Commons Sitting of 4 April 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WALLACE, from Cupar, for the Conveyance of the Mail direct through Fife. —By several Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, complaining of the advantage enjoyed by the Proprietors of the Post-office Shipping Gazette over the Proprietors of similar Publications,—By Mr. WALLACE, from Greenock, com-
734
plaining of the Exportation of Foreign made Biscuit and Flour in Bond as Merchandise; but in reality for the consumption of the Ships' crews.— By Mr. HINDLEY and Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Monmouth and another place, for Reduction of the Duty on Tobacco.—By several Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for Repeal of Duty on Soap.—By Mr. HUME, from Collonsay, Argyleshire, complaining of Distress.—By Colonel THOMPSON, from several places, for Repeal of Corn-laws; and from Kingston-upon-Hull, for County-rates Bill.—By Mr. G. F. YOUNG, from Tynemouth, for Repeal of Duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. Fox MAULE, from Aberfeldy and Coupar Angus, for Small Debts (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord G. LENNOX, Mr. BROTHERTON, and other Hon. MEMBERS, from Radford, Wakefield, Wigan, and various other places, for Amendment and Repeal of Poor-law Act.—By Mr. RAMSBOTTOM, against Repeal of the said Act.— By several Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the proposed measure for Repeal of Church-rates.—By several Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the Abolition of Church-rates.

PRIMOGENITURE.
Mr. Ewartrose to renew the motion which he made in vain last Session—that landed property should be made subject to the same laws as personal property, and that in cases where the deceased left no will (and where there was no settlement to the contrary) landed property should, like personal property, be equally distributed among the children or the next relations of the deceased. He believed this to be a subject which, if it did not now interest, would some day certainly interest, the nation. As the merits of feudal prejudice and error were dispelled it would be clearly seen how this proposal was fraught with justice, good policy, and truth. Last year when he made this motion he received no answer, or, if his opponents gave him an answer, they were guiltless of giving him any reason. The Attorney and Solicitor-General ought really to blush for the sophistry with which they met the proposition; and, if he thought the Attorney and Solicitor-General could blush, he should have respectfully asked them to do so on that occasion. But he would come to the point at once with those learned and hon. Gentlemen—he would plunge in medias res, and demand distinct answers from them on the practical legal advantages which he maintained would flow from the proposed alteration. First, he would ask them whether it would not in frequent instances prevent injustice, and carry into effect the real intentions of the deceased? The Solicitor-General said last year that this measure would only meet one case in a hundred. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had pursued his inquiries during the recess, he would find that he had been mistaken. Such cases were familiar. But he would only refer the law officers of the

735
Crown to a most able treatise (in which their reasoning was triumphantly refuted) by Mr. Bailey, the distinguished author of the "Rationale of Political Representation." That Gentleman had pointed out cases, which in any town in the kingdom it was easy to do, of gross injustice resulting from bestowing all the freehold landed property on the eldest son only. As this was a matter of allegation and proof, he (Mr. Ewart) would cite the cases put by that Gentleman, and leave the Attorney and Solicitor-General to deal with them as they could. One case was this: "J. P. purchased a freehold public-house, and some cottages adjoining, for 1,500 l. and borrowed on mortgage 800 l. He died suddenly, intestate, leaving seven children. The eldest son took out letters of administration, sold all the personal property, and after liquidating the few simple contract debts of the deceased, paid off with the remaining proceeds the mortgage on the freehold estate, and took possession of it as heir at law. His brothers and sisters were left entirely destitute, and were obliged to have recourse to the parish." I ask the Attorney and Solicitor-General whether this is not a case in which justice, and the probable intentions of the deceased, were defeated; and I respectfully pause for their reply. Again: "A. B. a thriving manufacturer, bought the fee simple of the premises on which he carried on his business. He expended a considerable sum in improvements, and, in doing so, contracted debts. Had he lived he would in all likelihood have discharged these debts, and realised a handsome fortune. But he died suddenly, intestate, leaving two sons. Nearly the whole personal property went in paying off the debts contracted in improving the freehold; and unless the elder son, on coming of age, acts with a justice beyond the law, his brother will be left in a state of destitution." Again, I put this practical case, founded on fact, to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and I wait for their demonstration of the justice of the existing law. But I abstain from citing further cases. I refer my hon. and learned Friends to the book, and to the irrefragable assertion which it contains, that instances such as these abound. I proceed to another legal point; and I ask the Attorney and Solicitor General this question—would it, or would it not, be a public good that the law respecting the
736
two species of property should be uniform? What can be more absurd than that, of two species of property, differing not in essence but in name, one should descend all to the eldest son, while the other is divided equally among the children? Such is the law as it stands at present. A man possesses a freehold, and a leasehold property for 999 years. What is the essential difference between the two? Yet the freehold property goes exclusively to one; the 999 years' lease is equally distributed among all the children. But the author already cited had put this absurd inconsistency of the law in making the descent vary according to the tenure (or rather according to the name) of the property in so striking a point of view that he (Mr. Ewart) could not do better than give his description to the House: "A merchant dies without a will; he leaves a share in an old inland navigation company worth 2,000 l.; this (by the inconsistency of the law) is deemed freehold estate; consequently, the eldest son takes it all. He leaves, further, 2,000 l. worth of shares in a modern canal; this is all deemed personal property, and goes among his children equally. He leaves a freehold mansion worth 4,000 l., subject to a perpetual rent charge; this goes entirely to the eldest son. And he leaves a warehouse worth 4,000 l., built on land leased for 999 years; this is divided equally among the children." Again he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the law should not be uniform? Did they admit it? They would not say that the personal property should all go to the eldest son, like landed property. Then they could only come to the same conclusion with himself (Mr. Ewart), and make landed property (in cases of intestacy) descend in the same just and equal manner with the personal estate of the deceased. Another question on the legal bearing of this proposal he would put to the hon. and learned Gentlemen. It was this—would it not be better that all property, landed like personal, should pass through the executor or administrator, instead of passing the real property through the heirs of the deceased, and the personal property through his executor? The executor and administrator are easily found; they are recognised representatives; the heirs may be scattered in different localities, or they may be unknown; this uncertainty involves litigation. Uniformity and economy would

