The Sun. — London, England, 1829-05-13 00:00:00

gree owing to the want of talent, industry, cr know ledge in them. It is the vice of the system. I know that the Court of Exchequer has often been tilled by great and eminent Judges, and such has been the case within my own recollection of the past, as it ie the case within my knowledge of the present. But there is a vice in the system, which neither knowledge, talent, nor industry can overcome; and I know of no better means of applying the remedy than the plan which I new recommend to your Lordships. The new Chancery Judge will he able to dispose of the Equity business of the Exchequer, and at the same time most materially assist the Lord Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, particu larly in the hearing of motions. Ido not, however, mean to propose to your Lordships to transfer the Equity business of the Exchequer to the new Chan cery Judge immediately, for a reason which I shall preeently mention; but I propose that the Judge should now be appointed, that he may be ready to undertake the duty whenever Parliament shall have settled the transfer. I have stated that the Govern ment had the Report of the Common Law Commis sioners under consideration, and there are some of their recommendations which are approved of, and Bills are preparing for having the alterations and improvements recommended by them carried into effect. But these Bills cannot well be passed this Session; and the intention, therefore, is to have them printed, and then to allow them to stand over till the next Session, that their provisions may be well considered. I think, after consultation with the Judges, that the greater part of the alterations recommended may be carried into execution, and when this shall have taken place, then will be the time to make the transfer which I now recommend to your Lordships to provide for. The delay in ac tually making the transfer is proper in another point of view. In carrying the change into execution it may be necessary to grant compensation to certain ellicers in the Exchequer, and when the Common ;.aw part of it shall he detached from the Equity portion, the officers may be detached also. Allow ieg such of them, however, as it may be unneces sary to continue, to hold the offices during their lives, so as to prevent the necessity of raising money to make compensation ; and as the officers gradually drop off the Court, the new Judge may be ordered, after the model of tire Court of Chancery. Another point of great importance is the consideration of the business in the Rolls' Court ; but I have not intro &teed any provision into this Bill n that head, in consequence of the present state of the health of the Master of the Rolls. No one has a higher opi nion of the knowledge and talent of that emi nent Judge than I have, and I should be very reluctant to propose any alteration in the mode of doing business in his Court, without first con sulting him. But lam in hopes that it will not be necessary to make any legislative pro vision on the subject. I remember that in the year 1813, the present Master of the Rolls was a Mem ber of the House of Commons when the question as ro the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor was under discussion ; and that he, in a most able and eloquent speech, pointed out the value of a change in the manner of the sittings of the Master of the Rolls.-- As the Roils' Court was constituted at present, the Master in term time sat three times a week in the evening, for four hours each time—making twelve hours in the week devoted to the hearing of causes, motions, petitions, and other business. But even these twelve hours are not gained for the despatch of the business of the Court of Chancery; for when the Master of the Rolls sits in the evening, the Counsel require that the Chancellor and Vice-Chan cellor shall rise at three o'clock, so that by this means two hours are lost to the bus;nass of the Court of Chancery, and the Rolls' Court therefore gives only six effective hours to the despatch of the Chancery business. I know that the present Master of the Rolls may do more business in six hours than marry others would do in twelve; but I think that considering the great salary, and consideration, arid other advantages attached to the situation of the - Master of the Rolls, the country has a claim on the Rolls' Court fur a larger portion of time to be dee voted to its service. Out of term the Master of the Rolls sits only, on an average, four times in the week. What I propose, though I haze trot intro thiced that as a provision in the Bill, is, that the Master of the Rolls should sit like the other Judges. This will add great strength and vigour to the ope rations of the Court of Chancery, end to the de spatelt of business in that Court; and when I re collect the speech made by the present Master of the Rolls in the House of Commone, on the occasion to which I have adverted, I have sanguine hopes that this is an arrangement to which he will accede. But whether this ought to be made a subject of legisla tion, with reference to future Musters of the Rolls, may be considered in the Committee, when this Bill shall have attained that stage. Another material point to be kept in view is, the delay and confusion arising from Counsel going from one Court to an ot!..er, and conducting causes in different Courts at the same moment. The instant a Counsel closed the last sentence of his opening speech in one Court, and in one cause; and before, perhaps, he had time to close it, he was summoned to another Court, and called upon to engage in another cause, and so on, backwards and forwards between them, so that it was hardly possible that he could do justice to either, The Gentlemen df the Bar, themselves, were im pressed with the inconvenience of this, and were most anxious that a remedy should be applied ; and much may be done in this way by the Court of Chancery itself, and by the Benchers of the Inns, so as to make this objectionable proceeding almost im practicable. Now, it may be said in answer to the reasons which I have stated in favour of the adop tion of this plan—it may be said, that I am by this method increasing the number of appeals ; and I ad mit this with the qualifications which I shall pre sently mention. But then, although you increase the nuraber of appeals, you will enable the Lord Chan cellor to hear them. As matters at present stand, the timecrthe Lord Chancellor