Star.
London, England, 1822-04-25 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

--- •
' HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 24.
Mr. Beacom and others brought up from the Commons, the
Summary Proeeedhls and the Irish Commercial Credit Bills,
which were read a trig time. .

The Earl of COCILT6iN presented a Petition from New
Ross, in the County of Wezford, praying fur the Repeal of the
Window Taz.—Read and laid on the table.
The Innkeepers Rates Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Duke of MONTROSE presented a Petition from the
Provincial Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, against the Catholic
Claims.—Laid on the table.
General Gaseovant, Sir F.. Emmons:Lt., Sir W. W. Wiiant,
and others,, brought up several Private Lill' from the Com-
moae.—Read a first time.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
In consequence of the Order for calling over the Muse, on
the motion of Sir J. NEWPORT, being still in force, the gallery
was not opened till after the house had astemble,l, when the
Order svas discharged on the motion of Sir JOHN NCWPORT,
strangers were admitted shortly after the Sri.► eta had taken
the Chair.

Sir GEORGE DILL presented a Petition from the Al_•r-
chants of Londonderry, praying for the imposition of an addi-
tional duty on foreign cheese and butter.
Mr. DAVENPORT supported the prayer of the Petition,
and contended that a fair and reasonable protection ought to be
afforded to the British farmer against those who carried thoir
produce almost duty free, while the Engli►h agticulturist had to
sustain the weight of severe taxation.
After a few words from Sir Gym= Iltcc, the Petition was
orderid to lie on the table.

Sir IL SIIA W, in consequence of the request of a Noble
Marquis not then in his place, expressed himself willing to post-
pone the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the
Window Tax in Ireland, but was unwilling to put it off to a
more distant day, without tome assurance that it should then
take precedence.
A short conversation followed, in which Sir G. Um., Mr.
Aseacitomav, and Mr. CALCRATT, participated. The last men-
tioned Gentleman suggested that as the lion. Baronet of course
wished to he his motion for tome day when it could be enter.
tamed, he had better wait till the Chancellor of the Exchequer
or some other Minister came down to the House, who might be
competent to make the wished for arrangement.
The subject was then dropped. Sir R. SHAW afterwards
fixed his motion for Wednesday next.
Sir J. NEWPORT gave notice of two motions for Wednes-
day, the Bth of May, for papers relating to Tithes and Taxes
in Ireland.

Mr. W. BURRELL presented a Petition from the Eastorn
part of the County of Sussex, complaining of Agricultural Dis-

to lie on the table.

Sir W. GUISE presented a Petition from the Woollen Ma-
nufacturers of Gloucester, against a /1111 now pending for re-
pealing certain ancient Statutes of the realm, and among others
one imposing a duty on foreign wool.
Mr. RICARDO spc.e In favour of relieving the commerce
of the country from all unnecessary restrictions.
After a tew rernatks front Mr. H. Dovis, Mr. lltate, and Sir
W. Gass, the Petition was ordered to be printed.
It Sir T. MOSTYN presented a Petition from Flintshire, on
the subject of Agricultural Distress.—Ordered to be printed.
A Petition was presented from the High Sheriff and Grand
Jury of the County of Carnarvon, complaining of agricultural
distress, and praying for the repeal of the Salt Duty.—Ordered
to lie on the table.

Lord EDRINCTON presented Petitions from the Hundreds
of Witteridge and Clifton, is the cottuty of Devon, from Ex-
mouth, and from several other places, praying for a reduction
of Taxation and Reform.—Ordered to lie on the table.

Lord BINNING presented a Petition from the Shoe Dealers,
Leather Sellers, and other Inhabitants of Chatham and Roches-
ter, on the subject of Agricultural Distress.--r After a few words
from Mr. BERNAL, Sir U. MAarts, and Mr. 11. GURNEY, the
Petition was withdrawn.

Mr. DAVIS presented a Petition from the Miniatcr, Church-
wardens,abd others in the Pariah of Bedniinster, against any fur-
ther concessions to the Roman Catholi.3.—Laiti on the table.

Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON presented a Petition bons the
Inhabitants and Householders of Cork, against the Window
Tax. Ile freely set forth the injurious effects produced by the
tax in question, and contended that from its operation fever had
raged there and continued to rage, and that no tax could be more
objectionable.—The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Other Petitions on the same subject were pi asented from the
Parishes. of the Holy Trinity and St. Nicholas, and ordered to
lie on the table.

