The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-21 00:00:00

LAWS OF REAL PROPERTY-INFANTS.

Mr. BUMDEti Moved for leave to letitig in Bill which
he had introduced into the House, fdt• the alteration of that
part of the Law of Real Property, which enabled Trus-
tees for a Minor to plead the infancy of the vendor against
the completion of the conveyance begun by the predecessor.
He thought it most desirable, that by a legislative enact-
ment, there should be some amendment in a regulation
which entailed so ninth expense and delay upon the parties.
If the contract were commenced by a man who died pend-
ing the etecution of the deeds, if ..the heir-at-law were a
minor, he could not be compelled to execute it by the Lord
Chancellor, till having come of age, so that it might stand
over for .a considerable time. He proposed also to make
an amendment in that part of tla,laNv which required an
expensive inquiry to be institutirfo r the discovery of trus-
tees, in the case of the sale of 'charity lands. He knew
an instance wherein the Commiesiouers having ordered a
charity rent charge of 7/. only to be sold, an expense of
7001. was incurred. It would have cost no more if the
income of the estate had been a million. What he would
propose as an amendment was, that a simple petition
should be presented to the Lord Chancellor; and two notices
inserted in the London Gazette, requiring the parties, if any,
to come forward within a month, or any limited period.—
Upon, aluture occasion, he would call the attention of the
House to another abuse in the practice of the Court, in
which he had the honour to practice. It had been said,
that the dungeons of the Fleet immured many indiViduals,
by order of the Court of Chancery, for years. Now the
fact was, that the Lord Chancellor could not refuse to
commit any one guilty of contempt; and it frequently hap-
pened, that a man rather than execute a deed which he
thought might injure his property, would remain in gaol
fer a long series of years. One man had actually remained
in gaol for thirty years. As an amendment for this evil,
he should • propose that an officer he appointed by the
Court to execute where a party was thus obstinate : he
hoped the House would pay attention to this sebject, and
thus show that they were seriously disposed to remedy the
admitted defects in the practice of the Court of Chancery.
Mr. TWISS seconded the motion.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR agreed in what the Hon. Mem-
ber had commenced, but he did not go far enough, but even
the little to be attained by this Bill would. be of value.—
He agreed that there was no argument against the Court on
account of prisoners being imprisoned for contempt, lbr not
executing deeds, as he himself had often occasion to go to
the Fleet Prison, and endeavour to prevail upon persons
imprisoned on this account to do as they ought. The
Hon. Gentleman went en to say that he would, unless
further steps were taken to proceed with great reform in the
procieedings of the Court of Chancery generally,' still per-
severe in bringing the subject before the House and the
country.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. -
CORN LAWS.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER the House went into -a Committee on the Corn
Importation Bill. .

On the second clause being read,
Mr. W. WHITMORE rose to p`ropose the amendment
of which lie had given notice. His desire was, that there
should be a fixed duty' from the 'period at which corn came
to the price of 555. up to 635., during which he proposed
that there should be a duty of I Os. a quarter, and that
when it was below the former the duty should increase ;
while, on coming to the latter, it should decrease until the
price rose to 70e, when all duty was to cease. Alter some
observations on the prices during different years, the Hon.
Member concluded by proposing his resolution, to the
effect that, when wheat was bos. and tinder 515., there
should be a duty of IL, and that as it rase the duty should
decrease by 2s. until the price wassss.„ from which, until
it arrived at 655., tie duty was to be 10s., until it rose to
704., when there.was to be dduty of h. : and that, for
every shilling wheat fell in price under 50s. the duty should
increase by 2s.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS, although a firm friend to
free trade, thought that the Government would have an
incorrect sense of their duty if they consented to a scale so
linv IN that' proposed by the Hon. Member. The house
'was aware that 50s. was the point at which the duty of 11.
.was to be fixed;-and he isked, would they be willing to
expose the agriculture' to the danger of importation at so
low a standard ? The Hon. Gentleman then showed, that
in 1'796 and 1804 duties were raised because the average
price had increased at those periods. That was also the
ease in 1815;' but it should be recollected that, in the
four yeare prior to 1818, the average price had bra:nil:is.
5d., in consequence of which the House, and be.hirnself,
'had agreed to the high duty then imposed. On the same
principle, he was opposed to the idea of exposing the
try at present to the-experinaent of importation at such a
low prier. Under the duty of last Session, there were
na less than 115,000 quarters imported; and even under
'the' scale' of the Corti 14111 of last
.year, there, were no, less
half it million quarters jqnported.. the, year,.
.16 (J-7! thessfSvere lin y Wel ve r e, oding tsy.o, :Years.art
ethirciryt, when there had hviu a:larger ouarnity imported
than in the last year. •
After some further ohservatinns; the aniendrnent was pub
and negatived without a division, and the. original Resolu-
tion amid. to.
On the clause for the appointment of inspectors, and for
the appointment of the places where the averages were to
be taken, , •
Mr. :PORTMAN, although aware. of the difficulty of
attracting the attention of the Nouse, still thought it im-
peratively his duty to impress the necessity of a change
with respect to the places where averages were to be taken.
The first place named was London, and,that he chiefly ob-
jected to, because he did not conceive that the averages
could be fairly taken there. After ping into the history
of the appointment of places'for taking the prices, the Hon.
cluitlein.an said that his object was to protect the grower,
and. London was the, last. p)alle where that object was likely
to be attained. lie would therefore .move that London. be
.left.otit of the :14 of places in, which ,averages were to be
.4keP!. . • . .
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWISit WIS thought would be- uite
impossible to, change, , one. .part ._of the, nagmsUre .withoutC*ging others , It was; hoWever, gratifying to find that
tinne novelty was.introduced into the debate, for they were
never called on to recognise the argument adduced in 1815,
that. of giving protection to • the grower merely, without
consideringayliat was due to the consumer. The House
shoat remember the scarcity of 1800
.and 1801, when
200,000/. sterlingwent from the metropolis, and he there-
.o hoped the House twould never legislate without
consideringren the consumer. As to London,, it should be
considered that it must necessarily have a great weight
f+ its-consumption, and if prices rose suddenly, and that
they were obliged to wait for the averages of . other towns,
which were always a. week later, and Ireland of course
still. more so, the consequences might be of the worst hind..
That averages were also important as respected the preven-.
tion of frauds, as they Were the only chance against such
practices, because from nit beitig from one place only, but
from the mass, it Was not possible that deceit could be
'carried on. He contended that the exclusion Of London
from the averagee would be attended with effects the most,
-unjust,' and would be indeed injurious to the interests of
the farmers themselves.
Mr, CURTEIS wished to know, whether or not
mixed corn was to pay a duty, and also wished to know,
whether the Isle of Man was included in the Bill. '
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Dorsetsbire, contending that the course pur-
sued with regard to the Corn,L4ws, was nothing less than
a premeditated war against the best interests of the farmer.
The principle upon those averages that was taken appeared
in the results to be completely fallacious. In London, tricks
were played, vitheorn,.whick)s 4,01 e etreetof raising its
.1"'"" .tYworcAib n=aunt ni
sI;T.

