called the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to reports which were in circulation relative to certain acts of diplomacy affecting our relation's with the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It was generally understood that a treaty had been entered into by the representatives of the Allied Powers of England, France, Spain, and Portugal for the settlement of the affairs of the Peninsula. By this treaty it was understood to be provided, that Spain was to be allowed to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, that France was to march an army into the Peninsula in case of necessity, and that England was to be also prepared with a fleet for the same purpose in case of need. And the object of this Treaty, it was further understood, was to oblige Don Carlos and Don Miguel to give up their respective claims to the crowns of Spain and Portugal in favour of the infant heiresses. Such being the reported substance of the stipulations of this treaty, it had been further stated, that the Spanish General Rodil had crossed the Spanish frontiers into Portugal, and that, in consequence some towns had ceased to pay allegiance to Don Miguel, and had gone over to Donna Maria. It was also further reported, that the treaty in question had not been agreed to with such celerity on the part of one or more of the contracting Powers as had been anticipated, and that it had been even returned by the British minister at Lisbon, unratified on the part of the government of Portugal. He did not wish at the present moment, to enter into any discussion on the course of policy which had recently been adopted by his Majesty's Government in reference to those matters, but would content himself with making three inquiries of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. First, whether such a Treaty as he had described had been entered into between France, Spain, Portugal, and this country, for the settlement of the affairs of the Peninsula? Secondly, whether any delay in the ratification of that Treaty had occurred at the Court of Lisbon, or whether any symptoms of dissent had been manifested at the Courts of any of the contracting Powers? And thirdly, whether the noble Lord had been officially in- formed of the fact of General Rodil having marched across the Spanish frontier into Portugal for the purpose and with the results he had stated?

said, that he would follow the example of the hon. Baronet, and not enter into any remarks upon the various reports which had been in circulation in respect to the occurrences he had alluded to. With regard to the three questions of the hon. Baronet, he begged to reply, first, that he had very great satisfaction in being able to state, that a Treaty had been entered into between the four great Powers the hon. Baronet had named, relative to the affairs of the Peninsula, and that it had been duly signed by the plenipotentiaries of the respective contracting Powers. In stating this to be the case, he spoke with very great satisfaction, and, as far as he himself had been concerned in forwarding the negotiations, with some degree of pride. He would not now enter into the details of the Treaty in question, because, as soon as it was duly ratified, it would, of course, be laid before the House. Secondly, as to whether there had been any undue delay in the ratification of this Treaty, he begged to state, that three of the contracting parties had already ratified it, and that the ratification on the part of Portugal had only been delayed by reason of the forms attending such matters at that Court. That it would be satisfied, however, had been officially announced to him, and he hoped that, in a very few days, the vessel which bore the document itself would be in port. With regard to the third inquiry of the hon. Baronet, it was very true, that General Rodil had passed the Spanish frontiers, as had been stated; but he had done so with the full consent of the Portuguese government, and certainly not with the disapprobation of the Government of the country. The operation of his forces was exclusively directed to dislodging Don Carlos and his adherents from the frontiers of Spain; but he had been perfectly neutral in respect to the civil contest in Portugal. The Spanish troops had not united in any way with the troops of Donna Maria against the party of Miguel, though many most important towns had taken advantage of their presence to declare for Donna Maria. He had again to repeat, that as soon as the Treaty was ratified, it would be laid on the Table of the House.

said, that, probably, on the meeting of Parliament after the holidays, the noble Lord would be prepared to lay before the House an authentic copy of the Treaty in question. Until that was done, further discussion on the subject would be a waste of time. He could not help remarking, however, that the neutrality said to have been observed by the Spanish troops in Portugal in the present instance was one of a most singular kind, considering that several fortified towns were taken from Don Miguel, and his adherents driven from them. He really thought, that the people of Portugal had had quite abundant opportunity of declaring for Donna Maria, if they felt inclined, without the presence of the Spanish general.

begged to explain what he meant by the term "neutrality," and in reference to the conduct of General Rodil. He did not wish to lay any stress upon the word, but merely meant to state that, up to that period, no union had taken place between the forces of the two young queens. Of course, he did not pretend to disguise the fact, that the presence of the Spanish General had been of great assistance to the cause of the Portuguese government.

inquired whether the Spanish troops had entered Portugal before the above Treaty had been signed?

Yes; but in consequence of an understanding between the respective governments.

rose to move the second reading of the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill. He would, on this occasion, he said, adopt his usual course of brevity, and detain the House but a short time. Though the subject was one of great importance, and one that excited the attention of the country, and called for loud and determined remonstrance from various parts, yet he should not attempt to add additional force to the remonstrances made, or enlarge on the subject, by dwelling on a detail of the evils it had produced. Last Session, a Committee, which sat a long time, was appointed to investigate the subject, and was of opinion, that a provision should be made to correct the evils of the present Sale of Beer Act. Every thing that transpired since—all the com- munications made to him, and to others (indeed the communications made to him were so multitudinous that he could not answer them)—the whole concurrent testimony of all parties—satisfied him that a change was called for, particularly in the interest of the labourers themselves. The morals and the comforts of the people were concerned in a reformation of the existing law. He wished, that the poor should enjoy all the advantages conferred on them by the Act in question, which was passed in the first year of the reign of his present Majesty. He wished only for a confirmation and extension of those advantages, making the operation of the Act what its framers intended. His Bill would, he hoped, have that effect, by preventing Houses being improperly kept. With this object in view, his Bill proposed, that the person applying for a license to open a beer-house, should produce a certificate stating, that he was a fit person, to keep such a house; and also a certificate stating, that it was expedient that beer should be sold upon the premises. The latter certificate, he proposed, should be signed by six householders. With respect to another part of his Bill, it had been suggested, that the penalties proposed to be inflicted for violations of its provisions were too large. For his own part he did not think so; but if, when the Bill went into Committee, it should appear to the House, that they were too large, he would have no objection that they should be mitigated. With respect to the hours, it had been suggested, that the hours at which the beer-houses should close, ought to be the same at which the public-houses close at present. That would be, in his opinion, too large a privilege; but as that question did not materially affect the principle of his Bill, he thought it might be advantageously postponed for the consideration of the Committee. There was also a clause in the Bill, empowering the civil authorities to enter these houses at any time. These were the principal powers of the Bill, and, having adverted to them, he would move that it be read a second time.

said, whether it were proper or not that some new police regulations should be imposed with regard to the beer-shops, the enactments of the present Bill were quite uncalled for. He was prepared to contend, that, by the fourteenth clause of the existing Act, sufficient power was given to the Magistrates to put a stop to irregularities. Under that clause, the keepers of beer-shops were liable, if they permitted drunkenness in their premises, to a penalty on the first conviction, to an increasing penalty on the second conviction, and to lose their license, and be incapacitated from opening a beer-shop again on the third conviction. Yet, strange as it might appear, there was scarcely an instance since the passing of the Act in which the keeper of a beer-shop had been subjected to those penalties. Hon. Gentlemen might doubt it; but it was a fact. He supposed the Magistrates acted towards the keepers of beer-shops on the principle described in the vulgar saying, "Give them rope enough, and they will hang themselves." He had great objections to the Bill. By the very first clause it would annihilate all the benefits derived from the existing Act, towards which he might be excused for having some partiality, as he was one of its most anxious supporters and promoters. The object of that Act was to put an end to the monopoly enjoyed by the great brewers which had become generally complained of, and thereby to secure to the consumers of beer a better and cheaper beverage. The Act accomplished that, and, at the same time, a greater amount of comfort was secured to the labouring poor. Before the House consented to the second reading of this Bill, they ought to take into consideration two points. First, how it would affect the comfort of the labouring classes secured to them by the existing Act; and secondly, the sacrifice it would involve of capital that had been invested in the establishment of the beer-shops. The Act now in force had taken out of the hands of the Magistrates the power, and consequently the patronage, they before possessed. Such being the case, the general body of the Magistracy, and he regretted to say, he must even include many of his brother Magistrates, had entered into what was almost a combination—he might at least say, that they had come to a determination to destroy the Act. This Act was highly advantageous to the public, if not to the Magistrates. If a poor man had no fire at home, he went to the beer-shop. Yes, he went to the beer-shop, where, in a comfortable house, and at a comfortable fire, he sat for an hour and refreshed himself. The beer-shops, then, had been a source of great comfort to the labouring poor. He would ask the House whether, except under very aggravated circumstances, it was prepared to say, that all the money which had been expended in establishing these places of resort, should be thrown away? Even as regarded the revenue of the country, the Act had been beneficial. It had raised the price of malt 5s. per quarter, immediately on passing, and another 5s. per quarter since. The consumption of beer had increased, and both the revenue and the agricultural interest had been benefited by the Act. Was not that a reason of some little weight why the Act should not be altered? He repeated, that the present Bill was calculated to destroy entirely the Beer Act; to require six sureties rated at 10l. each would operate, in many places, as a complete prohibition to establish a beer-shop. He should, under this circumstance, move, as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time that day six months."