Sir N. COLTHURST said, when this question came before
the House be hoped it would receive that attentive consideration
to which, in humanity and in justice, he thought it was entitled.
Mr. H. G. BEN NETI gave notice, that he should to-mor-
row move for certain papers relative to Mr. Theodore Houk;
and that he should, at the same time, put some questions to the
Right Honourable Gentleman opposite upon the subject of the
affairs with which that Gentleman had been connected.
LEATIIER TAX.

Mr. DENISON presented a Petition from the Leather-dealers
and Tanners in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, praying
for a • repeal of the Leather Tax. The Petition described the
Tax to be the means of taking twice as much from the consumer
of leather as it gave to the Exchequer, and represented it to
press on that description of leather worn by the labouring classes,
so as to make a difference of from two shillings to two shillings
and eight-pence on a single pair of shoes. The consequence
was, that with an increasing populltion, there was a clitninished
consumption. This considered, when the quantity of hides
produced, which at present could not be consumed, wai borne
in mind, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Ho-
nourable Member for Northumberland bringing forward his
motion on this subject next week, would give it his support.
This Tax he considered most injurious and oppressive. It ope-
rated as a poll-tax, which chiefly fell on the poor, but was not
felt by the opulent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUFAI did not op-
pose the bringing up of the Petition. The Tax he did not con-
sider to be injurious or oppresive. lie should, of course, give
the subject his belt attention.
Mr. CA LCRA would wish to know what taxes were in-
jurious and oppressive, if thliwere not ? While on his legs, Ye
wished to ask a question : in two years from next May, country
bank notes for one pound were by law to be withdrawn front
circulation. lie (Mr. Caleraft) had received many letters on
this subject, and now begged to ask the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer if he meant to submit to Parliament any regulation for
the further, or perpetual exclusion, of the circulation of country
one pound notes?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, if on this
occasion he might be allowed to answer a question of so much
importance, had to reply,
that he knew how much the whole
country was interested in the arranement adopted wish respect
to small notes ; and in a very short time, probably hi the course
of next week, hr should have some communication to make to
l'arliamcnt on that subject. •

TAXATION IN IRELAND'.
Mr. ELLIS held in his hand a Petition from the
Householders of the Parish of St. Mary, in Dublin,
praying the lei eal of the Irish Window Tax.- This
Petition deviated somewhatfrom the usual source of
Petitions to contradict statements which had been.

, . .
made by certain persons in power:. • respect to the
' temilsion of taxation which had b ' nted to Ire-
land
since the peace. Referring•to e port f the
Finance Committee in 1815, they *hewed that it had
* we
been proved that Ireland tor several'yeari during-Ai.
war had made a greater adiPance in permanent taxa-
tion than England herself, and assuming this fac;
from the talcolations Contained in the Report on the
table of •the House, the Petitioners contended that'
Ireland was entitled to a remission of taxation in
something like a fair proportion to that enjoyed in
England. From official documents they stated Eng-
land to have remitted,• siege the close of the war, by •
the Property Tat, fonnekr Millions and some hun-
dreds of thousands of pounds; by the-repeal of the
Malt Duty, L-44900.000 ; by the alterations made in.
the Customs, EI,105,000; and by 'the reduction of •
the Assessed Taxes, and other remissions, the total
charge from - which England had been relieved,
since the termination of the war, was no less than
E 10,677,691. But from this amount was to be de-
duced the t met which had since been imposed 1
these altogether amounted to 23,885,885.

