The Sun. — London, England, 1830-03-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF- LORDS-(LAST .NIGHT). Mr: Draper, from the Treasury, Mr. Plowden, from the East India Board, and Mr. Woolsey, from the Navy Board, presented papers to the House. The Earl of MALMESBURY moved for returns of flour and grain imported, which were ordered. The Deke of GORDON presented a petition from Ross shire, praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax.—Laid on the table. The Earl of ROSSLYN moved, according to notice, the consideration of the Standing Order, 210, which was altered and amended, as he desired. The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from owners and occupiers of land in the county of Wilts, pray ing that, as to the Poor Laws, Ireland might be placed on the same footing as England.—Laid on the table. The Swansea Lighting Bill and Marriage Bill were read a third time, and passed. The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition from Sheffield, praying for Free Trade to India and China. The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented a petition from Gloucester, to the same effect. Lord GRANVILLE presented:a petition . from Welling ton, against the Truck System. Lord SUFFIELD presented three petitions from as many hundreds in Norfolk, praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax. He repeated what he had said on a former occasion, that it was highly creditable to the petitioners, who were landowners and farmers, that they sympathized with the poorest class, and rested the prayer of their peti tion chiefly on the ground of the relief which the repeal of the tax would afford to the poor. He had, on a former occasion, stated, that he looked to the Magistrates and Justices of Peace in the county of Norfolk for a better ad ministration of the Poor Laws. The farmers had little to do with the matter. A petition to the same effect had been agreed to at a most respectable meeting of the county, which he had so doubt would soon be presented; but as he himself was obliged to go out of town on busi ness, he could not attend on the presenting of that pe tition; and be did not know in whose hands it had been placed. He had stated that the administration of the Pcor Laws ought to be regulated by the Statute of the 9th George 111. The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that he per fectly well recollected that the Noble Lord had stated as he now said he had done.—Petition laid on the table. The Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition from the illegitimate children of Europeans by Indian women resid ing at Calcutta, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which they at present laboured. Lord ELLENBOROMII assured the Noble Earl that he felt every disposition to comply with the prayer of the petition, as far as the rules which had been established with respect to the East India population would permit. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from Mr. Hamil ton Rowan and a Mr. Cockburn, Presbyterians of the county of Down, praying for inquiry before any renewal of the East India Charter. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petiti(ins from the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin; from the borough of Ballochahaw, in Scotland; from the town of Perth, in Scotland ; and from Haslington, in Lancashire, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter; and from the last place against the permission of Suttees in India. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from fisher men and fishcurers in the North Riding of Yorkshire, praying for a continuance of bounties. These petitions were laid on the table. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition, signed by 25,000 persons, from Birmingham, complaining of dis tress, and praying a repeal of the malt and beer tax. They attributed their distress, in a great measure, to the Bill called Mr. Peel's Bill, passed in 1819. The Noble Lord then proceeded through a variety of detailed statements, comparing the relative situation of the poor now and in 1817 in the town of Birmingham, and reverted to the statements said to have been made in the other House re specting the condition of the poor there, asserting that during 28 years there had not been so much distress. He read several letters, received from manufacturers, asserting the extreme suffering to which most of the working classes were reduced. The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was extremely unfortunate that sufficient attention was not paid to the order of that House, which forbade them alluding to what took place in the other House of Parliament ; nor did it appear that even what took place in that House of Parliament bad been accurately stated by the Noble Lord. It was impossible for his Right Hon. Friend to know the condition of the people except from the public returns, and he conceived that in the statement he made he was perfectly justified. The Noble Lord, in asserting that the people of Birmingham had suffered more now than in 1817, and in appealing to the number receiving assistance from the poors' rates, for the purpose of sustaining that assertion, referred to the prices of the two periods, and attributed the existing distress to the difference between them. But the Noble Lord could scarcely compare the prices of the two periods with any accuracy or justice, when he remembered that the prices of the one were esti mated in a . paper, the other in a metallic currency. He could not help again protesting against the practice of thus, at the end of three or four weeks, or three or four smooths, adverting to what took place in the other House, and in former debates in that, instead of confining their discussions to the materials regularly brought under their consideration. Lord HOLLAND—Since that the strict order was that they should not make any allusion to what took place iu the other House, or to any former debates in that, it was a nice regulation, and he wished to see it strictly ob served. The Noble Duke had complained of his 'Noble Friend as being irregular, when, if there were one question more than another which might excuse an allusion to such occurrence, it would be a petition upon a question of facts affecting the condition of the people. His Noble Friend did not state any particular date or place, and bad be spoken of the conversation generally, as having occur red elsewhere, he might have escaped all imputation of disorder. In short, he would contend, that nothing could be more Parliamentary than was his Noble Friend. After a few words from the Earl of RADNOR, the petition was laid upon the table. Earl FERRERS wished to know from the Noble Duke opposite, if (as we understood) the Proof House at Bir mingham was in future to be dispensed with? The Duke of WELLINGTON would inquire into the matter. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice, that on an early day he would move an Address to the Crown, re questing that his Majesty's Consuls in South America be directed to furnish a statement of the exports of precious metals, from the district& with which they were connected. CORN LAWS. Lord KING rose to move a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Corn Laws. He wished to place upon their Lordships' Journals a statement of the views which be took upon that most important subject; and whether, at the present time, they agreed with him or not, be felt confident, that at no distant time they would feel the justice of those principles which he advocated, and be com pelled to adopt them ultimately, with a view to the wel fare of the people. In approaching this question, it was at least satisfactory, that it had been cleared of one of the difficulties which stood in its way. It was now universally admitted tbat one great cause of the existing distress was the too great pressure at present weighing down the pro ductive industry of the country. Mr. Huskisson—he might mention that gentleman's name, as he did not tell the place wherein the language attributed to him was de. livered—bad said, and he was a great authority upon such subjects, that it was the too great burthen upon the productive industry of the people which was the great cause of the existing distress—not the occasional, but the habitual and permanent pressure upon the productive industry of the people. Such being the admitted state of the case, he mutt complain of the Right Honourable Gentleman for deserting his own principles—why did he not carry the matter to its full and legitimate extent—why did he not at once say, that the Corn Laws were the grand source of that pressure ? It would be easy to prove that everything else which affected the productive industry of the people was not in the aggregate equal to the weight of the Corn Laws alone. They affected the enjoyments of the people at least to the extent of twenty to five-and-twenty per cent., fur without them the cost at which corn could he obtained would he about 50s. During the ten years between the French and American wars, the usual price was 48s. A Right Hon. Gentleman had said in another place, that it should he the policy of the Government of a great nation to place the people committed to its charge in such a situa tion as that their own soil should produce their food. For his part, he could not conceive any policy more lame or timid, or one more calculated to retaid the progress of society. True policy demanded that none but good land be cultivated. He could not imagine anything more mon strous than to hear it asserted that the people of this country should not get their corn from Poland, from Russia, or from any other place, wherever it could be found cheapest, rather than front Hampshire or from other places in which its quality might be inferior and its price higher. He knew it might lie said that we ought to ren der ourselves independent of the support of other countries s aid WM A convenient cry to litist—it would form an. imposing inscription upon a banner—but what compensa tion would it prove to a population half fed. It might he said; that if we allowed ourselves to become dependent upon other countries for food, they might at a most critical moment stop our supplies, and that by discouraging the growth of corn, in this case we drove matters to that state in which a small supply would necessarily become the ha bitual state of the corn market ; but what danger would there be of that prohibition so long as the interests of all foreign nations led them to supply us with all that we were willing to take off their hands, as well as to supply them all the manufactured goods which they could possibly desire. After adverting to the Bill of 1815, and the im possibility of adhering to the scale of duties and of ave rages there laid down, he proceeded to contend that the present distress arose from the low rates of profit and the inadequate remuneration of labour. With a greatly increased quantity of trade, there might be a much less amount of net profit : thus, if the raw material of a piece of calico were 2a. 6d., and it formerly sold on the Con tinent for 10s., the profit upon it would be 7s. 6d. ; but if the value of the raw material were lowered to is. 6d., and the piece of calico sold for only 55., the profit would only . he 3s. 6d. upon each piece ; and if two pieces were sold in stead of one, the profit would not equal what it had before been upon one piece. How, then, were we still able to compete with the foreigner ? First, by being satisfied With reduced profits ; secondly, by having to pay greatly re duced wages ; thirdly, by the substitution of machinery. The consequence was the most miserable remuneration for labour, and the most inadequate return for capital, re acting on the landed interest, and occasioning the present want of demand for farms of all kinds, but especially for grass lands. It had been stated in another place that at present one-third less meat was consumed in Bir mingham than in prosperous times ; and accounts of the same description from Manchester and other manu facturing places would, no doubt, present the same re sult. Profits were the criterion of prosperity, and how were they affected Ly the corn laws ? In several ways :-1. By the cessation of that demand for manu factures and produce, which would exist if the coin laws did not exist. 2. By the different level of prices occa sioned by the corn laws making corn dear in this coun try, and cheap abroad. Rival manufacturers were thus created in foreign countries, who availed themselves of the low rate of wages there, and were enabled to enter into successful competition. 3. By employing labour oa the cultivation of poor land, on which the return for capital was of court e much less than on good land. The level of profit on all capital was determined by the return for capi tal employed in the cultivation of the least productive soils : if, therefore, bad soils were cultivated, the profit on capital was reduced. What then were the disadvantages to which the country was exposed by the corn laws ? In great Britain coals, machinery, and capital, gave great advantages ; and the produce of four English men might be said to be equal to the labour of eight Russians. Why not, then, exchange the produce of the labour of the four Englishmen for the produce of the labour of the eight Russians ? If, on the other hand, English labour were exhausted upon the culti vation of bad soil, the result must be less beneficial in pro portion to the badness of the soil and the quantity of labour. He (Lord King) was satisfied that if English landlords knew their true interests, they would admit foreign corn without restriction, tied allow everything fair play. It was said, indeed, that the corn laws were established for the protection of the landed interest ; but if that word " protection" were followed through the history of this and other nations, it would he found that it meant only oppres sion and checks to industry. _ In France industry had been checked from the time of Colbert to the present. The his tory of Spain was nothing but a history of oppression, miscalled protection. Little Holland was the only country where the system had not been adopted, and where, accord ingly, industry had met its just reward. England had been injured by supposed protections ever since the reign of Charles 11., and the Corn Laws had been a most fruit ful source of folly. For many years• a bounty existed on the importation of corn, till it was found that it enabled other countries to eat corn at our expence. Then the sys tem was completely altered, and Ministers turned round at once and said that it was impossible for the landed in terest to thrive without a restriction on the import of grain. In this point only the opposite systems resembled each other—that both were adopted at the expence of the people. When we wanted manufactures, they were ex eluded—when we wanted corn, it was prohibited. He might be asked whether it would be possible to admit the principle of free trade? He begged to inquire whether it was possible for the country to go on without ? He was persuaded that the prosperity of this country depended upon restricted commerce. What was free trade but a saving