Commons Sitting of 15 May 1809

STORE-KEEPER IN HYDE-PARK.
Mr. Whitbreadrose to call the attention of the house to a subject, trivial certainly in one point of view, though of some importance in another, and relative to which he proposed to offer a motion. It was a disgusting circumstance which ought not to exist; namely, the appointment of a person to the office of Ordnance Store-keeper in Hyde-Park, with a salary of 120 l. a year, a comfortable house to live in, with allowances of coals, candles, and other perquisites; and this a person who never had served the country an hour in army or navy, and also a foreigner. This situation ought to have been conferred on some meritorious old officer, worn out in the service; and many hundreds of such, he was sorry to say, there were pining out the evening of life in penury, any one of whom would be glad of such a situation.
572
The person who held this appointment might have been for years perhaps the faithful servant of some honourable gentleman or noble lord, who, no doubt, recommended him to the patronage of the master-general of ordnance. It was certainly right that long and faithful services should attach the regard of a master to his servant, and it was desirable that meritorious persons in such stations should have comfortable provision for old age; but, then, persons in opulent circumstances should make that provision at their own expence, without trenching on that source which should exclusively belong to military men who had claims upon the generosity of their country, when worn out in her service. The honourable member concluded by moving for a copy of the appointment of Christian Frederick Walter to the said office of Ordnance Store-keeper in Hyde-Park, and an account of the salary, and all emoluments attached to the said office.
Mr. Wellesley Polesaid, he was the person who had five years ago recommended this Mr. Walter to the situation, in consequence of an application from lord Chatham, then master of the ordnance, to him, requesting him to look out for a trusty person to fill that office; and it was he also who had named the salary of 100 l. as a reasonable allowance for the service. Mr. Walter, he said, certainly was a Hanoverian, who had been 37 years in England, the greater part of which time he had been a faithful servant in the employment of Mr. Villiers, and maintained an unimpeachable character. Had he (Mr. Pole) conceived the employment, which required constant attendance, to be of such a nature that a military officer could look upon it as acceptable, he certainly should have recommended the place to be filled by such a gentleman; but having no such idea, he recommended the present store-keeper, and took upon himself the whole responsibility for whatever was blamable in the appointment.
Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, said, he had thrown no blame on any person whatsoever; all he had said was, that in his opinion the military were the proper persons on whom such appointments should be bestowed; and he was sure he could get a hundred officers who would be happy to accept it. He also thought the Master General of the Ordnance should have looked out for some such, upon whom to bestow it.
The motion was agreed to.

