The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-17 00:00:00

Welfar e OF7"--------------------.he whole community, what has been their opera tn io upon that porti on o f t h e community for the benefit of for the protection of the landed interest ? Why, they have tb l g t n : , l , l ,. v . failed. Taking the three great classes into which the soil, interest may be divided, viz., the owners of eir the farmers or capitalists, and the labourers, the only As to which they have not recently worked injury are the sahourees, and the labourers they have not injured precisely be cause they have failed in producing the effect which was de• signed and expected by the framers of them. It is because the Corn-laws have been lately inoperative in producing their designed effect on prices that they have failed to injure the la bourer. We are furnished with decisive testimony by both he Committees of 1833'and of last Session on the state of agri culture. The CommittCe of 1833 in their Report say, "Itis a eonsolvion to your Committee to find that the general condition t of the agricultural labourer, in full employment, is better now mendt ar.3, former period, hi s money - wages g i v i ng a greater con- I c over the necessar i es and conven i ences of life. " Tho that of ee of last Se ss i on ma d e no report ; b ut I am sure , I shall meet w i th the concurrence of every member of that ' e Mmittee,, and, indeed, of every one who has read the evi nonce, in st a ti ng t h at, if there be one single point placed by byOat evidence beyond dispute, it is the greatly-improved con ition of the agricultural labourer. More than fifty witnesses, ',occupiers of land, from all parts of England, Wales, and Scot land, were examined, and among them scarcely one expressed even a hesitating opinion as to the state of comparative ease and comfort of the labouring classes. All, or nearly all, said in the strongest language, that the condition of those classes Was better than at any period of their recollection, and all attri buted it to the cause assigned in the Report of the Committee O f 18 33, viz, that the money wages of the labourer gave him an unprecedented command over the necessaries of life. This effect is Precisely what experience would lead us to anticipate. With respect to the farmer, these laws have not only failed to confer on him the advantage it was asserted he would have de lrived from them that he would not have received had the Corn arss be en e ff ectual for the attainment of their object—but they ' a y'', in many cases, worked his entire ruin, in all have been Prejudicial to his interests, and must, in the long run, by a p r ocess demonst ra bl y i nev i ta bl e, cause the entire destruction of the farming capital of the country. The Corn-laws would be valueless to the farmer even could they keep up the price of corn ; but what is their effect when, as is now or has been recently the case, they fail to keep it up ? Why, that they are the cause of his utter ruin : the temporary rise of price they produce induces him to engage in a farm, in which his rent, Itis mode of culture, his expenses arc all calculated on antici pations of a price of corn which he finds to be delusive ; and, after a few years' struggle, in which part of his capital goes to the landlord, and part is utterly wasted, he throws up hi s f arm a ruin e d and broken-hearted man. The farmer is merely a capitali s t. T hat which is alone really interesting to him is, that the price of corn should be steady. But the landholders— surely these laws, framed by them, and with a direct view to their tdvinitage, must to them, at least, be highly beneficial. Sir, 1 arts satisfied that if there be one class of the community ore deepl y t h aa all others interested in the abrogation of the resent system, the landholders are that class. I rest this assertion mainly on two propositions, both capable of complete demonstration : first, that it is impossible, by any legislative Penactments, permanently to keep up the prices of agricultural roduce o f t hi s country considerably above its level in other ent ries;t all that you can effect is to produce a ruinou s fluc ation ; and, secondly, that the attempt so to keep it up in volves the risk not only of depriving the English landholders dt t he , great advantages which they at present possess, but of "Pressing their-condition as much below as it is now above ,• conuition of the owners of the soil in any other part of the World. The whole scheme of keeping up the price of native- T R. : ° , l l corn by legislative restrictions on the importation of , f ei gn corn—vebether these restrictions take the place of ab -nte prohibition under a certain price, as by the Act of 1815, °l ' of virt ua l exclusion by duties so high as to be prohibitory Ita,li'er the pr esent l aw, t h e w h o l e sc h eme tests on t h e assump 0n that we shall always be an importing country ; that we , n all always grow less than we consume ; . that . there shall *ls is , b, Is be a tendency to dearth. It is quite demonstrable tb % 4 Priori reasoning that this is a state which cannot be per it -11 , e nt• In order that dearth may nut become famine b 42 necessary that such an amount of capital should 0 Yea rs dev oted to the c u lti va ti on o f the soil as, in ordi nary s hallproduce a supply equal to the consumption e f 4 ,4 etii! kin gdom.. This tendency -- of capital . to flow towards the tivation of the soil is certain ; it will be attracted to that C ahs - r . °Yinent preferably to all others, because the demand for „ogee:, of life is of all demands the least checked by „,, I go prices The consumption of articles of luxury very ieeljejedilY diminishes' with advancing cost, but the demand for a. u Must be satisfied and until, therefore, the ordinary pro t" o f Capital cannot be obtained in raising corn, capital will aboutto its production, whatever be its cost. What is eVitable result ? The supply which in ordinary year was t h e equal to your wants, with an abundant harvest exceeds 4 , 1 e1 n, and the portion which is surplus to the national con in mption must fall, not only to the price which it will fetch fore' d e f• i gn markets, but as much below that p r i ce as w ill j et r al the c os t o f i ts transport . If a s h ort h arvest or two di s e tt ri e r ene, a rise t a k es place to a f am i ne p r i ce ; an d w hil st a a re s s o ecurs among the manufacturing classes, wild hop es a la i excited excited among the farmers, the growth of corn is miserable g i Mprovidently extended, and you recommence your tb erable cycle. Are these only speculative evils ? Do 1 1)0 ° ,1 e xist only in the imagination of theorists ? At this tli "ent they oppress us ; twice since the Act of 1815 has tai't'e succession of cause and effect, this ruinous alternation, son s ° Place. The framers of the Act of 1815, and the per aati_Fegaged in the pursuits of agriculture, almost universally bet ciliated, as the consequence of that measure, a price of corn b i n avera - gins less than 80s. ; in 1823 it was 38s. Mr. Can toriago'rk,etetiittlylB27, said, when introducing his resolutions similar, so, to the provision of the existing law—" The ai en b t will assume such a steadiness, that instead of a fluctua bsati etvreen 112 s. at one time, and 38s. at another, the vi eir 1 0 48 , will probably be found to be limited within the small beep tub from about 555. to 655." Now, has this prophecy ; us. InJfiiled ? In 1828 the price of wheat was 755. ;in 1836, deg re "hat becomes now of your grave discussions as . to the of ~ e of protection to which the landed interest is entitled— phiinotur laborious inquiries as to a remunerating price—that el a h et °l ° which has always mocked your research ?—of your sid eee nte scale of ascending and descending duties ? Pro file ° b lesses us with abundant harvests, and sweeps away !q ua l 2l l ll ,nY effects of that legislation which would obstruct the tete_emstribution of its blessings. The real and permanent be t r h a s t t °f the landholder of this, or any other country, must Way s • the c ommunity of which they form a part should al baittee InPort corn. The evidence given before the Com the c s .t Year affords proof, clear and indisputable, that predef'uslasys have in this respect, viz., the tendency to th em `e great fluctuation, the effect I have ascribed to (Hear, hear.) ciarrea---There was a remarkable eon two roost of opinion among almost all the witnesses as to 163 4 .""t It° nt s th P tant points. First, that for some years, up to larg e had been a perpetually increasing tendency to en had ss e "' growth of wheat ; and, secondly, that in 1835 there etear:_nurred a striking revulsion in the tendency. The de- Yea r wag 1 the breadth of wheat sown in the autumn of that t ar id by by almost all the witnesses, stated as considerable, igh4 sotne rated as high as twenty-five per cent., and even bee n lb The reason of this change is clear. Wheat has ~I n 5,0,14 tiemeessptecital favourite of our legislation ; it was supposed r‘Kr th e re _ to, be the great reliance of the farmer. " Wheat Yet hi, in, it was said ; and accordingly it has been in a zivsatapyuperrndteeegtiree than other grain the object of Pasha on. f '' a nd 31s We have chosen to assume that 735., °- the cost •, are the prices that express the fair relation sneer' s of growth of wheat, of barley, and of oats re any 4'9 ., and the result shows how eminently absurd is ~,,, es gislative int f 4 1q e n ris _ .interference in such matters.