The Sun. — London, England, 1822-05-07 00:00:00

. , 9 ease, puC new new . :‘ Gd a 3is a 24$ a „. A (_. .. NtimßEß 92661 TO SHIP OWNERS. 1 1 ROM the result of the. Trials made,in the last and present years with .the Merchants Shipping, Particularly by the Trafalgar Cutter to the Coast of Africa, and the Eden West Indianian, after a twelve months'voyage and stay at Jamaica and the Havannah, - Messrs. BROWELL . n " Co- consid e r th e ms e lves warranted in asserting that N' NB LEACHED CANVAS, made of Hemp and .Flax , is More durable, particularly in tropical climates, both for Sails 494iStltres, than the white kinds, and is 90 per Cent. cheaper. A "PPly of excell en t a nd IMPROVED SCOTCH CANVAS, h Itas undergone' the ANTI MILDEW PROCESS, may he constantly had, marked with their stamp, at the Ware houses of Messrs. Chalmers and Guthrie, idol-lane, Tower.: street, and Mr. Balmanne, 78 Queen-street, Cheapside. in n , This Day was puhlisbed, 'la& Bro. • • ' boards, ti Th • d price lbs. ,in ie ir Edition, cor rected, with additions, of • itTREATISE on the LAW "of TITHES. By SIR SAMUEL TOLLER KNIGHT, Advocate-General at Madras. t o l l nd cin Printed fo rte Joseph Butterworth-and Son, Law oasellers, 43, Fleet-et. LIFE OF LORD BYRON. On Friday next will be published, antl Liezy printed on Demy Bvo. price 14s. in extra boards, , EMOIRS, HISTORICAL and CRITf x ' CAL, of the Life and Writings of the RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD BYRON, with Anecdotes of some P'is Contemporaries. Published by Thomas M‘Lean, 26, a ,Market. Ord e rs received by all Booksellers, Stationers, b u Circulating Libraries in the United Kingdom. ....._ KING'S BENCH TERN' REPORTS. This Day was perlislied. • In Royal avn. price 7s. 6d. Volume V. Part 11. of EPORTS of CASES Argued and D e te - Iflry T min in the copa of K,ING'S BENCH, in Hi er2c ed 1 and 3d Geo- u . IV., 1822. Yad R ICHARD V. BARNEWALL, of 'Lincoln's Inn, Esq. t. EDWARD H. ALDERSON, of the Inner Temple , f'sq• Barristers at Law. trtidon: Printed for Joseph Butterworth anSon, Law k seilers, 43, Fleet-street; John Cooke, O r m ond-quay, Dublin; and J. Clark, 8, Parliament-square, Edinburgh. Of. whom may he bad; lllrr,he Regular Series of the Term Reports, from 26th Geo. v o i, 1 : 85 , to the present time viz.; Durnford and East, 8 • ; East, 16 vols. ; Mettle and Selwyn, 4 vols. and V 01.5, cartsk I and ' 2 (the remainder of which will shortly he pub : and Barnewall and Alderson, 4 vols. and Vol. b, a. ` g and 4. PARLIAMENT. TIOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, MAY G. _ Mr. BROGDEN, the Marquis of CHANDOS, and 73 Bill, rs, brought up the Countervailing Malt Duty and several Private Bills, from the Corn "Lslus.—itead a first time. 1 4 ,he Earl of LAUDERDAtE moved for a variety of Re fl!as relative to the importation and the growth of grain..— sgllered. Lord ROLLE presented a Petition from the City of Exeter, 4 — b rag for an alteration in the Criminal Code.—Laid on the 1 4 . 0 rd KING presented a Petition from an individual named tilthus Schroeder, who complained that the rights and liber t:Lof the subject had been violated liy . his not being allowed L,: 4 le a Bill hi Chancery, without the signature of Counsel-- 1;1 on the t a bl e . t h e Il s e Duke o f DEVONSHIRE p re sented a Petition from ap,r roprietors of Land in the County of Cork, complaining of Ir,letiltural distress, and of the importation of foreign corn.— pals understood that, on account of some informality in its "le, the Petition was afterwards withdrawn. STATE OF THE COUNTRY. UlEarl at, pr °REY ous had to the holidays, no doubt that their Lordgive pshi n notice of s wotld his / to take a view of the state of the country, and to re- PeliZend that which appeared to him to be the only means of tiel; 4l l the present distress, a large reduction of the taxes. je stt , ad then asked tile .Noble Earl opposite whether his - th o iT:s Ministers meant to propose any furtherer measures than 11 6 - Which at that period had been introduced in the other o tli se *. The Noble Earl had referred him, in answer, to the nutted then sitting in the House of Commons on Agra I t ,:t . aYing that he. could not anticipate what its Bepor .t 1 , 1 9 — ti ," ; and declaring that his Majesty's Ministers had en in contemplation to propose any further measure. ( „ Il while that RepOrt had come, and it was impossible ‘viti; l T,ess his opinion of it consistently with the respect pa use ' he wished to treat what proceeded from the oth tot - tie ' c • To say that it had disappointed the country would correct, for there was neither man, woman, nor child h s Co could entertain the least hope of advantage from such sO et2unittee. But yet it was surprising that any . thing frejiz a e r ,ient in . all the qualities of wisdom should have issued ford ; C ommittee of the other House. This was not thqpme oply - , 3cu , ssillg the measures which it proposed, and he ffould f essed Y that they appeared to him inadequate to their pro -411 Zb..teet, and wanting in sound policy. Had these been s)„ t - -- m easures.proposed, he should not have hesitated in th e '',„ s tl g his promised motion, and should have only waited for fte rn -- trn of his Noble Friend. (the Marquis of Lansdowne) 44e: the Continent, in order to have the benefit of his assist for%l'ut 'other, measures had been brought before Parlia-, ;1404 ,„ a nd on their account he intended to postpone his motion •- ,j' r e 3 ent ; but chiefly on account of that which was lt9uvanced in its progress, the arrangement for the ordi .ft tion of the dead, -money. It' was not a little extra thoecY, that such a measure should have come from to.:l,p..ztawfinoole had contended all along that, if the whole of the itll.7s;arteirree reduced, it would• give no relief;; for in point of object was the reduction of the taxes. As at in- Principle of what he had intended to recommend, he s lculd wish it to be fairly discussed by the House, before frai ti ° Plel Make any proposition himself. Yet he could not re !he t It ° lll saying that, anxious as he was for the reduction of It N „.. a s, he disapproved of that measure:—not only m bT t c il au ti s l e e leeml e miuriou s , but because it . would not be attended . Ptinc,,nefit He objected to it, not because it . violated the th line of the Sinking Fund, for in the present circumstances froi ti e , c( mutry he thought more advantage would be derived tie 03 .