Page images
PDF
EPUB

when he could assure them that it contained only the sentiments of a small minority of the livery of London.

Mr. Alderman C. Smith said, that the last speaker had made use of the oddest argument for receiving the petition that could be conceived. Now, he thought that instead of its being received for being the language of a few, and being against the sentiments of the majority, it should therefore be rejected by the House.

Mr. Preston said, that as it was stated. to be the legal petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Liverymen, it should be treated with respect as such. He therefore supported the motion.

Mr. H. Sumner said, that he had delivered his opinion, that the petition should not be rejected on account of technicalities; but he would now vote that it be not received on much stronger grounds. The first paragraph contained, he conceived, the most scandalous libel that could be uttered against the House. The insult was the grosser, on account of coming from the City of London. It was not because the City of London was great, that direspectful language towards that House should be received from it. The City of London had petitioned against the Corn Bill, and had prophesied that if the Bill should be passed, corn would immediately be above 80s. It was no great disparagement to the House, that it did not yield to the prayer, nor believe in the prophecy of that petition. An hon. alderman had said, that the sentiments of this petition were only the sentiments of a few of the liverymen. He should then ask, where were the many? Were they present, or were they not present? If they were absent, why were they absent; and if they were present, why did they not express their sentiments by their votes? If those were really the sentiments of only a few of the livery, he should like to see their signatures, that he might know who they were, and what was their situation in life.

Mr. W. Smith observed, that if what had been stated about the representation was to be considered an insult to the House, he did not know in what manner a petition for parliamentary reform could be drawn, without stating what the petitioners complained of in the present mode of representation. As the objection to the petition seemed at present mainly grounded on the first paragraph, which conveyed imputations against the House; be should read a passage from a petition

which had been presented, and which had been received and entered on the Journals. This petition stated that many members of the House of Commons were appointed by the direct authority of the Executive Government, or by powerful individuals or bodies of men;that innumerable illegal returns were procured by bribery; and that a House of Commons so constituted could not be considered as a true representative of the national will or a faithful guardian of the interests of the people. If in the case of that petition such language was not considered as a sufficient ground for rejecting it, the language of that which had been just read, could not afford any objection to its being received.

Mr. Baring observed, that the ground on which the petition was objected to had been shifted by its opponents. Hundreds of petitions had been presented against the passing of the Corn Bill, which had not been attended to; and some of those petitions had stated that the opinions of the petitioners of the necessity of a reform in the representation would be confirmed if that Bill passed. The imputation of the liverymen had therefore some foundation, and he did not believe it would have been at all objected to, if it had not been coupled with disrespectful language towards the Administration.

Mr. Bathurst said, he would oppose the reception of the petition, on the ground of its being a petition against the Propertytax.

Mr. Forbes said, the only thing to be regretted upon this occasion was, that there should have been so much discus

sion. Had the petition been received quietly, and laid upon the table, be had no doubt but the petitioners would have been extremely disappointed.

The House then divided:
For the motion........
Against it...........
Majority....

59

107

-48

PROPERTY TAX BILL.] On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should resolve into a committee on the Property-tax Bill,

General Gascoyne rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the non-extension of the tax to officers of the army and navy, while on foreign service. It was necessary, that that description of persons, after the long contest in which we had been engaged, and which we were now about to

renew, should have some relief. To exempt them altogether from the operations of the Bill was not what he intended to propose; neither would he submit his motion at all to the House, if he did not feel confident that there was not one who heard him that would say it was a case that did not merit attention. In order, however, to convince the House of the particular claims which that description of persons had on their consideration, he would define the situations in which officers of the army were placed. He would not state the distinct pay or allowance; but a captain when he was sent on foreign service was allowed 221.; a subaltern 81. 15s. ; out of this money they were under the necessity of providing clothes and camp equipage, the expenses of which were frequently so great that a captain could not take the field under 80l. and a subaltern under 30l. This hardship had, indeed, been represented to Government, and it was then thought proper to give the officerstwo months pay in advance. But even with this benefit, what was the situation of the army in the Peninsula ? For six months afterwards they did not receive a farthing. Where a considerable body of troops was marched into a foreign country, the price of provisions was generally double, and they usually gave 100 to 200 dollars for a mule, which they must either provide or leave their baggage behind. It was not, however, to be supposed, that they could supply themselves with all requisites from their pay alone: they were frequently obliged to draw upon the their friends, and to distress their families. There was, besides, the loss which they suffered from the difference of exchange. The exchange against this country was at this time 25 per cent.; so that, upon every 100l. for which an officer drew, he was subject to a loss of 351.; 251. for the difference of exchange, and 10l. for the Property-tax. Surely, then, if there was any description of men entitled to the regard and consideration of that House, it was the officers of the army and navy; men who held their tenure of life only from day to day, and with whose deaths, as they could not insure their lives for the benefit of their families, all the capital which they had expended in their profession generally expired. The motion. which he intended to submit to the House was extracted from the Records of Parliament in the time of William and Mary. In the year 1695, a contribution Faised upon the country, as similar as

