HL Deb 04 August 1831 vol 5 cc730-2

Lord Auckland moved, that their Lordships should resolve themselves into a Committee on the Bill prohibiting the growth of Tobacco in Ireland. The object of it was, to extend the prohibition which already existed in England and Scotland, as to the growth of Tobacco, to Ireland. It appeared, from evidence given before a Committee of the other House of Parliament, that it could not be grown with advantage there, unless the growth were protected as it had hitherto been, by a duty of 1,200 per cent on the cost price of foreign Tobacco, the duty being 3s. per pound. The permission to grow tobacco in Ireland would be unjust to other parts of the empire in which it was prohibited, while, if the duty on foreign tobacco was diminished, it would come into competition with tobacco of Irish growth. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would allow the Bill to proceed, as all the persons whose opinions were embodied in the Report of the Committee, were unanimously of opinion, that the prohibition would be beneficial to Ireland; and if their Lordships required any further inducement, he could assure them, that the measure, with a view to the revenue, was highly expedient, if not necessary.

Lord Teynham

apprehended, the last sentence of the noble Lord who preceded him, was the cause of the Bill being brought forward. The revenue, it was expected, would be increased by the prohibition to grow tobacco in Ireland. He wished the question to be looked at under a more enlarged view. Noble Lords were, no doubt, aware, that beet root had been extensively cultivated in France in order to obtain sugar; he believed a similar process might be advantageously adopted in Ireland, but then the cry would arise, "the revenue will suffer from the import and export of sugar being lost." He considered this idea was important to all persons interested in the welfare of Ireland, as he most sincerely was. Unless the welfare of the country was preferred to the revenue laws, he was persuaded, that Ireland would never be prosperous or contented.

The Earl of Wicklow

thought, that the Bill was contrary to the principles of free trade, on which the Ministers professed to act. The measures for promoting the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland, was brought forward by Lord North, for the encouragement of the agriculturists, and, therefore, they had a right to a full explanation of the causes why the growth should now be prohibited. The noble Lord, however, had confined his remarks to the question of revenue; but, under that view, he should have shown, that it was impossible to collect a tax on tobacco grown in Ireland. He could not suppose, that any greater difficulty would exist, than in collecting a revenue from hops or malt—on this subject he entertained strong feelings, because he lived in a part of Ireland, in which that cultivation had prevailed; he had lately, by way of experiment, put three acres under Tobacco, and the experiment succeeded beyond his expectation. He found, that in cultivating this article, he could give a great deal of employment to the poor, and make a reasonable profit.

The Marquis of Lansdown

observed, that, undoubtedly, this was a question of revenue, but from all the evidence given, it appeared that the growth of tobacco in Ireland could not be carried on in competition with other countries, without a bounty of 1,200l. per cent. At present, the cultivation was confined to two counties, and unless they were prepared to grant the same permission to England, the culture of tobacco must be stopped in Ireland, or the revenue would suffer materially. The permission to grow tobacco in Ireland was granted by Lord North during the American War, not for the sake of Ireland, but out of hostility to Virginia. It was now found, however, that the extension of its cultivation in Ireland would be very injurious to the revenue, without being of any thing like corresponding advantage to Ireland, and it would be better to prohibit its growth in limine. A culture which could not be supported without such an enormous bounty, was clearly contrary to the principle of free trade.

The Earl of Wicklow

must beg to correct the noble Marquis on the subject of Lord North's Bill, which was introduced in 1778, for the express purpose of ameliorating the condition of the Irish people. He would further wish to call the attention of hon. Ministers to the Excise Laws, by the operation of which, great disadvantages were thrown on tobacco grown in Ireland.

Lord Farnham

was sorry, that the first Act brought forward by the present Secretary for Ireland should be one of prohibition. He did not mean to say, that the provision made by the Bill was a bad one, but it ought to have been accompanied by other enactments, favourable to Ireland. Until that question of paramount importance, now before the other House, came up to their Lordships, they could not, perhaps, be better employed, than in considering what penal Statutes could be removed, to better the condition of that country.

Lord Auckland

begged to assure noble Lords, this measure was not brought forward as an act of severity to Ireland, but was simply an act of finance, which had long been under consideration, and which had met with the concurrence of all parties in that country. The quantity of land occupied at present by the growth of tobacco, did not exceed 600 or 700 acres, but if the growth was extended to the three kingdoms, the land most likely to be employed in its cultivation would not exceed 5,000 or 6,000 acres, the produce of which could not be expected to amount to 350,000l.

The Bill went through a Committee— their Lordships resumed.