The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-18 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a Petition from North
Curry, in the County of Somerset, complaining of the Agricul-
tural Distress ; expressing the dissatisfaction of the Petitioners
at the Report of the Agriculturil Committee, and praying for
an inquiry as to the expence at which Agricultural Produce
can be imported, and that at which it can be grown here, which
they conceived would lead the House to the conclusion that
higher protecting duties should be laid, not merely on corn, but
on all other produce of land imported. They stated also, that
great part of their distress had been occasioned by the change
in the currency, the want of currency having been in their dis-
trict apparent. He (Sir T. L.) had heard the distress of the
country attributed to over-production, but it was not to the
production in this country, or to the importations from Ire-
land, which might be considered the same thing, but to the
importation from foreign' parts of all sorts of produce, that
the excess of the supply beyond the demand was to be
attributed. He (Sir Thomas Lethbridge) agreed -with the
Petitioners, that -it was pot grain only, but all sorts of pro-
duce, that should be taken into account. The Petitioners -had
made a calculation, which he had not had time to exanfine, by
which they stated it appeared that a 'difference of Is. per bushel
was equal to the whole rent of the kingdom, as they took the
average rent of the arable land to be 205., and to produce, on
the average, 20 bushels per acre. He mentioned this to shew
the degree of attention which the Petitioners and persons in
that part of the country paid to this subject. He moved that
the Petition be printed.
• Mr: G. PHILLIPS observed, that the petitioners having
taken the rent of the kingdom 'tit Is. per bushel, and the tithes
and rates being equal, according 'to the calculations they had
had, half the rent, 6d. per bushel was the whole amount of

charge for tithes and rates, and the whole amount of protecting
duty the farmer would on this ground be entitled to.
The Petition was laid on the table, and, ordered to be printed.

WINDOW TAX IN IRELAND.
Sir J. NEWPORT presenteda Petition against the Window
Tax,-from Waterford. ' If both the Window Tax and the Salt
Tax were repealed in Ireland, there would be only a remission
of 2d or 30,0001. more taxes thin Ireland had been &dared to
be entitled to.

•
LICENSING SYSTEM.
Mr. TIERNEY said, he had a Petition to present from
several Landholders of the neighbourhood of Maidenhead, in
Berkshire, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and attribut-
ing that distress in part to the want of a market for barley,
occasioned by the monopoly of the public houses in the
hands of Brewers. In fact, the Petitioners entertained the
suspicion that the brewers' beer was not made of malt at
all—(A laugh.).--He did not mention this as a subject of
ridicule, for the Petitioners, he was - enabled to state from
his inquiries of Gentlemen of that neighbourhood, were per-
sons of the highest respectability, and strictly entitled to the at-
tention of that House. The Petitioners complained that licenses
were now granted, not to the man, but to the particular sign
or house, and that these houses becoming the property_ of the
brewers, a monopoly, which it was impossible to break through,
was established in the sale of beer. If, as the Petitioners re-
commended, the licences were granted to proper men who could
transfer them to any houses they chose to reside in, a free com-
petition would take place in the sale of beer, which must bene-
fit not only the consumer, but the grower of barley. He re-
commended the Petition to serious attention.
Mr. WYNN said, that the alteration proposed was inconve-
nient in this respect--that the Magistrates now exerted a dis-
cretion, not only as to the person's keeping ale-houses,' but as to
the places where they be kept.
Mr. P. GRENFELL gave no opinion on the subject, of the
Petition, but remarked that the Right Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Wynn) mistook the 'object of the Petitioners, which was
not in any way to limit the discretion of the Magistrates, but
to pray that the licenses should be granted to the individuals,
who should be allowed to sell alein any house they..might
choose.

