said, that before the Speaker left the chair, he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject which he felt was of very great importance to the revenue of the country. It appeared to him, that 30,000l. a year had been abstracted from the revenue without the knowledge of that House, a proceeding which struck him as being extremely objectionable, inasmuch as that sum was taken under an alleged opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, although for a hundred and seventy years the duties, which were first appropriated within a very recent date in the manner of which he complained, had been regularly paid into the revenue. The subject of the 4½-per-cent duties had been so often discussed in that House, that he would not enter into any detail with respect to them. He thought that they were objectionable in principle, and he, as well as others, had, year after year, endeavoured to get rid of them. They were granted in the time of Charles 2nd, for a particular purpose—namely, to defray the charge of certain repairs and expenses incurred on account of the colonies. On that account, a duty of 4½-per-cent on all produce, principally on sugar, was paid to the Crown. He might truly say that this fund had long before been perverted from its original object, and was appropriated to the payment of pensions and allowances, partly to the governors of the colonies and partly to individuals who were favoured by the Government, without the authority of that House. Up to a very recent period, the 25th of March 1828, these king's sugars, as they were called, were entered at the Custom-house, and paid the same duty of 27s. per cwt. as the sugars of private individuals. They were placed under the care of an officer called "a Husband," who after having paid the regular duties on the sugars, brought the nett amount of the proceeds to the credit of his Majesty's 4½-per-cent fund. This continued until 1828. He had been in the habit of calling for an account of these duties every two or three years, to see whether there remained any surplus; because, a few years ago the House passed a bill, declaring that no more pensions should be charged on this fund, and providing that the surplus, if there were any, should go to the support of the church-establishment in the West Indies. This was a very good change, supposing it to be proper that any thing should be taken from the inhabitants of the colonies. But he thought that the time had come when the impost might be removed; and considering the distress of the colonies, it ought, he conceived, to be a matter of consideration with his Majesty's Government, whether the former manner of appropriating these duties should not cease, and whether they ought not to be applied to those various useful colonial purposes for which they were originally intended? Ministers had, however, taken the most extraordinary view of the case that ever was taken in that House, or any where else. From the earliest institution of this fund,—for no less than a hundred and seventy years,—the rule and practice of the law had been that the sugar thus sent to this country should be subjected to the Customs duty. In 1825 the fund amounted to 33,000l.; in 1826, to 29,000l.; in 1827, to 22,000l. In 1828, contrary to the practice which had existed for a hundred and seventy years, it was declared that the king's sugar was not liable to pay Customs duty, and none had been paid since that time. Then how stood the fund? It appeared that in 1827 it amounted to 22,000l.; in 1828, it amounted to 67,000l.; and in 1829–30, to 61,000l.; being double what it was in 1825. Now, he knew very well that the West-India establishments were not in a thriving condition; that, in fact, they did not pay; that they were losing concerns; when, therefore, that interest was in so unfortunate a situation, was it not a fair subject for consideration whether individuals thus unfairly taxed should not be relieved from such a burthen? It would not be an act of favour towards those persons, but of justice. His great objection in this case was, that Ministers, acting on the authority of the law-officers of the Crown, had assumed to themselves the power of altering a law which had existed for a hundred and seventy years, and paid the whole amount of this impost to the Crown, instead of deducting a certain portion of it for the Customs, as ought to have been done. This matter was suffered to pass in silence during the years 1828 and 1829; no allusion was made to the alteration in the system, though it was illegal, and opposed to the privileges of that House, it being the first and most important principle of the constitution, that Ministers should not appropriate any money without the sanction of the House of Commons. But here they found the amount produced by the sale of a certain quantity of sugar, not expended on the church establishment of the colonies, but handed over to this fund. Ministers had gone further,—they had kept this proceeding a secret from the House; and it was not until he had moved for a certain paper, not expecting such a result as had occurred, that the fact became known. Now there were two results connected with this business. The revenue of Customs was lessened to the amount of 30,000l. a year; and the Husband, though he had reduced his charge, as he now had 66,000l. to deal with instead of 22,000l., received more than he formerly did. [An hon. Gentleman intimated that the officer did not benefit by it.] At all events, it was clear that the revenue was lessened by the change of system. That House ought, therefore, to know on what ground the law officers of the Crown had given their opinion in favour of this change:—and how far such a proceeding was consistent with the known law and constitution of the country. He had, in 1820, moved for an account of all sums of money which had been received by the Crown (the produce of this fund and other sources) during the reign of the late king. About two months ago he had called for a paper in continuation of that account, and he knew not why it was not yet laid on the table of the House. By the former docu- ment, however, it appeared, that the sum of 12,705,000l. had, during the late king's reign, been paid to an account over which that House had no control, but over which Ministers claimed a right of control. Of that gross sum about 9,000,000l. was derived from droits, and from 1760 to 1820, when the king's demise took place, this fund afforded 2,116,000l. He must here be allowed to observe, that the Customs duty on sugar was a most heavy tax. It was exceedingly injurious to the West-India proprietor, and certainly did not benefit the revenue in an equal proportion. If the duty were brought down to 15s. or 16s. the cwt. as it was at the breaking out of the French war, he was satisfied that the amount of revenue would be equal to what was now received, because the consumption would be very greatly increased. Having stated thus much, he submitted to the House whether it was prepared to vote any money to his Majesty in supply until Ministers laid before Parliament the grounds on which they had thrown into his Majesty's fund such a sum as 30,000l. or 40,000l. in the two last years. To shew that, he should call for the case laid before the law-officers of the Crown, and for the opinion they had delivered. In consequence of a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury, that it was not usual to produce such documents, he had made some inquiry into the subject; and in looking over the third report of the committee on foreign trade, he there found an opinion given by the law-officers. In the case of the Bank of England also, which arose out of their being engaged to manage a debt of 600,000,000l. or 700,000,000l., at the rate of 400l. per million, a question arose in that House whether such an allowance should be made to the Bank or not. The opinion of the law-officers of the Crown was, that the House could not, under the then charter, break that contract; and that opinion was laid before the House. His hon. friend, the member for Bristol, had also examined this point, and had found other cases; so that he had no doubt that the objection was not worthy of the smallest consideration. But he would say, that if no opinion of the law-officers of the Crown had ever been laid before the House, still the grounds which he had advanced were so strong in his view of the matter, that it would fully warrant him in calling for such an opinion on this occasion. The course which Ministers had pursued was dangerous to the Constitution, and injurious to the revenue, and he hoped the Members of that House would strenuously oppose it. He should therefore move for a copy of the case submitted to the law-officers of the Crown, and their opinion given thereupon, respecting the Customs payable on the Sugar imported in discharge of the 4½-per-cent duties.

said, he had no doubt that he should be able to offer a satisfactory explanation on the subject touched on in the hon. Member's speech. Indeed, he thought he might (if he felt so disposed) claim credit for presenting returns of the 4½-per-cent duties, increased considerably in point of amount. It was wrong in the hon. Member to say that the amount was concealed till it came out incidentally upon his motion for papers. The fact was, that accounts were annually laid upon the Table, in which the 4½-per-cent duties formed one of the items, and in those accounts the augmentation had appeared. The hon. Gentleman inquired the reason for deviating from the practice adopted for a great number of years, and argued as if Ministers had robbed the revenue of the country to enrich the revenue of the Crown. He argued as if the management and direction of the 4½-per-cent duties had not undergone a considerable alteration of late years; as if the Crown had not, in point of fact, abandoned its claim to them, and placed them under the control of Parliament. By the Act of the 6th of his present Majesty, it was directed that the salaries of the Bishops and clergy in the West-India islands, should in future be paid out of the 4½-per-cent duties, which were thus devoted to the payment of our colonial governors, bishops and clergy. The sum paid to the bishops and clergy amounted to 25,000l. a-year, including salaries and pensions. Whatever might be the merits of this plan, it had not enhanced the patronage of the Crown. It appeared from this statement, that the charge of taking money from the revenue of the country, in order to put it in the power of the Crown, was without foundation. It had occurred to him, that the sugar sent from the West Indies in payment of the 4½-per-cent duties, being Crown property, was not liable to pay Customs duty. It was upon constitutional principles that he had formed this opinion, and in consulting with the law-officers of the Crown, he found his opinion confirmed by that which they entertained on the subject. By applying the rule which the law-advisers of the Crown laid down as the rule of law, he did not divert from the public into the possession of the Crown any part of the fund in question, and, therefore, it appeared to him that in pursuing that course he was adopting a proceeding free from every possible objection. The transaction was extremely simple; he had no disposition to promote the interest of the individual who managed the fund.