said, he rose to second the Amendment. In confirmation of what his hon. friend had just stated, that from the first passing of the Act there was a determination or combination on the part of the Magistrates to defeat the Bill, he would appeal to the evidence given before the Committee by Mr. Bellingham, the clerk of the Magistrates of the county of Sussex, who stated, that within three months of the passing of the Act, from all the Petty Sessions, circulars were sent round to the parish officers, requiring from them reports as to the manner in which the Act had operated. Thus it appeared, that even so early the system of espionage was commenced, and persons under the influence of the Magistracy were encouraged to find defects in the Act. Was not this a strong proof in confirmation of the statement of his hon. friend? If any one looked into the Report of last Session on the Beer Act, they would see with some surprise, that of the witnesses examined, there was scarcely one of those persons interested in maintaining the cheap sale of beer. Why were not some of the consumers called? Was it proper to examine a majority of parish officers alone as to this point? Out of fifty-six witnesses, what did they find, there were thirteen Magistrates, one mayor, three Magistrates' Clerks, three police officers, three victuallers and re- tailers of spirits, and one proprietor of a beer shop,—one, mind, who described himself so, but who came, not from a country district, but a town. Some witnesses ought to have been called who were connected with the country districts, and able to speak to the convenience which the poor derived from the Act. It might surely have been expected, that a few of the labouring consumers would have been examined; but not one had been called. In the parts with which he was best acquainted, which were the towns, the Act had been productive of nothing but benefit. He observed, that the Magistrates gave as one reason why the Act required alteration, that the beer supplied by the beer-shops was bad; another reason was, that the excessive tippling which took place in them was in a high degree objectionable. Why, what inconsistency there was in all this! At one and the same time, the beer was very bad, and yet great quantities were consumed. There was another point which these same gentlemen appeared much to delight in. The beer, they said, should be home-brewed beer, and not that which the brewers supplied. Now, would the beer, if brewed at home, be better or worse? It was admitted, that the home-brewers could not compete as to expense with the public brewer. Inasmuch, then, as the public brewer could brew at a cheaper rate, was it not reasonable to conclude, that he would furnish better beer than the home-brewer could afford to brew. The contrary proposition was another of the numerous inconsistencies offered on this occasion by the opponents of the Act. It appeared to be desired to prevent the brewer from assisting in establishing beer shops; but the attempt would fail. Nothing was more general in this country than for those who were engaged in retail business to be backed by the wholesale dealers, who generally commanded the capital, and were anxious to employ it. If they rendered it illegal for the great brewer to supply the beer, he would advance the necessary capital under the pretence of supplying malt, which, of course, the home-brewer must consume. The opponents of the Act objected to what they called the tippling that resulted; but why did the Legislature sanction the establishment of such houses at all, if it were not with a view to an increased consumption of the article. Nothing could be more unequal in its operation, than the clause of the Bill now before the House, which rendered necessary the certificates of six rate payers to the amount of 10l. He would take the Return of the Poor-laws Commissioners as to the population of the parishes in this country. Out of 15,000 parishes, half had a population under 300. Now ought there to be required the same number of 10l. rate-payers to certify out of a parish in which there were but 300, as would be required from a large parish like Mary-la-bonne? But, in some of the smaller parishes, if they excluded the clergyman and excluded the Magistrates, and one or two of the principal farmers, where were the certificates to be obtained from? And be it remembered, such parties as he had named were not those who generally were very disposed to favour applications to establish such houses. Some of the witnesses examined stated, that there were parishes in which only five or six 10l. rate-payers could be found. The numbers might be insufficient, then; or, before a beer-shop could be established, every 10l. rate-payer in the parish must have signed a certificate. There was one clause of the Bill, to which he desired to call particular attention. It seemed to have been intended to make it a very stringent clause, but it would be found to be inoperative. It was enacted, that "if any person who was licensed should, with the intent to evade the provisions of the Act, permit any person to carry away any beer for the purpose of its being drunk in any other house, or in any tent, or in the open air, within the distance of 100 yards of such licensed house, the person selling the same should be subject to the penalties of the Act." He begged the House, especially to mark the words "with the intent to evade the provisions of the Act." "With the intent!"—How could the beer retailer know whether the beer was intended to be drunk within 100 yards of the premises or not? This provision would be just as ineffectual as was a similar clause contained in a former Bill.

