The Sun.
London, England, 1815-03-18 00:00:00

mot'iort; said itral tliie whoie Sytteni 4,f piol-C.Ct;Ol-Cs
was founded on error. But what else had brought
this country to such a state of prosperity? Great
Britain Was'not meant by nature for that great-
ness to which she had attained. It was het Con-
stitution and her Wise regulations had carried her
to such a pitch of elevation. Ile then went into
a general detail of the nill and the history of the
Corn Laws ; and concluded by givin; the mea-
sure his wannest approbation.
Lord GREY explained.
Lord HARDWICK corrected a mistatemcnt of
what he had stated respecting the evidence of one
of the witnesses.

Lord SELKIRK said, that without the measure
he thought it impossible to continue the cultiva-
tion of a great quantity of the poorer lands. What
the quantity would be it was unnecessary to men-
tion, hut• a large quantity it would certainly be.
It would probably cause a defalcation of a fourth
or fifth part of the produce of the country, and
no importation could make up for this difference.
The largest importation ever known did not make •
more than four or five weeks consumption for the
kingdom ; and if there was a fourth or fifth part
of the produce of the country was (deficient, what
Would be the consequence ? This would not be
fully the case this ye,r but next year he was sure
it would happen. In two year, hence, then,
what would be- the price ?
Lord STANHOPE ruse to order.

The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that if the Noble
Lord had tviihed to keep the House strictly to
order, he should have interposed our i►ours ago.
Lord SELKIRK continued to insist rin the defal-
cation in the pr►►duce; that wteuld arise froth the
want of 'some such protection as the Bill pro-
nosed to the former.

Lord DArm.mY_supported the motion. .
Lord ERSKINE opposed it On grounds similar
to those urged by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord GREsymtz :brietly replied ; U,hen the
House divided, and the numbers were—

Not conteots 59
Cutitcots
Alajority against Lord Grenville's motion —lB
CORN 13ILL.

The House then %vent into a Committee on the
Coro Bill, when
Lord GREY said, no evidence what ercr had been
adduced to slim that M. %vas pccessary price
for the protection of the fanner. 1 F they were .to
take the evideuce as it then stood, it rested upon
the supposition of charges continuing the same.—
He thought that 703, or 725. would be sufficient ;
and proposed to substitute that price.
Lord LAUDERDALE asked, in what situation the
agriculturists stood.. Their distresses required the
most prompt consideration ; and if the present
measure had been adopted!last year, the labourers
would enjoy the same wages they had formerly •
received, and tvould not be involved in inkfortol,e;
There s'as no person who had given evidence be-
fore their Lordships, with the exception of Mr.
Banks, who did not consider the price of 80s. as
necessary for the protection of the farmer.
Lord GREY observed, that all the witnesqes had

given their opinion with reference to the then
existing state of circumstances; but it ought to
be %hewn by the advocates of tl►e measure, that it
was necessary at the present moment to h 80s.
as an excluding price. He thought that a lower
price would be a sufficient protection t 6 the
farmer.

Lord IhnowlcKE had not heard any thing to
induce him to alter his frier opinions; he did
not consider it necessary that the price shoidd be
fixed at 80e. and would give his vote for 70s.

or ;2s.

The question was then put, whether the words
SOs. should be' omitted, and 70s. or 725. substi-
tuted in their place. The House decided tor. the
original.words,.,without a division.

Lord GRENVILLE tLien proposed a clause, that
whenever for six successive weeks the price of
the quarteru loaf should be above I:2A. it should
be lawful for the next six weeks to import Corn
for home consumption, or to take it out Of the
warehouses for Qe same purpose:" tle said that
12d. should be the price at which Corn should be
imported in the port of London ; and he confined
it to London, because in that port alone facilities
existed for ascertaining the average price.
Lord Iliaßolvity thought it extremely wrong
to suffer the whole country to be regulated by
the price of the London market ; and contended,
that it was upon the price in the maritinte dis-
trierS that the average should be regulated. Front
the pryers before the House, it was Marne to say,
that when the price of Corn was 80s. the quarters
loaf would be sixteen pence; for, during 14
years, when the price of Corn was 88s. SCI. the
price of bread was fonreen7pence halfpenny.
Lord GIITWILLE was no advocate for airy ar-
tificial system of regulating the price of corn, and
titular:lined that the standard of corn alone vi.as tto
_cyiterion, for the price of bread. All he desired,
was, that if by accident the consumer should stif-
fer by the errors of the supporters of the Bill, the
operation of the law should cease : he only wish
ed that that might be adopted which would pre-
vent the law from doing that which they them-
-selves desired it might not.
Lord HAREOWBY explained.
Lord LAUDERDALE opposed the clause.
The Marquis of BUCKINGHAM adopted, it wish-
ing to bring the principles of the supporters of the
Bill to a test.

Lord 'DARNLEY said a few words in support of
the anise.
Lord GRENVILLE briefly replied, stating, that
he did not prop:ise by this clause to alter any part
of the provisions of the Bill, and submitting,
that it ought to'be adopted.
Lord DARNLEY explained.

Loi d STANHOPE said, that the Noble Lord
(Grenville) had caught the noble Scotchinan
(Lauderdale) coMpletely in. a trap: :The noble
Scotchman had declared, " we won't have your
clause', because it is improper to have any thing
to do with flour :" but the clause did not say. a
word about flour ; whence it was evident, that
they did not know the diflerencehetwecn flour and
bread, and only tried to throw dust in their Lord.
ships!- eyes.
The clause was then rejected without a division,
and the Bill was ordered to be read a third ti in
on Monday next.—Adjourned.