The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THU PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Owing to the firmness of the Government, the
Beer Bill is not encumbered with a restriction which
would have defeated its principal, and, in our minds,
most useful object—the free accommodation of the
poorer classes. We do not for one moment impugn
the motives of these who supported the amendment,
but fer the sake of consiste►►cy, and bqual justice to
the poor and rich, we rejoice that it has been rejected.
The Government having shown a determined front,
the opposition to this measure will, we have no doubt,
be less in every future stage of the proceedings.—
Times.

There is no crime in now asserting that the Lon-
don and Birmingham Junction Canal Bill was a
bubble company bill; that a false and fraudulen.
subscription bill was deposited, by the solicitor to
the bill, at the private bill-office of the House of
Commons; and that if the thing had not, eery
fortunately, burst before it was ripe for execution,
the public would have been robbed of property to
the amount of little less than half a million of
money. There is, we repeat, no offence in now affirm-
ing all this, because it is put on on record by one of
the Houses of Parliament; and because the attorney
for the bill, the official organ through which the
whole abomination was to have been realised, has been
called up to the bar of the House of Commons, and
has received from 51r. Speaker a solemn repri-
mand for his proceedings, which we copy from the
Journals of the House. And yet there are, perhaps,
a score of persons connected with the getting up of
this arid other applications to Parliament, who
would have the modesty to turn up any Newspaper
which charged them with one half of what the
Speaker of the House of Commons has reprobated
the solicitor to the bill in question for attempting,
and would talk big about " calumny," " action for
libel," &c. Oh dear ! if men would take but a
tithe of the pains to keep themselves honest and un-
tainted, which they do to punish others for being
convinced, however reluctantly, by dint of evidence,
that they are not so, how much time and trouble,
and reputation likewise, they might save themselves.
The reprimand alluded to was as follows :
Thomas Eyre Lee, the House, after lengthened and mature
consideration of the case in which you are involved, and having
given every attention to the petition which you have presented,
have come to the conclusion that the offence which you com-
mitted is of a grave and serious nature, as affecting the dignity,
and character of this House, and of the most dangerous conse-
quences to the property of individuals who may be concerned in
the passing of Private Bills. It has been proved to the convic-
tion of the House, that the Subscription List which you de-
posited, and which you attested before the Committee, was false
and fictitious; and that you, though warned as to the suspi-
cious character of the said List, did, nevertheless, as agent for
the Bill, attest its truth without due inquiry into the cir-
cumstances to which your attention has been specially di
rected ; and, however severe a censure it must be to
every honourable mind to receive the reprimand of this House,
this House, in justice to the parties concerned in the case to
which their attention has been particularly directed, as well as
with a view to prevent the recurrence of any fraud of a similar
nature, and to give security to those whose interests may be con-
cerned in Private Bills, and further to vindicate the honour and
dignity of the House, do direct that you be reprimanded for this
offence. I have, in obedience to the command of the House,
communicate this reprimand to you, and I have now to acquaint
you that you are discharged.