737
be at once consulted by using, for both species of property, the same channel of conveyance, and adopting, as the representative both of landed and personal property, the executor or administrator of the deceased. On this point, also, he expected the answer of his hon. and learned Friends; and unless their affection for Chancery suits dimmed their intellectual vision (which he could not believe) he should have their answer in the affirmative. But it was by no means to mere legal amendment that the operation of this change would be confined. It was better for the commerce of the country that land should be subject to the same laws, chargeable with the same obligations, and descendible in the same manner, as personal property; that it should have the same rules of interchange and distribution, and be endowed with no qualities of artificial accumulation. In a more comprehensive and political view of the question he would ask what civilised nation had not approached, more or less, to the principle of equal distribution? Such had been, in a greater or less degree, the law of the ancients; such was the law of the most enlightened modern nations. "In the code of Justinian," says Gibbon, in his celebrated view of the Roman law, in the 44th chapter of his "Decline and Fall," "the insolent prerogative of primogeniture was unknown; the two sexes were placed on a just level; all the sons and daughters were entitled to an equal share of the patrimonial estate." The same view is taken by the most eminent writers on the science of legislation. He would refer them to the pages of Filangieri and of Bentham. Or, if they wished for an authority to which both parties would look with reverence, he would cite the words of Adam Smith, who said (in his "Wealth of Nations"), "This natural law of succession took place among the Romans, who made no more distinction between elder and younger, between male and female, in the inheritance of lands, than we do in the distribution of moveables. In the disorderly feudal times the security of a landed estate depended on its greatness. Hence the origin of the law of primogeniture. In the present state of Europe the proprietor of a single acre is as perfectly secure of his possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand." And this is manifestly the view taken of the origin of primogeniture by Burke in his "History of England." But,
738
perhaps, Gentlemen preferred a legal authority on this subject. If so, let them turn to the pages of Blackstone. In the second volume they will find this passage: "The too great accumulation of property is the natural consequence of our doctrine of succession by primogeniture, to which the Athenians were strangers. Of this accumulation the ill effects were felt even in feudal times: but it should always be strongly discouraged in a commercial country, whose welfare depends on the number of moderate fortunes engaged in the extension of trade?" Let me ask (said the hon. Gentleman) whether the sense of property, the feeling that he has something which he can call his own, is not a natural bond which links a man, be he rich or be he poor, to the country of his birth? We acknowledge the truth of this principle in the case of the rich; why should we renounce it in the case of the poor? The feeling of proprietorship is the parent of social freedom and of personal independence. In countries like Norway, and France, and America, where it abounds, you will readily trace its results in the elevated independence of the people. The word "poor" may be familiar there, but the word "pauper" is unknown. Is it or is it not wise to extend to as many of the people as possible an interest in the well-being of the community? If such a policy be generally wise it is much more so in times like these, when education and habits of good order are extending and giving an additional guarantee for the independence and virtue of the less wealthy portion of the people. But, he would ask, were they not themselves recognising this principle in adopting the allotment system? This system of letting out small portions of land to the labouring class was generally approved; and if good conduct and independence were the results of leasing small holdings, the principle must hold equally good, and even be more apparent, when the labourer is a small proprietor instead of being a small tenant. But it is not to the independent character alone, it is to the moral and social feelings engendered by the systems of equal and unequal partibility of property that the legislator ought to look. AH experience and the evidence of all writers shewed that, where the system of primogeniture prevails, the bad passions, the more selfish motives are encouraged, while domestic peace and social harmony

739
are the offspring of the principle of equal partibility. He might be mistaken (and he hoped he was): but it was his opinion that when history came to trace effects to their real causes, to investigate not only the outward laws, but the inward manners and habits of the people, much of what was monstrous in the social and political condition of this country would be traced to the prevalence of the law and custom of primogeniture. Around this false principle the evil passions, human interest, selfish motives, the darker feelings which injustice engendered, grew to taint and poison the atmosphere around them. Around the opposite principle of equal partibility you find the household virtues, the endearing affections of domestic life—unestranged by the insolent injustice of an unequal law—the gentler feelings, which at once bind together, and bless and adorn society. He confessed he looked forward to the time when such feelings would be prevalent in this country. At all events, where the testator was silent, let not the law be presumptively unjust. It was something that the principles of the law should teach the people to think rightly—to think justly. With this impression On his mind he moved "That leave be given to bring in a bill, providing that in cases of intestacy (and in the absence of any settlement to the contrary) landed property be equally divided amongst the children or the nearest relatives of the deceased."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion, and could not help expressing a wish that the hon. proposer would turn his time and attention to practical reforms of the law, which would be much more acceptable to the House and beneficial to the public than theoretical propositions. If the arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool went for anything, they went to support the practice of an equal distribution of property, which prevailed in France. [Mr. Ewart, No.] He could not understand the arguments of the hon. Member to have any other bearing. He must say, that he preferred the English law to that of France, as being infinitely the better of the two. The hon. Member for Liverpool had said the latter indeed was calculated to promote domestic peace and filial affection, but he was of a different opinion, and thought that the English law was eminently fitted to produce those desirable effects, inasmuch as it contributed to
740
maintain the proper authority of the parents over their families. The hon. Member had said, that his proposal would simplify the law and reduce litigation. He believed on the contrary that it would create complete confusion, and instead of preventing litigation would increase it fiftyfold. It would require the introduction of an entirely new code of laws, because by the present law of England the distinction between real and personal property was universal; and if a law were passed to destroy that distinction, volumes of fresh statutes would be required to meet the cases, and provide for the consequences of such an alteration. But he would ask, where was the demand for this alteration? The House had received no petitions praying for it; no public meetings had been called to discuss the question and to declaim against the existing law; no, but a pamphlet had been written and because certain speculative opinions had been put forth in that pamphlet, the hon. Member for Liverpool would have the House agree to the great and universal change which he had proposed to make. He would not oppose any change in the existing law which was likely to be beneficial to the country, but he considered that the alteration contemplated by the hon. Member would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the whole community, and therefore he must oppose it. Indeed, it seemed to him, that in this respect the existing law required no alteration whatever. He must add, that he thought no good could result from the introduction of such a bill as the hon. Member asked for into that House; and that, in fact, it would only be wasting that time which might be much more beneficially employed, and therefore he should give his vote against the motion.
The House divided—Ayes 21: Noes 54:—Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Brady, D. C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bridgeman, H.

Ruthven, E.

Brotherton, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Collins, W.

Thornley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Villiers, C. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Whalley, Sir S.

Grote, G.

Williams, W.

Hardy, J.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Ewart, W.

Leader, J, T.

Roebuck, J. A.

741

List of the NOES.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Archdall, M.

Ossulston, Lord

Balfour, T.

Palmer, G.

Barclay, D.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Baring, F. T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Richards, R.

Barron, H. W.

Robinson, G. R.

Bateson, Sir R.

Ross, C.

Bernal, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Sandon, Viscount

Bonham R. F.

Scott, Sir. E. D.

Butler, Sir J. Y.

Sheppard, T.

Dick, Q.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Dundas, hon. T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Eaton, R. J.

Stanley, E. J.

Fector, J. M.

Stanley, E.

Finch, G.

Stanley, Lord

Forster, C. S.

Tracy, C. H.

Gordon, R.

Trevor, hon. A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Twiss, H.

Houlsworth, T.

Vivian, J. H.

Jones, W.

Vivian, J. E.

Leonard, T. B.

Williamson, Sir H.

Lowther, Vise.

Wrightson, W. B.

Lowther, J. H.

Young, G. F.

Lygon, hon. General

Young, J.

Martin, J.

TELLERS.

Maule, hon. F.

Campbell, Sir J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

DUTY ON SOAP.
Mr. Gillonrose to bring forward the motion, of which he had given notice, for the abolition of the duty on soap. He begged it to be understood that he was induced to take up the subject from no feeling of hostility to his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the Government, but simply from the conviction that the duty on soap was one of the most oppressive and impolitic that could be imposed. In bringing the subject forward, he calculated confidently upon the support of all the Radical Members, because the measure, if carried, would tend greatly to benefit the poor; and he calculated not less confidently upon the support of the Conservatives, because he remembered that last year they (the Conservatives) brought forward a similar proposition, in opposition to the reduction of the duty upon newspaper stamps. It was his duty in the first place to show that the state of the revenue was such as to admit of the reduction he proposed, and which he admitted was considerable. It appeared, then, that the surplus revenue, on the 6th of January last, amounted to 2,570,957 l., and that the duty upon soap in the course of the year produced a gross revenue of 977,067 l.; a net revenue, after deducting the drawback the expense of
742
collection and other charges, of 779,067 l. So that after deducting the whole clear revenue paid into the Exchequer arising from the duty on soap, there remained a very considerable surplus of revenue available to the right hon. Gentleman for relieving the people from any other particular burthen which might press heavily upon them. Another reason why the duty on soap should be repealed was, that whereas the duty had gone on rapidly increasing with regard to other articles connected with the excise, the duty on, soap was rapidly decreasing. The strongest proof of this was to be found in the fact, that the quantity of soap on which duty had been charged in 1836 was less than 1835; whilst the increase of consumption on other exciseable articles as bricks, glass, malt, paper, spirits, &c— had caused a surplus, even after the reduction of the paper duty, of about 1,200,000 l.

lbs.

