The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-20 00:00:00

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

Mr. WIGRAM presented a Petition from the
inhabitants of New Ross, against any further concession to the Ca-
tholics.
ABERCROMBY held in his hand a Peti-
tion from the Catholic inhabitants of a parish in the county of
Waterford. He did not think that, notwithstanding the recent
vote of the House, he ought to withold the petition, nor would
he be justified in withholding the information it contained from
the House.—The petition was then brought up.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT gave notice of his
intention of bringing forward a motion relating to the conduct of
Water Companies.
Mr. CHARLES DUNDAS presented a petiticin
from Wallingford, complaining of corrupt practices in that bo-
rough at the late election.
_

kr. PALMER supported the petition, which was
laid on the table:

Mr. CAREW brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the validity of the return of John
Gladstone, Esq., for the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. The
Report stated, that the Committee had heard Counsel for and
against the allegations set forth by the petitioners against the re-
turn, and had determine 4 that neither of them were right, but
that the election was in the Burgesses cf the borough, who had
been regularly sworn in ; and that Mr. Gladstone not having
been elected by them, his return was informal and bad.

Mr. LIDSEY presented a petition from the
Town and Council of Perth, praying for an alteration in the
Corn Law.—Laid on the table.

Mr. H. HUTCHINSON presented a petition
from the millers of flour-mills in the parish of Shallaghan, county
of Tipperary, against the Importation of Foreign Flour.
Mr. JAMES GRATTAN presented a petition
from the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, on the subject of the edu-
cation of the Catholic Poor. The Honourable Member com-
plained that the poor of Ireland did not receive the benefit of
those grants which this country annually made for their use.
The Hon. Member then complained of gross mismanagement and
misapplication. in affairs of the Kildare-street schools. He
instanced, that within the last year alone, a sum exceeding
8,000/. had been expended in adding- to the buildings of the
Society, and this he considered as being a total perversion of the
grants made in this country, in favour of the Catholic poor. He
could show that since the Union, large sums of money bad been
annually voted to this Society; and as it was a grant of public
money for a specific purpose, it was not dealing fairly by the Ca-
tholics to apply it to any other. The Hon. Member, after enu-
naerating other instances where he alleged the Catholic interest
had been made subservient to the ruling power, concluded by
giving the petition his most cordial support.
Mr. HUME also considered that the grants to
those institutions had been applied to the use of, not the poor
Catholics, but the rich Protestants of Ireland.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, in giving his support
to the petition, said that if England and Ireland were to go on toge-
ther, which was a question the Ministers by their late conduct
had made doubtful, the English people must snake up their minds
to this—namely, to allow the Irish people eo be Catholics if they
pleased.
Mr. JOHN SMITH was fully impressed with the
necessity of applying some remedy to the great grievances com-
plained of.
Mr. Secretary PEEL was satisfied the Irish Go-
vernment had pursued a proper course with respect to the alleged
abuses. He was exceedingly desirous of seeing that bitterness of
religious feeling which existed in Ireland, banished, and he thought
that one way to contribute towards that end was to have the
Roman Catholic youth and the Protestant educated together,
leaving each party on a Sunday to receive their religious instruc-
tion from their pastors.
A Member, whose name we could not learn, shortly addressed
the House, but was inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. ABERCROMBIE said that nothing could
be more admirable than the principles which the Right Hon.
Gentleman (the Secretary of State fer the Home Department)
had laid down with respect to education in Ireland ; but the
country, he feared, was in such a lamentable condition, that
they could not be acted upon.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that when the esti-
laatea for the Kildare-street Society were before the House, he
should oppose the grant, with a view of proposing a better appli-
cation of the money.
1 Mr. PLUNKETT entirely concurred with the

principle of having a common education .for the Protestants and
Roman Catholics of Ireland. There were plans in agitation to
have oue common religious instruction in those establishments—
not the Bible itself was proposed to be read, but extracts selected
from it. This system of instruction, it was well known, had
been approved of by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland, and
it now only waited for the approbation of the heads of the Pro-
testant Church. This approval, he hoped, would not be denied.
After a few observations from Mr. MOORE, which were not
distinctly heard in the gallery,

