The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-05-06 00:00:00

1.! P.1R1.1.1111 EN TARI INTELLIG,ENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tirt:asnAe, Mai 5. Brogden and other Members from the House of Commons ht up ..he Metropolitan Police Magistrates Bill, with the A . amen dment s agreed to; the Bill for preventin Vexatious acs, the Sheriffs' Courts Bill, and several private Bills, which read a first flute. Looglanilfpresented Accounts of the Number of Vessels of 'mss Runnel' capable of being contained in the West India • and also Returns of the Number of Vessels now in those ee Earl of FkLIAPTESBURY presented a petition from the Fish-eurers of Berwick-upon-Tweed, against the Bin for estab i a iletropolitan Fish Companr.—Laid on the table. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Marquis of WINCHESTER presented a petition from the ibitants of Ramsgate, against the Claims of the Roman La :,ORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition to the same trout the Inhabitants of the !shod of Portland. I ROLLE presented two petitions of a similar nature. Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition from the and Inhabitants of Stockport. signed by 6,500 persons, the Claims tit the Catholics. Right Reverend Prelate presented similar petitions from eil, lisaletun, and several parishes in the county of Lifl and also from the Baptist Congregation Meeting in Zoar Abe-street. (iodilman's-fields. Earl or SHAFTESBURY presented a similar petition le Inhabitants of Bridport. petitions were laid on the table. GROSVENOR said he was not in the House when the and Learned Lord presented a petition against the Claims te Catholics from the Inhabitants of the Isle of Portland. understood. however, that great pains had been taken to get up iior,s of that description, and in this particular instance the carne to the Island of Portland on a Saturday night, cat and dried." The parties pressed it forward with so ixiety, and were so urgent in getting it signed, that the of Portland were quite alarmed, and put their names to it et knowing what they were doing, and the petition was U and returned. Front all he could collect, it spoke the senti ts cf only a small portion of the people, and one individual. , had taken an active part in the business, had since expressed reset that he hail done so. In tact, he t Earl Grosvenor) un- N.l that it was the petition of the Earl of Eldon and Mr. . rather than of the people of Portland. LORD CILINCELLOR said that their Lordships were in a very singular situation. When no petitions were pre against the claims of the Catholics, it was said that the took no interest in the question; but when their Lordships' was covered with petitions, and when it was found necessary :.le repositories foe them, then the practice was for some in the country to depreciate them, by writing up to some Lord an account of the manner in which they were said ditair.ed. Ile could assure their Lordships that the infor given to the Noble Earl was altogether incorrect. lie (the ;ilanceLlor) had before stated, that he had remained quite with respect to petitions of this nature, and he had seen _ abused in some of the public panels for having been so. could assure the House that the petition from Portland was as 'h the petition of the Earl of Eldon as it was that el Earl -enor. it had been given to him by Mr. Banker, and was by 400 persons, comprising almost the whole population of Ind. Ile had beers fully convinced from first to last, that go:4_ sense and feeling of the people of this country were nit 'I! tot sautes now pending. fie had not heard any thing to astir this opinion, unless, indeed, it were the strange reasotang which argued that the more petitions their .cps bad, the less were they able to ascertain the sentiments people. !rouse then adjourned. OUSE OF COMMONS, Tut - Rot:law, Maw 5. EXCISE. 'omlint, from the Treasury, brought up certain Papers re , the Excise.—Laid on the table. BRITISH CAS.LIOIIT COMPANY. 11. DRUMMOND presented a petition from the Rain- Gas-light Company against the British (Jos-light Cotn- Vt.—Referred to the Committee on the Bill. WESTERN 611IP CANAL. GUISE presented a petition from Northbury, a parish :crsetshire, in favour of the Ship Canal Bill. PORTM.IN prevented a similar petition from Northfether- Soniersetshire. The lion. Member presented a similar front another part of the same enunty.—Ordered to be NI WBURY IMPROVEMENT BILL. C. DUNDAS moved the third reading of the Newbury rement Bill. IONCK said a few words against the motion.- PALMER mho opposed it. li e thought the rates to be ander it too high. lie never could consent that a tax of in the pound should be exacted from the inhabitants, whilst Bill the inhabitants of Bedford had to pay but Is. in the The system work ed well in the latter town, and unless the (ember consented that the rate should be assimilated, he ppose the thinl reading. DUND.IS explained. tgers were ti en ordered to withdraw, and the !louse divided, !ere appeared— ; NOCS.l2.—Majority in favour of the third reading, 12. lilt was their read a third time. tr re-admission to the dialler,, we found .lONt.:K supporting an amendment which we understand proposed during our absence. lie considered it most unjust the Bill should contain a clause exempting those from pay " the rates who were the most capable of paring them. a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, the (louse again di- We could not ascertain exactly the particular question on the ditision took place. We underetotwl it to be on the •up 013 clause, which was to be added by way of rider to Ayer, 4 23; Noes, l9.—Majority, 4. return to the Gallery we again found ONCK on his legs. Atter a few words from the lion. uestion was put from the Chair, that a clause be added by ider to the Bill, fixing the rates to be levied at ls. in the MIGHT made an observation which did not reach the dent were again ordered to withdraw, and the Uouse divided, !here appeared -9; Noce, 38.—Alajority amainst the clause, 35. ROTHERHITiIE DOCKS. tessage from the Lords announced that- their Lotaships the Rotherhithe Docka Bill. COUNTY COURTS BILL. ' lergesnt ONSLOW presented a petition from Charles :'q.. clerk of the Rules In the Court of Kiny's Bench, 'or compensation in ease the Counq_Courts' Bill pass iutu Referred to the Committee on the ital. USURY LAWS. 6ergeant ONSLOIV gave notice. that he would early in the Season more for a Committee to inquire into the policy and the Usury Lass. CORN LAWS. ,INDSAY presented a petition from Forfar, raying for a of the Corn Laws. . 111ACRENZIE presented a petition from the Western Society of the county of Ross, against any alteration in Laws. A RQLHA R presented a similar petition front the 31em the Synod of Angus. E. KNATCH BULL presented a similar petition front tear', in Kent—The petitions were ordered to be printed. CO.ISBI NATION LAWS. Alderman W 001) presented a petition from the operative s of the city of London ; they expressed their regret that a lartment of the Combination Laws was contemplated. They operienced the good effects of their repeal, and they and their Teri always lived in the most perfect harmony. I. fiNATCHBI 'LI. presented a sitmlar petition from the ics of Dcptford.—Refetted to the Committee on the Com s. 