however, that the good sense of the great body of mechanics would lead them to avoid such a course. He hoped that the time was not far distant, when a better understanding would be permanently established between the men and their masters. Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, May 5th.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] After numerous petitions had been presented to the House, both for and against the Concession to the Catholics,

Earl Grosvenor said, he would call their lordships' attention to the petition from Portland, which he had not an opportunity of doing sooner. That petition had been brought forward, as he was informed, by persons who had taken a great deal of trouble to procure petitions against the Catholics. It purported to speak the sentiments of the inhabitants of the island of Portland, but it did no such thing. The recorder of Weymouth, Mr. Bankes, had been exceedingly active in the business. The people were hastily summoned on a Saturday evening, and told that they must sign the petition immediately, in order that it might be forwarded. It was, however, signed but by a very small proportion of the inhabitants of the island; and some who had been frightened by the ghost of the bloody queen Mary to put their names to the petition, now very much regretted their weakness. Indeed, according to the information he had received, this petition might, with much more propriety, be regarded as the petition of the earl of Eldon and Mr. Bankes, than that of the inhabitants of Portland. The Lord Chancellor said, that the course adopted with respect to the Catholic claims was not a little singular. Some time ago, because no petitions were presented, it was said that the people of this country took no interest in the question; but now, because not only the table was covered with petitions, but the repositories of the House filled with them, until it was almost impossible to tell how to dispose of them, it was asserted that they did not express the opinion of the public. Some noble lord every night repeated an account he had received of the manner in which some petition had been got up; but it generally proved, as he believed was the case in the present instance, that the information was incorrect. He had on a

former occasion stated, that he had been quite passive with regard to the present measure, and had in no way promoted petitions. This, he repeated, had been his conduct; and he could safely say that the petition from Portland might with just as much truth be called earl Grosvenor's as the earl of Eldon's. The account of the signing of the petition which he had received was, however, very different from that furnished to the noble lord. Mr. Bankes had informed him, that there was very little difference of opinion in the island as to the question. The petition, instead of being signed only by a few, had 400 names attached to it; which, he was informed, constituted nearly the whole number of the inhabitants. And here he must observe, with respect to this question, that, from first to last, he had always had the fullest conviction, that the sense of the people of this country was against the Catholic claims. In the course of the discussions which had taken place, he had heard nothing to induce him to alter his opinion, except the very strange reasoning, that, the greater the number of peti tions against the Catholic claims, the less was the evidence of disapprobation. He had now stated his opinion with regard to the public feeling on this question; but he had not, whether he was right or wrong in doing so, stirred at all in procuring petitions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, May 5.

REPEAL OF THE DUTIES ON BEER.] After sundry petitions had been presented against the Duties on Beer,

Mr. Maberly rose, pursuant to notice, to submit to the House a proposition for the repeal of the Duties on Beer. He observed, he said, with satisfaction the many applications which had been made to the House, praying that those duties should be removed; but, if there were not a single petition before the House on this subject, still he thought parliament was bound to alter the system which now prevailed, and to grant relief to the great body of the people. It was the duty of the legislature to act with impartiality; and he would say, that if ever there was a statute passed that was partial in its operation and contrary to justice, it was that which imposed the existing duties on beer. He had heard the chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. the pre

sident of the Board of Trade declare, that they wished to adopt a system of liberal policy in every respect; and from what he had seen, he believed their anxiety to do so was sincere and disinterested. After the liberal opinions he had heard them express on different occasions in that House, he had a right, he thought, to feel sure that he should have their votes that night. There was but one difficulty which stood in the way of his motion: there was but one argument which the gentlemen to whom he had alluded could advance against it; namely the loss which the revenue would sustain. The principle they must give up to him, unless they turned round on the arguments used by themselves in the course of the session. If they wished to do justice, this tax, if it must be continued, should be made to bear equally on all classes. It was unfair that it should fall heavily on those who were least able to afford it, while it did not touch the opulent part of society. It was probable that the House, in general, would not understand the situation in which the country stood with reference to those duties, unless he entered into some little detail on this subject. At present, there was a tax on malt of 20s. per quarter: but the House would recollect, that the effect of that tax was very different on those who brewed their own beer, when compared with the effect of the beer duties on those who purchased the beverage from the brewer. The rich man could brew his own beer; but the poor man, who had neither premises, capital, skill, or time, could not. He therefore was deprived of the benefit which the opulent man enjoyed. The beer duty was, in fact, a tax on the poor individual, from which the wealthy individual was exempted. He demanded of the House, whether they would continue to support so unfair and unjust a principle. The duty on beer was very considerable. It produced annually, 3,281,000l., which was charged with 295,000l. for collection. This was chiefly contributed by the poor; and he knew not how any man could reconcile it to his conscience, to vote against a motion which was intended to lighten such a serious burthen. The rich man paid 20s. per quarter for his malt. That was the only tax levied on him. But the poor man had to meet a double duty 20s. malt duty, and 35s. beer duty; making a total of 55s. If the calculation were made by the bushel, the rich man paid

