House Of Commons, Friday,...
The Times, 1824-05-29T00:00:00

The SPEAXER took the Chai at three o'clock, and shortly afte roceededto the House of Lords, where the Royal assent -was' give )v columission to vatioLs public and private bills for which s ,ords. THE LATE MR. SMITH IN DEMERARA. Petitions were presented praving the house to inquire into th rial of the late AMr. Smith, missionary at Demerara, in thefollow ng orcler By Sir WILLIA3s GUISE, from Stroud, Glocesterslire; Mr rERVOISE, from a parish in Hampshire; ,l Aid. C. AtITf}, Cr it. Alban's; Lord UXarIDGs, from Anglesen, Mr. Bnnn vorLTr, from 8ffron Walden, and Clahaam Mr. IV. $XrrT rom NorwichX; Ar. F. BUSTON, from Camberwell MIr. 8 'OOPEB, fronm Sligo; IUr. NEiv3AN from} Exeter; Lor XEOItGE CAVENTDISH, fronm Ingatestone; Lord JOIN RUs ELL, from HitciaL, Baldock, and Richmond; Alr, Gasp 5Tr, fromu Denbigh -Sir Taos. LEwnarnGsE fr6rm sonag. ,clonel DAVIEs ?ro?n Worcester; Lord BELGUAVE, fro 'hester and Nortiw6ich ; and Mr. RUazOLD, from Great Yar nouth. Other petitions, on the same subject, were pressted fro kxminster, Haverfordwest, Atherstone. and Arundel MIr. ,T. WILSON presented a petition fmoui the underwriterso ,loyd's Coffehnuse, against the marine insurance company bill Mir. SYKES presented a similar petition from ship..owners.of Hut Mlr. ~IOENCMK presented a petition frbxn a parish inl Berkshire, avour of the beer retail bill. Mlr. LINDSAY presentec a petition fromi the curriere of Pert gainst the hides and skins bill. Alderman HEYGATE presented a petition from Thomas Braw. f Potter's-fields, against the South Londoni Dock Companv's bill' M1r. MAEBRLY,in consequence of the bad .state of the paveme (SEE SUPPLEMENT.), . . 'rinted and published at the Office, Printinghouse.square, n Apothecaries' Hall, Blacurlars, by C. BeUl, Brunswi&c-street. inib e mettropolis, gave notice that he would, early fIn the rnext ses. aionsl, brinz all the p3Ang actsbefore.the consiaeraetoion of~ the house. 'VII #AI1NE INSURANCE COMPANY BILtL.~escn I%lr-Y BUTON ovedLlicorder of the day for tescn treading of the bill The SPEAKER put the question, that'thc bill bejead. a second tinte.- ~W.GRENFELL said, that it was decidedly hiis impression thait cou'el were to be heard in this stage of' the bill. The SPEAKER explained,that counsel were Iordered to attend Ou the decond. readinig of this bill; but until the house hadlecirled that the bill should he rpad a second time, the period at whichi they seIdbe heard.coulal not arrive-. but he Gised th tELra ready to pursue his opposition to tle bills btheaTringa tbeatguthen house should first have an opportunity of' hearzigthergunertsof counsel. The question for the second reading was then put and carried, IqCaf'i ee ale d in,rin r segen BOSAtrQUET, M1r. Sts9"Int TADI)Ow, Ur. HlRiso-nlo, M1r. llARnsYATr, MVr. ADAMor, DIe.% Ctoss, andA Mr. ALDERSONr, apPeared at the bar, in behalf wof ~atu-PArtes inteyested. in thie imeasre. i Sf. rgalt'BOSAN UET was rAnt heardI against the bill, but io.ing tn the low tone of voice in whicht he announcedhis clients, we were unable to Iearn for wh'om hie appeared. ,hr HAIIsoxl5a was next heard on behalf of the London Inau. r~~~~Y~~tansl the bill. ttargued at coms,iderable leneth in Euppoit of the o eteudrwijters at Lloyd's. asa itlr Serean TADYappeared for the insurance brolesa I~?Oy'; i whoe bha he-adducea a variety of argrunents. Coonel nvro cocluded, lilt.P. BXTONrose, and declared that the arguments of the learnd getleme hadno way altered his opinion. He amee that the ab~eliUer jof'jint stoA.3- companies ought to be liable to the 1s~ silln'of.thirproperty h ut upon that point there was no digpethe hos,te law -ofllers of the Crowrn. and his. Mlajest-y's rniniter ~ bignlOf One oDpinion. Upon the-generAl plicy, of apFprved oft tiemas appliedatotbat particular object. Bnita.stronger authorityin fa.our of' the principle than thte opiniion of' Adami Smiith, -or any other writer, wis the universal1 practice of those vunatrier in which the trade' ol? insurance was unfettered-; TR France, to a verv con=iderablal amount; in Atuelrapnalmost entirely;- in zd,ttetersburgb, at Copenhifiaen, and at Hamburgh, t'he business Of insurance, to a