the repeal of the Duties on Coals carried coastwise: Against the Leather Duties: Against the Malt Duty: For a Reform in Parliament: For the Abolition of Slavery: For the Emancipation of the Jews: Against the Truck System: Against the late Change in the Currency: And praying for the removal of the India Company's Monopoly. of an enactment like the first clause, and he had to regret that it had not been made prospective as well as retrospective in its operation. It would have been desirable that a method should have been found, to render the marriages therein described valid when contracted in future. To the second clause he had no objection; the wording of the third clause he thought somewhat vague. He should like to see it stated why "banns could not be legally published in certain chapels." Like the Returns were presented of the number of Vessels employed first clause, too, the benefits of this were all for marriages already contracted, and no provision was made for future marriages of the same description. The act would not, indeed, legalize marriages contracted in chapels where banns could not be legally published; but these chapels should be so described as to leave no doubt on the subject. The fourth clause, relating to marriages celebrated in chapels of which the consecration was doubtful, wanted an additional enactment, to put an end to all doubt, as to what was or what was not a legally consecrated chapel. The Bishop of London said, if the noble Lord's suggestions were acted on, some of the most important clauses of the Marriage Act would be nullified. By that it was provided, that the marriage should take place where the banns were published. It had been his object to provide a remedy for doubts in past cases of inadvertence: but he would not be a party to remove the obstacles to clandestine marriages. The noble Lord was not perhaps aware, that the last clause of the Bill related only to one chapel, and that might be more particularly described. As the law stood, the bishop of a diocese had the power, with the consent of the incumbent, to authorise the publication of banns in any consecrated chapel; but he wished to give the bishop the power independently of the incumbent. He believed that at Macclesfield, which contained from 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, most of them had to go four miles to a chapel because the incumbent refused to allow the banns to be published in any other. Some verbal amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time on a future day. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, March 11. Returns were ordered on the Motion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE of Money demanded at the Exchequer by High Sheriffs of each County of England and Wales, for extra expenses in 1828-1829, and of the sums granted by the Exchequer:-On the Motion of Mr. WODEHOUSE, of the average Prices of Corn in England and Wales for the ten years ending with 1829:-On the Motion of Lord F. L. GOWER, of the Expenses of various Public Establishments in Ireland, and of the Miscellaneous Estimates for Ireland. in the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1829: Of the money paid for the management of the National Debt : Of balance of Public Money in the hands of the Bank of England at different periods: Of the last report of the National Vaccine Establishment: Of the twenty-second Report on Charities : Of processes issued and the commencement of Writs in the Courts of Great Sessions of Wales during the last ten years. FORMS AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.] Mr. Lawley, in presenting three Petitions from individuals against the London and Birmingham Junction Canal Bill, complaining that their names had been improperly inserted in the subscription-list, observed, that so many irregularities had been committed in the management of the Bill, and so many of the Standing Orders of the House had been violated, that he wished these Petitions should be referred to a Committee to examine their allegations. The Speaker explained, that the rule of the House was, to give leave to bring in a private bill, after the petition praying for leave to bring it in had been referred to a committee. It was the duty of the committee to ascertain that the Standing Orders had been complied with. A petition against the principle of a bill might be received at any stage, but petitions against its details were always referred to the committee after it had been read a second time. In this case it appeared, as the Bill had been read a first time, that it must have been referred to a committee, which had reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with. If the hon. Member were prepared to show that the committee had been imposed on, the House might reject the Bill. Mr. Lawley said, he understood that the petitioners were prepared to prove that the Standing Orders had been evaded. Mr. Littleton suggested, that the safer course would be, to adhere to the rules laid down by the House. The Speaker stated it to be his opinion, that the case could not be passed over, though there was a difficulty in saying Member for Gatton. Petitions were presented, praying for what was to be done, as it could only be MINUTES.] Mr. NEELE took the Oaths and his Seat, as referred back to the committee which had already decided that the Standing Orders had been complied with. Mr. Alderman Thompson said, he had a Petition to present from several individuals, complaining that their names had been inserted in the list of approvers of the Bill without their consent. That appeared to him an unwarrantable infringement on the rules of the House, which could on no account be passed over. The Speaker said, as there was no breach of privilege, and no irregularity in the forms which had been followed, he was at a loss to know to what committee it could be referred for investigation. Mr. Littleton said, that until last year, when the regulations