The House divided: Ayes, 27. Noes, 119. Ricardo, D. preferable to reduce the duty on beer. | zans should be obliged to pay 40s. and The measure proposed would deprive the upwards per quarter, while a very small poor of the comforts they possessed and much richer portion of the commuat home, and drive them to the public-nity paid only 20s. He considered that houses. He should therefore oppose it. much good would be derived from the inMr. Byng expressed his dissent from quiry. the motion, on the ground that no description of persons would be benefitted by it, while the agriculturists would be in a Bennet, hon. G. worse situation if it were adopted. Bernal, R. Mr. Ricardo thought, that his hon. Craddock, col. friend, the mover, had shown the tax Crompton, S. on beer to be unequal, and that one class Denman, T. was exempted from it, while another was Fergusson, sir R. obliged to pay. He had shown, also, that Folkestone, visc. the diminution in the expense of collecting Grattan, J. this tax would assist the revenue. The Hobhouse, J. C. hon. member regretted that this had been Leader, W, Hutchinson, hon. H. made a question between the agricultural Maberly, J. and other classes; but, even if it were Martin, J. true that the tax had an unequal operation, Newport, sir J. in this respect also the sooner it was equal-Philips, G. jun. ized the better. If the duty paid ought to attach on all persons consuming beer, it ought to attach equally. The motion should have his hearty support, because it went to accomplish that object. Robarts, col. Robinson, sir G. Wigram, W. Sykes, S. Whitbread, S. C. Williams, J. Williams, W. TELLERS. Maberly, J. After the division, Mr. F. Palmer moved for leave to bring in a bill to enable the public brewer to retail beer in smaller quantities than four gallons and a half, pro vided the same be not consumed on the Lord Althorp said, that the wish so premises of the brewer.-The Chancellor often expressed by honourable members of the Exchequer said, that there was no to encourage private brewing, would be necessity for such a bill inasmuch as the defeated by this measure, if it should be law had already provided for its objects.carried. He had always maintained that Mr. Monck thought nothing could be the landed interest paid an undue propor- more fair or wise than the principle tion of taxes. If, therefore, an opportu- of his hon. friend's proposition. Mr. nity offered of lightening in some degree Herries thought that some misunderstandthe weight which oppressed them, he ing existed on the other side on this sub. thought it was very fair to do so. When ject. The brewer, under the present the House looked to the amount of poor-law, might take out two licences namely, rates paid by the farmer, he hoped it would think he was entitled to some consideration on the present occasion. Mr. Alderman Wood supported the motion, by which he thought the revenue would be much benefitted. Mr. Monck said, that before the malt-tax was imposed, the poor shopkeeper or farmer paid 20s. ; now, however, he paid 36s. He repeated his conviction, that the malt duty was neither more nor less than a land tax, and remarked upon its great inequality as affecting the rich least, and the poor most-an inequality which had existed ever since the 8th and 9th of William and Mary, and must have been designed as a compensation to the landed interest for their compliances with the views of the government of the day. He should support the motion. Mr. Grey Bennet saw no reason why 1,200,000 beer-drinking families of arti the public brewer's common licence and ing low rate of wages; and the remedy which they proposed for this was, that the House should fix a minimum on the rate of wages. They complained also of certain improve ments in Machinery, the effect of which had been to reduce the quantity of employment of those who wove by hand, and which threatened to leave a large population without any means whatever of support. He perceived that the petitioners ascribed their difficulties, in part, to a hard and oppressive conduct adopted by their employers, and he was sorry to see that opinions so erroneous and so injurious to their own interests prevailed amongst the workmen. He was sensible that the petition generally, as it respected fixing by law a rate of wages, and as it complained of improvements in machinery, was but little calculated to obtain a favourable reception in the House; and he wished it to be understood, that he was not the advocate of the views of the petitioners on these subjects: but he considered their prayer to be worthy of an attentive consideration, because it proceeded from men in a state of great calamity, which extended not alone to those who had signed that petition, but to a large and important population, throughout the seats of the cotton manufacture. Whatever he thought of some of the opinions of the petitioners, he was convinced of this, that when they complained of the means of subsistence being taken from them, in consequence of improvements of machinery, and applied to the House for compensation, they raised a question of great extent and difficulty, and which was not to be met by the common assertion, denied by no man, nor denied by the petitioners, that all such improvements were beneficial to the wealth and interests of the community at large. Mr. Philips said, that after all the inquiry he had made with respect to the condition of the weavers of Lancashire at the present moment, he was inclined to think that they had greatly exaggerated the statement