Lords Sitting of 22 April 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time. On the Motion of Lord AUCKLAND:—Smuggling Act Amendment.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, and the Earls of DACRE and UXBRIDGE, from several Dissenting Congregations,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Earls of WINCHELSEA, FOLEY, ROSEBERY, and UXBRIDGE, Lord HOWE, and the Bishops of CHESTER, and LICHFIELD, and COVENTRY, from a Number of Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from two Places, against the Ministers to Churches (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord FOLEY, from Burton-upon-Trent, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Earl of UXBRIDGE, from Anglesey, against the Sale of Beer Act.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Lord Suffieldpresented a petition from Norfolk, signed by all the Magistrates at Quarter-Sessions, complaining of the evils arising from the multiplication of beer-houses and praying, that a proper remedy should be devised. Some individuals, who were ignorant of the facts, asserted that it would be better, if the Magistrates, instead of com-

1079
plaining of these beer-houses, would exert themselves in putting down the mischiefs to which their existence gave rise. Now, the truth was, that the Magistrates were anxious to do so, but they did not possess the necessary power, and they would be well pleased if they were armed with sufficient authority for that purpose. As the second reading of a Bill on this subject was to come on to-night, he begged leave to throw out two suggestions for the consideration of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Kenyon), who had introduced the Bill. In the first place, he was of opinion, that if proper security were required for good conduct, it would have the effect of placing a better description of persons in beer-shops; and next, it appeared to him, that it would be productive of very good effects, if, when an individual applied for leave to open a beer-shop, his petition must be recommended by a number of housekeepers, as was required in the case of public-house licenses.
The Earl of Malmesburywas perfectly aware, that the greatest mischief to the morals of the people had flowed from the establishment of beer-houses; but he doubted much, whether demanding a high security would check the evil; because those houses having, in many instances, fallen into the hands of brewers, they would be ready to give security to any amount. He approved of the suggestion, that when application was made to open a beer-shop, that application should be backed by the testimony of the neighbouring housekeepers, as to the good character of the applicant. The Magistrates, he could assert, did not, on their own account, regret any loss of power which they had sustained under the existing Bill; but they certainly did regret on account of the public morals, that they had not authority to repress the evils which were complained of on every side. It would be an alteration attended with inestimable benefit, if beer were not allowed to be consumed on the premises. In that case, the labourer would take it home to his family, instead of spending his time in those haunts of vice; the owners of which, in order to entice unfortunate labourers to expend their money in them, encouraged gambling and dances, the consequence of which was, that those who frequented them remained till the most unseasonable hours, whilst their families were neglected and left destitute.
The Earl of Winchilsea, expressed his strong hostility to the Beer Bill, which had occasioned incalculable evil. He had been attending the Petty Sessions in the county with which he was more immediately connected, during the last four months; and he could of his own knowledge assert, that crime had greatly increased in consequence of the multiplication of beer-shops. The speculation on which the Beer Bill was founded—namely, that it would be the means of giving a better beverage to the working man—had completely failed. The beverage had become worse instead of better; and he believed that ninety-nine out of 100 of the beer-shops in his county were in the hands of brewers. The labourers, for whose benefit this measure had been introduced, had reaped nothing but evil from it. Some good would be effected if no beer-shops were allowed to be opened, unless the sanction of a certain number of respectable persons were previously obtained. As the system at present stood, many of these beer-shops were kept by persons of bad character, who, under pretence of selling beer, sold spirits; there the working classes of society were induced to assemble, and there they proceeded to plan crimes. Only last year, in Lincolnshire, an individual coming from one of these beer-houses murdered a man in open day, and the defence of the culprit was, that he was intoxicated. The system ought to be totally new-modelled; and he was sure, that their Lordships could not do a greater act of kindness to the labouring population than to take this question under their consideration.