is often so much occupied in the hei:rirtg of motions, petitions, and other inter locutory pioceedings of that description, that he cannot hear appeals when it would be highly de sirable that they should be heard. From the delay in hearing the appeals arise motions, and then ap peals are made from the decisions on these motion=, and etill further delays are occasioned, But if ap peals aria original causes could be heard when they are ripe for hearing, then much time would be saved that was now lost in the hearing motions; and if the number of appeals increased, the saving on the' one hand would balance the loss of time on the other ; and if one Judge was not sufficient to hear the appeals, then some such system might be adopted as that which prevailed at common law, But then, it may be said, that this will double the stages of appeal. That inconvenience, however, exiats in theory even now ; for there is an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor to the Lord Chancellor, and from the Lord Chancellor to the House of Lords, But in practice little or no inconvenience arises from this state of things ; for there are hardly, in the course of the year, more than two appeals from the Court of Chancery, and two from the Equity side of the Exchequer; nor more than two writs of error from the Courts of Common Law in England. The gri.e.at majority of the appeals come from Scotland and Ireland, especially from the former country, Another eiectonstance connected with this subject is, the state of the law business in the Privy Council. The arrear theee is not great, even as the matter stands but the a ppoiatment of this new Judge, fully competent to elaiteose of the business in the Privy Council, would eaeetually keep down the arrear. This, my Lords, is the outline of the plan which I now propose to ,your Lordships for your approval. lam not bigotted to ley own plan. My object is to facilitate the hearing pi causes as soon as possible after they are ripe for hearing ; and if any better plan for effectuating that object can be proposed, let it be considered and adopted ; but at present this is the most promising plan that I have been able to devise. ft know that some are of opinion that the evil might be remedied in another way, and that was by detaching the bank allot system from the jurisdiction of the Lord Chan- MALT AND BEER DUTIES. Mr. SLANEY, in bringing the question respect ing the duties on beer and malt before the House, was afraid he should have to detain the House for a short time. The question respecting the supply of malt liquor to the people of this country was one of great importance to the working classes of the com munity, to whose industry we were all indebted ; it was of much consequence to the landed proprietors, and of the deepest interest to his Majesty's Govern ment. To the working classes, malt liquor was a necessary of life, and no less than 10,000,000 of people were interested in the subject he was about to discuss. The landed gentlemen of this country were also directly interested, because the second grain produce of their estates was in immediate re lation to the quantity of corn consumed ; and with respect to the revenue, this question would soon, as he should presently show, be of the greatest im portance. He would state now- the manner in which he meant to enter into the subject. It divided it self into three heads. Ist. The progress and de cline of the malt and beer trade ; 2d, the causes of the decline; and 3d, the evil consequences of the decline, and its remedy. The quantity of malt tnadein this country was a measure of the comfort of the working classes, as malt liquor constituted a necessary of life to ten millions of people; and it also constituted a measure of the prosperity of the landed interest, because it regulated the consump tion of the second grain. By returns before the House, of the malt made in England and Wales, from 1787 to 1828, it appeared that in 'the first year 3,400,000 quarters of malt were made, and in 1828, 40 years afterwards, the quantity was 3,100,000 quarters, being a diminution, in the space of 40 years, of no less than 300,000 quarters. It might be asked why he did not take the year 1829 into his calculation, in which year there was a trilling increase, the quantity being 3,800,000 quarters ? The reason he had not taken that year was, because it was an extraordinary year for malt. By the united testimony of all maltsters, there had not been such a year for twenty years past. He would now call the attention of the House to a point which marked more strongly the diminution in the quantity of malt. In 1787 the population of this kingdom was 7,400,000 persons, and in 1829, accor d ing to the population returns, it was 13,500,000 per sons, making an increase in the population of above 6,800,000 persons. Whilst this increase had taken place there had been a diminution in the consumption of the national beverage. He asked whether that cir cumstance was not sufficient in itself to call for in quiry. The consumption of this article had de (lined, whilst the population had increased. He would ask any gentleman whether the consumption of any other manufacture had decreased in a similar way ? In 1787 each person consumed on an ave rage three bushels and seven pints of malt annually. The consumption of malt, therefore, by the present increased population,ought to be increased to no less an extent than 19,000,000 bushels to what it was in 1787. In 1787 the consumption of malt was 27,000,000 of strikes ; and the consumption in 1828, taking into consideration the increase in the population, ought to have been 4 1 ;,000,000 strikes, instead of being 24,800,000 strikes--a diminution of nearly one-half of what it ought to have been. Let the House look for some cause for this dimi nution in the consumption of malt, at the very time when an increase ought to have taken place. He bad only stated what the increase in the consump tion ought to have been, in proportion to the in crease in the population ; but to understand the question fully, the House should consider what the increase in the consumption of malt ought to have been, in proportion to the increase in the consump tion of other articles. Let the House look to the increase which had taken place in cultivation. From 1801 to 1828, 1,806 enclosure Acts had passed. On an average, there were 1,600 acres of land in each enclosed land ; and taking two-thirds of the lands