The discussion last night on the subject of the
41 per Cent West India Duties was quite a treat.
The produce of these duties has for a long period
been applied chiefly, according to Mr. Creevey, in
pensioning the natural children of people at the
west-end of the town, possessed of Parliamentary
interest and Court favour. It was a convenient
fund in many ways. It happened, however, a year
or two ago, that pity was taken of the Bishopless
condition of the West Indians, and an Act was
passed to prevent the further grant of pensions out
of the 41 per Cent. Duties, the proceeds of which
were devoted to the payment of the new Church
Establishment. Here was a union of piety and dis-
interestedness of rare occurrence in the history of
this country. Piety in the mouths of Ministers
Las usually meant an application to the pockets of
the people. But only think of Ministers renouncing
this rich resource of corruption, from mere com-
passion to the Bishopless condition of the Creoles.
Not so fast, good readers. When it was wished to
job the Bishops and Clergy, the public were to be
pacified by the idea that these pious men were,
at all events, more worthy recipients of the duties
than the very equivocal class described by Mr.
Creevey. But this job having been completed, the
next consideration was to saddle the public with
the Bishops and the full amount of the pensions.
Mr. Hume, who brought the subject before the
House in his usual straight-forward and uncompro-
mising way, stated that " an op:nion had been ob-
tained from the Law Officers of the Crown, that the
sugar sent over in payment of the 41 per Cent.
Duties was not liable to the payment of Customs,
and thus, without at all asking the opinion of Par-
liament, the Customs had not been paid, and the
produce of the duties bad been raised last year from
about 30,000/. to 61,0000 It seems, according to
some of the many relics of barbarous laws, which
are always ready for an occasion like the present,
the King pays no duties. It was stated by Sir
James Scarlett, in answer to a question put by Mr.
Bating, that the Crown, in the times of the Henries,
imported goods, duty free, and sold them. Accord-
ing to this doctrine, there is nothing to hinder the
King from being, like the Pacha of Egypt, the mo-
nopolizer of all the importations into the country.
Importing duty free, the deuce is in it if he could
not sell cheaper than his highly-taxed subjects.
For one hundred and seventy years, the pro-
duce sent Ott by the West Indians to pay
the 4 per Cent. Duties has paid Customs like
other importations. To allow this produce to be
imported duty free, is merely to take so much from
the Customs. It was, as Mr. Hunie observed, a
" transfer of 35,000/. from the Customs to the
Privy purse of the King—that was the true cha-
racter of the transaction. It was money taken from
the public to be put into the pocket of the King,"
The sugar was of course sold at the common market
price, which includes Customs, and the sugar paying
Customs was diminished to the extent of the West
India 41 per cent. produce. Now is not this a gross
perversion of the spirit of the Constitution, if it be
not a violation of the law ? There is no necessity
for sending a tax-gatherer into the King's Palace,
or for charging with duty his importations of wine,
because we must maintain the King, and if he paid
taxes, the nation must enable him to pay them. But
this extension of the maxim, that the King pays no
duty—a maxim borrowed from ages when the King
was not a pensioner of the nation as at present, but the
real disposer of all the public revenue, to the present
times, in order to have a large fund for corrupt pur-
poses, is one of the most audacious steps that ever
were taken—is, in fact, a perfect insult to the
country. If the public had known, when the precious
affair of the West Indian Bishops was in agitation, that
the 2.5,000/.required for them would be a permanent
Barden on the country, we question whether the
House of Commons would have dared to agree to
the measure. The affair strikes us as about as nice
ail exemplification of the art of cozening as ever
was witnessed. All fair and liberal, when the
Bishops are quartered on us. But, then, if 25,000/.
be taken from a fund hitherto sacred to that de-
, seription of pensions which is not fit for the light
(the most valuable description to a Government,
for pensions to meritorious servants can always be
obtained with ease from Parliament), how are we
to replace the loss ? Then the Law Officers of the
Crown are put in requisition to discover a pretext
for retaining the Fund for Pensions undiminished.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with great
naivete, observed, that " the late opinion of the
Law Officers of the Crown had not enabled Mi-
nisters to extend their patronage beyond what it
was before the passing of the Gth George IV."
No; but the public have been, to speak in lan-
guage more expresuive than dignified, diddled out
of a sum equal to that retained by Ministers for pa-
tronage, by this ingenious reference to the Legisla-
ture of our Henries. It is a trick ; and, in
common life, we know what name would be given
to it. It is clearly an appropriation of money
without the sanction of Parliament. If the King
can import sugar duty free, he may import other
good', and thus obtain as large a revenue as he
chooses. But it is said you have Ministerial respon-
sibility. Ministers are responsible for every thing

the' King does. This is all very well—the public
know the value of it. But it is clear that this way
of obtaining money is taking the public by sur-
prise. It would have looked much better, had Mi-
nisters fairly stated, when they were quartering an
Episcopal Establishment for the West Indies on
the country, that they did not mean to aban-
don any part of the fund for pensions, and
that though the 4 per Cents. were at pre-
sent unequal to the payment of the establish- ,
ment and the pensions, yet it was in contempla-
tion to double the produce by taking 35,0001. a year
from the Customs and adding it to the per Cents.
A great deal of idle talk took place on the point
whether the opinions of Law Officers of the Crown
ought to be produced. That, of course, should de-
pend on whether it is of importance that they be
produced. When the public interest demands the
production of such opinions Ministers would be
wrong in not producing them. Must assuredly, if
ever there was a case which demanded the produc-
tion of the opinions of the Law Officers of the
Crown, it is the present. Is it not of the utmost
importance that the public should know the extent
to which the Crown may raise money without the
consent of Parliament ? If it be the law that the
King can import duty free, and sell the goods in the
market, the sooner the law is done away with the
better. The motion for the production of the opinion,
however, was lost by a majority of seventy-eight to
thirty-two. It is altogether a pretty business.-
Ilfornin g Chronicle.
Every one recollects the bubble era—that dark
stain upon the moral character of this country in the
nineteenth century. The gross and impudent frauds
' which were then concocted by gangs of swindlers,
whose invention could not be too extravagant or
romantic for the credulity on which it was practised,
cannot soon be forgotten. Too many, indeed, have
bitter cause to remember the dazzling visions of
sudden and boundless riches which were conjured
up by the juggling tricks of the joint-stock schemers,
and which enticed them, in evil hour, from the path
of regular industty into all the folly and misfortune
of gambling speculations. Nor were those scandalous
and disgraceful frauds solely contrived by obscure
and nameless adventurers ; men of high and honour-
able connection—even Representatives of the people,
and titled Counsellors of Kings, lent themselves to
plans of infamous deception and wholesale robbery.

