The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-26 00:00:00

• - carried timber and other ar' ides on to Southampton without stopping at R.:Abridge, it would not. By 3lr. DAVIS, a solicitor who nxco.red for the corporation of Southampton—Never knew a tunnel with a curve in which a piece of timber 80 feet long could not pass. Large quantities of timber were grown in the neighbourhood of Chalburgh which principally found an outlet by the Severn. Mr. M. G. Gregory, a miller at Fisherton, joining Salisbury, shipped goods at Redbridge for Cornwall. If the proposed line from Salis bury were made, he should send those goods by it. Imported gyp sum and bones at Ealing, and not at Wolverhampton. Shipped 2,600 bags of flour, and imported 100 tons of bones and 100 tens of gypsum at Ealing last year. Sends flour to Southampton to be shipped to London. The Co - omittoe then adjourned until 12 o'clock to-morrow. The Committee will not meet on Wednesday. GROUP XVIII. Z2131:171C/3, NORMIXCH, AND TAILMOU'III. This Committee met at the usual hour ; Sir G. Grey, chairman. . Mr. G. Leeston, iron founder, of Ipswich, gave evidence in favour of the line. He considered that the proposed railway would afford him ;rent accommodation, . _ Mr. J. Smith, of Peesinghedt, a manufacturer, also gave similar evidence. M. Stead, maltater, of Ipswich, gave evidence of a similar nature. Mr. Coope Mr. Button, Mr. Crabtree, owners of property along the line, also gave evidence of a favourable nature. The Committee then adjourned, GROUP XX. This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Mr. Sotheron In the chair, when the case of the ZONDON, ,ROI7NSZOW, AND WESTERN was resumed. Captain Moorsom, civil engineer, was re-called and cross-examined at some length in reference to the evidence given on Friday on the engineering peculiarities of the line, but no point of material im pori,:nee was elicited. The examination of Captain Moorsom continued up till four o'clock, when, the Committee adjourned till to-morrow at twelve o'clock. GROUP XXII. This Committee sat at the usual hour, Mr. B. Denison, chairman. E=IITM2,IrECIITIL AND DO.R.CI7IZ_S_T_En v. 2- 11 . X ) ""°l\r ' SALIS"" "' im X ed a' th u is moTing by The crcss-examination of Mr. Locke was Mr. BuNcE. The cross- exaudnaton was con re ih su . d exclusively to the opposition of landowners along the Wit . . e opposition was gone into, The landowners along the line, wh were the Earl of Digby and Mr. Bridges, represented by Mr. Butt; Mr. Frampton , represe nted by r. Sergeant Kinglake ; the trustees of the . Warciou ' m r estate, for whom 3l r.Murphy appeared, and Mr. Gordon, who appeared personally, and examined Mr. Locke at some length himself. Mr. Cockburn awl Mr. Merrewether having re-examined Mr. Locke at considerable length, Mr. Vignoles, C.E., was then examined. He considered that th e Mr. Locke between Exeter and Y eov il was b etter line in e ver proposed by respe:l than the line as laid out by Mr. Brunel, on the part of the Great Western Company. The Committee having intimated at this stage of the examina tion th at it would be useless to examine other engineers, who would merely corroborate the evidence of Mr. Locke, Mr. MERREWBVIER offered, on the part of the promoters, to with drn his witness provided that the promoters of the Great Western coin:et ly cont'ned their engineering evidence to ere witness also. *iins proposition not having been acceded to by Mr. DENISON, on the nart of the Great Western Company, the examination was pro ceeded with, but m consequence of the lateness of the hour was brought to a close very shortly afterwards by the Committee ad journing. GROUP XXVI, SOUTZt ESSEX. The Committee assembled this morning at twelve o'clock, Mr. M. O'Connell in the chair, when evidence was resumed on the part of the North Gray..send Railway in opposition to the South Essex line, and Mr. Meeson, a large proprietor of chalk-pits at Grays, and seve n! other witnestes, were adduced to show that the proposed advars ttges wou:d not be nearly so great as they were supposed to be at present. This closed the case of the South Essex Company ; after which Mr. Itonweee opened the case en behalf of tne hiver Lea Naviga tion trustees, by reminding the Committee that even in these times of railway mania, as he termed it, the benefits of canal communication had been entirely overlooked, although at the present time the trustees were successfully competing with the Eastern Cou tics Railway. It was well known that many of the places within a short distance of the proposed line were already in the neighbourhood of railway communication ; so that the necesc:ty for any change in the means of communication was quite evident. Tire Learned Counsel then went into a detail of the plans for crossing the river Lea which Mr. Locke had submitted, and endeavoured to show that, in consequence of the Lea being a tidal river, these plans were very injurious, and intimated 'that he should call Mr. Walker, the eminent engineer, as well as the engineer of the Lea Company, to show that they were objectionable, not only on account of the influx of the tide, but because also of the opposition that would be offered to the egress of the waters collected in the marshes of Essex. On the part of the River Lea Company, ho proposed that there should either be a bridge of 100 feet, or at least one of 8.5 feet, with a towing patlt under, and a lay-to, by which the boats could be launched. Considering all the circumstances he trusted that the Committee wsald see that there was no necessity for the rail way at all, or if they allowed the preamble of the Bill, that they would at least preserve the rights of the River Lea Company as they were, and as they had been secured, by several Acts of Parliament for two or three hundred years. The trustees had no private ends to serve, and were persona of the highest respectability, and had only the public interests to serve. He might add that the Eastern Counties and the Northern and Eastern Counties Companies had acceded to the terms of the company. Mr. Bodwell then called Mr. Merchant, clerk to the trustees for twenty years, Stated•that the parties were of the highest respectability. That the tonnage carried under the proposed bridge was 300,000 tons, the tolls for which were expended in the improvement of tk e r i ver . Th e naviga tion extended from Hertford to the Thames, besides the branches to Hogstone. The site of the proposed bridge would pass in precisely the very worst part of the navigation, and the Company had already expended between 16,0001. and 18,0001. on is improvement. Mr. Mausn cross-examined the witness, to whom he replied that the bridge to which allusion had been made had fenders under it, which restricted the water way, but that difficulty was likely to be obviated by the substitution of a swing bridge, which would allow a greater water way. A proposition had been made to settle this matter by the arbitration of two celebrated engineers, but it was refused by the Company on the ground that they were the best judges of the necessities of the navigation, however succinct the engineers might be. Bridges had been obtained from other compa nies of 94 feet and of 61 feet span, but none of 1 , :0 feet span. To Mr. Ronwett's re-examination Mr. Merchant replied that their had got from other companies all that they required, and they only came to the Committee because this Company proposed to restrict their water way. Mr. Griggs, surveyor of the Lea Company, described the course of the navigation, and stated that this was the worst part of the navi gation, and be believed that the plan proposed by Mr. Locke would amount to annihilation of the navigation. In the course of the eke. mination an endeavour was made to show that the objection was futile, but it failed. Mr. Walker, engineer, was then called to show that the bridge would Impede the navigation, unless the arches were of sufficient width. The witness then went into the principles of the several bridges proposed for crossing the Lea, and showed that the bridge proposed by him would be cheaper as well as better than that proposed by Mr. Locke. The bridge to be constructed over the Tamar for the Cornwall Railway was to be 250 feet span, and that over the Drogheda Railway, supported by iron work, was to be of the same span. The effect of contracting the stream would be to increase the velocity of the stream, and to break the banks below the bridge. Ile thought, upon the whole, that the Company had better give the 100 feet at once. Mr. Warner and several other practical navigators bore testimony to the difficulty of the navigation at the particular spot, the tide running sometimes as much as nine or ten miles an hour, and acci dents had frequently occurred. The chance of accident would, of course, be increased by the erection of the proposed bridge. On the cross-examination of Mr. ADAMS the witness described the course of the navigation and the impediments which were presented to it by the set of the stream and tide. The ordinary length of the craft on the river were about eighty feet long, exclusive of the rudder, which was nine feet. TI era were other bridges as narrow, but there was no place so narrow with so strong a tide as thin. Nor is there any portion of the river so tortuous as this. The principal difficulty, however, would be experienced chiefly by the London lighters whick were worked by one man only. lie spoke from an experience of thirty-five years, and he believed that the bridge woi:ld largely in erease the chance of accident. Ur. RoDwELL was prepared to adduce four or five other barge masters, and especially the chief barge-master, who would state that if this pier were erected, he would not venture to send the valuable cargoes up the Lea which he had hitherto dispatched, but The Committee declared that they were eatiefled, and adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP XXVI 11. This Committee assembled to-day at one o'clock; present, Lord Datlncny (chairman), and the other members. The following Bills are comprised in this group, via.:— London and Birmingham (Newport Pagnall Branch). Hertford and Hatfield. London and Birmingham (St. Alban's and Luton Branch). London and York (St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Branch). liertbern and Southern Connecting. . St. Alban's, Hatfield, and Hertford Jnnction. LOT:MON AND lIIIMIVIT.ZIGIitILIVL (ST. AZ— BAN'S AND 1.77TF1N nr...5.NC11.) • After some opposition from Mr. Wells, on the pareof the London and York competing line, the Committee agreed to proceed with the Mr. TALBOT, on the part of the promoters, said he would detain the Committee with but very few observations. The object of this line was to make a communication between the London and Bir mingham ltailway and several important towns, which were at pre sent destitute of any efficient communication of this nature. The line from Oxford to Cambridge, which had been recently sanctioned in Committee, embraced Luton, and that would render unneces sary a branch to that town ; but they proposed to make such, should the Oxford mad Cambridge not be carried out. The length of the line with branches, was 26 1 ,2 miles, and tile estimated cost of the works 409,000/. From St. Alban's to Dunstable there was a, trade in straw plait carried on as well as a trade in whit ing. He believed that he would be able to show that the opposition on the part of tile London and York, and of the Inhabitants of St. Alban's, who complained ache crossing neat* the town; was not sufficiently just to entitle them to have this Bill re jec;ed. He had no doubt, too, that it would clearly appear that there was no residential injury inflicted which could not be compen sated by maney, or wh!ch was of any great extent. The Learned emnsel concluded by calling evidence. Mr. Hawkins, of Redbourne, was examined, and stated that this railway would be extremely advantageous to Redbourne and the vicinity. Coals w. re at present brought to that district by canals. The Coinmitte, after bearing souse further evidence, adjourned at f our o'clock. GROUP XXX. . 11 t21111,1114;D .A.7:4113 EiI.STERN COUNTIZS 11 , 174 M (CLOY: XinXIOGE TO WEZDON). The Committee on this group assembled at twelve o'clock, when, after a short consideration, it was decided that the preamble was proved. The clauses were to be taken at three o'clock. The Committee resumed at three o'clock, when the clauses, with a few unimportant amendments, were passed, and the report or dered to be carried up to the House. The Committee then adjoarned. GitOCIP XXxI. SOITICIX NVAL=. ' The Committee met this morning at the usual hour, Mr. Round I n the chair. then proceeded to reply on behalf of th e p romoters of ArsTIN the Bill. He said during the whole of the evidence that had been adduced, and throughout the addresses of his Learned Friends, they e A ct 3 , c th om ey - MI lost sight of the real o b j ect of the line sought to be constructed. The Board of Trade reported favourabtl g re'encing at Gloucester and term tn in on a t th ;'lshgu entire ard p . roj stated that the " necessity of the railwaya was too evident to require comment," and went on to s a y that the important district Which it proposed to traverse would be removed from comparative isolation, inasmuch as the railway would atl'ord direct communication with the metropolis of England and the whole of the English counties. And the C o mmittee to whom the hilt was referred virtually passed it in its original form, includ trig the passage of the Severn by a bridge; hut as It was subsequently found that, the Admir a lt y o bj ec t e d t o t h e cross i n g of the Sere rn by means of a b r id ge , and as they had the power t o n egative that portion of the Bin, by refusing their consent to it, the Committee amended the preamble they had passed, by erasing the portion relating to the passage of the Severn, but assenting to the other portion of the linemaniely from Chepstow to Pembroke and Fistignard. They at the same time intimated that the promoters might apply in the next see sipn of Parliament for the powers they had been thus compelled to ' refuse. The point, therefore, to be decided was a narrow one. A gap had been left in their line, which they proposed to till up by efossing the elevern by a tunnel, and completing their line to Chep stow. The line of the South Wales Company would, to all intents and purposes, to just s perfect as it was before. 