Mr. WYNN said, perhaps it might be practicable to make.
grants of licenses to the persons, not to the houses, merely re-
straining the individuals to certain districts or villages named.
The object of the present system was, that there should not be
too many ale houses in the same place.
Mr. D. GILBERT concurred in the prayer of the Petition.
Sir R. 'WILSON said it would be desirable that no licenses
should be granted to houses in the occupation of brewers. .
Mr. BENNET said the subject was one of great difficulty,
and he lilwed Gentlemen would not tao hastily run away with
a particular suggestion. If, for instance' they determined to
take away the licenses from all the housesbelonging to brewers,
a million sterlidg'of property would be endangered by that de-
cision--( Hear !)—He was, however, more and more convinced
of the necessity of revising the system of licensing, and he should
take the opportunity of bringing in again the,Bill 'which had
passed that House in a former year,. but which, from the late-
ness of the Session, or some other cause, had been lost in
another place.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, his Hon. Friend intended again to
bring forward his Bill, for the opinion that the licensing system
required amendment WaS not confined to persons not in the
Magistracy, but was entertained by many Acting Magistrates
themselves.—(Hear!)—Not only was the power of licensing
abused, as was notorious to every one, for local and party pur-
poses, but the mistakes in judgment were much more frequent,
andinuch more mischievous, than the comparatiirely rare in-
stances of corruption. The Magistrates were too- prone,froiri
good motives, no doubt, to restrain the number of alehouses,
and thus especially when the houses came into the hands of
brewers ; but in some degree, whether they did or no, to create
S species of monopoly, the immediate and necessary tendency
of which was to force a bad commodity on the public, and to
encourage the worst species of drunkenness, by making the
people drink, instead of good ale, pernicious spirits.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
CATHOLIC PEERS.
I Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a Petition from the Synod of
Glasgow and Ayr, against the Bill, of which notice had been
given, for the Admission of Catholic Peers into Parliament;
and he now gave notice, that the sense of the House would be
taken on the first proposition, whether a motion for going into
a Committee, or for leave to bring in a Bill, by which it might
be attempted to introduce that measure to the .House ?
Mr. TIERNEY thought, it was rather premature to offer
Petitions against a measure which was not yet before the (louse,
and consequently of which the public could have had no oppor-.
tunity of judging upon which to found their opposition.
Mr. PEEL complained that when a -Petition originated on
his (the Treasury) side of the Housel the Honourable Mem-
bers showed wonderful acuteness in finding opposition to it.—
The present Petition came from those to whom the casein ques-
tion was quite notorious ; it was couched in respectful language ;
and therefore.he was aware of no objection that could be made
to it.

Mr. HUME denied the charge, contending that it was more
applicable to the Ministerial side of the House. He thought
it strange that such a petition should come froth Scotland, the
Members of which church were theoretically under the same
disqualifications as the Catholics.'
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE was. glad, that such a petition hadbeen presented ; and he was astonished that as soon as the mo-
tion had been announced, the whole country had not petitioned
against it. If the proposed motion were to be carried, the
whole of the Cathohc question would be carried by a side-
wind.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed

➢IARRIAGE=ACT.

Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition from the Unitarian
Dissenters of Kendal, praying for the leaving out in the Mar-
riage Ceremony of such words as were contrary to . their belief.
On this, which would be placing them merely in the same situ-
ation as the Jews and the Quakers, he hoped there could be
only one opinion among liberal men. _
Mr. BA NKES remarked, that_the same objection had been
made against this petition as against that from the Synbd of
Glasgow and Ayr.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought the lecture which the Honour-
able Member had. read him misapplied.
The Petition was brought up, read, laid on the table, and
ordered to be printed; as was a similar one from the same de-
nomination of persons in and about , Sheffield, presented by
Mr. W.Smith.

Mr. W. SMITH, in rising to move for leave to bring in a
Bill for altering the Marriage Act as applicable to the Unita-
rian Dissenters, assured the House that he had founded his
notice upon the numerous Petitions which had been presented
on the subject. He would, in the first place, state the grievance
of which the Dissenters complained. It was that they were
bound to have their marriage ceremonies performed in the
Churches, and by the repeating of the ritual. This hardship
was but of modern introduction. It was founded on an Act of
26 Geo. 11. • This Act placed the. Dissenters in a state of un-
necessary hardship. •He could prove that marriage was a civil
ceremony. It was held to be so by the civil, and even by the
canon law. Now to decree that every marriage should be so-
lemnized in the church, and according to the ritual, implied
that it was considered not wholly in the light of a civil con-
tract. He and his fellow Petitioners were anxious to stand
pure and unarraigned ; they did not wish to interfere with others,
but to be allowed to worship God according to their own con-
sciences. Now from the way in which they were called upon
by the Act of 1753 to solemnize marriage, there was no alter-
native left for them, but either to forego the civil right of mar-
riage, or to offend their own consciences. The Act in this
country had been passed without precedent ; for when, in the
reign• of Louis XIV. a law had been passed in France to the
same, effect, the Government of France recognised none but Ca-
tholics ; but we, while we allowed Dissenters the free exercise
of their religion by the Toleration Act, deprived them of the
advantage of legalizing a civil contract, unless they did violence
to their consciences. At the time when the Act was passed, the
Unitarian Dissenters were few, and their exemption was of
small importance ; but now that their numbers had so increased,
it was natural for them to wish to be placed upon the same
footing with the JeWs and Quakers, who had petitioned against
the measure at the time. The Jews, it was true, were not Eng-
lish Dissenters (for the Church of England might with as much
propriety be said to dissent from the Jews, as the Jews from,
the Church of England); but the Quakers were English Dis-
senters in the strictest sense of the word. The object which he
had in view was not, however, to exempt particular classes, but
to allow of the performance, in a legal manner, without vio-
lence to their religious opinions. He wished himself and his
fellow petitioners to have the same exemption as the Jews.
In a Scottish case, discussed in 1813, in which the whole had
turned upon the legality of a marriage, performed not
exactly according to the rules of the Church, the Lord Chan_

