The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-29 00:00:00

sit,' that existed for the construction of aline of railway to accommo date the traffic, and furnish a free intercommunication. The engineering evidence: was gone into, from which it appeared that the line could be constructed without having to contend against any peculiar difficulties, and that the estimates were fully sufficient to carry out the construction of the works. The line of examination was objected to on several occasions during the progress of the inquiry by the opponents to the scheme, but the o;jections were not always sustained. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock. GROUP LVI. The Select Committee appointed to conskler the merits of the 13llla comprised in this 'group re-assembled at the usual hour this mornin; • Mr. Ewart in the chair. LONDON AVM 33LACILWALL EXTMNSION. Mr. Whiteman, the superintendent of the existing line, was called to prove that last year 3,300,000 passengers were carried over the Black well Railway, while it was calculated that if the extension passed, the number would be augmented to upwards of half a million more. This closed the case for the promoters. Mr. t;t:RNEY then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, who contended that the public necessity for the extension was not sufficient to justify the destruction of private property which it would involve. The Leanicd Counsel pointed out to the Committee that not a single witness had been called to speak to the necessity for the extension, and complained that it would not be fair to grant It upon the evidence of witnesses who were °dicers of the company promoting the Bill. The ease w!vs then adjourned till Monday week. ENinzzD AND EDMONTON. This case was then gone into. It was opened by Mr. JAM 79, who stated that the o;Jject of the Bill was for making a railway of two wades and seven furlongs in length from the Eastern Counties line near Edmonton, to the town of Enfield. The cost was estimated at 36,6001. Mr. Waddington, deputy-chairman of the Eastern Counties Company, who resides at Enfield, Captain Owen, a merchant and lhipowner, also residing at Enfield, Dr Miller, of Edmonton, and Mr. Winstona, of Enfield, were called, to prove the adva;:tag,es the proposed line would confer on the neighbourhoods through which it passed. Mr. Borthwick, the engineer of tha Northern and Eastern Com pany, proved that the engineering features of the line were highly fkorourable, while its cost would not exceed 36,0001. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till Monday, the Bth of June. Sub-Committee, No. 4. This Committee should have met to-day at twelve o'clock, but up to thre, o'clock Mr. Shirley and Mr. Hope Drummond only were in attendance ; and a sufficient number of members not arriving to make a Committee, no business was transacted. STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES. HOUSE OF LORDS. The Committee met to-day at two o'clock, Their Lordships resolved themselves into a Committee on the mcnit4, 'and declared the preamble of the Colchester, Stour Valley, Sndtmry, and Halstead Railway proved.—Adjourned until after the holidays, for amendments. The preamble of the Rugby and Stamford Railway was also de clary.l to be proved, but to hear further evidence as to the level crossings.—Their Lordships then adjourned. WHITEHAYEN AND FURNESS JUNCTION RAILWAY. —SPECIAL MEETING. A special meeting of the proprietors, shareholders, and scripholders to o k p l ace yesterday, at Guildhall Chambers, yasinghall-street, to consider the - propriety of their proceed ing with their Bill in Parliament. LordLonsdale took the chair. The SErTET.kRY read the advertisement convening the meetirg and the heads of the Bill which they sought to obtain. The meeting had formerly been twice adjourned for the want of a sufficient number of shares being represented, only 2,756 having appeared, but at the present meeting there were 5,829 represented. The whole capital of the line was 17,5001. RPselutions in favour of proceeding with the line were put from the chair, and passel unanimously. The CHAN:MAN observed that the company were pro ceeding with the line as fast as possible. A vote of thanks having i.2een passed to the Chairman, the fleeting adjourned. ,AICSE, BELFAST, AND BALLY- MENA RAILW AY.-SPECIAL MEETING. A special meeting of the proprietors, scripholders, and shareholders of this Company took place yesterday at the London Tavern, in pursuance of the sessional orders of both Houses of Parliament; Mr. Spottiawoode in the chair. The SECRETARY read the advertisement convening the meeting. A strong opposition to the further proceeding with the Bill in Parliament took place, but on a scrutiny- it was found that the total number of shares re presented were 2,830, and that 1,980 were in favour of pro ceeding With the Bill, whilst 1,690 were against it, leaving a majority of over 300 in favour of the progress of the Bill. The original length of the line was 45 miles, but in consequence of the Shares net having been paid up, it was reduced to 14. The Cornnany bad spent the 15,0001. paid up, and brought the shareholders 1,30 W. in debt. The meeting then separated. LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAI WAY.—SPECIAL MEETING. A special meeting of this Company was held yesterday at ne of Commerce to consider the propriety of proceeding with their Bill. Henry Howard, of Graystock Castle, in tho chair. The meeting was mersly formal, and resolutions in favour of proceding with the Bill were unanimously carried. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. BRISTOL, MAY 27 STOCK ExclaANGE.—The sales are—Bristol and Exeter, New, 10! , ; --Bristol and South Wales Junction, ley—Great Western, Quar ter shares, 1634-21i,Iland, New, 32—Newcastle and Darlington Junction, New, B%—North Staffordshire, 4 ',4 p.—York and North Midland, 97—bitto, East and West Riding, I Is. MANCHESTER, MAY 27. STOCK Excrrasoz.—The sales are—Cambridge and Oxford, % dis.—Derby and Crewe, 3% p.— Eastern Counties, Perpetual (No. 2), 7 1-IG —East Lincolnshire, par—Goole, D oncas t er, Sh e ffi e ld , & c., dis.—Lancashire and North Yorkshire, % dis.—Leicester and Bedford, 3-16 p.—Liverpool and Bury, New Shares, 2 p.—Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Preston, 1 p.—Liverpool, Preston, Manchester, and Southport, 34 dis. —Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock, 21s. 3d. p.-- Manchester and Birmingham, 80% —Ditto, Quarters (B), 5 p.— Ditto, ditto (C), S p.—North Eastern, 3)s. 6d. dts.—North Stafford shire, 37 p.—North Western, 5-16: p.— Shropshire Union, 15-16 dis.—South-Eastern and Dover, Halves, No. 4, Os. p.—South Mid land, )4 dis.—Wakefleld, Pontefract, and Goole, Extension, 6% p.— Welsh Midland, 245. dis.—West Riding Union, 2 9-16 p. —Whitchaven and Furness, Extension, 34 die. LEEDS, Mar 27. SEOCE EXCHANGE. —The sales are—Eastern, cptqcsaWE l Zl beWirtiry,l43.p. c.—Manchester and Leeds Extensions, 21. 16s. p.—Manchester and Birmingham, Quarter Shares (B), 854 p.—North British, Carlisle Branch, 1 p.—Ambergate, Nottingham, and Bos ton, 223. Ms —Birkenhead, Chester, Moll, &c., 235. dis.—Chelms ford and Bury, 17s. dis.—Clitheroe Junction, 1 % dis.—Direct Northern, % dia.—Glasgow and Dumfries, % dis.—Great Eastern and Western, 30s. 6d. dia.—Lancashire, Yorkshire, and North Eastern, 295. dls. —Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland, 7s dis.—Leices ter and Bedford, 4s. 6d. p. —Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Preston, 1% p.—London and York, Is. 6d. dLs.—Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 245. p.—Northumberland and Lancashire Junction, 20s. 6d. dis. —North Staffordshire, 41. Is. p.—North Western, }i p. —Welsh Midlands, 243. dis.—West Riding Union, 4/. 13s. 6d. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, MAY 27. STOCK tXCHANOE.—The sales are—Eastern Counties, York Ex tension, 3( p.—Liverpool, Ilanchester, and Newcastle Junction, 34 clic —North British, Halves, ilawick, 3 p.—North Staffordshire, .374 p.—Newcastle, and Berwick, 1034 p.—Nortkumberland and Lan cashire, 208.—Perth and Inverness, 18s. 6d. dish—West Riding Union, 234 p SHEFFIELD, MAT 27, STOCK EXcluttoz.—The sales are—Midland, 149—Midland, Shef field, and Itotherham, 34q—Grimsby and She Meld Extensions, 10s. dis —Ditto; Quarter Shares, ss. dia.—East Lincolnshire, par—Man chester, Shafthld, and Midland Junction, 2% die.— North Western, 6s. p.—Sheffield and Lincolnshire, 3s. 6d. p. HUDDERSFIELD, MAT 27, STOCK tXCHANGE.—The sales are--Clitheroe Junction, 235. 6d. —Great Eastern and Western, 20e.—Huddersfield, Halifax, and Brad ford Union; 4—London, Salisbury, and Yeovil, 3Gs. 6d.—Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 31. ss.—tiorth Staffordshire, 4' — North Weitern, 28s.—South Midland, 30s.—Welsh Midland, 255. London arid York, 2% —Glasgow and Dumfries, 425. lILLi., MAY 27. STocx EXCIIANGE.—The sales are—London and Plackwal Ex tension, 2 d:s.—North British, Carlisle, 445. 3.1. —Derby and Gains borough, - Ns. 31.—Direct Northern, 41s.— East Lincolnshire, 19s. 6d.—Goole,. Doncaster, Sheffield, &c., Ili—Hull and Barnsley Junc tion, 265._--Lceds, Wakefield, and Midland, 32s.—Leicester and Bedford, 251. 11—Leicester and 'ramworth, 275: 9d.—Manchester, Sheffield, and Midland, 2% North Western, 278.—South Midland, 343—Shrewsbury and Birtningharu, 214—West Riding Union, 41. les 3d. YORK, MAT 27. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The sales are—Leicester and Bedford, 11. 55'. 6d.—Londdii and Y.:l.k, 2/. BR.—Newcastle and Berwick, 25% —North British, Carlisle Extension, 2/. 55. 6d.—Ycrk and North Midland, New (East And West Riding), 11%. GLASGOW, MAY 26. STOCK ExcaasciE.—The sale. 3 arc—Airdrie and Bathgate, 595. Ayr anil Calloway, 22s.—BritIsh and Irish Union, 41s. 6d.—Calsdo nlati, 10% ) . , , Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Extension, 28s. 6d.— East Indian Railway, iGs. —Forth and Clyde Junction, 38s.—Glas gow Genek.il Terminus, 9% —Glasgow and Belfast Union, 425. Glar;gow xid Greenock, 16N—Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardros san, 233.-::Kitharnock and Ayr Direct, 37s.—Lanark and Lothians, 415. 6d.—Lesmahagow, 45s.—Manchester and Southampton, 323. — Perth and Cried, 323. 6d.—Scottish Central, 15%—South Mid land, 291. TIIE FATAL COLLISION ON THE MERSEY. LlvE :POOL, WEDxF..sD7t;.—Cpon making inquiry at the Northern Hospital this m o rning we learned that most of the Slitr,rers by the late collision on the river are going on as well as can be expected. Three of them are so badly injured and hav e h a d so many b ones fractured, that little or no hope ; are enter rained of their the mat twenty-four recovery. s. They can scarcely survive The Itambler was e r fl ia o ' r a o e t u n e r c d e ac ross the river last night, and is now lying in the Dock-basin, She will be hauled up on the gridiron to-day, lari.idete necessary repairs will be done to her immediately. Nymph has been hauled up to one - of the southern gravin ,, lc s o t cks, where workmen are ein. IC i a s thought fortnim, t she or engaged in repairing her injured will again be ready for sea in the cat:rse of three weeks. The Rambler may probably be ready for sea about the same time. Many rumours are again afloat to-day as to the causes which led to the lamentable catastrophe, but the public will do well to forbear from giving credence to any of them until the inquests in Liverpool and at the Magazines shall have first taken place. It, is sincerely to be wished that the jurors may be men of practical maritime experience, and that all the evidence will be placed before them which can in any way throw light on the melancholy disaster. The inquest on the two dead bodies now lying at the Northern Hospital will be held before Mr. Curry, the borough coroner, but, as yet, no time has been fixed for commencing the inquiry. We have already stated in our first edition that the inquest on the thirteen bodies lying dead at the Maga zines will commence before Mr. Churton, the Chester coroner, on Tuesday next. It is probable, f oom what we have just heard, that the in quests on this and the other side of the water will be opened on the same day (Tuesday next.), and that, in all probability, they will last several (lays.—Liverpool paper. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND HEARING. 39, Albeit - ) ; rle-street, Piccadilly. Newly-invented Spectacles, Tele scopes, Opeta Glasses, Microscopes, &c. Patronised by Generals Sir Edward Paget, Sir Evan Lloyd, Sir John Beatings, Maiston, Frederick Goodfello - ,v, Clayton, Grosvenor Morrison, Dyott Robert son, Mackenzie, Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, Walker, Fox, Price, Liddsay, and Thackray ; Major Generals Sir 11. Elphinstone, Sir John Rosa, Sir James Cockburn, Achinty, P. Eyers, I). Macleod, Bouverie Sk J. , Faedonall, Sir 11. Harlon, Sir T. Dallas, and Sir Wm. Eustance : Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir George MandaY, Sir George Martin, Sir James H. Wilitsbeti, Sir D. Gold, Ross, Alexander, Curzons, Tompkinson, Hollis, and Price, Vie-Adiniral Sir F. Austen ; Rear-Admirals Brown and Ribouleau, &e. Messrs. S. an 1 B. Soloinons, Opticians, have invented Spec tacle lenses pon a new construction. Immediately they are placed ly:f.e . 