The Sun. — London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM TUE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—It is not surprising that Sir Robert Peel should have ceased to be greeted by the applausive vociferations of the animal portion of his own party. Even these animali parlanti are not destitute of natural instinct. They feel they have given themselves a master and they feel their master is leading them to the slaughter-house. This is felt, too, by the more rational irrationals of the Tory benches. ' Its proper power to hurt, each creature feels ; " and these ultras feel that Sir Robert Peel . has pared their claws, and blunted their natural weapons. Wild animals indeed, just caught from the Yorkshire Hussars, or the quarter-deck—such animals as R ou s and aFr rand—may feel nothing but their raw impulses. t heir occupation who have a method in their madness feel that re occupation is gone. All who attempted to and - stricaien and monopoly popular among t he make the working classes, by clamouring for poor re n strictions and regulations to please the Ten-hour Bill _ men, trades-unionists, or agitators against t he new Poor-law— all these feel how completely their guns are spiked, by the Premier's explicit rejection of them. Yet this section of his supp orters were, in some sense, wise in their generation. - They saw that if monopolies of the rich could be defended successfully, it must be by com bining their cause with monopolies of the poor—that if enhancement of price of food was to be rendered popu lar, it must be by affecting to legislate for enhancement Of wages of labour—for muzzling the " money monster" e—for decreeing short work for full pay, and lavish and unconditional parish pensions for no work at all. .All these pretexts the Premier has cast aside with cool withering scorn. He won't enact that ten hours' 'work shall earn twelve hours' wages in factories, He won't legislate for operative monopolies, or subsidize wirdy pauperism. But what is worse, he won't pretend to mean anything of . the sort. This is a heavy blow and great discouragement to that section of his sup porters who have sought to enlist hosts of plebeian pre judice for aristocratic monopoly. It is quite certain, however, that in abandoning the pretexts of his party, Sir Robert Peel has rendered it impossible to maintain Its interests. STANDARD.—We spoke yesterday of the good effect which the division of Wedaesclay night must have upon - the interests of the country at home and abroad. Let us now offer a Word upon the influence which must be eercised by the debate, and the arguments adduced in the debate. Of the arguments of the Opposition it is unneces aary to, say anything. They may be disposed of in two classes into which they were pretty equally divided—first, arguments in support of a fixed duty ; secondly, argu ments in condemnation of any duty. These arguments, like e opposite qualities in algebra, plainly destroy each other, and leave nothing for an antagonist to answer. On the other side we have the arguments of . Mr. Gladstone, Sir Edward Knatclabull, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel, untouched by any thing • upon which their opponents can -agree, and therefore .to be regarded as absolutely unas sailable. So the question goes to the public, and the public will know how to decide upon it. We mu s repeat it, that arguments upon a question so long, and so earnestly canvasaed, could not be a once new and sound, and, in fan, scarcely any argu ment was advanced upon the Mnisterial side which had not been long made familiar by our invaluable correspondent, Mr. James M'Queen (whose name ought to have been quoted, and would have been quoted fifty times had he been a Whig, writing on the Anti-Corn law side) and by others. The merit of the Ministerial speakers was in the candour and the forcible eloquence by which they gave interest and additional strength to familiar arguments. It is no mean benefit, also, that by a lopting these arguments they gave them that weight which high names can always give, and which, we may lee excused for saying it, is not given by Conservative statesmen to the reasoning of less exalted persons, as often ns, for the sake of truth, it ought to be given. It is an injurious delicacy which rejects a decisive proof be .cause it has been first advanced by an o b scure pamp hl et , or _a more obscure newspaper writer. COUla ER.— The prompt and manly declaration by L ! Melbourne in thie House of Peers, en the first day of the Session, thet with the creation or the prevalence of e -define; distress the Corn-laws were in no respect chargeable, a declaration tardily re-echoed since in the Connnons' House by Lord John Russell, appears to have been a " heavy blow and great discouragement" to the Anti-Corn-law press, and to the Anti-Corn-law faction both within and without the House. For months bye - gone distress and Corn-laws figured daily in the cleee ref, tionship of cause and effect with every radical wriaer condemned .to the drudgery of one column or inure per day of h acing and leaden matter, and aid' every r:lr ter , whost. only. chance of' cheers at public meetings lay e, in the volum of rigmarole ringing. the changes to the same tune. Nay, even with the reverend revolutionist it wrc the ataple text from which ribaldry and ruffianism had to be preached, and under the standard of which the Pev. Mr. Spencer prepoe,ed to embody the 'pie',:ed corps of I,aoo Manchester desperadoes, who are peaceably to beleaguer the houses of the landed gentry, and assist Perri anent. to. a right determination ou the abolition of Cern-htWs'question. Until nouethes'e ominous repudiations by the two Parliamentary chiefs of the stock material of - Arti-Corn law agitation have been responded to only by 'Thi; sulky :silence or the factious press thus slighted, and the ant:tepees thus disewned ; but with the temporary tenni i4e-Inaitaianti:COin-law debates and the decisive manifesto ,or' 41, - ;4l4.nistAlrial majority, the rout of writers and ranters, ..,fiasalea, thew emery craft in peril of extinction, are tukiug lacearts.fromadesperation, and are re-hoisting the old ban : Iffaa. tinder-which a show ofeditorial fight could be made if aietreey were past hope, and itinerant Smiths and spouters rieleaatn a living, if- Anti-Corn-law bazaars forbade the liheanee'of a fortune The Chronicle leads the . van of this 'fae!orii . hope; and commences by a clumsy attack on Sir Rohert Peel for saying that which the two Whig Lords bed said before. " When," says that veracious journal, "he ea id the. Corn-law was net chargeable with _any portion of the existing distress, he said that which he did not himself believe." It is quite natural for dis honest. dealers in flash wares made, like Peter's razors, for sale, to measure' other people's consciences by their own standard. MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS. The following are the results of " A Table of Mortality in the Metropolis, showing the Number of Deaths from all Causes Registered in the week ending Feb. 12, 1842." The Table is issued from the Office of the Registrar-General:— Weekly Average 838-9-40-1. Total. gT.l7 ' iOtT WinterslYears • Epidemic, Endemic, & Contagious Diseases 161 199 190 • Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses 161 160 149 ' Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of Respiration ... iXseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and ether CAUSES OF DEATH. Organs of Digestion Diseases of the Kidneys, t•ce . Ch:tithed, Diseases of the Uterus, Scc 7 11 10 Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles 6 7 6 Diseases of the Skin, Sec 4 1 1 Diseases of Uncertain Seat ll3 115 104 Old Age, or Natural Decay lO6 90 69 Deaths by Violence, Privation, or Intem perance . ' .. Causes not specified 1 7 7 Doaths from all causes . 1042 Average Weekly Deaths Population Average Deaths mu- Weekly in merated Deaths the IS4I. 183 , ..7-1:-4"-1. Week. i ..—..,_—_, Four I Four Ye rs. I Wint rs. S tam DISTRICTS. West-.-Kensington, St.*George ( Hanorer-square),Westmin ster,St. Martin in the Fields, St. James North—St. Mary-le-bone, St - Pancras, Islington, Hackney 365,660 162 18 187 Central—Saint Giles and Saint 151 177 George, Strand, Clerkenwell, Holborn, St. Luke, East Lon - don, West London, City of London 373,806 188 213 208 East—Shoreditch,Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, St. George ;n the East, Stepney, Poplar 392,49; 206 228 219 • South—St Saviour, St. Olave, • ,6t, George( Southwark ),Ber , monthey, Newington, Lam _ beth, Camberwell, Rother- h►tiae t Greenwich .............438,060 221 243 251 ~ Total 1,870,727 912 1017 1042 It is stated that under the term Metropolis are ceniprised the . 31e districts herein mentioned, which include the City of Lon. don with and without the walls, the City and Liberties of Westminster, th e ou t-p ar i s h es within the Bills of Mortality-- and the parishes of St. ntrylebone, St. Pancras, Kensington, Fulham, Hammersmith. Chapelry),St. Luke (Ch elsea), Pad dington, St.. Mary (Stoke Newington), St. Leonard (Ftrom ley),' St. Mary-le-bow, Camberwell, Greenwich, St. Nicholas and St. Paul (Deptford), and Woolwich. The population, as enumerated in 1831, was 1,504,890; and in June 1841, was 1,570,727. The weekly average for 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841 , was obtained by 4ividing the deaths in the four years by 24 k 1 , and the deaths in the four winters by 52. TEMPERATURE IN VIE WEEK:s ENDING Feb. 5. Feb. 12. 49° 52° 33 32 41 41 17, 1842. Highest Lowest Daily Mean ••• General hegister Office, Feb. PROMISSORY NOTES. (F Last Niht's Gazette. An Accou n t of the rom Average Aggregate Amou n t of Promissory Notes payable to Bearer on Demand which have been in Circulation in the United Kingdom, distinguishing tho3e circulated by the Bank of England, by Private Banks, and by Joint Stock Banks, in England and Wales, by the Banks in Scotland, by the Bank of Ireland, and by all other Bank.; in Ikeland, and of the Average Amount of Bullion in the Bank of Englaud, during the Four Weeks ending the elih - day of Febru ar y, 1 342, pursuant, to the Act of 4 and 5 Victoria, cap. 50. YNGLA N £17,402,000 5,531,524 . Bank of England......, Private Banks ........ Joint stock Banks... SCOTLAND, Chartered, Private, and Joint Stock Banks . . 111. ELAND............ ... 