The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-23 00:00:00

1:11ft'
- ,
. ,
-,:•_;;r7,11.111141i, •
•

PRICE 7D.

to lessen the supply of food, then he would say their Lordships
were doing what might ruin not only the working classes, but all
isms of the empire. He would not enter further into the gene-
ral question, - which embraced all interests, and was, as he con-
tended, of vital importance to the safety and independence of the
country. In conclusion his Lordship put it to their Lordship,
whether they would receive the petition, or not allow themselves
to he insulted ; and his Lordship moved that the petition be not
received.

Lord KING was, for his part, quite indifferent
whether their Lordships received the petition or not. It had been
read ; he had told their Lordships before it was read, that it came
from one of the most suffering parts of this deeply suffering
country, and it was for their Lordships to decide, whether they
would or not make some allowance for the hasty expressions of
people in such a state.
Earl STANHOPE admitted the distress of the pe-
titioners, but contended, that it did not arise in any.degree ham
measures adopted by Parliament. Their Lordships could not
give these people higher wages, or find them additional employ-
ment. He must, once for all, enterhis protest against the opinion
expressed in that and other petitions, that the Corn Laws had
anything whatever to do with low wages; or that tiselufferings
of the people were in any measure caused by the acts of that
House. The assertions of the Petitioners were contradicted by
facts. Not longer ago than last Session, a measure was adopted,
having for its object to lower the price of corn.
-

The Earl of LIMERICK deprecated the inflam-
matory language which had been frequently used on this subject,
which had, he thought, as it had been expressed by the Noble
Earl, unjustifiably augmented the conflict between the opposite
interests of the country. He thought that the Noble Baron, by
having had the petition read, and having informed their Lord-
ships, that it contained certain expressions against themselves,
identified himself with the petition.
The Motion was then put for receiving or rejecting the peti-
tion, and it was rejected without a division ; none of their Lord-
ships, as we could observe, voting for receiving the petition except
Lord King.
Lord KING then presented what he called a quiet,
meek, bnmble petition, not containing one word which could
offend their Lordships. It was a petition from the Convener,
Deacons, and Incorporated Trades of Saint Andrews. In pre-
senting it, be wished to tell the Noble Lord .who spoke last,
that he meant to use the same language he always had used till
their Lordships did, as he said yesterday, what was right and
just. They had not yet done that, and, he was afraid, were not
going to do it ; but were only. going to make an alteration in the
sense of their injustice. Till justice was done, the question
would never be finally settled.
The Earl of HARDIVICKE presented a petition
from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the county of Hunt-
ingdon, against any alteration in the Corn Laws; and similar pe-
titions from Wisbeaclx, and several Hundreds in the county of
Norfolk, and in Cambridgeshire. •

The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented two peti-
tions, praying for an alteration of the Corn Laws, from the Pro-
vost and Town Council of Linlithgow, and from the inhabitans
of the same town.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN presented a peti-
tion with the same prayer from the Merchants, Shipowners, and
Inhabitants of the town of Liverpool; and the Noble Marquis
said, he thought it due to the petitioners, as well as to their Lord-
ships, to have the petition read, as it was drawn up very re-
spectfully, and as such petitions ought to be. He begged leave,
at the same time, to express his satisfaction .at learning, by
what fell from 'the Noble Secretary of State, that the great
misfortune which had befallen his Noble Friend—a misfortune
which also deeply affected the public, and for which no man
felt more than himself—he expressed, he said, his satisfaction,
that the great public question which was in his hands was not
to be postponed beyond Monday next, though the Order of the
Day was discharged. He thought it most important that the
question should be decided as soon as possible ; because, while it
was unsettled, no contracts could be entered into with land—no
business could be done ; and every thing between landlords and
tenants remained in a state of doubt and uncertainty.—The peti-
tion was then read.