7he present opposition was worse than a case of competition. It was the case of the deg ift the manger. The opp;,nents would not allow the South Wales Company to improve the Forest of Dean Railway, because they said it would tend eventually to injure the traffic ; •neitf.er would they themselves improve it, because they corimileeed the outlay of exp nse would not repay them. It had been a:e . ,*reed that by the Old Geo. 111., the Crown was threlosed irom in trolering v:;11 the rights or the Forest of Dean Itailway. It had not b!en (Wed that the Dean • orest Company had an Inchoate right to Indproce : their railway ; but it was contended that an independent eotnr any conld have no rient to lnterf,re. The I.earned Gentlemen the reviewed the opposition that had been °tiered to the eon stractlen of the line, with a view to show the weakness of the alle teition4 of the opponents, and concluded a long and eloquent address by eolllng on the Committee to pass the preamble. Too room was then cleared. On our re - admiselon the Committee state:?, that their opinion was against the trearnble of the Bill as it stood ; and the Committee were further of opinion, that the preamble of that part of the line from Chepstow to Gloucester had not been pro - re 1. The Committee were not inclined to allow the connexion of the Great Western with Cheltenham and the Forest of Dean Railway. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow. GROUP XXXII. The Committee met this morning at twelve o'clock; Mr. J. De- Matm ill the chair. auczxzecarastsirnts CrarNG TO 13.11.NZITTICR". _ _After some evidence had been called corroborative of what was ptit in as to traffic on the line, the promoters of the line examined Ur. Robert Stevenson, the engineer of the line, who stated that this THE SUN, LONDON, ,TUIESDAY ~MORNING, MAY 26, 1846. project arose out of a local requisition for better accommodation to the district through which it is intended to proceed. Several other routes were originally proposed, but the one before Parliament, from Tring north west to Banbury, was fixed on as affording the best accommodation to the whole district, and as the most favourable for laying down a line of rail, passing, as it does, along the bottom of a valley, through a very rough and uneven country. Starting from Tring station, about half-a-mile from Tring, where it forms a junction with the London and Birmingham on the level, it passes through part of the town of Aylesbury, through the neighbourhood of Qualnton to near Winslow and Claydon, where it meets the Oxford and Bletchley line, and from this it passes through Backingham and by Brackley up to Banbury. The steepest gradient on it would be 1 in 157. There would be two tunnels, one near Claydon 1,100 yards long, and one neat Farthingho of 580 yards in length. The estimate for the whole line was 900,000!., averaging 22,5001. per mile. The London and Birmingham Company leased it, guaranteeing to the promoters 4 per cent. and half the the coals, which are profits. It was contemplated to carryhave a great impediment on the main Birmingham line from Rugby, by the Great Western to Banbury, and thence along this rail, and by side rails from Tring to London, by which arrange ment it was expected they could be carried at a reduced price, perhaps three farthings a ton, or less. 3I r. Stephenson added that if the traffic were great, say 700 , 000 or 800,000 tons annually, coal could be c arried at a halfpenny a ton, d and at a speed of twelve miles, with a p rofit to the company ; but he not mean this to apply to the p ro j ect before tile Committee which was rather expensive, for expense and length entered as impartant elements into the calculation of charge. A line, costing 20,000/. a mile, and running upwards of 60 miles, where also the speed he mentioned could be adopted, he had no doubt could pass coals at a halfpenny a ton. The formal evidence required by the standing orders of the House m on itte be e. ing the parties Coal completed the case for the promoters. 31r, Cocionou, tar the Great Western Railway, and Mr. RICRAZDS, severally e b r ncleared, addressed for T L he ord ro C om arri w u a gt s oT r4 th e e re n d andre admitted were told that the Committee had decided t a mble of the Bill was proved. that the pre- The clauses were then severally read and passed. The Committe adjourned till twelve o-morrow. GROUP XXX V. This Committee should have met at twelve o'clock, but in conse quenCe of a misapprehension as to the hour appointed at the last ad journment of the Committee, neither the Chairman, Mr. Bankes, nor Mr. Bruges were present. The Chairman having been sent for, business commenced at about a quarter to one o'clock. There remained bet one Bill ou the list, namely, the MIDLAND (NOTTINGHAM:AND MANS— FIELD), on the part of the promoters of which Mr. DENNISON proceeded to address the Committee. He said that this railway was projects by the Midland Railway Company, and that it would diverge from the Nottingham branch of the Midland Railway, about half aluilie to the west of the town of Nottingham, proceeding in a northern di rection, following the course of the river Lean, and terminating near the town of Mansfield. It gasses near to the populous places of Lenton, Radford, Basford, Bulwell, Hucknall, Tockhard, and Sutton in-Ashfleld. Between Mansfield and Sutton-in-Aslffield it will form a junction with the Clay Cross and Newark Branch of the Midland Railway, by which means a communication will be opened with Sheffield, Manchester, and the North of England. The length of the line was 16 miles 6 furlongs. The estimate was 275,0001. Notting ham was a town of considerable and increasing importance, containing a population of nearly 80,000 persons, principally engaged in manu factures, which were greatly dependent on foreign and distant mar kets, and demanded every facility of transit. This line would afford a more direct route than the present for the trade with Sheffield Manchester, Leeds, &c. • and will also afford a more direct transit with Ireland and the colonies, vid Liverpool. The workmen living in the villages between Nottingham and Mansfield obtained employment and materials from Nottingham through the means of persons called middlemen, who, though nominally paid by the masters, were, in reality, paid partly by the masters and partly by the workmen. By giving the workmen an opportunity of communicating directly with their masters, the evils attending the middlemen system would be obviated, and the proposed line was well calculated to accomplish that very desirable object. Mr. Robert Stephenson and Mr. Swanwick were the engineers The Bill was entirely 'unopposed. Mr. Thomas Herbert, Ma or of Nottingham, Mr. E. Batchard, and Mr. J. Williams, ae.ve evidence as to the necessity for, and general feeling in favour of the line. Mr. Swanwick gave the usual engineering evidence, which con tained few facts beyond those included in Mr. Dennison's statement. There was one tunnel, the length of which was 165 yards. The gradient in that tunnel was 1 in 181, and was the steepest on the whole line. The sharpest curve had a radiant of 25 chains. The proofs of compliance with Mr. Duncombe's resolutions, were then given, and the preamble was declared proved. Having disposed of the clauses of the Bill, The Committee rose, and dissolved; it being then about a quarter to two o'clock. GR. This Committee (Lord PalmeOrs UP on in XLIV the chair) met at 12 o'clock, to go through the Bills of the YOE= AND CARLISLE, AND TORIES/EIRE AND GLASGOW UNION (AMALGAMA- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. L'OUSE OF LORDS, Zfay 25. Their Lordships met at ten minutes before Five o'clock. The House was crowded to excess in every part, and the greatest excitement appeared to prevail with respect to the all-absorbing topic—the repeal of the corn-laws. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from several occupiers of land in the county of Berks in favour of the Ministerial measure. The Noble Duke also presented five petitions from landowners in the county of York and one from Orkney to the same effect. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a pet i t i on f rom the landowners, farmers, tradesmen, and others, in the county of Norfolk, against the measure that stood for a second reading. The Ea t r o l the of E s same o e Also a petition from th e soc i ety for theprotection of agriculture, signed by the ch a i rman, and two petitions from the county of Stafford L ( ffect a; we were informed) appeared and took the oaths and hie seat. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition signed by 90,000 of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, and another from Aberdeen, praying their Lordships to pass the Ministerial measure without delay. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition signed by 26,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying that their Lordships would pass the Corn-law Abolition Bill, but at the same time ex pressing to their Lordships a wish that they would alter their Bill, because they said that the postponement of that mea sure for three years would he extremely dangerous to all classes of the community. Now he (Lord Campbell) presented that petition with the greatest pleasure, and further, he might say that he concurred in the opinion which they expressed, that it would be better to have the immediate abolition of the bread tax than to wait until the expiration of three years; but he must at the same time express his humble opinion that it would be much better to take the Bill with all its imperfections as they bad received it in the House of Commons, than to have no such measure at all passed by their Lordships. Earl GREY presented petitions in favour of the Bill from Shields, signed by 4A,010 persons ; nine petitions from Sun derland ; also a large number from Stockport, Bury, and other towns in Lancashire. The Earl of HADDINGTON also presented petitions in favour of the Bill, from Stockport, and from several towns in Cheshire. The Marquis of BREADALBANE also presented petitions in favour of the Bill from Glasgow, Kinros, and other places in Scotland. The Duke of RICHMOND presented forty-four petitions from the county of Wiltshire against the Bill. Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from the Rev. W. Mallett, of the parish of Yardley, in Herefordshire, com plaining of the distress brought upon that parish by the measure which had lately passed their Lordships' House in reference to tithes. Lord CHARLEVILLE presented a petition from a place, the name of which we did not catch, against any alteration in the corn-laws. Lord LONDONDERRY presented a petition in favour of the measure now before the House with reference to corn. The inhabitants of Stockton-upon-Tees stated that they would not support any candidate for the county unless he was pledged to free trade principles.