The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

CORN BILL.

The Earl of RIPON moved the Order of the Day that
the House resolve itself into a Committee on the
Corn Bill.

The Earl of STANHOPE said before their Lordships
went into Committee on the Bill, he wished to address a
few words to their Lordships. He must contend that the
House ought not to be deterred from making alte-
rations in this Bill, although it might be considered
in the :light of a Money Bill. No such consideration
ought to prevent their Lordships from doing their duty.
Ile would ask whether it would not be fair and reason-
able to afford to the House of Commons, par-
ticularly those Members who were opposed to
the Bill, another opportunity of discussing it ?
With respect to the Bill relative to the tariff, he begged
to give notice that it was his intention when the Bill
came into their Lordships' House, to move its rejection.
The House then went into Committee on the Corn
Bill, the Eirl of SHAFTESBURY in the Chair.

The preaMble of the Bill was postponed, and the
clauses up to No. 12 were agreed to.
On clause 12 being proposed,
Earl STANHOPE observed that, it would empower
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London to
nominate a corn inspector for that city. Now he would
move that this clause be struck out. He objected to Lon-
.don being admitted as an average town at all. It would
exercise an injurious influence on the price of corn gene-
rally, In 1840 , its price was on the average ss. 9id.
higher than that of the provinces.
The Earl of RIPON said that there were other towns
besides London in which the averages varied from the
general average of the country; and if the principle of
the Noble Earl were adopted, those towns should also
be omitted. The only object in including large towns
such as London, was to 'enable them to get as fair a
general average as possible ; and if those large towns
were omitted, the equilibrium of the system would be
destroyed.

Ear' STANHOPE said that he objected to London,
because in the London averages the charges of carriage
and commission were necessarily included ; and that was
not the case in other market towns.

The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 13, 14, and 15, were agreed to without any
amendment.

On clause 17 being put,
Lord BEAUMON'I' said it was his intention to move
an amendment to the clause, his object being to get the
prices from the grower and not from the factor. He
did that on the principle thatfrauds were at present com-
mitted, and there was nothing on the part of the Govern-
ment system that showed their principle would remove
those frauds. He should therefore move the omission of
this clause; and when they came to the 25th clause, he beg-
ged to give notice that he would move an amendment to that.
The reason why he proposed that amendment was, that
it would destroy the frauds that all parties were agreed
had been committed under the present system.. It would
' take away all inducement from the seller of corn to
make a false return. He would have no reason to give
out that the. average was contrary to what it was in fact.
It would be a great absurdity to attempt to apply the
bonding system to cattle. Why, under it, the calf put
bond might come out beef.—(Laughter and hear, hear.)
But as for corn, all he asked was, that the grower should
endeavour to ascertain the truth, and therefore he moved
that the clause be omitted, and that his plan should be
adopted.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of RIPON said it had been long a question
whether or not the grower should unite with the buyer
to make a return. This might be advisable if you could
-nel the growers to do so. If you left it optional, the
coma -ould neglect it, and if you fine them for not
dittrinCT
doing it, it W. -suld be persecution. Therefore, he thought
^onfined to responsible officers.
it would be better ,
LNG' lIAM was in favour of the
The Duke of
-•-ties who did not comply
imposition of penalties on p:.. nu thought that the
with the provisions of the law.
more strictly the law was enforced, better for the

farmers.
""Id be
The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought that it wo. .4
unjust to impose penaltieS on parties who have omittes
to conform to the law.
The Duke of CLEVELAND thought that it would
be for the interest of the farmer that the law should be
strictly enforced. He was persuaded that the farmers,
when they found it for their own interest, would not he-
sitate to comply with the enactment.
Lord STANHOPE gave his cordial support to his
Noble Friend on the cross benches (Lord Beaumont),
and he would take the sense of the House upon the motion.
After a few words from the Earl of RieoN and Lord
STANHOPE, in explanation,
The Earl of MALMSBURY said that he had had a
conversation with several farmers in Hampshire, and they
were of the same opinion as his Noble Friend, and would
be perfectly willing to pay any fine that might be in-
flicted.

After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT and the
Earl of RIPON. the Committee divided. when there ap-
peared—_ _

For the clause
Against it. .
Majority
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses up to 26 were than agreed to.
On clause 26 being proposed,
Earl STANHOPE moved that the books kept by the in-
spector s should be open to the public.
The Earl of RIPON opposed the amendment on the ground
that the disclosures, which would follow from its adoption,
might prove very injurious to individuals.
The amendment was rejected without a division.
Clauses up to 39 were agreed to without any amendments.
Clause 40 was also agreed to, after a few observations from
Earl Stanhope.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, without any
amendment.

