Sitting of 9 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Attornies and Solicitors Certificate Duty; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions.
2° Arrest of Absconding Debtors; Law of Evidence Amendment; Turnpike Acts Continuance.

COLONIAL PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. TUFNELLsaid, he believed that at this stage of the hon. Member for Gateshead's (Mr. Hutt's) Bill, he was permitted, according to the forms of the House, to move the Instruction of which he had given notice. He had to apologise to the House for intruding upon its time on the present occasion; and the more so as, after the declaration of his noble Friend at the head of the Ministry in the early part of the present Session, and the intentions he had expressed of considering the extension of the suffrage on an early opportunity, he little thought it would have been his lot to have supported, still less to have proposed, in the present Session, any question touching the reform of our representative system. He would have been quite ready to have left the whole matter in the hands of his noble Friend, who was the person best qualified to bring it forward, and who alone, as he believed, possessed either the experience to devise a scheme, or the influence to carry it into effect. For this reason he had voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) in the early part of this Session; not because he disapproved of extending the right of suffrage in counties to 10 l. householders, but because, after the intimation given by his noble Friend, he considered it most inexpedient to raise questions of that nature at present. But when the hon. Member for Gateshead introduced a Bill, which, in his humble opinion, tended to extend and give additional Parliamentary sanction to a system which he considered utterly unsound, he felt it his duty to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a still wider question, and appealing to Parliament as to whether a property qualification was any longer necessary to be preserved. In order to place the matter fully before the House, he would first go through the Acts under which the qualification was established. The period of our history at which it was
394
introduced was one of the last which he should be willing to search for constitutional precedents. He would describe that period in no language of his own, but in terms far more forcible and of greater weight than any he could have used, by referring to an Essay on the Constitution, published by his noble Friend at the head of the Ministry, who thus characterises the period when this restriction on the free choice of members by the constituent body was first imposed:—
"Aud here begins the history of those last few years of Queen Anne, in which the press was restrained, intolerance favoured, our allies deserted, our enemies encouraged, and a disadvantageous peace concluded: indeed, had not Queen Anne died before the measures of the Jacobites were prepared, the Elector of Hanover might never have been enabled to ascend the Throne to which the Act of Settlement had called him."
The Act of 9 Anne, c. 5, which was passed at this disgraceful period of our history, was not, he believed, introduced with any view of promoting the general welfare of the country, but for mere party purposes, and in fact to pave the way for the restoration of the Stuart dynasty. In proof of this, he would quote the words used by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) when the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) brought forward a similar Motion in 1837, on which occasion he is reported to have said—
"The change, with respect to qualification, was effected in the reign of Queen Anne, owing to the jealousy which then unfortunately prevailed between the landed and the trading interest. The trading interest was known to be favourable to the Hanoverian succession, and to those principles of liberal policy which did not suit the taste of the landed gentry; and it was to check the increase of the trading influence that the landed interest introduced this innovation into our Parliamentary system." [3 Hansard, xxxvi.548.]
The Act was not indeed extended to Scotland; and Tindal, in his History of the Reign of Queen Anne, expresses an opinion that the reason for this was the small-ness of the landed property in that part of the Kingdom; but perhaps it might be accounted for from the well-known inclination of the great majority of the Scotch gentry towards the House of Stuart, which rendered it superfluous to take any additional precautions for ensuring the return of a Jacobite Parliament. But the Act of 9 Anne, which merely obliged a Member to swear to his qualification, if required, was found to be totally inoperative. The petitions against Members for the want of

395
qualifications were abandoned, and it was found necessary, in 1717, to amend the Act by the somewhat extraordinary method of a Standing Order of the House, requiring the Member petitioned against to state the rental and particulars of his qualification, by what conveyance or act of law he claimed the same, and the names and residences of the witnesses to the conveyance and payment. It was not, however, till 1760, by the Act of 33 George II., c. 20, that the House obtained direct cognisance of the matter. By this Act every Member was required, before taking his seat, to deliver to the Clerk of the House a paper stating in what parish and county his qualification was situated, and also requiring him to swear to the truth of his statement. Thus, a vicious system once introduced, by degrees was more stringently enforced, and no change was attempted between 1760 and the Scotch Reform Bill of 1832, when it was proposed to subject Scotland to the same restrictions which had been imposed on English constituencies, in exacting a qualification of 400 l. a year from Members of Scotch counties. The Lord Advocate of the day—the late Lord Jeffrey, one of the most distinguished men who ever filled that office—with a frankness that did him infinite honour, before attempting to pass the clause, consulted his countrymen as to the proposed measure. The result of his inquiry I will give in his own words, from Hansard:—
"The Lord Advocate admitted that there had not been much time to take the opinion of Scotland upon this clause, but the time that had elapsed had been industriously employed for that purpose. As soon as the clause had been printed, he sent off 250 copies to the different boroughs in Scotland for their consideration. Among the answers he had received (thirty-six in number) there was not one which approved of the proposed in-crease in the amount of the qualification, but every one of them exclaimed against it. He was sure that the rules as to qualification had not been of benefit in England; but he was even more fully convinced that, if they had been innocuous here, they would be actually injurious in Scotland."—[3 Hansard, xiii. 1060.]
He (Mr. Tufnell) had no doubt but that if the people of England had been appealed to in a similar manner, they would have returned as indignant a remonstrance as the constituencies of Scotland against this attempt to restrict them in the free choice of their representatives. Even during the present Session a remarkable scene, had been witnessed, when the Members for Cork, Boston, and Leith, took their seats on the same day—the two former being
396
Obliged to produce their qualifications, whilst the right hon. and, learned Lord Advocate, as Member for Leith, took his seat without passing through any such ordeal. It was impossible to defend such anomalies in our constitution, or to maintain, for any length of time, a different system in the two countries. In 1837 the hon. Baronet now Member for Southwark, had introduced a measure similar to that to which he now called the attention of the House, and in a most able speech had shown the injustice and absurdity of the present system. Although the Motion of his hon. Friend was not then carried, still the discussion had been most useful, and led in the following year to the introduction of Mr. Warburton's Bill, which to a certain extent mitigated the rigour of former Acts, by allowing personal property as well as real property to serve as a qualification for a seat in that House. But the Act was so framed as to open the door still wider than had originally been intended. The Standing Order of 1717 was no longer enforced, a declaration was substituted for an oath; and so loose and vague a description of property was required, that a candidate might completely comply with the requirements of the Act, and, at the same time, defy the most sharpwitted Committee to find out whether his qualifications were valid or not. It did indeed sometimes happen that, through the ignorance or blunder of his solicitor, an innocent Member, possessing substantially every qualification, might become a victim to the absurd state of the law, and lose his seat. An instance of this had been seen in the present Session, where Mr. Prinsep, who filled the important station of an East India Director, and who in order to be elected to that office must be qualified by the possession of 2,000 l. in East India stock—now worth between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l. in the market, and returning an income of 200 l. a year—was turned out of Parliament in consequence of not having made out a sufficient qualification. His qualification was stated to be a pension of 1,000 l. per annum, and a mansion in Hyde Park Gardens, in the county of Middlesex. The pension he had purchased by annual contributions whilst he was in the service of the East India Company; but the corpus of the fund being in India and not in England, the Committee very properly decided that it gave him no qualification. The house having been ascertained to be mortgaged, was also clearly insufficient. If his

