, in presenting a Petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Sutton in Ash field cum Stuck wall under Huthwait, and other places against the proposed alteration of the Licensing System observed, that the subject was of great importance, both as affecting a large body of respectable tradesmen, who, shaping their operations by the existing law had invested considerable capitals in their business, and the public at large. He was opposed to the contemplated alteration because he thought, whatever evils might result from the present system, they were susceptible of being remedied without inflicting an injury on a large class of industrious men. The alteration proposed would, if carried into effect, instantly deteriorate the property of all Licensed Victuallers, many of whom had paid large sums for their business, while many of them had made that business by many years of uninterrupted labour, and un intermitted care. The petitioners also say, which in his opinion was well worthy of the attention of the House, that under the present mode of granting licenses, the magistrates exercise a salutary control over this class of tradesmen, and over the management of their houses and business, which is in the highest degree useful to the public. Its moral advantages were great, and they would be entirely thrown away if every man, on the payment of a trifling sum of money, be entitled to a license as a matter of course. He felt grateful, and was anxious to express his gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remission of taxation already granted, but he begged leave to suggest to him that it would be far better to repeal the Malt than the Beer duties, which encourage domestic consumption, and the home-brewing of the cottager. He earnestly called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this subject, and hoped that right hon. Gentleman would not think it too late to revise his contemplated alterations respecting the Licensing System and the Duty on Beer.

said, he wished to take that opportunity to ask his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, a question or two, which concerned not only the faith of treaties, but the commercial interests of this country. It was well known that the Treaty of Vienna, concluded in 1815, contained certain stipulations concerning the navigation of rivers. Amongst the Acts which formed part of the Treaty, the Sixteenth related expressly to this subject, and contained several stipulations with regard to the Navigation of the Rhine. He would take the liberty of reading the beginning of the first Article, which was quite explicit:—"The Navigation of the Rhine, from its source to the sea, shall be entirely free for all, on the payment merely of the dues which shall be necessary for preserving the police of the river." By these words all the Powers of Europe were entitled to the free navigation of that river. No vessels whatever were to be excluded, nor any duties levied, except such as were necessary for keeping up the police. The King of the Netherlands, however, had resisted that construction of the treaty, and had excluded all vessels from the navigation of the Rhine, by prohibitory duties, except vessels belonging to the Netherlands. In consequence of his conduct, a great deal of discussion had ensued, which was extremely interesting; but notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the treaty of 1815, the navigation of the Rhine was still closed, except to the subjects of the Netherlands. The Treaty of Vienna had not, therefore, been carried into effect, which was a serious subject, calling for the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. The event had recently received a considerable accession of interest. About a year ago some of the Continental Powers resolved to make a common appeal to all Europe, and in this it was expected that England would take a prominent part. When he quitted office in 1828, he was persuaded that such a united appeal would be made, and he expected, that it would be successful. It appeared, however, that in 1829 a treaty had been concluded by the Powers more immediately connected with the Rhine, excluding all but themselves, making no mention of England, and taking exclusively to themselves all the benefits of the Treaty of Vienna. The treaty these Powers had lately concluded secured the free and open navigation of the Rhine to vessels belonging to the States bordering on that river, though it was not yet, he believed, carried into effect, because France being somewhat jealous on the subject had not yet ratified it. It was understood on the Continent, however, and publicly announced, that France had only deferred the ratification, and that the treaty would speedily be carried into execution. In its effects it would give to those Powers the right stipulated for in the Treaty of Vienna, and England would be left out. Under these circumstances, he thought himself entitled to put some questions to his right hon. friend. He would first beg leave to ask if any official communication had been made to our Government of the conclusion of this treaty by the Powers bordering on the river? His second question was, when this treaty was communicated to his Majesty's Government, would there be any objection to lay it on the Table of the House, as it was a matter of such importance that the House ought to be made acquainted with it? Thirdly, he wished to ask if there were any measures now in progress for securing to this country the rights which were stipulated for by the Treaty of Vienna? He believed, according to the information he had received, there were now negotiations pending, to obtain the opening of the Navigation of the Rhine.

