The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 12.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
shortly after Five o'Clock.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
against the London and Biackwail Railway.
A Message from the Commons brought up certain Bills.
The Earl of RADNOR presented several petitions in
favour of a penny postage.
Lori REDESDALE presented a petition from New-
port in the Isle of Wight, in favour of Church extension
in the colonies.

The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition
from the Synod of Ulster, praying that Presbyterian
soldiers might have the power of attending Presbyterian
places of worship, and for the appointment of Presby-
terian chaplains to regiments. Also a petition from
Donaghadee against any grant to Maynooth.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Shiplake, in Sussex, in favour of a penny postage.
Lord BROUG HAM wished to ask his Noble Friend,
as be could not be here on Tuesday, if he would put_off
the Trials of Election Bill to Friday.
Lord LYNDHURST consz..nted to put it off to Friday.
BEER ACT.

Lord BROUGHAM now rose to propose the resolution
of which he had given notice, and as the subk ct had been
so frequently re c-,mitly debated he should not detain their
Lordships by making any observations, but would
at once propose his resolution—" That it is the opinion of
this House that with a view to the improvement of
the happiness of the people, it is expedient, as speedily
as possible, to provide that houses licensed for the sale of
beer, should be placed on the same footing, in all respeels,
as the houses of licensed victuallers."
Toe Marquis of WESTMINSTER raid that the Bill
proposed by the Noble and Learned Lord was so ohjectior-
able and extraordinary, that it had been found necessary
to refer it to a Select Committee, and after every thing
that had been done with it, so dissatisfied was his Noble
and Learned Friend with it, that he abandoned it, and
proposed a resolution instead of it. If the beer-seller
was pieced in the same situation as the Licensed
Victualler, he should rejoice at it, but their situation was
not so good—they would have all the restrictions, and be
deprived of the only advantage they now possessed, for not
being placed in the same situation as Licensed Victuallers..
The resolution, although specious was any thing but fair,
and on the ground of its extreme irregularity, he should
oppose it.
Lord BROUGHAM said, there was nothing irregular
in the course he had pursued—there were many precedents
for it—a similar course had been adopted on the question
of slavery. The other House bad decided against the
principle of his Bill. It was thought to be a convenient
course to engraft the proposition of his Noble Friend
in his Bill, and therefore a delay had taken place, and
not for the purpose of defeating the Bill. He contended
that the resolution was a most fair one—he wished to
confine the power of giving licences to Magistrates, which
was the very thing the supporters of these nuisances
wished to avoid, and it could not be supposed that they
would refuse a license to a well conducted beer-shop
keeper.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER explained.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that whatever might be
the intention of the Noble and Learned Lo; d, he thought
this resolution would be useless, because they knew that
the other House of Parliament would not concur in it, and
therefore it was idle. He wished to see the beer-houses
placed under some regulation as to hours, but he would
not consent to a recurrence to the old licencing system.
He should oppose the resolution.
Lord BROUGHAM'S object was to inform the other
House of the opinion of their Lordships on this subject,
and he thought this a better mode than sending down
a Bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY defended the system
of licencing by the Magistrates a 3 furnishing the only
check to improper conduct.
Lord PORTMAN—Although oppmed to the continu.
ance of beer houses, could not support this resolution, be-
cause it tended to pledge the House to a particular course,
which would prevent their Lordships from properly con-
sidering a Bill now before the other House, and which would
be before their Lordships in a few days. He also thought it
materially prevented the possibility of making any improve-
ment in the present system, because it was hopeless to
carry a law, giving the power of licensing to the Magis-
trates, and if the House tied itself up by this res ,lution, it
would be precluded from the adoption of any measures for
the improvement of the present system.
The Earl of DE LA WARR said, that the effixt of
placing beer-houses on the same footing as public houses,
would be to place them in a worse situation than at present,
and there could be no control over these houses.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that what he desired, was to
place the beer houses completely under the control of the
Magistrates, so that without giving any reason or without
a conviction they might take away the licenses. He did
not consider the resolution pledged the House to any par-
ticular course, but would have no objection to any verbal
alteration, that would more effectually carry out that oZ)ject.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought it would be batter
to wait and see if they could not come to some compro-
mise with the House of Commons on the subject—for in-
stance, exempting London from the operation of the Bill
—because in the metropolis the police prevented the beer-
houses becoming the nuisances they were in remote parts
of the country. The licensed victuallers did not fear the
competition of the beer houses, if they were kept within
the existing-taw. --ale-knew inatanco of- o Baer shop
kept by a convict ; how was it possible to keep such a
min in order. He thought they had better wait until the
Bill came up from the Commons, and endeavour to make
amendments in it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the resolu
tion, End their Lordships divided.

Contents
Non- Contents

Majority

The Marquis Of fANSDO WNE moved the second
reading of the Bills of Exchange Bill, and suggested that
the discussion should take place on going into Committee
on Monday. The Bill was similar to one formerly before
the House.
Lord ASHBURTON considered it was very different
from the one formerly before this House, and he should
oppose it on the discussion.
After a few words from Lord Brougham, Lord Ellen-
borough, and the Duke of Wellington, the Bill was read
a second time.