The Sun. — London, England, 1846-02-27 00:00:00

RAILW A.Y COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) Sub-Committee No. 4. The Committee met at the usual hour. Present—Sir W. Heathcote (Chairman), Mr. J. O'Connell, Mr. Shirley, ➢lr. ETaus, Mr. Hope Johnstone, and Mr. Acland. vrzxroan, CARLOW, AND DUBLIN JUNCTION. The Committee proceeded with the petitions against this Bill. The petition of Thomas Greenham, Thomas Brennan, and others, alleged that one of the pet itioners, Mr. Brennan, ing property on the line, had received no notice except on the 28th of December, being Sunday. Mr. Brennan was called to prove that he received a notice on the Sunday after Christmas -day, but could not say that it was not left at his house on a previous day. The petitioner's servant was called to prove that she re ceived the paper on that day, and said that she received some paper then, but could not identify it. Mr. Curtis, a clerk to the solicitors for the Bill, was then called, and said that on Christmas-eve he met Mr. Brennan on the quay at Wexford, and served him with the notice. The CHAIRMAN said that if the Committee decided that the allegation was proved, they must consider that Mr. Curtis's statement was utterly false, while it was perfectly consistent to suppose that the statement of Mr. Curtis was true, and that Mr. Brennan was mistaken. The Committee decided that the allegation was not proved. The next allegation was that another petitioner, Mrs. Per ceval, had received no notice except on Sunday, the 28th of December. Mrs. Perceval was called to prose that she was served per sonally V. ith the notice en the day in question. Mr. Curtis was again called to prove that he left the notice on Saturday, but that on Sunday he called and left the form of assent with Mrs", Perceval. Mrs. Perceval was recalled, and said that she received both the notice and the form of assent from Mr. Curtis on The CHAIRMAN said that it was impossible that Mrs. Per ceval could be mistaken, but that Mr. Curtis might possibly be mistaken, having eo many notices to serve. The Com mittee, therefore, decided that the allegation was preyed. The third allegation was that Mary Ann Moran, another petitioner, had received no notice except ou Sunday. A sister of the petitioner was called upon to prove that she received the notice from a strange gentleman, on the 28th December. Mr. Curtis said that he served the notice on a week day but could not say when. He thought it was on Monday, the 29th December, but was not sure, as he kept no dated memo randa of the service of notices. Mr. 'l'. W. O'Brien, a person engaged in the office of the solicitor to an opposing line, said, that on Sunday, the 28th of December, he saw a person going to the house of Miss Moran, and band to her sister, who came to the door, a paper, which he supposed to be a notice. He went to the house as soon as the gentleman was gone to request Miss Moran to allow him to see the paper, and he found that it was a notice from the Wexford, Carlow, and Dublin Junc tion Railway Company. In cross .examination, he said that he went out for the purpose of seeing whether any person was serving notices from this company. lie believed ;that the person whom he saw serving the notice on Miss Moran was Mr. Curtis. The Committee decided that this allegation was proved. The petition of Sarah Ann Gaubiere and Michael Kernan was then taken. This petition stated that the name of the petitioner Sarah Ann Gaubiere was not inserted in the books of reference, or plans, as lessee of the land marked 18 to 29, including IBA and 26a, although she was the lessee of that land. A witness was called in support of this petition, but could not point out the property on the plan, and- when some of the numbers in question were pointed out to him, be could not say that they referred to the same property as that in which Miss Gaubiere is lessee. lie could not say what was the nature of Miss Gaubiere's interest in the property. The Committee considered the allegation not proved. It was alleged that Michael Kernan was the lessee of cer tain property, namely, the fields No. 94, 95, and 97. A witness, who was acquainted with the locality, was called to prove that the fields in question were held on lease by Michael Kernan. Mr. Curtis proved that, in a conversation between himself and Michael Kernan, the latter pointed out the fields in question as belonging to another person. Mr. Huai., the agent for the petitioners, withdrew the al legation, saying that it was clearly a mistake. The petition of Joseph Carley was next taken. It was alleged that there was a public road between the fields No. 3 and So. 4, in the parish of Killcorin, which was not named in the books of reference, or represented in the plans. A person who formerly held the office of surveyor in the parish of Killcorin was called in support of the alle gation. but as he could not say positively that the road was in the position described in the petition the allegation fell to the ground. It was alleged that a certain road was described in the book of reference as the property of the Earl of Arran, whereas it was a public road, but on refering to the book of reference it was found that it was not so marked, but that the preceding and following numbers were marked as the property of the Earl, and that there was no name of any owner given. Mr. Smith, the agent for the Bill, stated that there were several roads in the parish of Killcorin, which were said, in the book of reference, to be the property of the Earl of Arran, and which, it was alleged by the petitioner, were highway roads, under the jurisdiction of the grand jury. Now he (Mr. Smith) thought he could prove that they were at that time the property of the Earl of Arran ; and he could also prove that although they were not de scribed as public highways in the book of reference, yet, nevertheless, the clerk of the grand jury had been served with notices. After a long and desultory conversation, A witness was called to prove that notices were served on the cleric of the grand jury in reference to these roads. But, on cross-examination, lie admitted that they did not con tain exact copies of the entries in the book of reference, as in the book of reference either Lord Arran was described as owner, or there was no owner named, while in the extracts given in the notice the grand jury were named as the owners. The CHAIRMAN observed that the Committee intended to report in reference to those roads in which there were no names of owners or occupiers that the standing orders were nut complied with. The petition of Herbert Hoare was next taken. It alleged that certain property was described as having no lessee, whereas he, the petitioner, was the lessee of that property. It was represented by the promoters of the Bill that the error arose from the fact that at the time the property was entered in the book of reference, the lease of Herbert Hoare had just expired, and it was not the intention of the proprie- tors of the land to give a new lease to the petitioner, which had been done since. Several of the allegations were admitted to be made under a mistake, and were withdrawn. The last allegation was that Mary Preston was represented in the book of reference to be the occupier of certain pro perty, of which Alexander Preston was the actual owner. This was admitted to be the case, but it appeared that Mr. A. Preston was trustee, under the will of his brother, de ceased, for Mary Preston, the widow of the latter. Mr. HUNT said, that as it was clear that the error had originated in the parties being misled, he would withdraw the allegation. The Committee then adjourned, but did not fix a day for their next meeting. Sub-Committee, No. 5. The Committee met at 12 o'clock—present, Mr. Home Drummond (Chairman), Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, Mr. Tatton Egerton, and Mr. E. Compton. GLASGOW, ST3MATHAVEN, AND LESMA HAGOW RAILWAY. The object of the promoters of this line is to construct a railway from the Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway-, near Pollockshaws, to the town of Strathaven. 'f he proposed capital to be raised is 350,0001, and the esti mated cost the same amount. Engineer, Neil Ilobson • Par liamentary agent, G. H. Long, Esc'. ; and the local solicitors are Campbell and Tennents, of Glasgow. The length of line is 16 milt s. Mr. DEANS appeared against the Bill on behalf of several po'Noncrs, and the tirst objection raised was that the miles and fi:riongs were not correctly marked on the plan, and did not agree with the sections thereof. This allegation was not sustained. Iu the next allegation, that the fifteenth mile was one chain shorter than the fburteentli, the Committee decided on re,erving their judgment. The next objection was that a portion of the said intended railway was described as passing through the parish of Straven, while there was no such parish, and that the plan and book of reference in this case did not agree, as in the former the said parish was described as the parish of An nandale _ _ _ At the suggestion of the Committee, Mr. Deans withdrew this objection, as Straven was a contraction of Strathaven, which was a parish, and through which the railway was proposed to be. carried. Another objection was that a certain cutting, described to be forty feet, was, in point of fact, only thirteen feet. Mr. LONG took an objection to this point, inasmuch as Mr. Fcrgusson, the petitioner, was not interested, as he was not owner of that part of the land where the said cutting was to take Owe. The Committee considered the objection invalid, but stated that the standing orders were complied with, in reference to the said cutting. Mr. DEANS then proceeded to the next allegation, that a field, marked No. 37, on the plan, was not truly described in the book of reference, ben:yr stated to be the property of James Allen, whereas the said field was the property of another person, to whom no notice had been given. Mr. Loxci called Mr. Gebby, a writer, who proved that he proceeded to th e ground, and was informed that the field was the property of a Mr. Hamilton, and he drew up the legal docum en t accordingly. . Mr. DEANS contended that the standing orders were not Complied with, as the best means were not taken to ascer tain the real own er of thfield u Standing orders complied wittit question. . The important objection to this Bill, that one-tenth was not subscribed of the estimated cost, alth oug h i t was pa id up and he repo b rted scri t the emmittee held to be good, on t suption contract, hat the standin with in consequence. g orders were not complied GLASGOW Erzatnoure. GRAN TERMINUS. WUNCTION The length of this line is one and a half miles aestimated cost 110,0001. Engineer, Mr. Gale ; P ar li amentary Mr: Lang; solicitor, Mr. Leech. This line was oppos agent behalf of Sir John Maxwell, by Mr. Lock, and several ob jections of a technical nature were not entertained ; but they decided that the standing orders were not complied with, inasmuch as no notice w as given of the line of railway to th e harbour of Glasgow. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. HOUSE OF LORDS. This Committee resumed its sittings at , tivlve, this day. THE KILLARNEY JUNCTION A.).1) GREAT SOUTH WESTERN (CORK EXTENSIO) , WAY (IRELAND) BILLS, which had been adjourned from a previous day for want of witnesses, were disposed of, the Committee reporting that the companies had complied with the standing orders. THE LIFFEY EXTENSION AND LONGFORD DEVIATION RAILWAY. The capital of this line is 30,0001., and its length is about two miles. The object is to connect the Midland Great Western with the Docks and River Liffey. The solicitor.