not intend to enter into the arrange ment any portion of the tithe composition at present leviable from the landlord. He differed, however, from the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary in thinking, that there were no circumstances, under which the landlords of Ireland were entitled to any indulgence. Because in no case could they have become liable for the tithe composition without entering into a new arrangement with their tenants. The landlord let the land tithe free to the tenant, and the hon. and learned Gentleman complained, that landlords were not able to make a corresponding increase on their rents. He could not consider very deeply the case of persons who had charged more for their land than their tenants were able to pay. He meant to apply himself merely to the arrears of the last two years. Now how was it possible, that the amount of these arrears could come near what was stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny? Why, the amount of the tithes altogether was not above 500,000l., and it was notorious, that considerably above 100,000l. of that sum was payable by the landlords. In his opinion 307,000l. would be a very large amount; but it was clear, that the amount paid even by the occupying tenants was 50 or 75 per cent. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would see the propriety of not pressing his instructions to a division.

Mr. O'Connell had much pleasure in agreeing to the suggestions of the noble Lord.

arrangement was made likely to be entered into, and would throw no obstacle in the way. He would, however, reserve to himself the right of hereafter giving deplorable proof in contradiction of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House to the distracted state of Ireland.

Lord J. Russell agreed in the proposition made by the right hon. Baronet, but the matter required to be gravely considered. He would give the subject his best consideration, and hoped to be able to propose something to the House which would prove satisfactory. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, with respect to the loss which would accrue to the revenue, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would in consideration thereof, do his best in any future debates which might take place on the question of tithes to render the proposed adjustment a satisfactory one. Mr. O'Connell withdrew his motion. The House went into a committee pro forma, and resumed. Committee to sit again.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.] Mr. W. E. Gladstone rose to call the attention of the House to a petition from the inhabitants of Albany, in the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, presented by him on the 15th of June last. That settlement had been founded as a frontier post, for the protection of our colony against occasional predatory incursions of the Caffre tribes, previously bordering on the inlands of our The Chancel or of the Exchequer hoped ancient settlements. The tract of country the House would treat the matter as a inhabited by these advanced colonists had grant of public money. One thing he received additions from time to time and would object to was, the Government was denominated the ceded territory. It undertaking to levy the tithes from the was peopled by British subjects of an occupying tenant. To that proposition he honest and industrious character, who had very great objections. He thought conveyed thither their skill and capital it was also worthy of consideration whe- during the Government of Lord Charles ther the House in its generosity would Somerset, and they remained there on the relieve the landlords from that liability faith of receiving protection and support which they were under, having partaken from the British Government. The coloof the loan. The question, though it ap-nists complained that faith had not been peared to have the concurrence of both sides of the House, was well worthy of grave deliberation. As to the 640,0007., it should be recollected, that there was a portion of it for which not the occupier of land, but the owners of the tithes were liable.

Colonel Perceval was happy that an

kept with them, and made various representations of the losses they sustained from being immediately in contact with a barbarous enemy. These representations had been neglected by the Government at home, and the interests of the colonists had been sacrificed, so much so that the ceded territory had been entirely given up

