Lords Sitting of 16 June 1828

PROTEST AGAINST THE CORN BILL.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient.—Because the bill, imposing high and most unreasonable duties on the importation of foreign corn, is most impolitic, if intended as a source of revenue, inasmuch as taxes laid upon the necessaries of life increase the cost of labour, diminish the profit of capital, and are the immediate cause of general decay and impoverishment. It is most unjust, if intended to enhance the price of corn for the advantage of individuals, inasmuch as a monopoly for that purpose is opposed to the first principles of legislation, and invades the rights of the community at large.
"2nd. Because it is an abuse of the legislative, power, held in trust for the pub-

1367
lic good, to enact laws calculated to promote the private advantage of any one particular order. The use of law is to secure equally to all, the fruits of their labour and industry; the abuse of law is to take away, either directly, by unnecessary or unequal taxation, an undue proportion of the produce of the labour of the community; or, indirectly, to compass the same end by odious and destructive monopolies, conferring exclusive privileges to one order at the expense of all other classes of the community. If the landowners have an undoubted right to the property they possess, and to the absolute disposal of the produce of that land, the people of the country have not less an undoubted right to obtain their supply of food either from the home-grower or from any other who can afford it at the cheapest rate.
"3rd. Because the present bill affords no expectation of establishing a final settlement of the Corn-laws, so desirable and necessary for the country, after suffering the evil of monopoly, fluctuation, and uncertainty, for a period of thirteen years; but utterly hopeless, until the proposed laws shall be consonant to sound policy, common right, and equal justice.
"4th. Because a varying scale of duties has the effect of making the importation of corn irregular, on account of the apprehension of unfavourable, or the expectation of favourable, opportunities; whereas a moderate fixed duty would encourage a large investment of capital in the corn trade, and thereby afford the best security which the nature of the commodity allows, of obtaining steady prices, no less desirable to the consumer than to the producer of grain.
(Signed) "KING."

STAMP DUTIES IN INDIA.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he had a petition to present from the merchants, traders, and inhabitants of one of our most important colonial possessions, Calcutta, who thought themselves aggrieved by transactions which had taken place there. These opulent persons complained that, without any sufficient notice, and on grounds which they considered illegal, the local government imposed a heavy stamp-duty on all transactions which might take place in that city. The local government had thought itself entitled to raise that duty, under the 53rd of the late king, by which
1368
it was enabled to raise in Calcutta all such duties on goods and merchandize as it was legally justified in raising in other parts of India. The petitioners, however, did not conceive that, under the name of duty on merchandize and goods, was included a duty so vexatious as a stamp duty. The petitioners considered themselves entitled to protection, inasmuch as they laboured under peculiar privations, being prevented from acquiring property in the same mode as the other native inhabitants, and inasmuch as they furnished a large proportion of the revenue of India, in the form of duty on Customs. They considered that the government of India could not be justified in raising such a duty as that of which they complain; inasmuch as, if the government had the power, it had possessed it ever since the passing of the 53rd of the late king; but, during all that time, the government had in no case had recourse to that duty. The petitioners complained, that they had been denied the opportunity, at a public meeting, of expressing the public opinion on this question; the government having interfered to prevent such meeting. They complained, that this tax was secretly determined upon in India, secretly communicated to this country, to procure the order of the Court of Directors, and secretly sent back again to India; so that the duty was in force before the petitioners had an opportunity of considering or protesting against it. The legal question was undoubtedly an important one, upon which he should be very sorry to hazard an opinion. But he would venture to say, that, as the time was approaching when their lordships would have to legislate for the whole of that vast empire on the renewal of the charter, it was incumbent on them to acquaint themselves with the mode in which the fiscal resources of that country were administered, with the purpose of placing them on a secure and firm basis.
Lord Melvillesaid, that this subject was submitted to their consideration, first, upon the legality of the proceeding, and next, on its expediency. With respect to the former, he thought it quite clear, that, by the 53rd of the late king, there was a legal power to impose this tax: it had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the judges of which were unanimous as to the strict legality of the act. If die parties were dissatisfied, why not bring the question before the privy council in the form of an-

