proffered securities were each and every of them to him perfectly nugatory, and did not in any shape reconcile him to the principle of the bill. He therefore preferred to abide by the securities which the law had already provided for securing the protestant predominance of this protestant government. When he compared the conduct at present pursued by this government on matters of religious toleration, with that pursued by the legislature of a neighbouring country, where a law was in agitation for inflicting the penalty of death upon those who offered insult to certain mysteries of the catholic church-when he made this comparison, the firmer he became convinced that the protestant principle of predominance in government afforded a greater security than was likely to be provided by any other, for the preservation of civil and religious liberty; and to it he was firmly determined to adhere.

The house divided for the original motion, 268; for the amendment, 241; majority for the second reading, 27; adjourned at three o'clock.

House of Commons, April 22.On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house went into a committee on the spirit duties' acts.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had upon a former occasion explained to the house the grounds upon which he thought it expedient to place all the laws relating to distilleries in England on one identical and intelligible footing, and to do away with the inconveniences which were daily found to result from the circumstance of different laws prevailing in dif

ferent parts of the kingdom. It would not, therefore, now be necessary for him to advance any general reasoning on the subject, and he flattered himself that the house would readily concur with him in thinking that something was necessary to be done to effect this object. It appeared to him that no alteration would be so effectual as that which should assimilate the distillery laws of England with those of Scotland and Ireland. He would state generally the sort of regulations which he proposed to adopt for this branch of the trade and manufacture of the country. In the first place, it was necessary to impose certain restrictions on the persons carrying on this trade: he should be glad if this had not been necessary, but the large amount of the duties rendered it impossible to waive them. In Ireland and in Scotland, no persons were allowed to carry on the trade of a distiller without the certificate of a justice of the peace. This regulation, which the peculiar circumstances of Scotland and Ireland rendered necessary, he did not propose to adopt in England. The qualification which he should suggest instead was, that persons carrying on the trade of distillers, should inhabit and pay the rates of houses of the rent of 20l. per annum. This would facilitate the collection of the duty, while, if persons who could distil in a tin kettle were permitted to do so, the excise would be cheated at every turn. The next regulation was, that all persons licensed to carry on the trade of distillers, should be resident within a quarter of a mile of a town in which there should be 500 inhabited houses, in order to

secure

secure a sufficient number of excise officers for the preservation of this branch of the revenue. With respect to the size of the stills, it had been found necessary in Ireland and in Scotland, where smuggling was extensively carried on, to use stills of small dimensions, because larger ones were ineffectual to prevent it. In England there was not the same necessity, and it was therefore his intention to reduce the size of stills from 3,000 gallons, the present rate, to 400, the dimensions of which they had been formerly. He would now state to the com mittee the alterations which he intended to propose respecting the duties. The existing duty was 10s. 6d. per gallon, at 7 per cent. over proof. It would, he thought, be a great improvement on the present system to adopt the rule which was observed in Ireland and Scotland-namely, to fix the duty according to the proof strength of the spirit, and that duty he proposed should be 5s. 10d. per gallon. He would shortly explain why he had fixed on that particular sum, which might otherwise appear somewhat singular. The first idea was to fix a duty of 5s. upon spirit distilled from malt, and 6s. on that distilled from grain; but, on looking into the details of the subject, he found that it would be difficult to make a distinction between the two kinds of spirit. He was there fore determined to make the duty uniform, without reference to its being distilled from malt or grain. It would be in the recollection of the house, that a bill had passed last session for regulating weights and measures, which was to take effect next year. According to that bill, the standard by which

measures were to be hereafter regulated, was the imperial gallon, which differed from the ordinary wine measure on which the duty on spirits was at present taken. The imperial gallon might be represented by six, whilst the common wine gallon might be represented by five. If he had fixed the duty on the common wine gallon at 68. the relation which it would have borne to the imperial gallon would have been inconvenient, as it would have left an indescribable fraction of a farthing unaccounted for. The duty of 5s. 10d. on the common wine measure, however, corresponded exactly with the duty of 7s. on the imperial gallon; and thus any intricate calculation would be avoided in the settlement of questions which might arise between the excise-officer and the dealer. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving several resolutions to the effect which he had stated.

!

Sir J. Newport thanked the right hon. gentleman for the alterations which he proposed to make, which would have the effect of removing many of the restrictions by which the spirit trade between England and Ireland was at present shackled.

Mr. W. Smith disapproved of the proposed reduction of the duty on spirits, on the ground that it would tend to deteriorate the health and morals of the people of this country.

Mr. Hume was of opinion that the reduction of the duties would be beneficial to the country.

Mr. C. Hutchinson and Captain Gordon supported the resolutions.

After a few words from General Hart, the resolutions were agreed

to,

to, and the house having resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

The house having resolved itself into a committee of supply,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to submit a resolution, that there be granted to his Majesty a sum not exceeding 7,000l. for the purchase of Mr. Rich's collection of coins, curiosities, and manuscripts. He observed, that the report of the committee which had been appointed to inquire into the value of this collection was so full, that it was unnecessary for him to say any thing on the subject. He felt satisfied that the feeling of the country was favourable to the purchase of such a valuable addition to the collection already in the British Museum.

which the dean and chapter put into their own pockets. He thought this was a subject which should be inquired into.

Mr. Bankes admitted that the expense which the public were put to in the erection of those monuments, gave them a fair claim to inquire how the funds received for exhibiting them were applied; but he thought the onus of such inquiry ought not to be thrown upon his right honourable friend the chancellor of the exchequer. The subject was, he granted, a fair one for inquiry.

Mr. Hume expressed a hope that some such motion might be submitted to the house, and that it would receive the support of ministers.