—(A laugh.) With respect to their petition, which had been presented by the Noble Da on the cross benches, he would be glad to say a few words on it, but as he believed that their Lordships were not willing to have any observations made on petitions, he would in the course of the evening take an opportunity of stating very shortly his opinions upon the subject. BIRTH OF A PRINCESS. The Duke of WELLINGTON then rose, and said—My Lords, I have to announce to your Lordships that her Majesty was safely delivered of a Princess this day at three o'clock in the afternoon, and, according to usual practice, I now, my Lords, move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, congratulating her Majesty on the birth of another Princess, and assuring her Majesty that every addition to her Majesty's domestic happiness affords the highest satisfaction to the House of Lords. Lord MELBOURNE seconded the motion. It was then put and carried nemi-Pe emtradieente. RAILWAY LEGISLATION. Earl FITZWILLIAM said they were now very close upon the recess, and he was desirous of inquiring of her Majesty's Ministers what course they intended to take with respect to railway legislation. Their Lordships would recollect that some weeks ago resolutions were passed, and an Act of Parliament was proposed, with a view of what might be called thinning the railways. As far as he had been enabled to observe, these measures had produced very little effect. He was, therefore, very desirous of knowing whether her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to bring in any measure which should be more efficient. If they should fail to do so, he should feel it his duty, after the recess, to propose to their Lordships some measure which he thought would be more effective. The measure which he should suggest to their Lordships would be--he was not quite determined upon it at present—but what he thought he should recommend would be, for their Lordships to postpone the third reading of every rail. way Bill which might be in their Lordship-' House, until the whole number of railway Bills which might come up from the other House of Parliament should be waiting for a third reading, in order that their Lordships might take into their consideration the whole mass of those measures and select such as they might deem desirable to sanction. The Doke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade mot having had any notice of the question is not at present in the House, and lam unable to give any answer myself. I will let my Noble Friend know of the notice which the Noble Lord has given. CORN IMPORTATION BILL. The Earl of RIPON, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill, said,—My Lords, I am desirous, as much as possible, to compress within the smallest compass the observations which it will be my duty to address to the House upon this important question. But, my Lords, I fear that the very importance of the question as well as some circumstances of a personal character connected with it, and applying in some measure to myself, will compel me, however reluctantly, to trespass longer upon your Lordships' patience than it is usual for me to do. For thattpa tienee I ask your Lordships. Ido not, however, ask for your Lordships' indulgence, because it might have the appear ance of fault, or might indicate that I was about to do something for which I was bound to make excuses and apologies. But, my Lords, lam happy to say such is not the case. I have a public duty to perform, and one of which lam deeply conscious of its policy. I have, therefore, no apologies to make, but I think I know enough of this House, and have experienced upon many occasions too much of its kindness to doubt that the patience I ask will he denied me.—( Hear. ) My Lords, I have stated the importance of this question. I have always considered it the far most important question which could come under our consideration, affecting as it did so muts:i of the social condition and happiness of the country in general. —( Hear, hear.) Important, inasmuch as it affects one way or in another, all classes of the community—important, as it is unfortunately calculated at all times when brought under dis cussion to excite warm, if not angry feelings—important be cause whilst one party considers it of great injury to the coun try, another absolutely insists upon the measure cf the law for their own advantage and interest.—(Hear, hear. ) These feelings have prevailed and do prevail on both sides of the question, but it is nevertheless perfectly true that the interests of both these parties to which I allude are in reality substantially identical, considering the nature of the question itself,—considering that it refers to the absolute supply of a sufficiency of food to the people.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, I need not say then that the question is an extremely difficult one,—difficult the more because of the identy, and because of the difference of opinion to which I have referred. I say, therefore, my Lords, that it is a question most important, inasmuch as it re lates to the supply of food for the people, while the course which Parliament has pursued upon it sufficiently indicates its difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) At one time we have had laws producing great fluctuations and great scarcity in the supply of food, and while one party has considered them of the greatest injury to the country, another has contended that they were ab solutely necessary for protecting the best interests of the nation. I think, my Lords, that those are the circumstances—the ex treme difficulty in which this question has been placed. My Lords, 1 have never been insensible to those feelings, and it is true that I have taken an active part in the diseassion of this subject. It was my lot many years ago, when I held a subordi nate situation in the Government of that day, to propose in my place iii Parliament a very important measure for the purpose of regulating the trade in corn ; but, say Lords, I am anxious for my own vindication with respect to the course I have pursued, not only upon that, but upon many subsequent occasions, and comparing that course which I feel it to be my duty to pursue on the presets. occasion, I think it is but fit that I should explain to your Lordships what the principles were on which I supported those measures, and, above all, to show what were not the princi ples upon which I recommended them to Parliament. 11Iy Lords, when I introduced, in 1815, the Corn Bill of that day I did it. I may say this, for it is fair; and it is now so long since that I can hardly reco ll ec t th e i n f erence= that were awn from the course that I then adopted; but I did introduce the measure with the greatest reluctance. I was not a member of the Government, for I held only a subordinate situation, and when Lord Liverpool sent to me his desire that I would introduce the meaeute, I certainly did feel this reluctance, and took the liberty of expressing that I had a great objection to any corn-law whatever. I thought then—l have thought so ever since—that a corn-law is in itself an evil—( Hear, hear)—to be justified solely by the establishment of some paramount necessit sufficient in magnitude to overcome our scruples, for, as I have said, the imposition of such an evil upon the country could only be justified by the necessity of the times. And, my Lords, in the address which I took the liberty of making to the other House of Parliament, in reference to this subject, I stated that :-;t bought a corn-law was but a choice of positive evils to meet the difficulties under which this country laboured at the time I have mentioned. And I proceeded to show the grounds on which I thought Parliament weuldb3 justified in over-riding that objec tion, and adopting the measure which I then undertook to propose. My ..ords, I did not, however, propose that law ; I never snp- Forted any corn law upon any grounds upon which that system of policy has been supported by the House. 1 never, for in stance, supported the Corn-law, or thought it wise or even justifiable. I never supported the Corn-laws upon the ground of any charge being made on the owners of land, or their mortgages, or settlements and incumbrancea, which th ey are certainly of that nature. I cons i der t h at none of these matters would justify a measure of that kind, and 1 never put any weight on that argument. I am perfectly aware my Lords that that species of argument in support of the corn-laws is now pretty generally abandoned. at least I think it is abandoned by Parliament. It may not be abandoned elsewhere, but I do think that it is not an argument upon which any one is now prepared in either House of Parliament to vindicate the maintenance of any resolution upon the importation of the first article of necessity in the way of food. My Lords, I never supported the torn-bill upon the ground of its being the part of a great system of protection to national industry. I never supported it on that ground. On the contrary, my Lords, I always have supported the corn-law upon its own especial grounds, as entirely con t ra di st i n guis r a t s ewr a co en p l a da r part de o as a utterlygr standingaitm hed from, every arti c l e o f com spyuossptseoi system e g o r f o fo u rn n am d t i s eo p nt e oa c l usol policyi p a p r o t r o t w i t t ih s t e eh l f ovri l en n w dz a e two d the uniform and universal protection of native industry, because I have over and over again laid down an opposite• principle with regard to the principle of shared, year after year, protection, and have of importance in the earliest measures of which the object was in upon that principle of what is called protection to Brit.to break dustry, and to get rid, as completely as circumstances ll ' in ad mit, of the system, first of prohibition, and then of wrestriction, which I have always held to be dangerous, not only to the country of itself in general, but to the very interest which that system professes to protect. And, my Lords, lam not prepared admit the truth of the arguments in favou r of that prepared to because I find that the maintenance of the corn -law is sup, ported and insisted u p on becaus e it is a part of t h at therefore cannot support it on system. I the ground on which we are to support the corn-laws, not only at the present moment, but permanently —as th e part of a permanent system, from which you cannot depart, accordi ng to the views of those who support it, without exposing th e inte rests of the country to very great danger. B ut find it advanced in the most positive manner —m uc h more • •ately heard before, and I therefore immediately answer than I ever answer and state that that princip le I never did support, and • therefore lam liable to reproach if Ido not supp or t m that principle now. Now, my Lords, I have denied, aad I new deny, that that is a national principle— that it is a principle of national policy, at all times and under a iled protect native in -30 circumstances to do what is c 'PION). but the Committee were engaged fur two hours with a question of corn pensation to Mr. James Pullen. a landowner on the route. After the room had been cleared, the Committee decided that the Company should take the tolls on Mr. Pullen's property at 641., and thirty years' purchase, and pay Mr. Pullen the taxed costs of his opposition. The clauses of the Bill for the Amalgamated Company were then gone through and passed. The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP LIT. This Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour; 31 P. Miles in the chair. ST. !SEMEN'S CANAL AND R.A.ILWAY, AND GRAND JUNCTION (HUTTON TO 'WAR RINGTON BRANCH). The evidence en behalf of the promoters of the St. Helen's Rail way was resumed. I Mr. Robert Dagleish, the contractor for the supply of the locomo tive power on the present St. Helen's and Runcorn Gap Railway, examined—This line was eight miles long. There were two inclines on it about half a mile long, in which the gradients were 1 in 25 and lin 31. These could not be worked by locomotive power, but a stationary engine was used. The expense of working the proposed line would be much less, and It would afford railway communication to many collieries which did not possess it at present. Examined by Mr. HAYES, on behalf of Sir John Gerrard—The line would pass through this gentleman's property, and close to his corn fields. He considered that it would be of advantage to his (Sir John Gerrard's) estate. He was aware, however, that Sir John was op posed to the line. _ _ Mr. Rendall, the engineer of the line, was then examined. The cost of the line would be 225,741/., in addition to which, there would be the cost of a dock at Garston, amounting to 86,9711. This scheme was purely a protective measure to the owners of St. Helen's Canal. The coal trade could not be carried on efficiently unless increased facilities of transit were given. The proposed line would meet the exigencies of the case. To take the line along the canal was the best and cheapest mode of proceeding. _ The Ctimmittee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP LIII. The Committee to whom this group of Bills has been referred, ssu to-day at one o'clock, in Room 26, in the New Houses of Parliament . Present Mr. Lascelles (in the chair), the Earl of Arundel and Surrey Mr. Rice Clayton, Mr. Hildyard. and Captain Dalrymple. The following are the lailLs that have been referred to this Com mittee, viz.:- 1. Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Dudley. 2. Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley, (Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Dudley lines). 3. Birmingham. Wolverhampton and Stour Valley, (Stour Valley line). 4. South Staffordshire Junction. S. South Staffordshire Junction (Bilston and Prestfield branch). 6. South Staffordshire Junction (Wilhenhall and Bloxwich branch) 7. Trent Valley, Midlands, and Grand Junction. 8. Birmingham, Lichfield, and Manchester. 9. Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Worcester Junction. 10. Shropshire Union Railway and Canal (Shrewsbury to Stafford)' 11. Shropshire Union. Railway and Canal (Chester and Wolver hampton line). 12: Shrewsbury and Birmingham. 13. Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton, and South Staffordshire Junc tion (No. 1.) 14. Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton, and South Staffordshire Junc tion (No. 2.) 15. South Staffordshire (Showhill and Portobello branch). 