The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-11 00:00:00

. ,
fir

. •
• that, any imperfect legislation would be extremely ill. advise!! ;
and if it was their intention to put down all personal influence,
it should be at least done openly. But he did not consider
that as the greatest evil. What he had chiefly to. complain of,
was the outrageous practiCe of privately canvassing Members
to ,give their vote • one way or another on Committees.—
(Hear, hear !)—He did think it• occasioned greai private
injustice when Members lent themselves to that mode of pro_
ceeding ;—(Hear, hear I)—and this was really the evil that
ought to be checked. He should therefore object to the Hon.
Member's motion. If any motion. was necessary lie thmild
prefer one, expressing that it was derogatory to the dignity of
that House to be so .interested; but he was not prepared to,
adopt even that, for then there would be the objection that
every, thing in that case would be left to the private honours
of individuals, and by that means the existing law would be
superseded. The most satisfactory method, in his opinion,
would be, for the House to have the power of deciding on each
individual case, so that, instead of forming any general rule
which was dangerous, the House would be able to come to a de-
cision on the merits of each particular case. The passing on
to the Orders of the Day Would certainly leave open the ob-
jection, that those who have a direct influence for a measure,
were debarred from voting, while those who had an interest the
other way, were at liberty to oppose it. The question like-
wise might involve some injustice, because by that measure
stop might be put to all improvements by the, opposition of those
who had a private interest the other way. • There was a par-
ticular case of that nature at the present time, and he, felt that
he should he best discharging his duty by leaving the:law as it
stood then, and voting fur the Amendment of his Hen: Friend,
more especially as that Amendment did not tie 'him. to the not
taking any subsequent step.
Mr. HUDSON GURNEY mentioned a case in, which an
Hon. Member had been 'offered Shares at a very favourable
rate by the Committee of a Company, and in the postcript
Of the letter that contained that offer it was said, •" the Com-
mittee rely on your best exertions on all occasions to promote
the interest of the project." The Honourable Gentleman had
refused to take any shares on those terms, and had.gone into
the public market tOr them, and purchased them at b'd per cent.
advance.
r.•W.YNN said _that the question was one which certainly
involved very great• difficulties, but there were some parts in
which he saw no such difficulty. Such a one as had been stated
by the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, and he
was sure that it would only be necessary to prove such a trans-
action to cause any measure to be thrown out of tf.A House,
as the most effectual remedy that could be devised—(Hear,
bear!)—He had certainly entertained a stricter notion of the
rules of the (louse ; for although he was aware that most of
the precedents that occurred were • instances An which only
those Members who were favourable to a Bill had been ex-
cluded, yet still there were some other cases in which Mem-
bers had been ordered to withdraw. In the case, for instance,
da motion of censure which might subsequently lead to an
iniPeachment, it was the law to hear the Member in his place,
and then to order him to withdraw. On the whole, it appear-
ed to him•that the I'"t4t course the House could pursue would
be to make no new raid. Indeed he did not think that it was
in the power of the House to prevent any Alember from giving
a vote; all they could do was to disallow it when given.—
He disliked innovations where there was no direct use fin'
them ; he should therefore stand upon the old law, but when
any case was -brought to the notice of the House of direct and
pecuniary interests, he should no longer feel inclined to oppose
the measure. .