stated, that he was willing to follow the example of his right hon. friend, and give a short explanation as well as an answer. In 1815, a treaty was made at Vienna, which he thought, and in this he concurred with his right hon. friend, and all his predecessors in office, intended that the navigation of the Rhine should be open to all nations. A doubt, however, had arisen as to the meaning of the treaty, which was drawn up originally, he believed, in German, and not in French, and the King of the Netherlands contended that the words of the original treaty did not bear the signification other parties had assigned to them. What might be the meaning of the original treaty in German he would not decide, but looking at it as it was expressed in French, he had no doubt that it was meant to open the navigation of the Rhine to all nations. The words were, that the navigation shall be free—jusqu' à la mer. The government of the Netherlands interpreted this to mean as far as the sea, and not into the sea; which was not, he thought, a very good argument. Another difficulty had been raised concerning the channel of the Rhine, connecting it with the sea—whether it were the Waale, or the Leek exclusively; and the King of the Netherlands was disposed to determine that it was the Leek exclusively. If that were the case, as the Leek was not navigable for sea-going vessels, nor accessible at all times, it would so limit the navigation of the river, as to render it almost useless. England, he admitted, above all other nations, was interested in having the navigation of the Rhine free, or subject only to such very moderate duties as were sufficient to maintain the police of the river, keeping the towing-path in order, &c. His right hon. friend, after having stated the case, had asked if the navigation were not closed to all but those having a concurrent interest in the river? He had asked whether there had not been a treaty lately signed by the Continental Powers bordering on the Rhine? and he had also asked whether or not this treaty would be communicated to Parliament when it was ratified? As he understood the subject, it was somewhat different from the case as stated by his right hon. friend. There were assembled at Mayence, commissioners from all the States bordering on the Rhine, constituting what was called the Central Commission, which represented all these States, and no treaty had been entered into between them and the King of the Netherlands. There was, indeed, a projet convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, which had been communicated to the Central Commission, which had not stated that it would accept this projet. When the treaty was concluded and ratified, there was no doubt it would be communicated formally to his Majesty's Government, and when communicated, he had no doubt it would be laid before the House. He could not pledge himself, as the treaty was not ratified, as to what would be the course pursued by his Majesty's Government. France, he believed, had some objection to the treaty; but he could have no doubt that when it appeared, England would claim her full share of the advantages. England was not prepared to acquiesce in any system for granting exclusive commercial privileges; she had signified to those Powers that they were not to prejudice her interests by their treaties, and that she should urge her rights according to the treaty of 1815. In the present state of the case, England claimed a free traffic, and declared, that till the treaty was ratified she would not consider her claims in any way prejudiced. In whatever view it might be ratified, England would not consent to any such exclusive scheme. He agreed with his right hon. friend that the interests of the commercial world ought not to be overlooked; and he was sure that his Majesty's Government was deeply alive to every measure which affected the commercial interests of this country.

said, that the convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, mentioned by his right hon. friend, was different from what he described it to be. The projet, which he had seen in a German Paper, for December, was entered into by Prussia, Bavaria, France, Hesse, Nassau, and the Netherlands. It was not merely a convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, but an agreement entered into between all the parties. That was the general impression concerning it. When the treaty was carried into operation, England would be unable to claim any privileges under it, as it related solely to the Powers who were parties to it. The treaty, as he understood it, was so exclusive, that vessels from Baltic-Prussia were not to enter the Rhine, the navigation of which was to be confined to the vessels of the Powers seated on its banks. Under the treaty, England would have no privileges whatever.

replied, that he had stated what was, he believed, correct. He believed the projet was only for a convention between Prussia and the Netherlands. Prussia was the party most interested. The Central Commission consisted of a delegate from each State situated on the borders of the Rhine; and that commission had never consented to the convention entered into between Prussia and the Netherlands. The Powers concerned had the convention under consideration; but what opinion they would form, it was impossible to say. He believed that the projet was formed on the principles of the treaty of 1815, which certainly his Majesty's Government would not lose sight of. England would not relinquish her claims, and when the treaty was ratified would not forget to urge them. He supposed that the case would be amicably arranged; but whatever might be the result, England would claim all the benefit which she had a right to. It might perhaps be satisfactory to his right hon. friend to know that an English vessel had proceeded up the Rhine with a cargo, which had been delivered at Cologne.

knew that an English vessel had proceeded up the Rhine, but be also knew that there was no disposition to repeat the voyage. The duties levied on her were so enormous, that they destroyed all profit, and no other vessel would make the same experiment.

said, the Government would protest as strongly against prohibitory duties as against actual prohibition.

took the opportunity to express a hope that the papers respecting the state of the negotiations on the subject of Greece, which were shortly to be laid on the Table of the House, would contain a satisfactory explanation of the cause of the Blockade of Prevesa, and those other events which were now so much a matter of conjecture. The imputation that Great Britain had been guilty of a violation of that law acknowledged throughout Europe, and which she had expended so much blood and treasure to uphold, ought to be removed.

said, that the papers would contain a full statement of the progress of the negotiations, but it should be understood there were circumstances such as the existence of an armistice between the parties, which would take the case alluded to by the learned Gentleman somewhat out of the ordinary law of nations.

, in presenting a Petition from the Parish of St. Paul, Covent-Garden, against the unjust and unequal method of imposing the Land-tax, took occasion to observe, that the parish of St. Paul actually paid a Land-tax of 2s. 4d. in the pound, while the rich and populous parish of Mary-la-bonne paid only three farthings in the pound, and the extensive parish of St. Pancras not more than 2d. in the pound. In order to show how unequally the Land-tax was imposed in particular districts, he would take leave to read a short account of the sums levied in different places, lying, in some cases, in the immediate neighbourhood of each other. In the whole of the City of Westminster the sum collected yearly on account of Land-tax was 63,000l. In the county of Sussex, with the exception of one or two of the Cinque Ports, but including Brighton, Lewes, and Chichester, the sum was 57,560l. In Lancashire, including Liverpool and Lancaster, the sum was only 20,989l. In the city of London the amount collected was, however, 123,000l. In the Town of Rye the sum was 473l., while in the Town of Hastings, which was treble the size, the sum was only 378l. In the city of Bath the sum was 433l. 6s., while in Winchelsea, where there were not more than sixty or seventy inhabited Houses, the sum was 405l. After observing that the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, was rated at the sum of 1s. 2d. in the pound, and commenting on the hardship inflicted on that parish, and on St. Paul's, Covent-garden, the hon. Member proceeded to say, that the whole sum redeemed under the plan of Mr. Pitt was only 713,000l. while the amount remaining was only 1,263,000l. a-year. He thought it would be very easy to deal with this sum if the Government were disposed to do so, and that a tax of 2s. in the pound would produce 3,000,000l. to the State, while 4s.produccd little more than 1,000,000l. He trusted that, if the present Session had too much business before it to allow the Government an opportunity of dealing with the subject now, that it would be brought forward at an early period of the next Session, and some relief afforded to the petitioners.

