The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24.
Mr. BKOGDEN and others brought up from the
Commons, the Summary Proceedings, and the
Irish Commercial Credit Bills, which were read
a first time.
Ihe Earl of COUR.TOWN presented a Petition
from New Ross, in the county of Wexford, pray-
ing for the repeal of the Window. Tax.—Read
and laid on the table.
The Innkeepers' Rates Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Duke of MONTROSE presented a Petition
from the Provincial Synod of Glasgow and Ayr,
against the Catholic Claims.—Laid on the table.
General GASCOYNE, Sir E. KNATCHRULL, Sir
W. W. WYNNE, and others, brought up several
Private Bills from the Commons.—Read a first
time.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 24.-
A Call of the House was fixed for this day, which was under-
stood to be disposed of before strangers wete admitted to the
Gallery, by the motion of Sir J. NEWPORT for its discharge.
Sir G. HILL presented a Petition from the Merchants of
Londonderry, praying for an augmentation of the existing
duties on imported butter and cheese.—Ordered to lie on the
table.

IRISH WINDOW TAX.
Sir G. HILL requested the Hon. Member for Dublin (Sir
R. Shaw) to postpone his motion; which stood now fixed for
that evening, on account of the absence of a Noble Lord (the
Marquis of Londonderry).
Sir R. SHAW said it was a question which deeply interested
the inhabitants of Ireland, and he would not consent to defer
his motion, unless some particular day were set apart for its
discussion. He was certainly desirous that the Noble Lord
alluded to should be present when -the motion came on, since
he had cause to believe that it would receive his support.
A short conversation on the subject then took place between
Mr. ABERCROMBY, Mr. HusKISSON, and Mr. CALCRAFT.
The latter Gentleman suggested, that the Hon. Baronet (Sir
R. Shaw) might fix a day for bringing on his motion, after con-
sulting With the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Or some other
Minister. Here the matter rested. -
Sir T. MOSTYN presented a Petition from the Owners and
Occupiers of Land in Flintshire, complaining of distress, and
pr4ing for relief.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. ELLIS presented a Petition from the Parish of St.
Mary, Dublin, praying for the repeal of the Irish window-tax.
The Hon. Gentleman made a few observations in support of the
prayer of the Petition.
Sir JOHN NJ WPQRT trusted that the House would not
decide upon that very important question the repeal of the Irish
window tax, without attending minutely to the details of the
petition now presented. The whole of the assessed taxes of
Ireland appeared to him to have been most injudiciously impos-
ed ; but if any one item were more injurious than another, it
was the tax now in question—a tax which carried disease and
death to every considerable city in the kingdom. Perhaps there
was no boon so valuable that could at so small an expence be
conferred upon Ireland as the repeal of the tax upon windows.
Mr. ELLIS likewise presented petitions from the parishes of
St. Thomas, St. Peter, and St. Weiburg, Dublin, against the
window tax.—Read, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CALCRAFT declared that he should support the Hon.
Baronet (Sir Robert Shaw) in his efforts to procure the repeal
of the window-tax ; and he should'equally have supported him
if he had moved to repeal the whole of the assessed taxes of Ire-
land. The whole amount of those taxes came only to 300,0001. ;
and he would vote for their repeal, because he considered it the
duty of the House to make the residence of the Irish gentry as
easy as possible.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON presented three petitions from pa-
rishes in the City of Cork, praying for a repeal of the Irish
window-tax.
,-One of the petitions stated an apprehension of
typhus fever in the city ; and another declared, that out of 1,038
houses in a particular quarter, 527 were unoccupied, and falling
to ruin, from the difficulty of finding tenants under the pressure
of the tax.--Read, and ordered to be printed.
Sir N. COLTHURST, in presenting another Petition from
a parish in the city of Cork., expressed his concurrence with
what had been said by the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last.—
Read, and ordered to be printed.
Sir ROBERT SHAM postponed his motion upon the Irish
, Window Tax to Wednesday, the Ist May.

OFFICERS IN CHATHAM DOCK.
Lord BINNING presented a Petition from the inhabitants
of Chatham and Rochester, complaining that certain officers'in
the dock-yard, although receiving pay from Government, car-
rid on trade as shoemakers, to the prejudice of the trade of the
Petitioners.
After a few words from Mr. HUDSON GURNEY and Sir B.
MARTIN, the Petition was withdrawn.
Mr. HART DAVIS presented a Petition from the Church-
wardens and inhabitants of- Bedminster, against any farther
concessions to the Roman Catholics.—Read, and ordered to be
printed.

BEER TRADE.
Mr. HUSKISSON, in presenting a petition from certain in-
habitants of Reading, against the monopoly of the trade in beer,
expressed a wish that some of the Hon. Members connected
with that trade had been in their places. He was informed (for
he had no local knowledge as to the fact) that the power of
licensing stood, in Reading, with the Corporation ; and- the
Magistrates, who really had the power to grant or refuse licenses,
were themselves public Brewers in the place.—(Hear, hear !)
His attention had been a goOd deal called to the subject by the
circumstance of its having been stated by the Brewers of Lon-
don, that the reduction recently made in the Malt-tax would
.produce no alteration in the price of beer. Now he understood
that in the country the price of beer had been reduced ; and
he wished that he could have seen in their places any of the
Honourable Members engaged in the London trade, because,
if the intention was to keep up the price in the metropolis, he
should feel it his duty to propose some measures which should
prevent the late alteration in the malt tax from tending solely to
the benefit of the brewer. The Right Hon. Member concluded
by expressing a hope that Parliament might yet receive an as-
surance, though a tardy one, that the price would be lowered in
London.
Mr. MONCK thought that the licensing system called loudly
for the interference and revision of ??armament.The existing
high prices, by lessening the consumption of malt liquor, in-
jured the farmer, the public, the revenue, and eventually even the
brewer himself. The system of confining licenses to build-
ings arose out of a misinterpretation of the act, the 26th Geo. 11.
—Before that act, a man received a license, and was at liberty
to set up in any part of a parish that he pleased ; and the in-
tention of that act (which, in effect, confined licenses to parti-
cular houses) was to apply itself to the then existing licenses
only, and not to such as might subsequently be granted.—
The correct and judicious regulation would be to give a license
to any man who brought certificates of his good character, and
to allow that man to carry on his trade (with reference to place)
entirely at his own discretion. In some places Magistrates had
carried their arbitrary power so far as to allow no public-
houses to exist within their district. Such conduct was in-
tolerable : the King himself ought not to have the power of
interdicting the use of beer to a whole parish. The Honour-
able Gentleman concluded by censuring the strait-laced mo-
rality, which, by forbidding public-houses, drove the people of
England from their ancient, wholesome, good, manly beve-
rage, beer, to drink that nasty, meagre infusion of foreign
herbs, tea.
Mr. GRENFELL rose merely in order to state a fact which
was communicated to him from a quarter of the highest re-
spectability. A considerable brewer in the vicinity of 111aiden-
head served seventy-one public houses, and out of those seven-
ty-one houses, thirty-five were free. The beer trade certainly,
therefore, as regarded the county of Berks, could scarcely be
suffering from any want of free houses.
Mr. LOCKHART deprecated the idea of having too many
public-houses, as they produced coarseness and ribaldry.
Mr. H. G. BENNET said there would be no difficulty in
setting free the sale of beer, if, in the first place, sufficient secu-
rity, wgre required ;. and, in the next place, due punishment
were inflicted where punishment should be merited. Beer
might then be sold -as brandy was sold. 8uf1,000,0001. was