The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PIRLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAT.
Mr. Brogden brought up from the House of Commons, the
Silk Manufacturers Bill, and the Irish Offices Compensation
Bill.

MARRIAGE BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented to the House the
amendment which he had given notice of his intention to
propose respecting the property acquired in consequence of
improper marriages. It went to provide, that in case
either of the parties entering into a fraudulent marriage
was under the age of 21 years, it would be competent for
the Attorney or Solicitor-General to file an information in
the Court of Chancery against such party, and in such ease
the Court should have the power of restraining the party
from possessing- the property that might otherwise be ob-
tained In consequence of such marriage, and apply the same
to the issue of the marriage, or in any other way most ad-
vantageous to the original owner of the property. His
Lordship proposed that the clause be printed, and taken iota
consideration on Monday next. He thought it would be
proper to enact, that the Information should be filed within
three yetis after the marriage.
After a few ob lions from the Earl of WESTMORE-
LAND, the clause was received.
I The Marquess of LANSDOWN gave notice, that early hi
the nest Session of Parliament, he should lay before the
House a Bill for authorizing the marriages of Dissenters In
their own chapels. It would be similar to, but drawn oat
in a more perfect form than that which he had offered to the
House last eight, and which was negatived only by a small
majority.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
The Prison Laws' Coosolidation Bill was eowiratted,
when some amendments were proposed by Lord SID-
11101JTH. His Lordship observed that a clause had been
introduced into the 8111, in the other Horse, to enable
gaolers to inflict corporal punishment oa prisoners; that
clause bad been expunged ; and he now wished It to be
restored. He never met with a Magistrate who was not
clearly of opinion that the infliction of corporal punish-
men on refractory prisoners was absolutely necessary.
There were hardened offenders who could not be kept in
subjection except by corporal punishments. Many per-
sons sentenced to hard labour had peremptorily refused to
submit to that labour; and it was necessary to inflict pu-
nishment on them when they conducted themselves in such
a manner. None, however,but persons sentenced to hard-
labour, and convicted felons, should be subject to corporal
punishments. He then proposed,a clause to that effect.
Lord DACRE said he should object to the clause, so far
as related to convicted felons. He asked if it was fit that a
man should, at the will of a single Magistrate, be subjected
to punishment without a trial by Jury, and contrary to the
law of the land, and after a previous sentence had been
passed on him ?
Lord SIDMOUTIT replied, that by the Acts already ex-
isting, persons confined for misdemeanour were liable to
corporal punishment ; but what he proposed was, to render
convicted persons liable to the punishments. As to con-
victed felons, there were no persons more refractory than
they were ; and it was necessary to exercise a severe con-
trout over them. Ile proposed that no corporal punish-
ments should be inflicted for minor offences.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN said that personal cor-
rection was the last species of punishment which should bel
resorted to. What was now proposed would certainly be
an addition to tte punishment of convicted felons. The,
ground on which the clause could be supported was the
necessity of obliging prisoners to undergo the discipline
of the prisoners ; but he did not think that this principle'
should apply to convicted felons; and that it should only
apply to persons sentenced to hard labour. The power of
punishment might be proper with regard to boys, but should
not apply to grown persons.
Earl SPENCER supported the amended clause.
The Earl of ROSSI.YN did not think that personal cor-
rection should be applied to any persons except those sen-
tenced to hard labour, and that only in cases of their re-
fusing to labour.
The Earl of HARRGIVBY supported the clause, which
was agreed to without a division.
The Bill was then ordered to be reported onTvesday next.
A person from the Court of Great Sessions, in Wales,
presented certain papers.
The Irish Joint Tenantry Bill was read a third time and

passed.
At Seven o'clock the House adjourned to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMHONS.-FRIDAT.