397
attorney, possessing the wisdom of the serpent, had, instead of giving this accurate description of the premises, merely stated all that was necessary under the provisions of the Act 1 and 2 Victoria, c. 48, and described the qualification as consisting of "Leasehold Estate in the Parish of Paddington, in the County of Middlesex,'' it would have been morally impossible to have disproved his possession of property to the value of 300 l. a year in that parish; and the ingenuity of all the lawyers, as well as of his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), would have been completely baffled. It was thus shown, therefore, that under the present system no real safeguard existed. Indeed, upon principle, although it might be extremely proper that the elective body, who were not chosen, but at once set apart by law for the exercise of those important functions, should themselves possess a certain qualification, yet to a body thus constituted it seems ridiculous not to entrust the free choice of their representatives. The true test that should, if possible, be required for a seat in that House, would be talent, character, and habits of business: but these qualifications it was impossible for the elective body to measure by any particular standard, and property had therefore been fixed upon as the only test which could accurately be ascertained. But if the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead should pass into law, and if property, in New Zealand or South Australia should be considered as sufficient to qualify a person for a seat in this Parliament, it is evident that property would lose the only quality which made it valuable as a guarantee, and become as difficult to measure as character or talent. In the French Chamber of Deputies, under Louis Philippe, the necessary qualification was the payment of 500f. a year of direct taxation, and it was clear that if any qualification was at all desirable, this plan was infinitely better than our own, and could not as easily admit of evasion. If the present system were to be persevered in, it would be but reasonable to make the law more stringent and searching, and it was well known that the House would prove content to do so. It had been said by some that if the law could not be carried into effect, it was at least innocuous, and that therefore there was no reason for change; but was it nothing that Members should be in the habit of breaking, without the slightest hesitation, the law which they themselves had made?
398
Was it not a bad example to show to the people how that law was constantly evaded? Was it nothing to refuse to the people, without any reason, that confidence of which they were well worthy? But the law, besides being inoperative, was also clogged with exemptions offensive to the rest of the community. He had previously asked why the constituencies of England should not be allowed the same latitude of choice as those of Scotland, whose representatives were not inferior in character, talent, or station to those of any other parts of the United Kingdom. He would now ask why the Commoners of England in general should not be put on an equal footing with the eldest sons of Peers and of Bishops, with members for the Universities, and sons of persons qualified for being Knights of Shires, who might all sit in Parliament without any qualification. In the present state of public feeling these exemptions were offensive, and could not he maintained. The law, if good at all, must be universal, and affect all alike. He thought he was justified, on this occasion, in appealing for support to the Protectionists on the other side of the House, as it was notorious that many of the agricultural constituencies had expressed a strong wish to return tenant-farmers, under the impression that they were fully as capable of representing their interests in that House as the landed gentry; and, for his own part, he could not but think that an infusion' of Members of that class might be of great advantage in their deliberations. The only obstacle which stood in the way was the Qualification Act, as the tenant-farmers were too poor to possess 600 l. a year, and too honest to evade the Act by a fictitious qualification. If this barrier were once removed, the wishes of the agricultural constituencies might forthwith be realised, and he appealed therefore with confidence to Gentlemen on the opposite side to support him in his Motion. He had now shown that the law of which he complained had sprung from a corrupt and tainted source; that the promoters of the Act of 1711 were influenced by motives which he was sure would in the present day meet with no sympathy in that House; that as subsequently altered it was completely inoperative and constantly evaded; and, under these circumstances, he called upon the House to support him in his attempt to return to the old practice of the constitution, to give to the constituencies which had been created under the Reform Bill, and to those which he hoped would

399
be soon created, the liberty of returning to that House those men whom they thought best qualified by talent and character to represent their interests, and, finally, to allow the people of England and Ireland that same free and unfettered choice of their representatives which the people of Scotland enjoyed.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to provide for the abolition of any property qualification for the Election of Members to serve in Parliament.
MR. EWARTseconded the Motion. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) was entitled to credit for introducing the present Bill; but he considered the principle should be extended so as to embrace the object of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Tufnell), and that the anomaly should no longer exist, that while the Members for Scotland and for the Universities were allowed to take their seats without producing any property qualification, all other Members must show that they possessed a certain amount of property. The qualification was an unconstitutional demand, and it was time it was done away with.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid: The proposal which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tufnell) has now made comes before us, as I think, in a rather singular shape. The Bill which the House has under its consideration is a Bill for extending the qualification of Members of this House to a certain other description of property which is not now admitted as forming a qualification for Members to sit in Parliament; and my right hon. Friend's proposition is that, by way of amending that Bill, we should strike out all property qualification, and abolish the existing qualification altogether. But that is a totally different thing from the proposition involved in the Bill. It is a totally different question, whether or not there is any real utility in keeping up the present qualification for Members of Parliament; and I think my right hon. Friend's arguments on that point are arguments which have in them a great deal of weight. As my right hon. Friend has alleged, there was in former times reality in the provision that those who represented shires should be knights girt with swords; and that the representatives for boroughs should be burgesses belonging to and residing in the boroughs for which they were elected. That was a qualification which was no doubt a reality, and so long as it was in
400
accordance with the state of society it might have been desirable to continue that law. But the state of society, as it was in those times, does not exist now. The knights girt with swords no longer appear here as the representatives of the shires, nor are the representatives of the boroughs in general burgesses residing in those boroughs. So far, then, circumstances have altered; and, so far as they are concerned, Parliament has abolished the provision with regard to boroughs, so that a person not residing in the borough and not being a burgess may he elected and sit as its representative. But in the reign of Queen Anne, Parliament, being jealous of the increasing influence of trade and commerce, thought of a new qualification, and the restriction then imposed appears to me to be at variance with the ancient formation of Parliament; for, as the citizens and burgesses representing cities and boroughs were previously required to he persons residing and trading in those cities and boroughs, and whose property was only in their trade—the manufactures and wares in which they dealt—it was then insisted that henceforward they should be landowners, possessing a certain property qualification in land. That provision, I hold, was a very unadvisable one; but it was one, no doubt, intended to strengthen the landed interest in this country. The law became certainly in a more reasonable condition, and was brought more in accordance with the present state of society by the alteration made in it some few years since at the instance of Mr. Warburton—a gentleman who is no longer in this House, but who was for many years a very distinguished ornament of it while he had a seat in it. He suggested in a manner that convinced the House, that the basis of the qualification should be extended so as to embrace persons who had acquired property of different descriptions which had grown up since the days when the previous qualification was established, and which in the time of Queen Anne ought to have been the ground of the qualification. But now that these things have been done, and these various alterations made, is there, after all, in effect any security in the property qualification as it now exists? Is it not notorious, as my right hon. Friend has said, that persons elected to this House, who have any credit at all, or any connexions which can help them to a qualification, find no difficulty in obtaining one, and sit here on a qualification perfectly good in law, although, in fact, they do not possess

