The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-26 00:00:00

~~ bad bee° • t trais t k e J e n . coos' ler their ca e, but in vain. The ) ths u real a betiu,,n csuas the sa),•ers of Man thr, ',) eomplss n i ug ",.t , the eir.,‘ots of iiinegwelandreds out of bread in every t , ) , vo it the United Rith, l ! l ' lie read also a p , titlonfr ,- on calico printer:, o'ft_ .strnilar Co•opltdiit Such was the languao . e used tl i t t by the calico printers. Yet that body e srnlal , : r ta not petition the Hou6 , :. for the repeal of the • IN.); for they would tell thew that that re (tr. old he their ruin. In the session before last he tv e t , o r rand) presented a petition signed by twenty toulltit,usand frame-work knitters of the Midland they did complaining of the effect of machinery, but sa not y fur the repeal of the corn-laws. The worusletriber then referred to a pamphlet, written by a flt ris s a. mao in Manchester, which stated the dreadful 5, 00. ,n e , into which machinery had brought the li e ;!ag classes in Manchester and its -neighbourhood. i tti C i ted that, although the trade in cotton factories li kid ynnt 1781 to 1841, inerea , ed 101 times, yet the th e 3. ° in weavers had now only ls. where, in 1791, Ite nts r "ived 10s. The Hon. Member then read dotal thine , showing the effect of the introduction of ma it;.nerctiinotno t r , ( Z power looms, and stating that, with the of machinery, the employment of the (; of all other species of articles was th e ease d in a most frightful degree, and that Th e grneatest misery and distress was the result. the t o . "'ght Hon. Gentleman the President of 1, 44 ard of Trade had introduced a clause into a Bill (14;, 8 sion legalising the exportation of machinery. He %Nei' e rrand) believed that that measure would ulti tirse: rain the country ; it mi g ht increase trade for a wh o ' that it would bring ruin he felt certain. All la st th he had spo k en to on t h e su bj ec t h a d told him ted e Right Hon. Gentleman had begun at the wrong Nil:that they were all anxious for free trade in every -1104. N ;xeept machinery. He believed that even the ' e mber for Sheffield, if he made further inquiries woe e, subject, would find that protection. leth e t ahigs in this country that required p 3 4 l v ery year in which the exportation of machinery hol e s alised, notwithstanding foreign orders, there were th est t han 450 machine makers out of employ in Man !,tlisite,rsalune- So much with respect to the legislation ,gtle s ,f,",' t u'r,r- Now, the Hon. Member who had intro des,ebu's questi on h a d tho u ght proper to give the tg r i e ,some most harrowing details with respect to the eph ii ta tural di str i cts , h orrors w hi c h, if t rue , i n hi s la s " , Would only be increased by a repeal of the corn 'ftf uw , he would give the House some description kep t - B ‘'t , ' , of things in the town of Bolton from a state- Ilto see n ' s ade by M r . A s hw o rth. (The lion. Member then th at t ,`Led to rea d t h e statemen t, f rom w hi c h it appeared to s4 " greatest distress and misery prevailed in that qth From another statement made in the pamphlet ktr :c i lv ? v icing man, to which he had adverted, it ap tlki, that in some i nstances in th a t town the working eigh t s"! were so destitute that they were obliged to lie keh in a bed.) Now he (Mr. Ferrand) believed that no ktr; st ate of things existed in the agricultural evi cts. The Hon. Member had laboured hard to las e n ee the H ouse th a t the repeal of the corn- Illl,th,sw° hitherto b een the custom of that house to deny trnt h of the assertions he (Mr. Ferrand) made. d4;at dill the working men of Lancashire say the other lik e "'II he went among them ? Why. that every 11 g ent h e h a d ma d e was t rue . Th e Noble Lord, the il k roer for Sunderland, whom he was sorry not now to 4 rep bis Place—(Considerable 1 tughter, caused, we be- Lord Howiek being fast asleep under the gal- Boas some tion. Member on the other side of tas ti a when the Noble Lord waked, would be kind i t') tell him what he (Mr. Ferrand) had said.— err ) "g . a.) That Noble L rd had asserted that he (Mr. „., li s lnsi„') had stated that the Member for Stockport was . lita - A l' on in his factory the truck system in all its , 1 / 4 41 11 ,, - "". --- (Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Ferrand) had % t • its - ° such thing ; but what he stated was, that he un to h ". -15 4 that the Hon. Member kept cows, and sold milk tee work people. The Hon. Member for Stockport „ . 11 114 1 ,; () . denied this ; and therefore he trusted that the „Nts; "d, when he again made such assertions, would IhN' a re that he had proper data on which to found 4 14; The Hon. Member who had brought forward !or-4ttenof combination for the repeal of the h 4 spoke (4 t t{ ;he (Mr. Ferrand) would have them combine t hedestruction of machinery, for if they did not, of' l ,,‘vntild be sunk deeper in misery still, for the sake hevaAadering to the luxuries of the millowners. L 'lttk a g ati-Corn-law League had for some time past been w o k • to destroy the agricultural party, in order t4-a tir h'trade principles. The b rori t ; Is what they called tree 14.4 g people ktiew this, and the Anti-Corn-law 4 dared not to go to Manchester and hold a public . t its se n g in support of their principles. The working la rti 3 knew that the Anti-Corn-law League were the tit A i l e.% who upheld the extension of machinery--that 4 il b p in erY which prevented the labourer from earning 13 a 5 ' e at' by the sweat of his brow. The Hon. Gentle `thtoneluded by moving the following amendment— Lltepurp ose the House do resolve itself into a Committee, for ' l :l ) °se of considering the following resolutions : N it appears by a recent census, that the people of 3 i tl -Qll lltry are rapidly increasing in number. That it 4 f h ev idence before this House, that a large proportion ~,,el4443ls..:nr:tthajest.,e's subjects are insufficiently provided with 'hsC e ans of purchasing the first necessary of life. ough a corn-raw is in force, which protects the . 441, o f food produced by British capital and native (1 1 CrY, and thereby increases its abundance, whilst it Nis . ,„" Competition in the market of labour, neverthe ‘terlj'achtnery has for many years lessened among the ttf t h tr ig classes the means of purchasing the same. That Briti s e° rn-law having for its obj-et the protection of tk p ru capital, and the encouragement of native labour kad ci s Yed in the growth of an article upon which de 14 ', t ile subsistence of the community, is just in p ah s a t ' "eneficial in operation, and ought not to be abol test; That it is, therefore, expedient that every den 1/4;Pfay atent n protection shall be iven to natve in- J) Which is the groundrk of our national i great , e; a ad the source of our national wealth." gte i ttain BERKELEY deprecated the attempt which "ten made to set the manufacturing party and the eultural party of this country against each other. ihri,,, sta lsidered that one could not be injured withou in tost-g, the other. He also regretted to find the Anti 41W--,:law League persisted in their denunciations kt:, - st th e landed aristocracy of the country. The Po r ' O p of this country were among the first to sup 'n▪ amable institutions, and to stand forward in acts Ar i : tl evolence. He deprecated the practice whie t e trA;;Corn-law League had adopted of going aaiongst lisitt i nenci es with whom they were not at all connected. Ittl t ii'leved that the repeal of the corn-laws would be a G enti ttf time, and time only, and he believed that Hon. , e naen opposite were convinced that the corn -lasts %Iv a d oomed, He should vote for the repeal of the corn ts the only course for him to adopt. kt sa ,GLADSTONE said that he was anxious to tak e t he ss -is 'Y opportunity of addressing the House, because tak t ,ouse would probably be anxious to know wha t 111 4 1 7 the Government intended to take with resp ect to 4111 / 4 1; ° tion. It would be his duty to endeavour to p er. ti the House to meet the motion with a direct nega te In order to do that, it would be necessary for him tssi4er briefly to the merriment which had been pro 1t,441,t ,The question that would be submittedto them first Ap t . ' ue that the words proposed to be left out stand 11°t * so ?? th e question. If they affirmed that ques . tion, they then have to vote aye or no to the motion of the t(n t ; I lembe ' r for Wolverhampton. Ho thought the `O r i e l and he thought the Hon. Member far Knares thohjailh himself would see that it was desirable they 4 4 4 7" vote aye or no to a question of so much import and that it ought not to be met by any indirect 141111,r'sition. The amendment of the lion. Member l ' is th - V lar exborousli mixed up with this question many • 'natters of great importance. With respect to the (tit, , G entleman's proposition regarding machinery, he kti t ,,?ladstene) could not give it his support. His con -4111D", ‘",_ ) ax conviction was that, however great the hard -1),1111-„,iste labourer had to undergo in consequence ▪ - ` 4l inery, yet if that machinery were to be restricted 14 11 W°111 e 1 at the same time restrict the means Iti 4te li Mreds of the working classes from obtaining sub lou,liee. He hoped the Honourable Member wou ld o f the motion of the Honourable Member for ts. et . ver hampton to come fairly before the House , and N e ve tha subject of his amendment to a separate dis ks-thiZl- He now came to the motion of the Honourable -ver for NV 1 h ton, The Honourable Gentle -4,4 NW amp tiftoa,kd that no Member on that (the Ministerial) side ,Itiouse would ever have the courage to get up and h'uat the corn-laws were maintained for the benefit °a rm !, farm er , lie (Mr. Gladstone) thought the Hon of Gentleman had underrated the manly courage torAentlemen on that side of the House. The L kli * ' a ws were for the benefit of the agricultural th u ' r er, the farmer, and the landlord ; but he believed lo rds the corn-laws were to be repealed, the land- C, l, oh t Would b e that class that would most easily ihe e s t r against the difficulty attendant on such a step. .ve ts -o n Member for Wolverhampton said that, wher ah were spirited and independent farmers, they ,tat e ll Ord, as ftwir conviction that the corn-law was not ~adi,„"L ' d, for their benefit, 'but for the benefit of their 1 4 4 ( r"6 * The Hon. Gentleman, as it appeared to him, ' , a t : i n that instance argued in a circle, for wherever he liab n i:, i farmer s who thought ill of the corn-laws, he s t ha peh" them " spirted and independent," while he denied 'te s t s - ,-aracter to the great mass of the farmers.—(Hear, s t t,.-ti j w Nov, s() far as' he had had an opportunity of ta ill s ,ng the feelings of the farmers of this country eO4 subject, looking impartially at the movement and t o h n e f a ti le ll- r r n -fil i °velment which was going on on the subject . o -qtte°l.