Star.
London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

FOR FELONY.

Mr. G. LAMB said, that before he called the attention of the
House to the motion of which he had riven notice, he wished to
present a Petition from certain Individuals who favoured the object
motion.—The Petition prayed that Counsel might be allowed
to persons prosecuted. fur felony.—Ordered to be printed.

Mr. GEORGE LAMB then rose to make his pro-
mised Motion, to allow the assistance of Counsel to
persons tried for felony, as in the case of misdemea-
nours. In bringing this measure forward, he knew
he should have to contend with the opinion of his
Learned Friend opposite (the attorney-General), and
several mentbers of that profession to which he had him-
self of iginally bolonged. But he had, on the other hand,
the opinion of many of the greatest ornaments of the
• Bar to support him, beginning with Mr. Justice Black-
stone ; and he was sure that he should be supported by
every unlearned person in the country, by those who
were unacquainted with the technicalities of the law,
and who formed their decisions under the influence of
unassisted reason and sound sense. What, he would ask
any of his Learned Friends who had ever accompanied
such a person to a Court of Justice, was the first com-
plaint which be uttered ? Was it not the want of a
speech on the pat tof the accused? And if his Learned
Friend would condescend to reason with the unleatned
man upon such a subject, he was sure he would not
have the best of the argument. He should now refer
to the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone, who expressed
himself in the following terms :
" It is a settled rule at Common Law, that no Counsel shall be
allowed a prisoner on his trial upon the general issue in any capital
crime, unless some point of law should arise proper to be debated.
.1 rule which, however it may be palliated under cover of that no.
ble declaration of the law, when rightly understood, that the Judge ,I
shall be Counsel for the prisoner, that is, shall see that the proceed-
ings against him are legal and strictly regular, seems not to be of a
piece with the rest of the treatment of prisoners by the English law.
For upon what face of reason can that assistance be denied to save
the lite of a man which is yet allowed hint in prosecutions for every
petty trespass? Nor indeed is it, strictly speaking, a part of our
ancient law; for The Mirror having observed the necessity of Coun-
sel in civil suits, ' Who know how to forward and defend the cause
by the rules and customs of the realm,' immediately afterwards sub-
joins, ' And more necessary are they for defence upon indictments
and appeals of felony than upon other trivial causes.' "

Such was the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone. It was
his object to fill up a gap in the Criminal Jurispru-
dence between treason and misdemeanour. He had al-
ready stated some opinions of the great sages of the
law, who were in his favour. Lord Nottingham had
said, that there was no necessity for Counsel for the
prisoner, because the facts on which he was condemned
should be so clear that no Counsel should be able to an-
swer it. He quoted other authorities to the same effect.
It had been said, that the Court was always Counsel for
the prisoner; but the Court was always Counsel for all
the parties that came before them. He wished that the
maxim should be expunged from all law books that the
Judge was Counsel for the prisoner. When a Judge
once put a question, which fixed the guilt of a prisoner,
the latter said, ‘‘ Ah, my Lord, had you been really my
Counsel, you would not have asked that question." The
time might come, when a prisoner's defence would de-
pend on such disinterested advocates as Lord Chief Jus-
tice Jefferies, Judges Page and Ayscough. In many
cases, facts were only known to the prisoner himself,
which would be of infinite advantage to him in the
hands of an able Advocate. He would not refer to some
recent cases, for fear of being accused of endeavour-
ing to bring discredit on the administration of justice.
Such a case as one of infirmities, like those of Lord
Lovat, who declared that he could make no defence for
himself; and his case was felt to be so hard, that the
chief of the Managers for the House of Commons in
Lord Lovat's impeachment, Sir William Yonge, imme-
diately after brought in a Bill to allow persons accused
of High Treason to be defended by Counsel. He al-
luded to the ruffian who had disgraced the County of
pi leer rs
)I.l°l bl'ybcyhethehad bestowed on,
stupidmuraddemr
iorf.ithioins
theyfriend ; and so many
believed that not one felon mole would em-I
ploy Counsel than at present. If it was objected that the
speech of a prisoner's Counsel would employ much time,
hic answer was, t!iat it would get rid of long cross-exa-
minations.
in
many,natitoeiis.lts, important for the satisfaction of the
cases, that a speech should be made
, for the prisoner. • He thought nothing of stirring the