very great extent, was aranied on byi joint steckcomiZics. As a proof that.it was felt how niuch mor'e desirable the secutity was, of a joint stock coimpany (in which all parties wer-eultimately liable) than'the-securityof a chartered tOm- pany or f sigleindividuals, the agenxt of a comapany, at Paris nndjn~ey been En gland, procuring insurances, upon the verv gr8e~.ht h co.ddoffer a security better than, by theTlw of' Enj-. ']a-~'~ oul gie t home. He (Mlr. Buxton) had not a question that'~i one jintstock companies wer-e formied, England (with her ighcreAitandcommercial character) would obtain almost a nnpoyof the insurance of the world. And wilbat objec-. tincudbe urged against the bill, beyond individual in. terets? en'shouses and goods, and -thelr lives, were al. eayinsuredb joint stockcotmpanies ;: and, in fscr, such coin-~ pai~for mrn insurance did exist, though eontrarv to law, and Subject, of course, to great privation end tnconvenienie. With -re. ,specrt the mere question of expense, the saving by Insuring with sutch companies would be considerable. At present, a merchant in the country wishink. to effect an insuran'e. in London, wrote to his agent, end- the agent (at a cortof ten per cent.) employed a broker. The brokker was necessary now, because there was to be a dealin wiith many individuals: but a public company would be dealt with directly, anod the agency woufld be spared. In the miatter of gsettling," the advantage to be expected was Incalculable. As mattrs tood aninsurance was done at Lloyd'8 upon a particular ahip Sh saied pon a long voyage: andl, in two or three years, leerxapi, iteW ncewas received of her being 'IOSL The insrerlivng ?nthe country looked at once, as a Matter' 'ofcouse,to he ettlement o? his policy; but he found one undewrier robbl#deed, and, his executors (troublesomne peole eneall) wreto be dealt with; a second was inirol.. ven; athtd ltigous an redy to defend ar Fation. The diffi.. culie ecouteedinti a were frequent and serious. He (Mlr. pBnxton) held a listofplce in his band, done, to the ameutit of' 1SO,ilOOl., betweenth years 11 and 1814; and there was not o'ne of themn ini which thereadnot be a death, orann insolvency, or a suit, prior to settlement. In one case-upont a wolicy of 10,0001.-thirty.-- fie different actions, had been brought. Now -with a public com.. pany(e joint stock comipAny), three-fourths of the evil was avoided A company could not die;, its insolvency was in the verY hlighest dlegree improbable; and in case of litiastion, one action was brought instead of twenty. Under such circuin. stances, there could be no doubt that insurances w7ith companies Vould be preferred; and it was hard that the mierchants of England shoud not, ltT ike the merchants of other countries, be allowed to ;ae that security which they thought most adv~antageous to them. The honourable member concluded by contending,-that the two chartered companies (the Royal Exchange and Londoni As. cuue~) hail no title to be heard against 'the, progress Of' his bill. T1he chart of those bodies bedecommenc-ed in a job, and their piawers bad continued longer than they had a right to hope for. ,Pernonally, he desired to speak wiith great respect of thes companies, and the parties connected withi thema; but the terms of their charter wrere distinctly no more thtan these.- --7 r&-o'rrda-~rrtlr~um~f-30O0D~-to -GOoerntm&f, or a Mmonpoly of' the insurance buiiness for 31years; compensation to be madie, if Parliament thought fit, withnin those: 31 years, to wIvtl. draw their powersi. nstead of 300,0001., they hal, in fact, nver pad more than 120,0001.; t',eir term of31lyears ;had been exceediedt tree times o-ver, and ther certainly bad no right to complain if' their exclusivre privileges '~'ere no longer continued. Mlr. GRENFELL contended against the institution of joint-stock companies for the business of' marine inisurance, and thought that they offered none of that extraordinary security attributed to them by the hon. member for Weymouth. Of' the Alliance Company, for instance, as ajoint..stocl company, he wished to speak with great re. spect;bittathe prospectus issued by thatbodyvclaimed to haven capi- tal of 5,000,0001.,wii.,Lein