The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

lIQUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, MAY 22.
The Earl of DERBY presented Petitions against slavery from
Sutton-in-Mhfiell ; from Broad Windsor, Dorset ; from Leigh-
ton Buzzard, and from the town of Warrington.
Lord MONTFORD presented a Petition from Wexford against
.any alteration in the Irish Banking System.
The. Earl of MALMESIATRY, on examining the Bonded Corn
Bill, folio(' that the returns moved for would not afford the in-
forrnation he wanted, and which would be necessary for the dis-
cussion of to-morrow. lie therefore now moved for a return
of all the grain warehoused under bond previous to the 22.1
of May.
Lord MELVILLE said, that in the course of a quarter of an
hour he would tz...ke such measures that the Noble Lord would have
the return he de:iired before the discussion of to-morrow should

commence.
Lord ELLENTIOROUGIL in reference to the Debtor and
Creditor': Bill, observed, that i.e mulerstood no Noble Lord in-
tended to move that it should be rend. He thought it very strange,
thLit a Bill which had passed the Commons should be left in their
Lordships' Heuie Without a word being said in opposition to
it. Ile Was aware that the measure was very complex, and
that there might he objections to its details; but if the Bill
were allowed to go into a Committee, those objections might he

removed.
The LORD 'CHANCELLOR would not oppose the Bill, if
it were amended ; hut in its present. state it was too confused and

inaccurate to he admissible. . •
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was afraid he could not hope to
alter the bill in time to pass it this session. lie was glad to.find
that the Noble and Learned LOrd had no objection to the principle,
and, under those circumstances, he thought it best to let the mea-
sure lie over to next session.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR intimated that be would be
ready to give his assistance to the measure if it should be brought
forward in time next session.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII wished to know whether the Noble
Lord on the ministerial bench (Bexley) could give any explana-
tion of the meaning of the word " proportion," .in the last clause
of the Bill lately brought up from the Commons, for allowing
bonded corn to be brought into the market. With a view to the
debate of to-morrow it wain of importance to have some idea of
the sense is which this clause was to he understood.
[The following are the words of the clause Provided
always, and be it enacted, That 'no gieatei proportion of the total
quantity of any parcel or number of parcels of such corn, grain,
meal, or flour, which on the said et of July was in the possession
of any such importer or proprietor in the same port, shall be en-
tered for home consumption under the authority of this Act, after
the Ist of July, than shall be equal •to the proportion of such
total quantity which hail been so .entered before the said Ist of
July, under the authority-of this'Artl
Lord BEXLEY said a few words, which were not heard below
the bar.
_ . • .

Liird ELLENBOROUGH could not admit that the clause .
was an unimportant one. It appeared to him to be very im-
portant.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said the clause was the half, of
one copied from another Bill, and that it required the addition of
its other half to make it intelligible.
The conversation on this subject, in which a considerable num-
ber of Peers took part, continued for some time. The Earl. of
DARNLEY suggested that it would be proper to discharge the
order of tile day for the second reading which stood for to-mor-
row, in order that time might be afforded for explaining the
clause; and Lord Em.rxnortountr, who thought that there
ought to be a conference with the Commons on the mean-
ing of the clause, moved that the order be discharged with
the view of renewing it for FridAy next. Lords Mr.t.vit.t.r. and
SITAFTESDURY explained that the order which stood on the
book for to-morrow was merely for summoning their Lordships,
and that the discharge of it would not prevent a motion for the
second reading of the Bill to-morrow. The motion for discharg-
ing the order was not insisted on by Lord ELLENBOROUGII, as he
thought it would mat he fair to take the House by surprise, it hav-
ing been previously understood that there was to be no discussion
on the Bonded Corn Bill. In the course of the conversation, Lord
MALNlxsauny observed, that when he intimated that he would
not oppose this bill, he supposed that it was to be similar to the
Bonded Corn Bill of last year. That, however, was not the case,
and therefore, if this clause was not altered, he did not hold him-
self bound to consent to the bill.--Adjourned.