Star.
London, England, 1820-05-26 00:00:00

DROGHEDA PETITION.

Mr. P. MOORE presented a Petition from Mr. Edward Al-
derson, "the Agent to the Petitioners against the Return for
Drogheda. The Petitioner stated, that a Petition had been
presented to the Douse on the Bth instant, against the said Re-
turn, that it was hied for hearing on the 6th of June, that two
sureties had entered into the usual recognizance., and that he
had given the necessary notice of their names and stations in
life, that on Saturday last he attended before the Examiners,
when Mr. Howley, the Agent to Mr. Metcalf, delivered in
Affidavits, impugning the competency of the sureties, that the
Petitioner requested copies of these Affidavits, which were re-
fused, and he now prayed that copies of these Affidavits should
be ordered to be given to him, and that he might be allowed
time to answer them, which he could do in a satisfactory man-
ner, or that he might be allowed to substitt.:e two other sureties,
who were in London, in order to save further time and expense.
The Petition was brought up and read.
The SPEAKER. desired the Serjeant to inquire if Mr. Al-
derson was in atteudance?
Mr. Alderson appeared at the Bar, and verified the Petition.
Mr. P. MOORE moved that the Petitioners do have time to
this day fortnight to complete their recognizance&
Sir J. S ['EWA RT was of opinion that this was a case which
did not justify the introduction of a formal motion with respect
to it. Neither of the individuals who had been proposed as se-
curities were fit to be received in that capacity. One of them
was in the service of an eminent distiller ; and the other was a
young man, without house or property. These facts were
sworn to by many respectable persons; the Affidavits were on
the table, and he could see no reason for re-examining those
persons.
Sir J. NEWPORT requested that the Petition should he
again read, and his desire having been complied with, the Ham.
Baronet said, he deemed the question one of great importance.,
Since the Parliament had been removed from Ireland, the
power which was vested in the hands of the returning Officers
was so large, that it ought to be watched with the utmost jea-
lousy, and where a question was to be tried as to the validity of
their acts, every facility ought to be given. lie had a personal
opportunity of knowing how difficult it was to go through all the'
proceedings which a disputed Irish Return required, and he
thought that as nothing could be more reasonable than the pro-
position that had been made by the Petitioner, he had a strong
claim upon the justice of the House.
Mr. C. W. WYNN objected to that prayer of the Petition
which asked, that time should be given to change the sureties,
because such a change would be inconsistent with the usages of
the house. As to the prayer for copies of the Affidavits, he
believed that the Petitioner had a right to read them, and to
copy them if he pleased, for by the standing order, all such AM-
&Tits were placed in the hands of one of the Clerks of the
House, for the benefit of all the parties concerned. Certainly an
opportunity should be given to either party if he wished to con-
indict them. In the last Parliament, there was a precedent in
the case of Haslemere, where an objection was made to the
sureties, and further time was asked and given in order to sub-
stantiate them. But here the Petitioner prayed for leave to
substitute other sureties, a prayer which could not be complied
with, for they must abide by the original sureties.
The SPEAKER said, that in that case further time was
required in order to substantiate the sureties nominated; bat
here objections were made to the persons who were offered as
sureties. It should be recollected, that ht Irish Petitions the
Petitioners have fourteen days longer allowed for entering.their
recognizances than in England ; and further, that in the case
now under consideration, the time would not be expired until
the 6th of June, and that the Petitioners only asked for three
days longer. But it would be desirable that the motion was in
a more distinct manner before the House. The motion was to
give until this day fortnight to complete the recognizances, al-
though the Petition prayed either for time to set up the present
sureties, or to offer new ones is their place. The motion should
have been separately, for one or for the other.
Mr. PETER MOORE then shaped his motion to the follow-
ing effect .—" That the Petitioners do have to this day fortnight

to complete the tecognisthee for the sureties alrady pApostd."
—Agreed to.
Mr. C. W. WYNNt said, that with respect to the affidavits,
it was unnecessary to make any order, as the Petitioner had a
right to see them.
The SPEAKER observed, that if any impediment was
thrown in the way, it was an impediment unwarranted and
unwarrantable, and be would take care that it should not be
repeated.
ALDEOROUGH ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a Petition froth William
Bryant, Esq. as Agent for Charles Bryant, Esq. praying for
time to provide another security in place of John Thomas
Eglin, who declined to enter into the necessary recognizance,.
The Honourable Gentleman moved that ten days be allowed
for the purpose stated in the Petition, after the Agent had been
called in to authenticate his Petition.
Mr. A BERCROMBY objected to the present motion, as
totally different from the last case which had been under their
consideration.

