Sitting of 22 January 1847

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Chester, v. Lord Robert Grosvenor, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Hon. Cecil Lawless, for Clonmel.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Corn Importation; Navigation.
Reported.—Corn Importation; Navigation.
3° and passed.—Corn Importation; Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Burnley, and Habergham-Eaves, for Limiting the Hours of Labour in Factories.—From Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Fowey, for carrying into effect the Recommendations of the Select Committee relative to Lighthouses.—From Liverpool, and Members of the Relief Committee of the Queen's County, for Allowing the use of Sugar and Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries.—From Colonists and Farmers of New South Wales, for Admitting Grain the Produce of Australia into the United Kingdom on the same Terms as Corn and Flour the produce of Canada.—From Deal, for Amendment of the Law relative to Promiscuous Intercourse.—From Clonmel, for placing Irish Lunatic Asylums on the same footing with those of Great Britain.—From Mohill, for Amendment of the Irish Poor Law.

ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN.
LORD MARCUS HILLappeared at the bar, and said he had to inform the House, that in obedience to its commands he had the honour to present to Her Majesty the Address voted on the 19th instant, to which Her Majesty had returned the following most Gracious Answer:—
"I receive with great satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
"I look with entire confidence for your aiding My endeavours to preserve the blessings of Peace abroad, and to promote at home the general welfare and happiness of My People.
"And I feel assured that no exertions will be wanting on your part to meet My anxious wishes for the relief of My suffering Subjects in Ireland and parts of Scotland."
To be entered on the Journals.

POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
MR. HUME, seeing the right hon. Home Secretary in his place, would now put to him the question of which he (Mr. Hume) had given notice. It was only necessary for him to state, that at the end of the last Session, on the 25th of August, he (Mr. Hume) placed on the Table of the House certain resolutions, arising out of the examination before the Select Committee on District Asylums; and in those resolutions he asked the House to take certain measures relative to the Poor Law Commissioners, as he believed their continuance in office would be detrimental to the interests of the country. He was then requested by
270
the right hon. Baronet, on the ground that he (Sir G. Grey) had not had time to read the voluminous documents placed before him, to postpone the resolutions until he had had an opportunity of perusing them. The right hon. Gentleman had had that opportunity; and he now wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measures respecting the Poor Law Commissioners. He (Mr. Hume) had added to the question of which he originally gave notice, a reference to the report and evidence taken before the Andover Union Committee; and he might also observe that some additional information, bearing upon the same subject, had since been obtained by the House of Lords. Upon the answer he should receive to-night would depend the course of his conduct.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the subject had undergone the consideration he promised; but the hon. Member and the House must excuse him if he did not answer the question, particularly as regarded the report on the Andover union, until the statement his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) was about to make this evening, on the law of settlement, had been heard. No resolution had been reported by the Committee on District Asylums, but the evidence taken before it had been duly considered. Since the appointment of the Committee, the Poor Law Commissioners had exercised no power, but they had previously appointed boards of management in different districts of London: however, in only one district, the eastern, had the power been acted upon; and in the others no further step had been taken, though compulsory measures were in contemplation.

ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
MR. J. COLLETTreferred to the following question which he had caused to be printed in the Votes:—
"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to create an extra bishopric by the appointment of a Bishop of Manchester, the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor not having become united at the death of the late Bishop of St. Asaph, pursuant to the Act 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77?"
The hon. Member observed, that during the recess the Bishop of St. Asaph had died, but that nevertheless the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor had not been united. He understood that the Bishop of Bangor had refused to accept the see of St. Asaph, and there was a very general apprehension,

271
in which he fully participated, that there was to be another bishop. He wished, therefore, to know whether there was any intention to create an extra bishop?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the House would recollect that when the noble Lord the Member for Shropshire asked him last Session what course the Government intended to take with respect to a Bill sent down from the House of Lords, maintaining the two sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, and likewise proposing the creation of a Bishop of Manchester, he stated that he thought the subject required further and more extensive consideration, and that he was not prepared to give his assent to that Bill. The noble Lord, upon that assurance, withdrew the Bill, and did not press its further consideration. The subject had received the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers during the recess; and he (Lord J. Russell) trusted to be able, in the course of next week, to state the course which they proposed to pursue. With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett), in the course of his question, that there had been some private understanding with the Bishop of Bangor which had led to the appointment of the present Bishop of St. Asaph, he could only state, that, according to the Act of Parliament, as he read it, and upon which he had obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, the Bishop of Bangor could not be obliged to take the charge of the two sees, if he was unwilling to do so. The Bishop of Bangor had, he believed, previously to the vacancy of the see of St. Asaph, intimated that he would not take charge of the two sees; and when he applied to the right rev. Prelate on the subject, the Bishop of Bangor stated formally that he would not take charge of the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor; and it therefore became his duty to recommend the Crown to fill up the vacant bishopric.

THE HILL COOLIES.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that during the period his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) was in the Colonial Office, he instituted a system under which natives of India were permitted to emigrate to the Mauritius, the expense of their passage being paid by that colony; and it was provided that at the expiration of five years they should be entitled to a return passage free; and that in the meantime they might employ themselves as they thought proper. It was also provided, that if they wished to return to
272
India before the expiration of the five years, they might do so at their own expense. In the course of the recess, about the month of December, a statement appeared in one of the newspapers—he believed in The Times—purporting to be an abstract of and an extract from a despatch which was represented to be then on its way from the Colonial Secretary to the Governor of the Mauritius. The purport of that despatch was this—that instead of being permitted, as was the case under Lord Stanley's regulations, to employ themselves as they thought proper, they were to be subjected to certain fines, and, in default, to imprisonment, if they were not engaged in industrial residence; and, what was more important still, that they should not be permitted to return to India before the expiration of five years without obtaining a passport, for which they were to be charged at the rate of 1l. for each unexpired year of the term of five years. The consequence would be, that any one of these persons wishing to return to India at the end of the first year of his residence in the Mauritius, would not be permitted to do so without paying 4l.; and he would also be liable to defray the expenses of his passage himself. He (Mr. Hope) wished to know whether the abstract of the despatch, as it appeared in the paper, was correct; if it was correct, whether this regulation and tax had been imposed in accordance with that despatch; and, if the tax had been imposed, whether the natives of India introduced into the colony under Lord Stanley's regulation, and before the imposition of such tax, were to be liable to its payment?
MR. HAWES, after thanking the hon. Gentleman for giving him notice of these questions, observed, that with reference to the first question, as to the correctness of the abstract which appeared in the newspaper, it was, to the best of his (Mr. Hawes's) recollection, perfectly accurate; but the best answer he could give to the hon. Gentleman was, that in the course of a very few days he (Mr. Hawes) would lay upon the Table his noble Friend's (Earl Grey's) despatches, which would afford all the information that could be desired on the subject. He (Mr. Hawes) wished, however, to take this opportunity of correcting the hon. Gentleman opposite on one point. No ordinance had been passed on the subject to which he referred; merely the heads of an ordinance had been transmitted to the Governor of the Mauritius.

273
No tax, therefore, was now imposed, and no regulation of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded was in operation. As, in a very few days, the hon. Gentleman would be in possession of all the information he could gain from the despatches, it was unnecessary for him (Mr. Hawes), on the present occasion, to enter further into the question.
MR. HOPEhad omitted to ask whether, previously to sending out the despatch—which he (Mr. Hope) did not mean to describe as an ordinance, but merely the orders to pass an ordinance—the concurrence of the Indian Government had been obtained?
MR. HAWESreplied, that the concurrence of the Indian Government was not obtained; and he thought he was bound to say that the Indian Government dissented from certain portions of the despatch—not entirely from the whole scheme, but from a portion of it.
SIR J. W. HOGGsaid, that, as far as the East Indian authorities were concerned, they were perfectly satisfied with the tone and spirit of the despatch sent out by the noble Lord. The despatch was not an ordinance, nor the heads of an ordinance; it only contained instructions to be acted upon and suggestions to be considered by the Mauritius Government, who were to report their opinions; and the Colonial Secretary gave specific orders that these suggestions were not to be carried into execution till the ordinance, whatever it might be, was first sent home for consideration. Nothing could be more fair than the spirit in which the instructions were sent out, although some of them might be such as the East Indian authorities could not agree to.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
LORD J. RUSSELLmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. MITCHELLinquired whether it were intended that the suspension of the navigation laws should only last till the 1st of September; and that no foreign ships with grain arriving here after that period would be admitted into the ports of this country? If that were the case, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government would shut out a very large quantity of corn indeed. The noble Lord had alluded the other night to considerable quantities of grain which might be expected from the Black Sea; but it should be recollected that some of the ports there were not opened until March or May, and no
274
person would venture to ship grain with a chance of its not getting to this country in time to be admitted. His own impression of the state of the corn trade was such as to satisfy him that the noble Lord, before the conclusion of the Session, would have to propose the suspension, not only of the navigation laws, but of every description of restrictive laws. He was convinced that they were likely to see a high price of corn, not only for the next six or twelve months, but for the next two years. He would suggest, therefore, that the period of the suspension of the navigation laws should be extended or left indefinite; or, if the Government were not prepared to do that, some clause might be inserted in the Bill, leaving it discretionary with the Lords of the Privy Council or the Board of Customs to admit any ship with grain arriving here after the 1st of September, provided it was proved that she sailed from the port of loading on or before a certain day, which might be certified by the Consul there.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENwished to know whether, if it was the intention of the Government to suspend the payment of all the duty on corn till the 1st of September, any steps would be taken to ascertain for statistical purposes the quantity of corn imported?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that it was intended to suspend the payment of all duty whatever, because, in a case like the present, if anything were done, everything should be done. But, as the corn imported must be entered, there would be means of knowing the quantity brought in for consumption. With reference to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell), he had to say that it was intended that foreign ships with grain must enter before the 1st of September; and the object of taking that period was to allow time for the transport here of all the corn which would probably be brought to this country of the late harvest, and not to make provision for the corn of the next harvest. He believed that the period chosen would be found to answer that purpose; but of course, if the state of circumstances towards the end of the Session should turn out as the hon. Gentleman anticipated, the Government would have the opportunity of coming to Parliament for such measures as might be deemed necessary to meet the then exigency. But at the present time, and with the present prospect, be believed that the Bill, as it stood, would effect all

275
that was necessary for allowing the importation of all the corn that was likely to be brought here. The provision had not been drawn up without inquiry. From Odessa the voyage occupied two months, or eight weeks, so that a vessel sailing from there on any day before the 1st of July would be able to enter her cargo of grain in this country before the 1st of September. The navigation of the Black Sea opened at a much earlier period than July—by the end of March, for instance—and from a circular of a merchant at Galatz he learned that, in consequence of the extraordinary prices which prevailed for grain, the probability was, that every effort would be made this year to get the cargoes out of port at an earlier period than usual; and it was anticipated that considerable quantities of grain would be brought down ready for export by the months of May and June. This would allow sufficient time for its import into this country before September.
Bill read a second time; and, the Standing Orders being suspended, it passed through its other stages up to the third reading, which was carried at a subsequent period of the night.

THE NAVIGATION BILL.
LORD J. RUSSELLmoved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Navigation Bill.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
On First Clause being put, viz.—
"That after the passing of the Act, and before , it shall be lawful to import into the United Kingdom, for home use, from any Country, in any ship or vessel of any Country, however navigated, any Corn, Maize, Grain, Flour, Meal, Rice, or Potatoes, the growth and produce of any Country, anything in the Law of Navigation to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding;"
MR. MITCHELLmoved as an Amendment—
"After 'and,' to insert the words, 'provided such vessel shall be proved to have sailed from the port of lading on or before .'"
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that he could not agree to the Amendment, as in fact the object was to cause the arrival of vessels as soon as possible with corn, and not the arrival of vessels with similar cargoes at a late period of the year. He could not therefore agree to the adoption of a later day than that named in the Bill.
DR. BOWRINGwas of opinion that the Amendment might be adopted with great advantage to the country. There was considerable difficulty in getting a sufficient
276
number of vessels to carry corn from Taganrog, Odessa, and the ports at the other side of the Atlantic, and every facility ought to be afforded to those who were inclined to bring cargoes of corn from those ports of the Black Sea and the Atlantic.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question before them was not a question relating generally to the navigation laws. The truth was, that it had been a question whether an earlier day ought not to be named, as the great object was to obtain a supply of corn at the earliest possible period. He had consulted an individual who was well calculated to form a correct opinion on the subject, and the result of that inquiry was, that the 1st of September would be the best day to name. What they wanted now was, to give a bonus for the importation of corn at the earliest possible period. If any further step were necessary in order to facilitate the importation of corn, Parliament could adopt it before the end of the Session.
SIR C. NAPIERsaid, that the Amendment was worthy of the consideration of the Committee. Suppose, for example, that a vessel left Odessa with corn on the 1st of July, allowing two months for the voyage, and that she was met by a westerly wind at Gibraltar, which detained her for several days, what was to be done with respect to her cargo if she did not arrive before the 1st of September?
SIR W. CLAYthought that they ought to guard against the chances of accidental delays, such as bad weather or similar causes. In ordinary times it would take two months for the voyage from Odessa to London, but delays might occur from many causes. The harvest of Southern Russia might not be brought down to the shipping ports of the Black Sea in sufficient time, and therefore they ought to adopt such means as would obviate any inconvenience which might arise from those delays.
SIR H. DOUGLASexpressed his intention of supporting the proposition of the Government for the suspension of the navigation laws for a specific period; but he would strenuously resist any attempt to use this temporary suspension as a wedge hereafter for the entire removal of the navigation laws. He agreed in opinion with those who thought that the navigation laws were amongst the wisest of the laws of England.
MR. BROWNsaid, that if a ship left the port of lading under circumstances

277
which presented a fair probability that she would arrive in England or Ireland before the 1st of September, she might encounter adverse winds or boisterous weather, and her arrival might thus be delayed beyond the appointed time. In that case the merchant who imported the corn, and the public might suffer a very great loss by the non-admission of the vessel under the present Bill; but nothing would be left contingent if the Government would name a day of departure of the vessel instead of a day of arrival.
Mr. F. T. BARINGremarked, that in all such cases the Treasury could exercise their discretion as to the admission of the ship; and if it appeared that a vessel with corn had bonâ fide left the port of shipment at such a time as would justify the probability that she could reach the port of discharge before the 1st of September, he apprehended that the discretion would be exercised in favour of the admission of the ship.
MR. LIDDELLwould support the proposition of the Government, as he thought that they had taken a course which was calculated to meet the present emergency. He looked at the proposition on its own merits alone, but he would guard himself against being supposed to take a course which would allow this suspension to be used as a wedge for the removal of the navigation laws at a future period. The navigation laws were looked upon by shipowners as the bulwark of our commercial marine, and he could not consent to any proposition for their entire removal at a future period.
SIR H. DOUGLASdisavowed the intention of applying to Her Majesty's Government the design to use the present suspension of the navigation laws as a wedge for their future removal. He had too much faith in the integrity and good intentions of the Government to impute any such intention to them.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that as far as he could learn from what had been said, the Bill could not be carried into due effect unless they adopted the Amendment. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the time allowed by the Bill was rather too long, than too short, as he had consulted an individual who had told him that the 1st of September was the proper day to fix for the termination of the suspension. He had heard the hon. and gallant Commodore opposite, he had heard the Member for South Lancashire,
278
and the Member for Bridport, express their opinions with respect to the expediency of agreeing to the Amendment; and he would ask the House if they would in preference to these opinions adopt the opinion of an individual who had been cramming the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject? Was this the same individual who told the Government that corn would go down in November? Corn had risen to 80 s. in defiance of the anticipations of that individual who had undertaken to advise Her Majesty's Ministers.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLremarked that, with respect to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, he had no hesitation in saying, that in case of a vessel arriving under the circumstances described by the hon. Member, the Treasury would do as they had done in former instances; and if it were clearly shown that the ship departed from the port in proper time to render it probable that she would arrive before the 1st of September, that they would use that discretion which they possessed, in the same manner as they had done on former occasions. Beyond that intimation he could give no further pledge.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCKhad no objection to support the proposition of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and he would add, that he thought it of very little matter whether the navigation laws were suspended for one period in preference to another, so far as regarded the supply of corn to this country. He was of opinion, that there was an erroneous impression abroad as to the effect which had been produced by the navigation laws, and the 4s. duty, in giving an advantage to France over this country; for in looking to the exportations of grain from Boston, New Orleans, and New York, from the 4th of September to the 26th of December, he found that there were 65,000 quarters of grain exported to France in that period; whilst the exports to Great Britain and Ireland in the same period were 526,000 quarters. When he saw that, he could not agree in the opinion that Her Majesty's Government had committed any great crime against Ireland in not having suspended the navigation laws and the corn importation laws at an earlier period. He thought, for his part, that the navigation laws and the corn importation laws had little to do with the circumstances which had been complained of. With regard to corn from Odessa, he perceived that the ablest organ of the political economists,

279
the Economist newspaper, stated that great advantages had been gained by France in consequence of the suspension of the navigation laws by that country, and added that fifteen foreign vessels, principally Neapolitan and Greek, had arrived with corn at Marseilles within a few days, owing to that suspension. He was of opinion, however, that if the names afforded any indication, the Economist must have been mistaken as to the nationality of those vessels, for he saw amongst them the names Vanguard, Calliope, Maria Theresa, Firefly, Malta, and Dicky Sam; and he thought, so far as the navigation laws were concerned, those vessels which he had named, might as well have come to England as to have gone to France. If he might take the liberty of throwing out a suggestion to his noble Friend, it would be, that the Government should put the British vessels in the same position as that which foreign vessels would be permitted to occupy under the operations of this measure for the suspension of the navigation laws. A British ship was obliged by law to have three-fourths of her crew British sailors; and British ships were also obliged to carry apprentices, both of which regulations would, in case the navigation laws were suspended, operate against the British ship to the advantage of the foreign vessel. He would suggest, that in case of a suspension of the navigation laws, the British ships should be put upon an equality with the ships of other countries.
MR. DUNCANsaid, that although he should not oppose the proposition of the Government, he thought all difficulty would be obviated by fixing the time when a vessel took her cargo on board.
MR. MOFFATTexpressed himself favourable to the Amendment.
MR. MITCHELLobserved, that no satisfactory reason had been assigned for limiting the entry of cargoes to the 1st of September, or for compelling parties in the case of late arrivals to go begging for favours to the Treasury.
MR. BROTHERTONstated, that a disposition was shown to acquiesce in the proposal to bring vessels leaving the port of shipment before the 1st of August under the operation of the present measure. It was the suggestion to substitute the 1st of September which had raised a discussion.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the words proposed by Mr. Mitchell
280
be inserted:—Ayes 50; Noes 188; Majority 138.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

James, Sir W. C.