Lord Wynfordbelieved, that instead of the poor man's beverage having been improved under this Bill, the beer had, in fact, become more deleterious than it was before. His reason for supporting the Bill originally was, because he believed that it would put an end to the monopoly of the brewers. He was sorry, however, to find that he had been completely mistaken, for the measure, instead of diminishing, had, he believed, increased all the evils of monopoly. He should again press upon the House the suggestion which he had thrown out the other night, and which, if acted upon, would, he conceived, be attended with beneficial effects. At present the constable could not go into a beer-shop unless to put down a breach of the peace. He would give to the consta-

1081
ble the power of entering those houses for the purpose of ascertaining what sort of company was harboured in them, and whether good order were preserved. This was no more than what the exciseman and the constable could do at present as to regular public-houses, and involved no serious infringement of the liberty of the subject. He thought, it was right, not only that the constable should be invested with that power, but that he should be obliged to exercise it.
Lord Suffield, to prove the ill effects which grew out of the present system, stated, that for two days a lottery had been going on at a beer-house in his neighbourhood. The consequence was, that a scene of the most abandoned drunkenness and riot had been kept up all night; and it was so difficult to obtain the necessary information relative to the commission of the offence, that he, as a Magistrate, found it impossible to act so as to punish any individual.
Lord Kenyonshould merely express the great satisfaction he felt at hearing the sentiments of the several noble Lords who had spoken on this occasion. He could assure his noble and learned friend near him, and every other noble Lord who took any interest in the subject, that he should be most happy to receive any suggestion or amendment with which he should be favoured. One great object of his measure was, to diminish still more the hours at which those beer-shops should be allowed to be kept open, without, at the same time, attempting to interfere with the comforts of the labouring classes. His Lordship concluded by proposing, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
Viscount Melbournesaid, although he very much doubted the dreadful increase of crime which had been described, still he should feel it to be his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill. The Bill, however, as it now stood, did not, in his view, afford a sufficient remedy for the mischiefs about which so much had been said. One of the principal objections related to houses established in lonely and remote situations; but there was nothing whatever in the Bill to remedy any mischief which could be ascribed to that circumstance. All the legislation which was formerly directed against public-houses generally, was now, it appeared, to be directed exclusively against the beer-shops. But if the whole subject were to be
1082
considered, with the view of introducing, generally, a more preferable system, he would put it to the noble Lord, whether it would not be necessary to extend the system of securities, which he meant to apply to beer-shops, to the lower sort of licensed public-houses, which, after all, were in no respect better conducted than those houses that were established under the new Act. He threw this suggestion out for the consideration of the noble Lord. He did not believe, that all the evils which were enumerated flowed from the one source; and he was not very sanguine in thinking that this Bill was likely to remove them.
Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING.
The Marquess of Lansdownrose to move, that their Lordships should take into consideration the Report of the Committee to whom it had been referred to inquire into the state of the Parliament-office, and to propose that they should agree to the resolutions to which that Committee had come, the substance of which he should briefly state to their Lordships. The great object which the Committee had in view was, to devise some means by which the printing of the two Houses of Parliament might be executed with more economy, and, at the same time, with more convenience. That it was a subject worthy of consideration, would at once be seen, when he informed their Lordships, that the expense of printing in one year, (certainly under very peculiar circumstances) exceeded 100,000 l., and that in the last year it amounted to 56,000 l. The Committee, in pointing out how a large saving could be effected, did not wish to induce their Lordships to abstain from printing such documents as were material, but to avoid the second printing of any which had already been printed for the use of the other House of Parliament. The Committee felt, that it was necessary to make a positive and direct reduction on printing charges, if that could be done without detriment to the public business. The Committee thought, that by an understanding with the other House, much of the expense of double composition, and of late working at night, might be avoided. It was, also, proposed to effect a considerable saving by a new arrangement with respect to the printing of the public ac-

1083
counts, which, while it retained the most perfect clearness and perspicuity, would be attended with less expense than at present. By coming to an understanding with the other House of Parliament, documents which had been printed for that House, and copies of which their Lordships might require, need not be again printed; and vice versâ, documents printed for the House of Lords might, in like manner, be furnished to the Commons. It would be very easy, also, if their Lordships were pleased to agree to those Resolutions, and the House of Commons also concurred in them, to have such documents as were printed for the use of the other House laid on their Lordships' Table, when it was necessary. A list of the papers that were moved to be printed, in either House, might be exchanged from day to day, and thus individuals in each House might, at a glance, be enabled to call for any document that appeared of importance. Mr. Church, of the Stationery-office, had also, by a very simple alteration in the mode of preparing the papers, assisted in reducing the expense. From the information he had received, it appeared probable, that a reduction of twenty-five per cent would be made on the whole expense, with respect to one species of documents, and of seventy per cent on another, by the adoption of the system now recommended. Taking an average of the whole, it appeared to him, looking to the printing of Bills, Journals, papers, and accounts, a reduction of one-half, or from 20,000 l. to 30,000 l. a-year, would be effected. It was also proposed, that the printers of both Houses of Parliament should be permitted to sell to the book-sellers, in another shape, such reports, &c., as might be called for. The noble Marquess concluded by laying the Resolutions of the Committee upon the Table, and moving that they be adopted, which was agreed to.
