Star. — London, England, 1828-04-30 00:00:00

~.~ . , button, containing about five bunked persons, and receiving the lunatics , from four or five parishes in Middlesex, and from the parishes in the metropolis. It was admitted by the owner that the place was too much crowded; it was proved that the medical assis tance was inadequate, and it was the practice, which he thought most cruel and unjustifiable, to confine all the worst patients—those called crib patients—from Saturday to Monday. This was done regularly and periodically. He could conceive that such persons might occasionally require confinement,' but their paroxysms seldom or never occurred periodically, and therefore to confine them forty-eight hours pe riodically was quite unnecessary. Fourteen or fifteen persons were so confined throughout the year, which was done, he believed, for the convenience of the keepers, not for the benefit of th e p atients. It might be said that he had taken the exceptions to the general state of Asylums for his rule, but he should argue from this impunity that the law was defective. But he found, in the evidence taken be fore the Committee, that Dr. Frampton, a medical Gentleman of considerable repu tation, who had visited forty•eight of these Asylums, stated, that Mr. Warburton's establishments were " above par." Tkey were at least, therefore, on a level with the others; and if they were not, their existence in the state described was sufficient to justify a new law. Another object proposed by the law was to place the controuling power over these Asylums in different hands. The visitors at present were the Royal College of Physicians —a body of men for whom he had the highest respect, and who seemed to deserve the confidence of the public ; for the improved value of lives, of which something had of late been said, was piobably owing to their great ad vances in science. But though the responsibility was placed in their hands, they had no power. They could not refuse to grant a license to any person applying for one ; and after one bad been granted, whatever they might find reprehensible, they had no power to revoke it.— Tois was a great anomaly. The only power they had, was to inscribe the defects they had noticed on a tablet, and hang it up in their canonical chamber.— Publicity, it was thought, would correct the evils; and so it might in some cases; but the publicity of the Council•chamber of the College of Physicians was not much; and this part of the enactment had been so in effectual, that for many years no tablet had been hung up. The present Bill was to last three years, and the power now held by the Royal College of Physicians was to be placed in the hands of fifteen Commissioners, five of whom were to be medical men; the whole to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home De partment. They were to have the power not only of refusing a licence, if they thought proper, but also of revoking one when granted, if they saw sufficient rea son. Under the old law, a druggist, or a druggist's apprentice, might grant certificates of insanity, and some of the certificates granted by such persons, to be found in the Repot t of the Committee which sat in 181.5, were, for their absurdity and orthography, worthy of a place in Humphry Clinker. The power to grant such certi • ficates was by this Bill confined to physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries. He would not trouble their Lord. ships by adverting further to the new enactments: It was his wish to have this Bill also examined before a Committee up stairs, and he hoped that such a law would be passed as might place the unhappy persons of whom he was speaking in a state of security, and under proper protection, without injuring the interests of the very respectable persons who were now engaged in , keeping such asylums. His Lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. . Lord CALTHORP felt great satisfaction in support mg the Bill. He had been an eye witness to many of the abuses described by the Noble Earl. He hoped that the present Bill would afford security to the unhappy class of persons whose calamity their Lordships must all so sincerely and deeply deplore. He was sure that the rights of those who were interested in this Bill would meet with full consideration in the Conanittee; and he thought that they could not do more. For himself, so far from wishing that any thing should occur in the Committee to prevent the progress of the Bill, he trusted that it would come out of that Committee still more qualified to give effect to the object that the promoters of the measure had in view. The Marquis of SALISBURY complained that too much power was placed in the hands of the magistrate, as he did not