then made limited the time of presenting petitions complaining of irregularities, with respect to the Standing Orders such a petition might have been presented at any time. If the House were once to open a door to vexatious proceedings, by infringing those regulations, the consequence would be, that attornies in a late stage of the proceedings, point out some irregularity as to the Standing Orders, with a view to stop the progress of a bill to which his clients were opposed. He admitted that the case of the petitioners was a hard one, but he thought it would be still greater hardship, if the rules of the House were departed from. The Speaker explained, that up to the Session before last, a petition might be presented against a private bill at any stage of its progress through the House, complaining that the Standing Orders had not been observed. That power, however, was frequently abused, and petitions presented at a late stage of the measure, in order to frighten the party promoting it, or increase his expense. To guard against this, the House ruled that no petition should be received complaining that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, after the first reading of any private bill. This regulation was, however, found to go too far, and in practice, as a private bill was generally brought in when a Committee reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with, to operate as a complete bar against all petitions. To remedy this, the time of petitioning was extended to the second reading of a bill, because that allowed the parties opposing the bill an opportunity of petitioning against it, on account of the Standing Orders not having been complied with before the party promoting it had been put to much expense. By that rule the House was then guided, and he did not see how it could be departed from without causing great inconvenience. Mr. Hume, who said he had proposed the Resolution just referred to, was of opinion that it did prevent vexatious opposition,while it gave a means of redress. If it were made out that names and sums had been put down without any authority, that, by the rules, of the House would justify throwing out the Bill. Mr. D. W. Harvey said, that the allegation was, that a false subscription had been deposed at the Private Bill Office, which was a fraud. If it were proved, though he did not accuse Mr. Eyre Lee, or any other gentleman, the Bill ought to be instantly rejected, and an inquiry set on foot as to its author. One of the allegations of the petition was, that the name of a person appeared in the list of subscribers for 1,000l. who was not, as he knew, worth any such sum. The petitions presented by Mr. Lawley were then orderred to be refered to the Committee on the Petition for the Bill. Mr. Alderman Thompson then presented a Petition from several persons, complaining that their names had been put down as subscribers to the same Junction Canal Bill, when they had never subscribed a single farthing. The list deposited in the Bil Office, they stated, was false; they therefore prayed that the House would institute an inquiry in order to find out the authors of this subscription-list, and that they might be heard by counsel at the Bar against the Bill. He had seen the subscription-list, and could assure the House, that the names of many persons were down as subscribers for large sums, whom he knew to be quite unable to pay any such amounts. Mr. Littleton deprecated the discussion, which was all ex parte and quite needless, as the petitions would be referred to a committee. Mr. Eyre Lee, whose name had been mentioned, was then in Worcestershire, discharging his duty as subsheriff, and though he knew nothing whatever of the facts of the case, he could answer for that gentleman being ready, on his return, to meet any charge that might be made against him. Mr. Alderman Thompson said, he had no wish to hurry forward an inquiry in the absence of that gentleman. He had no doubt of Mr. Eyre Lee's respect- | Orders at present did not require the ability, but he was not more respectable christian names of the parties to be inserted, than many of the subscribers to the petition, which sometimes led to mistakes. Perhaps which he had presented. He would move the Standing Orders ought to be altered in that the petition be referred to the same that particular. committee, which he had no doubt would give Mr. Eyre Lee an opportunity of vindicating himself. Mr. D. W. Harvey said, that what the petitioners complained of, the House was bound to inquire into. It was of such a nature that it was not to be overlooked. He had no object in pressing the inquiry but to do justice, and he hoped that Mr. Eyre Lee, and the other parties, would be fully heard in their own defence. He could not avoid regretting, however, that the hon. Member for Staffordshire had not evinced the same desire for parties to be heard, when he (Mr. Harvey) presented a petition from an individual against a measure by which his interests were affected. Mr. Littleton thought, that his conduct on that occasion needed no justification, and that he was bound to move a resolution, declaring that it was improper for a person to be both judge and attorney in the same cause. Sir John Wrottesley knew nothing of the particular case, but he wished that every Englishman, when accused, should have a fair trial. Mr. Lawley said, that it was not his intention that the committee should proceed in the investigation till Mr. Eyre Lee was present. He did not implicate Mr. Lec, or any other person, but would leave the matter entirely to the committee. The petition presented by Mr. Alderman Thompson was also referred to the committee. Mr. Benson presented a similar Petition from thirty-six individuals. They had applied for shares in the canal, but had never received any answer. They had never paid any deposit, and many of them said they were unable to pay the large sums placed against their names. He thought