Lords Sitting of 22 April 1842

MINUTES.
GILLS. Public. —2°. Queen's Prison.
Reported.—Ecclesiastical Residences; Incumbents Leasing; Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing.
3a and passed:—Corn Importation; Law of Merchants Act Amendment.
Private.—1a. Cootbrigg and Derwentwater Inclosure; Liverpool Paving and Sewerage: Bates's Naturalization. 2a. Hinckley Roads; Leicester and Ashby-de-la-Zouch Road.
Reported.— (specially) Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Glasgow. Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway.
3a and passed:—Imperial Insurance Company; Nottingham Gas (No. 1).
Received the Royal Assent.—Forged Exchequer Bills; Public Works; Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity; Midland Counties Railway; South Eastern Railway; Brandling Junction Railway; Birkenhead Improvement; Bradford Water Works; Staleybridge Gas; Windsor Bridge; Bristol Boundary; Duke of Bedford's Estate; Manchester Infirmary; West Stirlingshire Roads (No. 1); Clee Inclosure; Wakeyhill Inclosure; Cottenham Inclosure; Bunsen's Naturalization; Liebert's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Wharncliffe, from Halifax, and the Manchester Medical Society, for an Alteration of the Poor-law.—By Earl Stanhope, from Bradford, for Repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By a noble Lord, from Lisburn, for an Alteration of the Marriage Law as regards Presbyterian and Dissenters Marriages in Ireland.—By a noble Lord, from Greatford, Castle Bytham, and other places, against the proposed Tariff, the Income-tax, and any Alteration of the Corn-laws.— From Ardcanny, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland.—From Wool Combers of Halifax, Stainland, Luddenfoot, and Sowerby Bridge, for the Better Regulation of the Duty on the Exportation of Wool.

SPIRIT DUTIES (IRELAND).
The Duke of Wellingtonmoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Spirit Duties (Ireland) Bill.
On the question that the bill be read a third time.
The Bishop of Derrycould not allow this bill to pass without for a moment calling the attention of their Lordships to what might be its consequences if, as he feared, it should encourage the practice of illicit distillation. Those only who had witnessed the demoralizing effects of that baneful practice could form a correct notion of what they were. Illicit distillation was the fruitful source of some of the worst vices of civilized as well as savage life. A writer on this subject in the year 1818 had well described its effects as worse than any of the ordinary evils of civilized warfare. He hoped that those evils would not be found to follow the passing of this bill; but he so much dreaded any measure which had a tendency to bring back the evil of illicit distillation, that he wished not to be considered in any way a consenting party to this bill.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that all his former objections to the bill still existed. It would not, as he had said at an early stage of the measure, add to the revenue, but it would do much mischief to the
986
country. As a measure of finance, it had the experience of more than twenty years against its success; for the whole of that experience had shown that in every instance in which the duty on spirits in Ireland had been increased, the amount brought to charge had been diminished, and in every case in which the duty had been lessened, the amount of spirit brought to charge had been increased. He saw no reason why the same principle would not apply to the proposed increase of duty in the bill before the House. He had on a former occasion alluded to the very injurious effects to the discipline of the army in Ireland, in being sent out to assist the revenue officers in the suppression of illicit distillation; but, as he did not wish to let such a statement rest on his own authority, he would confidently appeal to the opinions of those gallant officers who had held the important office of Commander-in-chief in Ireland, by all of whom he would be borne out in the statement. Whether the Queen's troops might be again employed for the suppression of illicit distillation he could not say, but this he could state, that for a force of that kind, work would be prepared by this bill. Since this subject was before their Lordships last, he had had communications from Ireland, from which he learned that illicit distillation had already commenced in the northern and western counties. The correspondent of a Mayo paper stated very recently, that Sir R. Peel's plan of improving the revenue by increasing the duty on Irish spirits had given quite an impulse to illicit distillation, and the seizures of illicit stills had already commenced. Looking at the plan only as a financial measure, he repeated that Government would be certainly disappointed in its hope of getting a revenue of 250,000 l. from it. He would now call the attention of their Lordships to another point connected with this hill. They were aware, that a drawback had heretofore been allowed on malt used for distillation, which amounted to 8d.a gallon on the amount brought to charge. By the present bill, that drawback would be repealed. Now, the effect of that would be to establish a great, and, he thought, a very unjust inequality between the distillers of Scotland and those of Ireland, for while the drawback was taken away from the Irish distillers, it was continued to those of Scotland. This would operate very unfairly to the Irish distiller who sent spirits to any of our colonies, or to the United States of America. On an export of 2,500

