Star. — London, England, 1822-05-11 00:00:00

~a . 1 6 T *; I • I ; ;;~ iI. , .~ 1 ii I: 'i '~ had been ___ people s. ing on the highways, and nothing had yet been done! It was true. that it was a delicate question to inter fere in the subsistence of a country ; but cases of ne cessity might arise to justify that interference, and when cases of a different nature had arisen, the Noble Earl opposite had sheen that be knew the import anci of losing no time in the adoption of re p ressive measures- What was the motion? To ascertain the fact whether Ministers had or had not done their *y, in taking measures to relieve distress. If they bad done it, the production of the Correspon Would be to their credit. If they ha d not, it would slime a shameful neglect of duty, which would maks it lisiparetive on the House to interfere. Lona ELLENDOROUGH trusted that his Noble Friend would carry his motion to a division. He was anxious that the question should be sifted to the bottoin. The existence of great distress in Ireland was all that was known, and there was no proof that any good had yet been done by Government, or by ' the assistance of individuals. The Noble Earl oppo site tacit of political economy, but if political eco nomy prevented the relief of millions of suffering people, he should consider it the greatest curse to humanity. Instead of voting £350,000 a year for an additional force in Ireland, he should prefer voting that sum for additional food. He wished the Govern. ment to appear in this transaction, and the principle on which it acted to be established. The Earl of BLESINTON stated, that the prin ciple on which the Committee in the City acted, was to send money wherever local subscriptions had been formed in Ireland, to assist them. When 1:2000 had been raised, they sent £lOOO. The Earl of DAItNLEY expressed his intention of dividing the House, if the Noble Earl should not, on reconsideration, think that he owed to their Lordships and to the country, something mote satisfactory than his mere assertion. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that as there had been a deficiency in the crop of potatoes, but in to other, the course for his Majt.sty's Government to' adopt, after having ascertained that fact, was easy. It had only to send money to enable the distressed to buy other food, which was in abundance, and to supply seed in order to secure a future crop, and tot prevent a recurrence of the distress. Both of these ] had been done, and he did not know what more could be wanted. Lord HOLLAND wished to know why this pro digious secrecy, if all this had been done? But lie also wished to know whether it had been done in proper time? The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that the Noble Earl should have his vote, if he could mention the, date at which assistance had been sent, and its extent. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that many weeks past, instructions had been given to send relief to Ireland ; but he was not able at that moment to state the exact time. The Earl of LAUDERDALE contended, that without the date the House would not know whether anything had been done to remove present and to prevent future distress. Famine did not come on so suddenly, and if the Irish Government had not in formed his Majesty's Ministers of its approach earlier than some weeks ago, it had not done its duty.— Their Lordships then divided : Contents - Won-Contents Majority against the :11otion FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. -13 The Marquis of LANSDOWN asked what ob jection the Noble Earl opposite could have to allow ing the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to attend the bargain for the dead money, and to take it? There was a clause in Mr. l'itt's Act empowering them to do so, and he could not conceive why they should not do it, and thus secure to the Public the advantage which would result to the Contractors at the expiration of forty-five years. Whilst we made sacrifices to relieve posterity by maintaining a Sink ing Fund, we threw an additional burthen upon that same posterity by the present arrangement. Why then should we not make it in the mode most favourable, and cheapest to ourselves? We had an establishment able, and safer than any other body, to take and execute the contract, why not use it for the public benefit? In this he expressed no opinion as to the propriety of keeping up the machinery of the Sinking Fund, but he knew that the Noble Earl thought it should be supported, and if it were to be kept up, why not make it available to