Commons Sitting of 1 August 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Exchequer Bills; Consolidated Fund; Tithes; Stay of Suits; Norfolk Island.—Read a third time:—Land Tax Amendment; Royal Burghs (Scotland); Fever Hospital; Assessed Taxes Composition.
Petitions presented. By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Inverness and Forfar, in favour of the Bankrupts' Scotland Bill.—By Messrs. LANGDALE and BLAMIRE, from the

889
Spirit Sellers and Licenced Victuallers of Beverley and Carlisle,Marquesses—against any Increase of their Licenses.—By Sir FREDERICK VINCENT, from St. Alban's, against Drunkenness.—By Sir JOHN REID, Messrs. GOULBURN and PHILPOTTS, from several Places,—for Support to the Church of England.—By Mr. CHARLES GRANT, from the Parochial Schoolmasters of Abernethy and Inverness, for an increased Stipend; from several Places, for altering the System of Church Patronage in Scotland; from Inverness, against Clandestine Emigration.—By Mr. R. WALLACE, from Greenock, against exempting decked Vessels from Lighthouse Dues; and for certain Alterations in the Tonnage of Vessels Bill.—By Mr. C. RUSSELL, from Reading, for amending the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill.—By Captain JONES, from several Places, for Protestant to the Protestant Church of Ireland.—By Mr. BARHAM, from Dewsland, for Protection and Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Admiral FLEMING, from Crieff, for Vote by Ballot—By Mr. ABERCROMBIE, from Edinburgh, for Surveyors to superintend Merchant-Ships while building, and while preparing for Sea.—By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Stockport, against the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill.

DISMISSAL FROM THE ARMY—CASE OF MR. HOME
Sir Francis Vincentpresented a Petition from an individual named Home, late Lieutenant-Colonel in the army, complaining of having been unjustly deprived of his Commission, and praying redress. The hon. Member said, that all he should ask on that occasion was, a copy of the Minutes of the Court of Inquiry which recommended his dismissal, as the military officers who composed that Court were charged by the petitioner with having forged and fabricated the documents on which the decision was come to.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondid not understand that the hon. Member meant to request a copy of the minutes of the court of inquiry at a period when the Secretary at War was not in his place. The papers connected with this case were not at his office, but at the Horse Guards; but he would undertake to say, that whenever the hon. Baronet thought proper to make an application, by a distinct Motion to the House, for the production of the minutes of evidence taken before the court of inquiry, he should be fully prepared to submit such a case to the House as would satisfy them of the impropriety of acceding to the application. He had had only three days' notice of the intention to make this application, and as he had had so very short time to examine the circumstances of the dismissal, he would only observe, that what he had seen was quite sufficient to satisfy his own mind, that the deliberate opinion of his right hon. predecessor, as well as that of the Secretary at War, upholding the justice of the determination to which the court of inquiry
890
had come, was perfectly correct and well founded. He must reprobate in the strongest terms the language of the petition, which heaped upon individuals of the highest character for honour integrity, and humanity, the foulest abuse and the grossest charges that had ever been contained in any petition. It went the length of accusing Lord F. Bentinck, Sir H. Calvert, Major-General Torrens, and the other distinguished officers who composed the court of inquiry, with having forged and fabricated the documents on which he was dismissed. He thought that such an allegation alone against the high character of these distinguished individuals would show that little credit was to be attached to the statements of Mr. Home. If the allegations had been true, why had he not preferred an indictment against them? but, on the contrary, he suffered ten years to elapse before he thought fit to make any application on the subject. He must also deprecate the practice of making that House a court of review for matters of military discipline, and in opposition to the decisions of military tribunals. If any such cases ought to be entertained by the House, it was those where the matters were of a recent date, and where the witnesses were alive to substantiate them; but in this case it was not found convenient to make the gross allegations against the honourable and distinguished persons to whom he had alluded until after some of them were dead. The case had received the particular attention of his late Majesty and the Duke of York, the latter of whom, after a most attentive and deliberate consideration of the case, though disposed to deal tenderly with Colonel Home, declared him a person unfit to remain in the army. The prerogative of the Crown was accordingly exercised, and a court of inquiry was directed. The petitioner had entered into certain mining speculations in partnership with others, and had drawn bills above the amount specified in the deed of copartnership. These Bills were put into circulation, by which there was a chance of defrauding the persons among whom they might circulate, as was proved by the action brought against him by the Court of King's Bench. The court of inquiry very properly decided that such a transaction was incompatible with the honour of the British army, and Colonel Home was, therefore, in his opinion, very