said, if the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown in this case were consonant with law, it was law of such a tendency, and which might be attended with such consequences in a constitutional point of view, as to render it well deserving of the serious consideration of Parliament. The position of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be this,—that there were sugars belonging to the Crown which were brought to this country from the West-India islands, and which being the property of the Crown, were not liable according to the opinion of the law-officers of the day to pay duty. It was singular enough that nearly two centuries should have passed (during which duty was paid upon these sugars) without this notable discovery of the exemption of Crown sugars from duty having been made. Would his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) tell him that the Crown might import into this country merchandise free of duty for sale? Yet this was what the right hon. Gentleman's position amounted to. The principle was the same as in the present case: these sugars were admitted without payment of duty, because they were the property of the Crown. But the Crown might have purchased the sugars; that would not alter the transaction. Was the law to be laid down that the Crown could import any article as merchandise for sale in this country? He had always understood that the exemption of the Crown from the payment of taxes was for the maintenance of the royal dignity. The tax-gatherer was excluded from the palace of the Sovereign, because his entrance would be considered derogatory to the dignity of the Crown. A similar exemption was extended to the ambassadors and ministers of foreign Sovereigns, probably for nearly the same reason. It was true the King might import French wines for his own consumption, free of duty: this was always understood; but the law, as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, would allow the King to import French wines for sale. These sugars were imported into this country simply for the purpose of sale. He was impatient to hear from his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) his notions of the law on the subject. In a constitutional point of view, the position laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of extreme importance to the country: if the law really were as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, it might be rendered the source of enormous advantage to the Crown, and of correspondent injury to the country.

said, there could be no moral or legal doubt that the sugars in question were exempt from duty, as being the property of the Crown. The non-payment of duties by the Crown was amongst the oldest of our law maxims. If hon. Gentlemen would only look into any one act for the imposition of taxes, they would there see that that maxim was uniformly recognised and acted on. Taxes were granted by the Commons to the Crown—they could only be granted off the property of the people—not off the property of the Crown itself. With respect to the Motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, for the production of the opinions of the law-officers of the day upon the point, he did not see the use of it. Without denying the power of the House of Commons to call for any documents whatever,—for he could suppose a a case in which it might call for a minute of the proceedings of a Cabinet Council,—he must say, it would be rather hard upon the Attorney and Solicitor-general to have their opinions, which were given in confidence to the Government, reviewed and debated in Parliament. In this particular case it could be of no importance to have the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown, and he hoped that a precedent for the production and discussion in the House of Commons of such opinions, might not be established, by agreeing to the present Motion. He could easily conceive a case in which an Attorney-general might not like to have his opinions discussed in Parliament, though this was not such a case. Whatever the hon. Member meant to do, he could accomplish as well upon the information already before him, without calling for these documents. He had delivered his opinion on the subject with great sincerity, and he believed it would be found, that all the twelve Judges in Westminster-hall, if the question were put to them, would concur in his opinion. At the same time he had to state, that the opinion on which the Government had acted had been given, not by him, but by his predecessor.

asked the Attorney General, whether the law went to such an extent, that the Crown could import merchandise for sale free of duty?

said, it might be difficult to answer the question in the abstract. The hon. Member must put a case. It was undoubtedly true that, in the time of the Henrys, when our monarchs had possessions and revenues abroad, wines were imported by the Crown free of duty, which might have been, and probably were, imported for sale.

observed, that the doctrine was strange in practice if not in law, that the Crown might import commodities for sale. It might, then, become a great trader, and ruin all the merchants in the kingdom.

said, he could not but imagine that there was some ulterior view in the alteration made by Ministers. Whether it were to get a larger sum out of the 4½-per-cent fund—a fund which was burthened with debt—whether there were pensions of which Parliament knew nothing charged upon it,—he could not tell, but he confessed the change did appear to him very suspicious. What induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown on the subject—what was the right hon. Gentleman's object in mooting an ancient point of law, which had lain hid for a space of 170 years? Certain charges were to be paid out of the proceeds of the 4½-per-cents; but salaries falling in, and the fund being augmented by exempting the sugars from duty, the amount would become so large as to exceed the demands upon it for the support of the church in the West Indies. What became of the surplus? In it Ministers had discovered a fund out of which they might grant new pensions and allowances ad infinitum. As to the objections urged to laying upon the Table the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, he saw, almost the moment he looked for them, abundance of precedents to justify such a step. The opinion given with reference to the new duties payable on the occasion of the Union with Ireland—the opinion of the law-officers—was laid before the House. A similar course was also pursued in the case of the Duke of Athol's claim. The opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor General were then justly and properly called for, and should be in the present case. This was a question respecting the Consolidated Fund—it was one having reference to the appropriation of taxes; and he could conceive none more proper in which to demand the advice given by the responsible advisers of the Crown. What was there, he should gladly learn, in the opinion of the Attorney General, that should shield his opinion from the examination of the House? It was observed, that the revenue in question was hardly sufficient for the purposes to which it was applicable; but on that point he would beg leave to observe, that nothing could be more variable than were the produce of West-India estates, and that the income could only be justly estimated upon an average of several years. In 1808 the gross proceeds of the 4½-per-cent duties amounted to 35,000l., the nett proceeds to 16,000l. (this was under the old law, and the deduction was partly on account of duties, in part on account of other charges.) In 1809, the gross proceeds were 11 '2,000l., the nett amount 48,000l. Thus in one year the Crown might have had the distribution of 35,000l., and in the very next of 112,000l. under the present system. One year the fund (which appeared liable to great variation) might be merely sufficient to support the ecclesiastical establishments, and to defray the other charges upon it, yet afford in the next year a great surplus for salaries, pensions, or whatever other uses the Crown should choose to apply it to. This was a matter which demanded inquiry, and justified the strictest jealousy. Here was a case in which the House found the Crown endowing itself with a large revenue, by means of obsolete and forgotten views of fiscal regulations, and the House was accordingly bound to look into the matter most narrowly. The hon. Member then, after adverting to the origin of the Nullum Tempus Act, and other great privileges enjoyed by the Crown, proceeded to say, that the present question ought now to be considered with a view to a final arrangement. If the law were, as some hon. Members seemed to say, then he would assert, that the law ought to be altered—if it were doubtful, it ought to be declared. At all events, the matter was of such importance, that the House ought to have the most authentic documents relating to it; and he hoped that his hon. friend (the member for Montrose) would not be satisfied with any thing less than the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown; and whatever that might he, he hoped that the House would not allow his Majesty's Ministers to get possession of such a fund, as the law, according to this construction of it, would place at their disposal.

said, that if Government should consent to the production of the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown in this case, he should state his conviction as a lawyer, that no Attorney or Solicitor General ought ever again to give an opinion in writing, upon any case submitted to them by the Crown. [An hon. Member asked, Why?] He would tell the hon. Member why. It had been laid down by the highest authority, that no Minister had a right to produce the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, for the purpose of its being reviewed and discussed in that House; that that House had the right to see those opinions, he took the liberty to deny; for himself, he would not have accepted office on the servile and submissive condition of having every one of his opinions laid upon the Table of that House. The independent ground upon which office could be accepted was, an adherence to the present practice. He utterly dissented from the proposition that the House of Commons had a right to see the private and confidential advice of the law-officers of the Crown. With respect to the question of the liability of Crown property to taxation, there was no lawyer who would not at once admit that it was altogether exempt from taxation, and that these sugars might come in free of duty. If the Crown had a specific right in any thing, only an express Act of Parliament could subject it to taxation. This was the opinion which he had expressed, and he should never shrink from it. If he objected to the production of the written document, it was rather from a feeling for the hon. member for Aberdeen than for himself that he objected; because he should put the hon. Gentleman in the wrong by producing it. Of all clear propositions this was the clearest,—that the Crown was not liable to pay taxes. But if there was to be a prospective alteration of this established principle, let it be made: the Legislature was competent to effect the change. He hoped that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman might not be conceded, not upon any grounds personal to himself (who gave the opinion), but on the general principle, that the advice of law-officers of the Crown was to be considered as private and confidential advice, although, for the sake of accuracy and convenience, it was given in writing.

concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was not expedient in the present case for the House to call for the opinion which the learned Gentleman, when Attorney General, had delivered upon this subject. However, he did not agree with the learned Gentleman in thinking, that in no case should Parliament call for the production of opinions given by law-officers of the Crown. If there were a suspicion that they had acted under undue influence, or an imputation against them of straining a point in favour of the Crown, the law-officers would be justly liable to have their opinions called for, and their official acts investigated. But probably the learned Gentleman did not speak of such cases as these, but rather of the general rule of Parliament in ordinary cases; and in the expediency of that general rule, which was, not to demand the opinions of the Crown lawyers, he (Sir R. Peel) fully concurred. Nothing could be more convenient for Government, than to lay the opinions of its legal advisers before Parliament, and shelter itself under their sanction and authority; but such a proceeding might be fairly objected to by hon. Members opposite, on the ground that it involved an attempt to overbear the exercise of the free judgment and opinion of the House. Would the House allow the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor General to guide it? Certainly not. He knew that in the case of a discussion on the Alien Act, a legal opinion of one of the Crown lawyers was inadvertently produced by a member of the Government, in order to show that we possessed the power of banishing aliens; and the production of this opinion being objected to, it was admitted that it was wrong to quote it, under the idea of controlling the House. It was fit that the Government should be the party to be held responsible, and that it should not be permitted to hold up the opinions of its law-officers, as a sanction to acts for which it was itself accountable. It was a matter of indifference whether the opinion were produced in the present case or not, as far as the practical result was concerned; but upon principle the House, rather than the Government, ought to resist its production. The feeling of confidence in which legal opinions were given to the Crown, and which feeling was essential to their truth and accuracy, might (as the learned Gentleman hinted) be weakened if those opinions were held liable to be called for, except under very peculiar circumstances; and unless the House should be of opinion, that in the present case such peculiarity existed, he should oppose the Motion.

thought, that there did exist that degree of peculiarity in the present case, which had been mentioned by the right hon. Baronet as justifying the production of the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. The peculiarity consisted in the circumstance of Ministers calling for the opinion of their legal advisers, and departing from a custom in which the Crown had acquiesced for a period of 170 years. When the hon. and learned Member told them that he should think it a degradation to give, as Attorney General, an opinion which was to be subjected to the inspection of that House, the hon. and learned Member showed that he was totally unfit to hold the situation which he had formerly filled. And so much for that—["Hear," from Sir C. Wetherell.] Yes, so much for that; and he said so, because he did not like to repeat the same thing over and over again, which was the custom of the hon. and learned Gentleman. On every constitutional ground he contended, that these opinions ought to be produced. If the law was, as it had been stated to be, the Legislature ought immediately to amend it.

, in explanation, called on the House to bear witness that he had never said that the law-officers ought not to be responsible to that House. The servility of which he had spoken was servility to the Minister, not to the Parliament. All he had said was, that if there had been any thing wrong, the Government ought not to cast the blame on the law-officers.

said, that he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to have spoken exactly as he had stated he had. The hon. Baronet therefore must, he thought, have misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was not responsible for the opinion in question, but allow him to say, that no lawyer could have given any other opinion. He thought the practice of producing the opinions of the law-officers, which were given only as a guide to the Government, would be highly objectionable.

must confess, that he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) very differently, He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that he should consider it a degradation, if an opinion of his, given as Attorney General, were canvassed in that House. With respect to the production of such opinions, he agreed that it might be sometimes attended with inconvenience, and that a special case ought to be made out to warrant the House in calling for the opinions of the law-officers. That the House under such circumstances had a right to call for the opinions of the law-officers, he took to be perfectly clear; and he thought it a monstrous doctrine to say that the law-officers were not responsible to that House. In the present case he had heard no valid objection, and he could conceive none, against the production of the opinions; and he should therefore vote for the Amendment, especially after the doctrines that had been laid down that evening.

regretted that he should have been misunderstood by so accurate a person as the noble Lord, and was sorry to be called upon to explain a second time. The hon. and learned Gentleman then repeated his former explanation.

said, he had not doubted, after the explanation before given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had misunderstood what had fallen from that Gentleman in the course of his speech. He had only stated the fact that he had misunderstood him, because the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it strange that the hon. Baronet had misunderstood him.

wished, after the four or five explanations that had been given, to be allowed to say a few words upon the question. He agreed with his noble friend, that the present was one of those special cases in which it was admitted that the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown might be called-for,—opinions on which was founded the departure from a practice which had existed for nearly 200 years. For that length of time the King's sugars had been imported as the payment of the 4½-per-cent duties—for that length of time had they been entered at the Custom House, and duty paid in the usual way, but now it had been discovered that the law was different from what it was supposed to be; on a case submitted to the law-officers of the Crown, the practice was changed, and these sugars were entered without payment of any duty. The receipts of those 4½-per-cents had greatly increased since 1828, amounting, first to 61,000l., and last year to 67,000l., though they had not exceeded 22,000l. in 1827, and the difference was explained by a note subjoined to the papers laid before the House, in which the reasons for the increase appear all to flow from the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown. He did not think, however, that the case rested upon the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown alone, at least the House ought to have something more, and no difficulty would have arisen to prevent that being produced, had the Motion originated at the opposite side of' the House. If Ministers had wished to support any view of their own, the opinion of the law-officers would have been produced without any difficulty. He did not care so much for the opinion of the law-officers in the present case, which, in fact, the House already knew, but he wanted to see the special case which was submitted to those officers, and on which their opinion was founded, The produce of those duties was employed in the payment of certain pensions, and he suspected that the fund not being found sufficient to pay the annual charges upon it was the real reason why this plan was fallen on of increasing it by the whole amount of the Customs duty. Those pensions amounted to 37,000l., and up to the time of adding to it the duties on the sugars imported, the fund was below that sum. There was then no other way but to abate the pensions, or increase the fund. The abatement of the pensions of course could not be thought of, and the only way was to increase the fund. He had some reason to believe that it was attempted to make up the deficiency by the receipts from Ceylon; but as the 4½-per-cent fund had got too much in debt to render that expedient available, it was determined to call in the aid of the Attorney and Solicitor General, and they from the case laid before them, gave the opinion that the non-payment of the duties on the sugars imported on account of this fund was quite legal. How long the House would permit the law to remain he would not answer, but sure he was, that it ought not to be allowed to continue in its present state. He might observe, the agent for the payment of the pensions had a salary of 400l. a-year and the agent for the sale of the sugars had a commission of two per cent. He, of course, like other agents employed a broker. The sugars were sold on a credit of seventy days, and when sold the duty must be paid; it appeared to him likely, therefore, that the per centage was allowed on account of the outlay of money for the payment of the duties; but as no duties would have to be paid henceforward, at least as long as the law remains as it is, there was no use in continuing this per centage, which amounted to 1,039l. a-year. The expenditure would be wholly useless. The husband of the imported produce, as he was called, and who received 400l. a-year, might manage the whole fund. This, however, was a subject on which he would not trespass further on the attention of the House, knowing that it would not escape the vigilance of his hon. friend, the member for Montrose. He would only again ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, what were the reasons on which this departure from long-established practice had been founded?

was sure the House would do him the justice to recollect, that he had not said that the law-officers or their opinions were beyond the reach and control of that House. As for instance, where there was imputation either upon the Government or upon the law-officers, the House would doubtless be justified in calling for those opinions. All that he contended for was, that grounds must be shown for the production of such documents. He could not conceive what ground there was in the present case, where the law it was admitted was consistent with the opinions given by the law-officers. He thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had shown the weakness of his cause by saying, "It is the case I want; not the opinion."

said, that in this instance a usage of sixty years standing had been departed from. If such a case happened between man and man, a court of equity would decide that the law was with the usage. He considered sixty years usage sufficiently long to defeat the King's prerogative. ["No, no," from Sir C. Wetherell, and a cry of "Order."] He said "Yes." He maintained the point, and could cite authorities in support of it. He saw no reason why either the case or the opinion should be withheld in the present instance.

apprehended that this diversion of money had been made in consequence of the funds for the payment of the pensions having diminished. He thought the opinion ought to be produced.

objected to the Motion. He said, that the Ministers had, by this measure which they had adopted upon the opinions of the law-officers, transferred 30,000l. a-year from the control of that House, without the consent or the knowledge of the House. The House, therefore, ought not to vote one shilling for the public service until the circumstances of the case were made known, and until the Ministers consented to produce the opinions of the law-officers. This fund was described as the King's private property, and he therefore charged the Ministers with having taken 30,000l. a-year from the public, and with having put it into the pocket of the King. On these grounds he objected to any further supplies being voted. He did not exactly know what course he ought to take. He would, however, now move that the Committee of Supply be postponed till Monday next.

said, that the forms of the House would not allow the hon. Member to take that course.

said, that, in that case, he would meet the question before the House by a direct negative, and that he would renew his opposition on every vote of supply being proposed throughout the Session. Yes, he would: he would not listen, as he had listened before, to such language as this,—"You are impeding the public business without answering any good end." He thought the proceedings of Ministers, in refusing to produce the opinions of the law-officers, had been most unconstitutional. The Ministers by this refusal had treated both the House and the country with disrespect, and no further supplies should be granted with his consent. He would not divide the House on the question, as it had already expressed its opinion; but, for the present, he would content himself with giving the Motion for going into the committee a negative.

