Star.
London, England, 1825-05-06 00:00:00

nousE IF COMMONS.

P.o.erz were presented from the Treasury and Excise, and or-
dered to li. norm' the table.
Mr. PORTMA N presented a Petition from North Petherlon,
li
in favour of the Ship 'anal.
Mr. C. DUN DAS moved the third reading of the Newbury
Alr. F. PALULIt and Mr. Monte fpposed the motion.
The !louse divided, when there appeared,

Against it

Iklajority

. 24
. . 12
. . .--12

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.
Upon a clause, proposed, the House again divided ; the numbers
were,
For the Clause
Against it . . . . • . 29
Majority '• - • . .—4
• A clause was then snowed by Mr. F. PALMER for reducing dhe
rate from 4s. 6d • to Is. in the pound.
The Have then again divided, when there appeared—
For bringing up the clause,
Against it,
Majority against the clause,
The Bill Was then passed.
Nr. Sergeant ONSLOW presented a Petition from C. Sharpe,
RI Barrister at TAW, praying for compensation under the County
• Courts' Bill. lie also gave notice, that he should next Session move
Mr an inquiry into the policy and effect of the Usury Laws.
Mr. J. KLrZi H presented s Petition from the Farmers' So-
ciety of Boss, against altering the Corn Laws.
Similar Petitions were presented from the Synod of Angus; Rain.
ham, in Kent ; and front the neighbourhood of Aberdeen.
Sir M. W. RI DI.F.Y presented a Petition from owners of
Docks and Shipbuilders at Limehouse, respecting the Combina-
tion Laws.—ltead, and referred to the Committee on the Combi-
nation Laws.