of labour ? And what was restriction but a waste of it? The principle of the prosperity of a country was the perfection of the economy of labour—producing the greatest quantity of goods with the least amount of labour. That state of things could not be established without admitting foreign produce in return for our manufactures, and at this moment we were competing with the foreigner, who had cheap corn on his side, while on our side we had machinery and capital. Capital was daily increasing abroad, and machinery in the course of introduction ; so that unless we had corn as cheap as our neighbours, we must in the end be beaten in the contest. After ridiculing the decrees of the Pope, which forbad the use of iron instruments for the cultivation of the soil, his Lordship proceeded to answer the question whether it was fit to sacrifice the capital em barked in the cultivation of poor soils ? He anwered, that the country would be better without such capital so em ployed than with it. If he were asked, why he did not leave the question at rest, his reply was, that it would never be at rest while the Corn Laws were in force, which inflicted so much injustice, and occasioned so much dis tress. The subject was well understood out of doors, if not in Parliament, and the people were well aware of the contrast presented by the last fifteen years of peace and the ten prosperous years which followed the American war and preceded that with France. The Corn Laws put the prosperity of the country as it were in Chancery : it could not advance : it was like the motionless person described by the Poet under the power of a wiz ird— " He strove to move, while waved the wizard o'er, But though he strove, moved not one inch the more." The country was like an unhappy suitor in Chancery— within the power of a wizard and unable to move. As long as the Corn Laws existed, the country could not ad vance. It hail been said by somebody, as his Lordship saw by the Newspapers, he did not mean to impute such nonsense to the Noble Duke (Welington) that " the Corn Laws worked well—that the crops had been deficient ; but that no blame could be imputed to the Corn Laws." Ile did not know in what way it could be truly said that they worked well when the " neat post waggon" of the State, instead of running on the nail, was imbedded in mud up to the nave. Was it a proof that the Corn Laws worked will, that three millions and a half of taxes had been just repealed He had never heard of the repeal of taxes, while the machinery of Government worked well. During the ten years preceding the war of 1792, Corn was admitted in large quantities, at a nominal duty of sixpence per quarter, and the country was then under, the adminis tration of Mr. Pitt. He, for one, preferred what some might call the ignorant simplicity of Mr. Pitt to the elaborate net-work of the Noble Duke. The Noble Duke might value himself upon the perfection of the machinery of his Government. It was, no doubt, very complete ; but, like the air-pump, its very per. fectness was the destruction of the unhappy animal con. fined in it. Some other person, in the course of a late debate (not the Noble Duke), had admitted that " ma chinery was to a considerable degree injurious to the working classes." This was not by any means the first time it had been said that machinery produced distress ; but the true reason why the lower orders were out of work was the existence of the Corn Laws. The invention of the steam engine, instead of throw ing people out of employ, had been the cause of the employment of thousands and tens of thou sands. This result had been produced by correspond ing demand ; and if now we took corn in ex change for goods, the means of feeding the po pulation would instantly be afforded. The Noble Duke on a former occasion had talked of the necessity of giving religious peace, and by an alteration of the Corn Laws, he would produce peace from discontent arising from distress. Before he moved his Resolutions, he begged to remark that in them he had made no allusion to any fixed duty, be cause it was necessary, in the first instance, to agree upon the principle of an alteration. A Noble Earl (Malmesbury) on a former day, had objected to stirring the question ; but why was it not to be stirred ? and sure he was that it would not be allowed to rest as long as the people were suffering tinder the infliction of a system so injurious and oPpressive. The Noble Earl had lately shown a strong disposition to nibble at the averages, yet, in whatever form the subject was brought forward by others, lie objected to its discus sion; if upon petition it was interlocutory, and if in the form of a regular motion, it was injudicious. His Luril ship concluded by reading and moving the knowing Resolutions : " That all regulations, duties, and prohibitions, which prevent th e a d m i ss i on o f corn , an d i ncrease th e prices of that necessary of life, are impolitic and unjust. " A regulation of the trade in corn, for the pretended benefit of the public is a most impolitic interferencet of Government in . th e manag emen t o f the mos t i m p or t t n of all trades, which Government is wholly incompetent to diteet, and which it never can attempt to regulate, with out the greatest detriment to the public interests. " A duty levied upon corn for the purpose of raising a revenue is the worst of all possible taxes—being, in effect, not less destructive than a curse of sterility inflicted on the soil. " An absolute prohibition subjects the consumer to the most pernicious and the most odious of all monopolies. " That Great Britain, by the abundant supply of coals, by the advantage of machinery, by the accumulation of ca pital, and by superior skill and industry, possesses the rare and inestimable advantage of being able to make the labour of her people more efficient and more valuable than that of any other nation in the world. More efficient, because, when that labour is applied in directing the powers of steam and of machinery, it produces more goods than the same quantity of labour can produce elsewhere; and it is more valuable, because that produce will exchange for the pro duce of more labour in any other country, and in this man ner it highly contributes to the increase of public wealth and individual enjoyment. That it is therefore the true policy of England to encourage the full development of her most productive industry, to avail herself of all her great, natural, and acquired advantages. That it belongs only to the most perverse ignorance, and to the most culpable misrule, wilfully to preclude the country from the fullest enjoyment of these benefits, by prohibiting, under heavy duties (unless when at a famine price), the admission of corn from foreign countries, whose labour applied to more fertile soils can supply that article of first necessity at a far cheaper rate than British labour, when applied to the least fertile soil under cultivation in this kingdom can produce. " That since the enactment of the Corn Laws in 1815, the whole of that long period (a period also of uninter rupted peace) has been marked by an unusually low rate of profit in all trades, by an inadequate reward of labour, by the frequent recurrence of distress in the manufacturing districts, and by the heavy pressure of poor rates in the agricultural counties—a state of things the most opposite to the increasing wealth and comfort which so eminently distinguished the ten prosperous years succeeding the peace of 1782, when foreign wheat was, =without any interruption, admitted, at a nominal duty of sixpence the quarter. " That great and