House Of Commons, Monday,...
The Times, 1824-05-25T00:00:00

The SP EAIAER took the chair at four o'clock. Mfr. BYNG presented petitions from the Rector of St. George's in the East, the New River Company, and other parties likely to be injured by the construction of the new St. Catherine's docks, praying to be heard by counsel against the bill before the select :ommittee. The petitions gave rise to a desultory discussion between Air. GB ENFELL, Ar. C. CALVERT, and Alderman HIEYGATE. The SPEARER observed, that there was no question atising ult of the petition which could involve the house in the discussion ; because, as they had referred the bill to a committee up stairs, they must wait for the report of that committee before they could give my further consideration to the priinciple. He also explained the rule and practice of Parliament with respect to the rights of parties Lo be heard before the committee, and the limitations which had been assigned for that right, both with respect to the objectionable parts of the bill, and the number of the counsel to be heard. The petition was then referred to the committee. THE ALLIANCE COiMPANY. The resolutions of the committee were agreed to, and the bill was ardered to be engrossed. Illr. GRENFELL having observed that z great number of these incorporating bills had been introduced, which enabled the companies Lo sue or be sued by their treasurer or other officer to be bv them sppointed, wished to know what security the public was to have for their interests in those cases in which verdicts should he obtained against the treasurer? He wished to know, in short, after judgment had against the officer, who was to be actually responsible for the debts or damages which might be recovered ? Air. HUSKISSON was glad of this opportunity of having the question openly stated, that it might be met with as fair an answer. As he understood it, under these bills of incorporation, in case of judgrments obtained against the treasurer, and their not being made Pood, the individuals who might obtain the verdicts would be at liberty to select eny one or more of the members of that incorpora- tion, upou whomn he would levy for full satisfaction ot his claim. The hon. gentleman might depend upon it that without such a clause attached to it, no bill of that nature would be allowed to Dass. lie would propose for public convenience another clause, which would require the names of all the parties to be enrolled at the Sta.mp-office, and none of the proceedings of the association should be held good in law till such enrolment had been effected. Alderuan BRIDGESS put a question as to the power of transfer- r d to ascertain with whom the responsibility in such Mr. HUSKISSON said, that up till the very moment in wbich the transfer should ba eflocted ir. the Starn.ofrf-i the name of the previous subscriber would be held responsible. There was nothing new in the spirit of this regulation, alnd the result would be, that there could be no legal transfer until the change of the name at the Stamp-office. Several petitions were presented against the South London Docks Company. Mlr. J. SMNlITH presented a petition of this kind from the Lec- turer of St. John's parish. Mir. S. RICE brought up the report of the committee on the Irish mining company bill.-Thc resolutions were agreed to, and the biUl ordercd to be engrossed. Air. A\. DAWSON presented a petition from the Roman Ca- tholics of Clonmel, praying to be put on the same footing ef pri- vileges vith the Protestant subjects. ir. S. COOPER presented a petition from certain members of the Linen Board in Ireland, aginst the repeal of the bounties. Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from the corporation of Worceste-, against negro-slavery. Mlr. BYNG presented a petition from the publicans of Uxbridge, gainst the beer bill. Lord STOPFORD presented a petition from the Freemasons of WVexf'ord prayiiag to be put upon the same footing of privileges with the Freemasons of England. AMr.STANLEY presented petitions from Charlesworth and War- rington, in Yorkshire, praying that the house would institute a se- ri-ous inquity into the transactions which gave rise to the trial of the late Mllr. Smith, missionary in Demerara. As the question was to undergo grave discussion in the course of a few days,he would refr.in from any present comment. MIr. HXUSKISSON took the same course with respect to a petition signed by 4,000 inhabitants of Liverpool, upon the same subject. Ele also presented a petition from inerchants and bankers of Li- verpool, against the corn laws, and the system of mouopoly and averages, which the pedtioners asserted was' so far from being be- neficial to the growers, thatgrain had never becn so unressonablylow as since ll15, when this system was first establisbed. Mr. CURTEIS expressed his readiness to give up the system of averages, as wholly inefficient to protect the grower. Mr. WHIT.MORE said, that it was impossible that grain could be long kept out from the operation of those improved and liberal maxims which tnow# influenced aU the other interests of the coun- tr. If no one else undertook it, he pledged himself in the course of 7next session to bring the whole subject, difficult as it was, before the consideration of the house. After a few words from Mr. CULTEIs, the petition was laid on the table. THE TREAD-IMIIL. .Mr. WHARTON presented a petition from several Justices of the Peace at Northallerton, against a clause in the gaol bill. Air. CHIALONER complained that the object of these justice.s was to have the pow.er of inflicting the punishment of the tread-mill on prisoners before trial. Mlr. DENMAN presented a petition fromn the butchers of Not. tingham, in favour of the hides bill. On the motion of MIr. DEKsstAi, an account was ordered of the Aumber of sentences passed in the Court of King's Bench, in the years 1821, 18-2, and 1823, for mislemeanoars, ana for the specifica- tion of suci defendants as pleaded guilty, and such as were convict- ed by verdicts of juries. Mlr. SCARLETT presented a petition from Peterborough, againsl negro slavery; and another from Mr. Fitzgerald, praying fo, compenrsatinn in consequence of the county courts bill. hlr. CHAPLIN presented a petition from certain farmners and graziers in the county of Lincoln, against the exportation of wool. AMr. LEGII-KECK brought in thebill for the betterexamination of witnesses in courts of equity, which was read a first time, ant ordered for a second riadinzt next Thursday. Mlr. FYSHE PALMER presented a petition from Sanning. Berkshire, in favour of the beer bill. MlIR. SMITH, THE frIlSSIONARL'. Lord STrANLEY presenteda petition from certain persons inLan- cashire, praying for au iniquiry into the case of the late Mr. Smitlh the Missionary. Mr. BROUGHIIAM said that he would bring forward his motior upon this case on Tuesday week, instead of next Thursday, if ar honourable friend, who had a motion for that day, would yield t< him precedence. Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE presented a petition for an in. quirv into Mtr. Smith's case, frotli certain inhabitants of Royston. Sfr THOiUAS ACLAND presented a similar petition frou Barnstapie. Mr. STUART WVORTLEY presented a petition from Dews. bury against the hides bill; and also postponed until Friday next the further consideration of the report of the gamelaws. Air. Alderman I*EYGATE presented a petition from certais licensed victua:lers in Sudbury against the beer bill. Air. MONCK presented a petition in favour of the bi, from Mar. ROBE:RT PRICE presented a petition from Ross, in favout of the countv courts bill. Sir JOHNq NEWPOET presented a petition from the inhabit ants of BaUynamona and other adjoining parishes in Ireland, com plaining that, in an extensive district, they had but one church anm one rector. CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION. ilir. BROWNLOW gave notice that he would on Friday nex present a petition respecting the Catholic Association now sitting D Dublin. and move that it be referred to the gommittee now sittin on the state of Ireland. Air. KEITH DOUGLAS presented a petition from the inhabit ants of the burgh of Annan, against any alteration itn the duties a, hides and skins. He also presented a'petition from the Presbyter, of the same burgh, against the Scotch poor bill Lord A. HAIMILTON said, that instead of supporting th Scotch poor bill, as had been said, he was a decided opponent of th measure and hoped it would be withdrawn. [Mr. OINNNEDY said he should withdraw it, after explainin the reasons ililch iniuced him to introdice it <le pea-the figt hon. gent. opposite would allow hica to do so tbis evenmg. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he had every wish to accommodate the hon. membecr,but that he eoald not give precedence, cs the beer duties bill and county courts lIl. stood for this night. Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from the licensed victuallers'ofAAylsford,against the beer bil; and another tothesame effect from a deputation of London brewers. Lord A. HA3IL LTON presented a petitiot from the personis en. gaged in the Tynesalmon fishery? on the subjtct of their trade. Sir G. CLEAR presented a petition from certaim parishes in Scot. land, against the Scotch poor bill. On the motion of 3Mr. BRoIGH. an aecount was ordered of the number of inhabitants in England and 'Wales who were assessed for the inhabited h'use duty upon rentals of 5OL and 601. 5-year. Sir E. HARVEY presentie a petition from a number of inhabi_ tants in Essex, in tavour of the bill for the better recovery of smal debts. Lord G. CAVENDISH presented a petition fro3m the butchers of Chesterfield, in favour of the bides bill. Mr. HUSKISSON brought in the Spitalfields sik bll which was read a first time,, and ordered to be read a second 2tre on Thursday next. _ - B~~~~EER. DU TIES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the order of the day for goin.1g into a committee for tlse further consideration of the beer duties bill. Mlr. IABERLY opposed the motion for going into the com-. mittee, and moved as an amiendment, that it be committed this day six months. He wa-smost anxious for the appointment next session. of a Committee to consider fully the whols questioni respecting the. beer trade. The present bill professed to have two great objet~s.. One was to put the dutv more upon malt. and the other to open the itrade for a free comnpetition; -still, however, the operation of the biIl would he, that one olasa would be paying dUt~ of 55.aqure upon thimatwhlanteclsonypd 20s. The licensed victualers, for whose beniefit tl'e bill was said to have been intro.. 'dueced, objectedl to it; and the Londoni victuallers said, tlatifpassed it would prove their ruin. Although an advocate for the principle Of a free trade., yet there were a number of subsisting: interests which ought first tobe recorciled. Thepuiblicans had paid large sums for their houses, the value of which would be materially altered by thiq bill : there were, he understood, 50,001) persons so situated. He bad himself no interest in the trade, but would prefer to see the whole duty laid on the malt, insteatl of the beer. The bonourable mem- ber then proceeded to argue that the measure wouId not be the means of procuring for thie public so good a beverage as was supposed., T'hose who were likely to embark in the pnivate trade would not have c-apital suffident to purchase extensive premises, and the nece- sary and proper utensils. This want of capital would prevent themk fiom affording timLe to let the beer ripen, and it was well known that beer became better and more palateable by, lying for a long time ia the requisite vessels. How, he asked, would the bill operate in r.. vate life? Could a common miechanic, a blacksmuith, or sany otise handicraftsman, ~give up his timne to brewing at home, whems he could earn so much more than any saving he might thu,~ effect by pursuing his trade ? Was it not useless to say. that such a person could brew at home, when be' pad 35s. additional duty on the quarter of mnalt above whra't the higher orders of society paid ? How could the right honourable gentleman reconcile these two points himself ? He wished particu-. larlyto askotf the house, how they could sufFer the bill to pass in its present state, withouta full consideration of all the interests conf nected with it ? The right honourmble gentleman had, in fiact, give up the greater p art of the measure, as it originally stood, which war a proof of it, defective nature; and if it had not some very strenu-. ous advocates in thiat hiouse, he would be obliged to abandon.the rest of it. It had been observed, thait in some cases, articu- larly with reference to certain branlches of the silk.trade com peusation had beena granted, and that it ouight also tobeptd here. But the parties interested did not ask for compeaun l they wanted was to be f'ully and fairly heard. As thathernwa refused -he felt it to be his duty to moye "1That the reotfsh bill be iarthLr considdered this day six months." Mr. DAVENPORT meant to oppose the bill on two grounds-. in the first place, on account of the injury which it wouild inflict onL a numerous bodly of individuals; and next, because he thought it would lead to much immorality. Beer would be sDld and druk in every lane and alley; and he fearedI that riot and disorder would be the tonsequence. At present the publican, in whose house beer was consumed, found it to be his interest, as it undoubtedly was his tdutv, to preserve peace and goodl order. 