was

could be to the tax now before the House; it applied to profits of every description, but exempted the army and navy. He wished the House, however, to consider the different situations of our military and naval officers at this time. In 1695, the pay of a lieut.-colonel was 17s. per diemthe very same pay which they received at present. But, if the calculation of sir George Shuckburgh was correct, namely, that 8s. 9d. in 1700, was equal to 17. in 1803, how much more were the officers of the army and navy entitled to exemption at this period? They had formerly derived some advantage from what were called Stock-purses, but this benefit no longer existed. On going abroad, they were obliged to make certain allowances to their families; and many of those who had fought in the Peninsula were afterwards sent to America, and had not yet received their arrears. He would next advert to the Colonial service, which was by no means pleasing to the army. So great, indeed, was their dislike of it, that it was recently a usual practice, in exchanging on Colonial service, to make a difference in price from 500l. to 1000. for what was only intrinsically worth 1,500l. Nor was this to be wondered at when we considered the effects of foreign climates on different regiments. The 18th regiment of foot was composed of 34 officers, and 1000 men; but in the space of eight years and a half, it lost 71 officers, and upwards of 2000 men. A resident in the Colonies, though only for temporary affairs, was not liable to the Property duty; he might stay there for three years, and then send his property to this country, which was not subject to taxation: but officers of the army and navy who remained abroad for ten years, and were frequently under the necessity of selling their commissions on their return, were not entitled to any exemption. As far as he had been able to ascertain, the deduction for Property-tax on the pay of officers in a regiment of 1000 men was 7801.; so that, supposing 100 battalions of 1000 strong, the whole would amount to 68,000l. per annum. It was necessary also to state, that when an officer was ordered abroad to join his regiment, he was assisted with a sum of money to take his passage. The usual sum for a captain who was appointed to a regiment in the West Indies, was 28.; but the price of the cabin was 501., and it generally ap peared, on his first landing there, that the

whole of his expenses amounted to 100%. instead of 281. Having detailed these striking facts, he would not occupy the attention of the House any longer with respect to the army: and he would leave the subject, as far as it related to the navy, to the hon. admiral who intended to second his motion. He felt persuaded there was no gentleman who would not think the officers of the army and navy entitled to the consideration and liberality of the House if the smallest doubt existed in any mind, it must arise from the manner in which he had expressed himself, and not from the merits of the case. There was not one person out of doors, whether he were a merchan, a stock-broker, a land-holder, or any other description, who would not be glad to see that a distinction had been made in this case. The army and navy had always deserved well of their country; but they were more entitled to our consideration at this period, than they were to that of our ancestors in 1695. He should, therefore, conclude with moving, "That it be an instruction to the Committee, to amend the Act, by exempting from the operation of the Tax on Property, the pay of such military and naval officers, as are actually mustered on foreign service, and not otherwise."

Sir Charles Pole rose to second the motion. He said, that the observations which the gallant officer had made with regard to the army applied in a double ratio to the navy. In the equipment of a ship, the necessaries they were obliged to provide amounted to almost as much as the expenses incurred by any person beginning a new establishment. He had thought that the renewal of the Property-tax was necessary under the present situation of the country, but that certain modifications ought to have been adopted. As to the measure now proposed, he did not think it went far enough. In looking at the estimates which had been lately submitted to the House, it must alarm any man to add to the burthens of the people; but he was quite sure that great savings might be made in several departments of the navy, especially with regard to superannuations on the civil service. Government had acted with great liberality in augmenting the half-pay of naval officers; but it went at this moment to make the full pay and half-pay so nearly on a par, that there was only a difference of 3. in the pay of a lieutenant of the navy. In the pay of a purser there was no difference at all. He

considered it necessary, therefore, to revise the state of the full and half-pay, particularly as superannuated officers were now receiving within 40. of their full salary. On these accounts, he should support the motion.