16. Grand Junction (branch from Showhill to Portobello). The Committee decided that the Bills should be taken according to the order in which they were read a second time, and accordingly took, in the first instance, the SHROPSHIR.Z UNION RAILWAY AND CANAL (CHESTER and WOLVERHAMPTON). Mr. Acsurt (with whom were Mr. Hope and Mr. Lang) appeared as counsel, and said that the length was 45 miles, the cost 730,0001., and as it was a canal proposed to be converted into a railway, the Committee would, of course, suppose that the gradients were not bad. The line had a great deal of local support, and very little opposition. The principal opposition would be on the part of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Com. pany. Some opposition would also be offered on the part of certain iron• masters in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton ; but the great majority of the iron-masters were in favour of the line. The traffic did not support the present canal, but he should be able to show that it would nevertheless pay the proprietors when con verted into a railway. Mr. George Skee, carrying agent to the Canal Company in ques tion, was then called and examined by Mr. LANG—This witness proved that the present traffic on the canal was between 1,600 and 2,000 tons per week, the goods principally consisting of heavy ken castings, which were taken northwards. The Grand Junction Railway had deprived the Company of almost all their other traffic. If a line were made direct to Birkenhead, the cost and trouble of transhipment of goods passing along the canal to the neighbourhood of Liverpool would be obviated. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant liliNGLAxe—A large sum of money had lately been expended in the improvement of the river Severn for the purpose of making Stourport a convenient place for bringing up merchandise, and that sum of money would be rendered useless if this line were constructed. Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES (who appeared on behalf of the Ha berdashers' Company)—The tolls on the canal in question were re duced in February last a farthing per mile on iron goods, and a half penny on others. The arrangement for the conversion of the canal into a railway WitS made some time last year. The next witness not being in attendance, the Committee ad journed until twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP LIB". NEXIM.A.ND, BITETON-ON-T2ENT TO NUN, EATON, AND nnANCH. The Committeesuisembled at twelve o'clock this morning, and pro ceeded with the further Investigation of this scheme. The Bill was opposed by Mr. Kenning, a landed proprietor on the line. Mr. Woodhouse, the engineer to the line, was the first witness examined. He deposed as to the general route and estimated ex penses of the railway. The proposed length of the line was 23 miles and 2 furlongs. The total length of the branches would be about 10 miles. The gradients on the line were generally favourab'e, and the !smallest radius of a curve consisted of 36 chains In Slacker's line. The total amount of the estimated expenses of the construc tion of the line was 656,0001. An assistant engine would be neces sary on a plane near the Wooden Box branch. There would be three tunnels on the line, which would have to be bored through red sandstone, and with that exception, there were no peculiar engineer ing difficulties on the line. The examination of, the engineer having been corroborated the case for the promoter. was eoneluded. The opposition on behalf of t h e landowners on the line anl the Canal Comp y an was wino r ,,,„ 4 .... rrio.nument, having to between the parties t . been come The preamble was then declared to have been proved, and various clauses for compensation and the arrangement of tells were intro duced into the Bill. The Committee then adjourned. GUP LIT. This Committee re-assembled ßO to-day at 3 o'clock. Present, the Right lion. Fientatcx SHAW, chairman, and the other members. SHEPPIELD, ASLIT ON .:I3 NDER..IsYNE, AND MANCHESTER COZHAINEW BRIDGE AND MEAVVIELD ERANCEES.) The preamble of this 8111 was proved on Friday, and the clauses as the last Bill on the list, and the Committee were read t". tt ou cohsredri ser iat im . 17- e platst GROUP LVI. The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of the Us comprised in this group re-assembled at the usual hour itd. morning, Mr. Stuart in the chair. LONDON AND CROYDON (THAMES aline. TlOlir CANAL). The clauses in this Bill were settled, amended, and passed by the Committee. LONDON AND laravanvG/TILIVI STATIONS. The next case taken was that of the London and Birmingham Company, who were the promoters of a Bill for improving and en larging their stations at Camden-town and Euston-square. he Bill was opposed by several holders of land an. 4 houses, whose property it was proposed to take for the purposes of the improvement. Mr. R. STEPHENSON, the engineer-in-chief of the London and Bir mingham Company, stated to the Committee the inconvenience which was felt at present from the platforms of the Euston-square being so restricted that very often some of the arrival trains were longer than the platform itself. The Bill was for power to remedy the defect, as well as to enable the Company to erect new offices and a new departure station for the northern passenger traffic. The im provement of the Camden-town station was a couple of slips for accommodating the goods' traffic. The Committee declared the preamble to be proved, but the con sideration of the clauses was deferred till to-morrow. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock. jj MURDEROUS ASSAULT IN PARIS.—AU atrocious out rage was committed on Sunday evening on an English gentleman in Paris. The victim is Dr. Tuke, who was for many years at the head of a private asylum for insane patients in England, but who retired from practice, and has for some years been residing in France. It appears that on his return from dining with a friend at a restaurant, near the Barriere de PEtolle, he was compelled, when crossing the Esplanade des Invalides, to step aside, and was, while in this state, in a brutal way accosted by a soldier, who severely cut him about the face with a razor or knife, and left his victim on the ground bleeding, and apparently dead. The 1145455 in ha; net been appre hended. Dr. Ttilto is 70 years •f ago. dustry. I cannot think it, because when I come to consider whet the law and pokey of this emintry has been from time to time it never 1153 - been found to b , the principle ; the Legislature of this country has never laid it down; on the contrary, the Legisllture of the country hasover and over again been in direct defiance of that principle, and the instances brought forward had no reference whateyer to it. I had occasion once to state to your Lord ships, when we were about to submit for your considera tion a measure affecting the tariff in the year 1844, I had occasion then to point out what the circumstances were which gave rise to that which was taken to he the original establish ment of that principle of protection. It is quite true that there were high duties imposed upon articles similar to those produced in this country. 'The imposition of these duties had the effect in their operation of being protecting duties. But when we are called upon to look at the question as a principle, we must see the mo tive for imposing those duties. Looking at the case in that point of view, you will find that in an immense number of instances all these duties were im posed as the result of fiscal necessity. The duty of 25 per cent. additional on the customs' duties was placed solely for the purpose of revenue, without any considera tion to any particular mode in which the impo sition of these duties would affect the general trade or cnmmerce of the country. The duty on timber, for instance, which is supposed to be part of this great system of protection to native industry. Why, my Lords, whatever it may have become at the present period, it certainly was not so forty years ago. For the first time that these duties were imposed upon foreign timber, was in the year 1809. Till that time, the duty was next to nothing. There was no idea at that time of protecting the timber, either of our own countries or of the colonies, by any system of duties of that description. The imposition of these duties arose entirely from accidental circumstances_ from our being engaged in hos'ilities with Bonaparte in the north of Europe. That was the cause, and ne other ; and the best proof that it was no other—that it was not a principle to be interwoven with the commercial constitution of the country—if I may use such a phrase—that the Act which imposed these high duties was passed for a period of only the duration of the war.—( Hear.) They might have been dispensed with immediately after the expiration of the war; they were not, however, suffered to do so. lam therefore en titled to say that. this notion of a large duty being part of a system formed for the purpose of protecting native industry is a proposition not founded on nor maintainable by fact ; and so, my Lords, was it with agriculture, —the wool trade, for instance. You are aware, my Lords, that there was no duty at all on foreign wool up to the year 1819 —and what was it imposed for then ? Why, for the sole p urpose of the revenue to be raised from it. I must certainly know something of that circumstance, because I moved in the House of Commons at that period a resolution, from which resolution the imposi tion of this duty sprang. The result, I say, of those resolutions was, in order that the Government might have a surplus revenue. It was necessary that a sinking fund should be raised at 5 per cent. in order to meet this circumstance. This duty upon foreign wool was imposed, and not with any view to form a part of a protec tive system, it was solely for the purpose of revenue. There were several objectionable restrictions on British wool, such as preventing it from being removed from one place to another, which wese quite inconsistent with free trade of any kind, but which were imposed upon that important article with the notion that it was entitled to have a share in a great universal protective system, upon which so much stress has been laid. Again, with respect to the minor articles, such as cheese, butter, &c., they were not originally liable to any duty more than nominal, and it was not until the year 1816 that they were proposed. Perhaps it was a wise measure, perhaps] it might be otherwise, but it was no part of a general system. The only ground on which I ever looked upon a law as being necessary, was the apprehension which I most sincerely entertained that this country would become more dependent than she of right ought to be upon the produce of other nations.—( Hear, hear.) I am glad to see that I am understood, and those were the only grounds on which I have ever thought a corn-law necessary, and surely that was a ground which must be liable to question. Whether that ne cessity now exist, and whether there may net be circumstances which make it no longer advisable to continue these restric tions, which are certainly grievances, will be the question for the House to consider. But to go on with the consideration of this important subject. Some heads of it are almost too sacred to be touched, as tley constitute a part of the constitu tion of this country. Before we come to the conclusion that the corn-laws are so intimately connected with the poli tical, commercial, and financial interest of the country as to require that they should be maintained permanently, we should consider their effect in other times. If they are to be main tained as a permanent principle, I would wish your Lordships to consider what has been the course of legislation from time to time with respect to these corn-laws. During a great part of last century, great changes did take place, and the law was more restrictive and :prohibitory—and there existed during many parts of last century the same alarm with respect to the condition and prospects of agriculture as is felt at this moment. I believe that you will find in the publications of that time— the tame of Sir Robert Walpo!e—pamphlets which describe the agricultural interest as totally ruined. The landlord is de scribed as incapable of obtaining his rents, and the tenant as incapable of obtaining a due profit on his capital, and rum was pourtrayed in its most gloomy character. The result, how ever, was that no such ruin ensued, and the agriculture of the country went on increasing in extent, and meeting more and more the wants of the country. The first system to which I shall direct the attention of your Lordships does not go so far back as the one that I have before spoken of. I allude to the corn-law of 1791. That law was very re strictive in its nature, and so were those which followed after wards, of a similarly restrictive tendency. The import duty was very high, and the duty on corn—at certain prices 50s.