The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-22 00:00:00

PER CENT. DUTIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the Order of the Day for the Howe resolving itself into a
Committee of the whole Honse, to consider farthsr of the
supply granted to his Maje,ty.
Mr. HUME said, that before the Speaker left the Chair,
he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject
which he felt was of very great importance to the revenue
of the country. It appeared to him, that 30004 a-year
had been abstracted from the revenue without the know-
ledge of that House, a proceeding which struck him as
being extremely objectionable, inasmuch as that sum was
taken under an alleged opinion of the law officers of the
Crown, though -for 170 years, the duties, which were ap-
propriated within a very recent date in the manner of
which he complained, had been regularly paid into the
revenue. The subject of the Four and a half per Cent.
Duties had been so often discussed in that House, that he
would not on this occasion enter into any detail with
respect to them. He thought that they were objectionable
• in principle, and he, as well as btl,ters, had, year after
year, endeavoured to get rid of them. These duties were
' granted in the time of Charles IL, for a particular pur-
pose—namely, to defray the charge of certain repairs and
expenses incurred on account of the Colonies. On that
account a duty of four and a half per cent., principally in
sugar, was paid to the Crown. He might truly say that
this fund was long ago perverted from its original object,
and-was appropriated to the payment of pensions and
allowances, partly to the government of the colonies and
partly to individuals who were favoured by the Govern-
ment, without the authority of that House. Up to a very
recent period, the 25th of March, 1828, these King's
sugars, as they were called, paid the sama duty of 275. per
cwt. as the sugars of private individuals did. They were
placed under the care of an officer called " a husband,"
who paid the regular duties on the sugars, and then
brought the net amount to the credit of his M.jesty's
four and a half per cent. fund. This continued until
1828. He had been in the habit of calling for an
account of these duties every two or three years, to
see whether there remained any surplus ; because a few
years ago the House passed a Bill, declaring that no more
pensions should be charged on this fund, and providing
that the surplus, if there were any, should go to the sup-
port of the Church establishment in the West Indies. This
was a very good change, supposing it to be proper that any
thing- should.be taken from the inhabitants of the colonies.
But he thought that the time had come when the impost
might be removed ; and cousideriug the distress of the
colonies, it ought, he conceived, to be a matter of conside-
ration with his Majesty's Government, whether its ordi.
nary appropriwion should not cease, and whether it ought
not to be applied to those various useful colonial purposes
for which it was originally intended? Ministers had,
however, taken the most extraordinary view of the case
that ever was taken in that 11.alt,e, oriany where else.—
Front the earliest institution of this fund,—for no less
than 170 years,—the rule and practice of the law had
been that the sugar thus sent to the country should
be subjected to a duty. In IS; the fund amounted
to 33,000/. ; ip 1826, to 29,000/. ; in 1827 to 22,000/.
In 182 d, contrary to the practice which had existed for
170 years, it was declared that the King's sugar was not
liable to duty, and none had been paid since that time.
Then how stood the fund ? It appeared that in 1627. it
amounted to 22,0004 ; in 1825., to 61,0001. ; and in
1829.30, to 61,000 f. ; being double what it was in 1825.
Now, he knew
.very well that the West Luba establish-
ments were not in a thriving condition ; that, in feat, they
did not pay ; that they were losing concerns. When,
therefore, that interest was in so unfortunate a ratuat;on,
was it not a fair subject for consideration whether iridi-
viduala thus unfairly taxed should not be relieved from
such a burden? It would not bean act of favour towards
those persons, but of justice. His great objection in this
case Was, that !Ministers, acting out the authority of the

