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

IMPERIAL "PARLIAMENT. • HOUSE OF LORDS, June 25. The LORD CEIA.NCELLOR took his seat on the Wools 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 Poste 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 (lane to retrieveshe 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 lie 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 la* 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 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.—(llear, hear.) Petitions had been resented to the other House from divers person., complaining that their letters had been opened and read at the Post-office. One of these was a foreigner of cote siderable literary attainments, who was admired,- and beloved by all who knew him, It was admitted that a . warrant had been issued fur opening the letters of one of these persons. Last nialit a petition had been pre sented with a similar complaint from another foreigner that person had not beni mixed up in the politics of this country, but he had, unfortunately for himself, been -! mixed up in the liberal polities of foreign countries. lie had taken refuge here, and had been well received ; but Whilst . here he had been exposed to the having his let ters 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.—(llear, hear.) These cir cumstances had produced *a great feeling in the . public mind of this country, and he (Lord R.) could not .I help feeling shame, and disgrace fir his country, in which which such conduct was tolerated.—(Hear, hear.) : He could not help thinking that the Noble Duke who I had done more to reviv e the c haracter of this country ! than any one living, who was conspicuous for the gal- i lantry, the straight-forwardness, and the open-hearted mess of all his conduct—(Cheers)—would not willingly consent to make this country the police-office of every petty. state in Europe.--(Cheers.) He 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 Maie'reh.praying her Majesty to lay before their Lord ships clines of all warrants issued by her Majesty's Sc'. crater). 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 uses with regard to hiMself„-end 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 wae.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 Queea Anne.. The Post-office laws had been revised in the last year of his late Majesty and.the first yearof the reign of her present Majesty, and an Act confirming those powers had then passed. The Postmaster-General, on taking office, made a declaration that he would cause alfsletters to be delivered as directed, except when re quit ed by a warrant . from the Secretary of State to send those letters to be examined, in accordance with that ware eft. There could he no doubt but that power had been confided to the Secretary of State, and he submitted to the jr Lordships that the Secretary of State was bound to exercise tliat power whenever his duty rendered it ne cessary•for, him so to do. Under these circumstances; he was ..mere their Lordships would well consider before they we tsl4 enter into any inquiry upon the exercise of that pow ee,. They ought to have certain proof that this power line* been used - for an improper purpose, before they wades any inquiry upon the matter. With regard to the disc iussion of that subject in another place, he did not know , that there was any proof whatever that any letter had :been openekexceptahat a warrant had been issued for % the easening of one letter. He had no know ledge what ;ever on : the subject himself, and had no ac count wile ;ever to„giee upon it ; but he would submit to their Lord 'efliip that unless they were convinced by the evidence I More them that the power entrusted.to the Secretary of State. for., the Home Department had been abused, the y taught to resistthis motion, and ho therefore could not c prtsent to the motion. The _Eat fi of TANKERVILLE said he had in his pos session ele puments which proved that the practice of opening lei viers at the Pust-office was of frequeatoccur rence.' Ho; had in his possessi o n warrants which had been issued ; for opening the letters of all foreign Minis ters' of eve try rank and grade. Those warrants were issued : by : the Right Hon. Charles James Fex. The same:kiiid of warrant was also issued With respect to the letter's of I ord George Gordon. 116 (the Earl of Tan keryille) th ought this was a power which ought to be exercised"! ee the Government. Tho. Mai quis of CLANRICARDE said their Lord shipsmust have felt interested in the statement which the Noble Earl .:had just made. Front what his Noble Friend had stated, Alt would appear that the affairs of the Poste offiecewere not regulated as they ought to be; for lie had detest that 'de had in his possession documents of im portance, - ettiair di ought, properly, to have remained in the Post-office. :it would be remembered that the case to which the Nioble Earl had referred was one which took place.at a ti ate of war, when it was absolutely necessary for the Gove 7:went to make themselves acquaintedwith the corresponds. ace of all foreign Ministers. But in the present case, the indi widual respecting whose letters the warrants had been issued was a private individual, and had never beeu .engage 4 in any way against the peace of thiseciuntry. , In the case of Lord George Gordon the exercise of such a power wag necessary, because the times were disturbed, and the petite.. of the country was endangered... It was said this was at matter of confidence in the Goveanment, but they weree also told that the Minister ache on his Own responsibi lty. What was this responsibility if," when a matter of WS 4 kind became known, the Minister stood upon. the confidence that must be placed in the Govern- . Inent:!.-(kle ir, hear.) If any Cabinet Minister got- up and declared upon his own 'knowledge and his. own cre dibility that *here was anything dangerous to the Go vernment of ahis country going on he would believe him. ~(Heare hear.) Ile was of opinion that such a powier ought to be placed in the hands of . the Govern ment ; but when it was deemed necessary to open it let ter it ought to,. be signified to the person to whom the letter . was addressed, and there was no reason why a i Government should be ashamed to do this if there was justegroUnds for opening the letter.—(Hear, hear.) But it was country to all honour and justice to intercept a mart by ,having a watch over his correspondence.— (Ilear e hear.) He hoped his Noble Friend would make some .motion on the subject, either fur a Committee of Inquiry, or .for the particular warrant. The people of thiacountry would have no confidence in 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. lIADDINtiTON admitted that there was- nothing which ought to be so sacred as private cor respondence pas-sing, through the Post-office, and no Minister could tike a wore fearful responsibility on himself than by rashly, or lightly, or without necessity, - seesching any letter passing through that department. — (e - tear, hear.) It sseneed to be admitted, on all hands, sheet this power was necessary. and, indeed, it must exist in e „ "'very country which had a Government at all. vitae a the Government, the country, or the Crown, was endat .gereds such a power was absottitely necessary, and was admitted by all. But lie would. go further than that) 'Who seemed to think that anything which occurred abtoad- could not be a legitimate object:4hr the exercise of such a power. Ile could conceive plots and cabals taking place on the continent of Europe, of . which this country was made the centre of correspondence, the emit of . which 'Dios be to involve the world in a war, a nd this country amonAst th e rest , Il e h e ld, th e r e f ore , that it was a power that m ust b e vested in the Secretary ol..Stste. -Douhtloss, the power was an odious one— a most unpleasant one for a Se cretary of State to, hold ; but, from its very form and nature, it was on e , regarding the execution of which -tits disclosures could b e ma d e . Their Lordshis, in his opinion, could not w i se l y or prdperly interfere with a confidence which, it sh elt ie b e reeollected, was not a Veluatary and a free, but is necessary coctidence. And he ventured to assert that there was no. thing in the character of the present Government to ca ll for or to justify any such interference. Of course, it, might occur that a Secretary of State was misinformed oe imposed upon, but whether his Bight Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had been so or not he could not say, ler he knew no more of the matter than the rest of their I.Ordships. He trusted the House would nut sanction the motion, hut, by negativing it, assert the confidence which, in all such matters, must necessarily be placed in the Secretary of State. ;T,ord CANIPBELL 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, ha should have been satisfied.—(Hear, hear.) But no one did this. The Noble Lord who spoke last admitted that be was totally unacquainted with the circumstances of ~ „thy cage, and other . Members of the Government de ' .o,me lto4Wainy satisfactory answer to the complaints ' .. . , • fit,,, For his (Lord Campbell's) parts hes ---- - s • ' z -,.. ~-l irettlesag open of a letter, and the - breaking ;:es s, • , s s' . , . • ' .•. ee,. e „ee •le kould see-no difference. - . 7 X-=-Yes, it is much worse. ( ~..., , ,,,-ee , .• .e * 1 ‘ ,.. ' . ..: . , i' t. • : L—True ;it was worse. The breach 1c - ~ • . u!,,,, ~,, ~,-, .- e rater, from the socresy which neces es 4. ]e ~ ,4tes, , e n . the transaction. Seeing that no , l i t te a umstences was made erovbfftitseniblea thought by the saidsentAlor."cOnsiderativn P a i n 'tma . fte . ie Case had been and inquiry. There were two foreigners Who &Glared that their letters had -beam, ~-- THE SUN, LONDON.,__WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE S 6, 1 I operiesi—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, be 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 he 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, when 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 the 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 exercised, to produce certain documents and papers. Another objection to the motion was, that it would prelim no good result. He did nct think that the production of the warrant would throw any light on the, subject. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE explained. Lord DENMAN did not consider that there was any danger of impeachment of the conduct of the Secretary of State. Ile (Lord Denman) knew of no circumstance which would lead him to say that the Secretary of State had acted improperly in the exercise of this most odious and pernicious power, but he thought that circumstances had been made the subject of public discussion, and it was therefore now imperative on Parliament to inquire into the mode in which the power had been exercised. It appeared that letters had been opened belonging to an individual who, it would appear, had not been in volved in any treasonable concern or matter whatever. In exercising this power the Secretary of State was re sponsible to no one. He thought the warrants ought never to be issued unless with the express concurrence Of the whole Government. He thought they ought not te allow such power to be continued without respon sibility. This was a question of right and wrong, and ought to be fully considered. 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. Ile did not see what could be even if' the warrant were obtained, for it would g'ive 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. Earl RADNOR replied. He did not see what grounds could be alleged for their motion, except that the act had been done without any probable cause of justifica tion. He would not persevere in his motion, but would reserve to himself the power of renewing the subject on a future occasion. The motion was then withdrawn. ~ The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE laid on the table a re port from the Commission of National Education in Ireland: - CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL. The Earl of WIIARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of this, Bill, and explained the object of it, but in so low a tone of voice that he was nearly inaudi ble in the gallery. The trusts were to be uader 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. Ile 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 an 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 MONTEAG LE 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 Mavnooth, 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 sa 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 mea• sure would be hailed as a boon by the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. He concurred with his Noble Friend near him in the sentiments he expressed with regard to Maynootli. The grant they made to Maynooth was a disgrace to this country, and he hoped the Government would do everything they could to remove it. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE expressed himself highly gratified at the Bill. After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the 'Bill was read a second time. LAW OF LIBEL BILL. Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that, (*Tuesday next, he would - more the third reading of the Law of Libel Bill. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE. Mr. LdNITON presented a petition from Yorkshire in favour of protection to agriculture. Mr. W. PATTEN presented petitions from Lanca shire to the same effect. An Hos. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches pre sented petitions from every parish in Huntingdon against any alteration in the corn-law!. • Mr. MILES presented petitions from Somersetshire in favour or protection to agriculture. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a number of petitions from Lincolnshire to the same effect. _ _ Lord MARSIIANI presented similar petitions frcim Kent. Lord GIIDISTONE also presented petitions from Hertford. • _ _ . _ Sir J. TROLLOPE presented petitions from Northum berland, Rutland, and Huntingdon, in favour of agricul tural protection. Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition, signed by agri cultural labourers of Dorsetshire; praying for the re moval of all restrictive duties on articles of food. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN presented petitions from Northumberland, Iluntingdon, Cambridge, and other places, in favour of agricultural protection. Mt. BECK TT . presented similar petitions. Mr. B. ESCOTT presented similar petitions from Winchester and its neighbourhood. Mr. R. PALMER presented petitions to the same effect from Berkshire. . Lord v GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented 140 petitions from the county of Monmouth, in favour of protection to - agriculture. Lord STANLEY presented several petitions to the same effect from North . Lancashire, signed by sixteen or seventeen thousand persons. The Noble Lord was proceeding to explain to the House the manner in which the petition had been got up, when Mr. WAKLEY rose 'to order. It was against the rules of the House to speak on the merits of a petition on its presentation. He had often tried it himself, and he had always been met by being told that he could not make any statement on the presentation of a petition. Lord STANLEY conceived that his experience in these matters was quite as great as the Hon. Member's. The.rule of the House was, that a Member could not discsss the merits of a petition, but must confine himself strictly to a statement of the object of the petition, and, on the present occasion, he was merely stating the par ties fro,n whom the petition proceeded. The petition was in favour of agricultural protection, and came from landowners and others in Lancashire. Amongst them were 23, out of 47, of the principal manufacturers of Preston, employing 1,588 horse power out of 3,522. It was also signed by 25 of the principal employers of hand-loom weavers in Blackburn and its neighbourhood. —(Cheers ) Mr. WANLEY,,wished to ask the Noble Lord if that statement were embodied in the petition? Lord STANLEY said it was not, but he held in his hand a list of the parties to whom he had referred, which the Hon. Gentleman might see if he wished. Mr. WAKLEY. _wished to ask the Speaker if the Noble Lord had been in order in the statement he had made ? The SPEAKER conceived the Noble Lord to be in order. If he had not done so, he should have felt it his daty to have interrupted him. Mr. WILSON PATTEN said he had been applied to by the petitioners to have the statement, which the Noble Lord had made, presented to the House. Mr. WAKLEY said I►o should on a future occasion take advanti;ge of the opinion which had been expressed by the Speaker. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. WAKLEY said as this had been laid down from the chair to be strictly in order, he should take care not to fi - n ,, et it on a future oceasion.—(hear, hear.) Sir .E\izs./17.RcEloTE presented 57 petitions from the County of Itetland, in favour of agricultural protection. Lord presented several petitions to the same effect. FREE LABOUR. Mr. II urr gave notice that on this day fortnight he should bring before the House the subject of the immi gration of free negroos into the West Indies. TIIE W Alt IN MOROCCO. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask the Right llon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) a question, of which he had given notice , with,respect to , the state of the re lations between France and Morocco. He- bad delayed it until communications should have been received. It appeared that re-infiweements had lately been. sent by the French Government to the frontier o f Algiers, and it was said that the whole f orce was to amount to' no less than 100,000, or nearly equal to the whole force of this great empire. 'There had lately been actual hostilities on the frontier of Algiers and Morocco. Whether they were provoked by the Morocco chiefs, as stated in the French newspapers, or whether the Emperor of Morocco had any other ac count to give of the origin of those hostilities, they. were not informed. Ally question which should lead to hostilities, -saiitilinws to war- and invasion on tha part of France against Morocco, could not but be deeply interesting to this country, between which and Morocco relations of peace were established in 1801 and renewed in 1824. The personiand property of English subjects in Morocco were protected ; and there was an article in the treaty which had special reference to the provis'aoa ine. of Gibraltar, being evidently considered by . the' parties who framed it of the utmost importance. Then, if any aggression or occupation on the part. of France should tend to interrupt the means of communit a tion of this country with the States of MorOcco, that would occasion very serious inconvenience. —(Hear, bear.) .. No doubt the Noble Secretary for Foreig n Affairs had communicated with the *Government of th King of the French on this subject ; aad he (Lord .To in Russell) wished to ask the Right lionoura'ole Baronet at the head of the Government what was the nature of the explanation given, both as to the origin of the hostilities, and the extent to which they were likely to be carried?—(Hear, hear.) There was another subject upon which he wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman—that was with respect to any instructions which had been given to the Admiral who was appointed to command the expedition. —(Hear, hear.) The Admiral appointed was the Prince de Joinville, and he was sure that the mention of :that name was enough to make every Englishman jealous on "the subject.