said that although, from a consideration of the paramount importance of the subject to which the petition be was about to present related, and out of courtesy to those hon. members who were most deeply interested in discussions upon the trade between this country and India, he had thought this duty to give notice yesterday that he should this day present, the petition he held in his hand, yet he had not the least intention of anticipating the discussion which, pursuant to notice given by his hon. friend, the member for Bridge-north, would be brought forward on Thursday. At the same time, he felt that he should not be doing justice to his constituents who had put this petition into his hands, if he did not state the grounds on which they approached this House. It would be in the recollection of many hon. members, that in 1813 the Charter of the East-India Company was renewed. On that occasion a full and extensive inquiry preceded the renewal of the Charter; an inquiry which was called for by petitions from merchants, from manufacturers, and indeed from almost all classes of the community, praying that they might be allowed to participate in the trade with British India, of which trade the East India Company were in the exclusive possession. It was not necessary for him to say much as to the result of that inquiry; and yet he must remind hon. members, that on that occasion those who had spent the greater part of their lives in India—mem of the greatest intelligence and discernment—were called upon to give evidence on the subject. And when he spoke of those who had spent their lives in the service of the East-India Company, let him be allowed to observe, that no service had been more fertile in men of talent than this service had been. In that inquiry the late Mr. C. Grant and sir T. Monroe—gentlemen whose opinions were entitled to the greatest respect—gave evidence which went to this point; namely, that it would be impossible, whatever freedom of trade might be permitted between this country and India, to produce any extension of trade. These gentlemen stated, that the wants of the people of India were so few and so simple, their habits had been so long formed, and the whole of their private as well as their social existence was so completely controlled by their religious feelings—that any attempt to introduce among them those comforts and conveniences which British commerce might afford, would be totally unavailing, and that loss and disappointment must be the inevitable result to those who should make the attempt. It was stated, that the whole history of India confirmed this view of the subject. Those opinions, then, must have had great weight with parliament, coming as they did from the highest living authorities, and seeming also to be supported by the history of past times: but the answer of the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain to these opinions was—"Let us make the experimental at our own risk; let us try what may be done by a class of the most ingenious, the most industrious, and the most enterprising men, in attempting to overturn the prejudices and habits of this people." The legislature partly listened to this appeal; the trade was partly thrown open, and the experiment, therefore, had been partially made. Many serious difficulties, however, were thrown in the way of these parties, who knew nothing of the country,—who were allowed to form no establishments there,—who had no agents there, and were subject to many other discouraging and troublesome regulations, into the detail of which he would not then enter. It was on the 1st of April, 1814, that the commerce with India was thus partially thrown open; so that we had now the experience of fifteen years by which to judge of this experiment. This was a space of time which, in the life of an individual, hardly terminated the period of infancy, but which, when considered with reference to the commercial intercourse between two great and distant quarters of the world, might be considered as little more than the hour of birth. What, however, had been the result of this experiment? Why, in 1814 our exports to the countries east of the Cape of Good Hope amounted to something more than 1,600,000l. Last year they amounted to 5,800,000l. So that a commerce had risen, under so many obstacles, from the insignificant sum of 1,600,000l. to 5,800,000l., which was equal to one-eighth of the whole of the exports of this country to all parts of the world. The experiment had been beneficial also to the shipping interests of the country. In 1813, there were employed in the trade with India twenty-eight thousand tons of British shipping. In 1828 no less than one hundred and nine thousand tons were employed. He thought, therefore that the views of our merchants and manufacturers had been completely realized. It had been stated, before this period, that the returns from England were habitually made in the precious metals, and that the commerce with India must therefore necessarily be confined, on account of the small amount of the returns we were able to make. This experiment, however, had effected a total change. The commerce was not now limited by the small returns we could make, those returns being almost entirely in the precious metals; but the difficulty now was to find returns from India to Europe. A very material consideration, therefore, in the view of this question, now was, how far the trade would not be restrained by the difficulty of procuring returns from India. The petitioners likewise stated, that this extension of commerce had affected not merely our manufactures, but had included the mineral wealth of the kingdom, and that there had be large exports of iron, copper, and of other articles of a similar kind. The petitioners however, complained of want of returns, and stated that indigo afforded the best return. The petitioners requested the special attention of the House to that part of the trade with the east which was carried on with China. It was obvious, that whatever political reasons might bear upon the intercourse between this country and our possessions in India, there were no such special considerations with respect to our intercourse with China. Except for political reasons, China ought not to be excluded from intercourse with this country. The commerce of China, however, was exclusively monopolized by the East-India Company; and if that monopoly were retained, it must be, not on political considerations, but for some other reasons. The petitioners complained,—and he thought with reason,—that the House, when in 1813 it greatly relaxed the restrictions on the trade with India, took the same opportunity, whether intentionally or inadvertently,—he thought inadvertently;—of drawing tighter the company's monopoly of commerce with China. This part of the subject the petitioners wished particularly to be brought before the House, because a remedy might be applied to it before the expiration of the Company's Charter. To make this part of the subject intelligible, he must state, that all the charters granted by the Crown prior to that of king William, contained clause, that if the trade so monopolized were found to be disadvantageous to the Crown, the Charter might be terminated on two years' notice. Afterwards, when the Charter was granted by parliament, it was granted for periods of twenty or twenty-one years, but there was always some regard paid to the British consumer, and to the people of this country, especially in the article of tea. By reference to the act of 1745, the House would sea what checks and securities had been provided by the legislature. That act, in order that the quantity of tea might always be sufficient for the consumption of Great Britain, and in order to keep the price of that article on an equality with the price of it in neighbouring countries, made a provision that, in case of such inequality in price being manifest and considerable, the lords of the Treasury should be at liberty at grant a license to any other persons, whom they might think proper, to import tea from the continent of Europe, for the purpose of producing an approximation of the prices. Thus, then, there was a power of keeping down the price of tea; and this provision lasted until 1813, when it was enacted, that no persons other than the East-India Company, or persons having the license of the Company, should be allowed to import tea from any place to the United Kingdom. The result of this had been a considerable changes in the price of tea in this country. Tea on the continent sold for little more than half the price it fetched here; and when the lords of the Treasury were called upon to grant a license to others to import tea from the continent, they found that the power was taken way from them, and that the monopoly was exclusively in the Company. In another part of the petition, with respect to the trade with China, there was a very singular complaint. It stated, that all foreign ships, and all subjects of foreign countries, were allowed to carry on trade with China with the productions of this country, and from the ports of this country, and to go from China, with their return cargoes, to any part of the world but Great Britain. Now, the merchants and the ship-owners of this country thought it extremely hard, that they alone should be excluded from a trade in which the Company did not participate, and by their admission to which the Company consequently could not be in the least degree injured. He believed that, in the last year, eleven ships of the United States came into the Thames, were loaded with goods of this country, and carried them to China; where, having made a very profitable market, they went with their return cargoes to any part of the world they pleased—except, of coarse, this country. It was rather humiliating to our pride and to our good sense, that English ships should be excluded from this trade; not because their exclusion was a benefit to the Company, but merely because they happened to be English ships, and because they happened to be navigated by English subjects. In the committee on foreign trade some years ago, this subject was adverted to, and it was admitted, that no prejudice could result to the strictest monopoly of the Company from allowing British shipping navigated by British seamen, to engage in this trade with China. On all these points the petitioners claimed the attention of the House; and he thought he had stated enough to ensure to the petitioners the favourable consideration of the House. He was sure he had said enough to convince the House, that the experience of fifteen years had proved, that extensive prospects were opening to us. There were grounds far higher than commercial considerations to be weighed in reviewing this subject. Improvement in civilization, the increase of the comforts, the exaltation of the moral character, of the people of India. They must not forget, that they held India by conquest; and recollecting that, it was their duty to atone for past and present faults by extending these benefits to the people of India. As they stimulated them to industry they would create in them the desire of new enjoyments; and, in proportion as they increased their enjoyments, in the same proportion they would raise them in the scale of moral worth. If India were to be a permanent possession, it must be made permanent by consulting the happiness of the millions of people there; and, by consulting that, they would consult also the prosperity and the powers of this country. These were the considerations on which he recommended the petition to the House, and he begged to observe, that his constituents were unanimous in their feeling on this subject.