987
gallons, the Scotch distiller would obtain a drawback of 83 l. 6s. 8d., which was withheld from the exporter of Irish spirits, whose export trade would be crushed and rained by this bill. The Irish distiller had relied on the law, which placed him on an equality with the distiller of Scotland; but he now saw this equality removed, and that by a bill which professed to treat them equally. There was another point on which he would say a word. When any additions of duty were made on former occasions they were to take effect, "from and after" the day on which the resolutions to that effect were agreed to by the House of Commons; but on the present occasion the increased duties were to commence "on and after" the day on which the resolutions had been agreed to. Now, this he thought was unfair, as it would affect all the spirits sold on that day, and it was a departure from the general practice of Government when laying on similar additions. This, however, was a matter of detail. His chief objections to the bill rested on the principles he had stated, and on these he would say "not content" to the third reading of this bill, if it were only to record his objections to it.
The Earl of Riponsaid, the objections of the noble Lord were only a repetition of those which he had made on a former occasion, and they were not of a nature to alter his opinion of the hill. He should, indeed, be very sorry to find that such consequences as? the noble Lord had feared from the employment of the troops in Ireland ire the suppression of illicit distillation; but he did not think, there would be any necessity for such employment now, as we had a very effective revenue police, placed under the orders of a very active and intelligent officer. With respect to the drawback on malt being taken from the Irish distiller, and continued to the Scotch distiller, his noble Friend seemed to forget that the two were on a par when the Scotch distiller brought his spirits into Ireland. He admitted, that there was art inequality between them in the export of their respective spirits, and he must say, that such inequality was not intended, and that the Government would take measures to remove it. With respect to the duty taking effect "on and after," instead of "from and after" the passing of the resolution, he believed that the former words were used on similar occasions. He saw that it was, as his noble Friend stated, in those acts to which his noble Friend had referred, but there were
988
precedents also for the terms used in the present bill.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that when this subject was under discussion on a former evening, he stated, that it had his approbation, as he had that confidence in the Government that they had given the bill the fullest consideration, and that they would not tend to in any way injure public morality; but he owned, that he felt very differently on the present occasion—not from any want of confidence in the Government, for his confidence remained still the same, but because he thought that a great mistake had been committed by the Government with respect to the bill. The bill was grounded on the professed intention of Government that the Irish and Scotch distillers should be placed on terms of perfect equality, but the details of the bill completely destroyed that equality. The Government had admitted by this bill that the inequality did exist—that as it now stood injustice would be done to the Irish distiller—but that the evil would be cured in another bill which was now before the House, relating to Irish spirituous compounds. It was possible, that the evil might be removed in that way, but circumstances might occur which would prevent the Government from carrying their intentions into effect, and he would say, that if this bill were passed without a correction of the error into which its framers had fallen, it would create immense confusion and annoyance in Ireland. Noble Lords should consider the position in which the Irish distillers stood at present. They were aware, that by the temperance movement, a change of an almost miraculous nature had been made in the habits of a very large class of the Irish people, who had been brought from habits of intoxication to those of sobriety; and let him say, that the more he considered that change, and the moral effects it had produced, the more he was disposed to praise that great man who had been instrumental in bringing it about. Before this change some of the distillers used to make what was called whisky for the poor man —that was, whisky distilled from oats. The change in the habits of the people nearly put an end to the demand for that kind of spirit, and several of the distillers confined their trade to the production of a superior kind of spirit distilled from matt, a great portion of which was sent off to some of our colonies, and to the United States of North America; but if this bill