SALE OF OFFICES PREVENTION BILL.
On the order of the day for the further consideration of the report upon the Bill to prevent the Sale of Offices being read,
Mr. Ponsonbyobserved, that there was a difference between the manner of appointing the Masters in Chancery in Ireland and in this country; such appointments being made by the crown in the one, while they were made by the Lord Chancellor in the other. In consequence of this difference, it had become a practice for such masters as were about to retire to dispose of their places for money. A case of this nature occurred while he had the honour to hold the seals, and being applied to as usual, to sanction the sale, he hesitated, conceiving it rather extraordinary that a place for the administration of justice should be sold for money. However, upon being informed of the custom, and that the person seeking to dispose of the place had himself bought it, he gave his consent, on condition that the place should not again be sold by the purchaser. Yet as the circumstance of such purchases on the part of other masters created a case with regard to Ireland, to which the provisions of this Bill would not in equity apply, he suggested the propriety of introducing a clause upon that subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his readiness to support a clause to meet the case referred to, and recommended the right hon. gent. to propose it.
Mr. Ponsonbyintimated his intention to do so.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen stated, that if it was the wish of any member to propose further amendments, he would propose a re-committal of the Bill.
Lord Folkestonesaid, the bill in its present state was perfectly nugatory. He had formerly had it in contemplation to introduce a clause into it, but on its being pointed out to him that the clause he thought of bringing forward would countenance the continuation in place of a person who had procured his appointment by corrupt means, in consideration of his having afterwards given information against others, he had not submitted it to the Committee. He was of opinion, that it would be proper to hold out some inducement to persons thus situated to inform against others concerned in such corrupt practices that some of the offenders might be punished (A cry of move, move! from the Opposition). The noble lord concluded, ex-
574
pressing an inclination to make a motion to that effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished the bill to be made as effectual as possible. He had no objection to give the noble lord every opportunity to improve it by the introduction of a new clause, and he would therefore move that it should be recommitted.
The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted, and the house resolved itself into a Committee.
Lord Folkestonethen moved "That for every such offence the party should be liable to forfeit and pay the sum of 500 l. which sum should be given to the informer. The convicted offender being punished by fine and imprisonment, or by the one or the other, as the judges should direct."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, as he understood the noble lord intended to bring forward another clause, he wished to hear that; that knowing the substance of both, he might be able more correctly to judge of the measure suggested.
Lord Folkestone, in reply, stated it to be somewhat on the same principle as the clause which he had formerly been induced to suppress; namely, the exonerating from punishment those who informed for having participated in the offence. Though he would have the party disabled from holding a situation obtained through such improper and unconstitutional influence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think the Committee could go to the length of the noble lord's proposal. Were there no other ways of gaining information of such practices, it might be expedient to resort to the mode he had pointed out. But in the present state of things, he did not think it proper to hold out such a temptation to false evidence, or obtain true information by such means, and under such circumstances; possessing, as they did, other means of obtaining information, it was unnecessary. The temptation held out to false information, by adopting such a measure, he thought extremely dangerous, as the artifices of an infamous scoundrel might procure him 500 l. in some instances where the provision that the informer should lose his place, could do him no injury, which sum his benefactor, though far less culpable, might be compelled to pay.
Mr. Tierneythought the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not a very strong one. If the benefactor of an in-

575
famous scoundrel were liable thus to be punished, what argument was it against the clause? He ought to have had nothing to do in such an affair.
Lord Folkestoneobserved, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was unnecessary to resort to such an expedient to obtain information, as sufficient information could be derived from other sources. This he denied; without the evidence of some one concerned, to obtain information was difficult, and perhaps in some instances impossible. He never thought the bill would do much good, but from the view he then had of it in its present state, he thought it might do harm. He thought with the right hon. gent., that it was but fair if the patron of an infamous scoundrel should suffer for endeavouring to advance such a character to a place of emolument or trust.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared his mind was open to conviction. The words of the right hon. gent, had had some effect on him, and if they could satisfy him that such a measure would be likely to benefit the country, he would give it his support. The noble lord had spoken as if information thus gained must be true; but that he thought extremely doubtful. He was of opinion, punishment would frequently fall where it was least deserved. Men might have exerted their influence with others to obtain a situation for scoundrels, who had got round them, and who might be wholly unknown to the person who gave them their situations. Yet against that person might they give information, though no party in the corruption. He might have given places to various persons on the recommendation of others, on whom he thought he could rely, since he had been in office, and a man thus appointed, might, were such a clause received, accuse him of corruption. Information might be given of the wrong, and, wrong or right, the informer would be rewarded.
Lord H. Pettyknew of no information that could be procured from accomplices, which would not be attended with such concomitant evils. He, however, thought the informer more likely to accuse the right than the wrong, for this plain reason; it was more easy to substantiate the fact in the former case than in the latter. He thought with the noble lord, that the bill in its present state was useless. That which it proposed to make a misdemeanor was before punishable by law, but no pro-
576
ceedings had ever been instituted against any one. Why? Because no inducements were held out to call forth witnesses to substantiate the fact and furnish evidence.
The Attorney Generalopposed the clause, on the grounds that punishment might fall where it was least deserved. A and B might be trafficing for a place, which B might obtain for A, through the influence of C, who might be wholly ignorant of the traffic between them. B being dead, A might charge C with corruption, though only culpable in yielding to the solicitations of B, and bestowing an office on a person he thought deserving of such a situation. A might, in fact, be more likely to accuse C than B, however culpable B might have been; as A and B might be supposed to be friends, while between A and C no connection whatever might have existed.
After some further observations, the house came to a division upon the Amendment proposed by lord Folkestone,