Deducting then from -
The taxes impoicd since

- £20,677,891
- 3,885,885

There remained . .E 16,791,806
from whit!) sum, in tares, England had been relieved
since the peace. Ireland had participated in the re;
lief thus afforded to the amount of about three hun-
dred thousand pounds, leaving nearly sixteen millions
remitted to England, in which she did not participate.
Ireland had heel relieved from the Malt Tax, amount-
ing to £106,700. To sheer the spirit in which this
Petition was drawn up, he thought if right to say
there was a sum of £4.7,000, to be borne by Ireland
in the present year, which, as it was not to be a per-'
manent charge, they excluded from their calcu;ations.
Altogether they shewed there was a remission of taxes
in favour of Ireland to the amount of £391,000,. the
taxes laid on at different periods, since the peace,
amounted to £352.852; and thete reduced the net
sum remitted to Ireland to £38,148. He would ask
if this were a fair and a proportionate reduction of
taxation, for one country to be relieved to the amount
of £16,790,000, while but £38,000 had been takeri
from the burdens of another?
Sir J. NEWPORT said, on a question like this, all
that he had.to say was to request the House to look
at the'whole beating of the case before they came to
a decision. Ile wished the allegations of the Peti-
t ioa to be inquileii into, and if they carried conviction
3s to their truth, remission of taxation ought not to
be opposed. He had on former occasions opposed
the Assessed Taxes in Ireland. The want of suf-
ficient ventilationand air had produced a contagious
disorder, and if some relief were not afforded, it wai
but too probable that such a calamity would occur.
4gain. At ;13 events he %visited the subject to be ac;
eurately looked into, that it might be seen whether it
were not due to Ireland to remit the Window Tar.
In his opinion this impost was so injurious that it
ought to be given up ; as relinquishing so much of
revenue as that gave would be paying but a small
price to accomplish a very important object.
Mr. CALCRAFT did not wish to oppose the Pe-
tition, but he thought the subject of it was rather in..
vidinusly put forward. Whether the evil complained
of were English or Irish, but one feeling.would exist
in that House. If a case of hardship were made out
affecting the health and comfort of any considerable
body of subjetts, whether they were English, Scotch;
or Irish, that House would be equally ready to relieve
the sufferers. He, for one, should he disposed to sup-
port, not only the repeal of the Irish Window Tar,
but the repeal-of the whole of the Assessed Taxes in
Ireland, which produced but little more than £300,009,
as he thought it the duty of that House. to make the
residence of the Irish Gentry in their own country as
easy and as comfortable as the circumstances of the
nation :and a due regard-for public credit would per.
mit. Having supported many motions for the repeal
of taxes in this country, he could declare that he
was as anxious for the remission of any oppressive
tax in Ireland, as he could be for that of any impost
which fell on the country in which he resided.
Mr. ELLIS said, that the Petitioners had thought
it incumbent on them to prove wkat had been stated
was erroneous, and to meet the gratuitous assertion
lof Ministers, that Ireland already enjoyed more'
than
a proportionate relief from taxation.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. ELLIS then presented a similar Petition from
the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin, and
other Petitions to the same effect from different Pal
rishes.—Ordered to lie on the table.

PUBLICANS. LICENSES.

Mr. HUSKISSON presented a Petition from cer-
tain persons in the vicinity •or Reading, complaining
of agricultural distress from the brewers' monopoly,.
which they described to have caused a great falling
off in the demand for barley, and a corresponding
deterioration of the quality of beer. They therefore
prayed the house to alter the present system and
make the trade free. This question involved a sub.
ject on which he had spoken on a former night,
which the House would shortly be called upon to
take into consideration. He had no local knowledge
of Reading and its neighbourhood, but from letters
which he had received ; and if the facts stated in them
were t. ue, the brewers monopoly was complete, for in
that populous place not a free house remained. This
was stated to arise from the
.citcumstance that the
Magistrates of the county who granted the publicans •
licences, were the brewers. It such wore the case,
it must appear that those engaged in the trade of
brewing ought not to hold tie situationsof.licensing
Magistrates. While on his legs, he would remind
the House, that he had beer induced on a former
night to express surprise, that in consequence of the
noresiuction in the price
diminished duty on malt,
of beer had been announced, and indeed to remark
on the avowal that no reduction was intended.... '
and the. aottse was given to understand, that. the
This avowal was afterwards qualified and explained,

I

~--~1►"~

. •

'

":!!,••
z

9Prp

EITE;CTS IN AID.

- ~ "`.

