Commons Sitting of 15 March 1824

DISTILLERIES—PETITION OF RECTIFIERS TO CONVERT RUM INTO GIN.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from certain individuals, rectifiers of British spirits, in and near the city of London. They represented, "That they had invested a large capital in the purchase of works near London, for the rectification of spirits; and stated, that notwithstanding it was declared by law that no distiller should be also a rectifier, a great many distillers were at this time rectifiers; that about six of the large distillers regulated the markets and prices in London; and that those individuals were also distillers." Now, he could not take upon himself to vouch for the truth of these several allegations, but their matter was of extreme importance, and well worthy the attention of the House. The petitioners further represented, that those large distillers used stills of the capacity of 3,000 gallons and upwards; and could effect, therefore, a very serious operation, at all times, on the market; the rectifiers not being able to obtain supplies of spirits from the distillers as they wanted them, if the distillers chose to withhold; and the distillers assigning no reason for the defect of supply. The petitioners prayed, that in justice to themselves and to the trade generally, the House would appoint a committee to inquire into the expediency of licensing stills of smaller dimensions than were at present allowed; by which means the monopoly complained of would be defeated,
1010
and the inconveniences at present experienced would be prevented. They also prayed a permission to distil British spirit from rum, the produce of our West India colonies—a measure which, while it would be of great benefit to the West-Indies, would rescue the freedom of their own trade from the hands of six principal distillers. Now, it was not possible for him to vouch for the truth of all these allegations; but he had been assured by a professional man, that he should be able to prove every one of them at the bar of that House. It really seemed to him, that, if it had been thought proper to permit in Scotland and Ireland a reduction in the size of stills, it might be expedient to consider whether the same permission should not be extended to England. The other proposition about the relief to be derived by the West-India colonies, from permitting the distillation of British spirits from rum, was one of extreme importance. If rum was now almost a drug in our markets, such a scheme seemed to offer a great chance of increased consumption.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he wished to call the particular attention of the chancellor of the Exchequer to the statements of the petition. It was most important, as far as regarded relief to the West Indies. The right hon. gentleman had stated the intention of government to reduce the duty on rum by 13½d. per gallon; but that reduction would be of little consideration, unless the rectifiers were allowed to convert rum into gin. It was stated, that there existed a monopoly which worked great injustice, particularly to the rectifiers, who were obliged to look to the English distiller for a supply of the material which they worked. The price of English spirits stood at 4s. 8d. the gallon; that of West-India spirits, stood at 1s. 6d. Now, he would wish to know on which of those principles of free trade, of which they had lately heard so much, was it that the commodity of a West-India planter was so much reduced, in comparison with the article of the British distiller? He could not see why the consumer of West-India spirits should not have the benefit of a cheap article, and the West-India planter the relief which would follow from an increased consumption. With respect to the question of revenue, he was satisfied that the planters would be contented with even half the proposed remission of duty, if

1011
the rectifiers were allowed to rectify rum as well as English spirits.
Mr. Benelt, of Wiltshire, conceived that to allow the rectifying of West-India spirits, as proposed by the petitioners, would be extremely injurious to the growers of barley, and generally to the landed interest of England.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that if any case had been laid in this petition for the appointment of a committee, not only would he himself have been friendly to such a measure, but that respectable body, the malt-distillers, would have entertained, he was sure, no sort of objection to it. With all his high opinion of the public services of his hon. friend (Mr. Hume), and his conviction that, generally speaking, his hon. friend, had proved to be in the right when error was most strongly imputed to him, he did think that his hon. friend would experience the value of his own declaration, that he would not be answerable for the truth of the allegations in this petition. Last week he (Mr. S.) had happened to see the name which stood at the head of the subscribers to this petition; and he had then been told, by a member of the House, that the true reason of that person's inability to obtain spirits from the distillers was, not that they would supply the rectifiers, but that the credit of the individual himself was not such as to induce them to deal with him.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Numerous petitions were presented, praying for the Abolition of Negro Slavery. On presenting one from the city of Norwich,
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that in justice to his constituents, nearly all of whom had signed this petition, he could not avoid making one or two remarks upon the language held in the papers which had come from the West Indies. It had been stated in some of these, that the whole of the measures introduced on this subject had originated with a wild, mad-headed, fanatical party in this country. If the advocates for the measures alluded to were such a party, he was happy in being one of their number. Whether his majesty's ministers had voluntarily supported those measures, or been driven to them by this wild and fanatical party, he would not say; but most certainly their conduct was praiseworthy in what they had done. The hon. member next condemned the language held on this subject at some pa-
1012
rochial meetings in Jamaica, and added, that if his majesty's ministers had forborne to notice it, it must have been from motives of pity and contempt towards the parties using it.
Mr. Watson Taylorsaid, he could not approve the manner in which some of these petitions for the abolition of slavery were got up. In his own country, itinerant adventurers had come down with petitions ready prepared. He would not say by whom those parties were sent, but certainly their conduct was far from being; praise-worthy. They addressed themselves to the passions of the people on the subject of negro slavery, rather than to reason. The poor artisan, mechanic, and!peasant, were asked, whether they objected to seeing persons in perpetual slavery; and on answering, of course, in the affirmative, they were requested to sign the petitions presented to them. He could not think this a fair way of collecting the opinions of the public on this important subject.
Mr. Grey Bennetdefended the conduct of those who had made themselves active on this occasion, and contended, that some of the wisest and most humane men in the country were amongst the number of those who were favourable to the abolition of slavery. He was surprised to find hon. members so hostile to the exercise of the right of petition. He thought there must be something bad in the system, when gentlemen were so afraid of having it inquired into.
Mr. Watson Taylorsaid, he had not intended to make any objection to the right of petitioning, which he had always considered as amongst the most valuable privileges of the people. It was the abuse, and not the use of the right, to which he objected. He did not mean to impugn the motives of those who were adverse to the principle of negroe slavery; but he could not approve of the means which had been resorted to for getting up the petitions on the subject.
Mr. Secretary Peelearnestly entreated gentlemen not to anticipate a discussion on this important question, which must come on in the regular course in the next twenty-four hours. He hoped that hon. members would rather wait until they had heard the statement of which his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) had given notice, respecting it, and which stood for to-morrow.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BEER AND MALT DUTIES—MODE OF COLLECTING THEM SEPARATELY.
Mr. Maberlyrose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to submit his motion on the subject of the inequality of the duties paid by different classes of the public on Beer and Malt. He began by observing, that when the subject was before the House on a former occasion, but little had been said upon it, and he believed it was one which was not well understood. It was, however, as he viewed it, very simple, and rested upon the principles, whether one class of his majesty's subjects should be taxed higher than the others, and whether the persons taxing should reap all the benefit of this inequality. As there were various acts of parliament connected with the subject of the beer and malt duties, he did not think it expedient to enter into the question in all its ramifications. He would, therefore, confine himself solely to one branch of it; namely, the interests of the parties taxed, and the inequality of the mode of taxation. In order that he might not be misunderstood, he would now state the nature of the motion with which he should conclude. He would move "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the present mode of taxing malt and beer separately; and whether it would not be expedient to collect the same amount of duties on malt alone, thereby taxing all consumers equally, instead of, as at present, taxing one class of malt consumers at 2s. 6d. per bushel, and another at 6s. l0½d. per bushel; and one class of beer consumers at 5s. 8½d. per barrel, and another at 15 s. 8½d. per barrel, for the same qualities of malt and beer." He would now proceed to prove what he had advanced in this motion, reminding the House, in the first place, that the present duty on malt was 2s. 6d per bushel, or 1l. per quarter, of eight bushels; and that this duty was paid only by private brewers, who contributed nothing to the duty on beer. The public brewer, however, paid a very different sum; he brewed three barrels and a half of strong beer out of every quarter of malt, and the duty he paid was at the rate of 10 s. per barrel, or 1l. 15 s. upon the three and a half barrels, which, together with the malt duty of 1l., made 2l. 15 s. This sum divided by eight, the number of bushels of malt in a quarter, gave 6s. 10½d., one of the sums stated in his motion. Thus, the greatest injustice was done, the private brewer paying only 2s. 6d. per bushel on malt, and the public
1014
brewer 6s. 10½d. With regard to the duty on beer, the case would stand thus: the private brewer paid 1l. duty on his quarter of malt, out of which he made three barrels and a half of beer; and dividing 1l. by 3½, the result was a duty of 5s. 8½d. per barrel. Upon the calculation, that the public brewer extracted as much from a quarter of malt, his situation was this—he paid 1l. upon the malt, and an additional duty of 1l. 15 s.; as before stated, which two sums divided by 3½, made his duty amount to 15 s. 8½d. per barrel, the last sum mentioned in the motion he had read. Now, this was the difference which he wished to abolish. He could not see upon what principle of justice the poor man, who was generally the consumer of the beer made by the public brewer, should be obliged to pay 10 s. per barrel more for his beer than the private brewer, who could always better afford it. He would now proceed to show the great difference in the sums thus paid in duty by the poorer classes and the rich. From returns not yet printed of the quantity of malt which had paid duty in England and Scotland in the year 1823, it appeared that the number of bushels was 27,288,380. The quantity consumed by public brewers, distillers, and vinegar manufacturers, he took to be 16,755,757 bushels, leaving, as the quantity consumed by the private brewers, 10,532,623 bushels. The way in which he arrived at these results was this—he found by the returns, that there were brewed in England and Scotland in the course of last year 6,212,744 barrels of strong beer, which, at the average of eight bushels of malt to every 3½ barrels of beer, would make a consumption of 14,200,557 bushels. The quantity of table beer brewed by the public brewers was 1,621,623 barrels, making a consumption of 1,995,200 bushels; to these, adding the quantity consumed by vinegar manufacturers and others, which he took at 560,000, the whole would amount to the number of 16,755,757, leaving the difference, 10,532,623, as the quantity consumed by private brewers.—The hon. member then proceeded to show that taking the same proportion of strong-beer and table-beer among the private brewers as among the public brewers, it would appear, that there were 3,949,733 barrels of strong beer brewed in the year. These, if subjected to the same duty as the beer brewed by the public brewers, would produce a sum of 1,974,866 l. 10 s. The