Mr. Secretary PEEL rose for the purpose of call-
ing the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee re-
lative to the object of the school, and which Report had been some
time on the table. The Gentlemen, he said, who formed that
Committee, were exceedingly well qualified for the t.,sk ; one of
the four composing that Committee was a Roman Catholic.—(Mr.
Blake.)—The Right Hon. Secretary then read an extract from
that Report, which was to the following effect:—" That objec-
tions bad been frequently made to the Kildare-street Society
Schools, on the alleged ground that the object of them was to en-
deavour to persuade the Children of Catholics to become Protest-
ants. But not one fact of such a case had there come to the
knowledge of the Committee." It had been stated that a priest
had spoken against the schools, and had caused not a little irrita-
tion in Ireland—but let it not be forgotten, that for one individual
who disapproved of it, there were fifty-nine of his religious pro-
fession, who wrote letters signifying their concurrence in the mea-
sure of the Commissioners.

Mr. S. RICE said that it was not now the time to
enter into a discussion, on the Kildare-street Society's Schools,
but he trusted that when his Right Hon. Friend the Member for
Waterford (Sir John Newport) brought forward his resolutions,
the House would indulge him (Mr. S. Rice) with a patient hear-
ing on that subject. He did most earnestly hope that a common
system of education would be established, with religious tolera-
tion to each.

Mr. Sec. PEEL and Mr. ABERCROMBY mutually explained.
Colonel TRENCH hoped, that, through mistaken
zeal, there was no attempt: in the Schoois to produce proselytism.
—The petition was laid on the table, and.ordered to be printed.
Sir J. GRAHAM in presenting a petition from
the cotton spinners of Carlisle, praying that certain machinery
might not be exported, took leave to ask if any plan were in agi-
tation by Ministers to regulate the law on the subject.
Mr. C. GRANT, in the absence of the President
of the Board of Trade, said that there was no intention on the
part of his Right Hon. Friend to introduce a Bill on the sub-
ject.—The petition was then read and laid on the table.
Mr. HUME said that he should feel it his duty to
bring the subject under the consideration of the House on a fu-
ture day. _ _

A petition was presented from Kingston-upon-Hull (by whom
We did not hear), from the rope-makers of that place, respecting
the Navigation Laws.—To be printed.
_ _

Mr. -CUR TEIS presented a petition from the oc-
cupiers of land in Hastings, against the Corn Bill now in progress
through the House.
Colonel Al ABE RLY gave notice that on Wednes-
day, the 11th of April, he should submit a motion to the House
respecting Corporal Punishment.
Mr. C URWEN presented a petition from the
Ship-owners and Ship-builders of the port of Sunderland, com-
plaining of the present state of the Navigation Laws.—Ordered to
lie on the table, and to be printed.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from
the Committee of an Agricultural Society at Dartford, against the
prposed alterations in the Corn Laws.—Ordered to lie on the
table, and to be printed.

Alr. ROBARTS presented a petition from an in-
dividual named John Wright, against any alteration in the Corn
Laws.—To lie on the table and he printed.
Mr. KEKEWICH presented a petition from the
millers of Exeter against the importation of foreign flour.—To lie
on the table and be printed.
Mr. J. WILKS (Sudbury) gave notice of a mo-
tion, the purport of which did not reach the gallery.
Mr. WESTERN presented a petition from the
landholders and persons engaged in agriculture in the Hundred, of
Dunmow, in the county of Essex, against any alteration in the
Corn Laws.—Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