think it right that they should be privi leged to send persons to lunatic asylums who, in their lucid intervals, would suffer from that circumstance. Two cases in illustration of this had come within his own knowledge, is one of which a man had been kept thirty years; he was therefore desirous that some altera tion should take place in the clause. The Earl of MALMESBURY said, that he would not go into details at present, but he had no doubt that the suggestion of the Noble Marquis would be taken into consideration in the Committee up stairs. Petitions on this subject was then ordered to be referred to the Committee. The Order of the Day for the exammination of the witnesses on the Peaty' Disfranchisement Bill was then read. The following witnesses, Charles Frederick Ady, Samuel Trio. trey, John Goodman, Mary Beacre, Thomas Pitts, William Rey. acids, John Came, and James Pawley, were then examined at the bar; after which their Lordships adjourned at Twatva &Owns. LORD HOLLAND'S PROTEST. The following is Lord HOLLAND'S Protest to the Amendment introduced into the " Declaration" in the Bill for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Act; the Amendment being " upon the true faith of a Christian:" " Diamintlent—Beesuse the introduction of the words' upon the true Leith of • Christian' implies an opinion In which I cannot con. seiontiondy concur—namely, that a particular faith in matters of edition is necessary to the proper discharge of duties purely political or temporal. • Secondly--Because it impears from two Acts, the one passed in the 10th George I. chap. iv. and the other in the nth year of George 11, chap. oil. that the words ' upon the true faith of a Christian' occurring in the oath of Abjuration have been dispensed with in cases which were found not to be within the spirit and scope al tits original law, and it seems to me inexpedient to introduce unnecessarily into a declaration of this nature a form of words which experience has shown may produce effects Rot contemplated by than who imposed it. (Signed) " V A 3SAIJ, ROLLAND." The following Peers afterwards signed it SU F Fl EL% LEINSTER, ESSEX, DURHAM, MENDIP, CLIFTON. DACILE, i,....„.....5. e.... _ i:. • r it !`", i t 1 ,IP . . . I . • il • 1L P 1 I, , I . . i . t l' ,ti , • 11. l ' t i i I i 1 .. 1 . I . . 1 . 1 1 . 1 I 1 i l "" • i f‘ i 11 • 1 1 1 I i k 1 11 I' ! F i I 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 . 11l HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mt. IL A. TAYLOR presented three Petitions from the Ito. sum Catholics of Richmond, Skeffseld, and another place in the empty of York, la favour of the Catholic CWtna &lunar Padgetts were presented by Mr. W. Sages, from the Congregation of &. John's Chapel, Norwich, and from a Society of the Friends of ReNglms Liberty, in Birmingham; by Lord lleassem, from two Parishes in Cumberland and Northumberland. __Ordered to be printed. Lealg SOMERSET presented two Petitions from Parishes in Gloucester, against further concessions to the Catholics. Similar Petitions were presented by Mr. Hawe Davis, from the >bWasland Churchwardens of the Parishes of Sr. Aug,usdn, and St. Mary &date, Bristol; by Mr. H. Memwms, from how Paddies in the meaty of Cavan ; I I Sir H. Satin, from the Arch. deacon and Clergy of the ArandMstry of Cokhestes, Been ; by Mr. Pawns, frost Brockbamptoo; by Sir J. Sanest, kom the and Inhabitants of Deadbeat. ISM ; by Vt. Moose. fro th:f ir oves of Wieldow,coonty of Wicklow ; by Lord B. Stateasay. front the Methodists of fieeeort.—Ordereti to be printed. Mr. KENNEDY presented a Petition from the Royal Borth of Ayr. in favour o f the re p eal of the Test and Corporadonct —Ordered to be printed. Mr. SUDDEN presented a Petition from Horsham against the Catholic Claims. Sir 3'. GOOCH presented Petitions from Rock Farm, and the Hundred of lionnere, In Suffolk, in favour of the Corn Laws. Mr. SYKES presented a Petition from the Corporation of Hull against the Catholic Claims. Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the Catholics of St. Chad's, Birmingham, in favour of Emancipation. Mr. HENEA GE presented five Petitions from the Roman Catholics in the county of Lincoln, to the same effect. Colonel BAILEY presented a Petition from Holderness to the same effect. Sir T. LET H BR I DG E presented Petitions against the Catholics from Weston-super-Mare, Somerset; Boughton Green, Bucks; and three places in Wicklow and Carlow. Mr. R. TREVOR presented several Petitions from places in Carmarthensbire to the same effect. Mr. CALCRAFT presented Petitions from the Roman Ca tholics of Callington,. Ipswich, and Bury St. Edmund's, for - _ Emancipation. Earl BECTIVE presented a Petition from the Catholics of Dulcet for Catholic Emancipation. Sir N. C. COLTHURST, from several Parishes in Cork, to the same effect; and one against the Vestry Act. Mr. R. GROSVENOR, from Chester and another place its Cheshire, to the same effect. Lord BRUDENELL, a Petition against the Catholic Claims, from the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Chichester. Lord C. MANNERS, from the Dean and Chapter of Ely, to the same effect. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after presenting several similar Petitions from Parishes in the County of Armagh, said, " 1 hold in my band another Petition, which I conceivelto.be more worthy the attention of the House than several I have pre sented. It comes from the Archbishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Dublin, and expresses their opinion that if any change be made in the laws which disqualify Roman Cotholics from holding offices in the State, it may ultimately endanger the security of the Established Church. It is signed by the Archbishop and 115 of the Clergy of the Diocese, who are as much distinguished for their learning as any the Church can boast of. When I state that the name of the Archbishop of Dublin is affixed to it, I am sure that every one wbo knows the talent and learning of that Noble Prelate will treat the Petition with that high respect which such a sanction deserves. Front my own personal knowledge. I can also speak as to the manner in v hick the Clergy who petition discharge their duty, not only as to the maintaining of schools, and the diffusing of religious instruction, but also as to the manner in which they administer to the wants of those about them, who even do not profess the Estab lished Religion. It is net with any feeling of hostility towards those against whom they petition that they are induced to come forward, but front a conviction that their admission to political power would be dangerous to the establishment of Which they ate members. As I said before, I think their opinion is intitled to the high respect and deep attention of this House. I move that the Petition be brought up."—Read, and ordered to be printed. UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. Mr. Secretary PEEL—I have been requested, Sir, to present to the House the Petition of the University of Oxford, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. It is couched in the same terms as that of last year, and states, that having often and maturely consideied the weight of the al gurnents urged on both sides of this great question, the petitioners are sure that those Statutes which have been passed for the security of our venerated establishments in Church and State would be endangered by the admission of the Roman Catholics to political power. The Statutes to which they refer are those which exclude Catholics from hold ing offices of State, and being Members of Parliament. As I shall soon have an opportunity of expressing my opinions, and as I shall then follow the course which I have invariably taken, I shall not at present trouble the House with any further observations, and therefore move that the Petition be brOught up. Sir M. %V. RIDLEY wished the Right Ilonourable Gentleman, in presenting this Petition, had stated all the circumstances tinder which it was got up. He did not partake in the sentiments it expressed, but yet he rejoiced at its being presented, because it must be matter of great satisfaction to the friends of religious ltbetty, that it was carried by a comparatively small majority, and that so many members of that learned University seemed now convinced that exclusion was incompatible with the safety or interests either of Church or State. Upon a former occasion, when a similar Petition had been brought under the consideration of the Committee, there was only one dissentient voice. Now, however, the majority was no more than sixty to ti.irty-four. This was a proof that a more liberal fea ture on this great question had spread through the country, and could not fail in due time to secure to their fellow-subjects what they so justly claimed. Mr. ESTCOURT said, he also was glad that the Petition was presented, because it expressed the opinion of a large majority of that learned body. He did not ,ee why it should be hailed as a proof that the Univer •ity had altered their opinions upon this question. Upon the former occasion alluded to by the Honourable Baronet no discussion took place—(hear)—and he helitved no division ; but his own account of the man• ner in which the present Petition had been got up proved that it underwent most serious consideration, and that alter weighing the matter deliberately a conclusion was come to, by a majority of nearly two to one, against any further concession. This was important, and lie trusted there would be in that House a majority equally large in proportion—(Hear, hear). The Petition was ordered-to be printed. A Message• was brought from the Lords, intimating that their Lordships had assented to the Bill for Repealing the Test and Cor. poration Acts, with certain amendments.