Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

and of almost every respectable inhabitant in their favour, had been debarred of the means of obtaining a living by being deprived of their licenses, in order to gratify the vindictive spleen or petty caprice of some man who was disposed to display his insignificant but cruel authority. Another great evil originated in the system of licensing being converted into an engine of political influence, more particularly in boroughs, where the corporate magistrates exercised a most arbitrary and ruinous power, to favour the views of some patron or proprietor. The object of rendering licenses annual was, to augment the tax, and those which in Queen Anne's time were only 1s. each, in a very short period were augmented to 10s.: and every gentleman who had read the act of Geo. 2nd, knew that another purpose in making licenses annual was, that magistrates should not have the power to deprive a man of his license until the expiration of a year. His intention was, to repeal the 26th Geo. 2nd, and instead of allowing to magistrates in the first instance so arbitrary and extensive a power, to provide a graduated scale of penalties for irregularities which should be proved against the house of a publican, the recognizances ought to be forfeited in such a case, and the maximum of penalty he thought, should not exceed 100l. on the third conviction, or forfeiture of the license, and incapacity to keep a public-house for three years. This would limit the authority of magistrates in putting down houses without cause assigned, and tend to put a termination to the vexatious despotism that had reigned in the metropolis. The hon. member then mentioned the case of a Mr. Meek, of Clerkenwell, a man whose conduct had been such as to command the respect of all his neighbours and of all who knew him. This person's license had been taken away from him by the arbitrary act of the magistrates, and had not been since renewed, by which he had suffered a loss of property to the amount of upwards of 1,000/. He should propose, then, that there should be an appeal, not after a trial by jury, for the House had testified its disapprobation of such a provision in the last parliament; but that there should be an appeal from the licensing magistrates to the magistrates of the quarter sessions. However, it might be urged, that the former, those respectable persons, might not want a check on their conduct; yet even if this held good of those of the

metropolis, other towns and cities might not be equally fortunate. There were certain other clauses in the bill, the object of which was to give a greater degree of publicity to the licensing of those houses. He trusted they would be found also to provide a check upon one of the greatest grievances existing, by putting an end to the monopoly of the brewers, who forced the publicans to vend their adulterated liquors; whereas, all contracts between them in future would exempt them from selling any other than genuine liquors, of an exciseable quality. In one town there were not less than 67 public houses all of which were in the hands of brewers. In the town of Warrington there were 18 houses, 14 or 15 of which belonged to brewers. In the town of Maidstone there were 40 under the same circumstances. An artificial value had been given to pub. lic houses, throughout the country, by the licenses given to them; the consequence of which was, that they generally fell into the hands of the brewers themselves, who were thus enabled to sell a deleterious compound, very injurious to the health of their customers. If any gentleman would give himself the trouble to taste what real good beer was, such for instance, as that brewed in Shropshire or Staffordshire, and contrast it with the trash retailed by the unfortunate people in question, he would soon discover the great difference. The principle of the present bill he trusted, no one would object to; as he believed it was a measure which would remedy most of the existing evils. He should therefore move for leave to bring in a bill for amending the laws for regulating the manner of licensing alehouses in England and for the more effec tually preventing disorders therein."— Leave was given, and the bill was presented and read a first time.

PARTNERSHIPS IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Alderman Wood moved for leave to bring in a bill, similar to that which he had introduced last session. The object of it was, to induce men of large capitals to vest part of them in trade or manufac tures in Ireland, without fear of subjecting themselves to the operation of the bankrupt laws. By this bill, sleeping partners might invest money in trade without being considered as acting partners, or being liable for more than the sums invested by them. The worthy alderman concluded with moving for

advantage, but it should undergo considerable alterations.

leave to bring in a bill to promote the em- | ployment of persons in the Fisheries, Trade, and Manufactures of Ireland, by regulating and encouraging Partnerships in that part of the United kingdom."