2,922,882 flank of Ireland Private n 1 Joint Stock Hanks 3,279,075 r. 2,534,039 Total Bullion in the Bank of England .... 4: 5 ,602,000 HENRY L. WICKIIAM and Taxes, Feb. 18, 18.12. LONDON AND BRIGHTON ItAILWAY.--TllO earth has been cleared from both rails at the slip at New Cross, on the Croydon Railway, for some days; but in order to facilitate the removal of an additional quantity of earth, whieh the engineers have determined on'semoving, the eastern line will be used for a *ho:, Lime fur the " up," as well as the " down" tra ins. The w the Brighton line is in excellent condition, and no at Ne ie w j m ill u ls occurs in the whole line, with the exception of that LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. la JOHNSTON AND CO. V. CHANDLIM. This was an action to recover back 24,0001., alleged to: have been advanced to the defendant by the plaintiffs, who are extensive corn-dealers in Bush-lane, upon supposed assignment. of corn, made by the defendant. The case opened on behalf of the plaintiffs, was that they had en trusted the management of their business, in a great degree, to a person named Burton, a clerk in their employment, who had de ceived them, and it turned out eventually that they had been de frauded out of 80,0001. It was alleged that the defendant received advances to that amount, for which the plaintiffs received no value, but it was not asserted that the defendant had any knowledge of the frauds practised by Burton. After the case had proceeded for some time, a consultation took place between the parties, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 4004 INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 18. IN RR JOHN CHARLES NORTH. The insolvent in this case applied on his petition to be dis charged. He was supported by Mr. Cooke, and opposed by Mr. Nicholls. it appeared that he had been for many years acquainted with a young lady, named Greenstead, to whom he paid his addresses up to 1839, and in that year had the banns of marriage pub lished in Old Lambeth Church. He was Surveyor of Highways in the parish of Newington, and possessed an income from his father, besides which he carried on business as a stone and marble merchant. Several letters passed between the parties, professing the most ardent attachment ; and although the parents on both sides were averse to their being married at first, yet they eventually consented to the match ; but the in solvent alleged some excuse for delaying the ceremony - and in February, 1840, Miss Greenstead was delivered Of an illegitimate child, of which he was the reputed father. Soon afterwards he married another lady, and an action for breach of promise of marriage and seduction being instituted by Miss Greenstead's next of kin, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages of 250/. Mr. Nicuom.s, on behalf of the opposing creditor, applied to have the insolvent's petition dismissed; that he be ordered to readvertise before he could be again before the Court for hearing, on the grounds of having improperly described his name in his schedule. He was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, named Newman, and by the registry of his baptism at the church of St. Saviour's, Southwark, it appeared that he was baptised by the name of John Charles Newman, and three years subsequently when the father was about to marry another person, he executed a bond conveying a certain annuity to the insolvent in which deed he was described as John Charles Newman. He (the Learned Counsel) submitted that under these circumstances the Court was bound to dismiss the petition, as it had been held an es!ablished rule that a misnomer, where even a Christian name was concerned, would be fatal to the legal validity of the petition. He then cited several cases in support of his views, and was about to call the insolvent s mother, when— Mr. COOKE interfered, and said, that although that person was in Court, yet she was in such a bad state of health, that he hoped the Court would not, under the painful circumstances of the case, deem it necessary to place her in the witness box. The Learned Counsel then contended that the insolvent, being illegitimate, had no right to any name but that which he chose to assume himself. The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said he coincided with the view of the case taken by Mr. Nicholls, as far as his (the Chief Commissioner's) judgment was concerned, he should or der the petition to be discharged. However, if Mr. C9oke wished, he should reserve judgment until such time as a full Court should be sitting. Mr.Cooxe having requested that such might be the case, the judgment was then adjourned. The Rev. Frederick Sturmer, who was curate of Hayes, where he kept a boarding establishment (at which the melan choly occurrence which led to the trial of Mr. Medhurst took place), appeared before the Court for judgment. The case was before the Court on a former day, when the insolvent was opposed on the part of two creditors named Ratcliffe, a butcher. and Gurney, a cheesemongsr. A long investigation occurred respecting the sale of furniture, Ike., at Hayes, and the dis-, posal of the money. It was then held that the opposing cre ditors had cause of complaint, and that the insolvent would be remanded. Yesterday the Rev. Gentleman again appeared, and evidence by affidavit was supplied. The CHIEF COMMISSIONER pronounced an imprisonment of five months from the vesting order. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 18. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. The Duke of RICHMOND moved that certain names be added to the Library Committee.—Ordered. Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition from a place in Ireland relative to Presbyterian marriages. CORN-LAWS. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the ministers and congregation of a Protestant Dissenting chapel in Eagle-street, -Red-lion-square, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. The Noblc, Lord also pre- ;entetl petitions from Omagh, Donegal, and other places n Ireland, to the same effect. Lord KINNAIRD presented several petitions from the county of Perth. The Noble Lord said that in the of the last session of Parliament, he had called the attention of her blajesty's Government to the dis tress existing in the country; aithoughParliament had be4.-n sitCng nearly three weeks, yet nothing had been done to ascertain whether means could he takni for relieving that distress. In Paisley 19,000 persons were supported by charitable contributions. The funds in the hands of the treasurer were not sufficient to support for more than three weeks longer these persons, while not the slightest prospect was visible of any improvement in trade. Their Lordships were aware that the Paisley manufacturers were in a great measure confined to articles of luxury, such as shawls and handkerchiefs, and there was not the slightest prospect of a revival of their trade. He (Lord Kinnaird) had seen a manufacturer of Paisley, who had told him that he was selling articles, which were forMerly disposed of at a shilling., for three pence. He (Lord Kinnaird) asked if he could make it pay at that price, and he answered, " No, but it is better to sell at that price than to • close the mills." and that in exporting large quantities be would sell at twopence. It was a horrible thing to think that there were people in this country who were actually in a state of starvation. They cared for nothing, they were reduced to despair, and their energies were gone. He (Lord Kinnaird) knew a gentleman who had visited a poor family, and had stated to him that he -had found the head of that family dying from actual starvation. The heads of families cared not what became of their children, or of themselves. He (Lord Kinnaird) thought something ought to be done, otherwise the consequences would be most serious. The Noble Lord concluded by presenting a great number of petitions praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws from the Corporation of Perth; from several trades corporations' of Perth, and from a great number of places in the counties of Perth and Forfar. Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that on Monday week he should introduce a certain Bill for the improvement of the admistration of justice in the House, in the Privy Council, and in the Court of Chancery. Lord BROUGHAM moved for returns of the num ber of cases standing for hearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Consistorial Court, and the Manor Court, together with the number ofjudg ments given, up to the present day.--Ordered. The House then adjourned till Monday next. c uirs HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 18. The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock. The Midland County Railway Bill was brought in, read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday. Mr. BARNARD brought in the London and Green wich Railway Bill which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday. Colonel ROLLESTONE brought in the Nottingham Gas Bill (No. 1), which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time. Sir G. LARPENT brought in the Nottingham (No. 2) Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time. Mr. M. PHILLIPS brought in the Manchester In firmary Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time. Sir J. EASTHOPE presented a petition, signed by the Mayor and Corporation of Leicester, against the Government plan for the alteration of the Corn-laws, and praying for their total repeal. The Hon. Baronet also presented a similar petition, most numerously-signed, agreed to at a public meeting in the open air at Leices ter, the Mayor in the chair. The Hon. Member alsd presented eight similar petitions from different parts of the country. Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition complaining of undue assessment in consequence of the New Prison Bill. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1842, Sir R. PEEL said, that the Gallant Officer had stated correctly that a treaty was concluded in 1839 between this country and France, to regulate the oyster and other fisheries off the coasts of the two countries. The treaty provided that Commissioners should be ap pointed to specify the limits within which the rights of each should be restricted, and to make regulations for carrying the regulations prescribed by the treaty into effect. The Commissioners had been appointed. They had met and had agreed upon the regulations ; but there had been discussions as to the mode in which the regu lations should be carried into effect. But he believed that the difference was confined to one point, and that was not one of any difficulty ; so that he hoped that before the fishing opened in April the whole matter would be settled. The right to the fishing on the part of this country was confined to three miles from low water-mark. But there was a discussion as to the French boats being allowed to come within the three miles, not to fish, but to rest for the night. He repeated that he certainly did hope the matter would be speedily adjusted. Captain PECHELL said an Act was passed last year to enable the Privy Council to carry out such regula tions as might be agreed upon by treaty between the two countries. Now, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, was it his intention to apply for a renewal of that Act, which had expired?: Sir R. PEEL would consider it. MANCHESTER PETITION. Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether it was convenient for him to present a petition or rather an address to that House, which he had just received from his constituents in Manchester ? Of course it was not for him (Mr. Gibson) to refuse an address from his constituents, and he wished the refusal, if there was to be one, should proceed from that House. He felt it his duty to take the earliest opportunity, as it related to the subject under debate, to communicate the fact to the House. The address was signed by 20,000 persons, in habitants of the borough of Manchester, and it was to the effect :—We, the undersigned merchants, tradesmen, and working men of Manchester, declare that in loyalty to our Sovereign—(Cries of " Order, order") — The Hon. Member was about to proceed with the read ing of the address, when he was again interrupted with cries of " Order." The SPEAKER said, that if the address was in the nature of a petition, the proper time for presenting it would be after the Order of the Day was read, for going into Committee on the Corn-laws. Mr. M. GIBSON said that the address was not in the nature of a petition, but rather a declaration from the people of Manchester, statine , what their feelings were respecting the present Corn b ßill of her Majesty's Go vernment. The SPEAKER said the House could not receive any declaration that was not in the shape of a petition. LIGHTING THE METROPOLITAN ROADS. Mr. P. BORTHWICK wished to put a question, in volving a matter of much importance to the metropolis, to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. It related to the lighting of the ap-, proaches to London. Up to a very recent period these approaches had been lighted by means of money col lected as tolls. But the present winter, in consequence of the increase of communication by railway, the tolls had so much diminished that the parishes could no longer light those roads, and had in fact refused to light them. The consequence was, that persons passing to and from the metropolis by night were exposed to much danger. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man, had he any measure now in contemplation for the purpose of securing the safety of persons travelling by these roads, by compelling the parishes, or some other authorities, to light them? Sir JAMES GRAHAM - said that the various parishes had power by law to make rates for the lighting of the roads, if they should think fit to do so, but the Execntive had no power to compel them to do so. Ile had been applied to by some of the inhabitants of the parish of Kensing ton on the subject, and he had recommended that a ves try meeting of the rate-payers should be called, and that the propriety of levying a rate for the purpose of light ing the roads should be submitted to them. The vestry meeting was called, and he regretted to say that a large majority decided against levying any rate for that purpose. It was a question entirely for the decision of the ratepayers of the different parishes, and the Exe cutive had no power whatever to interfere. PRIVILEGE.—BELFAST ELECTION PETITION. On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the question that the petition of Lord kali showen, complaining of an undue return for Belfast, be not refered to the General Election Committee, Mr. CHARLES WOOD said, that in his opinion the House had no alternative but to refer the petition to the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He felt, that in coming to that conclusion the House would attain that object which the Right Honourable Baronet had declared to be one of immense importance, that the House ought not to be called upon to decide on questions connected with contested elections. The Right Ron. Gentleman had stated that ever since the period of the Grenville Act, it had been the policy of the House to leave the determination of questions connected with elec tion petitions to some tribunal chosen by the House, rather than to take upon itself to determine them. He confessed he could see no reason for refusing to refer this petition to the Committee in the usual manner, and he considered that by so doing, they would be acting in Istrict conformity with law and precedent. He could see no ground for refusing to refer it to the Committee. There could be no doubt but that it was an election petition. The 3d section of the Act, 5 Victoria, defined what constituted an election petition. (The Honourable Member here read the section referred to.) This petition complaining of undue election should be deemed an election petition. He (Mr. C. Wood) appre hended that no person would dispute that this was a pe tition presented within the required time, complaining of - an undue return—" No election petition shall be received by the House, unless at the time it is presented it shall be subscribed by a person claiming therein to have been a candidate at the election." He (Mr. C. Wood) apprehended that no person would deny that the peti tion was at the time of presentation signed by a person alleging himself to have been a candidate. If that were the case, then it must be apparent that this comes under the definition of an election petition ; further, that it had been received by the House, it had been sent to the ex aminers, who reported upon it, and he (Mr. C. Wood) did not know what other act was necessary to constitute the reception of a petition by that House. He would now read a part of the 3d section of the sth Vic toria----" And be it enacted, that all election petitions which shall be received by the House shall be referred to the Committee for trying the petitions." It seemed to him (Mr. C. Wood) that if these points were granted, this must be deemed an election petition, and that the third section imperatively required that all petitions received by the House should be re ferred to the Committee. He apprehended, therefore, that there was no alternative but to refer this petition to the Committee. The only ground on which this could be doubted was, that it was signed by a Peer of Parlia ment. He (Mr. C. Wood), however, did not think it was competent to any one now to argue that the petition had not been received. He did not wish to inquire what the decision of the Committee might be. Under the 79th section of the Act they might report, in conse quence of Lord Innishowen being a Peer, that they would not go into it ; but he (Mr. Wood) appre hended that it was incumbent on the House to refer this petition to the Committee. Mr. Wood concluded by reiterating that the House had no alternative what ever but to refer the petition to the Committee. Mr. C. W. WYNN, who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery, said that he quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Halifax. It was certainly a question of some importance, but if the petition had been referred a preliminary objection might be taken, and it was quite competent for the Committee to determine that objection before the case was gone into. The objection in the pre sent case was that the House ought not to receive the petition of a person, which showed on the face of it that it was presented by one who, by his own de scription of ,himself, had no right to interfere or ad dress the House at all on matters connected with eleC tions. Then it was said that every petition which came before the House should be referred to the Committee. That appeared to him (Mr. Wynn) to be the duty of the House ; and if the petition in question was received by the House, they were bound, in his opinion. to refer it. The only doubt he had was as to the question whether the petition had been received or not. It had been pre sented, but no order had been made upon it. The doubt was, what was the point upon which it was to be said that a petition had been received. If the petition had been received, the House was bound by the words of the Act ' to refer it to the General Committee, and that Committee would report upon it ; but if it had not been received then l the House was at liberty to use a discretion upon it. He wished to know whether i f t h e question had been put upon - the petition it was to be considered that the House had in any respect entertained it ; if they had, then it must be considered as having been received ; if it had not, then he thought the House could exercise a discretion upon it. Mr. C. WOOD said that everything in the Act was direct enough till they came, to the 30th _section, which declared that every petitio n which was received should be referred to the General Committee," which necessarily meant that the petiti on should be refer-ed to the Committee The SPEAKER having read the motion, • Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT said he agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, that the 30th sectionhaving declared received should be referred After a few . words from Sir G. GREY, and that every petition whichcould not do otherwise to the General Committee, they now than receive it. He certainly came to the same Gentleman opposite, but he conclusion with the Hon. giving his assent to the should not be understood as to him not to be right, that principle, for it appeared Peers should in the least interfere with election peti tions. He trusted, therefore, that his Hon. Friend would not press his motion. confessCo Committee.