passion;; because that might be objected against.the rn-
ployment of Counsel in cases of misdemeanour. lie
could see no evil whaftver frettn allowing Counsel to
speak, but the greateit good to the administration of
impartial justice. He then moved for leave to bring in
a Bill to allow persons aecirsed of felony toemploy Coun-
sel. as in cases of misdemeanour.
• Mr. NORTH had always considered the administra-
tion of justice in this country as one of our noblest in-
stitutions; and he should above all 11 ice praised the
anxious care of the Bench to exclude everything from
a trial that was not strictly evidence. The prisoner
was now allowed Counsel in all legal points, and to
examine and cross-examine the witnesses. Besides the
Judge always took care that nothing was received that
was not strictly evidence according to the severest rules
of law ; and, lastly, that a verdict of guilty could not
be recorded until the whole of the Jury wele agreed as
to the prisoner's guilt. At present the Counsel for the
prosecution confined his statement perfectly colonilesl,
and without a single aggravating epithet. This he did
from a principle of honour, pity, and humanity, more,
binding than any rules of law. This would not be
the case if Counsel were allowed to employ all their in-
genuity and eloquence in behalf of the prisoner. They
might tell him what aught to be, but he told them
what would be. A sober Court of Justice would he
turned into an arena for two ingenious legal com-
batants. That which the Counsel would say in favour
of a prisoner would not go into the Jury-box with the
same weight as what fell from the Judge. In many
cases the Judge would hive all his faculties tasked to do
away the false imin-essions raised by an able Counsel,.
and by so doing he would become an advocate against
the prisoner, instead of being one for him.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said it would scarcely
be denied by those who thought it right that a prisoner
should defend himself at all, that he was entitled to the
'trans of defending himself fully and adequately ; and
in three-fourths of the criminal cases which were tried,
this could only be done by the assistance of Counsel. In
Scotland, and the United States of America, the right
of a full hearing by Counsel—not of a hearing by Coun-
sel under connivance, like that which took place in Eng-
land—the right of an uninterrupted hearing by Counsel
was allowed to felons ; and any inconvenience that
arose from that indulgence he had yet to learn. As to
the origin of the peculiar enactment, all parties might
not be agreed ; and, with respect to the reasonableness,
he would cite an opinion of some curiosity to the
House in a moment. Sir John H iwles, the Solicitor-
General of William 111. treated the prohibition against
felons employing Counsel to defend them, as having
originated out of the general poverty of such persons
and their inability to pay fees; and thought that, in this
way, a custom had grown up to be treated as a law.—
Then, for an opinion upon the sense of the law, the house
should hear what had been said of it by Judge Jefferies
—an individual whom no one probably would accuse
of being a speculating or dilettante lawyer. Judge Jef-
feries, who, whatever had been his vices, had been a
man of the soundest and most vigorous intellect ; and,
indeed, it might be said, almost to the disgrace of com-
prehensive understandings, that when he was not intoxi-
cated, or suffering under disease, or distracted by party
fury, a more powerful Judge than that atrocious and
infamous man had scarcely ever sat upon the bench ;
Judge Jefferies, upon the trial of a non-conforming
clergyman named Rosewald, (a kind of offender whom
he was not in the habit of sprinkling with rose-water),
had said, speaking of the very law which was now in
question before the House, " It is a hard case, certainly,
that a man may have Counsel, and his witnesses sworn,
if he is tried for a twopenny trespass; and that yet the
same is refused to him in a case of treason or felony,
which affects his life." Now it is worth while to observe,
that Sir George Jefferies ranked the grievance which he
(Sir James Mackintosh) was opposing, with two other
grievances, which the policy of the law had since re-
moved. He agreed in all the praise which the Hon. and
Learned Member opposite had bestowed upon the crimi-
nal law of England—he said " upon the criminal law,"
because he by no means included the penal enactments
in the same measure of approbation; but the criminal law
had not always been in the state in which we now saw it.
For a long time the criminal law had borne traces of
the barbarity of the age in which it had been con-
structed. Let it be remembered, that the refusal in
cases of felony to allow witnesses to be sworn for the pri-
soner, which, us it regarded the effect upon a Jury, was
tantamount to allowing him no witnesses at all—that
the refusal to furnish any means of compelling the at-
tendance of witnesses under such circumstances, which
was in fact leaving the prisoner without defence, unless
where persons came voluntarily to assist him—that the
making a Jury punishable bfa " writ of attaint," if
they returned a " false verdict," as it was called, against
the King, and not punishable by any process if they
found a false verdict against the prisoner—let it be re-
membered that these practices, so calculated to defeat
every chance of justice, were all coeval with the law
which the House was now called upon to alter, and had
all been got rid of, one after the other, in the face of
speeches as powerful as that which had just been made
by the Honourable and Learned Member for Plymp-
, ton Earle.. In the year 1696, again, had come the Act
which gave the benefit of Counsel to persons charged
with treason ; and it was curious to remark that the
speeches against that Act (as far as they were reported)
had contained every argument which the Honourable
and Learned Member had been urging. The preamble
to that Act was worth attention—it was called, "An Act
in order that persons charged with high treason should
have the means of making a full and sufficient defence."
Now change only one word, and the same title might
do for the Bill of the Honourable Mover on the present
occasion (Mr. Lamb); and if the House threw out such
a measure, what was it—let them consider—that they
were refusing? And, upon principle, he wished to
hear what difference there was between cases of trea-
son and cases of felony ? It was said, that the person
charged with treason was entitled to the higher protec-
tion, on account of the rank of the adversary with which
he had to contend ; but he (Sir James Mackintosh) said,
that in fact, the man accused of felony stood in most
need of protection ; for . pc! sons charged with trea-
son were commonly persons of education and fa-
culty, and capable, up to a certain point, of defending
themselves, while the felons came from among the most
ignorant and helpless class of the community. The
Honourable and Learned Member (Sir J. Mackintosh)
then alluded to the case of Thurtell, for the purpose of
• spewing that the argument of his lion. Friend (Mr.
Lamb) had been misunderstood. Ile would just take
occasion to say, in parenthesis, that lie exceedingly con-
demned the perverted sympathy which had prevailed
in some part of the public mind towards one of the most
atrocious ruffians that had ever di braced a country;
and, with respect to the defence he had males if