2 nriperiect vision, that mist and dullness which appear before the that is at once r emove d , every Object becomes clear and distinct, so taat the iaost aged imperfect sight becomes bright and brilliant, an is brought S( youthful, n a t ura l , and original state. Also, ' Achromatic Telescops,, Opera Glasses, Microscopes Invisible and al kln Is of _kanuatic li,iatruments, for relief of most extreme deafness. Caa s tion - Messrs. S. and B. Soloinons, Opticians, are not in any way con iected with a person of the same nam e h i their Immediate neigh bourhood. To prevent mistakes be cautious, an d Obser ve—ollyto . be had at 39, Albema 16 .3 reet, opposite the York H o t e l . [ADVERTISEMEN'e.] —A DANGEROUS DISEASE OF VIE LIVER AND STOMACH CURED BY HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS. —Mr. Thomas Randall, 7, Cottage-place, Soloman's-lane, Limehause, formerly a farmer, declares that his health for twenty ye :rs past had been so very precarious, owing to a derangement of the liver and stomach, that he was freonently set ed with violent spasms, which so nearly choked him that Le often anticipated the being found dead by his laboa - ers, but spite of such d tngerous symptoms,- he was perfectly cured in the course of a month by rub bing Holloway's Ointment into his chest, stomach, and right side, and taking his celebrated Pills, which are Sold by all druggists, aLd at the Proprietor's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, 31 - ay 28. 'I heir Lordships met at ten minutes to Five o'clock. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the county of Perth against the Nlinisterial measure. Earl HAREWOOD also presented a petition, signed by 4,280 of the most respectable inhabitants of Dorking, praying their Lordships not to pass the Bill for the repeal of the corn-laws, as they conceived it was fraught with the greatest danger to the country. ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. Earl POWIS introduced a Bill for the disjunction of these sees, which was read a first time. CORN-LAWS. Earl HARDWICK presented a petition from the Commis sioners of the Bedford Level, setting forth that they had, by the expenditure of large sums of money in the erection of steam enginos for draining the land succeeded in reclaiming a perfect morass, and making it excel lent growing land that it was now flourishing that they were interested in the maintenance of protection, and praying their Lordships not to assent to a repeal of the corn-laws. EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL. On the motion that this Bill be read a second time, The Duke of RICHMOND rose and objected to the course now proposed :o be taken. It was contrary to the usual prac tiee of the House to enter upon business of that kind until the presentation of petitions was over, especially did he object to any departure from the usual course when such an important Bill as the Corn Bill was under the consideration of the House. CORN-LAWS. The NOBLE DUKE then proceeded to present a petition against the Ministerial measure, on the corn-laws, from the landowners, tenant-farmers, and others, resident at Chelms ford, in the county of Essex. • Petitions in favour of the Government measure were pre sented by Lord Radnor, by the Earl of Ripon, and by Earl St. Germans. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented petitions from the county of Essex against the Corn Importation Bill. Lord BEAUMONT presented similar petitions. The Earl of DALHOUSIE, in presenting a petition, said that the petition which he had the honour of pre senting was numerously signed by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the City of London. The petitioners prayed that their Lordships would pass the mea sure which her Majesty's Government had introduced be fore the House. The petition was signed by twenty-four of the Directors of the Bank of England, by nineteen of the bankers of London, and by two hundred and seventeen of the merchants and traders of the City.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure that whether as regarded the intelligence of the persons signing the petition, or the material interest which they had in the measure which was then before their Lordships, their Lordships would give that petition the consideration it deserved. He would not enlarge on the influence which ought to attach to that petition, but he might remind their Lord ships that a petition was presented in 1820 which had given rise to the system of commercial policy which had been from that period step by step pursued. In the same way he trusted that this petition from the merchants of Lon don would cause their Lordships to sanction a course of policy which would lead to renewed and extended commercial policy. Lord ASHBURTON would venture to say that it would be easy to obtain a petition as large, and t s numerously signed, informing their Lordships that in Ca a.: ali is t a.s measure was fraught with danger to the interests of the people of this country.—(Cheers from the cress benches.) He thought it necessary to say these few words upon the subject. The petition merely expressed their individual opinion. Lord BROUGHAM quite agreed with the Noble Lord, that this petition was one expressing the opinions of individuals. But. if it be true that such a petition could so easily be brought forward by his Noble Friend upon such a question, he pro nounced the City of London to have totally changed their opi nion since his Noble Friend presented their memorable petition against the corn-laws:in the year 1815. Lord MONTEAGLE did not consider that the signatures to this petition might not necessarily infer a perfect una nimity of opinion upon the subject. It did not follow, that a petition of quite another effect might be presented here after. He hoped the Bill would not be disposed of by the vote of to-night, he therefore invited his Noble Friend to use all his influence with the merchants of London to produce a counter-petition from them. Earl DALHOUSIE did not intend to provoke any dis cussion on this occasion. He did not state tnat it was a pe tition of the City of London, but a petition, signed by mer chants and bankers of the City of London, and wished to draw the attention of their Lordships to the respectable nature of the signatures attached to it. The Duke of RICHMOND —I should like to know, my Lords, how many of these persons have got any of the bonded corn ? —( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) Lord BROUGHAM must say that the Noble Duke had made an ingenious observation in the form of a remark, but he confessed he did not hear the same observations made when the petition was presented in 1820.—( Hear, bear. 1 Lord ASHBURTON said the petition alluded to by his Noble and Learned Friend contained an expression of the opinion of the merchants of the City of London against re strictions in trade generally, and not against the corn-laws. He doubted, however, whether even that petition was signed by the majority of the most considerable merchants of the City of London. Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask his Noble Friend whether the petition against the restrictions on trade generally contained any exception as to corn ?—•( Hear, hear.): The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from the landowners and tenant-farmersfof the county of Essex against the Corn Bill. Earl DALHOUSIE presented petitions from the mer chants and brokers of Liverpool, from certain operatives of Stockport, from the merchants of Kingston-upcn- Hull, and from the Commercial Association of Man chester, in favour of the Corn Bill.—( Hear, hear. ) Also a similar petition from the American Chamber of Com merce, Liverpool.—(Hear, hear.) VENTILATION OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIA MENT. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had received a communication from Dr. Reid in some degree explanatory of the intense heat which their Lordships had suffered on the last night of debate. He had also received a communica tion from a Mr. Gurney, who cffered to ventilate the House upon a new principle. He would not recommend them to adopt any theory, but to resort to the good old prin ciple by which the former Houses of Parliament was venti rlB-F.l) — lneere"ivas One ' fact which he ' would state to their Lordships with reference to Thursday night. 1 The thermometer, brought in at 61, had, before the candles were lighted up, risen to 75. He would ask that the letter might be laid before the House. Lord BROUGHAM had no objection whatever to make to his Noble Friend's motion. He had experienced much injury from the excessive heat en Monday night, and what he wanted was not explanation, but air.—( Loud laughter.) He should not care a straw for any explanation which might be offered to their Lordships by the ventilation of the House —( Hear. ) It was a hard thing that he was to be tortured like some low animal by Dr. Reid, or any other doctor.—( Laughter.) He really believed that at the bottom Dr. Reid was a heartless de ceiver.—( Laughter and cheers.) , Lord CANNING handed in the letter alluded to by the Noble Marquis. CORN-LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Earl GREY—Before I address the House on the subject of the order of the day, I beg to present two petitions relating to that subject—one' from the Town Council of Hastings, beg ging your Lordships to pass the Bill now before the House immediately and unimpaired; also a similar petition from Wilts. Sly Lords, I am conscious that the subject which is now before the House has been both in and out of Parliament, by speeches and writings, so long and so fully dis cussed, that your Lordships may well be of opinion that no new argument remains to be urged upon it, and that you must therefore naturally be anxious to bring this debate to a close. My Lords, I can assure you I should not have contributed to the delay, I should not have ventured to tres pass upon your Lordships' attention on the last night that we sat, with what, I fear, must be thought pertinacity, were it not that, having for many yi ars taken a deep interest in this question, I could not reconcile it to myself to stand about from this, I trust, the final battle of that great cause, or to allow this debate to conclude without showing the deep interest I took in the debate. My Lords, I must further say, that one strong inducement--one principal reason which urged me to a strong desire to address your Lordships, was my feeling that a great impression had been made up ,n your Lordships by the speech which we heard on the first night of the debate, and which was listened to with such just and general admiration— of course I mean the speech of my Noble Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies, for whose absence this evening, from whatever cause it may arise, I very greatly regret.—( Hear.) My Lords, I can assure you I listened to that speech with as much delight as any of your Lordships because, though I think nay Noble Friend made an ad.nirable speech, he was much misinformed in what he stated to your Lord ships. His reasons were unsound, and his conclusions were unjust; but still his arguments were so ingenious, and were put with so much skill, and clothed in language of such ex- i treme beauty—in fact, the w hole speech was so brilliant a dis plays of rhetorical talent, that for upwards of three hours it received the attention of every Noble Lord who listened to it, making it unlike most other speeches—not a labour but a pleasure to hear. I know that some of the arguments in that speech have already been answered, es pecially by the Noble and Learned Lord who followed him in the debate, and by a Noble Friend of mine, who now sits behind me, and who spoke on the subject last evening. But it seems to me that there are still some por tions of that speech to which it is required that your Lordships' attention should be called, I am not vain or pre sumptuous enough to suppose that I am fit to enter into the lists with my Noble Friend, but I have such confidence in t hs h hu e rp p sb o : se es e hn r dasnodf that. truth, m .oyi e t s l os i Tn a u t eee l e believe ossffhut 11,1 l ely ms t u h Q a rce t e eti,ei? recommended. r cause tant ot. even in oLf 0 mr m dy y . N Ll b d ie shi F p r s ien th d. al he n' e ts I been wrong. The tion I shall have to address t o Lord ships is, that through the whole satisfying, your first observe co j s o e u r of debate it has struck me very forcibly that those Noble Lord s who have been opposed to the Bill have all avoided explicitly reviewing and defending that which I take to be the main point and hold of the existing corn-laws, as well es of all other laws upon the same subject. It is clear that the real aim of these laws and the object of all laws intro duced, is that of securing a remunerative price i f corn, or in other words to raise the price of food to the people by an artificial supply It appears to me that, as I hay ventured humbly to submit to your Lordships, this is the real intention and object of all these laws; it is one which requires people a n r c e l u m cl e u t c l h t h t a : t blbja.eewests. desired. which in t , be proved by argument, and in the absence of all argument, unless cogent reasons can b . e adduced t, in favour of so artificial will give cheapness o repeal of those laws will accomplish a restriction of the supply, to it t m he us p t e ' P e p other than those Lords who have spoken, asert that the They represent that Particular, most Noble which the I think are its teal s to proteet U 3 from the great ( food l' which is necessary to the nations for a supply of that great object of the present lawia,nawearsotfo dependencesecure cer u t itn 2 s fo u r P e P i re st n L d have pat many Noble or 3 These RTC the arguments which existence of the people of this country.