Sitting of 14 July 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For Sutherland, v. David Dundas, Esq., Solicitor General.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN. For Manchester, Right Hon. Thomas Milner Gibson. — For Plymouth, Viscount Ebrington.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bannerman, from Members of Free Union Church, Aberdeen, complaining of the Refusal of Proprietors of Land to grant Sites for the Erection of Free Churches (Scotland), and praying the House to devise Means for enabling Congregations to Rent or Purchase Ground on Reasonable Conditions.—By Mr. Gaskell, from Rural Dean and the Clergy of the Rural Deanery of Wenlock, in the Diocese of Hereford, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but at the same time providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.—From Inhabitants of the Districts of Muswell Brook and Merton, in the Colony of New South Wales, praying the House to admit Wheat, Maize, and Flour, the Produce of Australia, into the United Kingdom on the same Terms as Wheat, Maize, and Flour, the Produce of Canada.—By Sir William Codrington, from Farmers, Landowners, and others, in the Hamlet of Mangersbury, and from Churchwardens, Overseers, and Guardians of the Poor of Stow on the Wold, for Rating Owners of Small Tenements to the Poor Rates in lieu of Occupiers.—By Mr. Cobden, from Market Gardeners and Growers of Fruit at Ealing, Brentford, Hounslow, Isleworth, and the Vicinity, for Alteration of Duty on Sugar.—By Mr. Cobden, from J. and F. Lloyd and Co., Manufacturers of Tobacco and Snuff in the City of London, for Reduction of Duty on Tobacco.—By Mr. Blackburne, from Inhabitants of Warrington, for Regulating the Trade of Fustian Cutting.—By Guardians of the Gateshead Poor Law Union, and from Guardians, Churchwardens, Overseers of the Poor, and others, the Inhabitants of the Parish of Broadwater, for Repeal or Alteration of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Mr. Christopher, from Thomas Johnson, and others, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Mr. Bury, from Inhabitants of Bury, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.

TOBACCO DUTIES.
DR. BOWRINGrose for the purpose of bringing forward his Motion on the duty
1124
on tobacco, with a view to the revision and alteration of the law upon that subject. The more he had examined the question, the more imperative seemed it upon him to direct the attention of Parliament to the frightful consequences of the present state of the law. During the last Session a Committee had sat and had made the most diligent and elaborate inquiries; and to the report presented certain valuable papers had been, added on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). From these sources it appeared that the duty upon tobacco amounted to between 800 and 900 per cent upon the value of the raw commodity. The Committee would have come to a resolution for reducing the duty to 1s., but for the vote of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had charge of the fiscal arrangement of the country, and who opposed himself to a change so materially affecting the revenue. Consequently, in spite of the irresistible evidence taken by the Committee, the law had been allowed to continue with all its unmitigated evils. He (Dr. Bowring) thought he could show to demonstration that other and higher considerations were involved than the mere amount of receipts at the Treasury. If the House were bound to look to the receipts at the Treasury, it was also bound to look at the amount of immorality, crime, and misery occasioned by those receipts. The amount of human guilt and wretchedness fostered and encouraged by the existing law, was, in truth, incalculable; and the whole system required prompt revision. The hon. Member then entered into a variety of details in support of his position, beginning with the number of convictions. In 1846 the convictions in our courts, for breach of the laws relating to tobacco, were no fewer than 538; while for breaches of the laws relating to spirits they were only 101; for tea, 11; for silk, 10; and 25 for all other articles. The rapid increase in the convictions before magistrates was another remarkable feature. In 1843, they were 430; 1844, 583; 1845, 702; and in 1846, 872. The ratio in Ireland and in Scotland was even greater; for while in England they were 102 per cent, in Ireland they were 252 per cent, and in Scotland 451 per cent; but of 333 persons convicted last year of smuggling tobacco in quantities exceeding 100 lbs., only fifteen persons had paid any fines, and the aggregate amount of those fines was only 805 l. The enormous charges that fell upon the public

