Lords Sitting of 1 April 1822

ROASTED WHEAT.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had intended to move for a copy of the opinion of the attorney and solicitor-general on all the cases of prosecution instituted by the Excise against persons selling Roasted Wheat, &c. but he had altered his motion at the suggestion of the noble earl opposite. He would briefly call their lordships' attention to the returns on their table. It appeared from them that the commissioners of Excise had thought themselves authorized by act of parliament, not merely

1401
to prosecute persons charged with, or suspected of frauds on the revenue, but also persons who were guilty of no fraud, nor of any fraudulent intention, and who only wished to do that which every subject had a right to do; namely, to sell articles of food not forbidden by the law. On looking at the acts of parliament, it might be very possible that, under the opinion of the officers of the Crown, the commissioners of Excise saw ground for proceeding as they had done. He meant a technical ground; for, surely, neither their lordships nor the other House of Legislature could have meant that the law should be applied in any other way than to protect the revenue against fraud. The last act on the subject was passed on the application of the commissioners, because it had been found difficult to prove fraud to the satisfaction of juries. He did not mean to say that, with such a revenue as this country had to collect, severe laws were not necessary; but there was a great distinction between prosecutions for fraud, and prosecutions not for any fraud whatever, or even any alleged fraud. He never could believe, that it had been the intention of the legislature to give to any persons the right of determining what articles should be sold or taxed. There had, besides, been an arbitrary selection of persons for prosecution. The board of Excise laid down a distinction which they had no right to make. They had decided that persons might roast wheat for their own use, but that those who sold it were to be prosecuted. The commissioners of Excise were thus assuming a power which parliament could not intrust to any authority in the country. With regard to the impolicy of the proceeding, he thought there could be no doubt. He was prepared to contend, that no manufacture could be more beneficial to the country than that which, by making new articles of food, increased the consumption of its productions. On the ground of national expediency, therefore, their lordships would do well to watch such proceedings. The power to prosecute when fraud was not distinctly seen was just; but nothing could be more unjust than that it should exist where no fraud was alleged. In the case where an article was sold openly, and without any intention to substitute it fraudulently for another, it was entitled to the full protection of the law. He would conclude by moving for, copies of all convictions
1402
under prosecutions by the board, of Excise for the sale of articles composed of bread, corn, roasted wheat, &c.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he did not object to the motion. He admitted that he saw no reason why persons should be prohibited from selling roasted wheat, or any other roasted grain. But the question was, whether an opening was not made for fraud when it was sold in the state of powder. The prohibition in that case might be necessary, not only for the protection of the revenue, but for, the protection of the purchasers of the article, which was thereby liable to be adulterated. Parliament was bound to guard against frauds of this nature, and prohibition was for the interest of the individuals liable to be imposed on.—The motion was agreed to.