It was ordered that the Resolutions should be communicated to the House of Commons in a Conference.

EXCHEQUER RECEIPT BILL.
Earl Grey, in moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Exchequer Receipt Bill, observed, that it was a measure which proceeded from two Reports made by the Commissioners who had been appointed in 1830 and 1831, to inquire and examine into the practice of the Ex-
1084
chequer, with respect to the receipt and payment of the Public Money, and the mode of keeping the accounts thereof. The object of the appointment of those Commissions was, to introduce greater simplicity into the mode of keeping the Exchequer Accounts, to regulate more effectually the business of the Exchequer, and at the same time to establish an efficient and proper control. Along with these objects was combined that of producing a considerable saving in this branch of the Government. Such being the objects sought to be obtained he could not anticipate any opposition to the measure. In conformity with the recommendation of the two Commissions to which he had referred, it was proposed by this Bill to abolish the offices of Auditor, of the Four Tellers of the Exchequer, of the Clerk of the Pells, and the several offices subordinate thereto, and in lieu of them to appoint a Comptroller-General, an Assistant Comptroller, a Chief Clerk, and as many clerks and assistants as the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury might deem necessary. The next point was, to introduce greater simplicity in the mode of making up the accounts, and to effect a considerable saving. With that view it was proposed that all the cumbersome and antiquated machinery of the office should be abolished, and that a system of a more modern nature should be substituted. He was not aware that under the old plan any fraud had been committed, or that the public had sustained any loss; but, while under the new system the security would be found equally good, it would be found to possess greater simplicity and efficiency. The Accounts would, therefore, in future, be kept according to the modern practice, and all that circuitous mode of doing business, by which money was first sent to the Exchequer and from thence into the Bank, would be done away; the revenue would at once, under the new system, be sent to the Bank, and being so paid, should be placed to the credit of his Majesty's Exchequer, and form one account in the Bank Books. It was provided that the money being so placed in the Bank, should only be extracted thence by his Majesty's Royal Order, under the Royal Sign-Manual, to be countersigned by the Commissioners of the Treasury. The sums necessary for the public service were to be thus drawn out as they might be wanted; but in all

1085
cases a reference should be made to the particular Vote or Act of Parliament by which such an issue of the Public Money was authorized. By this course, simplicity in keeping the Accounts would be united with the most effectual control. Another clause of the Bill provided for the payment of salaries, allowances, and other charges hitherto payable in detail at the Exchequer. These payments were to be made by a Paymaster, to be appointed by the Commissioners of the Treasury, with such a number of Clerks as the Commissioners should deem requisite. The Paymaster of the Treasury, it was provided, should be invested with the same authority as the Paymaster of the Army or Navy exercised now. With reference to the pecuniary saving which would be effected by the measure, he must observe, that the present establishment of the Exchequer consisted of sixty-five officers, and the annual expenditure amounted to 41,000 l.; whereas, under the new system, the number of persons employed would be only twenty-nine, and the cost of the Establishment would not exceed 11,000 l.; a reduction of thirty-six persons in the number employed, and of 30,000 l. in the expenditure, being thus effected. This, it must be admitted, was a satisfactory change; but he did not propose it so much on the ground of economical advantage, great as that must be admitted to be, as upon the principle of bringing about an important improvement in the management of the Exchequer. It was desirable that an officer such as the Comptroller-General should be independent of the Treasury; accordingly his appointment would be for life, removable only upon a Parliamentary Address to the Crown. The assistant who would supply the place of the Comptroller in the event of occasional absence was to be appointed during pleasure, and his salary would be annually voted by the House of Commons; so as to obviate