—(The announcement was received in the House with some cheering). Lord R. SOMERSET presented a Petition from the Wool Growers in Gloucester, praying for a higher duty on Foreign Wool. —Ordered to be printed. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a Petition from John Dean, com. plaining of being ovet.rated to the Poor Rates, and praying for redress. This was an unconstitutional mode of proceeding; and if no other person took up the subject. he should bimsell propose some measure for restraining the power of Select Vestries within the Bills of Mortality, if not throughout the whole country. —Or dared to be printed. TRIDIDLT SOCUCTIZI4 Mr. HOBHOUSE presented tour Petitions from different So cieties against the Friendly Societies' BilL Mr. BRIGHT recommended that the evidence taken before the Committee should be printed, for the information of the country, and the Bill abandoned for the present. The Bill, he Mier:d i I w as brought in with the best intention; but the parties concerned should be reconciled to its Mr. HOBHOUSE concurred in what had fallen from his Hon. Friend. Certain he was that these Societies would never be re conciled to the arbitration clause. Mr. BERNAL opposed the BilL The Petitions were referred to the Committee. Mr. DENISON presented a Petition from a Society in Chandos street, against the Friendly Soci e ti e s BA—Ordered to lie on the Table.—The same Honourable Masses& presented a Petition from Mr. Sinclair, complaining of a loss sustained by him through the insolvency of the Register of Bombay. This case stood exactly on the same ground as that of Mr. O'Kelley, which was brought under the notice of the House some time back by the Member for Knaresborough (Sir J. Macintosh), and he should propose to refer this Petition to the Committee, which his Hen. Friend proposed to move for. Colonel BAILEY said he was ready to show that the Company was no t answerable fir these losses, as chimney was never in their Treasury. He would net oppose the Committee when it shield be moved for, as the Companyhued that the subject should be in vestigated.—The Petition was ordered to be ted. frai l: Mr. W. W YNN prevepted a Petition . t he Faculty of Me dicine of London , complaining of the went of lities to the acquire ment of anatomical knowledge.—Referred the Committee. The same Ham Mamma presented a Petition from the Maltsters of county of Montgomery, against MI last Malt Act, en another from the Wool-growers of the same county, praying for a Duty on Ftweign Wool. Mr. H. EDEN gave notice that be should, on Thersd ty IVA bring forward a motion relative to the Bankrupt Law. Sir T. GOOCH presented a Petition from the Farmers of the East of Suffolk, praying for a Duty or► Foreign Wool. Mr. FY LER gave notice that he would, on Thursday next, present two Petitions, one from the Silk Weavers of Coventry; and the other from the Silk Weavers of Spitalfields, relative to the Silk Trade. Mr. CURTEIS presented a Petition from the Eastern parts of Sussex, complaining of the low prise of agricultural prodeee. Mr. P. THOMSON presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Mile End Old Town, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Baines and Mr. Windsor, two Magistrates of the County of Middlesex, in the appoitpment of Overseers, and In refusing to confirm the nomi nation of those selected by the Inhabitants of the District.— Ordered to be printed. Mr. BERRA L gave notice that he would, on Thursday next, present a Petition from the Carpenters of London. Mr. Secretary PEEL restated Petitions from the Medical Practitioners of Bradford. In Yorkshire, and of Halifax, praying, for further facilities in the pursuit of Anatomical Studies.—Re- [erred to the Committee. On the motion of Lord Joint Roans, the Leeds' Amendments to the Test and Corporation Acts Mere ordered to be printed.-- Os Friday next he should move that the Amendments be taken into consideration. The Noble Lord at the same time presented a Petition from Monmouth, and another from Dunfermline, against the Benefit Societies' Bitt. Mr. COURTENAY said he should, at the proper time, he able to show that in the introduction, the progress, and the withdrawal of the Bill, he acted as became him. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was quite ready to do justice to the goodness of the Honourable Gentleman's intentions.