989
should pass in its present state, the Irish distiller would be driven out of those markets, of which the Scotch distiller would receive the monopoly. The drawback, it wag true, would not affect the Irish market for the home consumption, as the taste for Scotch whisky did not prevail in Ireland. Why should the inequality he had pointed out be suffered to continue? If he obtained an assurance from his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade, that this inequality would be remedied, he would not oppose the third reading, but if he did not, he must join with his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) in resisting it, and dividing with him if he should take the sense of the House on it. The Irish distillers had re-quested him to say, that they were perfectly satisfied with the bill, provided this mistake, as it was admitted to be, were corrected. Let the bill, then, stand over for a few days, until this mistake was corrected.
The Marquess of Clanricardecordially joined with his noble Friend in imploring their Lordships to defer this bill for a few days, as he was sure, that if reconsidered, it would not be passed through Parliament in its present shape. He would ask their Lordships whether it were worth while, for at revenue of 250,000 l., supposing that sum could be realised by this bill, which was more than doubtful, to do away with the effects of that temperance movement of which the noble Earl had spoken in terms of such deserved praise? Was it worth while for that paltry amount of revenue to risk the bringing back of the Irish peasants to those habits from which they had in a manner, as had been truly said, almost miraculously been rescued? His noble Friend had alluded to the fact of illicit distillation having already commenced in the town of Mayo, and from information which he had received, he could say the same thing of other parts of the country. Could their Lordships believe, that with the temptations which those illicit stills would place in the way of the Irish peasant be would not soon relapse into his former habits of intoxication? This was not a party question. No one had so viewed it, and if he had the same confidence in the Government as his noble Friend (the Earl of Wicklow), which he had not, be Would speak of this bill in the same language as be now used.
Earl Fortescuesaid, it was almost presumptuous in him to rise on this subject, when there was so many noble Lords pre-
990
sent whose opinions on it were entiled to far greater weight; but when he recollected the temperance movement which he had witnessed in Ireland, and the almost miraculous manner in which it had spread, and was still spreading in that country— when he recollected the great moral effects which that movement had produced and was producing—he was disposed to add his request to that of the noble Lords who had preceded him, that their Lordships might not precipitately pass a bill which would risk the bringing back of the Irish peasants to those habits of intoxication and of crime from which so many of them had been happily rescued. Considering the improved habits of the Irish people, he did hope that their Lordships would pause before they passed a bill which might be followed by so many evils. On these grounds he would oppose the third reading of the bill.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould assure their Lordships that the Government had given great attention to this subject before they had submitted it to Parliament; and from communications which they had had with the chief officer of Excise, and with the able officer who was at the head of revenue police—from these sources they had learned that the most effective means would be adopted for the prevention of illicit distillation. The attention of the Irish Government had been particularly called to this subject. As to the inequality complained of between the Scotch and Irish distillers, he could say that such was not the intention of the Government, and he did not know how such inequality got into the bill. It had been said, that there was a bill now pending in the other House which would afford an opportunity of correcting this error, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would avail himself of it for that purpose; but if it could not be done in that way a new bill would be brought in for the purpose. In the meantime, in order to see what could be effected, he would with the leave of the House withdraw the motion for the third reading of the bill till Monday.
Lord Monteaglebegged to thank the noble Duke for taking this course. As it was the evident intention of the Government to equalize the duties on Scotch and Irish distillers, he hoped it would be borne in mind that the former had the drawback in Scotland which the latter had not, so that the Scotch distillers would thus have a monopoly in their own markets.
Motion for the third reading withdrawn.

MAGISTRACY (IRELAND.) — MR. BIDDULPH.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, it was his intention, pursuant to his notice, to put a question to the Government on a subject affecting the pure administration of justice. The question related to a subject to which their Lordships' attention had been already called. What he wanted to know was, whether after what took place at the King's County assizes, when Mr. Biddulph, a magistrate, had admitted his having advised certain prisoners to run away, any communications had passed between the Government and that gentleman, and whether he was still in the magistracy? Since then he had had a communication with his noble Friend the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, who stated that the case had never been brought before him, and thought there was some remiss-ness on the part of those who ought to have brought the matter under the noble Lord's notice; yet he felt confident that as soon as the noble Lord directed his attention to the case, it would strike him in the same light as it struck him. Under these circumstances he willingly postponed putting any question on the subject until that day week.
Question postponed.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL—DUTIES ON CATTLE.
The Earl of Riponmoved the third reading of the Corn Importation Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he had no wish to obstruct the progress of this important bill, which had already been discussed two nights, though it had certainly been passed more rapidly through its different stages than measures of so much importance usually were at the present period of the Session; but he was desirous of taking this opportunity of putting a question to his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade. There had been announced to the other House of Parliament a measure relating to the tariff of various commodities, one portion of which was intimately connected with the present bill, and must be considered, in reference to it, as forming part of one general measure for the protection of agricultural produce. On looking at that tariff, he found that various sorts of animals were subjected, or proposed to be subjected, to a certain limited duty on importation into this country; and on comparing the amount of that duty with the amount of duty proposed to be imposed for the protection of arable produce under the
992
present bill, he found a most material difference between them, so as to put capital engaged in one branch of agriculture on a different footing from capital engaged in another branch. According to the calculations of those who introduced the present bill, the average price of wheat was stated at about 56 s., though from other calculations, which he had seen, he was led to believe that the price would be higher. The duty proposed to be levied by the present bill, when wheat was at that price, was 16 s. or between 27 and 28 per cent; while the duty proposed by the tariff for the protection of agricultural produce did not exceed 9 per cent. The question he had to ask was, whether the noble Lords could state any reasons to convince the House that he was wrong in these calculations; or, if not, whether it were the opinion of the noble Lords opposite that there ought to exist this difference of protection. If this difference was admitted to exist, and if the noble Lords opposite thought it ought to exist, he certainly had never heard any public grounds stated in defence of the difference of protection. Indeed, he should have thought, that if any difference was to be made at all, there was a much stronger argument in favour of a greater protection to pasture land than to arable land. It was a question of great importance, whether the Legislature ought to give a bounty to the application of capital to one particular branch of agriculture in preference to another; or whether the Legislature ought not to leave capital where it found it, and give the same protection to it, whether invested for the purpose of converting land into arable purposes, or of supplying animal produce from it; for, looking to the means of securing food for the country, he thought nothing could be of greater consequence than maintaining a great quantity of pasture land.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that at no time had the duties with respect to the admission of cattle corresponded with the duties on the importation of corn. With regard to the first, there had been a prohibition, and the latter had been regulated by a duty fluctuating more or less inversely to the price. The two subjects, therefore, had been regulated on different principles. The principle ground on which the fluctuating duty was imposed on corn was, that the effect of the seasons had a material influence on the produce, so that the supply was liable to variation. It was quite true that the seasons might have an effect, also, on the value