concurred in one part of the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; and, also, in a part of the argument of the hon. Member who preceded him. He quite agreed with them as to the great advantages that had resulted to the public from breaking up the monopoly which was formerly possessed by the great brewers. In obtaining for the consumer a free and full supply, there was secured a great, he might say, an inestimable advantage to the labouring population of this country. But, at the same time, he must be permitted, though he did so unwillingly, to express his concurrence with the hon. Baronet opposite, who stated, that these advantages had not been obtained without there having resulted some very serious inconveniences. He had at a former period stated his feeling, that much of the mischief which was attributed to the beer-shops was occasioned by other causes, and by causes much more deeply seated in the social condition of the country, than the mere establishment of places to drink beer. But, at the same time, it seemed to him, that the evidence which had been received from so many quarters was too strong, and too completely concurrent, to leave any doubt that, if the abuses were originally to be traced to a deterioration of the morals of the people occasioned by other circumstances, this Beer-shop Act unquestionably extended that demoralization. He believed, therefore, that it was necessary that some means should be taken to check the existing mischief. They could not allow these beer-houses to continue to be made what they frequently were,—viz., brothels, gaming-houses, and places for the resort of the worst of characters. The hon. member for Reading said, if a necessity for legislative interference existed at all, it was to be attributed to the strange perverseness of the unpaid Magistrates, whose object was, to give the keepers of the houses rope enough to hang themselves; but he agreed rather with the hon. Baronet, who stated, that the defect in the existing law was the difficulty of carrying it into execution. There were offences which, in that Act, were sufficiently defined, and sufficient penalties were affixed to them; but the misfortune was, that these penalties were not enforced. The hon. member for Reading declared, that they were not enforced, because of this strange perverseness of the Magistrates, but the failure was surely to be referred to a different cause. However zealous the Magistrate might be—however sincerely anxious to put down abuses, he could not act with effect, except when information was given to him of the existence of the offence; and if they attempted to cure the evil complained of by remedying this, they would find themselves engaged in a complicated inquiry that would lead them far beyond the limits of the Bill. The want of some local machinery for carrying this law into full effect was felt, not only in this, but in a multiplicity of instances. What was every man's business was no man's business. No man incurred any responsibility by neglecting to lay an information for an offence—no man felt that such an omission was a fault. On the contrary, it was an unpopular office for any one to undertake the prosecution of offenders against the public interests. If, then, we waited for the cure of evils till this defect in the organization of the country was remedied, we should have a long time to wait. He believed, that something more immediate and more effectual was necessary. He next came to the consideration of what that remedy ought to be. It was admitted, that the various offences which might be committed by the keepers of beer-shops were provided against by the present Act; but it was notorious, that the houses were nevertheless, not properly conducted. What remained for them to do? There appeared to him to be no alternative but to adopt the principle of the hon. Baronet opposite, investing in the hands of those most interested in maintaining good order a discretionary power to prevent the opening of such houses, or their continuing them open, by persons who were notoriously guilty of the misconduct which had been imputed to the keepers of some of these houses. That was the main principle to which he understood the hon. Baronet to desire to obtain the assent of the House, and so far he entirely concurred with him. They ought not, however, to diminish the free supply of beer to the legitimate wants of the inhabitants of any district; and it was their duty to prevent the abuses at present complained of, to do which it would be necessary to place a discretionary power in the hands of the principal inhabitants of the parish. But when he came to the mode of carrying that principle into effect, there was a difference between the hon. Baronet and himself. He was as much averse to the proposition respecting the certificates, as the hon. member for Bridport could be. He believed, from the evidence which had been taken before the Committee of last year, that, to require certificates from six inhabitants, rated at 10l., would, in a num- ber of places, forbid the opening of beerhouses, however well conducted. In many parishes there were not six houses rated to that amount. There were still more in which the number did not exceed six, or eight, or ten. And there were even a much greater number in which the whole were under influences, or under the decided and immediate influence, of one or two individuals. The consequence, therefore, of this provision, as it now stood, would be to enable, in a great many parishes, one or two persons, from prejudice or caprice, to prevent either an obnoxious individual, or unexceptionable individual, from opening a beer shop, or from continuing one that had been opened. That would lead to a state of things not at all desirable. He feared, that a great destruction of capital would inevitably follow. He feared, that the loss of comfort which the labouring population would thus sustain—of comfort to which they had been now for some time accustomed—would provoke feelings that it would not be politic in the House to give rise to. He could not help thinking, that the object of the hon. Baronet must be to obtain, by means free from objection, the end he had in view. What he had to suggest was, to leave the original grant of the licences in its present state, and to give to the vestry of any parish, on complaint being made to them, a discretionary power of ordering the beer-shop to be closed, when it was notoriously necessary that it should be. The effect of this would be, to give the power into the same hands as the hon. Baronet proposed to place it in; but there would be a difference in the mode in which the power would operate. In granting licences, a man felt he was doing that which was voluntary—that there was not the smallest obligation on his part to issue the licence—that he was responsible to no law—not even his own conscience would tell him that he was doing anything improper in refusing to grant the licence. They could only expect men to sign the certificates if they were favourable; and that was too much to expect in some instances. But the very same individuals who would not actually co-operate for the opening of the house, if called on as honest men, to say whether, in their opinion, the beer house was properly or improperly conducted, would, in the majority of instances, give a fair answer. Entertaining these views, he proposed to provide, in place of the provision of the hon. Member, that six rated inhabitants should be at liberty to make a formal complaint to the vestry of any parish, that any particular beer-house was improperly conducted; and the vestry, on that complaint, should be empowered by a majority of two-thirds to order the license of that house to be cancelled. He hoped the House might thus obtain what was desired, in a manner not liable to those strong objections which attached to the proposition of the hon. Baronet. In large and populous parishes the provision he suggested, would, he believed, be a much more effective restriction, than that contemplated in the hon. Baronet's Bill. It was well known, how loosely people frequently acted in signing certificates of character. A man would do it for his friend almost without consideration. These certificates would, in general, rather prove that the person obtaining them, had six friends inhabiting houses in the parish, and paying 10l. a-year in rates, than that he was a proper person to be allowed to open a beer-shop. The course he proposed to himself on the present question was this; he would support the second reading of the Bill now before the House, and he should do so, in the hope that the hon. Baronet would concur with him in his views when they went into Committee on the Bill. He was encouraged in this hope, because they both agreed in the propriety of preserving a free trade in beer, and also, because the hon. Baronet was as anxious as himself to put down the existing abuses. He would once more repeat, that a strong opinion had been expressed in this House, that they must look to other and more effective means to eradicate that vice and profligacy which were so general in the southern parts of this kingdom. He trusted, that a measure now going through this House would do much to accomplish that object. They should put an end to this monstrous state of things, in which, not only were improvidence and vice exempted from the punishment intended for them by the natural constitution of society, but which inflicted the punishment due to those vices, on individuals who were the possessors of the opposite virtues. By the present system, the more honest and frugal labourer—because he was honest and frugal, and had accumulated a small sum of money, was condemned to pass his time in unwilling idleness. There were more instances than one, of labourers possessing means, being jeered at by their companions, who, addressing them, would say, "Ah, till you follow our example, and spend your hoard in the ale-house, you will never get work." That system, he hoped, would be put an end to, and in stopping it, they would cut up by the roots the improvidence and vice from which incalculable mischief sprung. He further relied on their pursuing the same great and beneficent end by instructing the lower orders; amongst whom, he hoped, they would spread, not that species of knowledge which was difficult of acquirement, but the more useful knowledge of their duties and true interests as members of society.

supported the Amendment. He knew, that in towns the Beer Act had worked well. In Devonport, the people had deserted the public-houses, and, after taking what refreshment they required, at these beer-shops, they went to the Mechanics' Institution. He would never consent to have the present system broken down, because it was supposed that a few evils arose from it in country places.

would support the second reading of the Bill, but would not pledge himself to all of its provisions. He decidedly thought, that to put a stop to a full and free supply of beer, would be to injure greatly the agricultural interest. Since the present law had been in operation, the consumption of barley and malt had increased two-fifths. The hon. member for Reading had talked much of the comforts enjoyed by the poorman under the present law. He had said, that the poor man in the beer-house found a blazing fire, while he left at home a cheerless cold hearth. That might be very well for the man—but what became of the wife and the children? He denied, that that was a system contributing to the comforts or the happiness of the poor, which induced the man to leave his home. The object of beneficent legislation was, not to promote such a system, but to clothe the home itself of the poor man with comfort. Then the hon. member for Reading had talked about the Magistrates giving the beer-houses rope enough, so that they might hang themselves. He thought, that the hon. Member had taken rope enough, and fairly strangled his own ar- gument. The hon. member for Bridport had objected to interfering with the law, on the ground, that the present law favoured home production and good beer; but surely, it was rather inconsistent in the hon. Member so to argue, as he wished to introduce molasses into the making of beer. He thought, the Bill had worked well in large towns, but that in agricultural districts, the law required alteration.

said, that if the measure were calculated to abridge the comforts of the poor man, he should be the last to support it; and it was with the same regard for the poor, that he supported the Bill at present in operation. But, though he would not abridge the comforts of the poor man, still the increase of drunkenness, and its consequent evils, called for some check. The noble Lord read a letter from a gentleman on whose veracity, he said, he could depend, stating that in the writer's part of the country, the evil of drunkenness had arisen to a fearful height. In some of the public-houses, the apprentices, both male and female, were accommodated with beds; that the employers could not trust their agricultural servants to take care of the cattle; and that the ploughmen were drunk in the fields, whilst their families were starving at home. It also added, that the number of improper houses had greatly increased. In this state of things, he would most cordially support the Bill of the hon. Baronet; who was, in his opinion, entitled to the thanks of the country for the paramount benefit it was calculated to confer.

