The Sun. — London, England, 1824-03-16 00:00:00

was restored, that this country never swerved from its duty or from sound policy (for they are connected together), but still pur sued its object of reconciling these countries on fair and reason able principles. But under every system of Government Spain declined the mediation of Great Britain. There might be rea sons inhuman nature, but he could not help remarking, that if there were any difference in the pertinacity witlf which the offers of this country were rece:ved, that was most conspicuous the more constitutional the Government was. Still this country , continnecl to act in that course; and when the Congress was held at Aix-la.Chapelle, she renewed the offer of her media tion with the support of the other Powers of Europe. Spain, however, declined all the good offices which were proposed ; and this country did not cease her efforts till after that time, when she thought it prudent to pause, and to look to her own essential ineerests, the motions of the Noble Lord is now to acknowledge the independence lof those Colonies; but he Lord Liverpool) begged their Lordships to consider what had been done, and what remained to be done: In 1/122 a Noble Lord now no more, whose loss would long be lamented, had full instructions upon this important subject, With which he was preparing to repair to the Congress of Verona. They had afterwards been transmitted to a Noble *Duke ( Welling ton), but in the mean time his Majesty's Government had sub mitted an Act to Parliament which went to the direct acknow ledgment of the de facto independence of the South American States. • By the third of the King, chapter 40th, it was or dered that the vessels and flags of those provinces should be received in all our ports as those of independent States, whereas by the Act of Navigation the trade with them had till then been carried on in British vessels alone. By this Act they were recognised as independent States, and his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had been instructed to ex plain our policy at Verona, and , to announce that it would be followed by other steps, of which due notice should he given so the Allied Powers. From the time of this practical recogni tion, it was acknowledged that every advantage of commerce bad been given to this country, and every advantage also had been enjoyed by the South American States. In Decem. ber, 1822, it was intimated -to be the intention of this country to send Consuls to the different ports of Spanish America.— There was a generous delay in sending these Consuls, but he thought it more delicate to suspend their appointment for a few months, than to make it during the heat of the contest with France. He would now look to a more important period, when it appeared that the French arms would be successful in Spain, and that the King would be restored. Government wished to hear a full explanation from France with regard to her views in South America. It was then that Consuls Were appointed, and - sent to their different destinations ; which with the acknowledgment of their flag seemed to be a complete de Ado recognition. The Noble Earl then proceeded , " My Lords, this is not the whole. We did that not for them only, but for our own in terests as well as theirs, which was worth a thousand words, and phrases, and a thousand acknowledgments ofindependence. it has been stated, that any design of the other Powers of Eu rope was checked by th e Message of the President of the united States of America. What effect that had is not for me to pre sume to say ; but weeks before that Message was delivered, this country did distinctly declare, that though it was neutral between Spain and her Colonies, it would not see with indiffe rence any foreign Power interfere in the contest. And this this country did further obtain France a complete abjuration of any design to make an attempt by force of arms against any of the Colonies of South America. I do therefore say, the mea sures taken combined every thing that could he essential to the in terests of this country, and every thing precticable consistent with honour, justice, and good faith, towards the Colonies themselves. The Noble Lord talks of acknowledgments of independence.' 'That can only be nutlet() the Power who has the sovereign right over the couutry itself.—(Hear, hear !) —You have no right to acknowledge or dispute the independence. I will admit there is one thing remains to be done, and that is the opening a diplo matic intercourse. Every thing else has been done. In the first place, I think, if there was any, question which oaght peculiarly to be left to the Executive Government, it is at what time and under whhttircumstances a diplomatic intercourse ought to be opened with a Foreign State. If th ere i s an y ques ti on th a t, more especially and peculi ar ly b e l ongs t o t h e C rown i n a Con stitution like this, it is that question. I will not deny there may be an apathy and neglect upon this subject, which, as upon every other exercise of the Royal prerogative, may call for and admit the interference of Parliament, but what I have to ask is, is there any such case, after you have read this cor respondence —any such abstinence of the King's Government - any such neglect of these countries, as to induce you to think • you have cause for such special interference ? No man can say there is. There may be a thousand reasons for the Crown's .'abstaining from taking such a step ; but I have no desire to conceal myself under any such secret motives or reasons upon • the present occasion ; and I have no _difficulty in telling the Noble Lord all I know, and think, and feel upon the subject ; anti that brings me to some general principles, on which I will say how far I agree with, or differ from him. With regard to what I would call the acknowledgment, I say there are two questions : first, a question of right ; and, secondly, a question of expediency ; and unless I can 'first establish the question of 'right no motive of expediency ought to be an inducement. With respect to the question of right, I have no difficulty in stating what I h ave f e l t for some years past throughout this contest, that I do not think this country had any right to•take such a -t , ltep in any province where the contest was .s . ti . ll going on. We 4 now that i n th a t res p ec t we are a cting differently from what others acted towards us.—( H ear, hear, 'beer !)