891
properly dismissed. Whenever the hon. Member thought proper to move for a production of the minutes of that court of inquiry, he should be perfectly ready to meet the case.
Colonel Williamssaid, that he had great doubts whether the prerogative of the Crown to direct a dismissal in such a case as the present was justifiable. He thought it was not.
Sir George Murraywas of opinion the Crown possessed that prerogative, but that it should only be exerted in extreme cases. He (Sir George Murray) was connected with the regiment to which the petitioner formerly belonged, and knew that in the present case a court of inquiry was directed, consisting of the most experienced and humane officers in the army, thereby showing that there was no disposition to act severely toward the petitioner; and yet these gross allegations were not brought against those most honourable and amiable persons until they were no longer alive to refute them. In his opinion, for the honour of British officers, for the maintenance of its high character, and for the honour of the country it served, the dismissal of this individual, founded upon the verdict of the Court of King's Bench, was perfectly justifiable and was required. He was convinced, that if the petitioner had had justice on his side, there was no quarter from which he was more sure of attentive consideration than from the humanity of his late Royal Highness, then Commander-in-Chief.
Petition laid on the Table.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.
Mr. Robert Wallacesaid, he had a Petition to present of a very extraordinary nature, such as he had never expected the honour of presenting. It was from a gentleman of Nova Scotia, and complained of the most extraordinary grievance that he (Mr. Wallace) had ever heard of. He would remark here, that it was now more requisite to look to the interests of our Colonies, since the alteration of the representation by the Reform Bill rendered it impossible for the Colonies to obtain a representative by sending a certain sum of money, and thus purchasing a seat in that House. They were now compelled to get such Members as himself to state their case to the best of their abilities. The petitioner was a gentleman of the name of Maurice
892
Christie, residing at Gaspe, in Lower Canada, who stated, that he had been five times unanimously elected as representative of that district, and as often expelled by the Assembly of Quebec. The reasons for his exclusion were simply these:—Previous to his election this Gentleman had, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, been called upon as a matter of duty to send a list of those gentlemen whom he thought fit and proper persons to fill the office of Justice of the Peace, thereby giving him a power, which he was bound to exercise to the best of his knowledge and belief, of sending only the names of those whom he thought well worthy to fill the situation. This gentleman, in the due exercise of his duty, omitted the names of four gentlemen who had formerly stood upon the list. He (Mr. Wallace) submitted to the House, that he was well entitled so to exercise his discretion; and he would ask if the Lords-lieutenant of counties in this country were not bound to exercise a similar discretion? For this act, however, this gentleman was tried before a secret conclave; he was not admitted to hear the evidence against him; he was not allowed counsel; and he (Mr. Wallace), would ask what would be the situation of the hon. member for Colchester, if he had not had the opportunity of an open and fair investigation? But he would also ask, if this conduct were not traceable to another matter? The district was situated at a distance of 400 miles from the capital of the province; it was separated from it by a great extent of forest land impassable in winter, and scarcely to be passed in summer. Its manufactures were of a totally different nature from those in which Quebec took any interest; and he would ask the House, if it were not possible that some feeling towards the individual who had advocated the separation of this district from the province, and its addition to that of New Brunswick, might not have influenced the Members of the Assembly of Quebec to act as they had done? This gentleman had openly advocated a separation, and he (Mr. Wallace) in the same situation would have done the same, and he would promise that next Session he would go more at large into this part of the subject. This district contained a most influential and numerous population, amounting to 14,000, and the representative of this large number of

