Star. — London, England, 1815-03-18 00:00:00

.i•or • • ,• ••• • : • • • • • • I • • • I • • • . • , • • . . . • • • • should act tipcn any other thin their own sense and their own judgment—that moment he would not wish to survive. The measure to which the Petition referred was one calculated for the benefit of the ge neral interest of his Majesty's subjects. If it were not so, it ought not to pass. It was certainly for the benefit of agriculture, and in that sense for the benefit of every one in the community. No man in that House ever supported it on any other principle. It was certainly, lie woull repeat, a sacred obligation on the H.::use to :tttend with the utmost respect to the petitions of all his M ijesty's subjects, hut then they could not carry thit attention to the representations of any branch of his Majesty's subjects to an extent, as pa intericre with thit which was due to the other. There wet-. some interests of a peculiar nature which could not be attended to in the first instance. Upon that principle it was that n.) Petitions were received against Tax Bills, except under certain limitations. He believed that his Noble Friend came forward on the motives of his own judgment. So he sincerely believed, did every ntan in the House. The simple cuestion was, whether, according to the Rules of the House, they could hear Counsel on such a Petition as that from the City of London, against the Lill ; and conformably to the practice of the Home, and the principle of its rules. Rules which were founded in the essence and the safety of the Constitution of England. They must, on such occasions as the pre sent, hold out the same rule to one that they did to all. It was also worthy of consideration, that the Petitions for the Bill were nearly as numerous as those against it, though certainly not so numerously signed. Under such circumstances, a single. Petition comes, desiring to be heard by Counsel against a general measure affecting all his Majesty's subjects. Rut in such a case, with all due respect to the City of London, he would ask how could they hear Coun sel and evidence on that, and refuse to hear upon the Petition from the City of Bristol, the Town and Port of Liverpool, the great manufacturing towns of Man chester and Birmingham, as well as many others ? This was not a general measure affecting, in parti cular, the interests of individuals, but affecting all his Majesty's subjects. Neither were their Lordships to proceed upon the views of the 'Petitioners, but upon their own views of, and judgment upon the subjects. With respect to precedents, he did not think there would be found a single instance to authorise what was now called for, but it would be for their Lord ships to decide, whether in this he, who may in one sense call himself their servant, was right er not.— According to the rule and practice of Parliament, he deemed it utterly impossible that they could comply with the prayer of a Petition so proceeding, and under such circumstances. In their rule of equal justice and equal attention, they could no more pay atten tion to the most distinguished Corporation than to the humblest individual. Upon these principles their Lordships' decision in this case should proceed, and they should Adhere to the dictates of that lex et connte la* Parliamenti, of w:;ich they had so long experi enced the benefits, and which formed one of the best supports of the law and Constitution of has cottony. Earl GREY spike in favour of eae ruction, and observed, that the Corporation of the City of London were interested in the measure in a threefold capacity; as consumers, as interested in the manufactures and commerce of the country, aad as being the Corpor:t. Lion of the Met:opolis. As to the - first and last points, it was unnecessary to dwell on ecern ; and on the second, it was almost equally unnecessary. The Corporation of the City of London, it was well known, were almost all commercial men. But if the manu facturers of this country were not able to contend with the manufacturers of surrounding nations in the foreign market, there was an end to this country's commerce; and if the present Corn Bill passed, this would be the case. This the Petitioners had fully stated in their Petition. They were, therefore, according to the strict rules of the House, entitled to be heard.— The only question that could be on this point was, whether the question was of sufficient importance?— But could any one pretend to deny this Who could doubt that what materially concerned the first neces sary was of the utmost importance ? The doors of she House ought not to be shut to Petitions. But of what use was petition, if it was not attended to ? Of the right of Petition be would say what the Poet said of Mercy—s , It blesseth him that gives, and him that receives." if the House were not determined to shut the door on Petitions, there was no reason why they should not attend to the prayer of this Petition. He concluded by supporting the motion. Lord LIVERPOOL said, that the question was not, whether the petition of the City of London, or. elf any other pinto, should be received ; but whether the prayer ol it should be granted ? On the general principle of legislation, every individual had as good a right as any corporation