- :'e sacrifice than from the maintenance of that Fund. to th Jetted to it, not because whilst on the one hand we went o il (L e Market as purchasers and raised it against ourselves, and th e Ze other we should go with our annuities for sale, thus at tn g turte reliiving posterity f one burthen t and load- N e „with another. He objected tort because it disguised the to t z n e aracter of the transaction, and had no other object . than q.b.(c.oht e:hleth6e i u n n c tr onsist y. n ency and weakness of the administration, tor s 7 if not controlled, would end in the ruin of the prpprie otaasters h • e objected to it because his IV . laiest's order See il _ aving been compelled to reduce the taxes . ho ped a re that support which they could not otherwise obtain, kara t - I.l °Y it to hide their change of principle, being less re ,040. f the public interest than of their own appearance . * Dula He disapproved of suclea measure, because it by a _ oiect the country to a loss of ten millions, and because k' more honest course the same advantage might have been / 4 , r Z and the loss avoided. Wlien it should come before their till !,?P!, he should give it every opposition in his power, and esp,,,! . :'ett that the Noble Earl would not fetter by any previous it Eaa Tent the free vote of the House. He well knew that Parn a .,;,'lcen usual for -Ministers to contract for loans, and that tut thi s considered itself bound to maintain the contract. dud ine ? Ivas a different case • the Ministers had the funds were raps necessary to make mother arrangement, and .they 7 ( nd re ° Ti P s ° i o s n in s g t 9 provide for the payment of . the Half-pay on a novel and most extraordinary principle. w„.91-11,1, charore,therefo be only decent in the Noble Lord, and be any 444rthe rof the House to leave it unettered by P t oPosllTerlt, and at full liberty' to throw out the measure of e it thought proper• But if the Noble Earl- entered a-Previous contract he should rese . rve'to hirnself the right ttrae;l%tea:ouring to induce their Lordships to reject' such a con ic ;as Pi ti lllch I nust•be attet!ded with so much loss to . the pulfl.c t " l l 2 bl e earr a Y ti ; d 1 1 1 1 1 7 c e o v i l e r, in finding it at last admitted by the present di agueS, that the only means of relieving gemurs afford NV; Sto reduee the taxes : though their ar_ orded nothcr instance to prove that they could 125 titi Its a _ s od —36 d 17 5 ; s;11:1'. osbY' the arch' ' •.\ \',Z s \ • 4.1 ' 11: '4", , , . . • . ~', k.sT *" k• : " r - IN' .4 :!'i' 4 .4 . -,-- = , -.` -r • iii .., ) '.- ' nii,- - • • _ h:- r 4 V ..::::----' • 4 , fO l . 4 ..-: . •:' i.„4—' . -- ,t,ti , - ;...t —. "7:#•'‘ ‘,*,, -• ' 'k, --- . . , . , ..... 742 il< / riei pip*\ ", not even take a right measure without destroying all its advan tages by the manner in which they carried it intei execUtion.— With respect to the other measures proposed he conceived_that they were completely inadequate to their object, as well as defi cient in sound policy. It was objectionable in principle to the highest degree that any attempt should be made on the part of the Government to raise the price of corn in the market by a sum of money levied from the people •in the shape of taxes ; and still more so, when the author of the measure did not himself seem'to entertain any sanguine expectations of its success.— To any alteration in the Corn Laws he had a great objection. That proposed could have no possible effect on the. present distress, brid must be intended to meet some contingency which might never occur ; and, if it should occur, the measure would prove inadequate to its object. Yet their Lordships were called upon to legislate suddenly upon the means of regulating the. .subsistence of the country, thus creating the greatest ofall evils, an - uncertainty in the laws relative to that most interesting sub ject. He had the same objection to the new , regulation respect ing Country Banks, avhereby Joint Stock Companies would be formed as in Scotland. His objection lay to legislating on the spur of the occasion without any possibility of producing pre sent relief, to introducing anew system, and affecting the per manent interests of the country by the extension of the' Bank Charter for ten additional years. Was it not most extraordi nary that, whilst in all their speeches his Majesty's Ministers had been arraigning the conduct of the Bank, complaining of the reduction of its issues, and representing it as one of the great causes of distress, they should be about committing td that Corporation for ten years longer the same Controlling power over the circulation of the country? On a former occasion the Noble Earl had said that the subject required and should have the deepest attention on the part of the House, and yet he now proposed, without any consideration at all, to extend that very monopolyl The Noble Earl concluded by repeating that he did not abandon his notice altogether, but suspended it for the present. The Earl of LIVERPOOL admitted that, at the time when the Noble Earl had questioned him on the subject, he had said that his Majesty's Ministers had no further measures in con templation ; but he had only that which was the fact" at that period. With respect to the measures since introduced; and now pending in the other House of Parliament, he agreed with the Noble 'Earl in one point, that neither they, nor any other, could supply a remedy to the present distresses of agriculture. But it did not follow that, prospectively, it was impossible or improper to ameliorate that defective state of law. The Noble Earl charged Ministers with inconsistency, for having introduced a measure of reduction, after having aiserted that the reduction of -the taxes would produce no relief. But had he (Lord L.) or had any member of his Majesty's