The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-07 00:00:00

W 14: ONES DA Y E VENTING, MAY 73 ISSI,

of the w irla on the service of the Crown. His next ob-
jec:ion was to the mode in which it was proposed to re-
duce the number of captains. Every captain who came
to the top of the list was to be asked whether hb had
served six years afloat. If he had, then he was to be
told to pass on to the admirals' list; but if he did not,
then he was to be told to pass off to the rear-admirals' list,
and was to be put on half-pay at once for the rest of his
life. He would suppose that there were three, whom he
would call Captain A, Captain B, and Captain C; Cap-
tain A is introduced to the secretary of the Admiralty;
he looks rather old—indeed, he is 65 or 70; he is rather
subject to the rheumatism, and his nerves are somewhat
out of order. But he has served his six years afloat,
although it unfortunately happens that it was some 20
years ago. " Well," says the Secretary, " let him go
to the active list." Captain Bis then introduced. He
has served his six years afloat, but it has been at South-
ampton, or some such place, in the packet service.
" Oh," says the Secretary, " pass him on, too, to the
admirals' list." Captain Cis then introduced. " Have
you served six years at sea?" " No," is his reply;
" though willing, I was not able to get employment."
He is a hearty, healthy man, knows his business, and is
anxious to serve, but ho has not been employed, and
therefore the order is given, "Put him on the retired
list." Such was the fact. An officer, who had gained
his laurels many years ago, and who was perhaps too
old to acquire more, might be placed on the active list,
while another was placed on the retired list when he
was able and willing to serve, but was rendered incapable
of serving by this new regulation. It was true, that
it was intended by it to give an honourable retirement
to those officers who were worn out in the service; but
it was not just to use it to turn out officers who were
yet capable and desirous of serving. You lay down a
rigid law that every officer must serve six years before
he can have his flag; but do you offer to every officer
the opportunity of serving for that time? No; you have
not been able to employ your captains of late for that
period in active service; and, therefore, your recent re-
gulation is but a summary process for turning a certain
portion of them out of the service. The reduction of the
number of captains on the active list from 500 to 350
was an extraordinary course, whereby they wereenabled
to place on the active list many officers who ought to
retire, and remove from it many officers who ought to be
retained in the service. The order, in its very words,
implied a contradiction, though he hoped that there was
no contradiction in reality. Their Lordships observed
" that their arrangement included the creation of ten pen-
sions for admirals." That item of ten pensions would
entail on the country an additional expenditure per
annum, but they went on to express their hope that the
Lords of the Treasury " would not withhold their as-
sent to a small charge which will enable them to effect a
beneficial alteration with due consideration of the claims
of old officers." It was therefore a matter of some doubt
yet whether these pensions would be granted. But
their Lordships further observed, "As vacaneies occur
in the active list of flag-officers, the captain first in
seniority who has served for his flag will be pro-
moted (reserving her Majesty's undoubted right of selec-
tion)." In that last parenthesis there was a loophole for
the Admiralty to creep out of at their pleasure—for the
order proceeded:—" Those captains who rise to their
flag, and who have not served"—he took it for granted
that this meant those who have not served for six years
—" will be placed on permanent half-pay, rising in rank
as at present, but with the half-pay of rear-admirals."
The right of the Crown to select its officers had existed
f r many a long year in the naval service of the country,
and he should be sorry if it should ever cease to exist.
It was in the power of the Crown to place any admiral
in the command of a squadron in any part of the world,
and the Crown was now about to delegate the same com-
mand to any commodore. The Government was now
going to ask for an increased grant of money to do that
which was an act of injustice on a certain number of
officers. It would then have, apparently, a very active
list, from which it could select able officers; but, in
reality, the condition of the navy would be just the
same. You would have two lists, in one of which you
would have an increased amount of pay to certain admi-
rals and captains, while in the other you would con-
tinue their pay at its present amount. There was no
chance of this new regulation turning out a substantial
savicg. He had mentioned the circumstances of this
case to the House for the purpose of showing how ineffi-
cient the machinery of this regulation was to carry its
object into effect.
The Earl of MINTO had no objection to the produc-
tion of this return. He concurred in the propriety of
many of the Noble Earl's observations; and especially
in that in which he had commented on the extreme in-
justice of taking as the only test of an officer's capacity
the period which he had passed in the command of a
ship at sea. Still he must say that it did appear to
him that some experience at sea was an indispensable
qualification for command. The Noble Lord then en-
tered into some further explanations on the subject of
this arrangement; but we could not hear distinctly any
two consecutive sentences of the remainder of his
speech.

After a few remarks from Lord COLCHESTER,
which were equally inaudible,
Lord STANLEY observed, that the speech of the
Noble Earl opposite had strengthened rather than con-
firmed the case made out by his Noble Friend behind
him. He hoped that he did not misapprehend the Noble
Earl opposite, when he understood him to say that
this document was rather a suggestion of the Board
of Admiralty than a measure of the Government.
He (Lord Stanley) did not understand that this
arrangement had yet met the approbation of the
Cabinet; yet, he could hardly reconcile the idea that it
was not yet finally determined on by the Cabinet with
the fact that the paper now moved for had been laid on
the table of the other House of Parliament, and along
with it a statement that it had been sanctioned by the
Board of Admiralty. He was afraid this "suggestion"
would shortly be carried into execution by the House of
Commons. He was glad that this discussion had taken
place, as it would call the attention of the Government
to the subject, and thus give it a locus penitentur. No
one had denied the injustice of the system of compulsory
retirement consequent upon an officer not having served
a certain number of years when it was not optional with
him whether he would serve that time or not. He asked
the Government whether they were determined to insist
upon the period of six years? That period had been taken
when there was a larger number of captains afloat, but
if the same period were required at a time when there
were not one-tenth or one-twentieth so many captains
afloat it would greatly enhance the difficulty of captains
arriving in due course of time at their flag.—(Hear.)