—Vre know well what was the conduct of the House of Bourbon to us inn contest in that very department. :We Inow that while this country had. large =meet; in the field, however they might have been embarked in th e cause, an d w h atever m i g h t - b e t h e p o licy of it, they chose to support and assist those Colonies,' even at the time when th e contest wax .at „its height. .But God foroid' that we, in a Christi an country, should 'copy such an example. Ii respect to one province, a severe con- I seen is going .on , and that is one instance in .which i .would a i op t my phinciple. There de .antether principle, not of the destined or absolute nature of the first; I mean where with out a contest in arms you have reason to know there isa con siderable portion of the population -desirous :of conciliation with the Mother Country. Every reflecting person will ad. snit that in such a case it would .be a duty to abstain from taking an y steps. Supposing these -questions decided, the whole then resolves itself to a question.of expediency. .On that you have to consider all the advantage a complete recog nition could give. There may be nominal advantages. As to solid and substantial advantages, you enjoy them all. Is there anything in the abstinence of the Government that chews ? I will ask any man who reads this correspnudence, and I say there is no Mexican, Colombian, or Chaim, who thinks there is any or backwardness in this country. I would ash whether theywould rather have had a Minister Ple nipotentiary, or the declaration of Mr. Canning, that Great ',Mule would see no third Power whatever interfere with the onduciee ; and France declares, in return, she abjures all such interference. Is there not that good will and disposition which is worth a thousand Ministers and Ambassadors ? it is a great point to obtain it you can the acknowledgment of inde pendence fietn the mother country ; hut till that has taken place, the Government will always be fat to have a more or less doubtful title, and if internal dissentions arise, parties will avail themselves of that. Considering the connections we have had with Spain, anti the part we have taken in the con tent. I think it a neutlernanlike course to give to Spain the 0 1 3 Portuszte of doing that in the first instance. We state in the Papers we wish Spain should go first in the diplomatic intercourse. As we gave them the meens of doing that, and in doing that we did what is for the interests of Spain, we did what is for the interests of the Colonies themselves, and what is honourable, gentlemanlike, and respectable. There is another question, as to which 1 do riot mean to say much, what Governments they should have ? I may have my own opinion on that ; I ant not acquainted with what Gov eminent is likely to suit them. We know at the nine of the independence of the United States that his Ma jesty was advised to say he regretted the Americans had not chosen a Monarchy. I do not mean to enter into the ex pediency, propriety, or wisdom of that sentiment. In a great liendephere like that, provided we get a Government to maintain the relation of peace and amity, that is all we have a right to lock to or expect. Befiere, however, we take any ultimate steps, it is not unreasonable to desire information., whether the Government possessed the confidence of the coun try to wheat his Majesty hail sent Consuls, and sonic time would view before that information could be obtained. Then I will put the question, under these circumstances, are we not right in the course we have taken ? There is no man who will net say the line pursued by Government is not right—they have gone fast, and, some tnink thither and faster than ne c,easity required—they have exposed themselves to risks; but I do not think any parson can imagine we have not done every thing on this most important question. Then, I put the question, on this ground, I have stated, without reserve, every feelinn I have had on the subject; I have stated the course the country has pursued—the situation in which the country lees been placed by its alliance and connections with Spain. I have stated our situation in consequence of the con test which we, together with the Spaniards, carried on. I have stated the genii faith with which we acted—t - .he mediations we offeheihne prevent a strpazatnon from the Colonies; that if these mediations and gpod offices had been accepted, part of those provinces might still have been preserved ; but when that be came desperate, it was for us to take a step meet foe the interest of this country and the Coloniew, and weave in progress to what the Noble Lord desires; but I say we ought to do it in a hand some and liberal way; w e h ave shown affection, good will, to the Colonies ; we have shown we are determined they shall not be trampled upons—(clear, hear !)—hy alliancei or confede racies.--( Hear !)—Whatever their names, or however forrnid able.—(Heer!)—We are keepi ng it in the hands of the Crown, i where alone t should- be placed; and thinkit neceseaey to conclude this subject again by referring to what I have already stated, that as we have kept ourselves unfettered hitherto, we will keep . ourselves unfettered in future, we will keep this question in our hands as against Spain, as against the Holy Alliance, to exercise our own legitimate discretion." The Noble Lord then adverted to what was stated .in the papers about our disclaiming an intention of forming political connee-. tions with the Colonies, which, he said was only to do awarany jealousy in foreign Powers, and concluded by moving, as an amendment, " That this House, acknowledging his Majesty's goodness in directing the communications to be laid before the House, begs leave humbly to express their entire confidence that his Majesty will continue to act in the further progress of this important question, on th e most just and liberal principles apparent on these communications—principles alike honourable to the British name, and conducive to the best interests of the country. Lord lIIALENBOROUGII supported the motion upon ge neral grounds, and argued particularly that no further consi deration ought to be extended to Spain, because she was in the hands of France, and France was virtually the power with whom we now had to treat in all matters connected with the affairs of Spain. He felt this the more on account of the man ner in which the people of Spain had been subjugated. and of -.the apathy with which they submitted to their yoke. The French" had obtained their sway, not by the exertion of force alone, but because they found in the Spaniards willing slaves. For these reasons he thought the recognition of the Inde pendent States ought not to be delayed another hour, and he should therefore vote for the motion. ~ Lord CALTHORPE spoke in favour of the amendment. He trusted that the late acts of this Government would con vince the Minister of France that the determination of this country was taken. It would now be seen that this country held a community of feeling with all those who possessed free institutions, not only with a view to trade, but to the general principles of independence. Lord ROSEBERRY thought it would be no obstruction to the intentions of his Majesty's Government, should their Lord ships think proper to adopt the motion of his Noble Friend.