The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-24 00:00:00

TRE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY

--
the distillery. They were not allowed to open more
than one vat of wort at the same time, and if there were
two vats of wort in the distillery, and one of these vats
burst, although there was a plug from one vat to the
other by which all the wort could be saved, yet the
distiller was prohibited by a heavy penalty from drawing
that plug; and, if the excise-officer were not present, he
must see the liquor run to waste. At the same time, let
their Lordships remember that the value of the contents
of one of these ordinary vats was 1,5001., and the duty
which was paid upon it was 1,2002; so that not only did
the distiller lose 1,500 L, the value of the wort, but
1,200/. the duty paid upon it, and not one shilling of
which would be returned to him by the Excise. Should
their Lordships allow any interference with the rights of
people so heavily oppressed as the distillers already
were, without some inquiry into the mode by which they
were about to alter a system which had existed for
years. He trusted that their Lordships would not
refuse their assent to the motion of his Noble Friend
behind him.

_
Earl GREY admitted the ability of the speech of the
Noble Lord who had lust sat down, but he could not
agree with his conelusions. He considered the argiles
ments of the Noble Earl who had made the motion for
the second reading had not been answered, "and he would
simply confine himself to the question as it had regard
to the colonies. With regard to the differential duty,
he thought 6d. a gallon would be a fair difference, but
in the other House it was found that it would be difficult
to carry that, and therefore it had been changed to the
9d. now proposed. The amendment of the Noble Duke
for a Select Committee, was only a side way of getting
rid of the Bill altogether, as they were well aware they
had no power to alter any of its provisions. Should the
Select Committee report and recommend to alter any of
its provisions, and they should attempt to give effect to that
recommendation, the Bill would be lost altogether. The
Bill, in its present form, had received the sanction of a
large majority of the other House, and he could see no
benefit that could arise from the course now proposed.
The case of the Scotch and Irish distillers had been as
fully stated by the Noble Lords who opposed the Bill,
as it could be before a Select Committee. On the other
hand, the advantages of the Bill had been as well stated
by the Noble Lord, who moved the second reading.
This, then, was the proper stage for deciding the ques-
tion, instead: of leaving it to a Select Committee. In
1830, the distillers of the country made a representation
to the then Chancellor. of the Exchequer, pressing their
case on his attention. All they then claimed was a
differential duty of ls. 6d. a gallon. By their own
showing, 9. d. of this, was on account of the extra price
of grain. Since then the corn-laws had been repealed,
and now the real differeace they could claim, according
to their own showing was but aid. Now, the pre-
sent Bill gave them a differential duty of ninepence,
which was full as much as they claimed in
1830. This was a Lull and paid duty. But it might be
told him that this applied only to the English distillers,
and left out of consideration the Irish and Scotch dis-
tillers. Now he considered the latter were as well off
as the English distillers. This was shown by the fact
that the Scotch distillers could at present meet the Eng-
lish distiller in his own market, and beat him. This was
further shown by the fact, that at present, of all the
spirits distilled in Great Britain, the quantity distilled in
Ireland and Scotland was as five to four. This arose
from the superior flavour of the article made in those
countries, as compared with that of England. These
distillers, therefore, would be as able as ever to compete
with the English distillers. He trusted that their Lord-
ships on these grounds would agree to the passing of the
Bill. There were other reasons why they should do so.
Last year the colonies had been exposed to great com-
petition, and ill feeling and excitement had been the re-
sult; but by the late advices the report of the measures
now in progress of being passed, had done much to pacify
them, and a better tone and feeling now prevailed. He
could conceive of no course more fatal to the prosperity
of the colonies than the rejection of this Bill, and there-
fore he implored their- Lordships to assent to it, sanc-
tioned as it had been, by an overwhelming majority of
the other House of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said their Lordships, in passing
the former customs, had been guilty of a great injus-
tice to the distillery interest of this country. Upon
former occasions, in justice to himself, he had occupied
a good deal of their Lordships' time and attention, in
endeavouring to induce them to resist several proposi-
tions on former Customs Duties Bills ; but unfortu-
nately his warning was net listened to ; and now their
Lordships, or rather the Government, seeing the folly
they had been guilty of, were retracing their steps.—
(Hear, hear 4 He entertained many objections to
the present measure, and he must again occupy the
time of their Lordships while he pointed out to
them, that in passing this Bill they would be again be
guilty of injustice towards a large manufacturing interest.
The distillery trade was most complicated, and with the
scanty information their Lordships had before them, he
was sure their Lordships were not in a position to come
to any positive conclusion upon this subject. Why, then,
should their Lordships resist inquiry ? It was a matter
which required the most careful and minute investiga-
tion. By their former legislation, their Lordships had
nearly ruined several of the most extensive distillers of
this country, and with such a lesson as that before them,
he thought that (not only their Lordships, but
her Majesty's Government, ought to be anxious
for inquiry. But no. The Ministers who
had already addressed their Lordships, not
content with resisting the particular inquiry, had
gone so far as to declare that all inquiry was unneces-
sary. Many eminent political economists and commer-
cial men differed in their opinions upon this subject ;
and, with the knowledge of that fact, it was their boun-
den duty to institute an inquiry. A miscalculation of
Government upon a former occasion had nearly involved
many parties in ruin ; and, to guard against another
such catastrophe, he trusted their Lordships would
not be led away by the specious arguments of Noble
Lords who are opposed to an inquiry. Upon these
grounds, therefore, he should vote fur the amendment of
his Noble Friend opposite.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 4B
'
Against it .. 57
Majority against it
The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 23.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at. Four o'clock.
ROCHDALE WATERWORKS.

