Star.
London, England, 1830-07-13 00:00:00

STAGE COACH BILL.

Lord TENTERDEN rose on the order for the second reading of
the Stage Coach bill. and explained the principle. During many
years common carriers had given notice that they would not be
answerable for parcels beyond a certain value, unless specially in-
sured. The consequenco had been repeated louses of property, and
the owners had no remedy but proceeding by action. One objtct
of the bill was to provide against the inconvenience the public had
thus sustained. and it was enacted that coach proprietors, or com-
mon carriers should not be allowed to limit their responsibility with
respect to articles received for canveyance.
'the bill was then read the second time.

♦DMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IN SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose on the order fur the second
reading of this bill. Ills noble friend. presenting a petition, had
ohjected to the bill on the ground that it was opposed by the teamed
profession in Scotland, but their lordships understood tactics too
well to be prejudiced against the bill. .He believed it would find
the support of their lordships as it met that of the other boon of par.
liament. Ministers, in bringing it forward, had proved their disin-
terestedness. No less than fourteen offices were to be abolished...-
These offices were in the gift of the crown, and at the disposal of
ministers. The circumstances would clearly show that his Majes-
ty's government could have no other object than the benefit of the
public. He was called on to allude to a petition from the Faculty
of Advocates, signed by the Dean. It was presented the other day.
When his noble friend presented it, the date could nut be known.
The petition, which rayed for delay in passing the bill, was pre.
sented by his noble friend in July, but the petition found its way
into the hands of his noble friend in May. The Faculty of Advo.
aces had held a public meeting, at which they approved of every
one of the provisions of the bill. He thought his noble friend, who
had not of late been regular in his attendance in that house, might
not of heard all that had been said in supttort of the bill. There
was only one petition against the bill, and that was from the solici-
tors of the inferior courts. The noble and learned lord having en-
tered into a luminous dem:rip:ion of the objects of the bill, concluded
by observing that it had the double recommendation of promoting
the administration of justice in Scotland, and of saving the public
24,0001. a year.
The Earl of ELDON opposed the bill, and especially de-
precated a union of the Jury Courts of Scotland with the
Courts of Session, as contemplated by the bill before their lord-
ships. The noble and learned lord entreated their lordships
to postpone consideration of the pleasure till next Session, and
clisd.d by sarinly eulogizing the Judges of the Consiatorial
Courts of Scotland, whose offices the bill also contenteated abo-
lishing.
Lord ROSSLYN supported the bill, and contended that all the
members of the legal profession throughout Scotland were especially
in favour of that clause so much condemned by the noble and
learned lord who had just sat down, namely, the junction of the
jury court with the court of session. The faculty of Advocates
at a late meeting unanimously voted in support of that; he
thought, therefore, it was entitled to a fair trial. The noble
earl concluded by opposing any delay to the second reading of
the bill

Lord ELDON explained.
Lord WENFORD addressea their lordships, as on a former oc-
casion, in a sitting posture. From the situation of tne noble and
learned lord, and the luw tone of voice in which be spoke, he was
nearly throughout the whole of his renuirks inaudible. The noble
and learned lord stated that he should wish the bill to be post.
poned until the production of the papers he had that night moved
fur relative to the administration of justice in all the courts of law
in the empire, in pursuance of the reconnumendation in his
31ajesty's address. No correct ground for the passit g of the pre-
sent bill was before the house, anti he *hyoid therefore support
the noble and learned earl (Eldon,) who had suggested the
propriety of more delay. The noble and learned lord con.
eluded by moving that ithe bill be read a second time this day
six months.