> are Messrs. Young, Lamb, and Malley. _ The Committee reported that the standing orders had not been complied with, but that they should be suspended, and the Company allowed to proceed. The following lines were adjourned until Friday, in conse auaerzli,c,we,ofatnhae Dublin of witnesses:—The Wexford, .Junction ; the Midland Great Western (Mullingar to 6r a l ) 1 1 1 1 : 1 The Committee rearial e Te u l,ongford and Siigo Extension. had g c l o y m a i l' a c e d d N . V the company for the Mallow and Fermoy Railwayth tn; standing orders, ' and the Bill was accordin Potat.)es are now ceiling at Ramsey at 8s: per boll of 4 491bs. for export to the Liverpool and other English markets ; an, some choice descriptions have bedsold st) 410 as 13S. per boll, as se ed for irgno use. 7 lfanx A:ilUn THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 27, 184& IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110 USE OF LORDS, Feb. 26. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at the usual hour. THE GOVERNMENT MEASURE. The Duke of RICHMOND, in presenting a petition from some town, the name of which we did not hear, in the county of Warwick, said that the petitioners were interested in the subject of the ribbon manufacture, the old and only established staple trade of the county. They viewed with great alarm the proposals likely to be made by Government in another place, and as they were in fa vour of protection themselves they desired pro:ection to the agriculture of the country. He (the Duke of Richmond) was very happy to present such a petition, because it showed that the operatives of the country were expressing their disapprobation of the violent changes sought to be introduced by the Government. He considered that the result of the late elections gave sufficient proof that the farmers were up and in earnest, and that should the measure, intro duced in another place, come up to that House, their Lordships would be justified, in the exercise of a constitutional right, to place themselves between the vio lent faction which urged on these charges and the best interests of the country. THE WAR IN INDIA. The Earl of RIPON laid upon the table certain papers from the seat of war in India. The Duke of RICHMOND wished to ask the Noble Lord (and in doing so, he felt deep gratitude for the bravery and devotion exhibited by the army in India), whether it was by desire that the Governor-General had accepted a secondary position in the Indian army. It might be very natural for Sir H. Hardinge, an old soldier, to wish to be in the thick of the battle, but he (the Duke of Richmond) felt that a divided authority might be prejudicial to the interests of the country and the honour of the British arms. _ The Earl of RIPON Eaid that due attention would be given by her Majesty's Government to the suggestion of the Noble Duke. CORN-LAWS. A NOBLE LORD presented a petition from several parishes occupying land in the county of Leitrim, against any alteration in the present corn-laws. _ RAILWAYS. Earl GREY gave notice that he would postpone his notice of motion respecting railways until some day next week. PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE. The Duke of RICHMOND presented fifty-four re titions from parishes in Derbyshire, in favour of pro tection to agriculture and against the measures pro posed by the Government. The Marquis of WES MEATH said he had to pu two questions to the Noble Earl (the Secretary for Ireland) regarding the execution of Brian Seery. The first question was whether there had been a deputation to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as stated, prior to the man's execution, and the second question was whe ther, if there had been such a deputation, it could be con sidered an improper proceeding of those forming that deputation? It did not follow that what would be con sidered improper in this country should be held to be wrong in Ireland. Ho would state to their Lordships the hardships the Commission at Westmeath had to encounter from those opposed to it. A cer tain portion of the press was violently opposed to the Government Commission and a great feeling was created against their proceedings. All this arose out of a conspiracy, a conspiracy involving almost all the lower population in Ireland from the age of sixteen to twenty-five. After the excitement which had taken place, after the manner in which the Com mission was said to be got up —it was almost strange the jury had not given way. He was perfectly sure the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would have acted with that modera tion and firmness that was necessary in looking into the circumstances of that case, and would not be swayed by any intelligence from any body of men in de ciding on the fate of Seery. He however would say that if any Minister of the Crown had so acted, that it was in the present state of that country most unfortunate. The observations or expressions which had fallen from a certain individual were most unusual, because they must know that in that county there were persons who gladly took hold of any circumstances whatever to hold up in individuals to public admonition by . misrepresenting their conduct. Now he would show their Lordships how justifiable was the conduct of such indviduals, by stating what were the acts of the Roman Catholic Clergy. He would tell their Lordships that before the Commissioners came down to Westmeath, the Roman Catholic Bishop gave out, in the presence of a large congrega tion, that Brian Seery was innocent, and with that kind of announcement which was very well understood in that country by many who were afraid to give expression to their opinions. After his conviction, a letter of a most extraordinary, and he should say of an indecent nature, appeared with the name of the Romish bishop of that diocese attached to it. That letter condemned the course adopted by the counsel for the prosecution, the Government, and all the proceedings of that trial throughout, and the object was to excite the people to believe that the unfortunate man was sacrificed, and that he was innocent. When the Government had determined that the law in that re gard should take its course, the people were called upon from the altar, to stay away from the execution, and persons were posted on the road to watch those who dared is disobey that mendate. Under these circum stances, which no one regretted more than he did, and what, lie was sorry to say, could not occur in any country but Ireland, and which were not unusual there, he should wish that those Noble Lords, and those per sons who were anxious to bring in some other measures to accompany the one recently brought in by the Go vernment, would take this matter into their serious consideration, and would reflect that (as had been re marked a few evenings back) by a Noble Marquis, whom he did not now see in his place, that the supremacy of the law must first be established, security given to life and property, and the country be freed from the threats bul lying and insinuations of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. This interference to which he alluded, before the trial, after the trial, and during the execution, must be prevented, and he thought that he had said enough on the subject to open people's eyes to the necessity of such interference. Under these circumstances, he wished to be informed whether any deputation had waited on the Lord Lieu tenant, whether that deputation went from Westmeath, and whether, under the peculiar circumstances of that country, it was considered by the Government that such a proceeding was harsh on the part of that deputation ? The Earl St. GERMANS said that it was not his intention to follow the Noble Marquis into any discus sion on the state of Ireland, but before he proceeded to answer the questions put by the Noble Marquis, he must enter his protest, if the phrase were not unparlia mentary, against the calumnious assertion, that the youths of Ireland were banded together in confe deracy against the peace cf Ireland ; he also protested against the assertion made against the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, as a body. He (Earl St. Germans) must say that many of those gentlemen were eminent for their piety and charity, and their attention to the religious and social interests of the people. He would now proceed to answer the questions which the Noble Marquis had placed upon the table ; and he could not do better, he thought, than read an extract from a letter written by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to the Right Hon. the Secretary of State. The Lord-Lieutenant said that neither the language of the deputation nor that of any individual member of it—and he (Earl St. Ger mans) could give the names of the members composing it, but he did not think it advisable to do so—" had the slightest influence on his mind or swayed in the smallest his judgment in the case of Brian Seery. The prin cipal object of the deputation was to represent the lawless state of Roscommon," not of Westmeath, " with a view of getting the Government to enter into more stringent measures for the pacification of that country." He understood that they had stated that any leniency to Brian Seery would be looked upon as evidencing the weakness of the Government, and keep alive that sanguinary spirit which was Po fatal to the peace cf the country. He apprehended that that extract would fully satisfy the questions of the Noble Marquis. With regard to the third question, he was certain that the persons who composed that deputation were actuated solely by a sense of duty in making that representation; but, at the same time, he (Earl St. Germans) was ready to acknowledge that the proceeding was altogether an unusual one, and he was not aware that in this country such a representation was ever made by a deputation to the head of the Executive Government. He did not wish to say anything harsh, but he had no hesitation in pronouncing this a most unusual course on the part of that deputation. The Marquis of WESTMEATII wished to explain, and said he was glad he had given the Noble Earl an opporunity of making the statement he had done. If it was not unparliamentary he (the Marquis of West meath) would say that the expressions he had used, which the Noble Earl had objected to, were intended to be applied to the youth (in those) counties who were under the iron servitude of the Ribbon conspiracy. —(Hear, hear.) He was glad that the Noble Earl had withdrawn the expression " harsh," which had been the cause of his (the Marquis of Westmeath's) attention being called to the matter, and his giving the notice he had done. The Earl ST. GERMANS was glad that the qualify ing of the expression had so far satisfied the Noble Mar quis; but he (Earl St. Germans) could not agree with the declarati ont t h at t h e w h o l e youth of the country wer e affected in th e manner d es cribed. He was not justified in ff applying such a charge to the whole youth of the country. The Earl of WESTMEATII said he would back his opinion against that of the Noble Earl in this respeot. LsraSTORTON, in a very inaudible tone of voice, defended the Rom l a t n Noble Marquis. a juror was a Catholic his o a a r l statement of the Noble Marquis, w C a a s t a ho l !ies from the charges of the thing wast e invalid. to w say aas a llthatalluded becauseerde From were the informed ta s hat to believe that the jury to which ) heH House wou to ld o be t led Catholics, but he (Lord Stourton they were exclusively Protestants. It was har that a priest or a bishop of the Catholic religion must ay be prevented from giving proper advice to his people from the altars of his church. For his own part, h e believed that, notwithstanding all the calumnies which had beea heaped upon the priests of the Catholic Church, they were still the best guardians and comfort ers of the people of Ireland. Lord BROUGHAM protested against such a subject as the a r ,ha presenter:d he )— being notinto t a h ink o ore any e d d i u d e aadn y m in s i e s r t v r i a c t e i on to o tl f ie j g us re ti a c t and o whosacred cause attemptedt o o f a ti s i k e whether a jury was Catholic or Protestant, because such discussions tended to poison the administration of jus tice at its source.