1125
in consequence deserved consideration; 1,478 prisoners had to be maintained in jail, at a cost of more than 5,000 l., without reference to the cost of prosecutions and other incidental expenses. It was grievous to see, also, that the greater portion of the parties convicted of smuggling tobacco were British sailors. In Hull, out of 85 persons, no fewer than 57 were sailors. At least one-third of the seamen from the Baltic, and employed in crossing the Atlantic, were habitually engaged in defrauding the revenue. The hon. Member next called attention to the amount of tonnage of shipping he supposed to be more or less concerned in this illegal trade; maintaining, on evidence taken by the Committee, that there was scarcely a vessel engaged in coasting that did not to some extent contribute to the smuggling of tobacco. Testimony of the most remarkable kind had been obtained to show in what way whole cargoes were clandestinely, yet openly, introduced into the very heart of the metropolis. One gentleman had imported geese and fowls from abroad, in crates; and these crates were composed of nothing but twisted tobacco, which were seen and handled by the custom-house officers without detection. He dilated upon the seminaries for smuggling existing in various parts of the Empire, and upon the manner in which children were employed in the contraband introduction of tobacco; beginning as smugglers and ending as thieves. He contended that public opprobrium did not attach to offences of the kind; nay, that sympathy was often felt for the parties accused, and that smuggling was carried on by wholesale as well as by retail, in cargoes or in small quantities; and that it employed the rich as well as the poor, the merchant as well as the beggar who could only muster a few pence to risk in an adventure. He adverted also to the heavy cost of the coast-guard, amounting to 600,000 l. or 700,000 l. per annum, much of which might be saved if the duty were lowered, and the inducement to smuggle thereby diminished. It was the general belief that the amount of smuggled tobacco was at least equal to that on which duty was paid. In one district there were introduced 26,686 lbs., in another 48 bales of 60 l. each. Having called the attention of the House to a table that had been prepared with great care, containing the results of the evidence the Committee had taken, he went on to notice the smuggling from
1126
Jersey, which we understood him to say amounted to not less than twelve tons of tobacco per month. He also adverted to the quantity of Dutch snuff sold in London, none of which was legally imported. On the whole, he estimated that not less than 21,747,000 lbs. of tobacco were fraudulently introduced every year. No doubt chemical and microscopic arts had much advanced of late years, and had been employed in aid of the revenue to detect adulterations of tobacco; but the illegal trader was also able to avail himself of the assistance of science; and he (Dr. Bowring) contended that in many cases innocent dealers, who had been the dupes of others in the purchase of adulterated tobacco, had been unduly convicted. It was known that in some cases the Excise had been obliged to make ample restitution to parties, as it appeared afterwards, falsely accused, but duly convicted on the mistaken evidence of philosophers employed by Government to detect the adulteration of tobacco. This was one of the many evils arising out of the present system, and calling loudly for a large reduction of duty. There was a general feeling, in which he concurred, that tobacco was a fit object for taxation; but that taxation must not be so high as to maximise the motives of the smuggler to defraud the revenue. While people were considering how many millions sterling were paid into the Treasury, they forgot the amount of crime and wretchedness produced by this species of legislation. In 1843 the number of sailors employed in the Baltic and United States' trade was 96,920; and of that number there was scarcely an individual who was not more or less a user and importer of illicit tobacco. To these were to be added 131,462 sailors engaged in the coasting trade, most of whom contrived to get tobacco similarly introduced; and between both some idea might be formed of the number of persons employed under the existing system of duties in defrauding the revenue by the use of illicit tobacco. He thought these facts were sufficient to justify him in saying that the Government were called upon to institute an inquiry into the operation of these duties, more especially at a time when a general investigation of the financial affairs of the country was thought advisable. He would appeal to the noble Lord whether he would allow the enormous mass of offence and misery exhibited by this return to be passed over, and whether

1127
he would not be ready to put an end to it, even by some small sacrifice to the revenue, by a reduction on the tobacco duties. He, however, entertained strong doubts whether such a reduction would be followed by any loss to the revenue whatever, as he believed it likely that a reduction in the duty would be made up by the increased consumption to which it must lead. He hoped that if the House agreed with him on these points, they would permit him to move that "it is the opinion of the House that the tobacco duties require an early inquiry into their operation and effects."
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIENrose to address the House, when
An HON. MEMBERobserved that there were not forty Members present.
House counted; when only thirty-four Members being present, it was adjourned.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Spitalfields New Street; Juvenile Offenders.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Powis, from Saint Asaph, and a great number of other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester.—By the Bishop of Norwich, from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Norwich, for the Employment and Reformation of Discharged Prisoners.