any apprehension of the Comptrollership being rendered a sinecure office. If it were attempted to transfer the duties of Comptroller to his Assistant, Parliament would thus possess an effectual check upon the abuse by having the payment of the Assistant in its own hands. With respect to the offices abolished by the Bill, it was not an act of bounty, but one of mere justice, to provide for the two Tellers of the Exchequer, who held their places by patent. This being the
1086
case, they were to receive the amount of their salaries for life. After those two Gentlemen (Earl Bathurst and Mr. Spencer Perceval) only one Teller remained (Marquess Camden), the fourth (Mr. Yorke) having recently died. With respect to the Marquess Camden it had been thought right to introduce a particular provision into the Bill. Their Lordships would all recollect the generous sacrifice which the noble Marquess had made of the whole surplus profits of his office beyond the amount fixed by the new regulation which took place a few years ago, although the noble Lord had as good a right to receive the whole sum unabated as any Peer possessed to his estate. The amount which the public had saved in consequence of this act of the noble Marquess was 244,000 l. Under these circumstances, it was thought right to record this signal instance of liberality, and secure to the Marquess Camden for life the whole right which he now had to the property of his office, trusting he would continue to pursue the same conduct as hitherto, but leaving the matter entirely to himself. With respect to subordinate offices, it was left to the Treasury to make such arrangements as might be deemed necessary. He must advert to one omission in the Bill: no provision had been made in consequence of the death of Mr. Yorke, by whose demise one of the Tellerships became vacant, together with all the subordinate offices belonging to it. In this case, there being no new Teller appointed, the money which was in Mr. Yorke's chest (about 30,000 l.) could not be taken out, and the persons employed under him were now, strictly speaking, no longer considered as being upon the Establishment of the Exchequer, and, therefore, would not be entitled to be provided for under this Bill. But it would be an act of great injustice to take advantage of this circumstance to deprive those individuals of compensation. A particular provision in their favour could not now be introduced into the Bill consistently with the privileges claimed by the other House of Parliament. This was a fair occasion for exercising the power of the Crown to appoint another Teller of the Exchequer, whose office should cease as soon as the Bill had passed into a law. The consequence of a new appointment would be to revive the office, and to remove all difficulty with respect to the Clerks and the money now locked up from

1087
the public. The Clerk of the Pells possessed the same interest in his office as the Tellers, it being also an office for life. It was unnecessary to dwell upon the valuable services of the Gentleman who held that situation; they were well known, and had been displayed in different departments, and were of a character to entitle him, independently of his legal claim, to compensation for life to the full amount of the salary which he now enjoyed as Clerk of the Pells. As he was satisfied that the principle of the measure was good, and as it merely followed up the recommendations which had received the sanction of former Governments for the improvement of the Exchequer, he trusted it would receive their Lordships' concurrence.
The House went into a Committee, and having agreed to the several clauses of the Bill, resumed.

FRENCH SMUGGLING.
Viscount Strangfordrose to move for papers relative to the practice of Smuggling on the northern and western coast of France, and said that he would not trouble their Lordships with any observations except in explanation of the reasons which induced him to give notice of Motion on the subject. First, he wished for an opportunity to show the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that the charges which he (Viscount Strangford) made on Friday against the French government were founded on facts, and more important than the noble Lord appeared to suppose at the time. Next, he desired to show that in point of chronology he was correct, and that the regulations of the French government of which he complained did come into operation subsequently to the date of the present Ministry's accession to office.
