The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-20 00:00:00

THE UNION.

Yr. M. FITZGERALD postponed the Motion
of which he had given notice, for the production of
copies of Jetters which passed at the time of tho
Union, in con;equence of the unavoidable absence of
the Home Secre;-aryl.

TRADE WITH INDIA.
Mr. W. WHITiVIORE moved for Returns of the
Exports to the East Indies and China, including the
Mauritius, for the year ending sth Jan. 1828, with
a Statement of the value of the Exports, distinguish-
ing the East India Company's trade from the pri-
vate trade; and a similar account of the Imports,
with the amount of the Duties received.on Importa-
tion.—Ordered.
The lion. Gentleman gave notice thot. he should
next Session submit a motion to the (douse, relative
to the trade with the East Indies.
hte, PLANTA moved that there be laid before
the House copies of the minutes of the Commis-
sioners relative to the surplus funds to meet the
claims of British subjects upon France.
Mr. MONCK presented a petition from Moses
Levi, Esq., relettve to the present state of
the Jews. 'file present state of the law,
as it was represer.ted to him, exhibited a very
:hard case, for he was-informed that Jews could not
purchase estate; from Roman Catholics without
taking an oath in some shape in the course of the
proceedings, and this oath was to be made upon the
faith of a Christian. With respect to Ireland, the
Jews were placed in a Nt1:11 worse situation, for there
the laws were almost tantamount to the exclusion
of Jews, The petitioner prayed that some altera-
tion might' be matte, as the introducticat of Jewish
wealth and bdustry might be peculiarly savi_ceable
to Ireland.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
Dr. PHILLIMORE gave fledge that on Tuesday
next he would move tir leave to lark in a Bill for
regulating the office of Registrar of the diocese of
Canterbury.
HUME presented a pet:tion from Edward
Farrell, a prisoner in the Marshal aea of the Four
Courts, in Dublin, praying that the !louse would
enquire into the state of the prisoners ;n that
jail for contempt of Court. The petition stated ding
there were a number of prisoners who had beet'
committed in contempt for small stuns of 10/., 124,
&e. for five, ten, twelve, and fourteen years. He
could never hear the subject of imprisonment for
debt mentioned in that House with:,4 designating it
as the most barbarouis remnant of feudal pplicy.
The petition was then ordered to be printed,
Mr. HUME then moved toe A return of the num,
ber of prisoners confined for contempt of Court
in the Marshalsea of the Four Courts, Dublin, dis.
tinguishing those who were imprisoned for more
than one year, the amount of their debt, the length
of time they had been imprisoned, and the nature of
the charge against them.—Ordered. •
Mr. HUME moved for a Return of the Accounts
of the Receipts and Appropriation of Pew RentS
n she various Churches in the parish of Lambeth.
Mr. WESTERN presented a petition from the
:mtabitants of Coggleshall against the continuance
of Negro Slavery.
On the motion of Dr. PHILLIMORE the Cinque
Ports Bill was read a third time, and passed.'
Mr. F. PALMER moved for leave to bring in
Bill to alter and amend an Act for repealing the
duties on licensed brewers retailing their own beer.
A Message was brought from the Lords, stating
that their Lordships had agreed to the Surplus Wayli
end Means and other Bills.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of the
whole House, on the Ale-house Licensing Bill.
The SPEAKER having left the Chair, the House
resolved itself into a Committee. The Clause for
allowing County Magistrates to act with Magistrates
of cities, boroughs, and towns, in granting Ale-house
Licences having been read,
Mr. BERNAL objected to the clause, because
there was no ground for imputing to the Magis-
trates of boroughs and corporate towns the existence
of such abuses in granting licenses, as rendered it
necessary to infuse, as it were, fresh blood into the
body of the Corporate Magistracy. .He thought the
House, whilst they left in the hands of Corporate
Magistrates the power of life and death in criminal
cases, ought certainly not to take away the ancient
right of granting licences, unless cases of abuse
to justify such a-proceeding were established.
Mr. R. GORDON supported the clause, which.
had -been brought in by the unanimous consent of
the Committee which prepared the Bill. With
respect to the inconsistency of abridging the power
of borough magistrates in this respect, whilst the
power of life and death was left in their hands, he
would -merely say that he believed if a proposition
were now made to gire the latter power to magi-
strates of small boroughs and towns, such proposi-
tion would be rejected by that House.
Mr. MABERLY said although he was one of those
who opposed the Bill originally upon the general
principle that the licensing of public houses ought
to be as free from the controul of the magistracy as
any other trade, he should, if this clause were
persisted in, oppose the Bill in every stage, be-
cause he considered it an attack by a side wind upon
chartered. rights which ought not, in his opinion to
be made in the absence of proof of corruption.
Although the clause was now contined to places
where the number of Magistrates did not exceed six,
it would probably be by-and-bye improved upon,
and a similar clause in other instances would be intro-
duced to apply to Corporations, where the number of
Magistrates did not exceed nine, twelve, and so on,
until the chartered rights of every Corporation
in the kingdom should have been destroyed.
The clause cast an unfounded imputation upon
Corporate Bodies, and 'therefore he should not con-
sent to any Bill containing such a clause, and if the
clause were persevered in he should take the sense
of the House upon it.