—( Hear, hear.) offence, I may forward Now, my Lords, without meaningany be permitted to say that it is quite out of nay power to reseed this in any other light than as a colourable e areumeat— t is n supported. o t the re L real objectet m forejust whichst ask you this ? Suppose the i)o s e i a w a similar argument, and under similar circumstances, were urged by us, would those Noble Lords, who now oppose the repeal of the corn-laws give implicit creditto th us fee the sincerity of our motives? I will suppose the cotton manufactures of this country, instead of menufac- turieg for the whole world, manufacture only for our own domestic cansumption—that the price of cotton in this country was much higher than in the rest of the world, and that the goods produced elsewhere were excluded from our markets by the high protective duties—now, my Lords, if under such circumstances the question before the House were, whether we should repeal such high protective duties on cotter', and suppose the cotton manufacturers of this country were to some to U 3 and say, " Do not be so rash as to repeal those duties, as you will leave yourselves dependent on foreign nations, and your 1 population will be without shirts and gowns, and you lament your great rashness." I want to kuow whether we should feel perfectly convinced that it was this disinterested feeling for the consumers that dictated such a course i and I want to know whether if this were clone, if high duties were created, if a bed . , of manufacturers were to meet and no other persons were present, they would not discuss the grand topics of hi g h rates charged to the British manufacturer, and the cer tainty, if those protective laws weie repealed, of the evils that would ensue, that bales of foreign goods would rush into our markets, and that certain destruction of our manufacturers and others would be the result. Should we under such circum stances believe that it was a mere regard to the interests of rite consumers that dictated their prayers ? My Lords, I must say in the same manner that I am a little incredulous whether that which has excited the enthusiasm of protection societies— that which has drawn such large crowds toeetker at Willis's rooms that the two Noble Dukes who sit on the cross benches were obliged to divide their farces and to preside over different meetings—l say I cannot entertain a doubt, when that which has excited such a feeling among the produce rs o f corn , an d when I do not find such a feeling among the consumers, I say it was a mere apprehension at some future time our supplies from abroad might fail, and as a consequence that prices might rise to an extravacant height, I cannot help thinking that the apprehension of having too much corn and also too low prices will not be verified. If I were to refer to a sufficient answer to that, it is to be found in the argument employed by the Hon. and Learned Lord (Brougham) the first night of the debate, when be referred to the fact—the indisputable fact—that Napo leon, in the heighth of his power, and daring the most exciting period of the French revolutionary war, was unable to exclude corn front being imported into the English ports. If that one fact is not conclusive, and if you wish more, I need only refer to what was said by the Noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colo nies, when he stated, in the course of his address, that competition was the cause of certain artieere not rising in price. He stated, in the boldest and most authoritative manner, that of all the paradoxes that ever were conceived the doctrine that competition did not lead to the making of articles cheap was the worst.—(Hear, hear.) It is just as well a paradox to assert that the best security to the receiving of a plentiful and cheap supply of food is by the imposition of artificial restrictions on national and commercial intercourse. It has been argued, that the measure before the House should be rejected on the consideration that this subject is not one for legislation. If there be one question more than another on which I entertain a strong opinion, it is that the present question is a great and proper object of legislation.--( Hear, hear.) What is the effect of this raising of the price of corn by the operation of a re strictive law? It was well put by the Noble Earl that spoke the last night of the debate (Lord Clarendon). He showed, on the calculations of the Noble Earl opposite (Lord Stanley), and from a calculation taken from correct data, that the amount in the fall of price and the amount in the increase of consumption that would take place if the existing corn-laws did not exist could not be less than ten millions of money. Double the amount of the income-tax, and double the amount of the malt-tax,-- a tax not a farthing of which goes into the exchequer for national purposes; but a tax imposed for the benefit —I will not say the benefit, but rather the injury, or at least the imaginary benefit—of a single class of society.—( Cheers. ) But, my Lords, I know that it has been said that this is an unfair representation of the circumstances. I know that it has been admitted that the price of corn has been raised by the corn-laws—it has been admitted that the payment of a high, r price for their food is in itself a burden to the working classes. Still it is asserted that no real injury is done by this system of protection to agriculture, be cause the facts which result from the existing law show that its effect is to keep up wages in the same proportion that it keeps up the price of corn. This was the great argu ment of the Noble Lord who spoke so ably on Monday night. I cannot help remarking that it is perfectly clear, in the first instance, that the increase in the price of food is in itself a heavy tax on the working classes, a large proportion of whose income is expended in thee purchase of food. But it is asserted that the effect of the corn-laws is to keep up the wages of the labourer. We ought to be sure that this is the fact; it is net one which ought to be taken for granted, without the fullest and closest investiga tion. But that that lies at the root of the matter was lightly glanced over by the Noble Lord. He argued that if the price of corn was low, competition in labour would bring down wages in the same proportion, and, therefore, that the industrious classes would be no gainers. This is an easy way of disposing of the question, but it is not by any means a satisfactory one, and it was the less satisfactory because his Noble Friend made an admission which would lead to a directly opposite conclusion. He admitted that you by your legislative measures did not in terfere with the rate of wages. He told us that wages did not fall in the same degree as corn did, and, therefore, ho really admitted that when the price of wheat rose the working man was exposed for the time to a considerable pressure. lam sure your Lordships will admit that I have not unfairly stated this argument of the Noble Lord. lam sure that the experi ence which we have had in the last few years is perfectly satis factory upon this point, if we compare the state of things in this country in the dear years as compared with the cheap ones. If you compare the state of things in the years 18.33, 1834, and 1835, when wheat was low, with the years 1939, 1840, and 1841, when it was dear and scarce, you will find that in the first of those years there was a great demand for labour, and wages were high, while in the last of those years you will find, on the contrary, that trade was slack, that there was no demand for labour, that wages had fallen, and that numbers of persons were thrown out of employment. The ca lamitous state of the country during these years is a matter so recent, and it has made such an impression on every person who knew what the condition of the people really was, as to render it unnecessary for me to dwell upon it. But, my Lords, the reason of this state of things is obvious. There can be no doubt at all that the difficulty of these unhappy years to which I have referred can be easily accounted for. When corn rose to a high price, every family throughout the kingdom was compelled to expend a very large por tion of their income to obtain a supply of food, and there was, of course, a less available income for other things. There was less available income for clothing, for tea, for sugar, and other articles of that nature. There was leas demand for manufactured goods, for the articles of the small shopkeepers, and the merchant. There was, therefore, a general diminution of their power of employing labourers, and a general eiminution in the consumption of the producing classes. This explanation is quite sufficient to account for the sufferings of that year. I ask what possible reason there is for believing, if these prices are low, the price of food becomes permanent. I see no reason of the kind, I believe permanently as well as temporarily, if the price of food is high, there is a small proportion of national income available for other pur poses, and therefore a comparatively small demand for labour, and a larger proportion of s p a id axio n t a:n dTr o v prices, the population consume other things in larger quantities there is a great demand for labour, and consequently a prosperous state of things takes place. I presume the correctness of this course of reasoning is strongly borne out by fact, because when we look to other countries where there is this state of things—permanent low prices of food—in these countries we invariably find wages high. The Noble Earl, who spoke last night, admitted the fact. He said it was per fectly true that wages did not appear to be governed by the price of food, because, he said, in America and Australia, where the price of corn is low wages are high. In Poland, the price of corn is high, and the wages are low, being kept down by the mis.government of that unhappy country, the restrictions upon industry, and the want of employment. I challenge my 'Noble Friend to mention any country in the world, from Ca nada to Australia, where there is a small population, with an extended territory, where food is cheap, and where there is good order and good Government—l defy him to mention any such country where wages are not exceedingly high. I believe that is an acknowledged fact, and I further contend that the reason for these high wages is to be found in that abun dance of food, for while food is abundant there was a competi tion amongst employers fur labour, whereas when food was scarce, and in a thickly peopled country, the competition was amongst labourers to find employment.—( Hear, hear.) If you apply restr.ctive laws upon the trade in food, you increase the disadvantages under which a fully peopled county necessarily labour, because if you interfere with or restrict the trade of a large corn-producing country, you increase the proportion of your unemployed labourer', who otherwise would be engaged in manufacturing goods for those corn-producing countries— ( Cries of " Hear, hear")—while, on the other hand, if you encourage the mutual interchange of products with such countries as Hungary, Poland, and America, you are increasing the inevitable disadvantages to which the la bourers of a thickly populated country are necessarily sub jected.—( Hear, hear.) After, however, what fell from a Noble Friend beside me upon the subject of the interchange of the commodities between a fertile, though a thinly populated country, and a thickly populated country, I should be ashamed to trouble your Lordships with a single word further upon this part of the subject.—( Hear, hear.) It is this interchange of commodities which keeps wages up in both countries. But I see a Noble Marquis opposite denies the justness of my con elusions, and I hope in the course of the debate he will point out to me where my chain of reasoning is defective. It I am right in this argument, that one fact ought to be con clusive, and there ought to be an end to all future argu ment—if we are once satisfied of that fact, no other argument, in a Christian country, ought for cne moment to be used against the measure.