993
of cattle, making it at times less easy to bring animals to the market in the same full growth. Still the price of cattle never varied in the same manner as corn; and the proposition to place a duty on the importation of cattle regulated on the same principle as the duty on corn would be totally inapplicable to the circumstances of the two cases. He was perfectly ready to admit that it had never occurred to him to regulate the duties on the same principle.
The Marquess of Lansdownethought the noble Lord had not exactly apprehended the purport of his question. He had not asked the noble Lord whether he thought it fit to apply the system of averages to the importation of cattle; but he inquired on what ground it was that a different amount of protection was afforded to agricultural produce in the two cases? The noble Lord said that there always had been a difference; but what had the difference hitherto been? He apprehended that cattle and meat had received a greater protection than the arable produce of the country; and now, all of a sudden, without any reason being assigned for the measure, the protection on cattle was not altered with a view of bringing it down to the same level with the protection on corn, but, having been before distinguished by being greater, it was proposed henceforth to distinguish it by making it less. If this were the case he thought Parliament ought not to agree to the measure without learning whether the Government had distinctly considered the point, and what were the grounds on which they vindicated it. He begged not to be understood as giving an opinion adverse to the measure. On the contrary, he might say, without entering into details, that he considered the investigation of the tariff with reference to its improvement to be a work infinitely honourable to those who had attempted it. But it was right that this improvement should be effected on some settled and intelligible principle, and he had not heard any reason assigned by the noble Lord, who admitted that the tariff abolished the former protection on cattle, which was greater than that afforded to corn, and gave cattle an inferior protection now, why this alteration, which was an important departure from the system hitherto pursued, was proposed.
The Earl of Riponsaid, he had already explained the principle of the different duties on corn and cattle. The noble Marquess said, that the duty on wheat when the price was 56 s. was 16 s. under the pre-
994
sent bill, being 27 or 28 per cent., and that the duty proposed to be levied on the importation of cattle did not exceed 9 per cent.; but his noble Friend forgot that with respect to the duty on wheat, it did not remain steadily at 27 per cent., but dwindled to nothing. [The Marquess of Lansdowne: It also rises above 27 per cent.] It would be quite preposterous to affix to cattle, the duty on which was a fixed duty, the maximum amount of duty which was assigned to corn, the latter duty being fluctuating. He had not been the least aware that his noble Friend intended to enter into this subject, or that he was expected to enter into arguments to show the precise grounds on which the specific duty proposed for cattle was selected. This was a subject which would require some time and discussion to explain satisfactorily to the noble Lord or to himself. He thought he should be able to show that if the Government had proposed a duty on cattle corresponding in amount to the duty on corn, the practical operation of such a duty would, in a great measure, have been a prohibition; and consequently the Government would, then, not have effected the object for which the prohibition was proposed to be removed. Had the Government, while professing to repeal the prohibition, proposed a duty equivalent to a prohibition, they would not have acted in a straightforward manner.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that all he wished to be acquainted with was the ground of the difference of protection, and whether the subject had been duly considered by the Government. If the noble Lord showed that the application of the amount of protection afforded to cattle would be equivalent to a prohibition, he would make out his case, and he should be exceedingly glad to hear his reasons. The noble Lord said that he argued this question in reference to the maximum duty on corn. This was not the case; for he argued it in reference to the price of 56 s., which was described to be the average price. He meant to put the question with all fairness to the noble Lord, and he certainly did think that this part of the tariff had a great connexion with the bill before the House, because it was impossible to legislate with confidence on one portion of agricultural produce, without taking into consideration the amount of protection on another.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, with reference to the Corn-bill, the third reading of which had been moved, that though he