the public ser vice in a manner which must ultimately increase its amount ? He wished it were possible to introduce a short Bill to enable the Commissioners for the Sink ing Fund to attend and t:rke the bargains for the dead money. His Lordship then moved for a Re turn of the number of Banks in England consisting of three, four, or six partners. _ _ -- • The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no objection what• ever to this motion. With respect to the observations which had fallen from the Noble Marquis, he would say, that it was true there was a clause enabling the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to make a loan to the country; but this was an optional, not a com pulsory clause, and it had always been left to the judgment of Government during the whole of the war, to consider and determine whether it was more advantageous to take a loan from that fund, or to obtain it from the Public. He recollected that at the commencement of the last war, a Gentleman now no -led to a loan from the Public, con le to be imperative with respect to the It was then explained that its nature optional. In the greater number of last war, it had been the general , was •more for the advantage of the -.tow the Sinking Fund to operate as it market, than to apply to it for a loan. It intention to enter into the question, 'rely depend on the nature of the bar- 1 hould be made. He and his Right riend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) rms, and had fixed in their own minds they thought should be accepted. If obtain them, or any which they con itly advantageous, it would be their 'as their intention, to refuse. But if pin with any set of Contractors.. . would state in no case, even in that of a loan contracted by Government, was the WOW bbund to approve of what had been done. It -retained the powteef awk gativing such a contract or such a loan without any breach of good faith. It was true that in such cases a deposit was made, but it lay in the Bank and was never touched till the Bill had received the Royal Assent. If the Bill were not passed, the deposit was returned, and that was all. In the present case, therefore, the discussion of any contract which might be made would remain perfectly open to the House. Earl GREY expressed himself satisfied with this explanation, but could not understand how it could be for the benefit of the public to give to a set of con tractors the advantages which it might derive from the bargain being taken up by the .Commissioners for the Sinking Fund. The simpler mode would be to repeal taxes to the amount required from the Sinking Fund.—The motion was then agreed to, and the House adjourned till Monday. HOUSE OF COMMON& Sir W. LEMON presented a Petition from Cornwall, com plaining of Agricultural Distress, and against lowering the du ties on imponation.—Laid on the table. Mr. RA WIDEN presented a Petition from the Merchant& and Manufacturers of Sheffield, praying an alteration in the laws relating to Insolvent Debtors.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. BYNG presented a Petition from the Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, complaining of the cruelty exercised in driving bullocks.—Ordeted to be printed. Lord STANLEY presented a Petition from certain Unitarian Dissenters of Cotteedale, in Lancashire, praying an alteration in the Marriage Act.—Laid oa the table. Mr. M A RRYATT presented a Petition from the 361 p Owners of Leith and Kirkcaldy, against the Navigation Laws. —Laid bn the table. Mr. ItUMBOLD presented a Petition from the Shipping Merchants of Great Yarmouth, praying a repeal of the Duties on Salt.—Laid on the table. Mr. SCOTT presented a Petition from the Unitarian Die senters of Wkitchurch, for an alteration in the Marriage Act.— Laid on the table. Mr. SCOTT presented a similar one from Crichton, in Sussex. The third reading of the Mak Duties Repeal Bill was post poned until Monday., Mr. HUTCHINSON presented a Petition from the several Distillers in Ireland in favour of that BIS. Mr. WILBERFORCE complained of a Misrepresentation which had appeared relative emanate remarks he had made on an lion. Member (Mr. Wynn) in the debate on the Pontius ters-General. Mr. C. W. WYNN was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for the statement which he had just made. So far as he was perso nally concerned, he most my that he had never conceived his words had the application imputed to them. Astlaidaties admit hart the consumes, It also abews that pro tar: sa les neptot serve the grouper; for Isere the deities ere so as to abut eat all foreign hops, and yet She Mt-Plasters are boa the glut of the he the mathig. The tenth is, that the dilly digit at oho -Wag deities h Nadine the far mer to the home market ' -it glees Meow feeiffity of ezpoothg." The Petition was then had. The pedthmen stated tint the ditties on hops ansountea to a third of the proceeds of sak•—. l Ordered to be painted. ROMAN CATHOLICS. Mr. L. BECK presented a Petition from the Churchwardens of the Palish of Iddington, in Leicestershire, against the Ito man Catholic Peers' Bill.