presented a Petition from certain artisans and manufacturers (including employers and journeymen) resident in the county of Angus. The right hon. gentleman stated, that he last year presented a petition from this county different in its object from that which he had now the honour to submit; for the Petition which he held in his hand, and which was signed by between 6 and 7,000 persons, prayed only that the House would make such alterations in the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth, as to its wisdom might seem meet. With respect to the measure before the House upon this subject, he should express no decided opinion at present, but reserve himself for the debate. The clauses in the statute of Elizabeth, prohibiting men from following certain trades unless they had previously served an apprenticeship, were, no doubt, in many cases, subject to very serious objections. The courts of law, indeed were not willing to countenance prosecutions under them. It had, in fact, become exceedingly unpopular; but yet he felt and must suggest for the consideration of the learned proposer of the measure alluded to (Mr. Serjeant Onslow), that the total repeal of these provisions would be productive of as much inconvenience as its total enforcement. For instance, according to these provisions, none were permitted to practise as apothecaries or attornies without serving a regular apprenticeship, and so having the opportunity of acquiring adequate professional skill; but if these provisions were repealed, low, ignorant and uninformed people might undertake these professions, and thus the repeal might become materially injurious to the public. Again, in many places the service of an apprenticeship conferred the right of voting—such, for instance, was the case in the city of London; and in some boroughs the right of voting belonged exclusively to those who had served apprenticeships within such borough; so that the proposed repeal of the learned member was liable to many objections.

moved the committal of this Bill.

submitted to the consideration of the right hon. gentleman, whether it would not be much more advisable to abstain from farther proceeding upon this Bill, and to substitute another measure. Upon the propriety of making a great part of that a permanent law which by this Bill it was proposed to render a temporary Act, there could, he thought, be but little difference of opinion. That the provisions of the 28th of the King, applying to stocking-frames, should be extended to lace-frames—that one branch of trade should enjoy the same legal protection as another, was obviously just and necessary. With respect to the extent of the punishment proposed in the Bill before the House, the learned gentleman re-urged his objections to it with increased force, and pressed upon the right hon. gentleman the propriety of reconsidering the subject, particularly as he had advanced no reason for prolonging the duration of such an extraordinary law, but that he had found it in the Statute-book.—In consistency, however, with the professed deference of the right hon. gentleman for the Statute-book, he ought, as he found this law expiring, to submit to its prescription, and allow it to expire. The learned gentleman concluded with expressing a hope that the right hon. gentleman would decline to persist in a measure, the object and policy of which was obviously never meant to be permanent.

expressed his readiness to attend to any suggestion from the learned gentleman, and should propose to move the postponement of the committee until Thursday, in order to afford time for further consideration. The right hon. gentleman added, that the finding of this law upon the Statute-book was not, as the learned gentleman had asserted, his only reason for bringing forward this measure the recency of the disturbances against which the Act was originally pointed, being, as he before stated, the principal reason that influenced his mind.

, in moving for a committee to consider the expediency of granting an increase of salary to the Police Magistrates, observed, that these meritorious officers had had no advance of salary since the year 1792, when the salary of each was settled at 400l. a-year, which sum was at present obviously inadequate. It was clearly desirable, that such selections should be made as to insure that these offices should be filled by persons of respectability and competent intelligence; and his noble relation at the head of the home department, who was alive to the consideration, concurred with him in thinking that an advance of salary to these officers was peculiarly just and necessary. There could indeed, he thought, be no difference of opinion on the subject. The right hon. gentleman added (in a tone which we could not distinctly hear, but as we understood him), that the proposed advance should be such as to raise the salary of each magistrate to 600l. a-year. The House having resolved itself into the Committee, it was resolved, upon the motion of Mr. Addington, that it is expedient to make farther provisions to defray the expence of the police department in Middlesex and Surrey, and for the more effectual administration of justice within the said counties.

