Star.
London, England, 1815-03-18 00:00:00

should act tipcn any other thin their own sense and
their own judgment—that moment he would not
wish to survive. The measure to which the Petition
referred was one calculated for the benefit of the ge-
neral interest of his Majesty's subjects. If it were
not so, it ought not to pass. It was certainly for the
benefit of agriculture, and in that sense for the benefit
of every one in the community. No man in that
House ever supported it on any other principle. It
was certainly, lie woull repeat, a sacred obligation
on the H.::use to :tttend with the utmost respect to the
petitions of all his M ijesty's subjects, hut then they
could not carry thit attention to the representations
of any branch of his Majesty's subjects to an extent,
as pa intericre with thit which was due to the other.

There wet-. some interests of a peculiar nature which
could not be attended to in the first instance. Upon
that principle it was that n.) Petitions were received
against Tax Bills, except under certain limitations.
He believed that his Noble Friend came forward on

the motives of his own judgment. So he sincerely
believed, did every ntan in the House. The simple
cuestion was, whether, according to the Rules of the
House, they could hear Counsel on such a Petition
as that from the City of London, against the Lill ;
and conformably to the practice of the Home, and
the principle of its rules. Rules which were founded
in the essence and the safety of the Constitution of
England. They must, on such occasions as the pre-
sent, hold out the same rule to one that they did to
all. It was also worthy of consideration, that the
Petitions for the Bill were nearly as numerous as
those against it, though certainly not so numerously
signed. Under such circumstances, a single. Petition
comes, desiring to be heard by Counsel against a
general measure affecting all his Majesty's subjects.
Rut in such a case, with all due respect to the City
of London, he would ask how could they hear Coun-
sel and evidence on that, and refuse to hear upon the
Petition from the City of Bristol, the Town and Port
of Liverpool, the great manufacturing towns of Man-
chester and Birmingham, as well as many others ?
This was not a general measure affecting, in parti-
cular, the interests of individuals, but affecting all his
Majesty's subjects. Neither were their Lordships to
proceed upon the views of the 'Petitioners, but upon
their own views of, and judgment upon the subjects.
With respect to precedents, he did not think there
would be found a single instance to authorise what
was now called for, but it would be for their Lord-
ships to decide, whether in this he, who may in one
sense call himself their servant, was right er not.—
According to the rule and practice of Parliament, he
deemed it utterly impossible that they could comply
with the prayer of a Petition so proceeding, and under
such circumstances. In their rule of equal justice
and equal attention, they could no more pay atten-
tion to the most distinguished Corporation than to
the humblest individual. Upon these principles their
Lordships' decision in this case should proceed, and
they should Adhere to the dictates of that lex et connte-
la* Parliamenti, of w:;ich they had so long experi-
enced the benefits, and which formed one of the best
supports of the law and Constitution of has cottony.
Earl GREY spike in favour of eae ruction, and
observed, that the Corporation of the City of London
were interested in the measure in a threefold capacity;
as consumers, as interested in the manufactures and
commerce of the country, aad as being the Corpor:t.
Lion of the Met:opolis. As to the -first and last
points, it was unnecessary to dwell on ecern ; and on
the second, it was almost equally unnecessary. The
Corporation of the City of London, it was well known,
were almost all commercial men. But if the manu-
facturers of this country were not able to contend
with the manufacturers of surrounding nations in the
foreign market, there was an end to this country's
commerce; and if the present Corn Bill passed, this
would be the case. This the Petitioners had fully stated
in their Petition. They were, therefore, according to
the strict rules of the House, entitled to be heard.—
The only question that could be on this point was,
whether the question was of sufficient importance?—
But could any one pretend to deny this Who could
doubt that what materially concerned the first neces-
sary was of the utmost importance ? The doors of
she House ought not to be shut to Petitions. But of
what use was petition, if it was not attended to ? Of
the right of Petition be would say what the Poet said
of Mercy—s, It blesseth him that gives, and him
that receives." if the House were not determined to
shut the door on Petitions, there was no reason why
they should not attend to the prayer of this Petition.
He concluded by supporting the motion.
Lord LIVERPOOL said, that the question was
not, whether the petition of the City of London, or.
elf any other pinto, should be received ; but whether
the prayer ol it should be granted ? On the general
principle of legislation, every individual had as good
a right as any corporation to have the prayer of his
petition attended to. But when their Lordships bad
laid down a general rule, they could not consistently
depart from it in a particular instance. This subject
was three Sessions under consideration. Their Lord-
ships had on their table two reports of the Commons
and one of the Lords on it. Had not the city of
London an opportunity of stating any information
they had on the subject during those three Sessions
The House had petitions last Sessions as well as this,
and the Committee came to a resolution. that the pe-
titioners did not support any of their allegations ; and
that they were prepared to receive any information
on the subject. The city or London, therefore, had
as well as every other place an opportunity of giving
every information it wished to communicate to the
Committee ; rind if it neglected doing so for so long a
time, why should it now apply for a particular occa-
sion ? Ou the question of what was the price of the
quarters Mel, comparatively with the price of wheat,
they bad the. best evidence, the evidence of the City
of London itself. He was sure that the City of Lon-
don could give no new information of any import-
ance on the subject ; and he should therefore oppose
the motion.
Lord ST. JC.)EIN said, that the country was in
such circumstances as would render it unwise to go
into the surfed. There was an iniposssibility on the
part of all men to.go on under the present circum.
stamp. The slintkeeper, the farmer, the mimetic
torero -all Bread au equal stagnation. The petitioners
bid )an year had an opportunity nf *tieing any hat:
woke they possessed. and =tit grail them.
selves Now they eifaii when the op.
portunite is gone by. 'WOW tioV think they hid any
fair dims to ashler an uppertuiiity,' which they haa