merely rose to suggest to his hon. friend, the chairman of the East-India Company, that if a measure were introduced to remedy the evil complained of with respect to the trade with China, and from China to other countries, the general question would be met with much better feeling. There could be no reason why our ships should be excluded from a trade which was open to every other country.

observed, that the question of the trade with China could not be separated from the other parts pf the question, and he felt that he should be ill-discharging his duty if he lent himself to a committal on one part of a question which wa a material point in the consideration of the whole. He should notice one of the facts stated by the right hon. gentleman, in order that the House might see that it might be true that the others did not rest on better grounds. The right hon. gentleman had told them that the shipping employed in 1813 in the trade with India amounted to twenty-eight thousand tons, and that it now amounted to one hundred and nine thousand tons; but the amount stated for 1813 referred only to the company's shipping; the Custom-house being destroyed by fire, it could not be ascertained what the amount of private shipping had been. In 1815, however, the private shipping amounted to seventy-nine thousand tons, and in 1824 it was no more. The right hon. gentleman too, had made a statement respecting the exports but he had quite forgotten to say any thing about the imports. This was not the proper mode of dealing with an important question, and he did hope that the House would suspend their judgment until regular and authentic documents were brought before them. The time for considering the question was not yet arrived. He wished the House to suspend their judgment until he received that information, which he as much desired as any man that they should obtain.

rose for the purpose of corroborating what his right hon. friend had stated with regard to the article of tea; which, in consequence of the excessive tax imposed on it, was sold here at double the price at which it wars sold on the continent. At the present time, when the poorer classes were distressed, and when the price of beer, in consequence of the very heavy tax on corn, was so high that the poor man could not get it, he thought the House ought to endeavour to give to the people their necessary beverage of tea at a lower rate than that for which they could now obtain it. With respect to the shipping interest, it certainly did appear a very hard case, that British merchants were not allowed to do that which foreign merchants were permitted to do; namely, to export their manufactures to China. He thought that am arrangement should be made for opening the trade with China.

said, that the hon. member for Callington had suggested the propriety of the Company taking into their consideration the question of the opening the trade with China before the expiration of the present charter. He wished to enforce that suggestion, and to ask the Company, whether, considering the present distressed state of the manufacturing and shipping interests of this country, there was ever a period when relief was more required? He thought it inconsistent with common sense and common justice, that the ship-owners of every other part of the globe should be permitted to participate in the profitable trade to China, and that English merchants should be alone excluded.

observed that, notwithstanding all that had been said to the contrary, the trade to China had increased since that trade had been partially thrown open. Since the trade had been partially thrown open, a great quantity of cotton goods had been exported; the exportation of cottons and cotton twists having last year amounted to between to and three millions sterling. They had been told, that a free trade would ruin the exporters. So far was that from being the case, that the profits in that trade had been at first greater than any other trade furnished.

wished to reply to an observation which had been made by the right hon. member for Liverpool, on the subject of tea. He would take on himself the onus of denying the justice of that statement. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that tea was much cheaper on the continent than in this country; but the House should recollect, that here the government received a duty of 100l. per cent on tea; whilst, on the continent, the article was free from any such tax. In England, tea was almost an article of necessity; but on the continent its consumption was greatly neglected, and it passed, in commercial language, under the name of a drug. He would undertake to prove this to the satisfaction of the House—that tea, looking to its quality, and putting aside the tax imposed by government, was not only not dearer in this country, but essentially cheaper and better than on the continent. The quality of the tea never seemed to be taken into consideration by hon. gentlemen.

said, that the hon. gentleman supposed that he was too bold in the assertions he had made about the price of tea. If, as the hon. gentleman stated, tea was better and cheaper in this country than abroad, the only thing he would require of the hon. gentleman was to grant a license, which, by the present laws relating to this matter, the Company only, and not the government, could grant, to some of his constituents, to bring tea from the other states of Europe into England; and he would assure the hon. gentleman that many of them would be foolish enough to bring hither a considerable quantity of tea to compete in the British market with that introduced here by the East-India Company, and described by the hon. gentleman to be superior to all the rest in quality and in cheapness. He knew nothing of the facts connected with this trade but what he had been told by persons connected with the trade, and what he had learned from looking at the prices current in the different markets of the world. When he looked at the price current for New York, and found that tea was sold in that city for just one-half the price that it fetched in England, he naturally drew the conclusion that it was cheaper there than here. Every one must expect that the tea would be dearer, even without the addition of the duty, by the operation of that most monstrous obligation which the East-India Company had chosen to enter into, not to put up to sale any tea that had not been two years in their warehouses. [The right hon. gentleman was told that this was a mistake]. He was not mistaken in the fact, though he might be in the form in which he had described the obligation. The East-India Company bound themselves to keep up a stock equal to one year's consumption beyond that which was appointed to be sold in the current year. The effect, therefore, was, to keep tea in the warehouses two years before it was sold; by which a great deterioration of the article took place, and an additional charge was imposed to make up the loss on the capital that had been so long lying dead. That regulation could safely be dispensed with; for this country would be under no risk of being without tea.

