in such a manner that the pressure of it would not be inconvenient. The manufactories, in respect of windows, were of two distinct classes, one where the windows were small and numerous; the other where the windows were large, and extended from one end of the building to the other without division. Instead of 3s. 6d.

Mr. Ponsonby said, for his own part he was at that time unfit to attend to the discussion of any subject whatever; and he believed many members were equally fatigued with the late discussions: he wished, therefore, that the consideration of the resolutions should be postponed to Monday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as he believed it was the general wish of the House, he should move that the Report be taken into further consideration on Monday.

Mr. Philips said, that some of the taxes which had been proposed had excited great alarm among the manufacturing part of the community, and that deputa tions had been dispatched to wait on the right hon. gentleman. He thought therefore that Monday would be too early a period for the discussion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that a much longer period than was usual had been suffered to intervene between the introduction of the resolutions, and the final decision of the House concerning them. He had already collected much information on the subject of the different taxes, and before Monday there would be time for any gentleman to make further communications to him on the subject.

Mr. Protheroe said, that it was understood to be the intention of the right hon. gentleman to propose some modifications in the taxes upon the windows of manufactories; he wished to be informed what was their nature, as this information might induce many of his constituents to suspend the petitions which they were about to bring forward on the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was happy to state that to the House, which he had before stated to several gentlemen

is. 6d. And when the number exceeded 100, the windows beyond that should be charged by measure, as in the case of hot-houses, at 48 superficial feet the window, which would comprehend many small windows, and a great extent of the low long windows. As to the warehouse tax, he should not propose to adopt any progressive scale, and should propose the charge of only 25. in the pound, however high the amount of rent might be, as the warehouse was considered as the means of profit, and not as the indication of the amount. Shops in those houses which were exempt from payment of taxes, at present, on account of poverty, would not be charged under the proposed tax; for instance, small cottages which contained shops. What he had said of warehouses, also applied to manufactories.

Mr. Butterworth thought some modification of the tax on men-servants should be adopted, with respect to such as were under twenty years of age, who were taken by many persons as much from motives of charity, as for other purposes.

Mr. W. Smith thought an undue pressure was thrown by the new taxes on the manufacturing interest. He thought malthouses and granaries should be exempted from the window duties on manufactories, as the windows were for air and not light. The Report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 10.

PETITIONS RESPECTING THE CORN LAWS.] Earl Stanhope presented a petition against any alteration in the Corn Laws from the parish of St. Ann's, Limehouse, and also petitions from several other quarters, having the same object, all of which were laid on the table. His lordship adverted to the fact of his having proposed a resolution last year, which had for its object to relieve the pressure on the agricultural interest, without raising the price of corn. He now gave notice, that on Thursday he

would submit to their lordships consider- | ation, the same resolution, with a small alteration, in order to prevent the possibility of being misunderstood. He therefore moved that the Lords be summoned for Thursday next. Ordered.

Lord Grenville presented a petition to the same effect, from the parish of St. John, Clerkenwell, signed by 9,448 persons. His lordship also presented a petition to the same effect from the incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow. His lordship then presented a petition to the same effect from Greenwich, in Kent. This petition was read, and stated in strong and pointed terms the inability of the petitioners to conceive how the imposing a high duty on importation should not have the effect of raising the price of corn. His lordship said it was a very able paper both in its statement of facts and arguments. The petitioners noticed the regulations now in progress in the House of Commons, and prayed that they might not be adopted.

The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that it was contrary to the rules of the House to receive petitions against bills that were in progress in the other House. They could know nothing about such bills till they came before them, and therefore they could admit of no petitions against them. His noble friend had said, that this was the ablest paper he had ever read; but at the proper period he should be ready to show that the arguments were altogether unfounded; and he was only sorry that his noble friend, by the approbation which he expressed, had rendered them his own. Lord Grenville said, that his noble friend had somewhat misapprehended the terms in which he had expressed his approbation. To say that this was the ablest paper that he had ever read, would certainly be saying a great deal; but he had said, and repeated it, that the paper was very ably written. With respect to the receiving of the petition, it had been decided by their lordships that they ought to receive petitions against any measure which was reported to be in contemplation. Upon this principle, it appeared to him, that the present petition might be received.

The Lord Chancellor said, that it certainly was against the rules of the House to receive petitions against specific measures stated to be in progress in the other House; though petitions against any regulations generally, such as petitions

praying generally that there might be no alteration in the corn laws, might and had been received.