Sir C. Long was not aware of

Mr. Hume gave the motion his cordial support, and was glad to perceive that this country, in supporting such a splendid collection as that at the British Museum, was approximating to the taste of other states in Europe. While on this subject, he wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer whether he would have any objection to the appointment of a committee to inquire what monuments were erected to distinguished individuals in several places in the metropolis, at what expense, and from what funds they were kept in order. He was informed, that the sums taken for admission to see the monuments in Westminster Abbey were appropriated for the payment of individuals appointed to take care of those monuments; but he also understood that there was another fund from which those persons ought to be paid, and

member alluded, for the payment of persons for taking care of the monuments in Westminster Abbey; but if there were any over which the house had a control, it would: be fair to inquire into its application. With respect to the resolution before the committee, he would observe, that the collection of Mr. Rich was very rare and valuable, and the parties who had the disposal of it evinced the most liberal disposition in treating with government for its purchase.

The resolution was now agreed to, and the house having resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

House of Lords, April 25.Marquis Camden presented two petitions from certain places in Kent, against any alteration in the corn laws.

The Earl of Derby presented two petitions from- and Rochdale, to the same effect.

Lord

Lord Suffield presented a petition to the same effect from a place in the county of Norfolk, in doing which the noble lord observed, that the question was one in which he had so strong a personal interest, that he could not well trust himself in forming an opinion upon it, and still less in making it a subject of his

vote.

The Earl of Lauderdale took the present opportunity of asking the noble earl opposite whether it was the intention of his Majesty's government to propose any alteration in the corn laws during this session? It was not his wish to enter into any premature discussion on the subject, but he thought it would be desirable that their lordships should be informed of the views of his Majesty's ministers on this important question. If any doubt were left on the subject, their lordships would have the table covered with petitions.

The Earl of Liverpool could have no objection to giving the noble lord the satisfaction he desired, by distinctly answering his question in the negative; but at the same time he felt it to be inconsistent with his sense of duty to do so, without troubling their lordships with a few words of explanation. Their lordships must recollect, that the last time this subject was under the consideration of parliament was in 1822. The system adopted in 1815 was, however, continued, though it was generally agreed that that system ought not to be adhered to, but that some alterations should be made. The committee appointed in 1822, in their report recommended farther alterations, which,

however, had not been made. This was the state in which the question now stood. In reply to the noble lord, he certainly could not object to state in public what he often had declared in private, namely, that some alteration in the present system of the corn laws was, in his opinion, necessary; and yet he was not prepared to go into the question during the present session, but hoped that it would be found convenient for their lordships to take it up in the course of the next session, and to enter into the consideration of it in all its bearings. He was perfectly sensible that if any uncertainty as to what might be done this session were to be allowed to continue, their lordships would have their table covered with petitions on the subject, and petitions conceived in a very different sense. Some, from a large and respectable body of the population, would be in favour of the present law; others, from another extensive and respectable part, would pray for an alteration. Their lordships

must not conceal from themselves this truth, that though the classes connected with land viewed the corn laws in a different light from those connected with trade, the true interests of all classes were on this question really the same. One class, however, looking to immediate interest, naturally wished to remove all restrictions on importation, while the other as naturally desired to raise the price of the commodity it produced. He had endeavoured to do his duty between these conflicting interests. There was, in his opinion, a difficulty in this question which he did not think had ever yet been fairly considered. No man could

be

be more desirous than he was to see the trade of the country placed on the most liberal footing; but when commercial principles were applied to corn, obstacles arose which were not easily overcome. In all other kinds of manufacture, if a fixed protecting duty were imposed, it would be easy to abide by it. Whatever might be the state of the home supply at a particular time, things would at length come round, and the manufacture would find its level. But it was not so with respect to corn, because at however equitable a rate the duty might be fixed, still periods and seasons might occur in which no protecting duty whatever could be adhered to. In a time of great scarcity it could not be said to a starving population that they should pay any thing in addition to the natural price of corn. He threw out these observations merely to show that there was a great difficulty be longing to this question, but he was perfectly satisfied that their lordships must proceed to its consideration with the view of making some alteration in the present system. This, he thought, would appear to be called for on several grounds. The price of corn in this country was now nearly double what it was in 1815, when the present system was fixed. The argument used in making that arrangement was, that it was necessary to raise the price, in order to secure a reasonable profit on cultivation. This appeared to be by no means necessary now, with 80s. for the importation price. He felt, however, that he should not be rightly discharging his duty if he ventured to give any opinion as to what ought to be

the duty or import price. Next session opportunity would be afforded their lordships for a full' consideration of the subject, and in the mean time he should only state what appeared to him to be the different principles on which their lordships would have to decide. He had stated that the present system could not be maintained, that was to say, with respect to importation price,-in consequence of the effect which it had on the value of labour. Their lordships would, therefore, have to proceed on one of three principles. 1st. They might alter the importation price, and in other respects retain the system. 2d. They might alter the existing system altogether, and adopting the recommendation of the committee of 1822, impose protecting duties with a maximum, beyond which importation should be perfectly free, and a minimum, under which no importation should be allowed. 3d. A general protecting duty might be fixed, getting rid of the present system of averages. Either of these latter plans would form a complete alteration in the present state of the corn laws; but the last mode could not be resorted to without placing somewhere a discretionary power to remove the duty altogether in a time of scarcity. Much difficulty would be found in establishing a maximum or minimum along with a fixed protecting duty. If, therefore, a fixed duty should be rejected, their lordships would have the option, either of adhering to the present system with an alteration of the import price, or establishing a system of protecting duties with a maximum and minimum; or else of taking a maximum

and