nominal price far above that which was reaffy- reeei'vell by
the farmers.

BE NETT (Wilts) was-against-the -averageA heir,
taken in Loudon—for here corn So often changed hand:
ihitits real price seldom appet:* His object in wishing
to *hide London was, that nothing sales should
appear in the returns—nothing but a factitiou2i ai.erage
dbtr!iLtrd by taking the prices in London. He was
hints& a cottsidel'alilt corn-grower, and he never was
able to obtain the prices which the Gazette represented
as thiise bt the Market, it was upon these grouud..l he de-
sired to have hoiin
.fidl; averages,, and upon these grounds
he Would support the motion of Hon. Member for
Dorsetshire.

—.--------
Mr. F. LEWIS said in reply to an Hon. Member opikil
site, that mixed corn could not be considered British, and
that with respect to the Isle of Man was not included.
After a few words from Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. Cult-
tris, the Committee divided.
For Mr.' POrtman's Motion r

Against it 132
;Majority

On our re-admissid E: WODEHOUSE was con.-
eluding the observations with Whieh he initdAced his mo-
tion for including the following ports of ScAland and Ire-
land in the number of those from which returns were tube
made of all'grain,' with the exception of wheat, namely :
EdinbUrgh; Glasgow, Aberdeen, Haddington, Dumfries,
and Dundee; Main; Cerk; Waterford, Limerick, Bel-
fast, Sligo, and Galway.
LEWIS observed, that the effect or the Hof.
Member's motion would be to give an increased protection
to the agricultural interest. He put it to the Committee,
whether or not oats required any increased protection be-
yond what was actually given to them by the measure then
under their consideration. The Hon. Member then en-
tered into some details, to show that the view he took of the
subject was foundtd in fact.

WODEHOUSE said, that his proposition was to
include all grain except wheat; and with respect to oats,
he wished the House to recollect, that that was a descrip.
tion of grain subject to peculiarities to which the others
were not liable.

Mr: V CURTEIS expressed his surprise at the silence of
the Irish 'Members; they were deeply interest-0 in the pre,
sent discussion. If any thing were said about the Catholic
Question, or Maynooth College, or the Education of the
Poor, or the Treaty of Limerick, they would, no doubt, be
most animated in debate.—(A laugh.)
Mr. M. FITZGERALD certainly agreed that on any
question relating to oats, the Irish were deeply interested,
and had a right' to be considered. There were two' circiun-
stances, which, if duly estimated, would lead to , the convic-
tion that'same measure peculiar to oats ought to be adopted.
It was alleged that this country was overrun with Irish
paupers ; that they depreciated the price of labour, and
produced the worst effects upon the eonditionof the labour-
ing classes in this country. It was well known that iu a
greater or less degree, the persons who came f..mi that
country to this were producers of oats.' Now• if a steady
demand were insured to. them the quality of the grain
would improve, the quantity would be influenced by the
extent of market, and, upon the whole, the Ultimate effect
would be, a reduction of the average price, and a great ser-
vice in other respects to both countries; and also one of the
best practical remedies that could be devised to put a stop
to the influx of Irish paupers. Ireland ought to be brought
as much as possible within the 'scope of the British market.
Ne could not understand upon what principle Parliament
could think-of treating Ireland us 'a foreign country:. Why
should she be shoved out? It was inconsistent with the
Union, and altogether unjust towards Ireland.
The question was then put, and negatived without. a
division.

Mr. CU RTEIS then moved, that whenever the same cern
was sold twice in the same week, such sales should,, not be
allowed to influence the averages.
Mr. FRANKL AND LEWIS could not agree CO a.clause.
of so much importance, without an opportunity Of conside«
ing its probable effect. '
Mr. CURTEIS agreed then to withdraw it for the pre-
sent, giving notice of his intention Co move it on a future
occasion.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to
be received to-morrow.