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

IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE.

Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move for a return of rather
a singular nature. A I,lw bad been introduced for im-
proving the constabulary force of Ireland, since the pass-
ing of the 3d of the present King. But it was an undis-
puted fact, that an immense number of persons had been
killed in Ireland by the armed police since that alteration
had been effected. When, unfortunately, att mpts were
made to resist the police, the people were put to death at
once. Here, if an illegal resist ince were m ,de to the civil
force, the offence was punished as a misdemeanour ; but
in Ireland, where the police were armed with deadly
weapons, the people were put to death. Ile concluded
by moving for a return of the number of persons put to
death by the constabulary force appointed under the 3d of
George IV., cap. 110, and which Act was amended by
the sth of George IV., distinguishing the number of
deaths in each year.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
pressed his intention to oppose the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL, with the permission of the House,

,could withdraw Ms motion, and he would hereafter bring
it forward in another shape.
Mr. DOHERTY wished to say, before the motion
was withdrawn, that he objected, not to the motion itself,
but to the statements which accompanied it. The Hon.
►nd Learned Gentleman had, if he understood him cor
reotly, stated, that in Ireland, the practice, where there
arose resistance to the police, was to put the people to
death without scruple. If he were accurate in his view
of what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, he
could not understand how an individual of his experience
in life—how a gentleman who was so much accustomed to
weigh his expressions, and who well knew their force—
could make such a statement as that, and yet declare that

there was nothing offensive in it.—(Hear, hear.) Why,
if it were the system of the Irish constabulary force to
put the peasantry to death without mercy, it was the
duty of the Hen. and Learned Gentleman to bring the
charge gravely and seriously before the House.—(Hear.)
And he wondered that the Hon. and Learned Member
should, without notice, have introduced this subject,
when he had had abundant opportunities for calling
the attention of Parliament to it in a regular man-
ner.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member
knew well, that, upon the occasion, with respect to which
he had impugned his (Mr. Doherty's) conduct, there was
a deadly conflict between the peasantry and the police,
which was the legal force ; and the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen well knew the bitterness and acrimony of feel-
ing that grew out of it. No man in the creation knew
better the reason of that bitter and acrimonious feeling be-
tween them than the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did.
But he also knew, that with reference to that melancholy
transaction, the police came out of it utterly blameless,
After a solemn investigation, before several juries, formed
with the greatest impartiality, a verdict of acquittal was re-
turned on the part of the police. He was not in the habit of
Iconstruing men's opinions or feelings by their look or gas.
tures; but, if he were not deceived, he saw the Hon. and
Learned Gentlemen smile at this declaration. He wished
to God that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would give
him an opportunity of entering on this subject, by having
recourse to words instead of gestures..—(Hear, hear.)—
He wished that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, after
what had been done since these transactions, would, in the
face of that House and of the country, make any direct
assertion, on which he could join issue with him, and
which would enable him to prove, as he could prove, that
what had been sail with respect to these trials was utterly
false.—(Hear, hear. )—He utterly denied that Roman Ca-
tholics had been challenged, or that Roman Catholics were
not on the jury.—(Hear, hear.)—He begged pardon of
the House for trespassing so long on its attention—(Hear,

hear)—but he would say, if those gentlemen who sur-
rounded him felt for the situation of Ireland, and wished
to render the peasantry quiet and happy, they ought to
keep far from them those inflammatory harangues, and
speeches, and statements, which were calculated to keep
them in a state of constant irritation.—(Hear, hear.)—