said, that no person could be more desirous than he was, to check the evil of drunkenness, which all must admit was advancing with rapid strides. But, though as much opposed to the evil as the hon. Baronet, he questioned, whether the present Bill was the best mode of meeting and checking-it. In his opinion, the best remedy would be, to subject public-houses to a stricter system of police. Was it fair, so recently after the passing of the Beer Bill, to interfere thus with the property of thirteen thousand persons; who, on the faith of that Bill, and never calculating on so quick an alteration of the measure, were induced to vest their all in business, which would be very much affected, if not destroyed, by the Bill before the House? In so short a period as three years, it was not fair to turn round, and say to those persons, "We were mistaken in our legislation—we are compelled to alter it, even though you and your property may be swamped by the change." If, indeed, the evil were so great as to produce an overwhelming necessity for legislation, there might be some excuse; but he must confess himself too conservative to induce people first to invest their capital in a certain way, and then turn round on them and say they must pay the penalty of an error not their own. Such legislation as that was not calculated to sustain the credit of the House. Another objection to the Bill was, that it was clumsy in its machinery. What was the object of taking the power from the Magistrates, and putting it into the hands of six ten-pound householders? Why, in large towns, any man, no matter who, could procure these; whilst, in less populous districts, there might not be so many ten-pound householders in the parish. The latter person, too—the man who resided in a thinly-populated district,—would be completely at the mercy of six or eight of his neighbours. This inequality in the Bill was a very severe grievance. There was another strong objection in the necessity of annual renewal imposed by the Bill, if six 10l. householders thought it "requisite." This was very vague. Now, he was one opposed to all descriptions of intoxicating liquor, wine, beer, or spirits; and, in his opinion, fermented liquors were by no means requisite; but still he would not think of preventing the opening of shops for the sale of them. The noble Lord (Lord Howick) proposed to vest the power in the parish vestry; but this was exactly the same as the 10l. householder proposition, as they were one and the same class. Let some measure be brought forward for subjecting this class of houses to a better system of police, and it would be found the best remedy for the evil. This would be a more useful mode than a return to the old licensing system. It was bad policy to press upon the beer-shops. It was but running down the small game, whilst the crying disgrace, the great and leading evil, of the gin-shops, where that destructive and nauseous poison was administered, remained untouched; and which were not only opened every day in the week, but also profaned the Sabbath with their unholy orgies.

thought it would be a far better mode to revive the old system, with more stringent severity, at the same time investing Magistrates with enlarged powers. He agreed, that it would be an extreme hardship to those who invested their property in business, relying on the former Act, if the present Bill were allowed to pass. Many interests, which had grown up under the Act now in operation would be severely affected; and he remembered the same argument having been urged when the existing Act was under consideration. Legislation should rather be directed to the public-houses than the beer-shops. [The hon. and gallant Gentleman here read a table, showing a great increase of the former as compared with the latter.] He protested against these so frequent alterations of the law; being of opinion, that bad laws fixed would be even better than these continual changes. The evil would, if means were adopted to improve the condition of the people, remedy itself. He remembered a regiment, which had been stationed for some time in the North of France, the soldiers of which, on being removed lower down to the wine-countries, were drunk every day. This continued for a month; but when the novelty wore away, the practice ceased. The practice of getting drunk was, at one period, not confined to the lower classes; and some gentlemen might remember the time when they thought it something to drink three bottles of wine, The labourer now thought there was some distinction in consuming a quantity; but it was to be hoped a better tone of society would succeed.

was very much surprised to hear it asserted, as it had been in the course of the debate, that beer-shops had not increased to near the extent alleged. It so occurred, that he held in his hand a petition, which originated at a public meeting held in Liverpool, over which a gentleman intimately acquainted with the working of the Beer-laws had presided. At that meeting, almost all the speakers bore testimony to the fact, not only that beer-shops had increased to a frightful extent, but that the consequence of such increase was highly detrimental to the labouring classes of the community; and a very general wish was expressed, that the Legislature would at once interfere to abate the nuisance. As the subject had been already sufficiently debated, he would not take up the time of the House longer than to say, that he gave his most cordial support to the Bill. In some few respects modifications might be expedient; but still, seeing, as he did, in the measure the elements of the greatest improvement, he thought he was justified, not only in giving it his own support, but in calling on the House—if they entertained any respect for morality—if they entertained any respect for the good of the people—to pass it through the second reading, and give an opportunity for any alterations which might be requisite in Committee.

spoke as follows:—Sir, if this were a question between the monopoly of the brewers and a free trade in beer, I should not hesitate to give my entire support to the latter. If it were a question between the sale of ardent spirits and the consumption of malt liquor, I should also give the preference to the last, as being the least noxious of the two. But it is a question between public convenience and public morality; and I cannot, therefore, for a moment hesitate as to which I should give my support. The hon. member for Reading (Mr. Palmer) eulogized the present system of multiplied beer shops, by saying, that they afforded, in their warm fires and pleasant beverage, a great, comfort and relief to the labouring man; that was his description of their benefits. Sir, I heard this with as much pain as surprise, for it indicates a low tone of morality indeed, and a lamentable degree of selfishness in the labouring population of England, if their enjoyments are made to consist mainly in a comfort and relief of which they alone are the partakers, and of which their wives and families do not participate in the slightest degree. Nay, not only do they not participate in the supposed pleasure, but they are greatly injured by it; first, by the absence of the husband and father from his natural home, and next, by the expenditure of that which would make the home a scene of comfort to all, in the wasteful and useless dissipation of the beer house. If there were no other argument than this against the present system—that it drew husbands away from their wives, and fathers from their children, and made their homes comfortless by an expenditure of what belonged to all for the selfish enjoyment of one only among the number, I should deem this conclusive, and should, therefore, hail any measure which had a tendency to correct so great an evil. The advocates of the present system, who defended it on the ground of its affording increased comforts to the poor, ought, I think, to have shown, first, that the beer now supplied for their use was either better in quality, or cheaper in price, than that furnished by the larger public houses before these smaller beer-shops were established. They have not even attempted it, and if they had, they would have failed; for it is notorious, that it is the same great brewers generally who furnish the beer, as no small brewers can successfully compete with them, from the vast advantage which large capital affords to that process; and that the quality is not improved, or the price diminished in the slightest degree. To he sure the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), was facetious enough in his endeavour to show that the two complaints made against the beer-shops—first, that the beer was bad in quality, and, secondly, that men got drunk upon it, were incompatible with each other, and could not both be true. But with all deference to the much greater experience of that hon. Gentleman, I must say, that I can readily believe them both. It is by no means necessary that an intoxicating drink should be good to ensure its consumption in large quantities; and many hon. Members who hear me, will, no doubt, readily admit, that the very worst wines find ample consumers; and that they often produce intoxication in a greater degree than wines of a better quality. Indeed my own experience would induce me to say, that they who are most choice in the excellent quality of their wines, are generally most temperate in the use of them; while, to the hard drinker, nothing that is strong, fiery, and intoxicating, comes amiss. The beer may, therefore, be very bad; and yet there may be great tippling and much intoxication from it, nevertheless. I was somewhat amused by the sensation of surprise created by the observation of the hon. Baronet, one of the members for Yorkshire (Sir George Strickland), when he asserted, that he did not think fermented drinks of any kind at all necessary for health or comfort. It was a bold assertion, no doubt, to make in a country where beer seems to be held as one of the indispensable necessaries of life, where even the domestic servants seem to think that if the beer-barrel is exhausted, nature cannot be sustained, unless it be speedily replenished. But it has been my lot to reside for many years in countries where millions of people exist who neither use, nor are even acquainted with the existence of any fermented drinks whatever; yet, who for personal beauty, vigour, strength, health, and activity, far surpass the drunken portion of the population of our own country. But the present Bill does not go to deprive any man of the use of beer as a beverage if he wishes to have it. It merely seeks to prevent those congregational meetings for the mere purpose of drinking to excess, which the multiplication of these beer-shops has so much increased. If beer be really a necessary of life, and is so deemed by the labourer, he will surely account it no hardship to be obliged to send for it as for any other article of domestic consumption, and take it home to his own fire-side, where the presence of his wife and his children may add to his enjoyment. If he will not take this trouble, but values it only when drunk away from his home, then it is not a necessary of life to him, nor ought it to be deemed a hardship to place it under the restrictions proposed. Great stress has been laid by the hon. Baronet before alluded to (Sir George Strickland), on the destruction of property which this Bill will create; and, it is said, that after having three years ago encouraged the establishment, of these beer-houses, it is too much to turn round so soon upon the parties, and annihilate the property thus embarked. But surely this is altogether a groundless apprehension. The property embarked is not to be touched; the sale of beer need not, indeed, be at all diminished, as far as its useful and wholesome consumption is concerned, for to all by whom it is sufficiently valued to be worth the taking to their own houses to drink, it will still be as accessible as ever. But if, by its consumption on the premises, drunkenness is encouraged, and vices of various other kinds promoted (and it is well known, that these beer-shops in remote districts are the nests of immorality in many shapes)—if the peace of society, the happiness of families, and the morals of the rising generation be destroyed, it is attaching much too high importance to the rights of property to set these up in opposition to their reform. When the law, permitting these beer-shops to be established, was first passed, it was done under the hope that good, and not evil, would be the result, and under the tacit and implied condition annexed to the passing of every law, "that it shall endure as long as public opinion shall approve, and as it may be found to be not incompatible with the public weal." But the moment that a greater mass of evil consequences are proved to result from the continuance of a law, than of good, from that moment it becomes the duty of the Legislature to apply a remedy to the evil; and even if some sacrifices of property were involved in the change, (and it is difficult to imagine any improvement to be made by change in the law, which must not involve some such sacrifices), the great and paramount interests of the health, the peace, and the morality of a nation, all of which are invaded by the present system, are of much higher moment even than the rights of property, though I think the one may be preserved without any essential violation of the other. One hon. Gentleman, indeed, the member for Boston (Major Handley), has so strong an objection to change, that he thinks, even bad laws when fixed are better than good ones liable to perpetual mutation; but though change without improvement is undoubtedly an evil, and though the rights of property ought to be respected, yet, believing that the changes proposed by this Bill will be a great improvement on the one it seeks to supersede,—believing that the rights of property will not be violated, and that public morality will be greatly promoted by its passing into a law,—I shall give my hearty and cordial support to its passing into a law.