Earl TALBOT admitted the great necessity of, if pos-
sible, limiting the dead weight of the country, but it
ought not to be done to the injury of old naval officers,
numbers of whom had been many years upon the list,
but, in spite of all their exertions, had never been able
to obtain the command of a ship, He hoped that the
question would be considered in all its bearings by Par-
liament before they sanctioned such an injustice as was
contemplated by the Government plan. While speaking
upon the subject of the navy he begged to refer to a
recent order with respect to the examination of naval
cadets. He thought, though he admitted that the ex-
amination was excessively slight, only extending to such
matters as the first three rules of arithmetic and the like,
that a boy,
upon being examined on his entrance into the
might, from nervousness or timidity, be unable
stoeravnicsev;
ethe questions that were put to him, and in
awpasagaahina,rdbsahtipahtohualdt thhaevbaoyhisahnootdianaottiobae
allowedsuch a
to case
i got
altogether cancelled.
Earl GREY said, if it had been intended to discuss
the merits of the Government plan upon this subject it
was only fair that a longer notice should have been given
of that intention. But as that had not been done, and as
the motion was only for a return, he was not possessed
of so Much information upon the subject as he might
otherwise have had. In the first place, if he understood
the matter, no officer would suffer by this arrangement
in any Pecuniary point of view; but the gist of complaint
was that the feelings of officers were injured by their
being placed upon the retired instead of on the active
list. He should be the last person to sanction any mea-
sure to wound the feelings of so meritorious a class of
men, but be believed that it was for the interest of the
country and of the service that the nominal acting list
should not be unnecessarily swelled by having
-upon it a
large number of officers who wero practically retired,
but that, being at present far beyond the real wants of
the service, it should be reduced as much as possible.
For his own part, he thought that the rule requiring a
certain amount of experience in the command of a
ship before taking command of a fleet was an exceed-
ingly good one. Whether six years were or were not
too long a time it was not for him to say, but, after all,
the line must be drawn somewhere, and he believed that
the rule with regard to the six years was established
in 1827, when we had a very much smaller number of
ships afloat than at this moment. With reference to the
other
.point which had been raised by the Noble Lord
opposite (Earl Talbot), he had never heard of the ques-
tion before, but he thought it appeared that the new re-
gulation was a desirable one. There were infinitely
more candidates for admission into the navy than could
by possibility be admitted, and surely it was de-
sirable that of that great number they should have the
very beat. He was reminded by his Noble Friend (Eat'
Minto) that in the ease of an unsuccessful examination
there might probably be a second nomination, and a se-
cond examination.
Lord STANLEY observed, that in 1827 the officers
who then stood for the flag were captains of 1799, and
so late down as 1840 the officers who stood next for the
flag were captains of 1806. Therefore, in 1840 the offi-
cers who stood next were officers who had been post-cap-
tains from 1806 up to the close of the war, or 10 years.
Earl TALBOT wished to know if the Noble Earl (the
Lord Privy Seal) ,could confirm what the Noble Earl
at the head of the colonies had stated as to a second no-
mination being allowed for the same lad, and thereupon
a second examination?
Earl lIINTO was not able to speak officially on that
point, but he gathered from what information he had
upon the subject that such would be the case.
The return was then ordered, and the House
adjourned.

• t Mr. ROBARTES presented petition.: from the Wes-
leyan Methodists of Ty wandreath, St. Austel, and
Charleston, against Papal aggression.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND presented petitions to the same
effect.
Mr. GOOLD presented petitions in favour of a General
Medical Charities Bill from Newcastle, Askeston, Pol-
lorkenry, and Kilmallock, county of Limerick.
Mr. HORSUAN presented a petition from a place in
Dorsetshire, complaining of the want of church accom-
mation.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from Lin-
colnshire, praying for more stringent provisions in the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; also a petition from farmers
and graziers in Hertfordshire, in favour of the removal
of Smithfield-market.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition praying for
certain alterations in the Valuation of Land Bill.
Mr. GROGAN presented a petition from the Corpo-
ration of Dublin against the withdrawal of grants from
the hospitals of Dublin.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Falkirk
complaining of the bribery and corruption at the last
election, and praying for some measure to prevent such
practices at elections.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Marylebone
against the Sunday Trading Bill; also a petition from
Montrose against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; and a
petition signed by 40,000 inhabitants of Edinburgh
against the tax for ministers' money.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY presented a petition from the
city of Cork praying for the abolition of ministers' money.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Colonel SAL WEY gave notice that on the 20th in-
st ant he should move for the appointment of a Select
Committee to inquiry into the military Knights of
Windsor.
Sir W. CLAY gave notice, on behalf of Lord Robert
Grosvenor, that on the 22d instant the Noble Lord
would move the repeal of the attorney's certificate duty.
Mr. HENRY BERKELEY gave notice that he would
bring forward his motion on the subject of the' ballot
this day fortnight.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice of his intention to
move certain amendments to the Property and Income-
tax Bill, on the bringing up of the report.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY gave notice of amendments
to the Improvement of Towns (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY gave notice that he
should bring forward his motion relative to the sugar
duties on the 22d instant.

THE IRISH STATE PRISONERS.