enclosed during the above stated period to be in England and Wales, there would have been above 2,000,000 of additional acres thrown into cultiva tion. Many lands, too ? were enclosed without Acts, and many were misch improved previous to enclo sure, and were therefore' capable of giving greater production; add for this 1,000,000 of acres, Had upon the whole there would have been 3,000,000 of a dditional acres thrown into cultivation dur ing the period from 1801 to 1828. The House would then see from this calculation, that with a population increased to the amount of 6,000,000 persons, and with 3,000,000 additional acres o f land thrown into cu lti va tio n , there had been a diminution instead of increase in the con sioiption of malt. This ditnitintiOn did not arise f ro m general poverty or from . want of the powii of consumption among the poorer classes. What then did consumption of malt liisMr. These causes were t t: c t g i cp a pi r r4 t o s , ▪ e f cT r s s) h p m ef '':From causes peculiarly sleeting first was the impolitic meddling in ever y the man u facture, and in not per tnitting the manuf acturer to use t h at i nte lli gence a nd s kill whi▪ ch the manufacturer applied to every other manufacture. The second cause was the over whelming duties on malt, which were far heavier than were placed on any other manufacture; and the third cause was the great an d numerous restrie- O cellor. But I can take upon me to say from ex perience, that such a plan would bq attended with great inconvenience. It is of great importance that appeals from the decisions of the inferior tribunals in bankruptcy, should be heard by the Lord Chan _ _ . . cellor ; arid besides, such au arrangement as that would not enable the Court of Chancery to under take the business of the equity side of the Ex- chequer, without the assistance of another Judge. I think that plan very objectionable in point of prin ciple, and that the one I now recommend is far preferable. In either case there must be a new Court and a new Judge, and that is only what I now propose. Ido not say whether the subject is now under the consideration of Government, but I do say that the jurisdiction in Chancery ought to remain as it is until a plan manifestly preferable can be suggested and carried into effect. The Bank ruptcy Commissions are divided into what are called lists, fourteen in number—in the metropolis; and this machinery is very well adapted to the nature of the work to be done. Sometimes there is a great pressure of business in bankruptcy, and some:at - les not, and the several commissions are very well adapted to this state of things. A great part of the business of the Commissioners is Ministerial ; but they have also very important business of a judi cial character, which is upon the whole admirably done. They have often an immense number of . . questions to decide; and although people are gene rally ready enough to appeal, yet few appeals com paratively are brought from their decisions, and even of those which are brought under appeal few are reversed. I appeal to the Noble and Learned Earl on the cross-bench (Eldon) whether I do not state the matter correctly, when I say that the Town Commissioners do perform their duty faithfully, and diligently, and well. I cannot say so much for the Country Commissioners. 1 have read the Report on this subject, made to the House of Commons in ISIB by a Committee of that House, of which a gentleman very competent to form a cor rect judgment on that subject, Mr. John Smith, was Chairman, and I have been considering whether the suggestions of that Committee ought not to be carried into effect. I give no opinion on the matter at present, but it does engage the attention of Go vernment. This Bill has one great object in view, and that is to facilitate the hearing of causes as soon as possible after they are ripe for hearing. When that shall have been done, and causes shall be heard soon after they are ready, we shall have done much, and then will be the time to attend to the various other particulars which have come under the consi deration of the Chancel) , Commission. Then, with the assistance of an enlightened Commission, I hope we shall succeed in removing all just grounds of complaint with reference to the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, and with regard to the consti tution of that Court ; and in the mean time I have only to say that the Commissioners, by the manner in which they have executed the task assigned to them, well deserve the warmest thanks and grati tude of their country. I move that this Bill be read a second time. The Earl of ELDON—It was his wish to take some time to consider the provisions of this Bill before he gave en opinion. As to the Report of the Common Law Commissioners, I never heard of any such Report having been presented till the day . before ye,terday. It was impossible for him at that moment to follow the Noble and Learned Lord through his description of all the stages of a Chan cery suit. But if he were obliged now to give an opinion, there were some things stated by the No ble and Learned Lord in which he did not entirely concur, although he did not mean to urge his ob jections in the way of opposition, till he considered the whole of the various branches of the subject, and then it was possible that in the main they might agree on the subject. As to what had passed this evening, he had nothing more to say, than that the person with whom the Noble and Learned Lord re presented himself as having some political difference, was one who, however ready to be angry, was not unwilling to be reconciled when much more than justice was done him.—(Hear, hear.)