any doubt of his gat could have existert that Jettatt
must have removed it ; in fact, the strange, wild, pee.
vetted, theatrical desire and feeling which possessed the
unfortunate man in all he said, seemed to have rendered
him quite regardless of his life ; but the argument of the
Hon. Member for Dungarvon, as far as it had touched
upon the case of Thurtell, was, that Counsel should be
allowed to prisoners, in order, as far as possible, to
equalize their power in point of talents ; because, where
men were di iven to the necessity of relying, under all
circumstances, upon themselves, it would -Ise seen at
once that the particular faculty, or want of (acuity, in a
prisoner, might make a material difference iu his fate.
For the objection that suffering Counsel to address a
Jury on the part of an accused perion (a felon) would
oblige the Counsel for the prosecution to state the case
against him more strongly—that in this way the pantie:
would become inflamed by the heat of of-pate, or by
the desire of professional reputation—and that do
Court, in fact, would be turned ieto an arena ue,-;
which the rival advocates would openly content,
the stake for which they fought being the life
death of of a human being—he did not think this cte
jection required a very particular ans..% er. Ile re-
lied upon the presence of the Judge, and upon &.;
feeling of the Counsel themselves, to prevent any im•
proper demonstrations of eagerness or passion; and,
after all—suppose the effect anticipated to be pro.
duced—he had never yet heard that a contest of talent
between persons deeply interested was not, in every case,
the surest mode of arriving at the' truth. He (Sir J.
Mackintosh) could cite opinions in abundance, and not
of speculators or philosophers, in support of the princi.
pie of the Bill which his Honourable Friend was intro-
ducing; but he thought that the reason of the thing.
without any authorities, was more than sufficiently ob.
vious. lie thanked the llealourable Member who had
introduced the question, for though he, as Sir Edward
(2, ke observed, who sees an) thing which requires
correction, and points it out for the examinatioe .of the
Government or the Legislature, does but pay the debt
which every man owes, nut to the profession of the lass
only, but to his country.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that this
was indeed no light and trivial question, but one of the
deepest and gravest importance. He did ion concur in
the proposition now made for effecting an alteration in
the criminal jurisprudence, which, in his opini.n, tended
most extremely to the disadvantage of justice. His Ha-
nourable and Learned Friend, the Member for knares-
borough, had gone back to the early history of the law,
' and had shewn the defective state in which it once stood,
and yet the House would do well to observe, that great
as those defects were, the then state of the law had its
supporters against any innovation, the same as it had at
this day. It should be recollected that, until the reign
of Queen Anne, no party accused of felony could call
witnesses to be examined for the defence on oath ; and.
strange as it might appear, the old practice was vindi-
cated in opposition to the new one introduced under the
Statute, on the grounds of humanity and tenderness to
the prisoner. The Hon. and Lear reed I%l.onber was not
so happy in his authorities as he seemed to suppose, be-
cause there was none of all which he hail cited which bore
immediately upon the question. The • marks of Judge
Jefferies were not founded on the state of the law as tt
now existed, but upon the state of the law at that period.
At that time a party accused of felony could have no
Counsel to assist him in the trial. Counsel might stay
in the Court, but apart from the prisoner, with whom
they could have no communication; they were not al-
lowed to put any question, or suggest any doubtful
point of law. But if the prisoner, likely to be a weak
unlettered man, could suggest any doubt in matter of
law, the Court determined first if the question of law
should be entertained, and then assigned Counsel to
argue it. But if his Hon. and Learned Friend would de-
pend upon authorities, he world call to his recollection
one of the very highest which could he named by any
lawyer in criminal jurisdiction, a Judge, wbc, by a very
singular phrase, had been styled the Magua Charta of
criminal law—he alluded to Judge Foster, who stated
that he had heard all the arguments upon this very
subject, and admitted that they were very plausible.
but came to a decision the opposite to that of the Ho-
nourable and Learned Member. He would invite the at-
tention of the House to the state of the law as it now
stood. Nothing could be conceived more iinpartiale
cool, and considerate than the proceedings in Courts of
Criminal Justice—there could be no course more entirely
favourable to the developement of the truth—the greatest
order, no extraordinary excitement, temperate, candid in-
quiry, by parties almost wholly disinterested—these were
the aspects which were presented in a criminal trial.
They should pause before they hastily undertook to sub-
' vert so excellent an order of things, before they con-
sented to put to hazard the excellence of a long-tried
system for the sake of pursuing a chimerical good. But
was it the advantage of the prisoner which his Honour-
able and Learned Driend sought? At present, the Judge
was of Counsel for the accused in' trials for felony.
But if the Counsel for the defence were to' make a
speech full of inflammation and exaggeration, which
must inevitably happen, then it would be replied
to by the Judge in his charge, and he would
thus become of Counsel against the prisoner. Was this
the advantage which they would give the prisiner ?
this was not all. If a speech were allowed for the
defence, there must be another in reply ; not perhaps in
all cases, but generally—at any rate, too frequently not
to be considered in the argument. The case would
then stand as in Nisi Pius practice, where the odds
were always fin. the plaintiff—his Couesel had the first
speech and the last—and the effects of the last impreee
sic.ns were such, that he had seen cases in which they
could not be craved even by the charge of the Judge,
directed to that very object. Besides, the most able
and experienced Counsel, tho-_e of most confirmed prac-
tice and self-pneession, would be generally engaged rat
the side of tile prosecution, for on that side would be
found the preponderance of wealth. As to the arrn-
meets drawn from the statute et William 111. the Hon.
and Learned Member had not gone far enough with it.
By that statute the prisoner tharged
w Al treason wa;
to have a list of the Jury—arbitrary challenges—
a list of the witnesses—a copy of the indictment,
by the contents of which, and the list of witnesses,
the Counsel for the prosecution were bound. But the
Honourable and Learned Member could never se-
riously wish to see the trial for felony assimilated
to the trial for treason. A trial for treasodwas a
war of intellect and wit, of 'passion and dezterityof
heat and animation. The power of the Crown being
enlisted against the prisoner—he did not speak it invi-
diously—it was necessary and allewalile for the Counsel
of the prisoner to use all means to excite the popular
feeling in his favour, almost to inflammation, in order
to check the too 9 erreat weight of- -the power of the
~
Clown brought apIIAL 112;116 Upon the whale he fill