— A temperate and deliberate declaration of the opinion of Par liament, by which the unanimous feelings of the people would be expressed through their only legitimate organ, would be a step at once useful and honourable to the country. The Noble. Earl had claimed the confidence of their Lordships He was ready to grant him his confidence; and by giving his vote to his Noble Friend, to aid and assist the Government in carrying into effect its own plans, and to accelerate the end which all parties had in view. He should vote for the motion upon grounds and principles which he hoped he had explained to the sa ti s faction of the House. The Marquis of LANSDOWN replied. After listening to the speech of the Noble Earl, full as it was of ingenious and subtle distinctions, he had not heard him point out one pos sible contingency in which it would not be for the advantage of this country that an immediate recognition of the indepen dence of these States should be made. The Noble Earl had not stated one reason why delay was justifiable, and which could warrant him in interposing to prevent their Lordshipsfrom ex pressing to his Majesty the hope that they might look forward to this desirable event at no distant period. The only ground upon which the delay was advocated, was that of giving time to Spain. Yet the Noble Earl would hardly get up in his place and say that Spain—the shadow of what Spain was— Spain degraded and debased in the eyes of the world, and go verned by the mandate of the French Minister,—would the Noble Earl get up in his place and say that he expected Spain would in a short time acknowledge the independence of her colonies ? They knew what they had to expect from the cha ratter of the Spanish Government. Spain was a long time be fore she found that Holland was an independent country. If they waited for Spain to take the lead, to the Right Hon. Gen tleman now at the head of Foreign Affairs would never belong the honour and the glory of declaring the independence of the South American States. The formal recognition of these States would give them a character of solemnity in their own eyes, and in the eyes of the world, which could not fail to have the most beneficial result. The present was one of those important crisis in which it behoved them to call forth all their resources. By such a course only could we hope to take that station in Europe to which we are entitled, and to arrest the progress of that power from whose menacing attitude, which had been but lately relieved by the death of Buonaparte, but who still continued to, pursue one of the most formidable systems of military ag grandizement that ever was known to the world. By contri buting the lights of .science and civilization to these new regions, they would be pursuing their own happiness and glory. With this conviction, he should press his original motion ; which, however, he begged leave to say he would not do if lie was not satisfied that there was but one feeling in the country on this. subject, and that that feeling was in his favour. t . The House then divided upon the original m ot ion, When re number .were : Contents - Not Contents - Majority against the Motion Adjourned. - 95 - --61 HOUSE OF COMMONS. MISCELLANEOUS. Lord STANLEY presented petitions from Blackburn, Rochdale, and other places, against the Raw Hide Duty Re peal Bill. Mr. LAWLEY presented a similar petition from the Tan ners of Birmingham. .Similar Petitions were presented from Macclesfield, Kings ton-upon-Pull, Bury, and Bristol. Sir A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from persons con nected with the British Planters and Merchants of the West India Colonies, praying for a further reduction of the duty on Rum. Mr. LAMBTON presented a petition from the 'Worsted Spinners of ,Darlington, against the exportation of British Wool. SLAVERY. Sir Wm.. LEMON presented a petition from the Town of Truro, praying for the adoption of measures for the total Abo lition of Slavery. Similar petitions were presented from Renfrew, Appleby, Leominster, Leith, Edinburgh, from nine parishes in the county of Derby, Melksham, Hull, Attleborough, Barnard's Castle, Brentwood, and Mumford in Essex, Wisbeach, Tr ow b r id ge , East Bergbeot, Boston, Cupar, Stroud, Dorking, Chersey, Thetford, Bolton, and Wrainfieet. Mr. WATSON TAVIZItook occasion to observe upon the presentation of these Petitions, that they were got up by persons not connected with those who signed them. In his town be knew that a schoolmaster had been going about in fluencing the people and getting their signatures. PETITIONS. Mr. PETER MOORE presented a Petition from Coventry against the importation of Foreign Silks and Ribbons. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the same place against the Combination Laws. Lord STANLEY presented a similar petition to the last from the Wool Hatters of Manchester. Similar petitions were presented from Carlisle, the Journey. men Printers of London, Ashton-under-Line, and Plymouth. —Referred to the Committee of Artisans. Mr. DAVENPORT i;;esented a petition from Nantwich against the continuance of the Duty on Excise. Licenses. Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition from the Licensed Victullers of Middlesex against the Duty on Excise Licenses. Similar petitions were presented from Exeter, Durham, and St. Mary's, Lambeth. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Bristol, praying for a repeal of the Tobacco Duties. Another was presented from the same place for an alteration in the Insolvent Debtors' Act. Sir JOHN SE.BRIGHT presented apetition from Royston, against the Duty on Coal carried coastwise. Mr. G RENFELL presented a similar petition from Penrynn. Col- LYGON presented a Petition from the Silk Throwsters of Brockley, against the repeal of the Duty on Silk_ •• A similar petition was presented from Staffordshire. Mr. ABERCROMBY presented a petitibn from the Inha bitants of Edinburgh, praying that some reduction might be made in the Assessed Taxes, and that no more public money may be laid out in the building of Churches. ' These petitions were severally read, and ordered to lie on the table. Mr. LINDSAY presented a petition from the Magistrates of Dundee, Perth, Forfar, and Cupar, in Scotland, and the Cotton Spinners of St. Andrews, praying that the Bounties on Linen might only be repealed at the rate of five per cent. per 4nnurn, and that the repeal might not commence till 1825, that the Manufacturers might have time to sell off their present stock. They also prayer that the duty on sail cloth may be re pealed in the same ratio.