- Mr. ESTCOURT defended the clause. It had
received the approbation of all the Members of the
Committee Who sat upon the Bill, and he, though
a member of several Corporations and a Magistrate,
could not consider it an attack ow the chartered
rights of any borough whatever. The clause cast
no reflection -upon the character of the Borough Ma-
gistrates. It merely declared that when there shall
not be six Magistrates in any borough qualified to
decide upon a license, that the County Magistrates
of the adjoining districts shall be called in. These
Magistrates,•however, are not to be called in if there
shall be sic local Magistrates qualified to sit. He
kneW many Boroughs in which there was not even
one person so qualified, and it, therefore, became ab-
solutely necessary to give such a power to the Dis-
trict Magistrates, according to the very principle of
the Bill, which provided for the better administra-
tion of the laws in granting licenses: He denied
that the clause contained any new attack upon the
vested rights of Boroughs. The principle of the
Bill was in exact conformity with the 39th of
George 111., which required the Chief Magistrate'
of a Borough, where there were riot two qualified
Magistrates to decide upon licenses, to• call in the
County Magistrates. The present Bill adhered to
the same principle, but required the number to be
six. If this Bill was an infringement of charters,
Ale other tm►st have been also an infringement of
the charters. There were several other Acts, how-
ever, in which a concurrent jurisdiction had been
given to the Magistrates of Boroughs and the Ma-
gistrates of Counties. In the 17th of Geo. 11.,
which was enlarged -and extended by the Ist of
Geo. IV., an appeal upon the subject of settlement
under the' Poor Laws was given from the Magistrates
of Uorouglis Corporate to the Magistrates of the
County. After citing some other cases in which
the Magistrates received a concurrent jurisdiction,
the Hon-Member concluded by observing, that the
provisions of the Act were intended to conduce to
the better administration of the law, and he con-
ceived this clause would go far to produce an
amendment in the decisions upon the granting of a

license.
Mr. F. BARING contended, that the clausie con-
tained an interference with chartered rights, which
was totally unnecessary. If he understood the
principle of the Bill rightly, it was interitled to re-
form the abuses in the method of licensing; but that
was not to be done so much by an interference with
the chartered rights of Corporations, as by giving a
. proper publicity to the proceedings of those who
had the regponcibility of granting those licences.
The power of licensing by Magistrates for the sale
of beer, was given to them as a measure of police,
=lnd for the purpose of preserving the people from
delmuchery. In order to accomplish this object ef-
fectually, it was necessary that the Magistrates living
on the. spot should be in some measure acquainted
with the charactets of those who applied fora licence.
But how did the Bill aceornplish this object ? Why,
by taking away from those Magistrates who pos-
sessed information upon those matters the power to
grant a liceno, and conferring it upon the County
Magistrates, who had no knowledge of the kind.
(Hear.) For these reasons he opposed the clause.
Mr. C. WOOD skipported the clause, upon the
ground of its taking away the. power of licensing
from those who were most likely to abuse it, either
on account of their interest in the sale of beer, or
from their anxiety to preserve the control over the
management of the Corporation Funds. The clause
would, also, by its provisions, put an end to that
system of jobbing which prevailed to such a dis-
graceful extent, &other object of the clause was
to render appeals unnecessary. It was, in his opinion,
much better to preserve the fountain pure, than to
attempt to cleanse its waters by filtration after they
bee.a:4-e muddy and impure. (Hear, hear.)

• .
Sir J. GZAHAM was friendly to the clause at
first, and he had 1 e4rd nothing in the course of the
debate to alter his opinioa, The Crown had the
•power to give Charters, bin he coitegived it was for
the Legislature to introduce into them what tp7m it
pleased--,:.9 alter, to amend, or to revise their
powers. He eAdd pot, therefore, admit that there
was any force in the 4,:gpments of the two Hon.
Members (Mr. Maberly and UP/ Paring)' who laid
sa owl stress on the sacred nature cf Corporate
rightso--(Hear.)—He did not think it righi ;:f4 ;ay
much upon clip expediency of this clause. The
more they narrowed the circle in which power was
to be exercised, the more ti key added to the facilities
,ancl tboe. temptation to abuse tt; and two Magistrates
were more likely, therefore, to be guided ip their
deeision by interests or partiality, than ten or twelve?
who could not, or who (hre not, yield to the swipe

