Star.
London, England, 1831-07-01 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL LAIIOCrIIIII.

The Karl of WINCH I LSEA postponed the second read-
ing of bis bill for employment of agricultural labourers,
whieb stood for this day, to 'Monday.

acroam.
The Marquis of T.ONDONDERRY presented petitions
from Sunderland, Newcastle, and another place in the county
of Durham, against the Reform Bill. The noble marquis
took the opportunity of making observations on the speeches
delivered at election diallers in the county of Durham. He
bad no difficulty In standing op la lila place to ,declare that
the doctrines held out at those dincers were so fir frpm being
the sentiment, of the county, that if thc honourable baronet
and the honourable member who stood for the cnun:y had
made their speeches before the election, his opinion was, that
they would nut have enjoyed the honourable situation in
which they then atood. If there was any noble lord who
would stand up and defend those doctrines, he should be
willing to hear him, but he thought thc UAW could not
be defended. The arguments were levelled ut the church,
and spinet the aristocracy, and could not fail of doing mis.
chief. He should not enter into thc speeches, unless any
noble lord at the head of the county was prepared to sup,
port them. His hope was that such declarations were not
to be the passport to that house, and that they did not pro-
dam a new batch of peers. It was remarkable that attacks
inst the church should have been made whenthey had a
rig it reverend prelate who for piety could not be extellud.
The universal feeling in the county had been regret that
these speeches had been made. The noble marquis did not

Mr. K. DOUGLAS trusted that the Scotch Reform Bill
would be forthwith introduced, that it might be as fully dis.
caned as possible.
Petition ordered to be printed.
..
VESTRIES.
- ---- _- _ _

Mr. PROTHEROB i;isniTriether the hon. member
for Westminster intended to renew his bill respecting
Vestries ?

HOBHOUSE replied that hiq bill had been so al-
tered by the several Committees while at nurse amongst
them, that he certainly had no intention of renewirg that
bill ; if he introduced a bill it would be very different from
that prepared by the Committee; but he saw, at present,
no chance of successfully bringing forward that bill this
Session. If there were the chance, lie would avail himself
of It. He then presented several petitions from klar.chester,
York, Dundee, &c. fin the reduction of the hours of labour
for children in manufactories.

Mr. SWART throsented a petition from the millers of
Liverpool, against the intpurration of American flour.
Mr. LRFHOY prescnted petitions from the Fellows, &c.
of Trinity College, Dublin, against Parliamentary Rdurm ;
also, on the subject of the t;ual trade in Dublin.

TEE BEER
SADI.I;R rose to present a petition, very nume-
rously and respectably signed, from Legh, in the county of
Salop, complaining of the operation of the new beer hill.—
lie considered it entitled to great consideration, for the
impression In the country waa, that the alteration made re-
gatdinphe lido of beer had been most pernicious to tie
ma* of the people. the opinion of the magistrates was.
that the coannings foe °duces had more than doubled from
the day on which the alteration bad been made. It had

An hon. Ai EMBE R (whose name we could not learn)
considered the bill had effected these benefita--it had en.
abled the poor to obtain en article at a cheaper price than
before, and also raised the price of barley, thereby doing a
service to the agricultural inlets-At
Sir C. BUIIRELL thought that the Bill had done in.
calculable damage to the country. One great object in pas.
sing the Bill was an increase of revenue, but all increase of
revenue that tended to the demoralization of the public
must be an abomination in the sight of any Government.—
The beer-shops had oceaxioned great mischief, as men had
remained in them during the whole night, whereas public.
house's wcre obliged to shut at eertaio hours. He thought
the benefit would have been in the rtliNd of the malt tax.—
( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PORT3IAN regarded it as inexpedient to attempt
to amend the bill, after only one year's trial. It ought, at
any rate, to have another year's trial. He was, believer,
firmly persuaded there was but one remedy for all the evils
that had now been alluded to, complained of by the poor on
the one hold, and the Clergy on the other—that remedy was
the repeal of the malt tax. He hoped that in the course of
next year his Majesty's present government would introduce
a measure for the purpose of repealing that obnoxious tax.
Jr. HUNT gave the Hon. Member (Mr. Sadler) credit
for his good intentions. He would ask him, however, how,
could the poor of the metropolis, with their scanty means,
furnish the necessary implements for brewing their own
beer? The good intentinus of the Hon. Member were like
some of his other Utopian notions ; and if his plans were
carried into execuden, instead of benefiting the poor, they
would be driven bark to the gin-shop, to drink intoxicating
blue.ruin, instead of good wholesome beer.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL said, he was sorry to pro.
long the discussion, but as truth was the only object in that
house, ho would state a fact of which he bad been assured by
his own steward, that persona of his acquaintance hed
brewed excellent beer from an old tea-kettle.—(A laugh.)
On the motion thit the petition be printed,
A MEIIBER said, that the capital embarked in thee.
houses ought to be respeetat—let the plan be tried a Buie
longer. (Hear.)
Mr. SADLER remarked, that as to the telling capital
embarked in these houses, it was not a consideration in this
argument ; the capital embarked by the publicans, large as
that really was, had not been respected in the passing of that
Bill. (Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. JAMES considered that the Beer Bill had been
most useful.

Petition ordered to be printed.
REiroax—SCOTLAWD.
TM LORD ADVOCATE gave notice, that to.monow
he would more for leave to bring in a bill to amend tire re.
presentation of the pcopk of Scotland.