§ Mr. Attwood rose, persuant to the notice he had given, to move for copies of any orders from the Treasury, by authority of which the duties on Wine were, now levied without the authority of law. The imposition of any duty without the sanction of Parliament was a violation of the Constitution, and it was no answer to a charge of that kind, to say that it had been done by others in office. The House was bound to vindicate its own authority, and not allow it to be usurped by any individual whatever. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had defended the collection of the Wine duties on a former day, by stating that it was the practice of the Treasury to issue orders to that effect as soon as the Resolutions of the House, settling, that any duties should be levied, had been reported. But the Resolutions of the House gave no authority of that kind. All they stated was, that it was expedient that such and such duties should be collected, but they did not mention when the collection should take place. The noble Lord had asked him the other night, whether he had attended a meeting of Members out of the House. To that question he replied in the negative. He was not disposed to discuss out of that House matters which were fitter to be debated within its walls. But if he mistook not, the noble Lord had himself convened an inner Parliament, either at the Treasury or the Foreign-Office, and, that questions, were there discussed, and the Members were disciplined and marshalled into the House, not to debate, but to vote. That was the course adopted with respect to the Wine duties, and he believed, that the Members who were pledged to Reform voted for them with so much want of consideration, that it might be supposed, that they considered those duties as forming part of the Reform Bill. He called on the House to consider how the business of the country was neglected, while 743 the attention of Parliament was entirely engrossed by the subject of the Reform Bill. Besides the imposition of additional duties on wine, there had been taxes repealed to the amount of 1,500,000l. without authority of law. This was a course of proceeding which was perfectly unjustifiable, unconstitutional, and illegal. For the Treasury to levy large sums upon the people, without the authority of the other branches of the Legislature, was a perfect mockery of law. It was an utter violation of the principles of the Constitution; and, if persevered in, would lead to circumstances of a most destructive character. The noble Lord had taken the House by surprise, by introducing the subject of the Wine duties without notice, in a Committee upon the Customs' Acts, which made the whole matter most objectionable. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the House a copy of the authority under which his Majesty's Board of Customs have proceeded to levy additional duties upon all wines not French, delivered out of the warehouses or quays for home consumption, on and since the 20th day of July last."
§ Lord Althorpthought, the hon. Member had spoken with somewhat more vehemence than the occasion called for. Before he made an observation on the Motion he wished to say a word on the question of Members meeting out of the House. He could never have meant, by the allusion he made on a former night, to cast any imputation or blame on the hon. Member for having, with others, also Members of Parliament, met in a large number to determine what should be the course of conduct they, in their places in Parliament, should pursue whenever they felt their interests concerned. He had been too long a Member of that House, and too long fully convinced, that it was a great public benefit to the country that there should exist what were called parties of public men, who acted together in the senate, to question the right such men had to meet and deliberate upon topics of peculiar interest to themselves. He did not recollect, that he had mentioned at the meeting alluded to, any thing about the Wine duties, or the course to be pursued concerning them, further than this, that some person present had asked him, when the subject would come on, and it was arranged that it should come on in the Committee upon the Customs' 744 Acts. He had no objection to the Motion, but wished to amend it so far as to include within it a great number of preceding orders, which had been made by the Board of Treasury, on similar occasions. He thought it would be very inexpedient that the measures of the Government should be such as to cause a race amongst those who had stock in the market, that they might get it in immediately after the Resolution was passed, and before the duty was levied. His Majesty's Ministers had, on this occasion, adopted the uniform practice when Resolutions were agreed to which varied the rate of duties. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, if any parties had chosen to refuse payment of the duties, there was no means of compelling them. But the only effect would be, that when the Act passed, the duties would be levied. He should move, as an amendment, "that copies of all the Orders of the Treasury by which duties were levied on the authority of Resolutions of that House, since the 1st of January, 1800, be laid before the House, together with the Resolutions on which the same were founded."
§ Mr. George Robinsonhad no doubt that precedents could be found to justify the noble Lord, but he thought they would be "more honoured in the breach than the observance." With respect to the argument, that if the duties were not immediately levied, parties would take advantage, and send into the market all the wine on hand, the same thing might be said of the proposition in the Budget which, in the usual course, might be expected to be confirmed by Acts of Parliament. A resolution of this House should, in this case, not have the force of law. Great delay, he was aware, had taken place, and many public interests were neglected, merely on the ground of the Reform Bill. As yet there was no day fixed for bringing forward the subject of the Wine duties, and he objected decidedly to the conduct which had been pursued.
Mr. Goulburnimputed no serious blame to the noble Lord, and he thought, that for the benefit of trade, the date of any decrease or increase of duties should be particularly specified in the resolutions of that House. But in the Resolution on the Wine duties, no specific date was fixed, and that must have injured those persons who were particularly interested in the trade. The complaint here 745 was, that new duties had been imposed without the consent of Parliament, and to that no answer had been made. In previous cases, when duties were levied merely upon a resolution of that House, bills had been immediatly passed, and no such delay as on this occasion had taken place. The other House of Parliament had a right to a negative upon duties, although they could not originate them. The present case, if drawn into a precedent, would be extremely dangerous to the privileges of the House of Commons, but still more so to the privileges of the other branch of the Legislature, upon a point upon which its privileges were already very limited.
§ Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the present Government followed the precedent of 1825, which had the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). The question was, not an increase or decrease of tax, but, as it was now argued, was one of date. And the question then, as now, related to the Wine duties. The omission of the date had nothing to do with the question, as admitted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). It was for the convenience of trade that the course now pursued had been adopted. Whether Parliament might or might not alter what had been done he could not say, but if it were altered, it would be attended with considerable difficulty.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, as regarded the privileges of either House, the question was the same, whether it was an imposition or reduction of duty; but the complaint was that the duty had been levied in this case, when all that had been done formerly was, to take security for the payment. Merchants were not in general fond of paying money if they could avoid it.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it should be recollected, that this was not a slight change, but was a remodelling of the whole constitution of the Wine duties. That Ministers should take upon themselves to dissolve the Methuen Treaty, to encourage the importation of French wine, to adopt the anti-colonial policy of increasing the duty on Cape wines, upon a resolution of the House only, was a matter deserving their most serious attention, and he was glad that his hon. friend had brought it under their notice.
§ Mr. Courtenaycomplained of the time that had elasped. Resolutions of this nature ought not to be proposed unless the Government were prepared with a bill 746 founded upon them. With respect to the case of 1825, that was a measure of relief, while this was an imposition of duty, which made all the difference.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that directions had been given to prepare the Bill; and it was under peculiar circumstances that it had been delayed.
Mr. Callaghansaid, that in all cases of increase of duty, no man should be allowed to tax the public without an Act of Parliament, and the duty should take place only on the passing of the bill. A great injustice would be done to parties living at a distance.
§ Mr. Attwood, in reply, observed, that this was a most unconstitutional measure, and the righthon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) seemed to consider there was little difference between imposing and reducing a duty. That was quite worthy of a member of the Government whose first act, on coming into office, was to take the duty off barilla, not only without, an Act of Parliament, but absolutely without even a Resolution of the House. The Government had no right to enact a repeal of duties at its own pleasure and leisure, when there was nothing else to do.
§ The Motion, as amended by Lord Althorp, agreed to.