THIRD READING. (Hansard, 10 May 1858)

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
said, he did not object to the very high rate of duty which it was proposed by the Bill to levy upon Irish spirits, provided only that it could be collected. Perhaps he should be told that the present duties were punctually paid; but he would remind their Lordships that the price of grain had latterly been very high; and when that was the case the revenue authorities had seldom much to complain of. But in point of fact smuggling was on the increase; for while the consumption of spirits had of late increased, the number of gallons taken for home consumption had diminished. The difference must, therefore, have been made up by spirits smuggled or illegally distilled. There was another matter to which he wished to refer. The admirable body of revenue police bad been abolished and its duties transferred to the Irish constabu- 328 lary; but while a fair provision had been made for its younger members, those who had grown old in the service had been treated in a most miserably parsimonious manner. The Government would save £40,000 by the proposed arrangement, and was going to raise £500,000 additional from Irish spirits, and they might do an act of justice to these men for £20,000 a year. He had no personal knowledge of any one of these parties, but he appealed to any noble Lord connected with Ireland whether he had not justly estimated the services of this corps. He should not make any Motion on the subject, but he hoped the Government would look into the matter and do what was just.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, he did not agree with the noble Lord that the measure would have the effect of promoting illicit distillation. The decline of the temperance movement in Ireland had no doubt tended to increase the consumption of spirits there; but still it should not be forgotten that the population of that country was a diminishing one, and that the habits of the middle and higher classes had become greatly improved, two circumstances which would account for the moderate consumption of spirits. He would not deny that an increased duty might have the effect of still more limiting the consumption; but as the use of intoxicating liquors was bad for the morals of the people and for the prosperity of the country, it was the duty of the Government, independently of raising a revenue, to impose a tax upon it. The revenue police had no doubt been very effective in suppressing illicit distillation in the mountains and bogs, but had not been a very great check upon overrunning in the licensed distilleries. The districts which had been the last stronghold of the illicit distiller were rapidly becoming more and more assimilated to the other parts of the country, and therefore the necessity for a revenue force no longer existed. He thought the Government had taken a very wise step in equalising the duty.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
thought that this matter was one of very great importance to Ireland, and he dreaded lest illicit distillation or the adulteration of spirits should increase. With reference to that class of persons to whom his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had referred, they had been turned out of the public service at a time of life when it was almost impossible 329 for them to devote themselves to anything else, and he recommended their claims to the notice of the Government.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, that, as to the particular class alluded to who had been superannuated, he must say to the noble Marquess opposite that it was quite sufficient for the Government to have to defend their own measures, without having cast upon them the burden of defending the measures of the late Government. This was the second time within a short period when leading Members of the late Government had attacked the present Government for doing that for which they were themselves responsible. The late President of the Board of Trade had attacked the Government as to the arrangements for telegraphic communication with India, and had made an admirable speech, pointing out the superiority of another plan and the great inconvenience of the one adopted, without waking to the consciousness that the plan so objected to was that adopted by the late Government of which he was a Member. The noble Marquess protested as to the injustice of the superannuations. [The Marquess of CLANRICARDE: No.] To the great hardship then inflicted on the officers of the revenue police by reason of the inadequacy of the compensation. It did happen that that compensation had not been assigned by the present Board of Treasury, but by the Government of which the noble Marquess was so distinguished a Member.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
Not at the time. A complaint had been made before he joined the late Government, and he had intended to bring it under the notice of his colleagues.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
wondered that the noble Marquess had allowed the matter to sleep as long as he was a Member of the Government. It was at all events very extraordinary that the noble Marquess had accepted office in the Government that had inflicted such hardship on a body of his countrymen—if indeed it were a case of hardship; but he did not think it was. He thought that these men had received as much as they were entitled to. Upon the consolidation of the revenue police with the general constabulary of Ireland, every man who was fit for service in the revenue police was transferred to the constabulary police. They then had to deal with those who were incapable of performing their duties; and they were dealt with in this way. All who had served for a period of 330 time which entitled them to receive less than half of their pay and emoluments had assigned to them a sum equal to half of their pay and emoluments, a sum larger than by any circumstances they were entitled to under the Superannuation Fund Act. Those who had served for a longer period, and came under the Superannuation Act, had assigned to them the utmost amount that the late Lords of the Treasury could assign; this applied to those who were entitled to more than half their emoluments. The complaint really was not that the Government had done too little for one class, but too much for the other. It was the old parable of the labourers in the vineyard. A memorial had been prepared in which superannuation was calculated upon the basis of pay and allowances, whilst the Government took as their basis for superannuation, pay and emoluments. "Allowances" included such items as forage for a horse; but when a man left the service he, of course, had no claim to such an allowance. Nothing could be more unjust than to regulate superannuation in reference, not to pay and emoluments, but to pay and allowances. What he said was this, that they bad given to those who had only been a short time in the service more than they were entitled to, and they had given to those who had been longer in the service the maximum that they were entitled to claim; and under these circumstances he could not see that the parties had been dealt with unfairly. There may have been cases of individual hardship, but as a general rule he thought that the late Board of Treasury had treated these parties with justice and liberality.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
said, that he had complained of both Governments, and that when the Bill for the consolidation of the revenue police with the constabulary was introduced it was said that a distinction would be made in the case of officers whose offices were abolished. This demand was now put forward solely on the ground of pay, not of allowances, and the case was one deserving of consideration.

§ LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY
said, the noble Earl at the head of the Government had accused the late Government of making it a practice to condemn their successors for taking those measures which they had themselves sanctioned when in office. This accusation appeared to have some reference to what passed on a former evening relative to the laying down of the electric telegraph to Alexandria. Now, 331 the facts really were, that only a few weeks before the noble Viscount late at the head of the Government stated, in "another place," that the negotiations with the Austrian Government on the subject of the telegraphic communication had ceased; and shortly after the present Government came into office, he had himself expressed a hope that the negotiations would not he renewed, inasmuch as any scheme which would give to an Austrian company the absolute control of the telegraphic communication with Malta, or any other of our Mediterranean stations, would be highly objectionable and detrimental to the public service. And he had at the same time added, that in his opinion some attempt ought to be made, before negotiating with the Austrian Government, by the present Government to ascertain whether the telegraph could not be laid down by an English company on the same or even on more favourable terms. The noble Earl opposite then stated that the Government were only carrying out the recommendation of their predecessors, and, in proof of that assertion, referred to a minute which they had found among the public archives on their accession to office. The truth was, that this so-called minute was only a memorandum, which bore date the 22nd of February, or two days after the late Government resigned, and it contained no decision whatever on the subject. He had asked the noble Earl now at the head of the Foreign Office what answer had been made to the proposition made by the Sardinian Government in regard to the laying down of the telegraph; but he had been unable to elicit from him any satisfactory reply. The last intimation which the late Government gave on the matter was the one to which he had already referred—namely, that the negotiations with the Austrian Government had ceased. This explanation would show whether he had condemned the Government for adopting the recommendation of their predecessors.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
, with respect to what the noble Lord had stated as to the impossibility of obtaining an answer from him the other evneing, said, that the noble Lord had not done him the honour to give him due notice of his intention to put his question. The House would recollect the advice offered to the Government by a noble Earl on Friday night—namely, never to answer any question, however simple, unless previous notice of it had been placed upon the paper. That 332 appeared to be a good rule to follow; and, if the noble Lord wished for any information which could be consistently afforded by the Government, perhaps he would not object to give notice of his question.
After a few words in explanation from Lord STANLEY Of ALDERLEY,