Mr. NOLAN postponed the Committee on the Poor Laws
to Friday next.
Mr. CHICHESTER presented a petition from the cotton
spinners of Belfast against the Coal Duties.
The Report of the Ciss Light Bill was referred to a Select
Committee upon th• motion of Mr. DAWSON.
Mr. M. A. TAY LOR presented a petition from the wool-
len weavers of the West Riding of :Yorkshire, against a Bill
before the House respecting the importation of foreign yarn.
—Laid on the table.
Gen. HART presented a petition from the kelp manufac-
turers of the county of Donegal. praying a prohibition on
the Importation of foreign kelp.—Laid on the table.
Mr. MANNING brought in a Bid fer allowing further
time for completing the London Docks.—Read a first time,
and second reading ordered.
Mr. T. WILSON presented a petition from the soap-
makers of London relating to the Barilla Duties.—Laid on
the table.
Mr. JOHN SMITH brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the law of merchants.—Ordered to be taken into
covideratlon on Wednesday next.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER. it was ordered that the House, at its rising, do ad-
journ to ilond•y.
BARILLA DUTIES.
The CHANCELLOR et the EXCHEQUER moved the
(Order of the Day for the House.going into a Committee on
idle Bariila Duties.

Mr. BEREA!, objected to any, alteration in the duties on
*this drficle, to consequence of the injury which it would
work towards the soap manufacturers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would postpone his answer to the objections of the Hon.
-Mabee midi the Home went into a Committee.
The House then went into a Committee on the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
-eV contend that the duties should be raised upon bartlla
merely to encourage the manufacture of kelp. The kelp
manufacturers bad been already oppressed by a reduction
Of the tax on salt. He had reason to know. that unless
Mame relief was given to the kelp manufacturers of Soot-
lead, they would he reduced to the geeatest distress. Their
*nation was unlike that of ordinery labourers, who could
',move from one place to another to seek for employmeeti
It was not upon principle that he proposed this, bet in t►e
Nene compassion to those people who, injured by the re.
deetion of the duty on salt, which was so great a benefit td
the public at large. He concluded by moving that the duty
ibould be raised from five guineas to eight. to be in opera-
tion for five years, beginning at January 1824.
. Mr. DENISON adverted to the injustice which would
be done to merchants who had made consignments under
the old duties. He wished that Mae should be eyes those
merchants.
Mr. CAMPBELL °blinded to the uncertainty of the law
as to the duties upon Bertha. and complained that ming
persons would be injured, unless an importation duty was
passed.
Mr. CALCRAFT said the House, when it took off the
duty upon salt, had a clause in the Act which imposed a
higher duty upon Barilla. Ile was doubtful whether it would
be to the advantage of the kelp growers, but unless the
measure was passed, it might seem to betray an Indifferesesi
to their wants.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS objected to the imposition of the de.-1
ties altogether, especially the hurry in which the measure
was likely to pass through the House.
Lord A. HAMILTON thought the measure should not be
postponed, and.supported the motion.
Mr. RICARDO said, from some papers which he had
seen upon the subject of kelp, it was represented, in thel
event of a war, there was a probability of being no alkali
in the country. Another argument used was. that duties
upon alkali made from kelp. used in manufacturing soap, is
Liverpool alone, amounted to nearly half a million of tect-1
ney. It had been urged that the duty should only be 10-1
posed for five years, in order to give the subject a trial. la
his opinion it was better to have it made perpetual at oncost'
for at the expiration of five years there would be the same
objections urged as now.
Mr. T. WILSON opposed the tax.
Mr. J. P. GRANT thought the kelp munufactarers
served protection, end therefore he should support the mea-
sure proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord BINNING said, counting the inlets of the sea roved
the Islands where kelp was cultivated, there was not an ex•
tent less than 700 miles of coast, inhabited by persons welt
deeply interested in the measure. There were many thou-
sands of his countrymen whose existence depended upon
the cultivation of kelp, and unless their trade was protected.
they would suffer great privations. An encouragement bad
been given to them during the war, and their attentions bad
particularly been drawn to cultivate that commetEity, aed
they now deserved encouragement. Ile was aware that ge-
neral reasoning and general arguments were against him as
a subject of political economy, but the House would not
suffer themselves to be acted upon by a dry question of
political economy, when the property of so many High-
land Gentlemen was at stake, and the comfort and well-
being of so many industrious and useful people were likely
to be sacrificed.
Mr. MARRYATT _said he had upthieg personally to do
with either kelp, hernia, or soap, but he thought that those
merchants who had sent out ships to the Mediterranean for
barilia. ought to have their property protected. They sent
out vessels on the strength of an Act of Parliament passed
last year, and nothing could be more clear that if an addi-
tional duty on barilla were imposed, it would injure their
property and be taking them by surprise. If the House one
year passed an Act and repealed it the next, it placed pro-
perty in a very hazardous situation. It was unfair not to
give due notice that an alteration in the Act wa■ contem-
plated, in order to place the merchant in a situation where
he might know how to act.
Mr. HUME agreed with the last Hon. Member respecting
the necessity of not repealing Acts as soon as they were
made, end recommended the Right Honourable the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to take the matter in a Committee
up stairs, in order to ascertain the true nature of all the facts
connected with the subject.
Lord FRANCIS GOWER and Oen. HART spoke in fa-
vour of the tax.
Mr. H. G. BENNET said, if no on, took the sense of '
the liouseupon the motion, he would. Ile considered the
property of the kelp growers to have been considerably im-
proved, and thought they ought uot to be protected at the
expense of many other equally deserving individuals.
Mr. M`DONNELL spoke a few words in favour of the
motion.