--'avt's, he must confess that it appeared to him litto,tge farmers did more to stimulate and urge on _ Alo, e farmr support of those laws than the landlords . did R , ers. He did not say whether they were right re eng in d o i ng so . It wa s not a question of right, but 4he m 3,llne s tion of feeling, and as such must ':laththat lie thought there was a stronger feeling the,: Part of the farmers in favour of the corn-law than se was on thetart of the landlords. He could not . kb( it was otherwise on the part of the agricultural Ele 4 ) C r ers• The apTicultural labourers, it could riot be tt„:f.?, were, by far the greater number of them. ex urettely anxious far the maintenance of the corn-law. — he ar.) The Hon. Gentleman, by his speech, th e to imply that the prevalence of incendiarism in ethe gricuitural districts was owing to the existence of 1 "Ni: il-l aw. He had stated that there was nothing so Iri al lied as the condition of the agricultural labourer. ki ttes 4 gard to th a t su bj ec t, how e ver, he must be per tltlie to state t h at h e t h ou ht the Hon. Gentleman had r h ' g a ve : the worst specimen of that condition as the ave th;' and alth oug h h e must a d m i t t h at i n man y parts of vh s 'notintry the co n di t i on o f th e agricultural labourer sari S o t satisatctory, es to the enjoyment of the neces %lle _pod comforts o f lif e , yet at all events it must be th 4e vued that the agricultural labourer was free from ext reme reverses of his condition which had La s() ek ed, during the last few years, the condition of the _Nei r , Pe rs of Paisley Stock ' pert and other manufac 14ittergsut°,„vn.s, reverses'whch entailed' upon them . more • slab t.ur [tering than hadeverbeen known to the agricultural 141 ,1 zed twrc-(1-lear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman had mid v ozo _ t tt was the cause of that incendiarism, and he ""(1 t• lay Own a proposition which be had THE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY *',VEN.IINr4,...IITE 26, 1844. he promised the farmers a certain price for eorn. I 1 believed his Right Hon. Friend made no promise of the kind, but he said it would be desirable if the price coull be kept within the limits of 545. and 586. flow /1.1.(1 the lt,- worlced to realise this price? Vae price b-tween April, H 42. and Dec smber, 1842 ? Th , aye ra.:2;o price was 55 , ,. which was within the limit. In 18-13 the average price was but 505., which was bc l•ov the lintic, !;at this was a very abundant year. In 1844 the average price was 545. 6d. So that in two out of three years, the average price had been within the limit to which his Right Hon. Friend made allusion. Another objection to the old law was, that it deranged the currency, for the corn which was imported to supply the sudden scarcity produced in this country must be paid in bullion and not in goods. Was that true of the present corn-law, though large quantities of corn were imported under it ? In 1842 there was a greater quan tity of wheat and wheat flour introduced than in any former year, and yet no derangement had been produced in the currency. The Hon. Member for Wolverhamp ton himself admitted that night, that they had now a trade on the Continent in corn, which was carried on regularly and paid for in goods.—(No, no.) He (Mr. Gladstone) was referring to the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, and the Hon. Member for Stockport denied the statement for him.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He understood the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, to make such astatement, but its correctness depended on higher authority even than his, for there were introduced under the present law, in the present year, 160,000 quarters of wheat. That was a large quantity.—(lronical cheers.) Did Hon. Gentle men suppose that the same quantity was to be intro duced every year into the country without reference to the abundance or scarcity of the harvest at home?— (Hear, hear.) The average price of wheat in the present year, was 565., and yet, with the price at this amount, 160,000 quarters had been introduced under the present law. In the five first months in the present year, although the price had not reached 575., 150,000 quarters of foreign corn had been imported into this country. — (Hear, hear.) He asked whether Hon. Gentknen opposite would make the charge of unsteadiness of price against the present corn-law which he admitted they had, with some reason, urged against the former law ? Neither could the charges of deranging the currency, which had been brought against the former law, be reasonably advanced against this. The present law had been productive of considerable revenue. In 1842, there was a large revenue derived from the importation of corn. In that year a revenue of 1,300,0001. had been derived from the importation of foreign corn, although the duty did not exceed 9s. a quarter. In 1834 800,000, or 900,000 quarters of corn had been imported, which paid 14s. duty. Now it might be said that 14s. was a high rate of duty, but it should be recollected that under the old corn-law, when only ss. duty was raised, it was argued that the very lowness of the duty was a proof of the evil of the law, for said its opponents foreign corn could not be ad mitted at that duty, unless the price of corn in this country had reached a height that showed its scarcity. Under the present system abundance of foreign corn entered the market at a comparative low rate of duty, before the price reached 60s. a quarter. Those who op posed the present protective system were bound to prove two things before they asked for its abolition—that the present corn-law was bad, and that it was bad from its protective tendency. The Hon. Gentleman who made the motion had not attempted to show that by the adoption of it those connected with the soil would not be very materially injured by the abolition of protection ; he had, indeed, said, he (Mr. Gladstone) knew not upon what authority, that the agricultur population formed but a seventh of the whole people of the kingdom. Surely the Hon. Gentleman must have overlooked Ireland. If the agricultural popu. lation, with those immediately dependent on them, such as tradesmen in the rural districts, were considered, they would, he thought, amount to nearly one-half of the whole population of Great Britain and Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman had assumed that the condition of the agricultural population was bad, but had not attempted to prove that it was connected with the corn-laws, or in any wise attributable to them. Yet, on grounds so slight, he asked the House to revoke a solemn decision so deliberately arrived at. He (Mr. Gladstone) could not doubt for a moment as to the course which the Government and Parliament would take ; he could not for a moment doubt that they would give no encouragement to an agitation which was productive of mischievous effects, and which was calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the stability of the present law—a law which had been made as an adjustment of conflicting interests, and which it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to uphold, unless it could be shown that it had failed in the purpose for which it had been framed to effectuate. —(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Lord J. RUSSELL said he found himself in a posi tion nearly similar to that in which the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had declared the Government was placed in a few nights ago—a very unenviable one. The Honourable Member for Wolverhampton had asked the House not to go into a Committee on the corn-laws, but to go into a Com mittee for the purpose of voting certain resolutions which would at once destroy every sort of corn-law; he asked the House to pledge itself against the application of all protective duties in all cases whatever. On the other side the Right Hon. Gentleman asked the House to vote against the motion on the ground that they ought to stand by and maintain the present corn-laws. He was not prepared to vote with his Hon. Friend. neither was he prepared to support the maintenance of the present corn-law. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to dispute what his Hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) had, he thought, taken too much pains to prove—that cheapness and plenty were great blessings. They were taught to pray for them in their prayer books, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt the accuracy of these assertions. The Right Hon. Gentleman went on to say that the present law should be supported on principle, and on account of the stability of price it afforded. Well he thought that both the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government nad, from time to time, and particularly at the proposal of the new tariff, given utterance to principles the very reverse of those which the present corn-law rested upon. And he further thought the experience of the present corn-law was too slight to allow the warmest advocates of it to make any very favourable predictions concerning it. There had been two harvests since the accession of the present Ministry—the most favourable harvests—and yet upon this incomplete experience, the Right Hon. Gentleman would have the House to assume that the present corn law ensured steadiness of price. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman would not be prepared to say that the present law would stand one bad harvest. He would net discuss the question as to whether the present Ministry had more wisdom than their predecessors, but they cer tainly had better weather.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Right Hon, Gentleman said, that nothing had been done in the present year, to break down the protective system. He said the alteration of the law respecting the duty on wool was no diminution of protection, because it was injurious to the wool-grower, as it prevented the consumption of British wool. He (Lord John Russell) entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman in his statement, for he thought the duty on wool was injurious and mischievous to the wool-growers in this country. He thought this was the present state of the corn-laws. He believed that there would be a far greater consumption of wheat if they had a better corn-law, and therefore he said that the present corn-law was injurious to the agri cultural interest themselves. If there should be a pros pect of a bad harvest, but a good harvest should actually occur, the merchant, under the present law, would be induced to make a considerable importation upon which he would inevitably sustain a loss. If, on the contrary. they should have a bad lar'vest, and that bad harvest should occur suddenly, then a sudden importation would take place, and the farmer would be the party to suffer. The Hon;Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, asked the House to go into Committee for the putoose of voting this resolution. The Hon. Gentleman, in the latter part of his speech quoted what he considered pre cedents for a sudden abolition of duty. He (Lord J. Rus sell) must say that he did not think that his Hon. Friend was able to produce precedents which at all bore him out in his assertion. The precedents his Hon. Friend had taken were the abolition of the beer-tax and the slave-trade. He (Lord John Russell) thought these were no precedents at all. The first consequence they might expect from such a sudden change as the lion. Gentleman proposed would be a great panic among all persons concerned in agriculture. The landowner and the farmer would be doubtful how:to employ their capital with profit. The consequence of that would be diminu tion of employment of labour. A sudden change would induce