said, that he had on a former occasion objected to this vote, and it having then been postponed on account of the absence of the Secretary of State, he would now state his reasons for objecting to it. The establishment was at first only an experiment, and was warmly opposed in 1811, when it was first erected. It was then held that England ought to try an experiment which was said to have been eminently successful in the United States, and he had then given a conscientious support to the plan. The expense of the establishment, however, had been far greater than the estimate. In the first place, it had never contained much above one-half of the persons whom it was calculated to accommodate. It was intended for 1,000 persons, but there had never been more than 600 in it. This showed that there was something defective about it, and that it had not answered the end to the extent it ought. After it had existed nineteen years, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thought the experiment had succeeded? He entertained no doubt on the subject, and he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it were not time to put an end to the system? Had the hopes conceived from the plan of a penitentiary been realized? He believed not; and those who recommended it in 1811, never could have supposed that in 1830 each person inclosed in it, making no allowance for the expense of the building, would cost the country annually 30l. In fact, according to the sum voted for the average number of prisoners, from 627 to 630, the amount per head was 32l. Including the expense for the building, the cost for each person accommodated was, annually 89l. In his opinion, it would be wise to dispose of the Penitentiary; and as the Middlesex Magistrates were sometime ago about to build a gaol, it might then have been transferred to them. They would have taken it, he understood, and the country might have been repaid part of the cost of the building. At present there was a governor, with 600l. a-year, besides perquisites; a secretary, with 400l.; a chaplain, with 400l.; and a medical staff greater than that of a regiment. The expense, he believed, for the medical attendance on 600 persons was upwards of 500l., being more than any regiment of 1,000 men cost, in any part of the world. On the whole, the expense of the servants of the establishment amounted to between 5,000l. and 6,000l. It was high time, then, that this establishment was put an end to. In fact, in his opinion, all persons sentenced to transportation should be immediately sent off to the colonies, and not kept one day in this country. That would be found the cheapest way of disposing of them, and the most advantageous, he believed, to the public morals. The expense of conveyance was now so small, in comparison with what it was, and with keeping people in the Penitentiary, or in the hulks, that they ought not to be allowed to remain in England after being sentenced to be transported. But if the expense were even much greater than it really was, he should think that of little importance, compared to the advantage which would accrue to public morality. He knew that it was the opinion of many magistrates, that the convicts, liberated from the hulks or from the prisons, however well they might have behaved there, soon relapsed into their old courses, and ran another career of wickedness before they were arrested by the arm of the law. They did more injury to society than could be compensated by the very trifling saving which might accrue from keeping them at home. He looked on transportation less as a source of economy than as a means of preventing contamination. The persons who learnt the trade of stealing in prison were a great means of spreading a knowledge of the art through the country; and when he looked at the return of commitments then on the Table, he was sure that the subject deserved the attention of the House. The number had increased during the last year, as compared with the preceding year, 2,600; and people would hardly believe the frightful progression since 1800, when the number was only 4,000, up to the last year, when it amounted to more than 18,000. He could make allowance for the consequences of that distress to which the people had been reduced by taxation; but making every allowance for that, he still thought the increase of crime was most alarming. In particular, he would take care to transport those females who were convicted of crimes, and who, being very often here a burthen both to themselves and others, became useful members of society when transported to our colonies. By sending felons thither, we should put an end to some of our expensive establishments at home, and, if properly managed, they would pay for the expenses of the colony. Very soon the House would be called on to vote 130,000l. for New Holland, but by the plan of disposing of the labour of convicts there this expense might be saved. At present the governor gave the convicts to his favourites or his friends, or employed them on his own ground; but he believed that many of the settlers there would be glad to have their service on their arrival, giving for them a sum fully equal to the expense of conveying them thither. Persons could not, at present, have the service of convicts unless they were favoured by the governor. The public expense might be reduced very much by disposing of their services instead of allowing the governor to appropriate them, as was done by the present governor, among his relations and friends. The system he had recommended would put an end to this abuse of patronage, and would be attended with immediate advantage to the convict and the country. He would be reformed, the public morals would be improved, and the Revenue of the country benefitted. In the society of his companions here, he kept on in his old courses; there he was separated from them and became a new man. There was in the colony of New South Wales a great want of women, a great want of servants, and he would accordingly send all the female convicts off there directly. They should all go, young and old. He knew that they were improved very much in the colony, and women who were old here were made young there. The right hon. Gentleman might satisfy himself of tin's fact. It was of the utmost importance that these suggestions should be attended to. There these poor beings were removed from the haunts of vice; and, though he believed that the plan would be economical, as well as useful to public morality, even if it were expensive, he should think that of little importance, when compared to the benefit which would be conferred on these wretched women and the country. They would be such as would gladden the hearts of all benevolent and philanthropic persons. He believed, however, that, what with the expense of hulks, and with the expense of the Penitentiary, it would be found more economical, as well as more humane and benevolent, at once to transport all persons sentenced to transportation. The hon. Member concluded by recommending the subject to the serious consideration of the right hon. the Secretary of State.