—Re ferred to the Committee on the Bill Sir JOHN SEBRIG HT informed the House that the Standing Orders had not been complied with in relation to the Bill for build ing a new Gaol at St. Alban's. He proposed, therefore, that the usual notices should be posted up throughout the county. A desultory conversation took place on the subject between Mr. N. CALVERT, Lord Avrecoar, Mr. Alderman SWIM, and Mr. CALC RAM Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place. On the motion of Mr. C. W. WYNW. the Report on the Election Acts Consolidation Bill was brought up and received, and several Amendments were agreed to. SETTLEMENT BY HIRING. Mr. P. M'QUEEN moved the second reading of the Settlement by Hiring Bill. The Hon. Member took a review of the Laws of Settlement; he stated that he shortly expected a Report would be made from the Committee which is sitting on the subject. The prin cipal difficulty which the Hon. Member had to encoun• ter was the correspondence which had taken place. He had endeavoured to arrange it so as to put the House in possession of the state of the country in respect of the settlement of the poor. He had obtained returns from almost every Parish, from which he had selected two, chiefly because he could rely on them. Mr. CURTEIS seconded the motion. He thought it very desirable that some fixed standard should be decided upon by Parliament for the regulation of wages. Mr. BENETT said, that, as a friend to the Poor Laws, he could not support the Bill. He thought the Poor Laws absolutely necessary, in the present state of the manufacturing classes in England. He thought it desirable to assimilate the Poor Laws of England, in some respects, to those of Scotland, particularly in to spect to the means of obtaining settlements by hiring. In Scotland, three years service entitled a man to a settlement. It would be cruel to deprive a man, who resided, perhaps, twenty years in a parish, of any claim to relief there, and to send him a distance of one or two, hundred miles, to a parish where there might be no provision made for his reception. He entreated the Hon. Member to give the House some time to considet the subject, which most be.ackaawjedsed to be one a( the greatest importance. Mr. S.' BOURNE did not think the Honourable Member's Bill an attack upon the Poor Laws. In his opinion it bad little bearing one way or the other upon► that system. Perhaps the best title to settlement would be a three or five years' service. A closer assimilation of the English to the Scotch law on this subject might be desirable. It was not to be imagined that if the Hon. Member's proposition were agreed to, that it would' ; diminish the number of persons receiving relief from the' poor rates. Neither did it follow that its , pkion would greatly lessen the expense of litigation. H. thought patties should be entitled to settlements in con sequence of service. If the Bill was passed it would have the effect of making anew distribution of paupers; and personal property would pay less towards the poor rates than at present. It was difficult to examine the subject in all its bearings, and dangerous to legislate without doing so. He was aware the present measure came before the House strengthened by the recommen dation of a Committee conversant with the subject, yet he did not think be should have done his duty had he not stated his opinion of the inutility of the measure. Mr. SYKES opposed the Bill ; first, because it was not preceded by any Report of a Committee; and, se condly, because it was an isolated measure. Colonel WOOD supportei the Bill, because the Bill did not deprive any man of a settlement, and because it devised a better mode of obtaining a settlement than that which was fixed by the existing laws. He was sure the House would not consent to any general alteration in the Poor Laws; and as he thought they required considerable improvement, he thought it best to effect improvement gradually. Mr. R. COLBORNE observed, that although be en tertained doebte-asa to the expediency of the measure now before the House, he felt inclined to give his vote in favour of the second reading. One of the principal points in its favour was, that it would diminish litigation —a very fruitful source of parish expendi ture. It would also, perhaps, induce farmers to domi cile their servants—a system which could not be too strictly followed, because %%hen servants were sent away after their day's labour had terminated, they commonly spent their nights at public-houses, or in some manner equally prejudicial. It also tended materially to weaken the attachment of master and servant, if the latter knew that he was to be dismissed at the expiration of a year. Mr. LEICESTER supported the Bill, because he thought it would improve the condition of the labouring classes. He was glad