The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-03 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition from Perth,
for the repeal of the corn laws. The noble earl concurred
in its prayer.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that the statements
in the petition would lead any person to believe that
foreign corn was the only foreign article taxed. Now the
contrary was the fact; for foreign shoes, hats, and other.
articles of dress, as essential in the country to the life and
comforts of its inhabitants as food, were taxed. He depre-
cated the presentation of petitions of this nature upon the
face of them stating a gross fallacy.
Earl FITZWILLIA3I admitted that foreign hats
and shoes were taxed, but they were taxed at only thirty
per cent., while corn was at a hundred. If his
noble friend would only take the trouble of going to
Dantzic, he would discover that the duty in this country
on foreign corn was actually more than its cost price
abroad. (Hear, hear, hear.) In his opinion, the corn
laws were most mischievous to the farmer himself. Indeed,
he doubted whether they were not productive of more mis-
chief to him than to any other class of individuals. (Hear. )
The legislature and the landlords had deluded the farmers
by holding out to them the continual high price of corn.
(Hear, hear.) If the legislature did not repeal the
law, as it now stood, during the present session, every
man in his senses would say that it would not be the law
two years hence. He felt assured that in two years there
would be a free trade in corn. (Hear.) By that he didnot
mean that there would. be no duty on foreign corn, but
that the duty would be levied for the purpose of re-
venue, but not for the purpose of protection. He
could not agree with the noble earl opposite, that
clothing was as essential as food.
The Earl of MALMESBURY was not inclined to
discuss that point with the noble earl, nor was he
in the habit of snaking wagers, but he had no hesi-
tation in saying, that if the noble earl and himself were
to take their stand in Palace-yard, the noble earl with
plenty of bread, and he (the Earl of M.) well wrapped up
in a great-coat, he would be the last to remove from
his station.

The Duke of WELLINGTON deprecated discussions
of this nature upon the presentation of petitions, and denied
that either the legislature or the landlords had deluded
the farmers. The noble earl was also wrong in stating
that the duty on corn was one hundred per cent. It
might be true that, at Dantzic, the duty was more than the
price of corn, but the premises upon which the noble earl
made that assertion were founded in error.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM agreed with the noble duke
that it was impolitic, upon the presentation of petitions,
to enter into discussions like the present. It had not
been his intention to do so. It was his wish to have laid
the petition he had to present on the table of the
house sub silentio, but when the noble earl opposite
had made a long speech upon the subject, the
house must not be surprised if he made a longer. He ap-
pealed to his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, whether,
at the time the bill was introduced, he did not state that
it would have the effect of giving a benefit to the land-
lord? The noble earl then presented a similar petition
from Greenock.

•
The Earl of RIPON thought that it was impossible to
say that the house and the landlords had been deluding the
farmers by holding out to them the belief that they would
obtain the high price of 80s. per quarter for wheat.
He had never made such a statement, and his noble friend
was mistaken if he thought so. His noble friend had said
that in less than ten years the law on this subject would be
altered. If he or any one could prove that the present
corn laws were productive of the evils stated, he (Lord R. )
had no doubt that they would be altered, and he should
be one of the first to consent to such alteration,
but he would not agree to their being altered on
Hie ground that the measure had been introduced
for the purpose of protecting the landlords. He hoped
that his noble friend would feel that it was neither just
nor wise to mix up, with a question of such importance as
the present, appeals to popular prejudices and passions,
that could do no good. ( Hear, hear. )
Earl FITZWILLIAM would never make a statement
in that house contrary to his own impressions. He thought
that the landlord was the only person interested in the
law as it at present stood, and what was more, he thought
the interest of the landlord was small indeed in comparison
with the value he put upon it. He felt perfectly satisfied
that he had no interest whatever in the law as it at present
stood. The noble earl then presented a similar petition
from Sheffield.

The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented a petition
from certain inhabitants of Chichester, praying the house
to pass some law to enable them to purchase lands from the
dean and chapter.
The Duke of RICHMOND bore testimony to the
respectability of the signatures to the petition presented
by his right reverend friend the Bishop of Chichester, and
he considered it well worthy of the consideration of the
house.