—Ordered to be printed. NEW WRIT. A new Writ was ordered for (lueenborough in the place of the Right Hon. J. C. Villiers, now Lord Clarendon. The Committee on the Welch Judicature Bill was postponed to Monday, the 22d inst. BRITISH SPIRITS. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Rectifiers of British Spirits, in and near London, complaining of certain great distillers being also rectifiers against the law, and of the difficulty in the present state of the monopoly of getting spirits. The Hon. Member said he thought the same permission to use renal] stills should be extended to England, what had last year been applied to Scotland and Ireland. Mr. ELLICE hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would , give his attention to this subject. The price of rum w i t h out ' the duty was only Is. 6d., whereas the price of British spi r i t without the duty was 4s. al. the gallon. The principles of free tiade, therefore, called _upon them to allow the West India Merchants to compete with the English spirit growers, that the consumer might have his fair chance between them. For this purpose the English rectifier 'ought to have the privilege of converting rum into gin. Mr. .T. BENNETT thought the consequence of such a course would be to give the public bad spirits for good British gin. After a few words from Mr. W. Sstrrn, Mr. HUME, and Sir R. FEAGUSSON, the petition was read and ordered to be printed. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a Petition from the Ship builders of Liverpool, praying for the gradual repeal of the Bounties on Linen, Hemp, and Cordage. -- Ordered to be printed. • Sir GEO. - CLERK presented a Petition from the Southern District of Edinburgh, praying for a repeal of the 'Window Tax.—Ordered to be printed. Sir JI.ONALD FERGUSON presented Petitions from se veral Royal Burghs of Scotland, praying for the gradual with drawal of the Linen Bounties. _ _ Mr. HUSKISSON, in answer to a question from Mr. Law ley, said, that he was not so conversant as he perhaps ought to have been with the nature of the Hides and Skin Bill. It had been introduced into the House as a Private Bill, although it turned out in fact to be of a public nature. He disapproved of the Bill and its object. NEGRO SLAVERY. Mr. - W. SMITH presented a Petition from Norwich against Negro Slavery. lie observed upon the allegation of an Hon. Member opposite, that these petitions were not got up in a pro per manner. This, as regarded the present, he could contra dict. If those who advocated the prayer of this petition were to be called fanatics, he could only say that he was one, and was proud of being one. As for the language held by certain per sons over in the West India Colonies, if Ministers slimed any forbearance towards them, it could only proceed from the con tempt in which they must hold them ; it could be from pity only that they would refrain. But to attach any weight to the opinions they put forth would be absolutely a degradation to human intellect. Mr. WATSON TAYLOR repeated what he had before said, that the petitions on this subject had come to his county ready prepared. The signatures to them were genuine enough, so far as the representations under which they were obtained went. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would benefit by the observations of the Hon. Member opposite. Mr. BENNET said, he was very glad to see the people of England roused upon any subject, and thought such conduct could not be discreditable to any one. He did not certainly think that it deserved the scorns and sneers which had been bestowed upon those who had a feeling of humanity for their fellow-creatures. Mr. W. TAYLOR said, that the Hon. Member opposite was entitled to speak from his own knowledge, as he (Mr. W. Taylor) had done from his ; and he desired he would not inter fere with him in doing so. He esteemed it one of the highest privileges to address freely that House ; but it was part of his duty to warn the House when be saw an attempt made to over awe them. No one could feel more strongly upon this great question than he did; but he would not be drawn into a pre mature discussion of it upon such grounds. [At the conclusion of this speech several Hon. Members rose at the same moment to address the House.] Mr. Secretary PEEL obtained precedence. He rose, he said, to entreat the House to forbear indulging in that eagerness which had but just manifested itself. In twenty-four hours the subject would be regularly under discussion. He hoped, therefore, that they would permit the present discussion to ter minate, and remain until to-morrow, when his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Secretary Canning) would bring forward the mo tion of which he had given notice. It was evident the House was not prepared for the question, and, indeed the temper which had been already ehewn, was a sufficient cause for his rising. The Petition was then read, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. __ _ _ MALT AND BEER DUTIES. Mr. MARERLEY rose to bring on the motion of which he had given notice, and which, by the courtesy of his Majesty's Ministers, he was enabled to bring on before the Orders of the Day. He rested his motion upon the principle that one class of persons should not be taxed higher than another, and that those taxing should not be favoured with the lower rate of tax a . tion. As the question branched into a great variety of Acts of Parliament, he would state what his motion was, before he proceeded. It was, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the present mode of collecting the tax upon Beer and Malt, separately, and whether it would not be expedient to take the tax upon Malt alone.— That there was,. sotpe ,Q*.e.*,9rror in the mode of levying the athnadtifthhpiesoodriedril c e las an i o a e: obliged to Nr6 : . ., i n o e Ad tb . o r n e g r ti b c u r s z T f t o b r e b r i a s e m t that alt one ;Teat inequality existed in paid only 2s. Gd. and this fay precisely the same qualities of malt, and the same qualities Of beer e , ;He knew that he should o s cusses ses this, we re which the h e suf ferers tbhee calledta upon up on this t prove article; prepared to do, and that the ferers from it, the House must grant his motion. lie was not asking the re p e al of duties, but that the same amount of duty should be levied upon-all. The duty upon Malt was Sts. 6d. a bushel, which, with eight bushels to the quarter, was one pound sterling. This one pound was all that was paid by the private brewer on a quarter of malt. He paid no duty on beer; and the House' w ould soon see how much more another class of consumers, tilmugh the public brewer, paid for the malt they consumed. He considered that a quarter of malt would brew three barrels and a half of strong beer. Upon these three barrels the duty was 1/. 