Quantities of soap charged with duty in 1832, before reduction of duty

143,000,000

Ditto, in 1834

152,000,000

11,000,000

Rates of increase per cent, nearly

8,

In 1835 the quantity charged with duty was

160,000,000

Being an increase of 4 per cent. on 1834.

During the last year ending in January, 1836, there had been a decrease of the sum paid into the Exchequer for duty collected on soap from one to two per cent, and during the quarter ending the 5th of April following the decrease had been considerably greater. This had occurred whilst the country was in a state of unexampled prosperity. The only way, therefore, to account for it was, that the population had been supplied with soap by the smugglers. The facilities for smuggling were many: 1st, the concentrated nature of the alkali now used, as compared to that formerly employed. 2d, the great temptation held out to smugglers — the cost of materials being 57 l. 5s., of labour, (including coals) 7l. 5s., duty 35 l.—100 l. for common brown soap. 3d, the number of small manufacturers who took out a licence with the sole purpose of smuggling. 4th, the fact that there were three thousand candlemakers, who had all the utensils and materials on whom there was now no excise survey—these could all smuggle if they chose: 5th, the facilities of intercourse with

743
Ireland where there was no duty. The report of the commissioners showed the system of smuggling going on there, and the annoyance thereby created to the owners of vessels, who were obliged to give large bonds, and incur heavy losses, from the fraud of other people. So that to defraud the revenue of 35 l. an expenditure of 7l. 10 s. only in labour was required. Another objection to the duty on soap was the very obnoxious nature of the excise regulations, which were a serious impediment to all improvement in the manufacture of the article. The absurd nature of the utensils required by law in the manufacture, and the time and labour lost in the process, were beyond belief. The loss by the absurd mode of taking the soap from the frames in one soap manufacture amounted to 600 l. per annum for duty alone. No one could venture to make experiments under the excise regulations, as, even if not charged with duty on the quantity spoiled, it was impossible to keep the result of them secret. Candles were now made by machinery. The restrictions that now existed were Originally imposed in the reign of Queen Anne; but many of them were so utterly impracticable that an open and avowed collusion took place between the Excise-office and the manufacturers, which must necessarily, and in no small degree, tend to promote fraud on the revenue. Again, the duty on soap very seriously interfered with our foreign trade in that article. There had been a very material progressive decrease, during the few past years, in the amount of exportation. The export of soap amounted in

1830 to 14,657,666 lbs.

During these three years there was a bounty on exportation equal to the customs duties.

1831 to 15,506,561 lbs.

1832 to 22,078,000 lbs.

1833 to 25,650,868 lbs.

Year of the reduction of the duty and the abolition of the bounty.

1834 to 23,718,273 lbs.

1835 to 22,946,674 lbs.

The drawback on exportation did not cover the excise duty since the withdrawal of the tenths; besides which, there was a customs duty on the raw materials. Together they amounted to nearly 3l per ton. The British manufacturers were met in the market by the Americans, who being totally free from all excise restrictions, and also from all custom duties on the mate-
744
rials imported necessary for the manufacture, completely drove the British manufacturers out of the market. The latter were also successfully competed with by the French, in the manufacture of the finer descriptions of soap. There was another argument which he wished to press upon the attention of the House. Soap formed a very material ingredient in many of our manufactures; the duty, therefore, on that article was a circumstance that essentially affected the interest of those other branches of manufacture. The drawback paid to manufacturers in 1835, was 54,000 l.; the amount of duty paid on the soap used was 74,000 l. The manufacturers, therefore, paid 20,000 l. duty on soap, besides the increased cost of making it under our excise laws. Besides this, the manufacturers were in the habit, in order to avoid the annoyance and trouble of having their books examined by excise officers, of mixing together pure alkali and oil, and thus forming an imperfect soap, the quality of which was very inferior, but which at the same time paid no duty. One house in the paper trade used to pay 600 l. for soap, who did not now purchase a single pound. Beyond this, there was another interest which would be benefitted to a very considerable extent by the abolition of the duty on soap; he meant the agricultural interest. In consequence of the heavy duty, all except the richer classes used an inferior kind of soap. But were the duty repealed, there was no doubt the consumption of the finer qualities of soap, manufactured from tallow, would be greatly increased, and thereby a considerable spur would be given to the agriculturists. But the most important point of view in which to put the case, in advocating the abolition of this tax, in his opinion, was, to show that it was a tax which operated with very unequal pressure on the different portions of the population, and with the greatest severity on the poor. The excise duty on a ton of soap was 14 l., and the customs duty on the materials might be stated at 3l. more, making together a duty of 17 l. on a ton of soap. Now, the cost of a ton of soap used by the poorer classes, was about 40 l., the duty being, as he had said, 17 l. The cost of a better kind of soap was 60 l. a ton, the duty still being 17 l.; while the cost of a ton of perfumed soap, which was consumed by the rich, was about 100 l., still bearing a duty of only 17 l.; so that the

745
duty of the article consumed by the poor man, amounted to not less than forty-five per cent, of the whole price; while the duty on the article consumed by the rich man, bore only the proportion of from fourteen to twenty per cent, on the whole price. He thought he could not bring forward a stronger reason for the abolition of this duty, than thus to show the inequality of the pressure. Unlike the duty on tobacco or on spirits, which affected only certain portions of the community, the duty on soap was a tax that interested every class. With regard to the duty on tobacco or spirits, the only question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, how high ought the duty to be, consistently with the realisation of any revenue at all; but, with respect to soap, there were other considerations to be attended to; for there was not an individual, from the highest to the lowest, who would not derive a benefit from the abolition of the duty on that article. So great would be the competition in the manufacture of it, that the benefit of the abolition would not go into the pockets of the manufacturers, but would go wholly to the public. It would not be difficult to show, that the abolition of the duty was much more preferable than a reduction of it, because if any portion of the duty were retained, the whole of the machinery for collecting that portion, and for protecting the revenue, must be kept up. The expense of repaying the drawbacks was very great, and the present system gave every facility to fraud. By abolishing the duty, this expense would, of course, be saved. In 1835, the gross duty was 977,122 l., while the drawbacks on exportation on manufactures in Ireland amounted to 198,009 l.; leaving a net revenue of 779,113 l. It must be observed that there were two descriptions of drawback—one paid by the customs on soap exported, and the other by the excise to manufacturers, and requiring distinct sets of officers. It had been said, that the soap duty was reduced in 1833, and therefore other trades ought to have a preference over it in 1837. But to this he would answer, that the reduction of the duty in 1833 was made in consequence of the proved existence of smuggling. But the improvements in the manufacture of alkalies, which were then commencing, had placed the trade in a worse situation with respect to the smug-
746
gler than it was at that time. The facilities for fraud were now greater than ever, which was acknowledged by the Commissioners of Inquiry in their seventeenth Report. It was also said, that glass ought to be relieved in preference to soap. But flint glass had been reduced to a great degree, and sufficiently to prevent smuggling. No one complained of fraud in window or plate glass. The expenditure of labour to make either the one or the other was six or seven times greater than that required for soap, and the difficulty and danger in transmitting it was such as to prevent an extensive illicit trade. The duty on the consumption of glass was rapidly increasing. It was in 1832 745,000 l., in 1833, 862,000 l., in 1834, 922,000 l., in 1835, 966,000 l. Notwithstanding a reduction of 2s. 3d., the duty on flint glass in 1835 was calculated at 155,000 l. The manufacturers of glass did not apply for any reduction. The drawback was a bounty on the export trade, which enabled the manufacturers to compete with foreigners; and the reduction would only benefit the wealthy, and not in the slightest degree the poor. The cost of the materials, labour, and duty on plate and crown glass, and on soap, stood thus:—

Glass.

