The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-05-29 00:00:00

Tow could they he certain that his successor would be equally correct and honourable? In fact, the who , * system of appointing Juries throughout the kingdom was one of great abuse. In support of his views he would refer to the Report of the Committee V the Cantinoo Council in 1817, which stated that out of 455 returned to serve as Jurors, that were not householders, and consequently, incompetent to serve, and of the remainder a part were merchants and warehonsemen, and 171 were tradesmen.. The Cie the Secondaries Office, in a case of libel, admitted that le received a letter from the Sulicitot of the Crinvu.— After some other remarks the Honourable Gentle concluded by strongly recommending a change is the system. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, is there was 114 imputation thrown upon the character of the Mastet lit the Crown Office, it would be time enough to discuss the principle when any new measure was submitted to the iii.use. He was certain that no alteration proposed by the Hui. Gentleman could be more equitable than the present mode of appointing Juries. He challenged soy person to prose that the Crown ever interfered in dm' appointment of Jori-s ; since he came into of it, was never attempted, and he was certain, that , front the character of the Muter of the Crown Offitio,l that Gentleman would repulse it with indignation. He was so convinced of the eligibility of the present system, that he would oppose any attempt to alter the mode of app inting Special Juries. With respect to the peti there, be did not ask for relief or complain of any per { nal wrong. Mr. BRIGHT thought an inquiry necessary into the !object, but be considered that the power of Sheriffs was properly exercised. A similar complaint to the present was made in the year 1777 by Horne Tooke. The Hon. Member, here read a Jong extract from a letter of Horne Tooke's on the State Trial of 1777, which referred tO a, conversation he had with the Master of the Crown Of. fire en the nomination of a Special Jury in his case. He, inquired in what way the eligibility of Jurors was de cided, and he was told that with respect to tradesmen, such as woollenalrapers and silversmiths, if he knew them to be respectable, he put them on the Jury, if not, byl put them aside, and that when he looked at the list of nllllO5. and observed who he knew were proper Jurors he wak told this man was dead, though he well knew he was allve ; that another was a bankrupt, and that another would not attend. He complained that the returning of , C•er should in that manner without remorse kill men who were not dead, as was done in the case of a Mr. Shea. field, who though actually appointed that same day Io a place ender the Corporation, was returned as deceased. Thus, said the Hon. Gentleman. the same complaiole, that are made in these days, were made in Horne Tent 'b and even previous to this time; so that its amigo*, would be but a poor reason in favour of its corrector* H • complaine.l then genially of the appointment of Ju ries. even at Guildhall, and then strongly animadverted on the nomination of Exchequer Juries, where the same raj es were to be found for tut greater part of the year. He said that the public had long complained of these Juries, and some attention should be paid. Let the sub ject at all events be inquired into; see if it be right or a rong—*; wrong. =mid it, and if right let it routine. The p . tion was then brought up, before it was laid on the table, Mr. HOSHOUSE said he would offer one or two observations. It appeared that no imputation was attempted to be cast on the Officer of the Crown, hat his objection was on priocipla only. It was in his opinion extremely objectionable that the returning of ficer of Juries should boW a situation ander the Crown: He was aware that no direct charge . could be made a eainst his Majesty's Government of an interference with a Jury. He did nut believe them capable of such base conduct, but be was convinced that they sent indivi duals to be tried. by „lurks who they believed were tweet likely to convict. And be would ask an Hon. Gentle► man of hie Majesty's Government, on his honour to de char., if his Hon. Colleague (Sir F. Burdett) was net sent to Leicester, there to be tried, because a Jury there would be more likely to cons ict hitn-tban in Los don, As the question bad been mooted, something erght to be done. It was ridiculous to say that Jury men were not selected—it was nothing el e than selec tion. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to argue that a Jury should be taken by ballot instead of the'pre sent mode. AIL WILLIAMS supported the petition. There was a greater necessity that Juries should he free from sue picion in trial. between the Crown and the people, than disputed cases of property between individual and in dividual. For these reasons, therefore, he thought no time w.s to be lost in in tkiag an inquiry into this matter, and he gave notice, that if the matter was not takertup by the A ttoroeytieneral, be would himself bring in a bill to enact that the selection of Special Ju rors should in future be Made by ballot. • Mr. HUME, in reply, maintained that the charges which he had made were unanswered. The packing of Juries in the Court of Exchequer was a notorious fact. He had himself spoken to one of those Jurors, who boasted of having earned twelve guineas is one day as a Special Ju yman.—(Hear.) In that Court it was be con), a regular trade. In the City of London too, it appeared by return., that of all the Special Jury lists, there were 82 who were summoned only twice, whilst' there were a few others who were summoned no less than 52 times in the year. The practice was most mon strous, and should be put a stop to. The petition was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. Dlr. HUME presented a similar petition from J. U. Trust, a bookseller, in confinement is Newgate.—Order ed to be printed. Mr. HU.'JI then gave notice, that early next Session be would move for a Committee to inquire into the yeactice of striking Special Juries.—(Hear.) ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Mr. Secretary CANNINO, it was ordered that the House at its rising do adjourn over to Friday. CHIEF BARON OF IRELAND. Mr. RICE postponed his motion on this subject to Wednesday the 4th of June. W.NOLISH ROMAN CATHOLICS. Lori N (Alva rose to bring before the House his proposition for placing the Roman Catholics of (heat Bri tain, as near as midis be, on the same tooting with those of Ireland. The Noble Lord disclaimed all intention of connecting this in any manner with the general question of Catholic Emancipation, and he declared that it it inter fered with the success of that measure, by seeming to have the effect of diminishing the claims of the Irish Catholics, he would abandon it altogether.—(Bear.) Neither had he brought it forward at the instance of the Roman Catholics of Ell it land, for he respected their higlefeeliogs tuo much to consult them npon it. All the responsibility, there for, rested with himself; and if au the resell. his eppiiestion to the lions, slaJuld fail; the blame was to be placed more to the ineMciency of the advocate than' the weakness of the cause. Without more preface, he should proceed to state the difference which existed i the condi tions of the English end Irish Catholics. It was Well known, that in Mil, certain privilerres,•of which they had long been deprived, went restored to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Toss concession was a little time after the last re Taxation of the Penal Code—that code of pr. scription And death which made it a espial become to celebrate the Co tt:one form of worship. Ole concesaities so rade consisted lalhe restoration of the rights of inheriting and devising of. reel andithattel proporty. Shortly after, the right of repre• . sentatilos wastilded as a natural co isequence, for propeity weenie; heals otrapresebtetiett,. end tnpresentation the in olignelgolettriutato of property. The ale which be meant to awalm - of this ollastoo to the ease of Ireland was, THE STATESMAN that where the eights pf poverty wart coneeded, the rights of repessennithm skellidigatiow as a nesessary consequeoei. By thin test he svoulf tryihe case of pui Rdpan Catholics of Great *Rein. wed tettainly t e thee the peculiar tituaQou of Iralleeti, at4iat time, reputed Souse attention the'rights of the people necessary. The Convention of Dasel4llloll in 17132. and the dread of the influence of the elation made tt In 17113, Ineumbent upon the Goverment to conciliate the Roman Catholics. But bad experience shotrn that tit& concessions made ihem, pro •effeeta detrimental to the Protestant ascendancy or the Constitution? It certainly had not, but on the con trary these concessions had proved extremely beneficial I• that ekes of men for whose use they were Intendel.— As little reason was there now to diatrast the English Roman Catholics; why should this House feel a greater jealousy of that body in 1923. than the Irish Parliament did of those of Ireland in 1793? The same revs were not to be entertained of their members, and their dispo sitions to loyalty were full as undoubte d. Let them then, imitate the example set them by the Irish Parliament. — Let them concede that fro. humanity end justice which the legislators of the sister country agreed to from ne cessity au fear.