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

THE SUN,

motion asked was such a modification of the system as would
confer on the Irish and Scotch producer the same advantages
.were already enjoyed by the foreigner.
?tr. M. GIBSON said he had been a member of the Corn-
, rea:_int.teee as eof inquiry into the subject of sugar-planting and rum
and there certainly never was such a complication of evi-
that produced upon this question. As to the evi-
ncelLe of the Chairman of the Excise, to which reference
had been made, he must say, with every respect for the gen-
tleman alluded to, that he was always disposed to scrutinise
somewhat narrowly the evidence given by the head pf any
revenue
department, and he was also inclined to apply the
sarue scrutiny to the statements made by individuals repre-
senting special interests, when they came to Parliament
Praying an alteration of differential duties. The impression
made
on his mind was, that on the whole 4d. was a fair dif-
ference
Irish spirits laboured as compared with colonial ruin. But
oe. wiseed to call attention to the great advantages which
this spirit interest now enjoyed in the United Kingdom. The
fto 0. Member talked about the foreigner, but what was the
Position of Irish spirits as compered with foreign spirits?
lOn Irish spirits they had put a duty of 2s. Bd. a gallon ; but
how much had they put upon foreign spirits? 15s. a gallon
(Hear, hear.) He was not prepared to alter the present
system until there hail been an inquiry and proper evidence
to show that the conclusions at which the Committee had
arrived were erroneous, and he would, therefore, give his
"to against the motion of the Noble Lord.
_Mr. HUME said he was only anxious to see the Scotch
distiller put upon the same footing as the rum distiller in
brandy.'the Dutch gin distiller, or the importer of French
Were now
Some Hon. Members on his side of the House
were
now mightily alarmed with the bugaboo of protection.
uiriat:fcorveareeirg:nwanasd laughter.) The word must not be mentioned
,ow in the hearing of his Hon. Friends around him. This,
no protection question. The object of the mo-
tion was to secure equality. The difference of duty charged
question. spirits has been alluded to, but that was a different
With these views he would certainly support the
Motion.
ofSir Gs CLERK reminded the Hon. Member for Montrose
the difficulty which existed when the Hon. Member first
entered Parliament in permitting any intercourse between
the three different portions of the United Kingdom, with
reference to the trade in spirits. Intercourse was, however,
ultimately permitted, to the great advantage of the country
I°, general. Superadded to this a privilege was granted
Well had never previously been conceded to any articles
chargeable with excise duties—namely, that they were
enabled to warehouse their goods for an indefinite period,
and were not obliged to pay the duty on them till they were
taken out for home consumption. It was, however, an es-
lential part of the agreement entered into when the privi-
elgewas granted that the amount of duly should be charged
"
the quantity ascertained when the spirits were manufac-
tured. Believing, therefore, that the arrangement made in
1825 had been attended with very great benefit to that part
of the
anythe United Kingdom with which he was more particularly
connected, he should be very sorry to disturb it, nor had he
argument which tended to shake his conviction.
On these grounds, and after the best attention he could devote
to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the Scotch
and Irish distillers had no fair claim to the favour which was
then demanded for them, and he should therefore vote against
the motion.
Colonel DUNNE said it was clear that the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just addressed the House did not at
present represent a Scotch county. He (Colonel Dunne)
did not think it fair to levy the duty on an amount of
spirits which did not in reality exist for the manufacturer
of the article. It was not true that the Irish distillery trade
had Prospered under the present system, for he found that
while the quantity of Irish spirits manufactured in 18.39
had amounted to 12,000,000 of gallons, the quantity manu-
factured in Ireland at present amounted to only 7,000,000 of
gallons.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
question was whether they should change the present mode
of assessing the duties on spirits, which was admitted by
all persons conversant with the subject to be the best and
the safest mode that could be adopted. He believed that
if they were practically to re-establish that which had existed
Previously to the year 1825—namely, a different mode of
charging
those duties in England, Ireland, and Scotland,
they would put an end to that interchange of spirits between
the three countries which had proved so beneficial to the
Irish and Scotch distillers. He believed that the adoption
Of that proposal would open the door to a very considerable
amount of frand. Under the present system the distiller paid
the duty on the quantity of spirit which he placed in the
bonded warehouse, and it was for his advantage that no por-
tion of that spirit should afterwards be abstracted. His in-
terest, and the interest of the representatives of the Excise
department, were in fact identical. But if the proposal before
the House were adopted it would be the interest of the dis-
