Sitting of 17 July 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Regent's Quadrant Colonnade; Salmon Breed Preservation; Bakehouses.
2° Consolidated Fund (3,000,000 l.)
Reported.—spirits (Dealers in); Parochial Debt and Audit.
3° West India Islands Relief; Administration of Criminal Justice; Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society; Corn Markets (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Districts Assignment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from the Parish of Greyabbey, Downshire, for a Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—From the Inhabitants of Ulverston, Lancashire, in favour of Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. Gladstone, from the Clergy of the Deanery of Chesterfield, against any Alteration of the Doctrine of the Church of England.—By Mr. Christy, from the Parish of Broomfield, Essex, against the Sale of Spirituous Liquors on the Sabbath.—From Thomas Dyer, of Forest Gate, Essex, for Inquiry respecting the Bow County Court.—By Sir William Clay, from the Minister and Congregation of James's Church, Ratcliffe Cross, London, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Mr. G. Hamilton, from the Parish of St. James, near Exeter, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland),—By Mr. Walpole, from the Parish of Ealing, Middlesex, for Alteration of the Highways Bill.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.
The EARL of LINCOLNwished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had given

511
notice on Friday last. On Thursday he had asked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether an inquiry had been instituted by the Colonial Office into the management by the Hudson's Bay Company of the territories over which they exercised authority; and, if any such inquiry had been instituted, whether, pending that inquiry, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a farther grant to the company of Vancouver's Island, giving them similar powers over that island as over their other territories? To that question the hon. Gentleman replied, that the inquiry had been instituted through the instrumentality of his noble Friend the Governor General of Canada, and that that inquiry not having been considered sufficiently ample by the Colonial Office, a further inquiry had been ordered to be conducted by an officer in the Queen's service. The hon. Gentleman stated further, that negotiations had been carried on between the Government and the Hudson's Bay Company for a cession of further powers to the company, but that nothing had been as yet concluded, inasmuch as there appeared to be some hesitation on the part of the company to accede to certain demands made by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, as he (Lord Lincoln) understood, in reference to some arrangement connected with the subject of colonisation. Under these circumstances the question of which he had given notice on Friday, and which he now wished to ask the noble Lord, was, whether pending the inquiry that had been recently instituted into the mode in which the Hudson's Bay Company had governed the territories now committed to its charge, the noble Lord would undertake, on the part of the Government, that, until that report had been submitted to the Government and laid on the table of this House, that no such cession of Vancouver's Island would be made to the Hudson's Bay Company?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had already informed the noble Lord that the Governor General of Canada had been written to, with a view to his making further inquiry respecting the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company. His noble Friend at the head of the Government of Canada had not made any special inquiry; but Major Crofton, who had commanded the Queen's troops in the district, had reported that in his
512
opinion the Hudson's Bay Company were justified in their conduct, and that they were not chargeable with the alleged delinquencies of which they had been accused. In this state of affairs the Government had to consider whether or not a further and more special inquiry should be made before taking any steps with respect to Vancouver's Island. On that question his opinion—and it was also the opinion of the Government—was, that as the communication with that part of North America was so difficult—as, in fact, it could only take place twice in the year—there would, therefore, be great delay before any special inquiry could be made and reported to the Governor General of Canada, and then sent to this country; and that it was, therefore, better at once to proceed with the arrangement to be made with the Hudson's Bay Company. That arrangement, as the noble Lord seemed to understand, would imply a cession of the land of Vancouver's Island, and also of certain powers of Government, though not the same as the Hudson's Bay Company now had over their present territory. The agreement which had been made, and which was now awaiting the final answer of the Hudson's Bay Company, would be laid before Parliament; but seeing the anxiety of other parties for colonisation in Vancouver's Island, it was the opinion of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office, and of the Government, that loss of time would be a serious detriment, and that it would be desirable, without waiting for any report such as the noble Lord alluded to, to proceed at once to complete the arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company. He could not, therefore, give the pledge which the noble Lord required of him.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I stated the other day, in answer to a question from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripen (Sir J. Graham), that I would this day take the usual course adopted of late years, of stating what Bills the Government hope to proceed with in the present Session, and which they intend to postpone. I can only state the principal of the Bills—those which are of great importance; and it is not necessary I should go into any statement with regard to Bills of a minor nature. The first I shall mention is the Public Health Bill, which has passed this House, had the second reading in the House of Lords, and is still in that House.

513
With regard to that Bill, the Government intend to press for the opinion of Parliament in the present Session; and they hope that it will receive their assent. The next Bill is the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill. That Bill came from the Lords. Many amendments have been introduced into it in this House; it has gone through Committee, with the general assent of this House; and certainly we shall proceed with it in the view of obtaining the assent of the House of Lords to the amendments we have made. I think this Bill is one of great importance, and that its enactment ought not to be delayed. There is a Bill which I introduced the other night, and which I propose shall be road the second time on Thursday night, with which we shall also proceed. It is the Bill relating to corrupt practices at elections. This is a measure referring to an inquiry into the state of boroughs with reference to which the returns have been questioned and set aside in the present Session of Parliament; and it is not fitting that it should be postponed. I shall therefore proceed with that Bill on Thursday next, hoping that it will receive the assent of Parliament this Session. Another Bill, with regard to which questions have been frequently asked, is, the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. That Bill came from the other House of Parliament. It is in the hands of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and he will, as soon as he is able to obtain a day for that purpose, move the second reading, with the view of proceeding with it in the present Session. I come now to a subject of the utmost importance, founded upon a recommendation contained in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, but in consequence of the debates upon the Army and Navy, the renewal of the income tax, and other questions, not introduced, as we had hoped, early in the Session, but after some delay—I mean the resolution upon which it is proposed to found a Bill for the amendment of the navigation laws. Since that resolution was introduced, we have had resolutions introduced upon the suggestion of Government, and amendments proposed with relation to the sugar duties—subjects which have likewise led to very long debates. We have, therefore, been disappointed in the hope that we were led to entertain, that we should be able to go on continuously with that measure, till it had passed, as soon as it was introduced. As matters stand now, considering the late
514
period of the Session, the very great importance of the question, and that the Bill could not, for some time yet, go up to the House of Lords, we have come, reluctantly, to the opinion that we cannot proceed with it in the present Session. At the same time, having stated this intention, we hope there will be no objection on the part of the House to agree to go into Committee with the view of assenting to the propositions of my right hon. Friend, and of introducing the Bill, so that this House and the country may have it before them, and be in a condition to consider its provisions before it is again proposed. I feel, Sir, that while this measure has been the subject of great discussion in this House and in the country, the failure of its passing this Session will be a great disappointment to some of our most important colonies, I therefore think it my duty to declare that, whilst taking blame—if there is any blame upon the subject—for delay to the Government, and imputing none to any man or body of men in this House, the Government propose to introduce that measure at the earliest period of the next Session of Parliament; and after the discussion the subject has received—after the approbation of the principle expressed by large majorities of this House—the important province of Canada, and those foreign Powers to whom we have held out the expectation that the navigation laws would be repealed, will probably rest in confidence that the next Session of Parliament will see a measure—whether exactly such as the Government now propose or not, I will not say—taking away the restrictions imposed by the navigation laws, receive the assent of Parliament. With the measure relative to the navigation laws, I propose to withdraw the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill, and the Light Dues Bill, of which they are the consequence. There is another measure of very great importance to which I must allude, which has not received any discussion, or hardly any, in the present Session—I mean the Bill relating to the franchise of counties in Ireland. This is a very important measure; but I do not think that the discussion upon a Bill of so much consequence ought to begin at this time. Other measures relative to the franchise will he introduced in the next Session, and therefore I propose to reserve this till the next Session. There is another measure of great importance with regard to Ireland—the Landlord and Tenant Bill; to this we shall endeavour to

515
obtain the assent of the House in the course of the present Session. It is an important measure, as I have said; but I have always considered myself that it is of more importance from the opinion of Parliament having been taken upon measures of that kind, than from any very great benefit being likely to be derived from legislation upon the subject. Some Bills have been introduced by my hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board. He proposes to proceed with those Bills, and will take an opportunity, upon an early day, to state the reasons why he thinks it is important those measures should be considered by the House. There are many other Bills of minor importance, to which it is not necessary to refer; and the long list I now see before me contains several in which the Government are not concerned, but which are brought forward by others. I have, however, stated the intentions of the Government with regard to the principal Bills; and I shall now propose that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill be read, for the purpose of discharging it.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that in all the discussions on the West Indies, both in that and in the other House, the repeal of the navigation laws was held out as that which was to afford them the greatest degree of relief, and that it had been estimated at no less than 2s. or 2s. 6d. per cwt. upon the production of their sugar. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether, having abandoned the repeal of the navigation laws, he had any other measure in contemplation this Session, in order to compensate the West Indies for the loss of that amount of benefit which the Government had promised them?
MR. HERRIESexpressed his entire concurrence in the reasons which had induced the noble Lord to postpone any attempts to carry this Session the resolutions affirming the expediency of amending the navigation laws. The noble Lord had expressed a hope that there would be no objection on the part of the House in general—he presumed the noble Lord addressed himself chiefly to those who were most opposed to his views—to allow the resolution to pass, so that the Bill founded upon it might be before the country for its consideration until another Session. For himself—and he believed he could answer for others who, with him, entertained very
516
grave objections to the course the Government were disposed to adopt with regard to the navigation laws—he should offer no obstacle to that proposition; but it must be upon the clear and distinct understanding that the Bill was not to go further in the present Session than its introduction into the House. It must further be understood in the clearest and most distinct manner, that by allowing the measure to pass to that stage without opposition or obstruction, it was not to be inferred that there was the slightest change of opinion on the part of those who viewed with apprehension the policy of the Government, and that they were as free to offer this measure the same determined opposition that they had hitherto given to it. The noble Lord having stated he was as much convinced as ever of the necessity for abrogating the navigation laws, he (Mr. Herries) thought it right to say, that all that had occurred since the subject was originally introduced had confirmed him in the belief that no measure more detrimental to the shipping interest, more fraught with nationa disadvantage—no measure of less promise in it of any compensatory benefit in the way of trade—had ever been introduced into that House. He drew a different inference from that deduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from the papers just presented, as to the necessity of immediately repealing the navigation laws for the benefit of the colonies. Everything stated in these papers increased his conviction that the true mode of proceeding was by negotiation and arrangement, and not in the manner proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
MR. BRIGHTthought the present not an unfavourable opportunity for making on or two observations with respect to the business of the Session, and the unfortunate course the Government, as he conceived, had pursued. He was not about to debate with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) the benefit or the evil of repealing the navigation laws. That measure had been recommended in the Queen's Speech, and the great manufacturing towns and a large proportion of the commercial and shipping towns were in favour of the abolition. It was quite true the measure had not been introduced till May; it was not, however, the fault of the House, but the fault of the Government it was not moved much earlier; for his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), and others, had before that asked

517
the noble Lord when the measure would be introduced. His opinion, he confessed, was, that Her Majesty's Government had never been extremely anxious to have it brought in. Perhaps they were afraid of the hostility its introduction would excite in hon. Gentlemen opposite. As, however, it could not be passed, of course the Government were not to blame for not doing that which was impossible, He wished now to call attention to one or two facts, which he thought had created in the minds of the people a strong feeling that that House had not attended to the duties committed to their charge. They met before Christmas, and held a short and not quite unproductive Session. They were then brought together, they were told, to consider the question of the Bank Charter Act, and the then afflicting state of Ireland. The measure which they passed relative to Ireland received the name of the Protection to Life and Property Bill, but in reality it was a Bill to enable the Government to disarm certain portions of the Irish people. No other measure of any importance passed before Christmas. After Christmas the state of Ireland was again brought before them, and he believed it had been a standing dish of that House ever since the oldest Member of it was a boy. Then they passed a Bill for making certain crimes, heretofore treason, felony, and for putting down certain apprehended or existing disturbances in that country. That measure passed by large majorities. They had since had a Bill introduced, which the noble Lord had described as a most important measure, to facilitate the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland. There could not be a doubt that this measure, as a beginning—for it must only be considered as a beginning—was one which would tend to restore social comfort in Ireland, because so long as land was held in that country as it now was, with the people bordering upon starvation, they must be hostile to peace and law. The Bill for extending the franchise and improving the registration in Ireland was not to be proceeded with. He did not expect it was; but he could not discover why, after being introduced, it had been allowed to remain 60 long a dead letter upon the Order-book, except somebody had said or whispered that hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to oppose it as a new Reform Bill for Ireland. It might be a new Reform Bill, but one was wanted for Ireland, and sooner or later one must be granted. It was stated,
518
on the authority of a Member of the Government, that in the whole of Ireland there were not 60,000 electors—probably not 40,000—among a population of 8,000,000. Take the city of Dublin, for instance, upon the Election Committee of which be had been sitting for the last seven weeks; in that city there were 21,000 names on the electoral roll, and perhaps not more than 7,000 of them entitled to vote. The registration took place once in eight years; and it was impossible to strike names off until eight years had elapsed; and how many rates did hon. Members think must be paid before an elector could register his vote? He had a list of six in his hand, but he was told there were ten; and he had been informed, on good authority, there were no less than fifteen of one sort or the other. It was discreditable to that House, and a fraud upon the people of Ireland, that they should, by a system of registration like this—whilst professing to hold put to the people a representative system—clog it with every exception that the ingenuity of lawyers or of that House could devise, in order to defraud—he spoke advisedly—the Irish people of that representation which the preamble and title of the Act of Parliament professed to give to them. And what was the state of Ireland at the very time when Parliament was about to separate? Under the Bill for the better security of the Crown and Government, one Irishman bad been transported, and be had been sent to a distant part of the world. What bad been the result? Did peace prevail more than it did before? Were not hon. Members wearied every day with reading statements in the papers of new arrests for sedition and felony? Were not newspaper offices broken open by the police, presses and type seized, and transactions carried on which we had not been accustomed to see in this country for generations past? All this might be necessary; but what else was going on? Clubs were being formed in almost every part of the country—clubs in the south to oppose the Government, in the north to support the Government. Five or six thousand men meeting in arms, at one time, was described by the papers of the day; and we were informed the Lord Lieutenant was coming over to this country, he presumed, for the purpose of closer communication with the Government as to the condition of the country. What lay at the root of all this? The contest was now, as