The SPEAKER begged permission to take that
opportunity of calling the attention of the House to two petitions
which lay on the table concerning the Denbigh double return.—
The question to which he was desirous to draw the consideration
of the House was, with respect to the wording of one of those two
petitions. Both petitions had been presented to the House under
the authority of the Act of the 29th of George the Third, which
stated that if, before the day appointed for taking into considera-
tion a contested return, the Speaker of the House of Commons
should receive a written declaration under the hand of the Member
whose return should be complained against, intimating to the
House of Commons his intention not to defend his seat, notice of
such declaration should be given to the electors ; and it should be
lawful for any person or persons, claiming a right to vote, to pre-
sent a petition to the House within thirty days after such notice,
praying to he admitted to stand in the room of such Member, and
that they should be admitted accordingly, and be so considered to
all intents and purposes. The petitioners, in the first petition,
prayed that they might be let in by virtue of the provisions of this
Act, to stand in the room of Mr. Ablett, who had signed the ne-
cessary declaration, declining to defend his return. Upon this
petition, which was in every respect conformable to the statute,
he (the Speaker) had no observation to make. But the
next petition contained a grayer similar to that which he had
recited, and in addition, proceeded to pray that the House should
declare the election of Mr. Frederick Richard West null and void,
and pronounce the said Joseph Ablett duly elected. Thus the
second petition prayed not only that the petitioners should be ad-
mitted to stand in the room of Mr. Ablett, but also protested
against the return of Mr. West, the second Member. The point
to which the Speaker wished to draw the attention of the House,
was whether, in the first place, such a petition could be received
at all, and next, if it could be received at all, whether the parties
were not hound to have presented it at an earlier period, and to have
entered into the usual recognizance!. The House would therefore
have to decide the question, whether this second petition could
have been presented at all ; and if it could, whether it ought not to
have been presented within the usual space of fourteen days.
Mr. C. W. WYNN conceived that there was
nothing in the case upon which the House had the power of
making any order. _ _

Mr. G. DAWSON was of opinion, thatto enable
themselves to be heard, the petitioners were bound to have en-
tered into recognizances. The subject was one of too great im-
portance, both as regarded the parties concerned and with reference
to the privileges of the House, to be thrust upon a Committee,
and it called for the speedy decision of the House.
Mr. WYNN said that the House had no power to
make any order.
Mr. SHADWELL was of opinion that neither of
these petitions ought to be received.
Mr. TIERNEY wished to be informed what the
subject was that occupied the attention of the House?
The SPEAKER said that the whole conversation
arose on the wording of the petitions, and he felt it his duty to
call the attention of the House to the circumstance, and the debate
arose in consequence.
Mr. J. DAWSON said that the petition ought to
be rejected, as neither party had entered into recognizances.
Mr. TIERNEY said the whole question then
turned on the recognizances, and if this had been entered into,
there would be no doubt about the matter. If this motion was
refused, the effect would be to shut the doors against electors
generally.
Mr. J. DAWSON said that the petitioners in
December last, had reNsed to enter into recognizances, and
having done so, they now have no right to complain if the peti-
tions be not received.
Mr. TIERNEY did not stand up to advocate the
cause of these particular petitions, but the general right of the
electors.

Mr. Secretary PEEL said that the petitioners at
the time alluded to, only wished for the time to b 6 enlarged for
entering recognizance, but it appears that these recognieances
have not been entered into. He did not know now whether any
recognizances could be entered into. He would not give any
opinion on the question, but would leave it to the Election Com-
mittee, whose peculiar office it was to take such things into con-
sideration. The House was certainly not the fit place to discuss
them.

Sir E. KNATCH BULL presented a petition from
the Archdeacon and Clergy of Canterbury, against any further
eonce-ssion to the Roman Catholics. The Honourable Member
also presented four other petitions from different places in Kent, to
the same effect ; also a petition from the Millers of Plymouth,
against the Importation of Foreign Grain.—Laid on the table.
Mr. HUME gave notice that he should move on
Wednesday next for Copies of the Agreements entered into between
this Government and that of Portugal, respecting the Undertaking

of the latter Government to defray the expenses of subsisting our
troops in that country.

Mr. DICKINSON presented a petition from
Frome, in Sornersetshire, against any further concession to the
Roman Catholics.

Mr. G. DAWSON postponed the consideration of
the Denbigh Election till after the recess. -

Mr. BARING presented a petition from Ship-
owners of London, complaining of the present State of the Trade.
He would not enter much into details at present. He merely
wished to know from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade,
whether it was the intention of the Government that a Com-
mittee of Inquiry should be instituted.

Mr. CHAS. GRANT said, that his Right Hon.
Friend the President of the Board of Trade, was extremely anxi-
ous to have an opportunity of entering into a discussion of his
principles upon the points to which the Hon. Gentleman had al-
luded, and he hoped to be able to do so at no distant time. He
was not authorised at present to return any answer to the Hon.
Gentleman, and ho would not undertake to pledge his Hon.
Friend as to what course he would pursue.

