Lords Sitting of 17 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a East India Loan; Annoyance Jurors (Westminster).
2a Edinburgh Assessments; Excise and Stamps.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,referring to the answer of the noble Earl the President of the Council upon his (the Marquess of Normanby's) Motion the other evening for the production of the Correspondence which had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Home Government in reference to the Galway Subsidy, said, that answer had received in Ireland an interpretation different to that which the noble Earl, doubtless, intended should be applied to it. This was obvious from the observations made on the last occasion by his noble Friend, connected with the Company of Galway (Earl of Clancarty). The fact of the case was that when a deputation of noblemen and gentlemen waited upon the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the expediency of continuing the subsidy, his Excellency gave them a distinct pledge that Her Majesty's Government should be fully informed of all the points which they urged. But when he (the Marquess of Normanby) moved for the Correspondence which he supposed the Lord Lieutenant entered into with Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of that pledge, the

  1161
  noble Earl (Earl Granville) denied that there was any such official correspondence in existence, whereupon he (the Marquess of Normanby) expressed his regret that his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not thought it consistent with his duty to make to Her Majesty's Government an official representation upon the subject, as, from experience, he knew that such was the most convenient and most satisfactory course to adopt. It was not necessary when, as in his own case, there was almost daily confidential correspondence with the Prime Minister, his late friend, Lord Melbourne, with whom he never had a difference of opinion upon any Irish subject. But he also knew that the most important despatches in reference to Irish policy were those which the late Marquess of Wellesley, while Lord Lieutenant, addressed to the Secretary of State when there was, he would not say a difference, but the shadow of a difference, between himself and the Ministers with reference to the policy to be pursued in that country. It was not his practice to allude to what took place elsewhere, but on the present occasion he felt called upon to do so in consequence of the new principle for the government of Ireland enunciated in a recent debate by one of the Ministers of the Crown himself, the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant.
  EARL GRANVILLErose to order. He did not see how the matter referred to by the noble Marquess could in any way be taken as fixing the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he did not pledge himself to the precise expressions used by the Chief Secretary; but the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown, and any expression coining from him would limit the functions of the Lord Lieutenant who was his official superior. The right hon. Gentleman was understood to make a declaration to the effect that it was not considered desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should express any opinion upon the subject of the subsidy in question—a declaration the more extraordinary as being made after it was publicly known that a deputation, consisting of gentlemen of all parties in that country, had waited upon his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the matter, and that he had told them that that was not the first time he had had the matter brought under his consideration, and that he had not waited until
  1162
  then to inform Her Majesty's Government of his opinions and sympathy in reference to it. From his own experience, he (the Marquess of Normanby) must say that if that was the footing upon which the Lord Lieutenant was to be placed it would be impossible for him to efficiently discharge the duties of his responsible office, and the sooner the office was abolished the better. Of all questions, this was certainly the one on which the Government ought to have consulted the Lord Lieutenant. No doubt it was not a purely Irish question; but the object of the Lord Lieutenant's office was to endeavour to cement Irish interests with Imperial policy; and if the doctrine of the Secretary of Ireland prevailed, very few noble Lords would be found in the future willing to undertake the duties of Lord Lieutenant. He would not now enter farther into that question than to say, that when the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, some years since, was preparing a Bill for the abolition of the office, he wrote to Paris to consult him (the Marquess of Normanby) upon the policy of the proposal, when he replied that it would be impossible on account of the numberless changes which it would occasion to carry the measure through as they proposed, but that he farther thought that till the two countries were in many respects more nearly assimilated, nothing could compensate for the advantage which the office of Lord Lieutenant secured of having always present throughout the year a statesman of weight and influence to be consulted on all Irish interests. He wished to know whether the noble Earl adhered to the statement that no official communications had passed between the Government and the Lord Lieutenant with reference to the Galway contract?
  EARL GRANVILLEwished to remind the noble Marquess of the answer he had given the other evening. In reply to a Motion then made by the noble Marquess, for the Correspondence which had passed between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government on the subject of the Galway subsidy, he (Earl Granville) stated that there was no official correspondence on the subject. No doubt communications had passed between members of the Government and the Lord Lieutenant; but there were no official communications which could be produced to Parliament. He did not know whether the expressions said to have been used by the Chief Secretary in "another place" were correctly given; but if any