519
it had been during his whole life, between Catholics on one side, and Orangemen upon the other. This was the root of the political discontent in Ireland; and until it was weeded out, political discontent was certain to continue. He had himself asked the noble Lord at the beginning of the Session, in November last, whether, among the remedial measures he intended to introduce, there would be one having reference to the condition of the Irish Church? The noble Lord stated, in a manner to show he doubted whether the Irish Church was a grievance at all, although fifteen years ago he acknowledged it was a very great grievance, that he had no measure to propose. Now, he was prepared to maintain that the Irish Church lay at the root of the political and social discontent of that country; and that, so long as it remained in its present condition, from that root would grow up the noxious branches which had spread disorder, and were likely to spread rebellion, through one-third of the united kingdom. The Government did not appear to him to consider that if Ireland were in this position, the whole kingdom was very much imperilled. In his opinion, then, it was the duty of the Government to consider this question of the Church—the Church of a minority, which must come down in spite of all the efforts of that House to maintain it—and a Church which would bring down the Church of England with it, if it were allowed to remain as it was for many years longer. He knew it was maintained and conducted by Englishmen, because they conceived it to be a bulwark for the Church of England. If it were, there never had been a more rotten bulwark. Its rottenness would soon extend to this country; and if he were a member of the Church of England, he should say that she would be most strengthened and consolidated by the Church of Ireland being totally and at once abolished. What, then, was coming in Ireland? If the newspapers were to be believed, or the correspondence of private individuals to be relied on, insurrection and rebellion were coming. What steps were the Government taking either to prevent insurrection, or to make it of trifling importance when it did come? Why, just as in the case of Canada, there would be insurrection and bloodshed; the contests between the military, the police, and the people; and after a good deal of desolation, what was called peace. If there should be any disturbance in Ireland, what would be its effect in this country?
520
Why, they would have embittered feelings a thousand times more intense than at present, particularly between Catholics and Orangemen. The cauldron which was now boiling over would be boiling again, and the hope of peace and contentment would be far more remote than at any period since '98. His opinion, then, was that Government ought not to allow Parliament to separate until these questions had been more fully discussed. If the noble Lord had brought in a measure with regard to the Church, and a large and generous measure with regard to the representation, he would have given to all those classes not anxious for rebellion an excuse to secede from the more desperate party. So far as he had the opportunity, he had now done his duty towards Ireland, and having done so, he washed his hands of the evils which he feared were coming over that country—evils which must come upon all countries where such grievous neglect was practised. With regard to the business of the Session, if there was any blame due in any quarter for useful measures not having been passed, it was due to the noble Lord. If he had said to-night that the navigation laws must be settled, and that he did not intend Parliament to separate till they had been repealed, that object would have been accomplished this Session. The noble Lord, however, did not rise to the dignity and influence of his position. One measure had been passed by that House which had been rejected in another place, the metropolitan city of England was consequently partially disfranchised, although it had returned a man whom that House had determined to admit. He said, that there had been Prime Ministers in this empire, not more honest, not more patriotic than the noble Lord, who would have had the courage to have acted in a manner more accordant with the wishes, and more calculated to advance the interests of the population of the united kingdom.
MR. V. SMITHconsidered that the hon. Member for Manchester, in finding fault with the management of the public business by the noble Lord and the other Ministers, had not proved his case, and had made an unjustifiable attack. The business had been interrupted by extraordinary circumstances, which had never happened in any preceding Session; and he thought that Ministers, at the commencement of the Session, had taken the best course they could take in submitting a

521
few measures, and determining to proceed with them. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the navigation laws might have been proceeded with instead of other laws; and then he said that Ireland was a paramount consideration, and he recommended a Bill to abolish the Church of Ireland. When Ministers undertook that measure, it would not be a business for a single Session only of Parliament. The hon. Member for Manchester ought to recollect the difficulty which he himself found in legislating for the poor of this country. The question of the game laws had been in the hon. Gentleman's hands for three years, and that which must he allowed to be a crying abuse and a great injury was still a crying abuse and a great injury to the poor. What came out of the Committee but two ponderous blue books, which convoyed very little information to this country, and no Bill had been introduced. There were two most important questions which mainly regarded the condition of the poor, and ought to be attended to: one was the question of settlement; and upon that he begged to know whether the Poor Law Commissioner meant to proceed with those Bills which he had introduced this Session? Although they did not go the length of a settlement of the question, yet they might lead to arrangements advantageous to the poor of this country. The other question was that of emigration. Did the noble Lord mean to propose any vote for emigration before the Session terminated, which might give rise to any discussion upon the subject? He was therefore anxious that something should be done before the expiration of the Session; and he should be glad to hear from the Under Secretary of State for the (colonies that he had considered the plan submitted by the hon. Member for Bath, or some other plan.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that when they had heard from the noble Lord a few days ago what course he was about to adopt as to the Orders of the Day, they were also informed, not, indeed, by the London Gazette, but by a document which was generally supposed to represent the mind of Ministers almost as much as the Gazette, that they were to be at the close of the Session in the second week of August; but on looking at the thirty-three Orders of the Day he found that his noble Friend had only proposed to abandon five Government measures; he had only cut out five in respect to which he did not mean to ask the judgment of the House: twenty-eight,
522
therefore, remained. In addition to these twenty-eight, his noble Friend had also referred to three other Bills on which he wished for the vote of the House. He would not ask him with what hope he proposed to carry forward the Diplomatic Intercourse with Rome Bill; against which he might take this opportunity of stating that he had this day presented a petition to which were attached the names of 3,500 of the clergy of the Church of England; and he could not but think that if his noble Friend had been in the House when that petition was presented, he would have paused a little before he pledged himself and the Government on the 17th July to carry the Bill in the present Session of Parliament. The hon. Member for Manchester had almost provoked a discussion, not merely on the subject of the Orders of the Day, but on almost every subject which had occupied the attention of the House. He would not follow him further than to say, when he affirmed, in a tone of eloquence which he was happy not to imitate, that the Church of Ireland must go down, and must drag the Church of England with it, that he hoped the United Church of England and Ireland—one altogether in principle and system as they were—would long survive the sect of the hon. Member; and he trusted that the hon. Member, retaining to the last day of his existence all his principles and all his eloquence, might never yet be placed by the combined energies of the fifty other Gentlemen forming the New League in the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, or First Lord of the Treasury, in order that thereby station might give official weight to his opinions. He now passed from the hon. Member to his noble Friend; and thought that he was justified in asking two questions: first, what his intentions might be, not with respect to any measure now on the Order of the Day, but as to a measure of which, on the 1st of June last, he gave notice, fixing the day of discussion of the question for the 1st of July—it was a Bill to alter the oaths to he taken by Members of the House? He trusted the noble Lord would be prepared to say, when he rose to answer, that it was not his intention to bring forward that measure in the course of the present Session. He wished to ask a second question, whether, when his noble Friend felt it to he his duty on the part of the Government to abandon so many important measures, as not having time for adequate discussion, he would give encouragement

523
to amateur Members of Parliament bringing forward their measures? because, at a time which was most inconvenient for the discharge of their functions, some measure might be introduced which required the fullest consideration. He hoped that if the noble Lord were not prepared to proceed with measures for which he was responsible, he would give no encouragement to the legislation of Members not connected with the Government, for which he was not responsible.
MR. RICARDOconfessed that he had heard with much astonishment that the noble Lord had abandoned the Bill for the repeal of the navigation laws, as he felt that to be a Bill of an importance that was not to be trifled with: it was a question which affected the whole mercantile community of the country; and he believed that if the noble Lord was sincere in the principles which he had so often enunciated—if he had been as determined to carry this measure as he ought to have been, it could have been done. He did not agree that it would be wise in the noble Lord to say that he was determined to press this question, or to pass so important a question in a hurry; but he had need of his reputation for honesty and sincerity to make the people of this country believe that he was sincere in his determination to carry this measure. Two things the noble Lord had promised: one, that the Bill of 1846, as to sugar, should be retained; and the other, that the navigation laws should be repealed. The Bill as to sugar had been altered in a manner totally at variance with the principles of free trade; and the navigation laws had been procrastinated until it was too late to bring the matter forward. He hoped the noble Lord was sincere in his intention to bring this measure forward on the first opportunity.
MR. HUMEsaid, if the question of the navigation laws was one of so great importance, he considered the conduct of the Government in throwing it aside to be the most extraordinary that ever occurred. He hoped the noble Lord would intimate to-right that he would bring in a Bill to allow the colonies to have intercourse with foreign States. What should he say as to Ireland? They had been called together in November to correct the abuses of that country—they had passed a strong coercive Bill—they had passed a Bill called the Gagging Bill—they had passed an Alien Bill; but what single Bill had they
524
passed for the evils of Ireland? It was true that the Encumbered Estates Bill was good, and as far as it went he had supported it; but what other measure had been passed to remedy the evils of Ireland? His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had said that he hoped the Church of Ireland would last as long as the Church of England. He had great doubts of it. The Irish Church was at the root of the evil. Would England continue to maintain that which was the cause of the evils of Ireland? Was Ireland to be garrisoned by 50,000 men, to support the Church, and keep down the people, who were starving? Of this he was quite sure, that the House deserved the censure of the country, and he was confident they would receive it by the next election.
MR. LABOUCHEREfelt as deeply as any one the evils and inconveniences of not proceeding to decide on such a question as that of the navigation laws; but he could not agree with those who thought that the time on this subject had been thrown away. This was a question which it was impossible to expect should receive the sanction of the Parliament or of the country without much previous deliberation; and he was sanguine enough to believe that the discussions and divisions had gone a great way to remove any prejudice that might have existed on the subject, and that on the approaching discussion of the question at an early period next Session they would be in a condition to come to a satisfactory decision. He must also say that he thought the accounts they had already received from the colonies would afford the greatest assistance and encouragement to those who contended that a great alteration in the navigation laws was necessary. He was anxious not to utter a word which might provoke discussion; but after what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Stamford, he could not help entreating the attention of the House to the manner in which the plan had been received in Canada. To use the expression of Lord Elgin, the repeal of the navigation laws was hailed with unanimous acclamations. When the right hon. Member said that he would make this a matter of stipulation and bargain rather than unqualified concessions, he would point to that which was a most important part of the concession to Canada, namely, the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, which would enable them to obtain easier means of communication with the United States, and greater facilities