—(Hear.) Only sixteen years after the first relaxation of the penal code, the Irish 1 1 :aliment bestowed upon the Irish Catholics the rights of repre sentation ; since that, 46 years bad passed, but did a sin gte circumstance warrant the supposition that the con cession had been ill timed in the confidence abused ? The principal points in which the English Catholics were in a worse situation than those of Ireland were two; namely, that they were unable to vote at election., and to serve the King in Commissioners of the peace. In this respect an English bora Catholic was less favoured by the law, than a foreigner who had been naturalised, and orb° might acquire the right of election. Ile was worse than the dissenter. for the Annual Indemnity Bill relieved him from the Corporation and Test Acts, whilst the Roman Catholic had no resource but in per jury. But though Catholics were excluded from voting at elections, yet they exercised an undoubted influence at them. It was a common practice in some counties in England, that the Members should be put in nomina tion by Roman Catholics. The late Lord Beauchamp, when a Member of this House, and Mr. Lyttletog, his colleague, were More than once nominated by Catholic gentlemen of great fortune in Wtwcestershire, though the former invariably voted against the Cottoned. - Pus. teasing, then, as they did, the substantial power. be asked if it would not be better to give to the Catholics the avowed right of voting? By what means an appeal would be made to his magnanimity, whilst now he was labouring under distrust. It aas better to give them the privilege, than let them enjoy the benefit by sufferance. The object of this measure was, to put the Catholics of England on the same footing as those of Ireland. His Bill, therefore, should be a transcript of the Irish Act of 1793. But the English Catholics were still in a worse situation than those of Ireland, inasmuch as there were many offices here, which were not named in that Bill. As towards the dissenters they were still in a much worse situation, for the former could sit and vote in either House of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, the House would not shut their ears against so reasonable a claim. The relief to be obtained would, by reflection and Implication, benefit the Catholics •f Ireland, since the interests of the two bodies were closely connected together. At least the English Catholics bad never severed their cause from those of Ireland, and he did not think it was the interest of the Irish Catholics to stsnd alone.—(llear.) Under all circumstances, it was desirable to amalgamate all classes, to unite the Protestant and Ca tholic together. Dtride et inverts was the maxim of stub jiiption, but smite was the motto of true wisdom and peace. Tne Roman Catholics of England bad Moused under poli tical disadvantages for a teutury without rourmaring, and the ten/ absence of toy danger to be feared from them made them be forgotten. 'the stream of Parliamentary concession which had fertilized Ireland, bad entirely passed by the Catholics of England. Lei at least that notice be taken of them, which was alluded to by Lord Chancellor Bowes of Irel and, and repeated by Chief Justice Robinson; who, in speaking of the Roman Catholics, said, " let it not be said that by law no such person as a Roman Catholic ex ists in Ireland. The effective people of Ireland are cer tainly assumed to be Protestants—(food Langhlnr) ; butl Roman Catholics most still exist, for the purposes of repre invasion and penalty for which they are named in the (Penal)l Statutes." He called upon the House then to recognise the rights of the British Catholics ; and before any Member opposed him, he asked him to put his hand to his heart, and say that, if these restrictions had never been imposed, he would at this day be the first to originatethem.—(llear.)--- The Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate certain tests and qualifications to be taken by Roman Catholics in England. Mr. S. WORTLEY seconded the motion. On every ground of policy he thought the House was bound to make this concession to the English Catholics ; but when he con sidered that some of the best blood In England flowed in their veins, his Noble Friend surely presented a strong case io their favour. _ The question was then put from the Chair. Mr. WLTHERIELL admitted, that upon purely ab stract grounds, there was a case is favour of the Noble Lord's motion ; for why should any of his Majesty's sub jects be entitled to certain rights in one part of Isis do. minions, which they could not enjoy in another. Bat he trusted when the measure came to be examined in detail he hoped he should be able to show that there were strong reason; which rendered it expedient that these disabilities should be continued. Mr. WILLIAM BANKES would also reserve him self until the period when the Bill came under discus. sion. He thought, however, that as the measure was not called for by the Catholics themselves, but was merely • gratuitous project