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL said the Noble Lord had been good enough to give him notice of the g eneral tenor of his question, and he was prepared to give now• the answer to that question, as far as he was able con sistently with his sense of public duty. He concurred with the Noble Lord in his observations as to the importance to this country of the States of Morocco. It was im possible to contemplate those States, and their present condition, without feeling deep intereit. The re lations which had so long subsisted with Mixroeco, and the fidelity with which that empire had alw tkvs ob served its engagements, as well as the physical Charac ter and position of the country itself, made its present 'exposed condition a matter of deep concern.--e(Hear, hear.) In answer to the Noble Lord, he must state that the Government of France had entered into full ex plane tions with regard to the state of its relations with Mo rocco. The French Government had stated mos t posi tively that it was their most anxious wish to avoid hos tiliths between France and Morocco. They stated the ' circumstances which led to the .!rupture. Those were, that when the Chieftain vino had opposed the French in the north of Aferiest, and who was well known for his valour and perseverance, was pressed, he sought refuge within the territory of Morocco. He there re-organised his forces, and was enabled by the subjects of the Emperor, if not by the Emperor himself, to renew hostilities. That led to au interruption of the friendly relations of France with Morocco, and hostilities were corm tenced by the directions of the Emperor. There was subsequently a casual •collision of the French and Moorish troops. An amicable conference subsequently took p',93e, during which, according to the telegraphic dispatch, the French were assailed. Of the facts of this encounter, he knew no more than was conveyed in the dispatch. The French Government also stated, that nothing was further from their wish than to enter up on hostili ties with Morocco ; and they regretted the necessity of their doing so. They had commusicated to her Majesty's Government their general views with regard to Morocco, and had apprised this Government of their general demands on the Emperor, and the steps which they intended to take to enforce those demands, which, of course, included the general instructions to the Admiral. He thought the Noble Lord would expect that he should explain the purport of those instructions. —(Hear, hear.) Ile trusted implicitly to the assurances which he had received, and they were Satisfactory. He was sure the Noble Lord would not expect him to state anything further now ; but when the time ewe that there were no considerations of public duty to pre vent him, he would then have no objection to be more explicit. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that although he would not press the Right Hon. Baronet further at the present time. yet the Right lion. Gentleman must excuse him if, on a future occasion, he again alluded to this subjec`. _ COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS. In answer to a question from Mr. SCOTT, on the sub ject of the poor-laws, Sir R. PEEL said he would take that opportunity of stating what course the Government intended to - pursue with respect to public business. On Thursday next he proposed to proceed with the Committee on the Bank Charter Bill, but he should in the first instance propose that the Sugar Duties Bill should be read a third time, provided the motion which the Noble Lord had to make on the subject did not interfere with the third reading. After the Bank Charter Bill, he would propose the third reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill ou Tuesday week; and in case that Bill was read a third time on Thurs lay, his Right Hon. Friend would proceed with the Poor law Amendment Bill on Friday. On Monday he pro posed to proceed with the second reading of the Irish Re gistration Bill, which he hoped would be convenient for gentlemen connected with Ireland. . Mr. F. FRENCH said that several Irish Members would have to go next week to attend the assizes. Sir R. PEEL said, he had endeavoured to meet the wishes of Hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland, and he had fixed Monday next, because he understood that that day would not be inconvenient to them. Lord J, RUSSELL said, that what he should have to say on the subject of the Sugar duties would go into a small compass, but he would not answer for the length of the debate. He hoped that next week either the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern ment, or the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment; would be ready to state what course the Govern ment intended to pursue with respect to the Ecclesiasti cal Courts Bill and the County Courts Bill, before Hon. and Learned Gentlemen went on the circuit. GAMING LAWS. Lord PALMERSTON wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government during the present ses sion to bring in a Bill founded on the report of the Com mittee on the Gaming Laws. Sir J. GRAHAM did not think the matter of suffi cient importance to introduce a Bill in the course of the present session, but he would bring one in in the course of next session. Lord PALMERSTON wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet intended to continue, till next ses sion, the Bill passed for the Suspension of Actions ? Sir J. GRAHAM said the Bill was not introduced by Government, and he was not prepared to undertake the conduct of the Bill. FRAME-WORK KNITTERS. • Mr. PERRAND wished to know why no Commis sioner had viaited Nottingham, to inquire into the truth of the allegations in the petition of the frame-work knitters, which he had presented some time since. Sir J. GRAHAM said that Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the state of the hand-loom weavers and the frame-work knitters, and he had no doubt they would soon visit the county of Nottingham. ORANGE PROCESSIONS. Mr. WYSE wished to know whether it was the in tention of the Government to continue the Orange Pro cessions Bill, which was about to expire on the Ist day of August. It the Eight Hon. Baronet did not wish now to answer the question he would give a regular notice on the subject. Sir J. GRAHAM said, if the Right Hon. Gentleman would give notice either for to-morrow or Friday, he would then answer the question. Mr. WYSE said, as we understood, that he would give notice for to-morrow. IRISH STATE TRIALS. Sir R. PEEL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had given notice of a motion with respect to the Irish State trials for the 2d of July. Now the hearing of the writ of error, as he understood, was fixed for the 4th of that month • and he would put it to the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he would bring forward the motion when the Attorney-General for Ireland, and also the Attorney-General for England could not be in their places? He trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman would feel it but just that he should bring it in on some other day. Mr. WYSE said in answering the Right Hon. Baronet he must claim the indulgence of the House. He hal already deferred his notice on account of the discussions which were going on in the Court of Queen's Bench ; but it lutist be recollected that the subject of his motion had relation to facts rather than to law. It should also be remembered that there was a very strong opinion among Hon. Members, that upon the occasion alluded to the trial had been an unfair one,—(Loud cries of hear, hear)—and the conviction was not justified by the cir cumstances.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Wyse) did not feel justified in putting off his motion, unless some specific day was fixed for it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir ROBERT PEEL was of opinion that in common justice to the Attorney-General for Ireland, the motion should be postponed until he was at liberty fully to be prepared for it, and to give his undivided attention to it. So strong was his opinion of the injustice that would be done if the motion was not postponed, that he should be ready to use the power of Government to as sign some other dsy for its discussion.—(Hear.) Mr. WYSE said as the Right Hon. Baronet was wil ling to assist in giving another day for the discussion of the motion, he should be disposed to consult his conve nience as far as he could safely do so ; but he could give no specific undertaking upon the subject, until he had conferred with Hon. Members of the House, who were deeply interested in the matter.—The conversation then dropped. COL. STODDART AND CAPTAIN CONOLLY. Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the Right lion. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government had received any communication from Dr. Wolff, since his departure on his mission to the Khan of Bokhara? Sir R. PEEL said the question was one involving considerations so important to the feelings of individuals, that he would rather not answer it at that moment, with out having had notice of it. If the Hon. Member would put it to him on Thursday or Friday next, he would give him . the best and latest information in possession of the Government. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Mr. T. DUNCOMI3E, seeing the Right Hon. the Secretary of State in his place, wished to put a question to him as to a Bill that was in circulation, entitled " A Bill for the better administration of justice in the county of Middlesex," and purporting to ba printed by order of the House of Commons. 