The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when the
numbers were—For the motion, 100—Against it, 20—Ma-
jority, M.
Mr. DENMAN said that he held in his hand a petition
from the Hon. Basil Cochrane, complaining of the conduct
of the Victualling Board and other offices, bat as it would
occupy some time if he were to go into its details now, he
would not trespass on the House farther than to give notice
that he would present it on Tuesday next.
On the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moving
the Order of the Dry for bringing up the Report on the
Beer Duty Bill, some discussion took place relative to the
proceeditess of the House ; after which
Mr. C. HUTCH INSON took occasion to complain of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for having
brought on the Commercial Credit (Ireland) Bill at half-past
two o'clock, when scarcely sn Irish Member was present,
end after he had apprized the Right lion. Gentleman of his
intention to oppose it. This Bill limited the relief to the
poor of Ireland to 100,00.1. instead of 250,0001. which
should have been placed at the disposal of the Irish Govern-
ment for the relief of the indigent in that country. Con-
eelving this to be a measure of great importance to Ireland,
he gave notice, that on some future day, he would move for
the extension of this vim to 230,0001.
Sir J. NEWPOR'F said it was a matter of regret that so
grave and seriour a charge should be for two years left
hanging over the Learned Judge. This could not have
happened if the Session had commenced at an earlier period.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said a few words, in tee course
of which he expressed himself in favour of delay, on the
grounds stated by his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Scariett) and the Right Honourable Cleutlemau (Mr. Secre-
tary Canning.)
Mr. HUNIE described the circumstances in which the
case came to the present stage, and gave it as his opinion
that it wasu terly impossible for the Honourable Member
for Limerick, unless he was compelled by the House, to
stop its progress. lle was sorry that any Judge should
have fallen under such suspicions, but still sorrier that a
Judge, with such serious charges against him, should con-
tinue to preside on the bench of justice. The House should
either acquit him at Once, or proceed to the examination of
the charges against him. It was not with the Honourable
Member for Limerick, but with the House, it rested, to pro-
-died in the investigation.
Mr. SCARLET r repeated part of his termer observa-
tions, and added, that in oar own Conrts of Westrois-
I ster Hall, fees were allowed to be taken, for which he
could not find any law or authority, but that the Judged
had permitted the practice. Lly An of Parliament only
4d. was allowed the officer for executing a writ of capies;
and yet a guinea was always allowed. He did not mean
to give any opinion then on this question, but he mild
not avoid again repeating, the difficulties which Hun.
Members would bave, in order to come to a clear and
conscientious vote on it.

Captain O'GRADY said that he bad abstained from
expressing anisipinion himself, nor did he address the
Howie with a view to induce them to'vote one way or
the other. He admitted that in a communication wit!.
his Hononrable and Learned Friend, he said he would
he the last individual to stand in the way of the motion.
He felt himself entirely in the bands of the House, sett
it was for them,to do as they pleased.
Mr. IVETHEE.ELL observes' that the evidence taken
before the Commissioners was not sufficient to found on
it the proceedings which a charge of thatsor; reqnired.
It would he departing from the principles of Parliament
to ground on such evidence criminatory resolutiont„
which should be folio.: ed up perhaps by the removal of
the individual charged. That was one of the reasons by
which he was induced to hope that the further proceed-
ing would be postponed.
Mr. PEEL said as the result of the present conver-
sations would probably be the p-etponing of the goes.
don, he thought it would be prudent to avoid any dis-
cussion on it. All th.tt lie would wish to say at present
was, that as the inquiry was to he postponed, the indi-
vidual, being ready to meet it. was entitled to that pre-
sumption, which the laws of England gave to every sub-
ject till convicted—the presumption of irnacence.
After a few words from Mr. FORBES,
Colonel BARRY said, that a question affecting the'
administration of justice. like the present, ought to he
investigated speedily and carefully. If it te e post-
poned now, a pledge ought to be given that it would he
brought under the consideratida of the House early is
the next Session, as nothing could be so detrimental to
public justice as to have such charges made; and n)t
• refuted or confirmed.