It is a notorious fact that the basest and most auda-
cious knaves,who raised themselves from sordid ob-
scurity to a momentary importance by successful
fraud, held their levees, which were attended by.
Peers and Members of Parliament, all eager to asso-
ciate with the lucky adventurers, who were enriching
themselves at the expense of a deluded people, and
careless of sharing the infamy, so as they were
allowed to participate in the gains. But a day of
account and retribution came; the whole fabric of
joint-stock fraud tumbled to the earth with a
tremendous crash ; and while thousands of miserable
dupes wereburied in the ruins, the architects of this
calamity did not escape unhurt. Many of them bad
to disgorge their ill-gotten wealth ; others found it
prudent to fly the country; and not a few have mi-
serably perished in prisons, and in foreign lands.—
Yet the Divine vengeance—for it was hardly brought
about by human means—which fell upon those
things, and their contrivers and abettors, has only
repressed the spirit in which they were engendered
—not extinguished it. We have since observed
several projects of the kind starting into life, and
have assisted in their exposure and demolition. But
we were not prepared to see so bold and impudent
a fraud attempted to be played off on the public and
the Legislature, as that connected with the scheme
of the Birmingham and London Junction Canal.—
The resolutions agreed to by the Committee of the
House of Commons appointed to inquire into this
matter we have already published, and certainly
they disclose a scene of daring iniquity perfectly
astonishing, if any thing of fraudulent hardihood in
the present age could excite astonishment. We hear
of poor ignorant creatures, for a constructive con-
tempt of the Court of Chancery, being hurried from
the bosom of their families into a prison, and kept
there for an indefinite series of years. What punish-
ment, then, has been inlttted upon persons who have
been guilty of one of the most flagrant contempts
of the High Court of Parliament that has ever been
committed ? Why, the solicitor to the Bill has
been called to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged !
It is stated in the printed votes of the House of
Commons, that a false and fictitious list of subscribers
was attested as true and correct; and that the said
solicitor, though warned as to the suspicious
character of the said list, did, nevertheless, as agent
for the Bill, attest its truth, without due inquiry
into the circumstances to which his attention had
been specially directed. For this act of " negli-
gence"—very culpable indeed in a solicitor—he has
been reprimanded. As the dupe of more designing
parties, for it was in this light the House regarded
him, he, perhaps, deserved no more; but has any
attempt been made to discover, drag forth, and pu-
nish the really guilty parties ? We know not whe-
ther the House of Commons intends to take any
further steps to vindicate its " outraged dignity,
and aseert its violated privileges," but we cannot
suppose it means to stop here. It is bound, in our
humble opinion, to investigate this matter tho-
roughly, and ascertain who really are the persons
that concocted the mass of forgery and fraud by
which the House was to he seduced into the passing
of the Bill. It is bound to ascertain who were

really the persons that imposed upon the credulous
understanding of Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee, and to
expose them to the public infamy and punishment
which they have so richly merited. We hope Al-
derman Waithman—who stated that he could, if
his motion relative to joint-stock schemes in a for-
mer Session had been agreed to, have implicated
scores of Members of Parliament in similar transac-
tions—will not let this business drop until the real
delinquents be brought to light, and such atonement
be made as will satisfy the offended dignity of the
House, and prevent the repetition of similar out-
rages on public morality.-IWorning► Herald.