Government ever objected to any reductions which would be consistent with public faith, and with what was due to the Sinking Fund? If such reductions could be made, they had the full approba tion of Ministers, as desirable to the general interests of the country, but not as measures of present relief to agricultuie ; unless indeed there were any branches which bore principally or exclusiYely upon agriculture. But if, as he contended, it was true that the general scale of Government taxation bore less on the agricultural interest than any other, it would expe-'1 rience but little relief from their reduction. He laid an emphasis on the expression Government taxes, because he knew that there were others in the shape of the poor rates, which might bear particularly on agriculture. All the others - bore on the com munity at large, and although their diminution would yield ge neral relief to the country, the agricultural interest would benefit but little, because only in common with, and perhaps in a still smaller ratio than the rest. Was it just to charge his Majesty's inisters with an indisposition to diminish tire taxes ? What was the object of the reduction of the Five per Cents. but a reduction of taxation pro tonto :1 And when that measure had been introduced, had it not been announced as the forerunner of others calculated to reduce the National Debt in a manner consistent with public faith ? The Noble Earl objected to the measure in progress through the other House, relative to what be called. Dead Money; but, be (Lord Liverpool) would b e ready when the question should be before thelrouse, to go into the most minute discussion, and to prove that it' was not only no violation of the principle of the Sinking Fund, but that it would not have the effect of retarding the liquidation of the National Debt one single hour. It was a different arrange ment, advantageous to the country by the present relief which it would produce, and not disadvantageous, as imposing no burthen on posterity. He'said this with a reference to the pro priety of keeping up the Sinking Fund. He understood per fectly well those Noble Lords who said, let us get rid of the Sinking Fund and make it a foundation for 'relief, but he was of opinion that the loss to the country would far surpass the relief. Thinking it, therefore, necessary to maintain a Sinking Fund, he felt convinced that‘the proposed measure would prove the cheapest and most convenient mode of affording relief, con sistently with its existence. He was surprised at the objections which the Noble Earl had urged against the measure relative to the general circulation of the country ; for if they applied to the first part, they could hardly stand good against the se cond ; and if they stood against the second, they were not ap plicable to the first. By law as it now stood, the. Bank had a complete monopoly over all other banks, except those which did not consist of more than six partners. This monopoly was founded on a contract which could not be broken, except on grounds of gross misconduct. It was thought advantageous and proper to the country at large, within a certain distance from the metropolis, to allow the unrestrained faulty of banking. This was obtained, on the condition that the mo nopoly of the Bank in the metropolis should be extended from 1833 to 1843. Ire was ready to admit that he would have preferred procuring the advantage of banking to the coun try without that concession ; but that was not in his power, nor in that of Parliament itself. The Bank might have kept them to the terms of the Charter till 1833 ; the only question to be decided, therefore, was, whether the benefit obtained was not equal to the concession which had-been made ? Joint Stock Companies might certainly be formed in the country in conse quence of the proposed arrangement, but that was not the con sideration which had actuated his Majesty's Ministers. The object which they had in view was the destruction of that mo nopoly which the Bank had so long enjoyed. It also became an important question whether the law permitting the issuing of Bank-notes, which was to expire in three years, should be con tinued or not ? The measure was similar to that which had been adopted last year in Ireland, for opening a free competition in the general system of banking; a system which had so long and so beneficially existed in Scotland, that when the greatest crash took place in England, the Scotch Banks rode safely through the storm, and scarcely one bankruptcy had ever taken place amongst the Scottish Joint Stock Companies. As to the measure itself, it could only be adopted, he should repeat, with the consent of the Bank, who had a veto upon it, and the only question was, whether the relaxation of the monopoly of that Corporation over the country was not worth its continuance for ten additional years in the metropolis ? The Marquis of LANSDOWN only rose to advert to'one topic, on which he intended to make a motion, which he had no doubt the Noble Earl opposite would not oppose. He agreed with that Noble Earl, that the question was one of amount and of value. The existing contract with the Bank imposed a restriction on free banking ; it became necessary to re-purchase the right thus restricted, and the consideration was, whether a greater price had been given than the value of the object. The same measure had been adopted last year, at his own pressing solicitations, with respect to Ireland, where it had done, and would do, much good ; but it did not follow that it would have the same importance and results in a coun try where capital abounded. He did not believe that the Bank of England would issue one note more or less for the extension which was to be granted, and it might be made a question whether, it would be wise to renew its monopoly in the metro polis for ten years, at no other price than the freedom of bank ing in the country, instead of the great sacrifices which used to be required from that establishment for renewals of its charter, either in the shape of a sum which would go at once to the re lief of the country; or