observed, that, in consequence of the exportation of our colonial and other produce to the enemy's territory, under the system of licences, a quantity of brandy had among other articles been imported in return, which brandy had been for some time, locked up in our warehouses, the home consumption of it being prohibited by the existing law; but the object of that law having been to secure our own market to colonial produce, which object was peculiarly warranted by circumstances now no longer existing, it was not deemed inconsistent to consider the case of the owners of the brandy alluded to, who had now to apply to the indulgence of the legislature, for relief. The hardship which these owners suffered must be obvious; and it must be recollected, that in bringing the brandy into this country they procured a vent for colonial produce, at a time when that vent was extremely desirable for the; relief of colonial traders, who, from the altered state of Europe, and the consequent multiplication of markets for their, commodities, could not materially suffer by the relaxation of the law which he had to propose. Besides, this relaxation would serve to bring into the Exchequer no less than 1,500,000l. The right hon. gentleman described his proposition as being to impose an additional duty of two shillings a gallon upon the brandy so warehoused, which addition would bring the whole duty to 24s. a gallon; consequently decided advantage would still be secured to our colonial and other spirits; and as the proposed arrangement respecting brandy would be limited to the 31st of March, those interested in the colonial trade would have less reason to complain, as the measure would cease before the arrival of their annual produce. The right hon. gentleman having moved accordingly;

expressed his dissent from, the proposition, because it involved an absolute violation of one of the first principles of our commercial interest, which was that of giving encouragement to our own colonial produce, to the exclusion of foreign brandy. That such a system of encouragement rested upon the wisest grounds, he thought a proposition quite, indisputable; and therefore the best course for government and parliament would be, firmly to maintain that system. He was extremely sorry then to witness the disposition of the right hon. gentleman, to depart from the principle of that system. If the right hon. gentleman would allow himself to be urged to such departure by Particular cases of alleged hardship, he would find such cases so multiply upon him, as wholly to deprive the country of the practical benefit of the principle he had stated. As this question materially affected very important interests, he should be glad to know whether the right hon. gentleman's proposition had the assent of those interests; because, if so, his objection to it would be diminished? But as the case appeared, he could not satisfy his mind, without entering his decided protest against the motion; as he should ever do against the slightest deviation from a principle which ought, in his judgment, to be held sacred.

denied that the proposition of his right hon. friend would involve the departure which the hon. gentleman who had just sat down professed to apprehend from the principle which he maintained; that principle was, to secure to rum an advantage over brandy in our home consumption; and did not the very material difference of the duty on those articles produce that security? Nay, would not the security be augmented by the very proposition before the committee? for by this proposition the difference between the duty on rum and brandy would be still farther increased. The duty, indeed, on brandy would by this proposition become much higher than it had ever been before. It could not be unknown to the hon. gentleman, that the duty on foreign spirits had been always greater than that on domestic spirits; and therefore the legislature never lost sight of the principle, that every due preference should be given to our own produce. But he could not agree to the hon. gentleman's principle, if pushed to the extent which he seemed disposed to maintain. For, suppose in our commerce with friendly nations we were to raise our duties very high, with a view to the hon. gentleman's principle, the consequence might be, that they would so raise their duties in retaliation, as very materially to injure our trade. As to the West India interest, he could not see that it had any right whatever to complain of the proposition brought forward by his hon. friend; for it was through a wish to serve that interest, that the brandy alluded to was brought into the country. But with respect to the hon. gentleman's observation, that the consent of that interest to this measure ought to be obtained, he could never agree to the extraordinary principle that that House should not proceed to legislate upon any subject, without obtaining the consent of the parties interested in the object of legislation.

, concurred with the right hon. gentleman, that the West India interest could have no right to complain of his proposition; but protested against the principle, that a consideration of revenue should be preferred to that of our commercial interest; or that any encouragement should be given to the produce of the enemy, because such encouragement must obviously tend to lessen the pressure of the war upon him.

maintained, that no such preference as the hon. member had asserted had at all appeared, particularly in this transaction. If, indeed, any disposition to such preference existed—if a solicitude for revenue were the paramount consideration of the government, this brandy would not have been allowed so long to remain in the warehouses.

, in explanation, stated, that he did not say that upon which the right, hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) argued. He only said, that if the parties interested in. this proposition approved of its introduction, his objection to it would be diminished.

supported the motion; and observed, that the brandy had been imported into this country under the licence system; the object and policy of which was, not to encourage the produce of the enemy (as the hon. Member for Bristol appeared to apprehend), but to promote the disposal of our own.

wished to be clearly understood, that the proposition before the committee applied only to the brandy already warehoused, and that it was by no means intended to render the measure permanent.