of their distresses. The cotton-spinners' wages were, it was true, very low; but the price of provisions was so extremely moderate, that they could Jive comfortably on those wages. That was undoubtedly the case when he was last in Lancashire; and the fact was proved by the reduction of the poor-rates, as well as by the reduced number of applications for private charity. With respect to machinery, he would now re-asscrt what he had formerly stated; namely, that where machinery was used the wages were the highest. Where cotton machinery was introduced, the comforts and wages of the artisan were improved. They were paid more for managing machinery, than for the mere labour of their own hands. He would contend, that no means were so effectual for the benefit of the manufacturing class, as the introduction of machinery; and if parliament were foolish enough to comply with the prayer of those who wished to discourage machinery, they would inflict the greatest possible injury on the public, and especially on the petitioners themselves. If a minimum of wages were established, so far from the weavers being relieved by such a project, they would at one time of the year have no employment at all. The most prudent course would be, to leave the trade perfectly unshackled, and open to the arrangements of the parties immediately concerned those who employ labour, and those whose labour was so employed [Hear, hear !]. In his opinion, the sale and purchase of labour ought to be as unrestrained as the sale and purchase of any other commodity. Mr. Curwen was convinced, that if a minimum of wages were established, it would produce great mischief. Four or five years ago, when several petitions similar to the present were laid before the House, a committee was appointed to consider of them. Delegates from the operative manufacturers, and other individuals conversant with the subject, were then examined; and he believed not one person attended who did not go away perfectly satisfied that such a system would be most mischievous. Amongst the members of the committee, there was not the slightest difference of opinion. Mr. Grey Bennet said, a very useful publication on the subject of machinery, written by Mr. Cobbett, had been extensively circulated throughout the manufacturing counties, and would, he hoped, effect a change of opinion no less extensive. Those who had not read that work ought to read it; because there was no publication, which, for a rational and practical view of the subject, could be compared with it. He had learned more from it than from any publication of the kind he had ever read. Sir I. Coffin said, that if the use of machinery were abolished, two-thirds of the manufacturers of this country would be reduced to starvation. Mr. Ricardo said, his proposition was, not that the use of machinery was prejudicial to persons employed in one particular manufacture, but to the working classes generally. It was the means of throwing additional labour into the market, and thus the demand for labour, generally, was diminished. Mr. Maxwell presented a petition of a similar nature from certain inhabitants of Middlesex. He observed, that if wages were higher, the working-classes would be able to consume a greater quantity of produce of every kind; and they must all acknowledge, that to devise a mode by which the consumption of produce would be extended, was a great desideratum. Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Ricardo said, that much information might, undoubtedly, be derived from Mr. Cobbett's publication, because that writer explained the use of machinery in such a way as to render the subject perfectly clear. He was not, however, altogether satisfied with the reasoning contained in that pamphlet; because it was evident, that the extensive use of machinery, by throwing a large portion of labour into the market, while, on the other hand, there might not be a corresponding increase of demand for it, must, in some degree, operate prejudicially to the working classes. But still he would not tolerate any law to prevent the use of machinery. The question was,-if they gave up a system which enabled them to undersell in the foreign market, would other nations refrain from pursuing it? Certainly not. They were therefore bound, for their own interest, to continue it. Gentlemen ought, however, to inculcate this truth on the minds of the working classes-that the value of labour, like the value of other things, depended on the relative proportion of supply and demand. If the supply of labour were greater than could be employed, then the people must be miserable. But the people had the remedy in their own hands. A little forethought, a little prudence (which probably they would exert, if they were not made such machines of by the poor-laws), a little of that caution which the better educated felt it necessary to use, would enable them to improve their situation. IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.] Mr. Goulburn moved the order of the day, for going into a committee to consider further of this bill. On the question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair," Sir J. Nicholl observed, that considering who were the framers of the present measure, he could not view it as an attack upon Tithes in the character of church property; more especially as the Composition was proposed to be applied to all tithes, and it was well known that a large portion of them, particularly in Ireland, belonged to laymen. At the same time, he must remark, that