The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-19 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)

THE LOSS OF ISIS MAJESTY'S SHIP THETIS.
The appeal in this important salvage cause came on this
morning before the Privy Council. Their Lordships
present were Sir John Wild, Mr. Justice Bosanquet, the
Vice-Chancellor, and the Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy
Court.
The facts of this salvage cause are well known. The
Thetis was wrecked off Cape Frio, in the Brazilian coast,
laden with specie, &c., amounting to about 800,000 dollars.
From the position of the wreck, the whole property and
ship and stores were considered as derelict. By the ex-
traordinary exertions, however,
. of Captain Dickinson, of
his Majesty's ship Lightning, and the officers and crews of
that vessel and the Alpertne, not less than about 700,000
dollars were recovered. The learned judge (the late Sir
C. Robinson) adjudged that 17,0001. should be awarded
as salvage ; that Admiral Baker should have one-eighth,
and the officers and crews, as salvers, the remainder ; be-
sides 500/., to be specially apportioned to several men who
had most distinguished themselves. From this decision
tooDlrit.tlAe,Dboyacamsptain
was
hDeaicrkdintoso-dnaaynidu Asudpmpoirratloßf athkeer.
the appeal was made, on the ground that the award was
appeal.
The case will occupy some time.

The widow of Bloomfield, the poet, died
at the Bedford Asylum last week, where she had been
confined since October last. An inquest was held on
the body, and the jury returned a verdict of—" Died
by the visitation of God."

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

THIS DAY, THURSDAY, JUNE 19.

HO USE OF COMMONS.

The SimAKER took the Chair at twenty minutes after
twelve o'clock.

Several private estate bills were read a third time and
passed.
The house resolved into a committee, Mr. Tooke in the
Chair, upon Allan's Divorce Bill, and several witnesses
were examined, after which the house resumed.
BEER BILL.

Upon the motion of Sir E. KNATCHBULL, the house
then resolved itself into a committee upon the Sale of Beer
Bill, Mr. Pryme in the Chair.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that after the discussion
which had so lately taken place upon this bill, he would
not then enter into it again ; he merely wished to propose
an amendment to the first clause, exempting from the
objection of the clause all those who were disposed to open
houses for the sale of beer only. The amendment was to
the effect, " That from and after the commencement of the
act it should be lawful for the Commissioners of Excise to
grant licenses for the sale of beer, ale, &c., to any person
applying, but not authorising such persons to sell any beer,
ale, &c., to be drank or consumed upon the premises."
Mr. WARBURTON said that he had, on a former oc-
casion, stated his objections to this bill, founded upon its
unequal operation. But the clause now under consideration
only affirmed that licenses should be granted allowing par-
ties to sell beer, &c., but not allowing the same to be
drank upon the premises. He appealed to their experience
of the Cider Bill, to prove that such a provision might be
evaded in various ways, and when the cider was drunk off
the premises, the irregularities were much greater than
had previously taken place, when cider was allowed to be
drunk upon the premises. Besides; if irregularities were
committed, it were better they should be committed
in comparative privacy than in the face of the public.
What would be the consequence of such a clause as that
proposed ? The retailer of beer would have an under-
standing with some one in the neighbourhood, and the beer
would be taken to a distance and drank there. Thus the
consumption of beer would be the same—with this differ-
ence only, that it would be consumed in private and re-
tired places, instead of being drank in a public room, un- ,
der the eye of the public and the magistracy. Without
detaining the committee with any further observations, he
would conclude by moving that all the words proposed to
be inserted in the clause should be omitted.