38
-55

BEER DUTIES.
Mr. MABERLY said, if there were not, a single Pe-
tition before the House, on eke subject of the Beer
Duties, it was the bounden duty of the House to inter-
fere; for if ever there was a Statute founded on in-
justice, it was that imposing a duty on beer. There
could be ,but one argument urged by the Gentlemen
opposite, and that was the argument arising from ;he
loss to the revenue. The duty on malt pressed alike
on the rich and cn the poor ; but that on beer was ex-
clusively a tax on the poor, from which the rich were
completely exonerated. The duty which the rich paid
on malt was 20s. per quarter, and that paid by the poor
on 'their beer was 555. per quarter, and the same in-
equality ran through all the species of beer. This was
the more hard on the poor, because beer -was to them
an article of necessity, whilst to the rich it was a luxury.
He knew it might be said that the poor man might
brew his own beer, but how could that be ; the time,
the space, and the skill were wanting ; and though
there was an apparent option, there was in fact no op-
tion at all. There would be an advantage in laying
the whole duty on malt (which would be the fairer
way), and it would save 300,0001. in the collection. He
had approached the House twice befog,: once for a
Committee to inquire, which the House rejected, though
at the very time the Right Hon. Gentleman was tamper.
ing with the subject of beer, and had produced a mea-
sure which had failed. In the following year he again
made a nearly similar proposition, which was negatived.
The House would see, therefore, that he had ap.
• proached the subject with great caution, but even in.
quiry had been refused. He would now, therefore,
move, that from and after the sth of January,lr,26, the
duties on beer should cease. He denied that it was the
interest of the brewers or the landholders to support
these great duties, as they were all in fact paid by the
consumer. The vat iout tesuictions also tended to raise
the price of the commodity. It might be said that these
restrictions were recessary, to prevent noxious ingredi-
ents from being put into the beer, but to that he woulJ
answer, the Public might safely be left to their own
judgment and taste in ti at respect. The trade, though
open as to the brewers, was a monopoly as to the pub-
lic-houses, so long as the licensing system should continue, for
which indeed he saw no reason, as die advantages resulting froth It
in point of police, might be attained by other means. He denied
that the alteration of the Spirit duties would effect the abolition or
reduction of smuggling ; whilst the lowering of the Beer Duties
would be productive of the most substantial advantages.
Mr. BROUGHAM seconded the motion. He said!,
these was an additional expense incurred by the poor;
as compared to the rich, from the retail trade not being
free. He thought it monstrous that beer or tea should not be sold
without a license. He thought this was a particularly proper time
to reduce the duties on beer, new that the wine duties were low-
ered. He would not wish to consider the reduction of spirits as an
equivalent to the reduction of the wine duties, but would rather
see tie duties on beer lowered. -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the question was founded upon very plain and ob-
vious motives, and therefore there was no necessity for
referring the subject to a Committee. The substitution
of a duty on malt was quite out of the question, but he
would make a few obst•rvai ions on the subject generally.
He did not feel himself called upon to argue that du-
ties t a the amount of 3,000,0001. could not be taken off.
The Honourable Member could not have seriously sup-
posed !bat such a reduction could be made. The Hon.
Member had in course of this Session moved the repeal
of the Window TAX, st hich was only 1.250,000/. but the
House had not supp tted him ; and they would act in-
consistently if they should now support Lis motion for
the repeal of 3,0(0,0001. He did not staid up in de-
fence of the duty on beer. Various objections could be
made to every tax. To this tax objections could be
justly made; but the Honourable, Member had urged
those objections beyond their existence. A substitution
of the tax on malt, would not bring beer cheaper to the
poor. There were 20,000,000 oft ushels of malt now
used. The substitution would lay 2s. more duty upon
every bushel. This would impose Id. per quart
upon beer. The duty now of 10s. per barrel on beet
amounted exactly to the same, that was Id. per quart.
Practically the effect of the substitution would be exactly
the same as now. It was not true that this duty was
paid exclusively by the poor, for the consumers of beer
were not generally of that class. There was also pri-
vate brewing in many poor families, and if the duty on
milt should be increased, the grievance upon them
would be much greater. It was assumed that the
strength of beer sold by the brewers was the same with
that of beer brewed privately; but it was not so. The
brewers made three and a half barrels from one quar-
ter, but the private brewer made it much stronger, and
the clove the conclusion of the Hun. Member was most
erroneous. The lion. and Lear iteJ Gentleman had
remarked, that there would be a grea.er facility of sale
if the duty were reduced. N.) doubt there wools. He
had been last year tortunaie enough to carry a _sere
for that purpose. He could not say—
Disce—Furtatuam ex me.

Bat he could say—
Disce—ex me yentmque laborent.
He ha.l considerable difficulty in any ng the melnye.
If he had extended the right to all, he could not
have carried i,. He proposed a new mode of co!.
kolas and estimating the duty on beer. Great ob.
je;tions were made, not to the, principle, but with
,dk good deal of address, to the amount of the du'y
.

