The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-23 00:00:00

1838.

March 15.—Mr. Villiers'sMotion for a Committee to
consider the operation of the Corn Act of 1828 was re-
jected by 300 to 95; majority 205.
1839.
February 18.—Lord Brougham's motion, that evi-
dence against the corn•laws be heard at the bar, was
opposed by Lord Melbourne, and rejected without a
division.
February 18.—Mr. Villiers's motion to the same
effect, in the House of Commons, was opposed by Lord
John Russell, Lord Howick, Sir Robert Peel, and others,
and negatived by 361 to 172; majority 189.
March 11-15.--Mr. Villiers's motion for a Committee
to consider the opration of the Corn Act of 1828 was
rejected, after a five days' debate, by 342 to 195 ; ma-
jority 147.
March 14.—Lord Fitzwilliam's motion, condemning
the operation of the corn•laws, was opposed by Lord
Melbourne, and negatived by 224 to 20; majority 204.
1840.

April 1-3.—Mr. Villiers's motion for a Committee to
consider the operation of the Corn Act of 1828 was ad-
journed sine die, by 227 to 131 ; majority 86.
May 26.—Mr. Villiers's motion for a Committee to
consider the operation of the Corn Act of 1828 was re-
jected by 300 to 177; majority 123.
June 11.—Earl Fitzwilliam's resolution, that it is ex-
pedient to consider the laws relating to the importation
of foreign corn, was rejected by 142 to 42; majority 100.
1811.

May 7-18.—The budget of Lord Melbourne's Ministry,
en bracing a proposal to substitute a fixed duty of Bs. a
quarter on foreign wheat (with corresponding rates on
other kinds of grain), in place of the then existing corn-
law, was rejected by 317 to 281 ; majority 36.
A dissolution of the Parliament soon after ensued ;
and, in the months of June and July, the present House
of Commons was elected.
August 24.—An amendment on the Ministerial ad-
dress, in answer to the Queen's speech (which recom.
mended a revision of the corn laws), was carried in the
House of Lcrds by 168 to 96 ; majority 72.
August 24.—A similar amendment in the House of
Commons was carried by 360 to 269 ; majority 91.
1842.
February 6.—Lord John Russell's resolution against
the alteration in the corn-laws proposed by Sir Robert
Peel, as not being calculated to remove the evils of
the former law, was rejected by 349 to 226 ; majo-
rity 123.
February 9.—Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the pre-
sent corn-law, said—" My firm belief is, that if the
House of Commons should be induced to pledge itself
to a total repeal, which we or. this side of the House de-
precate so much—without relieving permanently the
manufactures of the country, you will only superadd the
severest agricultural distress. Any such disturbance of
agriculture as must follow from a total repeal of the
corn-laws would, in my opinion, lead to unfavourable
results, not only with respect to the agriculturists
themselves, but also to all those numerous classes
who are identified with them in interest
I retain my opinion, which I expressed some time ago,
that it is of the utmost importance to the interest of this
country that you should be, as far as possible, inde-
pendent of foreign supply.
which I propose to retain I do not retain for the especial
protection of any particular class. Protection cannot be
vindicated on that principle
proposition I now submit to the House, I totally disclaim
any such intention. My belief, and the belief of my col-
leagues, is, that it is of the highest importance to the
welfare of all classes in this country, that you should
take care that the main sources of your supply of corn
should be derived from domestic agriculture, while we
also feel that any additional price which you may pay
in effecting that object, is an additional price which can-
not be vindicated as a bonus or premium to agriculture,
but only on the ground of its being advantageous to the
country at large. You are entitled to place such a price
on foreign corn as is equivalent to the special burdens
borne by the agriculturists; and any additional protec-
tion you give to them, I am willing to admit, can only
be vindicated on the ground that it is for the interest of
the country generally. . . . While, there-
fore, I am opposed to a system of protection on the
ground merely of defending the interests of a particular
Class, I, on the other hand, would certainly not be a
party to any measure the effect of which would be to
make this country permanently dependent upon foreign
countries for any very considerable portion of its supply
of corn." We make these quotations from the autho-
rised edition of the Premier's speech, as revised and
corrected by himself.
Feb. 24,—Mr. Villiers's motion for a total repeal ,of
the corn-laws was rejected by 303 to 90 ; majority 213.
b. 25.----Mr. Christor's amendment for increasing
the duties proposed in Srir Robert Peel's new Corn-law
Bill was rejected by 306 to 103 ; majority 202.
April I%.—Earl Stanhope's motion that the new Corn-
law Bill proposed by Ministers should be read a second
time that day six months, was rejected by 119 to 17;
majority 102. Lord Brougham's amendment on Lord
Stanhope's motion, that no duty shall be imposed on
foreign grain, was negatived by 109 to 5 ; majority 104.
April 19.—Lord Melbourne's amendment in favour of
a fixed duty was rejected by 117 to 49 ; majority 68.
Lord Brougham's resolutions, against all duties on fo-
reign grain, wererejected by 87 to 6; majority 81.
May 23.—Mr. Miles's amendment, fur increasing the
new tariff duties on the imoorterien of foreign cattle,
was rejected by 380 to 113; majority 267.
May 24.—Mr. Villiers's motion, thet the duty 4hould
be reduced to Is. a head, wan 'legalised by 209 to 44;
majority 165.
July 11.—Mr. Villiers's motion for a Committee to