The Earl of Liverpool stated, that the rule of the House was as the learned lord had stated it. This petition was partly against any regulations, and partly against a specific measure depending in the other House. There could exist in no quarter any desire to refuse the petition; and he recommended to the noble lord, not to persist in presenting it for the present, as he would soon probably have an opportunity of presenting it without any doubt as to its regularity.

The Earl of Lauderdale said, he had no desire to prevent the petition being received; and, indeed, he would hardly have urged the objection now, if he believed it could have the effect of preventing its being received; but it ought to be withdrawn till the proper time.

Lord Grenville observed, that the principle was to throw the doors wide open to petitioners, and their lordships would therefore be willing perhaps to relax a little on a question of this nature. However, as he should soon have an opportunity of presenting it without any doubt as to its regularity, he would withdraw it for the present.

Earl Grey said, that whatever difference of opinion might prevail on this subject, all must agree that it was a question of great delicacy, and of vast importance. It was manifest, therefore, that every thing ought to be avoided which had the least appearance of hurry and precipitation. There were, besides, some points connected with the question on which their lordships had not as yet obtained all the information which they ought to have, before they were called upon to decide on a measure of this importance. It appeared to him that a committee ought therefore to be appointed to procure further information, and lay the result before the House. When this was done, their lordships would come better prepared to the discussion of the measure now about to be brought before them. Having it in view to propose to their lordships the appointment of such a committee, he gave notice of a motion to that effect for Monday, and moved that their lordships be summoned for that day.

The Earl of Carlisle wished the noble earl opposite to state exactly to what extent it was proposed to raise the price of grain, or the reasons which induced

him to believe that the measure in contemplation would not raise the price of corn. His lordship deprecated precipitation in a matter of this importance, and observed, that it was particularly unadvisable to hurry it forward, while they had such riots in the streets, and a military force at the door. He himself was adverse to the measure in its present shape, but was open to conviction.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that this was not the time for entering into the merits of the question, but begged leave to say, that he did not conceive the effect of the measure to be proposed to the House, would be to raise the price of corn at all. This he should be prepared to show at the proper time. His opinion was, that some regulation was necessary; but as to the sacrifice of one species of interest in order to promote another, he utterly disclaimed any such idea, and no measure that he conceived to have that tendency could ever have his countenance or support. Such a proceeding was to be avoided in legislation generally, but more particularly in legislating on a subject of this nature. The measure which he should have the honour to propose to their lordships would have for its object the advantage of the whole community, and not that of any particular class at the expense of the rest. As to their having a military force at their doors, care had been taken never to call upon the military to act till it became absolutely necessary; and as to the clamour in the streets, he had no desire to proceed with greater precipitation merely on that account. He only wished their lordships to proceed as if there had been no such clamour. The existence of Parliament depended on their deliberations being free.

The Earl of Carlisle did not mean to impute any blame to ministers for the employment of the military force, which certainly appeared to be necessary; but his objection was to the proceeding with precipitation while those riots were going on. He was hardly a free agent while considering the question under such circumstances, for rather than yield any thing to the clamour in the streets, he should be willing to vote for the Bill with all its imperfections on its head.

The Earl of Lauderdale insisted, that the effect of the measure would be to render corn cheap, and to promote the interests of the whole community. His reasons for that opinion he should be prepared to state fully at the proper season.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 10.

PETITIONS RESPECTING THE CORN LAWS.] Sir John Newport presented a petition from all the commercial houses of the city of Waterford, with one exception, praying for farther protection to the agriculturist, and stating the great depression under which the farmers of Ireland were labouring, and that the demand for British manufactures and colonial produce had decreased in the proportion of this depression.

Sir N. Colthurst said, that he believed the same feeling existed in the commercial city that he represented.

Mr. Baring was willing that every consideration should be given to the petition from the city of Waterford; but it was to be recollected that this city was mainly and principally concerned in the exportation of Irish corn, and that it was proposed by this Bill to give the Irish corn-grower the monopoly of the British market. He conceived, therefore, that the town formed no exception to the opinions entertained in commercial towns on this subject.