893
persons had been five times expelled the Assembly of Quebec. What would be said, if that House should act in a similar manner to those Irish Members who advocated a Repeal of the Union, and had not the people of Gaspe the same cause to complain which the people of Ireland in such a situation would have? He was not aware; that any objection was to be made to this petition. The petitioner prayed to be heard at the Bar of that House, in order that that House might decide whether, as a gentleman, a Magistrate, and an honest man, he had done anything to disqualify him from being a Member of the Assembly of Quebec. He claimed from the House on the part of this much-injured individual an opportunity of showing, that he was an honest and injured man; and he (the petitioner) was indifferent whether this opportunity was afforded him at the Bar of that House or before a public tribunal in his own country: it was to him one and the same thing. He hoped it would be enough to repeat, that this gentleman had been five times unanimously elected, and as often expelled—the constituency being thus in his person disfranchised—to induce the Government, as this was an extreme case, to step forward and interfere.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES (IRELAND.)
On the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into a Committee on the Tithes (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to call the attention of the House to one very material feature in which the present Bill appeared to be deficient. As it now stood, the Bill only affected the tithe-payers in agricultural districts; but it was very well known, that in the towns there was an impost, called "Ministers' money," which would be left untouched. He did not wish to take up the time of the House this Session by pressing this matter upon their attention, but he hoped that next Session some measure would be adopted for putting the town and country districts on the same footing.
Mr. Littletonthanked the hon. and learned Member for calling his attention to the subject, as it undoubtedly was important; but it was also a question of very great difficulty, by reason of the very trifling nature of the payments. With respect to the exaction, he did not believe
894
that for the last three years as much as sixty per cent of this amount had been paid.
The House went into a Committee. On the question that a new clause introduced by Mr. Littleton, authorizing the revision of compositions already existing,
Mr. Goulburnwas astonished at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, a course such as no Minister of the Crown ever before attempted. He called for a revisal, or, in other words, an abrogation, of the solemn compact entered into ten years ago by the Composition Act between the Clergy and the people,—a compact sanctioned by Parliament, and one that gave general satisfaction. That Act was meant to be a final settlement of the difficulties attending the tithe question. By it the parishioners and clergy were empowered to appoint each party a Commissioner; and if these did not agree, an appeal was allowed to a superior tribunal. Now it was sought to annul that composition, and at the demand of one party only; for by the proposed clauses any seven rate-payers who only paid 24 s. each could, on a complaint made before a Magistrate, which complaint was to be transmitted to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, demand a new valuation, and so rescind the Composition Act. Nay, even the present incumbent was made subject to the errors committed by his predecessor in any valuation of tithe, and was punished for what was no crime of his. It was unjust to come down on the present rector, who had no means of disproving the accusation of overcharge made against his predecessor. He would like to know, if the present incumbent imagined that the composition entered into by his predecessor was too low, and so unfavourable to his own interest, would he, in the present state of public feeling in Ireland, dare demand an augmentation? If he did demand it, the law expenses he would incur would be ruinous to him. The composition was solemnly and deliberately entered into, and it would be unjust and injurious to violate it.
Lord Althorpsaid, the Composition Act was a temporary expedient, and passed under circumstances that could not last. When the charge was transferred to other parties, it would be most unjust not to allow revision.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Bill could not possibly work without those clauses ob-

895
jected to by the hon. member for Cambridge. The Composition Act gave the clergy too much power; for without their consent no composition could be effected; and, in most places, the composition was too high.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that, so far from the clergy having an advantage, the clergyman was obliged to furnish his books to the Commissioners, and the absolute consent of both parties was necessary for the composition. Besides this, the parishioners, if aggrieved, could appeal to the Lord-lieutenant, and even from him to the Judge of Assize, and even from the Judge to Parliament. In 1822, the composition was said to be a conclusive measure; and he could not see on what principle of justice or honesty a clergyman should be called on now to state the sums received by him from 1814 to 1821—much less how he could be called on to state what sums his predecessor received in that time. He had heard much of the necessity of upholding the sacred nature of vested rights; but could Parliament, after having already despoiled the clergy of one-fifth of their revenues, now, without utterly subverting all title to property and all principles of justice, call on them to submit to the proposed inquiry, which would go to swindle them out of the rest? It was cruel and most unfair to put men, after the late successful resistance to tithes, to the criterion and ordeal of showing the nature of a composition entered into long ago, or of justifying the grounds of that composition. But he did not complain of the Government for the Bill as it at present stood, for the hon. member for Waterford had lately told them that the alterations had been stipulated for by the self-styled Irish Liberal Members; but he did complain of the measure as one of gross injustice, and one which, if adopted, must lead to mischief and confusion. The opening of the compositions already made was replete with injustice and oppression to the clergy, and would deprive the Government of all claim to confidence.
Mr. O'Reillywas in favour of the clause as it stood. It was calculated to do justice both to tithe-payers and tithe-receivers.
Mr. Shawasserted, that nothing could be more unjust than the clauses which had been objected to by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Lefroy). It was perfectly monstrous to give persons the power
896
of opening compositions settled ten years ago. Suppose a landlord had a tenant owing him 500 l., and, with a view to effect payment, the landlord said ten years ago that he would take 200 l. or 300 l. for the debt; would it not be unprecedentedly unjust, after a lapse of ten years, to give the successor of the tenant the power of calling upon the successor of the landlord to fulfil the offer of his predecessor? To what dreadful false swearing and villainy would not such an arrangement lead! So infamous were these clauses upon the face of them that, he solemnly protested, he could not believe that they had been suggested by the Government, but they must have sprung from some persons whose object was to injure, insult, and destroy the Church in Ireland. As a means of corrupting the Irish Bar, this Bill was most objectionable. He did not believe that there was a young barrister, with the slightest claims on the Irish Government, who did not look to become a Commissioner under the Bill.
Mr. Charles Walkersupported the clause. The hon. Member stated that, in several parishes, the clergy had succeeded in striking an unfair average against the parishioners, by laying before the Commissioners promissory notes taken at a long date for arrears due to them.
Mr. Henry Grattansupported the clause, and bore testimony to the truth of the circumstance which the hon. member for Wexford had just stated.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that, as the clauses under consideration had been so well discussed by the members for the Cambridge and Dublin Universities on the one side, and several of the Irish County Members on the other, he thought it unnecessary for him to take up the time of the Committee. The clauses were only introduced to meet a case which he trusted would not arise; if it did not arise, it was needless for him to say the clause would not be had recourse to.
The Clause was agreed to.
Upon reading the Clause appointing barristers Commissioners of Counties,
Mr. O'Dwyer moved, that the blank be filled up with the figure 4, instead of 6, years' standing.
On this Motion the Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 66: Majority 54.
The Clause was agreed to.
The House resumed, and the Report was brought up.

THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved into a Committee on the Bank of England Acts.
Lord Althorpstated, that it was his intention to explain the arrangement which was proposed to be made with the Bank of England for the purpose of paying one-fourth of the amount of the debt due from the public to that Company on or before the 5th of October, according to the terms of the Chatter. By the provisions of the Bank Charter, the Bank was entitled to receive this fourth part of the debt, amounting to the sum of 3,671,700 l. in money; but it appeared to him that it would be much more advisable to make a proposition to the Bank, to receive its equivalent in public stock, than to pay the amount actually in money. If he had determined to pay the sum in money, it would have been necessary for him to go into the market for the purpose of raising the amount by loan. Now, he was quite certain that those gentlemen who knew anything of the state of the money market would agree with him when he said, that the effect of going into the market for the purpose of raising so small a sum as 3,000,000 l. and odd, would be to throw the market into confusion, and to make the transaction unprofitable to the Government, and altogether disadvantageous to the public. For these reasons, he considered it to be much better to offer to the Bank of England a certain amount of stock in lieu of money. He believed that it was the wish of the Directors of the Bank that the money should be paid to them in the shape of an annuity, which should terminate simultaneously with their Charter,—namely, at the expiration of ten years. The effect of such an arrangement, if it were made, undoubtedly would be a great relief to the public at the end of ten years; but, on the other hand, the immediate pressure which it must produce on the revenue would far exceed that which would be created by paying the amount in the way he proposed. The proposition which he had made to the Bank Directors was, that, in lieu of the money due to them, they should receive an equivalent in the Three-per-cent Reduced Annuities, at the rate of 100 l. stock for every 90 l. The Bank, then, instead of a payment in money, would receive 4,080,000 l. Three-per-Cent Reduced Annuities. The bonus which the Bank would get by this transac-
898
tion was one and a-half per cent.; and he believed that, if he had gone into the market, he could not have obtained the money on such good terms as he had obtained from the Bank; and, therefore, he thought the bargain was not a bad one. He thought it necessary to state further, that he had selected the Three-per-Cent Reduced Stock in preference to the Three-and-a-half per Cents., because the annuity chargeable to the public on the former was less than that chargeable on the latter. The noble Lord concluded by moving a Resolution to the following effect:—'That it is the opinion of the Committee that 4,080,000 l. Reduced Three per Cents should be placed to the credit of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, in payment of one-fourth part of the debt due from the public to the said Company, and that the same be added to, and form part of, the Reduced Three-per-Cent Annuities; and that the interest thereof be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.'
Mr. Goulburncould not understand the policy of the arrangement which the noble Lord seemed so anxious to carry into effect, of paying off one-fourth of the sum which the public owed to the Bank. He could not understand why the noble Lord should propose to reduce the amount of the security which the Bank offered to the public precisely at the moment when the new arrangements made with the Bank of England tended to increase the amount of their circulating medium, by substituting their Bank paper in the place of private bank paper. That, however, was a matter which had been discussed and settled in the last Session of Parliament. But the present proposition of the noble Lord, instead of having the effect of lightening the burthens of the country, would increase them, and ultimately add largely to them. It would, in fact, create a permanent charge to the country of upwards of 400,000 l. additional debt, and an annual charge of 12,000 l. until that debt was paid. He certainly could not approve of the course which had been pursued by the noble Lord with respect to this business. According to the agreement made with the Bank, one-fourth of the debt due by the public was to be paid in money; and, under these circumstances, the step which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would naturally be expected to take, was to go into the market, and, by exciting