in that of a loan on better terms than could have otherwise been obtained. In. order to enable the House to form a just opinion on the subject, he should move for a copy of the Correspondence which had taken place be tween his Majesty's Government and the Governor and Com pany of the Bank of England, relative to the extension of their Charter. Earl GREY, in explanation, maintained that Country Bankers were at present in no want' of any measure like that proposed, their credit being fully and firmly established. As to the Bank of England, he would only say that it was driving a most hard and extravagant bargain with a weak and depen dant 'A dm imstration. The Earl of LIVERPOOL also in explanatiOn stated, that a geneial impression prevailed, that if the Act which per mitted the issuing of one pound notes were allowed to expire at the end of three years, the circulation would be much reduced, .and.the public distress much_ augmented. It was out of this consideration that the present measure had arisen. Whether TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1822. the extension was worth the additional ten - years was the only question.' Lord KING agreed with his Noble Friend (Earl Grey) that the whole was an ..extravagant bargain, and that high terms were demanded by the Bank.. He.then contended, that if the Poor Rates chiefly affected the Agricultural Interest, they were themselves affected and angniented by the increase of the NaL tional Debt. , _ • Lord SUFFIELDread some papers giving a comparative view of the amount of the Poor Rates and- of that of the Na tional Debt during several-years, in order to skew how the former were acted upon and augmented by the latter. The Earl of LIVERPOOL wished that Noble Lord would extend his comparative view to the amount of the National Debt and of the Poor Rates during the twolast years. Lord HOLLAND sho u ld thank the Noble Earl to tell him how it came to pass that money taken from the community to pay the rich did not impoverish them, whilst that taken to pay the poor did ?-:-(A laugh). - The motion was' then agreed to, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. • Sir B. SHAW presented a petitionfrom 'certain Christians resident in Dublin, calling themselves Separatists, praying that the same privileges whiclithe Quakers enjoy in the practice of their religion might-be extended to then - i. The lion. Baronet stated that he knew many of - the petitioners to be respectable men, and worthy the indulgence they prayed for—Ordered to lie on the.table. ' THE NAVIGATION LAWS. Mr..LAMB'fON said he had been intrusted with two peti tions from the Ship-owners of Sunderland and North Shields, against the Navigation Bill, the second reading of which was fixed for that evening. The petitioners stated that they had embarked large capitals in shipping, under the faith of the Na vigation Laws, the abicwation of which must inevitably ruin them. They considered the Bill before the House; -called the Navigation 11111, to be totally subversive of the principles of the ' Navigation Laws, and they concluded with praying that they' might be heard by Counsel against it. The Hon. Memb er ob- - served, that although he did - not believe that no alteration of, the Navigation Laws ought to take place, yet if, as was alleged, the Bill which had been introduced to the House would de stroy our'maritime superiority and cause the ruin of the ship ping interest, he certainly could not consent to its passing. As he understood the subject it was thi s : —A ccor di ng to the old Navigation Laws, no imports from Asia, Africa, or America could take place unless they came direct to this country in Bri tish bottoms ; but by the projected alterations it was proposed to - allow the prodube of the continents he had mentioned - to be imported from any place, that is to say, without coming direct to this country. The effect of the proposed alteration, in his opi nion, would be this—that the produce of the different quarters of - the world which had hithe r to b een i m p or t e d direct into this country in British vessels, would be ' brought to some port near this country in foreign vessels, and afterwards imported here in vessels of our own-4year !)—Thus would a competition be raised between British and foreign shipping, in which it was im-, possible the former could succeed, on account of the heavy taxa tion to'which it was subjected; and from which the latter was free. His own opinions were in favour of a free trade ; but while the Government was imposing restrictions upon trade in favour of one class of the community, it was hard that they- should re move existing restrictions of a similar nature to the detriment of another class. In order to show how unequal British ves sels were to cope with those of foreign countries in 'fin unres tricted commerce, he would state to the House the difference in their cost and construction, and outfitting. - In the port of London the price of -building was 251. per ton, and in the out ports it was about 161. 10s.' whilst in Norwsy the price was only' 111. per ton. The outfits were all in the same proportion. Under these circumstances, he could not help' thinking it im politic to plaCe British and foreign vessels on the same footing. If the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wallace) could convince him that his Bill would not deprive the British mer chant of the maritime superiority to which he was entitled, he would not oppose it ; but otherwise, notwithstanding his own sentiments in favour of a free trade, he should feel it his duty to vote against it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir I. COFFIN said, that if , the ship-owners were not pro tected, he should never be able to fight a battle again. Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that the fears of the Ilon. Member for Durham, as to the probability of foreign vessels bringing the produce of Asia, Africa, or America to some neighbouring foreign port, in order afterwards to be im ported into this country in ships of our own, were not well founded. In his opinion it would be fbund cheaper to import the produce direct to this country in vessels of our own, than in the manner which the Hon. Member for Durham anticipated would be resorted to. Mr. GLADSTONE supported the prayer of the Petition. Mr. M. A. .TAYLOR said, that unless good reason were shown, he would not consent to change the Navigation Laws under which the country had for so long a period flourished. General GA SCOYNE thought the Right Hon. Gentleman's Bill would confer a benefit upon foreign nations for which this country would receive no equivalent.. It was extremely impolitic at the present moment,when foreign nations were excluding our ships from their ports, to repeal the navigation laws, under which this Country had thriven. Mr. WALLACE said he would not anticipate the :discus sion on the Bill by' prolonging the present conversation. When the Bill should come fairly under discussion, he thought he could show sufficient grounds to induce the House to give it their support. Sir W. CURTIS observed, that the navigation laws formed the key-stone of our commercial prosperity : take that away, and the whole fabric would fall to pieces. (Hear.) lie would resist the Bill to the utmost of his power, and he wished he had a Stentorian voice to -make himself heard throughout the country. -111 r. LAM BTON could not see any impropriety in entering upon the discussion of a public measure, upon the occasion of the presentation of a Petition which referred to it. He would not at present add any thing to what he had before.said, except to observe that he agreed in the architectural simile of the worthy Baronet who spoke last. Mr. ELLICE was surprised that Government had - , not, during the course of the-Session, brought forward some propo sition for reducing the charges upen shipping. In addition to the expense of building, which was always double, and in some cases treble that which:was paid in foreign countries, our shipping were subject to enormous imposts, from which the vessels of other nations were exempt. A collector was sta tioned at Quebec, who received a salary of 4,0001., ra'lsed by taxes upon shipping.. The collector at New York, which was the largest port in the world, except London and Liverpool, and perhaps the Clyde, received only a salary, of 5001. A Bri tish vessel was obliged•to pay fees at every port at which she touched in the West Indies. The Consular fees (a subject to which the Member for Alontrose had called the attention of the House) were also a most oppressive tax upon shipping. This was a subject that might be r4ulated by Government itself, without the interference of the House. If an English vessel entered four different ports of Sicily, she would be compelled to pay. No measure was more called for than a reduction of charges that unnecessarily pressed upon the shipping interest. If it were considered necessary to revert to the _principles of a free trade, such proceeding should be accompanied by a dimi nution of those burdens which prevented our 'merchants from, navigating at so cheap a rate as those of foreign nations. General GASCO't NE desired to know whether the motion for the second reading . of the Bill would be , made that night, and if not, when it would be made ? Mr. WALLACE replied, that he wished the Bill to be read a second time this day without observations, and that the dis. cussion upon the principle of the,rneasure should take place in the committee. After a short conversation, in which Mr. LAMATON, Mr. MARRYATT, Mr. ELLICE, Sir W. de CRESPIGNY, and Sir M. W. RIDLEY, bore parts, the Bill was read a second time. Air. WALLACE then gave notice, that he would move that the Bill be committed to-morrow. Lord s EBRI.NGTON.• presented a Petition signed by 792 holders and occupiers of land in the vicinity of Doldsworthy, in the county of Devon, complaining of distress. The Peti tioners were of opinion that the distresSes of the country . did not arise from abundant production, but were tile consequences of unexampled taxation, augmented by the late change in the value of the currency. .➢lr. W. GORDON presented a Petition from the ship owners of the port of Aberdeen against the Navigation Bill. SCOTCH DISTILLEMES. Capt. NITEIFC,'SS presented a Petition signed by upwards of 2,000 farmers in the county of Fife; praying that the importa tion of Scotch spirits into England might be allowed. The House was aware that grain and spirits might be sent from Ire land to Scotland, but neither of those articles was allowed to be exported to Ireland or England. The Petitioners calculated, that if the permission which they prayed for were granted,, fh consumption of bailey would,be increased , to the amount of 500,000 quarters. .. • • den. VERGUSSON called upon the landed gentlemen in the House to support the prayer of the. Petition, which, if it weregred to, would create them a market for their grain, whicif was at present rotting in. warehouses, . _ Lord A. HAMILTON also, said a few words'in support the Petition. . . The CHANCELLOR - of the EXCHEQUER said that the Hon. Gentleman who presented the Petition had overstated the case. This was a• question of much importance, and he Wished the House to suspend their opinions until the CommiSsioners of Inquiry, before whom the whole matter was lald, should make' their Report. In the present distress, he had no objection to . give every facility for the consumption of barley, but he had" no hesitation in saying that he would prefer seeing the increased consumption take place rather in beer than spirits,. which were. so hurtful to the morels of the people. . • Mr. HUNTER BLAIR said that evidence upon the point had been taken by the Agricultural Committee. Many.perSolis had declared that the measure proposed would not tend to lessen the consumption of beer in England-: its only effect would be to drive out. the illicit importation of spirits. • .. Sir RONALD FE RGUSSON complained that the laws re gulating distillation in Scotland were. unnecessarily-severe. If. a distiller worked for the home trade and for exportation, he was obliged to hive a separate building for each branch of his ltisiness ; those buildings not standing . within two miles of each other. • • • The Petitio.