A Maumee, who spoke from under the gallery, said, if it
would further the ends of justice in any degree, the House
ought to extend the indulgence sought for.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that a Petitioner was bound to
know the willingness of his securities to comply with the neces-
sary conditions, otherwise much imposition upon the House
might be the consequence. Another objection to the motion
was, that securities might be tampered with to refuse compli-
ance in order to obtain further time.
The SPEAKER said, that he thought this the proper time
for mentioning that he had received a let:er, with affidavits, from
Mr. W. Bryant, who requested that theY should be read when
the subject came before that House. One was the affidavit of
Henry Thomas, Esq. of King-street, Covent-garden, who stated
that he had called on John Thomaa Eglin, and had been assured
by him of his willingness to do all that was required of him as
security, and to attend for that purpose on the 24th : that de-
ponent had mentioned the sum to him ; and that he believed
John Thomas Eglin to be a good security. Ile mentioned this
now to the House, to shew Alit the party was cognizant of the
conditions required.
Mr. WYNN said, that if the Petitioner had got a competent
person, that was undoubtedly all he could do.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that Monday last was the first
time the security had mentioned his intention of refusing the
conditions.
The affidavit of John Thomas Eglin was read: it stated, that
he declined to enter into recognizance*, because he had entered
into a bond not to become security in any suns above £5O; and
that he had not been aware of the bond when he promised to
become security here.
Mr. Bovatse was again called in, and stated that he had not
known of Mr. Eglin s intention to refuse, or of the bond which
prevented him, till Monday last.
The question, that the days additional be allowed, was then
put and carried.
Mr. C. CA LVERT presented another Petition from the same
party, which bad been just put into his hands. Ile himself
knew Nothing of it, but as it was couched in respettful terms,
he offered it to the House. The Petition was then brought up
and read. It prayed that the Petitioner might he examined at
the bar of the House, touching a Petition which had been pre-
sented by a Mr. Win. Green, respecting the return for the Bo-
rough of Altlbormigh. and that he might be allowed to produce
a copy of the return for that Borough.—The Petition was or-
dered to lie on the table.
BOROUGH OF WA LLINGFORD.
Mr. HART DAVIS presented a Petition, which he said he
had just received, in passing into the House. The Petitioner, a
Mr. Robert Winters, set forth that he was Agent for a Peti-
tioner against the return for the Borough of Wallingford; that
he had, while engaged in making inquiries respecting the qualifi-
cations of one of the sitting Members, E. J. Roberts, Esq. let
the time pass, at which he should have entered into recogni-
zances ; he prayed, therefore, that he might be allowed a little
further time to enter into those recognizance', with which be
was fully prepared.
Mr. A BERCROMBY conceived that, admitting the whole
the Petitioner stated to be correct, he had not offered any rea-
sonable ground for the indulgence be claimed.
Lot d CASTLEREAGH said, much of the-public time was
occupied in hearing petitions of this description. The Acts
passed for regulating the time allowed for entering into recog-
nizances were useleu, if encroachments were to be made every
moment by such petitions. His Lordship said, that this was not
a ease which called for the interposition of the Houee.—The
Petition wa4 withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESSES.
Mr..TOLIFFE presented a Petition from several
Farmers in the neighbourhood of Petersfield, pray-
ing for some measure that might relieve them from
the distresses under which they laboured, in conse-
quence of low prices.
Lord CHARLES MANNERS presented a similar
Petition from the County of Cambridge.
Mr.'CURWEN also presented one from several
Agriculturists in the Western part of the County of
Cumberland.