— was very high • but they imposed, when it got to 545., a com paratively small duty, and when it got to 565. the duty fell to 6s. That system went on for two or three years, but was at length objected to, as being more restrictive than was advis able, but it went on until it was tutal.y overturned by the scions rise of prices. It was very welnnown in 1795, 1796, and during the subsequent years, that during the greater part of that century the prices were so enormously high that the protective portion of the duty had no operation at all as the prices admitted only of the duty of 6s. being paid. Now, during the season that followed, the pressure for food was so severe that Parliament, in order to induce par ties to bring additional supplies from foreign countries, gave bounties, amounting from one million and a half to two mil lions of money. This was done that sufficient supplies of corn might be brought from various parts of the world. The oppression, however, continued so tremendous, that at last, at the termination of the war, in 1804, it was found that the Act of 1791, which at the time was thought to be a perfect specimen of protective legislation, was of no value at all, as in 1803. That Act permitted corn to be introduced without being sub. ject to the duty, on account of the high rate of prices that ranged. It was, therefore, found that the Act of 1791 was not sufficiently stringent, and a new Act was introduced, fixing a high rate of duty until the price of wheat realised 635. when it was reduced to a small amount. It had to reach the high price of 635. per quarter before the high duty was reduced. This proposition was not brought forward by the Government, but it was supported by them, and it was submitted as a mea sure necessary for the increase and extension of agriculture, and to facilitate the production of supplies of food. But this Act, during a great part of its time was imperative, on account of the limited supplies in the years succeeding its enactment, and the consequent high prices that existed. The pressure on the poorer cl asses d ur i ng this period was very great. At last, at the termin at i on of the war, it was found that the Act of 1804, which was more stringent than the Act of 1791, was net sufficiently so t o protect the landed in terest, and accordingly another scheme was devised—the schemes of 1791, and the extended scheme of 1804 having been found worth nothing, instead of the previous law, a new scheme was devised and adopted in 1815 —a scheme which was not, certainly, popular at the time nor afterwards. Respecting the events that transpired a short time after the law of 1815 came into operation, I need not trouble your Lordships be yond this. But I recollect that that was a subject of much complaint; and this complaint, my Lords, did not procee d from these se thosewho originally who gi h n s a i l l ly be oh o j r cte the year 1820 it was held to be utterly i ne ffi c i ent f or t h e pur poses for which it had been passed. It was not a good law for ie eh d een to i it, pr ocee d e d ent i re l y so anxious to pa ss it. I n its intended purpose, I admit, but the first persons who com plained of it were ti.e very persons who had in the first place been so very anxious for its passing. Accerd ingly a question waa brought forward, in 1820, in the House of Commons, for the purpose of rendering this law, which your Lordship' will allow was stringent enough, still more stringent. 1 opposed it in that House. I opposed in 1820 a motion for the formation of a Committee to consider this question. I was beaten, and the Committee was carried; but afterwards their labours were restricted to the consideration of minor points. But in a year or two after that Committee was appointed the subject was thoroughly investigated. The Com mittee could not agree upon their report, and Mr. Huskisson was requested to draw up a report which in his view would embody the points of the evidence. A report was drawn up by Mr. Huskisson—a very elaborate report it was —containing a considerable amount of information and of good reasoning. That report became the foundation of eve-y alteration in the law of 1815 ; its object being by degrees to relax that law in favour of the admission of foreign corn at an earlier period than under the original provisions it could have been ad mitted. A law was in consequence brought in in 1822, which was very much objected to by persons connected with the agricultural interest ; bat the fact was, it !tad never come into operation, because it depended entirely on the principle of corn reaching a certain price, which price it had never reached. But its inconvenience was held to be so exceedingly great, that it became necessary to call upon Parliament to interfere by an Act suspending its ope ration. Now, I cannot say much for principles which require to be relaxed in a moment of real pressure. I cannot say much for the principle of suspensien. In 1827 another altera tion was made, for in 1826 and the previous years it was neces sary, once by an Act of Parliament, and once by the Execu tive Government, to suspend the law. The new plan was devised for the purpose of abolishing all the difficulties expe rienced in the aistecedent periods, and so as to arrange the na ture of protection that the law should be allowed to execute itself, by having the power of meeting every case, and so cor recting the former evils. That was the law which was finally passed in 1828. It was introduced into Parliament by Mr. Canning in 1827. It came into the House of Lords in the course of that same summer, but in consequence of certain alterations effected in it, it did not pass that year into a law. There were, however, many circumstances in the details and practical working of that law which were objects of critizism and objection. These were obj_'ctions of great weight, the principal of which was the sudden fluctuation in the amount of the dtv y, and the sort of jumping scale that was established. Finally the law was changed in 1844. Now, my Lords, I have rnentionsd these changes for the purpose of showing that if this system be one that is so essential, and so interwoven with all the interests of the country, it certainly has been the least stable system that has ever been invented for the purpose of maintaining a Permanent state of things. Therefore it is that I confe s, my Lords, seeing that, notwithstanding all these im perfections, the agriculture of the country has gone on greatly improving, the application of capital to the land has been most extensively increased —seeing that gt irg on at this very mo ment —seeing, my Lords, moreover, that notwithstanding all the feelings which have been excited in the country—notwith standing all the apprehensions which have been proclaimed in Parliament and I e sewhere—seeing that that is still going on, and that there is no particular symptom of a decline of agri culture—no symptom that I know of, at least, and I know many to the contrary—no symptom of land being thrown out of cultivation—l confess that I cannot bring myself to think that the system at presert in existence is essential for the effec tual and perfect cultivation of the sod of this country. Then, my Lords, if we look at this matter as bearing a character for permanence, the question becomes narrowed to one of time. As t., time, we may very reasonably differ. But the principle is g one .—(i ron i ca l cheers.) And Ido not thi n k that it is are • h oac to any man t o sa y th a t i n his opini on t h e t i me for abolition is come. It is as a question of time that we are bound to consider it. Now, my Lords, there are, however, some cirbearng upon the question of c t u m m s t a n c F e i s rs tha o t f ha l Le m a particular Lords,y I will allude to that which I ie. to bo t the most important argument at the bottom consider namely, the great, of this question, the rapid, the uncontrollable increase uncontrolled, and the in the population of this country. • That, my Lords, is a se rious matt er . I t is perfectly well known that the tendency in the increase of population is to decrease the means of subsistence. That, my Lords, I believ e to be a maxim which no one will deny, for it has been established by th e soun d est reasoning to , i,.!1,..,, able f!r• 1 , -, • ;9efease of the population of this country is not upon a eeemetrical or aritineeocal ratio with the increase in the produce of the land. Nothing can be more clear than this, and the population has so increased as to render it impossible for the land of this country to meet the demand for food. The increase in the population is admitted to be from three to four hundred thousand a year, and the ratio of that increase, I may say, increases every year.—( Hear. ) Although the application of capital to lard—although the in creased skill of the farmer—skill which he applies admirably__ although these things have tended greatly to increase the quantity of earn produced in this country, se far as to meet in a certain degree the increase in the population, it is a remark able circumstance, that during the last few years, although prices have net b een hi g h there has been a regular importation for consumption of a great amount of foreien corn. Now I want to know, if that corn was not wanted, how came it to be sold ? How came people to go on year after year importing large (panties of corn, if they did not think there was a chance is the market for bringing it into consumption ? The consumption then, year of er year, of this corn clearly proves that the population has outstepped the means of production in this country.—( Hear, hear. ) Well, there is another circum stance applied to this question, upon which considerable dif ference of opinion exists—it is the circumstances in which Ire land has be, n placed ; but I fur one do not wish to lay particu lar stress upon the distress in Ireland. The Duke of RICHAIOND—Then you throw everything over ? The Earl of RIPON—No. My arguments may he wrong, hut you will observe, my Lords, that I do not rest the ques tion upon one state of things, or upon one argument alone. It is sufficient if I show, without pledging myself to support all the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, that the distress in Ireland is not the particular thing on which I lay the greatest stress, but at the same time, I do think it has a very great bearing on this question, and a very serious one too. My Lords, the de ficiency of food in Ireland is not exactly the same thing as the deficiency of food in this country; as a deficiency of that par.. fielder food, on which so great a ma.s of the Irish people live, must involve indescribablemisery and wretchedness, a wretched.. ness and misery which would not apply here. Why is this? In Ireland those who suffer by the failure of that crop—l may say ninety-nine out of every hundred of those who live upon it— are persons who have not the resources and the good wages which the labouringclasses here enjoy. The wages in Ireland are comparatively low, and there are hundreds of thousands who do not depend upon the wages of their labour for their sup port, but on that' which they may obtain from the small peroion of land they cultivate ; and that is one of the reasons why there is so great a demand for land, and why so many evils arise in a sea-on of scarcity, because those who depend almost solely for a subsistence are the poorer classes. The evils that flow from this system are enormous, for they have nothing to fall back upon but charity—for they are charitable to one an other, so long as they have the means of doing so. But when large masses of the population, living in the same way, and sup porting each other by the same means, are overtaken by a season of scarcity, they virtually have no means of subsistence. It is stated that there is no famine in Ireland, as there is no de ficiency of eats and beef; and that thousands of tons of quarters of corn are coming to this country, while the people of Ireland are stated to be starving. But why do they send them to this country ? Because there is a market here where they can sell them, for they have neither employment nor money to pur chase them for their own use.—(Chaers.) If they have no money nor employment which will furnish them with food, when purchasers cannot be obtained for it in their own mar kets, it cannot fail to come to this country, though under better auspices it would remain in their own. But that does not make their wretchedness less. I say the existence of such a state of things in Ireland raises the question, whether it would be fit for the Government to exercise the power which they might have exercised to violate the prin ciple of the law, and to have sanctioned the importation of foreign corn to feed the people. Such a course should not be adopted unless it could be justified to the mind of every reason able man. My Lords, when this subject was discussed about opening the ports fur a limited time to meet this particular distress, those who are opposed to the repeal of the corn-laws said—" We are not disposed to object to that." But, my Lords, I wonder that those who are prepared to take that course would agree to that suspension of the operation of the corn-laws, for the principle of the existing corn-law is that it will meet all cases, because the duty would fall in proportion as the prices rise. And if we had acted exactly in that way, there is no doubt what would have been the consequences that would have followed. But when you agree to suspend the operation of the corn-law you condemn its principle, because you could not but admit that it would be impossible for you to revert to the old system, which was proved to be incapable of maintaining itself. Now, my Lords, I contend that the only ground upon which this measure for the removal of the rertric lions ueon the importation of foreign corn can be opposed is that of the risk of throwing land out of cultivation.