Ordered to lie on the table.

said, that on the important question of the supply of Malt-liquor to the working classes of the community, he felt bound to make some state me at, to which he must requests the indulgent attention of the House. This question related to the comforts of the working classes, to whose industry we were so much indebted; it related to the prosperity of the agricultural interest and to the revenue required for the state by his majesty's government. It was in every respect, therefore, most important: it was important as it regarded the comforts of the working classes—it was important to the agricultural interest, as it related to the demand for the second grain in the kingdom, which was in request in the market in proportion to the consumption of Malt: and with respect to the revenue, the amount of duty derived from Malt was of very considerable importance. This was no party question, and it was one which he brought forward solely with a view to an alteration of the present system of laws, which he regarded as most injurious in their tendency and effect. The first part of the question related to the state of the Malt and Beer trades,—their progress, or their decline: the second part of his duty would be, to trace the causes of that decline, which he should prove to exist: and the third to show the evil consequences, of it. The quantity of Malt consumed in the country would give the measure of the liquor brewed, and therefore the measure of the consumption of the second necessary of life; and, shewing the quantity of the demand for the second grain of the kingdom, would show, to a considerable extent, the prosperity of our agriculture.

The amount of Malt made in England and Wales in the year 1787, so far as the returns enabled him to discover it, was 3,400,000 quarters; the quantity of Malt made in the year ending January, 1828, amounted only to 3,100,000 quarters: shewing a diminution in the last forty years of 300,000 quarters. He knew the right hon. gentleman might ask, why he had not taken the year ending January, 1829, in which the quantity of Malt made amounted to 3,800,000 quarters. He had not done so because that was an extraordinary year. By the united testimony of the maltsters all over the kingdom, there had not been for twenty years such a year for barley as the last. That year was therefore above the average; but if taken in union with the probable average of the present year, would be found to be below it. The com- parison of three years, with three years in the forty he had just mentioned, would give the same result, shewing a diminished consumption of Malt. That diminution was the more extraordinary when the consumption of the other necessaries of life was found to have increased. There was one point that would shew this more strongly. In 1787, the population amounted to seven million four hundred thousand persons; in the year ending 1828 there were thirteen million five hundred thousand, giving an increase of six millions of persons within these forty years. Yet, in the same time, there was a diminution of this part of our national agriculture, and of the national beverage. If they looked to the consumption of tea or sugar, or of corn drawn from the heavy land of this country, they would see an increase; and he asked, therefore, whether there must not be some peculiar cause for this diminution of produce from the light land of the country. In 1787 the quantity of Malt consumed by each person amounted to three bushels seven pints; now, in order that the same amount of consumption should have taken place in 1828, there ought to have been nineteen millions of bushels more than had been annually consumed at the former period. If, therefore, twenty-seven millions had been consumed in 1787, there ought to have been forty-six millions consumed in 1828; but no such increase had taken place. But to speak of the increase only in proportion with the increased amount of the population; was to understate what it should have been. The increase in the consumption of Malt ought to be measured by what had been the increase in the use of other things.

There was another point in which this question might be viewed. From 1801 to 1828, there had been one thousand eight hundred and six Inclosure acts passed; and the average number of acres in each act might be taken, according to the standard established by the act of 1793, at one thousand six hundred. If two-thirds of that number were taken, that would give for the additional number of acres brought into cultivation no less than two millions. But many pieces of land had been brought into cultivation without any Inclosure act at all, and he added for that number one million more. They had, therefore, three millions of additional acres in cultivation, and if each acre only produced thirty bushels in four years, there would be an addition of twelve millions of bushels; yet it was found that, with six millions of additional population, and three millions additional acres, there was a diminution in the consumption of Malt. This could not arise from general poverty alone, because the consumption of other things had increased. The first cause of this diminution was the meddling of the government with any part of the process of the manufacturer, not letting him use that intelligence and skill which the other manufacturers of this country were permitted to employ. The second was, the overwhelming duty, which was far heavier on this manufacture than on any other in the realm. The third was the great number of restrictions which applied to the supply, by retail, of good Malt-liquor to the working classes. There was no manufacture in the country so interfered with as that of Malt. The process of malting was perfectly simple. The barley was wetted, and in that state it sprouted; the sprouting was checked by the kiln, and the interior of the grain was thus turned into saccharine matter. Yet, would it be believed, that, till the other day, there were no less than forty acts of parliament to teach the manufacturer how that simple process was to be performed. Those forty acts were now reduced, or rather, he should say, expanded into one, with added restrictions of every sort. It might appear to some, that he was over-stating the fact; he would, therefore, give an epitome of some of the clauses of the act. The first thing a poor man who wished to malt his own barley had to do was, to obtain a license; then his name must be written at length over the door, in letters of a certain size; next, his cistern must be of a certain depth, breadth and width—in short, it must be formed according to geometrical proportion, and this proportion was to be settled by a countryman who never heard of geometry in his life. After this, he was obliged to give notice of the time when he intended to wet: the notice must be given in writing, signed with the man's christian and sur-name—it must fix a particular time—it must be handed to the next exciseman; if it were a rural district, the wetting must take place within fifty-eight, hours, and if otherwise, within twenty-four hours. If he varied three hours from the time specified, his notice was bad, and he must go over the ground again. Thus, the poor man must get his parliamentary license, must make his parliamentary cistern, must give his parliamentary notice, and wet only at a parliamentary hour. If he wishes to steep his Malt he may do so for forty hours, and not more than for forty-five hours, unless he gives one of these vexatious and everlasting notices; and, after steering through a Scylla and Charybdis of forms, he may steep his malt for sixty-five hours. The procuring his cistern, and wetting his Malt, is only the first process. He cannot take it out without another notice, and then only once in ninety-six hours, between seven and four o'clock, and he is liable to penalties if in any way he departs from the time prescribed. When all this is done, his Malt must be laid in regular couches, according to seniority, and if those couches have ragged and not smooth edges, edges, he incurs a penalty of 200l. Still he is not at liberty to do as he likes with his Malt in any one respect. I pledge myself to prove by maltsters, that it is of the utmost consequence to the maltster to be able to sprinkle seven-eighths of the barley at the end of eight days. Yet as the law now stands, the maltsters may not sprinkle until the end of twelve days; and they are liable to penalties if a servant throws a drop of water upon it. The poor man who wishes to Malt, is also obliged to keep a barley-book, in which he is to enter days and hours—the christian and surnames of every person who sells him a bushel of barley, and the same of every man who purchases Malt from him. Every bushel of Malt sent out must be accompanied with a certificate, and every petty particular in the barley-book might be examined at any hour of the day and night by the exciseman. Every part of the process is loaded with the most ruinous penalties: before malt is brewed it must run the gauntlet of at least thirty acts of parliament, and there are not less than seventy statues with which every man must be acquainted, before he can venture to Malt his own barley and brew his own Beer.