—When he held the Great Seal, he had done every thing in his power to remedy the inconveniences connected with the Chancery system—and more he could not do. He fully agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord, that it was of the greatest importance that the Lord Chancellor should decide as much person ally as he possibly could, and leave as little as pos. sible to the decision of others. As to the Master's Office, whatever might be said as to the delays that occurred there, he was convinced that the delays were owing much more to the suitors themselves titan to the Master, The Lord Chancellor had much to do in their Lordships' House ; bat he wished it to be unders!ood, that it was of great importance that the Lord Chancellor should devote a large portion of his attention to his own Court, where he bad they should attend in the Court of Exchequer, un less it happened that they should have no engage ment at the moment in the Court of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor now sat at Lincoln's-inn, the Vice. ' Chancellor near him, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer at the lower part of Chancery-lane. The leaders of a cause began in one Court, then posted to another, and returned to reply to a speech which they never heard. Under such circumstances how could a Judge know the real merits of any case un less he took the papers home to read ? It was most material, therefore, to consider if means could not be devised to give the Lord Chancellor a better attendance of the bar in his own Court. In agree ing to the second reading of the Bill he begged to be considered as doing so without prejudice to any opinion he might deliver on its future stages. No man could deny that it was necessary to apply some remedy to the existing evil, whatever difficulty there might be in determining what it was proper to select. Lord REDESDALE, when lie considered the great increase of legal business, arising from the sub division of property, and the augmentation of the public debt, was surprised that the Courts pro ceeded with so little delay. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next.—Adjourned. (We observed Sir James Scarlett, Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet. Mr. Sergeant- Cross, Mr. Sugden, Mr. Bickersteth, and many others of the long robe below the throne, as well as numbers of Attorneys and Barristers below the Bar, all anxious to hear the speech of the Lord Chancellor.) HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(LAST NIGHT.) (A considerable number of persons had assembled this afternoon in the neighbourhood of the House, it being generally reported that Mr. O'Connell would attempt to take his seat ; but, evidently much to the disappointment of the curious, the Hon. Gentleman did not make his appearance.) Several private Bills were read a third time arid passed. Mr. Alderman WOOD moved the third reading of the Bill for Improving the Approaches to the New London Bridge.—Read a third time and passed. Mr. GRATTAN moved for a return of the number of Houses of Industry in Ireland, and the sums expended therein for the maintenance of the poor since the year 1825. Mr. LINDSEY presented a petition from the Hammermen and Corporation of Perth, against the Scotch Gaol Enlargement Bill. Mr. R. - GRANT presented similar petitions from the boroughs of Inverness and Nairn. Petitions to the same effect were also presented from the boroughs of Linlithgow and Selkirk. Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from the Apo thecaries of Limerick, praying that the laws relating to Apothecaries in Ireland might not be altered. EAST INDIA TRADE. Mr. W. WHITMORE presented a petition from Manchester, praying that the trade to India and China might be thrown open. He fully agreed in the prayer of the petitioners, but as this important subject would came under the consideration of the House on Thursday next, he would refrain on the present occasion from making any observations. Mr. LITTLETON presented a similar petition from the Manufacturers of the Chamber of Com merce in the Potteries. He hoped ample oppor tunity would he given to supply Government with the necessary information on this important subject, and that it would be coolly and deliberately argued. Mr. HART DAVIS presented a petition from the Merchants, Bankers, and others, of the city of Bristol, praying that the House would not grant any extension of the East India Company's Charter. Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a similar pe tition from Carlisle, and another from a place the name of which we did not hear. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented a petition from the Hundred of Tenterden, in Kent, against that clause of the Bill, for regulating the subject of Anatomy, which directed that the un claimed bodies of paupers dying in workhouses should be given for dissection. LIVERPOOL PETITION. Mr. HUSKISSON said he rose for the purpose of presenting a petition of paramount importance, of which he had given notice yesterday, although he did not anticipate any debate upon it, as the motion of the Hon. Member for Bridgenorth on this mo mentous subject stood for Thursday night, yet he would not feel gratified in not shortly stating the grounds upon which the petitioners ventured to address the House. It would be recollected in the year 1813 the East India Company's Charter was renewed, when a long itiqu;ry took place ; that in quiry was instituted in consequence of the number of petitions that were at that time presented, praying for a free participation in the trade to Bri- often to establish precedents for the other Judges. fish India. The result of that enquiry it was not He did not mean to say that this was not sufficiently necessary for him now to state. Men of the attended to at present; but, at the same time, the greatest eminence and intelligence were examined business of the Chancellor in this House did some- ma the subject, amongst whom were Mr. C. Grant times trench on the time that was much required in and Sir Thomas Monroe. It certainly was the the Court of Chancery. When, in 1801, he took opinion of these eminent characters, that the free the Seals as Lord Chancellor, he had but compara- intercourse with India would not increase the tively few Appeals and Writs of Error, although trade, the natives of that country leading such many matters at Common Law were now disposed a simple mode of life that there was no proba of in the - Hay of cases, which were then turned into hint) , of extending commerce amongst them. the shape of special verdicts. But then there were He believed, however, that every person must allow at that time DO Appeals from Ireland—whereas that the opinions contained in this petition were since the Uniou, there was a perfect deluge of Ap- those of persons best acquainted with the commerce pails, both from the Irish Court of Chancery and of Great Britain. The trade was partly thrown from the Equity side of the Exchequer there. And open, under many obstacles and many difficul then, the Court of Session in Scotland was divided ties to persons who know nothing of the country. into two Courts, and that almost doubled the num- Commerce might be partly said