—( Hear, hear.) tei lit i r , eS did at no time perhaps express accurately that of Mt ; but si n irn husbandry, which the introduction of the four-course system a e rvemen ts i s lich dispenses with fallow, and those s as applicabrileeultivation which have rendered the lighter ..0 ation of costs h ee l to wheat as to barley and oats, this assumed I,cssadation. ~„,. aas become utterly erroneous and devoid of , her eas by your at has been the consequence ? Why—that sea?re than bassb en during lY' baste Ws Y" "Y wheat shall be 78s per cent. .and 1 355. per cent. dearer than oats, it above the • act Inconsiderable period about, or very little ley. ' lt Price theeriod wilithasinbehaelef cht ,ts, and actually below the price of bar e centurYe in g t n._ inpasEtnygelaarndc,heehaepacisrevthaenvenat thanany very mean Price of the atop to whi c h it lacalntries from which we import it. The sill t il o at keep not on i v ' h s . bee . n the darling object of your po tay dead°femit the p' e, high in price, but steady—which you ked for Pigs,f it__has fallen of England to eat unless they will and rr i r n P But this to a rate has made it an economial 0: QIII. cure itself. No is a temporary evil, it may be said, _ admirable a doubt it is in a rapid process of cure. Ystem hay' . 4 ,1_ the ,_ear, ovv successfull u nva h ca p it al of the mg wasted an enormous portion producers of corn, is now about to :a hear, and eheeyrsit can afflict the consumer.--( Hear, a b awl an extent by th ) Capital has been abstracted to as.st this Year 0 unusual' f e growth of wheat, that unless we have prices befor altar ) ", e the crop e f. Productiveness, we shall see tri t '", Produce rem 4138 can be reaped which will, I „ 1 ve la , . onstrances from the manufacturing dis prod"°W atidc different in tone fro the language in which they uct, oss you. But setting f rom the effect of monopoly to 1 Erarv ests the fluctuations I have described, described, conceding that our Bean are always to be of uniform produce admitting that is succeed in faroi,er to rise intomaintaining a state of Partial dearth which abundanced.. on the one hand, or to sink into siini4 °II the other iittting for a moment all these impos you thenel abl y at e ) ; could *Mild re the level of othe r eep up the price of corn consider- Year ma n 0 itaPOSSihle. One countries ? Even then, Sir, it weedlttiti lbufacturing ea . o f two things must happen : either e Populat' pital would depart to other shores, b . ton which it at h.Yb emigration, or the Present supports must be re course' °me market for more dreadful process of misery, 4 _o., reduced ; or you woeridbei.ng thus limited, the price of uand thus equally diminishediv your labourers to cheaper ahatatusolute conditionofthe demand for wheat. It is other he ra ,_ 0. the existence of our manufactures Le t wages should not such th at it c • b e greatly above the rate in such t at it f s net g. countries and if theprice for - l' i mself t within the reach of the of . bread .be t heir a wha o Potatoes. Where will thenoperative he will the re,rneseurces t the condition of the humbler be your market Pe a t ` , " `serVatio a gainst famine ? What willbe classes ? What a b e You cannot t ?rder, or the stability the chances of ve t h e ot maintain of .property ? I se tae Itch . average Price " permanentl y a price of grain much a ttetu t ; i n ey e bY legisi • of other countries • the utmost you Stsee;--stir alternataitire interference ie, tollpr'oduc miserable Ivolacturer, and e 7 crushing into ruin the farmer ea or the the . 1 1 whi ch co _ ra always in both. The erflowing s lap o f R __T a e_reC. and manufactures h poured into , ve 'e r. tha t b i ,:,% Ild, and the demand which ave the crowded t ~kroduction of g t i; ew n, uP at :their bidding afford for Until e ab solutel , e soil, confer upon land • this country enraParativ j} unkoo' in in d e Y a recent er country, an periodunknownin n our ow . Ample proof of this fact is to be found in the report of Mr. Jacob, who, in 1826 and 1827, visited, by direction of Government, the great corn-growing countries of Europe. Throughout Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Gallicia, and Hanover—throughout the wide regions watered by the Vistula, the Weser, and the Elbe,—either rent does not exist at all—the proprietor being under the necessity of cultivating his own estate—or it varies from ss. per acre to 15d per acre. By the testimony of Locke, it appears that ss. per acre was a rack-rent in his time in England. Not the smallest additional development can be given to the operation of the steam-engine, nor the least improvement can be effected in the loom, which does not add to the value of every landed estate in the king dom. It is not in the higher price of corn alone that the ad vantages of the English landholder consist.—( Hear, hear. ) The admirable roads, the means of transport by canals and railroads, the abundance of capital, the facility of credit, the demand for those articles in which he never can he rivalled by the foreign agriculturist—for animal food, for milk, for but ter, for esculents, for hay, for straw—all these are advan tages of which it is not easy to over-estimate the value. The English landholder possesses a natural monopoly in being proprietor of the soil in the richest and most densely populated country in the world. By attempting to add to it an artificial monopoly, he may lose some of his present, but can gain no additional advantages. I shall be referred to the increasing amount of our exports as proof that our Corn-laws are not inconsistent with the prosperity of our manufacturing interests. It is with the full knowledge of the facts on which such an argument may be grounded, that I repeat my deli berate conviction that our manufacturing and commercial su premacy trembles in the balance. Our Corn-laws affect our manufacturing interests by a double process : first, by depriv ing our manufactures of extensive markets, which would be otherwise open to them; and secondly, by disabling them from successfully competing with their foreign rivals in those markets to which both have access. You have already lost, or are rapidly losing, your European markets. How long will you retain those of the other portions of the world ? On this point I beg to call the attention of the House to a do cumentrecentla circulated by the Cotton Association of Glasgow and the West of Scotland, relating to the cotton manufacture, by far the most important of all the branches of our national industry. I find it there stated, that the consumption on the continent of Europe of raw cotton was last year upwards of 600,000 bales—that the cotton manufacture of France has in creased in ten years 53 per cent., whilst ours has increased only 50 per cent. ; but in the same time that of the United States of America has increased 121 per cent. I find it stated that the cotton hosiery is manufactured in Germany so cheap that it is imported into this country, notwithstanding an import duty—that of cotton yarn the importation is gradually confining itself to the finer qualities, clearly proving that even in spin ning, that especial branch of the manufacture in which we have been accustomed to consider ourselves secure from competi tion, the exertions of our continental rivals are daily becoming more formidable—that in every market of the world, in Mexico, in the Brazils, in China, in India, at Malta, at Smyrna, and Constantinople, the heavy cotton cloths of the United States of America enter into successful competition with the produce of the English looms. I find it asserted that in America the manufacturer gets his raw material cheaper, that on the continent of Europe wages are lower than in England, whilst in both water power supplies at a cheaper rate the agency of steam. Now, I entreat of the House to weigh attentively the object with which these representations are made ; it is to induce the Legislature to take off the small tax yet levied on the importation of cotton wool, five-eighths of one penny per pound, amounting on the whole of the goods manufactured to only two per cent. ; and it is the deliberate opinion of the Association that the removal of even this amount of pressure is essential to enable the British manufacturer to endure the competition of his foreign rival. I hesitate not to say that the Association is right, and that the duty must be taken off. But I say further, that this relief will not suffice; that wages, which form so much larger a component part of the cost of manufactured goods, cannot in England permanently remain much above the wages paid in similar branches of rna nufactere in other countries, and that such approximation of the rate of wages here and abroad can only take place without a convulsion by an approximation also in the prices of the ne cessaries of life. Of the amount of risk we should incur by seriously endangering the loss of the foreign market for our cotton goods the House will judge when I state that of the cotton manufacture, which leaves for profit on capital and wages of labour not less than 25,000,0001. per annum, and employs or supports from two to three millions of individuals, two. thirds, or perhaps three-fourths, find a vent in foreign markets ; that under our present system these, the chief sources of our national wealth and greatness, will be dried up ; that if we do not abrogate the Corn-laws—those laws which, whilst they exclude us from one-half of the markets of the world, will render us unable to support competition in the other —we shall sooner or later lose our manufacturing su premacy, I hold to be certain. My own opinion is, that the epoch of that loss will not be long delayed—but, be its occur rence nearer or more remote—if there be truth in reasoning, or certain anticipations to be drawn from experience —come assuredly it will. In the issue of this great experiment the landholders are more deeply interested than any other class of the British people.