tiller to allow as large a quantity as possible of the spirit to
be abstracted from the bonded warehouse without the pay-
'Tient of the duty. He believed that if that arrangement were
adopted it would be necessary to impose very severe restric-
tions on the distillers, with the view to the prevention of
frauds upon the Excise. It was true that no Irish or Scotch
distiller had been examined before the Committee of 1848, but
English distillers had been examined, and had given it as
their opinion that the proposed change would be one attended
with considerable danger to the revenue. He denied that
any undue advantage was given by the present system to the
colonial producer, as compared with the home:producer. In
order to prove that no such advantage was given, it was
enough to state that there had been last year an increase in
the consumption of Irish and Scotch spirits to the amount of
600,000 gallons, and a decrease in the consumption of rum to
the amount of 140,000 gallons, as well as a decrease in the
consumption of foreign brandy to t
otheh amount. of 300,000
gallons. The home producer had n tfoe, it was elea r,
been driven out, of the market in consequence of the superior
advantages enjoyed by his colonial competitor. The Noble
Lord had told them that that was not at all a question of
revenue. But he differed from the Noble Lord upon that
point. It was perfectly obvious that if the duty were to be
levied on a lesser quantity of spirits there must be a reduc-
tion in its amount, and that the revenue would proportion-
ately suffer. Again, lie should further observe, that if they
wera'to grant that concession to the home •producer, they
should grant some corresponding concession to the colonial
producer ; and there again there would be a loss to the re-
venue. But if the revenue were to be diminished by reduc-
tions of that description, it was clear that it would be im-
possible to effect that change in the window-tax, or that di-
minution of the income-tax, which many Honourable
Members were so anxious to promote. The House ought
to remember the division on the income-tax on Friday last;
and those Members who had then voted in the majority
ought to bear in mind that it would be impossible
to effect any diminution in the more objectionable taxes—if
taxes of a less objectionable character, such as that under
their consideration, were to be reduced. He asked the House
Whether any excessive duty was paid by the Irish distiller?
The English distiller paid a duty of 7s. 10d. per gallon on
the spirits which he produced; the Scotch distiller paid a
duty of 3s. 8.1. per gallon ; and the Irish distiller paid a
duty of only 2s. Bd. per gallon. That surely was an arrange-
runt of which the Irish distillers could not reasonably com-
plain. He appealed to those Members who were ready to
Maintain the public credit, and at the same time we're desi-
rous of seeing reductions effected in the more objectionable
and unpopular items of taxation, not to assent to a motion
such as that then under their consideration.
Mr. NAPIER said he believed that the vote of Friday
last showed that the House would not maintain a duty at the
expense of a perpetual injustice.—(Hear, hear.) It was be-
cause he thought that motion a fair and a reasonable one
that he gave to it his support. Much stress had been laid
upon the evidence of the English distillers upon that point;
but he denied that the English distillers were disinterested
Parties in the case. Those distillers made use of bonded
warehouses to a very trifling extent. It appeared that while
the English distillers had only bonded 11,814 gallons of spi-
rits, the Scotch distillers had bonded 7,000,000 of gallons,
and the Irish distillers had bonded 6,000,000 of gallons.
The fact was, that the English distillers, who were only eight
in number, enjoyed a practical monopoly, and had no occa-
sion to put their spirits in bond. The distillers of Ireland
felt that they were subjected to an injustice in that case, and
they would never rest until that injustice was removed.
Mr. A. HASTIE supported the motion. There could be
ne justification for imposing on distillers the necessity of
paying a duty on that quantity of spirits which was lost by
leakage and evaporation. That quantity had been stated to
amount to not less than 2-le per cent.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he considered that as a motion to
reduce the duty on Scotch and Irish spirits, because he
thought it was perfectly obvious that if the duties that were
Originally fixed with a view to have them charged in the
'way in whick they were at present charged, and if the
amount of spirits on which they were raised, were diminished,
the duties themselves should necessarily decrease. It was
not true that any injustice was done to the Irish distillers in
that case, for while the Irish distillers paid a duty of
only 2s. Bd. a gallon, colonial rum in Ireland was paying a
duty of 35., and French brandy and Spanish rum were pay-
ing a duty of not less than 15s. Therefore it is obvious
that we would, by adopting the motion, give an
advantage to the Scotch and Irish distiller over the planter
and the importer of foreign spirits. It therefore becomes
a question of revenue; and this is not, in my
'opinion, a time when it can be reduced. 1 know no
more proper limit to a duty upon spirits than that it should
mot be so high as to encourage fraud and illicit distillation.