  1163
  importance attached to them, it was most irregular and inconvenient to bring them under the notice of their Lordships in the way the noble Marquess had done. He had, however, not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Government were in constant communication with the Lord Lieutenant, and that they received with great confidence and deference his opinion on all subjects connected with the general policy of Ireland. Very likely the Secretary for Ireland stated in the other House that it was not considered necessary by the Government to consult the Lord Lieutenant in regard to the Galway contract. The question was whether a contract with a Government department, the stipulations of which had not been fulfilled, should be terminated, and that was an Imperial question, and not one to be referred to the Lord Lieutenant. He was informed by his noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that it had never been the practice and had never been thought necessary to communicate with the Irish Government on matters connected with the management of the Irish Post Office. In this instance it would have been placing the Lord Lieutenant in an unfair position, to call upon him for an official communication which might perhaps have rendered him unpopular in Ireland. Such a course would have been very injudicious. He could not believe that the object of the noble Marquess was to sow dissension between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government, or between the Lord Lieutenant and his Secretary, though coming from another person such an intention might have been presumed from the remarks which had been made. He could only say that they were now, he believed, on the best terms, and, no doubt, the wish of the noble Marquess was that those cordial relations should continue.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that on a question of such great public interest, affecting as it did the industry of Ireland, the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant ought not to have been thrown aside and passed over as having no bearing on the question, as they appeared to have been by the Government; for he could not otherwise understand how the noble Earl should have said, when the noble Marquess on a former occasion asked for the production of this Correspondence, that there were no official papers on the subject. He admitted that the question was of Imperial importance—for whatever affected the interests of Ireland affected
  1164
  the interests of the whole kingdom; but that was an additional reason why the Lord Lieutenant should have been consulted on the discontinuance of the subsidy, as his predecessor had been consulted on its establishment. It appeared that when a deputation waited upon the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin on the subject, the noble Earl could only express his sympathy with those who addressed him, and promised to place their views before the Government. To state after this that there was no official correspondence was, in his opinion, to lower the position of the Lord Lieutenant in the eyes of the Irish people, besides subjecting to a severe strain the philosophy and forbearance of the noble Earl himself.
  THE EARL OF LEIRIMsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Earl should have said that the production of the Correspondence would be very inconvenient—
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not stated that the production of the Correspondence would be inconvenient; he said that there was none of a public nature.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMhad certainly understood the noble Lord to say so. It appeared that an extraordinary line was drawn between official and non-official correspondence. He supposed the distinction was, that if the Lord Lieutenant, instead of beginning his letter with "My Lord," began "My dear Lord," "My dear Lord" held that correspondence to be private and confidential, though it might be of vital importance to the whole empire. He deprecated this system, arid he deprecated the imputation that the noble Marquess had brought forward this Motion with the object of producing discord among the Members of the Cabinet. If report spoke true there was enough of discord there already. In trying to avoid the production of the correspondence, the noble Earl had endeavoured to mislead the House. He had stated that the whole question was, whether a Company that had failed to perform its contract should continue to receive a subsidy. This he denied. The question was whether Galway should be a packet station or not, and it was indifferent whether the contract was held by one Company or another. It had been said of a former Irish Government that the Lord Lieutenant did all the dancing, the Chief Secretary all the hunting, and the Under Secretary all the correspondence. It was high time to consider how far the Irish Government should be reformed. Was it to be the only thing in the United Kingdom that was not to be

  1165
  reformed? The whole thing was a paradox. The Chief Secretary was a member of the Cabinet, and had to attend to his Parliamentary duties; the Lord Lieutenant remained in Dublin to perform all the popular demonstrations; but he was only nominally the head of the Government—he was no more than the channel of communication between the English Ministry and the authorities of Ireland. Step by step they were taking all power and authority out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. They had made him, in fact, a mere electioneering agent. Even now, after the important debates that had taken place on the question, a Minister in the Crown could state that the whole question was whether a Company that had failed in its contract should continue to receive a subsidy. This was not a fair way of putting the question. The question was whether the people of Ireland were to have any benefit from the Union or not—whether Ireland was to be treated as part of the United Kingdom or as a colony?
  LORD PORTMANrose to order. He protested against the noble Earl addressing their Lordships when there was no Question before them. Such a course was attended with great inconvenience to the public service.
  LORD BROUGHAM: How does the noble Lord know that the noble Earl on the cross benches does not mean to conclude with a Motion for the repeal of the Union?

