The Sun. — London, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

IMI I ERJ A 1., ,t 1 I.IOt;SE OF LOTUS, June 15. Their Lordships rnct, to-day at Five o'clock. IMESSAGY_; FROM THE COMMONS. lil M is e . ssenge rs from Pae liouie of Commons broaghb up several CORN-LAWS. The Duke rt; BUCKINGFIA NI presented petitions from Cornwall and several other places against the corn-laws. The Earl of ELDON presented petitions front Lancashire and other h,laces to the same off-et. Lori FREE CHURCH SITES. 'C AMPBELL presented petitions from Ayr and other '" a ces in Scotland, respecn ng the omitting of sites for the a„ - ise'.:ion of places of worship for the Free Church of Scotland. NEWRY AND ENNISK.D. LEN RAILWAY. The third reading of this Bin having been moved, a discus sion ensued. • In reply to a question, Lord ELLENBOROUGH said as securities were given by the partie s promoting the Bill that the harbour should not be Injured by the railway, the eor;ent of the Admiralty was aiven to its passing in the way complained of by several Noble Loi ds. Lord STANLEY ronshiered that there was no ground for postponing the decision of the Committee. Some confusion prevailed here, and after a few words from locale Noble Loras, Lord CAMPBELL said that he hoped that they would read the Bill a third aime. S trangers were ',hen ordered to withdraw. On re-e n t er i r,g we found that the amendment b ad b een Withdrawn ata a the Bill had been read a third time. CREAIARE AGRICULTUn AL PROTECTION SOCIETY. Lod, DELAMERE repeated that what he had said the other blh'c as to his never having subscribed to the Cheshire Agri co/ntaral Protecti on S oc i ety ,' or any other association of that Sort, Was perfectly true, notwithatanding what had been said by the Noble Duke on the cross benches athe Duke of Richmond). At the time when the Anti-Corn-law League sent its emis saries throughout the cauntry distributing pamphlets to alienate tenants from landlmals, and interfere with the registrat'on, arid not only with that but many other things, at that time he with many others attended a meeting at blorthaich, w ith a v i ew to taking measures to counteract the operations of the Anti-Corn-law League. It was true that he contributed his poor pittance, only '25!., that the committee *light have funds to pay for legal advice, for advertising, and inch lik e . The .Noble Earl denied, however, having been either before or after a member of the Central Agt-icultural Assoanation. Had he known at the time that the Noble litete made his statement, that he was making such a state- Wtent, he would have risen at the time; and he did so now, at the risk of delaying important business, only that he might 'vindicate his own character. The Duke of RICHMOND said it seemed that Noble Lords in Chester did not hear or did not remember much. Ile did not charge the Noble Lord with any offence beyond What had been committed by many other Noble Lords—the chan g in g of their opinions on the question of protection, and that the Noble Lord had been a member of hprotection soc i e ty. H e (the Duke of Ri c h mon d) h a d ad in 11. s pocket since the commencement of the discussion " the corn-laws a list of Noble Lords who had belonged to rote.ction societies—( Laughter)—and before it had concluded "Would in all likelihood read it, when it would be found very turious a n d i nstruct i ve .—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) In Inas& t a ll ere was a large meeting in the county to which the Noble Lo rd belonged. It met in the Market-hall, and it :Is Se large that it had to adjourn elsewhere.—(Hear, ,: e ars) The first resolution which was proposed at that Feting, and then had heard from the Noble Lord that he Was present at it, was to the effect that " the society be f"'Med for the protection of agriculture, to be called the Chester Agetcuitural Protection Soociety, and that the society be not only formed to protect the landed interer tegsinat the d e structive proceedings of th e A nt i-C ern -l aw a_ a goes but also to oppose all measures that m a y b e b roug h t '"rward having a tendency to deprive the agricultural inte ta_ie.t of such protection as they are so justly entitled suca society anot fere with any N it . I b* ect except That those haying ) reference inter to agriculture, "batsu J that every endeavour shall be made to afford the tenant ltreturn for his capital, and his labourer a fair day's wage Rightfair day's work.' " This reso:ution was moved by the ight Hon. Lord Delamere.—(Cheers and laughter). It is ,1° that paper (continued the Noble Duke), that I rest jutlY‘ justificatio n . I agree with that tesolution, anti was E°Pea the N o ble L or d did a l so ? bELAM ERE was pr. sent at the meeting, which was old a _ a no merously attended, so numerously that: they we , e Lace to adjourn it; but that adjournment did not take a•ce from the large numbers that attended, but took place from !ing ousted by the Anti-Corn-law League.—( Laughter.) The nsoltitioo was moved by hi m as th e N o bl e D u k e h a d s t a t e d. for it was with many others in connexion with the the subject ffr Which the meeting had been called together; but then the y ast recollect that it was moved at a time when the Anti -law L eague fi rst i n t ro d uced pa i d em i ssar i es i nto Che rea-it was when these persons introduced themtaslves into that otinty, and en d eavoure d t o se p ara t e th e f at mers f rom t h e land owners, and the labourers from the far.ners, and to create general disunion in the county—that this meeting was eon vetted, for the purpose specified, as well as to promote the I t egistration of votes; but he never considered that he be tbßed to that society ; and he could prove by two of the ; "'rgest landowners in the county that he had been frequently 'Wilted to attend their meetings, but that he had refused to do sc h, And, besides, he never paid a halfpenny to it, except 25'. '(Rear, hear, and laughter)—which he subscribed to coun teractt. in some measure the machinations of the Anti-Corn dnite League. an i ,aOrd COAIBERMERE read the letter from the Secretary - - ‘,.;° 13 Agricultural Protection Society, in Cheshire, in which 1 39e av stated that Lord Delamere was a vice-president of the tet y•---(Great laughter.) CORN-LAWS. kne confusion he re ensue d I, om th e f ac t o f severa l N o bl e yird_s not understanding the position in which the question of the Cornlaws then stood. The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that it arose purely ' ur a an accident that on the last n'elit of debate they did not w ° , into committee on the Bill. The irs Chairman of the Com rtee not having been present, it was agreed by their Lord- I Ps present that they should go into Committee that day 'Without any further debate. Lord STANLEY confirmed the statement of his Lord - Chip, and hoped that he would not be deemedi rreeu of l a r their h r e e i r - tenting a petition, which was every wayworthy attention. It was a petition from certain bankers and merchants in London. They had not petitioned their Lords, nor would they have now done so, had it not been for the petition which Vas presented, he believed, by his Noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, purporting to represent the general feel ing of the bankers, merchants, and commercial men of the city of London, in which it was stated that, in their opinion, the Passing of this measure would lead to the progressive prosperity "1 every c l ass i n t h e coun try. If there were any class for whose . 1 ,4 e te rese, this Bill was supposed to be especially designed , it was r, mercantile and commercial classes, and no doubt a con serable impression was produced on their Lordships' minds by _M ‘ statement corning over from his Noble Friend , who "Id himself a high official situation. It was the p r esentation of that petition, and that alone , w hich e Tught them from their private and important con c.lll3_ to present the petition which he had the honou r o f W t e ng befor e their Lordships. After adverting to the petition t n n humbly been presented by his Noble Friend, the petitionees f►en Tarnished humbly to state (and the signatures to the petitions ed statements that were correct) that they doubted very 7 1 7 . n wheth er t h a t pet iti on cou ld be co ns id e red as representing t t:ls!n ' general opinions of the merchants, bankers, and traders of t h City of Londen. The petitioners humbly desired to leave e consideration of this mist important measure to the delibe rate wisdom of their Lordsh a ip c s t , ur r i ep er re . senting that , inasmuch as th e commercial and menu' n e int t e h re e ets of this country Were_ in a state of activity and prosperity , pairselng that the said measure wase ssntia r l e t w o a tte no p g r r o 7 re s s d si f v o e r th PP , of any clessin the community. or even for maintaining esent active state of commercial prosperity. The petitioners humbly, 3 „, believed that the Bill in question was an experiment ~1 1" . _ 'ne most vital branch of national industry, involving conse ?_ 'Pees the magnitude and extent of which it was impossible to foresee, and calling for the most deep and anxious considera tion on the part of their Lordships' House.—( Hear, hear.) Now he hoped he should not be told that this petiti did Pray their Lordships to reject the Bill in question. He had already stated that it did not do so. But they protested against its being supposed that it was the general feeling of the mercantile gentlemen of London, that it was essential to the interests of this country that this Bill should pass ; and they prayed their Lordships not hastily to adopt so hazardous and so great an experiment. Now, he felt that the importance of this petition depended upon the signatures attached to it— (Hear, hear) —and he should not, he hoped, be deemed to be trespassing unduly on their Lordships' time—(Hear, bear)._ if he stated that the petition was signed hY the Chairman of Llo y d's, by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the London Dock Company. by the Chairman and De p ut y -Chairman of the East India aeook Company, and by a very considerable number of bank directors. A Notsee Loan—How many ? Lord STANLEY believed six—( Hear, hear) — had signed t his petition. Perhaps the Noble Friend who asked that question would like to know some. of the principal names at tached to the petition. Among the merchants were some of the greatest firms in the City—Sir Frederick Puiives, Messrs. C o. Messrs, Baring Brothers, Messrs. Frederick Tooke Cad Co. Among the shirwners were the Messrs. Tindal and the Messrs. Saames, two of the largest shipowners in thy City. Among the shipbuilders were the Messrs. Curling, Young and CO., the largest firm in the City. There were thirteen firma whiett were connected with the foreign trade; several in the silk trade, and several in the iron trade ; all without ex ception w h o were engaged in the Canadian anti Australian trade...