2s. 6d., while the poor man paid 6s. 104. He would ask, was this a just measure of legislation? Was it fair or proper? Nothing tended more to bring legislation into disrepute, than a proceeding so unjust and partial; and therefore some measure ought to be taken to place this tax on a proper footing. The duty ought either to be removed altogether; or it should be put on in such a manner, that every class should pay alike. As the law now stood, the rich man paid 5s. for that which cost the poor man 15s.; the latter paid 4d. a gallon more for beer than the former.With respect to the plan for introducing a new beer, which the chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured by a legislative enactment to bring into use, he believed it had not produced the contem. plated effect; as, in the course of the year, but fifteen thousand barrels of beer had been brewed under that act. These duties, although in the opinion of some gentlemen they might be so unimportant as to need no alteration, were founded upon a principle which could not stand the test of examination. They enforced from the poor man, a tax of between 2001. and 300 per cent more than was paid by the rich. To the latter, the article of beer was a luxury; to the former, it was one of the indispensable necessaries of life. The poor man required something more than the bread and cheese by which he supported his existence. He required some liquor; and none was better for the purposes of nourishment and refreshment than beer. The effect of spirits upon the lower classes of the community was known to be most injurious and demoralizing. Upon this statement, he asked, then, whether the House could resolve any longer to continue a tax, so partial in its operation, and which weighed so heavily upon the poorer classes? It had been said by some of those who were opposed to the view which he took of this subject, that the poor man might brew his own beer, and thus exempt himself from the payment of this tax. The poor man could do no such thing. To brew required time, which he could not give; it required money, which he did not possess; it required space, which he could not command. He was probably the inhabitant of a garret, and his daily earnings only enabled him to provide for his daily necessities. Where, then, and how was he to brew beer? He had, in reality, no option at all, and no means of avoiding the payment of this unjust and

burthensome duty. There was, however, a means by which the weight might be removed: and that was, by placing the duty on malt instead of on beer. The expense of collecting the duty on malt was now 300,000l. per annum. If the alteration he recommended should be adopted, this sum would be saved to the country; because, although the duty on one was 20s. and on the other 40s., the expense of collecting would be the same. Upon the subject to which he now called the attention of the House, he had twice before approached it. He had then, as he trusted he had done now, treated the subject fairly. On the first occasion, in 1823, he had asked only for a committee to inquire into the matter, and he had given the right hon, the chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity, if he had chosen to avail himself of it, of doing what must have given satisfaction. The House then said, that the duty was so just, so fair, so proper, that there ought to be no inquiry at all; and this, too, at the very moment when the right hon. gentleman was dabbling (if he might use that expression) with a measure he had since carried respecting beer, and which, although it had done some good, had fallen far short of the remedy which the subject required. At the same moment, too, that the House rejected theinquiry for which he moved, there was lying onthe table a petition from Scotland, in which doubts were expressed of the possibility of levying the duty. His wish for a committee arose from the experience he had had of the usefulness of such inquiries; for, perhaps the most valuable and correct information that had ever been obtained on any subject had been through the Committees of that House. In the following year (1824), he had proposed a committee to inquire into the expediency of substituting the tax on beer for a tax on malt of the same amount; and this, too, had been refused. If, therefore, in again approaching the House on the same subject, he should vary the terms of his proposition, he hoped he should stand excused. The motion he should now submit was much stronger and more extensive than those he had before suggested; but the evil was one which required a strong remedy. His motion would be, that from the 5th of January next all the duties on beer should cease. The inquiries he had asked for had been refused, and there was nothing left him but this course. If the principle

of the tax against which he contended was right, why was it not followed up in other instances? Why were not tea, candles, soap, leather, glass, wine, and tobacco, all taxed in the same manner? Would the right hon. gentleman dare to put in a schedule to any bill that he should have to propose, such items, as that the poor man should pay 6d. a gallon duty on his beer, while the rich man paid only 24d.? And yet, this was the actual operation of the present law. It had been urged by way of excuse for this tax, that it prevented the mixing of noxious ingredients in beer; but if this were really the reason, why was it not applied to wine or tea; or why were not the consumers left to the exercise of their own judgment and taste in that as in other things? The system, as it existed, encouraged a monopoly, if not to the brewer, at least to the retailer, by means of the licenses. All the reasonable good that could be expected to result to the police of the country, would be from having public-houses placed under a proper surveillance; and this might be effected, by allowing officers to visit the houses in which beer was retailed, to prevent their being made the resort of improper persons. If this were admitted, the House could not refuse to come to the decision, that the sale of beer ought to be as free as that of any other commodity. It would be said, perhaps, that to take off this tax might interfere with what the right hon. gentleman called a sinking fund, but what he (Mr. M.) denied to be any such thing; because that only could be called a sinking fund which was an actual surplus in the revenue. He contended, that the debt was now twelve millions more than it had been in 1815, and that this was occasioned by the dead-weight act. If he had not already pointed out the injustice of the tax on beer, he would refer to the reduction which had been made in the duty on spirits, and which, as they were less necessary, ought to have been postponed in the course of relief to beer. He knew the right hon. gentleman would say that his object in this had been to put a stop to smuggling; but in this he had not succeeded, because the motive still remained strong enough to induce the practice. Looking at the subject, then, in this point of view alone, the people had a right to ask for a reduction. It would not, perhaps, be readily believed, but the fact

was so, that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, in their chambers in the Treasury, fixed the price of table beer. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more absurd than this. They might with as good reason fix the price of bread, as interfere with another article not less necessary, nor of less common consumption. After the opposition he had already encountered, he was prepared to believe it possible that he might lose the present motion; but he should nevertheless feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the resolution, unless the right hon. gentleman would allow the subject to go before a committee. He concluded by saying, that he hoped, if he were defeated, that his labours would at least have the effect of convincing the House of the injustice of continuing this burthensome tax on the people, and that some other more fortunate person would propose a measure which, if it did not do away with it altogether, would divide its weight equally between the rich and the poor. The hon. member then moved, "That from and after the 5th of January, 1826, the Duties now imposed on Beer do cease."

Mr. Brougham said, that in rising to second the motion of his hon. friend, he could add little to what had been so ably urged by him. He felt, however, compelled to mention once again, in addition to the hardship on the poor man of paying 50s., while the rich paid only 20s.-it was, indeed, rather more than this; for the duty on beer exceeded 30s., and that on malt was only 20s.—that other tax which he was compelled to pay by reason of the retail trade not being free. Why the sale of beer should be placed on a different footing from that of any other commodity, it was impossible reasonably to conceive. Why it should be exposed to the operation of a restrictive tax so barbarous that it could not be equalled by any in the world, excepting that most barbarous Spanish tax of al cabala, no man could offer the semblance of a pretext. It was wholly impracticable for a person desirous to trade in beer by retail to do so; unless he made friends with the brewers, who had influence with those worthy persons the magistrates, by whom, in various parts of the country, the regulations were framed relative to licences. He knew he spoke this in the hearing of many worthy friends of his, who belonged to that class by whom beer was prepared for the use of his majesty's subjects, and he knew also

that they had certain prejudices on this subject; but, if the duty were taken off, he believed those prejudices would be, in a great measure removed, and that they would consent to the freeing of the retail trade in beer from the present restrictions. To the persons interested in growing malt, this would be a decided advantage, because it would encourage the growth of grain upon middling land, which was at present used for grazing, and would thus materially benefit the open and barley countries. Another advantage attendant upon throwing the trade open, would be found in providing the poor man with a cheap and wholesome beverage, which he might procure without the inconvenience of sending his daughters or other females of his family to the public-house, to encounter all the inconveniences which at present could not be avoided. Gin would be, in a great measure dispensed with; and his notion was, that the more the beer-shops could be brought into competition with the gin-shops the better. He thought, too, that the duty on beer was peculiarly burthensome and unjust upon the poor, at this time, when the duty on wine had been reduced. He said nothing with respect to that upon spirits: God forbid that he should! He would rather even that the duty should be kept up unnecessarily high upon them: he would rather even that the natural liberty of the people should be in such a degree infringed upon, than that any facility should be afforded to the consumption of spirits; always, however, keeping the duty so high as to prevent the encouragement of private distillation, which of the two evils was the greater. He was sure that by encouraging the consumption of beer, the gap which the loss of the duty might occasion in the Exchequer would very soon be filled up. He gladly seconded the motion of his hon. friend. Whatever might be the fate of that motion, he trusted that his hon. friend, would bear his ill success with patience; from others he might learn fortune; but from his example, and from that school of disappointment in which they had both been exercised, he might be taught not to relax his labour and perseverance in a cause which was worthy of them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had been compelled to oppose the former motions of the hon. gentleman, because there was nothing in the subject which required an examination by a com