Commons Sitting of 2 April 1811

BRITISH FISHERIES BILL.
The order of the day having been read for the second reading of this Bill, Mr. Herbert moved to postpone it until Wednesday the 24th of April. After some conversation, in which Mr. P. Moore, Mr. Tremaine, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Calcraft, sir T. Turton, sir J. Newport, &c. participated, Mr. Herbert withdrew his motion; and Mr. Curwen moved that the Bill be read a second time on Monday next, A division ensued.

For Mr. Curwen's motion

27

Against it

56

Majority

—29

On the question that the Bill be now read a second time, an Amendment was moved by sir W. Lemon, "That it be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Roseargued in favour of the Bill, contending that the Deep Sea Fishery was of the utmost importance, and ought to be encouraged by every possible means. He

681
was persuaded that the efforts of individuals on this subject could never be productive of such advantageous results as those of joint stock companies.
Mr. Calcraftallowed that if we were at peace, the fisheries might be encouraged with great benefit to the country: but at a time when the foreign markets were shut, and the home markets glutted, the increase of our fisheries could be advantageous neither to the individuals immediately concerned, nor to the public at large. In any case, the association of a joint stock company for the purpose, was unnecessary. Let it once be seen that the undertaking was a profitable one, and individuals enough would be found with capitals ready to engage in it.
Mr. Giddyexpressed his conviction that the question was one of the greatest public interest. To encourage our fisheries seemed at the first view of it, a desirable object; but what was the state of the markets? It must be recollected, that if we had driven the enemy out of the sea, the enemy had shut us out of the land. To accumulate a quantity of fish which we could not sell, would not be to encourage, but to destroy our fisheries. The fisheries of Cornwall and of Newfoundland, and the whale fishery, were all prosecuted without joint stock companies; and the establishment of one in the present instance appeared to him to be by no means advisable.
Mr. Marryattopposed the Bill, the tendency of which was to produce a competition that would be destructive to the existing fisheries, without being advantageous to the public. It was the duty of parliament to maintain the interests of those fisheries which were already established. The Newfoundland fishery had been the cause of more wars between this country and France, than almost any other subject of contention, and having successfully defended it from foreign attack, we should surely abstain from destroying it with our own hands. He instanced several cases in which projects similar to that under consideration had been destructive, first to the competitors of the projectors, but ultimately to the projectors themselves.
Admiral Harveysaid, he understood that it was intended to employ men from Holland and the Low Countries, to assist in catching and curing the fish. It was well known, that on former occasions, such pervious had returned, and become pilots to the French vessels.
The Amendment was then put and carried without a division; so that the Bill is lost.

PETITION OF THE FREEHOLDERS OF WEXFORD, RESPECTING THE LUNACY OF MR. ALCOCK.
Mr. Tighepresented a Petition from the freeholders of the county of Wexford, setting forth, "That at the last election for the county of Wexford, Abel Ram, esq., and William Congreve Alcock, esq., were returned by the sheriff to represent the said county in the present parliament, and afterwards took their seats in the House; and that the said W. C. Alcock, in some time after such election and return, became afflicted with a mental malady, which, notwithstanding the skill and care of his physicians, has ever since continued, and increased to such a degree as to induce the necessity, on part of his family and friends, to sue out a writ of lunacy, for the purpose of vesting his property, and the management thereof, in trustees, the said W. C. Alcock being, from the continuance and increase of such mental disease, totally unfit and incapable of attending to or managing the same, nor is there the slightest hope that he ever will recover; and that the jury impannelled under and by virtue of said writ or commission, have found the said W. C. Alcock to be a lunatic, as by the finding of said jury, and the proceedings under said writ, all returned and remaining of record in the clerk of the Hanaper's-office in Ireland, and to which the petitioners refer, may appear; and that, in consequence of this event, the petitioners beg leave, on behalf of themselves and the other freeholders, to state and submit to the House, that the said county of Wexford ceases to be duly represented in the present parliament, because, by the laws and constitution of the said United Kingdom, it is established, that there should be two knights to represent said county, of which valuable privilege it is in fact deprived by the confirmed insanity of said W.C. Alcock; and praying the House will order a new election to be had to fill the seat of said W. C. Alcock, and for that purpose, that a new writ be issued directed to the sheriff of said county of Wexford, commanding him to return a knight to represent the petitioners and said county in parliament in the place of said W. C. Alcock, or to grant such other and further relief as may be agreeable to justice."
Mr. Tigheobserved, that the feelings of