rejoiced in the opportunity afforded him by the hon. Member, of entering into some explanations on this subject. He confessed he felt as deeply as the hon. Member, the importance of the subject, not more from the circumstances connected with it to which he had adverted, than from others to which he had not directed his attention. The whole question was so connected with that other most important question—the infliction of secondary punishments—that he really thought it worthy of the strictest investigation; and that investigation he courted, not to relieve himself from any responsibility, but in order that the best information might be obtained respecting the infliction of secondary punishments, and the prevention of offences. He had, indeed, been at all times most anxious to further the admission of strangers and foreigners into all places appropriated to the punishment of offenders; because he thought it of great importance that the country and the Government should be able to avail themselves of the information and suggestions which such visits might call forth. The hon. Member had put to him a number of questions on the subject of the management of the Penitentiary, as connected with the present system of punishment; and he would answer these questions with all the fairness and candour which the hon. Gentleman could desire. The hon. Member commenced by asking him to say, if it were his opinion that the advantages of the Penitentiary were not counter-balanced by the expense attendant on its management? Now, certainly, if the question to be agitated at the present moment were—whether or not it would be expedient to expend 500,000l. on a building of that descript ion—he confessed he should pause before he gave his assent to it. But the real question to be considered was, whether it must not be more advantageous to avail ourselves of the benefits which the possession of such a building afforded, than to abandon it at once after so great an outlay, which could not be recalled? It ought to be known that the Penitentiary was not in reality governed by the Secretary of State, but by a committee appointed by the Privy Council for the purpose of giving advice to the Secretary of State on every thing connected with the management of prisoners. These gentlemen performed their duty gratuitously, but with great advantage to the country; and although he confessed very candidly that he, at one time, entertained a very strong opinion on the propriety of placing every department connected with the administration of secondary punishments under the immediate control of the Secretary of State, still he had no reason to regret the decision of the committee of the House, which had been appointed at his request to inquire into the subject. The members of that committee were gentlemen, a great majority of whom were not favourable to the Government. Mr. H. G. Bennett, who, at that time, took a prominent part in the discussions of the House, was their chairman; Mr. Hobhouse, and many others of the Opposition were among its members; and he was bound to confess that they differed with him on the propriety of placing the Penitentiary under the government of the Secretary of State, and thought it better and more satisfactory that it should continue under the management of a number of gentlemen of high character and experience, such as those who formed the committee. Having said thus much with respect to the management, he would now proceed to notice some of the hon. Member's other objections. The hon. Member complained of the salary of the Superintendent. He differed with him on that point. He believed that some reductions might be made in the general establishment; but when it was considered that the committee acted gratuitously, and that the whole expense of management was the salary of the Superintendent, he thought it of great importance that they should have in that office a gentleman of education and character, and of such a situation in life as would be a guarantee for the proper discharge of the very important duties appertaining to his office. The hon. Member, however, objected to the establishment altogether. What would he do with it? If it was offered for sale to the Middlesex Magistrates, he apprehended they would give for it but a very small portion of the worth or of the money it had cost. [Mr. Maberly said, "give it to them; make them a present of it."] Now, really considering that the hon. Member who made that suggestion was a great economist, it was a little surprising that he should offer to give away a building which cost so much, when they must immediately after erect another of some kind, although perhaps, not quite so extensive. They could not transport all who were found guilty of offences, although the propositions of the hon. Member for Montrose would go to the extinction of all imprisonment, except for life. There were some classes of offenders who must always be excepted. Young females for instance, who might probably be sentenced for a first offence, and who did not come within the description of hardened criminals. He begged, however, to admit at once, that while he denied the propriety of the hon. Member's suggestions on the subject of transportation, he had not the slightest objection to the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the comparative advantages of the convict system, and of transportation. The hon. Gentleman said, he would transport all, both young and old; the young to increase the population of the colony, and the old to become young. He would be glad to know, however, what benefit was to be received from transporting offenders of seventy or eighty years of age, or of what advantage they could be to the colonies. He was convinced, that a system of secondary punishment, by compelling convicts, under good discipline, to serve at the public works, was one calculated to prevent crime, and to prove beneficial to the offender, as well as profitable to the country. By a letter from the Navy Board, which he held in his hand, he found that the expense of the convicts in the Hulks was 70,500l., while the produce of their labour amounted to 67,570l.;and to this was to be added the labour in the Ordnance Department which produced 9,092l.At Bermuda, too, the labour of the convicts had been found highly productive. The hon. Member blamed him, too, for not sending every female, offender to the colonies, where they were so much wanted. Now, in order to show how much difference of opinion prevailed on this subject, he begged the hon. Member to hear the language applied to a system of transportation of that kind, by Mr. Halford, a gentleman who had lately published a pamphlet on the subject. Mr. Halford there says, he wanted language to express his objections to the monstrous principle which seemed to be adopted by the Secretary of State, in sending out females to the colonies, with a regard to the wants of those colonies rather than to the nature of the crime. He mentioned this, not for the purpose of combatting Mr. Halford's arguments, but to show that the situation of a Secretary of State, amidst such conflicting opinions, was not a very agreeable one; for, although he had adopted the practice of sending out a number of female convicts in consequence of overwhelming considerations of morality, repeatedly urged on the Home Office, he was here charged with the crime of defrauding the Penitentiary in order to increase the number of female convicts. It was obvious, however, that New South Wales had long outgrown all the objects for which it was chosen as a place of transportation—for if young and active profligates were to have the assurance that they could support themselves in ease and comfort the moment they were sent out of this country at an expense of 30l. or 40l. to the Government, transportation became an object to be coveted rather than avoided. It was, indeed, in the contemplation of the Government to endeavour to make the punishment of transportation, when had recourse to, much more severe than at present, not only as a punishment, but as an effectual preventive of crime. In England transportation was not much dreaded: in Ireland it was. The inhabitants of that country seemed to have a peculiar dislike to be separated from their country and their kindred. In all agricultural countries this feeling seemed also to prevail; but in England the people of large towns were little affected at the prospect of being sent to a distant colony, and the change of scenery appeared rather to possess attractions for them. It was for this reason that he thought the infliction of secondary punishments at home was preferable to transportation to New South Wales. But then the hon. Member recommended the selection of new colonies for that purpose. If the Government were to adopt that recommendation, it was much to be feared that the hon. Gentleman would not be much satisfied with it on the score of economy. If convicts were sent to a colony there must be labour for them, or the object of transportation would be lost. When, however, this difficulty was surmounted, the necessity of providing a surgeon, a chaplain, a guard, and all the other requisites for the settlement, would lead to an expense which the hon. Member would not be prepared for. The cost of the establishment at New South Wales had taught them the danger of embarking in plans of that kind. Bermuda, however, was admirably calculated for all the purposes of transportation. There labour was needed, and by a judicious system it was supplied in abundance, and he believed there were now above l,200 convicts employed in the works. In other places—in Canada for instance—the same facilities were not afforded for that purpose, because, if the convicts were to be moved from place to place, they must have a guard of some strength to accompany them, and buildings must be provided for their reception. He mentioned these things, not to prevent inquiry, but to encourage it. He thought the subject one of great importance, well deserving the most serious investigation. He knew that many dif- ferent opinions were entertained respecting it, but he stated his opinion, that the labour of the hulks was the most economical method of disposing of the time of the convicts, and that it deserved encouragement. He repeated, however, his former declaration, that if the House was of opinion that a sufficient time had elapsed since the last inquiry, and that the state of New South Wales was so much altered as to render it inexpedient to make it longer a place of transportation, although he did not by any means wish to relieve himself from the responsibility of his situation, yet he should feel glad to see the whole of the subject thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee.

, having commenced by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinions on this subject, because he had formerly rejected all inquiry into the general management of County Penitentiaries—

denied, that he had expressed any opinion with respect to them now, and observed that any meddling with the management of county jails by the local magistracy, after the counties had been persuaded to expend 20,000l., or 30,000l. in their erection, would be calculated to destroy all confidence in the Government.

, in continuation, said, that the right hon. Gentleman had totally misunderstood him. His object was, to have an inquiry into our system of secondary punishments, which it was admitted wanted improvement. Every day, complaints were made of the rapid increase of crime, which was to be attributed to our secondary punishments, as they were called, holding out inducements to its commission. The state of our prison-discipline was such, that a man of the labouring class who committed an offence, and was confined for it, had better food, better clothing, and less work to perform, than whilst he was at large, and he was free from the taint of crime. He should like to have it ascertained how far the existing prisons might be made subservient to a better system. He was the last man who would wish to, put the country to expense, his feeble efforts had always been pointed to its diminution; but he wished for an inquiry, to see whether a more rigid discipline could not be enforced, and prisons made what they ought to be, places of punishment, instead of places of refuge and recreation. The work of captain, Basil Hall upon the United States, contained some accounts of American prison-discipline, which he would recommend to the perusal of the right hon. Gentleman, and which would afford useful suggestions for the improvement of our own. In nine cases out of ten the American plan might be adopted here without difficulty. In the United States prisoners were not allowed to meet together in what in this country was called a clay room, where those who had killed a hare, or, like the sportsman he had perhaps often accompanied, had shot a pheasant, or been guilty of a transgression against some law which involved no moral turpitude, became the associates of the most abandoned characters. This might happen even to individuals who had been guilty of no offence whatever, but who had by some mistake been committed for trial, In America the men were locked up in separate cells; in the morning they were marched out to labour, and were allowed no communication with each other; in the evening they were marched back again to their cells, and were all compelled to take their meals in solitude; the next morning they were again marched out to work, and so flowed on the term of their imprisonment. The consequence was, that a prison in the United States was looked upon with horror, and those who had been once confined were not generally anxious to return. With respect to our hulk system, it was decidedly defective, not only because the convicts, particularly the boys, came out worse than they went in, but because they got a portion of their earnings, and had their situation made much too comfortable. A remarkable fact was elicited in a committee appointed some years ago to inquire into the condition of the labouring poor, of which he was a member. It was stated by a witness from the neighbourhood of Sheerness, that the condition of the convicts on board the hulks there was so comfortable, that it was a common thing for the labourers in the vicinity, even when they were earning 15s. a-week, to say that they should like to commit some offence that would just send them to the hulks. It could not be matter of surprise, then, that the convicts at their discharge should return to their former course of life, which would only carry them back to the hulks, or out to New South Wales, where they were equally well off. With respect to that colony, nothing was clearer, from what the right hon. Gentleman had just said, than that the whole system of management there wanted changing. It was the interest of the colonist that there should be a large importation of convicts, for he was anxious to get his labourers as cheap as possible. As soon, therefore, as a convict-ship arrived at Sydney, there was a general rush and a demand for its passengers. Not long back, he had inquired of a military officer who had been in that colony, how they justified the system by which the convict was made so comfortable; and why he was allowed so much meat, bread, tea, sugar, tobacco, and other things? He replied, that if they were not kept well, they would not work well; and that the colonists made them comfortable to keep them serviceable. If transportation were to be preserved as a punishment, a different system must be adopted. In the prevalent feeling as to capital punishments he participated; but whilst he wished that the infliction of death should be less frequent, he thought it necessary that our secondary punishments should be more severe than at present.

observed, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had spoken of the system adopted in New South Wales, as one of favouritism, but he could assure him that it was not so. If the Committee considered the nature of the population of that colony, it would be sensible how likely it was, that there should at all times be complaints made against persons in authority there; and those who fancied that they had complaints to make, were encouraged to prefer them by the readiness of the hon. member for Aberdeen to bring them forward in that House. He did not complain of that readiness, on the contrary, he was glad that there should be, at all times Gentlemen in the House willing to bring forward any grievances, as the best way of making them known, and getting a remedy applied: but the hon. Gentleman ought not to bring forward sweeping accusations without proof against the Government of that or any other colony. As to the convicts being distributed on a principle of favouritism, the fact mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down, of the great anxiety of parties to obtain them, might account for the accusation. It was impossible that all could be satisfied; it was natural that those who were disappointed should complain, but as it was absolutely necessary that a certain control of police should be exercised over the convicts, the Government must not be deprived of the discretion of distributing them to whom it thought fit. Every person who applied, was not proper to be trusted with convicts. The hon. Gentleman had also thrown out an insinuation, that the Governor of the colony was surrounded by a crowd of relations—but he thought that the fact of the Governor having some connexions there hardly warranted such an insinuation. The situation of civil engineer was filled by the brother-in-law of the Governor. He performed his duties in a most exemplary manner; but it was a mistake to suppose that he was appointed by the Governor, for he was sent out from the Government of this country. It had been represented that another relation of the Governor filled an official situation, but there was no truth in that representation; and he had resisted the appointment, because, as there was a strong feeling in the colony both for and against the Governor, it was necessary that the patronage should be distributed so as not to give the appearance of partiality to either side. With regard to the female convicts, there was certainly not so strong a desire felt for their services as for those of the other sex; and it had been difficult to procure situations for them. This had led the Colonial Department to direct the Governor to make it a condition with those who took a certain number of male convicts, that they should employ one female.