Mr. ANSTEY, pursuant to notice, wished to ask the
Hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies,
the questio❑ with reference to the treatment of the Irish
state prisoners in Van Diemen's; Land. Those prisoners
had been allowed tickets of leave, and, acting under
the impression that this privilege gave them
the right of travelling about wherever they
pleased in the colony, they paid a visit to Mr.
Smith O'Brien to congratulate him on his release
from the severity of his punishment under the sanction
of a ticket of leave. Now it seemed this had been con-
sidered a violation of the law, and the three prisoners
were carried before police magistrates, before whom the
question of right was fully argued and sustained, but
the law officers of the Crown bring of opinion
that they possessed no such right, a compromise was
effected, and the cases were dismissed, upon the under-
standing that the prisoners would not quit their allotted
districts again without leave. This result, it appeared,
had offended the Governor, and he bad not only repri-
mended the magistrates, but revoked the tickets of leave,
and sent the prisoners into confinement again. Now the
question he wished to ask the Under-Secretary of State
for the Colonies was, whether he had received any in-
formation from his Excellency Sir William Denison, the
Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen's Land, on the
subject of the recent withdrawal of tickets of
leave formerly granted to Messrs. M'Manus, O'Doherty,
and O'Donohne, and tho removal of those gentle-
men, for certain terms of imprisonment, to
the penal settlement of Port Arthur: whether
the measures in question were adopted at the
arbitrary command of the Lieutenant-Governor, and in
contravention of the decisions of the proper magistrates
upon the cases of alleged infraction of discipline stated
by his Excellency in justification of such measures;
and whether the correspondence on these subjects would
be laid before the House?
Mr. HAWES said, with regard to the statement of
facts which the Hon. Member had indulged in, he bad
no observation to make at all, because he could
neither affirm nor eontradict them. It was perfectly
true, however, that the tickets of leave had been with-
drawn, and for the simple reason that the prisoners had
wilfully violated the known regulations under which
they were granted—indeed, one of the prisoners had
left his district in direct opposition to the ex-
pressed orders of the Governor, and the
Colonial office, therefore, saw nothing whatever in the
conduct of the Governor which called for censure in any,
way. He might add, that if the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber would move for it, be was quite ready to lay before
the House the dispatch which had been received from
the colony on the subject.
Mr. ANSTEY gave notice that on the first Supply
night, he should move a vote of censure on the Governor
by way of amendment to going into Committee.
SEWERS RATE.
Sir B. HALL rose to ask Viscount Ebrington, from
how many and what districts of the metropolis the
sewers rate of 6d. in the pound, recently ordered, is col-
lected; what sum that rate will produce; whether the
several rates are to be expended in the districts from which
they are collected; what new works are proposed, and
whether such works are to be completed before the present
Commission expires; and, if not, what portions will be
completed; and whether any part of the extraordinary
amount about to be levied is to be applied to payments
of existing liabilities, and, if so, how much is to be so
applied?
Lord EBRINGTON said he had some difficulty in
answering the question which had been put to him. With
regard to the first question he had to state that the
rate was only levied in eight districts. Certainly the
rate would be collected and expended in the same dis-
tricts in which they were collected, and as to the works
being executed before the present Commission expires, he
could not understand that question, because the present
Commission would expire at the end of the present sea
sion.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT IN CHESHIRE.
In answer to question from Mr. C. LEGH,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he had not received
the report from the inspector of railways as to the late
railway accident in Cheshire, and therefore he could not
answer any questions on the subject; but when he had
received the report he should be perfectly prepared to
give any information on the subject.
MERCANTILE MARINE BILL.
Mr. DISRAELI gave notice that, on an early day, he
should present a petition in favour of extensive modifi-
cations in the Mercantile Marine Bill.
AYLESBURY ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. R. PALMER a Select Com-
mittee was appointed to consider the petitions of Mr. T.
W. Bradford and John Strutt, on the subject of this
election.

POOR-RATES—AGRICULTURAL BURDENS.
Mr. GRAN: LEY BERKELEY rose to move a reso-
ution in a Committee of the whole House, that to alle-
viate a portion of tue burdens from which the agricul-
tural interest is at present suffering, through the
payment of parochial poor-rates, varying in many
instances from 65., 75., Bs., 95., to 13s. 10d. in the pound,
it will be necessary to substitute an equalised poor-
rate, in England and Wales, not exceeding ls. 6d.
in the pound, and subject to local government.
Some parishes were paying 17s. in the pound;
Bishop Wearmouth, he believed, even paid as much
as 19s. 9d. He proposed that there should be an
immediate fresh assessment for making rates for the
support of the poor, in order to remove the
inequalities of the present system of rating. A
copper, tin, or iron mine, for instance, which
yielded 10,000/. a year was exempted from the tax,
while a coal-mine in the same neighbourhood, pro-
ducing only 2001., had to pay the full rate. If
the whole mines in the kingdom now exempted were
made to pay towards the support of the poor,
the poor-rates would no longer be burdensome,
and would be easily borne. He wished to make a na-
tional rate, but he totally disagreed with the pro-
position that the cost of the poor should be
paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He wished to
maintain, if possible, a local power, in order to check
all unnecessary expense. He would suggest that
there should be a general maximum rate of
ls. 6d. in the pound. Some would say that this
would be unfair to those localities which paid a less sum,
but he found if his plan were adopted there would be a
much greater number of districts benefited than compelled
to pay a larger sum. Besides, he did not think as high a
rate as ls. 6d. would be required; he only fixed that as the
maximum rate which should be assessed. The Hon.
Member concluded by proposing his motion.
