The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-05 00:00:00

• —se.
eessity for the benefices te'be contiguous, w_euldinterfere --;,\
with the end in view. The first eight clause*en proposed : -
to deal with this part of the subject. Theafest of the bill ?. 3
treated of patronage. The noble and lap red lord on
the woolsack was greatly concerned in this matter, fo he held the patronage of no fewer than 75c.)enefices, the -; 4
total annual value of which was 190,000 besidea:-r:,.
alternate presentation of 23 benefices, thelotailv4o9-,:-
which was 7,877/. A vast number of tirten,• hetiAseer, '
were of an insignificant and wholly insuffitifkinointiet ;
and the bill would, therefore, enable the ndbielOgjo
part with a portion of his patronage, with a iiielt, to
parishes being consolidated with other. Powers would
also be given to various companies to part with their
patronage, not for any pecuniary advantage, but for the
purpose of improving other livings, and so creating new
parishes with efficient means for the cure of souls. He
was aware that some persons thought it was improper
that a layman should interfere with church matters at all
but such would not be the opinion of their.lordships ;
for the laity were as much a portion of the church as the
clergy. In the present case he had been a member of a
commission recently appointed to consider this question,
and the bill had met with the unanimous sanction of the
commissioners, including the Archbishop of York, the
Bishop of London, and another right rev, prelate.
The Earl of POWIS said it was hard to criticise any
measure relating to the church that emanated from a
noble lord so well known for his judgment and zeal in
such matters as the noble earl ; but still he thought the
measure was open to grave objections. If this bill passed
in its present shape they might destroy an old church,
and convert it to secular purposes, and a bishop might
be scoffed at for one day consecrating a church for re-
ligious purposes for ever, and the next day signing a
A arrant for the destruction of a church and applying the
site to secular purposes.
The Bishop of LONDON said the bill was the result
of a commission issued by her Majesty to inquire into
the best means of subverting large parishes, and of
making more effectual provision for poorer benefices.
The noble earl needed no vindication for bringing in the
bill, but, if one were needed, it would be found in the
fact that he brought in the bill, not on his own respon-
sibility, but on the responsibility of the commission to
which he had referred, It was a matter of notoriety
that the churches in the city of London were far more
numerous than the wants of the community required.
That had been a matter of remark as long as he could
remember. He thought therefore they were abundantly
justified in bringing in this bill. He hoped their lord-
ships would allow the bill to go into committee.
After a few words from the Marquis of BATH and the
Earl of MALKESBURT, their lordships went into commit-
tee on the bill, and the first five clauses were agreed to.
On clause 6,
The Earl of POWIS moved the omission of the
clause. The clause gave power to sell the site and the
burial-ground attached to a church. He thought such
a power ought not to be given.
The Bishop of LONDON supported the clause.
The Bishop of SALISBURY agreed with the noble
earl (Malmesbury) in many of his observations ; but he
thought he was pushing his feelings to a degree that
was opposed to the public interest. It was not possible,
in a metropolis like this, that a church should remain as
a ruin, and a burial-ground as an unoccupied site. He
hoped the noble earl would not continue his opposition.
The Earl of DERBY said he did not think the
analogy which the right rev, prelate had drawn was cor-
rect with regard to the power given under the Sewers'
Act. In that case the bishop was only empowered to
consent to what the Commissioners of Sewers thought
desirable. He entirely sympathised with the views of
the noble lord behind him as to the opinion of the public
with regard to the pulling down churches and the re-
moval of burying-grounds. The case presented by the
right rev, prelate with respect to the City of London
specially was peculiar ; but the bill was not framed to
meet the exigencies of the City only, and such consider-
ations must give way, and the minor evil must be en-
dured, when the object was to confer a gain on the
public generally. He suggested to the noble lord that,
omitting the metropolis, in all other towns the consent
of the municipal corporations should be obtained before
the church was pulled down or the burial-ground
abolished. The right rev.'prelate could have no wish to
exercise an inviduous power, and it was clear that his
object was to be effected in a legitimate way.
Some conversation took place on this suggestion, and
it was understood that the Bishop of London expressed
his readiness to adopt it, but the Earl of Harrowby
objected to accept an alteration which would alter the
principle of the bill.
The amendment was rejected without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the house
resumed.

EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved the third reading of this
bill, and stated its general principles.
Lord MONTEAGLE took the opportunity of stating
that he viewed this bill, in its principle and application,
with great alarm. He approved of this effort at equal-
ising the duties on spirits in the three countries, but
he feared they were playing tricks with the revenue, and
he doubted the wisdom of reductions in England in
order to benefit Ireland and Scotland. As it stood, it
was a bill to lose and not to gain revenue. The spirit
duties of Ireland was one-fourth of the revenue of that
country ; and there ought to be no risk of such a sum.
He would now proceed to call their lordships' attention
to the authorities upon which he based his opposition to
the bill. In 1822, the duty upon Irish spirits was 2s. 6d.
a gallon, but in that year the Government of Lord Liver-
pool appointed a commission to consider the whole sub-
ject, and in 1823 that commission reported that experi-
ence in the remote parts of Scotland and Ireland proved
that it was impolitic to impose a high rate of duty upon
spirits. The duty was accordingly reduced, and the
effect of that reduction he would show in a very few
words. In 1823, when the high duty was in force, it
was paid upon 3,300,000 gallons of sprits; but in the
year following the reduction. the duty was paid upon
6,690,000 gallons. In the year 1830, Mr. Goulburn re-
pealed the window duty in Ireland, but added ls. to the
spirit duties, and the effect of that measure was to in-
crease the amount of duty paid, and this circumstance
induced Lord Grey to appoint a second commission to
inquire into the subject, who reported their concurrence
in the opinion that illicit distillation uniformly kept pace
with the advance of duty. The duty was accordingly
reduced a second time, upon the recommendation of
Lord Althorp—no mean authority—and the result of
that alteration was a rise in the revenue, not to 10,000,000
of gallons, which the Government anticipated, but to
12,000,000 gallons. From that period the duty went on
increasing up to 1840, when his right hon. friend, Sir F.
Baring, felt it to be necessary to add 4d. to the duty,
and Mr. Goulburn, who had the experience of 1830 be-
fore his eyes, warned Sir F. Baring of what would be
the consequence of making this addition to the duty.
Nevertheless, the 4d. was allowed to pass, and so mat-
ters stood until 1842, when Sir R. Peel, undismayed by
the previous evidence, put a further duty of ls. on, but
the result of this experiment was so disastrous, that in
1843 Mr. Goulburn in the one house and the Duke of
Wellington in the other, came down with a proposal for
the repeal of the additional duty. So much then for
his authorities so far as the revenue was concerned ; and
now he would endeavour to point out in two or three
words the effect which an increase in the duty invari-
ably had upon crime. In 1834, when the high duty
was in operation, the number of criminals in all the
prisons in Ireland, charged with offences against the
excise laws, was between 400 and 500, but in 1842,
when the duty was low, the number was only 268.
The noble lord having gone into other figures to show
that the tendency of increasing the duty was to add
to crime, went on to remark that the excuse in the first
instance, to which he had referred, for augmenting the
duty, was the repeal of the window duty, while in 1842
Sir Robert Peel imposed the increased duty as a justifi-
cation for not extending the property tax to Ireland ;
but on the present occasion it was just the reverse.
Here the Government did not propose to commute one
tax for another, but in addition to increasing the duty
on spirits they proposed to extend the income tax to
Ireland as well. Nor was that all, for it seemed they
were to have a succession tax too, and on the whole he
must say that, however beneficial the budget might be
to England, it certainly would press most unjustly upon
Ireland. Relatively the figures stand thus—the soap
and assessed taxes remitted in favour of England
amounted to 1,443,000/. ; while the new taxes imposed
upon Great Britain, whic would consist of an increase
in the Scotch spirit duties and the income tax, would
amount to 403,0001.—and, therefore, so far as Ireland
was concerned, the positive relief would be 1,040,000/.
Now compare this with the state of the account so far
as it related to Ireland. The only remission in favour
of Ireland was 245,000/. of Consolidated Annuities ;
while, on the other hand, It was proposed to extend the
property tax to Ireland and increase the spirit duties,
making in all 658,000/., so that while they repealed
taxes in favour of Great Britain amounting to 1.040,000/.
they proposed to impose new taxes upon Ireland amount-
ing to no less than 433,000/., which was a manifest in-
justice. However, he would not detain their lordships
longer upon this subject, but apologising for having
trespassed so long upon their patience, he would simply
content himself with again protesting against the passing
of this bill.

The Earl of DERBY could not agree with his noble
friend in thinking that his observations were out of
place even at that hour of the evening, or in the then
thin state of the house, for excepting, perhaps, the latter
portion of his noble friend's speech, which referred to
the relative amount of taxation to be imposed upon
England and Ireland by the budget, and which he
thought was not necessary at this time, he was bound to
say the remarks of his noble friend were justifiable.
These remarks went to show most clearly that the prac-
tical effect of an increase in the duty was a correspond-
ing diminution in the revenue, and he entirely concurred
with his noble friend that this impolitic addition to
the duty would not increase the revenue ; but in
the present state of the house, and considering that
this bill was one to which the Government attached
considerable importance, believing, indeed, that it
would increase the revenue by 400,0001., lie was un-
willing to do more in opppositiort to the measure than ex-
press his entire concurrence in the views and opinions of
his noble friend. (Hear, hear.) He should be sorry to
see a bill which had passed the House of Commons, and
to which the Government attached considerable imports'
ante, rejected by so small a number of their lordships ;
but lie must at the same time be permitted to say that
it was that consideration alone—for he thought the
measure a most mischievous one-- which prevented him,
while it no doubt precluded his noble friend from taking
the sense of the house with regard to the passing of this
bill. He was, however, for the reasons he had stated,
disposed to leave the natter in the hands of the Govern-
ment, believing that like former governments they
would eventually find it necessary to retrace their steps,
when they found, as they certainly would do, the same
evil consequences flowing from their measure as had in-
variably attended all similar experiments in this direc• •