The Sun. — London, England, 1839-06-04 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. WESTERN MAILS. " Difference in favour of Devonport... 8. " It is obvious that if the steamer reaches Falmouth at or after the hour of 7 p.m., one post is lost; and it is equally obvious that had she gone direct to Devonport, after allowing for the extra sea voyage, an arrival there so late as 8 the following morning would have saved the same post. " The following practical instances have occurred in the present year ; " On the 11th of January last, the Tagus arrived at Fal mouth on a Friday morning, and after dropping the dis patches, which were necessarily delayed for 48 hours in Falmouth, she arrived at Devonport before the London mail of Friday had started. " On the 9th of February the despatches by the Tagus wire again delayed 24 hours; and, subsequently, the des patches by the Iberia, Londonderry, Liverpool, and Bra ganza, have severally been delayed 24 hours. " Thus in a period of two months, out of nine packets, there have been six cases of detention. " D. leyi in the embarcation of despatches are also ceused by their transmission to Falmouth. " The mail with the foreign bags arrives at Falmouth at 8 a.m. ; and during eight months in the year the embarca tion may be made at 10 a.m. ; but during the winter months, owing to delays on the roads, seldom before noo " The Devonport mail, with the London letters, arr,ves at 4 p.m., and the latest mail with the northern bags at half -oast 10 p.m. For eight months in the year embarca. tion might be made before midnight, and in the winter months certainly at day-break the following morning, allowing for the extra sea voyage; therefore the summer months would give six hours', and the winter months two hours', saving in favour of Devonport. "'The means of communication afforded to passengers arc likewise much more limited from Falmouth than from Dc won pert. " All the coaches leave the first place either at night or early in the morning. The daily coaches at seven p.m., tro and six, a.m. ; and two coaches, three days per week, at six and seven a.m. " The Devonport mails leave at half-past nine a.m., and at half-past five p.m., by which means are afforded of forwarding despatches to all parts of the kingdom. The daily coaches leave at nine, half-past ten a.m., and half p st twelve at noon ; and another every day but Sunday, at half-past eleven a.m." Due weight cannot fail to be given to such facts and rea soning- as have been quoted on this subject ; but as the ceasing to be a packet station must inflict a great and po sitive evil on the town of Falmouth, there should be an effort made by the Government and Post.office for their share in the business, and by the town of Fal mouth for itself, to remedy the evil inflicted, and so . prevent, if possible, the adoption of so decided a course. If the harbour is no fit shelter for steam-vessels, and if the people are unable to refit or repair them, or to supply them with stores—if enterprise is nowhere to be found equal to the dispatch of a mail -cart when ne cessary to overtake the regular mail at Exeter, and if the whole clumsy system of the inland mails from that place is to be persevered in after the repeated warnings given, then the result sought for is inevitable. All that it may be possible to do to meet the complaints made by the mer chants, may be insufficient to overcome the natural defects of the port of Falmouth, and save it from the threatened danger; but without a speedy effort, and that a very ener getic one, even that chance must be taken away. The inhabitants, homver they may suffer from the change, would be divested in that case of all reasonable ground of complaint. It is fully understood that if this matter is pressed by the merohants, accompanied with proof that these inconve niences exist, and cannot, or will not be remedied, the Go vernment must yield the point at issue, and adopt Plymouth ae the packet station. USE OF GEOLOGY TO FARMERS.—One of the most obvious sources of advantage to the farmer from an acquaintance with the distribution of mineral masses, is the facility with which, in many instances, the injurious effect of small springs coming to the surface may be obviated. The theory of the earth's internal drainage is so simple, that every man of common sense would bo able to drain his lands, upon sure principles, or else to know precisely why it cannot be drained, if he were to become so much of a geologist as to learn what rocks existed under his land, at what depth, and in what positions. Springs never issue from stratified masses, except from reservoirs somehow produced in jointed rocks, and at the level of the overflow of these subterraneous cavities. Faults in the strata very frequently limit these reservoirs, and determine the points of efflux of the water. Let those faults be ascertained, or the edge of the jointed rock be found, the cure of the evil is immediate. But some geological information is needed here; and landed proprietors, who think it less troublesome to employ an agent than to direct such a simple operation, may at least profit by this hint, and choose au agent who knows sc.mething of the rocks be is to drain. * * * Another thing, probably of importance to agriculturists, is the discovery of substances at small depths, which, if brought to the surface, would enrich, by a suitable mix ture, the soil of their fields. This is very strongly in sisted on by Sir H. Davy in his Essays, and considering how easy a thing it is for a landowner to ascertain posi tively the series of strata on his estate, it is somewhat mar vellous that so few cases can be quoted, except that of Sir Jehn Johnson, Bart., of Hackness, near Sea-borough, in which this easy work has been performed. Finally, in ex periment for the introduction of new systems and mode of management, with respect to cattle and crops, it will be of gnat consequence to take notice of the qualities of soil, substrata, and water, for these undoubtedly exercise a real and perhaps decisive influence over the r,:sult.—Lardner's Cyclopozdia. PUBLIC understand by public opinion the sense and sentiment of the community, eeces sarily irresistible, showing its sovereign power everywhere. It is this public opinion which gives sense to the letter and lie to the law; without it the written law is a mere husk. It is the aggregate opinion of the members of the State, as it has been formed by practical life; it is the common sense of the community, including public know ledge, and necessarily influeneed by the taste and genius of the community. How is it formed ? It is formed as the opinion of any society is formed, which must always consist of leaders, superior men, men cf talents, or well informed men, who had an opportunity to see or inform themselves, and less gifted men, or less informed persons, the acquiescing or trusting ones. Not that the leaders prescribe with absolute power; they only either pronounce clearly what has been indistinctly felt by many, or they start a new idea, which, in being received by the acquiescing ones, has to accommodate and tinodify itself to the existing circumstances. The leaders themselves are under the strongest influence of that sense and sentiment of the community, for from early childhood they live in the same relations with the others. Public opinion i , not only an opinion pronounced upon some sub ject, hut it is likewise that which daily and hourly interpret l aws, carries them along, or stops their opera tron, which makes it possible to have any written laws, and wi no t a b s eut which any t h e w i sest l aw m i ght b e made to mean It is th a t w hi c h ma k es i t poss ib le to prescr ib e and "e' observe forms, without theiAecoming a daily hind rance of the most necessary procedures and actions ; it is that mighty power which abrogates the most positive laws, and gives vast extent to the apparently narrow limits of a e tvrihich, a monarch ever so absolute in theory cannot di vi tf agist h r orand things, and according to which a limited may dare a thousand things ; which renders innocent ::h e at ewri me asures, as obnoxio us , an d ma k es, at times, useless the best-i ntend t i me s even crime.—Liebe r ' s P olitical p ic ro s tecting some- MVONPORT, OR FALMOUTH? (Eons the Trimes.) The late vexatious delays in the transmission of the letters front India, after they had reached England, have revived the question, often before agitated, of the relative merits and conveniences of Falmouth and Plymouth as ports of arrival for the foreign mails, and late occurrences certainll s justify the conc l us i on ', t h at h a d Pl ymout h , or rather Devonport, been the port first made by the packets conveying the Indian mail, instead of Falmouth, the ar rangements for the inland mail remaining the same as they now are, a saving of 24 hours would have taken place in the transmission of the letters to London or to their des tination in other parts of the kingdom. This is so great an evil to commercial men, deeply suffering Already in the case of Inch, from the anticipations brought about through other means, that a strenuous effort is making to induce the Government to change the port of arrival, and transfer the foreign mails from Falmouth to Devonport. A memorial to this effect is in circulation, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, to which signatures are invited, but they have not reached such a number, nor included mercantile firms of such a rank, as to justify the expectation that the suggestions therein =Ade will be acted upon. It is affirmed by the parties putting forward this memorial, that these delays and various other inconveniences are caused by the oblis.7a. Con imposed on the vessels which carry the mails to land • and embark the bags at Falmouth exclusively; that the aaahorage at Falmouth is bad and unfit for steam-ships, to which class of vessels the conveyance of the mails most shortly be exclusively transferred; that complete security for such vessels can be obtained in Plymouth harbour, and that the distance thence to London is 31 miles less than from Falmouth, that the distance from Cape Finisterro to Falmouth can be accomplished in four hours less than that to Plymouth, but that hours is saved on t:ie land journey ; and that the steam.vessels, even after landing the mails at Falmouth, are compelled to praceed to Plymouth, as at the former place they cannot procure stores or fuel, or undergo the neces7ary repairs after the svoyag,e. So much for the mere facilities and advantages possessed by one port over the other. In regard to the practical operation of the land conveyance, the following remarks are submitted : " Whether the mails are landed or embarked at Fal molth or Devonport, they must necessarily pa=s through the city of Exeter to and from the metropolis and all parts of the kingdom. " The distance from Cape Finisterre to Exeter via Fal mouth is 562 miles--464 miles by sea and 98 by land. The distance via Devor,port is 539 miles -495 by sea and 44 by land. The voyage by sea on the first route will be made on an average in four hours less thin by the latter; but the journey by land takes 71- hours extra, in additi on to which th e baps are detained in Exeter 5 hours, until the arrival of the Devonport " The balance of time in favour of the Devonport route, therefore, will be found as follows : " The mail with the foreign bags leaves Fal mouth at 7 in the evening, and arrives in 12 hours at Exeter, at which place the bags are detained 5 hours more, till the Devonport mail arrives, making the time of transit from Falmouth " The Devonport mail leaves at half-past 9in the morning, arid reaches Exeter in 41 hours; but to this time is to be added the extra sea voyage, 4 hours, making the vir l-tual time of transit .. B- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Julf.c 3. The LORD C:IihNCELLOR took his scat at Five o'Clock on the Woolsack. Lord DARTMOUTH and the Earl of HADDING TON presented petitions in favour of a uniform rate of penny postage. A message from the House of Commons brought up several private Bills. Lord RE DE SDA LE presented a petition from Wood house, in the county of Northumberland, in favour of the Church in Canada. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented petitions from Bath, Hertford, and the licensed victuallers of the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Marylebone, and several other places, against the Beer Bill. Lord A LBEMARLE presented petitions from Ipswich, and several places in the county of Norfolk, praying for the adoption of a penny postage. The Duke of ARGYLE presented a petition from a place in the county of Argyle, praying for Church Ex tension. Earl STA N H 0 PE presented several petitions in favour of a penny postage. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a place in Inverness-shire against any alteration in the Corn laws, and several petitions against the Beer Bill. PENNY POSTAGE. The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from a great many places in favour of a uniform rate of penny postage. The Noble Duke was anxious to call the attention of their Lordships, and more particu larly that of her Majesty's Ministers, to the subject of the penny postage, as otherwise he might be too late in his efforts to make any alteration in a mea sure that was likely to be recommended by the other House of Parliament upon this subject. He dii hope if her Majesty's Ministers did reduce the postage at all, they would do it according to Mr. Rowland Hill's plan— ( Hear, hear)—and not according to the Report of the Committee of the House of Com mons, because if they did riot they would not be able to prevent the illegal conveyance of letters. —( Hear, hear. ) The only way they could hope to prevent that would be by taking the postage at the lowest rate, namely a penny He hoped, also, there would be nothing in that Bill that would prevent an individual sending a letter, not in a penny cover, otherwise the Legislature would be against the very principle of Mr. Rowland Hill, which was to induce and encourage letter-writing, The right principle would be to- allow every man to write and send a letter without a stamp if he pleased, but that all such letters should be charged upon delivery at a higher rate.--(Hear, hear, hear.) lie could not abstain either from adverting to one of the groeses abuses that ever existed in this country in the Post-office Department, and that was official franking. He saw no reason why the Treasury should not purchase the stamps as well as other persons, arid then it would be known what the amount of the money would come to in this way, and thereby the whole of the abuse of official franks would be got rid of. He would also throw out the propriety of allowing persons to purchase any stamps to send their letters by any stage coach, carrier, or steam-boat that might choose to take them, be cause so long as the revenue was secured parties ought to have their own option as to the mode of conveyance. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented peti tions in favour of an uniform rate of penny postage, and against the bastardy clause of the New Poor-law Bill. Lord BROUGHAM wished to suggest to his Noble and Learned Friend, who had a motion on the subject of Chancery for to-morrow, whether it would not be con venient to postpone it till Friday night. Many Learned Lords would be engaged on Thursday, and the Church Discipline Bill was fixed for to-morrow, and it would be inconvenient for the Right Rev Prelate who intended to oppose that Bill, as he could not attend on any other day. Lord LYNDHURST had no objection to accede to the proposal of his Noble and Learned Friend, and would therefore postpose his motion till Friday. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Lord BROUGHAM said it was a thing which very sel dom happened to him to have to complain of a breach of privilege, because he paid little regard to statements made out of doors; but there was one way in which the privileges of that House might certainly he abused, and that was by gross, and ma nifest, and wilful—and lie confined himself to that—wilful mis-statements of what took place in that House. If it had been merely an inaccurate report, he would bethe last per son in the world to complain of it; on the contrary, it was a matter of wonder to him, as it must he to others, that the reports were so accurate as they were. That was his opinion, but when he saw a wilful misrepresentation in the newspapers, and more especially when it was directly in the teeth of its own report, he felt it his duty to call attention to it, for the purpose of exposing to the people of that country bow little faith they could fix upon party statements of facts. He would now appeal to the House, whether any one of the three following assertions, which he was about to read in the paragraph he held in his hand, had any foundation, and if any one Member of their Lord ship's House (and that was a great degree of audacity of assertion—that was a bold challenge), if any one of their Lordship's would say that there was any truth whatever in any one of the three following assertions, then he would cease t o ma k e any o b servat i ons :—" The answer was as distinct and satisfactory as any answer that ever was given."—( Laughter.) He did not know how far that that might be true, but his Noble Friend behind him could not think so. It then proceeded—" We are compelled to state"—now what compelled a man to state a gross false hood be could not tell--( A laugh) —except it might be his nature—" that there was not a single Member of the House who did not leave it disgusted with the speech." Not a single Member l He admitted that ninety-nine out of a hundred might have been disgusted. His Noble ' Friend near him (Lord Melbourne) might have felt dis gust, but certainly there were some besides himself who r did not leave it disgusted, for he had stated facts. Now there followed a more serious charge—" That the object of the speech was only in reality to indulge in his known inveteracy of hatred to the Monarchy." Why lie was the person who had defended the Monarchy on that occasion, and he had objected to his Noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) because he had said too little in its favour, fur he only quoted King William—that he could not tell whether he liked best a Monarchy or a Republic. He declared upon his honour that be never spoke with less idea of throwing disrespect upon the Monarchy.—(Hear, hear.) Ilis opinion and his argument was in favour of a Monarchy, and it held up the Monarchical principle ;:and if it was not his belief that what had been ill done by one party and mis represented by another was endangered, he should not have inflicted that speech upon their Lordships. There was one kind of monarchy for which he had not expressed respect, and that was a monarchy which could not carry on its own measures ; but that was not his senti men t or his speech—it was he sentiment of his Noble Friend behind him, borrowed from King William. He did not believe that any single individual who heard him had the least idea of that sort. The last paragraph was equally painful and equally false. It asserted that he had assailed —whom did their Lordships think ?—the actual Sovereign ! Could anything be more base ? ( Hear, near.) Was there a man in the House, however disgusted he might be with his speech—was there one man in the House who could say conscientiously that he made any—the slightest disrespectful, allusion to the Sovereign 7—( Hear. ) On the contrary, he bad thought he was unnecessarily endeavouring to prevent tile possibility of perversions, blunders, and misinterpretations. He now found that he not unnecessarily, but uselessly and ineffectually, did se, for all that you could take in the way of pains to prevent the possibility of that most offen sive, and, to him, certainly painful misrepresentation was, he found, all thrown away, for the misrepresentation had been made.—( Several Peers here exclaimed, " What newspaper is it ?") The Observer Sunday paper.--( Cries of " Oh")—the organ of the Government.—( Laughter.) Two things appeared to have been in the contemplation of the parties who made that statement : —first, to ascertain what the fact was, and then to find out how they could say that which would be the most untrue, the most injurious, the most offensive, and the most painful to the individual against whom it was made. If it was any satisfaction to the parties to know they had succeeded in one of their objects, in saying that which was most untrue three times over, let them enjoy that satisfaction. He defied anybody to surpass them in that ; but if they required the other satisfaction of having given any great pain, why it was always painful to see one person hated another so much as to tell such falsehoods ; any other pain he (Lord Brougham) did not feel. He knew that if he had not mentioned this to their Lordships, and had held it up as a sort of a challenge, that for the next six months he would have been misrepresented, first by onr paper, then by another, and then by a third, till at last all papers,all speakers at country meetings, all orators at those great, unanimous, hearty, and most respectable and most numerous meetings, like the one at Kensington the other day—(Laughter)—which, out of 12,000 inhabi tants, had 72 present. At all those great, unanimous, and multitudinous meetings, as he saw one account called them, he would have been represented as having made an attack on the Monarchy—an attack on the Sovereign actually on the Throne. He hail merely made these remarks for the pur pose of repelling the statement, and to show there was not a shadow of foundation for it. The best thing any re spectable publication could do would be to give up the name of the individual who made that false party state ment, and suggested it would be a good thing to put forth to the public. If anybody should say that he was interfer ing with the liberty of the Press, of which he was a great advocate, he would answer that he was only interferi ng with unlicensed falsehood, put forth to deceive the pe o ple of this country, and die sooner the people opened their eyes to such stratagems and falsehoods the better it would be Au. the country. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY certainly lamented hat the Noble and Learned Lord had thought it neces- ry to trouble the House with a repetition of such trash, published in the newspaper he had just quoted.—( Hear, ' hear, and laughter.) There was not an indivi(lual in that House who had not gone away with the conviction that there never was so eloquent, so able, and so constitutional a speech as that made by the Noble and Learned Lord the other night.--( Hear, hear.) He (the Marquis of London derry) and those nearly connected with him, had been opposed to the Noble and Learned Lord in political senti ments during the whole course of their lives, but he be lieved they were all agreed that they had never heard so able and so clear an exposition of the British Constitution and of the rights of the people, as that which the Noble and Learned Lord then made.—( Hear, bear.) If the Noble and Learned Lord had not already had sufficient praise bestowed on him by the universal acclamations and testimonials of regard and esteem he had received from all societies and all towns he had visited, he believed these marks of admiration would shortly be renewed from every part of the country. If the Noble and Learned Lord had not already had sufficient encomiums passed on him to satisfy his vanity, he believed there would be a renewal of them to such an extent as would overwhelm him.— (Great laughter, in which Lord Brougham heartily joined.) ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS. Lord WHARNCLIFFE begged to draw the attention of the House to a subject which he conceived of great pertance. His attention had been arrested by an account in one of the Morning Papers, quoted from the Freeman's Journal, of a requisition to the Iligh Sheriff of the county of Mayo, calling upon him to convene a meeting to address her Majesty on the resignation and recal of her present Ministers. The requisition was signed by the Lord Lieutenant (the Marquis of Sligo). The next signature was " John (Archbishop of) Tuam," and the third name was " Thomas Tuam."—( Laughter.) This did appear to him to be gross assumption on the part of the Roman Catholic Archbishop, and he must say it did appear to him that the conduct of the Protestant Bishop was most extraordinary, lie should like to know from the Government, whether they would allow a Roman Catholic Archbishop to assume those titles, which by law they were under a penalty for using ? Lord MELBOURNE said it was a matter for the Irish Government, if they thought fit, to take under their con sideration. But he could not help saying, that if the Protestant Bishop concurred in the requisition, he did not think it would have been a wise thing in him to have with held his signature on the ground that the other individual had assumed the title stated. The Earl of WICKLOW could not hear what had fallen from the Noble Viscount opposite without express ing his total dissent from the whole of it. The mode in which the Irish Government was led and dictated to in that country was well known, and it was well known that the Noble Viscount here, as the head of that Government, ought to exercise his authority over it. The new Bishop was the son of the Lord Chancellor of that country—a person just appointed by the Noble Lord himself ; and a greater affliction could not have been imposed upon that country, proceeding from that mean subserviency to an in dividul to whom the Noble Lord considered himself in debted, than the appointment of that individual. BEER BILL. Lord MELBOURNE presented petitions from the Tower Hamlets, from the common brewers of Derby, from the retailers of beer in Rochdale, Manchester, Sal ford, Huddersfield, Portsmouth, Pontefract, the metropolis, and various other places, in favour of the Beer Bill. Lord BROUGHANI presented petitions from Stroud, and other places, in favour of a repeal of the Beer Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord said that in rising to move tha second reading of the Beer Bill, of which he had given notice, the only thing that operated on his mind as a discouragement to that in which he hoped to be successful, was the consideration that it might be thought an effort on his part, which would be most contrary to his feelings and fixed principles, to deprive the humbler classes of society of some of some of the means of recrea tion adapted to their situation, and which was of no con ' sequence to those who were placed in a different and higher sphere of life. He had all his life looked with the greatest suspicion upon every plan which had for its object, under whatever pretence, a limitation of the enjoyment of the common people, where equal limits were not at the same time proposed to be imposed upon the enjoyments of those in a higher condition. He had carried this feeling to the utmost extent ; for instance, as to the Temperance Socie ties, no onecould approve of them more than he did him self, and the Noble Duke opposite had expresed the same sentiment. But he had joined with the Noble Duke in refusing to become a member of those Societies for the obvious reason that it would be no self-restraint upon in dividuals in his situation to enter into a bond not to con sume ardent spirits, when they had at their command the opportunity of consuming equally deleterious liquor. Why should the Noble Duke, or his Noble and Learned Friend opposite enter into a Society binding themselves not to drink spirits, when they had the perfect power of drinking their claret, burgandy, and champagne.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He knew plenty of persons who would have no objections to enter into those So cieties but they said they would not be guilty of such hy pocrisy as to declare that ardent spirits should not be drank when they felt certain that they could continue to enjoy their wine. He himself felt strongly the objection to drinking ardent spirits. They were the parent of crimes of the worst description, as the Police Reports showed, namely, crimes accompanied by violence. But if ardent spirits could be used with great moderation, they had the authority of Burke—no mean authority—for say ing that in moderation they might be a needful stimulus to the poor man, particularly in the various branches of town industry, in damp positions, and in unwholesome occupa tions, where stimulus of that description was required for the nerves. But passing by that they were all agreed that the habits of temperance, and avoiding intemperance and those other offences which he should advert to by and by, as fostered prodigiously by those who kept beer-houses-- that to get rid of those evils would be a very great improvement to the morals, the comfort, and the happiness of the labouring classes. He felt that he should not be discharging his duty to the country or their Lordships, or to himself, if he delayed any longer in bringing the question before the House. He must observe that some of his Noble Friends near him had charged him with having changed his opinions upon that subject. These statements were not more true than many others that were made with respect to him, but the fact was quite the reverse. " How can you," said the letters he was receiving daily, " how can you think to be against the Beer Bill, that originally brought it in?" If he had brought it in, and found that he had been wrong, that would be a good reason why he should change his opinion. —( Hear, hear.) But it did so happen that he had not only not brought it in, but had opposed it in every way he could. He had brought in the Beer Bill, out of which originated the Committee which proposed and carried the late mea sure. But what was his (Lord Brougham's) proposition-- that beer might be allowed to be sold, but not consumed on the premis es . Th at was, he had no objection to its being sold like bread, or any other commodity, at the chandler's shop, but not drunk on the premises. Nov, his Bills of 1822, 1823, and 1824, for he had brought forward three, contained a clause prohibiting, under;severe penalties, the consumption of beer on the premises. That was it prohibited the beer-houses, or beer-shops, or pub lic-houses, whose sale was confined to beer, and selling without magistrates' licence, having only the excise licence, from allowing beer to be consumed on the premisee. Now, he would explain to their Lordships why he had urged upon them, and upon the lower House of Parliament, (for tie was then a Member of that House), why he objected to the Beer Bill, and why he admitted the sale of beer in these shops, but not to be consumed on the premises. hi the first place it interfered with monopoly brewers. That was one, but only a small portion of his reasons. But the prin ciple reason was, that it enabled a person to send his daughter to beer-shops to get a quart or a pint of beer for drinking in his own house, without the chance of her being contami nated by being sent to the ale house. There was another, but a weightier reason, that a man was enticed from the ale-house if he could only buy beer at these houses to consume with his family at home. He could not, accord ing to the present excise laws, have a sufficient quantity at home, and if he went for it to the ale-house, be was, perhaps, induced to remain there. His whole argument had been an argument against the beer-houses, but his principal argument had been to enable a man to Iluy his beer it one of these shops, and bring it home to his family. It was then said, why support the Bill of 1830, and suffer it to pass without opposition? He had yielded to the Report,of the Committee, but he stated that his opi nion remained unaltered—that as they had fully consi dered and examined the question, they might take the weight and responsibility of the measure on them—it was their measure. sot leis—their Bill, not his—and they would see how it woold stork in practice. He had been urged a year afterwards to repeal it ; but he had said, no : after a Bill was once passed it would not do to change it the next year because it had failed—it was better to give it a longer trial. Ile was then a Member of their Lordships' House, and in office, and he had said to his colleagues, give it a longer trial, and then it will be time enough to repeal it if it fails. That was the whole history of his