If blood had been shed, on the heads of those be the crime
whose conduct had instigated the unfortunate people to
illegal resistance.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. O'CONNELL did not bring forward this motion
for any purpose but his simple one—namely, to arrive at
the fact, how many of the King's subjects had lost their
lives through the employment of this constabulary force ?
When he spoke of resistance, he mentioned it with the
phrase of " illegal" resistance. His information was de-
rived from persons who embodied their statements in the
shape of petitions, and alleged that they were ready to
prove the assertions and representations contained in them.
The Learned Gentlemen courted investigation. He (Mr.
O'Connell) had a notice of motion on the books, connected
with the subject, which might afford the opportunity
required.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice for the 10th June of a
motion for a repeal of the law empowering vestries to levy
rates for the building and repair of churches in Ireland.
Petitions against the Sale of Beer Bill were presented by
Mr. Slaney, from the publicans of Whitchurch ; by Mr. P.
Mildmay, from magistrates and inhabitants of Winchester ;
by Mr. 0. Cave, from brewers of Sussex ; by Mr. Coke,
from the agricultural society of Norfolk, arn4 from yeo-
manry and gentry of the same county ; by Mr. Littleton,
from Dursley ; also seven other petitions, from places in
Staffordshire, to the same effect ; by Sir E. Kerrison,
from Ardane ; by Sir T. Freemantk, from St. Mary's,
Teddington ; by Mr. Houldsworth, from Market Har-
borough ; by Lord Sandon, from the Corporation of Tiver-
ton, and from the licensed victuallers of the same plice ;
by Sir W. Ingilby, from Louth and Horncastle (Lincoln-
shire) ; by Mr. Fellowes, from the county of Hunting-
don, also from the parish of Little Stukeley ; by Mr. B.
Baring, from (we believe) Thetford; by Mr. Monck,
from magistrates and brewers of Reading, and from
licensed victuallers of the same borough, also from pub-
licans of the Isle of Wight; and by Sir T. Lethbridge,
from owners of public-houses not being common brewers
in the city of Bath.
Mr. WELLS, in presenting a petition from licensed
victuallers of Maidstone, against the Sale of Beer Bill, said
the whole of these petitioners were most respectable per-
sons, who, together with a considerable number of others
whose names were attached to a petition which he had
likewise to present from the same neighbourhood, would
be ruined by the proposed measure, especially if a clause
were not admitted to prevent the beer being drunk in the
shops were it was intended to be sold : he knew a very
old Magistrate who was of opinion that unless this was
prevented, it would demoralize the whole mass of the corn-

munity.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Ailes-
ford against the Bill.
Mr. COURTENAY presented a petition from Totness
in favour of the Jews' Relief Bill.

Mr. 0. CAVE gave notice fur that day week, of a mo-
,ion that all children born of negro parents, subsequently

:o 1831, be considered free.

The nom. Gentleman presented a petition front Ad-
stead, in Leicestershire, complaining of distress, and for a
reform in Parliament.

Lord TULLAMORE presented a petition from Tulla-
more (King's county), against the increased duty on Irish

spit its.
Colonel BERNARD supported the petition.
Lord W. PAULETT presented a petition, signed by
30,000 persons in the county of Durham, complaining of
distress, ocasioned by the low price of lead.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from John
Webb, of Stafford, complaining of the auction duties on
the sale of butter, cheese, and bacon. _

Lord RANCLIFFE presented a petition from Thomas
Wass,ll, of Nottingham, complaining of the depressed state
of the lace trade.

Mr. Alderman WAIT HMAN postponed the presentation
of the petition of the London ship-owners, complaining of
the distressed state of the shipping interest, till Thursday.
Mr. DOWNIE presented a petition from the town
council of Kirkaldy, against the spirit duty.
Mr. SADLER presented a petition from the town of

Tullamore, in favour of the introduction of poor laws into
Ireland. The Hon. Member stated, that it was his inten-
tion on the Ist of June to,move for leave to bring in a Bill to
better the condition of the labouring poor of the British
empire.
Mr. O'HARA presented,a petition from the linen manu-
facturers of Manchester, complaining of distress.
Mr. BROWNLOW presented a petition from the parish
of Killeagh (Westmeath) in favour of the introduction of
poor laws into Ireland.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose, pursuant to notice, to move for
leave to bring in a Bill, the object of which would be to
place the charitable bequests and donations of Roman Ca-
tholics in Great Britain on the same footing with those of
Protestant Dissenters, and also the better to secure charit-
able bequests of Roman Catholics under certain circum-
stances, The Hon. Gent. proceeded to show the necessity
of the measure which he contemplated, and observed that
Roman Catholics in England were differently circumstanced
with respect to charitable bequests from the same class in
Ireland. In the latter country Roman Catholics' charitable
bequests were as valid us the bequests of Protestants, but
here the case was different. The Hon. Member went on to
prove that the relief afforded to Roman Catholics, ft um time
to time, had not been effected by repealing the penalties im-
posed by law, but by abolishing certain oaths required to be
taken, and giving political privileges, formerly conditional,
upon those oaths. At the same time almost all the
statutes enacting penalties continued in force, notwith-
standing their operation had been modified. The statute
against supersitious uses was still in force in this counttV,
and Roman Catholic charities might be considered as
eoming under its provisions. The charities of Protestant
dissenters and Jews were entitled to protection, but those
of the Rowan Catholics were not protected by the law.
To that if the trustee of a Catholic charity violat.d his
trust, there was no ranerly. The property in question
might vest in the Crown, but the Lord Chancellor could
give no r,l;ef. He truste Ihe did not demand too much
when he asked leave to bring in a Bill to secure Roman
Catholic charitable b. quests, so that individuale of that re-
ligion might be enabled to bequeath money for the erec-
tion of schools, &c., on the sante terms as Protestants.
He did not want to alter in favour of the Roman Catholics
any law such as that of mort-main, or to give them any
undue whatever, but simply to give them the
protection of
a advantagec
Court of Equity. Having explained the
objects of the Bill, be should leave the details fur another