Captain HARRIS seconded the resolution. He referred to
the report of Mr. Beckett, a Poor-law Commissioner, who
stated that he had perceived in many quarters a feeling in
favour of a national rate • and the justice of the principle had
been acknowledged by the Secretary of the Treasury, who in
his evidence before the Lords' Committee last year, though
he put forward many difficulties, said nevertheless he was
quite prepared to admit that, unless it could be shown that
there was a special reason in favour of a local tax limited to
real property, it was more fair and equitable to defray the
expense of poor relief out of a national tax, to comprehend
all descriptions of property. The plan of Lord Malmesbury
made every man pay according to his ability, and retained
local management No fewer than 200 unions had given in
their adherence to it; in the union where he (Captain
Harris) attended the board of guardians there were objec-
tions to it at first, but they agreed to it after a discussion.
Lord Malmesbury proposed to ascertain the whole poor-
law expenditure for seven years. For the seven years pre-
vious to March, 1849, the total expenditure for England,
Wales, and Scotland was 5,850,000/. He then ascertained
what amount of tax would reach that average. sd. in the
pound levied on every species of income down to 301. would
meet the expenditure. The Poor-law Board would draw from
the Exchequer the average sum for each parish and union ;
and if the guardians exceeded the sum remitted to them they
would be called on to raise a rate-in-aid on the real property
in the parish ; but, if a surplus accrued, the amount would
be applied to the county rate.
Mr. BAINES hoped the Hon. Gentleman who brought
forward this motion, and the Hon. Gentleman who seconded
it, would not think him guilty of any disrespect
they had
i towards them
if he should pass over many of the topics to which
directed the attention of the House, seeing t was his desire
to confine himself as closely as possible to the resolution
which had been submitted for their approval. The questions
of settlement, of assessment, of personal property, and other
matters which had been introducedintotomthereit a distinct
discussion were
each of them of sufficient importance
dis-
cussion; but he did not think
House, and therefore, they should
be mixed up
instead of with
the question now before the
referring to them, he would confine his observations solely to
the resolution which had been proposed. But, before he did
so, perhaps the House would permit him to allude to the
appeal made to
personally by the Hon. llklember for
West Gloucestershire, as to the Poor-law returns for which
he held him responsible. The Hon. Member asked how it
was that in 1846 a change was made by a general order of I
the Poor-law Board iu the ludo Which, up to that time

had prevailed of stating the number of paupers; and he
seemed to say that this change had been made for the sake of
delusion, and rendering the returns valueless. Now, the
Hon. Member had not given him any notice that it was his
intention to allude to him as responsible for a change that
took place three years before he came into office.—(Hear,
hear.) He conjectured that that change was made for the
purpose of bringing about more correct and satisfactory
results, and his belief was that such had been the effect of
the change.—(Hear, hear.) The resolution which had
been moved by the lion. Gentleman sought to affirm the ex-
pediency of relieving the destitute poor of this country by
means of a national rate. (Hear, hear.) He did not use
these words very often in the course of his address; he
rather seemed to avoid them ; but the whole question in-
volved in his proposal was, whether the House of Com-
mons was prepared to affirm the expediency of maintaining
the destitute poor out of a national rate.--( Hear, hear ) He
was happy to think that the subject of a national rate up
to this time had not met with much favour from Parliament,
and he should be surprised if it was more favourably re-
ceived on that occasion. In 1847 a Committee of that
House was appointed at the instance of his predecessor (Mr.
Buller) for investigating the whole subject of settlement, re-
moval, and rating. This Committee, composed of some of
the ablest members of the House, heard evidence on the
whole of these questions, including that of a national rate,
which was brought before them very distinctly by several
witnesses; but it was remarkable enough that when the
Committee came to consider what recommendations they
should make to the House, not one member of it took up the
subject of a national rate at all, or propounded it as a re-
medy deserving a moment's consideration by Parliament.
—(Hear, hear.) Two years ago a motion was brought
forward by the late Lord Nugent in that House for the ap-
pointment of a Committee to consider the propriety of
a national rate ; but the motion of the Noble Lord
was negatived without a division.—(Hear, hear.)
They had lately been called upon to discuss in a va-
riety of ways the subject of the burdens on land. Several
motions bearing upon that point had been brought forward
by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and everything
that ingenuity and ability could do was urged by him in
favour of his object; but the Hon. Gentleman never pro-
pounded a national rate as that which was likely to afford
relief to the agricultural or any other portion of the com-
munity.—(Hear, hear.) Such had been the reception given
to this proposal in times past, and he could not think that,
on the ground of any arguments which had been used by
the Hon. Member for West Gloucestershire, the House would
now recommend the adoption of a national rate.--( Hear.)
What was the precise proposition of the Hon. Member? It
was, that " to alleviate a portion of the burdens from which
the agricultural interest at present is suffering through the
payment of paroch al poor rates," it was necessary " to sub-
stitute an equalised poor-rate in England and in Wales, not
exceeding Is. 6d. in the pound, and subject to local govern-
ment," The Hon. Gentleman said something about union
rating in the con se of his address. He would not now enter
upon that wide subject, but would simply remark that it was
essentially different from a national rate; first, because the
area over which the union rate could be dint; ibuted was ma-
nageable for all necessary purposes, and secondly, because
every person who contributed to a union rate had by himself
or his representatives a voice in the expenditure of the mo-
ney that was raised.--(Hear, hear.) It was raised within a
certain area, and expended within that same area.--( Hear,
hear.) There were in England and Wales 5,000 parishes
maintaining separately their own poor, almost altogether of
an agricultural character, the rates in which were under Is.