683
the gentlemen of the county had induced them to postpone this step as long as possible, in the hope of Mr. Alcock's recovery. It however now appeared, that having been first affected on or about the 7th of November 1809, Mr. Alcock was still in such a state as to render unwarrantable any further delay in the application to parliament. There was no precedent on the journals of such a case, except that of Christopher Purle in 1506, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, which was exactly in point, and in which a new writ had been issued for Grampound, the Borough represented by Mr. Purle. There were several cases, however, and particularly two; one in 1605, the other in 1607, in which long continued sickness had been deemed a sufficient cause for vacating a seat in parliament. He moved to refer the Petition to the Committee of Privileges; and trusted the House would take those steps which might appear most expedient on the reception of the Report.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in assenting to the reference of the Petition to the Committee of Privileges, guarded himself from being supposed pledged to support any motion that might be made on the report of that Committee. With respect to the early precedents of sickness incapacitating members, adduced by the hon. gent., he had only to observe, that all later experience of the practice of the House was of an opposite nature.
The motion was then agreed to.

EXEMPTIONS FROM TOLL GRANTED TO MAIL COACHES.
Lord Binning,in consequence of his notice, rose to move, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of the exemption from Toll granud to Mail Coaches in Great Britain. He observed, that very serious injury was sustained throughout ail parts of the kingdom by this exemption, but more particularly in Scotland, in the north and west of England, and in Wales. The complaint was, that heavy carriages passed up and down the various turnpike roads without contributing to their repair and maintenance. By these mail coaches great facilities were given to commerce, and the revenue obtained an addition of 380,000 l.; but the burden fell upon the trustees of the turnpike roads. In Scotland the hardship was peculiarly severe. There were ten mails running through 19 or 20 Scotch counties, and affecting the rate to the amount of 6,885 l. annually; in some in-
684
stances depriving the roads of a third and even half of what they would otherwise obtain. The case was much the same in Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Cornwall, Devonshire, &c. There were 220 mail coaches. They ran about 10,000 miles a day; and the annual loss to the trustees of the roads by their exemption from toll, amounted at least to 50,000 l. If it were said that the revenue would suffer in the event of abolishing the exemption, he would reply that such an argument ought not to be urged against an injury such as he had described. But it was not necessary that the revenue should suffer. He understood that the profits of the proprietors of the mail coaches were immense, and he did not see why they might not bear a part of the burden. At any rate, in proportion to the advantage which the revenue might derive from the exemption, was the injury which the roads sustained: and he knew there were many parts of the country in which persons bad been deterred from making new roads by this consideration alone. Convinced that the exemption was partial and oppressive, he moved for the appointment of a Committee.
Sir Patrick Murrayseconded the motion, and repeated the arguments of the noble lord. In Ireland the mail coaches paid the toll, and why not in this country? If it were apprehended that it might prove an impediment to the rapidity with which the mail travelled, such an inconvenience would be obviated by an arrangement, enjoining the Post-office to pay the trustees of the roads quarterly. He was persuaded, that the exemption prevented the formation of new roads, particularly in Scotland; and instanced a case, in which it had induced him to advise a forbearance from an undertaking of that nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion that the House would not be disposed favourably to consider the present proposition, when they recollected the length of time which had elapsed since the exemption was first established. Twenty-five years ago that measure had passed the legislature, but in this long interval, no application had been made for redress, a pretty convincing proof that the injury sustained had not been of a very serious nature. Antecedently to the establishment of mail coaches the post was exempt from toll. An hon. bart. was, he was persuaded, rather singular in his advice, to refrain from the construc-