1015
quantity of small beer brewed, amounted to 1,621,103 barrels, which at 2s. per barrel, would make 122,530 l., making in the whole the sum of 2,097,397 l., which the poor classes were almost exclusively called upon to pay, and from which the rich were exempt. He was in possession of an account of the number of barrels of beer brewed last year, which was as follows:—of strong beer, 6,212,744; of table beer 1,621,103; of intermediate beer only 1,892 were brewed, and by 55 individuals. The duty paid upon that quantity of beer, was 3,270,205 l. Deducting the expense of collection, the amount of duty paid into the Treasury would be about 2,800,000 l. These facts alone showed that inquiry was necessary. If any class deserved peculiar favour, it was not the rich, who could so well afford to pay, but the poor, who earned every farthing they spent by the sweat of their brows. To the working part of the community, porter had become a necessary of life, and upon this chiefly the duty was laid. Another objection to the present system was, the increased expense in the collection of the duty. If the whole duty were laid on malt, the revenue might be collected without a shilling of additional charge; for whether that duty were 2s. 6d. per bushel, or 4s. 6d. per bushel, could make no difference. The present expense of collecting the malt duty was 165,462 l., while the expense of collecting the Beer duty was 295,927 l., the whole of which might be saved to the country, and further taxes reduced to that amount. He was aware, that he should be told, that the accounts of the expenses of collection were not accurate; but if so, this formed another ground for inquiring into the subject, for they ought to be correct. The hon. member for Aberdeen had, however, last year, satisfactorily answered this remark, when he had said, on the authority of the commissioners, that the charge was as fairly as possible apportioned. A note had, nevertheless, been appended to the returns, in order to inform the House, that the same officers were employed in the collection of various taxes, and that there was no tax on beer in Ireland. In fact, it had been found very expedient to remove the beer tax in Ireland, and to place the whole duty on malt; for it was now satisfactorily paid, and the trade had been freed from monstrous restrictions. These restrictions 4iad been imposed very recently by 1 and
1016
2 Geo. 4th, c. 22, "to prevent frauds, and the better to secure the payment of the duties on beer." Perhaps, a harsher law had never been passed. The Scotch brewers, unable to carry on their trade under it, had appealed against it; as they had not even heard of the law, until it was to be carried into execution. The reply of the commissioners to the suggestion that the whole duty should be laid upon the malt was, that it would lead to the deterioration of the beer, and that his majesty's ministers were bound to regard the health of his majesty's subjects. Now, he advised the king's ministers not to intermeddle with this matter—to let the king's subjects take care of their own health—and to allow them to buy their beer of whatever brewer sold it best and cheapest. Mr. Lushington had made a somewhat similar reply to the Scotch brewers. By the course the Lords of the Treasury had pursued, they had taken upon themselves to fix the price of two qualities of beer, as well as to guard the health of the consumers; namely, table beer, and intermediate beer. Why did they not follow the same plan with spirits, wine, coffee, sugar, or even with cotton and woollen goods? They might have done so with equal justice and fitness. If additional securities were necessary to guard the public, or to prevent fraud, he had no objection even to double penalties, if they would be effectual. But, what had been the consequence of thus fixing the price of table beer and intermediate beer? The brewers, unable to obtain an advance of price, in self-defence, as malt and hops rose, had been obliged to give the public absolute trash, instead of a wholesome beverage. From a document in his hand, it appeared, that what the brewers were compelled to sell at 6l. 18 s. if made of malt and hops at the present price, would cost them 7l. 10 s. 6d. Who in truth sustained the loss? the public—that public, for the health of which ministers were so extremely anxious!—The argument of last year had been, that to comply with the present motion would be to impose too large a duty on one article; but, during the war, this objection had never been started, when the impost upon malt was 4s. 4—d. per bushel, and he (Mr. M.) only proposed to raise it to 4s. 6d. He was besides informed by persons well acquainted with the subject, that, by the simplest laws, it would be easy to prevent the possibility of fraud, if the whole duty

1017
were laid upon the malt. It had been also urged, that farmers gave beer on which they paid no duty in lieu of wages. If so, he was prepared to contend, that farmers had no right to this special privilege of buying an article free of duty, which others were compelled to pay, and giving it to their men instead of money. They had no more claim to do so than the cotton or linen manufacturers; and it would not have been tolerated, but for the extreme forbearance of ministers towards the landed interest, to whom the country was indebted for this species of legislation: the principle was most unjust, and, though it had long, prevailed, it ought immediately to be put an end to. The chancellor of the Exchequer had also said last year, that he did not like to make any changes in the collection of the duties while so great an alteration was in contemplation in the collection of the duties on spirits in Scotland and Ireland. At present, however, the right hon. gentleman need be under no apprehension on that score. He (Mr. M.) was convinced, that the effect or the amendment he proposed in the system, would be to increase the consumption, augment the revenue, and satisfy the people by equal and just taxation.—He had heard rumours abroad, that a measure was about to be brought forward to equalize the duties on beer; but the House would perceive that such a bill would not relieve the people. Supposing the whole duty upon beer were fixed at 5s. per barrel, still stronger laws would be required for the collection of the duty, and for the prevention of fraud. Where would be the benefit to the lower orders? Persons who bought strong beer, might be relieved; but that large class of the community which consumed table beer, would suffer proportionably. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not lend itself to any such unequal project. The chancellor of the Exchequer was a man of too liberal and of too enlightened a mind not to see most clearly the advantage of what he (Mr. M.) now recommended; but he did not dare to act up to his own convictions; he knew that he should be opposed by the landed interest—that the country gentlemen would immediately declare (as one of them had done not long since, when agricultural distress caused a temporary aberration) that it was time to look about them—that the best interest of the land were at stake, and that a stand must be
1018
made before all was lost. The right hon. gentleman was aware that he should be assailed on all sides if he consented, and that he should not be allowed to quit the lobby without retracting his approbation [hear, hear!]. He asked him, nevertheless, why he sat there as the minister for the whole state, and bound to protect the interests of all classes alike, and yet consented to this unequal duty, which pressed so heavily upon the poor, for the exclusive benefit of the rich? He knew that no satisfactory reply could be given, but there was every probability that something would be attempted. The right hon. gentleman and the colleague at his side (Mr. Huskisson) had recently supported great improvements in external and internal legislation, and they were entitled to much praise for their exertions, they had so far adopted the principle for which he (Mr. M.) was contending; but, inasmuch as he applauded them for adopting it, he blamed them for not going further; and he called upon them to state on what ground they thought proper to stop short, when so reasonable a proposition as the present was made? They were ready to legislate liberally, and in an enlightened spirit, on silk, linen, and wool; but when it was suggested that they should extend the system to beer, on which there existed such inequality and injustice, they declared that they were not prepared to take such a step. Why were they not prepared? The reason was plain, though not avowed—the landed interest would not allow them [hear!]. The poorer classes those who most needed them, had no such powerful advocates.—The right hon. gentleman had recently acknowledged the very principle for which he (Mr. M.) was contending. After the late reduction of the duty on windows and houses, the commissioners of taxes sent circulars to all their surveyors, requiring them to re-survey the houses in their several districts. The greatest ferment and anxiety were created; and, in consequence, orders were sent down to stop such an obnoxious proceeding. In what way had the right hon. gentleman explained this course? Why, almost in the very terms which he (Mr. M.) had employed on the subject of beer. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he thought it expedient that whatever duties remained should be borne equally by all parties. He had acknowledged that such were the principles of sound legislation; and how could he now turn round in the