of the Noble Lord, and not likely to be considered as a boon by those for whose benefit it was intended, the House should hesitate before they gave countenance to the proposal. He should say, indeed, that he entertained no objection to the measure making Ca tholics eligible to hold the Commission of the Peace. Mr. PEEL said, that on the several occasions when he found it necessary to change his sentiments upon the great principle of the admissibility of Catholics to of fice, he had intimated an opinion favourable to the views which the Noble Lord now proposed to carry into effect.. He should. therefore, premise that, both - for the sake of consistency. and to bring this particular case under dis cussion. he should consent to the minion of the Noble Lord. With respect to the first of the three branches of the measure—namely, the elective franchise, he con iessed he was willing, after mature deliberation, to al low it to the Roman Catholics—(Hear.) In the wri tings of Mr. Burke, he thought the distinction was completely established between the enjoyment of the elective franchise and admissibility to office. Mr. But ke unanswerably showed that conferring the first did not, in principle, bind the Parliament to Concede the other. He, therefore, under all these circumstances, hail no diffieulty in avowing his readiness to sanction the Ines sure to that extent. lie should here remind the Noble Lord of a difficulty which would present itself in case the Catholics of SiVilind were to be embraced by this measure. The Catholics of Scotland were excluded from the enjoym-nt of the franchise expressly by the Act of Union. But, hoWever the case of the Catholics of that part of the Enpire might. be disposed of, he felt no hesitation in supporting the conce s si on of the elective franchise to the Catholics of Isngland. It did not follow that, because a person, as some thought, had the right of electing, be ought, in principle, to have the right of being elected The use of the Clergy was a full answer to this argument. Aid if reference was made to the discussion of ISOI. it would he fount, that one of the reasons against their en joyinr, their elective franchise.. tie le.st relied m , was that of the pos-ibility of their lieing represented in the House of Convocation. It was further. he thought, unfair, to argue from the abase of the elective franchise in Deland, agailitet the expediency of conferring it •on the eatholirs'elf this country. . Wbatzver infereneel ,could be'drawn from a comparison hetwees the state eif • the Roman Catholic population in . each country, be thought must be in favour of the propriety of making eoeceuions to those of England. With respect to the emiend branch of the Noble Lord's Bill, the Magistracy,' :be was prepared to avow his opinion, that great advan tage would follow from admitting Roman Catholic Geo tleinen to bold the consualselod of the Peace. With respect to the third branch. eligibility to office, be must reserve himself for a future occasion. At the same time he had no difficulty in stating that be would have no oh. I jection to put Catholics is England on the same footing with those !Mott& provided • be could place the English, Catholics in the saws situation as the English Di:misters: The Noble Lord said he would le able•to place the Catholics on that footing, with respect to the Annual Indemnity Bill, as the Dissenters, if the Noble Lord succeeded in doing that; and, if further, the concurrence of the House to that extent could not be considered as a new reason for making further con. c, ssioos to the Catholics of Ireland, he should have no hesitation in giving his support to the measure. Mr. He GURNEY supported the measure. Mr. BANEES said he felt himself bound in fairness to state how :ar he could agree with the Noble Lord. As to the enjoyment of the elective franchise by the Roman Catholics in Ireland, it was a privilege, which in his opinion, ought not have been granted, a nd to which be would. not have consented, and it could not therefore now prevail with him as an argatnent for granting the same privilege to the Roman Catholics of England.. He con ceived it was against the principles of the British Con. initiation to admit Roman Catholics to political power. He was opposed to the repeal of the Test Act upon any grounds, and in this opinion he was supported by the au thority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. With regard to their being admitted as Magistrates, be thought it extremely desirable that that privilege should be granted, provide.' it did net infringe upon the principles to which he had before adverted. As to qualification for office, be had po objection that the English Roman Catholic should be placed in this respect, on the nine footing • s the Irish Catholic, hot to th• repeal of the Test Act, and the