401
the amount of property requisite to qualify? Every now and then, however, there occurs a case in which the objection is raised before an Election Committee that such a Member has no property qualification; and, although there may be fifty or sixty other Members sitting in the House without such qualification, that unfortunate Member is unseated. Therefore, I say, there is no security in the present state of the law as regards the qualification. Another notorious fact—that which has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart)—is that all the Scotch Members sit without any property qualification. And I feel that I should be paying a very ill compliment to them, and should make a most undeserved and unfounded statement, if I said they were inferior in rank, in property, in intellect, in business habits, or in capacity for legislation to the Members for England or for Ireland. That being the case, I certainly cannot see why this whole question of qualification should not be taken into the consideration of Parliament. But I own it does not appear to me that this is the way in which it should be done. To propose to amend a Bill providing a certain new qualification, in addition to that we now have, by saying we will have no qualification at all, does not seem to me to be a proper mode of bringing the question under the consideration of Parliament. I think it rather should be done by a special Bill, brought in with a view to abolish property qualification altogether, or by a Bill for the general purpose of improving our whole system of representation, in which it might form a clause. And whether such a Bill be introduced by my right hon. Friend or any other Member, I shall be willing, certainly, to give the question a favourable consideration. Then it is to be considered whether there is any danger at all—supposing this qualification done away with—of Members being admitted to this House who are not in all respects as perfectly well qualified as those who are now Members to sit here. I own it appears to me that what forms in effect a real qualification—whether it be desirable or not—must be matter of dispute. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate) may dissent from that view; but what does form an effective property qualification is the fact that no person without some means—at all events, no one who does not reside in London—is able to maintain the state and bear the expense of coming to London, leaving his own business, to attend here
402
as a Member of Parliament. Take the. ease of a tradesman in a small town, or a farmer—such as my right hon. Friend has put—and I have no objection to see the tenant-farmer in this House, if the freeholders and the electors choose to send him here; but, for his own sake, I should think his attendance here during the spring and a great part of the summer would be very injurious to his ploughing, his sowing, and his other farming operations. So, likewise, with regard to the small tradesman, his custom would very much suffer if he were compelled to attend here during the whole of the Parliamentary Session. We know, as it is, that there are many persons with incomes considerably larger than usually pertain to the class I now speak of, who, after two or three years' attendance in this House, find that they cannot afford to continue the expense, and to sacrifice their business by remaining Members; so that, in effect, you have, by the nature of things as they exist, a real property qualification, without requiring it by law. It is true, that if you were to have the People's Charter, and Members were paid for their attendance in this House, that argument would not apply; but I certainly do not mean to give my vote in favour of the payment of Members. With regard to the matter of the qualification, though I cannot vote for the present Motion, I can assure my right hon. Friend that whenever it is brought forward as a whole and separate question, I shall give it my best consideration and support.
MR NEWDEGATEsaid, that on the other side of the House there appeared to be a perfect scramble among the would-be Reformers. They seemed determined on depriving the noble Lord at the head of the Government of the paternity of every part of the anticipated Reform Bill, so that the author of the Reform Bill of 1831 might have as little as possible to do with the Reform Bill of 1852. He (Mr. Newdegate) had never seen such a want of confidence in the leader of a party. Hon. Gentlemen who professed to support the noble Lord, distrusted him so much that they were supplanting him on every important public question, The present proposal had been brought before them, as the noble Lord had truly stated, in a very singular manner. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt), feeling probably that the colonies had not met with fair play in that House, had proposed that the possession of property in any colony should be a qualification for Members; and what was