155., which with the malt dut if y on the quarter, made 21 . Iss. Thi s sum , divided by eight, the number of bushels of tusit In so much liquor, gave exactly the sum he had stated, 6 e. 10id. of duty per bushel. Thus, he had made out his Proposition, that the private brewer paid only 2s. Gd. a bushel for his malt, while the public, through the public brewer, paid 66 - 10,ie. Th e re t urn o f ma l t consume d for the year 1823 was 27,23 3,380 bushels. The portion of this used by public brewer and distillers was 16,755,757 bushels ; leaving 10,533,623 bushels to have been consumed by the pri vete brewers. He tool: thee, figures from a Return for Eng land and Scotland. At the r a t e of three barrels and a half to a quarter, there were 6 1 ,2 2 ,334 barrels of strong beer, and six millions of table beer at six barrels and a half to a quarter.— It will be seen from these calculations what an enormous pro portion of tax was Paid by the poorer classes above what was paid by those who were richer. By pursuing the cal culations a little further, i t would be found that the sum which the private brewer , was thus exonerated from paying to the Revenue was no Jess than 2,097,1201. The interme diate beer which had been brewed in the last year, which the Right Honourable Gentletrian had considered would do so much good, amounted to but 6,892 barrels, which had been brewed by fifty-five different people. For this it was that they had violated every principle of just legislature, and had imposed the most unjust restriction on one class of subjects.— The whole sum calculated on account of these duties was 3,270,2051., which was materially reduced by the expence of collection under the present system. Now if the duty on malt were raised from 2s. 6d. to 4s. fid. the same amount of revenue might be raised, without adding a single shilling to the expence of collecting the malt-d uty , w hil e all the expence of collecting the beer duty Would be saved, amounting to 290,920/. Such being the ease, it seemed that for the House to resolve that this subject s should not be inquired into, would be to declare that a double collection should continue at an annual expence of almost 300,0001. He knew that he should be met on this point by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, who would tell him that the returns of the expence of collection to which he had referred, were not exactly correct. If such were the case, it furnished an additional reason for enquiry, in order that everything connected with the subject might be accurately known. He, however, thought he was justified in assuming that the return in question was nearly correct. A note at the foot of the returns stated the charge for collection there set forth did not apply to the Beer and Malt duties exclusively. The exact charge for any par.. ticlar collection it added could not be given, but the Beer and Malt duties being the most productive, the greatest charge was placed against them. This was the statement supplied by the Treasury to account for the absence of an exact return.— There was no duty on Beer in Ireland, and lie understood that since the transfer of that tax to the Malt, the consumption of Beer had greatly increased, and the Revenue was collected without difficulty. In this country, under the present system, in order to collect the duty on beer, it was necessary to have an Act passed so lately as in the first year of the present King.-- He alluded to the Act of Ist and 2d Geo. IV. cap. 22, which he considered to be one of the most severe laws ever enacted.— The Scotch Brewers soon complained that they could not carry on their trade under it. The Hon. Gentleman then read ex tracts from a correspondence which had passed between the ekotch Brewers and the Treasury on this subject, setting forth a variety of objections to the law which, though severe, they maintained would not answer the purpose of those who framed it, which would be completely secured by a direct tax upon malt. The only justification which could be given of the hardships occasioned by the restrictions of which he complained, was the necessity of protecting the Revenue, and how this could be urged by the Right Hon. Gentleman, when the object might be so much better accomplished by an addi tional duty on Malt, he could not understand. Connected with the brewing trade there were many provisions for insur ing the making of porter and beer of wholesome materials. If the change which he recommended were made, he would give any penalties which could be devised to punish the use of deletorious drugs, but as no such care on the part of the Le gislature was thought necessary with respect to coffee, wine, and many other commodities, he did not see that it was neces sary here, and thought the public in every case well qualified to protect themselves against impositions of this sort. Some attempts might he made to defraud the Revenue. This " would always be the case, whatever the measures of Go vernment might be, but he did not suppose that in. this in stance much danger was to be apprehended. As the law at present stood, the brewers of table beer were prohibited from charging more than a certain price. Prices had risen against them, till at length in the brewing of that quantity of beer, which stood them is 71. 12s. 6d., there was a loss of 12s. 6d. What was the consequence? Why the table-beer brewers gave the public, as beer, a beverage very different from that which, but for the restrictions under which, they laboured, would hare been sold. They could not sustain the loss which he had shown the advance of prices was calculated to throw upon them, and of course it must fall on the public.