—(Hear, hear, and a cry of " That is only one of them.") Now that, says a Noble Friend near me, is only one of the arguments. Ne doubt in his view, and those who concur with him, it is only one of the general objections which exist against any alteration whatever, but in my view it is the only one—( Hear, hear) — the only one which I have ever relied upon, and, therefore, the only question which appears to me to be of any importance is this argument. Now, I cannot—l never have been able—to ascertain upon what grounds it rests, and to what extent it is likely to go—what species of land is likely to be thrown out of cultivation. I never have been able to ascertain this yet, but I know that it has been stated that very large tracts of country would cease to he cultivated ; and that has been illustrated by reference to particular districts. Now, of one particular district that has been alluded to as likely to fall back into its orieinal barrenness, and capacity of producing nothing but rabbits. I wish to say a few words. Now that part is as much indebted as any portion of the United Kine dom to the spirit and energy of the tenants, and there can be no doubt that it is a most pleasing spectacle to any person who traverses that country to see what a difference there now is in that district. There is an account of it written by the Hon. Member for Berkshire, in the Royal Agricultural Journal, in which he describe; very beautifully what it then was and what it is now ; and points it out as reflecting honour equally on those to whom the land belongs and those who rent it. But it is not stated by the Hon. Member that, in his opinion, this land will be thrown out of cultivation by repealing the present corn-laws. It has been referred to as a proof to what extent cultivation has been carried on ; but an inference may be sought to be drawn that, if the corn-laws are repealed, this land will relapse into its original sterility. Ido not think any result of the kind will take place. All the land that I possess in that county was either upon a mere heath or a fen. It has generally been let to small farmers, it is much to the advantage of those who may have the good fortune to possess any portion of this estate that this land has been SO effectually cleansed and cultivated. I know the persons who rented the soil in the years 1809, 1810,1811, and 1812, when this great change took place, applied their capital liberally towards the cultivation of these lands, and it has gone on with the same spirit until it has now become one of the most beautifully farmed districts in the whole county. certainly have beard nothing of any apprehension on the part of the occupants in that part of the country, that this law is to deprive them of the means of making a fair return on the capi tal invested by them. I have hea r d no comp l a i nts o f t h at kind. I have heard of no desire on their part to give up farms on this account; bat so far from that it does happen, that a certain portion of the estate which belongs to me had during the last six months become vacant, and in the midst of all these discussions, in the midst of all these alarms, and all the difficulties which are said necessarily to follow on the carrying out of these measures proposed by Government, it has been my lot to be able to let a considerable p nnion of that land, not at a reduced rent, but positively at a considerably increased rent. What stronger proof can there be that these parties do not an ticipate these alarming results from the passing of these measures. I do not see any proof that-this apprehension is well founded. The people roust be fed; and it did not follow because foreign nations sent in their corn, that there would not be an increased spirit and energy in the production of it in this country, when the demand for it must be so extensive. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to enter into any details respecting this measure. It is perfectly well known to you what its provisions are; and there is, I believe, only one part of it upon which any division of opinion exists, and that it is whether the deter. mination be immediate or not. The law as it at present stands gives a modified protection. Indeed, I do not know whether should be apprehensive if it should pass immediately. Yet, at the same time, I think it is wise that it should be as it is; and whether or no, the advantage which should he gained by its immediate operation, would not be sufficient to counter balance those which will accrue by its continuance for the spe cified time. And now my Lord, I feel—painfully feel—the imperfect manner in which I have attempted to argue this question. I cannot suppose for an instant that any of the observations which I may have made to you would produce anything like a conviction that it was wise to adopt this mea sure, or produce a change in those opinions which after full consideration, you entertain. But I will say this, that I do not, nor can I admit, the , I ought to feel any shame for having taken on myself to support and introduce this mea.ure to your Lord ships; and though I know it is inconsistent with what I have formerly done, and it may be said it is inconsistent with opinions which I have formerly uttered, I take no shame to myself, because the only shame that can be felt for a change of opinion is when it proceeds from a bad motive. I can only say that I am not conscious of being influenced by any bad motive in making these statements. I de so from a solemn conviction founded on much and deep reflection—reflection stnnu!ated by the necessity of taking into consideration the solemn convic tion that I am not proposing to your Lordships to adopt any measure calculated to injure any of the interests of this country, but a tneasare calculated to do good to them all. I may have forfeited the good opinion of many who have thought well of me. I may be supposed to have abandoned unnecessarily a cause I have always supported, and which many friends of mine have honoured me by saying that I supported well . When I supported it, I did it because I thought it right, and because my conscientious conviction went with it ; and when I came to the conclusion that the reasons on which I acted did not now exist, at least I hoped that I might stand fair in the eyes of your Lordships when I recommended this Bill as one in the welfare of which you are all equally interested. The Duke of RICHMOND said, my Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, as I feel in my conscience that a measure which is more likely to effect the total overthrow of British agriculture, and therefore a measure, the effect of which will be most dangerous to the national greatness, has never been proposed before in your Lordships House.—( Hear, hear ) My Lords, I think that we have just cause of complaint against my Noble Friend, who has just sat down—that he has not told your Lordship what in his opinion the average price of corn will be—( Hear, hear)—if this measure shall ever come, unfortunately, to pass into a law. My Lords, rash and blameable as 1 think Ministers are, I cannot think, or believe them to have been so reckless as not to have foi med some estimate as to the possible effect of their own proposal. If they have done so, I ask them why do they withhold from this House that information so necessary for the better deliberation and consideration of this question ? It is most difficult for me to account in any way for the conduct and proceedings of her Majesty's Ministers since last session of Parliament, and more particularly in the me mmable month of November last. The only surmise I can make is, that the calculations on this measure were not sub mitted to the Cabinet until it was pledged by her Majesty's speech from the throne. The Noble Lord has not laid on the table of the House a calculation, the effect this measure will produce in the price of wheat, and it is the first time that a Minister of the Crown has proposed such a great change without making such a calculation as that I have referred to.—(Hoar, hear.) The Noble Lord in the course of his address has not made the slightest reference to this point. He has gone back as far as the altera tionte in the law o f 1821, b ut h e sa id n ot a single wordasto the measure of 1842—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—yet t h at is the Bill which the G overnme nt now propose to c of 1 21, but to Hear, hear.) They do n ot propose to alter th e the l aw repeal the A c t of 1842 ; yet, repeca_atehart, hear.) But on Act, the Noble Lord has not spoken a single syllable.—( H ear, le. (H a former occasion—and Ido not mean to maekreto what a perstonliael hasat at tack— he expressed himself in a different i ni ll a e nn excuse me if I use a speech o done to night. I hope in the Noble Lord w language much better than I can ex a. il recollect couched collcte the first speech, in 1815, made by the N o bl e fo e r s d whe na Member of the House of Commons in support of the measure then proposed. He said, in proposing the mea sure, that, looking at the principles upon which the affairs of the country had been conducted, they were not then to argue for the first time whether restriction or not should prevail, for not only the trade in corn, but all the other great branches of trade had been conducted from time immemorial on this re strictive system.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") That, therefore, they were not discussing first principles, or for the first time arguing whether restriction should or should got exist; but • - they were enntiderine a nestion in mareernsnt with pnlier f e lt bee'; steed mien fu r lerie , 1 no . done away with, without occasioning a dreadful revulsion. The question was how to carry out a measure in agreement with the circumstances in which the country was placed.—(Hear, hear ) These (continued the Noble Duke) were the grounds on which the measure' of 1821 was recommended to the House by Mr. Robinson —(Laughter. ) I will now call the atten tion of your Lordships to another speech made, not by Mr. Robinson, hot by the Noble Load. It was made in 1841 in this House, when the Noble Lord was not sittine nn the Minis tw„a, and ha would read a short extract from it. Ido this to show that the Lord Ripon of a former day was no' the Lord Ripon of to -day. and that I Conceiv e him better entitled to he followed then than now. The Noble Doke then read the extract which was to the following effect Looking at the motives and principles by ehich men are governed, he could not think of atiandoninse all the settled political rules upon which they had hitherto acted. It appeared to him that the Government schen , . e was both vicious and fallacious." There was no word there of Lincoln-heath. "He could not dont).- that under the operation of the new corn-law a considerable portion of the country would he thrown nut. of cultivation."—( Hear, hear.) But if tou wait a moment you will get to Lincoln heath—you only require to allow me the next sentence or two. " The evil once commenced no one could see where it would stop, or what disastrous consequences would result from it." So that my Noble Friend looks forward to the IW - it-house heinr useful after all.—(Langhter. ) Now. looking to another speech of my Noble Friend's, a speech made in 1842, and here he takes a different view of the question. " The great evil which I anticipate from the adoption of the principle that all restric tions on foreign corn should be withdrawn is this, hat the people of this country will be compelled to depend on other nations for the supplies of food, not to meet any occasional de ficiency, but to depend altogether on other countries for the main portion of their supplies. Such dependence is indeed hanging upon a broken reed, for they would ever be in danger of a failure of those supplies." No one doubted that " the pro gress of agriculture, for many years past, has been most re markable ; the progress is not, indeed, able to keep pace with the people, but with a little addition from foreign countries, we may, indeed, be said to rely upon our own resources. For my case, it is not necessary to enter into the cost of agricultural products in this country. That cost has become higher than in any other country in Europe." That is true—it was true then, and it is true at this time. It is quite true that the cost of ag ricultural produce is higher here, but this would not be the case if it were not for the narticular and heavy hurdenslo which the land is subjected. "If we fake away protection from the home producer, you will cause the withdrawal of a considerable portion of that produce from the land ; at a time, too, when you may not be able to depend on support from foreign countries; and you will also withdraw the use of that capital which is invested in the land thrown out of cultivation." There my Noble Friend appears to have been drawn to admit this point. It was stated by some of the Members of the House that it was not the intention of the Government that the Bill of 184'2 should be a final measure, and thereupon my Noble Friend says, " If we can imagine that the Ministry had been guilty of the crime of endeavouring to deceive the people of this country on this subject, I can only say that they will be guilty of one of the most miserable as well as have political vices of which a Ministry can be considered capable." —(Loud cheers.) "I am convinced that this Bill will be re ceived by you as a sati s f ac t ory a dj ustment of this great question." Well, it appears that my Noble Friend the Noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Buckingham) was not satisfied with that declaration ; and what answer did my Noble Friend opposite make to him ? He certainly had not the arrogance to state that any law Parliament should pass on this subject, or any other, should be taken as final. All he could say for himself was that if he had brought forward a measure intending and wishing that it should not be final he would say so. He hoped this measure would be final, he thought it was a good thing if it were, and it should not be his fault if it were not.