enjoyment of the elective franchise, he could nut • agree. Mr. W. SMITH said that he was glad that nothing was given to the Catholic which the Dissenter did not possess, becanse if it were, that would be throwing an ad ditional slur and stigma upon the latt-r. He felt equal pleasure in seeing that the day had at last arrived, when great, even the strongest prejudices, had given way, and were ready to make some concession to the English Ro man Catholics, a class of men then whom, as far as he knew them, an i that was not a little, there was none more honourable or respectable in the country. He hoped that Parliament would yet go further, and he was sure, ere long, though perhaps he would not live to see it, tot satisfied lie was; the period would shortly arrive, leiter. this House would see the propriety of miinitting Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament. They had of ten Irani the boast of the British Constitution, and with some justice, because he was ready to admit that it was the test regulated, and approached nearer to human per fection than that of any other country. Bat this was not titer only boast. They had also often heard vaunted, thtt we were the most liberal, the most enlightened, and tit wisest people in the world; but be confessed that he ins nut one of those oho thought so highly of this country. In light and knowledge some nations Caine near us, and others outstripped us. In support of this, he could not help referring to a speech of a lammted nobleman, delivered in his place on the 28th of Feb. 1321, in which he sated that almost the only point upon wbh:h the Congress of Vienna were unanimous, was the antidote abolition of all religion distinction as quali nations for office. This sentiment tilts just, and he de plored that the prejudices of England were so strong, tbat it was the last country to acknowledge its justice. 'Sir J. MACKINTOSH highly applauded the Bill, which it was the object of his Noble Friend's "notion to introduce. It was a measure which, with reference both to the principles efsivil and religious justice, and in con• fortuity with the equal spirit of constitniimal govern ment, was worthy of the adoption of the British Legis lature. It was hulled difficult to understand what rea sonable ground of exclusion there could be against the Roman Catholics of England from those circumscribed privileges enjoyed by their religious brethren of the sister country. He denied that the Catholics had been excluded from voting as forty-shilling freeholders on the ground of their religious tenets. That exclusion had been carried into effect against them by an Act of William and Mary, passed shortly ifter the explosion of the great assassination plot. Neither could he admit what he had beard advanced In the course of the debate, that it was a fundamental point in the British Constitution, that differ ence of religion constituted a ground of exclusion. It was only a reason for exclusion where the Christian religion was concerned—where the shades of difference laid the foundation for endless warring. But all who would for swear the Roman Catholic religion were admissible to the benefits of the constitution, whether he were Armenian, Copht, or Hindoo. He protested, therefore, against any such false principle being assumed on the present occa sion, to serve the purpose of opposition to the Bill of his Noble Friend. It was a false position, urged too for the same purpose, that any man who voted for this Bill must change his opinion on the greater question.—He should, consider the perseverance of the Government and Par liament in an obstioate refusal to assimilate the condi tion of the Catholics of the two countries as one of the pointed forerunners to the downfall of the Monarchy. Mr. WiTHICRELL and Sir J. MaciturTosa mutually explained; and after a few observations in reply from Lord Nuonial, the motion was agreed to without a di-. vision, and Dr. PHILLIMORI and Mr. BROUG/4•31 were appointed to frame the Bill. MALT AND BEER DUTIES. Mr. MABERLY rose, but, from the noise in the gal lery, we were for some time unable to hear him. He said that the object of his present notion was the appoint went of a Select Committee to inquire into the expedien cy of imposing on malt the amount of the duty at present imposed on beer. There were now two distinct duties on beer ; one 20s. on malt, which made a duty of about 2.d. a gallon on beer, and on ale. As the law now stood, the private brewer was subject to this duty only, and was exempted from the beer duty, which amounted to about 3d. or 3 1.31. the gallon. This was an unjust legislation, which imposed upon one class, and that the poorer, a du ty of sii. or lid. per gallon ; while the elk+ man, oho brewed his own beer, paid little more than half. He was anxious for a Committee to inquire upon what prin ciple this law was founded,and if it were considered par tial and unjust to alter it. But its injustice was not the only inconvenience which resulted from this inequality of duty. The expenses of collection was considerable.