Soap.

Materials

14 l.

per cwt

57 l.

5s.

For Common brown soap at 40 l per tone.

Labour, including coals

53

7

5

Duty

33

35

0

£100

£100

0

Therefore, to defraud the revenue of 33 l. in the manufacture of glass, required an expenditure of seven times the labour necessary to defraud it of 35 l. on soap. The manufacture of glass required a bulky apparatus, and glass could only be made where coals were cheap. Soap, on the contrary, could be made in a few hours. The apparatus and the materials were in the possession of every candle-maker in the kingdom; the process was simple, so that two tons could be easily made by a man and his son or assistant, in a week. He had always considered this to be a most unjust and oppressive tax; and he trusted he had shown that the revenue of the country was in so flourishing a condition as to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dispense with it altogether. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be called upon to afford relief by the reduction or abolition of other taxes; but

747
it was his (Mr. Gillon's) conviction that there was no tax which was more urgent or which called more immediately for repeal, than the duty on soap. If his Majesty's Government would consent to this proposition, they would thereby confer a been on all the productive classes of the community, and contribute materially to the health, comfort, and happiness of the population at large. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of the soap tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not inclined altogether to discountenance such discussions as the present. It was quite right that hon. Members who had turned their attention to particular subjects connected with the taxation of the country should lay their views and plans before the House, in order that when the general financial statement was proposed, the different claims to relief might be fully, fairly, and deliberately considered. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member, having made his statement, would follow the example of his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, when he brought forward his motion on the subject of marine insurances, and not call for an immediate decision on the case which he had made out. Indeed, if he were to call for an immediate decision, on the ground, for instance, of the present state of income and expenditure as he had stated it, the House would necessarily be led astray, as they must proceed not only on wholly inadequate grounds, but on grounds which were delusive and fallacious. Undoubtedly the revenue of the quarter showed a given amount of surplus, but that was anything but a fair criterion to go by as to the state of the whole financial year. The tea duties had been paid by anticipation last year, and there would therefore be a deduction in that respect. Nor did the receipts of the malt-tax last year afford any ratio of the receipt for the present. That item would be considerably less. much less, than the corresponding one last year. He thought this would be enough to induce the hon. Gentleman and the House, without prejudice, to postpone the decision of this question, and, as they would in their own private affairs, not decide what they would do with their revenue till they knew exactly what income they had to deal with, and what expenditure they had to provide for. He was ready to
748
agree in many observations that had been made, particularly with respect to the excise regulations. They were arbitrary and complicated, and subjected the manufacturer to great and unnecessary inconveniences. The customs regulations had already been much improved, and it was his intention, if he continued in the office he now held, to bring in a Bill to consolidate and simplify the whole of the excise law. The expenses of collection, too, might in his opinion very well be reduced; but, without entering upon these points at present, and leaving intentionally the argument of the question altogether untouched, he called upon his hon. Friend not to press this matter to a division until the general financial statement had been submitted to the House.
Mr. Humeagreed with the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member in favour of the reduction of the duty. The tax upon soap formed a great impediment to the extension of the manufacture; and though the materials from which soap was made were cheaper in this country than in the United States, Canada, and many parts of the Continent, the increase in our exports of this article had borne no proportion to the increase in the trade of countries possessing far inferior facilities. We were precluded from carrying on a valuable trade to all parts of the world by a set of duties which prevented the application of science and industry to the processes of the manufacture. It was well known, that under the present system, the manufacturers sustained the most ruinous losses, and that failures occurred in consequence every clay. No article of domestic consumption, except food, was more important than soap; and it formed a serious item in the expenditure of a poor family. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever might be the available surplus, should take off this duty, as being one which would give relief, not only to the fair trader, but to the whole of the community. If there should be a deficiency in the revenue from its repeal, there were fifty other ways of raising money with much less injustice to the public, and much less injury to property.
Mr. Haweswould have been better pleased with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the right hon. Gentleman had discovered a disposition to place greater reliance on the statements

749
of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, who recommended the reduction of this duty. It was at present utterly impossible to levy it equitably, and to make each of the manufacturers contribute his fair share to the revenue. The means of effectually evading the tax were in the power of every one, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to abandon it, unless he could point out a method by which its collection could be insured. This country was better situated for carrying on this branch of manufacture than any other; it was one which could not be carried on without materially benefiting every class of the community, and, at the same time, greatly augmenting the general commerce of the country; yet, although population and wealth had rapidly increased, this branch of the revenue had been considerably diminished, which, to him, was a most satisfactory proof that the tax was impolitic and pernicious.
Mr. Gillonregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given an explicit promise to abolish the duty. As he saw no chance of carrying his motion, he would not press it to a division.
Motion withdrawn.

EAST INDIA MARITIME OFFICERS.
Mr. George F. Youngpresented a petition from Captains Newall, Barrow, and Glass-pole, of the East-India Company's late maritime service, complaining that the compensation to which they were entitled was withheld by the Board of Control. The brief and simple facts of the case would not render it necessary for him to detain the House at any length; and he was sure that the House, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet opposite, the President of the Board of Control, would agree with him, that this was a case which demanded inquiry. In the year 1833, the public were allowed, by an Act of the Legislature, to participate in the trade with China, which had formerly been exclusively confined to the East- India Company. The Act, also, of 1833, prohibited the East-India Company from trading for a term of forty years. To meet the case of those parties who would be likely to suffer by this arrangement, a clause was introduced into the Bill to provide compensation for them. Some difficulty was subsequently found in awarding compensation to the maritime officers,
750
whether, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) stated on a former occasion—each individual case should be considered on its own merits, or some general rule should be established. It was ultimately decided, that a general rule should be adopted;—though in his opinion it would have been much better to have considered each case on its own merits. The rule was, that all persons who gave notice before the expiration of August, 1833, that they did not intend to leave the maritime service of the East-India Company, were entitled to compensation. That this plan had acted unequally, by excluding some gentlemen justly entitled, and compensating others who had, in justice, no claim, was quite evident. He would refer to the case of the petitioners, on the one hand, and that of a personal friend of his own (the son of the hon. Member for Guildford) on the other. This gentleman had actually left the service, and, in fact, had embarked in trade, but he sent in the declaration according to the rule, and was ultimately allowed compensation. But the petitioners, who had sent in their declaration according to this rule, and had actually proved that they had made arrangements for again entering the service, were told, that as they had served five years, which, according to a regulation of the East-India Company, was the time allotted to officers commanding the Company's ships, they would not have been eligible to serve again, and, therefore, were not entitled to compensation. But though they were not eligible to command the Company's ships, they were eligible to command chartered ships; and as a great number of the ships freighted by the Company were chartered for the voyage, these officers would have been eligible to have served in any of those ships, and were, therefore, clearly entitled to be compensated. He could mention an instance in which a captain, who had served, four years, received 2,000 l. as compensation. The petitioners were equally eligible to serve as any other officers in the service. And as a stronger and unanswerable proof, that they were entitled to the compensation they claim, he would state to the House, that the justice of their claims had been admitted by the Court of Directors and the Court of Proprietors of the East-India Company; and those parties (who had to pay the money) had recommended the Board of Control to

