The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-23 00:00:00

CORN-LAW AND THE TARIFF.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 22.
ROYAL ASSENT.

The Royal Assent was this day given by Commission
to the following Bills : —The Exchequer Bills Frauds
Bill ; the Consolidated Fund Bill ; the Mutiny Bill ;
the Marine Mutiny Bill ; the Indemnity Bill ; the
Midland Counties Railway Bill ; the South Eastern
Railway Bill ; the Brandling Junction Railway Bill ;
the Woodside Ferry Road Bill ; the Bradford Water-
Works Bill ; the Staleybridge Gas Bill ; the Wind-
sor Bridge Bill ; the Duke of Bedford's Estate Bill ;
the Bristol Boundary Bill; the Manchester Royal Infir-
mary Bill; the Stirling and Dumbarton Road. Bill; the
Cheyne Inclosure Bill; the Stapleton Inclosure Bill; the
Cottenham Inclosure Bill; Bunsen's Naturalization Bill;
Leiber's Naturalization Bill.

The Lords Commissioners were—The Lord Chan-
cellor, the Duke of Buccleuch, the Lord Keeper of the
Privy Seal, and the Earl of Shaftesbury.
Their Lordships then adjourned during pleasure.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool
sack at Five o'Clock.

Several petitions were presented against the Severn
Navigation Bill.
Lord IVHARNCLIFFE presented petitions in favour
of the new tariff.

Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from the
Worcester Chamber of Commerce in favour of the Se.
vern Navigation
SPIRIT DUTY (IRELAND) BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the third read-
ing of the Spirit Duty (Ireland) Bill.
The Bishop of DERRY objected to the Bill, because
he thought the placing of a duty on spirits, would have
the effect of reviving the system of illicit distillation.
Lord MUNTEAGLE said he did not believe that
there was any article which could be more legitimately
taxed than spirits, and a wise Government should go as
far as they could without encouraging smuggling. He
thought that this measure would be attended with a loss
to the revenue. It was a most extraordinary fact that,
in the course of 20 years, there had been six different
calculations of duty, and in every one of them it was
stated that, where the amount of duty had been aug-
mented the quantity of spirits which had paid
duty had been reduced ; and when the duty
had been diminished, the quantity increased. The total
amount of duty which would have to be paid on spirits
in Ireland amounted to no less than 150 per. cent. on the
value of the article, and that at a time when the Govern-
ment was claiming the praise of the public by intro-
ducing a new tariff with a diminution of duties.
In Derry and the North of Ireland steps were
already in progress for the purpose of profiting by this
very law. In Mayo, it was stated that this proposed ad-
dition of Is. had given quite an impulse to illicit distilla-
tion. He (Lord M.) did not like to turn prophet, but
judging from past experience, he would say that it was
quite certain that the expectations of Government would
be disappointed with respect to the produce of this tax
amounting to 250,0001. There were two points in the
Bill which he considered most unjust in themselves.
The Commissioners of Inquiry in the year 1823,
and again in the year 1834, recommended the en-
couragement of the distillation in Ireland of
pure malt liquor ; and the Government allowed a
drawback (,f Bd. in the gallon in theduty on such spirit-.
That diminution of duty it was now proposed to with-
draw ; and he believed the result of the change would be
most injurious to the Irish distiller. Again, he com-
plained that while the duty at present attached from and
after the date of the passing of the Resolutions of the
House of Commons, it was now proposed for the first
time that the duty should attach on and after the date of
the Resolutions. The measure might thus be said to
have, contrary to all former precedent, a retrospective
effect. But he objected more especially to the measure
on the ground of its demoralising effects, and from a
conviction that the expectations of an increase of revenue
would not be fulfilled. He should certainly, therefore,
say " not content" to the resolution.
The Earl of RIPON said that he should regret as
much ns any one to see an increase or a revival of illicit
distillation in Ireland ; but he had reason to be-
lieve that his Noble Friend's apprehension upon
that subject would not be realised. The officers
at the head of the revenue in Ireland had com-
municated to the Government their belief that after
the proposed alteration they should be enabled effec-
Wally to enforce the law. His Noble Friend complained
that the Scotch distiller i:xporting spirits to the United
States received a drawback of Bd. a gallon, while the
Irish distiller would receive more ; this was certainly
a hardship, and the Government would take measures
to put the distillers of both countries on a level. He saw
no other objection, and therefore he hoped their Lord-
ships would pass the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW was astonished that the
Government having had, in the persons of the Prime
Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control, such extensive official
experience of Ireland, should now be disposed to risk the
morality and happiness of the people of that country,
for the sake of so paltry an advantage to the revenue.
He held in his hand a Bill which, he believed, stood for a
second reading this day, called the Excise Duties Compounds
Bill, in which the error was corrected, and Ireland and Scot-
land were placed upon a par. But if the present Bill were
passed, the greatest confusion would ensue. There was a
drawback of Bd., or 20 per cent., in favour of Scotland over
Ireland, with regard to spirits made of the pure malt, and he
was happy to say that spirits of an inferior description were
not now much used in Ireland, owing to the almost miraculous
change effected by that extraordinary man whom he could
never pass by without praising. There were at present three
distillers engaged in making spirits of pure malt, of which a
great deal was sold in Scotland, in the Colonies, anctin Ame- •
rica ; and they would be driven out of the markets if the pre-
sent Bill were passed. He hoped, therefore, that the Bill •
would be allowed to rest on the table, but if it was pressed to a
third reading, he should vote against it.
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE agreed with the Noble
Earl who had just sat down, that nothing could be more unjust
than to give Scotland a monopoly. He hoped that the Bill
would be allowed to rest on the table, because it might then
not be pressed at all. He did not think it would be right, for
the sake of a paltry revenue, to do anything likely to counter-
act what he might almost call the miraculous change that had
taken place in Ireland. There was no evil that had not been
immensely aggravated by intoxication, and those evils were in-
creased by illicit distillation. He could only say, that this was
in nowise a party measure—it was discussed in a manner free
from party, and for himself, he would say that he should make
the same prayer, if he had the confidence of her Majesty's
nisters, as much as the Noble Lord on the other side of the
House had.

