The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-16 00:00:00

--I

tare last year. It was very true that list Session he con •
iidered the measure as a temporary one. They had expe-
ti"rlee of its effects since then, and endeavoured is this
hill to avoid the errors of the former. It appeared to him
that they had succeeded in avoiding them, at least in a
Pau part. He recommended this Bill, because the duty
bight be so varied as to amount to an absolute prohibition.
"their Lordships did not adopt the
_principle on which it
Itraess-ded, of a duty varying with the price, where were
they to go? They who opposed this principle did not
saggeist any other. The great evil of a prohibitory system
Wll. that it occasioned corn to tle locked up in warehouses,
Which when the price rose, was suddenly thrown into the
market, and thus produced all the evils of sudden fluctua-
t'llk The great advantage of this Bill was, that while it
'lowed the introduction of small quantities of corn, it
rl'atected the country against an extraordinary influx.—
4-11ras clear that it had not excited any thing like hostility
oa the part of the agriculturists, for no petitions were pre-
linteal against it. He trusted their Lordships would per-
:lit it to be read a second time, and not prevent the esta-
,liihrnent of that good understanding between the menu-
44etutring and agricultural interests which it was likely to
PrNituce.

Lord INIALMESIIURY explained.
Lord REDESDALE said, the late system tended to pro-
:IQ% speculation, and it was to that his greatest objections
He wished the merchants and manufacturers would
4ttend to this, that what is the produce of the country costs
Othing, what is brought in costs something. This was a
1/1„, ri of political economy, if he might use the words.--
1, the production of corn at home, the capital, land, and
fur of the country were employed. That was net the
v4Be I.vith the produce of foreign countries. This was the
r"goin why they should employ as much as possible their
°W n land. It would be absurd to employ it in the produc-
tm)4 Of wine or sugar, because the soil was not adapted to
them. The produce of the country was, in fact, the sup-
Port of the population, and of every branch of industry.
4e land was the capital from which every other article was
Produced.

,Tlit-13luke of WELLINGTON said, the tendency of
"a Bill was to prevent warehousing, because, as the price
WI the. duty rose. There would, therefore, be less temp-
tation to warehousing than under the former system. In
1816, under a system of absolute prohibition, or very
llearly so, corn came out of bond without the payment
of any duty, or a very small duty. Nothing of thatikind
could happen now, us speculation in the warehousing
of c,rn could not be carried to so great an extent. It
seas true, as the Nob)e Lord had observes!, that, under
the measure of last Session, the price of oats and barley rose
higher in proportion than that acorn. They were, perhaps,
Unduly favoured. They were specially protected in that
When the present measure came to be well consi-
dered, it appeared that it would be inexpedient to keep the
?'Otection so high. The Noble Lord (Malmesbury) ob-
3"tcd to the mode of taking the averages, as Ireland was
4°t included. Had this been done, it would have given
'lle to many complaints and inconveniences which it was
thought would not be counterbalanced by any equivalent
411funtage. The great object of the Bill was to afford a
reasonable and sufficient degree of protection, and to avoid
1:11 411101 as possible the evil of fluctuation. The quantity
jou& into the market last year was inconsiderable.—
rFne entered at 225. Sd. and about 140,000 qrs. at 1/.
s. 84. ; but, on the Ist of May, after these 140,000 qrs.
;14E4 been brought out, a large quantity still remained. in
" warehouses.
Their Lordships then divided—
Contents—Present
Proxies
Non-contents—Present l2
Proxies 7-19
Majority -67
The Bill was ordered to be committed on Tuesday.
Adjourned at Ten o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 13.

48 soon as the SPEAKER took the Chair, the Right
411%. T. P. COVRTENAY took the oaths and his seat,
ton his re-election after accepting the office of
"ee-President of the Board of Trade.
Lord G. LENNOX presented a petition from the
Surgeons of Chichester, praying that facilitie., might
Afforded to the Study of Anatomy.