..I►.

occasion. The Hon. Meinber concluded by Inolibg fur
leave to bring in a Bill foNtheVipose%foreetated.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought, judging from the brief
explanation offered by the Hon. Member, that the objects
of the Bill were rather large and indefinite. However,
till he knew more of the nature and details of the Bill he
should reserve his opinion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL considered, at the period
when the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was passed, that the
Roman Catholic religion was to he left to stand exactly
where it did before. All men knew that there were a
great many charitable bequests, the object of which might
be the furthering of the Roman Catholic religion in a
manner not allowed by law. If it were the Hon. Gentle-
man's intention to bring in a Bill to alter the law on this
head, the measure (which was most important) would re-
quire the most mature and deliberate consideration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL made an observation
with respect to superstitious cases, the exact purport of
which we could not collect.
Mr. O'CONNELL should be ready to lay the Bill
before the House in a few days. It could then he printed,
and Hon. Members would be able to form their opinions
upon it.—Leave was then given.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.

Mr. O'CONNELL had now to move for leave to bring
in a Bill to tender valid, in certain cases, the marriages of
Roman Catholics in England by a Catholic clergyman, and
to abolish in Ireland certain penalties imposed on Catholic
priests for celebrating marriages between Catholics and
Protestants. The Hon. Member observed, that marriages
solemnized between Roman Catholic parties by Roman
Catholic priests were perfectly valid in Ireland. There
were three distinct modes of marriage in Ireland—that cele-
brated according to the forms of the Protestant establish-
ment ; that by Protestant Dissenters ; and that by Roman
Catholic priests. The latter was the only form of mar-
riage to which he should allude. His object was to do
away with the penalties to which Roman Catholic priests
were liable for marrying persons, either of whom were not
of the Roman Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic
priests were the only persons subject to these penalties.
He would not go through all the statutes relating to these
penalties, but content himself by observing that one of
them made it felony for a Catholic priest to marry Pro-
testants. That penalty still existed ; for, though the
33 Geo. 111., c. 21, enacted a penalty of 5001. for the
same offence, from which it would seem that the penalty
of felony was intended to be thereby repealed, yet
it had been solemnly ruled that both penalties were in
existence. It would be seen, therefore, that by law they
could hang a Popish priest and fine him 5001. afterwards.
—(Hear, and laughter.) What he proposed to do was
to take away the penalty of death altogether, to lower the
pecuniary penalty to a small amount, and to allow the in-
fliction of such penalty only in cases where the priest
could have actual knowledge of the religion of the parties.
At present, the Catholic clergy were obliged to go back
for twelve months, in order to find out what the reputed
religion of the parties had been during that period. This
was asking too much. He wished to confine the penalties
to cases in which the malus animus on the part of the
priest was manifest, by allbwing them to be inflicted only
where the priest must have had distinct knowledge of the
reputed religion of the parties. Let, therefore, the reli..
gion professed by the parties at the time of their marriage
he taken as their reputed religion. Under the present sys-
tem, Catholic priests were very oft .n deceived by design-
ing persons. He knew a Catholic priest who was com-
pelled to fly the country for three years, under such cir-
cumstances. The parties had pretended they were Catho-
lics, and got themselves married by this gentleman, for the
purpose of afterwards prosecuting him for the offence.—
(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") He should
wish also to extend his Bill to tie marriages of the poorer
classes of his own countrymen in England; but if that
were objected to, he would not press it. He begged,
therefore, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish in
Ireland certain penalties imposed on Catholic priests for
celebrating marriages between Catholics and Protestants.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, reserving himself till
he saw the details of the Hon. and Learned Member's Bill,
would only at present say, that he thought the object of
the Hon. Member not only not objectionable, but very de-
sirable, so far as it regarded Ireland.
Lord F. L. GOWER saw no objection to the proposal
of the Hon. and Learned Member with respect to the
Catholics of Ireland, but would reserve himself till he saw
the measure itself.