If that is not the case at present, and if, as my Hon. Friend
has stated, Irish and Scotch spirits have increased in quan-
tity, that is a reason, in my opinion, why I should not part
'with the revenue. I cannot, therefore, agree to the motion,
as I am not prepared either to give the home manufacturer
an advantage over the colonial manufacturer or consumer,
eLisosirl the Noble Lord, " it
-.nor to give up the revenue which it involves.
abdrionoigtshrthe justiee. of
tb Mr. DISRAELI —The Nobilltf:
e proposition,_bujihe:rays.
forward in a
proper manner.
Wait in detail it might be entertained; but as it is a reduc-
tionofficialthat of duty, we cannot take it. we admit there is oppres-
sep• se, but this is not exactly the matinee of
English. d Scotch
distillers must submit to taxation, while the French and
Spanish distillers should be exempt. That deity is paid by
the consumer; but our ground is, that this is a duty that
pre saes on the producer.—(Cheers.) The system which
the Government upholds is this—to benefit. the con-
sumer, and to leave theh oprhordigeerNsoubbljoecit,or%) urgent
• res triction.—(Cheers. )
olicyin.—rhe
eHefaalrl,aho)e_art-h3antdTtlees
colleagues were opposed Itotthoisgp
Noble Lord has found a refuge
trade in spirits has increased. But, supprohsairngitit
shtoooblde sboo,
is it -because the trade is prosperous
taxed e--(Cheers.) And if we can show that this
is notisprosp thiserity
is owing to other circumstances than' that stated,
a further argument in favour of the motion of my Noble
s
Friend ?—(la hear.) The mode of remedying
ear,
grievance is easy—it 'is in the hands of the House; and I
trust that the decision of this night will, like that on Friday,
show that the stereotyped nature of the routine of the public
offices is, to receive another check in the interest of the
coantry.—(Cheers.)
Thellouse then divided, when there app 159 the motion ••• '" 1155,9
Against it . . •"
The SPEAKER having, according to custom, voted for the
motion, the Government were consequently left in a minority
of one; the announcement of which was received with loud
cheers.

THE MINISTRY.
Mr. ROEBUCK then rose to refer to the extraordinary
circumstances inwhich the Government was
placed.—(Bear.)
The House of Commons had now atsumed to i self—he would
not say without just cause—not only the supervision of the
Government, but also the actual Government itself. (Cries
of .‘ Oh," and " Hear.") He could Well understand how it
should be that some disappointed followers of the Govern-
ment would object to this proposition ; but when he saw the
Go vernment obliged to modify all the three modes or plans
of taxation which they had introduced, by the decision of
the House of Commons, he appealed to the Noble Lord him•
self, us a man brought up in constitutional principles—as a
man educated in the idea that the House of Commons had a
supervising power over the Government, whether he was
now in a position to govern the country ?—(Great cheer-
ing.) He (Mr. Roebuck) believed these were the prin-
ciples of the Noble Lord. Was the Noble Lord, therefore,
wise, was he politic—he would say nothing as to the point of
honour—to retain the powers of Government in,his hands
under such circumstances?—(Cheers.)` The House should
tuvAerstand 'what was going on in the.country. At the corn-

mencement of the session they were told that certain things
should be dune as to the character of the country, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an intimation of what lie
intended to propose. The result was that there did not exist
a single great commercial house in the country that was not
affected by the declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The question was not, therefore, a party matter; the best
interests as well as the character of the country were con-
cerned in it ; and if the House of Commons still kept them
in that state, like Mahomet's coffin, suspended between
heaven and earth as regarded government, he (Mr. Roebuck )
appealed to the Noble Lord, as the responsible person,
whether he would continue to lend the authority of his name
and character to this state of things.— (Cheers.) Any
Minister that regarded not only the interests of the country,
but also his own personal character, would not lend him-
self to such a condition.—(Cries of "Oh, oh!") He (Mr.
Roebuck) recollected when the party of the Noble Lord
put out the Administration of the Duke of Wellington,
that a member of that party, now in the other House,
rose to ask Sir Robert Peel whether he was about to
retain the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
lived on minorities.—(Cheers.) It was contrary to the in-
terests of England and the spirit of the Constitution that
any Administration should maintain itself by the difficulty of
its position, and should live on the sufferance of enemies
—(Cheers)—should be daily insulted by these conquests—
(Cheers)—and should be unable to advance a single one of
their own principles —(Cheers.) Therefore he (Mr. Roe-
buck) asked the Noble Lord whether, now that he had sus-
tained a fourth defeat on matters intimately connected with
the taxation of the country, and all its mercantile concerns, he
thought it were politic to retain possession of the Government ?
