The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-27 00:00:00

what must have been the pried of barley if the quotation of
the Right Hon. Gentleman were correct. It only showed
how easily statements were made by many great officials ; how
they quoted and referred to documents of the dusty ages of
18:30, before even Parliament was reformed. It gave the
notion that it was impossible to contend for a moment against
men of such experience—who had access to such important
archives—who were masters of the price of barley any year
during the last twenty or thirty. What a mass of intelligence
'nest be required for such a knowledge—what an embrogiio of
statistics—and how these Right Hon. Gentlemen complimented
each other over the table—one Chancellor of the Exchequer
saying that the other Chancellor's speech could not be answered
—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer crying "Hear, hear."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proved satis-
factorily to the House that in 1831 barley was
selling at ls. 10d. per quarter, and another Chancellor of the
Exchequer allowed that barley in 1830 was 16s. 7d. per quarter.
The question was to be decided upon these facts, and he asked
the House not to consent to any decision upon so limited a
knowledge. The question was one which at first sight might
not appear of vast importance ; it was very possible that there
might not have been meetings in popular halls to call upon the
people to advocate their interest. It was only legislating upon
a commercial question concerning the interests of a long-esta-
blished wealthy and loyal part of the population of this country.
They had come to them and asked from them nothing but
inquiry. If they asked not for an inquiry, and for a favour, he
could easily understand a Ministry saying—Do not let us dis-
turb this old-established state of things ; what you ask may be
right, but we do not wish to disturb that which is already
settled. What they required was an invettig ition into a
matter affecting the commercial industry of England; here

were these men asking only for an inquiry into a wrong!
The Government had interfered a few years ago very sensibly
with the interest of these distillers, and it was so only last year
—a year considered a year of settlement of this question, and after
the House had discussed one of the most important questions
connected with the commerce of this country which had ever
been submitted to its consideration. This question never
could have been settled except for that first-rate settlement. It
had been brought forward, he would say, not too harshly
or readily, but in a manner and with an expedition
not anticipated at any other time. After corn and
sugar, they had taken the question of distillers at
the end of the session, without any opportunity of
criticising their conduct in the two first instances. They had
interfered considerably withthe distillers' interest, and they did
not give him time to consider of it. They had taken him by
surprise. Like Englishmen, these men had got over the
shock—they were again pursuing their trade—again investing
their capital—and again came the Chancellor of the Exchequer
down to the House with a crude and undigested measure in his
mind. They had come down to the House, not in a spirit
of faction, but in order to reason against the proposition; but
before they could offer a word the Chancellor said he had
changed his mind, and said they were going to give them one-
half of what they were going to ask. He (Mr. Disraeli)
should have had more respect for a Minister who had adhered
to his original proposition.—(Hear, hear.) They were asking
nothing of him but an inquiry into a change respecting a law
interfering with a very important branch of industry, which
they had changed a few mouths ago, and respecting which the
Government had not any defined or matured proposition. Was
it reasonable that they must have the injustice inflicted on them
when they said that they could find no convenience in any fur-
ther change ? They said that, considering the import-
ant change of last year—considering that the Govern-
ment of the present day had lately shown themselves most
fickle and capricious—they did not think it a measure likely to
lead to credit or character for consistency of the Government.
The Government ought to consider the policy and prudence of
a measure before they tampered again with the interest of these
distillers—they ought at least to make themselves masters of
the facts—they ought at least to inquire before they decided.
Mr. CARDWELL said, why was this inquiry demanded?
Was it asked fur by any of those interested—by the colonists?
No, it vas demanded only by the distillers, who, upon their
o.vn admission, had conclutied the case against themselves.
The Hon. Gentleman had, much to the amusement of the
House, made several attacks upon the Government, and had
stated that Chancellors of the Exchequer, by a species of leger-
demain, converted documents written in the absence of parties
into documents written by the parties themselves. He had in
his hand a document—a private document—of a Mr. John
.

Iladleigh, of Wandsworth; where it was marked—" Extra
costs arising from the existing corn-law, 9cl."—(Laughter.)
He had also another document, from a Mr. Pierce Mahon—a
gentleman high in the confidence of the distillers—which went
in distinct corroboration of all which had been stated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. According to him, the allow-
ance to the distillers was Is. when the corn-law existed. Now

that it did not exist, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
to leave them 9d., and that being the case, was there
any party which had a right to complain ?
The Noble Lord below him had not drawn any distinction be-
ween proving and overproving his case. The Noble Lord
had proved so much on his case, as to furnish the most con-
clusive arguments against it. He had proved that the loss by
the excise laws was 6d per gallon, and it had afterwards been
proved that the whole cost of manufacture—loss on the excise
laws included—was only 6d. per gallon. The Noble Lord had
proved that a compensation of Is. 74d. was required, and the
distillers had for many years been contented with Is. 6d.
Lord JOHN MANNERS denied that the facts were so
clear, as the Hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, stated,
for they were very differently quoted by the different speakers
who had spoken on the question. The distillers and the ex-
cise authorities might know them, but they were',lay no means
well known to that House. He predicted that the sstticment
proposed by the Bill before the House, would be no settlement,
for even if the distillers and the Excise were satisfied with it,
it was by no means certain that her Majesty's Ministers would
not come down to make another alteration.—(Cheers and
laughter.) He thought a sufficient case had been made out
for inquiry, and he would support the motion of his Noble
Friend.—( Cheers, and cries of " Divide.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment... 6B
Against it
Majority —ll7
On our return to the gallery we found the House had gone
into Committee on the Bill.