thought the proposed measure would, with some modifications, especially as to the licensing system, be a beneficial one. Many crimes had arisen from these beer-shops. The only incendiary fire that had taken place in the eastern division of the county of Sussex last year, or indeed, for three years past, sprung from one of these beer-shops, the criminal being the son of the woman who kept it.

was quite ready to give his support to the measure introduced by his hon. Colleague, to whom the House and the country were, in his opinion, much indebted for bringing the subject under consideration. He would not say, that it might not be possible to improve the Bill in Committee; but, as far as its principle went—and with its principle alone the House had now to deal—he thought it would prove a very advantageous and important alteration in the existing system. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Sheffield (Mr. Buckingham) that the morality of the nation should be considered of paramount interest to the rights of individual property; but rather than allow any obstacle to interfere in the passing of the present or some similar measure, he would be ready to vote for a grant of public money to remunerate those parties whose property was likely to be affected by its enactment.

wished shortly to state the grounds on which he felt most anxious that the second reading of the Bill should take place. It had been his fate to take part in the discussion of the Bill, to amend which that under consideration was introduced, as also to have been a member of the Select Committee of last year, and from the acquaintance which those chance circumstances had given him as regarded the bearings of the Bill then in force, he did not hesitate to say, that its evils were mainly attributable to a want of sufficient attention on the part of the Magistracy to its clauses. He was however, bound in candour to say, that the impression left on his mind by the evidence taken before the Committee of last year was, that the powers vested in the Magistrates were not accompanied by those means of carrying them into operation which alone could render them effective. The principal of those means was an efficient police, without which it must be evident nothing could be done. In large towns the particular want to which he alluded was not so much felt, but in many of the agricultural parishes it had operated in a way to preclude almost altogether the success of the Bill. It appeared, by the Report of the Committee, that in those agricultural parishes the Magistrates, however desirous to execute the powers confided in them by the Bill, invariably failed, from the inability to procure that voluntary evidence which a system of police could alone secure. That being the case, it appeared to him most desirable that in those parishes where there existed no efficient police, more strictness should be exercised in the selection of persons to keep beer-houses. As far, therefore, as the principle of the measure was concerned, he was altogether favourable to it, and thought the hon. Baronet who introduced it was well deserving the best thanks of that House. With regard to the details of the Bill he thought it might be possible to suggest some alterations. He was of opinion, for instance, that it would be advisable to render a certificate for a Beer-shop where beer was not drunk on the premises unnecessary. He would not, however, enter upon the details of the present Bill in the present stage, and would conclude by simply repeating his intention of giving it his support, and expressing his hope, that it might be allowed to pass through the second reading.

thought, that the Beer Bill had done more to demoralise and disorganise the people of this country than any other measure with which he was acquainted. They had been told, that the establishment of the beer-shops would break up the monopolies of the great brewers, and at the same time, give to the working labourer cheap and good beer. What, however, was the result of that Bill? It had completely disappointed those who introduced it. Home brewing was scarcely found to exist, and, instead of breaking up the brewers monopolies, the beer-shops found their way into the possession of those brewers. Those beer-shops held out to the labouring man an inducement to spend his time and money in the worst of company, to the serious injury of his wife and family, and frequently led him to the commission of the most heinous crimes. He had heard those opinions expressed not only by Magistrates, but by farmers and other persons more immediately connected with the labouring population. That the evil existed there could be no doubt, and he saw no remedy for it but that of preventing beer being drunk upon the premises where it was sold. If this regulation were established, and properly enforced, he cared not whether they reduced the license to 10s. or removed it altogether. It should he remembered that when the Beer Bill was first introduced, this regulation was strongly recommended, and it was to a departure from that recommendation that the greater part of the evils which had arisen out of the Bill were to be attributed.

would willingly support the second reading of this Bill, but he thought that it required some modifications; these, however, would more properly come under discussion in the Committee. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had also been a member of the Committee alluded to by the noble Lord (Lord Somerset) opposite, who had, with so much candour admitted, that the measure had failed in its object. But it was the opinion of the Committee and of the Government at the time, that there ought to be no restrictions, and that the watchfulness of the police would restrain anything like impropriety. He supported that measure with the hope that it would succeed, but found by experience that he had been mistaken. This being the case, he was ready to take into consideration the measure proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Knatchbull). He agreed with him in thinking, that a certificate might be necessary; but whilst he assented to this, he would not have the power of granting it so placed as to render it in many cases inaccessible. It was proposed by his noble friend (Lord Howick), that the vestry should have the power of taking away the license upon a proper representation by a number of parishioners. He was ready to coincide with the recommendation of his noble friend, although he thought that the powers already vested in the Magistrate to take away the license were sufficient, if they were enforced, but unfortunately they were not. A great many obstacles presented themselves to prevent their being carried into execution. First, there was the difficulty of obtaining evidence, then there was the necessity of search on the part of an officer; but certainly the first and greatest difficulty was that of being able to procure evidence of any alleged disorder. This of itself was sufficient to render some other mode of proceeding necessary. He had not been much in the country since the Beer Bill was passed into a law; but while he was there, he heard complaints made against these beer-shops by Magistrates, farmers, and other persons connected with agriculture, all of whom were anxious some parliamentary remedy should be applied. He himself felt the necessity of some remedy, and he was glad the hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill had taken the matter in hand, as there could be no doubt that, from his knowledge, ability, and experience, he would render the measure effective, He admitted, that the question was one which ought to have been taken up by Ministers; but it was so surrounded with difficulties, that they could not easily make up their minds respecting it. He repeated, therefore, that he was glad the measure had fallen into such good hands, and he was perfectly ready to give him every assistance in his power.

was glad to hear the noble Lord opposite agree to the second reading, and he hoped, that by the removal of some little objectionable points in Committee, it would be rendered effective. He thought, that if it was required that no houses should be licensed as beer-shops which did not pay a rent of 20l. a-year or upwards, or that they were to raise the license from three guineas to five or seven guineas a-year, it would be the means of preventing the opening of beer-shops by persons of bad character in low and obscure situations. He agreed with those hon. Members who thought, that some change in the law was imperatively necessary, and he should, therefore, support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that as far as he could see, the same difficulty would exist in obtaining the information necessary to remove a license under the proposed Bill as at present; and how that difficulty was to be met the hon. Baronet had not explained. The Bill made it necessary to produce a certificate, signed by six householders, to obtain a license to sell beer; but what was to prevent six persons from combining to obtain such license for their own benefit? Besides, there were many agricultural parishes in which there were not more than six 10l. householders, and in some not so many. There was one suggestion which he wished to throw out to hon. Members in considering this question. There was a strong feeling abroad, that in legislating for the poor, the Members of that House were not actuated by very liberal feelings. He wished, that this feeling might be permitted to cool down, and not be continually fanned into a flame by new enactments. One of the grounds assigned for bringing in this Bill was an assertion, that since the present law had existed, there had been an increase of crime; but if this were the case, he denied, that there had been any proof of a connection between this increase and the establishment of beer-shops. A coincidence of events was not always cause and effect, for they very often had no reference whatever to each other. Crimes were not produced by beer-houses or by any localities, for if men were bent upon crimes, and could hot congregate in beer-shops, they would even congregate in churches or churchyards rather than be deterred from their purpose. It was not the House that made the crime, for criminals could and would concoct their crimes, if deprived of all such plaices of resort. When beer-houses had been put under control or surveillance, crime had not been found to diminish. If they passed this Bill, they ought to place licensed victualler's houses under the same restraints and on the same footing with the beer-shops. But this they would not do. The licensed victuallers were, generally speaking, rich men, and their property was held sacred; but the poor beer-shop man must be made to suffer, because he was unable to protect himself. The poor man, then, would have a right to turn upon the Legislature and say, "You have passed by the faults of the rich than because he is rich, and you turn upon me, the poor man, and punish roe because I am poor."

said, that if they were not in that measure legislating for the poor man, then they were not discharging their duty. It was unfortunately the case, that the poorer classes of society were more addicted to drinking beer than any other class of the community, and they ought to be hindered from indulging in that wretched propensity. When Gentlemen talked of beer-shops being popular in the country, and amongst the labouring population, he denied the fact; and if inquiry were to be made amongst the honest industrious class of labourers, nine out of ten, if not a greater number, would be found opposed to, and complaining of them. The House had seen that evening a petition from 220 women praying the abolition of these beer-shops, in order that their husbands might spend their evenings with them and their families. It had been complained, that the beer-shops had run to disorder, because the Magistrates did not do their duty. But if they had done their duty according to the opinions of those who found fault with them; if they had directed the police and constables to pry into every corner, and to take up every irregularity on the part of the beer-shops, what, then, would be the out- cry? Would it not be said, that they had acted with undue severity; that they oppressed the poorer classes, and deprived them of good and cheap beer? This would be the outcry of those who styled themselves the exclusive friends of the poor. The evils of these shops had now attained to such a height, as was proved by the concurrent testimony of almost all parties and persons, that the House was bound to inquire into and abate the nuisance. He thought it would be advisable not to touch the cities or large towns, as there the evil must be quite trifling. There might perhaps be some difficulty in deciding which were large towns and which were not; but this difficulty would be easily got over. Certainly there was no restriction which he should be unwilling to place upon beer-houses in low obscure situations, where they only became brothels and gambling houses. He would have the dealers in beer allowed to sell that article as persons retailed soap and candles, and other articles, as they did at present. By preventing the consumption of beer on the premises, they would force the working man to go home and share with his family that portion of his earnings which was their right. He certainly would vote for the second reading of the Bill.

observed, that the Beer Bill had been passed for two objects, both of which had failed—the one was, to get rid of the monopoly of the brewers, which had entirely failed, for the whole of the trade and the beer-shops had fallen into the hands of the brewers; the other was, to provide cheap beer for the families of labourers, which had equally failed, for very few of the families of labourers got any beer at all. He concurred with his hon. friend in the necessity of adopting some legislative measure to protect the poor man against himself.

observed, that the hon. member for Bath seemed to think, that the drunkenness of the poor did not lead to crime. A crime itself, it produced every other description of crime. He was desirous to revert to that which had been originally intended—namely, that no beer should be drunk on the premises where it was sold; and if no one else proposed that, he would, in the Committee, move a clause to that effect. He was sorry to see that Englishmen had a great tendency to drunkenness. They were not only great beer-drinkers, but what was much worse, great drinkers of spirits. Unless this pernicious inclination could be checked, he was sure that any measures which might be devised for the amelioration of the condition of the poorer classes would be entirely fruitless.

observed, that by the report of the Committee of last year, it appeared that the advantages of beer-shops in towns had prevailed over the disadvantages; but that, in the country districts, they had been productive of much mischief. As to the question, whether incendiaries had gone out on their work of destruction from the beer-houses or not, he thought it was foreign to the discussion. The evils lay deeper. Much of them might be traced to the degrading effect of the Poor-laws, as they were at present administered. They made men idle, and, through idleness and a loss of all self-respect, they became sullen desperadoes, to whom the preserves which many Gentlemen kept on the road-side afforded temptations too great to be always resisted; but when he said this, he was not insensible to the effects of the beer-houses, particularly in country districts. There was no doubt, that drunkenness had increased in towns and manufacturing districts, but this was not owing to the beer-houses, but rather to the great multiplication of gin-vaults, and to the temptations held out for the consumption of spirits. Much of this was to be attributed to the practice of paying wages late on Saturdays. People went to market late on the Saturday night; and while the beer-houses were closed at ten, the public-houses and spirit-shops were continued open to a late hour. They were filled by those who indulged in the use of poisonous liquors, compared with which the article sold in the beer-shops was good and wholesome. They drank this poison late at night, and remained the whole of the Sunday in a state of stupid bestiality. He thought it would be a good plan to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of last year, that all houses open for the sale of fermented liquors should be placed under similar regulations.

in reply, said, that he was glad of the concurrence of the noble Lord (Althorp) in his Motion, which would ensure him the support of Government. If the Government had intended to take the subject up, he would not have brought forward any measure relating to it. He did hope, that the House would concur in the Motion, and give an opportunity of considering the question in the Committee. After adverting to the Magistrates in the county of Kent, the only Magistrates whose duties he knew much of, and defending their conduct from the attacks of the hon. member for Reading (Mr. F. Palmer), as he was sure that those Magistrates had righteously done their duty, the hon. Baronet said, that all agreed that some legislative interference was necessary. He did not pretend to say, that his Bill would accomplish all which might be done on the subject. He had received suggestions from several quarters to which, as well as to any that might be made in the Committee, he was disposed to give the fullest consideration. One thing he would beg to say, that nothing could have induced him to bring forward any measure on this subject, if he did not think that it would be for the benefit of the poor.