The Beer Bill came under discussion in the House
of Commons last night, when Mr. Monck's amend- ,
ment to prevent the drinking of beer on the pre-
mises of persons licensed under this Act, was nega-
tived by a majority of 143 to 118; a decision which,
taking all the circumstances into consideration, ap-
pears just and reasonable. It is urged in some quar-
ters that the provisions of the new Act will be in-
jurious or ruinous to the interests of the publicans,
but there are no fair grounds for this objection. The
honest dealer has nothing to apprehend from com-
petition ; and injury ,or ruin to the trade of
those who do not scruple to sacrifice the
health of their customers for the purpose of
increasing their own profits, will be but the
due reward for their villainy. One of the objects
of the Bill is to provide a wholesome article
for the community, and this important point, we
think, it is calculated to attain. Regard for the
morals of the lower orders, which is arrayed as an
argument on the side of the opponents of this mea-
sure, is not compromised, as they affect to believe,
by its provisions. Public-houses are already too
numerous to allow of the supposition that any in-
crease in their numbers will afford greater facilities
to persons addicted to excessive drinking, than those
at present afforded them; and as it regards drinking
on the premises, it was well observed by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, that where intoxication
and riot ensues, it is far preferable that it should
take place within doors than be an offence to public
decency without. That great public benefit will
result from this measure cannot be doubted, while
the prediction of evils may, for the most part, be
ascribed to the conflict of private against general
I interests,—Morning Post.

- -
The Salo of Beer Bill passed through a Com-
mittee last night, and we regret to add—notwith-
standing the disinclination previously intimated in
Government quarters, and the notorious impolicy,
as well as the still more notorious injustice, of the
measure—with the clause permitting the consump-
tion of beerion the premises where sold, perfect and,

entire ! It is useless, we are aware, to argue
against the passing of the Bill, now that it has
passed through SO many stages; and, indeed, if it
were useful, we could add nothing to the argu-
ments which we have so repeatedly urged against
it; but we cannot take leave of the question now,
without, on the one hand, expressing our opposi-
tion to such spoliations of private property as
are involved in the principle of the Bill; and,
on the other, bearing testimony to the able
manner in which Mr. Monck brought forward
and supported his amendment. Nothing could be
more clear or convincing than his arguments ; and
the only regret which the reader will experience in
perusing his speech will be, that so much good
sense would have been thrown away on those who
did not set a proper value upon it. Sir T. Gooch
also supported the Hon. Member for Reading, in an
able and forcible speech ; and did the late hour at
which the debate closed, permit us to enter into
detail, we should also bear testimony to the aid so
cheerfully afforded by Mr. Maberly, Mr. Estcourt,
and others, who took the same view of the subject,
and spared no pains to impress it upon the House.
Tr. Barclay, we believe, spoke in favour of Mr.
Monck's clause ; but the Honourable Member was
unfortunately inaudible during the greater part
of his speech ; and Mr. Buxton was still more
strenuous in advocating the interests of the Licensed
Victualler. Sir E. Knatchbull also, greatly to his
credit, came forward in the most manly manner
to point out the injustice of the measure, and
to declare that in two years it would have to
be repealed, in consequence of the disorders to
which it would give rise. Here we are compelled
to close our brief sketch of the course of the debate,
but not without remarking that Sir R. Peel, who,
as Home Secretary, pledged himself, two years ago,
never to permit any thing in' the shape of a free

trade in beer, never once opened his lips on the im-
portant subject under discussion 1 " C'est le pre-
mier pas qui conk," say our French neighbours,
and if Sir R. Peel has not verified the proverb by
the mode of his conversion to the tiecessiy of Ca-
tholic Emancipation, he has at all events con-
vinced us, in this matter, of the truth of those beau-
tifal lines—

" Facilis descensus averni ; sed revocare gradum

" Hic labor, l ie opus !"
Some people, in fact, can change their opinions with
as much facility as they can change their outward
garb, and what is more praiseworthy, with precisely
about the same amount of conscientious feeling.
But, notwithstanding this defection, the support
given to the cause of justice was most powerful and
respectable. There was only, in fact, a majority of
25 ; and that too in a House composed of 261
Members :—there being for
_ _ _

Mr. Monek's cli';use llB
Against it
We would really fain hope that these numbers
would induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
change his mind on the subject of the Beer Bill—
to give up the obnoxious clause, and do at once an
act of justice both to the public and to the parties
who are so deeply interested in the matter. The
measure has been all but defeated in the Com-
mittee, and even if it should pass the House of
Commons, what will be the result in the Lords ?
Morning Advertiser.

RAW HIDES.
Per Stone. B.A. to s. d. Per Stone. s. d. to s. d.
Best Heifers& Steers 2 .8
3 0 Ordinary 1 8 2 0
Middlings 9 2 2 6 Market Calf 6 0 each.