'BEER DUTIES. ,Iderman WOOD presented a petition from the porish,of Air's, Southwark. praying for a repeal of the Barr Duties. ,itioners complained that the pour paid fur their beer, duty OIVAIIIt of tire millions, whilst the rich did not pay more hundred thousand pounds. lowourable Member presented a similar petition from the .rand miters of the pariah of lit. George, Surrey. it question that the latter petition be printed, he said, that boners expressed their satisfaction that the rich enjoyed the ge of hiving the duty taken off wine, and hoped a cone ag relief may be affinded them. rifler petition woo presented from the mechanics and working of It oolwich. I,C,RA FT presented a similar petition from the me at St. Margaret, Westminster. lIOBHOUSE presented a 'Millar petition from St. John's, inster. red to be printed. SLAVE TRADE. :VANS moved for a Return of the Slave Populations( the _ape of Good Hope and the Mauritius, u received at the Colo_ ma! Slave-office since its establishment, distinguishing the number of males and f: males ; and also for a Return of the number of Slaves in the %Vest Indian Colonies and in South America, as re ceived at the same office ounce the 18th of April. 11124, distinguish ing males and females.—Ordered. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. . . ItIeDEN3I.tN amid he held in his hand a petition, which, though signed by three indltiduals only, was most deserving the attention of the House. Tha petitioners were highly respectable, and lie r.is doubt Mot that the Members fur Derbyshire could couch Tile tetitioners were the Clergymen at the head of - Baptists, and Independents, in the town of ' with regret that a petition was forwarded from inn to the Catholic Relief Bill, signed by a they (the petitioners) were most anxious to ion with that proceeding, one which was eaten entire Dissenting population. They censi- J only improper but incor.sistent In Dissenters si.wi of religious liberty to the Catholics. They Ike inalienable tight of every member of community to enjoy equal privileges - , and to be equally egible to all offices Of trust unser Government. The petition prayed that the House may grant I:inancipation to the Catholics. An Hon. Member, whose name we could nos ascertain, cor. roborated the statemer.t of the Hen. :Member for Nottingham (3lr. L)er.man) as to the high rant of the petitioners. On the question that the petition be laid on this table. Sir J. NEWPORT begged to call the attention of the House to an occurrence that lately took place in Ireland, and ,ouldnot tail to relieve the Catholic Priesthood from the odium sought to be fixed on them. A Meeting was lately held at Newcastle. for the purpose of establishing a composition for tithe. under whit was commonly called ss .Mr. Goulburn's Act." The priest f that pariah presided at the meeting, so much to the satialactiot. of the parishioners and rector, that the composition was entered into, at d a vote of thanks to that gentleman was proposed by the vicar, and seconded by the rector. which set forth that the thanks of all parties were due to the Rev. Mr. Larkin, for Ilia exertions cn that occasion, to whirh it was owing that such an amicable se tinger meet had taken place. (Hear, hear.) The Right !knot table Baronet went on to say. that he was acquainted with another arish the same county. in which the priest, for the last forty ears, though the district was repeatedly disturbed, exerted himislf to procure the payment of tithes to the Protestant clergyman, and his efforts wtre generary successful. Ili, conduct was such as to en title him to the unanimous thanks of all classes. This, said the Right Hon. Baronet. is an additional instance of the falsehood of the assertion, that the Catholic priests were anxious to defeat the Protestant Clergymen of their rights. Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented a petition from Royston, in the county of Northampton, against further concessions to the Catholics. _ _ _ A;:imThar petition was pre.ented from the inhabitants of Darks ton, In StaGrdshire—Ordcreil to be minted. COUNTY RATES' BILL. Sir .1. G. COTTEREI.I, presented a petition from Hereford, against the County Rates' Bill.—Referred to the Committee on the Bill. IRISII PROVINCIAL RANKS. Mr. DALY pr e sentedi Jury of the County of Galway. in favour of the Bill fur establishing Pro. sincia Banks in Ireland.—Ordered to he printed. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. Mr. lIODHOUS I: presented a p:tition front certain Inhabitants of Wt-stminster, io favour of the Cruelty to Animals 11111.—Laid on the table. COMIIINATION LAWS. Mr. BERNAL presented a petition from the operative Sawyers of Rochester, respecting the Combination Laws. Tile tame lion. Gentleman presented a similar petition from the Sawyers employed in the vicinity of the River Thames. Sir M. V.. RIDLEY presented a petition from ►wo Shipowners at Limeht•uee. named Sperling and Young, on the subject of a pe. tition lately laid before the House from the Shipwrights, in which petition; they (the Shipwrights) stated that they had not the right of taking their own sons as apprentices. That assertion these pe titioners begged now to deny, as they had made inquiries, and found there were no less than six shipwrights in their own employ. ment who had their sons bound as apprentices to the:nselvss. The Honourable Baronet concluded by moving that the petition be referred to the Committee now sitting on the Combination Laws.-- Referred accordingly. CORN LAWS. Mr. ELLICE presented • petition from certain dwners and Oc cupiers of Land near Aberdeen, against any alterations in the Corn Laws—Laid on the table. ROMAN CATHOLICS. Alderman TIIO3IPS presented a petition from the Parish of Et. James. Cardiff; praying that no concession be made to ilia Roman Caiholics.—l,sid on the table. DUTIES ON BEER. Mr. BERNAL presented a petition from the Inhabitants of Lambeth. praying fur a reduction of the duty on Beer. JOHN WILLIAMS presented a similar petition from Hammersmith. 3I r. 310NCK, a similar petition from Reading, and one from the Inhabitants of St. George's, Hanover-sluare. Alr. F. PALMER, a similar petition from the parish of,St. Mary. Whiicchapel. Sir R. WILSON. fmm St. Olive's, Soutliwirk. Mr. BROUGHAM. from St. Matthew's, 13ethnaLgreen ; and from the Mechanics of St. Luke's. Ohl-street. This last petition expressed the hope of the petitioners, that the penny a pot on par. ter would be taken off.—These petitions were ordered to be printed. ROMAN CAT HOLIC RELIEF BILL. Mr. BROUGHAM tbonght it necessary to say, as many Gen tlemen entertained an opinion, from the Bill for the Relief of the Roman Catholics having been put oft' in a manner so unexpected and extraordinary on a former evening, its consideration might again be postponed to.rnorrow, that if the Honourable Member for Westminster, who had introduced it, be not in his place. lie (Mr. Brougham) would undertake to more, and he pledged himself to move its commitment on that day, &she understood the Honour. ahle Member for Westminster was not unwilling that it should be taken in its course. An Honourable Member (Mr. Bawars, we believe) here said, " Before the Orders ?" Mr. BROUGHAM BEER replied, " Certainly, before the Orderi." DUTIES. Mr. J. MA BERLY isTdhewasaware;hat the Government had many applications to reduce duties, but none. lie apprehended. which rested upon so good a foundation of justice, policy, and practicability, as that reduction of the duties upon beer which he now felt it his duty to submit to their attention. A great many petitions hat! been at various times presented to the H ouse , c om . plaining of the effect of this duty upon the comforts of the poor;— but, even if there was not one petition before them, he thought they were bownil to take notice of a state of law so unjust, so im politic. and so oppressive, from the professions of liberality of feel ing, of a desire to relieve the people from taxation, and of a wish to do impartial just;re, which had of late fallen so freely from every side of the house.