-( Hear, hear) —besides many others engaged in the fo reign and colonial trade of the country. These had signed the petition with no intention of interfering with the decision of their Lordships' House, but they p ra y ed that their Lordships wo uld not believe that the feeling of the commercial and mercantile classes universally called for the measure which had been introduced into their Lordships' House, and only So ught to provide aga i n st the opinion of these classes being their misrepresented. By laying, therefore, that p etition upon their Lordships' table, he (Lord Stanley) meant not to stay view Lordships' progren with the measure, so much as with a 1 . that their Lordships might hesitatebefowreerme eking the vast experiment wind) he as afraid . the y make, and that, they might enter with caution upon alterations so 30 important in the affairs of theseoustry. The Earl of DALHOUSIE _ o atd, that it would be in their Lordships' recollection, that he hthehma:daanbklheea r d sof the honour of laying another petition sigued by the merchants and ef the the llo c u i s t e y , of London, in favour of the his Noble Friend to aware that it was the, intention of might He was not present such a petition, otherwise he He did " mean to stateme n t pared with an analysis of the signaturesattachedvtobtebeatst p p r r e e l viously laid on the table, as a set-off against which their Lordships had just heard. detract from the weight due to the petition just This petition of the merchants , bankers , and traders, it w uted ; said by the Noble Lord( Stanley) , did not re p re sent the general a feeling of the community. What he (Lord Dalhousie) t h en wanted, was, that the two petitions should be placed against each other, and let their Lordships weigh their relative numbers and respectability. Let them not come forward with false pre tences. It was but just that he should mention that the peti tion he presented contained the signatures of 24 or 26 bank directors. The directors, he believed, on the other side, were six. It was sleeted by 14 other bankers, and appended to it were the signatures of 267 merchants and traders. Let them plate the petitions side by side, and he was not afraid of the reeule. Lord STANLEY said he had no intention of charging the Noble Lord with misrepresentation. The fact was, he slid not know •he nature of the petition referred to by the Noble ord, till it was brought to him yesterday—he meant the day before yesterday. The petition when it was presented, pur ported to be the petition of the bankers, merchants, and traders of the City of London, and be believed it was then stated the petition did not represent the general opinion. The answer was, if it did not represent the general opinion, why had no contrary petition being presented against it? He had been instructed to state, that if they would compare the signa tures of the two petitions, they would find that they repre sented more than three-fold those from whom his Noble Friend (Lord Grey) presented a petition. Earl GREY said if they would examine the petition as originally dr awn up , th e y would find that it had contained these words, and that they had subsequently been erased : "And 'Cite —0 &road if there, in Ow view Qt the petitioners, tut TIIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 16, 1R46. with any such motive ; if not satisfied with the principle of the Bile no miserable compromise of the kind would induce him to s upport it. He supported the Bill on account of the conditi :u of the country, and he conscientiously believed it wnu'd be for the advantage and improvement of the people. The reason why the clause was introduced was, that in a great change like that proposed to be made, some time should be given before the process hitherto in operation should be aban doned. He thought it was advisable that some time should elapse before the principle of the Bill was brought into full operation, and the clause was introduced with that object. It did not interfere with the principle of the measure beyond meeting the temporal y evils that would arise from the great change proposed. With regard to the emendreern, if they agreed to it, it would involve a complete alteration in the principle of the Bill because it would give permanence to the principles of protection which was sought to be get rid of by this Bill. Those who think the principles of the 11111 correct cannot therefore support the amendment. of the Noble Duke. The amendment was objectionable even as it regarded the object sought to be obtained. It was proposed with the object of preserving a remnant of protection, when the, said almost in the same breath thst such a remnant was not worth having. Protection of such a sort, he believed, would turn out most inefficient; it would not be worth anything to the agricultural interests. He would at present confine his rem arks to these general observations on the amendment, giving the grounds on which he thought it ill advised to make the alterations proposed. Lord CLAN CA RTY supported the amendment. When they looked at the present flourishing state of the country, they could not avoid coming to the conclusion that they were in deb'eil to protection for it. That protection was at the bottom of all their prcsperity h•d been proved by conclusive areuments in the admirable speech of the Noble Lord the Secre tary for the Colonies, wt ich, however much it had been cavilled at, had not been answered.—( Hear, hear.) They were told that the Government had acted from the force of circumstances —not the pressure from without or the pressure of the Anti- Corn-law League, but from the growth of the population. On that pint, though he was as desirous as any me to see the people supplied with an ample amount of the necessaries of life, he did not think the measure in question would yield that result. He believed if they removed protection from native industry it would leave the condition of the population worse than it was before. He had heard it stared thut the landlord would be either very ignorant or very good-natured if they allowed the corn-laws to he repealed. To that he would only say, that what was for the general good of the people e Auld also be fur the in terests of the landlord, and the principle of protection he held to be of that character. He thought that the Irish landlords had been hardly treated in the present question, as the measure would press on them with peculiar severity. 'I he effect would not he confined to them, but it would be brought home to the great body of the occupiers of land in the country. It was the tenant farmer that would principally suffer by the passing of this measure. He had read with delight a most able speech delivered by a Noble Lord whom he saw opposite (Lord Monteagle) some time ago, when he was a Member of the other House of Parliament, on the sebject of the repeal of the legis lative union between England and Ireland. Now the first point on which that. Noble Lord insisted, en the advantage to Ireland of a maintenance of the union, was the privilege it en jeyed by trading freely in corn with this uountry, an advantage which was increased by other countries being deprived of that privilege. New. according to the Noble Lord's own show ing, this measure would have the effect of ruining Ireland, which was mainly an agricultural country. If the price of corn fell, so must their incomes and remuneration for labour and capital expended in the production of that article of food. In conclusion, he would remark, that all he asked for on be half of the farmers of the United Kingdom was the minimum of protection, compatible with the interests of them and the country at large. The Earl of STANIIOPE, in rising to oppose this Bill, said that the Ministry did not dare to appeal to the country on this question. They would, however, be compelled to do so before the lapse of twelve months. He denounced many mem bers of the Cabinet, as base, pusiilanimens, and perfidious, for the part which they had taken on this gill. They had acted as base sycophants and servile adherents of a Minister—had sere,' like filthy reptiles, and ought never to have been taken out of that. obscurity in which they hart formerly been. He assured their Lordships that he ever had been and ever would be an honest, consistent, and firm advocate of all branches of native industry. Though their Lordships were not elected by censtituenetes, they were yet responsible to their God and eheir country for their conduct.—(Hear, hear.) He con tended that even if the present corn-laws were per mitted to remain untouched, the British farmer would not then have sufficient protection.—( Hear.) Could it be believed that the same persons that had brought forward the sliding-scale in 1842, on the ground that it gave additional protection to the British farmer, should now intro• duce a measure to abolish protection altogether ? In voting for the amendment of the Noble i •uke on the cross-benches (the Duke of Buckingham) he should not consider himself bound to support the sliding-scale. He should consider himself per ferely free en this question to vote hereafter as he should please.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord BEAUMONT supported the amendment because they were about, after the experience of three years only, to abandon a most important source of the public revenue. The second ground on which he should support that amendment was, be cause he believed, quite contrary to the opinion of the Noble Earl opposite, that instead of it being an advantage to the farmers to have this delay and allow the principle of free trade to enter into operation gradually, it would be serious and dangerous to him. The third and, perhaps, the strongest reason for his vote in support of the amendment was this, that whilst they had no right whatsoever now to legislate on this subject this year, for another Parliament which would sit before the time came on for their Act coming into operation—whilst they had no right this year to adopt a principle which they durst not and would not attempt to put immediately into force, but which they saddled upon others—another Parliament would be elected which would be called upon to settle this question Agam, at the present moment, things were in such a state that they could not know how long they would last. If they were right, why not carry out the principle ?—( Hear, hear.) It certainly did not savour of courage on the part of the Ministry to act in the.manner in which they had done, and he did not not know whether it was quite honest on the part of the pre sent Parliament to carry such a measure as the present in the manner proposed. Why, what were they doing ? They were defusing the great and paramount evils which they themselves knew would be attendant upon it, and they were thrusting them upon a future Parliament. It was also a fact that they were giving an opportunity to foreigners to be prepared at the end of three years to overflew the markets and not alone that, but they gave opportunities to bad tenants to exhaust their land. Again, they would prevent persons, the year before the measure came into operation, from sowing corn, and there would be a great deficiency in the home market. He felt cer tain that such would be the effect of the measure of the Ge vernment. If the Government considered they were right in their principle, they should have gone on with it, out of mercy to the British farmer. Whoever had framed the Bill was the greatest enemy to the British farmer that could Ise.—( Hear, hear.) But if they passed the Bill as it at present stool, he would tell them that they would be making the farmer a free trader. What right would they have to tax his malt, or prevent his growing tobacco, and the thousand other restrictions which had been imposed upon him by their statues, and which would not be removed by the present measure? They had no right to continue those restrictions, and pass the corn-law. It was not just, nor ought it to be borne. lie considered that giving up a fixed duty was a gross sacrifice of revenue ; and, by carrying this principle out revenue would suffer, while no one would be benefited. On these grounds, therefore, he would support the amendment of his Noble Frind on the cross benches. The Marquis of BU i E said that if the Bill did not offer such a protection as was necessary to the farmers, it was his oeinion, and that of all the farmers with whom he had ever spoken that it was better to ha v e n o p rotection at all. In , foundthose. b p r r a o n t c e n h t e i s n n o f t coo fail;m m e r a c n e d i n ho whichhhe acs had his doubts h er e pr n. nmtion would be really beneficial to agriculture. His expe rience enabled him to say that the farmer did not participate in the fears expressed in that Hou-e ; nor did he believe the measure would have the injurious effects predicted. The Earl of H A RDWICKE said he would not. have again risen, did he not feel the great importance of the subject. He did not agree with the Niible Marquis who had just sat down,, in the opinions he expressed with reeard to fa rmers, who hi believed were strongly in favour of protection. Much was said about stability with regard to these laws, but he believed that it they went on as they did they would have no stability. ( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend must bane a bit of land which no one else could produce—that no land should be culti vated for wheat unless it could produce thirty-two bushels an acre. Lord KINNAIRD—I said thirty bushels. The Earl of HARDWICKE—WeII then that was lowering it again, and that was an important admission from the head of the League.—( Laughter.) lie would like to see all land produce twenty bushels an acre. Not to cultivate land with out producing that amount required by the Noble Lord would indeed be to starve the people. 