cidedly opposed to the main principle, and tion of a Select Committee. At the same to the provisions contained in the bill of time, it happened that there was a Bill in Serjeant Shee. If, therefore, any step the House of Commons which had been had been taken which apparently forwarded brought in by an independent Member-a this measure, it had been taken only for learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) the purpose of bringing it in juxtaposition who had recently, for the first time, and comparison with the Bills of the Attaken his seat in that House, which was, torney General for Ireland, which were in some respect, pari materia, founded founded upon a different principle; and he upon a different principle from that of the had no hesitation in saying that, although Attorney General for Ireland, but dealing he thought the course which had been taken with the question of compensation to the by the House of Commons was, on the tenant for exhausted improvements. That whole, a sound and wise one, as tending to Bill was, in substance, the one which give an opportunity for a full and ample conhis noble Friend had referred to as hav-sideration of the most important question, ing been brought in by Mr. Sharman yet he was as opposed, as his noble Friend Crawford in former Sessions of Parliament, himself could be, to the principle of the Bill which had in former Sesssons been re-introduced by the hon. and learned Member jected, and which he (the Earl of Derby) | (Mr. Serjeant Shee). He thought it as trusted would in future Sessions also be rejected; because he had no hesitation in saying, that he thought that the principle on which the Bill was framed was entirely subversive of all rights of property; and he was quite certain it would never be passed into a law either by the present or any future House of Commons that was desirous of maintaining the just rights of property, while disposed to give due encouragement to the improvement of the land. Now as this Bill was pari materia with one of the four Bills introduced by the Attorney General for Ireland, it was thought it might be difficult to obtain the assent of the House of Commons to the immediate passing of the second reading of the four Bills of the Government, and their immediate reference to a Select Committee, without, at the same time, giving an opportunity to the

destructive of the rights of property as his noble Friend did, and he could not believe that any Committee, representing the opinions of a considerable number of the Members of the House of Commons, would sanction the adoption of that principle or the passing of that Bill; and further, whatever might be the opinion of the Committee, he was satisfied that no such sanction would be given by her Majesty's Government to the passing of a measure, the effect of which appeared to him to be that of an absolute confiscation of property. At the same time, proceeding, as he hoped the Committee would do, on the basis laid down by the Attorney General for Ireland on the part of the Government, he thought it would be useful for the Committee to have before them the measure by which the hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with the same

question; for there might be details with respect to which some useful modifications might be adopted, and advantages gained from a comparison of the views of persons starting from different points, but desirous at the same time of legislating for the interest of the improving tenant. He repeated, that the passing of the second reading of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Shee) must not be taken in the slightest degree as any indication of a disposition on the part of the Government to countenance its principle, the object of referring that measure to a Committee being solely to give more ample opportunity for the consideration of an important question involving a variety of details, which, if brought to a satisfactory issue, would confer a great benefit on all persons interested in the land of Ireland.

taken pro formá for the purpose of discussing a Bill at another stage, but in the present instance the opinion of the highest authority in the House of Commons had been asked, and he had distinctly stated that there could be no assent to the principle when it was announced that it was taken pro formâ. Moreover, when two Bills were presented at the same time, founded upon different principles, and the House gave a second reading to both, surely it could not be supposed that they gave their assent to the principle of both, when their only object was to refer them to a Select Committee.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS believed that a number of Members had left the House of Commons on the evening when these Bills were before it, under the impression that it was not the intention of the Government to accede to the proposition relative to Mr. Serjeant Shee's Bill, and it was with great surprise they heard next morning what had been done. He thought it was an unfortunate proceeding, because very erroneous impressions would in consequence be produced in Ireland, and a great stimulus given to the proceed

The EARL of WICKLOW had no doubt the explanation of the noble Earl would give general satisfaction; but he was bound to say that he thought he had not given sufficient consideration to the importance which attached to the admission of a principle of a Bill by agreeing to the second reading. As the obnoxious measure in question had been rejected by all pre-ings of the body who had formed themceding Governments, he was the more surprised that a Government which had brought forward such admirable measures to carry their object into effect, should have assented to the second reading. He believed that the Bills laid before the House of Commons by the Irish Attorney General would give general satisfaction to the country; they were both desirable and necessary, and in their preparation that learned Gentleman had shown great information and research. He trusted that the statement of the noble Earl would remove any disagreeable impression which might exist in Ireland or in this country, owing to the circumstance already reverted to.