Ayes

31

Noes

74

Majority against the Amendment

—43

IRISH DISTILLERIES REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Foster moved the second reading of the Irish Distillery Bill.
Mr. Bernardrose to oppose this motion. He said, that this bill went merely to amend the laws as they now existed, and to continue a principle of finance which had been proved to be ineffectual. It was under these laws, and the principle of them, of collecting the duties by what was called a system of survey, that is, by measuring the wash, low wines and spirits, that all the illicit distillation had flourished, and still continued to flourish. He said, he was borne out by the Commissioners of Inquiry in desiring that this system should be departed from, as they had recommended another system, called the licence system, under which a distiller had only to take out a licence, and pay for it according to the number of gallons of spirits which it was presumed he could make in a year, by which means the revenue was sure of being very considerable, and the distiller was left at liberty to work without the vexatious interference of the excise officers. He was of opinion, that unless small stills were allowed to work, the illicit distillation would never be put down. He referred to Mr. Croker's evidence to prove, that a small still would

577
pay more duty comparatively with a large one; but so long as the right hon. gent. persevered in his system of giving bounties of 8l. and 10 l. per cent. on the duty paid by distillers using large stills, it was impossible that a small still could work in competition with them. He said this system of encouraging large stills was very injurious to the landlord and to the farmer; it took away the market from the interior of the country; for grain, which the farmer would have if persons were admitted to work small stills; and as to the illicit trade, it was obvious, that if a large district had no vent for its grain, and no cheap supply of spirits, there always would be illicit distillers. He then said, that the right hon. gent. meant by this bill to double the fines on townlands; this was a pretty way to meet the complaints of the people of Ireland against these fines. He read from a Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry a statement shewing, that in one county the amount of fines imposed in one year was 80,000 l. but that only 600 l. had been able to be collected, and that the expence which it cost the public to make the seizures for which these fines were to be levied was 50,000 l., so that the whole benefit of the system was, that of the excise officers, and no stop was put to illicit distillation. He, therefore, feeling that the bill did not go to attain the object which it professed to do, and which was desired by all the Irish members, namely, to admit small stills to work, would move, that it be read a second time this day three months.
Mr. J. Stewartsaid, that though he agreed for the most part with what had fallen from the last speaker, he thought it better to let the bill go to a Committee.
Sir George Hillwas surprized at the motion of his hon. friend for putting off the second reading of this bill. Having been privy to many conversations between the distillers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, he bore testimony to the attention with which every suggestion from them was received, and was sure that the fullest consideration would be given to any amendments which honourable gentlemen might be disposed to propose in the Committee.
Mr. Parnellsaid he rose to support the amendment of the hon. member who spoke last but one. He thought with him, that this bill ought to be opposed on its principle, which was to continue a system of collecting the duties on spirits, which
578
had been proved to have failed by the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, and which, though amended session after session, was still ineffectual, because it was notorious to every one who knew any thing of Ireland, that illicit distillation was at this moment carried on there to a great extent. The Commissioners proved that in one year the loss of revenue was near two millions, and this loss can be attributed to no other cause than a great defect in the system pursued in attempting to collect it. They had not only, however, proved the extent of the evil, but they also proposed a remedy; this was to adopt the system of Scotland, and permitting distillers to work very small stills under a licence, the amount to be paid for which was calculated on the number of gallons which his still could work in a year. He said that this mode appeared to him to be the only one that could effectually put down the illicit distillation, because it was absurd to imagine that the exertions of the revenue officers could ever be adequate to counteract all the plans which illicit distillers have it in their power to adopt; the only way to proceed was to encourage persons to set up legal stills over the whole country, by suffering them to work with small capital, and without the vexatious oppression of the laws as they now stand in respect to regulations, and powers given to the revenue officers. For so soon as legal distillers were so established, they would be so interested in preventing illicit trade, that they alone, without the aid of the revenue officers, would soon clear the country of it. The policy of this method of proceeding had been fully established in Scotland. Before 1786, the system of collecting the duties on spirits was exactly the same as it now is in Ireland; the whole country was supplied by illicit distillation. In that year the licence system was adopted, and it is proved in the evidence given before a committee of the house, that in the first year 18,000 l. was collected, whereas 18 s. had never before been collected; that the legal distillers detected and punished the illegal distillers, and that the increased demand for grain soon contributed to the general improvement of the agriculture of Scotland, and changed altogether the face of the country. Under the circumstances of the Commissioners of Inquiry having recommended a specific remedy to be adopted, it appeared to him very extraordinary that the right hon. gent. should propose a