403
the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Tufnell) to that proposal? The right hon. Gentleman, rather than admit the right of the colonies to a representation in that House, would plunge the House into the wide question of the abolition of any property qualification whatever. The right hon. Gentleman would retain a qualification for electors, and yet he would abolish the qualification for Members; and if the measure for the introduction of Members of the Jewish persuasion to the House should be carried to its legitimate consequences, they would not only have the followers of every religious persuasion—Mahometans, Hindoos, and Buddhists—sitting among them; but for all that he could see they might also have unnaturalised aliens returned as Members of Parliament. He admitted that the law, as it stood, was defective. But if the law was too indefinite, let them define it—if it was too restrictive, let them extend it—if it was difficult to prove a compliance with its provisions, let them simplify it—if it excluded classes like the tenant-farmers, who ought, in his opinion, to be entitled to seats in that House in case they should find constituencies to return them, let the qualification be placed within their reach; but let not the House, because the present state of the law was imperfect, be plunged into the question of the abolition of any qualification whatever; and let them not by that abolition deprive themselves of the means of identifying those persons who might be returned as Members of Parliament. It seemed to him that that Motion was only an attempt to get rid of the Bill of the hon. Member for Gateshead by a sidewind, and that it raised at a most inconvenient period a question which the House was not prepared to discuss.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Tufnell) had been introduced—he would not say in a very irregular, but certainly in a very inconvenient manner—.because by way of an amendment to a comparatively unimportant measure, a question of very considerable moment was brought under their consideration. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion, in his statement of the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to restore to the people of this country their ancient rights in that matter. But he (Mr. Henley) could not
404
find that there had ever been a period in the history of this country where Members had ever been returned to Parliament without any definition of their class or position. The law upon the subject had been altered in the reign of Queen Anne; but the change which had then been effected had merely substituted one species of restraint for another. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated that such persons as tradesmen and farmers would find it very difficult to leave their business, and to reside in London during each Session of Parliament. Now, every body who knew how much time was required for a proper discharge of the duties of Members of that House, would assent to that statement of the noble Lord. But he could not admit that the noble Lord had drawn a correct conclusion from that fact; because there existed in this country, as in every other country, a large class of persons who went under the designation of "gentlemen at large," and who might otherwise be justly designated as political adventurers, who would perhaps recommend themselves by very specious promises to different constituencies, and to whom it would be no. inconvenience to spend their time in that House, whilst he felt certain it would be a great national injury to have the House filled with persons of that description. The noble Lord said, that no real security existed in the present qualification against the return of improper individuals. But the noble Lord would excuse him if he stated that he had illustrated that position in a very extraordinary manner. The noble Lord had told them that persons of any credit or connexions had no difficulty in obtaining a qualification; but if a man had such an amount of credit, or such connexions as to induce another to trust him with the legal security of such qualification, at all events it proved that he must be a person not utterly unworthy of being considered of credit. He would not, however, enter further into that question. He had risen principally for the purpose of entering his protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Motion, that the result of the adoption of that Motion would be to restore the law upon the subject to its ancient condition; and he entirely denied that it had ever been in the power of the electors of this country to return Members to that House without any restriction whatever.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport had been somewhat unfairly

405
blamed for the time and mode in which he had introduced the present Motion. In the first place, it should be remembered that his right hon. Friend had only just recovered his independent powers of speech by the cessation of his connection with the Government; so that it was rather unfair to attack his right hon. Friend as far as regarded his individual position in that instance. In the next place, he should observe that there was nothing unusual or remarkable in the proposal of his right hon. Friend, that when a measure was before them for the abolition of a portion of a restrictive system, they should at once do away with it altogether. His right hon. Friend believed that the entire system was objectionable, and he therefore wished that, instead of altering, they should wholly abolish it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was completely mistaken in supposing that the object of the Motion of his right hon. Friend was to continue a restriction which was unjust to the Colonies, for his right hon. Friend only sought to remove every restriction whatever in the case under their consideration. He believed that the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) had been introduced in consequence mainly of the proceedings before the late Harwich Election Committee. He (Mr. V. Smith) had himself been a Member of that Committee, and it was with the utmost reluctance he had felt himself obliged to find that a gentleman possessed of an ample amount of colonial property did not possess a proper qualification for a seat in that House. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead would support the larger measure which had been proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport; and he also hoped that his right hon. Friend would not then press his Motion, but would leave the matter in its present very favourable position.
MR. TUFNELLsaid, that he thought he would best serve the cause of reform by leaving the question in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he would therefore beg leave to withdraw the Instruction which he had moved.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HUTTsaid, that after the declaration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he should not proceed further with his Bill. He thought that the decision in the Harwich case was one of great hardship, for Mr. Prinsep proved that he had an annuity of 1,000 l. a year charged
406
on the Bengal civil fund; but, notwithstanding that, because the corpus of the fund was in India, the Committee was obliged to declare that he had no qualification, the words in "Great Britain" being specially mentioned in the Act of Parliament. This Bill was not founded on that case, for his object was to do what he considered a measure of justice to the Colonies.
Order for Committee discharged; Bill withdrawn.

HOME MADE SPIRITS IN BOND BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpresented a petition, signed by the principal distillers of London, against the Bill. The right hon. Baronet said, though he had more than once addressed the House on this subject, yet he felt that in opposing the second reading he should not do justice to the great interests involved in this question if he were not again to state what appeared to him the insuperable objections to passing this measure. The grounds on which it had been advocated hitherto were those of justice, and they had heard not a little the cry that justice to Ireland was concerned in the passing of this Bill. Now he must say that to any person whatever who investigated the subject, there would appear no claim of justice whatever on the side of those who advocated the second reading of the Bill. There was a claim of justice on the part of those who opposed the Bill. What was asked was that duty should be paid on home-made spirits when they were taken out of bond, as in the case of colonial spirits. The principle of levying Excise duties and the principle of levying Customs duties were so entirely distinct, that no analogy could be set up between them in relation to this subject. The principle in levying Customs duties was to levy them at the latest moment, because, up to the latest moment, there was no saying whether the articles would or would not be exported—whether they would or would not pay duty at all; whereas the principle in levying Exceis duties was to levy them at the earliest moment, so that, the duty once paid, the owners of the article paid upon might be relieved from any further supervision or interference on the part of the Excise. In relation to these home spirits, the earliest moment at which the Excise duty could be

407
levied was that when the spirit issued from the worm-end, and this, therefore, was the moment at which, for the convenience of the producer, the duty was levied, and from that time the supervision of the Excise officers ceased. If they were to levy it at a later period, they would have a continuance of the supervision of the Excise officers, and they would reverse the principle on which the Excise duties had been regulated. He quite ageed that there might be some ground of complaint if the duty on the spirit which came into competition with the home-made spirit was unfairly levied, so as to give a boon to the colonial producer; but a difference of 4d. a gallon above the duty on home-made spirit was levied on colonial: and this differential duty, which was levied in England, Scotland, and Ireland, was fixed in 1848, after a lengthened inquiry before a Committee of that House. It might be said that was an unfair settlement, but the reverse was the case. It could not be proved that the settlement was unfair, because the consumption of colonial spirits in Ireland and Scotland had fallen off since that time; and the consumption of home-made spirits had considerably increased. The consumption of colonial spirits in Scotland in 1847, was 392,000 gallons, and in 1850, 210,000 gallons, showing a falling-off of 182,000 gallons. In Ireland the consumption was in the former year 176,000 gallons, and in the latter year 166,000. But what was the consumption of home-made spirits in these two countries? He would not go back to 1847, which was not a fair case as regarded Ireland, but he would take the last three years, and he found that in Scotland the consumption was—