525
for competition with foreign shipping. So that the measure had obtained the un-qualified approbation of the whole of that important colony. With respect to the West Indies, he regretted, for the sake of those colonies, thot they had not been able at once to modify the navigation laws; but he was surprised at the high tone which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had taken upon this subject, for he was not aware that he was so great an advocate of a repeal of the navigation laws. He had sat with the right hon. Gentleman upon the Committee, and he did not recollect ever to have heard him express himself so strongly before as to the necessity of qualifying the navigation laws with a view of relieving the West Indies. As he said before, he felt as deeply as any one upon this subject; and he trusted the prospect of passing the measure would not be hope long deferred. He agreed with his noble Friend that it would be the bounden duty of the Government, at an early period of the next Session, again to bring forward this question, if it should be in their power to propose its adoption by Parliament; and he was sanguine enough to believe that, resting as it did on reasons of policy and justice, it would be utterly impossible for Parliament to reject it.
LORD G. BENTINCK: I have no wish whatever to protract this discussion. I am quite satisfied that the navigation laws should be put to bed for the Session, and will therefore not quarrel with Ministers for their mode of doing it; but when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) expresses his deep regret at the disappointment likely to be felt in the colonies, and especially in Canada, at the postponement of the measure, I must take leave to refer to that very correspondence which he himself has alluded to; and I must say that I cannot find anything in it which those who advocate the repeal of the navigation laws have any great right to congratulate themselves upon. It is perfectly true that the Canadian colonists, in a spirit of exasperation arising out of the policy previously pursued by the English Parliament, had stated that a, repeal of the navigation laws was necessary to countervail the free-trade policy to which they had already been subjected. But they tell you distinctly that the old colonial policy of protection was of greater advantage to them than the repeal of the navigation laws could be under the new policy; and that if their old protection
526
against the wheat, the flour, and the timber of the United States had been continued, they had no desire whatever to see the navigation laws repealed. But what do the Canadians tell you now? The Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade, in language which has drawn forth from my Lord Elgin, through his Secretary, a severe rebuke, uses language tantamount to saying that if the repeal of the navigation laws should not succeed in securing to the Canadians the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the ties—both commercially and politically—between Canada and the United States must be drawn closer. Is that a matter of congratulation? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) congratulates himself on the opinion which has been expressed on the subject of the navigation laws; but what says Lord Elgin, or rather Mr. Secretary Sullivan writing in his name, to the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade:—
"He observes with regret an expression in the memorials which the Board of Trade has requested him to forward, to the effect, that should the river St. Lawrence not continue to be the great highway for the commerce of Canada, a commercial union of the most intimate character will be produced between the United States of America and this colony, the inevitable result of which would be to dissolve the ties which connect the latter with the mother country."
Now, for a Minister of State to dare to rise in his place and express congratulation at the reception of news of this kind, is a matter of the greatest surprise and regret to me. Lord Elgin goes on to say that he regrets—
"that this expression should be used at a time when the only remaining protection existing in England is afforded to Canadian trade, and after so many demonstrations of the disinterested desire on the part of the Imperial Government to make the connexion of Canada with the empire beneficial to the colony, is a ground of surprise and disappointment to his Excellency. If the observations of the Board were correct, there could have been no necessity for making it a prominent argument with a Government only desirous to benefit the province by the connexion which it apparently threatened; and, if it be not correct to assert that the allegiance and attachment of Her Majesty's faithful and loyal subjects of Canada depends upon the successful competition of one route of commerce with another, it is peculiarly unfortunate that, in forwarding to the Imperial Government memorials, recommending measures in which his Excellency takes at least as lively an interest as the memorialists, he should be forced, in justice to the Canadian subjects of Her Majesty, to express his dissent from a proposition contained in the memorials, in which he cannot believe the people of Canada could, under any circumstances, be induced to concur."

527
But now let us see the rejoinder. Why the rejoinder is missing from the correspondence on the table; and the House has been told by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, that the document has not been sent home. How came Lord Elgin to keep the rejoinder back? But what said the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade? Does he retract any of the sentiments which he has expressed. No; he adheres to them and confirms them, puts them in stronger language, and uses a tone of greater determination and resolution. This is his language:—
"I am further instructed to say, that while it would be a cause of sincere regret to the Council that any objectionable expression should emanate from them, they consider it to be their bounden duty, as it is their undoubted right, respectfully but unequivocally to declare to the Queen, Lords, and Commons of England, the baneful consequences which, in their opinion, must ensue from the abandonment of the protective policy of the mother country towards the colonies, unless promptly followed up by remedial measures to compensate for the loss of that protection; consequences which, as pointedly stated in the memorial, the Council would deeply deplore."
In answer to what Lord Elgin had said on the subject of the protection which still remains to Canada, the writer goes on to say—
"It is true that a small remnant of protection still exists in England, not, as you say, in favour of Canada only, but also of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the West Indies, and other dependencies of the empire; the Council, however, do not recognise in this any valid reason for withholding the free expression of their opinion on the subject, The expression of that opinion was prompted by an earnest desire to avert a dreaded calamity; and they would take leave most respectfully to remark, that it is in no small degree satisfactory to them to find that the view they have taken in regard to the influence of commercial interests on political feeling does not seem to be at variance with that of his Excellency the Governor General, as embodied in a despatch of the Colonial Secretary referring to the contemplated changes in these laws, and cited in the recent discussion of the question in the House of Commons, wherein his Excellency was pleased to say, that 'one of the most efficacious expedients for securing the allegiance of a high-spirited and enterprising people is to convince them that their material interests will not be advanced by separation.'"
I really can see no matter of congratulation in the language made use of by the Canadians, for you may depend upon it that no repeal of the navigation laws can take place without involving the ruin of one great interest at the least—that of shipbuilding; and as regards freights, unless the effect be, which is exceedingly unlikely, to reduce them one half, no good
528
can arise; I think it is poor consolation for Ministers to look back upon the declaration which the Canadians have made that unless you can secure to them the trade of the St. Lawrence, the effect must be to draw closer the ties which exist between them and the United States. So much, then, for the deep interest which the Canadians have in the repeal of the navigation laws. Now, for the West Indies; and as the measure has been postponed, we shall see what the West Indians say in their petitions next year. They have now learned that there are 15,000 tons of foreign sugar kept up by the navigation laws. I stated on Saturday that there were 15,000 tons of foreign sugar in excess kept up by the navigation laws; but I find from information that I have since received that the quantity is much greater. I can undertake to say, on the authority of gentlemen whose knowledge will not be disputed, that the difference in price between sugar by privileged and unprivileged ships is equal to 2s. 6d. the cwt. Now, the West Indians, before you can bring in a Bill, will have had an opportunity of reconsidering the matter; and when they learn the security the navigation laws have been to them against an overwhelming inundation of foreign sugar, you will not find them so ready, however much they may be incited, to petition for a repeal of those laws. And I am very much mistaken if you will not find your West India planters and the planters of the Mauritius pretty unanimous in petitioning against the repeal of the navigation laws. The noble Lord concluded by saying that had it not been for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), he should not have troubled the House with any remarks on that occasion.
MR. MACGREGORregretted that Her Majesty's Government had not proceeded with the measure on the subject of the navigation laws during this Session; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that if they thought that they could not satisfactorily dispose of it during this year, they were quite right in postponing the further consideration of such an important subject until next Session.
MR. W. S. CRAWFORDthought the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester, and the hon. Member for Montrose, were deserving of some comment from an Irish Member, or one connected with Ireland, for they conveyed a great deal of truth. He (Mr. S. Crawford)

529
thought it necessary to state to the House that the people of Ireland would experience great disappointment at the abandonment of the Registration Bill. If the hopes and expectations of the people of Ireland were to be constantly disappointed in that manner, what was the Government or the Legislature to expect but disaffection and continued agitation in that country? He protested, in the name of the people of Ireland, against the abandonment of the Registration Bill for Ireland.
MR. SLANEYdid not think that the Government deserved the obloquy which had been cast upon it for the abandonment of a few measures which were not likely to be passed this Session. Let the House remember the manner in which the time of the Legislature had been occupied—how many new Members had spoken on every subject which had been brought before them—and then let them say if the Government were to blame for the delay of any measures. If they carried the Health of Towns Bill, and the Landed Estates (Ireland) Bill, during this Session, they would have done more for the country, and towards removing the grievances of the working classes, than any former Parliament had done. He could not at all agree in the view of the hon. Member for Manchester that the disaffection in Ireland arose from any objection to the Established Church. The failure of the potato crop was the great cause of the recent agitation and disturbance, and that was a cause which he trusted the bounty of Providence would remove.
MR. W. J. FAGANlamented that nothing had been done for Ireland during the present Session. He believed that that House bad not time properly to attend to the concerns of Ireland, and that it would be absolutely necessary, in order to preserve the connexion which existed, and which he trusted would always exist, between this country and Ireland, to permit local affairs to be transacted in Ireland by a Parliament of its own.
SIR D. NORREYSrose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government respecting a Bill which was proposed to be introduced for the conversion of leases for lives renewable for ever into freehold. That Bill was not introduced, and he feared would never be, although leave had been given to bring it in. [Sir G. GREY: The Bill has been introduced.] He had been returned to Parliament as a Whig Member, and had found great difficulty in carrying his election;
530
and now, what should he say to his constituents when they asked what had been done in this Parliament for them? He had been for years struggling to maintain his seat as an advocate of the Union between the two countries; but if legislation went on as it had done of late years, in reference to Ireland, though he would not say he would become a Repealer—for, probably, he was too old to change his politics—yet he should cease greatly to wonder at, and certainly should never blame, those who advocated the management by the Irish of their own affairs. He felt more honour in belonging to the Whig party when they sat on the opposition side of the House; and in reference to that consideration he cared not how soon the Whig party changed from the Ministerial to the other side of the House.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I understood that my hon. Friend (Sir D. Norreys) was going to ask me a question. Now, he has certainly made many observations, but has wholly omitted to ask any question. If there was any question at all, it was this—whether it was likely that the Bill for converting renewable leases into a tenure in fee would ever be brought in? and that question was answered by the Bill, the existence of which my hon. Friend said he doubted, being shown him in a printed form. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester has likewise asked some questions, and has complained that no statement has been made by the Government with respect to the affairs of Ireland. But as the hon. Member for Rochdale has given notice of a Motion, upon the occasion of the House being asked to go into a Committee of Supply, in submitting which to the House the hon. Member means to bring under notice the whole state of Ireland, I thought that this certainly was not the occasion when I should be required to enter generally into the condition of that country. However, I must say a word in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester, when he took on himself to represent the opinions of the Government. He stated that the Government has not gone on with the Irish Franchise Bill, because they understood that there would be opposition to it, and that the Bill would be considered as a new Reform Bill. Upon that subject the hon. Member is entirely misinformed. The hon. Member has also stated that the Government were not anxious on the subject of the navigation laws. On that point he is also misinformed, because they were anxious

531
to bring it forward; and I must say to the hon. Member for Stoke, and other hon. Members who take an interest in the subject, that I do not see that it was possible to bring in the measure earlier. I must either have allowed the Income Tax and the Mutiny Act to expire, or have abstained from introducing the measure on the subject of the navigation laws at an early period. The noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) has referred to some reply made to the Secretary of the Governor General of Canada; and I understood him to ask why that document was not placed on the table of the House? The answer is, because the Governor General did not transmit it to the Colonial Office; and it is not in possession of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Lord has read some extracts from that document, and I will read an extract from a memorial of the Montreal Board of Trade. It is to this effect—
"That the repeal of these laws (the navigation laws) will have the tendency to perpetuate and not destroy the relations that exist betwixt Canada and the mother country."
It has been asked—what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Scotch Registration Bill? That Bill is in the other House of Parliament, and when it comes down I will be ready to proceed with it; but, of course, I cannot state on what day it will come down to this House. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford has said, that he is informed that Ministers expect to prorogue Parliament on the second week in August. I certainly entertain no such expectation, and I am not one of those who think that the prorogation can take place so early. I shall be ready to proceed with the Bills I have mentioned, and it will depend upon the progress we make with those Bills, and upon the extent of the discussions, how soon Her Majesty will be pleased to prorogue Parliament. In reference to Irish measures, hon. Gentlemen have alluded to the Landlord and Tenant Bill; and whatever they might say as to the opinions of Irish Members being neglected, on that subject, at all events, a Select Committee was appointed, the majority of the Members of which were Irish Members; and that Committee agreed to and recommended the present Bill. Consequently the reproach that the opinions of Irish Members are disregarded, could not at any rate apply to that measure. The hon. Member for Manchester, finding great fault with the conduct of the Government,
532
said that there was one Bill—that for facilitating the sale of encumbered estates—which was essential to lay the foundation of a better social condition in Ireland. Now, I ask the House whether a Gentleman, wishing to indulge in every sort of invective against the Government, could have paid us a greater compliment than by saying that we had introduced and carried a great way on its course a Bill calculated to lay the foundation of a better social condition in Ireland? I rest satisfied with that compliment of the hon. Member for Manchester, who certainly appeared unwilling to pay the Government any compliment at all. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford has asked whether I intend to propose making any alterations in the oaths taken by the Members of this House. Certainly, as public business has increased so much since I gave notice on the subject, I do not now intend to make any Motion in reference to it in the present Session. The subject, however, is of importance; and some of the oaths are, I think, not only very unnecessary, but almost make the form ridiculous. With respect to the Bill for establishing diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, I do not believe that there was any objection to the principle of it in the other House; and if there was a division, very few divided against it; and I should hope that Parliament would give its consent to a Bill which merely goes to establish diplomatic relations with one of the Sovereigns of Europe.
MR. OSBORNEsaid, it was very improper that the country should deceive itself, or allow the House to deceive it, upon the question of Ireland, which was by far too serious to be dismissed in an easy offhand way. He believed, throughout the whole course of the discussion, there had been found only two Gentlemen, the Members for Northampton and Shrewsbury, to speak in favour of the course pursued by the Government. He thought, however, that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government was deserving of something more than House of Commons' invective. As he would say nothing derogatory of the dead, so also he would say nothing derogatory of an expiring Government; but he did say that the Gentlemen of Ireland ought not to have been left in the way in which they had been. He had resisted the repeal of the Union heretofore; but he was of opinion that repeal would become necessary if such a system as had been adopted was further developed. If such a state of things was