fact its capital was o;nly 500,OOL Tak-ing the remote liability o1' parties into consideration, he could not doubt of the company.'s solvency-, while he saw such namnes contnectad with it as those of Brng, Rothschoild, and Alexander; but the shares, it wvas to be recollectd ,wereteransferrable; the alliance ofthose gentlemen ecould not be counted upon for anbour; asinglestroke of'the pen put an end to their Iliability altogether, and left the public exposed to that risk- which hadI been incurred in a re-liance upon their suffciency. The hon. gentleman, after denying that he was influenced by any personal feeling upoin thte question, proceeded to comnbat the right of Parliament to interfe-re (at this timne of day) with the chartered insurance companies. Their charier, upon payment of a valuable consideration, had been granted for 31 years; with power of revocation by Parliament, within the 31 yeats, on repayment of such consideration ; but, after the expir- atiorn of those 31 years, us thie act of Parliament expressly ceased, the charters could only be revoked by an application to teKng in Council This was not a new statement to 'thc house, nor wvas the attemnpt to invade the right of these companies new.I In the year 1806 the Globe Insurance Company had brought in a bill to do what the Alliance Company was trying to. do now; that bill, he (M1r. GPrenfell) had opposed, and it had been thrown out. Again, in the year 1810, a similar bill brought in by a body ofsmerchants lied failed. In his oppas.ition to those invasitons of the old charters, he had been supported by the ,Aoint opinions of Mlr. Perceval, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, n'ir Vicary Gibbs4, and Sir Thomas Phor.-er. They bad been reststed upon the ground that the acet of Parliament distinctly ahowed the course, and the only course, by which the rights of the chartered companies could be affieced-, an application hrad afterwardls been made to the King ini Countil on the subject, and upon tome observation dropped by the late Lord Ellenborough, it had been allowed to die away. DI1r. Grenf'el sat. down by-declaring that it would be a breiach of public faith committed by Parliament, if the privileges of the chartered hroanieseeardd, except by immediate interfernene froma the Mr. HUDSOiN GURiNEY said a few words which did not reach the gallery The C [ANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER did not at present see-upon what principle of equitv or justice the bill of the hon. rmember for 'Veymouth could be'ebjectedteo. His ounopinion had been long, since expressed; for in the~ vear 1813 he bed been favourable to iepealing the exclusive privileges of the twrd char- tered compinies-, who had not quite So good a case to retain those powers as the hon. member for PenryRs seemed to suppose. The companiesbad agreed to pay 30l0,0001.,andl they had paid something utnder -120,0001. Their rights were to have lasted 31 years; and they bad been continued more than three tisnes 31 years. With re- spect to the revocation of the powers in question by the Crown, the companies stood ins this situation ofdfiut-fh'rw eo-d it must revoke the whole ; it could not take back the exclusive rights of the companies, without depriving them of thecir rights alto- getiher. If it revoked at all, it must revokie absolutely their power 'to insure, as well as their monopoly of that power. It had been thought right, under such circumstances, to comne to Parlia.. Inent forea measure, by whichi the end desired could he obtaineti and injutice to the companies avoided,. Thiinking that mnuch gooi vould be effected by the repeal of a privilege of which she parties holding-it had made very little use, be certainly should be disposed to vote fag the bill before the house. ir. THOMAS WILSO N thought that the rights of the chiar. tered comnpanies were invaded upon very light piretences,and support- ed the argumnents of the hanourable member for Penryn. For the utility Of forming lotrtt-.atock companies for insurance, there was none; anrd those which had been formedI abroad were all falling to picnAt Hamburglh, the schemne ad been a faiure altogetfrer. In Fronce, the ComnpagnieJtoyale took