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

what must have been the price 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
1830, 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
must be required for such a knowledge—what an embrogtio 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 Is. 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 werlthy 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 investigation 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 for by any of those interested—by the colonists?
No, it was demanded only by the distillers, who, upon their
own admission, had concluded the case against themselves.
The Hon. Gentleman had, much to the amusement of the
House, made several attacks upon the Government, and bad
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
Hadleigh, of Wandsworth, where it was marked—" Extra
costs arising from the existing corn-law, 9d. "—(Laughter.

He had els; another documer;i, from a Mr: Pierce Mahon—et
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-

ante 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. 71d. 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 qoestion. The distillers and the ex-
cise authorities might know them, but they werelby 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 -117
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 lie
had (yawed 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 1547.