He believed it would be more satisfactory to the desires of
those who uished to advance the great principles which they
advocated, if the Noble Lord would say that be would nut
consent any longer to such a state of things. If the House
of Commons took upon itself the administration of affairs it
should also take upon itself the responsibility of finding a
Government to rule the country.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. Member for Sheffield has
asked me whether I intend to retain office under the present
circumstances. He stated that he thought it would be inju-
rious to the country if I should do so, and that the com-
mercial interests especially would suffer by that retention of
office. The Hon. Member has a perfect right to put any
question of that kind—any question which affects the in-
terests of the country; but lee has given me certain advice
with regard to my own personal character—(Loud cheers)
which I must respectfully beg to decline.—(Cheers.) Giving
the Hon. Gentleman every credit for his good intentions, I
will take care of my personal character myself.—(Renewed
cheering.) Sir, at another period—at a period when the
government of this country was iu abeyance, and those to
whom it had been offered had not resolved to undertake the
charge of forming a Government—the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said in this House that he wished me to consider
that the interests of the cause of free trade were in my
hands.—(Cheers and laughter.) What the Hon. Gentleman
meant precisely by that observation I will not pretend to
say; but of this I am fully aware, that the general interests
of the country. not of free trade only, but its general in-
terests, its welfare, its tranquillity, very much depends on
the conduct of those who have at the moment the direc-
tion of the Government.—(Cheers.) But, Sir, I have not
hesitated, when I thought that the direction of affairs ought

to be taken out of our hands unless we succeeded in certain
objects, to stake the existence of the Government on these
questions and on those objects. - (Hear.) I did not hesitate
to do so when the question of the repeal of the Navigation
Laws was before Parliament. It was then frankly declas ed
that we were prepared for the consequences of the rejection
of that measure, and it was fully understood that we should
retire if that measure was rejected.—(Hear.) In the course
of last year, differing from many who took other views with
respect to the suppression of the slave trade, 1 did not hesitate
to declare that I would not retain office one hour after any
vote of the House which would be in opposition to the course
then pursued.—(Hear.) But I think I have some right to
consider with my colleagues what is the fitting opportunity,
when I shall retain office, and when I should lay our resigna-
tion before her Majesty.—(Hear.) I am speaking now in
the absence of any direct question of a want of confidence,
of which the result is perfectly plain—l am speaking with
respect to opinions. In the beginning of the present session
did I show such an anxiety for office as to make it necessary
that the Hon. Member for Sheffield should be my monitor—
(Cheers and laughter)—and should inform me when the mo-
naent is come when, at his bidding, I should lay my resigna-
tion before the Crown ?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
says this is the fourth time we have been defeated. But
there is an observation which has been used, though couched
in vulgar language, by Lord Castlereagh in this House,
when leading the Government party, which may be appli-
cable here. He said, with respect to a vote to which the
House had come, to repeal a large portion of a tax, and
when we cheered loudly— he said—" I beg Gentlemen not to
halloo until they are out of the wood."—( Laughter.) Let us
observe now, with respect to these defeats to which the Hon.
Gentleman has alluded, one, the first, was with respect to a
Bill of the Hon. Member for Surrey. After we came into
office that question came again before the House, and the
decision to whichit came was different, and the views which
I entertained were confirmed by a large majority.—(Hear,
hear.) So that our first defeat was reversed by a subse-
quent division. In another case we divided with respect to
the management of the woods and forests, and that is not
yet decided ; for it not intended to act on the decision of the
House. We intend to introduce a Bill on that subject s -
miler to the one of last year, and the House will then have
a fair opportunity of deciding whether they will come or not
to the same decision which its majority did, or whether our
plan is preferable for the management of the woods and
forests. So that in the present state of affairs that which I
said ought to be done was defeated in one case, but it appears
it was followed by a victory over those who had been the
opponents of Government. The second case is not yet de-
cided. I come now to the third case—the division which
took place on the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
I do rot consider that there was anything in the nature of
the motion of the Hon. Member as indicating that the I louse
meant to say that it intended to take the Government into
its own hands.—(Hear, hear.) All these questions of taxa-
tion, and the burdens on the people, are questions on which
the House of Commons has a particular claim to have their
opinions listened to, and the Executive Government may
very fairly differ from it without any cause of resignation.