I ask, then, if this is not a case calling for inequity? And here I beg leave to refer the House to Mr. Hallam's opinion on the evil of the multiplication of statutes in his "Constitutional History." He says, "our statues have been growing in bulk and multiplicity with the regular session of parliament, and with the new system of government; all abounding with prohibitions and penalties, which every man is presumed to know, but which no man, the judges themselves included, can really know with much exactness. We literally walk amidst the snares and pitfalls of the law." I have now stated the difficulties in the way of the manufacture of Malt, and I call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to them with confidence; because, from his candour. I am led to expect that he will afford every facility to the discovery of a remedy. I now come to the overwhelming duties affecting this important necessary of life. I have shewn that the mode in which the Malt-duty is collected is onerous and vexatious. The amount is also immense, being not less than 3,800,000l. per annum, on an average of years. It has been increased in three different stages. From 1790 to 1802, it was 1s. 3½d. per bushel. From 1802 to 1804, it was 2s. 4d. per bushel: and from 1804 to 1816, it was 4s. 4d. per bushed. It was subsequently reduced, and it now amounts to 2s. 6d. or 2s. 7d. per bushel. I ask the House to look at the working of these statutes from 1791 to 1798. From 1796 to 1803, omitting two years when wheat was at a famine price, and when the duty was low, the average consumption was 29,700,000 bushels. What was the consequence of increasing the duty? An immediate diminution of six millions at bushels in the consumption. According to the return, the average annual consumption of six years subsequent to the rising of the duty, was only 23,700,000 bushels. It is hardly possible to imagine the extent of the injury thus done to the habits and morals of the people Instead of encouraging the consumption of an article the produce of our own soil and industry, they were driven to draw upon other countries for the supply of their wants.

I will now endeavour to show how unequally the duty presses upon different parts of the country. Supposing a tax not to be unjust in itself, its weight, ought to be equally distributed. It appears by returns upon the table, that Norfolk pays three or four times the amount paid by the county of Devon, which is one fifth larger, and a higher rental. Suffolk pays three times the amount of Devonshire and Hertfordshire, three times the amount of Herefordshire, which is much larger. Bedfordshire pays three times the amount of Cheshire, which is twice its area, and three times its rental. Is there, let me inquire, any justice in imposing a tax which presses so disproportionably? It bore heaviest on the poorest soils, with the least natural fertility. In the thirty-eight years from 1791 to 1828, the consumers of Malt-liquor have actually paid 133,700,000l. in duty. However, unjust and impolitic the Malt-tax may be, as far as regards some counties, it beards upon all consumers alike. Such is not the case with the tax upon Beer; which falls not upon the consumers of Beer generally, but only upon the consumers of Beer which is sold. Thus, all the rich, who are able to brew at home, contribute, nothing to it; and it is, therefore, nearly all extracted from the labouring classes. Four-fifths of all the Beer brewed in the kingdom pay this Beer-tax; in 1823, 1824, and 1825, it amounted to 3,300,000l. The whole produce from 1791 to 1828, was 106,000,000l. The rates have been varied at different periods; from 1791 to 1802 it was 8s. per barrel, and in 1804 it was increased to 10s. It becomes every day of wider operation; because, which the quantity of Malt declines in amount, the number of barrels of Beer paying duty is increasing. Therefore, the number of those who are paying the double duty, first on the Malt and then on the Beer, are increasing also. In the four years before 1790 there were 4,300,000 barrels brewed; in the four years before 1805 the quantity had risen to five millions; and in the four years before 1824 it was six millions of barrels. During this period the quantity of Malt has diminished. The effect of the duty has been to drive capital from these trades, and to create an injurious monopoly. I do not mean to use the word "monopoly" invidiously; but sure I am that the people of England are ardently wishing for the adoption of some method, by which this wholesome beverage may be retailed, to them, with a fair competition among the brewers. At present there is a complete restriction on the retail supply of Malt-liquor; although of late the evil has been in some slight degree lessened by the establishment of retail breweries in particular districts; yet even they labour under severe hardships, which will be a very proper object of investigation before the committee.

I now come to a question, which I approach with a good deal of hesitation, although it is of the highest importance to the country at large, I mean the system of licensing public-houses. At present, the grant of a license depends entirely on the discretion of the magistrates; they generally refuse, and the exception is compliance. After inquiry before a committee, that matter might be put upon a fairer footing; for the general rule ought to be to grant the license, and the exception to withhold it. I do not pretend for a moment, that licenses can be granted without effectual regulations to prevent abuses; but, where a respectable man is able and willing to enter into securities to obey the regulations established, I think greater facilities might be afforded. This topic can only be duly examined by a committee; but it is one of the utmost consequence to the people of this country. I would limit the privilege to those who have some capital, and who are ready to enter into the necessary recognizances.