—(Cheers) He (Lord Brougham) also hoped and trusted that the Noble Lord who had spoken last was well grounded in his opinion, that the Catholic priests were the best friends sad administrators of just tice to the people of Ireland, and he (Lord Brougham) hoped and trusted that they would long continue to be so. He (Lord Brougham) thought they would deserve well of their country, if they would immediately give up the reprehensible and abominable practice of addressing political lectures to the public from their pulpits. —(lleal, hear, and loud cheers.) Be they Protestants or Catholics, they desecrated the altar when they prostrated it to such uses.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the administration of justice was interfered with by the priests of either of these denominations ; but, if they did interfere with its administration, the law might punish them. The duty of the Judge would be ill-discharged if he did not punish any such interference, whether by a Catholic or Protestant. The Marquis of WESTMEATH appealed to their Lordships whether he had stated that he generally mistrusted Roman Catholic jurors. In fact, a great portion of the business of Ireland was transacted by a portion of that community, and he had seen Roman Catholic jurors perform their duties as well as those of the Protestant religion.—(hear, hear.) I❑ the case of Seery the jury was not wholly Protestant. Lord STOURTON again defended the Catholic priest hood from the charge of fomenting disturbances in Ire land. They were indebted to them for much of the peace and prosperity which prevailed in that country, and they ought not, therefore, to be assailed in that and the other House° f Parliament. in the way they had been. COUNTY WORKS PRESEMTMENTS (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a second time. Lord MONTE AGLE expressed his intention of reviewing the subject in the next stage of the Bill. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND). _ _ This Bill was read a third time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 26. The SPEAKER took the Chair at fire minutes before Four. NEW MEMBER.-ERROR 7N THE WRIT FOR SOUTII NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. It having been discovered that an error had been made in the writ issued for the county of South Nottingham, the Speaker called the attention of the House to the fact, and the Clerk of the Crown was ordered to be in attendance, in order to amend the writ. The Clerk to the Crown then appeared at the table. Mr. Stafford, the returning officer was next called, and examined by the Speaker with reference to the election, and in reply to the questions of the Right Hon. Gentle man, stated that he was present at the election for South Nottinghamshire, and that it was held at the usual place for returning Members to Parliament. The name of the Member was Richard Henry Howard Vyse. The writ having been amended, Mr. Stafford O'Brien and another Hon. Gentleman introduced the Hon. Member, who took the usual oaths, and was admitted to his seat for South Nottinghamshire. RAILWAY BILLS. The following Railway Bills were read a second time, and wire ordered to be committed, viz.:— Oldham District. Gloucester and Dean Forest. Ayrshire and Galloway. Leeds and Bradford (Junction Line at Bradford). RAILWAYS. Mr. P. BUTLER presented petitions from Limerick, and other places, in favour of the Great Munster Rail way. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Wolver hampton in favour of the Shropshire Union Railway and Canal Company. LABOURERS IN FACTORIES. Mr. BUNCOMBE presented a petition in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill. He also presented a petition from six factory girls, in the employ of Messrs. Baxter and Brothers, manufacturers, of Dundee. The petitioners complained of ill-treatment at the hands of their em ployers, and prayed the House to make some inquiry Lpon the subject. He (Mr. Buncombe) believed that the circum stances of the case were these. The Messrs. Ba.xters had it appeared, increased the wages of some of their workers, and these girls made a demand for a similar increase, which was refused them. They did not in consequence attend their work one afternoon, and when they re turned on the following morning, the six of them (the youngest being only 13 years of age) were locked up for six hours and then taken .before a magistrate (but previously he might state that they had been com pelled to sign a paper making certain admissions), when they were sentenced to ten days' imprisonment, with hard labour. They, therefore, prayed the House to make inquiry into the matter, with a view to remedy this grievance. • Dr. BOWRING presented five petitions from Bolton in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill. THE CORN-LAWS. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition, signed by 5,000 of the inhabitants of Bath, in favour of the present pro posal of her Majesty's Government with respect to the free admission of foreign grain. DUTY ON COPPER ORE. Mr. J. PARKER presented a petition from the Cutlers' Company, Sheffield, praying the House to re peal the duty on copper ore. THE CORN-LAWS. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from several inhabitants of Westmoreland in favour of free trade. Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the occupiers of land in the county of Chester in favour of the present corn laws. Mr. W. MILES presented a petition to a similar effect. Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a petition from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in which the peti tioners stated that in consequence of the length of the present debate on the corn-laws, great embarrassment resulted to every branch of trade in the district of Lan cashire, and throughout the kingdom generally ; and they therefore prayed the House to come to as speedy a decision as possible on this question. FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. Captain PECHELL presented a petition, signed by seven hundred of the inhabitants of Brighton, praying for a free parden for Frost, Williams, and Jones. The Hon. and Gallant Member said he had to inform the House that the parties signing the petition were most respectable, and had affixed their places of residence to their n ames. The Hon. Member also presented another petition from Mrs. Mary Shuttleworth, of Man chester squire, praying the House to interfere in her behalf with the Commissioners of the Income-tax, who had, in assessing her property in the funds, neglected to pay over to her the residue, thereby occasioning her great distress, so much so that her goods had been seized for debt. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition, signed by upwards of nine thousand of the inhabitants of Roch dale, in favour of the Ten Hours' Factory Bill. GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARNOCK, AND AYR RAILWAY. Mr. WARD begged leave to withdraw the notice of motion which he gave, namely, " That the petition of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway Company (presented 24th February), with respect to their Bill (No. 5), be taken into comideration, and that the parties have leave to proceed with their Bill." He considered that it was better that a Oecision of a Com mittee should be erroneous than that it should be impugned. The standing orders were the protect ing barrier of private interests. But when he had heard that in this case, the Committee, themselves were divided in the proportion of five to four on the subject, matter of this petition. He looked upon the decision of the Committe a. as a virtual abolition of the standing orders—such decision giving the power to any indivi dual landowner to throw out any private Bill. Since he had presented the petition, however, he had been convinced that ,the parties to the _ petition had themselves not done all that they should have done, and that they had been guilty of laches, and that they had actually not surveyed the lands of those who were their friends, although they might have done so before the 30th of November. He, therefore, considered that the case had fallen through, and he now begged to withdraw the motion which stood upon the paper in his name.—(Hear, hear.) The motion was then withdrawn. Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to present a petition from the shipowners of Tynemouth, signed by lOg shipowners, representing 260 shins. The petition stated that the in terests of th petitioners would be extremely benefited by a reduction on the duties of timber. He be lieved that the petition was signed by almost all the shipowners of Tynemouth, with the exception of three or four. The Right Hon. Baronet here sat down, but rose again immediately, and said that the Hon. Member for Durham had moved that a petition pre sented from the shipownt rs of the port of London should be printed, with the view of founding a motion upon it. Several petitions bad been presented from other places, which petitions took views entirely adverse from those of the shipowners of London, and it could not be against the rules of the House to allow those petitions to be printed also. lie, therefore, begged leave to move that a petition lately presented from the shipowners of Dun dee, and which was quite in conformity with the one presented from the shipowners of London, should be printed.—(Hear, hear.) He also begged leave to move that a letter from George Frederick Young, Esq., the Chairman of the General Shipowners' Society, on the subject of the timber duties and colonial-built ships, should likewise be printed. NOTICES OF MOTION.—BAZILLIAN NUNS. Mr. COOPER gave notice, that on the sth of March he should move for copies of dispatches which had been sent by the Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs, rela tive to the persecution inflicted on the Bazillian nuns, at Miask. THE TARIFF. Mr. MITCHELL wished to put a question to the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Government. He wished to know if it was the intention of the Government, in passing the proposed measure, to allow that part of the tariff which effected smaller articles to stand over until the corn question was settled? Sir ROBERT PEEL said it was his intention to proceed as rapidly as he could with the other articles, of the tariff. He certainly could not foretel to what length the discussion upon the question would reach. Mr. MITCHELL said his reason for asking was to learn if the other articles mentioned in the tariff could not be allowed to be proceeded with Lefore the corn d i s s e i u r s s i i i n . n p o E f a E n i n th r o e r p s w t e a e t e k d s' a r A i l o w n a . question w as se ttl e d. Th a t h e f eare d w(Ju ld g i ve r i se to ly, t lion to R pr o o E ce ß ed u w wi ith w th is e h c e o d rn to qu a e l. s .k ti wa s on inten- CHANNEL ISLA' , NDS. o n , measures had been taken, according to the pr omise made last session by the Government, with ref , Renee to the administra tion of justice relative to the 'Ohannel Islands. Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated that a Committ ee month since, and they h a d not d t .) h e c t e r n ec a e p i p v o e i d nt t e h d ei a r b r o er ut ,ort. Mr. REDINGTON A ill of all Crown -PROSY:CV TIONS. CROWN , prosecution fat`'_ en . up to the h bills have been and cau d Jurylselaud, eaell nt r oac h counLY 132 summer assizes in the years 1843, 1844, 1845, and 1846 respectively, giving the names of the parties ac cused, the nature of the crime with which they were charged, and the proceedings in each case, i. e., whether the bill of indictment was found a true bill or ignored ; whether the party accused was tried, and at what time ; and the result of the trial, whether in conviction, or acquittal, or the disagreement of the jury; a return of all memorials or applications for the aid of the civil or military power in each ccunty in Ireland for the same period, specifying the dates thereof respectively, and the names of the me morialists in each case ; also a return of the number of sti pendiary magistrates and constabulary appointed to any district in Ireland, within the said period, in consequence of such applications or memorials.—Agreed to. MII)DLETON POOR-LAW UNION. Mr. O'CONNELL moved " That the petition from the Middleton Poor-law Union (presented 23d February), be printed with the votes."—Agreed to. Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped that, although the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go vernment had intimated very properly that he intended to proceed with the Corn Bill in the first instance, to the exclusion of other articles in the tariff, there was one which he trusted would be excepted from this general rule—that was Indian maize. This was an article of very great importance, and likely to contribute very largely to the support of the poorer classes or the community. He trusted, therefore, the Right Hon. Baronet would not include this in the same category with the other articles of the tariff. Sir R. PEEL to this inquiry made no reply. ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the motion that the order of the day should be read for the resumption of the adjourned dtb"ate, Mr. ROEBUCK said that before the order of the day was read for the resumption of the adjourned debate, he begged to ask of the Honourable Gentle man opposite what time this d e b a t e was lik e ly to be brought to a conclusion; and the reason for his put ting this question was, because he had found that an Hon. Gentleman had consumed two hours and a half the other night of valuable time of the House in a disquisition which had to do with anything and every thing but the subject of the de bate. He thought that this was not the way in which the valuable time of the House ought to be wasted. Certainly it was not the way in which to pro mote the character of the House for decency, order, or anything that was great. For two mortal hours and a half had the Hon. Gentleman gone on to rake up by gone speeches of Members upon the Treasury bench from newspapers and all the other receptacles of public mattere, in order to establish a point, which, after all, had no thing in the world to do with the subject of the debate. He trusted that the party represented by the Gentlemen on the Opposition benches were not reduced to the ex tremity of using language which was at the same time inappropriate and abusive, and that they would not sub stitute for argument that which, however it might tend to intimidate, could Lever convince, and which was equally unworthy of their cause, and of the respect which was due to that House. He (Mr. Roebuck) felt himself reduced to the use of periphrases by the rules of the House, instead of using those expressions with which he felt it right to characterise this proceeding ; but the difficulty was not created by him, but by that person on the other side of the House, by whom it had been adoptedo—(Cries of " Order, order," and con fusion on the protection benches) Do you cry order, said the Hon. Member for Bath, when such conduct is reprobated, why did not you cry order when the violence was committed ? He feared that the cause which was to be belstered up by such fanatical catering was but badly based on facts. For two mortal hours and a half that individual had consumed the time of the House in a tirade, which was, only after all, an expression of his own opinion. And what was that opinion worth ? He would take the rule of his own profession, and ask what any man in the country would give for that opi nion ? 11 hy, rot a guinea, nor half-a-guinea, nor half-a croe n, nor a shilling ; not a penny, nor half-a-farthing. And yet this was the way that Honourable Gentlemen presumed to trifle with the time of the House. He thought that this was not the way in which to conduct the debate on a great question, or likely to increase the character of the House in the country. He did hope that the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have something better than this to propose ; and if the division were not to be taken to night, that they, would lay before the House matter worthy of consideration, and substitute something like argument in the place of vulgar hatred, expressed in violent and vulgar language.—(Opposition cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS felt that the observations of the Hon. Member for Bath had been both injudicious and uncalled for. He accused him of erroneous representations—he accused him of unnecessary opprobrium—he accused him of instituting a most inconvenient prece dent ; and, still more, of having taken advantage of the ab,ence of the Honourable Member to whom he referred, which were equally inapplicable and improper. fie (Sir R Inglis) only rose for the purpose of protest ing against the use of personalities, which frequently were indulged in to too great an extent ; and he hoped that when the lion. Gentleman next addressed the House he would be more guarded in the use of his ob servations.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT agreed with the Hon. Baronet that the present was not the time for entering into a discus sion on the ground of personality ; but, at the same time, he was anxious to say a few words as regarded the attack made by .the Hon. Member for Knaresborough on a friend of his, Mr. George Wilson, chairman of the Anti-Corn-law League.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Knaresborough had asserted that what he put forward as fact was true, and what he stated as in ference might be relied on; but his statements and his inferences might all be taken as utterly untrue. — (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) Mr. Wilson had never called a meeting of the starch manufacturers: he never presided at a meeting of the kind, nor was he a party in a de putation that waited on the Government to obtain protection for their manufacture. The starch manu facturers wanted no protection ; and Mr. Wilson would be the last man to associate him self with any deputation for such a purpose. He could tell the Hon. Member for Knaresborough that there was one misfortune against which he ever had to contend, and that was, that his statements were never susceptible of proof.—(hear, hear.) Mr. COLQUHOUN said he felt certain that if the Hon. Member for Knaresborough happened to be in his place, he doubted not he would not shrink from the proof of his assertions : and he should say that he did not think it fair to attack that Honourable Gentleman in his absence, as he doubted not he could defend every state ment and assertion ma de by him.—(C r i es of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition M embers .) a ;l e em w b a e y rs at that side of the L o rd MORPETH and Dr. BOWR t l o N t c he io la s t e te a r t , t w h h e o sa sa m h e i formereilasoo g n nto complai n o f t h e course pur suedmber for K nares b oroug h i n t hi s heeH moment, m u conceived seHouse yt had a b td u h teg the h e that Hon.great r m e debate. Some very serious charges h a d b een ma d e b y that Hon. Member against a gentleman, who was re markable alike for the kindness of his heart, and the benevolence of his disposition. He meant his friend, Mr. Henry Ashworth—(Hear, hear)—who had been desig nated by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, as a person capable of acts of cold-blooded atrocity, and as such he hail been processionised befor e thi s H ouse .— (l ie ar. ) 0 fNkonwo knowing g ( Disrirß. Ashworth, oring) had hadand mi of thesomeoppor tunities state things that existed in the vicinity of B o l ton a f ew years ago, upon which he a ouldwish to m a k e a f ew o b serves lions ; but previous to doing so, he had written noter to the Noble Lord the Member for Newark, and anothe r Lion. Member, in order to ascertain from themselve whether they were prepared to make any charges against his friend. They were not here at present j but be begged to say that the charges of the Honourable Member for Knaresborough were altogether untrue ; and he begged to add, that if any Member of that House should, more than another, be scrupulous about making statements in this H ouse , m ith out proofs to sustain them, it was the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—(Hear, hear)—and it would be well for him if his assertions were characterised by less boldness. Captain VIVIAN said he rose for the purpose not of prolonging this discussion, but of closing it until to-mor row night, when he hoped to see the Hon. Member for Knaresborough in his place. Lord MORPETH said that in the discussion that had taken place with reference to the statement made by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—viz. that the operatives were compelled by their masters to sign petitions in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws—he felt it necessary to say a few words. At the time that this statement was made, he had in his pocket a letter from the workmen of a factory called the Union Mill, which letter had bees written in consequence of some reports, of a similar tendency with the assertion of the Honourable Member, having been circulated in the House. The letter stated that not only were the workmen under no compulsion of the kind, but they were even m ore anxi▪ ous than their employers for the repeal of the corn-laws. He had also received other letters of a similar tendency. An Hole. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn) moved for a new writ for the borough of Bridport in room of Mr. Bailey Cochrane, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions from Staley bridge, and other places, in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws. Mr. ROSS rose to speak, but in consequence of the confusion occasioned by Honourable i Members leav ing the House he was inaudible n the gallery. He would for one moment allude to the speech of the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire. That speech was characterised by strength and elegance of diction, but the ar guments it contained were fallacious. The cardinal proposition of that speech was that the labourer was entitled t o protecti▪ on. The Hon. Member said that property was entitled to protection, and as the labour of the labourer was his property, ergo, he was entitled to protection. That was a perfect fallacy, for how could they, for one moment, com pare property in lands and houses to the property of the labourer, which was his labour only ? If then this argument would not avail as regarded the luxuries of life, of what avail can such an argument bewith reference o the most important article of hu man subsistence—bread? Reference had been made to the wisdom of . our ancest?rs, and pr . otection had existed in we have been told that a system of , this country for upwards a' two centuries. The Hon. Member then read an extract from a work which had been written two hundred years, to the effect that tr ade tended to increase the food of the people, and it was necessary therefore to give as much freedom to trade as possible. There _re also at . that time many kindred minds n !h we e same suhiect. Ile was not there to defend the measures in order to obta i in hts seat, but he was selected at the period of the last dissolution in consequence of the opinions which lie had alw.ys expressed .d , and he did consider • which had been forced upon him byreflection, consider that it would be better for all parties, for the labourers, country gentlemen, and artizans, that, if it were possible, the corn-laws should be got rid of by a gradual repeal.