The Earl of Darnleypresented a Petition from Belfast, complaining of the dearness and scarcity of grain, and praying the distilleries might be stopped. His lordship said he did not mean now to go into the subject, but he reserved to himself the right of bringing forward a motion respecting it at a future period, if he should deem it advisable. He must, however, repeat what he had before stated, that ministers had incurred a heavy responsibility in not stopping the distilleries early in the season. In having called the attention of the House to this most important subject, he could not but regret that he had not had the assistance of any of the peers who more immediately represented Ireland, who could have more satisfactorily detailed the general situation of that part of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Liverpoolprotested against the doctrine of responsibility attaching to the executive government, for not interfering with regard to the subsistence of the people. If it was thought right that the distilleries should be stopped when grain reached a certain price, let it be so enacted by law, but nothing could be more unwise than to leave it to the discretion of the executive government, because with the most honest intentions the executive government was very liable upon such a subject to be misled. They would necessarily have various accounts from different quarters, in one part a good harvest, and in another a bad one; and nothing could be more mischievous than to leave it to the executive government to strike a balance between conflicting and opposite interests. He thought that in only one instance within his recollection, had the distilleries been rightly stopped, and that was in 1802, when one bad harvest followed another. He was of opinion that the wisest course of policy was, to leave the subsistence of the people entirely free, but as under the circumstances of the country a free trade in grain could not exist, the next best policy was to enact specific regulations, so that all parties interested might at once know what was to 1080 follow if certain contingencies took place. But the most unwise and mischievous policy was to leave it to the discretion of the executive government to interfere with the subsistence of the people whenever they should deem it expedient, as such a system must necessarily be productive of more injury than good. With regard to Ireland, he was aware that much distress existed, but it was partial and local, and this formed a decided objection to a general measure, which would, under such circumstances, inevitably be mischievous in its effects.
The Earl of Darnley, while he agreed in the general principles stated by the noble earl, still thought that the information ought to be produced upon which ministers had come to the determination of not stopping the distilleries in Ireland, under the circumstances of distress which existed in that country, certainly to a considerable extent.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.