Lords Sitting of 15 September 1831

MINUTES.
New Peers. The Marquis of BREDALBANE; the Earl of LICHFIELD; Lord CLONCURRY; and Lord SAUMAREZ, took the Oaths and their seats.
Petitions presented. By a NOBLE LORD, from the Corporation of Cutlers, Dublin, for compensation to the Coal Meters. By Lord BOSTON, from the Inhabitants of Beaumaris for the regulation of Steam Vessels. By Lord DUNDAS, from Mile-end, for Amendments in the Beer Act.

PORTUGAL.
The Earl of Aberdeen, after stating that a noble friend of his (the Duke of Wellington) was anxious to be present at some of the stages of the London Coal Delivery Bill, before it finally passed, observed, that he understood that the noble Earl at the head of the Administration had last night contradicted a statement which had been made, by him and his noble friend (the Duke of Wellington) relative to certain proceedings, chiefly relative to commercial demands made by the French Admiral in the Tagus. He had been unable, from indisposition, to attend the House for some days, and the contradiction had been given in his absence. He now, therefore, wished to state, that he and his noble friend were perfectly prepared to show that they had not made the statements on erroneous information, but were ready to prove the truth of them. For himself and the noble Duke he repeated the statements, and asserted, that they were prepared to substantiate them. He would say no more on the subject, at present as the noble Earl was not in his place, and, as he understood, would not be able to attend till Monday.
The Lord Chancellorrequested, that, the noble Earl would please to observe, that his noble friend at the head of the Ministry had not volunteered the contradiction. His noble friend laid some papers on the Table, and a noble Marquis took occasion to make a speech, and then his noble friend had made the observation alluded to; certainly not from any disposition to make it in the absence of the noble Earl rather than in his presence. The noble Earl would perceive, that the making that observation, when led to it by the speech of the noble Marquis, was a very different thing from volunteering it in the absence of the noble Duke and the noble Earl. As to the matter itself, he knew nothing about it.
The Earl of Aberdeendid not mean to impute it as a matter of blame to the
48
noble Earl at the head of the Administration, that he had made the statement in his absence, under the circumstances mentioned; but merely mentioned the fact, that it had been made in his absence; and that he had, therefore, not had an immediate opportunity of supporting his assertion, and replying to the statement of the noble Earl. When his noble friend and the noble Earl should be in their places, he would then be ready to prove, that the statements of his noble friend and himself, as to the proceedings of the French Admiral while in the Tagus, were correct.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that it had been imputed to him by the noble Earl (Grey), that he had made the statement to which his noble friend alluded. He had not made any such statement.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that this was another illustration of the great inconvenience of making speeches, and entering upon discussions when putting questions. This practice had grown up to a most inconvenient extent, and on these occasions, as those who were to answer the questions could not always be prepared at the moment, inaccuracies would naturally some times occur, both in the answers and the discussions. The inference from all which was, that the practice ought to be discontinued.
The Marquis of Londonderryhad given notice of a motion for papers, but before he could make it, the noble Earl granted the papers, for which he thanked the noble Earl and so the debate arose, in the course of which he had been violently attacked, both by the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack

CHOLERA MORBUS.
Viscount Strangfordwas inclined to follow the advice of the noble Viscount (Melbourne); but still he thought it important to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Trade, whether any steps had been taken towards setting aside an Ordinance of the Neapolitan government, requiring quarantine to be performed by British vessels on account of the cholera morbus. That Ordinance purported to be founded on certain information, that the cholera morbus had broken out in the north-west of Ireland, and the consequence was, that vessels of the United Kingdom were subjected to a quarantine of forty days in the Neapolitan dominions. This was a very great

49
inconvenience to the British trade; and he had further to add, that the quarantine was more strict at Palermo than even at Naples, for there they actually took the sugars—an article not very likely to carry infection—out of the casks, and passed the casks through salt water. The fact was, that the government of the two Sicilies farmed out the quarantine dues, and so it became the interest of the farmers of these revenues to find out as many pretences for quarantine as they possibly could, and they disregarded the British clean bills of health. Since he was on his legs he would shortly again call the attention of the Government to the subject of the Wine Duties bill, as no attention whatever had been paid to what he had before stated on that subject. But, however mortifying that might be, he would persist in bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. He would assure his Majesty's Ministers, that a much stronger feeling prevailed on this subject abroad than in that House; and, however his conduct might be censured for making the remark, he would say, that those who were concerned in importing wine, however much they might desire Reform, were heartily sick of liberalism in trade.
Lord Auckland, in reply to the noble Viscount's question, said, that the strongest representations had been made on the subject by the Board of Trade. After the information of these proceedings had reached this country, not a day was lost in making representations to the Court of Naples, and in sending correct information on the subject, both to the Neapolitan government, and to the other Powers with whom the same misapprehension had prevailed. As to the Wine Duties, if the noble Lord would give notice of a motion on the subject, the proper attention would be paid to it.

BEER BILL.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the recommittal of the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill, with a view to introduce some amendments, and proposed that after these should be introduced, the whole subject might be discussed on bringing up the Report on another day.
Lord Suffieldtook the opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding that had taken place as to what he had said on a former occasion on the subject of gambling in beer and public houses. The object which he had in view when he before adverted
50
to the subject, was, to remove a doubt as to the competency of the Magistrates to prevent gambling in these beerhouses. He, himself, was of opinion, that the Magistrates had a right to prohibit gambling, both in the beer-houses and common public-houses; but a doubt had been entertained as to their competency to prevent it in the beer-houses. He called on the highest legal authority, therefore, to say whether his view of the question was correct or not, and if that noble and learned Lord should be of opinion that the Magistrates had the jurisdiction in the beer-houses as well as the ordinary public houses, he should be satisfied.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that his opinion was, that the jurisdiction to suppress gambling in the common public-houses was vested in the Magistrates by the Act and the license taken together, and that provision was now extended to the beer-houses. It was of importance that illegal gambling should be suppressed in these houses, if it could be done without producing mischief as great as the evil; for this evil of gambling, as he understood, did exist to a very great extent. Of this he was informed by a worthy friend of his, Mr. Wilberforce, who had, in the course of an extensive tour through the country, had conversations on the subject with a great number of persons the best acquainted with the subject. The Clergy and Magistrates with whom Mr. Wilberforce conversed all concurred with one voice that the evil prevailed to a great extent. The object was, to place the beer and public houses in this respect on the same footing.
Viscount Melbourne: That was done by the Beer Act.
Lord Suffieldought to have explained that the misunderstanding which he wished to correct was this:—It had been understood that he had called for further powers to be placed in the hands of Magistrates, for the suppression of gambling in the public-houses and beer-houses; that was not the case. His object was and had been, to have it known, that the Magistrates had already the requisite powers for the purpose.
The Earl of Harrowbythought that it was highly expedient that the powers of the Magistrates should be placed on the same footing in regard to the beer-houses and the ordinary public-houses. By the general Act the Magistrates had the power

51
of considering an offence a second offence if committed within three years of the former, but by the new Act the second offence must be committed within one year after the first. This was a material difference. With reference to the remark of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would submit that the powers of Magistrates in respect to the license should be placed on the same footing in all houses that retailed beer.
The Bill committed and the Amendments introduced.—House resumed.