'He begged to know whether Right Hon. Baronet intended to bring in such a Bill ; and if so, when ? SW J. GRAHAM was not aware that any such Bill was in circulation ; a Bill had been printed fur the pur pose of being shown to a few persons in confidence, and of obtaining information. Mr. DU.KOMBE said he had not seen the Bill him self, but it had been shown to some members of the Marylebone Vestry, and it appeared on the face of it, " Printed by order of the House of Commons." Sir J. GRAHAM said there must be some error in that designation. A Bill on the subject had. been printed, and shown in confidence to a few persons, as the most convenient mode of obtaining information on the goes- Lion involved, and ascertaining their . opinions ; • had not yet decided on what shape the Bill was to as sume, or the provisions it was to contain. SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY. in withdrawing his motion for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV, c. 77, as relates to the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, said, he must ask the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to state more explicitly than he had yet done what his intentions were with regard to this measure. On the present occaion, he did not intend to go into the question ; but as there was an opinion out of doors that the consent of her Majesty would be required be fore any further progress could be made, he begged to ask whether, .if that consent .should be required, it would be withheld by the Government. Sir R. PEEL said, that if the Hon. Gentleman had brought forward his motion, he vvo,ild have felt it his duty to oppose it. The question, whether or not the consent of the Crown was necessary, was One involving many complicated considerations ; and he did not under take to say whether, if it were declared to be necessary in the present instance, it would be given by the Government. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said that, though it might be necessary to renew the motion at a future period, he should, for the present, withdraw it. CORN LAWS. Mr. C. VILLIERS then rose to move that this House do resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the following resolutions :—"That it appears by a recent census that the people of this country , are rapidly increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this House that a large proportion of her Majesty's subjects are insufficiently provided with the first neces saries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law is in force, which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its abundance That any restriction, having for its object to impede the fr-?e purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of the community, is in defensible in principle, injurious in operation, and ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the Act 5 and 6 Victoria e. 14, shall be repealed forthwith." The Honourable Member said the purpose of the motion of which h e h a d g i ven not i ce was, that of once again bringing under the consideration of that House the claim, so just, so important in itself, made on the part of the community at large, that the trade in the first necessary of life, now restricted by the Act of that House, should be in future unfettered and wholly free. He could most truly say that such was the importance which he attached to this claim, that if he for one moment imagined that the power with which it was presented to the House could in any way affect its success, nothing would have induced him again tO become the instrument of making the motion on this occasion. However, this was notoriously not the case. He had upon two occasions brought this matter before the House, and he bad been supported by Members of the greatest ability, who had left nothing unsaid that could be urged in its favour, an d yet t hi s h a d b een d one in vain. It might, perhaps, he asked, upon what grounds, therefore, he now proceeded to renew this appeal. He thought he might take credit for not having adopted this course without due consideration. If those who were united with him in opinion on that sutjeet, had b een s il ent upon it d ur i ng this session, their opponents would not have been slow to infer that either by their overwhelming influence, or their persuasive elegise:nee, they had been induced to fly from the field—that they were satisfied with the former decision of that House. A notion more foreign to the truth could not be imagined by anybody. But he thought the public were likely also to have concurred in this view if they had remained silent, con sidering the novel attitude which country gentleman had assumed on this question during the past year. Those gentlemen had considered it expedient, for the purpose of maintaining this law, or of conciliating public opinion, to descend into the field of public agitation, and they had followed closely in the track of that body who were leagued together in opposition to them. It would have appeared somewhat remarkable, considering the appeal which had been made, if there had been no dis cussion in that House. Their meetings appeared to have been somewhat select, and they seemed rather to have agitated themselves than to have succeeded in awakening much sympathy for their cause. But inasmuch as their professions appeared so large in print, and as there had been no lack of confidence on the other side, it would have been somewhat curious if, when the parties had met on common ground, there had been no opportunity of fair argument in that House. The public expected an opportunity of j u d g i ng f a i r ly bet ween th e con t en di ng parties. He saw little reason for despair, and some for hope, in this continued discussion on this question. He was unable to explain, unless from a conviction of the substantial justice of the anti-corn-law cause, why the Government had not allowed any month of last session to pass without abandoning some portion of the ground on which the opposite system was based.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He did not say this from any idle wish to make mischief between the two sections of the opposite party. It seemed to him that they were deriving all the advantage from discussion which, with a cause based on truth and justice, they were likely to do. They were gradually gaining ground, whilst those who were opposed to them were gradually losing ground.—(Hear, hear.) Public opinion had fortunately great influence with this country ; and it was on this ground, that that important body which was opposed to monopoly were entitled to the gratitude of mankind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were now unable to defend this law on its real merits ; they assigned any ground but the true one. Such deference was now necessary to be paid to public opinion, that any law or insti tution which was assailed, must be 'defended on public grounds. It was the difficulty of the opposite party that they could not defend the common law upon any material, general, or public grounds, and that the people felt themselves aggrieved by it. It was opposed by a vigilant, active, and intelligent body, who had, in every way, examined, criticised, and tested every ground on which the law was maintained, and they found that every ground on which it now stood was un tenable. He asked them on what ground the suppor ters of the law now rested their defence ? There was no one ground which he had heard, since he came into that House, that had not been thoroughly examined, and completely exposed. —(Hear, hear.) He was anxious, therefore, to hear what fresh ground was to be assumed. The ground up on w hi c h it was placed when first introduced was the :nest plausi ble, before it was tested by experience, when it proved to be the most foolish on which it could stand—that was, that it was dangerous for this country to be dependent for its supply of food on other countries, and that there fore every thing should be done to encourage and pro tect English agriculture. Plausible as it seemed at first, experience proved that argument to be most foolish. It was assumed that we might depend upon other countries for our revenue, and for the means of employ ment to millions of our people, whereby they should obtain bread, but not dependent fir the bread itself.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") That was the ; lan for the first enactment of the law—a plan which at the time all thinking men derided, and now all dis interested men denounced and ridiculed. The returns laid before the House during the last twenty years showed that since the law was passed we had been dependent on other countries for large supplies of corn, and in the last five years to the amount of 17,000,000 qua rt e rs of co r n —(Hear, hear.) —and that, too, a supply not raised with a view to this country, but obtained under circum stances the most disadvantageous to us.—(Hear, hear.) During the thirteen years of the duration of the law passed in. 1815, there was actually imported from foreign countries no less than thirty millions' worth of corn for the consumption of the people of this country. Therefore he did not expect that the advocates for monopoly in the home market, would allege a sufficiency of home supply as an excuse—at least, he would not expect such an excuse from any man having a re gard for truth and reputation. Whether this soil could or could not produce enough t o su pp or t the peo ple of Great Britain, he could not pretend to say ; but the fact stood upon record, that it had not produced enough, and that they had been obliged to import more corn from foreign countries during the last thirty years than they had ever done before. He had considered what were the other excuses urged in supp or t of this law, and having listened with attention to them .all, he must say that they: had been every one shown to be futile and totally insufficient. He had heard from Honourable Gentlemen oppposite, on pre vious occasions, when this • subject was discussed, that those connected with the ownership of lands had no interest in their continuance. but they supported the corn-laws because those dependent on them (the landowners) had a direct interest in their maintenance. It was now, however, ascertained beyond a doubt, that neither the farmer, nor the farmer's labourer, nor any other class in the community, derived any benefit from these laws, except the landowners them selves.