these were matters that required serious investigation, and he should move that the petition be referred to a committee. He wished, as well as the hon. Baronet, not to condemn a man unheard, and he should be ready to assist Mr. Eyre Lee in making his defence; but if he could not defend himself, it would be his painful duty to uphold the dignity of Parliament, and bring the offender to account. Mr. Littleton said, that the Standing Petition referred to the Committee on the Bill, which was revived. LICENSED VICTUALLERS.] Mr. Alderman Thompson presented a Petition, signed by 1,100 persons engaged in the sale of beer, by retail, in London, praying that the House might not consent to throw open the trade in Beer. He was aware, he said, that the House was disposed to take off the restrictions on trade as much as possible, and in that, as a general principle, he cordially concurred; but he thought the House ought to pause before it took a step which might not benefit the public, but would certainly be a most serious injury to persons carrying on the trade of Licensed Victuallers. The number of persons engaged in the trade of selling beer by retail in the metropolis, meaning only licensed victuallers, was 4,300, and the houses they occupied, at the lowest average, were worth 2501. a-piece to their owners; but which, if the trade in beer were thrown open, would not be worth any thing. There then was a loss to this body of individuals exceeding 1,000,000. sterling without any corresponding benefit to the public. A measure involving so serious a loss to any set of men ought not to receive the sanction of the House, unless it were required by some great and paramount interest. The sale of beer had been greatly reduced of late years by the reduction of the duty on wine, spirits, and coffee; and if duty to the same amount were taken off beer, the consumption would probably be increased in proportion: but it was absurd to suppose that Government would increase the consumption by increasing competition among the sellers. The duty was so high, that all the retailer could get as his profit was 1d. per pot, out of which he had to pay rent, taxes, and all other expenses; so that it was utterly impossible the public could get it cheaper by open sale unless the duty was reduced. He therefore begged to caution those hon. Members connected with the landed interest, who were willing to support the throwing open the trade in beer, under an idea that it would benefit them by an increased consumption of malt, that it would do no such thing. Nothing would effect that but a reduction of the duty on malt | measure of this kind, intended for the and beer. If the duty were removed, beer public benefit. It was absurd to talk of would enter fairly into competition with vested interests in a trade carried on under wine, and spirits, and tea, and the quantity a law which might at any time be varied consumed would probably increase. If for the public good. If the trade were so it were said that the value he had ascribed little profitable as was said by the hon. to these houses was fictitious, he would Alderman, those who now carried it on answer, that this fictitious value was the had no occasion to fear much competition; result of our excise laws, which had been for few persons would be absurd enough more than a century in existence, and the to embark in a trade which would bring petitioners had embarked their property in on their ruin. If there were no profit, howthe trade, perfectly ignorant that these ever, why were the publicans so anxious laws were to be abrogated. The petition- to secure their monopoly? He was perers prayed to be heard by themselves or by suaded that such a measure would do a counsel against the Bill, which would great deal of good, and if the Government plunge their families in ruin. persevered in its intentions, he would give them all the support in his power. Mr. G. Dawson said, that he was dis posed to give every consideration to the prayer of the petitioners; but he thought it would be attended with great inconvenience to allow the parties to be heard by themselves or counsel before the com regulations under which beer was sold. Such a course would only tend to bring before that committee very exaggerated statements, and would delay its proceeding without contributing to the discovery of truth. It was to be hoped that hon. Members would not be so far carried away by the heat of debate as to enter on a desultory, irregular discussion on the merits of a question, at a time when it could possibly be productive of no eventual good, but would content themselves with providing evidence that might be laid before the committee, and reserve their arguments for the proper place, where they could be fairly sifted and turned to account. The committee sitting upon the subject above stairs, he had no doubt would be disposed to pay every attention to the representations of a body so respectable as the petitioners. Mr. Alderman Wood supported the prayer of the petition, and said that it was not an over-value to fix the loss which throwing open the trade in beer would occasion to the publicans of the metropolis at 2,000,000l. His hon. colleague had understated it. There were upwards of 4,000 licensed victuallers in the metro-mittee then sitting to inquire into the polis, and their houses were, he thought, on an average, worth double the amount stated by the former speaker. Let the duty be first taken off malt and beer, and then, perhaps, the trade might be thrown open, but to do it at present would ruin those engaged in it, and give no benefit to the public. By the abolition of the duty, the prices would probably fall to three pence a pot, and the increased consumption would make up for the smallness of profit. At present the amount of business was so small, and the profits so little, that the publicans could hardly get a living. Already the trade had been opened to a certain extent by the establishment of