Mr'. WODEHOUSE presented petitions from
Places: in Caernarvon, praying for the abolition of
slivery.
Mr. BENETT presented a similar petition from
toe inhabitants of Warminster.
0,1%. LOTT presented a petition from the Mer-
-A7atits, Agriculturists, and other inhabitants of
'44toinster, in favour of the circulation of small notes.
i Mr. H. SMITH presented a petition from the
foniutbitants of Colchester and its vicinity, praying
the Abolition of Slavery.
'ir R. VIVIAN presented a petition from thehke""%bitants of Callington, against any further con-
Non to the Catholics.
th Sir R. VIVIAN also presented a petition from
tparsie place, praying for a tax on the importation
foreign wool.
OEB4' H. PARNELL moved for a return of copies
Shrewsbury
memorials from the Commissioners of the
and Holyhead Roads, relative to the
establishment
h of the steam-packets from the latter
r'''e to Dublin.
Leolouel WILSON presented a petition from the
iZehants and inhabitants of Whitby, in favour of
cirenlation of small notes.
41% LIDDELL presented a petition from the Iron-
tl
4 tens and Colliers of Nottingham and Derby in
tour of the issue .of Small Notes.
Lord ALTHORP said, that owing to the late-
NI
41 of the Session he felt it necessary to postpone,
ktil next year, the further progress of the Freeholders'
4gistration Bill, and therefore moved, that the Bill
committed this day three months.—Agreed to.
ihLord W. POULETT presented a petition from
tii, inhabitants of Chester-le-Street, in favour of the
t ettlation of Small Notes. Also a similar petition
°ln the inhabitants of South Shields.
Sir
E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition
t. 51 :the inhabitants of Lenham, in Kent, praying
f!) a Protecting duty on Wool. Also a petition
A .14 the inhabitants of the sante town, prayinz for
Loather 'protection against the importation of
~Peign Wool.
1,,41r. Alderman WAITHMAN presented a petition
hi' "14, the inhabitants of Smithfield, praying that the
Net might not be removed from its present site.
4,iit It. WILSON said that the butchers them-
•.v . . ,
et,„._ea had complained that the market was not large
-0;h: , •. ••- • , ' ••',
‘,..4t C. BUARELL said, that a market for
t 44 was march wanted at the West end of the
1140, -as much for the convenience of the , 41-
ltants, as for the safety of the public : if a market
0 thus established, at'aiii West end, it would
liii'en the necessity, of having cattle driven through
to atrae.s,
, 'the great terror and peril of women
tuilthen and to the detriment of the meat.
I‘,t7t- Alderman WAITHMAN always felt that it
Pitli,", ecessary the market should be enlarged.—The
ii°4 *as then ordered to lie on the table.
"*k P. P. LEWIS presented a petition from Wen-
,', Ifiirist the. Ale-house Licensing Bill.
‘lit‘t,l' M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition from
k„,..'eastle-upon-Tyne, praying for the Abolition of
r ell.
t®
441 rLIVE STE RN presented three similar petitions
. harking and Wethersby.
'IItak:.O.'GRANT presented a petition from the
ko"lltatits of Ross, praying for a Tax an Foreign
4•
Stiii,!•PERGUSSON said, that the greater portion
likit' rental of Scotland was paid from the fleece,
irt,:ill he thought the landed interest were not de-
li, 9f a tax on. the importation of Foreign Wool.
liy',,,lP. KENNEDY thought that the opinion was
tDaitcrneatis so general as he supposed, and it was
Preg.,te
41."h'for the Hon. Gentleman to speak as if re-
,',t.'nk .the whole.of the landed interest.
.eII.GUSSON explained.
1.44 t•:• :KatitELL was surprised that the Mi-
4ibies gave no explanation of their intentions on the
Ititietli.ttla wool trade. .He expected a moderate
Nii!).4 Foreign Wool.
4,I4:IARING said, that it would be much better
,t•-•!--=-!...iLT.e cifia motion upon it, and thus call
t .'illi-POkniffi'ie -'Rouse- fairly to the subject,
nn 'an thns:lgtriAlee-:a discussion upon a peti-
,,
1. When a duty was proposed to be placed on
1,4t4‘: material, those who proposed it should state
top_ be that called fur such a duty, and then it
ti °e. shown that the wool grower was not con-
"g his interest when he asked for a protecting duty.
i