-. was then read, and referred to the . Agricultural Committe.e. Mr.,HUNTER BLAIR moved for a copy of reports fur. nislied to the Treasury within the last year. on the subject of illicit distillation in Scotland.-Orderd •to be laid upon the table. Mr. MAULS presented a Petition Trom the growers of barley In the County of Kincardine, praying• that the importa don of Scotch whiskey into this country might be placed on the same footing with that of Irish. Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a Petition to the same effect from the County of Forfar.—Read, and ordered to he referred to the Agricultural. Committee. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL:presented three Petitions from occupiers of land in the County of Kent, complaining 'of the depressed state of the Agricultural Interest.—Read, and ordered to be printed. 11r. DUGDALE presented three Petitions from-the County of Warwick against the proposition for allowing foreign corn lying in British warehouses to be ground and exported.—Read, and ordered to be printed. MARRIAGE ACT. _ - Mr. PARES presented a Petition from certain Ijnitarian Dissenters against the.existing provisions of the Marriage Act. RELIEF TO THE COUNTRY. . Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a Petition from certain Owners and Occupiers of Land in Abe counties of Somerset and. Gloucester, on .the subject of Agricultural Distress. They complained that none of the Resolutions which had been brought forward seemed likely to- supply,an .adequate- remedy, - but in particular they were filled with alarm by those submitted to the House by the lion. Member for Portarlington. That Ilon. Member he considered was rather too hard on those who; like him (Sir T. Lethbridge), favoured a high protecting duty on foreign corn, when contended that they - had no reason for making such a demand. -lie (Sir. T, Lethbridge), when advo cating that system for which he felt it to be his duty to con tend, had given his reasons for so doing, and these, if not satisfactory to the Hon. Member - for Portarlington, were satis - factory to 'his own mind. The - Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Portarlington, might be .almost.a God of Reason, but re membering the establishment of the Goddess of Reason in ano ther country, and the scrapes into which that country had bCdti drawn by her means, he was not disposed to suffer the name of reason to carry him too far. The names of other Mertibers.who had produced Resolutions were certainly thentioned, in the Petition which he now presented ; but those which filled the Petitioners with most alarm were the Resolutions. of the Bon. Member for Portarlington. . He (Sir T. Lethbridge) was most perfectly of accord with..the Petitioners, when they declared it to be their conviction that nothing short of a mast efficient duty on the importation of every kind of foreign produce could restore confidence and prosperity to the cultivators of the soil.— The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. - 47 s•?1,:t-P ., • 1 , ',. , ......„ ~. .Z.V, t• - _ PUBLICANS' LICENSES. Mr. HUSKISSON had a Petition to present, which, if the party from whom it came had taken his allvice, would have been handed over to some one more connected with the place to which it referred ; but as the Petitioner had persevered in requesting:him to present it, he had thought it was his duty to bring it before the House.. The Petitioner stated himself to have built 4 or 500 houses near Iklil&end, and in a part where there was no public house. 'After 100 or more of these houses were inhabited, much inconvenience was felt from the want of a public house, and the tenants had to fetch their beer from a publican who lived at a considerable distance. Upon this the Petitiotier built a house fit for a public .house, intending to keep it as a free.house. Oh finishing it in 1817 he applied for a licence. The application was supported by all the inhabitants, but was refused by'the Magistrates, and this refusal on inquiry he was told was conclusive. In 1818, 200 of the houses being inhabited; he renewed his • application, but with no' better suc cess. • In 1818, finding (to use the PetitioneiN own words) " that he had not interest enough with the. Magistrates to pro cure a licence; he treated with a publican of the name of Brown, then residing at Bermondsey, and dealing with Bar clay and Co.•forthe sale of the house.'? The house was sold, and no sooner had Brown got the house conveyed to him, and transferred his custom to Truman,•• Hanbury, and Co. than a :licence was granted for the house. The Petitioner continued building till 400 houses had been erected,when he builtanother house for a public house as remote as possible from the one which had been licensed for Brown. In 1821 he applied for ' a license for this new house, but it was refused. In the same year a house was built on a contiguous spot of gronnd. Very few•houses were near it, but on this being let to the respect able Brewers he had already mentioned, a license . had been granted .for this also. He (Mr. Huskisson) had sug gested to: the Petitioner, that if he had sustained any injury, from improper conduct on the part of the Magistrates, he had "his remedies in a Court of law. This he had stated a fortnight ago, lust the Petitioner had returned to him within this few days, and told him that a professional man whom he had con sulted had informed him that he had no legal redress to hope for. The Petitioner stated that the house, which he had held at aloss for three years, • through not getting it licensed, and which he had sold to Brown for 1,1001., on . being licensed - had become worth 3;0001. which sum Mr. Brown might have got for it had•he•been disposed to take it. It was clear, if these facts could be substantiated, that much inconvenience was sustained under the present system. , if the metropolis were divided into districts for the supply of beer, as it had been by certain companies for the supply of that which was of still greater importance