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

' SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—We have received the following note, which %.,9;ives us occasion to revert to the much vexed sugar Aiuestion:— "TO THE EDITOR OF TIE GLOBE " SM,-In your - leading. comments of Saturday and yester day,: upon the debate on the sugar duties, you have, conveyed the impression that, whilst Lord John ThrSsell and his party were opposed to the exclusion of -lsteve-labour sugar, the free-traders who voted with the eflovernment were supporters of that absurd discrimina usion. I trust you will, in fairness, permit me to inform your readers that Mr. Miles's amendmenti and the Government plan both excluded slave-grown sugar. So far from the free-traders having sanctioned the ptinciple of distinguish ing between free and slave labour produce, you will find that they recorded their votes upon Mr. Ewart's motion in favour of the equalisation of the duties upon all foreign and colonial sugars.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant, " A. W. PAULTON." We have given no support to Mr. Allies's amendment, and we have conveyed no impression with regard to the conduct of those gentlemen who put forth " Free-Trade" as their only symbol or political union, except such as we directly derived from the defence of their own ablest organ. That impression we may briefly reproduce as follows :—Those gentlemen 'say . that their " only ac knowledgment of party compact is strictly bound ,up in the advancement of" the single principle of free trade. They assume the right, therefore, to ask no other question with regard to this Government measure than —whether the scale of ditties proposed by Government or their opponents approach nearest to free trade. That right we should admit unreservedly, were no other considerations involved in this question. Were it a mere question of figures between two scales—were it merely a question whether Sir It then Peel's figures, or Mr. Miles's, should be preferred, we should not dis pute their preference. Indeed, as matters stand, we should • hardly have thought it necessary to criticise their choice, if it were not put forward, with some coir fidence, for "the approbation and imitation of others:" This is a tone and style which challenges animadver sion. We dispute altogether that a single commercial principle should guide all public action. We say that the higher principles of national atinduct are to:be at all risks, and on all occasions, and by every individual- vote, vindicated ; and that, if those prin ciples are invaded by this Sugar Bill -of • the Government, no risk of inconvenience, from the possible event of delay in substituting something better for it, should have swayed the vote of a single man, who preferred his character as Englishman to any immediate interest as -trader or consumer. If this language is strange to gentlemen, whose " only acknowledgment of party -compact" is a principle of trade, we can only say we are sorry for it. Our idea of conduct in national matters embraces trade certainly—but something more. Our-idea of the duty of all men in all their votes upon this Sugar Bill is—that they should first ask theinselves—not whether this or that figure of any scale is eligible for the present year—but whether this or that principle of national legislation is to confront the world as English. It is this which legislators have first to lay to heart, even before next year's consuniption. A new principle is propounded to r€gulate our dealings with friendly nations. Is it sound or vicious—calculated to maintain or lower our national etaracter—calculated to simplify or embarrass our relations with the great family of mankind ? We have not hesitated to say that any conceivable inconvenience of the moment is escaped too dearly by setting up a wrong principle in the face of ail nations, simply to cover the retreat of the ruling party here from a false position. Even regarded in a solely commercial point of view, the adoption of such a principle is stated by the able free-trade organ above alluded to,- as calculated to give " just cause of offence' and estrangement," and provoke mea sures-1- of retaliation. Even, therefore, with sole re ference to immediate commercial interests, we deem this a good reason for resisting such a mea sun; at every stage. But, we repeat, there are higher than Immsdiate commercial interests, important as these are. There are higher than commercial reasons for giving no urn " just cause of offence and es trangement." We contend that, neither in this nor in any. case, involving national equity -and fair dealing, is it the part of independent men to calculate whether 'their vote may be followed by this or that consequence of an inferior order to the considerations on which that vote is given. It is the duty of legislators to assert, by their every-vote, the great principles of legislation. If those principles are infringed by this measure, that in fringement is the " great fact" which should swallow up lesser facts in the minds of those who are called upon to represent England to the world. . . . IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. A Message from the Lords was brought up, whiCh stated that their Lordships had agreed to the following Bills:—Canterbury Pavement Bill ; Lakenheath and Brannon Drainge Bill ; Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail way Bill ; European Life Insurance and Annuity Com pany Bill, without amendment ; Liverpool Fire Preven tion Bill ; South-Eastern Railway Bill ; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate Bill ; Slamannan Junction Rail way Bill ; Preston and Wyre Dock, &c., Bill, with amendments. That they have passed, a Bill, intituled, " An Act to enable Sir James John Randoll Mackenzie, of Scatwell, Baronet, to add certain lands and estates belonging to him in fee simple to his entailed estate, Upon certain terms and conditions ; and to borrow cer tain sums of money, upon the security of his entailed estate, for repayment of certain claims for money laid out, and to be laid out, in improvements upon the said estate." Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting in trustees certain parts of the entailed estate of Seaforth, to be sold, and the price applied in payment of the en= tailer's debts, and the surplus to be laid out in the pur chase of other lands ; for enabling the heiress in pos session to borrow a sum of money on the credit of the said entailed estates ;- and for other purposes connected therewith." . PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE. Mr. LAWSON presented a petition from Yorkshire in favour of protection to agriculture. Mr. IV. I'ATTEN presented petitions from Lanca shire to the same effect. An Ho N. ME3IDER, on the Ministerial benches pre sented petitions from every parish in Huntingdon against any alteration in the corn-laws. Mr. MILES presented petitions from Somersetshire in favour of protection to agriculture. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a number of petitions from Lincolnshire to the same effect. Lord MARSHAM presented similar petitions from Kent. Lord GRIMSTONE also presented petitions from lertford. 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, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and other places, in favour of agricultural protection. Mr. BECKETT presented similar petitions. Mr. B. ESCOTT presented similar petitions from Winchester and its neighbourhood. Mr. H. PALMER presented petitions to the same effect from Berkshire. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented. .140 petitions from the county of Monmouth, in favout 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 ale ays 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 Hoe. Member's. The rule of the House was, that a Member could not discuss 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 from 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. Tt was also signed by 25 of the principal employers of hand-loom weavers in Blackburn and its neighbourhood. —(Cheers ) Mr. WAKLEY wished to ask the Noble Lord if that statement were embodied in the petition? Lord STANLEY said it was not, but he held in h:s 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 duty 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 he shotild on a future occasion take adyanteg..... of the opinion which had been expressed by the Speaker. Tbinetition was then ordered to lie on the table. 31r. WAKLEY said as this had been laid down from the chair to be strictly in order, he should take care not to forget it on - a future occasion. —(Hear, hear.) Sir G. HEA.THCOTE presented 57 petitions from the county of Rutland, in favour - of agricultural protection. Lord INGESTRE presented several petitions to the same effect. - ST ANDARD,In the Committee of the House of Lord; upon the Bill for suppressing brothels Earl Fitz hard nge, in the indul g ence of that peculiar taste of which he has given more than one proof, redewed his attack i upon the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, charging that venerable body with connivance at the abuse to immoral purposes of several miserable tene ments held by lease under them. The Bishop of Gloucester again very clearly demonstrated that the Dean and Chapter were in the matter guiltless even of neglect, inasmuch as they had uniformly refused to renew leases to those who had so infamously perverted their property to the service of vice, and bought in the outstanding leases wherever they hag the opportunity. That the Dean and Chapter had not waited for this recent rebuke in Parliament, the Right Rev. Lord proved by a reference to the letter of Mr. Hunt, their surveyor. Whether it is Earl Fitzhardinge's purpose, in the course he takes, to protest brothels, or to asperse the clergy of the Established Church, we are unable to conjecture. But whatever may be the design of the Noble Earl, we think it possible that he may have been doing good uuconsciously. Among other of his Lordship's invidious remarks, he stated that several noblemen and gentlemen had caused to be inserted in building leases a penal clause, providing that the application of any house to be built upon the premises leased shall ;work a forfeiture of the lease. These penal clauses are, we know, now very commonly inserted in 'building leases, but they are altogether a novelty ; there is pro bably net ono lease in existence, forty years old, containing such a clause, and of course even were the present Chapter of Westminster to be held responsible..for the acts of their predecessors forty years ago, they can hardly be blamed for not having thought of a measure of precaution that at the time had never occurred to any one else. The intro duction of these clauses is curious, and it is to be ex plained byiwo causes. First, and most gratifying, the general' improvement in morals, manners, and tastes. Secondly, the change that has taken place in the system of building, which has g:ven effect to the moral" improvement in this manner. For e aerly houses were . built singly ; recently they are bt lilt by streets,• and even by collections of streets. Now the builder of a. single house, if morally indiffe rent, had no care whatever for his neighbours, but with the. builder of a street or a collection of streets. it is dif fer •ent—t he