oolong neglected. The lfolae Lord who had brought
forward the motions said that the whole
.syetem of
protections was founded on error. But what else had
brought this country to such a state of prosperity ?
Great Britain was not meant by nature for that
greatness to which she had attained. It was her con-1
stitution and her wise regulations had carried her to
such- it pitch of elevation. lie then went into a gene-
ral detail of the bill and the history of the Corn
Laws ; and concluded by giving the measure his
warmest approbation.
GREY explained.
Lord HARDWICK corrected a MigitteMellt of
what he had stated respecting the evidence of one of
the witnesses.

Lord SELKIRK said, that without the measure
he thought it impossible to continue the cultivation
of a great quantity of the poorer lands. What the
quantity would be it was unnecessary to mention, but
a large quantity it would certainly be. It would pro-
bably cause a defalcation of a fourth or fifth part of
the produce of the country, and no importation
could make up for this difference. The largest im-
portation ever known did not make-more than four
or five weeks consumrtion for the kingdom, and if
there was a fourth or fifth part of the produce of the
country deficient, what would be the consequence ?
This would not be fully the case this year I but next
year he was sure it would happen. In two years
hence then, what would be the price ?
Lord STANHOPE rose to order.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the
Noble Lord had wished to keep the House strictly to
order, he should have interposed four hours ago.
Lord SELKIRK continued to insist on the defal-
cation in the produce, that would arise from the want
of some such protection as the Bill proposed to the
former.

Lord DARNLEY said, that the allegation with
regard to the price of the quartern loaf was a mis-
statement. In no possible operation of the Bill could
•the quarters loaf be so high as was said. He was
sure that some protection was necessary for agriculture.
Lord ERSKINE said, that as the City of Lon.
don were petitioning on a particular interest, he did
not think them entitled to have their prayer granted.
Lord GRENVILLE briefly replied ; when the
House divided, and the numbers were—
Not contents 59—Contents 11—Majority against
Lord Grenville's motion 48.

The House then went into the Committee, when a
conversation took place on the clause fixing the price
at M.

Lord GRENVILLE, after a few observations,
declared his readiness to vote for 725. in preference
to 80s.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE, adverting to
what had been said as to labour, contended, that the
cause of the price of labour being diminished, is the
neglect of protection to agriculture. He could not
understand on what ground the Noble Lord could
assert, that the price of was preferable to that
of 80s.