— ( Hear, hear. ) 'When I look at the condition to which the labouring classes have been subjected, when I consider how frightful has been shown the condition of the agricultural labourers in Dorsetshi re an d W i l ts hi re, when I know how much they are below what we could desire, even in the most favoured countries), and when at the same time I know that the effect of the earn-laws, which are still working, is to depress wages and raise the price of food, it seems to me that it is utterly - useless to argue the question further. Those who, in the year 1842, ca led themselves the farmers' friends, did a most serious injury to those who were so gullible as to believe. They rushed into the markets to get rid of their property, but they very soon found cut, I believe, how great had been their mistake; and it is my conviction that the country has not yet recovered from the effects of their folly. I am happy to find that, notwithstanding the agitation and the prophecies which have been n,ade as to the effect of this measure, that land never let better, never sold better, and that a greater spirit of agriculture never existed in this country.—(Hear, hear.) I believe the demand for draining tiles is much increasing—so much so, that the moment a kiln of draining tiles is known to be ready, there is a struggle amongst the farmers of the neigh bourhood as to who shall be first supplied with those necessary articles for the improvement of their land.—( Bear, hear.) My Lords, I think the farmers and occupiers of land need not fear the passing of this measure ; and I think that, from what i gro h un " d e s tated,for th i e t weialeulllb a e tion seen s atu t i hat fea t r here is no Noble F r i en d, and I think that his statement that c s o o f rn can m now be sold in this country much cheaper:lltha I do yis not want—even if it were th e f act that the entirely grou n dl ess . —(H ear, hear.)yprice onf Lords, fcoorrmn ewould greatly fall in consequen ce o f th e passing ofrhe Bill which is now under consideration—l do not want to go to any length on this portion of the question, but at th e same time I cannot help adverting to the statement which was made with very great confidence by my Noble Friend, who spoke on Monday night, as having been previously made by what seemed high practical authority. Cntr My Lords, he told us that there were two cargoes o elh f wa w sa h esd e t a: ltud at bth t y h e i a s moment in this country which had been pm- B g a e lt n i t e le S m e a a n at wi l t 4 h s w ., h a o ri n d i I h a a arrived e certainly t a inly y, and was offered at 235. the quarter. Now, my n in u L t o t r h d i s, ac quainted,iii but who descriue;himself as largely interested in the corn trade—though I meant not to trouble your Lordships with any figures, I hope you will forgive me if I read a very short extract from the letter to which I have li adverted. Thi s nt h e as t sa h y t i wo cargoes o f says it is p er f ect l y t le r t u t e er t i h s at dat L e u d rd " Liverpooy's l , e y . e r s r t e e s r p el o a u y.Z couldas him (m ( m m u i r n e d f h ) :thhmiicrath c made in that letter, that all wheat could wheat imported into this country e t h i o e u p s rtihc an n t a h m e e named t i a n t e u t e i s h t l e w tt h e i r e . h w N a i his sold in this count r y at t h e price named. The original cost is about 335. per quarter, including freight and all other charges that arise from the glorious uncertainty of the sliding-scale. As regards the statement of Lord Stanley's correspondent as to the price o t f wheat e in h this country, I vat a ture to say that wheat cannot be purchased airdadadtedlent than 45., the quarter at Weimar the b r e is s k ol a d s u ndersss. pero that fur ;it cannotallquarter. regards the quality of Taking into consi deration taaes under which it could be bi ought corn, and all the disadvantages before the price of their corn is affected by into this country, freight and all charges than that which the British into this country at a lower pric e I think that the result of corn is now bearing in the mark e a the opening of our ports , their produce could not be introduced there was for the fear at present expressed with regard to the introduction of foreign . ch I have adverted , has protection of some kind to the farm er ou g ht to teach those in terested in land, how lit t le foundati on corn. My friend, in the speech to which My Noble Friend has endeavoured to make_ ou t that the f 1 told us that the manufacture of wool was a stron g case in .poi_n,f., TILE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 29, 1846. in the price of wool was in consequence of the removal of the protection duty. What were the real facts of the case with regard to the wool trace ? The duty on wool was repealed at the time of the great panic in 1825. After that panic the w hole trade of the country was affected for a long time. The value of wool went down like the value of other articles for two or three years before they recovered it. An injury was done to the manufacturers by the existence of high duties at that time. In the year 15_28, when a Comaittee of this House was moved for, the evidence was brought by a number of gentlemen and persons connected with the wool trade, for the purpose of proving that wool at that time was at a ruinous price, and the manufacture of it was not sufficient to pay its expenses. They went on to say, according to the proofs they had on that subject, that the maintenance of the duty would be of advantage to the foreign grower; and they said the depression which they then experienced was nothing to what was coming, and that they should have bales of wool at prices which it was folly for the British grower to attempt to compete with. They stated that the same land which was valuable for the production of corn was valuable for the production of wool, with the same labour, soil, and industry; and in the course of a few years the cheap corn growers would apply themselves to the growth of cheap wool ; and that wool, in proportion to its value ; was of smaller bulk than corn, could be transported a greater distance at less ex pense. wise to freTe-hteradiehuw,eoul,dvas fortunately cause tallpen s t e o . a Therefore ruioug that enough to refuse this committee, and what, he asked, was the extent. the price result? In the course of a short time—in one or two )ears — the price of wool recovered wonderfully. The woollen manu factures were greatly improved, and from that time to this wool has been one of the best articles of manufacture and of profit to the farmer. There was no article on which their profit was greater. The Noble Duke may shake his head. I know something of the price of wool, and what ever may be the price of wool in Sussex, I can inform him that in Northumberland the price of wool on the average of years, from 1828 to this time, has been considerably higher than the prices during the existence of the prohibitory duties. That was a strange fact. We are told that the competition in wool was more dangerous than that in corn, and that the removal of protection will destroy the woollen trade. The experiment of removing the protective duty had turned out well, and was it not reasonable that the same principle should be applied to the corn-laws ? There was another article of the same kind. At the time of the reduction in the tariff it was adverted to with the greatest possible apprehension, as being likely to in troduce cheap corn. My Noble Friend in some portion of his speech, says :—" That in admitting foreign stock, it was actually repealing the corn-laws, for then corn would be im ported in the shape of fat cattle, and the foreign agriculturist would thus be saved the expense of carriage." I believe that my Noble Friend was right. He has been very careful in his arguments to show that the present high prices of stock were owing to the tariff; and so far I am bound to say that I concur with him. We have had four years' experience of the tariff, and if any great alteration has been made in the market by any supplies from abroad, we have seen from the state of the mar ket last year, that far from it causing any re duction, the supplies from abroad have been unable to check the rise in the market, while at the same time the in troduction of the small cattle imported from Germany has pro duced a material effect in that country, and the cattle in many places, in proportion to their size and quality, fetch very nearly as high prices as in this country. I could go on to show that the same thing occurs with reference to the produce of other States. All these things are grown on the same land, by the same labour, and by the same means that are available to pro tection ; and they were all more valuable in proportion to their bulk than corn ; and yet in this article in which the trade is far less, we have found by experience that the British grower has nothing to fear. My Noble Friend has turned rotted and said to us, " If you deny that you expect a fall in the price of corn, what is the advantage you expect from a reduced duty upon it?" He thought that by that question he had reduced us to a dilemma from which there was no escaping. That was the sort of argument he had taken, and it requires very little con sideration to perceive that we do not expect to have a fall in the price of corn, but we expect it will be much more even. We do not believe that we shall have such variation under free trade as we saw when, in 1836, in December, the price of corn was 355., and in 1839 it was 81s. per quarter. We shall have neither of these extremes. We expect ,that we shall have the average prices lower than they have been during the last dozen years, and reduce the amount of fluctuation. The ' Noble Lord has denied that it will render the prices more equal, but I believe that there will be no difficulty in showing your Lordships that the prices will be more secure. What is the invariable regulation of prices? What is it that lowers the prices in dear years, and heightens the prices in cheap years ? It is commerce which bestows this upon us, and which puts us in that superior position to which we were in those barbarous times, when we had at one time a plentiful supply and great distress to the grower, and at another time scarcity of corn, and famine and distress to the consumers. In a civilised country this is the operation of commerce ; a man is been for his own interest. He buys in the cheap year and sells in:the dear year, and in this system of social organisaation, when not. interfered with, regulates the prices so as to check that extensive suffering of one party or another. The opera tion of the tariff has rendered the dealing in corn a gambling transaction, in which a great Tart of the merchants hesitate to embark. So strong is that fact, that it was proved before an agricultural Committee of the other House, that the course pursued was such as to render any trade in corn so hazardous as literally to hinder any merchant from embarking in it. There used to be at one period a stock, such as would always carry on the country for six months, but since the trade in corn has been rendered one of so hazardous a nature, the stock in the country has been reduced to just enough for a fortnight's con sumption. That was a proof of the injurious effect of any corn-law. What was the reason that prices fell so low iii 1839 ? Was it in consequence of the competition with foreign corn ? Was it to the competition of any foreign country that we owed that ? No. It was our own succession of good crops in this country. The high prices and low credit of a few years before had artificially stimulated the prices of corn, and, in consequence of that, a great effort was made to increase the growth of corn, and a large quantity was then produced, at a time when the consump tion was not sufficient to take it off the hands of the growers. It was the excess of our own produce; and so long as we adopt only: one source of supply, we must be exposed to want its years of scarcity, and excess in years of plenty. How different the case would be if we took the same proportion of supply from abroad. If that were the case, and you had a re gular trade in foreign corn—enough for home consumption— the foreign corn would be quickly supplied in the dear years and in scarce seasons ; and, 1 n. consequence, the price wouldg it t ( e hi/re e et bear a larger . proportion in its prices of corn than it then did, and therefore it would be less induceme n t t o the merchant to introduce foreign corn, and the cou n t r y wou ld thus be able to take off all of its own growth by a s li g ht re - ? • striction on the quantity received from abroad. This would be the natural operation, anti the farmer, by selling a larger quantity of corn, would be compensated for the fall in its price. I do not deny that, in plentiful years, the produce would be cheaper than in scarce years, and it would be the forei g n grower, and not the home grower, who