(llear.)—He was sure, however, that when he stated the effects arising from the imposition of the present Duties upon Beer—when lie explained, as he hoped he would be able to do before he sat down, the cruelty, the inipoliey, and the injustice of the law as it now stands, that he would have the votes and support of two Gentlemen—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Right Honourable Secretary for the Home Departine it— who had repeatedly. in their declarations to that House. expressed their desire to legislate equally for all classes, and do impartial justice.—(Hear.)--The votes of those ta o Honourable Gentlemen he thought lie might tely upon, when he explained the cruel ie. equality of the present system of Beer Duties, unless they would. by any arguments cornected with the supposed loss of reve me, falsify those other srournents which they urged against unequal taxation.or partial justice; for they must falsify those arguments if they refused their cut sent to a measure which went to equalise the burthen of duties upon all classes of the people. He thought it im. possible the House could understand, or they would have long since applied some remedy t t the evil, that although the duty of twenty shillings a quarter on n alt would affect equally both the rich and the poor, yet from the want of eupital, premises, and time, the poor were unable to take advantage of the power to brew with that malt, and therefore the whole tax on beer was paid exclusively by the poor. He meant to make his stand for the repeal of the beer duties upon this broad principle, that they were unjust arid unfair, because partial exactioits; and he trusted, if he was able to prove that position to their satisfaction, that the Mouse would go along with hint in desiring their repeal. The present duties upon b eer produced a sum of 3,281,0001., collected at an annual charge of 205.0001.; and he was really at a 10111 to know, how either those who had made such professions of liberal feeling to the House, or indeed any others, could reconcile it to their conscience to exact so large a sum from the poorer classes of society exclusively. By the present scale of duties, the rich pay 20s. a quarter for malt; the poor pay 565.; making a difference of thirty-five shillings, which they must pay, from their inability to brew themselves. The rich, if they take the bushel as a measure of comparison, pay !s. 100. per bushel for malt—the poor pay Os. 104 d. Ile knew no thing more likely to alienate the minds of the people from Go vernment than the consideration of their being subjected to such as unequal and unjust impost upon the earnings of their labour; and be thought they were bound by every principle of prudence or policy either to reduce the duties, or to equalise them so that they might fall upon all clafietts alike. In either ease he was not afraid that be would be able to point out to the Chancellor of the Ex. chequer s means of making up any deficiencies which might arise from doing that act of justice ; and lie hoped, therefore, they would not be met by any arguments upon the loss which the Revenue might sustain front the change. (Hear, hear.) How much did they suppose the rich paid by the barrel for their beer? why. ss. 80.; while the poor paid las. 10,1. The rich man, if he drill' porter, paid about 2d. per pot, while the poor man' pelt' Aid. And here he would just observe, that the Right Horourable Gentleman's project last year, to procure the people what he called a cheap and wholesome kind of beer, had totally failed, the whole amount of the duties arising from that measure being only about 15,t100/. ; but, even taking that beer upon the aanie scale tit duties, the rich would pay for it one pet ny a pot. while the poor pay nearly double, one and three farthings. These statements may appear trivial, but it is apparent from them that the Iliws impose a duty of two or three hundred per cent. upon the poor more than upon the rich, for that article which is to the rich a mere luxury, and to the poor an absolute necessary, and which the House was bound to encourage the poor in consum ing, because its effects were so much less demoralizing than those arising from the use of sprits. The Right lion. Gentleman. it is true. has said that the poor may brew their own beer ; but did he recollect that the process of brewing required time, skill, capital, and space ? Did he reco acct that the greeter portion of the poor lived in parts of houses, where it was impossible for them to procure room for the apparatus of brew ng, even admitting that they had both time. and capita!, and skill at command ; and therefore that instead of having that option which the Right Him. Gentleman allowed, they actually had no option at all, no means of avoiding the purebase of that which was to labouring men absolutely neces sary for existence, unless by taking it from the publican at the once at which the present enomous duty compelled him to sell It ? If the Right lion. Gentleman preferred, instead of repealing the duties on beer to equalise the duties on malt, there would be one gre:.t advantage resulting from the adoption of such u change, thee ' it would save three hundred thousand pounds to the Exchequer from the collection of duties, because at must be ()brims titre the same collectors and officers, who now collected 20s. a quarto-, would be able, with equal facility, to collect ItM. wiuiout any addi tional expense, so that the Right Hon. Gentleman would not only do an act of justice to the poor, but actually save 3f10.000/. to the Exchequer by that arrangement. lie (lie. Moberly) bail twice before approached the consideration of this question. In 111•23, he had moved ter a Committee to inquire into tit_ propriety of giving up the duties on beer, to lay them on malt. On the following year be had moved ucatlj a similar proposition, and the House had ne. BRITISH PRESA. gatived both, although the projecti in which the Right Hon. Gen. 'lemon was dabbling ha I failed in that and the next year, and there i were, at that time, petitions from Scotland, stating that they could not collect the duties. lie had been, and still was, anxious for in. quiry, because he thought that all important facts were better drawn forth from inquiries before Committees than in any other manner, and because he was confident that any Committee. examining evi dence upon this subject, would see the propriety of the alteration ha proposed. After these two failures he would ask, however, whether it wasaalvisable to continue to move fora Committee, when he was able at once to show what the House had refused to inquire into, although he had enforced the necessity of that inquiry for two sue ceuive Sessions? Relying, therefore, upon the cage he had made out. he intended to move now, that after the lot day of January , 1326, the beer duties should cease and determine. fie had been ' twice told that there was no necessity for inquiry. but he would ask now, if they intended to continue this system of favouritism, this disposition to prefer the interests of the poor to the rich, why they did not carry it through all the other exrisable articles, and make the duties to the rich difteren: from those to the poor, on tea, or candles, or leather, or glass, or cotlat ? How would the House treat a rroposition from the - Right lion. Gentleman to draw out a sche dule making a scale of duties of 2 per cent. for the rich, and 6 for the poor. If