HC Deb 21 March 1833 vol 16 cc905-7
Lord Althorp

seeing the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) in his place, wished again to ask him whether he would persevere in the Motion of which he had given notice for this day.

Mr. Thomas Attwood

replied that it certainly was his intention to persevere.

Sir John Wrottesley

thought, he did no more than his duty in endeavouring to dissuade the hon. member for Birmingham from persevering. Being a very old Member of the House, he could assure the hon. Member that it would be for the disadvantage of those whose interests his Motion was intended to promote if he persevered. The Motion would not meet that attention which it ought to receive. The most important Motion of the Session ought not to be brought forward in opposition to the general sense of the House, which was, that the Irish Disturbances Bill should be persevered in until it was disposed of.

Mr. Thomas Allwood

said, on account of the importance of his Motion, it was his intention to persevere.

Sir William Ingilby

said, he had a Motion on the paper for the repeal of the Malt-duties; and, though he was anxious not to throw any difficulties in the way of the public business, he really could not consent to postpone it. No doubt the Irish Disturbances Bill was a very important measure; but the people of England had also a right to be heard in that House. The agricultural interest of the country was deeply interested in the question he was about to bring forward; and if he consented to its postponement he should have no opportunity of bringing it forward until the end of the Session. In order that the agricultural interest might obtain a hearing, he had placed his Motion on the order-book at an early period of the Session, and he should now maintain its precedence over the other Motions for the day. The question as to the Repeal of the duty on malt, he contended, was one of the most vital questions that could be entertained by that House or the country.

The Speaker

inquired whether the hon. Baronet had resolved to proceed with his Motion.

Sir William Ingilby

replied in the affirmative.

Lord Althorp

said, that as the hon. member for Birmingham had determined to persevere, he felt he could not ask the hon. Baronet to postpone his Motion.

Sir Edward Knatchbull

expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not persevere in bringing forward his Motion that night; owing to the attention of the House being fixed upon another very important and pressing subject, it was impossible for them to give the subject of the Malt-tax the consideration which it deserved. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Baronet would consent to take some future day, when the matter could undergo that discussion which, from the general interest taken in it by the agricultural classes, it was important, for their satisfaction, it should receive.

Sir William Ingilby

resisted the imputation which, as he asserted, the hon. Baronet, the member for Kent, evidently wished to cast upon his motives in bringing forward his Motion on the subject of the Malt-tax on the present occasion—namely, of washing to sink the agricultural interests lower than they now were. He was as true and as warm a friend to the agricultural classes as the hon. Baronet himself; and he was best performing his duties to those classes by endeavouring to impress on the House the necessity for affording them some relief.

Sir Edward Knatchbull

regretted to see the hon. Baronet under so great a mistake with respect to what he had said on the subject of his Motion. All he had asked the hon. Baronet to do was to postpone his Motion until it could receive that consideration which from its importance, it deserved; and which, owing to pressing business before the House, it could not that night receive. He was far from imputing to the hon. Baronet any desire to sink the agricultural classes.

Back to
Forward to