The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 30.

cable.

At Four o'clock the SPEAKICIt took his seat, when
several new Members took the oaths and their seats.

Lord Stusf.tY, Mr. Joits Wool), and Mr. HAY..
wAhn presented several petitions from various places in
favour of the Manchester and Leeds Railway Bill.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition from James Hirley,
who stated that he was an Irishman and had relations in
Ireland, and the prayer of the petition was, that an im-
mediate enquiry might be made into the causes of the
Newtownbarry massacre, that the yeomanry force of Ire-
land might be abolished, and that, if necessary, the regular
military force of the country might be substituted. Or-
dered to lie on the table.
The Hos. MEmunt then presented a petition from the
labouring classes of Tothill-street and its neighbourhood,
in Manchester, complaining that they were nut included
in the plan of Reform brought forward by Lord John
Russell, and praying for annual Parliaments, universal
suffrage, and v.te by ballot. The Hon. Member did not
present this petition with any intention of. defeating the
Reform Bill; but when be on former occo.ilons stated that
the people at Manchester and other places in the
North were not satisfied with the Bill, he was
met by contradictions from several Honourable Mem-
bers. He had, however, since received a great many
petitions on this suiject, confirming what he then said.
He had presented o le from Preston, another from Bolton,
signed by 5,000 persons (although the newspaperi chest'
to say the number was only 500), and be bad a petition
from Manchester,signed by 20,000 persons, all upon this

subject, and in confirmation of what he had stated.—The
petition was read, and ordered to be printed. •
The HoN. MEMBER next presented a petition from the
operatives of Macclesfield, signed by almo.t every male
adult, who was excluded by this Reform Bill from voting
for representatives. They complained of not having a
share in the election of Members, and they prayed for

Annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, and votebyballot.
The Hon Member then presented a petition from Messrs.
Cumming and Dykes, who were deputed by upwards of
20,000 persons (who were to be excluded from voting by
the Reform Bill) to make known their feelings, and to state

that the Reform Bill was an insult to the understanding of
the people. They prayed to be heard at the bar of the
House in support of the petition.—Ordered to lie on the

Mr. CHAPMAN presented a petition from the Grand

Jurymen of Westmeath, and another county in Ireland,
praying the House to take into consideration the state of
the poor in that country; also a petition from the inhabi-
tants oplullingar, in favour of the Reform Bill.
Mr. PAGET gave notice that he intended to move
that instructions be given to the Committee on the Re-
form Bill, to leave out so much of the Bill as related to the
division of counties.

Colonel LINDSAY presented a petition from the Pro-
vost, Town Council, and Magistrates of the royal burgh
of Cupar, praying that an alteration might be made in the
proposed classification of votes in the Scotch Reform Bill
that was broaght in last Session, and which was intended
to be brought in to-morrow. They gated that Cupar
and St. Andrew's were intended to be united to Perth ;
Perth would have five hundred and sixty-one voters,
while the other burghs
,j ,fined to it would only

hlve 363 voters, so that the power of returning the
Members would rest chiefly with Perth. The petitioners

prayed that the boroughs of St. Andrew's and Cupar
ini_ht be united to some of the boroughs in the county of
Fife, instead of to Perth, which was a town of sufficient
importance, as re'pects wealth and commerce, to have a
representative to itself. The Hon. Member thought it
not only injudicious but unjust that the eastern burghs

should be disfranchised, and that it was, as they con-
ceived, an infringement on the articles of Union be-
tween England and Scotland, which articles provided
that the representation for the burghs hhould remain en-
tire, notwithstanding the Union.--(Hear.) The popu-

lation of those boroughs proposed to be disfranchised was
upwards of 6,000 ; in England, by the proposed Bill, to
a population of 4,000, two Members were given ; was it
not unfair, therefore, that these eastern boroughs should
be unrepresented ? It was highly desirable that Cupar

and St. Andrew's should ba united to the eastern burghs,
and that Perth should have a representative of its own.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said if the learned Lord Advocate
would not take up the subject, he should, in the Com-

mittee on the Bill. enforce the claims of Perth.
The LORD ADVOCATE declined at present to enter
into any discussion uron this subject, as it would receive
all proper consideration in the Committee.
After a few words from Mr. KEITH Douc Las the peti-
tion was read, an•l ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. HOBIIOUSE presented a great number of peti-
tions relative to shortening the hours of labour; among
the places were Renfrew, Manchester, Dundee, Bradford,
and Arbroath.

Mr. PROTHEROE begged to ask the lion. Member
for Westminster as to the fate of a Bill in which his, Mr.
P.'s constituents, were very particularly interested; he
alluded to the MarylehMe Select Vestry Bill. _ _

Mr. HOBHOIiSE said that the Bill had undergone
List Sessions such alterations in ita nursing, that he had
felt it his duty to abandon it. It had been changed at
nurse. If he had any chance of carrying it through the•
e,ent Parliament, which was differently constructed from
the last, he would have no objection to bring it in again.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from the corn millers
of Liverpool, complaining of the importation of American
flour.