—[There was here some indication of counting the House.] The llon. Member observed that it was a most unworthy mode of getting rid of the question with out the cognizance of Government.—( Hear, hear.) He con tinued :—I repeat that the landowners are more interested in the issue of the question than any other class of the community. Having now, Sir, stated to the House, however inadequately, the amount and nature of the risk we incur by a prolonged existence of the present Corn-laws, and the deep interest which all classes of the community have in their immediate abrogation, it re mains for me to point out what regulations I would substitute in their place. I would propose to sweep wholly away the system of average and fluctuating duties, and to leave the im portation of every species of grain perfectly free, subject only only to a moderate fixed duty. I would abolish the fluctuat ing duties, because, in whatever degree reduced, they would still be destructive of the most essential element of a free trade, viz., a certainty as to the amount of the charges on the importation of Foreign Corn. I would have the fixed duty of moderate amount, as a high fixed duty would, of course, in proportion as it operated to the exclusion of Foreign Corn, produce all, or nearly all, the evils I have ascribed to the pre sent system. The duty should be in amount an exact equi valent for the burdens which the agricultural capitalist has to sustain beyond what is borne by the rest of his fellow-citizens, and which enhance the cost at which his produce can be brought to market. The amount of those burdens is clearly the exact measure of the protection to which the agricultural interest is entitled ; for whilst, on the one hand, it is both just and expedient that the weight of taxation should be diffused equally over the whole community, and not be permitted to press more heavily on one branch of the national industry than another, on the other it caniA be contended that the taxation which is raised from the agricultural classes in their character, not of producers, but of consumers, that taxation which falls only on the rent of the landlord or the profits of the farmer, can give a claim for peculiar protection. Having defined the rule by which the new duty should be calculated, I might fairly, perhaps, leave my motion in the hands of the House, and de volve on the Committee the task of applying that rule. I feel, however, that the more open and candid course, although not the best adapted for securing support to my motion, is to state what in my opinion should be the amount of the perma nent duty. I should propose, if. the House accede to my mo tion, that the new law should come into operation on the Ist of June of this year; that from that time to the Ist of June, 1838, the duties should be 10s. per quarter on wheat, Ba. on barley, and 6s. on oats ; to the Ist of June, 1339, Bs. on wheat, 6s. on barley, and 4s. on oats ; and from that time perma nently ss. per qr. on wheat, 4s. per qr. on barley, and 3s. per qr. on oats. The ground on which I fix the relation between the different kinds of grain I have named; the duties to be fixed on the less important sort I have not named will be matter of discussion in .the Committee. I will now merely say that the duties I have mentioned are more than a full equivalent for the whole of those charges which press exclusively on the landed interest, or enhance the cost of growing corn. Sir, it may perhaps be expected that I should express some opinion as to what would be the price of corn in England under such a law as I have proposed. My own complete conviction is, that with a free trade and a duty of 55., wheat could not, to the extent of one fortnight's consumption of the kingdom, be imported under 40s. to 455. per quarter ; that would, of course, be the mean price of this country, and, minus the duty and cost of transport, the price of every country with which we have intercourse. A free trade in corn would restore those friendly and intimate commercial relations with the nations of the world, which our Corn-laws have interrupted—rela tiuns not to be shaken, because they would rest upon the na turnl wants and capabilities of every country, and be cemented by the interchange of mutual benefits. A free trade in corn, whilst it would re-open to our manufacturers the markets of Europe, would, by in sur i ng to t h em a moderate an d stea d y price of the necessaries of life, enable them to support com petition in those of the New VVoild.—( Hear, hear.) Nor is there any sufficient ground for believing that these most im portant national objects would be gained at the price of any considerable derangement in British agriculture. Ido not believe that more than a very moderate quantity of foreign grown wheat could be laid down here at less than from 40s. to 455. per quarter, and Ijam altogether sceptical as to the Bri tish agriculturist being enabled to grow it at a that price. He has enormous advantages over his foreign competitor, and with the improved culture and more judicious application of capital which would follow on the establishment of free trade, I doubt whether more than a very small portion of the land of England would be found incapable of producing corn at a price to compete with the foreign growth. The great value of a free trade in corn is, that it would indicate the precise. point at which the aids to be derived from a dense population, and the application of capital and science would cease to counterbalance the effect of the mere fertility of soil in coun tries not possessing such advantages. I believe that period to be yet remote. Ample support for this opinion might be drawn from the evidence given to the Committee of last Ses sion, but I feel that it is totally unnecessary that I should tres pass on the indulgence of the House for this purpose. All such considerations merge in the wider conclusion—( Cries of Hear, hear, hear)—the grounds for which it has been my main object clearly to lay before the House, namely, that equality, or nearly an equality, in the price of the ne cessaries of life in this country, and those which are our manufacturing rivals is the absolute condition—l will not say of our prosperity--but of the security, almost of the existence, of our social system. If it be really true that wheat can be grown in other rn echnodeuree a n rs tl tin ie ao s rp a er t iecee a r tmaciuoncs much h which c t r a u n l d I a n d a m ve i t n o a f m i e t d s being ,th at factlai ndodol vent of the ru i n w hi c h I h ave predicted as the consequen le c o e wade o -r f a perseverance in our present system. In conclusion, `Sir, I would implore of the members of this House, more especially of that la rge port i on connected with the agricultural interests to weigh c a l m l y an d di spass i onately that which I have laid be fore them. Mine hag been little more than the humble merit of bringing into one view the overwhelming arguments which bear upon this great question ; but to those arguments can there be a reply ? I call on them as men of honourable feel ing to free themselves from the suspicion of legislating with sordid views and for their own immediate benefit. I call on them as statesmen, to expunge from our own statute-book what are a disgrace to the intelligence of the age, which fur. nish an excuse for every lingering error, for every absurd re striction, in our commercial code. I call on them as lovers of their country, to avert the dreadful calamities which a perse verance in our present system will, at no distaat period, entail on England. I warn them as prudent men, to delay no longer the solving a question, on the wise solution of which, depends, I venture to assure them, not the value only, but perhaps the very tenure, of their estates. On the motion of an HON. MEMBER the House was counted, but there being more than forty Members present, Mr. VILLIERS rose to second the motion of the Hon. Member fur the Tower Hamlets. By this motion the industry and commerce of the country pleaded before the Legislature, and asked for liberty ; and however anomalous it might appear in a commercial country boasting of a Representative Go vernment, for a quarter of a century they had offered up this prayer to the House without success ; and it seemed that those that maintained these laws raised the issue to the country, whether it was to the skill and industry, the ma nufacturing and commercial enterprise of the country, or to the virtues of the soil, or the owners of the soil, that we were indebted for our greatness and consideration in the world. The support of the Corn-laws raised this ques tion.