ilia the proposition would tend tO deprice the 'criminal
jurisprudence of all those advantages which at present
di-tinguished it ; and he must therefore object to the mo-
tion, because his opposition was to the principle, and
could not be moved by details in this stage.
Dr. LUSI IINGTON was not surprised at the oppo-
sition of his Honourable Friend. The question was, how
innocence could be most certain of escape, and guilt of
conviction ? That was the object of tire Criminal Law.
The defence by Counsel was most congenial to the pur-
poses of justice. It had often been said by by-standers,
that they had heard a speech against the prisoner, but
none in his defence. A Judge could never, by the law
of this country, be Counsel for the prisoner. On one
occasion he had heard it remarked by a by-standet
of a presiding Judge, " That is one of his banging
speeches." In the celebrated case of Patch, a mats alio
had not the smallest experience in a Court of Jus-
tice, he had to contend with the first Counsel of the
Bar. That was not even-banded justice. Ile believed
that Mary an innocent man had been condemned fur
want of Cot: r, sei, and guilty men, for the same cause,
been declared innocent. He had often been shocked at
the Old Bailey, when he heard the prisoner refer for
his defence to his Counsel, and the Judge tell him that
be could not speak for him; he could only cross-ex-
amine the witnesses. Then came a miserable written
defence, prepared for the prisoner by some ignorant
And unqualified person, that was calculated to do more
harm titan good. By the Code Napoleon, not only was
the Counsel- for the prisoner allowed to speak for him,
but by a particular clause, in the event of a reply on
the part of the prosecutor, the Counsel for the prisoner
was also allowed to reply. He hoped the situation of
the Judges would be amended, in respect to the reward
of them, and that the situation of Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas would be rendered worthy or the accept-
ance of his Learned Friend. Whatever might be the
result of the Motion, be was certain that the darkness
was fast dispelling, and would soon wholly disappear.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed, that no complaints
cc the subject were to be found in any of the. ablest writers on the
law of England. In the case of felony, the Counsel for the proseco-
tinn confined himself to a simple statement of facts, which made a
reply on the part of a defence in a great degree unnecessary. Ms
Learned Friend had stated no facts of nun unjustly condemned for
want of the assistance of Counsel, though nothing could have be-en
more material for his argument. The fact of the employment of
Counsel in cases of High Treason, was an exception to the general
principle, and did not apply to the case of felony. The innovation
proposed, would be injurious and not beneficial to the prisoner. The
prisoner who trusted solely to the ingenuity of his Counsel, stood
a much greater chance of condemnation than he who relied upon
the simple statement of facts.
Mr. DENMAN regretted that be had not been present at the
commencement of the debate. The Honourable Member who (hr
understood) had spoken second, had by his talents procured an ac-
quittel in the case of, as he thought, a very ilijudged prosecution in
Dublin, and his Honourable Friends the Attorney and Solicitor.
General, bed in this country rescued the accused from death. From
such men he might perhaps have expected a different line of con-
deco The present mode was more productive et disorder and vio-
lence then would be, if Counsel was allowed to speak for the pri-
soner. He had heard that an Irish Judge once asked a Counsel
whether be addressed the Court or the Jury ; and the answer was,
that be (the Counsel) addressed the Court, but he hoped thq Jury
would hear him. If in the acquittal of innocence there was also a
greater cheece of the condemnation of the guilty, in that he could
sae et, injustice. From his experience, in his judicial capacity, he
co.:11 truly sac, that nothing could be a greZter relief than to allow
his Counsel to defend the prisoner. The greatest injustice was
done to the prisoner at the bar, when be was called upon to make
his defence under circumstances of which he had no precious
knowledge, and to which his prepared defence could not apply. Jf
the prisoner should be an idiot or a lunatic, how could he speak in
his own defence? It was but a comparatively recent practice to
allow the Counsel forthe prisoner to cross-examine the witnesses,
or to argue a puha of law. In the case of Elizabeth Canning, who
bad been taken from her friends in 1752, she charged two Gypsies
as the persons, and they were condemned. Suspicious having arisen,
she was tried for a misdemeanour, was convicted, and transported.
In the former case, the innocent, in the eb.ence of Counsel, had
been condemned; and in the other, the guilty, though aided by
Counsel, had been condemned—(Hear). A case too had occurred
in the course of the last year, in which the Secretary for the Home
Department had promised a total remission of the punishment from
the Crown. lie gave his most cordial support to the motion.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) supported the motion. He referred
to the case of the two I'erreaus, and contended that they had been
convicted for want of Counsel to plead their case. He denied that
the Judges were, in general, Counsel for the prisoners. To show
this, he referred to Bellingham 's case, in which the Judge had re-
jected an application to put off the trial on the ground of the tern--
porary absence of witnesses, who could prove the prisoner's insanity.
1k should certainly vote for the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion - - - - 50
Against it - - - - - 80
Majority - - - -
of