law officers of the Crown, had assumed to themselves the
power of altering a law which had existed for 178 years,
and paid the whole amount of this impost to the Crown,
instead of deducting a certain p.cation of it for ,the customs,
as ought to have been done. This matter was suffered t,)
pass in silence during, the years 1628 and 1829 ; no allu-
sion was made to the alteration in the system, though it was
illegal, and opposed to the Privileges of that House, it being
the first and most important principle of the Constitution
that Ministers should not appropriate any money without
the sanction of the House of Commons.. But here they
found the amount produced by the sale of a certain quantity
of sugar, not expended on the Church establishment
of the colonies, but handed over to this fund. Ministers
had gone further,—they had kept this proceeding a ee-
cret from the House; and it was not until be had moved
for a certain paper, not expecting such as had occurred,
that the fact became known. Now there were two re-
sults connected with this business. • The revenue of cue-.
toms was lessened to the amount of 30,000/. a-year • and
the husband, though he had reduced his charge as he now
bad, 66,0001. to deal with instead of 22,000/., received
more than be formerly did.' An Hon. Gentleman inti-
mated that the officer did not benefit by it. At all events,
it was clear that the revenue was lessened by the change
of system. That House ougl.t, therefore, to know on whet
ground such a case as that which led to this ehange wris
laid before the Law Officers of the Crown,—and bow far
such a proceeding was consistent with the known law and
Constitution of the country. He hid, in 1820, mov, d for
ati account of all sums of money which had been received
by the Crown (the produce of this fund and other source.)
during the reign of the late King. About two ananths
ago he had called for a paper in continuation of that ac-
count, and he knew not why it was not yet laid on the
table of the House. By the former document, however,
it appeared, that the sum of 12,705,0001. had, during the:
late King's reign, heen paid to an account over which that
House had no controul, but over which Minister's claim d
a right to controul. Of that gross sum about 0,000,0001.
was derived from droits, and from 1760 to 1820, when.
th King's demise took place, this fund afforded
2416,000/. He mist here be' allowed to observe, that
this was a most heavy tax, It was exceedingly injurious
to the West India proprietor, and certainly it did net hea
netit the revenue. If the duty were brought down to 15a..
or 165., as it was at the breaking out of the Frenob
was satisfied that the amount of revenue would be vqual to
what was now received, because the consumption Would he
very greatly increased. Having stated thus mush, he sub-
tnitted to the House whether they avereprepared to veto any
money to his Majesty in stipply-until Ministers JaidherOre
Parliament on what ground they had thrown jilt. hid Ma.
jesty's fund such a sum as 30,000/. or 40,0001. in the two
last years. Therefore it was that be called for tie case
laid before the law officers of the Crown, and for their
opinion. In conseqUence of a statement made by the Sc..
cretary of the Treasury, that it was not usual to produce:
such documents, he had made some inquiry into the sub-
ject ; and in looking over the report of the Committee on
Foreign Trade, he found an opinion given by the otfia
cer there. In the case of the Bank of England al;e,
which arose out of their being engaged to manage a debt
of 600,000,000/. or 700,000,0001., at the rate of .1081.
per Million, a question arose in that House whether such
an allowance should be made to the Bank or not. The
opinion of the Law 'Officers of the Crowd was, the House
could not, under' the then charter, break that contract ;
'and that opinion was laid before the House. His Hon;
Friend the Member for Bristol had also examined this
paint, and bad fouled other cases ; so that he had no doubt
that the objection was not worthy of the smalleat cousi-
deration. ...But be would say, that if no opinion of time
Law Officers of the Crown had ever been laid befere the
House, still the grounds which he advanced were so ste,ag
in his view of the matter, that it would fully warrant thou
in calling for such an opinion on this occasion. The course
which Ministers had pursued Was dangerous to the Con-
stitution, and injurious to the revenue, and he hoped the
Members of that House would strenuously oppose it. Ha
should therefore move for a copy of the rase euhniitte.l to
the Law Officers of the Crown, and their opinion giv,ts
thereupon, respecting the duties payable on the sugar
imported, in discharge of the Four-aud•a-Half per Cent.
duties.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had no doubt that he should be able to Offer a satisfactory
explanation on the subject touched on in the Hon. Aiem-
bees speech. Indeed, he thought he might (if he flt SQ,
disposed) claim credit for presenting returns of the 44 pet•
cent. duties, increased considerably in point of amount.
It was wrong in the Hon. Member to say that the imotint
was concealed till it came out incidentally upon his (Air.
Hume's) motion for papers. The fact was, that accounts
were annually laid upon the table, in which the per
cent. duties formed one of the items, and in those accounts
the• augmentation had appeared. The Hon. Gentleman
inquired the reason for deviating from the practice adopted.
for a great number of years, and argued as if itlintst?ns.
had robbed the revenue of the country to enrich the rove-
nue of the Crown. He argued as if the management and.
direction of the 44 per cent. duties had not undergone' a,
considerable alteration of late years, as if the Crown had
not in point of fact abandoned its claim to than, aiud.
placed them under the controul of Parliament. BY tbe
Act of the 6th of his present Alajesty, it was directed
that the salaries of the Bishops and Clergy in the Wt:it
India islands, should in future be paid out of the 44 per
cent. duties, which were thus devoted to the payment of
our Colonial Governors, Bishops and Clergy. The aiim
paid to the Bishops and Clergy amounted to 25,000/. a year,
including salaries and pensions. Whatever m;ght be the
merits of this plan, it had not enhanced the patronage of
the Crown It appeared from this statement, that the
charge of taking money from the revenue of the country„
in order to put it in the hands of the Crown, was with-
out foundation. It had occurred to him, that the sugar
sent from the West Indies in payment of the 44 per cent,
duties, being Crown property, was not liable to par duty.
It was upon constitutional principles that Ise had formed .
this opinion, and in consulting with the liaw Officers '-rof
the Crown, he found his opinion confirlia by 0)5-Which
they entertained on the subject. As by appl..k the rule
which the Law Advisers of the Crown laid down as the
rule of law, he did not divert &ois the public into the
hands of the Crown any part of the fund in question, it.
appeared to him that in pursuing that course he was
adopting a proceeding free from every possible objection.
The transaction was extremely simple ; he had no dispo-
sition to promote the interest of the individual who ma-
naged the fund.