Mr. ABERCROMBY had no .doubt that the motion
brought by the lion. Member for Aberdeen had been introduc-
ed from the very best motives. There was ni+thing with which
men so easily ran away as the idea that no person ought to
give his vote where he was 'interested ; but if such an idea
was established into a law, how would it be possible to get at a
single vote without such an investigation into each Member's
motives, as would render them obnoxious to the public? It
was usual talking about this remedy and that remedy ; there
was but one general remedy_a remedy that applied to every
possible topic—the controul of-the public opinion.—(Hear !)
In the present measure he saw much cause for objection ; a
Member was to be excluded fr,,u, voting because he held 100?.
stock in a company, and another Member from voting because
the interests of his constituents were involved in the question ;
if the House was not in that state that_ its Members could be
trusted according to the common rules of sense and honour, in
God's name let them depart from that House as :Altogether
unfit for the office they held. Ile agreed with the -Right Hon:
Secretary for the 114..,m2 Department, that .the House had no
right to impose any restraint on the vote cf Gentlemen who were
sent into it by their constituents, and while he was upon that
subject, lie would take the opportunity of protesting against
the right of expulsion that the House claimed ; he could not
acknowledge any such right;. Members were sent there by their
constituents; they were responsible to them alone, and no other
authority had a right to impose any restraint upon them. With
respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Mernber for New-
castle (Sir M. W. Ridley), he was somewhat surprised at it.— •
It only amounted to—because such a thing wits improper, Gen-
tlemen were requested to refrain lions doing it. If lie was to
suggest any step:to be taken,• it would be not only to abstain
from taking any measure, but even to appoint a Committee for
the purpose of examining; what precedents and examples there
already were, in order that they might be expunged.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Aberdeenhad been ill-advised in bringing forward his
Motion. How could the business of the House possibly be car-
ried on if the disqualification that he proposed took place ? For
if they were disqualified in the House, they would of course be
disqualified in the CommitteeS• likewise. At the same time he
Would allow, that nothing could be more scandalous as the can-
vassing that had taken place, hut still the only way to repress
any thing of that kind was public opinion and the example of
other Gentlemen.

Mr. LOCKHART opposed the motion, and hoped to prevail
on the Honourable Member tb' abandon it. lie considered
his Honourable Friend's propbsition injurious to the constitu,.
tional privileges of that House, and incapable of being carried
into efl'ect.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL opposed the motion. He denied
that business in Committees up stairs was carried on in a cor-
rupt or partial manner. Even if the practice were, as it had
been represented to be by the Hon. illetnber for Aberdeen, the
parties sustaining any injury from it could always refer to that
House for protection, and in no case had protection ever been
denied.

Mr. ROBERTSON supported the motion. It was a no.
torious fact in the city, that wherever any great Company
was set afloat, shares to the amount of hundreds of thou-
sands of pounds were always set apart to be appropriated to
Members of Parliament. lie would ask whether this were
not a practice to which the attention of the House ought to
be called ? It was the duty of Parliament to check that spirit of
wild speculation which was now abroad., and which had been
too much encouraged by individual Members of that House.
Mr. HUME, in reply, said, that if he were impressed be-
fore with the necessity of the measure which he had proposed to
the House, he was still more impressed with its necessity after
the observations which had fallen. from Honourable Members,
to night. The Right Honourable President of the Board of
Controul (Mr. Wynn), whose opinion on a question of this na-
ture, was entitled to so much attention, had declared that, in
principle and in fact, as the law already stood, pecuniary inte-
rest would be 'a sufficient ground of objection to the vote of a
Member of that House. Ile (Mr. H.) wished to introduce no
change ; all he wanted was to explain the law, so that no doubt
might remain upon the subject. It had been said that the *ho-
nour and character of individual 'Members afforded a sufficient
pledge for the integrity of their conduct. Our ancestors, how-
ever, did not reason upon that supposition, when they preceded
to impose restrictions on Members of that House. - He consi-
dered it the bounden duty of the House to restrain a practice
which had been characterized by the Right Hon. Secretary for
the Home Department as a most outrageous pract:ce—a prac-
tice which reflected on the character of individual Members of
that House, and which was derogatory to the character of Par-
liament.—The motion was negatived without a division.
CALEDONIAN CANAL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that as
the House would fortunately not- be called on again for any
votes on account of the Caledonian Canal, he now rose for
leave to bring in a Bill to limit the time, during which persons
might be entitled to claim compensation on account of land
taken fbr this Canal.

Mr. H UMI3 said, he would take this opportunity of remind-
ing the Right Hon. Gentleman of a subject to which he (Mr.
H.) had adverted on a former night. He hoped the Right lion.
Gentleman would take into his comideration the Situation. of
persons who• might be called upon after a lapse twenty or
twenty-live years, to pay large sums to the Government in
cases where no vouchers were to be obtaned. As this was a
Bill to protect the Treasury against the Public, he hoped the