579
measure to the house in direct contradiction to their recommendation, without shewing that it did not deserve to be attended to. For his part he thought that when parliament had appointed commissioners to enquire into the collection of the revenue of Ireland, to whom they had paid an immense sum of money as a reward for their trouble, it was the duty of the right hon. gent. either to adopt their advice, or shew why it ought not to be adopted; for it would be of no use to the public to pay these Commissioners so largely, if by no possible means the information and advice which they afforded the public was to be wholly neglected. The hon. member then said that he knew very well that the right hon. gent. was ready to say that his bill went to admit small stills of 50 gallons content to work. So it did; but what purpose would it avail to have such a power given in one clause, if in the next such regulations were laid down that would break any man who attempted to work a small still. It was absurd to hold out such a concession, for no man in his senses could for a moment conceive it possible for a small still to work, so long as the bounty of 16 per cent. was given to a person working a 1,500 gallon still; who, even without the bounty, would, in consequence of his large capital, and the large scale of his work, have great advantages over the person working a small still. He said that it was of vast importance to the Irish members, and the people of Ireland, that the decision of the house should be a correct one; because, if the system of the right hon. gent, was to be persevered in, the same deficiency of revenue was still to be calculated upon; and as this had been computed at two millions, it stood to reason that new taxes would be imposed to provide for this deficiency, whereas if a system was adopted, by which the whole duty on spirits made in Ireland could be collected, no necessity would exist for any new taxes, so far as a sum to this amount was in question. He also said, that the licence system proposed was attended with this peculiar advantage, that but few excise officers would be wanting to assist in collecting the duties; and this was a circumstance which rendered it peculiarly applicable to Ireland, because the only justification which the right hon. gent. could advance when a charge was lately made by a right hon. baronet near him against an officer, was, that every other
580
officer of the excise had been equally culpable.—He said he thought that the hon. member who spoke immediately preceding him, had taken a wrong view of the subject, when he said that he conceived this bill might be considered in the committee so as to meet the wishes of the Irish members; in his opinion, if it even got into a committee, no such amendment could be made to it, because the alteration which was desired, went to a repeal of all the laws by which the duty on spirits was now charged, and the enactment of a new law, founded upon a new principle.—He hoped, therefore, that this opportunity would not be thrown away of getting rid of a bill, which could never provide an effectual remedy for the evil complained of.
Mr. Fostersaid, it was admitted that the laws on this subject wanted amendment: he knew that they did, and it was an object that the bill should go to a committee to find out the best mode. There was not one clause in the bill contrary to the opinion of the committee; there was a clause expressly for the encouragement of small stills, and if any gentleman wished to read the clause, he would read it to him [a laugh]. The right hon. gent. then read the clause, and argued that it was one of the leading principles of the bill to license small stills. His object for introducing it was, that it would afford a market throughout the country for small farmers to sell their corn. Whether the duties were raised by survey or licence, he was sure they could never be collected without the co-operation of gentlemen and farmers, but he would make great sacrifices to public opinion, to forward the object in view. He concluded with recommending to the house to go into a Committee on the bill on Thursday next.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he would allow the bill to go to a committee if it were likely to answer the object. The officers under the survey system had been guilty of great fraud, and he had complained of one who was subsequently promoted; the present bill went to the indemnification of all officers who had been guilty of collusive seizures, and he could not think the bill likely to go to a committee; it was incapable of emendation, and he wished it to be rejected altogether.
Col. Barrysaid he had heard no objection but what could be answered in the Committee, and would therefore vote for its committal.
Mr. Frenchwould wish the bill to go