—(Hear t t t i Sir R. PEEL said that h with o a greed the Hon. Gen • tleman opposite, and that the terms of the law made it was postponing the question: imperative on them to refer the petition to the General At the same time he must After a few words from Sir GEORGE GREY, e u they . t — ( t etavre'r hear.)e ony Sir H. HARDINGE said the error was committed in the first instance by the Member who took charge of the petition. Every Member who took charge of a petition which involved the privileges of the House, was bound to make a statement of it before he presented it. It would then come under the cognisance, and would be sure to be brought under the notice, of the llouse. Mr. THESIGER said it would be quite impossi ble for him to oppose the reference of this petition to a General Committee. They were un d er con siderable diffi cu lty from having ad vance d so f ar. lie was s t rong l y o f op i n ion that the General Committee could ha ve no power to ma ke a report i n t hi s matter. Having been brought before the House they must refer it to a Select Committee, but even when brought before them, he doubted whether the objection could be taken. He apprehended they had no power to decide it, but CORN-LAWS. Mr. BROTHERTON presented several petitions agaitist the Corn-laws. Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY presented a petition from Banff, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn laws. Mr. HOULDSWORTH presented eleven petitions, from different places in Yorkshire, with the same prayer. Mr. BELL presented a petition from Glasgow, pray ing for a change in the passenger-duties on railways. Mr. STANSFIELD presented petitions from several townships, parishes, and congregations in the county of York, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from Staley bridge, signed by 3,600 persons, praying the House to reject the measure of the Government for an alteration of the Corn-law, as calculated to afford no relief to the country, and praying the HoUse to repeal totally and en tirely the present Corn and Provision-laws; and, further, to enact a law by which every man at the age of 21 years, and of sound mind, should be entitled to the elective franchise. Another, agreed upon at a pub lic meeting in the borough of Warrington, and signed by the Chairman ; two other petitions from the Young Men's Anti-Monopoly Association at Ashton-under- Lyne, and the Congregation of Independent Dissenters at Varrington, for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Also, a petition from a cotton weaver at Ashton-under-Lyne, of the house of J. A. Stewart, com plaining of the Corn-laws and other evils arising from class legislation. Mr. — THORNELY presented petitions • against the Corn-laws. Mr. 11. BERKELEY presented a petition from a numb: , r of the Society of Friends, in Bristol, praying for a removal of import duties, especially those on corn and provisions. The petitioners stated their belief that, unless these restrictive duties were removed, the people would be driven desperate by starvation. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the ‘,‘ jib and daughter of Mr. Chambers, the late banker, in Bond-street, praying that a clause be inserted in the Bankrupt Act, providing that no person be incarcerated on account of Bankruptcy proceedings, after the age of sixty-nine. Petitions praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws were presented by Sir E. Colebrook, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Lewis Ricardo, Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition for the total re peal of the Corn-laws, and another for the commutation of the tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges. Mr. M. GIBSON presented 50 petitions against the Corn-la %vs. Mr. WALtACE presented six petitions praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Sir J.. IIO BHOLTSIi preSented t petition from Not t:ngham against the Corn-laws. Dr. BOWRING presented 23 petitions, signed by 16,900 persons, against the Corn-laws. Mr. G. W. WOOD presented petitions to the same effect. Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Hull, signed by 8,000 persons, to the same effect. Mr. YORKE presented 41 petitions signed, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Lord - DALMENY presented a petition from Stirling, to the same effect. Sir BENJAMIN HALL presented a petition from Marylebone, praying that the bridges may be opened; also several petitions from the same place, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. FOX MAULE presented several petitions for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Sir CHARLES NAPIER presented several petitions to the same effect. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from an indi vidual in Camberwell, Surrey, praying the House to take into early consideration the duties on foreign cut lery, linens, muslins, bobbins, and other foreign produc tions, with a view to the reduction of those duties, in order to enable the people of England, who now pay exorbitantly for English manufactures, to have the bene fit of the skill of foreign artizans. The petitioner added, that such a step would promote the general wel fare of mankind.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Colonel ANSON presented a petition, signed by 6,000 persons, from Durham, against the Corn-laws ; also a petition to the same effect from a place in Shropshire. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition signed by 112 rate payers of Cheam, praying for the abolition of the Poor-law Commission ; also a petition from Kidder minster praying for 4 complete extension of the Franchise aad for Vote by Ballot. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented two petitions from Preston praying for an alteration in the Corn-laws, and ten petitions from Dewsbury, all to the same effect. Mr. MURRAY presented a petition from Dundee, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Bath, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from Crediton, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. EWART presented six petitions from Annan and other places, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Lord NEWRY presented a petition from Down, pray ing the House to pass a measure legalising Presbyterian mixed marriages. Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented two petitions from Macclesfield, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from Cocker mouth, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. COBDEN presented petitions from Staleybridge, and from other places in Yorkshire and Devonshire, to the same effect. Mt. WARD presented petitions from several agri• cultural parishes in the neighbourhood of Sheffield, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws, or, at all events, a reduction of the duty. Mr. C. VILLIERS presented several petitions from. Dissenting congregations, praying for the total and im mediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS presented a petition from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, complaining that the plan proposed by her Majesty's Government respecting the Corn-.laws was totally inadequate to the exigencies of the people, denouncing class legislation of every kind, repudiating all protection, whether of manufactures or agriculture, claiming the privilege of exchanging the produce of their industry with other countries, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. He also presented fifty other petitions from parties em ployed in different works in Manchester, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the COrn-laws. Mr. PARKER presented a petition from a town in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. NOTICE OF MOTIONS.—PRESBYTERIAN MAR- RIAGES. Lord ELIOT gave notice that be would, on the 24th, move for leave to bring in a Bill to legalize mar riages celebrated in Ireland by Dissenting ministers, be tween Dissenters and members of the Established Church. RAILROADS IN IRELAND. Mr. F. FRENCH gave notice that he would move for leave to prepare an humble address, to be presented to her Majesty, praying that she may be pleased to direct the benefit of railroads to be extended to Ireland. CORN-LAWS, Mr. E. BULLER gave notice, that on the House going into Committee on the Corn-laws, he would move new scale of duties in place of the one proposed by her Majesty's Government. THE NEW - MAGISTRATES. Mr. nurr moved for a return of the names of the Mugistratcs appointed in 'the different boroughs of the United Kingdoni in 1841. IRISH CRIMINAL LAW, Mr. CHARLES BULLER wished to ask the Noble Lord, the Irish Secretary, two questions, which he feared the House would consider rather ludicrous, but which were not so when taken in connexion with the: administration of justice in Ireland. He saw by the papers that at ono of the Its sizes in Ireland a man had been sentenced to death, not for killing a human being, but for killing a goat ! (Cries of Hear, hear.") He wished to know whether there was really left on the statute-book a law that assigned such a penalty for such an offence. He did not think that the Government would venture to carry the sentence into effect for such an offence, but he would, ask what course was meant to be taken with this un happy man, and what punishment would be inflicted on him ? Lord ELIOT said, that a man had been indicted, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated, for killing a goat ; and as it was found that, under an ancient statute, the offence was a capital one, the sessions (for it was at a sessions not an assize), bad no option but to pass a sentence of death. He trusted that it was hardly necessary for him to state, that the man having undergone several weeks imprisonment, it was considered a punishment for the offence, and he was immediately set at liberty. The House would permit him to add that he regretted such a law should continue to disgrace the statute-book, and farther that it was the intention of his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General for Ire land, to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Criminal Law of Ireland with that of England. SYRIA. Sir C. NAPIER begged to repeat the question he had already put to the Right Hon. Baronet, respecting the treatment of the Emir Beschir, late Prince of the Le banon, by the Turkish Government, and the intended mode of governing that district by two Pachas. Sir R. PEEL was not able as yet to give the particulars asked, for it would be remembered that the object of the late operations in Syria was to restore the independence of the Turkish Govern ment. No accounts had arrived from Constantinople since the 20th of January, at which time the Emir had not arrived there. With respect to the other point, all he (Sir R. Peel) could say at present was, that the Turkish Government had sent the Seraskier Pacha to Beyrout, to inquire both amongst the Druses and Maronites as to the best mode of governing the district, but the result of his mission had not yet transpired. He regretted, therefore, that he could not as yet give the desired information to the Hon. and Gallant Admiral. Sir C. NAPIER—I am much obliged to the Right Hon. Baronet for calling me Gallant AdmiralZbut that is a mistake.