3d. ; but he Hon. Member for West Gloucestershire pro-
posed to raise the rates of all these parishes from 2d., 3d., or
4d. in the pound, which many of them now paid, to Is. 6d.
in the pound.—(Hear.) The excessive injustice of this, to
say nothing of its effects on the interests of agriculture,
must be evident to every one. In one place there was a parish
where the expenditure was carefully managed. an.: in another
they found one where it was wasteful and extravagant, and a
system at work at once injurious to the ratepayers, and de-
moralizing and debasing to the poor; yet the Hon. Gentle.
man would put these parishes on the same footing ;—the
pariah that now paid a high rate would be lowered to is. 6d.,
and the one that now paid a low rate would be raised to the
same amount.—(Hear, hear.) The economy of the one
would have a reward, the extravagance of the other would
have no penalty.—(Hear, hear.) Then the Hon. Gentleman
proposed to make this change all at once. Those who this
year paid 4d. in the pound were next year to pay ls. 6d.
What effect would not this have on the property of a parish I
They had lately had considerable discussions on the incidence
of taxation, but he apprehended that with such a sudden
change as this there need be no discussion as to whether the
owners or occupiers of land were likely to suffer, for unques-
tionably the result would be that both owners and occupiers
would be the sufferers—(Hear, hear.) Let the House con-
sider the waste that must take place under such a scheme as
this. What motive would anybody have for economy?—
(Hear, hear.) What would induce boards of guardians to
investigate minutely the applications for relief that came be-
fore them, and what an opening would there not be to the ad-
mission of the most shameless impostors?—(Hear, hear.)
Then there was the fraud and jobbing that would unques-
tionably be committed, and the efforts that would be made
on all hands to get the largest slice of the general national
fund.—(Hear, hear.) There would be a scramble on all
hands; many who wished to employ labourers at the cost of
others would hail the advent of the national rate, and all the
abuses of the old poor-law would once more be engendered.—
( Hear, hear.) Added to all these evils, could any one doubt
that there would be that which must startle everybody, an
indefinite increase of pauperism throughout the country—
(Hear, hear)—while the new system would be oce of great
cruelty to the really deserving poor?—(Hear, hear.) People
who once got into pauperism would have no motive for
coming out of it ; habits of self-reliance would be de-
stroyed in the case of the poor, every kiad of vice would
be encouraged, and the national character debased and de.
graded.—(Hear, hear.) Next let the House look at the
expense of the plan. The Hon. Gentleman proposed that
in no case should the assessment exceed is. 6d. in the pound.
Now, the total value of the rateable property of the country
in 1847 was 67,320,587/. The amount levied last year under
the head of parochial poor-rates, out of which county-rates,
borough rates, and other items were paid, was 7,270,492/.
What would be the produce of a rate of is. 6d. in the pound?
It would amount to 5,049,044/. Deducting that from the
amount actually paid last year for the poor there would he a
deficit of 2,231,4481. - (Hear, hear. I This was to begin
with. The Hon. Gentleman would start with a provision
that was upwards of 2,000,000/. below the necessary expen-
diture; and how was it to be prpvided for? It must either
come out of the consolidated fund or the poor must starve.
The Hon. Gentleman said he would have nothing to do
with the consolidated fund, and, therefore, as the poor could
not be allowed to starve, the assessment must be raised
above Is. 6d. in the pound, which his resolution declared
was not to be surpassed.—( Hear, hear) Any proposal more
mischievous or rash it was difficult to conceive; indeed it
was the rashest and most inconsiderate scheme ever, per-
haps, brought before Parliament.—(Hear.) But then
the Honourable Gentleman said the scheme was to
be subject to local government. Now, was it pos-
sible to conceive of local self-government with a national
rate to manage?— (Hear, hear.) Why, the thing would
become such a nuisance that everybody would be
petitioning for the abolition of local self-government as re-
spected the poor-rate.— (Hear.) He had never been for
doing away with local government, and he believed it would
be one of the greatest calamities to the country if it were
destroyed; but he believed this would be a great blow at its
existence. Then, if there was to be a central board, only
let the House think of the stipendiaries that wonid be neces-
sary to relieve the destitute poor in some 15,0 0 places in
England and Wales, and the unconstitutional system thereby
encouraged. Let the House also consider what the conse-
quences would be in times of pressure and difficulty, when it
was understood by the poor that the Government of the
country held the national purse for their relief.—(Hear,
hear.) How would they be able to manage in periods of
convulsion with such an understanding among the people?—
(Hear, hear.) Why, it would be attended with danger to all
the best institutions of the country.—(Hear, hear ) The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing the hope that the
House would negative the motion of the Hon. Member for
%Vest Gloucestershire.
Mr. G. BERKELEY, after a few words in reply, said he
would not press his motion upon the House, and
The motion was then withdrawn.
SPIRITS IN BOND.
Lord NAAS rose to introduce his motion on the above
subject. It was, in effect, the same motion which he had
the honour to submit to the House last year, the principle of
which was affirmed by a majority of the House on two oc-
casions, and which was rejected the third time by a narrow
majority of one. - (Hear, hear.) The complaint he had to
make on the part of those interested in Irish spirits was that
the duty was levied, not on the quantity of spirits that went
into consumption, but on the quantity originally measured
into the spirit receiver, or what was technically called the
worm-end, so that if the spirits were left for a considerable
time in bond, the owners had to pay duty on a considerable
quantity that had been lost by waste and evaporation. In
making this motion he laid no claim to any reduction of
taxation, or to any part of the surplus of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. It was said that the proposal he made
would lead to fraud, and that it was an attempt to un-
settle the state of matters arranged after the appointment
of the Committee on the sugar and coffee duties, in 1848.
