moved, "That no Private Bill be read a second time unless notice of the day proposed for such second reading shall have been given in writing three clear days beforehand, by the agent soliciting the Bill, to the clerks of the Private Bill Office, who shall enter such notice in the Private Bill Register, and certify the same upon the back of the Bill."

wished to know, whether, in case the second reading did not take place on the day appointed, owing to a pressure of other matter, the three days notice must be given over again?

rather thought there would be no occasion for it, as the object of calling the particular attention of the parties concerned to every Bill would be attained by the first notice.

stated, that members who had the management of Private Bills often delayed coming to the House till the hour for public business arrived: and therefore, in many instances, had themselves to blame for the delay. If this regulation should have the effect of procuring a pointed and early attendance, it would greatly facilitate the business of the House.

opposed the measure, chiefly on the ground, that the growers of barley ought not alone, out of all the community, to be subjected to the burthen of relieving the West India proprietors. If relief was to be given, it should be from the common stock.

of Norfolk, was not present when the measure was proposed, otherwise he would have opposed it. If the value of land had increased, so had the taxes upon land, the poor rates, &c. What did the colonies furnish to the country in comparison? It was in vain to introduce a scale between barley and sugar in this way. To frame any just scale was utterly impossible. He felt for the distresses of the West India Proprietors; but this was the worst way of assisting them that could be devised. The House would remember, that in 1808, the warmest supporters of the measure considered it as merely temporary.

maintained, that a scale might very well be adjusted, and that it was fairly done by this measure.

opposed the scheme, as one of the most pernicious tendency. It was an object to have abundance; there must be a supply beyond the general consumption of man, and the distilleries were most useful in this respect. But the advantage was lost by this perpetual meddling. Barley was absolutely a drug in the market. The time would come, he said, when magazines must be formed to store up grain in years of plenty, and sell it out in times of scarcity. This would be a burthen, but it would prevent the calamity of famine.

voted on the subject as independently as any man. If they would not allow him to distill his sugar he would the better sell his barley in Sussex. The West India interest had supplied the country with seamen, with ships, and with every thing of that sort; why, then, should the West India proprietors be considered as so abject a race? This measure would help to keep our money at home. Our bullion had gone abroad for corn till we had not a guinea remaining, and we could not get change for it if we had. The measure was wanted only for one year. The property of the land owners had, independent of the taxes, risen from 30 to 40 per cent. while the property of the poor West India proprietors had fallen 50 per cent.

contended that the planter of sugars could not with any fair advantage bring them into the market cheaper than 75s. while the present scale was fixed at 70s.

urged the propriety of lowering the scale as to grain, in consequence of the various petitions from Scotland last year, stating the low price of it.

contended, that the prices of grain were now such, as, compared with the price of labour, would scarcely repay the farmer. At the same time he was by no means prepared to say that 70s. 9d. was a fair price for sugar. He should give his support to the detail of the measure, but he must afterwards oppose it in particular parts.

wished that a mode should be devised, by a full inquiry, to equalise the interests of both.

stated, that the produce of the old British colonies was equal to the supply of the whole kingdom: but that great benefit had been derived to the country from the re-exportation of colonial produce. The malt duty, it appeared, had not taller of during the last year, so that the growers of grain had the sale in one way or in the other.

replied to the principal arguments which had been urged in the debate. He contended, that agriculture and commerce depended one on the other, and that to neglect either was to injure both. The principle of the regulation he had proposed was, to make the duties such that if the price of barley did not exceed 38s. it must be the interest of the distillers to use grain in the distilleries. The reception his plan had met with proved at least that he had not been led into error by the representations of those most interested in the result, and that no one was favoured to the injury of the others. He had taken barley at 38s. He had been informed he ought rather to have taken it at its present prices, 26s. or 28s. He had anticipated an objection of a different nature, and expected that it would be said he ought rather to have taken it at 40s. 41s., &c. If, however, he had taken the price higher than it happened to be at present, there was the greater reason to believe the agricultural world would be the more benefited by the measure. It might be a question, whether or not the measure proposed ought in policy to be adopted. But he contended that there was nothing in it which could reasonably excite alarm. He had no objection to the measure being adopted for one instead of for two years. It was his particular wish that it should be felt by the House and the country that there was nothing dangerous in it. They ought not to be too ready to give credence to the gloomy predictions so often thrown but. Three years ago, when the distilling from corn was prohibited, it was predicted that its consequences must be ruinous. It was stated that the spirit of agriculture must be instantly annihilated and a period put at once to the cultivation of barley. What was the fact? Why, now the prophecy was seen completely falsified: and it was now said there was so much barley where ever they turned their eyes, that it would fetch no price whatever. Did not this prove that the measure then adopted had not been so fatal to the interests of agriculture, as had been asserted? Before he sat down, there was one circumstance to which he ought to allude, but with which he believed the House was already acquainted. The circumstances under which the law prohibiting distillation from grain had expired, had induced ministers to apply to the distillers in this country, to ask if they would restrain themselves from the use of it, when they were no longer restrained by the law. To this proposition they had with great liberality acceded. This circumstance, in justice to them, he ought not to have omitted to state before. In conclusion, the right hon. gent. observed, that though gentlemen opposite, expecting some measure was about to be proposed for continuing the prohibition of the use of corn, might very naturally come down prejudiced against it, as they had been averse to such a proposition before, he, however, hoped when it was fairly considered, it would be felt that, it could be safely adopted, and that there was nothing in it could occasion serious alarm.

only begged, after the observations he had made on a former night, to say a few words. When a proposition for affording relief to our colonies was introduced some years ago, it was only proposed that it should exist from year to year, and should not be a permanent but only a temporary accommodation. Now, however, the case was different: sugar was now proposed to be brought into the market as a competitor with corn, and that great consumer of corn, the distilleries, was allowed the option to chuse between them. This was a new æra introduced into the law of this country, so far as our agricultural interests were concerned, and one, too, which he thought ought not hastily to be adopted. His hon. friend the member for Norfolk, than whom agriculture had not a more sincere or better informed advocate, had already pointed out the impolicy of any innovation prejudicial to the interests or to the promotion and encouragement of agriculture. He (Mr. Adam) only objected to this as a new principle; and all he asked was, it might be preceded by a Committee to inquire into the fitness of adopting it.

expressed his regret that the clause proposed by his hon. friend last night, was not acceded to, and acknowledged that the objections of the right hon. gent. did not appear to him to be conclusive: at the same time he could not let that opportunity pass of expressing his entire satisfaction at the clause introduced by the learned and hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Manners Sutton). He meant that which added to the original Bill the discretionary power to be vested in courts martial, of sentencing either to corporeal punishment, or to that of confinement. He approved of this clause, because he thought that from the hour of its enactment the condition of the soldier became essentially improved. He thought that those who had suggested it, and those who had acted upon that suggestion, were entitled to the thanks of the army, for not only bettering its condition, but exalting its character. He was glad of it upon this ground, also, that he trusted, and confidently too, that it would lead ultimately to the total doing away of corporeal punishment; indeed, there was no obstacle to that desirable object, but those prejudices which must yield in time. When the army consisted but of 18,000 men, the old peace establishment, it might at that period be composed in no small degree of the idler and more dissolute of the lower orders, but now, when it was so increased as to comprehend a great portion of the peasantry of the country, the discipline that might have been fit for the refuse of streets, was by no means necessary to keep in controul men of a different order. He concluded by again expressing his most marked approbation of the clause.

was by no means sure that the clause was so unexceptionable. He wished to know the full meaning of the word "imprisonment," was it confinement in the guard-house simply, or in a gaol, or did it mean in the black-hole merely?

thought it better to use the word imprisonment; without limiting the discretion of military regulations, there were barracks and garrisons enough in the country where there could be no difficulty of setting apart a room for that purpose.

said, that in case a guardhouse were the prison, he hoped the imprisonment would be solitary.

approved of the clause. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.