—(Great laughter and cheers.) THE LORD PRESIDENT HOPE. Mr. WAKLEY said he had received a letter from this distinguished individual, Ns hich ho would read to the House :—" Edinburgh, Feb. 14, 1842.—Sir,—As you ap pear to me to act in Parliament quite independently of party feelings—(Laughter and cheers)—and as many may have drawn the same inference which you kave from the motion for retutns made by Mr. Fox Maule being refused, on good Parliamentary grounds no doubt, I am sure you will be glad to state to the House on a proper opportunity, that during eleven years since the trying the civil causes by jury by the Court of Session devolved on me, I have been absent only on three cases. With those exceptions I attended every one. I was absent from one of the three on account of the possible interest of a near relative in the case, and from the other two in consequence of casual indisposition which did not hold ,for three clays. If Mr. Maule's motion had been granted, and if it in cluded all the trials down to August, for it did not go beyond July, it would be seen that there was only one case upon which any other Judge sat.—C. HOPE." —He Mr. Wakley) had great pleasure in reading the letter, and he would assure the House that the part he took in this case was only on public grounds.—(Hear, hear.) It would now be seen, that this whole case had originated in misap prehension. Sir R. PEEL said he wished to make an observation in reference to this subject. The Right Hon. Gentle man: opposite (Mr. Fox Maule) would probably re collect that he had asked him (Sir R. Peel), on a previous night, whether that, during the period when he held office in 1834 and 1835, the Lord President had not signified to him his intention to resign office. He had then stated that he had no recollection of such a circumstance, but he had since received a communi cation from the Lord President, stating that he had never made any such proposal, and that he might therefore give the most peremptory contradiction to the statement. Mr. F. MAULE said, what had just fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet was rather an answ er to a questionof which he had put in debate, than a contradicti on any thing which he had stated. He (Mr. Fox Maule)wa as much pleased with the result of the debate s as any friend of the Lord President could possibly be, setting at rest, as it did, a report which had been widely circulated in Scotland. No one now was more convinced than he was of the misrepresentation which had taken place, and no one accepted the refutation with greater satisfaction. He was ex tremely gratified by the letter which had been read by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and in the absence of all official information, whatever might have been his opinion with reference to the conduct of the retired Judge in remaining in office, as he had thought, after his powers had failed, he should be the last man either in that House or cut of doors to ques tion anything which came from such a source. He had no hesitation in stating now, as he had before done, that he had been led by wrong information into an error which he sincerely regretted. He was extremely sorry that the subject had ever been mooted, and he trusted that it would now be set at rest.—(Hear, hear.) CHANNEL FISHERIES. Captain PECHELL wished to put a question to the Right Hon. B arone t a t th e h ea d o f her Majesty's Go vernment. The Right Honourable Baronet was aware that a treaty h a d b een conc l u d e d w ith France, which had for its object the regulation of the fishing . trade on the' c oast o f t h at country an d o f Great Bri tain. Commissioners had been appointed forinamaging the fisheries of . the two countries, and to prevent colli sions. He wished to knOw in what position the matter at present stood, and also what steps the Hon. Baronet intended to pursue ? would try the merits of the petition. Whatever might be the result on this consideration, it might be useful to put on record that such a petition as this was not presented and received without discussion. It was an important ques tion as to their privileges, and it ought not to be said that it was received without any objection. Mr. AGLIONBY said that this ought not to go forth as a point of law. If ever it should become a matter in issue before the House, he should hold that they. could not prevent any person from petitioning. The only point was, whether at the time of ptesenting the petition it was signed by a person alleging himself to have been a candidate at the election. It was rather hard to cast a reflection upon the Gentle man who had presented the petition, when it was possible that a doubt had existed in his mind upon the subject. He ventured to submit that they were compelled both to receive the petition and to take the usual steps relative to it. Mr. WATSON said the question had been raised with respect to the counties of Middlesex, Huntingdon, and Carmarthen, and several other cases, and had al ways been decided in favour of the petitioners. The case of Middlesex was brought forward by Mr. Fox ; and, although the objection then was that the petitioner had been convicted of a seditious libel, his right to petition was established. Motion withdrawn. CORN-LAWS. On the motion for the Order of the Day being read for the House resolving itself in a Committee of the whole House on the Corn and Provision-laws, Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from St. Luke's, Middlesex, praying for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, and for an extension of the Suffrage. BONDED CORN. Mr. F. T. BARING, on the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, said he did not mean to enter into the general Corn-law question at present, but he (Mr. B.) wished to direct the attention of the Government to the necessity of making some provision to relieve indivi duals who suffer great hardship from the loss attending bonded corn. When other commodities were bonded the Treasury was in the habit of taking off certain amounts of duty for wastage. No such allowance was made in the case of bonded corn, because the Treasury alleged it was unwilling to interfere with the present Corn laws, by bringing in a Bill to remedy this grievance. The Board of Customs, however, was not hostile to some such allowance, as might be seen by the High Hon. Baronet on reference to papers now in his offite. But now, however, as the Corn-laws were about to be changed, it was very desirable that some provision should be made to relieve the holders of corn. So great had been the hardship upon holders, that some had destroyed their stock sooner than pay the duty on it after the waste it had sustained, and if some remedy were not introduced holders of corn would be obliged to bond in Rotterdam and other places, and even then this country would be made dependent for supplies on other countries in spite of the great wish of the Right Hon. Baronet to make this country independent. Of course it could not be made so independent without importing and bonding from time to time great quantities of corn. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would consider this point between the present time and the time for bringing in his Bill. In the meantime, he (Mr. Baring) would collect all the information he could, and bring it before the House himself, if the Right Hon. Baronet would not do so. It was absolutely necessary to adopt some measure to prevent the public from being caught in his sliding scale. The SPEAKER then left the Chair, and the House went into Committee ; Mr. GREENE in the Chair. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he wished to make a few observations in reply . to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring). He (Sir Robert Peel) m o - ald give his consideration to the subject, although he would not pledge himself to any particular course. He did not see how the same inconvenience might not arise under a fixed duty as under a sliding scale. Sup posing corn was introduced under a fixed duty, it might still be bonded, and of course liable to waste. Mr. BARING said, that he did not mean to introduce on that occasion any discussion upon the sliding-scale. The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that parties_ would be subiect to the inconvenience to which he (Mr. Baring) had alluded, under a fixed duty, provided they kept in their corn for as long a period under such duty as under a sliding scale. It was not, however, likely that that would take place under the operatipn of the sliding scale ; parties who had purchased corn when the duty was low might find that by the time it had arrived that prices had fallen, the duty had risen, and they might thus be compelled to bond their corn, perhaps, for years. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, which did not reach the Gallery, Mr. BARING said that the incon venience had no doubt been allowed to continue long in existence but that arose from the fact that the Corn ques tion was one' of great importance, and which successive Governments felt very reluctant to touch. CORN-LAW REPEAL. Mr. VILLIERS rose, and said—Sir, I beg leave to ask permission to read a petition which has been presented to the House, and which bears upon the subject before the Committee. It is a petition from the Chairman of a Con ference of Delegates from all parts of England, Scotland, and Wales, appointed by their fellow-countrymen, to take measures for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. (The Hon. Member then read the petition of the. Anti-Corn-law Conference, which has already appeared in The Sun. Sir, I trust that the reading of that petition will not be thought an inappropriate introduction to the motion which I have to submit to the Committee. A motive, Sir, which, whatever has been said with re spect to the illogical order in which it is now submitted. f cannot regret that this is the moment in which I am called on to bring it forward. I cannot help thinking that I acquired some advantage by the discus sion which has taken place • for, in hearing that discus sion, it struck me that much' ability and ingenuity were displayed in the debate by Hon. Gentlemen on both sides, elicited in order to escape the difficulties with which the projects both of the late Government, and of the Right Honourable Baronet were surrounded. I think, Sir, there is something in that peti tion apposite to my motion, which, whatever else may be objected, is free from the difficulties of both the others. Sir, I rise to call on this Committee to con demn in toto, and abolish for ever, that law which we are in Committee to consider. A law, of which the avowed object is to raise the price, by limiting the amount of human subsistence—a law, which by the admission of a distinguished member of the present Govern ment, is designed to raise the price of food and the amount of rent, but not the amount of wages — a law, Sir, which I must consider, inasmuch as these objects and these purposes are in view, erroneously if you please—yet that such a law can only exist in gross viola tion of every principle which could regulate the law of this country ; and yet I will not now abandon the idea that at no distant period I shall be able to persuade this House of the injustice of that measure, and that I shall yet be able to persuade them to abolish a law of this kind. I must say I have heard with hope, if not with satisfaction, the admission made this year, which has been denied hitherto, that this law has not worked well— (Hear, hear.) I avail myself now of that admission, that this law has worked ill, and ought to be repealed, and I avail myself of the statement of an Hon. Member, who said, and said justly, that it had been passed for dishonest purposes to press my motion on the House.— (Hear, hear.) These concessions having been made, I now call upon the House, before they re-enact a law which is capable of having such a prejudicial effect, and which, if the House succeeded in passing, their success must be incomplete—l call upon the House to consider that the principle upon which this law was enacted is opposed to the object and end of all such enactments— I ask the House to consider the basis of this law, and to abandon it if they believe it is opposed to th e prin ciples of justice upon which all laws should be founded.—(Hear.) The House is bound to consider the effects of this enactment ; their duty clearly is rather to promote the general interests of the country, than to secure the advantages, and interests of a patrician class.—(Hear, hear.) This enactment was passed in opposition to the interest of a great body of the people at large, and it is now attempted to be main tained in defiance of their feelings and opinions, for they now understand, and are, consequently, opposed to them. You are now about to attempt another experiment upon their patience and temper. These aie not the times when you can perpetrate wrongs in the open day, when all men's eyes are upon you, and ..when you suffer full liberty of thought a n d f expression, men who have knowledge may perpetrate wrong upon those who have it not. But it cannot be perpetrated with im punity upon people in the condition in which the people of this country nova are. Without intending any offence to this House, I venture to say that it is not a true representative of the intelligence without, nor a faith ful picture of the information possessed by the middle and working classes of the country. For I believe that it is within the knowledge of every man who goes among - these classes, that they possess information, shrewdness, and an absence of prejudice never remarked before. I only mention this to show that it is utterly impossible for the. Legislature of this country to escape the severest scrutiny that it can be submitted to, and, above all, respect ing this law, which has attracted so much attention, and which the people of this country have determin e d shall not continue. I believe the minds of the great ma jority of this country are made up upon the subject, and that they will use every means in their power to emancipate !their industry and their commerce-- (Hear, hear)—and they now distinctly demand of you, that you will rid the Statute-book of the dis grace, and yourselves of the discredit, of maintaining this law, and that you will no longer suffer :your selves to be charged as parties to a common breach, of trust in using power confided to you for your own purposes.—(Hear, hear.) You have no reason to com plain of the tone and temper in which the people now taproach you, for I well know, by the time and trout)!!! that I have given to this • subject, the endeavours that have been made to bring you to a calm and careful consideration of it. You have been asked in times of comparative quietude and prosperity to ameliorate this law, and you have strenuously and steadily refused to comply. You have refused the smallest modification of this measure, on the ground that it might lead to a greater change ; and you have no right now, when the people are exhausted by dis tress, and, perhaps, excited by despair, to complain that they approach you in anger, and call upon you peremptorily at once to abolish this law. Sir, I am sorry that this House complains of the manner and the, mode in which the people have sought to obtain redress; and I think that those who profess to be their " friends " could better occupy themselves than by complaining of the manner in which redress now sought. I have heard much grumbling about fife people soliciting their pastors to go forth and bear testi mony to their miseries and sorrows. But what are the people of this country to do ? They are not fairly represented in this House. Where, then, are they to find advocates of their cause and expounders of their sorrows, if not among their spiritual advisers? Sir, I can only say, seeing what I know of the sufferings of the people, that there is much to admire in their for fearance' and much to excuse in their v i o l ence . But I do not stand here only to vindicate the manner in which they have sought redress, but to jus tify the measure of relief which they now seek at your hands. What they ask is, in my opinion, reasonable, and I believe will be beneficial; it can lead to no measure that it would be unjust to concede, but it is founded on every principle of justice and policy.—(Hear.) What have I to say to recommend the measure which is the subject of my notice, but to point to the condition of the country, and the effect of the law ? What is the appearance England presents to us. at present ? More abundant in resources, more fertile thane any other territory in the world ' • yet her industrial population is in that state of distress which he who was ap pointed by the Government to answer the address of the Crown, said, on the responsibility of that Govern ment, that it could not be exaggerated. It is admitted on all sides that England is rich—rich in labour, rich in knowledge, rieh in the application of means to labour and skill ; yet that her soil being of li mited extent, and her population hourly increasing, they are in want of food. That is the condition ofthis country; it is a state which all men must have seen she would have arrived at ; that period has at length arrived, and is there any man who dares to assert that this is the doom which Heaven has decreed for her? believe there is no man so ignorant, who would look upon any chart, and see the locality of this island, who would not at once demand how it is that this country, placed between the two civilized continents of the world is in a state to endure this distress. And if he were to hear that these other countries, though abounding in food, but wanting that which England possesses, are nearly in similar distress, would he not ask for some solu tion of the mystery ? Is there any could be offered to satisfy any reasonable being, but that the lords of the soil have established a_barrier between this island and the Continent which has caused the distress in all ? That is the condition in which this coun try is now placed ;—that is my solution of the distress admitted on all sides to exist.—(Hear.) If you can prove that it is not, you are bound to do so. This is the theory of those who ask of you to abolish this law. You are bound to give us your theory if you differ from us. But I ask you to test it by any process that you please, I ask you to suppose only that lam right, to grant my hypothesis, that these are the circumstances and that this is the condition of the country, and to say, upon due deliberation, whether there is any feature in the present state of - the country, which might not be expected to result from such a law. I ask you to admit that this country does not supply herself with food that she has now a deficiency, and that others have an abundance of that food, and that England is suffering from what you yourselves style over-production ; and then I ask you to examine whether the present state of the country be not natural, under the existing law. If you expect a people to be exhausting their means, by paying an exorbitant price for food, that is the case of this country at present. If you found them dispensing with comforts and luxuries which they have hitherto enjoyed, you would find that those whose business it was to produce these comforts and luxuries were in distress*. If you expect to find that those who produced food and wanted goods were manufacturing for themselves, that you will, now find. If you expect that in case of a scarcity of food you were obliged to send out your money to buy up the food which was grown for other men, and the consequence of sending out your money was to contract the basis on which your credit in this country was placed. I say, Sir, that that is what you now find ; and if you found further general discontent and general distress, it is precisely that which must result from the state of things which I have supposed to exist. Sir, I venture, in confidence of the correctness of my views, to defy any one to prove that this has not been the cause of the distress. I have such confidence in the good sense and sagacity of the people of this country, that I am perfectly satisfied that whatever may be urged in opposition to this view—whatever notions you may start to divert the attention, you will not succeed. Let us refer to the experience of many years past. For a long period every thing has been said, every thing has been urged. You have trailed the ground with any kind of rubbish, with the design of diverting the people from the real object.