'I he Noble Lord then proceeded to read several statistical documents in support of his arguments. He lived himself upon land of a heavy clay soil, which produced but twenty bu,hels an acre; it was just that soil which weuld be thrown out of cultivation by the introduction of the present treasure. To make that land produce thirty bushels an acre would be to expend an immense capital which would never, with this Bill passed into a law, bring an adequate return. Mr. Cobden said to the landlords, you will raise your rents—to the farmer, you will increase your profits—to the manufacturers, you will lower your wages.—(Hear.) This gentleman was the Pro metheus of the day.—( Laughter.) He had something good to offer every one, not, hewever, forgetting the manufacturers. —( Hear, hear.) When they came to the poor clay soils of Eng gland, after the passing of the Bill, they would find nothing but a ruined tenantry, and a barren laud. What would the county constituency of this country say—would they have confidence in the measures of their Lordships' House? They were a loyal peop!e, but they were like all people, they were not dead to an injury, and they would demand to have every thing wiped off in the shape of taxation.—( Hear, hear.) With the prospect of a plentiful harvest, and the amount of grain which this measure would let in, there was the strongest reason to believe that a great reduction would take place in the price. He was persuaded that if the Bill passed, a feeling would he excited throughout the country, which would lead to a general change in the mode of collecting the revenue. He felt rtertain that with the withdrawal of protection, they would have to transfer to Re trading and comme rc i a l lasses a fair share of the burdens which were new placed upon the land. There would have to be an equalisation of tithes, the tax to relieve the poor, and the other burdens that were'matie to bear at present so severe on landed property. Before sitting down, he would refer to a petition, from an important b•idy, on the present questi,n. He referred to the Bedford Corporation, the members of which were greatly alarmed at the proposed wi , hdrawal of protection. The land of the level was entirely kept in its present state by artificial draining, principally through the steam engine, and after the expenses of preserving it were met, the returns were so small as only to yield Hs. an acre. They took this low rent, as there were hopes that ultimately the land would be preserved by natural draining, as the course of things was tending to that point. If they allowed the Bill to pass, they would be doing that which would, he was persuaded, inflict a most serious injury on the cultivators of the ; 0 11. Still, whatever might be the operation of the Bill, he considered the measure ought not to be carried without . an ap pealthe p eo ple. He was against any change of opinion in the Governmentleadi n g • as the constituencies of the empire to such a measure being carried by to the House, until such time Lord KINN AlliD rose to as he P thought it would be fwr the to the Noble Lord, and to __(Cheers t . o ) re support the Bill as it st mse.ves. He supported the Bill, be were appealed to benefit of the farmers tne . 1 should consider that there protective duties. Noble Lords protective duty and a duty t difference between a p c Awe he believed its adoption would lead to the removal of all was a great n, 'd not be profitab l y culti. vated unless they could pet ience he felt certain that land co i. a cre on ft ; and raise thirty bushels an • ' a revenue. From twenty year s' ex. for the purpose of raising arise from mode rate price. li e a d m itt e d th a t. so ma danger might if that were d one , it would enable them t o st-11 it at a the sudden importation of a large quantity of foreiern but he did net think it would be so gr eat as apprehende d. Ho would m en ti on a fact on t hi s point. A friend of his told him that there was corn now in bond that could not be sold profitably at less than 60s. a quarter. This was wheat that had been introduced at the early period of the sessien— ( Hear, hear)—this, therefore, need not alarm them. A Right Rev. Prelate the other night said the reduction of price would he met by a reduction in wages ; but that he (Lord Kinnard) did not think would be the case. He believed it would be the interest of landlords to pay good wages to ensure efficient service, and be further thought, with.efficient farmers and a ' , rarer system of cultivation, that they could easily compete with foreigners. If the farmers of Scotland by a regular system of croppirg, and a skilful system of firming, could, in the face of an adverse climate, compete with English farmers who had better land in a superior climate, surely, they in England could compete with the foreigner who only raised 0 bushels of wheat per acre, and had to bring it 2 000 miles distance. He knew, that as far as this country was concerned, that though the measure was in progress, a rise in rent had taken place in a great number of farms. That was the case in Scotland and England. It was the case even sif the tenants of some Noble Lords then in the House. The great estate agent, Mr. Simpson, who must be known to the majority of their Lordships, who had been till recently a thorough going protectionist, and who had had extensive ex perience in landed property, stated, at a public meeting a few days ago, that he was free and proud to rimless that the sliding scale and all other scales had fallen from his eyes—( Laughter) —the result of which was that he was now a thorough-going abolitionist.—( Hear, hear.) Being anxious to know on what grounds Mr. Simpson had changed his opinions, he (Lord Kinnaird) wrote to him for an explanation. In reply, Mr. Simpson stated that the result of his experience was, that any restriction on the importation of corn was injurious to the tenant-farmers of this country. He (Lord Kinniard) had al ready quoted an instance in which, instead of rent falling since the determination of the Ministers on this subject, estates . were let at considerably higher rents than before. H e believed that the tenant-farmers did ca-e about this Bill. He believed too, that in many instances their fears had been excited by Members of the Legislature who had advocated the cause of Their Lordships would have themselves to blame depreciation of rents were to follow the passing of this iP tn fr e °a a nte i i r t e ° , n nd his advice to them was as a landlord that they should not listen to any claims for reduction. He might state that in many instances, however much it might be in accordance with their feelings, they were doing great injury to the farmer by letting land to him under proper value, because when they did so, the farmer, instead of exerting himself to in crease the produce of the land, was willing to rest, and had rested for many years, believing that he was safe with what was called " the protective principle." He should have wished to have gone extensively into this question, hut as many of their Lordships were anxious to ad dress the House he had curtailed his observations. In conclu siors he wished to call their Lordship s ' attention to one paint. He thought that whatever might be their feelings with regard to that body with which he was connected, they at least would give hem credit for having remained perfectly quiet ; indeed to such an extent had they remained silent at this crisis that some Noble Lords believed that the people in towns had said that they would not get up an excitement on this subject.— ( Hear, hear.) He believed that a Noble said the other night that they could not do so.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he (Lord Kinnaird) could assure them, from all the applications to the members of the Anti-Corn-law League, begging of them to move at this moment, that the people in the towns were anxiously waiting for the passing of this Bill. The Anti- Corn-law League had, instead of conforming to those repeated applications, thought it more wise, and more respectful to Par liament, and to their Lordships' House, that they should re main quiet, so that they might not be considered to have moved for the purpuso of intimidating their Lordships.—(Hear.) That might have been said of them had they moved on this question at the present moment. He was glad to know that, although it had been said by Noble Lords that her Majesty's Ministers had been intimidated by the League in bringing forward this measure—( Hear, hear, and laughter from the Protectionist benches)—their Lordships had greatly mistaken the feeling of the country—they greatly mistook the feel,ngs of Scotland, with which he was more intimately connected—because he wenld say that if this measure were de feated the greatest disappointment would be felt throughout the breadth of the land, and all he would say was, that he hoped that this amendment of the Noble Duke might not be adopted, as it would have the effect of.defeating the Bill.—(Hear.) Their Lordships then divided, when there appearee— For the clause For the amendment _ lO3 Majority in favour of the clause The House then resumed, and The CHAIRAIAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow (this day). I he House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15. The SPEAKER. took the chair at Four o'clock. SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time, and ordered to committed : Clonmel and Thurles Railway Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway Great Southern and Wes:ern Railway (Cork Extension) Kil:arney Junction Railway Mallow and Fermoy Railway Charitv'Estate Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway. REPORTS. The reports on the following Bills were brought up, the alterations and amendments agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be engrossed:— Banffshiie Railway Caledonian Railway (Dundyvan Branch) Hertford and Hatfield Railway Loudon and Birmingham Railway (St Alban's and Luton Branch) North British Railway (Gretna Branch) St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Railway Schoolmaster's Widows Fund Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway (Crick - . heath and Wem Linea) Stockton Gas. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GLASGOW TERMINI AND BRANCHES) BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed:— Argyll Canal. Ashburton, Newton, and South Devon Railway. Blackburn, Clitheroe, and North-Western Junction Railway. Edinburgh Paving. Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction Railway. Glasgow, Southern Terminal Railway. Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Polloc and Govan Branch). Gloucester and Dean Forest Railwa y. Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and Aston and other Branches). - - - Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and Warrington Branch). Great Grimsby and Sheffield Juncti9n Railway, and Grimsby Docks Consolidation. Harrogate Waterworks. Heywood Waterworks. Lancashire aid Yorkshire North Eastern Railway. Lesmahagow, Dalserf, and Coatbridge Mineral Junction Rail- way London and Croydon Railway (Thames Junction Branch) Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway (Chapel Hall Branch) Morayshire Railway Morecombe Harbour and Railway Newmarket and Chesterford Railway Norfolk Railway Extensions ( Yarmouth Extension) Portbury Pier and Railway (No. 2) Scottish Central Railway (Denny Branch) South Wales Railway (No. 2) Wishaw and Coltness Railway (Greenhill Branch) Yeovil Markets and Fairs Yorkshire and Glasgow Union Railway. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the order of the day for the report on the South Eastern Railway (No. t2—Greenwich Railway to Chilham, near Can terbury, with b-auches) Bill being read, Air. HUME said it was a question whether both the con tending lines should be submitted back again to the Committee, and that was the only way in which the justice of the case could be met. Another course, and perhaps the best, would be to postpone the consideration of both schemes to the ensuing session. These were the views that he entertained on the question. Sir G. COCKBURN mid tho Admiralty had done that which, under the circumstances they thought best to pursue. Their opinion was that going through Greenwich Park should not be allowed till further experiments were made as to the effects on the Observatory. They ought, in hi 3 opinion, either to commit both Bills, or postpone them till another year. The Admiralty, entertaining the v i ews i t did, h a d made the report - I which had been referred to. _ _ Sir R. H. INGLIS said he defied any one to read Professor Robinson's report without being satisfied that there was the greatest danger to the accuracy of the oliservations at Green wich if the tunnel through the park was allowed. He spoke not as to the merits of the two schemes, but to the important question of the Observatory. He thought, how. ever, they ought to place the the Sough-Eastern Company in the same position they were in before they had altered their scheme in deference to the wishes of the Admiralty. Mr. ESCOURT briefly supported the decision of the Com mittee. He referred at some length to the report of the Corm mitt: o on the Bill, and held that if the Committee had de cided otherwise than they did that the project of the South- Eastern Company would have been mutilated and valueless. After a few words from Mr. AGLIONI3Y, Mr. PROTHEROE defended the proceedings of the Com mittee, and stated that they selected the South-Eastern project because it was of a far superior character to the line projected by the North Kent. The North Kent line would have interfered to a great extent with orna mental property near the metropolis, whereas the South- Eastern line would not, and would pass through the property of Mr. Angerstein, who formerly opposed, but who now sup ported that project. The line selected was one of an im portant public character, inasmuch as it would be a direct railway from London to Gravesend and Rochester. He pre ferred that the Bill should be committed to the members of the Committee who had heard the whole of the evidence. After a few words from Mr. Rice, Lord Emelyn, and Mr. 115 Bayley, Mr. J. O'CONNELL thought the justice of the case would be met if the House would allow both parties to come before them again next year. The inter: at of the public would not be injured, and such a course would be quite consistent with the position of both Bills. He saw no mode so well adapted to meet the case, and be believed if it were adopted both parties would come forward then better prepared. Mr. WARBURTON hoped that whatever determination the House should come to, one point at least would be resolved on, namely, that Greenwich Observatory should not be de stroyed. Let any man read the evidence given upon that sub'ect, and then lay his hand upon his heart, and say that this would not be the result if a railway were constructed through Greenwich Park. Sir John Herschell, Mr. Baggage, the astronomer from Chatham ; Mr. Challis, Dr. Robinson, the astronomer from Armagh, had all given decisive and weighty evidence against the railway, in con sequence cf the injury the Observatory would sustain ; and Professor Airy was the only eminent and scientific man who had given evidence of a contrary character. He hoped the House would support the Observatory at Green wich; that they would not allow a railway to pass underit, if there was the slightest chance of the Observatory being de stroyed by it.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. PLUMPTRE said the Eastern were prepared to abandon that part of their scheme which passed under the Observatory, and adopt the loop, if the House would allow them to do so. After a few words from one or two Hon. Members, who called upon the Government to place the South-Eastern Company in the same position that they stood in before the Admiralty gave their consent, On the Motion fur resuming the adjourned debate on the consideration of the report of the South-Eastern Railway Bill (Greenwich to Chilham), Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know what the House was about to do on this subject, and what position it stood in. If they were about to recommit the Bill, he could offer no objection ; but if they were about to re commit it to the same msjority which had before decided the question, they would have the same decision as before. The present inconvenience arose from the fickleness of the Board of Admiralty, and the stipulations which they had made, so as to retain the power to themselves of stopping up the line. Such a course had produced considerable injury to the South- Eastern Company, and was calculated to do them still more. He thought this was necessary, for the expenses were of a material consideration, and unless these were satisfied there would be no guarantee to the shareholders. Mr. O'CONNELL wished now to inquire whether it was competent for him to move whether it is proper to require its Ire -committal this day six months? The SPEAKER —Certainly: there was a substantive mo tion b e f ore t h e Rouge, and be conceived that till the motion cf the Hon. Member for Dover wt s disposed of no adjudication could be made as to the inquiry. Mr. JARVIS conceived that the case of the South-Eastern Railway had not been fairly dealt with, and that the North Kent ought to be thrown out. It appeared that it was a standing orch-r of Parliament, that no one connected with the railway should have the power of voting for it. He conceived that the report ought to be amended, and that the North Kent line should be beyond the power of opposition. Hon. Members after spending thirty-Fix days in inquiry without any personal interest, had come to an imperfect decision, and he therefore conceived they ought to have the power of amending the report. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the recommittal 148 Against 72 Majority ... ........ Air. PROTHEROE then moved that the Bill be re-com mitted to the former Committee, for the purpose of considering the copies of correspondence and reports on the subject of a railroad passing through Greenwich Park (which have, by order, been submitted to this House by the Admiralty, subsequent to the bringing up of the Report of the Commit tee), and the expediency or inexpediency of sanctioning any of the alternate lines proposed by the South-Eastern Rai:wav in substitution for the line through Greenwich Park. After a few words from Mr. PLUMPTRE, Sir R. H. INGLIS should vote for the recommittal of the Bill, because he was anxious that the South Eastern Company should be placed in the same position as they were before the assent of the Admiralty was given to the North Kent line passing under the park. Mr. AGLIONBY would vote for the recommittal on the same ground, but he hoped the Bill would be sent to a different Committee to that which gave power to the Admiralty to stop up a railway on a certain ocntingency. He intended to vote for the recommittal of the South-Eastern Bill ; and he should, if he had the opportunity, vote also for the recommittal of the rival line, the North Kent. If he had the opportunity he should also vote that the Bill be referred to a distinct Committee, in order that the four members of the present Committee should not have the same decision to come to; or if it were referred to the same Members, that the Com mittee should be constituted as they were when the Bill was originally referred to them. Mr. ENTWISLE (who rose amidst loud cries of " Oh,") the Bill ? hat Hon. Memt.er had moved for the recommittal of B The SPEAKER said, that it was on the motion of t 1• Hon. Member f•r Dover. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared : For the recommittal .. 135 For the postponement to that day six months 68 Majority -57 Mr. PROTHEROE must then move that the Bill be re• committed to the former Committee, with copies of the cor respondence which had passed between the Committee and the promoters. Mr. RICE must then move as an amendment that the Bill should be recommitted to the Committee as formerly con-• st ituted. ' Mr. PROTHEROE said, that this would rendir it neces sary for the Hon. Member for Worcestershire, who had for merly been a member of that Committee, to attend for two months, to repeat the evidence which he had formerly heard, He thought this was too great a Lardship to impose upon any Hon. Member, especially as the Committee could dispose of the Bill without any such imposition. Mr. HUME conceived that this would be a great injustice to the parties engaged, and inflict a great expense, which was quite unnecessary, as the Committee might dispose of the Bill without either the cost or the delay. . . _ The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place. Mr. RICE having consented to withdraw his amendment, The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted to the former Committee. ..... NORTH KENT RAILWAY. Mr. RICE then moved that this Bill be also re-committed to ti - e former Committee. _ Mr. ESTCOURT said that this motion was not for the purpose of re-opening the whole question ; it was for the pur pose of considering the propriety or expediency of sanctioning the South-Eastern Company's line. There was no ground for the recommittal of the North Kent. Mr. AGLIONBY said that he dissented from the opinion of the Hon. Member for Oxford. The decision of the House was rAiuired, in order that the South-Eastern Company's Bill be referred to the same Committee, so that they might consi- der the expediency of sanctioning any one of the alternative lines proposed by the South-Eastern Company. He would put the supposition that the Committee were not anxious to support any of the alternative lines, and then the argument of the Hon. Member for Oxford fell to the ground. If it were inexpedient to support the South-Eastern Company's projects, the Committee ought to have the option of deciding on the mei its of another line ; and it would, therefore, be great un fairness if they did not have the opportunity of considering the North Kent. Let the Committee take on themselves the re sponsibility of deciding, ar.d let not the House, in the absence of facts, exclude any portion of the subject of inquiry from them. The Committee could not act fairly to the House, if they were to decide in that House upon what course should be taken. Let them have the whole inquiry referred to them, and then let them take what course they might choose. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said, that it was the opinion of half the Committee that the North Kent line was superior to the South Kent line. There was an equal division of opi nion on the subject, and he thought a fair reason had been presented to the House for recommitting the North Kent line. Mr. PROTHEROE had paid the most particular attention to the merits of the two lines since their first appearance in the Committee. The circumstances were unchanged which had influenced him in rejecting the line, which proposed making a tunnel through Greenwich Park, and he was cer tainly opposed to the recommittal of the Bill. Mr. RICE observed that his Hon. Friend must be aware, as the Chairman of the Company, that the difficulty of carry ing out tho line arose from a deficiency in the estimates, and not from any difficulty of travelling through Greenwich Park, bnt as he thought that it would not be advisable to proceed further with his motion, he should withdraw it. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. NEW WRIT. Colonel CONOLLY moved for a new writ for a Knight of the Shire for the County of Carlow, in the room of Thomas Sunbury, Esq., deceased. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. Messengers from the Lords brought up various Hallway Bills with amendments. See Lords report. EPICrLISTAIENT IN THE ARMY. Captain LAY ARD wished to ask a question of the Secre tary at War, whose answer some time hack to a similar ques tion had been misrepresented, and had, in consequence, caused considerable difficulty among the public. He believed that no limited enlistment was allowed, but the contrary had gone forth to the public. He wished to know whether or no limited enlistment was allowed ? Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said it was not the case that limited enlistment was allowed, neither was it the intention o. her Majesty's Government to allow it. CONDUCT OF RAILWAY BUSINESS. Mr. E. DENISON asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he had any objection to lay upon the table of the House the plan fur the conduct of railway business which was pre pared by Lord Dalhousie, and submitted in eatenso by him, on the part of the Government, to the Committee on Railways in the House of Lords ? Sir R. PEEL said that with regard to any written informa tion given by his Noble Friend in the Committee of the House of Lords, he did not see any objection to their production. He did not apprehend that the meaning of his Noble Friend Lord Dalhousie was to give a formal proposition of that plan in the Committee of the House of Lord. At the same time, he must admit, on the part of his Noble Friend, that the plan was not proposed on the part of the Government. He be lieved that at the time it was proposed no proposition was made on the part of the Government, either in the Lords or Commons. Alter a few words from Mr. DENISON, which did not reach the gallery, Mr. HUME said that there were certain resolutions to be proposed to-morrow by the Right Hon. Baronet with referen'e to the broad gauge. He should certainly take the sense of the House on the three last resolutions. The House would not make itself a party to what was admitted to be wrong. Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that he should move for a supplemental report of the opinions of Dr. Robinson with re ference to the effect of any railway passing under the Royal Observatory at Greenwich Park. Mr. ROSS said that he had a few words to offer in explana • ion to the House, with reference to certain remarks made by the Right Hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government at the conclusion of the debate on Friday, 'upon a speech which had been made by him (Mr. Ross) in the beginning of the evening. He should not have attempted to do so had he found the words he used reported in the public:papers. The Right Hon. Baronet, in noticing his speech, asked him in the first instance if he would venture to deny the allegations of Government, and his reply was, " Yes," but he must say that he did not intend to convey by the word " yes," anything in opposition to what he had said in his speech, because he did deny the allegations of Government to this extent, that if the state of Ireland now, according to the opinion of the Government, called for this Coercion Bill, it must be in the same state as was referred to by the Secretary for the Home Department. He also denied, and he was borne out in his denial, the accuracy of the returns made and presented to the House. There was no contradiction between his answer and the assertion which he made in his own speech. There was also another point in which the Right Hon. Baronet had put words in his mouth.—( Hear, hear. ) He (the Right Honourable Baronet) had said that it was a most monstrous and idiotic assertion that once they departed from the constitution of the country the further they went the better. He did not make such an as sertion as that ; he had said that if it were necessary to turn from the constitution of the country, we ought not to falter in our course until we reached the object which had occasioned our departure. Sir R. PEEL begged leave to explain. What he had said it was not his intention to say. He had said that the state of Ireland required extraordinary measures—that it was in a con dition far from satisfactory. He asked the Hon. Member if he denied the allegations of her Majesty's Government in that re spect, via., that the state of Ireland did require extraordinary measures, and he understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that he did deny the allegation ; and whilst in the heat of debate, some words did escape him (Sir R. Peel), but which he after wards corrected. He (Sir R. Peel) had asked the Hon. Member if he had not said that the outrages in Ireland were so dangerous, and had, become so intolerable, that, provided the measure brought in by the Government for the improvement of the relation between landlord and tenant did not turn out to be beneficial, and if the country continued to exist in 1846 in the same state as in 1845 and 1844, he for one would think some measures necessary, and even that he could not ob ject to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He had said that it was impossible to devise any measure of permanent operation for the improvement of the relation of landlord and tenant, which could take any effect in a short time, and that therefore he would not object to vote for a suspens i on of the Habeas Corpus Act. Mr. ROSS—I said that the state of Ireland" was" so un satisfactory. I did not say that it is now. Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member had said that, he would vote for a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and that if the constitution was to be v i o l a t e d, they should take care to secure the object they had in view, which might be more or le" in significant, but s till such measures should be adopted as would secure it. STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA. Mr. MILES wished to ask whether any weekly communi cation had as yet been established between this country and Halifax? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a contract had been e n t ere d i nto, on t h e part o f t h e G ov ernment, t with Messrs. C unar d , f or a weekly steam communicationwi t h Halifax and Boston. Mr. HUME wished to know if a copy of the contract could be obtained. Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that he had understood that the contract wa s a d vert i se d to b e open t jects. It was supposed that the Greao 11 ta h e r Majesty's sub- Western Steam-ship Company had not had the opportunity of entering for the public service b e t ween this country and Halifax and Boston. There had b een a mem orial presented to the Government on that subject, for it was felt veryimportant that there should be Engd and a fair comp e titi on i n the America ; and it was also -suapsseonsed that ffi the Great Western Com pany we re f a i r ly entitled to a P share in this employment. The ac count which they were going to pay Messrs. Cunard, was 4,000!. for every voyage. That was a great burden, and he got, in his addition to the sum of 4,0001., passenger traffic ; while the Great Western Company, in order to compete with him, had only to rely on their passenger traffic. Such a competition could not be borne ; and if the contract was not finally signed, he called upon the Government not to allow such a monopoly in opposition to the Great Western. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the House must bear in mind, that in the year 1838 the contract was offered for the purpose of establishing a communication between this country and North America. That communica tion was tendered by many, and the Messrs. Canard were the parties who took the contract. In that contract so made in 1838, provision was made for a weekly communication between Great Britain and North America. In the first instance, the communication was to have been made fortnightly ; and when it was found that that communication answered, it was then ordered to be made weekly. The Government thought it their duty to enter into the contract with those persons who had in the first instance been engaged by them, and therefore they had given the contract to Messrs. Cunard, and the papers re lative to that subject had been just moved for. Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to know whether those papers would be a copy of the advertisement and the contract itself ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under stood to answer in the affirmative. _ _ After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, which did not reach the gallery, ARMS BILL. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that he was anxious to make a statement to the House with reference to what had fallen from the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Bernard). He was anxious that he should appear to make any charge without foundation,: but if it appeared that the Noble Lord could prove a contradiction to his statement he would withdraw the charge he made. He had stated, that when the Arms Bill was passed, the powers given to the magistrates by that Act, for the purpose of de priving of the right to keep arms all riotous persons were not exerted with reference to those persons con cerned in disturbances, but to persons of political persuasion called repeaters. Those powers were given to the magis trates for the purpose of suppressing disturbances, but that he thought that they had been used to the detriment of the coun try. The Noble Lord had contradicted that statement, and he (Mr. J. M. O'Connell) now asked hi m if h e meant to say that in that statement he had said any - thing contrary to or be yond the facts? If he had done so, he should be quite ready to move for all those papers which would throw light upon the subject, in order that any mis-statement might be corrected. Lord BERNARD said that he had denied the statement made by the Hon. Member, and in order to make the matter clear he would state the facts of the case. Ia the county of Cork the number of persons applying for permission to keep arms *as 700, and out of that number those who were refused amounted only to seven, and out of that number again only four were repealers. The proceedings adopted on that occasion were very far from any party feeling, although those who were _rejected were repeal wardens. Out of the seven who were rejected, three were known as bad characters. The magistrates had acted on that occasion underno political motive, but with the view of preserving the peace of the country. There had been a memorial addressed to the magistrates of that dis trict, stating that many had been obliged to 1 eave their homes at night, and remained in the fields, in consequence of the ap prehensions they were under. He did not mean to deny that, at the meeting alluded to by the Hon. Member, there were very injudicious expressions made use of by some individuals, but he did say that the majority of the magistrates attended to their duty with strict impartiality. Mr. M. GIBSON asked the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government if the Government would defer the signing of the contract with Messrs. Cunard until the papers which had been moved for could be produced. Sir R. PEEL, as we understood, said the Government would accede to the request of the Hon. Member. PROTECTION TO LIFE (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition containing 259,000 signatures. He stated that it came from the principal manu facturers of Earriand against the Coercion Bill.—( The Hon. Member then left the House immediately. ) Lord WORSLEY said that he had some observations to offer to the House upon this Coercion Bill. It was true that the Bill contained temporary measures, but still he th oug ht i t would be found ; whether temp orar il y or permanently em ployed, to be equally destructive in its influence. When mea sures of this kind had been befofe tried in Ireland, they had always produced more evil than good, and had fallen as much, if not more, upon the innocent than theguilty. Did the Go vernment think that the passing of this till, with its temporary provision, would remedy those great and serious grievances of which the Irish people so justly complained. It would not even repress the evils which were the effect of those grievances, far less would it remove the cause. He believed that if, instead of introducing these coercion measures,', they would remedy some of the evils which at pre sent prevailed in Ireland, they would find that the legislation would be attended with beneficial results.—( Hear, hear.) If the Government of Ireland had the confidence of the people, there would be no necessity for such Acts as these, and let him ask whether the Government did now, or had for some years passed, possessed that confidence ? No ; they certainly had not, and until the Government patronage was bestowed with an impartial hand, and the Government themselves evinced some disposition to improve the civil and religions condition of the people, they never would. Why hew could the present Government hope to obtain the confidence of the people, when they had all along opposed all reforms in the Irish chruch ? Some few years ago, while the present Government was the opposition, he remembered Lord Stanley proposed to improve the municipal law of the country, but although the Govern ment had been in office now nearly five years, they had never yet attempted to bring forward such a measure. Look again at the conduct of the Government in later times. Look how theyactedwithregardto the Arms' Act. and to the manner in which they dismissed magistrates for expressing their poli tical opinions. See how they allowed the monster meetings to go on, in fact silently sanctioning them before they issued their proclamation, and bear in mind the spirit with which they followed up the State prosecutions, and then let the House tell him how a Government who punished sueh a policy as this could expect to possess the confidence of the people. (Hear, hear.) They went before their party with regard to some measures ; nay, they outstripped those who opposed them in one course of policy, and yet they could not act with liberality towards Ireland. They bad come forward with a liberal Corn Bill, but they refused to try the force of liberality in Ireland. His opinions were decidedly opposed to this Bill, because, in his estimation, it was only calculated to aggravate, rather than remove, the evil ; and it was for this reason that Weihould vete against the second reading. He objected to it on principle; and feeling it unnecessary, as well as unconstitu tional, be should vote against it on principle. Sir It. H. INGLIS said the Noble Lord, not content with entering into a lengthened review, and strongly de nouncing the past policy of the Government with respect to Ireland, went so far as to censure them for allowing his Hon. . . Friend the Member for Kent to place a notice on the motion paper, with regard to the Catholic Church of Ireland. Now, with regard to that notice of motion, be could assure the Noble Lord that the Government bad nothing whatever to do with that motion, nor had they power, he thought, to prevent his Hon. Friend from bringing it forward.