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Villiers) considered that this country owed everything to commerce and manufacture, and those interests were sacrificed to the interests of an un productive class • and he now called upon the owners o f land who occupied entirely one House of Legislaturti o in this country, and who greatly preponderated in another, to de clare in the face of the country and the world on what ground it was that they passed and maintained laws for the advance ment of their own fortunes and to the injury of the rest of the community. The question of Corn-laws was a clear one, and needed no mystery; it was one of trade between a pro ducer and a consumer, and he contended that wo ought not to consider the producer in any other than his commercial re lation with the rest of the community ; and if we compelled the consumer to pay a higher price than necessarily required, it was rank tyranny and injustice. He had referred to the dis cussions and defences offered upon previous occasions for this system, and he had observed that three or four grounds were usually taken, which were chiefly worth mentioning from their frequent repetition : the first was that land was the basis of all prosperity ; the second was that we ought not to de pend upon the foreign countries for supplies ; the third, that we could not pay our public debt, or maintain our burdens, with out the Corn-laws to secure high rents to the landowners. Now what was the meaning of the fact as connected with Corn-laws, the effect of which was to maintain high prices and to keep poor land in cultivation ? Now are we to be told that England's glory wee to be traced to high prices paid for this produce of poor land ? But it was always added that commerce and manufacture only flourished when land was prosperous. Now does this require a distinct inquiry into the way in which manufactures added to the prosperity of this country'; and he would ask if it were not by producing more than we consumed, and by exporting the surplus? Was it not by the goods which we imported in exchange for our exports that we added to the stock of our wealth, that we became rich and increased the sources of the revenue ? And yet what was the effect of the Corn-laws but to raise price, and thereby limit production by increasing the cost; and was it not evident that Corn-laws were rather the means of misfortune than the basis of pros perity ? The next ground was perhaps the most puerile; indicated want of thought and ignorance of human nature. II supposed that we were in danger from depending upon the fo reign producer of grain, lest we should withhold supplies. This involved two assumptions, one false and the other absurd. In the first place, it assumed that we were now independent of foreign supplies, when it was notorious that we had not been so for forty years past; but the nature of our depen dence was precisely that which was most dangerous, for it left the producer uncertain as to the time when we should re quire those Supplies ; and we know that at one time, in 1816, the price of wheat was 113 s. a quarter, owing to the supplies being inadequate. But do not persons see who urge this ar gument that it applies to commerce altogether, and that we ought not to depend for any article on which the livelihood of any portion of the community depended And this would apply to the million of people who depended upon the impor tation of cotton wool for manufacture as others might do for corn. And now what ground is there for another defence of the Corn-laws, that it is necessary to keep up high rents to pay our national debt? Why, what were the sources of our re venue ? Did not the House know that 72 per cent. of the re venue was paid by the customs and excise ; and what were the duties of customs but the duties paid upon our imports in ex change for what we export. Does it not appear, therefore, that just in proportion as we extend our commerce, so do we improve in revenue, and that as Corn-laws raise price they limit the foreign commerce and diminish the revenue ? Again, can the landowners pretend that they pay more to the excise than the rest of the community, when that depended upon the public consumption, and that the cheaper people had to pay for good the more they had to consume of other things ? Do Gentlemen know who urge this argument that in one branch of trade alone seventeen millions is paid in wages, besides what is paid in every other trade; and if this principle is sound, why should it not apply to all other interests as well as land ?--- ( Hear.) And now, Sir, we come to the last ground usually urged in favour of the Corn-laws—that the landholders have exclusive burdens to bear, and therefore ought to be indem nified by Corn-laws. Now, Sir, in dealing with these exclu sive burdens I beg first to remark, that they are of that nature that gives no one landowner the right to claim indemnity ; and if' that were not manifest before, I might refer to the discussion of the last three nights, when it was distinctly admitted that the Church-rate was a charge upon the land, and that the land had no right to be relieved from such a liability. And where, he asked, was the difference between that charge and any of those now in question? But again he would observe, that if the Corn-laws were to be an equivalent for these exclusive charges, why; there ought to be some adjustment of the charges made upon the public on that account, for we hear of reduc tions of the poor -rates, of one-half of the county-rate being fixed upon the Consolidated Fund, but we never hear a whis per of any reduction in the duty on foreign corn. Again, with respect to tithe, what the agriculturist had to complain of was, that it prevented improvement and cultivation of fresh land ; but the Tithe A.:t of last year prevented this in future, and thereby raised the value on land. But is the duty on foreign corn to be therefore reduced now for what the Member for Corn. Berland calls the locus standi of the landed interest for the Corn-laws? But with respect to this ground of resistance to the repeal of the Corn-laws, he should like to remove it by re pealing the tax on malt, if the landowners would consent to open the ports for foreign grain : be would vote for the repeal of the malt-tax to-morrow if the Corn-laws were repealed. Upwards of forty-five millions of quarters were consumed an nually in this country. Now, for every shilling a quarter paid for more than was necessary the country lost two millions ster ling. Now, the landed interest objected to the fixed duty proposed by my Hon. Friend, for it was said wheat would fall Ss. a quarter. Now, according to their own calculation, we have nearly twenty millions lost annually to this country. Would the public not be gainers then by taking all these al leged charges upon itself? Now, if the agriculturists will not accept these terms, what would the public think of what was alleged in favour of the Corn-laws, that they only gain an equivalent for their exclusive charges ? But did the evil end there ? Was there nothing but paying twenty mil lions a year for the benefit of one class ? Have we nothing to apprehend from what we see going on in the world in con sequence of our system ? Have we not provoked a confecLe ration of twenty-s►x millions of people in the heart of Europe, with a view to resist the introduction of our manufactures, and to attempt to compete with us in the market, which we have hitherto commanded ?—( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.) Do we not see attempts made in every quarter to oppose what is called our " commercial despotism ?" When we learn the fact, authenticated at the Board of Trade, that already we have been successfully opposed by the manufacturers of Saxony and Switzerland, by producing cheaper than ourselves, why are we not to look with alarm at the prospect of success which may attend their rivalry with our manufactures ? This was really the most important part of the question. He (Mr. Villiers) thought that we had the remedy in our hands by at once acting upon that simple, sound, and just principle of " free trade"—that which left to every man to dispose of the fruits of his labour and his capital in the market where he got the most in exchange for them.