—(Hear.) But you have completely failed; and you now find that the public mind is more strongly impressed with the conviction that this is the real cause of the embarrassments of the country than it has been at any former period.--(Hear, hear.) Within one year two Governments have thought proper to attend to the general expression of opinion. One Go vernment thought that there was so much importance to be attached to the opinion which was generally enter tained upon this subject, and the evils whieh result from the Corn-laws, that they were ready to sacrifice office in the attempt to effect the alteration. Another Govern ment had thought proper, notwithstanding the pre vious denial that the evils of the country were to be attributed to this law, to acknowledge that the laws now in existence must be changed. There have been now before the country and the House two projects of a change—two modes of mitigating the evils of the present law. - Sir, I object to them both. — (Hear, hear.) Ido not deny that the plan of the Noble Lord would meet many of the most prominent evils of the present lair ; and I believe that his plan would effect many improvements.—(Hear.) But my complaint is, that both your laws are unjust, that no justice in principle or purpose furnishes a ground for the maintenance of the present system.—(llear, hear.) I know, Sir, that I stand here to vindicate the people against charges of being extreme and unrea sonable, but' I say that there are no teachers of morals, nor writers of ethics, who justify a modification of wrong.—([Tear, hear.) A law is either right or wrong in principle, if it be wrong why should it be maintained ?—(Cheers.) This is the objection of the people to the plan of the Noble Lord, and, Sir, lam here now to complain on their part, of the manner in which the plan now before the House has been re ceived, for in the discussion that has lately taken place the principal argument in favour of the present plan was, that if it were unjust, so was that of the Noble Lord. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorsetshire, says, he has been cured of giving large measures of justice.—(Laughter.) His assertion is, if I am unjust you are likewise. Ido not know enough of the Noble Lord to say how far he feels at withholding from the people much of what they are entitled to, but I would ask him to consider whether a people, upon obtaining a full measure of justice, have remained discontented ? (Hear, hear.) I niust really complain of the manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government has treated those whom I repre sent. He seemed to think that nothing more was necessary then to show the difficulty and inexpediency of the plan of the Noble Lord, and he (the Right Hon. Baronet) seemed inclined to defend his own measure—a measure involving the sustenance of millions of people in thiS country—by referring to the party by whom those are represented. He asserted that he believed the party who supports us to be extremely small, while it is very violent in its principles. Such is the manner in - which the Right Hon. Baronet has been pleased to describe that party ; but that small party has this consolation, that there has never been any one single great or good measure, not one measure of which the country has a right to be proud, which has not been treated in a similar way— (Cheers) and the first proposers of which have not been treated with similar scorn by the party to which the Right Hon. Baronet belongs.—(Cheers.) When the Right Hon. Baronet talks of the unreason able violence — (Expressions of diss en t f rom Si r R o b ert Peel)—l am 'glad to see that the Right Hon. Baronet disclaims the charge, but J certainly collected from what passed the other night that the Right Hon. Baronet cast the imputation of violence—ofextreme violence —upon the party to which I alluded. But I know that these views are entertained regarding that party, and that they are not altogether confined to gentlemen on the opposite side of the House—(Hear, hear, hear) — but that many Gentlemen not agreeing altogether with Hon. Gentlemen opposite, have made similar imputations upon those who seek for a total and immediate repeal of this law. I would ask is there anything more unrea sonable in asking for a total repeal of this law, than there is, after maintaining this law for so m an y years, i n acknowledging that it is a bad law ?—(Cheers.) Every charge of violence wllich has been brought against us for demanding the repeal of this law may with equal justice be retorted upon those who assisted at the first enactment of it. , I consider that every argument which was urged the other night by the Right Hon. Baronet, as to interfering with property, and with the rights of the landed proprietors, against the repeal of this law, may with equal propriety be urged against the maintenance of it as interfering with the rights and hopes of millions.—(Cheers.) You talk of the delicacy of interfering with the rights of property, when millions are starving. There has not been one single reason advanced in defence of the main tenance of this law, which might not have been advanced with equal propriety in the defence of any abuse how ever flagrant, and of any monopoly however odious.— (Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet has no right to make use of such'argument. The I .eople have been calling for thirty years for the abolition of this law.—(Cheers.) Is this a time,when the people are in a starving state, to talk of the injury which may arise to invested capital, and of the delicacy required in interfering with existing interests? It is too late in the day to make use of such an argument. If this were the first time that the people had called for a repeal of the Corn-laws there might be some excuse for all this caution, and for not requiring too speedy an alteration ; but that is not the sort the of language to hold at the present day.—(H ear, hear.) The people have long been calling for abolition of the law, and if you had altered it in time you might have introduced certain modifications, but the people have now neither time nor temper to wait for your modifications.—(Cheers.) They are starving in the streets.— (Hear, hear.) The present relative con dition of the landowners reminds me of an anecdote I have read of a Turkish captain, who took an enormous number of passengers on board his ship, engaging that they should have an ample supply of food and water; but when he got to sea he monopolised the water, and would let no man satisfy his thirst who could not pay him for the water. Now this conduct might be defended ppon the principle of the arguments which had fallen from the Honourable Baronet, that great caution should be used in interfering with the rights of invested capital, that his property would be wasted by suffering the people to have the water, and that it would destroy the social rights of the navy, and that great mischief might be done by interfering. It Is well to talk of the mischief which may be done by repealing this law; think of the mischief you have done in enacting it.—(Cheers.) Why the thing is as reasonable in one case as in the other.—(Hear, hear.) I beg to rest my claims on the part of the people, reasonable, as well upon stron g au th or it y , o f it s being l as upon the possibility of its being effected without danger, and even with advan tage.,(Loud cheers.) I know there is a class of persons who have scruples with regard to the total abolition of these laws. Ido not say that that class is very fully re presented in this Rouse, but their feelings are represented with great ability and talent. There .are two arguments which those persons make use of, to which every defC ence ought to be paid. The first is whether a e11??_ ,, , in the law may not be prejudicial to the ag,ricultur_ists.; and the second, whether there may not be some city°, on their part, for which they are entitled to c . pensation. These are fair considerations for till who call for a total repeal—but they have fl„ overlooked those claims.—Cries of Hear, hear. 1 Those who advocate a total repeal are represen ted violent, but th e y h ave th e hi g h es t authority to justify thel in their views. —(Hear, hear.) The first authorityit will prod uce i s t h at o f a statesman, suc h as I would to see in this country at the present day, and o And was eminent for talent and for character, for everything that could create respect. I mean i on . Granville.—(H ear , h ear .) If a ll th ose ev ils which 'd Gentlemen predict wou ld b e th e resu lt of a reP ea g o those laws, they must have been perceived by him. - • 0 . ) said in 1815, " I object to an y s u ch l a w (the Corn-10„0; being passed. The great p rac ti ca l r u le of freedom app in peculiarly, and on stronger grounds to the tr ade corn, than to any other." He says, further, " T hat tb o benefits expected from the law could only ha" ora , effect of giving a bounty to the grower of c 00 but you cannot do that without levying a lies the consumer."—(Hear.) Such was Lord Graaver, opinion in 1815. In 1820 we had the principa l u l, a l chants in London, and some of the most cautionstiro-0 calculating men of business, presenting a P e ak ' so to this House on the subject, and when they t so they did not think they were endangerieghear,) capital and interests of the country.—(fear, it of That was a petition agreed to at a meeting in the L, London, by some of the most respectable me rchants , awn presented to that House. There was a Report ( 1 , 1 : up the year after the petition had been press which he should next refer. The Committee w he . il ,sell up that Report referred to two periods ,• the one to to legislation of all kinds had been resorted to in or a improve the value of agricultural produce, the other w,,11,0 comparatively speaking, the trade was less free • ray first period was from the beginning of the last ee l () the to the year 1773 ; the other from the year 177 3 t rr i t o year 1791, when the trade was under restricticns. Committee said that " they could not contrast th e ' 4 ',4 cumstances during the two periods, during th e of which there •was a comparative stagn, bef o in agricultui e, whil e d ur i ng th e second .