The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-18 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

- - -
. At four o'clock the Sr FAKEitwas summoned to the Hotise of
Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given' by.Commlssion to several
public and private Bills; on his return lie enumerated the Bills,
for which see Lords.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
Colonel DAVIES presented petitions from the prisoners con--
fined in Horsemonger-lane and. Whitecross.street prisons, in
favour of the Equitable Loan Bill.—Laid on the table.
SOUTH LONDON DOCKS BILL.
Mr. CALVE) T presented a petition from the Proprietors
of the Surrey Canal, against the South London Dock Com-
_

Mr. Alderman HEYGATE supported the petition.
Sir W. DE CRESPLGNY, Sir I. COFFIN, and Mr. Alder--
nun THOMPSON:oyposed it.—Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Alderman 1%:-6( H.) presented similar petitions from the
inhabitants of Limehouse, and from the Proprietors of the Re-
gent's Canal.—Ordered to lie on the table.
The Sheriff of the City London presented a similar petition
at the Bar of the Ilouse, from the. Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
Common Council.—Laid on the table.
HIDE.S A NI) SKINS.
_ _ _

Sir J. GRAHAM presented a Petition from the tanners of
Carlisle against the Hides and Skins Bill.—Laid on the; table.
REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. •

The Sheriffs of the City of London appeared at the Bar
of the • House, to present a petition from the Lord Mayor,
'Aldermen, and Common Council, praying for a Reform in
Parliament.

Mr. Alderman WOOD begged to be heard for a few rbi-:
nutes : he said that the petition had been carried in the Com-
mon MB by a great majority ; the Members of the Common
Council were elected annually, and their sentiments were known
to be in favour of a reform of Parliament,antl it might therefore
be urged that the City was favourable to a Reform, otherwise
those Members would not be returned. The freeholders of the
City of London were not represented at all in Parliament.—
Indeed, it WWI impossible that only eight Members could suf.:
ticiently represent the interests of London, Westminster, and.
Southwark.

Mr. Alderman SMITH said a few words, which were inau-,
dible in the gallery.
Mr. W. SiIITH remarked that he had had a great share
in the petition that was presented to that House in the year
1792, in favour of Reform. The arguments used in that
petition 'had never been answered. It might truly he -said,
that whether the City of London was to be judged by *its
property, its numbers, or its intelligence, that it was unre-•
presented. The City certainly had a claim .6)r a larger re-.
presentation._

Mr. T. WILSON' and Mr. All. 11Rinazs said a few words.
Lord J. RUSSELL remarked, that he should certainly have
brought forward the question of Reform during the present
Session of Parliament, but that he thought a postponement
of it till next Session would give it a more favourable chance
of success.

Sir R. WILSON thought that a Reform in Parliament Was
the best means of destroying Ministerial influence, and for pre-
venting any abuse of power.
Mr. A. TAYLOR presented a petition against the new
Beer 13i11.

Mr. MABERLY suggested the postponement of the Bill al-
together until the next Session of Parliament.
Sir KNATCHBULL trusted that the observation' of the
Hon. Member for Abingdon would have its weight with the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he concurred
fully in it.
'I he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that as
the question had been raised, he would take the opportunity of
stating to the House the course that he thought it most desira-
ble to pursue. lie wes aware that there were many objections
to the measure, but he bud such modifications respecting the
scale of duties as he thought would give generaLsatisfacticrn:
Therefore, in his opinion, it would be better to go into a
Committee on the Bill that night, when he might state the
alterations and amendments it was proposed to make in it; when
it might be re-printed, and on Friday next they could go into.
the. Bill itself. . • .

Air. HUMS observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had deviated from his principles in not having had the Bill re-
ferred to a Committee in the first instance. •
s.

Alderman WOOD recommended the expediency of going
into a CommitteCup stairs on the Bill. Ile thought, how:.
ever, that a Committee up stairs was the only ayailable one'
from which the Bill could be expected to derive amendment.
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND said that there was one part of the
Bill which at laast he hoped would be amended ; it was that
by which it was proposed to raise the duty from two to four
shillings on small beer. The effect of this rise in the duty
would be to render this beverage, of necessary consumption in
Scotland, so dear as not io be purchased by the lower orders of
that country. He earnestly hoped that part of the Bill at least
would be amended.

Mr. MAIIERLV thought that the duty on malt should
equally bear upon brewers and other persons, otherwise he
would move that the bill be read again thatday six months.
After a few words from Mr. EGEItTow .and Mr. HUMS,
the petition was ordered to be laid on the table. •

ith.lll. A. TA YLOR resented a petition from Cirencester
against the County Courts Bill. In presenting this petition,
he begged to express Iris unwillingness to occupy the time and
attention of the House in enforcing it, but simply to lay the
petition intrusted to him before the Legislature, and to defer
the discussion on it until a motion., to which it related, was-re-
gularly before the House.