houses for the sale of intermediate beer, which had inflicted a serious injury on the licensed victuallers. He supposed that Government did not intend to allow the trade to be carried on without a license, and if they did not, they would only divide a trade, that was now too small to subsist those engaged in it, among double their number. The tax on malt and beer was one of the most unjust that ever was yet devised, because the whole weight of it fell upon the poor. It really was monstrous that the poor should drink their beer at a charge of 150 or 160 per cent above the absolute value, while the rich drank their claret at only twenty-five per cent beyond its first cost. Sir J. Newport objected to the practice of urging vested interests against any Mr. F. Buxton concurred in thinking that all exaggerated statements ought to be avoided. He should not have said one word on the subject, had not the hon. Baronet indulged in some remarks which might better have been spared, as they were totally uncalled for. He did not intend to advance any thing in vindication of the monopoly of brewers, although a brewer himself; but he would say, that the present system of excessive taxation bore very hard upon the publican. People did not appear to be aware of the amount to which the beverage of the poor man was ..J Mr. Alderman Thompson in moving that the Petition be referred to the committee thanked the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. G. Dawson) for his candor on that occasion. When the House recollected the great stake the petitioners had in the inquiry, it would not be surprised that they should be anxious that their interests should receive due consideration. Petition referred to a committee. DISTRESS AND REFORM.] Sir F. Burdett presented a Petition from the Manufacturers and Shopkeepers of Coventry, complaining of Distress, and praying for a Reform in Parliament. The hon. Baronet said, he perfectly concurred in the sentiments of the petitioners. taxed; and nothing could so well demon- | had made such an attack on the publicans strate the grievance alluded to as a state- he did not know, unless it were because he ment of the rate at which the consumers came from a country in which there was of beer paid for their humble enjoyment, no beer. He assured that right hon. compared with the tax imposed on the Gentleman, that the people whose interluxuries of the rich. Those who regaled ests he seemed to value so lightly were themselves on champagne paid a duty of generally persons of great industry and only twenty-seven per cent; those who economy, who from small beginnings had drank claret paid twenty-eight per cent; attained to independence. those who took port paid fifty-six; but the consumers of beer were mulcted to the amount of 165 per cent. Again, gentlemen consumed malt at 20s. per quarter, while the poor man was constrained to pay 55s. A reduction of one-half had been taken off the duty on spirits, but no corresponding concession had been made in the article of beer, which was peculiarly the accompaniment of the poor man's recreation. These were evils which could be removed by the reduction of taxation only; not by the abolition of the monopoly. That would not prove any remedy whatever, unless the House at the same time abolished the duties both on malt and beer. He did not complain as a brewer, but he was convinced that many publicans, men who had embarked their whole capital in Mr. Fyler declared his conviction, that their trade, would be ruined. If the public the parties to this petition were suffering good required any alteration of the present under most overwhelming distress. system, he hoped that the House would did not take offence on account of their not stop short until it carried the principles not having intrusted it to him, but should of free trade into full effect throughout the have candidly stated, had he been so whole system of our legislation. Let the honoured, how far he agreed with them, brewers buy both hops and corn in foreign and how far he dissented. They prayed, markets, wherever they could get them as he was informed, for annual parliabetter and cheaper than in our own; and ments, election by ballot, and universal one of these articles, hops, was much suffrage, on none of which points did their cheaper abroad than at home. The case opinions coincide with his own. With of the publicans was undoubtedly one of respect to their desire for introducing much hardship; they could live under the ballot, he could never be brought to appresent system, or they might be able to prove that American, or rather dark Italian live under a system of perfect freedom; system of election, but he could give his but a system of half favouritism and half hearty support to a temperate and gradual freedom would be injurious to all classes. reform. He agreed with that part of the Mr. C. Barclay acknowledged that that petition which represented the retail dealwas not a proper occasion for entering on ers as being in extreme distress. He knew the discussion, as all parties would have they were so generally in the country, an opportunity of making their sentiments whatever they might be in town, and he known to the committee, who, he was sure, was amazingly surprised to hear from high would pay due attention to their state-authority, that they were flourishing and ments, and act between conflicting interests as justice might dictate. He believed that Ministers meant to act fairly by all parties, but many industrious individuals, he feared, would be overwhelmed with distress, if not with ruin, if the existing system were very considerably and suddenly altered, Why the right hon. baronet He prosperous. In his opinion, the true and only remedy for distress was relief from taxation, and for that he would vote, though he would not lend his name to swell ministerial majorities, nor to give importance to factious opposition. The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. |