'Ph CH NCLLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the speech of te ho. get. (r. abery) rferrd ciefly to a question whic hadalredy ben bforethe ouse-naely, the propriety of trasfrrng hewhle ut nw lvid n te eeto themalt. That proosiionhadbee dscusedant deide ad, as he meant to leav ou ofthebil al tha pat wichreltedto this subject, he did not feel if necessary to raise any argamnton a matter which was not necessarily connected with the remainder of the measure. The hon. member thought it wrong that any step should be takeit on the subject of beer, without the wholle question vwa previously examined before a committee. ANow he (the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer) was at a loss to know whiat was to be constidered or investi- gated. The hon. member admitted that the consumer would be be- nefitted, because the prc f beer would be lowered if comlpetitioni ,were extended. Tok efeto this was one of the main cbjects of the bill;- and the admission of the honourable member fuly justified the houise in proceeding wvith thve measure, withoutUgoing into a com- mittee to demonstrate the advanatages that would result froym it. When the hon. member saidI that the bill would have the effect of loweringthe price of beer, he admittLed that the present prc was higher thnit ought to -be ; and lie k-new no reason why a. la hould, be continued to keep ue that price 'Hear.) The hon. ember, therefore, gave him (the Chancellor ofthieExchequer) the Ver) case for which 'he contended. Then the hon. mnember spoke of tholoss of vested inteiesets whiich the pablicaus, woudd sustain by, the mea- sure; and he was ready to allew that somne diminution of Profit would beperhaps sustained. Tliatlos,hewas aware, mightbeproved before acommittee; but if that were admittedaLs a conclusive reason against the meassure, it wvould prevent the openingof the trade in.any degree whatever. It might, if'thiat principle were relied on, remain to, n1lleternity in its present state. There seas one crcumnstatice which renderedl some measure on this suflject.pic-gliarly necessiry. At this moment it was extremely doubtful whether the- brewer might not sell beer without the magistrate's licence Thehonourable mem- ber for Reading (M r. F. Palmer) had, in the course of' the last ses- sion askd hm whtherit as ncesa~ry'foe the brewer to obtain a, magstrte' liene t enblehimtosell beer by retail ? He (theChacelor f th Exheqer)answered, that so far as- the xcie wnt,thee ws n prhibtion against the brew- er' reallng eer ifhe aveupthat portion of drawback whic th whoesae brwernowobtained. A legal opinion wvas afterwards takeu on that poit and the counsel for the excise stated that the brewer nighit selbeer by retail, if he would [forego the allowance which he recevdwhen he sold in large quan- tities In consiequence of that opinion, a very considerable numiber otf persona dlid se-t up as. retail brewers, and had actually been carrrying on the trade in that manner. Seve- ral of three individuals had been prosecuted by the magistrates -somne at Readinig, arid some at Brentford. l'h'e decision was, that whatever the law of excise might be, the lawl by which public.houses were regulated prevented brewers from retailing beer withiout a licence from the magistrates of the district; and consen quently those parties were convicted in, a penalty. He confessed, though he was no lawyer, it appeared to him that the decision wa&- not sustainable by argument. (Hear.) The individuals, therefore,. under the circumistances be had staied,ap pealed against this conivic- tion. The appeal was brought into the King'S Bench, and it was to have been heard in the first term of this year;, but the press of be.- sitiess preventedl the Judges front hearing it, and the present terem was appointed for arguiing the question. It appeared, however, th&t. the state of the law was so doubtful as to, induce the Court to throw' otasuggestion, that it would be better to have some law enacted. to suteatlthe point, and to remgve all further doubt conrcerning it..' Therefore it did appear to him to be aecessarY that Parliament should enact somte declaratory law onx the subject. He thought the public ought not to be 'deprivedI of the benefit of a free competition in the trade of beer, because the removal of those rebtrietions which. now gave a monopoly' tl individurals might be more or less injurious2 to particular interests. (Hear, hear.) If such a principle were assented so as a' conclusive argu- ment, it would be impossible for Parliament to open any monopoly' whatever. (Hear.) In this instance, it would quite shut upa brancla of trade which essentially affected the interests of the poorer classes of society. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that it would be very unfair to pursue such a course. The parties who complained of the measure coulti noit say that they were taken bv surprise. They could not say this was the first time that Parliament had contem. plated the openinigof the beer trade. Two years ago acommittee ot the hou-seh ad reported in favour of reovin this Monopoly.. An honourabler and landmmber (Mlr. ~oga a Ifor two or three siessions brought this question distinctly before the b ouse. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) diii not aPProve Of the measure introduced bythathon. andlearned gentlemsWbmua~5e it carried thp- principle fartlier than he thoug7htprudent or advwisable. The hon. and learned gentleman propRosed to allow any person 'what- ever to retail beeir. T-o this be (thie Chancellor of thie Exchequer) objecteR oni accorunt of the lo.ssswhich the revenue under such says- tem wou'd be liable to sustain; but whenhe last yearopposed the bill of the lion. andI learned gentlemeni, he gtated that he did pOt Oh.. ject to the principle, because he was adver-se to thi existing mnonopoly,; and lie wished to -see whether he could not attain the end prOpOsco(,7 by opening the trade of beer, and rendering the aCCess to thatt at- tiise snore ready, withouit adopting tile plan of the honoiirable and( leamned getleman. The parties c-ould not, therefore, plead that the hd eentaenby surprise, 'neither could ~they say that this wasa qeston o wichi the attention of Parliamint had niot been preiouly alld.It was, be repeated, unnecessary to c-arry this subec beor a omitte,because the advantagges that 'WOul4 he derivd fro the easue wer admited. s tothe, ipitexterence. with vested interests, if tha claim wereat nde to,'hit wouldst an as a permanent argumnt agains thsoray othrmest of a similar kind.WT-he os,h contended, was cmi~ to decide on the bill without farthier inquiry Th il question was, whbether the injury to those ~vested. interests was to be received as a permanent reasion for anot interfering with this long.conitinued monopoly of the beer trade ? (Hear.) The house oueht now to decide, " ay"l or "1no," whiether that imPOrt- ant trade should not he thrown open ; and therefore he should per- sit inhimotion, "1That the Speaker do leave the chair."1 (Hear.) He entertained the moat sanguine,and, he believed, well.fbundet hiopes, that the honses woaild ihink with him, that the interest of the; poorer classes of consumers was not toD be set aside, because an alter-- tion in the law would interfere with the interest of wealthier antd more powrerful p atties. (Hear.) Ai r. LOCKHART, as chairman of the cornmittee to whicll allu- sion had been mnade,w'Nished to say, that the Chancellor Of the Ex- chequer had stated, very correctly, the view which that comimittee had taken ofthe question. They recommended magistrates,whencieer th saw brewers purchasingc alt the public-houses in a neighbotirb.o and heard the people complain of being upidwthaaatce to open free-houses, for the purpose Of ensuriTng competition. It was said, that if beer of a Certain qUal were sent *ut, the People wouldl drink it in tke streets, vice and"imm'rortality would be lpromoted, an h aistrates wouldI be scarcely able to keep the peace He thogh the efiec woleeatlotay Hebhad gonae into pniblic houes,whee terewas noobsrvance of that princinl e whih mgisrats dclaed o b sonecessary in prison4dis.. ciplne-e mantthe rinipl ofclassificiitioni. Hie there saw ome, cilden,ro"es,and vagabonds, all congre.. ,...,,.5*a,ti,,.andcoru~ingea~'tlier's morals. Sudsb a mnetUey, -such an assemnblage, he could wish to see prevented trom meeting together. This would be effected when an opportunity was afforded to the people of precuring from another place a better spa. cies of beverage, which they might drink at their own houses. Ilr. T. WILVSON said, the interestef the licensed.virtuallets, though notavested interest, was yet onetbaY was wort'of consi. derauon. l4umeiouapetition5hadbomPtesente fromth tb y, to which the Chancellorofthe Exchequer seemedtouleid a tiins ear. If the right hon. gent. hadconsented tolCessiU the extet of"dute5 to i i I I I I I i L I II I r thchlltfriM iktafe rwassitow suiect, bao(MA> ilsos) would have seatsthe question in a different andja more favourable pobitof Y!2~7 The'Elcensed victualler laboured under mansy disadvantages. -He Purchased the lease of his house at a higher rate than was exacted ,L-mn othem. He was obliged to act with the utmost icmpc t!Drl, e0che could not--hope to have hik licence continued. He was t enfie undler the control of the magistrates and of the Government. E& wTould nlotspeal of this measue as likely to increase immorality: b"1~tPerron113 aiting fortbisbeer, and others who woulddrinsk it in the Strect,would,he thought,createcrowdo, and greatly inconveniience the V75SsMeflgts He was friendly to the opening of thetrade, and wished its see the price of beer reduced, so ais to benefit the lower orders ; b.st be thought some attentio'n ought to be paid to the Interest of risle licesred victualler. Mlr. F. PALMER said, this appeared to h;m to be the only lio"sre by which the lower classes ctiultd hope to be supplied with a I :Uttritus beverage at a reasonable price He allorej the brewers I' o be one of the most active, enlightened, and wealthy bodies in the Icountr3r. He knew themn; he respected them as a body, and he 'respOOted. themn iruilividually. But h had a duty to perform to the ubc;and, in conformity with that duty, he must vote rOr the present bill, if the brewers were ten times stronger and more respectable than thev were. Ile felt that the measure would be fa. vourable to the public; and he knew that for miany years past, theY were look-ing for an alteration of this nature in the beer laws. Fos se-veral years he hadl been in the habit of presenting petitioRs against the existing systemn, and he was happy to tind that it was at length determire,t to change it. The house would be surptrisedl when he sitated that the public brewer,who petitioned against theretail brewer, bhad anl advantage of 8.A per cent, over himn. Although he possessed that laTge advanrtge, h3ewa, unwilling to let the retail brewer cOmapete with himt. He could state to tlehouse thegums which had bee pi back by the Exchequer, a few Years ago, to two brewers of emnnc,as an al1lowance on the quantity of beer brewed by them. FrmthIst of July, 18291, to the 1st of July, 1822, there was paid b=kl to one house 8,687. lBs.; andl to another, 12,9801. If, in- stead of being public brewers, they had been retail brewers, they 'would not hase received any such advantage. It was exclusively granted to the public brewer; and no retail brewer could claim it. A v'ast number of public..houwes had fallen into.tshe hands Of the brewvers ; and mian Others, though not their imnme- diote! property, were served by them. Now to him it ap- Pearedl a mnatter of little importance whether the houses3 were the Property of the brewers, or were merely served by them, because there was sicarcely ainy competition between the pub. lcbrewers. The extent o optto carried on might be acrtained by the following fact :-A number of brewers were in thebhabit ofmeetingat theuOld flats club, inthe village of Woking.. ham, oand there s-ttling the quantity of beer they would brew, and the price the,y wrould denand. They took in the line of road from High-Wycombe, by WVindsor, and as far a-s Guildford. They met to agree on the quantity of beer they would brew, and next to settle the price. rijiishe knew to he the fact, for he hadl it from one of the parties themselves. Whbat competition was there