Mr. Foster entered into a history of the law in Ireland, respecting anonymous partnerships. It was drawn up, he said, Mr. Plunkett said, that the House were by one of the ablest men of Ireland, and not, perhaps, aware that an act had was passed in the Irish parliament in 1781. existed upwards of forty years in Ireland, The idea of it was taken from a French which had been acted on, and had become law-book. When sent over to England, a part of the system of equity in that it was submitted to the attorney and country, enabling persons to invest money solicitor-general of that day, and by their in trade without becoming liable to the advice, rejected as contrary to the pracoperation of the bankrupt laws. This was tice of this island. On a remonstrance called an anonymous partnership in Ire- from Ireland, that the bill was necessary land. These anonymous partners, how- for the encouragement of the manufacever, did not engage in the trade them-tures of Ireland, it came back and was selves, and had no control over it, but were mere lenders of money. But by the bill of the worthy alderman, the persons who advanced money might have the substantial control of the trade. Now he held this to be a dangerous principle. Persons might appoint an acting partner entirely under their control, and might, with little or no capital, have the entire benefit of the trade, with a limited responsibility to the public. This was directly contrary to an established principle of mercantile law. It was obvious, that under this bill men of straw would be appointed as acting partners, and the persons who had the entire control and direction of the trade would only be liable to the extent of the sums advanced by them. If an amendment of the existing law were only proposed, he should be heartily glad to accede to it; but the bill would go to repeal the existing law on the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the principle of this bill was repugnant to the general principles of commercial law in this country. Ireland had separate laws on this subject, which were well understood, and which were not without their advantage in a country deficient in capital. In most countries on the continent, persons were allowed to vest sums in trade on a similar principle; but a system of this kind required to be acted on with great caution. Persons might acquire a false credit by a connexion of this nature with capitalists, the extent of whose liability might not be known to the public. In point of fact, this was an unlimited allowance of small joint stock companies; companies of such a description were viewed with great jealousy in this country. This jealousy, however, might be carried too far. He thought the bill might be productive of

passed into a law, and had been produc tive of great benefit. He was sorry however to say, that there was as much necessity now for capital for encouraging manufactures in Ireland, as there was then. He should recommend to the worthy alderman to bring in a bill for amending the existing law, rather than to repeal it.

Mr. Leslie Foster said, the bill of the worthy alderman was well deserving of the consideration of every Irishman. He was not sure that he understood his right hon. friend correctly. It seemed to him that his principal objection was, to a principle which already existed. By the existing law, dormant partners might invest money to any amount, derive a share of the profits, and yet not be liable beyond the sums invested by them.

Mr. Plunkett said, his objection was, to the effective control which this bill would give to sleeping partners, without subjecting them to any losses.

Mr. Alderman Wood acknowledged, that the principle of the bill would give this control; but then half the profits would remain to be added to the capital. Thus, if the profits were 10 per cent, 5 per cent could only be drawn by the partners.

Sir J. Newport thought it would be better to repeal the former act, and to consolidate its provisions in the present, the former being an act of the Irish parliament. It would be better that all the regulations on the subject should be incorporated into one act of the imperial parliament.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE WINDOW TAX IN IRELAND.] Mr. Shaw, of Dublin, rose and said:-Sir, when I

ting, that Ireland had not since the union
done all that could be reasonably expect-
ed of her, still this would be no argument
for the tax.
If the tax itself be oppres-

had last year the honour of making the motion which I am now about to submit to the House, that the petition presented by me to this House, from the householders of the city of Dublin, for the re-sive and unequal, or if for any other reapeal of the window tax, together with the sons it be a tax that ought to be repealed, other petitions from Ireland on the same the supposed deficiency on the part of Iresubject, be referred to a committee, I stated land can be no argument in favour of the that I had never known a question excite continuance of it. If the tax be in itself greater interest among the citizens of radically objectionable, this House will Dublin, or respecting which there was do its duty and abolish it; and if the abo less diversity of opinion. If I was right lition create a serious deficiency in the in that opinion then, I cannot be in error public revenue, it will be then the duty of now, when I assure the House, that that the chancellor of the exchequer to suginterest has, if possible, increased, and gest the best means of supplying that dethat the unanimous conviction of my con- ficiency. As I am anxious that this quesstituents at present is, that upon every tion should be met in the most direct manprinciple of sound policy and good faith, ner, I shall not recapitulate the arguments the people of Ireland have a right to claim which I used on introducing it to their a total repeal of the window tax. I men- notice. I shall, however, remind the tion this, not in order to interfere with the House of one or two of the leading objecfull discussion of this question, for dis- tions to the principles of the motion. One cussion and inquiry is what we call for, objection was, that the repeal of this tax but to submit to the House, whether any would be breaking faith with the public subject upon which the second city in the creditor, as having a tendency to lessen empire has taken such an active part, and the security on the strength of which he pronounced so decisive an opinion, is not lent his money: this argument would well entitled to a calm and serious inves- prove too much, because in that case no tigation in parliament. This, Sir, is all I tax ought ever to be repealed, and every now ask, and which, I am sure, the can- tax, when once imposed, ought to be perdour and good sense of this House will petual; the consequence of which would not refuse to concede to me. When I say be, that if any one parliament could be that a cool and temperate inquiry is all I found sufficiently complying to vote indenow ask, I must at the same time confess, finite taxation, it would be unnecessary to that I say so in the consciousness that if call another. Besides, the right hon. the House will but give the subject their gentleman gave up this principle when he fair and full attention, I have little doubt consented to the reduction of 25 per cent. that the result will be favourable to the But, to give the objection all its force, I wishes of the petitioners. I have certainly would put it to the candour of the right every reason to be grateful to the House hon. gentleman, whether he had any apfor their indulgence on a former occasion, prehensions that the abolition of the Irish but I hope I may add, without presump- window tax would shake the confidence tion, my sincere wishes that, in debating of the public credit. It is quite ludicrous this question, Ireland will not now, as on to suppose that the loss of a tax, now the last occasion, be upbraided with not amounting only to 200,000l. and every having supported her share of the public year falling off, will injure the security of burthens-that she will not now be the national debt. But if gentlemen are taunted for not having done that which it so anxious to keep faith with the public it has been long since ascertained it creditor, I trust they will be at least as was impossible for her to have done; at anxious that government should keep the same time I would respectfully sug-faith with the Irish people.-And this gest, that it by no means follows that be- brings me to another objection, which, I cause Ireland may (no matter from what think, is equally untenable-namely, this causes) have been deficient in her contri- is not a war tax; or, at least, that parliabution to the public exigencies, a tax so mentary faith has not been pledged that unequal in its pressure, and so injurious it should cease with the war.- -As to whein its consequences to the health of the ther the act of the 29th of the king was or community, should be obstinately perse- was not a war tax, the simplest mode of vered in. Were I to admit, therefore, deciding that question would be by referwhat I certainly am very far from admit-ence to the act itself. By the 4th chap.