Earl FORTESCUE said, that knowing as he did, from his
own experience in Ireland, the benefit that had arisen from
what had been justly termed an almost miraculous change in
favour of temperance, and the incalculable benefits that were
every day increasing from it, he could not help adding his en-
treaty to their Lordships, that they would not be precipitate in
passing this Bill, and thereby run the risk of bringing back the
evil of intoxication, which had beset Ireland. lithe Bill was
persisted in, he should vote against it.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that when discussing
this question the other evening, he submitted to their Lordships
that the Government had every reason to believe, from com-
munications which they had held with the Commissioners
of Excise, and the officers at the head of the police
force in reland, that the means used to prevent illicit
distillation would be effectual. He also stated that he
had no doubt the Irish Government would adopt other
and effectual measures to prevent illicit distillation ; and
he knew that the attention of the Irish Government had
been drawn to the subject. With respect to the other point al-
luded to by his Noble Friend behind him, he would say that it
certainly was intended to equalise the duties in Scotland and
Ireland.—( Hear.) That was the original intention, and he
was not aware why the regulation for carrying that into effect
had not been introduced into the Bill. His Noble Friend be-
hind him said that there was another Bill, which would afford
an opportunity for attaining this object. It certainly was the
intention of his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, to introduce measures to attain this object, and he (the
Duke of Wellington) did think that if it could be attained by
the Bill under discussion in another place. it would be neces
sary, and he should be very sorry to desire their Lordships to
hurry this Bill through that day without giving them time to
consider whether measures for equalising the duties in Ireland
and Scotland were introduced in the Bill under discussion in
another place ; under these circumstances, therefore, he should
withdraw this measure till Monday next.
Lord MONTAGUE begged to thank the Noble Duke for
the course he had pursued.
IRISH MAGISTRACY.

