The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-02 00:00:00

~s
-~l ~

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1822.

P 4 R,LIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, A?IUL 1.
The House met at Twelve o'clock, and pro-
ceeded in Appeals.
Lord GLENLYON (formerly Lord James Murray) took
the oaths and his seat. Hewail introduced by the Earl of
Kinnoul (as Lord Haye), and. th Earl of Limerick (as Lord
Foxford).
On the motion of the Earl of LIMERICK, Douglas's Di-
vorce Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed
to-morrow. This order was hOwever, afterwards, on his Lord-
ship's motion, discharged, and the Committee postponed until
after the holidays.
Earl DIGBY presented three petitions from Dorsetshire,
complaining of agricultural distress.
ORDERS of the HOUSE.—BREAKFAST POWDERS.
Mr. Thos. Woodger, one of the Messengers of the Trea-
sury, being called to the Bar, and examined by the Marquis
of Lansdown, stated, that he recollected having received on the
11th and on the 23a of last month, orders of the House, which
he hstl carried to the Excise-office, and delivered there.
Mr. Burton, the Secretary of the Excise, was text called.
Ile remembered receiving the order of the 11th on the wmining
of the following day. It had been left at the Fixeisc. nlrget on
the evening before. The order was not addressed to him. It
was opened by the Board, and then delivered to him.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWN, the
Chairman of the Board of Excise was ordered to be called to
the bar.

Lord George Seymour soon after appeared at the bar, and
was examined by the Marquis of LANSDOWN. He recollected
having received the order of the House relative to breakfast-
powder 'on the 12th of last month, in a communication from
the Treasury. It was immediately ordered to be reported up-
on from the different persons whom it concerned, from all the
country branches of the Excise, and from all the persons
through whose hands the proceedings had passed. There had
been a strong feeling on the subject of roasted grain, and as
the instructions'were numerous, and related to a great variety
of kinds of grain, time and discretion were necessary, in order
to make a proper Return. As he had been the person through
whom the orders had been given, he was the more anxious
that the Return should be correct. The delay which had taken
place was necessary, in order to complete the Return, which he
wished to be done, both for his own Justification and that of the
Board. Every particular case was to be considered by itself,
and that occupied much time. He therefore did 'conceive that
he had a discretion in making up the Return, as one, sweeping
answer would not have been sufficient.

In answer to questions respecting _the order of the 23d; for
making the return forthwith, lie said that he recollected'having
received that order, and that every step necessary for its execution
was immediately taken. More than two hours did not elapse be-
fore it was made up. It was sent to the Treasury on the Tues-
day, ffnd that it did not reach their Lordships' House on the
same day, he conceived was 'owing to the circuitous mode of
conveyance. He recollected receiving a letter from the Trea-
sury, requesting an expfanation of the cause of the delay.—
That no explanation was given was a neglect for which he took
blame to himself. He was desirous that no time should be
lost in dispatching the return. The Secretary was about 'to
write, but he believed he said to him—" Let us have no idle
delay now," "Ile must therefore take blame to himself for
this, but it anise frOm his desire to hasten the return.
ln answer to questions from Earl GREY, Lord George said,
that the instructions were very numerous; and that they applied
to different districts and different cases. There were a great
number of offices in the country to which orders had been sent.
Copies of all the orders sent to subordinate offices, relating to
41 the different cases, were not kept; and as there had been a
strong feeling on the subject of roasted wheat, he was desirous
that they should all be collected from the different offices.
There Iva been no communication between the Excise and the
Treasury on the subject of the return from the 12th to the
23d. During that time the execution' of the order was in
operation.

Lord George Seymour was desired to withdraw.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said that after The ex-
planations which their Lordships had heard, it was for them to
Judge what should be done. 'l hough there appeared to have
been no intentional neglect, yet he thought the case was one
which called for the notice of the House.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said a few words in a low tone
of voice. We believe that he suggested that Lord G. Seymour
should be called to the Bar, and informed that the House was
satisfied there had been no intentional delay, but desired that
more attention might be paid to their orders.
Earl GREY observed, that after all he had heard, no cause
of delay appeared to him to be satisfactorily male out. It
did appear to him most extraordinary that in a Board con-
ducted with any regularity copies of instructions issued were
not kept. That, certainly, was a cause of delay, but not a
satisfactory one. Ile thought the House would do wrong
if they did not mark this case in a way which would shew that
they felt due attention had not been paid to their orders.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said it might be stated that the
House required more attention to their orders.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWN, Lord George
Seymour was again called in.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then addressing Lord George
Seymour, said—" I am commanded to inform you, that the
House expects in future that its orders shall be punctually,
executed, and at present dismiss you from any farther at-
tendance." -