was of opinion that the Parliament ought not to interfere in this case. In many places the Land-tax had been redeemed, and the House had no right, after one person had redeemed his share of the Tax, to call on him to pay a part of his neighbour's share who may not have had the prudence or the power to relieve himself.

alluded only to the unredeemed Land-tax; in his opinion, Parliament ought to consider whether or not some more equitable mode of raising the unredeemed Land-tax could be adopted.

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Hastingden, in the county of Lincoln, the purport of which he was sorry to say was to represent to the House the great and general Distress which prevailed in that part of the country. Many persons the petitioners represented, had been reduced, by no fault of their own, from comparative wealth and happiness to poverty and destitution. They prayed for a reduction of taxation; but they stated that there was no way of relieving the Distress except the wages of labour were raised, or the price of the necessaries of life much reduced. The petitioners did not look for any rise in wages, owing to the continued increase of machinery; and therefore they thought that the Government was imperiously called on to make a large reduction of taxation so as to reduce the price of the necessaries of life. The clergyman who had forwarded the Petition to him had assured him that the distress of the petitioners was not exaggerated, and that although they had always borne their misfortunes with patience, they had been in a better humour with Government than before, since it had shewn a disposition to diminish taxation. When his Majesty's Government was thus informed that reduction of taxation, both relieved distress, and strengthened loyalty, he trusted that it would go on in the same wise course, and follow up the reductions of this year by still greater reductions hereafter.

, in presenting a Petition from the Provost and Magistracy of Brechin, complaining of the Stamp Duties on Inventories, said, that this was the ninth or tenth Petition he had presented during the last three years on the same subject. Nothing could be more vexatious than the manner in which these duties were levied in Scotland, for they took an inventory of every article of a deceased person, even to a night-cap, and that, too, before the body was removed from the house, if the property amounted to more than 20l. He thought the sum should be fixed at 100l., and he pressed the subject on the attention of Government. The petitioners also complained of the unequal manner in which the Stamp Duties operated in respect to mortgages, the Stamp being 35s., whether the mortgage were for 50l. or 50,000l. He concurred also in this part of the petitioners prayer, and hoped that in the new arrangement of the Stamp Duties, the subject would be taken into consideration.

saw no reason whatever, for continuing the vexatious Inventory tax, which to the people of Scotland was irksome beyond description, and of which they particularly complained, because they only were subject to it. They had long desired to be placed in this respect on the same footing as the inhabitants of England. He had been particularly requested by the people of the north to enforce this view on the attention of the Government, and took that opportunity therefore of doing so.

presented a Petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and other inhabitants of Woodbridge, in the County of Suffolk, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for the crime of Forgery. The hon. Member observed, that the Petition was most respectably signed; that the circumstance of its being signed by the bankers of the place was one deserving of the attention of the right hon. Secretary of State, and of the House. He knew that the feeling on this subject entertained by the bankers of Woodbridge was very general among bankers throughout the country, and he hoped that the same feeling would be evinced by the London bankers. He trusted that the time was approaching when the punishment of death for any description of Forgery would be expunged from our penal code.

said, that he knew a respectable banker, who having several years ago been obliged to prosecute an individual for Forgery, and having failed, after a conviction had taken place, in his efforts to save the life of the prisoner, he declared that henceforward nothing should induce him to institute a similar prosecution, and that he would rather lose his entire fortune than be the means of taking away the life of any man for such an offence. This banker also told him that such were the sentiments of several other bankers, and that it was the general opinion of that class of persons, who were most interested in the question, that the punishment of death ought to be removed from the Statute-book in all cases of Forgery. His own opinion was, that the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not give general satisfaction unless it went that length.

said, that he had received two letters on the subject—extracts from which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The first was from a highly respectable clergyman at Glasgow, where a petition had been prepared, signed by all the bankers and respectable merchants in that city, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for Forgery. The words of his correspondent were:—"The bankers, to a man, have been favourable; I am given to understand that there is scarcely a banker in town (if, indeed, there be even one), who has not been in circumstances in which he has forborne to prosecute rather than expose the offender to the certainty, or even the risk of death; and this forbearance has been exercised sometimes in circumstances of an aggravated nature." The other letter to which he alluded was from a banker at Newcastle. The writer said, "I now wish to offer you my testimony on the subject of Forgery, in confirmation of your sentiments expressed in the House. My mind has long been distressed with the present law. I gladly embraced the first opportunity to do what I could for its alteration, and lately took some pains in forwarding a petition from here, praying that in all cases the penalty should be short of the forfeiture of life. The leading partners of the banks in this town signed it, under the practical conviction that the severity of the law was not a protection to us, but tended to increase the crime. I also called on our principal merchants, who concurred in the same sentiments, and signed it. This opinion maybe said to be universal in this district." He (Mr. F. Buxton) objected to the punishment of death for Forgery, on the grounds stated in his correspondent's letter, and he also objected to it on higher grounds. He thought the legislature had no right to take away the life of any man for an offence against property. He was sure that a strong wish existed among the bankers, and other respectable classes of the community, throughout the country, to see the law altered in that respect.