He abandoned .wbat they professed to oppose, and
by that means carried what they really objected 'to.
He should be delighted to reduce in part or altogether
the duty on beer, bat he would Set at all have a sub-
stitution. He agreed that it was mooch mdre desirable
to rcduce the duty on beer .than that on spirits,
for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had truly stated
'that the sole ground for reducing the duty on spirits
was the prevention of smuggling. Wine was said to
be reduced in favour of a particular class. It was not
so. A particular class would benefit by the reduction,
but the real ground was, that the high prohibition
duties had caused a falling off in our communication
and intercourse with other nations--(Ciseen). The reduction was
dictated by sound commercial policy. It would give him very
great satisfaction if be could reduce the whole of 4e Duty on Beer.
He did not like to indulge sanguine prospects, it would be wrong
in him to do so, because it might lead only to disappointment. But
if our prospects should be realized, the reduction of taxes would
certainly be carried still further. The Honourabk Member was
mistaken in supposing that .C 300,000 would be saved in the col-
lection. If the Honourable Gentleman were initiated into the
arcane of collecting the Duties on Malt, as he was, be would be
aware that none were more evaded, or caused so many prosecutions.
Mr. BERNAL sit ppm ted the motion. He mainta.ned
that very few of the class of labourers, or even of respectable
shopkeepers, had the means of brewing their own beer. He denied
that the transfer of the duty to malt would occasion any consider-
able increase of expense in the collection.
Mr. WODEHOUSE was of opinion that the proposed transfer
of duty would brno means render beer cheaper.
Mr. HUME said, that the transfer of the duty would not ope-
rate injuriously to the Exchequer, whilst at the same time it would
have the effect of placing the poor and the rich on an equal footing.
Colonel DAV lES supported the motion.
Mr. Alderman SfillTell argued that the beer tax was most un-
just and oppressive towards-the poor.
Mr. J. BENETT differed from the worthy Alderman is the
flew which he took of the question. He believed that the shifting
of the tax would cause great inconvenience, without being of any
advantage to the poorer classes.
Mr. lIERRIES opposed the resolution, and denied that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer bad at all pledged himself to entertain
the principle of it.
Mr. Alderman WOOD complained heavily that, with all the al-
terations made in the course of the present Session, not one shilling
had been taken from the taxes that pressed directly upon the poor.
Mr. MONCK was in favour of a duty on beer to one-half the
existing amount, and wished that the Hen. Member for Abingdon
would amend his Resolution to that effect. As the motion stood,
however, if it was persevered in, be should certainly support it.
Mr. ROBERTSON opposed any reduction of taxes which could
lead to the blightest chance of trenching upon the Sinking Fund.
Mr. CRFASETT PELHAM said, be thought the lower classes
would be no "gainers by as alteration.
Mr. J. SMITH thought, as regarded the question of
the Sinking Fund, that any deficiency occasioned by
taking off the Beer Tax might be made up by the im-
position of some other. He would not at all object to
putting the whole duty upon malt, live h ick was proposed
to be reduced on the manufactured article: but he cer-,
tainly did feel that after so much had been done for the advantage of
the higher classes in the course of the present Session, something
ought to be thought of before it concluded, for the benefit of
the lower.

Mr. MABERLY, in reply, regretted to see the
benches on his side the House so thinly attended. After
what he had done so far, he did not think he should
stand fairly in the eyes of his countri, if he withdrew
his motion. He hoped, if it was thrown out (u it stood,
in a fair way to be), that it would not be long before the tabro?fatPhsie
House would be covered with Petitions for equal representation.

The House then divided— -
For the motion - -
Against it - - -
Majority - - -
TRIALS IN SCOTLAND.

- 23
- 88
-65

Mr. J. P. GRANT rose.in pursuance of his notice,
to move for leave to brit% in a Bill to alter and
amend the present laws relating to Wrongous Impri-,
spnment and Delays of Trial in Scotland. The Ho-
nourable and Learned Gentleman said, that it was evi-
dent that it was better to have all the Acts on this sub-
ject comprehended in one Act, rather than be spread,
as they now were, on the whole Statute Book. It
was allowed by all, that the Law of Scotland was ma-
terially deficient upon the points in question. Nothing
in reality could be more absurd than that the inhabi-
tants of one end of the country should live under -one
system of laws, in matters so vitally affecting their in-
terests and liberties, while the inhabitants of the other
end of the country should live under another system.
Ite assured the Learned Lord opposite, that his object
was not to interfere with the office of the Lord Ad-
vocate. The objects which he had in view were prin-
cipally these To throw greater responsibility
upon the Magistrates in granting warrants for the ap-
prehension of offenders. The second was to give an
enlarged power to the Judges of the Criminal Courts,
for the protection of the liberty of the subject. Hit
next object was to remove doubts and difficulties where 1
they existed ; and lastly, he wished to place the poor
man on the same footing with the rich with respect
to trial. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to demonstrate the insufficiency of the
existing laws, and the necessity to amend them. He
added farther, that if the House allowed him to bring