Earl GREY commented at much length upon
the evidence of last year, respecting the preferable
price, from which he was inclined to believe that
something near 80s. was then necessary; but he now
thought that there could be no necessity in fixing so
high a price. He moved that 725. be fixed instead,
of 80s.

An explanatory conversation ensued between Lords
LAWARDALE and GitLY, in support of their respec-
tive opinions.
The Earl of CARLISLE said he had not heard,
either in that House, or any other place, any thing
to induce him to alter his opinion, that 70s. or 7is.
was not a sufficient protecting price.
Lord GRENVILLE repeated his objections to
the made of taking the averages and valuations.
He was astonished how it was possible to consider
the average of twelve districts to be a fair mode of
calculation for the whole kingdom.—He also objected
to the present system of assize, and concluded by ex-
pressing his intention to propose a clause, that when-
ever the price of a quartern loaf shall be above led.
for six successive weeks, it shall then be lawful to
import wheat from any part whatever without duty ;
and that the law should not be confined to the port
of London, though that port should be the standard,
but apply to all other eons of the kingdom. 'He re-
peated his firm conviction, that the price of 80s.
would keep the price of bread above I‘.
The Earl of HARROWBY said, it had formerly I
been found extremely difficult to regulate the
whole of the kingdom by the price of corn in the
London market. In 1804, the price was first regu-
lated by the averages of certain districts. He con-
tended that the averages, as now taken, were stab-
dent to fix with ttllerable accuracy, the general ex-
port and import price of corn. His great objection
to the motion of his Noble Friend WAS, that it pro-
posed to allow the importation of corn in a way hi-
therto
untried and unthought of. Besides, it would
permit the market to be influenced by fictitious sales ,
of wheat.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE objected to the
clause, on the ground that it would not produce the
Meet which the Noble Lord expected. He entirely
disapproved of the moJe of taking the assize of
bread ; and conaideped that some alteration was ne.
cessary in that respect.
The Earl of DARNLEY entertained similar
opinions. ' .1

- The Earl of STANHOPE had !lard a great deal
respecting Wheat and Flour, in the course of the
debate, to very little purpose. It seemed to him as
if the arguments which had been used were for no
nther purpose than to throw dust in the ryes of their
Lordships—(4! laugh).
After some further conversation, the question was
put for agreeing to the clause; and was rejected
without a division.
Their Lordships then resumed—the Report,VMS
received( and the Bill was urdered to be read a third
time on Monday.
• The House then adjourned at halfsast Eleven till
Mond*. ' MINORITY
AGAIINT ?RR lIRCONI4 READING OR TIC CORN BILL If Tin
NOOSe 01 imit.O. u wabresseav assoopc,IS7III3NSTAIIT•
gum • LARLS. LORI"
GIMP Nit Essex
*Oak, ,
_het Ayksabary Met
Aar* bitchy. , Owl*
mAit gums& Fortuces rroviess i 4
Delasibill
W:14111741111 Om .
viscoß NT. SPolicer
PaVie • • • Tviblona
' Thus we two sow. la um tisc .ef tbildisesity as 4,urd

•
Ones male s the h
ied tiosserese, isfse votes against dira
I BM, raked off with Casa& Lord Grinestone voted
spinet dee 'nation. The two Poem silmos names should be
added Instead of the above are, the Dradaibasse,aad Viso.
mum Bulktley.
FOUSS Or CAS MOMS.
A Petition was presented frail Mosselburgh, pitying that no
alteration aright take place in the Corn Laws. Similar Petitions
were presentative= Montrose and Aberdeen.
Returns of the average price of Grain In the Maritime Dis-
tricts, during the years ialS and la' 4, were presented, and or-
dered to lie on the table.
The Oil of Vitriol BiU was read a second time, and committed
for Monday.
OD the Motion et the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, the House went into a Committee of Supply. The
Petition of the British Merchants resident at Rotterdam was
referred to the Committee, and also several Accounts of Mis-
cellaneous.