insurancesOnly'In. Parils; and the shares of the Compagose Generale (whlich had broken in u on its capita)- were at a disicount of 10per cent. Thebhon. member then defended the conduct of the tinderwriters generally, and contended that the- opinion of mnerchants was in favour of the existing system. He must contend, that in every view of the question, and from the cases quoted by his honiourable friend (the member, for,Penrv .,- tf* hJLiS DUlwt3'mnecei2^ -_ ... ...hhetouldnob -,ur riorm rnry),t - bil was unnecessary; and he could not but thin k ei o t daero gtoy to the dignity of. the house to be interering needlesslvtn as there wAs a more ready remedy by dpplication to the Privy Corincij. I omr. HUMEsaid, thatmbelid atrfirst thought the two coae nies hai a claim for compensation, if their privileges nere taken away; but he had, on a further croisideration come to thea CO iht his first impression has incorrrect, andtheeoufr onlY considert heta com-panies hsindividuals having a lease-for 31 Years, for which they had paid a consideration. If, then, his Majesty's Governm o ent had taken away their privileges before' the 31 Years had expired, they would, in his opinion, haYe had a clam,- vihicl), a, the case atood, they cetainly had nolt It Was generaly agreed- at -present 'hat exclusive privileges were not to be defended. {Let, then, the epstrs of this measure make out-Why thrsabt it caesuldc a n exception to that generaol pricp.Ihis Majesyspmni. 'n-ra were to adviseteContabls-hchre,tatmgtcr t-ainly be done;,i ore hrfr,wihte ~r: w7as one era re enrall aid think thatthoprionm etose eauebtepris ainterested Want a h es f t eynuiiu.H asno it first inclined to=csemaUreuivual,btI hudcr cIriy now have hsspot Alderma WOO wudwish to k.now,henb his on'.ftieadspoke 6f the Crown abolishing thiese- charters, vihat evidence -theie was that any injury bad resullted froixz their existence ? There was pDdt' the slighttest. evidence Of aiiy injuary havinig been'sostoinrid by the pplb- lie.. Hehbore his'-willing testimony'to tecorrectncss anadhonoisr- able dealing of the genitlemen connected with Lloy&'t CofFee-houkei and e'very onec was acqusainted writh thi liberality withvhich they lent their aid to every charitable institution anid benievolent object. Alderman THOMPSONX cnryincdel h'ai the accept:tnce. by the Govdenonent df tbe~sumi of 120,0001. in pait payment of the sumn orn- ginally'proposcd'to ba -paid by the tric companies;' was a cotnjslete confirmation of thieirprivileges. H1e6udld have batlittle reltiance on the professions of those adiocates-for the principles of free trade, Nwheri' he saw boWv differenitly thev spoke anda act- ed wheR -their own interests were cooiteered j and he coald anot forget the part.taken by the honoiriable memnber for Wey- mnouth in the last session, on the occasion of the bill which w'as introduiced respecting thesilk-trade. *He much dou'bted whether,if this bill passed, the result would not be wividly.difcerent from that anticipated by its supporters- Nlhat' had been' the case at Ham.. burgh ? I In 1806, several insurance comp'anies were incorporated, anid they soon reduced the numnber oif rindividital underwtiters to five or six, and then they cawe to a resolution -to-tale all the same premiumns.. He contendedI that the bill w;Ls unneceqisary,as the com- pettion at presenlt existing was as exteinsive anA as operative, ass in the corn-market at Malrk-laiie, or in any other branch-of comm"erce. And though it was so unc-alled for, this meaure would in its operation involve the 'destqacti6n ' of above 3,500 brokets 'and underwritersg. If. instead of en'listing his Majesty's mini5ters in this cause, the honourable ienieber for Weymouth had induced them wo lower the policy duty, he woAld have done much.niore for the commerce of t lie c'intnry than could be effected by this bill. ILet 'the hotuse look to other companies. Had any good been done by the orimpetition among the Gas Comjianies or the 'Water Companies? In the-casv of thie Water Companies,though there was an appearance o7competition at first, yet after a timie they camne tto Parliament, 'anid complaining tbat they were on the.brink of ruiin, they got an advace-of 50 per cent, ab