Star.
London, England, 1810-05-23 00:00:00

IRIELI In:MEMEL

Mr. FOSTER moved that the Strong Beer Bounty
Bill be committed. Thb House having gone into
the Committee, on the questions that the blanks be
filled up,
Mr. HUTCHINSON called upon the Right Hon.
Gentleman to explain what the difference was, if any,
between the bill now pending and the measure prof-
fered by the Right Hon. Gentleman to the Irish
Brewers, and rejected by them as inefficient, it not
injurious to their interests. He was anxious to know
if the Bill essentially differed from that measure, as if
it did not, it • was returning upon the Irish Brewers in
another form what they had already rejected ; it was
necessary therefore to have a precise explanation upon
this point.
' Mr. FOSTER could not see the necessity of trou-
bling the Committee at that stage of the Bill with the
detail of whatever negotiations passed between him
and the Irish Brewers on former questions.
Mr. HUTCHINSON could not help thinking the
conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman most extraor-
dinary. He had deferred pressing for that explana-
tion which he now called for, from a mutual under-
standing that that explanation would be given in the
Committee. The Right Hon. Gentleman bad read
the Bill a first time without giving it explanation. He
had read it a second time without doing so, and now
he was going to fill up the blanks without thinking
proper to give any answer upon a subject involving
such a portion of the trading interests of Ireland.—
What was the professed object of the Bill proposed ?
To remedy an evil of which that Right Hon. Gentle.
man was the cause. He lowered the price of spirits,
and then to compensate the brewers for the injury•
done to their trade, the Right Hon. Gentleman came
forward with his present Bill. Was it then, he would
ask, unreasonable in him, as representing the great
city that had deputed him to attend to her interests,
to know how far the remedy now proposed was simi-
lar to that which the Right Hon. Gentleman had al-
ready proposed, and which had been almost, unani-
mously rejected by the Irish Brewers ? If, however,
the explanation which he thought he had a right to
demand, would be refused him, he supposed that the
Right Hon. Gentleman could have no objection, af-
ter filling up the blanks and printing the Bill, to stay
any further proceedings in the subsequent stages until
it had been transmitted to Ireland, and that the per-
sons concerned had sufficient opportunity to ascertain
how far it was likely to remedy the injury their trade
had experienced. He was aware that it might be ob-
jected, that the brewers of Dublin had, by a deputa-
tion from their body, given their assent to the Bill.
He admitted, in its full extent, the weight and res-
pectability of that deputation, but he contended that
they did not receive the proposed measure as an ode
Time compensation; but rather as a recognition of the
Pjustice of their claims to compensation—not so much
a relief as a proof that they had a claim to relief.—
He called upon the Right Hon. Gentleman therefore
to abstain from that indecent hurry which too often
characterised the passage of Irish Bills through that
House. Was this the way to lessen the prevailing dis-
contents against the measure of Union by myste-
riously smuggling through the House every question
affecting the affairs of Ireland ? Or was it not in-
sulting to the interests which he had the honour to re-
present, sullenly to refuse answer or explanation upon
a subject so intimately connected with them. He re-
peated his conviction, that the consent which had been
given oil the part of the Irish brewers to this measure
rested saidy upon this gr ound—the recognition of the
evil on the part of those who had created that evil,
and not the acknowledgment of an adequate remedy
on the part of those who had suffered. He was fur-
ther convinced, that the Bill would fail of its object
—and that if it was sent over for the mature consi-
deration of the brewers, they would not approve of
it—still, however, he would not oppose it, if the
due means were taken to make it known and under-
stood by those who were most concerned in its pro-
visions; but wait till he was instructed by them how
to act. _ _

Mr. FOSTER replied, that from the rerpcct he
felt personally for the Hon. Gentleman, he should be
glad to make him every communication that might
appear to him satisfactory ; but, in the present in-
stance, it was wholly unnecessary to state more than
this, that the Bill now pending had received the ap-
probation of the Irish brewers through the organ of
their deputation, who (as he understood) was also
empowered to act for the brewers of Cork.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT concurred in the propriety
of the observations made by his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Hutchinson), and thought that this Bill would not
have been listened to by the Irish Brewers, but as a
recognition of their claim for remedy.
• Mr. HUTCHINSON, in order to set the Right
Hon. Gentleman right as to the Cork brewers, read
letters from persons of that city whom he described as
some of the most eminent in the trade. The contents
of those letters were against the Bill, and said that it
was an insult to the Brewers to describe it as a boon.
What, however, he now more particularly opposed
was, rather the manner in which the Bill was attempt-
ed to be hurried through it stages, than the Bill itself.
Mr. ROBERT SHAW (of Dublin) stated that the
Bill had generally met with the approbation of the
Brewers in Dublin, and that his judgment of its
merits would be regulated by the opinion they enter-
tained of its efficiency. The Bill then passed through
the Committee, and the Report was ordered to be re.
I ceived to-morrow.