Major HANDLEY acknowledged that the amendment
of the hon. baronet was an improvement to the clause, but
as he considered it a mere ruse he should support the
amendment of the hon. member for Bridport. He consi-
dered the bill an infraction of private rights.
Mr. PARROT supported the amendment of the hon.
member for Bridport considering that the house if it adopted
the clause in its present shape would be departing from all
sound principles of legislation. He deprecated the sys-
tem of licensing, as, without imputing corruption to magis-
trates generally, he must say that he had known many
instances of gross partiality. In one instance, where
three parties appeared for licenses, two of them being
churchmen, and the other a dissenter, the two former ob-
tained their license, while the latter was deprived of it
solely on account of his being a dissenter. He thought that
the effect of the clause would be to shut up one-third of the
beer-houses in country parishes. Why, he would ask,
were not people in the country to have beer at the same
price as in town ? Competition alone could produce a
good and cheap article, but if this clause formed
part of the bill it would raise the price of beer in the
country 2d. per pot, and if the bill passed the price of
barley would be lowered ss. a quarter, the consumption
lwo owuelrde
db
.e lessenedThe mO,
raen d
he t heeo n rs
iedveerneude
the would ot
the
ec omu ro
rs
ee
bb
ee
felt convinced it would have the most pernicious effects.
He should therefore give it both in and out of the house
all the opposition in his power.
Mr. TENNYSON said the former bill had most sig-
nally failed in two most important essentials, the produc-
tion of cheap and good beer. (Hear, hear.) What-
ever mischief might result from the present bill,
he was quite sure that the amount of that mischief would
not equal that of the late bill, which he would say fear-
lessly, had done more to demoralize the people and induce
them to treat with disrespect constituted authority than
any measure that had ever been introduced. Under these
circumstances, he congratulated the house upon the
honourable baronet having brought forward his bill.
He (Mr. Tennyson) could have proposed a measure
to the same effect, viz., to destroy the means of
selling beer to be consumed upon the premises, without
having allowed some time to elapse, say a twelvemonth,
for the persons affected to prepare for, the change. He
had given notice of a motion, and he would certainly per-
severe in it, which was that no new houses should be li-
censed under the beer act, that the country should be con-
tented to allow the thirty-three thousand now in
existence to continue as long as they pleased, but
that no other house should be licensed under the pro-
visions of that act. Let them license as many as they
pleased under the first clause of the hon. baronet's bill, so
that the poor man might take home his beer, and enjoy
himself in such a manner as was at once rational and
wholesome—that would relieve himself and his family
from the evils that were now complained of.
Mr. SLANEY said, that it appeared to him that
the right honourable gentleman had as much overcharged
the picture he had drawn on the one side, as it had been
done on the other. Under former acts the power of licens-
ing was confined to the breasts of the magistrates, and as
the house stood with them so its value was regulated. No
doubt could be entertained but that great evils existed un-
der that system. The law was therefore altered, and the
trade was made as open as formerly it had been close, and
that open system had also produced evils. The question then
was, what change was necessary ? and he having been an
active member of the committee might state for the in-
formation of those who had not read the report that in that
committee there was a general feeling entertained that
some change was necessary. The Beer Bill was charged
with having created great evils, but it certainly was shown
before the committee that it had also been productive
of great blessings, for it had reduced the price
of the second necessary of life to the working
man fully one-sixth. He considered that the recommen-
dations of the committee would fully answer the end in
view, viz., it would diminish the number of houses, and
by requiring the certificate of six respectable housekeepers,
as to the character of the applicant, and also re-
quiring that he should be rated at 101., the lower
class of houses would be entirely done away with.
He considered that the proposal of Sir Edward Knatchbull
would be highly advantageous, as it would do away with
the worst evils which had been proved to result from the
Beer Bill, and if the amendment should be found not to be
stringent enough, the house might at a future period ad-
judge any further measures that should appear to be
necessary.
Mr. H. HANDLEY regretted that the hon. member
for Lambeth had altered the words of his motion, as
it left him (Mr. Handley) without a leader, and
he was not yet prepared to go alone. (Loud laughter.)
The hon. member's motion would still leave them under
the inconvenience of 33,000 beer-houses. He (Mr. H.)
scarcely met a farmer in the county which he represented
(Lincoln) that did not express a hope that something
would be done this session to remedy the evils of
the Beer Bill, and that " something" he invariably
found to be some measure that should prevent the
consumption of beer upon the premises, and that at
present their servants were their masters, and they wer,
able to do nothing with theni. Not one of the advantages
which were expected to result from the Beer Bill had been
obtained. Beer was not cheaper nor of a better quality,
and the monopoly of the brewers had been by no means
reduced.
got rid
of he
would
propo-
sition to prohibit the consumption of beer on the premises.
Atfatkere
Mr. C. F. PALMER agreed with the hon. member for
l
Shrewsbury that the committee upon the Beer Bill was
the
the present amendment
of the
committee should
udpo nbe
a
good for nothing ; the persons who were examined before
the committee attributed every evil, and all the demorali-
zation of the country, to the Beer Bill. It would be much
better, in his opinion, to have the beer consumed upon the
premises, provided they were under proper police regula-
tions, and inducement were held out to magistrates
to do their duty, which at the present time they did not
bbe
l lost.
t. because
As
for theth police
monopolye
of
the
brewers,
e were
r enot
,
do. It would neither be honest nor fair for the house, after
holding out inducements to persons to lay out their capital
sufficient, to turn round and say that the whole of this eapi-
utaplonbeer-houses,
should
he repeated that there did exist a roost injurious species of
monopoly. He knew an instance where, in a district
in Berkshire, extending from Guildford, in length forty
miles, and in breadth twenty miles. All the brewers had
entered into an agreement to regulate the price and
quality of the beer, and to refuse to supply any publican
who would not submit to these regulations. They met
once a month, were patronised by the magistrates,
who refused licenses to any persons who were not re-
commended by the brewers, and in the whole of this district
the most infernal beverage was sold. (A laugh.) He would
support the amendment of the hon. member for Bridport.
Mr. SANDFORD contended that the bill would not
do any injury to the brewers; it would not prevent them
brewing as usual, but it would prevent their selling it on
the premises. The bill would place the control over
beer-houses in the hands of those who were the best judges
of the necessity that existed for their establishment. With
respect-to the qualification he thought that 101. was too
low, but he would, notwithstanding, give his consent to
the clause as it at present stood.
Mr. ESTCOURT would 'give his support to the pro-
position of the hon. member for Kent. (Cries of
" Divide.")
Mr. GUEST contended that by the contemplated ar-
rangement, beer would become much cheaper ; and with
respect to the evils complained of as existing in towns
under the present system, those evils existed in an equal
degree in the agricultural districts.
Mr. HARCOURT would not support the propo
w '
of the hon. member for Kent, unless some P ci"tits; trade
made, that the vested interests of the persons

