Commons Sitting of 31 July 1838

MINUTES
Bills. Read a second time:—Slave Trade Treaties (Sicily and Tuscany); Militia Ballot Suspension: Private Bill Deposits.—Read a third time:—Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension.
Petitions presented, By Sir R. INGLIS, from London, and a place in heat, in favour of a more extended provision for the Church of Canada.—By Captain PECHELL, from Brighton Fishermen, complaining of the aggressions of the French Fishermen.—By Mr. BRAMSTON, from Chelmsford, for a repeal of the Beer Act.—By Mr. ADDAMS WILLIAMS, from Chepstow, against encouragement of Idolatry.—By Lord C. MANNERS, from a place in Leicestershire, against the Beer Act.—By the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, from the Licensed Beer Sellers at Warrington, against any alteration in the present Beer Act; from Stockport, to the same effect; from the Yarn Manufacturers at Monaghan, to protect the Linen Trade of Ireland; from the Council of the Horticultural Society, to make the Botanical Garden at Kew a truly National Establishment for the advancement of Science.

BENEFICES PLURALITIES BILL.
Lord J. Russellmoved the order of the day for the consideration of the Lords' amendmts to this bill.
Mr. C. Lushingtonsaid, that the result of his hasty application and useless labor—hasty application, because he had only time to consider these amendments for one or two days, and useless labour, because to his illegal mind the greater proportion of the new clauses wh e wholly inexplicable.—the result of the hasty application and useless labour was a conviction that the bill was unintelligible. There were two civil doctors in that House, his relative and the hon. and learned Gentleman on the opposite side, and if they would undertake to understand the clauses in a week, so as to make them intelligible, he should be satisfied. The powers of the Ecclesiastical commissioners were greatly
844
intrenched upon by having questions which should come under their jurisdiction referred solely to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The principle of this bill was originally very objectionable, and it was rendered more so by the amendments of the Lords. He should therefore propose that these amendments should be read a second time that day six months.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the bill in its present shape contained all the main principles which were already sanctioned by the House. There were some alterations made by the House of Lords, but nothing to trench upon the main principles of the bill. He thought, therefore, that it would be unreasonable on their parts to accede to the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and not adopt what was in fact their own bill. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the power of the commissioners was infringed upon, in giving the Archbishop of Canterbury the privilege of uniting and disuniting benefices. Now, as the commission never possessed this authority, it could not be said to be trenched upon by the change made by the House of Lords. Though he was sorry that some clauses had been struck out which were agreed to in that House, he still thought it very desirable that a bill which had undergone two year's consideration should not be rejected after having had so much pains bestowed upon it.
Mr. Warburtonremarked that many of the changes made by the Lords were improvements; but as there were fifteen or sixteen new clauses, he thought they should be allowed a day or two to make themselves masters of the bill in its present shape.
Amendment withdrawn, and the farther consideration of the Lords' amendments deferred.

POST OFFICE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the third reading of the Post-office Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpemoved as an amendment that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months. He considered it as neither more nor less than a job, got up for the purpose of obliging the Parliamentary friends of Government.
Mr. Ellisrose to second the amendment of the hon. and gallant Officer, that the bill be read a third time that day three months: Since he had last spoken upon