He found four sets of resolutions submitted to the Com-
mittee, and out of those four only one alluded to the dis-
tillers' case at all. That, he thought. might be taken as a
proof that the distillers were no parties to the settlement
which had been come to on this subject. But, assuming
that the measure of 18.8 was a settlement of the question,e
and that the distillers were satisfied with it, what was the
basis on which it was made? There was a differential duty
between colonial and home-made spirits, but it was not
fr on
made
in any degree by way of protection ; it was
as an equivalent, and a very inadequate equivalent, or the
merely laid
restrictions and disadvantages under which the home. distil-
lers laboured on account of the laws enacted for securing the
revenue. The differential duty between the colonial and
home-made spirits was 4d. per gallon.
adoption of the plan he advocated would was said that the
occasion_ a con-
siderable loss to the revenue. He had never heard of any
calculation as to the probable amount of that loss, and he
believed it was a mere matter of speculati if thaon. His opinion
was that, so far from any loss being
sustained,gainter. I plant
were adapted the revenue would be a considerable
would cause a great increase in the consumption of whisky
and that without any increase of intemperance, because the '
sort of spirits which would then come into consumption
would be very different from that which was now -
con-
sumed in the three kingdoms. The people would have
ripe and proper spirit instead of the raw, cirtkudreegstaurff,d
to the export trade in
which they were now obliged
to consume. With
spirits, it was well known that
a thriving trade, he found by the returns
during last year it had considerably decreased, and, so
far from its being
that while, during the last month, the exportation of rum
from the United Kingdom amounted to 65,000 gallons, no
mention was made during the last year of acy exportation of
spirits, Throughout the return the article of home made
spirits, which might form a valuable portion of our export
trade, was not once mentioned. In point of fact, the reten-
tion of the present duty amounted almost to a prohibition
of the export trade in that article. It was true the English
distillers did not call for any change in the present system.
But what was the reason? Theirs was a spirit in its quality
quite different from that which was consumed by the Irish
and the Scotch. There was only eight distillers in England,
notwithstanding ;he enormous quantity of spirits consumed
in this country. Owing to there being so few distillers,
they, in effect, possessed a monopoly of the trade, and they
perceived that if the plan which he (Lord Naas) desired to
see adopted were carried out, and the allowance granted to
the Irish and Scotch distillers, it would considerably inter-
fere with their monopoly. The Noble Lord then read the
following opinions of Messrs. Logie and Halliburton, Sur-
veying-Generals of the Excise, which was delivered by them
in 1833, when the differential duty was Is. 6d.:—
" When spirits remain any time in the duty free ware-
house, they fall offin strength often as much as 5 per cent.,
and also fall short in quantity, in many cases to the same
amount. The duty is, however, charged en
has,
therefore, not
instance the original
quantity and strength stored, the diet
only to pay the duty in the first for the quantity
wasted in store by evaporation and leakage, b.lltt.ile has
again to pay for the difference in strength between 11. or
15 per cent., and the strength at which the spirits were
actually taken out of store. This we consider a very
great hardship, and it should in our opinion, be imme-
diately remedied. The board are aware that the im-

porters of all foreign and colonial spirits nia3'
duty free, and when taken out of the warehouse tar.",
is calculated according to the quantity and,. s
t. t:', rf
each cask is then found to contain, althoueli,PsT,,,,
years under bond; we think it would be but u
b
this equitable regulation, which the importers of n".%
rum, and hollands have so long enjoyed, should e
tended to the distillers of these countries; indeed,
w to
shier it would absolutely be necessary, iu order PP
them." •
d r"
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary-at-War last
concerned the"'
said that this was a question which
condition of the poor of Scotland, and that he
ou.d noti
the proposition his support, because it would deemoralLe,,,e;
people of that country by increasing intemperance
4
them. But, so far was ha (Lord Naas) from agreeingo
as
the Right Hon. Gentleman, that his opinion thanw or
sure would tend to improve the habits of the.pietoet.
land, because (as he had said before) the spire e
H
ey wob
the on'
consume would be of. faactbioenttoefr
fqhueailiiroyu.
hoped
had proved to the satisfaction
loss toll
question; that it was not likely to cause any greatfrati thie
sion of this demand would not be an unsettlement
revenue; that it would not open a door toh,t a;
it would
would encourage the export trade in spirits;
that
.cfy
wool e
meat to the poor; and, lastly, that it w
by Incl.
increase intemerance ; hat it would give a;dtditbioniallveeirlup'ir'
portant measure iu an agricultural point of view,
~11 the
ing the markets the farmers. In consequence 01,
considerations, he thought he had not done wrong rrh
mitting his proposition to the House.—(
Noble Lord concluded by moving that the House
,rege
self into a Committee, to take into consideration rn" r
in bnd.
mode of levying the duty on home-made spirit Lord 01
Mr. J. WILSON, after complimenting the Noblehad broug-
the clear and temperate manner in which he
on end heel
his motion forward, said, that as the quest
on subs;
already settled by a Parliamentary Committee, a_.t of tba;
quently by the House in consequence of the rePwe at all
Committee, he did not feel it necessary to enter agn:questee
great length into the subject. Cleseersr2solv;i::
more than another which enegeta.gedlfthfieleartetenwtl'osa of h'dSfs:
mittee of 1848 it was the arrangement of the spiritt Cor
It was true no Irish distiller was examined before, _taittet,
mittee, nor was there any Irish Member on the L'l,:f"(3sro
—( ear.) 'When that Committee was appointeat
contemplated to make the spirit duties the subject
being toy
That would fully account for the fact of there ia•
Irish Member on the Committee. Although the 01111 does
tention of Lord George Bentinck excluded the si2.lbioh to?k
from consideration, yet during the discussionsdwon
0,001
place before the Committee the rate of duty levie. question
rum became so important a subject that the Wia°l
the inqUiri.
