The Sun. — London, England, 1846-02-17 00:00:00

TOM MOW, LONDON. TUESDAY MORNING, PERIITJARI 11, Is4l, those persons by hundreds and thousands, and they • were thrown upon the agricultural districts, which were obliged to support them. The capitalists derived the profits of their manhood, and the agriculturists sup ported their age. Now let them contrast this with the operation of the law upon the farmer. The farmer had no choice whatever, he was bound to employ those men or to increase the rates, and many farmers he knew in his own district employed a great many more labourers than the purely economical working of the farm required. That was the difference between himself and the capitalist, but let a glut come on the trade of the towns of Leeds or Manchester and the labourers would be obliged to re turn to the rural parishes, where the farmer was obliged to contribute to their support, and where he could not derive much benefit from their labour, because their pur suits had been confined to manufactures, and these were, therefore, fitted to cultivate the soil. This was the diffe rence he drew between the effect the taxes had • on the capitalist and the farmer. He would now proceed to show how it:operated between land and houses, or, rather, he would allude to some of the deductions which had been made from figures. which appeared in regard to difference of lands and houses, as placed in the report of the Poor-law Commis sioners ; but he might, in a parenthesis, state that, in his view of the case, the difference was not between land and houses, but between the proprietors of real property and the rest of the community. It seemed that in the year 1826 the land. paid at the rate of 69 per cent., while houses paid in the proportion of 26 per- cent., whereas in the year 1841 the land paid in proportion 52 per cent., while houses rtt'd in the ratio of 37 per cent. In this statement it would appear that the burdens on land had gradually been reduced, while those imposed on houses had increased. But to this he would answer, that those whose eyes were open would see that there had been between the two periods referred to, a gradual increase of towns and villages, thus in. creasing the number of houses and decreasing the quan tity of land. Every day the number of houses was in creasing, while the quantity of land was decreasing, the latter being taken up by railroads and new towns. They saw day by day that which was formerly field ground used for the erection of houses, or used up for ether purposes—taken up for railroadsor objects of a 'similar kind. This showed how it was that houses in. creased and land diminished, and explained the an parent discrepancy between the two returns. He might illustrate the point by one or two strong instances. At Newcastle there was an extensive parish which formerly was land, but now it was occupied by a new town. Ile would also refer to Brighton, which formerly was a fishing village, whereas now the houses had so much increased, that it had become a great town. There was another point to which he would refer, while speaking on this subject. It had been said that houses wore perishable property, and that therefore they ought not to be rated so high as landed property. He was willing that this should be so, and he would take care on a future occasion, if' the free-traders used it as an argument, to meet them with their own weapons. If perishable property was to be fa vourably considered, what was more perishable than the farmer's capital—that which depended upon the season, which might perish from a decay in the seed or a blight in the blossom, which a thunder-storm or any other destructive operation of nature might annihilate. He would say to them, do not use this argument, e r he would take good care that it should be made to tell on bstailf of the great question of protec tion.—(Hear, hear.) The issue would show how it would befriend the cause of agricultural industry. He would further say, let them look at the oppression of the poor-laws—he refereed to that part of the system re laths to settlement. To the old law of settlemert lie bad an utter objection, as it operated most in juriously to the agriculturists without doing any real good to the manufacturer.—(Hear, hear.) What happened when there was a sudden check in the demand for manufactures? The labouring artisan re tureed to the rural districts, and when the demand for manufactures returned there the manufacturers could with difficulty find men to work their mills, while the rural districts were overcharged with paupers. This had occurred lately in Manchester and in Nor wich. Their Lordships might rely upon it, that if they adopted free trade in corn, they must apply the sane: principle to the labour market, and the first step towards that must be the abolition of the present law of settlement. The law of settlement made the labourer a bondsman to his parish, and it prevented him going into the dearest market to dispose of his labour. To this part of the poor-law system he trusted they were ap proaching an end. He had alluded to this matter in consequence of its having been reported to be the intention of the Government to offsr as a compensation to the agricultural interest an alteration of the law of settlement. That alteration, even if it should be carried out to the extent of Sir James Graham's Bill of last year, would not be satisfac tory. But he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws would be carried, and then the proposed alteration in the law of settlement would fall to the ground.—(Hear.) The present measure proposed by the Government was most objectionable. He considered that making a resi dence of a few years the means of obtaining a settle ment would lead to very enormous results. The mea sure would have a tendency to force women likely to give birth to children from one parish to another, in order to get relieved from the burdens of the chil dren born there, and as to an industrial residence of a certain number of years, as being the means of obtaining a settlement, he considered that measure to be impracticable ; it would be too heavy a burden on the towns. He believed that in time of a sudden check in trade, when hundreds were thrown out of work, the towns were scarcely able to support them seiveS. He thought the measure would be no compensa tion whatever, the only remedy was to get rid alto gether of the law of settlement. His Lord ship then allured to the highway rates. He maintained that the highways were as much for the be nefit of the town as for the country, through which the toad passes. Indeed there were cases where two town, formed the termini, and were the only parties VA ha derived any benefit from it. They are of little use to intervening country accommodation, and bridle roads are used by the farmer ; he has little or no business on the highway. Ile had had an account taken at the several tolls of the number of vehicles which passed through, and the result had been that the majority belonged to the inhabi tants of the towns at the different extremities. He would allude incidentally to the question of' tithes. Ile did not, however, consider the tithes were a burden on the land.—(Hear, hear.) He did not wish to be misunder stood upon this matter. Previous to the commutation of tithes they were a burden upon the cultivators of the land. They objected to laying out their money upon land, as they did not wish that the benefits of their labours and enterprise should be applied to other persons. Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, tithes did not intefere with the cultivator of the land, as by the previsions of the Act they were constituted a certain debt upon the property itself. That was merely looking at the question in the light of buying, selling, and barter. The produce of the soil was the same, and produced the same to the occupier as if the tax did not exist at all. It merely reduced the value of the fee simple. He looked upon the land-tax and the tithe in the same point of view as charges upon the land. He considered they were merely charges upon the land, but did not interfere with the production of the agriculturist. He looked upon the tax as he did upon indirect taxes. In France, where land was sold under the in direct taxation, the loss sustained was borne by the seller, but it did not fall upon the farmer. This kind of tax diminished the value of the land in both countries. He would pass over one or two points which he intended to refer to, as he did not wish to trespass on their attention much longer, and he would come to the last point to which he wished to call their attention —he meant the malt-tax. It was said that that tax was no burden on land, but he believed that this was an erroneous statement. The tax he admitted was equally paid by all, but that per- j Lion paid by persons who were consumers of beer, &c., fell iii the end upon the agriculturist. In addition to this, how ever, he would point out the direct amount of duty which interfered with the agriculturist. It interfered with the agriculturist to the extent of the barley to which the tax amounted. If the tax, therefore, did not exist, the barley would be increased to that amount, and the agriculturist would be so much benefited. If any proof of this were wanting he would refer to the circum stance that, notwithstanding the increase of population That of late years, th e amount ofduty did not keep pace w ith it. was the burden, but that was not the only hard '.nip—that was the amount of the burden, but the hard ship went still further—and by riot allowing him to use his h a'll'Y he likes f o r oth er p ur poses, th e y placed him in th e manufacturer, if they position as they would a may manufacture cloth, to say to him, " You coat made fe om i t ." , but you must not wear a 'they defied, they prevented him, from using the barley in additions by hi s own so il. That was a serious burden,nadditimi to the one he had give a named, and he could hgereat many authorities-- and others —but sary, because when the d t _ll4 es pri n t e d cottons was cor!sid ere d it re pealed,unneces- there was a great increase in the trade in that article, and lie held that a similar result w time duty were taken off malt. There was arotl'il er article l ensue f of Excise which he thought particularly heavytrbe owners of real property , and which, if it were on not th ; quired for the purp ose of creati ng a portion of revenu e, would be a great advantage to the prop r i etors o f land—he meant the article ofhops; but if th ey came again to the general taxation of the country h e wished to know what portion of it the agricultural body They were exempt from the CLIS• WO exempt from? Alpoas an terns' duties as they contributed as much them other body cf the c ommunit, ; theyconsumed any articles which paid cus tPoami4a'ddlitytyu. upon innumerable m wha t taxes then wore they exempt ? They paid the l'oetpotlice and Camp duties ; the stamp duty for the tvansfer of property fell p culiarly heavy on them, and was so ea . °mous that he considered it one of the greatest hardships under which evy portion of the community laboured at the present metnent.