80

On the question that the schedules to the Bill be agreed to,
Earl STANHOPE rose to address the House. It was not
his intention at the present moment to argue the merits of the
present and former Corn-bill, but he wished to notice some
of the errors that had been committed by Noble Lords relative
to the priee of corn in different years at Dantzic and other
places. He held in his hand a Parliamentary return for the
year 1840, and by that return he found that, taking the last
returns from Dantzic the price was 24s ; the year before that
it was 235. ; the year before 21s. ; the year before 325;
the year before 265., and the year before 28s. ; so that in all
these years the price was considerably below 30s. He should
like, therefore, to know what prevented merchants bringing
corn to this country and putting it in bond. The amendment
he intended to propose was founded on two reasons—the first
was, that when corn was imported it would make a reduction in
the present duty; and the second was, that it would prevent
foreign corn from interfering with the home produce when it
was not necessary. It had been admitted that a duty on corn
was not defensible on the ground of a revenue, so that that
reason would not be opposed to his amendment. He now
moved as an amendment, " That when the price was 725. and
upwards, foreign wheat might be imported at a duty of a Id. a
quarter, but that no corn be imported while the home market
was under that price."
The Earl of RIPON said it was impossible that the House
could agree to this amendment, after having, by voting for the
reading, given their sanction to the principles of the Bill. The
amendment of the Noble Lord would give rise to a new discussion
for it proposed nothing less than a re-enactment of the measure,
or rather a renewal of the Act of 1822, which it was univer-
sally allowed could not work.
'the question was then put, and the amendment was nega-
tived without a division.

Lord SH AF'FESBUR Y—Are there any other amendments?
Earl STANHOPE—Oh, yes.—( Hear, and laughter.) He
had now to propose amendments to the barley and oats scale.
He should propose that the former scale on barley and oats
be restored.

The Earl of WICKLOW could assure his Noble Friend that
he should have his support to a certain extent, if he did not
know that such a measure in this part of the Bill would be to-
tally fatal to it, and lose it altogether.
The Earl of PIA RDWICK defended the scale proposed by
the present Bill. The Noble Lord referred to the scale of
duties on barley as applied under the present law, and under
the proposed plan, to show that there was nothing to be dreaded
from the introduction of foreign barley. The quantity im-
ported was 852,666 quarters, while they had an increase of
population amounting to 2,000,000 and a counterbalancing
duty of 2s.
Earl S I'ANHOPE said that the Noble Earl ought not to
assume the price to be so low as he represented.
The Marquis of el. AN HICARDE could not understand
why there should be such a difference in the diminution of the
duty on oats and barley, in proportion to the reduction of the
duty on wheat. The diminution on oats and barley was a
positive evil—( Hear, hear)— and would, with the increase of
the duty on spirits, give a most demoralising encouragement
to it icit distillation in Ireland, and would, he feared, undo
much of the good that temperance had done in that country.
He did not see why oats should not be protected to the same
extent as wheat. There was a report in circulation which
acccunted for the difference in the following way: It was cur-
rently said in society that the Government had originally in-
tended to propose a duty of 163. on the maximum pro-
tection for wheat ; but that when they had considered
the subject there was a difference of opinion with
regard to it, and it was at length agreed, out of
deference to the powerful interests who supported the
proteetion,,to wheat, that the scale should be raised from 16s. to
20x. It may be said, however, that the original scale, with
respect to oats and barley, was retained; and that this circum-
,tam,e hail given rise to the difference of which-he now com-
plained. That was the report in circulation on the subject he
did not say that he believed it, or that he could wholly diSbe.;
liieve it, until he had received come explanation on the matter.
i
oats, under the circumstances
He was persuaded that the lowering of the protection upon
proposed, would prore very de_
triinental in Ireland. When lands were drained in that coun.
try, the princip il remuneration to the speculator was the oat