They should also say what duty it was that they re-
quired, instead of asking indefinitely for a duty.
Mr. BENETT said, that the duty required now
was that which they had formerly possessed, during
which possession it did not do any harm to the
country. The fact was, that when the price of
wool was reduced, a reduction took place also in the
exportation, and landed estates in the West of Eng-
land had fallen in value at least 20 or 30 per cent.
Mr. C. GRANT did not think the members of
the late Government were to blame i;‘)r not bringing
the subject before the House. For himself, he was
ready to discuss the subject whenever it should be
brought on. The Hon. Member then presented a
petition from the woollen manufacturers of Galla-
shiels against a duty upon the importation of foreign
wool; and also a pbtition from Southampton praying
that foreign flour might be allowed to be manufac-
tured into biscuit for ships' use. '
SMITHFIELD MARKET.
Mr. GORDON moved that a Select Committee
be appointed to inquire into the state of Smithfield
Market, and to report their observations thereon to
the House.
Mr. Alderman WOOD objected to the appoint-
ment of a Committee at so late a period of the
Session, as it was utterly impossible that the la-
, bolus of the Committee could be productive of
any benefit; but if the Honourable Member would
postpone his motion until next session, it should
have his (Mr. Ald. W.'s) support, and he should do
all in his power to afford facilities to the Committee.
He thought that the appointment of a Committee
at this period would unsettle the minds of persons
having property in the neighbourhood of the market.
He defended the Corporation of London against
the attacks which were contained in the petition
resented on a former night, and said that the Cor-
poration had made several attempts to remove the
Smithfield market; but all their efforts were de-
feated by majorities of that House, by which the
Bills brought into Parliament by the Corporation of
London were thrown out. Since the Bill last brought
in by the Corporation, the market had been enlarged
one-fifth. He moved as an amendment, that the
consideration of the subject should be postponed to

next session.
Mr. BENETT opposed the amendment.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said the petitions
presented against Smithfield market,and upon which
was founded the present motion, were got up by a
party with a solicitor at their head, wholly ignorant of
the real state of the market, or of the trade carried on

there, and whose only wish in doing away with this
market was to promote a job which they had concoct-
ed, for erecting buildings in lieu of this market. He
denied the truth of the complaints contained in that pe-
tition, and wished to call the attention of the House

to the fact, that those petitioners did not attempt to
point out any remedy for the supposed evil. He
contended, that neither in Paris, or any other city
in Europe, were slaughter-houses better conducted
than in the neighbourhood of Smithfield market.

The Corporation of London were most anxious to
do every thing in their power to accommodate the
public, and hoped, therefore, that the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Gordon) would let the subject lie over
until next Session, and if he came forward then with
any reasonable plan, it would meet with no opposi-
tion from those connected with the City of London.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that after the candid
admission made by the Hon. Alderman, lie thoHght
the Hon. Alderman might waive his objection to the
appointment of a Committee. For his own part, he
(Mr. Peel) was favourable to laying a foundation
for the inquiry by the appointment of a Committee
this Session.

Mr. R. GORDON disclaimed all intention o 1
throwing an imputation on the Corporation of Lon-
don. All that he (Mr. G.) asked for was a Com-
mittee of inquiry.

Mr. Alderman ATKINS recommended the post
ponement of the inquiry until the next Session.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON resisted the mo-

tion on two grounds—first, that there was not time
for inquiry during the present Session ; and, secondly,
that the statements put forth were unfounded, he
thought the subject should be allowed to lie over
until next year.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division; but
it was understood that the House did not divide, and
that the motion for a Committee was agreed to.