expressed his conviction, that a general impression existed throughout the country that the punishment of death for Forgery ought to be abolished. With respect to protection against the crime, the late alteration in the law, by which a person on whom Forgery was committed was permitted to be a witness in the case, afforded an incalculably greater protection against the crime than any severity of punishment. He was sure that public opinion would go with the right hon. Gentleman if he were to abolish the punishment of death altogether.

rose to present a Petition from the Bankers and Inhabitants of the Town of Witham, in Essex, praying that the punishment of death in cases of Forgery might be abolished. He was able to say, having presented several petitions on this subject, that a great body of his constituents were averse to the punishment of death for this crime, and wished to see it abolished. He concurred with them in thinking that it ought to be abolished for the crime of Forgery; but he went further, and thought that there were many other cases in which it was now improperly inflicted. He was very much inclined to doubt if any legislators or rulers had a right to take away life from an individual in any case of crime in which the life of the suffering or offended party had not been put in danger. Many writers of great and deserved celebrity had maintained this opinion. He trusted that the whole of the penal code would undergo a further consideration. He was convinced that secondary punishments might, in point of preventing crime, be made more efficacious as an example than death. Solitary confinement might be applied in a manner most effective to its object, whilst it might be deprived of those objections that had been urged against it. He could not conceive that any danger could arise from vesting a discretionary power in the visiting magistrates, or the governors of gaols, as to solitary confinement. There was no danger in giving a discretionary power to mitigate punishment; though there might be, and the Legislature could not be too cautious in granting it, in a power to inflict punishment. He stated this, because he had paid great attention to the subject, and he believed that the aversion to inflict- ing the punishment of death so frequently was strongly felt throughout the country. Excessive punishment defeated its own object, and in this case forgers were frequently allowed to escape, from the unwillingness of persons to prosecute the offence.

expressed a wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether he was aware that in consequence of a defect in one of the clauses in the bill on the subject, Timber might be brought to this country from Memel, without paying the duty on foreign Timber, by being first carried to Halifax? He knew that that had been done last year. One or more cargoes of Baltic Timber had, to his knowledge, been imported in that manner into Ireland. By the 10th of George 4th, the Timber, the growth of other countries, might be imported from our Colonies on paying only the small duty imposed on Timber the growth of the Colonies. People had profited by this, and had actually sent cargoes of Timber from the Baltic to Nova Scotia, and had then imported it into this country at an advantage. The evil of this practice, as it affected the regular trader, was very great. The prime cost of Timber in the Baltic was 20s. a ton, the direct freight to this country 18s., the duty 55s., and other charges 15s., making altogether 98s. The double freight to Halifax in the first instance, and to this country in the second, 50s.; other charges amounted to 15s.; making, with the price of the Timber, only 85s.; so that Baltic Timber might be sent to Halifax, and then imported into this country, for 13s. a ton less than the rate at which it could be imported direct from the Baltic. He knew for certain that many vessels were at present preparing to sail for the Baltic, and thence with Timber to Halifax, for the purpose of bringing it to this country, and taking advantage of the defect in the bill. He begged to know whether in the bill which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice he would bring in, it was intended to remedy this defect. If not, the parties to whom he alluded would have a perfect right to take advantage of it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, ought now to state the course which he meant to pursue; otherwise, in the course of the next fortnight, most of the vessels which were preparing for the voyage would have left London, and their owners would certainly have a good claim to avail themselves of the law as it now stood.

was glad that the hon. Gentleman had put the question to him, as it afforded him an opportunity of stating what were the intentions of Government on the subject. The hon. Member had described very correctly the defect in the clause of the existing bill, which enabled persons to import Baltic Timber circuitously through Halifax, at a less rate than, owing to the duty which had been imposed for the protection of Timber, the produce of our North American colonies, it could be imported directly from the Baltic. He should be disposed to say, however, that if the existing law were carried into complete execution, he very much doubted if the parties in question could make their venture so successful a one as they had made it, and as, according to the hon. Gentleman's statement, they contemplated making it. He had been asked a question by some of them with respect to one point on which the expectation of making a successful voyage hinged. That question was, whether it would be necessary that a ship should be unloaded at Halifax, and then of course reloaded before her departure for England? If the officers at Halifax did their duty in this respect, he had reason to believe that the expense attending on that operation would very much diminish the chance of any profit arising from the speculation. He now, however, gave notice, that in order to prevent the evasion of what was undoubtedly the intention of the Legislature, he would, immediately after the recess, introduce a bill to remedy the defect in the existing Act, and to prevent any advantage from being taken of it.