to the public—water, it was necessary to do, something to 'Correct the evil. If, too, the value of a honSe %%lei affected in the way described by the grant of a license, the subject would be entitled to serious consideration. But he was aware that many difficulties were in the way of a change of system. This arose from the various ways in which the sane law applied .under different circumstances. The factS . which he had broUght before the Honsethe stated on the autho rity of the Petitioner, having no personal 1.. - .owledge,on the sub ject hithself. Seeing an. Hon: Gentleman in his place, Who had stated a short .time back that the time for lowering the beer would soon arrive, he begged to ask if it were now at hand? The duty on malt having ceased, if it had not yet ar rived, means must be taken. to hasten it; and he thought it right to remind the lion. Gentleman that - this was the third time of asking. . . Nlr. BITYPON . agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle:nail that, if the allegations contained in thiS Petition were true, great abuses had. taken place, to which a remedy ought to be sup plied._ He was glad that the Petition had been shewn to him by the night llon. Gentleman before he presented it, as it had Inabled him to refute almost all that it stated. In 1817 the .Petitioner had taken-a piece of land, and in the same year he had applied for a licence for a public-house. This application, the house being unfinished, the ',Magistrates regarded as pre mature. In 1818 he had again applied for a licence, but the house being then untenanted, it had been refused a second time.. In the following year they were inhabited, anti thus An application being made, .a 'licence was granted. What the Petitioner charged . against the Nlagistrates was, that they had done what was right, but from corrupt motives. The ground on Which he drew this inference was this—that the publican Brown had transferred his custom from . the house of Barclay and Co. to that of NI essrs;Truman and Co. This, however, every body in that House connected with the brewing trade of 'that Firm, must know was a thing so very com Mon, PRICE SnytNPENcr,-. that nothing hi the kind could- fairly be inferred frein'that circunistancee- How it Was pesible to suppose the brewers' iu"qtiestion use any influence - they Might- poSSess with the Nla , istrates but for their own benefit, and he' most positively deni'ed that there was any agree:merit,' •verbal ,or written, - legal or otherwise,__ with respect: to BroWn's' house, which was in e v er y respect a tree hens;. That person was no more confined to the house of Nlessis. Truman. and Co„ than he was to that of his b a k er : Whil e t h e one supplied his with good beer, and the other with good bread, it was probable that the connection would continue ; but he lms not in. the remotest degree bound to his -brekiree ankluore than he was to his baker. The Petitioner stated ; :that was • so disheartened at finding on what an iniquitkis syStem theill a gistrates acted; that he sold his house in ,dismay. What then • did he •do ? Why, he built two more public-houses. This -was rather extraordinary. One of these was in the same strut • with Brown's, and kit two hundred yards distant, and'Was - petitioned against by BrOwn ;• the other was but sa hundied. and • sixty yards distant troin the first public-house. -None of these 'objections applied to the house which had subsequently been licensed. 'lt was tot in the same street, and it was 31;0 yardS' • distant from Brown's house. Under such circumstances, he would teetidently ask the Right Bon: Gentleman whether he Would, no! hay e••acted.as•the agstrates did ? The licence et the second home was said to liaV been granted on itsl.)eckh ing the property of Messrs. Truman each Co. This , he -denied altogether. ' fie now came to the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He begged to recall the circumstances under -. which this subject had been previously mentioned in that house. In the first instance ha had no cbthrounication with the other brewers on the subject, and desired to have an op portunity of speaking with them. When the subject 'was next mentioned, he had announced that when the stock' in hand which' had paid the full duty had been consumed ; - -the price would be - lowered. Having given this pledge, he had he* to state that it had been - redeemed, and that the price of beer had - .alreadylalletr. HoW much,?" was asked by an Hon. Member on the Opposition 'side of the 11 ouse.l Mr. BUXTON said he knew Government wished-the pride ' to be lowered one halfpenny,- though not qnite one farthing per - quart had been taken off by the repeal of the duty. This had, however, been done, - and the price was loWered by one half penny in the quart. Much was said of the number of houses purchased by brewers, and many erroneous ideas were abroad' .on this subject. lie would state how the case was, so far as he, was concerned. lie served 766 persons with beer, of whom' 105 were in the country. Of these 49 occupied houses belong ing-to him, 22 were consigned to him for loans, and the re - minder were free. He did not mean to that loans had not been advanced to the holders of some of them ; but they were nevertheless independent. To prove what his -feelings were on this subject,,he referred to - the part he - had taken on a former occasion, and to a restrictive clause Which he had aug-. gested to prevent any brewer from leasing or purchasing a. public-house. On the strength-of beer now he Wished to say one word. An Hon. Member had said he should be satisfied if the strength of beer were restored to what it was 'formerly. He (N. r. Buxton) had inquired into this, and found that beer was 2b . per cent. stronger than it was 20 years ago. His authothy for • -stating this' was the Excise, to which he referred those who - Might doubt the accuracy of his statement. The number ef free houses was at present so great that there was as much competition in the brewing business as in any' other trade. For those who dealt so harshly with the brewers, he • only wished' -• that they would meet them not with calculations in that House, but with competition out of it, and nothing would give him more pleasure than to see die Right Hon. , Gentleman (Mr.