WOOD, Mr. LA BOUCHERE, and Mr. DIVETT, from several

Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.

HILL, from the Tea Dealers of Kingston-upon-Hull, for

Upton-upon-Severn, for Relieving Merchant Seamen

from the Payment of Sixpence to Greenwich Hospital. By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, and Messrs. ROPER, CALVERT, WILKS, and HILL, from a Number of Dissenting CongreMAXWELL, from Shotts, for being allowed to Elect their own Trustees and Managers of Roads; and from the Board of Trade, and for Relief.-By Major BEAUCLERK,

gations, for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Mr. JOHN

Hand-loom Weavers of Glasgow, and other Places, for a

and Mr. WYNNE ELLIS, from several Places,-for a Remission of the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.By Major BEAUCLERK, from St. Margaret's, Westminster,

for Inquiry into the State of the Sewers there.-By Mr. CUMMING BRUCE, from the Schoolmasters of Nairn, for

a larger Stipend; and from several Places, for the Con-
nexion between Church and State.-By Sir CHARLES

BURRELL, from several Places, for the Renewal of the
Labourers' Employment Act.-By Mr. O'BRIEN, from

Clare, against the Apothecaries Act.-By Mr. SANFORD,
from Taunton, for Remission of Taxation; and from
several Places, against the General Register Bill.-By Sir
W. FOLKES, Captain WINNINGTON, and Messrs. SAN-

FORD, HALFORD, and CHILDERS, from a Number of
Places,-in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill.

other Places, against any Alteration in the present System | assure the noble Marquess that the loud of Church Patronage in Scotland. By Mr. CHARLES and numerous complaints which had been Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. By made from different parts of the country Messrs. TYRELL, and LABOUCHERE, from several had not failed to occupy the serious attenBy Mr. GILLON, from Forfar, for an Alteration in the tion of the Government. His noble friend System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By Mr. T. (Lord Melbourne) had not hitherto been WALLACE, from several Places, against Tithes.-By Mr. able to determine on any effective measure the Repeal of the Tea-Duties Act.-By Mr. HALFORD, of relief for the evils complained of. A from Derby, and other Places, for Protection to the Bill had been introduced by a noble Lord Established Church.-By Captain WINNINGTON, from into the other House of Parliament which, in the opinion of many hon. Gentlemen would produce the desired effect. A notice of motion had also been given on the subject by the hon. member for Kent. It would be the anxious wish of the GoVernment to support, if possible, any measures which might be suggested, that were likely to remedy the injurious effects complained of, but in making that observation he must not disguise the opinion he entertained, and which opinion was also entertained by many other hon. Members, that the evils attributed to the operation of the Beer Act did not arise so much from the recent alteration which had taken place in the law with respect to the sale of beer, as from a variety of other causes. He believed it would be in vain to attempt to meet the evils by direct legislation. Those evils, in his opinion, had been produced by the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, particularly in the southern counties of England, rather than the operation of the Law for the Sale of Beer; and he thought the measure which had been introduced a few days ago by his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the amendment of the Poor-laws, was the remedy to which they must look forward. He could not help expressing a doubt whether the evils which had been attributed to the Beer Bill had not been greatly exaggerated. Drunkenness and profligacy had certainly much increased in the south of England during the last four years, but when he looked into the evidence which had been given before the Committee, and all the facts which had been brought under the notice of the public, it appeared to him difficult to understand in what manner the permission of the sale of beer could have been productive of such pernicious effects. The noble Lord referred to several passages in the evidence collected by the Poor-law Commissioners to show, that the mal-administration of the Poor-laws was the cause of the increase of crime complained of, and concluded by expressing a hope,

SALE OF BEER.] Sir Charles Burrell presented a Petition, signed by twentynine Magistrates of the county of Sussex, complaining of the evils produced by the operation of the Act for the Sale of Beer, and praying for its total repeal. He viewed the question as one of the greatest importance to the agricultural interest of the country, and expressed his regret that no Minister of the Crown was present to state the views of Government on the subject. The Beer-shops had proved a fruitful source of demoralization in the country, encouraging drunkenness, gambling, and all kinds of vice. They had put the county of Sussex to an expense of at least 8,000l. for additional places of confinement to criminals. Altogether the injurious effects of the Bill were very conspicuous and alarming, and he trusted an effectual remedy would be afforded by repealing the measure.

