Star.
London, England, 1822-03-19 00:00:00

MR. 11. HUNT.

Mr. BRIGHT said that he held in his hand a Petition from
a numerous and respectable body of persons, inhabitants of the
City of Bristol, praying that the House would take into its con-
sideration the case of Mr. Hunt, with a view to the mitiga-
tion of the severities which be was at present enduring. The
lion. Member stated, that the case of this individual had been
already several tines before the House, and he must say that
the representations which were made on the part of the Magi'.
tr:.tes of Somersetshire, had been shewn, by the subsequent in-
vestigation, to be without foundation. Ile thought the case was
one which called for the interference of the House, and he
bored that they would not be turned aside, by respect for great
names, from taking full cognizance of the matter.—The retition
was laid On the table.
Mr. HUME laid on the table a similar Petition from the in-
habitants of Chippenham, in Wiltshire. The lion. Gentleman
stated, that since the last discussion on this subject took place,
he had made every inquiry into the truth of the statements of
Mr. Hunt, and he had reason to believe that that individual, so
far from putting forward exaggerated complaints, had actually
suffered more than the Public was aware of.

IRISH FIVE PER CENTS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the
Navy Free per Cents. Bill for England having passed, he pro-
posed to bring in a Bill on a similar plan for the reduction of the
Five per Cents. in Ireland ; and for that purpose it was his in-
tention to refer the various Acts of Parliament on this subject to
the Committee of the whole House to-morrow evening.
Mr. HUME wished to ask if it was the intention of the Bank
of Ireland to increase the rate of interest on the sum of
.re 50,000
due to that Bank?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
had sent a communication to the Bank, but had as yet received
no answer. But he could say that, unku the Bank acceded to
the terms proposed by the Government, provision would be made
to pay off the debt as speedily as possible. •
PRIOE OF SEEM

On the motion of Mr. HUSKISSON, the Report
of the Committee on the Malt Duty Repeal Bill was
brought up.
On the motion that the Bill be read the third time,
Mr. 11USK1S.SON said, that he took some blame

[Pi? !c. r SEVEN-PENCE. •

to himself for having been a%seat from the House on
Friday evening, when the Bill on the table was under
the consideration of the Committee. He could there-
fore know nothing of what took place, except from
those sources to which those who had not the advan-

4age of witnessing their proceedings had recourse.—
But from these sources, and from the information of
some of his Hon. Friends, he learned that the repeal
of the duty of one shilling on malt, would not lead to
any diminution of the price of beer.; and further,
that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would con-
sent even to a larger reduction, the brewers would
feel very much obliged to him for the bonus, and put
it in their pockets. He believed that the whole of the
duty proposed to be taken off, including Ireland,
would amount to 1,500,0001. The quantity of malt
consumed by the brewers exceeded half the quantity
manufactured; hi believed it approached five-eighths;
so that the bonus which the brewers proposed to put
into their pockets, would amount to about 800,0001.
He believed that it was not the intention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow all the benefit
of the reduction to go to the brewers—(Hear). The-
country, he hoped, would not put up with it ; and if
the brewers did riot yield, the House ought to inter-
fere. Let them look at the state of the case—barley
was depressed in price to a degree beyond all prece-
dent. It was thought by the Government, that
by repealing a portion of the duty on malt, they
would increase the consumption of barley, and thus
relieve the grower. It was not his intention now to
discuss the general quest' on to which these observa-
tions tended, but ire believed it was pretty intelli-
gible to all, that by reducing the tax, they would en-
courage consumption, and indirectly relieve the far-
mer. But if, notwithstanding the diminetion of the
tax, there was to be no reduction in the price of that
consumption which took place through the medium
of the brewers, it followed that the intention and ob-
ject of the Legislature were entirely defeated ; and it
followed also that the hopes of the country were dis-
appointed. It was cle-eived that the reduction of
the duty would be an inducement to a great many to
undertake the brewing of their own beer ; but the
House was aware that in great towns and cities the
population had not the means or opportunity of
brewing at home, and that they must universally re-
sort to the brewers' beer. He was ready to state,
however, that he believed the reduction would have
the very best effect in the country, as it would revive
the good old custom amongst the farmers of brew-
ing their own beer, and giving a proportion of it to
their labourers instead of wages in money, and sand-
ing them to the ale-house. But he had no hesitation
in saying that, with a view to the public benefit, it .
would be very necessary for the licensing Magis-
trates to make inquiry into the state of the public-
houses. At preseilt there was no such thing as a free
public-house, and as it was evident that the effect of
this combination—he would not call it monopoly, on
the part of the brewers, was prejudicial to the
so did he consider it necessary that speedy means
should be devised for establishing free public-houses,
even, if necessary, at the expense of refusing licenses
tJ those in the hands of the brewers. In both
cases, however, he was aware that penalties :sere
tardy and inadequate. lie would repeat then, that
the intention of the Legislature in taking off the
duty was to afford relief—they thought &hat it would
encourage consumption, and indirectly prove a be-
nefit to the farmer; but if the price of beer was not
to be lowered under such circumstances, it would be-
come the House to consider if the bonus was to be
enjoyed entirely by the brewers. But fortunately for
the country it was in the power of the House to pre-
vent the brewers from persevering to keep up the
price of beer. He had stated that the amount of the
bonus which the brewers proposed to put into their
own pockets was 800,000/. or 900,000/.—(Hear).—
Now, if the price cat beer was not to be lower ed, it
would be for the House to impose a tax equal to the
amount of the remission of duty, and to be contingent
on the present price of beer. The Public looked with
confidence to a reduction of the price cf beer, as a
necessary consequence of the diminution of the duty
on malt. He himself had once had occasion to in-
quire much into the details of brewing establishments,
and ire would say that the brewers must at one period
have been enduring a most immoderate loss, or that
they were now receiving a disproportionably large
profit. Ile was not now to be told that the brewers
were on the same footing as to expenses that they
formerly were: the prices of barley and hops were
lowered—the amount of capital required to continue
the establishment was diminished—the keeping of
horses, labour—in short, their expenses were very
considerably diminished, to a degree that would jus-
tify the expectations of the country that some reduc-
tion in the price of beer would take place. But when,
added to this, there was a remission of duty on malt,
equal to nearly a farthing a pot, the Public had. a
right to expect that Parliament would interfere if the
brewers held out against a diminution of price. For
his part, he felt the justice of the public expectations
so strongly, that if his Right Hon. Friend, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, refused to act upon this sug-•
gestion, be himself would submit a Resolutiun to
Parliament to that effect—(Hear, hear).
Mr. CALCRAFT said, he was glad to hear the
Right Hunoerible Gentleman express his opinion so
strongly, as to the propriety of forcing the brewers
into a reduction of the price of beer. Ile fully agreed
with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was a mon-
strous thing that when the Legislature, out of a desire
to give general relief to the agricultural class, re-
duced a portion of the duty on malt, this remission
should not effect the particular objects of the Legis-
tures intention, but form an additional profit in the
hands of the great capitalists, who were generally
thought not to stand much in nerd of such indulgence.
Z le
suggestion(lir al craft)
tax
nfeolt particularly thanklul fur the
beer equivalent to the amount
of the remission of duty, whereby a sum of 1:800.0o0
U
will be raised on the brewers. This arrangement
would afford a fair prospect to him of again propos-