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. H. SUMNER presented a Petition from the Church wardens and Vestry of St. Saviour's, Southwark, agreed upon this day in Vestry, against the Roman Catholic Peer filiL The Petition was also signed by 500 of the most respectable inhabit ants of the parlsh.—Ordered to Neon the table. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented a similar Peti tion from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Diocese of Can terbury. The petitioners stated that it was unjust to the Ro man Catholic population to grant to a few individuals those pri vileges which the wisdom of Parliament had refused to the whole body. A consequence of admitting Roman Catholic Peers would be an admission of Roman Catholic Commoners, Roman Catholic Bishops to the Lords; and a consequence of the whole would be the destruction of that beautiful fabric erected by our ancestors at the Revolution. In all these sentiments the Honourable Member expressed his entire concurrence. Mr. BROUGHAM said he would endeavour, however diffi cult the undertaking, to allay, by a word of memo or two, those dreadful fears and terrifying alarms ander which the lion. Me mber and those sage pethitioners laboured.—(A laegh).—They seemed to think that, if six Noblemen were let Into the Lords, the next step would be to open the doors of the How of Com mons ' and the next step, that the whole House of Commons would become Papists ; and that the result of all would be, to let Catholic Bishops take their places amongst the Right Rev. Lords in another place. Now it might be possible to administer some comfort to these Gentleinen (although, upon some minds, fear had the effect of_blinding reason), by telling them that those barriers, and that beautiful outwork against the admission of Catholic Peers to the other House, so creditable to the wisdom of our ancestors, was little better than a fence of osier. It might be well to remind these Petitioners, that so slight was the ob struction presented by the oath, that the Mufti of the 'Forks— (A laugh)—nay, the Jewish Rabbis-4f any of those long-bearded gentry were in the country, could, if they were elected, get into Parliament, if they could only say that they were Christians.— Of course a Turk would have no hesitation in disclaiming not only the Pope's " civil" power, but also his " spiritual and ecclesiastical," or his existence altogether. Therefore, thin, the only bar to the admission of Turks was the accidental use of the worth at the end of the oath—" And this I swear upon the faith of a Christian !"—(Hear).—On that word Christian, a member of the Greek Church could as readily get admission into that House as the best Protestant in the country—( Hear). Sir F.. KNATCHLIULL said, whatever might be the case with respect to the Mufti, or the Archbishop of Jerusalem, he felt it incumbent on him to oppose the admission of Roman Catholic Peers to the Parliament of England. Iklr. BROUGHAM said, thai for the satisfaction of the lion. Baronet (Sir F. Kdatchbull) he would explain his observation relative to the Greek Church. He meant, if he had the honour to be the Patriarch of Constantinople--(Hear, and laughter)-- . • - _ there was nothing to prevent h im coming into that House. As the principles of the Greek would admit him to take the oaths and subscribe to the tests and declaration—(Hear). Mr. LUSH INGTON said that he would rather vote for the whole measure of favour to the Catholics than fur any partial boon, which could not have any effect in allaying the irritation of the general body on the subject—Petition read, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. • Mr. PEEL presented a Petition from the Dean and Preben diry of the Diocese of Canterbury ; also one from the Episcopal Church of the Parish of Longacre ; and one front the Magis trates of the Borough of Kilmarnock ; all against the Catholic Claims.—Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Lord Il(yr HA M presented a Petition from the Mayor, Alder men, and Burgesses of the Town of Beverley, against the Roman Catholic Peers' Bill—Ordered to be printed. _ _ _ _ Mr. hIANSFIELD presented a Petition from several Parishes hi the Town and County of Leicester, against the pro poses' admission of Roman Catholic Peers to P.irliament.—Laid on tke tabh:. .. Tern:tined in full force. Th e ,olio Peers from Parliament was, principle in the Revo gal facts aturdocuments to w h, The Hon. Member then pros , from correspondence between James Second and the. Prince and Princess Orange, their Highnesses assented to position for repealing the Penal Statutes ag ainst ' tholics-L(Hear, MO. —Gentlemen should stop they had heard the whole of the sentence betore cried' 'Hear." He would call " Hear, bear," rensainder, which ran thus:— ,, Provided CathOli were still excluded from both Houses of Parliament, and from all high offices in the State, Army, and Navy, as their Highnesses would not, on any as. count ; repeal the lest." At the Revolution, also, the Coronation Oath was established. in its present form. The Stuarts took no such oath. At the Union with Scotland, the same course was pursued, for it was made an article of the Union, that the sixteen Elective Peers of Scotland should be Protestaii The Bill of Rights was calculated to guard the P r f,_ testant Establishment; and he could not but .:x l ,, e , s his surprise at the assertion of a Right Hon. Friend (a his, thatthe exclusion of Catholics was not a piincti:le 'established at the Revolution. As to the chai of the present measure, he must sat, he expected li': old doctrine of "Charity begins at home" would m:: have prevailed, and that some Member, the Noble Lord who brought forward a motion for Parliamen tary Reform, would have proposed to have exte,ided the privileges of his own House, rather than see this House introducing Catholic Peers into the other House, forgetting the claims of Commoners, and aid ing to sign eight or nine patents of Peerage; whilst another Noble Lord (Folkestone) had contended, that this House was nominated by Peers, or at lea't a majority of it. Why was the Peer to be reinvigorated, and not at the same time the Commoner, in the en joyment of his rights? The Peer was to take no oaths, but not so the Commoner: was that to be borne ? iz had been said, that a Peer had a right, A priori, t,i legislate, but not so the Commoner ; but the tion here did not apply, as both the Peer and the Commoner laboured under the same disabilities.— , The reason stated in the Statute of Elizabeth, why Peers should sit in the House of Lords, was, that they were more under her own eye. But he could see no sound distinction between the Catholic Com moner and the Peer. In that House to t; had been introduced in the case of Catholic Peers ano Com moners. That had been the case in all forme: ; and he would ask the 200 Gentlemen who had v :ed for those tests in 1821, what made such a btoad di:- tinction between 1821 and 1822 ? What becan,e iif all the provisions and securities in Mr. thailans Bill, when feelings led him to introduce nothing except what he believed to be absolutely :trio ii:- dispensably necessary ? In the Bill of Mr. G attaa there was no correspondence with the See of Rome. He wished to know why the Peers should be exempted from all tests, while, on a future day, tests %%ere to be imposed on all other classes of Cathoiks ? Why was the new test of Supremacy, milk and waler as it was, that had been im p osed last year, to be omi:- ted in the present Bill ? It had been said, that the absence of a Popish claimant called for a toleration of the laws, but though the greater danger had vanished, the less still remained. If it was said that a Peer had an a priori tight to legislate without tests, the King might say, in the same way, 111.1 t he might wed a Catholic consort, if no danger could be di eaded from it. Ile would say that a combination of eight or nine men might acquire a much greater poser than they could possess from numerical strength Ii the third estate, the King, was subjected to restric tion for the public good, similar restrictions were ai,u equitable in the case of individuals of the other two estates. In all the States of Europe, from Austria to Venice, the Roman Catholic submitted to restrictio:is which he here refused to submit to, in order to pro cure a seat in Parliament. An application had been made by the Court of Rome to that of Madrid, to alter certain oaths, to which the Court of Madrid gave an unqualified refusal. In the year 1736 there hal been a remonstrance addressed to the Empers)r by the Catholic States of Germany, against the enc:oach ments of the Pope, and the encroachments were im mediately put a stop to by the Imperial authority.