The Marquess of Chandos supported the prayer of the petition, and took the opportunity of asking the noble Lord (the Under Secretary of State) whether it was the intention of Government to take any steps with reference to the Sale of Beer Act--a measure, in his opinion, which would be productive of ruin to the country? Viscount Howick, in reply, begged to

that in the Motion of the hon. member for Kent, and in the Bill of the noble Lord, when it should be sent down from the other House of Parliament, would be found suggestions which would counteract the evils supposed to be produced by the working of the law relative to Beer.

Colonel Williams said, that the beershops had become essentially tipplinghouses; they afforded no entertainment to travellers; they sold nothing but beer, which the labourer might drink as long as he pleased, but could get nothing to eat. The Beer-act was the coup de grace which the last Administration had given this country. It was hardly possible to conceive the mischief which that law had done-mischief, which he was afraid they could never undo.

Mr. Wilks said, he had the greatest possible respect for those who objected to the measure in question, but, at the same time, he was afraid that much of that opposition arose from an anxiety on the part of the great brewers to get back a monopoly of beer, and he felt sure, that if there were one thing which the Magistracy ought to avoid more than another, it was the possession of those suspicious privileges which before gave rise to many unpleasant remarks which would be renewed if no means were adopted to prevent the monopoly of the brewers. He had learned from various parts of the country, that the majority of persons keeping beer-shops brewed their own beer, and that the con

Mr. Estcourt considered the subject was one of too much importance to be allowed to pass without making a few observations on it. He could not agree with the noble Lord, that the evils which existed were in consequence of the bad administration of the Poor-laws; the Poor-laws did not originate the mischiefs, for they had greatly augmented since the passing of the BeerAct. By the operation of that law, the labouring classes were led into bad associations, and many, who had been respectable, honest, and provident, were now dissolute and improvident. Having been many years a Magistrate, and seen much of the distress of the poor, he could state that he had repeated applications for advice by females, who stated that their husbands, who were formerly industrious, careful, and in the habit of bringing their wages home, were now in the habit of spending their money, and what wages they got, at the Beer-shops. He could assumption of malt had increased considersure the House, that the pictures of wretchedness and profligacy which were continually exhibited before the Magistrates were extreme, and were daily increasing. It had been stated, that one cause for passing the Beer-act was, that it would enable the labouring classes to get good and wholesome beverage at a cheap rate, without resorting to a public-house, where they would get intoxicating liquors; but it was a fact, that such was the monopoly by the brewers (the beer-shop-keepers selling only by Commission, and as servants) that for a line of twenty, thirty, and even forty miles in extent, the beer-shops belonged to the brewers; and the consequence was, that the liquor that was sold was not genuine, and was a very unwholesome article. It could not be compared to the liquor sold by the regularly licensed victuallers, who were a respectable body of men, and were greatly injured by the beer-shops. He had it from authority, that there never was a time when such a Major Beauclerk thought that the only vast number in that trade had become remedy upon the subject was, giving an bankrupts as since the passing of the Beer-opportunity to the poor man to brew his law. As to the difficulties which stood in own beer, and that would be by repealing in the way, he apprehended there were the Malt-duty. none that might not be easily removed,

ably. They might talk of the demoralization of the beer-shops, but when they walked about the streets of London, and saw on every hand erections like palaces, which were entirely supported in a lavish and gaudy expenditure on gin, at the expense of the happiness and morals of the people, where the evils of pauperism were perpetually augmenting, what were the beer-shops in comparison with these giant haunts of vice? The Government derived a revenue of many millions yearly from the consumption of ardent spirits. If, however, there were evils in the administration of the Beer-law, let them be corrected.