1019
face of his own acknowledgment, and disown the application of the same principles here? How could the right hon. gentleman contend that what was good with respect to windows and houses was bad with respect to beer and malt? Where was the distinction? There was none in fact: and he defied the right hon. gentleman and all his friends, to point it out. The distinction lay in the consequences, for, in the one case, the chancellor of the Exchequer could pursue an equitable system, without danger; and in the other, he dared not be just, because he stood in dread of those who were more powerful than himself, the country gentlemen [hear, hear!]. Such was the effect of ministers making themselves dependent upon those of whom they ought to be independent, instead of looking to the people, grateful for just and equal taxation, for support and approbation. If the committee were granted, he would suggest, that an additional duty of 2s. per bushel should be placed upon malt, making the whole duty 4s. 6d. per bushel. Malt had borne during the war a duty of 4s. 4½d., with all the present beer duty in addition, and all he wished was to raise it three halfpence higher, and to do away with all the existing duty on beer. When once this system was carried into effect, a man might drink his beer exactly of the strength he liked, without being under any obligation to the chancellor of the Exchequer for preserving his health, and might at once consult his palate and his pocket. Another advantage of the change would be, that the brewers would be left open to the exercise of their skill in the chemical process in which they were engaged. Under the prevailing restrictions, skill and experience were of little or no use to them. Hereafter they might be able, by improvements, to draw a greater strength from the same quantity of malt; the price of the article might then be lowered, and the public in all ways signally benefitted. The great advantage, and that which above all others ought to be contemplated was, that all classes of the people would be taxed equally. At present the great mass of the population, and those who were least able to sustain the weight, endured nearly the whole burthen; and if this motion were rejected by those who wished to exonerate their own pockets, who could doubt for a moment that the House needed reform? The first principle of taxation was justice and equality, and if the
1020
House refused to carry that principle, as far as possible, into effect, it would afford one of the strongest arguments, to those who maintained that it did not represent the wishes or the interests of the people. Persuaded as he was, that he had made out a very strong case for going into the committee, he could not believe, until the House convinced him of the fact by its vote, that it would not support a proposition, so just and reasonable, and which without at all deciding the question, merely asked for investigation. The hon. member concluded, by submitting the motion which he had read at the opening of his speech.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was by no means prepared to admit that this question had been so imperfectly discussed last year. He did not flatter himself, that any thing he had then said was sufficient to persuade hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House; from their Votes at the time it was quite clear that they were not convinced against their will, although several members who disapproved of the motion had stated many unanswerable reasons for not consenting to the proposed committee. He would fairly confess that since the last debate on this question, nothing new had occurred to him, nor had a reconsideration of what had passed induced him to change the view which he had then taken of the subject. He could not therefore pretend that he was furnished either with new light or fresh information, and he much feared that his stock of ingenuity was far too small to furnish new arguments every time the gentlemen opposite chose after defeat to renew their motions. As it was rendered necessary, by the course which had been pursued, he would briefly re-state the grounds on which he had rested his opinion that it was inexpedient to acquiesce in the motion just submitted. The hon. gentleman had recommended his proposition, as being safe and salutary on two accounts principally. First, he had appealed to the anxiety of the House for economy; and, secondly, he had appealed to its love of justice. He had maintained, that by dividing the tax between beer and malt, the nation incurred a greater expense than if it were placed only upon one; and, further, that it was most unfair to relieve the rich at the expense of the poor. These general principles were undoubtedly very good, and in this case they had only the slight defect of wanting application. As

1021
to the expense of collection, he could only repeat what he had said last session—that it was a fallacy to assume that the expense of collecting the beer duty was that sum which, according to ancient usage, was assigned in the Excise returns as the charge. Excise officers did not perform one duty only; they collected the imposts, not alone on malt, but on soap, candles, and every thing on which their services might be required. It was quite true, that there had always been charged (perhaps most absurdly) upon the collection of the duties on malt and beer certain other expenses, which had, in fact, nothing to do with them. It was quite obvious, that if the same individuals were employed on different duties on the same day, it was impossible to define exactly how much of the charge ought to be borne by the one or by the other. They could not employ one officer of the revenue in collecting one particular tax without assisting in the collection of the others. He was therefore not disposed to admit, that if the duties on beer were repealed, the whole of the 295,927 l. now set down for the expense of the collection of that duty would be saved; for he could not conceive how the hon. gentleman was warranted in not allowing an additional expense for the collection of a double duty on malt, if such a duty were imposed. He could not conceive how the hon. gentleman assumed, that, if they doubled a tax, the temptations to evade which were already so great, no additional trouble and expense would be necessary in insuring its collection. The hon. gentleman, indeed, seemed to think, that the malt tax never was evaded; but this was a supposition unfortunately altogether incorrect. If they doubled the tax, the inducement to fraud would be doubled, and greater vigilance would be required to detect fraud. It was impossible, therefore, to calculate upon the saving of 295,927 l. The system of the hon. member was not to cause any loss to the revenue; but his proposed increase of the duty on malt did not seem adequate to secure it against loss. The duty on beer produced about three millions sterling; while, in the last year, the quantity of malt that paid duty was 27 millions of bushels. Two shillings per bushel additional duty would produce, on this quantity, only 2,700,000 l. There would therefore remain 300,000 l. to be made up. The hon. gentleman might say that he would proportionably increase the
1022
duty; but, said again, that, in so doing, he increased the temptations to evade the duty, and, pro tanto, diminished the benefit to those for whose advantage the change was projected. The hon. gentleman said, that the duty was extremely unequal. Now, he could not pretend, abstractedly speaking, to say that it was not unequal, as the malt used in the breweries of the public brewer might be said to pay altogether an amount of duty beyond that paid on the malt used by those who brewed their own beer. But, practically, the effect was not so severe as the hon. gentleman had contended; because, in reality, those who brewed their own beer, and were thus exempted from the beer tax, could not brew their own beer at so economical a rate as it was brewed in the great establishments of the public brewer. Though this was no argument in favour of the inequality of the principle, it was a good one to show that the hon. gentleman had over-rated the degree in which that principle operated in practice. The hon. gentleman assumed, however, that-all persons who brewed their own beer were rich, and that all persons who bought the beer of public brewers were poor. This was a proposition which it was necessary to take with many limitations. In the first place, nearly all the inhabitants, of this metropolis, which always comprised so many opulent persons, and during part of the year a great proportion of the nobility and gentry of the country, drank beer which paid the duty. In all towns a large portion of the inhabitants living in easy circumstances, who certainly could not be classed with the poor, also drank the beer of the public brewers. On the other hand, there were a great number of persons who brewed their own beer who were in poor circumstances. Certainly, in the county with which he was more particularly acquainted, and in Yorkshire, private brewing was common, not only among the very small farmers, but the artisans in villages, and even the manufacturers. To that class it would be a great hardship to impose an additional duty on the malt they used in brewing—a hardship not depending merely on the increased pressure of taxation, but which would have the effect of driving them to the public-house, of introducing a pernicious system and of depriving them of the great comfort, as well as of the advantage to their morals, of consuming their own beer with their families. The hon. gentleman had ridi-