The Marquis of NORMANBY rose, in pursuance of notice,
which he had given yesterday, to put a question to the Govern-
ment on a subject of the utmost importance, as connected with
the confidence which ought to prevail in a pure administration
of justice. It was to this effect, whether the reports which he
had seen of the evidence of Mr. Bidder, in the late trial in
King's County were correct? Whether the Government had
held any communication with that gentleman, and whether he
was still a Magistrates? He had received a communication in-
forming him that the Noble Earl, the Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, had not yet had the matter brought under his consider-
ation. In order, therefore, to enable the Government to make
inquiries on the subject, he should postpone putting his ques-
tion until a future day.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from
Wolverhampton against the Severn Navigation Bill. The
Noble Duke expressed his strong disapprobation of the measure.
The Duke of BEAUFORT presented petitions to the same
effect from a place in Monmouthshire, and from the Chamber
of Commerce in the city of Bristol.
THE POOR-LAW.

The Earl of WILTON presented a petition, from Man-
chester against the employment of medical officers by contt act
for attending the workhouse poor, and stated he agreed with
the petitioners.
Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire, for a repeal of the New Poer•law, and the substi-
tution of the old law.
TIIE MARCHAIONT PEERAGE.
Lord COTTENHAM presented a petition from Wm. Bell,
writer to the Signet, complaining that he was liable to im-
pr sonment, by the order of the Court of Session of Scotland,
f r not returning papers which had been intrusted to him, and
which he had given into the custody of the House, by order
their Lordships, with whom they now were. He therefore prayed
their Lordships to interfere for his protection. The Noble
Lord said he would make a motion on this subject in the
course of the next week.

Lord BROUCHAIII said he hoped the Court of Session
would stay execution till the matter was Properly adjusted.
After a few words from Lord COTTENHAAL the petition
was laid oil the table.

On the motion that the Corn Importation Bill be read a
third time,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he did not wish
to give any obstruction to the Bill now before the House, after
the opinion which their Lordships had already pronounced,
though he pei haps might be of opinion that a longer time might
be allowed for the consideration of so important a measure.—
( Hear, hear.) But he was desirous of taking that opportunity
of putting a question to the Noble Earl opposite, the President
of the Board of Trade. A measure on the subject of the tariff
was announced and printed, which was intimately connected
with the Corn Bill, and which must be considered in reference
to the present Bill, as forming a portion of the same general
plan by which it was intended to give protection to agricultural
produce. Upon looking to that Bill he found that various sorts
of arrivals might be introduced, subject to certain limited duty,
and on looking to the amount of duty as compared with the
amount levied on arable produce, he found a very great diffe-
rence. With regard to the one a duty of 16s. was levied when
the price of wheat was 563., while to the other there was only a
protection of 9 per cent. granted; and the question he wished
to ask related to the difference of protection given to both kinds
of produce. He wished to know whether it was the opinion
of his Noble Friend opposite, and those who concurred in in.•
troducing this measure, that any difference should be made
with respect to the subject he had alluded to. He thought
that one species of land should not have more protection than
the other. He wished to know, also, whether it was the ob-
ject of the Government to leave capital where it found it, and
to give the same protection, whether that capital was invested
in pasture or arable land ?

