The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-25 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

Mr. HUNT gave notice that he should, ots the 15th of
July, submit a mo.ion to the House, for the repeal of all
laws prohibiting the importation of foreign corn into the
country.
Lord MILTON moved for returns of 41 ;ports on the
abket of the corn trade sent from the several British
Consuls resident in foreign stares that export corn, wad
which have not been laid before Parliament.

Mr. PORTMAN hoped that the Noble Lord, and such
Hon. Members as were advocates of a free trade of corn,
wou'..l previously institute full inquiry into the subject in
all its hearings, and souse forward with some ?natured
plan which would admit of a thorough discussion.
(Hear.) It were indeed to be wished that such inquiry
would have been made before the Noble Lard and the Hon.
Member for Preston bad ?announced their intention lof
bringing forward the subject at all, and that a uew sti-
mulus had not been added to the excitement which already
too much prevailed in the agricultural districts, and which
might lead to a renewal of the deplorable occurrences
of last winter. If Hon. Members would persist under
such circumstances in re-agitating the question, it must
be on their own responsibility. At least they might state
what course they meant to pursue.-what better system of
corn law than that in force they meant to propose—whe-
ther, for example, they meant to propose a plan like to
that of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, by which a fixed
rate of duty should be imposed on alt foreign corn enter-
ing our ports, instead of the present scale of average ?
Mr. HUME would be prepared to shew at the proper
time that his fixed duty plan would be the safest and best
for the home Brower as well as consumer of corn.
Lord MILTON was not answerable for the intentions
which the Hon. Member for Preston might have in bring-
ing forward his proposed motion for a repeal of the corn
laws. For himself, he was anxious that the House should
be in possession of the fullest information on the subject
previous to that thorough discussion which he thought it
not expedient to provoke till next Session. Such was the
object of his present motion.
Colonel TORRENS would endeavour to shew when the
subject was before the House, that till the corn laws were
placed on a sound and unfluctuating footing, the farmer
would be exposed to all the vicissitudes of the present
very vicious system. He was not an advocate for the ad-
mission of foreign corn without soy protecting duty
whatever—( Hear)—but only for such a duty as would be
equivalent to the amount of the particular burdens on
agriculture.
Mr. JAMES, in answer to the Hon. Member for Der-
vetshire, thought it right to state tbat the plan of the
Hon. Member for Preston was not to propose any new
species of corn law, but to do away with all corn laws
whatever, with the expediency of which plan he (Mr.
James) entirely concurred.
Mr. I'ORTMAN in that case would feel it to be his
duty to give the motion of t' e Hon. Member for Preston
every opposition in his power.
Mr. J. WOOD was an advocate for an entirely free
trade in corn. If the agricultural interest sought protec-
tion at the expence of the other interests of the State, on
the ground of being subject to peculiar taxes, let those
taxes be repealed and divided equally among the com•
munity at large, and thereby do away with the pretext of
the present monstrous system.

Alderman THORIF'SON could not subscribe to the pro-
position of the Hon. Member for Preston, but would ad-
mit foreign corn at a duty equal to the difference between
the burdens borne by the agricultural and those on the
other interests.
Mr. WARBURTON entertained the views laid down
in the writings of the Ricardo school of political economists.
Mr. BENETT deprecated all premature discussion of
so agitating a subject as that of the Corn Laws. They
were assembled together to discuss a great question, and
till it was disposed of, he thought it but common justice
to the agricultural interest that the Corn Laws should not
be thus cavilled at peace-meal. This was the more ne-
cessary, as the defects in the Corn Laws were but a con-
sequence of their 'vicious tampering. with the currency, en
that it was beginning at the wrong end to apply a remedy
to• the former, while their source was left untouched.

Mr. MORRISON said that the feelings of the farmers
were hourly becoming more and more friendly to the grin•
ciple of a fixed duty.
Mr. FERGUSON contended that a free trade in corn
would he ruinous to the landlord, the farmer, and the agri•
cultural labourer.
Col. SIBTHORPE said a few words to the same effect.

Mr. TRANT conceived that it was but justice to the
manufacturing interest, on which the chief burden of the
Corn Laws fell, that those laws should undergo revision.
Mr. IRVING would have no objection to admitting the
corn of the Baltic at a low duty, if its growers would tike
our manufactures in return ; but as they, on the con-
trary, refused our goods into their market, we were bound
not to admit their corn duty free into ours. _

Mr. RUTHVEN maintained that the free admission of
foreign corn would be fatal to the agriculture, the only re-
source, of Ireland.
The motion for the returns were then agreed to.
Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from Sir H.
Leea, of Dublin, against the Reform Bill.

Mr. GORDON laid on the table a Bill to amend and
consolidate the Acts relative to the treatment of insane
persons.—Read a first time; to be read a second time on
Monday.—Adjourned at Nine o'clock.