The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-15 00:00:00

lition of slavery and the repeal of the corn laws.
Lord SUFFIELD presented 201 petitions for the total
and immediate abolition of slavery. The Noble- Lord
said that he should not make any observation upon the
plan put forth in the newspapers as the one about to be
lid befoJe the House of CoMmons, till it had been pro-
pounded by the Secretary 6f the Colonies ; he should con
tent himself with merely protesting against the plan.
The Noble Lord presented the petition of 179,576 females
of Great Britain, which had been signed in three days, for
the abolition of slavery ; also petitions from the female in-
habitants of Edinburgh, signed by 13,500, and from the
female inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The Archbishop of YORK presented numerous peti-
tions for the better observance of the Sabbath.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a number
of petitions for the abolition of slavery.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from
his diocese for the better observance of the Sabbath.

CORN LAWS.
The order of the day having been read,
Earl FITZWILLIAM rose to submit to their Lord-
ships' consideration a great, and, in his mind, a most im-
portant subject. Their Lordships would no doubt think
that much apology was due from one who had been so re
cently introduced among their ranks, for presuming so
early to submit such an important question. Their
Lordships might be assured that he would not
have so presumed if there did not press upon his
mind a conviction the most solemn, that the question
was one which was not now settled, and was one upon
which both Houses of Parliament should come to an
adjustment, which would lead to the happiness and
prosperity of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, and to
which all classes of his Majesty's subjects would consent.
He remembered the last time this question was discussed in
the other House of Parliament. He remembered that
upon that occasion it was introduced to the notice of that
House by an Honourable Gentleman who was now
the representative of the county of Middlesex. He
remembered well, to which he was desirous of
calling the attention of the House, not so much
the arguments of that Honourable Gentleman, as the
course which was taken in resisting the propositions now
made. The office which called upon its holder to answer
those propositions was then filled by a gentleman
who had now been rained to an Irish Peerage,
which had removed him from that House, without giving
him a seat in theirs. He recollected that on that occasion,
in the whole course of his speech, he never presumed to
defend the law as it at present stood, though at that
time it had been in force only one year. What was
the inference which was to be drawn from that
abstinence ? It must be this—that he found it necessary
not to draw the attention of the House to the law, but to
point out imperfections in the statement of his opponent,
and thus appear to give him an unsuccessful answer.
He remembered well, too, the speech then delivered
by his Noble Friend, now Lord Privy Seal.
The Noble Earl then read several extracts from the speech
made by the Earl of Ripon (then Mr. Robinson)
on the introduction of the Corn Bill in 1815, to
show that restriction in the corn trade was not
then new. He did not, however, state that such
was the principle of the Bill in the expectation
that any of their Lordships would contradict him,
but merely to show how far the principle of that
Bill differel from many of the measures that had since been
introduced. Thepresent Bill was passed in 1828, and was
almost a counterpart of that proposed by Mr. Canning in
1827. This one was introduced by his Right Hon. Friend,
Mr. Grant, now President of the Board of Control. He
then said that the resolutions were an introduction to some-
thing better. But in one point of view they were to be
permanent—as far as the Legislature was concerned,
they were to be permanent until the minds of men were
prepared to entertain better notions on the subject. Thus
he had the high authority of Mr. Grant, to show that
the resolutions on which the present Bill was framed, did
not form the best basis that could be devised.
In mooting that question at the presents moment, he
was sorry that he was obliged to do so against
the opinion of the two highest authorities in that
House, for both of whom he had the highest respect.
--(Hear, hear.) It was not a question which was now
creating much anxiety in the country, he was aware,
and it might be said, why then bring it forward
at present? But it was a question that could not
be finally adjudicated upon without various and re-
peated discussions. But if he was asked, what time
was the most proper for bringing it on, he would say
the present, because in the absence of agitation in the
country, men's minds were more prepared to enter into a
calm discussion on the subject. He was afraid of offending
some of their Lordships unintentionally, but he would ask,
what was the object of the corn laws ? It was the opi•
nien of his Noble Friend near him (Lord 'Western), that
the country should be cultivated—(Hear)--and the people
fed.—(Hear.) He wished the people to be fed, but
had their Lordships examined into that question ?
Had they looked into, and minutely examined the various
papers which were on the table connected with that sub.
ject ? If there was any thing in that answer, it was,
that the Corn Bill procured an independent supply
of corn to the country. But he would ask their Lord-
ships what bad been the imports during the time the
present Bill had been in existence ? There was no
independent supply of corn, and there never could
again be one in this country.—(Hear, hear.) He must
say that the Bill was nothing more than to make a
modified scarcity of corn, and decrease the population.
No man could say that the agricultural interest had
prospered since the year 1815, and yet from 1815 the
corn laws so much lauded were in full operation
up to the time when their substitute, the present law
was introduced.—(Hear, hear.) The present law was
certainly an improvement upon its predecessor, but it
was based upon the same principle, viz., the principle of
restriction, which he had already referred to as intended
to have more or less the effect of raising the price of
corn in this country above the level of the price in the
other countries of Europe, There were two classes of
persons, independently of land owners, who had
a great interest in this question. In the first place,
there was the farming interest, and in the next, there
was the general consumer, the pnblic at large, which did
not grow corn. How did the law of 1815 operate upon
the farmers a Foreign wheat was prohibited till the
price rose to BQs., which led the farming interest

throughout the country tq believe that Bos. or
about 80s. was thereafter to be the price they should al
ways be able to command. Rents were proposed and
offered upon that assumption, and yet we 6nd that

a year or two after the law came into ope-
ration, the price was below forty shillings.—(Hear.)
raer
It was a law adverse to the very nature of things, and
never
which was never carried successfully into effect. There
soseverely as in the y
was a
period in wliich the argsriic9u2ltnl
aind intelB22.rests
suffered
That showed that the law was not good for either the
farmer or the landlord, for the landlord was obliged
e 4
es"
to impose a rent upon his tenant, which the lat•
ter could not pay. At length parliament appeared
to grow more enlightenedt a.,:dx in 1822, made an at
tempt to alter the s!.tstetn, but from certain contingencies
mixed up with it, it was rendered abortive. He did not
hold that opinion out of any respeq to the sliding scale of
that Bill, but because it lowered the importation price.
The first price of that scale was he believed 638., which
bore the same relation to the Act of 1828 as the pike
of 84e. bore to the law cf 1815. Had the law of 1828
wtrked dell to the agriculteral class? To that class the