the merchant to make a much larger importation than would be consistent with the demand in this coun try. Such a change would produce great expectations. A large importation would immediately take place, and this would produce not cheapness, but a glut in the market, thereby creating great distress amongst the agricultural portion of the community. Such was the consequences which they had to expect from so sudden a change to a state of perfect freedom. Let the House look to the authority of those who had given opinions upon this subject. Adam Smith and Mr. Ricardo as writers, and Lord Grenville and Mr. Huskisson as statesmen, had all expressed opinions upon this sub ject. Adam Smith said that a change from prohi bition to freedom ought to be made with caution. Mr. Ricardo, in writing on this subject, said that the duty ought first to be reduced to 20s . , and then gradually reduced to 10s. Mr. Ricardo stated that even a duty of 10s. would be more than reasonable, but at the same time he considered that it would be better to make a gradual reduction than to adopt a sudden change. Then what were the opinions of Lord Grenville. Lord Grenville speaking of the protective system in 1815, said that any change in the protective system should be made with caution, and not suddenly. Mr. Huskisson had also proceeded upon the same principle. With respect to cotton and wool, there was no very great danger, because they were manufactured and sent to a third market, where they competed with all the markets of the world. There was no great danger, therefore, in complete free dom there. Yet, with respect to cotton, Mr. Huskisson, reduced the duty from 60 per cent. to 10 per cent., and he reduced wool to 15 per cent. With regard to other articles, he did not go quite so far as in the case of silk, in which the duty was 30 per cent., and in some cases 40 per cent. In all such cases he proposed a gradual and cautious change, and not a sudden and abrupt one. lie (Lord J. Russell) found himself unable to take part in the vote of that night. He heartily wished that som. compromise could be adopted with respect to this question He did not expect that any vote of that House, however majority might be, would put an end to agita dhaaaesntinnhrdcyeltauhsl tion on the subject lie did not think that it was likely neleytt therefore, country, l n l ya e 0 settl e ment n ws t n euocrntoefuabdl favourabledvei soi p b nugo e rt soa c feba o dt lvh m eote e out oir t nca o otth , henlr u eseemi n dst o t te i sa l r st t toh h hafe o ect s iile e lnaexst i eics r s.r i ot t eui e snn r c - sr. i m sn an d u 9d fac i t n u o re re s s a t n n d olki com n m o e f r e c a e r were that m th a e d y e w to ou lo d ur b i e sh, k t e l g i e t largeletotahrstytwaet: hgging behind ; the in-pjai interest was sure to derive aAva;ltag6 from 1:37: in flvour of commerce and inallatozitrt - 13: - ;forr , he must say, ,Ithea . 2,li s the argument O iii.-; Ow,. - Friend was against ;he wholr, protective s, stela of the country, he (Lord . Rit,seli) lament*, ia , n tla.. tinestion was brought f:rA ord. that the who? , -; was not stat , red.— ( dear.) He WOUid fairer for the country t o go througl l the whok oystem of protection, as it existed both with regard to corn and agricultu ral produce, and the produce of manufactures; to take every kind of protection as it exis:ed, and show that it was all unsound and injurious, for the purpose of abro gating it altogether.—(Hear, hear.) lie thought that would be a fairer course in bringing this question for ward than continuing to harangue on the question of the corn-laws, mixed up, as they frequently were, out of that [loose, with attacks on the landholders of the country.— (Cheers from the Ministerialists.) Those attacks could conduce nothing to the settlement of this question.— (Loud cheers from the Conservative benches.) He be lieved that these attacks on the agricultural interest in general had done much to indispose the landholders—he believed it had dine much to indispose the farmers to :Lay settlement of the question.—(Cheers.) He believed that the lion. President of the Board of Trade had much foundation for his assertion that the farmers were more indisposed to any change in the law than the land owners.—(Hear, hear.) The landholders were un doubtedly much averse to any change, because they be lieved, like the merchants and manufacturers of former times, that the protective sy,tein was the most beneficial to their own interests. But the faraiers were still more indisposed to a change than they ware, believing that the efforts made with so much pas don to procure that change were made by me% whose zeal blinded them to the true merits of the case. In the present state of affairs they could not expect a settlement of the question, and he regretted that the agitation should be prolonged from year to year, as the Government was determined for the present to continue the law. Still lie believed that a time would come, when those principles which were held to be sound on every other subject, would finally be held to be sound with regard to the article of corn. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. W. MILES said he did commisserate the present con dition of the Noble Lord—(Cheers and laughter)—but he trusted that many gentlemen opposite would follow his ex ample, and not vote at all, rather than, while advocating a fixed duty, countenance the abolition of the whole protective system. The Noble Lord had expressed a wish that there should be a compromise on this question; but he called on the Govern ment, and on the gentlemen of the landed interest, to submit to no compromise.—(Loud cheers.) He felt truly happy at having heard the speech that night delivered by the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade.— ( Cheers.) A more honest speech in defence of that protection to agriculture given by the Bill of 1842, he had never heard.— ( Cheers.) It completely bore out what had been elicited from the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, that he was determined to stand by the arrangement of last year. —( An Hon. Member—" But this year.") The Hon. Mem ber said this year; but he (Mr. Miles) had a confidence - in words as they were stated.—(Cheers.) He did not agree with the Hon. Member for Manchester, nor did he believe the country agreed with him ; but he believed the country did agree with the determination of the Government, to give a full trial to their own Bill. As to the Protection Societies that had been alluded to, it was said that they were losing ground, while the League was gaining power. But it should be remembered that the Protective Societies were only defensive, while the League was an attacking body. The League interfered in elections, but what had its interference done for it ?—( Loud cheers.) Look at all the elections of the present year. There was one Hon. Member, indeed, whom he was glad to see in that House—the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie); but look at all the other elections, those for Wiltshire, Salisbury, and every place they had contested; what had these contests won for them ? Look at South Lancashire !—( Loud cheers.) What was the result there? One Hon. Gentleman was sent to that House, as he said himself, to be the advocate of pro tection.—(Cheers.) But he must say that the League al ways saw everything in the most favourable light ; wherever they were totally defeated, they were sure to claim a great moral victory! —(Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Member for Stockport had described the voters of the rural districts of Lancashire as mere bipeds driven to the poll by their landlords. —( Hear, hear.) But let them look at the votes given at Manchester and Liverpool, even in these great manufacturing towns the votes were very equally divided, and he believed that the wealth and intelligence of these places were in favour of protection. And what was the result of their vast efforts in other parts of the kingdom—had they taken anything by it ? On tke contrary—had they not raised up against themselves a vast moral force, which they would find a great difficulty in putting down ?—( Hear, hear.) Had they not arrayed against them, in self defence, the whole of the farmers of England?—( Loud cheers.) It should be recollected that the landlords were the last to move in this question. They were told that this law was now completely condemned by public opinion. Though he did not approve of his motion, he thought the Honourable Member for Knaresborough had very fairly stated the case regarding the manufacturing popu lation. If the question were completely settled in the menu facturifig districts, why did they not hold their meetings there, as they had done in many cases in the agricultural districts? He believed it was because they dared not.—(Cheers.) It was suspected in the manufacturing districts that their object in cheapening bread was to cheapen labour.—( Hear, hear.) To the agricultural population they declaimed on the advan tage of having-=a large loaf at a cheap rate. This was a most delightful theme, and one exceedingly likely to catch the at tention of the audience, for he had no hesitation in saying that in some parts of the agricultural districts, wages were much too low.—( Hear, hear.) But, at the same time, having read their papers and pamphlets, he must say that they entirely failed to show how this loaf was to be obtained. It had fre quently been stated that the present corn-laws inflicted scarcity on the people, but he thought that point had been satisfactorily disposed of by his Right Hon. Friend. He maintained that the people had their bread at a reasonable price, and that there was no stoppage in the transactions of commerce, whilst he taw nothing but ruin staring the farmer and labourer in the face if the corn-laws were repealed. The honourable Member then referred to a statement of Lord Ducie to the effect that even with free trade wheat grown on the Cotswold Hills would yield to the cultivator a profit of twelve per sent. ; and cited the authority of three farmers in the neighbourhood, stating that in that case the poorer portion of the lands would be thrown out of cultivation. He thanked the House for having heard him so long at that late hour — (Hear, hear)—and he only asked the House to consider the position in which the agriculturists were placed. In the agita tion of this question tip farmers had nobly done their duty. —( Cheers and laughter. 1 Throughout the length and breadth of the land they had declared that they would have no less than the present protection, and after what had been said by his Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, he had no doubt that the protection would not be diminished. If agricul ture were allowed to perish, the best interests of the land would perish with it.—(Cheers and laughter.) Lord. HO WICK, who rose amidst loud cries of " Adjourn," said—that at this late hour, when an adjournment was wished for by the House, he was reluctant to occupy any time. But as it was also to be wished that the debate should close to-mor row night—(Cries of " Now, now," and " Go on, go on ") he would take that opportunity of making the few observa tions which he had to make upon the question. He agreed with his Noble Friend ( Lord J. Russell) that the form in which the subject was now brought forward was inconvenient, and that it would have been better if his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had moved fur a Committee of the whole House; he would have more willingly supported it. With all that inconvenience, he would support the motion.