The EARL of DERBY was glad to find that the noble Earl had made himself so thoroughly acquainted with the principle and details of the Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government; and he was glad also to have that opportunity of correcting any misapprehension-if it prevailed-as to the extent which the Government could be supposed to have admitted the principle of Serjeant Shee's Bill by the course which was taken in the House of Commons the other night. He could assure his noble Friend, that not only was it the practice of their Lordships' House frequently to permit a second reading to be

selves into something like a Convention in that country. When addressing their Lordships on this subject, he could not but refer to the labours of Mr. Tighe Hamilton, a gentleman who had held an important office under the Irish Government. He had not seen any Bill prepared by that gentleman, but he had read the paniphlet in which he described the main propositions of a measure upon this subject, and it appeared to him that they were in many respects preferable to the measure proposed by the Government.

The EARL of DERBY did not wish to canvass the pamphlet of Mr. Tighe Hamilton. He had not seen that pamphlet; but it would be extraordinary if, in a great degree, his plan did not resemble the present measure; because, though a charge had been made in the House of Commons that the Attorney General for Ireland had borrowed his Bills from Mr. Tighe Hamilton, the fact was that the Attorney General had not seen that gentleman's pamphletwhilst Mr. Tighe Hamilton had prepared his details from a work by Mr. Vance and another gentleman, which had been executed under the direction, superintendence, co-operation, and advice of the Attorney General; consequently, if the Attorney General had borrowed at all, he had bor

rowed from his own original work, and not from Mr. Tighe Hamilton's pamphlet. House adjourned to Monday next.

་་་་་་་་་་་་

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Friday, December 10, 1852.

would now ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to comply with the prayer of this most important petition?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, the hon. Baronet might recollect that when the important petition to which he referred was presented to the House last Session, he

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-2° General Board of (Sir J. Pakington) had given a pledge that

Health.

THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH said, he begged to put to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies a question with reference to the very important petition which had been presented last Session by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland from the Legislative Council of the Colony of New South Wales. In that petition the Legislative Council of New South Wales repeated the solemn protest and declaration of their predecessors, the Legislative Council of the whole Colony, now divided into New South Wales and Victoria. That solemn declaration was to the effect-1. That the Imperial Parliament ought not to appropriate any of the moneys levied by the authority of the Colonial Legislature, as Parliament had done by the schedules to the Imperial Act 13 & 14 Vic. c. 59. 2. That the revenue arising from public lands should be subject only to the control and appropriation of the Colonial Legislature. 3. That the Customs, and all other departments, should be subject to the direct supervision and control of the Colonial Legislature. 4. That the whole patronage of the Colony should be vested in the Governor and Executive Council, unfettered by instructions from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 5. That no Bills should be reserved for the signification of the pleasure of the Crown, unless they affected the prerogatives of the Crown, or the general interests of the Empire. The Legislative Council had also declared, that if these grievances were redressed, they would provide for the whole eost of their internal government, civil and military, and would grant to Her Majesty an adequate Civil List, instead of the sums appropriated in the schedules to the Imperial Act of the 13 & 14 Vic. c. 59. They therefore prayed that this House would adopt measures for the early redress of those grievances. As he (Sir W. Molesworth) had presumed to propose such measures, when new constitutions were given to the Australian Colonies in 1850, he

during the then ensuing recess he would closely and carefully analyse the prayer of that petition. This pledge he had redeemed; he had carefully investigated every portion of the petition, and, with his Colleagues, had taken into consideration the very important statements it contained, with a full and anxious sense of the growing importance of the Australian Colonies, and of the extraordinary circumstances in which those colonies were now placed. The Government, after mature deliberation, had decided upon the extent to which they thought concession to that petition ought to be made, and upon the policy which they thought ought to be adopted towards those colonies; the hon. Baronet, however, would admit the impossibility, in answer to a question of this kind, of entering into an explanation of the views and intentions of Government on so large and complicated a subject. On an early day after the recess he hoped to be in a position to give to the House a full statement on the subject.