Mr. John Stanley regretted, that they must not expect any assistance from the Government on this subject. As there were many difficulties in the way of any alteration of this law, he, for one, would be willing to join any Member in proposing that it be entirely repealed.

Mr. Rotch could not allow the hon.

alterations in the present Beer Laws.
What he said was, that his noble friend
(Lord Melbourne) was not prepared him-
self to bring forward at present any mea-
sure for checking the abuses complained
of, but that he was ready to give his sup-
port to any proper alteration that would
not interfere with the principle of the Bill,
namely, that of open competition.
The Petition was laid on the Table.

member for Boston to state, that the I did. He had not stated, that his MajesMagistrates of the county were anxious to ty's Government intended resisting any have all the control they possibly could over the beer-shops. For himself he would say, that he hoped the day was not far distant when all control by the Magistrates, not only over the beer-shops, but the public-houses, would be taken out of their hands. It was his wish to promote the consumption of beer; he did not care how many bear-houses existed, but he most strongly objected to the beer being allowed to be consumed on the premises. He thought it the duty of Government to make an alteration in the Bill in that respect, and he hoped, if Ministers did not take the matter up, some hon. Member would.

REPEAL OF THE UNION-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] Mr. Spring Rice moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion respecting the Union with Ireland, and then proceeded to address the House as follows:*

Mr. Blackney was glad that his Majesty's Government were slow and cau- Though fully sensible that, upon no other tious in making any alteration in this occasion could any hon. Member have law. He considered the House most un- stood more in need of the kindness and profitably employed on the present dis-indulgence of the House than I do at cussion, and trusted that the good sense of Members would immediately put an end to it.

Mr. Hill could not agree with hon. Members who spoke against the Bill, as it appeared to him that there was nothing worse in legislation than legislating backward and forward upon a subject that bore so materially and vitally upon the habits of the people. It was not the sale of the Beer Act only; there were many causes that had produced the present state of the poor, among them the taking away of common rights, enclosing lands, stopping foot paths, and a variety of measures interfering with them in every way, so that they had no other resource for amusement, and dissipating idle thoughts, than tippling.

present, yet that conviction shall not induce me to trespass on their time, by any lengthened apology or prefatory observations for the purpose of bespeaking that indulgence. Sir, I feel deeply the responsibility which I have assumed in taking on myself the duty of replying to the speech of the learned Member; at the same time, it is a responsibility which, great as it is, I court rather than avoid; it is a responsibility connected with the performance of duty; and even though I should personally fail, I may receive some consolation and reward, from a consciousness that I have not shrunk from the performance of a duty equally arduous and important. The question which is now before us cannot--because it ought notbe met by a simple negative. We are bound to do more;-but before proceeding further, I have to express my regret-l wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not make any complaint-but I do express my regret, that the learned Member Colonel Evans was glad that the Go-who made this Motion is not now in his vernment did not intend to interfere with the provisions of this Bill, but rather to wait to see the effects of the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, now in progress through Parliament. As to the Poor-laws, he believed that they had been worse administered in the county from which the petition came than any other part of England, with one exception.

Mr. Goring said, that the proprietors of beer-houses were competing, one with the other, who should allow the greatest enormity of intemperance, and the greatest irregularity, in his house.

Lord Howick was anxious not to be understood as saying more than he really

place. It has been intimated to me, that his absence is occasioned by indisposition,

Reprinted from the corrected Edition, sold by Ridgway, with this motto:

In their embracement, as to grow together!
"May they cling
Which doing, what four throned ones can

outweigh

Such a compounded one?"