—(Cheers.) And he must say this, that if there was a subject which might obtain Q IllOrDent'S attention from his Noble and Learned Friend on. the Woolsack it was this ; and if he would surfer him for a moment, he would say if there was a department against which the agriculturists had reason to complain to the Noble Lord, it was the enormous duty which thay were thus compelled to pay—(Cheers) and he had especial reason to complain, because in all the reforms which had taken place in which the portions 'ol * the community care was taken to con tinue the burdens u P pon ' Z P e l A ted i the law relating to the trans—fePolear.) And again, when perty was carried by the Noble Lord, it was foundfoti be a difficult m cases it was itam, , ui z to adopt it, matter to get a conv r e so y u t a nature as to and in thousands of property without being obliged to p ay sw.s x otrral"fer sheets to an attorney. Then how long l a e d they l e s f ( i v t L n e eprestiee of the registration of deed, unsettled? en nry Oita cOautry eon ni ye—enees for the purchase of la were so great compared with those of this country, as to cast a blot on this country, and to induce every one to do all in his power to obtain some alteration in it. He would, before he concluded, refer to that which his Hon. Friend intended to add us an amendment, and he would wish to know what were the numerous exceptions proposed in that amendment. The legacy duty was cer tainly a case in point, and he would allow it to he fair that it should be exempted. Certain property belonging to the agriculturists was exempt from insurance. The farmer's property, such as stacks, &c., was from its nature exposed to danger, and that property was not to be se cured by insurance. He was sorry to say the danger was increased in consequence of the very violent language sometimes addressed to the labouring people. The per sons who addressed it to them did not mean to do the mischief they did—they were emissaries from others, who were not aware of the high tone they adopted. He, for one, when he used to read the strong language made use of, used to remark :—" There will be some more stack-burning in the district." He had no peculiar ob jection to strong language ; he thought that it sometimes added to the interest of the debate, and he was perfectly indifferent to the hard names which were heaped upon the agricultural body, of which he was a member. At the same time, he telt that he had not terms strong enough to use in condemnation of the violent language which sometimes led to so much mischief in the country. The Right Hon. Baronet at, the head of the Government had brought forward certain measures which he intended as a compensation for the withdrawal of protection from laud. He would say that these measures were no compensation, and if they did give any, the difficulty of ascertaining the benefit it would confer would be enormous, as they would have to ascertain the precise loss which the withdrawal of pro tection would cause, and the precise gain which the diminution of taxation would afford to the English farmer. He would then turn to another question, and he thought that if it could not be shown that the impositions on the protection of corn in foreign countries were commensurate with .the imposition on real property in this country, they would fail to show that British-grown corn was in a condition to compete with foreign corn. He had seen some attempts to render this assertion a fact to the minds of the people, but he thought it would be extremely improbable that any such attempt should succeed. If they were to take the whole amount of the taxes imposed upon towns, or what were properly called civic rates, and would compare them with the communes or department districts in France, they would find that taxes imposed in that country stood as five to four with those which were laid on the inhabitants of cities and towns here. This was no fair comparison with the impositions in France, but they would find that it was not quite so high as that in Eng land.—(Hear, hear.) That was not the way to put the case—they ought to take the amount of costs imposed for realising the produce of one hundred acres of land in one country and the amount of costs imposed for obtaining a hundred acres in the other country, and if they could show the amount was the same they would make out a good ease. But by this mode of calculation they would find that in England the cost was nearly double that in France, that in the German States it was more than in that proportion, and that in Turkey and some parts of Russia it only bore the proportion of two in a hundred. It was even notorious that Great Britain was taxed in a far greater degree than in any other foreign state, at least in Europe. He had now come to his conclusion and he felt compelled to say a few words with respect to him self. He had always conceived that the system of protection was absolutely required by the peculiar burdens imposed upon land ; yet, if he found the continuance of that imposition was con trary to the tendency of public opinion—that it was likely to rase one class in opposition to another, he should feel it his duty to refrain from further opposition to the measure, and instead of wrapping himself up in a sulky humour, and aggra vating the evil of domestic schism, he would endeavour to pacify the conflicting feelings, and he trusted his Noble Friends would use their powerful influence in prevent ing that hostile disposition and unnecessary difference which might arise between the manufacturer and farmer. The Noble Lord then continued—My Lords, I have never joined in the abuse of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. I believe in the sincerity of his convictions—l believe that he thinks he is doing for the best in the measure he proposes. I respect h s sin. verity—l respect his courage. But this I will say, that if in the present Parliament he carries this measure, it will not be the triumph of opinion, but the triumph of par tisanship—l say, not the triumph of opinion, because he will have carried it against the opinion of the country, as declared at the last election ; he will have carried it against the opinion of the House of Commons, as declared in various divisions ; he will have earried it against the opinion of the House of Lords, as also delared on numerous divisions ; but lastly, and above all, he will have carried it in defiance of the opinion of a majority of the Cabinet.—( Great cheering.) I Fay, my Lord', that I shall submit to the triumph of opinion. Let the Government look to that point ; let them appeal to the country ; let them ask what the opinions of the country are , let them follow that up by securing a majority of th e opinions in the House of Commons, and again in this House, and I myself will no longer offer a factious opposition to the measure.—(Cheers.) I believe that then your Lordships will no longer oppose it ; and if that shall be the case, it will be in the fullest sense a triumph of opinion, but as it now stands it is merely an able manoeuvre of party politics.—( Great cheering. ) Lord BROUGHAM rose to second the motion, but was called to order by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who said that in that House it was not necessary that any motion should be seconded. On the question being put, Lord BROUGHAMS - said that he wished only to speak to their Lordships a very few words, in answer to his Noble Friend who had made mention of his name in connexion with the opinions he had expressed in 1820. Far from differing from the motion of his Noble Friend, he ( Lord Brougham) considered that the burdens he had enumerated fell exclusively upon the land, and he went even further, for he was very far indeed from taking his views on the subject of the tithes or land-tax. Ile did not admit, with the Noble Lord, that the land-tax or the poor-rates were not peculiar burdens. He did not wish to enter upon the subject to-night, there being no opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord. He would not therefore follow that Noble Lord, or enter upon the discussion, as the consequence would be to anticipate that which would be brought under their Lordships' consideration in a short time. It was not his desire to bring about a foregone conclusinn in antici pation of the inquiry which must shortly takeplace. To enter upon the discussion now would he to forejudge the labours of the Committee. Ile would go into Committee, though he still entertained the opinions which he held in 1820 and 1822 re specting the burdens upon land. He differed with the Noble Lord in a considerable degree. He thought that the burdens on land were not only greater in some respects that, he had represented them, but also there were burdens in some material particulars which had not been referred to—still, though admitting the greatness of these burdens, he did not agree in the conclusions drawn by the Noble Lord, namely, the propositions that the proper mode of compensation was by taxing corn by imposing a duty on the importation of foreign graun.—( Hear, hear.) He would not anticipate the corn-law debate by snatching a debate on the question before their Lordships. The question of the corn-laws would be brought before them properly, timely, and regularly, as soon as the measure came from the other House. H e must say in the present inquiry he greatly lamented the leas , ing out of view, its his opinion, the greatest of all the exclu sive burdens of land. What he referred to was the positiozi of the landowners and farmers, which was different from ale other kind of employers. They had not the power of going into the labour market, and selecting the cheapest labourers and workmen. The manufacturers had amongst them none of that patriarchial relationship which existed in the agricultural district. They could turn off their work men in a day, whether they had been in the-it service a year or ten years. They could turn them off at any time if they (the manufacturers) were able to get better and cheaper workmen. It was not so with the farmers—half the labourers they employed were employed upon what he ( Lord Brougham) called the patriarchial relation, and they often em ployed a great number of workmen when they might procure a supply of labour at half the price. The obliga tions of the poor-law did not alone impose this, but it arose from a feeling of attachment. to those who had long been engaged in the service of the farmers in the cultivation of the soil. No one felt stronger than he did the force of this particular burden. When a Noble Lord died he very often left eighty thousand pounds or ninety thousand pounds of per sonal property, on all of which he paid probate and legacy duty. One word with respect to the stamp duties, to which his Noble Friend had referred. There never was a greater error than supposing that the late improvements which had taken place in the law, were not beneficial to the landed interest. What did they think of the abolition of fines and recoveries? He, him self, knew one landowner, who had saved between 5,000/. and 6• 000/• by. the change, and he had known another friend who had i delayed his recoveries until after the Act of 1832 passed, by which he gained a large amount. Then there was the change in the law respecting leases. Instead of ten sheets for a lease, only half a sheet was now required, and instead of ten skins, only halt a skin was required. There was no additional stamp-duty upon that ; on the contrary there was a large reduction, and this reduction it was which made many persons doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not oppose the change. He did not, however think it is duty to do so. He (Lord Brougham) certainly thought the landed interest had a right to complain of the stamp duties, perhaps more than the other exclu. sive burdens. It was worse than the aleavala of spain. The stamp duties pressed most heavily upon mortgagers, for the mortgagee might, at any time, say to the mortgager " unless you raise your interest you shall change your securities, which will coat 10,000/. or 12,000/." He (Lord Brougham) hoped that he would not live long before he saw the tax on the alienation of property replaced by a tax upon succession. Lord DACRE ( whose remarks in the opening part of his speech were inaudible in the gallery) stated that he conceived protection to be giving a certain advantage to some particular application of capital, or giving some encouragement to trade, or to some particular enterprise, to hich might be considered of particular advantage to the country who granted this protection. 