said, that being Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of the laws respecting the Retail Sale of Beer, it was his duty, by the direction of the Committee, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the privilege of selling that ar- ticle. As the committee had not made any Report, and as the evidence that had been taken was not before the House, it would be unfair if he entered into any matters of controversy upon the subject in its present stage; and therefore, with the desire of avoiding any immediate discussion he should, in as few words as possible, explain the nature of the measure which he had to propose. The principles of a free trade in Beer had been debated in that House, and it could not be denied, he thought, that the general sense of Parliament, and the almost unanimous wish of the country were in favour of throwing open the trade. With a view also to give a more complete effect to the recent repeal of the Beer duty, he felt that it would be necessary to carry the freedom of the trade to its utmost extent. What he had now to propose to the House, at the command of the committee of which he was the chairman, would be found clear, plain, intelligible, and effective to the establishing a free trade. The principle of the measure was, that any person in London who wished to have a license for the Sale of Beer should apply to the proper officer of Excise, and he would be entitled to a license on payment of the sum of two guineas. In the country the application should be made to the Supervisor, and the applicant would be entitled to his license upon his paying the same sum. Thus the House would see that the measure he had proposed would be the means of immediately carrying the freedom of the trade in Beer to the fullest extent. It was to be followed up by many regulations for the government of those who might be placed under this Act. Having steered clear of those houses which came under the provisions of the late Act brought into the House by Mr. Estcourt, the Committee had been careful to provide a number of regulations, to ensure a certain and effectual punishment, if regularity and decency were not preserved in the houses of those who took out licenses to sell Beer under this Act. He thought it better, under the circumstance of the evidence which had been taken before the committee not being yet printed, to avoid entering into any further detail. Perhaps it was necessary for him to state, that his only motive for bringing forward the Motion before the evidence was printed, and in the possession of hon. Members, was, that this was the last day before the Easter Recess; and the Members of that committee, as well as himself, were anxious that the Bill should be circulated through the country during that recess. All parties concerned in it ought to see it, and have full time to consider its principles and provisions before the second reading came on. By this means he should be able to ascertain what were the opinions of the country upon the subject, and to sec what support the Members of that House would be inclined to give to the measure. He was fully impressed with the fact that the new principle introduced by the Bill was very important, with reference to the immensely large capital employed in the trade, and which was diffused so extensively throughout the country. He also felt that the Bill was scarcely less important with respect to its holding out to the poor and working classes of the community a chance of obtaining a better, a cheaper, and a more wholesome beverage than they had been as yet accustomed to drink. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Members present would not think of entering into any discussion of the Bill, for no good could arise from that in its present stage, and it would be premature, useless, and not altogether fair to the committee. The measure, he should observe, was not to extend to Ireland or Scotland; it was, in the first instance, to be limited in its operation to England and Wales. He should conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the general Sale of Beer by Retail.

only wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain operations of the Bill, which he thought would render it incumbent upon him to modify it. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly have the opportunity of better considering the evidence during the recess; and if he went into it, and saw the very great and important interests alluded to in it, he hoped that he would be induced to modify the Bill very considerably. If any person without any limitations whatsoever, might be allowed to sell Beer by retail, anywhere and any how, without any restriction whatever—for the proposed licensing system would be no restriction—mischief and inconvenience would ensue, of which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be little aware. He begged to be particularly understood as not speaking on the part of the London brewers, for he was ready to acknowledge, what indeed had already been acknowledged distinctly, that the benefits derived to the trade by the reduction of the duty upon Beer would amply compensate them for any loss they might sustain in their property in public-houses or otherwise. But waiving the consideration of the brewers, he must beg leave to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the House and country, that there were two classes that would be most seriously injured by the proposed alteration of the long-established principles of the trade in Beer. He scarcely need say that he alluded, not to the great brewers in town, but to the country brewers all over England; and to that extremely numerous class of publicans, or licensed victuallers, who at present kept public-houses of their own. There were 50,000 persons of this description, of which 23,000 were in London. The greater part of these owned public-houses, and if this measure were to go through the House without alteration, it would destroy the greater part of the property belonging to these individuals. Many of these individuals were known to have mortgaged their property to others; and if this Bill were to pass without alteration, their property would be hardly worth more than what, in most instances, it was mortgaged for. This he thought would be a case of grievous hardship; for although it might be impossible to introduce alterations or reforms, without the sacrifice of some individual interests, such sacrifices ought never to be so extensive, general, and severe, as they would be in the present instance. He had attentively considered the subject, and had prepared a measure of relief which would prevent the evil he had pointed out, without interfering with the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. He had attempted to introduce his measure into the committee, but he was sorry to say without success; and if no other Member more capable than himself should propose it to the House, he should take the liberty of moving, that instruction should be given to the Committee on the Bill, that some relief be afforded to the classes in whose behalf he now felt it his duty to address the House. The relief which he contemplated would not in any respect interfere with the principle and the practical effects of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, whilst the mischief it would do to numerous indi- viduals would be alleviated or removed. He would repeat his conviction, that upon the whole the London brewers would be benefitted by this new measure; but he could not say so much for the brewers in the country, or for the very numerous owners of public-houses. He hoped that, after what he had said, the right hon. Gentleman, during the recess, would meet the case of these individuals, for the number of them, the property involved, and the extensive injury likely to be inflicted, rendered them well worthy of the most careful consideration.