I will venture to state, briefly, the practical effect of the existing monopoly. Every public-house throughout the country is worth 20l. a year more on an average, in consequence of its exclusive privilege. There are about fifty thousand public-houses in the kingdom, and 20l. upon each would yield a million of money per annum; which addition to the rent the publican adds to his beer, and therefore derives from the consumer. I will venture to offer a few facts, in order to show how the discretion upon this subject is exercised by the magistracy, and that it is not always properly exercised. In the last seventeen years, while the population has been increasing to the extent of three millions, there has been little or no increase in the number of ale licenses. In the ten years from 1810 to 1820, the increase in the population was nearly two millions, and there was an actual diminution in that period, of 1,000 in the number of Ale and Malt-liquor licenses. I am aware that the demand for Malt-liquor must vary according to circumstances; but they are circumstances of which magistrates cannot have any knowledge. The humbler classes are also supplied with a much worse article, in consequence of the want of competition. I hold in my hand an abstract of returns, showing the number of public-houses in sixty collections of the Excise. There are 49,500 publicans, of whom 23,000 brew their own Beer, and 26,500 are served by brewers. They are distributed into three zones or districts, supplied by brewers; and into three other zones or districts, where the publicans brew for themselves. The brewers' districts are, first, London, where there are 4,430 public-houses, only thirty-nine of which brew their own Beer. The second district is Kent, Sussex, the Isle of Wight, Cambridge, and Essex; and there, of 10,000 publicans, only 820 brew their own beer. The third brewers' district is remote, and it is a little singular, that it should be in that quarter; it consists of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Durham, and a part of Yorkshire, where there are five thousand eight hundred and seventy publicans, of whom no more than seven hundred and eighty-seven brew their own Beer. This vast extent of country, filled by between four and five millions of people, is supplied apparently by about nine hundred brewers, but really by a much fewer number.—I will now point out the districts not under the control of the brewers. The first is remote, extending from Wellington, through Exeter, to Barnstable; the second is from Derby to Leeds; and the third begins at Coventry, proceeds to Gloucester, Herefordshire, Staffordshire, part of Cheshire, all Wales, and I rejoice to be able to include the county of Salop, which may be looked upon as the centre of the genuine ale district of the country. I state this with pride and pleasure, because Salop is my native county. Here, of fourteen thousand eight hundred and ninety publicans, twelve thousand five hundred and forty, or six out of seven, brew at home. I beg to call attention particularly to this point, and I only ask the right hon. gentleman opposite to try the difference between Beer brewed at home and at a brewer's. If he should visit Ireland, to witness the altered situation of the peasantry, or only take a journey to survey that beautiful work, the bridge of Menai, I request him to taste our malt liquor on his journey between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury; and if I am not mistaken, that alone will go a great away to induce him to grant the committee for which I shall move. There is nothing like tasting it; and then I am sure he will be satisfied. About five millions of people are supplied by between two and three hundred great brewing firms in three districts; there are one million two hundred thousand people in London supplied by no more than thirty or forty extensive breweries, enjoy- ing an exclusive monopoly. The bad quality of the Malt-liquor in many districts where no competition exists is well known. I do not mention it ad invidiam; but it is a fact which ought to be stated, that in proportion as people are poor and defenseless, they are overlaid by multiplied and onerous duties. By the monopoly, the rent of public-houses is thrown upon those who are not able to brew at home, and yet who cannot procure a wholesome beverage away from home. If these points can be answered, I wish to hear the answer, and for that purpose I entreat the right hon. gentleman to grant the committee. The duties stand thus:—The Malt-duty produces 3,800,000l., the Beer-duty 3,300,000l., the hop-duty, in 1827 400,000l., maltsters' licenses 20,000l., brewers' licenses 53,000l., publicans' licenses 164,000l., additional rent on public houses 1,000,000l.: making a total of 8,737,000l. This vast weight of taxation is not equally divided among all consumers, for it rests almost exclusively on the poor and industrious; and upon this point I have made a calculation, the result of which is, that eight millions sterling are paid by the consumers upon twenty-one millions of bushels of Malt, at a duty of 8s. per bushel. The average price of barley is 4s. per bushel, so that the duty amounts to no less than two hundred per cent. I ask, then, whether hon. gentlemen interested in the improvement of the land, and in the welfare of the labourers upon it, when it is established, that the duty amounts to two hundred per cent on the raw article, will not support me, and with some firmness whisper in the ear of the right hon. gentleman, that he ought to grant a committee. I beg to know what other trade or manufacture is similarly circumstanced, with a duty of two hundred per cent on the raw material? If such were the case, or if such a proposition were made, would not the manufacturers rush out of their hives, and keep such a buzzing about the ears of the right hon. gentleman, that he could not refuse to regulate such an enormity of taxation? It is said that the country gentlemen have great influence here; and if they have, with such facts before them, will they not, in a respectful manner, employ that influence to procure inquiry and redress? They must be among the most patient of human beings, if they contuse to permit this second grain, drawn from the soil, to be thus severely and unjustly taxed. Will they allow that the people shall consume coffee from the West Indies, rum from Jamaica, cocoa from Brazil, and tea from China, rather than the wholesome beverage derived from barley; by altering the duty upon which a larger sum would be paid into the Exchequer, and less taken from the pockets of the poor? Will any man tell me, that the failure in the consumption of Malt-liquor arises from a change in the taste of the people? Will any man pretend that the taste of the people is weaned from good nutritious Beer and Ale, and perverted to the washy slops of tea, cocoa, and coffee? I deny it. The taste for Malt-liquor continues; and if he thinks the contrary, let the right hon. gentleman, with all his eloquence, before a popular assembly, enforce the excellence of his colonial substitutes, and I, with only sir John Barleycorn to back me, and with no pretensions to powers of speech, will undertake to beat him out of the field.

I will now call the attention of the House to a more serious part of the subject—the injury to the revenue, and the injury to the people. The number of spirit licenses has increased prodigiously, while the number of ale licenses has remained nearly stationary. In 1800, the spirit licenses granted were thirty-one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven; and in 1827, they had swelled to forty-two thousand five hundred and ninety shewing an increase of eleven thousand in twenty-seven years, while the increase of ale licenses in the same time is only three hundred. Does not this statement alone prove the necessity of a committee? Are we not every day lamenting the advance of crime, and do we not see that advance accompanied by the abandonment of Malt-liquor by the poorer classes, and the substitution of mixtures, a like destructive of the constitution and morals? What a comment does this form on the discretion of the magistracy in granting licenses! They are extremely particular in granting licenses for the sale of ale, and yet they grant eleven thousand additional licenses for the sale of poison. It is a singular fact, that the increase in the spirit licenses has taken place in provincial towns. The metropolis, we know, was saturated with spirits before; and the consequences were apparent air the squalid misery of the lower orders.—The hon. member then proceeded further to contrast the increase in the ale and spirit licenses during the last seven years in the country. The augmentation in the quantity of spirits consumed was enormous during the same period, rising from twelve millions of gallons to twenty-four millions. The fact was, that Malt-liquor, the native produce of the country, was undersold in every part of the country by poison: it had found its way into every market town, and was making its way into every village; spirit shops were set up where they were before unknown, and the inhabitants of the country were becoming familiar with the disseminated poison. Not merely as a matter of policy and revenue then, but as a matter of morals, he appealed to the House, whether an inquiry ought not to be instituted. As to the demoralizing effect of spirits upon the lower orders, he would beg leave to read an extract from the report of the committee which sat in 1827, to inquire into the increase of crime. They said, they could not let that opportunity pass without remarking upon the increase of spirits consumed in the country, which, they considered as having a tendency to brutalize the habits and inflame the passions of the people, and to prevent any disposition for prudent savings. The hon. member then briefly recapitulated the chief points of his motion, and concluded by expressing a hope that the result of a committee would be to give to the excise better revenue, to the poor a better beverage, to the landed interest a better return for their produce. He then moved, "That a select Committee be appointed to inquire into the burdens and restrictions on the manufacture of Malt and Beer, and on the supply of Malt-liquor to the middle and poorer classes."