great caution was to be used in interfering with the rights of property of any description. Doctrines extremely alarming were set afloat in the world. An equitable adjustment of all contracts was to be proposed. Principles in regard to church property had been stated, directly asserting that it belonged to the public, and was disposeable for the use of the state. Such assertions could only be considered as tending to measures of manifest spoliation and plunder. But a fair composition or commutation for tithes, did not necessarily bear that character. Plans of that sort had been proposed at different periods by some enlightened statesmen. Yet it should be recollected, that those plans, however specious at the outset, had always proved abortive, and difficulties of detail had always presented themselves Mr. Philips instanced the fact, that the which were found to be insurmountable. wages of the artisan were more liberal-After these experiments had been rewhere machinery was used than where it peatedly tried, and considering that the was not used, as a proof that its introduc- evils from the tithe system in this part of tion was not hurtful to the weaver. the United Kingdom, were not of a mag Mr. Maxwell differed from those who were of opinion that a low rate of wages was serviceable to a country. The reverse he conceived to be the fact; because, from the circumstance of low wages, a great degree of crime and discontent were engendered; and when that was the case, great expense must be incorred in the prosecution and punishment of offenders. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade would pay some attention to this petition. The population of the country, whether agricultural or manufacturing, should, he thought, be protected as much as possible from the effects of machinery; since it was that population by whom the taxes were paid. nitude sufficiently great to warrant the introduction of a measure tending to very alarming consequences, he should have thought that a plan of the sort now proposed, if to be applied to England, would have been highly objectionable at the very outset. But the case might be different as respected Ireland. In that part of the United Kingdom, evils so great might exist, as to justify an attempt to frame a measure for substituting a composition in lieu of the payment of the tithes in kind. The expediency, how ever, of the attempt, would depend on the magnitude and extent of the evils existing in Ireland. He protested, therefore, and the principal object of his rising was to protest against any inference, that because the progress of the present measure, as respected Ireland, was acquiesced in, a similar measure would be expedient for England. The circumstances of these two parts of the United Kingdom were widely different. They stood in this respect rather in contrast than parallel to each other and he regretted that this contrast and the special circumstances in respect to Ireland, had not been more strongly marked and more distinctly stated in the preamble of the bill. He hoped that the preamble would be amended in the committee. Objections to the measure had been started. He would not then discuss, or form a decided opinion upon them. He would only observe, that the objections on one side and the evils on the other, ought to be fairly considered and balanced. There were, however, two principles indispensably necessary to be strictly adhered to and secured. The first was, that the substitute for the tithes in kind should be a fair and just compensation, and so adjusted as to be beneficial to both parties, the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer. This should be carefully guarded, even if the composition were to be purely voluntary; since it should be recollected, that the present owner of the tithes was to bind his successor, who would be no party to the contract.-The other principle was, that the substitute should be made to keep pace with the times in reference to the changes that might take place in the prices of commodities, and the relative value of money. These two principles should be strictly attended to, and were indispensable. Giving credit, then, to the framers of the bill, for intending to pursue these principles, and assuming that evils existed in Ireland to justify an attempt to model and modify a remedy, but repeating his protest against the expediency of such a measure for England, he should not oppose the Speaker's leaving the Chair. The House having resolved itself into the committee, Mr. Goulburn said, he was anxious to remove any doubts which might have arisen in the minds of his right hon. friend, as to any intention existing of extending the operations of this bill to England. He could assure his right hon. friend, that no such intention had ever been entertained by any one. He would, however, put an end to the possibility of such a fear existing any longer; for he would now propose that the preamble to the bill should, be postponed; and before the House was called on again to consider it, he would propose such an alteration in that part of the bill, as should completely guard the tithe system of this country from being affected by the measure now under consideration, should it be adopted by the House. The preamble to the bill was then postponed. On the clause which provided that the rector, vicar, or other incumbent, shall return a list of persons having paid tithe to such an amount as will entitle them to vote in vestry, Mr. Calcraft objected to the clause, which, he contended, would