'To this protection it was that the agricultural interest lay claim. He considered, from the great improvements which had been made, the facilities of communication, and the increased appli cation of the capital of this country, and from the statistical re turns which had been made to this House, that this kind of pro tection should be removed from the agriculture of this country. (Hear, hear.) He considered also that protection was of service as maintain the balance or equilibrium of the country, when from circumstances of taxation or some other cause, the level of the application of capital had been destroyed. That level has been destroyed by the protection which has been afforded to personal property beyond all bounds of reason or defence, He w ou ld not enter into detail, but would take his stand on the broad basis of the injustice which had been done to the country by the imposition of a grinding property-tax, imposed upon the country in the shape of a poor-law. Justice should be done to the iatme r by the removal or equalisation of such a press of taxes.—(Hear, hear.) He felt convinced that the agriculture of the country i was th equal to compete with the agri aeumltrier.etiootnthoof world, iabm r_( Hear, were granted equal tax s, a free disposal of the products of ,thaetaitlalonu2; an equally free The Noble Lord then went into some statistical — that a Ye t i t o e a a t details relative hear . upon onepttpiretrltiyo,fwittlilueshatocrterty to the valuation of real property, and proce o d e great portion of taxation fell i f England, to the exclusion of other well entitled to be chsrged. Such was the p os iti on of the s re a: i ~,_. _: E 0 4 4. What he wanted, therefore, was equal property of Quti ro an e d rt no undue tiie proportion would be able not only t o t taxation, a ti taxationon, and i i f ; i t a h e a e t d were upon c real ied property, p y , agricultu rists t hi s country inadequacy, raome the foreign compete's, o . to on the part of th owners of ' re n al c lt on t wasen c ontend with, from that they sought their reduction or under the ezistiPZ ',P s ' • • hich would be in property, to meet thdeinands which were made upon them a portion of the by withdrawing 11 cted upon them, other portions of the community abolition, but a deep sense fif thg inprY W . ta*es to which ltipile . ." ' ' other parties, were cot .. shed to refer. ffundFeda 41;d were subjeaterl, whilst those .a peculiar ,Hr to hea tl r ie ) m, T a h n e d re to w n a o s another subject to which he washed words, an unconstitutional and th9usands of persons had establishediiketo express themsely th es e int o combination, ati4 ;..):, Imugh he did not he could not forb ear aayirs that it was . combination, and as an old friend of the prialYge s I Parliament for half a eesitUry, he could not toq strong y clenqimee the attempt which' those persons were making to control Par liament—to control the freed= of election, and to obtain this nomination of counties, and this, too, after the complete reform which the laws relating to the election of Members of Parliament had undergone, and when they were aware that their rights and their elective franchise were derived from that very reform. When he saw all this he hoped they would resist any vneaauree which were forced upon them by these persons.—(Tlse Noble Lord, during the whole of his address, was hardly audible in the gallery, but during this part only detached sentences scald be caught.) Then with respeet to the malt duty. There had been no consumption of malt com pared with the increased population, which he considered was an argument in favour of a modification of those duties. Malt was a commodity which the agriculturist could not apply to the purposes which were most available with out the fiat of the Exciseman, and without paying a duty of 30 per cent. on what he had produced.—( Hear. ) If foreign timber was imported into this country at a reduced duty, it would be an unfair competition with English timber, the grower of which had been liable to increased taxation in consequence of it. So it was with English wheat. Foreign wheat would be brought in, duty free, to compete with the pro duce of the English farmer, which had been rated for income tax and every other tax to which property was liable. He had not intended to trespass on the time of their Lordships at any length, nor did he intend to enter on the subject any further, but he certainly thought that before protection was removed -all these points should be taken into consideration. [The Noble Lord here made some remark referring (as we under stood) to a speech of his that had been misrepresented, but he s_poke in so low a tone that it was quite inaudible in thegallery.l He had there an extract of a speech delivered at Covent garden on the 18th of December. The extract was from the Times, and he (Lord Dacre) had taken measures to ascertain whether or not it was correct. [The Noble Lord then read the extract which was, as near as we could hear, for the Noble Lord was scarcely audible—" I hope that the people will bear in mind how great a:terror has been created by the very name of 40s. freeholder, a power lately created, which would eventually humble the proud aristocracy to the dust." Have ing said this, he would be grieved to imagine that any Minis ter of that country would allow Parliament to separate without passing some measure to restrict this interference with the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) As an old reformer, he recollected the creation of the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland, and the repugnance with which they had passed that measure ; necessity, however, had compelled them. He did not, however, wish in any way to restrict the right of voting, either in county or borough, provided that it were conducted on constitutional principles. He believed that all diffialties would be removed, if some arrangement were en tered into to equalise taxation, and so secure the prosperity of the country. Lord MONTEAGLE rose to move an amendment to the motion of his Noble Friend. That amendment, he be lieved, would not meet with any opposition either from his No ble Friend or any of the Noble Lords on the other side. He begged here to say, he would be sorry to take up some of the doctrines which had been laid down by the Noble Lord (Lord Beaumont). He did not wish to anticipa'e the result of the inquiry, but he must protest against the doctrine laid down. His Noble Friend had addressed the House in a fair and candid manner, end he had made a series of admissions on the subject. There was one material point in which he main tained a similar doctrine :o him ( Lord Monteagle) on the sub ject of the commutation of tithes. Tithes, he said, must depend on the same principles as rent. If so there was no ground for its protection unless he (Lord Beaumont) main tained that protection was due to it, not for the benefit of the country at large, but to uphold rent. He ( Lori Monteagle) would like any Noble Lord, or any writer of emin nce, to show the difference between 255. an acre derived from land subject to tithes and 20s. paid on land with ss. as a fixed rate to the clergyman. The effect would be precisely the same, and he could not see how they could talk of protection to tithe unless it was to be considered as protection to rent, and not for the benefit of the clergy, or the country at large. He denied that the commutation of tithes made any difference in the question ; the principle of protection in relation to tithes was precisely the same as before, and he cautioned their Lord ships of the great danger there was to the rights of property in supporting any clamour against rent which had been raised in connexion with this question of tithes. Twenty shil lings payable to the landlord stood in precisely the same position as five shillings paid to the clergyman, and in arguing the question of protection, must be considered alike. If there was any inequality in the taxation on landed property beyond what was fair and impartial, let them remove that inequality, but do not give protection to one class of society or interest at the expense of all the others. With regard to what had been mooted about the removal of the poor laws on to the State, he called their attention to the great danger of such a case. It would deprive all parties locally in terested from participation in the administration of the poor rates, and take away from the poor themselves all check which they now had over the good administration of those laws.— ( Hear, hear.) A very rapid diminution had taken place in tithes. From the year 1826 to 1841 the proportion of poor rate chargeable on different classes of property was very con siderably altering, and altering for the benefit of land as com pared with other taxable property. Were they aware of the extent to which railways were chargeable ?—( Hear, hear.) It was perfectly true that by the original conception of the law of Elizabeth, or the statutes immediately subsequent, descriptions of property net now taxed to the poor were then taxable. Well, they had not been able to enforce that state of the law from the difficulties and inconveniences which stood in the way. Let them look to the state of the law in Scotland. What was called " means and substance" was rated in Scotland, and it was one of the most difficult and most complicated rates to en force. The reason was that it was in the nature of a property tax, without any of its exemptions. His Noble Friend had spoken of the cost of the administration of justice. but he seemed to forget that one-half of the expense of prosecution was borne by the State.— (Hear, bear.) It must be remembered that if they threw the whole of the expense on the State they must have a public prosecutor. He should be sorry to state that this was any objection to the proposition ; on the contrary, he thought it was one of its greatest recommendations, and involved one of the greatest alterations that was ever contemplated with benefit in the pre sent criminal law. With reference to the malt-tax, he agreed with the admission of the Noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) that the malt-tax is a tax paid by the consumer, and that this amount of duty tended to limit the consumption of barley. Of all the articles upon which hid been made a reduction of duty, the article of malt is that which has participated to the largest extent in the remission of duties. At the close of the war, and long after, at the time of the Government of the Noble Duke in 1830, the country was subject to a beer-tax. In 1816 a war-tax was imposed. Malt then paid a duty equal to a charge of 435. per quarter, while at the present period the tax is 20s. Bd. per quarter. The amount of duty removed is more than has been removed from any similar article of revenue, And he doubted much, even if the whole amount of luty now payable on malt were to be repealed, that the pro timers of that article would be in any better condition. The malt-tax is a charge made by anticipation fir a period of from three to six months. The molester sells his malt, receiving not only the price of the malt, but also the amount of duty payable on that article. And the consequence is, that he re ceives a portion of the State money equal to one-fourth of the whole value of the article ; and with that money he could go into the market and buy barley at reduced prices. He be lieved that if the agricultural interests could obtain the imme diate abolition of this duty, and allow the five millions of duty now obtained on that article to be imposed in any other man ner, it would not be so beneficial as the present mode. There was one point, however, to which the Noble Lord had not eluded. The maltster is subject to a tax, paid for the most part by the consumer, but he forgot to state that he also main tained a close . monopoly of the article. He had power over all the breweries and distilleries of the country; and no use could he made by them of the pi oduce of the country. In this manner the English barley-grower maintained his monopnly, and by this means the tax was a positive good to the producer. On that subject any loss alleged to be sustained must be mea 4ured by the advantage which would be gained if the restrie :ions were removed. Inquiries have been made by some very eminent men, by Professors Graham and Playfair, into the relative value of barley in a malted and unsalted state, for agri eultural purposes, and they were of opinion that it was much better in an unmalted state. In G .rmany there was no tax upon malt, and no prohibition duties with respect to its we. Professor Liebig had given a similar opinion. There was an other subject to which he would allude, he meant the exemp tion on probate and legacy duties. That was a tax which might be considered as partaking a little of inequality, but the inequality was rather to the advantage of the landed interest. tie condemned the principle, however, of allowing one inequality to be redressed by another. With respect to that taxation he considered, that though it was much dwelt upon, it was not so great as it had been represented. Everything was a grievance until it was redressed.