to have been thrown ber of appeals from that country. Upon this divi- open on the Ist of April, 1814. Now the country ,i o n, when, instead of appeals coming from the had had the experience of about fifteen years. If Court of *cssion, sitting as one Court, they came he supposed that fifteen years, even in the life of an from each of the divisions, the appeals became in- individual, would not leave him in a period of in credibly more nunnefous. At that time there was fancy, still when it related to the commerce' of a proposition under consideration, that a Court two great parts of the globe, he could not but of Error should be established in Scotland, consider it any thing short of a sufficient experience. something like what prevailed here, when th e He would not go into the details which had already decisions of the separate Courts were reviewed been stated to the House by other Hon. Members, by the twelve Jodges, which, no doubt, pre- but he thought it necessary to say, that in the year vented many cases from coming to this House 1814, w hen the trade was first thrown open, the which otherwise would have come to it; and whole export of this country to India, amounted to so it might have been with Scotch cases only one hundred and sixty thousand pounds, but if that proposition had been acted on, and pro- in the last year the export amounted to 5,800,0001. bably it would have been a great improvement.— Another complaint of the petitioners was, the mono- He repeated, that it was of great importance that poly of the trade to China by the East India Corn the Lord Chanfellor should sit in the Court of parry. He thought it singular indeed that all Chancery more freiwntly than, from the pressure foreign countries should have the privilege of of business in this House, ,he was sometimes en- trading to the English ports there, and carrying abled to do. *rider a regulatii - iti of the late Lord back their return cargoes of British produce to Liverpool, he (Lord Eldon) sat three thas in the China direct, whilst the English merchants were w e ek in this house on Appeals, and these thee debarred f• from doing so. He knew that in the days were abstracted from the business of the Court course o .last year no less than eleven American of Chancery, and at the expeyce of the suitors of ships had entered the port of Liverpool, and that Court—very much to the detriment, and, as it hud taken out cargoes which they were at liberty to appeared to him, not a little to the scandal of the carry to any part of th,e world. It appeared the efusc„cellor's Court. There was another circurn , more strange that the Company should persist stance wind he was happy the N o bl e Lo r d advert- in keeping up the prohihitiori in respect to ed to—and that was the regulation of the Courts British merchants, when others were exempt with reference to the attendance of Counsel, as he from such restrictions, arid he was also led Keit t,baX without some such regr44ion nothing effec- to think that the monopoly was a serious injury to tual coulcl bg 4one. How, when the Co4risel were trade in general. These were the principal grounds passing and repa.as;og from one Court to another .; upon which the petitioners called for redress, and he having causes going or in each at the same time, apprehended that he had said enough to show the Gould ,the Judge obtain from them a thorough view House that the subject was worthy of the fullest of the ,eaute?—it sometimes happeni i l,:g that a lead- consideration. Indeed ? independently o f i t s ing Counsel cas - e; t e in to reply to an argument, sloi,one great importanc e as a' commercial auestion, he word of which he had heard. What in such a case thour;ht that he might put it even 'upon higher could the ' Judge do, except take home his papers ground. He considered that we held that cotintry to read, and gain by his own labour that information by conquest, and in proportion as we stimulated the which he ought to have been supplied with by tile exertions of that people, so were we bound to en- Counsel? He thought there wan great Weight deavour to raise them in the scale of moral worth. t - co thp proposition for transferring the Equity M. BA4IAITP said that this was n o t th e p ro per jUristbctiOn of the Exchequer to the Court i time to go i n t o an y detail on the great subject of of ClaMcery. Nie remembered when he and the renewal of the :Charter. ip would only ob the late Sir Jaines .. kianstleid had to conduct a serve that, by the monopoly of the East India Com:- eansid,erable portion of the triages came i nto p a ny, they prevented this country sharing in that the doort,of Chancery, and they wefe atm) soli- trade which foreigners carried on. He would sug cited to atterideisopeg in the Court of Exchequei:,— I lest to the Chairman of the East India House wile- Put the way they managed was this : — To those .Iher; before the renewal of the Charter, it would wire desired their attendance intiy Exchequer, they not be a gracious a 4 - - - t , to bring in a Bin g , giving to the said that they would attend the consultations of other traders of this eotiatrY a participation in that their Exchequer Counsel, and give their best advice trade which w as carried on by foreigners. and assistance, butt that it must not be expected that • MT, ASTELL trusted the House would not form - • Aklt N t N. 7 any opinion uiibk the subject till they heard the op site statement. Sir C. BURRELL would not now go into the question of monopoly; but he must say that the price of tea was dearer by one half in England than in any other country. It was alio very hard on the ' shipping interest that America and other foreign nations should make large profits at the expense of our exports. On these grounds he agreed entirely in the observations of the Right Hon. Gentleman. General GASCOYNE supported the petition. Sir G. PHILLIPS, in the course of some obser vations to the same effect, contended that even the partial opening of the trade had been productive of the best results, and if the monopoly were done away, a very great extension of commercial inter course must follow. Mr. WHITMORE spoke briefly in support of the petition. The petition was then read, and it proved to be from the merchants of Liverpool. On the motion that it do lie on the table, Mr. ASTELL said he must deny that tea was cheaper in foreign countries than in this, considering that Government imposed upon it a duty of 100 per cent., from which