In such a case as that? There was no competition whatever. The p~ublic brewer stated, that hut few public. ho-e ve2 Onedby them, and he declared that there was ho nonoply. ow,in that part of the country to which he be- longed, he lknew that the public..houses were idemost all in the hands Of breers, and there was scarcely a free house to be found. The Kreat wFealth of the brewers enabled them so tiurchase houses, and the envima increased by the monstrous neglect of the magistrates in not licernsing others. (Hear.) Thoseretahlouses would, he was Co~lient, be moss beneficial for the public. Great complaints, hewas h.ladf~armerlybeen made of thebad qualityofthe beer intrhetown of Brigchton.; but niow that retail houses had been established, better bee co-uld. not be found any where. In another town he knew the same effect had been produced. The hon. gentlemanthien proceeded to poirxt ciut the great inducements wvhich were held out to brewers to Pure:'huse public-housesthe chiief of which was, the immnense drawb rck which the brewer received on the extensive sale of beer. That,drawback was aclear lonus. There was no deduction for land. tax, #.ir poor's rate. It was a clear gain, without any deduction whattrver. UTnwilling as he was toi contend against some of the best frienrls he had-unwiling as he was to conted against so powerful a bpdty ag'tde brewers--still he felt that he did nothing more than his duty to the public by putting forth those facts. (Hear.) Mr. S. WaV ITBREADuo'bserved, that ifbheonly appeared before the house as an individual connect-ed writh one of the greatest brew- ing establishments in the metropolis, it would be as ell, perhaps, if he remained silent on this occasion. But he was a member for this county, andi many of his constituents were lirensed victuallers. They felt that this measure would effhect the total annihilation of their pro. Pery, and for their sake, not for his own, he would support the amntedment. Aldermtan BRIDGES loolked uponi this maeasure as one tl&at bore very hard on the licensed vsctuaUlerm Every one of that numerous body was obliged to find repnsible securitv for keep. ing order! in his lhouse, and he was ]liable to severe puniishment if prope odrwere not preserved. Sumnsof 2or 3,000 were frequently sun ienther purchase of public-house prorrty, which would be greatly deteriorated by the operation of this Mil. He was perfectly persuaded, if persona were allowed to procure beer at the comner of- every street, such disorders would arise as would prove highly incon. venient to the public. Sir J. S1SBMRIGHT wished to s,ees fair comopetition in the beer trade. If abrewer brewed agood article at afair price, hewould be sure to obtain a large body of customers. If he did stot, it was fitting that the public should have an opportunity of going elserihere. Such a competition did not exist in the country at prese'nt. In many districts the publicans were obliged to buy their beer frorm brewers, who, as there was no competition, hadno induce. nmcrtt to tusle their article of a good quality. He, a-s a country generilemu, returned his thanks to the right honourable gentleman for intrroducing a measure which would put an end to the existing MOTIATpoly. Mml~- C. CALVERT said, the licensed victuallers were deeply in- terest ed in this measure, end as he thought it was calculated to injure therm.,hedeemed it his dutyto oppose t. He did not generally oppose bills when going into a committee; but the prresent was a pe- coliai - case. The right honourable gentleman had altered the title, he had altered the preamble, and now it appeared that he mc aznt to strike our one-half of the measure. Under thmesecir- cuuid eances-, the rigb he onourable gentleman ought to have the bill printe d, so that individuals miight come properly prepared for the finalceonsideration of the measure. As it nowlstood,it would be the total z uin of a large body of industrious individuals; and therefore be wotialdl isuport the amendment. Coif ntl DAQVIES said, when he consideredathe large amount of thie ca4iftal that had been employed in this trade under the existing laws, which capital would be greatly injured, he felt himself com- pele toote agwrist the measure. Sir E. H-NATVCHBULL was of opinion, that the interests of the publinicnn, who, in the last, and in the present session, had petitiortud the house so stronglv against the measure, ought to be fairly consi#ered. WVhen the right hon. gent. firnt brought forward the subject, lie said thatehose interests should be taken into mature considerntio:o, so as to give relief to the publicans. For that pur- pose he stat:td that he would considerably reduce the scale of licence duties. Now however, be (Sir E. Knatchbull) found that accord. iagto this b,ilf, the publican wouldlnothbe benefitted by the nlteration in those duti'es. In two vears' timne the additional duties, which were laid on duriatg a period of war, would expire of themselves, while the duties imnposed by this bil were of a permnanent nature. The publicai i would h" believed, be placed in a worse situation than that in which be -would stan4 if the law were not altered. Certain p ra' an eat duties, greater than he would have to pay if the present dtni a were allowed to expire, were imposed on himi by the bill, which, i i the same time, allowed a system of competition that muse materild%y affect his interest. 3Ir. CU IEN would vote for this measure, because it was one from which b e thought the public would derive much benefit. Alr. MONYCK said, the bill -net with his entire approbation. In the report to wvhich allusion bad been made, it was stated that great abuses did ex 1st in the beer trade, and it was to rectify those abuses that &le pren tent measure was brought forward. One of the first brewers, wha was examined before the comnmittee, stated that he w-as friendly to throwing open the trade. He observed, that at one time he served f~orty-four free houses ; but they were so constanstly' besieged by his rivals in the trade, that hte was obliged, in bis own defence, to purchase them, otherwise he should have lost all1 those houses one after another. It was his in. terest, he deiilared, to have free houses and to serve the public with a good artirle at a fair price. He (Mr. Mlonck) wouid maintain that the ch-aracter of the brewer was intimately connected with this subject. ; for, as the charactr of their beer imnproved, go would their own character improve in the estimation of the pub- lic. He