899
competition, obtain the money on the most advantageous terms. But, supposing that it was not possible for the noble Lord to get the money on better terms than he had obtained from the Bank, still, he would ask, why did not the noble Lord, having the funds of the Savings-banks at his disposal, allow them to benefit by the transaction in preference to the Bank of England? Believing that the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord would impose an additional burthen on the country, and also objecting to the mode in which the noble Lord intended to carry it into execution, he certainly could not give his assent to the resolution. The Members of that House were anxious to be thought friends to economy; but, in spite of their squabbling about giving 1,000 l. a-year, more or less, to the Speaker of that House, or debating whether or not 100 l. should be taken from the allowance made to the Commissioners of Excise, they might be assured, that they would be considered improvident administrators of the public funds if they permitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without any necessity, to add hundreds of thousands to the national debt.
Mr. Warburtondid not see any objection to paying off one-fourth of the debt due to the Bank, for the sum which remained constituted a sufficient security on the part of that body to the public. He did think, however, that the bargain made by the noble Lord was most improvident. He contended, that in consequence of that bargain, the country, instead of having only 100 l. on which to pay at the rate of three per cent, would have 111 l. on which it would be obliged to pay at that rate, though there could be no doubt that, if the noble Lord had gone into the money-market and made his bargain there, he would have found capitalists willing enough to lend him the money so that he would only have had to pay interest on 100 l. instead of 111 l. But this argument, it should be borne in mind, was founded on the supposition that the money-rate of the three per cents reduced stock was 90 l.; yet they all knew that by the arrangement made between the Commissioners of Savings' Banks and the Commissioners for the extinction of the National Debt, the noble Lord was enabled to dispose of that stock at the rate of ninety-one-and-a-half. He thought that the Bank had proved too deep for the noble Lord.
Lord Althorpsaid, that relying on the accuracy of his hon. friend's calculation, he believed his statement, that the effect of the bargain made with the Bank would be to make the country pay three per cent on 111 l. instead of three per cent on 100 l., to be correct. But his hon. friend was certainly mistaken in supposing that he (Lord Althorp) lost on both parts of the transaction; for the reason of his loss on the 111 l. was, that he had taken the value of the three per cents at 90 l. His hon. friend, therefore, had no right to calculate a loss on both sides, and it would be recollected by the Committee that he had stated, that he had given a bonus of one-and-a-half per cent to the Bank. The arrangement made with the Bank last year having been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he wished to explain the principle on which it was founded. It could not be denied, that so long as the country owed a larger amount of debt than was necessary to the Bank of England, the Government would be, when the Charter expired, more in the hands of that body than it ought to be. He had, therefore, always thought, that when the funds were high, as they were at present, it would be desirable to take advantage of that circumstance for the purpose of reducing the amount of the debt due to the Bank; and so far from thinking that the security offered by the Bank was in the least diminished by the subtraction of one-fourth of the capital, he should have liked to have paid off a larger amount, had he been able to make a bargain to that effect. In carrying out this arrangement, it would be impossible for the public not to lose to a certain amount in their annual payment; and the question now was, whether the mode he had adopted in paying this sum to the Bank was more disadvantageous to the public than necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had inquired why he had not applied the funds of the Savings' banks to this object. He certainly might have used the Savings' banks funds for that purpose, had he not applied them in a way which he considered more profitable. Having those funds at his disposal, he thought he might propose the reduction of the four per cents on advantageous terms, because he was prepared by the aid of the money belonging to the Savings' banks to pay off the dissentients; and the result proved that his judgment was correct. By