—( Hear.) The taxes on agriculturists were he believed fairly distributed, as they were placed on ser vants, horses, hounds, agricultural implements, &c. The law which affected the agriculturists had contained a number of exemptions, but the argument of maintaining it was that it was so full of exceptions that it was impossible to hold so tattered a flag ; but, at any rate, the exceptions were n favour of the agriculturiste. However, the whole of these matters would come under the investigation of the Committee. ile was sorry that in that debate a Noble Lord, for whom he entertained sincere respect (Lord Duce) had introduced the transactionsof the League. He (Lord Monteagle) never belonged to that body, neither had he any interest in its concerns ; nay, more, he must say that he did not like bodies acting in the way it had done. He must not, however, be accounted re sponsible for its actions because he chose to express these 'pinions; neither did he approve of the conduct of a Noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond), who talked of the past, present, and future transactions of that body. But he wished to know what had the question of the League to do with the subject before their Lordships ?—( Cries of Hear, hear.") His Noble Friend (Lord Ducie) him self, in adverting to the representations which were made, said that persons ought to abstain from making remarks on speeches made by persons in another place; but the Noble Lord had not adopted the advice he had given, ashe had quoted from speeches of the members of the League. Novo he (Lord Monteagle) wished to see the League cease, the promoters of which, he believed, were just the men, of all others in this country who were desirous that their labours should end (Cheers )—and, he believed, rejoiced that their Lordships were now embarking in a cause which would extinguish the League. ( Hear, hear.) With these expressions, he should move an amendment to the following effect " And also to inquire and to report on the legislative exceptions an.. pecuniary advantages provided by law in respect to taxation as affecting landed property." The Earl of ESSEX defended Sir R. Peel from the charge which had been made against him, that he ha-1 consented to re duce the duties on the importation of cattle, but had sustained the present duty on corn. Lord STANLEY could not but admit that this was a clues tian requiring the deepest consideration of the Legislature, but he was bound to enter his counter protest, in opposition to the protest of the Noble Lord on the other side, with respect to tithes. He did not understand on what ground the Noble Lord had abandoned the assertion that the tithes were a fixed imposition upon land ; for in abandoning that position he in fact threw overboard the chief grounds of his argument. Fur this - reason he felt bound to assert that the charge for tithes on land was as high, if not more high, sacred, and indefeasible, that for rent itself. In ascertaining this point, they had only to look to the peculiarity of the tenure on which the land was held, for when a purchaser bought an estate he invariably bought it with the knowledge that it was burdened with this charge, and the purchase was effected for a much smaller stint than that which he would hare had to pay for it had it nut been so charged. lie weelii, therefore, have no reason to complain of the draught from his funds, which the tither 113- totally made upon the returns which he expected to derive from hi, estate. On a fell examination of the subject it would appear that there was this difference between tithe and re an i t l i t , that u; r w i !i c e whereas rent simp ly withthe p ro a ti t ep a v le e p h ,Ao. were e t land, ved f p r i r fi t l s at o u f l , th a e nd i j a u n s d t , so tithe,much on of a t n he ab ( s ,, t , r u a t e r t ar f y r , om to t o h l e , ca higher l he or r stand, for it was not. only a charge upon the land, but one so intimately c onnecte d w i t h i ts original title to tenure, that it waited for no suc h acc id ents, bet took the tenth rf the pro duce before any of those rises or falls were ascertained, and the proprietor had a r i ght to claim his share, whatever might be the resu l ts either might co l m a n n i l 4 l n o d rd , or tenant, and whatever prices the produce rn u t o. m.lll Prind op 4t e tiethe se had i consumertwhgevetiteall y pa i d the tithe. His Hon. said that the consumer paid the malt tax, and that the imposition of tithes did not add to the cost of the article. He would assume that a mill should bo built in a certain town, and that by sotne law the condition im of co* made in that min should 11 e used for the benefit of posed on the owner should be that the tenth part of every piece the State—would the tithe so imposed not add to the cost of the cotton? The burden of one-tenth would increase the cost to the consumer. Supposing that another mill were built in the same town subject to no tithe tax or burden, would not the owner of that mill be enabled to undersell the first owner, who had tithes to pay ? They were, then, looking at those things as burdens to be borne by the agricultural community of this country, while they would he exposed to foreign competition; arid he would ask, were not the burdens they bore sufficient to warrant their asking for protection against foreign competi tion ? If a.stack of corn was brought into the market, which stack had been raised meground that paid one-tenth of its pro duce, exclusive of the charges of cultivation, could it compete with a stack raised on ground easily cultivated and subject to no burden whatever ? The Noble Lord who opened that de bate had very properly made a distinction with regard to the forms of taxation, and he would avail himself of that distinc tion, for the taxes paid by the corn-growers were not for the benefit of a certain class or district, but for the benefit of the nation at large, and he would ask which of the two stacks of corn—the one free from burden and the other heavily taxed— which of them could be sold at the lowest rate? Was it not right for the agricultural community to ask for that relief that would give them an opportunity of fair competition with the foreign grain ? ( Hear, hear.) Now, his Noble Friend went on to say, " Oh, but by the com mutation the tithes are no longer a land burden, because they are considered in the price of the land—it is no longer a bur den." Now he (Lord Stanley) would again return to his si mile, and he would ask this question. They would admit that if one-tenth was paid by one mill, and nothing by another, that the proprietors of each were not placed upon equal terms. The commutation takes place : the first mill-owner does not wish Isis industry to be interfered with ; he does not wish to be taxed in proportion to his success; he wishes to compound with the commissioners, taking the average of his rise in the last five year., and the average prices the produce was sold at. But even that commutation, although faille and clearly made out, did not remove the burden; the burden remained as much a burden when paid in a certain sum as when paid in produce. Nay, it remained a greater burden, and his Noble Friend was going beyond a paradox in affirming that it was no burden at all. He trusted he might be forgiven for thus trying to controvert the argument of his Noble Friend. He felt himself obliged to protest against it, but he rejoiced that the Government did not intend to offer any opposition to the motion. He rejoiced that it would be acquiesced in by the House ; hut, at the same time, he could not go into that Committee without protesting against one of the propositions of the Noble Lord, that he introduced this mo tion because he considered that the question of the abolition of protection was already settled.—(Great cheering.) While he concurred with the Noble Lord in thinking that on this and other questions the opinion and voice of the country, calmly, deliberately, and seriously expressed, aye, and stedfastly main tained, ought and would influence the decisions of their Lord ships and the ether House, he also agreed with the Noble Lord that there should be no doubt in a question of this vast, this immense importance, that the sense of the country and of Parliament were in favour of a change ; for its agitation and accomplishment, unless productive of undoubted good, could not fail to be an undoubted evil. Whatever might be the result of the question of protection, it did not do away with the argument that they should have claim to fair and reasonable compensation.—(Heear, hear.) He must protest against being supposed to agree in the opinion that the question of the policy of the corn-laws rested in the slightest degree on any particular interest or individual body. Let them prove that the landlords and farmers shall receive full and entire compensation, both in their individual and pecu niary interests, still he would not consider the question of the corn-laws settled. The abolition of the corn-laws was a ques tion, in his opinion, that rested on conclusions far beyond the personal or pecuniary interests of any class or party. It was to be considered, not in a pecuniary or individual sense, but in its effects on the great social, moral, political, and material interests of the country.—(Cheers.) The Duke of RICHMOND must, like the Noble:Lord, ented a similar protest to that which the Noble Lord (Stanley) bar just made. He considered the inquiry now sought for should have taken place earlier. He would not believe that the Bills proposed to be brought from the other House, to do away with the corn-laws, would receive their sanction. He could not believe that their Lordships would make so sudden a change as Hon. Members in the other House; but that they would throw out the measures, in order that the sense of the country might be taken on them.—(Hear, hear.) It might be said that great excitement existed out of doors ; but who were its authors? The Anti-Corn-law Leagne.—( Hear, hear.) It had been remarked by the N o bl e Lord, that if he measure passed into a law he would do his best not to set class against class; on that subject, however, he (the Duke of Richmond) could not make any promise.—( Hear, hear.) The responsibility was not in his hands, but in that of the Government. They would have scorned to betray their leader, but with the feelings of deep injury which they were likely to sustain, with the feeling that their families and themselves were to be consigned to ruin and the workhouse by the acts of that leader. How could they feel any confidence in him.—(Hear, bear.) How could the honest farmer who heel heard men from the hustings declare that they were for protection, and protection they would maintain, and had seen them in the House of Commons desert the cause they had promised to support, rely again upon those in whom they had placed their confidence? What could they think. when they saw the places of a few honest men who resisted the measure, filled up by those who had promised to defend, but had afterwards deserted them? Could they be blamed, if, under circumstances like these, they ventured to take a leaf out of the Anti-Corn-law League? Up to this moment they lied abstained from sending itinerant lecturers into the manufacturing districts to excite the opera tives a g ainst their employers?