General GASCOYNE, in order to give the Right
Hon. President of the Board of Trade, a full opportunity of being
present upon the discussion of the motion relative to the Naviga-
tion Laws, had it in contemplation to postpone that motion till
after the recess ; and pioposed the first Tuesday in May.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, after some diffi-
culty, had made up his mind upon the present question. There
was, no doubt, great distress in the trade, but he did not think it
such that Parliament would not be able to find an adequate
remedy.—(Hear, hear.)—He was inclined to support a Com-
mittee of Inquiry.
Mr. PEEL suggested that Gentlemen should ab-
stain from discussion, and not enter into precipitate pledges.
Mr. C. GRANT expressed the sense entertained
by his Right Hon. Friend, of the indulgence shown to him by
the House, and Isis consciousness of the inconvenience which the
postponement of the question would occasion ; but he by no means
desired it to be postponed on his account, and would attend the
House at any hazard.—(Hear, hear.)—He might now as well
answer a question which had been put to him by an Hon. Gen-
tleman, the other night, respecting the conventions. It bad
been stated that they had not been laid on the table. He had
ascertained they had all been laid on the table immediately after
their signature.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN should have to
present, to-morrow, a petition similar to that now before the
House.

Mr. BARING observed that the encroaches by
foreign nations upon our shipping interests were so manifest, that
it became absolutely necessary to reconsider the propriety of the
alteration of the law.

Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE observed that
the Hon. Member who presented the present petition, was the
very Member who, two or three years ago, presented a petition to
the House, calling upon Government to put into execution those
very plans which he now so singularly reprobated.—(Hear,
hear.)—He (Sir T.) had ever entertained but one opinion—that
was, that it was impossible to follow up the system of free trade
in this highly-taxed country.

Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL said that if it
was intended to follow up the motions of the Ist of May, by the
appointment of a Committee, it would be better to name some
earlier day.

Mr. BARING said that if Ministers had made up
their minds to refuse a Committee, there was an end of the matter,
but if they should think it expedient to allow a Committee, his
Gallant Friend had better appoint an early day for his motion,
and they could then, with the assistance of the Right Hon. Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade, examine quietly and dispassionately
this important subject.
Mr. SYKES trusted the House would come to an
early decision upon the subject, considering its importance.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
without, pledging himself to any particular course, his Majesty's
Government might think it advisable to adopt, only wished to
state on the part of his Right Hon. Friends and himself, that the
Gallant General was at liberty to take is respect to the time he
wished to bring forward the question, the course most convenient
to himself, the petitioners, and all their interests.

General GASCOYNE then postponed his motion
till Thursday next. The petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from
the Shipowners of Glasgow, against the present Navigation Laws.
—Laid on the table.

Elections was adjourned to Monday next.
The Adjourned Debate on the motion respecting Bribery at
On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, the. House re-
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Corn
Laws.
The CHAIRMAN then read tlkt resolution--that
whenever the average price of rye, pease; or beans, shall reach
359. per quarter, and not exceed 365. the duty on the importa-
tion of any of those articles shall be 15s. per quarter.
Sir JOHN BRYDGES should take that oppor-
tunity to declare the just indignation that he felt, and he trusted
the whole House felt, at the libel upon the Landed Interest of
England, uttered by the Noble Lord, one of the Members for the
county of York, in the debate upon this question the other night ;
and which, to this -moment, he had had no opportunity to pro-
test against.--(Order, order.)—As a friend to Agriculture, he
lamented his Majesty's Government had thought it expedient to
propose a fundamental alteration in the Corn Laws. He prefer-
red the old system to that which it was intended to substitute for
it. If there were errors in it, he would have corrected them ;
but he would not have destroyed it. The principle of the reso-
lutionsconsidering them injurious to agri-
culture, conviction, from the date of its adoption,
thatthe he
sun
d did not
it
was approve n
would
hisnoloenoger shine upon the landed interest.
ofMr. GIPPS, after a few obseivations, proposed
an amendment, substituting the price of 40s. the quarter, instead
of 355.