—(Protection cheers.) Now, my Lords, it appears however, that my Noble Friend admits that very large sums of money have been ex pended upon the improvement of land in this country. My Lords, a great deal of that money was invested in such im provements before the year 1842, and T am sure that there are many of your Lordships here present who will remember that that money having been laid out on the faith of protection was one of the main arguments which were adduced to recommend your Lordships to reject, the Committees that were moved for year after year to inquire into the corn-laws. I ask whether that argument has not been strengthened since 184;)? I have read the speeches of the Minister who proposed the measure in this House, and I ask whether it was not perfectly notorious that large sums of money had been expended in this most laudable and desirable object on the faith of the Act of Parliament. Then, my Lords, I ask you, will you now pass a measure—will you now pass a retrospective line of confiscation of property—will you deprived the capitalist—be he the owner or the ne , upier of the sail—of the mesas of gaining that fair return for his outlay which he made on the faith of the existing law? Now, tirht does another authority say on this subjeet ? He says, that under the system of protection which had existed for above 2 - 0 years, wild, heather land has been reclaimed, extensive tract of country have been d ained. by which a healthy population have been employed, and their lives prolonged ; hnd this not at the expense of the manufacturing prosperity, My Lords, I make that quotation. because I see that it is appPca ble to the present moment. But, my Lords, your Lordships are aware that under this system of protection. those for whom I know you will always feel the liveliest and deepest interest, the working classes in this country—those that au agricultural. and those that are operative—for I feel the same sentiments towards both of them—will be the great sufferers. Look, my Lords, at this return at the present moment there are in the savings' banks 1,600,000 accounts, with an average of 27,. each ; 600,00 t) depositors with an average of 71. each ; the total (and it seems to indicate how this country has been pauperised by protection), amounts to 33,000,000/. sterling. That is the result of pro tection which is now about to be arrested from us. It may be arrested from us by force, but never, my Lords, while these statements are before us, will they do an by argument. My Lords, we are told that we are to have free trade. The manufacturers —no, not the manufacturers, but a section of the manufacturers—a section of Manchester cotton-spinners, tell us that we know nothing about farming; and they say we will take your farms from you, we will bring capital—l wonder they did not say experience —and work them properly. This change, then, they say shall be made, and we are called upon to remove from our farms and from their occupation from 20,010 to 30,000 of the tenantry of this country. But, my Lords, if you remove them from their occupations, what is to become of them ? Why, my Lords, all this tenantry with their families, when they are turned out of employment, must go to the union workhouse for their daily bread, or they must migrate to the manufacturing districts, where, if it is their destiny to seek employment, they will serve under these very men whe have been the cause of their ruin and destruction, and the whole of their worldly prosperity; bat, try Lords, I know well you will not sanction this. You know too well, ray Lords, that these manufacturers have a deep hostility against the farmers of England, because they know that the farmers have ever been warmly attached to our Constitution, and to the rights and liberty of the Crown. They wish also to lower the prices of produce, and to get a large number of agricultu rists into their towns for the purpose of lowering the wages of the work-people. They wish permanently to lower the wages of the operative, not only from a desire to obtain greater profits for themselves, but they do it also for the purpose of preventing those strikes which seldom take place when wages are low. But, my Lords, again let me ask you what is to become of the yeomen and tenantry of this great country? I wish to know, when the value of produce is so diminished, and when the poor-rates are so much increased—l should ask your Lordships how they will be enabled to do any thing bat linger for a few years? My Lords, it is a curious circumstance, and one which you are no doubt aware of, that in this country in gen ral when the price of produce falls goer-rates in crease.—( Hear, hear.) I have taken the trouble of extracting from the tenth report of the Poor-law Commis sionerssome figures with respect to this. Ihave taken them from that report, and I could only find them down to the year 1843, but still, at the same time, I bring this return forward, to show your Lordships that what I have stated has occurred. I find by that report, that whilst the price of wheat was 68s. per quarter, the cost upon the population for the maintenance of he poor, and for out-door relief, was 4s. Bd. per head. My Lords, in the year 1843, when wheat was 545. 4d. per quarter, the rate of expense upon the population per bead was ss. 5d ; therefore showing that when the price of wheat is low the Poor orates are higher; and that when wheat is at a remunerat ing price these rates diminish. And it. is self-evident why they are so reduced ; because the people get employment.—( Hear, •ear.) Now, my Lords, one of the attacks made by my Noble Friend, and by his colleagues—the Anti-Corn law League— was this, that the tenantry of this country have no capital and no aktil. My Lords, I believe th.-ire is no country in the world where farmers are more skilful and more intelligent —( Hear, hear)—and where they ate more upright, and where they behave better to their humble neighbours the labouring classes. I think I may state this, because I nt snore personally acquai,ted ..sith the farmers of this empire than any one of your Lordships, and I contradict the assertion that they are not skilful, anii I think it would be too bad if a Minister was to turn round and to taunt that important body of men by saying that they have not large capitals. My Lords, the heavy, the unequal, the unjust, the unfair manner in which the tenantry of this country are taxed—(Cheers)—coupl e d with the eurr •ncy Bill of 1819, have decidedly &unshed their means of subsistence; but they have now sufficient capital to he enabled to impeme the country, and more capital would flow front the improvement of the land: But the new schem the new plan would prevent this ; for if they want to get capital for the im provement of the land, this Bill would prevent it, because it would diminish the value of their produce.—(Hear, hear.) But it is my Nobl • Friend's areument that it will not produce it ; but if you do not admit that it will reduce the price of provisions, it will be dangerous indeed, for that clearly will he the result. My Lents, I do not think that I should myself be justified in much longer trespassing upon your Lordships' attention. I have never for a moment disguised the strong feeling which I enter tain upon this great and momentous question, and I think I am relieved also by doing so from believing that the great majority of your Lordships dislike this measure as much as I do.— (Loud cheers.) My Lords, I believe, and as I stated apon a former occasion, I will repeat it now, that if the votes apon this question were to be taken by ballot in this House—( Hear, hear)—l do not believe there would be twelve balls in favour of it.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) My Lords, however, there are some of your Liirdships who say "Free trade must come ; it's no use contending to the contrary ; you had better give way at once ; there is an excitement out of doors." Now I deny that the great body of the operatives in this country are in favour of this measure—( Hear, hear)—and I say that the Anti-Corn-law League has never dared to have a public meets_ ing without tickets, even at M anc h ester, t h e very hotbed of their sedition—(Cheers)—they do not dare to trust the_opera tives at a public me e ti ng w ith out t i c k ets. My Lords, out o f . doors, h ors tk , that even if it w e r e so —if t h ere were e xcitementth o at u if you ad -it would be a bad argumen t t o use . I think mit that argume n t once it w ill b e conyewrtheithint wouldo a dangerous b e d a n t precedent-4 Hear, hear)—an argument go rout in future ti me s. Then, nl y Noble Lords, there are cer tainly other,Noble Lards who say 1 1 We never voted against the Government."—( Laughter. ) , We do not like to vote again s t e the Government of this country." — ( Hear, hear.) " W have supported Sir R. Peel we cannot abandon our loader,"_ ( Hear, hear.) il ly Lords, it is not his party who have aban doned Sir B. Peel, but it is Sir R. Peel who happens to have Hear, hear, and laughter,) And, my abandoned his party — ( Lords, others again come forward and suppo r t Sir R.Puell'n the ground of consistency , butSirn. iPneefilli2try character has e loou s nwill ev er t all for consistency, for there is n, man regain the confidence of the large classes of the community,__ (Cheers.) It took him upwards of ten or twelve years bd. re he could gain ci nfidence, after the year 1829__( Hear, hear ) and he has no more chance of regaining the confidence of the people now than he has of sitting on the throne of this coun try._(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Well then, my Lords, I must call your Lordships' attention to the motives which were publicly avowed. I will not speak of Parliament, but of those out of d -ors. They publicly avow that their object is to crush the aristocracy of the country , —(Cheers, arid cries of 't No, no.") My Lords, I will not say one of the most respectable, because certainly he is not one of the most respectable mem bers of the Anti-Cornslaw League, but a Mr. Bright, fairly and openly, at all the meetings, states that his desire is to crush the aristocracy.--( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I hope and trust that your Lordships will remember that this is a question of vast importance—( Hear, hear)—that your Lordship will recollect the eventful times which we are looking forward to— ( Hear, hear)—that it is of the greatest importance to the hereditary Legislature of this ceuntry—it is their duty, in my opinion, to vote wiohout favour or affection—to lay aside party feeling and political bias, and to vote according to their consciences, apon measures affecting the weal of the large masses of their felloweatibieete.—(Rear, hear. ) 1 - ;•.i iits.fs (et y ese Lot only upon this highest duty of all, but also incumbent upon you, from reasons of expediency. My Lords, the Anti-Corn-law League are carrying on the agitation with a view of destroying the Church, impairing the constitu tion of this country, changing the constitution of this House. My Lords, you will be powerless if you do not possess as here tofore the good opinion of the great body of the middle classes of this great country. I tell it to your Lordships with perfect respect, this will be the consequence except you do maintain that good opinion, and you cannot maintain that good opinion if this great body find you voting against your former promises, and against your former pledges; and if you have not them with you, you are powerless. In conclusion, I will only, though at the same time mot earnestly, implore your Lordships to vote against this measure, because I believe that it is (if you do not reject it) accepted only as an instalment of future and sal greater changes ; and I ask your Lordships now, at the out posts, to fight your battles, or else, depend upon it, you will have a difficulty hereafter in showing a proper front. —( Heas. ) My Lords, I vote against this Bill, be lieving upon my honour that it is a measure which is only the first attack—that it is a measure which will shake the foundations of the Throne, cripple the Church, and en danger our institutions, and convert a hitherto happy and con tented people into wretchedness and misery • and because believe it w ill lead to endless confusion and anarchy, and that your L or d s hi ps are now called upon to make that sham. which I humbly hope you will do.