1023
culed one defence which had been set up for the beer duty; namely, the plea, that it enabled the Excise officers to detect frauds which might otherwise be practised on consumers, by the use of deleterious drugs in their beer. Certainly, he would not say that the utility of the safeguard thus afforded to consumers was by any means a sufficient reason for imposing a tax, or for continuing that tax if they were able totally to repeal it; but he would say that when the proposition merely was, to shift the taxation from one item to another, it was an objection to the proposition, that an incidental effect of the change was to deprive the consumer of the protection which the supervision of the Excise afforded to him. The hon. gentleman seemed to think, that in all cases the consumers were able to protect themselves against these frauds; but he would learn, that though there had been many frauds detected which had been practised by brewers, before considered very respectable in their line, it was never merely by the nicety of the palate of the consumer that the discovery was made of the fraud so practised upon him, but always either by the evidence of the brewers' servants, or by the increased vigilance of the officers of the revenue. The hon. gentleman had thrown ridicule on the measure introduced last year for extending the sale of beer. Now, for his own part, he had never made much account of that measure. He had not been insensible to the objections which would be urged against that, or against any system of taxation, which threw restraints upon industry. He was not without hopes, however, that he could do away with the inconveniences of the Bill which he had introduced. He stated this rather by the way, than as any answer to the hon. gentleman's motion; because the difference between them was not, whether they ought to reduce or modify the duty on beer, but whether they ought to take it off altogether and throw it upon malt. He did not now pretend to state any thing new. He had only repeated the observations which he had made last year, and which had then not been so unsatisfactory to the House as they obviously had been to the hon. gentleman. In conclusion, he would contend, that however desirable it might be to reduce the duty on beer, it was not by throwing it on malt, that the advantage of such a reduction would be secured, and that there was no informa-
1024
tion on the subject which they had need have recourse to a committee to supply, the proper step for the House was, to give a negative to the motion.
Mr. Humecontended, that the arguments of the hon. mover had recieved no sufficient answer from the chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the assertion that by a transfer of the duty from beer to malt, there would be no economy in the expense of collection, he begged to dissent entirely therefrom. He wished they had before them the chairman, or any other proper officer, of the board of Excise, to put to him this question—"Do you not, in appointing your officers in any part of the country, calculate the number of hours that their occupations will furnish them, so as fully to employ their whole time? "He knew the answer would be in the affirmative; for no part of the public business was so attentively and laboriously performed as that done by the officers of the Excise. If these officers were employed once a day, or every other day, for three or four hours in each brewery, it was obvious, that, when this source of employment was taken away, a much smaller number of officers would be required, and a reduction might take place to a very large extent; though it was difficult to state the precise saving which might be effected. In regard to the chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to the objections drawn from the inequality of the tax, that answer amounted to this—" there is an inequality, but that inequality is not so great as the hon. mover has contended." Now really, in arguing a question of this kind, it mattered not whether one half, or a third, or a quarter of the poor were unequally affected. The question was, whether a tax was unequal or not? and, that it was unequal the right hon. gentleman had admitted. The truth was, that the great body of labouring people in the large towns were those upon whom the beer tax pressed with all its severity. As to the agricultural interest, so far from their being injured by the additional duty on malt, accompanied by a reduction of the tax on beer, the increased consumption of malt which would accompany the measure, and the stimulus that would thus be given to the growth of barley, would more than counterbalance any burthen that might be thrown on them as brewers of their own beer. The chancellor of the Exchequer should recollect how he was cheered when he declared,

1025
in reference to the house-tax, that so long as taxes were continued, they should be equally imposed on all classes. But, if this observation applied to the house-tax it applied also to the mall-tax. A tax unequally levied was unjust. It was proper at least to go into a committee, to see whether the tax could not be equalized, or if not equalized, whether it could not be levied in a manner which would interfere less with the freedom of trade. It might be a matter of consideration, when they had heard the evidence in a committee, whether the additional duty on malt should be imposed on those who brewed their own beer; and if it should not be thought fit to tax them, they might perhaps impose, in lieu of the beer tax, an additional tax on the malt used in the brewery of the common brewer. Of such a measure as this, one good effect would be, to free the breweries from the presence of the Excise officers. He understood that this measure had been tried in Ireland, and that the results had been most beneficial. On every point, he thought the chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to shew that the House should shut out information, and he should therefore support the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that the motion was, in many respects, so objectionable, that he could not give it his support. Though it could not be denied that the Beer-tax was unequal, yet, when the hon. member contended, that the whole of the beer brewed by public brewers was drunk by the poor, it was the most preposterous proposition ever made by man.
Mr. Maberlydenied that he had used the argument in an unqualified sense.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that although he might not have used the hon. member's words, yet he thought he had not mis-stated the tenour of his argument, and was positive that the hon. member had insinuated that the chancellor of the Exchequer persevered in his present views, in base compliance with the feelings of the country gentlemen. The hon. gentleman had done the same thing last year, when he promised in magnanimous terms, to hold them up to public notice: he had, he supposed done so by the present motion, and he wished him joy of the result. The hon. member had said, that if the duty were transferred, he was ready to concede any penalties to prevent abuses regarding malt; but, was he not aware of the enormous penalties and restrictions which at
1026
present affected that trade? The first payment of the malt duties to government was in the month of October, and that was the time most essential for the small farmer to go and seek a market.
Mr. Maberlyinterposed to explain. What he had said respecting penalties was, that he should be ready to affix the severest penalties to the mixing deleterious drugs with beer.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that the explanation of the hon. gentleman did not affect the argument he was prepared to offer, which was this: If from 20 s. a quarter, the malt duties were increased to 40 s, a quarter, the payments to be made by the maltsters would be increased, and the effect in depressing the markets would be great in proportion. He hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the state of the malt duties. In the last session he had not pressed the subject upon the chancellor of the Exchequer, because a great experiment (the medium beer bill) was then making. That experiment had completely failed, and he hoped now the chancellor of the Exchequer would again turn his attention to the subject. The hon. member had gone into many difficult calculations to suit his arguments; but he (Mr. W.) must dissent from some of his estimates. For instance, in a case like this, he could not consent to take one year by itself: it was a fallacious criterion; for in some particular years brewers and maltsters. speculated more largely than they did in others. If he (Mr. W.) were to strike an average, he should rather take the three years before the late war, 1791, 1792, and 1793; and, computing it from them he found, that although the population of the country was at the time only eight millions, there was as great a consumption of malt as during the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, when the population had increased to eleven millions. Although he could not concur in the motion, he was anxious to see the duty on malt lowered, from a conviction, that the reduction would be attended with benefit, to the people and to the revenue.
Mr. Denisonwould support the motion, because he thought his hon. friend had demonstrated, that the alteration would save a large sum in the collection of the revenue, while at the same time it would materially serve the poorer classes. The saving might be over-rated; but that it