Lord Aucklandthought he had good ground to complain of the conduct of the noble Viscount, who came down to the House on Friday, and, without previous notice, made a heavy charge against Ministers, accusing, nay, condemning them for acts of great carelessness and indifference as to the protection of the interests of the country; charging Ministers with employing incompetent diplomatic agents, and being badly served by them; stating on Friday that we had been ill-used and refused redress by France, and on Tuesday coming down and asking for evidence whereby to prove his charges. It would have been better if the noble Lord had
1088
examined evidence first, and allowed the conviction and condemnation of the offenders to follow. He was glad, however, that the noble Lord had made the Motion, because it would enable him to vindicate the Government from the charge of total neglect and want of information in matters nearly concerning the public interest. But he must refuse the noble Lord the documents for which he asked, because they were not such as could be communicated with propriety, and observing a due regard for the public service. It was not usual to call for the correspondence between Ministers and our Ambassadors at foreign courts. Indeed, it would totally cripple the execution of business if publicity were to be given to such notes and despatches as the noble Lord required. He meant to state the substance of what passed in relation to the subject. It appeared that the regulations in question commenced in 1791, when a law was passed in France under which a reduction of tonnage dues was allowed on going into certain ports for the purpose of smuggling goods into England. The regulation was continued in 1802, in 1825, in 1830, and in 1832. In 1832 it, for the first time, came to his (Lord Auckland's) knowledge that such regulations existed and the Foreign Office immediately obtained the best information it could on the subject, with a view to making representations to the French government. Such of their Lordships as were masters of the rules of national law upon this point, must know that it was impossible to justify strong representations from one government to another on such a ground. Such transactions as those referred to always existed, and the only reasons for representation consisted in this—that the mask had been taken off, and it was no longer mere connivance. In February, 1833, Government instructed our Ambassador to make a representation to the French government on the subject of the regulations. That representation was made, and the French government assured our Minister of its surprise and regret that such regulations should have been adopted and continued, adding a declaration of its determination to investigate the matter. So much for the unfriendliness of the French government. [Viscount Strangford:—When was that?] In March, 1833. In September, 1833, the French government assured the British Minister that what

1089
depended on law should be immediately remedied, and that what depended upon regulation should be gradually amended, it not being possible at once to abolish practices of forty years standing. This assurance had been acted on, the tonnage dues had been so altered as to reduce the advantages of the smuggler. But the English Government having ascertained through the inquiries of a Commission that the tonnage dues should be still further reduced, in order more effectually to discourage smuggling, a representation to that effect was made to the French ministry, and acceded to by it. Thus it appeared that Government had not been negligent as the noble Viscount had asserted, and that the French government was not unfriendly in this matter, as the noble Viscount had represented.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, what he complained of were the culpable facilities afforded to smuggling by the French government. He did not charge the Government of this country with being in collusion for such a purpose, and only asked whether noble Lords opposite were aware of the practices that existed? The noble Lord did not allude to one facility given in these French ports to smuggling by allowing articles to be exported in such small quantities. He certainly was not before aware that the French government had proceeded so far in the application of a remedy. He wished to ask the noble Earl if it were not true, that British cruisers were not allowed to enter any of those small French ports, or to approach within a certain distance of them?
Lord Aucklandsaid, that such was undoubtedly the fact, but this did not arise from any specific order of the French government, but from revenue regulations which prohibited British cruisers from entering French ports. But those regulations he could inform the noble Viscount, dated from 1828.
The Duke of Wellingtonmust acknowledge, that he had never heard of the inconveniences to which his noble friend had alluded until he had spoken of them the other night. They certainly never came under his notice when he was in office. With respect to the explanation that had just been given by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Auckland), he must admit, that it was perfectly satisfactory. That explanation had distinctly shown, that the Government did remonstrate with the French
1090
authorities when the facts came to their knowledge. He could not, however, but express his regret that the noble Lord had not given his explanation on the former evening when the subject was first introduced, as the noble Lord must have been then aware of all the circumstances which he had just stated to the House. It appeared that the port regulations alluded to had existed for many years, and, as the noble Lord explained, some of them were to be put an end to altogether at once, and others to be gradually abolished. Nothing more than this could be wished for or expected. With reference to the second topic, the hinderance of British cruisers from resorting to French ports, we had no right to complain of such a prohibition. Our ships were not privileged to approach beyond a certain distance from the French coast, and he considered that the French authorities were quite justified in giving orders to that effect.
Lord Aucklandsaid, that the reason he did not on the former night give the explanation he had now given was, as he stated at the time, that he had been taken by surprise. If the noble Viscount had given notice of his intention to accuse the Ministers, he should then have been prepared with the explanations he had now made. All he could say at that time was, that remonstrances had been made to the French government, and that satisfactory arrangements had taken place, but he was not then prepared to go into the details.
Motion negatived.