to have the prayer of his petition attended to. But when their Lordships bad laid down a general rule, they could not consistently depart from it in a particular instance. This subject was three Sessions under consideration. Their Lord ships had on their table two reports of the Commons and one of the Lords on it. Had not the city of London an opportunity of stating any information they had on the subject during those three Sessions The House had petitions last Sessions as well as this, and the Committee came to a resolution. that the pe titioners did not support any of their allegations ; and that they were prepared to receive any information on the subject. The city or London, therefore, had as well as every other place an opportunity of giving every information it wished to communicate to the Committee ; rind if it neglected doing so for so long a time, why should it now apply for a particular occa sion ? Ou the question of what was the price of the quarters Mel, comparatively with the price of wheat, they bad the. best evidence, the evidence of the City of London itself. He was sure that the City of Lon don could give no new information of any import ance on the subject ; and he should therefore oppose the motion. Lord ST. JC.)EIN said, that the country was in such circumstances as would render it unwise to go i nto t h e surfed. There was an iniposssibility on the part of all men to.go on under the present circum. stamp. The slintkeeper, the farmer, the mimetic torero -all Bread au equal stagnation. The petitioners bid )an year had an opportunity nf *tieing any ha t : woke they possessed. and =tit grail them. selves Now they eifaii when the op. portunite is gone by. 'WOW tioV think they hid a n y fair dims to ashler an uppertuiiity,' which they haa oolong neglected. The lfolae Lord who had brought forward the motion s said that the whole .syetem of protections was founded on error. But what else had brought this country to such a state of prosperity ? Great Britain was not meant by nature for that greatness to which she had attained. It was her con- 1 stitution and her wise regulations had carried her to such- it pitch of elevation. lie then went into a gene ral detail of the bill and the history of the Corn Laws ; and concluded by giving the measure his warmest approbation. GREY explained. Lord HARDWICK corrected a MigitteMellt of what he had stated respecting the evidence of one of the witnesses. Lord SELKIRK said, that without the measure he thought it impossible to continue the cultivation of a great quantity of the poorer lands. What the quantity would be it was unnecessary to mention, but a large quantity it would certainly be. It would pro bably cause a defalcation of a fourth or fifth part of the produce of the country, and no importation could make up for this difference. The largest im portation ever known did not make - more than four or five weeks consumrtion for the kingdom, and if there was a fourth or fifth part of the produce of the country deficient, what would be the consequence ? This would not be fully the case this year I but next year he was sure it would happen. In two years hence then, what would be the price ? Lord STANHOPE rose to order. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the Noble Lord had wished to keep the House strictly to order, he should have interposed four hours ago. Lord SELKIRK continued to insist on the defal cation in the produce, that would arise from the want of some such protection as the Bill proposed to the former. Lord DARNLEY said, that the allegation with regard to the price of the quartern loaf was a mis statement. In no possible operation of the Bill could •the quarters loaf be so high as was said. He was sure that some protection was necessary for agriculture. Lord ERSKINE said, that as the City of Lon. don were petitioning on a particular interest, he did not think them entitled to have their prayer granted. Lord GRENVILLE briefly replied ; when the House divided, and the numbers were— Not contents 59—Contents 11—Majority against Lord Grenville's motion 48. The House then went into the Committee, when a conversation took place on the clause fixing the price at M. Lord GRENVILLE, after a few observations, declared his readiness to vote for 725. in preference to 80s. The Earl of LAUDERDALE, adverting to what had been said as to labour, contended, that the cause of the price of labour being diminished, is the neglect of protection to agriculture. He could not understand on what ground the Noble Lord could assert, that the price of was preferable to that of 80s. Earl GREY commented at much length upon the evidence of last year, respecting the preferable price, from which he was inclined to believe that something near 80s. was then necessary; but he now thought that there could be no necessity in fixing so high a price. He moved that 725. be fixed instead , of 80s. An explanatory conversation ensued between Lords LAWARDALE and GitLY, in support of their respec tive opinions. The Earl of CARLISLE said he had not heard, either in that House, or any other place, any thing to induce him to alter his opinion, that 70s. or 7is. was not a sufficient protecting price. Lord GRENVILLE repeated his objections to the made of taking the averages and valuations. He was astonished how it was possible to consider the average of twelve districts to be a fair mode of calculation for the whole kingdom.