The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-08 00:00:00

BARILLA.

Mr. S. RICE having brought up Treasury returns re-
specting the duty on barilla,
The order of the day for the House going into a Com-
mittee on the Barilla Duty Bill was then read.

Mr.. BANKES said he should now call the attention of
the House to an important constitutional question, which
was intimately connected with the right and privileges of
the House of Commons. By the papers now presented,
it appeared that a case of gross irregularity lead occurred
in the Treasury since the accession of the present Govern-
ment, which, ix his opinion demanded the censure and
interference of the House. Ile alluded to the unconstitu-
tional violation of the prerogative of Parliament by the
Treasury order issued on the 14th of December on the
subject of the Barilla Duty, at a time when Parliament
was actually sitting, although unapprized of this direct
invasion of the privilege of the Commons and assumption
of an authority which, by the custom of the Constitution,
appertained to them alone. Many cases had, it was true,
occurred when the executive exercised a similar function
in the interval between se•sions, but the course now adopted
was both unprecedented in.point of fact, and unwarranted
by exigency or the necessities of the occasion. The Hon.
Member concluded by calling for an explanation from the
Riait Hon. Gentleman who filled the office of Vice-Prt-
sident of the Board of Trade, after expatiating somewhat
further on the irregularity of the proceeding.

Mr. P. THOMSON had listened with Co little amaze-
ment to the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat
down—the rather, that after the candid explanation of his
Noble Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on a
f firmer occasion, when he admitted the objectionableness of
the principle which bad given birth to the Hon. Member's
angry remonstrance, he was by no means prepared to
meet with a mind so little alive and generous to the candid
admissions of an adversary as the Hon. Member's state-
ment would warrant their pronouncing his to be. Were
the Hon. Member more generous to a political opponent,
he would have waited till he (Mr. P. Thomson) bad made
his statement of the grounds on which he proposed to
bring forward a Bill to impart a legislative sanction to the
course of policy which the Government had felt it their
duty to pursue with respect to the duties on barilla, which
statement he should, when the House had resolved itself
.
into a Committee, submit to their consideration, coufideut
that it xvould not refuse its assent to the proposition he
meant to found upon it. He would anticipate that state-
ment so far as to set himself right with the House, so far
as the Hon. Member's charge affected him officially. A
few days after his accession to office he was addressed, iu
conference and in writing, by some gentlemen deeply inte-
rested in the cost of barilla, who represented to him that
they had had the promise of his predecessor in office,
that the high duties on barilla, which had been imposed
previous to the Act which expired in January. 1830,
would not be levied ; for that if they were it would be
to the serious injury of manufacturera who made use of ba-
rilla, particularly those engaged in the Irish bleaching
trade. On investigation it was found that the statements
of these gentlemen were founded in fact ; that a Treasury
minute, equivalent to a temporary repeal of the duties, had
been issued a few days (on the 16th of December) before
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had left office, and
that to enforce the duties leviable under the existing statute
would be seriously detrimental to those manufacturers
which required the use of barilla ; and accordingly the
Board of Trade authorities did not hesitate to trace the
steps of their predecessors, with this difference—that
while the Treasury minute of the 16th of December ac-
tually went, by me Ina of a drawback allowance, to repeal
the duty, that which the Hon. Member for Dorsetsbire had
just made the subject of angry complaint, only permitted
it to be taken out after a bond bad been given for the
amount of duty—the enforcement or non-enforcement of
which to be left to the decision of Parliament.—(Hear.)
And this is the great unconstitutional breach of privilege
upon which the Hon. Member would fain call down the
censure of the House, as if it were a daring violation of all
law, and wholly unsupported by precedent. So far front
its being contrary to usage for the Board of Trade to ad-
vise the Treasury to issue a minute like to that the subject
of the Hon. Member's reproach, when the interests of
commerce would appear to require it—that, within the last
few years, the reduction of duties on West India coffee
(reduced by a minute of the Treasury dated the Sd of
March, 1826, from is. 3d. per pound duty to 9d. ; on
East India pepper from Is. 6d. to Is., by a minute dated
the 14th of January, 1826 ; on spices, 3s. in the case of
cinnamon), and on other articles, was effected by Treasury
minutes ; and that, too, while Parliament was sitting.-;--
(Hear.) Even on the article of barilla, since 1819, the
collection of duty was chiefly regulated by Treasury
minutes, and for this reason—that barilla came under the
generic head of alkali (the potass and soda of commerce),
and as an alkali was liable to a 51. per ton duty, or more
in proportion to the per centage of pure soda which it was
alleged to contain. He had stated enough to show, in
the first place, that the Hon. Member's charge was un-
founded—(Hear)—and that the present Government had
only done their duty in making the reduction which he
was about to call upon the House to sanction.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. DAWSON agreed with rite Right Hon. Gen-
th-man, that though the principle of Treasury minutes was
objectionable, in a constitutional point of view, yet, as in
the present instance, a discretionary power should be left
with the Administration to effect such reduction of duty as
the interests of commerce might require ; for the exercise
of which power they of course were and should be respon-
sible to Parliament.

After a few words to the same effect from Mr. RICE
and Mr. HERMES,
The House went into the Committee.
Mr. P. THOMSON, amid great noise and confusion,
moved the three resolutions, of which he had stated the
substance in his former speech. The first and second re-
solution was confirmatory of what was done by the Go-
vernment in December last; and the third reduced the
duty on barilla to 21. a ton.
When the first resolution, "That it is the opinion of
this Committee, that the additional duties on barilla, as
far as affects the salts extracted from it, be repealed, and
that such repeal do take effect from May, 1819," was put
from the Chair,
Sir G. CLERK said, that if the duties on barilla were
repealed, 40,000 or 50,000 industrioHs persons in Scot-
land would be thrown out of employment, and be com-
pelled to emigrate to America.

Mr. MAIIERLY defended the proposed reduction of
the duties, stating, that in this case, the question of duties
was simply a contest between the home and the foreign
manufacturers of alkali.

Mr. SADLER insisted that the proposed change would
be productive of great misery and wretchedness—render-
ing industry useless, and throwing labour out of employ.
It would be the ruin of the kelp manufacturers, and the
unhappy people who depended upon those manufacturers.
Thus it would add to the poverty which was already so
great as to require all their exertions to relieve it. Poli-
tical economy had been allowed to dictate on various
branches of trade; and on which had it touched which
act it,
arte if
bad notparalysed ? WeU
_ ultbk3.P°4l y; thai