— Was Protestant Britain, then, to do what Catholic Spain and Germany had both refused? The Gentle men who formerly voted for restrictions, if they supported the present Bill, "turned their backs upon themselves"—(A laugh)--and their own arguments. It was observed, by the friends of the Bill, that Ca tholic Emancipation had been advocated by the great men of all political parties—that it had been as!ve cated by Pitt, by Fox, by Burke, by Sheridan—tl'at it was one of those causes which, as Virgil said— " Mobilhate viget, eiresque acquirit tondo." But he denied that the present measure was at all similar in its principle to any which had heiet, , fore been proposed. It was a measure for unquai!fied 'emancipation ; whereas all the measures which plo• ceded it had been for qualified emancipation. 'PIC Hon. and Learned Gentleman expressed his regict that, with all his respect fOr the Right Honourable author of the Bill, he could not conscientiously ccr cur in it, and concluded by moving as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six month , Mr. WILMOT was of opinion that the present measure pct. sensed some advantages that did not belong to others that had been before the House. He could see nu need of securities without danger, and in the admission of a few Catholic Peers to the other House he saw no danger whatever. He had seen in another place, when the question was discussed eight yea's ago, a Cathslic Peer, with his son, a boy about twelve years of age, in his hand, who observed to a Gentleman near him, that upon the issue of that debate it depended whether he s hatild check or encourage a spirit of conciliation in his son. Mr. FORSTER had upon former occasions opposed the claims of the Catholics ; but the case had been materially alterei by the union of the two kingdoms. By the present measure .19 anomaly would be added to that upon the Statute ; but OP mately there would be a necessity for such a measure. Dr. PHILLIMORE was surprised to hear the House di , - suaded from listening to the measure on the score of consistencY , for there was no inconsistency in supporting the present measure: The House might consistently vete for the present Bill, ‘viihou any pledge as to its future conduct. No one bad objected r the. admission of Presbyterian Peers to the House of Lao , though that sect had formerly subverted the Church of Lugiand Mr. COURTENAY said, It was necessary te consider under what circumstances the restrictions had been imposed, and wilY they had been continued. No alarm was felt at Catholic hers having free access to kis Majesty. The language of the Acts ".• William, Anne, and George 1. stated, as the cause of chow Ac,i against the Papists, the security of theiProtestant Successoui, by extinguishing the hopes of the Popish line. By the opersiiou of the Annual Indemnity Act, any man, a Catholic not excepted, might sit i 4 that Muse. The highest ranks in the Army and , , , commencement of 1 1 more had objecte ceiving the clause 1 Sinking Fund. I I; w as entirely opt I cas es during the . . opinion, that it I country to allow 1 t' '1 ' did in the market s , was not now his i ' 11 ' 1 , as it must entire' ii gain which thou • ! . Honourable Frier were to hear tern c I those which the] they could not o ceived sufficient' duty, and it was . , i ----"• ' . - . V W - Volowrr ,-- - .. 4 ., • I-. 7V-'rit• .- r r viNgrr's - T-- z - ^ 7 ‘ l ` , Pwrwr'" 4- -1 " 14 A11=7.41=041. 7 "11NPF - - . - .. . • ~: . • • . • • .• . ' . , • „ . . - . . • ...., . 'k ‘ . .. , 4., .. gt .. .. . . • S I , •,,, b — I. -.3 ' , lb a 1: . A ...), • .. • it the liimata t iit i d i to to illid -11014..-----. as., . 1 - ritositar' Mtn che r 'a t had been done, had no ditienkri , saying th,t , .. * WITIM be mere ar Thu . sad that re won conse too lae. And yet the advantageous thanany _ with A b e c oin . nemmoter =rum saw hem pastctimg 2 ea ifigi t . . o " lion ecl a t C a ath pr o i l n i Sage Earl who ast spokes, was satisfied with missionen of ;he Sink_ing.Fun . la dn . hope . ex- thq wire as the Nikes, asaiety, hr the et WIN by historic: a Ancei- rip • sin the contemplation Of pressed by a Noble Earl (WV/ a Fe." •dals unser ..,.... ft 1 2 NA —. there " bl e a le s e r thsta B6 "l it at t . hi5 e" 11 ,„" 1 • 11 1....,. woted advert. TI i! - Gb &sures of relief. But what that the House would not be bound by previous con- 1 7; t r e r S al should task gossamers vet to tear a wane . es . to read extracts frc had been those seeasures ? The people were perish- tract before it came to discuves4llo-natare, af the bar- . ..!.. —4l. ...... sec of Contractors, he would state that intacim hir. illingnem in fern helm thereat of prelates t ha s s . James the Second RICAZDO ask—is If this argument shays that pre. Orange, in which • - -A. - - _ ---..