—but had the Anti-Corn-law League done the same ? No ; they had not. They had sent their lecturers into every agricultural district, who had, if he might be allowed to use the term, blackguaaded all the land owners and farmers of the country. They, however, were not cantcnt with this, but went further, and told the labourers that stacks would burn as well as straw. Their people had never done anything of this sort • they had never sent men into the manufacturing districts, although it might have been easy enough to do so, to tell the operative that cotton and such like articles would fire as well as straw, or to set the operative to congregate in large bodies to coerce ther employers, and he foe one trusted they would never do so, but would rather pursue the dignified course of appealing to Parliament in a tone that was at once honourable, loyal, and constitutional. But he warned'their Lordships not to be induced to vote for the Government measure in the hope that it would be the means of putting down agitation. They might depend upon it that success never did or ever would produce moderation in or out of Parliament. Tee Anti-Corn-law League might tell them what they liked about their dissolution, but he believed they would never dissolve until they had destroyed the Church, and every other institution which they themselves were prepared to stand by and defend.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) A Noble Lord, who had spoken in the course of the evening, had asked him a question respecting the law of settlement in Scotland. The Noble Lord said there were great detects in that law, and he (the Duke of Richmond) to a certain extent, agreed with him.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, should remember that it was Parliament that was respon sible for the existence of the defects.—( Hear.) A Bill upon this subject was passed las t year , and he could not help think ing that the Noble Lord would have better served his purpose had he stated his complaint there. 'With respect to the malt tax, he could not follow his Noble Friend upon this branch of the discussion. He was aware that great difference of opinion existed amongst the farmers of the country upon the subject of the malt-tax, but Noble Lords must remember that the proposed measure of the G overnment would render this tax a vi adapted to th e l great deal heavier th an it ever had been. The Noble Lord had ite rest :a o quoted t ns a ro n w u e number that malt very m of a l professors, tl iwkeasly ntootake with the agricultural and amongst them M r . Graham, nt w fatten ing of tattle ; but the farmers of England preferred the motto of the Royal Agriculture Society, " The practice of science," to the theories of science. Be knew a gentleman, who was a most extensive farmer in the county of Norfolk, who had tried the experiment of feeding with malt, anti who would tell the Noble Lord that it was infinitely superior to that of any ogler method he had ever heard of. Before he sat down he must again protest against the removal of the existing pro tection to native industry ; but he could not do so without at the same time congratulating the agricultural interest that the Noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies hart vacated his office for the sake of principle; and was likely to bring the benefit of his great eloquence and ability to the cause of domestic indutsry. In conelusion, he could only say that if these measures came up to their Lordship s ' House he should do his utmost to induce their Lordships to throw them out, because he did believe that if these measures were passed they would entail ruin upon the agricultural interest, upon the labourers, upon the domestic industry, and inflict injury upon the manufacturers of the country.--( Hear, hear. ) Earl GREY would not then enter into a discussion which would hereafter have to be brought before them, except so far as to express Isis concurrence in the opinion of the Noble Lord oppo , ite, that when the question was decided, it ought to be settled, not for the partial advantage of me interest, but for the general benefit of all classes of the community.—( Hear, hear.) He was persuaded that when they 50 considered the subject, they would find that not only the interest of one, but the in terest of every class was concerned in the adjustment of this great quest:on. They would show that during the thirty years in which ;you ction had existed, it bad been attended with constant disappointment, and they had never for five years to.. gether been free from the pressure of extreme agricultural dis tress. He for one would undertake to show, when the proper time arrived for his doin g so, that this had been the r esu l t o f the protective system. From the earliest period protection had been a failure, and at different intervals extreme suffering had produced changes; and after trying one sort of protection after another, the farmer found that none of them ever realised his hopes ; and now, after having for a long series of years been subjected to great disappointments, they had come to the con sideration of the question whether it would not be better that protection should be abolished altogn . her. As he had said before, he would not then go into the discussion of the ques tion, but when the proper time arrived, he should be pre pared to meet the arguments of the Noble Duke. He wished now strictly to confine himself to the subject immediately before the House, and as this Committee is not to be considered as a reason for postponing the discussion or settlement of the great question now before the country, he should not offer it any opposition. Having a commone into rest with the Noble Lord who proposed it, in the prosperity of the land, he greatly lamented that the Noble Lord had raised this question, because he was convicted that if the subject was properly sifted and impartially considered, it would be proved that they, as land holders, instead of bearing a larger proportion of public burdens, were subject to much less taxation than other classes of the community. His Noble Friend who had proposed the motion was mistaken in supposing that tithes w er e a burden upon land. His Noble Friend, however, put forward an illustration to show that tithes were a burden upon land, the case of the millot,vner, who was charged a tenth of the cloth which he produced for tithes; and then the Noble Lord asked how the millowner could enter into competition with the millowner whose land was not subjected to tithes. He confessed that this was a very plausible argument, but let them alter the position of the mill-owner, and make it something more analogous to the position occupied by the Lords. A millowner purchased a piece of land for the site of a mill, and he agreed to pay a charge of 1001. a year. Now he wanted to know what difference it made to the millowner whether he paid 1001. a year to the owner of the site or whether he paid 901. a year to the owner and 101. a year to the titheowner. The fact was, tithe was not a burthen Olson land, and the land owner and eecupier had no right to claim compensation for this alleged burden, and the land was vested jointly in the laud. owner and the tithe-owner, and the former had ne more right to claim compensation for the charge of the latter than he had to chain a title to laid which did not belong to him. With reference to the malt-tax, he believed that barley was the meet ratable article that the farmers could grow, sad ho was convinced that there was a demand for all the barley which could be grown in this country. But the Noble Duke ( Richmond) had told them of the prohibition to feed cattle with malt. It is perfectly true that all the most emie vent chemists have shown, upon =den ifi' p: inciples, that barley is more useful for the fatten ng of cattle than being terned into malt. He (the Duke of Richmond) had stated that the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society is " Practice with science." I'ow he begged to inform him that practice and experiment had supported the conclusions of science. In a report vvhirsh had been presents d to the House of Commons last session, it had been shown that barley, bruised, crushed, or soaked, was better adapted for the fattening , cattle than if it were converted into malt. Farmers might now boil the malt, and get all the ad vant2ges from it which they would obtain if dried, and thus converted into malt. The only thing forbidden by the Legislature is the act of drying and converting it into malt. Experiments had been instituted by these gentleman, and the result had been that it was the most econoraioal to use barley, not made into malt, for the purpose of fattening cattle. In Germany, where there are no fiscal regulations to aff.!et the practice of fattening cattle with malt, that article is not used. He entreated their Lordshipsnot to urge the Go vernment to meddle with the malt-tax. In the whole scale • of duties, none pressed so little upon the public as the malt tax. Beer, after all, is only a luxury. There are other luxuries to the labouring classes, upon which he would rather see the duty diminished—tea, coffee, sugar—all these would be iufinately more to the advantage of the labouring glasses, if the duties were reduced upon these instead of the malt. They are all already too high for the purposes of revenue. He had heard with regret and much alarm of the proposal of an in creased property-tax. There had been of late a great ten dency to remove indirect taxation and place in its stead a system of direct taxation.—( Hear, hear.) It had been stated that the poor-law imposed upon real property a tax equal to 12 per cent. It must, however, be borne in mind that this charge was not namlusively upon land; houses, canals, and railways paid a large proportion. The exemption with reference to stock in trade extenled equally to the stock and capital of the farmer as to the tradesman or manufacturer; but it would be attended with great d.ificulty to ascertain the value of the in come of each party resident in the parish. The Noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) bad given them a very formidable list of the burdens on land, not excluding the militia-rate, which has not, however, been levied far some years, and which I hope will not be levied again.—( Hear. hear.) Land in this coun try bears a much higher value than it does in America or other countries. In the western parts of America the finest prairie land may be purcha.ed for four dollars (about 45.) an acre. Now land of an equal quality in this country would let at a price of from 40s. to 50s. an acre. What causes this difference? Why does land in this country yield as an annual rent about ten times as much as the sum for which in America you could purchase the whole fee-simple of a similar quantity and quality in America? Simply on account of the large population of the country, great markets, and good roads. It is these which give an increased value to land, and it is upon these circum stances which of all others Mr. Geo. Robins, or any other most eloquent auctioneer, would delight to expatiate.. In this case then, if the.e circumstances tend to improve the value of the estate, is it not nerfectly fair that the burdens should be borne by the owners?