believed the publicans would not be so much iffured b this measure as their 1riends supposed. There was a striking dis- tinction betvteen the petitions of the English and Scotch brewers. The former 'appoled the measure, because they apprehended injury froin thie retool brewers; but the latter said not a word on the sub. ject. They tinly comnplained againsit the scale of duties, which had reference to the quantity of malt used, without any reference eo the quality. This was unfavourable to them, because an inferior desrstton of~barley vizs grown in Scotland. What was the reason tha th I id not object to the retail bruwer ? Because every thing Vwas done in a free and open manner. It Was in Scotland a matter of course to grant a licence if :he person applying for it couldl fur. nish the nectisry security. It was Objected that great mischief would arise from retailing beer in every street : but surely people mnight purchas'e it, and drink it just as innoc-ently as they did at present whten it: was fetched to them at an oyster-shop or co-ok-shop. rThe dangers that haEl been alluded to by one or tw7ogentlemien were mere spectres coDnjured up by their own Imaginations. if, how.ever, abusmw did grow tu ,under tne system, was it not competent for Parliament to~Nud a remedy? By this bill the consumer would geta,goodartucle atafairDtwice. This, he contend- ed, was not matter of expeiment, but ot positive experence in the town where lie resided the introduction of retail brewers had been the mean's tef furnishing tie inhabitants with a good and whole- some beverage, at a moderate price. The right honourable gen- tleman had done 'himself great honour in bringing forward this mea- sure,i V?'4ch hal been caled for year afte Year. He trusted te rig~esionourable gentleiman would not notice the clamour of inter. eaited fihlividlezals. Such clamour, he was liely to encoun- ter. But he was sure of receiving a rewiard that must he highly grateful to his bon. friend. He would be hailed by the country as, te poor man's friend, and ini every quarter he would be greeted by the po a' lsig Ha. -I r. C. CAL VER1' denied thiat the statem ent made by the hon. member, reative to the report of the committee, was corrcc. hlr. WODE.H OUSE (of Norfolk) exuresmed his regret that the brewers, who were a highlv respectable body of men, should have been charged with mal-practices. He did not mean, however, to vote for the amendment. Alderman WVOOD coniplained tbatthe publicans' licences were kept up to so high a rate. Thoae individuals were oppressed in every tray. They were not even allowved the window.tax on the whjidows of the lower parts of their houses, where their business was carried on, although that allowance wasanted to other tradesmnen. Until the publican paid everyahilling oftaxes whetlher parochhial or national, he could not renew his licence. Whis bill would opeame most injuriously on his interest. And who called for it ? There were petitions in its favour from the towns of Reading and Newbury; notsigned by 2,000 persons; and at their call for this good and ched;p article, the wholebody of licensed victualers was to be ruined. A cheap article they mght have; but he would answer for it tbat it would not be good. Why didnottheright hon. gent. do thatewbich woultdreally servethepoorman-namely,reduce thedutyof 37s.&Lon barley to areasonablerote ? uch had been said about the monopoly of the brewers : but, from the returns, it appeared that of 44,00 houses 22000 brewed their own beer. Wbat tben became of the monopoly P Of 700 houses supplied by Barclay and Co., the greater number vere free. In the tomn of Leeds, as the returns stated, there weve 300 public-houses, of which only about 20 were- not free. As the right honourable gentleman was so anxious for free trade, why was there not a free importation of corn ? If the returns h.d bcen honesrt the ports would have beet opened long be- fore this, and the public would have had that to which they were M1 DIONCER read an extr;ct from the report, to show thalt the committee had stated that disgracdul jTractices existed in the beer trade. MVr. C. CALVERT said, there was not a word in the evidence to bearout the assertion. There -was no such practice as that of brewing two sorts ofbeer...one for the free houses, antd the other for the brewerse bouses. Mr. DENISON would support the amendment. He wished the monopoly to be destToyed, and the country to be supplied with better ard cheaper beer. But when conferring that benefit on the country, be could not think of injuring a great body of hard. -working, in-iuistriousm, and meritorious individuals. (Hear.) Why sheuld not ithe vested rights of those poor persona be protected as well as those of indfviduals in higher situations ? Air. WELLS was certain there was not a brewer in the country who would be dishonest enough to serve different qualities of beer to different houses. Mlr. CURTETS expressed himself against the measure. Mlr. IIIANSFIELD observed, that as the regulations with re- -spect to the rate of duties had been altered in thie bill, and as he thouFht it would most materially benefit the public interest, he certainly should vote for it. After a few words from Mr.1u'i TERWORT31, the hoase dLivided, when there appeared-. For the amiendmenat.32 For the original motian.99 Illajority for going into the commnittee . .-67 On our return to the gallery we found the house itn the com- mittee, and Mlr. AIABERLY stating, that as by the previous elauses the licensing system was so niuch altered, he would propose to do sway with the licences to publicans altogether. The CHANCELLOJR of the EXCHEQUER said be could noit consent to such a propositioni. It would be a loss of a very consi- derable aurn, which therevenue could not afeord. Mlr. 1MABERLY then proposed to leave out so mnuch of the clauses as went to enact licences on the sale of beer and ale. The gallery wvas now cleared for a division on this amnendmient, buit after being excludedI for about 20 iminutes we found that no division had taken place. On again returning, we found the house still in the commnittee, and on thie clause -ehich empowered retail brewers to sell in their shops ini market.townts from six in the mnorn- ing till ninie isk the evening. Mlr. IMONCK suggested that it would be better to have the shops opened from five in the mnorning till ten at night, in the sunirmer months. This the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHIEQUER thought un. necssay, ndsai