of the 40th of the king, it is expressly stated, that the tax on windows was granted for the sole purpose of keeping up an effective force, little short of 50,000 men; Did not that mean that it was a tax for maintaining a war establishment; and if so, could it be any thing else than a war tax? But it is not only stated to be a tax for raising an effective force, but, in a subsequent statute, in 1800, certain regulations were introduced respecting this tax, which regulations were to be in force for three years, provided the war should so long continue. Did not this convey an understanding, that the tax was not to continue beyond the war? But it has been gravely said, that this clause respecting the three years referred to the regulations only, and not to the tax itself. Is it possible that the legislature could have contemplated the possibility of the tax surviving the regulations by which that tax was to be rated and controlled, that is to say, that parliament could have said, "Let the tax be perpetual, but be it enacted, that all the regulations for rating and levying the tax shall not continue in force longer than three years?" I put it to the candour and good sense of the House, whether it was possible for the Irish parliament to have any such double meaning. What they said of the mode of rating the tax, they must have meant of the tax itself. The parliament expressly said, that the rating should continue during the war only, and therefore they evidently meant that the tax should not continue for a longer period. I trust that this quibble will not now be seriously resorted to as a grave argument to justify an alleged breach of faith. Give me leave to say, that it is not seemly in the government to special plead with the people upon a charge that the faith of parliament was pledged to them, and that it has not been kept sacred. I would even go farther and say, that although the precise terms of the contract, or the exact circumstances of the case, did not strictly and formally pledge the faith of parliament, yet if, from the spirit of the acts themselves, and the language and conduct of the government at the time of passing them, the people acted upon an implied understanding of such a pledge, and cheerfully discharged their part of the covenant by paying the tax during the war, the government and the parliament were bound on the return of peace to remit that tax. Now, be the causes what they may, it is indisputable (VOL. XL.)

that at the time of introducing this tax, and from that time down to the present day, there has been one uniform impression, that the window tax was a war tax, and that the faith of the Irish parliament was pledged that such tax should not continue in force longer than the war. Now, Sir, I submit, that an impression so strong and general is in itself evidence of the truth of that impression; but admitting for a moment that it was not warranted to the extent in which it has been entertained, yet, is a feeling of this kind on the part of the people to be answered by quibbling on the words of an act of parliament? Is that the way in which the legislature ought to justify themselves against the imputation of a breach of faith? In my humble opinion, ten times the amount of this tax would be but a poor price for the forfeiture of that confidence which the best interests of the empire require should ever exist between this House and the Irish people. But, Sir, who was the person with whom this tax originated? The then Irish chancellor of the exchequer, the late Mr. Corrythe representative, and, in this instance, the deputed organ of the Irish government. What was his language on that occasion? When last this question was before the House, I cited a most material extract from the speech of Mr. Corry, in proposing this tax to the Irish House of Commons. I read that extract from the most authentic report I could find; and with the leave of the House I will read it again; it is as follows:-" Mr. Corry stated, that when the window tax was first proposed, it was on the footing of a mere war tax to meet the exigencies of the moment, and that in order to render it efficient, it became necessary to give it a retrospective operation: he had already, every time that the subject had been brought before the House, advanced that the tax was not intended to be permanent, but as a mere war provision. On the footing, then, that it was merely a war tax, he hoped to do away every objection to the bill." The authenticity of this debate, as given in the Dublin Journal of the 26th June, 1800, a paper strongly in the interests of the then government, has never been questioned. If, then, this language was used by the accredited organ of the Irish government, in order to induce the Irish parliament to vote that tax, there should be an end to the question. Either the government and the (K)