should defer his observations upon the Bill until the evidence taken before the Committee was duly before the House, but in the mean time he could not refrain from saying, that he could not agree with all that had fallen from his hon. friend who had just sat down. He felt that the brewers were so identified with the licensed victuallers of the metropolis, that any law which affected the one would, as a matter of inevitable necessity, affect the other. His hon. friend very well knew, and, indeed, it was notorious to everybody, that a very great capital was embarked by the great brewers of London with the licensed victuallers, and he wished he could say that the Bill would be beneficial to the former, for if so, they could act with consideration towards others. He believed, unfortunately, that the Bill now introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would prove more destructive to property on a large scale, and more diffusive of ruin to persons not very wealthy, than any measure which the House had ever adopted. The Bill, he was convinced, would cause the absolute ruin of the great body of victuallers, whilst it would destroy the property of the manufacturers of Beer. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that his Bill would admit of no modifications; that his principles could not be carried into operation without effecting the ruin of such great and important interests, and of such very numerous classes? He had hoped that Ministers would have been content with trying one experiment at a time, and would have waited until they had seen the effects of taking off the duty upon Beer before they proceeded to such extensive innovations. He believed that taking off the Beer duty would prove highly beneficial to the public; but he was convinced that ail the benefit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's removing that tax, might have flowed to the public through the old channels without having recourse to the new. Why should legislation upon this subject be an anomaly to the general rule of Ministers, not to innovate with a rapidity that destroyed extensively the property of any class of the community? He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would attend to the evidence that had been given by Mr. Carr to the committee of 1818, That gentleman stated, that all the deleterious Beer consumed in London was brewed by the inferior brewers; and he had no doubt, that as soon as this Bill passed, the town would be inundated by a deluge of trash, which would barely be drinkable, and which would also be most destructive of the health of those who swallowed it.

, in the present stage of the proceedings, would only avail himself of the opportunity of saying, that whatever opinions might be entertained of the Bill, he was extremely glad that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to extend it to Scotland. He did not think that it was requisite to interfere with the system at present prevalent in Scotland, nor that it would be deemed expedient, upon any pretence, to introduce such a bill as the present; for, in point of fact, the evil so much complained of in England—the monopoly of the Beer trade—had never existed in that part of the kingdom. Since he had risen he might be excused if he availed himself of the opportunity of briefly referring to a gross misrepresentation that had gone abroad respecting his conduct. It had been said, that he was the author of a bill which introduced into Scotland for the first time the evil of the English system of a monopoly of the Beer-trade. He denied that he was the author of any such measure. The Act he alluded to, the 9th of his present Majesty, gave magistrates a great power over brewers' certificates, the clause having been copied from the Act of 44 Geo. 3rd. The only alteration he had proposed was, to restrain the power of the magistrates, which, in the general opinion of the country, in which he fully agreed, had formerly been too unlimited. In making this declaration he was aware that he was speaking in the presence of many hon. Members who must have a recollection of all that had taken place, and would contradict him if he spoke erroneously.

said, he could not hear what had fallen from the hon. Member that had just addressed the House without rising to say, that he was aware of the facts to which the hon. Member had thought fit to allude, and he could have no hesitation in corroborating the statement which the hon. Member had made. He believed that the hon. Gentleman had proposed to restrain, not enlarge, the powers of the magistracy with respect to certificates.

intimated, that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was of such importance, that it ought not to be introduced in so thin a House, and he should avail himself of there not being forty Members present.

thought that the course proposed by the hon. Member who had spoken last was altogether unnecessary and objectionable, for the only effect of it would be, to compel the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the Bill on another evening. It was then introduced for the convenience of Members, that they might acquaint themselves with its provisions during the recess. For his part, he could say of himself conscientiously, and without fear of contradiction, that there was not an honourable Member in that House who could regret more forcibly than he did, that reforms and improvements should be effected at the expense of numerous individuals. It was, however, in this case unavoidable. He could not help saying, although he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, that the laws under which the great brewers alleged that they had invested their immense capitals were not laws made for the protection of their trade, or of any trade whatever. They were laws having trade neither for their principle nor object, but made solely for purposes of police. The great brewers of the metropolis had availed themselves of those laws to promote their own interests, finding that, although they were meant for the good government of the poor, and for the decency of society, they might be converted into instruments of profit. He did not mean to say that the brewers had not acted fairly—that they had been guilty of anything improper; but he did mean to assert, that having availed themselves of the state of the laws, they had no right to come down to the House and demand that the laws should be made perpetual. If these laws were bad, if they no longer suited the state of the country, if the feelings of the people were strongly and unanimously against them, they could not be perpetuated upon the plea that rescinding them would injure partial and temporary interests. He would not pretend to speak of the consequences of the present system in town; but would confine himself to its consequences in the country, which had fallen more particularly under his own observation. A house was built on speculation, of which the intrinsic value was not worth more than 10l. a year. A license was procured first, and its value rose immediately to 20l., 30l., 40l. or even 50l. a year. Now this rent was paid for by the consumers of the Beer. Any measure, therefore, which enabled the consumers to get rid of this extra payment for their Beer, must be to them an improvement. He would maintain that the existing system of licensing was an intolerable lax upon the community, and that the monopoly of the Beer-trade had been more oppressive to the lower orders in this country than any other that had ever been imposed upon them by the legislature. He highly approved of the objects of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. He congratulated the House and the country on the liberality with which the present Ministry went forward with the spirit of improvement that was now abroad; and which distinguished this Administration beyond every other which had preceded it. He owed it gratitude for its conduct, and hoped that its future measures would be conceived and executed in the same spirit as the past.

