The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-11 00:00:00

CLIMBING BOYS.

Lord llot.r.rt piesented a petition friqn
George's, Hatiover.square, against the Chimney
Sweepers' ilegnlatiOn Bill. His Lordship doubted,
tun 1, the construction 'Of some chimnies, whether
ohibi.ing ally other mode of sweeping theni than
by machinery might not endanger 'property to, a
considerable amount, ,hut as it was understood
both sides were to,be lseard in the Committee, he
should not Oppose the second reading of the Bill.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

The'Duke Of'SussEx presented a petition from
Stockton-upon-Tees, in favour of the Bill. His
Royal Highness expressed a hope that a Com-
mittee would be appointed, in order that the sub-
ject might be thoroughly' investigated.—The pe-
Orion was ordered to lie upon the table.
Lord AUCKLAND said he had intended, on rimy-
t-he,second reading Of the Chimney Sweepers'
Regulation Bill, to have gone into observations
upon it at some length, but.understanding it was
the wish of their Lordships to appoint-a Commit-
tee for the investigation of the subject, he should,
postpone what he had intended to say' till that
Committee had made their Repnft. He Might he
allowed, however, to express a hope that the
Committee, upou the evidence broUght before
them, -would' be of opinion that the practice, so
abhorrent to humanity, of employing boys in the
sweeping of chimoies, ought to be abolished.
The. Bill was read a secoi,d time, and committed
to a l'riva7e . Committee, to consist of all the
Lords who have been present this Session, and
to have the power of chasing their own Chairman,
to meet to-morrow (this nay), at two o'clock.----
All the petitions resented respeeting.this Bill to
be referred to the Committee, and t he" paxties.Th
he allowed to be heard by themselves., their
Counsel, or Agents.
. Adjourned till to-morrow .(this day.)

~,..1-10USE• OF COMMONS.
_ ••
An account was presented'of the Feei of Pardons under the
Great Seal. •

111 r. LURWEN- presented 'a Petition from some, Inhabi-
tants of Cumberl,llo, for an ,akteration in the Tithe La.,vs.

Mr. S. LEFF.VitE presented a Petition frOm the Silk
Weavers of Reading; coniplaining of their'condition, which
was referred td the Committee on t lie Silk Trade. •

Petitiol.s against the Leather Tax were presented from
New Sarum and Newhely. _ _

Petition was p_esci►ted from the Overseers of the Poor,
cif Plymouth buck and Stoke DmocrelL against the Poors
Laws.

-Lord LASCELLES presented a Petition front 'the Inhabit-
ants of Townships in which Lead Mines were situated, corn-
plainirKlhat those Mines were not rated to the support of
the pour. Lands were there rated at five, six, seven, nine,
ten shillings on the rack rent. •

Mr. CLFRtI EN concurred as to the justice of the• peti-
tiouer's courplaints.

BREWERS' MONOPOLY.

Mr. LOCKHART held in his hand a Petition,
signed by more than fourteen thonsand persons,
iobabitatos of London and its immediate vicinity,
among %Omni were st.!veial Magistrates of the
County, some Gentlemen of fottune, many re-
spectable Tradesmen, and. the reruainder of the
names were from,the great mass of the labouring
classes in the metropolis. The subject of the pe-
tition was the present high price of Porter, and
the very inferior quality of that necessarv.article,
as compared with what it had been. With re-
spect to the high price of Porter, it was stated by
she petitioner's, that this was produced by a mo-
nopoly on the part of the, great London IFirewers.
When the prices of-Malt atul hops, and of labour,
were diminished, and,when the Property Tax had
been dune away, no adequate reduction bail taken
place id the price of Porter. The reason given
for this was, that the stock then on hand was not
affected-by the decline in the price of malt, &c.
and must 'he disposed of :before that relief which
the 'public looked for could be afforded. But
when the itate of things was different, when in
1815 the prices of Malt and imps got up, the
price of Porter immediately rose, though the
stock then On•band must have been the produce
of a year of low prices. The petitioners furiher
complained, that the quality of Porter had so de-
generated that it was no longer that invigorating
beverage which cheered the heart of man, and en-
abled him to
,sustain the severest toil ; but on,the
e'ontraty, adulterated by the introduction ot* cer-
tain deleterious ingredients; instead of nourishing
the human frame, it rather tended-- to impair the
Constitution of those who drank it. This they
stated themselves. to be able to trace to- the mo-
nopoly established by eleven great Brewers in
London, who were in the habit of regularly-meet-
ing, as if they all belonged to one concern, in
order to fix the price at which the commOditY
they dealt in should be sold. The Conuniftee on
the Police of the Metropolis had looked very
cloiely into the peseta, Systemestablished