—( Hear, hear.) It . . had been said by the Noble Lord, in the course of the debate in effect—for he would not be irregular, and refer to speeches of Hon. Members during the present session—but he said in effect, that those who sat around him had made up their minds to support the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and to turn out her Majesty's Ministers, whoever they might. he. He was unwilling to revive language, but such was tLe effect of the Noble Lord's words. He ( Sir R. Inglis) could not by any means concur with such a determination ; he had adreadv given her Majesty's Ministers his confidence, and he would no - t suffer any collateral considerations to influence hint against continuing his support. If it was so that the Government had not found time or opportunity to pass on the measure to its present stage at any earlier period ; or gaily calamity or acci dent had occurred to interrupt the progress of the measure ; and though he held that they ought not to have allowed any other measure whatever to have interrupted its progress; still he would give her Majesty's Ministers the same confidence and support as he had given on a former occasion to the Noble Lord opposite, the Member fur London, when he introduced a measure of a similar nature, and more severe.—(Hear, hear. ) It was for the Government to provide for the safety of her Majesty's subjects ; on them rested that care ; when, therefore, they thought and said that any measure was necessary for that purpose, it was not for him to oppose them, for the'responsibi lity of the measure fell on them.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) He had no wish to say or do anything derogatory to the Members for Ireland who sat opposite, but he had given her Majesty's Ministers his confidence, and be would support them in the second reading of the measure as he had in the first. The Hon. Baronet proceeded, in a tone scarcely audible in the gallery, to say that there had been great delay in the pro gress of the measure in that House, a delay which was even irritating.—(lronical cheers.) The measure was a measure of police, for which the Ministers were therefore re sponsible, and however they mighs taunt him with their cheers, yet being a measure of police, he would give it his support, leaving the whole to rest on the responsibility of the Govern ment. If the Government had made up their mind to press to the second reading this measure, modified and mutilated as it had been in the other House of Parliament, he (Sir R. Inglis) had come to the determination to support it, but to support it only in the condition in which it then was. Colonel VERNER was convinced that some measure was neeemary for the protection of life and property in Ireland, and therefore he would give the present measure his support. At the same time he could not but regret that such delay bad been suffered to interrupt the progress of this measure, or any mea sure of the like importance. They had heard of the measure being introduced by the Government at the beginning of the session, but it had been thrown back till this late period ; he hoped now, however, that Ministers would exert themselves with all diligence to forward it. We understood the Hon. Gentleman to say, that he was proud to support a measure which had been introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, even at the risk of being charged with inconsistency, such as they had heard made in that House on a late occasion, although at the same time he would not be understood as prepared to support a bad measure merely because it came from the same quarter. The Gallant Gentle man begged the House to bear with him, while he vindicated himself against a misrepresentation cast on him by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State. He said he had pro duced some extracts on a former occasion referring to the state of Ireland; extracts, Right H ohnew Baronet. ever, n t T very h e Rightagreeable li n itß Baronet had nwouldet seem had not denied any of his statements, had o he upset any of the evidence laid before the H What then, he asked, was the charge Hear, h ear .) him by the e charge made against Right Hon. Baronet? Why, that in November, 1845, Verner) he (Colonel had said that he thought there would be distress in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman was then proceeding to r ea d f rom a speechmade y Sir James Graham in which C o l one l Verner hadee n referred to, vshen he was interrupted by cries of " Order," and The SPEAKER intimated to the Gallant Colonel that he was irregular. Colonel VERNER continued to say that it had ltednbereen ported that he (Colonel Verner) had said that i a which l a e n tt o e p r inion was sent to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in madewh towards . the given that a pecuniary grant should be eing the distress in his drain ing of Loch Erne, with a view r to 17 . 1 i (The Gallant Colonel (Colonel Verner's) neighbou hood He had just to say called to order by the Speaker.) was again Eve there referred to was not within that the part of the country and twenty Irish miles. Mr. HORSMA N said his neighbourhood by .d that it had been intimated by the Hon. Baronet that he would vote for the second reading on the groun d that the meas ure was one in matters of police. He ( Mr. Horsman). r easons had come to the conclusion to vote against it, but forthose differing from whichh had been adopted by others in that House, and at once opposed it on the ground th a t the reports alleged in evidence were inaccurate. He would leave the nice calculation of homicides and murders to others ; the Secretary of State was satified with these reports that they were as well got up as usual, and he thought so too. Nor would he oppose it because it had not been pushed forward with the speed that some would have wished. He saw two mea sures advancing in that House during the same period —one of them was large and liberal in its spirit, and had a benevolent aspect to the people of Ireland; the other was harsh and coercive ; the two measures differed so much that it might well be doubted whether they were the workmanship of the same hands. The Right Hon. Baronet might he supposed to address himself to the one mea sure with alacrity and zeal, as agreeing with his own spirit, but to the other he might require to be stirred and incited as to a task opposed to his liking and his reason. He (Mr. Hors man) did not vote against it for any of those reasons. Those grounds on which he opposed it were set forth in better lan guage than he could use in a document, from which he would read to the House. The Hon. Gentleman then read from a urging your Lordships to pass this measure with the least pos sible delay." But it appeared this langu,ge conveyed an opi nion too strong for them to agree in, and it was left out, and in the place of it, " That it ought to pass with the least passthie delay."—(Hear, hear.) But they did not al them to throw out the measure, and he wished their Lordships to remember that this petition, which was presented as a coo" - ter-petitit:n to the one he (Lord Grey) had been entrusted with, stated that there should be no longer delay in passing it into a Lw, Alter a few words from Lord ASHBURTON, Lord BR OUG II AIM said it was inlaertant they should know whether those petitions represented or did not repressint the feelinee of those from whom they were stated to have emanated. His Noble Friend did not represent that it emanated from all the merchants but frnm a very respectable portion of them. , One thine shsuld not be lost sight. of in referring to this pe !Rion. By striking out that passage they showed that they Were not for unneces-ary delay, and they felt that if the bill was to pass, the soreier it passed the better. He hoped their Lordships would boar that in mind, es they were just now going into Committee. If en amendment were there proposed, a delay of sem? months would take place, and the prayer of tne petitioner; Wel be thereby fi ust rats d. Lord COLVILLE, who wa , very inaudible, VI is understood to say :hat he had listened with very great attention to the ar guments used by the Nehle Lord (Lord Startle, ), an d he felt that they ware perfectly conclusive on the subject. He did not confiae himself to its operation nn landed proprietors, farmers, and cultivators of the soil, but he believed that it would be injurious to all classes of the community, and was only a link in a chain which would entail the most disastrous results on the people of this country. He Should, therefore, oppose it in all ii stages. During the period he had the honour of (sees:ply:no, a seat in teat House, ha had great plea sure in fighting under the banners of her Majesty's Govern ment, but in the pre-ent measure he regretted he could not give them his sueport- The Bishoe of ST. DAVID'S rose for the purpose of calling aft,- n ion to a statement made in a speech, and delivered by a Noble Lerd whom he regretted to see was not in his place. He would venture to say, however, that the Noble Lord had been totally mtsiniormrd on the subject, or he would not have endeavoured to impress such an erroneous view on their Lord ships' attention. llie referred to a distinction which had been drawn by a Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) between the sources of the revenues of the Right Rev. Prelates on the bench, and the other portion of the clergy. He was we the Noble Lord did net intend any reproach upon the Right Rev. bench, in alluding to that subject, hut as it was commented upon else where, and might possibly he misconstrued by the country at large, he was entitled to show that the facts on which he grounded his observations were totally erroneous. A, to his own income he had to say that the one-third of it only was derived from fixed payments, and that two-thirds was subject to the variation of the prices of agricultural produce. Fie did not mean to make any observations on the income of any of the other pre!ates, but with respect to his own he was suffi ciently well informed, and the statement he had now made was perfectly correct. Lord STANLEY complained of not having been informed of the intention of the Right Rev. Prelate to refer te this sub- ject. The Right Rev. Prelate did not hear what he (Lord Stanley) said on that occasion. The speech of the Right Rev. Prelate which called forth his remarks had been addressed to the subject of motives with regard to the passing of the Bill, and he had stated, that ab hough their Lordships might not he influenced by selfish motives, yet such an opinion would attach to their character out of doors if they did not pass it. In com menting upon these expres , ions. he (Lord Stanley) said that the Right. Rev. Prelate would be as little inclined to be influ enced by his own interest as any of their Lordships, in coming to a vote on that question. If any thing offensive was said, it was entirely on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate. All that. he (Lord Stanley) had said was that his (the Right Rev. Pre late's) motives would be as pure as those of their Lordships, and that snoWd the eresent Bill pass, the parochial clergy, whose incomes fluctuated with the value of corn, would become losers unless all other articles