ove the rates paid before they existed. As an lidividua mierchant not connected with ai of the interests concerne~, he mutt say, that in the course of apretty exten- sive course of dealsigs, he had never miet with any of those,losses or inconveniences whith, had bben so imuch dwelt upon. whcha lMr. BUXTON maitl that after the personalatck hchd been iiide upon ihini-..4Cries of"1 No, no.") He must contend that it wasadirect personamlattack to saytbth~e ~hefell-and thought difl'ernuly- whsefe1iis'nv n interests were concerned. Hie appealed to the candour of the Chancellor of the Exchiequer, whether, in the measure which he had-introlluced relative to the trade in beer, he f~Mr. Buxton) had been found in the number of those whio were Iis opponents, eithier in or out of the hiouse. He waslplaced inwa a situation of great'difficulty-public duty and private intrs wer conflicting'; and he would appealtio that right hon. gentleman to saY to which he (M r. Buxton) h-ad submitted. Alderman THOMPSON beggecl leave to disclaim any idea of personal dtisrespect to the lion, member fur WVeymouth. Dr. LUSHINGTONIkaid, that if he were of opinion thatt the two chartered companies did of ribht enjoy any of the privileges contended for, he would be the last man in that house to take the away withouitcompensation. 'Notwithstanding tie great athorities which had bren arrayed against bin' by the honourable nmember who bad cited the opinions of Sir. Vfirary Gibbs end Sir Thomas Plomnefileolhould still 'contend for thb correctness of his owngoinion; and he wvouldi tell his honionrable fiiend, that he bad very lit e alne for any lega opinion, if lie (lid not, at the same time, see the case on wbich that opinion was founded. He knew enough of the nature of 0i ouons given* by, gentlemen of his own profession, and if his hni'urbefiend would lay a ease before two lawyers, he would probably get different and conflicting opinions. What was the case in 1719? The CTown bad nor the Power to exclude joint stock, companies from doing business: it was necessary, thereforc, to have an act of Parliament. The act aceordingly was passed ; but what was there to showv that the Parliament intended to tie up its hands, after the conclusion of the period of thirty-one years ? But the I16th section of th'e act gave a power to the Crown to set aside the charters, if round ta be injurious, without inquisition, byrcrefacvijae: The plain intentioin of tie act, therefore, 'was to cifrap owenj the Crown of revocation after the 31 years had ex- pired, which the Crown ditd not then possess as the law stood. If his lion. friend so utnderstood the act, surely it was from such pree. mises a ni.e mstingular conclusion, that therefore Parliament initended toteipits onbns n forevr and to deliver into the haiids of the Crown that power which was always vested in Parliament under all circumstances wvhatever. The two companies had in fact enjoyed for a period of sixty or seventy years, that which might with justice have been taken from them at the end of 31 years- As to the policy of the quiestion, he had always been desirous of giving every possible degree of freedom to trade, and had alwayis given his support to the mneasuresof theright hon. gentlemanopposite tor elfect- inig so desirable a purpose. But it seemed the honourable member (Mr. Wiilson) thought that we had already got-so perfect a system of marine insurance, that any farther improvement was quite un- necesqsary. It was said there wvas no evidence, but hadl the honour- able Aldlermnan (WVood) read the report of 1810 ? He seemed to think that there never was any evidence on the subject, but that the honourable memiber for Weymouth had got up end introduced a measure never heard of befbre, forgCtting, as it appeared, one of the most ablenand correct reporisev,er made. What was the fear,if this billshbould pass? Wh-y, that from the over comopetition-,,the rates of inisurance would be reducedI too low. But if the rates' of insurance were at present too high, they oughit lo be lowered ; and if they were at present at the lowest pitch, this bill could not reduce them any lower- Looking tat-A'ne eatsercompanies, be-was!nla rsiouge-to-r& member, tat