by the London Brewers, but 'On TOoking over
the evidence given -before that Committee,
he (Mr. Lockhart) had not. - been :able to
find any thing about these meetiiigs to fixrlit price
of porter. 'He should, therefOre, hope this'v,ate.
meta was unfounded. . As...a:monopoly for Med to
raise the price'of any article •of prOvkiou co, the
public was contrary to law, most injurions to the
, ..„
cantnrtinity., and likely to 'trochee the lutist Jinn-
germ's consequences, he should hope-the charge
torrid not be just,, and that no'Clethleman of cha-
ratter;,,fibnone, ..and.:torttne, wo9ld rake part in
"y"'-meeting called for such a purpose. -The
POI ioner's p (mei( led to state that the monopoly
ssf vidkichthey-cemPlained was produced .and_: fos-
tered by the existiug laws with respect to licences.
By the law as it
,stood at present, the Magistrates
were Invested with the power of saying who
'should and who should not entry on the trade t•f
a victualler. They could,; at arty time,, force a
man, to leave his.honse, and it was for them to de-
termine when and where he should follow the
calling of a.' publican. . Tias ..would not he a great
evil it a solltia, disci•etiop were exercised by the
Magistrates, but..the Licensing Magistrates, in
deciding on,eases of thii &script:on, it was. said
did not exercise a sound discretion. Licenses
were wit Wield', or given by them with a view to
the profit and advantage of certain brewers who
were their' patrons. They further cornplained.of
the power given to tote Magistrates .to take away
the license of any victualler for alleged misu.on-
duet, without any kind of trial.' This,they con-
tended, was inconsistent with the.print.iples-of
blitglish law, as - it , enabled a Magistrate, at his
pleesure, to deprive an individual of his
and perhaps of his, property, and thus not mitre-
trendy to involve:Mtn in- unmerited ruin. Some
instances were stated to have occurred in-which
this power had been -used. in a most arbitrary
and unjust manner. The remedy which the pe-
titioners suggested . for . these --evils was an
open trade. They recommendetl that a li•t!
cense should be granted to any-person wish-
ing to carry on the, business of a Victualler,
on his paying a t!uty which might -be imposed
to.henefit the revenue, without the intervention
of .the Magistrate When a license should be'
taken away, they wished it to: be withdrawn on
some known legislative 'rule; and not at tire plea-
stire, or on the individual opinion of a Magistrate.-
This the petitioners were satisfied was the. only
remedy, thatcOuld be applied to the ei;il of which
they complained, and this they 'thought would
speedily remove the grievances of 'excessive price
and great deterioration of the quality of that ne-
cessary article, porter.. These were the facts of
the case; for the troth of. them be. could not
pledge himself, bat he had thought it his duty. to
lsy this very inWOrtant petition before the House,
in-itieh a manner at- it should attract attention.
He" might, however, be allowed to recommend
it, as it went against an alleged moqopoly, and a
monopoly to advance the price- of provisions waS
abhorrent to all law,
.and opposite to every prin-
ciple of good commercial policy, as :reasonable
prices.e, ere only to- be expeeted• from an open
trade and, free competition. The petition_too, he
would say, :was in several particulars borne 'Out
by the Report of the Conitnittce on the Polite of
the Metropolis. The most eminent Wren in. the
bre wing line were examined
_before ilt4t. Com-
mittee, and it had appeared to the. Conituit'ee, as
might be seen front their Report, that within Ott
last few years the practice of ptircha,tg '
houses by brewers had greatly increased. "Nearly
one-half of the public-houses in tire. Metropolis-
had thus become the property of the brevets
This system it condemned, as most injnriinis to
the public at rarge.: It would thus be Seen that
the petitioners bad not. come to the Honse on
slight grOunds, since the system which they de-
sired to put down had received the strong con,
demnation of a Committee of that House. •

The petition trus then brought up and read.
To the Honourable the Commons of the United King-
dom of Great Britain anti Ireland in Parliament as-
sembled, the humble Petition of the Inhabitants. of
Loudon awl its Vicinity.
SHEWETH,
1. That yoUr Petitioners are much aggrieved by the higlt
price, anti inferior quality of the Beer which is 'obtruded
upon them in consequence of the supplying of that neces-
sary of life being 'confined to certain privileged individuals
and places.
2. That high legal authorities have declared all Monopo-
lies to be ;Against the ancient and fundamental laws..of the
realm, and injurious to the public—first; by raising the price
of commodities; secondly, by diminishing their quality;
thirdly, by iMpoverishing poor manufacturers.
3: That the Legislature has passed numerous statutes to
punish such as are guilty of creating Mtlnopolies—particu-
larly MonopolieS' of the necessaries of life ; and so early
as.the id•and d of Edward IV. very heavy penaltivs were
imposed on victuallers who'combined. together to raise the
price of victuals, 'extending upon a second rettetition of the
c.ifence to the pillory, to the-loss of an ear, and perpi:.tual
fauty.- •
4. That, notwithstanding. the illegality of such conduct,
and its injury to the public, a Monopoly it the seitody f -
Beer has of late years been raistll in various 'pails of
land • insomuch, that nearly toe wholecnstom of, the. me-
tropolis is engrossed by eleven great breweries, whose prin-
cipals act in conibutathm—meeting together 'bite:the ,liatt-
ners of one concern, .and fixing the price at which Beer shall
be sold. • .

5. That when the reduced price of malt,and hops, of horses'
provender and labour, the lessening of the tax on malt, and
the subsequent rinolitiOn of the Property Tax enabled the
Brewers 'to make great rceductions ht their accustomed
charges,dhey did not make such reductions, but kept up
their price, until aftertheir conduct • had excited animad-
versions in the House or Commons, alleging as a reason for
their doing so, that theitl'ituck in hand must be first disposed
of.

.6. That so soon as. the,failure 'of the harvest in. 1816 caused
the price of malt to look up„and whiletheir stock in hand
was whollynnatfected by the rise in the materials, they re-
vived the high prices of Beer to the consumer, which prices
they have lately still further advanced.
7. That Beer as no* made is so void of the nourishing and
invigorating 'qualities which it formerly posses,ed, and is
oftentimes so' ungrateful and even ißjurions teethe stomach,
owing to the deleterious ingredients, of which. it in some
instances comp4sed,fhat oonsumorS are frequently driven to
use a mixture of gin with ;t, to give it the semblance, of
strength and spirit, 0r still more prejudicially to, the drink-
ing of gin instead of beer. ,
8. That these cud numerous tither • evils are justly at-tri•