In 1848

6,548,000 gallons

1849

6,935,000 gallons

1850

7,122,900 gallons

In Ireland the consumption was—

In 1848

7,072,000 gallons

1849

6,973,000 gallons

1850

7,480,000 gallons

So that there had been an increased consumption of 900,000 gallons in these two countries, when it was stated by the promoters of this Bill that the producers of home-made spirits were ruined by colonial spirits; and by a return which had just been made he found that the consumption of Irish spirits up to the 5th of July had gone on increasing. Again, if you took the imports of spirits from Scotland and Ireland into England, you found that while
408
the average of five years to 1825, was 1,400,000 gallons, that of the five years to 1850, was 3,400,000 gallons, exhibiting, he need not observe, a most material increase. It was not pretended that the adoption of this measure would not injure the revenue, even though all the transactions in home spirits were free from fraud and dishonesty; but the grand objection, after all, was, that the adoption of the measure would open the door to perfectly unlimited fraud and dishonesty, and, of consequence, to an unlimited injury to the revenue, the only possible mode of remedying the loss to the revenue would be to impose higher duties upon the classes of spirits; and though this would obviate all loss where the transactions were honestly conducted, it would be no security against fraud, but on the contrary would increase the temptation to attempt to cheat the revenue. At present the amount of duty levied upon home spirits was distributed in a manner highly favourable to the interests which purported to be most aggrieved by the existing system, for while English spirits paid 7s. 10 d. a gallon, Scotch spirits only paid 3s. 8d., and Irish spirits only 2s. 8d. Under the existing arrangements, again, the system of warehousing spirits in remote parts of the country was adapted to the convenience of the smaller distillers in a manner which it would be quite impossible to continue if the proposed changes were effected. The revenue, however, was not the only party concerned in this question. There was another party, and that was the English distiller, for what was really sought by the Irish and Scotch distillers was to gain an unfair advantage over the English. If the change in the mode of taking the duties took place, the English distillers would not be able to derive a corresponding benefit from it. And he saw no reason why they should be subjected to this additional disadvantage, because scarcely any English spirits were consumed in Ireland or Scotland, while the quantity sent to England last year from Scotland and Ireland amounted to about one-third of the whole consumption of England. For these reasons he trusted that the House would not agree to the second reading of this Bill.
LORD NAASsaid, after all preparation, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had advanced no new argument against the measure. The injustice complained of was palpable. The produce of the home manufacturer was by the excise laws placed in a less advanta-

409
geous position than that of the importer of foreign and colonial spirits. As to the charging of colonial spirits in bond at the last moment, because they might be exported, the great complaint of the home producer against the present system was, that it operated almost entirely as a prohibition to the export of home spirits. As a proof of this, he could state that of late years the exportation of our colonial rum had immensely increased, while, on the other hand, that of our home spirits had absolutely so diminished that it was not thought worthy of a place in the returns of the Board of Trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Bill would alter the present modes of measurement—modes supposed to be necessary for the security of the revenue—hut such was not the case. The measurement of homemade spirits was taken now three times, viz., at the worm's end, when going into bond, and when coming out of bond. He should like to know what there was in the plan which he proposed to prevent this measurement being still taken. The only difference would he, that the charge would be made when the spirits were coming out of bond, so that every security that was now obtained by measurement could still be enforced. Under his Bill the quantity to he measured would be ascertainable with the greatest ease, and would be subject to none of the difficulties and dangers connected with the existing mode of measurement. With regard to the differential duty of 1848, he had said frequently before, that consideration could not in the least degree embarrass the carrying of this Bill, because the Bill did not propose in any way to interfere with the settlement which was made in 1848. It had been stated that this measure would be in a degree a breach of faith and an unsettlement of a solemn compact made in consequence of the Report of the Committee on Coffee and Sugar Duties; but Lord G. Bentinck, the chairman, had in his place in that House stated that the alteration of duties was forced upon the Irish and Scotch distillers. The Irish distillers had never consented to that arrangement; no Irish witnesses were summoned before the Committee; and this consideration of the differential duty was only introduced into the question incidentally. It was clear also, when they considered the different items of which the 4d. of differential duty was composed, that the differential duty, which was made a bar to granting a most just demand, was only a bugbear, because only a halfpenny,
410
or one-eighth of the whole amount of the duty, was at all concerned in this discussion. In Mr. Wood's evidence he stated that in calculating what the differential duty ought to be, one halfpenny per gallon was the supposed value of decreases. He was authorised, however, to state to the Government, that the distillers were perfectly ready to give up that part of the differential duty which would be affected by this measure, rather than forego their just claim, so that let the Chancellor take his halfpenny by way of additional duty, and give us our just demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures, showing the increase in the consumption of home-made spirits, could have no weight whatever with the House, because the prosperity of any particular interest ought not to be made a reason against the removal of a grievance, provided a good case could be made out. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to wish the House to infer that the increased consumption was the consequence of the advantage enjoyed by the British distiller over the colonial distiller. But the fact was entirely different: the reason for the increase in the sale of home-made spirits had arisen simply from a circumstance which did not at all affect the present question—the reduction in the price of the grain which constituted the material of those spirits. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that if there was to be that reduction of taxation which was generally demanded by the nation, the duty on spirits was perhaps the last tax that they ought to reduce. But the Irish and Scotch distillers did not ask for any reduction in the duty; and if, next year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could show that the operation of this Bill had really occasioned a diminution of the revenue, those whom he (Lord Naas) represented would, he was sure, be quite willing to consent to any increase of duty which might be required to make up the deficiency which the revenue might have sustained. The amount of duty, therefore, had nothing on earth to do with this question; the complaint was that they had to pay for an article which at the time when the duty was paid was not in existence. They asked for the repeal of an unfair and most unjust restriction, and they asked for it on the principle of justice alone. The whole system of the warehousing would be left untouched by this Bill; it would create no inconvenience, and they would have exactly the same officers, the same locks, and the same houses. The right hon.