throw the whole power of appointing the vestry into the hands of the incumbent, who would, no doubt, be careful to return in his list no individual who was hostile to his own interests, or over whom he had not in some way a control. He was himself favourable to the principle of this bill. He considered it calculated to do mur' good in Ireland; but he feared that present constructed, the mach too complicated for it ever effect. Lon nitted in Mr. Goulburn said, which the hon. gentlen prehend as likely to aris influence being given to were guarded against by clause, by which any indivi sidered his name as improper, the list returned by the clergyman, might, on application to a magistrate, have it inserted, and become eligible to be appointed a vestry-man, having previously qualified himself, by complying with the other provisions of the bill. Mr. Dennis Browne objected to the bill altogether, and to this clause in particular. learned gentleman did not apply to the present case. This was a voluntary and not a compulsory clause, with regard to land not now paying tithe being taken into the composition. If no tithe had been demanded for the last seven years, it Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald strongly protested against such an arrangement as quite inapplicable to Ireland. There was a total want of machinery in the south and south-was to be considered that for such land no west parts of Ireland to carry it into effect. In some parishes there was not a resident magistrate. Besides, the clause would be open to great abuse, for any considerable lay-impropriator of tithes might from influence create vestry-commissioners, and check-commissioners from his own partisans, and thus collect tithes to what amount he pleased. Sir H. Parnell undertook to say, that in the part of Ireland with which he was acquainted, this measure would be hailed as a benefit. Although it might not be fit for that portion of the country which the right hon. gentleman had named, yet there were two other provinces which it would suit. Mr. V. Fitzgerald said, that in the county of Cork, which was five times as large as the county which the hon. baronet represented, such a measure was totally impracticable. It was monstrous to press a measure designed to be of general application, with the fact that in two-thirds of Ireland it could not be acted upon. Mr. Abercromby suggested, as an improvement, that in the cases of parishes where arrears existed, and where, consequently, under the present clause, the whole of the tithe payers might be excluded from taking part in the vestry, the payment of the last year's arrears might be deemed sufficient to qualify for admission to the vestry. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he approved of the suggestion. As to the proprietors of agistment land, it was obviously their interest not to have anything to do with the appointment of valuers. Mr. S. Rice thought the contribution to the county rate might be made the test of the qualification of the vestrymen. After some further conversation on this clause, it was agreed to postpone it. Mr. Wetherell objected to the principle of universal suffrage in the election of arbitrators. The vestrymen ought to be chosen by a portion of the tithe payers. He thought it would be better to take this clause into further consideration on the recommitment of the bill. Mr. Peel thought the argument of the tithe was demandable. The learned gentleman had talked of putting an end to the rights of the church. This measure had no such effect. It only gave a power to parties to enter into an engagement for 21 years, and at the end of that time the contract was to be put an end to. Mr. Ricardo observed that, by the present bill, land improved within the last 21 years was not to be tithable for such improvement; but as an adjustment was to take place every year, suppose a man pos sessed of poor land, to improve that land within one year after the passing this bill, he would become liable to pay upon his improved land, while his neighbour, having been so fortunate as to improve a year sooner, would be liable to no such burthen. This would be to give one person a preference, ruinous in its effect, to another. The bill might be favourable to Ireland, but it would be most injurious to the English agriculturist, as it would enable the Irish grower to grow corn cheap, and he might glut the English market, to the ruin of the English grower, unless a protecting duty was imposed on Irish corn. Mr. Goulburn said, the argument just introduced by the hon. member for Portarlington, was one quite beside the present question; though it would apply to any measure introduced with a view of assisting agriculture in any part of the empire. If the ground now laid by the hon. gentleman was sufficient to justify the imposing countervailing duties on Irish produce, a wide field would indeed be opened for imposing such duties, not only in Ireland, but in various parts of this country. How would the hon. gentleman reconcile his proposition with the various instances which existed in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, in particular, of parishes relieved from the operation of the tithe system by special acts of parliament. According to the hon. gentleman's doctrine, we must have Custom-houses erected on the borders of those counties, and countervailing duties imposed, to keep up this beautiful system of equilibrium of price. He must at once strongly protest against this proposition of countervailing duties |