533
to be continued for another Session, he would join the Irish Confederation, or any other confederation which would have the power of forcing the Government to adopt a wiser system of policy, or to retire from a position to which they were unequal. He said that the conduct of the Government towards Ireland was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. What had the Government induced him to do?. They had induced him to give a factious vote, in order to turn out the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, when they entered into collusion with the other party, the protectionists. They induced him then to vote for a coercion Bill, on the express understanding that other measures of a conciliatory and remedial nature were to follow. How had that promise been carried out? They had an Encumbered Estates Bill, and they would not have had that were it not for an accident. If it had not been that Sir C. Dundas left the Government, they would have had no Encumbered Estates Bill. The hon. Member for Devonport came down to the House with a new Bill tacked to the old, and which was quite dissimilar to it, and the success of which was very problematical. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was in power, they no doubt remembered how pertinaciously the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon taunted him with the cry of "Where is your Registration Bill?" He would repeat that question, and ask them where was their Registration Bill? Where was their Bill for an alteration in the grandjury laws? They had been told that that was a petty circumstance; but he could tell them that the present system of grand-jury regulation was one of the greatest evils under which Ireland laboured. The noble Lord acted towards Ireland very much upon the same principle that the Provisional Government in France acted towards the labourers in that country, They told them that they would give them everything before they got into power; and when there, they gave them nothing. He considered that it was too bad for men to take the official responsibility of office without the ability to maintain it. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, in his easy, jaunting manner, that he wished he were out of office. He entirely reciprocated that wish; for, unless some party was prepared to take and turn out those men of straw, there was great danger and cause of apprehension. At the Present moment, he looked
534
forward with horror to the winter in Ireland. When the report of that night's proceedings would be read, it would give a tone to the public mind of Ireland which the noble Lord would be the first to regret.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, whilst he had not the slightest intention of offering any thing in defence of the declarations or proposals of the Government made years ago, as an independent Member of that House he must tell the people of Ire-land, when they complained that more was not done for them, that they did not approach this country or the Government in a form very likely to conciliate their good offices. That House had shown no indisposition to meet the evils of Ireland; but he must say that he utterly repudiated such doctrines as those of the hon. Member for Manchester, with respect to the Church of Ireland; and he thought it was fit that the House of Commons should let the Irish people know that, ready as they were to consider any acknowledged grievance, armed sedition and conspiracy, and the formation of secret societies against this Government, were not the means to conciliate this country, and to induce them to extend to that country the privileges and advantages she asked. Let him ask any reasonable man, with reference to the demand, for instance, of an extended franchise, whether the Irish people were better calculated than were other parties in this country to exercise an extended franchise? A Motion had lately been made in that House for an extension of the franchise as regarded England and Scotland. That question had not been entertained, however, by the House with regard even to these portions of the kingdom; and what was there in Ireland just now to cause a preference for that country in that respect? If the franchise was a privilege, it was one that ought to reach those last who found themselves the most inclined to disturb the existing law of a nation. The people of Ireland could not thus convince this country that they were entitled to privileges and advantages which were denied to the people of England and of Scotland.
Order discharged.

RUM DUTIES.
House in Committee, for the consideration of the Duties on Rum; Mr. BERNAL, in the chair.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose for the purpose of proposing the second of those measures which the Government had announced for the

535
benefit of the West Indian colonies, by promoting the introduction of their produce into this country; and he was happy to state that, in this measure, the interests of the consumer, as well as of the West India producer, were consulted. It had not been without regret that, in the measure on the subject of the sugar duties, which the Government had lately submitted to that House, they had for a time somewhat neglected the interests of the consumer; but in the proposal he was about to make, the interests of the consumer and of the producer were alike consulted. The principle which the Government laid down three years ago, with reference to the duties upon rum, was, that so far as legislative measures went, the colonial producer should be allowed to bring his produce into this country on equal terms with the British producer; and the measure he was now about to submit to the House was based upon that principle. He had stated, during the last Session of Parliament, that he considered a differential duty of 6d. between British and colonial spirits would attain this end; but, upon further consideration, he had been induced to propose a lower rate of duty. Although in the spring of 1847 he had thought 6d. was a fair differential duty, it was not in the slightest degree inconsistent with that opinion, that, considering the measures which had since then been introduced for the benefit of the British distillers, he should now think that, in the altered state of circumstances, a less sum would be a sufficient protection. No doubt the consumption of British spirits had fallen oft' during the last year; but he believed that fact was to be attributed to the peculiar circumstances of the times. There had been, during the last year, owing to the failure of the spring crops, a considerable falling-off in the quantity of malt brought into consumption; and to that circumstance he attributed, to a great extent, the deficiency of the revenue, which had disappointed his expectations with regard to the amount to be derived from the Excise. In the early part of 1847 he did not anticipate any very material falling-off in the revenue from malt; and he was encouraged in his anticipations by being informed that, if the crop in this country was short, foreign barley would be brought in. He found, however, that the grain which had been imported into this country from abroad had, to a great extent, been re-exported, in consequence of the deficiency of food in
536
foreign countries; and this circumstance, in a great measure, accounted for the falling-off in the revenue from malt. Between 1846 and 1847, there had been a falling-off in the quantity of malt charged with duty of 6,700,000 bushels. He thought it was apparent that this falling-off was not attributable to increased entries of colonial spirits for home consumption, because, though the entries were considerable, as compared with former years, both in Scotland and Ireland, the quantity of rum actually consumed in those countries was most insignificant compared with the total quantity of spirits consumed. He found, from the evidence given before a Committee of that House, that the total quantity of spirits entered for home consumption in Scotland, in 1847, was 6,193,000 gallons, of which only 382,000 gallons consisted of rum; while the total quantity of spirits entered for consumption in Ireland, during the same year, was 6,037,000 gallons, comprising only 176,000 gallons of rum. He would now proceed to state why he thought the duty upon colonial rum should be reduced. The noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) had submitted to the Committee of which he had recently been Chairman, a report and resolutions which contained a perfect mine of information on this subject, and in which great stress was laid upon the different positions of the distiller from malt and the distiller from grain. Now, he thought it was impossible to draw a distinction between the two. It was quite clear that, at present, they competed successfully in different parts of the country; and he conceived that, whatever protection was adequate for one, must be adequate for the other. He conceived that the malt distiller was paid for the additional cost of his materials by the additional price which he obtained for his produce. He considered, also, that another ground on which the distillers founded a claim to a higher differential duty was untenable—he meant the claim of rectifying. He had said last year that he did not admit the claim they put forward on the ground of rectification; for he considered that rectification was in fact a further process of manufacture, for which the producers were amply remunerated by the higher price which they obtained for the purer article. He did not think, either, that there was any force in the complaints which had been made by the distillers with reference to the corn duties, or any ground on which they ought to claim a differential duty against the

537
colonies. The grounds upon which the distillers claimed protection in consequence of the payment of malt duty, was, that a certain quantity of malt was necessary to enable them to distil from grain. Now, he found that a quarter of grain produced 20 gallons of spirits, 1–11th of malt only being used. The distillers themselves claimed, on this ground. 1½d. a gallon; but the amount which came nearest to a fair claim was 1¼d., and that, in fact, exceeded what they were entitled to. The duty upon a quarter of malt was 22 s. 8½d., and, as he had stated, 1–11th of a quarter was used in distilling from a quarter of grain, that would give rather less than 2s. 1d. a gallon; which, on 20 gallons—the produce of the quarter of grain—was 1¼d. per gallon. The next claim made by the distillers was for decreases, for which they required 3½d. a gallon. Now, he could not conceive on what ground a claim for so large an allowance was made. If the duty was taken on British spirits when they came out of the warehouse, the precise amount of decrease in the warehouse might be ascertained; and it was only to the extent of that decrease that compensation ought to be given. Mr. Carrie, who was examined before the Committee, said, in reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridge University—
"I am far from wishing the Committee to understand that the decreases in our trade amount to 3½d. per gallon; but what I mean to say is this, that I have here a Parliamentary paper, by which it appears that, in the year ending the 5th of January, 1846, the amount of duty remitted on allowances for deficiencies and leakage on rum in bond amounted to 36,248 l.; that upon the quantity of 2,411,000 gallons, gives over 3½d. a gallon."
It appeared from Parliamentary papers moved for in May, 1846, that the amount of duty allowed for decrease upon the quantity of gallons of rum warehoused did amount to 3½d. a gallon; but the same papers afforded the means of forming an accurate calculation of the decrease in Ireland and Scotland, It appeared that the allowance for decrease upon rum warehoused in Ireland was ¼d and 15,100 d. per gallon, while in Scotland it was equal to 56–100ths of a farthing—or rather more than half a farthing—a gallon. He stated to the House, in 1847, that, upon an average of several distilleries, be found the result brought out was, that the actual deficiency in the case of Scotland was 33–100ths of a farthing per gallon; and in respect of Ireland, ¼d. 15–100ths per gallon. If an allowance was made to the extent he had mentioned, namely, rather
538
better than half a farthing per gallon in Scotland, and not so much as a farthing and a quarter in Ireland, it would be equivalent to the whole loss to which the spirits were subject in warehouse. This is the extent to which the distiller would be benefited, if he was allowed to pay duty on taking his spirits out of warehouse instead of at the worm's end; and this, therefore, was all that he was entitled to claim compensation for. If he paid the duty on taking the spirit out of warehouse, he would be in precisely the same situation as the importer of colonial spirits, and would have no cause of complaint. This he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not consent to, for the opportunity for fraud would be so great, that the risk to the revenue was more than he should be warranted in incurring. It had been estimated by the Excise at not less than 100,000 l; and in the present state of the revenue that was too large a sum to be put in danger. In order to obtain the same amount of revenue from the spirits duty as at present, if the period of taking the duty were postponed, it would be necessary then to increase the rate of duty, which would come to very much the same thing. He proposed, then, to continue the period of taking the duty as at present, and to compensate the distiller by placing a duty on colonial spirits equal to the loss on British spirits. In regard to the question as between the British and the colonial producer, he considered that three-farthings a gallon would be a most ample protection for the loss incurred by paying the duty upon the quantity produced at the worm's end rather than when taken out for consumption. Therefore, be considered 1¼d. as equivalent to the malt duty, and ¾d. as equivalent to all that would be gained by paying the duty on taking out of warehouse, instead of the worm's end. This latter sum he believed would be greatly more advantageous to the distiller in England, considering how little warehousing there was hero. Then with regard to the only other point—the excise restrictions—the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) had certainly drawn out a formidable list in his resolutions, when he spoke of increased plant, loss of yeast, raking out of fires, inability to improve the manufacture, and so forth; but when the loss was brought down to actual pounds, shillings, and pence, it did not run up to anything that need alarm the British distiller. The cost of British spirit was calculated at 2s. before payment of duty, 1s. 6d. being the cost of the raw material, and

539
6d. the cost of manufacture; the excise restrictions might to some extent interfere with the process of manufacture, but, as he believed, to a much less extent than was commonly supposed; and in some instances the excise interference was not without its utility as a protection to the distiller himself. But suppose that out of this 6d., 2d. were to he allowed for excise restrictions, surely that would be more than almost any one would he disposed to set down as really attributable to that head. Of course, when Gentlemen were making statements to prove their own case, they were apt, without intending unfairness, to put as strongly as possible the points they thought favourable to them; and there were some remarkable instances of this in the mode in which the claim of the distillers had been shaped. There was, for example, the 3½d. for decrease, which he had shown to be not so much as a halfpenny. Two years ago a printed statement was put into his hand of the cost of rectification, and a similar statement was inserted in page 180 of the noble Lord's draught report; it gave 6d. as "extra expense in rectifying, in consequence of the law;" and only two pages before there appeared an estimate in which it had dwindled to 3d.—one or other of those estimates must have been very loose. Two or three years ago it was charged at 10 d., and then at 8d.; so that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was warranted in saying that the statements made on the part of those who preferred this claim were not quite made with that accuracy which was desirable for forming a just estimate respecting their expenses. There was one rather laughable statement, to which he would call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck). He held in his hand a paper which he would lay on the table in the course of the evening, that the House might see it. A witness stated before the Committee, that the loss by decrease upon four casks of spirits imported from Scotland to London came to ¾d. 53–100ths per gallon; the Chairman of Excise was a little astonished at this, seeing that he had stated the loss on importation at ¼d. 92–100ths; he was led to suppose that it must have been a singular case in which so much loss took place, and that there were circumstances which rendered that importation liable to a greater loss than ordinary. In order to verify the statement, the Chairman took the deficiency upon other quantities imported by the same parties, Messrs. Twiss
540
and Browning, about the same time; and he found that upon twenty casks of Scotch spirits imported by them from Leith four days before, namely, on the 23rd of March, 1848, the actual loss amounted to 19–100ths of a farthing; and on twenty casks, on the 31st of March, the loss was 43–100ths of a farthing; in both cases it was far less than the loss allowed by the Chairman of Excise as the average. To make the matter certain it was ascertained that the average loss on 9,591 casks of spirits imported into London from Scotland and Ireland from April 6, 1847, to April 5, 1848, was exactly ¼d. 42–100ths per gallon, which was also less than the Chairman of Excise had allowed by 50–100ths of a farthing. Mr. Browning might be right enough as to the particular case he mentioned; but at any rate it showed how very little single cases were to be depended upon in forming an average. Now, with regard to this question of the amount to be set down to excise restrictions, he did not think, if the whole cost of manufacturing spirits was 6d. a gallon, that any man would say that more than a third of that was due to those restrictions; but he found, from page 83 of the sixth report of the Committee on Sugar and Coffee Planting, that a statement had been sent into the Excise (entirely for another purpose than that of showing the expense) by Mr. Patrick Chambers, a distiller at Wishaw, a highly respectable man, upon whose statements reliance might be placed; and he gave the quantity of barley consumed, the quantity of proof spirits produced, and the whole expense of manufacturing spirits, and the result showed was, that the net charges, including the expense of making malt, amounted to 3¾d. per gallon. The statement being made for another purpose was less likely to be coloured than a statement put in to prove a particular calculation or case. But would anybody, calmly considering the subject, say that of 3¾d. cost of making, more than half, namely, 2d., was produced by excise regulations? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to allow 2d. for the whole claim in respect of excise regulations; and even taking the statement of the cost at 6d., and still more, if it were taken at the calculation of this party, that must surely be a fair allowance. He saw no other ground upon which the distillers could claim protection against colonial spirits. If price was looked to, there was no such great advantage in the price of rum. The noble Lord's report stated the average price of