of the spirit duties was necessarily involved in Sao
able
clirf
ut, although no Irish distiller was examined,
tiller of great eminence and ability, and a perserir7Gseir.
giving the fullest information on the subject-7_, and, sa
was examined with regard to the Scotch distille lee
ace he
Lord to P" he (Mr. Wilson) understood the Noble ably 'a
claim of the Irish and of the Scotch distillers 0 cop;
principle, he thought their case could not be moreej7fferentisi
ducted than by Mr. Greig. ith regard to th
duty, although he believed the Noble Lord
statement generally, yet he would find, from subs was
discussions that ensued, that a more correct est Ti.
afterwards made as to the component parts of that a p!oil
constituted that differential duty. It was intendeud
,spierts
of the 4d. should represent the deficiency in bonded;
but a large quantity of spirits went direct from the';vantage
into consumption, and thus the distiller had the a'ode in
of the penny. Thus, the total quantity of srritbsich onlY
Scotland in 1850 was 11,500,000 gallons, of W
prodeerthe
ile Ads
3,760,000 gallons went into bond, leaving the
benefit of the penny; and the Irish distiller htel the same:
vantage of Id. per gallon on '2,000,000 gallons, ili of ch,.3ci
way for the same year. He was aware the number,bere
was coru!ehsteginuebuist
tilleries had diminished in Ireland, and no doubt 0011
been numerous instances of local distress, but thatv;fotara
the same thing that had taken plat. in every Ins of taa-
in this country also; and the whole tendency' log"
nufacture was to grow up into large establishments!:erc and
ing up the smaller ones by the application of niacin" 5'3009
capital. The Noble Lord had not stated that the "I tl3B
that,
of spirits produced had increased considerably,
„II there,
number of distilleries had been diminished. In '',lo
were 82 distilleries in Ireland, which produced
lons, and last year, though there were only 53 dise
ij
the quantity of spirit made was 8,236,000 gallons.
rod'ce;
posed the object of this motion was to compare theif
of home-mane spirits with the producer of rum.
'Puy ~
4
were the facts? In 1847, the last
year before the dg
rum was lowered, the quantity of spirits made in It° seit'
6,370,000. In 18;50, atter four years of competitiooos,oo.
rum at the altered duty, it had increased to 7'4hci
There was a complaint that the trade with England yesi'
minished, but would Hon. Gentlemen look from thos d scss
preceding 1846, when the average export from Ire) 0i
300,000 gallons, to last year, when it amounted to ill
gallons? He admitted it had risen to 1,418,000 gsll% hAd
1846, but in the year previous the average was ashch thv
stated, and it had fallen from that year till 1850, at "ele-dtliSt
last returns showed the above result. Now, it hap Pew dbeea
simultaneously with this decrease from Irelandthere bad
an increase in the imports from Scotland. The (I,at. 0001
imported from the latter country had increased last years de'
1,500,000 gallons to 2,60,e,000 gallons, and therefore l'ilyeteel
ficiency of imports from Ireland was more than coalPeiliie ler
by the increase from Scotland. It would be worth 111,_ och
the Irish distillers to look to this question, and see scul dig'
a result had taken place; for unquestionably the Scot',
in
tillers hail no advantages which they did not p 052! fs'
equal proportion. So far from the low duty having bees
vourable to the colonies, it would appear there had. a 1:05'
contrary result. The quantity of home-made spirits se-elloOs
land, Ireland, and Scotland in 1848 was 22,e02,000 b-00'
in 1850 it had increased to 23,862,000 gallons, incretiol
1,600,000 gallons in two years, while Ireland' and Scot
showed an increase of 920,000 gallons on the same Pc Det
notwithstanding this competition with the colonies.
.00
them look to the colonial spirits, and they would find Tile is
1847 the consumption of rum was 3,328,000 gallons, w° of
1850 it bad fallen to 2,902,000 gallons, showing a decreSse
_itli
400,000 gallons on the foreign produce. Would any 0ne70.5
these facts before him pretend to say the settlement of 'To
was unfair to the home produce?—(Hear, hear.) 010
Scotch and Irish distilicre could Bond their produce
this country, but the produce of the English distillers or P)
tillers was prohibited in Scotland and Ireland:—(No,
English raw sp rite ight be introduced into those coun'-;
but not, he believed, the compound spirit, which alone
eit
consumed. The Scotch and Irish distillers would think i'rti
case a hard one it that rule applied to then). If any P:10
had cause to complain, it was the English distiller. r
d
consumption of spirits manufactured in England bad
of
creased during the last ten years. In 1841 the quantitYooo
Eng ish-made spirits consumed in England was 5,9011iag
gallons; in 1850 it was 5,800,000 gallons, showing a t's
off of 100,000 gallons. While this was the position o', tjao
;v.