could not suffer what had fallen in the course of the discussion to pass unnoticed, particularly as allusions appeared to have been made to the sentiments he had uttered, and to the line of conduct which, upon this occasion, he had thought it his duty to pursue. In the first place, he must repel the insinuation, that in any stage of the proceeding, or upon any occasion, he had ever said anything, or pursued any course, that could induce anybody to conceive that he had adopted the monstrous notion that the law was intended for the benefit of the brewers. There could not be any doubt that the law was passed for the advantage of the public, as a means of preserving order and decency among the lower classes of the community, The brewers, in adapting their trade to the state of the law, had done nothing that was unfair, and nothing more than every tradesman did, and had a right to do. Having stated thus much, he could not be mistaken in asserting, that the great body of the brewers had met this important measure very fairly. They had candidly said, that according to their calculations, and according to the views they took of the subject, they thought that eventually they should be great gainers by the alterations of the law which Government was determined to carry into effect. Having acknowledged that they would ultimately be gainers to a certain extent, they had likewise asserted, of the truth of which they were convinced, that in the first operation and effect of this change of system, they would be not only losers, but very great losers. He could take upon himself to say, that some of the great brewers' in the first instance, might lose even 100,000l. although eventually they might be great gainers. In the course, therefore, that the brewers had pursued, he did not see that any blame could attach to them; but on the contrary, as far as he could judge for himself, or as far as he could ascertain from others, the conviction on his mind was, that under the circumstances in which they were placed, they had acted with candour and great fairness. If, however, the brewers were likely to get eventually an ample compensation for their immediate losses, he must be allowed to call to the recollection of the House that there was another class of persons—a very numerous and important class that would be very great sufferers, both immediately and eventually; for they had no prospect, in the common course of trade, of getting any compensation whatever: he thought that the case of the publicans did, in every point of view, deserve the most serious consideration of every Member in that House. The great principle was, to make the value of property and of capital invested in trades as stable as possible, and all legislative measures that effected a sudden fluctuation in the value of property were to be avoided as much as possible. If such measures were necessary for the public good, they ought to be effected with the least degree of individual sacrifice. Now he conceived, that without infringing upon the Bill which the Committee had thought proper to author- ise the right hon. Gentleman opposite to introduce—without impugning its principle, or interfering with its details or operation, a remedy might very easily be provided for at least a part of the heavy and ruinous losses which would otherwise be sustained by the parties in whose behalf he was then speaking. Without infringing upon the principles and practice of free trade, in whatever sense the terms were taken—for they were construed in almost every sense—without in the least trespassing upon the theory of free trade, it would be easy, he thought, to adopt an amendment to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member, under the direction of the committee, by which the interests of the publicans would, to a great degree, be protected. The amendment to which he alluded had been adverted to by several hon. Members by no means hostile to the intentions of the committee, but who wished to see the views of that committee carried into effect with as little of individual sacrifice as was compatible with the full operation of the intended new system. The amendment which he should propose was, not interfering in the slightest degree with the brewing or sale of Beer—that it should not be legal to permit the Beer to be consumed by the purchasers upon any part of the premises upon which it was sold. Might not a temporary enactment of that kind avoid the ruin of numerous individuals—prevent the evils of a rapid and sudden transition in the value of property, in the channels of trade, and in the course of established habits, among classes of people among whom habits were not easily changed with advantage to themselves or security to the public? He would beg leave to remind the House, that upon all occasions he had been a supporter of the doctrines of free trade; and he saw no inconsistency between that support and his wish to pass from the old system to the new at the smallest inconvenience to individuals, and at the smallest sacrifice of capital already directed into particular channels by long existing laws. If he had always voted for free trade when the capital and interests of others were deeply involved, he would not desert those principles, or be lukewarm in their support, when his own were concerned. But notwithstanding this, he would still say, that there was a very large body of people whose rights and interests had been overlooked in the present measure. The publicans throughout the United Kingdom had upwards of four millions sterling embarked in their trade. It was absurd to deny that they would be great sufferers by the alteration of the law, and that their sufferings would involve those of very many other classes. Such a part of the community ought not to be disregarded, because the capital he had mentioned was greatly diffused, or because specifically the publicans were not represented in that House. After much application to the subject, it was his opinion that all the good proposed by the present Bill would be effected, and all the evils with respect to the publicans would be alleviated, if the open sale of Beer were allowed to its fullest extent, but the consumption of it prohibited upon the premises where it was sold.

said, that he did not intend to enter at any length into the merits of the Bill, or into the mode of introducing it, for future opportunities would present themselves for all such considerations. He merely intended to confine himself to a few observations which had fallen from the hon. Member on the Ministerial Bench (Mr. Home Drummond). That hon. Member had not, in the slightest degree, impugned the principles of the Bill, or found the slightest fault with any of its provisions. He evidently intended to support it without objection or amendment; and yet he had risen in his place to express his hope that it should not extend to Scotland. This was incomprehensible to him; and he was not a little surprised that hon. Members should venture to utter so much of what seemed to him incomprehensible. If this measure were good for England, he was not aware why it should not extend to Scotland; at least it was for the hon. Member to show some substantial reason why a measure, which he acknowledged to be good for one part of the kingdom, should not be applied to the other. He agreed with the hon. Member, that the evils felt in England under the existing law were not so severely felt in Scotland, although this arose from causes extraneous to the law, but still there was a great case of hardship in that country. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his efforts to put the Magistrates of Scotland under some control, for they needed it; but it was more easy to convince him of this, than persuade him that any reason existed why a Bill, founded upon such sound general principles, and expected to be bene- ficial to England, should not extend over the whole United Kingdom. He acknowledged, almost to the full extent, all the evils that had been urged as consequent upon the present Bill; but he must remind the House, without losing sight of those who would sustain loss by the measure, that in all reforms from a bad to a good system, it seemed unavoidable that some individuals and classes of individuals should suffer. He must beg leave to say, that he had devoted as much of his time, and of his earnest attention, to the subject, as any Member; and after the most mature consideration of all its bearings, he was convinced that the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, at the direction of the committee, was the right course; and he hoped that nothing would interfere to stop the great work of improvement in which Ministers were engaged with such advantage to the public.

