§ Mr. Curwenpresented a petition from the merchants and dealers in corn, in the city of London, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws. He was no advocate for monopoly; but as he foresaw that the greatest inconveniences would arise from any unexpected opening of the ports, he concurred in the views of these petitioners, who urged the necessity of revising the corn laws, and prayed that the interests of the agriculturists in this country, might be secured, not by a high, but by a protecting duty of from 56s. to 60s. a quarter. They prayed, at the same time, that a moderate duty might be imposed on the importation of foreign corn, and suggested 20s. on wheat, 10s. on barley, and 8s. on oats. They were of opinion, however, that the corn now bonded ought to be let into the market free of duty. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman would direct his attention to this important subject.
§ Mr. Ellicesaid, that the two, propositions of these petitioners seemed to be, that a duty of 20s. should be imposed on foreign wheat, and that their own corn, which was now in bond, should be admitted duty free. In neither of these propositions could he concur.
§ Mr. Curwensaid, the hon. gentleman had no right to assume that these petitioners had any corn in bond.
§ Mr. Huskissondeprecated any discussion of a subject of such feverish interest on the occasion of presenting a petition. He was glad to hear that the hon. member for Cumberland, who was on the committee in 1821, and who was then one of the staunchest advocates of monopoly, had now somewhat relaxed in his opinions; and he hoped he would, during the recess, impress his present more enlightened views of the subject on that class of the community with which he was connected.
§ Mr. Curteisexpressed his regret that this question had been mooted thus irre- 1246 gularly. He deprecated all these attacks upon the agricultural interests. It was hard that, having at length been suffered to breathe, they should not be left quiet for one instant.
§ Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, that this was a great national question. The price of food was so mixed up with the other parts of the right hon. gentleman's new plans for the regulation of the trade of the country, the principle of which he approved of with some modifications, that he did not see how the question of corn could be left untouched.
Mr. Baringdeprecated premature discussion upon a matter of so much importance. He was nevertheless decidedly of opinion, that the question of the corn laws ought to be set at rest. Better have any system—even a deficient one—permanently established, than a system exposed to eternal changes. He was no admirer of the corn laws, and had strenuously opposed them, but yet he thought that the question should be set at rest, and that the present system should be either confirmed or modified. The right hon. gentleman had recommended a postponement of discussion until the hon. member (Mr. Whit-more) brought forward his motion; but he regretted that that hon. member had put a notice on the subject upon the paper.
Sir T. Lethbridgewished to know, whether the hon. member who had given that notice counted upon the support of his majesty's ministers?
§ Mr. Huskissoncould have no difficulty in saying, that the hon. member had used his own discretion, without having any communication or understanding with any member of his majesty's government. He had been charged with preferring to take the discussion of so important a question upon a motion, rather than a petition. To that opinion he still adhered. With respect to the time when the discussion was to be brought forward, he of course could not control any member; but, when the occasion presented itself, he should be ready to state his sentiments upon the measure.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.