Mr. A.RBUTHNOT then moved the following Resolutions
1 4,500, for paying the Interest of Exchequer Bills.
119,797, for half a year's Interest on Debentures.
136,137, for payinlnterest on certain Annuities.
180,000, for Bills drawn from New (math Wales.
Sir NEWPOR r asked if there would be any objection to
laying before the House a statement of the manner in which this
money was expended?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not aware
there could he any ohjecdon to doing so.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT then moved a sum of
At 1,503, for Repairs done at the Fleet Prison.
1 107, for Repairs done at the Marshalsea.
4,493, for Repairs done at the King's Bench.
▪ 3,110, for Repairs of the Rolls Chapel.
• 6,596, for the Repairs of the Speaker's House, and House
of Commons.

"0,000, for the Penitentiary Houle at Milbank.
,820,000, for making and repairing Roads and Bridles in
Scotland.

On this Vote being proposed, the SPEAKER ob-
served, that these Grants were applied for under the
sanction of an Act of Parliament, passed in 1803, by
which Commissioners were appointed to superintend
the expenditure of the money granted by the public.
He was one of the Commissioners, and w..s ready to
state to the House what had been the progress of the
work. The Right Hon. Member then proceeded to
detail the particulars of what had been done under
the Act. A length of road, extending 4(30 miles
had already been completed ; 260 miles was partly
made ; and a line of 170 miles of road was at present
under consideration a IS bridges, two of them iron,
and the rest stone, bad also been erected. And the
result of these works was, that from Edinburgh to the
northern parts of Scotland, not a single ferry existed.
Roads had also been made branching out in other di-1
rections, which wry much facilitated the conveying
of fish, and other commodities, to the capital. The
sums expended in these works amounted to about
£300,000 for roads, and 410,000 for bridges, hall of
which had been paid by the public, and half by hub.
viduals. And he did not expect, that after this year
any further application, except for keeping the works
in permanent repair, would be made to the public.
And here it would be proposed, that one-fourth
should be defrayed by the public and three-fourths
by individuals; and the share falling on the public,
it was estimated, would be about ,e 2,500.
After a few observations from Sir J. NEWPORT and
Mr. TIERNIEY, the Resolutions were agreed to.
The next Resolution proposed was AMU® for
the Inland Navigation.
The SPEAKER here also observed that he was
one of the Committee under the Act passed on this
subject, which had for its object to unite the Eastern
and Western Oceans, the German Ocean and Irish
Channel. The work, from the time of passing the
Bill, had gone on without interruption, except as it
had been limited by the extent of die yearly grants
from Parliament. The original estimate of expense
was re 500,000, but 8e515,000 had already been ex-
pended, and it was now apprehended that £lOO,OOO
would be the whole sum required. This excess above
the estimate was caused by the increase in the price
of materials and labour. Three years would pro-
bably still be required for completing the work ; hut
after it should have been completed, supposing that
only two-thirds of the trade between the German
Ocean and the Irish Channel should pass by it, the
receipts, only at a very moderate rate of tonnage,'
would pay the interest on the whole capital ex-1
pended, and also keep the whole range of works in
repair.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE observed, that the work
in question had been undertaken tinder the sanction
of Parliament, and having bees carried on to the ex-
tent it had been, must be continued. This was his
opinion now; but if the work was at present to be
commenced, and a proposition was made for its com-
mencement, he should strongly oppose it.
The Resolution was then agreed to.
The following sums were then voted :
.er,seo to the retired Clerks for auditing the Public Accounts.
1£145 for Printing for the House.
£1,4011 for Printing Journals of the Commons.
£lO,BOO for Deficiency in Printing last Segnons.
£iB,ooo for printing Bills and Report* 0: the !louse of Common..
£6,000 for reprinting the Journals.
£2,500 for printing the Votes of the ',regent Seggion.
ARAB for deficiencies of printing In the House of Peers last
Session.
£21,0110 for printing Accounts for both Houses of Parliament.
£3,500 for Stationary, for 1815, for both Houses.
£l,BBB for certain Ufhc•rs of both Houses.