901
the reduction of the four per cents he had saved 50,000 l. a-year, and by not employing the funds of the savings' banks in paying the quarter of the debt due to the Bank he had lost 12,000 l. a-year. He could not coincide in the statement made by his hon. friend, that if he (Lord Althorp) had gone into the market he might have obtained better terms. He had made every inquiry in his power on the subject (the nature of the case not permitting him to make much public inquiry), and all that he had heard induced him to think that if he had attempted to raise the money, 89 l. or 90 l. for every 100 l. stock would have been the best terms he should have been able to obtain. But even if he could have succeeded in obtaining 90 l., he should not have been disposed to disturb the money-market by going into it for the purpose of raising a loan.
Mr. Warburtonadmitted, that he had overstated the case against the noble Lord; but still he must say, that if the conversion had been made at the rate of 91 l. 10 s. instead of 90 l., the public would have had to pay only three per cent on 109 l. whereas by the bargain made by the noble Lord they would have to pay three per cent on 111 l. He objected to the proposed arrangement, because it would make the public lose in two ways—first, by the payment of a high rate of interest, and secondly, because this payment, not being made on the principle of a terminable annuity, 100 l. must be paid for every 90 l., whenever it should be proposed to redeem the debt.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that whenever the debt was paid off, 100 l. must be given for every 90 l.; but he did not believe that he could have selected any other stock than that which he had chosen for this operation, without incurring at least an equal loss. If he could have converted the fourth of the debt due to the Bank into Terminable Annuities, without placing a heavy burthen on the public, he should have done so in preference to converting it into Perpetual Annuities; but an annuity, terminable, as had been suggested, at the expiration of ten years, would have pressed very heavily on the public, and disarranged the whole finance of the country, as he had always thought that it was not right to overburthen the existing generations for the purpose of relieving future generations: he should have acted contrary to every principle he had hitherto
902
professed, if he had proposed to place such additional charge on the people.
Mr. Thomas Attwooddid not see any great objection to the plan of the noble Lord, though he was afraid it would give the Bank even greater facilities than it at present possessed to play with the National Funds. He thought there should be a Board of Control, which ought to have a superintending power over the Bank, as the Board of Control so called had over the affairs of India.
Mr. Alderman Thompsondenied, that there were any grounds for alarm respecting the proceedings of the Bank. In answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he stated, that the House of Commons was the first Board of Control which could be established for the superintendence of the Bank.
Resolution agreed to; the House resumed.

SALE OF BEER.
Lord Althorp moved, that the House should go into a Committee on the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that the Bill did not sufficiently consult the interests of the consumers of beer, or of those people who had invested capital under the old law. He hoped that the noble Lord, having adopted the Bill, would be able to state that he had made some alterations in it.
Lord Althorpsaid, having supported the Bill all along up to the present time, he did not see why it should be supposed he was likely to make any alteration.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodthought, that the measure never could be carried into execution; and that it would destroy four-fifths of the beer-houses. He had some apprehensions, too, that it might excite disobedience to the law in more than half the parishes of England. He was a foe to drunkenness; but he maintained, that when in that House and other Houses they knew that drunkenness existed, it was too hard to legislate against the humbler classes, and thereby to deprive them of their enjoyments.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that in a district with which he was well acquainted, in which the poor-rates were well administered, the diminution of them had been checked by the increase in the number of beer-houses.
Mr. Potterremembered when no man could get a licence unless he were of par-