411
Gentleman said this Bill would create further temptations to collusion between the excise officers and fraudulent distillers. But the officers could connive with the distillers now with perfect ease if they were so disposed. The honesty of the officers was the only security to the revenue; and this measure would not take away a single existing check upon fraud. What was the position of the Irish and Scotch distillers? They, by the nature of their trade, found it of the greatest use to bond an article which became of superior value by being kept a considerable time. The English distiller, on the other hand, according to the nature of his trade, did not want to bond at all. He sold his spirits the moment they were made, to the rectifier, and obtained payment directly. The English distillers had been opposed to bonding for many years, merely from the selfish consideration that they did not want it themselves. They did not want to bond themselves, and therefore they used all their influence to prevent others in the trade from enjoying a considerable advantage from it—a dog-in-the manger like policy, which a free-trade Government ought to blush to encourage. So far from the Irish distiller being in a more advantageous position than the English as regarded the revenue, the fact was, he was in a far inferior position. There were not more than eleven distilleries for the whole of England, and they made the enormous amount of spirits which were drunk in this country. The House was perhaps not aware that there was not a single English distiller now distilling strictly according to Act of Parliament. The eleven English distillers were manufacturing their spirits in stills which were actually illegal, and were only sanctioned by a Treasury Minute, and not rocognised in any Act of Parliament. But the English distillers had this further advantage over the Irish, that they obtained very large credits, and were often allowed to be in arrear with the payment of their duty. In fact, the eleven English distillers had a monopoly of the English trade, and they were afraid that if this restriction, however unjust, was not kept up, the Irish and Scotch distillers would, in the natural course of trade, send more whisky to England, and so interfere with their business. The Irish and Scotch distillers only asked to be put on the same footing as the foreign and colonial distillers; and their whole claim being a claim of justice and fairness, a claim which the House had on four distinct occasions ac-
412
knowledged, he hoped the House would readily accede to it.
MR. BRAMSTONsaid, that seeing that, the interests of his constituents would be compromised by the measure of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. BASSsaid, that the noble Lord who had brought forward this measure had been misinformed on some points on which he had rested the case of his Bill. The noble Lord had especially complained, on the part of the Irish and Scotch distillers, of their want of an export trade; but where could he hope for an export trade in British spirits, when every other country had a beverage which it preferred to anything we could send them? But he found, notwithstanding, that the fact was, that the export trade had actually increased from 73,000 gallons in 1848, to 330,000 gallons in 1850. Again, Ireland consumed fifty gallons of her own spirits to one gallon of colonial spirits; and Scotland consumed fifty-six gallons of her own to one gallon of colonial. It was quite absurd, therefore, to talk of competition. The noble Lord also complained that the English distillers had a certain degree of credit allowed them by the Government, and that the revenue suffered loss in consequence; but the fact was, that during a period of fifty years there had only been one loss of the kind, therefore the Irish and Scotch distillers had no great cause for complaint on that ground. The noble Lord said it was a question of competition between the English distillers and the Scocth and Irish distillers; but whereas there were about 26,000,000 gallons of British spirits manufactured, 20,000,000 of them were made by the Irish and Scotch. He agreed with the noble Lord that that was no reason why they should not manufacture more, but it was an argument to show that they could not at present labour under any serious disadvantage. They had a total monopoly of the consumption in their own countries; and, when the spirit-consuming qualities of the inhabitants of those countries was considered, that was no light matter, for an Irishman consumed more than two Englishmen, and a Scotchman more than five Englishmen. He had himself seen the secretary of the body of English distillers and rectifiers that very day,

413
and had been assured by him that they regarded this Bill as an attack upon them. Even viewing the question as one of domestic industry, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had done on a former occasion, they ought not to be called upon to encourage Irish and Scotch industry at the expense of English. The Bill was one which the House ought not to concede.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he should support the seeond reading. He maintained that the question before the House, when stripped of all the technicalities in which it had been enveloped, was simply this—Were the Irish and Scotch distillers to be allowed any deduction on account of leakage and evaporation? He did not see why the 167 distillers in Scotland, and the 56 in Ireland, should be sacrificed for the benefit of ten or eleven monopolists in England. The Irish Brigade were often accused of offering a factious opposition; but he thought the Treasury bench were now offering a factious opposition on a question upon which they had been beaten four times. On the 11th of June last year the Government were beaten by a majority of 85 to 53; on the 4th of July they were beaten by 135 to 95; on the 8th of July they were beaten by 121 to 120; and on the last division the Government were beaten again. 481 votes had been given in the course of those four divisions in favour of the Bill, and 391 against it. The Government had been beaten four times, and there they were still. He believed they would be defeated again on the second reading; and he would ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to persist in his factious opposition to the measure? The settlement of 1848 had been talked of in that discussion; but that arrangement had been determined upon by a Committee of that House which did not contain a single Irish Member, and which did not call a single Irish witness. Ireland, therefore, had never consented to that settlement of the question; and until justice was done to the Irish distiller, Ireland must continue to repeat her demand for a fairer and more equitable adjustment.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he did not consider this as a question of small or of minor importance. He did not even consider it of small or of minor importance as regarded the Scotch and the Irish distillers. Considering, as he did, that these distillers were now asking from that House an
414
indulgence and a favour, as compared with other dealers in spirits, to which they were not entitled, his firm belief was, that whatever might be the result of the present discussion, or of the present Bill, the ultimate consequence must necessarily be a general conviction throughout the country that an advantage had been conceded to them which they were not entitled to receive; and a reaction would follow, leading to the depression of the very interest which hon. Gentlemen now advocated. There was nothing more fallacious in the discussion of commercial or of financial questions, than the taking a partial view of the regulations under which they were placed. To say that there was an inequality of taxation in any particular branch, without considering the corresponding inequality in another, was sure to lead to fatal error, and to involve their financial arrangements, perhaps, in inextricable anomalies; and yet that was the course in which the House was advised to take on the present occasion by the supporters of this Bill. The question of spirits was a question, as he had said, of the greatest importance to this country; because we derived no less than between 8,000,000 l. and 9,000,000 l. of our annual revenue from it, which was paid easily and regularly into the national exchequer. It was no light matter, therefore, to affect, by a partial change in the law, a revenue so important under all circumstances, and perhaps most important of all, because it was raised in a manner less objectionable, perhaps, than any other species of impost. This question of spirits was settled in 1848. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) said that as there was not an Irish Member on the Committee which sat in that year, Ireland therefore was not bound by the result. Now, he (Mr. Goulburn) could state that the case of the Irish and Scotch, as well as of the English distillers, as against that of the colonial distillers, was ably represented before the Committee, and the Committee heard all that could possibly be said on the subject. But it was not the Committee which made the regulation as to Irish spirits—it was the House of Commons. Every man had an opportunity of stating his objections, and having stated them, and been overruled by the majority, he was as fully bound by the decision as any other Member was. Viewing the settlement of 1848, then, as a general arrangement, the question was, had the