—He also objected to the present system of assize, and concluded by ex pressing his intention to propose a clause, that when ever the price of a quartern loaf shall be above led. for six successive weeks, it shall then be lawful to import wheat from any part whatever without duty ; and that the law should not be confined to the port of London, though that port should be the standard, but apply to all other eons of the kingdom. 'He re peated his firm conviction, that the price of 80s. would keep the price of bread above I‘. The Earl of HARROWBY said, it had formerly I been found extremely difficult to regulate the whole of the kingdom by the price of corn in the London market. In 1804, the price was first regu lated by the averages of certain districts. He con tended that the averages, as now taken, were stab dent to fix with ttllerable accuracy, the general ex port and import price of corn. His great objection to the motion of his Noble Friend WAS, that it pro posed to allow the importation of corn in a way hi therto untried and unthought of. Besides, it would permit the market to be influenced by fictitious sales , of wheat. The Earl of LAUDERDALE objected to the clause, on the ground that it would not produce the Meet which the Noble Lord expected. He entirely disapproved of the moJe of taking the assize of bread ; and conaideped that some alteration was ne. cessary in that respect. The Earl of DARNLEY entertained similar opinions. ' .1 - The Earl of STANHOPE had !lard a great deal respecting Wheat and Flour, in the course of the debate, to very little purpose. It seemed to him as if the arguments which had been used were for no nther purpose than to throw dust in the ryes of their Lordships—(4! laugh). After some further conversation, the question was put for agreeing to the clause; and was rejected without a division. Their Lordships then resumed—the Report,VMS received ( and the Bill was u rdered to be read a third time on Monday. • The House then adjourned at halfsast Eleven till Mond*. ' MINORITY AGAIINT ?RR lIRCONI4 READING OR TIC CORN BILL If Tin NOOSe 01 imit.O. u wabresseav assoopc,IS7III3NSTAIIT • gum • LARLS. LORI" GIMP Nit Essex *Oak , , _het Ayksabary Met Aar* bitchy. , Owl* mAit gums& Fortuces rroviess i 4 Delasibill W:14 1 1 1 7 41111 Om . viscoß NT. SPolicer PaVie • • • Tviblona ' Thus we two sow. la um tisc . ef tbildisesity as 4,urd • Ones male s the h ied tiosserese, isfse votes against dira I BM, raked off with Casa& Lord Grinestone voted spinet dee 'nation. The two Poem silmos names should be added Instead of the above are, the Dradaibasse,aad Viso. mum Bulktley. FOUSS Or CAS MOMS. A Petition was presented frail Mosselburgh, pitying that no alteration aright take place in the Corn Laws. Similar Petitions were presentative= Montrose and Aberdeen. Returns of the average price of Grain In the Maritime Dis tricts, during the years ialS and la' 4, were presented, and or dered to lie on the table. The Oil of Vitriol BiU was read a second time, and committed for Monday. OD the Motion et the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, the House went into a Committee of Supply. The Petition of the British Merchants resident at Rotterdam was referred to the Committee, and also several Accounts of Mis cellaneous. Mr. A.RBUTHNOT then moved the following Resolutions 1 4,500, for paying the Interest of Exchequer Bills. 119,797, for half a year's Interest on Debentures. 136,137, for payinlnterest on certain Annuities. 180,000, for Bills drawn from New (math Wales. Sir NEWPOR r asked if there would be any objection to laying before the House a statement of the manner in which this money was expended? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not aware there could he any ohjecdon to doing so. Mr. ARBUTHNOT then moved a sum of At 1,503, for Repairs done at the Fleet Prison. 1 107, for Repairs done at the Marshalsea. 4,493, for Repairs done at the King's Bench. ▪ 3,110, for Repairs of the Rolls Chapel. • 6,596, for the Repairs of the Speaker's House, and House of Commons. "0,000, for the Penitentiary Houle at Milbank. ,820,000, for making and repairing Roads and Bridles in Scotland. On this Vote being proposed, the SPEAKER ob served, that these Grants were applied for under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, passed in 1803, by which Commissioners were appointed to superintend the expenditure of the money granted by the public. He was one of the Commissioners, and w..s ready to state to the House what had been the progress of the work. The Right Hon. Member then proceeded to detail the particulars of what had been done under the Act. A length of road, extending 4(30 miles had already been completed ; 260 miles was partly made ; and a line of 170 miles of road was at present under consideration a IS bridges, two of them iron, and the rest stone, bad also been erected. And the result of these works was, that from Edinburgh to the northern parts of Scotland, not a single ferry existed. Roads had also been made branching out in other di- 1 rections, which wry much facilitated the conveying of fish, and other