fell in the same ratio as corn. The Right Rev. Prelate stated that two-thirds of his income was derived from a source subjected to the variation.: of the price of agricultural produce; but as there was one-third of it, be admitted, derived from money payments, he (Lord Stanley) endeavoured to show that, under those circumstances, he would not be a loser by the ch,nge. Had the Right Rev. Prelate consulted him in private, he would have explained to him that he intended nothing derngatery to either him or any of the other Prelates on the bench in the observations he had thoutrht it h's duty to make on that occasion. The Bishop of SALISBURY was not in the }lmes the other night when the observations that occurred took place; but it was stated to him in a somewhat invidious manner, and was commented upon more invidu malt:. He was ashamed to be called on to expla'n. He could not be influenced by such motives, in giving his vote nn that Bill. There were twenty-six of his Right Reverend Brethren who occupied seats in that House, and of that number fourteen of thsm could not in any degree be classed in the category of the Noble Lord. The injustice, however, to the parochial clergy, he apprehended did not arise from the passing of the present measure, hut from the hill for the Commutation of Tithes, and that opinion he had iformly held. With regard to four of his Right Reverend Friends, three of them paid annually to the Ecclesiastical Com missioners fixed and certain charges, and the operation of the Bill, if it reduced the price of corn must necessarily be injurious to their interests. Yet three of them recorded their votes in favour of it. Two-thirds of his Right Reverend Friends were therefore removed from the imputation of being influenced by such motives, and though one-third of them were certainly in the habit of receivin e a fixed income; he did not believe that in deciding on the merits of the Bill selfi•hriess would form any ingredient in their decision. He claimed no exemption from any charges fairly brought forward, nor from any strictures made on the character of the bench, but he thought that, with regard to the present, the imputation made upon them was by no rtica-1 deserved. The Earl of MALMESRURY was of opinion that the Right Rev. Prelate who had just spoken had evinced too much susceptibility, with regard to the observations made by the Noble Lord ( Lord Stanley). There was not a single Peer in that House who would more unwillingly utter a word berdering in the slightest degree to in pugn one sentence which had fallen f. om the Right Rev. Prelate ; but he could not but disagree most strongly with him in an imputation which he had made against the Noble Lords who differed with him on that question. The Right Rev. Prelate stated that the Noble Lords were actuated by selfish motives and interests in the course they were pursuing on the present question. The Right Rev. Prelate had misrepresented a speech of his with respect to the manner in which the clergy of this country would be affected by the Government measure. Now what he had said was, that the people would see a wide difference in the condition of the clergy and the Right. Rev. bench, and judge accordingly of the comparative injury which the measure would entail on both. Not one word had dropped from him which could, in the slightest degree, cast n imputation on the Right Rev. Bench. There was one Right Rev. Prelate, for whom he entertained the greatest respect, and by whose councils he would ever he guitisd, out of that House, as far as the infirmities of human nature would allow him, but this he would say that however superior the Right Rev. Prelate might be out of the House, he (the Noble Lord) was in all civil matters his peer in every degree. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S, in a very low tone, ex plained. The Right Rev. Prelate was understood to say, that he had not imputed selfish motives to the Noble Lord, nor to those Noble Lords who voted contrary to him (the Bishop of St. David's) on this question. Lord HARDWICKE defended the Right Rev. Prelate, who he did not consider to have used one word contrary to the rules of debate in that House. Nor did he think that anything had been said by any Right Rev. Prelate who ad dressed the House on this question till the speech of the Ritiht Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The Right Rev, bench had always abstained from indulging in anything like harsh or unseemly language. The conduct of the Right Rev. Prelates in the debates of that House was a bright example for their Lordships, and it was to be regretted that one Right Rev. Pre late had so broadly differed from the others. This wee, n• doubt, owing to the want of knowledge of how the debates were confiumed in their Lordship? House, arid not from any wish to deal in harsh language. Firma whatever cause the imputations of the Right Rev. Prelate had been made, it was to be exceedingly regretted. The Bishop of OXFORD said it was necessary for him to say one word in reply to the lecture which had been read him. He fearlessly challenged any one of their Lordships to show him that he had used anything which could be called im proper. He might, on a great public question like the pre sent, have used words in the heat of debate, which he would wish unsaid, hut he was not aware that he had done so—if lie had offended any Noble Lord he humbly begged his pardon. He could not, however, allow himself to be taunted with being a young man, and therefore unqualified to understand the rules of their Lordships' House. Why, he had been reading for twenty years and studying books, men, and things, and that being the case, he thought himself capable of giving a plain opinion on a great national question like the present.— ( Hear, hear.) He did complain to their Lordships of the pseudo lectures which had been read to him, because he thought that he had not deserved it.—( Hear, hear.) He bad been the intimate friend of the Noble Lord who last addressed the House. but could not allow him to impute motives to him (the Bishop of Oxford) which he could not prove. The Earl of WINCHELSEA said, that if ever there had been a lecture delivered in that House it was delivered by the second Right Rev. Prelate who addressed the House in the debate on this measure. The Rig.ht Res. Prelate was pleased to designate a speech made by a Noble Lord on the other side of the House (Lard Stanley) as one the argument of which was total rottenness. The Right Rev. Prelate said that this was totally a landlords' question. This he denied, and, not with- standing the eloquence of the Right Rev. Prelate, he had failed to prove it. so. The Earl of GALLOWAY said, that he saw nothing in the speech of the Right Rev. Prelate but what was perfectly con sistent with this rubs of that House ; and he, for his own part, sincerely thanked him for the information he had given on the subject ; for that speech certainly convinced him (the Earl of Galloway) of the necessity of the measure. LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL. The Duke of RICHMOND wished to know from her Ma. jesty's Government whether they had taken the Lunatic Asy. lum9 Bill into their consideration with a view to its amend. ment ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said that her Majesty's Go vernment would re-consider the Bill before it was again brought before the House. The Duke of RICHMOND said that with this explanation he was perfectly satisfied. He had to present a petition from Droitvvitch on the subject. He also wished to know if her Majesty's Government had taken into their consideration the s ubject of providing an asylum for juvenile offenders after the term of their imprisonment had expired? WELLINGTONe said that he had inquired int r o fh the D m uk at e te o r f , and there would, no doubt, be a Bill brought in to provide for the deficiency which existed with regard to juvenile offenders. RE COVERY OF SMALL DEBTS BILL. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH moved the first reading of this Bill. The Bill was accordingly read a first time, and ordered to be printed. THE CORN IMPORTATION BILL. Their Lordships having resolved themselves into a Committee on the Corn Importation Bill, The Duke of BUCKINGH AM rose and said, that it was then his dory to , n t o , i t p i notice on on ea move th amendments which he had given which evening. The Bill before their Lord would do great and inealculable injury to the agricultural interests of this country, and it was to avert, if passible, in nof that evil which caused him to propose that all te any portion the first clause, after the words " in the schedule to this Act of annexed be omitt e d." Th e e ff ec t of this would be, that insteadas at when co rn was at 48 s. present p ro p ose d b y th e Bill, there would he a p;otection of The protection given b y t h e measure wasat 48s. only Is., and Os. this cool .1 not be look e d upon as protection, trary, it was a delusion. H e h ope d t h at now but on . the con. the 1 11 was re a d a ,e,ond time, Noble Lord s , w h o h a d voted fur the l withoutcy to and spirit of the Bill, would no w b e found read eiple support the interests of the agr i cu l tur i sts, at all sacrificing their votes on a f ormer occasion. He would not further occupy their attention. Hi s object- was that, after 1849, the schedule now in the Bill should still con tinue in it. He would now conclude, by moving that the words in the clause, " after the Ist of February, 1849," be omitted. The Earl of RIPON rose to oppose the amendment just prop ,sed. A Noble Lord, who spoke the other evening, stated that he could not see how they came to introduce a mo dified sliding scale, unless it were a species of comprOmise in order to satisfy those who had an objection to it. He (Lord ' Ripon) meant to oay most distinctly it was never introduced ~ --S .L • • -2; protest by the late Lord Holland,in 1825, during the :1 tine_ surrectien, in which that Noble Lord said he opposed th mins>i's4, f- ) I - sure because it was a suspension of the law rathe th_rtjte*; prevention of crime ; and, secondly, because onl?t measures ought to be adopted as would get A'irlyi ti t g h 'h e e r fa b c o t le w o as f je a e s ia a ti d d m w it a te s d in by a tend to cement the u n i on b etween t h e two coun .t r ies. " allst sta t e e h o ef h e a r v g e a a n d i i d; t e i s n e d a n t d h st H e u g o I:ls ,i e e , between life and the rights of property. It might be true, ant.' he admitted to the fullest extent the state of outrage in that: country; but the question was, how were they to act? These outrages had become almost indigenous to the soil.. The people had not been fretted properly by the suc cessive Governments of this country ; they had never been treat e d as su bj ects . Wi th a people ths re duced to the l owes t d ept h s o f misery and destitu tion how were they to act? It was not possible for morecruel tenant, and v,.hieh the malignity e t h uman or i n h uman beings to support a system disastrousthanled to to sthueehpraeseviasittreamlatoiounnstbeoftw crimeeen anlandi lorci and misery. The Hon. Member for Cork said, if can not cure: the country , abdic a t e i t ; if you can, in God Y s o n ame, letu r 7 know the remedy. The Right Hon. Gentlemen at the head of the country made precisely the same speech in that House thirty-two years ago. He had referred to that speech, and he believed the one speech might b e ta k en for the ' other, with the exception of the names, the dates, and the places mentioned in it. During all this period not a single measure had been introduced to remove the griev ance of the tenure of land—a grievance which the Right Hon. Baronet stated was the cause of these outrages.