751
allow the compensation. How, then, could they account for the refusal of the Board to comply with this recommendation? He had shown that these gentlemen, whose interests he was now advocating, had conformed to the regulation: they had done more;—they had proved their actual intention to serve. They had also proved an actual loss, by showing that they had been offered employment in the merchant service, which they refused, in order to remain eligible for the service of the East-India Company. He therefore hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) would offer no objection to the appointment of a Committee. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that "The petition be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee."
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the hon. Gentleman did him no more than justice in supposing that if he had seen any reason to alter the course he had adopted, he should have done so—but, in opposing the hon. Gentleman's motion for a Committee, he was doing no more than right. He would take the liberty to state his objections to the motion; but he must be excused if he were not so brief as he could wish to be. It was due to the claimants that he should repeat the arguments which had influenced him in opposing their claims. He did not deny that those Gentlemen considered themselves aggrieved; but when principles were laid down, it was essential to abide by them. According to those principles, in this case the petitioners were in that class which were not to be compensated; they had, in fact, completed five voyages, and were consequently precluded from receiving compensation. The case of the officer to which the hon. Member for Tynemouth had referred was not applicable to the present case; for having conformed to the regulation, and coming within the required limit, the Board of Control was not in a condition to refuse his claim. But what had these gentlemen done, that their cases should be specially considered? They had, as he had said before, derived all the advantages of five voyages; and if they had not been so fortunate in making money as some other gentlemen similarly situated—it surely would not be contended that they had a right to come to Parliament to interfere in order to make good the deficiency. When he first entered into the office he held he found that a similar case had been
752
refused by Lord Ellenborough;—the question was, therefore, decided before he came into office, and he could not see any ground to reverse that decision. Certain persons had said they would have employed these gentlemen, and it was sought to establish what might be called a prospective loss. These gentlemen came down to the House, and said that they would certainly have been employed, but they reserved their services for the East India Company. If that were really the case, it ought to have been stated originally, although it would not have altered the state of the claims. [Mr. G. F. Young; It was in the original statement.]—It was not stated in the original certificate of these gentlemen, nor till after it was found that the omission might be prejudicial to their claims. It was true, as had been stated, that some parties who had not performed the five voyages might have received some allowance; but he should like to know whether that allowance was anything like the profits which would have been derived from the voyages? It appeared to him that the simple question was,—were these gentlemen entitled to have their cases considered specially, or were they to come under the general rule? The Board of Control had decided the latter, and he was at a less to know what the hon. Member expected to get by the appointment of a Committee. Without an alteration in the law, the decision of a Committee, even if it were favourable to the claims of these gentlemen, would not be compulsory upon the Board of Control. The law, as it stood, gave a certain discretion to the President of that Board; and if that discretion were not properly exercised, let him be removed; but it was not proper that he should be brought before a Committee of this House, for the purpose of being called upon to reverse any decision which, in the discharge of his duty, he might have adopted. He admitted all the facts, so that a Committee to inquire into them would be perfectly useless; and as the Committee would have no power to reverse the decision of the Board of Control, he trusted the hon. Member would see the propriety of not pressing his motion. If the hon. Gentleman persisted, though his interest would say "yes," his duty said "no,' and he must oppose the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. Robinson; The question was, whe-

753
ther the right hon. Baronet and the Board of Control were to defeat the intentions of the Act of Parliament? If the right hon. Baronet admitted that the prospective interests of these officers might have suffered, he contended that they had suffered; and that, consequently, they were entitled to compensation. The Courts of Directors and of Proprietors had decided that they should have compensation; but the hon. Baronet said to the proprietors,—"you have no right to reward your own servants." Under the Act, they had a claim for compensation; and, if it were contended that Parliament had no power to interfere, of what use was this discussion? If the House should decide in their favour, the hon. Baronet would reconsider his decision.
Mr. Bagshawhad paid some attention to this subject, and fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse). It was a fallacy to talk of the proprietors paying the money required in compensations. Every sixpence came out of the pockets, not of the proprietors, but of the people of India. Let the House consider what was due to them: they had no representatives in that House; and the Board of Control was bound to protect them.
Mr. Praedsaid, the simple question was, whether an Act of Parliament, passed four years ago, granting compensation to these officers, was to be carried into effect? Was a certain rule of service, not referred to in that Act, to supersede it? As to whether certain statements were or were not omitted in the certificate to which the right hon. Baronet had referred—this, in his opinion, had nothing at all to do with the case. It was evident that the interests of these officers had been affected by the alteration in the East-India Company's trade; and that the Legislature intended they should be compensated. The right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, appeared to expect him to support the view of the case which the right hon. Baronet had taken, but he was at a loss to know on what ground that expectation was based. When he was attached to the Board of Control, and these same claims were brought before him, he treated them in a very different light from that in which they were viewed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and he would tell the hon. Member for Teignmouth, that his opinion on the real merits of the question was not
754
changed. The Board of Control, under Mr. Grant, had determined that compensation should not be given to those maritime officers who had served five years under the East-India Company. This he had ever considered unjust. On coming into office, however, he discovered that whenever an officer served five years in the Company's own vessels, he, after that period, had invariably left the service. But the state of the case was somewhat altered by the appointment of the Committee of that House. The Committee had said that, as it appeared that the East-India Company had laid down as a rule that five years should be the period of service for its maritime officers, they would recommend the Court of Directors to consider the case of those officers who, not having completed that service, were still excluded from compensation. It could not have been the intention of Lord Glenelg that the rule so laid down should have excluded such officers from compensation. Whatever might be said of his entertaining—from the different aspect the case had now assumed—an opinion opposite to that he acted upon when Secretary to the Board of Control, he must say, that he would rather be thought inconsistent than that the House should be unjust.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, that the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was of some consequence. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten the case which, when Secretary to the Board of Control, he decided. His opinion on this subject was formed from the hon. Gentleman's opinion. He had a letter, written by the hon. Gentleman, when he held the office of Secretary to the Board of Control, by which it would appear, that the rule the hon. Gentleman acted upon was not one laid down by Mr. Grant, but by Mr. Praed. The letter stated, "that after serious attention had been given to the claims of these officers, the Board had decided they were inadmissible." He could not consider these gentlemen's interests were in any way affected by the alteration in the East-India-Company's trade; for though, as they stated, they were eligible to command the chartered ships of the Company, yet there was not a single instance in which a captain, having performed five voyages, was afterwards called upon to command a chartered vessel. It had been generally considered, that in five voyages the commanders had