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) No Member of any agricultural county would now, he thought, ven ture for a moment to urge this flimsy pretext, so pal pably absurd, as any, reason for the continuance of the corn-laws ; no Hon.. Member would now stand up and say the farmers or their labourers had any in terest whatever in ite—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The interest of these classes in these laws, had been fully and fairly inquired into by an active body, and it was ascertained upon the most searching investigation that so far from the corn-laws being of any service to them; there was no thing would benefit the farmer and the agricultural r labourer more than their total and immediate repeal. The claims of no class had been more prominently or more frequently protruded upon the public than those of the farmers. But if there a as . any doubt that corn-laws were injurious to the farmer he (Mr. Villiers) would undertake to bring before the bar of that House, or before a Committee, such a body of evidence as would leave no doubt on the subject. For the last 30 years the farmers had b.'en, of all men, the most embarrassed. But what had these corn-laws given to these classes . ? Why it was notorious that they had derived no benefit from it.—(Hear. hear.) There was such competition that it excluded the farmer from the slightest advan tage from the corn lards. The farmer had been duped and deceived by the promises of the corn laws.—(Hear, hear.) The landlords had told them that they would insure him a certain price for his corn; and what had been the result ? Why, that ho had been deluded and deceived. As to the exemptions that had been procured for the farmer in t4e inayment . House of Ir o did io there wasit know k nota land lordtat they contributed to swell the rent of the land owner.—(Hear, hear.) The Members of that House dare not call a single farmer before them and ask hips whether what they had done in that House as they said for him had been at all to Lis benefit. Whateverrelief they had procured for the farmer through Parliament, only swelled the rent of the landowner.—(Hear, hear.) The farmers held their land not for thein terest of themsel ve s or the community but the landlords.. He would venture to say, from the informa tion he had .received, that net a Member in that House would dare to get up and say the corn-law was for the benefit of the farmers, and that it existed for their interests. He defied Honourable Members to say that the law was conti nued for such purposes. But then it was said it was for the labourer's interests that the price of food should be high. There was a volume before them produced by the la bours of a Committee of that House, which effec tually disproved that assertion. No man in the face of that volume could dare to rise and say that these laws were for the advantage of the labourer. Their mouths were all stopped—they were closed by the evidence of their own Committee. This was an authority which they did not dare dispute. That evidence proved that no one could be lower in the scale of civilisation than the agricultural labourer; so much so indeed that he had become so depraved as to be almost placed out of the pale of civilization. Scarcely a day passed that they did not read in the leading journals of the country discussions as to the cause of their dis affection. The papers were full of what were called their crimes, but which, in reality, were caused by their distresss.:He said:again, that no man would dare to rise and plead the advantage of the labourer as the excuse of the corn-laws. His Hon. Friend the Member for Stock port, by his motion at the beginning .:f the session, had prevented them from using that argument. Did they dare assent to that motion; did they dare run the risk of calling a single farmer or labourer to support what they asserteJ? That motion was a fair one, and to the point, and they were afraid to call their own tenants before them to meet it. 'Was there ever such an instance of men shrinking from inquiry, simply because they dared not meet it? He did not expect then that either the farmer or the labourer would be brought forward again as the ground of maintaining the corn-laws, They had read to-day in the leading journal of the country a statement, that wherever the old practice of allowing the peasant to buy his corn cheap .was pursued in Suffo:k, there property was safe; -,vherevcr, in filet, the corn-law was virtually repealed, there property was safe. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferranti) who, he un derstood was going to move an amendment to his resolu tion, meant to prove, probably, that the high price of food was a benefit to the people. He would ask the Honourable Gentleman how it was •that the agricultural labourer was always contented when food was low, and discontented when corn was dear. There was no an s Ner to that.—(Hear.) He defied them to answer. He said that when the price of food was low the agricultural labourers were contented—when the price was high they were' discontented, and the peace of the country was en dangered.—(Cheers.) He asked the gentleman who had thought it decent to give notice of an amendment upon his (Mr. V.'s) motion—(Otn oh, and Hear, bear)—to re ply to that statement.—(Cheers.) He would read the Hon. Geroleman a letter. Mr. FERRAN D—And I will read you another. Mr. VILLIERS would read a letter from a magistrate of an agricultural county, Buckinghamshire, alio was no supporter of his (Mr. ViMete') views, nor a member of the Anti-Corn-law League. What was the account that magistrate, who was a Conservative, gave of the pea santry of his county. His letter was addressed to the farmers of Buckinghamshire.—(The Hon. Gentleman read the letter, which was to the effect that he saw with pin the condition of the labourers, their clamp, un wholesome, crowded cottages. He saw men who tra versed the whole day from farmer to farmer in search of employment, returned broken-hearted and desponding, without the means of procuring food for their famishing wives and children. It was only the charity of the farmers and their wives, or of the poor who had but their last dish of potato- s to share, that such families were kept alive unt 1 they could obtain a ticket of ad mission to the workhouse.) Mr. FERRA ND—What does he say of the poor-law? Mr. VILLIERS—That was the letter of a magis trate of Buckinghamshire, a purely agricultural county ; that was the state of the peasantry aft( r thirty years of protection.—(Cheers.) Did they think ' that there was no other county in the same state ? He had a letter from a farmer in another county, who said that he could bear testimony to the wretched condition of the labourers, but the farmers could pay no more wages ; and in his own parish there were hundreds of labourers with families, who received only 7s. a week. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) had put a question to him respecting the poor-law, but did he know that the cost of supporting a man and woman, with a family of three children, cost 17s. a week in the workhouse. The farmer proceeded to state that the labourers were far worse off than the people in the workhouse, but the farmers could give them no higher wages, owing to the high rents. All the exemptions that the farmers enjoyed were only intended to benefit the landlords.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Villiers) would ask the gentleman who was to move the amendment (Mr. Ferrand) to avow himself at once as the friend of the landlord, not of the labourer, and as a truckler to the dominant party in the country. —(Cheers.) The Right Honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did not like the arguments which were used by his supporters. The Right Hon. Gentleman had thrown out doubts as to whether the importation of foreign corn would not dis place a portion of the agricultural labour of the country. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had never told them in what manner that displacement was to take place. Had be done so, that would have implied some knowledge of agri cultural Subjects ; and, as well as he recolected, the agri tural knowledge of the Bight Hon. Gentleman aas not held in very high esteem by the agriculturists of the country. The Hon. Member for Sussex had imputed to the Right Hon. Gentleman such a want of knowledge in agricultu ral matters, that he said the Right lion. Gentleman could not distinguish an ox from a plough.—(Loud laughter, and cries of " No," from the Ssinisterial benches.) He stood corrected. The expression was, " that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not distinguish an ox from a donkey."—(Reneaed laughter, and Opposi tion cheers.) The Right lion. Gen:le:nun had assumed . that there would be a displacement of agricultural pro duce consequent upon the importation of foreign corn, which would lead to a displacement of agricultural labour, but the Right Hon. Gen:les/earl had giver iin data—he had merely jumped to a conclusion—hut in order to come to that conclusion, it was necessary to go through a certain series of operations. He did not tell thein the price at which labour would be displaced. He supposed that labour could (tidy be displaced by land hem thrown out of cultivation. He had not stated the price which would mutter euhivation so unprofitable as to throw land out of cultivation. He had given them tic) data whatever on the subject.. He could not understated bye hat means laud was to be thrown out of cultivation. It wee a delusion to suppise that if a little spirit,. a little sc'ence, and a little economy, were exhibited in the cultiva , ion of the land, that cultivation cetilcl not be mate profitable. If the Right Hun. Gentleman had paid a little attention to the expenments of Earl Ducie on the subject, he would bare seen his error. That Noble Lord had stated it as the result 'if his experiments that the apprehension that the importation of corn from foreign countries would throw land out of cultivatioe, was uncounded, b cause he found that by car&ully cultivating land himself without paying rent, lie could produce corn at a lower price than it could he produced in foieign countries. Of course rent made a difference.