—(llcar. ) In th e opening speech of the Right Honourable Bapaet, an i article was re f e r re d t o w hich afforded a good illustration of his argument. He alluded to the article of flax, and h e felt con vinced that if the protective duty had remained on it the trade , would not Aoarith at it now did. In the county of Armagh flax was sold at 19s. 6d. per stone, and in addition to the enormous price, it was of a beauty and quality that could not be equalled in Belgium. The wages there did not exceed the wages given in Wiltshire, Dorsetshire, and Hampshire. With regard to the manufacture of flax, he had remarked in what state the trade was during the existence of protection on linen and on the raw material. The great site of industry in that trade, at the present time, was in the north of Ireland, where no less a capital than 5,000,0001. was em barked in it, and 500,000 persons derived their subsistence from it. The wages paid yearly amounted to 300,0001 , and yet it was only during the last twelve years that this trade began to develop itself. 60,000 new spindles had been lately set in operation. With regard to the linen itself, it was sold a few years ago at 2s. 7d. per yard ; but it was now sold at 9d. per yard, and the linen now sold was of a Liner quality than could formerly be got for 2s. 7d. He (the Hon. Member) recol lected perfectly well having had an interview with a Lincoln shire farmer, who came to Belfast to witness one of their flax exhibitions, and who stated that though he was in the habit of . raising flax himself, he slid not know what uv to convert ti straw to. He would look at another article, butter for instance. There were 6,000 firkins of butter imported from Holland every week—scarcely a steamer arrived at London from Ostend without being partially laden witL this article. Now were the farmers of Limerick or Tipperary in,:ured by this importation of butter? He did consider they were. He considered that, with the natural resources of Ireland, arid the effects of the stimulus which would be given to the native population of that country, they would be able to compete with them as success fully as in the former article of flax they had done with ether countries. They were told by the opponents of the measure that they would be overwhelmed by the importations of the foreign markets, and that the land would be thrown out of cul tivation by such a result. Now he was prepared to state that the land would not be thrown out of cultivation by the effects of the Government measure. It was said, that if they de pended on foreign countries for a supply of corn, in the event of war they would be reduced to the greatest straits. He did not believe, however, that such a result would follow, for if that day should come when the horrors of war would take place, the country would be able to come off as gloriously and as successfully as ever. As long as this novel supremacy existed—as long as freedom and civilisation was cherished am,ng them—as long as the sceptre of the kingdom was wielded with equity and muni ficence, so long would the country maintain its wonted superio rity. Mr. B. DENISON regretted very much that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough was not in his place. In his speech a few evenings since he indulged in some tree observa tions as to the course which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to adopt with respect to the commercial policy of the country, and chargedGovernmentwith having deceived thosewho had con fided in them. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, was the last to deceive any one—(Cheers)—and he was bound to say that in no way whatever, whether directly or indirectly had he deceived him (Mr. Denison).—(Cheers.) And he must take leave to say further, that he joined with other Hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House in expressing a wish that his Right Honourable Friend the Member for Knaresborough— ( Cries of" Honourable Friend")—he begged pardon—his Hon. Friend would be more cautious in future, both in his addreses to the public, and Isis letters to private individuals.— ( Hear, hear.) If he did take that caution, he (Mr. Denison) had no doubt that his conduct and language would be more sa tisfactory to the House and to the country. Having disposed of that part of the question, and he hoped he had stated what would he satisfactory to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government—( Hear, hear)—he would proceed to say that when he had the honour of seconding the Address to the Throne, he certainly did expect that the Right Hon. Barone', from what he had communicated to him, would have brought forward a measure of the same character and description as those which the Government, of which he was at the head, and the ornament—( Cheers)—had propounded to the Parliament for the last three or four years, and which, at the time he told him, he thought he had acted in so successfully. He certainly did think, from all that he had heard from members of the Go vernment, that they did expect that a discussion would take place ma the subject of corn, but he would frankly own that he was not at all prepared to expect that the Right Hon. Ba ronet would propose the total abolition of the corn•laws— even accompanied with a new sliding-scale, which he brought forward three years ago. And he would frankly add, that in bringing forward his proposal the Right Him Baronet had made a great mistake—(Cheers)—and committed an error which he was quite sure many people would regret. He (Mr. Denison) confessed that he hoped the Honour able Baronet might not live to regret it himself. And now that he had propounded his measures, he (Mr. De nison) hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet might live to see it act successfully, and promote the interests of the country in the way in which the Right Hon. Baronet hoped. He ( Mr. Denison) must say, that he did not expect that the Right Hon. Baronet would have brought forward such a measure., He imagined that it was the duty of Parliament and of Go vernment to exert themselves as much as possible to promote the employment of those living around them, and to furnish them with an abundance of food. Now, in supporting the corn-laws, as he (Mr. Denison) had done for several years, he had done so without regarding the interests of the land owners in the first instance.—( Hear, hear.) He had never advocated the corn-laws for the defence of the landlords.— ( Hear, hear.) He had advocated those laws in defence of the tenantry of the kingdom, who vdere the most hard-worked men in the kingdom. But he did say this, that that class would not, in his opinion, be benefited by this measure.— ( Bear, hear.) He therefore confessed that he was opposed to the repeal of the corn•laws. Until he was convinced that this measure would benefit the working classes of this country, he was determined to adhere to his original opinions. He would now, with the permission of the House, give a short review of the corn-laws since the commencement of the present century. At the present time, though there is a much larger population in the kingdom, there was no more foreign corn imported since the commencement of the century, and during this period there has existed, in one shape or other, corn-laws of a protective character. The laws have, however, operated against the landed interest, though professedly enacted in their favour. He would now read a few extracts from a docu ment which he had in his hand, giving the quantity of corn imported into this country from the years Quarters. 1791 to 1800 inclusive, 470,000 1891 ... 1810 1811 ... 1820 1821 ... 1830 1831 ... 1840 1841 ... 1845 But during several of the years included in these decimal periods importation had been very small in some cases, not more then 100,000 quarters. So able was England to find sufficient support for its population. He would refer to the last two years, especially in the year 1844, there were 220,000 quarters imported, and in the year 1845, notwithstanding all the clamour which had been raised, the quantity imported had been only 136,000 quarters, and we are now told that it is necessary to abolish the corn-laws, in order that the population of this country may have foreign corn imported to supply their deficiency. He maintained that if ever there was an interest which bad been hard-driven and hard-spurred, it was the agri cultural interest. In the year 1815 there was a prohibitory duty on the importation of corn, when the price reached 80s. In the year 1822 the prohibition was lowered to 70s. In 1828, a new corn-law, w ith the eliding scale, was adopted, which again altered the duty. Between the years 1828 and 1842 that sliding-scale remained in force, and in the year 1812 the duty was then actually down fifty per cent. In the year 1846, after the operation of the law for four years only, the total repeal of the duty was proposed, but he did not consider that they had made out any case. The improvement in agri culture had been going on at the same rate as the increase in the population. He had no doubt that agriculture would still improve. He believed that agriculture was only in its infancy, and he had no doubt of the power of the agriculturists to maintain an increase in the population. But in the mean time, they ought to deal fairly and frankly by the agri culturists, and they ought to give the agriculturists a lease of the Bill of the year 1842. The Vice- President of the Board of Trade had stet ed that in five years the importation of foreign corn had been to the extent of two millions a year. He (Mr. Denison), however, had shown that this must be an error. He trusted that the house would never lose sight that one general rule prevailed—that no ad vantage was ever obtained by the country by a depression of the agricultural classes, and that whatever tended to reduce those classes tendild just in the same proportion to reduce the power of the nation, and to introduce amongst the people dis ease, poverty, and distress. He had voted for the great alter• ation effected by the Right Hon. Baronet in his tariff of 1842, and he had supported that tariff in opposition to the Hon. Mem ber for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) because in that tariff the Right Hon. Baronet had taken off the duty on animals and meat. He did so because he found that meat was rising in the market. Now the rise in the price of meat was not occa sioned by the extent of the consumption, but in consequence of the scarcity which had been existing at that time. An analogy was attempted to be drawn by some gentlemen between the dtey upon corn and the imposition upon orther articles, such as sugar; but in fact no such ana logy existed, for the duty on sugar was imposed for fiscal pur poses ; whereas the duty on corn was simply imposed with the object of protection, and there was, therefore, no analogy in the case. In the course of his journeys in different parts of the country, during the last year, he had made it his business to inquire into the position of small tradesmen of the small towns, and he did so because he knew that they were chiefly depen dent upon agriculture for their chief support, his object being to test the assertion that high prices were uniformly accom panied by high wages, and low prices by low wages. He could confidently affirm that such was not the case. He had found that, although the prices were reduced after good harvests, that the farmers brought more money home froth market, were enabled to pay more labourers, and give a higher price for their work.