PRICE SEVENPENCE

'tight Hon: Gentleman would also bring in a Bill to protect the
Public against theA'reasuty.
Leave was granted-to bring in the Bill. • —'• -
REDUCTION OF DUTIES: -
Colonel ‘,DA VIES brought tbrward his motion: for :the ridnie
tion of the ditties on various -articles of •foreign e
observed; that the effecipf the reduction of duties inincreasing
the amount of revenue was, a principle acknowledged by all
enlightened men. . His Alajesty'sAliniSters had certainly in his'
(Col. D.) opinion, taken a, liberal-and enlarged view ot• ques--
tions connected with the finances end 'general policy of •
the country. He (Col. D.) gave them every credit for there -
enlightened conduct, at the same timel however 'he could mit
help thinking that the suppression of smuggling, 'an object
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed so rune.,
anxiety to accomplish, would have been more effectually obi
-
tabled by a redaction of the duty on tobacco, than by a redue-'
tion of the duty on wine. - Smuggling was undoubtedly an evil _
of -the greatest magnitude ; it led to every Species of crime
to fraud, perjury, and murder. The Honourable l'dember re-". •
ferred to a correspondentie he had with a Magistrate residing
on the coast of Sussex, .on the subject of smuggling, and to se
veral conflicts between smuggler's and revenue officers, in which
lives had been lost on both sides. No revenue obtained at the
expence of so much blood could compensate for the horrorS of
such a system. The expellee of the Preventive Service amount--,-
ed to 322,0001. for Great Britain only. The Honourable Metr-,,,
ben sheaved, by a reference to Parliamentary Returns, that ac
the duties had been increased, tile amount of revenue had
progressively diminished. Even at this moment, ri-otwith-
standing the great increase of population, the cormimption
of spirits was not so great as it was in the year 1805. What'
he should propose was, to reduce the duties on foreign bran:
dy, gin, and home-made spirits, to the standard of 11:105, which
he considered the golden year, for that year would'be found to
have been most propitious to the revenue. lie complained of the
enormous amount of the duty on tobacco, which was above 800
per cent., and of the effect which the duty had in diminishing
the consumption of that article. The consumption of tobacco-
had not increased since the year 184/1, although the population
had increased to the amount of four millions. In Ireland, the,:
diminution of consumption since that period was still snore
striking ; for in that country the population had increased from " •
four millions and a half to seven millions, and the consump-
tion had diminished by one half ; the population bad increased
one half, and the consumption had diminished one half.-
Some decided slept should be taken to check the growth of
smuggling. lie thought that the only effectual mode ofputting
an end to the practice was by hermetically sealing the coast.-- "
The Hon. Member then referred to the Report of the Commis- •
sioners of Inquiry into the Irish Revenue to support his Gni..
nion. The result of his calculation'was, that the augmentation
of consumption which might be fairly presumed, and the dimi-
nution in the expence ofcollecting the revenue,' taking the data
of 1812, would produce a saving to the country of 400,060/...: 7'
But even though there should arise no pecuniary adv=tage
from the measure,. still he contended that the House. was bound.'
to adopt it, because, by so doing, they would put down smug-
gling, and would purchase the peace and prosperity of the
country. He should, therefore, propose " That a Select Cur-u.
Mittee be appointed, to inquire how far the duties on the itn - •
portution of foreign spirits, tobacco, and tea might be reduced,
without injury to the revenue."
Mr. CURTEIS seconded the motion, and said he could bear'
Witness to the meancholy consequences resulting from smug-7
gling on the Coast of Sussex.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if
were to oppoSe the principles or question the details of the .
Hon. Member, it would occupy much more of the time of the —1
House than seemed necessary on the present occasion (there
were not more than 30 or 40 Members present). It was only
doing him justice to state that he felt a strong -desire to put -
down smuggling, and he thought that, considering what Go-
vernMent had aheady done towards the attainment of that ob-
ject, no grounds had been laid to justify the House in. tak..:
ing the question out of the hands of the Government;. "and
referring it to a Committee. Under these these circumstances..
he felt he should best discharge .his duty by objecting to the
motion.