EXCISE AND STAMPS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BROUGHAMhoped that Government would not lose sight of the important petition which he presented a few nights ago, signed by 12,000 persons, playing that in districts where two-thirds of the inhabitants desired it they might have power to prohibit the licensing of houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors within that district. The subject was one of the deepest social and national importance. That eminent philanthropist, Mr. M. D, Hill, declared that in all his attempts to prevent crime, to reform criminals, and to protect property, he found the demon drink starting up to thwart his efforts.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

  PROTEST ENTERED, 17TH JUNE,
  Against the Passing of the Customs' and Inland Revenue Bill.
  "Dissentient—
  "1st. Because, whilst it is the manifest duty of Parliament to relieve the people from all unnecessary burdens, yet reductions of taxation are justifiable only when consistent with the efficiency of the public service, with the maintenance of public credit, when effected is strict accordance with constitutional principles, and with the independence and freedom of action of both branches of the Legislature.
  "2nd. Because these indispensable conditions do not appear to have been sufficiently regarded or carefully adhered to, in the Bill now before the House.
  "3rd. Because neither our late experience, nor any statements made in debate, nor any evidence produced in support of this Bill, afford sufficient proof that a surplus exists such as to justify Parliament in sacrificing £2,463,000 of net annual revenue, of which £1,330,000 is produced by the Excise on paper—a duty steadily progressive during many successive years—thereby proving convincingly that neither the amount of the tax, nor yet the law under which it is collected, have arrested production, and whilst prohibitions or the imposition by Foreign States of export duties on the raw material, check a natural fall of price, and the relief which might, otherwise, be given to the consumer.
  "4th. Because it is the more unsafe to rely on the existence of an available surplus in the present year, justifying the abandonment of £2,463,000 of net annual revenue, when it is remembered that on the 10th of February, 1860, a surplus then estimated at £454,000 was, on the 15th of July, converted into a deficiency of £1,286,000; and that the excess of expenditure over income has, on the 31st of March, 1861, risen to the alarming amount of £2,558,384—a deficiency which would have been still greater had not (1st) the future receipts of revenue been anticipated by calling up duties on property, malt and hops to the amount of £3,148,000 (2nd) the Revenue been augmented by drafts on the Exchequer balance to the amount of £1,300,000; (3rd) by applying to the public service unexpected repayments of debt from a Foreign Power; and also (4th) by the consequence of the decision of this House in rejecting in 1860 the proposed repeal of the Paper Duties a decision made in the exercise of the undoubted rights and privileges of the House of Lords, and (lastly) the postponement of the payment of a debt of £1,000,000 due on Exchequer bonds.
  "5th. Because it appears in a high degree improbable that, during the present year (with a future surplus which the most sanguine have not estimated as exceeding £408,000, or an expenditure of £69,875,000) our financial resources can be restored to that credit which befits our dignity or provides adequately for our national interests, in the present state of the continents of North America and of Europe. We may be driven again to draw on our Exchequer balances, again to postpone the payment of our lawful debts when due, or to pay them with borrowed money; the property and War Taxes may again be continued or augmented, and yet after resorting to these somewhat