would r e ap th e benefit of this measure. There is another advantage which we shall derive from the repeal of the law, an advantage of great im portance. The advantage would be a greatly increased con sumption of corn. Will any man attempt to argue that the people of this country consume as much corn as they desire— that they do not desire any more. In Wiltshire and Dorset shire, the consumption was far less than what the labourers desired. He believed that the peasantry do not wish to live on less bread than they do at present, and to supply the place with inferior articles of food ; and the effect of repealing the re striction on the statute book, would be to cause a greatly in creased consumption of corn. There would also be a greater consumption of cattle ; the consequence of an improved de mand would be, that ti • farmer would take even a larger number than at present; and, I need not tell your Lordships, who are yourselves landowners, that every attempt to improve agriculture, is commenced by the taking of an increased num ber of stock. There will be a greater crop in consequence, and cheaper corn. The direct tendency of the system would be to authorise the gradual improvement of agricul ture ; and in my belief, it will offer a stimulus to competition, and an encouragement to trade. Un der the increased demand and consumption, agriculture will make far more progress than it has hitherto done. We shall see that the science is but in its infancy. It has been said that a removal of the old tenantry would have to take place. I believe that such a thing will be unnecessary. A change of tenantry I should regard as a great misfortune, and also such a sweeping alteration in the country. It is not ne cessary—the farmers are disposed to improve their condi tion and those under them. Of course, foreign countries had not prepared corn to the extent we require, and the introduc tion would only be felt by degrees. In my opinion, the change should be gradual, and as the cultivation gradually e x t en d e d, so would the consumption of the country extend in an equal ratio. The means by which the facilities of improvement would be increased would be by adopting the recommendation of my Noble Friend's Committees with regard to the transfer and conveyance of landed property. Let me remark, also, that improved farmers would employ more agricultural la bourers. In that farming, called the higher farming, the owner employs more hands, and employs them more continually on the land. In the evidence adduced before the Committee of my Noble Friend, we were told, that the farmer of the South of England was obliged, in order to prevent their being thrown on the poor-rates, to employ more hands than he re quired. When it was said, that the land would go out of culti vation, it was a wrong calculation of the probable effect of the law. So far from it, it will be better employed. I, for one, do not expect to see any fall even in the rents. The land in a populous country would always be used in same way. I would have entered upon a very important point, in reference to this question, but I trusted to have the opportunity at another stage of the Bill.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.) The Noble Lord who spoke last night considered that it was impolitic to narrow the means of employment by letting in fo reign goods in competition with our own. But let me observe with reference to the colonies, that there is no such difficulty as to the means of finding profitable employment for labour and capital. The difficulty there is to find sufficient labour and capital for the profitable development of the natural resources and wealth of their country; and the effect of your protecting duties is to divert their industry and capital from its natural, and therefore most legitimate, channel, into a curse of opera tion of an artificial and unproductive character. No man doubts that Canada is poorer than she would have been had you not given her protecting duties on her timber. Let any man say the vast amount of labour and wealth which has been expended in consequence of your absurd and impolitic system. It has had the effect of importing a vast amount of bad anti in ferior timber into this country. This is the same with respect to ail the other colonies. They gain nothing at all by your protective systems. They would have full employment under duties duties, s uh t p h a pv e le y i eh a : r , e efnr s o e hm r g o h u di s iyff l ei o nr s je e un r rt s b n i omu ysa rttkoheeotmsu: and lvde es t o to n l s ns e ed q ni t a i d e n n ce of the protection which w e c l a i m from them in return. I any circumstances f or a ll t h e capital which t h ey possess. B ut, at the same time, whil e th ey gain nothing b y t h ese protective their pro duce they have suffered greatl y i n not being able to obtain thei r va riousduce to this country on the most advantageous terms. In point of fact they have gaited nothing by your duties, and this principle which applies to the West India colonies, is also applicable to all the other colonies ; examine the whole circle of them, and you will find my s'atement correct, that d o w e which c n h ot we s c e l e a claim a t from it twhaesm thein return. desire not only do they not gain anything by your restrictive duties, but that they are actually losers in consequence of the reci procityy ar, ttwho e h m at isf commercial ordinarily acquainted dependence upon p 0 ja history ou r tAloos American thereethr forceiiesacanona enmgot sys tem and athtta: m w p th bloodya t t resulted nanfodr nies that was really at the bottom of the America o ri n sa es the e lossiwn aof c a o a n f m d fla th in e o r vio e i l a v t g e this country ? It was this commercial policy brought on t c p e r t o t t i enormous debt. It is a fact, notorious to every one, that the the cause of the division of this country from the Uniied States. I am not prepared to say that these large provinces would have still remained in the possession of the British Crown. They might at any rate d have parted with us In a different manner, and still dependency, atth e coloniesn,ant i nwai war, nos preserved s o e f r v amicable relations with us, instead of a certain degree which a l ways seems to exist eabetween ousy aAnd meri an ca gry feeling and,_ this country. I s h ou ld h ave thought that the Noble Earl wou not have alluded to that topic,; L his mind certainproduced in as it might have os a debate which took disagreeable recollections of I the place . last year . blouse of Commons on tralian corn into this country. What was the course of p granted them the ro ceeding at that period? Youprivilege of lending their corn into this country. You refused that privi lege to all the other colonies and gave it to Canada, because she had just before been in a state of insurrection, while at the same time you refused it to those colonies which bad ever been loyal. My Lords, 1 for one think this was a course of policy well calculated to rouse a spirit of disaffection. The Noble Earl went on to say that it was your duty to keep these colonies always in a state of dependence, and alluded to the great military and naval expense attending keeping these colonies. I must be permitted to say, that this is rather a defsctive mode of argument. The point to be proved is the advantage of a protecting duty. That being the point to be proved, you first say if you donut give protection you lose the colonies, and that therefore is a reason for keeping protection, and then you turn round and say do not take allay protection, for there is no further reason for maintaining the colonies if you do ; that is, I ce nsider, arguing in a circle. You say do cot touch the proteciag duties; having thus estab lished the necessity for protecting duties, you turn round and say, if you have not protecting duties, of what use are the colonies? This was one of the most complete possible examples of arguing in a circle which I ever knew. We have the ad vantages of a colonial empire, pcssessing friends in every quarter of the world—of having a large population in every part of the globe possessing great natural resources, ready to unite heart and soul with us, and prepared to defend our positions, to support and defend our interests, and to take part with us against all attacks which may be made against us; and, upon the other hand, they have this inestimable advantage, and which, I verily believe, they prize and value—they have the glory and security derived to them from being part of the greatest, the mightiest, and most civilised nation on the face of the earth—the have the glory of calling themselves British subjects, and the proud satisfaction of feeling that in defence of their interests and the protection of their just rights ; the power and might of this great country is ready in a moment to be called forth and be exercised for their defence. I believe that they are folly sensible of these benefits ; and I believe if these benefits, you extend a liberal policy both political and commercial, and extend to them the clearest and most indisputable right of Englishmen, the power of self-govern ment, and avoid vexatiously meddling in their international affairs, you will bind them to you with a chain which no powers ow earth can break, and that connexion between the parent state and the colonies will be extended till their popu lation far exceed that of the mother country. The Noble Lord next proceeded to show how unjustly this measure would operate if passed into a law upon Canada. He proceeded to say—you have encouraged Canada to extend large sums of money upon the faith of your continuing to them the protection afforded by the existing corn-laws, and that it would be an act of great injustice to that country if we were to alter the present law. He fur ther said that the Canadians have no chance of competing with America, and if we passed this Bill in its present state we should ruin the commercial prosperity of Montreal and Que bec, and transfer the trade and commerce of these places to New York. My Lords, I think in the present case the opi nions of the Canadians are entitled to some weight from your Lordships. What are the feelings of the Canadians upon the subject? My Lords, I hold in my hand a newspaper pub lished in Canada, containing a report of the debate which took place in the House of Assembly of Canada upon that subject. It may be as well to state that her Majesty's Government, im mediately upon coming to their resolutions respecting the alteration of the corn-law, made a communication to the Government of Canada of their intentions, and told them that they were at liberty to repeal the duty of 3s. a quarter upon American wheat, which they had imposed when the measure was submitted to them by the Government at home. A mea sure was accordingly introduced for the purpose of repeaing the duty on American wheat. In the course of discussion on that question a motion was made and carried in the Assembly for reporting progress. What turned out to be the fact ? It seems this amendment was carried in consequence of a misers prehension, some of the parties not exactly understanding each other as to the effect of this vote. In a few days after the consideration of the subject was resumed, and a vote was taken upon the subject. I have read the speeches which took place during that debate ; but there seems to have been nothing of that desponding and hopeles feeling to which the Noble Lord referred. On the contrary, there was in general a tone of more manly and hopeful nature ; and as a proof of the existence of the feeling, the measure was carried by a majority of 45 to 27. The Noble Lord went on to say, that the passing of this measure would shake their feelings of loyalty to the British Crown. I confers, my Lords, that I heard this language with great regret, as it seemed to imply that the Canadians would be almost justified in manufacturing a spirit of disloyalty and disaffection. Why, my Lords, the very same week in which they had been discussing the repeal of the corn-laws, in that same week a Militia Bill was under the consideration of the Assembly. I will read to you an account of the proceedings in the As sembly. ( The Noble Earl (Grey) then read& report of the proceedings upon this Bill, the tensor of which implied a feel of confidence in the Government at home.) The result, then, of those considerations is, in my mind, to demonstrate that the passing of this Bill, now before your Lordships, is im peratively required by the great masses of that country ; —( Hear, hear)—and that, by passing this Bill, we in cur no risk of any injury to our interests, colonial or domestic. None of the great interests of the empire will be exposed jn my opinion to any injury. Upon the other hand, by rejecting this measure, you will injure many great inte rests. I ask you ; and I remind the Noble Duke (Richmond) setting on the cross-benches, who at an early period this evening, when the petition of the merchants of the City of London was presented by a Noble Earl opposite, asked signifi cantly how many signers of the petition are holders of bonded corn. I think your Lordships all know the inuendo conveyed in that observation ? Now, my Lords, I wish to a s k you, and I will also remind the Noble Duke, that if we reject this Bill, whether the Noble Duke's example will not be followed by other parties, and whether it will not lead them to think upon the subject of your rejection of this measure, and inquiring into the reasons which may have led your Lordships to reject this measure ? I ask whether they will not begin to inquire how many of your Lordships are owners of land? lily Lords, I do not believe that, conscientiously, at all events, any of your Lordships can be influenced by these motives. But after what has been said by the Noble Duke, I cannot think but that a great many of you are influenced In your decision by the facts that your Lordships are owners of land. I believe my Noble Friend felt himself justified in asking that question. But I think it would have been much better if, when he asked that question, he had remembered what would be the effect produced in the public mind, of an assembly of landowners rejecting a Bill imperatively called for by the people of this country. I trust, my Lords, that before you take a course which seems to me so full of .