The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

it was for all those reasons that he opposed the motion of the Honourable Member. However easy it • might be to introduce topics of popular declamation with regard to the rights of petition, it would in • his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion he very inconvenient to • receive petitions on those occasions alluded to by the • Hon. Member, and would be very detrimental to the • public service. Mr. MACAULAY said, that however anxious the Right lion. Baronet appeared to be with regard to the right of individuals to petition, his speech seemed to be directed against the right to petition in general. The Right Hon. Baronet would give the right to petition when individuals were taxed ; but when the taxes press most grievously and most heavily, and when it would be most grievous upon every one, he would take it away altogether.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baron e t cautioned them against the practice • of declamation on the right of petition. Now he • (Mr. M.) would ask any Hon. Member whether he had ever h eard the right of petition spoken Of in more declamatory language—(Cheers)—whether he had ever hoard the peculiar, sacred, inalienable, he reditary privilege of the people more lightly spoken of than it had just now been by the Right Hon. Baronet ? (llean hear, and cheers.) The only difference between the declamation of the Honourable Baronet and that which he censured on the other side being that the declamation of the Right lion. Baronet was a prelude to an attack upon it, instead of an introduction to its sup port. He (Mr. M.) would take the right of pe tition at the value the Hon. Baronet put upon it. He (Mr. M.) wanted no other motion than that brought forward by the Hon. Member for Fi ns b ury, to show the impantance of the high i na li ena bl e right of petition, which the declaration of the lionopr able Bar: ne t g ave th e H ouse reason to fear he would 'withhold- -the right he would take at the valuation of the Hon. Ban otet, leaving his arguments to the attention of the Holm .—(Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. Macaulay) conceived. ;here were only two cases in which the House ought to r( :thse to receive a petition. The first was, when a p ttition was brought before them, expressed in indecent zu tdl improper language ; the second, when a petition p; xsyed them to do something which it was not within the province of the House to do ; as, for example, supposing 'it to be possible an Hon. Member were in duced to :present a petition praying the House to stay an act , "fl , o ejectment. The proper answer to give in this Case - w,, aid be, that this was a judicial matter, and, that, therefo re, the House could not interfere.—(Hear.) Ii as the pre sent a matter of jurisdiction ?—(oh.) Was it not, fit f act, a matter in which the House of Com mons only ( iould decide. and one of those privileges which the c titer branches of the Legislature had not?— (flear, hear, and cheers.) 'When her Majesty commenced the Session, she (addressed her statements and advice re s.„Per n ting C or foreign and domestic policy to both re pute' " 3,fy Lords and Gentlemen ;" but when she C mae tool 'Patters connected with the ri g ht o f t axa ti on, she reeo; iised one of the most s acre d an d i mportant principles of the Constitution, 'and the Queen addressed thent "S " Gentlemen of the House of Commons."— (Laughte r, and mutual cheers.) To them only did her ,sty recommend these gre a t ques ti ons for con sideratic , n.--(Cheers from both sides.) Look at these facts ' 3 ad then see the operation of the principle the 11°n • F ,aronet contended for. The people were every where sending in petitions against the income tax to the -1 louse of Taords —to those whom the Queen never addressed on such questions—to those who, under on e,' if th e mos t sacre d pr i nc i p l es o f t h e C onst i tut i on cor m di .1 n o t ( o r i g i na t e any measure o f fi nance — all that the Y Ise of L ords could do in such case being to throw out a .. .dill sent t ;:aeni by the Commons, while they eouid not ' :01 Yea the s iraallest of its details, their utmost power in zao‘lifying b. Ling to recommend an alteration.—(Cheers.) Bat was the House of Commons to be the only branch of the Legislature which must be precluded from recei‘ - inee petit.; Otis pr. - tying- them to execute their own proper - • function :a ?—(Glieers.) For what earthly reason could they refuse to admit a petition which was likely to give rise to' a. discussion on a measure of taxation ? This course might be proper under the old system, but now, .•" when its practice, when very great, anti he would act knowledgq, very beneficial innovations had been made • in the old -practice of Parliament, and for which he had felt it his duty to vote, the reception of such a petition as that now- in question would not be productive of the slightest inconvenience. Let the lion. Baronet recollect what he said a - few nights since about the old forms of the House, a; • his' respect for ancient usages, and his veneration for precedents 150 years old, and then proposed the discon tinuance of a debate brought on by the presentation of a petition, on which he (Mr. Macaulay) voted with hint, and now appealing to• those principles, he (Mr. Macaulay) would assure the Honourable Baronet that if the practice now introduced were persevered in, the people would soon cease to petition the House.—(Oh.) That was well argued. Having removed that, the only inconvenience which could arise from petitions of that sort being presented to the House, he should think himself inexcusable if he were to give a vote for the Right Honourable Baronet. And let not the Right Honourable Baronet think that the coarse proposed would prevent inconvenience. Ile would find the contrary. There was nothing more easy than to have presented 100 or 200 petitions to night on the income tax when nothing else was doing. He had petitions from Edinburgh, praying that petitions against the income tax might be presented. Their constituents met and passed resolutions, which they prayed might be presented ; and Gentlemen who represented, large constituencies must and would stand up and receive these petitions even in their speeches, night after night ; they could not be prevented from doing that; he (MT% Macaulay) should do it on the first night of the income tax debate, and others would do it too.—(Hear.) If the petitions of thepeople were not to be received in a Parliamentary and constitutional way, they would be heard in another way. He never made a vote with' a clearer conscience in his life than the vote he should give on this subject. He thought the country was much indebted to the Hon. Member who had brought forward this motion.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the case so clear that he did not believe that any Ministry, could have a majority in opposition to it ; at any rate the people were much obliged to the Hon. Member, because if they carried the motion they would gain a great privilege, and if they lost it, they would have gained a useful warning. e Captain HAMILTON sa id h e would vote with the Hon. Member for Finsbury if he thought that the people were likely to suffer by the loss or rejection of his motion; but he did not think that likely to be the case ; he did dot think that the question affected the people directly or indirectly. There was an Hon. Member opposite who he believed intended to intro , duce a new Reform Bill. He would like to know how many of the new constituents would be affected by a tax on incomes of 1501 per annum.—( Hear, hear.) The working classes of this country felt no interest whatever in this question. On the whole, he did not think that any satisfactory ground had been stated for departing from the Standing Orders, and he must therefore vote against the motion. Sir R. PEEL said he should consider he was guilty of a gross derilection of duty if he took any other course than that of meeting the Hon. Gentleman's proposal by a direct and decided negative.—( Hear, hear.) lie should strongly oppose a depar ture flora the constant usage of the House of Commons esta bli,lied at the period of the Revolution, and uniformly adhered to by that House.—( Hear.) The House of Commons did, at a period very shortly subsequently to the Revolution, determine that they would not receive petitions against taxes for the cur rent }ear during the progress of the proceedings with refer once to those taxes. 't he subject had been discussed again and again, at different periods, aret at periods when there were par ties in that House as keenly alive to the necessity of maintaining popular rights and privileges as any party could be at this day; the resolutions of the House of Com mons had been to adhere to the practice which they found es tablished.—( Hear, hear.) And he (B.r R. Peel) was surprised at the new zeal of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite—it had never been awakened till he was out of office.—(l.oud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The Right Hon. Gentleman • the Chancellor of the Exchequer, felt it to be his duty, in the year 1840, to propose an addition of 10 percent. to the assessed taxes-- Mr. MA CA LILA Y said he had never heard of the existence of the rule until the present period. ROBERT PEEL—The RigAt Honourable Gentleman never heard of the existence of the rule until the present period; that was what he said; it was unfortunate for the public that the Right Honourable Ceentleman's informa tion was not procured until he was out of o:irsce —(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition) —so that be had not the means which he might have bad of exercising the influence of 'office to relieve them from that great grievance.— Cheers from , the Ministerial benches.) When the Right Hon.. Gentleman 'was a member of the Cabinet, the Right Hon. Ceentil'man the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself called u by con , siderations of publi c d uty, to propose an addition 1- 0 f 5 pea' cent. to the Customs' duties, and 10 per cent. to the are essed taxes supposing that every party who was affectee! by the , Customs' duties, or the assessed taxes, had attea.rrepted to obstruct that measure by pourin g in petitions, he asked the House whether the Right Honourable Gentleman( the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not have . availed himself of the resolution of that House whi eh hack been %enforced 150 years previously, to prevent such obs tructioo ? cHear, hear)—and he could not help thinking that • the Right on. ,Gentleman, who was Secretar of We nd: a mernher of the C a b inet at that time, would not aye a ala stultied his colleagues bp-insistin g upon a departur e from the established practice.--( Cheers from the Ministerial bet:ides-) At va rious periods , as w ou ld b e seen by a reference '.to Hatsell's Pr ecedents, •attempts have been made to break through the rule. On the 29th of January, 1760, a petiti o ' u was presented. by a numb er o f maltsters against a proposed a addition to the duty on malt. On the question that it shoo! d be brought up being put from the Chair, it was . decided in the neg,ative nemine contra dicente, the univer 'Pini on of the House being that it was for the public interest n. clhere to the established practice. In the year 1783, when art feeling ran t rery high, a petition was presented from the - a m%r. ehants and c rau ers of Exeter against a proposed alteration in Ae stamp utaies. The House refused to receive the petition. In 1795, altixnriod when Mr. Fox and Lord Grey were unttending st Mr. Pitt --a period when the public mind es :cited by the enactment of Bills which were vse restraints suppo sett to upon the liberty of the ieo le— If sod b e en ' c questio n of constitutional a . pei a , e est vrould hay privilege had arisen ,a se var" elesin-ns injunous te ensued—when Mr. Pitt was chat Ted " ith lend - Lord Grey w o the liberty of the subject, and T r _ Fox liberty —n th;, 14th hroef ci‘mtending for the insintenanc e 711.13'; 'that braes were imposed ti:7lt'3!79s' when the the arl' tr"i' Iv" - pediment was offered to those en a. unjust war. and ever , 111- the .10t. 110 W under consider' : axes ' the question al tee ; "o certain capitalists, importers. and dealers the 4th of trch pared a petition. dealers in foreign:vvin e , i re praying that so ‘ ni be imposed on wines in stock. eoproposed duties should- not that the petition iv brought up, it n the question being . put five, nemeiie contra dicente. Even a'At'a;hdecitled in the when' :popu!ar party was led by such eminent at Period, wh en he by general consent that the establisheTe u n, the House de a n( 'here(' to. Neither the leaders of that parTage should b e a , 1- 'who fought under their banners, opposed 3;71;1 any of th e e by vote or speech ; by the simple enunciation ofthe stacle eitiu r the House decided that they would not word "N o the established rule against receiving su departh frog He' hoped the House of Commons would adherec tios, w ee • to petitions.thiprac co in all conflicts of party had been hitherto adhered .If he had been perfectly certain that a great numbe r of pe etions would have been presented in favour of the income ' ax e that would not in the slightest degree have influenced his :a.lseusaion on,.Abis point Be conceived that he was doing his outty11:: -the House of Commons in asking the House to adhere th • anetitational privilege s of the House. He hoped that he " Vii IP lied formed a portion of the late Government, and " IA not . kelp thinking they would adhere to this p rivilege - the House ofth a c t om th m ey on n s 'ou to ld a f d e h e e l re he to waasu justifiedusage o f t i h n i s"dke asking i rights depended on constitutional usage—on the privileges of Parliament the rights of the subject depended, not on Acts of Parliament merely, but by constitutional usages. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he was a party to imposing the rule of preventing debating petitions at the time of presentation. In consequence •of the inconvenience attending it, the Right Honourable Gentleman reconciled himself manfully to support a restriction upon a right almost as sacred and inalienable as the right of petitioning, viz., the right of free expression of opinion in presenting petitions. It was a sense of absolute public iuconvenience that induced the Right Hon. Gentleman to take that course, ar.d impose the restriction. It was precisely the same motive and conviction which led the House of; Commons, at the time of the Revolu tion, to impose that restraint, and which had led the House of Commons subsequently to adhere to it. He (Sir R. Peel) felt very confident that the House of Commons, recollecting the period at which the law was made—recollecting the fre quent instances in which such an adherence had been sup ported—he felt confident that a large majority of that House would determine not to break through a usage of this descrip tion. But even if his conviction was not well founded, and if there should be a different result:—if he stood alone, he should feel that he was acting in fulfilment of his public duty in de fending their rights and privileges, by assisting, as far as his humble voice could do, in the adherence to this usage. Sir G. GREY said be quite agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet when he said that that was a question irrespective of party consideration, and while he entertained this opinion, and feeling deeply convinced of its truth, he could not but regret the great warmth with whieh the Right Hon. Baronet had re ceived that motion.—( Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet asked with extreme warmth, why his ( Sir G. Grey's) Right Hon. Friend did not advance his opinion on this subject when he was a member of the late Administration, when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was called upon to propose an additional Customs' duty, and why he did not move then that the rule be rescinded? Let him (Sir G. Grey) ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether, on turning to the: vo t es o f t h at House— whether, r e c a lli ng thel proceedings of that House—he could show him (Sir G. Grey) that any Member of that House had tendered such petitions?—(Loud cheering. ) If petitions had been tendered to the House from constituencies against taxes, and the House had rejected those petitions, then there would have been some ground for the taunt that had been thrown out against his Hon. Friend. He remembered no such case at previous periods, though he had witnessed many instances of it during the present Session. It was now to be found on the records of the House, that on petitions against the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet being tendered by Hon. Members on behalf of their constituencies, the Speaker had informed those Hon. Members that according to the rules of the House those petitions could not be received, and consequently they were entered as rejected. If precedents were all that were neces sary, his Hon. Friend had made out a triumphant case in favour of the principle for which he contended. But he would ask were precedents to be all in all on such a ques tion ? In a case where the interests of the nation were vitally affected, were they to be bound entirely by the practice of their ancestors ?—( Loud cheers)—especially in a case in which his Right Hon. Friend who sat near him had shown to demonstration—had shown by arguments against which he hail heard not the slightest arguments produced from the other side of the House—that the reasons which influenced their ancestors had utterly ceased to exist. When petitions might be debated day by day—and as it might be found by reference to the Journals of that time, petitioners prayed to be heard by counsel against a tax—when those petitions might be followed up by a motion that counsel be called in and heard at the bar of that House against the tax,that might be such an instrument of delay and procrastination against a Bill imposing a tax which might be required for the exigencies of the current year, that instru ment might become so powerful in the hands of a minority of that House, that there might be, and he was willing to admit that there were sufficient grounds for restricting the right of the people, that inalienable right of petitioning which he re gretted to have heard praised by the Right Hon. Baronet in terms, while it was attacked in spirit._( Loud cheers.) He would repeat that there might be reasons for curtailing that right on the ground of public inconvenience and urgent necessity, but he would say that his Right Hon. Friend had shown to demon stration that they ought not blindly to follow the track of their ancestors, when the reasons for following the track had en tirely ceased, and when, if they adhered to that practice, it would produce greater inconvenience than any advantage that could be derived from restricting the right of the people. Great complaints were made of the delays that take place in coming to decisions in that House, and the repeat e d adjourn ments that take place, a n d h e felt bound to speak more strongly on that subject, as in the late division that took place with re gard to postponing the debate on the income tax, he voted, on the only occasion on which he did vote, in the majority with the Right Hon. Baronet. But if constituencies could not have their sentiments made known in that House by petition to be laid on the table, abstracts of which petition were printed sometimes in extenso, it would necessarily become incumbent on Members, knowing the strong feeling that existed among their consti tuents when any subject of importance arose, to address the House and protract the debate indefinitely.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Let Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side hear the end of the sentence before they cheered. He would say procastinate not with the view of procrastination or delay, which he utterly disclaimed, and had disclaimed by voting against it, but simply because that other legitimate course of expressing the sentiments of their constituents was by adhering to a practice, which, however wise then, was now most unwise, because unnecessary, and further unwise, because it must be bad to grant delay and inconvenience on questions in which the interests of the country were concerned, by repeated protractions of debates on questions of importance of this kind, and by adjournments, which, he thought, was the interest of the representatives not to carry beyond the point absolutely necessary for the assertion of their principles. How often were petitions referred to in debates in that House, as an index of the w i s h es o f t h e peop l e ? But that course could not be adopted in the present instance. No man could speak, upon the subject of the proposed income tax, of the sentiments of the constituency of another man ; and, therefore, they would all be compelled to rise in their places, if instructed so to do by their constituents, in muter to make known their wishes to the House. He, for one, notwithstanding the incredulous cheers of the Right Hon. Baronet, sincerely and honestly de precated such a course. He was for confining debates in that House within reasonable and moderate limits. He saw, how ever, in the determination of the Right Hon. Baronet to shut out the people from presenting petitions in the case of the income tax—( Hear, hear, hear)—the necessary consequence which be deprecated ; and not having heard the slight est reason for adhering to the former practice, seeing that the defence of the present practice rested simply upon the precedents which might be quoted in its favour, and as an essential difference had taken place in the practice of the House regarding the reception of petitions, obviating the inconve nience which was the foundation of the rule, he should most cordially and cheerfully give his support to the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—( Cheers. ) Mr. C. BULLER said, that he hoped the course he had taken on a former occasion, might be a sufficient excuse for his addressing a few words to the House upon the subject then under their consideration. The House would remember, that the Right Hon. Buronet had refused to allow of the slightest delay in bringing his resolution before the House. He (Mr. Hillier) confessed, that until he had accidentally discovered the rule of 1816, he had, in common with the public generally, been utterly unaware of its existence. He thought that the Speaker of that time might have been mistaken upon the subject ; and he had, therefore, asked the Right Hon. Gee tleman, who now filled the Chair, for his opinion on the matter. When he had been told that the rule was, that when the resolution was once proposed, they should be precluded from presenting any petitions upbn the subject, he had respect fully put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would not postpone the Committee of Ways and Means, so that the country should have at least more than one week to express its opinion upon the proposed tax. The answer of the Right Hon. Baronet was—he (Mr. Buller) should give him that credit—remarkable for its explicitness and for its brevity.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter on the Opposition benches.) The Right Hon. Baronet would hear of no delay in bringing for ward his resolution. Now, in the year 1816, when it had been proposed by the Opposition of that day that the income tax should be discontinued, that great constitutional Minister— ( Laughter)—whose respect for popular rights ought to be a model to Ministers of the present day—he and Lord Bexley yielded so far at least to the wishes of the party opposed to them as to allow the question to be deferred until the publi c opinion was so strongly expressed that the obnoxious tax was repealed. Was there ever an attempt made to enforce the rule under such circumstances as the present ? It should be remembered that the people had had no warning that such a tax would be proposed, and that no opportunity had been given them of expressing their sentiments upon the subject, although the tax was one on which in former times .the opinions of the country had been more strongly expressed than upon any other oc casion. Now the Government came down and took the House by surprise, giving the people only one week to express their opi nions, the Right Hon. Baronet availing himself of this rule to prevent them from being heard at all.—(Hear, hear, hear. ) At the same time, he quite agreed with the Right Hon. Ba ronet as to the rule laid down, that Hon. Gentlemen do not do on one side of the House what they did on the other.—( Hear, hear, and a lauo. ) They seemed to hold that it would be im proper to do se.—(Laughter.) It was a rule that applied to more things than the question now under consideration.— ( (hear, hear.) He thought, however, that there was some thing in connexion with thi s , not so very d i screditable to that, the Opposition side of the House ; for during the eleven years that they sat on the other (the Ministerial) benches, no occasion arose for the rule to be applied.—(Chee:s.) No ob noxious tax was proposed against which the people wished to petition. Loud cheers, after which Sir Robert Peel made some observations across the table.) 0 yes, (continued Mr. Buller) there was one obnoxious tax introduced—the ten per cent. tax, and petitions were pre sented against it ; but no occasion arose notwithstanding, in which this rule for excluding petitions was put in force.