—(Derisive laughter from the Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the Oppesition.) Gentlemen opposite were amused, and he had no doubt every one of them would make a speech on the subject, but they should recollect that his argument was now merely directed to the assertion of the Right Hon. Gen- Veman, that the importation of foreign corn would throw land out of cultivation. Now before land was thrown out of cultivation, they would have no rent, and before they could assume that it would displace labour, they must show that land could not be cultivated profitably by allotments to the labourer. Now there were many instances in which land had been profitably occupied in allotments, which could not be profitably occupied in any other manner. He did not expect that the Right Hon. Gentleman would repeat that argument ; but -a more wonderful argument still had been shadowed forth by the Right Hon. Gentleman about the beginning of the session. He said they should be careful how they meddled in this matter, lest the owners of land should become the occupiers. He was actually alarmed lest the landowners of the country should oust the farmers, and take upon themselves to become industrious.— (Cheers and laughter.) He did not think there was much fear of the owners of the land becoming industrious. The farmer's life was a hard one. He had to be up early in the morning. Now there was no fear that the landowners would cease to lead a life of idleness, but none of these were arguments to show that labour would be displaced by a repeal of the corn-laws. On the contrary, he believed that by _ a repeal of the corn-laws manufactures would be en courateed, and the demand for labour increased. The agricultural labourer, es en now, went to the manufac turing districts for employment. Mr. Porter stated that upwards of three hundred and sixty thousand labourers had gone from the agricultural to the manu facturing districts, and if it had not been for manufac tures, every one of these labourers would have been com peting with the agricultural labourers in the rurardistricts. Did not the Right Hon. Gentleman think that if those improvements in agriculture were to take place, of which so much had been said, they .would not have the same effect as the importation of foreign corn ? It was now said that the time lied come when the greateSt quantity should be obtained for the lowest prices. In his (Mr. Villiers's) opinion, the Right Hon. Gentleman should argue as much against improvements as importation. Another curious document had appeared—it had been said the agricultural classes bore a greater proportion to the population than any other classes. Now, what was the fact ? Why, that this class was only one seventh of the population, according to the publications that had taken place. The fact was that these pretences could no longer exist. and then-they •vtere brought back to the question in volved in this law, and that was, whether the community were to have a full supply of food at the cheapest rate or not ?—(Hear, hear.) Did not this law, he would ask, tend to produce the defective supply that existed at present: He stood- there to assert the rights of the people to have as much food as possible at the cheapest rate. That was the right of the people. He threw upon the supporters of the corn-laws the onus of proving that the present corn-laws ainsitted Of an abundant and steady supply of corn in the home market, that they made food more accessible to the poor. man. That was the point they were called upon to discuss—(Hear)—that was what they hal to prove ; they must convince the House that there was no injustice in the present system before they could eall upon the House to sup port it. He agreed with Lord Grenville, who, when declared in hi s pl ace m this law was about being imposed, in the House o f Lords that nothing could justify th e in tampering with the subsistence of the people b u t t h e must imperative necessity. He maintained that the present law forbade an abundant supply of food when most needed, and thwarted the designs of Divine Provi dence, who made different seasons and different climates, and so- ordered that no nation might be wholly de pendent on itself.—(Hear, hear.) Food was power, and those who supplied the food might be said, to a great ex tent, to make the people dependent on them, and have them under their control. Why should any body of men be permitted to have control over any other class in this country? but so it was. Those who supported the present corn-laws should at all events show some , 44. great and solid advantages . from them to counter-balance the numerous evils which they entailed. This was just the time for the House to enter into the consideration of this all-impor tant question. Sonic time ago great sympathy had been manifested for the condition of the working classes; and Hon. Members affected the greatest horror at the means which many of them were obliged to resort to for the means of obtaining a livelihood. Now, he invited those Hon. Members to investigate into the causes of this distress. Hon. Members, on the occasion referred to, complained that the people were obliged to work too long and too hard—that they were without the means of educating their children—that they were compelled to neglect the domestic duties of life, and that they had sunk lower in the scale of civilisation than the inhabi tants of other countries. He (Mr. Villiers) now asked them to enter into the inquiry whether this excessive competition had not been induced by the want of food? —(Hear, hear.) How earnestly and how heartily the landowners wished for a plentiful harvest. Well, in that wish the whole community concurred with them; but he believed that the wish on the part of the agricultu rists was not unaccompanied with other associations— such, for instance, as that in a cheap year there would be plenty of work—that the necessities of the labouring classes would not be so pressing, whilst in bad years there were associations of an opposite character. An inquiry into the physical condition of the people had been proposed. Ile admitted that the destitution was great and extensive, but thought it could be in a great measure traced to the corn-laws. Suppose London were barricaded with a sliding scale, and that no more corn would be allowed for the consumption of the citizens but that which was grown within its precincts—that Gros venor-square and all the other squares were turned into cultivation—as a consequence of this state of things the condition of the poor would be daily growing worse— competition for employment would be increasing, and wages decreasing. Now, in such a condition, would it not be accounted the greatest hypocrisy if the proprietors of these squares—the advocates of protection and exclusion—complained of the destitute state of the poor, and yet refused to re move the barricade of the scliding-scale, the main cause of that distress ?—(Hear. hear.) The question of the repeal of the corn-laws did not merely affect the mill owners, or the manufacturers, but the whole com munity. He sail before that they had had all the ad vantages that experience could give them. It was so ; they bad within the last ten years four years of scarcity and four of plenty. Fran 1832 to 1836 corn was abundant. Front 1833 to 1842 corn was scarce and dear. During the four years of plenty the average cost of wheat wa; 46e. a quarter; during the four years of scarcity the average price was 665. a quarter. It ap peared from the calculations of Mr. M•Cullech that during the cheap years the people consumed more and paid less by one-tenth than during the dear years; It was found that. during the cl.eap years, ti.e people consumed seventeen millions of quarters, and. during the dear years, fourt' en millions. In the cheap years, the people paid 164,000,000 i 10 , 17,000,000 of quarters ; in the dear years, 194,000 000/ for 14;000,000 of quarters. Mr. M'Culloch calculated the agricultural produce of this country at 194,000,000/. a year. Thus, it should be recollected that great sacri fices were made in sending the bullion out of the country to purchase foreign corn, a practice which had seriously endangered public credit, disarranged the monetary affairs of this country, and the ultitnate effect of these embarrassm en t s was increase of poor-rates, increase of taxes, increase of crime, and increase of destitution. In 1840, the Queen, in her speech from the Throne,deplored the miseries of the people and the distress so great and prevalent in 1841 ; the Minister of the day came down to that House declaring that he saw no other remedy for the alleviation of this distress than the re mission of the taxes upon food, and on the prime neces saries of life. For this declaration the Whigs were turned out of office by those who had an interest in mo nopoly. The Archbishop of Canterbury, through his clergy, solicited alms for the relief of this distress, and finally Sir Robert Peel came down to the House with his Biil for the amendment of the corn-laws and of the tariff, and declared that the taxes upon the necessaries of life had reached the maximum, and that if they would main tain public credit they must reduce the price of food. The harvest of 1842 proved to be good. The supply from abroad was abundant, and the people had enough of bread. Under the existing system pauperism must in crease. In the year 1837 the amount expended for the relief of the poor was four millions. In 1843 the amount was 5,200,000 L The number of paupers in the country when the distress commenced was one million. At the commencementof the present year the number amounted to 1,500,000. What was the amount of able-bodied paupers who were unable to find employment in conse quence of the distress arising from had hervests ? Ira 1842 the number was 407.570, while in 1836 the number was only 300,000. In the large towns during the years of dear prices the increase