While they can maintain a sufficient revenue for the mains
tanance of the establishments which they consider necessary
for the safety and honour of the country, no financial differ-
ence with the House ought to influence their stability. We
now come to the fourth defeat—the motion which the Noble
Lord has carried by the vote of this evening. To this question
I must apply the observations to• which I referred, because
list year the Noble Lord was equally successful with another.
I think in the end the House will be of opinion that the
measure of the Noble Lord will not be adopted but by some
arrangement of colonial duties which will put him on some
fair footing. This being my opinion, I shall not tell the
Hon. Member for Sheffield that his request, made with that
suaviter ix modo—( Laughter)—for which he is celebrated—
(Hear, hear) - shall be complied with; I will not tell him
what other course I mean to pursue on the present occasion.
This, is a matter of grave import—the character of a Govern-
ment ought not to be sacrificed, or even impaired, by, sub-
mitting to frequent defeats—(" Hear, hear," from the Oppo-
sition) —without declaring that they could no longer carry
on the government of the country ; and at the same time,
on the other hand, no one will deny that the resignation of
a Government, under present circumstances, is a very grave
matter, and involves very grave consequences.—( Cheers.)
Some may think the consequences of that grave matter may
lead to good fortune, and some to bad : but whether of good
or bad fortune, no one can deny that it is a very.grave and
important movement, not merely to that question of free
trade to which the Honourable and Learned Member for
Sheffield once alluded—(Hear, hear) but also with regard
to many other questions of domestic and foreign policy that
might be affected by a change of Government in present cir-
cumstances.—(Hear.) All I can say is, that I trust that those
who have generally supported the Government, and as such
have taken up our views with regard to public policy, will
give us credit for doing for every interest in the country
what is required by the situation in which we are placed
- (hear)—that we are
.not disposed on the one hand to
allow the character of the Government to be impaired; it
is from no sense of affront—from no irritating feeling of
pique, I should make so important a decision as the res gna-
tion of our offices with the view of changing the Govern-
ment of the country.—( Hear, hear.) The change of a
Government is not a question to be bandied about in a chance
debate—( Hear, hear)—and I must ask the House to leave it
to us to make that decision. Taking it as I shall do with it
view to the general welfare of the country, I shall not have
to reproach my own conscience with having deserted any in-
terest which I was bound to uphold.—(Cheers.)
The House then went into Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the
chair.
A resolution was proposed by Lord NAAS, in accordance
with the tenor of his speech. It was understood th it the
resolution was opposed by the Government, and there were
loud cries, which lasted several minutes, for a division.
Mr. HUME rose to speak, but was for some time inaudi-
ble amid cries of " Divide, divide." He said the Noble Lord
bad acted rightly in the reply which he gave to the question
put to him. It would put an end to proceedings in that
House if a Minister were to resign upon every question of
mere financial difference that might arise. He would submit
to the Noble Lord, parties having left the House after the
first division, under the impression that there would be no
other, whether it would not be more in conformity with the
dignity of his station if he would allow that resolution to be
agreed to without another division. - (Loud cries of "Divide,
divide.")
Lord J. RUSSELL said, in answer to the last question
which the Hon. Member for Montrose had put to him, he
could say that he should leave it entirely in the hands of
Noble Lord opposite who had made the motion. He thought
it was perfectly fair to take onother division on that ques-
tion ; and he did not think the Noble Lord could impute to
them a desire to take"any unfair advantage, as they would not
impute it to him. ' But he believed that the House was fuller
then than it was before.
Lord N AAS said the remark with which the Noble Lord
had concluded was the worst he could have said; for they
had divided in a House in which the Members had been at-
tentive listeners to the debate.—(Hear, hear.) Ho thought
it was rather hard for the Noble Lord to ask for another divi-
_amed, no opposition divi-
sion on that question, as those Members who had recently
entered the House bad no opportunity of hearing the debate
putting in with
and he did
on the subject. A different course was proposed then to what
had been pursued: last year, for when a motion had been
him. it.
Lo osition had been offered to a resolution named
in acerdord.aooe The present resolution was only
writing the principle to which they had agreed,
not think such a course would be adopted to-
wards Noble Lord had
him. This year hedha‘majc.ritY
last year were RUSSELL said the circumstances of the case of
different.ifrom the present. Last year the
the Speaker, of those who thought with
who haltclesnly had his majority by the vote of
mity with usage, to
moved
yleclared that he only voted in confor-
tz--sCries of " Divide.")
another opportunity for consider -
ing the question.--otav:
it? If the Noble Lord had any other
course, he might adopt
Mr. FRESHFIELD
that
to address the House, but not
getting a hearing,
progress, and said he would divide upon n Chairman should report
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL,
Lord NAAS said he would agree to the suggestion'
on the understanding that when next the made,
brought on, the division should in the _ntet question was
instance take
place on his resolution.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, when the question
again, it should stand in the same position in which _ came on
ich it now
stood.—(Cries of " Divide.")