WAYS AND MEANS-THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. T. DUNCOMBE: I feel, Sir, that the House is placed in rathe a peculiar position in reference to the Motion just made-that you, Sir, leave the Chair for the purpose of our going into Committee of Ways and Means, to entertain the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

that is, his Budget. I also think that I should ill discharge my duty to my constituents if I did not at once state that they do not wish their Representatives in this House of Commons, if they could be so persuaded, to entertain the proposition of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer at all. I dare say, and I should not be surprised if this proceeding of mine were called factious. But that is a very old story with me. I have been called factious by all Governments ever since I first had the honour of a seat in this House, and I

defy any man, or any body of men, to do not give any equivalent to the country for their duty to the public without incurring the House duty he proposes to double that charge. But let me tell those Gentle- besides carrying it down to the 107. housemen who care about it that it means in holders. As regards this class, it can point of fact nothing-or anything or no- hardly be said to exist in the Metropolis. thing at all, as the case may be. Some- The houses generally in London are all times, when it suits them to do so, Gentle- above 10l. a year; but the proposed exmen feel highly indignant at the charge-tension will include many houses between sometimes they treat it with the contempt 107. and 201. a year; and I understand it deserves. They are indignant when it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suits their purpose to give that tone to the taken the 107. householders because they debate; but, I say, to be called factious on possessed the franchise-that I believe is this occasion, is to carry out the wishes of the basis of his calculation-and applying the great body of the people-at all events, this House tax to them all at the same it will be carrying out the wishes of this time that he doubles it in amount, estimates Metropolis to oppose your leaving the Chair. that it will produce only a few thousands Certainly the Government cannot object to a year over what was derived from the that course-for that is the simple straight- old Window tax. Now I am told, and I forward and candid way of meeting the ques- believe on very good authority, that it will tion. We do not want your Budget, nor do produce very considerably more than that. we want you. And the peculiar position in Estimating it by the franchise, there are which the House is placed, arises from this many thousands who cannot have been circumstance that the right hon. Gentle-included in the right hon. Gentleman's man the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told you that he wishes to stand or fall by each and every one of his Resolutions. What is the use, then, of going into a Committee of Ways and Means on the Resolution for increasing the House duty? Suppose you carry that-there are other propositions which will be equally opposed and you tell us that if you break down in one of them, you intend to resign. All our time, therefore, in discussing this Resolution will have been wasted and thrown away. Why not, then, take the decision at once on the question of Mr. Speaker's leaving the Chair? I do not know whether or not I shall be accused of it, but I intend no offence or insult to any one by my proposition. If hon. Gentlemen will be insulted I cannot help it. If they will say their feelings are outraged, it is no fault of mine; that is not my object. I have only to carry out that for which I rose-to bring the present question to as speedy an issue as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) has abandoned his Motion for postponing the Go-repeal of the Window tax was agitated in vernment propositions until after Christmas. Perhaps he has had an intimation from his constituents that that course would not be satisfactory to them, and he has fortunately abandoned it. He has been told most likely that they had quite enough bills to bother them at Christmas without being kept in suspense about this Government Bill, and as to what the 654 Gentlemen who sat in that House meant to do about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does

calculation, but who will have to pay the
tax, and there can be no doubt that the
revenue derived from this source must be
far greater than was derived from the
Window tax. Take the city of York,
which now pays 5,000l. a year to the
House duty; under the proposed arrange-
ment it will pay 7,500l. What equivalent
does the right hon. Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer give to the 107. householders of
York, who are now to be brought in for
the first time within this tax?
A teacup
full of tea a week, or a pot of beer a year,
at the most. That is all they can possibly
get from the reduction of the tea duty or
the duty on malt and hops. They had
rather things should remain as they are,
and their wish is that such a proposition
should not be entertained. The right hon.
Gentleman coolly told them that the Window
duty (though I feel that this is not the
time to go into details) was repealed solely
and entirely on sanitary grounds. Now I
deny that. At all events, that repeal was
not based on those grounds wholly. The