• o f l i tgi n egreirra T tango ins measure. I trust your Lordshlps will riot act upon mere passion, nor gratify any feeling of indigna tion which you may feel towards those whom you think may have deceived you ; or that your Lordships will not act upon the principle of punishing the Ministry, or certain Members of the House of Commons who gave opinions upon this measure contrary to your Lordships, but that you will consider fully and fairly before you determine upon the rejection of the measure, what will be the practicable effect upon the people of this country, and what may be the probable opinion which the people of this country will form upon the motives which guided the decisions of your Lordships. For what is the fact ? De your Lordships believe that vou can maintain the existing corn-law ? Is there a Noble Lord in this House who now hears me who believes that the Government of this country can, looking at the events of the last few years, and the great change that has taken place in public opinion, think it is possible to main tain the existing law for a period of any length. I ask the three Noble Dukes (Richmond, Cleveland, and Buckingham) if they believe it possible, by any combination of circumstances, for two years to maintain the existing corn-laws? The Duke of RI C H M 0 ND—" Yes."—( Laughter. ) The Duke of CLEVELAND—"Yes, yes."—(lncreased laughter. ) The Duke of BUCKING H AM—" Yes, yes, yes."—( Roars of laughter. ) Earl GREY—The Noble Dukes say "Yes, yes," but I can only say that the Noble Earl who spoke last night with great animation, and at considerable length upon the subject, seemed to expect some alteration in the existing law. But if it is likely to tend to the same result, then no man in his sober senses will recommend a dissolution of Parliament. When we consider the injury which would be inflicted on the country, the absolute paralysis of trade which must ensue, can we say that it is a thing to be desired that the country should be put in one universal flame, when the result wouid be the passing of the same Bill ? But, my Lords, can they imagine that by throwing out this Bill, that they can obtain even a com promise, and that they could induce Parliament to pass some less objectionable measure ? My Noble Friend on Monday night threw out many hints that those who voted for the Bill in the present stage, could have opportunities of altering it to another. However, I put it to you, do you think it advisable to re ject this measure in the hopes of substituting another of the kind? It is a vain hope. Look at the spirit of the times, and tell me do you think it possible of accomplishment ? If there is any alteration it will he an alteration of free trade in a more ex tended degree. My Noble Friends, it was a great inconsistency in me to support such a measure as this, when I formerly sup ported a fixed duty. But I did support a fixed duty, not on the principle of protection, but because I believed that a fixed duty would be the best principle of protection ; for I have ever objected to the whole principle of what is called protection. But at that time I thought a moderate fixed duty was advis able, because I believed it would produce little perceptible dif ference to the consumer, yet nevertheless be the means of greatly augmenting the revenue of the country. I thought it was a reasonable compromise, and that it would give us some years sooner all the advantages of a free trade, and that it would avert a most injurious struggle which I foresaw ap proaching. These were the grounds on which I maintained that a fixed duty was desirable, for I took the liberty of assur. ing those gentlemen who were then supporting the Govern ment, that the measure would lead to an entire free trade. I told them that if they desired a fixed duty, that the days, and even the hours, in which they could be secured, were rapidly going by, and that I, for one, if a fixed duty were not adopted at the time it was offered, believed that such a settlement would, at a future moment, be unattainable, and that the choice would never be propounded. I am convinced that, had the measure been adopted in 1842 it would have been accepted by the country, but I am no less firmly persuaded that it would be no longer so. The agitation would continue, nor could they believe it would cease upon such a compromise. I am deeply interested in this question. I am not philosopher enough to deny that I am so interested. As a landowner in this country, my pecuniary interest must be affected, and I am most anxious that nothing should be done to injure my property ; and there is nothing which I should deprecate more than the passing of a measure which would tend to keep agitation alive, which I believe would be the effect of a fixed duty. But how can such a measure receive the sanction of Pa,liament, for my Lords, we cannot exclude from our consideration some re gard to public opinion, and the position of the affairs of the country. By what party, by what set of men in this state can you effect it? We know that it cannot be by the party of the Government. We know that they are pledged within the last week to nothing of the kind ; a fixed duty is quite inapplicable for them. The alternative is protection, but remember the language held by the protectionists, that free-trade itself were preferable to protection. And what has been the language of the party with whom I have had the honour hitherto to act. My Noble Friend, who is at the head of that party, stated at the commencement of the session, that he was prepared to under take the duty of Government on the principle of repeal ; and we all know that my worthy friend is the best man to listen to such a suggestion, and the best person to come forward to propose a fixed duty after what has passed. Well, then, there is the third party as they call themselves, are they prepared to do it? Is my Noble Friend who represents their opinions in this House, or the Noble Dukes who coincide in opinion with him, are they prepared to form a Government upon this principle ? I think, after the very severe language which they have held on the subject of inconsistency — of cha n g e of opinion and of eating words—l think they, of all, shouldfor be t t e he uld and would be the last--to propose a fixed duty ; hy be then demonstrating how far the i nconsis tency of human nature was possible.—( Laught e r . ) A u t e all e it v e r r. ts ) , t‘hvee, then,yllwould ne ver listen to such a proposition.— there is nobody to take the c h aroenos(ar. of s uch to oblivion. In my s uch a compromise and the idea of a fixed duty may be opinion it would have been the best settlement of the question had it been adopted when it would have been accepted by the co untry. We have now to choose whether we will maintain he law as it at present e xists, or consent to a more complete the of the principles of free trade. My Lords, my Noble Friend on Monday night who addressed you so ably, ad. yerted to a speech delivered by a leading Member of the Anti Corn-law League, in which the Speaker pointed out ulterior measures which were contemplated by that association. Lord KINNAI RD.—The speech was not made at the Leag ue . Earl GREY—I am told that it was not m a d e a t the League ; it is a matter of little consequ e n ce , an d I am quite prepared to admit with my Noble Friend, that the existence of the Anti-Corn-law League is a great evil. Do not let it be sup posed I mean to pass any blame on these Gentlemen who are at the head of that association—far from it, I have no hesita tion in saving that this country, and that even those in that House, owe a debt of gratitude to the leaders of that party, and more especially to Mr. Cobden.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh. ) Yes, to Mr. Cobden. It is to his genius —to his indefatigable energy and perseverance, and not to Sir Robert Peel that we owe the present position of this measure. But to my lion. Friend, Mr. Cobden, we are all indebted for the achievement of this measure, which I believe to be one of the most import ant which has ever come under the consideration of a legislative body. I say we are indebted to him for the method in which he has conducted his triumph by means legitimate, nay, unexceptionable—no attempt to overawe the deliberations of Parliament by the assemblas, , e of vast multitudes. The Marquis of SALISBURY—Because he couldn't. Earl GREY—I say that we are indebted to him for this course of proceeding on this occasion—a course which has been dictated to him by high constitutional feeling. He has been able to convert the opinion of the nation—to show what the real interest of the community is upon.thls subject ; and considering the time in which this great change of opinion has been effected, his success and triumph have been most mina, ulous. But, nevertheless, I still admit that the existence of the Anti-Corn-law League is an evil—it is an evil, because such a body never can exist, except it has been first created by a sense of wrong awl injury existed. And, my Lords, it is only a grievance which could have created so for midable an organisation—but when once created, the removal of the grievance will not remove the desire to remove the organisation.—( Hear, hear.) And I fully agree with the sen timents so eloquently expressed by my Noble Friend in his able speech, that the crop of political power is too sweet, when once tasted, to be readily relinquished. Such a sentiment is perfectly true, and I have no doubt that there will be a great anxisty, even after the removal of the evil, to keep up this formidable organisation. I have no doubt that such will be the fact. It is consistent with past experience. But what is the inference you ought to draw 2 Is it that you ought to keep up the grievance which first created this Franken stein? Do you not consider that the sense of the injustice which they have suffered, aggravated as it will be by its continuance, by the feelings that their hopes in re moving it have been disappointed, will greatly increase the power of such a body ? I say, on the contrary, that we ought, , without the least possible delay, to repeal the law which has given rise to their complaints ; and that, my Lords, is my great objection to one portion of the Bill, by which we are going to enact its continuance, though even for a modified time—it gave an excuse for the keeping alive of agitation. I should like to do away with all that part of the measure which will give an excuse or a ground to those parties who may be desirous to keep up the organisation; and, therefore, 1 look forward to the power which is vested in this House to amend the decrees of the House of Commons, and I hope that we will amend it in this particular. But my Noble Friend, almost in the same breath, went on to describe, in language most refined, the power of this House. He said that we were constituted for the purpose of placing a salutary obstacle to rash and inconsiderate legislation, and that it was not the practice of your Lordships to liberate public opinion.