581
forward, if it were likely to have any good effect, but the principle of the bill was bad, it went to punish the innocent for the guilty. If a still were found in a parish, the landlords and the inhabitants were to pay the fine; it went to cover the acts of the officers, to afford those indemnity who, it was known, had received three fines upon one still: first they got a fine of 50 l. then returned it, and again received 50 l.; and thus till they obtained 150 l. A Bill which could encourage such practices, such an odious Bill—ought to be scouted out of the house.
Mr. Dennis Brownesaid, where private distilleries were put down, loyalty increased, and he knew it was in the power of the gentry to do so. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up his penal clause, it would give life to illicit distillery and disloyalty.
Mr. Huskissonthought the bill should be allowed to go to a Committee, in which the fines and the drawback allowed to large distilleries might be so regulated as to prevent their being injurious to the smaller ones.
Mr. Fitzgeraldwas glad to hear the hon. gent. argue as he did, but thought, if he acted on his theory, he would vote against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. From the sentiment of that right hon. gent., others must have a higher opinion of his complacency than he had, to think he would give way in the committee to change the substance of the bill.
Col. Barrysaid, his object in wishing the bill to go to a committee was, that its severities might be softened.
Mr. Barnardwithdrew his amendment, and the bill was then read a second time.

MARTINIQUE TRADE BILL.
On the question that the Martinique Trade Bill should be read a second time;
Mr. Marriatsaid, he was surprised that the measure should be brought forward without any attempt to prove its expediency. It was not beneficial to the British West India islands, but it would be a serious injury to the sugar refiners of this country, by bringing the sugar of Martinique in competition with theirs in the foreign market. Another class to whom it would be injurious was the inhabitants of Martinique themselves, who had agreed not to obstruct the army, in consequence of a proclamation which declared that they should be restored to the same government they had before;
582
such was the condition held out, and they were now about to legislate in violation of it.
Mr. Rosesaid, that he could not help thinking the gentlemen who belonged to the British plantations good judges of their own interests. With respect to the Sugar Refiners, he admitted they would incur some disadvantages from the bill. As to the promise held out in the proclamation, it could not mean that they should be restored to their former government and state, but signified a general expression of kindness which was not violated by the bill before the house. By it they were placed in a situation little inferior to the British planter; and by the 13th article of the capitulation, provision was made to keep that measure open to the adoption of the legislature. Where then, he asked, was the breach of faith? It had been said that a remonstrance was coming over; it might be the case, but he could not believe that it would be signed by the officers who commanded until he saw it.
Mr. Jacobcontended that they were to construe the capitulation, not according to the intention of the officers, but to the sense in which it was taken by the people who were the subjects of it.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the public faith of the country was not pledged to the proposition stated by the hon. gent. The officers could not use a language capable of such an interpretation. They had gone out unshackled, and there was no stipulation or understanding between them and the inhabitants of Martinique previous to the proclamation. Upon that ground, therefore, the question was to be argued; he lamented that the principle of that measure was not taken up at an earlier period, as much benefit would result from it. Upon the whole, the motion had his approbation.
Mr. A. Baringsaid, as a mere question of policy it was necessary to cultivate the militia of the island; for when we were last in possession of it, they repulsed several attacks made by the enemy from Guadaloupe, and as the bill did not go to give that encouragement, he would give his decided opposition to it, as he conceived Martinique was entitled to the same favour bestowed on other conquered islands.
Mr. Hibbertsaid a few words in opposition to the bill.
The gallery was cleared, but the house did not divide. The question was carried, and, the bill was read a second time.