- .
On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the report on the
Rochdale IVatervtorks Bill was further considered and
agreed to, and ordered to be engrossed.
BATHWICK CHURCH BILL.

Mr. W. MILES moved the second reading of the
Bathwick Church Bill.

Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the second reading of the
Bill, and moved that it be read a second time that day
six months. The object of the Bill was to levy
fresh rates upon the parishioners, to raise funds
which had been rendered necessary by the [aches of
the trustees of the parish for the last thirty-five years.
They had misappropriated funds that had been com-
mitted to their charge upon a most sacred trust, and it
was too much, after they had placed themselves in such
a situation, to come down to that House and ask them
to sanction an Act of Parliament to get them out of
their difficulty.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the amendment.

Mr. W. MILES justified the conduct of the trustees
who had been great losers, and trusted that the House
would sanction the Bill.

Lord DUNCAN supported the amendment.
Lord W. POWLET r was in favour of the second
reading of the Bill.
Mr. DICKINSON said that, if the House sanctioned
the second reading of the Bill, he should be prepared to
go into the consideration of the measure in Committee
without bias either to one side or the other.

Mr. ESTCOURT supported the second reading.
After a few words from Mr. HENRY BERKELEY,
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 7l
Against it
Majority in favour of the second reading —52
The Bill was then, after a few words from Mr. Hume,
Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Af. J. O'Connell, read a second
time.

bridge—that the petition respecting' the Harwich
Railway should be referred to the Committee on the Bill.
The grounds on which the resolution he had moved was
founded were contained in a petition presented to the
House from the shipowners, and others connected with
the shipping interest, between the north of central
Europe and the port of Harwich. The petitioners
stated that in the session of 1843-4 two Bills were
introduced into Parliament for railways to the
port of Harwich, and were both lost. In the ensuing
year two other Bills were brought in and lost on :some
technical formalities in the standing orders. Two other
Bills were introduced the next year, and one was re-
jected by the House of Commons, the other by the
House of Lords.—(Laughter.) He suspected that in the
case of any other two rival lines their Bills might be
liable to share the same fate, and, therefore, he ex-
pected that the House would accede to the resolution.
Mr. STRUTT, who was very indistinctly heard, on
account of the noise in the House, was understood to
say, that, in the respective circumstances of the case, he
had no objection to offer.
Mr. HUDSON wished to know whether this was to
be taken as a precedent in future, or whether the Rail-
way Commissioners had power to decide finally on the
various cases of railways that came before them ; for
he (Mr. Hudson) knew many Bills of equally grave im-
portance in. like circumstances, and pressing on the
attention of the House.

Mr. STRUTT referred the Hon. Member to the
clause of the Act of last year in reference to the powers
with which the Commissioners had been constituted.