SHAKSPEARE.

and therefore I do not complain of that absence; but I refer to it for the purpose of stating at the outset, that whilst there is no question which I should have thought it necessary to agitate, and no observation which I should have made in his presence, which I shall not feel it my duty to agitate or to make in his absence--so also the learned Member and his friends may rest assured, that I shall not utter one single observation in his absence, which I should | not have been perfectly ready to make in his presence. It has only been from the necessity of making this statement, that I have noticed either the absence or the presence of that learned Member; because whatever may be his weight, whatever may be his authority-the weight and the authority of the individuals who take part in this discussion, on the one side or the other, sink to nothing when compared with the magnitude and importance of the question itself, and the national interests which that question embraces.

say, that from the discussion of the real question, he has thought it either his duty, or his policy, to shrink. But, Sir, he has kindly afforded us a commentary on his motives for substituting the one Motion for the other; since, in a written document, which he has given to the world, he has stated, that "there are many, very many men who would vote for a Committee of Inquiry, who would not vote for a Resolution or a Bill; and thus I have the usual parliamentary right, on such occasions to calculate on an increase of votes in support of my Motion." I trust, that even in this Parliament, which contains necessarily many Gentlemen, who may not have been long or deeply versed in the science which is called the science of Parliamentary Tactics-I trust that there is no one individual weak or blind enough to allow himself to be seduced by so vulgar and so worn-out a deception. It is intended, by putting the Motion in this present shape, that the division should produce one effect here and another effect Sir, I have said, or was about to say, elsewhere. It is in reference to the conthat this question could not be met by a sequences in Ireland of votes given tomere negative; that course could not night, that I take the liberty of warning satisfy me; I trust it would not satisfy the those hon. Members who are more immeHouse. I feel assured, it ought not to diately connected with the representasatisfy the country. No, Sir-if the ques- tion of Great Britain, what must be the eftion propounded within these walls is one fect of their support of this Motion - I which has for its object to separate and say more immediately connected with distract the empire, the occasion is one on Great Britain, for here I take on myself which it behoves those who are interested to deny, that there can be any difference in in the well-being and stability of things, to the position, privileges, or duties of Brido more than negative the proposition for tish and of Irish Members. You, hon. a Committee. The question is one in Gentlemen, who represent English counwhich we are called upon, not only to ties, cities, and boroughs, are as much negative the learned Member's Motion, charged with the maintenance of Irish but to affirm and to record an opinion interests, and the protection of Irish rights, of our own. It seems to have been the as if you had Irish constituencies at your original object of the learned Member him- backs; and Irish Members, on the other self to have brought this question to a hand, know full well, and act on that direct issue; the first notice which he knowledge, that there is no question of gave raised distinctly the question and the English policy on which they have not a expediency of Repeal. If he thought it full, free, and unrestrained right of delipolitic to change the day originally fixed, beration. But in alluding to British he was still perfectly free, in postponing Members, and thus appearing to separate the debate, to have adhered to his engage- the classes, I only mean to forewarn Genment, and to have discussed the real ques-tlemen, who are not quite aware of the probtion, on its own intrinsic merits. He did able effects of this Motion on the other not choose to do so; but, for the purpose side of the water, what will be the inference of diverting the attention of the House drawn from a vote in favour of this Comfrom the substantive merits of that ques-mittee, however they may guard themtion, he has substituted another proposition for that to which he was pledged, and which he had solemnly announced to the House. Sir, I am therefore entitled to

selves by protesting against the general principle of Repeal. It will be stated in Ireland, that such a person, Member for a British county-though God forbid any

such should be found-or Member for | pray the House to bear in mind, was such a city or town-though here again I identical with that which he has now feel confident that such will not be found made? I entreat the House to attend -voted for the Committee, and therefore closely to his commentary, and I hope is a decided repealer. On the other hand, the people of Ireland may remember and it will be urged in this House, as it has attend to it also. been already urged, that Gentlemen, in voting for a Committee, merely affirm the necessity of inquiry. "I ask," says the hon. and learned Mover, "for nothing but inquiry. You stand pledged so far only-made ;" and he adds, addressing the nay more, if your opinions are adverse to electors of Dungarvan, "that it really is mine, you ought the rather to vote for in- an insult to their understanding to supquiry, because an acquiescence in my Mo-pose that they can be taken in by so tion will enable you to confute me, and prove me to be in the wrong."