- • Huskisson) with all his great talents (if he could so far con descend), • enter into a fair and tradesmanlike competition with the Brewers• Mr: C. CALVERT considered the present licensing Systetti to 'be defective in many respects, especially in the country. Something ought to be done to correct the evil s as great abuses took place,under it, - of which, ,if it were necessary, he could adduce one hundred instances in a week. Sir J. SEPRIGIIT thought the present produced the worst effects. The country generally complained of it, and, in his opinion, justly. Mr. KENNET pointed put the defects of the present system,' which enabled the brewers in the country to drench the people• with vile poison. He had been round to some of the houses and tasted the beer himself, and had found it such huff that he wondered -how it - could be drank at all. lie was of opinion that the evil could only be remedied by permitting • beer to be sold as freely as bread. From doing this there were no -just grounds to tear that drunkenness *mild increase, as that vier was not found mast prevalent in wine Countries, where some could be purchased at almost every house. He wished eery •one to beallowed to'sell beer, but he did not wish every one to. be allowed to keep a public house. The law forbade persons to tipple in pullic-houses; but:the Magistrates, the wise men of Gotham, required that those who sold beer should have benches, tables, pipes, and newsptpers, to induce the poorer classes to drink more than • they would otherwise take. Were beer freely sold as he proposed,.as bread or as i,ugar was at Ire sent, he was confident that it would benefit th4ublic, - without at all injuring the Revenue. Some. loss might be sustained from such a change ; btu it was the duty of that - House to look to the general interest of the country—to look at the efiCct of such a measure in gross, and not in detail. Ile, for one, would go the length of giving compensation to those who might suf fer from the change, rather than consent to the continuance of a system which he considered to, be equally injurious to. the health and to the morals of the people. , Mr. CALVEILT and Mr. G. BENNET mutually.explained. Mr. WHITBREAD perfectly agreed with what had fallen from the Hon. 'Ai ember for 14"eymoutit, and was happy that he had , met an opportunity of .correcting an erroneous impression. The present system, he contended, did not - give a monopoly to brewers. Ile protested against the lietnsidg of persons in.. stead of . houseS,,for such an alteration most involve thousands in ruin. He intreated the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury dot to think of legislating upon the. subject, without directing L's attention to the regulations lately entered into, for licensing houses. . lr. C. SMITH 'made a few observations, "which were not audible. Mr. MONO( was of opinion that ir they would prevent th monopoly of brewers, they must place the licensing system upon the same footing as that observed in licensing other trades. To do this they . must diminish' the power vested in Magistrates. He had received a letter from a medical gentle Man of eminence, whom he had long. known; residing at Bath; who stated that a large proportion of his patients were rendered ill by the delete rious ingredients' emp?oyed. by the brewers, which gave thers cholics and other complaints,-,(A laugh.) 'Mr. F. BUXTON said, as it might be considered that in re moving blame from their own house, he had cast it upon others, he felt it to be an act of duty in him to state that the proposi tion for prohibiting. brewers from purchasing' public-houseS . , originated with- a very respectable Gentleman, formerly a Member of that 1 - 1 ouse (Mr: Barclay.) The Petition was then brought up and read. It came from • an individual named Robert .Churchall. Mr. HLTSKISSON wished to repeat thot he knew nothing of the Petitioner; nor of the local situations of - the houses. . After a few words from Mr. C. SivIITIT, the Pedticn was ordered to be printed, •. TI 1E COLONIES. Mr. MIME,- after observing on the great difference that pre -vailed with respect to the regulations in the new and the old ('olonies, as far as they affected the agents in. those Colonies, moved for a return of the names of such agents, the dates of their respective appe,intments, the amount of their salaries and allowances, and a return of all :rich other places as were held by agents t and also for an account of the duties such agents had, to perform up to the yeat 1821, in•the new Colonies of th/A. Mauritius, Ceylon, and Malta. • . Mr. HUSKISSON said that the first return moved for - had been already made. . Mr. HUME admitted that it had ; but he had. to ecmpliiin of the - conduct of other official persons, who not only were in attentive on the subject, -but when the Committee up. stairs sent back to those persons certain returns and other documents to be amended, they refused so to do. ••. • _ _ I\lr. W 1 I. NI OT said he did not see how. he could gratify the wishes of the Hon. Member more than he .had already endea voured to do.—The motion was agreed to. • • NAVIGATION —A CT . .' SYKES presented a Petition from 'the Merchant; of Kingston-upon-Hull against t eNavibation - I3rll. - • Sir 3IATIIEW W. RIDLEY pru&nted a . similar Petition from the Merchants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne;.-Ordered'to. be printed. Mr. MAXWELL presented a Petition from the Commi.. sioners of Supply and Distillers of Renfrew, Seotland 'oil-- Is 04 eani, 4s Od I, 6d; -Date 4c1 ---r 17 4 3 a 1:1. ce of ice of load; arbet , was heat, 13s 3 Ss 4a Ss (id; 3s Ca 6s Od 4s Ed 205 Od 235 a _Sod a ..—s —s Od —s Oa 1 95 Oil .....$ Od ... s Oa outi , Arle!'r ....5 9. 25 ....-i .....3 .....i Bar.' Oat' 101 s 3 od ; S' !es Vlita t arlefy ,s; - Od . 4 Od - 0▪ j. !63 °6 !0§ bel l i el star tier bel 45 ° 4 45 64 I. a" t)L4 sbe l OF 11 11 (),‘: II lv ,l 4; Be''' Res ;ham Res' lelin~ )iipl4 uate, "