Star.
London, England, 1830-06-24 00:00:00

BEER BILL.

Mr. MABERLEY gave notice that on the third reading of the
sale of Beer Bill he would move a clause to prevent the consump.
t•on of beer on the premises under this Bill until October 1832.

CORN LAWS.

Lord MILTON gave notice that he would bring on the subject
of the Corn Laws on Tuesday next.

SUGAR DUTY.
Mr. P. THOMPSON wished to know when the Resolution on
11:e Sugar Duties would be brought forward.
The CHA NCELIAM of the EXCHEQUER answered that be
felt very anxious on the subject, and would bring it forward to.
morrow or Friday.
Sir R. PEEL expressed a hope that the adjourned debate
Cl the Court of Chancery would come on at an early hour to-
morrow, as it was very inconvenient to prolong it to a more dia.
tans period.

USURY LAWS.
Mr. CALCRAFT wished to know when the Usury Laws Consl.
der.ition Bill was to be brought on
Mr. P. THOMPSON answered, if possible on Tuesday next.

. .
LABOURERS' W AGES BILL. ,
Mr. LITTLETON moved that this Bill be now recommitted.

Mr. HUME said he was opposed to the principle of the bill, and
was surprised to hear it was to have the sanction of his Majesty's
government. The hon. member was proceeding, when the house
was summoned to the House of Peers to hear the Royal Assent
given by Commission to several bills.
Mr. SPEAKER shortly after returned, and stated that he had heard
the royal assent given by commission to several bills.
Mr. HU3IE resumed, and contended, at some length, that if this
bill were carried into a law, it would act in the most injurious man-
ner upon every class of workmen in the country. The hon. member
read a great number of documents in support of his view of the
subject. To pass this bill would be to increase the discontents, for
in nine instances out of ten the truck system was advantageous. He
moved as an amendment that the report be taken into consideration
that day six months.
Mr. ROBINSON opposed the principle of the bill, and said the
badneu of that principle was proved ky the extraordinary penalties
to be inflicted in order to enforce it. The truck system was not the
cause of the discontents.

Mr. LITTLETON contended that if the bill before the house,
or some other measure, were not adopted by the legislature, serious
discontents and even disaffection would soon show themselves. Pe-
titions praying for some measure of the kind had been presented
from almost all parts of the country, and not one adverse petition
was before the house. He was convinced that the bill would effect
its sole object, which was to induce the payment of wages in money.
The truck system was producing the most serious effects, and in
some populous parishes even it had been found impossible to Sod'
persons tit to act as collectors of taxes ; in fact, if something was
not done, there would soon be but two classes in the manufacturing
world, the great manufacturer and his dependents. The time was
most favourable for such a measure.
Mr. H. GURNEY rose amidst loud cries of
.question. He op.
posed the bill.
Mr. N. CALVERT would support the bill um experiment.
Mr. E. DAVENPORT was supposed to support the bill.
Sir R. PEEL thought there was no system more likely to destroy
the independence of the labourer than the truck system. It prac-
tically gave a monopoly to the great manufacturer, and was not at
all necessary to the carrying on of business; for in many places, as
in Manchester, it was unused He admitted there were some objet.
Lions to the bill ; but still he felt it to be his duty to give his
support to it u an experiment to remedy a most dangerous and
growing evil.
Lord STANLEY supported the bill.
Mr. W. SMITH also supported the bill.
Mr. WAKBUIsTON was decidedly opposed to the bill.
Mr. SLANEY supported the bill, after much difficulty on the
uhjxt.
Mr. MABERLEY objected to all interference in the purchase of
labour, and therefore opposed the bill.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
.

. For the Amendment .... 4
Against it
Majority against the Amendment ... --44
On re-entering the gallery we found the house in cpnvetsation, in
which Mr. HUME contended, we believe, and insisted that the bill
ought not to be recommitted when the house was so thinly attended,
and on a Wednesday. The gallery was then•ofeared, but we un-
derstood that no division took place, and that the question was
adjourl.ed to Friday next.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.
After some remarks in opposition to the Scotch Judicature Bill
from Sir OLOROE WARREWDER, the bill was read a third time
and passed, and the LORD ADVOCATE directed to carry it to the
Lotus, and dtsire their concurrence thereto.
The other Orden of :the Day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.