— The amount of duty on malt was near three millions, and the expense of Collecting it was 140,0001., while the ex• pease of collecting the duty on beer amounted to 280,000/. iCow this might, lie thought, be nearly saved by trans ferring the ditty on beer to malt, and 'making one collec tion instead of two, as at present. There were about 26009,000 of bushels of malt annually consumed, of which the private brewer consumed about seven millions. The malt distillers consumed 400,000 bushels, and the vinegar-makers 160,000 ; making altogether 560,000 bustlers. To which, if the quantity consumed by the pri vate brewer he ailied, there will is all be about seven millions and a half bushel. exempt from the beer duty-- To this extent the private brewers had an advantage over die public brewers, and actually gained two millions of money, which the poor, who coneased the beer of tit • public brewer, were obliged to pay. His object was so relieve the poor from this unjust and unequal dnty, by imposing an additional duty of 2s. on all malt whether ronsutned by the public or private brewer. This wouh lead to an equal and impartial legislation, which, by making the poor and the rich man bear the duty equally, would enable the former to have his beer at a cheaper rate than et prevent. He contended the Public bad a right to any beer they pleased, provided the same duty was still paid into the Revenue. He could not but think that the immure of the Right Hon. Gentleman, obliging the brewer of table-beer to give up his trade, and forbid ding him from getting Int r a new one, unless on new pre. wises; was a Very great hardship. The Hon. Member concluded by waving, " That a Select Committee be ap. pointed to inquire int., the present mode of taxing beer and scull . separately, end whether it might not he ex pe lient to' ollect the same am stint na malt alone " The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was perfectly aware that feasible arguments anight be urged for Committees or Inquiry, but he hoped the House would sou that it was not expedient to go into any such inquiry in the• present iostanee. It appeared to him, that the lion. Mem ber who introduced the motion, had taken quite en erretie uus view of this subject. Wills resrut to the first point— the expense of collection, he certainly thought that that ex pense was not so large as was stated by the Hon. Gentleman. In the estimates It was set dawn at 29a.00 , 11. a year, but the fact was, that all such estimates were made out in arbitrary manner.—(blear, hear ! from Mr. Hume.) Ile said so, be cause the persons who were employed in collecting the duty on beer, were also employed in collo tin the duty on tea, glass, heMses, bricks, carts, &c. Those who expected that this measure would have the effect of causing a saving in the collection, world find themselves very much mistaken in the result. If the measure were ado,sted, coil(' it he sup posed that the expense of collecting the ditty on malt would not be considerably increased. lie was qmtesure it would, fur much greater vigilance would be required than before. With respect to the 'ogled point—the relief athielt this new plan was to afford to the poor, he felt persuaded that the Hon. Gentleman was also in error upon that subject. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted that the rich laodlord, who brewed his own beer, would, by the triw pion, be obliged to pay more to the re, done than he did at pre sent : hut it was a fallacy in the Hon. Gentleman to suppose that there were none who brewed at home except the more wealthy. For his own part he could not dismiss from the consideration of this subject that many of the minx agri culturists who brewed beer did an. not for their o va coa sumption, but in part payment of the wages of labour ; and if this measure were adopted, it would, pro facto, have the ' effect or increasing the cost of pr }dem ion to the prvjudire of the agriculturist. The Rtgist Hon. Gentleman in the course of some further observations, said it would he highly Inez , pedient to make any alterations at present in the duties on ' beer, as they were an closely connectsd with the duties on ' spirits, which produced a revenue of not less than 9,000,00.1 i, and 10.0011,00:1.; and more partic u larly as some new me.. sures were pending, the effect of which remained to be proved, He would much rather equalize the duty on hoer, au I adopt . ris a certain extent the proposition of the lion. Member for Reading (Mr. F. Palmer,) than increase the duty on malt. Sly NIALINTOSII maintained that the only question for the !louse to consider