foreigners were exempt. On the contrary, he maintained that tea was not only not dearer in this country than in foreign countries, but much cheaper ; and the Right Hon. Gent. and others never once took the superior quality of it into consi deration. tiaras which appliet. the supply and retail of good malt liquor to the working classes of this' country. There was no single manufacture of this country so interfered sei . th, and having such numerous restric tions placed on it, as this manufacture, which was identified with . our own soil, and constituted the national beverage of the people. He would shortly state to the House what the process of malting was. The process was a very simple one. The barley was wetted till sprouting took place, which vegetation was subsequently checked by heat from a kiln. The sprouting produced a saccharine matter, and that was the whole process of malting. Would the House believe that, till the other day, there were 40 long and complex Acts of Parliament regulating this simple process ? These 40 Acts were now, he was aware, reduced into one—reduced, did he say ? He ought to have said expanded into one, with additional restrictions. The Honourable Mem ber here described the various regulations to which the maltster was obliged to submit with re spect to the size of the cistern for wetting malt, and with respect to the notices he was forced to give be fore he could perform the smallest portion of his work. After the malt was taken out of the cistern, it must be laid on couches, as they were called, and the grain must not he rugged in the edges, under a penalty of 2001. The maltster was obliged to keep a registry of the name of each person who sold him barley, and who bought of him malt; and to sign a certificate, which must correspond with the entries made in the register, and his premises were liable to be entered night or day by the excise officer. This course of proceeding was very harassing to the malt ster, and he was confident that a remedy might be applied without diminishing the revenue of Govern ment. He next came to the overwhelming duties with which the manufacture of malt was loaded, and which amounted to no less than 3,800,000/. per an num. This tax, too, was not levied at all in an equable manner from the different counties. Norfolk paid three times mere than Devonshire, though Devonshire was five times larger, and paid a higher rental than Norfolk. Suffolk paid three times the amount of Devonshire. Hampshire three times more than Herefordshire, and Bedfordshire three times more than Cheshire. Bedford paid five times more tax than Durham. This tax alone, in 38 years, from 1791 to 1828, had raised, from the con sumers of malt liquor in England and Wales, above 133,700,000/. sterling. The malt-tax, however im politic, is borne by all consumers, but the beer-tax was borne by the consumers of malt liquor sold. All those who were rich enough to brew their liquor at home were exempt from the tax, but the working man, who was too poor to do so, was obliged to pay the tax. Nearly four-fifths of all beer brewed paid the tax, the average of which, for 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826, amounted to 3,300,000/., and in 38 years, namely, 1791 to 1828, the amount raised by this poor consumer's tax was no less than 106,000,000/. While the quantity of malt had been declining since 1786, the number of barrels paying dirty had in creased, and the effect of these taxes and restrictions would be to drive capital from the trade, and create monopolies. He now came to the third cause of the decline in the consumption of malt liquor, and that was the restrictions which were placed in the retail supply. It was at present quite optional with the Magistrates to grant or refuse licences, and they generally made it the rule to refuse licences, and the exception to grant licences. He would wish to see the contrary the case ; and that licences should be given freely, on the parties applying entering into recognizances to abide by certain regulations. He would venture to say, that in consequence of the monopoly in the malt trade, public-houses were worth 201. per annum more rent than formerly, which additional rent in 50,000 public• houses would amount to a tax of 1,000,000/. charged on the con sumers of malt. It appeared that in 60 collections of excise, into which England and Wales are divided (including London), there are above 49,501) pub licans, of whom 23,000, being above half the coun try publicans, brewed their own beer, the rest being served by the brewers. These are curiously distri buted round the country in three zones. The first takes in London, in which there are 4,430 publicrins, of whom 39 only brewed their own beer. The second zone took in the couuties round Lon don, Kent, Surrey, Hants, Isle of Wight, Mid dlesex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, to Lynn, and Norwich, .in Norfolk. This zone contain ed about ten thousand publicans, of whom eight hun dred and twenty brewed at home, being about 1-12th. The third zone contained Northumberland, West moreland, Cumberland, and Durham, Whitby, Ha lifax, and to Hull, in Yorkshire, and across the king dom to Manchester and Liverpool. In this zone there were 5,871 publicans, of whom 787 brewed at home, being less than 1-7th. It appeared, there fore, that in the districts in which the brewers had the monopoly of the public-houses, about 5,000,000 of the people were supplied by between 200 and 300 great firms. Having stated what was the effect in the districts supplied by brewers, he would now state the result in three districts where brewers had no influence. (The Hon. Member then named the counties comprised in these three districts, but with such extreme rapidity that it was impossible to fol low him ; they were, however, principally northern and north-western counties.) In those districts,he said, six persons out of every seven brewed their own beer, and the superior quality of the liquor, compared with the brewers' manufacture, was evi dent. If a visit to that beautiful work of art, the Menai-bridge, or any other cause, should take the Right Hon. Gentleman into :hat part of the country, he begged him to taste the malt liquor between Wolverhampton and ShrewSbury, and he would at once be convinced of its superiority. With respect to the metropolis, 1,200,000 persons were supplied by only three or four great firms. The malt-tax was a duty which fell upon all