The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-11 00:00:00

, .
. .
-IVI ii, -
•
--0,41 yi' 4Z4,') '-'-'
• .
/. i '7_,--,---* , fii iAl\k,'\. '
11l I . 7 . 7 .
,I
Pr.4l. 1

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1822.

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, JUNE 10.
•
The:Earl St. VINCENT took the oaths and his
seat. His Lordship was, by special leave of the
House, on account of the state of his health, al:-
lowed totake the oaths covered ; he wore a blue
velvet cap.
Petitions were presented by. Lord Gwydir, from Spiisby
(Lincoln), complaining of Agricultural Distress; by the Earl
of Tlarewood, from Merchants, Ship-owners, &c. of Whitby,
against any alteration in the Navigation Laws ; by the Mar-
quess of Aylesbury, 'from Marlborough, against the Roman
Catholic Peers Bill ; and by Lord Erskine, from Walworth,
St. Anns', Blackfriars, Dudley and Whitechapel, in favour
of the ill-treatment of Cattle Bill.—Ordered to lie upon the
table.

The Recognizances Bill, the ill-treatment of Cattle Bill,
some Local and Private Bills, were brought up from the House
oaf Commons by Mr. Calvert, Mr. gait Davis, Sir Nicholas
Colthurst, and other Members, and read a first time.
The Manslaughter Bill was read a second time.
The Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill was reported by the
Earl of Shaftesbury, the Amendments agreed to, and a clause
added.

The Rate of Interest Bill, and the Sheriffs Depute (Scot-
land) Bill passed through Committees, and were reported
without amendment.
STATE OF IRELAND.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN, with reference to his mo-
tion intended to have been brought on this evening, respecting
the state of Ireland, said, that a fel, hours since he had re-
ceived a communication from the Noble Earl (Liverpool) at
the head of his Majesty's Councils, stating that he had been
'taken suddenly ill, and that he should be unable to attend this
evening, or to take any part in the debate. Under these cir-
cumstances he (the Marquess of Lansdown) felt himself called
upon to postpone die motion ; and as the Noble Earl had in-
timated that he might probably be able to attend on Friday, he
(the Marquess of Lansdown)
.moved to discharge the order for
summoning the Lords this day, and to,renew it for Friday._.
Ordered accordingly—Adjourned till to-morrow (this day).