1369
appeal? As to the expediency, he could not conceive why a tax which had for thirty years been freely levied in the provinces, should not be equally collected in Calcutta. No reason had been assigned for the distinction, and the Board of Control, so far back as the time of Mr. Canning's presidency, had sanctioned the order of the East-India Company to the authorities in India to levy it. The local government, however, did not act upon this order or suggestion for some years after. With respect to the preventing of meetings of the people upon the subject, so far back as 1806 orders were sent out which bore the signatures of lord Henry Petty, lord Althorp, and other high official persons, to prevent such meetings. So that, were the order right or wrong, the complaint ought to be attended to.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SCOTCH PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS BILL.
The House having gone into a committee on this bill,
Lord Melvillesaid, he must oppose this bill, because its enactments were quite at variance with the title. It purported to extend the period necessary to constitute a Settlement in Scotland; but this it did not do, for it left the natives of Scotland in this respect where it found them, while it extended from three to seven years the time of settlement for persons who were not natives of Scotland. The sole object of this bill was, in fact, to prevent the influx of the poor Irish into Scotland. This mode of legislating was contrary to the spirit of the Act of Union, and was unfair and invidious. He would move, as an amendment, that the words "not being a native of Scotland," be omitted. The omission of those words would make the bill a general bill, and prevent it from being applicable to particular individuals only. He would also omit the proviso of the bill. He was not, however, prepared to defend his own amendment; for he thought it would be much better to defer the consideration of the whole measure to the next session.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, he should not press his opposition to the amendment to a division; but if any other noble lord should divide the House, he would divide with him. He exonerated the bill from the charge of its being an anti-national bill, as affecting the people of Ireland, and contended, that the amendment completely
1370
annihilated the principle on which it was founded. As the amendment was likely to be carried, he should not think of proceeding further with the bill this session.
Lord Napiersaid, he must oppose the bill, as it went to subvert the ancient system of poor-laws in Scotland. He believed that altering the time necessary to obtain a settlement from five to seven, years, would make the case much worse than it was at present. This bill had been passed by the other House, in consequence of a petition from the manufacturers of Glasgow; and yet he understood that whenever the manufacturers of Glasgow were in want of hands, they sent to Ireland to obtain them. The Irishmen came over in crowds: and then, at the end of five or seven years, the Glasgow manufacturers having sucked their blood, became anxious to get rid of them. He looked upon such conduct as a species of barbarity, which the House ought not to tolerate.
The Marquis of Butesaid, he had doubts whether the evils which this bill was intended to remedy would be remedied by extending the time necessary to obtain a settlement in Scotland. This bill was not brought forward entirely on the representations of the manufacturers of Glasgow; for the evil was felt pretty generally throughout Scotland. He would adopt the alteration which had been proposed by the noble viscount; and would then let the bill drop for the present session, not by withdrawing it, but by failing to move its further progress. Such a mode of proceeding would call the consideration of parliament to it in an increased degree next session.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that as this bill was founded on a principle of exclusion, it had been his intention to oppose it; but, after the declaration of the noble viscount, he considered it to be already dead in law. He deprecated the introduction of the English system of poor-laws into Ireland; and contended, that the emigration of the redundant population of Ireland into Scotland was calculated to raise the emigrating population to the same moral level with that on which the population stood among which it settled.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that the opposition which had been made to this bill, would create a strong impression in Scotland, that something ought to be done

1371
to compel the people of Ireland to do move by law for their poor than they did at present. The people of Scotland did not wish to impose an evil upon the people of Ireland; they only wished to prevent the people of Ireland from imposing an evil upon them. He could not agree, that the emigrants from Ireland would, during their stay in Scotland, rise to the same level with the population of Scotland. On the contrary, they would bring down the population of Scotland to the level on which the population of Ireland now unfortunately stood.
The amendment was agreed to. The report was brought up and ordered to be received this day three months.