The CHAIRMAN asked the House whether it was in-
tended to divide on the question "that the Chairman report
progress?" Is would be well to understand whether a di-
vision was to take place on that point or not.—(Hear, and
divide.) He then put the question, and declared the" Noes"
had it.
The Chairman then vacated the chair, and the House
resumed.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked leave
to sit again on Friday.
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Mr. E. ELLICE then rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill
for the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into the ex-
istence of bribery in the borough of St. Alban's. lie felt
he was bound to satisfy the House that there were grounds

LON DON,

for the introduction of this measure. The case of the late
election of St. Alban's was similar to the cases of Sudbury
and Great Yarmouth. The mode of proceeding adopted was
this—a house was taken, as it was supposed, fur the purposes

of a committee of one of the candidates. There ere two I
means of access to the principal room in it. Tae one was
through a particular street, and the other through an alley,
called by the expressive name of " Sovereign-alley." A
number of voters, it was proved, went by the street one by
one into this room, in which a person sat who, it was alleged,
was the person who bribed. Each voter, as he promised this
person his vote, went out by the other door. Although they
had not the actual proof that this person referred to paid
money to these voters, it was satisfactorily given in evidence
that the latter, upon leaving the room, went into a public-
house, and there exhibited four or five sovereigns each. It
was true that those persons when exaininedswore they had not
received any money for their votes ; but when they swore that
they were not in possession of any mney, it was distinctly
proved by respectable evidence that they were in possession of
money. Very little doubt remained on the minds of the
Committee that they had received money in return for their
votes. The person who sat in the room, as described, was
Edwardes, who, however, was not examined. There was not
the slightest doubt in the minds of the Committee but that
bribery was committed. It was, however, necessary that
further inquiry should be instituted. In 1845 an election
took place at St. Alban's, and a Committee was appointed to
try the merits of a petition presented against the election,
when it appeared that Mr. Edwardes was the prominent per-
son also on that occasion. Certain proceedings having then
taken place in Parliament in respect to that, as well as other
elections, there was a compromise entered into and the peti-
tion was withdrawn. The object of the Committee was
thereupon frustrated, but they made a special report of that
case to the House. If, then, there was to be an inquiry into
this matter, he submitted, upon the authority of the proceed-
ings taken by that House and the House of Lords in the
Sudbury case, that the inquiry should proceed through a
commission. There could be but one opinion entertained
in respect to this subject, and that was that a system of
bribery unhappily prevailed in St. Alban's to a most
alarming extent. It was, then, our bounden duty to do
everything in our power to put down this bribery, which
tended to lower the character of that house and to degrade
and demoralise the parties who were immediately concerned
in it. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by asking leave to
introduce his Bill. _ _

Mr. COBDEN rose to move the addition of words so as
to include in the motion any bribery, treating, or corruption,
that might Lave taken place at the last election for the Fal-
kirk district of burghs. He represented on that occasion a
certain portion of the constituency who had, complained of
these practices, and who had petitioned that the Falkirk
burghs might be included in the proposed inquiry. The
petitioners complained of the gross treating and demoralisa-
tion that had taken place, and stated that the spirit-shops
in certain localities had been opened to the inhabitants) at
the expense of the sitting Member. He had to inform the
House that the petition against the sitting Member had been
withdrawn without the knowledge of the parties who had
signed it. In a letter which he had received from the Pro-
vost of Falkirk he expressed the disappointment felt by the
electors at the withdrawal of the petition, and stated that
never since the Reform Bill had he witnessed such scenes
of drunkenness and diss'pation as at the last election. He
(Mr. Cobden) had no feeling of hostility to either of the
parties who were engaged in that election. He believed
that both candidates were advocates of free trade, but there
was so little difference between their general politics, that
he had no political leaning to one mere than to the other.