— ( Hear, hear.) The question was now between the existing law and total repeal.—( Hear, hear.) It was the Government that had brought the question to this state.—( Hear, hear. ) The House was driven to determine between two extreme pro positions, and he for one, would prefer the vote for the total repeal of the law. They had just been told by a Member for a large agricultural county, that the wages of the agricultural labourer were much too low, and it had been shown that in manufacturing districts the wages were too low. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had stated that wages and profits were so low, that he could not risk a reduction of the hours of labour.—( Hear.) Having these admissions, that both agriculture and manufactures were suffering in the same way, how could there be a more important inquiry, than was proposed by this motion, into the cause of such a state of things?—(Hear.) On that ground he was prepared to give his support to this motion. There was a low and inade quate reward of labour, and a low rate of profits, which were attributable entirely to the corn-laws.—(Cheers.) He would confine the few observations he had to make to that one point. The lion. Member for Knaresborough had moved an amend ment, that it was a calamity to the poorer classes that their clothes and other matters should be made with greater rapidity than formerly. lie wondered that he did not propose to go back to the aboriginal system. —( Hear, hear.) In manufac tures there had been a great increase of productive power, and so there had been in agriculture, but not to the same extent. Each individual labourer in agriculture produced more of human food than the labourer of the last century, and they produced two or three times as much food as in the time of Elizabeth the labourers did. Well then,- if labourers were so successful in producing food and clothing at the present day, how was it that they had less remuneration than in ancient days? The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had admitted the labourers were in a bad condition in the west of England ; but why was it that the men had bad wages, and their masters bad profits? Taxation did not affect it, because, during the last '25 years taxes to a large amount had been taken off, but the condition of the labourers and capitalists had not been im proved by it. If taxes did not afford any explanation what did? Why, the monopoly of land in England. That he was right in this view of the subject was proved by the fact, that wher ever land was abundant the wages of labour were high. This was the case in Canada, and in South Australia. The Canadian labourer, with less facilities for labour, was paid better than the English labourer, and had better food and habitations. The reason of this - was, that there was a large field for employment, whereas the field was extremely limited in this country. Monopoly and restriction must diminish wages and reduce profits. This must always be the effect of a restrictive system. It was a monstrous injustice to prevent the poor man from making the most of his labour. It was a peculiar injustice on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, who, during the late debates on the Factory Bill, had enlarged so much on the sacred right of every . man to the pro duce of his own labour, and that it was an injustice to interfere by law with his right to dispose of it. Did they not now inter fere ?—( Loud cheers.) If the labourer could exchange the produce of his labour for thirty quarters of foreign corn, and they prevented him from from doing so, and compelled him to exchange it for British corn, of which he could only procure twenty quarters in exchange for the same amount of labour, were they not robbing him of one-third of the fruits of his labour.—(Cheers.) He did not assume that those were the proportions ; but whatever were the proportions, in those proportions they deprived him of the fruits of his hon est industry and gave it to another.—(Cheers.) They took from that man that to which he was fairly entitled.— (Loud cheers.) This was not taxation for the benefit of the state.—( Cheers.) All classes were equally interested in main taining the necessary machinery of Government. But this taxation was not for the purpose of raising money. Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite repudiated the idea of continuing these laws for the sake of revenue.—( Cheers.) They continued them for the purpose of protection—for the purpose of agricultural protection, which was depriving every other class of the com munity of the power of exchanging the produce of their labour with those who would give them the most for it.—( Cheers.) It was shutting them out from the cheapest market, and com pelling the weavers, cutlers, and other labourers of this country to go to the dearest market for the purchase of their food.— ( Cheers.) That was the real meaning of agricultural protec tion.—( Cheers.) It was a gross injustice to the other classes. —(Cheers.) In all fully peopled countries there was a ten dency in profits and wages to fall—that tendency was in some degree checked by that machinery of which the Member for Knaresborough entertained so ill an opinion, but if they allowed food to be freely imported from abroad, although it would not stop that tendency, yet it would so check it that it would not be felt as an evil by the great body of the community.— . (Cheers. ) It was the means which had been appointed by Providence to make the resources of thinly inhabited countries available to older peopled countries.—( Cheers.) Was it right to interfere with that process ? and not for the purposes of I revenue, but for the benefit of a particular class to in the way of the importation of fool ) Was it just--was it wise for their own to (1.: this?—(Cheers.) He wished he could bring the subject required, the condition of ;,il2, i , :ocitte!!, • classes. it was a sacred duty, acknowledged by lioin sides the House. to do the utmost to improve the of tit ~erking class: s.—( Cheers.) Their condition its wret..h, I ; had only to look around them to sat;siy such raw- the ease. The state of the capitaiists exhibited a thousand symptoms of the unhappy con sequences of this state of things.—(Cheers.) The higher the profits were the smaller amount of capital was required to en able the tradesman to get a living. On the other hand, a low rate of profit necessarily threw all the trade of the country into few hands, to the utter ruin of persons of humble means. This gave rise to thcise overgrown establishments which ruined the smaller traders, and occasioned that marked division of society into a few rich and many poor, which the Right Hon. Baronet had, when he introduced the property-tax, deplored as cne of the greatest of social evils. Hence originated the diffi culties under which the middle , classes were suffering; hence the over-crowding of professions. The state of the labouring classes was worse. They had heard of the miserable state of the labourers in the agricultural districts.—(" No, no," from Colonel Sibthorp.) The Gallant Member for Lincoln, like himself, came from a part of the country which was c imperatively prosperous, and Lincolnshire was a proof of the truth of his argument ; for Lincolnshire owed its prosperity to the fact that, within the last century, a considerable quantity of additional land had been brought into cultivation. In the north of England the agricultural labourer was comparatively well off; hut it must be admitted with regard to the agricultural labourers in the south of Englanl, that nothing could be more deplorable than their condition. In Dorsetshire, Suffolk, and Wiltshire, the greatest distress prevailed. The case of the sempstresses of London was a symptom of the same evil—of the pressure of a crowded population upon the means of subsis tence, which forced them to offer their labour for the lowest amount of remuneration. Some persona proposed emigration as a remedy ; but her Majesty's Government did net concur in this view. He agreed in the views entertained on this subject by the lion. Member for Liskeard, but in his opinion that would not be a care to the present evil. If they did not re move the evil, they ought at least to forbear to aggravate the evils of the poor of this country. That was all the poor asked, and they had a right to ask it. They wanted a fair day's wages for a fair day's labour.—( Hear, hear .) It was but an act of justice to relieve the poor from the pressure of artificial restraints. All other remedies would prave ineffectual. The poor-laws were alleged by some to be the cause of the evil. He admitted that in cases of sickness and injury the poor had a right to be relieved, but general charity, besides being a degradation, would only aggravate the present evil. Others said it was owing to greedy masters who ground down the poor. Now, he did not believe that the manufacturers or the farmers were to be blamed for the lowness of wages, but wages were governed by causes over which neither had any control, being regulated by the quantity which the supply bore to the demand for labour.—( Hear, hear.) They had the power, if they chose to exercise it, of giving the poor relief by taking off those restrictions which every man knew in his conscience to be inconsistent with those principles which Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite maintained, in what they called the abstract.—( Hear, hear.) He told them to be ware how they persevered in such a system. This was a ques tion of rents, and nothing elsa.