903
ticular political opinions. That had been done away with by the present law.
Colonel Williamsdid not think, that the circumstance of capital having been invested in the beer trade should prevent the House from dealing with the question. The gin-shops of the metropolis had no doubt laid out much capital in their "temples," but it did not, therefore, follow that their abuses should not be rectified.
Major Beauclerkbelieved that the evils of the beer-shops had been greatly exaggerated, and he thought the present measure unnecessary.
Lord Granville Somersetsupported the Bill, persuaded that it would neither interfere with the capital invested in the trade nor with the innocent recreation of the middle classes of society.
The House went into Committee.
Lord Althorpproposed, that at the end of the second clause the following proviso be inserted:—"Provided always, that in any parish, township, or place in which there are not ten inhabitants rated to the relief of the poor to the amount of 6l. each, the certificate of the majority of them so rated, not being maltsters, common brewers, or persons licensed to sell spirituous liquors, ale, perry, beer, &c. by retail, should be deemed a sufficient certificate for the purpose of this Act."
Mr. Warburtondid not think, that the proviso of the noble Lord went far enough. There were many parishes in which there were no more than three or four rated inhabitants at 6l., and many of the evils formerly complained of would be left unalleviated.
Lord Althorpsaid, that notice had been given of a clause to render the certificate unnecessary in towns containing 5,000 inhabitants; and he now proposed that the metropolis, large cities, all towns corporate, and boroughs returning Members to Parliament, should come under that description. In large towns the evils of the beer-houses had not been felt, and, therefore, he thought it would be unnecessary to require a certificate in such cases. But with respect to the rural districts, the case was very different. He had always been opposed to the requiring of a certificate from persons before they could retail beer, provided there was reason to believe that the police restriction under which they were placed was sufficient to preserve the public peace. Notwithstanding, however, the severe penal-
904
ties which already existed, it was found impossible to carry the law into execution, and he was reluctantly brought to the conclusion, that before a licence was granted, a certificate of previous good character should be required in the rural districts.
Mr. Aglionbymaintained, that as there were many parishes in which there were very few inhabitants rated at 6l. for the relief of the poor, the adjoining parish should be added, in order to facilitate the obtaining of the certificate.
Lord Althorpdid not think such an extreme case was worthy of being provided for.
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton moved as an Amendment, that "wheresoever the parish, township, or place, shall contain a smaller number of inhabitants than twenty, rated at 6l. for the relief of the poor, the persons granting the certificate shall be taken from that place and two of the adjoining parishes."
Mr. Thomas Duncombesaid, he had received a petition from the parish of Ashbourne, containing 900 inhabitants, only twenty of whom were rated at 6l., of which fourteen were disqualified from signing a certificate in consequence of being brewers or maltsters, and as the remaining six were in some way connected with them, it would be impossible to obtain the requisite certificate.
Mr. Warburtonwithdrew his Amendment, and, instead of it, moved, that instead of the words, "a majority" of those rated at 6l., "one-third" should be substituted.
The Committee divided on the Amendment; Ayes 23; Noes 70—Majority, 47.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connell, J.

Attwood, T.

Palmer, F.

Baines, E.

Potter, R.

Beauclerk, Major

Ruthven, E.

Briggs, R.

Seale, Colonel

Codrington, Sir E.

Sheil, R. L.

Duncombe, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Ewart, W.

Walter, J.

Grattan, H.

Walker, C.

Hughes, H.

Wilks, J.

Hutt, W.

TELLER.

O'Connell, M.

Warburton, H.

Mr. Waltersaid, that as it appeared that the first part of the amendment, of which he had given notice was not likely to meet with general concurrence, he should forbear to press it, and confine himself to the second part, which the

905
House would see was founded on the very principle on which the Beer Bill was originally proposed, without being liable to those abuses with which that principle was charged since it had been carried into practice. It struck at a long-existing and mischievous monopoly. Those who had breweries contiguous to the houses in which their beer was sold were a class of persons who, though but few, ought to be protected. They might gradually open the way to a better state of things with respect to the beer trade. They were liable to none of the exceptions, whether those exceptions were just or otherwise, which were taken against the mere venders of beer; they had embarked a capital, and must of course feel that attachment to good order and regularity in the management of their concerns which the possession of property generally produced. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a proviso to exempt from the operation of the Bill any person or persons heretofore licensed, by whom a brewery had been erected for the purpose of supplying the beer sold under such license.
Lord Althorpdid not know what might be the effect of the clause which the hon. Gentleman had proposed; but he was quite sure the proviso was altogether unnecessary. Hon. Members seemed to argue that the Bill was intended to prevent the establishment of beer-shops altogether; whereas it only required as a condition that there should be a certificate of good character. Now, he did not think that brewers of a respectable standing could find any difficulty in procuring such a certificate. At all events, not knowing how far it might lead (and it might frustrate the whole provisions of the Bill), he should be under the necessity of opposing the clause.
Mr. Waltersaid, his proposition was suggested by a petition from several small brewers in the neighbourhood of Reading, who had embarked sums of from 400 l. to 1,000 l., and who had forwarded a representation on the subject to the noble Lord. He wished to spare them the annoyance of an annual application to half-a-dozen of their neighbours for a certificate.
Mr. Hughes Hugheshoped the noble Lord would not persevere in his objection to the clause proposed by his hon friend, the member for Berkshire. He believed it to have been a main object of the Le-
906
gislature in passing the Beer Act to encourage the use of home-brewed beer; and the present clause would offer a premium to the keepers of beer-shops attached to their own breweries. He feared the number who vended an article of their own production was small, but, as they certainly formed the most respectable class of the trade, he joined his hon. friend in claiming for them an exemption from the humiliating process of seeking from their neighbours an annual certificate of good conduct. The noble Lord had said, that such persons would have no difficulty in procuring the required certificate, but he begged to state, that many individuals, and particularly the more respectable, had the greatest aversion to sign such documents; and he submitted to the noble Lord, that in cases where there could be no difficulty in obtaining certificates there must be the less in dispensing with their necessity.
Mr. Wilksthought it did not go far enough. He wished that a clause had been brought forward exempting all existing establishments from the operation of this Amendment Act.
Lord Althorpdid not think it followed, because a man was a brewer of beer, that he was necessarily of a good character; but if he were so, he would find no difficulty in complying with the provisions of the Act.
Colonel Williamsobjected to so much encouragement being given to brewers and retailers of beer. If the labouring classes of the community spent all their money in beer, what was to become of the bakers and butchers?
The Committee divided on Mr. Walter's Motion; Ayes 23; Noes 58—Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connell, M.