Baine, W.

Kelly, J.

Bernal, R.

M'Carthy, A.

Bowring, Dr.

Milton, Visct.

Bright, J.

Moffatt, G.

Brotherton, J.

Napier, Sir C.

Brown, W.

Newport, Visct.

Chapman, B.

O'Brien, C.

Christie, W. D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Clay, Sir W.

Osborne, R.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Paget, Col.

Collett, W. R.

Pattison, J.

Collett, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Philips, M.

Dennistoun, J.

Rice, E. R.

Duncan, G.

Thornely, T.

Escott, B.

Trelawny, J. S.

Evans, Sir De L.

Tuite, H. M.

Ewart, W.

Wakley, T.

Fielden, J.

Walker, R.

Forster, M.

Warburton, H.

Granger, T. C.

Williams, W.

Hall, Sir B.

Yorke, H. R.

Hastie, A.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Humphery, Ald.

Duncombe, T.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cripps, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Davies, D. A. S.

Arkwright, G.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bailey, J.

Denison, J. E.

Bailey, J. jun.

Disraeli, B.

Bankes, G.

Douglas, Sir H.

Bannerman, A.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Barclay, D.

Drax, J. S. W.

Barkly, H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Duncannon, Visct.

Baring, T.

Dundas, Adm.

Barnard, E. G.

Dundas, D.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Eastnor, Visct.

Bateson, T.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Bennet, P.

Entwisle, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Beresford, Major

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Etwall, R.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bernard, Visct.

Ferrand, W. B.

Bodkin, W. H.

Finch, G.

Bodkin, J. J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Borthwick, P.

Forbes, W.

Broadley, H.

Fox, C. R.

Broadwood, H.

French, F.

Browne, R. D.

Frewen, C. H.

Busfeild, W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Callaghan, D.

Gill, T.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Cholmeley, Sir J. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Christopher, R. A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Clements, Visct.

Granby, Marq. of

Clifton, J. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Clive, Visct.

Grimsditch, T.

Conolly, Col.

Hamilton, G. A.

Courtenay, Lord

Hamilton, W. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hanmer, Sir John

281

Harcourt, G. G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Harris, hon. Capt.

O'Conor Don

Hawes, B.

Ord, W.

Hayter, W. G.

Oswald, J.

Henley, J. W.

Pakington, Sir J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Parker, J.

Hill, Lord E.

Patten, J. W.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Peel, J.

Hodgson, R.

Philipps, Sir R. B. P.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Pigot, Sir R.

Hope, Sir J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Hope, G. W.

Protheroe, E. D.

Hornby, J.

Pulsford, R.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Rashleigh, W.

Howard, P. H.

Rawdon, Col.

Hudson, G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Hussey, T.

Reid, Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Repton, G. W. J.

James, W.

Ross, D. R.

Jermyn, Earl

Rushout, Capt.

Jervis, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Johnstone, H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Scott, hon. F.

Kemble, H.

Scrope, G. P.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Seymour, Lord

Langston, J. H.

Sheppard, T.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

Law, hon. C. E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Lawless, hon. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lawson, A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Layard, Capt.

Spooner, R.

Lefroy, A.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Le Marchant, Sir D.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Taylor, E.

Lindsay, hon. Capt.

Thompson, Ald.

Loch, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Vane, Lord H.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Verner, Sir W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Villiers, Visct.

Maitland, T.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Manners, Lord J.

Waddington, H. S.

Marjoribanks, S.

Ward, H. G.

Masterman, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Miles, W.

Wodehouse, E.

Milnes, R. M.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Morpeth, Visct.

Wood, Col. T.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Mundy, E. M.

Wrightson, W. B.

Mure, Col.

Wyse, T.

Neville, R.

Newdegate, C. N.

TELLERS.

Newry, Visct.

Hill, Lord M.

Northland, Visct.

Tufnell, H.

Bill passed through Committee. House resumed. Report brought up and received, and Bill afterwards read a third time and passed.

SUGAR IN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES.
House in Committee of the whole House on the Customs and Excise Duties Act.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcommenced by saying, that he now proposed to state the measures which had been under the consideration of Her Majesty's
282
Government, with reference to sugar, molasses, and rum. It seemed, from what passed last night and the night before, that some misapprehension had arisen in the minds of hon. Members as to whether the measures to be proposed would be of a temporary or of a permanent nature. He certainly thought, from the terms in which those measures had been mentioned, that no room was left for misapprehension. In regard to those laws of which Her Majesty's Government had proposed the temporary suspension, namely, the corn and navigation laws, one of them was a measure which had passed only last Session of Parliament by a large majority of that House, and from which, except for a time and under extraordinary circumstances, they ought not to depart; and as to the navigation laws, they, too, were of such a nature, and so much importance was attached by some persons to their maintenance, that, except under a similar pressure of extraordinary circumstances, a Government would not be justified in suddenly proposing to disturb them. In regard to the measures he was now about to lay before the House, hon. Gentlemen who were present at the end of last Session of Parliament, would recollect that he had expressed his intention early this Session to bring forward measures on the subject; and he rose in pursuance of that declaration to propose a permanent alteration in the Customs and Excise Acts, in reference to Sugar and Rum. The Act passed last Session, reducing the protection which the West and East Indian Colonies previously possessed, was a measure calculated to produce the most beneficial effects on the interests of this country; but these colonists had put forward a claim that the restrictions which had been imposed upon the use of their produce in this country should be relaxed also. The general justice of that claim, not precisely as regarded its amount, had been acceded to by Her Majesty's Government, and by the House. It would be remembered that towards the close of last Session, although there had been for many years past a higher duty on colonial rum than on British spirits, he felt himself justified in proposing that the difference should be reduced from 1s. 6d. to 1s. That reduction was accordingly made, and the Government undertook to give the claim which was made of a further reduction their best attention during the recess, and to lay the result of their deliberations

283
before the House early this Session. He formed, must at the same time say, that on every occasion in which he had advocated a reduction of the duty on sugar, he had advocated it, not only with a view to the benefit of the consumer, but with a view also to the increase of the revenue of the country. When a measure of this kind was proposed, therefore, he must not be expected to lose sight of those considerations; and accordingly, in proposing this measure, he had taken both objects into view. No person could be more convinced than he was of the general soundness of the policy of what were called the doctrines of free trade; but at the same time he thought it impossible to carry those doctrines to the extent which some Gentlemen occasionally advocated without injury to the interests of the revenue. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) talked last night as if it were the easiest thing in the world to reduce the duties on timber. His hon. Friend must know that those duties produced a revenue of 1,000,000 l. per annum; and he had yet to learn how, if that were removed, the deficiency was to be met. He believed that, with the large amount of taxation which was required in this country, it would be impossible to raise it without a considerable amount of indirect taxation; and he believed it was equally clear, that it was impossible to raise any considerable sum in that way, unless in such a manner as to insure its being paid by the great body of the consumers, as no tax which pressed on a small body of the people could be expected to produce any large portion of revenue. He was, therefore, a little alarmed by the expectations which seemed to be entertained by his hon. Friend, that the timber duties would be reduced. It might also be recollected, that in the statement which he made last Session, in introducing the sugar duties, the prospects of the revenue and expenditure were not so promising as they had been for some time, assuming that for the year 1847–8, they were to have the same expenditure as was estimated for the year 1846–7, together with the increased expenditure which it was not necessary to provide for in this year, but the necessity for providing for which in the ensuing year had been entailed on them by the measures of the late Government, the probability was that the revenue would exhibit a deficiency of 300,000 l. or 400,000 l. The revenue, however, had exceeded the most sanguine expectations which had been then
284
formed. It appeared from the balance-sheet, that up to the present time the revenue had considerably increased; and, if he could have any confidence in its continuance, he would be much more at ease on that subject than the present prospects of the country permitted him to be. It was perfectly true, that with respect to the customs' duties, they had increased upon every article, excepting those upon which the duties had been reduced; but the great increase had been upon the articles of sugar and corn. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) spoke correctly, when he said that if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) looked merely to the question of revenue, he should be sorry to lose the amount which was put into the Exchequer by the four shilling duty. But the present condition of the country, the state of Ireland, of some parts of Scotland, and also of some parts of England, would render it unjustifiable in him to look to the question of revenue alone in such an emergency. The amount of pressure which now weighed upon the country, the want of food, the high price of provisions, and the effect of all this upon the population, rendered it necessary to put aside, to a certain extent, any mere question of money for far higher considerations. It would be satisfactory to the people of Ireland to find that the Government of this country had done all in its power to reduce the price of corn, and to the Government itself that it had done all that it could do in the present emergency to alleviate the prevailing distress. These considerations alone, if none other existed, would appear to justify them, on the present occasion, in making some sacrifice of revenue. Not only had the customs' duties exhibited a very encouraging increase, but the produce of the excise had also been very considerable. It had exceeded the expectation of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) when he laid his statement before the House last year. Up to the 10th of October last, the excise duties had not only increased in this country, but in Ireland also. One of the many anomalies which met one at every turn in that country was, that the measures which had been taken for its supply last year, seemed so far to have increased its powers of consumption, that up to the 10th of October last, there was every appearance of prosperity, of the increase of wealth in that country. Since that period, however, a change had come over the revenue in that

285
country. During the last quarter, the excise duties had fallen off to some extent in Ireland; and he was afraid that the House and the Government must take that fact to be, to a certain extent, the forerunner of what they had to expect in reference to this country also, because the distress which had effected the change in Ireland, had extended in some measure to certain districts both of Scotland and England. A vast number of mills had, for some time back, been working short time in Manchester and other places; whilst it appeared that every article of consumption was very highly priced all over the kingdom; so that, however prosperous the revenue had been for some years back, it would be erroneous to calculate, under existing circumstances, from past experience, upon a continued prosperity to the general revenue to the same extent. For the last three or four years good harvests, and great commercial activity, fostered, in a great degree, by judicious legislation, and cheapness in the price of provisions, caused by abundance, had produced the general prosperity of all classes, and enabled them to consume large quantities of articles, paying customs or excise duties. Now, however, they had high prices and deficient harvests; and he was afraid that they could not depend upon the permanency of the general commercial activity to which he had just alluded, although large importations of corn might, and undoubtedly would, give a considerable increase of orders upon our manufactures. From all these considerations, and from other circumstances over which neither the Government nor Parliament could exercise any control, he should not be justified in holding out any very sanguine prospects to the country as respected the continued prosperity of the revenue, when compared with its produce for the last three or four years. He did not wish now to anticipate any general financial statement which might hereafter be laid before the House by the Government; but he deemed it advisable, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) on the previous evening, that he should state this much to the House; and he had this further reason for so doing, that in reference to the measure which he was about to introduce, he wished to show that it was not without some reason that he was careful about the revenue, and that in endeavouring to act justly and fairly between all parties concerned, he
286
could not afford to run the risk of making any sacrifice of revenue. After having stated so much as preliminary matter, he would now proceed to give an outline of the measures which it became his duty to propose. The requests which had reached the Government from time to time from the producers of sugar, were, generally speaking, three. In the first place, the admission of sugar and molasses for use in breweries; in the second place, its admission for use in distilleries; and in the third place, the reduction of the differential duty between the customs' duty on rum and the excise duty on spirits, had been urged upon the Government. The first measure then related to the admission of sugar into breweries, to be used in the process of brewing. The request in reference to this subject was, that both sugar and molasses should be admitted into the breweries. So far as sugar was concerned, he saw no objection to such a measure. As the law at present stood, sugar might be freely used by private brewers. The measure which he proposed to submit to the House was to relieve the public brewers, the brewers for sale, from the present prohibitions, which prevented them from using sugar in the process of brewing. Now, in reference to this, with regard to revenue, it would be, in point of fact, a matter of comparative indifference whether sugar or malt was used in the process of brewing. The duty payable upon a quarter of malt was 21 s. 8d. The quantity of sugar supposed to be equivalent to a quarter of malt, for the purposes of brewing, was 180lbs.—the duty upon which would amount to about 22 s. 6d. If that were so, if 180 lbs. of sugar, paying a duty of 22 s. 6d., were the equivalent for a quarter of barley, paying a duty of 21 s. 8d., the revenue, if the sugar displaced the barley in the process of brewing, would, on the whole, be a gainer rather than a loser. But he did not believe that sugar would altogether displace malt in the breweries. It would be the interest of the brewer not to brew from sugar alone, unless malt were at an extravagantly high price, or sugar extremely low. He believed that a certain quantity of sugar, though not a very large quantity, would be thus mixed with wort made from malt. This would, no doubt, facilitate the process of brewing, render it, to some extent, a cheaper process, reduce the price of the boer produced, and extend the use and consumption of malt; for whatever contributed to cheapen the price of beer to

287
the consumer, would necessarily extend the use of the article. In reference to the consequences of this measure, his belief was, that it was one in which the West India producer of sugar, the consumer of malt liquor in this country, and the grower of barley, would all find their account, inasmuch as by facilitating the use and consumption of beer it would give rise to a much greater consumption of the various articles which would henceforth enter into its composition. Without going into any long argument to prove it, he would here state a fact, which afforded sufficient evidence that the malt tax was paid by the consumer. Within the last few weeks the price of barley and malt had greatly risen, so much so, indeed, that one of the large breweries in London had, for a time, actually suspended their malting operations. A meeting of brewers had taken place recently in the city, to consider what was to be done under existing circumstances; the result of which meeting had been, that a resolution had been agreed upon to raise the price of beer a penny per pot. Upon this being determined upon, the large brewing establishment alluded to recommenced their operations, and what enabled them to recommence the malting process was the payment by the consumer of the additional penny which had thus been imposed upon the price of a pot of beer. It was quite clear, that had sugar been admitted then into use in breweries, it would have been possible for the brewers to have substituted sugar for the high-priced malt which they were compelled to use, which would have enabled them to recommence operations without resorting to the expedient of raising the price of beer to the consumer; whilst the holders of barley, from its continued consumption, would have been equally benefited by the admission of sugar into breweries, as they had been by the increase of price. Even in ordinary times, therefore, he believed that this measure would prove to be an unalloyed benefit to all parties. Under existing circumstances, with the present high price of malt, he believed that a very considerable benefit would arise from it to the consumer. A few days ago the price of malt was 84 s. a quarter. It appeared from a pamphlet which he held in his hand that it had since risen to 88 s.; and he was informed last night by some Gentleman in the House, that it had been up to 90 s. This was a very high price, but taking it at the lowest
288
price, it was now 84 s. a quarter. The cost of the material used in producing a given quantity of beer (about three barrels of strong beer) would be therefore 81 s. 6d., making allowance for the value of the grains. Sugar was at 47 s. a cwt. duty paid. At that price, 180 lbs. of it, the equivalent of a quarter of malt, would cost about 75 s. 6d;. consequently, as between the quantity of beer produced from malt or from sugar at the present average price of malt, and the present price of sugar, there was an advantage, as regarded the cost of the beer produced, from the latter of 6s., which would go to the consumer. This would not only bring an increased quantity of beer into use, but would also tend to reduce, to some extent, the present exorbitant price of corn. He believed that if they took the price of malt for some years back, it had been at three guineas, or 62 s., a quarter; and, in order to enable sugar to compete with it, at that price, sugar must be as low as 35 s. per cwt. duty paid, which was lower than he thought it likely to be. In ordinary times, therefore, there would be no competition between sugar and malt, in the process of brewing; but in times of scarcity like the present, sugar would displace malt, to a great extent, so that much of the barley which would otherwise be used for brewing purposes, would thus be released to the benefit of the consumer. The introduction of sugar would facilitate the process of brewing, and promote the consumption of malt; in ordinary times, the case would be analogous to that of foreign wool, the reduction of the duties upon which, and the results consequent upon that reduction, were favourable to the increase of the manufacture of the wool grown in this country, which was more easily worked up when mixed with foreign wool. By the introduction of sugar into brewing processes, the brewer would be enabled to work up a larger quantity of malting barley. With regard to sugar, therefore, the proposal which he had to make to the House was, that brewers might be permitted to use duty-paid sugar for the purpose of brewing. He also meant to propose the extension to beer brewed from sugar of the same drawback which was extended to malt liquors. With regard to the other article sought also to be admitted into use in brewing, he was not prepared to extend the same facilities to the use of molasses for such purpose. On more than one occasion