Lord George again withdrew.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN had now a motion to
make connected with the subject which had just been in-
quired intq lie had at first intended to move for the opi-
nions of the. Attorney and Solicitor-General on which he
supposed the Convaissioners of Excise had acted ; but in
consequence of what had passed between the Noble Earl oppo-
site and himself, he had relinquished that design;, and would
now move merely for copies, of the records of the convictions
which had taken place under the Act of Parliament on which
the Excise had prosecuted. In the mean time, he thought it
necessary now to make a few observations in order to call their
Lordships' attention to the subject, as nothing farther could be
done in it until after the holidays. It appeared that the Com-
missioners of Excise conceived themselves to be in possession of
a power which entitled them to prosecute not merely persofis
who sold a fraudulent substitute for coffee, but also persons who
were guilty of no fraud; nor of any fraudulent intention, and
who only wished to do that which every subject had a right to
do—namely, to sell articles of food not forbidden by the law.—
On looking at the Acts of Parliament,it might be very possible
that, under the opinion of the Officers of the Crown, the, Com-
missioners of Excise saw ground for proceeding as they had
done. He meant a technical ground ; for surely neither their
.Lordships nor the other House of the Legislature could have
meant that the law should be applied in any other way than to
protect the revenue against fraud. The last Act on the sub-
ject was passed on the application of the Commissioners, because,
it had before been found difficult to prove fraud to the satisfac-
tion of juries. On this ground their powers were enlarged.—
He did not mean to say that, with such a revenue as this coun-
try had to collect, severe laws were not necessary ; but there
was a great distinction between prosecutions for fraud, and pro-
secutions not for any fraud whatever, or even any alleged fraud.
He never could believe, until he should see the principle recog-
nized by that House, that it had been the intention of the Le-
gislature to give to any persons the right of determining what
articles should be sold or taxed. There had, besides, been an
arbitrary selection of persons for prosecution. The Board of
Excise laid down a distinction which they had no right to make.
They had decided that persons might roast wheat for their own
use, but that those who sold it were to be prosecuted. The
Commissioners of Excise were thus assuming a power which
Parliament could not intrust to any authority in the country
With regard to the impolicy of the proceeding, he thought there
could be no doubt. He was prepared to contend that no ma-
nufacture could be more beneficial to the country than that
which by making new articles of food, increased the consump-
tion of its productions. On the ground of national expediency,
therefore, their Lordships would do well to watch proceedings
of the nature of those which had teen instituted by the Excise.
The power to prosecute when fraud was not distincly seen was
great, but nothing could' be more unjust than that it should
exist where no fraud was alleged. In the case where an article
was sold openly,and without any intention to substitute it frau-
dulenfly for another, it was entitled to the full protection of the
law. He concluded by moving for copies of all convictions un-
der prosecutiOns by the Board of Excise for the sale of articles
composed of bread corn.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said he did not recollect many
instances of opinions given by the law officers of the Crown to
Boards being produced. There were many Faso in which such

production would be improper: but there could be no objection
to the production of the records of convictions in Courts of Jus_
tire. ite understood that cases had been brought before seve-
ral juries, and the Noble Marquis could therefore have copies
of the indictments and verdicts, which would be sufficient for
his purpose. As to the question of policy, he admitted that
he saw no reason why persons should be prohibited from selling
roasted wheat, or any other roasted grain. But the question
wag, whether an opening was not made for fraud when it was
sold in the state of
_powder. The prohibition in that case might
be necessary not only for the protection of the revenue, but for
the protection of the purchasers of the article, which was liable
to be adulterated by such powder. Parliament was bound to
guard against frauds of this nature, and prohibition was for the
interest of the individuals liable to be imposed on.—The motion
was agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Lord ERSKINE presented a petition from owners and occu-
piers of land in the County of Suffolk. His Lordship observed,
that thepetitioners were desirous that their views and objects
should not be misrepresented. It had been said that persons
of their class wished only to raise the price cf food : but, on
the contrary, their opinion was, that the cheaper all articles
were, the better it would be for the community. They were
also convinced that no effectual relief could be obtained except
bye. diminution of taxation ; and they hoped that their Lord-
ships would soon see their wav,to those extensive reductions of
expenditure by which relief fi:om taxation was to be obtained.
Earl GREY presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Durham, against the Durham Paving Bill.
The Irish Navy 5 per Cent.'s Bill, the Dublin Fever Hos-
pital Bill, and the Stolen Securities' Receivers' Bill, werei•ead
a second time.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MISCELLANEOUS.

Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition from certain in--
hAbitAnts of the town of Uxbridge, praying for some altera-
tion in the laws for the recovery of small debts.-;-Laid on the
table.

Sir A- CAMPBELL presenied a Petition from certain in-
habitants of the city of Glasgow, praying the House to take
the situation of the West India onies into its early considera-
tion.—Laid on the table.

Mr. SYKES presented a Petition from the Gentry, Clergy,
Landholders, and others in the district of Kingston-upon-
Hull, complaining of Agricultural Distress and praying the
House would investigate the subject.—Referred to the C'orn-'
mittee.

Mi. R. H. DAVIS presented a Petition from certain West
India Proprietors and Merchants resident in Bristol, complain-
ing of distress from the depressed stateof the markets for sugar,
and praying for relief.—Ordered to lie.upon the table.
General GASCOYNE presented a Petition from the dealers
in salt in Liverpool, praying generally • for relief, and stating
their digappointment at the Salt Tax nothaving been repealed-.
He wished to ask whither the Honourable Member for Ware-
ham intended to bring the subject again forward in the present
Session.

Mr. CALCRAFT had not made up his mind as to the course
he should.pursue. He trusted that if we remained at peace,
and every thing went on well, this tax would be given' up ih
the next year. But if Ministers did not c)me forward with
some measure for relieving the distress of Agriculture, he
should certainly bring the subject again before the House this
Session,
Sir T.: LETHBRIDGE said, that if the Hon. Member
brought forward the question of the Salt Tax repeal again, the
country would be greatly obliged to him. After the very small
majority by which the proposition. was before rejected, it
would become the Government to give up the tax to the
people..
Mr. GRENFELL said, he would give his support to a mo-
flop; for repealing the Salt Tax, in preference to any other
which existed. ' •

Mr. DAVENPORT thought the. tax oppressive and 'inju-
rious. Its repeal would increase the number of fisheries, and
by that means give considerable employment to the poor in
time of peace, and prepare seamen for war when they were
wanted. < ,

Sir I. COFFIN said, he hoped they should be found firing
broadside after broadside at his Majesty's Ministers, until the
tax was repealed.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that some advantages were allowed to
the fisheries in Scotland, in which those of England did not
participate. He had mentioned this to the Hon. Secretary of
the Treasury, and hoped it would be attended to.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
had agreed to several Private Bills.