rose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice on the subject of the claims of certain British subjects on Denmark. An embargo was laid on all ships in British ports in 1807, and, among them, there were Danish vessels to the number of 320. This embargo was continued till after the bombardment of Copenhagen. The ships were afterwards adjudged prizes of war, and were sold; and the proceeds, to the amount of 1,200,000l., were received by Government as Droits of Admiralty. Soon after this, a decree was passed confiscating all British property in Denmark, and directing, that all Danish subjects indebted to British subjects should pay the amount of those debts into the Exchequer at Copenhagen. It was for compensation for the losses sustained by the British merchants in that way that he now, at this distance of time, applied. A committee of British merchants had been appointed to urge the case of the claimants, and some correspondence had taken place between them and the Treasury. He did not say, that any direct promise of compensation was made, but certainly hopes were held out, that the case of the claimants would be duly considered. The subject was put off till after the peace, and the claimants waited till 1814. In the treaty of Vienna, a clause was introduced, that all property which had been sequestered but not confiscated, should be restored; but the property of the British merchants having debts due to them from those of Denmark, was confiscated by the decree of the king of Denmark to which he had referred. The debts were paid into the Danish Exchequer; and such was the depreciation of the currency that the Danish merchants got an acquittal of their debts on payment of two per cent on their actual amount into the Danish Exchequer—a fact, which could scarcely be credited, if it did not rest on unquestionable authority. This was a practice almost unheard of amongst civilized states; and that it was not considered legal was proved by the fact, that when an action was subsequently brought in the Court of King's Bench by a British against a Danish merchant, for the amount of a debt due to him from the latter, the Danish merchant pleaded that he had already got an acquittal from the debt by a payment into the Danish Exchequer; Lord Ellenborough would not admit the plea, and held, that the whole thing was illegal, as against international law. Now, having shown that the British Government had got ample funds by the sale of the Danish ships to satisfy all the claims of British merchants, he was bound to show, that the British claimants had not committed any laches, as the lawyers called it—that they had not abandoned their claim. He would show, that they had not. In the year 1817, Lord Bexley, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, came down to the House with the King's assent to a petition for compensation; but when he was asked when he would proceed upon it, he replied, that he could not proceed upon it immediately. Some negotiations then took place upon the subject, and Mr. Canning thought that he could do something for the petitioners. Mr. Shilleto had afterwards made exertions, but without success, to obtain compensation for the petitioners. Subsequently, Sir James Mackintosh had been intrusted with the task of laying the case of the petitioners before the House. On every opportunity, therefore, the claimants had enforced their rights; and if hon. Gentlemen would only read the excellent speech which that great and good man then made, they would see how difficult it would be for them, if they regarded the principles of justice, to resist making some compensation to the petitioners. Expensive as such a proposition might appear to be, the conviction of its justice had even extorted an assent to it from that great economist, the hon. member for Middlesex; for the hon. Member had distinctly declared his opinion to be this—that if there was no other way of making compensation to the petitioners, the House was itself bound to pay the money. He was sure, that if the House would only consent to investigate the case of the petitioners, it would be not only able, but also willing, to give them that compensation to which a committee, if a committee were appointed, should deem them entitled, on a fair consideration of all the circumstances under which their property had been confiscated. The hon. Member concluded, by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the claims of certain British subjects to compensation for the book-debts due to them from Danish subjects confiscated by the Danish Government in 1807, and to report their opinion thereon to the House.

seconded the Motion, having been intrusted by parties with a petition on the subject, whose claims amounted to not less than 60,000l.

said, that he did not intend to dispute the facts which the hon. Member had stated in his speech; all that he intended to do was, to show that it was not the duty of his Majesty's Government to agree to the proposition which the hon. Member had brought forward. He fully admitted, that, at the treaty of Kiel, due attention had not been paid to the just claims of these petitioners for compensation; and that, as the Crown had obtained large Droits of Admiralty by the very act which had led to the confiscation of the property of these petitioners, it was out of those Droits that they ought to have been compensated. It ought, however, to be recollected, that since the accession of his present Majesty, the Droits of Admiralty had been applied in a different way from that in which they were applied in 1814; and the claim of the petitioners was not now on the Droits of Admiralty as against the Crown, but on the people of England, who had not received the benefit of a farthing from those Droits. Looking at the question in this point of view, and seeing that none of the many Administrations to whom this application had been made, had acceded to it, and considering that the money to liquidate these claims was not now forthcoming, he could not consent, upon his own responsibility, to tax the people of England for the object which the hon. Member had at present in view. It was for the House to decide, whether it would or would not adopt the proposition of the hon. Member. He felt the hardship to which the claimants were exposed; he admitted the justice of their claims; but he could not, on that account, as a Minister of the Crown, consent to charge upon the people of England a claim for which they were in no respect liable.

said, it was clear, that British subjects had been robbed by the government of a foreign country, because our Government had plundered its subjects. He considered it, therefore, the duty of the Government to see that these sufferers should obtain compensation. He should, therefore, support the Motion.

was glad to perceive, that his noble friend (Lord Althorp) admitted the justice of the claims; and there was, therefore, in his opinion, no alternative. The House was bound to grant a Committee.

was of the same opinion as the noble Lord (Morpeth). He had known an opulent man reduced to beggary by this unjust confiscation.

had several constituents interested in the question, and he, therefore, would support the Motion.

thought it very wrong to leave British subjects, whose claims ought to have been protected, without any compensation for a loss which they had sustained, owing to an act of our own Government, which had enabled the Crown to appropriate to itself, as Droits of Admiralty, a sum of money amounting to more than ten times the value of that property which the Danish Government had confiscated.

said, that after such an unanimous expression of the feelings of the House, it would be inconsistent with his duty to let it waste more of the public time in the discussion of this subject. The Government would be ready to take measures for the payment of the sums claimed as due to these petitioners. He suggested to the hon. Member, therefore, the propriety of withdrawing his Motion for a Committee, in order to allow the Government to consider what it ought to do. He had always felt it impossible to resist the justice of the claims of the petitioners, and he had great satisfaction in acceding to the suggestions of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