—He therefore contended that in fixing the price of the article they had legislated unfairly and improperly. During the war a duty of 4s. itid. had been imposed on Malt, and high duties were at the same time collected on Beer. Why then could not a higher duty be now laid on Malt, that the duty might be taken off from Beer? It was said that it was necessary to continue the present system because those connected with the land were in the habit of paying part of their labourers wages in Beer. He knew the Gentlemen of the landed interest were opposed to that alteration, which he ' held to be desirable, and a base subserviency to them would cause the Government to protect, if they had the power, the present mode of collecting the duties. He, however, could see nothing that ought to deter the House from entering upon that inquiry for which he called. The various arguments cited by the Gentlemen opposite on a former occasion appeared to him of no greater weight than those he had noticed, and he was convinced that by relieving beer from the duty, and increasing the duty on malt, a greater consumption would be caused, and the revenue, being better collected, would exceed its present amount. To maintain the existing system in this case was to act in direct opposition to those principles which had lately been advanced by Ministers and approved by the House. By laying an additional duty of two shillings on malt, the whole duty would amount to 4s. 6d. This was that which, if the present motion were carried, he should suggest to the Com mittee ; but of course because he might recommend it, the Committee would not be obliged to adopt it. Malt in time of war had actually borne a duty of 4s. 44d. He therefore only proposed that it sho u ld b e c h arge d with 10. more than had formerly been paid, and the advanced duty was only to take place when the beer duty should be taken off. It was contended, when that unjust measure which sanctioned the brewing of Intermediate Beer passed, that the public wanted beer of a different strength from any then to be had. Here again his plan was entitled to the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the system for which he contended, the wishes of the people would be consulted in this respect, as every one would be left at liberty to brew beer of what strength he pleasd. He wished the duties to be equalised, and this he thought an object of no small importance. He concluded by moving—" That a Committee should be appointed to in quire into the present mode of collecting the tax on. Malt and Beer separately, and whether it was not expedient that the amount should be collected on Malt alone, thereby equalizing the tax, that one consumer of Malt should not pay 2s. 6d. per bushel, and another 6s. lOid. per bushel, and that one con sumer of Beer should not pay ss. Bid. per barrel, and another consumer 15s. 80. for the same quality of Malt and Beer." The CHA.NCE LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, when this subject was discussed last year, in his judgment very satisfac tory reasons were given for not adopting the plan of the Hon. Gentleman, and nothing had since occurred to alter his view of the question. He could not hold out to the House that he was likely to throw any new light on it, for he had not sufficient ingenuity to furnish new arguments on a question whenever it might be brought forward. He would, however, shortly state the grounds on which he thought it would he inexpedient to agree to the motion. The Honourable Gentleman had stated two grounds on which his plan deserved support,—the one founded on their love of economy, and the other on their love of justice. Now as to this first topic—that relating to the ex pence of collecting, he must repeat that it was a fallacy to sup pose that that sum was actually paid for the collection of beer duties, which, according to ancient custom, was so put d own in the Excise returns. The same Collector of the duty on beer collected the duties on soap and starch, and various other duties, and it was impossible accurately to state the precise expence of collecting any one of them, nor had he been able to devise any plan by which this could be ascertained, as one collector could not be employed in collecting one duty alone.— He therefore did not' see how the Hon. Gentleman made out that 290,000/. might thus be saved on the collection. The Hon. Gen tleman seemed to think there would be little danger of the duty on Malt being evaded. He, hoWever; would tell him that great ingenuity was now exercised to evade the payment of the present Malt Duty, and it could not be doubted that increased efforts would be made to defraud the Revenue if the additional two shillings proposed to be put on by the Hon. Gentleman re ceived the sanction of the House. But the two shillings addi tional Duty on Malt, which he proposed to give the Govern ment, the Hon. Gentleman would find would not compensate whichceof the the B repealee rDuty of the i a tle st ß y e e e e r r w Du e ty , m for us t t h e e ee l e o s s i s eh o ! f T itev he e r n r u o e du 3,080,0001.; the additional 2s. one jtlalt would give 2,760,0001. —So there would be ft deficiency of no less than 300,0001.__ The Hon. Gentleman contended that this duty was unequal, and called upon him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to reconcile the continuance of it with the principles which he advocated in other cases. Abstractedly, he could not deny the inequality charged to exist, but, practically, that ine quality did not press, as the Hon. Gentleman supposed, on those whom he wished to befriend. He assumed that all who did not brew were poor, and that all who did brew were rich.— Now, in this point of the case he could not agree. In many parts of the country the por brewed. This was the case in those parts of the country with which he was acquainted, and he knew it to be the case in Yorkshire, where the fanners, the manufacturers, and others were accustomed to brew for them selves. Were the proposed transfer of duty made, to many of those who belonged to the poor and industrious classes, it would be a great evil, and by depriving the parties of their home brewed beer, would produce another evil by driving them to the public house. The transfer of the duty would deprive the public incidentally of one advantage, which, in his judg ment, was not a small one—that superintendence of the brewer, which rendered the use of improper drugs so likely to he de tected. The Honourable Gentleman thought the public could discover any cheat of this kind for themselves, but he would remark that, in the last year, though many offences of that sort had been punished, none of them had been detected by that nicety of taste for which the Hon. Gentleman gave the public credit, but they had been invariably discovered by information received from servants, or from the Officers of Excise. The Honourable Gentleman had thrown great ridicule on a measure which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had brought for ward last year, to sanction the brewing of intermediate beer.— He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not feel that there were any grounds for the observations which had been made.