EA GROSVENOR said the subject bad long occupied the at-
tentiun of both houses of Parliament, and many reports had beet,
made on it, and on the beat consideration he ass capable of giving
die provisions of the Bill, the inclination of his mind was in favour
of the second reading. The bill must be regarded as in wow mea-
sure experimental, and if not found to protium all the good Otitis
expected from it in its present state, it might in a future Parliament
be improved
Viscount MELVILLE r. petted that the noble and learned lord
(lord Wynford) should wish to delay a bill, the principle of which
had been long considered, and the provisions of which were founded
on the report of a commission, after a laborious investigation of ti.e
important subject committed to their care. He wished the whole
jurisprudence of Scotland to be bßsught before their lordships. us a
substantive measure. He knew that it was felt by the higlitst judi-
cial authorities in Scotland that a great public injury would be in-
flicted if this bill should be longer delayed.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said he had never witnessed a
more crude attempt at legislation than the present bill. It ass said
that the other house of parliament had spent three months in bring.
Mg it tel maturity—he thought they fright have produced as good a
bill in three minutes. The absurdity of some of the provisions of
the bill was so great that he should exceedingly lament to see the
house give it the authority of their support.
The LORD CHANCELLOR debacle(' the bill, in favour of
which, I.e said, all Scollaed were united.
The question being put, was carried without a division.
The bell was then seal a second time, cal ordered to be commit.
ted on Friday.

SALE Or 'Era RILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the third reading of the
Sale of Beer BHT

The Duke of RICH AIOND said he bed on a former occasion
stated the right of the publicans to have the great change that the
present Bill would effect in the value of their property and t le con-
dition of their bueiness made gradually. It was the (hay of the
House to proceed cautiously and gradually, where precipitancy
would produce so great an amount of injury. He had on a former
occasion quoted precedents, to prove that it was the practice of the
House to make important alterations gradually ; and the 11:11 they
had just been discussing was ans.:her instance. as it khowctl how
cautiously ant deliberately the trial by jury bad been is:nano:A
into Scotland. In all the changes made in the currency mace the
peace, time had alwaja been given to enable parties whose interest.
were to be affected to provide fur the consequences. In the repeal
of the bounties, when Parliament decided that the prkciple on
which they had been granted was erroneous, they did nut therefom
at once destroy the interests they had created; tut in use cease
the Fisheries allowed tour or live years; and in the, Leii.ca Trade
ten years fur their gradual reduction. He was ignorant of any rea-
son why publicans should be subjected to the °ppm*• ion of the
present Bill s—oppression he must call it., when they were made
the only exception to the rule. (Hear, herr.) The noble
duke (Duke,. of Wellington) had said on a former oc-
casion, that" the ease of she Irish ltillreni of Cu..
toms and excise, who received compension when their offices were
dispensed with, was not applicable, but be thought it perfectly ap.
plioable ; and the same thing wan practised this very year, with re.
ePere to officers in the Victualling t /See. He now asked the boom,
fee Ged'a sake, not to ruin 20,000 families by suddenly passing
a samiuse la for by any public good. He hoped the house
of hob would sever let it go cash to the_people of England, that
Ihey had ass measure of justice for tax collectors and tax receivsnl.
sad roam fa the people, by vitas the taxa are paid. The noble
deka had at first retoaed granting their expenses to the vitamins
1111•1111011 Ce the Penryn Disfranchisement Bill; but afterwards,
halos learned that they had been allowed to expect that their ex.
paws wed& be paid, he somasoted. The publicans had naturally
rfileeollice wtthtbptoteodse they had so long alloyed
siensay nets nr parliantret. Dealt these grow& he should
' mess the claw he had bef. r. usoved in the committee, to prevent