to the Caffres, who now mingled with the I voked, and, on the part of the aborigines, farmers, to the great prejudice and injury irruption and massacre. Bloodshed had of the quiet and peaceable subjects of been the feature of this attempt at acGreat Britain. Feuds and contests were quiring that which the aggressors had no of frequent occurrence, sometimes attended right to, and it was not till within the by bloodshed and consequences of the last two years that measures could be most lamentable character. The feeling taken by the colonial government there, of insecurity thus generated among the with a chance of success, to put a stop colonists caused many of them, and par- to this sanguinary contest. Having said ticularly the Dutch boors, to emigrate. thus much, he might also confess he could The resources of the colony were thus left not see, that any advantage could be dewithout employment, and great part of rived from instituting a fresh inquiry into the land remained uncultivated. Agricul- the causes of these transactions, so distural produce had greatly risen in price, graceful to the British name, and prejuand, as regarded the great staple of corn dicial to British interests. A full investiand meal, to the extent of 300 per cent. gation had already taken place, the report Fatal collisions with the natives constantly was before the House, and the colonial occurred, and in 1837 from this cause the government had taken steps which encolonists sustained a loss of twenty-two of couraged Lord Glenelg to hope, that there their own number, besides 384 horses and must be a speedy end put to a state of 2,800 head of cattle. The Dutch boors, things so much to be regretted. Where, disheartened by their misfortunes, withdrew then, was the necessity for the Government from the colony into the desert, and placed to incur heavy expense by consenting to a themselves beyond the pale of society. fresh commission of inquiry? For his Such was the precarious and unsafe po- part, he must express the most perfect sition of the eastern portion of our South confidence that no measure in the colony African territories, the evils attending would be left untried to carry into effect which it was the bounden duty of Parlia- the recommendation of the colonial goment to remove. He should, therefore, vernment for establishing a system of move an address to her Majesty praying broad policy in this colony which might her Majesty to appoint a commission of prevent a recurrence of the evils which inquiry to investigate on the spot the past had taken place by a departure from such and present state of the relations of our a line of policy hitherto. General Napier colonists on the eastern part of the Cape had been sent out to this portion of our of Good Hope with the Caffre tribes, territories, with full instructions and ample together with the best means of preventing powers to restore the affairs of the colony a recurrence of the recent emigration of to a wholesome condition. He trusted he the population beyond the frontier. had said enough to convince the House Sir George Grey said, the case before this was not an occasion upon which the them had already been sufficiently gone British Parliament could be induced to into by means of the inquiry instituted, sanction, under any pretext, the applicaand the documents submitted in conse- tion of persons who had placed themselves quence of the inquiry to the consider- in trouble and peril by means of their agation of the House. It was a lamentable gressions. The charge against the Gofact that the state of this part of the colony vernment, that it had surrendered the could hardly be worse than it notoriously track called the ceded territory to the had been for some years past, owing in-a Caffres, was a charge which, though true, great degree to the aggression of British redounded to the credit of the colonial subjects upon the aboriginal inhabitants, government, which had insisted upon the and their endeavours to extend their ter- relinquishment of a territory acquired by ritory in this quarter for selfish and in-arms and unauthorised hostilities. terested purposes. The pretext for these prompt cession of the ceded territory was enlargements of territory from year to year calculated to show that, whatever had been had been, the presumed necessity of in- the conduct of individuals, its subjects, creasing the security and safety of the the Government of Great Britain would colonists, by placing an intermediate ter- be just when appealed to, and respect the ritory between them and the Caffre tribes. rights of property, fully conscious that by The result was aggression on the part of so doing it must inspire a confidence as to the colonists often causeless and unpro- its future conduct in the minds of the

The

brave though barbarous people who had been encroached upon; and also that the cession must add to the security and inviolability of the property which had been fairly acquired by the colonists at this part of our settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. He must, on the grounds he had stated, oppose the motion.

The House divided. The numbers were-Ayes 32: Noes 41; Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Bagge, W.
Barrington, Viscount
Bateson, Sir R.

Blackstone, W. S.
Bolling, W.

Clive, hon. R. II.
Darby, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.
Dungannon, Lord
Egerton, W. T.
Egerton, Lord F.
Ellis, J.

Estcourt, T.

Fitzroy, H.

Gibson, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Hughes, W. B.

James, Sir W. C.

Ainsworth, P.

Alston, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Knight, II. G.
Lascelles, hon. W.
Lefroy, right hon T.
Litton, E.
Mathew, G. B.
Packe, C. W.
Packington, J. S.
Palmer, R.
Palmer, G.
Powerscourt, Ld. Vis.
Richards, R.
Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Thompson, Alderman
Wood, T.

TELLERS

Gladstone, W. E.
Praed, W. N.

List of the NOES.