755
an opportunity of making a handsome fortune; and if those gentlemen had not done so, it was not the fault of the Proprietors, and they had no right to call upon the Proprietors to make up the deficiency. It must not be forgotten, that the money out of which these compensations would be paid was not that of the Court of Proprietors, but of the people of India. The Board of Control, then, was at a loss to discover what claims these officers had on the funds under their control; and he trusted the House would mark its sense of the justice of the decision of the Board of Control by refusing to grant the Committee. Whether the compensation would ever have been obtained or not, after the case had been considered by Mr. Macauley and others, or under any other constitution of the Board, he could not state, but he thought the compensation excessive. Never had he known any thing of the kind granted. If the hon. Member for Middlesex bad been as active and vigilant as usual, this would never have happened. He must protest against the principle, that because other men happened to have received a great deal more than what was reasonable or just, therefore the same measure of excessive compensation was to be extended to all other applicants. As to the case of Captain Mangles, he surely received more than he, by possibility, could have any right to. He had not accomplished his fourth voyage, but the Company gave him 2,000 l. That was a monstrous "compensation." It might as well be contended, that these captains, because they had not been allowed to embark in freight trade, were entitled to compensation to the extent of what they might allege they had lost, by being limited to the Company's maritime service. The hon. Gentleman said, that since the period at which these grants were made, an exception to the rule of compensation as to captains had been made, limiting this scale to the cases of persons who had performed the five voyages, but had not entered the freight service. When the hon. Member was one of the Board, they had not time to go through the whole details of every case; but he was now ready to vote away the money which, when in. office, be was disposed to refuse. The hon. Gentleman was on the Committee and divided against his friend's opinions. The petitioners not having been admitted into the freight service, must
756
rest their claims on no higher ground than mere contingent eligibility. He did not say they were ineligible, but they had not been elected. The Court of Directors, acting on that report, considered these cases special, and threw them on the Poplar Fund. If he understood the argument of the hon. Gentleman, it would appear that Government behaved most generously. His right hon. Friend might, had he so pleased, have adopted some other course, but he had thought it the fairer and more manly course to reject these claims at once. The House, he was sure, would give full credit to the Board for being actuated by no other motive than the desire to perform their duty. The claim of these parties was for compensation for that which had been no loss to them. If the House should now sanction the claim, it must recollect that the principle on which it was made would be extensive in its operation. He should oppose it.
Mr. Humesaid, if his vote would re-open the question he would not oppose the prayer of the petitioners. It was evident, that Lord Glenelg, and those who were associated with him in his official department, had very ill discharged their duty to the public. After this case had been argued, instead of going to a division upon it that night, they ought to have time allowed to review the whole question. In the speech delivered by an hon. Gentleman formerly connected with the Board of Control, there was a great mistake in the assumption, that these gentlemen did not come within the meaning and scope of the Act of Parliament. If the rule of compensation were a bad one—as, perhaps, it was—it was a very hard case on these three individuals, alter it had been adopted and acted upon in the cases of others, that they should not have the benefit of it. They had been efficient and able officers, and, so far as merits went, his mind was made up in their favour. These individuals, after performing five voyages, must have had as good opportunities of making their fortunes as any men could meet with. If the question had been put to them, before entering into the service, in this manner, "will you, after performing these voyages, enjoy your pension, or enter into the freight service?" they doubtless would have said, "we will enjoy our pension." For they would, perhaps, have considered it derogatory to the po-

757
sition they had occupied, to pass into the latter. The rule which had been laid down in respect to the discharged officers of the East-India Company's service, was this:—that all those who would suffer loss from the abolition of the Company's trade, should receive compensation. He wished that rule had been adhered to; but he regretted to say, it was not: and many persons who had retired from the service for years, and had engaged in other business, from which they could not withdraw, had signed the required declaration, and had received compensation. Men who were offered a handsome retirement, preferred such a compensation to continuing in active employment, whatever might have been their gains in the Company's service. It was to put a price on inactivity or indolence to make such offers. The public had great reason to complain of the extraordinary conduct which had been pursued by the Board of Control. Captain Mangles seemed to have retired from the freight service, and to have taken up a service which he never originally meant to adopt, and yet he got compensation for losses by the extinction of a service he had voluntarily thrown up. Because injustice had been done in one case, was a similar species of injustice to be done in every other? He was satisfied that two-thirds of the pensions were paid to those who ought to have acquired sufficient, by prudence and industry while in the service of the Company, to have abstained from coming on the pension list. The Court of Directors had acted most properly, while the Court of Proprietors came to an inconsistent vote, which completely damnified the vote of the Court of Directors. The directors, by the constitution of the Company, were, in a great measure, bound by the opinions of the Board of Control; and that Board should have regulated and determined the proper scale of compensation. Notwithstanding, he thought these petitioners might have expected better terms than they had received. He could not support their petition.
Lord Granville Somersethoped, that the concluding observations of the hon. Member for Middlesex would not have much effect on the House. The hon. Member said, that to open the case of these individuals, would risk the opening the cases of all the other officers under similar circumstances. If that were the case, be should say with the hon. Member for
758
Middlesex,—that they sat there for the benefit of all, of those included within the rule alluded to by the right hon. the President of the Board of Control, and of those who were not. He had no knowledge of, and was not bound to inquire what might be, the consequences of their proceeding in this case with respect to other cases. One thing said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse), rather alarmed him. He said, that, whatever should be the vote which the House of Commons might come to on this question, the Board of Control would not alter the decision they had arrived at. If, after a vote of that House, the Board of Control was to reply: "we will have nothing to do with your determinations," it was very useless for the Commons to think of legislating independently on such questions. He believed that the right hon. Baronet was actuated by the purest motives, but he could not carry his respect for that purity so far as to concur with him in resisting all claim, on the part of these individuals, for compensation. They alleged that they had sustained an injury through the passing of the last Act for the renewal and regulation of the Company's charter: which Act contained a clause, providing a remedy for such injuries. The doctrine of the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith), that because certain other individuals had received, in the shape of compensation from the East-India Company, too much, therefore the right hon. Baronet had done well in rejecting the prayer of these petitioners altogether—did not meet the justice of the case. Because those other individuals had received too much, were these parties to receive too little? Because they had exceeded in former cases all proper amount of compensation, they were now, therefore, to give an absolute denial of justice to those who had well founded claims? Because, in the cases referred to, some officers had been overpaid, the right hon. Gentleman, by anticipation, repudiated any decision to which they might come with respect to the cases of others? He considered these parties entitled to the favourable consideration of the House. From what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary to the Board of Control, it was impossible to look forward with much encouragement to the result of this application to the House; but it was idle to insert a clause

759
in that Act which the right hon. Baronet himself carried through the House—providing a certain remedial course in cases of grievance, if, with the right hon. Baronet, they rejected the application of those who thought themselves injured. If the treatment of these parties had been as they represent—and he was bound to assume the facts of their case—he must give his vote in favour of referring the petition to a Select Committee.
Mr. G. Palmerhad been much struck with the difference between the different views of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. One hon. Gentleman grounded his objection to granting a Select Committee on the objection formerly taken by the right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, to entertaining such appeals from the decision of that Board. Was it not possible that the right hon. Gentleman might have been deceived by a statement, that officers in the East-India Company's service must have supposed that after making five voyages they would have no further occasion to concern themselves about pensions or compensation? Within the last few years there had been very few instances of gentlemen who had left the Company's service, after performing five voyages. Their rank in the service, thus acquired, was very valuable, no doubt; but it was a mistake to suppose, that in other respects they were thereby placed in such a condition, that a pension was not of very great importance to them. It would be very hard on any individual or class of men to whom a pension had been assigned by the Court of Directors, and confirmed by the Court of Proprietors, to have it afterwards taken away by the Board of Control. He was not of opinion, as it had been very unfairly insinuated, that the Court of Proprietors would be disposed to vote this money recklessly away, merely because they had not to pay it themselves. Such an imputation it was hardly justifiable to throw out upon a great body like the East-India Company. If those gentlemen had a claim founded on justice, what did it signify whether the East-India Company on the one hand, or the parties referred to in the former case on the other, had or had not granted or received an improper amount of compensation? He was sure that the hon. Member for Middlesex would allow, that an officer who had performed five voyages prior to his commanding a freight vessel, derived no advantage as an
760
officer in the East-India Company's own service from that freight service, even after the term was over. If the House should be inclined to do justice in this case, either by agreeing to refer this petition to a Select Committee, or adopting any other course of examination which might seem expedient, he should be satisfied. And then he was sure they would vote for the compensation claimed by the petitioners.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamwould remunerate these parties upon principle,—and would give them every thing which the means that were at his disposal would allow, with justice to other parties. He had no doubt but those individuals were most meritorious officers, who had established a legitimate claim upon the Company, or rather, upon the bounty of the House. But he must own, that no rule had been laid down by the Company or the Government, which would enable the House to give it. They did not come within the purview of that Act of Parliament to which he, unfortunately, was no party. They were called upon to express their judgment as a public body, on the expediency of compensating these officers out of funds which were not within their own disposal. If he were to hold out his hands, as a Member of Parliament, to give the public money away, he did not know how he should resist the endless applications of other gentlemen, who, on grounds of similar services, would prefer similar applications. Such a precedent might lead to most serious misapplications of the public money. It was to be remembered, moreover, that if these petitioners had applied to remain in the Company's service at the expiration of their voyages, they might have had this compensation without question; and he should have been disposed to give it the more readily, remembering that in former times they had had a very difficult, though a very profitable, employment.
Mr. AldermanThompson had no personal connexion with any of these petitioners, and was not influenced by any personal considerations whatsoever. He was at a loss, however, to comprehend the force of the argument upon which the right hon. the President of the Board of Control resisted the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth. The right hon. Baronet contended, that those gentlemen having served five voyages in, the command of the East-India Com-