THE SUGAR DUTIES.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to ask his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade a question upon a subject of great importance. He understood from the Votes of the other House of Parliament, that notice had been given by the First Minister of the Crown of his intention to introduce a short Bill for the continuance of the present Sugar Duties for a limited period. There could, of course, be no objection to this proceeding. But what he objected to was this—that there should be any delay in bringing in a measure that would effect the final arrangements of these duties. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would obtain good security while passing this temporary Bill through the House, that no unnecessary delay would be thrown in the way of the greater measure so as to keep it back for a late period. If the final measure were delayed so late as the 12th August, he was afraid that other questions than that of sugar would be engaging their Lordships' attention. He thought it ought to be understood that there would be no loss of time in bringing on this measure, so that it might even be
1116
proceeded with while they were passing the temporary Bill.
The EARL of CLARENDONreplied that it was absolutely necessary to propose a measure for the continuance of the present Sugar Duties for a short time, for the present Act would expire on Saturday fortnight. There would be ample time for the discussion of the other measure, and he could assure his noble Friend that not one single day's delay should arise in passing it.

THE SALARIES OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he regretted the absence of the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council (the Marquess of Lansdowne), inasmuch as he wished to call attention to a subject which he was sorry to be obliged to mention. He wished to give a general notice of his intention to submit to their Lordships' consideration an important question, which was now peculiarly pressed upon them on account of the acceptance (although he believed the appointment was not as yet completed) by his learned Friend, Serjeant Wilde, of the Lord Chief Justiceship of the Court of Common Pleas. One of the Acts which he deeply lamented he had ever permitted to pass their Lordships' House when he had the honour of holding the Great Seal, was that to which he was now about to refer. That most improper and wholly unconstitutional proceeding, however, did take place at the time he had the honour of holding office; and he did not mean but to say that he was in some degree responsible for that measure which allowed the salary of the Lord Chief Justice, to whom the Act of Parliament gave 10,000 l. a year, and which Lord Tenterden was entitled to enjoy during his life, to be reduced to 8,000 l. a year. Their Lordships permitted that arrangement to be made, though they should never have consented to it. His Lordship's executors—and if he were one of them he should feel bound to advise it—were entitled, he would show, to receive the 2,000 l. a year which Lord Tenterden had abstained from taking. The Act was not a permissive Act, nor one giving power to the Treasury to make such a reduction; and it was wholly unconstitutional to make any learned judge dependent upon the mercy of the Treasury. The Acts of the 6th George IV., caps. 82 and 84 (the latter applying to the Common Pleas, to which his learned Friend Serjeant Wilde was appointed Lord Chief