members of the Established Church, the churchwardens, overseers, &c., complaining of the evils which had been the result of the new law respecting the sale of beer. many remedies had been proposed for those evils; that which, after much consideration, he was disposed to recommend was, to expunge the clause which provided for the consumption of beer on the premises; and he was quite sure, that, even if there were a fuller attendance of Members, he should have a general concurrence of opinion in favour of that proposition. It was thought by some, that that part of the act had worked better in large towns, where there was a compact population more immediately under the inspection of the police, than in rural and thinly-peopled districts. He confessed, that, from the information which he had obtained upon the subject, he was not of that opinion. Of the enormous evils of the present system he had abundant proof in representations from Huddersfield, York, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Leeds, Rotherham, &c. He had received, among others, a letter from Mr. J. F. Forster, chairman at the quarter sessions at Salford, a gentleman remarkable for the liberality of his character and the capacity of his understanding, who expressed himself strongly opposed to the measure, from the experience of its pernicious consequences he had had as a magistrate. This gentleman stated, that he had been not unfavourable to the experiment at first, from a wish to supply the labouring classes with a wholesome and refreshing beverage at a cheap rate, and to extend to them every advantage which their station permitted; but he was now quite satisfied that the introduction of beer shops had been productive of consequences bad in every respect among the working classes, destructive of their habits of foresight and economy, subversive of moral feeling, and ruinous, in many instances, to their families. He was quite aware, from long experience, how difficult it was to predicate the consequences of any measure introduced into Parliament; but, on lookSALE OF BEER.] Lord F. Egerton ing back to the debate on the introduction rose to call the attention of the House to of the Beer Bill, he must say, that it apthe state of the law affecting the Sale of peared to him that the results of the Beer. Various petitions had been presented measure had been more correctly anticion the subject; especially one from up-pated by its opponents than was usual on wards of 6,000 inhabitants of Manchester and Salford, among whom were nearly fifty clergymen, thirty-five of whom were

Blackett, C.
Brocklehurst, J.
Brotherton, J.
Bruges, W. H. L.
Campbell, Sir G.
Crawley, S.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.
Pease, J.
Pechell, Captain
Phillips, M.
Rice, E. R
Rundle, J.
Salwey, Colonel
Scholefield, J.
Sinclair, Sir G.
Slaney, R. A.
Smith, B.
Style, Sir C.
Somerville, Sir W.
Tollemache, F.

Duke, Sir J.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Grey, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Turner, W.

Howard, P. II.

Hume, J.

Vigors, N. A.
Warburton, H.
Williams, W.
Wood, Sir M.

TELLERS.

Grey, Sir G.
Stewart, R.

such occasions. It had been maintained, that the consumption of spirits would be materially diminished by the new bill. It

of the lowest description, kept by men. without capital, and who obtained credit from the large brewers for three-fourths of their stock. As one means of obviating the evil it might be advisable to provide that no man should sell beer who was not the brewer of it.

appeared, however, that no bill had ever | system to which that law had put an end. been more productive of drunkenness and One of the great evils of the existing sysimmorality: Under these circumstances, tem was, the creation of small beer-houses however late in the session, he was induced to bring the subject under the consideration of the House; partly with a view to prepare the way for some change in the law which, in his opinion, was inevitable; and, as far as he was concerned, with a view to repeal that part of it which related to the drinking of beer upon the premises. He had not the slightest intention to do anything calculated to distress the present Government. The existing law had, indeed, been introduced under the Government of those individuals in whose political opinions he concurred; although the duties of the office which he had at that time the honour to hold, prevented him from paying the attention to the subject which its importance demanded. In justice to his constituents and to others, who, on the faith of the Act of Parliament, had entered into the beer trade, and whose interest he was anxious to protect, he thought it his duty to take the earliest parliamentary opportunity of warning them that it was not probable the law would exist long. All these objects conjoined would, he hoped, be a sufficient justification to the House of the motion he was about to make. He repeated, that he had received innumerable representations of the evils which had resulted from the multiplicity of those receptacles of every kind of vice and depravity, the beer-shops. Without interfering more than was necessary with the enjoyment of the poorer classes, it was the duty of Parliament to protect them from such evils as these. He regretted, that the subject had not fallen into the hands of one more practically acquainted with the facts of the case than he was but he would now move, that there be laid before the House copies of certain passages in the presentments of the grand juries of England and Wales, bearing reference to the state of the law affecting the sale of beer, in the years 1836, 1837, and 1838.