Attwood, T.

O'Connell, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Palmer, F.

Briggs, R.

Potter, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Ruthven, E.

Carter, B.

Sheil, R. L.

Codrington, Sir E.

Vigors, N. A.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Wason, R.

Gully, J.

Wedgwood, J.

Hughes, H.

TELLER.

Langston, J. H.

Walter, J.

Marjoribauks, S.

On Clause 4, regulating the hours at which public-houses should open and close,
Lord Althorpsaid, that his wish was, to afford permission to all beer-houses to remain open as late and commence business as early as any of the public-houses in their neighbourhood; but he found great difficulty in wording a clause so as to accomplish that object, for the licensed victuallers were not limited to any specified hours. Amongst the grounds upon which he thought an assimilation of practice desirable was this, that when persons issued from the beer-houses not quite sober, and were excluded from them, they went to the public-houses and there finished themselves with gin.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that words might be introduced declaring that beer-houses should open and close at the same hours appointed by the Magistrates for the opening and closing of the public-houses in their neighbourhood.
Mr. Greenesaid, that in many parts of the country there were not any particular hours appointed by the Magistrates, and no restraints were imposed upon houses that were generally speaking orderly and well regulated.
The Clause was agreed to,
Sir Harry Verney having moved a clause requiring the consent of the resident Magistrates and a majority of the parish officers to the grant of a license,
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, he was quite certain his hon. and gallant friend was not aware of the inconvenience to the community, or of the entire ruin to vast numbers of individuals, which would be the certain consequence of the adoption of the clause he had proposed, but which he could not believe that he seriously intended to press. He (Mr. Hughes Hughes) had himself presented a petition to the House from two of his constituents, who represented, that they had embarked 10,000 l. in the trade on the faith of the permanency of the present Beer Act, and that restrictions such as that under consideration, would cause their most serious injury, if not ruin. The case of the petitioners to whom he had referred, was no uncommon one, and he therefore trusted the proposed clause would be withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.
The House resumed; the Bill to be reported.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES.
The House then went into Committee on the Customs' Duties Bill.
On the 17th Clause, reducing the duty on the export of coals,
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the introduction of this clause would have the effect of expediting the period when coals nearest the surface and nearest the sea would be exhausted; consequently, a greater expense of machinery would be necessary, the consumers and manufacturers at home would pay a higher price for coal, and the Dutch and French manufacturers would get our coals cheaper.
Lord Althorpobserved, that if the article had been exclusively produced here, or competition abroad did not prevent our charging foreigners with a duty upon our coal, there might be some reason for objecting to the clause. The question then was, whether it was likely to diminish the quantity of coal brought to market for home consumption? He thought not; there were large fields of coal close to the surface, and near the sea, not touched. There was, therefore, not any danger of exhaustion taking place.
Colonel Torrenswas of opinion, that the removal of the duty would make British coals cheap abroad, and dear to our own manufacturers.
Mr. Huttobserved, that coals were not exported to foreign ports for manufacturers, but for domestic purposes. We had no monopoly of coal.
The Clause was agreed to, as were the other Clauses, with the exception of the 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd, relating to inland warehousing, which were withdrawn, on account of the lateness of the Session.
Mr. Poulett Thomson brought up a Clause to exempt slates from Export duty: vessels laden with slate to be deemed in ballast.
The House resumed.