541
three qualities of whisky to be 2s. 2½d.; and the average of rum 2s. 4½d. In ordinary years the introduction of rum was not likely to have any material effect upon the large quantity of spirits produced in this country. With respect to the question of revenue, the loss would be about 62,500 l.; but we might calculate on an increased consumption. 150,000 gallons in England would suffice, or 350,000, supposing it all in Scotland, or 400,000 in Ireland; but he hoped the increase would be a great deal more, for the sake of the West India interest. He believed the interests of the producer and the consumer were alike consulted by the measure he proposed; and he thought he had shown that a differential duty of 4d. upon colonial spirits, due partly to the malt duty, partly to decrease, and partly to excise restrictions, would be at least adequate to the disadvantages under which the British distiller was placed. The principle upon which the Government proposed to proceed was this—that so far as legislative enactments went, the producer in the colony and the producer in this country should some into the market upon equal terms; and that, he believed, would be effected by the proposal he had now the honour to submit. He had only further to put into the Chairman's hands a formal resolution, the effect of which was that, instead of the present differential duty of 9d., a differential duty of 4d. per gallon be imposed upon British colonial spirits.
Resolution put—
"That, in lieu of the Duties now chargeable, there be levied," &c
MR. W. T. FAGANconsidered the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very unfair towards the home producer of spirits. If the distilling interest in this country, and particularly in Ireland, were to be affected by the spread of temperance, or even by raising the duty on spirits so as to lessen consumption, he, for one, would approve of such a result; but when he found that the effect of the present measure would be to introduce, to a greater extent than hitherto into this country and Ireland, a deleterious and seductive spirit, he confessed he could not go along with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the consumer upon it. He found that, in 1846, the consumption of rum in Ireland amounted only to 14,000 gallons; while last year, with a differential duty of 9d., the consumption amounted to 176,000 gallons; and he believed it was still gradually increasing. He thought, therefore,
542
that the manufacturer of British spirits, and particularly the Irish manufacturer, had very great cause of complaint when he perceived that his interests were to be sacrificed to the carrying out of a measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government (referring to the Sugar Duties Bill), which gave satisfaction to no party. He thought the home producer had reason to complain, not precisely of a breach of faith, although it was certainly something like it; inasmuch as he broke through what was understood to be the settlement of the question in 1847, when, notwithstanding his own opinion that 6d. would be a fair and just protection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, after various negotiations with the distillers, fixed the amount at 9d. per gallon. The unwarranted change now proposed, amounted, in his judgment, to something very close to a breach of faith. He admitted there must be excise restrictions, and there must be consequent expenses. This being so, he contended there must be something in the shape of Protection; but, then, the question was as to the fair amount of that protection. He would follow the right hon. Gentleman through his calculations to show that they were, in many instances, erroneous, and that, there-fore, the right hon. Gentleman's amount of protection was also wrong. He would take the case of malt. The right hon. Gentleman had not placed his calculation high enough in this respect; the right hon. Gentleman only allowed 1½d., while the Irish distillers conceived they were fairly entitled to have 2½d. The next item was only casually glanced at, namely, loss for distilling and brewing. The use of acids, not now permitted by the excise laws, would give 4 or 5 per cent more of saccharine matter. These circumstances ought to be considered and allowed for. Then, as to the process of rectification, it was alleged that the Irish distillers had no claim on this head. But this was a mistake. The Irish distillers did not rectify so highly, but they distilled the spirits which were consumed, twice; and this, to some extent, was a species of rectification. There ought to be an allowance on that ground. Then, with reference to the decreases, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have no difficulty. Indeed, there was no difficulty in the question, as justice required that the foreign and British distiller should be put on the same footing. But the foreign producer had an advantage in the item of decreases to the extent of 3½d.—which amount the British distillers

543
were perfectly right in adding to their claim for protection. The mode adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this question was neither fair nor just. From all the information he had received from distillers, he was satisfied that the amount of decreases was at least 1½d. per gallon. This amount, added to 7½d. per gallon, which the Irish distillers, on other grounds, claimed as a fair protection, made a total of 9d., which, he asserted, ought to be the differential duty between British and colonial spirits. It was upon the statement of Mr. Wood, the Chairman of Excise, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and proposed a differential duty of 4d. instead of 9d., which he believed was the proper sum. Mr. Wood had given his opinion in favour of a differential duty of 4d., and had in his evidence stated that the disadvantages of excise restrictions were by no means so great as to warrant a differential duty even of 6d. When they considered, however, the great expense incurred by the Irish distillers—the necessity of damping fires more than 500 times in the course of a year—the obligation to purchase yeast, which was afterwards thrown into the gutter, they would agree in the able report made by the noble Lord opposite, that the differential duty at present maintained could not be diminished with justice to the distillers. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Chairman do leave the chair.
CAPTAIN JONESsaid, that he did not rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, although he agreed with him in the observations he had made, He believed that if this measure was carried in conjunction with other measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government, great injustice would be done to the distillers. In the year 1842, when an additional duty of 1s. per gallon was put upon Irish spirits, he had told the Government that they would lose money. Previous to the imposition of that duty the distillers had been enabled to produce good spirit at so low a price as to give the illicit distiller little or no advantage; but this increased duty gave an encouragement to illicit distillation, and in the end reduced the duty received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By running into the opposite extreme, they would do as much injury, without benefiting the public in any material degree. If the Government wished to prevent illicit distillation, and prevent crime, even of murder, they would, to a certain extent, reduce the duty on spirit,
544
and thus ensure the prosperity of this branch of manufacture. Their present course of legislation would give a final blow to the manufacture of spirit in Ireland.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that the community which he represented contained many individuals who were deeply interested in the manufacture of spirits. Looking to the welfare of these individuals and the trade generally, he had hoped that the Government would have placed the Irish distiller on the same footing with the colonial distiller, as regarded reasonable allowance to be made for waste and natural evaporation. By this measure the West Indian interest would gain an advantage of 5d. beyond what it enjoyed before. He protested against the change in the name of the agricultural interest, for it was as much an agriculturist's as a distiller's question; it was, in fact, a battle between sugar and oats. The duty of 9d. was held out as a final measure, and ought to be maintained. It must not be forgotten that the colonist was exempt from the harass and annoyance of excise regulations to which the English, Scotch, and Irish distillers were exposed, to whom, by way of an additional expense, no allowance was made for loss by leakage and evaporation. He claimed some consideration on behalf of Ireland, if it were but for her disinterested support of the measures of free trade, in the advantages of which, as an agricultural country, she was unable to participate. He called upon the Committee to pause before it put the broad stamp of its approval on the measure before them; and hoped that the Chairman would be allowed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He declared that he was actuated by no spirit of jealousy towards the colonies, though he could not but regard them as a drag on the mother country. They had gone so long on crutches that they would probably never be able to do without them. At all events, however, lot them not, in watching over their interests, shut their eyes and ears to the claims of that country which had been called the right arm of England.
MR. BARKLYwould not have addressed the House had it not been for the course adopted by hon. Members from Ireland. But he must say that the measure of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer fell short of the measure to which the West Indies were entitled in regard to an equality of duties. There was a market in this country for the spirits produced in those colonies; and the differential duty

545
was, therefore, taken out of the pockets of the colonial producers. Were the proposed reduction not carried out, the position of the West India planter, had as it was, would be rendered worse; and he strongly deprecated the rejection of a measure favourable to those colonies, which had already suffered so severely, for the advantage of any interest such as that represented by the hon. Member for Dublin. He was of opinion that the Irish and Scotch distillers were at present in a condition to compete with the colonies. It appeared from a pamphlet which he hold in his hand, that the hush money paid by eight or ten English distillers to Scotch distillers amounted in one year to 150,000 l or 200,000 l. That showed that the Scotch distillers were able to enter into competition with the English. He would accept the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an instalment due to the colonies.
LORD G. BENTINCK: I can assure you, Sir, I never heard any complaint from any of the barley growers of Norfolk on the subject of the rum and spirit duties. At all events, I am not the representative of Norfolk, but of the commercial borough of King's Lynn; and, therefore, whatever judgment I may come to upon this subject, there is no man in the House more disinterested, or who can have a greater desire to arrive at the truth than I have. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has quoted from an anonymous pamphlet, in which it is stated that from 150,000 l. to 200,000 l a year is paid by the English distillers to the Scotch distillers as hush money. If the hon. Gentleman is so credulous, I am not surprised at the speech he has made to-night. I think no other Gentleman in the House could he so credulous as to believe that the six distillers in England paid 150,000 l. or 200,000 l. a year to the distillers in Scotland. But an hon. Gentleman has told you that I cross-examined Mr. J. Wood for nearly four hours. I certainly did cross-examine him, and rather sharply, too, though not for four hours. I shall now state to the House what Mr. John Wood's own opinion of his evidence is. He says—
"With regard to the decreases, those, I take it, are matters of fact. A great deal of the evidence I have given is, of course, matter of opinion, and, I hope, will be taken by the Committee, and those before whom the evidence may come, with a considerable allowance, because it is mere matter of opinion."
At another time he says that all he states,
546
except as regards those matters of fact, he states with the greatest diffidence. As (Chairman of the Excise he had the privilege—and I did not interfere with that privilege—of having a prompter at his elbow, who whispered in his ear the answers he was to give to the Committee. It it quite true that I did cross-examine Mr. John Wood as to his matters of fact, because Mr. John Wood took upon himself to arraign the evidence and impeach the statements of all the distillers of England and Scotland. He presumed to say that they made exaggerated statements. Having declared that the decreases alleged on the part of distillers were decreases for which allowance was made, Mr. John Wood, a gentleman of station, and whose veracity we could not attempt to deny, said the decreases they made, instead of being worth 4d., were only worth ½d. Having remarked that he made this statement with diffidence, he applied a rule-of-three test to the decreases, and said—
"I find that, as 4d. is to 1d., so is 3d. to ¾d., and, therefore, instead of allowing the 3d., I should be much inclined to say that 1d. was the utmost that can be made out as the value or cost, to a distiller, of the excise restrictions."
This was Mr. John Wood's mode of dealing with the subject of restrictions on the Excise, and anything more theoretical to come from a Chairman of Excise I never heard propounded. That statement was denied on the part of the distillers, and they came well out of the ordeal. The distillers stated the decrease on spirits in transitu in Scotland to he 114 hundredths of a gallon per cent. The excisemen in their gauge stated the decrease at 32 hundredths, Comparing the gauging of the Excise and the gauging of the trade, there appeared a difference of four to one. The whole question, then, turns upon who is right. Before the Committee came to a conclusion, Mr. John Wood was obliged to send in for papers correcting his evidence; and then it was admitted that, according to the mode of gauging for the Customs, the trade were not so very far wrong, for, instead of being 114 hundredths to the gallon per cent, as they had stated, they were 111 hundredths per cent. The man who diminished the truth by 75 per cent was found to be Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise. Is the trade to he trusted, who only differed from the Customs by 3 hundredths in 114, or Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, who tells you that the decrease is only