Lord NILTOIC said he held in his hand a Petition '
from another County, complaining of the Agricul-
tural distress under which the cultivators of land
were suffering ; and he must say, that this and all
the other Petitions of the same nature which had been
laid on the table were well worthy the attention of
the House, because it was the duty of the House to
hear the complaints of all classes of subjects. It did
not follow, however, that they were bound in the
present instance to comply with the prayer of the
Petitioners; at the same time, he must give it as his
opinion, that any interference on the part of the House
in what related to the prices of human food ought to
be used with the greatest delicacy. The parties
whose Petition he was then about to present stated,
that they looked up to the House, in a confident ex-
pectation that something would be done for their re-
lief. He did not know what was the precise object
which an Honourable Member (the Member for Sur-
rey) had in view by the Motion which he intended to
make, and of which he had given notice on a former
day, respecting the state of Agricultural distress: he
did not know whether it was the intention of the
Honourable Gentleman to propose measures which
should cause an alteration in the price of Agricul-
tural produce, or whether he meant to move for an
inquiry into the general distress of the country, in order
to ascertain how far the burthens which pressed upon
the People might contribute to weigh down the Agri-
cultural Interests. If his object went to affect the
prices, such a step would be considered by the people
at large as an attempt to enhance the price of food ;
but it he meant to propose that a general inquiry
should be entered into, for the purpose of ascertain-
ing the causes of those distresses which affected all
classes of Manufacturers, as well as .the manufac-
turers of food, and, indeed, affected the whole com-
munity, a great deal of good might then be done,
because the real grounds of public distress would
be then clearly known. But if the inquiry intended
to be proposed by the Honourable Gentleman was
to be one of a limited nature, and if the Agricultural
Petitioners wanted nothing more than to right them-
selves, at the expense of others, then he maintained
that the inquiry would tend to do infinite mischief.
He felt it his duty to make these observations on pre-
senting the present Petition; which his Lordship then
brought up. It was a Petition from several Far-
mers in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying that
the House would take their distresses into their most
serious consideration.

Mr. H. SUMNER said could not withhold ex-
pressing his sentiments on the present occasion, after
what had just fallen from the Noble Lord, and after