itivoil anweraswell to have the same hours The laue wn thn aree Ce,as ereseveral others, after which the ous reume, an th reortwasordered to be received to. morrw, nd te bll, s aende, e beprinted. COUNTY COURTS BILL, Lord ALTHORP mnoved the third reading of the bill. MVr. SCA1tLETT then rose to oppose the passing of the measure. He gave full credit to the noble lordI with whom it had originated, for talent and intention; and he was far from wishing to oppose any course whiich tended to the cheap and easy recovery, of small debts; hut he thought that the bill, in its presenqt shape, was decidedly ob- jectionable, and that if it went to get rid of some evils, it created evils which were greater. In the detail of the measuire, thiere were circumstancesitowhich he objected. In the first place,it would en. tirelv destroy the existing county courts. Those courts were held at ~resent by the clerks of the peace for counties; but the ~ee ae nthem were s.o trifing, that when the business was dimninished, there would. be no fund left sufficient to repay a cm tetperson for doing the duty. This objection, however, he did no ey upon in so late a stage of the bill, nor even upon seve. ral others which might fairly he taken to its operation in practice ; thestrong ground upon which he opposed its being read a third time, was his aversion to the principle upon which it proceeded. Thie effect of the bill was to introduce into general practice that principle of examining parties in their own causes, which west most abhorrent to the spirit of tne English law. The eifher of the "1bills of dis- covery," as thecy were called, in the Court of Chancerv, proved the mischief of this course, and the impossibility of trusting to mnen's consciences where their interests were concerned. Those bills wvere framed and intended to extract a knowledge of the facts of the transaction in question ; but it was notorious that they showed nothing more in general than the maniier in which the re. spondnt mant o shae hi cas. He(Mlr. Scarlett) objiected to theopeaton f he illinthi vew,asbecoming a mere induce- meatto nd ouny uon erjry;andbe opposed it still more deciedlyuponthe roun tha, wihoutsufficient necessity, it thrw tent nw pace, o 001.a yareach, into the patronage and nflunce f Gvernent.Thehon.and eared gentlemnan proceeded to contend, that all the materilavnae sought by the bill moight have been obtained by a mer rvsoofte existing sys- tem of' county courts jurisdiction, and an extension of the powers of those courts to claims not exceeding 51. As those courts now stood, the writ of juislicies gave them juri!sdiction to any amounit, and in the county of Lancatster 3,000 causes under that writ were tried upon an average every year. He conceivedl that by improving the condition of the county courts, and contining their ordinary jurisdiction to claims of 51., allowing the sheriff to appoint his assessor (either a respectable solicitor or barrister) for a term, or from year to year, much more would he gained to the interests of the country, and to the interests of.justice, than by the bill before the house. He was decidedly hostile to bringing the decisions of courts of conscience in. to common usage upon claims so high as 101. ; and no less so eo the making up of twenty new judgeships, to increase the influence of the Crown (which was already atI east susfilcient)iwith the bar. MVr. ,Scarlett sat down by moving, that the bill be read a third time this day six months. Mlr. SYKES was not disposed to thirow any, unnecessary powers into the hands of Government; but. looking at the immensebenetits to be derived fromi the bill, he could not consent to its being thrown out. The revision of the existing county courts suggested' by the hon. member for Peterborough, did not meet the main objects ot the present measure-that of bringing justice home to men at their doors A farmer in Yorkshire might now travel, even to a county court, a hundred miles, and carry an attomney and witnesses with him to recover a diebt of 51. i%ir. J. WIVLLIAMS opposed the bill, on the ecore of the new patronage which it gave to Giovernment. Mlr. R. SMITH thought the house would acquit the noble mover of the bill (Lord Ajthor) of any intention to increase unduly the influence of the Crown but the troth was, that the patronage of theplaes n qeston as ettr gventoGovernment at once, in its resonsbl caacty,Chas efttobe otat by jobbing, or intrusted to Lord LTHOP shrtly eplid, ad admitted the difficulties withwhils he asewas ese. A thre ere150 places, however, al- ready within the power of the Cronto be given away among 300 practising barristers, be thogthate additional 20 which he was creating -would not materiay icease the influence of Govern. ment with the bar. The nobelr concluded by citing. a recent case [for which see our paper of the 20th instantl of a motion in the Court of Common Pleas9, in the case of "1Emery v. Browne." In that ease it appeared that a pnor widow had sought to re2cover a debt of 41. lOs., and had desired an attorney to write a, letter of demand to her creditor - the attorney had brought an action and gone to trial, and a verdict iiad passed for his client ; upon which he had arrested her, at once, for costs to the amount of about 951., and for that sumi she had lain in gaol from .July last to the present time. Nothing couxld be worse than the system undler whaich it wzuspossible for such a circumstance to occur; and he (Lord Althorp) trusted that that svatern would have an end by the bill before the house being read a third time. The bill was then read a third time (the amendment bring nega. tived) without a division. Colonel TRENCH proposed a clause, the object of which we un- derstoodto be, to give compen sation to the Town-clerk- of Cambridge, but a divis5ion being immediately called for, we did not hear its import more exactly. Ihe gallery was closed for a division, and the numbers were- DAyes, 31 1 Noes, 112 1 Miajority against the clause, 81. Dunng our exclusion from the gallery, some additional clause* were, satwe understood., discussed:; we tound Mlr. JOHN WILLIAMS on his legs, proposing a clause to exempt the Court of Requests of the County Palatine of Lan- caster. Lord ALTHORPM briefly opposedl it, and it was withdrawn. Lord ALTHORP said, an opportunity now offered for him to move, as an amendment, on the motion that the bill do pass, the exclusion of the clause of compensation. Since that clause had been introduced, and cases