547
32 hundredths of a gallon, when, according to the Customs, it is 111 hundredths? The Chairman of the Excise then gave us an example of a gauging by the Excise, in which a still less decrease had taken place; and this measurement was taken upon various cargoes imported at the same time as those on which his former statement was based. But, let me ask, why did not Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, make that statement to the Committee when we could have tested its truth by cross-examining him? No, Sir, this was kept for the House of Commons, where it cannot be tested. Where you have had an opportunity of testing the truth of the statements of the Excise, there you are able to show that the trade was right, and the Excise wrong. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman said that this cargo of the Royal Victoria was a remarkable cargo; but there was nothing remarkable in the cargo at all except that in the original account given by the Excise they showed the decrease to be less than the average decrease admitted by the Chairman of Excise upon the large quantities. The decrease, as measured originally by the Excise, was only 32 hundredths in the gallon, but it turned out to be 110 hundredths; and the result is, that the decreases are very nearly threefold what they were admitted to be by the Chairman of Excise. But the peculiarity in this case, as the Chairman of the Excise explains, is, that the decreases in the cargoes of spirits by the Royal Victoria were attributable to the heat produced by the steam used in that vessel. Why, it is not necessary that I should refer to the report. Every Gentleman who knows the character of spirits, knows that spirits do not contract, but expand under the influence of heat. Therefore you have here Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, acknowledging that while he gives a mere opinion upon the value of restriction, his opinion is not worth a great deal; and you have it proved to demonstration that while he speaks of matters of fact he is wrong to the extent of three to one. Well, then. Sir, if this be so, I think we are entitled to place some reliance on the statements of these distillers. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster, have both admitted that we are entitled to assume that the malt distiller and the raw corn distiller are on an equal footing. But that is my case.
548
Admit that once to me, and I have no difficulty whatever in showing to you what disadvantage the corn distiller will labour under as regards the revenue if this proposition is carried; for I can show you, by a demonstration which anybody who can count five on his fingers can understand, that the malt distiller pays a much higher duty than the corn distiller. I know there are some Gentlemen who say that because the Scotch distiller pays the duty at twice, that is to say, because he pays 1s. 4¼d. out of one pocket as duty on malt, and 7s. 10 d. out of a different pocket as the duty upon spirits, that you have no right to think anything about the malt duty. But I think no man of any sense will propound such an argument as that in this House. And, therefore, it is quite clear that the malt distiller of Scotland, for sending his raw spirits to England, or the malt distiller of England (or the barley grower of Norfolk, if the hon. Gentleman is determined to state the case in that way) pays 7s. 10 d. spirit duty, and 1s. 4d. malt duty, or 9s. 2¼d. in the whole, while the corn distiller pays only 8s. 7d. Now, it is very easy for any hon. Gentleman to calculate and understand the difference. It is impossible for any man to dispute that the malt distiller of England or of Scotland pays already 7¼d. more duty than the rum distiller; and if you reduce the duty on rum 5d. more, he will pay just 1s. 0¼d. more duty than the rum distiller. In Scotland, half the malt duty is returned as drawback to the malt distiller if the spirits are sent to England; consequently, the difference in Scotland is 8⅛d. less than it is in England. The result of this will be, that if your present proposition passes, the malt distiller in Scotland will pay absolutely 4d. more than the rum distiller. And the same case applies to the malt distiller in Ireland, The result, then, of your measure, if it pass, will be, that in England the malt distiller will pay Is. 0¼d. more duty than the rum distiller; and in Scotland and Ireland he will pay 4d. more duty. Well, then, if you admit to me, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have both declared, that the malt distiller and the raw corn distiller are practically upon an equality, it is quite clear that the raw corn distiller will be under the same disadvantages that the malt distiller is—things that are equal to the same thing being, as the hon. Gentleman said, and as we all know, equal

549
to one another. I have shown you that the malt distiller is by this plan under a manifest disadvantage, and the raw corn distiller in England will have to pay an additional duty of 1s. 0¼d. and of 4¼d. in Scotland and Ireland. But then they tell you that the malt distiller can well afford to pay the additional duty. The malt distiller does compete with the raw corn distiller in Scotland; but you will see that for the last six years the malt distiller has been gradually losing ground in the race—that in the course of the last six or seven years I think the consumption of malt whisky has fallen off nearly a million gallons, whilst the consumption of raw grain spirits has increased in like proportion; which is pretty clear evidence that it is a very hard race between them. But we now come to the question of value. The hon. Gentleman says, and so said the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is true that they paid higher duty upon raw-spirits; but they satisfied the tastes of the consumers better, and they fetched a better price. But let us see what is the price which they fetch, as compared with rum, and if I show to you that the price of malt spirits is lower than the price of rum, while your duty on malt spirits is considerably higher than your duty upon rum, you must admit that the duty is higher than it ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted from the report which I had the honour of submitting to the Committee on this question, and he made a calculation from it, to the effect that, upon an average, the price of malt spirits in Scotland was 2s. 8d. Now, I think that that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was rather disingenuous, and I will tell you why. The report of the Committee was printed and presented, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the 3rd of May; but, after that date, on the 8th of May, a letter was addressed to me, and which did not reach me until the 10th, stating that I had made a mistake altogether in the prices of the Scotch spirits, because, although it was true that there was Highland whisky sold at the prices stated, yet the whisky sold at the high prices quoted only bore the proportion of one gallon in twenty, and consequently instead of taking 2s. 8d. as the average price of whisky, I ought to set it down at 2s. 1d. That letter was subsequently appended to the report of the Committee, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer totally overlooked it; and omitted
550
to explain that 2s. 1d., and not 2s. 8d., was the sum upon which the ad valorem duty should be assessed. Well, this is the way the matter stands. The duties now are on malt spirits, 9s. 2¼d. in England; on rum, 8s. 7d.; in Scotland, 4s. 4½d. on malt spirits, on rum 4s. 5d.; and in Ireland the duties are 4s. 0¼d., and on rum 3s. 5d. But the new duties are to be—ill England 9s. 2¼d. on malt spirits, 8s. 2d. on rum; in Scotland, 4s. 4¼d., and on rum 4s.; in Ireland, 4s. 0¼d. on malt spirits, and 3s. on rum. Well, then, we come to the raw grain spirits; they are 7s. 10 d. in England, 3s. 8d. in Scotland, and 2s. 8d. in Ireland; to which 1½d. is to be added also for malt duty, making the duty 7s. 11½d.,3s.9 ½d., and 2s. 9½d., respectively, in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now let me call the attention of the House to the effect of these ad valorem duties; and I take the case of good Scotch whisky, of which the price is 1s. 11 d., being the instance given by Mr. Greene before the Committee. The duty in England is 9s. 2¼d., and in Scotland 4s. 4¼d.; so that the ad valorem duty upon good Scotch whisky is 480 per cent in England, and 227 per cent in Scotland. On Jamaica rum, of which the price is 3s. 3¼d., according to the statement of Mr. Greene (which I think will not be disputed by the hon. Member for Leominster), the duty in England is 8s. 7d., and in Scotland 4s. 5d.; but if you allow 3½d. for the decrease, which cannot be disputed, the result will be that the ad valorem burden shows a duty of 280 per cent on rum in England, against 480 per cent of a burden on Scotch whisky in England; and 144 per cent against 224 per cent ad valorem on Scotch whisky in Scotland. I now come to the English raw grain spirits. The duty on the 28th of April last was 7s. 11½d. in England, and 3s. 9½d. in Scotland, and the prices at that time were raised 3d. a gallon. The result is that the ad valorem duty is 160 per cent in Scotland, against 280 per cent. But, Sir, there is another point of view in which this question may be viewed; and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster voted for that measure as it was brought in by Sir Robert Peel's Government—as it was introduced and framed, I believe, by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn)—I think I may appeal with some force to what is called the Channel Islands. With regard to the Channel

551
Islands there is an Act for distillation, the preamble of which sets forth that it was deemed requisite to determine by Act of Parliament what were the proper countervailing duties that should be imposed with respect to it. Now this was a remarkable circumstance; this Act passed in 1845, after the corn law of 1842 had been three years in operation. The average duty paid upon barley, was, I believe, 5s. 11 d.; and I pray the House to attend to this preamble, for I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the framer of this Act, who is now free from the trammels of Government, and is able to vote and speak as a sugar planter to-night, will forget the obligations of the late Government, and we shall hear him advocate to-night the reduction of the differential duties of this his own preamble. The preamble concluded as follows:—
"It is necessary, therefore, to determine the same [fitting countervailing duties] by the imposition of a differential duty of 1s. 2d. upon spirits the produce of the Channel Islands."
So, here we have the Government of Sir Robert Peel, in the year 1845, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, contriving to bring in a Bill to settle this great question, and inserting in the preamble of their Bill a clause, if not setting forth the motives of the arrangement, at least distinctly stating that it was fitting that the countervailing burdens in the case of the Channel Islands should be met by a 1s. 2d. differential duty. Now, Sir, I do not pretend to answer for the votes of any Gentleman in this House, or account for any changes of opinion; but there must be a great revolution in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer between the time when he was in Office, a servant of the public, and now, when he is free to act as he pleases—to support, if he can, this proposition to reduce that differential duty imposed by this Act, from 1s. 2d. to 4d. Sir, it will be argued by the right hon. Gentleman, that the average duty upon barley is 5s. 11 d and that that must be taken as a part of the countervailing duty, because no duty is paid upon it in the Channel Islands. But when the distillers claimed 1s. 2d. as a set-off, it was 1s. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the one shilling duty on barley, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I agree entirely with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that the one shilling duty
552
cannot be taken into account—that is no charge upon the distiller." So, here we have this avowal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the duties on corn are paid by the foreigner. That is what I always insisted on; and, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman takes a leaf out of my book, when I am talking about rum I may be permitted to remind him of this avowal on future occasions, when I am discussing these financial questions, that the duty on foreign imports is paid by the foreigner and not by the consumer in this country. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin. He took great credit to himself, and great credit to the Irish Members, that in repealing the corn laws two years ago, they had, for the sake of the manufacturers of England, inflicted on themselves a burden amounting to 3,000,000 l. annually, and, therefore, he argued that the Irish Members and Irish people were entitled to great mercy from the House of Commons for this voluntary sacrifice. But the hon. Gentleman ought to know that from the protectionist party—from the hon. Gentlemen around me, they are not entitled to any mercy at all. How does the case stand? Why, that about 28 only out of 105 Irish Members tried to ward off from Ireland that heavy blow, by which a loss of 3,000,000 l. annually was inflicted in perpetuity. I was one of those who used an humble endeavour to dissuade the Irish Members from taking this fatal step; but in vain. So do not let the Irish Members come to us now and tell us that Ireland was the country which suffered first and heaviest from the repeal of the corn laws. Let them not come and ask us English Gentlemen for money because you, Irish Members, in the earnestness to carry out a theory and to support a Government, forgot the interests of your own country. No, Sir, there will be no mercy from this side of the House upon those grounds. The only mercy that I can conceive could be shown to Ireland would be, if some omnipotent power would altogether change its representation. Without that, I see no hope of rescuing a country whose Members imposed upon it a burden of 3,000,000 l. a year in perpetuity, in order to please the Government of the day. But, Sir, with regard to the question immediately before the House, I avow that neither the Irish distillers, nor

553
the Scotch distillers, nor the British distillers, nor any sect or party in this country, have my sympathies. My wishes do not lean to one side or the other; all I wish to see is justice fairly and impartially dealt out to all. I wish to see this question, like all others, tried upon its real merits, and a real not a merely nominal equality established. For instance, no man feels more strongly than I do that the West Indies has been through our own policy brought to beggary and ruin; but I will not seek to retrieve them at the expense of any other class. I will not sit in this House to set one class against another, nor help the planters in the Mauritius and West Indies to prey upon the English, Scotch, and Irish distillers. If justice is to be done at all let it be done in a fair and open way, and let us not endeavour to shift the burden upon the British distillers. But it has always been a part of the Government policy to set class against class. As regards the effect which those duties would have upon the West Indies, there was a letter addressed by Mr. Greene to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it will not be denied that Mr. Greene is the very highest authority upon this question, yet he thought that the great boon which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) said was equal to 1s. 6d. per cwt. weight upon sugar was (and he proved it to demonstration) only equal to threepence-farthing per cwt. in sugar to the West Indies, to the East Indies one Penny and three-eighths, and that to the Mauritius the great boon did not exceed two-fifths of a penny. How any person can come to a different conclusion from that of Mr. Greene I am at a loss to understand, unless he assume that the West Indies are to get the whole duty. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Barkly), thinks the planter will get the whole duty; and here I must say, that as far as the West Indian question is concerned, I do not know any Member that has done more mischief than the hon. Member, for his speech furnished the only peg upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite could hang an argument. The hon. Gentleman agreed that if a differential duty of 10 s. were to be imposed for more than two or three years, the planters would not get the benefit of it, but the labourer. Now I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he draws the line of distinction between the permanent differential duty on sugar, and the permanent differential duty on rum. Does he think
554
that the Creoles will not find out that the West Indians obtained that great boon from the reduction of the differential duty on rum which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing promises? If the argument upon which the Government relies be that the negroes will demand higher wages in cases of a permanent differential duty in favour of colonial sugar, then I think that argument equally applies to the case of rum. It is true that when the report of the Committee upon this subject was drawn up, there was understood to be a majority upon the Committee in favour of a differential duty of 10 s. upon sugar. It is also true that colonial sugar then went up 2s. per cwt., and that foreign sugar fell 1s. 6d.; but I never heard that the recommendation of the Chairman, which was rejected by a majority of nine to five, had an effect upon the price of rum, which since then has had a downward tendency. But with respect to this question, and the boon which the West Indies are to gain, hon. Gentlemen ought to know that they cannot have more of the cat than the skin, and that if the whole amount of the boon is to be 65,000 l., that 65,000 l. is to be divided between the East Indies, the West Indies, and the Mauritius: in the opinion of Mr. Greene the amount of such boon is not greater than 43,000 l. Now, Sir, I have shown the House that this boon, of which so much has been said, is almost valueless. I have shown that the distillers are already under great disadvantages; and I maintain again that you have no right to oppress the British distillers because they may happen to be a wealthier or a poorer class than the West Indian planters, in order to benefit any party, or class, or section of Her Majesty's subjects. You ought to deal out justice to all parties without favour or affection. I say once were that I will never, whilst I have the honour of a seat in this House, advocate the interests of any one class against another, and that I will never countenance the principle that English, Irish, and Scotch are to be burdened and oppressed in order to benefit their fellow-subjects on the other side of the Indian seas; or that the West Indians are upon the other hand to be unjustly burdened for the sake of any class in these islands. But I defy any man to show that if the duties are altered, the duty will then be fairly assessed between the British distillers on the one side, and the West Indians on the other. If the West Indian deserves and