  1167
  questionable expedients, services still unprovided for may require increased burdens; the commutation of the Stade Duties, the increased interest on Exchequer bills, which have too long remained at a discount, further sums required for the interest of the loan for our national defences, will all demand the attention of Parliament, and require to be placed upon a more secure foundation than the promised remittances from China, or the still more uncertain anticipations of the state of the weather during the next harvest.
  "6th. Because, though it is proposed by the present Bill to repeal £1,133,000 per annum, property tax, and £1,330,000 duties on paper, thus establishing a somewhat plausible equality in the apportionment of relief between direct and indirect taxation, yet this will be found, on reflection, to be an equality, rather apparent than real; the first of these taxes being temporary, the latter permanent, and it hence appearing but too evident that any future national wants will be supplied by an increase and prolongation of the property tax, well described as fraught with political dangers leading to a conclusion that the income tax, though an admirable instrument for national purposes upon a great and national emergency, is a dangerous instrument in time of peace.'—[Hansard's Debates, 3rd February, 1859.]
  "7th. Because, in addition to the preceding objections to the Bill before us, as arising from the present state of our finance and the inadequacy of the promised surplus of £408,000, objections equally serious, though of a different character, may be urged against the form which the measure assumes, and the mode in which it has been prepared.
  "8th. Because the freedom and independence with which the two Houses of Parliament are enabled to perform their respective duties are essential to the dignity of each, and have invariably been appealed to by the highest legal and Parliamentary authorities, as indispensable to the harmonious working of our Constitution.
  "9th. Because, though the rules of Parliament which preclude the annexation of distinct and contrasted subjects, as tacks to Bills of aid and supply, have been asserted and enforced by this House, yet it cannot be denied that precedents may be shown in which various financial measures have occasionally been united in one Bill, without the raising of any objection in this House. This will be found exceptional in some cases, as in the consolidation and re-enactment of existing laws, where no change is practically made in the amount of revenue raised; exceptional in others where the enactments embrace many thousand separate cases which could not, without great public inconvenience, be dealt with in distinct Bills. Some of these instances appear to be founded upon the questionable argument of convenience only; some to be highly dangerous in principle; and in all it behoves this House to watch with the utmost vigilance all such measures, and to guard strictly and firmly against a violation of the principle laid down in their Standing Order, 27th April, 1699, reasserted on various subsequent occasions, and now forming an important part of the law and custom of Parliament, and declaring—'That the annexing of any clause or clauses to a Bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the matter of the said Bill of aid and supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the Government.'
  "10th. Because the same principle asserted in the Standing Orders of the Lords has received the most unqualified assent of high authorities in the Commons. In 1787 [Hansard's Parliamentary History, p. 508], in relation to the proposal of blending two distinct subjects in one Bill, Mr. Fox stated—'This would not only be a bad precedent for the Commons, but would as absolutely preclude the Lords from free debate, as if the Commons had followed the example of Cromwell, and silenced a necessary and Constitutional branch of the Legislature.' On a subsequent occasion the same high authority spoke 'of the difficulty in which the House of Lords would be placed by the blending of the two objects in one Bill,' adding that—'Instead of affording the Lords reason to complain of the Commons for narrowing their grounds both of debate and of voting, the House ought studiously to avoid giving cause for such complaint.'—[Parliamentary History, 1787.]
  "11th. Because it cannot be urged that although a Bill of aid and supply and a Bill for a repeal of a tax both relate to finance, they are, therefore, to be considered as identical in their Parliamentary character, and fitting to be discussed in a combined rather than in a separate form. Practically these Bills are opposite and antagonistic. The one grants, the other takes away; the one adopts and recites the following preamble, which invariably distinguishes Bills of aid and supply from all other legislative proceedings—'We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom, towards making good the supply we have cheerfully granted, do humbly beseech you that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons, and by the authority of the same,' &c., &c.
  "A Bill for the repeal of duties, on the contrary, neither has, nor logically or reasonably can have, such a preamble. It would evidently be absurd to recite as a grant that which is a diminution of taxation. The Assent of the Crown is also given to a Bill of aid and supply in the ancient form of 'La Reine remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult.' To a Bill for the repeal of taxation the Royal Assent is given in the simpler but differing words of' La Reine le veult.'
  "12th. Because the usual course taken by successive Ministers and Houses of Parliament has been to deal with the repeals of Taxes in separate Bills, and to send up the Bill for repealing taxation as a distinct measure. Of these precedents the following examples may be referred to:—

  In 1802—Property Duty.

  1822—Malt Duty.

  1824—Salt Duty.

  1830—Excise Duty on Beer.

  1830—Excise Duty on Leather.

  1831—Excise Duty on Printed Cotton.

  1831—Excise Duty on Candles.

  1833—Excise Duty on Starch.

  1833—Excise Duty on Tiles.

  1833—Excise Duty on House Tax.

  1836—Excise Duty on Stained Paper.

  1845—Excise Duty on Glass.

  1845—Excise Duty on Auctions.

  1850—Excise Duty on Bricks.

  1851—Excise Duty on Window Tax.

  1853—Excise Duty on Soap.

  1855—Newspaper Stamp Duties.

  "13th. Because a practice of combining in one Legislative measure various and discordant subjects, more especially when the Bill is one of Aid

  1169
  and Supply, cannot but produce some risk that such Bills may be dealt with as a whole, and possibly rejected in consequence of some partial objection; a result which, though strictly in conformity with the indisputable privileges of this House, may occasionally lead to public inconvenience, and to the danger of an interruption of that good understanding which it is of such importance to preserve unimpaired between the co-ordinate branches of the Legislature.

  "Monteagle of Brandon

  Harrington

  Mayo

  Rutland

  Grinstead

  Normanby

  Wynford

  Carnarvon

  Lucan."

  Clancarty

  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow Half-past Ten o'clock.