Sir John Newport said, if it was in this way intended to prevent the city of Waterford from receiving due attention because it was concerned in the exporting of Irish corn, he had an equal right to say that a great part of the cities who had petitioned on the other side were concerned in the importation of foreign corn. It was hard that no petition in favour of the Bill could be presented either from landholders or commercial men, without injurious charges being affixed to them either by the hon. gentleman or those who took the same side with him. The city of Waterford was as much entitled to a respectful hearing as the city of London.

Mr. Baring disclaimed any wish to prevent the petition from Waterford receiving every due attention.

Mr. Howorth, in presenting a petition from the borough of Evesham, observed, that the expectation of the petitioners had been disappointed chiefly in this; they bad expected that Parliament would, in the first instance, have made some attempt to relieve the burthens of taxation by a retrenchment of expenditure, and a reduction of establishment. He expressed his entire concurrence in the principle of the petition.

Sir Thomas Acland presented a petition from the landholders and occupiers of land

in the county of Devon, in favour of the Corn Bill. The petition stated that the poor-houses were filled with agricultural Jabourers deprived of their usual employment in consequence of the discouragement of agriculture.

Sir Gilbert Heathcote said, that the number of persons out of employment might be partly owing to the season of the year, and partly to the hands discharged from the army and navy.

Mr. Gooch said, in the county which he represented, there never were so many persons out of employment as at present, independent of the hands discharged from the army and navy.

Lord Archibald Hamilton presented a petition against any alteration in the Corn laws, from Hamilton, Lanerk, and several other places in the Glasgow district of boroughs. The hon. member for Glasgow had been reported to have stated not only that his own opinions on this subject were changed, but that his constituents had also changed their opinions. This report had created a considerable ferment in that part of the country; and he was instructed to state most unequivocally, that their opinions on the subject of the Corn laws were still the same.

Mr. Finlay said, in presenting two petitions the other day to the House, he had stated that the prayer of one of them was in favour of temporary restriction, and of the other, that the protecting price should not exceed 76s. In the debate he had said, that if the importation price were reduced to 75s. or 76s. he thought he might venture to state that it would not be dissatisfactory to a great part of the manufacturing district of Scotland; but whatever might be the feeling at one period, he believed that at the present moment no corn bill which went to raise the importation price above what it stood at present would be acceptable among the manufacturers. He retained his opinion unaltered, that an additional protection was necessary to the agriculturist. He thought that a protecting price of 76s. might be beneficial both to agriculture and manufactures.

WESTMINSTER PETITION AGAINST THE CORN BILL.] Sir Francis Burdett rose and spoke to the following effect:-I have here, Sir, a Petition signed by 42,473 inhabitants of Westminster against the Corn Bill now before the House. In presenting this petition, I cannot refrain from stating (VOL. XXX.)

my own sentiments on the subject of it, with a view of correcting a great mistake, which has gone abroad of my being a friend to the measure. I am, Sir, no sup porter of the Corn Bill. My wish is to leave Government to do with it as it pleases, because I believe that none of those who think themselves interested in this measure, are really interested in it. I think that Government alone are interested in the measure, as it is necessary to bolster up the system of taxation which they are resolved to continue. If they would only make a retrenchment of all improper and unnecessary expenditure, and put every thing on a suitable peace establishment, there could be no pretence for inflaming the public mind at the present moment on a topic like this, to bolster up an insupportable system; and if I differ in opinion with some of my constituents, it is not with respect to the measure itself, but with respect to the remedy which they seek. As to the late riots, I think it unworthy of any man that the public indignation should be directed to individuals of any description; and what I wished to impress on the minds of the people, when I had lately an opportunity of addressing them, was-not to waste their efforts against the crude and futile measure now under discussion, but to turn their whole attention to another evil, which included in it all other evils-the corrupt state of the representation in parliament. I have been represented out of doors, as having abandoned my former principles: it has been said that the landlord at length appears, and the patriot disappears; that I have allowed myself to be swayed by private interest, and that this has stifled every other consideration. I may on the present occasion state, that I have, individually and personally, no ininterest whatever in the result of the present measure; that, be that result what it may, it will neither add one farthing, nor take one farthing from me. With respect to my little property-my little establishment-I may, as every man's property is in some sort his kingdom, here say that my little kingdom has ever been on a peace establishment. I have always rather had a permanent state of things in view than the taking advantage of any temporary circumstances. Whether, therefore, the protecting price should be fixed at 80s. or one shilling, or no shillings at all, is a matter of indifference to me. In either case I have no interest: if the Bill (H)