there were any persons behind the curtain who supported such a principle, yet dared not avow it, they ought to be brought forward, that they may be taught they maintain it upon a false understanding, and that they would pay no more than their own share of consumption by any alteration. It has been said, too, that these restrictions upon the brewing of beer are intended to pre vent the use of noxious ingredients by private brewers; but if that principle could be maintained, they must carry it through all other articles subject to adulteration—tea, spirits, and wine: and why not, if no other remedy could be adopted, place all publicans at once under the snme:llance of the police? it they thought,the benefits of free competition would not counteract all tendency to injure the quality of beer, wine, or any other articles of consumption. As to the means of making up the deficiency, lie would either put the duty wholly on malt or take it out of the Sinking Fund. The Honourable Gentleman then alluded to the twelve millions added since 1313, notwithstanding the effect of the Sinking Fund, and argued from thence the propriety of applying the surplus of revenue to a more useful purpose. Thews beer duties fell wholly on the poor of England, because in Ireland there was uo distinction be tween rich and poor in their application, and in Scotland beer was so little used that it could hardly be mentioned. he whole of these duties, taxes upon labour and the necessaries of life, were paid therefore by the working classes of our great manufacturing towns. Looking therefore at the saving of 300,0001. to be effected by the transfer of this duty on beer to malt. he thought that it would be just, prudeon'and j olitic, to relieve the working classes from such a tax on their nicessmry enjoyment, or at all events to place it on a footing in reduct:on, equal to what they had granted on spirits, the last article which slould have been relieved from taxation if they considered its demoraltring effects upon the habits of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably say he reduced the duty on spirits to prevent smuggling, but would not tho same argument apply to tea, tobacco, and various other articles which had not been touched ? Ile (the Chancellor) says, too, that he continues the restrictions upon the beer trade to prevent fraud, but did the House see what was the consequence of the manner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman managed those guards against fraud ? Why, by making himself and his cAleagues in the Treasury the brewers of the kingdom, and the regulators of the price of beer. They must direct and alter at pleasare the price at which the brewer is to sell, and it a remonstrance is sent in by the brewers that they must raise the price, the Treasury, whether inten tkanally or from the duties of office, delays the reply so long, that the public are frequently obliged to drink bad beer for two or three years together, because the brewer cannot get an answer front the Lords of the Treasury. He contended therefore that they should not hare such a control unless the House meant to give them the power to manage the markets, of bread, meat, and all the neces saries of life—powers which would bejust as injurious to the trader and consumer as those ss deprecated in the managenient of beer. if the Right ilonoureble Gentleman would consent to go into a Committee, he would not press the present motion ; but if not he was determined to do so, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) seemed not disposed to accede to a Committee. The people had spoken so loudly on this subject, that the Right lion. Gentleman would be obliged to direct his attention to the subject. lie con cluded by movin_g, that the Beer Duty be repealed altogether. 31r. 1111()UGIIA 51, in seconding the resolution of his Honour. able Friend, felt that he could not add any thing to his very forcible and luminous statement. The reason which weighted most strongly wall him in supporting the measure recommended by his Honourable Friend was that it fell oppressively on the poor classes, and operated as an exemption from the duty to the upper elutes. This was owing to the retail trade not being free which sup. plied beer to the humbler class of the community, whilst the nets were not subject to that duty, as they brewed thau own beer. The tax at present wet as oppressive as the Spanish Alcavala, which was reported to Le the most barbarous mode of taxation. The sale of beer ougLt to be as free as the sale of bread, milk, or any other of the necessaries of life, the retail sale of which was not restricted. By removing the present duty an inaessed consumption of malt would be the consequence, and by that means a great quantity of middling ground, which was now uncultivated, would be applied to the growth of wheat and barley. ea greit Smprovement would be effected by bringiiig into more general use this wholesome beverage, and by setting it in coinpeti. lion with the consumption of gin. lie would hi glad to see the gin displaced by beer. Indeed if there was any thing in which lie would be disposed to have the liberty of the subjectanfringed upon, it would be in the article of ardent spirits. The only reason why he would consent to tile lowering of the duty upon that article, was to prevent the great evil—the evil arising from illicit distillation. As to any defalcation that may for the present be found in the Re venue, it would soon be supplied by the increased consumption of beer, and the consequent increase of duty upon malt. IVhaterer may be the success of his Honourable Frlenes motion that night, he hoped that he would persevere in his useful exertions to procure a repeal of the present duty; front others he might learn for tune, from hint (llr. B. labour and patience in his endeavour to accomplish his object. ( bear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was certainly unwilling to go Into a Committee, and for this obvious reason, that there was nothing fora Committee to inquire into. The question was plainly and simply this, whether the House would prefer to continue the present duty on beer, or a substitution for that duty by laying an increased duty on malt. As to the total repeal of the duty without any substitution, the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Moberly) did not seem very earnestly to contend for it himself; and although his motion now assumed that shape, on a former occasion he brought forward the question, requiring and recommending only a substituted duty. The present beer duties yielded to the Ex chequer 3,000,0001. In the early part of this Session the Honour. able Member brought forward a motion for the repeal of the As. messed Taxes, which yielded only 1,250,0001. The proposition which he made for that repeal did not meet the concurrence of the House; and after having tailed in an endeavour to diminish the revenue to the amount of 1,230,0001. le now makes another effort to diminish it to the greater amounrof 3,000,000/. (Hear, hear.) Surely the House, having rejected the former proposition, would not adopt the latter except on very strong grounds—grounds much stronger than any be had adduced that evening for its adoption. Much of what had fallen from the Honourable Member might be applied to almost any duty. There was scarcely any duty which was not liable to objection, and which was not attended with some inconvenience that it would be desirable if possible to remedy ; but whatever grievance was annexed to the present beer duties would not be removed by the substitution of a duty upon