The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-14 00:00:00

SA E.T.

Mr. CALCRAFT moved for ctrtain Accounts of net and
gross produce of Salt Duties, for the purpose of information
to the Couunittee.—Ordered.

TITHE LAWS' AMENDMENTS.
Some conversation took place respecting. the Tithe Amend-
ments Bill, which, as the Indemnity Bill stood for that day,
Mr. Brougham wished Mr. Curwen to postpone.
Mr. CURW EN had no objection to a postponement.
Sir W. SCOTT wished for an early consideration of the
Tithes Bill.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, nobody was more anxious than
himself for an early consideration of the subject. By the pe-
titions presented he perceived that alarm had been excited.
Mr. CURWEN said he was desirous of an early day, and
hoped that'all alarms would be removed.
Sir W. SCOTT explained.
The Tithes' Bill was postponed to Monday.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time on
Monday.

EASTER RECESS.
In answer to a qUestion from Lord ARCHIBALD HA-
MILTON, Lord CASTLEREAGH observed (as was under-
stood), that it was intended to propose' an adjournment on
Thursday next.

PORTER- BREWERS.
On the resumption of the debate on the Petition respecting
Jae porter brewers,
Mr. CALVERT said, that he was prepared with statements

sufficient to • refute all the charges which had been made
against the. London Brew, rs. It. was not, however, nis in-
tenths!' to`trespass on the time of the house at any length,
pixtienlarty tithe House should feel inclined to refer the Pe-
tition presented to them to a Committee. Tuns Pet itio coo-
t tined seriout and grave chOrgesag.iinSt the Brewer, such'as
that they weee in the constaut habit of nothing and sellinga o
the public apernicious hea-erage. He did not wish to go into
the subject farther. if any Gentleman would move, or give
notice of a motion, for a Committee,
Mr. LOCKHART said, he had pledged himself to nothing,
hint that he had thought it his duty to present the Petition.
Mr. W. SMITH had inciniredinto this sidaject, and thought
if 'the Honourable Member who preseuted the petition moved
for a Committee, it would heavise to agree it.' He did
not, nevertheless, see that any case was made out to put the
Brewers on their defence; additional yet ffilitional evidence might be
proper in a Committee, it it 'Could be given. The whole
charges against the -great Brewers were, adulteration and
monopoly. Bat it was tired that, to show the effects of mo-
nopoly, quatity and price should Isecoo.iidere4 together. The
petition did nut prove' the points as to quality. The charge
as to adulteration must he •in most respects absurd. Every
one knew that the laws on this subject • were too severe to
render it even worth while for a great brewer to violate them.
Besides, they could not do it 'without its having publicity;
.the serearos onnhiyed, and the neighbours, must know of it.
How most sail) a practice be with his Lion. Friend's brewery,
wherein a,•,;,0o0 barrels aye-al-were lerewed. The accusation
was itoprolMble and absurd; the he,iriag of it contained a re-
futatirin of it. • He should not ,!r7e the appointment of a
Committee, unless the petitioners desired it.
Mt • P.,MOORE said be understood that the Honourable
Member wh; Preset', ed the petition had no particular ulterior
but it seas of importance to consider the question of
th , petitioners' resporisibiiity on the charges they made. In
another way of proceeding, the frinner of the charges might
haVe stood the chance of the pillory. Applications tot sub-
scriptions, lie understood, had •been canvassed for in 'this
metropolis. He. himself had been applied to. The question
of the breweries WAS, 9f great importauce to the revenue.
Mr. CALVERT felt it necessary to refute sonic parts of a.
Petition so scandalous in its statements, but he would take
tip as little time as possible. The charges were,of monopoly,
of the., use of deleterious, articles, and of advance of the
price of beer unjustly. It appeared to him that little or no-
thing need be said on the Charge of monopoly. He might
refer. members. to the Report of the Committer. They
amight, by examining the circumstances, see that the mo-
tion was ridiculous. Nothing was more unfounded Phan
what. Mr. Beaumont had said about the capriciousness and
wantonness of the brewers respecting their prices. In 1802,
good grounds existed, for what they did, as the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had informed them of his intentions to
increase-the ditties. There wds a great increase by the
war duty on malt, which was'disadvantageons to the brewer.
The price was lowered when the war duties ceased, which
made the difference of Ifis. It would he too tedious to the
House if he Were to go through items. Looking hack as far
as 1762, it would be found that the price of malt was 19s. 6d.
and of hops, 50s. ; but they had risen to 60s. odd, and to 14
guineas. In
.contradiction to what was asserted, he could
say, that for two' years after 1799, the brewers, instead of
making profits, were losing part of their capital. There was
an advance in 1801; but all the circumstances fair), consi-
dered would justify the brewers. As to the use of deleterious
artielei, he' trusted he had no necessity of saying in that
House that the brewers were not in the habit of using them,
as it was charged, day by day. He trusted it was not neces-
I sary for hint to dwell on that subject, which•was so much
connected with the character of the great brewers.
Beaumont bad said that. it was proved by legal proceedings
that other ingredients than malt and hops were made use of.
Some years back (five or six) the Editor of a ti eehly Paper
in London had libelled the London porter-brewers, and stated
they made use of tobacco, deadly nightshade, and mix cornice.
The brewers wished to prosecute a libel of this nature. An
affidavit was made by a proprietor of a large brewery, denying
this statement, and which was farther strengthened by the
affidavit of the person himself who was the actual brewer. The
Court was of opinion that the application for a rule
for criminal information was not sufficient as to questions
of sale. The brewers thought it. was suffieicia for an ap-
plication to the Judges. No rule was granted ; but, on
the last day of the term, liberty was given to move in next
term. Before that next term, the Editor of the Weekly
Paper alluded to wrote a penitential letter, in which he said ha
had copied the article, and requested his (Mr. Calvert's) inter-
cession to
,prevent prosecution. He declined taking any part in
the business; but the request (tithe editor's letter was complied
with, after the opinion of Sir William Garrow and other
lawyers was taken as to the effects of application by affidavit.
The petition had been hawked about the streets for signa-
tures. He earnestly hoped that a Committee would be ap-
pointed to inquire fully into all the circumstances connected
with this subject, in order that it might be seen how little cre-
dit was doe to the different statements of the petition now
before them, and that Mr. Beaumont might be exhibited in
his proper colours, as a disappointed Magistrate, who bad
failed in his object of exercising the' conunisston for his own
private ends.