PRICE SEVENPENCE.

cellor had given it as his opinion that the law of marriage.'
'was founded on the Canon Law, and that, according to it,
a contract before witnesses was as valid as if performed by
any Clergyman, and in any church. Matrimony really con:
sisted in the agreement of the parties ; and though pro-
clamation of the banns, and 'even celebration in church,
might h.! very proper for . giving -publicity to it, yet still
the ceremony should be such as • the parties could agree
to.. It would be very absurd to bind Protestants by
Popish ceremonies, or Christians by Mahomedan oaths, and
it was a kindred absurdity to bind the dissenters by the
letter of the church ritual. It • was a solemn mockery, and
the recurrence of it should be_ prevented., The Unitarians .!
were now compelled to hear at their marriage ceremonies
parts of the Liturgy of the Church which they did not be-
lieve ; and all that he meant to propose in the measure'- of
which he had given notice, was to leave out those passages.. .
in the formulary of marriage which were disputed between
the Petitioners and the Church of England. As he understood
the Noble Lord opposite had no objection to the introductidn
Of the Bill, he should not, at present, enter into the details. It
was, however, to be recollected, that when the Marriage Act
originally passed, the concession was made to the Jews of •
marrying according to the ritual of their own law. Time was, -
when, the wisdom of our ancestors, the intermarriage of a
Jewish husband with a Christian woman, or a Christian map
with a Jewish wife, consigned both to -the horrible punish-
ment of being burnt to death. If the antiquity of the practice
was an argument in favour of the continuance of such a sys. .
tern, no practice was so strongly founded in antiquity. 'file
Hon. Member concluded with moving for leave to bring In a'
Bill to alter certain parts of the Act of George the Second,
commonly called the Marriage Act.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY stated, that though he
should not oppose the introduction of the Bill; he did not pledge
himself to give the measure his support. . .
Mr. 11. GURNEY felt the alteration necessary, but (as was
understood) recommended that 'it should be comprehended 'in-
the Bill before the House brought in by the Learned Gentle-
man (Dr. Phillimore.)
After a'few'words in explanation from Mr. W. SMITH, as
to his intended mode of proceeding, leave was given' to bring in
the Bill..

IRISH COMMERCIAL CREDIT BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the.
Order of the, Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee
upon the above BiJl.

-Mr. W. SMITH wished for some information upon the suh-
ject of this Bill before he consented to its passing. He had
Heard that it was intended to extend the loan of the sums ad-
vanced by Parliament, to Bankers as well as to persons engaged
in mercantile pursuits, for whose exclusive relief he understood
the original Bill to have been passed. The Hon. Member also
remarked upon an intention of which be had heard to extend the
time at which the money was to have been repaid, and requested
to be informed upon these points by the Right Hon. the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He did not know that lie should op-
pose the Bill,• but he wished to have it explained..
The CHANCEI;LOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that be-
fore going into the Committee, it was his intention to explain
the objects of 'the Bill before the House. The Right Hon.
'Gentleman then "alluded to the distress which called forth the
interposition and the liberality of Parliament, and stated that
when the original Bill passed, he understood it to include
Bankers in the geheral description of traders, considering them
to be tradc,s in money. It had since been found necessary to
take some high law opmions in Ireland upon the question, and
they held that although the description of " traders" would
include Bankers in England,
...et that it would not do so in
Ireland. One object of the Bill was, therefore, to remove this
difficulty. It had another object, which he would state to the
House. The money was originally advanced for a period
not to exceed two or three years ; it was now intended that the
time should be lengthened to eight years. He explained that
the comparative rate of interest paid by the persons to whom
this money was advanced, and that paid upon the loan by
which it was raised, would prevent any additional expence being,
incurred by the Government by an extension of the time of
payment. They had only ta sea that the securities were good,
which they had now done. For although in form they were
the common commercial securities, yet the landed property. of
the parties had been made responsible, and upon that condition
the time had been extended to eight years. He thought that
no objection could be brought against the Bill after the ,expla-
nations he had thus given.
After a few words from Mr. W. &uric'', the Bill went
through a Committee, and the Report was ordered to be receiv-
ed to-morrow.
The Report of the Irish Bank Charter Acts was read, and
the Resolutions agreed to.
The Irish Mat Duties Repeal Bill, and the Countervailing
Malt Duties Bills, were severally, committed, and the Reports
ordered to be received to-morrow.

The Report of the Stamp Dutie' Act was r'6ceived, and the
several Resolutions read and agreed to.
Mr. HUME expressed his intention of moving, at a more
atlyanced stage of the Bill, a reduction from 30 to 20 per cent.
in-the allowance to Stamp Distributors. '
The CHANCELLO of the EXCHEQUER said that the
attention of Government had been turned to .this subject, anal
that some advantageous alterations were contemplated.
The Resolutions were agreed to, and leave was granted to
bring in a Bill foUnded thereon.