1027
would be very considerable he had no doubt, and that was a sufficient reason for going into the committee, where alone they could ascertain the precise amount—The chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the rich as well as the poor were supplied from the public breweries. This was the case, he would admit, in London; but it was not in town that the rich incurred the great consumption of beer, but in their larger establishments in the country, where the old style of hospitality was maintained, and where the rich man could supply himself with the article 100 or 130 per cent cheaper than the poor person. A reduction of the beer duty was not only called for on the score of justice and economy, but to promote the morals of the people, by counteracting the pernicious practice of dram-drinking. He should therefore give his vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Crippssaid, there was no tax more evaded than the tax on malt. The number of private maltsters who contrived to carry on their business in spite of the vigilance of the Excise officers, was inconceivable to those who had hot the means of inquiring into the subject. To increase this tax would increase the evil, and he should therefore oppose the transfer of the beer duty to malt. There were no complaints of the beer tax as an unequal tax, and therefore it was to be presumed, that it was not felt to be such by the people. If, on the other hand, they reduced a part of the malt tax, he had no doubt the result would be most beneficial both to the revenue and to the agricultural; interest.
Mr. Moncksaid, he was sorry he could hot support the motion of the hon. member for Abingdon. If there was an inequality in the beer tax, it was an inequality which had existed from the very origin of the Excise. It was known that the tax on beer was a part of the hereditary revenue of the Excise, given to Charles 2nd in lieu of the wards and liveries; while it was not until the reign of William, that the landed interest would submit to a malt tax, justly considering it as a species of land tax, because the great consumption of malt was in the beer given to farmers' labourers. Now, he thought that, so far from amending an inequality by adopting the proposed motion, they would be exactly introducing one. The existing one was only apparent, while the proposed substitute would be real. The true way
1028
of looking at any large tax was, to watch its general operation; and he denied that, in the present case, the duties were partial. Let them look at the weight which at present fell upon the shoulders of the landed interest. They had to bear almost exclusively the poor-rates. They had exclusively the conveyance of vagrants, the county-rates, the high-ways, and several other local imposts, which did not belong to other classes of the community. It was absolutely necessary that some sort of boon should be given to the landed interest, as a compensation for these exclusive burthens. If the hon. gentleman wished for absolute equality, he might as well press for the repeal of the legacy duty, because it pressed on personal property only; the legislature having conceived, in passing it, that the land was already sufficiently burthened by other impositions. In many parts of the country, and in the country towns, many of the poor people brewed their own beer; and if the practice was not more general, it was on account of the duty, already too high, which was levied on malt. He was firmly convinced, that if the present motion were carried* the poorer classes, instead of being served, would be injured. He denied that there was any analogy between the case of England and of Ireland. There was no consumption of beer in Ireland, as there was in England, either among the rich or poor; for the rich in that country drank wine, and the poor whisky. Agriculture in Ireland was hot burthened with the poor-rates, the land-tax, and such assessments. Not concurring in the opinion that benefit would accrue from the adoption of this motion, he must give it his opposition.
Captain Maberlysaid, there was an inconsistency in the argument of the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, and who had at first contended that it was improper to remove this tax, because, in other respects, the taxes on land were unequal. He told them, in the first place, that the land paid the poor-rates, the county-rates, &c. which personal property did not pay, and that therefore the taxation was unequal; but, on the other hand, he stated, that personal property was charged with the legacy duty, and the tax on the probate of wills, which the land was not charged with. While the hon. gentleman contended for the inequality of the system of taxation, as it affected land, he, with the same breath, admitted that it was

1029
equal. The chancellor of the Exchequer had contended, that the taking off of the beer duty would drive the poor to the public house. But, did he not know, that if they took off the duty on beer, it would be in the power of a much greater number of the poor to drink it at home, because at present beer could not be hawked abroad in quantities convenient for the poor to purchase and consume at home? He thought the arguments of his hon. relative had not been answered, and should therefore vote for the motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, that on the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, he felt himself bound to vote against the motion. He thought his hon. friend proceeded on the old fallacy, that two and two in taxation always made four. He calculated more than he had a right to do, on the effect of the measure in reducing the expense of collection. From the great inducements to fraud, he thought that reduction would not be practicable, to any considerable extent.
Mr. C. Smithopposed the motion for going into a committee.
Mr. Maberlyreplied. He said, that the propositions contained in his motion went to shew the inequality that existed in the duties on malt and beer; and he had heard no argument whatever on the other side, to prove that that inequality did not exist. Indeed, that inequality was quite notorious; notwithstanding which the chancellor of the Exchequer had opposed his motion for a committee. It had been stated, that the saving, which he had estimated at 295,000 l., had been overstated; but his statement was founded upon the apportionment of the commissioners themselves; and then, to his astonishment, the chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Oh! you must not depend on those statements; they are not correct." Was it not monstrous to hear it advanced in that House, by a chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House was not to depend upon his own accounts? What other guide had a member to goby, than the public documents which were presented for his inspection? Upon these documents, however, he should stand; for the chancellor of the Exchequer had not advanced a single argument to refute the inferences which he had drawn from them. He considered the present system a most unfair, unequal, and oppressive land tax, of the worst description, because it fell upon the consumer. Not-
1030
withstanding what had been said by an hon. gentleman opposite, he would contend, that if the agricultural portion of that House understood their own clear, distinct interest, they would adopt the principle of a more equal taxation. They all seemed to argue the question as if this tax fell exclusively upon them; whereas, in fact, it only affected them in their capacity of consumers. The hon. member for Norfolk had expressed his surprise, that having failed last year, he should again bring forward the proposition now; but he could assure that hon. member, that he would do the same thing next year, and repeat it every year, as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House. The tax which he now sought to remove was that under which all the frauds had been committed, namely, the mixing of the article; for upon the malting, according to the evidence of the officers of Excise who had been examined, although the frauds were formerly considerable, they were now exceedingly rare. Much had been said respecting domestic brewing. He thought it was desirable, and he was one of those who practised it; yet, in consequence of the superior skill and advantages of the public brewer, there was little saving in it; but he thought that, if all the duties were equalized, and if all the beer which was consumed was manufactured by the public brewers, it would be had on much more reasonable terms. The chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he was disposed to argue that an equality of duties was the proper principle for legislation; but, when it was distinctly shewn on the face of the motion that this inequality existed, he would not consent to enforce the principle which he approved. Even for the sake of consistency, after such a declaration, the right hon. gentleman ought to consent to the appointment of a committee.
The House divided: Ayes 26: Noes 130.

List of the Minority.

Anson, hon. G.

Lennard, T. B.

Barrett, S. M.

Maberly, W. L.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Bernal, R.

Martin, J.

Bright, H.

Newport, sir J.

Butterworth, J.

Nugent, lord

Denison, J.

Rice, T, S.

Fergusson, sir R.

Robarts, G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Robarts, A. W.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Smith, John.

Leader, W.

Smith, William.

1031

Sykes, D.

Wood, M.

Tierney, right hon. G.

TELLERS.

Whitbread, S. C.

Maberly, J.

Williams, W.

Hume, Joseph.

MUTINY BILL—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE ARMY.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, he had given notice, on a former occasion, of his intention to propose a clause to be added to the Mutiny bill, when that subject should again be brought under the consideration of the House. Pie should now read to the House the clause which he meant to propose: it was this—"And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment, by flogging, on any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned officer, in the army or militia of the United Kingdom, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding." In a former stage of the bill, when he had endeavoured to obtain the consent of the House to this clause, and unfortunately without success, he had stated all the arguments which presented themselves to his mind, as likely to prevail upon the House to adopt it. He was not aware of any additional argument which he could urge on the present occasion, in favour of the view which he took of this question; but, since he had last addressed the House on the subject, he had had the good fortune to meet with an officer who had served in the army of Wurtem-berg, from whom he had obtained some information which might not be uninstructive, in considering this subject. It appeared, then, that during the reign of the late king, the system of flogging had been carried to a great extent: it was frequently resorted to, but the severest punishment rarely exceeded a hundred canes. However, this species of chastisement was considered so disgraceful, and had so demoralising an effect upon the men, that they became callous and indifferent to the value of character; and it happened not unfrequently that, from day to day, the punishment was repeated on the same individual; and the only effect ft produced was, to harden the offender, without in the least degree restoring that discipline, to accomplish which, this severity had been resorted to. Upon the accession of the present king, however, a different course was adopted, and at present no man in the army was subjected to this dis-
1032
graceful chastisement. The consequence was, that the character of the men had considerably improved, and the state of discipline had become much superior to what it was at any former period. The punishment which had been adopted in its stead was solitary confinement; and the House would be surprised to hear, that eight or ten days was generally the longest period of confinement. There were three stages of imprisonment: one of three days, one of six, and a third of ten days, during which, the offenders were kept in solitary confinement, and subjected to irons and alterations in their food according as the case required. Whenever a man was punished twice for the same offence, there were two condemned battalions to which he was reduced; the one was kept for characters of the worst description; to the second, soldiers were sentenced from whom reform and improvement were expected. But even in these regiments, corporal punishment were seldom resorted to; and the consequence was, that officers who formerly had been adverse to the abolition of the practice, and who had been convinced that, without flogging, discipline could not be maintained in the army, had now completely changed their opinions, and had become converts to the more humane system, by which they found the character of the men was much improved, and the system of training rendered less difficult. Now, he saw no reason why the same effects might not follow the same cause in the English army. He could not say what hope was held out of promotion in the army of that country, but with respect to the British army, the encouragement and prospect of promotion was very trifling: in fact, the door of advancement was almost closed, and no man would now enter our service as a private soldier with any hope of promotion. But even in the absence of all such expectations, if the odious practice of torture and flogging were abolished, many men would go into the army for six or seven years, and then, after the experience they had gained, and the discipline to which they had been subjected, they might return to civil society much improved, and enabled to confer a service upon the community. But, no man could now enter the service and say, that in an unguarded moment he might not commit some act which any officer might interpret into an offence deserving of serious punishment, in consequence of which he might be disgraced