flourishing manufactures, by the supe rior reward of labour which they are able to afford, tend most materially to improve the condition of all the labour ing classes, by the constant demand for the increasing po pulation of their own, and of the agricultural districts ; they provide also the best market for every kind of agri cultural produce; they furnish the most ample and the most profitable employment for the new accumulations of capital ; they afford the means of promoting to an indefi nite extent, the general prosperity and wealth of the country ; or if there be any limit, that limit is only deter mined by the returns of raw produce which the great market of the world is enabled to supply. " That the impediments which have been interposed by law to the admission of foreign corn have impaired, and, in some degree, destroyed the advantages which nature and industry had bestowed upon us ; they have checked the demand for our produce ; they have greatly repressed the rate of all profits, because the rate of profits in every country must be regulated by the return of that portion of the national capital which is employed in the cultivation of the least fertile soils ; they have prevented our labourers from receiving their just reward by confining them nearly to the home market, when a cheaper supply could be pro cured elsewhere; they have rendered almost unavailing the advantages which must otherwise have infallibly attended the improvements of machinery, and the superior facilities of manufacture; they have checked the prosperity of the country, impoverished all the productive classes, and by the most perverse policy compelled our natural customers to become our competitors, our rivals, and almost our enemies." The Earl of MALMESBURY denied that he had de precated the discussions on the present corn laws : he had opposed them originally tooth and nail, but nevertheless he did not intend to move for the repeal of them, for a very powerful reason, stated in one of the interlocutory discussions on a petition on a former night, viz., that im perfect protection was better than constant alteration ; for while nothing was fixed and settled, landlords and tenants could come to no definite and clear understanding. He was quite aware that the march of intellect out of doors had rendered people competent to understand and discuss all matters of State and Government, and among them the corn laws : he was glad of it, because he should have an opportunity of reasoning with them. The foundation of the Noble Lord's resolutions was entire prohibition, but the introduction of corn was not prohibited, and he ap pealed to documents on the table to show that, within the last two years, a very large quantity of grain had been im ported, notwithstanding the existence of the corn laws.— Within the last eighteen months no less than 2,200,000 quarters of foreign v.• heat had been imported—that was our prohibition, that was our system of monopoly. But besides, there hail been a new description of importation—he meant horn Ireland, from which place during the last two years 4,600,000 qrs. had been imported. When he recollected these things, he really was astonished at Noble Lords talking of prohibition. Nearly three million quarters of foreign grain had been imported within the two last years. Now, supposing be had imported three millions of shoes, what would the shoemakers say ? Would not their trade be affected, and would not they cry nut for protection? With respect to the averages, he thought Ireland ought to be included in the calculations on which they were made Up. It was said that these importations gave a boon to the English landlords of ss. per quarter, but he contended that it was the reverse, and that not one-tenth of the grain really im ported was calculated among the averages. Their machi nery for taking the averages was imperfect, and he con tended they ought to see that these averages were properly taken. He thought our present distresses ought not to have been attempted to be fathered upon the Corn Laws, which bad no mote to do with them than the man in the moon. The Noble Baron had appealed to the authority of a Right lion. Gent. He (Lord Malmesbury) respected the talents of the Right Hon. Gent., and knew him to be a most amiable man in private life ; but on this subject he was the last person to be referred to as an authority. He well remembered who presided in 1825 at the Board of Trade; he recollectel the attack then made on the agricul tural interests—an attack continued up to the present time. In that year, when a great degree of distress prevailed at Manchester, the Earl of Liverpool was asked whether he would give the people there any money to relieve them ? The Noble Earl answered no, but said he had the panacea in his pocket, and that was to let the foreign corn out of bond. From that time to the present, the two great inte rests of the country had been arrayed against each other__ they were wrong in this, the welfare of each depended on the other, and live and let live ought to be their mutual desire. When the Noble Baron talked of six Russians producing corn which could be purchased by the manu facturing labour of four Englishmen—if he meant to take the corn from the former, he should be prepared to go to them, and to ask them to pay the pours' rates and the land tax, which now weighed heavily en this country, and the latter of which could not be repealed. The Noble Baron had referred to the Prussian liberality, but surely he ought to have recollected the fragment of a dispatch, which looked like a threat from the Prussian Minister of fearful consequences, if we did not let in their corn. But if we should afterwards go to war, and his interest lay the other way, he might refuse to let us have corn, so that we might he deprived of a supply of the primary article of life. Under all these circumstances, was it not better to be in dependent of foreign powers for the supply of this neces sary of life ? It did not follow from this that he was a ftiend of prohibition—there was a point between that and unlimited introduction of foreign corn, to which, fur the benefit of both the great interests of this country, it was desirable. Noble Lords seemed generally agreed that 60s. was the point that would afford a fair remuneration for the growth of grain. That was not for the protec tion of the landlords. When he heard such stuff as that rent was the surplus profit of the land, he could not forbear asking what would be the effect of doing away with all but the profits of the occupier ? What would be the effect of such a state of things? Every land-owner must cultivate his own estates, and as it was not likely he would actually cultivate them in person, but would em ployno tthat a bailiff, h e ane the evil yeomanry m aa notwould an bi independent e destroyed. ten . Would one of the finest bodies of men in any country ? I n hi s opinion it was, and it would be a great evil to destroy them, r d t i ry and leave none but landlords, middlemen, and peasantry. The Noble Baron had talked of monopoly. That word, like liberality, free trade, and reciprocity, had many mean ings. What monopoly was it to admit, as we had ad mitted fewyears, ei g ht m illi ons o f quarters of Lordships would ca l cu l ate t h at at grain within? If the their last 60s. for wheat, 325. for barley, and 40s. for peas and beans, they would find sixteen millions of foreign produce brought into our market to compete with our own pro duce. If there was free trade there ought to be free labour; but lie believed that if the Noble Lord went to his tailor or shoernak , r and s tel that his coat or shoes ou ght to be cheaper because the tax on leather was re &lost], and bcc .use there was no duty on the importation of for vigil wool, he would be told that their ariicles could not be NOill cheaper, for there was a combination among the workmen, who would not work for less than the present wages, and who would not l e t o th ers wor k.