crop, for which such land was peculiarly fitted, after the first or v
second year.
The Earl of RIPON said, that though the repbrt to which
the Noble Marquis had referred might do very well
had no
for the
Clubs, he could relieve his mind by assuring him it
foundation whatever in fact. He wished to say a few words on
the subject of oats : he thought his Noble Fri
end d to his left h
ad
ad
answered the question fairly. On the subjof barley,
with respect to oats, he thought it wnte as clear t
the
hat
full attention had been paid to the interests of
growers of oats, for the reduction had been made
in the same proportion., !The question was whether it was a
sufficient protection, and he must confess he thought it abundant
for all purposes. His Noble Friend at the table had quoted
Dr. Johnson's opinion with respect to oats. He stated that they
afforded food for horses in England and men in Scotland. The
Noble Earl did not know much of the northern parts of Eng-
land or he would not hare made such a statement, for in dif-
ferent parts of England oats formed the great proportion of the
food of the labourer.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE agreed that there was
ample protection in the abstract, but not on the whole.
.After a few words from the Earl of Hardwicke, Earl Stan-
hopetand the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Committee divided,
when there appeared—.
For the clause
Against it
—43
Majority
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL moved the addition of a
certain number of towns in Ireland to those from which the
averaes were to be taken. He would also be glad to see some
towns g
in Scotland added. The Noble Earl then named a num.
ber of Irish towns which he proposed should be added to
the Bill.
The Earl of RIPON opposed the ;notion, on the ground
that it would destroy the working of the Bill, by lowering the
averages, and consequently lowering, at the same time, the duty.
Earl STANHOI'E having moved that Liverpool, Man-
chester, Birmingham, Bristol, London, York, Leeds, Shef-
field, and Hull, should be struck out of the number of towns
from which the averages were to be taken, the motion was re.
jected without any discussion.
The amendment of Earl Mounteasbel having been put,
The Earl of WICKLOW thought the amendment of the
Noble Lord would be interfering with the privileges of the
other House of Parliament, and he should, therefore, oppose it.
The question was then put, and the Committee divided,
when there appeared—
For the original motion ei.. 29
For the amendment 3
Majority.
On our readmission to the gallery, we found the Earl of
Shaftesbury putting the title of the Bill, which was agreed to.
The Bill was then reported to the House without any amend-
ments, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow,
MERCHANT AND FACTORS' BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of RIPON, the Merchant and
Factors' Bill went through Committee, and the Report was
ordered to be received to-morrow.
Their Lordships adjourned at Eight o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS April 21.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.

Lord NEWPORT took the oaths and his seat as Mem-
ber for South Salop, in the room of the Earl of Darling-
ton, now Duke of Cleveland.
WAKEFIELD ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND reported that the Com-
mittee appointed to try the Wakefield Election POtition
had resolved that Joseph .Holdsworth, Esq., had not
been duly returned to serve in the present Parliament
for the borough of Wakefield, and that the Hon. W. S.
Lasealles had been duly elected, and ought to have been
returned for the said borough.
The Clerk of the Crown was ordered to attend to-
morrow to amend the return,
On'the motion:of Mr. MUNTZ, the Birmingham and
Derby Junction Railway Bill was read a third time
and passed. •
Colonel VERNER presented a petition against the
present system of national education in Ireland.
Lord CHARLES MANNERS presented a petition
from a place in Leicestershire against the new tariff, par
ticularly that part which proposed to reduce the duty on
live and dead stock. The petitioners also prayed the
House to adopt such alterations in the new tariff us would
give due protection to the agriculturist.
Sir E-FILMER presented a petition from the Guar-
dians of Wandsworth, with respect to the rating of te-
nements. Also a petition from Maidstone, against the
new tariff ; and also a petition from Birmingham,
against the Act with respect to boroughs,
Mr, WARD presented petitions from Bishops S tort.
ford and Royston against the Income-tax ; also a peti-
tion from tile dordwainers of Sheffield, against the
proposed tax on leather, considering the present
depressed state of the trade exercised by the peti-
tioners. The Honourable Member also presented a
petition from an individual of the name of George Smith,
who in 1839 was an elector at Cambridge, who had been
imprisoned on account of bribery. It appeared from
the statements of the Honourable Member, that in
1839 Mr. Manners Sutton and Mr. Milner Gibson
were two of the candidates for the representation
of Cambridge. Upon that return a petition was
presented to the House of Commons, praying that
the election might be declared void, on account
of bribery. An Election Committee was appointed to
try the merits of the election, at which it was proved,
that although the petitioner himself did not receive the
money, his wife had received nine sovereigns from a
person of the name of Long for the petitioner's vote.
Those nine sovereigns were at the present moment in the
possession of a person name Bayne, and the object
of the. present petition was, that the House would order
that money to be paid by Mr. Bayne, either to the fund
for the relief of the distress at Paisley, or to some other
charitable purpose.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Member
was at a loss what course to pursue with respect to the
petition ; but as he intended, on some future occasion,
to take the sense of the House upon it, he would move
that it should he printed, giving, at the same time, notice
of his intention to bring it under the consideration of the
Housa on some future occasion. _

I Lord I?, GROSVENOR presented a petition from
Chester, praying Oat the some rule which was adopted
with respect to public-houses n London, on Saturdays
Sundays, might be adopted in Chester.
BEWDLEY ELECTION.

X.ER informed the House that the parties
The SPEr.._ ' 4.ainst the return for the borough
who had petitioneu . to''.. ,proceed with their petition.
of Bewdley, did not inlet.. T-ECTION.
RUTLANI) .L.- • 'he House that the
The SPEAKER also informed ... .
Rut-
parties who had petitioned +gm for
against the re..
'-tention
land, had informed him that it was not their 5....
to proceed with their petition.