General Grosvenor expressed his hearty and entire concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. friend who made the motion.

General Harvey having himself experienced many of the disadvantages which the hon. general who proposed the motion had detailed, could not withhold his complete acquiescence in the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his opinion, that the arguments of his gal. lant friend applied rather to some general revision of the naval and military service, than to the specific motion which he had brought forward. With respect to the clause which had been introduced in the time of king William, he willingly admitted that the pay was higher then than now; but it should also be recollected, how very different the service of the army was in the two periods. In the reign of king William their service was only occasional, and no half-pay was established; consequently, it was desirable that their reward should be not only a compensation for actual duty, but, as far as might be practicable, a provision for the future. The gallant general had alluded to the case of civil officers in the Colonies, as being exempted from the operation of the Property-tax; but he could assure him that they enjoyed no such exemption, where they derived their salaries from this country. Those who drew colonial allowances were of course exempt, because Parliament did not think it expedient to extend the operation of the Act to our Colonies. With respect to the relief which officers would derive, in any hardships they might now sustain, by exempting them from the Property-tax, he thought it would be very inadequate; and, besides, the House would surely feel the delicacy of extending that description of relief to a particular class of individuals. The very principle upon which the tax was recommended, in some degree, to public favour, was its universal operation; and to exempt the army and navy would neither be beneficial to the public service, nor conducive, in his apprehension, to their honour. If the pro- . position were entertained, in respect to them, many other classes, the inferior clergy for instance, whose profits were

equally contingent and precarious, might justly claim the same exemption. But the House had determined, and wisely, in his opinion, that no modification of the tax should take place, distinguishing permanent from temporary profits; and even if such an exemption in favour of the army and navy were thought necessary on general grounds, the present occasion was the last in which he should recomvery mend it. The tax was now to be revived, without any alterations or inquiries, which would only perplex the collecting of it. It was to be given to the public again simply in the form to which the public had been accustomed; and, with that view, as soon as the House should have disposed of the question then before it, it was his intention to submit a proposition, which would simplify the operation of the tax. It was, that the assessments of last year should be the basis of the present one. Parties would not be called upon to make any fresh returns, but merely to pay the same amount as they paid the preceding year, unless where they might think themselves aggrieved. This proposition, he was happy to say, had met with the approbation of all to whom he had communicated it. At first he thought it might diminish the produce of the tax; but upon consulting with those who were better acquainted with its details than himself, they were of opinion that it would have no such effect. That principle had been adopted since the year 1806, in taking the assessments upon landed property, no fresh returns being called for: but in commercial property, which was necessarily fluctuating, cases might occur in which it would be necessary to make a reduction. Those, however, were not numerous enough to create any solid objection to the arrangement. With respect to the motion of the hon. general, he thought its objects would be better effected by bringing the subjects under the notice of Parliament, when the army and navy estimates were before the House, instead of that indirect and collateral mode.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow entirely concurred in the opinions of the hon. mover, and thought them not at all weakened by the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was to be remembered that when an officer fell in the service of his country, his commission, perhaps his only provision, was immediately lost to his family. The House had been flattered with hopes that the approaching war would be but of short

duration. Such a result, however desirable, might be very disadvantageous to military men, as they would be put to all the necessary expenses of an outfit, with a less chance of remuneration. He held it due to the honour of the House, as well as to that of the country at large, to express, in the most decided manner, the just sense entertained by them of the services of the army.