in the amount of poor-rates was very great. In four years the increase was 134 per cent. in Manchester, 52 per cent. in Bolton, 30 per cent. in Oldham, and 159 per cent. in Sheffield. Hon. Gentlemen might attribute this distress to over-speculation or over production, but, unfortunately, that distress was uni versal. The increase in the amount of paueerism was hardly less in the agricultural districts than it was in the manufacturing. He held in his hand returns of the in crease of the pauperism in the agricultural districts, and it would be found that in fifteen of the chief agricultural counties the increase of pauperism had been 21 per cent. Such a state of things must necessarily affect the revenue. It would appear, from the Parliamentary returns made in 1842, that one of the Excise taxes, which was ex petted to yield 78,4001., only yielded 58,0001. In Oc tober, 1842, the revenue obtained from the Excise wits 733,400/. less than in 1841. There was no part of this subject which deserved more of the attention of that House than' the effect which these taxes on food had upon crime. In 1836 the committals had fallen to 20,000, having been 22,000 in 1834. What had been the increase in those years . which had been under the influence of dear prices ? In 1836 the committals were 20,000, while in 1842 they had risen to 31,000. Actually an increase of 11.000 in the dear years over the cheap ones. Then, with respect to emigration. The average amount of emigration during the cheap years was 70,000, but in 1841 it was 116,000, and in 1842 it had reached 128,000. lie said there was no instance in which it could be shown that the working classes were not well if during the continuance of cheap prices of food. He %%mild refer the House to the opinion of the late Lord Liverpool, expressed in the year 1822. when the agricultural bode complaieed to Parliaineet of the existence of great distress amongst them. Lord Liverpool on that occasion. in the House of Lords, said that lowness of price was sure to benefit the working classes. The existing low prices, he said, had produced great benefit in the large towns, by causing a fall in the poor -rates. That opini was expressed in the year 1822, at a time when it was said that unparalleled distress existed in the agricultural districts. He (Mr. Villiers) would ask then the Hon. Member for Knaresborough how he could hope to benefit the working classes by increasing the price of food? He (Mr.Villiers)would refer the House to a report which had been made by a Committee of that House, appointed to inquire into the state of the agricultural districts. It was a report which the Right Honourable Baronet., the Secretary for the Home Department, had himself drawn up. In that report it was stated that the evidence which had been adduced before the Committee established beyond doubt the fact that great improve ment had taken place in the condition of the agricul tural labourer. This was in the year of low prices. He (Mr. Villiers) was ready to take the authorities which had been so often quoted by Hon. Gentlemen op posite in the discussionsem the Factory Bill. He was ready to take those authorities to show how beneficial low prices were to the health and morals of the working population. The Noble Lord (Ashley) in his speeches on the Factory Bill had frequently referred to the writings of Dr. Hawkins, and Monsieur Bellamie, and he (Mr. Villiers) was ready to quote from those authorities to show how detrimental scarcity and dearness were to the physical and moral condition of the people. Both these authorities declared it to be their opinion, that wherever scarcity of food existed, there also would be a prevalence of typhus fever. In fact, this was the opinion of almost every person who had written on the subject, who was capable of judging. In the Manchester In firmary, during the dear years, 196 more inmates died than in the cheap years. From returns which he had obtained from sick clubs, it appeared that 25 per cent. more died during dear years than cheap ones.—(The Hon. Gentleman then read from pamphlets, which had been published by Dr. Allison, of Edinburgh, and Dr. Fitzgerald, of Clonmel, to show the pernicious effects of scarcity and dearness of price. In the opinion of these writers, years of scarcity were always accompanied by a corresponding amount of typhus fever. He had written to Dr. Hun ter, of Bloomsbury, for his opinion on the subject, and he stated that he had had an extensive practice for nearly twenty years, and had seen the disease of typhus fever in all its degrees of malignity. There were nume rous predisposing causes, su.,h as want of cleanliness and pure air, but nothing could equal th a t gre at predis posing agent—a scarcity of nutritious f oo d. This alone carried off tens of thousands in a year. le henever food was scarce there typhus fever prevailed. Dr. Hunter went on to say that he had known a family . of nine per sons who resided in a pure country district, and these persons were all attacked with typhus fever, which arose entirely from a want of proper nutritious food. This was the opinion of Dr. Hunter. It might be asked, what had that to do with the question, as it WBS not the object of the corn-law to producer this scarcity. He wanted,, then, to knew what w as the obj ect o f t h e corn law.—(llear, hear.) If it was tot intended to produce scarcity, he wished to know fishy the opposite intention had nev er b een avowed ? It wa s precisely at the morneet when the people were well fed by the abundant hellle supply, that the agricul turists always beset that Heusi:with their complaints. How was it that in all their inquiries the question was, how can we raise the price ? They were frequently found attempting to diminish the quantity by lessening the breadth of land sown ; and in 1836, when corn was cheap, the peopl e w e ll f e d an d contente d , t h e rates di minishing, and employment abundaet, the agriculturists were complainin g , an d as ki ng h ow t h ey were to reme d y this state of thing-.—(Hear, hear.) lie said then that the tendency of the corn-laws was to produce scarcity. and scarcity was the caure, as he had shown, of want, disease, death, and crime. —(Hear, hear.) How was it that the most distinguished of the persons who opposed the law when it was passed, charged it on the advocates of the law that they wanted to produce scar city ? How was it that Lord Grenville, whose language he had used in his resolutions, said that such was the purpose of the law, and that he therefore opposed it ? It was denounced on the same grounds by others. The respected father of the present Prime Minister denounced the law as oppressive on the people, and declared his be lief that it was only enacted its order to keep up the prices that prevailed during the war—that it was, in fuct, a law far perpetuating what was in itself a great misfor tune. He foretold that the agriculturists would even tually suffer the most from it, and he verily believed that the late Sir Robert Peel's prediction had been amply ful- 'Mr filed. What were the riots ?Land at the time it passed. did the working people believe then that the law was passed for their benefit ? Why did no t e t e Government meet them with arguments instead of w il ; lery ?—(Hear.) Instead o f doing so, they hire de!. upon them with cannon. W as t h e state of better now ? Only two y ears ago , °Pini f ° o; the Hon. Mem ber Somersetshire objected to th e Ri g ht Hon. Gentlem a n.. tariff, which was brought i s i n th e m idst of great tress, and with the intention of reli ev ing it. That l' i° n. Member objected to the t ar iff, on the ground that it would diminish the price of food from the increased 5;11)* ply it would admit from the United States and e ls o e f where. He had read all the speeches at the meetinS e the protection societies that h a d b een l a tely held, an fl could not discover that they had any other object tlUl that of increasing the price of food. Indeed, at a raee ti v i l held in the county of Surrey, one gentleman, of gr, e , a t h s courage than the rest, stated distinctly what am for others meant.' He said they were assembled tber e so the purpose of advancing th e i r own i n terest ; it e their interest to make food d ear an d sca rce, and Lth y . ect were met there for that purpo se . Wh a t other ob i could these-laws have, when they were told of settleraei to li and mortgages, and capit a l that had been invested to land, as reasons for preser v i ng th em , exce pt for the P pose of obtaining a pri c e f or t h e p ro d uc e that 5 1105 1 , enable the landlord to meet these obligations ? obisv ide, what he wanted to prove to the House and to country. Yet, with all this protection, the state oft,. culture was but a low one ; in wh a t con dition was it ll ths . thirty years of protection ? Th e y b a d it on the .e a ll , t ee rite. of more than one Member of th a t House, tit es e state of agriculture was shamefully low. Then ler were the two Right Hon. Gentl emen , th e head °` e . Majesty's Government, and the Noble Lord the Seet r „ tare. of the Colonies, they had both read a sort of leet n o d. on agriculture to the persons i n th e i r n eighbourb ri b The Right Hon. Baronet said at th e di nne r at Tato wl e ,% o . that they had met not for th e p r ot ec ti on , but the Pr n r r ar , tints of agriculture—that was the distinction — ( 1;o hear, and laugh)—and that he re gre tted the pr_s_ c a of the country was not that o f g rant i ng l ea ses ; h e ll 0 0 at .the same time that if any te nan t o f hi s s hould ea fors him to grant one, he should hesitate a long time be e ! to he refused his request.—(Lau g ht er .) H e a lso allud log another source of mischief to th e f arme r, that ari! es t from the extensive preservation o f game , a nd stated,•L' ec i he had no behatiou in saying, if any tenant comnlin il is • on this ground, he would give dire c ti ons for the des ts tion of hares and rabbits to the exten t that should fblie'; vent his experiencing . any 1, tss. All thi s was very lau d .' it he reed it for the purpose of sh ow i ng th e adatissi o contained ; but, he would a s k, h a d t hi s exa mple, , b , e , t , ' S followed in any ono instanc e th roug h out Staffordsn"-st He ha l very great doubts or it. At the same dinnerro, which this was stated by the Right H on . B a ronet. 