The Falkirk burghs were five in number, some of them as
tar apart as thirty miles, and situated in different coun-
ties. It was difficult to understand upon what prin-
ciple they had been grouped together. Up to 1841
the character of these burghs, like that of most of the Scotch
burghs, had been unimpeachable in point of political mo-
rality. The practices complained of began in 1841 in the
burgh of Airdrie, when the brother of the present Member
was a candidate. In 1846, when Lord Lincoln was elected
in the room of Mr. Baird, who had resigned, he was op-
posed by Mr. Wilson, and at that election the malpractices
which had been before confined to Airdrie extended to the
other burghs. In 1847 Lord Lincoln stood again, and was
opposed by Mr. Boyd, and since then for scenes of dissipa-
tion and undue influence Falkirk and Hamilton bad become
as bad as Airdrie. With regard to the last election he held
in his hand depositions which had been taken by a legal
gentleman, and which corroborated the statements in the
petition as to the treating and demoralisation that had taken
place. One person, Robert Binney, a grocer and spirit dealer
in Grahamstown, a suburb of Falkirk, stated that he was asked
to vote for Mr. Baird, and declined; that he was afterwards
visited by some of Mr. Baird's friends, particularly by a Mr.
DlSLaren, an active supporter of Mr. Baird—that while they
were in his house several people came to the bar, when Mr.
Baird's friends•ordered him to give them what they wished, for
Mr. Baird was rich enough to pay. This man went on
to state that he considered that a sufficient order to keep
open • house till the day of nomination, and accordingly
supplied these people with whisky, brandy, porter, ale, and
vinegar cordial.—(Laughter.) He further stated than on the
day of nomination some of these people came to his house for
drink as early as six o'clock, and said they had come for their
"morning." Hon. Members who had been in Scotland
would perhaps know what a " morning" meant.—(A laugh.)
Several got drunk rapidly, and before nine o'clock seven er
eight were lying quite drunk opposite the door. Binnev
states he gave one man two bottles of whisky to assist in
taking the drunken people away.—(Laughter.) Boys of 10
and 14 got drunk in the street. "No women," says Binney,
"were drunk in my house, except those who came to take
their husbands home."—(Laughter, aturcries of " Hear.")
Now he had in his hand at least a dozen of similar statements
from publicans. One of the name of Waugh, a spirit-dealer,
in Grahamstown, stated—" On the Monday before the nomi-
nation, Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Baird's friend, and a writer to the
signet, his agent, came and told me to provide refreshment;
M'Laren said he would be responsible. In the course of the
evening a 00; people came and had whisky, brandy, and rum
cordial.— (Hear, hear.) An order came to let them have
drink." He would now refer to the evidence of several re-
spectable inhabitants of these burghs. The respectable por-
tion of the inhabitants of such burghs would be greatly
to blame if they did not denounce the scenes of dissipa-
tion that they saw aronnd them. Even seven righteous
men might save such a burgh from becoming a political
Gomorrah. Dr. Hamilton, of Falkirk, returning home the
night before the election, states—" I observed two youths
lying in the middle of the road, and found both of them in a
beastly state of intoxication. On addressing them, one ex-
claimed, "Oh, there's open house to-night at Waugh's."—
(Hear. ) The Rev.) Alexander M'Farlaue, minister of the
united Presbyterian Church, states—" I was coming home
the night before the election from the Carron Works. I met
a great many;people, and saw so much demoralisation as to
make me believe that it would neutralise all the good that
might have been otherwise effected by ministers of the Gos-
pel " (Hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) might be told that these
men so brutalised were not electors. If anything could
make the demoralisation more demoniacal it was the very
practices that had prevailed at the Falkirk election. There
were some spirit-dealers whose votes it was thought desir-
able to have. If the candidate had invited the voters into
a room and given each 51., it would have been virtue
itself compared with what had been done, for publicans
had been ordered to admit men, women, and chil-
dren, and to give them as much drink as they pleased.
The evil one himself could not have devised anything so
black and detestable. He had in his hand the declaration
of one man—a father and member of a temperance society.