assured the hon. gentleman, that no duty he had to perform gave him greater pain in the discharge of it, than that of opposing the reduction of the burthens borne by the people. After the most attentive consideration he had been able to give to the speech of the hon. gentleman, it appeared to resolve itself into this—that it was necessary, to remedy the evils of which he complained, that there should be a great reduction of the duty on Malt and Beer. He felt that there were many branches of the revenue, if the country were more at ease and its finances in a higher state, and if we were not bound to keep inviolate the public faith, of which he should be desirous to reduce the pressure on the public. But having had imposed on him, by his office, more particularly the duty of preserving a revenue adequate to the current expenses of the country, and to some reduction of the debt, he was driven by his sense of duty to resist those motions which went to reduce the revenue, and those which indirectly tended to the same result. He would not adopt a harsh course towards the persons for whose benefit this motion was intended. Nothing could be farther from his disposition. If the object of the motion was to obtain an assurance, that he would continue, as he had hitherto done, to look into the particular branches of the revenue, to see how far it was possible to reconcile the regulation of the Malt and Beer trades with the collection of the revenue, he could assure the hon. gentleman, that ha would give his most serious attention to suck an inquiry. Nothing could be personally so agreeable to him, as to relieve trade from any unnecessary restrictions that might have been imposed on it. He would not maintain any restriction not necessary for the collection of the revenue, as well as well as for the protection of the honest dealer. The hon gentleman had enlarged, with great knowledge of the subject, on all the restrictions on the trade, and had gone through them from the earliest stage of bringing the barley into the malthouse. The hon. gentleman did not seem to be aware that these regulations, burthensome and ridiculous as they might appeal were kept up only for the maintenance of the revenue, and had been suggested not by those directors of fiscal affairs who superintended this department, but chiefly, by those honest, industrious, and well-meaning persons who were engaged in the trade. A paractical man found little difficulty in applying them in order to be secured against the introduction of malt into the market that had not paid the duty, and which, for want of effectual regulations, might escape the survey of the exciseman. He thought the hon. gentleman did not deal fairly with the question, when he attributed to the present amount of duty those onerous regulations of which he complained. So long as there was any duty, its was necessary to have a vigilant superintendence over the trade; not for the sake of the revenue altogether, but for the sake of the honest and industrious manufacturers. In discussing the Malt-duty, he must differ from the view taken by the hon. gentleman of the operation of the present amount of duty on that particular article. The hon. gentleman had stated, that from 1787 to 1828 the consumption of malt had not increased in proportion to the increase of population, and the hon. gentleman ascribed the defalcation of the revenue, resulting from that non-increase, to one single cause—the amount of the duty. He would not deny that a duty, beyond what an article would bear, decreased the consumption of it so much, that the revenue lost more than it gained by raising it. Indeed, in collecting the revenue on any article, the consumption was diminished to a certain extent, by any amount of duty, and so far it affected the comforts of the people; but there were other causes that affected the consumption of Malt. He did not think the hon. gentleman had allowed for the altered taste that had taken place in the bulk of the community. He had not made due allowance for the articles of beverage substituted in the place of Maltliquor. Taking the whole quantity of liquor consumed in the country, it had increased fully equal to the population, not only in the articles on which less duty was paid, but in those on which as much duty nearly was paid as on Malt. In the first instance he would refer to the article of tea; of which, at the period to which the hon. gentleman had referred, or a little earlier, the total amount consumed was 6, 283,000 lbs. In 1823, the amount consumed was 28,000,000 lbs. This, of course, had greatly interfered with the use of Beer. The domestic arrangements of the present day favoured the consumption of tea. When he was lately visiting a manufactory, he had seen a great quantity of tea taken to the laborers, who formerly drank .Beer. The consumption of coffee had increased also. If the hon. gentleman would calculate the amount of liquid gallons made from the numbed of pounds imported, he would see that there was an enormous increase in the consumption of that article. Wine also had increased in general consumption, and had been adopted as the beverage of a class who formerly indulged in Beer. It was impossible to guard every particular article against the variations of the public taste. He could not, therefore, subscribe to the doctrine of the hon. gentleman, that the amount of duty had prevented the increase of the consumption of Malt. But, when he attributed the want of that increase in this article to the regulations to which it was subjected, he had not taken into his account, that there was no period when the making of Malt was not subject to restrictions and regulations; and though they had been varied from time to time, and principally at the suggestion of these interested in the trade, he would find, that in the year 1787, there was enough of restriction in the Malt-acts to call forth the censure of the hon. gentleman, and, according to his argument, to diminish the consumption. He had shewn that those regulations were spread through forty acts of the legislature, which were now compressed into one small volume, in which all the law relative to this matter was contained. This work had been wipe subject of much and well-merited praise to my right hon. friend (the Master of the Mint), who had consolidated into act, that one uncouth mass of legislation which shackled and impeded the trade and commerce of the country. Another objection of the hon. gentleman was, that the amount of the Malt-duty was not paid by the several counties in proportion to their rental. Now he did not expect to have heard such an argument urged on the present occasion. He really knew not what affinity there was between the payment of the Malt-duty and the rental.

The amount of Malt-duty was entirely dependent on the course of cultivation in the particular county, which contributed more or less according to the quartet of barley it grew. The same consideration applied to other articles. Look at the hop duty, which was no wise in proportion to the size or rental of the counties, yet this was used as a ground of objection to the Malt-duties.—The hon. mover next adverted to the tax on Beer. Certainly, he regretted the necessity of imposing a burthen on this article of general consumption. He still more regretted that the duty should extend so widely, and be chargeable in so fractional a degree on small measures of consumption, so that the most trifling diminution of the duty entailed a large and disproportionate decrease of the revenue, though it contributed greatly to the profits of the manufacturer. Suppose it was possible to reduce the duty on Beer at the rate of a farthing a pot, what relief would that afford to the consumer? Did the hon. gentleman imagine that the Beer now sold me at 5d. would then be sold at 4¾d. a pot? No, it would continue to be sold at the same price. What would be the result? Government, by reducing the duty one farthing a pot, would lose 600,000l. of revenue, while the consumer would pay the same amount; contributing the farthing to the profits of the brewer, instead of the revenue. In considering in detail the advantage of relieving the people from taxation, not only was there the reduction to be taken into view, but how far the benefit to the public was overbalanced by the loss to the government. He was aware that it had been proposed to remedy this evil by imposing an additional duty on Malt, to make up the reduction of the duty on Beer. He could state reasons, why that mode of levying the revenue would not get rid of the evils of which complaint was made. Let the House consider, if the duty on Malt were double its present amount, what difficulties there would be in the collection, what a multiplication of frauds, what inducements to the addition of deleterious articles in the manufacture! Though these evils would operate on all classes of society, they would operate with peculiar force on the middle classes, who had heretofore brewed their own Beer or Ale, and who had all the advantages which the hon. gentleman wished to give to every class. The tax seems to lean on the poor, but I doubt whether it does so in fact.—The last branch of the hon. gentleman's speech was that which related to the system of licensing, under, which the venders of Malt-liquors were placed. He did not feel it necessary to enter into this question; as it was rather a matter of police than of revenue. It was a subject, too, which had been before committees of that House, and under discussion in the House on many, occasions, and the cause of much agitation at no distant period. Whether the opinion could be justified of those who thought it essential to the moral habits of the people, that the venders of beer should be subject to the existing restrictions, or whether those were right who thought it would be to the public advantage to throw open the trade to all who might be disposed to enter into it, it was not necessary, in discussing this question, to touch upon. His duty consisted in satisfying the House, that it was not expedient to adopt the motion of the hon. gentleman, seeing that was calculated to excite opinion out of doors—that that House was disposed to admit a reduction of these important duties, amounting to little less than seven millions, and which, he might say, were the foundation of the public revenue, and the maintenance of which was necessary to keep up the public credit, and the faith and character of the country. It was on that ground that he resisted the motion. At the same time, the hon. gentleman would find him ready at all times to assist in any plan that might be proposed to collect this revenue, in a way most convenient for the manufactures, without injury to the revenue.