-- But there was no such thing as free labour. No one could work in the City of London (which bad lately sent up a petition clamouring for free trade) except lie was a freeman. Was that freedom or monopoly? Why was the manufacturing interest distressed? Why, but because the agricultural interest, who were their best cus. toiners, were distressed. The manufacturing interest had not to bear the same burdens as the agricultural interest, who paid eight-tenths of the poors' rates and were sub jected to all the vicissitudes of bad seasons. In all quar ters of the world a duty was imposed upon the importa tion upon foreign corn. At New York the duty was 10s. per quarter, which, considering the circumstances of the country, and the little amount of public debt and taxation, was very great. Even in Holland, ever since that coun try had been united to an important agricultural district, a duty had been imposed upon foreign grain. France acted upon the same principle; and the arguments of the Noble Baron were applicable only to an Utopian state of things. When their Lordships could reduce to nothing 800 millions of debt—when they could take off the poor rates, they might talk of free trade in corn; but till that time they must adapt themselves to the circumstances of the day. He thought it cruel to impute the present dis tress to the landlords. He repeated that all nations adopted systems of restrictions, and he called on them so far to act on the same principle as to preserve our inde pendence of other nations with respect to the production of the first necessary article of life. Lord MOUNTCASHEL did not agree with the Noble Baron, as to the waste of labour in the cultivation of poor lands : for he had seen such lands maintain thousands of persons in Ireland, who, but for them, could not have found the means of subsistence. Other countries culti vated their lands to the fullest extent. In China, he had heard that the highest tops of the mountains were culti vated, and why should not our waste lands be cultivated ? The Earl of ROSEBERRY entirely differed from the Noble Baron—not only because that Noble Baron's opinions were speculative, but because the peculiar circumstances of the country had, for some time past, required the protec tion of our domestic industry. He thought an ascending and, descending duty, as now established, most beneficial. If a free trade in corn was established, he was convinced, that as the price became less, the rate of wages would fall, and the poor man would gain nothing. The object they ought to have in view was that stated in the King's Speech at the close of the Session of 1828—namely, to prevent fluctuation in prices, and to protect domestic agriculture, so as to ensure a sufficient supply in years of scarcity, and a remuneration at all times to the growers. Ile objected to what was called a fixed duty, for he was sure it would be of all others the most variable, for Parliament must always reduce it; whenever the season, as in 1828, threat ened a scarcity, no such rate of duty could be adhered to. On the principle of justice the British farmer was entitled to protection. In all other commodities the person who produced had the utmost benefit of any scarcity of the article, and might make his profit accordingly, but the Legislature would not allow that with respect to the first article of life, but would always adopt measures to prevent the price from being so high as to produce the effects of famine. He should not allow himself, from any private feelings, to be influenced in this question; and indeed he was well convinced that no class in this country could be individually advanced without deteriorating the rest. He was most anxious to come to such a ccnclusion as should most tend to the public advantage; but he would ask their Lordships whether theme were not some latent feelings mixed with this as with most other questions? Under all the circumstances, however, he did not feel that he should he justified in voting for the Resolutions of the Noble Baron. The Earl of CAERNARVON—Though this was a question that well deserved the attention of Parliament, he hardly thought that the present was the right time to urge it ; but in order at any time to produce arty thing like the desired effect, it was necessary that there should be mutual concessions between the two extremes. This would probably produce something permanent. The Duke of WELLINGTON—I agree with all the Noble Lords who have preceded me in wishing for cheap corn, because cheapness of provisions must add to the be neficial state of the country, and improve the condition of the people. But I wish to see this accomplished by plenty of provisions—by the great prosperity of the agriculturists —by improvement in the agriculture of Ireland, and by the continuance of it in this country. If we can obtain cheap provisions by these means, it will tend to the pro sperity and happiness of the country. But I go further, and say that cheap prices can in no other manner be fairly obtained, and to prove this I need only refer to the returns which lie on your Lordships' table, in the shape of reports from different Committees. I will also refer to the long period between the years 1791 and 1815, during the whole of which periods the ports were open ; and, though there was a duty of 245. on corn when the price was be yond 50s. (and afterwards in 1804 when it was beyond 609.), was there one year in which we had cheap corn ? On the contrary, the price was never below that at which the high duty was to take place. During the last years the importation, as stated by my Noble Friend, was eight millions, but did this contribute to diminish the price ? No ! The price still continued the same, and I therefore have a right to contend that the measure I intro duced worked well. It was granted to the agriculturists of this country a protection for the price of their corn, during the time that the produce is sufficient for the con sumption, at the same time preventing the price being ex orbitant, by permitting the introduction of foreign corn. At no time has this measure brought the price of corn below 745., and, therefore, I say that the measure has worked well. Now let us look at the price of corn at Dantzic after the admission of it to this country. In the year 1826, in the course of the different months in that year, the prices were 18s. lid., 19e. 3d., 275. sd. 255. 7d.; 225. 44., and 225. 9d. After that it rose, and in December, 1928, it was 575. Bd.—(Hear, hear.)