ever having said any thing in favour of the measure. He held that nothing was more calculated to bring legislation into dis repute than to try an experiment every year, and the next, without giving it a fair trial, to retrace their steps. Now, he found, after all the petitions, the many hundreds that had been presented at different times, and to the nature of which he would presently draw their Lordships' attention---he found his Noble Friend at the head of the Government had that night presented a very bulky petition signed by he believed eight thousand, headed by a beer seller, and he dared to say that many of those who signed it were beer sellers. He did not object to that, and he dared to say that there had been many from licensed victuallers whose interests were of an opposite nature. He had no objection to that, but the argument there was raised in favour of the measure, and he thought he could not do better than just state to their Lordships the arguments used against his (Lord Brougham's) Bill. It stated first " that the opening . of the trade in beer, whereby the monopoly in that essential article had been broken down bad been productive of great public good, that it had occasioned a considerable reduction in the price of the com modity, and a material improvement in the quality. That many of the petitioners in following their occupations (meaning labourers) were from an early hour till late at night from home, and required dinners and other accom modation suitable to their. circumstances, which were for merly furnished by the licensed victuallers, but were now obtained much more easily and cheaply at the beer houses. That many of them in pursuit of business resorted to some neighbouring house, and t hen in conversations wit their friends and neighbours they enjoyed over a pint of ale a temporary relaxation from the cares of business." He ( Lord B.) wished to God that nothing worse took place at these houses. Then came the last point--" That the general conduct observed in these beer-houses, so fin es their experience extended, was as moral and as respect able as that observed at public houses, and from the ab sence of ardent intoxicating spirits there was less temptation to drunkenness." He denied the absence of ardent spirits --(Hear, hear)—and but in a few instances he denied the rest of the argument of the petitioners. Now having read their own allegations of their own case, he would meet them by showing their Lordships facts from the most au thentic and undoubted sources of information. If he were to rest his case upon the evidence of licensed victuallers there might be some objections made, although he would show their Lordships presently that there were many tensed victu a ll ers w h o h a d not t h e s li g h test objection to these beer-houses. But it was not their testimony that would establish his case—very far from it. It was the tes timony of farmers, and landlords, and magistrates, and grand jurors, and reverend clergymen of the Established Church, and of all Dissenting persuasions. It was the evi dence of Commissioners, appointed by the Government to enquire into the state of the habits of the people, with a par ticular practical view—who had taken evidence on which to found recommendations for a police measure. All these testimOnies of various classes of the community were tine nimbus, and they called for a repeal of the Beer Bill. Now taking all these classes in another light, not as petitioners but as witnesses, he should state to their Lord ships that it was upon their testimony be relied in esta blishing his case before them. Now one of these classes, namely, the Magistrates, were said to have some interest in the subject, because it was contended that the Beer Bill took a wa y a va l ua bl e b ranc h o f patronage, w hi c h it was said had been often converted to particular purposes. But what interest had the Clergy of the Established Church or the Dissenting Clergy in the matter? What interest had such men as the Government Commissioners and the farmers whose evidence he was about to refer to ? Ile was unwilling to believe that the Magistrates of the country THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, J would view the matter in the light of a question affecting their interests or their patronage —or !that they would b ' s , so lost to all sense of truth and honour as to pray their Lordships to pass a measure, on the ground that it would tend to improve the morals and promote the interests of the working classes, while all the time they merely advocated their own private interests. He would be still more averse to say that under the hypo critical and false pretence of improving the morals of the people they were merely promoting their own patronage. He could not believe that such was the character of the magistracy of that country. Having stated the grounds on which he should rest his case, he would now call their attention to the particulars of the evidence, and which would substantiate the general remarks he had previously made. He would now quote from the evidence of the Corn rnissionerz on the subject of the habits of the people, and the state of crime, and he had already told their Lordships to what a degree the beer-houses had contributed. In the exami. nution of a solicitor from Welchpool, he found it stated, " The beer-shops of this town, the Sergeant at Mace says, are kept open all night, so long as their customers seek to be served with drink." That was the common complaint every where. But then it might be said—why not enforce the law ? The constable was an unpaid yearly officer, who did not serve voluntarily, but endeavoured, like the churchwarden or overseer, to go through his office as quietly as possible, and give as little offence as he might to the poor people among whom he lived. There was also another inducement, they frequented the beer-houses themselves. What if they were well treated there ? What if others paid, and they did not, which their Lordships would presently see was the fact ? The beer-house keeper, in order to keep him quiet, gave him beer for nothing, and the constable did not like to tell him to shut his shop because it would be shutting himself out, and he would thereby be deprived of the benefit of the company he might meet, and the drink, for he paid no hill. That was the case ic Hear, hear.) H e wou ld now g a respectable farmer o f E ssex . vall them over e t r he the evidence i c d o e u n country,_( r y o . — f In speaking of depredations, and his evidence was the more worthy of attention because that was not the main object of inquiry, Mr. Gregory said, " In all cases of depredation on farmers the'plunder must be considerable to be worth while, as the produce was sold at so much less than its value. The great source of evil is the beer -shops. I had hardly lost anything until a beer-shop was set up in my neighbourhood and now lam obliged to watch them every way. They take my fowls, and bring them to the beer-shop to sell or to cook ; they cut off the heads of my cabbages, and on one occasion I took a fowl of mine half cooked out of the pot." It was added that one of the parties concerned in these robberies was afterwards transported. Mr. William Kershaw, a canal carrier, also described the nature and extent of these depredations. Ile said the plunder con sisted of every small article that could be carried off, and also flour and malt ; and they had places where they dis posed of it with great facility. These places were the cheap beer-shops ; and the greater portion of the plundered property was sold to the proprietor, or to parties who con gregated there. He Lord Brougham) also had before him the confession of a thief, who was of respectable parents in Manchester, and who stated that be knew of beer shops being started by thieves for the accommodation and reception of their fellows. There were two such at Not tingham and another at Chester, four in Manchester in one street, and others at Halifax and other towns. The ex pense of setting up was only 81. for a license, and Si. for stock; the first week paid the expenses. The Messrs. Kenworthy, carriers, stated similar facts, and he had also the evidence of the Deputy Constable of Manchester, which he referred to merely to show that the evil was not confined to country districts, and that it would not be wise to adopt a proposition to put them down in the covntry, and allow them to exist still in towns. In the country there was less felony, less prostitution, and more of trifling offences; but greater mischief was done to a better class of people, namely, the farm servants. In towns, however, they were very bad indeed, and he would only refer to the evidence with respect to Birmingham, Manchester,i Hudders field, Leeds, and Liverpool, as affording a very fair sample of the effects of that measure. In Liverpool it was stated that they were the source of a great deal of crime—that illicit spirits were frequently clandestinely sold in them. It was added that it was not always safe for the constable to watch them ; and if it was not safe merely to watch them, how could these men be expected to lay informations against them, when they ran the risk of having their heads broke. The magistrates of Leiih-ward, in Cumberland, complained that the keepers of beer-shops were appointed as constables at the court-leet. That he (Lord Brougham) could bear testimony to himself. What hope was there that these constables would do their duty ? At a place in Berkshire, it was stated that three of the constables were reputed drunkards, and one of them the brother of a beer shopkeeper. The evidence of the High Constable of Chester was to the same effect ; and it would be merely repeating what he had already stated, to quote it. Mr. Pool, of Howe-on-the- Wold, stated that the keepers of the beer-shops were all opposed to the farmers, because they spoiled their trade of harbouring thieves. In the Report of the Liverpool Watch Committee to the Town-Council, it was stated that there were seve ral hundred of these beer-houses supported by the very worst characters. In Salop the constables stated that they were in the habit of keeping their beer-houses open till a late hour of the night. Now these facts were not confined to the rural or agricultural districts, but extended to vil lages, towns, manufacturing and commercial, canals and railways. The evidence of the grand jury of the county of Essex was to the effect that the demoralizing effect of beer-houses licensed for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises still continued, and formed a serious subject of complaint from time to time. The same statements were made by the grand juries of Stafford, Oxford, So merset, and other counties ; and although they were not in the habit of making presentments on the subject of beer-houses, they had on more than one occasion, as be , was informed by a Learned Friend of his, expressed to the Court their opinion that many minor offences originated in beer-houses, and that was the result of their inquiries when finding bills of indictment. (Hear, hear.) The grand, jury of Falmouth reported that females were going about the streets almost in a state of nudity, and intoxicated, the consequence of beer-shops. These were tiresome details. but he thought it better that he should go into such particulars than make a speech on the subject. Mr. Justice Vaughan, in 1839, on the occasion of a child being left to perish, said that the beer shops from their causing abuses and immoralities were to be regarded as public nuisances. It was contended by the petition from London presented this day, that the regulations of the beer shops were as good as these of the licensed victu allers, and that argument was to be drawn from the state of the returns of public convictions made to the House of Commons. He would willingly put his case upon that issue, because never was there a grosser misrepresentation. The mistake arose in this way ; in London in three years the convictions of licensed victuallers amounted to 2,316 ; of beer-shops during the same time of 1,437 ; upon which, said the political cal culators, there were twice as many convictions of licensed victuallers as of beer-shop keepers. But then those cal culators forgot to take into their account that there were 5,000 licensed victuallers and only 1,400 beer-shop keepers in London; so that there were twice as many convictions of beer-shop keepers as there were of licensed victuallers. Liverpool showed the same result. In Birmingham the returns for seven years, from 1831 to 1838, showed, ac cording to their proportion, very nearly three times the number of convictions of beer-shop keepers to those of licensed victuallers. So much for the regulations of the beer shops which had been so much bragged of; and their con victions would be many more if the constables only did their duty, but the beer-shop keepers treated the constables with beer and seduced them from doing their duty ; whereas the licensed victuallers would not treat them, and therefore were informed of by them. With respect to the effects of beer-shops upon the morals of the people the Noble and Learned Lord was in possession of some of the most grievous and distressing facts. H redly a petition came to him that was not accompanied by a letter, either from a magistrate, a grand juror, an overseer, a high constable, or a reverend clergyman, all stating facts similar to what he was about to detail, and they were only to be taken as a sample. The chief police-officer and billet-master of Halifax, where there was a popu lation of twenty-two thousand, stated that in the beer-houses there gambling was very common —gambling by boys, and that in one case out of every two, they were frequented by boys and girls. He said that in these houses it was truly shocking to see girls for the purpose of prostitution, and boys for the purpose of availing them_ selves of the profligacy of the females. The Noble and Learned Lord would observe that all the representations he had agreed in melancholy uniformity, as to those places being the resort for the gambling of boys, and the pros titution of girls. He was informed that the general management of those beer-houses was disgraceful ; that many of them were kept by persons of the lowest character _persons who lived on the fruits of the prostitution of their own daughters, and who harboured reputed thieves. He supposed those were the persons to whom the petitioners of London referred in their petition, which had just been presented by his Noble Friend, when they stated that beer-houses were places for persons in humble life to resort to to have a pint of ale and to enjoy themselves, as a temporary relaxation from the cares of business.—( Laughter.) The state ments from Huddersfield were that the wives and children of the poor men were exposed to the most painful examples of blasphemy and disorder; that the keepers of beer honses admitted characters of the vilest description, and that men sent out their own children to follow a course of prostitution that they might have money to spend in those houses, and th at i n doing so they l e f t ot h ers of more tender ye a r s i n a state of sheer starvat i on.— ( H ea r, he a r. ) Examples were given, too shocking for him to read to the Ho use , o f the most abhorrent cases o f f em al e prostitutio n , an d of such profligacy and crapulous vice, as he had never read or heard of before. In Leeds the convictions for drunkenness had increased four-old since the passing of the Beer Bill. The High Constable of Leeds attributed that entirely to the beer-houses. Now he (the N o bl e and Learned Lord) won ld say, without meaning a n y o ff ence to the common people, and without any desir e to spare the feelings of those in the rank o f their Lord s hi ps, that as to those which were vices in a n y rank of life—either gambling or drunkenness —the one being the parent of every mischief, and the other bein g that they w ere ten thousand times worse for the comm on the parent o f every degree of dissolutenes s in ever y life— and industrious artizan and hard-working man, than they were for the more elevated ranks of society. The time persons spent -- at -- ;uch . -- an occupation in their Lordships' rank was the mere fragment of their time, the money they spent in that way was the mere parings of their fortunes which they cast away ; but to the poor man such habits were destructive to his comforts, his industry, his honesty, and his mind it self. It was hardly possible that he could be an honest man; hardly possible that he could be an industrious man; utterly impossible that he could be a thriving man, if h e indulged either in gaming or in drunkenness. Why were the state l otter i es abolished ? s i mp ly because the lo wer classes sh ou ld not b e induced or enco uraged to gambl e . While beer-sh o p s h ad the effect o f ac customing the corn. mon people t o gam bl e, they generate d dissipation of oth er sorts, in a l ower class of peop l e than would naturally be guilty o f t h ose excesses but f or the beer- s h ops. Persons who went to licensed victuallers' houses, ."NE 4, 1839 either in town or in the country, were persons of a somewhat superior class in life to those who frequented beer-shops. They were better behaved persons, and they went to better regulated places. To what good, or with what consistency should the clergy occupy themselves in inculcating piety and morals on a Sunday, and visiting their parishioners in order to tend their flocks and keep them in the right path ? To what good was it that the Legislature should pass laws to punish crime, or that their Lordships should occupy themselves in finding out modes of im proving the morals of the people by giving them educa tion? What, in the name of Heaven, could be the use of all the education they could bestow? What the use of sowing a little seed here and plucking up a weed there, if those beer-shops were to be continued, that they might go on to sow the seeds—not of ignorance, but of what was ten times worse—immorality, broad cast over the land, germinating the most frightful produce that ever had been allowed to grow up in a civilised country, and he (the Noble and Learned Lord) was ashamed to add, under the fostering care of Parliament, and throwing the most baneful influence over the whole community ? When he addressed their Lordships on these high grounds he really felt ashamed to descend to the mere petty question of finance. But if he dial sink down to that he would say that he was perfectly confident that instead of a repeal of this Bill being an injury to the revenue :it- would be an increase to it. Why the utmost reye- ,- *. - -se , !eh the beer shops afforded was 100,0001., and if th.' Chancellor of the Exchequer did not receive that from beer-house keepers he would receive it from a very superior class of persons. He might prove the superiority of licensed victuallers to beer shop keepers by looking at their average ratin g . Ia Rochdale, for in s t a n ce , t h e average rating of li censed victuallers was 521. a-year, whereas the rating of the beer-house keepers was only 121. a-year. It was said that in England from 1828 to 1839 there was an increase of 3,306,000 bushels in the consumption of malt, and that was attributed to the beer-shops. He would prove that it arose from no such cause, but that it resulted from an increase in the population of the country. The Beer-shop Bill did not extend to Scotland, but there an increase had taken place to a much greater extent in the consumption of malt. In England its consumption had increased as one in eleven, while in Scotland it bad in creased as one in eight. It was nonsense, therefore, to attribute it to the Beer Bill. The object of his Bill was not to extinguish beer-shops altogether, but to allow it only to be sold but not consumed on the premises ; thereby enabling the poor man to send to the public-house for his beer, but not to drink it on the premises. A great num ber of the licensed victuallers brewed their own beer. In the country there were 56,000 licensed victuallers, 5,000 of whom carried on their business in London, and of that 56,000, no less than 26,000 brewed their own beer. Of the beer-shops there were 45,000, of whichlonly 16,000 brewed their own beer; and the whole of these 16,000 were in favour of his Bili for regulating the beer-shops in the same way as the licensed victuallers ' • namely, by not allowing them to sell b eer to b e consumed on the premises without a license from the Magistrates. The great ground of objection to this measure was, that after having allured people by the existing Bill to lay out their capital in beer houses, it was now proposed to adopt a measure that would cause their ruin. It was absurd to talk of the capital they had employed; he would venture to say in many instances it did not exceed 123. or 155., and that it hardly ever exceeded Si. But for his own part he would sooner give some compensation to these parties than allow the present intolerable nuisance to continue. Those who brewed their own beer, had perhaps laid out a capital of 50/. or 601. but that would not be lost because they would be allowed to sell it still, though not to be drunk on the the premises. He felt that he had done no more than his duty in bringing forward the measure in order,! if possible, to put an end to the dissoluteness and vice that existed among the lower classes, and such being his object, he trusted he should have the support of their Lordships. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON, in supporting the second readineof the Bill, was anxious to say a few words. Very shortly after the Beer Bill passed, the country became aware that there were great objections to the measure, and from that time to the present he had invariably supported every measure that had been brought forward by any Noble Lord is order if possible to remedy the defects of the Act of 1829, but by some influence or other every attempt had proved unsuccessful. Believing the Bill of the Noble and Learned Lord would be attended with great good, he should give it his support, and he earnestly recommended it to the attention of their Lordships. He should in Com mittee do all in his power to render the measure perfect. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER had not been in duced either by the eloquence or the arguments of the Noble and Learned Lord to alter the opinions he had al ways entertained soon the present subject, and he felt no doubt that before It t a sat down he should be enabled to convice their Lordships that it ought to be read a second time that day six months. If the Bill passed he would venture to say that instead of its being the ruin of 45,000 individuals it would ruin 300,000. He thought if the Noble and Learned Lord had devoted his eloquence and wrath to deprecate the gin-palaces, he would have selected a far more proper object on which to cast his indignation.— ( Hear.) But he supposed the Noble Lord had refrained from that knowing the powerful opposition he would meet with if he did. He (the Marquis of Westminster) con sidered that the gin-palaces and the licensed victuallers did far more to demoralize the people and injure their mo rals than the beer-shops.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore felt bound to shield them if possible from the cruel, unjust, and unfair attack that had been made upon them. If this ;Bill passed it would either drive the beer-shop keept," to ruin, or to keeping public-houses. A beer-shop beeper was called on every year to produce a certificate signed by six rate-payers, of his good conduct ; he had to close at 10 at night, and he subjected himself to fines and penalties for the most trivial offence. If he served a neighbour with a pint of beer two minutes after the time of closing, he was liable to pay a fine of 40s. with perhaps 51. costs, besides the risk of altogether failing in obtaining a renewal of his license. The Noble and Learned Lord had dwelt with peculiar emphasis and ability on the subject of thieves and prostitutes being harboured in beer houses, but he (the Marquis of Westminster) believed they were harboured to a much greater extent in the houses of licensed' victuallers. The Noble and Learned Lord had also talked of the increase of drunkenness, but there was as much drunkenness in the one as the other. He could not account for the extrordinary opposition the Noble and Learned Lord had manifested against the present Beer Bill, but he (the Marquis of Westminster) had been assured, with great gravity and earnestness, by some individuals with whom he had communicated that it was to be attributed to the Noble and Learned Lord having purchased an estate in the South of France, and that he intended to become an importer of wine. —(Immense laughter.) One great objection, however, to the second reading of this Bill was that it ought to have been introduced first into the House of Commons, and he understood the House of Commons would not pass a Bill for the repeal of a tax which had originated in their Lordships' House. In conclusion he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Duke of RICHMOND felt he was taking the part of the poor when he called upon their Lordships seriously , to reflect on what had been the consequences of sanc tioning the establishment of these beer-shops. He knew many instances in which boys and girls of ten years of age had gone into secluded cottages in which beer was sold—their morals were contaminated, and they were shortly afterwards brought to the Sessions charged with serious crimes. In allusion to what the Noble Marquis who had just sat down, had said, he would observe it was not very likely a Bill to repeal a tax would be permitted to pass the House of Commons if it originated in the Lords; but that was no reason why the Bill should not be referred , to a Committee, so that th e y m i g h t b e ready with any 1 amendments for the Bill that might come up from the Com mons. The beer-shops made the public-houses worse than they would otherwise be. The Noble Marquis wished gin palaces were destroyed. So did he (the Duke of Rich mond), for he believed theywei e worse than beer-shops--he hated and detested them, and if he were in office the first thing he would direct his attention to would be to correct that detestable evil. A poor man ought to be allowed to buy beer to drink in his own cottage, so that his family would partake of it ; and if some regulation of that kind could be devised it would be very desirable. He believed that all the disgraceful riots and tumults that took place in Sussex in 1830 were caused by the beer-shops—it was the first year the beer-shops came into operation. It would be an act of favour to most of the beer-shop keepers to deprive them of their licenses—it was a losing concern ; they were quite as much under the command of the brewers as any of the licensed victuallers, and they did not sell so good an article. The Marquis of SALISBURY said if the beer-shops were placed under the same restraint as the public•houses, they would have no complaint whatever against them. He was:rather disposed to vote against the second reading, and wait for a Bill which was in progress through the other House, but after what he had heard fr o m th e N o bl e and Learned Lord, he was inclined to allow the second read- ing to go, with the understanding that ample time should be given before it was advanced another stage.--( Hear.) Lord HARDWICK complained of the manner in which convictions against beer-houses were treated; in many cases the magistrates were brought into the COurt of Queen's Bench, and actions brought against them with heavy damages. All that was so well understood that con victions were at an end, and there was no controul over the beer-houses as the law at present stood —( Hear, hear.) He hoped this matter wo u ld b e ta k en up by her Majesty's' Government, and that some clauses would be introduced to protect the magistrates and enable them to do justice. Lord WYNFORD explained relative to the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench, in cases of actions of trespass. He hoped in the Bill now befere their Lord ships, a proper form of conviction would be provided to prevent the recurrence of these actions. Lord BROUGHAM.--There is a form in the Bill. Lord WYNFORD was glad to hear it. He thought the, evil of beer-shops was what it had been described by his Noble and Learned Friend, in his eloquent speech ; but the evil of beer-shops sank into insignificance when compared with the :gin-palaces.—( Hear, bear.) He hoped the Government would direct their attention to that very important subject. If he were a Member of the Committee to which the present Bill would be referred, he would move the insertion of a clause to prevent any per son carrying on a beer-house who did not brew the beer on his own premises ; and thus prevent his being, as was too frequently the case, the agent of some great brewer.--( Hear, hear. ) The Earl of WARWICK supported the Bill. The evidence of the demoralizing effects of beer-shops in the county with which he was connected was most extensive and authentic. The Earl of HARE WOOD said that although be was connected with a very extensive district of this country, he was not commissioned to state anything on the subject, further than what he collected from the petitions, which he bad presented ; but be could bear testimony to this, that he had never heard anything from any human being but a complaint of this system, and more particularly in the neighbourhood of the large manufacturing towns, where scenes were going on daily and nightly which it was quite out of the power of the police and of the magistrates to con- troul. This was almost the only subject he ever knew on which there was one universal feeling expressed through. into a the country. He should support this Bill going a Select Committ ee , and should not consider the subject connected with revenue at all.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He would say for the benefit of the people, at all risk, 110 away with this system, which was one of tl greatest evils that ever had been inflicted upon them. It was absolutely essential for the morals of the people that it should be done away with, Lord PORTMAN said that when this Bill was intro duced, which had been now so much complained of, he moved that it should be read a second time that day six months; and the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) oa that occasion made a very elequent speech in support of it, as he had now made in condemnation of it. How ever, as it was, he was happy the Noble and Learned Lord had now applied his great mind to it. He ( Lord Port man) would have been disposed to hare supported a Bill for the absolute repeal cf this Act. He believed there could be no amendment of the Bill in advance, it must be in retreat; and their Lordships would never effectually accomplish the object until the Bill was entirely repealed. The object of their Lordships was to supply the poor with good beer to be drank in their own 'houses ; and the only way to do that would be to facili tate the sale of beer by the brewer to be drank off the premises. He should consent to the second reading of this Bill, in the hope that in a Select Committee it might be made useful to the public. Nobody could take any part in the way of getting rid of the Beer Bill who did not do the greatest benefit to the poor. Lord MELBOURNE said, that as this was a subject of very great importance, and as there seemed to be a general desire on the part of the House that it should be referred to a Select Committee, he should not offer any opposition to that ; at the same time he could not pledge himself or the Government in the other House to the adoption of thi3 Bill or any other Bill on this subject. Lord BROUGHAM said that of course the Govern ment in the other House would exercise their own judg ment on the question, but he trusted to the good sense of the Members of the other House that they would pay at tention to the voices of all the grand jurors, the magistracy, and the respectability of the country. The Noble Mar quis ( Westminster) entirely mistook him (Lord B.) if he thought he had changed his opinion as to the use of ardent spirits. If the use of ardent spirits could be pet an end to that would be a great benefit to the public, but he had never been able to see a p ros p ec t o f t h at yet . If t h e d uty on spirits were increased, then in proportion would illicit distillation take place. He had thought when he brought this Bill into the House of Commons that if they gave better beer to the poor that would discourage the poor from going to gin shops, and upon that impression he acted. The popularity which the Government in the other House thought they could gain in the country by resisting a measure of the sort now pro posed, was nothing short of a popularity to be gained by going against justice. There was a great disposition in the other House to go against the Magistrates, and in that way to gain a popularity with such persons as kept these beer-shops ; but he (Lord Brougham) did not think that Would tell in the long run. If there was to be an appeal to the country, it would then. be for the Government to consider whether they would consent to lose the favour of the beer-shop keepers or the favour of the licensed victual. lers to the amount of 56,000, scattered all over the country. He knew the influence of licensed victuallers, and they were not silent people. It was to be remembered too that in running up the score at the Treasury for votes, it was always considered that the publicans, the brewers, and the bankers, were three of the most important classes of per sons to look to.