2 t se fessor Buckland was present, and he declared that m e agriculture of that district was very bad ; that be es seen more histlee in a single field there than were t,ooo found in all Lincolnshire, and advised th e m to run d ' e tt and have a look at the model farm of Earl Ducie, Bristol. At another dinner the Noble Lord (Std said that the farmers were o nly b eg inning' t o — .sea themselves, and mentioned the advant ag es to be de ri to o from tile draining, but said he should probable' h n eot t that this was an expensive operatio n , an d that a n to could not undertake it. To this the meeting w as W e ,. have vociferously responded with "Hear, lie 3r : s go (Laughter.) He alluded to long lea :es, and the 10° - in g was received with marked applau se , th e meeting tort in hopes to get something more out of the Noble ip el oa the subject of leases. But the Nobl e ae eb) said there were many other topics—(A —on a hieh he had to address them.— (Lti n g" - s sr At these meeting's there always seemed to be some plea s tical man present who generally commented on Oo speeches from Noble Lords and Hon. Gentlemen' 05 this occasion a practical agriculturist named Neilson sod present, and he spoke stronely i n f avour of leases,r;iii against the conditions to which tenants were ge e n e the bound with respect to cultivating th e es tates. te r 11. same subject they had also th e au th or ity of qheso Varney, and the Hon. Member for Bridg ewa ter• t o speakers at agricultural dinners seem e d all to ag!,7o- one particular, namely, that there we re certain c'tilte, stances which utterly precluded improvement• d i of Hon. Member then read an ex t ract f ro m a sP ee fi - e res; Colonel Powell, stating that one thin g clone was su s sary for agriculture, namely, fresh rents, corn ren t •` the long leases. He also read an extract froln chef speech of Sir Robert Pigott, Presid en t o f the W° lle e sst shire Agricultural Societe-, to the effect that if:the teeots had a fixed tenure in land it would be an adv: ntage o f to tenant and landlord. There w e r e no other rues ge accounting for the prosperity of the Scotch farrue r ; ros tt would not weary the House with an y f u rther C. It would not be disputed, that agr i cu lt ure was eaP a e der e great improvement, and that the c i rcu mstances i e. which land was now held wss not favourable to it s r ot provement. He had particularly referred to this Il e of the subject, because he had anticipated that the s l s i ;: s o, organic chemistry, and the lectures now being lie were likely to supply the deficiency of past tisces.rateo had pointed to those necessitie s si m ply for the P i the of showing that great sacrifices were required 0131010 part of the landlords, in order to el Ile the tenant to effect the necessary improvements' 50 feared that those sacrifices were not likely to be o r If the repeal of these laws took place, instead 0 ' t ee peering at the hustings as the serf ef the landlord, aro tenant wnuld appear there to exercise his indern(ed judgment in the choice of a representat: VV. He bell t he the custom of granting I,ases had diminished sillel es sl passing of the Reform Bill, and there was not the " s e likelihood o` the custom increasing. Such wss the fl e lf petition for land that the lardy rd was cemparall'ioo safe. He was 'ure of obtaining the highed li .° „‘l price for his land, and his rent was safe, he-cause be 1 1 1 00 1. priority of claim over other creditors. Further, tl' e s tl lords of this country were, generally speaking on]) t, „ ea ", fur life, and they had but little motiv, therefore tee capitel in the imi:revensent of their land. tle iw eSce; that landlords would never make tile neceessey san''l s o o until they saw that their interest coesi-ted in tlPi roa ssl raising the greatest amount o f pro:lace a' the 0 -00 1 price. If protection l a ws were r er ea:ed, they 0 ' have the landlords cernp.tirg; ;or teirtete thew tenants coaTeting for lan ; th, y ou'd see their looking for men of skill and eepiod eisq land. lie was hound to ad :nit that the tarnse r 's .. se ett parts of the country were n o l e -. s rehtetar' t v ' es osl f leases than lanalerds were to g: al i t them, but it because there was such nneert ;into in the PL 03 ' system.—(Hear, hear.) He ventured to ' ll , , ; oo tri there nag no intellgent farmer in the or e. who would not sooner take free trade, ° c it e ern' nied by a lease, than continue a tenant at will ` v ,geori mites of protection which were never realised. 4, / ho ts They were now, therefore, in this position• r f . .,,P for started with a promise to depend on this coun try the!, supply of food, and they were bound to admit,', had not succeeded. He wanted to know til e Vieb "; ground there was for mi s t rus ti ng th e systelliZ s ead e s P is advocated—the system of having the surpl./.," 74 O urss' upon competition ? Why the Right 1-1 ", s e; Gentleman at the head of the GovernMen"„e in s times went out of his way to 1 1 1 - e iple,:d entirely they might rely upon that It bas every case except that of the issue of r1 3 ° 111 ,,; 01 011 4 been said, indeed, that the effect of the sY s n trf r s he proposed would be to drain the '° l 6 l , e yei',o all its bullion, but the experience of the last j eirtel l ' t s showed that the exports of manufactures to e° .‘pe ets e corn-growing countries had increased, whils t %void f t. other countries had diminished. Ile could not vie leli ot ferring to the objection that his measure was t° jrd He wanted to know who it was that said Ol t st ico, s a the majority in that House sa y th a t they W° ll have the law as it at present stood ? Would he then a add any chance of conciliating th em by prop ;si n g e ot e ' r e moderate fixed duty?—(He a r, he a r.) W° n ` V it ' e t same objections be made to both proposi! ls t bet we s t were many gentlemen in that House who s al ci s ole i s' te e they objected to was a regular trade in corn were the case there could be no hope zed ddit them to agree to a moderate "-- to of Whenever they could bring themselves o pp fr u e e that they were not justified in r es tricting th e for v e ylit food, they might be e x p ec t e d t o b e a s anxi° l3 oell„""se trade in corn as any other class of society' do f 'ri c e; Hon. Gentleman the President of the Boa r , e d to ; had observed, the other day, that if they wis`l e s e etils'ilo any change in commerce they should do it s e'2 to 4 . and he agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleint c on , ti the evils arising from uncertainty. The Right that tba t „ s o tleman had triumphantly referred to the fu ndh fee" 4iiirets consequence of repealing the duty en vvo°,'ed improved price in the market ; yet all the e er o an y which were used against free trade It` ; d been urged against free trade in Is . l! e beel l e other measures exhibited a similar re'?' boa 0 1 not know any instance in which more canitati in tbn o ,o invested, On the faith of an existing law. ttla any )1t s 0 the beer duties. No consideration whatever an y re% s o for those vested interests. Nor did be see rif i c es .te ss why all should not be prepared to make saf ij a eotnstll the great public welfare required it. Ile „ o de° we' that the change in that case had been a arso ns evil, although, perhaps, at first some P e:o ats : or suffered from it. Again, in respect to the a l o° le s of machinery. When it was proposed to th r o c s y e t ow t ee for preventing that exportation, man) . of re „ e al s ,o° . engaged in manufactures opposed the if mo n o , in ;l ie d ground that they had invested their earn , f m on o , first factures'in the faith of the law, and t hat, , Aet na had theirwere e m x a p n o u tt f e ao d t , ur th es e . y would lose the foreig n be e Mr. BORTHWICK—But that ine,a nitr ia e e gb.) eighteen years in progress.—(Hear, an" L d I;een _„ Mr. VILLIERS—But the corn-larr " 1 ' l i e ove', o Or cmyoeanactriesi ine rd p y r v: o grei.s.—(H ear, hear.) it, but he did not et b f ee eoz ea s.) slid there t t h h e t e h l r i a e o ‘ k v h artohdrabtPePeirntrahgi permitting a l ITtgdhcteho n ° e t.s r 11 : 1. 11'1 exchangethoughtiNyhe nthe th abolition btr opproducts oot everything sftmh oewsthtuihrenehppi turnpike beneficial.—(mtrtesntusboveisri looarifr:,l4:oee li rictioi; ts uP °ll eo n ' sideration, it was alleged that a great na t dared fe a r c t l ehd i e n nA v e e cc s t t es e s d soaf t r h py e a iL l ripropertythe public i ß n n t t h 11 . , td s h e vea t n r o u otha s ags:ei :tw ad; eoi esojs; made. There was another change the ° ld P° ) ld the attention of the House. That wasand other et.. ff ----(Hear, hear, from Mr. Ferrand..,_ believed Ova thought that was a case in point. ne peeph ; u r i n.e)dt the t e l ier c i te c ee ri t P e t *v b e e . e ts o l4 :: t p h o e o y r- d l poor-law not ts think prejudicialso._ ( s il o the lions rested upon it—their habits m ~ o aga in e s t 501.1 formed by it. But the change was a " ee l son 3wit of °) feelings—(Hear, hear) —a sudden athe feeli"gs gent change, utterly disregarding_ . . s „ 0 0 , ,r people who were the most concerned in s po i yi s.te were vested intere ph _„ ld told again that there l( T ac h wi e i e without. (Cheers.) ought . u ) se ßuht avi ni n n e rge v s e p l fi . er t c o stt t hf e s p - t e ehai p lse. a ind s soettoihoesnt_n, e chowerphohatie titior! s h i e d e r r e e s d p respected. eir x e t! 'll i ( 1 1)1 2 e o f Had b ea tt i hh n eey o syt redddrpteehargre_siat:grOehddrretesadstipislieeetnhettehuet °ehdrvelew:nsh vested e-g::ll:ft?rsi-ifj:Pb ie; .....••• v tI tf e t sk " 1 "' • r•• Ith hf p e • bett t Ne ar :, an•l fie; ti• „ ,ab, :11 H. • .0 • •ert,ti: reudi