in 1807, on the formation of thewratercompaniies, the frteect was to reducee the value of the New River shares from 10,8001. to a-bout'3,0001. That, he conceived, was a great benefit to the public, who were the consumers, though it woas an injury to the New River shareholders. In point oFjustice anolli1)1cy, he thought there never was a ciearer uestion then t e pest Mlr.. PLUAI ER saitl, that althoug'h the 'advocates of the bill de- clared it was for the enicouragement of 'competition, yet the etfect of it wvould be to dlestroy competition ; for if 50 or 60 joint stock com- panies wvere formed, was it to be supposed the 1,500 or 1,600 indi.. viduals whO were at present engaged in it could continue to carry on their trade ? If these charters were only to be considered as leases for 31 years., why, lie would ask, introduce thie words " perpetual suCcesion?,' TheBank and EastlIndia Company wore inthat re- spect differently situated, for neithier of those greet bodies bad those words in their charters. Mir. LOCELIARV 'said, be thought he could relieve the honour. able member froni the difficulty resp"ectinig the words " perpetual succession ;" for if be would read the act of Parliament, he would find there was a clause in it to render this perpetual succession de- terminable. He (Air. Ljockhart) was favourable to the measure, as it would, he thought, give the public additional facilities. Mlr. C. PEL1IAm said a fes wvords, but in so lowr a tone of voice, that it was impossible in the gallery to catch their import.. Mkr. IMANNING considered the measure unnecessary, from the redluced rate at' which all risks were at present underwritten. Mr. ROBERTSON entreated the house to look narrowly at this measure, so fraught with danger to the commercial interests of the Coun1try. Mr. Fox's famous Indiabill,whLichiat one period a'tated every trading town in the empire, was not so pregnant with dne to the state. 'Wrhat were the names that siood foremost upon the lists of thnis newv company?9 Mr. Baring, Mlr. Rothschild, Air. rrving, Mlr. Alexander, and others-the whole united money in;- terest of the empire. A company thus formed was iofintitelt maore dangerous than a chartereti association of underwriters, persouially responsible, aad actiug under limited restrictions. It would, iws its branching out among the shaerholders, eventually engross to itself etli the tinderwriting of this great city. Nowv the commerce of the country was at present rather a great agenicy business thant anv' thing else; and, so far from sanctioning a company of this engrossing na- ture, Parlizament was hound to take care that the Interests of those foreil merchnants who sent their consigonsents to this country sbouid be protected in the most effectual ana the least objectionable manne'r; and this was only to be done, in his (Mlr. Robertsen's) opinion, by thle pzesent systei-n of underwriting. Unhappily, however, his M%aJesty's ministers were, latterly, disposed to lend too fend an ear to any suggestions coming from. that meass of wealth wvhich had been put in motion on this occasion. It Was no- torious that soime of the individuals of wvhom it was composed were the great loan contractors for every Power in Eturope that proposed to raisenioney by borrowiingin foreiginmarkets. This itself mi&ht be an evil ; but -was it not apparent that all those who joined this un- derwriting company, by the emibarkation of thecir capital in the pro.. ject, were in fct taking shares in those very loans,? But this itlea- sure now befisre the house formed but one link in the' fatal chain which his Alajesty's ministers had been for anoie tinme forging, and which would operate, if it should be completed, to 'the destruction of the whole commerce of the country. Hbs owni experience had b'ut too strongly exemplified to him the tendency which they scenmed to have' to encourage commercial projects of a novel and most hazarJous character. Thiere bad been a cbmmaittee sitting up stairs on the navigationt laws not long ago ; and so far d05' it was proposed to review and consider'the syatem he (Mr. Ro- bertson) fully concurred with the' committee. iw~'at was the re- commendation of that commnittee ? Were they for modifying these laws? No; modification would not do: the Govern'ment must. have them destroyed ;-those very navigation lawis which had as at systemn been for so arany ve4rs esteemed of such beneficial cons~e- quience to the country. 