supported the motion, which he considered of great importance, not only to the landed interest, but to the whole body of agriculturists. There was a clear reason for inquiry in the fact, that there had been a material reduction of the consumption of Malt. The right hon. gentleman had imputed it to the commutation of Beer for tea. He had also dwelt upon the large consumption of wine and spirits; but he should have shewn, that all these articles were loaded with a duty equal to that on Malt. His hon. friend had stated truly, that the duty on Beer was two hundred per cent; but the duty on tea was but one hundred per cent; and on wine not more than twenty or twenty-five per cent; and the duty on spirits had been greatly reduced. No trade was so encumbered as that of brewing, for it was by law divided into three classes of manufacturers, each of which was allowed to brew only one quality of beer. There was the first class, of strong-beer brewers, who could not brew either intermediate or small-beer; the second class, who could brew only intermediate, and neither strong nor small-beer; and the third, who could only brew small-beer. Such an absurd system would be found in no other part of Europe. He called, on the country gentlemen, instead of looking to the Corn-laws, to endeavour, by obtaining this inquiry, to extend the consumption of Malt and Beer. Parliament was now doing all it could to encourage the cultivators of India, China, France, and Spain, while it discouraged the cultivators of England.

said, that if the result of the committee had no other effect than, by encouraging the consumption of Malt-liquors to decrease that of spirits, it would deserve the attention of government.

was decidedly of opinion, that if the regulations which at present existed with respect to the duties on Malt were removed, the manufacturer would be induced to make a much greater quantity of that article; which would, in every way, be beneficial to the country. In the more remote districts of the country the maltster was, in many instances, able to evade a great portion of the duty, an advantage which the maltster in the vicinity of town could not participate in, owing to the superior vigilance of the Excise. The town maltster, therefore, by the present regulations, was not placed on a fair footing with those who lived in the country. In the growth of barlies, again, there was a difference. Some counties were far more genial to the culture of that species of grain than others; but the averages, as they were at present drawn up, were always in favour of the Hertfordshire farmer. If the chancellor of the Exchequer wished to levy a duty upon Malt he thought he should do so in a direct manner, and not by a sort of side-wind to the injury of the honest maltster. As the arrangement at present stood, a great quantity of barley was used for cattle, and much dissatisfaction had been expressed upon that head. With regard to the Excise prosecutions a great deal of dissatisfaction existed in the country on that head. He thought this a favourable opportunity for making an alteration, and that it would be judicious to give a higher salary to the officer, than to allow him a share of the fine.

said, the change now suggested had been contemplated by government for some time. It had been intended to appoint a barrister with a good salary, to the superintendence of this department of the Excise.

said that the effect of the restrictions imposed by recent acts of parliament on maltsters had been to induce them to give up, at least since the act of 1827, the manufacture of malt. He felt himself much indebted to the hon. mover on this occasion. It was a question deeply important to the whole landed interest. The present mode of raising the duties operated on the consumer generally with some severity; but it operated with more peculiar severity on the landed interest. The effect of the present duties was to levy a higher tax in proportion on the poorer soils than on the more productive lands. He earnestly appealed to the landed interest to use its utmost endeavour, as soon as an opportunity should present itself, to obtain a modification or remission of the duty on Malt; which, from its entering so largely into the comforts of life in this country, might be called the second essential of existence.

replied. He wished to impress two points particularly on the attention of the right hon. gentleman. With respect to the outcast, he intreated him to hear evidence on the subject; because it could be distinctly shown, that this pressed in a most unfair manner upon the matter; and on the subject of sprinkling, which the law required should not take place for twelve days after a certain process, that period ought to be diminished to eight or nine days, as the value would otherwise be diminished one-fifth. All he wished was, that the experiments which had been gone through by the trade last year, might be submitted to a committee; on this head he begged to refer to the statement of the committee of 1806, who, after a laborious investigation, had observed, that the present restriction increased the expense about one-fourth; and that if the period was relaxed to seven days, it would prevent fraud, and at the same time afford great relief to the matter.

The motion was then withdrawn.

moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to regulate the duties, salaries and emoluments of the Officers, Clerks, and Ministers of certain Ecclesiastical Courts in England."

was glad that one so enabled by professional experience and ability as his right hon. friend had taken up the subject of the duties and emoluments of the Officers in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The country would be much indebted to his right hon. friend. No changes were contemplated in the Ecclesiastical Courts; but it was highly expedient that some change should take place in the regulation of the minor departments.

said, he had at the end of last session, given notice of his intention to bring in a bill "for the Reform of some abuses which prevailed in the Ecclesiastical Courts, not of Doctors' Commons, but of the country." A delay in the making out of the returns, together with the pressure of more important business, had prevented him from bringing in the bill during the present session, but he pledged himself to do it at an early period of the next.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill, which would not require any lengthened recommendation. Its simple but important object was, to remedy a defect in recent act of parliament, and to supply an omission which had permitted the exercise of great cruelty in a case where parliament had entertained the most humane intentions. In an act which passed in the year 1822, for the purpose of preventing cruelty to cattle, the word "Bull" having been omitted it had been decided by two learned judges, upon an action brought against a clergyman who had made a conviction, that the merciful provisions of that act were not extended to that noble animal. He felt assured that such could not be the intention of parliament; and at the instance of many respectable individuals he was induced to bring forward this measure. Since the discovery of the defect in the act a very aggravated degree of barbarity had been exercised towards the animal whose protection had been overlooked. He moved "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act 3rd George 4th, cap. 71, and to make other provisions in lieu thereof."

objected to the motion, on the ground that the principle of abstract humanity was not, in; itself, sufficient to justify the House in sanctioning it. The evil which it was intended to remedy, in point of fact had no existence, as the practice of Bull-baiting had become obsolete. He considered partial measures of this kind to be a species of petty legislation unworthy of that House. Why were the amusements of the poor always selected for legislation, while the at least equally cruel amusements of the higher classes were passed over? If they passed a bill to prohibit Bull-baiting, they wailed probably be called on to legislate on the subject of cock-fighting, and several other amusements of the lower classes.

contended, that there existed a necessity forth measure being brought forward, in the defects of the ex- isting law against cruelty to animals. A case had lately occurred in which a man, committed for cruelty to a bull by a magistrate, eluded the law; two of the judges having given it as their opinion that as the word "bull" was not contained in the act, the accused party could not be legally convicted. Analogous measures had been productive of the best effects.