Mr. Ayshford Sandford seconded the motion. He was one of those who, at the time of the introduction of the new law, anticipated the evils that would flow from it. It had been introduced in consequence of the grievances to which the licensing system had given rise. Now, although he was hostile to the existing law, he by no means wished to re-introduce the licensing

The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave full credit to the noble Lord for the motive which had induced him to come forward with the present motion, but, at the same time, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to confess, that he was not yet convinced by any facts or any arguments which had been advanced, that an invasion of the principle of the law, as it now stood, would lead to such an improvement in the morals of the people as the noble Lord and those who thought with him supposed. He had always been of opinion that the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, which destroyed the old monopoly and opened the trade in beer, was one of the wisest and most prudent acts of the Legislature that he had ever in his time seen introduced into Parliament. He believed, that the benefit conceded to the public by that measure was much greater than any loss that might have resulted in a financial point of view. He believed, too, that the relief which it afforded to a great trade from vexatious interpositions of the Excise was another very great benefit. With respect to the increase of crime, which had been so much relied on, he could not at all admit that increase to be a consequence of the Beer Act. Nor had he any more faith in the allegations which were made of a greatly increased consumption of spirituous liquors. Where were the proofs of it? Gin-shops in London were not on the increase, but quite the reverse. What would be the effect of any alteration of the present law that should put an end to the sale of beer in those houses? Would it not be to bring on again the old monopoly, and all the evils of the licensing system? He did not mean to say, that the existing law was incapable of improvement, but he wished most earnestly to deprecate any return to the old system? Therefore, though he had no objection to this return, and though he was aware that no proceedings were to be taken upon the motion

during this Session, yet, differing as he did from the noble Lord as to the facts which he had stated, as well as from the arguments which he had deduced from those facts, he felt it his duty to implore the House and the public to consider well the inconvenience and evil which must result from a change of the law as it stood; to discuss dispassionately both sides of this question; to compare objection with objection; and to determine at length to legislate only upon general principles, in case, as generally happened, facts were found to agree with those general principles, which they ought to look to on this very important question; and having done this, then let them proceed to apply police regulations, not to one class only of these houses, but to all indifferently.

Mr. Pakington expressed his gratitude to the noble Lord for having brought this subject forward. It was almost impossible to over-rate the seriously prejudicial effect which this measure had had upon the morals of the people.

tion to the beer shops, and perhaps the noble Lord had had some communication with them. According to the returns on the table of the House, it appeared, that within a certain period during which 514 licensed victuallers had been charged by the police with offences, only 240 keepers of beer shops had been so charged. He was prepared to show, that the allegation that the morals of the people were injured by the beer-shops was quite unfounded. While they heard so much of the demoralization of the poor, no mention was made of the misconduct of other classes. Who were the parties who disgraced themselves by gross misconduct about the period of the coronation? Were they not gentlemen and noblemen? He deprecated the disposition which exhibited itself year after year to meddle with the indulgences of the poor. Nothing had for a long while pleased him more, than the declaration of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if they were driven to put down the beer shops, he should consider it necessary to take into their serious consideration the propriety of establishing a free licensing system, giving every man the power of taking out a licence, subject only to certain police regulations. It would give him very great pleasure to see such a principle acted

He should move to-morrow fo returns which would show a very different result from that anticipated by the noble Lord. Inquiry could not fail to show how completely unfounded were the representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this subject. He thought some good would result from the present discussion; it would go far to counteract any effect that might have been produced by the extraordinary declaration of a noble and learned Lord in another place, that a sentence of condemnation had gone forth against the beer-shops. He should oppose, to the utmost of his power, any attempts that might be made by new legislation to interfere with the comforts of the poor.

Mr. Hume could regard the object with which such motions as the present were brought forward only as meddling interferences with the comforts of the poor. He did not understand why the poor man should not be allowed to drink his pot of beer where and when he chose, and whereupon. he could get it best and cheapest, whether within the doors of a beer shop or in the street. It was melancholy to see those who were in possession of the highest luxuries so anxious to deprive the poor of every little comfort. In his opinion they did not look high enough for the evils of which they complained. He attributed much of the crime to the want of education. Ignorance was the root of the evil. The people were brought up like brute beasts. What education was given to them? There were a few charities, but the people had a right to be educated. They had as much right to education as as they had to a provision for the sustenance of the body. He begged the hon. Gentlemen opposite to inform him what education was afforded to three-fourths of the agriculturists? The noble Lord said he had received information from some one in London of the demoralization caused by the Beer Bill. Would the noble Lord state who the party was? He (Mr. Hume) knew that the licensed victuallers had been very busy in getting up an opposi

Viscount Dungannon said, that in his neighbourhood it was found, that most of the crime that was committed was concocted in the beer shops. He trusted the return moved for, would make out such a case as to induce her Majesty's Ministers to take the matter up. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might look with jealousy to these complaints, because of the quarter from which they came, because they proceeded