of compansation had been brought forward, it was said that some who were to be compensated had little or no claim ; and others who were omitted out of the pro. posed compensation had as good a claim as those who were inserted in it. But as it appearedl to him (Lord Althorp), the better plan would be to exclude this system of compensation f-rom the bill al- togthe; fr a itatpresent stood, the house would in some de~gree be pedgig temsevesthat t he offices in question should remain on ther peset fotig, otwthsandngthe operation of the present bill orof ny the cirumsancs tat ight make a different ar- rangement necessary. (Hear.) Tenbe lord concluded by mov- ingsomne verbalamnendments in the lause,ttefetfxldn the proposition for compensation. ,othefctfexldn The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was surprised at the noble lord for wishing to sitrike the clause of compensation out of the bill after it had received theapprobation of two comnmittees. Hehilmselfhad approached the bill with intentions of the strictest impartiality, and upon the most mature consideration lhe had introduced th-t compen. sation clause. The house must he aware that there wiere many situ- ations in the court which were in the n-ature of freehold oflices. the sale of which was auithorized by statute, and for some of which sums; as high as 10,0001. had been paid by the purchasers uutder the sanc- tion and guairantee of acts of Parliament and long established cusa. tom. Some of those offices were heldI for one, somne for two or mere lives; they were charged with the land-tax; thiey had all the characteristics and incidents of other freehold property. In the case of opening a new street or building, nothing could be done before 'satisfying the parties whose property was to be broken in upon. There was no distiniction between. those and the present, which would fairly deprivetlie latter of ample compensa. tion. The practice in Parliament had always corresponded wit.hthis view. On abolishing aparticular writ of iain thereiganof Vil. liam Ill., though there was no doubt of the impolicy of continuing that portion of the process, compensation was gie to tilse oficer who hadthe issuing of the writ for the loss, of hi fe. In-T the -c of 1813,for regulating the Irish (lourt_f E-x-cbheq.u.e-r, t-bere wa's a cl-aus'e of compensation, which was precisely the same in the preamnble with the preamble which he had used in theclause ofthebill. This report of the finance committee, upon the subject of abolishing ancient and useless offices in courts of justice, recognized the same principle. In ghnrt, no such injustice had ever been attempted by the legisla- ture as the abolition of judicial offices, without compensation be- ing allowed to the holdf ra. Air. BRIGHT admitted that there might be precedents enough, both modern and ancient, for the proposition of the right honoura. ble gentleman; but surely the house couldnot consenton account of precedents, continued from however long antecedent, to give up its inherent power and right to modify the judicial institutions, wvith- out being bound to consult the conyenience of those who held the offices, which could only be properly held for the publie advantage. But were there not precedents also on the uther side ? In the abo- lition of the great jurisdictions, there had been no reserve upon the article of compensation. What compensation did the legislature award to those who lost their fees and emoluments by the reduction of the Star Chamber? The right hon. pent. talked offees_were there none wbhich had grown up after the establishmentofthe offices? There were abundant fees whichi had accrued Ionf since, either with the connivance or through the oversight of the legislature. Would the right henourable gentleman wish to include these among those law. fut and almost indefeasible emoluments of which he spoke? As darticular clause, it hadebeen badly brought in-late in the p t go on the hill, and contrary to the functions and best prac- tice of he house. The proper place for the discussion of it would have ben i omttee of the house,ewhetrtethe oweo inquiryot MIr. N. CALVERTsaid;afetv wordtinf Lvoarof theamendment. The house divided- ' . For the clattte, 47.1 For the amendment, 41 Tleaboliya forretainine the clause, 6. The biU wzas read a third ttne, ana passed. SCOTCH JURIES BILL. Mlr. KENNEDY moved for the adoption of the resolutions and amendments of the committee. Lord BINlNING hoped that the hon. tid learned gentlenian would give tlem an opportwnity of disCussirgthebfi In detal';iihich could not be done without recomm1tting it'' for which he was the more anxious on accoant of the unfovesai sickneas and absence of his right hon. t'riend the Secretarv-of Stite. MIr. H. DRUMI IIOND urged thetrcommitment of the bilL Alr. KENNEDMY said that the Secretary gf State had expressed his willingness that the bill should proceed,whether he were present or not. The bill had been committedprokorme to fill up the blanks, and twice recommitted, and the hon. memberst had not offered even a technical objection ; its must now abide it fate intheusual progress. Lord BINNING moved an amendmnent that the bill be recoin- mitted.-Thehouse divided- For the motion, 251 For the amendment, 221 Majority, 3. The bill was read a third time and passed. As was also the Irish tithe composition bill, and the Judges in Wales bill. Mlr. HUME obtained leave to bring in three bills (agreeably to the recommendations of the artisans' committee>.-lst, to repeal the laws which prohibit artisans from leaving the country; 2d, to repeal the combination laws; and Sdly, to consolidate and amend the arbitration laws. The first of the above bills Mr. HuME aubsesquensIy brought in, and it was read thefirst time, a-.d orderedto be read a second time to-morrow. The otherorders of theday were disposed of, and the house adjourned at ONE O'CLOC:. MINORITY Who voted with Alr. Alaberlv on his Amendment that the Beer Bill should be reconmitted this day six months. Bridges, Aid. Cavendish, H. KnEatchlbull,SirE.Ransbottorn, J. Barret, S. NO. Cavendish, C. Kiny, Sir J. D. Williams. W. Bradshaw, R. Cavrtels, E. J. MarJoribannka, S. WUson, T. Bntterworth, J. Davenport. D. Maberly. W. L. Whltbread, W. H. Bernal. R. Davies, Col. Plumer, j. Whltbread, S. C. Btrch, J. Denman. Tr. Pitt, J. Wood, Md. CBvert, C. Drake, W. T. Rowley, Sir W. Wells, J. CDke, T. W., jun. Hodgson, F. Tellers, J. Maberl and W. J. Denlson. hO0,SE 0P C MNIAIOXS UnMA'DAY. MIAY 24.