`,. lioj t was a comparative growth a n d i m p rov ement, Ivt i l e ire acknowledging that prot ec ti on did no t promote tni)o3y terests of agriculture." That was the opinion of $ et ive of men strongly interested i n ma i n t a i ning a Pr ete t too system if it co u ld benefit themselves. The Corallnbe,t went on to say that " they doubted whether th e ns i s t foundation for agricultural prosperity did not c° , 1 51 „, , .. in an abstine nce , on th e p ar t o f the Len , 1 .0; ture, from any interference with the trade in C The next authority to vxhich I shall refer for all4 o o Lion of all protection to agric u lt ure , i s that of to agricultural proprieto rs th emse l ves ; an d I beg ost state that some of the most e s ti ma ble, the b oo intelligent, and experienced proprietors, who i e jleg given the most attention to agr i cu lt ure as a sc- t ios. declare that they disapprove of all proteended Among those are some of the the largest of our la yer' proprietors, Earl Sp enser , E ar l Fit zw illi am , Lord in cester, and others—all men of th e grea t es t pro Per ) ote c. this country. All of them denounce the system of q h ere tion as unfavourable to the prosperity of agriculture. ,tiod is no public meetin g h e ld i n thi s coun t r y o r in S ec o rd, at which some occupie r o f l an d d oes no t co me for t he and declare that his interest is directly present system, and that he asks for nothing better than a perfectly free trade. That has been the rea a for the last ten years. I have recentlY, , v ers several speeches to that effect, and many i s ' ftbe who have given their evidence before a .cemmittee Ojos. House of Commons, have expressed the same or n de oe I can only say, that in a very extensive correspou_ooo with which the people have favoured me in consecl t u bu sd of the course I have taken on this subject, I Nape , t the nor • who have written with such bitterness agal a- 0 4 Co n-laws as the farmers.—(Hear.) And when A re geatlemen commit their thoughts to paper, th e -idyl reslly worth considering. In some of these letters.lo opposed tethall tell me that they consider the people have a cted y o ri virtuously, in suffering the imposition of the Cor7; Je t so long as they have.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I the to an authority, which I have no doubt is known ar re let Right Hon. Bart., the Member for Dorchester. Iwi l , l o e sr, to a work writt e n by a C um b er l an d Landowner. ---k o t to hear.) He invites the attention of the landed inte r the facts he states. Sir J. GRAHAM—It i s no t my wor k . —(A laug i3 h 2 r o. Mr. VILLIERS—I k now th at t h e Right lio n ', aid' net is not the auth or , b u t h e i s acqua i nte d wit' ili a' That person states that he has no interest to is tot tify, that he has no wish in what he states that a love of truth ; and hi s fi rm o pinion is , t of a free trade in corn i s 'f or th e real i n tere t s 1 , 0 the landowner, and was th e on ly sa f e policy o 010 adopted by the State, bec ause th e more prose lan d' 1 0 ,1- people the greater wo u ld b e th e ren t- ro ll s of th e , 5 o no lords. Another publication to which I will refer 1 ., 0 0 from a landowner in Surrey; he states that the land o ;0 are the only persons benefitted by the tax; that it Il lus i o a heavily on the labourer and he comes to the c ent ' -or e that the abolition en ti re ly of the Corn-laws is a ine . 1 , e 19 not only of justice b u t o f necessity. He states that ; bat himself the owner of a large quantity of land, an u e ieo he feels sure that not an acre o f it wou ld be rendered. e 'orett by throwing open the trade i n corn , b e cause it i 4 will be given as a stimulus to labour. The 1 ; °° ; contended that corn is cheap when the ports are e , the more they prove what a nuisance the presenL,lthe I ft w roe i l let represent.h t n er o as l d v ueb q j u ehcl o Htt corn, ar a hnn n da : B ) another i h v ihesvre.ecanlotannaNcvdi mostto i o us w i jo rci : ei t consideration aL i p l f a l a N t v h c s e ey a w r h h e a i c d h l a l 110 • , n ri at from 455. to 48s. lie says he entertained ; hensions for our home agriculture, and, in ce", c iarg e ; says there would be a larger consumption, an" demand for such articles as milk, butter, a on in as a necessary consequence of the populate se P re ; creasing and being well employed, and that sent law, instead of being a benefit, is of entail mischief to agriculture. I might, Sir, quot e other authorities, persons who have go re- nectv",„ thought to this subject, and who are not cel l o omi with agriculture. But I will refer only to two, al they have been quoted as authorities by t he if $„ 4 Honourable Baronet opposite indeed, I nit oft en well as the Right Honourable Baronet, h a- Tooll' t cited them. They are, Mr. M'Culloch and gr. bg' I am not going to quote them for all their opin i ,, el ; o s 'se / , just for those arguments which I want t° t e alns: t c r L o a tn ug a h t t o e t r a t r t e h p a e t al n o o f th t i h n e g se is l t a o w b s. e fe m ar r e . d m f? c r ag ri i ; oar' a lloc L .,, 0 0 0 " The truth is, agriculture has nothing to fear . ' . 1• 0 9; total abandonment and repeal of the CO? 0 16 ; it will not throw an acre of land out of rents--t vation, and will not sensibly affect ""Tooker Another writer, whom I believe the Right Hen- "",r o olf . . e ' will regard as an authority on this question, Mr' ,„ tb e r f says, " If there was a perfect free-trade in covl, r ;0 0 would be a range of prices of about 455. a clird ' isg, d wheat, which forms no just cause for appre e, 11 , 1 fro, diminution of arable land, unless, indeed, it sho ut w oo f " the increase of the population, be applied 1; 0 cas,' profitable purposes; but even if this should be t „ ot tar r i,,, it forms no excuse for perpetuating in the Who for all the evils of the present system." l A l e Right Hon. Baronet quoted Mr. 111`Cll" - was to prove there might be danger in rePe al oo 4 # laws, inasmuch as the seasons are very that all over the world. Mr. M'Culloch s i; it t " No one is more alive to the circumstance tlatita tween certain degrees of longitude an d t here h e extending over the • Continent of Europe - r or'",) a prevalence of weather of the same characte ter ther it be propitious or unpropitious."—Ol e a e fir ' 0 $ ; t o But this, instead of being an argument against l'` - t aal,„o is an argument in favour of it. It shows us ought to extend the radius of our suPte din the neighbouring Continent to Egypt and 0 14 terranean in one direction, and to Ar.", 0 14t/ the other.—(Hear, hear.) Our taking that an c-F i f oo of o greatly mitigate the evil of unfavourable s ilt c,, e l (Hear, hear.) These theoretical writers P",,a tß ei , at between 40s. and 455. as the probable price, t a i e ag' t o have supposed that, under those circumstanee s t; 10 14 0 , culturist would suffer little injury. But, Sir, t he the evidence of practical men, of the agricultilL7s3o,,r e i selves. Before the Committee of this House, in ,- ; ; 1 4 0 1 o r Thomas Bennet was examined. Being asked by .0 Graham, " What w ou ld you expec t for , f 1: e0 t the next seven years ?" he answered, eC tol)y going to take a farm m y se lf, I wou ld no t exP a , to be more than 455.' H e was t h en asked , rely lathe tenants of the Duke of B e df or d, who have ' a t 458; the farms you h a d, b e a bl e to pay the rent "'gear.) quarter ?" Answer, " I believe they _ats Sir R. PEEL—Under the present Corn -law o ctrr t o Mr. VILLIERS--Yes ; and I read th ese oorn .ls. o l. wtoouslhdownotthahtrinthge wheat t l a lo b l o v l e i r tion tha o n f NtZtrto-nOsiteerar n t.; experience, and practical agriculturists , L a , P reasonable price under the present law. -- ( b to h ° : Another question put to the witness referred tb o and another to Scotch mutton, and his answer 0 ,1 rtia , prices of all these are regulated by the tie of13•1', manufacturers."—(Hear.) Here is the eviden e t o $' of tical agriculturists, that there is no dang er ( Cri t, e s o culture in the repeal of the Corn-lawe'h nla; I)° " Hear, hear.") Sir, that is the case wine, Should 1, favour of my motion, that the trade in foe" ot b e r $ free.--(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, there is fi i _ n re are t he ment offered on the other side, that til e 'i u stifi va r.) elusive burthens on the lands which, ; 1 1 .-4 ` - t- th e Legislature in giving it an exclusive protectotta_ee o , 00 I say these are no grounds for the contini_enw be Corn-laws. The Right Hon. Baronet I ta' ou trijY personification of the landed interest of thi s c o c y P t i l es believe there is no person in who d o ju such implicit confidence as they he said reason Ole Right Honourable Baronet, and "v a if the malt tax were left, and if, there wa S _ t ws ~, o f commutation of tithe, the repeal of the C0,ri . t . , 0 portV,.: It be opposed by the House of Commons. A ta'' o , a „,..ore' o ,,ie the public . rightt; have been cast upon thes;', d the per oi t is said, that if the Corn-laws were repeal(' B u t 1 1 `'e o f would be relieved from other burthens too sequenC Ore to know, does any person dispute that in e e n to P a f f the the malt-tax the people are not obliges ore o e lf for their beer; so in the same way, in consel." o or " I t Corn-laws they are obliged to pay in e r vo ge 0 5 00 b-e d ? contend that there is no local ci not made for local purposes ; and I am sh re. the chars.lo.o u ti Le blie ch3l° made far the benefit of those who a re ha highway rates, police rates, and all other p pay them' for arc imposed for the benefit of those wh , 0 ,001 evy ea t believe that my own constituents paY 1 ? t - is the I'L e o f SO such charges, and as to tithes, I believe _ o , oe r_s o. ) the land proprietors of the county are o tn ti e_ t ,....-(W least one-fourth of the tithe of this c i roti a re It seems to me you must either admit tnaL , ; r .eo l entitled to compensation, or elseesohmopweit,hioattligp,"roirtoscisydtj'ilol if you show you are entitled to for you to prove that the compehnsa bUrth ens - 10 1 " no more than proportionate to t e t• hoe be endured by the landed interes _,