995
had opposed it, he now hoped, after the discussions and divisions which had taken place, that their Lordships would assist the Government, by reconciling those in the country over whom they had any influence to a measure the passing of which was now inevitable. From his associations, prejudices, and political opinions, it might be supposed that he would regard with partiality any measure proposed by the present Government, and nothing but a sense of duty had made him vote against the Government on this particular measure. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control had said the other night, that some in that House and many out of it were not justified in their assertions, that the Government had deceived them in reference to their measure on the Corn-laws. It would not be right to say, that they had been deceived by the Government, but he had a right to say, that they had been disappointed; for, although the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had not abandoned the principle of the sliding-scale, he had still a right to say, that in respect to the extent of protection, the agricultral interest had been disappointed. They did not care whether the duty were sliding or fixed, so long as they had a sufficient protection, and that protection was efficiently carried out. He thought, however, as the measure had now been fully discussed, it would be wrong to offer any further opposition to it, or to embarrass the Government in carrying the measure into effect.
Bill read a third time and passed.
The following Protest against the Third Reading was entered on the Journals.
"Dissentient—because the new Corn-bill, although it was allowed by the Minister who proposed it to ' cause a very considerable decrease of the protection which the present duties afford to the home grower,' is not accompanied, as in justice it ought to have been, by the following measures, namely:—

"1. The repeal of all the taxes which fall directly upon land—the land tax, the malt tax, and the hop duty.

" 2. The equalisation of all the rates of which the occupiers of land bear at present an undue and unfair proportion, poor-rates, highway-rates, and county-rates.

" 3. The repeal of the Tithe Commutation Act, which can no longer be just or applicable.

" 4. A legislative enactment, authorising all persons who hold leases to surrender them on giving six months' notice before Lady-day or Michaelmas.

" 5. A legislative enactment, directing the
996
payment made under every written contract to be reduced according to the proportion which the average prices of wheat, under the new Corn-bill, may at the time of making such payment bear to its average price at the time that such contract was formed, so that such payment may be of the same value as was originally intended and agreed to by the parties."

" STANHOPE."

LAW OF MERCHANT AND FACTOR.
The Earl of Riponin moving the third reading of the Law of Merchants Act Amendment Bill said, that he believed it would be hardly necessary for him to say a word with respect to the bill. Its intention was to remedy some of the inconveniences that at present existed between principal and agent, with reference to the consigning of goods. The law as it at present stood permitted an agent to sell the goods intrusted to him, but he was not allowed to pledge them as against the principal beyond the lien he held upon them. In addition to that he might advance money on security of certain documents, such as the bills of lading. Sometimes great inconvenience was felt in this respect, and as the advance of money on goods shipped was becoming so interwoven with the commercial intercourse of the country, it was felt necessary to give facilities to this mode of raising money, unless facilities in that respect were given, commerce would be cramped. His noble Friend opposite, the Earl of Clarendon, introduced a bill of a similar character last Session, which he was unable to proceed with, but his attention being drawn to the subject, the present bill, which was very nearly the same, was introduced, and he took that opportunity of giving his noble Friend all the credit of the bill.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, he could confirm all that had been said by the noble Earl with regard to the importance of the measure, because nearly all the commerce of the country was now conducted by making advances on goods on their way to market, which was productive of great injustice and embarrassment to trade. He had presented several petitions from various persons, representing that the present state of the law was very injurious. He had no hesitation in saying, that nine-tenths of the goods sold in this country had advances made on them, and he could assure the House, that the bill would confer a great boon on the whole community.
Lord Campbellexpressed his concurrence on the merits of the bill. Great litigation had arisen from the present state

997
of the law; the act which had been passed; had been a mere snare. He rejoiced that this bill, which had been prepared by the former Government, had been adopted by the present.
Bill read a third time and passed.

QUEEN'S PRISON BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the second reading of the Queen's Prison Bill.
The Marquess of Normanbyconcurred in the object of the bill, a measure which it had been his intention to introduce.
The Bishop of Londoninquired whether there was a provision in the bill giving power to the Bishop of the diocese to superintend the religious instruction of the persons confined in the Queen's prison?
Lord Wharncliffesaid, there was nothing in the bill at present to that effect.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned.