WHARNCLIFFE CHARLEVILLE GRAHAM (D. of Montrose) WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LEVEN and MELVILLE CARRINGTON CHURCHILL DE DUNSTANVILLE GRANTLEY HOPETOUN(E.of Hopetoun) LOFTUS (Marq. of Ely) LAUDERDALE (E. of Lauderdale) RIVERS Ross (Earl of Glasgow) SALTERSFORD (E. of Courtown) SCARSDALE ST. HELEN'S STOWELL WIGAN (Earl of Balcarras) BISHOPS. TUAM (Archbishop) BANGOR CARLISLE CLOYNE CORK DURHAM LEIGHLIN and FERNS PETERBOROUGH ST. ASAPH. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Bills. Read a second time; Hop Duties; Military Accounts (Ireland.) Read a third time; Arms (Ireland.) Returns ordered. On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, an Account of the Customs levied in Rye, Nuthaven, and Shoreham, between January, 1814, and December 1831; and an Account of the Tonnage entered inwards and out wards from the said Ports; and an account of the number of the recruiting districts in the United Kingdom, with the number of Officers attached thereto, and an account of the Expenses :-On the Motion of Colonel TRENCH, of all the different departments of the State :-On the Motion of Office of Secretary of Bankrupts, on an average of three Amount received by the Commissioners of Bankrupts, with Amounts voted by Parliament for Supply, under the Disbursements of the Sheriffs and Stewards of Scotland, 1816, and 1819; for a Copy of all new regulations between 1793, and 1829, authorizing the Payment of Fees to Sheriffs, and relating to the administration of Criminal Justice in Scotland; an account of all Colleges and places for Education; the number of Printing Presses Licensed, and the number of Periodical Publications published under License, or sanctioned in the Territories of the East India Company in the East Indies:-On the Motion of Sir JOHN HAY, of Sums due to the Excise under 4th and 6th George 4th, for Spirits produced being short of the charge by quantity, &c. Petitions presented. By Colonel EVANS, from the Finsbury Union, for a Repeal of the Duties upon Newspapers : By Mr. HUNT, from George Hewitt and Francis Watt, praying that Persons who sought for admission to the Office of Justice of the Peace, might be previously examined as to their ability; from the Union of Bloomsbury, for the Repeal of the Tax upon Newspapers :-By Mr. KEARSLEY, from Wigan, praying that Beer-shops should be closed at nine o'clock at night:-By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from the Clergy of Southampton, for an Amendment of the Beer Act. Member could be found who was constantly obtruding his petitions on the House. If ever a man deserved punishment it was Mr. Taylor, who had used every effort to destroy religion and subvert the morality of the public. The hon. Member might have selected some better object for his sympathy. Mr. Goulburn said, the hon. member for Preston had asserted, that the Chairman of the Court of Sessions was drunk when his sentence was pronounced. He, as a Magistrate of Surrey, denied the truth of the assertion, but if there was any foundation whatever for it, the matter ought to have been referred to the Secretary of State. Mr. Briscoe said, he had presented a petition from Clapham in reference to Mr. Taylor, but he now understood that petition was not acknowledged by, and did not express the sentiments of the inhabitants. It therefore could only be received as the petition of the persons who had signed it, and he regretted to understand some of them had been threatened with loss of custom in consequence of their having put their name to the petition; which he considered an unjust and cruel persecution. With respect to the assertion of the hon. member for Preston, that the Chairman of the Sessions was drunk when the sentence was pronounced, he most solemnly assured the House there was no foundation whatever for the assertion. Petition to lie on the Table. LICENSED BEER HOUSES.] Mr. John Wood presented a Petition from the Retail Brewers and Inhabitants of Preston, pray RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.] Mr. Hunting that Beer-shops should be open during presented a Petition from Mr. Robert Taylor, complaining of ill-treatment in the Gaol of Horsemonger-lane; that he was denied the use of his books, and was confined under the greatest privations, under which his health had suffered, and was still suffering, to the imminent danger of his life. The petitioner affirmed that the Chairman of the Sessions was drunk at the time of the sentence, and from the inquiries he (Mr. Hunt) had made, he had reasons to believe there was some foundation for the charge. The petitioner concluded by praying for further inquiry into his case. Mr. Trevor said, that Mr. Taylor was only suffering under the sentence of a legal tribunal, and he regretted that any hon. the same hours as Public-houses. The most mischievous consequences would result from allowing Public-houses