respectability of the neighbourhood which he is (. Teati l ng is a matter of great pecuniary importance to him.. The presence of one or two disreputable houses in It.. street is known prodigiously to depreciate the vale a of all the other houses in that street, and . thus the mos t - proiligately regardless of public morals still feels the :necessity of protecting his property from taint by tiusPpenal clauses of which ue have spoken. In the case ot old leases, however, a landlord, whether of one or snore houses in a neighbourhood, is wholly without remedy, though his moral feeling may be outraged, and his pecuniary - interest, too, injuriously affected b y th e abuse of his property. This we believe to be precisely the condition of the Dean and -Chapter of Westminster. Now the unconscious good for which we (rive Earl Fitzhardinge credit, is the placing the import ant subject of the Bishop of Exeter, Bill in this new and practically useful light. Whatever the Noble Earl and others like him may think of the obligation of the Legislature to guard the morals of the people, all will admit the duty of Parliament .to protect property ; but property is, as we have intimated, enormously depreciated by the proximity of those infamous houses which the Bill of the Bishop of Exeter would suppres.s. Might not the Legislature wisely and justly interpose to protect property from such sdepreciation by giving the authority of a general law tc the principle of the penal clauses, of which mention has been made ? What objection, for example, could there be to a provision added to the Bishop of Exeter's Bill, to the effect, that a conviction of the tenant of any house for using such house as, &c., should operate as a forfeiture of his lease to his immediate lessor, and so upwards. This would be one of that best kind of laws, laws that execute themselves ; fOr the itiMbitants of any neighbourhood disgraced and impoverished by. one of these abominable nuisances would lose no time in effectually relieving themselves from it, after the law— had supplied them with the means. We have not seen the Bill—it may, for anything we know, contain such a provision •, but if it does not, that provision certainly ought to be added. ____ admirable singer, who retired m ot the stage in 1815, could never restrain the anxiety he felt -when the turn for his benefit at Covent-Garden came scaot.l: Every morning for more tilt n a week previous he Would, go to the.box-book-keeper's er's office, to see how many - aces Tere taken ; and a weekt-ifore his last benefit, observ ing. the.DRITIES to be kw besides tho se d his own private -friends, he said to Brandon, " D-0 it, Jein; if the nobility 4len't.enme'forward as usual, I shall cut but a poor figurethis C 0 Don't be afrai(f, said Brand on , " I. dare say we " shall do a great deal for you to•day."— " Well l" replied In . etedon "I hope you will ; and as 1 go home to diniter I Will :-10k in again." Incledon, who was not very familiar with Debrett's Peerage, returning at four o'clock in the aft&T ko „, , hastened to the boa, and read aloud the following fictitio us down during his names, - which Brandon, as a joke, had put • ibsence •---‘ 4 The Marquis of Piccadilly,"--" The Duke of Windsor."—" Ali !" said he, " that must be one of the Royal Family !"—" Lord llighgate,"—and " The Bishop of Graves end!' —" Well !" said he to Brandon, quite delighted, " if we get on as Well to marrow as we have done to-day, I shall have a numberof distinguished titles present !" The Maestro. FIRE AT STISTED.—On Saturday afternoon, about three o'clock, a fire broke out at Jenkins Farm, two miles from Braintree, in the occupation of Mr. Newton King, who was at the time at Bardfield fair, and who, on his return home, between five and six o'clock, found his premises in flames. The tire commenced in the interior of a thatched barn, at the lower end of the farm-yard, and rapidly communicated to a large double barn ' which extended nearly the whole o f th e eastern side of the farm-yard, almost to the back of the dwel ling- house; Both barns with their contents were in a short li& consumed; fortunately there was but little wind at th e time, the slight breeze that prevailed lay in a direction fa vourable to the preservation of the dwelling and the rest of the extensive raw% of farming buildings and stock, there being several stacks on the other side. A boy employed on the fikrul il it i fi t custody on suspicion of having wilfully set th e 1.:-.\ ";ith'ilalVegts re.—Essex Herald. - - ~....--- -W eireason to b e li eve th a t th e Irish Liberal ------ Marebeo hafe,come to a resolution to retire from the House %i..- " of Conwhons,hen the debate on Mr. Villiers' motion for the ~.. ,- _ . immediate an otal repeal cf the corn-laws comes to a close. ~". ., - ; -,A4. 1 The reason las Red for the Irish Members not voting in „-.11,,, , A, - 4 - favour of MY:- 'Biers' motion, is their deep dissatisfaction ) `'"ith Mr. Coffin and the other Members of the League, for V7t, 11,,, aving voted in favour of Mi n i s t ers on the Sugar Duties Bill. - ,elelverti6er. THE SUN, LONDON,_ WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1544. 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 he done so, that would have implied some knowledge of agri cultural subjects ; and, as well as he recolected, the agri tural knowledge of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not held in very high esteem by the agriculturists of the country. The lion. 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 Ministerial benches.) He stood corrected. The expression was, " that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not distinguish au ox from a donkey."