said, that the 500,000l. voted for the Penitentiary, was one of the greatest pieces of extravagance imaginable, considering that we had abundance of hulks, where all our convicts might be maintained at a less expense, and in a more orderly and healthy state than at Millbank. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department seemed, however, to keep up the establishment more because he had found it in existence, than because he approved of it, or would have set it on foot; but when he considered the expense of continuing it, he ought, perhaps, to conclude, that it would be better to give the 500,000l. up for lost, and abandon it at once. Its inmates cost us 33l. per head, per annum; and if that was not extravagance, what was? If the right hon. Secretary would even take its management under his own department, its cost would probably be much less than under the di- rection of unpaid commissioners. The charge for management amounted to 11l. per head; a sum which was greater than was incurred for the management of any county gaol in the kingdom. But although he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would manage the establishment more cheaply than the present commissioners, that right hon. Gentleman had given the House a specimen of his notions of economy, of which he could by no means approve. The right hon. Gentleman said, that we must have for a Governor, a man of talent, of character, &c. with 600l. a year, besides perquisites, for managing 600 people, whilst a Lieutenant-colonel, who had to overlook 700, only received 300l. a-year, whilst even a General officer received less, this did seem to him most extravagant. He was convinced that there were many half-pay officers well qualified to discharge the duties of the situation who would be glad to take it for much less, and thus relieve the country from the charge of their half-pay. If a motion were made to reduce this specific salary, he did not believe that the House would support it at its present high rate. We had abundance of hulks, which, at very little expense, might be made fit to receive all our convicts, and he hoped that when the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded should be appointed, it would take this vote into its consideration.

said, there was no analogy between the situation of a Colonel in the army and the Governor of a prison; he had experienced great difficulty in getting a gentleman of the attainments and character he deemed necessary, to fill the situation.

said, the subject of secondary punishment was one of considerable importance, and deserved the best attention of the House.

observed, that great reductions had been already made, and more were in contemplation. The estimate for this year was 600. less than last year.

objected to the salary of 400l. a-year, enjoyed by the Secretary of the Governor. This person was Secretary to another establishment, and did not reside in the Penitentiary.

remarked, that many persons had been restored to society by means of the Penitentiary.

said, the charge for convicts in the Penitentiary was exorbitant as compared with the expense of supporting prisoners in the county gaols.

said, that the principle of the Licensing system was not what some Gentlemen supposed, a new law, but was a part of the old Common Law of the country. It was laid down by all the writers on the Criminal Law, that indictments might be maintained against public-houses as public nuisances, not only because they were disorderly, but whenever they were inconveniently multiplied, or when they were opened in an inconvenient situation. The principle of the licensing system was preventive instead of corrective—it was, in fact, a system of previous inquiry, rather than of subsequent punishment. The evils which an unregulated system would introduce, had not been dreaded in vain. All the Statutes passed up to this time had proceeded on the principle of the Common Law. The 2nd of George II., especially stated, that many in- conveniences had arisen from the number of common public-houses; and in making that declaration it only adopted the words of the Common Law. The principle of the Common Law was openly contradicted by this Bill, for the Common Law said that public-houses might be inconveniently multiplied: but this Bill went on the presumption that there could not be too many. The Common Law said, that houses of this sort ought not to be erected in low, retired, and improper situations; but this Bill said, in effect, that no situation was improper, if the man dealing in the article paid two guineas a year to the Excise. What, he wished to know, would be the operation of this Bill with respect to Mr. Estcourt's law? That law had been well considered, and he did not think that its provisions ought to be lightly set aside. Let them suppose a person who had conducted his house in the most disorderly manner, when he came before the Magistrates to demand the renewal of his license, they were able to prevent the repetition of such conduct in the ensuing year. But under the new system proposed by this Bill that could not be done, and no check would be imposed on persons who acted in that manner. The evils of houses of this kind had increased so much from time to time, that the system had rather become more restricted than more relaxed. And what had been the consequence? Why, that the manner in which they were conducted was now much improved. The present state of good order in which these houses were was the best defence of the restrictive system, and afforded the strongest reason for its continuance. But this question was as important in the view of its relation to the property embarked in public-houses as in any other respect. In consequence of the restrictions which, for a series of years, had been placed upon the business of public-houses, those houses which had a license had acquired an artificial value, and persons had bought the houses themselves, or the leases for years; and others, who had taken this sort of property under wills or settlements, had taken it subject to the condition of making payments to the junior branches of their own families, which they would be unable to discharge, if that which had so much increased the value of these houses, were on a sudden taken away from them. But it was not only great interests, such as those of large brewers, that would suffer, the small publicans, who had embarked their all in the purchase of houses of this kind, would also be materially affected. The evil of this Bill was, that it carried the principle of competition to a new and indefinite extent. He would not advise hastily returning from the artificial system that had been created to the natural system, for such a rapid change would produce great injustice to many individuals. In his opinion, the principle of competition might be carried into full effect if men were allowed to sell Beer without their being at the same time permitted to turn their houses into ale-houses. The principle of competition, so far as it had already been carried in the town of Reading, even under the present system, had been attended with the best possible effects, for in that town there were five great brewers and seven retail brewers, and the Beer was some of the best in the kingdom. He did not think that the principle of competition need be carried further than it was in that town at this moment. The clause he was about to propose would have the effect of allowing as free a competition as existed in Scotland, where any man was allowed to sell Beer, but not to permit persons to stay on his premises to drink it. Many retail brewers and respectable shopkeepers had told him they should be quite satisfied with such a law, for they did not wish to have soldiers billetted on them, which they must have if their houses became ale-houses. They could not have all that was profitable without suffering the accompanying disadvantages. If his clause were carried, he should introduce another for the protection of shopkeepers against vexatious informations. The hon. Member then moved, that in the clause under discussion these words should be inserted—" Provided that Licenses granted under this Act should not authorise those who obtained such Licenses to allow the Beer to be drunk in the places where it was sold."

said, he had been one of the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the reduction of the Beer-duty, because he had thought it one of the best proofs of the intention of the Ministry to have recourse to practical economy; but if all men were now to be allowed to sell Beer, and it might be consumed on their premises, England, from one end to the other would be one great ale-house. He wanted perfect freedom in the sale of Beer; but let the Magistrates have some control over it [laughter]. He was not surprised that Gentlemen should laugh; but if they would hear him out, they would find that he meant only that the Magistrates should have some control over those who sold Beer. He recommended the House to try the clause proposed by the hon. Member for the space of two years, and if they found that it really imposed a check upon the freedom of trade, they might then repeal it; but it was certainly worth the trial.