(This amendment was afterwards modified—the price of 40s.
being retained, and the duty of 15s. reduced to 125.)
Mr. WESTERN complained that the scale of nru-1
tection embodied in the original resolution respecting rye, Pease,
and beans, did not bear the same relation to the scale of duties
adopted respecting corn, as was observable in former arrange
moats.
Mr. C. GRANT said that the duty on each arti-
cle was computed on the average of the last six years.
Mr. WODEHOUSE said, that the scale of price
and duty should have been calculated, not on an average of the
last six years, during which it was known that the crop was A
losing one, but on a scale which would have secured a fair remu-
neration to the grower.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL expressed himself to the
same effect.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that when for wheat and barley it was considered fair to take
the average price of the last six years, he saw no reason why the
same principle of calculation should not apply to the other sate
of grain.
CALCRAFT contended that every case Should
stand upon its own merits.
Mr. ROBINSON trusted that the Governmeo;
would not in this case yield, as they did in the case of barley and
oats, to the suggestions of the landed Gentlemen.
_ _ _

Mr. CMPPS said, that the true way of benefitting
the manufacturing classes was to find them employment ; and full
employment was never known to be compatible with low price'
Mr. CALCRAFT said the difference proposed 13.1
the amendment was not considerable, though the additional pro'
tection to the growers was important ; it raised the price at whirl'
importation and duty were to commence front 355. to 409. ; wbill
it lowered the duty from 155. to 12s.
Mr. BURRELL was understood to express thl
wish that the discussion might be limited to the resolution imme
diately before the House.
Mr. W. WHITMORE denied that the change
proposed by the amendment was of no trifling amount.

Sir THOS. LETHBRIDGE observed that it ivilf
said that the lauded interests sought to attack others. The coil'
trary was the fact ; those interests were attacked—they were he!
on their defence, and the landed Gentlemen would not do thd
duty if they did not c7isely watch each item.
Colonel WOOD observed, that the importations d
the articles enumerated in the resolution now sought to
.1i
amended, had been so very limited during the last 15 years, tV
i
he thought it could hardly be worth while to press the amendid
and divide the Committee on it. The resolutions, as a wholti
I
I,
toit
aiwere,rliceulntluarientaalionened: calculated to be favourable to all parties, 0
Sir T. GOOCH said that the particular species °
10
grain, &c. now enumerate required the protection sought.