04,200 for toadeotal expellees of Parliament.
On this last Resolution being moved—
Mr. WHITBREAD asked for information as to
the nature of these incidental expenses.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT replied, the sum now asked
for was for coals, candles, repairing the Committee.
rooms, tte.

Mt. WHITBREAD said a sum of upwards of
£6,000 bad already been voted for the repairs of the
Houses.

Mr. ARBUTHNOT said the former sum was re.
pairs on the external parts of the building.
£1,174 was than moved for the French Refugee Clergy:
Sir G. HEATHCOTE took this opportunity of
alluding to what had fallen from the Member for
Bedford on a former night; and observed, he per.
fecdy agreed with that Hon. Gentleman, and hoped
that whatever might be thermic of the present oc-
currences, whether a Louis XVIII. or a Napoleon I.
should be seated on the throne, if the relations of
peace and amity were preserved towards this coun-
try, we ibould not interfere, and by such interference
embroil oureelves again in in war.
Mr. W. WYNNE observed, with respect to the
present Resolution, ho bad understood that no more
votes of this sort, for French Refugees, would be
required.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, this vote was not for
the citfhplic Clergy. but for Protestant Refugees,
'AU Vote was then 'greed to, as were ;be
ing Resolutions also;
Omit!' 4),f4l,l4l.)Miating bbalrldn tiviaL

' 41x 5 for skill ar nekton In &eau&
JlB,OOO for American Loyalists.
•21 He for the Poor of St. Martin's in the Fields.
.111,000 for the National Vaccine F.stablishment.
27,11211 for the expenses of superintending the Alien Depart nit
Mr. WHITBREAD, upon this Resolution bei,
moved, observed, that instead of so large a sum
this, which was more than bad beets asked for on al
former occasion, he had hoped that no application
all would have been made to the House for mon.
under this head of expenditure, especially as the A
would expire during the present year.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT said the Act had not 7
expired, and the expenses had been incurred. In a
dition to the salary of clerks, there was included •
the present resolution, expenses incurred for tepairit
the house where the Board was held, and which.
the terms of the lease, Government was
repair.
Mr. WHITBREAD observed, it was miller p
fortunate that just at the period wher the Act uf
expiring, and there would be no more occation
the house, the public should have been uncle t:te r.
cessity of! repais ing it. lie wished midi the V.:
Hon. Gentleman woad withdraw t!I:a
the present, and bring it forv:ard azain under ticdistinct ones; under which it might :ippe.fr u;..
part of the sum required was for repairs, and vei.
for clerks' salaries, &c.

Mr. AR BUI'HNO r said he had no objection ;
do as the Hon. Mcmber suggested.
The Resolution was accordingly. wit!:,!rr.73.
£1r.:,()O0 was shun %wet! to the Sheti::% lt.r rcw4..4.. L.:: t.c o.
victim of /dor,.

Mr. LOCKHART understood this sum was fr,
the rewards on convictions for felonies. He thok.
this was cxcecd:ng bad policy ; since cf2-nm, for c!
conviction c.,1 which no reward was fiver., twe G.
quently overl ioked, whilst i.i cases whe:c :ward
were given, the evidence was ove:look
Mr. 1 :CANER defended the system ; zr.d after:
few words from Mr. LeCKHAILT in exp:Ar..tliun, di
resolution was agreed to.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT then moved a r::olution
£77,450 for the expenses of convicts at home.
Mr. BENN wished to know if Governmer
had it in contemplation to adopt any reform in at
present system of disposing of Convicts on board chi
hul
Mr. ARBITTHNOT said, a plan for that put
pose was at present under the consideration of Givers
meet. Indeed the erection of the new Penitentiary
House, towards which ;t arm hacl this evening been
vAed, would go far towards renredyin:; the :vil ut
which the Hon. Gentleman had complained.
Mr. WHITBREAD took this opportunity of
paying a high compliment to Mr. Gra:,atn, to witose
vigilance and attention, all the improvements which
had taken place on board fly hulks might
buted.