415
Scotch and Irish distillers suffered any injury under it, and was there now any ground for giving them a special advantage? So far as facts and documents went, he thought that absolutely the reverse of that was the case. They were told that the distillers did not make as much spirits now as they did in 1835; but what had that to do with the question as to how far the arrangement of 1848 had, or had not, been productive of benefit? The fact was, that before 1848 the spirits made in Scotland and Ireland amounted to 14,000,000 gallons, while in 1850 it was 20,000,000 gallons. It also appeared that there had been a diminution in the consumption of rum in those countries from 557,000 gallons in 1847, to 360,000 gallons at the present time; while there had been a corresponding increase in the consumption of home-made spirits. The augmentation in the export trade of Scotch and Irish spirits had been no less than 700 per cent during this period. Was that a proof that the law, as regarded colonial spirits, was at all prejudicial to the interests of the Scotch and Irish distillers? Nor had the English distillers, with all the advantages thay were said to possess, been able to keep the Scotch and Irish distillers out of the English market, for the last re-turn showed that one-third of the whole consumption of that part of the United Kingdom had been furnished by the Irish and Scotch distillers. The House should recollect that the success of this Motion would overthrow an existing arrangement. English spirits were manufactured under very different circumstances from those of Scotland and Ireland, for while the latter were bonded in a state palatable to the taste of the consumer, the English distiller could not bring his spirits into the market before they had undergone the subsequent process of rectification. If, therefore, this Motion were agreed to, they must allow the English rectifier to place his spirits in bond, and this would open the door to extensive frauds upon the revenue. The course which the House was asked by the noble Lord (Lord Naas) to pursue was dangerous to the revenue, dangerous to the interests of other dealers in spirits, and would ultimately, he was convinced, overthrow the small advantage which the Irish now sought to obtain for themselves by that reaction which injustice never failed to create.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 194: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Henley, J. W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Herbert, H. A.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Baird, J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Bankes, G.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Hill, Lord E.

Barrow, W. H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Bateson, T.

Hope, Sir J.

Benbow, J.

Hope, H. T.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Hornby, J.

Beresford, W.

Howard, Sir R.

Best, J.

Hudson, G.

Blair, S.

Johnstone, J.

Blake, M. J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Jones, Capt.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Keating, R.

Boyd, J.

Keogh, W.

Bremridge, R.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Brooke, Lord

Knox, Col.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Buck, L. W.

Langton, W. H. P. G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lawless, hon. C.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Charteris, hon. F.

Leslie, C. P.

Chatterton, Col.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Lockhart, W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Long, W.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Coles, H. B.

Lowther, H.

Conolly, T.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Magan, W. H.

Cowan, C.

Meagher, T.

Crawford, W. S.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Mandeville, Visct.

Devereux, J. T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Disraeli, B.

Manners, Lord G.

Dodd, G.

Manners, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

March, Earl of

Dundas, G.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Dunne, Col.

Meux, Sir H.

Du Pre, C. G.

Milton, Visct.

Fagan, J.

Moffatt, G.

Fellowes, E.

Monsell, W.

Fergus, J.

Moore, G. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Mullings, J. R.

Forbes, W.

Mundy, W.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Fox, R. M.

Murphy, F. S.

Fox, S. W. L.

Napier, J.

French, F.

Newdegate, C. N.

Frewen, C. H.

Newport, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Nugent, Sir P.

Gilpin, Col.

O'Brien, J.

Goddard, A. L.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Gooch, E. S.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Goold, W.

O'Connell, F.

Gordon, Adm.

O'Connell, M. J.

Grace, O. D. J.

O'Connor, J.

Grogan, E.

O'Ferrall, rt. hn. R. M.

Gwyn, H.

O'Flaherty, A.

Hallewell, E. G.

Packe, C. W.

Hallyburton. Lord J. F. G

Pakington, Sir J.

Halsey, T. P.

Pilkington, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Power, Dr.

Hamilton, J. H.

Prime, R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Renton, J. C.

Hastie, A.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Reynolds, J.

417

Roche, E. B.

Tennent, R. J.

Sadleir, J.

Tyler, Sir G.

Sandars, G.

Verner, Sir W.

Scott, hon. F.

Vesey, hon. T.

Scully, F.

Vyse. R. H. R. H.

Seaham, Visct.

Waddington, D.

Seymour, H. K.

Waddington, H. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Smollett, A.

Whiteside, J.

Somers, J. P.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Somerset, Capt.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Spooner, R.

Young, Sir J.

Stafford, A.

Stuart, H.

TELLERS.

Talbot, J. H.

Naas, Lord

Taylor, T. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.

Dundas, Adm.

Adair, H. E.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Adair, R. A. S.

East, Sir J. B.

Alcock, T.

Ebringtou, Visct.

Armstrong, R. B.

Ellis, J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Bass, M. T.

Euston, Earl of

Beckett, W.

Evans, Sir De L.

Bell, J.

Evans, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Evans, W.

Berkeley, Adm.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Foley, J. H. H.

Bernal, R.

Forster, M.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Freestun, Col.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Bowles, Adm.

Geach, C.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Bramston, T. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brockman, E. D.

Granger, T. C.

Brotherton, J.

Greene, T.

Brown, H.

Grenfell, C. P.

Brown, W.

Grenfell, C. W.

Bunbury, E. H.

Grey, R.W.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Cardwell, E.

Guest, Sir J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Carter, J. B.

Harris, R.

Childers, J. W.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Hawes, B.

Clay, J.

Headlam, T. E.

Clay, Sir W.

Heneage, E.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Henry, A.

Clifford, H. M.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Heywood, J.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Heyworth, L.

Collins, W.

Hindley, C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Crawford, R. W.

Howard, Lord E.

Currie, H.

Hutchins, E. J.

Curteis, H. M.

Hutt, W.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Jermyn, Earl

Dawes, E.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Denison, E.

Kershaw, J.

Denison, J. E.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

D'Eyneourt. rt. hn. C. T.

Lacy, H. C.

Divett, E.

Langston, J. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Lewis, G. C.

Duncan, Visct.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Duncombe, T.

Locke, J.

418

Lygon, hon.

Scrope, G. P.

Gen. Mackinnon, W. A.

Seymour, Sir H.

Mangles, R. D.

Seymour, H. D.

Marshall, W.

Seymour, Lord

Martin, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Martin, C. W.

Shelburne, Earl of

Masterman, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Matheson, Col.

Smith, J. A.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Somerville. rt. hn. Sir W.

Melgund, Visct.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Miles, P. W. S.