—( Hear. ) But if they reversed this order of things, and if the result were bad harvests, let them ask any shopkeeper what was the state of business, and he would say " I cannot sell anything ; the harvests have been bad." He (Mr. B. Denison) wished to impress on the House the great importance of doing every thing to encourage agriculture. He did not want prohibition, he did not want high prices, but he wanted that agriculture should be encouraged in every possible way. He did not ima gine that any Member in that House was better aware than the Noble Lord the Member for London of the value of a good harvest. The bad harvests of 1839, 1840, and 1841, accom panied by distress in the manufacturing districts, went more to shake the confidence in the Noble Lord's Government than anything else. The Noble Lord would remember that in 1833, 1834, and 1835, when the harvests were remarkably good, the manufacturing districts were fully em ployed ; but as the harvests became bad, so, in the same proportion, the manufacturing districts felt the pressure of distress. He would even go further back, for in 1824, 1825, and 1826 the manufacturers were most flourish ing, and in point of fact, and he challenged any gentleman to set him right, if a bad harvest intervened, the manufactures were not right, but if they had a good harvest they revived im mediately. He would not trespass on the time of the House, but the Noble Lord had made an observation the other night to which he (Mr. B. Denison) must shortly refer. He said that the case was a most difficult one, that many individuals had written upon the subject, but that no one had shown him a way out of the difficulty. He (Mr. B. Denison) would show the Noble Lord and the Right Honourable Baronet how to get out of the difficulty. He would accept the invitation to act as their pilot, but he could not go out in the same boat with them, for the total abolition of the corn-laws. Even if the measure were right, the time was unfortunate. The present course of the Government was placing 300 Gentlemen in a very awkward position, forcing them either to vote against their consciences, if they desired to keep in the Ministry, or to go in opposition to their constituents. He must say he would vete against the Government under these circumstances —it was the only consistent course be could pursue. There was another reason he would give before the Government. In 1841 he was induced to come forward in opposition to two of the most popular men in the kingdom, Lord Morpeth and the late Lord Milton. He (Ur. B. Denison) was put up for the West Riding of York, along with the present Lord Wharncliffe, on the principle of protection to agriculture. He recollected on that occasion the cry raised against him was " Cheap sugar, cheap timber, and cheap corn"—( Hear, hear) —and the Honourable Member for Halifax declared that the Conservative candidate had no chance of being re turned. He (Mr. B. Denison), however, had confidence in their success, and they were elected —(Hear, hear.) If in 1846, without a single satisfactory reason for the sudden change being advanced even by the Right Hon. Baronet him self, this abrogation of protection to agriculture is . proposed, how could he (Mr. B. Denison) support it, and justify his opposition to the Noble Lord, who was now his colleague, in. 1841 ?--(Hear, hear.) If he under such citcuuz- stances, he voted for the measure of the Right lion. Baronet— he would be ashamed of himself ; and had his opinions changed, which they had not, be would at once have said so, and resigned his scat.—', Loud protection cheers.) Had he changed, he would have Clone so, and se have disposed of all his 3peechee.—( Laughter and cheers.) But it was his inten tion to stand by the speeches he had made, and therefore he must vote against the Government. The Noble Lord seemed to think that his not being opposed for the West Riding of Yorkshire gas indicative of a change in the opinions of the protectionists, but he ( Mr. Denison) hoped his Noble Friend would not deceive himself on that point. There were many reasons which induced them (the protec tionists) to abstain from oppesine , the Noble Lord, but that was not one of them. If it had been a general elec tion, and if the people knew what they know now, the Noble Lord may depend upon it that he would be opposed. Wien the subject was discussed, in 1841, a e ' entleman of considerable intelligence told him that he would have then voted for the Noble Lord (Morpeth ), but now he said the case was very dill, rent, he would not do so. This conversation took pla-'e the ether day. He (Mr. Denison) thought it only fair to tell the Noble Lord that he must not depend too much on certain classes. Now he would say, when he was returned to Parlia ment, he promised his constituency that he would stand true to protection; and, in conclusion, he had only to say that he had net changed his mind, and he would not give them an op portunity of saying that he had forfeited h's word of honour, and betrayed them.—( Loud cheers from the Protectionists.) Air. BR° MERTON rose and said that the lion. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Denison) seemed to think it was deroga tory in a man changing his mind, but he (Mr. Brotherton) remembered reading in a book, remarkable for its wisdcm, that a v:he man often changed his mind, and a fool, or foolish man, seldom did. The Hon. Member had said that if the corn lass s were not beneficial to the working classes they were un tenable, and that his only motive for supporting those laws was that they were beneficial to the working classes, aid that he did not support them on the ground of being beneficial to the landlords. Ile had also shown certain figures, to r rove they must be beneficial to the community at large, because there were fewer persons selling foreign corn at the present time than when the corn-laws were enacted. He was at issue with the Hon. Member on that point, and if he referred to the returns made to that House, he would find that, in the year 1815, one only is thirty of the population were fed on foreign corn. That on an average of one in ten years, one in twenty-two were fed on foreign corn ; and on an average of ten years, up to 1841, that one in 1612 were fed en foreign corn ; and if the Noble Member would take the case of wheat and Hour imported into this country for the last eight years, he would find that one in ten of the population were led on foreign corn. But the corn-laws had not answered the purpose for which they were enacted. They were enacted —and many honest persona voted for them because they thought they would beneit those engaged in agricultural pur suits—in order to make tt corn scarce and dear," but the os tensible object of their establishment was, as he had said, to encourage agriculture, and on the assumption that the pro uce of thin country was sufficient for all the wants of the population. —( Hear.) Now the question was whether or not they had answered the end for which they were passed. He held that they had not. He had shown that during the last thirty years the people of this country had been fed more on foreign corn than before the corn-laws were enacted.—( Hear.) Then let Hon. Members consider whether the Government had no reason for the change that had taker, place in their opinions. Four millions of the people of Ireland subsisted principally on potatoes. The Prime 51 inister Lad stated in that House that the potato crop of that country this year would be much below the average, and they all knew that the price of provisions had increased 50 per cent. during the preceding year—that trade was in a state of stagnation. He had lately received several letters, which bore him out in this opinion. He had witnessed the effects of the distress and scarcity which existed in 1839, and he considered it was the duty of Parliament to provide food for the people during such periods of want and suffering. He wae, therefore, astonished to find country gentlemen standing up in that House and en deavouring to prevent the Government from opening the ports in order to give food to a suffering people.—( Hear, hear.) Yes, they might smile, but what he had stated was true. The Government was aware of the dangers of famine; they had seen that those dangers had not been over-rated ; and with that conviction on their minds, he considered that they had acted wisely in proposing a gradual repeal of the corn laws, and a relaxation on other article's of foreign produce. He had heard a great deal of cant about having regard for the working classes of foreign countries. He had listened to many of the speeches which had been delivered by Hon. Members in favour of continuing protection. if those speeches were divested of all their mystification and verbiage, the arguments might be summed up in these words :—The land is our own, and we have a right to do what we like with it ; we have a right to do what we like with our territories ; you have food, and you are much better off than the serfs of Poland"; —( Hear, hear)—what have you to complain of ? But the people had not the food they required. And what a terrible thing it would be if the agricultural labourer were thrown out of employment. This Might all appear ,very humane ; but who emplord the labourer ? Let them only look to the returns which have been made. He men tioned that there were fewer labourers employed in 1831 than in 1821, and fewer in 1841 than in 1831. Now, that was his assertion ; let them disprove it if they could. Since the year 1821 there had been an increase in the population of four millions. Who employed them?