—( Hear, hear.) He considered, taking the whole of the circumstances into his consideration, that the present burdens upon land were nothing more than payments for value received. He should not therefore object to this Committee.. But he warned Noble Lords not to carry the inquiry too far. And there are many per,ons who will not be wanting, in pursuing that inquiry, to expatiate very largely upon the information which that report may furnish. They would consider that the proportions of the burthen on land in this country was not so much as it was either in France or in Austria. When the land-tax was first imposed in 1692, there was a tax of four shillings in the pound; that tax remains the same at the present period, notwithstanding the value of land—as appeared in the returns made to the House of Com mons—was increased to the value of eighty-five millions ; and that excluding a great amount of income under 150/. per annum. He should not therefore oppose the motion of the Noble Lord. Lord A S H BURTON considered it paradoxical that the charge upon land in the shape of tithe before the Commutation Act was a burden, while after the passing of the Act it ceased to be so. Their Lordships were aware that before the Tithes Commuta tion Act, tithes were virtually commuted. The land-tax was thrown over by the Noble Lord himself. The poor-law was kept up in America in the same state as it was kept up here. The statutes of Elizabeth, in respect of the poor. laws, were observed in that country. He would say with respect to the land changes—leave them as they are, but give compensation to those lands which had to meet such burdens. With respect to protection, or compensation, or whatever else their Lord ships wished to call it, it was not only due to the land, but if they attempted to take it off they would throw much of the land out of cultivation. There was ne comparison between the land of this country and the land of America. In the rich prairies that country land was nothing, but labour was every th y . _ . . I.;,rd ICE A IJMONT, in reply, said, the Noble Lord had stated that the cost of keeping up turnpike roads was not a bur den on land. Now the cost of keeping these roads amounted to 2,500,0001., and of that from 1,200,000/. was defrayed out of the funds raised from land. The motion, with the addition, was then agreed to. The Duke of WELLINGTON was -quite satisfied, now that the Committee was appointed, no unnece.sary delay would that take place, but that the result of the inquiry would be laid on the table as soon as possible. ' Lord BEA umoNT intimated that no time would be lost in laying the report on the table. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Admi nistration of Criminal Justice Bill was read a third time. The Duke of RICHMOND moved for certain returns re garding local taxation from the year 1821 to 1845.—Agreed to. The Earl of ST. GERMANS brought in a Bill for the better protection of life and property in Ireland, which was read a first time. The second reading was appointed for Monday neat. The other Bills on their Lordships' table were then ad vanced a stage, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock. HOUSE OF (70MMOA S, Monday, Feb. 16. The SPEAKER took the chair at five minutes before Four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Mr. FIN .= took the oaths and his seat for the county of Rutland, in the room of. Mr. llawnay, who has ac cepted the Chiltern Hundreds. GOVERNMES'r POLICY. Sir JOHN lIANMER presented four putitions from the inhabitants of Hull, in favour of the financial and commercial policy of the Government. The Hon. Me mber also presented a fifth petition, praying the Govern ment to take irriro consideration the duties on tea. RAILWAY BUSINESS. The following railway Bills were read a second time. and ordered to be committed, viz.:— York and Not is Midland Railway (Whitby and Pick ering Extensnon). Blackburn, Choi iey, and Liverpool Railway. Liverpool, Ortm kirk, and Priston Railway. Blackburn and Preston Railway. Ashburton, Newton, and South Devon Railway. North Staffurds: 2ire Railway (Llarecastle and Sandbach line). North Staffordshire Railway (Churnet Valley line). East Lincolnshire , Railway. Epsom and Dorking Rail;Way. Forth Kent Rails way. North Kent Rail way (City Extension). London and Sou Ci-Western Railway (Hampton Court Branch). London . and SCMth-Western Railway (London -bridge Extension). London and South-Western Railway • (Ckertser, and Eghum Branch) London and South-Western Railway (Epsom Branch). Staines and Richmond Junction Railway. Grand Junction. Railway (Huy ton and Warrington Branch). Manchester and Birmingham Railway. Mr. W. PA.TTEN wished to bring under the attention of the House the proceedings of Parliamentary agents with respect to the introduction of their Bills into the House. It appeared that those gentlemen were in the habit of giving the Bin; one name before the Board of Trade. a second name when brought into the Private Bill Office, and a third title when introduced into t'ie [louse. This practice was attended with great inconvenience, and rendered it almost impossible for the Classification Committee properly to classify the Bills referred to them. I{. trusted that the House would take some steps. to remedy their practice. Mr. GREENE moved—" That it be an instruction to The Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, and to all Committees upon Private Bills, not to hear parties on any petition hereafter referred to them, which shall not be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the rules and orders of this House." Mr. ENT %MIX thought that people ought to comply with the standing orders themselves before making any com Plaints, and moved, as an amendment, to leave out the word hereafter." The House then divided, when there appeared— For the original motion Against it Majoriry for the original motion —42 CORN-LA-WS. Mr.. T. M. GIBSON presented a petition from Man chester,. in favour of the Government measure on the corn-laws. THE CONVICTS FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions pray ing the House to consider "the condition of the convicts Frost, Williams, and Jones, with a view to ent rea t b er Must Gracious Majesty to mitigate their sentence. of St. Albans, praying the House not to pass ttie mea sure proposed by Government with reference to free trade. Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the county of Cork approving of the pre ent measures of her Majesty's Government. The petitioners stated that they were engaged in manufactures, and that as they neither had, nor desired to have, any protection on their trade, they prayed the House to abolish all protection to agriculture. — Mr. W. MILES presented several petitions from Somersetshire against the present Government scheme. Ho also presented a petition from distillers in the southern parts of Scotland, in which the petitioners stated that they had embarked all their capital, in their present trade, and that if the present measure of her Majesty's Government were carried into effect, not only themselves, but all in their employ would be ine vitably ruined, and they therefore prayed the House not to persist in their present measure. Lord WORSLEY presented a petition from Notting ham against the proposal of the Government, and in favour of protection to native industry. The measure of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Go vernment was in direct contradiction to those principles which had brought him into office, and the petitioners prayed that before the measure was passed into law the country might be appeali d to through the medium of a general election; they felt confident that a Ministty would then be formed which would continue protection to a riculture. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Finiston, in Staffordshire, in favour of free trade generally ; and the petitioners prayed that the repeal of the corn-laws reight be immediate. An 11014. MEMBER presented petitions from sixty i,bree parishes in Herefordshire, against the measures of her iNiajesty's Government, and in favour of native industry. An I-ToisL 7 .lEmitEit presented a petition, signed by 920 inhahityn•s of the town of Wellington, praying for the removal of all restrictions on food.—(Hear.) Mr. Ott!) presented a petition from the shipowners of Newcastle in favour of the Government measure. Mr. FERGUSON presented a petition from Mon mouthshire and ether places, praying that the measure of her Majesty's Goverortemt respecting a repeal of the corn-laws might not pass into a law. Mr. HUME presented a petition from several places in Scutland in favour of the measure now proposed by her Majesty's Government. Mr. HU VT presented a petition from one of the largest ship-owners in Hull, praying that the measures of her Majesty's Government may pass into a law, as it would have a salutary effect on the ship building of this country, which was in a very depressed state at present, in consequence ef the duty on timber. Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions in favour of a total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws. Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from Eastbourne, to the same effect 4 Mr. BRIGHT presented petitions from places in Northumberland, Cheshire, 'Worcestershire, Kent, Dor setshire, and Staffordshire, to the same effect. Lord PALMERSTON presented two petitions from Scotland to the same effeet. Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from New castle-on-Tyne to the same effect. Sir R. PEEL presented a petition to a similar effect 1 from Tamworth.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioners con sidered that the measure proposed by her Majesty's Go vernment would give en . impetus to agriculture and tend to di ffese plenty throughcut the land, and there fore they desired to see it passed. This petition was signed by the Mayor and several of the Town Council. The Right Hon. Baronet presented petitions from Dun fermline, the rorporation of Glasgow, Renfrewshire, Pollock, and Boston, in Lincolnshire to the same eiThct.- THE ADJOURNED OEBATE. On the order of the daj for resuming the adjourned debate being read, Lord MARCH said h could assure the House that t wis not his intention to enter at any great length into the consideration of the question then before it, or to trouble them with any statistiesil de taila, as Honourable Members aho preceded him on Friday night had gone so fury into the matters that he should consider it presumptuous in him self to follow in that course. At the close of the de bate on Friday night a Noble Lord, the Member for Dungannon, astonished him (Lord March) not a little indeed (Hear and a laugh) although from the recent conversions that he had noticed he ought not to feel surpris , ,,d,—(Hear, hear.) That Noble Lord, in the short period of one month, had made two speeches in that House, one on either side of the question.—{" Hear," and a laugh.) However, it was not for him (Lord March) to say to what that change in his ideas was owing ; but he should say that he did not seem to have attended to. the debate, for his speech had beeu al most one-sided. The Hon. Member fir Bridport had made a statement, and he (the Noble Lord) wished to urge on him the necessity which every man of honour in that House would admit to be correct, that no man should make s statement in that House withoutbeing fully convinced of its truth and aceurrcy. He stated that a Noble Duke, who was a member of the Administrate Administratein that passed the Reform Aet, threatened to swamp the Douse of Lords. He most appeal to the Hon. Meinber whether the Noble Duke did not resign his seat in the Cabinet when such principles were broached, and he was sure that it' the Hon. Member was present, he would bear him out in that statement.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the Noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, would bear him out in that statement. Now, with regard to the immediate question before the House, ht belie tad that it would be the ruin of the agricultural classes Of this country. It was said that free-trade would be of im mense advantage to Ireland. This he could not believe, for he had not heard of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork taking part in the debate. During the five nights the question had engrossed the attention of that House, the Hen. and Learned Member hied not risen in his place to state that her Ma jesty's Ministers were about to confer a gr, a' advantage on Ireland.—(Hear. hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member hail done no such thing. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Maksty s Ministers hail snia that the agriculturists should lay out mere_ capital on their land in order to make it more profitable. He had said that the agriculturists did not yet know what great benefits were to be derived by the improvements in chemistry, as applied to land—that they were yet in their infancy. He (the Hon. Member) maintained that if they were in their in feney,ehey required protection The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the speech which he made the other night, stated that the , feelings of the whole hulk of the community were in fa vour of a repeal of the cern-law. Now he would mein tein that the contrary was the case, and that the great reeling of the country was in favour of protection.e (etear, hear.) It was his opinion that the measure of the ilevernment was opposed to the wishes of the peo ple ; :end if the Right Hon. Berenet waded a proof of his st d keinent, he would only refer him to the elec tions a.hout taking place for Gloucester, Sussex, and Dors etshire. An lion. Gentleman opposite men tioned the city of Chichester ; but he would tell him that in a came ass made by his brother for five days in that town there were not over twenty gentlemen in favour of free trade. There was a show of hands cer tainly in favour of the measure.