Spearman, H. J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Stansfleld, W. R. C.

Morris, D.

Strickland, Sir G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Norreys, Lord

Thompson, Col.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Thornely, T.

Owen, Sir J.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Paget, Lord A.

Townley, R. G.

Paget, Lord C.

Trelawny, J. S.

Paget, Lord G.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Tynte, Col. F. J. K.

Parker, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Verney, Sir H.

Teel, F.

Villiers, Visct.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Vivian, J. H.

Perfect, R.

Wakley, T.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Wall, C. B.

Pigot, F.

Wawn, J. T.

Pinnoy, W.

Westhead. J P. B.

Powlett, Lord W.

Willeox, B. M.

Price, Sir R.

Williams, J.

Reid, Col.

Willyams, H.

Ricardo, O.

Wilson, J.

Rice E. R.

Wilson, M.

Rich, H. K.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Romilly, Col.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rumbold, C. E.

Wyld, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Wyvill, M.

Russell, F. C. H.

Salwey, Col.

TELLERS.

Sandars, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Scobell, Capt.

Hill, Lord M.

Words added; Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Reading put off for three months.

VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. SCULLYsaid, that as far as he understood the subject, the principle of the Bill was to value lands and tenements in Ireland on a scale founded upon the prices of agricultural produce, and that such valuation should continue in operation for the next fourteen years. He objected to the returns of 1849 and 1850, on which the calculation of prices was based, because he considered them incorrect. He had no objection that the price of agricultural produce should be an ingredient in the valuation of land; but if it were to be so, the question must be asked of the Government whether the scale could be correct, or corresponding with the prices at present existing in Ireland. He had moved for returns

419
from thirty-six towns, having reference to the prices of agricultural produce; but these were so mystified that he thought the recognised organ of the Government in Ireland had justly remarked that no dependence could be placed on the figures; any scale derived from them must he totally worthless as a criterion of agricultural prices in Ireland, He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland the expediency of introducing into Ireland a mode of ascertaining the average prices of agricultural produce, such as existed in England, where these average prices were used to ascertain the value of tithes, and for other purposes. With respect to the particular provisions of the Bill, he called attention to the circumstance, that while the Lord Lieutenant had power to appoint Sub-Commissioners, and the Chief Commissioner to appoint valuators, the ratepayers had no right to name a single individual. He objected to a mere arbitrary Court of Appeal, such as the Bill proposed, and thought it monstrous that those small holdings below 5l., which had hitherto been exempt from county cess, should be brought under taxation. The entire machinery of the Bill was very complicated; there were numerous forms and technical points to be observed, and he apprehended that the measure would be distasteful to the country. As matters stood, they had had enough of Valuation Bills for Ireland, and he thought the complicated machinery of the present Bill would rather make matters worse than otherwise. The cost of the primary valuation in the part of the country with which he was connected, under the present Act, was 22.000 l., or 5d. in the pound on the valuation, and the expenses under this new Bill would be equally great. He thought a commission of valuation in each county, with a sufficient staff, to go from barony to barony, would lead to a correct valuation in Ireland; and he hoped the adoption of some such scheme would not be overlooked by the Government. It was most important, both as regarded the Registration Bill of last Session, and the It cumbered Estates Court in Ireland, that a correct valuation should be established in that country; but he objected to the mode of obtaining it laid down in the present Bill. It would depend upon the view of the measure taken by the Irish Members whether he should move in the present stage that the Bill be postponed; and, therefore, in the meantime he contented himself with
420
expressing his individual opposition to the measure.
SIR DENHAM NORREYShoped they would not go on with the Bill in its present form, and that before they proceeded with the measure there would be some modification of it. The present valuation had cost over 270,000 l., which must have been drawn from the county rates in Ireland. Besides that, there were the salaries of the Commissioners of Valuation, which were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Notwithstanding that expense, twenty - six counties only were valued, and six counties were still unvalued in respect to what was called the uniform valuation, though the work had been going on for twenty-one years. And now they were about to commence a valuation on a new principle, after all their waste of time and of money. He must complain of the injustice which had been done by this Bill to town property particularly in Ireland. Formerly a general average valuation was made of houses, and then one-third of the value was struck off to bring them down to their comparative value in relation to the land in the district. It was admitted that up to 1846 the valuation of land was about 25 per cent under its letting value, and about 33 per cent was struck off the value of houses. Five years since the valuation of land was 25 per cent under the letting value, and he saw no reason why in five years hence the valuation might not be again under the real value; but by this Bill the towns were to be subject to taxation according to the full value, and the 33 per cent, which had hitherto been struck off on making them liable to the county taxation, was not in future to be struck off. If the Government were resolved on proceeding with the Bill, he trusted they would only adopt that portion of it which applied to tenement valuation, and that the present townland valuation might he completed.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsupported the Motion for going into Committee. The present Bill was brought in to avoid the evils incident to the existing system of valuation in Ireland; and he thought the objection which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Scully) had taken with regard to the scale of prices of agricultural produce, was a point which might be well considered in Committee.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDsaid, he should oppose the Bill, because he considered that it was based on false principles, and would not practically answer the pur-

421
pose for which it was intended, though he was willing to admit that the present law was in an anomalous state, and required amendment. It was of great importance to have a correct tenement valuation in Ireland, seeing that it would have the effect of settling the value of the franchise in that country in cases where it was in dispute. He would not then enter into the subject of the averages; but he would suggest that the House should postpone going into Committee on the Bill until they had some efficient mode of taking the averages correctly.
MR. ROCHEsaid, a necessity existed for an uniform system of valuation in Ireland; but he admitted that was one of the desirable things which appeared to him to he next to impossible. It was still more desirable that that valuation should be a correct one. Of all times the present was the most inopportune to commence such a valuation in Ireland as that which the Bill proposed. He denied that the present prices of agricultural produce in Ireland, especially the price of beef and mutton, bore that relation to each other which was put down in the Bill. He would counsel the House to wait until the different relations of property were fixed; and the state of the country became more settled, before they applied themselves to make a really true and fair relative valuation of land in Ireland. If they persisted at present, they ran the risk of committing serious errors.
MR. MONSELLwould suggest to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Scully), that it would be better that the House should go at once into Committee on the Bill, than that hon. Members should at that moment raise a discussion on the clauses.
House in Committee; Bill committed pro formô House resumed; Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at twenty-four minutes after Five o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met, and having gone through the business on the Paper,
House adjourned till To-morrow.