being so
were
particularlyt
icotnlhe
ed
taitnterde to ellwed
t;)slalhe.at He
should say, they, that his object was to be of a double
views tin
nature; The first should be applicable to Agricultu-
rists exclusively, and the second should be more ge-
ral. By the Act passed in 1815, it was stated, that
eighty shillings was the least price at which Foreign
Corn was to be imported into the country; and by
that means it was conceived that asufficient prow-
tionw
has.foni the low prices. given to the Fai.
rmers against
object,nsrttl di stiesses
arising then,
would be, to inquire whether a sufficient protection
was by that enactment secured to the Farmers
They now complained, that it did not afford them a
sufficient remuneration; and that he considered a.
wsuobtlecidt
affected by those causes which affected the other Ma;
befi,ttotoincill4uireinclhotiii‘r7fdai'intre.AgltruinetUrixtst4s wjeerit
nufacturers of the country ? With respect, however,:
to the question, whether Agriculturists received a„
sufficient remuneration? he was sure it would tend
greatly to tranquillize the public mind if a separate
inquiry were gone into, for the purpose of ascertain-
' ing, whether some distinct measures of relief might
not be adopted ?
Mr. CCRWEN was of opinion, that if the prices
of Agricultural produce should.continue as they now
were, there would be a deficient growth of Grain ;a
the country, and, evenniafly, the people would have
to pay dearer for all the necessaries of life than they
would, if proper protection was given to Farmers;
therefore, he conceived, that in that question the
Agricultural and Manufactuting labourers were
equally interested. An inquiry, therefore, ought to
be instituted, with the view of doing something that
should prevent us from being at the mercy of fa..
reigners for out food.
Mr. COKE said, as he had a Petition to present
similar 'to that before the House, he should take the
opportunity of declaring his decided opinion that
the distress of the Agriculturists arose from the sys-
tem which had been so lung pursued, and which ha:.
brought such a burthen of taxation on the country.
There was at present a great part of the county of
Norfolk in the highest state of cultivation, which
was only enabled to produce wheat by the assi-z-
-ance of artificial manure. Very little of the lard
between his house and Lynn was formerly sown with
wheat, but merely with rye or barley. Wheat was
now grown there by means of the oil cake and arti-
ficial manures. The pressure of the present times
threatened to put an end to this cultivation.
Mr. RICARDO said, the Agriculturists had dis-
tinctly avowed their wish to have a monopoly of
corn in the English market, for they now demanded
some measure which should not fail to raise the price.
The Agriculturist seemed to have an extraordinary
notion of a countervailing duty ; they called for a
duty which should amount to the difference of the
cost at which foreigners and that at which we could
grow corn. If such a principle were acted upon, all
foreign commerce would be put an end to. If, for
instance, corn could be grown at fifty shillings in
Poland, and at eighty shillings here, they would
demand a duty of thirty shillings, which would
effectually exclude foreign corn, as our farmers
would always have the advantage of not being
charged with the expense of carriage on their com-
modity. The object of the Agriculturists could not
be mistaken; it was most unreasonable for them to
strive to raise the price of corn by legislative enact-
ments, for by thus raising also the price of all com-
modities, instead of alleviating, they would aggra-
vate beyond measure the distresses of the country—
(Heat, hear).—He should, therefore, oppose any mea-
sure with such an object.
Mr. BENETT (Member for Wiltshire) denied that
it was the object of the Petitioners to prohibit the
importation of foreign corn. They only wanted to
be protected by means of certain duties laid upon
the products of other countries, in order that cuki-
vation in this country might not cease. The object
of the Petitioners was to keep corn at a steady and
remunerating price, which was not the
-case at pre-
sent; and if the prices continued so low as they now
were, the farmers could not go on—the prices could
not pay the .taxation. If protection was to be aban-
doned, the consequence would be, the abandonment
of cultivation, and of the labourers; for if the corn
was higher, the wages of labourers would be higher.
All he wished for was, to see the Act of 1813 made
efficient; and that the protection intended by that
Act should be granted to the Agriculturists. At
the same time he was ready to acknowledge that
heavy was the great evil to be complained of; and
until that was removed; he hoped some lesser remedy
would be resorted to. He fully agreed with the Ho-
nourable Member at that side (Mr. Coke), that the
great evil arose from the heavy preisure of enormous
taxation. That should be remedied, as far as possi-
ble, as the first step ; and then he conceived that
equal protection should be given to all classes, the
Manufacturers and Agriculturists.
Lord MILTON, on a question so important as the
present, felt it necessary to look at the objects and
views of the Petitioners. He had before stated, that
he would not then declare whether he would or
would not vateffor the appointment of a Committee.
When that sulject came before the House, the man-
ner in which he should give his vote would depend
upon the nature of the objects which the movers
might have in view, upon the Members who were
to constitute the Committee into which it was pro-
posed to enter, and also upon the subjects into which
the Committee were to be empowered to inquire.
The Petition was then laid upon the table, and
ordered to be printed.
Sir J. NEWPORT postponed his Motion relating
to Courts of Justice in Ireand, to Thursday next.
LINEN MANUFACTURE.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a Petition from cci
min Linen Manufacturers in the county of Forfar,
praying that they might be put on the same footing,
with regard to the bounties on exportation, as tile
Linen Manufacturers of Ireland.
Mr. ROBINSON said, the Manufacturers of Linen
in Great Britain were entitled to the same protection
as those in Ireland ; for if bbunties were given to
those of Ireland, they should be given to all others.
Sir R. FERGUSON observed, that if bounties
were not given pursuant to the prayer of this Peti-
tion, three-fourths of the Manufacturers of Forfar
must be dismissed.
Mr. ItICARDO considered the practice of giving
bounties on exportation as nothing less than bribing
the consumers of our goods to take them off our

1