English distiLer, the consumption of Scotch spirits hatl/0
creased in e
own market during the same period
$l,
4,000,000 of gallons and upwards to nearly 6,000.000 of
Igo,
lons, and of Irish spirits, lion) 2,300,000 to 3,400,000 gal (:.,1
These facts showed that the Scotch and Irish distillers vet
no reason to complain of the Excise regulations. Undi,,,
these circumstances he called upon the House not to h
iurb the settlement which was come to in 1848. t Scott
should determine to grant the prayer of the Irish and 00,0,
distillers, the colonial distiller would immediately claret '„d
lief to the same extent, and the struggle would probably end
in the abolition of the spirit duties altogether. who
Mr. REYNOLDS said, the Honourable Gentleman
48,
had just sat down had, referring to the Committee of ISivir.
t ,Iked of a settlement and an arrangement. He been
Reynolds) was not aware of any arrangement having t
come to, though he had paid much attentUin to the sn"
at the time. There was, in fact, no Irishman either on thioai
Committee, nor examined as a witness before it; but -
way of reconciling them to the conclusions of the Chlnra
was
mittee, the Honourable Gentleman had stated that there
were two Scotchmen examined before it. Though he he
the great figure-Member—(A laugh)—put forward ttat
Government, the Honourable Gentleman had failed, with d
his statistics, to convince him (Mr. Reynolds) that they
been fairly treated. Indeed, the Honourable Gentleman 'l
rather astonished him ty quoting figures which only ec
:
isted in his own fertile ima,ination. He had said, for ln
stance, that the loss from. leakage in Ireland to the
tiller was I lid., and in Scotland 2 1-10 d. Why, an offi'l
document which he (Mr Reynolds) held in his hand 8130%d
that in the bonded warehouse in Dublin the total deficien4ei
by leakage and evaporation on twelve puncheons was
gallons, or 81A per cent., instead of a penny and t''.;
eighth. Again, with respect to the differential do'?
of 4d., the Honourable Gentleman said that i"
was allowed for plant, nil d. for another deacriP;
tion of plant, and Id. for a third description of plan,.
and the three together the Hon. Gentleman, with all bas
power of figures, called 81/2d., while it was only 2,-ri d. To
tact, however, was that 30. was allowed for the greater cost
of the plant of the home manufacturer, .as compared 10°,1,
the foreign and colonial manufacturer, and id. for leakage
and evaporation. But to come to the real cause of con,'
plaint—the Frenchman, the Portuguese, the Spaniard—int
word, any foreigner might send his own wine, rum, or brow',
ti e
the or
quantity six ye arsa,
and
dnd strengthwhen
into any part of the United Kingdom, and have it bonded
in the Queen's stores for v
stout he paid duty only on he took
existed at the time of taking it out ; but as to the Irish and
Scotch subjects of the realm, they paid a penalty amounting
in some cases to something very considerable.
For if 1: vessel, say of 120 gallons and 25 per cent.
over proof,
leaked half that quantity and evaporated half of its strength
while in bond, the bonding party must pay a duty of 2s. S";
per gallon in Ireland upon every proof gallon which had
been lost, and which the vessel, therefore, did not contain;
The question was not a spirit-dealer's ; it was a question 01
labour; it WAS an agricultural question—a question of the
profitable employment of the labour of the country. The
present was the third time they had tried this question ; last
year they had been beaten by a majority of one, but be
trusted that that night they should have a considerable Ina;
jority. He did not believe that any Irish Members would
vote against them. However they might differ, like other,
men, on some other questions, .on this he trusted they were al'
agreed.

Mr. B. CARTER opposed the motion. If the Noble Lord's
(Lord Naas) views were carried out it would destroy the
distinction between Excise and Customs ; the duty in the one
case being paid on consumption, in the other en production
besides, it was asking an unfair advantage for the Scotch
and Irish distillers over the English distiller. If a case
had been made out for anything it was for a Committee up
stairs.

Mr. GROGAN reminded the House that the motion, if
theca Irishrried,woaund
would
Scotchconfer a
distiller. benefit on
As theth
e case English s
tasstood an
well as
soda,
vantageu
otwas
own conferred
fel
oown- foreignerstuhbejeets.
The c
from which Customs
and tEh
shut their
cise system ought to be identified. The argument of the
Hon. Member for Westbury was directly at variance with
the evidence given before the Committee by Mr. Wood, who
stated that the differential duties between colonial and Bri-
tish spirits were just and right because of the peculiar charges
incident to Scotch and Irish spirits. A puncheon of foreign
brandy was landed at Liverpool, where it remained five or
six years improving and mellowing, but not at the expense
of the importer, who only paid on the quantity of spirit et
the time of pa ing the
y dutyin : A puncheon of whisky was also
bonded at
Liverpool, but the first place it aid a duty
on the decrease in taking it out of bond in Irelanpd, and then
came to England, and might be bonded, perhaps, in the same
store as the puncheon of French brandy. He assumed that
both decreased equally: but what was the position of the
owners? The Frenchman took his brandy out, and pa id
only on the quantity in the cask at that time ; while the
Irishman or the Scotchman, in addition to paying on the de-
crease in his own con try, paid also on the deficiency occur-
ring after the time when his g ,ods were bonded in England
at the high rate of the English duty. This was a fact which
could not be mystified whatever case might be made out by
figures. The Hon. Member for Westbury had endeavoured
to institute an invidious comparison as to the extent of trade
carried on with England by Ireland and Scotland; but the
truth was, that both Ireland and Scotland were suffering
from one common injustice, and now came to ask a remedy at
the hands of the House. The increase in the manufacture
to which allusion hal been made would not remedy the evil,
but rather magnify it. The Hon. Member for Westbury had
referred to the number of gallons brought to charge as an i
indication of prosperity ; but he had always thought t much
more beneficial to have a number of distillers distributed
throughout the country than to have all the business conso-
idated in the hands of a few large capitalists. All that the