—(Renewed laughter, and Opposi tion cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman 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. Gentleman had given no data—he had merely jumped to a conclusion—but in order to come to that conclusion, it was necessary to go through a certain series of operation.. He did not tell them the price at which labour would be displaced. He supposed that labour could only be displaced by land being thrown out of cultivation. He had not stated the price which would render cultivation so unprofitable as to throw land out of cultivation. He had given them no data whatever on the subject. Ile could not understand by what means land was to be thrown out of cultivation. It was a delusion to suppose that if a little spirit, a little science, and a little economy, were exhibited in the cultivition of the land, that cultivation could not be made profitable. If the Right Hon. Gentleman had paid a little attention to the experiments of Earl Ducie on the subject, he would have seen his error. That Noble Lord had stated it as the result of his experiments that the apprehension that the importation of corn from foreign countries would throw land out of cultivation, was unrounded, because he found that by carefully cultivating land himself without paying rent, he could produce corn at a lower price than it could be produced in foreign countries. Of course rent made a difference.—(Derisive laughter from the Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the Opposition.) Gentlemen opposite were amused, and he heel 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 teman, 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 lion. Gentleman would repeat that argument ' • but a more wonderful argum en t s till h a d 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 net 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 couraged, and the demand f or l a b our i ncrease d. Th e agricultural labourer, even 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 rural districts. Did not the Right Hon. Gentleman think that if those improvements in agriculture were to take place, of which sninuch had been said, they would not have the same effect as the importation of foreign corn ? It was now said that the time had 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 o th er c l asses . N ow, w h at 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 were 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. ' Ho threw upon the supporters of the corn-laws the onus of proving that the present corn-laws admitted 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 had to prove ; they must _convince the House that there was no injustice in the present system 'before they could call upon the House to sup pert it. He agreed with Lord Grenville, who, when this law was about being imposed, declared in his place in the House of Lords that nothing could justify them in tampering with the subsistence of the people but the most imperative necessity. Ho 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 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. Some 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 i nves ti ga t e into the causes of. this distress. • Hon. Members, en 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. Welt, 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, fur 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. He admitted that the destitution was great and extensive, but thought it could be in a great meacure traced to the corn-laws. Suppose London were barricaded with a sliding scale, and that, to 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 said before that they had had all the ad vantages that experience could give them. It was so ; they had within the last ten years four years of scarcity and four of plenty. From 1832 to 1836 corn was abundant. From 1838 to 1842 corn was scarce and dear. During the four years of plenty the average cost of wheat was 465. a quarter; during the four years of scarcity the average price was 665. a quarter. • It ap peared from the calculations. of Mr. M'Culloch 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 cheap years, the people consumed seventeen millions of quarters, and, during the dear years, fourteen millions. In the cheap years, the people paid 164,000,060/. for 17,000,000 o f quarters ; in the dear years, 194,000 0001. fir 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 recolle c t e d th a t 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 ultimate effect of the se em b arrassments 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,deplorecl 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 Bill 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 1637 the amount expended for the relief of the poor was four millions. In 1843 the amount was 5,200,000/. The number of paupers in the country when the distress commenced was one million. At the commencement of the present year the number amounted to 1,500,000. What was the amount of at .bodied paupers who were unable to find employment in conse. 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 *Leon which it was placed when first introduced was the most 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 m nit to millions of our people, whereby they should obtain bread, but not dependent for the bread itself.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") That was the plan 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 quarters of corn —(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 to support 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 everdone before. He had considered what were the other excuses urged in support 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, noe'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 it.