—( Cheers.) The Marquis of CHAND OS felt it bis duty to oppose the motion. -He complained that the manufacturers throughout the country had formed Associations for purposes of hostility towards the agriculturists. What would be thought of the agriculturists, if they were to form Associations for the pur pose of putting down the manufacturers ? The agriculturists wanted no monopoly:, all they wanted was that protection against the foreigner which was enjoyed by the manufacturer. He certainly thought it was the duty of his Majesty's Minis ters to state whether or not they wont along with the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in .his opinions. He ( Lord Chandos) spoke the sentiments of a large body o findividuals, among whom the avowal that it was the object to introduce the principles of free trade into the affairs of agriculture would create great alarm. From all which had been stated by the Honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets he differed in toto. " Live and let live" was a popular and an excellent motto; but the maxim would be violated if the interests of the agriculturists were wholly neglected, and those of the ma nufacturers alone cherished and protected. Was it fair to re quire a free trade in corn, when there was no free trade in manufactures? He wanted no monopoly for the agricultural interest, but he demanded for them equal justice. He wished to maintain the present Corn-laws as they now existed ; and if the tranquillity of the country should be disturbed by the attempt to alter those Laws, let not Hon. Gentlemen put that evil at the door of the farmers and landowners, but at the door of those who had formed an association to secure the repeal of the Corn-laws. Once destroy the Corn-laws, and they would throw the farmers of this country into the deepest distress ; and if they should throw the country upon the aid of foreigners, God help them in their distress. Mr. E WART, as a member of the Anti-Corn-law Associa tion, defended the proceedings of that Society, and urged that it had been formed on the principle of self-defence; and when the Noble Marquis adverted to the fact of the existence of an Anti-Corn-law Society, let it be recollected that there were two formidable Associations combined to support the present system of Corn-laws—the one being the House of Lords, and the other the House of Commons. The Noble Marquis, however, admitted himself to be an advocate for free trade in manufactures. The Marquis of CHANDOS explained. He had said that he was not opposed to the giving protection to, .or granting free trad e t o , the manufacturing intercsls ; b u t it these w ere given, it followed (and be contended for it) that ihe agricul tural interest should also be protected. Mr. EWART—Then the Noble Marquis vtish(d to esta- THE SUN, LON DON, FRIDAY, MARCH 1/, 1837. blish one ingenious complicated system of monopoly. The present Corn-laws operated prejudicially in two ways—they acted as a burden upon the consumer, and they prevented the extension of the national wealth. The Earl of DARLINGTON was opposed to an altera ration of the existing Corn-laws—not only because he felt that it would deprive the agricultural interest of a protection it had a right to enjoy —but, also, because it would awaken hopes, in the minds of the manufacturers, which could never be realised. Sir W. MOLE SWORTH—I support the motion of my Honourable Friend as a preliminary step to the abolition of all Corn-laws. The question of the Corn-law, as an economical question, is with reference to its effect on wages and profits. I object to a Corn-law because it tends to produce low wages and low profits. With low wages and low profits the bulk of the community is uneasy, miserable, and discontented. nig common objection to the Corn-law is that it makes bread dear. But this objection in itself—separated from all other considerations—is basally a solid one ; for it is evident, if dear bread be accompanied by high wages, that dearness is a matter of no consequence to the labourer. In the same manner, if cheap bread be accompanied by low wages, the labourer would not gain by that cheapness.—( Hear, hear.) When the labourer is obliged to work hard for subsistence —when he is obliged to exchange a large amount of labour for a loaf of bread—then he suffers ; hut his suffering arises from low wages. The important point is the case of the community. The object to be attained is the happiness of the people. The great economical means of producing that result are high wages and high profits. Everything which tends to produce low wages and low profits is injurious to the well-being of the community. Labourers and capitalists both suffer from hurtful competition, and hurtful competition is the consequence of the field for the productive employment of labour and capital being too small. Everything that tends to make that field too small tends to lower wages and profits, and is injurious to the well-being of the community. But there is a tendency in labour and capital to augment more rapidly than the means of employing them, and consequently to produce hurtful competition. Augment employment for labour and capital (for instance, by some agricultural improvement, which renders productive a large quantity of land which had pre viously been sterile), then hurtful competition ceases, but only for a time ; for population and capital will both grow up to the new field of employment, hurtful competition will again exist, and wages and profits will ultimately be lowered to the former standard. These positions seem to me to show the evils of the Corn-lags. Suppose the Corn.law repealed, capital and labour then might increase to any extent. What matters it provided food can be obtained ? With our perpetually increasing and inexhaustible powers of purchase, our impor tation of food from other countries might go 061 increasing for generations, so that with a great increase both of population and capital there should be no hurtful competition. In this country there is a hurtful competition between labourers and between capitalists. Labour and capital are superabundant compared to land ; consequently both wages and profits are low. A free importation of Corn would be equivalent to the addition of so much land to this country. Every person who lives upon the interest of capital suffers from the Corn-laws; and so do the professional classes, the demand for whose ser vices is limited by the Corn-laws. It would be difficult to name the class or the individual who does not suffer from the Corn-laws, with the exception perhaps of the landowner. For all classes, with the exception of the landlord, a repeal of the Corn-lavis would put an end to injurious competition. With regard to the la n dl or d, t h e repeal of the Corn-laws would unoubtedly decrease the competition 4sr the use of his land for the purpose of growing corn ; but in the increas ing wealth and population there would be au increased de mand for the use of Isis land for an infinite variety of purposes. But there is another more pressing, if not wore important, question. Since we passed a Corn-law, which sets a limit to the employment of capital at home, our sneerss of making ca pital have prodigiously augmented. The cause of competi tion amongst capitalists has become more powerful than ever ; and this is precisely the period we have chosen for limiting the field in which competition takes place. The Corn-law, by limiting the field for the employment of capital, limits the field for the employment of labour. At the same time great improvements in medicine, more especially in curing the dis eases of children, have augmented the rate of increase amongst labourers, and consequently aggravated the competition be tween them. Hence the very severe competition between ca pitalists and labourers, which ever since the war, with the ex ception of the last two years (and this exception confirms this position), has produced low wages, low profits, and political discontent amongst the bulk of the people. Political dis content arose from low wages and low profits. During the last two years great improvements in agriculture in Ireland, and extraordinary harvests, have produced the same effect as if the Corn-laws had been repealed. With high wages and high profits the bulk of the people have been contented and peaceable. Thi s cannot last long. We must soon return to that state of severe competition which has existed since the war down to two years ago, and which pro duees political discontent. But a great moral change has taken place in the people.—( Hear.) Education, such as it is, has made the people what they never were before, namely— politicians.—( Hear.) The change of the constitution of Par liament has given to the bulk of the people a great increase of political power.—( Hear.) In any period of considerable ex eiterrsetit, the people, including the working classes, who are unrepresented, will have great influence over the constitution and decisions of this House.—( Hear.) Having the Reform Bill and the Municipal Law to work with, I am convinced that whenever the people shall feel again the pressure of the Corn-law they will sweep it away at once—( Hear, hear)—snd this period, I believe, cannot be far distant.— ( Hear.) But is it wise to continue this state of things till the people again feel that pressure, and be in a state ol political irritation ? Should we not rather legislate now, when all is quiet, than wait for the storm which must arise? —(Cheers.) Now the progress of popular opinions, and of the power of the democracy, is certain and inevitable. In order to make that progress harmless, in order to prevent po litical convulsions, the people must be at ease and contented; for this purpose wages and profits must be high, and conse quently everything should be removed which tends hurtfully to limit the field of employment. The first step to this desirable result is a repeal of the Corn-law; and the repeal of this law is required as one amongst the many means which are neces sary to render the inevitable progress of democracy in this country as safe and peaceable as it is in America.