laagh.) He could tell those Honourable Gentleman
who laughed, that there was no more useful—no more ho-
nourablo or more respectable member of society, than the
man who tried by his example to rescue the working man
from habits of drunkenness, however it might serve the pur-
poses of some to keep him in a state of degradation. This
man (Mr. Arnott) states :—" The day before the election I
found my son—a boy of twelve years of age—lying on the
rug in a state of intoxication. My wife said she had
picked him up in the street, and he afterwards told me that
be had had whisky at Waugh's.—(Hear, hear.) My wife
tells me that before the election my daughter came to tell
her that her brother was fon in the street; ' that she saw
him brought home, when he vomited tremendously, and
then fell asleep."—(Hear, hear.) Such was a sample of
the practices that had prevailed. The favourite mode of
corrupting the constituency of Falkirk was to open the pub-
lic-houses to all corners, and allow them to drink
what quantity they pleased of ardent spirits. Similar
scenes occurred at Hamilton. He had quite a little volume
describing what had taken place at Airdrie, the town in
which Mr. Baird resided. The Hon. Member and his
brother were large employers of labour in the, iron works
near Airdrie. Ile asked what was the first duty of a suc-
cessful wealthy individual to the community that had grown
up under his auspices? Undoubtedly it was the first duty
of the capitalist to endeavour by his example and by their
education to lead that community up iu the paths of sobriety
and of virtue.—(Hear, hear.) He was sorry to say that such
was not the case here; that the enormous wealth possessed
by the family of the Hon. Member was exercised for a
totally different purpose.—(llear, bier.) He said that the
scenes of debauchery begun in Airdrie when the brother of
the Hon. Member was a candidate; and that bad as the
scenes were last year, they were nothing to what they had
beenin 1841. There were two cases cf bribery against the
Provost at that time, and there was one case of abduction in
which the police were- concerned.— (Hear' hear.) He re-
ferred to the case of a witness, who had been then offered
201. for bis vote. He had ten cases of attempted
bribery, with the then Provost implicated in two of
them. It was sufficient to say of the treating that in
a population of less than 15,000 there had been 41 public-
houses kept open, in which drink was freely given to all who
came to the election. To show this lie referred to the testi-
mony of two ministers of the Gospel, the Rev. James
M'Gowan and the Rev. Alexander Baron. Both corrobo-
rated what had been already stated, and the first testified
that it was a general desire, to prevent the recurrence of
such scenes, that the town should be disfranchised. He had,
in addition to this; the sums charged by the public-houses for
supplying drink to all comers. The bills were of different
amounts, 401., 801., 901., 256/., 2801., 401., 321. And then
there was a mysterious man in this case, as in others. Thine
was a man who went by the significant name " Goldy," or
" the man with the bag."—(Laughter.) This man was sup-
,posed to be a person of the name of Hallett, a writer, or a
:writer's clerk in Ayr; and then to Ascertain the facts with
'respect to that person it was his wish to have a Committee
appointed.—(Hear, hear.) What he had now stated with
regard to Falkirk, Ayr, and Hamilton, was perfectly
correct, though in a mitigated form as regarded
Linlithgow and Lanark; and now, having laid these facts
before the House, he asked whether he was to be debarred
from inquiry by any technical rules? He said that here was
a case without precedent—here was a case that was charac-
terised with so much injustice that an investigation was ab-
aolutely necessary. The manner in which it was his lot
now to call for it originated in an' accidental reference he had
made to Falkirk. That allusion had brought to him hosts
f letters—ap: eals made to him by the Provost of Airdrie—
appeals made to him from temperance societies to call for
the disfranchisement of the borough. -These appeals had
induced him to submit the question to 'the consideration of
the House.—(Hear, hear.) Were, he asked, these elections
to be carried on by any such process as he had just described?
Hear.) If they were, then be said to Hon. Members op-
posite, let them, beyond all others, mark' the consequences ;
men would make their way to seats in that House by passing
through a hundred gin-shops and public•houses. The ex-
penses of elections would be enormous. He was told that
tire expense of a seat to the lion. Member for the Falkirk
district was estimated as costing from 5,000/. to 15,000/.
Men with hereditary lauded property had seldom an
abundance of spare money in large sums. If this system
were to be perpetuated, they mu-t abandon the chance of
elected to moneyed men—to men who would spare
hard cash enough to find an en.rance into that House. He
asked Hon. Members opposite whether they would look
tipon such .a change as that as an improvement to the cha-
racter of that House? Under the old system it was thought
that men had a family claim to seats in that House, and, far
his own part, he declared he would rather be governed by
any oligarchy than submit patiently to the rule of those who
oconcrt
hdien m
hat entered into that 'House by the base means he had de-
scribed.— (Cheers.) Was that House, he asked, to be the
England where
d twemhepreesnuccelhmsbcleinceastiawnear a to be
r va-
luable de-
scribed,ulyldptl
tell not
excite. feelingsra of disgust?—(Hear.) He
class Of saepersa-and temperance societies -had rung
`with horror at the.aceount of the murders that had been
committed in Airdrie (Hear.) The House claimed exclu-
a..a
*Ye jnriAlictioU, in all -cues referring to Parliamentary Wee,