111 r. BARING said,' if the opinion of the legal ad-
visers of the Crown in this case were consonant with law,
it was law of such a tendency, awl which might be at-
tended with such consequences in a constitutional point of
view, as to render it well deserving of the serious conside-
ration of Parliament. The position of the Right Hon.
Gentleman appeared to be this—that there were sugars
belonging to the Crown which were brought to this coun-
try from the West India islands, and that, as being the
property of the Crown, the law officers of the day were of
opinion that they were not liable to pay duty. It was
singular enough that nearly two centuries should have
passed (during which duty was paid upon these sugars)
without this notable discovery of the exemption of the
Crown sugars from duty being made. Would his Hon.
and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) tell hint that
the Crown might import into this country merchandlsn
free of duty for sale? Yet this was what the Right Hon.
Gentleman's position amounted to. The principle was the
same as in the present case ; these sugars were admitted
without payment of duty, because they were the prOpertr
of the Crown. But the Crows might have purChased the
sugars ; that would not alter the transaction. 'Was the

law to ..be laid down that the Crown could impart any
irticle as merchand;xe for sale in this country? He had
always understood that the exemption of the Crown from
the payment of taxes was for the maintenance of the Royal,
dignity. The tax-gatherer was excluded from the pata,e
of the sovereign, because his entrance would be considered
derogatory to the dignity of the Crown. A similar ex-.
empton was extended to the Ambassadors and Ministers
of foreign, Sovereigns, probably for nearly the same ohject.'
It was true the King might import French wines, for his-
own consumption, free of duty ; this was always under,.
stood: but the law, as laid dawn by the Right
Gentleman, would allow the King to import French wines
for sale.. These sugars were imported into this country'
simply for the purpose of sale. He was impatient to hear.
from his Han. mid Learned Friend (the Attorney-General
his notions of the law upon the subject. In a eunstitu,
tional point of view, the position laid down by thi; Chan
caller of the Exchequer was of extreme importanee't)
the country ; if the law really were as the Right Hon.
Gentleman had stated, it might be rendered the souree of
enormous advantages to the Crown', and of correspurrlent
injury to the country:
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, there could he no
moral or legal doubt that the sugars in question were
exempt from duty, as being the property of the Crown. --
With respect to the motion. of the Hon, Member foeAber--f.
deco for the production of the opiniona of the LawOffi
tees of the day upon the point, he did not see the use of
-Without denying the poeier Of'
.the House of C:
mons to call for any documents Whatever-..—for he Nvv‘iltr
suppose a case in which it might call for a minnte of
the proceedings of a Cabinet Council,--he mast say it
would be rather hard upon Attornies and Solici
to have their opinions, given in confidence to tire Oavo
nient, reviewed and debated in Psilia;rent. lu this fit,.

. tionlar cue it could be of no importance to have the opi-
nions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he hoped
that a precedent for the production and discussion in the
House of,Consmons of such opinions might not be esta•
blished by agreeing to the present motion. He could easily
conceive a ease in which an Attorney-General might not
like to have his opinion* discussed in Parliament, though
this was not such a case. Whatever the Hon. Member
meant to do, he could accomplish as well upon the infor.
mation already before him, without calling for these docu-
ments. He had delivered his opinion on the subject with
great sincerity, and he believed it would be found that a'l
the twelve Judges in Westminster-hall, if the questicn
were put to them, would concur in opinion with the
written document of his predecessor.
Mr. BARING asked the Attorney-General whether the
law went to such an extent that the Crown could import
merchandise for sale free of duty?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it might he diffi •
cult to answer the question in the abstract. The Hon.
Member must put a case. It was undoubtedly true that,
in the time of the Henries, when our Monarchs had pos-
sessiens and revenues abroad, wines were imported by the
Crown free of duty, which might have been, and probably
were for sale.
After an observation from Mr. BERNAL, the purport of
which we could not clearly collect,
Mr. BRIGHT could not but imagine that there was
some ulterior view in the alteration made by Ministers.
Whether it was to get a larger sum out of the Four and