1033
for life, and disqualified for returning to an intercourse with society. Surely now, when the civilized views of modern times were calling for a reform in our criminal code, we should not be backward in endeavouring to try it in the military system. He did not ask the House to interfere with the troops abroad; but, at a period of profound peace, he thought the experiment might be tried with advantage on the army stationed within the united kingdom. At a time when we were legislating for the brute creation—a measure which he was disposed to support as far as it was practicable—it would ill become the House to turn a deaf ear to the interests and happiness of their fellow creatures. This barbarous punishment was productive of no advantage whatever to the service, and had a most injurious effect upon the soldiers. Disgrace followed each infliction, and it must, in a certain degree, blunt the feelings of those officers who were compelled to witness such disgraceful scenes. The proposition which he submitted, would not, in his judgment, be an innovation upon the privilege of the Crown. The king, he admitted, was the guardian of the discipline of the army; but that discipline was laid down in the Bill which they were now discussing, and the House had consequently the power to mark out any course which it might think prudent to adopt. He trusted that, unless it could be shewn that some danger would arise from the proposition he was about to submit, the House would consent to his motion with which he meant to conclude, namely, for leave to bring up a clause "to prohibit corporal punishment in the army."
Sir H. Viviansaid, he fully appreciated those humane sentiments which had been expressed by the hon. gentleman. The policy of carrying into execution those feelings, as far as was practicable, he, as a commanding officer, freely admitted; and, he was sure, he might add, that there was no commanding officer in the service, who was not disposed to relax the severity of punishment, as far as was consistent with prudence and wholesome discipline. But, he must at the same time take leave to state, that it was no slight reflection on the character of the illustrious individual who presided over the army with so much advantage to the country; it was no trifling censure on those who held the rank of general officers, to suppose that they would not
1034
come forward at once, and endeavour to abolish the practice of corporal punishment, if it could at all be effected with safety to the army. But, let it not be supposed, by the gentlemen opposite, that they enjoyed a monopoly of humanity. He could tell those gentlemen, that the officers of his majesty's service were as deeply interested as they were, in the happiness of their fellows, and that their hearts beat as responsive to the best feelings of human nature. In his life he had never conversed with an officer on the subject, who did not, whilst he lamented the necessity of the continuance of the practice, declare at the same time, that he had never heard a proposal that could with safety be introduced as a substitute for the present system. But, if flogging was such a disgrace, why was it not sought to be abolished in our public schools? Did not gentlemen know that youths of sixteen and seventeen years of age—youths of education and refinement, and fine feelings too—were still subjected to this punishment? If it was a question of feeling merely, why did we not do away with capital punishment in our penal code? The reason was this, because all men were convinced that it could not be abolished, consistently with the public security. Gentlemen were very little aware of the consequences that would result from the system they were advocating. He would mention a curious circumstance that had come to his own knowledge. About ten years ago, he had been commander of a regiment, about a thousand strong: amongst the men considerable irregularities had manifested themselves of a sudden; the cause of which he was unable to discover, until, upon inquiry of the adjutant, he was informed that the men had got a notion into their heads that sir Francis Burdett had done away with corporal punishment in the army. It had been very truly observed, that "an army without discipline was more dangerous to its friends than its foes." In considering this subject, it was necessary to examine not merely the discipline, but the offences which soldiers generally committed. Details, he knew, on the subject, must be uninteresting; but he trusted the House would excuse him. It was well known that soldiers were recruited, generally speaking, from amongst the lowest class of the community, and almost always they were men of the wildest and most ungovernable description.

1035
He had no objection whatever to this; for to that he attributed (he said it without vanity) the superior valour and intrepidity of the British soldier over every other in the world. He had generally found that the soldier who was the first to break over the barrack wall, was the foremost on service to break into the enemies' quarters. Over men of this character it was necessary to exercise strong control; since, if they were not controlled themselves, it was not improbable they might attempt to control others. The besetting sin of this description of men was drunkenness. Now, he did not mean to say that every man who got drunk ought to be flogged, far from it; his practice in his own regiment had been very different; but he did mean to say, that the power to flog any man who had so offended should still remain in the hands in which it was now vested. It was said, that solitary confinement would have as strong an effect upon the men as severe flogging. He would ask the advocates of this new mode of punishment, what they would do under the following circumstances? It was well known to every officer in the service, that about the settling day, there was nearly always a great increase in the number of offences; indeed, it was not extraordinary to have fifty or sixty men offending at once. Now, could he place each of these men in solitary confinement? And if he could, what would be its effect? Why that he would be compelled to punish those who had not offended, by throwing upon their shoulders the duty of those who had. He must likewise object to the substitution of extra drills for corporal punishment. The drill was a necessary part of the discipline of a regiment, and he did not like the idea of bringing it into contempt with those who must be subjected to it, by making it an ignominious punishment. There was not, however, any of these objections to a punishment by court-martial; it hung over the head of every offender, and, as none of them knew on whom it might fall, it kept all in a state of salutary alarm. Allowing, however, that solitary confinement and extra drill might have the proposed effect in time of peace, what was to be done in time of war? Whilst an army was marching through an enemy's country, how was the straggler or the marauder to be consigned either to extra drill or solitary confinement? It had been argued a few
1036
nights ago, that the disorganized state of our army during the retreat to Corunna showed the inefficacy of the severity of our punishments. But, to this argument he begged leave to reply, by stating, that our army was at that time disorganised, not so much from want of discipline, as from the absolute state of exhaustion to which it was reduced, by the almost incredible fatigues and privations it had undergone. As he had upon that occasion brought up the rear, he might be permitted to claim some credit with the House, when he stated, that many of outbrave fellows did not receive any provisions after leaving Astorga. Hunger, it was said would break through stone walls; and it could not surprise any reflecting person, that many of our poor stragglers did upon that occasion take by force those provisions which they could not get by any other means. The French army, however, whose high discipline had been so much extolled on a former evening, in their retreat through the south of France, a country which abounded in provisions, and from which we had drawn plentiful supplies after they had left it the French army, he repeated, in that retreat, not conducted in a hurry—had committed so many atrocities on the property and persons of the inhabitants that they literally welcomed the British soldiers as so many liberators. Indeed, French writers on the subject had recently admitted, that the perfect discipline which our army then observed was worth to it as much as 10,000 men. The gallant officer then proceeded to observe, that at present he thought that commanding officers might preserve the discipline of their regiments without flogging; because, in general, they did not consist of more than 250 men, who were, for the most part, selected for their good character, whose places could easily be filled up, and to whom it would be a heavy punishment to receive their discharge. But what would be the case, when regiments consisted of 1,400 or 1,500 men? or when, as in the last war, so high a bounty was offered, that it was no unusual thing for men to desert from one regiment, and enlist in another, for the mere sake of pocketing it? He would, with the permission of the House, mention an instance which had come under his own observation. One morning, some men dressed in smock frocks came into the barrack-yard to be enlisted. He thought they appeared rather suspi-