Lord REDESDALE said, that there was a great
mistake pervaded all the reasoning of the petition, and of most of
the petitioners on this subject. They all seemed to think the
manufacture of other commodities and of corn were precisely the
same, whereas they depended on very different principles. The
manufacture of other commodities depended altogether on man—.
the growth of corn depended on the seasons. In one season there
was an abundant crop—in another a scarcity, while the expense
of cultivation was the same in both years. It was impossible
that the corn could be sold for the same price in both years.
This was a decree of Heaven, and could not be altered. Corn
could not be sold at the same price in a number of successive
years ; and if the prayers of the petitioners were complied with,
and their complaints could be redressed, it would desolate the
country. The Corn Laws of the reign of Charles. 11. were
founded on the peculiar principle which distinguished the pro-
ductions of the agriculturist. Another mistake committed by the
petitioners was, by supposing that the cultivation of inferior soils
was injurious to the country, which was not the case. If they were
not cultivated, not one-half of our present population could be
subsisted. The petitioners also forgot, that by our present
modes of cultivation, corn and cattle went together; and they
supposed, that if we did not grow so much corn, we should
have more cattle; but this was founded in a mistaken notion
of our agriculture. By our present modes of cultivation, we
raised five or six times as much corn as we did three or four cen-
turies ago. It was supposed, too, that if our inferior lands were
not cultivated, they would become good grass lands ; but, if they
were so, it was only in consequence of their having been culti-
v?ted. By inclosing lands, and cultivating, they were made good
grass lands ; and, in consequence of our improved modes of cul-
tivation, and the capital invested in agriculture, we now grew
three times as much food as we did at the time of the Restoration
of King Charles 11., and had probably three times as many people.
—(Hear, hear ! from Earl Stanhope.)--Corn, also, was now
cheaper than it was at that time—at least in comparison with the
commodities it exchanges for—and this, he contended, was also
the consequence of our improved cultivation. To illustrate the
difference between the manufacture of corn, and other com-
modities not subject to the variations of the seasons, he would
refer to our cotton manufacture. It was said to amount to the
annual value of thirty millions sterling; and, let their Lordships
suppose, that just as it was ready for market, it was invaded by
an army of moths, as the farmer's produce sometimes was by
an army of caterpillars--destroying the half of the cotton ; and
that then the cotton manufacturer was required to sell his goods
for fifteen millions, supposing the cost of producing them twenty-
four millions, instead of gaining six millions, he would lose
nine. If the farmer were always to sell his produce at the samei
price, lie would be ruined, and the country would be ruined a
so ;
for if the agriculturists were ruined, what would become of the rest
h human
h . o
knew nothing o
of the people ? Our old Corn Laws werefoundi ed onat coorfremct
osti'leetsnv
of the principles of political economy—not, isowFtsh,e s ,
sto
loe r k,
political economitl. !at bee
nd
ei dv
onl
eont
race which distinguished the modern economists. He did not lose
sight of the different interests of different natione; and as long as
the human race existed, nations would rise up against nations, and
benevolent wishllu allude
to to
benefitDr ntlhi e w
there would be strife on the earth. There never could be that great
republic of mankind which these writers had in their view. It
was incumbent on their Lordships, therefore to provide for the
cultivation of their own lands, and not look for a supply of food
from other countries, The question of the Corn Laws was one
which could not be decided by theory, but the decision of their
Lordships must be the result of long and patient inquiries, em-
bracing every part of the complicated question.—(Hear, hear.)—
He could not, therefore, agree with the Noble Secretary of State
in his views as to an inquiry into one single and minor topic. He
hoped their Lordships would not consider the question in only one
point of view, and with reference to only one interest, but would
include in their inquiries all the points of view possible, and all the
interests of the country ; above all, he hoped they would never
lose sight of that great interest which supplied the people with
food. There was one part of the petition which their Lordships
had rejected, which' aimed directly at the existence of the British
Constitution. What was it that had preserved the Constitution of
this country so long? What, but that it was founded on the pro-
perty of the country. No Government could exist which was
not founded on property ; and he would have their Lordships

, a \ • —L.... -
tab earn- how they %dolma eirAssistoilmd4r4„thisd die
landed interest still lower. If dos littera 'Wee, , beatkewa
than at present, it would be reduced to nothing.: tha coviii.
tution would be destroyed. liis- Lordship Concluded .I*saibi.
he hoped, before any nossure were ,adopted by.thair Lordditis:
. . ,
that they.would go into a much more extensive bigotry thus t
recommended by the Noble Secretary of State.
Lord FEVERSHAM presented . ' ions frost
the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the neigh .. . hood of Pon-
tefract, Rutherford, and Elmsley, in Yorkshire, against any
alteration in .the Corn Laws. .

Lord TEYNHAM presented petititps from the
Occupiers of Land in the Isle of Thanet„ to theisseltem
Lordship also moved for Copies of 'any *Von. Mich had boa
presented to the Board of Trsde:aince Jam
foreign grain of any species might be admittedJn ibis WWI
at a less rate of duty than is ordered izy the kw. • -
Lord ARBUTHNOT, presented _moo: petitions
from the Owners and Occupiers of Land iti.
against any alteration of the Corn-Laws. - -
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presehted: t1:47
tition, numerously signed, from the Inhabitani!ratDover, *Oat
for an alteration of the Corn Laws. Thla -11604(014
Friend, for whom he presented it, had -been Aisiiatis to; punt
himself, but that was now impossible.
His LORDSHIP also presented* from
Hull, praying that no further concessions might be grime& k, ibe
Catholics.