—( Hear, hear.) The present measure was nothing more than a temporary measure—it contained nothing better than the old provisions. He gave the Govenment credit for what they had done, and for as far as they had gone; they had not, however, gone far enough. He believed that a defeat of this last expiring at tempt at misguided le g islation would tend to support the Right Hon. Baronet in the course which he thought he (Sir R. Peel) was anxious to pursue in his government of Ireland. It was high time that a new system should be tried. The past system of legislation had produced an intense hatred in the minds of the people of Ireland against the &dministration. He recognised in the present Bill the old system of terrorism, and it would not do to act upon that principle any longer. The system was condemned by all patties. The Hen. Mem ber, who moved the amendment, had as little sympathy . with the murderers and assassins as any member of her Majesty's Government. He (Si r W. Somerville) and the other Irish Members opposed this measure, because they could not re concile with their con sciences such restrictions as their own consti tuency, would not permit. Mr. COLQUHOUN said that if he felt a perfect confi dence in the Government he could not satisfy himself to vote for such an unconstitutional measure as the present. If the Noble Lord, the Member far the City offer him such a Bill he wou ld say to hi m fi of measure London, were to —( Hear, hear)—and thereby forward y ou r rst prove your case possible speed. The Noble Member forKin g easusl. ey nn with acid there was a decrease of crime, therefo re t h e case broke down. s' He could not agree with his Noble Friend ; he thought the proofs of the Government of the existence of outrages were overwhelming, and also the necessity of bringing forward some measure for the suppression of these outrages. Magistrates a all creeds and classes had stated the 'difficulty of obtaining evidence and conviction of the assassin. He would say intro duce any measure calculated to suppress these things. Sup posing it were desirable to increase the number of Irish Diem - hers to 100, the case of the peasant and the people of Ireland would be in an alarming condition. He thought there bad been a most culpable delay in bringing forward this measure ever since it came into that House. He would not enter into the details of the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords. If the Government had passed the Bill through the Lords, and proceeded with it with half the earnestness with which they forced the Corn Bill, the Protection to Life Bill would now have been the law of the land. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, that the Bill, as it at present stood, was perfetly inadequate to meet the exigency in Ireland. He objected to the want of power contained in the provisions of the Bill. He also agreed with the Hon. Member for Belfast, that it was unwise to pass a Coercion Bill that would not have the effect of repressing crime, or of preventing the taking away of life. If the two clauses which alone gave life to the Bill were struck out, he should certainly object to it. He begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether, to gratify Hon. Members opposite, it, was his intention to strike out in Committee these two clauses, or whether he was prepared to maintain in all their integrity the provisions of the Bill ? If the Right Hon Gentleman de clined to answer the question, he (Mr. Colquboun) having no confidence in the intentions of Government, from past expe rience, should certainly vote against the second reading of the Bill. The Hon. Member then alluded to the meeting at Lord John Russell's house, in Chesham-place, which had become notorious during the last few months for political assemblies. Looking at the strange assortment of Hon. Nlembers, having diffe• rent political views, at those meetings,:he must say that the Noble Lord the Member for London would have a difficulty in deal ing with Ireland. The Noble Lord would have a strange team to drive—such restive horses, and such kicking and cur vetting amongst them. He had ruled them before, and past experience must have told him the difficulty of managing them. If they had not had the corn measure this year they would have had a grand educational scheme, which, like the other popular measures, would have been filched from the Noble Lord the Member for London. The course that the Right Hon. Baronet had pursued was for him at the end of the session to give some indistinct hints of the course he meant to pursue, and he went forth to the world as the liberal Minister, the great spirit of the age. At the beginning of the session he promulgated his liberal opinions as a concession to the principles of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He wanted to see the Noble Lord in power, nor from any confidence in his administration, but that it would give them (the Protec tionists) the opportunity, perhaps, of recovering themselves, and of truly appealing to the people of England on the prin ciples they maintained. He should rejoice at having an oppor tunity of recording his vote against her Majesty's Ministers on a want of confidence. He required a pledge from the Govern ment that the Bill should be maintained unmutilated, other wise he should vote against the second reading. Colonel SIBT H 0 RP said the Hon. Member re quired a pledge from the Government ; he required none. He had made up his mind to the performance of his duty, and he should fearlessly perform it. He was never ac customed to flatter any man, but lie could not help recording his admiration for the Noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. What was the reply of the 'Right Hon. Baronet—ha would not call him his Right Hon. - Friend—to that speech ? It was niost weak and vain. It had been his painful duty to pass much of his time in Ireland. During the whole period, he had never received one unkind feeling or expression from any class in the sister kingdom. He would not support a measure which in his opinion emanated from a Whig Government. He should feel it his duty to oppose the measure. The policy of the Right Horn Gentleman was to pass the Corn Bill, and then, if expedient, to appeal to the country. Petitions bad been signed by 250,000 persons against the Bill, and their rejection of the measure ought to be attended to. He could place confidence in neither the Hon. Gentle man's opponents, nor in the present Government, for men who had been caught twice in a trap ought never to be allowed to get out of it. He bad no confidence in their wish for the wel fare of the country, and he should feel it his duty, when a mea -1 sure more efficient was brought forward, to vote for it ; but to get rid of the present Government, which was the best measure he could promote at the present time, he should join certainly with the Noble Lord, and vote against the second reading; of the proposed atrocious measure. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had paid particular at tention to the mass of Parliamentary evidence which had been laid down by his friend the member for the City of Oxford. The Hon. Member was of opinion that if a measure was intro duced on the responsibility of her Majesty's Government for the protection of life in Ireland, that being the assumption on the face of the Bill, but it did not much matter what might he the intention of the Bill, still it was their duty, the Bill having been referred to that House to be deliberated on, to give their assent to that Bill. To that doctrine he (Lord J. Russell) could by no means assent. He could understand that upon a motion to bring in a Bill, or in the first bringing ap of a Bill from the House of Lords, that so much was due to her Majesty's Government that it might- be right to e'snsent to the in troduction of the Bill, in order that it might be fully and freely discussed, but that the law-makers of the country were not to consider what those laws were— that they were not to consider the effect of those measures, but blindly consent to them—was a proposition which seemed to him so contrary to all his notions of Parliamentary duties that it was impossible for him to countenance that doctrine in any way. In commencing a review of the proposed it w hich was tempted to take the course in objecting hteon it a usually adopted by a Minister of the .Crown thew pre sentingrown,when Bill for their consideration. A Minister . of of great importance, generally about to propose any measure th ushered it in by quoting some parag rap he throne which had been affecting the welfare of the country from the .peecli from In the present case delivered at the opening of Parliam e nt . l he did not think that her Majesty's M ini s ters could make a similar application, because he thought that the Queen's speech was a strong argument against the proposed measure. Her speech, Majest in that ca ll e d attention to the frequent y, acts assa ssi nation committed in Ireland, and of outrage and wished to knew whether any measure could not be devised to prevent those ou t rag es, and to bring to justice the perpetra tors of them. A delay of five months, after such an announce ment from the Throne, ensued before any measures were taken.—(Hear, hear.) Iler Majesty's Ministers bad not suffi cient confidence in the measures they had prepared, or, as it bad been said, the press of public business h prevented them proceeding with those measures. There were two courses open, either of which it would have been competent for her Ma jesty's Ministers to have adopted, and would have been per fectly compatible with the dignity of the Government and that House. One course would have been to have introduced a temporary measure for the purpose of introducing the impor tation of food, and also to have introduced a temporary mea sure for the protection of life in Ireland, thus leaving the great measure of the corn-laws in its native integ rity open to the un fettered and dispassionate consideration of that House. With respect to the measure he was bound to consid er the grounds whi c h were urge d in'favour of the Bill. The am o o u u n nt of crime which was sa id t o b e the foundation of it be was b d to consider: he was bound to consider in wh at manne bound to ters had arrived at that amount of crime ; he was measure did afford that remedy consider whet her the present niets ection to life and property; and, lastly, whether mea sures which was likely to increas e p r of a different character would not have removed the c ause of te a lleged insecurity of life. But the Noble Lord who h o lds the office of Secretary for Ireland i n troduced this Bill in a speech which he owned gave him con siderable embarrassment. In the early period of th e sess i on t h e y were told of dreadful murders — of murders committed in the open day; and he had thought that the speech of the Noble Earl would have given them some details of those outrages but the crimes the Noble Earl mentioned were of an ordinary character, nor could he gather from the statement of the Noble Earl that they were different to, or greater in amount, than those which had been committed for several years past. But the Noble Earl put it to him whether, having supported a similar measure in 1848, brought forward under similar circumstances to those of the present day, he could refuse his assent to the Bill now before the House. He would answer that appeal at once. It was no reason because an Hon. Member had supported a measure which went beyond the constitution at one period of his life, he ought to support it at another:; but the Noble Lord having made this appeal to him, he must trouble the House with a review of his conduct with regard to measures of this descrip tion. Soon after he entered Parliament in I Sl7, indeed in the year 1819, a measure was brought forward to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and what was called the " Six Acts" was introduced to remedy the disturbances which then pre vailed in the manufacturing districts. Following the opinions of the political party to which he belonged, he voted in support of the measure. Soon after : he came into office, a disturbance of a similar character, accompanied by declamations of the same democratic character, broke out in the country, but after due and careful examination he came to the conclusion that it was better not to make any alteration in the constitutional law of the country, and he came down to that House to ask for an increased military and con stabulary force. He recollected that the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury acquiesced in the proposal he made, and with this increased force, and with the aid of pro secutions under the ordinary law, the country was restored to a state of tranquillity. After the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury came into office, a disturbance, very similar in its nature, occurred in the manufacturing dis tricts—perhaps it was of a still more alarming character—and theßight Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the House Department pursued the course he had done before him. He sent down an increased military force to the disturbed des. AT %v