rose to bring forward a Motion which referred to the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery. The evils of that court, long as they had been complained of, still continued to exist. The measures which had been taken to remedy them had failed. The great delay, and the great expense in its processes, still continued. There was delay in the setting down of the cause; there was delay in the master's office; and there was delay in the course of hearing. The machinery of the court was imperfect, and therefore the whole system went wrong. His object was, to discover a remedy for it, and, by so doing, to benefit the suitors of the Court in which he had the honour to practise. Why should he introduce any comparison between the present Lord Chancellor and his predecessors? How should he better his case by showing that the present Lord Chancellor had heard more appeals than Lord Eldon, and that Lord Eldon had heard more original causes and bankrupt petitions than the present Lord Chancellor? Such a statement would only show that evils prevailed; indeed, they were of very long standing and continuance; they had been complained of in the reign of Henry 8th; they continued to the present times, and were complained of now. They had baffled the skill and penetration of Lord Keeper Cromwell; and he was afraid, that they would baffle the skill and penetration of Lord Brougham. The Legislature had interfered in the year 1813, and to remedy the evils so long complained of, had appointed a Vice-Chancellor. If there were any necessity for the appointment of any additional Judge at that time in Chancery, there was the same necessity existing at present. The amount of causes in arrear, in the Court of Chancery in 1814, was 214; at the commencement of the present term it was 308. After the passing of the Vice Chancellor's Bill, Lord Chancellor Eldon ceased to hear original causes; so, too, had the present Lord Chancellor. The amount of arrears in the House of Lords of English and Irish appeals and causes, was nearly as great now as it was in 1815. Then it was 57: now it was 49. The arrear of Appeals in the House of Lords was now nearly as great as in 1813, the diminution being only two. There was no arrear of business at present in the Rolls' Court. If it were asked how it happened that there was so great an arrear in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and not in the Rolls, he replied, that the Master of the Rolls did not hear motions or pleas, on demurrers, but the Vice-Chancellor was burthened with business of that kind, consequently it could not be expected that the latter should be able to keep so clear of arrears. The Lord Chancellor had heard 230 appeals since he came into office. In one year, 1831–2, he disposed of 119, but, in 1832–3, he heard only 34; it being impossible to continue the exertions which he made in the former year. The number of appeals that stood for decision when the noble and learned Lord came into office, was 101; but he had reduced the arrear to something under fifty. The arrear of English and Irish appeals was of long standing, for the House of Lords was now only hearing appeals that had been set down four or five years ago. The learned Gentleman proceeded to instance various appeals which had remained unheard for periods varying from three to five years. Among other cases, he mentioned that of "The King, v. Roe." Mr. Roe was found guilty on an indictment,—he moved an arrest of judgment, and obtained a writ of error. He was imprisoned pending that proceeding, for a space of three or four years. Such a case of hardship could not have occurred if the cause had been heard within a reasonable time. A great mistake had been committed in 1813, when, instead of appointing a Vice-Chancellor, as was then done, Parliament should have erected an effective Court of Appeal. The professed object of creating the Vice Chancellor's Court, was to enable the Lord Chancellor to sit in the House of Lords, but the measure had a contrary effect, and kept the Chancellor in his own Court, to hear appeals from the Vice-Chancellor's decisions. Besides, parties were enabled to bring on their causes by motions in the Court of Chancery. By both these operations, the Lord Chancellor was detained in the Court of Chancery instead of being able to hear appeals in the Lords. In 1824, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject of the Court of Chancery, but it was limited in its inquiries, which only extended to the consideration of what part of the Chancellor's jurisdiction could be taken from him with advantage, and what alterations could be made in the Court. A report was made, and Lord Lyndhurst, who was then Attorney-General, brought in a Bill founded upon it, with a view to carry into effect the proposed improvements; but the measure was not proceeded with. When Lord Lyndhurst received the seals, he effected the object of the Bill by orders framed for that purpose, and the result was, to expedite the hearing of causes. But Lord Lyndhurst fell into the error of his predecessors, and, instead of endeavouring to create an effective Court of Appeal, he endeavoured to increase the existing powers of the Court of Chancery. To effect this object, he brought in a Bill which passed the House of Lords, but went no further than a second reading in the Commons. Next year a similar Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Sir E. Sugden, and read a second time, when it was opposed by the present Lord Chancellor, and some gentlemen who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House. The ground of opposition was, that further inquiry ought to precede legislation, and the result was, that the Bill was lost. Lord Brougham succeeded to the seals in Michaelmas term, 1829, and the expectations of the profession and the public were raised to a high pitch with respect to Chancery reform. The noble and learned Lord did not fall into the error of his predecessors as to the appointment of an additional Judge, but he committed the error of constituting a new court for the superintendence of cases of bankruptcy; being persuaded that the great panacea for all the evils complained of, consisted in the separation of the bankruptcy jurisdiction from the duties of the Chancellor. Acting upon this impression, Lord Brougham brought in a Bill, which passed the House of Lords, and came down to the Commons during the excitement of the Reform Bill; by that measure, which finally passed into a law, the Court of Review was created. He did not hesitate to say, that that Court had altogether failed to accomplish the objects for which it was intended. The public had no confidence in the Court, and, consequently, it was without business. The want of business, however, was partly owing to the better footing on which commissioners of bankrupts were put. Nothing could work better, and the improvement was entirely attributable to the present Chancellor. The subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House, related to the manner in which the arrear of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords could be best disposed of. If the Lord Chancellor devoted his time to hearing appeals in the House of Lords, he must neglect the business of the Court of Chancery; and, vice versâ, it would take the noble and learned Lord 100 days to get rid of the Lords' appeals. The only practicable remedy for the inconvenience consisted in separating the duties of the Lord Chancellor sitting in the House of Lords, from the other duties of the office, which were to be discharged in the Court of Chancery. He might be told, that he was infringing the prerogative of the Crown in making such a proposition; but he denied, that the proposed change interfered with that prerogative. All that was intended was, that the Crown should not assign to a person duties which no man could perform. The Crown's prerogative would remain untouched: in the event of his plan being adopted, his Majesty might still raise the humblest individual in the profession to the office of Chancellor,—the only difference being, that, the Chancellor would then have an opportunity of discharging his duties, which was not now possible. To talk of the House of Lords as being a satisfactory Court of Appeal, was a mockery; the system pursued there produced delay, expense, and dissatisfaction. With respect to English appeals, the House of Lords was a Court of Appeal from the Lord Chancellor, sitting in his chair in the Court of Chancery, to the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack in the House of Lords. As regarded Irish appeals, the case was not much better: causes could not be proceeded with in the absence of the Irish Chancellor, who could only give his attendance at the expense of the suitors in his own Court. Scotch appeals were to be made before an individual who probably did not understand a syllable of Scotch law, and would require to have a dictionary by his side to enable him to understand the legal terms made use of. From August to March, not a single appeal could be heard in the Lords. If the Chancellor gave up his time to the Lords' appeals, the business of the Court of Chancery would be neglected; if, on the other hand, he confined himself to his own Court, arrears would accumulate in the House of Lords, and next year Scotch appeals of two years' standing, and English and Irish of five and six, would remain to be decided on. He asked the House to separate the inconsistent functions of the Lord Chancellor. Let the Chancellor sit in the House of Lords as in a Court of Appeal, but let him not sit there alone—let him be attended by four of the best lawyers that could be found—an equity lawyer, a common law lawyer, a Scotch lawyer, and a civil law lawyer, and let appeals be brought before that Court from England, Ireland, Scotland, and the colonies. It would be said, he was making more Judges—very true; but he was willing to abolish the Court of Review, and that inconvenient Court the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which, while it professed to be a Court of Appeal, was at the same time a Court of original Jurisdiction. He would have the Chancellor to sit in the House of Lords accompanied by those four Judges, and to sit, not at intervals, but during the whole judicial year; he would have a distinct Bar for the Lords, and would suggest, that the costs of appeals should be placed on a different footing from the present. With respect to the Court of Chancery, look at those periods when the Great Seal was placed in Commission, and it would be seen that the business of the Court had never been more efficiently done than at such times. He contended that the public money would not be ill-bestowed in paying four Judges of Appeal, and relieving the Lord Chancellor altogether from the duties assigned to him in the Court of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor had now to sit as Chief Judge of Equity in his own Court—he was obliged to attend the Privy Council—to be present at Cabinet meetings—to consider the Recorder's Reports—to look over various documents specially on the part of the Crown—to sit in the House of Lords on Appeals, and to act as Speaker of that House. Was it possible for any human being to perform all those duties satisfactorily? He thought not, and would, therefore, separate the functions of the Chancellor which were to be executed in the Court of Chancery from the duties assigned to him as Speaker and Judge of Appeals in the Lords. It might be necessary to consider whether or not there ought to be an intermediate Court of Appeal, and whether the Court should consist of one Judge or of more than one. He objected to such a Court being composed of the Judges of other Courts, and thought that an intermediate Court of Appeal ought to have distinct and separate Judges. But if the Committee should be of opinion that there was no necessity for such a Court, it might be well to consider whether the appointment of another Judge in the Court of Chancery would be necessary. He had stated the present arrear of business in the Court of Chancery, and referred to the exertions of the Vice-Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls to discharge the duties assigned to them. He proposed, that the bankruptcy business should be restored to the Court of Chancery, and on that ground it would be necessary to have another Judge in Chancery, but the Committee could consider that point. There was an immense delay in Chancery between the period when causes were ready for hearing and the actual hearing. In the Courts of Common Law, a man who commenced his action in Easter Term might obtain judgment in Trinity Term; but the interval between the commencement and conclusion of a cause in the Court of Chancery was infinitely greater. Some of the delay might be unavoidable from the construction of the Court and the nature of the proceedings, but much of it was capable of being remedied. He did not mean to say, that a waggon and a buggy could be got to move with equal speed; but when the waggon was once put in motion he wished it to proceed without unnecessary stoppages. The suspense, delay, and expense occasioned by the present system were excessive; bills of revivor and supplemental revivor were occasioned by the decease of parties during a protracted suit. He knew of a case in which there were twelve different bills of revivor and supplemental revivor; and by all these cir- cumstances the cost was greatly augmented. If the Parliament, however, with a view to expedite business separated the Chancery jurisdiction, they must confer increased power in order to effect that object, and appoint an additional Judge. Then, again, there was an immense quantity of litigation which arose from decrees not being taken down by the Registrar, but by Counsel, and he, therefore, should recommend, that the Judges should be required to deliver the minutes to the Registrars to be copied, in order to prevent disputes, and save time and money. Since by the Bill of last year, the Registrars and Clerks had been put upon fixed salaries, instead of being remunerated by fees, the principal inducement to labour was taken away, and the consequence was, that the business in the Registrar's Office was at one moment in a state of stagnation for a day or two, until an individual, to whose benevolent interference suitors were greatly indebted, came forward and took on himself the burthen of paying Stationers' Clerks, if necessary, in order that business might go on. The same objection applied to salarying the Masters in Chancery; no doubt those gentlemen would do their duty for the sake of their own characters, but their clerks would not make extraordinary exertions, and work eighteen or nineteen hours a-day as formerly, when they were remunerated for their labour by fees. Such a thing could not be expected, and the result would be less despatch and expedition in getting through business.

moved, that the House be counted, and only thirty-five Members being present, the House adjourned.