845
the subject, reflection had confirmed him in the objections he first entertained against the measure. The object of the bill was, to take the affairs out of the hands of the Postmaster-General and vest them in those of three commissioners; the first commissioner to receive a salary of 2000 l. per annum; the other two, 1,200 l. each, making altogether an expenditure of 4,400 l. per annum. The expense of the present management amounted to 2,500 l. yearly; it was, therefore, proposed to incur an excess of expense to the country of 1,900 l. per annum. Why were three persons required to superintend this department? He had heard no sufficient reason alleged. On the contrary, power was taken by the bill to give the whole of its duties not absolutely to three—they might be conferred merely upon two, perhaps only upon one; and it might so happen, if the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, should so think fit, that the administration of the Post Office would be given to no new commissioner at all, but kept entirely in their own hands. Moreover, by the bill, the new commissioners, if appointed, were exclusively to follow the instructions of the treasury, so that, possibly, they were causing an enlarged payment of 1,900 l. a-year for the sole purpose of placing the affairs of the Post-office in the hands of a nominee of the Treasury. Did such an enactment betoken the wisdom of the Government plan? The hon. Member for Bridport stated the other night that with respect to postage the country was on the eve of a revolution; looking however, to what was likely to be the nature of the revolution—that it would almost entirely be based upon increased facilities of communication, de-mantling, certainly, not more, if not less, intelligence on the part of the head of the Post-office—he thought that was an argument for diminishing rather than increasing the expenditure of the establishment,. But then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the main object of the bill was to have the chief commissioner eligible to a seat in that House. Why then had he not caused that to be specially enacted? At present the Postmaster-General sat in Parliament, though in the Upper House; yet, by the measure under consideration, it might be that, notwithstanding it would still be left open for a Peer to fill the office of chief commissioner, neither in one House nor
846
the other would the chief commissioner have a seat—and thus the grievance mainly complained of, that of not having a person in the House of Commons to answer questions relative to the Post-office department, was liable to be left without a remedy. Again, he (Mr. Ellis) certainly conceived that whilst there was no objection for the Government to have a political associate in the House of Lords, he entertained a strong desire that the number of placemen should not be increased in that House; and, considering that such proposition came with a bad grace from the present Ministers, he should on that account, as well as for the other reasons he had stated, express his hearty disapprobation of the measure.
Bill read a third time and passed.

GROCERS' SPIRIT LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. E. Tennentmoved the second reading of the Spirit Licences Bill. As he understood that the measure was to be opposed, he would very briefly state the reasons which had rendered its introduction expedient. In 1836, Mr. Perrin, who was then Attorney-General for Ireland, brought in a bill to regulate the granting of spirit licences in that country, and in that bill was inserted a clause prohibiting the granting of a retail licence to grocers. The object of this clause was to obviate the temptation to tipling and intemperance which was held out to servants and others by the facilities and secrecy afforded for obtaining spirits at shops where the parties were ostensibly led by other business. It was only in portions of the metropolis and not in the smaller towns of Ireland this complaint applied, in those places generally the sale of spirits formed but a portion of the business of those who were general dealers, men of character and of capital, forming usually the better class of shopkeepers and persons who had too much respect for themselves to permit their houses to be abused by intemperance of any kind. If these men were now to be forcibly excluded from this trade, it would inevitably fall into hands less safe, and be confined to parties with smaller capital and greater temptations to permit excess. The houses of the grocers were closed at early hours, and always so on the sabbath-day, which would not be the case if the sale of spirits were to be compulsorily thrown into the hands of publicans of limited means. Its object was

847
only to continue the suspension of the act which had already been suspended for two years by an act brought in almost simultaneously with the suspended act, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for if the act now came into operation, it would do a great deal of mischief. He moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Shawhad the greatest objection to this bill, which if passed would convert all the grocers into spirit dealers, and thus increase an evil already enormous. He had exerted himself for several years to check intemperance in the city of Dublin, but if he were not assisted by the Government he could not hope for any success. He hoped therefore, that the noble Lord opposite would refuse his assent to this bill. He begged leave to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the grocers, as a class, were more respectable than the publicans. and were more deserving of the spirit licences. If the object of the House was to repress drunkenness, it should altogether prohibit the sale of spirits. While the act appeared to be rather levelled at putting down grocers than drunkards. He had never in his life heard of any riot occurring in grocers' shops in consequence of their being permitted to hold spirit licences.
Colonel Vernersaid, with respect to the grocers of that part of the country with which he (Colonel Verner) was acquainted he could bear testimony to the excellence of their character.
Lord Morpethfelt himself in a peculiar position with respect to the bill. In the former measures which Government brought forward it was proposed to insert a clause prohibiting the sale of spirits on the premises by grocers, but a deputation of that body having been sent over from Ireland to remonstrate on the point, the clause was abandoned. A similar clause however, had been introduced by way of rider to the bill, and as he had not divided the House upon it after the deputation of grocers had left London impressed with the opinion that no such clause would be introduced, he felt almost as if he had broken faith with them, and would not therefore attempt to influence any votes upon the question.
The House divided on the second reading, Ayes 43, Noes 15—Majority 28