—( Hear.) Mr. HANDLEY was willing at once to abandon the Corn laws when it should be proved injurious to the general in terests of the country, and when it should be found convenient and desirable to the State that all monopolies whatsoever should be destroyed.—( Hear, hear.) But it was his firm opinion that that period would not arrive for many years to come. The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had argued that if the Corn-laws were repealed it would open new mar kets for British manufactures abroad ; but was the Hon. Mem ber quite sure that the serfs of Prussia and of Poland would be rendered greater consumers of British manufactures if the duty on foreign corn were repealed? He (Mr. Handley) thought the history of merely agricultural countries demonstrated the truth of this proposition—that poverty was at the highest and consumption at the lowest in those countries where the corn was cheapest. Mr. dILBE RT lIEATHCOTE believed be spoke the sense of all classes of agriculturists when he demanded of the Legislature that they should be left alone. He was convinced that from the largest landed proprietor to the smallest, there was a general wish to be left to themselves. When the agri_ culturists complained last year and the year before of their distressed condition, they were told that they must look to themselves for relief, and they all hoped that the same lan guage would be used now. The proposition of the Hon. Gen tleman meant that a small duty should be imposed when the price of corn was low, and that no duty should be imposed whe❑ corn was high. If this change took place, was it to be supposed that they would not have those frequent fluctuations which were so much complained of ? Honourable Gentle men seemed to assume that fluctuations in the price of corn occurred here but not in other countries ; but the fact was that the fluctuations were greater in foreign states. Hon. Gentlemen argued the question as if the landed interest in England was a small insignificant body, but the fact was, that it was composed of thousands of members of greater or lesser interest. The interest of landlords and tenants in this question was mutual; and while he was willing to maintain the interest of the large landed proprietors, be would also stand up for the smaller proprietors, as he would not send them to the workhouse or the road, but would still keep them in that independent state in which they should be. Ile denied that a state of competition between English corn and foreign corn would benefit the labouring classes. On the contrary, the result would be that the rate of wages in England would be brought down. In conclusion, he could not help saying that the people of this country should rather look to the price of bread than to the price of corn for a reduction. Ile was satisfied that the price of bread was too high in the metropolis as compared with the price of corn, and as a proof of this he would refer to a letter written by Mr. Chadwick to the guardians of the poor of the parish of Bermondsey. Mr. D. W. II ARV E Y said it was curious that a debate upon the Corn-laws always called forth more conflicting sen timents than any other subject, and gentlemen on this question indulged in peculiar views, while they were silent on almost every other subject. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last illustrated this observation, for he had told them that there was a great difference between the price of corn and of flour, and that while corn was comparatively cheap flour was dear, and that the fault of all this was the bakers.---(Laugh ter.) The Hon. Member had even alluded to the bakers of Bermondsey. He (Mr. Harvey) was not aware that in dis cussing this question lie should have been obliged to advocate the interests of so large a portion of his constituency. He was quite sure that the competition amongst that numerous and respectable class would always secure the public against monopoly. Now, he wished to ask the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire, if a labouring man could only earn 6s. a week, would it not be a great advantage for hint to have his bread 30 or 40 per cent. cheaper than the Corn-laws would allow him to have it ? He wished to refer to evidence given that day_ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER called the Hon. Member to order, as it was not competent for Mem bers to use the knowledge they had acquired as belonging to a Committee, until the Report was in the hands of other Members. Mr. D. W. HARVEY continued by saying, that of his own knowledge, lie was aware that men who earned but los. a week were obliged to expend 93. of that in bread or flour. It was, indeed, said, that if they had not dear bread they would not have high wages. He denied the accuracy of that position; the price of Corn did not regulate the price of wages. It was, like every other commodity, regulated by the supply.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Dear bread was of no advantage to the labourer. He asked Honourable Gen tlemer, if they did not try to buy every thing as cheap as they could ? Did they not buy French gloves and French silks, because they were cheaper than the home manufactures ? Why was not the labourer allowed to purchase the commodity he most wanted in the same way ?—(Hear.) But then the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire asked how were the gentry to pay their mortgages, if the high price of corn was not main tained ? What benefit was it to the labourer to pay a high price for corn that the gentry might meet their engagements? --(Hear.) In his opinion, the best security against the fluc tuation in the price, which was so much dreaded, was to have a free trade in corn. The advantages to the gentry from the Corn-laws were infinite, while the wretched, living on the pittance allowed them by the Poor-law, had to pay a high price for what they most wanted. In conclusion, he said that the poor man had to give 100 per cent. more of his time to buy bread, and which he was compelled to give by a law which, although a protection to the gentry. was pernicious to him.—( Hear.) Mr. SHAW LE FE VRE could not agree to the motion, as he believed it would produce no good effect. Sir J. TYRRELL could not concur in the motion of the 11 . 00. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Mr. GUEST said, that the Hon. Member for Essex hav ing s i ...!:ed the manufacturers to state why the growers of corn should Tho‘s - have a protection when they were protected to the extent of 26 a dd .50 per cent. or more, he (Mr. Guest), being concerned in the manufacture of iron, begged to inform him and the House what ;-'as the state of the case i n th e i ron tra d e. is time about 91. per ton, and as th e The price of iron w as a t I ,!' duty on importatio n was 1/. T-t-1.5', the protection wa s a b out 15 per cent., with w hi c h h e b egge d -) contrast the d u ty upon a , few articles of agric u lt ura l p ro d uce . The duty on h o p s i m ported was 81. 11s. p er cw t., equa l to 200 p cent. at l east; on the importation of potatoes (one of the great nt:Pessaries of lire) 2s. per cwt., or about 100 per cent. ; on the article of bacon 28s. per cwt., or about 60 per cent. ; and, in addition, the important articles of beef, mutton, and pork, were entirely prohibited. He further begged to assure the Hon. Member, that if he would consent to fix a fair and equitable duty on the importation of corn, for himself he would say, and he thought he spoke the sentiments of a large portion of the iron trade, that they wanted only free trade without any protecting duty whatever on the importation of iron. Mr. G. KNIGHT must oppose the motion.—( Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. HUME said that it was the landed proprietor that was interested in this tax, and not the farmer.—( Hear, hear.) The landed proprietor paid no tax in this country.--( Loud cries of oh, oh.) Every tax that bore upon the landlord had been taken off, whilst the taxes of the rest of the community remained.—(oll, oh.) It might be unpleasant to speak the truth in that House.—( Loud cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) He charged the Gentlemen opposite with at tempting to keep up the cruel and famishing Corn-laws.--- ( Loud cries of oh, oh, and laughter.) The Poo}-laws were grinding down the able-bodied men.—(Cries of oh, oh, and Question.) That was the question. The Corn-laws and the Poor-laws were intimately connected together. The Corn laws kept up the prices of food, and thus interfered, not merely with the comforts but with the subsistence of the most valu able portion of the community. They endeavoured to keep up the Corn-laws solely for their own benefit—(Hear)—and for the purpose of crushing down the working popu lation.--( Cries of Oh, oh, and Question, and Divide.) If he went to Holland—( Cries of Divide)—he had no doubt some Hon. Gentlemen wished him at Holland. (Shouts of laughter.)--If he went to Holland, to Russia, or Germany, and other manufacturing countries, and compared the price of corn there with the price of it in this country, he found it eighty or ninety per cent. lower. The Corn Laws ground the people down to misery. How was it possible that with such prices the manufacturers of this country could compete with the foreign manufacturer ? It was no doubt pleasant for the rich man to fill his pockets, while the belly of the poor man was empty.