—( Hear, hear.) He wished well to land and the landed interest, because his interest was involved with theirs, and he was firmly persuaded, if they looked well into the matter, they would find it for their own advantage not to persevere in a course of legislation which was injurious to all the other classes of the community. The history of re striction for the last thirty years furnished abundant instances of agricultural distress. It was their bounden duty to consider what was the condition of the humbler classes. This duty they should not neglect. A malediction had been pronounced by divine authority against those who withheld from the la bourer his hire, and he thought the malediction would equally apply to those legislators who persevered in maintaining a law, the evils of which were fully as great as depriving the labourer of his hire. In that guilt he (Lord Howick) could not take his share. They should beware how they trifled with the feelings of the people. All experience proved that justice had been too long withheld from the people; but justice would be in the end extorted, and, he feared, something more than justice. There were symptoms which showed that they were not far distant from that end. He knew that in the present constitution of that House, no danger might be anti cipated from any sudden political change. But what he appre hended was, that a commotion would mime without doors, having for its object a very different distribution of political power than that which at present existed. The people were under the impression that political power was at present ex ercised by the few for the benefit of that few, and the oppres sion of the many. The people of the country were, he feared, being impressed with the conviction that, under the present system they could not obtain justice. There was, he feared, a bitter dislike of existing institutions becoming prevalent amongst them, and when once the persuasion that these insti tutions were adverse to their welfare got possession of the peo ple, that moment the days of the existence of these institutions were numbered. Col. SI 3THORP—There was no such dislike. Lord HOWICK feared the symptoms of it were too manifest. How else could the universal prevalence of Chartism in the ma nufacturing districts be accounted for ? It had been asked why the League did not hold meetings in the north of England—in the manufacturing diatricts. The question was thus solved. It was not because the Chartists were favourable to the existing corn-laws, but because they expected that by uniting themselves with the middle classes, they would ultimately overthrow both the corn-laws and the institutions of this country. It was what these men termed a knife and fork question—it was a question of food. They believed the cause of the dearness and scarcity of food was class-legislation. They must be mistaken in the remedies which they proposed, but he (Lord H. )firmly be lieved that class legislation was the chief cause of their miserable condition. He would further say that he did believe that God had so constituted the world that, with fair legislation, honest in dustry could not but obtain just remuneration. If they wished to obliterate those impressions from the minds of the working classes, they must improve their condition. If they wished to take away from them the desire far a new distribution of political power they must give them cheap food. Reference had already been made in the course of that debate to the existence of incendiarism. The Right Hon. Gentle man the President of the Board of Trade, said he was not pre pared to deny that distress was one great cause of the pre valence of that crime. He (Lord Howick) was persuaded that this was the cause. The discontent which prevailed had arisen from the pressure of distress. Some very interesting letters had lately appeared in the Times en this subject. The writer of those letters attributed the distress existing in Suffolk to a perverson of the new poor law, and to the re-establishment of some of those abuses which existed under the old law. It appeared that the agricultural labourers were not paid according to the value of their labour, but according to what the overseer con ceived to be their wants. The wages of single men were con sequently much reduced. He (Lord Howick) thought this was a matter which the Poor-law Commissioners ought to inquire into and check.— ( Hear, hear.) But he thought the whole matter was to be traced to the existence of the corn-laws. If the corn-laws were not in existence there would not be that competition for land which at present ex isted, whereby the farmer was prevented from giving his labourers a fair remuneration for their labour. He (Lord Howick) believed that the corn-law was an obstacle to agr - cultural improvement. It was one cause of the indisposition which existed to take leases. It was a distrust in the stability of the existing law which prevented improvement. So long as there was a fear of foreign competition so long would there be a want of agricultural improvement. He would ask the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, not to show himself ready to undertake a great experiment for the sake of ameliorating the condition of the working classes only with respect to those with whom his own interests were not affected. He asked him not to shrink from the same experiment with the same noble object, where his own class and his own party were affected.—( Hear, hear.) If no other means could prevail, he asked him to join them against those measures of restriction which no one dared to defend on principle, which the very President of the Board of Trade had shrunk from defending on any sound principle of com merce; when that Noble Lord saw the unhappy state of the population in conjunction with these laws, that some thing must be wrong, that there must be impedi ments in the way of that system which Providence evidently meant to be the system of the world, by which the abun dance of one nation was sought to supply the scarcity of another. Seeing this, he asked the Noble Lord to join them in refusing any longer to tolerate protection, while the great body of the people were oppressed by the excessive competition of the means of life, that system of laws, the object and effect of which was acknowledged to be the restriction of the facilities for introducing into the country the supply of food for the maintenance of the people.—(Cheers.) On the motion of Colonel RUSHBROOKE, the debate was then adjourned. WELSH TURNPIKES. Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill to con solidate and amend the laws relating to the turnpike trusts in Wales. The Right Hon. Baronet stated the purpose of his measure, which is to send down a Commission to inquire into the value of the trusts, to report upon the same, and, the secu rity of the tolls being given, to empower the Exchequer Loan Commission to advance money to the trusts, the whole of which are gradually to be placed under the management of county instead of local boards. The county boards were to ad minister the roads throughout each county : the roads were to be vested in them, and by the Act provision was made gene rally for reducing the present amount of tolls. Provision was also made for the appointment of a superintendent with a resi dence in South Wales. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. COUNTY RATES. Sir J. Y. BULLER obtained leave to bring in a Bill for amending the law respecting the assessment and levying of county rates. SALE OF BUTTER AND CHEESE. On the motion of Mr. CRIPPS, the House went into Com mittee on the Acts relating to the sale of butter and. cheese, and in Committee. Mr. CRIPPS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend those Acts. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. The third reading of this Bill was adjourned to Friday next FIELD GARDENS. Mr. COWPER brought in a Bill to enable parishes to make further provision for the increase of field gardens for the labouring poor. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past One. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 25. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. Messengers from the Commons brought up the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, and the Brighton and Chiches ter Railway Bill. OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. The Earl of RADNOR rose for the purpose of re• newing the motion which he had made the other even ing on the subject of opening letters at the Post-office ; and he really thought that, consistently with the argu ments which he had used the other evening, the Noble Duke ought to consent to the motion. The principal argument used against the motion was, that there was no allegation that the power vested in the Secretary of State of issuing warrants for opening letters at the Post office had been abused. Now their Lordships could not but be aware, from what had occurred in another place, that accusations had been made that the power had been used for purposes for which it was not necessary, and no attempt had been made to disprove those accusations ; and he felt that it was necessary that something should be done to retrieve the character of the country.—(Hear.) He would not enter into any argument as to the pro priety or impropriety of the existence of this power in the hands of the Secretary of State of stopping letters, al though he thought that it ought not to exist, nor as to the propriety of extending the power of these warrants to the opening of more than one letter. He thought the law required that a separate warrant should be issued for the opening of one letter. He believed that the law intended to confine that power to matters re lating to internal policy only. He did not believe that that law WaS intended to give the Secretary of State the power of stopping letters at the Post-office, except in cases where the personal safety of her Majesty, or the L well-being of the realm, was at stake.. NOW ) no one who had considered what had occurred in another place, could entertain a doubt but that certain foreigners had had their letters opened and examined, out of no con- . - sideration for the safety of the State of England, or of her Majesty.—(Hear, hear.) Petitions had been presented to the other House from divers persons, complaining that their letters had been opened and read at the Post-office. One of these was a. foreigner of con siderable 4iterary attainments, who was admired and beloved by all who knew him. It was admitted that a ; warrant had been issued for opening the letters of one of these persons. Last night. a petition had been pre sented with a similar complaint from another tbreigner— that person had not bean mixed up in the polities of this country, bat he had, unfortunately for himself, been mixed up in the liberal politics of foreign countries. He had taken range here, and had been well received ; but whilst here he had been exposed to the having Ins let tern examined and his secrets made known to those who, if they could not wreak their vengeance on him, could at least do so on his friends.—(Hear, hear.) These cir cumstances had produced a great feeling in the public mind of this country, and he (Lord H.) could not help feeling shame, and disgrace for his country, in which which such conduct was tolerated.—(hear, hear.) He could not help thinking that the Noble Duke who had done more to revive the character of this country than any one living, who was conspicuous for the gal lantry, the straight-forwardness, and the open-hearted ness of all his conduct—(Cheers)—would not willingly consent to make this country the police-office of every petty state in Europe.—(Cheers.) Ile hoped the Noble Duke participated in his feeling on this subject, and he would therefore renew the motion which he made the other night, that, an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to lay before their Lord ships copies of all warrants issued by her Majesty's Se cretary of State authorising the opening of letters at the Post-office. The Duke of WELLINGTON was grateful to the Noble Lord for the expressions he had used with regard to himself, and was sensible of the kind feelings of the Noble Lord towards him personally ; but as their Lord ships were aware he had a duty to perform to that House with regard to motions of this description, and his duty was to urge their Lordships to resist this mo tion as not consistent with the public interests or the public security. Parliament had thought fit to entrust the Secretary of State with certain powers to issue war rants for the opening of letters addressed to individuals at the Post-office. Those powers had long existed in this country, and had been exercised from the days of Queen Anne. The Post-office laws had been revised in the last year of his late Majesty and the first year of the reign of her present Majesty, and an Act confirming those powers had then passed. The Postmaster-General, in taking office, made a declaration that he would cause all letters to be delivered as directed, except when re quired by a warrant from the Secretary of State to send those letters to be examined, in accordance with that warrant. There could be no doubt but that power had been confided to the Secretary of State, and he submitted to their Lordships that tie Secretary of State was bound to exercise that power whenever his duty rendered it ne cessary for him so to do. Under these circumstances, he was sure their Lordships would well consider before they would enter into any inquiry upon the exercise of that power. They ought to have certain proof that this power had been used for an improper purpose, before they made any inquiry upon the matter. With regard to the discussion of that subject in another place, he did not know that there was any proof whatever that any letter had been opened, except that a warrant had been issued for the opening of one letter. He had no know ledge whatever on the subject himself, and had no ac count whatever to give upon it ; but he would submit to their Lordships, that unksss they were convinced by the evidence before them that the power entrusted to the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been abused, they ought to resist this motion, and he therefore could not consent to the motion. The Earl of TANKERVILLE said he had in his pos session documents which proved that the practice of opening letters at the Post-office was of frequent occur rence. He had in his possession warrants which had been issued for opening the letters of all foreign Minis ters of every rank and grade. Those warrants were issued by the Right Hon. Charles James Fox. The same kind of warrant was also issued with respect to the letters of Lord George Gordon. He (the Earl of Tan kerville) thought this was a power which ought to be exercised by the Government. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said their Lord ships must have felt interested in the statement which the Noble Earl had just made. From what his Noble Friend had stated, it would appear that the affairs of the Post office were not regulated as they ought to be, for he had stated that he had in his possession documents of im portance, which ought, properly, to have remained in the Post-office. It would be remembered that the ease to which the Noble Earl had referred was one which took place at a time of war, when it was absolutely necessary for the Government to make themselves acquainted with the correspondence of all foreign Ministers. But in the present case, the individual respecting whose letters the warrants had been issued was a private individual, and had never been engaged in any way against the peace of this country. In the case of Lord George Gordon the exercise of such a power was necessary, because the times were disturbed, and the peace of the country was endangered. It was said this was a matter of confidence in the Goveanment, but they were also told that the Minister acts on his own responsibilty. What was this responsibility if, when a matter of this kind became known, the Minister stood upon the confidence that must be placed in the Govern ment !—(Hear, hear.) If any Cabinet Minister got up and declared upon his own knowledge and his own cre dibility that there was anything dangerous to the Go vernment of this country going on he would believe him.—(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that such a power ought to be placed in the hands of the Govern ment ; but when it was deemed necessary to open a let ter it ought to be signified to the person to whom the letter was addressed, and there was n• reason why a Government should be ashamed to do this if there was just grounds for opening the letter.—(Hear, hear.) But it was contrary to all honour and justice to intercept a man by having a watch over his correspondence.— . (Hear, hear.) He hoped his Noble Friend would make some motion on the subject, either for a Committee of Inquiry, or for the particular warrant. The people of this country would have no confidence ir. any Govern ment that would resort to the hateful practice of opening letters which passed through the Post-office. The Earl of TANKERVILLE explained. The Earl of lIADDINGTON admitted that there was nothing which ought to be so sacred as private cor respondence passing through the Post-office, and no Minister could take a more fearful responsibility on himself than by rashly, or lightly, or without necessity, touching any letter passing through that department.— (Hear, hear.) It seemed to be admitted, on all hands, that this rower was necessary, and, indeed, it must exist in every country which had a Government at all. When the Government, the country, or the Crown, was endangered, such a power was absotutely necessary, and was admitted by all. But he would go further than those who seemed to think that anything which occurred abroad could not be a legitimate object for the exercise of such a power. Ho could conceive plots and cabals taking place on the continent of Europe, of which this country was made the centre of correspondence, the result of which might be to involve the world in a war, and this country amongst the rest. He held, therefore, that it was a power that must be vested in the Secretary of State. Doubtless, the power was au odious one— a most unpleasant one for a Secretary of State to hold ; but, from its very form and nature, it was one, regarding the execution of which no disclosures could be made. Their Lordships, in his opinion, could not wisely or properly-interfere with a confidence which, it should be recollected, was not a voluntary and a free, but a necessary confidence. And he ventured to assert that there was no thing in the character of the present Government to call for or to justify any such interference. Of course, it might occur that a Secretary of State was misinformed or imposed upon, but whether his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had been so or not he could not say, for he knew no more of the matter than the rest of their Lordships. He trusted the House would not sanction the motion, but, by negativing it, assert the confidence which, in all such matters, must necessarily be placed in the Secretary of State. Lord CAMPBELL said, if any Member of the Government had only come forward and asserted, on his own personal responsibility, that the interference complained of had been necessitated by circumstances, he should have been satisfied.—(Hear, hear.) But no one did this. The Noble Lord who spoke last admitted that he was totally unacquainted with the circumstances of thr case, and other Members of the Government de clined to give any satisfactory answer to the complaints that were made. For his (Lord Campbell's) part, be tween the breaking open of a letter, and the breaking open of a desk he could see no difference. Lord DENMAN—Yes, it is much worse. __ Lord CAMPBELL—True; it was worse. The breach of confidence was greater, from the secresy which neces sarily encompassed the transaction. Seeing that no avowal of justifying circumstances was made by the Government, he thought a prima facie case had been made out for consideration and inquiry. There were two foreigners who declared that their letters had been opened—one no doubt in correspondence with friends in the Austrian states, the other with the Pope's dominions. Unless the Ministers declared that they had not acted for the gratification of foreign governments, he could not see how their Lordships, with any sense of propriety, could refuse to inquire into the grievance complained of. Could any body say that it was for the purpose of avoid ing a foreign war, that the opening of these letters had taken place? The matter ought not to be allowed to rest. The character of the country had been compro mised, and it was indispensable to the honour of the country that further investigation should be made. Lord BROUGHAM, in answer to what his Noble Friend (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had said with re spect to the retention of certain documents of importance by the Postmaster-General, w h en he left office, would only say that it was absolutely necessary that the Postmaster-General, in leaving office, should retain those documents as they were his ;protec tion. The warrant was only in tke proper custody when it was in the custody of the Postmaster himself. 'With respect to the motion before their Lordships he (Lord Brougham) could not see how they could fairly call on a public officer, merely upon the assertion that a power had been e xercised, to produce certain documents and papers. Another objection to the motion was, that it would produce no good result. Tie did not think that the production of the warrant would throw any light on the subject. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE explained,. Lord DENMAN said he did not consider this motion ..s.• as any impeachment of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, nor was he aware of any circum stances which would load him to say that the Secretary of State had acted improperly in the exercise of this most odious and perilous power ' • but he thought that circumstances had appeared, and were at present the subject of public discussion, connected with the exerci4e of that power, which made it ittlerattve. %Toll Parlia nient to inquire into the mode in which It was exercised —(Cheers)—for the purpose of seeing whether or not, hereafter, there should be proper limits applied. to that tetwer, whether certain restrictions should not be im posed upon the exercise of it, and whether rules should not be laid down within which alone the power could ever be usefully, beneficially, or consistently with honour, exercised at all.—(Hear.) It appeared that a letter had been opened from an individual who did not appear to Le involved in any treasonable concerns whatever. He tlid not mean to deny that the Secretary of' State might have been bound to open that. letter ; for one of the tin fortunate circumstances of the power he posAes . sed vs es that the Secretary of State was eeropelled, in a measure. to exercise that power in the dark. Talk et' his respon sibility—was he responsible to the House of Commons No : it was a matter of secresy, which he court not dis close. Was he responsible to the House of Lords ? No : the House of Lords must suppose that the Secre t try of State had done what he felt justified in doing. Was he responsible to the Government ? No : because the Noble Duke and the other Mem hers of her Majesty's Government had no know ledge of the circumstances.—(Dear, and a laugh.) But the question was, whether, upon the words of the Act of Parliament, it was intended that thisi power should be exercised to such an extent ? The statute of Anne de clared that the Post-office authorities should be subject to certain penalties for the delay of any letter, except the delay was made under the warrant of the Secretary of State.—(Hear.) That was the extent to which the statute went.