685
tion of a new road, on the ground that the mail coach would pass upon it toll free. The fact was, that wherever a road, on which a mail could travel, could be made with any advantage, there were always numerous applications that it might be made. Nor was this surprising; for the facilities of communication, and the consequent influx of wealth which the mail coach afforded, were ample equivalents for the exemption from toll. Scotland had much less right to complain on this subject than any other part of the island, for it was well known that considerable sums had been expended out of the public purse for the construction and maintenance of roads in that country. He was satisfied that the House would be of opinion with him, that the Committee proposed by the noble lord ought not to be appointed.
Mr. Wynnbore testimony to the statements of the noble lord with respect to the inconveniences which the exemption occasioned. He characterised it as a most unprincipled robbery on private property, and quoted the authority of Mr. Pennant in its reprobation. When the system of mail coaches originated, it was promised that they should be constructed of the lightest materials, that no passenger should be permitted to carry with him above 14 pounds weight of luggage, &c. Now, however, the mails were much heavier, and were made the vehicles for the conveyance of goods from one part of the kingdom to another; by which means the injury done to the roads had considerably increased. If it was desirable that the revenue should not suffer from the abolition of the exemption, he thought that at least the burden might be taken from the shoulders of the trustees of the roads, and placed on those of the passengers and senders of parcels.
Mr. Rosethought, if the proposed alterations were made, the mail coach proprietors would charge the public not merely in proportion as they were charged, but much more; as on such occasions was uniformly found to be the case. He could not give his assent to a measure of this description, which, he was of opinion, must necessarily affect the national revenue.
Mr. R. Dundascould not give a negative to what had been advanced by his right hon. friend; but be doubted if his view of the subject was correct, and if the measure proposed would be followed by the
686
new charge on the public which he had anticipated. He thought the mails had no right to the exemptions they enjoyed, and hoped enough had been stated to the House, to induce them to appoint a Committee on the subject, in which the facts could be proved or disproved, so as to enable them to form a correct judgment on the state of the case.
Mr. W. Smith and Mr. D. Giddywere in favour of the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. Fullerthought the question before the House the simplest of all questions, and that nothing could be more fair than that the parties who derived the greatest advantages from the system should be called on to pay for those advantages.
The House divided, when the numbers were—

Ayes

39

Noes

34

Majority

—5

WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS AND POLL CLERKS' BILL.
Mr. Lushingtonmoved for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the 18th of George 2, by extending the provisions of the said Act respecting the expence of Hosting and Poll Clerks at elections, as far as regards the city of Westminster.
Sir P. Burdettstated the situation of the high bailiff of Westminster to be very different from that of the sheriff of a county. If it could not be proved that the emoluments of his office were too small, he thought that there was no reason for bringing in the Bill; and if that could be proved, he had no doubt but the liberality of the city of Westminster (whose rights he conceived would be in some degree affected by the measure), would be ready to increase his income.
Mr. Wynnthought the city of Westminster ought not to be distinguished from other populous places, unless some reason was given why such distinction was made.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that some large places had particular regulations, and thought there could be no objection to the Bill being brought in.
Mr. Lockhartobjected to the measure, as likely to throw additional expence on the candidates, whether voluntary or involuntary, who might hereafter be put in nomination. He knew not how far the principle might be extended, and thought it his duty to oppose it in the first in-stance.
Mr. Wilsonspoke in favour of the Bill.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

DISTILLERY BILL.
On the order of the day being read for reading the Distillery Bill a second time,
Mr. Curwensaid, his view of the measure was, that it would have the effect of causing less animal food to be produced than was raised at present, while we had no prospect of receiving a foreign supply. He hoped the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be cautious how he took any step which might, by possibility, tend to injure the agricultural interest. He thought he had not the best information on the subject; and was of opinion the House-ought to. go into a committee on the question, to see if they could not devise some plan more likely to be beneficial and less dangerous than that which had been proposed. He concluded with moving, That the second reading should be postponed to that day six weeks, in order to give an opportunity for further consideration.
Mr. Rosesaid, that the effect of the measure would be to give the West India planters an advantage over the growers of foreign barley. The question was, whether 33s a quarter was a fair protecting price for the agriculturist or not. The English-distillers, it was true, were apprehensive that spirits would be brought from Scotland; but he had reason to believe, that such, improvements had taken place in the revenue of that part of the United Kingdom, as would prevent any irregular or illegal proceedings.
Sir John Anstrutherthought the Bill should go no further until enquiry had taken place. It had been said, that the measure was only temporary; but that part of it was permanent which went to introduce sugar in competition with grain in the distillery; and it was to that he had objected. The principle upon which government used to act was to give the corn grower a monopoly, with only one exception; the exception was, when a scarcity was dreaded. The evidence before the House' was altogether against the measure, for every one of the three committees appointed had expressed themselves unfavourable to it, and all persons connected with distilleries had remonstrated against its adoption. For these reasons he wished it should undergo the consideration of six weeks, before the scale was arranged, which was likely to produce so
688
great an effect upon the whole agriculture of the country.
Mr. Barhamdid not know what new evidence could be called before the Committee, and therefore could not accede to the proposition of delay. As to the measure, itself, he wished that no reference whatever had been made to the price of sugar, for there should be no such thing as balancing the colonial and agricultural interests. The agricultural interests should be maintained and preferred; but if it was necessary to get a supply from some other quarter, he thought it not unreasonable that we should take from our colonies rather than our enemies. It had been said that they were now departing from the ancient policy of the country, which was to prevent sugar from coming into competition with grain; but he would deny that that was the policy. There was nothing to prevent them from coming into competition before. He therefore should vote for the original motion.
Mr. Marryattsaid, that if the agriculturists should possess the monopoly, they were bound, in consequence, to show that they were capable of completing the supply. So far, however, were they from manifesting that ability, that to the amount of 4,000,000 had been imported since 1772, and of 7,000,000 in the course of the last year. The stock of the manufacturers was well known at present, and it could scarcely be said to afford a proper opportunity for adopting any step which would have the effect of making bread dear, as the rejection of the present measure inevitably would. It had been said that the measure would make meat dear. How that could be, he was unable to discover; for it would make the food of cattle cheaper. The West India planters contributed much to support the expences of the country, and, if they were reduced to a situation, in which they could do so no longer, the expence must fall on the landholders. He therefore cautioned the landed interest how they resisted such measures as the present, and recommended that they might bear their fair share of the burdens of the country without shewing such an invincible repugnance to sacrifice their interest to the public good.
Mr. Shawobjected to the bill as injurious to the interests of Ireland.
Mr. Cokecontended that the measure would be injurious to the interests of the country, and quoted the report of the committee in support of his assertion.

