Star.
London, England, 1815-03-11 00:00:00

CO RN 11-.1 S.

A considerable number and variety of Paitions
were presented on this subject, the gre :ter past of
which prayed that no alteratian n►ay be made is the
Corn Laws.

From certain Parishesin the county of Susaer, by
the Earl of EGREMONT.

From the Borough of Ludgershall, in the county
of Wilts, by the E iii cf SHAFTESBURY.
From Greenwich, in the county of Kent, by Lord
GRENVILLE, who made some rem 2rks on the truth
and ability with which this Petition wits drawn
it was read at lengt!i. Its prominent prayer seemed
to be, with reference to the Bill in its progress through
the other House, that the admissible price may be
changed by their Lords Sips from B''s. to 70s. and
after that a gradual reduction of the prices until
brought to its present standard ; and farther than
that, if found practicable, that no restriction may be
placed on the importation.
On the motion fur the Petition being laid on the
table, some discussion arose.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE abstractedly had
no objection to the present receiving of the Petit' m,
but its not being in consonance with their Lords!I'll?
orders. He believed that no Petition against the
Bill in its progress in the Commons had hecn received
by their Lordships. The present Petition was not
only against that Bill, but one of its specific enact:
ments, the rate of 80s.; besides, it went more mi.
nutely into its detaiis than any other Petition ; but it
was on the ground of form that he pii3cipally ob-
jected to its present reception.
Lord GRENVILLE seemed to differ from his
Noble n iend as to the question of form. There were
many instances of Petitions being received against
projected measures. He thour,tht the present was a
very admissible Petition, and it they were to exclude
this on the ground assigned, many others should be
removed from the table.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE replied, the&
were several Petitions against the Bill in question,
which had been withdrawn on that very account
it was not with reference to the arguments urged in
the Petition that he objected to it's being received, for
he was ready to meet them at any time : but merely,
he repeated, for its irregularity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his opi-
nion that no Petitions against the Bill, in its supposed
progress through the Commons, had been received by
their Lordships. But the difference would be merely
this—the postponement of the Petition fora few days,
when, should that Bill pass that House, it may .be
regularly received. He could not avoid observing
the dangerous tendency of thus noticing in that
House what passed in the other, and the Petition
pointed out circumstances of alteration in what was
alleged to be proposed in that Bill. The true ques-
tion was, whether such a Petition should be ,sou re.
ceived ? He thought himself the proper course would
be to postpone it.
Lord GRENVILLE spoke in explanation, but
observed that in consequence of what had been stated
of such a proceeding being against the strict rules of
the House; he would withdraw the Petition for that
day, but should take tke liberty on the next meeting
of their Lordships, to submit it ag.ia fur consi-
deration.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed the real
question was, whether the Petition should be received
now, or wait until the Bill should cuala froin the
other House ?—(llear, hear.)—All the Petitions
hitherto received on that side, prayed generally that
no alteration should be made in the Corn Laws; but
this was for the adoption of specific measures; it was
therefore one rather of a middle character between
these, which 'were either for or against t!::i existing
Corn LAW% and could not be said to be exactly
either way ; it was also against certain rc%;ulationg,
which the Petitioners supposed were in contecipl.ainn
in a measure passing through the (Aim. H-use of
Parliament. lie trusted there was a general desire
'in the House to receive all Petitions that were re-
spectfully worded, and conformable to its tales and
orders.

Lord GRENVILLE then withdrew the Petition.
The Noble Lord presented Petitions agaiust any
alteration in the Corn Laws—

From certain Parishes in the county of Derby.
Frwm the Parish of St. John's, Clerkenwell, very
numerously signed.
From Connmgton, in the county of Chester.
From the Corporation of Weavers in the City of
Glasgow.
Earl STANHOPE said he had several Petitions
to present to their Lordships against any alteration