the Honourable Member had not attempted to make any sweeping change in the Poor Laws, which, in order to be improved effectually, must be amended gradually. Mr. N. CALVERT supported the motion, and de clared his opinion that the evil called loudly for some remedy in the nature of that proposed by the Hon.l Member, and the best might be derived from discussion. I Mr. MONCK contended that this proposition went only to a recurrence to the ancient law, and he should therefore support the second reading. He thought the' measure calculated to produce more circumspection and prudence amongst the poor. Mr. CRLPPS said that he was not so sanguine in his expectations of the good to be derived from the mea sure, but he should vote for the second reading, in the hope that deliberate discussion would free it from many objections which he now saw. Lord ALTHORP thought the Bill would remove a great deal of the difficulty which labourers at present encountered, by getting permanent empl o y m e nt . U n d er the law as it stood, litigation and perjury were encou raged, and he thought the operation o f th e Bill w o uld tend to diminish both. It was most • desirable that every man in England should have a settlement, to which he could resort in case of distress. On these grounds he would vote for the second reading. Mr. PORTMAN thought the Bill would diminish litigation, for which reason he would vote for the secoLd reading. Mr. SLANEY supported the motion. While there were four millions of the population in a state of pao perism, he contended that the House was bound to reject no proposition for the remedying such an evil without investigation. Sir EDMUND CARRINGTON said, that nine- tenths of the prevailing evirarose, not so much from the service, as from the vague nature of the hiring. He bad seen enough of the existing law of settlement to wish for the introduction of a better. He should vote for this Bill, because it would mitigate an artificial system that had originated in a misconstruction of the statutes, and which might lessen or prevent litigation, expense, and perjury. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he never came to a deci. sion with more hesitation than on the present occasion. The fact was, he had no practical experience in the operation of the Poor Laws; he had only judged the subject by the arguments which he had beard, and must say he never heard arguments so nearly balanced. Considering the question to be, whether the Bill should be rejected altogether, or by allowing it to he read a second time, it should be left for coosideration by the House ? the latter being the course sshich he preferred, he should vote for the second reading, but withqut at all pledging himself to any support of the Bill in its future stages. Sir E. YNATCHBULL did not think that the Poor Laws caused so much perjury as had been attributed to them. He should vote against the second reading. Sir E. H. EAST was disposed to adopt a new mode of settlement, which he suggested would be better adopted by labour than by the person claiming a set. tlement having had assistance from the Poor Laws... This mode he thought would avoid not vniv perjury. but the chance of litigation. The entry of the labourer's name would identify the parish to which he belonged. Mr. M'QUEEN made a few observations in explana tion, and the Bill was then read a second time. CORN LAWS SILL. Mr. C. GRANT moved the bringing up of the Report of the Corn Laws Bill. Upon the motion for the second reading of the Resolutions. Mr. HUME rose and said, that entertAilorig as he did opinions different from those entertained by many Honourable Members, he wished to take an opportunity of stating them to the House. He maintained that the land was not the principal interest cf the cowry. If they looked to the experience of history they would find that no country, in no time. hid been prosperous or wealthy without commerce, let their soil have been ever so fruitful and productive. 1., support of this argument he reterred to the condition of Poland and Ireland, both producing immense quantities of corn; but being with out commerce, both in the most wretched stare of po. werty. The principle which ought to govern the cono merce of this country was that of inducing the greatest possible consumption, by making all articles of cocto merce as cheap as possible. So far from the trade in corn being entitled to an exemption from the rule, he contended that it was particularly applicable to that article. The growers of earn said, that if foreign coca was admitted, their own would not be sold ; but, while there were a million Of labourers w. slung for wages that only bought them half a nse.