malt. (Hear. heal.) The present duty on beer, he had already stated, yielded 3,000,0001. In order to realise an equal sum from the duty on malt, there should be an increased duty of 2s. a bushel on 30.0(10 bushels of malt. This would necessarily cause an increase of Id. per quart to the consumer ; and upon a calculation (which was of easy process) it would be found that the expense to the public would not be diminished by the transfer of the duty on beer to a duty on malt. Thais, it was true, did not meet the objection of the Honourable and Learned Member, that the duty was unequal by falling chiefly on the poorer classes, who were the principal con. sumers of this. beverage ; but he (the Chancellor of the Exche quer) did not think that they who were the principal consumers of it could properly be denominated the poor classes, and lie knew that a great number of families throughout the country parts of England generally used beer of their own brewing. Besides, it did no: appear to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the rich did n o t p a y equally with the humbler portion of the community. The beer used by the rich was stronger than that in use by the inferior order of people, and the in creased strength of the beverage occasioned an increase of duty by the larger consumption of malt and the ingredients of which it was composed. The calculation by barrels, therefore, as to the dif ference of the price paid by the rich and the poor for a barrel of beer. was an erroneous one. The Honourable Ileadetnan had stated that he proposed this motion, in order to afford greater facilities to the cheapness of beer—tbac ke admitted, was a desirable object, and to efleet it he had proposed a measure to Parliament on the subject last session. In the progress of that measure he had cape. rienced considerable difficulty ; and as the lion. and heartiest Gen. tleanin (Mr. Brougham) had told the lion. Mover to learn •• forfanom ex alt s ,,' he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might tell him. relative to that measure of last session, to learn—not rlrtetrus cx tar," but he might safely say, `• verusnqur laboreni," (hear, hear,) for he had certainly experienced great embarrassment in its progress through the House. It was his intention to have carried that measure further, and to have proposed some alterations in the mode of collection, which would have had a beneficial effect, but he vats overruled by the objections of lion. Gentlemen oppo- site, who endeavoured to turn round and defeat him, by carry ing their principle of the repeal of the retail duty. It would cer. tautly give him much pleasure to take oil' the slaty on beer, and to include it in the system of relief frotn taxation, which he was de. sirous to extend and diffuse as widely as possible; (hear,) but lie (Hear, h eealiri.e)la If iie the must decline commit t i ng hi mse lf b y any imprudent pledges on this presentmightrio s t yst e m aobtlepoaliftc er y w w l o ai rksl s e m as Fe w:L iz ett e' he had reason to hope and expect it would, he would be then ready to tom his attention to the subject, and to afford airy relief of this duty in his power ; but that relief he wished it to be understood he was desirous should be given rather in the shape of a reduced duty on beer, than as recommended by the Hon. Mover by a substitu tion of a deity on malt. (Hear, hear, hear.) As to the duty on spirits, he agreed with the lion. Member (Mr. Brougham), in not lowering the duty so as to encourage the consumption . • but the rule taken by Governm e n t , was the very one recommended by himself: namely, to reduce it to that rate whereby it would operate to pre vent illicit distillation. It was not by any means to encourage the consumption of that article ; lie would prefer, indeed, to have re. duccd the duty on beer, were it not that the other was rendered ne cessary to be attended to in the first instance, for the reason he hail stated. As to the alteration of the duty on wine, it WAS not adopted 1 11 5 w et , foe the purpose of rendering it cheaper to the higher classes ; but it was adopted as a measure of commercial policy, ih order to bring back a consumption which had greatly fallen off since the duty on wine had been raised. Ile would be glad to he able to extend re duction to the duty on beer, but not by a coonnutation for a malt duty, which would in effect be no relief to the consumer. Another objection which be had to that commutation was, that the collection of it was attended with great expense and inconvenience, both to the revenue and the public. Every means were resorted to to evade the present duty of !s. fel.; high penalties were conse quently exacted; a course, though necessary, yet most unpleasant and inconvenient. But it', in addition to the present duty, you add 2s. more, by doubling the duty you double the temptation, and multiply the inducements to evade the law. He was therefore adverse to the principle of the substitution of a malt duty for the pre sent beer duty ; and under the present circumstances, and for the reasons he had stated, would feel it his duty to decline going into • Committee, and to oppose the motion of the lion. Gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BERNAL supported the expediency of going into a Com mittee. The difference of prices between the beer of public and private brewhouses would form a fitting subject of inquiry for such a Committee. As to the duty on malt, he believed that, as well as other duties, was pretty f—irly collected. As to private brew ing, it did not prevail throughout the country as generally as was supposed by the Right lion. Gentleman. It might be so in the county of Lincoln, with which that Right Hon. Gentleman was connicted, but it was not so in less favoured parts of the country. The majority of the peasantry and of the people generally through. out the country drank the beer not of prorate but of public brew ing -houses. This would be made apparent in an investigation before a Committee. Alf. WODEGOUSE was opposed to the transfer of duty from beer to malt. The people preferred the beer of public brewing. houses to that of private, and that was the reason they consumed it. Th• truth was, it was more nourishing. Ile would leave the question to be decided in this way . :--scippose the grains from a public brewing-house and the grains of p a private brewing-house were placed bei ore a cow or a pig, the cow would prefer the grains of the private brewing-hoar because the'y were more nutritious. winch sheered that the saccharine matter way not so well extracted from the malt in the process of private brewing as in that of public Crewing. This showed also that the people would prefer the liquor from which the greatest quantity of saccharine matter was extracted. The people would theretere continue to give the pre. ferenee to the beer of the public brewhouse, notwithstanding the facilities afforded to private brewing. Mr. HUME, as we understood, attributed the superior process ofpublic over private brewing to the operation of the present Excise Laws. Let the duty be repealed, and the encouragement that would be thus given to fair competition would cause the superiority to cease. At present the duty was a grievance, on account of its unequal pressure. The present beer laws had caused a great re duction in the consumption of this wholesome beverage. lie bed looked back to the years 1796 and 1787. and even had gone back ao far as 1723, whin the population of these countries was not half ;That it was at present. Yet the consumption was greater then, which could only be attributed to the discouragement to con sumption created by the present a beer laws and high rate of duty. He was disposed to try the experiment of taking off the tax, for the purpose of benefiting the revenue. ('ol. DAVIES supported the motion. Many of the necrearies made use of by the poor were highly taxed, and it was only just to expect that some portion of the duties imposed on such articles should be reduced. The proposal before the Reuse was, that the duty on beer should be transferred to malt. He (Col. Davies) should prefer a reduction of half the duty on beer, and a transfer ot' the other half to malt. This, he understood, would produce an immediate reduction in the revenue of not less titan fital,oool. ; but the ultimate advantage would wore than compensate fur such a temporary deficiency. Mr. C. SMITH deprecated any system which imposed a greater burden on the poor than on the rich. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would muse some amelioration in the present sys tem. and in order to induce him to turn his attention to the subject, he Ole. Smith) would support the motion. Mr. J. BENETT (Wilt.) objected to the proposal for shifting the duty from beer to anal . lie would much rather support a me tion for the total reduction of the duty. Ile wished that the Hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. hi aberly) would point out some man ner in which the loss of the later duty could be competniated to the Exchequer. If the Hon. Member could point out ally such means, he (Mr. Ramo) would gladly vote for the total repeal of the duty. By the proposed transfer, he thought the poor man would have less chance of enjoying the luxury of beer; he therefore objected to the proposed measure in its present form. Mr. HERRIES said, it was forilierly the opinion of the House, that the tax on malt was too burthensoule ; the tax was therefore placed on beer. Now the opinion of some Honourable Gentlemen was, that the tax on beer was too burthensome, and that it ought to be transferred to malt. He could not approve of this vacillating system. (Hear.) He thought all drawbacks should be avoided, and that it was advisable to give every facility to home-brewing. Without home-brewing the consunier would be bound hand and foot, but this practice is a full security against the monopoly of brewers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, duo when a fit opportunity arose, he should be happy to propose such amend ments in the I eer dudes as circumstances would admit. The Honourable Gentlemen opposite seemed to consider this observa tion as a pledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pro pose a repeal of the duties the next Session. If he (Mr. Henries) understood rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not pledge himself, either in this Session or the next, to take the same view of the queci in as the Honourable Member for Abingdon (Mr. Moberly) bail .` , ne. Mr. Alderman WOOD was not satisfied with the motion for a meatier of the duty on beer, but would rather vote for an (-open. nient of reducing the duty. If it was found inconvenient to re duce the duty altogether., it might lte reduced one halt', or even lees. If a reduction took place It must increase the consumption, and he was cons graced the revenue would not suffer to any extent. lie agreed with thae who thought that the poor In this country were disproportionably taxed. The duty oo French wines was taken oft to benelit the rich, and not one chilling of taxes was taken off this Session, or' promised the next, for the peculiar ad vantage of the poor. In conclusion, he would recommend the Honourable Member (Mr. Maberly) to amend his motion, by pro. posing a reduction of one-half the duty on beer, without any transfer of the duty. Mr. 3IONCK agreed with the Honourable Member who just sat down, that a reduction of 5a., without any ttansfer, would be most beneficial to the public. It would be very advantageous to the consumer, and no great loss to the revenue. Even if at should diminish the temptation to brew at hoot*, he did not conceive that this ought to be an objection. If the practice of home brewing was at an end, the consequence would be, that so many thousand barrels, which now bring nothing to the revenue, would than return a certain amount of duty. Doing away the temptation to brew at home, would also obviate the objection that dilates bears unequally upon the rich and poor. Rich and poor would then purchase from the brewer, and of course upon equally advantageous terms. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to the subject. There was little need to fear that a reduction of the Beer Duties would materially injure the Exchequer. He (Mr. :11onek) would be well satisfied if he could be assured of five per cent. on the amount of increase of revenue which would arise due. ing the next ten years, it' a reduction was now made on the Beer Duties. Mr. ROBERTSON said, that in the consideration of this mo tion they must remember that it involved taxes to the amount of ;Ali/AWOL The Hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly) had truly stated that the Irish did not pay this tax ; but the House must remember that where the Irish labourer earned 6d. per day, the English earned halt a crown. He would beg leave to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Onduct of France and the United States, whn had, instead of taking off taxes, paid off large portions of their debt, and thus laid the foundation of their present 2rosperity. He, for his part, so far from voting for the abolition of the Sinking Fund, would a ish that more attention was paid to it. Mr. C. PEL.UAM thought that the alteration would not be beneficial to the poorerclasses, and should therefore vote against the motion. Hr. J. SMITH would not detain the Haute, but wished to Mate his views on ebbu subject, that the course he was going to take might not be thought inconsistent with what had always been his opinions with regard to the Sinking Fund. If this measure were carried, the delictency, if any ' in the Exchequer would easily be supplied by other n*ans. A duty on malt generally, for example, he should not object 'to; end he did not think the present motion could be implied to be a covert attack on the Sinking Fund. Ile thought that if there were the least chance of the subject being taken into consideration at say time his Honourable Friend (Mr. hlaberly) would consent to withdraw his motion for the present. The Hoe. Member concluded by saying that he considered him self bound in equity to support the motion. Mr. MABERIX expressed his regret at the non.attendanee of those Members who might be supposed to be most interested in the discus/ism. With respect to what had been urged against his motion, he must say that he had rot yet heard any thing like an answer to the schedule he bad produced, showing the scale of duties. It had been asserted that the expense of collection would not be saved; but he must contend that it would be saved ac cording to the 'hewing of the documents of those who denied it. Several Hop. Member, had said they would vote with hint, if he proposed such and mush alterations ; but he thought he should not stand acquitted in the eyes of the country if tic did not press his motion as it then stood. Ile hoped it would not be long before petitions from every part of the country would come dosing in, Fraying fir just and mull representation. he House then divided. when there to appeared—. !train's the motion, 83—For it, 23—Majority against it, O. . _ The motion was conseattently negatived. WRONBOUS 131 PIUSON AI ENT IN SCOTLAND. Upon oar entrance into the Gallery we found Mr. GRANT upon his legs, moving for leave to bring in his Bill to alter and amend the law of Scotland regarding AVrongous Imprisonment and the Delay of Trials. Ile regretted that tins question had not fallen into better hands. There were certainly many material defects in the law of Scotland, 'high he thought his Dill. if he ob tained leave to bring it in, would remedy. ills principal object • as to throw a greater degree of responsibility on the Magistrates sho committed a crhninal to prison; also to Increase the power of the JudL:es in the Criminal Courts, in order that the liberty of tl e subject might be more duly p rotecte d ; an d l ast l y , to remove tl e doubts and difficulties that at present existed, and to enable the p o man to take his trial upon an equal footing with the rich. 