Star.
London, England, 1828-04-01 00:00:00

The Earl of MA LMESBURY deprecated any pre-
mature discussion, and suggested the propriety of haring
the proposed scale of duties printed for the use of their
Lordships.
Lord KING said, that when he saw the protecting
duty raised beyond the plan of last year, in some in-
stances 4s. per quarter, and in others Bs. or 9s. all he
could say was, this is too bad. - The proposed measure
might do very well for fair weather. The Bill was one
which it would prove impossible to maintain. If the
Noble Duke thought it likely to be a permanent measure,
he was very much mistaken. It had no character of per•
maneccy about it. Tire Bul or-last year was bad enough,
but this was much worse. Allusi.+n had been made to
Ireland, and it was true that under tire present ►ystem,
without the supply from Ireland the populati n of this
country would not have been enabled to live or subsist.
Yet eatravag ,nt as the protection so be aff rded was, it
appeared that some persons were not satisfied even with
this Bill. The Noble Duke had laid much stress upoil
the money laid out upon land ; now he only begged to
ask one question—what was the object of so laying our
money but to have corn? And yet the 811 said the)
should not have corn.

Lord GODERICH considered it of so much import.
ance to the country to have this question settled, and
differed so entirely from the Noble Lord, who advised
them to wait for two or three years, that he felt the
greatest anxiety to give full consideration to the Bill of
his Noble Friend. If he had thought himself bound
from any idea of expediency to adhere to his amend-
ment of last year, he (Lord Goderich) should have felt
it his duty to object. But as his Noble Friend had
waived that amendment, he had brought them back to
matter of detail, and he in his turn would feel disposed
to waive bis individual opinion as to the proper scaleol
duty, in order if possible to insure a final, or at least a
durable settlement of the question. The variance in
the scale of duties did not, as he viewed it, at present
cffer to his mind any insuperable objection.
Lord FALMOUTH explained.
Lord REDESDA LE would again and again remind
their Lordships, that if they meant to protect agricul-
ture and have cl'eap corn, they niust encourage Vat
agriculture, by allowing its. produce an unembarra.sed
market. Free trade would destroy seven millions of
capital now expended in the cultivation of Ole less fetti e
soils, and would be destructive of the farmer in the
good season that might succeed a scarcity. It al.&
would destroy the growth of wool in the coantry, and
so much injure the agriculture, to which the growth of
wool mates ially ministered. hat would their Lord-
ships think-of it, were it proposed to them to lay a duty
on the manure necessary to the soil ? Would they not
think such a proposition to be unworthy of their atten•
tion, unless to be scouted ? And yet the intended Corn
Bill would have the effect of a duty on manure, from
its not prohibiting the: importatioe of foreign corn only
at I low duty. For the sheep that produced that wool
afforded manure, and the importation of foreign wool
would dintini4h the quantity of that manure, by lessen-
ing that number of sheep.
The motion for the Returns was then put and
agreed to.
Lord DARNLEY presented a Petition signed by 1,400 of the
Inhabitants of St. Leonard, Shureditch, complaining of the pressure
of the Poor and other rates, and of the conduct of the Parochial
Officers.—Ordered to lie upon the table.
• MEMOS FOAM TUC COMMONS.
_ _

Mr. DAWMEN, Lord STANLEY, Mr. Holmes, and other Members,
brought up the Appropriation, of Aids Bill, and three Private Bills,
which were severally read a first time.
Lord KING begged, to ask the Noble Duke when this nuisance
of a Corn Bill was likely to be brought in.
The Duke of WELLINGTON replied, not tiU after the Recess.

GAIIII LAW&

The Sale of Game Bill was committed proforma.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he ws.uld postpone the in.
troduction of his additional clauses until the second Friday after
Easter.

The House then resumed, the Report was received, and the Bill
ordered to be recommitted on Friday, 18th April.

tAiTIII. IIIICINS.

The Marquis of LA NS DO WN suggested, that as Noble Lords
were Axing their notices. it might be convenient if the Noble Duke
would mention the intended period of Adjournment.
The Duke of WHLLINGTON replied, that he Intended to
move the Adjournment to nest Tuesday fortnight.
The House then Adjourned at Savior o'Cwt.u.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Gallery did not open at an unusually early hour, and there
was no crowd st the time of its opening. At ten minutes before
four the Smarms took the Chair.

Mr. 111 NG presented a Petition from the Churchwardens and
Inhabitants of Hammersmith against the Hammersmith Bridge
Road Bill.

Upon the motion of Mr. BY NG, the Bin was then read a second
time, as was the Covent Garden Improvement Bill.
r. ASTELL presented a Petition from certain select vestry-
men of the parish of Mary-la-bonne, against the Mary-la-bonne
Vestry Bill.
Mr. DENISON presented Petitions front Mortlake and
Barnes in favour of the Hammersmith Bridge Road Bdl.
Also a Petition front an Individual residing at Surrey Lodge,
in favour of the Battersea Enclosure Bill.

Sir F. BU R D ETC presented a Petition, signed by about 5,000
respectable inhabitants of the parish of Mary-la-bonne, in favour
of the Mary-la bonne Vestry PAIL
Mr. ASTE LI. defended the conduct of the Vestry of Mary-la.
bonne, and contended that the application of the Petitioners was
not entitled to the notice of the House. The Vestry was composed
of the Nobility, Gently, Clergy, and Tradesmen of the parish, and
there was no parish in the country whose affairs were generally bet-
ter managed. _ _ _

Mr. tiOBHOUSE supported the Petition and the Bill. He
trusted that the question between the Petitioners and the Select
Vestry would be fully discussed before the Committee, and that
the result would be an entire change in the government of this ill-
managed parish.
Colonel BAILEY said, that all the Select Vestry wanted was
an impartial inquiry, and he was sure the result would be to con-
vince the House that the greater portions of the grievances com-
plained of were merely imaginary.
Mr. HUME supported the Petition.
Mr. Alderman WOOI) spoke in favour of the Bill, and com-
plained of the Hon. Member for Bridgewater having canvassed
members to vote against it ; which be considered very indecent in
a Select Vestryman and a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Alderman WA ITH MA N objected to the power exercised
by Select Vestries generally.
Mr. DAWSON concurred with those who thought that the
power of filling up vacancies in Select Vestries ought not to be
vested in those bodies. He was favourable to inquiry.
Sir C. BURKELL said, that without knowing much of the
merits of this case, be had reason to know that Select Vestries
ducted their Warn ttohetbeeirdeliperfect"satofislthaceirtionilarbbiage. ral
and
Can.
Colonel &MIT and Mr. Anew. explained.
After a few observations., in reply, from Sir t. BVILDNIT, the
Pothloo was ordered toile upon the table.