—But was that owing to any deficiency of corn in Poland. No, but to the increased demand in this country. Certainly, if we are to pay high prices, I wish that those prices should be paid into the pockets of the English or Irish agriculturists. In addition to this, this Act has had the advantage of being carried into execution without inter ruption ; all the previous Acts were infringed upon at the end of one or two years, by the Government admit ting corn to the disadvantage of the agriculturists of this country. The Noble Baron has thought proper to ridicule the idea of any duty being levied abroad on corn to be imported into this country ; but did the Noble Lord never hear that Bonaparte levied an impost of 20s. per quarter, on all corn licensed for exportation ? and on examination it will be found that Bonaparte levied as much from this country in the shape of licences, as he did from Austria and Prussia, when be was in possession of their capitals. If this course succeeded with Bona parte, what is to prevent the King of Prussia or the Em peror of Russia from pursuing a similar course? The corn must come from or pass through their dominions, and therefore why are we to rely on their forbearance? But the Noble Baron contended that the profits of the manufacturer will increase abroad, in proportion to the quantity of foreign corn imported here. Now, the cause of their want of profit is the low price which their manu factures produce. In some countries there is a positive prohibition of their goods—in others there is a high duty —and in all they have to contend against the strongest competition. I say, therefore, that if we were to buy up all the corn in Poland, it would not serve to introduce one more article of our manufacture into Germany, Prussia, or Russia. The Emperor of Russia would only say, they want my corn, and therefore I will not take one article of their manufacture in payment. But if the Noble Baron's arguments are correct, must there not lie the same ad vantage in purchasing the corn produced in this coun try ? Of our cottons two-thirds are disposed of in our own markets, and of woollens and silks the whole. Is it not, therefore, an advantage to take from a market where we know there will be a demand in return ? lam persuaded of this, my Lords, that the more we discuss ti's subject, the more we shall see that the interests of all are alike.—(Hear, hear.)—What we must look to is, to produce the greatest quantity o f p rov i s i on an d at t h e l owest price; and it is by doing this that we shall most effectually secure the prosperity of the country. Lord KING replied. He contended that the Noble Duke was wrong as respncted cottons, as not above one third was consumed in this coun t ry . Th e p r i ce o f corn was certainly high when the ports were open during the war, but did the Noble Duke intend to say that the price would not have been higher if the ports bad been shut? The Earl of ROSSLYN said that the King of Prussia was petitioned to lower the duties, but that his answer was to the effect that it roust depend on the price in Eng land, which went to show that that Sovereign was in clined virtually to follow the example set by Bonaparte, as quoted by his Noble Friend. The Resolution s propose d b y L or d KING were ' then negatived without a division. Several Private Bills were forwarded a stage. Adjourned at Nine o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LIST NIGHT.) Mr. ASTELL brought up the report on the Tanjore Commissioners Bill. The Hon. Slember stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Trant, that the Carnatic Commis sion bad closed its labours—had made its last report—and that the salary of 3001. a year, which the Tanjore Com missioners enjoyed as co-Carnatic Commissioners, had, as a consequence, terminated, reducing their salary to 1,500/. from 1,800/. a year. Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from Whitechurch, in the clunty of York, against the Sub-letting Act. EAST INDIA TRADE. Petitions against a renewal of the East India Company's charter, and for opening the trade with China, were pre sented from Manchester and Lancaster by Lord STANLEY ; from a place in Yorkshire by Mr. RICE ; from another in the same county by Mr. BUXTON ; from Fotheringay by Mr. STUART ; from the corporation of Gloucester by Mr. WEBB ; and from Dewsbury by Mr. BAAlNC.—Referred to the Committee on India affairs. SUTTEES. Petitions against the practice of Hindoo widows burn ing, and of human sacrifices to Juggernaut, were pre sented from nine Protestant Dissenting congregations in Lancashire by Lord STANLEY; from Southwark by Mr. BUXTON; from Kettering, in Northamptonshire, by Lord ALTHORP ; and from seven congregations in Blackburne and its vicinity, by Mr. STANLEY. Mr. DICKINSON presented a petition from certain li censed victuallers in Somersetshire, for protection against the consequence to stock on hand of the intended measures respecting the tax and trade of beer. Lord W, POWLETT presented a petition from the ship owners of Sunderland, for relief from the present distress under which the shipping interest laboured ; and another from the same place for an alteration in the poor law rate of assessment act. Mr. KEKEWICH presented a petition from Exeter for an improvement in the criminal law. Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a similar petition from a place in Shropshire. Mr. BENETT presented a petition, signed by the High Sheriff and principal Magistrates of the county of Wilts, for relief from distress, and another from Marlborough, to the same effect. LORD ELDON. Sir F. BURDETT begged leave to inform the House, that he had received a letter from the late Lord Chancellor, to whom he had referred, a few evenings since, as an au thority in favour of his (Sir F. Burdett's) views of the justice of paying off the debt in a currency of the value of that in which it hail been contracted, in which that Noble Lord stated that his opinions were diametrically opposite to those imputed to him. He therefore thought it right to inform the House of the circumstance, regretting that be had not the Noble Lord's name on his side of the question. KENTISH PETITION. Sir E. KNATCHBULL had a petition to present from the Gentry and Freeholders of the county of Kent, the result of the late important meeting which had been held at Penenden-heath. He could not prevent it without ob serving that it afforded one snore proof of the continued ex istence of the distress which unfortunately afflicted the country. One of his strongest apprehensions was, that which a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had so lately ex pressed—namely, that the effect of the present depressed state of the landed interest would be to diminish the number of that class of most useful and influential country gentle men who bad from 1,2001. to 1,500/. a year.—(Hear.)--- The Hon. Bart. then read passages from the petition agreed to at the late Penenden-heath Meeting, declaratory of the prevailing distress in the county of Kent, which he could verify from his observation ; for instance, he knew that the agricultural tillage of a great quantity of land in this country was at present in a very deteriorated state. The petitioners also complained of the system of what was called free trade, which they thought, in the condition of the people of this country, injurious at this moment, when wool was at so low a price, as well as hides, tallow, &c. Such, too, was the pressure of taxation upon the productive sources of public industry, that the people were universally complaining. This amount of taxation he knew could not be helped if it were actually necessary to maintain the essential establishments of the State. He was ready, as he had told his constituents, to press for the utmost remission of taxes ; but that alone would not do—the country wanted other measures as well. The currency was also mentioned as an ingredient in the distresses of the people ; and the petitioners further called for Parliamentary Reform. He had told them at the meeting that he would be ready to assist in the exposure and redress of any specific abuse which was proved to have occurred iu the representation, but he would not assent to speculative and indefinite propositions.—(Hear.)