I

hoped the Member for Oxfordshire would press his amendment
and divide the Committee on it.
Colonel GRAHAM (we believe) Made some ob-
servations, but they were inaudible in the gallery.
Strangers having withdrawn, the Committee divided on the
amendment. The numbers were—
Ayes .'........102 I Noes 150 I Majority 4S
Sir J. NEWPORT, on our re-admission into the
gallery, was proposing an amendment, imposing a duty on the
importation of foreign flour ; his amendment was, that there
should be, in addition to the duty proposed by the original resolu-
tion, a further, and not fluctuating duty, of 4s. on the importation
of every barrel of flour of 1961i15. This amendment, he contended,
would contribute to the well-being of the poor.
Mr. F. LEWIS adverted to the scarcity of 1801,
when, owing to the bad crops, it was with the greatest difficulty
that we had been able to eke out the means of subsistence, and
pressed on the Committee the necessity of not adopting a system,
respecting agriculture, that should expose us to the difficulties re-
sulting from an alarm of famine.
Mr. REID IRVING supported-the amendment.
Mr. SPRING RICE spoke on the same side.
Mr. CHARLES GRANT opposed the amend-
ment. The fact was, not that wheat and flour were unequally
taxed by the original measure, but that, for the first time, some-
thing like a due proportion was observed, for hitherto the advan-
tage in favour of flour had been decidedly great. Whilst the duty
upon wheat was 125., it was only at the. rate of 9s. 9d. upon a
correspondingquantity worked into flour. The proportion always
• assumed hadbeen that a bushel of wheat was capable of producing
three-quarters of a bushel of flour, but in effect it produced some-
thing more. Thus, for every five bushels of wheat was charged
1961b5. of flour, whereas, in effect it produced -21011)s., and for
every eight bushels of wheat was charged 3001bs. ; whereas it
produced 3361bs.—(Hear !)---By the proposed law, the rela-
tive dety upon wheat and flour would he as ss. 6d. to 75., so
that a new protecting duty of from .20 to 25 per cent. was
• • laid upon the importation of foreign. flour. And he would ask
if this was not protection enough? ,fle.could not understand why
all this outcry was raised by the English millers. They ground
annually fifteen millions of quarters of flour for the public, and
was it a great grievance that they should lose, perhaps, sotne
80,000 or 100,000 quarters in imported flour? With respect to
Ireland, that was a subject which he never could approach with-
out peculiar feelings. He was not one of those who would press
for the application of an abstract principle, in opposition-to the
real interests of that country. There was, therefore, rid Objec-
.. tiOn'to _make a particular provision- as to Ireland. Up to la it year
''• Ihere.had been a positive prohibition against the importation of fo-
reign flour into Ireland, and certainly the determining of that
pro-
hibition was a measure which had been taken without.conaulting
. the Irish interests.—lest, therefore; there should appear to be any
_breach of good faith, there would 'be no objection to renew the
prohibition as to Ireland. With respect to- -Irish flour imported
into this country, he hoped to be able to show; that with the in-
creased duty, the Irish miller would be able to compete with the
_American in the English market. The price of the best flour
now in the Waterford market was 355. per barrel; whilst
bonded flour from the. United States (the cheapest to be had of
foreign flour) was from 255. to 265. at Liverpool. .If to this Waa
added the duty of 15s. or 205., it would be seen that American
flour would be 465., so that Irish must always undersell it in the
English market. Besides, it should be considered that the
United States was the only place from which we imported foreign
flour,- and,that the quantity imported seldom, upon an average,
exceeded 30,000 quarters. The price of superfine flour now at
New York was six dollars, or 19s. 6d., and the cost of it, when
landed here, including all expenses, was 1/. 13s. 4d. At 545.
first duty, the proportioq,would be for this quantity of flour, 20s.
so that all these added t..;ether must raise the price of American
flour much higher than Irish. Having endeavoured thus far to
show by calculation that this measure could, not be preju-
dicial to the Irish flour, he had only one remark,to make upon
the expediency of raising the duty upon American-flour in a poli-
tical point of -view.—(Hear.)—He did not. wish to enter largely
upon 'the subject; -but- the-House might trust him when he said '
that the laying on any higher i prohibitory duty would- amount to
a total Prohibition, and he was sure Gentlenoen were not prepared
-• #o go that length.7-7(11ear..) - -
'Sir J. NEWPOFiT;begged tv ask; if it was 'of so
much importance not tb 'offend. the. Government of the United,'
States by the imposition of -a higher duty, upoia.:Anni, why a
miserable duty was lately laid upon the introduction 4 American
manufactures into the British Nest 1". _
Mr. WHITMORE opposed the amendment.

Mr. MOORE said there should be a protection

granted to an interest for which he felt a great anxiety—namely,
the milling interests of Ireland.—(A loud laugh.)—He was sur-
prised to hear a difference between the milling interests of Ireland
and the milling interests of England.--,(Laughter.)—The milling
interests of Ireland were entitled to the highest consideration.—
(Continued laughter.)—The Hon. Member was proceeding in
Lis argument, when considerable coughing took place. He said
he should net trouble the House further.
Mr. PEEL was decidedly of opinion that no valid
ground had been laid for the proposition, and would rather be in
a minority, no matter how small, than concede a principle when
no valid argument had been adduced. His Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Grant) had alluded to circumstances respecting America,
not of a domestic nature ; into that he should not enter, but he
was sure the House would lament that 'an opportunity should be
afforded to America to place a construction on our principles of
free trade which would induce them to believe that they—a
country•of a common origin with us, speaking a common lan-
guage—should be excluded from fair advantages, and that they
would place a corstruction on our conduct which would lead them
• ro suspect far other motives than protection to our domestic in-
terests. Upon these grounds he would rather be in a minority of
ten than depart from the principle laid down by his Majesty's
Government.
Colonel TRENCH attempted to address the House,
I)trt Was- prevented by cries of " Question," and loud coughing.
*The House then divided. The numbers were :
For the proposition of Sir J. Newport
Against it.. 152

Majority against the proposition 36
•Cln our re-admission, we found Mr. C. GRANT
Pr°l3otig a resolution for imposing a duty equal to that upon a
luarter a oats upon every 1901bs. of oatmeal.
Some conversation was produced by it between Mr. C. Grant,
*Sir John Newport and Mr. Fergusson, on the point, what quan-
tity of oatmeal was equal to a quarter of oats ; and an amendment
was:_. Proposed for the substitution of 1701bs. for 1901bs. in the
criglnal resolution.