influence.
Mr. FYSHE PALMER supporta4 the cruse.
Mr. C. BARCLAY supported the clause; ha was
eag4ii.d in drawing it up, and it was adopted after
the most nuktpre consideration.
Lord lIELGRATP; opposed the clause; he con-
sidered that the support yil4ch the Hon. Baronet
gaca ir. arose from the close attaclune4which sub-
sisted between him and the Corporation of the city
(Carlisle) which he represented.—(llear, and a
WO.) The present jinisdiction of Corporations
was OW that was properly adminixt.ared, and a case
of individual abuse ought not to be taken as a ground
for interfering with the general jurisdiction of Cor,
porations. The city (Chaster) which he had the
honour of representing, had an extensive corporation
quite competent to superintend all the local arrange'
ments of the city.• These corporations were not
formed merely for the benefit of the corporations
themselves, but as the safeguards and protectors of
their fellow-citizens. The Noble Lord read 411 ex-
tract•from a Charter, which confined the jurisdic-
tion of a borough to the resident. Local Authorities
of that borough; and he contended that this was

the principle upon which Charters were usually
g►anted, and that it was inexpedient to alter it.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the Noble
Lord (Be'grave) might hook nearer home than Car-
lisle to account for a Member of Parliament being
actuated in his Parliamentary conduct by motives of
promoting his own interest with the Corporation of
the city which he represented. He absolutely dis-
claimed such motives; and would say, that they
must know little of his character who imputed to
him the charge of being actuated by such paltry con-
siderations.

Lord BELGRAVE explained.
MONCK, in supporting the clause, said, that
it did not interfere widely with any rights granted
by charter. It certainly did, however, interfere
with their jurisdiction ; and so did all the former
Acts upon this subject. The clause under discus-
. sion would not deprive the Magistrates of any juris-
diction which they at present exercised, but merely
proposed to give county Magistrates a concurrent
power with them. It has been said that no facts
had been adduced to show the necessity of this
clause. He would not go into much detail, but
would state one fact which came within his own
knowledge to prove the inexpediency of continuing
the present licensing system. In the town (Read-
ing), which he had the honour to represent, there
was a part newly built, comprising about one-fourth
of the whole borough. An application was made
for a license to Open a public-house, and the person
making it was recommended by the vicar of the pa-
rish, and by the churchwardens. Nevertheless, the
application was refuied, on this curious ground—that
there were sixty public-houses in the other part of
the town ; so that because there were too many in
one part of the town, they would not grant this to
a part of the town which was without any public-
house. And it was not until four influential brewers,
who were owners of public-houses, had entered into
an arrangement to have four public-houses opened
in this district, by suppressing four of the sixty in
the other part of the town, that leave was granted
to open public-houses in this part. The brewers
being the owners of these houses was the real
source of the evil. He was happy to find, however,
that.no expression of disapprobation had come from
those who would be most affected by the Bill. In-
deed, they were anxious, he believed, to have this
temptation taken away from them.—(Laughter.)
Lord SANDON opposed the clause.
Mr. CROMPTON opposed the clause.
After a few words from Mr. G. BANKES and Mr.
ESTCOURT, the House divided—

For the clause 46
Against it 53
Majority against the clause —7

The other clauses of the Bill then went through
the Committee. Several amendments were intro-
duced; and, among others, the exclusion of the
Cinque Ports from the operation of the Bill.

On the ( hairman's putting the clause for shutting
up public-houses till after Church Service on every
Sunday,
Mr. ESTCOURT said, that the object of the
clause was to prevent the present practice of the
poor getting intoxicated before Divine Service, at
the commencement of which they were ejected from
the public-houses and became objects of offence in
the streets. The clause did not prevent the supply
of travellers on Sunday morning, nor the sending
opt of liqueurs to the houses of persons.
A long interlocutory discussion took place in an
attempt to define the quantity that might be sup-
plied to the individuals on the Sabbath morning.
After a few words frem Mr. Hume, the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, Lord Nugent, Mr. C. Wood,
and Mr. Esteourt, the clause was agreed to.
Several other clauses were proposed and agreed to.
Mr. ESTCOURT suggested the propriety of
having the Report received, and taken into further
consideration on Monday next.

On the Question that the Chairman do leave the
Chair,
Sir T. D. ACLAND wished to know, whether
it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to make any alteration in the present system of
Retailing Cider in cottages and small houses is Cider
Counties ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that the present system of retailing cider in
those counties was found very inconvenient, and it
was his intention to place the retail of that article
upon the same footing as the retail of beer.
The House having resumed, the Report was
brought up and read, and ordered to be taken into
consideration on Monday next.