— He had never calculated on any very important results, and had only desired th a t th e measure s h ou ld b e tr i e d b y way o f experi ment. He was anxious to remove many of the restrictions on the Brewing Trade complained of, and was in hopes that it would be in his power, ere long, to submit certain propositions to the House, which would in a great degree obviate the evil. He did not give this as an answer to the Hon. Gentleman, but merely stated it by the way. He concluded by declaring it to be his opinion, that no benefit would be derived from the adop tion of the plan of the Hon. Gentleman, and he therefore thought it better to dissent from it altogether. Mr. HUME thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had laboured very ineffectually to show that there would be no saving effected in the collection by agreeing to the proposition of his Hon. Friend. That there must be a saving was apparent, when the House remembered the various duties which would be rendered unnecessary. He doubted not that the sum returned as the ex pence attendant on the collection of the Beer Duties was nearly correct. Had it been otherwise he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have found means of proving the fact. The effect of the proposed change he thought would be to cause an increased consumption, which would be at once beneficial to the revenue and to the barley grower. The House would remember how the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been cheered, when he stated, that those taxes which were still to be kept on, ought to fall equally on all classes. If he rightly contended for that principle, why decline to give his consent to the enquiry now demanded. He was informed thaegreat benefit had resulted from repealing the beer duty, and laying it on the malt in Ireland. He did not see why the same effect should not be produced here, and there fore hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his opposition to the motion. Mr. WODEHOUSE could not agree with the Hon. Gentle man who had brought forward the motion, that all who brewed for themselves were rich, and all who did not brew poor. Mr. MABERLEY denied haying made such an assertion. Mr. WODEHOUSE appealed to the House if such had not been the general tenour of the Hon. Gentleman's argument, and he had accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of keep. ing the duties as they now were from a spirit of base subser viency to the landed interest. He knew of nothing that could justify these charges. Last year the Hon. Gentleman had magnanimously threatened to shew up the landed interest. He had executed his threat on the present occasion, and he wished the Hon. Gentleman joy of what he had done. The Hon. Gentleman was willing to give any penalties to protect the Malt Duties. He meant on disrespect to the Hon. Gentleman, but thought he, perhaps, was not aware of those which now at tached to them. Mr. MABERLEY said he had not declared he would give any penalties to protect the Malt. Duties, but he would do so to prevent the use of deleterious drugs. Mr. WODEHOUSE then proceeded to shew that the plan of the Hon. Gentleman could not be adopted with advantage. It would prove injurious to the barley grower; and he shewed that the consumption of Malt (the increase of population con- r Ridered) had rema i ne d s t a ti onar y, an d was not g e a ter in 18 2 , 1822, and 1823, than it had been in 1791, 1792, and 179 3 . 1 L reduction of duty, instead of an increase, he thought would be desirable. Mr. IiENISON supported the motion, and contended that_ the poor paid 130 per cent. more than the rich for the beverage they drank. He thought the plan of the Hon. Gentleman ought to be adopted. At a ll events , h e t h oug h t t h ey w ould do' well to go into the Committee. If the plan was adopted, he thought it would cause an increased consumption, which mould not only improve th e r e v enue , b ut wou ld l arge l y b en efit the poorer classes, by breaking them of the practice of dram drinking, and he therefore felt it to be his duty to give the mo tion his most hearty support. Mr. CRIPPS remarked, the malt duty was now much evaded, and could n o t d ou bt b ut i t.wou ld be much more so, the duty were augmented. He wished when the excise "officer went to the brewhouses, he were obliged to take a person witl him to analyse the beer. Were this done, he believed it woUla lead to a great increase in the consumption of barley. T hii. Might do great good, and, at all events, it cou ld d o no harm to any one who meant to act fairly. He opposed Cie !notion. Mr. MONCK could not support the motion, as however In''' . radoxical it might appear, if . carried it would introduce the very inequality which it was the object of the Hon. Member for Abingdon to remove. He knew• that in many cases the po t brewed as well as the rich. In the country where he lived there was no housewife who did not brew. All the tradesmen an d little shopkeepers brewed. He was sorry to say they did not cla it so much as formerly. This was caused by the high duty 03 malt, and if that duty were increased it would be put down altogether. It had been said the measure succeeded in Ire land. This might be correct, but it did not follow that the same result would follow if it were resorted to in this country, as the situation of England and Ireland were by no means analogous. • Captain MABERLEY supported the motion. Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that if the tax on n' were increased as the Hon. Gentleman had proposed, the result would not answer his expectation, as he thought it would hav° the effect of causing much less malt to be made in the presen t year than had been made in the last. Mr. Alderman C. SMITH spoke shortly against the rilotion-, After a few words from 111 r. PELnam, Mr. MAzzat.Ev re plied, contended that his arguments remained unanswered, Amd announced it to be his intention to bring the motion ftirwara' every year while he had a seat in that House. The House divided, when the numbers were— For the motion - 26 Against it . 