1037
cious. He asked them whether they had ever been in the army; they said no. It was no time to refuse men, and accordingly they were enlisted. However, they only got part of their bounty, and he gave directions that they should be strictly watched, and he found out that within six weeks they had received their bounty from another regiment, and had come down to them on furlough. Now, he should wish to know, what punishment was to be inflicted on men of that description, if we did away with flogging? There was one custom which he thought it would be very desirable to discontinue. It was the usage to send soldiers who had conducted themselves improperly at home, out to what were called the condemned regiments such as the 60th; and it frequently occurred that, if they were good soldiers, they speedily obtained promotion, by being made non-commissioned officers. The consequence was, that they wrote home to their friends, declaring that they were never so happy in their lives before; and this operated as a bounty on misconduct. He thought, therefore that no soldier sent abroad under such circumstances should be so promoted for three years. To conclude. If, by any means hon. gentlemen could instil into our soldiery an idea, not only that they were themselves disgraced by being flogged, but that a regiment was also disgraced by having a man flogged in it, no doubt it Would be productive of great advantage to the army; but, until such a feeling was generated among them, lie must contend for the necessity, much as he lamented it, of vesting in courts martial the power of corporal punishment. Entertaining such opinions, he could not give his consent to the proposition which had been submitted to the House by the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir R. Fergusson, although he agreed in much of what had just fallen from his hon. and gallant friend, yet differed from him in some points, and should certainly vote for the amendment. He was persuaded that the proposed experiment could never be made at a properer time than the present. His hon. and gallant friend had told the House ho had done the utmost he could to prevent corporal punishment in his own regiment. He was well persuaded of that, knowing, as he did, his hon. and gallant friend's character. There was also, he was most ready to
1038
allow, a great change generally on this subject. When he (sir R. F.) first commanded a regiment, it was conceived requisite to punish every venial offence by flogging, and he was sorry to say, that he had too frequently consented to the infliction. But latterly he saw the folly of the thing, and had tried as much as he could to do it away; and, since that period, he had seen several regiments highly disciplined, in which corporal punishment was wholly unknown. As the clause was restricted to our troops at home; and as the vote was an annual one, on those grounds and on those alone, he would support the clause. He knew there were difficulties attendant on the question. But really, in the present state of the army, it was much better, when a man committed any serious offence, to send him out of the regiment, it being so easy to supply his place. If his hon. friend's clause had extended to regiments on service abroad, he would have opposed it? For no man who had seen any thing of military service, could believe that it was practicable to preserve order on a line of march, without a power of inflicting summary punishment. In what other way could marauders and felons be kept down under such circumstances? He sincerely believed, that when an army was on foreign service, the fear of the summary punishment was necessary for its security. But his hon. friend's proposition was only for an experiment at home and he should therefore vote for it.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that his hon. and gallant friend near him (sir H. Vivian) had so ably stated the merits of the question that it remained for him only to add a very few words. In fact, the last part of what had just fallen from the hon. general opposite, almost exceeded the principle for which he (lord P.) contended. The only difference between I them being as to the extent. The hon. general considered the power of inflicting the punishment applicable to foreign service. He (lord P.) thought it as applicable to home service. It was allowed on all hands that the punishment was not abused: that the practice of inflicting corporal punishment was much less frequent than formerly; and that it was in consequence of the efforts of the commander-in-chief that it had been so diminished. The proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen went to take away a power, which he (lord P.) contended was absolutely necessary. It went to

1039
abolish it too, not in remote stations, where the power of inflicting corporal punishment might be more liable to abuse, but to abolish it at home, where its abuse must of necessity be less, subject as it was to so much more immediate and operative a check.
The House then divided—For the Clause 47: Against it 127: Majority 80.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Monck. J. B.

Althorp, visc.

Newport, sir J.

Baring, Alex.

Nugent, lord

Barrett, S. M.

Parnell, sir H.

Bennel, hon. H. G.

Phillips, G.

Birch, J.

Philips, G. H.

Bond, J.

Rice, T. S.

Bridges, sir. J.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Colborne N. W. R.

Robarts, A.

Denison, W. J.

Robarts, G.

Duncannon, visc.

Robinson, sir G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Smith, J.

Grenfell, P.

Smith, R.

Gurney, H.

Stanley, lord

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Sykes, D.

James, W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Kennedy, T. F.

Warre, J. A.

Lamb, hon. G.

Western, C. C.

Lennard, T. B.

Williams, W.

Lloyd, S. J.

Wood, M.

Lushington, S.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Leader, W,

TELLERs.

Maberly, J.

Maberly, W. L.

Hume, J.

Martin, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Mr. Humenext adverted, to the manner in which the purchase of commissions was at present effected, contrary to the regulation of the commander-in-chief, by which a certain sum only was allowed to be given for them. He believed many gentlemen were not aware of the declaration which officers made when they purchased promotion. That declaration was as follows "I do declare and certify, on the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I did not allow in any way or manner, more than the sum of—as the fair value of the said commission." And underneath were the following words—"I hereby also declare, that I have made no clandestine bargain with respect to the said commission." Now, notwithstanding this declaration, there was scarcely one case in ten, in which officers received their commissions at the regulation price, though they thus certified that fact. The commander of the forces and the secretary at war could not be ignorant of what was done, and ought, therefore, to cancel such a useless declaration.
1040
Year after year, the jobbing and traffic in commissions was carried on. He believed there was not an officer who did not consider this to be a regulation which ought immediately to be discontinued. With a view to the attainment of this object, he would move for the introduction of a clause stating, "That officers be not required to make a certificate, that they have purchased their commissions at the regulation price." The situation of officers, in consequence of the existence of the present declaration, was exceedingly unpleasant. They were obliged to certify on their word, that which, if they were placed in a jury-box, they would be compelled on oath to deny. He therefore hoped that a respect for the honour of the army would induce the House to approve of this clause.
Sir H. Hardingeadmitted, that under the present order, officers were placed in a most unpleasant situation. Fully persuaded of this, he had made it his duty to inquire into the matter, and he found it was under consideration in the proper quarter, to recall this very objectionable declaration or certificate [hear]. Gentlemen should, however, recollect, that this certificate was introduced to remedy a great evil; namely, the constant traffic in commissions, by which the officers of the army had been most seriously injured. The duke of York was anxious, by the regulation relative to the price of commissions, to preserve and secure the interests of the less wealthy officers. Under that regulation, it was impossible for a junior officer however rich, to step over the head of a senior officer, so long as the latter had the means of putting down the stipulated price for his commission, which was a point of very great importance. It certainly was fitting, in altering the system, to take care that the door should not be again opened to that extensive jobbing which prevailed before the certificate was introduced. He knew, however, that that form was viewed with hostile feelings by the army; and he had learned from a source on which he could implicitly rely, that measures were in contemplation for recalling this objectionable certificate. Under these circumstances, he conceived it would be wrong to agree to the clause proposed by the hon. gentleman, and he should therefore vote against it.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was certainly desirous that this declaration should be