a Half per Cent. fund—the fund was burdened with a
debt—whether there were pensions of which Parliament
knew nothing charged upon it,—he could not tell, but he
confessed the change did appear to him very suspicious.
What induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take
the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the
subject—•what was the Right Hon. Gentleman's object in
mooting an ancient point of law which bad lain hid for

a space of 170 years ? Certain charges were to be paid
out of the proceeds of the Four and a Half per Cents.,
but salaries falling in, and the fund being augmented by
exempting the sugars from duty, the amount would become
so large as to exceed the demands upon it for the support
of the church in the West Indies. In 1808 the,gro's
proceeds of the Four and a Half per Cent. duties amounted
to 35,0001., the net proceeds to 16,0001. (this was under
the old law, and the deduction was partly o❑ account of
duties, in part on account of other charges.) In 1809,
the gross proceeds were 112,0001., the net amount
48,000/. Thus in one year the Crown might have had
the distribution of 35,000/., and in the very next of
112,0001. under the present system. One year the fund
(which appeared liable to great variation) might be merely

sufficient to support the ecclesiastical establishments, and
to defray the other charges upon it, yet afford in the next
year a great surplus for salaries, pensions, or whatever
other uses the Crown should choose to apply it to. He
trusted that the Hon. Member for Aberdeen would not

let the matter drop, bat persist in probing it to the bottom.

Sir C. WETHERELL said that if Government should
consent to the production of the opinions of the Law Of-
ficers of the Crown in this case, he should state his con-
viction as a lawyer, that no Attorney or Solicitor-General
ought ever again to give an opinion in writing upon any
case submitted to them by the Crown. He utterly dis-
sented from the proposition that the House of Commons
had a right to see the private and confidential advice of the
Law Officers of the Crown. With respect to the ques-
tion of the liability of Crown property to taxation, there
was no lawyer who would not at once admit that it was
altogether exempt : that these sugars shouli come in free
of duty was undoubted. _ _

Sir R. PEEL concurred with the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) that it was not expedient in
the present case for the House to call for the opinion
which the Learned Gentleman, when Attorney-General,
had delivered upon this subject. However, he did not
agree with the Learned Gentleman in thinking that in no
case should Parliament call for the production of opinions
given by Law Off.cers of the Crown. If there •was a
suspicion that they had acted under undue influence, an
imputation against them of straining a point in favour of
the Crown, the Law Officers would be justly liable to
have their opinions called for, and their official acts in-
vtetigated. Nothing could be more convenient for Go-
vernment than to lay the opinion of its legal advisers be-
fore Parliament, and shelter itself under their sanction and
authority ; but such a proceeding might be fairly objected
to by Hon. Members opposite, on the ground that it in-
volved an attempt to overhear the exercise of the free
judgment and opinion of the House. Would the House
allow the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor-General
to guide it ? Certainly net. He knew that in the case
of a discussion on the Alien Act, a legal opinion of one
of the Crown Lawyers was inadvertently produced by a
Member of the Government, in order to show that we
possessed the power of banishing aliens ; and the produc-
tion of this opinion being objected to, it was admitted that

it was wrong to quote it under the idea of controulling
the House. It was fit that the Government should be
the party to be held responsible, and that it should not be
permitted to rely on the opinions of its Law Officers as a
sanction to acts for which it was itself accountable. It
was a matter of indifference whether the opinion were
produced in the present case or not, as far as the practical
result was concerned ; but upon principle the House rather
than the Government ought to resist its production.
Sir J. NEWPORT thought that when the Hon. and
Learned Member (Sir C. Wetherell) told them he should
think it a degradation to give, as Attorney-General, an
opinion which was to be subjected to the inspection of
that House, the Hon. and Learned Member showed that
be was totally unfit to bold the situation which he had for-
merly filled. And so much for that—(Hear, from Sir
C. Wetherell )—Yes, so much for that; and he said so
beciuse he did not like to repeat the same thing over and
over again, which was the custom of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman.—(Hear, and laughter,)—On every
constitutional ground he contended that these opinions
ought to be produced. If the law was, as it had been
stated to be, the Legislature ought immediately to amend it.