— ( Cheers from the Opposition.) One argument used by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Stamford as to the ex pediency of the rule, seemed to him (Mr. B.) to have some force—that was, that the people ought not to be allowed to petition on those subjects which they felt so acutely that they would petition too much.—(Cheers and laughter.) That was to say, that if they had the right of petition at all, they ought to be allowed to exercise it only on subjects in which they felt no interest.—( Renewed cheers and laughter.) This rule was unworthy of a Reformed Parliament, for it was passed only to prevent the people from expressing their opinions in the most peaceable and constitutional manner. Mr. WALLACE, who spoke for some time amidst great interruption from cries of " Divide," said he was quite est°. nished both on this occasion and before, at the sile nce of so many Gentlemen apposite , a n d th a t the Right Hon. Baronet did not come to face this question as he ought to do with so great a majority. But he (Mr. Wallace) was an old fox hunter, and he knew from experience that when a hound be- came a mule one, it was not long till he became a skirter.—( Great laughter.) An Honourable Gentleman opposite had said that it was not the people, but the middle classes, who opposed the income tax. But disi the Hon. Gen tleman think that the people consisted only of the working classes 7—(Hear, hear.) That reminded him of the officer who would not allow that he was a soldier, thinking the name applied only t o th e pr i vates, and he was therefore called "Mr. Otrice;•, and no soldier."—( Laughter.) But what were the Commoners of that House, if not the people? What else were they but the people ? He should like to see the lion. Gentleman go to the hustings and make such a speech.—(Loud ebiiers.) He should like to be present with the Hon. Gen ileman there, and take the change out of him..—( Cheers and i n .ghter, ) He (Mr. Wallace) was glad he had given way to t h e _Right Hon, Baronet. That Right Hon. Gentleman had never ozlore during this Session made so quick an appearance. The H. ht Hon. Baronet throughout his speech had done no_ h b u t advert to old usag es . If that was all th a t cou l d be said ting in ( fence of the course they were adopting —if they did nothing but revert to old usuges—then the House would fall into even greater disrepect with the people than it had already. —(Cheers.) His attention had been first drawn to this mat ter by seeing the observations of the Honourable Member for Liskeard. He (Mr. Wallace) was at that ti me i n the country, suffering from ill-health. As soon as he saw those observations he felt that if no one else interfered, it would be his (Mr. Wallace's) duty, as an independent Mem ber of that House, to propose a resolution similar to the one now under discussion. He had prepared his resoluti on , an d had it i n his pocket when his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury showed him the resolution at present under discus sion, and asked him (Mr. Wallace) to second it. Had he hrunk from the performance of his duty on the present occa ion he should have felt ashamed to meet the constituency of anest Scotehmen which he represented. The right of peti- ture could pursue would be to support the measure introduced by the Government. Me. E Toe; veiti th,, , ie.. lied voted t: ir the seeend of the Government meestice, under the supposition that might, undergo considerable amendments in Committee; but he was very sorry to find that he had been di-appointed in that expectation.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the protection given by the Bill of the 2.ight Hon. Baronet to the growers of wheat was insufficient, while the scale as regarded barley and oats was repudiated by every friend of British agriculture. He had not been aware, too, at the time he had voted for the se cond reading of the Bill, of the intentions of the Government upon the suhject of the tariff, and of that tariff he greatly dis approved. Under these c i rcums t ances h e cou l d not help ex pressing his dissent from the measure of the Government, and his regret that they had been introduced by the Right Hon Baronet.—" Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Mr. FIELDEN, who spoke in a tone which rendered him almost totally inaudible, was understood to say that that House had shown its determination to protect no interest but that of the agriculturist. They had not protected the labouring classes—they had not protected the hand-loom weavers. They had a cart with only one wheel. Under these circumstances he could not vote for the third reading of the Bill ; if he were for the motion, he should be voting for that which was unjust in pi inciple and unwise in practice. Mr. BROTH ERTON observed that there had been a con stant increase in the price of foods since the year 1815, while there had been no corresponding increase in the rate of wages. On the contrary, wages had of late years been constantly declining. The rate of wages had diminished during those periods when food was at the highest price. It was to thatqlepre cietion of wages and the consequent suffering among the labouring classes that he wished to invite the serious attention of the House. It was an indisputable fact, that many labourers in Stockport were now earning no more than 10d. a week. He believed that those evils were mainly owing to the present Corn-laws. Those laws were equally unjust and impolitic; they had been founded for the purpose of excluding foreign corn, while it was evident that this country, which had imported on the average 2,000,000 quarters of wheat of late years, could not dispense with supplies from abroa The increasing population could not be provided for without an extension of manufactures. He believed that the effect of the Corn-laws was to burden the people with a tax of twenty mil lions a year. The object of sach laws was to keep up the rents, and he entreated the House to consider whether it was fair to sacrifice their interests for such an object. —( Cries of Divide.") Sir VALENTINE BLAKE said he had intended to move a resolution, in Committee, to the following effect : —" That, not withstanding the benevolent desire expressed in her Majesty's Speech on the opining of the Session, and the exist ess declaration of her 'Majesty's Government thereon, that they would not sanction any law which would tend to increase the restrictions in the supply of corn in the home market, a law had been proposed by her Majesty's Government, and advanced far towards accomplishment, which would increase the price of corn to the consumer, and make the monopoly of the landed aristocracy more durable, and therefore more intolerable." The Hon. Member proceeded to say, amidst repeated interruptions, that his reason for not proposing this resolution was, that. he had hoped to see some more compe tent Member bring forward that view of the subject. He re gretted that no one had done so. He regarded the present sys tem as one of gross fraud and injustice, and was convinced that that was the light in which it would be viewed by the country. The House then divided, when there appeared-- For Mr. Cobden's motion Against it . ... Majority against the motion —.150 Mr. J. W. HEN DLEY moved the adjournment of the de bate on the Bill till Monday next. Mr. BLEW ETT seconded the motion. The House divided, and there appeared-- For the adjournment Against it 247 Majority On the question, that the Bill he read a third time, being put by the Speaker, Dr. POWRING opposed the third reading, and pressed his opposition to a division. The numbers were— • For the third reading Against....... 90 Majority for the third reading --139 On our re-admission to the gallery, we found Mr. F. FRENCH upon his legs, moving the following clause :—" Provided always, and be it enacted, that so much of this Act as allows the importation into Ireland of flour, the produce and manufacture if any foreign country, or of any British possession out of Europe, shall not commence and take effect until from and after the expiration of six calendar months from the passing hereof." H e trusted that, on the principle of doing justice to Ireland, the Right Baronet would not refese to accede to the introduction of the clause. Sir ROBERT PEEL had proposed to subject all the corn growers of the country to immediate competition with the foreigner. Take the example of oats for instance. Complaints had been made that sufficient protection was not given to Irish oats, yet he proposed to subject the Irish oat growers at once to competition with the foreigner. He had a strong impression that it would be for the benefit of the growers themselves that the law should come into imme diate operation. If he were to agree to the motion of the Hon. Gentlemen he doubted if it would be of any benefit to those whom the Hon. Gentleman sought to serve. He did not imagine that there was that immediate danger from foreign competition which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend, Under all the circumstances, he thought he should be subjecting himself to. a charge of partiality if. he con sented to exempt any one particular interest from the immediate operation of the Bill. He believed there was no danger of immediate competition, and therefore he could not consent to the introduction of the clause. Sir W. SOMER VILLE slid there were many Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who opposed the moderate proposition of the late President of the Board of Trade for the admission of foreign flour. Is was not a question of individual interest, but one vitally interesting to Ireland. And now these Hon. Gentlemen were coming forward to give a third reading to that Bill, which would destroy all those interests. He would lake to ask the Hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they were sincere in the occasion of their opposition to the late proposal ? —( Hear.) He would read a few extracts from one or two speeches of Gentlemen opposite against that proposition, and then he would ask Hon. Gentlemen how they conld reconcile their consciences to vote for ,the third r ea di ng o f tn i s Bill . The first h e came to was the Hon. Member for Belfast. The Hon. Gentleman said, on the occasion of the propositiOn being made to the House, that he did not oppose the measure upon narrow principles, but upon the broad principle that it would interrupt agricultural improvements. It was a measure affecting the in • terest of all classes. He (Mr. E Tennant) was then prepared to show that the proposal would not be a sufficient. In- tection against America. These were the words of the Hon. Gentleman, and he ( Sir W. Somerville) could not see how the Hon. Gentleman could now support the Right Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Member for Donegal also said, that the effect of the proposition would be to break faith with 1,800 persons, who had commenced business on the security of this law. The Honourable Gentleman then said that the pro position, if carried into a law, would destroy all their interests. He would leave those Hon. Gentlemen to settle this matter with their own consciences : however they might settle it with their own consciences, he did not know what they would do with their constituencies. Mr. GLADSTONE said that he formed a better estimate of time than the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ; he should not, therefore, occupy the House with any lengthened observations. Owing to the noise in the House, we were r un able to cat asch the Hon. Member's observations furthf than that he wofopio in that the clause of the Hon. Gentleman was one that the House could not accede to. Mr. O'CONNELL said that if his Hon. Friend persisted in dividing the House he must vote against it. Mr. CHRISTMAS said, that though he did not entirely concur in the measures of her Majesty's Government, not con sidering that sufficient protection was afforded, still, as he approved of the main principles of the measure, he thought it right to vote for the third reading. After a few words from Mr. AL J. O'CONNELL, Mr. F. FRENCH withdrew his motion. On the question being again put that the Bill be read a third time. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 8, 1842. Coning ought to be perfectly free. Recently they had taken away the right of Members to speak on presenting petitions. Give them an inch in the way of injustice, and they would take an ell ; and now they sought to do away with the right of pe titioning. '1 be Right Hon. Baronet was right in the brief and firm manner in which he refused his assent to the motion. If he had assented to it he would never have been able to carry his income tax. If he were to assent to it now the table would be covered with petitions against it from all parts of the coun try as quickly as the post could bring them in. The measure was distasteful to all classes. The farmers disliked it quite as much as the ten pounders, and such would be the number of petitions against it, that all Members, unless they happened to pos•ess close count i es, as many Hon. Members opposite did, would venture to support it, and no Minister, even with a ma jority of 120 to back him, would be able to carry it through. They had been endeavouring gradually to abolish the right of petition; they had negatived his (Mr. Wallace's) motion to permit means to speak on presenting petitions. He should, however, renew that motion ne x t y ear , f ee li ng per f ect l y certa i n that he should ultimately carry it. If the Right Hon. Baronet, in place of carrying his resolutions, had announced his inten tion to the public two or three weeks before hand, and had sus pended express th Th e e i o r r der op i s n i i o n n t w h e i t h meantime,rega regard t o a n h d i s allowed t the o a people tmeasureo s u o n unprecedented nt their hostility time of edn i peace—he n o Minister believed would b people ablewould t o carry the measu re . H e never gave a vote w i th so much plea sure, and he should be almost sorry if the motion were carried. —(Laughter ) If the Right Hon. Baronet would appeal to the country, and advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament on this ground, that the people had no confidence in that House, they would see what! returns they would make to Parliament. That was what he (Mr. Wallace) would like to see.—(Divide.) Sir T. HANMER (amidst cries of " Divide, divide,") said that he was desirous to state the reason why he would support the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Cheers. ) Though the more numerous classes of the people were not affected by the income tax, still, looking to the tariff, which was to be connected with that tax, and which should be taken as a part of the same measure, he should be very jealous in limiting the rights of the people on such a subject. With respect to the precedent on which tiiis practice had rested, he must say that, although he had as much respect as any one for the prin ciples which placed King William on the throne, he had not the same respect for the Parliament which sat in his reign.— ( Hear, hear.) The Parliaments in that reign were corrupt, rotten, and disgraceful Parliaments—( Cheers from the Oppo sition)—and h e t h oug h t that the practice under consideration was worthy of the source from whence it originated.—( Hear. ) He would give his vote with great regret on this occasion, but he should f ear l ess l y an d h onest l y vote for the motion, because, he believed it t o b e hi s d uty an d t h e right of those whom he represented there.--( Cheers. ) Mr. WAKLEY said that an Hon. Member opposite had asked him how many of his (Mr. Wakley's) constituents would be affected by the measure ; but he gave a very curious illustra tion of the nature of his own curiosity. He confessed that many of them were favourable to the views of the Right Hon. Baronet.—( Hear, hear.) . They thought his proposition would be productive of benefit to trade, but at the same time they were unanimous against the proposition of an income tax.— ( Cheers.) So far as he could learn they were all of them hostile to an income tax.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had that night made one of the weakest speeches he ever heard._( Hear, hear.) And the reason was obvious. He was without a case, without the semblance of an argument. —(Hear, hear,) The Ri g ht H on. Baronet had given the House a few historical data, and he went to the year 1795, and mentioned the contests between Grey, Pitt, and Fox, and he (Mr. Wakley) thought that the Right Hon. Baronet would have stated that then Mr. Grey and Mr. Fox were pre. sent in the House; but nothing of the kind was stated; he said, that the petition was rejected, but they had no record of the opinion of those statesmen. He (Mr. Wakley) was disposed to ask this plain question—Was the right of petitioning a valuable right? He put the question fairly to the House, because he really thought that Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were prepared to vote against the motion of his Hon. Colleague, ought, in candour and honesty, to follow it up by a vote declaring the practice of petitioning to be altogether use less, and one that ought to be discontinued.—( Hear, hear.) If ever there was a time when that practice was useful, and could have an effect upon the proceedings of that House, it was when a proposition was before the House to take money from the pockets of the people. That practice never could be of more use than when employed in a case where the whole of the com munity was to be affected. Now it was known that here the greatest secrecy had been observed as to what measures were about to be proposed; and after that game of secrecy had been played the Right Hon. Baronet surely ought to give the people an opportunity of expressing their opinion.—( Hear, hear.) At the beginning of the Session, he asked several Gentlemen if they were aware of what propositions were to be put to the House. The answers invariably were, " No ; can't tell ;" " Not a word ;" " Havn't heard a word ;" " Can't give an id ea ." Then down came t h e Ri ght Hon. Baronet witha proposition to affect the interests of every man in the kingdom, and the doors of the House were to be shut against the prayers of the people. Did the Right Hon. Baronet know that the resolution of the House which he read referred to a tax which was to be pro posed for the current year only, whilst the Right Hon. Baronet proposed his for three years?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) did say that if the resolulion in the original case were objec tionable, it was much more so now, when it was made to apply to a term of years.--(Hear, hear.) He did hope that in this instance the Right Hon. Baronet would be in a minority. On a division the numbers were— Ayes 136 Noes 167 Mori against the motion ... CORN-LAW aj IMPty ORTATION BILL.—WA GES OF LABOUR. On the O r d er o f t h e Day for going into Committee on this Bill, Mr. COBDEN rose to propose his motion as follows : " That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly declared, by its votes and the Reports of its Committees, that it is beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate with a view to raise unnaturally the price of food." At the eleventh hour (proceeded the Hon. Member who, from indisposition, we were sorry to perceive, was indif ferently heard), he would call on the House to prevent one of the greatest outrages which a Legislature had ever perpetrated. The House said now that it could interfere to attempt to regu late the wages of labour. In fact it was the custom of our ancestors to do so ; indeed the latest attempt of the House to do so was in 1823, when the Spitalfields Weavers' Act was abolished. This was their last direct act, but until 1834 the House did it under the old Poor-law. The French war caused high prices of provisions, disturbed the trade of the country, and caused a sudden agitation of the currency. In con sequence the wages of the working people were unequal to sup port them. Therefore, relying upon the precedents of former times, those people repeatedly petitioned the House to fix a minimum of wages. Mr. Whitbread proposed a resolution on the petition, and endeavoured to have the object passed into a law. Mr. Pitt resisted the motion, and, instead of the measure prayed for, a modicum w a s pa id out of the poor rates to supply the insufficient wages. This was indirect legislation for the regulation of wages. But in 1834 the House repealed the old Poor-law, and since that time the labouring man of this country received neither protection nor kindness from the Legislature.—( Hear, and cheers.) This was felt so dreadfully, that in 1835 he endvoured to per suade the House to regulate wages by law. The House had then declared its inability to regulate the wages of labour, and yet the same House was about to read, for , th(s third time, a Bill which had for its object to raise artificially the price of food.—.(Hear, hear.) He would probably be met, as he had been met before in those discussions, by those' vague declarations under which Honourable Gentlemen some times sheltered themselves, that in raising the price of corn they necessarily raised the wages of labour. It was very odd that the half-starved people of this country, when they wanted work and food, had not been told that the object of the Corn-law passed in 1815 was to raise the wages of la bour.—( Hear, hear.) Their ancestors, if they had h ar b oure d such a tho ug ht, would have put it in the preamble of Vile Bill. —( Laughter.) That, however, had never been stated by those who postponed the Bill. He had statements in his possession which would show that practically the high price of food had not maintained high wages. The Hon. Member then read a statement of the average amount of wages in several branches of manufacture, which had not been affected by the itivention of machinery. The calculation showed, said the Hon.. Mem ber, that the wages were not more than half what they weir in 1815 ; the average wages at the present time were Bs., and the labour for that sum was harder than it had been in 1815 for twice that sum. Was it to be wondered at, if by the operation of the Corn-laws and the reduction of wages, they had a great number of peti tions presented to that House, calling on it to do something to regulate the wages of labour, and to prevent the continually downward course of earnings, while they maintained the. price of corn ? He had some extracts from a petitions or two which had been presented to that House, and he would read p, trt of one from the operative weavers of Manchester, present ed so , long ago as 1827, long before the Anti Corn-law League came into existence, which was accused of having instilled all this poison into the minds of this class. The petitioners stated: that , they " knew by experien ce t h at one species of pro perty was prot ec t e d by the operation of the Corn-laws, and they conceived that even-handed justice required some protection for , labour." This was the language of the weavers of Manchester in 1827. It was to be regretted that the middle classes of - hhis country had not taken up the question of the Corn-laws as tqey had done now, when the laboering classes were endeavour ing to procure their repeal. The other extract was from the statement of a poor fustian cutter, made in 1829 ; he said, "as the Government never protected labour, it was -un fortunate that it should protect land, and as they did not suffer one monopoly, they should allow another to exist. If the labourer was obliged to work cheap, he oug ht to be allowed to live cheap." He had seen the man who dre iv up that petition, and he believed it conveyed all that could. be: said on the subject. The labourers in Lincolnshire and I iot tinghamshire, even in that place, where they were working fc r mere nominal wages, must live—thoy must have bread or pc - tatoes, and wh o h a d t h em to sell ? Why, the landowners- •of the neighbourhood. If they said they could not give the prio .3, and that they heard they could get wheat for 40a. a quarter ; it Hamburgh, the landowners say—Oh !we have a law to kee p up our prices. But, says the poor frame-work knitter, haw e you passed no law to keep up our wages ? And he should lilk e to see the nobleman or landowner that could meet him, who is he asked that question. He did not object to the law, simpl, y becauses it taxed the food of the people ; he objected. to 0 it on a higher ground. The Right Honourable Ba ronet had brought forward his Qom-law scheme, with. the avowed purpose of keeping up an artificial price of , torn. If they had brought in a Bill to lay a fixed duty on fo reign corn, he would have opposed it, as he did the proposition 4 if the late Government. But the present measure was still w sense. They had told the labourer that they could not fix his - wages at one steady price, and now the Right Hon. Paronet avowed that the object of the new Corn-law was te maint Ain the price of corn at from 545. to 565.