The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-06 00:00:00

to perform that duty. The Learned Gentleman
complained, and we .think justly, of the unex-
pected and extraordinary mintier in which .the
'commitment of the; Bill Was postponed on Mon-
day 'evening. It is -certainly. desirable that. the
'question should be settled with. all becoMing
patch ; and if the Hon. Baronet by whom it•vvas
introduce.d. be really too indolent to watch Over
its progress, the business should be taken out of his
hand. The-welfare of the State, and the dignity of
the Parliament, ought no longer to be trifled with.
Mr. 'Moberly afterwards
.broughtforward his mo-
tion for the repeal of the Beer duty. The chief ar-
gument on which. he relied was, the inequality of
the duty in its pressure on the higher and. lower
classes. But as the Chancellor of the Excheque
observed in reply,it would be. difficult to point out
any duty which is.not-liable'to many objections,
and attended with partial-grievances that it would,
if possible, be, desirable to remove. A proposition
to strike off 3,000,0001. at once from the re-
venue was, however, more than the public were
;prepared to see gravely under discussion. How
was .so large a deficit to have been supplied-?
By a proportionate increase of the Malt Tax ?
That would, only have been increasing the
'charges of those who brewed their own beer, and
extending the trade. of the public brewhouses.
The chancellor of the Exchequer would not
commit himself-to any imprudent pledge which he
may not be able to redeem, but he intimated,
thOt if the system_ on which he is proceeding should
work as well as he believes- it will, he intends to
direct his attention to the-subject, with the view
of affording all the relief in his power. But he
wished it to be understood that he prefers giving
relief by the reduction of the duty on beer,_ in-
stead of repealing the whole and substituting in
its stead an increased duty on malt. The com-
mutation of the beer duty for a malt duty would
indeed be no relief to the consumers of beer gene-
rally ; it would operateonly to theadvantage of the
public brewer. We think the public will ap-
prove the course the Right Hon. Gentleman'ptir-
poses to follow. Every tak of heavy pressure
cannot be repealed immediately; and as to ,the
project of lightening the load by shifting the
burdens, we are quite sure the public will laugh
at so absurd a method of relieving -them. The
House negatived the motion by a majority of
almost four to one. The numbers were—Against
he Motion, 88—For it, 23.

[MORNING POST.]

In the Commons, last night, Mr.Maberly made
I's promised motion, " That from and after the
sth or January, 1826, the Duty on Beer should
entirely cease." The amount of this duty was
3,200,0001. per aimum, and the charge of col-
lecting it 695,0001. Its operation was also most
unequal, for whilst the rich paid 20s. per quarter
the poor paid 558.—N0w if the deficiency occa-
sioned by removing the tax from Beer was made
up by adding it to Malt, it would save in the
collection nearly 300,0001. per annum. Besides
it would be a fairer mode of raising the revenue.
Mr.-Brougham supported the motion, which•was•
opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
chiefly on the ground that to create a sudden
deficiency of 3,200,0001. in' the Revenue would
be a most serious step. It was indeed proposed
to lay the tax which was taken off from beer
_
upon malt ; but this, the Right Hon. Gentleman:
proved by calculations; would leave the price of
beer just where it was at prjsent. He would
not pledge himself to any future conduct in a
question of finance, but he would say that he
'should be delighted to reduce the duty, or even
to take it off altogether, if it could be done with
safety. He did not, however, like the' proposed
substitute. As to his having reduced the duty on
spirits before that on beer, he was willing to confess
that he should have preferred to begin with beer ;
but the other Seemed to be a matter of absolute
necessity. He was not disposed to pay any
great attention to particular classes, but he was
ready to say, that in reducing the -duty on
Wine, he did it because the consumption of
the article was lessened and the Revenue
thereby injured. He wished to increase the
consumption of Wine to its former height.—
If the liberal system of reduction already be-
gun should realize his expectations, he would
gladly take advantage of those realizations, and
extend the system to the Beer Duty. But he
would not concur iu the principle of commuta-
tion, which would give no relief to the poor, and
could increase the burthetis of the brewer. The
question having been pushed to a division, Mr.
Nlaberly's motion was rejected by a majority of
88 to 25.—Mr. Martin, of Galway, 'then obtain-
ed leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Act
against Cruelty to Animals, and to make the
malicious cutting and maiming of Cattle a mis-
n
demeanour.

[MORNING CHRONICLE.I
Mr. Brougham gave notice last night, that the
commitment of the Catholic Relief 'Bill would
certainly be rno*ed this day.-L-" It had (he said)
been' postponed in a way very unsatisfactory to
many persons last Monday, and if the Honour-
able Baronet, the Member for Westminster,
should not be in his place, he pledged himself to
move for, the Committee."—The Lord Chan-
cellor, who receives credit from the World
for being, the most determined of all the
enemies of concession, said, last night 44' he
had been convinced from first to last, that
the general feelings of the people were against
the measure, and from the beginning he had
heard nothing to make him alter his opinion."—
His Lordship also observed, " if no Petition's
tt were. presented from the people, their Lordships
were told they
took no interest lit what was go-
.ing forward : and now, when - the table *as
covered with Petitions, when-they were obliged.
to find some repository for them, when the House
would hardly hold them, then some Gentlemen
informed some Noble Lord', who informed the
House of some peculiarity
io getting up the -Pp.
.titions, sous to come to the conclusioti thatiit
was not the Petition of the'PeoPle." flit Lord.-
'ship must not be allowed to run 'away with the
question in this manner. The nUmbe'r 'of Pet .:
Itions prove that the clergy
1
;h,-
the great body of theeir several parishes have been assiduous in
t
busby no rtiktns prove that
people of England en Curtain