289
sugar had already been permitted to be so used; but he was not aware that a similar permission had ever been extended to molasses. A difficulty would arise, should molasses be allowed to be so used, from its different qualities; and he was, on the whole, inclined to think that the inconveniences which would arise from sanctioning the use of molasses would preponderate over all the benefits which could possibly accrue. The value of the brewing qualities of molasses was far greater, in proportion to the duty levied upon it, than was that of sugar. The duty on molasses was 5s. 3d. The quantity of molasses considered equivalent to a quarter of barley was estimated at 252 lbs. Of some kinds, it was held that 260 lbs. was the equivalent quantity, and of others again 303 lbs. The difference between 252 lbs. and 303 lbs. was about one-sixth; so that it was difficult to calculate what the equivalent with the duty would be. Assuming 252 lbs. of molasses to be equivalent to a quarter of malt, it would be necessary, in order that the revenue should not lose from the introduction of molasses into breweries, that a duty of 9s. 8d. instead of a duty of 5s. 3d. should be imposed upon it. In that case, therefore, one of the two courses must be taken—either a duty of 9s. 8d. must be imposed upon all molasses, or an excise duty must be imposed on all molasses used in brewing equivalent to the difference between that and 5s. 3d. If 303 lbs. should be taken as the equivalent to a quarter of malt, the necessary duty to make up the revenue would then be 8s., and in that case the excise duty, should such a duty be preferred, would only be the difference between 8s. and 5s. 3d. It was, therefore, evident that a large door to fraud would be opened were molasses allowed to be used; for it would be difficult to distinguish between such molasses as paid and such as did not pay the excise duty. It would be necessary, in order to protect the revenue, to re-establish the minute excise survey which had been so long discontinued—a system which could not but prove both injurious and expensive to distillers and brewers—while he did not believe that the permission in question could be of any very great value to West Indian proprietors. The process of manufacturing sugar was daily improving in the West Indies, and the result was the production of a diminished quantity of molasses, and an increased quantity of rum. He now came to the question of distilleries. By the law as
290
it at present stood, sugar might be used in distilleries. It might be used by any distiller on giving due notice of his intention so to do; but he was not allowed to use sugar and grain together. It was necessary too that a certain interval, prescribed by law, should elapse between the operation of distillation from grain and distillation from sugar. That regulation was indispensable, in order to guard against frauds upon the revenue, which it would be impossible to prevent if permission were given to use grain and sugar together in the process of distillation. Every Gentleman in the House would probably be disposed to yield a ready assent to the proposition that spirits were an article on which it was quite fair to raise the maximum amount of duty. No one could be anxious to extend the consumption of spirits by the reduction of duty. The only limit to the amount of duty upon spirit was the risk of illicit distillation. It was that which had hitherto regulated the amount of duty in the United Kingdom, and the rule was a sound one. In England the duty was, at present, 7s. 10 d., and upon the whole that might justly be deemed a fair amount; but in Scotland and Ireland it had been found utterly impossible to maintain so high a duty, or even one approaching it in amount. Attempts had been made to obtain a larger amount of revenue by raising the duty; but the object had invariably been defeated by the encouragement which was thereby given to illicit distillation. After considerable experience, it now seemed to be admitted that the amount of duty at present existing in each country was the highest that could be obtained without affording encouragement to illicit distillation, with all its train of demoralizing effects. Looking, therefore, at the immense amount of revenue fairly raised from spirits, it was of essential importance that in any measure which might be adopted, precautions should be taken against any loss or diminution of that revenue by the agency of fraud. One of the tests used in charging the duty on spirits made from grain would be wanting in the process of distillation from sugar. The excise officers said, that as far as their experience enabled them to form an opinion on the subject, it would be impossible to prevent fraud if the two articles, sugar and grain, were allowed to be used together in distillation. The House might recollect that a few years since the proprietors of a large distillery incurred penalties amounting to several hundred thousand pounds for frauds

291
upon the revenue; and it was certainly desirable that precautions should be taken to guard against the occurrence of similar cases. It was not probable, however, that the withholding of permission to use sugar and grain conjointly in distillation would injuriously affect distillers, because, on referring to the evidence by distillers given before a Committee of the House, he found it to be their opinion that it was not advantageous to use molasses or sugar and grain together in the process of distillation. Mr. Atlee, a large distiller, said—
"Sugar, molasses, or corn, should be worked separately. Working them together is never found effective. He would never use molasses and corn together. If a mixture be made of sugar or molasses with grain, they do not act together in the fermentation. Various experiments were tried, but he found it not to his advantage to mix the molasses and sugar with corn-wash, and therefore discontinued it."
Mr. Smith, another eminent distiller, said, in reply to various questions—
"I think that molasses with grain could not be fermented with advantage together Using molasses together with corn, I think, would bring on loss by imperfect fermentation. I would never use molasses, except alone; so with sugar—so with corn. I would never mix them. With respect to molasses, it was perceived, on all hands, that that material could not be eligibly introduced into the distillery. I am sure that molasses, mixed with grain, would be injurious to us. When allowed to use sugar, we never brewed from a mixture of sugar and grain. If the use of molasses were permitted in the breweries, the facility thereby afforded to illicit distillation would be prodigious. The introduction of molasses into distilleries, I think, would lead extensively to smuggling. I do not wish to see molasses introduced, unless they were used separately and distinctly. The burning of sugar, to convert it into molasses, is one of the reasons why I would not use molasses. Let me have good plain sugar that I can judge of; but there is something in the very name of molasses that horrifies me. I have long been satisfied that to brew from a mixture of corn and molasses would not be advantageous, and the two processes would never work properly together, but would indeed be very disadvantageous."
Inasmuch, therefore, as it appeared from the evidence of the distillers that they did not think it advantageous to them to use sugar or molasses and grain together, and had not done so when permitted, he did not think it could be productive of any real disadvantage to maintain a prohibition necessary for the protection of the revenue. The main objection to the use of sugar in distilleries was the amount of duty levied on sugar. That objection he proposed to remove. He proposed to allow the use of sugar duty free in distilleries, except to this extent—that he must have
292
on sugar used in distillation an amount of duty equivalent to the duty paid on malt used in distillation. In England spirit was distilled from various sorts of grain used in this proportion—two parts of malt, two parts of oats, and eighteen parts of barley. To make the case clear to the House, he would suppose that a quantity of spirit was run off from two quarters of malt, two quarters of oats, and eighteen quarters of barley; it must be evident that the produce of that distillation would pay the amount of the spirit duty levied per gallon as well as the malt duty previously paid upon the two quarters of malt used in the process. What he proposed was, that spirit made from sugar should pay the same duty as spirit made from grain, and also a sum equivalent to the malt duty, so as to put sugar and malt on precisely an equal footing. The mode in which he proposed to effect this was, he conceived, free from all objection. He proposed that distillers should take sugar from the bonding warehouses, paying the duty upon it, and if they used it for purposes of distillation, when they came to pay the spirit duty, they should have an allowance from that equivalent to the difference between the duty which they had paid on sugar, and that which they would have to pay on malt. That difference, calculated according to the allowance made under previous Acts, would amount to 1s. 2d. per cwt.; consequently an allowance of 12 s. 10 d. on the quantity of spirit which it was calculated would be produced from a hundred-weight of sugar would leave that spirit in this situation—that it would be relieved from all the duty paid on spirit, and would have paid a duty equivalent to that paid upon malt used in producing a similar quantity. The distinction between the duty on beer and that on spirit was this—that, in the case of beer, the duty was levied on the raw material—malt; and in the case of spirit the main part of the duty was levied on the manufactured article, and only a part on a portion of the raw material employed—namely, malt. He found that, in previous Acts, it was calculated that 11½ gallons of spirit could be produced from a hundred-weight of sugar; and, therefore, 12 s. 10 d. would be deducted from the amount of spirit duty payable on that quantity. It had taken some time to explain that point, and he hoped that he had made himself clear. The calculation was, after all, an exceedingly simple one; it resulted in this—that on every 11½ gallons of spirit made

293
from sugar, there would be a drawback of 12 s. 10 d. The allowance would be calculated on the 14 s. duty payable on British colonial sugar; all other sugar would have paid the differential duty, and thus the British colonist would continue to enjoy the advantage established in his favour by the Act of last Session. He found the price of barley stated in the returns at 54 s. He believed the price had advanced since the returns were made up; but he would take the present price to be 54 s. The present price of sugar was 33 s., duty free, at which price it would fairly compete with barley at 54 s. Looking back to a series of years, if he took the average price of malting barley at 30 s., he would not be far from the mark. To compete with barley at 30 s., sugar must reach a point as low as 18 s. per cwt. It had not yet been sold at that price; and he did not think it likely that it would. In ordinary times, therefore, it would not be reasonable to anticipate much competition between barley and sugar. The competition would depend at all times on the relative prices of the two articles. When the price of barley was high, and that of sugar low, the latter would come into competition with the former; but when the price of sugar rose, and that of barley fell, the competition would cease; for under ordinary circumstances it was much more advantageous to distil from grain than from sugar. It was not his intention to admit molasses into distilleries; and in coming to that decision he was chiefly influenced by the consideration of the facilities which would thereby be afforded for defrauding the revenue — a point which was adverted to in the evidence of Mr. Smith, which he had read to the House. The trifling advantage which could be gained from allowing the use of molasses in distilleries would be more than counterbalanced by the expensive machinery it would be necessary to have recourse to in order to guard against fraud. He now came to the duty on rum. Last year the duty on British spirits was fixed at 7s. 10 d., and that on colonial rum at 9s. 4d. per gallon; being a difference of 1s. 6d. Many attempts had been made, at various times, to reduce the amount of the difference in the duty on rum and British spirits; but they had always been successfully resisted. The grounds on which the difference of duty was defended were various. One was no longer tenable; he alluded to the duty formerly imposed on the importation of foreign grain, Another
294
ground was the malt duty; but that on which reliance chiefly was placed was the great disadvantage under which the British distiller laboured, and the increased outlay of capital to which he was compelled to have recourse, in order to conform with the regulations imposed by the Excise. Last year his attention was directed to the subject, and, being inclined to think that the disadvantages under which the British distillers laboured were more than covered by the differential duty on spirits, he called upon both parties to lay before him the view which they respectively took of the case. The West India interest, in compliance with the appeal which he made to them, estimated the British distillers' disadvantage as equivalent to 2d. per gallon; and they at the same time suggested, that the British distillers should be relieved from some of the restrictions which the excise laws imposed upon them in carrying on their trade. The British distillers, on the other hand, estimated their disadvantage as equivalent to 1s. 4d. per gallon. These were extreme statements; but, on the investigation he had been able to give the subject, he thought there were some grounds for the assertion that the distillers were subject to some disadvantages in prosecuting their trade in consequence of various restrictions. From reference to the most experienced excise officers, he thought they had some claim to relief on this ground; it was very difficult to say exactly what the amount of that relief should be: but he thought that the only probable grounds on which they claimed relief, were upon their own showing somewhere about 9d. or 10 d. a gallon. The only possible mode of settlement was by a kind of compromise between the conflicting parties; he had some wish, perhaps, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to sacrifice no more revenue than he could help; but on the whole he thought he should meet the justice of the case by reducing the differential duty on colonial spirit from 1s., which it was at present, to 6d., leaving it that amount, 6d., above the duty paid by the English distiller. He now came to the question of the duty on colonial rum imported into Scotland and Ireland: that duty was not only different in Ireland and Scotland, but in both countries it was less than in England. It would be recollected that the excise duty on Scotch and Irish spirits was in both countries considerably lower than that in England: the respective rates being, in England, 7s. 10 d., in Scotland,

295
3s. 8d., and in Ireland, 2s. 8d. The claim of the West Indians was, that they should be allowed to introduce rum into Scotland and Ireland at the same amount over the present duties in those countries as he proposed they should do over that in England: in other words, that rum should be allowed into Scotland and Ireland at a duty of 6d. higher than that charged on the native spirits of those countries. Thus, the import duty on rum would be 4s. 2d. per gallon for Scotland, and 3s. 2d. for Ireland. He found by a return he had that day received, that within the last thirty or forty years the quantity of rum imported into Scotland had diminished to an extraordinary degree. From 304,000 gallons, at which the import stood at the beginning of the century, it had sunk, through a variety of lessening quantities, 253,000 gallons, 241,000 gallons, 198,000 gallons, down to 104,000 gallons in 1836; and, for the year 1845, the whole quantity of colonial spirits entered for consumption in Scotland was no more than 43,000 gallons. In Ireland the diminution of the quantity imported had been still more extraordinary. In 1809 it was 1,000,000 gallons; it soon after began to fall off, and, for the last four or five years, the import had stood at such quantities as 13,000, 12,000, and 11,000 gallons a year. He thought much of this diminution had been caused by a change in the taste of the people, which led them to prefer the spirits produced in their own countries. Nevertheless, this broad fact was evident, that the importation of colonial spirits had been excessively diminished; and he thought that diminution justified him in reducing the import duty in those countries to the rates he had proposed. If he was right in his conclusion, that the diminished import was caused by a change in the taste of the people, he did not expect that the present reduction of the duty would produce any very great effect; in the seaports it might give an impulse to the consumption, but he did not anticipate any considerable increase in the inland districts. The best effect would be this—it would encourage the introduction of a sound article at a reasonable rate, and thus prevent the distillation of an inferior kind of spirit, which frequently passed as colonial rum; the change would benefit both consumer and producer. One objection which had been duly weighed by the Government, was the probability of an increase in smuggling, or the introduction of spirits which had paid
296
the rate of duty in one country into another for consumption. But it was proposed to keep the transmission of spirits from one country to another under the present regulations; it would be moved only from one bonding warehouse to another; and when taken out for consumption, to pay the rate of duty for the country in which it was discharged from bond. Thus, spirits moved from Glasgow to England, and there taken into consumption, would pay the English rate of duty, and so with spirits moved from Scotland to Ireland, or vice versâ. From communications with the officers of excise, he could state that there would be no difficulty to speak of in preventing smuggling. Upon the whole, he hoped his proposal would be considered by the various interests as a fair settlement. With respect to its effect on the revenue, he did not think, on the balance of the different measures, there would be either a loss or gain. The loss consequent on the reduction in the duty on rum last year was 60,000 l. He did not know whether it was to be attributed to that reduction or not; but he certainly found, that within the last three months there had been a great increase in the importation of rum, compared with the quantity imported in the corresponding months of the year preceding. In the month ending the 10th of October, 1845, there were imported 215,419 gallons; to the 5th of November, 194,570 gallons; to the 5th of December, 245,391 gallons. In the month ending the 10th of October, 1846, the quantity imported was 263,681 gallons; to the 5th of November, 222,999 gallons; the 5th of December, 300,304 gallons. The total quantity for the last three months of 1845 was 655,380 gallons; for the same period of 1846 it was 789,984 gallons, being an increase over the import of 1845 of 134,604 gallons. He was sanguine enough to believe that the loss of revenue by the reduction of the duty would thus be more than made up by the increased consumption; 26,000 l. was all the revenue derived from the duty on rum in Ireland and Scotland—no great amount. He would now state the result of these various measures. Sugar, duty paid, would be allowed to be used in breweries; sugar, practically duty free, would be permitted to be used in distilleries; there would be a reduction of 6d. a gallon in the duty on rum imported into England, and that import duty in Ireland and Scotland, which was practically a prohibitory one, would be considerably reduced.