--( Hear, hear.) Un, lee this law there could be no lowering of prices from a superabu indance of supply; prices could only fall through the inabilitj r of the people to buy a sufficiency—however objectionable • my tax upon food must be, still a fixed duty was not open to t h e same charge of injustice as this new scale. TI 3fl put a fixed duty of 2s. on French hats, and -a fixed duty on French gloves. They gave the: home manufacturer that advantage ; but they told him that i fhe was indolent, if he did not exert his skill and industry to i A L ual the French, he should have no higher protection. But ;they did not say thi s t o t h e l an dh older. They told him that ss , matter 1 how the Poles, or the Americans, or the Germans nal ght im prove their agricu:ture, the British landowner, howet er indo lent or careless he might be, should be secured a prig 3 of not less than 51s. the quarter. The conduct pursued by the Go jvernment appeared to him to he a violation of prise ciple and ustice. Was the whole area of the country to be app ropriated by the landlords as they might think fit, while the pc s )ple were to have no control over the production of the print ii ple article of human subsistence? He would tell them that th at doctrine was revolutionary —he would tell them that it had/. : awakened feelings in the minds of men which they would It ave been shocked to entertain a few years ago. And why;? Because they w ere i nvading the rights of inustry, and bees use they poor man.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that V the were snaking an unjustifiable inroad upon the r t iroperi cy of the i l t ald wo d urd lebayd theto ILmepgiosrltaar a w an er g e es ca i r n ried thi i s oi •o effectcountry, I 1 irinciples He believed that the law would not be allowed 't ter main with- I out producing changes which many we n in 1 who took p art the agita- 1 tion for its repeal had nevercontemplted. The yh dr !fused the slightest modicum of justice. They had -a ' pl, red the trade in 1 the most precious of human coramodities—tb etrade i corn— beyond the reach of the merchant and the ar had thrown it into the hands of the gambler i and ' ,anu a re s .nd the ctu sp eettlator. i - - All the petitions they had received against the Corn-laws from the people at large were treated with less respect than the whis perings from ha-a-dozen failures in the City.. —( ,;ear. ) tie would recommend Hon. Gentlemen who had some stake in the country to think what would be the consequences of such a course. He could tell them, that in the district with which he was immediately concerned—that in Lancashire there had been a sacrifice of fully one-half of the capital vested in manufactures within the last six years. lie said that deliberiitely. He would ask his Hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, whether he could realise far the capital of Lancashine one-half of the sum it would have brought six years ago. That state of things was not the result of a few partial failures ; for if that were the case, the vacuum so created would soon be filled up by men of more energy and industry. He would urge the Right Hon. Gentleman to take the same capacious view as Mr. Huskisson had done when he had sought to discover what was necessary to be done for the regeneration of the manufactures of the country. If the Right lion. Baronet did that, he must come to the same conclusion with Mr. Huskisson, which was, that this country could not continue to pay the present amount of taxation to maintain the public, credit and to maintain the Corn-laws too. If they continued their sliding scale. they would be pressing unjustly both upon capital and upon labour. It was partial—it was unjust. They were mulcting the labourers of his earnings in a palpably unjust manner by this sliding scale, and they were at the same time depriving the capitalist of the means of giving the labourer employment. They would, if they read this Bill a thi.d time, stand self-convicted of legis lating merely for a class. They took corn out of the category of other articles of Commerce. They refused to carry out the principles which they applied to every other article to the article of corn, and if they persevered in such a course there could be no question as to what must be the result. He (Mr. Cobden) was a practical man, and the present was a subject on which he felt strongly. With regard to the trade between this country and America, as he could claim some sort of acquaint ance with the subject, he hoped the Right lion. Baronet would even at this late period pay attention to what he had said. He would not detain the House longer, but would at once propose his resolution as an act of justice to the labouring classes, for he considered the present Bill as a violation of every principle of justico as far as they were concerned. • Mr. BROTHERTON seconded the motion. Sir R. PEEL could assure the Hon. Gentleman that he had listened to all that he had stated, both on this and on all former occasions, with the greatest attention; and how ever he (Sir R. Peel) might differ from the Hon. Gentleman in the conclusions at which he had arrived, he cauld assure the Hon. Gentleman that he had never treated any of his arguments or observations with either disrespect or indiffer ence; and he trusted the Hon. Gentleman would not consider it any mark of disrespect, if, after the ample discussion which this subject had already undergone, he should refuse, on the present occasion, to follow the Hon. Gentleman through the whole of his arguments. The resolution which the lion. Gentleman proposed was clearly tantamount to a declaration that there ought to be no duty at all on the importation of corn; that all duty was unjust, and that corn ought, under all circumstances, to be admitted free of duty. The resolution condemned a fixed duty equally with a sliding scale. There might- be some objections to a sliding scale which did riot apply to a fixed duty ; and, on the other hand, there might be many objections to a fixed duty which did not apply to a sliding scale. But the resolutions of the Honour able Gentleman condemned equally both propositions. The Hon. Gentleman's resolution says, " That it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to raise unnaturally the price of food." But he apprehended that a fixed duty must have the effect of raising the price of food according to the Hon. Gentleman's own argument. According to him it must also raise it unna turally, because no regulation should be applied to articles of subsistence. He (Mr. Cobden) referred to the opinion of Mr. Huskisson in 1831 and 1832. He (Sir R. Peel) would not take advantage of the lapse of the Hon. Gentleman's memory, but the accident which terminated Mr. Huskisson's life oc curred in 1830. The opinion of Mr. Huskisson, was that the Corn-laws as they existed could not be maintained, but that opinion was equally applicable to a fix e d d uty as to a graduated scale. The o pi n i on he delivered was, that the existing Corn law could not be maintained consistently with the prosperity of the manufacturing interests of the eountry. The alteration in the law which he had proposed was perfectly reconcilable to the opinions of Mr. Huskisson in the year 1830. A t the period. when Mr. Huskisson quitted office he was uniformly and deci dedly an advocate for a graduated duty, on the ground that it was necessary as a protection to domestic agricul ture, and to insure a supply of corn at all periods. He thought that the Right lion. Gentleman would hardly deny that the measure which he had introduced would both relax the duty and prevent the speculations of those whom he had spoken in terms of such severe censure, namely, the merchants in Mark lane ; that it would facilitate in a great degree the im portation of foreign corn, and tend generally to make it plenti ful; and that by preventing sudden fluctuations it would re move the chance of gain by mere speculation and gambling in coin. Having already expressed his opinions on this subject at great length, he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not consider it disrespectful if he referred him to the statements which he had made on former occasions, and refrained from entering into any lengthened discussion on the particular motion before the House. Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not rise either for the pur pose of supporting the motion of the Hon. Member for Stock port, or of opposing the third reading of the Bill ; but he wished to state his views with respect to a point which had arisen in the course of discussion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had re ferred to the opinions of Mr. Huskisson. He did not wish to enter into any. controversy with regard to those opinions. He had, hiniself,,voted, for the graduated scale in 1828, and it appeared, at first sight to have many advantages.—( Hear.) He was convinced that if Mr. Huskisson, whose authority was 30 often referred to, had lived a few years after 1828, the ex perience then furnished by the operation of the new measure would have shown so able a man that it had failed in its object, either as respected the farmer, the labourer, or the consumer, for it took away all possibility of calculating future prices with safety. This state of things would have been reconciled by his (the Noble Lord's) Bill, which would produce a certain, constant corn trade ; but the Bill now before the House, though an improvement certainly on late ones, though it was worse than any measure introduced from the Revolution of 1688 to 1800. He had never heard it stated from the other side of the House that they expected they were establishing a permanent system—all they were doing was to shake the au thority of the present system without forming a permanent one. When they had altered the law as to all other authori ties—when its the next year they should proceed to alter the law relating- to foreign sugar, French brandy, and French silica they would again have to alter the law with respect to cant.—(Hear, hear.) So far he should rejoice in the passing of the present measure, as it would shake the authority of the present law; he looked forward to a time after passing the law, when they would find that the plan of a graduated scale was altogether faulty, and that a better system would he substituted in its place. He was not one of those who, like the Hon. Gentleman behind him, was for taking away all duty, and admitting cern free. He admitted the talent and ability with which the Hon. Gentleman supported that view of the question ; it was impossible to listen to him without feeling that it was possible to argue very strongly for the plan he pro posed. He thought a moderate protection was fair to the farmer, but the system established in 1828 was most faulty, and he certainly hoped that the time would not he long before they had established a plan on sound principles of trade, which he hoped, with regard to other articles, the House was about to sanction. Mr. VILLIERS said, if the Noble Lord thought he should propitiate the farmers by declaring in favour of a fixed duty, he thought he was likely to be disappointed. He believed the farmers would be better pleased if he would not disturb the present system. He congratulated the country, however, on the prospect of receiving the Noble Lord's eloquence and ex perience in disturbing the present law, for he was convinced they could not have one less suited to the circumstances of the country than the present one. He could not help ob.erving, that his Honourable Friend could not be justly charged with having improperly quoted Mr. Huskisson with re gard to the sliding scale. The country had not the misfortune to lose Mr. Huskisson till the year 1830. The principle of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Stoekport, was virtually recognised by Mr. Huskisson—namely, the prin ciple that they should not raise by artificial means the price of food, while they left uncharged the price of labour. If they raised the price of food, they ought to raise, in a corresponding degree, the wages of labour. That principle, however, was violated by the present law. The price of food had never been so high as at present, acid the wages of labour had never been so depressed. He could not let the new measure of the Go vernment pass without expressing his most unqualified disap probation ; he considered that it tied not been recommended by the experience of our agriculturists, or by the expe rience of the community at large. He believed that all the evils of the old law would follow frons the present. He believed it would relieve nobody, and that it would satisfy nobody. A graduated scale would neces sarily baffle the calculations of capitalists, and the trade in corn would continue as unsettled under the new system as it had ever been before. No one who had reflected upon the sub ject could deny that the Corn -laws had been at the bottom of all the evils under which the country had lately suffered. He was surprised under those circumstances to find the Hon. Gentleman proposing such an abortion of the law as the pre sent—a law which he believed was really deserving of the words that had been applied to it, namely, that it was • but a mockery of the people. Some said that it was an improve ment upon the former plan ; but he said there was no improve ment. It would not enable the country to obtain more food than could be obtained under the old system ; for in order to obtain more food, more corn should be grown ; and such a result could not be expected under the operation of a law which left the trade in corn as uncertain as it had ever been. He knew it was said that this was all the Right Hon. Baronet could have effected to correct the evils of the law, and that he could not have accomplished more ; but he did not hear Hon. Gentlemen around the Right Hon. Bart. say so. He seemed to have great influence over them, and he thought if the Right Hon. Gentleman persuaded them to it, they would be induced to accept a measure more suited to the circumstances of the country. The presumption was that they were a very docile body, and would have consented to greater changes if the Right Hon. Baronet persuaded them to it. If he had proposed such a measure as the country required, he did not think he ( Sir Robert Peel) would be deserted. The Members for Essex, and Berkshire, and Sussex, would not of themselves form a Go vernment.