should be protected. He thought the interests of the
poor equally worthy of protection with those of the rich.
Mr. CA YLEY would support the amendment of the
honourable member, and contended that vested inte-
rests were not to be mixed up with this question,
as some honourable members might imagine. He
thought the thanks of the country were due to the hon.
baronet for his exertions in the cause of morality. (Hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER denied that the objections to the
late beer bill originated with the magistrates ; these ob-
jections had generally emanated from the assizes and quar-
ter sessions grand juries.
Mr. POTTER thought that the clause as proposed
would confine the monopoly of the brewers, and restore
the magistrates to an authority which was most improperly
exercised on many occasions. He would decidedlyoppose it.
After a few words from Mr. Briscoe, Mr. flume, Sir
John Sebright, Major Beauclerk, Mr. Parrattt, amidst
loud cries of question,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL replied.
The house then divided, when there appeared—For
the original amendment, 141, and for Mr. Warburton's
amendment, 23; majority, 118.
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. HANDLEY moving his amendment, the effect

of which would be to do away with the certificates
altogether, and to prohibit drinking on the premises.
After a desultory conversation, in which several rnem-
hers took part, the further consideration of the clause and
the amendment was postponed, and the chairman reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow at
twelve o'clock.

The house then resumed, and after the presentation of
a few petitions, the SPEAKER, it being three o'clock, lift
the Chair.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR and Lords VERULAM and
KING, sat to hear English appeals to-day.

CANDY V. CAMPBELL AND STUART.
This was an appeal from the decision of the Lord Chan-
cellor, confirming the judgment of the Vice Chancellor,
declaring that a lady named Caroline Harding Was enti-
tled absolutely to a legacy of 20,0001. under the will of her
father, a Mr. John Harding, of Culworth-street, gentle-
man.By his will, among other things, he gave to his adopted
daughter, Caroline Harding, 20,0001. 3 per cent. Consols,
his house and landed property at Culworth and Morton
Pinkey, and upon her death he gave it to her children, the
property to be in no way charged or alienated, but
in case of her death without lawful issue, the money left
by the testator was to be equally divided betwixt the tests-
„.
tor's nephews and nieces, who should be living at the thee'
bhcTrihomouethrttceerbsar:aotnhloidr diheedir-iant-118a2: without issue,
seven leaving surviving
vsoeivi.nng
inseeaHenaurditninrsg:
andthe ißnefiv.diWaryillTiamermHoasr2di;
after his decease, his will was proved in the Prerogative
line Harding and the Rev. William Harding, and several
other parties, filed their bill in the Court of Chancery,
praying that it might be declared that Caroline Harding was
entitled to an absolute interest in thelegacy of 20,0001., and
w thatith otuhtel
fe bequest
issue over
st
ds u. m
'Thatin as e of h
ecame
atii eer
odne at h,
forvoi
hearing
the usual accounts, and referred
it to the Master to approve of proper persons to be guar-
dians of Caroline Harding, to state the amount of her for-
tune,
ty to and
malaskoe a
whasterarwoauteldrebpeerat. prThopeer
Master
rncbey
his
her maintenance and education, giving the Master
separate report certified, that Caroline Harding_ had an
absolute interest under the will in the 20,000/. The Mas-
ter then made his general report, and upon the cause
coming on for further directions before the Vice-Chan-
cellor, upon that report his Honour confirmed the report
of the Master, and declared Caroline Harding entitled ab-
solutely to the 20,000/. legacy. The plaintiffs being dis-
satisfied with the decree appealed to the Lord Chancellor.
In the interim Caroline }larding died unmarried, end
without issue, leaving the respondents her executors.
The appeal came on to be heard before the Lord Chan-
cellor in July, 1831, and after hearing the case fully, his
Lordship dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the decree oft
the Vice-Chancellor. From that judgment the present
appeal was brought.
Mr. H. Twiss, with whom was Mr. Honasxists, ap-
peared for the appellant, contending that the gift enfotthea
20,0001. to the testator's nephews and nieces,
limitation after an indefinite failure of issue ;
life interest, with a limitation to her children, as
death
chasers ; and that in that view the gift over, on her
tes-
tator intended that Caroline Harding should
without issue, was in effect a mere alternative or substi-
tutionary limitation, in the event of there being no issue ;
that the testator contemplated a proximate, and not a re:
tohnawltyas the
take
amote failure of issue ; and that the expressions in the will
i
were not to be taken in their technical sense, because t
will was made by an illiterate person, and written by him
self, without professional assistance.
SuTgdheenLanoudui‘Cirn. AmaNctsttehow,e,whwoitii,phogarcaledlifnog u r
thepon
resSpoic Ed:
ents, gave judgment—affirming the decision of the Court
below.