297
If the result of the measure with regard to breweries and distilleries should have the effect of setting free a greater amount of barley for human food, he should feel rejoiced. At the present moment they must depend to a considerable extent on barley for the supply of food; and if any quantity of that grain should be displaced and made available for human food he should not regret it. He did not expect that these measures would reduce the price of grain, but they would tend to keep them from rising higher. He did not think it necessary to prohibit the use of grain in distilleries; it would not set free such a quantity of corn for human food as would justify them in deranging the operations of trade. One immediate effect would be to give an immediate impulse to illicit distillation. Now in that illicit process it was calculated that one-third of the grain used was wasted. This was a serious evil, and to the extent of one-third the supposed benefit of stopping legal distilleries might not be realized. In point of fact, however, distillation from grain was at that moment to a great extent stopped in Ireland by the high price of barley. He had received a letter from a great Irish distiller, dated the 14th of January, from which he would read an extract. It said—
"Since the 19th of December the corn-markets of this country have undergone great changes, and prices of all grain have run up to excessive rates, and even at these there has been such a falling off in the supply of distillers' corn that some houses are about to stop working, having none, and being unable to procure any. I may say that by far the greater proportion of barley that will be used by distillers for the rest of the season will be foreign. In fact, the price of English barley acts of itself as a prohibition, being nearly 60 s. a quarter for such quality as distillers purchase. This, together with its scarcity, will in all probability have the effect of inducing them to use sugar and molasses, if any measure be introduced by Government for that purpose."
Distillation from grain being practically stopped, it was not worth while to make any further attempt that way; to give facilities for the use of sugar both in breweries and distilleries would, he believed, be an effectual means of attaining the object they all had in view; and the circumstances which made these measures necessary rendered it most desirable that they should be passed with as little delay as possible consistent with their practical consideration. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—

1. Resolved—That it is expedient to suspend, for a time to be limited, the Duties on the importation
298
of Buck Wheat, Buck Wheat Meal, Maize or Indian Corn, Indian Corn Meal, and Rice.

2. Resolved—That it is expedient to allow the use of Sugar in the brewing of Beer.

3. Resolved—That there be allowed and paid a Drawback of five shillings, and five per centum on the exportation to foreign parts of every thirty-six gallons of Beer or Ale, the worts used in the brewing whereof shall not be of lower specific gravity than 1·054; and a Drawback of seven shillings and sixpence, and five per centum on the exportation of such Beer or Ale, the worts used in the brewing whereof shall not be of less specific gravity than 1·081.

4. Resolved—That an allowance of twelve shillings and ten pence be granted to every Distiller of Spirits in the United Kingdom for and in respect of every eleven gallons and a half (and so in proportion) of Spirits produced from Sugar used by such Distiller in the making of Spirits upon which the Duties granted by Law shall have been paid.

5. Resolved—That it is expedient to make Regulations relative to the Distillation of Spirits from Sugar, in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

6. Resolved—That in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the articles undermentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, the following Duties shall be charged, viz.

Spirits, or Strong Waters, for every gallon of such Spirits or Strong Waters, of any strength not exceeding the strength of Proof by Sykes's hydrometer, and so on in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of Proof, and for any greater or less quantity than a gallon, viz.
Spirits, or Strong Waters, the produce of any British Plantation in America, not being sweetened Spirits, or Spirits mixed with any article, so that the degree of strength thereof cannot be exactly ascertained by such hydrometer,

s.

d.

If imported into England, the gallon

8

4

If imported into Scotland the gallon

4

2

If imported into Ireland the gallon

3

2

Spirits, Rum, the produce of any British Possession within the limits of the East India Company's Charter, not being sweetened Spirits, or Spirits so mixed as aforesaid, in regard to which the conditions of the Act 4 Vic. c. 8. have or shall have been fulfilled,

s.

d.

If imported into England, the gallon

8

4

If imported into Scotland the gallon

4

2

If imported into Ireland the gallon

3

2

Spirits, Rum Shrub, however sweetened, the produce of and imported from such Possessions, in regard to which the conditions of the Act 4 Vic. c. 8, had or shall have been fulfilled, or the produce of and imported from any British Possession in America,

s.

d.

If imported into England, the gallon

8

4

If imported into Scotland the gallon

4

2

If imported into Ireland the gallon

3

2

Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
The Resolution having been put,
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid, the perfect mastery of the subject the right hon. Gentleman had displayed, and the perspicuity

299
and simplicity with which he had explained the measures of Her Majesty's Government, left no one an excuse for pretending he did not understand them; but the House would scarcely expect him to enter into all these details. The measures of the Government were not liable to the great objection he had so often stated against the remission of taxes paid for the most part by foreigners, in preference to the remission of other taxes paid almost exclusively by British subjects. Though the proposition was one for admitting a certain kind of produce to a rivalship with that of the agriculture of this country, yet, with the exception of foreign slave-grown sugar, it was not a question between foreign and British produce, and therefore not open to the objection he had always raised to the free admission of foreign productions to compete with British. There was another reason why he was not disposed strongly to object to the proposition of the Government, and it was this—that he did not think it would in any degree diminish the revenue of the country. They had drawn from the right hon. Gentleman a gloomy picture of the prospects of one portion of the revenue, and of the state of the manufacturing districts as well as of Ireland; but it was, nevertheless, some consolation to his (Lord G. Bentinck's) Friends, the protectionists, to learn that it was owing to the fact that the political economists and free traders had not meddled with the great heads of the revenue, namely, the taxes on tobacco, and sugar, and tea, and excise, that the right hon. Gentleman did not come before the House as a bankrupt. He was not going to follow his right hon. Friend in his detailed statement; he, as did others, wished for time for more mature consideration; and his chief object in rising was to beseech his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to pass this as a temporary rather than as a permanent measure. The noble Lord must have perceived it was the great desire of his (Lord G. Bentinck's) Friends to support the noble Lord to the utmost of their power in every measure connected with Ireland, whether or not they were enabled to approve of such scheme altogether or not; that they were most anxious to avoid throwing any the slightest obstacle in the way of Her Majesty's Government in their attempt to avert the present famine, whether or not they were convinced that the best course to attain that end was being taken. He could not, therefore, be misunderstood,
300
when he most earnestly prayed that the noble Lord would give his consent, without prejudice to the Government, on the one side, or to them (the protectionists), on the other, to deal with the present as only a temporary measure, and, at some later period of the Session, when the affairs of Ireland were settled, to come to the House, if he then thought fit, with the permanent Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would admit, if the high prices of malt had induced a certain great maltster and brewer to suspend the carrying on his business, that the effect also would be to diminish the consumption of barley — thereby lowering the price; he was not, therefore, prepared to concur in the opinion, that the tax upon malt was paid entirely by the consumer, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated. He could not understand what was meant by his right hon. Friend, if he maintained that the tax was paid in toto by the consumer, when the effect of the high price of beer had been such as to compel the suspension of the operations of malting. He (Lord G. Bentinck) apprehended that, if no malting went on, barley could not be sold; when, of course, the consequence would be very much to lower the price of barley; and this he regarded as a material loss to the grower of barley. Therefore, whilst consenting that sugar should enter for the present into competition with barley, he begged to inform his noble Friend, frankly and above board, that it would add another to the claims of the agriculturists upon the Government for the remission of the malt and hop duties. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the increased price of malt had increased the price of beer by a penny a pot; if, however, the duty were reduced on malt and hops, the price of beer would be brought back to what it was before, inasmuch as these taxes amounted to a penny a pot: and, let it be remembered, these were taxes paid exclusively by British subjects. These were the reasons why he entreated that his right hon. Friend should pass the present measure as a temporary measure, in order that he might proceed with the other measures for the relief of Ireland without any obstruction. He could assure his noble Friend, that if he persevered in making it a permanent measure, many hon. Members would feel themselves obliged to offer every obstruction to its becoming the law. Therefore he besought his noble Friend to listen to the prayer of those who made it, in perfect good will, without the

301
least desire to embarrass his Government upon the subject.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENconfessed that he had never heard a statement with more disappointment than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been inclined to believe that the Government would bring forward their measure as a proposal to increase the supply of food by diminishing the consumption of grain in breweries and distilleries, and he had expected that some statement would have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show that such would be the tendency of this measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, told the House, that he proposed to admit sugar into breweries and distilleries; but that, except under certain contingencies, he did not think that it would diminish the consumption of barley. As he understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he believed it would rather increase the prices. The admission of molasses would have displaced grain from the breweries, and would therefore have been a boon to those desirous of diminishing the consumption of grain in those establishments; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he had no intention of proposing it. The same statement was applicable to distilleries; sugar was to be used there, but not molasses. Molasses would displace grain, and release it for food; sugar would not do so, except when the prices of barley were very high.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that his statements referred to present prices. In brewing thirty-six gallons of strong beer, there was at present a difference of 6s. in favour of malt.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENwould accept that explanation. In point of fact, as the case was stated by the right hon. Gentleman himself, they were not to expect any sort of increase to the supply of food for the Irish people from the measures of Her Majesty's Government. That was a most appalling fact under the present circumstances of that country. He should have expected that any measure of this character would have facilitated to the farthest extent the substitution of sugar and molasses for grain. The duty of Government, in his opinion, was to prohibit the use of grain altogether in distilleries and breweries; and he could not understand how the present measure would be of service in increasing the supply of grain for food. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman
302
was most untimely; he thought he would have heard him declare the intention of Government to prohibit the use of grain—if Her Majesty's Ministry had but done so, they would have liberated 30,000,000 stone of corn for the ensuing year.
MR. D. CALLAGHANhad heard the proposition of Government with great regret. He was quite prepared to say, that it would have a very great effect on the growth of grain in Scotland and Ireland; what would be its effects in England he left to the consideration of the agricultural party in the House and elsewhere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no doubt made out his case very clearly; but he would endeavour to show the House, by one or two simple instances, that the right hon. Gentleman might not have sufficiently considered all the points of his case. Let them just look at the differential duty between spirits made from molasses in the West Indies, and from corn in Ireland and Scotland. It was well known that spirits were made in the latter countries from malt and raw corn. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had not at all dealt with the case of malt spirits in either country. He was going to add 6d. to the spirit duty in Scotland and Ireland at present, and would let in rum against it with only 6d. difference. When the 3s. 8d. duty paid in Scotland should have added to it the duty paid upon the malt, and that was at least 6d. in that country—that 6d. being added to the 3s. 8d. made the whole duty 4s. 2d.; and the duty on rum, to be admitted against it, would be only 4s. 4d.; making a difference between the spirits of only 1½d. or 2d. He allowed the West Indian to distil from molasses; but he would not allow the Scotchman or the Irishman to do so. There was no reciprocity in the case, and this was a point which his right hon. Friend must alter in Committee. He had no doubt of the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions; but he must, on looking into this point, see the justice to the distillers and agriculturists of making some alteration in this respect. He could not but say, that knowing, as he did, the vast amount of capital expended on this branch of business in Ireland, and in his own county (Cork) particularly — fostered as it had been by every Government up to the present time—he looked with dismay on this proposition, and on the change which would take place in consequence. They would be driven to free trade in self-defence; and the result must be, that the

303
distillers' trade would be destroyed. He, therefore, could not rest without making that statement, which he hoped would have the effect of inducing Her Majesty's Government to reconsider some points of their present measure.
MR. G. BANKESbegged to join in the urgent request of his noble Friend the Member for Lynn, that this measure might be passed merely as a temporary rather than as a permanent measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that one of the main objects in bringing forward this measure was to aid in alleviating the present calamities of Ireland. They were of course all willing to do what they could for the relief of Ireland; but as he hoped that its distress would be but temporary, this measure would not be considered as a permanent one with reference to that particular object. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was perfectly aware that there had been a very strong feeling manifested during the last few months in reference to the duties upon malt. He was also well aware that on that day a large and influential deputation had waited upon him urging strongly the claims of the agricultural interest on this subject. He was also well aware that the gentlemen who addressed him at that deputation, although they had unanimously agreed as to the necessity of the remission of the duty on malt, had, notwithstanding, in the present difficult state of the country, consented to waive their immediate desire upon that head; and he thought, therefore, that the noble Lord would feel that those persons had a just and honourable claim to have this matter considered at some subsequent period, when it might be calmly and fully deliberated upon, free from those circumstances of anxiety which must surround every subject coming before the House in the present emergency. As the class of whom he had spoken had consented to waive their claims, he therefore urgently requested the noble Lord would, on his side, waive his intention of rendering this a permanent measure until that period had arrived when it could be calmly and coolly considered on its intrinsic merits. He perfectly agreed with the noble Lord that this was a very different measure from those measures in which the interests of the foreigner were considered as competing with those of this country. They were perfectly aware that the colonial interest was to be considered as an integral part of the interests of the nation; but, inasmuch
304
as the question of the slave trade and of the foreign-grown sugar was involved in this question, he sincerely hoped that the noble Lord might accede to the request that the measure should only be a temporary one.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that at the close of the last Session he had taken upon himself the liberty of advising those who were deeply interested in the prosperity of the West Indies to avoid taking any rash measures for throwing their estates out of cultivation, in consequence of the views of the Government as to the admission of foreign sugar. In giving them this advice he deliberately stated to them—and he had said to the House at the time—that in consideration of the competition to which they were then to be exposed from foreign commodities, he thought they had an irresistible claim to have their produce admitted to fair competition with other produce, whether of the United Kingdom or the colonies; and that in that claim they should have every support that he could give them. He felt, therefore, that he individually was under a particular obligation on the present occasion to support the claim of the colonies to the admission of their produce to those advantages which the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered them, and which, taken generally, were offered in a fair and liberal spirit. Hon. Friends near him suggested that there were interests in this country which had a strong claim upon the Government to demand that the present arrangement should be only temporary; but they must consider, on the other hand, that the colonial interest at the end of last Session, when their produce was exposed to competition with the foreigner, had a fair claim to say that that was the period at which they should receive a permanent advantage. They were not now, therefore, for the first time discussing this question; they were merely fulfilling a pledge which he understood to have been given by the right hon. Baronet that the question should be fully considered at the earliest period of the Session, and which had influenced him in the advice he publicly gave to his hon. Friends behind him to accept the terms of the Government, and the plan of the sugar duties then under consideration. With respect to the propriety of making this measure temporary, his hon. Friends who sat beside him had not stated the period of time to which they proposed that this measure should

305
be limited: his hon. Friend near him said, to the month of September next. Now this was, as the right hon. Baronet had properly stated, not a measure brought forward with a view to relieve the distress which existed in Ireland; it was a measure which would have been brought forward had there been no distress prevailing in any part of the United Kingdom. It was a commercial arrangement, based on previous claims, and rendered necessary by them in order to deal justly with the interests of a great body of our fellow-subjects; and he would ask any man whether a commercial arrangement intended to last till the month of September next was calculated to benefit any interest whatever? If there was any one point against which experience had warned them, it was the imprudence of a temporary arrangement for a short period. They knew perfectly well that the annual arrangement which used to be made respecting the sugar duties was to that particular interest a source of great vexation, pecuniary loss, and, what was worse, gambling speculation. They had felt that for a considerable number of years; but what must be the inconvenience if they now said that they would enact the reduction of the rum duties merely to bring them nearer to the equivalent duties on British produce; and enact it only until the month of September, leaving the subject to be then reconsidered. The effect of that would be to create a great deal of speculation in the public mind as to whether Government was strong enough or was disposed to carry the measure, and therefore they would have the whole trade paralysed, and a door left open for operations founded on information which particular parties might think themselves enabled to derive, either from the opinions expressed in Parliament, or conversations which might be held with persons officially connected with the Government. Whether as regarded the manufacturer in England, or the importer from the West Indies, it would place them in such a position that neither would be enabled to carry on his trade with effect. If it were wished that the measure should be operative, either by the withdrawal of barley from the general consumption, and the substitution of sugar, or in any other way, the end would not be attained by a temporary arrangement; for he did not believe that any one would have the hardihood to embark his capital in the manufacture of spirits, or still less of beer, from sugar, or in the importation of the
306
material, under a law which was only to last for the limited space of some five or six months. He trusted, therefore, that they would take a larger and more general view of this question, and would be prepared to say whether, after freedom of trade with foreign countries had been sanctioned and established, they would impose particular restrictions on the colonies; whether the latter had not a claim to participate in the advantages offered by the present plan. With respect to the details of the measure, he should say but little; the statement made by the right hon. Baronet had been throughout so clear, and the grounds on which it was brought forward so ably expressed, that he should only weaken the effect of that statement if he were to attempt to go through its arguments. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, as far as related to the admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries, that exaggerated views had been taken by the colonists of the benefits it was likely to confer; and if alarms were entertained by those who supplied barley to these establishments at present, he thought their fears could only arise from not having duly attended to the circumstances of the case. He entirely concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the revenue must be protected, not only for the sake of the two great interests concerned, but because it was essential to the general welfare and prosperity of the country. Though he might be disposed to argue, if revenue considerations were not concerned, that the indulgence given to sugar should be extended also to molasses; yet knowing, as he did, the extent of fraud which the introduction of that article into breweries and distilleries would occasion, and the loss the revenue would thereby sustain, he thought the right hon. Baronet had shown ample grounds for the exclusion of that particular commodity. The right hon Baronet had justly stated that sugar would probably not be generally introduced into distilleries, unless there should be concurrently a high price of malt and a low price of sugar. The calculations on which the right hon. Baronet had founded his statement could not, he thought, be overthrown; but the experience they had, also showed generally that the introduction of sugar would not to any extent displace barley or malt. As the law at present stood, private breweries might use sugar in the manufacture of the beer they consumed; and the consumption