Mr. S. RICE said, tl r in deference to what seem •d
the una: im we opinion of the House, he abandoned the
motion. He would not pledge himself to undertake Cie
bringing of it forward next Session. He was then pre-
pared to de so, and he hoped the House would think
that he had done his duty. Let those whose duty it was
to preserve pure and unsullied the administration of jos-
tier, bring it forward if they pleased.
Mr. HUME protested against the opinion that be for
one would asseut to the postponing of the motion.
Mr. Secretary CANNING wished to repeat, that, for
his own part, he was ready to go on and come to a
decision on the question that night, but he would not
put himself in the situation in which he, a Minister of
the Crown, ought tof ta he—of a public prosecutor.
Mr. S. RICi said, as the Right Hun. Gentleman was
ready. he would proceed with the motion.
Mr. R. MARTIN said, the Hon. Member for Idme-
rick was acquitted in the opinion of all, and had done
what he ought to do, either to proceed or postpone the
business, as the House desired. The Hon. Member for
Aberdeen ooly refused his assent to the latter, and it was
not unusual with that Hon. Member to differ from the
House. Taking into consideration the suggestions of
the Hoo. and Learned Member (Mr. Scarlett), be hoped
the question would be postponed. Notwithstanding the
dissent of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, the Honour-
able Gentleman (Mr. Rice) might fairly take it for
granted, that be had the sense of the House with hilt,
in favour of postponing his motion.
Mr. CALCRAFT said be could not agree with the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) that this was a
question which the Government ought not to take on
themselves. For his own part he was not prepared to
come to a decision on it, and he did not mean to give
any vote at all on it.
LUSHINGTON said, that the conduct of the
Chief Baron stood already arraigned by the Report of
the Commissioners, and by the concurring opinions of
two Committees of that House. It was impo a ble that
no suspicion of malversation should attach to him. He
did not, therefore, agree with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Peel) that he could be presumed innocent, or
that he could spend the interval till next Session with-
out uneasiness. He could not consent to postpone the
motion. What reason had he to hope that Hon. !Gem-
hers would make themselves better acquainted with the
subject before next :Union ? He contended, in op-
position to the opinion of his Hon. Friends, from whom
he seldom differed, that it was not the duty of Govern-
ment to take up that question. For so much confidence
would attach to them, that the question could not be
fairly examined. He was of opinion that they ought to
proceed thin.
Mr. Secretary PEEL, in explanation said, that the
Chief Baron having &dared himself ready to meet the
charges, he ought, if the question was postponed, be
deemed innocent m such a way as to be competent to go
on circuit in the mean time..
Mr. DENMAN thought it due to.tbe Hon M oober
for Aberdeen, who was not then in his place, to say,
that he was not the only person who was of opinion,
that the question ought not to be postponed. The ad-
ministration ofjustice would not be free from suspicion,
while a person, under such charges, were allowed to
preside on the Bench. It was easy to sae that one is in-
nocent till declared guilty, but could Parliament coin-
mind the people to be of that opinion, and to throw
away their own impressions. It was impossible. to say
that the Chief Baron, while labouring under those
charges, could try persons in the circuit with the sane
confidence in his justice as if oo charge existed against
him. He contended that Government ought to take up
the question. It was their duty to water' over the ad-
ministration of justice. Ministers insulted the House
when they presumed to tell them that the House, or any
iadivjdual Alember, would vote with them, w!th de-
ciding for himself. He defended the House from tact, 4
eharoe, and he did not believe that any 31ini.00r, as sit ,
individua', could rise up clothed with more authority
than any oilier Member. It was the duty of Govern-
ment to protect from the charge of corruption the seat
of justice. If they abstained from taking any active
put in the question, why not also abstain from voting
on it ?—(Hear, bear.) He would suggest to'his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Rice) not to postpone the rnatioa, but to
proceed with it—not that night, hut in a few days,
giving time to all lion. Members to make themselves ars-
optainted with the charges, and to come prepared with
their minds made up on them.
Mr CANNING contended that the Ministers were
not called on to institute a prosecution against a Judge.
He was determined that he would not be entrapped in
doing so, and he would follow the example of Sir. Fox.
who, though the Ma sager of the prosecution against
Lord Melville, refused to interfere with it the moment
be came into office. He would also follow the exempla
of Lord Grenville in the case of Warren Hastings.
Mr. DENMAN and Mr. CANNING mutually el-
plaineJ.
Mr. WILBERFORCE spoke in favour of the post-
ponement.
Mr. S. RICE regretted the discussion, as it should
have been confined to the mere question of going on or
not. He suggested, as the best course, to put the tines.
Lion of going on or not, at present, and if any one
person objected to that coarse, the option of postpone-
ment might be submitted to the ,House. He wished
it, in any.rase, to be undtrstood that.he walt ready, and
w.l'ing to go 00.

