RETAIL OF BEER BILL. July 18. In moving the second reading of this Bill, Mr. Brougham stated, that one great object that he hoped to effect by it was, the putting down the destructive vice of gin-drinking, and enabling good wholesome English beer to flow once more in the country, and become a triumphant competitor with a liquor which was alike destructive to the health and the morals of the people. Mr. Fowell Buxton contended, that if chandlers, and barbers, and other small shopkeepers, were allowed to sell beer, a respectable and numerous description of persons would be annihilated. If the argument of public good and public convenience were to prevail in this instance, he saw no reason why it should not extend to the national debt. Mr. HUSKISSON said, he thought it injudicious at that late period of the session to legislate on matters connected with private property, when the parties interested could not be duly heard. He, therefore, recommended that the bill should be withdrawn for the present. He contended, however, that the publicans had nothing like a vested interest in the sale of beer, and that their case was not in any respect for a moment to be likened to that of the public creditor. He saw no material objection to a measure, if it could be devised, by which other persons besides licensed publicans might be allowed to sell beer of a somewhat better quality than that now called small beer. It seemed to him, that there could be no true ground for asserting, that all the publicans in the kingdom would be ruined by the bill upon the table. The principle of the honourable gentleman would go to the extent of preventing all improvement. In a future session, he thought that some plan of this sort might be devised, by which the revenue might be augmented and the growth of barley increased, without material injury to the licensed victuallers. He was of opinion, that the best mode of encouraging the consumption of beer by the people in general ought to be steadily kept in view by the legislature. There was no person who had lived so long as he had done, but must perceive that a greater degree of sobriety prevailed amongst the lower classes now than was formerly the case. This had doubtless been occasioned by a diminution of the quantity of spirits that used to be drank; and to that might be attributed the great improvement which had taken place in the average duration of the lives of the lower orders. He implored his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to endeavour to ascertain, during the recess, whether, consistently with the protection of the revenue, and even its improvement, and without violating the rights of the publicans and others, who had embarked their capital in the beer trade, some plan could not be devised which would enable families who did not wish to frequent public-houses, to procure a better article than small beer from indifferent The bill was withdrawn. persons. MR. WHITMORE'S MOTION FOR A BILL TO AMEND THE CORN LAWS. February 26, 1823. Mr. Whitmore moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Corn Laws. The motion was opposed by Mr. Curwen and Mr. Benett, of Wiltshire; as well as by Mr. Wodehouse, who complained, that he had been represented, as having disparaged the talents of the right honourable gentleman, the author of the Report of 1821. Mr. HUSKISSON said, that had he not been so pointedly alluded to by the honourable member for Norfolk, he would • The following is a List of the Ministry, as it stood at this time: Cabinet Ministers. Earl of Harrowby.....................Lord President of the Council. Earl of Eldon......... ... Lord Chancellor. not have risen to retard the accomplishment of the wish which that honourable member had expressed at the outset of his speech; namely, a speedy termination of the present debate. He had never complained of any remarks which Earl of Westmorland ........................................Lord Privy Seal. Right Hon. F. J. Robinson...... { First Lord of the Treasury. Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer. Viscount Melville..................... First Lord of the Admiralty. Duke of Wellington.......... Right Hon. Robert Peel, .Master-General of the Ordnance. {Secretary of State for the Home Right Hon. George Canning...{Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Secretary of State for the Depart ment of War and the Colonies. President of the Board of Control. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan caster. Lord Maryborough ..................Master of the Mint. Not of the Cabinet. Rt. Hon. William Huskisson... Treasurer of the Navy, and Pre { sident of the Board of Trade. Secretary at War. Paymaster of the Forces. First Commissioner of Woods and Land Revenue. Postmaster General. { } Secretaries of the Treasury. Vice-President of the Board of { Trade. Right Hon. Sir Thomas Plomer...Master of the Rolls. Right Hon. Henry Goulburn ......Chief Secretary. Right Hon. Sir George Hill, Bart. Vice-Treasurer. In the autumn of this year, Mr. Huskisson took his place in the Cabinet. had been made on the Report of 1821, nor of any remarks upon what he himself had said; but he had deemed it improper, and contrary to usage, that a Report, which ought to be deemed the opinion of the Committee collectively, should be ascribed to himself, an individual member of it. Many alterations had been made in that report, not only not by him, but in opposition to his wishes. He would not attempt to follow the very desultory discussion which had taken place since the speech of the honourable member for Bridgenorth. It was impossible for him to enter into all the details respecting the different modes of farming in use, the relative merits and demerits of land, and the remission of taxation. He would, however, express his satisfaction at knowing, that the country could, consistently with its obligations to public credit, make a considerable remission of the burdens which weighed upon the people. The honourable member for Cumberland, when he attempted to show the relief that would be afforded to agriculture by the remission of two particular taxes, was not borne out by his own arithmetical calculations. The honourable member had said, that every poor family consumed annually forty pounds of candles, the tax upon which amounted to ten shillings. He had looked at the produce of the tax upon candles, and he found that it amounted to one penny per pound. Now, how a duty of a penny per pound could amount to ten shillings upon forty pounds of candles, he could not perceive. The tax upon candles was not very considerable; and it had not been increased since the reign of William III. The honourable member had not been more fortunate in his selection of another tax, the remission of which, he said, would be highly beneficial to persons engaged in agriculture— namely, the window-tax on houses of a certain description. The labourer in agriculture, unless his house had more than six windows, paid no tax at all; besides, the tax depended upon the house itself being rated to the extent of five pounds a year. He was not aware that any labourers in England paid house-tax to that amount. He could not admit that the agricultural interest had any right to claim protection against the importation of corn, on the ground of general taxation. He would allow, that all taxes which affected agriculture only ought to be repealed, if possible; but the honourable member for Wiltshire had alluded to taxes which pressed upon the artisan and manufacturer, equally with the farmer. He considered that discussion upon the subject which had been brought before the House, and which involved the best and dearest interests of the nation, was extremely important; but he did not think the present was a fit time for making any alteration in the existing corn laws. In the first place, any important alteration in the corn laws could not be made with a partial and limited discussion, and a temporary investigation; for, in the present state of the agriculturists, which he was sorry to say was the reverse of what he should wish it to be, no alteration could now be made, which could accommodate the various opinions of those who were interested. Few were agreed as to the particular remedy. There were not, he might almost say, any two surveyors of land, who concurred in their opinion of its value, and of the relative situations upon which the present prices ought to place landlord and tenant. If an accommodation of those varying opinions could take place, then an alteration founded upon it might be favourable. The Committee which sat in 1821 had had at least this effect-it had opened the eyes of the country to the mischiefs and difficulties of the system which had theretofore prevailed. It had shewn, that monopoly was not at all times profit-that restriction did not, on all occasions, |