—(Hear, and cheers.) His brother offered to go to the poll, but the free traders reused, from the best of all possible reasons, }hearse th , y were certain of being beaten.—(Loud laughter.) Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Chancellor of the Deerhy of Lancaster had as yet de livered their opinions on this subject. He would wish to know if they had changed, and what motives induced them to support the . Government ? The Noble Lord did not say that in the year 1841. He was then an advocate of protection to agriculture It was no concern to him (the Earl of March) how the Noble Lord at that time chose to pledge himself to his constituents. But he (Lord Lincoln ) was sent to Parliament for the purpose of following and sup porting a party in favour of agricultural protection—( Hear)— of which the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government was supposed to be the head —(Cheers and laughter from the protectionists.) That party was cer tainly opposed to the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London; that party advocated protection to agriculture in the strongest manner. He did not impute to the Noble Lord (Lord Lincoln) any impure motives in changing his opinions; but if he and the other Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had altered their opinions on this question he conceived that they were bound to consult their constituents. and see whether they approved of the change.— (Protectionists' cheers.) 'their constituents sent them to Par liament to protect agriculture—( Hear, hear)—and they were therefore in honour bound to support that in. terest.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, is hen he was member for University of Oxford, and chose to alter his opinions, at once resigned his post. The Noble Lord (Lor I Lincoln) in the year 1841 had addressed his constituents in different language to that which he now held. He then said that free-trade was all humhug—(Laughter)—and that if protection were to be taken off agriculture, it should also be taken off every article of manufactures, to every one of which a large protection was at present given by the Government.—( Hear, bear.) Now, he opposed the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet, because he (the Earl of Match) considered the principles of free trade which were advocated for corn were equally favour able and good with respect to every other article.—( Hear. ) He opposed the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), because it put forward no new arguments on the sub ject. It was not his wish to sacrifice one class of her Majesty's subjects in the country for any other, because he thought the interests of the agriculturists with those of the manufacturers were closely and intimately united. He thought what was in jurious to one class, was equally so to the other. He found it impossible to advocate the measure before the House, from the speech made by the Right. Hon. Baronet himself, if there were uo otherereason ; but when he (the Earl of March) felt that it was wrong on principle and in justice, and detrimental to all classes of h e r Maje s ty's subjects—Cries of " Oh, uh")— I he could not sanction such a measure.—(Cheers. ) Mr. BAILLIE COCHRAN said be di l not wish to misrepresent the conduct of the Nob7e Lord, and that he was sure the Noble Lord would do him the justice of thinking so. It was stated by the Noble Lord, that a certain Noble Duke stated that he would not oppose the creation of Peers, should such be necessary; and:it appears tl.at such was proposed to be done. Mr. GIBSON said it would be unnecessary for him to detain the House at any great .length on the subject of the corn-laws. The main object which the party with which he was connected had in view, was the abolition of all protection, and in that re spect he should be always happy to go with the Noble Laid, with his friends around him. But the question before them was not protection to the manufacturers, but whether they shold resolve themselves into a Committee of the •wl o'e House to take into consideration the fluty which regulated the import., with a view to a repeal of these ditties.- ( Cries of " no.") He imagined that each part of the Right Hon. Baronet's plan would be discussed separately, and he imagined that the question before them was the question of the corn laws.—(firer, hear.) He thought the question of what Ministers had said at former times, or the relations in which they stood to Hansard, was really of small moment to the nacre important question of whether it was right or prudent to repeal:he corn-laws. They told him that the present Parliament was elected to maintain protection, and therefore this Parliament could not deal with the question of protection, because that question was settled at the general election of 1841. Now it was because the question was settled at that election, that he thought the present Parliament was the best fitted to decide upon the proposition before them. If the question- BREiCiI OF PRIVILEGE. 33 r. COLLETT gave notice that it washis intention, instead of moving fur a Select Committee, to move for a Committee of Privilege, in reference to breaches of some privilege committed by Noble Lords, Members of that House, the names of four of whom he could then mention.—(A laugh.) . _ . Lord DUNCAN gave notice of his intention to post pone his motion frchn the 19th to the 26th of February, in reference to the window duties. THE WAR IN INDIA. Sir R. INGLIS wished to put a question in reference to the recent outbreak in I Writ. He wished to know if the Government had received any positive intelligence as connected with that outbreak ; and if they had, that it might be communicated to the House. Lord JOCELYN, in reply, state#l that no official in formation had been received by Government in reference to that transaction. No official dispatch had been re ceived; but a nrivate letter had been received from the Governor of Bombay, dated December 23, inclosiug a private communication from the Government of India, 'which informed them that large bodies of the Seikh troops crossed the Sutlej, against whom the British troops advanced on the 18th of that month; but after a march of three hours they had to give up, in con sequence of the extreme darkness of the night The first entrenchment was taken on the 21st. Since this private letter no communication had been received by her Majesty's Government ; but when the dispatches of Sir Henry Hardinge were received, they would no doubt be highly satis&actory. Mr. F. FRENCH wished to put a question to the Right Hon. the Rome Secretary, as to the removal of the toa.7d of guardians at 'roam, near Castleragh, Ireland. Ile wished to know why they were removed ? Sir J. GRAHAM, in retly to the Hon. Member, had to say tiat the board of guardians had positively reribed to open the workhouse or even to administer the poor-laws, and the consequence was. that the Poor-law Commissioners were forced to remove ttiem. l Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORI) had to request from Sir Robert. Peel an answer to the following question:— Whether it is the intention of her Majesty's, Government to propose to Peril:anent any measure on the subject of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland? Sir R PEEL said taiv,t certainly did hope that her 314:lay's Goverametut would be enabled to thtrociuee .• measure on the subiem referred to by the lion. Me fiber. Mr. COLQUIIOLLY begged leave to ask a question of the lion. ttleat'uer - for Cork. lle wi,hect to know whether it was his intention to press the motior, of which he had given notice, to-morrow (Tuesday) evening ? Mr. O'CONNELL said he certainly would, if the Ilousewould permit him. CORN-LAWS. On the order or /he day for resuming the adjourned debate being read.. Mr. ASTELL presented a petition fro) n the parish - • - - -- of the Stroh t iou of the corn-laws had n ot be es mentioned in 1841, then it might have been urged that tr question could not be ente r tain e d by the present. Parlism en i but the question of the repeal of the cop -laws was entertall!„. by the electors of 1841, and no Parliament could better deci.u e. upon it than the present ; for if they went to the electors a r g:_ l 7 he we's sure a more respectable class of men could not beret% _c_:" nor a class in whom the electors would have more confide°"' A great many Honourable Gentlemen opposite were ill s _ l o ;t sition to entertain that owii question. Even at the present rn, a gentleman, a candidate for Suffolk, declared to his 7 1 'fleets that he would leave him s elf, open to whatever he rT consider best for the int eres t s o f hi s country.—( Hea Now that gentleman, tho ug h a p ro t ec ti on i s t at preseut elig r, s ,e Att ; r e on hearing the que s tio n di scusse d, b e i n d uc ed to glr,e for the abolition of all p ro t ec ti on . I t h a ppened to lOs Gibson) to know that app ea l s were ma de en beha lf of of friends of the Right H onoura bl e B arone t at the °` • d her Majesty's Government on these groan& I S ,04 as on the grounds of protection. It had ' t h een e , 0 16 rin the manufact uring di str i cts t h at t h e Right ' °n :, eel° Baronet arid his parry w o uld d o more f or free-trade l ot ;a than would the Noble L,erd the Member for London tier)'` party, were they i n o ffi ce ; an d h e (t h e Hon.Ale w .fr e ct reproached with b e i ng one of a party that could n ot ribs much as the Administration of the present Premierbmet supporters of Sir George Murray took that, ground ; naroett every man of common sense knew that the Right Hon. ,'" e el ite at the bead o f her Majesty's Ministry professed free-tr" cipies, and that he could do more for their advancentencbogo could Lord .I,,hn Busa e ll if i n power. If there existed a . bat of deception or rn i,l ea di ng o f persons outside that H e° :Net charge should rest ag a i ns t th e representetives of the ar c issrlit' interest. They made the tenant farraera believe that 1 , o p mint would maintainehese protective laws. He could 40 j ur eet that, for himself, he had advised Hon. Members De r to I g th e that course. He had advised them not to keep ie e ppor t tenant farmers that the Right Hon. Baronet would e; those laws. They did, however, pursue their own e" ° ' o ,ecto" persevered in telling the tenant farmers that those it-of it be supported, and they were now reaping the bette° .oo b ls perseverance The Right Honourable baronet nod t i le d se place in the Mini s try on p ecu li ar griiun d s . When ra.' cult urA to propose in respect to th e. law effecting the alitra ll red' ; he was asked to state his v i ews and his reply was, t i Ca is a bi° and then I shall prese t ibe for you." They had ct' iea e l in, and he had prescribed f or them a draug"" a elee t ; bitter than they seemed inclined to swallow.- - I hey were told that the British farmer was unable to with the Polish, because he had certain elPe-tes bi the cultivation of the so il w hi c h w I r ' ere not o e o " A the foreign farmer—( H e ar)—and that in a Or, three parts arable land and one of pasture, lab ° , ';,-bet e " at 355. an acre, and local taxes at 25., making fut e r s erw, tax of 37e. an acre. They were also told that th e ee s e b s l quantity of wheat was four quarters to the acts , e - d w e j a common process of calculation, they would nine shilling; a quarter on wheat was the i•ere c: 111 4 ` 0 00,, of as constituting the debility.