Mr. BRIGHT supported the motion; and Contended, that
the smuggling in tobacco was, in place of being diminished,
increasing every day. Better abandon the proposed reduction.
on wine, and give relief to that article. Smuggling under-
mines every honest principle in the mind of the poor man, and!,
it became the first duty of the Goiernment to put down such a
..
crying evil: .

aetlenihsahtotrhteaßEiiltolll...onnp.rtihneci.Cpilemsnicnelrlioot;
of-Athi e Exchequecro ha as idd err'
reducing the duties on tobacco, in which such extensive smug-
gling, both in England and Ireland, prevailed. Ministers, by
not interfering, incurred a very great responsibility.
Mr. HA Tt T DAVIS observed, that if the Duty on Tobacco „
was reduced to 2s. per pound, smuggling in that article would
be put down. He was also convinced that the Revenue would
not suffer by the diminution. Indeed, he believed the receipt
of the reduced duty would be double in England and fourfold in
Ireland. With reference to the fair trader, the evil was, that he
was reduced to the alternative either of losing his character or
his property.

Alderman BRIDGES observed, that smugglers,ma,de their
calculation with as much accuracy as any merchant in London:
He trusted that the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would diminish that great evil by reducing the To-
bacco Duties.

Mr.
HtßEhoNiein
olipmuur
taesib:Elpserose expressed
the
soeTendcogblhyatal
cnircsecoce:ao
recommenced
ipnrmr:oefbnotaiidlit
eel
tctn
Exchequer.et
i oeft
nte,hrm moderatearticles
te,
•
course which had been pursued with respect to this subject by ,
t he:a
re-
duction Ott.
towhich his Honourable Friend, the Mover of the proposition
before the House, had adverted. He was exceedingly desirous
that the subject should be investigated by a Committee, be-
cause
it was well known, that in cases connected with the re-
venue, evidence came out before a Committee which might be
withheld from a Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was anxious
to give the Right Honourable the President of the Board of
Trade an opportunity of correcting a misapprehension with re-
spect to something that had fallen from the Right Honourable
Gentleman on a recent occasion with reference to the Duties
on Wine, and to the conduct of the individuals connected with .•
the wine trade. Many of the latter had waited on him (Mr.
Hobhouse). and complained of its having been stated, that.
the Right Honourable Gentleman had asserted, that as soon-as
they had heard the intention of Government to reduce the duty
on wine they had doubled their stock—a step whiCh they ob-
served it was quite impossible -they could hai'e staken without
the knowledge of the Excise. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had told
them that he did not recollect any statement of the kind falling
from the Right Hon. Gent. They also remarked that the
Right Hon. Gent. said he understood they had raised, or were
about to raise, the price of wine, so as to deprive the censumer,
of the benefit of the diminution of the duty. Now the fact was,
that several of the wholesale dealers, and almost all the. retail
dealers, had considerably reduced the price of wine: By the •
latter, the price of port had, in general, heery • diMinishetl'
shilling a bottle, and that of French wine eighteen pence. '
Mr. HUSKISSON declared that not a single word of impo,,
tation on thewine merchants, such as that which had been- as-
cribed to him, had fallen from his lips. So far from having sai4.—
that . they doubled their stock, he had not- charged thern•-.,
with even adding ix single bottle to it. He knew that the thing .•
was impossible. With respect to the increase of
what he had said was, that if the wine-merchants shOuld add-
to their charge on wine, the amount of the duty reduced, as he
had received information it was their intention to'do; it 'would -,
be a question whether the period for taking off the duty should
not be postponed until the consumption of the existing-stock.--::,,
This observation had been drawn from him in cOnsequence. of.
his having been told, not an hour before be made it, that such.":::
was.the intention of some of the merchants. Heins hapiiy,
state that he had been misinformed; and that excellent p0rt...;,,,
wine was on sale at a price correspondent to the reduction
the duty. As to the motion before the House, be felt it his
duty to oppose it; and as to the prevention.- of smuggling, lie
was persuaded that that •object would be more forwarded
the reduction of the duty,on spirits than it would have been by
the reduction of the duty on tobacco: • •
After a few words from Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Monck, and.
a brief reply from Col. Davies, the motion was negatived with-•
out a division.

The House went into Committee upon the •Fishery
The Report was ordered to be brought up to-rnerrOW.
The 3lutiny Bill was-lead a second time and:the BiII for
raising and liteping a Standing Arrity in time of Peace.--The.
latter Bill was committed, anti the Report ordered to be brought
up to-morrow.
31r. BERRIES brought up a return cf the number Of pet,,
sons who had lost their lives in the. Coast Guard, employed 'th'
the prevention of smuggling..4.A(iri:N
(5' a., zpc the House: .
acljc.ttrned.

.a.;f ..