wss, whether the labouring classes of the communsty could be relieved from an oppressive tax. without any diminution of the revenue. In his opinion. there would be a very great saving from the measure prorised by his lion. Friend (Mr.Maberly),while the advantage it offered to the labouring classes was obvious. The CI( OICELLOIt of the EXCHEQLI ER explained. Mr. lIUME supported the motion. Ile observed that th• charge of collecting the revenue on beer was perfectly cor rect, as stated by his Hon. Friend. Ile contended th it the measure now proposed would have the ellect of seeing the amount of the whole estimate of collection is this branch of the revenue. Mr. BENOIT (of Wiltshire) thought it would be the best plan to lay the duty entirely on malt; soul lie thought it was due to the Agricultural Interest even to lower the duly OD malt ; then the poor labourer woul I be enabled to brew Ids owe beer, as was formerly the practice throughout the country. Mr. MADERT.Y explained. Sir J. NEWPORT said, that in the year 1792, a rega:. lation was introduced in Ireland by which the breweries were relieved from duties, and the duties were laid on the malt. The effect was, that of producing beer of 'the best quality, and caning a very great Increase of the Devi brewed in Ireland ; from that time the impott-tion of beer from England had nearly ceased, and the revenue on Malt had doubled. Colonel WOOD sold that lithe duty were taken entirely off the brewery, and laid on malt, it would operate as a very heavy tax on the farmers of the country, who all brewed their own beer, and who were obliged to give beer to their labourers. lo his opision the duty on melt was tee high, and that was the reason why the copse caption ot it had decreased. _ • _ • Mr. WODMIOUSEobserrd. that in the prevent dote of the country, when public credit was to he supported, it was impossible to take off duties all at once. lie did not how ever ant icipate any great benefit from the plan of the Chan ce.lor of the Exchequer; but he could nut support the pre sent motion. _ . . Mr. WESTERN was convinced that some reduction in the duties either of mall or of beer was absolutely neces sary: he thought, however, the best plan would be to take away the beer duty, and leave the malt duty just as it now was. There would thus be a free trade relieved from the Excise, and open to so much competition, that be was con fident the consumption of malt would greatly increase. Mr BYNO said that if the motion was adopted, no de seription of persons would be benetitted by it. Mr. RICARDO supported the motion, as necessary to equalize the burdens on the different classes of the perple ; for, by laying the whole duty on malt, a small burden woulkbe laid on those who were least able to bear it; and the lower classes, who could not brew their own beer. would be greatly relieved. Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that the proposed re gulation would cause a considerable increase of burden to fall on farmers, who generally brewed their own beer ; and no class of men were so much entitled to relief as these; therefore he should oppose the motion of his Hon. Friend. Mr. Alderman WOOD supported the motion. Mr. MONCK mentioned that the present Malt Do ties pressed more severely on the landholders than any others. He was desirous, that an inquiry should take place. Mr. O. BENNET said, that he could see no reason why the manufacturers ofthis country should pty a high rate for their beer, while the gentlemen had it much less. He was of opinion that the House ought to go into the inquiry. Mr. OIKBERLY, in reply, said he had heard no argu ment to induce him to supoose that the whole of this might not be better entertained in the Committee, into which he was still of opinion the House should go. The House then divided.—The numbers were For the Motion 27; Against it 119; Maiority agaiost it 92. PCBLIC BREWERY. On oitr return to the Gallery we loom! Mr. F. PALMER on his legs. moving. as we understood, for leave to bring in a Hill to enable the public brewers' retail beer in less quantities than four and haif gallon.. provided the same be not cunsutned on the premises of the brewer. The particular argumen's by which the Hon. Member supported his motion could not be heard in consequence of the noise caused by the return of strangers to the gallery. The CHANCELLOtt of the EXCHEQUER said the existing laws contained the provisions ohich the Hem Member's Hill had fur its oojert. The common brow' bad only to take out the retail brewer's license, and its might retail in as small quantities as be pleased. Mr. MONCK supported the motion. Mr. HERMES said that there were two elutes of brewers, the rommoa brewer and the retail brewer. TO former could not retail less than 4i ga llons, bet 10 but allowance for mine, &c. while the retail brews . ~ pro Wa: