Lord Chancellor,
  Lovel, Lord,
  Marlborough, Duke of,
  Mordaunt, Col. 
  Newcastle, Duke of,
  Norris, Admiral,
  Onslow, Mr.
  Ord, Mr.
  Pelham, Mr.
  Pitt, Mr.
  Pulteney, Mr.
  Quarendon, Lord,
  Salisbury, Bishop of,
  Sandys, Mr.
  Shippen, Mr.
  Sloper, Mr.
  Southwell, Mr.
  Talbot, Lord,
  Thompson, Lord,
  Tracey, Mr.
  Tyrconnel,
  Vyner, Mr.
  Wade, General,
  Wager, Sir Charles,
  Waller, Mr.
  Walpole, Sir Robert,
  Walpole, Mr.
  Westmoreland, Lord,
  Willimot, Mr.
  Winnington, Mr.
  Yonge, Sir Wm.

DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, NOVEMBER 19, 1740.

Proceedings and debate, with regard to the bill for prohibiting the exportation of corn, etc.

On the first day of the session, his majesty, in his speech from the throne, recommended to parliament to consider of some good law to prevent the growing mischief of the exportation of corn to foreign countries.

On the fourth day, a bill for preventing, for a limited time, the exportation, etc, was read a first time in the house of commons, and the question put, whether it should be printed, which passed in the negative.

This day the agent for the colonies of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, presented a petition against the said corn bill, which was referred to the committee.

Another petition was also presented by the agent for the colony of Connecticut, in New England, setting forth that the chief trade of that colony arose from supplying other British colonies with corn, so that unless that colony be excepted from the restraints intended by this bill, both that and those which are supplied by it will be reduced to great distress, and praying, therefore, that such exception may be allowed.

The allegations in this petition were confirmed by another, from one of the provinces supplied by the colony of Connecticut.

Another petition was presented by the agent for South Carolina, setting forth, that unless the rice produced in that province were allowed to be exported, the colony must be ruined by the irretrievable loss of their whole trade, as the countries now supplied from thence might easily procure rice from the French settlements, already too much their rivals in trade.

This petition was supported by another, offered at the same time by the merchants of Bristol.

A petition was likewise presented by the agent for the sugar islands, in which it was alleged, that if no provisions be imported thither from Britain, they must, in one month, suffer the extremities of famine.

All these petitions were referred to the committee for the bill.

A printed paper was also delivered to the members, entitled, ‘considerations on the embargo,’ which enumerated many dangerous consequences likely to be produced by an embargo on provisions, and suggested that it was no better than a wicked scheme for private profit, with other reflections, for which the paper was deemed a libel, and the author committed to prison.