1117
Justice), gave 10,000 l. a year to the one Chief Justice, and 8,000 l. to the other, payable by quarterly payments to themselves, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain. He must remind the House of this fact, and observe how monstrous it would be because a Government was pleased to make a bargain with one Lord Chief Justice, by which he was to take less than he was really entitled to receive, and the residue to be paid into the Consolidated Fund—how monstrous it would be to continue the same course in respect to other Chief Justices; and perhaps to go still further, and say that they should have 6,000 l. instead of 10,000 l., and then to dole to them an increased 500 l. a year, according as these learned judges behaved to the satisfaction of the Crown. He hoped and trusted that something would be done to amend this defect in their proceedings. He had not seen any Act that had passed on this subject since the 6th Geo. IV., although he had certainly an impression on his mind that some Act of the kind had passed their Lordships' House. He had abstained from bringing this question before the House at an earlier period only because his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench had entreated him not to bring it forward, because of the pain which any discussion on the point would cause him, and the motives to which a reference to it might be attributed. A judge more utterly beyond all possibility of being influenced by such considerations than his noble and learned Friend, had never existed; and a man caring less about money than the present Lord Chief Justice, was not to be found in the Queen's dominions. That, however, was no reason why he should now abstain from bringing this subject forward, when, perhaps, they would have a repetition of the same traffic. Such a proceeding, he thought, was greatly to be reprobated—that when an Act of Parliament assigned to a particular office a certain salary, a lower salary, by an arrangement between those who were not entitled to make the arrangement, should be given. At present no Act—and he could not find one—had passed to alter the former statutes. The Act said distinctly that the Lord Chief Justice should receive the salary of 10,000 l., whereas the financial accounts showed that he only received 8,000 l. a year.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not deny that the subject to which the noble and
1118
learned Lord had called the attention of the House was one of great importance. He understood his noble and learned Friend to complain that some arrangement had been made some years ago as to the salaries of the Lords Chief Justices, which was not in conformity with the law applying to that subject. Their Lordships would recollect that, in 1830, there was appointed a Committee of the other House of Parliament, by whom the salaries of all the great officers of State were revised, and in many instances reduced. All the principal officers of the Government had their salaries reduced; and, in respect to judicial officers, an arrangement was made that, prospectively, those salaries also should be reduced. Afterwards, however, when a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice of the King's Bench (as it then was) arose, the proper mode of carrying the intended reduction into effect was not adopted. He was very sorry that such was the case; but, if his noble and learned Friend thought it so objectionable, he greatly wondered that, at the time, he did not do that which was so perfectly simple and easy to do—that is, pass an Act of Parliament to sanction the arrangement which had been made, instead of letting it stand merely as a matter of arrangement. In point of form, it would, no doubt, have been better that such an Act had been passed; but, practically, there being no difference between the two modes of accomplishing the same thing, no evil had been done. His noble and learned Friend had paid a just compliment to the character of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench; but, even if there had been a man of a different character to deal with, there could be no such abuse of power as the noble and learned Lord appeared to think possible: the actual payments appeared in the finance accounts; the transaction attracted the attention of the public; and any practical abuse was therefore altogether out of the question. He, however, so far agreed with his noble and learned Friend as to think that in these matters form should be strictly adhered to. It must be recollected, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) was specially intrusted with the conduct of the business at the time it took place; it was his province to see that nothing was done wrongly; and certainly he, at the time, took no step in the matter.
LORD BROUGHAM: I didn't know anything about it.
EARL GREY: My noble and learned Friend had charge of this business.
LORD BROUGHAM: I never knew anything of it; I was never told of it.
EARL GREY: On my own personal authority, I can contradict that. My noble and learned Friend, I know, did know it.
LORD BROUGHAM: Never heard a word of it.
EARL GREY: I know as well as possible that my noble and learned Friend was informed of the arrangement.
LORD BROUGHAM: No doubt I was cognizant of the arrangement after it was made; it must have been communicated to me.
EARL GREYsaid, that at that time the attention of the Government was particularly directed to the subject by the report of Lord Ashburton's Committee, and many salaries were reduced in consequence. The noble and learned Lord was Lord Chancellor at the time, and must have been aware of the proceeding, for it could not have taken place without his sanction. There could be no doubt then that the noble Lord was cognizant of and authorized what had taken place, for it was his business more than that of any other Member of the Government to look into the matter. In consequence of what had taken place, he could say, that he was sure that his noble Friend at the head of the Government would direct his attention to the subject; and, if it was deemed necessary, a Bill would be brought forward, so that a more regular form of proceeding might be adhered to.
LORD BROUGHAMhad not addressed himself to the noble Earl, but to a noble Lord, who at the time held a much higher office in the Government than the noble Earl, and who would naturally know more about the matter. The noble Earl had taken upon himself to say, on his own personal knowledge, that he (Lord Brougham) knew that at the time which he on his honour stated that he was ignorant of. He had asked for information from the real head of the Government in that House, the noble Marquess, whose absence he regretted; and he (Lord Brougham) stated, that he was not aware of the circumstance at the time; but the noble Earl must get up and contradict him, and say that he did know of it. When, however, the noble Earl proceeded, it appeared that he (Lord Brougham) must know of it, because he was Lord Chancellor at the time, therefore it was that he probably knew of it. So that it appeared
1120
that this actual knowledge about which the noble Earl was so peremptory, had dwindled down to probable knowledge only. Now, the facts of the case were these: he (Lord Brougham) did not know of the proceeding until he received a communication from two learned Judges, the late Mr. Justice Bosanquet and Mr. Justice Patteson, remonstrating on the step that had been taken after the arrangement had taken place. The noble Earl had stated, that he ought to have done that under the circumstances which the noble Earl was himself unable to do, viz., pass an Act of Parliament under circumstances which it was impossible to do; that is, to pass an Act when he was, as the noble Earl was himself now, in a minority in that House. And what would have happened if he had brought in a Bill on the subject? Why, it would have been thrown out. But he should not have approved of any Bill of the kind; for he thought that 10,000 l. a year was a fit and proper salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench. An appointment had just been made to the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and this induced him to bring forward the subject. The salaries of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench had been fixed at 10,000 l. a year, and of the Common Pleas at 8,000 l. a year, by Act of Parliament. The noble Earl, however, said that they were justified in going from this, not by a more recent Act of Parliament, nor by a report, or resolutions of both Houses, and sanctioned by the Crown, but by a report of a Committee of the other House, without any Act having passed. He was not learnt in this fashion in the Constitution of England, that a Resolution of a Committee of the House of Commons should be an equivalent for an Act of Parliament. The noble Earl, however, said that it was of no consequence—that it would not be abused; he added, however, that it might be better, as a matter of form, to have an Act, but still everybody would be able to know what was received, so that no abuse would exist. This 'everybody would assent' meant anybody might do so. This 'everybody' was a most convenient person to enable any one to escape from a difficulty, and to put forward when it was desirable that no one should be responsible. When they abolished the sale of offices of the courts by the Judges—and up to that period, the proceeding was perfectly legal—they increased the salary of the Lord