— ( Hear, hear.) That was the language his Noble Friend had expressed in his usual felicity of language—that we are placed as a restriction upon hasty legislation, but that we are not to oppose ourselves to a continuous and deliberately formed stream of public opinion. It is, therefore, of the deepest con sequence to us that we should distinguish the difference of a hasty and inconsit'erate expression of opinion, and of a calm and deliberate conviction on the part of the public, before we set ourselves against it. It is perfectly clear in the one case that we must give way, and by so giving way we must surely impair our proper authority. My Lords, in this case, there fore, it is our duty to endeavcur to determine whether the de sire of the people—of the House of Commons—as ex pressed by their votes, is a deliberately formed public opinion, or whether the voice of the coun try has been expressed in favour of hasty legislation, and what are the symptoms which lead to the inference that the desire of the nation rests upon hastily formed opinion. The principles on which this Bill is founded were brought be fore the public 80 years ago, when the petition was signed in favour of a free trade in corn. Adam Smell, in his work, has laid down, with a force of reason which cannot be contested, the great principle of free trade. That principle had found its way amongst the philosophers of every civilised country in the world ; and it had found its way to the closet, but it was long before statesmen and merchants would consent to its validity. By degrees they began to do so. At first the authority of the principle which had been received as infallible by the philosophers, began also to be received and admitted in a hesitating and doubtful manner; but as dis cussion went on—as the good effects of it were experienced day by day, new converts came over to the justice, and to the acknowledgment of the justice, of the principle. My Lords, in my own memory how great has been the change on this subject. Nineteen years ago, when I first voted upon this question in the other House of Parliament in favour of the principle on which this Bill is based, I voted in minorities, sometimes as small as 15, and never exceeeing 50. My Lords, we now see year by year how great has been the progress of the principle of free trade ; within the last few years we have certain evidence how deeply the sympathies of the people are wound up in its ultimate triumph, and we see that the prin ciple of restriction cannot be much longer maintained, for we now see her Majesty's Ministers at last coming forward and manfully avowing a complete change in their opinions. I, for one, my Lords, give them credit for the manner in which they have avowed their opinions upon this question ; and I regard it as an earnest, and sincere, and a candid avowal. And when I find that that avowal has been the re sult of the inability of that party to resist any longer the ex pression of public opinion in reference to this measure, I do say, my Lords, that I cannot but regard it as a strong proof of the policy and good sense of yielding to the expression of pub lic opinion. It may be said by some Noble Lords that there were not sufficient reasons for some persons changing their opinions, and becoming advocates of this measure, or that the reasons which had been adduced afford anything like a fair justification for that change. Now, my Lords, I beg to say, that it is not my purpose, nor is it my wish, to make any in inquiry into the reasons by which others were led to hold the views and entertain the opinions they now do upon this ques tion. I do not wish to know whether they have taken into consideration what may be the consequences of this change of opinion in the year 1839, as compared with the year 1841 ; but whatever their opinions may have been upon the subject, it is quite apparent that circumstances have iel,uer it unpusswie tor any rational man to entertain the same opinion now. I can tell this House that this sacrifice of opinion has been well considered out of doers— out of doors men are of the same opinion, in reference to the corn-laws, as those entertained by the majority of the other House. There was a time when the manufacturers of this country were of the same opinion as are the protectionists at present, and, let me ask, were not those very men amongst the majority of those who originated this very measure? I say that the great mistake of our commercial policy, as is apparent in this corn-law, has been owing to them. When I first entered upon public life, so strong was the feeling in favour of protection that when Mr. Huskisson introduced his measure for the repeal of the duties on foreign shipping, he was re garded as a traitor to the interests of that branch of the com • coerce of this country. Yet, strange to say, the corpora tion of Liverpool, the corporation of that very town of which Mr. Huskisson was the representative, are the people who now come forward with an almost unanimous demand for a total repeal of the corn-laws. There. fore I do say, my Lords, thet the proposition for the repeal of those laws has not been the result of any rash, or inconside rate, pr hasty measure of legislation, but is one which has been the result of rational and well-considered public opinion. And that your Lordships will pass this Bill by an overwhelm ing majority is no less my firm and constant expec tation than it is my most firm. e arnest and anxious hope. Lord ASHBURTON said he could assure their Lordships that he had not risen for the purpose of making anything like a long speech upon this most important subject, for the best possible reason, that though he considered it important beyond any other measure he had yet seen introduced into this House, yet he did not feel that he possessed the power of addressing their Lordships at any length upon it ; he would, theref,re, endeavour to be as bi ief as possible in the few remarks he had to make, and he begged to assure their Lordships that he would cautiously endeavour to avoid bAng betrayed into any observation which should in the slightest degree partake of a personal character. He would endeavour to confine him self, in the few observations with which he would trouble their Lordships, to what he conceived would be the general political position of this country as the results of the passing of this measure. The Noble Lord who had just sat down, asked what would bscome of this country cr of the present Government if this measure should be rejected, but he ( Lord Ashburton ) begged to remind their Lordships, that it was not upon the result to any Government that this House was to deal with this measure.—(Hear, hear.) It was not the business of this House to consider whether any change, or what change was to take place in any party, as the result of the passing or the rejection of this measure, and therefore he would say that their Lordships would disposed of it, irrespective of any such con siderations.—( Hear, hear.) This Bill had come before their Lordships in what he should call a very humble shape, and had been designated as nothing more than a Bill to regulate the trade in corn ; but when it came to be well considered, he be lieved it would be found to be one which would effect very great chaages in this country. After all the attention he had been able to give it, particularly ale - tr the speech of his Noble Friend on Tuesday night—considering also the present position of this country, and the power it possessed of paying its debts, he should say that nothing but difficulty and danger appeared to him as the result of the passing of this measure to the country.—( Hear, hear.) He might be mistaken in the views he had taken, but, as ho had said before, the result of all the attention he had been able to give it was, that he had been compelled to come to no other conclusion than that he had already mentioned. His views upon this question were the result of forty years' experience, during which time he had ample opportunities of judging of the results of great legis lative experiments. In the year 1815 he was a strenuous op ponent of any great alteration in the corn-laws, at a time when the protectin g price of co rn was a t 80 s . H e then opposed it because he considered it as a wild and ill-considered measure; and it was rather remark able that his Noble Friend, who had introduced this measure to the House, was one of the most strenuous advocates the Opposition then had, and the result of which was that his house had actually been plundered by the mob.—( Hear, hear.) Now just let them examine what the grounds were upon which this measure had been advocated. Some Noble Lords had stated that the passing of this measure had been rendered in dispensable by reason of the great distress that prevailed in Ireland, but he should say that that distress had been very greatly aggravated—( Hear, hear)—and should confess his own conviction that this was not a measure which would afford any thing like a remedy for that ILsar, hear. ) He would also say that it was perfectly absurd to suppose that the opening of the ports would have afford e d th e necessary relief. On the other hand it had been stated that the result of the opening of the ports would be a very great alarm in th e countrytie that was met by the advocates of the Gover nm ent declaring that the ports would be opened fora very e snht measureor t time. a N p o r w oc , e le e t di h n i g m ? as T k h w e h e a x t p r e e r a i so m n en s n e oc e e l a y • t h o a f d , be e e n rk ina,eldtuhecepdoratgsahinasdt been the (Le year rci Ashburton riori n i w was now speaking s t i r o i e n h p ad o o l n f • - h d i c o t e , e t n h a t i t m m e e s a s b u e r f e o before, a a d n ebpeheenresorted to, namely, he would state on under the ausp k ie n e fi s o o f f A w lr h . at to Huskisson.place c that year a strong apprehension was entertained that there would have been a sca r c it y of p rovisions, and corn then was at 72 5 . ; and the result of this apprehension was, that Mr. Hus kisson brought in a Bill by which to enable the Government to let out the corn then in bond free of duty, and h e b e li eved it would not be disputed that that statesman wag one of the wisest, ablest, and best of those England ever possessed. In the month of May, 1825, there were 400,0e0 quarters of wh ea t o n s d n A p l t r i . o n 1 I t u o s k i n % s e o o n t o e p a re: , p e d r ol t e o n l d e e d t n t a h r a n t i t b a n u - t n i t i t yb n o i n d n t d o o: ncg a m so he had ado p t ed o lettine it out only i n such the p recaut i on of quantities as would meet the appre hendednwo sca rc it y , w h i l e no mischi e f would be sensibly felt as to d tl o ie ? res T ul n t e . y Bhudt w nearly was th 2 e ,000,0,'0 o f quar t ers o f corn i n a ha tpresent Go vernment go i ng to bond, and the result of the passing of this measure would be to let that enormous quantity of grain in upon the t counts y, at a time too when there was a fair prospect of an abundant har vest.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then proceeded to read extracts from the evidence of a Mr. Banfielel, in reference to the present position of the agriculture of this country, in which the Noble Lord contended that there were strong prO )fi of the impolicy of this measure.—(Hear, hear. ) But now as to the future. Suppose they came, in the course of three years, to a system of entire free trade—mu.t not this country then be dependent upon foreign countries for its supply of food ? And the prices might be wholly independen t of the cost of producing the article. Corn was a perishable article.—( Hear, hear. ) It suffered very much when kept for any great length of time ; it must, in point of fact. be dis posed of without any delay. He could wish to have an answer from his Noble Friend who was silting at the table— (Lord Montesgle, we believe, was the Noble Lord alluded to) —and who would, very probably. speak on this question before their Lordships went to a division. The question which be wished to ask his Noble Friend was this—What, in his opi• nion, would be the conduct of foreign countries towards Eng land when the principles of free trade came into operation ? Belgium, France, and all the other countries of Europe, have hitherto invariably shut their ports against the admission of foreign corn when they had had an abundant harvest.—( Hear, hear.) England was now called upon, by the promoters of this question, to admit freely all foreign grain, whilst no other country in Europe would imitate our oxample.—( Hear. hear.) If they were living amidst independent nations, who were prepared to act upon the same principle, the plan of free trade would be intelligible.—( Hear, hear.) If the principles laid down by those Noble Lords who had spoken in favour of this measure were carried, he firmly believed that the people would be completely deceived and the country deluded. The princi ples of political economy, as laid down by those Noble Lords, were completely fallacious. They speak of people as if they were mere machines. He would now quote the opinions of a writer on political economy, which he was sure would be received with the greatest respect; and although Noble Lords who had spoken in the course of this &bate had quoted the speeches of statesmen, he was not about to do so—he ' was about to quote the calm opinion of a man penned at home. The writer to whom lie had alluded was Lord John Russell. — (Hear, hear.) He knew that the opinions of that Noble Lord would be received with the greatest respect.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord John Russell, in his treatise on political economy, stated that "political economy" was an awful expression—( Laugh ter)—and that the Le g islature w as o f ten ca ll e d upon to d ec ide questions which involved the immediate happiness—perhaps the very existence—of millions of people, by the rules of a science which changed from day to day.