689
The question was, whether encouragement should or should not be given to the growth of grain? If the agriculturalist did not get a fair remunerating price, barley would not be cultivated, cattle would not be fed, and the market of London would feel the effects. He regretted, that after a long experience in that House, he bad never known a minister who had encouraged agriculture. He concluded with a quotation from Mr. Burke, which represented all experiments upon the former as perilous, and decried the principle of meddling in any way whatever with the subsistence of the people.
Mr. Ellissaid, he wished well to the landed interests; but he could not, however, help feeling for the West India planters. In 1808, when the subject was first canvassed, it was said that the country produced barley sufficient for all the purposes of the distillery. In. 1809 and 10, however, there was more imported than in the former year, which shewed that it did not produce barley enough to answer its own purposes, even without the distilleries. The competition was not between the West India and agricultural interests, but between the colonial and the foreign grower.
Mr. Westernsupported the amendment.
Lord Binningdenied that the distress of the farmer proceeded from the measure now before the House.
Mr. Adamwished that time should be given to investigate the subject more minutely; and contended that they ought to place no limitation to the price of grain, in order that its growth might be encouraged. He insisted strongly upon the policy of encouraging agriculture, as the best means of supporting the strength and independence of the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished it to be recollected that he had originally proposed that the measure should continue but for the space of one year; but even then, should it be necessary, he intended that its continuance should be for a longer period. At present, however, he should propose in the Committee a clause, limiting its duration for four months only, after the passing of the Bill, a similar period having been adopted for Ireland, in order to enable the manufacturer to get rid of his grain if he should deem it expedient. Under that arrangement, which was thought beneficial for the interests of Ireland he did not suppose those who objected would be inclined to press their ob-
690
jections. The right hon. gent. denied that in proposing the measure he had any intention of injuring the agricultural interests; on the contrary, it would have the effect of increasing their prosperity, particularly in Norfolk; for it was well known that the produce of the island for many years had not been equal to its consumption, and this was clearly made manifest from the imports of grain during those periods. The price at which it was proposed to distil from sugar, would leave a fair competition between the two interests. Adverting to what had fallen from his hon. friend, as to the state of agriculture in Norfolk, he wished to observe, that so far from any depreciation having taken place, it was evident, that within the last two years, while the prohibition was going on, agriculture had materially increased. In proof of his assertion he need only state, that last year not less than 153 Inclosure Bills were passed, which of course, would improve the state of agriculture. In the present year 163 Bills of the same nature were passed for England alone, of which number 24 were for the county which gentlemen opposite wished the House to believe as the most depressed, namely, Norfolk. In Wales nineteen also were passed. To talk of danger, therefore, to the agricultural interests, was a mere phantom, for no danger was to be apprehended. Notwithstanding the passing of the bill, it was a fact that barley rose in price in the market.
Sir J. Newportdeprecated the idea that the Bill was called for in consequence of the scarcity of grain, and condemned the right hon. gent. for having introduced it originally as a permanent measure, which the hon. baronet contended he had done.
Mr. Tigheconsidered this as one of the blessed effects of the Union, which to Ireland would be a disunion. The promoters of that measure had held out promises which were not fulfilled. They had promised a land flowing with milk and honey, but that promise was not to be found in the British constitution for Ireland. The House then divided:—

For the second reading

74

Against it

49

The Bill was then read a second time, and committed for Thursday.