-. 2 2 The Iva; he %ca l Im o he ocrek!ed en Kin., ncess of o a pro.. iinst Ca. stop till ore they ,' to the :athOlics 'Hameln, iny, and any ac. 111, al so , present le Union tor it e sixteea stair the Ptn- t Friend (a• ptincti:le :hal acc.: ected vid now he Noble exte;itied 3 see that he other and aid- whilst ded, that at leaq a igorated, in the en- no oaths, iorne ? priori, t,) ie disiine- and die CATHOLIC PEERS. Mr. CANNING moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Roman Catholic Peers' Bill. On the question being put, Mr. ASHTON SMITH said t ,that he would not say one word on the general question, but with all re spect to the great and brilliant talents of the Honour able Gentleman (Mr. Canning). he could • not help thinking that the measure which he had introduced was one of the most extraordinary, insulated, and partial nature. It was unfair to the general body of the Catholics to grant a concession to a few which they denied to the rest. He had given the most se dulous attention to the speech of the Right Honour able Gentleman ; and if anything had been wanted to till up the measure of his objection, and to rivet his opinion still tighter, it was that speech itself. Ile had waited, indeed, for all that which the Hon. Member for Somersetshire had promised. He waited for the Syren's voice, but he waited in vain ; and if he had a shadow of doubt in his previous opinions on the sub ject, that doubt would have been removed by the clear and admirable exposition of the Hon. Member (Mr. Peel) who would, perhaps, permit him to say his Hon. Friend. He had been informed, before the late discussion, that the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) was not consonant to the feelings of the great body of the Catholics. Ile would ask those Members who had pledged themselves to the support of the main question—he would ask the Attorney-General for Ireland, who, perhaps, had thought it more prudent to join in it on the late even ing, in preference to moving the previous question, were they sincere in their approbation of this partial relief? If the Hon. Attorney-General thought that it was not expedient to bring on the general question at once, his part of it might have been deferred until it was all brought forward with the securities which the House might require, instead of a mere insulated measure as the present was. It was extraordinary that he would not be satisfied to wait for six short months for the great question. He would sit down in the sincere hope, that not only those who had voted against that question, but that many who had agreed to it, would join him on the present occasion in voting against the making this incidental question the most prominent one—(Hear, hear). It was not for them alone to consider whether Charles 11. was in his heart a Papist, but were these few Noblemen, because they were Lords, to get relief instanter ? On the general question he would add, that whenever securities sa tisfaetery to the Noble Lord and to the AdMinistra don were offered, he would then relax any opposition he had to the measure. Mr. WETHERELL opposed the Bill. He con tended that the measure was objectionable, as being ,a partial one. He also contended, that although the facts upon which the exclusion of Catholic Peers was originally enforced had passed away, still the ptiuci- TOZ A CCO DVTT 63. Mr. 11. DAVIS presented a Petition from the Tabacett Ma nufacturers of Bristol, praying a reduction of the Dutie.s on the Importation of Tobacco. He stated that a great deal of abuses of smuggling arose from the high duties intposed•on the Im portation of Tobacco. Mr. BRIGHT bore testimony to the ill smell of these high duties, and stated that the most bra c e= effect of their repeal would he to put an end to smuggling. Sir I. COFFIN supported the prayvr of the Petition. The Petition was then read; it stated that the dnty was 10:.0 per cent. above the fist eost.