307
of malt in private breweries amounted to three-eighths of the whole produce of the country. These private breweries were not merely confined to gentlemen who brewed only for their own consumption; but extended also to those who, employing large numbers of persons, gave beer as part of the wages; and to whom it was, therefore an object to brew at the least possible cost. And yet, after the most diligent inquiry, at a time when malt had been at an exaggerated price, he did not know an instance in which it appeared that sugar had been used in breweries. He remembered that Mr. Calvert, one of the greatest brewers in the metropolis, when examined before a Committee of that House on that particular point, stated that it was not for the advantage of public brewers to use sugar, even when malt had reached a price of 75 s. or 80 s. It was not, therefore, his opinion that sugar would be extensively introduced, or that any diminution of the quantity of malt would ensue from the admission of sugar in breweries. But the power given to each manufacturer of freely exercising his own discretion as to the materials he should use in the course of trade, was of itself a considerable advantage; and when periods arrived at which, from the fluctuation of the market, he might otherwise be compelled to contract his operations, trade would not be disturbed, because the substitution of sugar for malt would be the means of carrying it on equably and regularly without any alteration in the price of the commodity. He should not enter on the part of the plan which referred to the duty on rum, as from the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's notice, he had not expected that any statement on the subject would be made; and, therefore, he was not prepared with the documents necessary for an examination of the particular amount of differential duty proposed to be retained in favour of the British producer. Nothing could be more difficult or intricate than to weigh the inconvenience sustained by one interest against that sustained by another, and to reduce them to pecuniary values. In assenting to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet on the present occasion, he of course reserved to himself the liberty of further considering the whole system embraced in the measure when it again came before the House. But generally he would express his opinion that in proposing this measure the right hon. Baronet had taken a course at once just to the interests concerned,
308
beneficial as regarded the general interests of the country, and had fulfilled the pledge given at the close of last Session that the subject should be brought forward at the earliest possible period.
MR. WODEHOUSEhoped that the earnest requests of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, and of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that the measure should be but temporary, would be acceded to by the Government. He believed he spoke the feeling of all around him when he said that every measure which the Government might think it wise to propose for the relief of Ireland in her present calamity should have their earnest support; but he must at the same time beg the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to bear in mind that the agricultural interests were materially altered by the measures of last year, and it was truly impossible for those who had represented those interests in that House to hesitate for a moment in co-operating with the farming interests in their attempts to procure the abolition of the malt tax. Her Majesty's Ministers might prepare themselves, therefore, for the unmistakeable demand which would soon be made upon them to repeal that tax. The poor as well as the rich were equally interested in the success of the efforts which the agricultural party was about to make for the abolition of the duty upon malt.
MR. HUMEwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there would be any objection to lay before the House in an intelligible form the reason why the Government was not prepared to extend to molasses the same favour as was proposed with respect to sugar? It evidently appeared, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that in ordinary circumstances, the free admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries would have no effect; it might during the present price of barley, but generally speaking, he believed it would be inoperative. Therefore, the only article that would produce an effect was that of molasses, which this measure would shut out. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the excise regulations were against its admission. If that was the reason, they ought at once to get rid of the excise, because it stood in the way of the public having cheap beer: it would render it impossible for them to profit by the great measure just proposed. He, therefore, hoped that his request as to the full explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reason for

309
not bringing molasses under the operation of this measure, would be complied with at some future period. On the whole, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very fair proposition.
MR. FINCHtrusted that the Government would not refuse to accede to the request that the measure should be only temporary. He had no intention of opposing the measure, but it was but right that the Government should, by making it merely temporary, afford the Members of the House an opportunity of consulting with their constituents, for the purpose of ascertaining their views of the proposal. He was glad to hear that this measure had been introduced principally with a view of mitigating Irish distress; and with regard to the colonial interests, he felt that they should be promoted. He believed that there was no portion of the British dominions that had greater reason to complain than the West Indian colonists, who had been deprived of that protection to which they were so justly entitled. It was justly said that this question did not merely relate to the British colonies, but also to foreign sugar growers. He had that day read of the arrival of three ships from the Brazils, laden with sugar, and it was stated that more arrivals might presently be expected from the same quarter; and he felt pretty confident that a large portion of the Brazilian sugar might be used in the distilleries and breweries. This was a measure, therefore, that involved foreign colonial produce and the slave trade; but as he had said, he was not certain that the agriculturists of this country would feel themselves called upon to oppose it. All that they asked was time for deliberation. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had said that if the measure were limited to the 1st of September, the limitation of its operation might frustrate its beneficial effect. He did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) to suggest that it should be limited to September. All he had asked was, that the Government would consent that the measure should, in the first instance, be but temporary; and such a request as that was but just. At all events, England, Ireland, and Scotland, should have time fairly to consider the matter. They should have an opportunity of consulting their representatives. He believed, however, that the consumers of beer in this country would be losers rather than gainers by the free admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries.
MR. BARCLAYhoped that the noble Lord would persevere in the proposal to abolish the restrictions upon the use of sugar in brewing and distillation. He would not enter into the question of the distress in Ireland. He rose on behalf of the colonies, and must express his decided conviction, that when protection had been withdrawn, a pledge had been given to the colonies that no restriction should be placed on the use of their staple commodities. And, indeed, that was but an act of simple justice, and what the colonies had a fair right to claim. It was a hardship that our colonial sugar should be subject to any duty whatever; for the sugar of Jamaica was as the wheat of England, and it was as unjust to levy a duty on the former as it would be on the latter. Hon. Gentlemen wished that this measure might be only of temporary character; but they gave the House reason to think that, at a later period, they would not be disinclined to its becoming a permanent one. Why not at once adopt the bolder step? Why tamper with a question of so much importance? The colonies were an integral part of the empire, and their fellow-subjects there were entitled to the same privileges. It was, therefore, most unjust to make their staple products the sport of capricious legislation. They all sympathized in the distress of the people of Ireland, and were anxious to relieve it; and he trusted that hon. Gentleman opposite would withdraw the slight opposition they had put forward, and give their support to the proposition of his right hon. Friend.
LORD G. BENTINCK: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the anxieties of a sugar planter, has, I fear, overlooked the necessities of Ireland. As to what has fallen from some hon. Gentleman opposite, there was, I may remark, an understanding, I will not say a compact, that there was to be a truce to all political hostility, until the affairs of Ireland had been settled. Of course I mean the afflicting, and I trust only temporary, calamity under which that country now suffers. Religious or political questions, repeal of the Union, or equal privileges, and such considerations, must of course, be considered apart from the present exigency. But, Sir, although I am prepared, on account of this calamitous condition of Ireland, to make a truce with the Ministry at present, I am far from making any compromise of principle; but only say that, in order to alleviate the condition of the people of Ireland, our political

311
hostility is to be laid aside until the calamity which overhangs that country be dispelled. It is, however, only in a temporary character, that the admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries can be viewed as alleviating the condition of the Irish people. And in this view I am supported by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Callaghan), who is opposed to its being a permanent measure. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer misrepresented, unintentionally I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire. My hon. Friend never said a word about the 1st of September as the limit to the temporary period of suspension. Neither myself nor my hon. Friend object that the measure should be passed for a year, if my noble Friend so think fit. And when my noble Friend introduces his measures for the permanent improvement of Ireland, he will be then at perfect liberty to introduce this as a permanent measure if he should think proper so to do. As to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, respecting the colonial interest, I think we on this side of the House have shown quite as deep an interest in the welfare of the colonies as the hon. Gentleman. I think the hon. Gentleman was not one of those who by the course he took when the sugar duties were discussed last year, earned for himself the gratitude of the colonial interest, as I rejoice to know those about me did. Therefore, I say, Sir, with no sort of hostility towards the colonies, I ask for time for the agricultural interest to consider whether or no they will consent to such a measure as this being made permanent. When the right hon. Gentleman (the late Chancellor of the Exchequer) tells the House that Mr. Calvert, the brewer, stated before a Committee of the House of Commons that sugar could not advantageously enter into competition with malt, until the price of malt rose to 75 s. or 80 s.; the right hon. Gentleman forgets that since that evidence was given, the duty was reduced on colonial sugar from 24 s. to 14 s. per cwt., and, what we think of far greater importance, the duty upon slave-grown sugar and foreign sugar has been reduced from 3l. 3s. per cwt. to 14 s. in the year 1851. An hon. Gentleman has asked why we do not tax our corn. Sir, I believe our corn, though not directly, is indirectly taxed at the present moment to a very large amount. We pay between 4,000,000 l. and 5,000,000 l. for tithe out of our agricultural produce. [Mr. M. GIBSON: Hear.] I think
312
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester has forgotten when, in the ranks of the Conservatives, he represented the county of Suffolk, he was wont to maintain that tithes were a tax on agriculture, and I presume barley pays its share. In short, there can be no doubt but agricultural produce is taxed to a very high degree. I, for one, never would ask for any protection for agriculture, were there not special and heavy burdens which oppress it. But when the effect of those duties on malt, and the effects of this measure upon breweries are talked of, I must say that I think sugar is much more likely to come into competition with malt in distilleries than in breweries. I think the effect of the measure will be very much to reduce the price of spirits. I concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this, that if the excise duty is to be put on any thing, spirits are precisely the articles on which it ought to be imposed, for I think a high tax on spirits and a low tax on beer would be beneficial to the morals of the people. Such a tax would be, therefore, in my mind, most justifiable. The effect of the reduction of duty on spirits in 1823 has been to double the consumption of ardent spirits, viz., from 13,000,000 of gallons then, to 26,000,000 of gallons at present. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Not so; illicit distillation was extensive before the reduction of duty, and the increase of population must be taken into account.] I think that any Gentleman who walks down Holborn must be struck with the number of gin palaces which meet his eye on both sides of the way. And most of these have sprung up since the duty was reduced; so that I think I am not far from the truth, when I say that the consumption has doubled since the reduction of the duty. And how does the case stand with regard to the consumption of beer? Why, Sir, that has not increased in the same proportion. The consumption of beer has not increased 30 per cent during the last twenty-five years, whereas the population has increased in a greater ratio than 30 per cent. I think it is highly questionable whether we should further reduce the duty on spirits, without making at the same time a similar, or a greater, reduction in the price of beer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed desirous that rum should take the place of whisky and other spirits the native manufacture of Scotland; but I do not see why the Scotch people should not be permitted to continue to drink their

313
own favourite Glenlivat, which they think much preferable. I will not further enter into the question; but I hope, for the sake of maintaining good feeling, that we may, as far as possible, agree in some remedial measures for Ireland immediately; that my noble Friend will not, for the sake of the colonial interests (much as I regard them), press on this measure in its permanent shape. If so, it may interfere with the settlement of Irish affairs. He ought to recollect that this measure does not stand on the same footing with the other measures proposed; it is not a temporary alleviation of the sorrows of Ireland, but one which, in fact, is permanent, and in which Ireland has no interest. If it will prove injurious to any part of the empire, it will prove, at least, equally injurious to Ireland; and recollecting these things, and knowing that it is not a remedial measure, if the House accede to the proposition which I have made, it will obviate the necessity for further discussion or division.
MR. BORTHWICKwas opposed to the measure being temporary. An increased demand for sugar would be created, the cessation of which, after capital had been invested to supply it, would seriously injure the West Indian proprietors.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I much regret that I must decline acceding to the proposition of my noble Friend opposite. My noble Friend, on the first day of the Session, demonstrated so much absence of party prejudice, and so much feeling with respect to the distresses of Ireland, that if I could without sacrifice of public duty—if I could by any other species of sacrifice in my power to make—meet his wishes, I should feel the greatest pleasure in complying with them. But since my noble Friend has made the proposition that the present measure should be temporary, and that Her Majesty's Government would afterwards be at liberty to make the measure permanent, I have considered what might be the consequence of that suggestion. We bring forward this proposal in any case with different views to those with which we brought forward the measures which I hope will be read a third time to-night; I mean the measures for the repeal of the corn and navigation laws. With respect to those measures, we say at once it is not our intention, in proposing them, to imply any disturbance of the corn duties or navigation laws, after the termination of the period to which it is
314
proposed the measures shall extend. Whatever other grounds may be put forth, that is our view. Therefore, so far as the interests are concerned with which those Bills interfere, they are merely temporary alterations of the law, and all concerned know that they are temporary. But with regard to the present measure, the situation in which we would be placed, if we were to adopt the course recommended by the noble Lord, would be very different. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated—and it is the opinion of the Government—that this measure, in all its leading features, should be taken as a permanent measure. If we were to accede to the proposal of the noble Lord, and pass the measure merely for a few months, or for a year, everybody would know that it was done with the intention, not of allowing the law to resume its present shape at the expiration of that period, but with the intention of introducing hereafter—it may be in this Session, or it may be in the next—an alteration in the very principle that the noble Lord has proposed. If we were to postpone the alteration for an entire year, there would be, as it appears to me, very great inconvenience indeed consequent upon such a proposition. There would, for instance, be very great disturbance and uncertainty in trade, and no adequate security to the colonies that their products would be ultimately admitted as now proposed into breweries and distilleries. If we were to bring in the permanent measure—say in the month of April or May—during the present Session, there would exist in the trade, from this time until the arrival of the periods in question, a thousand doubts and rumours—a thousand fears and apprehensions lest when the question was at length introduced, Parliament might perhaps disagree. The evils, therefore, of any such postponement would greatly counterbalance any possible advantage, by creating new causes of insecurity to every trade with which we might interfere. For these reasons I am compelled to adhere to the conclusion that it is better for the Parliament to decide at the present time (though most assuredly with no sort of haste to which the noble Lord can make any objection); but still to decide peremptorily, whether or not this shall be a permanent or a temporary change. It is in the power of the noble Lord at any time he pleases to take the discussion upon this point by proposing the insertion of separate clauses in the Bill,

315
proposing that the enactment shall be but of a temporary duration. If my noble Friend will adopt this course, the sense of the House upon the point can be ascertained with precision; for we are, I believe, on all sides agreed upon this, that the measure should at all events be adopted for a time. If the House should go with the noble Lord in the opinion that it would be better that the measure should be only a temporary one, though I should still hold to my opinion that any such arrangement would be subject to the inconvenience I have stated, still the decision of the House would be against me, and the noble Lord will have carried his point. But if, on the other hand, the House should agree with the Government that the measure ought to be permanent, then I think the question will have been settled in the most satisfactory manner—trade will not be disturbed, and every man who is engaged in mercantile pursuits can make his arrangements for purchasing sugars, for the use of breweries and distilleries, according as his own interests may require. I do not think the question of such a nature that it is likely to produce great excitement throughout the country. No doubt persons connected with the agricultural interests may think that their interests are injuriously affected; but I think that on consideration it will be found that their opinions are not very strongly founded, and that there is no occasion for any very serious apprehensions. At all events, on the point raised by the noble Lord, there can be a deliberate decision by the House; and we can take the time we may think necessary to enable him to bring forward for our consideration all the reasons which induce him to favour a mere temporary duration for the contemplated alteration. I have come to this conclusion with regret; for I am bound to say, with respect to the noble Lord and those who act with him, that I have every reason not only to be satisfied, but to be thankful to them for the disposition they have evinced.
LORD G. BENTINGKassured the House he had no desire to raise an excitement throughout the country upon this question. He accepted the suggestion of his noble Friend, and would be content at some later stage of this measure to take the sense of the House on the question, whether it should be of temporary or of permanent duration. He had no desire to tie up the colonial interests, but when he recollected how month after month they
316
had been tied up last Session, he certainly had not anticipated that the House would exhibit with respect to them any very hot or precipitate haste.
MR. ESCOTTobserved, that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had dealt largely in political compacts; but he had shown to-night an indiscretion in disclosing a compact which in so experienced a politician struck him as being exceedingly remarkable. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn had declared himself to be the friend of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to a certain time, and only until then. He was the friend and ally of the latter noble Lord until the Irish question was settled (so ran the bond), and until all its difficulties were arranged. When that would be, he (Mr. Escott) did not pretend to foretell. But when that day had arrived, the House was to understand that the two noble Lords were no longer to be in that amicable intercourse which spectators now every night were delighted to witness. But there was another point in the speech of the noble Lord to which he would take the liberty of briefly alluding. With respect to the question before the House, he had made up his mind, that the proper course for the House to pursue was to vote for the remedial measures of the Government, and accept them as the best the Ministers could afford to pass, under the sanction of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn; and after these measures had been carried, let them by and by try to get better if they could. This was the view he took of the question, and for this reason he would not stop to point out what improvements might be introduced into the present measure, but would merely content himself with voting for it. But the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had let out another secret to-night. The farmers, it appeared, were sold again. Had we not been told at all the meetings of farmers held at the close of the last Parliamentary campaign, that a grand measure of compensation was to be awarded to the farmers for the great injury that had been inflicted on them by the abolition of protection? Had we not been told that the excise was to be attacked, and the malt tax repealed? Some scores of dinners had been given throughout the country at which the noble Lord had attended, and at which he held forth these brilliant expectations. Nay, more, he was informed that there was at this moment an Anti-Malt-Tax League, of which he had never been invited to become