Sir J. BRYDGES would not oppose the motion for
leave to bring in the Bill, but he should certlinly oppose
the measure at every stage after it was brought in.
Mr. NORTH agreed with the Hon. and Learned
Member for Clare upon the main features of the proposed
measure. _ _ . _

Mr. CROKER would take this opportunity of sug-
gesting, as he had on a former occasion, the propriety of
assimilating the law of marriage in this otherwise united
kingdom.
After a few words from Mr. TRANT, which were
not audible in the gallery, leave was given to bring in the
Bill—to be brought in by Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr.
JEPHSON.

Mr. W. HORTON moved for leave to bring in a Bil

to enable parishes in England and Wales to mortgage their
rates for a limited period, for the purpose of permanently
providing for their unemployed poor at home or abroad,
and to regulate the mode of keeping parish accounts, so
far as regarded the sums collected under the poor-rate.
The Hon. Gentleman observed, that if he were allowed
leave to bring in this Bill, on the understanding that the
discussion upon it should be taken on the second reading,
he would not trouble the House with one word on the
present occasion.—Leave given to being in the Bill.
Sir C. WETHERELL postponed his motion on the
subject of the Court of Chancery till this day se'nnight.
Sir G. MURRAY moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for amending the statute 31 Geo. 111. c. 31, so far as re-
spects the admissibility of aliens, naturalized in the pro-
vince of Lower Canada, to sit in the Council and As-
sembly of that province.—Leave given.
SALE OF BEER BILL.

Mr. CALCRAFT said the object of the Bill could not

be misunderstood by any one who had read it. It was to
promote the sale of beer, by giving greater freedom to the
trade, and the mode of giving that freedom was to grant
licences for two guineas to persons inclined to sell beer.—
Two great points of objection had been raised to the Bill.
The publicans objected to it as interfering with their busi-
ness, and as hurtful to their interests. This objection was
naturally to be expected ; but when it was carried farther,
and when it was said,—and he that night heard an Hon.
Member for London support the position, that the Bill in-
terfered with the vested rights of the publicans—(Hear,
and laughter)—he thought the publicans and theic advo-
cates hurt their own case by urging what was not to be
listened to. What vested rights had the publicans? Their
licences were in the power of the Magistrates, and renewed
year by year. A trade in which 60,000 persons were
engaged, and in which a capital of many millions was em-
ployed, ought, doubtless, to be dealt with with considera•
turn and deliberation ; but, certainly the interests of such
a trade ought not to overbear the interests of the people—
(Hear, hear,)—which ought to be, and which, he hoped
were, the main objects of the legislation of that House.—
(Hear. )—The object of the Government, of the committee,
and of himself, as chairman of that committee, had been
merely to provide that a better beverage should be provided
for the subordinate ranks of society.—(Hear.)--By what-
ever means that object was to be effected, still that, and
that alone, was the object they bad is view..--(Hear. )
No one could take up a newspaper, no one who knew that
there were now pending 500 or 600 informations
against publicans for selling beer mixed up with
deleterious drugs, could doubt that they, who loved
the plain old English beverage, called beer, ought
to be protected against these practices. He said nothing
against the brewers. These practices proved that the
publicans did not sell their beer as they received it
from the brewers, and it was notorious that some of them
reduced it from 20 to 25 per cent. in standard and qua-
lity. He believed that the inhabitants of the metropolis
world have good beer if the publicans sold it as they re-
ceived it from the gentlemen who supplied the town with
porter.—( Hear, and laughter. )—The only way to meet
this evil was to introduce competition—( Hear, hear)—
which could be done by giving freedom to the trade. The
next point of opposition to the Bill arose out of the un-
limited number of persons who might obtain licenses, and
the chance that it might lead to the establishment of
tippling houses throughout the country. Now, as to the
establishment of tippling houses throughout the country,
let it be recollected, that the penalties, the restrictions,
and the controul which the Bill placed over these new
houses were very strong. Magistrates would have the
power to correct, or put down altogether, such houses us
were improperly conducted. For the unlimited number
of persons who might obtain licenses, the number of ap-
plications might, and lie dared say would be, very great
at first ; but these would not continue long ; like all other
trades which were overdone, this would find its level. If
the measure were unpalatable to the brewers in the
country, and to the publicans in towr, he must say that
they had in a great measure brought it on themselves, by
their numerous offences against the health of the beer-
drinkers. He was quite sure that if the brewers in the
country had not possessed public-houses of their own,
they never could have got rid of what some of them called
beer. He had only now to notice that some of these per-
sons had set up a claim for compensation, in the event of

