Lords Sitting of 1 March 1810

CORN DISTILLATION PROHIBITION BILL.
The Earl of Albemarlepresented a petition from the landholders, farmers, and others, frequenting the market of Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, which the noble earl moved should now be read.
The Petition was read by the clerk, and stated the grievances under which they laboured; that they were under the necessity of sending their corn coastwise, for the purpose of its being vended; that they were not able, in consequence of the prohibition of distillation from corn, to dispose of three fourths of their grain, sufficiently to meet the enormous expences attending the cultivation of arable land, and the many taxes to which, in these times, they were liable. The petition concluded with praying their lordships to take their situation into their most serious consideration.
The Earl of Albemarlethen said, he rose for the purpose of proposing what he conceived would be consistent with the dignity of their lordships. The petitioners were men frequenting the market of Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, which produced an immense quantity of barley; and in consequence of the Prohibition Bill, were labouring under those grievances which the petition stated. They had taken the earliest opportunity of alledging their complaints, in order that they might be heard by counsel at the bar of the House. Their lordships were in the habit of permitting those who petitioned to be heard by counsel, and he trusted the same indulgence would be allowed the present petitioners. For this purpose, he hoped the noble earl would have no objection to

643
postpone the present motion for the second reading, and, therefore, he should move "That the order of the day be discharged, end that the Bill be read a second time on Monday."
Earl Bathurstfelt not the smallest objection to the petitioners being heard by their counsel at the bar; but such was the necessity for proceeding with the present Bill, that he could not agree to postpone the second reading, because the act which it was to continue, would expire in the early part of n6Xt week, besides, the noble earl must recollect, that the petitioners had a full opportunity of being heard in the future stages of its progress.
The Earl of Hardwickethought it incumbent upon their lordships with a view to their consistency, not to proceed to the second reading, until the papers, documents, and other evidences, were before them, necessary to enable them to form an opinion. With respect to the expiration of the former act, it was possible to postpone the second reading till Monday— and by dispensing with one of their standing orders, an expedient which was sometimes resorted to, they might be able to pass the bill on Wednesday, the very day of the former act's expiring.
The Earl of Darnleythought it highly requisite that the House should be in possession of that evidence which would justify its passing this bill, so materially affecting the interests of the agriculturists throughout the kingdom.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid that the manner in which the bill had been brought before their lordships, and hurried on to the second residing, was degrading to the dignity of that House. Were time given, he would pledge himself, that, from not only Norfolk, but from the principal parts of Scotland, petitions would follow, complaining of the injustice of this measure.
Lord Hollandsaid it would be competent for the petitioners to be heard either on going into the Committee, or on the third reading, which was no unusual thing in that House.
Viscount Sidmouthcould not coincide with his noble friend that it was usual for evidence to be adduced at the bar on the third reading of bills—It was the general custom for their lordships to receive the evidence on the second reading, in order that every opportunity should be given for opposing the bill in its after, stages: or
644
if the principle were not objected to, that it might receive those alterations in the Committee, which would render it unobjectionable on the third reading. For, though on the third reading amendments might be introduced, they could only be discussed in the Committee. On this account it was requisite the House should possess every information on the second reading; but in the present instance this bill, the principle of which he deprecated, and the continuance of which, it would appear, by the report on the table, had been deprecated by a Committee of the other House, was to be hurried through its different stages without further information, and against the agricultural interests of the country. It was absolutely necessary to consider the price of corn, and that of sugar, before they could judge of the expediency of the bill, according to the principles on which the measure was framed. It was said, at one time, the price of sugar was not adequate; and, on this ground, it was called a bill to relieve West India planters—at another, it was said, the price of corn was so high, that it was intended to prevent a dangerous scarcity: but now, if they would examine the price of these articles, it would be found that corn was fallen in price, and sugar was considerably higher, and, yet, without one proof of the expediency of this measure they were called upon to pass it, without due consideration. On these grounds, he wished that the second reading should be postponed.
On the question, "That the bill be read a second time on Monday, a division took place:—Contents 13. Non-contents 26, Majority 13. The bill was then read the second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.