555
needs compensation, give it to him fairly and honestly—give it to him not at the cost of his fellow-subjects, but give him compensation at the cost of the slave-traders and slave planters in Cuba and in Brazil.
MR. GOULBURNdid not advocate the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he looked upon it as a compensation given to the West Indians for the losses they had sustained; but he advocated the proposition because he believed it was a just settlement between two classes of their fellow-subjects who produced similar articles, and had a right to stand on the same footing. The question for the House was one which was to be decided by a calculation of the duties and restrictions imposed upon the two articles which were the subjects of legislation; an he entertained the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had made on the whole a fair calculation upon the subject. If he had any objection to that calculation, it was this—that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the British distillers. With regard to the difficulty imposed upon the British distillers by the restrictions of the Excise, he could not agree altogether in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must certainly be admitted that the effect of the collection of the excise duty upon the manufacture of an article, is, in some respects, calculated to produce inconvenience to the manufacturer; but there are some respects in which it is of the greatest advantage to a manufacturer to have the supervision of the Excise, and in no article is that more observable than in the article of spirits. The Excise supervision gave an additional guard to the proprietor of the manufactory against the frauds which could be so easily committed by the servants he employed in that manufactory. The Government wag protected from the abstraction of a quart of spirits, on which they were entitled to receive duty; but, at the same time the manufacturer was guarded from the frauds that might be committed upon him by those who possibly might be inclined to abstract gallons if no duty were charged upon it. He knew it was said that a great hardship was inflicted upon the distillers by the penalties that were imposed upon every step they took in the manufacture of spirits; but it should be recollected that these penalties were not frequently exacted, but were held out in
556
terrorem, to protect the honest trader from the fraudulent one. He begged, in support of his view of the subject, to call the attention of the House to the state of the soap duties in this country. The soap excise duty is 1½d. per lb. on hard soap, and 1d. per lb. on soft soap. And what was the regulation with regard to the soap of the British colonies? They imposed a duty of 1½d. on hard soap, and only 1d. on soft soap; precisely the amount of duty levied in this country, not taking into consideration in any degree the restrictions which the Excise imposed on the manufacturer in this country; and he never yet heard it complained of any manufacturer of soap in this country that he was likely to be ruined by the competition of Canada, or Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick. But look how the matter stood with respect to Ireland. In Ireland there was no soap duty at all—there was no restriction on the manufacturer—he had every advantage possessed by the manufacturer in this country. The commodities and labour were cheaper; and was there any countervailing duty imposed upon him? The Irish were permitted to introduce their soap at a duty of 1½d. for hard soap, and of 1d. for soft soap; and what was the consequence? Did Ireland overflow this country with soap? No; but England sent into Ireland a very great quantity of soap every year. When they had to deal with West India rum, was it right that the excise restrictions were to be made a subject for compensation? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the restrictions upon soap were less than the restrictions upon spirits? Did they ever hear of the enormous penalties imposed in every stage of the soap manufacture? A man could not open a copper without leave, and the penalties were far more severe than those imposed on spirits. He would next refer to the question of the decreases; and he must say that he differed from the opinion expressed by the noble Lord with respect to the conduct of the Chairman of Excise, who was examined by the Committee on Sugar. The noble Lord said the evidence of the Chairman of Excise was to be taken as nothing, because he expressed himself diffidently. [Lord GEORGE BENTINCK had stated that the Chairman of the Excise had expressed himself diffidently as to his opinion upon the restrictions, but most positively upon certain matters of fact, and that on all those matters of fact he was wrong four cases to one.] He considered that the man who expressed himself

557
with diffidence, and admitted that he found it difficult to ascertain the exact amount of decrease, was the man of all others on whom they should be most inclined to rely; and that was exactly (on matters of opinion) what had been done by the Chairman of the Excise. The noble Lord said the Chairman of the Excise had the assistance of an attendant who was whispering in his ear; but they all know perfectly well that all questions connected with distillers were best understood by those who conducted the practical operations of distilleries; and in every instance he had attended of a Committee in which the Excise business was the subject of discussion, the Surveyor General or some inferior officer of Excise was in attendance to assist the Chairman. What they maintained was this, that, taking the whole course for a long-period, on which alone an average could be ascertained, the amount was loss than was allowed by the Chairman of the Excise and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would say, therefore, that, allowing for the leakage, there was no ground for objecting to the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as between the distillers in the colonies and in this country. His own views on the question of rum and British spirits had been known ever since 1830, when he proposed his measure for the reduction of the duties on rum. The noble Lord had objected to his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, for having quoted an anonymous pamphlet; but the part which his hon. Friend quoted was word for word the report of the Commission that had been appointed by the Crown on this subject. It had been said also, that they had paid too much attention to the views of the Commissioners of Excise; but if there were any party who should be more jealous of the Commissioners of Excise than another, it was the colonial producer, because the part of their labour which the Excise Commissioners found most satisfactory was clearly the collection of the duty on English spirits, seeing that it was all paid without trouble by eight great houses. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee; but before sitting down he must say that he had heard with some regret an expression that had been used by the hon. Member for Dublin. That hon. Gentleman, as representing an Irish constituency, talked throughout his speech of "your colonies." He would maintain that the colonies were
558
as much the property of Ireland as of England—that they were maintained as much for the advantage of Ireland as of this country; and he could not, therefore, consider any benefit conferred on the colonies in any other light than as an advantage conferred on children of the united kingdom who had embarked their capital in cultivation in a distant country. As he regarded the proposition as one based on justice and sound policy, he trusted that it would receive the approbation not only of the House but of the country.
MR. FORBEScould not help remembering the arguments used on this question in 1847 by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then proposed a duty of 9d., though he said that 7d. would be strict justice. The noble Lord had stated that the Chairman of the Excise had fenced with the question; but he thought that a man who did so had some fixed view to maintain, and the Chairman of Excise had shown no symptom of that. He could not conceive how either the present or the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could not approve of a 4d. duty, after formerly supporting a duty of 1s. 2d.
The Committee divided on the question, that the Chairman do leave the chair:—Ayes 75; Noes 168: Majority 93.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Gore, W. R. O.

Archdall, Capt.

Granby, Marq. of

Baldock, E. H.

Greene, T.

Bateson, T.

Grogan, E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gwyn, H.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Halsey, T. P.

Beresford, W.

Hastie, A.

Bourke, R. S.

Henley, J. W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Herbert, H. A.

Bremridge, R.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Broadley, H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hood, Sir A.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Hudson, G.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Ingestre, Visct.

Cowan, C.

Jones, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Keogh, W.

Devereux, J. T.

Knox, Col.

Dick, Q.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Disraeli, B.

Lockhart, W.

Duncan, G.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Dunne, F. P.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Emlyn, Visct.

M'Gregor, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Manners, Lord G.

Farrer, J.

Masterman, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Monsell, W.

Floyer, J.

Morgan, O.

Fox, R. M.

Napier, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Newdegate, C. N.

Galway, Visct.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Gordon, Adm.

Nugent, Sir P.

559

O'Brien, Sir L.

Sturt, H. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Sullivan, M.

Reynolds, J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Sadlier, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Scott, hon. F.

Wodehouse, E.

Scully, F.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Capt.

Fagan, W.

Spooner, R.

Forbes, W.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Greene, T.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Grenfell, C. W.

Adair, R. A. S.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Anson, hon. Col.

Grey, R. W.

Anson, Visct.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hall, Sir B.

Armstrong, R. B.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Baines, M. T.

Hastie, A.

Barkly, H.

Hawes, B.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Hay, Lord J.

Bellew, R. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Benbow, J.

Headlam, T. E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Henry, A.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Hervey, Lord A.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Heywood, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Boyd, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hodges, T. L.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Brockman, E. D.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Brown, W.

Howard, P. H.

Browne, R. D.

Howard, Sir R.

Buller, C.

Hutt, W.

Butler, P. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cardwell, E.

Jervis, Sir J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cavendish, W. G.

Kershaw, J.

Childers, J. W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Clay, J.

Lacy, H. C.

Clifford, H. M.

Langston, J. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Compton, H C.

Legh, G. C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Craig, W. G.

Lewis, G. C.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Dashwood, G. H.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Lockhart, A. E.

Deedes, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Denison, J. E.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Marshall, J. G.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Matheson, A.

Duncuft, J.

Matheson, Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Dundas, Sir D.

Miles, P. W. S.

East, Sir J. B.

Milner, W. M. E.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mitchell, T. A.

Egerton, Sir P.

Moody, C. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Morpeth, Visct.

Euston, Earl of

Morris, D.

Evans, Sir De L.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Paget, Lord C.

Foley, J. H. H.

Paget, Lord G.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Freestun, Col.

Parker, J.

Frewen, C. H.

Patten, J. W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Pechell, Capt.

Glyn, G. C.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Godson, R.

Perfect, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pigott, F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pilkington, J.

560

Pinney, W.

Thompson, Col.

Pugh, D.

Thornely, T.

Pusey, P.

Tollemache, hon. J. F.

Raphael, A.

Towneley, J.

Reid, Col.

Towneley, R. G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Turner, E.

Ricardo, O.

Turner, G. J.

Rice, E. R.

Tynte, Col.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Verney, Sir H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Vivian, J. H.

Rumbold, C. E.

Ward, H. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Willcox, B. M.

Russell, F. C. H.

Williams, J.

Rutherfurd, A.

Wilson, J.

Sandars, J.

Wilson, M.

Seymer, H. K.

Wood, rt. hn. Sir C.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wood, W. P.

Shelburne, Earl of

Wyld, J.

Simeon, J.

Wyvill, M.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Spearman, H. J.

TELLERS.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Tufnell, H.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Rich, H.

Original question again proposed.
MR. MONSELL MR. MONSELL moved that the Chair, man report progress.
MR. LABOUCHEREdeprecated the course of moving adjournments at that hour, which was becoming, not as formerly, the exception, but the rule of the House, to the prevention of business. In the single combat, as it had been designated, which had there taken place between the Chairman of Excise and the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, the whole subject had been gone into in all its details; and again, the House had been discussing it the whole of that night. He hoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) would not proceed with his Motion.
MR. SADLIERhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) would persist in his Motion, He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the question had been fully discussed in the Select Committee, and he regretted that Her Majesty's Government had proposed a measure the contrary of that which the Committee had recommended.
After a lengthened discussion in reference chiefly to a supposed promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Irish Members, which the right hon. Gentleman explained was misunderstood and misdescribed, in which he was supported by the Irish Members who had waited on him.
The Committee divided on the question, that the Chairman do now report progress:—Ayes 48; Noes 127: Majority 79.
[It will suffice that we insert the Ayes only of the last of these two divisions.]
On the original question being again put.
COLONEL DUNNE COLONEL DUNNE moved that the Chairman do leave the chair.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 125; Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Hudson, G.

Archdall, Capt.

Ingestre, Visct.

Arkwright, G.

Jones, Capt.

Baldock, E. H.

Keogh, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Knox, Col.

Boyd, J.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Butler, P. S.

M'Gregor, J.

Callaghan, D.

Monsell, W.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Nugent, Sir P.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Devereux, J. T.

Reynolds, J.

Fagan, W.

Sadlier, J.

Floyer, J.

Scott, hon. F.

Galway, Visct.

Scully, F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gooch, E. S.

Spooner, R.

Greene, J.

Sullivan, M.

Gwyn, H.

Taylor, T. E.

Halsey, T. P.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hastie, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Haves, Sir E.

Wawn, J. T.

Henley, J. W.

Herbert, H. A.

TELLERS.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Dunne, Col.

Hodgson, W. N.

Fox, R. M.

Original question again put, and after some discussion as to the further proceeding then or the next day at noon, part of which took place with closed doors, the Committee divided;—Ayes 116; Noes 37: Majority 79.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Ebrington, Visct.

Anson, hon. Col.

Elliot; hon. J. E.