—Laid on thii table, and ordered to be printed. SEER TRADE. Colonel PAT.MER presented a Petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Bath and its vicinity, against the present mode of granting Licenses to Public-houses. The Petitioners stated that, in consequence of the partiality of Magistrates, all the public houses were in the hands of the brewers, who sold the beet at their ewn prices, to the great prejudice of the Public. That whilst the Public were thus losers, the brewers had 200 per cent. on th.ir capital. The Hon. Member concluded by saying that he concurred with the Petitioners as to the abuses of the system, and he declared himself ready to join in any measure which would give them relief. Mr. DICKENS( , upon this Petition, defended the con duct of the Licensing Magistrates of that division of the county of Somerset, in which he was most familiarly acquainted. Mr. BROUGHAM said, he bad no doubt that in some cases the Magistrates acted on the most pure principles, but he was still convinced there were many cases in which they pursued a very different course. They had a power which they ought not to possess, as it was of a most arbitrary nature. Suppose a man should offend his brewer, a Licensing Magistrate, by voting at ' an Election, or expressing any political opinion, he might int mediately be deprived of his license? The brewers also, fur want of a fair competition, were able to force the most noxious compositions on the Public, under the name of beer. Sir li. K N ATC II BULL did not deny the Licensing System wanted revision • but be could not agree in the censure thrown by the lion. an d Learned Member on the Magistrates. Mr. B ROU G HA M, in explanation, said, he had not intended indiscriminate censure of Magistrates, far from it. Ile must, however, declare himself a decided opponent of Clerical Ma gistrates. The appointing Clergymen Magistrates, was, in his opinion, a most impolitic system. Mr. Alderman C. SMITH wished to see the system revised,; the abuses at present practised on the Public, by forcing upon them bad beer, were most abominable. Ile had, himself, the other day, been charge?, twopence fur a glass of the most infa mous mixture he had ever tasted. After a few words from Mr. N. CALM; the Petition was receiv2d. .AGRICI:I.TURAL DISTRESS. Mr. CU RTEIS presented a Petition from the Hop-planters of Sussex, complaining of the high duties laid upon that article. The Honourable Member said, that though it was foreign to this subject, yet he could not help saying a word or two upon the distress which prevailed generally throughout the county which be bad the honour to represent. He then referred to two letters he had received from that county, in which it was stated thgt in one parish there were thirty farms thrown into the land lords hands • and that so exasperated were the people by the pressure of the Poor -rates, that the Select Vestry wbuld not go to the church through fear of being stoned : that in another parish, where all the inhabitants were but t..vo thousand, that one thou sand were chargeable. He also stated, that the tithes were equally oppressive there as in Ireland. From another docu ment the Honourable Member stated," that the peasantry were taking measures to leave the country, that the Gentry were obliged to leave their mansions, and that, if it were not a solecism in language, the landlords were absolutely paying rent to the tenants to engage them to keep their farms !"—(llear hear.) Sir EDWARD K NATCHBULL, in seconding the Petition, regretted that the description which the Honourable Member bad given of the county of Sussex was equally applicable to the county of Kent. The distress in those parts with which he (Sir Edward) was conversant was almost equally great. The pres sure was principally felt from the Poor-rates. There was a plan which it appeared to him would afford some relief in this particular, and with the leave of the House he would mention it. By the Select Vestry Bill, certain parishes were allowed to buy up parcels of ground, not exceeding twenty acres, for the maletenanie of the poor. Now it appeared to him, that if this =w were extended to pieces of ground from one t o t wo bun eer's, there would be thereby a means for employing the peer, who would be otherwise idle. He hoped something of this nature would be adopted, and that soon, or else this country would perhaps, ere long, regret that it d id sooner turn its attention to the subject. Sir JOHN SHELLY said, that unless some immediate re ' lief was given, the people would be Obliged to leave the country. Whatever might be said that a reduction of taxation would give no relief, he (Sir John) was persuaded that reducing the taxes was the only way of giving relief. -(Hear, hear)...-Por what could be more reasonable, than that if you reduce the price of every ardcle by reducing the tun, you then Imes ate burdens - 1? - 35