' \

this Bill passing. —(Hear, and laughter.)—This claim
was t 99 ridiculous to be entertained, for if it were seriously
listened to, they could never pass a Turnpike Bill, or effect
any, even the slightest improvement. He would detain
the House no farther, and he had only now to move that
the Bill be read a second time.

Mr. PORTMAN should move the postponement of the
second reading; and he hoped thAt if the House agreed to
this amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might
be induced to repeal the malt tax, which would afford
much greater relief than the present measure ; or at least
the repeal of some tax directly, not indirectly, affecting
the public. For example, taking the excise duty off soap
and candles would more essentially relieve the poor. The
present Bill was not to effect a free trade in beer, but to
relieve publicans and brewers from the controul of the
magistrates; but if magistrates were to have the same re-
sponsibility with a more limited power, it would be im-
possible for them to preserve the public peace. No modi-
fic .tion of the measure would, in his opinion, obviate the
objections to it ; he should therefore move that the Bill
be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. DICKINSON seconded the amendment.

Mr. BENETT observed that although he considered

the Bill worthy of the times, and of those who proposed
it, he wished he could prevail on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to prefer a reduction of the malt tax—(Hear)—
but he feared it was impossible to expect this, and he
(Mr. Benett) was willing to accept the good which was
offered, anticipating from this first step in a right way,
that in another Session the malt tax would be got rid of.
Mr. HEATMCOTE was of opinion that his Majesty's
Ministers had exercised a sound discretion in preferring

this measure to a reduction of the malt tax. - -
Mr. SADLER contended that this was no measure of
relief, and that the present system of magisterial inter-
ference was beneficial, and had been well conducted.
Mr. FOWELL BUXTON said, that those who con-

tended that the malt-tax should be taken off, instead of the
beer tax, could not know the state of the case. Equal
justice should be dealt to the rich and to the poor ; but

the rich paid a tax on their beverage of 65 per cent., the
poor of 156 per cent.—(Hear.)—The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Calcraft) had, upon the ground of an unfor-
tunate but isolated expression of the Hon. Member for
London, charged the publicans and the brewers with de-
manding compensation; but it would have been fair in
the Right Hon. Gentleman to have looked into the evidence
given before the Committee of which he was chairman, to
see whether such claims had been advanced. He (Mr.
Buxton) spoke for the brewers, and said openly, that they
considered that there was nothing more ridiculous and idle
than a claim for compensation.—(Hear. )—But though
he (Mr. Buxton) made no such claim, and considered that
the public welfare was the one great concernment, he
hoped the House would consider seriously one part of the
proposition : when the time arrived, it could be shown
that the public were not advocates for the measure. With
regard to the publican, he asked net for compensation,
but that his fall might be broken, and that he might be
treated leniently. He admitted that if this Bill would be
certainly followed by none btit beneficial consequences to
the public, then the public benefit should outweigh the in-
jury inflicted on the publican ; but if there were a doubt,
then the claims of the publican were entitled to some con-
sideration. The conduct of his Majesty's Government, ir.
reference to the Bill introduced two years ago by the Hon.
Member for Oxford, was a virtual pledge to the publicans,
that the present system would not be disturbed; and as if
that were not sufficient, a Right Hon. Gentleman at the
time rose in his place and said, that the system should be
continued, if not as one of revenue, as one of police. It
was said, that the monopoly of the brewers mainly de-
pended upon the licensing system. If their monopoly did
not depend, as he believed that it did, upon their superior
capital and skill, then it would fall with the licensing
system undoubtedly; but if it did not depend—and he
was sure it did not depend—upon that system, then they
would still remain in undisturbed possession of the market.
It was unfair to charge the publicans with looking for
compensation or with having put a claim on the ground
of vested interests. They had done no such thing ; but
having embarked a large capital in this trade, on the im-
plied faith of the Government that no alteration would be
made in the system by which it was regulated, they bad
now a strong claim to the consideratio❑ of the Govern-
ment and of Parliament.