, thought the hon. member for Surrey had better, if he meant to remedy the defects of the existing law, have brought forward a more general measure. If the principle of partial legislation were once admitted, there would be no end to particular bills to guard against cruelty to particular animals. The proper course would have been a general measure punishing cruelty to all animals, and not a partial one like the present. There were many animals to protect as well as Bulls, Bears also were made the subject of cruel pastime. Why then, did not the hon. gentleman extend his bill to acts of cruelty against bears and badgers? [A laugh]. He was perfectly serious. Why not, on the same principle, punish the equally cruel and cold-blooded amusement of pigeon-shooting? Why not protect lions? Were not the feelings of the public as much offended by a recent baiting of lions, as they were by Bull-baiting? In a word, should not the measure be general, impartial, and consistent,—or the means of checking all acts of cruelty be left to the improved habits of the people? There ought to be some, principle laid down for legislation; otherwise, session after session, the House might be called upon to entertain similar measures.

said the present motion went to repeal the existing law. If therefore the proposed bill should not pass, the case would be left worse than the hon. member had found it.

The House then divided: Ayes 28. Noes 73. Majority against the motion 45.

asked, whether there was any estimate of the expenses which would be incurred in the repair of Buckingham-house?

replied, that the last estimate was before the House.

said, that the present bill gave the people no security that esti- mates might not be exceeded by four or five times their amount. In 1825, a speech had been made, fallaciously representing the country to be in a state of unexampled prosperity, to induce the House to consent to the projected expenditure upon the palaces. It was, moreover, stated, that a great expense would be saved, by making1 the walls of the old building serve in part for the new, and the whole expenditure was not to exceed 252, 693l. Last year, the unsightly appearance of the Palace, the reports of the most wanton expenditure, and above all, the discovery of a clandestine advance of money by the Treasury, led to the appointment of a committee, which had made its report on the subject. The report stated that in May, 1825, the estimate had been 252, 693l. and in June, 1828, the expenditure had amounted to 432, 926l. Only 10,000l. had been saved by choosing that most unfavorable site of the old palace. He had no objection for a suitable palace for the monarch; but he did strongly object to the most extravagant and absurd frittering away money; without the control of parliament, in touching up palaces, without estimates, and upon erroneous guesses. After the enormous expenditure upon Buckingham Palace, a building was erected which every man considered a monument of bad taste. Mr. Nash, the architect, had acknowledged that he was disappointed with the wings, and that the alteration had cost 50,000l. He said, that the arch at Hyde-Park-corner had alone cost 30,000l., that he did not know by whom it was erected, and could not conceive for what purpose. It was certainly not for the purpose of carriages, for there was no carriage entrance to the palace leading from it. The act of 6th Geo. 4th was, in his opinion, a breach of a contract made between the Crown and the House, when the crown lands were given up and certain revenue was allotted to the sovereign. By the operation of that act, the whole surplus Land-revenue of the Crown might be swallowed up in the erection of a palace. Why should the case of Buckingham-house be different from that of Windsor-castle? In the latter case, commissioners had been appointed, under whose control and responsibility the money was expended; while, on Buckingham-house, half a million of money had been expended before the House knew any thing of the matter; and the entire expense might not be less than 800,000l. The House ought to have an explanation of this profligate waste of the public money at such a period of distress.

admitted that the estimates had been considerably exceeded; which had been considerably exceeded; which had arisen partly from the change of form, and not from any wish on the part of those who had management of the crown estates to deceive. How far the building would eventually satisfy the admirers of architecture he could not tell: different individuals entertained different opinions. There were few persons who did not admire the buildings in Regent-street; yet during the progress of the work, not a month passed without some witty remarks on those buildings. All he asked was, that gentlemen would not be too hasty in judging what the general appearance of the building would be.

lamented the haste with which the work had been begun; which prevented the discovery that the project of altering the old building was hopeless, until considerable progress had been made. The Treasury ought to have considered the subject more carefully, and not have gone on in so thoughtless a way. A splendid palace might have been built in a better situation, at less expense than had been already incurred. Take the building in front, flank, or rear, the spectator could get no position in which the view would gratify him. The Treasury should have had a model prepared: if they had, we should have seen a building of another description, and on a better site. The original bill was a rash measure: to induce the House to pass it, a former chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that the sum required would be 200,000l.; whereas more than 400,000l. had already been expended. It appeared that the Board of Works, the proper duty of which was to look to such matters, had no control over the building of Buckingham-house. The architect was paid a commission on the sums expended; so that the greater the expense the greater the profits. The Board of Works being, therefore, a nullity, and the chancellor of the Exchequer declining to pledge himself as to the amount of the expense, the committee was called upon to vote an indefinite uncontrolled expenditure.

complained of the shameful way in which the estimate had been exceeded. By the present bill there was no check whatever upon similar delinquency. The Board of Works was appointed solely to superintend such works; and yet, in this case, that board was excluded from interference. Mr. Nash had declared that he could give no estimate; and by giving up his salary of 500l. a year, and taking a per centage upon the expenditure, he confessed he had benefitted to the extent of 3,000l. a year. The original per centage had been three pounds, and Mr. Nash took five. It was said, that the Board of Works had no control, but that his majesty approved the documents, and he signed them. They were countersigned by the Treasury; and thus the expenditure was incurred. The whole subject ought to be put upon a different footing.

said, he objected to the manner in which parliament had been treated throughout the whole of this transaction. In the first place, it had been discovered, by the merest accident, that 250,000l. which had been placed in the hands of commissioners, under the French treaty, for the most sacred purpose had been handed over to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, to be applied to a very different purpose. A more discreditable transaction was never heard of. That circumstance was kept concealed from Parliament for nearly two years, and then chance had brought it to light. What was the case in the present instance? Why, they had now discovered, and again by the merest accident, that the noble lord, in a bill for consolidating the laws relative to the Land-revenue, had introduced a clause authorizing the expenditure of an immense sum of money, the produce of those lands, on the same object which had already swallowed up the 250,000l. given up by the commissioners for the adjustment of claims on France. He should like to know from the noble lord, whether that sum of 450,000l. would be sufficient; whether it was meant to return the 250,000l. advanced by the commissioners under the treaty with France? and what further sum would be requisite for completing this project?

said, the hon. member was not correct when he stated that a clause unknown before, had been introduced secretly into this bill, for the purpose of raising money for finishing Buckingham-house. The bill only contained a clause which was in an act passed some years ago, and which provided for the appropriation of the surplus of the Land-revenues towards the expenses incurred in erecting the new palace. He was asked what money had been expended on Buckingham-house, and what the total expense was likely to be? Up to the 14th of February, the expense had been 346,000l., and the last estimate given in was 432,000l. as the sum which would complete the edifice. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests had no control over this expenditure. The accounts were sent in by the Board of Works, and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests paid them.

observed, that this property was treated as if it were exclusively the property of the Crown; but arrangements had been made, confirmed by acts of parliament, which rendered it as much the property of the public as any other fund at the disposal of that Houses. They ought, therefore, to bear in mind, that this was part of the ways and means of the country, and was perfectly applicable to the exigencies of the state. Why, then, were not the expenses for building and finishing a palace charged in connexion with the other disbursements of the country; the Land-revenues being at the same time set down amongst resources of the country?

After some further conversation, the chairman reported progress.