The various clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and on
the question that the report be brought up,
Mr. HUME expressed his regret that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had shown so much vacillation, as to give way
to the persuasions of the distillers. He did not believe that he
had gained a single vote by such a course.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received on Monday.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The House then went into Committee, and it was agreed to
raise the sum of 18,310,7001. by Exchequer-Bills, for the ser-
vice of the year 1847.

SUPPLY.

The House immediately afterwards went into a Committee
of Supply.
A vote of 5C0,0001. for the relief of the distress in Ireland,
up to the 31st March, was agreed to.
The vote of 600,0001. for relief of the destitute in Ireland, by
means of soup kitchens, for the year ending the 31st March,
1848, was then proposed, and agreed to.
The vote of 50,0001. to meet civil contingencies, for the year
ending the 31st March, 1848, was then agreed to.
On the vote of 50,00/. to defray the expenses of the works
on the Houses of Parliament being proposed,
Mr. HUME regretted that the building was so unsatisfac-
tory in its architectural designs and the working management.
He hoped they would have a House of Commons without all
the frippery which he saw—frippery which belonged to the time
of Louis Quatorze, without any of the taste characteristic of that
time. The estimate was originally 750,000!., but three times
that sum was found would not now finish them. Who, he
asked, was the responsible person who managed these
works? When and what room were the Members of the
Commons to have in the House of Lords ?

Lord MORPETH said the room provided below the bar
of the New House of Lords was 950 superficial feet, being an
increase of nearly 300 feet over that of the old House.
The vote was then agreed to.
The vote of 20,000/. to defray the charges of the British
Museum, till the 31st March, 1848, was agreed to.
The House then resumed—and Mr. GREENE reported
progress.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT BILL.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on this
Bill,

gr. NEWDEGATE said he had been one of the Gm-
mittee on this Bill, and he appeared as assenting to the
present form of the Bill. But that happened altogether
through an irregularity, for he did not, and he could not agree
with it. He did not think sufficient inquiry had been made
into the state of agricultural interests, especially the jnterests
of the tenant. There was a strong wish in the north to have
the tenant-right more clearly defined, and the sums to be ap-
portioned for compensation. He must say he was not prepared
to go on with the Bill.

Mr. PUSEY said he was chairman on the Committee,
and that the first day they they met they went through the
Bill except two clauses. The second day they had proceeded
so far that they might have reported that afternoon. They
met afterwards ; an amendment was made and carried, and he
as chairman put it to the Committee that he should report the
Bill as amended, which was carried, and it was also carried
that he should lea
should be broughtvethechair. ltwatg
seneote
naturalthragain He d
after thisid
that the Committee
not think that the Hon. Gentleman ought to have made the
charge which he did, and expected that he would withdraw it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said there was a decided misunder-
standing among the Members of the Committee.
Mr. JAMES thought this Bill had been carried through in
a way something like clandestine. It was a Bill which enabled
the ill-minded tenant to rob his landlord more effectually than
he could before.—( Laughter. )
Mr. ACLAND said that the clauses were most maturely
considered, and gone through before the Committee broke up.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN had left the Committee
without understanding that they were to meet again.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not sure that the Bill itself
would rio,';,l3e improved if the tenant were allowed to claim a
pecur.aary remuneration for the improvements effected, but he
th:dught the House could not legislate upon the subject without,
in the first place, knowing what the practice and custom of
tenant right was in different parts of the country, and secondly,
how far and how they. could best give effect to those customs
by a legal enactment. The House was much indebted to the
Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pusey) for the pains he had
taken and the ability he had shown in placing upon a proper
footing the subject of agricultural tenants' rights ; but he
thought the Hon. Member would consider that sufficient con-
sideration had not been given to the measure.
Mr. PUSEY said that it was scarcely fair to introduce a
discussion upon this Bill night after night, and especially by so
practised a debater as his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel).
There were only twelves clauses in the Bill, and the Commit-
tee had sat three days upon it, giving one hour to each clause.
—( Laughter.) He thought, therefore, that the objections urged
by the Right Hon. Baronet were scarcely tenable.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE explained the custom as it pre-
vailed in the county of Lincoln, and contended, that as differ-
ent customs prevailed in other counties a more extended inquiry
should be made into the subject before the Bill was introduced.

Sir G. GREY and Sir J. Y. BULLER recommended the
Hon. Member to withdraw his Bill for the present.
Mr. PUSEY could not consent to any postponement of the
measure to a remote period.
Mr. HENLEY considered that if any interference were
offered to the Hon. Member's Bill he had himself to blame for
it. The measure should be placed for a second reading on a
Wednesday, when it would be proper)) discussed, but when
placed on the paper on a Government night it was sure not
to be brought before the House until one or two o'clock in the
morning.
Mr. PUSEY, after a few words in e. xplanation, postponed
his measure to the 21st of April next.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Colonel SIBTHORP deprecated a ny interference with
drainage—let those who wanted drainage , drain for themselves.
—(Laughter.) He had done so, and h oped others would do
likewise. He also considered that this VI as one of those Bills
which ought not to be taken at that lat a hour, but ought to
have been fixed for a Wednesday, or sort ,e other day when it
could be fully discussed. He concluded 133 moving the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Lord LINCOLN hoped the Gallant Co bond would not pre-
vent his neighbour from draining his lanebecause he did so
himself. He Lord Lincoln) had brough t forward the Bill at
t:iao. urgent rtvcst of a vast number a landowners. It the
Colonel SI BT HORP said he should. pet
Ci Clam Cnk0,..1 peroisted in should postpone the
second 4.°
silt in his motion.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said par B.
Vi' 115 greatly r,e7