—His constituents likewise called tbe inquiry into the distresses of the country,---a call, he feared, not likely to be obeyed, after the experience which the House had of the late four nights' debate. He highly approved of the recent reduc tion of the leather and cider duties; but he did not think that on beer was likely to be es useful as some Honour able Members anticipated. Indeed, his firm opinion was, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone further in the remission of those taxes which pressed peculiarly upon the middling classes, he would have done snore to grant immediate relief to the working classes generally, than could be expected from his late arrangements. He moved that the petition be brought up. Mr. WELLS was present at the meeting in Kent, and it gave him great pain to see how universally distressed was the condition of the people. When they found them selves in this condition it was not to be wondered they should call for a reform in Parliament, and declare that had they obtained it in time many of their present evils would have been averted. Indeed, before this petition had been agreed to by the meeting, an address to the King for parliamentary reform was adopted, on the ground that the people were tired of seeking it from the House of Commons. His Hon. Friend's efforts to impede this vigour beyond the law, were as unavailing on Penenden heath, as similar efforts made by him in theprevious year, in that House, were in averting the great inroad upon the Constitution which was then perpetrated. He believed that many measures had passed through the House of Com mons, which would not have been so successful, had the people had a little more influence over their Representa tives. This was the complaint made by Mr. Pitt in 1782, who said, that without reform it was impossible to save this nation from being plunged in new wars : that without it the people could not be protected from a bad Minister, nor have the benefit of the measures of a good one. The Hon. Member then adverted to the pressure of the poor rates in Kent, and bore testimony to the great distress which prevailed in that county. Mr. HONY WOOD said, the object of his constituents was—first to obtain relief from the present weight of taxa tion, under which they were fast sinking; and next, to obtain parliamentary reform, with the view of preventing similar evils in future. The distress of the country was great, and be believed in too many cases rents were paid out of capital, and not from profits of cultivation. He had for 20 years been an advocate for pailiamentary reform, and the experience of each successive year had only given greater strength to the first impressions upon that question. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT was quite satisfied that Hon. Members would at length become convinced of the absolute necessity of giving the people a greater weight in their representative system ; and that the old apprehen sions with which well-intentioned persons were deluded from supporting this principle, could no longer be at tempted with any chance of success. He was sorry to see in this petition certain observations respecting what was called free trade. In the alteration of old settlements there must always be some derangements ; but be was satisfied that when the principle of free trade was fully understood, and fairly applied, the people would see that they could not be injured by it, or that they had any rea son for opposing it. The sooner that misapprehensicins upon this point were removed, the better for the country, fur as matters stood, no Government, especially while that House was constituted as it was at present, could safely embark in any large application of the principle : free trade, indeed, could never be said to be fairly considered by , the public, until the Corn Laws, which were the great ob stacle to that consideration, were removed ; they stood broad in the way of any enlightened principle of ac tion. Indeed, he was so satisfied that the country gentlemen were themselves exceedingly in error on the subject of these Corn Laws, that he meant, soon after Easter, to bring forward a motion, the object of which would be to have them repealed. When he did so, he hoped it would be unnecessary for bias to } ress upon them, that the proposition did not come from one who was hostile to their interests, but from one who was identified with them, and who thought, that not only for the general prosperity of the country, but for the par ticular advantage of its landowners these laws ought to cease. It was a fallacy to suppose that the country gentle men had any separately beneficial interest in this respect from the other classes of the community ; on the con trary, their interest must always go on pari passe with that of the people at large. So impressed was he that these laws were most injurious, and to the landed interests as well as other classes, that he had very little doubt if the gentlemen of the country would only keep their minds open, he need not despair of convincing them that they ought to be the first to get rid of this stumbling-block to the fair trial of the principle of free trade in all their com modities. Of this he was quite satisfied, that the corn laws were a real bar to the prosperity of the country. It had been said, with reference to the question of Parlia mentary Reform, that the time was when no loyal person would advocate it. For himself he could fairly say, that he had never thought it disloyal to urge this topic, because he had always contended that to give their fair weight in .4 ' the representation was as essential to the:r happiness as it - was to the stability of the thr( ne itself. The Kent petition was then laid on the table, and' . , ordered to be printed. :. 1 - - EAST INDIA QUESTION. .. I: Mr. MABERLY presented a petition from the Chamber:. -- of Commerce in Dundee, praying that the East India trade should be thrown open. ': Mr. HUSKISSCiN presented several petitions from eon gregations at chapels in Liverpool, against the burning of suttees in India. Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a petition from Har nage, in Cumberland, against the renewal of the Vast India charter, and in favour of an open trade to China. These petitions were referred to the East India Com mittee. Mr. W. PEEL presented a number of papers, ordered by the House, respecting the administration of criminal law. and gave notice of a motion for Friday to repeal the act of the 55th of George 111. ._. On the motion of Mr. ROBINSON, copies were ordered of the instructions sent out to the Governor or legal au thorities of Newfoundland, relative to the operation of the act of the sth of George IV., and their answers (if any) thereupon. On the motion of Mr. MAMMA', a series of returns ' was ordered, showing the official amount of the importa t ions of flax, dressed and undressed. On the motion of Lord W. POWLST; accounts were ordered, showing the number of vessels engaged in the coal . trade. Mr: LENNARD gave notice of a motion on the 22d of May for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the act giving the Lord Chamberlain the power of licensing plays. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the report of the Committee of Supply he brought up. Mr. BERNAL, alluding to a report which had got abroad, of the intention of Government to take away from the captains of vessels the right of nominating midshipmen, wished to know whether there was any foundation for that rumour? Sir G. COCKBURN replied, that it was intended to take the power of introducing the first class of volunteers from the captains, but that the whole patronage of nomi nating midshipmen would remain with them. Mr. HUME had been requested by au Hon. Friend, who intended to submit a motion to the House with re-• ' spect to the Canadas, to ask when it was intended to bring forward the vote of money for works in Canada. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that he would postpone the vote as late as possible, with a view to meet the convenience of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. MONCK suggested the propriety of doing away with the widows' pensions. Mr. HUME noticed the injustice of giving 300/. a year to the widow of an officer in the Navy-office, who bad only served three or four years, while nothinc , was allowed to the widow of a labourer in the dock-y ar d. Sir G. CLERK replied, that by an arrangement made in 1825, no pensions were to be given for the future to the widows of commissioners ; but that arrangement had only a prospective effect, and did not affect those who were in the receipt of pensions previous , to that period. After a few words from Mr. MINE and Sir G. CLERK, the report was brought up and agreed to. Sir A. GRANT brought up the report upon the Four per Cent. Annuities Acts. The resolutions were severally put and agreed to, and a Bill was ordered to be brought in, founded upon them. THE PARKS. he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER m oved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. Mr. HUME said that he should object to the vote for the civil contingencies until he should receive a satisfactory state ment from Ministers as to their intentions with regard to the opening which was so justly called for by the public on the ground of public convenience—he alluded to the open ing from Waterloo-place into St. James's Park. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests had promised that such an opening would be made when the public money had been originally voted for the erection of the buildings there, and it was only due to the public that that pro mise should be kept. The promise had been broken, and he should certainly object to this vote of confidence until he received a satisfactory explanation on this point. Mr. ARBUTHNOT denied that any promise had been given that an opening would be made from Waterloo-place into the Park. When he (Mr. Arbuthnot) was in that office, he would state that in the original plan which was then sent in to them, and which they felt it their duty to • carry into effect, there was no such opening laid down. • He (Mr. Arbuthnot) stated so in his evidence before the Commissioners of the Board of Works ; and when he was in office he never promised that such an opening would be made. Mr. HUME said whether the promise had been given or not, such an impression prevailed, and he hoped Mi nisters would have no objection to state now whether it was their intention to oven a passage, which would contri bute so much to the public convenience? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did 'not consider this a fit time for discussing this point. Mr. PROTHEROE contended that an opening should be made here, which he conceived would not alone contri bute greatly to the public convenience, but add much to . . _ . the beauty of the street. There wa s something exceed ingly unsightly in the wall which had been erected, and which quite obstructed the view of the Park. As he was on his legs he should wish to ask the Right Hon. Gen tleman opposite a question with regard to the Regent's Park. Some years ago, unless his memory deceived him, a promise was given to the public that the Regent's Park would be open to them after a certain period had elapsed. That period he conceived had now elapsed, and the public had every right to expect that their expectations would be realized. There was an exceedingly dense population in that neighbourhood, to whom it would be a very great convenience to have the liberty to walk over the Regent's Park. The trees in the plantation were now sufficiently grown up to allow of the opening of those grounds, and if it should appear that any mischief were likely to ensue to the trees from the admission of the public, that might be prevented from stationing there some of the police con stables. Mr. MABERLY said, that the terms of the leases of the buildings in the Regent's Park did not leave the Crown at liberty to open the plantations in the Park to the public. The rents of these buildings had been increased in conse quence of its being understood that those grounds would not be opened to the public, and the Crown could not throw them open to the public now, unless they purchased up those leases in the first instance, which he did not itna gin?, the Government would be inclined to do. Mr. ARBUTHNOT agreed with the Hon. Member for Abingdon, that it would not be in the power of the. Government to throw open the whole area of the Park to the public, but there was a portion of it—the Hon. Member knew the part to which he alluded—which he (Mr. Arbuthnot) had intended to open to the public bad he remained at the head of the department over which he then presided. What would be done now with reference to that part of the Park he could not say; but he would only say, if he had remained at the head of that depart• meat, he would open it to the public.—(Hear.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that every Hon. Mem ber who passed down by Charing-cross must have had his feelings and nerves annoyed in coming along that exceed ingly dirty passage. There could, therefore, be no greater convenience, not only to Members of Parliament, but to the public, than the making an opening from Waterloo place into St. James's Park, lie did not believe that a pledge had been given to that effect by Government, but he thought that upon the higher grounds of public conve nience that opening should be called for. He trusted that this passage would be made, and that also the area of the Regent's Park would be opened to the public. He trusted that the Noble Lord now at the head of the Woods and Forests, and who he was sure was desirous to do every thing for the public convenience, would finally. have the Regent's Park thrown open to the public like Hyde Park, and that also a passage would be opened and a flight of steps made from Waterloo-place into St. James's Park. Mr. HUME said that, whether or not a pledge was given that this opening would be made, he trusted it would be made for the public convenience. He concurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that this subject could be mooted on a fitter occasion, and as they would have several votes brought forward connected with the Parks, they would then have an opportunity for discussing this subject. Mr. PROTHEROE differed from the Han. Member for Abingdon, as to the construction of acts of Parliament regarding the Regent's -park, and as to the terms of the leases upon which the villas in that Park had been let. It was quite true that there were provisions in the leases to prevent the building of any more villas there; but be (Mr. Protheroe) could see nothing in the terms of those leases to prevent the Government from opening the area of the Park to the public. He did not think there' was any thing in the terms of those leases to prevent the Park from being opened for the benefit and recreation of the public. He himself possessed a villa in the Park; but he did not think that the convenience of the public at large should be postponed to that of the few individuals who had villas there. Mr. MAIIERLY said, when a part of the Park was opened to the Zoological Society, be (Mr. Moberly) took counsel's opinion on the subject; and that opinion way, 800 pal cot con Na 99 prq bet