Lord Palmerston wished to offer a very few words upon what had been urged by the hon. mover, and the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. He apprehended, in the first place, that it was an entire misconception to suppose that officers were less able to provide for themselves and families on foreign service than at home. The fact was, that on foreign stations they were much more advantageously situated, as, in addition to their ordinary full pay, they were at no expense for quarters, they drew rations from the magazines both for themselves and their servants, and obtained forage for their horses. It had been observed that long arrears were sometimes due, viz. for six or twelve months, but this was only an additional proof that the incomes of officers were much improved abroad, as they had been particularly in the peninsular warfare, or it would have been impossible for them to have given such long credit to Government. With respect to the hardship alluded to by an hon. and learned gentleman, when officers purchased their commissions and were killed in battle, or died on foreign service, he could only say, that though it might be an act of liberality to allow their families to dispose of their commissions, it would be an act of great injustice to the corps. Many cases, however, had occurred, in which, the families of officers being left in great distress, grants were made to them in addition to the usual allowances. He certainly thought, if any distinction was to be made, the officers serving at home were most entitled to it.

Mr. Abercrombie confessed that he thought the arguments of the right hon. gentleman opposite were unanswerable against the proposition of introducing any clause to exempt particular classes from the operation of the Property-tax. As long as the the measure should be deemed necessary, its operation ought to be uniform, reserv ing the power only, if in the course of time it should unfortunately be made a permanent impost, to consider how far it

might then be expedient to introduce modifications. He agreed with the noble lord, that if any description of officers were more peculiarly entitled to the consideration of Government than another, it was those who were placed upon the home service; and, the refore,if the House entertained the proposition of the gallant general at all, it ought to be reversed in its application. He had briefly stated his opinions, because, if the question were pressed to a division, he should be compelled to vote against the motion.

Mr. Forbes supported the motion, and, adverting to the situation of the navy on foreign stations, especially the East Indies, expressed a wish that some practicable mode could be devised for enabling the sailors to receive their pay through the medium of the East India Company. At present, the only way they could obtain it was, by taking slops of the purser at nearly double their value, and turning them into money by afterwards selling them at one half.

Mr. Rose said, that an arrangement such as was alluded to by the hon. member had been under the consideration of Government, but was found impracticable. With respect to the necessity of taking slops from the purser, those slops were contracted for by the Navy-board, at the lowest possible price, and they were of the best materials.

Lord Milton adverted to the difficulty which seamen encountered in procuring their pay, after having been engaged in the service for a number of years. Some regulation ought to be made on this subject.

Lord Proby thought the situation of officers, be meant subaltern and not general officers, required relief, and was at present discreditable to the country, and prejudicial to the service. It was true that the object of a military life was not money, or the accumulation of a large fortune; but it was necessary that there should be what was sufficient to enable officers to live like gentlemen, and this sufficiency was not yet accorded. The hon. general was, however, certainly wrong in supposing that officers abroad were less advantageously circumstanced than those at home.

General Gascoyne replied, and said he had no reluctance, if that would satisfy the noble lord (Palmerston), to extend his motion for exemption, and make it general to the whole army.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended to the hon. general to withdraw his motion.

General Gascoyne persevered, when the question was put, and negatived without a division.

Mr. Grenfell rose, and observed, that according to the provisions of the Act as it was now framed, there was no clause in it to restrain the Commissioners of the Property-tax from disclosing the information they obtained in the discharge of their duty. He thought this a defect, which, in many instances, might lead to unpleasant occurrences; in some cases, indeed, he knew such occurrences had taken place. He should therefore, move," That it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a clause imposing the same restraint upon the Commissioners for the Affairs of Taxes as existed with regard to the Commissioners for General Purposes under the Property-tax Act."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the motion, because he thought his hon. friend and the House were hardly aware of all the consequences to which the principle would go. He apprehended that improvident disclosures were very rare, as he had heard but few complaints. Unless a case of real necessity were made out, he should certainly be averse to any such clause.

Mr. Baring said, that if the right hon. gentleman had stated any specific inconvenience likely to result from the motion of his hon. friend, he, for one, should be prepared to oppose it; but, as that had not been done, he hoped the House would reflect before they rejected it.

Mr Huskisson contended, that as the intended duration of the Bill was only for one year, a very strong case of actual inconvenience ought to be made out to induce the House to take any step which might have the effect of casting a stigma on so respectable a body of men as the Commissioners of Taxes. He thought it would be very difficult to devise any kind of oath which would exactly answer the purpose of the hon. member.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that no arguments had been advanced against the proposition of his hon. friend (Mr. Grenfell), which he was confident could not be attended with any inconvenience, and would certainly produce many beneficial consequences. He could not forbear remarking on the constant recurrence made by gentlemen on the opposite side to the

« PreviousContinue »