1121
Chief Justice to 10,000 l. a year. What he objected to was, that when the Act of Parliament said that the learned person filling that office should have 10,000 l. a year, the Government made a private bargain, so that he should receive only 8,000 l. If this proceeding was sanctioned, the greatest mischief might be produced, as the Government might be inclined to dole out what additional salaries it pleased to the Judges. But it was said that this would be seen in the Estimates; but this again was everybody's business, to look after which, after all, nobody might do. He had put to the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas a question on this point—and no one could be more entitled to the full amount than that learned person, above all, considering the large professional emoluments he received—namely, as to whether he was aware of the cutting down of the salary of that officer from 8,000 l. to 7,000 l. a year, and he said no, and that he should think twice before he took it.
LORD CAMPBELLmust agree entirely with his noble and learned Friend opposite, that things should not remain as they were; and that, if it were necessary, an Act of Parliament ought to be immediately brought in to remedy the defect. The salaries of the Judges ought not to depend upon any arrangement between the Judges and the Government. Now, his noble Friend who sat near him had intimated no opinion on this subject—on the contrary, he had stated in the most distinct terms that the noble Lord now at the head of the Government would inquire into it, and that if it were necessary an Act of Parliament should be introduced for remedying the matter. There could be no doubt that if there had been an Act of Parliament passed, if Lord Denman or any of his executors chose to insist on their rights, they would be entitled to recover the balance of the whole of the specified salary. His noble and learned Friend opposite ought, if he felt that these matters required a remedy, to have brought in an Act when he occupied the seat on the Woolsack; he was the party that should have seen that all these things were right. His noble and learned Friend had said that he could not have carried such a Bill. He (Lord Campbell) knew that his noble and learned Friend had carried Bills despite of the large majorities with which his measures were threatened; and he also knew that if he had introduced a Bill on this subject, it would have passed both Houses
1122
of the Legislature with perfect unanimity. His noble and learned Friend could not say that he disapproved of the arrangement, as he continued to hold the Great Seal; and he (Lord Campbell) knew his spirit and his courage too well to suppose that had he failed in carrying such a measure he would not have continued to hold office; he would not suffer his opinion on such a subject to be overruled. His noble and learned Friend threw great blame on himself for this proceeding, and appeared to feel that he had been greatly in the wrong; and in this he (Lord Brougham) reminded him of the Pope who, finding himself in error, exclaimed "Judice me cremari," "I condemn myself, and order myself to be burnt."
LORD BROUGHAMexplained.
The LORD CHANCELLORagreed with his noble and learned Friend that it was irregular to reduce the salaries of the Judges without an Act of Parliament; there ought to have been an Act of Parliament; and when his noble and learned Friend found out that the Lord Chief Justice's salary had been reduced, then he should have put it either into proper form, or the salary should have remained 10,000 l. Either the salary ought to remain 10,000 l., or there ought to be an Act of Parliament to make it 8,000 l. His noble and learned Friend alluded to some supposed understanding with the present Lord Chief Justice; but he utterly disbelieved that anything of the kind had passed. He succeeded to the office, and of course succeeded to the office with all the emoluments belonging to it.
Subject at an end.

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.
VISCOUNT CANNINGmoved the Second Reading of the Bill for embanking the river Thames at the northern side, between Vauxhall-bridge and Battersea-bridge. It was also proposed that a new bridge should be built across the river somewhere about Chelsea Hospital. The expense would be about 160,000 l., which would not, however, be charged to the public. The noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Westminster), and other owners of property in the locality, had dealt very liberally with reference to those improvements, and the whole amount of their contributions was estimated at something between 40,000 l. and 50,000 l. The tolls would not, he thought, be overestimated at something like 6,000 l., which would

1123
pay something more than 10 per cent of the cost of the bridge.
LORD KINNAIRDobserved that the Report of the Metropolitan Termini Commissioners recommended that the mode of communication between the south and north sides of the river should be by a bridge somewhere in the direction referred to; and he (Lord Kinnaird) suggested that it would be worthy of consideration whether the bridge now proposed to be constructed would combine both purposes.
VISCOUNT CANNING, as a Member of the Committee to whose Report the noble Lord had referred, was of opinion that the bridge, to answer the purpose contemplated by them, should be very far westward of Chelsea Hospital.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.