•,•••••••

V

4

~_:
~. ; ..

~~

111 r, SCA RLETT explained, and moved that the House
pan to the other Ordure of the Day.
The question being put, the Order of the Day was
read, anti, on the motion of
THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF LANARK:
Lord BINNING said, that as be had a statement' to
make on behalf of an individual who connived his con-
duct to have been misrepresented in that House, be hop-
ed the House in its caotiour and intrirtiality, would show
Limits Ando** acaosiatie he emb....voutul hrythst Jetts '
tsefore it. It would,he in the reeol lectien of the House
that the Noble Lord.(Hemilton), the Member for. the
Comity of Lanarh, in his speech, a few, Malts ago,
aoltnadrerted on the conduct *Eche Sheriff of that Comity.
. Me. cANNINU here innorupted the N0b1e:4,14,0d
said be objected tb the statement in which he was about
to proceed. He thought in fairness, tint Noble Lord
ah.'uhl first give notice to the Hon. Member 'for Labark,
of.tbr stitement he intended to make, that he might be
the hotter able to reply to if.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he quite joined In, opinion with
the Right Hon. tient., and for this additional reason,
not ably that his Honourable Friend the Member for the
county of Lanark, might be made acquainted with the
statement to which helves to give an answer, but because
if the Noble Lord proceeded now be would feel it his
duty to contradict other statements which had been made
on that occasion, bat which he would pass over, should
the Noble Lord decline persisting. He hoped be would
corsent to postpone it to Tries lay, and, perhaps, in the
intermediate time, be wotil.l think it the mast prudent
(louse to leave the matter o here it was. If so, he pledg-
ed himself to let his complaint pass by unnoticed.
Lord BINNING consented to postpone it to Tues-
day if that day should suit the Noble Lord's conveni-
once.
Lord A. HAMILTON said a few words which Its could
rot heat. •
The SPEAKER said that -rdich discussions. though
fr. morn(, were.not regular wit lion t notice of motion, and
on fuesday it womb! not be more regularthanit was then.
Without .a motion such a discussion could not be receiv-
ed unless by the courtesy of the House.
BEER DUTIES BILL.
On the Order ortbe Day. being moved tot bringing.tlp
time Report on.the Beer Duty Bill,
Mr. DENISON said that lie rose on behalf of a rood-
derable hotly of his eoutititurnts to object to t
ens calculated to ruin those who had embarked large ca-
pitals in the brewing trade. It was said that this. Bill
was introduced to prevent frauds on the Revenue, but
the brewers would consent to any penalty, however se-
vere, being imposed, rather than this Bill should pass,
-which would completely ruin then,. They Would. pre-
fer the penalty of transportation or confiscation of- pro-
perty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed the
b-er to be mode in the present brrwhooses, and did not
cooly." the brewers to build new Inedlionsts, not less
than 200 yards distant. from the old one', lie was instrnct-
ed nor to oppose the .Bill. if this clause was not oith-
eltaan, he hoped that at all events the Right Hon. Gen-
t! man would postpone it for a 'ear, and agree'to the ap-
poi vteueot ot.a Limmiittee next Session. As he inferred
from the silence of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
be,sgici,not assent to his proposition, lie would move as
.
art•wot dreent, that the Report be received that day three I
mottbs:
Mt. ItIABEIRLY said that this was a most unjust
aoil unfair Blli. Enough bad been already said to cow
voice the House thatsbeaubject requited investigation.
HOwever, if the Right Hon. Gentleman persevered, he
would feel it his. bounden duty next year to move for the
repeal of the duties on beer, which were in his opinion
partial and unequal, as ,falling heavier upon the lower
than the higher orders.
Mr. MONICK opposed the Bill on the part of the brew-
era and the publicans.: The bill was calculated to confer
little Went on any class. The intermediate quality pro-