The Earl of RIPON said that his Noble Friend must be
aware that there was no similarity whatever with respect to
the law relative to cattle and the growth of corn. With re-
spect to corn, it had always been, except from 1815 to 1820,
regulated by a duty fluctuating more or less, but inversly as
to the price. The two subjects to which his Noble Friend
had referred were regulated in a perfectly different manner. It
would be inconvenient and almost impossible to regulate them
alike. The principle on which fluctuating duty was imposed
on corn was, that the effect of the seasons on the produce was
so great and varying at different times.—( Hear, hear.) Now
though it was perfectly true that the seasons might affect the
value of cattle, and might render it less easy to bring them
into the same full state at one year than another, yet the price
of cattle were viewed in the same manner as the price of corn,
and therefore the idea of putting a duty on cattle applicable to
the duty on corn would be altogether ridiculous.
_ . . _

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he apprehended that.
his Noble Friend had misapprehended the question which he
had put ; the question he had put was on what ground a dif-
ferent amount of protection was to be afforded on the whole
to one class of agricultural produce in contra-distinction to
another. His Noble Friend said that they had always been
put upon different footings, but what was that difference ? It
was this—that cattle and meat received a greater protection
than the arable produce of the country ; and now, without
any reason being assigned, it was to be made less. He wished
to ask the Government with what view it was that that had
been done. He wished to he understood as giving no opinion
adverse to the measure ; but he considered an investigation
into the tariff, with a view to its improvement, was a work which
did him honour.—( Hear, hear.) He wished to know on
what ground, on what principle it was that this alteration was
proposed to be made.

the Earl of RIPON said, that his Noble Friend had com-
plained that the duty upon corn had been regulated with a view
to ensure an average price of 565., which amounted to a pro-
tection of about 17 per cent., while the duty upon cattle would
not ensure a protection of more than 9 per cent. But his Noole
Friend entirely forgot that the duty upon corn was not to be
made fixed, and that at certain prices it almost completely
du indled away. He thought, therefore, it would be quite pre-
pesterous t. apply the same amount of protection to cattle at a
fixed duty, as to corn at a fluctuating duty. He would not then
enter into the precise grounds on which the duty upon cattle
had been selected. The question was one which would require
a considerable discussion, and he should only say, he should, on
a future opportunity, be enabled to show that the pro-
posed duty upon cattle was the amount which it
would be advisable to fix on. He believed that if the duty
proposed by his Noble Friend were levied upon cattle, such a
step would defeat the intentions of the Government, and would
prevent the importation of foreign cattle altogether.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that in instituting a
comparison between the proposed protection upon wheat and
upon cattle, he had taken the average price of wheat, and he
was aware that the pike might be occasionally either higher
or lower. The subject, however, would be one fur further
consideration, and he should certainly be anxious to hear the
explanations of the Government on the matter.