'I it, lion. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to show the present insufficiency of the Scottish law on these subjects, in the course of which he stated, that as the law of Scotland now stood. a person might he in prison one hundred days before he was brought to trial. There were a cent many uncertainties in the present law which ought net to be allowed to remain, dr t h e .... sorer himself, or the pro.ecotor., did not bring on hi s trial. t k r ; was no means of his bet. e . discharged, and he might tru ai L e prison for ever. They had en means in Scotland of sr H abeas Corpus ss in England. The evil however fell mare 1;r - 7 poor, who were not able to pay the expenses incurred by thj‘:l:ll.lites and by the charges fur letters and copies of Indictments. H s i ;- tention was to have the Bill brought up r.nd read a first Ctn. then printed, and the second reading postponed until coptia"etl - had been sent down into Scoannd, and taken into co n si,t,,.. by persons who were competent to speak o f its probable.etlY•"l 'rlie Honourable and Learned Member th e n move d tor delve bring in a Bill for the purposes he had stated. t , The LORI) ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND said, tint the Art of 1701, to which the motion of the Honour a bl e and Lr-e,t Member referred, was considered as the Hab eas Corpus ;• nt Scotland. It was an Act which had stood uncomplented the country for upwards of a centur,..and a quarter, and h e M on I that his Honourable and Learned } ri end would therefore rt",; well the alterations which he was about to propose with regard an Act of that description. In Scotland the prisoner was smiled : e t, brought to trial within GO days. and he could then deliand t o tried, and if not tried within 40 days after the expiration o r ie. days, he might go forth out of the prison, and could tun be t a k e - , t the same offence any more. He had heard it sa id that !I:i s Atnj. short of the English Haanbeadusthrto'isoindrmpuigslA.letcncotortuib be , u rn h oj e tti n ibi • n ott e the Act of 1701 afforded to the people of Scotland more seventy the Habeas Corpus Act did to the people of thi s cour.trr; from i e th . w e l a ss ti s i n z c i es: n h :t e er asmwilvttssled, in imprisoned and in some c a s es even the witnesses for the prosecution were not ready, he cutild which-,,;! tried till the nest Assizes, might not be till sit rn0n.....t more. Now 100 days was the longest period to which a re.— trial could be postponed in Scotland. Besides, the bane' : y ; . Habeas Corpus Act was merely to admit to bail ; but in •• . instead of bail, after the 100 days had elapsed. the prison, walk out of prison, never to be tried at all, lie hor:a Honourable and Learned Friend therefore would not di,p— with the Act of 17111, but move only to amend and not to repeal If he understood his Hon. and Learned Friend, he w.•.th. t ..1 m a i : it imperative that the prisoner should be tried within fort s data ere. ter his commitment. But he (the Lord Advocate; should submit to the House that they were bound to afford a su nitre for vestigation before the prosecutor should be compylleil Sr brine .• prisoner to trial, and if that time was limited to to days it we I not be sufficient, and it would also bring all causes to he Edinburgh, which would occasion a great eseeese to the and would be most injurious to the prisoner hini•Of, also cost the country from 15,000 L to:10,00ot a year. ii r the question of the greatest importance, aid then. e ~! Hon. and Learned Friend would amend Lis motion as I.c! the liberty to suggest. Mr. ABERCRO3IBV considered the subject in nes great importance, and hoped it would meet with a co o l an d sionate consideration on the pan of the House. lie ogre. I the Learned Lord that it would be much unite desirable for Hon. and Learned Friend to make his alterations in the 1,..te :‘i amendments to the present Act, rather than by repealing tine: Aft ' and enacting another. He hoped that what the House should would be something of permanence, and he did anticipate the rt,ah of his Hon. and Learned Friend's labours would entitle him to the I gratitude of hie country. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with what had been said by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had jitst sat dolt. lie, however, apprehended that the alterations of the present law of Scotland could not take place without the assistance of the rerus, who, by their offices in that country, were peculiarly competent to judge on the subject. Ile agreed that there were some con siderable discrepancies in the law of 1701, and there were also seine in the Habeas Corpus Act of England, and he shitild nave no oh jection to see them assimilated; having himself had his mien. tion drawn to the subject, he should have no ohiectiot: to render what assistance he might be able to gin: to his Dore and Learned Friend (Mr. Gant.) The range into which his lion. and Learned Friend had led them, being no less than the prac:i:e of the etinn. nal law of England and of Scotland, was too wide to enter into at the present moment; but he would observe, that thzy trust net regard the law as it affected the prisoner altogether ; there was tee convenience of the public to be likewise consulted ; but his Hon. and Learned Friend seemed to have looked on one side only. lie would repeat, the; he was ready to give what assistance he could in framing the Bill to be brought in, premising. however, that it seemed to him the best mode to proceed would be to confine the measure to the amendment of the Act of 1701. Mr.,DEN3I.I.N observed. that it gave him great "satisfaction to hear his Ron, and Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) tender his able assistance, which his acute mind would entre - der him to give in promoting the measure which It was on all hands admitted was necessary. lie thought that the i-reposition to repeal the Act of 1701 would have a very startling effect, because, however faulty it might now be, it was passed for the best purposes. At the same time it must have appeared, from what had been said, that there was something wrong an the law as it at present stood, and that it was very desirable something should be done, and the time fen doing it was certainly most fortunate, because it would show that it arose not from any clamour or 11l feeling, but !ruin 3 cool and dispassionate consideration of the subject. The motion was about to be put by the Speaker. when Mr. J. P. GRANT rose, and said, that with the libels-, of the Howie he would adopt the i suggestion of the Learned Lord. !•y altering the words of the motion. It was his intention to hate r.