—(Hear.) Then, as to the warrant, he should think that the warrant would flow not from the Secretary of State alone, but from all the Ministers, act ing upon the necessity of the case, which might be so overpowering as to form •an excuse for the exercise of such extraordinary power. But that power appeared to (NIA without the slightest responsibility, and in such a manner, that he did not think the English Parliament or the English people would any longer endure.— (Cheers.) He did not consider this a question of expe diency or inexpediency, but a question of right and wron.—(Hear, hear.) He should no more belies a it necessary to show that it was wrong for this power to exist in the person of one individual than he should think it necessary to contend that it was wrong to pick a pocket.--(Hear.) It might indeed be necessary, under some extreme circumstances, that measures of personal restriction, or affecting a man's property, should be re sorted to ; but that there should be this kind of irrespon sibility in the exercise of the power he never could agree. As to Mr. Fox, he issued such a warrant, no doubt ; for, coming into office at the period which he did, at a time of the utmost disturbance, when all Europe was leagued against England, and England was by no means at peace with herself, it would have been a most unwise abandonment of the power he possessed if he had not issued his warrant to the Postmaster-General at that time. But it must have cost him dear. What must be the feelings of such a man as Secretary of State, upon opening a private letter, and becoming acquainted with circumstances of which he would wis to be ignorant, and afterwards meeting the individual in private life with the consciousness that he was in possession of secrets which that individual would not wish any third person to know.—(Hear.) He thought Mr. Fox must have said to himself, under such circumstances,— " Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt " Moliri, et late fines custode tueri I"—(Cheers.) It was said by his Noble and Learned Friend, and said truly, that some political rival, or political enemy, might succeed him in office, and then he might lee improperly called on to answer for that which was no crime, and therefore, he must keep the warrant, which was his jus tification ; but, suppose, with the experience he pos sessed, lie had been rash enough to transmit that docu ment to his solicitors, his successor in office would have deprived him at once of his defence, and he might then have been punished for the act. Fortunately, there %%as an inconsistency in human nature, which prevented people who did possess and exercise hateful powers, acting consistently with themselves upon other occa sions ;_ and a high and dignified char ac t er wou ld k eep a man from abusing a power to the extent to which it was now supposed to have been abused.—(Hear, hear.) But undoubtedly it never could be exercised without great pain to any honourable mind called upon to exercise it.—(Hear, hear.) But, then, beyond the possession of it, the acting upon it, and the using cif it, there were circumstances of concealment, and something very like forgery.—(Loud cries of " H ear , hear.") T hose things ha a tendency to demoralis e th e public mind.—(Hear.) It was well known that many of the subordinate officers and servants of the Post-office unfortunately were too much in the habit of overlooking the obligations which honesty ought to impose upon them ; and he could not think that the knowledge that the great heads of that department, and persons of su perior positions, used such a power, would be any check upon the improper and dishonest desires of such per sons when letters were entrusted to their care.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him to be too much, that when the Government of this country imposed upon all its natives, as well as upon those of all parts of the world, the ne cessity of paying them a large revenue for doing the duty of letter-carriers, that they should at the same time retain in their hands the power of opening all the letters they were entrusted to convey.—(Hear.) The Duke of WELLINGTON—RepeaI the Act. Lord DENMAN thought it might be a very impor tant question whether or not the Act should be repealed ; or, at least, whether restrictions might not be imposed which should leave a certain degree of power, much more definable and responsible than that existing at present—a power subject to the revision of Parliament. —(Hear, hear.) He apologised to their Lordships for detaining them with these observations ; but this sub ject not having occupied his mind until these transac tions were recently brought under public notice, he had considered it, and thought it necessary to declare his conviction that there ought to be some restrictions put upon the exercise of this power.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of DEVON said that from the speech of the Noble Lord it would appear that he advocated the repeal of the existing Act. He did not see what could be gained even if the warrant were obtained, for it would give no information except that it was issued, and that was admitted. If the motion before the House 'were granted, it would justify similar motions in every other case. He did not think there were sufficient grounds for the motion of the Noble Earl. Lord RADNOR, in reply, said, that after what he had heard from both sides of the House he should sot press his motion to a division ; but withdraw it, mean ing upon sonic future occasion to bring it forward in another shape.—(Hear, hear.) In what form he should again introduce this subject to their Lordships' atten tion he should take a little time to consider.—(Hear, hear.) He could understand why the Noble Duke could not state whether or no this transaction was the consequence of some intimation from a foreign power, because lie afterwards said he knew nothing at all about it.—(A laugh.) He apprehended that a Secretary of State wotfld not go to his colleagues to ask them if he should issue a warrant or not. But after this matter had been discussed so much, after it had been brought for ward in the House of Commons, and mentioned by hint its their Lordships' House, and again debated in the House of Commons on the previous night, and after the great sensation it had created in the country, it was not a little singular that all the Cabinet Ministers except the Secretary of State, who issued the warrant, should know nothing about it.—(Hear, hear.) If any one of those Noble Lords opposite had got up and stated that they knew that there were sufficient grounds for issuing the warrant, he should have been ready to believe him ; but none of them had ventured to say that.--(Hear, hear.) But the ignoranc e of th e Noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty was made rather more onerous than if he had known anything about the matter, by the attempting to justify the con duct of the Home Secretary by supposing the existence of some political intrigue between the British Govern ment and a Foreign Power, and affirming that a Secre tary of State might open a letter which might lead to the opening of a war in that Foreign State, which war might possibly lead to the opening of a general war. That was rather a far-fetched justification.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not admit that the opening of a letter was a slight injury.—(Hear.) One letter was spoken of ; but a great many letters had been opened, and the practice had been going on for a length of time, which would be proved before a Committee of Inquiry. (Hear.) The letter of a gentleman might be pried into for the gratification of some enemy, or, as it was surmised, to pander to the purposes of some Foreign Power. Thus individuals were injured, and the character of this country degraded.—(Hear.) This was a subject upon which the country felt keenly, and demanded in quiry and a proper understanding.—(Hear.) The Earl of HADDINGTON explained. The motion was then, by consent, withdrawn. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE laid on the table 9 re port from the Commission of National Education in Ireland. CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of this Bill, and explained the object of it, but in su low a tone of voice that he was nearly inaudi ble in the gallery. The trusts were to be under the direction of a board, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and ten others, to be appointed by her Majesty's Government, who were to be such as would possess the confidence of her Majesty's Roman Catholics in Ireland. The Earl of WICKLOW expressed his concurrence in the Bill. He was the more gratified with it because it showed that the subject of an endowment for the Roman Catholic clergy was under the consideration of the Government. He was afraid, however, that the present Bill would render that most wise and salutary measure most difficult. The Bishop of EXETER supported the measure be• cause he thought it was but au act of justice to the Roman Catholics to place them on the same footing as the other Dissenters of the country. With regard to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, that was a measure which would receive all the opposition in his power, from whatever source it proceeded, because it would be inconsistent with the support which was given to the Established Church. He thought the grant to Maynooth ought to be a warning to them not to endow the Catholic Church. Lord MONTEAGLE expressed his concurrence in the Bill, but if they wanted to elevate the character of the priesthood of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they must increase the grant to Maynooth, and not rest satisfied with allowing them the miserable pittance they now re ceived, The Earl of HADDINGTON could not conceive how the operation of this Bill could have any reference to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. Her Ma jesty's Government believed the measure would be as. tisfactory to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and as such the Government had great pleasure in bringing it forward. Lord HATHERTON said that he was sure this we. sure would be hailed as a boon by the Roman Catholic otergy of Ireland. He concurred with his Noble Friend near him in the sentiments he expressed with regard to Maynooth. The grant they made to Maynooth was said no one could be found boll enough to controvert, that there was invar;ably discontent in the agricultural distri,ts whyu the pricy of bread was high, and content when the oric of bread was low. He would not wder ta!;.e to say that he r- - 2garded a high price of bread as go , 7)(l.—(Oppositirin chef Ts.) He adinitt,A that a high price of bread was a misfortune; but the Hon. Gentle man had dared any one to deny the accuracy of the a , :ortion which he had made. Now, in the years 1834, 1840, and 1841, there was no incendiarism; while in the years 1843 and 1844, when the price of bread was moderate and low in comparison with the former years, there was incendiarism. Therefore the Hon. Gentleman who had challenged them to produce an instance of dis content among the agricultural labourers when bread was at a low price, and of content when it was at a high price, need not go further than the last three years to see the fallacy of his assertion. The Honourable Gentleman said that this discontent and incendiarism was occasioned by want of em ployment. Now, he would ask the Hon. Gentleman not if lie had not encouraged this feeling—he did not insinuate for a moment that ho had done so—it would be an insult to ask the question—but he would ask him if he did not think it possible that this persevering and sedulous agitation, which he had carried on, no doubt, because he thought it calculated to produce great public advantage—if that agitation might not have suggested to the landlords the idea that their interests were not quite safe, and might not have produced a pernicious effect by inducing them to withhold the application of their capital to the cultivation of the soil, which would not have been withheld if their confidence had not been shaken by this agitation—(Hear, hear)—and. if the withholding of this capital had not occasioned a want of employment among the agricultural labourers, and so led to these incendiary fires ?—(Cheers.) If so, he called udon the Hon. Gentleman to recognise with him the soundness and the widom, so long as Parliament determined to maintain those corn-laws, of disregarding that agitation of which he was the leader in that House, and of setting their faces _ _ firmly against motions such as that which had been sub mitted to them by the Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had referred to an argument which he had used on a former occasion, and had stated that he (Mr. Gladstone) had urged the displacement of rural labour as an objection to the repeal of the corn-laws. Now, the Hon. Gentleman had answered that objection, as if he had contended that the corn-laws would displace labour only by throwing land out of cultivation, and had stated that he was at a loss to conceive how it could go out of cultivation, although it might be incapable of pro ducing rent. The Hon. Gentleman had professed to be sceptical as to the possibility of such a state of things arising as any land being thrown out of cultiva tion as long as it could be cultivated by anybody on their own account. But that did not affect his (Mr. Glad stone's) argument. His argument was, that granting that there would be a great increase in the trade in the manufacturing productions of the country, consequent upon a repeal of the corn-laws, yet still the increased demand for foreign corn could not but be followed by the infliction of injury to the agricultural labourer. Might it not be possible that this state of things would arise: that a great quantity of land now employed as arable land, might be laid clown as pasture land—a method of cultivation which would be most profitable to the landlord, but wou d be most distressing to the labourer.—(Hear, hear.) Such a mode of cultivation would not lower the rent of the land, in fact it would be highly profitable to the landlord, and to the farmer, who would get a good price for the butter, cheese, and meat which would be produced from pasture land, while the demand for rural labour woul I be greatly dimin ished, and thus the agricultural labourer would suffer greatly, while the landlord would not suffer at all. The. Hon Gentleman had stated that if the repeal of the corn-laws, by increasing the supply of corn, would dis place agricultural labour, every improvement in agricul ture might be opposed for the same reason. Now, even if he were disposed to admit that improved methods of cul tivation, by increasing produce, would displace rural labour, yet that diminution of the demand for rural labour would be gradual. It would not come with that rapidity and suddenness which must be the result of any such proposition as that contained in the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. But he demurred to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman upon that point. Certain agri cultural improvements must lead to a diminution of the demand for rural labour ; but in most cases agricultural improvements would lead to a general increase of that demand. If they looked to the improvement consequent upon the general inclosing of waste lands, or upon the establishment of an extensive system of drainage, the Hon. Gentleman could hardly deny but that those im provements, so far from leading to a diminution, would give a stimulus to the demand for rural labour, and would raise wages more perhaps than any other means that could be devised. It was doubtless true that every agri cultural improvement would diminish the demand for labour. Everything that tended to diminish the quan tity of labour necessary to rase one quarter of wheat, would diminish the demand for labour so far as that quarter of wheat was concerned ; but if by the introduc tion of improvements the produce of the land could be increased by many quarters of wheat, the demand for rural labour, as a whole, would be proportionably in ereased,—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentle man had said, that thosehwho had originally proposed the law had intended to produce scarcity. Now he repu diated that charge.—(Hear, hear.) It was not for him to say whether the expectations of those who had framed the law of 1815 had been realised or not, the Parliament of 1844 was not called upon to pass ,judgment on that subject—they might' ave been right, or they might have been wrong. Lord Grenville, and those who acted with him, might have greater credit given to them by the Hon. Member for sagacity than the framers of the law. But it was only doing justice to his Noble Friend (Lord Ripon) who had originally proposed that law, to say that the reason which he had given for its proposal was that by giving encouragement to domestic agriculture we should insure a more certain and abundant supply of corn than by any other means. He did not expect that the Hon. Gentleman would concur in that argument, but it was but just to the original proposers of that law to state that such was the argument which they hsd used, and it was not right to as cribe to them motives so offensive in the public mind as those which ascribed to them the intention of producing scarcity. The Hon. Gentleman said that the corn-laws limited the quantity of food ; and, conse quently, produced scarcity and disease. He would not go into the abstract proposition. He would not ask the House to consider what would be the effect of the repeal of the corn-laws upon those classes who depended upon agricultural labour for their maintainence. It might be true that the law which imposed a tax upon the importa tion of any commodity limited its consumption That was a question on which he was not then called upon to enter. The Hon. Gentleman had made a speech which was opposed to the whole protective system.— (Opposition cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman could hardly expect him to go into the argument as to the grounds on which the protective system had originally been adopted; and what encouragement did the Hon. Gentle man hold out to those who might be inclined to modify that system? None whatever. He would accept of no measure short of total repeal.—(Opposition cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman did not argue that the corn-laws afforded too much protection, or that they afforded pro tection to the agricultural interest different from that which was afforded to every other interest ; and it was competent for him to contend, in opposition to the Hon. Gentleman, that as the principle of protection was ac knowledged by our law, it was only a practical exem plification of that law, to give protection to the agricul• tural interest. He objected to this motion, be cause a confidence in the stability of a law was of the utmost importance.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord cheered that. If confidence in the sta bility of a law was to be undermined by agitation, what hope was there that he would restore confidence by a fixed duty?—(Cheers.) It was clear the Noble Inrd would find himself in the same position as the defenders of the present lax, for the arguments of the Hon. Mem ber for Wolverhampton would equally apply to his pro position. The sense of Parliament had been already pro nounced with regard to the present corn - law , and he trusted they would give the law that stability which arose from the exhibition, on their part, of giving a fair trial to a law of which they had not as yet a comprehen sive experience ; but all the experience they had of it realised the most sanguine expectations that had been forme4 of it.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and himself were both for stability. But the Hon. Gentleman would deprive at one blow the landlords and farmers of the protection which they had for centuries, and he referred to a statement made ay him (Mr. Gladstone), that when a commercial change was to be made, the more rapidly it was done the better. But the Hon. Gentleman begged the question in supposing they were going to make any change. In 1842 Parliament had bestowed a great portion of the public time in discussing the principle and the particulars of the corn-laws. He believed eighteen nights of that session had been passed in discussing the corn-laws. They could not renew that every year.—(Hear. hear.) It was im possible they could do so, and if Parliament consented to keep a question of such magnitude in perpetual agitation, it would not only be injurious to those whose interests were more immediately concerned, but to the character of Parliament itself. He claimed something like stability for the decisions of Parliament.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Howick) The Noble Lord was quicker than he (Mr. Gladstone) was, and he attached meanings to his words which he never intended they should bear. But if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were willing to accede to that proposition, he called on them to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member forWol verhampton.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman made no charge against the present corn-law—his arguments were directed against protection of every kind, and he called on them to abolish protection to agriculture as they abolished tion. T protectionhety et . a to dh wool.He denied that wool had penny a pound on wool operated as a tax on British produce. It depressed the price of British wool by discouraging the consumption of articles with which British wool was mixed. Then in stead of abolishing all protection, they awarded protec tion that very year to the growers of coffee and sugar.— (Ironical cheers.) He had observed a marked distinc tion between the speech of the Hon. Gentleman that night and his speeches on former occasions. The pre sent law had now been in operation two years, and they were years by no means favourable to the working of the law, for in the beginning of 1842 the prospect of the harvest was very bad, and it turned out to be an abundant one ; objections had the to law and, on the contrary , the first five months onths ofl3 th 4 e 3 gave the highest prospect o f an abundant crop, but H I v v e o s r t k f e e d l 1 ? s h o r o t n o e f what the wa s g e was d . old law was that it occasioned rapid flactuatiens in price. Now no person could say that law in those two years, daring which the present was in operation there ad been any unsteadiness of price, and during the present year, in which there was no great change expected, the price of corn had been re markably steady.—(Hear, hear.) The averages kept moving from week to week in scarcely a perceptible de- Ilis Right Ron. Friend; had stated of hint that I;'d age 1