—( Hear, and laughter.) That was accord ing to his experience. The Marquis of WE STMINSTE R—And the Clergy. Lord BROUGHAM—But the Clergy went on this occasion with the three he had enumerated. There were the soldiers too, who were not an uninfluential body, and they were with him in this instance ; so that if his Noble Friend would only look at that score, he (Lord Brougham) thought that on reflection he must support thisßill. —( Hear. ) Things that he bad known done twenty years ago he was morally certain could not be done now. He had known magistrates at sessions refuse to give a new licence to a man because he had not voted rightly. He was sure that would not be done now. The magistrates now had their conduct so narrowly scrutinized that no persons led more the life of a toad under a harrow than they did.--(Laughter.) Ho thought that in Committee they could so shape the Bill as to protect justice. With respect to what the Noble Marquis had stated relative to the purchase he had made, such was its magnitude that one of the Noble Marquis's halls or picture galleries could contain it.—(Laughter. ) As to the wines there, they were bad, but they had good oil. —(Laughter.) He trusted that the Noble Marquis would honour him with a visit, and if he did he would show him a beautiful and healthy climate. He had no objection to refer the Bill to a Select Com mittee, provided it was understood that it did not delay it. If the House of Commons should, which he did not antici pate, he could not help it. Notwithstanding what his Noble Friend had stated, he must say that the effect of this Bill would be to repeal the present existing measure. In conclusion he felt no doubt that their Lordships would at once accede to the second reading of the Bill. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER then withdrew his amendment, and The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be re ferred to a Select Committee, to be named to-morrow. Their Lordships adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Jurri 3. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. On the motion of Sir M. WOOD, the London Bridge Approaches Bill was read a third time, and passed. On the motion of Mr. BETH ELL, Raikes' Estate Bill was read a second time. On the motion of Mr. DENNISTOUN, the Black Quarry and Anniesland Road Bill was read a second time. On the motion of Mr. BAINES, the Lords' Amend ments to the Great Western Railway Bill were agreed to. The Report on the Birmingham Canal Bill was brought up. Several Private Bills were forwarded a stage, but they are read in so inaudible a tone of voice by the Clerk at the table, that it is not often we can hear their titles. PETITIONS. The SPEAKER stated that in consequence of the great press of petitions on national education and the penny postage, he would take the Chair on Wednesday at three o'clock.--( Hear. ) Sir G. STRICKLAND presented several petitions from various parts of Yorkshire in favour of a penny postage. Mr. M. PARKER presented petitions against the Government education scheme ; an d aga i ns t theCopyhold Enfranchisement Bill. Mr. HUGHES presented petitions from parishes in Carnarvonshire, against the proposed plan of National Education. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from various places in the County of York, to the same effect; also a petition from the Clergy of some Deanery in the County of Cornwall, against the Ecclesiastical Discipline Bill; also a petition from Bradford, in the county of Wilts, against the Eccle siastical Revenues Bill; also a petition from a place in the county of Kent, in favour of Colonial Church , Extension ; also a petition from Torquay, in the county of Devon, against the encouragement of idolatry in British India. Mr. PEASE presented a petition from Tavistock in favour of a penny postage; also a petition from some place in Scotland, praying for the total abolition of capital punish ment; and a petition from some place, the name of which we could not hear, praying for some alteration in the Poor ' law Amendment Act, more particularly as regarded the bastardy clauses. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented petitions from some place in Kent, in favour of the Beer Bill ; also several petitions from various places in the county of Kent against the proposed plan of national education. Mr. PL UM PTRE presented several petitions from different parts of Yorkshire, Kent, Surrey, and London, against national education. PAKINGTGN presented petitions from Devon shire and Yorkshire in favour of a Church Establishment in Canada. Mr. COL QU HOUN presented a petition from Glas gow in favour of a penny postage, and against national education. I Mr. P. HOWARD presented three petitions in favour ' of a uniform penny postage. ' Mr. BLACKSTONE presented three petitions in fa vour of Church extension in the colonies. Sir W. BR ABA ZON presented three petitions from Mayo in favour of the present system of Corn-laws ; also a petition in favour of a uniform rate of penny postage. Lord TEIGNMOUTH presented a petition against the Government plan of national education. Mr. GROTE presented 20 petitions, including one signed by 300 members of the Stock Exchange, London, in favour of a uniform rate of penny postage. Mr. W. EVANS present e d petitions from Derby and Shoreland, in North Derby, praying that the mails might not be allowed to run on Sundays. Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from Durham against the bastardy clauses of the Poor-law Bill. Mr. ESTCOURT presented a petition from the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford, against the Government scheme of national education. Mr. BLACKETT presented a petition from a purely agricultural district of Northumberland, signed by 84 farmers, and 286 agricultural labourers and mechanics, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition signed by Sir David Brewster, and other eminent men, praying that as the office of Queen's Printer in Scotland was to be abolished the Universities in that country might be made responsible that the text of the Scriptures would remain pure. - Mr. LUCAS presented several petitions from the county of Monaghan against the Government plan of na tional education ; also one against any alteration in the Corn-laws, and three from Presbyterians in Ireland, praying that Presbyterian soldiers might be allowed to attend their own chapels. Mr. T. gG ERTON presented fifteen petitions from the counties of Chester and York, against the Govern ment plan of national education. Sir DE LACY EVANS presented four petitions from Westminster, in favour of a penny postage. Lord MAHON presented a petition from Bedford, complaining that an officer, and other persons holding ap pointments under her Majesty's Government, had unduly interfered with the constitutional right of petitioning. The Noble Lord then moved that the petition be printed with the votes of to-morrow, and gave notice that on Thurs day he should call the attention of the House to the petition. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from Bedford arrainst the Government scheme of national education. . JAMAICA. Sir R. ING L IS presented a petition from W. Burge, Es q . praying that ite might be heard as Counsel of the Assembly of Jamaica against the Jamaica Bill. The lion. Baronet gave notice that he should to-morrow submit a motion to the House in conformity with the prayer of the petition. PRICE OF PROVISIONS IN IRELAND. Mr. F. FRENCH wished to call the attention of the EVEN i_N G EDITION. Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland to the s xtrao rd . inary rise which h a d t a k e n place in the price of provisions in the West of Ireland. Potatoes had risen from 9d. r iod. to 55., and o a t mea l f r o m lo s . to 035., and it would .'"e three months before the new crops would be ready—he visneu. to know if Government intended to bring forward aor measure to meet the emer:l;encv. Lord MORPETH said accounts had been received from certain districts that there had been a considerable rise in the price of potatoes, and that a deficiency was 81). prehended before the next crop would be ready. Govern ment would take the circumstances into consideration as they arose. SLAVE TRADE. Sir R. INGLIS said, seeing the Noble Lord the Se cretary for the Foreign Department in his place, be wished to put a question to him relative to the slave trade. The Noble Lord had formerly pledged himself to use all the means in his power to surpress the foreign slave trade. Now, all the accounts which he (Sir R. Inglis) had see° , went to show that all the horrors of the slave trade were proceeding to as great an extent as ever' and he desired to know what measures the Government, had adopted, or were about to adopt, for the purpose 01 suppressing these horrors. Lord PALMERSTON said he was sorry to be corns pelled to concur in the statement of the Hon. Baronet ` a s , to the extent to which the foreign slave trade was ll unfortunately carried on. He stated sometime ag° that it was the intention of the Government to Prr pose to Parliament a Bill, giving pows'ss carriedas that part of the slave trade which was on under the Portuguese flag. That Bill was now re pared, and he only delayed the motion for leave to MO ). duce it until the correspondence which had taken Pla c t l upon it was ready to be delivered to Members, as he wish ed those papers to be before the House, prior to the introduc tion of the Bill. Sir R. INGLIS said thousands were daily s ufferiali under this horrible traffic, and he hoped the Noble Lo rd would lose no time.