'Pbe next proceeding of his Majesty's mi- nisters was the fa-mous reciprocitynctr. As aeproof of the benefit of that measure, he need only mention that but very latel'y a treaty be- tween this country end Holl1and had been puiblishied, under which it very evidently appeared 'that our ships were to pay a duty, of Cl. per cent. more in the ports of Holland than Dutchi vessels were now to ta,in Britislh ports.' So much fior the reciprocity of' duties, that it ad been said wvould( be established between us catd oar European neighbour.s. Under such a systemn it was obviously impossible that our.shipping interest could longecontinue to subsist. The huni. en- tleman was next adverting to other' commiercial' bills introdluced by The CHA CELOk o th EX HEQUER rose to order. He as orr tonteruitb ho. gntlma, whe, however, was realy ot peskig t th 'qesion bu dicusin6 all the pleais of comercal oliy wic ha ocu~id te atetion of' Parliament M sllr. ROBE R'TSON con tended that it was of great 'conse4uGnce to his view of the case, to show that 4ie system of' comRmercial po- licy upon which'his Mlajesty's Mlinisters had so long been acting, threatened the most disastrous mischiefs to the country, and that the object of the present bill was itself one of those mischiers. (Cries question( Cetios.") The SPElWRA said, that if the hon. gentleman thought he was not out of order in entering upon the wbole commercial policy of the "country. whether with the itention of demonstrating it to be aright or a wrong poliev, he was in error, The question before the house regarded the seconid reading. of a bill having a specific object. I 11Ir. ROBERTSON de lerred to the chair- and concluded by ex- pressing a stirong disapprobation of the bill. The gallery was then clearetd for a divison; and 'the numbers were- For the second reading, Ayes, 61 Noes, 331 Majority 18. .1 AfteirfeinvwordsfromA Pr. .GtENFELL, whom,n we fou'nd on his legt at our re.adis'sion,"the -bill as'read a second-time, and committed for illusetay next. BEER DUTIES. .The CHIAN'CELI.OR of the' i XCHEQUER move4 the order of the day on the third, readng 'of the beer duties' bill. . The right hon. gentienten broughlt up several additional'clauaes, 'reeulatink the fature quahif?catloai o. tpe;pons empowered:.to brew, and~pto~i di7gj f6ti the licensing ale.brewers, wh6had hititerso been confined to :tbh brewing of Ale, to brew. smill beer alsbo It 'was already pro- videa,that th'e alesllodld nlO be retailed'it the same premises on which it had been brewed ,'and- theseclauses contained a condition 'that tbesmnaU beershould not be retailed on the same premises where theale was to beretailed. Th perbmission for persona to re- tail withou't certain heretofore accustomied'qalifications, to take effect froni and afterthe .th of July, 1824, &E Mlr. Alderman WOOD complained that these clauses were in. consistent with the enacta'ents in the iWdy of the bill and expressed awish that they had been' introduced at au arlier stage of the bill, in erder that the parties,interested might have had'a'h opportunity of considering them before they were proposetfor the sanction of the house. Mr. EUME thought nothing would more clearly.evince the dc:z fective system of the lawvof beer duties -than-the fact that- the right hon. gentleman or his colleagues had -lready been obliged-ta intro- duce five or six different bills on the same subject. 'He did,thert, fore, inmplore the rifght hon. gentagn, in- jusfticc to the-great mass eP the people of E:ngland, nexit year toalter tic -whole bfsuch a sys- tern entirely. Iset there be oe -duty on malt -only,-which would perate at least equally on' the rich and the'poer; andlet people be a obrev as they liked, andin that-quantities they liked. I'h-clauses were considered lR a co miteeeand reported.