—who paid for forcing corn to feed them ? The people had a right to ask for compensa tion for being deprived of what he (Mr. Brotherton) considered their rights. The law is maintained to be just; but he main tained that it was unjust and inhuman, and he would prove it to be impolitic. Let them talk of wages; if cheap food pro duced wages, then dear food must increase wages ; so that dear food and high wages must come together. The Hon. Member for Westmorland had said that he was against the removal of protection on corn, but he wished that the Govern merit would reduce the duty on tea, sugar, and tobacco, and the working classes would be benefited by the reduction. if they were to benefit from the reduction of the duty on tea, sugar, and tobacco, would they not benefit by a general reduction f the price of food ? He was con vinced that the present law could not be maintained on any principle of justice, humanity, and sound policy, as it kept back the improvement of agriculture. Tho best encourage ment for the agricultural interest was foreign competition; and if they could get up a good foreign trade the agriculture of this country would prosper. In 1815 a piece of calico would purchase three bushels of corn ; hut now a piece of cotton of the same texture and quality would not purchase three-fourths of a bushel ; showing that manufactures had decreased in value, while food was at its original price. So far from the landed interest requiring compensation, the commercial interest required compensation from the landowners. He would now say a few words with regard to some observations that fell from the Hon. Member for Finsbury in speaking of the law of settlement. When the Right Hon. Baronet introduced a Rill for the removal of Irish and Scotch paupers, he (Mr. Brotherton) conceived that the measure was one of humanity and justice, and accordingly gave it his cordial support. With regard to the present measure proposed by Government, it was a measure of humanity and justice. The manufacturers do not oppose the Bill, but rather support it. He was in the country . a short time since, and the chairman of a union informed him that the measure was generally considered to be a very humane and politic one. In Ireland, where there were four millions of people subsist ing on potatoes, it might be argued that, after a five years' re sidence in this, country, being entitled to a settlement, many would be strongly induced to come from that country, and that the labourer of England would consequently be effected. Now he had no such prejudices, because he believed it was a great error to apprehend mischievous results to this country from an influx of Irish labourers; as well might it be said that the price of corn was affected by the importation of that grain when first it was admitted into England.—( Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that the measures proposed were worthy of the sup port of the country, and he should like the measures better if they proposed the immediate repeal of the corn-laws, because then a great object would be accomplished.—( Hear, hear.) But be that as it might, he was convinced that the measure, so far from being injurious, would cause increased employment, dimi nution of the poverty, axed be conducive to the general interest and happiness of the community.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. CHRISTOPHER was very desirous to offer a few observations before the close of the debate, partly because he had taken much interest in the question when it had been in troduced on a former occasion in a more modified form. He should confess that his views of the whole question would be indeed narrow were he to offer opposition to the measure pro posed by her Majesty's Government, because that they affected the interest of the constituency whom he had the honour to represent. But it was because that he looked on the measure as a whole, and believed it to be, whether as regarded the agri cultural or commercial interests, injurious to the country, that he opposed the measure, that he was prepared to resist it, and to give his most cordial support to the amendment proposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for Bristol.—( Hear, hear.) lie should say, that thongh it had been charged against the agricultural gentlemen in that House that they had mystified the question, yet he should say that, in his opinion, all the mystification proceeded from the gentlemen who wished to look at the country, not as it existed at present, in the full enjoyment of protection, but as it would be when inundated with foreign produce.—( Hear, hear.) He would not begin by casting imputations upon his friends on the Trea sury benches, even though, when they were at the head of a powerful Opposition, they used their best exertions and influ ence to eject the Noble Lord the Member for London and his party from power, and they succeeded in doing so. Now, would he do so in reference to the year 1842, when the change was made in the protecting duties that then existed to so great an extent? He would also pass over to more qualified expres sions used in the speeches of Hon. Members upon the sub ject of protection last session. Ou the 10th of June last, when the subject of the corn-laws was introduced again into that House, he ferebore to interfere, because he thought it would be imprudent and inconvenient to do so, when he con sidered the large amount of capital which was then invested by parties speculating in corn. But the reason he had not changed his opinions upon this question was, because he had not heard a single solid reason given by the Right Hon. Baronet for the proposed change. It was ef.the utmost importance that Noble Lords and Hon. Members, who had an interest in the welfare of the country, and a large majority of whom had been returned upon protection principles, should have had more time to consider this measure. But, whatever this House might think of it, they might rest assured that the great bulk of the people out of doors would not put the same construction upon their acts, With regard to the mode of carrying on the affairs of the country in an advantageous manner, he considered it highly necessary to have a strong Government. His Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, was so trusted by the House that he was enabled to bring the country to a most prosperous state. But he must say that, looking at the present measure, ho certainly would rather the country was at the mercy of such a Government as had preceded the Right Hon. Baronet, than see such laws as the present introduced. Considering the time at which the measure of his Bight Hon. Friend was introduced, he con sidered it a most hazardous experiment—( Hear, hear)—and it was for that reason that he would vote against it. His Right Hon. Friend had laid it down that, with regard to the productive interests of this country, no protective duties would be of any benefit ; and that, consequently, no duties should be imposed except for the expenses of the revenue. The Right Hon. Baronet proposed to continue the duty of 101. per cent. on certain manufactured articles, and a duty of 10/. per cent. on woollen articles—a duty of 101. per cent. on metal articles, and he proposed to continua a duty of 101. per cent. on silk articles. Now, on the other hand, he proposed to discontinue the duty on the articles of agricultural manufactures, and after the lapse of three years to abolish them altogether. If the Government, therefore, wished to carry out their own princi ples, then on those very principles, he would like to know why agriculture was not protected equally with manufactures. It would have been much better that they had adopted the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, when, in the year 1840 or 1841, he p ro p osed the fixed duty. The Noble Lord the Member fur esouth Lan cashire stated that he would place agriculturist and manufac turer on the same footing. The only diff ee ence, an his opinion, was that the one produced corn and the other produced cotton. He (Mr. Christopher) considered that there was a very mate. rial difference between them, With regard to corn, the ma chinery used in its man ufacture . was of an , expensive nature. and intricate in construction , but the manufacture of cotton was not so tedious, and was easily managed by the aid of steam-engines. The manufacturers of corn had greater difficulties to contend with than the manufacturers of cotton. He was obliged to cultivate the land to the best of his knowledge. He could not regulate the supply, nor control the circumstances which affect it. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, does not deal equally Kith the manufacturer of corn and cotton and other goods, To the manufacturers of the latter he still affords profeetkio; on a number of articles, but from the grower of corn he ta 0 , away all protection by removing the duty on the importation s i, foreign corn. They were prevented from cultivating tobacco, In order to afford a benefit to the colonies, but he ( Mr. Cbristoph c., / was convinced that in the county he had the honour to I:ePr se sent there was soil which might be profitably employed ieu.iirt growth of tobacco. Differential duties are also alio" f 1) favour of the colonies in sugar and other articles —( ,H ear. , ure In France also the cultivation of beetroot for the manutac; aii of sugar was carried on to a large extent, whereas which he infinitely more fertile character in the county for , b o f was member (Lincoln), and equally adapted for the grow to te beetroot, was thrown out cf the cultivation of tha t art rot afford advantage to the colonies.--( Hear, hear.) The __,sti Hon. Baronet had proposed to grant us certain benefits 0 1 the he pleased to call compensations for thus depriving ustet 00 protection to which they were entitled. He regret „,,,e, Right Hon. Member made use of such propositions.. .0,,, were off red compensation, but let them consider Oa,' tha t compensation was. In the first gentlemen with settled estates should have an opport . ll , : t. J aie going to commissioners and borrowing money at a lo re that place it was proposenC,t,ol of interest. Now he (Mr. Christopher) was sn , s the,' any gentleman of credit in the country would, l' la $ were in a position to do so, prefer glii n g Idal' neighbouring f r iend, th an t o M r . D ar by, w here they sh n s lt to low their title-deeds t o b e exam i ne d b e f or e a public bones, be then invested ; and they may not, perhaps, be good n i o f t and then people, who, like himself, had the experiencesert chancery suit, would rather submit to anything than raidis their title-deeds under the restriction of clerks in ',Yoe' office. His Right Hon. Friend next proposed to alter tll fr o of settlement, and to prevent, after acertain time, pers nn id e rd being remoued to their parishes. That he (Mr. C.) C O F ruse ll's a very proper measure, although he would rot pledge ui roc iii• support it, because, I ke his Noble Friends the Member s se i cerl, cestershire, Worcestershire, and Lincolnshire, he doob l ' u ttatal much whether they would confer a benefit on the ar c s , At classes who had found work in the msnufacturing the same time, he freely admitted that he was will in g el, ie the measure, so far as the law of settlement was concernid be t a favourable light. No one could say these changes the O. benefit to the agricultural classes, for the effect of ' $ 0 sure would be to inflict suffering ors them for manY Y ea i:lor . that he thought, after taking the nsost ro ot' able view of the proposition of her Majesty's Gal, of ls . He was himself a magistrate, and felt the defective Late ternal communication,but he considered that the prop o - 6 ` ai d it' sores with respect to the highways of this country vat ths ° countiew net jure instead of benefit the poor. It was notorious t p ees° highways maintained a great number of poor ' icial tee .° who were unable, from their infirmity, to earn a subs°, e dit" the fields, and who wet e set to this labour by paroch ia ti beat' lilies, in order that they might support themselves; h°,,, it eio ment they appointed district surveyors they would I " es irer r u by that political economy on which these mo st° foil i founded ; anl whilst the differences which could lo t ig sg, come between them and the local authorities were be' o pt justed, those who were earning their living in the wal or retr mentioned would be driven into the workhouse, thus sase ell a ing the poor-rates and inflicting great injury on .tp 4 , 1 1 ir were compelled to pay it. It was said that the sh l PP s 'i 0 0 14 01 terest would be greatly benefited by the importationtfieosu into this country, but he was at a lasi to al l the argument which had been advanced, that Hers be Pi e turists would he benefited to a similar extent.