The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-21 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HO USE- OF LORDS, THURSDAY, JUNE 20.
This day Lord VERNON took the oaths and his
seat.
Mr. BROGDEN, MIYC. CALVERT, and others, brought up
from the Commons the Corn Importation Bill, the Bakers' Re-
gulation Bill, and others, which were read a first time.
On the-first reading of the Corn Importation Bill, a conver-
sation- took place between the Earl of LIVERPOOL and Lord
ELLENBOROUGII, in consequence of which the second read-
ing:of that Bill was fixed for Thursday next. The second read-
ing of the Military and Naval Pensions' Bill, which stood for
Monday, was postponed to Tuesday; and it was agreed that
the re-commitment of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill
should take place on Monday.
On the motion of the Earl of LAUDERDALE, the Bakers
Regulation Bill was, in pursuance of a standing order of the
House, relative to Bills on Trade and Manufactures, referred
to a Select Committee, to be reported on previously to a second
reading.
Petitions against the Catholic Peers Bill were presented by
Lord SIDIVIOUTII, from the parish of St. James's; by the
Bishop of EXETER, from a hundred in the county of Cornwall ;
and by the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Halifax.
EAST INDIA AND WEST INDIA. TRADES.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN presented two Petitions, one
from Merchants of Liverpool, and the other from Ship-owners
and others of the same place, interested in the private tratbe to
the East Indies. As these petitions merited consideration, not
only on account of the respectability of the individuals from
which they came, but of the importance of the subject, he
thought it necessary to call their Lordships' attention to them.
They referred to the Bills before the House for grant'mg par-
ticular advantages to the Colonies and the West lniaia trade,
and contended that an equivalent ought to be gran'zed to the
East India Trade, by removing some of the restrictions and
burdens Under which it is placed. The Petitioners were of
opinion, that the vessels might be allowed to trade to India of
a smaller tonnage than the law at present }remitted. The
Americans traded to India and China in vessels considerably
smaller than those which sailed from this co•antry, though the
voyage from America was dangerous. Thu Americans, how-
ever, derived a great advantage from the amall size of the ves-
sels employed in this trade. To.this point the Petition of the
Ship-owners was mare particularly confined. The other peti-
tion, which was from the Merchants of Liverpool, prayed that
the duties on sugar and other East India produce might be
reduced. It would be admitted by their Lordships that it
was of great importance that a demand for our manufactures
should be created in foreign countries; -hut such a demand
could not exist unless foreign countries had the means of making
returns. There was no limit to the extension of our manufac-
tures, if we could take in return the productions of other coon.
tries. Their Lordships possessed in India a populz.tion of from
70 to 100,000,000. This might be a great market far British ma.
nufacture, for the desire of the population to ccnsume would
only be limited by their ability to pay. Among the articles of
the produce of India, sugar was one of genera d consumption,
and one the reduction of the duty on which would be highly
beneficial. To admit it for consumption in this Country was
indispensable to the prosperity of the India trade, which pros-
perity was essential to that of our rnanufacturr.:s. Instead of im-
posing duties which excluded articles from general consump-
tion, the truly wise policy would be to admi't to consumption as
far as possible the produce of foreign countries ; for it was cer-
tain that if we took their produce, they would have our mann-
factures ,in return. To grant a monopoly to any body in a
country, was generally considered injurious • and if this were
admitted, their Lordships must conclude that when a mono.
poly was granted to one part of the subje(;ts of a country
against another part, the measure rested on still less justifiable
grounds. He thought, therefore, that the claim of the peti.
tioners was entitled to their Lordships' seriowi consideration.—
At the same time he must confess, that there was one statetnent
in the petition, to the correctness 'of which hr 3 could not accede.
It was said that our West India colonies were incapable of sup-
plying the demand of the country for sugar ; but when he con-
sidered the state of cultivation to which our: colonies had arriv-
ed, he could not go along with the petitioners in this opinion.
The petitioners alluded to the decline of the trade of sugar-
refiners, and it was stated that in the course of a few years,
the number of 13ersohs carrying on tha'; bvlsiLless had dimi.