Star.
London, England, 1810-03-10 00:00:00

and from "the papers now on the table, it was proved
*hat the prices of corn were higher now, with less
chance of importation to increase our supply, than when
the former Bills passed ; and it was perfectly consistent
with the principle of our corn laws, which were calcu-
lated to secure a supply for the consumption of the peo-
ple at a reasonable price, and which permitted foreign
importation when that price exceeded a certain point.
Importation was not now in our power to the extent
necessary for securing a supply to the country on
moderate. terms, and the only expedient left. was, to
lessen the consumption by stopping the distillery of
grain. With respect to the arguthent, that prohibit-
ing under this act the importation of spirits distilled
is Ireland was an infraction of the Union, he contend
--
e l that it was in the contemplation of those who
framed the articles of Union to act up to them, as far
as was possible : but they foresaw, that under the al-
tered system of connection between the countries, a
number of difficulties would arise for several years ;
the nature of which it was impossible so precisely to
foresee, as effectually to provide against them in the
first instance, wi;hout great injury to Ireland, and
therefore must remain for adjustment as they should
occasionally arise. This Act would inflict no penalty
upon Ireland, for it did not prevent the Irish from
distilling their own corn for their own consumption,
and it provided the Irish farmer
.st ready market for
his abt;ndant harvest. But it would. imp itale to
. -
allow the, produce of the Irish Di
to
Toned into this country during the operation of this
Act without injury to England; and he ;mitt -not
conceive, that, under existing circumstince4V•lC was
a violation the virit of the Union, to adopt a tata.
sure of fair protection to British interest.
Lord ABERDEEN spoke against this Bill.
Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH took a most com-
prehensive view of the subject. The principle he had
at all times reprobated, but if at any time it was ex-
pedient to adopt it, certainly the grounds upon which
it was now brought forward, were wholly untenable.
When in, 1808 itwas introduced, the prices of corn

were high, and those of sugar extremely low ; at pre-
sent tbe•corn was in every part of the country abun-
dant, whilst sugar had considerably increased in
value. At all times he deprecated that mischievous
intermeddling spirit which would interfere with the
exertions of the farmer, and ultimately decrease the
actual quantity of the food of man. The most cer-
tain way to procure at all times a supply of food, and '
guard against the evils of failing harvests, was to en-
courage a surplus production of corn ; and that sur-
plus production could only be encouraged by allow-
mg the fullest and most unlimited consumption. This
he contended was forming the best granary, towhich,
.under an accidental pressure, the State could look for
•raupply. The Noble Viscount declared his great anxi-
ety to afford some permanent remedy to the great dis-
. tresses of the West India Planters • but contended,
that both with reference to the Mother Country, and
to the Colonies, the present -measure was calculated
to produce no benefit to the latter, whilst to the for-
mer, it was replete with so many evils, that he felt
• himself called upon to give it his most determined
opposition. - • • -
Lord HOLLAND observed, that much miscon-
ception existed. upon this subject, both within that
House and out of doors. He denied that it way a
question between the corn-grower of the parent state
and the West-India planter. -It was in his opinion a
fairer view of the question to consider it as a struggle
between the British West-India planter and the land-
holder of France. Upon that principle then of just
. policy, should the Legislature refuse to yield to the
colonies tl*t preference which the present measure
afforded them? With 'respect to what had fallen
from a Noble Earl (Aberdeen),relative to the quan-
tity of dsmaged•barley remaining on hand since the
last harvest, and which, it was contended, the distil-
lers would have used, he saw ro farce in the objec-
tion, because it was well known that as the excise was
levied upon the wash, which damaged or undamaged
barley would produce in the same quantity, the dis-
tillers by the use of the undamaged would be subject
to the payment of an increased duty. The Noble
Lord, though differing, with regret, from those with
whom he actedin that House, still Elt it to be his
duty to support the measure.
Lord HARDWICKE exhortedthe blouse to pause
before it gave its assent to a proposition at all times
hostile to the interests of agriculture, but at this mo-
ment not even warranted by Iny one of the reasons
which induced its original adoption.
Lord. LAUDERDALE entered at length into the
question itself, which he considered at variance with
every sound principle of political economy. Tne No-
ble Lord stated, that he most fully concurred with
his Noble Friend -(Grenville), upon the systematic
conduct of the Ministers to degrade that branch of
the Legislature. What other term could he apply
to such conduct, when lie saw questions of legislation,
involving•the best interests of the country, hurried in
the most shameful manner through that House? When
the public interest, or any right of the people was af;
fected, then all was haste and anxiety :o get rift of it.
No time left for inquiry or explanation. But vas
a particle qf the. Royal Prerogative that was in ;dap.
ger, 'then the Noble Lords were impressed with the
deepest sense of deliberation and caution. Every
technical advantage was taken, and so keen was op-
position, that even on the first reading of a Bill it was
evinced. .
After some observations from Lords LIMERICK and
BATtionsT, the question for adjourning the discussion
until Monday, was negatived without a division, and
the Bill was read a third time and passed.
EXPI ANON, (IF PRISONERS.
Lord HOLLAND seeing the Cabinet Ministers in
their places, particularly the Noble Lord at the head
of the Admiralty, expressed his anxious desire to put
a question upon a subject, on which he was con-
vinced the Noble Lord would feel glad to afford ex-
planation. It had been stated in a public paper of
the French Government, that a Convention at Mot-
laix for the exchange of prisoners had been broken off
by this country, lest the arrangement should lead to a
negotiation for peace.
Lord MULGRAVE assured the Noble Lord, that
the statement was wholly unfounded. It was true
that there had been an arrangement far that purpose,
but it was broken off upon its own merits, without
any reference to a negotiation for peace.
Lord GRENVILLE directed the attention of their
Lordahips to the return of a Mr. Catherwood to the
order of that House, requiring the average prices of