—( Laughter.) But at all events the public would support him in such a case. Persons were sent to that House entrusted with great privileges, and those who had the power of sending them should exercise it for the general welfare of all, and not for their own interest, otherwise they who had not the power had just grounds of complaint against them.— ( Cheers.) There was only one national ground suggested for the present system of legislation—that was that they should be dependent on their own soil for their own supply. —(Hear.) But he believed that the present mode of legislation was the very one which made them dependent on other countries. They were a perfect nuisance to other countries when they went to purchase corn, because they took away that which was only necessary for the supply of the country where they scent to purchase. They were starving at home under the present system, and that ought to make them ready to try another.—(Hear, hear.) How could they be worse off if they depended on other countries? They would be much better, because they would get trade and food if they depended on other countries. Sir JOHN TYRRELL hoped the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last would not think it discourteous in him if he did not attempt to fellow him in his argument. But he would just remind the Hon. Member that oil every occasion that he had brou g ht thi s su bj ect b e f or e the House it h a d b een with a still in creas i ng ma j o rity against th e mot i on.— His (Sir John Tyrrell's) object in rising was to answer an accusation which had been made against Honourable Gentlemen who represented the agricultu ral intere s t. T he accusation h a d b een ma d e, b oth in that House and ou t o f i t, that, in supporting the prspesition of the Right Hon. Baronet, they were deserting the interests of the agriculturists. lie, for one, had no hesitation in saying that such an accusation was totally unfounded.—( Hear, hear. ) The Hon. Member for Sheffield had stated, on many occasions, to his constituents, that the agricultural was the slowest pro cess of making money. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect that there were many persons who could only cultivate the poor and sandy soil; and he (Sir J. Tyrrell) would ask the Hon. Member, what would become of those persons, if there was no protection given to them ? It had been said, that many of the agricultural Members had had interviews with their con stituents.—(lronical cheers, and hear, hear.) H e could say that he had attended a meeting of his constitu ents, and had submitted his conduct to a direct show of hands, and the result of that was that three out of four held up their hands in favour of this conduct, and only one indi vidual held up his hands against it, "and," said the Hon. Member, "I ca led upon him to explain hinvelf."—(Roars of laughter.) He would defy Hon. Gentlemen opposite to this. The lion. Member for Southwark, who was as it were, sprung &am the loins of thet.tpp ,, ;;lion,or, vulgasly spsakiog, was one of their own kidney—(Laughter) —was delighted with the Conservative :party in power, for this reason—he said, the Whigs would now concede that which they never would con cede before. This was the reason why he (Sir J. Tyrrell) gave his vote in favour of the proposition, althought it might seem to be in opposition to what was held to be his conscien tious convict ion. —( Roars of laughter.) He admitted that a universal panic had been raised among the agriculturists. But the Right Hon. Baronet had got an unanswerable argument in favour of the tariff. The Right Hon. Baronet had yesterday presented, a petition from Ireland, purporting to support the proposed tariff. That petition was immediately seized upon by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He ( Sir J. Tyrrell) had read that petition, and the last two lines what was vulgarly called the prayer of the petition—( Loud laughter)—was to the effect that protection should be given to all classes of the community. Now that was a principle in which he (Sir John Tyrrell) entirely concurred. With respect to the propositions of' the Noble Lord opposite, he must say that they on that side of the House (Ministe rial) were not to be duped by a fixed duty. They on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, had been considered as dull as animals that browsed on thistles.—( Roars of laughter. ) They were certainly too dull for a fixed duty. "It i 3 said in the East," continued the Hon. Member, " that when you cross the desert, they put a donkey in front."—(Laughter. ) They put a donkey in front.—( The laughter was here renewed throughout the House.) They put a donkey in front (said the Hon. Member when the laughter had subsided, and again the laughter was renewed.) It is no laughing matter, said the Hon. Member.—(Shouts of laughter.) They put a donkey in front—(the House again was convulsed with laughter)—to re gulate the pace.—( Roars of laughter.) Gentlemen on that side of the House, and on the other who had been in India would bear him out in his assertion.—(Shouts of laughter. ) Those Gentlemen would confirm his views.—( The House was again convulsed with laughter.) He did not wish to compare the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a donkey ; but he must say, that his proposition for relieving the financial difficulties of the country, were utterly un. worthy of a great statesman. The observation he (Sir J. Tyrrell) had made might excite some mirth, by the man ner in which he had endeavoured to state his sentiments, still they were of a grave character.—( Great laughter.) fie could assure the Noble Lord that whenever he makes those propositions which he has made this night, he will find that those opinions do not gain ground in the country—on the contrary, that he will find himself in a larger minority. Mr. WARD said he did not know much about the practices in the East or West of putting certain animals in advance ; but there was another subject which he did understand better, and that was 'the consistency of the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down. Now his Hon. Friend stated very clearly the charges which had been brought against him and the Hon. Members who sat upon the same side of the House as himself, of gross inconsistency. In his (Mr. Ward's r opinion, they had no principle whatever; he would go over the whole of the hustings' speeches made by the Gentlemen opposite or elsewhere and he would not find one speech acquiescing in those measures which they were now prepared to support. Not one was pre pared to speak of the Corn-laws as now proposed ; every man amongst them denounced the late Government as the bitterest enemies of the agriculturists ; and now he had heard some of the constituents of his Hon. Friend who had just sat down; szy that they would much prefer the propositions of the Noble Lord, with his Bs. duty, to the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet.— , ( Hear.) The Hon. Baronet told his constituents at the time of the election that he had no leaders; one Noble Duke, ex pecting a seat in the Cabinet, and not having obtained one, was now good for nothing —that was she Duke of Buckingham; that another Noble Duke had met him in the lobby, and hail recommended this Bill to him, as it was better to be in the frying-pan than in the fire. He himself, he said, was but an humble individual; he did not put himself forward—n it even in the Eastern fashion—(Laughter and cheers)—but he said that he accepted the measure, because he thought it one suited to the exigency of the times, and one calculated for the peop,e's welfare. In his (Mr. Ward's) opinion there never was a more absurd measure than this brought before the public ; it was one which ought to have been, and which might have been settled long ago. Measures well calculated to settle the • question were brought forward some time ago, and they were rejected for party purposes. They had settled nothing ; and they would at no distant period find it a difficult matter to explain their conduct in , that House, when compared with their statements out of kdoors.—(Hear, hear.) It was with some pleasure, therefore, that he heard the justfication of his Hon, Friend, hut the Hon. Member did not succeed so well in that House as he did in Chelmsford—he did not succeed so well in throwing dust in their eyes as he did in those of the people who held up their hands so unanimously in favour of the Hon. Member. The fact was difficulties were raised merely for party purposes, and to obtain place. They had obtained place, certainly, but at a a very considerable sacrifice of cha racter and consistency. Last year every monopolist joined hand and hand; he could understand that they beat his party by a large majority, but what did they do then ? Did they carry out their principles? No; they stood by their leader, and he f ,rgot his pure principles. They had abandoned their principles, and they should never recede. Their leader had now stated as a roan of honour, that he would stand by the tariff; he had pledged himself to do so. They must go on, or public opinion would desert them, and they would have no principle to stand by ; such an abandon ment of principle had never been heard of in the history of party contests.—( Hear, hear.) He, for one, did not care whe ther he voted at all on the third reading of this Bill. He did not care whether the poor clays and bad soils which were put into cultivation by the hopes held out by bad laws, were to be put out of cultivation, for some day or other they must go out of cultivation. - He did not care for that ; but he had no feel ing in favour of the Bill, because he did not believe it would do any good, or permanently settle the question ; he hoped it would let in a little more corn, at a more reasonable price; but he was afraid that nothing of the kind would followthe measure. Mr. DARBYsaid, when the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that Members en his side of the House had not dealt consistently with their constituents, he begged to say that the Hon. Member had not spoken the fact.—( Hear.) It was impossible for any man to declare that he would support measures that were to be brought for ward when he did not know what they were ; and he would beg to say that the ques tion had been put to him on the hustings whether he would vote for all the measures of the Right Hon. Baronet, and in reply he stated that he would not.—( Hear.) Then with re , Bard to the question of the Corn-laws, he would. beg to tell the Hon. Gentleman opposite that if he wanted to look for ' principle he would not leave hisside of the House to go to the other.—( Hear.) That side, which had first made this an open question, then brought a measure forward last year, and who, had they been in power certainly never would have abandoned that measure.—Hear, hear.) The course which he had taken, he had taken solely because he believed it to be the best that could be proposed for the good of the country ; and he could tell the Hon. Gentleman that there was a growing desire throughout the country that this question should be settled; and if he were asked whether, if he did not altogether approve of this question, he would vote for it, he would say that lie would do so to settle the question.