+l a day, there was no danger of si Itleit to the demand, if by purchasing foreign edra our manufactures were required by the foreigner. and our idle hands more enabled thereby to purchase es much bread as they could eat, and perhaps meat. It was, therefore. the interest of the landed interest to support a free trade in corn, instead of refusing it as they did. The measure was in direct opposition to the general principles hid down by the Right Honourable Secretary for the ColcMies in former Sessions, in regard to free trade; and he was convinced that the scale was not such a one as the Ministers would have adopted, if they had thought they could succeed in carrying a lower one through the other House. By giving this protection to a particular capital, they were injuring all the mass of the community. He denied that it was an advantage to the landed interest; it was an advantage to the landed proprietor, who was the capitalist, but not to the farmer. The interest of the farmer was no more the interest of the lauded proprie• tor, than was that of the labouring manufacturer; and he considered that a great delusion had been prac tised upon the country by the successful means taken by the landed capitalists to induce the agricultural interests to join in petitions against any alteration of the existing law. He was aware that farmers who had long leases were interested in common with the landed proprietors, in seeking for high prices, but their interest extended to no longer a period than their leases. When the general tariff was under discussion, they were told by the manufacturers that while the price of corn was kept up by artificial means, they must also be pro tected. He said, therefore, let the trade of corn be open, and the manufacturer will be able to compete fully with the foreigner. He was convinced that com plete free trade would find employment for every person in the country. But he was told that such a plan could not be put in practice. And why not? The present system of prohibition was of recent date. Until 1791, the duty was only nominal, when the price was forty-eight shillings per quarter. After 1791, the duties had been gradually increased up to 1815, and the increase took place in consequence of the war. He therefore maintained that every endeavour ought to be made to return to the duties which existed before extraordinary causes gave rise to extraordinary mes sures. Burthened as the country was with taxation, it was a complete fallacy to look for an adequate revenue from the agricultural interest ; it was from the manu facturers it must come. He contended,the farmer u anted a steady and not a high price. The symptoms hitherto bad produced frightful fluctuations. Next to a steadi ness of price, a fixed and settled state of the law was the most desirable thing to be obtained. He ob jected to the present scale upon the ground that it would not settle the law. He therefore asked the Howe why it should not agree with his proposition, which was to the effect that the greatest possible quantity of core should be admitted at a fair fixed duty, which would be the means of providing an increased demand for labour? Many fears had been expressed that the coun try would be deluged with foreign corn, but he , lo okin g at the experience of thirty years, denied that those fears had any foundation in justice. Looking at the R eturns before the House, he found that if a duty of 4s. or Sc. were laid upon foreign corn, it would be brought to the average price in England during the last two or three years. The landed proprietors wished for an average price of 60s. but he was convinced that the country could not afford it. He was, however, ready to admit that if the landed interest paid any taxes or rates, which the rest of the community did not, they were entitled to a counterbalancing duty to the amount of the extra impositions under which they laboured. It was in that spirit that he had made his calculations. His proposal, therefore, would be, that the ports from the present day be P ,t eontri .uld be 15s. P' q uart ing ste t the p ich it ported rs the airy h Id. E e Fief ' bee" the ,ropes pool Id It s . E 1 41 wa s c if ft , e d S try " its fa goods a ged 'try; n bent as es ludet Regoi That fr 1849, r of Ith of . in ever won eo Sbil I erf cis. as r . •ntaini wer.► t nist. m nt:iho e t eteh s f i • vies 7. '1 ha een ght a id not try sf .m i it as it ewe to I as i d the sight t M Id tit Lion ntlat it d ntry ch al pop' r. nter had Clem eral . rder lusi • . e in sum ante • rive a, h the ot t ncipl nnini prey nsbei retal him ght fess .e, mmu cum t his aces 'sing reed ght • trail 10 0 1 7 1 a drat why otl art Mr. ad wh pet Mr. mm uld ty c ty va Id MTh. could Dowel aOt t r. Ut y hok hi t h at a e ald tb prii idL orti a ty 1c at h fei ed