Mr. LOCKHART said, he knew nothing of Mr. Beaumont,
and consequently could say little as to the motives that might
possibly have prompted him to take an active part in this
business. He conceived that the private motives of that in-
dividual was a consideration not entitled to much weight on
any view of this subject. He had found the petition signed
by 14,000 individuals, and purporting to convey their senti-
ments; and when desired to present it to that House, he
thought it his duty to present it. It had heel, said, that such
an attack on -some respectable establishments was libel-
lous ; but, if grievances did exist, why should it be libel-
lous to state then ? If such a principle were allowed, the
right of petitioning Might be considered as totally abolished.
With respect to the charges made against the brewers, the
two Hots. Gentlemen who had spoked from their own experi-
ence might be allowed to answer for themselves, and their con-
duct might be above suspicion. Their honourable characters and
independent fortanes placed them above the reach oft he corn- . .

mon temptations to the practices complained of : but this was
no security that others conducted themselves with equal fair-
ness. With respect to the licensing system, it appeared, by
the Report of the Police Committee, th it there were some
parts of it which required-.recision. To gratify the Hon.
Gent lcman, and to afford bins the opportunity of meeting the
allegations of the Petition, be should move that it should be
referred to a Committee.

Mr. BARCLAY-expressed his satisfaction with the course
adopted.
The. SPEAKER said, that it was at the discretion of the
original Moyer to withdraw the first motion, and to substi-
tute the present.

Mr. LtiCKHART then withdrew his original motion, and
moved that the petition be.reterred to a Select Committee.
The petition was accordingly referred.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY presented a Petition from Robert
Swinton, in the Town of Chester, complaining of harsh and
cruel treatment, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus.
The Hon. Member said, he had alluded the other night to
the case of this individual for the purpose of bringing it un-
der notice, and affording ministers an opportunity of ex-
plaining or contradicting the statements which had appeared
in the public papers. No explanation, however, was given,
and perhaps that Petition was destined, at some future pf:-
rind, to furnish topics of merriment, in order to relieve some
future debate. The Petition was ordered to be laid on the
table, and to he printed.—The Hon. Member then presented
a Petition' from certain persons in Haverfordwest, praying
that no alteration might take place in the laws of convey-
ancing.

Nlr..
LYrr LETON presented a petition to prevent unqua-
lified Conveyancing.—Ordered to lie on the table.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
•
Sir G. CLERK said, that on a former occasion the consi-
deration of some plan for the equalization of weights sod
measures had been suspended, on the understanding that 4
commission would be issued to certain members of the Royal
Society who should be appointed to inquire into the subject.
That (:onitoission, as far as he understood, had never yet been
issued; and if he could not learn that something would he
soon done, he would take an early opportunity, after the re-
cess, of snaking a motion for bringing in a Bill on the subject.
Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST professed himself unable to
give any information on the subject, but said he would make

41 variety -of accounts were then moved for; respecting the
transportation of convicts to New South Wales, of the nu►o-
ber of those who died on their passage, of the number dis-
charged for the last three years from the hulks, distinguish-
ing the numbers for each year, also of those whose punish-
ment had expired, and of those who had been pardoned.
The Greenland Fishery Oaths' Bill went through a Com-
mittee.