317
a member; but of which, he dared say, the noble Lord was the president. But the noble Lord to-night implied that he would sell the farmers again. Exactly as in the last Session he had given them cause to suppose that a battle which was only sham, was carried on there under the pretence of supporting the agricultural interests; so now too, after advancing the great topic of compensation, and fixing their eyes in eager expectancy on it, he now gave it up, and by a side wind admitted that under existing circumstances it would not be exactly prudent to advocate the repeal of the malt tax at all. It was right the farmers should know what was going on, and understand that the great champion of the repeal of the malt tax had shelved the question until he had settled the Irish affairs. After that his apprehensions would be at an end; his hands would be disembarrassed, and he would be quite ready to carry the repeal.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCKsaid, that whatever compacts he might have made, he would never hesitate to express his anxious hope that the private friendship which existed between the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government and himself, and which had been of many years duration, might long continue uninterrupted. For his noble Friend's private, personal, and political honour he entertained the highest respect, and for his consistency also; and while he felt sure his noble Friend would give him credit for engaging in no sham battles, he trusted that he would join with him in the expression of a hope that when he was obliged to differ from the noble Lord on high political principles, he might be able to meet him in strong opposition without any interruption of their private friendship. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Escott) had said that he was at the head of a repeal of the malt-tax league. He would not stop to enter with him into a discussion upon that point; but he would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he might rest in perfect security on the assurance which he now gave him, that whatever league he might belong to, unless he intended that the league at the head of which he might happen to be should be betrayed, he would never invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to become a member of it.
MR. BROTHERTONdid not wish to prolong the debate, he merely rose to offer a suggestion to the House. He understood the object of the Government measures was
318
to mitigate the distress of Ireland, by providing food for the people. It was proposed to convert sugar, which might now be considered a necessary of life, into spirits and beer, in order that the barley might be used as food. From returns on the Table of the House, it appeared that 27,000,000 gallons of spirits were annually consumed, being at the rate of one gallon for every man, woman, and child, in the United Kingdom. In addition to which 6,000,000 gallons of wine, and about 400,000,000 gallons of ale, were consumed. Now, the cost of these united, amounted to between 45,000,000 l. and 50,000,000 l. sterling. Upwards of forty millions of bushels of malt were charged with duty for home consumption last year. Thus, the produce of two or three millions of acres of land might as well be thrown into the sea, for in his opinion intoxicating liquor produced nothing but poverty, crime, disease, and wretchedness. It was used as an argument for the repeal of the corn law, that if the poor man had to lay out an additional sum in the purchase of food, he had less to expend in clothing and other necessaries. And so it was in this case; if the people spent their wages in drink, they would have less to spare for clothing. The more they expended in articles of manufacture, the better it would be for the home trade. Of 20 s. expended in spirits, the amount paid for labour was only about 8d.; but if 20 s. were laid out in articles of manufacture, from 6s. to 10 s. went into the pocket of the artisan. Now, if the House would use their moral influence in encouraging abstinence societies, and discontinuing intemperance, they would do more to ameliorate the condition of the people, increase their comforts, and elevate their morals, than by any other measure whatsoever. People were very apt to complain of bad government, but it appeared that they voluntarily taxed themselves to the extent of 50,000,000 l. sterling.
MR. FERRAND: Sir, I have heard the hon. and learned Member for Winchester, to-night, charge the noble Lord the Member for Lynn with having directly attempted to sell the farmers. At the last general election, the hon. and learned Member marched into Winchester at the head of a grand procession of farmers, pronouncing himself an uncompromising protectionist, ready to fight their battle on the floor of this House, and to die in defence of their interests if necessary. Sir, the hon. Member came to this House, and

319
made a grand speech upon the floor of this House in favour of protection. I assisted the hon. and learned Gentleman to correct that speech, before he circulated it amongst his supporters. [Mr. ESCOTT: No, no, no.] I repeat, I did—I will prove it. I was one day standing in Mr. Ollivier's shop, 59, Pall Mall, when the hon. and learned Member came in. He asked me, "What did you think of my speech the other night?" I told him it was a grand speech—a great piece of oratory—but that I did not know how the Winchester farmers would ever be able to construe his long Latin quotations. He made many alterations in that speech, and that it might create the greater sensation amongst the electors of Winchester, he had it published and circulated at his own expense. I quoted passages from the speech in the spring of the year 1846, as may be in the recollection of many hon. Members around me. It was a most powerful and eloquent speech, and one which the hon. and learned Member would find some difficulty in now answering, But enough of it. I as distinctly charge the hon. Member with selling his constituents, as he has charged the noble Lord with attempting to sell the farmers; and I tell him it is my opinion, that a Member of this House who will sell his constituents, will not hesitate to sell himself.
MR. ESCOTTwould say but a very few words in reply to the remarkable attack that had been made upon him by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, for the position in which he stood in relation to his constituents was a personal matter which on two occasions had been deliberately discussed in the proper place out of doors, and he did not feel himself justified to occupy the attention of the House with it. However, as a serious charge had been made against him, he would deal with it. He felt, and he had never denied it, that the corn-law question was one in respect to which he had pursued such a course as might fully warrant his constituents in pronouncing a judgment adverse to the vote which he had recorded. Feeling this very sensibly, he took two opportunities to meet his constituents in full public meeting, convened by public advertisement. The first meeting was pending the question of the corn law, and before it had been decided by that House; the second meeting was held at the conclusion of the last Session of Parliament, when he entered into a full explanation of his entire
320
conduct. At the first of these meetings, which was a very crowded one, only three of his constituents took exception to his conduct. The rest of the meeting to a man declared their approbation of the course he had pursued. He told them then, and he stated it again at the end of the Session, that if they did not approve of his proceedings, he was ready to resign their representation. The second meeting was even much more numerous than the first; it was, perhaps, the largest that had ever been held in the city of Winchester; and on that occasion his constituents, without a single exception, declared that he had done his duty to them in voting for the measure. Really, after that, he did not think that the noble Lord, or any body else, should accuse him of having betrayed his constituents. ["Oh!"] It was only the hon. Member for Knaresborough who cried "oh!" No other man in the House cried "oh!" but himself. With respect to a certain speech, to which allusion had been made, he wished to have it expressly understood he had never, for the purposes of that speech, or for any other purpose, ever called in the critical assistance of the hon. Member; and if he ever should feel it necessary to correct a speech, the hon. Member would not be the critic to whom he would apply. The hon. Member had talked of his speech in terms of exaggerated eulogy. It was not for him to descant upon the merits of that speech; but he had frequently listened to the hon. Member and some of his Friends, and without wishing to leave himself open to a charge of overweening vanity, he would venture to assert, that if they had studied that composition a little more attentively, their own oratory would not have lost anything.
Resolutions agreed to. To be reported.

POOR LAW COMMISSION—LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLrose to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the operation of the Law of Settlement, and of the Poor Removal Act of the last Session of Parliament, and to report their observations thereon to the House."
The noble Lord said: The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) has given notice of an Amendment on the Motion which I intend to make for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Law of Settlement: but when he hears the proposition which I am about to make,

321
I think he will feel that that Amendment is unnecessary. I shall propose that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Law of Settlement, and of the Poor Removal Act of last Session, and to report their observations to the House; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman shall think it necessary, I have no objection to move an instruction to the Committee that they be directed to inquire in the first place into the operation of the Poor Removal Act. I perfectly agree in the observations that numerous complaints have been made as to the Poor Removal Act of last Session; and I think it is desirable that the immediate attention of the Committee should be turned to that subject, with a view to consider what remedy can be proposed. With regard to the Law of Settlement itself, I wish merely to make a single observation, for I consider that the subject is surrounded with difficulties on every side, and I do not think that the House can well come to any opinion on the subject until persons who have much experience with business of this kind, and who are resident in different parts of the country, shall be brought together, and, being brought together, shall have the means of probing all the circumstances of this most important subject. A subject there certainly cannot be of greater importance to the well-being of the labouring classes of the country—in the first place, because the well-being of the labouring classes depends upon the law by which they are to be provided for; and, secondly, upon the condition of residence which the benefit arising from that law is to attach to them. But, Sir, I wish to take this opportunity, as several questions have been asked with regard to the course of the Government with respect to the inquiry that was instituted last year, with respect to the Poor Law Commission itself—I wish, I say, to take this early opportunity of so far satisfying those inquiries as to state what will be in the course of the Session the proposal that will be made by Government on that subject. I can state, perhaps, in the first place, that with regard to those resolutions that were passed by the Committee which sat on the Andover union, it is not the intention of the Government to make any proposition, or take any course on those resolutions, unless some hon. Member should think it fit to make a special Motion on that subject. If any hon. Gentleman shall think it necessary to bring that subject before the House, I shall have
322
no difficulty—having looked generally to the evidence and to the resolutions—of stating my opinion with regard to the results which are to be drawn from that inquiry. But, Sir, we have looked rather to the more general question—I mean the question as to what ought to be the course adopted with respect to the renewal of the Poor Law Commission. The House is aware, that according to the last Act passed on the subject, the powers of the Commissioners are continued to the end of this Session, and then to the end of the next Session of Parliament; but, as a measure of prudence, it ought to be our course to propose either the renewal of the Commission, or to make some other proposition in the course of the present Session, to prevent any accident that might arise from there being an end of the Commission before any law could be passed on the subject. Now, Sir, on considering the nature of that Commission, I must say that I think, in the first place, it is absolutely necessary to have some body which shall have a central control, and which shall likewise have the means of local inspection. My opinion is this: that whether under that system which formerly existed (and which will probably never revive), or whether under the system that has been established by the Poor Law Amendment Act, it is most advisable that the abuses, that the oppression, that the neglect and maladministration of the law which take place in particular districts should be examined, should be corrected, should be exposed; and that cannot be so well done as by means of some central control, and by means of those who have that central power. But, Sir, with regard to the manner in which that control is to be exercised, I certainly have observed that of late years there has been the greatest difficulty in exercising that control effectually, and in a manner to the satisfaction of this House and of the country. It has so happened—I confess it is a result which I did not expect at the time the Poor Law Amendment Act passed, but it has so happened—that the management and administration of that law have been continually the subject of animadversion and inquiry in this House, and that many complaints have been made with regard to the conduct of boards of guardians and of assistant commissioners, and with regard to the conduct of the Commissioners themselves, in superintending and correcting those defects. And now, for my part, it may be partiality,

323
but my belief is, that those Commissioners have exercised their powers to the best of their judgment, and with an earnest desire to serve the poor of this country. My belief too is, that their general administration of the law has been correct and sound; but I cannot say that in every instance that has been brought before Parliament, there has been a satisfactory conviction on the minds of Parliament that their discretion has been always wisely exercised. I think that the consequences have arisen very much because, though the control is placed in the hands of the Commissioners, the explanations respecting the exercise of that control, and the defence of that control, is placed in different hands. One set of officers had to examine into the particular cases that were complained of; they had to receive reports, to examine the various circumstances, and to come—according to the best of their knowledge—to a decision upon them. And the Minister of the Crown had, when explanation was required, to state to the House what were the difficulties of the Commissioners—what were the reasons that induced them to come to the decision that had been adopted; and, finally, either to defend the conduct of the Commissioners, or to decline to defend it; and thus put an end at once to all trust and confidence on the part of the public in their administration of the law. I own I think that this has been proved to be a very unsatisfactory mode of administration. I think the Secretary of State must very often have felt it to be so; and must have wished to be in a position in which he would have had an opportunity of knowing all the case, and be enabled to inform his mind on the decision that had been given, before he was called upon to defend that decision in the House. I think that the Commissioners, on their part, whatever the statement of the Secretary of State may have been, must often have been anxious to explain particular circumstances which, when stated by a Member of the House, may not have been within the knowledge of the Secretary of State who was explaining their conduct. I think when so much inquiry takes place, with so much necessity for full explanation, it is desirable that the persons in whom this great control is placed should be persons more immediately connected with the House of Parliament. We have therefore, Sir, formed the opinion, that for the better administration of the Poor Law Amendment Act, it is advisable that the superior Board should be constituted in a different manner;
324
and the manner in which we propose to constitute it is this—that there shall be one person at the head of the board, who shall be styled the President of that Board, and who shall be able to sit in the House of Commons—that he shall have placed with him certain persons holding Ministerial offices, but not interfering in the ordinary administration of that law, any more than the Secretary of State interferes in the ordinary concerns of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control. My right hon. Friend is President of the Board of Control, with certain other great officers associated with him; and with respect to certain very important questions, they are made aware of the course which he proposes to take; but in all ordinary cases the administration of the office devolves upon him alone. I would propose, that there should be two Secretaries appointed, one of whom should be enabled to sit in the House of Commons, while the other—according to the ordinary course—would not have a seat in that House. If it should be the case that the President of the Board had not a seat in this House, then one of the Secretaries could have a seat in it; and, therefore, be able in this House to explain and defend the conduct of the department to which he belongs. I wish now only to state the general outline of the scheme. With respect to the general rules, as they are called, I would propose that those general rules which have been adopted by the authority of the present Commissioners—having been finally revised—should remain in force, until, by some competent authority, they should be abrogated, and new general orders should be put in their place. That authority, to do so, should be vested, in the first place, in the new Board, who should have power to frame any new rules; but that those rules should not have any power or effect until sanctioned by the Queen in Council. This, Sir, is the general outline of the measures we propose to adopt for the future administration of the Poor Law. I should state also, that we propose to separate entirely the administration of the law in Ireland, from the administration of the law in England. We propose that there should be there likewise a President of the Board; that the Chief Secretary and the Under Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, and another officer of the Government, should be associated with him; and that the Lord Lieutenant in Council should make general rules in the same manner as the Queen in Council. Therefore, the administration

325
of the law in England would be entirely separate from the administration of the law in Ireland. I know not whether it will be necessary for me to make any further statement as to the plan we propose. It has been already embodied in a Bill, not yet fully matured, but which when prepared will be laid before Parliament; and if it should receive the sanction of Parliament, I think—at least I hope so—that the administration of the poor law may be rendered more satisfactory; and when any inquiry is made in the House respecting the administration of the poor law, that inquiry, and the defence or explanation which it may call forth, may be drawn into immediate contact; and so important a concern as the general administration of the Poor Law shall be brought under the immediate control of Parliament. I think there is nothing further for me to state on this subject. As I have said already, if any hon. Gentleman shall think it necessary to make any Motion respecting the previous inquiry—as to the Andover union—I shall be ready to state my opinion; and I shall not shrink from any odium which may fall upon me for defending the Poor Law Commissioners, when I think their conduct was proper, and that they have been unjustly attacked.
MR. BANKESsaid: If I had followed my own inclination I should have undoubtedly proposed the total and immediate repeal of the Poor Law Removal Act, which has occasioned so much abuse; and, as I believe in many parts of England all proceedings have been suspended because the Act is impracticable, I think its total repeal would be the best settlement of the questions it has raised. But when I recollect, at the same time, that the Act was sanctioned by two Attorneys General and two Solicitors General, and that it was the production of two separate Ministries, I could hardly hope at once to have carried its repeal; I shall, therefore, best consult the interests of the poor by consenting to the proposition of the noble Lord, with the understanding that permission shall be given to the Committee to take the Removal Bill first into consideration, and to report separately upon it. I am ready, therefore, to concede to the Motion of the noble Lord. I have, however, been furnished to-day, as I naturally expected to find that I should be, with complaints from all parts of the country; and as the most important come from the constituents of the noble Lord, the citizens of the London
326
union, and as I think the resolutions the board have come to redound so much to their honour and credit, I must read them to the House. These are their words: they say—
"In our opinion the board of guardians is not generally called upon to interfere in matters of settlement for particular parishes; but in a case like the present, which is to regulate the treatment of a large class of paupers belonging to one of the parishes of this union, your committee think it right that the board of guardians should state the general principle upon which they are disposed to act with reference to the recent statute. Your committee find that on the construction of the Act there exist the most opposite and conflicting opinions, whereby the practice of the several unions throughout the country has assumed an inconvenient diversity highly detrimental to the interests of the poor. Your committee find that while many of the unions and parishes are acting with large and liberal views, there are too many which have taken advantage of the uncertainty of the Act to relieve themselves from their just burdens, and cast them upon the parishes or unions where their poor, out of humanity, have been allowed to reside; and in this view of the Act they are supported by the legal opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, and other learned persons. Your committee, however, are under a strong impression that the said Act was intended as a boon to the poor, and that the Legislature, in passing it, never contemplated that existing, ascertained and acknowledged settlements should be practically defeated, or that the relations between the aged, infirm, and helpless poor and their respective parishes should be annihilated. We are of opinion, moreover, that the sudden withdrawal of relief from the non-resident poor, many of whom are totally helpless and verging towards the grave, would be attended with inconceivable hardship and cruelty, by driving them to make out a new case before new and unknown masters, and perhaps subjecting them in their last years to a workhouse or an entirely different system of relief. Your committee think such a practice so manifestly unjust towards the poor, that we strongly urge upon the board of guardians the propriety of continuing their relief as hitherto to those nonresident poor whose claims have been already made out and acknowledged, until a proper legal construction shall have been given to the said Act of Parliament. Your committee, however, confine this recommendation to old and existing settled claims, leaving the several parishes of the union to take such course as they may deem advisable with regard to new claimants. Your committee believe that this union has a larger number of non-resident poor than any union in the kingdom; and your committee are aware that, by acting in accordance with the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, this union might throw off the burden not only of their poor resident in the country, but also of the great majority of their out-door poor resident in London. They, nevertheless, think that, as such a determination would be inconsistent with those humane principles upon which the board of guardians of the city of London union have always endeavoured to act, they ought not, unless upon a clear and express direction of an Act of Parliament, to adopt it. Your committee think that, should you agree with us in