761
pany's ships, it would be derogatory to them, after holding such high situations in that service, to command freighted ships. The right hon. Baronet said, there was no precedent for a man, who had commanded a Company's ship, afterwards accepting the command of a freighted ship. But even if that were the case, those parties might have secured to themselves a competency; still, justice would not be done under the Act of Parliament, unless compensation be granted, or these parties fail to make out their case of having been, for this number of voyages, in the employment of the East-India Company. It was essential, therefore, to justice, that the petitioners should have an opportunity of proving that they come within the terms of the rule laid down by Lord Glenelg, and ought not to be excluded from its application.
Mr. G. F. Youngwas convinced that he should best consult the interests of the individuals whose cause he advocated by detaining the House only a very few minutes in reply. One or two circumstances, however, had been alluded to in the course of the debate, which, if he did not explain them, might prejudice their interests. In the first place, he thought the right hon. Baronet laid rather too much stress on the power which these Gentlemen had, he says, of so conforming themselves to the arrangements which were established in regard to the grant o compensations, as to have qualified themselves to make out their present claims beyond doubt or dispute. He knew not whether there was the disposition or not to communicate the necessary information to the parties concerned, at an earlier period after the arrangement upon that head was settled; but he did know that it was not till after the House of Commons had given its sanction to that arrangement, that the parties whose petition he wished to have referred to a Committee, had the remotest chance of knowing what the particulars connected with it were. The right hon. Baronet was aware that, by the custom of the East-India Company, it was usual to make such terms with their officers, that those looked forward, from their first entry into the Company's service, to the period of their becoming captains, with the prospect of obtaining pensions in virtue of their service, and the rank obtained—and that it had become the
762
practice for the merchants of this country employing shipping of a certain tonnage to retain their services as captains of the merchantmen. He had the express authority of these officers for saying, that their views embraced the whole of the advantages from which they conceived themselves to have been unjustly shut out. With regard to the allusion to the case of one captain, he was not interested to show that it might not have been a case of excessive compensation; but even if it were, it was not pretended that his service had been as long continued as those of these gentlemen; and therefore the petitioners were not to be prejudiced by anything which was done in that instance. Could the House refuse to satisfy the just demands of these gentlemen, who had performed their five voyages—after having behaved in the most handsome and generous manner to others who had performed but one, or two, or three voyages each; some of whom, however, received 5,000 l. gratuity or compensation, and a pension besides? Others, who had performed but four voyages, received an equivalent compensation for five. As to what has been said by the right hon. Secretary for the Board of Control, with regard to the danger of the precedent which would be fixed by the concession of the prayer of these Gentlemen, one word would set all apprehension on this score at rest. These three gentlemen were the only captains in the East-India Company's maritime service who could, by possibility, claim this rate of compensation; and, in order to obviate all doubt upon the matter, e was authorised to say, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, who had shown much anxiety for the success of the petitioners, had offered to bring in a Bill for the specific purpose of barring out the possibility of establishing such a precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman would only withdraw his own wayward objections, how could granting the Committee establish a precedent? Beyond those three individuals there was not a single servant of the Company who could set up a claim such as theirs. He must add, that until the facts of their cases were brought under his notice, he had never possessed even the slightest personal acquaintance with, or knowledge of, any of the petitioners. He never had had any communication with them until he took up their case; and, in doing so, he had acted

763
entirely upon the strong conviction he entertained of the justice upon which their claims were founded. In the same manner he could vouch, that no influence, direct or indirect, had been exercised over him, to induce him to become their advocate; and he could only regret, that he had too feebly discharged his duty in that capacity. It was not until they found their applications rejected by the Board of Control, under a very arbitrary exercise of the restraining powers vested in that body, that they came before the House on the plea that the law of the land entitled them to this remuneration. If they were to be told, however, that the law of the land did not entitle them to what they asked, then it became a very fitting subject for the consideration of the House,—whether that law should not be so modified as to meet the merits of such cases as this.
The House divided: Ayes 45; Noes 30: Majority 15.

List of the AYES.

Balfour, T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Baring, T.

Lowther, J. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Lynch, A. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Maxwell, J.

Bonham, R. F.

O'Conor Don

Bowes, J.

Palmer, R.

Chandos, Marquess

Palmer, G.

Codrington, Sir E.

Polhill, F.

Cole, Viscount

Price, S. G.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Richards, R.

Duffield, T.

Robinson, G. R.

Elley, Sir J.

Ross, C

Farrand, R.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Fielden, W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Thompson, Alderman

Hardy, J.

Tooke, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hastie, A.

Tulk, C. A.

Hindley, C.

Twiss, H.

Houstoun, G.

Walter, J.

Homphery, J.

TELLERS.

Jones, W

Praed, W. M.

Law, bon. C. E.

Young, G. F.

List of the NOES.

Agllonby, H. A.

Gillon, W.

Baring, F. T.

Gordon, R.

Brotherton, J

Hay, Sir A. L.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. sir J.

Bulwer, E. L.

Hume, J.

Collins, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Dalmeny, Lord

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Dundas, J. D.

Parker, J.

Etwall, R.

Patten, J. W.

Ewart, W.

Pelham, J. C.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Poulter, J. S.

Forster, C. S.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

764

Rolfe, Sir. R. M.

Wilde, Sergeant

Russell, Lord J.

Thompson, Colonel

TELLERS.

Thornley, T.

Smith, V.

Wallace R.

Bagshaw, J.

Committee nominated.

