Star.
London, England, 1825-03-29 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. Tree= presented Papers from the Ermembrancer's Office.
Mr. HOLME SUMNER presented a Petition from the Thames
Watermen, against the South London Dock Company.
Mr. S. RICE brought in a Rill for supplying the City of Lime-
rick with Water.

Mr. CURTEIS presented a Petition from the Fishermen of Rye
and Worthing, against the Metropolitan Fish Company.
On the motion of Mr. COATI'S for the second reading of the
London Brick Bill Company,
Mr. CALCRAFT opposed the Bill, u unnecessarily interfering
with the trade of Brick-making, carried on by individuals. If the
members of this Company merely wished to lower the price of
bricks by force of competition, they could do so without an Act of
Parliament. He should therefore oppose the Bill.
Mr. CURTEIS said he had no interest whatever in the pro-
posed Bill, but on the principle of competkien thought it would
serve the Public.

The gallery was then cleared, but on strangers being re-admit-
ted shortly afterwards, no division had taken place, and the Bill
was read a second time.
__

A Message from the House of Lords brought up the Spring
Guns Bill, and the Garden Protection Bill. Their Lordships also
requested a copy of the Report of the Select Committee of the
House of Commons last Session, on the state of such parts of Ire-
land u had been subjected to the Insurrection Act, and also a copy
of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons
this Session, on the general state of Ireland.—Copies of the said
Rerwere accordingly ordered to be furnished to the Lords.
."Alderman THOMPSON presented a Petition from several
Persons employed in fishing in the Thames and Medway, praying
to be heard against the Metropolitan Fish Comrany.—Also a Peti-
tion from the Governors of St. Bartholomew s Hospital, against
the Metropolitan Water-Works Company.
Mr. H. DAVIS presented a Petition from Dover and Deal, in
favour of the Metropolitan Fish Company.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT presented a Petition from the Water-
ford Chamber of Commerce, in favour of forming a Joint Stock
Company, to make Rail Roads through different parts of Ireland.
Sir GEORGE HILL brought in a MU for regulating Banks
in Ireland.

Sir ROBERT SHAW did not intend to oppose the Bill, but
wished it to be printed. and time to be given fur the Bank of Ire-
land and the Private Bankers of Ireland to understand the BUJ.
Sir GEORGE HILL said, that after the blanks were Wed up -
it might be fully considered during the Recess.—Ordered to be
read a second time to-morrow.
Mr. TREMAYNE presented a Petition front Cornwall, against
any further concessions to the Catholics.
A Petition was presented from Stone Hill against any alteration
in the Corn Laws.
Colonel BAG WELL presented a Petition from the ()rand Jury
of the ' Better ' and
against

Mr.
In the

pose the
Qiern',

Sir .I',
den came

A Message
several P►`

relative to the Butter Trade, and
ynV. FtlliTtltZGliPaßPlA:Ltrise:lidst,intghalatwthe opinions of all persons
South of Ireland, concurred with that of the Honourable
ler for the County of Tipperary, and he should therefore op-
he measure of his Right Hon. Friend, the Member for the
is County.
JOHN NEWPORT was prepared to shevr, when the
ame risee-ti
before the House, that under the present laws the
r Trade had made an unexampled progress.
Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' assent to
al Private Bills.
•
•
•

..~

It It: ( •
;t X •

:,

I

r

Ifs. IitURTEIS moved for Returns of the Sale of Corn, for the
last two yea. in the town of Ipswich. '.
j,m4k BA RN ARD presented 'Petition from Bandon, age
shy futitlevr conce..ionv to the roman Catholics.
Sir A. CA Al Pl3El.Lpresented a Petition front the Incorporated
Trades of Glasgow, against any further coecesgioni to the Roman
Catholics; also a similar Petition from the 11.unmermen's
patty of Glasgow.

CORN LAWS.
Mr. CU RIVEN rose to pi e ,eht a Per ition from the''
. Merchants, Corn-r!ealers, and others of the City of Lon-
don, Alt iinst the Corn Laws. He (Mr. Ctirwen) ac-
knowledged that formerly he was in error on the sub-
ject of the Corn Laws, but he confessed he was not able
to resist the practical measures of his Majesty's Minis-
ters in favour of flee trade. The Petitioners complained
f the effect of the present high price of Corn on the
condition of the laborious, and expressed an anticipation
that ere lone the ports must, under the existing system,
be thrown open to foreign grain. lie (Mr. Curwen) thought, in
that case, there would be a repetition of the calamities of 1819 on
the landed interest, and that we were now, from the apprehen4oe
of foreign grain being admitted, in a state of the utmost jeopardy.
Mr. ELLICE said, he could not agree to the pro-
pos-As of the l'e itionets; The fact was, many of them
had go' corn in store, and wished to have an opportu-
nity of bringing that into the ruatket. He stated this from having
looked at the names at the foot of the Petition.
Mr HUSIUSSON said be was glad to find that the
Honourable Member for Cuniberiand (Mr. Curwen),
who, in ihe Committee of 1821, bad been such a zealous
friend to monopoly, had changed his views. He hoped,-
when the discussion came fait ly before the House upon
the motion of the Honourable Member for Bridge.

. _
north . t! e opinions of the Honourable Gentleman would
have weight with those who had concurred with his former senti-
ments. Upon a question thus raised by the presentation of a Peti-
tion, he would nut enter into so important a discussion; but he
hoped it would he deeply considered before it engaged the attention
of the House for decision.
Mr. CUR ['EIS said, he was sure some mischief was
coming either to the West Indies or the Agricultural
Interest. He argued this from the expression of those liberal sen-
timents he had just heard, and which he always found to be the
harbinger of evil—(A laugh.)
Mi. T. WILSON thought that it was impossible to
lea •e the Corn Laws out of the general alteration which
the Government were now effe ring in every department
of trade and commerce. He thought the subject deserved the most
serious consideration.
Mr. A. BARING said it was absolutely necessary
that some permanent system of Corn Laws should be
adopted, the most <erious evils resulted from the flue-
tuat.ons of the subject in the minds of the people. He
was sorry that a notice of motion upon this question
had be n put upon the paper, as it had the effect of ex-
citing expectation for which there could be no immediate satisfaction.
Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE hoFed the House
'would be inf.rnied, before tt.ey separated for the recess,
t,+-hether the notice of the Honourable Member for
Bridgenorth had the concurrence of his Majesty's Go-
vernment, and would be supported by them? Where such vital
interests were concerned, the country were at least entitled to
know what they were to expect.
• Mi. HUSKISSON felt no he itation in saying that
the llonourable Member for Bridgenorth acted entirely
upon his own discretion for aught he knew, in the no-
tice he had riven. He had not entered into any expla-
nation with him (Mr. Huskisson), and he believed he
had had no intercourse whatever on the subject of the
Corn Laws, with any Member of his Majesty's Govern.
mem. He could have no controul over the Parliamentary motions
of the Honourable Member for Bridgenorth, but he preferred dis-
cussing the question on a regular motion, to doing it on a petition.
At present he would say no more; when the subject came fairly
before the House he would deal with it in that way which his
public duty should dictate.