b, was attended
.Mr.-lIUME was desirous of expressing a doifffearcecnotmoppianniyon..
from that laid down by the Hon. Member, and was of opinion
the time of presenting a petition was the proper time to acquaint
the House of its import; and it was also the most satisfactory
manner of ascertaining the sentiments of the country on parti-
cular subjects.
similar
isrfroomccasthieons. victual. lie-belie
lhaeidthooungitiht
the table
self, and did not mean to lay down a rule for regulating the
conduct of other Hon. '.Members on opnetist
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, that he thought merely mferroemly for him_
ing thoughtth e
presentation
custom,
oaf :4
ai t
petition
i tpci ronentseedwnittalpi rae vsapi
with much inconvenience, and was therefore
. unwilling himself:
to add to that inconvenienrcdeero:dwtohi
—(Hear, hear!) petition
Mr. DAVENPORT Pres
Wexford, relative to the licence
egarcle'd these duties,
against negro slavery.-0 to-
be printed.
Lord C. MANNERS presented
lens of Carlisle again'
LOrd A ',TOR P Presented a petition f
la of from Thos. Flanagan,
of Sligo, in eland.l e. , p
.. gcertain proceedings before.
' !tenatne to turn.
the King s NCELLOR of the EXCHE
The CNA . . ; the Beer Bill.
QUER, on the pre-
sentation
Sir .T. NEWPORT expressed his_ opinion it was the wish
duties, said that and intention of Government
of the benefit of
the same footing with this country. s, precisely on
such a regulation ; it was
Tor fe
laa.npde,u.ti.sonfarf fromosmr
. (..,
the.improvement of that country,
public houses, where conspiracies
a
by putting down unlicensed
edat zresent.___ncombinations were form
to plae.e

Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from the Noblemen
and Gentlemen of the County of Kilkenny, against the Tithe
Composition Bill, and praying for a repeal of certain clauses-
contained therein.
Dublin,
Mr. A. ELLIS supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr.
?lr• P. LEWIS stated that there were two requisitions film
complainingrfTA N pen
certain tlaEpxect petition stationersili)rforcoemedtiliiegs..
.. of,

:thetas/7 enjoined on stationers and paper merchants; with one
of these the stationers complied, and with the other they did
; the proceedings were adopted in consequence of their non-
compliance with the second condition of the law.
Mr. L. FOSTER defended the propriety of the Excise pro-
ceedings in the particular case adverted to by the petitioners. ,
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from Huddersfield,
•in Yorkshire, (as we understood) against the Coal Trade.
Sir C. DUNDAS presented a petition against the Beer Bill,
*KM Newbury,
Lord FOLKESTONE presented a Petition from Salisbury
against the Excise License Duties.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND presented a Petition from Stirling
against the Beer Bill.
Mr. HUTCII4ISON presented a Petition from the Sepa-
ratist* of CorktAiraying that they may be dispensed from tak-
ing certain oaths.
cußtnis presented a Petition from Bramsdon against
the Excise License Dutial;
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
order of the day on thefollowing Customs, Coal,
and Linen Bill Report, which was brought up and ordered to
be read a third time on Thursday ; the Four per Cent. Repay-
metit Bill, the third reading ordered on Thursday ; and the
Consolidated. Fund Bill, the third reading ordered to-morrow.
The Right Honourable Gentleman postponed .the further con-
sideration of the Beer Duties and PubliCan's Licenses Bill,
which was ordered to be printed, and to stand over for a Corn-
mittee on Friday.
•
OF MAURITIUS.

Mr. HUSKISSO, on the Custom Excise Report having
peen brought up, wished to advert to what had been said on a
.former night, relative to the Isle of Mauritius, when he (Mr.H.)
happened not to be present in the House. The alteration in the
lam, as it affected that island had been animadverted upon :
now he begged- leave simply to explain in what that' alteration
consisted. It consisted in placing that island on'a footing with
the other British Colonies, as to the duties paid on the impor-
tation of sugar into this country. Hitherto this island was liable
4o the payment of the same duties as sugar imported from the
East Indies ; but the distance of that island, the far greater
expenee consequent on the exportation of its sugar, and the
-far greater facilities with which sugar was imported from
the West India islands, induced the cTtange of placing them
.on the same regulation as the other Colonies. There was a
4611 stronger reason—the good faith of this country-Hear,
hear !)—which at the time that island was ceded to his Ala-
jetty, was pledged to place that island on the same footing as
the other Colonies in this respect. The only colourable objection
that could be made to it was, that the isle of Mauritius was
not subject to the same restrictions as the West India Colonies,
as far as regarded the importation of slaves into it. However,
although there was no positive law on this subject, yet it was
almost impossible for slaves to be imported into it. He hoped
. this explanation would satisfy the House as to the propriety of
affording the same advantage to the isle of 141autittus as the
other colonies possessed.—(Hear, hear !)
The clause, to the same effect as expressed in the speech of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, was then read and agreed to.
The Report of the Chelsea Hospital Bill was brought up.__
Rceport ordered to-morrow.
Lord A LTHORP postponed the consideration of the ques-
tion relative to landlords and tenants in Ireland, until a Coin_
utittee, now sitting on Irish affairs, had made its report. He
therefore wished that the consideration of it might be postponed
to that day six months.