Mr. LEFROY presented a petition from Trinity Col-
lege, Dublin, against the Refurm Bill.
Mr. SADLER rose to present a petition (we could not
learn where from), most respectably signed, complaining
of the effects of the New Beer Bill. He considered it
entitled to great consideration, for the impression in the
country was that the alteration made regarding the sale of
beer had been most pernicious to the morals of the people.
Tue opinion of the Magistrate s was that the committals
for offences lad more than doubled from the day on which
the alteration had been made ; it had been promised that
the quality of beer would be improved, but he appealed
to every one if the quality had not in fact been much de-
teriorated. if gentlemen, who origin oily supported the,
Bill, now found that their expectations had not been an-.

sweretl, the most manly course would be to come forward
and avow it.

Lord ALTUORP said, it was undoubtedly true, that
many complaints had been made of the effects produced by
the Beer Bill, but he begged Hon. Members to recollect,
that it was touch more likely that any changes of this na-
ture should produce worse effects at its commencement
than it should afterwards. He had advocated the mea-
sure when it was brought forward by the late Government,
but although some disadvantages had arisen, he was not
prepared to abandon it altogether, and resort to the old
system, which had greater evils, and the getting rid of
which had been one great object.—(Hear.) The Noble
Lord was not desirous of placing under any party's controul
the choice of what houses should be licensed.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord at the head of the Home Department had
it under consideration to effect some police regulations,
which would have the effect of preventing those disorders
which were the subject of complaint ; at present lie thought
the trial had not been a fair one, and he would be sorry to
abandon it.—(Hear.)
Mr. JOHN WOOD agreed with the Noble Lord,
that great complaints had been made about the irregularity
which had been observed in some of these houses ; but he
believed, at the same time that the Noble Lord had truly
accounted for that irregularity, by attributing it, in some
measure, to the novelty of the change. A number of per-
sons rushed into the trade when it was new, believing that
they \vim first occupied it would be sure to make large
profits; and front that circumstance, it happened that
many of them lest touch money, and were compelled to
give up the speculation ; while others resorted to practices
not warranted by the law for the purpose of covering
their losses. In that way, he keiieved many of the irre-
gularities now complained of had arisen ; but, from his
observation, which, he assured the House, had been much
directed to the subject, he did not believe that any material
irregularities had taken place. On the contrary, he be-
lieved that the Bill had been a great benefit to the labour-
ing classes, and especially iu this way—that the beer- houses
had prevented much of that custom of men assembling
together on Saturday nights to receive their wages at
the public-house, and to spend a large portion of them
there at the same time.—(Hear, hear.) Those persons
who were smarting under the infliction of this Bill, in the
way of diminished rents, and diminished power and influ-
ence, would of course give it a bad name. One of the
complaints against the beer shops was, that they kept open
to later hours) than tile law allowed. That was the con-
sequence or the favour shown in the Bill to the keepers of
public-houses. The public-houses were allowed to keep
open till twelve ; but the beer- stops were obliged to shut
up at ten. The people sitting in these beer-shops reminded
the keeper that they could go within a few doors of his
house and sit till twelve, and they often in that manner
induced him to keep open till eleven. The public-house
keepers had, in some instances sent persons to these beer-
shops for the purpose of inducing the people to keep opts
later than the law allowed, and then to make that a sub-
ject of complaint against them. In his opinion, all these
evils would he got rid of if the hours to which they were
allowed to keep open were assimilated.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. HUNT said that the effect of this Bill had been to
get rid of a monstrous injustice against the poor, who were
before obliged to pay 10s. more a barrel for the beer than
the rest p.id. Ile hoped that such a Bill would not be
ahandoned by his Majesty's Ministers, and that they would
not be led away by these complaints of interested per-
Sims to make any alterations in the Bill, further than that
proposed by his Hon. Colleague, Mr. J. Wood, who bad
offered a suggestion that was well worthy the attention of
Ministers.
Mr. BARING said, that the Bill had essentially not
worked any mischiefs in the large towns, but in the smaller
districts, in villages, in different parts of the country, it
hid tended to produce great mischief. He was sure that
some alteration ought to be made with respect to beer-
houses in the country, for if the present system continued,
the Government roust look out for a recurrence of ,those
disturbances which had happened towards the clew of the
preceding year.
Mr. PROTIIEROE could not see any reason to reject
the vote he had given in support of the Bill brought in
by the late Government. For his own part, he considered
that roost of the complaints raised against the operation
of the 8.11 proceeded from these who had been first op-
posed to the measure.
Mr. GOULBURN was sure the House would not
postpone any thing that was calculated to afford relief
to the poor, till the period arrived when the poorer
c!astats of society should be su well informed,.poli-
tieally and otherwise, as to be able duly to appreciate
tile effect of that or any tither measure. The most zea-
lous promoters of the Bill could not have expected it to
pass into a law, without entailing certain evil
unsequenecs ; and for his own part he had been