Irish parliament were then pledged, or, if they were not, the people were deceived. If the pledge was bona fide made, this House should redeem it; if it was delusively made, far be it from this House to countenance any such deception! If, then, I am right in what I have contended for, this tax ought to be abolished, upon the great principle of good faith, though it were in every other point of view unobjectionable. But is this tax in every other point of view unobjectionable? Is it not, comparatively speaking, unproductive? Is it not universally looked upon by the Irish people as a most obnoxious, unequable, and severe tax? And is not that another argument for inquiry? I may be told, perhaps, that no tax is popular. Why, Sir, no man wishes to be in debt, but every honest man will be as anxious to pay his just debts as he will be discontented in suffering under what he may think an extortion. I am far from insinuating that this tax, until repealed, cannot be as justly levied on the king's subjects in Ireland as any other; but surely it is a serious question for this House, whether they will persevere in making the law instrumental in levying any tax in violation of the public faith. I said that this tax was odious in Ireland. Will gentlemen wonder that it is so when they learn in what manner the law allows it to be levied upon every house in Ireland subject to the tax? The words of the act are, that the collectors can demand an entrance into every room in every house in Ireland, from day-light until sun-set, and insist upon admission, under a penalty of 20%. I leave it to the House to reflect to what gross abuses an inquisitorial power of this kind might eventually lead. Is not this one provision in itself sufficient to make the tax odious to a people jealous of their liberties? But, is there no other reason why this tax should be odious to the Irish people? Sir, it is a fact ascertained beyond a doubt, that the health of the poorer classes has materially suffered in consequence of this tax. When this question was last before the House, some gentlemen argued, that as houses with windows less than a certain number were free from the tax, and as the poorer orders universally occupied such houses, and they were most subject to the fever, the tax could not have at all contributed to the fever. But, Sir, the fact unfortunately is, that that part of Dublin which is known by

the name of the liberty, contains a vast number of large houses, all of which must have been originally liable to the tax, and are exclusively occupied by the most miserable poor in the empire; and so strongly was this felt to be in imminent danger by the government of that country, that orders were given in all cases where the terror of contagion had forced the wretched inhabitants to restore the windows, and admit the light and air, the tax so incurred should be remitted. It was objected by my right hon. friend, who was then secretary for Ireland, that so few had availed themselves of this indulgence, that that circumstance was conclusive evidence, that the tax could not have been the general cause of the contagion. Why, Sir, in the first place, I greatly fear, that the poorer classes had not that confidence in the government in this particular, which I acknowledge they ought to have had, the continuance of the window tax being considered as a breach of faith, the people are too apt to look upon every measure respecting it in the same point of view. They might have suspected that this very indulgence, so sincerely meant, was nothing more than a trick, affecting to give them temporary relief, but in reality imposing on them permanent taxation; and that this artifice had been resorted to for the pur pose of counteracting their own miserable evasions. Such distrust on the part of the people is always to be deplored, and parliament can never be too cautious in preserving the public faith inviolable. But, Sir, there were other difficulties in the way besides mere distrust, for when once fever attacks these miserable habitations, the inhabitants are in general so poor, that, far from being able to go to

the

expense of opening a window, they can scarcely procure sufficient nourishment to sustain existence. Dr. Parker, in his report on the Epidemic Fever for last year, has the following passage: "I have observed the back windows of houses where fever prevailed, closed up, to avoid the window tax, as I was informed by the inhabitants. In vain was it represented that they would be indulged with exemption from the tax on making application to the commissioners of the revenue; it was evident, they alleged, they could not afford the expense of a new window sash." Upon every principle, then, of good faith and sound policy, I once more submit this question

« ÖncekiDevam »