to be kept open at later hours than Beer-shops. People who were compelled to depart from the one went to the other, and drank spirits instead of Beer. He would, therefore, exert every effort in his power to prevent this partiality being continued by the Bill about to be brought before them for the amendment of the former Act. He knew instances where gin had been sold with impunity at particular hours on Sunday, while the owner of a beer-shop was fined for selling beer about the same time. He knew that, according to the strict letter of the law, the Magistrates were compelled to inflict the fine, but that only showed the law was absurd; though the House was about to commit the still greater absurdity of increasing the distinctions between gin and beer-shops, to the advantage of the former. Several of the clauses in the new Bill were a farago of nonsense and absurdity, and were remarkable as an instance of the haste and cobbling with which Bills were concocted. He fully concurred with the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. Briscoe said, it was absolutely necessary to have some restraint in rural districts; but wherever there was a gin-shop the beer-house ought to be allowed to keep open the longest, as the least evil of the two. Mr. Hunt said, he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition; and he most fully concurred with those who considered it a most erroneous principle, that gin should be allowed to be sold at hours when the beer-shops were closed. He should, therefore, resist the Bill by which such distinctions were to be en forced, by all the means in his power; and would assist his hon. colleague in opposing it, by moving an adjournment whenever it was brought forward. Petition to be printed. SUGAR REFINING BILL.] Mr. Goulburn presented a Petition from the WestIndia Planters and Merchants of Liverpool, praying inquiry into the propriety of admitting foreign sugar for the purpose of being refined in this country. The petitioners asserted that it was well known that the quantity of foreign sugar exported was by no means so great as the quantity imported, although the law only allowed it to be imported in consideration that an equal quantity was exported. This caused some competition against our own colonial sugar in the market, with the monopoly of which our own planters had been flattered, but which there was now strong reason for believing was a delusion, in consequence of a new discovery having been made by the means of which molasses could be manufactured into refined sugar of an inferior quality. This was sent abroad, and the foreign sugar refined was retained for home consumption. He had seen the article manufactured from molasses, which had removed all his doubts upon the subject. He therefore considered the matter well deserving the attention of Government. Mr. John Wood admitted the great wealth and respectability of the petitioners, but he believed they were deceived by a cast-off clerk from the establishment of a sugar-refiner. They had no means at present of verifying the fact. These bastard sugars had been tried, but it did not appear that any of them had been entered for the purpose of cancelling the bonds of the refiner. The main allegation of the petition fell to the ground. He knew it would be said that molasses with an undue quantity of sugar within it, was imported to evade the law, as was set forth in this petition, but he believed the truth was, such an article was imported only to avoid the duty on sugar. Complaints had been frequently made against the large drawbacks that were made, but he believed the West-India planters benefitted most by these drawbacks. To refine sugar was the work of several months, and he trusted the House would feel it highly inexpedient to throw difficulties in the way of an advantageous branch of manufacture. Mr. Goulburn was glad to hear the observations of the hon. Member. The question was simply, whether the present refining system cut up the monopoly which the planters claimed as a right, by allowing bastard sugar to be made from molasses by persons who had no bonds to cancel. The present petition brought that question completely to issue between the refiners and the West-India planters, and the sooner inquiry was instituted into the subject the better, for without such inquiry neither of the parties would be satisfied. Sir John Newport inquired how it was the petitioners had not brought their statement forward at an earlier stage of the Bill? Mr. Goulburn had no doubt he should be able to give the right hon. Baronet an answer on the second reading of the Bill. Petition to be printed. CONSOLIDATED FUND-HALF PAY oF THE ARMY.] Mr. Spring Rice moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Order read. On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. Spring Rice moved an instruction to the Committee to receive a clause of Appropriation. House in Committee. Sir Henry Hardinge said, that there was a most invidious clause in the Appro priation Act, which prevented officers in | whose services appeared to have been the army receiving their half-pay if they almost forgotten, were neglected, and why accepted any civil appointments; while should a Commissioner of Bankrupts, who officers in the navy were exempted from had only been appointed a few weeks, retire such regulation. He did not blame the for life on a pension of 2001. a year? right hon. Baronet, the first Lord of the Sir Henry Parnell said, that, simple as Admiralty, for introducing a clause allow these propositions appeared to be, it ing officers holding civil situations about involved the consideration of no less a sum his Majesty to receive their half-pay, but than 73,000l. a year. Up to 1820, the he wished to see the same indulgence law had actually deprived officers in the extended to officers of the army. He receipt of any civil salary of their half-pay. was confident, both as a matter of economy The Act then passed was an innovation, and policy, it would be right to allow half- and the Finance Committee of 1828 repay officers in the army to fill civil offices commended that the old law should be without mulcting them of their pay. revived. The members of that Committee Before the year 1828, officers in the army were satisfied, from documents laid before were not obliged to give up their half-pay them, that the consequence of acting upon if they filled civil offices; but in that the indulgence of 1820 had been, to put year the Finance Committee recommended the public to the additional expense he that course to be adopted, and an Act was had mentioned. The question did not - passed for that purpose. He knew it was turn upon the merits of the officers, but the opinion of Mr. Huskisson and Lord upon the principle of economy. The Palmerston, that an exception ought to report had been drawn up by a Cabinet have been made in favour of officers of the Minister, and had been agreed to by all army holding civil offices in the colonies. the Committee, with one exception; it If a Captain in the army, with 7s. a day said, with reference to this question The for half-pay, was appointed a Barrack- half-pay cannot properly be considered as master abroad, at a salary of 7s. 6d. aa remuneration for past services, for the day, he was compelled to give up his half-service of a single day gives a claim to it pay; and many officers had refused to accept of employment, in consequence of which the service had been greatly injured. He should move that officers in the army on half-pay be allowed to fill the office of Magistrates, or any other civil office, without being deprived of their half-pay.' He asked the House whether there was anything like a semblance of justice in allowing the officers of the navy to have their half-pay, and to fill civil situations, while the officers of the army were precluded from doing so? Such a course could but be the means of creating unfounded jealousies in the minds of the members of the two services. Why, he would ask, should a Captain in the navy receive his pay, and also his salary, if he was appointed to an office in the King's household, while the officer in the army must give up his half-pay? From 1806 to 1828, there was no such limitation, and the Finance Committee had recommended the stopping of the half-pay of officers in the army on their obtaining civil situations, without hearing evidence on the subject, and to make the distinction in the two services was most invidious. Why should the civil service be treated with great liberality while the officers of the army, as complete as the service of twenty years. That they feel themselves called upon to express the strongest objection to the changes which have of late been made in the rules and conditions under which half-pay has been received, and that they are decidedly of opinion, that the aban'donment of the restrictions was an illadvised measure, and that it was not more at variance with a due regard to economy than opposed to the very principle upon which military half-pay was 'established.' The Committee then added that the increased charge by altering the law in 1820 had been, 73,000l. a year for the army and navy, and they further When military men adopt the civil service, the Committee conceive they should receive the same remuneration for it as civil servants would receive, and no more.' Although he admitted that individual hardships would result from acting upon that recommendation, yet it must be clear, that as a question of economy the rule laid down should not be departed from. opinion of Mr. Huskisson would be at all times of value, but it should not govern the House in a matter of the saving or expenditure of 73,0002. His right hon. friend had been fully heard before the 6 say, The |