On the re-admission strangers into the gallery,
Mr. M A DERLY was addressing the House on the subject of
the Land 'Fax. The Tax had formerly been annual till it bad been
made permanent by Mr. Pitt; so that the lauded interest could
have no prospect of any diminution of it. Certain persons, by the
Act, were entitled to a preference upon paying four-tenths more
than they had to pay as Land Tax, while others had to pay one-
Efth. Though a part of the Tax had beets redeemed, yet the ex-
pense continued the same. and amounted to nearly 60,0001. For
these and other reasons, he wished to refer the subject to a Com-
mittee. Though the annual expense came to 200,000/. a-year, only
80,0001. had been redeemed. The proceeds of the sale of the Land
Tax could in no way be better applied than to the reduction of the
Unfunded Debt; by which, in the course of two years, the interest
of the 3 per Cents. would be reduced to 21 per Cent. After some
ft,rthaa observation.:, he concluded by moving for the appointaent
c* a Select Committee to take into consideration the Acts for the
sale of the Land Tax, and to report the snme to the House, with a
view to applying the saving to the payment of the Unfunded Debt.
The Cll A NCI: 1.1.0 R of the EXCI I EWA:. P. opposed the mo-
tion, on the ground that going into a Committee would he attended
with no good effect, although he should not object to a Bill being
brought into the House on the subject.
Mr. MOCK wished to 7,0 into the Committee, with a view to
gotting rid of the system altogether.
Mr. FIUME supported the motion.
Mr. MA BERLY replied, and withdrew his motion, under a de-
termination to bring in a RilL_ _