could not consent to consider this question by itself. It was in fact connected intimately with many others, and it must be viewed with reference to them. It was a curious fact, that while the consumption of every other necessary of life had increased in this country, the consumption of Malt, which was a neces- sary of life to the labouring population, had materially diminished. The agricultural interest naturally demanded the reason of this, and they found that it was caused by the heavy restrictions imposed upon the Malt and Beer manufacture, and upon the trade in Beer. The House investigated the nature of these restrictions, it found them burthensome, and it became convinced that the principle of the Malt-tax, of the Beer-tax, and of the Licensing Acts was most unjust, the restrictions they imposed falling exclusively upon the labouring population, who alone were unable to brew their own Beer. Besides these taxes there were restrictions on the sale of the article itself. These restrictions gave an artificial value to the houses in which Beer was sold, and the value of the brewers' property was increased at least one million and a half. That increased expense, of course, though paid in the first instance by the publican to the brewer, was put by the publican upon the Beer; and the combined effects of the taxes and the restrictions ultimately fell on the labouring consumer. The Ministers, much to their credit, had taken off the tax on the manufacture of the Beer; and he was bound to say, that they deserved the utmost credit for what they had done. Representations had been made to them respecting the Malt-duty; and they had certainly done much good, by removing most of the restrictions on the manufacture of that article; they would have gained the support of a wealthy and powerful party if they had taken off the Malt-tax, instead of the Beer-tax; but they had, with an honest and manly discretion, given up their own advantage, and had repealed the Beer-tax, because it was that which pressed most heavily on the labouring classes of the people. He repeated, that they deserved the greatest possible credit for the way in which they had acted, If, however, they were not seconded—if this Bill were not passed, and passed without the limitation now proposed—all that the Government had done would tend only to the benefit of the rich brewer. He contended, that hitherto there had existed a combination between the distillers and the brewers, which this Bill would destroy; and further, that if the Amendment were adopted, at least two-thirds of the benefit that might otherwise be anticipated from the measure would be prevented. The contest, in fact, was between a healthful nutritious beverage, for such Beer was, and demoralising and destructive spirituous liquors. He did not deny that, in consequence of the free trade in Beer, there might, at first, be some slight increase of inebriety; but, on the other hand were to be deducted the disorders, moral and physical, arising from the consumption of alcohol. Ale, taken to excess, might make a man dull and drowsy; but it would not ruin his health by destroying his liver. The hon. Member then adverted to the small increase in the number of Ale licenses, while, in the same period, the Spirit licenses had been multiplied to the extent of no less than 11,000. In the twelve years since 1818, it was shown, by the returns on the Table, that the consumption of Spirits had been augmented from twelve million gallons to twenty-four million gallons; and in exact proportion to the increase in the consumption of Spirits was the increase of crime. While, however, he heartily supported the measure, and resisted the Amendment, he was anxious that the change should be effected under proper guards which might be provided by alterations and additions that could be made in the Committee.

contended, that the various reductions in the duty on Malt had not been followed by a corresponding augmentation of the revenue; and he denied also that the brewers had been benefitted by the change. In reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Shrewsbury, he insisted that there had been at no time a combination between the London brewers and the distillers, adding, that he had himself always been an advocate for a free trade in Beer. He had been one of the first to point out the injuriousness of the licensing system, both to the public and to the publicans; and in his evidence before a committee of the House, twelve years since, he had asserted, that it would be an increasing evil. That prediction had been fulfilled according to the confession of all sides; and he now asserted, without fear of contradiction, that as far as the interests of the London brewers were concerned, the freer the trade in Beer was rendered, the better for them. With their great capitals, and the means of applying them, they need fear no competition. The country brewers were, however, differently circumstanced, and to them the measure was fraught with utter ruin; to the interests of the publicans also it would be destructive, and for this reason he should support the Amendment. There was at least 3,500 persons in London whose property would be deteriorated by the Bill, and some respect ought to be shown to the number of petitions which had been presented against it. All those who not long since had voted for the continuance of the licensing system, must feel themselves responsible to the individuals who on the faith of Parliament had embarked their property in public-houses. The licensed victuallers were not unreasonable, and would be satisfied with a very trifling modification of the proposed law.

was decidedly hostile to the Amendment, and supported the Bill, because it would destroy the arbitrary and injurious power now enjoyed and exercised by Magistrates under the licensing system. Clauses might be introduced, establishing useful regulations, but he did not see what claim publicans could have to compensation, when at any he they might be deprived of their licenses by the will and pleasure of the Quarter Sessions. Even if they were to be injured, private interests must be sacrificed to a great public advantage. He was satisfied that when the Bill came out of the Committee with the clauses intended to be introduced, many who now objected to it would give it their most hearty support.

called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in fairness, and for the convenience of proceeding, to state his views, and to open the amendments he proposed to insert.

said, that he was at all times extremely ready to attend to the wishes of any hon. Member, relative to any measures of his own or of others, upon public business, and that he must of course be anxious to explain, in the fullest manner, any bill which it was his duty to submit to the consideration of Parliament; and if he had not done so on the present occasion, it was because he felt the proposed amendment to be so directly at variance with the principle of the Bill of his right hon. friend, that he thought it proper to ascertain what was the sense of the House upon such a proposition, before he proceeded to discuss the other details of the measure, which were comparatively unimportant. The proposed Amendment, he had no hesitation in saying, was a direct infraction of the principle of the Bill; were it carried, the effect would be this—that the public, instead of being in a situation to have an improved commodity, would remain in that respect precisely as it stood now, with the superadded disadvantage of having a two-guinea license instead of a five-guinea license to authorize the business of the retailer. He would put it to the hon. Mover of the Amendment, whether this state of things was likely to promote the object which he professed to have in view,—whether it was calculated to satisfy the wants of the people, and remedy the enormous abuses which the hon. member for Reading had himself admitted, and which were daily justifying a wider extent of complaint. The hon. Member, in proposing his Amendment, had also broached some extraordinary doctrines of law; he said, that by the Common Law, the trade had been restricted. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not before aware that there were any restrictions at Common Law respecting the sale of Beer, beyond those which were necessarily implied in the preservation of the peace of the community. The Common Law left the trade free; it was the counteracting operation of the Statute-law which imposed restrictions. But the hon. member for Reading had put his view of this question upon two principles; first, as to the necessity of preserving the property which had, upon the faith of Acts of Parliament, been invested and engaged in this trade in particular neighbourhoods; secondly, as to the equal necessity of maintaining a strict police-regulation throughout the country, as referrable to the morals of the people. Now no man could feel more than he did for the well being of the pecuniary rights of this class of the community; and no man was more sensible than he was, that a certain diminution in the present value of their capital was likely to follow the adoption of this Bill—a result which he lamented as much as any man could; for from what he had seen of them, he believed them to be reputable men and well-deserving every special consideration which was not incompatible with the general good of the country. However, the only alternative before him was this,—whether he would lean towards the supposed interests of the smaller class, or towards that of the community generally. This being his situation, he could not hesitate upon the decision which he was bound to take under such circumstances. It really was unfair to look at the Bill through the narrow view which some hon. Members were disposed to take of its bearings. This measure went merely to extend the means of selling Beer for the benefit of the humbler classes of the community; but the old restrictions still continued to apply to those who sold Beer, with other exciseable articles; and it appeared from the evidence given before the committee up-stairs, that the value of dealing in those other exciseable articles was very considerable—a profit which, of course, the parties would retain, notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill. Then, as to the apprehended competition from throwing open the trade, as it was called: it was perfectly true that the increase of persons who, it was expected, would embark in this trade implied, competition, yet, was it likely that the existing possessors of large and well-conducted houses would lose the advantages they had acquired by the outlay of their capital, and the formation of a good connexion, resulting from the proper management of their business, by the mere setting-up of a few individuals with, perhaps, limited means, in the same neighbourhood? If hon. Members would look into the evidence given before the committee, they would see what was said by a gentleman who had a large public-house, in a district where a free public-house had afterwards, at no great distance, endeavoured to compete with him. When this individual was asked the effect of this competition, his answer was, that he did not fear the result; his trade continued as good as before; he took in the newspapers, he looked after the comforts of his guests, he studied their dispositions and wants, and had therefore no apprehension as to the result. What difference was there between this individual's case and others under circumstances of the like nature. The old establishments must have the advantage of experience and connexion, and therefore ought to have nothing to fear. Upon the general question he would distinctly say, let the entrance into the trade be free, and that once accomplished, let the individuals engaged in it be subject to whatever restrictions hon. Members deemed reasonably necessary. Indeed, if the larger principle were conceded to him, he was prepared with other clauses, which he was sure would obviate many of the objections made to this Bill. Among them was one to declare that none but an inhabitant householder should be permitted to embark in this trade, so as to guard against the introduction of persons without substance or a local residence, which could make them known in the neighbourhood. In the next place, he meant to propose that the householder should give two sureties, who were to be answerable for the penalties which the retailer was liable to incur. If the House would add any other regulations for the better ordering of these houses, he should willingly concur in them. But when the hon. member for Reading said, that his clause was necessary for the protection of the public, he must say, that he felt the contrary to be the fact; the clause was, in his opinion, a double delusion,—first, as regarded the orderly carrying on the trade; and next, as concerned the public. The hon. member for Reading said, that, only give him this clause, and he would find a remedy for all the other abuses of the system. He regretted that he could not acquiesce in his temptation; he should like to see the promised clause for remedying the evils of informers, and trusting in future to the informations of men of respectable character. He confessed he was unaware how this reformation was to be effected; it was a process of legislation of which he feared he must plead ignorance. From the best consideration which he had been enabled to give this subject, he believed the most unfounded apprehensions prevailed, both in the trade and out of the trade. He had seen a series of resolutions, which were agreed to on the 25th of March by the licensed victuallers of Nottingham, which, from the general intercommunication of the trade, might be taken as a fair specimen of the general understanding which prevailed in it through the country. These resolutions said, that the increase of retail-brewers was prejudicial to the public morals—and that increase of profligacy had followed their multiplication, without the slightest addition to the comforts of the humbler classes. Now, he was perfectly convinced this was true—it was the fault of the system which he sought to remedy; he was confident that the retail brewers, as at present constituted, gave no material addition to the comforts of the poor, and for this reason—that they were beset with restrictions and dangers, which impeded their exertions at every step under the provisions of the existing law. They were every moment brought by informations before the magistrates; the public morals were, he knew, outraged under the extension of the prevailing system, and that he believed must continue until the proposed alterations were adopted. He was also decidedly of opinion, that the moral control could be much better executed within than without the walls of the licensed victualler's house, and that even the contagion of bad example would be less felt when excluded from the public eye. In this respect he thought it very desirable that the consumption of Beer should take place rather on the premises than without the doors, for both the moral discipline could be, under such circumstances, better enforced, and the public nuisance, where it did arise, more effectually abated. With these opinions he must resist the clause of the hon. member for Reading. If, when the Committee decided on that proposition, they would let him go through and explain the other clauses, and then have the Bill as amended, printed, embodying the various practical suggestions which he had received, they would be better able to come to a clear view of the whole question, before their final decision: this was all he asked.