Arkwright, G.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Armstrong, R. B.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Baines, M. T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Barkly, H.

Foley, J. H. H.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Freestun, Col.

Bellew, R. M.

Frewen, C. H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Glyn, G. C.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Godson, R.

Bowling, Dr.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brockman, E. D.

Greene, T.

Brotherton, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Brown, W.

Grey, R. W.

Buller, C.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Cardwell, E.

Hall, Sir B.

Carew, W. H. P.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Childers, J. W.

Hastie, A.

Compton, H. C.

Hawes, B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hayter, W. G.

Craig, W. G.

Henry, A.

Dashwood, G. H.

Hervey, Lord A.

Deedes, W.

Hoywood, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Duncuft, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Dundas, Adm.

Howard, hon. J. k.

Dundas, Sir D.

Howard, P. H.

562

Jervis, Sir J.

Romilly, Sir J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Rumbold, C. E.

Lacy, H. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Rutherfurd, A.

Lewis, G. C.

Sandars, J.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Scholefield, W.

Lockhart, A. E.

Seymer, H. K.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Shelburne, Earl of

Marshall, J. G.

Simeon, J.

Masterman, J.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Matheson, Col.

Spearman, H. J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Miles, P. W. S.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Milner, W. M. E.

Thompson, Col.

Morpeth, Visct.

Thornely, T.

Morris, D.

Turner, G. J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Tynte, Col.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Willcox, B. M.

Paget, Lord C.

Williams, J.

Paget, Lord G.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wilson, J.

Parker, J.

Wilson, M.

Patten, J. W.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pechell, Capt.

Wood, W. P.

Pigott, F.

Wyld, J.

Pilkington, J.

Wyvill, M.

Pinney, W.

Raphael, A.

TELLERS.

Ricardo, O.

Tufnell, H.

Rice, E. R.

Rich, H.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Ingestre, Visct.

Archdall, Capt.

Jones, Capt.

Baldock, E H.

M'Gregor, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Monsell, W.

Butler, P. S.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Callaghan, D.

Nugent, Sir P.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

O'Connell, M. J.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Reynolds, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Sadlier, J.

Devereux, J. T.

Scott, hon. F.

Duncan, G.

Scully, E.

Fagan, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Floyer, J.

Sturt, H. G.

Fox, R. M.

Sullivan, M.

Galway, Visct

Taylor, T. E.

Greene, J.

Tyrell, Sir, J. T.

Grogan, F.

Waddington, H. S.

Halsey, T. P.

TELLERS.

Hayes, Sir E.

Dunne, Col.

Herbert, H. A.

Keogh, W.

Resolutions agreed to.
House resumed. Report to he received.
House adjourned at a quarter to Throe o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Wigan; The Earl of Macclesfield.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Wolverhampton Curacy.
2a Appeals on Civil Bills (Dublin).
Reported.—Officers of Courts of Justice (Ireland) Assimilation of Appointments.
3a County Cess (Ireland); Criminal Law Administration Amendment; Canada Union Act Amendment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Committee of Management of the Warwick County Asylum for the Adoption of Measures for the Reformation of Juvenile Offenders.—From the Presbytery of Garioch, for the Amendment of the Present System of granting Spirit Licenses, and that Toll Houses may be excluded altogether from the Privilege of Licenses From several Odd Fellows' Lodges, for the Extension of the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—From Distillers, against any Alteration of the Differential Duties between Home and Colonial Spirits.

SPAIN.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: My object in asking the question, of which I have given notice, is the alarm which I feel at the report that this proceeding of shooting General Alzaa will revive the horrors of the former civil war in Spain, so justly condemned by this country, and so happily, I thought, for ever put an end to by that humane convention, which has, to the honour of the individual who accomplished it, obtained the appellation of the Eliot Convention. This sanguinary act by the Christino troops seems to have been followed up by General Elio, as a reprisal, shooting twelve civic guards, which makes one believe that we shall see those atrocities renewed which were so fearful in the late war. It seems that the Carlist forces

505
are organising again in Navarre. The inhuman practice I have alluded to was begun by the Christinos shooting the mother of Cabrera; and possibly this act towards General Alzaa may be only the commencement of similar slaughter. Every one must surely deplore the state of our present relations with Spain, more especially if we are cut off from all communication of an official character with the Government of that country. To be shut out by any circumstances from that interesting part of the Continent, in which of late years we have taken so prominent and extraordinary a part, seems most unfortunate, not alone in relation to friendly communications, but especially in relation to our commerce. The unhappy differences that closed the career of M. Isturitz in this country have never been explained. This House and the country have surely a right to know in what position our affairs stand now with Spain. I understood from a noble Lord the leader of a great party in this House, that he would bring on a discussion on this subject. The Session, however, seems drawing to a close, and one hears no more of it; and yet how do we stand as to the Spanish papers and correspondence which have been laid on the table? I must say there has been as great inclination to suppress and garble documents in the department of the Foreign Office as has been shown with respect to the Colonial Office. In the first series of papers there was a suppression of a very important despatch. It appeared, however, in the Journals. I moved for it, and it was produced in the second series—I moan the despatch of the Duke of Soto-mayor to the Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty, dated April 15. This despatch was most important in answering Mr. H. Bulwer's letter of the 12th of March, ably and unreservedly; and, secondly, in establishing the fact, that we not only have pursued a system of interfering in Spain, but that we actually called upon and insisted upon Spain interfering in Portugal; and, thirdly, the indignation felt by Spain at our throwing in her teeth, in these latter days, our having aided in placing Queen Isabella on the throne. This important despatch was at length squeezed out. But why was it delayed at first? With respect to answers to almost all the remaining correspondence, we are left officially much in the dark. We have now all our own story, but not one word of the Spanish injuries and complaints.
506
We have seen, as before, a very long letter condemning various statements and charges. Whether true or not, Her Majesty's Ministers will afford us no means of investigating; and it is from seeing the impossibility of getting information as to all these points, and our actual relations with Spain, that I have felt it my duty, from the interest I have ever taken in these concerns, to put this question, namely, whether the Government had any means of ascertaining from our Consuls in Spain, or from any attaché, what was passing in that country?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the question of the noble Marquess was this, whether Her Majesty's Government was in a condition which would enable them to furnish the House with any information with respect to Spain? He would not take upon himself to say that Her Majesty's Government was in a condition to answer all the questions which might he put to them with respect to Spain; but in reference to the particular matter to which the noble Marquess had alluded, he had no hesitation in telling the noble Marquess that the Government was in possession, through a consular agent, of the fact that one Carlist general had been put to death—in fact, that some of those unfortunate practices which heretofore had prevailed in Spain, had been revived. He could only say that this Carlist general had been shot before an answer could be received to a remonstrance which had been sent to Madrid on the subject. But, in fact, if Her Majesty's Government, had received any information, it would have been quite impossible for it to have interfered. He could only say that he viewed this proceeding, as everybody must, with the highest disapprobation.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, he could perfectly understand what the noble Marquess meant when he stated that the Government were not authorised to interfere in respect to the internal affairs of Spain; but he could not but remember that the present Government of this country had a considerable advantage over their predecessors who formed the Government during the late civil war in Spain. He begged to remind the noble Marquess that the Pretender to the Crown of Spain was at this moment a resident in London, under the protection of Her Majesty's Government; whereas during former times Don Carlos was not in this country, and was, therefore, an independent party in

507
Spain, and could not be interfered with but by a commission such as was sent by the noble Duke to Spain. But he (Lord Malmesbury) hoped that if Her Majesty's Government had any authority with the Pretender, they would exercise it; and he was sure their suggestions would be listened to: he hoped they would induce him to recall those emigrants and partisans who had gone out to Spain, and who were perishing in the most miserable manner. He was sure that those parties would not risk their lives if they received positive orders from the Spanish Pretender not to persist in their undertaking.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, it was perhaps incorrect on his part to add anything to what he had already stated; but as the noble Earl had adverted to the first point connected with the question of the noble Marquess, he wished to correct a misapprehension which the noble Earl seemed to be under. In the first place, though it was known perfectly well that the person referred to was now resident in this country, the Government had no right to impute to him that he was at this moment the Pretender to the Crown of Spain; and, least of all, that he exercised a control over the operations carrying on in Spain, or that he was chargeable with the character of those operations. But if he did consider himself to be the Pretender to the throne of Spain, we had no right to assume even this. Her Majesty's Government could not recognise him as exercising authority in Spain; and they had no reason to believe that at this moment he assumed such a right as that which was imputed to him.

LAW OF ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL LORD CAMPBELL moved the Committee on this Bill.
The EARL of HADDINGTONadmitted that the present law of entail in Scotland was defective; but he saw many objections to this Bill, which, he regretted to say, trampled on vested rights, which ought to have been protected in that House. He was aware that his opposition to the Bill, supported as it was by the Government and by a large majority of their Lordships, would be fruitless. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his surprise that the noble Earl, having admitted the defects of the present law, should seek
508
to perpetuate them by opposing this measure. He should resist the Amendment of the noble Earl.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEsaid, he did not mean to deny there were many advantages connected with an alteration in the law of entail; but the present measure, to effect that object, constituted one of the worst invasions of private rights that had ever been presented to their Lordships. In almost every other instance where Parliament had interfered compulsorily with the rights of property, they had taken care that the parties interfered with obtained compensation. But this Bill not only proposed to interfere with future entails, as to which he did not himself object, but it proposed to interfere with existing entails, under which parties might be entitled to rights though they were not in the actual possession of them. The question between him and the owners of the Bill he admitted was only one of degree; but it appeared to him that when they permitted an heir of entail, with consent of three of his sons, to bar the rights of all other relations, they conferred a right which went beyond the necessities of the case, for he had heard nothing to satisfy him that the rights of a fourth son, for instance, could not be estimated as well as the rights of nearer heirs. He thought, therefore, that this Bill dealt in too summary a manner with those rights; at the same time he did not wish to stand in the way of the Bill going into Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, there was a strong advantage in the English over the Scotch law of entail, as it was adapted to two great ends, both of which were of considerable importance. The one was that land was not tied up in so strict a manner as to take it out of the reach of commerce, while at the same time it was sufficiently stringent to provide adequately for the maintenance of the great families of the country, which was of great importance in a monarchical conntry like this. He, therefore, thought some alteration in the law of entail in Scotland was advisable, though he must confess he was not altogether prepared for such a sweeping measure. He thought Parliament was entitled to deal as it pleased with future entails; but he had strong objections to giving the measure a retrospective operation. He did not think that either his recollection or his reading afforded any example of so vast a change being effected in the legal bearings of property as was proposed in this Bill. For

509
the Bill not only prevented persons from entailing their lands in future, but it went backward, and said that all entails now existing in Scotland should be liable to be broken, and treated as if they had been entailed according to the English instead of the Scotch law. If this change were accomplished, the position of Scotland and England, with respect to the law of entail, would be reversed, and they would give the Scotch proprietor more power over existing entails than the English proprietor had. He, therefore, could not agree to this change without opening his eyes to the consequences; and yet, upon the whole, he felt he would not oppose it.
LORD CAMPBELLreminded his noble and learned Friend that the English law of entail, as enacted by Edward L, under the statute De Donis Conditionalibus, was as stringent as the Scotch law, till the whole was overset by one decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Tarleton's case. This measure only proposed to do constitutionally by Parliament what had before been done irregularly by a decision of a court of law.
Motion negatived. Bill to be reported.

CANADA UNION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved the Third Reading of this Bill.
LORD STANLEYdid not moan to oppose this Bill, but he could not allow this measure to pass without expressing his regret that this Bill did not provide for our language being used in the courts of law in the United Provinces of Canada. He considered that this would be a serious disadvantage in the operation of the Act, by which the ends of the union would be altogether frustrated, and a permanent barrier would be raised up between two portions of the country, whose amalgamation was essential to the welfare of both.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not admit that the measure would have this effect. The information he had received from his noble Friend the Governor General of Canada was, that the existing state of the law defeated its own object—that it kept up a state of law directly the contrary of their object—and that instead of erasing the distinctions of race it made them only the more marked and obvious. He admitted that it would be an advantage if one language were used in the official records throughout Canada; but he attached still more importance to the principle of allowing all their local concerns to be regulated
510
according to the wishes and feelings of the people of Canada. He therefore could not doubt that this measure, which had been recommended by three successive Governors General, would receive the sanction of Parliament. He was happy to say that the privileges accorded to the Canadians of being allowed to manage their own internal affairs, had been very successful in reconciling all classes in the colony to the existing system of government, and to cause them to regard with warm attachment this country. Her Majesty, and the institutions under which they lived; ill proof of which he referred to several memorials and grand-jury addresses that had lately been received from both the French and English portions of the population. All the attempts that had been made, even during the recent events in Europe, to produce agitation in Canada, had totally failed, and the colony now enjoyed a degree of peace and of general content which he believed had never before prevailed. These were the results of allowing the Canadians to manage their own affairs: he was persuaded that the principle was right and just in itself, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to it.
Bill 3a, and passed.
House adjourned.