. _
in the Bill, he would then propose to have a distinct
day appointed for the second reading, and would have
it in the meantime printed and sent down to Scotland,
tor the purpose of being submitted to the Judges and
other legal authorities in that country for their opi-
nions. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in
the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE said, that he did not
mean to oppose the introduction of the Bill. He
thought, however, that great care and caution should
.be observed in meddling with a law which had existed
for 100 years, anti which might be considered as the
Habeas Corpus Act of Scotland. The Learned Lord
then went on to shew the great benefits of the exist-
ing system. He undertook to say, that the Act of
1701, secured a greater defence to the people of Scot-
land against false imprisonment, than the English
Habeas Corpus Act afforded to the people of England.
He wished that his Honourable and Learned Friend
would bring in a Bill to amend, rather than repeal the
law, as the term •, repeal " would excite some little
alarm among the people of Scotland.
Mr. A BERCROMBY admitted that it would be
better to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the
Act, instead of moving at once to repeal such law.—
Tbe Act was susceptible of considerable amendments, sad he trusted
that it would now receive them.
Tne SOLICITOR-GENERAL trusted that it would
°not be attempted to hurry an alteration of the law
without previously having the opinions of those who
were competent to give them information on the sub-
ject; attire same time, he admitted that there were iii
the Act some uncertainties, and some discrepancies which required
to be amendtd.
Mr. DENMAN was glad to observe that facilities
were afforded to the improvement of this law.
Motion agreed to, Mr. J. P. GRANT having altered
his motion, applying for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend
(not to repeal) the Act.
CRUELTY TO CATTLE.
Mr. R. MARTIN applied for leave to bring in a Bill
to alter and amend the Cruelty to Cattle Act, the ob
ject of the proposed alteration being to make • the malicious cutting
and maiming of cattle a misdemeanour.

Brazilian
Milian

P Mr. Secretary PFEL eipressestaonie tab*, for Abe
bulky character of the Statute Books, which 'bold be
come unnecessarily issereased bbl by this 'Padua'
legislation. He trusted .that the Honourable Member
would enumerate in his Bill the names of all the ani-
mals meant to be the objects of his legislative cares; it
would then be seen what the ultimate objeaKof the Honourable
Mover really were.
Mr. F. PALMER said, that the existing Act had a
sufficient latitude of provisions, and objected to this required
extension of the law.
Mr. R. MARTIN replied, that this Bill was a copy
of the Black Act, only making the cutting and maim-
ing a misdemeanour instead of a felony. He had fol-
lowed the Attorney-General's advice in framing it—it was, in fact,
the Attorney-General's BilL—Motion agreed to.
Mr. PLUNKETT then moved fbr leave to bring in
a Bill to amend the law regarding the appointment of
Special Juries in Ireland, and the removal of trials from
one county to another. His object was to assimiLve the law as
nearly as possible to that of England.
Mr. DENMAN hoped tilt provision would be made
in cases nominally at the suit of the King, to enable the
defendant to. pray a Saks without a warrant from the
Attorney-General ; he also trusted that the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Peel), would not object to have such an amend-
ment introduced into his Bill on the subject of Special Juries in
England.—Motion agreed to.
Mr. J. SMITH moved that an Address be presented to his Ma-
jesty for a Copy of the Correspondence between the Lord Lieute-
nant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and a certain Magistrate of
that County respecting the treatment of prisoners in Bradford jail.
Mr. Secretary PEEL expressed his readiness to have the papers
laid on the table.—Motion agreed to. 6
Mr. HOBHOUSE brought in a Bill for the better regulation of
the working hours of children in cotton manufactories.—dlead a

first time.
The Bonded Corn Bill was read a first time ; to be read a second
time to.morrow.--didjourned at Twm.rs o'Ctocz.

THE EVENING S'I'AR.

LONDON.

FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1825.
STOCK EXCHANGE, TWELVE O'CLOCK.