consumers of beer, but the beer tax was an additional duty on all those who were not rich enough to brew at home. The monopoly of the public-houses by the brewers was an additional tax also on those who were neither rich enough tobrew at home norbuy their beer whole sale. He would briefly state the amount of revenue derived from the duties imposed on the manufacture of beer. The malt-tat produced 3,800,000/.; the beer. tax 3,300,000/.; the hop-duty, in 1827, 400,0001.; the maltsters' licences 20,000/.; the brewers' li cences 53,7001.; the public-house licences 164,0004; besides this, he estimated the additional rent of public-houses, occasioned by the monopoly of 1,000,0001., making a total of 8,737,000/. per an num. This immense dory was not levied equally upon all classes of the community, but fell almost exclusively on the poor and industrious portion. Four-fifths of the malt consumed in England and Wales were used by public brewers, the remaining fifth by private brewers. The annulil consumption of malt was about '21,000,000 of bushels, each bushel paying a duty of Ss. Taking the average price of barley to be 45., the duty amounted to no less than 200 per cent. en the value of the raw ma terial. He asked the landed gentlemen of the coun try, who were interested in the improvement of agriculture, whether they should not whisper in the ear of the 4ight Hop. Gentleman that he should grant A Committee to ipvestipte this uhjeCt? What other wanufactnre in the country was treated in the same way ? If a duty amounting to 200 per cent. on the value of the raw material were imposed upon any other branch of manufacture, how would the manufacturers pour out of their hives and buzz in Ministers' ears ? What an outcry would they raise against so onerous a regulation. The Right Hon. Gentleman might employ all his eloquence to induce the people of England (Mr.to scioairitesyum),e‘ithitehphrois- Barleyeorn in ' lr di'l i t;iu: s nict r bs ig ie b o t fP li c') an vh d ei , r; w .; •o ir u b l t d 4 ce h4 ri d a ' inly ir lie ° a ll t n liirri out or the 40. The number of spirit licences throughout the country had increased amazingly since 1800, whilst the number of ale licences had remained stationary. In 1800 the number of spirit licences was 31,097 ; en d i n 1827 it was 42,5901 being an increase of 11,000 in twenty-seven years. The increase in the number of ale licences, during the same period, was only 300. How cautious was the House of entrast ing magistrates with power to grant ale licences, Mr. HUSKISSON, in reply, said that the Hon. Chairman thought that tea could be had better and cheaper here than in foreign countries, would he only be so kind as to grant a licence to his (Mr. Huskisson's) constituents, and he (Mr. Huskisson) would engage that they would bring a great quan tity of tea into the English market from the Con tinent, and bear with all the disadvantages of the etifferenee of price and quality.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)—For his own part, he knew nothing of this subject further than what he had heard from persons every way competent to form a correct judgment upon it. When he found, for instance, that tea was only half the price in New York that it was in London, he felt satisfied, that it must be infinitely cheaper in foreign countries than in Eng land. By u certain regulation, the East India Com pany had pledged themselves not to put tea up to sale till after it had been two years in their ware houses.—(Cries of " No, no, from Mr. Astell.)— He understood the fact to be so, and the reason alleged was tile necessity of keeping up the stock. But what was the consequence to the public ? Why, that the quality of the article became de teriorated, and the price increased. Again, he would ask if the Hon. Chairman was disposed to grant him the licence to import tea from the Con tinent.—(A laugh.) Sir GEORGE PHILLIPS said, that the people of this country paid 2,000,0001. annually to support the monopoly of the East India Company in the article of tea. whilst they suffered them to issue licences for. the selling of poison almost without limitation. It Wea of rather curious that the increase in the nunib u ar spirit licences which he had pointed out h ad u",.14 place exclusively in the country. London , it " - i n appear, was saturated before. The total increasS,' the number of ale licences during the last WOW seven years was, as he had already stated, only, on o, but the average upon the last seven years was 4, '": 0 , In the same period, however, there had been 10 11 . 0 crease in the number of wine and spirit licence° t o six times that amount. In 1829 the nunibr ffo. wine licences was 9,900, and in 1827 it was 10, 0 ‘,Ni ‘ In 1820 the number of spirit licences was 36 P uv ;; and in 1827 it was 42,000. He would now s ty what had been the increase in the consumptionbe° spiritsdur consumptioni ng was tlie 12,000,0001asen years.gdio gal l o ns ; ; In i : 8 1 2 44 0n t i o t was 13,800,000 gallons ; in 1825 it was 17,7uv!"" gallons; in 1826 it was 22,900,000 gal l°/11 ' in 1827 and 1828 it was 24,500,00 0 ga ll° . acfo creased oisn e ec a dr ch eacsoen y s e ion a m r. In cprti consumption o f f ws connection paisri t nsott htwohraietth }gad i s bee stance which called for the serious consideration that House ? Did it not behove them to take some ,pi ts ; measures for decreasing the consumpticn of and increasing that of the native beverage ? The 11 ' c f was, that malt liquor was undersold in every P art , ; the country, and spirit shops wer e set up in P a " where they never had been before, and persons had no more idea of drinking gin than poison ha s now become regular consumers of it. He had stated the vexatious regulations affecting the Me ing trade, and he thought that under the circa!): stances there ought to be a committee, if it had a. other object than to inquire if it might not be pract.l; cable to put those regulations on a better system. l e was the opinion of all the maltsters with w hom 11 ; had had the opportunity of communicating, that dy system of certificates would, if properly modifie.' answer instead of the numerous regulations now 1 . 