was a friend to a free trade in Beer, but then that trade must be bona fide perfectly free. He could not see how his right hon. friend's regulations were calculated to promote that object; on the contrary, he thought those he had mentioned would prove futile. As to the Amendment of the hon. member for Reading, he thought that instead of improving matters it would make them worse. If it were carried, he certainly should propose another Amendment, providing that the Beer should not be drank within 100 yards of the premises where it was sold. He knew this was absurd, still it was a corollary from the other proposition.

wished the poor man to be enabled to buy his Beer wherever he chose, which it was the object of this Bill to effect, but he knew that there were reasonable apprehensions entertained in many parts of the country, that the measure would increase the number of public-houses unnecessarily. That the poor man should be enabled to buy his Beer freely was, however, different from his drinking it wherever it might be bought. Instead then of allowing him to drink it on the premises, he should wish to see him obliged to take it home and drink it with his wife and family. Besides, he was afraid that this Bill would take the control of public-houses out of the hands of the Magistrates, to the injury of the morals of the people themselves. He should, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. member for Reading.

thought that the publicans had a right to have their case fully heard. He assented to the principle according to which the clause in the Bill was drawn up, but he had two objections to the Bill. He did not think it contained police regulations of sufficient force; and it gave no time to persons who had embarked immense capitals in the Beer-trade to retire safely from it. He had always deprecated the licensing system, but after the House had sanctioned its continuance for so long a time, and thereby induced individuals to embark property in the Beer-trade, he did not think that the House would be acting right in agreeing to any measure which would bring those individuals to ruin. At least they ought to be allowed time, and he thought five years not too much to withdraw from the trade. He felt himself therefore bound, though favourable to the principle of free trade, to vote for the Amendment.

was of opinion, that if all the duty on Beer was to be repealed, a perfectly free trade in that article ought to follow, which, though at first it might create great fluctuations, would ultimately settle itself, like all other trades. He should therefore support the Bill as it was now brought forward. He wished the measure to have a fair trial, and next Session, if it were found to require some modifications they might be made. Instead of seeing the whole duty taken off Beer, he confessed he should have preferred if only 5s. had been taken off, and 1s. off Malt. By this means Malt would have been rendered cheaper, and its employment in the manufacture of Beer made general.

, while admitting that the fears entertained of this measure, as far as the brewers were concerned, had been greatly exaggerated, contended that the loss to the publicans would be as great, if not greater, than was anticipated. There had only been one or two instances of petitions being presented in favour of the clause under the consideration of the House, while hundreds had been presented against it. He did not mean to say that the measure would be positively bad; but it would at any rate, be questionable. By it public-houses might be opened during all hours of the night, and in any places, and no security was given for their being properly conducted, for the fine or penalty proposed by the Bill was no security at all. At present there was some difficulty found in keeping public-houses in good order, though the publican was liable to have his license taken away, which was equal to a fine of 500l. What then would be the state of the case where the fine was only 2l. 10s. He conceived that the other parts of the Bill contained innovations, sufficient to satisfy the advocates of free-trade, and he hoped the House would refuse to accede to the introduction of any more. If at a future period it should be found necessary to make any fresh innovations, then let them be done, but he thought some consideration ought at present to be extended to the publicans. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member, which was exactly in accordance with a clause introduced into the bill of an hon. and learned Gentleman some years back.

, who rose amidst loud cries of "Question," promised that he would not trespass more than five minutes on the patience of the House. He reminded the Committee, that when the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, informed the House, that the whole of the Beer-duty, amounting to 3,000,000l., was to be repealed, that intelligence, gratifying as it was, was hailed with still greater delight, because it was stated that the remission of the duty was to be by no means the only relief afforded to the country; but that the annual expenditure of a million and a half would be saved to the country by the removal of those impediments, restrictions, and obstacles that grew out of the then existing system of the Beer-trade and of licensing. It appeared to him that the proposition of the hon. member for Reading was neither more nor less than this—whether or not the House was to give up the relief of one million and a half of taxes. The present licensing system was a great evil, and if allowed to continue, the evil would only increase, and be rendered more difficult of removal. It was his opinion, that if the monopoly which the brewer at present enjoyed were to be continued, and the tax taken off Beer, that monopoly would become more complete and more injurious than ever to the public. Having promised not to exceed five minutes, he would keep his word with the Committee and sit down.

did not think he should trouble the House so long as five minutes; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), that he had never known a promise, such as he had, made so accurately kept before. He was perfectly ready to admit that the bill respecting Beer introduced about six years ago, contained a clause expressly prohibiting the consumption of Beer on the premises where it was sold; but the ground on which he allowed the introduction of that clause was, because he had not the slighest chance of carrying any part of the measure, unless he had consented that that clause should form a portion of it. He, however, protested against it, considering that it created a great defect in the measure, and he had not altered his opinion on the subject.

thought, the House should not come to any conclusion on the proposition of the hon. member for Reading, until more information was afforded as to the mode in which the scheme of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be carried into effect.

said, that the clause he proposed seemed to him to leave the trade sufficiently open; and he did not think that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman were as weighty as had been contended.

hoped the hon. member for Reading would postpone his Amendment until the Bill was presented to the House in a more complete form. In all large towns, the result of the measure might have been correctly stated by its advocates; but in country districts he was sure it would lead to the opening of public-houses, not for the purpose of selling Beer, but for the sale of spirits, and those too not brought legitimately into this country. Before two years should pass over, the right hon. Gentleman would come down to the House with a proposition to amend his Bill. For these reasons, and in consideration of the immense property embarked in the Beer-trade, he should support the Amendment.

said, he saw no advantage from postponing his Motion, and that he should press his Amendment to a division.

contended, that it was the duty of the Ministers before they proceeded further, to state fully the whole of their intentions.

said, that he could not refrain from stating his opinion. He looked on this as only a half measure, which, instead of making the trade free would merely extend the licensing system. There was a part of it which levied fines for the use of drugs in making Beer, and for using any other materials than malt and hops, and he did not see how these clauses could be carried into effect, without continuing all the excise regulations and restrictions. He contended, as the duty was taken off, that there would be no temptation to use deleterious ingredients, particularly if the duty on malt were also taken off, and therefore, he objected to continuing such sestrictions which would be very injurious, and would henceforth have no good effect whatever. Indeed if they were acted on, they would henceforth be doubly vexatious. Many shopkeepers and little retail dealers would sell Beer under the new Bill, and it would require a great additional number of excise men to look after them, though no number, however great, would be sufficient to prevent them from adulterating Beer if they thought proper to do so. He must object to this, then, as a species of impracticable law-making. Competition was the principle of the Act, and to that, not to these restrictions, ought the House to look to give efficacy to its provisions.

explained that the hon. Member would find all the Excise-laws, as far as they related to the sale of Beer, repealed in the Bill for abolishing the Beer duties. At the same time he contended that restricting the brewers to the use of malt and hops in making Beer, was necessary for the sake of the Beer-drinker. The restriction on the manufacture so far he supported. He also thought that unless the prohibition against adulteration were preserved, the people would be supplied with a worse liquor than ever.

supported the clause. If a man professed to sell one thing and sold another he deserved to be punished. Such a clause was necessary for the public safety. He wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the present Bill affected the sale of Cider.

explained, that the sale of Cider was to be put on the same footing as Beer.

declared, that it would be impossible to place Cider-cellars under the same regulation as Beerhouses.

trusted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider this opinion, and leave those who dealt in Cider as they were.