commodities, to the capital. The sums expended in these works amounted to about £300,000 for roads, and 410,000 for bridges, hall of which had been paid by the public, and half by hub. viduals. And he did not expect, that after this year any further application, except for keeping the works in permanent repair, would be made to the public. And here it would be proposed, that one-fourth should be defrayed by the public and three-fourths by individuals; and the share falling on the public, it was estimated, would be about ,e 2,500. After a few observations from Sir J. NEWPORT and Mr. TIERNIEY, the Resolutions were agreed to. The next Resolution proposed was AMU® for the Inland Navigation. The SPEAKER here also observed that he was one of the Committee under the Act passed on this subject, which had for its object to unite the Eastern and Western Oceans, the German Ocean and Irish Channel. The work, from the time of passing the Bill, had gone on without interruption, except as it had been limited by the extent of die yearly grants from Parliament. The original estimate of expense was re 500,000, but 8e515,000 had already been ex pended, and it was now apprehended that £lOO,OOO would be the whole sum required. This excess above the estimate was caused by the increase in the price of materials and labour. Three years would pro bably still be required for completing the work ; hut after it should have been completed, supposing that only two-thirds of the trade between the German Ocean and the Irish Channel should pass by it, the receipts, only at a very moderate rate of tonnage,' would pay the interest on the whole capital ex- 1 pended, and also keep the whole range of works in repair. Mr. ABERCROMBIE observed, that the work in question had been undertaken tinder the sanction of Parliament, and having bees carried on to the ex tent it had been, must be continued. This was his opinion now; but if the work was at present to be commenced, and a proposition was made for its com mencement, he should strongly oppose it. The Resolution was then agreed to. The following sums were then voted : .er,seo to the retired Clerks for auditing the Public Accounts. 1£145 for Printing for the House. £1,4011 for Printing Journals of the Commons. £lO,BOO for Deficiency in Printing last Segnons. £iB,ooo for printing Bills and Report* 0: the !louse of Common.. £6,000 for reprinting the Journals. £2,500 for printing the Votes of the ',regent Seggion. ARAB for deficiencies of printing In the House of Peers last Session. £21,0110 for printing Accounts for both Houses of Parliament. £3,500 for Stationary, for 1815, for both Houses. £l,BBB for certain Ufhc•rs of both Houses. 04,200 for toadeotal expellees of Parliament. On this last Resolution being moved— Mr. WHITBREAD asked for information as to the nature of these incidental expenses. Mr. ARBUTHNOT replied, the sum now asked for was for coals, candles, repairing the Committee. rooms, tte. Mt. WHITBREAD said a sum of upwards of £6,000 bad already been voted for the repairs of the Houses. Mr. ARBUTHNOT said the former sum was re. pairs on the external parts of the building. £1,174 was than moved for the French Refugee Clergy : Sir G. HEATHCOTE took this opportunity of alluding to what had fallen from the Member for Bedford on a former night; and observed, he per. fecdy agreed with that Hon. Gentleman, and hoped that whatever might be thermic of the present oc currences, whether a Louis XVIII. or a Napoleon I. should be seated on the throne, if the relations of peace and amity were preserved towards this coun try, we ibould not interfere, and by such interference embroil oureelves again in in war. Mr. W. WYNNE observed, with respect to the present Resolution, ho bad understood that no more votes of this sort, for French Refugees, would be required. Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, this vote was not for the citfhplic Clergy. but for Protestant Refugees, 'AU Vote was then 'greed to, as were ;be ing Resolutions also; Omit!' 4 ), f 4l , l4l . ) Miating b balrldn tiviaL ' 41x 5 for skill ar nekton In &eau& JlB,OOO for American Loyalists. •21 He for the Poor of St. Martin's in the Fields. .111 , 000 for the National Vaccine F.stablishment. 27,11211 for the expenses of superintending the Alien Depart nit Mr. WHITBREAD, upon this Resolution bei, moved, observed, that instead of so large a sum this, which was more than bad beets asked for on al former occasion, he had hoped that no application all would have been made to the House for mon . under this head of expenditure, especially as the A would expire during the present year. Mr. ARBUTHNOT said the Act had not 7 expired, and the expenses had been incurred. In a dition to the salary of clerks, there was included • the present resolution, expenses incurred for tepairit the house where the Board was held, and which. the terms of the lease, Government was repair. Mr. WHITBREAD observed, it was miller p fortunate that just at the period wher the Act uf expiring, and there would be no more occation the house, the public should have been uncle t:te r. cessity o f ! repais ing it. lie wished midi the V.: Hon. Gentleman woad withdraw t!I:a the present, and bring it forv:ard azain under tic distinct ones; under which it might :ippe.fr u;.. part of the sum required was for repairs, and ve i . for clerks' salaries, &c. Mr. AR BUI'HNO r said he had no objection ; do as the Hon. Mcmber suggested. The Resolution was accordingly . wit!:,!rr.7 3 . £1r.:,()O0 was shun %wet! to the Sheti::% lt.r rcw4..4.. L.:: t.c o. victim of /dor,. Mr. LOCKHART understood this sum was fr, the rewards on convictions for felonies. He thok. this was cxcecd:ng bad policy ; since cf2-nm, fo r c ! conviction c.,1 which no reward was fiver., twe G. quently overl ioked, whilst i.i cases whe:c :ward were given, the evidence was ove:look Mr. 1 :CANER defended the system ; zr.d after: few words from Mr. LeCKHAILT in exp:Ar..tliun, di resolution was agreed to. Mr. ARBUTHNOT then moved a r::olution £77,450 for the expe nses of convicts at hom e . Mr. BENN wished to know if Governmer had it in contemplation to adopt any reform in at present system of disposing of Convicts on board chi hul Mr. ARBITTHNOT said, a plan for that put pose was at present under the consideration of Givers meet. Indeed the erection of the new Penitentiary House, towards which ;t arm hacl this evening bee n vAed, would go far towards renredyin:; the :vil ut which the Hon. Gentleman had complained. Mr. WHITBREAD took this opportunity of paying a high compliment to Mr. Gra:,atn, to witose vigilance and attention, all the improvements which had taken place on board fly hulks might buted. After a few words from Mr. LONG and Mr, strranoT, the Resolution Was put and agreed , On the Resolution fo; granting (mows thousand pounds tor the expense; of the Bow-btreet Office ing the year, Mr. BENNETT wished much to know effectual steps had been adopted for the better , vation of the peace of tile metropolis in future, to prevent a recurrence of the duracitlul wetch rccendy been prevalent The CHANCEILOR. of thoEXCHEQU said, measures had been adopted for obraini , the objects to which the Honourable Genr had alluded. After a teW words from Mr. BATHURST, MI NZTir o Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. TIMMY, solution was agreed to. A Resolution for granting 45000 for the of prosecutions on the subject of the coin w; moved, and was agreed to. Mr. A RBUTHNOT then moved am) of for defraying the law charges for the year. This Resolution, after a fcw word from Mr Haar, who declared his opinion that a great coney was wasted by the present mode, which Crown adopted of rrosecuting, was agreed to. l'wenty.tive thousand pounds was then moved the Royal Naval Asylum. Mr. WHITBREAD objected to this vote, further time was given. Amongst other items accounts, he saw one of £3OO to a person for ing, this, he was convinced, was too much. might be found who would do it for less money, There was also another item, which had just his eye, and to which he must object that of .50guineas to a barlicr, for cutting the boys' Mr. AR DU HNO I' said, the person wi ted the accounts was a clergyman, and occa assisted the chaplain. Mr. WlilTE R.V.AD wished to knots wli tance the auditor gave to the chaplain, and ic chaplain did for his £2.50 a year t Sir J. NEWPORT said, this clergyman ditor was also a benefiCed clergyman, holdi livings in Ireland. from which he vas absent on _ . AR BUTHNOT wicked to correct t: Baronet's statement, the pet son in question 11, his Irish livirgs by staying hcre:to audit the of in question. J. NEWPORT was glad to hear this tion, it was to the honour of the person in that lie had lost his Irish livings. Mr. WHITBREAD said, still the salary had not been proved a fair salary t or had proved that the salary of the Governor, £764, - £5O to the barber, were not more than fair compal sation The whole establishatent earrietkth* jeb on the face of it. Mr. CROKE!: said, the Governor was Officer, of great courage and ability, and eujo/iTgl no greater salary than he would have if now living if another sitnation. Mr. WHITBREAD ',Used as know if number or children (1000) were in the The Hon. Gentleman whospoka last bad *foam , ne did not approve of the In tion. No awe he, (Mr. Whitbread) and be should now KV?' the vote be withdr awn t ill a C omm i ttee 0 1 th e r. should, on enquiry ; Mee olefided whether ' arable the Institution should be kept up, Mr. CROKER denied having said the Institutioa was had. He bad only declared his opinion it ' have been betty confined to children of With respect to the number of children. children. (be 700 were complete ; the man* di" amo k was what deletes' at present.. Sir Co POLE opted to thQ institution as Icier tic 'Ar .ed Wl. ettiOr, ~ t.c t;. I w,.j fr; thoug:. for 1:! ,:et f, :ward. :d after t h tation te. ernmer ninat uard tht lhat Given. itentiar) ling been is :vil ul I. unity et to witose Is which t be attri• Mr. Ar.• al to. thousand lce dur. w if any Or preset. ure, and outrages EQUER aining all en t leman dr. BEN. the Re. expenses was dna 'R20,000 r. Local I deal of bich the en• d for te, rnless ms in the For auc Persons noney.— it caught , as a SUR hair. rho iudii• hat assit• what the and au• ling two on leave. the lion. had lost I accounts declara. question of 8500 it been 4, or the , compeo- he word a Natal egjorieg living id' the citation deflated Dore did pose that to House was de- istitetioo. it wuold • o fficers. 100 b.ye Is wow is it cow • I 4