—( Cries of " No, Dos ' t r ; Ministerial side. ) Yes, the other items were basil, foreign farmers as well as by them, and they oudiated with indignation any intention of 6,0 leg high rents by maintaing protection. Ai elc or be denied that this was a fair statement ? ere tural labour in America was much more eil'e n , it was in England.—( Hear, hear.) It was veil v ze „t dO it that the wages of agricultural labourers were at le;g( o in Ameriea as compared with agricultural , A ioei • s , England.—( Hear, hear.) It was urged by the erre,i-i that they lay under peculiar hardens, but the 00 1 ) ° ,,03, Lion which he knew of was Is. per quarter ern ree l c`': e i surely that could not disable English agriculturists t ' spi ee o peting with those in foreign countries.—(Hear.) ' we e c i f to him a perfect mystery how they were dig a ry fist o entering into such a competition. Why, the v e i s ome ,, freight of es. or les. per quarter on ser Ot her , from the United States, together with so vi es ,e pease!, more than covered • the amount fog,' English agriculturists in local taxation. ' l° o f 11 ' 1 7ie agriculturists were pro!, eted by the natural coruse st i e e te r and they could not rightfully complain of any ioid. a i o , b ,t dune to them by the present initesterl_bee ' sure. He contended, that even if they could ' pr ice, A they lay under any disabilities with regard to t b t e he for e ts 4 ,, labour, they did not pay near as much as was paid h1.....ii agriculturist in importing his grain into this eote'e and they were, therefore, entitled to O ee l' e tbsto t from the Legislature.--( Hear, hear. ) He em iten e " s trf 59 ef , foreign corn trade was as good a branch of iu", 11 . - 5 etel s io trade in agriculture which was carried on ill tßl e e ir tf i el and that they were entitled to carry op belie free and unmolested.—(Loud cries of " H ear ,Liter, Pr e The Hon Member for Huningdon talked of an t ee tits'7o ing amongst us to settle this question by some c o— ', r eito,,• e" Hear," from the protectionists.) If such S t 0 10 A) come amongst them, he maintained that his d e .ciaitetr o ebrie doubt edly in favour of the manufacturers.—(oer s , l d ia r eclO e ), It was said that the repeal of the corn-laws e , ° ° 'this value of land, but he confessed he could not see h °- este" be, for ever since the col re.iaw question hrd been l ea f had fetched as good a price as it did beiure. --1 / 4 fore , i s o Laud had been taken at the same rent also as b t e he y some daces at increased rental s , and o o r better test of the value of any given produce' . u es, s ,4o, that was likely to be effected by a L eg i s l a tive 1 11 " P e el} ) 0 1 in the willingness or unwillingness which capita lisots theth e sif . ‘ i invest their money in th a t commo dity. " e ' n ' a lly° ° ,o l6 fetched as good a price now, and tenants were red l etti to give good rents, as they were years ago. ' -° te etio s e 4 " not be because they had confidence in the 1 11 ,7; 1 „,0 0 ,,,5 4 maintainieg theeorn-lawie for if they did they at ou'u ree eto; oa of the mistake they were tailing auto, when they nato'fe that the most eminent statesmen, the Right "°''' se a re one hand, and the Noble Lo r d on the othe r, weo ssfeio against them.— ( Hear, hear. pszties ulilotes".° as ever to invest capital in land, and he eu r eu e e llt instance which had occurred in the county ° "err s ; f a recent period, and which had been Le e ;41, cated to him by a friend of his. • where three land tenants who were paying the high rents, notwithstanding 'the rumours about e,er'bif the corn-laws, had made agreements for renewing ' ge e ter very long periods, and not one of these 63 tlees t leo asked toed reduction of rent.—( Hear, hear.) te e ' o 4 them that the far mers had discussed fu t hat ,e amongst themselves, and they had decid ed f were not justified in calling fur a reductionibeditti (Loud cheers.) He was not prepared to nleorr ell(; of his friend, but if ac y- Honourable 3 1 'i n f l y l°oo 4/ it, he woulet be ready to communicate it pl evae a ete i ,e; Lst him ask what was 'he meartine of ail th o ' e the repeal of the corn-laws ? were they (the prote,C tbe s , e 4O. jealous of the advance of trade t and was nut tha t their resistance to the measure? --(Cheers, and c ries He should be sorry to see any among t he anele f ' t ,„evile of England—the high families of this cott"f r) D es t) .e, such unworthy feelings as to be jealous °i t ee li!; ring prosperity. But such, he feared, wa s eves pi N (" No, no," from the protectionists.) 0 , 5 9 a fact that it was a test of the et , e s bo manufacturer to a seat it. the Upper House, thar the purchaser of an estate ?—( Hear, hear.) T he oec 9r Gentleman at the head of her elaiestY's re the t e , :, on a forma r occasion, said that he we , 5 any 112 ,16, ( , of the corn-law( would not be detrimental to the landed intereet, and would not in the s"" if tend to alter the value of land.—( Cheers ) T hat fi.° by [ bea rd Gibsou's) opinion, and he did not see any rea-on tb e . 3 l e il; toeraey of England should be jeatou-, —( No err) —of the advance of free-traueurerlesi.tie, He did not see any reason why they s hould: feelings ; for, after all, he very 11 10 ,°" 4 ,06le j d'e whether many of them were not et . ', ..eV r e r , the manufacturing classes of this counir.cooofblib,/ He contended that it had been the sy: tem of ll;e,„ the d ew A could be proved, that posses.ion of iand had led l ' a vdeti r„r, offices in the State. He contended that the . yro monopolised to a great extent the Pl' ebe e Se' e s anti emoluments in sec.e'y —( Hear, hear. an m ake ) i tre it was a boast hat they make illiinstries and 11 „ . ° r for r y.°‘ their pleasure.—( Hear, hear. ) he Hun. 2sferiwe bury had said truly, th a t " the aristocracy of t he . e el a territorial aristocracy." All this he brought fu . r ;:et 3c , ) coo , the great advantages enjoyed by the landed pr°, l :, w aiv e t t r , country. He believed that competition frets ' tre e d' tr erj, being unlimited, that they need fear nothing t ost o l e ! lion of the corn-laws. He did nut bring lh ese f,r ward as charges against the aristocracy ; but a' it oio o .ter e ing and experience went, he was led to the edlw ..n i a ryi p oer:, o # had used their functions for their private and peT7 O l and for the advancement of their own po , '" re ,eidee t ere (Hear, hear.) There was one portion of the); dies c '' . 9l o l to which he wished to allude, namely, that, l' bo etObeefie were to be totally abolished, why that „ a tetel!', r s' tte not take place at once ?—( Cr iee of as/ et 1 1 Why should they defer to anoth er epit ie beg;o l justice was said to require, and what the s,, s r e t P country peremptorily called for ?—(Cries of 0 ° ,0 1° 0; 1 Whether the eine/gem:les of the country did not t liO t teif; of the corn-laws was called for. lie believed that ° t oe t O' conwetitivn with foreigners, they could not do per, t o e d e . them by surprise by an immediate repeal of thor spe cZO hear.) With respect to the famine which was it , si'_!: tt afr , 4 place in Ireland, it appeared to him that in order, do t c" g ai ia l 4 sent measure advantageous to the cxigeocies order, rs ct e '0 , 1 ) one farthing duty should be kept upon corn. 4, 0 0 " Tlic iat s 4 , melds in favour of the measure before the I ' lo o' 0 , 0 favourable for an Immediate repeal of the dui ii. iL b ut Hon. Baroliet had said that about two months le da tr' nr lo r necessary to open the ports. Noilthig would d ° „ e of ment of this law, for while anything In the soap oat r epo °° was maintained, the agriculturists would be c °. m . lag. He wished to settle the question by an u" dt by i e P ti' , he was sure the agriculturists would not beil e ,,,, to t,. 4 . tl ett aif ) :, duty. Those who were looked to by the ceull7 t tse,"oo get rid of those laws, would certainly take the v iort cis ols,V dt Olt an intact-11.i te 'the question was 110`v,,n adieu 01,r,1 it had forced itself into this lints., in the teeth wot(11c00.4 The question was there in spite of them, and it 116 . ,,, tr y• it et rr ref so had it not been backed by the opinion of the de°;igeri:.; pct itiei3 believed that if any motion of theirs could e ° n re o' tiV thrown out by the House of Lords. The mea,, $ by the present Parliament, it was not carri(:" bv the ies g either in er out on the Ito. se ; it was ca rre , _t_ an ' t t tin ts itl a li d ' o , country if it leers carried at all—(Bear. hear ) y on that substantial base it would tail. tho`,„eter,l4, m' sal I public 1 , 1)11110n was? There was no better bar o', it. • o ,o oe ss i I than the Right lion. o:entlemait.-- (Hear, bear: , ,a o cr.„o know what great measures were a gitatill ie 0 ! ) joi , let then look to his conduct, lid' r - h ero', ille:',,eo• ltre and ju , tly appre,iated public opinion - `i o and when they talked of confi4ence • t o .4 0e..„ 1 speak in' that confidence tluy would uot set . u . l . 7 d p ro7 vit co' rii ' c o P,: it to, or resist the changes which inquiry "c.n i uire sary. That was the way for public men `° lu sty pe• ,'; re ct• le p s ail not by the manteuverings notY r o r oror 0 , rsued this course; they sought so co p. ° , of Whig and Tory, aril the consequences . 1_ r f tingl 01 cree d He did conjure the House not to raise uei e vest , '"" eie' t e classes into action upon this question. d oets; tf_ t , prolong the conflict which nthcod not de rv , . 00 Y anti which could only heap em boo t s,' He should think that they would not be thit_ c f, p se .oic h ion se ..o , country if they allowed any length of tune es : 0 t i e t ai vided some remedy for those awful i_r st ,teL' ine Staring them in the face, and which N‘teo7 the " v e sec l 7 .- -(1 ,9 other night by the Secretary of State _ tea s Itesuipaliey sire' That Right lion. Gentleman had told the._rodog t less than a famine in Ireland during the I d do t i ; c , bear.) That, thereefore, was a most tnri' d tif up po• rte d o not c .nsent to issoluon of Par1i 4 , 1 :,1, 1 itous be ' o ttse 4o o.. 4o o (Cheers.) Hon. -timbers on his side . oc ;. __ , s ' vo; t v j ; vernment on the present qut . st , 06 11 lieved it was based on public , vr eg o i ant nerge ec . ., ot cause they believed the preser i t i t atioje a the ee .o. o c re e e• r ors d e to provide a remedy for the present d the y troduction of a national measure, an iretL itee r 0 „w eir a• Should be provded quickly.—(Clicet;stiatue o ppu- ,00 thei rj o i t.l mem onposite tout an their Prescn ite Ii it b tee ing of this measure.—(hear, hear.) ;it 6 011 1 . 1.. ~or 0 0 ;0 before he sat down to consider c , !tc i o ever under the suit to lay dow ll ,l ii , c ountr , .' n , p ortut i view r - 10 0'1. maimiacturers s corn t m u d country free of all let or own eSz p , se tt . _ wha t f o p . trade. Foreign had as much had a right to cultivate thel e r o the ir s,i t 0 1 0 " 0 110 0 10 .,i,eir them, therefore, not to Pr en titleal t ° ., 0 1 • oc ute_.." t liirnidgrilatucte° feudal pretension, tint they were , gold be sir ' n i e t elt! f i c ed.7„;it lions the trade of this countrY B ,'?i l tilitY (4 3 (i tiri• 4 ` "' to 311 . 3 of to t them to be satistl , l with the Pi , . tio d to r e site s o fde own estates and to let trade met thettinse.boe Olt own .011 Mr. HALSEY s‘iid he t'elt iberS tat „IS „ o ple tO t•lt ° l, er r.) th i c i improper , or be would ask, with what jus•l y ipirneusesenthuEitdeasimurpetite,Cl iertain i!cerni. netievieis wouid 117 . d t,i. lio se rp i e lu no tea sto o , l! would attend to the details, re duce , _t itoy eel._t 00 c o; the question would be m ate u : aid were the eei ta li., were alleged to be peculiar air° rded lo wered' in ple e ti o '•l l "' on were to be eitie. ilfts %a- thei l tics ion „ o rtio o _ te tion ,4 l i t 4 n tl a re a pr i o r te t c h ti a o t n invested hi taint were is-. Mission of Mt n ,' was P". iev ed, 4 ; n roe' f ia wo.tki made by the le e. e e e t tir o, wee re t tl icve r cail- oe • or , p w ro h t i e c c h ti parthul • sly pressed tip lion eves to r; 30 ,, iab° o %, tlt no pectetar burdens; iv!! • nee _ .hich it col/ event of a total 'weal,• ons ender teat .naiild f r om s ome of the itn . P . ,_ e goate e ens r considered that 019 91