—( %sitb ee i He would not refer to documents, or occupy the W u t het long . quotation of figures, but this he would assert, thatAligtkl merits of the case were concerned ; that it was 1)1 1%0; labour and large produce of the continental marketsloo-0, competition with the labour and produce of this cl i g oal the produce of which so much larger and so o ne pot°, capital and labour were every year expended. Soine_ ss alitt s sireen years ago there might have been a greater .` 0 s a reason for a change in the corn-laws, but now t be A tt oil evidently different, and he believed that it was 61 ' 4 00° to the proceedings in Parliament, and'the protection lie 04; agriculture, that the people of this country were in t s d i sol ie ment of a better supply of food and other necessarie 1 109 people of any other country on Europe. It was w e e r ical l i y that good wheat could be purchased in the a ' of sll districts—he did not say London or all Atilt a large towns—but even there it was easily ten tard at 545. 3d.—(Cheers.) It was a fact that his ° ln ea nsr t . o. the east of Lincolnshire paid as much money in r— ftbo,ol that produce to Lancashire, or any other portion n r boot to l nufacturing districts, as the grower in the neighl t utt_ 4 o on delivering his corn at any port in London. s o te",# known that the people of this country only consuln` oo otl 01 quantity of wheat, and it was not proved that the Ile t h eca/ A not grow sufficient for the wants of the people. „A d rkie wish to take an extreme view of the question ; her in est f i: o i a very great authority on political economy, h e ~ a l e Deacon Hume. He was asked this question, flav e !rt4 s e an estimate of the quantity of corn that would bell W . OO l der the proposed tariff, taking one year with anoth er an d 0 swer was, taking all the quantities of cor n eigblitt received, into the country, I think that lre in r , 110, ten millions will be imported evey ,Y e :4o Mr. D.illume would likely be able to form this onin i the e It official returns. He was also asked what would be bees oS j f this increased importation on the home produce the.drt lit and his answer was, that a considerable portion °''.,, ei . „,1 1 1 1 would be devoted to grazing purposes. Now, any cultural matters would be perfectly well able to lw e rst yersr they once broke up pasture land, it would require , s tte s of bring it to its former condition. At present such 0;0;0 proved system of agriculture pursued i n this country' oil 0! poor lands, which formerly produced nothing, w er 'sst 0 0" cultivation for corn. He had endeavoured, as 0 0 0 possible, to enter this question without having.recanuarl.i,lsoo unnecessary arguments, and to treat it exclastvelissreta to merits. He believed that if the measure were 'l3'fietl ' toe' effect in the sudden manner in which it was °te e r 4 carried out, every interest in this country, w het s l ili t iot li cerned agriculture or manufac ore, would be 0,0 0 and disturbed. He believed that the first persenannd ® Ap t rot / suffer would be the agricultural labourers ; the te c ;, e A ° e ft° who would suffer—according to his Hon. Friend , ',`,: e rianlo for Northamptonshire—whose opinion had been ra",„,00;01 at by the gentlemen on the other side of the Hou se . thes,e,l the small farmers and occupiers. He believed thal'asalllV would suffer after the small farmers, would be the 5 , 0 50 p, proprietors who were not, generally speaking, tn ec a nd; o ll , much capital, but were persons of small property „ hie _, family, and had succeeded in maintaining a respec ts 4 in society. It was not those who were possessed °. t i e eOl to ri perty and estates, and who enjoyed all the su perfla i to to A o, that would he affected. No, they would still contin bes l . l. those superfluities. He would oppose the measures ciF r i te won't' inflict an evil on the lower and m iddlil ee ts ° , society, and would prove injurious to the /at e el r country at large. 11 4 ", • ht be r Mr. CA RDWEL L said, that though it wig si . f or _ A ) , fortune to differ from his Hon. Friend the Meralic ha b,,,, - amptonshire, and also from the Hon. Gentleman 1 ' f e w ,f t r io sat down, it would be his duty, in the course of the 00,111,100 tions which he had to offer, to avail himself o r eig st, 1 1 opinions on which they seemed to lay so grea t w d s ilo t e; s press into his service many of the features an . fl°,o t which they had thought it expedient to enslil' a Phsd!sls have no difficulty in admitting that agricalturespho lo improving in every part of the country, and that: tet e, ; ip had hart a constant relaxation in the protective al l ' ig hot prices of agricultural produce were very much „T th, s o e .o sent than they ware during the commencemen t r iste! ra j,r,i, century. Notwithstanding all the drawbacks, l i g e fo r in Prof in a prosperous and improving condition, and t t° ft t rf dition of the people was satisfactory. On th e ooo o o however, he should not contend theta in pr°P c f the 4 L o t supply of the harvest, the general prosperity nseer9"4,s, had been affected. Neither would it be " ke lt (fr o him to dispute with the Hon. Gentleman who ' S em b e ZI the population had been greatly improved. wr it e :0 Cardwell) had not enjoyed the opportunity ° o n/ 0 4Y occasion during the debate of expressing his the iambi House on the subject of the corn-laws, perh a P as ere4 it allowed to state the grounds on which this 1 0 , e te sta it o0 1 01 final adjustment of the various conflicting inoeo l / 4 0 0 1 country, should meet with his cordial support• ten notio t d. of the measure had held very strongly that p re „ n iar e s oltbr intended for the exclusive benefit of any par r '',, th e ,4 o l was intended for the advantage of all classes 1 1",seh r a tsatr The Government was dealing with the gener a t leas e lay° community, which important object those ge n u sei b d de' dially supported. The arguments that had been 1t k 5,44,1 of protection were great arguments against,' o;isTi said that the existing measure of protection n i l t hst ea rtai mestic agriculture against foreign produce, a! ) t ail ' - yroff lord, the farmer, and the labourer, had each u:bstebto 0 1 advantages ; that it had p i l s rovided for the rent eas, it 0 ,001 protected the rate of wages. Ile would ask ' r shst a ti, talked of protection from foreign nations', to il e t! at meaning of the language they employed ? D ° „ /. ooT h s?_," foreign nations are the consumers of 50,000, 013 ", w 05 P- 0 /Si; manufacturers ? Were they aware, that for two 01 0 0' ' imperial revenue, we were indebted to the to is t° JO imports? Do they remember the history ° s „ thed tr 0 former times? Do they not know that it W . '" otea s_ t of: f , turers that brought them through the cruel ef o f tt it j h i ! t ter i , war ? Do they remember, that at the Cl o:.,! arie e, rl t ho ' O O/ were in collision with America and with r' ot from 1 0 0; ceiving cotton from the former country, and otos A f t , 11 1 1 the deficiencies between the contending n_ a .sa intt ,_ ea AL, adjusted ? Why, then, do they exclaim fti,i 42 orss" t ogrjr, tions? We all know what the distress of iv s - e ficiP ie tas ° o o ", was that distress owing to ? Not to the,: Genti see t o ,,, food from foreign nations. The Honourah'ilgu traWsc i 0' proceeded to review the condition of the fere t atip ? 14 0 0 IV that it had benefited the interests of this con r ot . j . , , that boasted unanimity in the agricultura l i r n d te spen e u c a , o s ol many followed in the steps of the late L° Nrife ec e ill a Ord present Lord Grey ? 'What the British He Ater` 0 0 0 , IT ) 'r rap ers Aor security against further change.—(—e ar in th e p t i l l Honourable Gentlemen, if they succeeded _ the p, 4 0 0 ,, 0 0, sition, if they frustrated for a short tiro° o ld t" t he s f i , 4 relaxing the operation of the present law,: us es on tur Isl, 0 0 5 ; to their estates and offer the farmers long n eni ber.' ss eM:. f o r i , of the present law ? The Honourable '''' tof the ''',„o s„, 0 seater tes t o sr J,`, i shire says, No. Could there be a gre ~r sio ne ern ba stsl e e of that law ? It bad been urged as an ergo Den:, " t he i p ii .trade that the country was in a PwsPerer d the,' for , dor it the first symptom of reviving trade, u s deinan i .'d thli;seel e ec Manchester, that there was an increases!, was s ai„, n 0 e s porior joints of meat sold in that town. 0 .!! of 15,;°::: s ie A the last year, there had been a falling n man y . i as, l 4 l the London market. He would ask how : , uralb the de!teto,, had been imported into this country id e r n e s eet, is 0" . 0e!'„, Why, not more than sufficient to supp e t' ar. ) 7 0 P.,10 1, 4 0 11 ; the people's consumption.—(Flea.ra'hies,,shich a iiere r P r elt e he could prove from authenticated tables, The not 0 ti , bot her might peruse, if he felt s° o l l the prod w&s had be s e t° itd was mathematically correct, an meas ure c oo , ,I) io o v w er hi ;u n o rd_ ti e_la whe°_, deal co °r ati against the sup aid or,„,t ~, ble. Another argument , had been ro. es b a d hel p s pro ate from upon a t g h r e io p u e l c t u u l r i e a . r burdens lhate ceased, to be equally adjusted. . t was inte the af! v i s ta, l ol when agriculture was protected , ' land did bear peculiar burdens, but accru e t° rica ltw If i tt r loss which might the a g es&: n til d i ir e w ould nu s k de a te_ te slt v sate amply for my herder° •e. o O n were otect le ,vite, 1 ,, any right to say that they it s for Pr - 0 in -. tr - t interests. But he did not think that d inter vs f ° were, it was a virtual argunie , order that 101110„ interest, i n - 7'' . ."" - elle 'oi l we will remain a burdened , s 'stem • is was -0 0 agriculturists say to the the protective ) tha t i , s a 11 , li ef have an argument for certainly saY , he s. h ot „ 0 41 the conclusion, and he must eved that char here co He bell n ts f 4l could not be supported. _ „ T ome your 1 . ), t„ os t over every one of the !taw m e mbers in fa d him. was t eas v al et( Government-- adduced by Honourable . memory Nile , whien_ worst)` laws. _(Hear, hear.) His tion of th e ' o „r t ri h e se e u r any besides those, with the eel' itati „ one 6 . g o ers A°- re alis if °S t the " colonial " argument. He f sea ring S tha t %O P' o r° e i r n ie d e ustrY, "" He h u sd a al • e i with reference to dependence tiers to the farmer for his labourer. snits tbe i sollS the home trade, as well as that o uP°n a _: sh e ea is ii : sa :s v is erf lo g aio i l- i :1: Ae r e : ( 0 : ul a s e . t o ur t- n d g sh e ' s ' a nd To! Is ct sl a t tl distr ia that t . 4. ner i t l) .' increased rate of wages to the show, least he had endeavoured ro l i f i l a "' ns.3 ' 12 ,. ' " eve n a t th e b ' e b e people, instead of receivinp f o _ „7„ e• o e _ sui e ve n ha t ~ ,n ~ p"a'aigdeisnpaagirdiciunlitubreal greatdiatrro taant. were now the recipien-s_e r , __Z tuics n nr, s y0_ 0 1• . 0 0, manufacturing districts. n e . t r_" . te pT is o ec , e; ek ly *:, re ll of the people had increasthdonny to drawn :f 30 1. W a nd a o :ote l d described. He had asked be rece i p t '4 M eat' 6 alle I 'l,l in t is her - n ite ence, that a man who was _ Ol ., hu` ~,„ e ar _.,. ) o ~, would require a great deal manli" „ cue weee's, cbeel a ', • ' n eri' ds b v. deal more bread than the ls ' s. ' wee siy.—s_k,, g re it,. i' te ti vt , t' ; than Bs., U s. ' or that when .; t0 th e fro ° OF to no more s to believe, drafted o ty 1 d le st of also asked the House population was dra hey had bto or the agricultural districts whi ch t a s ,song t tuning districts, the audition. thefebi in a mull bette r .~, ~i i ce. _. J_'