Captain BERESFORD thought the matter before
them was one of great importance, considering the
great traffic, by steam and other shipping, which
existed between the port of Harwich and the
ports of Central Europe. That was the reason
which would make this measure most desir-
able. The port of Harwich was an exceed-
ingly fine one ; he had often seen five hundred sail of
merchantmen lying in the harbour safe and secure,
and the Government had kindly consented to
spend a large sum of money for the purpose
of improving it. The line was put so far back in the
classification list—to the 31st of May—that it would be
utterly impossible that it could pass the present session;
they had made repeated endeavours to pass it through Par-
liament, but hitherto their efforts had proved ineffectual.
Sir R. PEEL said that there were public reasons why
there should be a communication by railway from;London
to Harwich, for the public were about to incur -a consi-
derable expense in the alteration and improvement of
the port of Harwich. He thought that there was nothing
more lamentable, than to see rival schemes wasting their
money on lawyers in opposing each other. He had not
the slightest doubt that if the Railway Commissioners
took the matter in hand, and brought the parties toge-
ther, they would come to an amicable arrangement, and
thus spare the expense which had been going on for
three years, and the result of which would be the in-
crease of the tolls to the public. It was infinitely pre-
ferable to come to such an adjustment, and the parties
themselves would, he thought, be willing to abide by
the decision of the Railway Commissioners, whose
friendly arbitration would spare the necessity of spend-
ing the money of these companies.
*Mr. F. FRENCH did not think that the parties would
be at all willing to refer the matter to the decision of the
Railway Commissioners.
The motion was then agreed to.
EXPENDITURE IN IRELAND.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that, on Thursday next,
he should move for a return of the money hitherto ex-
pended in Ireland, and the mode of application.
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL._

Sir DE LACY EVANS rose to ask the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, or the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, respecting the result of the inter-
cession of the British Government with that of Portugal,
concerning the Generals and troops who were lately
granted an honourable capitulation by Marshal Saldanha,
and who are said to have been since transported to the
penal and unhealthy colony of Angola, in the present
case referred to, the troops retired with the honours of
war, and were promised to be treated as soldiers usually
are under such circumstances. He regretted, however,
that this had not been the case. They bad been marched
to Lisbon, put on board of ship, and crowded together
in the most oppressive manner, and afterwards,
as he understood, had been sent to a penal
colony in Africa. He admitted the Government had a
right to detain these parties, but not to treat them with
cruelty; the present Government had promised to inter-
cede, but three months had transpired and nothing was
done. He wished to know, whether the Noble Lord the
Colonial Secretary could give any information on the
subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that at present the belief
was that these persons were not sent to Angola, but that
it was intended that they should be sent there. The
ground stated for this determination was that they had
friends in Lisbon, and that it would be dan-
gerous to allow them to remain in the country.
This did not appear to the British Govern-
ment a sufficient reason, and they instructed their
representative at the Court of Lisbon to express their
objection to such a proceeding. The Government had
not yet received any communication in reply, but they
had every reason to hope that the intentions of the Por-
tuguese Government would not be carried into effect.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

In answer to a question from Capt. PECHELL,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he could not at present
state on what day of the week the Health of Towns
Bill would be taken. As it might assist the House
in forming some estimate of the manner in which
the public business would be taken, he might inform
them that, on the assumption that they went into Com-
mittee that night, and came to the conclusion on the
debate with respect to the vote for education, he should
propose that the report be received on Monday next.
After that his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer wished to take a vote, in order to enable the
Exchequer Crown Commissioners to advance certain
large sums to the furtherance of railways in Ire-
land, which they were unable to do at present,
It was proposed on an early day to take into considera-
tion the Prisons Bill. On Friday he proposed to take the
two Bills which had reference to Ireland, viz., the Poor-
law Supervision Bill and the Bill for the Suppression of
vagrancy. The Hon. Gentleman who had the conduct
of the Factory Bill in that House, had applied to him
(Lord J. Russell) respecting the difficulty of obtaining
an early day on which the third reading
might be taken, and he proposed that a Go-
vernment day should be given for this purpose.
He, therefore, intended to apply Monday, 3d of May,
for that purpose, and on Monday, the 17th, he proposed
to go on with the Railway Bill brought in by his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Strutt).