—(Hear, hear.) Notwith standing those awful differences of political economists, their Lordships were called upon to pass this measure, and to regu late the affairs of this great country in such a way es, in his humble opinion, would bring thousands of its people to irre trievable ruin.—( Hear, hear.) He would take the liberty of again quoting the printed opinions of Lord John Russell on another part of this subject. That Noble Lord said that if all nations were at peace, if they had the same currency, the same weights and measures, it would then be easy for the Legislature of this country to act upon theoretical principles, but the frequent occurrences of war, the breaking of all national treaties which have taken place from time to time, render such a subject much more difficult than any problem in the range of mathematics. For instance, it was very easy to say that corn ought to be admitted free, or any other article of com merce, arid that if our farmers could not grow corn as cheap as foreigners, they ought to let it alone.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) But the Legislature could not deal with a question of such vast importance, en those principles. Bat those were the principles on which the promoters of this measure had called upon the Government to act.—( Hear, he2s, ) They had been told that msny millions of capital had been laid out by thousands of people in the improvement of the lad of this country, and yet they were called upon to adopt this measure, which would deprive those people of the benefit of all the capital thus expended. They had been told, too, that the taxes im posed on the proprietors of the soil of England were heavy, whilst on the other hand they were exceedingly light, and yet it was contended that the British farmer should b" compelled to compete with the foreign farmer, under such disadvantageous circumstances as these.—(Hear, hear.) They were called upon to decide the fate of this country at the mere caprice of a few speculating politicians.—(Hear hear.) As he had before said, this was not a mere question of a few shillings being paid for corn either less or snore, but in it were involved the happiness and the social relations of almost every family in the United Kingdom.—( Hear, hear.) Our colonies would feel the shock, and he thought that if their Lordships revolved these facts in their minds, they would find that the dangers with which this measure would be attended were; incalculable.—( Hear.) He ventured to predict that the consequences of entire free trade would be the ruin of this country. Their present supply of corn was quite enough, and it so happened that the very time when corn under this mea sure would be imported in abundance into this country, would be when we least of all wanted it—when, in fact, we had abundant harvests.—( Hear, hear.) The price would no doubt in some instances be as low as 255. per qu .rter, and such cheapness would, he felt convinced, be attended with great danger to the country. He maintained that by the sliding scale the prices of corn had been preserved in a very steady condition. Durin g the three years th a t it h a d b een i n exis tence, the price of corn per quarter had been 505., 515., and 51s. 10,1.---( Hear, hear.) There was, therefore, no reason to say that the sliding-scale had acted prejudicially to the interests of this country. He advocated a reasonable protection to agri culture in 1818. Since that period their Lordships might be aware that he had been no advocate of any extravagant or absurd system of protection to agricul ture ; on the contrary, his object had always been to regulate the admission of corn into this country on such principles as were reasonable, and calculated to further the interests of the people at large. He had in fact voted for a mitigation of the corn-laws many years ago. lie voted for a .reduction of the prohibitory duties in the year 1842. He voted for the Canadian Corn Bill, and in fact every reasonable relaxation and mitigation of the corn-laws had received his warmest support.—( Hear, hear.) But he could scarcely call the present corn-laws protection to agriculture, and he could not vote for this measure, because by it they would be over stepping the boundaries of reason and justice. The present was a case of a totally different description to those to which he had just alluded.—(Hear, hear.) The object of this measure was not to regulate the affairs of this country on reasonable, prudent, and just principles ; its object was in fact to deprive the country of that happiness which it had hitherto enjoyed under the system of protection. The measure militated against that which had existed at all times and in all conntries.—( Hear, hear. ) Their Lordships might be aware that there was no period in the history of this country when there was not some regulation with regard to the admission of foreign corn.— ( Hear, hear.) The British Legislature had alwa3s thought— even from the time of the conquest—proper to deal with that subject ; and they must recollect that during the last 150 years much capital had been invested in the great business of farming, and that by the aid of that capital the land of tins country had been much improved. All that capital had been f,,t- the wormy purposes or fertilising . the English soil ; but if this measure were passed, the thousands and thou sands of pounds that had been so expended would be rendered useless and lost. Of all authorities on political questions in this time, he had always been more disposed to pay the greatest respect to the opinions of Mr. Huskisson, and partieu • larly on the subject of free trade and protection to agriculture. Mr. Huskisson said—( A Noble Lord—" What is the date?")- 1844. He stated that nothing could be more dangerous to the 'safeguard and tranquillity of the country than to admit foreign corn free from all regulations. Almost all had changed their opinions on this subject, and yet they were called upon to adopt such a destructive measure as this at the suggestion of men who had themselves changed their opinions on the subject of free trade.—( Hear, hear. ) He d d riot know when Mr. Hus kisson died, but he thought it was in 18_9—(A Noble Lord— " In l830")—Mr. Huskisson, however, at that time advocated a reduction in what was called the protective duties, and he said, " It has, I understand, then quoted against me, that I hold an opinion that England ought not to depend too largely upon other countries for its supply of corn I maintained that opinion in 1815, and I maintain that opinion now."—(Cheers.) He also said, " I am anxious to render this country, cum • mercially as well as politically, independent of foreigners, and I therefore think that it is not prudent to suffer the free ad mission of foreign corn into this country." Every wise states man, in every nation of the world, maintained the same opi nions, because th, y well knew the danger of allow ing their country ever to be dependent on foreigners for the supply of food. ( Hear, hear.) Then as respects the objection of the Noble Earl, he might ask whether the cautions were at all likely to he effectual with respect to the foreign countries to which he had alluded, and in calling in the licensing system of Napoleon, he thought that a due regard ought to be paid to the effects of that system. And what was that system ?—( Cheers.) It should be recol lected that at the period to which allusion had been made, this country had been labouring under a heavy debt, which debt this country had to pay. That system of licensing had in the first instance been imposed for the period of three years, but it should be recollected that Napoleon had issued a coron a id that the res riction should hold for five years.—( Chems ) Let them only look at the variations of prices which had oc curred during the s:veral yea es in which this lie• ruing system had prevailed. In 1809, tire pis• of a quarter ef wheat was iyindahusylt,:ttrmhYi whateverne.ady— indeed, adduce thein -945. ; in 1800, it was 100 s. ; in 1602, it was 925. ; in 1813, it was 106 e. per quaver. The average of those years was 3s . a bushel. would dc w rhni Whatthe eget question t then adduce s , a s the t object of this syste m ? Was it to put money into the peck•ts of the Frenchmen? No e to such thing, for it was evident that notwithstanding all these restrictions, corn had been continued to be poured into England. from the French tt rritories. What then was his object, for it was evident that on these terms no efficient benefit could be wrought for the Ex chequer. But on the announcement of the fact, what was the case? Why, 1 ere was a great outcry as to whether the supply of corn would be equal to the necessities of the time. The manufacturers were up in arms. His Noble Friend must remember the diseu,sion which took place when they were both Memt era of the House of Common. The motion was met with a cry of universal laughter.—(Laughter.) He would merely show the state of feeling which existed at that period, and he merely adduced the instance to show what was the dL o u p or i r n idn i s o g.i n i itlih cs e f fw t . the country at Noble Lord what was likely to result from a free importation at the present period, and what would be the effect of an allow teolaurilesdt C u ba u t ri n . : allow ance of foreign countries to introduce their corn fse.Lejeetifteh°:ue: into this country. But, did they suppose that this itdh w safe scheme ? In his opinion this could not be the case, and e mt , eh presenti c s e ao Ho fi country., n oh p, r t me, was y c the state he believed that his Noble Friend would be totallycountries • going to matter ro of finance, n h t a i : n v e e y :p: ei t'enl i d r ofthe wrong in a tl l i l e sa s t u i p st p y os t i h t e io n n e t o h e a s t si t t h ie e s o s f up th pl is y 0 0 0 f o o fo tr r y e . ign w i d n im th in e is p h ro t d h u e c r t i i g o h n countr y con stantly or not all was look t the the case statesmen eonf of o f, f ,u, the atus r future years.ou f t ul t a h t population, new, consideration. and t ee o r T ra h r eie C h:le h r i b e c e,. e de ec r ialtu : sel ' i yia 3 t : e w :: to a greateext theyl t o werelo look k to to theok uponpoiiconditionfi foreign ' te of the u c w e o s r t n n tr i a n d h e an d ( u i r , in a g nd prive last Septemb e r . adduce It wa s but right to this example, because it lia.e a ws—(Cheers)—but thus much he mi gilt case of Spain as a eseri.'; quarter an important means of showing what was really the case- as respects corn, and he say, that the calculator was perfectly roboration of his vie ni stal a n te c r d e i. o o f f the state the average was 10'5 shillings a during this exclusive in stating L'a . a system. Ile trusted their Lordships would excuse hts beisig desultory in the way in which h e introduced this qurstion---- (Cheers.) The fi rst t hi ng that he would attend to was another theory of the N o bl e E arl. The Nobl, attend Earl went on the au sumption that th ere was truth in the ' WinY that prospe y always atte n d e d on low prices of food. He had stated that when there were high prices of food the labourin populat ion ros erit y were generally i n a state of p This reminded him of th e state of things during p the war, when -the want of money was alleged as a sufficient reason for the dea rness o f provisions. But it should be recollected th at the money borrowed during the war had to be paid soh en the prices of the war were not only reduced in name, but ts b solutely obliterated from the commercial code. This remnride him of the railway schemes which had lately engaged so Lour ih of public attention ; he meant the railways in which the 1 ea S t skilled labour of the country was to enjoy the full benefit of protection, and to enjoy a full share of the prosperity which th 1d been reaped by the other classes. But, see from what th is prosperity arose, and what were the symptoms of that p rot 3 ; per. jr on which the country was so earnestly congratulat ed In is opinion it was like the prosperity of the railway ro.ati, of the present day, when many men made their B,t 10 0 i; er 10,0001. a year—when many who were now enjoying th comforts and the luxuries of life lbeeelgh their directic in c railways, and advancing an artificiat prosperity which hats ni soundness in it, notwithstanding the report of the Noble Lord It appeared, then, that there were three cases in which t i 4 question might be considered. The. 8 W is, firstly, the cat e 0 the protection ef native indust;y ; there was, secondly , apel protection of home-grown corn against foreign countries ; there was, thirdly, the protection of the cotton manufact area. Then, again, there were three charges on the land. 1 'her e were, first, the charges on land which had a particular r eel -- ence to this question. Now, there were certain charges v rhich particularly affected the land, the truth of vebicla could 91 . 11l be (