—(Ch. ) Earl F ITZWILLIAM and the Marqui e s ers of LoNDONDEERt both rose together, but in consequence of the calls of the House the Marquis of Londonderry gave w. Earl FITZWILLIAM then said that his Noble Friend who had just sat down had read, at the conclusion of his speech, a list of formidable dangers with which he had threatened their Lordships if they consented to this measure. lie thought his Noble Friend would have done well if he had pointed out with more distinctness the grounds upon which he expected that their Lordships acquiesence in these measures would lead to such formidable results. He (Earl Fitzwillism) entertained none of these apprehensions. He was still willing to think that their Lordships would deal with this measure of great and beneficial political poliey—(Hear) without any reference to these fears which he has thundered out, and nursed in his mird, in order to alarm your Lordships. He would pass to a consideration of the measure, and should not go into any part of his Noble Friend's speech, nor should he trouble himself with its details, but he could not help saying that they had a right to expect an explanation of the state of things which should exist consequent on the passing of the mea sure. If his mind did not deceive him, his Noble Friend on all former occasions and he was a man of large experience— had condescended to inform the Houses of Parliament, which ever he might have addressed, what state of things would be consequent of a measure, On the present occasion, however, he leaped to a conclusion, and called on them to go at once from restricti o n to free trade. He must defend the Nobles Lord from any charge of inconsistency, because he had not only now, but on former occasions, expressed himself as adverse to any duty on the import of foreign grain. However, the warfare was concluded. He had been long enough engaged in it, and it gave him the greatest satisfaction to contemplate the time of peace when this Bill would pass, for he could not contemplate that a time would come when the Noble Lord upon the Wool sack would propose a revival of the corn-laws. He was not one of those who believed that any disastrous consequences would accrue to their Lordships from the measure. His opi nion was quite the contrary; and, from circumstances which had come to his knowledge whilst the measure had been de bated in another House, which strengthened him in that opinion, he must speak his mind on this subject. He was about to vote for this Bill; he trusted that it would be passed—he be lieved it would be passed by a great majority. But he was free to say that if it had been his lot, on any other occasion, to have been successful in inviting their Lordships' attention to the kind of Bill now proposed, the present Bill was not the one he would have submitted for their Lordships' consideration or adoption. He was not one of those who dealt in language which he thought was more fit for ancient ladies—(A laugh)than for grave statesmen. They were told of the cruelty of taxing the necessaries of life, but he was not one of those who believed that there was anything inhuman, even under the pressure of the greatest scarcity, in maintaining the duty on the importation of foreign corn. He did not believe s that there was any difficulty in levying the duty on that import, and in that respect he disapproved of the present Bill, as it wasted a 'arge revenue which they could have raised. They had wasted a revenue which they must replace by other taxes, to be con tinued or to be imposed. He said that other taxes were to be continued or to be imposed, be gauge even under that system of law which h as j u t b een condemned in the Howe of Commons —and after the anticipated (if he could use such a word with regard to the anticipation of the decision of their Lordships). after the anticipated vote of their Lordships, he might venture to call that law absurd—but even under that sys tem a larze revenue was placed in the exchequer of the cosine try. That revenue was about to be removed, and they m ust find a substitute for it, and where it was to be found he knees' not ; whether in an increase of the income-tax. or by the in- • crease of the Excise duties, if they could be increased to any greater extent. It so happened that when he was first mace o•quainted with this anticipated legislation, he was at a er , at distance from this country, and he heard that it was said in the other House of Parliament that gen tlemen were not to take the measure by itself they were not to look at the Bill for the abolition of the corn laws by itself, but th.'y were to look at the whole measure—they were to look at everything that might be given on the principle of compensation. He did not believe that the landed interest would suffer in consequence of this measure, and he therefore did not believe that there was much in the way of compensation to be given. Oth er persons wou l d v i ew it in a different light , with reeard to the compensation to be given to the landed in terest, but he thought it was not a very unnatural expectation, that what was considered a great boon to the landed interest-- nay, the existence of the present corn-law, should require com pensation on its removal. When he was told in Italy that they anticipated a great reduction in the taxation, he certainly did not expect that it would be made up by a new tariff. There might instead, he thought, have been a considerable reduction in the excise-laws, and he had had a sanguine expectation that her Majesty's Ministers, who seemed to care nothing about taxation, would have done something of this kind. He thought there might have been at least a considerable reduction, if sot an entire repeal of the malt tax.—(Hear, hear.) That would have been a larg e and prop er compensation ; he thought also that the landed i nterest should have had that tax repealed, as it operated, not only unequally, but oppressively upon theta. This tax was not only injurious to the landlords, but more especially to the farmers and occupiers of land, as it operated to raise the price of beer to the persons whom they employed. The repeal of that tax would involve the laying on of other imposts; but in meeting that, he would not add to the income-tax, for he wished it repealed, but he would lay a large additional tax on real property. There was another point on which he entertained a strong feeling. They were to have a bit of a sliding scale for three years ; but what the use of that was he could not see.i The general opinion of those engaged in agriculture was, that if the question was to be settled, it ought to be settled immos diately. ( Hear, h ear .) H e h ad always been to any other cou rse o f d ea li ng with the l aw had— , always been, an d was , opposed to a gradual abolition . On these ground s h e was a l ways adverse to gradual &soli.; tions, and if he w e r e t o p ropose a l aw on this subject, he wou ld . propose one very diff eren t f rom t h at which was brought in by averse' her Majesty's Ministers, and he was not surprised at the indif nation which it excited among many of their Lordships. It seemed unfortunately as if there were a sort of race, a sort of St . . Leger or De r by, b e t ween th e a d vocates of the Corn Bill and the present Ministry, as to which should render themselves most unpopular, but the Treasury had gone a-head of them on', this question . Well, inasmu c h as it got r i d of the question of protection, he rejoiced at it, but he could not but think the- Bill one of which their Lordships had reason to complain 11 8 complained of it, but he must vote Sor it ; he was driven into a corner, he had no help for it but to do so. He mu s t vote for this Bill or he must run the risk of losing the Bill for a year. He valued the measure for the abolition of protectio n to corn, and he coald not therefore run the risk of such an event. He might not perhaps to say what he was now going to say s . but expressions had been used that made it necessary for him. to do so. Some Noble Lords had asked him to help them ia• their opposition ; his answer to those Noble Lords must be-- " You never help me."— ( Laughter.) You have therefore no' just right to ask for my help on the present occasion. But' even if he were willing to give that support, he could not give it.: consistently with his views of the great objects of the frleasure.• He thought the Government of this country acted unfairly to' the House. He thought the House had great reason to com plain of them. Why, in propounding a measure of this meg - Ill.." rude—not merely a measuie of this magnitude—but a measurce , which must have surpi ised all their Lordships-- . 7 he asked whether it was r i g h t to propose th!! measure in such a way as to preclude tbet Lordships from effecting a desired settlement of the questiome by introducing certain amendments ? He asked if it was decen,t; if it was f a i r t owar d s t h e i r L ordsh i ps ' House, to propose 6. measure in this manner ? It was according to the practice, tIo a measure o f ti is great importance, th at reso l ut i ons s h ou ~ have been produced in the other House, and communicated t this House in the first instance. This w ou ld h ave b een t i s e proper rule for the Ministry to have pursued. Th-ey could then have had an opportuni y of considering Os!! question with the other House, and of associating th e!ri views w ith th e v i ews of the o th er H ouse of Parliame at -- Now the ground was cut from them. They could not en t t i e'r into such a negotiation. The sm a ll es t amen d ment to . le Bill would be fatal to it, and he would not be one to risk; 5 0 awful an event. Disapproving of th e con d uct of her Majes , Government, adopting not their Opinions, but adopting all tia 6 views which were expressed by his Noble Friend on the 01 F if:, sition bench (the Duke of Richmond) with respect to i tui: conduct of the Government on this question, he felt prrelt wasded from acting in any other manner than that w about to do. He implored anti entreated appeal not on ,17 to to risk that great question, and he made that i h queation at rest, those who were will him in wishing " Vent e to those who their L ordships hie not but he made it with almost equal for it Ras a thought the existing law ought to ma intained ; be ystem which had been ; of it as the agrieul !tura and there was no class m me ischievous o w u h s i which would every d e o ltu a s w o a f y spe w er iL e h tis D regretted that he shot ad be interest. The had reaped suchv CL EVELAND 3 he7asen.tinwviitthed b the Noble Dc/110 a:49,overnm w hich h e had a twee eomTpheelleDdutkoee oppose e C s e L . Government in that House, to mot re the eti.hie:Oithe speech from the Throne ; and, et )12 ‘ at hi therto h h. e a a ot d e o d wf . address in ans . curing then in the principles of the Goverament, he read nsented to undertake the duty, but before doing so Ito I re c m o inded the Noble Duke that rumours were abroad that. Min ters intended to change the corn -law which they had pass ;eu the year before. The N o bl e D uke, however, informed b " s that there DukethpferesrneudimiattoiGounr:vewbrhatever fur any such rum o's, and he (the of Cleveland) upon that authority, e only t s c o on f t a r r ad a ic s te t d he tha brit Brent twfeurrethceornaeenrd,„edde,cl.at ed that measure at least was intended to be final. And he unders I° as much from what the Noble Duke had told him,—(Che errs')r,nk A corn-law could be traced as far back as the reign of I sts• - - JoOn, and ntedifications and improvements had been mad eta a it from time to time up to the period when the present law Ll c t l„ passed. He contended that the agitation which had seer P' se l. taken place against the Corn Bill ought to have pressed by the Government, but if they assented to the mea they would find it impossible to retrace their steps, which was The one of the strongest objections he could urge against it. ; L a British farmer was not afraid to compete with the skil e industry of the foreign farmer, if he were placed on equal t 7 0 f been re with the rest of the country, and freed from the influent r od the the heavy burdens under which it laboured, namely, Wo o l; poor-rates, or if those taxes were borne by the rest s country. He would now refer to the great concession t he it had' been said had been recently made in f a vour wsss l a farmers of this country. The first concession made farm ' e r duction upon linseed, whereby it was said thatthe the am' all large farmers grew their own linseed, and that ne xt col could obtain it at a cheaper rate. Now it so happened that ti farmers could mot afford to use it. Well, then, the_.eve Chi cession was, the reduction in clover seed. He believed a seed. the greater part of the farmers grew their the duty on • they would of course derive no benefit from . the i The last concession he believed was the reduction of of this the farmers French brandy. Now the fact was, that they drink country scarcely knew what ,French brandy was; much themselves, and very that brandy which was distilled by t These hear.) resembled in colour a black dose.—( Hear, been made were the only concessions that he knew of as having been this meg. concession. that measure sure was tie most cruel, unjust, and oppressive upon' in favour (.11' the British farmer. He contended that people —(He ar , hear)--- industrious, loyal, and an independent thatvim, fur was ever attempted to be passed by the Legislature and it was adopted for the purpose of oppressing 1