— (Hvar, hear.) He could tell them that a strong Government was one that was required now, and none other would be of any service to the country. If the Noble Lord were to form a Government, who would he call to the Cabinet ? Would he call the Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, who, when he went down to the Cabinet, would say, that he came down with the strong arm of power to sweep away the cobweb of monopoly ? Hear, hear.) They might taunt him with inconsistency on this question, but he would say that that Bill would work well, and that the present was not an abandonment of principle, for the Right Hon. Baronet had distinctly stated that he would abide by the sliding scale, though he might con sider it necessary to -snake some alterations in the details. He said that; and if Government did not know what was to be done, then it was their own fault.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had not adhered to his principles.;., and was it for Mem bers on that side of the House to taunt him with incon sistency ? Did the Noble Lord think that there was no difference between an Bs. fixed duty and an Bs. duty with a sliding scale? What then would become of this dreaded averages ? As far as he was concerned he would support the sliding scale. But if the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman opposite was merely an abstract one, or merely to declare that nothing ought to be done to keep up the price of food, he would not have the slightest objection to vote with him. But the object of this measure was not to raise the price of food, but to benefit the consumer without injuring the agriculturist—( Hear, hear) — and he thought it was right that there should be a regulation providing against the effects of severe years upon the price of provisions, when all the increased cost to the consumers went out of the pockets of a few farmers. He concluded by saying that whatever measure he might support he should support on principle, but he was not to learn that principle from the other side. Mr. WAKLEY said that the speech of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Darby) was a specimen of many that the House would have, not only for the remainder of this Session, but in future Parliaments. It was one of those which had already indicated that there was a growing state of opinion out of doors, which caused a feeling of uneasiness on certain benches in the House. —( Hear, near.) The Hon. Gentleman said that he would vote for the proposition of the Hon. Member for Stockport, it it was merely an abstract one, but he would not vote for it if it was intended to give it any practical effect. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Tyrrell) spoke of political consistency, and yet he said that he was going to give a conscientious vote in opposition to his conviction.—( A laugh.) He regretted the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was not in the House at the time, for the speech was a most amusing one. If a vote against his convictions was a conscientious one, then of course a vote in accordance with his convictions would be unconscientious.— ( Hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Baronet stated that he hadeonferred with his constituents, and he had triumphantly vindicated himself from the accusations brought against him of having deserted his principles. The Hon. Baronet it seemed, had shown them that he had supported their interest by putting a high duty upon the importation of calves.--( A laugh.) The Hon. Baronet and his party spoke of the neces sity for protecting those who had embarked their capital bringing inferior soils into cultivation, upon which agricul tural produce could not be raised in competition with the fer tile countries of other parts of the world. If the manufacturers of this country came forward and said, that in consequence of the inferiority of their machinery they could not compete with foreigners, and asked the House for a protection, would the Hon. Baronet grant it to them? Certainly not. Much had been said of the cruelty of the manufacturers and millowners, but what - was the conduct of the landowners in the present state of things? They declared in that House that the farmers and labourers would be the sufferers. Now, did they come forward and say to their tenants and labourers, " We will do for you what we have said the manufacturers ought to do for those from whom they derived their wealth?"--( Hear, hear.) But the farmers were finding out the truth, and one of them in the west of England said to him, " We have found that there is a greater devil than Lord John !"—( A laugh. ) He believed that tke Right Hon. Baronet did all the good for the country that his party would allow him.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet would find that every interest in the country which was affected by his measures would press j upon him until they compelled him to go to the agriculturists, and tell them that. they could not be allowed to carry out any principle in opposition to the resolution before the House. After a few words in explanation from Mr. DARBY and Sir JOHN TYRRELL. Mr. BLACKSTONE said that there was no doubt that every one had expected it was the intention of the Right Hon. Baronet to propose an alteration of the scale, but he for one was not prepared for so great a one as had been proposed. —( Hear, hear.) If such an alteration had been proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for London, would one of the county Members have voted for it ?—(Cheers. ) He (Mr. 131telcstone) had beets through the whole east of England, and he knew that the strongest feeling prevailed throughout against the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet.--i Hear.) Lord WORSLEY must persist in saying that the measure created the greatest alarm amongst his constituents , but if it were thrown out he did not think that a fixed duty measure could be carried. Mr. PALMER had never given a pledge to his constituents on this question—(Hear, hear)—but knowing now that they looked with the greatest alarm on a measure that would strike off half their protection at one stroke of the pen; and stillappre bending a worse measure if the present were not carried, he advised them to acquiesce, as they had agreed to do so.—(Hear, hear.) They thought it better to submit to the Right Hon. Baronet, than f a ll i nto the hands of the Noble Lord opposite:— (Cheers.) He had come, upon the whole, to that conclusion, although perhaps reluctantly, that, under existing circum stances, the best course which the friends of British agricul- Mr. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON moved the addition of a clause to the effect, " That foreign or colonial flour in bond, of such a degree of acidity as to be generally unfit for human food, and which shall be so ascertained by a test to be furnished by the Board of Trade, shall be permitted to be taken out of bond for use in the manufacture and finish ing of cotton and other goods, upon payment of the duty of one penny per hundred." The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter from a chemical gentlemen, stating that flour was sometimes in a state totally unfit for human food. Mr PHILIPS seconded the motion. Flour was indispensi ble in the manufacture of cotton ; they wished to use the best, but they could not do so, considering the low price foreign ma nufacturers obtained it at. All they wanted now was that a duty of the amount stated should be permitted to be paid on flour from abroad, when it had first been made unfit for human or animal food by a chemical process. Some manufacturers would save 1,000/. a year by it. He would in a few days prove that this process could be certainly executed. Mr. COBDEN also spoke in favour of the motion. To refuse it would, in fact, add to the privations of the poor. The House was at first going to divide on the motion, but it was not pressed. The clause was then brought up. A short discussion on a point of form ensued upon the clause being Lead, after which it was negatived without a division. Mr. WAKLEY then rose to move that it was unjuet to in clude in the returns of the averages wheat that sold for less than one-third of the highest market-price averages. He thought the object of his motion was one deserving t, 'e atten tion of the House—that the proposition was based in justice and sound principles, and ought to be adopted. The Hon. Member then read a letter from a correspondent, stating that 309 quarters per week of bad wheat entered into the port of London from Scotland, and that it had been said that the whole was used for starch, and not for food. The effect in Mark-lane of the sale of 1,800 quarters by one house alone, was to lower the average price of the week in which the sale took place 7s. 4d. a quarter. It had been also discovered that grain in certain states was a prolific source of disease ; a modern discovery with respect to rye was a most important one; that grain was at one time very extensively used in this country, and at that period par ticular diseases constantly appeared in the body, of which the cause could not be ascertained. These were gangrene and mortification of the feet. Medical men had on examination discovered the cause to be a disease in rye, and now one of the most powerful medicines was composed from the grain in its diseased state. It was the same with rice, Dr. Tytler having discovered that the disease known as Cholera proceeded from a uisease in this grain. Wheat was subject to a similar change as rye. He did nut think a more important proposition on the subject could be made to the House. Mr. HAWES seconded the motion. The clause was then read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time. Sir R. PEEL thought the effect of the clause would be delusive. It would giva the power to any individual by selling a single bushel of superior wheat at a third of the market price to exclude a large quantity of grain from the averages. He thought it would be dangerous and open a door to fraud, Mr. WAKLEY replied. He thought the question one of great imiortance, arid he trusted that though the clause was not so framed as to meet all the objections, yet that the Right Hon. Baronet would give it his careful consideration, with a view to prevent the evils he had alluded to. Alter a few words from Mr. HARDY and Lord WORSI.EY, the clause was put and negatived without a division. On the quis ion that the Bill do pass, Mr. COt3DEN said that he must enter his protest against the pa s sing of this Bill. H e protested against this Bill as a robb h ery of the poor. robber--( Hear, hear. It seas a d ar i ng robbery of te o f the y without compensation —( Hear, talkbread of. He sincerely hoped they would not waste their time by sending petitions to that house for any such purpose.-_( Cheers from the Ministerial benches) They would not petition that House, but he trusted, ere long, they woul pour in their petitions to the Throne, beseeching her d MaJesty to dismiss this House of Commons, and to dismiss her present Ministers. (Cheers and laughter.) If a dissolution of P arliament were to t a k e p l ace, and the people should be again appealed to, he had a stong opinion that the House that would then be returned would not continue the bread tax. The result would be very different to what it had been at the last election, when the grossest delusion had been practised on the people.—(Ministerial ironical cheers. ) The majority of the present House had been returned by the lrossest delusi on b e i ng practised on the people, who had at the ast election been made the victims of a system of the most Mr. GLADSTOiNiE said that London was included towns from which the aterages were tube taken. , The other Order s o f t h e D ay were then diyoled°" House Acjourned at Half-past One o'Clock. TELLtlimi t fol Mahon, Viscount— toi Inglis, Sir H. Actand, 'l'. D. A'Court, Captain Adderley, C. B. Allix, John Peter Anson, Hon. Colonel Berkeley, C. Bernard, Viscount Boldero, Henry G. not field, Bcriah Bradshaw, James Bridgeman, H. Brotherton, J. Buller, Sir J. B. Y. Campbell, A. Chapman, Benjamin Chute, W. L. alive R. H. Cochiane, A. D'lsraeli, Benjamin Douglas, Sir C. E. Duncan, George Eliot, Lore E:wart, W. Fielden, J. Ferranti, W. B. itzroy, Captain MAJOR] TY-NOES, Ainsworth, Peter Evans, William Antrobus, Edmund Farnham, E. B. Arkwrignt, George Ferguson Ferguson, olonel Baldwin, C. Barry Film e r,. Sir E. • Balfonr, J. M. Forbes, William Baring, H. B. Forester, Hon. G. rJarnard. E. G. Forman, T. S. Barrington, Lord Fox, Charles Richard Baskerville, T. B. M. French, F. Bentinck, Lord G Gaskell, J. M. Berkeley, Captain Gore, Robert Berkeley, G Greena 1, Peter Borth ~, ick, Peter ,Trey, Si, G. Bowring, Dr. Grirnston, Lord Brownrigg, J. S. Guest, J. Buck, Lewis W. Hale, R. B. Buckley, Eiimund Hawes, B. Buller, E. Hayes, Sir E. Burrell, Sir (7. M. Hayter, W. G. Butter, Hon. P. Heneage, a W. Cavendish, Hon. G. Hepburn, Sir T. B. Charteris, HOll. F. Hodgson, R. Cholmondeley, H. Houldsworth, T. Christmas, William Howard, J. K. Codrington, C. W. Howard, H. col,orrie, W Ridley Inglis, Sir R. H. Colville, C. R. James, W. Compton, H. Jocelyn, Viscount Copeland, W. John, tone, Alex. Ditmer, Hon. Dawson Kelburne, Lo d Dick, Ouintin Labouchere, H. Oivett, E. Lambton, H. Dugdale, W. S. Lockhart, William Duncan, Lord Mackinnon, W. A. Duncombe, 'l'. S. Mariners, Lord J. Duncombe, A. Marjoribanks, S. Easthope, Sir John Martin, John Escott, Bichkam Master, 'l', W. C. . 