Mr. Krti N ED I' then oht2ined leave to bring in a Bill to intr.
latc the relief of the l'our in Scotland.

BEER cirrus, LICENSES, &1.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, at nearly one
o'clock this morning, rose to move that the House go into a Com-
mittee on the Beer Duties Acts. The House having resolved into
such Committee, the Right Hon. Gentleman went into an extended
stater•ent of his graduated Brewers' Licenses, and Publicans' L
reuses for the Sak of Beer, Spirits, and Wine; but owing to the
hotness of the boor, it Will be impossible for us to do more is our
present publication than to give an outline of his statetnrit. lie
proposed that there be &duty on Baer as follows, knowing no better
scale to go by than the quantity of

SCA LE.
A QUARTILR OP ![ALT k:lirLavrn IN EGEwING.

_._ ......--- -- .. ___
Less than two barrels - - . Duty pereTa..rrel.
Between two and three - _ 12s.
Between three and four - .- - 8,-
Between four and five - - - - vs.
Between five and six - - - 4s. 91d.
Between six and seven - - - 4s.

Between seven and eight - - - 3s. 20.
Above eight - - - - 3s.
The principle of allowing any nue to sell, abstractedly considered,
snight not be objectionable; but when he considerLd the vast capi-
tal now embarked in their trade by Publicans, to throw open the
trade at once would be most ruinous and unjust. lle propooAl that
the Brewer, to sell Beer by retail, but not tube drafik on the pre-
mises, should take out a License. This would be a relief to the
small Brewers. The duty was to be on a graduated scale for 100
barrels to 1,000 barrels :11.—his regulation would exclude the class of
Brewers voila would be likely to be prejudicial to the Licensed Vic-
trailers. As to the Licenses of the Publicans, having related the
Wiling duties, be proposed that the Licenses should be 11. Is.

where the rent was unit ^i)/. and 3s. where the rent was WI
and upwards. As to spirits, he watild, unite the duties Where thel,
duty now' was 41. 14s. and 5/. I Is. for houses under 9(d. rent, he'
prdliosed (fiat it'thimki be 41. 14s. where tVW from SO/. to'
t.",/. to he
.6A 6s. from 251. to 501. to be 71. front 501. w4n/. to
be $l. from 401. to 501. to be 91. cis. and from 501. and upwards, to
be 101. 10s. The Wine Duty he proposed to reduce from 41. Ss.
to 21. 4s. which was the amount of the former duty. He added,
that these alterationS mid appear to affect the Rtvenue tono in--
considerable extent; but from the advantages extended to the
Brewers he rather cxpeeted that, eventually, the trade would be,
improved by the alterations. After such details he concluded
with moving Resolutions embodying his plans.
After some observations front Mr. BERNAL, Mr. BUXTON, Mr.
Maerarv, &e. the Rest,lutions were agreed to; and the 11epert of
the Committee was ordered m be presented to-murrow,....The re.
mainiog Orders having Leen disposed of, the House adjourned. •

THE. EVENING STAR.

LONDON.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1821.
THE FUNDS.
STOCK EXCH .1 NG E. TWELVE O'CLOCK.

Consols opened this Morning at 93k, n, and for next time at
VG to S, with not much doing, owing to the Account-day (next
Friday) being so near.—An Express has arrived from Paris, bring-
ing the Reines at 103 f. 75c.