—(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 labourer more than their total and immediate repeal. Tho claims of no class had been more prominently or more frequently protruded upon the public than those of the farmers. But if there was any doubt that corn-lairs 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-laws. The farmer had been duped, and deceived by the premises of the corn laws.—(llear, 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 he had been deluded and deceived. As to the exemptions that had been procured for the farmer in the payment of taxes, there was not a land lord in the House who did not know that 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 him whether what they had done in that House as they said for him had been at all to his benefit. Whatever relief they had procured for the farmer through Parliament, only swelled the rent of the landowner.—(Hear, hear.) The farmers held their land not for the in terest of themselves 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 prove .1 that no one could be lower in the scale ofcivilisation than the agricultural labourer; so much so indeed that he had become so depraved as to be almost placed out of the pale of c:vilization. Scarcely a day passed that they did not read in the leading journals of the country discussions as to the cause of thoir dis affection. The papers were full of what were called their crimes, but which, in reality, were caused by their distressss.:He said:again, that no man would dare to rise and plead the advantage of the labourer as the excuse of the corn-laws. I - Es Hon. Friend the Member for Stock port, by his motion at the beginning of 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 asserted? 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 Suffolk, there property was safe; wherever, in fact, 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 swer t ) that.—(Hear.) He defied them to answer. He sa'd that when the price of food was low the 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—(oh, oh, and Hear, bear)—to re ply to that statement.—(Cheers.) He would read the Hon. Gentleman a letter. , Mr. FERRAND—And I will read you another. , Mr. VI LLIERS would read a ietier:froni a magistrate of an agricultural county, Buckinghamshire, who was no supporter of his (Mr. Villiers') 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 pain the condition of the labourers, their damp, un wholesome, crowded cottages. He saw men who tra versed the whole day from farmer to farmer in search of employment, returned broken-hearted end 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 t' , eir last dish of potatoss to share, that such families were kept alive unt 1 they could obtain a ticket of ad mission to the workhouse.) Mr. FERRAND—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 after 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 quence of the distress arising from had harvests ? In 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 Belton, 30 per cent. in Oldham, and 159 per cent. in Sheffield. lion. Gentlemen might attribute this distress to over-speculation or over production, but, unfortunately, that distress was uni versal. The increase in the amount of pauperism 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 nece , sarily affect the revenue. It would appear, from the Parliamentary returns made in 1842, that one of the Excise taxes. which was ex pected to yield 78,4001., only yielded 58,0001. In Oc tober, 1842, the revenue obtained from the Excise was 733,4001. 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 bed upon crime. In 1836 the committals had fallen to 20,000, having been 22,000 in 1834. What had ben 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. He said there was no instance in which it could be shown that the working classes were not well off during the continuance of cheap prices of food. He would refer the House to the opinion of the late Lord Liverpool, expressed in the year 1822, when the agricultural body complained to Parliament 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 f4ll in the poor-rates. That opinion was expressed in the year 1822, at a time when it AY.IS 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 discussions on the Factory Bill. He was ready to take those authorities to show bow 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 lion. Gentleman then read from pamphlets, which had been published by Dr. Mimi, 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, such as want of cleanliness and pure air, but nothing could equal that great predis posing agent—a scarcity of nutritious food. This alone carried off tens of thousands in a year. AI 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 feeer, which arose entirely from a want of proper nutritious focd. This was the opinion of Dr. Hunter. It might be asked, what had that to do with the question, as it was not the object of the corn-law to produce this scarcity. He wanted, then, to know what was the object of the corn law.—( Hear, hear.) If it was not intended to produce scarcity, he wished • to know why the opposite intention had never been avowed ? It was precisely at the moment when the people were well fed by the abundant home supply, that the agricul turists always beset that House 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 people well fed and contented, the rates di minishing, and employment abundant, the agriculturists were complaining, and asking how they were to remedy this state of things.