though he admitted that the majority of the Committee had dif.s
fered from him in opinion.
` After a few words from Colonel Dilifiss Sir T. Lethbridge,
Mr. W. Smith; and Dr. Phillimore, the Amendments were
agreed to, and the House resumed.
On the question for receiving the Report,
Mr. CALCRAFT againvonaplained of the absence of Mini-
sters at a quarter after f o'clock.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed his regret
that his absence should have occasioned any inconvenience to
the Hon. Member.
Mr. CALCRAFT was only anxious to know at what hour
his Majesty's Ministers might be expected to be present, so
that the public' business might not be retarded.
sper
ha
'file Marquis
ps a convenientLONDONDEßßYarquisofhour.
said that half-past four
Sir N. W. RIDLEY thought it would be a great conveni-
ence, if some measures were taken to expedite and regulate the
preparation of public Bills. He recollected that on the 23d of
June last, no fewer than seventeen such Bills were read a first
time.
• After a few.woada from Mr. WYNN, the:ROA ,has ors
tiered to be considered on Monday next.
Mr.W. SMITH delayed, till the 27th, a motion for the pro-
duction of papers relating to the Slave Trade..
Tae 3 iorquis of LONDONDERRY rose to moire the Order
of f;he Day for considering the Report, on the Corl Importation'
Bill ; and Mr. BROUGHAM rose at the same time to present
a Petition, and submit a motion relative to Michael George Prep-
dergast, Esq. Banker, in Calcutta. The former stated that he
rose in Consequence of the plan suggested by Mr. Calcraft; and
the latter contended that his Petition ought to have the preces,
dence, as he had given notice of it. He appealed to the Speaker.
The SPEAKE would wish to be directed by. the House.
The House had expressed a wish that public business shcitild
commence early ; and he thought that any Honourable 'Mem-
ber who was in possession of the House, had a right to proceed.
This Petition certainly stood among the notices of motions.
'Mr. CALCRAFT thought that no important Petition Ought
to be presented unless when Ministers were present.
Mr. BROUGHAM agreed to abandon the motion, and con.
tent himself in the mean time with presenting the Petition.
lie then proceeded to preface the petition with a few remarks,
which, from the noise in the Gallery, and the low tone in which
he spoke, could not be heard. He concluded by presenting a
petition from M. G. Prendergast, Esq. relative to a debt which
was due to his client, and secured upon a property which had
fallen into the hands of the East India Company.
The Petition was brought up, read, laid on the table, and
ordered to be printed.
A MEMBER, whose name could not be learnt, moved for the
production of any proceedings of the Committee of East India
Directors, which had• taken place in consequence of Mr. Pren-
dergast's letters of the 13th and 15th May.
Mr. ASTELL hoped the House would, notwithstanding
what had been said by the Honourable Member (Mr. Brougham),
suspend its judgment.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he had not entered upon the
merits of the case ; he had done nothing more than explain the
Petition. The motion was agreed to.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved the Order of
the Day for going into the Report on the Corn Importation
Bill. He was anxioua that the debate on the general principle
should take place on the third reading. The clause introduced
by his Right Hon. Friend for Liverpool (Mr. Canning's), allow-
ing the grinding of foreign corn now in the warehouses, was
not, he understood, agreeable to several Members of the
House ; he therefore intended to oppose that clause ; in the
mean time, lest it should injure the success of a Bill, the prin-
ciple of which was allowed to be good, his Right Hon. Friend
could introduce it as a separate Bill afterwards.
Mr. G. BENNET adverted to a very important Bill before
the House, and trusted that, if the Prison Regulation Bill was
again postponed, it Would be brOught forward early in the next
week, and take the lead of other business.
' . Mr. COURTENAY said" the delay did not rest with him,
it arose out of the public business. He would, as far as it de-
pended on himself, bring forward the Bill as soon as possible.
Mr. CANNING could not accept, at that very advanced
period of the Session, and the pressure of public business, the
compromise offered by his Noble Friend relative to the clause
as to, imported corn already ground. lie should, therefore,
take the sense of the House on the clause. 'All parties were
friendly to its principle, but some were apprehensive of abuse
in the operation. His Constituents Were ready to acquiesce
in any security or re. 'Actions the Treasury might think proper
to impose.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT considered the clause fatal to the inter;
est of the Agricultural interest, and was determined to oppose
every restriction, as no restriction could afford security. -
Mr. CANNING and Sir J. SEBRIGHT explained.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said the principle of this clause
originated in the Committee above stairs, but it was ultimately
abandoned there. He was at a loss to decide how, as the clause
was received in a Committee of the whole House, he could get
rid of the clause without voting against the Report of the Bill.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said it. was open to the
House to negative any clause of the Bill, either in that stage,
or on the third reading.
The Order of the Day for receiving the Report was then
read; after which the SPEAKER suggested that the clause
alluded to foisted one of the Amendments to be read a second
time. On that question,
Mr. CURWEN declared that he still should continue his op-
position to the proposed clause. The Bill itself of the Noble
Marquis gave a very imperfect preference to the landed in-
terest, and while the clause held out no adVantage to them, it
subjected theinto the probability of many disadvantages. The
parties who sought that clause ought to have been prepared to
shew what securities they could give against abuse, and not
leave the provision of restricting it to the responsibility of the
Treasury.
Mr. BRIGHT contended that the commercial interest had an
equitable claim on the country. Taking the incidents that af-
fected them, both by the alteration of the mode of taking averages
and the depreciation of the currency, it was evident that though
a great capital had been employed in the importation of corn,
they had not been very forward in pressing their immediate in-
terests. By these two measures the agricultural interest had
been considerably benfited in fixing the minimum price at
which foreign corn could be imported.' The benefit they now
sought could be extended to them without injury to the landed
interest. All those who imported corn before the alterations in
the averages and the currency, had certainly an equitable claim
on the consideration of Parliament. It was well known that it
was only the American, French, and other foreign flour which
could be imported to warm countries. Then why refuse that
opportunity to the British speculator, which, if refused to him,
will be availed of by the foreign grower? The agricultural in-
terest had allowed themselves to be frightened with mere no-
things. Was there a single proof of corn being smuggled du-
ringthe Inquiry of the Committee ? It was the want of specu-
lation that injured the home grower. Let the speculator be
brought into the home market, and they would have high prices.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL, with no wish to prejudice the Com-
mercial Interest, was decidedly opposed to the clause.
General GASCOYNE said, the petitioners asked for no
boon. When the Corn was watehoused it was entered for ex-
portation ; and it could have made no difference in what form
it was to go out. It was strange, in this land of liberty; that
Corn, because it touched the shore, was to be the only thing
shackled. The petitioners did not ask for liberality—but
equity and justice.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT opposed the Clause, and controverted
the statements of the Right Hon. Member for Liverpool. He
said, he was assured by :Millers, that if the Corn came into
their mills, the Exciseman should not prevent them from tak-
ing it out in their own way. He concluded by observing, that.
he did not wish to do any harm to the Corn Merchants, but to
rid them of a losing speculation.
Sir T. LETIIBRIDGE stated, that if the Bill passed, it
would be an inducement to the Traders to deal with the Foreign
grower instead of the British Farmer.' He expressed a hope,
that the Clause would not be pressed by the Right Honourable .
Gentleman, as the opinion of the Noble Lord was against it.—
He looked on the Bill as one of horror and abhorrence to the
country, and an insult to the landed interest.
Mr. F. LEWIS supported the Clause, and contended, that
in its operation it would be essentially serviceable to the landed
interests.
Mr. D. BROWNE opposed the Clause, and contended, that
the adoption of it would have the two-fold effect of encouraging
the future spetulator in Foreign Corn, and of immediately de-
preciating the price of our home produce by the surreptitious
introduction of Foreign Flour.
Mr. D. GILBERT said, lie understood from all those who
were competent to give an opinion upon the subject, that if the
Clause were adopted, it would be impossible to frame any set
of regulations which 'would have the effect of preventing the