brewers had had it in contemplation to lower the price
porter. He was informed, that in all parts of the,'
country a diminution in the price of beer had taken
place. He wished some Honourable Member cow
lotted with the-London Brewery was in his place,
that be might ask if it were intended to keep the
*rite of porter up to what it had been before the"
malt duty was diminished, for if such should be the
determination of die brewers, be, if supported by the
Mouse, would endeavour to redeem the pledge be
Sad given, and if he could not produce a reduction
is the price of porter, he would at least try to pro-
Itct the public revenue, so that the brewers should
not enjoy exclusively that relief which had been in-
lendbl for the whole country. He hoped that he
should hear in a few days from some of them, that
Though tardk adopted,. the resolution was at length
taken to make * seduction in the price of porter in
the metropolis, proportionate to that which had been
effected on malt liquor hi the countrp..
Mr. mow* considered the licemildt system com-
plained of to he injurious to the eerter, to the
grower of corn, and avow tithe biewra themselves.
He had no doubt that the monopoly made-theprice
of the beer higher than it would otherwise. be,
And conseqnentir caused less to be codsumekthan
would be called for if its price were lower. If the•
poor man had 20d. to spend in a week on porter, he
could only purchase four -quarts with that sum. If
its price were reduced be might buy five, and this
would cause a larger demand for the produce of the
farmer, and give a larger revenue to the Government.
—The present licensing system appeared to him to
row our of the misinterpretation of the Act of the
t6th George 11. and that provision which was in-
tended to apply to a particular case has been made
the general rule. Before that Act passed, the license
had been granted to the man, and not to the house,
and he had very serious doubts whether the practice
now complained of did not grow out of that misap-
prehension which he had supposed. What was done
by one brewer was obliged to be followed by others.
The present system he thought injurious to all par-
ties, and conceived there was a very simple remedy
for the evil. Let every brewer retain his own house,
but let every man capable of giving security for the
orderly conducting of a public-house, be enabled to
take out a license and allowed to set up wherever he
pleased, and recailheer as freely as a baker or grocer
retailed the commodities in which they dealt. This
would destroy no vested interest, but would leave
the present amount of houses just as they were. The
/Muse would be astonished to learn that, in the.
County where he resided, the Magistrates, under the
26th of George 11. not only licensed houses, but took
upon themselves to prohibit houses altogether. And
why ? Because they induced drunkenness, and
caused the poor to spend their money in drinking.—
But would any man pretend to say that the evil
could be prevented by such means? If the public-
houses were few, and the beer bad, could they wonder
that the labourer gave up what was heretofore a
wholesome British beverage, for that nasty, meagre,
debilitating herb, tea ?
Mr. GRENFELL rose merely to state that the
evil complained of was not caused by the monopoly
of free houses, as a sufficient number remained free
to prevent such effects being produced by the mono-
poly complained of.
Mr. LOCKHART spoke against the policy of con-
fining the number of public-houses ; where but one
or two were found in a village, these became the scene
of every sort of ribaldry—the focus of all that was
objectionable. By increasing the number of public-
houses, though there might be more difficulty in col-
lecting the Revenue, and some danger of fraud, the
morals of the People would not be deteriorated by
the change, but, in his opinion, a contrary effect
might be calculated upon.
Mr. BENNET had long directed his attention to-
wards the means of supplying a remedy to the evil
now brought under their consideratioa. He was
quite sure that, by putting public-houses under the
watchful controul of the Magistrates—by obtaining
in the first instance proper securities, and in the nest
inflicting proportionate punishments on bad public-
houses, the trade might be opened, so that beer
might be sold like any other commodity.
Mr. HUSKISSON desired, that what had fallen
from him might not deter others from looking mi-
nutely into the subject, who might be more compe-
tent to bring forward an efficient remedy than he
was. Seeing the Honourable Member for Weymouth
was now in his place, he begged to remark to him it
would afford great satisfaction if he were prepared
to state at what period, in consequence of the re-
duced duty on malt, a diminution might be looked
for in the price of porter.
Mr. BUXTON said, it was difficult for him to
state the precise time (for to do so might be injurious
to certain parties) at which a reduction would take
place in the price of porter; but this he would say,
that the time at which it would be effected would be
satisfactory to the Right Hon. Gentleman. With
respect to the system touching licenses, he would
say, that it was desirable, for the large brewers, that
it should be revised; but he must remark, that at
once to throw the trade open would be a confiscation
of property not of property belonging to brewers,
but publicans' property), which would be felt to be
one of the-hardest measures ever adopted.--The Pe-
tition was read, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LYTTLETON presented a Petition from cer-
tain Bankers, Merchants, Manufacturers, and others
of the counties of Worcester, Warwick, and Staf-
ford, to which he was anxious to call the particular
attention of the House. The Petition complained of
the injurious operation of Extents in Aid. The Hon.
Member referred to a Report which had been for-
merly made by a Cornmiuee which sat upon the sub-
jest, to shew the nature of these processes, the par-
ties by whom, and the manner in which they ovally
was sped out. The effects which these proceedings
produced were most lamentable. The consequences
of a common bankruptcy were iu general nothing, as
compared with the consequences of an Extent in
Aid, even if it was for &comparatively small sum.
liad all confidence in trade, and prevented
so visited from proceeding with any future
, because.every one was afraid to give him
credit, or to supply him with the raw ma-
necessary for his pursuits. No one would trust
Ist they could have no confidence, and
be certain bow long their dealings with

J..., v.--
It dmroyed
a person so
,
business, be
1 ' ordinary ere
teriAls necen
bun, becitus
could never