—( Shouts of Laughter, and loud cries of Divide.) lie was unwilling to make the change suddenly, because all sudden changes produced misery in the land ; but the Legislature would not consult the interests of the country if they did not effect a change. Mr. RIC HA RDS rose, but the indisposition of the House to listen to him prevented him from being heard for a consi derable time. lie contended that the reason why we could not raise corn at so low a rate as in other countries was be cause of the cost of production, and that he attributed to the pressure of the national debt. He disputed the assertion of the Hon, Member for Middlesex that the farmers were not lazed. They paid taxes on the iron, the leather, and everything they used.--( L ou d cr i es o f Di v id e .) The Hon. Gentleman, in proposing a fixed duty, gave up the whole ques tion. Why did he propose ten shillings a quarter, but because he was aware some protection was necessary ?—(Continued cries of " Divide.") He would wait till to-morrow morning, if lion. Gentlemen would not hear him.—( Renewed cries of " Divide.") To interrupt him was not only unkind, but un seemly.—( Loud laughter and interruption continued.) " I insist on it, Mr. Speaker," said the Hon. Gentleman, " that I will not be put down by half-a-dozen noisy gentlemen."— (Great laughter.) The Hon. Member continued speaking, but it was impossible to hear the consecutive sentences that lie uttered. Mr. CLAY replied, and the House divided-- For the motion Against it Majority -134 The motion wa3 accordingly lost. INSURANCE DUTIES. On re-catering the gallery, we found Colonel SIBTHORP on his lags moving, pursuant to no tice, for the returns of the duties on fire, life, and marine insurances paid iuto the stamp office in the different quarters of 1836. The Hon. and Gullant Membcr observed, that these duties were highly prejudicial and unjust, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide for the partial repeal of the duties on common insurances, and the total repeal of those on hazardous insurances out of the next surplus. The motion was agreed to. CITY IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. Alderman WOOD obtained leave to brine in a Bi to effect improvements in the cities of London and West ininster, the borough of Southwark, and the counties of Mid dlesex and Surrey ; and for the purchase of the interest of the proprietors of the Waterloo and Southwark bridges, that they may be open for the use of the public free from toll. The Hon. Aldermau intimated that his proposition would be to meet the expenses by an additional duty on coals. SCOTTISH COURTS AND LAW OFFICERS. The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in the following Bills : A Bill for regulating the sequestration of estates of bankrupts in Scotland ; a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in matters relating to bankruptcy, personal diligence, arrestments, poindiug of goods, inhibitions, adjudications, ju dicial sales, and poindings of the ground; a Bill to regulate tee constitution, jurisdiction, end forms of process of sheriffand burgh courts in Scotland. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then moved that an address be presented for a return of the total number and the names of all and each of the officers, clerks, and other persons composing the several establishments and offices after-mentioned in Scotland, including all who are employed in or are deriving benefit from, the performance of the duties thereof, viz., the keeper of the privy seal and wri tkr to the seal; the keeper of his Majesty's signet and his de puties; the lord clerk register and his several deputies and clerks ; the director of chancery and his deputies and clerks ; the clerk to the admission of notaries; the keeper of the ge neral register of sasines, &c., and his several deputies and clerks ; the keeper of the record of entails and his deputies and clerks ; the several keepers of the registers of hornings, inhibi tions abbreviates of adjudication, deeds, and inventories cum be neficio ; the Lyon Court, including the Lord Lyon and his de puties and clerks ; showing, in separate columns, how ap pointed, the amount of salaries, and the fees and emoluments drawn by each, in the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, from what source and by what authority, with the application thereof ; the days of the year they are on duty, with the hours of atten dance ; the nature and extent of the duties they perform, and whether performed in person, or in whole or in part by de puty ; also, whether they hold any other office or offices ; the description and nature thereof, and the fees, salaries, and emoluments belonging or attached thereto ; also, the amount of any reductions made in any of the said offices since the ac cession of his late Majesty King George IV., distinguishing, also, in separate columns, the savings which have actually ac crued, and those which are prospective and permanent. The Learned Gentleman also moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature and extent of the King's printer's patent in Scotland, and to report their opinion as to the propriety of any future grant of that patent. Agreed to. TITHES. The CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best mode of effecting the surveys of parishes in England and Wales, for the purpose of carrying into effect the Tithe Commutation Act.—Agreed to. CANADA—CHARGES AGAINST OFFICIAL PER SONS. Mr. HUME, in the absence of Mr. Roebuck, moved that an address be presented for copies of a Report of the Select Com mittee of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada respect ing Mr. Witcher, Sheriff of St. Francois; and of any corre spondence between the Earl of Gosford and Lord Glendlg, on the subject of the charges preferred against Mr. Witcher; —codies of a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, respecting Mr. Thompson, Judge of the inferior district of Gaspe; and of any corre spondence between the Earl of Gosford and Lord Glenelg, on the subject of the charges preferred against Mr. Thomp son ;—a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Assem bly of Lower Canada, respecting Judge Fletcher; and of any correspondence between the Earl of Gosford and Lord Glenelg, on the subject of the charges preferred against that Judge ; copies of a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, respecting Mr. Chis holme, Clerk of the Peace for Three Rivers ; and any corre spondence between the Earl of Gosford and Lord Glenelg on the subject of the charges preferred against Mr. Chisholme ; —copies of two Reports of a Select Committee of the House of Assembly, Lower Canada, respecting Mr. Felton, together with any further correspondence (in continuation of that presented ou the 26th of July, 1836), on the subject of the complaint against Mr. Felton ;—copies of two Reports of a Select Committee of the House of Assembly, Lower Canada, respecting Mr. Gusy, Sheriff of Montreal, and of, any corre spondence between the Earl of Gosford and Lord Glenelg on the subject of the charges preferred against Mr. Gusy ; copy of any information received from the Earl of Gosford respecting the debt due by Sir J. Caldwell to the province of Lower Canada ; together with a copy of the Report of a Se lect Committee of the House of Assembly of that province on the same subject ;—copy of the agreement concluded between his Majesty's Government and the British American Land Company in the year 1833, with an account of the sums paid by the company under that agreement.—Agreed to. The other orders were then disposed of, and the House ad-- journed at a .Quarter to Ono. COURT CIRCULAR. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL; 8--YESTERDAI*. THE DEEM _ _ BETTING AT MANCHESTER, TU ESDA r. CHESTER TRADE CUP, 7 to 2 agst Sir J. Boswell's General Cl.al se—taken 15 to 2 agst General Yates's Sylvan 17 to 1 agst Mr. Peel's Tamworth 14 to 1 agst Mr. J. Day's Bubastcs—tak 15 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Black Diamond 15 to 1 agst Mr. Gitfard's Traveller 16 to 1 agst Mr. Robinson's Whaley 18 to 1 agst Sir T. Stanley's Philip 25 to 1 agst Mr. R. Price's Master of the Rolls—taken 25 to 1 agst Mr. J. Allen's Vesper—takcaa THE DERBY. 6 to 1 agst agst Colonel Anson's Jereed 81 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Brother to Bay* Middleton 13 to 1 agst Captain Gardnor's Phantasiiala colt—taken 16 to 1 apt 11r. Osbaldeston's Mahometn, 18 to 1 agst Mr. Greville's Mango—taken 20 to 1 agst Lord Stradbroke's Caravan—tai e 25 20 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Dardanelles THE OAKS. 61 to 1 on the field. 1000 to 1 has been spiritedly sported in the course of the c vening against Lady Sheffield, by Recovery (purchased at Mr. Turner's sale) winning a race at the Chester Meeting, the Oaks, and the Doncaster St. Leger Stakes. WARWICK 6- LEAMINGTON SPRING MEETING. WEDNESDA Y. The Trial Stakes of 10 stirs. each, with 50 sovs. added, for two and three yrs old. Mile bourse. 