•

r


_. from being consumed on the premises ; an d
negatived, he would then move a clause to prevent
nto operation till the Inch of October, 1831. He
noble duke whether he had any objection to •
constables keeping -beer-shops under the act ? it
• the bill as perfect as possible, and he thought
security for the keepers of those beer shops
of the parish, and persons of responsibility;
were committed to prison under that act, they
and labour.
7.LLINGTON said he should haven° objection
msons becoming security for the keeper of a
*tepees in the parish paying poor rates. With
respect to preventing constables keeping beer houses; serving the
office of constable was a burthen ; and it should not be increased by
prohibiting the person from exercising his industry in keeping a
beer house under the Act. With respect to keeping persona who
might be sent torison under the Act to hard labour, imprisonment
was only inflicted for non-payment of penalties; and as debtors
were not subject to hard labour, he could not consent to such a
clause. With respect to postponing the operation of the bill for one
year, it should be recollected that this bill was necessary, to give
the public the full advantage of the bill for the repeal of the duty on
bar; and the publicans would have the advantage of having that
duty taken off the article in which they dealt.
' The question that the bill be read a third time was then put, and
agreed to.
The Duke of RICHNIOND moved that a clause be added, to
prevent beer aold under the act being drunk on the premises.
The Earl of BIALMVSBURY said, he did not think agreeing
to the clause would materially affect the bill. The former bill put
the sale of beer on the same footing as the sale of tea, coffee, and
-other articles ; and he thought the supporters of the present bill
should be content without going further. At all events, the delay
of one year should be granted to allow the publicans time to get out
'of the scrape into which this bill had brought them. By giving a
year of grace they would see how the bill would work often the re.
peal of the beer tax, which he thought would be likely to induce
to send to beer shops for their beer. He was glad the noble
personsuk approved of a clause for requiring that persons giving security
for the keepers of beer shops should be residents in the parish and
housekeepers. He thought the bill was one of great importance,
and that it was probable the House would see reason to retrace its
steps.
The question was then put, and the clause negatived.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he did not intend to divide the
House. He only moved the clause that it might appear on the
journals, which It would not from the committee; and moved a
clause to prevent the sale of beer on the premises for one year,which
was also negatived without a division.
•• The Duke of WELLINGTON moved a clause that persons be.
coming sureties for persons selling beer under the Act, should be
housekeepers in the parish, paying poor rates, which was agreed to.
A conversation took place between the Duke of bichmond
'and the Duke of Wellington respecting allowing constables to keep
beer shops.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, persons keeping beer shops
would be liable to have soldiers billetted on them, and therefore, he
'thought, would be publicans.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the act did not
provide sufficiently for keeping good order in the houses in which
beer was allowed to be drunk, and which were to be licensed
by Excise officers instead of Magistrates. The noble duke con-
'chided by giving it as his opinion that imprisonment alone was
no punishment, and moved that ',hard labour" should be added,
as an act of justice to the Licensed Victuallers, who were most
unjustly deprived of long vested rights by the operation of the
present bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed himself as agreeing to
the principle of the amendment ; but in the shape the bill had come
from the Commons House of Parliament, such an amendment to a
clause could not be carried.
The Duke of RICHMOND then withdrew the amendment, and
acknowledged his satisfaction at the readiness the noble duke at the
head of the government had shown to carry into effect measures for
expediting the police of the country. He (the Duke of Richmond)
was convinced that next session the table of their lordships' house
would be covered with petitions against the principle of the bill,
both from the licensed victuallers and the shopkeepers, who might
' avail themselves of it.
After a few words from Lord FALMOUTH,
Lord TEYNHA3I moved, as in accordance with the spirit of the
bill, that persons be allowed to sell beer by retail on cross benches in
the county of Kent.—(A laugh.)
The amendment was negatived.
The original clause was then carried.
The Duke of RICHMOND next moved that the present bill
should only remain in force till Jan. 1, 1832.
This motion was also out and negatived without a division.
The bill wasthen read a third time and passed.
The various bills on their lordships' table were forwarded a stage,
and the house adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

. ,
[%leer sold under the act.
if that should be negati
the bill coming into of
wished to ask the noble
itlause to prevent consul
was his wish to mike t
that persons becoming I
should be housekeepers
that if persons wen
Mould be kept to hard
The Duke of 'iVELI
to a clause requiring pe
beer shop to be houseke
respect to preventing co