said, that it was not the intention of Ministers to extend the Bill now proposed to Scotland. He regretted to say, that from the period of the Session, only one day had been given to draw up the Bill for England, and that consequently, a sufficient lime had not been allowed to prepare the Bill for Scotland. The measure must, therefore, be tried in one part of the kingdom in the first instance; and if it were found beneficial, and to answer its intended objects, it might then be extended to the other.

wished to take that opportunity of stating, that he was decidedly opposed to the principle of the Bill. Its object was, to encourage the cultivation of an article which could not be cultivated without a bounty, or such a reduction of duty compared with the duty on the imported article, as was tantamount to a bounty. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that his efforts had been directed to place the Tobacco grown at home on the same footing as that which was imported. That appeared to him most absurd. The question was, could the English grower compete with the Virginian planter? The attempt was as absurd as the system adopted in France, of forcing a production of sugar from beet-root by high bounties, when the nature of trade would, in spite of every opposition, revert to its natural channel. The argument that some parties had already invested capital in the cultivation of Tobacco, was of no weight; for they had done it at their own risk, and could not reasonably expect that an absurd law should be passed for their protection. If it were right to grant protection to the capital already embarked, how much stronger would be the claim to protection for capital embarked after the law was passed? He anticipated from the new regulations nothing but ruin to one large branch of Revenue and a consequent necessity for new taxes.

said, the facts were somewhat different from the hon. Member's statement. He accused the measure of being a bounty on the growth of Tobacco, by the difference between the duty of 1s. 8d. on every pound of Tobacco grown in Ireland and the duty on Tobacco grown in America. But the fact was, that a considerable quantity of Tobacco was already grown in Ireland, which paid no duty whatever; and the measure then under discussion proposed to levy a duty of 1s. 8d. on that Tobacco as well as on all Tobacco grown at home. How such a proposition could be called a bounty or a bonus on growing Tobacco at home, was to him inconceivable. If the difference between the two rates of duty was a bonus, that must be much greater as long as no duty at all was imposed on Tobacco grown in Ireland. If there were any absurdity then in his proposition, it was only in as far as it approximated to the arguments of the hon. Member. The hon. Member thought the bonus was an evil—he meant to reduce it by the sum of 1s. 8d. per pound, and the hon. Member declared that the plan was absurd. He would not, however, then discuss the plan. The fact was, that in Ireland there was grown 750,000l. worth of Tobacco annually which paid no duty; and came into competition with that which paid a high duty: the object of the resolutions was, to make that Tobacco pay duty, and thus contribute to the Revenue in a due proportion to that Tobacco imported from abroad.

was of opinion, that this measure gave a bounty to Tobacco grown in this country. He had no wish to impede its cultivation here, but it ought to pay a duty equal to the Tobacco imported from abroad. If one person imported Tobacco and paid 3s. per lb., and another grew it and paid only 1s. 8d., there was a bounty given to the grower equal to the difference. He would recommend that the present growers of Tobacco should be allowed to carry on their operations for a year or two untaxed, with an understanding that, at the end of that time, they should pay a duty equal to that imposed on Tobacco imported. He was of opinion, that the Resolutions, if carried into effect, would lead to the cultivation of Tobacco to such an extent as to be injurious to the Revenue, and then the right hon. Gentleman would be obliged to prohibit it altogether—causing very great evil. If the Resolutions became a law, those who cultivated Tobacco under it would, however, be far better entitled to protection than the pre-sent cultivators of Tobacco in Ireland.

was surprised to hear of the extent to which Tobacco was cultivated in Ireland, and under the circumstances of that country, when capital had been drove from its natural channels, it might perhaps be proper to give it the advantage which this measure would not confer but secure. At the same time, if Ireland were entitled to this indulgence—the colonies to the soil and climate of which the cultivation of Tobacco was congenial, had stronger claims to a similar boon. To the people of those colonies it would be a great advantage—and in their behalf he appealed to the House. He had before called its attention to the subject, but he thought it of such great importance, that he could not do otherwise than again press it on the consideration of the Government.

then said, that he would rather agree at once to vote a sum of money to pay them than consent to this measure. He did not know what answer could be made to fishermen and manufacturers who claimed bounty and protection duties if this measure were passed. He considered that it involved a departure from those sound principles which had lately been professed by the Government; and he therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the measure till after the holidays, when it might be fully and fairly discussed.

, in the then state of the House, had no option—he was not his own master, and though he could not see what the hon. Member could gain by the postponement, he could not do otherwise than comply with his request.

intimated, that he did not mean to avail himself of a thin House to enforce his own views, and he should have proposed the postponement though the right hon. Gentleman had been supported by his usual majorities.