'I he Earl of MALMESBURY said it would be impossible
for him to overstate the fears and alarms this Bill had spread
among the agricultural interest. He would not agree with
those who said that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government had deceived those classes, but certainly he had
disappointed them. What good was it to say that the Right
lion. Baronet could not have disappointed them, because he
had not abandoned the principle of the sliding scale? Why,
according to those reasons, the farmers and the landowners
would have no right to complain if the Right Hon. Baronet
introduced a sliding scale beginning at 7s. and eliding at 7d.
But no farmer would hesitate in choosing between such a
scale and a fixed duty of Bs. What the farmers wanted was
protection, and if they had this it mattered not whether they
were protected by a sliding scale or a fixed duty.—(Hear,
hear.) However, it was now too late to complain. The landed
interest had not been deceived, he repeated, but he did say, and
he had reason to know it too well, their expectations from the
Government had been bitterly disappointed.—( Hear, hear.)
However, their duty now was to submit, and he hoped each
Noble Lord would endeavour to reconcile those whom he had
influence over to the Bill.—( Hear, hear. )
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
MERCHANTS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl of RIPON, in moving the third reading of the Bill,
said, that he believed it would be hardly necessary for him to
say a word with respect to the Bill. Its intention was to re-
medy some of the inconveniences that at present existed be-
tween principal and agent, with reference to the consigning of
goods. The law as it at present stood permitted an agent
to sell the goods intrusted to him, but he was not allowed to
pledge them as against the principal beyond the line he held
upon them. In addition to that he might advance money on
security of eertain documents, such as the bills of lading.
Sometimes great inconvenience was felt in this respect, and as
the advance of money on goods shipped was becom-
ing so interwoven with the commercial intercourse of
the country, it was felt necessary to give facilities
to this mode of raising money, unless facilities in that respect
were given, commerce would be cramped. His Noble Friend
opposite introduced a Bill of a similar character last session,
which he was unable to proceed with, but his (Lord Ripon's)
attention being drawn to the subject, the present Bill, which
was very nearly the same, was introduced, and he took that op-
portunity, of giving his Noble Friend all the credit of the Bill.
The Earl of CLARENDON said, he could confirm all that
had been said by the Noble Earl with regard to the importance
of the measure, because nearly all the commerce of the country
was new conducted by making advances on goods on their way
to market, which was productive of great injustice and embar-
rassment to trade. Ile had presented several petitions
from various persons, representing that the present state of the
law was very injurious. Ile had no hesitation in saying, that
nine-tenths of the goods sold in this country had advances
made on them, and he could assure the House, that the Bill
would confer a great boon on the whole community.
Lord CAMPBELL expressed his concurrence on the merits
of the Bill. Great litigation had arisen from the present state
of the law ; the Act which had been passed had been a mere
snare. He rejoiced that this Bill, winch had been prepared by
the former Government, had been adopted by the present.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES BILL.
This Bill was reported, with amendments, and ordered to be
read a second time, on Monday.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS
LEASING BILL.
This Bill was also reported, with amendments, and ordered
to be read a second time, on Monday.
On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the Queen's
Bench Prison Bill was read a second time.
The Earl of REDESDALE presented a petition from Wor-
cester, in favour of the Severn Navigation Bill.
Several Bills were forwarded a stage.
Their Lordships then adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. April 22.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
The Hon. W. S. LASCELLES took the oaths and his
seat for the borough of Wakefield, in the room of Mr.
lloldsworth unseated.

The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod appeared at
the table, and summoned the House to the House of
Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission
to several Bills.
The SPEAKER, acompanied by a great number of
Members, then proceeded to the House of Lords, and on
his return he announced the Bills that had received
the Royal assent (for which see our Lords Report).
PIEL PIER BILL.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN proposed to withdraw the
Piel Pier and Harbour Bill, and stated his intention to
move for leave to bring in another Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET said if his Hon. Friend perse-
vered in withdrawing the present Bill, and moved for
leave :o bring in another, he trusted the House would
not give him permission to do so.
Mr. W. PATTEN said, under tie circumstances, he
would withdraw the Bill, leaving the parties to
pursue the usual course of presenting a petition for an-
other Bill.
Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from the tan-
ners of Carlisle, complaining of the proposed alteration
in the duty on foreign manufactured leather.
Sir R. BATESON presented a petition praying for a
system of education in Ireland.
LIVERPOOL. PAVING AND SEWERAGE BILL.
The Liverpool Paving and Sewerage Bill was read a
third time and passed.
INCOME TAX AND TARIFF.
Sir JOHN YARD E BULLER presented a petition
from Devouport against any further support being given
by the Government to Maynooth College. Also a peti-
tion from Sidmouth to the same effect. Also a petition
from Devonport praying for an alteration in the Poor-
law.e luie
Also a petition from the shipowners of Dvons
against the proposed duty on coals ; and a petition from
the attorneys of a place,-in Devonshire, praying to be
exempt from the operation of the Income-tax.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from the Pro-
testant Dissenters of Worcester against the Corp-laws.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL presented a petition from
Marylehone against the Income-tax.
An IIoN. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches pre-
sented three petitions from Lincoln against the proposed
alteration in the Corn-laws. The petitioners further
prayed that all tithes and taxes should be regulated ac-
cording to the price of agricultural produce, taking the
present money payment as the maximum.
Sir JOHN TYRRELL presented a petition from
Essex, praying the House to reject the tariff unless it was
greatly modified.