Consols opened father brisk this morning at 911 1 for the Ac-
count; but soon after they drooped a little, and are now done at
911, at which price they seem to make a stand.
CITY, ONE O'CLOCK.
Consols have loitered 1 per cent. Consols are 901 to 91.
In the Foreign Market there is little doing, although Shares look
more favourable.
Current Prices: New Spanish 181, Old Spanish 231 1, Rus-
sian 9S, Mexican 761 771, Austrian 981 1, Colombian New 88k,
Brazil Scrip 1 1 rem. Mexican Scrip 11 1 disc. Danish Scrip 21
to s cllaeonnt.

PRICE OF STOCKS AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Bank'Stock 229% 230 2291
S per Cent. Red. 99% vs
r S per Cent. Cons. 91% % 90% %
Si per Cent. 97%
4 per Cent. Assented 977/s 98 973/4 •
4 per Cent. New 105% 104% 1951 A
Long Ann. 21 15-16 22 21 ra
India Bonds '74 73
£l,OOO Excheq. Bills 52 53 51 53
£5OO ditto 52 53 51 53
£,lOO and £2OO ditto 52 53 51 53
Bank for Acct. 229%
Cons. for Acct. 91K sh 90%
FOREIGN EXCHANGES.
HA1M11.42/14 APIA. 29.-London, 35. 9. 2 ifs. 35. 6.
MUTUSAW, MAT 3.-On London, U. 7. 2 M. 39. 5.
Putasinnen, Aram 13.-London, 101. Paris, 104.
Lome, Arm 25.-On London, 3 M. 6. 101.
Beaux, Aran. 96.-On London 3 M. 6.201.
Vtainmi Arau. 20.-On Loudon, 2 M. 9. 39,
Rica, APRIL 18.-On London, 10. 1744.
Bauskau, Aram 23.-On London, 2 a 3 M. 9. 19. 54.
Baum (26), Aran. 28.-On London, 2 M. 890.
Nomannion, Aran 25.-On London, 91. 44.
FOREIGN FUNDS, TWO O'CLOCK.
Austrian Bds 5 p Ct. 96/ 1 Mex.Boods, 5 p Ct. 761
Basilian Bonds Ditto Ace.
Ditto Scrip, 5 per Cent. . Ditto Strip 1825, 11 1 dis
Ditto Scrip 11125, 1 pc Ditto Acct. $ 11 1 dis
Ditto Ace. • Neapolitan Bonds, 1824, 911
Boom Ayres Bonds, 90 j Perot,. klootis,4l per Ct. 79i
Min Bonds, 6 p Ct. Portuguese Bonds
Colendlios Sendai& p C. OH Ditto for Ace.
BIM Asc. Proedan 800d511122, 5 p Ct.lool
Ditto Beads, 1524, 1111} • alto Ins, Int 6
Ditto Amt. IS/ Itues.lloods,lo22, p Ct. 9516 I
Danish Bradt, s per Ct. 1011 Ditto Acct. 951
Ditto Ant. 21 1 die iliattit
Amt sp. Ct. C. 231 1 1
Greek Bonds 511 . 231
Ditto Acct. t:Lti lieti..2`tte?, 1823,
Ditto Scrip, 1825, 4j dio 5 per Ct.
Ditto Acct. 41 dis Exchange
BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHARES, TWO O'CLOCK.
31 INES
SNARL rain. PR/Cl MS MARL
4EIOO .520 La. 15 pm. .990
- 100 5 - -71
400 prem.
- 100- 5- . 151 15
. 100 5 . 11
Colombian - 100 - 5 - - 251
Pasco Peruvian - 100 - 5 - -16 1 151 1
Potosi, La Paz, Sc Perim. 50 5 94 4
Real del Monte 400 170 - • 870
Rio de la Plata - 100 - 5 - -18
United Mexican 40 - 20 - - 40
• Ditto New 40 - 10 - 30 32
Welch Iron & Ceal 25 - lu - 101

Anglo Mexican
Anglo Clint= -
Balms -

ABSURANCZ COMPANY.
109 .5
1119CaLLA MMUS.

6* I