—( Hear, hear. ) CLERGY IN IRELAND. In answer to a question from Mr. Sergeant JACKSO N ' Lord MORPETH said the distribution of the Clergy Arrears (Ireland) Fund had already commenced. THE LATE DISTURBANCES. Mr. ESTCOURT wished to know whether the No ble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department would hav e any objection to lay before the House a copy of the letter he had addressed to certain Lords Lieutenant of coun ties, expressing his willingness to supply arms to the re spectable and loyal portion of the community. Also copy of the letter addressed to Lord Clive, conveying h is Lordship's thanks to the Yeomanry for their conduct dur ing the late d sturbances. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that he h ad no objection to the production of those papers. Mr. ESTCOURT gave notice that he would move fo r them to-morrow. Mr. PAKINGTON asked if Government order*, were to have precedence on Thursdays? He askr e this question because the further consideration of the Sale of Beer Bill stood the first of the Orders of the B a i t for Thursday, and as hi s Lordship must be aware that it was very desirable that Bill should be forwarded a stage, b e hoped he would permit him to hare precedence on that dal; Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had prop ene . a t that plan because he thought it very expedient that r" should be adopted, int en di n g t o l eav e it as matter for filte arrangement what Bills should take precedence ebno Thursdays; but it was his wish, and he believed also t f ,, r wish of the Right Honourable Baronet the Mernbe r ts :ll Tamworth, that the Right Hon. Baronet's m i relating to controverted elections should take preced encw. on Thursday next. DEAN OF EXETER'S APPOINTMENT B- This Bill was then read a third time and passed. CANADA. ad* Her Majesty's Message relating to the affairs of Can having been read, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, it is now my duty, Minister of the Crown, to call upon Parliament, to l a y ' o f foundation for a permanent settlement of the affai r ! Canada. I think t hat, upon general grounds, sufficiet° evidence has been laid before Parliament at present , o f call on them to take some steps for the regula ti loe these complicated and disastrous affairs. W e la ce heard of various collisions that have taken lace and have read various reports on the subject, and I Due. that the abrupt termination of the mission of Lord-ith ham makes it inexpedient to appoi n t an y o ther persona to similar authority to report aga i n on th e facts, an ed state his views as to the best manner to be Pli r e s tr d to meet the difficulti es o f th e case.—(Hear' h But, Sir, there are other and spec i a l r easons now in my opinio n , P ar li amen t should be rea d y c i p le to declare its opinion with regard to the Pr ill o he upon which the legislation of Canada is t year, in future carried on. When Parliament , passed an Act which was agreed to by large maj°rovide both in this and the other House of Parliament, LOP A nn Ose for the temporary government of Canada, it was 8--s save as that the powers granted by that Act were so extens.ws _ its opponents represented it, as to excite alarm from it d o e: potic nature, it was supposed that it would not be necessary for the person representing the Crown in Canada to app l y to the Home Government for further powers to pres c nce last rities, peace. But at the end of the last Session, in eonseg t esi s of the ordinances passed by Lord Durham, lievr that were stated with respect to the powers conferred Act. Very learned authorities supported those s'le7 .or d not merely questioning the particular ordinances of L ee , Durham, but disputing and doubting altogether the O a , sive nature of the powers which, in the opinion of thes t he vernment, fortified by that of the Lord Chancellor so m Attorney General, bad been confered on the GoverlWr Canada. The consequence of that interference of Parliame" —I am not now saying whether it was neoesssary_but the consequence, in point of fact, of that interference was that the tribunal of Lower Canada expressed on one particular occasion strong doubts as to the validity of the Act to enable the Governor of Canada to detain persons suspected of high treason. Two of the Judges concurred in an opinion that persons wbo had been so detained were entitled to a writ of habeas corpus' That Governor, by the exercise of an authority very s udden and very arbitrary, but, I am disposed to say, extremely ne cessary, refused to allow this writ to be executed, which in s ; tified the officer wbo refused to produce the person who ba d been imprisoned, and suspended the Judges who had gip.: an opinion contrary to his ordinances. I say, that:in the c . i t, cumstances in which Canada was placed with an int end ! " rebellion, • with resistance in certain portions of the Pr ° .; vince, if he had done otherwise his timidity and 5% 1 _ tation might have been the cause of great b l °O e d shed, and a great str ugg l e , even if it had not ri9 tat the province altogeth er . At the same time, I say t tbo Act of Parliament s h ou ld no t b e l e ft i n that state that ns Governor should be obliged to resort to such extreme to } ante as suspending Judge s ac ti ng consc i en ti ous ly ; and taking l i ta d view the opinions given in this country by Lords whO ha t filled high offi c e s i n th e St a t e —f or , as I un d e rstand it, t , e was the chief ground of their proc ee di n g—l sly that the was the chief ground of their proceeding—l sly tb a c b law should not be l e ft i n th a t state w hi c h r equired sti e „ extreme measures as would al mos t ren d e r them in o p r . rative, and place th e sa f e t y o f t h e S ta te in ! Ini l i e ch It may be said th a t th e s i mp l e an d s i ng l e rem edy f or es a state of things should be to call for fresh powers , t° er!' ed con plain in mor e d e fi n i te terms t h ose wh i c h we re by the Act of l as t year , an d to ta k e care that tha t A s e t bee/.• should be suffici en t t o arm Si r J o h n C o lb orne , or , ;ss ri d un may be the Govern or o f th e prov i nce , w i t h lega l doubted powers to preserve its peace and " a "' d to But viewi ng th e state o f C anada w i t h rega r b i s subject, the inquiries generally, th e i n f ormat i o n w ilic w ith before e d t o this Government ladndo not tbetfhoirnek thatSP hatrlioament, not r Govern— for would be justified in coming to Parliament and asking s me farther and more definite powers, without they at the s•• „ w tir li e eh as a ke f d ot t u b r a e t fr s e o e me Go p e r e in rn c m ip e le nt sh o o f ul t d he be cesatnaatidliasshectuueldj. be secured utrheedn,, are e he t n he tgleriosuntdesmpuopreanrywhpioewherl shall ceas se time is come when Parliament should be call s e a d y n t p h o atn tf i s e r . an opinion as to the principle at least of the future N o ble merit of the Canadas.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The , N , the Lord then proceeded to say, that he would ca" attention of the House to the Act which was now to be C° in sidered, to the series of transactions which took pla ce s de consequence of th at A ct , an d t h e recommen d a tions rel` d , by Lord Durham, as High Commissioner. The g t°lll ;se of tha Act of 1791 appeared to him, from d speeches delivered by Mr. Pitt in this House, and Grenville in th e ot h er House, to have been prin ei r a two. One wa s , th at t h ere being an influx of British oral grants into Canada, a nd w i t h them of British industry' British habits, and British institutions, it was conce ived,, " 1 ; Mr. Pitt and L or d G renv ill e, t h at b y dividing .tl bt Province into two, the French emigrants I l' its remain in Lowe r C ana d a , w hil e B r i t i s h etn i rn gl re e would have free scope for their industry, and the d • power of establishing their institutions in Upper Ca A na t i:e There was another reason upon which he c onceiveu„ bus t Bill was founded, although it did not appear se cleat' teat Government e F,re nehinhabitants t a a t n p t s e r o i f o dit Lower was t Canada, houg it seemed to him to follow from the views taken by . a . who had b h e e e tr at once very loyal to the Crown, and very iimP le much habits and institutions, to which they were verY retain attached—it was deemed advisable to take meal's ing those institutions, and so reward them for their for f their duct, and give them security for the future stability who institutions. Speaking with great respect for these oa. introduced the Act of 1791, and readily allowing I t notthere b be i e g e h n t , a h t e t s b a a w t time n or e a b s e on reasonsfor condemningw i c ha h t t a p d r t c v h s i s e c a n b a t u l e T b tu t i d ee ni. of the measure, but upon both grounds he considered Act as a mistaken act of policy, It appeared to him the it was quite impossible to so contrive the division of the two races as to keep the British in Upper Canada distinct from the French i n th e L o wer Province. The consequ ence was sure to follow that the French would seek to deprive the institutions of Up per Canada of those advar''' tages incident to a communication by the river St. Law rence to the Sea. He did not approve that conduct t° the French—on the contrary, he thought that the policy ought to h ave been rather to b given the greatest power to the emigrants from this country' and have a malgamated the institutions and brought them as near those of England as possible.—( Hear, bear') The House had now an opportunity o f seeing t "" very serious—he would say the very injurious consequenel which had arisen from that Act. For many years ind eg h the inhabitants of Lower C ana d a, ben).- chiefly Fr en, s simple habi ts , made no einposition to t a G n o d ver o n f mentat home; b ut, as was up na t u ral, in the course of tim e t h ere grew up in L ower Cana d b a considerable p opu l ation of the British race , w it _ r itish habits, British feelings, and with g reat _C•cab pitsoilal, anxious to possess themselves of the which their :capital would make ben e6cis The result was, that opposition was made by the Assertible of Lo wer C anada to the views of the Crown. And for sera years it became a practice justl reprobated, to make a° as propriation of supplies for the service of Lower Cel,b which had never been voted by the Assembly, a method we . ' n ' d indeed was adopted, in order to prevent the Governince'el„ the servants of the Crown in the province from being entire overwhelmed by the opposition of the Assembly ;. sati became the practice also to compose the Lego" Council principally of persons of British connection--Ke sons of different views and parties; and of totally oPia'tl aft, Lc poi as sub vim gen of v at tl for the side irre of a don Sup ] Yeat Said Cab] Loll ougl Con form tor, here With Wool senti Year that the cons fr om at ti coup vine( ti ons Frei whic mil( quip Lorc adyc