the Metropolis for thirty years before it
took place. It was objected to, in the
first instance, as a War tax-and though
sanitary grounds were brought in as an
argument against the tax latterly, it was
only by way of makeweight.
It was
true the Sanitary Commissioners came
forward and said, We will give you our
assistance, we will get your Window tax
off;" but had that Commission never
existed, no Chancellor of the Exchequer

64

could have maintained the tax for any length of time. The window duty was repealed because the Government of the day found they could no longer maintain it-they saw it dwindling away before them-I went with a deputation to the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject; and what did that deputation tell him? They did not argue the question on sanitary grounds, but what they said to him was, "We do not mean to pay this tax any longer;" and the right hon. Gentleman saw that a determined struggle was about to commence, and that if the tax were collected at all it must be by distraining on the different houses. Such was the language of the deputation; and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer finding it useless to attempt to oppose arguments of that nature, thanked them for the ability with which they had argued the case, and complimented them on the courage they had exhibited. That was really the ground on which the repeal of the Window duty was carried, and not on sanitary considerations. Well, then, I want to know how many nights are we going to waste in discussing these details, upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pledged himself and the Government that they will stand or fall if any one of them give way? I ask you who are against the Income tax, but favourable perhaps to the House duty, why are we to wade through this discussion on the House duty, when perhaps we shall, after all, support you in defeating the Income tax? Why should we thus waste the time of the House in what in that case will be a useless discussion? With regard to the reduction of the Malt and Hop duties also, I very much doubt if you (the Government) are strong enough to carry that. This I know, that a very strenuous opposition will be offered to that proposition; and if that opposition should succeed-as I have every reason to believe it will-what excuse shall we have to offer to the country for having wasted night after night in debating whether or not the House duty should be doubled? Therefore, Sir, I say, the way in which the question will be best understood by the public is as I propose—that is, that the objection should be taken at once, and the vote of the House taken on the question of your leaving the Chair, as a vote of want of confidence not only in the present Administration, but in the proposterous Budget which VOL. CXXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

was laid before us a week ago. I can only say, from the representations which have been made to me, and the agitation which I know is going on, that I believe if the Government persevere with this Budget, or if the House of Commons should be so insane, so dead to the wishes of the people, as to sanction it, they will in so doing be entering upon a course of agitation and creating a spirit of discontent and dissatisfaction in the country which will be far less easily allayed than excited. It is on these grounds, Sir, if I can find any hon. Gentleman who will divide with me against your leaving the Chair, that I shall take the sense of the House on that question.

MR. WALTER said, that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) persevered in his Amendment, and divided the House upon it, he should be very happy to divide with him, not putting the question, however, upon the harsher ground of "No confidence," but on the more charitable footing, that if the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was resolved upon committing an act of suicide, he should have a little more time for repentance. The right hon. Gentleman had run together a string of Resolutions which had no more to do with one another than chalk with cheese. If the House was called upon to discuss them as they stood, a more miscellaneous debate would never have been heard within those walls. He denied that there was any sort of necessity on the part of the Government to compel the House to a vote of confidence or no confidence in such a case as this. There was no deficit to make up, as when Sir Robert Peel came down to the House in 1842, yet the first thing the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer did was to propose an increase of taxation. He (Mr. Walter) demanded that a case should first be made out by the right hon. Gentleman for that increase of taxation. For himself, he had no abstract objection to a House tax, and he did not scruple to say that, were an increase of taxation really necessary, he should, without paying the slightest attention to any clamours outside, vote for such a House Tax as might be requisite; but to the utterly unnecessary and uncalled-for reduction of the Malt duties he was decidedly opposed. He had never met with an intelligent farmer who considered that either he or the public at large would be benefited by the removal of that tax; he did not know whether the farmers of Oxford

2 R.

« EdellinenJatka »