1041
done away with without the interference of the House, and he was glad to hear his hon. and gallant friend say, that it was to be so. But he wished to hear it also from the noble Secretary at war; for unless he heard it from him he must vote for his hon. friend's motion. His hon. and gallant friend said, that the declaration was intended to prevent jobbing. But, did not jobbing exist at present? Could a young man in the army, who desired promotion, obtain it, except after endless year of delay, unless he paid double the regulation price? Every person who had a friend in any of the cavalry or hussar, or what were called crack regiments, knew the enormous sums that were given for promotion.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that this was a question full of difficulty. As to the clause proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he really was at a loss to understand it as the hon. gentleman read it. The Mutiny bill had been described as a mass of unintelligible clauses; if so, he was sure its character would not be improved, if the clause proposed by the hon. member were added to it. He repeated, however, that the subject was full of difficulties. The practice itself of selling commissions was one which, fairly estimating all its advantages and disadvantages it decidedly appeared to be expedient to continue. It brought into the army many persons connected with the higher classes of society, and diffused a spirit that was very advantageous. If, however, commissions were allowed to be sold, it was obviously necessary to limit the price that was to be paid for them; for if not, and if every officer were permitted to bid according to his means and to his desire of promotion, abuses would take place beyond all calculation. An old and a poor officer would never get forward. Junior officers would overstep the most meritorious seniors. How, then, did the regulation in question apply? First, he would take the case of a commission sold by an officer in one regiment to an officer in another. There, there could be no difficulty—no danger of an infraction of the regulation. For the officer who wished to sell, applied to the commander-in-chief, and never came in contact with the officer who wished to purchase. He would next take the case of a regimental succession. Suppose it a majority that was to be sold. The senior captain had the pre-emption, if his means enabled him to purchase. Now, what temptation had he
1042
to give more than the regulation price? The only case where it was probable that a larger sum than the regulation price was given, was where an individual, not disposed to sell, was tempted by the subscription of persons who wished to obtain a step in promotion, and who knew that there were strong claims which rendered it infinitely probable that the commission would be given in the corps. In exchange to half-pay, the danger of infraction of the regulation was less than in any other case; for the officer never came in contact with the other party. He applied to the commander-in-chief, and the commander-in-chief took from the list in his possession some one individual to place in the situation of the officer who retired. It was, therefore, only in the case which he had described that it was likely an officer would be tempted to do that which was manifestly improper. As his hon. and gallant friend had stated, the expediency of recalling this declaration had been under consideration. The existing inconveniences had for some time been felt; and an attempt had been made to remedy them by increasing the price of commissions. Still, however, in a case in which a number of officers were exposed to a temptation to which they ought not to be subject, it was considered desirable that the declaration should be recalled. Of course when he said that this recall was under consideration, he should not be understood to describe any specific measure which it was intended to adopt. The very fact of the declaration being under consideration implied that no specific measure had been determined on. He decidedly objected to the hon. gentleman's clause, however; first, because as far as he could collect the import of it, it did not appear calculated to effect the hon. gentleman's own object; and, secondly, because that object was under the consideration of those to whom the consideration of such questions properly belonged.
Mr. Grey Bennetsaid, he had some years ago, introduced this subject to the notice of parliament. It was one which nearly concerned the honour of the army; for nothing could be more galling to gentlemen than to be called on to put their names to a paper of this kind, well knowing, as they did, that the regulation to which it referred had not been obeyed Under these circumstances, he trusted that the commander-in-chief and the noble lord would turn their attention to the subject, and get rid

1043
of this declaration. It had been said that this traffic was not carried on,—just in the same way as they were told at times that a seat was never sold in that House, and that a voter was never bribed though every body out of the House knew that seats were sold; and there were not a few who could point out not only the seats that had been thus obtained, but the sums paid for them. Colonel Dawkins said, that the necessity of subscribing the certificate in question had long been a source of grief and shame to the army, and he was happy to hear that the commander-in-chief contemplated an alteration of system with respect to it. Under these circumstances he must oppose the clause of the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir H. Vivianwas anxious that the certificate should be done away with, but could not support the proposed clause, as it was not the proper mode of accomplishing the object.
Mr. Humesaid, that after the reprobation which the system had met with from both sides of the House, he would not press his motion, but would beg leave to withdraw the clause.
The clause was withdrawn, and the bill was passed.

IRISH PROTESTANT CHARTER-SCHOOLS.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Irish miscellaneous Estimates, Mr. Goulburn moved, "That 21,615 l. be granted to defray the expense of the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland, for the year 1814." He briefly stated the reasons which rendered it necessary to call for a larger vote for this purpose, in the present, than in the former year. It was occasioned by the desire of the government to relieve the Foundling-hospital from the care and maintenance of a considerable number of children who had now arrived at the age of 13 or 14, and whom it was proposed to spread over the different charter-schools.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Protestant charter-schools were a mere charity, and ought to be supported by the funds which had been left for that purpose. If parliament were called upon to grant money, it should be for general education, and not for the service of a particular class. Last year the right hon. secretary pledged his word that the sum demanded this year would be less than it was theft: but instead of
1044
that, there was an increase of 4,615 l. He should therefore, bearing in mind the reduction promised by the right hon. secretary last year, move as an amendment, that 14,000 l. be substituted for 21,615 l.
Sir J. Newportmaintained, that all the grants respecting education in Ireland ought to be postponed until the House had declared the principle on which they, would proceed with respect to them. The doling out separate sums in this manner destroyed the benefit which it was in tended to confer. He wished the subject to be treated as a whole, and to be submitted to a committee above stairs, for the purpose of ascertaining in what way the bounty of parliament could be rendered, most available. He would move as an amendment, that the present resolution be postponed.
Mr. Goulburnwas utterly at a loss to conceive why, because it might be desirable to appoint a committee to inquire into the present state of education in Ireland, the charitable institutions for that object should suddenly be deprived of their usual support. With respect to charter-schools, he admitted that the establishments were more in the light charitable institutions than of places, where systems of education were laid down. As a charitable system he was prepared to maintain it.
Sir M. W. W. Ridleysaid, they were now going to vote away a sum of money, and were told, that an inquiry into the subject of education in Ireland was immediately intended; was it then, under these circumstances, too much to ask a delay of ten days or a fortnight?
Mr. C. Grantdid not think that the inquiry as to the state of education in Ireland could possibly end during the session. With respect to charter-schools in Ireland, he condemned the principle, on which they were founded. He regretted that the estimate under the consideration of the House had been increased in amount this year. He must object to the institution of charter-schools, because he was convinced that the public money might be laid out to more advantage. There were powerful objections to them, both of a local and general nature. They were opposed to the feelings of the people of Ireland, and to their prejudices. The grant, however, could not be suddenly withdrawn, and for the present he would not oppose it.
Lord Althorpsaid, that what had fallen

1045
from the right hon. gentleman carried with it great weight. If it was clearly to be understood, that an inquiry into the system of education would take place, he would not object to the vote for the present year.
Mr. Goulbumsaid, that with respect to a committee, he could not give any pledge or opinion one way or the other.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he could not but discover an alteration in the tone of the right hon. gentleman with respect to education in Ireland, and rather feared that the right hon. gentleman would oppose the motion for a committee. The House had now, for the first time during the last ten years, been called upon to give its approbation to the principle of charter-schools in Ireland. In former years, the failure of those establishments was admitted, and promises were made, that the grants would be reduced. But now the right hon. gentleman proposed to augment them. The right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to show a connexion between charter-schools and the Foundling-hospital. But that connection would make him more disposed to oppose the grant. He objected to charter-schools, because they were founded on an exclusive principle. He objected to that principle as much as he did to the proposition brought forward by the Catholic clergy the other night. He did not wish to see an exclusive system of education, either by the Catholics or by the Protestants, at the public expense; and, in his opinion, the House could only justify the refusal to the Catholics by discountenancing an exclusive system for the Protestants. With respect to the Foundling-hospital, that establishment was formerly supported by a tax on the citizens of Dublin. They complained of it, and the tax was removed; but then came down an augmented vote for that establishment—an establishment which had greatly added to the vice, the misery, and the sufferings of the people of Ireland. The principle had the same effect invariably, wherever it was applied; and it was a curious fact, that in Paris, since the institution of a foundling hospital in that city, the exposures of children had increased from the ratio of one in ten, to the ratio of one in three.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Irish government had formerly pledged itself to reduce the grant. It had accordingly been partially reduced: but now it was proposed, notwithstanding the pledge of the
1046
government, to increase it by a sum of 4,000 l. This was a positive breach of good faith on the part of the Irish governments.
The House divided: For the Amendment 33: For the original Resolution 74.

List of the Minority.

Alhorp, visc.

Martin, J.

Barrett, S. M.

Monck, J. B.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Newport, sir J.

Bernal, R.

Parnell sir H.

Davies, T. H.

Phillips, G.

Denison, E.

Rickford, W.

Duncannon, visc.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Fergusson, sir R.

Robarts, A. W.

Gordon, R.

Robarts, G.

Grosvenor, gen.

Robinson, sir G.

Guise, sir B. W.

Stanley, lord

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Hume, J.

Tremayne, J. H.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Western, C. C.

James, W.

Whitbread, S. C.

Kennedy, T. F.

Williams, J.

Leader, W.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Lennard, T. B.

Lamb, hon. G.

TELLER.

Macdonald, J.

Rice, T. S.