posed by theetiatwollor will be very little better than
,hit permitted to be. brewed at present. If he would en-.
lyidittw fob( barrel* of beer instead of five to the quar-
tet; it devoid be acceptable to the poor, and would enable
tl lateirere to wake beer of the quality which would do
Bier credit.,
'The AIiANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the restriction objected to by the Hon. Member for Sur-
rer, ties in his opinion absolotely necessary to render.
the MR eglitual: If this restriction were nut i mpo-ed,
the brewers hy-mixipgo the higher and loner quality
would then sell the mixture as the higher, and only pay
the dettratibe lower: Tints would the people and the.
Revenue le defrauded which would entirely defeat tits
abject of 0104 Residee the greater number who
brewed this beer, the belies it was. likely to be t. but if
the brewers acre pei mined Kt make it, it would be only
confirming the wonopoly whtelt they now possessed, to
the injury of mins. abets.. If he wrre to accede,to , the
• tour barrels Instead of five to the quarter, it would mate-
rially i dim the brewersof porterood prevent, them from
any fair competition with the new brewer. He. there-
fore hoped thelkuse would pass this Rill.
Mr. BERNAL said that in his opinion, the mixing of
these beers might be prevented, if some more effectual
measure than the existing law were adopted. At present
it aas required that there should he only a thin parti-
tion .between the place where both beers were made,.,
which rendered it a matter of no difficulty to mix them
He was satisfied that the public would have a better bi
refuge if the present brewers were allowed to manufac:
tore it. The clause amounting to a restriction was most,
oppressive and ought to be withdrawn.
Mr. C. SMITH tnoueit it better that the Bill should
be,postponed for another year, that some measure more
congenial to the- interests of the brewers might be de-
vised. He contended that this measure sould:not benefit
the public.
Mr. RICARDO said -that he sgriii sti lei the Hon.
!dumber for Rochester, that this Bill would be inopera-
tive, The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought' to make
the preamble of the Bill, one for confiscating of the pin-
petty of the bressers, for it amounted to nothing less in
effect. The Right Hon. Gentleman was right in taking
caee of the Revenue; but as to the public, let these be
left to -themselves, for if they get a bad liquor, they
will'be s •:e to go where they will Lind it better. He
thought it right that it should he tried for the rake of
ex erience for one year. He could not believe that the.
House would now sanction it as a permanent measure.
Mr. WODEHOUSE expressed his concurrence with
ell those who opposed the Bill, as to its inefficiency'. If this
inewsure was only. experimental, there was no occasion to
Witch sack heavy penalties to its violation. It would
be so injurious to the interests of a number placed in par-
trots& circomstauces, the ts he could not with propriety
vole• for it.
Mr. MARRYATT said that all the humavenience of
the present system would be removed by doing !way,
• itti the distinction between the private and the.public
brewer. He did not understand Irby a distinction of
•t@o yards was selected beyond any other. He thought
it, 'lonia be referred fur consideration to a Committee.
Mr. HERR! KS said that the Him. Gentleman stomod
to forget that this bill had been already a longtime
hetet* the House, when he recommended it to the consi;
&ration of a Committee. Ilaviog beew to long before.,
the House, and undergone so many emendations, he did
rotthink much additional information coati be derived
from a Committee. He contended that the_ principle of
the.Bila was entirely in favour alb, consumer. He for
o e would oppose the Bill if the. restriction. clause ivos
left out..
The Merquese 11 TWIFIRLD said there Was die*.
crepancy between the arguments of the Itlght. Hon. Ben-
Masao, the Chancellor etas Exchequer, and the Him
liciatlenian.; who had last sat down, upon the subject in
gantlets. U. thossibethot so isessure ought to be sane-
r .