327
your recommendations, notice of your intention should be immediately given to those unions wherein your out-door poor are resident. With respect to the poor of other parishes or unions resident in this union, and whose relief has been withdrawn, your committee recommend that the places to which they belong should be apprised of the principles upon which you are resolved to act, in the hope that their relief may be restored; but, in case of an unsuccessful appeal to such places, and as long as the necessity lasts, your committee advise a continuance to such persons of their accustomed relief at the expense of this union, being disposed to recommend an increase of your burdens rather than that any poor and helpless creature should be deprived of the means of support."
I have read this document for the purpose of showing how pressingly the question calls for a speedy determination. It appears that unions have been under the necessity of agreeing to consider the law as suspended, and that those unions which have not acted benevolently are at the present moment reaping the advantage of the benevolence of other unions. Under these circumstances I hope that an early opportunity of considering the provisions of the Act will be given, and that the Committee will make its report thereupon with as little delay as possible. With regard to the proposal of the noble Lord for a reconstruction of the central poor-law jurisdiction, it is my belief that this proposal will meet with very general satisfaction; because I am convinced that it has long been felt that the poor ought to have their representative in this House. I trust that persons competent in all respects to discharge with diligence and discretion the duties which would be imposed upon them, will be selected under the new arrangement; and the country at large will then, I feel satisfied, witness with gratification the proposed measures.
MR. HUMEhad heard with very great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government had determined to change the present constitution of poor-law jurisdiction. No man in that House, from the commencement of the present system, had been more anxious for its success; and when he became a member of the Committee of the last Session, which inquired into certain allegations against the Poor Law Commissioners, he was quite in favour of them, because they had obtained his confidence. But when their conduct was brought before the Committee, even upon the evidence of the Commissioners themselves, it appeared that the Act under which they were appointed, and their own
328
rules and regulations, had been violated by themselves. They had themselves disregarded the law, and it was no wonder there should be that diversity of practice in different unions to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) referred, when it was found that individual members of the Commission acted upon their own responsibility in individual cases, when the Act required that no business should be done except by the united board. It had been his intention to give notice of a Motion for an Address to the Crown to dismiss those Commissioners; but after what had fallen from the noble Lord, he should not persist in that Motion. He was anxious to see a sound, and proper, and humane system of poor law in this country, for there was nothing of so much importance; and he would guard those hon. Gentlemen who wished to put an end at once to the present system, against the results with which we might be visited, if we were without a proper establishment for the poor, should such a calamity as that which now prevailed in Ireland ever fall on England. But at the same time men must be appointed in its administration, who had the confidence of the public. The present Commissioners had lost the confidence of the public. He did not attribute improper intentions to them; but it was a great misfortune that a law which was looked upon as the means of regenerating the population of the whole country, should have been so administered that a general dislike to it had been created: it would require the greatest possible care and good management to prevent matters from returning to their previous state. He had a perfect recollection of the grievous evils of the old system: nothing, in his opinion, could be worse than a return to those evils; and for this reason he was anxious that a better system should prevail. But as a matter of general observation, he could only say that, if he found any board, no matter what it was, or any governor or magistrate, at variance with the men with whom it had to deal, and at variance with the bulk of the community, he should set it down that the fault must be with the individual, and not with everybody else. This had been the case in this instance, and he rejoiced in the hope of an early change; but he begged to suggest to the noble Lord that, to carry out the important duties of this Act, there were required no ordinary talents, no ordinary attention, and that the selection must be made more for

329
talent than for rank; that the selection must be one which would invite confidence on the part of the public, in order to secure a willing and cordial co-operation on the part of the unions throughout the country. He had known some of the Commissioners for many years, and he regretted what had occurred; but he should have betrayed his own feelings if he had not taken the course which he had. He was satisfied, from the statement of the noble Lord, that the object of the Committee of last Session, upon which he had been put accidentally, had been obtained. The responsibility of selection would now rest upon the noble Lord, and it was probably one of the most important duties that ever devolved upon a Minister. As to the proposition that the heads of the new board should have a seat in that House, he confessed that, in the first instance, this had not been his opinion; but time had since pointed out to him the necessity there was for having some individual in the House capable at once of answering upon the spot. The Secretary of State, and every other man in office, had so much of their own business to attend to in that House, that they must have been placed in an awkward situation when called upon to explain matters with which they had no concern; and if the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) would speak candidly, he had not the least doubt the right hon. Baronet would say he had often been obliged to offer excuses which he regretted. A public officer, situated like the Home Secretary, was bound to believe officers in inferior situations until he was convinced of the contrary; and he had heard excuses made, which, to his own knowledge, were incorrect. So public officer ought to be placed in this situation. The hon. Member, in conclusion, repeated that he should not follow up the notice which he had given, but he hoped Her Majesty's Government would speedily bring before the House the changes they contemplated.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he believed the question before the House was, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Law of Settlement and the Poor Removal Act of last Session; but upon the subject of those Acts he had heard scarcely a single observation even from the noble Lord who brought forward the Motion. With regard to that part of the Motion which referred to submitting the question of the Poor Removal Act to a Committee, he heartily rejoiced that it
330
should be submitted to such a tribunal, as he knew they would find out what had been discovered during the recess—that a more objectionable measure had never been passed. But the noble Lord had proposed a Committee to inquire into the operation of the law of settlement, without giving a single reason for that Committee, or indicating the course he meant to pursue in that Committee. He thought that this subject ought to be taken up by Government, instead of being submitted to a Committee, the only result of which would be delay. So much had been already said and written on the question, it was so accurately known by most hon. Members, that there was nothing more to inquire into. In fact, he believed that every hon. Member was better acquainted with it than with any other subject. In his opinion, therefore, it would have been better if the noble Lord had proposed a Bill of his own, which he might afterwards, if he had considered it requisite, have submitted to a Committee up-stairs. He had an impression that last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said, he would not throw the question loose before the Committee; but if he did submit it to a Committee, he would indicate the course he meant to pursue. There had been repeatedly Bills on this question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman whom he saw opposite (Sir J. Graham) had taken the greatest pains with it; he had submitted several Bills upon it to the House, and all that was material for a Committee to go over was then discussed. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, he believed, an union settlement and an union rate; and from the opinion then expressed by his right hon. Friends below him, he supposed that they were of opinion, as he was, that an union settlement would perhaps be the best. He thought that the poor labourer had a right, in this country, to seek employment where he pleased; but the present state of the law controlled him in a manner most prejudicial to his interest; it cramped his energies, and destroyed his independence; whatever talent he possessed, there was nothing to call it forth. The first question put to a man when he asked for employment was, to what parish he belonged, and to that parish he was confined. That subject had attracted the attention of the Committee of the House of Lords. He himself believed there was no greater misfortune to the poor of this country than was put upon

331
them by the law of settlement, and he should be glad to see it done away with. Such a course would not render necessary a national rate. Local rates might be maintained, and an union rate adopted, if they pleased; although his own opinion was, that the poor man should have no settlement, but should be entitled to relief in the parish in which he required it. But he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he meant to allow the Committee to go into that question—he meant the question of rating; because without it they could not properly consider the question of settlement. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them what course he meant to pursue, because if he intended to throw this question loose before the Committee, to take up any time they pleased, and to call such persons as they thought proper, all he could expect from such a Committee would be an indefinite protraction of this question. The Poor Law Commissioners, although they were said to be in extremis, would be called up by the hon. Member for Knaresborough to make their dying confession. Every species of examination connected with the poor law would be entered into, as, no doubt, the hon. Member for Knaresborough would be anxious to do; but what would be the consequence as to that law which was considered by so many persons to be prejudicial to the poor of this country? It would be impossible for the Committee to make their Report before the close of the Session—probably the last Session of the present Parliament; and when a new Parliament came, they would throw aside the labours of the former Committee, a new Committee would be required, and thus the subject would be protracted through another year; the law would have to be acted upon by the magistrates, and the greatest confusion caused among the poor of this country. An instance of that occurred in the Report of the Committee moved for by the hon. Member for Durham in 1845, on the Game Laws. That Committee sat two years, and then produced twenty-four resolutions contrary to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman himself, and such that they might have been written off-hand by any gentleman who sat down and considered the subject. Those laws were still in operation, and for two years the magistrates had had to administer them against popular feeling. He believed that the consequences of this Committee
332
would lead to a protraction of that measure which they all wished to see carried into execution, and that too relating to the subject upon which they had had more discussion and possessed more information than upon almost any other.
SIR J. PAKINGTONwished to express the gratification he felt at the proposal of the noble Lord, and also for his moderation and fairness towards the Commissioners. He entirely concurred with the noble Lord, that in order to avoid a recurrence of the evils of the old poor law, the administration of that law should be intrusted to some central authority. On the other hand, he agreed that it was most desirable that that central authority should be directly responsible to Parliament, and that some member of the Commission should be a Member of that House. He was extremely glad to hear the proposal of the noble Lord; and he believed, that with every one who had given attention to this most important subject, it would receive universal approbation. The noble Lord had alluded to the Committee that sat last year on the Andover union. He believed that the Report of that Committee had exercised considerable influence with regard to the poor law both within and without that House. He was a member of that Committee; he paid great attention to its proceedings; and he was bound to say, that some of the resolutions at which that Committee arrived, were, in his judgment, harsh and uncalled-for towards the Poor Law Commissioners. On the other hand, resolutions were passed to which he was obliged to give his concurrence, finding fault with the manner in which the Commissioners had exercised the discretion placed in them. At the same time he was bound to say, that he most entirely agreed with what the noble Lord had said, that the Poor Law Commissioners had, he believed, acted with the best possible intentions, and, for the most part, with sound discretion. As to the appointment of a Committee on the subject of settlement, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith). He was extremely glad that the noble Lord proposed such a Committee. It was a question surrounded with great difficulty; and he confessed that, having given a good deal of time to its consideration, he was of opinion that they ought to approach as nearly as they could to a repeal of that law altogether. He was confident that the result of that Committee must be a very

333
great modification of a law, which, in his judgment, had tended, beyond almost any other, to inflict hardship on the labouring classes of this country. As to the Poor Removal Act of last Session, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, or the hon. Member for Northampton, in the condemnation they had passed upon that Act. He had given it great attention in his own neighbourhood, and there no difficulty had occurred—no hardship had been inflicted on the poor. On the contrary, he believed it had conferred very great benefit upon them by exempting them from the suffering of removal; and though he was very glad that the working of that Act should be referred to a Select Committee, yet he hoped that neither the Committee nor that House would be disposed to sanction a departure from the principle of it; for he was satisfied that the hardship of removal had been mitigated since its operation, and that no industrial residence, for some time exempting the poor from removal, had been beneficial.
SIR G. GREYbegged to offer a very few words upon the subject, in consequence of the appeal made to him by his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith). He should have thought that the Parliamentary experience of his right hon. Friend would have prevented his asking him what course the Committee would adopt. He should only be an individual member of the Committee, and could not prescribe to it any particular course of proceeding; but he should certainly not recommend that each member should call what witnesses he pleased, and thus protract the inquiry to an indefinite period. The only pledge he could give would be, that he should move that it should be an instruction to the Committee to inquire first into the operation of the Poor Removal Act, as it affected the condition of the poor, and that they should report specially thereon to the House. Complaints having been made as to the operation of that law, it would be desirable that some opinion should be expressed by the Committee as to its operation. He had heard it very generally condemned by Members of that House; but he must say, that he was inclined to agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Droitwich, that its general operation was favourable to the interests of the poor. He quite admitted, however, that a sufficient case had been made out to call for an inquiry. His right hon. Friend had objected to the question
334
as to the law of settlement being referred to a Committee, and had said, that it would be easy to deal with the question, if a Bill was at once brought in, and had referred as a proof of this to the three Bills upon the subject which had in previous Sessions been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but the fate of these Bills, notwithstanding the care taken in their preparation, showed how much difference of opinion existed with regard to it, and how difficult a subject it was to deal with. All parties, indeed, concurred in the opinion that evils arose out of the present condition of the law; but they were not agreed as to the remedy. He thought it clearly the best plan to refer it to the consideration of a Committee, for the purpose of receiving evidence on various points connected with it; and he hoped that the difficulties that stood in the way of a solution of the question, would be diminished by this course, which appeared to him to hold out a more reasonable hope of success than any other. In reply to the anxiety expressed by his right hon. Friend, that he (Sir G. Grey) should state his own opinion to the House, he should only say, that when the proper time should arrive, he should be prepared to state it. He should be prepared to state in the Committee his general view upon the question, though he could not say that he could see his way clearly as yet through all the difficulties which belonged to it. There was one question asked by his right hon. Friend, to which he should briefly reply. It was whether the question of rating would be considered, as well as the law of settlement; or whether it would be excluded from the consideration of the Committee? In his opinion it was impossible to consider the law of settlement without taking into consideration the law of rating. The law of settlement, in fact, was closely connected with the law of rating; and the real difficulties involved in the question of settlement arose from the questions as to rating. He hoped he had so far answered satisfactorily the questions put to him. There seemed to be a general concurrence of opinion in all parts of the House as to the appointment of the Committee; and he should not therefore trespass further upon their attention.
MR. FERRAND: When I heard the answer given by the hon. Member for Montrose to the speeches made this evening, I confess I almost believed that it was the late Secretary of State for the Home