11 operation. The Hon. Member then briefly rear r c at ir io cu o nl o i tulated the chief objects of his motion, and c°, ll ; eluded by expressing a hope that the result Is a committee would be to give to the Exchequer d better revenue, to the poor a better beverage, sfl to the landed interest a better return for t h e ir pal" duce. He then moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the restrictions in the manufacture of malt, with a view to ascertain how they affected the middle and poorer classes. fir n The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ: assured the House, that there was no part of h is duty more painful than that which obliged lii a°t° refuse motions, which though ostensibly for incitorY!.. must substantively lead to the reduction of taxation. If the object of the Hon. Member was to call W I . him to inquire into the several branches of this trad e ' with the view to remove or remodel such regula tion ! as might be found oppressive to those engage d ° d it, he assured him he would be disposed to lel., his best attention to the subject, and would eau give his assistance in removing any restriction which were not essential to the collection tb: duty, or the protection of the honest trader; bui the Hon. Member, though he had shown g rea t knowledge of all the details of this subject, consider that many of those regulations to whic h ; e d objected were not merely fiscal, but were sugge by a large portion of those engaged in the 08,16 with the view of protecting the honest trader 00, 1 . 1) 1 1 - the introduction into the market of malt , on l e o duty might be evaded, by the want of them. should also consider, that since there had be n s any revenue derived from malt, these reguto t t:,. had been in existence. It was not quite ' o . 4 ' then, to attribute the decrease in the con sl l,',: t tion of malt to the operation of such causes. in other respects, the Honourable Member wi ts mistaken, in ascribing the fact, that the e 0:, sumption of malt had not increased in proportionti!. the increase of population—to the increase of the te/4 on that article. He would readily . idgliC to the Hon. Member, that the taxing of any article of eon sumption to mote than it could bear, tended to de-, crease the . consumption of that article. Thin,W., ll , 9 an evil of taxation which co u ld no t be pr eventeo but while he admitted this, he must remind the Hon. Member that there' were other causes 'to which the non-increase of consumption of malt in proP° P tion to the increase of population must be attribu ted. The Hon. Member would find, if he looked to other ch articles of consumption, the use of many of whi ' had been exchanged for that of malt, that its in crease bore a proportion to the increase of poptili' , tion. Tea, for instance, the consuMpt;on of whim , in the year to which the Hon. Member referre, (1787) was 6,233,000 pounds, while in 1823 (the.; last return that he had seen) it was 28,000,000 9.1.. pounds. The Right Hon. Gentleman then wer,!, on to shew that to the increased consiimption'oA tea, coffee, and wine, each, which was, to a cert ain _ extent, and amongst certain classes, made a substit u t7 l ! for malt liquor, the non-increase of the consurnPt.,iee of the latter must be attributed. Much of thi s e b ale of the article of consumption depended oPc in fa i and fashion, the result of which could not be g ust the against. As to the Hon. Member's objeeti b P s T ro alt . condensation of the forty Acts on the subject o into one, lie thought that so far from censure, Right Honourable Friend the Master of the MS' (Mr. Herries) was entitled to much piaise for hair l .",,7 taken the pains to reduce that ill-digested mass regulation into one intelligible Act. The o°,l Member had adverted to the tax on beer, 'i ll s wished for its reduction. Now any reduction that article which would have the effect of gill, any sensible relief to the consumer, would bestif;--, a loss of revenue as the country was not in a coon, tion to afford. The small reduction of one fal 3 t l .' ll 1n a pot of porter would not be any relief vi oi i a" i naming to any class, and yet even that small. serit would create a diminution of revenue to the alfi'sin'a `e. of 600,000/. a year. As to the question of duty , licences, it was more a matter of p o lice than of r it venue, and was a point on w hi c h he did not e n , necessary to touch. The moti o n of the Hon• i ve- bi htoerkel. w ould l up dg oto the reduction of a duty the 10 g 0..-ki. a large portion of the revenue, which was neee s . - t credit,thepu blicit. and he therefore 71 „ 60' Mr. MONCK said that the beer trade, 25 himself bound to oppose regulated, was certainly a most extraordinary 1;ot maly. There were three classes of brewers, e' e n ' pt i which was obliged to use distinct apparatO: We !at° class brewed strong beer, hnt h; sy 4i o riot a llo.o : brew "interinediate,i or small beer. The b re7 4 of the intermediate was not allowed to brews tc fro lai beer, and the small beer brewer was p r evented 1 7 he brewing either of the two other sorts. asked, should this absurdity be allewed t o contig e d and why not end them all at once, by putting a duty on the malt, and then let every one brew f a ' t he pleased? He would entreat the attention 0 ' country gentlemen to this subject. Mr. W. SMITH said, that if the result of t he Committee had no other effect than loy enco lo4 , l of. the consumption of malt liquors to decrease th s " o 4 well worth the attention of Government . spirits in London, it would be most important; I sl.' Sir 4. )vR9ITgsi. , PY . edn(ielireti that the r ot rnoviirof tie present regulated duty at the least its alteration, would be productive ° f a ., equivalent advantage to the revenue by the pr o p o f inducement held out to the manufacture he malt to increase the quantity of barley m alted. . I , t , regulations were now inadequate to their okl e- te The duty operated also so as to prevent the P!'i vg ,i.. manufacturer making the most of his skill and se' eli ,lo The mode of proceeding by the Excise for the pose of recovering penalties had given gr9ql,,,a general dissatisfaction, and n..;thing in his "" ifi wonld • e more di)j . e'ctidriable' than the man° er d , which the o ff iCers of the Excise were apporti6no, O t‘ t ' i barleY , s e : their rev/ ,rd on convictions under the Lxcise la 0 1, He would'suggest the propriety of a substitution . e a handsome salary instead of those objectiona ble wards on conviction.—(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ-H o , said, the change now suggested had been c ora plated by Government for some time. It had bi,yrCi, intended to appoint a barrister, with a .goOd nill%; to the superintendence of this department Of t he e