Sir C. WETHERELL, in explanation, called on the
Hesse to bear witness that he had never said that the
Law Officers ought not to be responsible to that House.
The servility of which he had spoken was servility to the
Minister, not to the Parliament. All he had said was,
that if there lilt been any thing wrong, the Government
ought not to cast blame on the Law Officers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had understood the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman to have spoken exactly as
he had stated he had. The Hon. Baronet must, there-
fore, he thought, have misunderstood the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman. He was not responsible for the
opinion in question, but allow him to say that no lawyer
could have given any other opinion. He thought the
practice of producing the opinions of the Law Officers,
which were given only as a guide to the Government,
would be highly objectionable.
Lord ALTHORP must confess that he had understood
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) very
differently. He had understood the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to say, that he should consider it a degradation
if an opinion of his, given as Attorney-General, were
canvassed in that Honse. With respect to the production
of such opinion., he agreed that that might be sometimes
attended with inconvenience, and that a special case ought
to be made out to warrant the House in calling for the
opinions of the Law Officers. In the present case he had
heard no valid objection, and he could conceive none,
against the production of the opinions ; and he should
therefore vote for the amendment, especially after the
doctrines that had been laid down that evening.—(Hear.)
Sir C. WETHERELL regretted that he should have
been misunderstood by so accurate a person as the Noble
Lord, and was sorry to be called upon to explain a second
time. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then repeated
his former explanation.
Lord ALTHORP had not doubted, after the explana-
tieu before given by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
that he had misunderstood what had fallen from the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman in his speech. He had only
stated the fact that he had misunderstood him, because
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman seemed to think it
strange that the Hon. Baronet (Sir John Newport) had
►misunderstood him.

Mr. R. GORDON entirely concurred in what had
fallen from the Noble Lord (Althorp). The opinion of
the Law Officers they knew pretty well ; what he wanted
was, the case which bad been laid before the Law Officers.

Sir R. PEEL was sure the House would do him the
justice to recollect that he bad not said that the Law
Officers or their opinions were beyond the reach and con-
troul of that House. As, for instance, where there was
imputation either upon the Government or upon the Law
Officers, the House would doubtless be justified in calling
for those opinions. All that he contended for was, that
the grounds must be shown for the production of such do-
cuments. He could not conceive what ground there was
in the present case, where the law was admitted. He
thought the Hon. Member who had just sat down had
shown the weakness of his cause by saying, " It is the case
I want ;not the opinion."

Hr. b'CONNELL said that this was a case in which
usage of 60 years' standing bad been departed from. If
such a cue happened between man and man, a Court of
Equity would compel the production of the opinion and
of the seam on which that opinion was given.—(" No,
no," from S:r C. Wetherell, and a cry of " Order.")--
He said " Yes." He maintained the point, and could
cite authorities in support of it. He saw no reason why

either the case or the opinion should be withheld in the
present instance.
Mr. MABERLY apprehended that this diversion of
money had been mane in consequence of the funds for the
payment of the pensions having diminished.:. He thought
the opinion ought to be produced.
Mr. HUME begged to know if he had the liberty of reply.
The SPEAKER (as we understood) intimated that the
Hon. Member had not.—(Cries of " Hear him" from
the Treasury bench.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a divi
sion took place, when the numbers were—

For the amendment 32
Against it 7B
Majority against the amendment-46

On our return to the gallery we found

Mr. HUME objecting to the Speaker leaving the chair.
He said that the Ministers had, by this measure which
they had taken upon the opinions of the Law Offieers,
transferred 30,0001. a-year from the controul of that
House, without the consent or the knowledge of the
House. The House, therefore, ought not to vote one
shilling for the public service until the circumstances of
the case were made known, and until the Ministers con-
sented to produce the opinions of the Law Officers. This
fund was described as the King's private property, and
he therefore charged the Ministers with having taken
30,0001. a-year from the public, and with having put it
into the pocket of the King. On these grounds he ob-
jected to any further supplies being voted. He did not
exactly know what course he ought to take. He would,
however, now move that the Committee of Supply be
postponed to Monday next.

The SPEAKER said that the forma of the House
would not allow the Hon. Member to take that course.

Mr. HUME said that, in that cue, he would meet the
question before the House by a direct negative, and that
he would renew his opposition on every vote of supply
being proposed throughout the Session.—(Hear, and
laughter.)—Yes; he would. He would not listen, as he
had listened before, to such language as this—" You are
impeding the public business without answering any good
end." He thought the proceedings of Ministers in re-
fusing to produce the opinions of the Law Officers, had
been most unconstitutional. The Ministers by this refusal
bad treated both the House and the country with disre-
spect, and no further supplies should be granted with his
consent. He would not divide the House on the question,
as it had already expressed its opinion ; but, for the pre-
sent, he would content himself with giving the motion for
going into the Committee a negative.
The motion, that the Speaker do leave the Chair, was
then put and agreed to, and the House went into the
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—PENITENTIARY