-Read a first, second, and third timc, and addedato the bill by way of rider. Lord PAMAIERSTON rose to move an amenslment to this bill; which he;would also put in-theshape of a-clause. Within the precincts of the Universities of Oxford-and Cambridge, al licencet for-the sale of bieer were granted by the: ViceXChancellors.. As the house must see how important to the discipline and goodgovernment of these precincts it was, that such ileences should be continued.on their present footing instead of proceeding from cxcise officers, he wouldmnove~to exempt the places in question -fromnt.heoperation of that part of the bill w hich regarded the grnt of litences by-officers- of the excise.'* This clause; was adopted, and the bill, asa ws d third time and passed. -nded, was read a NEW SOUTH WALES. The report on the New South Wales bilLwat brought up, and agreed to on further consideration; and the bill mWss qdered to be read a third on AMonday next. IRISH CIJERG(IY On the report of the clergy residence (Irefd) bill beWig brought up and further considered, - - - - Mlr. HUME stated, thatbe lad meantf to'have brought up a clause, the object of which would-have been to render it impossible for a clergyman to sue forhis tithes in Ireland, unless-he hadt been resident for a period of at-least ninemonths together among his parishioners. (Hear, hear.) He was quite satisfied that this would be the onlyl way to correct the evil. of non-residence; but he vas afraid it was now too late for, him to put his design into exe. cution. Sir J. NEWPORT hoped this bill might ptove more ef-ectual than (as he confessed)he had anticipated.: He concurred with his hon; fTiend (mr. Hume), in thinking that this or any otheti actior enforcing the reiddence of the clergy of tIreland, in that. country, would be quite inefrectual, unless it were accompanied withs some such provision as that which had been sugeested. He felt convinced that ploralities weretbe greatest of eli evils to be- lamented in. that clergy, and the fruitful cause of the non-residence complained of. 'When the house considered what the evil must be of the union of a number of parishes to formonebenefice, and added to this the ine. vitable consequences that must attend pluralities, they might form somenotion oftlile stateofspiritualinstictdon,andthewantofs piritual assistance, thatprevailed in so many cxtensive districts of ireland. These things werethe,more to belamented; becasseplqralities swelled some incomes tbat'were already excessive, at the exp,onse and loss of the more useful and much worse endowed livings, which were flled by deserving, active, and assiduous clergyinen. IlIr. GOULBUtRN, claining for himself the same merit,willing- ly gave the right hon. baronet credit for a sincere desire to promote 'thewelfare ard encourage the interests of Ireland; but he greatly dif- '.ered from that right hen. gent. in respect to the propesitibn which another hon. member (Mr. Hume) had intendedto have brought forward, and which would, if carried into execution, be binding up Ithe Irish. dergy in pecuniary penalties, as if in the outset the legis- lature entertained suspicions of them. (Hear.) He (Mr. Goul- burn) defied, however, any hon. gent. to disprove that, generally speaking, the duties of the Irish church were performed in a nmanner the most exemplary. (Hear.) The present Primate of Ireland had declared that he would not allow any individual holding an episcopal union to enjoy any additional beriefice. The bill was then read a third time, nnd passed; as was also the Scotch juries bilL The other orders of the day were then disposedEof; and the house adjourned at half past 11, until MIIonday. A LIST OF TEHE AlI ORITY who voted in favour of Sir John Newport's Clause against Pluralities in the Irish Church. Althorp. Vis. Fitzgerald, RtghtNlaxwell, J. Stewart. W. (Ty- Birch, J. Hon. Mt. Nevwnort. Sir J. Tone) seeher. W. Gordon, R. Phil ps, 0. Stanley, Lord sutterworth, J. tlsidimand, Iv. Phillps, G. R. Seariett, J. Calthorp, Hon P. Htutchlnson,Hon. Ramsden, J. C. Tierney, Right Colborne,N.t.R R C I. Robinson, Sir G. Hon. . Caulfield. Hon. H.Leader, W. Bfldley, Sir M.IV.WhWtmore, W.W. Denean. T. Macdonalds, J. Srntthj3. Wells,. J. Evans Pv. MAlton, Lord Smith, . Wsood, M. Pllce, Ef Mtarjorlbanks, S. Sebright, Sir-.J Wrottestey, Sir.J. Grattan, J. Mloncl, J. B. HOUSE OF COMMONS. FnTAN. MAY 28.