After a few words from Mr. LONG and Mr,
strranoT, the Resolution Was put and agreed ,
On the Resolution fo; granting (mows thousand
pounds tor the expense; of the Bow-btreet Office
ing the year,
Mr. BENNETT wished much to know
effectual steps had been adopted for the better ,
vation of the peace of tile metropolis in future,
to prevent a recurrence of the duracitlul
wetch rccendy been prevalent
The CHANCEILOR. of thoEXCHEQU
said, measures had been adopted for obraini,
the objects to which the Honourable Genr
had alluded.

After a teW words from Mr. BATHURST, MI
NZTiro Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. TIMMY,
solution was agreed to.
A Resolution for granting 45000 for the
of prosecutions on the subject of the coin w;
moved, and was agreed to.
Mr. A RBUTHNOT then moved am) of
for defraying the law charges for the year.
This Resolution, after a fcw word from Mr
Haar, who declared his opinion that a great
coney was wasted by the present mode, which
Crown adopted of rrosecuting, was agreed to.
l'wenty.tive thousand pounds was then moved
the Royal Naval Asylum.
Mr. WHITBREAD objected to this vote,
further time was given. Amongst other items
accounts, he saw one of £3OO to a person for
ing, this, he was convinced, was too much.
might be found who would do it for less money,
There was also another item, which had just
his eye, and to which he must object that
of .50guineas to a barlicr, for cutting the boys'
Mr. AR DU HNO I' said, the person wi
ted the accounts was a clergyman, and occa
assisted the chaplain.
Mr. WlilTE R.V.AD wished to knots wli
tance the auditor gave to the chaplain, and ic
chaplain did for his £2.50 a year t
Sir J. NEWPORT said, this clergyman
ditor was also a benefiCed clergyman, holdi
livings in Ireland. from which he vas absent on
_ .

AR BUTHNOT wicked to correct t:
Baronet's statement, the pet son in question 11,
his Irish livirgs by staying hcre:to audit the of
in question.
J. NEWPORT was glad to hear this
tion, it was to the honour of the person in
that lie had lost his Irish livings.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, still the salary
had not been proved a fair salary t or had
proved that the salary of the Governor, £764, -
£5O to the barber, were not more than fair compal-
sation The whole establishatent earrietkth*
jeb on the face of it.

Mr. CROKE!: said, the Governor was
Officer, of great courage and ability, and eujo/iTgl
no greater salary than he would have if now living if
another sitnation.

Mr. WHITBREAD ',Used as know if
number or children (1000) were in the
The Hon. Gentleman whospoka last bad *foam,
ne did not approve of the In tion. No awe
he, (Mr. Whitbread) and be should now KV?'
the vote be withdrawn till a Committee 01 the r.
should, on enquiry; Mee olefided whether '
arable the Institution should be kept up,
Mr. CROKER denied having said the Institutioa
was had. He bad only declared his opinion it'
have been betty confined to children of
With respect to the number of children. children. (be 700
were complete ; the man* di" amok was
what deletes' at present..
Sir Co POLE opted to thQ institution as

Icier tic
'Ar
.ed Wl.
ettiOr,
~ t.c t;.
I w,.j fr;
thoug:.
for 1:!
,:et f,
:ward.
:d after
th
tation
te.
ernmer
ninat
uard tht
lhat
Given.
itentiar)
ling been
is :vil ul
I.
unity et
to witose
Is which
t be attri•
Mr. Ar.•
al to.
thousand
lce dur.
w if any
Or preset.
ure, and
outrages
EQUER
aining all
en t leman
dr. BEN.
the Re.
expenses
was dna
'R20,000
r. Local
I deal of
bich the
en• d
for
te, rnless
ms in the
For auc
Persons
noney.—
it caught
,as a SUR
hair.
rho iudii•
hat assit•
what the
and au•
ling two
on leave.
the lion.
had lost I
accounts
declara.
question
of 8500
it been
4, or the ,
compeo-
he word
a Natal
egjorieg
living id'
the
citation
deflated
Dore did
pose that
to House
was de-
istitetioo.
it wuold
• officers.
100 b.ye
Is wow
is it cow
•