335
Department who was then addressing the House. But no matter for that; what I want to know is this—does the right hon. Baronet suppose—does the noble Lord at the head of the Government suppose—that the people of this country will be satisfied with the arrangement which they have now proposed to make? I ask this also,—does the hon. Member for Montrose imagine that he has done his duty in withdrawing the Resolutions which he had placed upon the Notice-book of this House? Does any man suppose that the people of England will be satisfied with seeing the present Government coalescing with the Members of the late Government in rescuing the Poor Law Commissioners from that punishment which they had inflicted upon their own subordinates in the year 1846? Do you suppose that the people of this country have forgotten the case of Mr. Day and the case of Mr. Parker? I tell the noble Lord that when it becomes known, as it will in a few days, that you have determined to shelter the Poor Law Commissioners, not because they are men of talent, but because they are connected with persons high in party, I warn the Government that the people of this country will speak more plainly than they ever yet have done, if this House do not perform their duty. If that Committee which you proposed and appointed neglected to perform their duty, are you to come down to the House of Commons in the hope that a majority supporting you will enable you to rescue your favoured Commissioners from the punishment which they merit, and with which the people of England desire they should be visited? I tell the hon. Member for Montrose, that though he may withdraw his Motion, I shall take the earliest opportunity of giving notice that on Thursday next I intend to move that a Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, and to report upon the manner in which the poor law has been administered. I challenge you to an investigation of what has been their conduct for the last twelve years. I have endeavoured to expose that conduct, and for having done so, I have been persecuted with a malignity which was disgraceful to the men that made themselves parties to that persecution. I hope those who rendered themselves my adversaries will not shrink from a fair discussion of these questions, and that they will meet me in a court of law, where I may expect to have an opportunity
336
of vindicating my character. I ask the House, is it not just to the poor that we should have this inquiry? I ask, how many of the poor have been sacrificed? I ask how many have met death by starvation, and how many have been otherwise destroyed by the operation of this Act? I ask how many thousand homes have you laid waste, and how often has the poor man's furniture been dragged from his house, and sold? How many villages have become desolate wildernesses? And will you, who have been accessary to this, aggravate your offences by screening the principal agents of these enormities? I ask you, do you suppose the people of England will be satisfied by such a measure as you now propose? I ask you, after this, will you dare to face your constituents at a general election? Yet you need not have feared to face your constituents, if you had not provoked their hostility by endeavouring to screen the Poor Law Commissioners. Go anywhere—go into any company—and you will find but one feeling, of disgust, against the Poor Law Commissioners. In the month of August last, the House of Commons published the evidence that was taken before the Committee appointed to inquire into the case of the Andover union. I published two letters in The Times newspaper in reference to the proceedings of that Committee. Mr. Lewis thought proper to commence legal proceedings against me on account of the language used in those letters. On the 24th of November, the rule for a criminal information against me was made absolute. That occurrence took place two months ago. Three or four days after the rule was made absolute, a public meeting was hold at Leeds, which I attended, and at which I challenged Mr. Lewis and the late Secretary of State for the Home Department to lose not a moment in bringing those legal proceedings to a speedy and a final issue. I challenged them, and, up to this time, they have shrunk from meeting me. Under these circumstances, I considered it my duty to give notice that I should move for returns of the number of times the Bingley poor-house in the Keighley union was visited, and for other documents connected with that case; and I am happy to say that the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the handsomest manner agreed to the production of those papers. I moved for those returns only last night; and when they are made, they will prove that

337
the Poor Law Commissioners have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty, and have committed a fraud, upon this House. Sir, I have now to inform this House that to-day, at two o'clock, my solicitor placed in my hands a letter which he had received from Mr. Lewis's solicitors, stating that they had this very day filed a criminal information against me. I cannot but look upon this, Sir, as an attempt to intimidate me in the discharge of my duty as a Member of this House. There was time a month ago to have brought this trial to an issue; but they have held back these proceedings until I appeared within the walls of this House, determined fairly and fearlessly to perform my duty. I demanded at Leeds that these parties should not lose one hour in going before a jury. Would it not have been fair, manly, and honourable, if, instead of dealing with the question piecemeal in this way, they had met me at once, face to face, in a court of justice? I challenge them to such a proceeding; and, if I do not come from the trial unstained, I will resign my seat within these walls. And if they do not come forth from a searching investigation with the same honour, I dare them to act on my precept.
MR. ETWALLexpressed his surprise that Lord John Russell had not taken some steps in consequence of the Report of the Committee on the Andover union. As an individual member of that Committee, he felt he should not be doing his duty to the labourers of the Andover union, and, indeed, to the poor of England generally, if he did not remind the House of the nature of the evidence taken before that Committee; because he felt assured that in other unions the poor were being treated with equal harshness, and with a severity that he was sure must be most repugnant to the feelings of that House. He should best consult the present hour of the night by simply stating, that he should take an early opportunity of bringing the Report of the Committee on the Andover union before the House.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was glad there was a chance at last of getting rid of the Poor Law Commissioners, whom he had always declared to be an useless, expensive, and oppressive body of men.
CAPTAIN PECHELLsaid, that although the announcement of the noble Lord was very agreeable in many respects, yet he felt disappointed that the noble Lord had not adopted some more summary proceeding
338
against the Poor Law Commissioners. It was impossible that the public could be satisfied with the lenient treatment of these persons, when they remembered their sentences of dismissal against Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, and the report which a Committee of that House had passed upon their conduct. As a member of that Committee it would be satisfactory to him to know that some steps would be taken upon it forthwith. The report of the proposed Committee and the proposed measures, could not be made soon enough to rescue the poor from their present position as speedily as was desirable.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEsaid, that the greatest suspense and confusion had existed in almost every union in the country, since the opinion of the law officers had been taken upon the Poor Removal Act. He had in his hand the copy of a letter addressed by the clerk of the Hackney union to the officer of another union; in which it was stated that the Hackney union were obliged to relieve some hundreds of persons who did not belong to them, in consequence of the confusion and uncertainty arising from the late Poor Removal Act. He had heard similar statements from several boards of guardians during the recess. For his own part, he did not believe that submitting that Act to the consideration of a Committee would produce the effect which the country expected and desired; but he thought the best course would be to bring in a Bill to repeal the present law, or to make such alterations in it as would render its working satisfactory.
MR. RICEsaid, that people throughout the country were generally greatly dissatisfied with the operation of the Poor Removal Act; they were waiting for legislation on the subject, and their opinion of the present law was that it was so bad it could not last, and that it ought to be altered immediately. The hon. Member for Droitwich had said that, in his neighbourhood, that Act had operated beneficially for the poor; but that hon. Gentleman was the only person he knew who had any practical acquaintance with the working of the law, who did not say that it had been attended with the greatest harshness and inconvenience—with the greatest oppression to the poor, and the greatest injustice to the ratepayers. In his neighbourhood the parishes had, under the Poor Removal Act, been saddled with the relief of persons whom they never expected to be called upon to support. He did not think that it

339
would be advisable, however, to repeal that Act; he believed that its objects were most humane; but what was wanted was, such a modification of the law of settlement as would combine kindness to the poor with justice to the ratepayers. He considered that the best plan would be, the adoption of union settlements; for he believed that the old parochial system had greatly retarded improvement in the character of the poor. He hoped the right hon. Baronet, who, he believed, had every disposition to prevent delay, would do all in his power to induce the Committee to make an early report. He hoped that, if possible, the report would be delivered before Easter, in order that some measure might be submitted to the House for its consideration during the recess.
MR. FIELDENsaid, if he had understood the noble Lord aright, he (Lord J. Russell) admitted that the scheme of centralization had proved a failure, and yet he proposed to continue the same system. He considered that the new poor law was most oppressive in its provisions, and had been carried out in the most harsh and oppressive manner; and he was ready to prove this whenever a proper occasion was afforded of doing so. He had not heard of a single place in which the operation of the new poor law had given satisfaction.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEwas sorry to hear from the Government that there was an intention to allow this Committee to waste any of its time in inquiring, in the first place, into the Removal Act of last Session, because it appeared to him that an inquiry into the law of settlement naturally involved the question of removals. They were told that the Act of last Session, which was passed with the most humane and benevolent objects on the part of that House, and of which he had been a most strenuous advocate, worked ill for the poor. He had no doubt that might be the case in some instances, but only in cases where those whose duty it was to administer the law, did not think proper to administer it honestly. He had found in some places—for instance, in Yorkshire—that the magistrates were in fault with regard to the administration of this law. The Act was passed with a view to relieve the manufacturing rather than the agricultural population; it was intended for the benefit of those individuals who, after wasting their health and strength in manufacturing towns for ten, fifteen, twenty, aye, or thirty-five years, were subject to removal, and were
340
removed, from those towns to their places of settlement. When the Poor Removal Act was first proposed, no one seemed apparently so much in its favour as the country gentlemen, and those gentlemen who represented the rural districts. He thought it due to say, that there was not a complaint from one of the manufacturing towns with reference to that Act; all the complaints of its operation, with the exception of that from Brighton, proceeded from small rural villages. ["No, no!"] They would find that this was the fact. In the district with which the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand) was connected, the magistrates said they could not understand the Act. They often found that the intellects of gentlemen, as well as of parishes, were very obtuse, when their breeches pockets were concerned. He thought the statements of the hon. Member for Brighton showed the necessity of an alteration in the law of settlement, and he wished the Government would allow the Committee to go at once in medias res with reference to this question of settlement. An hon. Member had asked how the poor were to be maintained if they abolished the system of settlement? He would reply, that they ought to be supported by a national charge upon the general taxation of the country. It appeared from the statement of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that they were now to have a Poor Law Minister, and a Poor Law Secretary, both of whom were to have seats in that House. He would suggest whether it were not advisable that those persons should hold their seats ex officio; for he believed that before a Poor Law Minister was able to obtain a seat in that House, except for some of their rotten boroughs, the new poor law must be made much more popular than it was at that moment. He wished the Committee for which the noble Lord had moved were authorized to carry their investigations somewhat further than the noble Lord proposed, for he would like to see them inquiring what amendments could be made in the new poor law which might render it more acceptable to the people of this country. It appeared to him that one improvement needed in the present law was, that some appeal should be afforded to the poor man when relief was refused him. The hon. Member for Knaresborough complained the other evening of the auditors; but it would often be found that when the ex officio guardians did not look after their affairs, the others, and particularly the small farmers,

341
were the most grinding for the poor. Occasionally the boards of guardians were composed of most humane men; but that was generally when the ex officio guardians took pains, and looked after the small farmers; but where the latter were left to themselves, the poor would be found constantly complaining against the law. When a party asked for relief, the guardians, in refusing it, turned the blame on the auditor, who, on his part, frequently said, that the guardians did not give him a chance of refusing it; but the poor man had no redress, and no power to get relief. Though the guardians were elected, the qualification for voters was not sufficiently low, and the poor themselves ought to have some voice in their election. He would give to the poor man an appeal against the decision of the guardians to the magistrates in petty sessions; and when an auditor disallowed any item granted by the guardians, he would, in order to take all excuse from them, give them an appeal against the decision of the auditor to the quarter-sessions. Then there could be no fair ground of complaint. He believed that one chief ground of complaint against the poor law was, that the poor man had no appeal, and could get no redress. On a future occasion he should see the Bill that would be brought in to increase the patronage of the Crown by the introduction of two new official Members in that House. Already one new officer connected with railways had been introduced into the House, though he thought that the railway interest had been well represented before. Now it was proposed to introduce a Poor Law President and Secretary, for no other purpose he could imagine, but to be badgered. What these officers were to receive out of the public taxes for this badgering, he did not know; but if it was thought necessary to give them seats in the House, why not go a little further, and introduce also the heads of the Excise department, and all other departments, including the Chairman of the Board of Customs, who did not always give satisfaction? He, for one, could not at all commit himself to the approval of the introduction of these two gentlemen, connected with the poor law, into that House, holding places under the Crown, until by seeing the Bill he knew more about the matter; but, as far as he could understand at present, he thought the public would consider it rather an expensive and unsatisfactory job.
SIR T. D. ACLANDsaid, that although he must express his satisfaction at his noble Friend's statement, yet the point which pressed more particularly upon his mind in respect to this subject, was the necessity of an immediate remedy for the litigation that was going on, not only in the courts of law, but also in every parish and in every board of guardians. The whole effect of the law should be to secure industrial labour to the poor. With regard to the old law, there was a retrospective action given to it, which entailed the greatest mischief, and was the real cause of all the difficulty that had arisen. He should like to see the Committee preparing a Bill of this character, under proper guidance and proper instruction, the great object of which would be to recall the retrospective action of the old law as soon as they could. When they did that, they would enjoy peace. He hoped that the union settlement principle would be adopted, and that a provision would be enacted against the removal of the poor from the places where they had long lived by their industry; but which, by the present operation of the law, was left entirely uncertain.
MR. GRIMSDITCHcould speak, from his own observation, of the evil operation of the law. He had seen hundreds of poor persons cast without resource upon the wide world. In Manchester, particularly, the mode in which the law had been administered, had created much confusion. In many instances, it had led to absolute cruelties. He congratulated the House and the country on the prospect of their also getting rid, very soon, of the mischievous machinery of the existing poor law. He rejoiced to see that the days of the existence of the irresponsible Commissioners were numbered; and, for his part, if they must have a central supervision, he would rather that it should be under the control of the Crown. He had urged this on successive Secretaries of State; but until now the notion had been scouted. He hoped that they would soon come back to the practical working of the wise and humane Act of Elizabeth. But if the existing poor law was to be re-enacted — and that could not be without creating anew the dissatisfaction felt towards it by all classes—he hoped that the general orders issued by the Commissioners since 1836 might, in a simplified form, be incorporated in the Act.
MR. BROTHERTONreminded the House that at the time the Poor Removal

343
Bill was passed, hon. Members taunted the representatives of the manufacturing districts by alleging, that so soon as the corn laws were repealed, the manufacturers would insist upon the Removal Bill sharing the same fate. Nothing of the kind, however, had been attempted. He considered the removal law of last year a humane measure, to a certain extent, particularly as regarded large towns, such as Manchester, where great numbers of Irish and Scotch were located. The law had prevented such persons from being removed, when circumstances compelled them to apply for relief. He admitted that, in many cases, the law had been carried out with greater harshness than was justifiable. Guardians had often refused relief to persons who had lived for a year or two in another parish, and much hardship and cruelty had been the consequence. He was glad, therefore, to understand, that the law of settlement was to undergo consideration. He thought that a union settlement and rating would be the most advantageous. He did not understand the reasoning of those persons who wished to abolish the law of settlement entirely, and to defray the expense of supporting the poor from the national resources; and who, nevertheless, in the next breath, opposed the appointment of any central authority. Why, these Gentlemen must have seen that the farmers, who exercised authority in townships, had exhibited a grasping and an illiberal disposition to the poor, in order to save their own pockets; and was it not to be supposed, that were the funds of the nation appropriated to the support of the poor, and these persons entrusted with the management, they might be induced to convert their powers into the means of eking out wages under the name of affording poor-law relief? In the township with which he himself was connected, the poor rates were exceedingly light, and there had lately been erected in it an establishment which gave employment to 1,000 persons. The assessment payable by that establishment might be nearly 1,000 l.; but as all the hands resided in another township, the township in which he lived would have the advantage of the money, without being called upon to contribute to the relief of those workpeople He deemed it exceedingly unjust to uphold a system which allowed the rich to escape, and compelled the poor to feed each other.
CAPTAIN HARRIScould not agree with
344
those who altogether condemned the Act of last Session. In the union with which he was connected, they saw many evils in it certainly; but as it was the law of the land, they did the best they could to carry it out. On the other hand, the plan proposed by the noble Lord to-night seemed to him to be little else than the old law over again. He had understood that the Board of Commission was in the first instance intended to be temporary, for the purpose of carrying out the law, and that then it would be abolished. He could understand that there should be a clear law on the Statute-book, and a responsible officer in the House; but he objected to the existence of a district board making their own by-laws, from which there was no appeal.
MR. ESCOTTconsidered the present proposal to be an utter failure, when regarded as the fulfilment of the promise of last Session, that there should be a total revision of the poor law of this country. It certainly would not answer public expectation. With regard to the appointment of a new Commission, with two of its members having seats in that House, he was not prepared to give a positive opinion; but at present he saw no advantage likely to be gained by the presence of those two gentlemen in Parliament, that would at all compensate for the infringement of a great public principle involved in such a provision. He would add, that he had long thought that all the complaints against the maladministration of the Poor Law Commissioners were in themselves futile, because the fault was in the original constitution of the board. It was a board which Parliament had no power to appoint; they had no power to appoint a board to make laws and regulations for the people of this country; it was a great error to appoint such a board, and it was no less an error to expect that a board so tyrannically appointed could act legally and satisfactorily. No body of men with such powers would ever act justly; the use of our laws and constitution was to prevent men having such powers: if they had them, they would of course abuse them; they would do so to the end of time, and they would do it no less when two of them had seats in that House.
MR. VILLIERSbelieved, that if the question of the law of settlement could be disposed of, almost all questions of poor law would cease; there was hardly any complaint connected with the public system

345
of relief of the poor, which did not spring out of that. A Committee, therefore, of more importance to the poor was never appointed. It would be only fair that the Government, in nominating it, should place upon it some one or two Gentlemen representing the opinion which the House had just heard stated—that settlement would be better done away altogether. That might be a notion impossible to be carried out; but it certainly prevailed very generally among intelligent and reflecting people, who saw the poor bandied about from one part of the country to another, and it ought to be represented in the Committee.
MR. BORTHWICKagreed with the hon. Member for Winchester, that the original vice of the poor law, without getting rid of which there would never be a healthy system of poor relief, was, that it excluded from all the rights guaranteed to this nation by the constitution which we boasted, that class of people whom we called the poor. The noble Lord would now bring the parties concerned more into contact with public responsibility; but it was, at least, very doubtful whether that inherent vice of the law would be compensated. Without discussing the subject then, he would only ask whether the Government intended to follow precedent examples, and postpone the introduction of the Bill upon the main substance of the law until after the Committee had reported upon the law of settlement, or at what time the Bill would be introduced?
SIR G. GREYcould not state at what precise period the Bill would be ready, but it had no connexion with the inquiry to be made by the Committee.
Motion agreed to.
On Motion of Sir G. Grey, an instruction to the Committee was agreed to, to inquire, in the first place, into the operation of the Poor Removal Act, and to report specially thereon to the House.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.