• inserted all the clauses which In the Act of 1701 were sizable to be preserved, and he was sorry if he had 03141 C himself understood upon the subject. Hie wish en, that all passible time, consistent with the liberty of the gni..y:l. be given for the purpose of bringing offenders to ju:•,.e. After some further observations, the Honoursbk Memlen sa - , that every one must feel the manifest goad likelyy to result many Bills lately brought in by his Majesty's Gov ernment. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. CRI'ELTV TO ANIJIALB. Mr: R. MARTIN moved for leave to bring in the Rill which he meant to Introduce; it was prepared by the Atter:rev General him self. Its object was to punish such persons as maliciously cut or mains—an offence certainly more heinous than the act of in hid:. ney 'coachman, who merely cuts his hone with a whip. The cruelties he meant to guard against were those punishable by death under the Black Act, and his Bill only made them misdemeancurs. The lion. Member then moved for leave to king in a Biil to ev. tend the provisions of 3 George IV. chap. 71, to prevent the crud and improper treatment of cattle. Oa the question being put from the Chair, Mr. SecretarytPEEL did not mean to oppose the rented, as it was approved of by the Attornev-General. He begged of .4( Honourable Member to introduce all his objects in the next that the House may see at once all his view, on that subject. iio begged of him to make up his mind as to how far he oxcart in the legislation for the brute creation. (Hear, heat.) If :he 1: Member's Bill were to pass, be wished to know whether a maa might not be punished for cropping his horse's ears, itlaS-11W:h 3 4 the horse was not a consenting party to the niuti!at ? Mr. F. PALMER read some extracts from the Stalute, the pm. visions of which the lion. 31embcr for Galway (Mr. Martin sought to extend. The extracts contained a long catalogue animals protected under the Bill. The lion. Member cons:der,...l the list sufficiently comprehensive to answer all the ob;ects wh:c • the Hon. Member for Galway wished. Mr. R. MARTIN said that this Bill contained nothing ra4t eluded in the Black Act; there was no offence created by it t men bad not been repeatedly executed for (grea. Laui;.;:er). and which they might now be transported. After a few words from Mr. Secretary PEEL, leave was g.ven tc bring in the Bill. ADM I SISTRATIONT OF JUSTICE—IRELAND. • _ _ ----- Mr. PLUNKETT moved for leave to bring in a 15111 lot t".• amendment of the laws with respect to Special Juries 3:al ir• 2s in Ireland The Bight lion. and Leaned Gentletnan said, r one of the objects of the Bill was to give the Crown the pas • : having certain criminal offences in Ireland triad before a Sp2olil Jury at its option: that power was then by the fro:in in England. The other object of time Bill ' 7: *, 7 1 0 enable the Cout: to have the trial removed to an adjoining county. under comma circumstances. This alteration in the present law of 1re13...d was merely an assimilation to the law as it than stood in Er.e7a - ' 3lr. DENMAN hoped a power would be given to the di 1,-.. 1 17: to pray a Mks, as well as the Crown. lie suggested to tho Hon. Gentleman op;msite (Mr. Secretary Peal), the propriciy o: introducing a similar provision in the Bill. Leave was then given. BRADFORD GAOL. Mr. J. SIUITII moved for Copies of the Corresponderroo took place between the Secretary of State for the Home Dopo.tt ment and the Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding of Verlo .are. ' respecting certain abuses and misconduct committed in Bradt,.: gaol. The Hon. Member, after a few observations, said the :as.• which gave rise to his motion was that of an individual trro ••• arrested, and afterwards broke loose front the constahle; again taken into custody, lodged in the gaol, and by thiio.ii.l of the Bailiff who undertook to discharge the duty of tiro an old iulirm man, the prisoner had his legs and hands load.„1 irons, and for seven days they were not removed ; his 1.., bail that he must have perished but for the humanity ,1 low-prisoners. The irons were taken off only durirg tho I is:•••• terval of a few 1111111110, whilst his shirt was being changed. I ; miscreant who was the instrumcni of this barbatlly trio.:: it, convicted and suftbred. The lion. Member prooee.ltd to- mark on the abuses frequently committed in places a lyre 3 he jurisdiction existed ; they were generally tiles:Ante:of .• At the same time he was free to admit that a great in l rov.l:-C halt taken 'lace in the discipline of prisons through the tins lie could state front Ins own knowledge, as he hat •••••••• almost every public prison in England. Mr. Secretary PEEL did not object to the moti.i7. t•• thing that tended to throw light on the subject. It a oti hi he • n •'• he was sure, that although the conduct of the Lurd 1.2. ,:•ir;r l ••'••• served praise, he (31r.P.) was anxious that Zilagistruis themselves of the power they now posseasal, es terwarilirg 'toners to the county gaol; such a couraebsdeasea pursue' in Ears with good Meet. VI all respect to local " was dined. perhaps. to go farther than the flonouraLle Member. thought it better that they should merge is the superior C.:IT:- Such an alteration he thought would tetid to 'purity ine tam of justice. Mr. A BER 1 -1 R0311.11 . wished to sec jurisdiction taii:.• away from loud Courts in capital cases. Ile au sure :he bee: means of effectually curing the existing abuses would be tile al" pointnieut of a Commission to inquire minutely into all the ile:3.i , of the subject. The return was then ordered. CHILDREN EMPLOYED IN COTTON bIANUFAC• TORIES. Mr. HOBROCSE mo ve d foe leave to Wing in a B:11 for the 1 ; 11 P.l, Mr. Bro brought Lords amt Arreats, th were read i Mr. Loa M Tuns 1 Docks; an The Ear Fish-curare Lrliti . .g a 11l The Mat Inhabitants tholics. The 1,11 effect. from Lord Re The Bi, Clergy ant against the Tire Rig Thawed. caster: ant Chapel, A The Eat from the It The peti Earl Uli Noble and of the Cat Lie undersi pea:lots of petition en " ready ca much anal, people of 1 without ki alined and meats of o , who had to his regret I derstood tl- Banks. ra Tite LO placed in a sented age :people took table was prey - ale rrson in t Noble Lou I, be oloai n.;ion give Luc/ Chan passive wit ktraself ab Ile could a muzit the Grosvenor. signed by that Isl.tral. the i n s againat.`" reae .111Iu mole of rc Lords:tips 1 of the poop; The Itot 1101 Mr. Tote 13tive t) • Dlr. B. I burgh Gas. Puny Etll.- .Sit C in Somme Mr. POl ton. in Sot pention frc printed. 111 r. C. ‘ lmproseme Mr. 310, levied uudt tutirl. in tl under a Bit pound. TI Ilor. Mem' would oppo Sir C. Di Strangers when there • - -j1 Ayes. 4 The Bill On our ri Mr. 11101 WI prowl that the Bit ment of the: After a sided. We which the d I; twinging up the Bid. On oar re `Mr. MO: 'Member. The ques way of ride! pound. Mr. BR/ gallery. Strangerg when there Ayes, 3; A menet agreed to th Mr. Seel Short, F.,.q praying Mr. Sere nest Sees , o effect of the 'Mr. LIN revision of I Sir J. 11 'Fanning St the Corn L 111 r. FAI y bets of the Sir E. Grinstead, i 111 r. Aid sawyers of re-ennetaier lied expecte employers a Sir E. RI ire. bluatiar: La Mr. Ald, Sr. tour' 4 The retitio -to the sotto that tire lit The Hoe sneetbaniart On the q the petition radvartage c 4 It %prattling re A similar classes of Mr. CAI r • ehanies of Mr. 1101 Westrninsto Ordered Mr. EV4 Cape of Go mat Slave-a for that fact. rit• • the Preabyteriang, Derby They Mauled that town in opriti•io few of the Ilmtanters dirwhirn any cortnectu tatted to COlTlllit the tiered ti.at it I.•.as not • to oppose the coiressi •!•outht th,at it was tt