110. c. l' Maunve l4 o, Meynelb W.f Miles, rat Morris, k - ii Napier, o p Neeld, + O Ol l Neville, (D O I rd, w: Norre3 ,6 "- 0.,4" Palmer , ii l , j Rashki6 S ) P If Rawdon , Ricardo, ' ' A Pr l Itous,,, s i i cl l ' Russeti,. rd. somervnir.l StaistOth f,PO stLvia!tit tv Stricklagiost , Strutti ci• J Stott, .' 1 0 •1 Towneleis Si' - Troubride , T urner, Villiers; 9 ,o co r vivio4 00 0. i. Wld ia li t r/ WakleY , it. qr Walls f Wild*, .I' , 10 W00k , ,. Yorke', You; ; % 0 11- ~ Scrope, I,or woniley, 4fr ELECTION COLVIMITTA WIGAN. The Committee met at the usual hour. fite, The adjourned case of John Coyle was proceed...o l Mr. SLADE, on the part of th e p e ti t i oners , call.' to support the vote. o d Mr. Hillyard replied t o M r . Sl a d e, an d t h e ro om The Committee had not decided when itwas 4 0 ', • the Speaker was at prayers. • The parties, therefore, tand-as they id yesteol. GREAT MARLOW. The Committee met at e!even o'clock, Sir the chair. The case of P ov i e , w hi c h was under the consieeielitil ci Committee on W e d nes d ay , was resumed again tette Witnesses were called, w h o prove d t h at the le ,se baying received money for his vote. Mr. AUSTEN called evidence on the part of the° her to rebut that which had been brought fo lic Counsel for th e pet i t i oner. . Amongst others, Mr. Richard Gibbons, who visg p ott ; iot ra lO' on Tuesday l ast , was ca ll e d b y Mr. Austen to sgsibe?frp vote. Ha v i ng sta t e d i n the course of h fo o r Lion that he had soli c it e d P or i e ' s vote, Wa, him to give it in f a v our o f Si r W . Cl ayton , tt 10erd writer's notes of Tuesday's proceedings wer e rea_ iden ce, , appeared a m a t er i a l di screpancy b etween the eye' witness on Tuesday and that which he now ga ve itif s . _A The witness said that he had comm i tte d a mist t OP' Pd. dance he had given on Tuesday. • Sir W. HEATHC O TE said that circumstance b 9 " e c 1 l r o oon which rendered it necessary t h at t h e room s hould The room was then cleared, and the folios: were come to, which were ordered, to be reported 1 V to the House : thi ey " That in the opinion of this Committee c o le has been gu ilt y o f w ilf u ll y g i v i ng false 4v ideo Gil mination before them. A A 11. " That the minutes of the evidence of the a co if he reported to the House without delay. a his b an ae ;iit-# " That th e Ch a i rman d o, by warrant an d r t he S er b' mit the said R. Gibbons to the custody See Ar A m li. s, tGoibabwoanitsthweaspltebaesnuretaokfetnheinHtooutsbe.s cus tody: tiadf the r e,; geant-at-Arms. Pere Weir Other witnesses when witnesse i s t were was a t n h n e n n un p o r e o g uced, Spee arnination prayers. 11; The Sitting Me m b er therefore stillthcontinues of one. FLINT, _,UESDA ' T ' T --- _----- ..---!""--r ,_ Lo de Joseph Pierce the I. he mques . ,r a - few d o veri l 7o the Flint h. , suicide, who was trial • • ing t!• - e• s ire Count f h• e admuus. er . or y ssmes or t ric wife arsenic ' and who wao:o4, &inn • , with the intent to murder her, t . unon. the .., 4 ed to death for the offence without fir hoPe of , i tr, sistant, who found the culprit d'ead, was held yesterday before Mr. Parry, the er, 5 0 " ss e spectable Jury, at the Castle of Flint. The facts were 1).,. s r by Mr. E. Prichard, ' ' thgaoler and Robert Griffith* nOOO mor e ete,g his cell at eight o'clock on the Saturday 10 The n night previous to the suicide the deceased confecnke the cri me for which he was sentenced to suffer, bothl.l, hanging behind the ' l t Rev. Mr. Browne the chaplain of the gaol, and to njie the assistant gaoler. To the latter the deceased stated tirloil was a memb er o f the Wesley an conne ction, ~ but that ..,coot always pr e t en ded to a religious impression which he ‘l4 l a d feel. He s ,id that he had only twice administered the e to his wife, and he supposed she had not died in conse?: be of his having given her too g reat a q uantity. He said tt";4o had behaved with great appa rent kindness to his wile, iw, _ 9 _„,,i to lull the suspicion tha t he had poisoned her. It appelybs however, that the gao lers had forgotten the braces, Iv ie handkerchief used was one which the deceased had hide a hole in the w .11 previous to his trial, from which it apPell:4 that he contemplated self-destruction in the event of .54 7, found guilty. All t he witnesses examined agreed that thu;,,• sorer appeared perfec tl y sane the last time he was seen 1 ' • and the Jury returned a verdict of Febo de se. , 4 , 4r f The Commerce asserts, on the authority of aielo from Munich, that the Bavarian Minister of the interior_i, sent a circular to all the females keeping schools for thedM v oi tors Of persons of the middle class, prohibiting the tear)lllrot • the French language, it being the will of the Governtiteso girls of this class shall receive an education calculated fc , 11 7,,,,b them good housewives, instead of acquiring a taste for Fn'" manners. diggraccful chicanery, trickery, and quackery that h c, d e I), pro.,rtiseit The people would nOr. 11.12,,. in be the dup , ~:r, — ;hr•:, wno;,llle,rer ec•r - rin rttor" such a mit dirers. ) tie repyated it—the people won. , again deluded. The Premier himself would nnt dare to` sense a the people on his measures by dissolving Par o li o Mr. BLEWITT al,o protested against the n ing. He had been told he was caught in a trap seconded the motion of the Hon. Member just now. ,_ been told th a t if t h e measure were delayed until Mona , putation would wait upon the Right Hon. Bar'n' et purpose of end eavour i ng to induce him to alter the tai (Mr. Blewitt) did not believe that the Right 1 102 • would alter the tariff, but he considered the subject importance. He wished the Bill not to pass, and th he should move that the debate be adjourned —O h ' . No Hon. Member seconded the motion for adjourol" The question that the Bill do pass was then put without division. The announcement was received with cheers by the Ministerial side of the House. A VE RA GES—LONDON. Mr. HAWES said, an opinion had gone abroad that was to be excluded from the towns from which the a c h were to be taken. He was desirous of knowing if 0 the case? PARLIAMENTARY — DIVISI °I ! (From the Vote s an d P roceedings qf the House r/ -- roor to WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6. .. COPYRIGHT B ILL—( In the ConttnitteeP o i • (Third Clause)—A men d ment propose d , to lea' i . O'" words " and fo r th e f ur th er term o f twenty- five s„ T O raeneing at the time of his death :"—Question pat, .„.d words • and for the further term of twenty-tive,Le"—Li meneing at the time of his death' stand part of the . ° P...- The Committeed divided : MINORITY—AYES, 56. 00 0 Acton, Colonel —Wicklow Co. .Jolliffe, Sir W. o,.....„•Th i dge; Alija, J. P.—Cambridgeshire 'Law, Hon.C.E.—' , '"-7,,„ O P T Arbuthnot, General—Kincardine. Lincoln_. Earl of— , 7' shire shore, South La n d Bell, J.—Thirsk Lockhart, Willialnll, Blackstom2, W. S.—Wallingford !Mackenzie, W. F.—;,;;, &Afield, Beriah — Ludlow IManners, Lord J.--.;, „ ;" ge ;,11 r Broadwood, Henry—BridgewaterMarsham, if Lord—Wri. , Browne, Robert Dillon—M ayo Milnes, IL M.—PontWiry Browne, W. I).—Kerry Napier, Sir Charles-I' o - p - tod Bu kley, E.—Newc as tl e . on- T yr e O'Brien,A,-14.140Ltb0 . tansy George—East Sussex !P a l mer, Robert—r.,' buss Dick, Quintin—M.ildon Dickinson —. , J. H.—West Somerset D'lsracli, B.—Sh rews b ury p Pk; a c e h d e , ll, w C . ap r ta .— in , — t., B l7o o / _,,., 'Protheroe, Edward , OK' Egerton, Lord F. L.—Lancashireißeund, Charles Gra.3l oo oo Estcourt, T. G. B.—Oxford Univ. n ß u us ss s e e l l i l : Lco_rdu.-learhdatice,:g rielden, John—Oldham !. errand, W. B. -• Knaresborough Stanton W. I/. Forbes, W.—Stirlingsnire Fox, Colonel—Tower Hamlets Sutton, huller, A. E.—East Sussex Edmund—Trio Tamer Edmun „ y . sout s ot Gladstone, W. E.—ewark-on- Vane, Lord H.— " Trent Vere, Sir C. B.—ra nt ,. a is Goring, H. D.—New Shoreham Vyvyan, Sir li.- 41 % 0 1 , Grogan, .E.—Dubun Waddington, H. S. --- A ,Ol Hamilton, W.—Newport, Isle of Walsh, Sir Johna• — • 7 C. V m ..i.i...—S con tr b o;l oo Wight Hayes, Sir E.—Donegal Heneage, G W.—Devizes Howard, C. W. G.—Cumberland MAJORITY NOES, 68. id caw. 'I Aglionby, H. A.-Cock ermout h Li ndsay, H. H....-, kipo,4l Ainsworth, P.-Bolton Li stowell, Lord-- SF' Main waring. T- 1 Abram, J. J.--Leeds Baskerville, T. 8.-Herefordshire Masterman, J.-L°7 0 ,,,r, Berkeley, Hon. C.-Cheltenli.m Nitcalfe, H.-TYnLA D ort, Bcd.ring, Dr.-Bolton Mitchell, T. A..-D,"7,e,c. Broad ley, Henry-East Yorkshire Morrison, James-,,> Brocklenurst, J.-Macclestield o'l3rien, W. S.-- I t Brodie, W. A-Salisbury O'Connell, M. J._-,h e irotiierton, J.-Salford 'Ogle, S.-South PIT - Tss Busfeild, William-Bradford Peeilli,psti,tliklarokn_..saiiril:,;.olo:oo Campbell, A -Ar g yll s hi re 1. , h Christie, Wm. D.-Weymouth Pig,t, David Ric .... yt Clements, Visc.Leitrim Co. 'Plumptre, John r_ _, e Clerk, Sir G.-Staintord ;Pollock, Sir F.- ~go. • ; # OO ii i'ow ash e i r e , J iBh .-- , . t ess fo. , :e Cobden, li.-Stockport Duke, Sir James-Boston 'llawdon, John I , BWC° Duncan, G.- Dundee Easthope Sir J.-Leicestrr Reade, M.-Waterfr o , Escott, B. -Winchester .Itoua, Captain-t, Fitzroy, Captain-Durham I choletield, J.-13 . Forster, M. -Berw ick.onTweed :Scott, Robert-Was7ol4/ Gill, T.-Plymouth Smith, Benjamin--_ 0 Graham, Right Hon. Si r J. R . G Stanley, Lord,-.-No.w , / -Dorchester Struts, Edward-5; Di/ Greenall, P.-Wigan tTancred, H. W. Grosvenor, Lord R.-Che s te r Th ortiely,Thos.- 1, Hardinge, Right H on . Si r H .- Vi lliers, . , P.-Woloso/ Launc eston !Waklcy, Thomas-- . Hardy, J.-Bradf or d ;Williams, Willis OO Harris, J.-Newcastle under Lyme Wilshere, Williamlaro ricathcoat, J.-Tiverton Wood, Benjamin- Henley, J. W.-Oxfordshire !Wood, G. W.-Kepr t Howard, Hon. E. G.- M orpe th I ..r ti p Johnson W. G.-Belfast I Knatchbull, l Sir E.-East Kent ,Macauley, Leader, J. Temple-Westminster Fwart, William- 4/iIN T TE i ttlit rie o , CHELTENHAM AND GREAT IVE S ;V, UNION .RAIL IVAY BILL.:. ir Motion made; and !Question proposed, " That- 0 1; it ments made by the Committee to the Bill be li_o t lol 9 ,o cored time :"—Amendme n t p ropose d , to leave ow : , p. , , ip ? words " That the "to the en d o f the Questioui 0/ add the words, " Bill b e recommitted," iiistest 4 / / Question put, " That the words proposed to be le p o si : ' part of the Questi on : "—D e b ate arising 3 M o t i o n: Question put, " That the Debate be now adjouril House divided : 'TYNORITY—AYES, 74. • 5i1,; 0 0 4 Forster, Matthew I Reade, , $ Goring, H. D. Richards,, i f Hamilton, W. J. Reunch ylli Hamilton, Lord C. R uss ell, I, ' Holmes, W. A'Court ScholeP`ober4/ Ingestre, Lord Scott_, 11 ,. Jolliffe, Sir W. Shepl.• - tmo Kemble, Henry Shirley, l i, Knight, Henry Gaily Smytbe, , T Knight, F. Winn Sothernt Lawson, Andrew SuttonG t y Lowther, J. H. ' Taylor, !.' ..10 Lygon. General Thorne!ae,.lso Mackenzie, W. F. Tollepunifr MacGoachy, F. A. T r ollope,,o Mahon, Lord Trotter, ;pa Marsham, Viscount Tyrrell ! f.A Pp , Martin, G. R. Vane, 1 .7i0 se d Mitcalfe, Henry Vernon, A Mitchell, 'l'. A. Wall, B. 0 ,... e r Mc-rdaunt Sir J. Wodeho ° P r Ohl a Morison,William Wyncl.h . Packe, C. W. Peel, Jonathan T ll ‘o3 Pinney, W. s ome rset. i ..v. Pringle, A. Estcoo4 .......... Author I , v , PART 11[ Auchc - tell an --_ ,= b I Order Henry Now real dinar) .• 3 1 —vrreete the 1 ; 1 ::0 34 , t t cli 4i : • " ft offer 'Henry ~ ,,,e . --••••=-------:--,- „ TI uNDER Will be Ahnavi r. va] Job°, M. kk.,-Fountosa ' After vel ent Lee; rlaci Jens 16 „ b ran Hol ''end Pri _~'Whe Places frora cation. 'Oar, 167 t 1), Brand un' Duero ,Wilt be • .1E PEI ~.ND HI; kiiiturae, "ramatia, „After wh - Ofot.e wits nr. t s , 4 taus arta st ar ted Col 't:'4fdera. conch "AN* OE • C.'44DER • S Win h ke ti i -•1 4 1E en „2 kiss Vii , It;"7`',; Searnai fitter wh THE 7 4 ±cess, 1%1 'et conelu j: . "_lt; t k ,E l 7 l , iClsu ; ( FREI M. ': L:, l l‘ he Perfbi Emilie, h 1 ~~e follow L!,Baadile. • be cl'Autr D: ' l r7Ver First ip„,,ortsieur "%lack N'al i / i tc) Xes. s;ti a Lor2 2s. trances . cc .1,„1",,,.9e,ritade a Nit 12 1 'l4,lfor.Offi vive fecli 111-1. • ‘;d FE' 11N - D- SOU. R • NE P S TOG AEW, Order; News aim ofti 4 tk01 .4 7E 14 04 1 ', CA 43 4 6 , 4 _klet 4, er •11041/Ptiii ~; :' r