130 _ _ aj ority UTINY BILL. When strangers were re-ecdmitted, Mr. HUME was on his legs, proposing to add a clause t° the Mutiny Bill, to abolish the punishment of flogging in the Army in Great Britain. He had seen an officer who serveat W irtemberg, and who had told him that the practice o f floe ging had been very prevalent there during the late King . ' reign. It was found that the men considered themselves de graded by that punishment, and the same individuals repot' edly offended. Since the accession of the present King, a nee system had been a dopt e d, fl ogg i ng h a d b een discont i nue " altogether, and the most salutary effects resulted from th e change. Though he feared under the present system Inr would not enter from the hope of promotion, yet he thougot many might be induced to enlist for five, seven, or ten years' if the dread cf suffering the ignominous punishment of flog ging for some trifling offence which might be inadvertestlY committed, were done away. He hoped at least that the exPe riment would be made, and therefore trusted he should bee al' lowed to bring up his clause. Str H. VIVIAN had tried, as he believed many officers had!: to do away with flogging as much as possible. The Duke of York, who had so often proved himself the soldier's friend , would not have failed to abolish it had this been practicable . He was sure that British officers had hearts to feel as. much 8 6 any men, but he had never conversed with any who, while they lamented it, had not recognised the necessity of using corpnre' punishment to maintain the discipline of the army. It was to be remembered that the army was recruited from the lowes t classes, and from those who were wild in their propensities - He did not object to this. for he ascribed to it the indisputable superiority of the British soldier over every other, and it had been found that the man %Ore was the first to break out of the barrack yard was often the first to break into the enemy's lines. He shewed the impossibility of punishing fifty or sixty mei fo r drunkenness, the predominating offence, by solitary confine ment, and if it could be . done, it would have the effect of throw; ing the duty, they ought to perform on good men. He defended the character of the discipline of the British army. He Mr Bested various regulations which he thought would diminish the necessity for hogging, but he wished the power of inflicting it to be retained, but to be exercised as seldom as possible. Sir R. FERGUSON said, a great change had taken place used pr ac t t h i a ca n li f y ori tnoerrployr,alanpdun everyi in our military sy stem . F ormer l y i t was generally understoo d that for any comm o n o ff ence a sold i er should be punishe d by twa F s m T re o q flogging. Now it was on l y resorted to in particular cases. Lord n ALu much l less S . me u N en s t a ly id, effort was made to avoid having recourse to it. The clause be fore them did not go to prevent flogging abroad, remo te front the view of Government, 'where it was most liable to abuse+ hut to do it away at home when there was no cause for complaint. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the proposed Clause - 47 Against it - 127 —l3O Majority - On our return to the Gallery, we found Mr. HUME speaking upon the subject of the Certificate which Officers are compelled to make upon going into the army relative to the sale and purchase of Commissions. He con tended that no.officer could make the declaration without feel ing his honour deeply offended, because he knew the practices to be common, winch it compelled him to deny upon his word of honour. The Hon—Member moved to bring up a clause providing that no Officer should be required or allowed to make any declaration upon his word of honour, as an Officer and a Gentleman, which the service might afterwards compel him on many occasions to violate. Sir H. HARDINGE said that . upon a former evening be ad mitted with the Hon. Member that it would be desirable, if possible, for this order to be recalled ; and upon inquiry he found there was reason to believe that the subject was under consideration. The object of the regulation was originally that of preventing jobbing, and the consequence had been to protect the junior officers and the poorer officers. It was ne cessary for that part of the regulation which produced so de sirable an effe ct to b e cont i nue d ; b ut t h e certificates he hope " !4:i see recalled. He bad every reason to believe that the sub ject was under the consideration of the Commander in Chief, , and under such circuinstances he should object to the interfe rence of the House. Col. DAVIES said, if he could hear it stated by the Secre tary of War that the subject was under consideration in the proper quarter, he should consider the clause unnecessary. The jobbing in commissions was as common now as ever it had been. 'Lord PALMERSTON said, the question was one of great difficulty, and he did not think the clause would effect the pur pose of the Hon. Member. It had been held that the sale or commissions was an expedient practice for the army, but the question was, how far it should be allowed, and where the limit should'be marked. After stating the practice for the purchase and exchange of commissions, the Noble Lord said that the subject had been for some time under consideration. At the same time he could not consent to any proposition in that House because being under consideration, implied that it was not ar ranged. He should certainly oppose this clause, because as he had heard it, it would produce no effect ; and if it would remove the certificate, the House should pause before it 'did so, and particularly while the subject was under consideration in a quarter to which it more constitutionally belonged. Mr. HUME withdrew the clause, and the Bill was passed. ANNUAL DUTIES. The C TANCELLORRof the EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of, the Annual Duties' Bill. The Report was received and the Bill ordere to be read a third time to-morrow. SUPPLY. The House having resolved itself into a Committee of SupplY? Mr. GOULBURN moved that a sum of 21,0151. be granted for the Protestant. Charter Schools in Ireland. Mr. HUME said the Vote ought to have been reduced 3,000 1 • below what it was last year, for such had been the distinct pledge of Government. Instead of which it had been increased 4,0001. The sum last year was 17,0001., and he should there fore move that it now be reduced to 14,0001. Mr. GOULBURN' said, he thought the House could 1 10 C withdraw the means of support and subsistence to these est blishrnents during the .current year. He admitted that the Charter Houses were to be considered more in the light of cha rities than as systems of education, and as charities he wished to support them. After some observations from Sir M. W. Ridley, Mr. C• Grant, Lord Althorp, Mr. Butterworth, Sir J. Newport, Mr' Goulburn, Mr. Spring Rice, Mr. Hume, and Sir J. Hill, the Committee divided— Ayes _ - - - 35 Noes - _ - - 74 Majority - - - _39 The sum of 4,4731. having been proposed for the Society fcr Discouraging Vice in Ireland, Mr. II umE, Sir Joni; NEW PORT, and Mr. 8. RICE, objected to the grant on the ground that the money was misapplied. Mr. GouLßurtN, after a few observations, consented to postpone the Resolution ; also the next Resolution, relating to the Society for publishing Religious Tracts.