Mr. SADLER explained.
Sir C. BURRELL was of opinion that it was the malt
tax which should have been taken off.
Mr. I!ABERLY did not rise to oppose the Bill. He
wished merely to state that though opposed to some of the
clauses of the Bill, he approved of the general principle of
it so much that he should certainly vote fur its second
reading. He admitted that the publicans had no claim
upon the consideration of the House on the score of vested
interests, but they had strong claims on other grounds to
the consideration of the House. They had embarked an

immense capital in this trade under a system, which had
continued for years, and which, at the time they embarked
their capital, they bad no reason to suppose would be
turbed. Ministers now turned round on them and said

that the system was founded entirely upon the principles
of bad legislation. Under such circumstances, he con-
ceived their claims to the consideration of the House ex-
tremely great, and he would throw out this suggestion for
the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. CALVERT entirely concurred in all that had
fallen from his Hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth
(Mr. F. Buxton). He should certainly support the Bill
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that in the
committee the publicans would be fairly dealt with, and
every consideration given to their just claims.
Mr. R. PALMER thought the measure went a great
deal too far. If it were a proposition for the repeal of the
malt tax, he should give it his support.
Mr. C. BARCLAY thought the Bill would be bene-
ficial to the country at large, and it should have his sup-
btuhe
t
sup-
port.
Lord MILTON was opposed to the Bill, though not to
would
body afford
of the relief
people to ,
the general principle on which which it was founded.—
The
large,oft Ii e
and maltto the
greattax
he did not anticipate such effects from this Bill.
Mr. C. CALVERT explained.
country repeal
a t
Mr. HOULDSWORTH opposed the Bill.
Lend G. SOMERSET supported it, from his convic-
tion of its salutary tendency for the brewers, the licensed
victuallers, and the public.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought that the way to benefit
the public would be by the repeal of the malt-tax. The
relief by this beer bill would be nothing—it would be only
a flea-bite.---(A laugh.)— Let the House be, as it was last
night, determined to oppose the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and he would retrace his steps.
Mr. BROUGHAM was decidedly in favour of this Bill,
because its inevitable tendency was to increase competition,
and thereby improve the quality of beer, which being
(when good) the favouri,e beverage of Englishmen, would
then supplant spirituous liquors, which had now unfortu-
nately, in many places, suiplanted it. He related an ex-
ample given at a recent trial, where the badness of the beer
had created a rum trade in a licensed victualler's, and when
at the risk of ejectment he had changed his brewer, and
got a better article, the previous consumption of malt
liquor speedily returned, and the effects of the continued
use of dram-drinking were obviated. He differed also from
the lion. Baronet as to the propriety of withdrawing the
malt instead of beer duties. Taking off the tax on beer
was a relief to the poor man, who did not brew, but was
obliged to buy his beer ;—taking off the tax on malt would
be a relief to the rich man, who brewed, and seldom bought
his own beer. He was happy to say, that upon the present
occasion he thought that the conduct of the brewers was
highly creditable to their good sense, and formed a striking
contrast to their conduct seven or eight years ago, when
he had them on his back even after he had diluted them
—(A laugh,)—by altering his Bill, and by introducing into
it this restrictive clause, and after !wiled reduced them, as he
thought, by the introduction of it as a sort of deleterious in-
gredient. Notwithstanding all that, he might as well have
kept out his water and his coculus zndecus from the brew-
ing—(A laugh)—for the brewers joined the publicans
against him, and the Bill was thrown out almost as
speedily, and with as great a majority, as if he had intro-
duced the Bill without the restrictive clause. He congra-
tulated his Right Hon. Friend on bringing in this Bill
under happier auspices ; it showed that, owing to the
march of intellect, brewers, as well as beer, were im-
proving.—(Hear, and a laugh.) It likewise was a happy
illustration of a remark of Lord Coke, who was no less an
ornament of that House than he was of the profession
with which his name was so inseparably connected.—
That great man had said, " Never was a good proposal
made in Parliament that was wholly lost to the country.
Make the proposal once, it may be defeated ; repeat it, it
may be defeated again ; still persevere, and depend on it
that if it be worth acceptance, it will ultimately be a'-
cepted."—( Hear.)
Mr. B. COOPER addressed the House, but amid
deafening cries of " Question," which prevented us from
hearing on which side he intended to vote.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
' For the Bill 245
Against it 2S
Majority for the Bill 217

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, an
the House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

[Mr. O'Connell gave notice of motion yesterday, for