TOBACCO DUTIES.
Mr. Ewarthaving presented a petition for a reduction of the duty on tobacco, then brought forward the motion of which he had given notice on that subject. He did not deny that, abstractedly speaking, tobacco might be a fair object of taxation; but, practically, it had turned out to be otherwise, for it had given rise to smuggling, and the extensive demoralisation which always accompanied smuggling. The duty, compared to the price, was actually 1,200 per cent.; and the consequence was, that no law could prevent smuggling. To prove that smuggling took place to a great extent, it was only necessary to state that the duty was 3s. per pound, and yet tobacco might be bought in the country for 2s. 8d., 2s. 6d., and even 2s. a pound. That could only arise in consequence of smuggling, which he knew was carried on to a remarkable extent, tobacco being introduced in casks of fish, of resin, and even in the interior of loaves of bread. The only contraband trade which equalled it was that of opium in the Celestial Empire, The. Excise Commission, and Sir Henry Parnell, who he wished had been present, had recommended the reduction of the duty. That right hon. Gentleman had proved that smuggled tobacco amounted to one half of that which paid duty; so that, estimating the whole consumption of thecountryatl5,000,0001bs., 5,000,0001bs. of that were smuggled. Not less than 20,000 persons were engaged in smuggling, and it had a most pernicious effect on their morals. This brought with it the necessity of the coast-guard establishment, which was chiefly employed in repressing the contraband trade in tobacco, and which occasioned an annual outlay of 400,000 l. The honest trader was obliged to give up dealing in tobacco altogether. He was able to state the case of one gentleman who had been in the habit of paying to the amount of from 15,000 l. to 20,000 l, a year duty, and he owned that the competition with the smuggler was so hopeless, that without illicit dealing, the trade Would be worse than profitless. The

765
effect of this course of things was, that it taught the trader to confound all distinctions of right and wrong. For these reasons he had thought it his duty to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject; and he would conclude by moving, that the duty on tobacco be reduced from 3s. to 1s. per pound.
Mr. Humeseconded the motion, on the ground, that if successful, it would have the effect of putting an end to smuggling. The evidence of this fact from every quarter of the country was so strong, that he was quite surprised to find so high a tax kept on. He was quite sure, that if the proposed reduction were made, it would, instead of diminishing, increase the revenue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that his hon. Friends who had last spoken, in the present state of the House, could hardly be serious in proposing that the House should come to a resolution upon a point of such extraordinary importance after so slight a discussion. Some observations, however, had been made by both his hon. Friends, from which he must express his dissent. The present amount of duty he admitted was not defensible, but he had some remarks to offer to their consideration before the House came to any conclusion on the subject. He would state a few of the considerations which had operated with the Government, and which ought to have had some weight with the House, in abstaining from proposing any reduction on that article. His noble Friend, Lord Spencer, in 1831, when he brought forward his budget, proposed to reduce the duty on this very article of tobacco; and how was that motion met by the House? His hon. Friend, who brought forward the present motion, was not in that Parliament; but if there was one part of that budget which was objected to more than another, it was that very proposed reduction' of the duty on tobacco, and particularly on the ground that the reduction would not prevent smuggling, and would promote the consumption of the article itself. The chief point in his hon. Friend's speech which called for an immediate examination was the alleged extent of the contraband trade. He thought that a fairer subject for taxation than the article itself could not be pointed out. It came unquestionably within the definition of a
766
voluntary tax. The question then was was the present amount of duty too high for the purpose of revenue? If it could be shown to him that the same amount of revenue could be obtained when the proposed reduction was made, undoubtedly no man standing in the position in which he did could hesitate at lowering the rate of duty. He certainly, however, was of opinion that the amount of tobacco smuggled was exaggerated. He admitted, that a great deal of tobacco was smuggled, but not so much as was represented. He could not help thinking, if the statements which were made on this head were correct, that the revenue derived from tobacco would either have remained stationary, or would have receded in amount. He would begin with the years 1826–7, after the last reduction of the duty. In 1827 the tobacco which paid duty in England was 14,700,0001bs,; in 1828, 14,500,000lbs.; in 1829, 14,700,000 lbs.; again, the next year, 15,100,000 lbs.; in 1831, 15,300,000 lbs.; in 1832, 15,800,000lbs.; in 1833,16,000,000lbs.; the next year, 16,400,0001bs.; and the next year, 17,000,000lbs. Here, then, was a progressively increasing quantity, on which duty was paid since 1827. He did not mean in the slightest degree to deny the statement, that smuggling had gone on to a very considerable extent, but he merely mentioned these facts for the purpose of fortifying his doubt that the smuggling which was no doubt carried on was so extensive as was supposed. But it might be argued that the returns which he had quoted applied only to England, and that the smuggling was carried on to a greater extent in Ireland. He would therefore take from the year 1831 and upwards the returns for Ireland alone. In 1831 the amount was 4,100,000lbs.; in 1832,4,300,000lbs.; in the following years, 4,500,000lbs.,4,700,0001bs.,4,800,000lbs. and 5,000,000lbs. Here again the duty steadily and progressively increased. He thought, therefore, that there was nothing to prove the allegation, that half of the tobacco consumed did not pay duty. Why did he rely on these facts? Because, the returns thus taken show that smuggling could not have prevailed to the extent supposed. This excess of the consumption of one year over the preceding year had regularly continued throughout this period; and it became a serious question how far the attempt to convert the con-

767
traband trade, at present carried on, into a large extension of the legitimate trade, under the operation of reduced duties, would be likely to succeed? When he saw that, in a former year 2,600,000lbs. was the amount of consumption in Ireland, and 757,000 l. was the total amount of duty paid on that consumption, he was pretty sure that the experiment of low duties was fairly tried. He turned, then, to a period when the duty on tobacco was lower, and the price of the commodity, also, lower, than at the period in which the hon. Member for Middlesex had spoken. Of 1782 the records were unfortunately lost, but he had those of 1786. In 1786 the duty was only 10 d. per pound. At that period the amount consumed in Great Britain was 6,800,000lbs., in Ireland 3,400,000lbs., making together 10,200,000lbs. The present consumption of tobacco was in Great Britain upwards of 17,000,000lbs.; in Ireland, 5,000,000lbs.; making together, in round numbers, 23,000,000lbs., as compared with the 10,000,000lbs. consumption of 1786. Now, comparing the present times with the year 1786, he begged to say, that there had been no such increase of the population, or alteration in their habits, during the interval, as would enable him to come to the conclusion which his hon. Friends had arrived at,—that only one half of the quantity of tobacco which was consumed in the United Kingdom paid duty, and consequently that only one half of the revenue which ought to be derived from the tobacco actually consumed was paid into the Treasury. If he could think with his hon. Friends, he should be very happy to give them the benefit of his concurrence in their suggestion. At the present hour of the night it would not be proper for him to occupy the attention of the House further; but when he told his hon. Friend that the subject of his motion engaged the anxious consideration of the Government, he felt confident that he would not press it before the Government was able to come to a decision. If he could arrive at the same conclusion with his hon. Friend, it would give him great satisfaction, but he must see that it would be impossible for him, till he could see that the public revenue would not suffer from the reduction, to pledge himself to his hon. Friend's resolution. It would not do for him to be trying experiments with the revenue. If he had the means of
768
diminishing the amount of taxation, he should first wish to give greater developement to the productive industry of the country, which was now languishing. He was desirous certainly of putting down smuggling, but he was first of all anxious to protect and encourage the productive industry of the nation. If a report were to go abroad that the House or the Government were pledged to reduce the duty upon any article of general consumption, the effect of it would be to throw the trade into confusion, by stopping sales and suspending orders. In this case he should be extremely sorry to take such a step, for the article of tobacco yielded a revenue of 3,000,000 l., and the duty impeded no manufacture. At the same time he could assure his hon. Friend that the whole subject was under the consideration of Government, and should have their best attention.
Viscount Sandonthought, that his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that there was such an immense mass of smuggling, that it would be almost incumbent on him to take measures for the reduction of the duty, if not immediately, at some future time. That such was the case was abundantly proved by an accumulation of evidence from Committees, Commissioners, and facts derived both from private and public sources, showing that the honest dealer could not gain a livelihood under the existing system. The question, however, after all, must be left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was idle for a Member of that House to attempt to dictate to the right hon. Gentleman on such a subject, and all that private members could do was to bring the case before the public, and trust to their good sense for the ultimate adoption of the measure. Much as he desired to see the duty put an end to, he would recommend his hon. Colleague not to press his Motion.
Motion negatived.