9 subs. Captain Lamb's ch. c. Chit Chat, 2 yrs, 7st.. Chapple 1 Colonel Peel's b. c. Fantastic, 2 yrs, 6st. 121 b. Mr. Rawlinson's h. c. by Fungus, 2 yrs, Est 121 b 3 Lord Warn ick's ch. f. by the Colonel, 2 yrs, 6st. 121 b 4 The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr. West's b. g. by Shaver, 2 yrs, 6st. 121 b.; Mr. Sadler's b. 1. Gaes , , 2 yrs, 7st. ; Mr. Lacey s h. c. Subaltern, 2 yrs, 7sl. ; Mr. Cooke's Sal tarella, 2 yrs, Gst. 121 b. Betting-5 to 4on Chit-Chat, and 2to 1 agst Fantastic. by half a length Won The Tradesmen's Cup of 5 aovs., added to a Subscription. of 5 soy& each. The 'Two-mile Course. 7 Subs. Captain Lamb's br. c. Jack, 4 yrs, 12st Mr. Crommelin I Mr. R. J. Barnard na. br. m. Beddicote, 6 yrs, 19st. 91b 2 Mr. Creighton na. b. g. Cheviot, by Defence, 4 yrs, list 3 Mr. E. Tomes na. blk. m. Emma, 4 yrs, Ilst. 71b 4 The following also started :—Mr. Granville's br. g. Tiger, aged, 12st. 21b ; and Mr. Storey's br. h. Jim Crow, by Grafton, out of a half-bred mare, by l'atriot, 5 yrs, list. 91b. Betting-2 to lon Jack, who won easy. The Debdale Handicap Stakes of 5 sovs. each, with 25 added. The TwO-mile Course 10 Subs. Capt. Lamb's br. c. Jack, 4 yrs (h. b. ), 125t...111r. Crommclin 1 Mr. W. Smith's br. g. Rembrandt (h. b. ), 6 yrs, Iltst. 51b 2 Lord Howth's b. h. Carlow (h. b. ), aged, 2st. 7lb 3 Mr. H. Clarke's gr. m. sisterto the Flyer (h. b. ), aged, Ilst. Slb 4 Betting-5 to 2on Jack, who won easy. The Hurdle Race Sweepstakes of 10 sm's. each. Six leaps. Two-trile Course. 6 Subs. The Captain Burgess's g. h., 12st .Captain Barton I Air. John Creighton's b. h., I2st. 2 A fine race. The Farmer's Plate of 50 soya., with 10 for the second horse. Heats, the Two-mile Course. Mr. Reading's ell. g. Tartar, 3 yrs, lOst. 21b Mr. Roots 1 1 Mr. F. Robbi ns ' s c h. g . byP e lion or Langolee, 3yrs, lOst. 21b 2 2 Mr. Wadham's ch. f. Louisa, 8 yrs, list. 91b 3 3 A Forced Handicap Stakes of 10 sovs. each. Once round and a distance. 7 Subs. Mr. Collett's Nell Gwynne, 9st. 51b. Calloway 1 Mr. Lacey's Vathek, ist. 41b Mr. Griffith's Rambler, Bst. 121 b Mr. 'Day's Liston, 9st 4 A very fine race. 7to 2 agst Vathek. SIIIPPING INTELLIGENCE. EAST INDIA SHIPPING. Arrivals, -March 14.—The Alfred, Jameson, from Singapore, off Folkstoue, sailed Oct. 19; the Carribean, Irving, from the Mauritius, in the Downs, sailed Nov. 24, St. Helena Jan. 13 ; the Senator, Grindley, from the Mauritius, in the St. Kathe rine's Dock, sailed St. Helena Jan. 13 : the Coronet, Precious, from the South Seas, in the Downs, sailed from Timor —, St. Helena Jan. ; Erderald, Crawford, from the Mauritius, off Liverpool, sailed Nov. 29. March 15.—The Sovereign, Camp bell, from the Mauritius, off Hastings, sailed Dec. 7, Cape Jan. 3. Arrivals at South Australia.--The Duke of York, Morgan, July 27, from London ; Lady Mary Pelham, Ross, July 30, from Liverpool ; the John Piric, Martin, Aug. 16 ; Rapid, Leight, Aug. 20; and Cygnet, Rolls, Sept. 11; all from London. Arrivals at Hobart-town.-The Goshawk, Laing, from Li verpool, sailed Sept 7 for Sydney; the Lord Lynedoch, Ba ker, from Sheerness, sailed Sept. 8 for Sydney ; the Cham pion, Jeill, Sept. 11, from Launceston, sailed S e pt. 19 f or Swan River ; the Salacia, Main, Sept. 16, and Lady of the Lake, Sept. 16, from Twofold Bay, and both sailed, Sept. 22, back ; the Tiber, Rogers, Sept. 21, from Salem; the Mcdora, Twcedce, Sept. 11, from London, and sailed the 23:1, for Syd ney; the Boadicea, Wight, Sept 22, from Calcutta; the M - t, rianne, Sinclair, Sept. 22, from whaling ; the Elope, M'Cul lam, Sept. 25, from Liverpool; the Eudora, Addison, Sept. 26, from London ; the Merope, Sept. 24, from Twofold Bay ; the Alice, Milne, Sept 24, from Sydney ; the Eveline, Jame son, Sept. 24, from Pprt Arthur; the Camilla, Marshall, Sept. 27, from Newcastle; the Siren, Hayle, Sept. 27, from Syd ney ; the Lady Mary Pelham, Sept. 27, and Duke of York, Sept. 28, from Kangaroo Island ; the Swallow, Adam, Oct. 4, from Madras, and sailed the 13th for Sydney ; the John Pirie, Oct. 8, from Kangaroo Island ; the Francis Freeliog, Oct. 14, from Sydney ; the Gulnare, Henderson, Oct. 23, from Liverpool ; the Brougham, Oct. 23, from Twofold Bay ; the Camilla, Marshall, Oct. 26, from Newcastle. Departures from Hobart-town.-The Avoca, Boodle, Sept. 15, for Sydney ; the Vansittart, Sept. 28, for Spencer's Gulf; the Camelia, Sept. 29, for Newcastle ; the Adelaide, Oct. 4, for Port Philip, the Gem, Oct. 5, for Launceston. Departures from Launceston and Hobart-town.-The Siren, Oct. 7; the Red Rover, Oct. 10; and the Alice, Ball, for Sydney. The Duke of York, Oct. 13, and the Lady Mary Pelham, Oct. 15, both for whaling ; the Hope, Oct. 23, for Sydney and Calcutta ; the Eudora, Addison, Oct. 24, for Sydney. Loading-The Janet, Leitch ; Camilla, Marshall; and Mary, Beachcroft, all for London ; the latter to sail Nov. 15, the Eveline, Jameson, to follow the Mary. LORD LYNDIIURST.—We do not design reading a homily to the able writer in the Leicestershire Mercury, in whose "political portraits" the hand of a master is manifest; but passages such as the following will not, we think,add much to his good fame; for, although certain things may, perhaps, be as notorious as the sun at noon-day, still if they relate not to the public conduct of a political opponent, all specific allu sion to them would be better avoided. " I have nothing to do with the private life of my subjects," says the Mercury. " I have no wish to track the individual from the House of Lords to worse places, to narrate his active and habitual viola tion of conjugal fidelity, nor his contented submission to a si milar violation on the part of the Lady, who is only bound to him by the identity of the name. , I have no desire to fathom the depths of debasement to which a man may sink and yet re tain the title of a Noble and Learned Lord ;' nor to grope along the dark passages of a history which are strewn with the fragments of broken promises, violated pledges, and outraged proprieties. It is sufficient that I delineate that public career, in the results of which I and my countrymen arc interested; and in this public career surely never was there a man who combined within himself a more heterogeneous mass of mischief, than Lord Lyndhurst." A pubic meeting of the seamen of this port will be forthwith called, not only to take into consideration certain matters relative to the 'Trinity-House, but also to consider the best means to be adopted to prevent, in case of war, the families of those seamen who may be dragged from their homes into his Majesty's service to fight the battles of the rich, " from enjoying the infinite pleasure of an inheritance for the time in 'a parish uuicn workhothe."--,Hull Advertiser. The King, attended by Sir Herbert Taylor, left town shortly before seven o'clock on Wednesday evening for Windsor Castle. The Committee of Baronets assembled to-day at two o'clock at Sir Robert Fitzwygrarn's, in Connaught -place. A deputation from " The United Committee appointed to consider the grievances under which Dissenters now labour, with a view to their redress," consisting of Delay Way mouth, Esq., the Rev. John Burnett, John Wilks, Esq., M. P., and John Remington Mills, Esq., attended by Mr. Robert Fletcher, their Secretary, had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Downing-street yesterday, on the subject of Church-rates. Viscount Palmerston is indisposed with an attack of gout. Lord J. Russell left town yesterday for Woburn Abbey, Bedfordshire. Mr. Tennyson d'Eyncourt, with a deputation as to Church_ rates, from the borough of Lambeth, hail an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesddy• Earl and Countess Grey arrived in town on Wednesday, from the north. The first bets made about the two Derby favourites were 350 to 50 against Jereed, and 1,000 to 100 against Brother to Bay Mid dleton. .Nothing was done afterwards about Lord Jersey's colt, but 13 to 2 was taken two or three times about Jereed, and several offers made to take 7to 1. Benedict was backed freely, the odds taken commeneufg at 14, and ending at 12 to 1, with offers to go on from the backers. illahornetan, 'Troilus, Dardanelles, Caravan, Hybiscus, and Norgrove, were also backed ; but it will be seen that the prices have not varied to any in:aerial extent. The closing odds were -13 to 2 agst Colonel Anson's Jerec d--take 7 to 1 10 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Bro. to 1.1a,v 111iddleton—taken 12 to l agst Captain Gardner's Benon.;et—taken 16 to l agst Mr. Greville's Mango— tz,ke IS to I 17 to 1 agst Mr. Osbaldeston's Mahot 110-tan—taken 20 to 1 agst Lord Suffield's Caravan— taken 20 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Hybiscus— taken 22 to 1 ag,st Mr. Wreford's Nk intonian- —taken 23 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Dardanelles- —taken 23 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Troilus—tat, en 30 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Flare-up—ofl ':red 35 to 1 agst Mr. Coekes's Norgrove—tak - en 40 to l agst Lord Chesterfield's Capulet— -offered 800 to 200 agst Jereed and Brother to Bay l'.liddleton—taken 1000 to 100 agst Man"o and Defender—taken 1000 to 50 agst Capulet and Defender —taken 1000 to 100 on Mahometan and Benedict agst: Jereed—taken 500 even between Caravan and Hybiscus—ti •_nt Cartoon ruptured a blood vessel in the head .on Friday last. SHE PORTLAND HANDICAP, r.. P. 6 to 1 agst Lord Egremont's Hock—takt, 7 to I 7 to 1 agst any other, or 7 to 1 agst each.. of any two—offered Nothing done worth quoting.