, .
Mr.PEEL was surprised at the vagueness of calcu-
lation; one-Hon. Gentleman made from 252 to 190 pounds of
*at, Meal to a• quarter of oats, whilst others carried it as low as
'7O. The vagueness was quite astounding.
Mr. PERGUSSON said, that 252 pounds was a
Palpable mistake—a gross blunder.
Sir GEORGE CLARKE was satisfied with the
Proposition of the Hon. Member (Mr. Grant.)
,The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
saws that in former years, when the protection was given to
Oatmeal, the price was not so high as at present. In 1820 the
ports were opened, and in three months after 700,000 quarters
meal. were imported, but not one single ts w pound weight of oat-
Mr
' LITTLETON said, that according to the in-
formation he had received, the average produce was from 185 to
190.—. The Committee then divided.
For the amendment 155
For the original resolution
Majority
The Chairman thenput 'the several resolutions, which were
.car Ti. ed, 'without any divipsion viz ,r. may uno,
:
Oats is '24...-
at .Oats of 2s. a quarter till the price of British
A duty, above;;'2296rd.. which price the duty to be 2s. tid..
335. a quarter. ,i,,_1,!! quarter upon Barley, until the price be
Upon Rye, Baas.tea.TY then to be Sc.
A duty. open 1901: Pease, a duty of from se!. to 6d. a quarter.
upon a quarter of oats:4s Oatmeal, equal to the amount of duty
Mr. CHAPLIN
press this measure. hoped that Ministers would not
Colonel WOOD thoughtavetrhagaet
was touch safer tlian to take the average
Mr. BARCLAY said, that whether the duty was
2s. eons or less, would not rendernraritkue,to.rth while for corn dealers
to practice any manoeuvre in the weekly.six Nveeks'
disagreed with the last
Mr. WHITMORE totally
speaker.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL then ,
the . proposed
- of the averages at six weeks. taking
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND thought
. average ought to include Scotland. that the
EXCHEQUER
The CHANCELLOR of the
thought that including Scotland would bring the average price.

lower, which would raise the import duties, which would be in-
consistent with the principle of adopting the medium of 60s.
Mr. BARlNG.thought that' the present•system had
a tendency to promote and favour jobbing in the market.
Mr. PEEL thought that it would be competent to
Ministers in a future stage, to adopt the proposed amendment, if
they should find it expedient. To adopt it now would be to
pledge Government to a measure which might afterwards prove
inexpedient.
The Resolution then passed.
On the question that the Resolution be reported to the House,
Mr. BARING suggested that the injury which it
was anticipated would be suffered by the agricultural interest might
be avoided, if the duty was calculated upon sixty-two shillings,
instead of sixty shillings, when the Imperial Standard was em-
ployed.
The SPEAKER was clearly of opinion, that if
the proposed alteration made any real difference in the amount of
duty, it could not be proposed in the House.
On the question that the Chairman do leave the Chair,
Mr. DAVIES GILBERT moved, that instead of
the Chairman leaving the Chair, he should report progress, and
ask leave to sit again.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that it was not competent for the Hon. Member to make
such a motion in this Committee ; he must make it in the House
if he wished the measure to be recommitted.

The CHAIRMAN then left the Chair, the Report was brought
up; and ordered to be received to-morrow (this day).
COURT OF CHANCERY.

The MASTER of the ROLLS moved the second
reading of this Bill, and the blanks having been filled up, it was
ordered to he taken into consideration on Monday next.
DUKE OF CLARENCE'S ANNUITY BILL.

On the Report being brought up,
Mr. HUIVIE objected to its being discussed at that
late hour, it being then after one o'clock.

Mr. SMITH conceived that no advantage could
arise from pressing the objection, as the general opinion of the
House was now perfectly well known.
Mr. HUME, after a short discussion, said that he
thought it was a profligate expenditure, but consented to with-
draw his objection.
The Report was then brought up, and ordered to be read to-
morrow (this day).
Mr. BERNAL moved for the Code Rural of the
island of Hayti.—Ordered.
" Adjourned at Half,past One o'Clock.