—(clear, hear.) He said then that the tendency of the corn-laws was to produce scarcity, and scarcity was the cause, as he had shown, of want, disease, death, and crime.—(licar, hear.) How was it that the most distinguished of the persons why' 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 fattier of the present Prime Minister denounced the law as oppressive on the people, and declared his be lief that it was only enacted in order to keep up the prices that prevailed during the war—that it was, in fact, a low for 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 filled. What were the riots ?—and at the time it was passed, did the working people believe then that the law was passed for their benefit ? Why did not the Government meet them with arguments instead of artil lery ?—(Hear.) Instead of doing so, they Lore down upon them with cannon. Was the state of opinion better now ? Only two years ago, the lion. Member for Somersetshire objected to the Right lion. Gentleman's tariff, which was brought in in the midst of great dis tress, and with the intention of relieving it. That Hon. Member objected to the tariff, on the ground that it would diminish the price of food from the increased sup ply it would admit from the United States and else where. He had read all the speeches at the meetings of the protection societies that had been lately held, and.he could not discover that they had any other object than that ofincreasing the price of food. Indeed, at a meeting held in the county of Surrey, one gentleman, of greater courage than the rest, stated distinctly what all the others meant. He said they were assembled there for the purpose of advancing their own interest ; it was theiriaterest to make food dear and scarce, and they wore.met there for that purpose. What other object could these laws have, when they were told of settlements and mortgages, and capital that had been infested in land, as reasons for preserving them, except for the pur pose of obtaining a price for the produce that should enable the landlord to meet these obligations ? This was what he wanted to prove to the House and to the country. Yet, with all this protection, the state of agri culture was but a low one ; in what condition was it after thirty, years of protection ? They had it on the autho rity of more than one Member of that House, that the state of agricultur e was s h ame f u ll y low. Then there were the two Right Hon. Gentlemen, the head of her Majesty's Government, and the Noble Lord the Secre tary of the Colonies, they had both read a sort of lecture on agriculture to the persons in aeir neighbourhood. The Right Hon. Baronet said at the dinner at Tamworth great improvement, and that the - circumstances urd which land was now held was not' avourable to its provement. Ile had part?culariy referred to this pelt ° the subject, because he had a nti c ip a t e d that the study , organic, chemistry, and the lectures now bring g iYFA e were likely to supply the deficiency of past times. had pointed to those necessities simply for the purpo Le se of showing that great s ac r ifi ces were re quired on the part of the landlords, i n or d e r to ena ble the tenant to effect the n e c essar y improvements. feared that those sacrifices were nut likely to be made' If the repeal of these laws took place, instead of al' peering at the hustings as the serf of the landlord, 1 1 l tenant wnuld appear there to exerci s e his indepen d e ti a judgment in the choice of a rep resen t a ti ve . lie belie the custom of granting leas es h a d diMi n ished since tu passing of the Reform Bill, a nd th ere was not the less likelihood of the custom increasing. Such was the COI F petition for land that the landlord was comparatively safe. He was sure of obtaining the highest pess i d price for his land, and his rent w as sa f e , b e cause he h a , • priority of claim over other credit ors . F u rther, the la ng , lords of this country were, gener a lly s p ea ki ng , on'y tent o ' t s for life, and they had but little motive therefore to lay capital in the improvement of their land. He believe e that landlords would never make th e neces sary sacrifi e until they saw that their interest co ns i s ted in their lan:i raising the greatest amount of produce at the lowe i ' d price. If protection laws were revealed, they eouof have the landlords competitee for tenants, instead tenants competing for landlords ; they would see te. t , looking for men of skill and capital to cultivate ta el ,,, land. He was bound to admit that the farmers in tu' il „" t parts of the country were n o l ess re l uc t a nt to see e k leases than landlords were to gran t th em , b u t it was o n because there was such uncertainty in the Pre sel ,: t system.—(Hear, hear.) He vent u r e d to .ay th there was no intelligent farmer in the cou ntry who would not sooner take free trade, acce in P nied by a lease, than contin ue a t enan t a t will with pr o) mises of protection which were never realised.—al e b a s e They were now, therefore, in thi s p os iti on . started with a promise to depend on this country TheY for supply of food, and they were bound to admit that th e y t had not succeeded. He w an t e d t o k now then, be ground there was for mi s t rus ti ng th e s y s t e m which ot advocated—the system of ha v i ng th e su pply depenut is upon, competition ? Why th e Ri g ht Honours • Gentleman at the head of the Government solaeew times went out of his way to prove I P i n entirely they might rely upon that le illeir e h ol every case except that of the issue, of money. it m o s been said, indeed, that th e e ff ec t o f t h e s y s tem o. "' a f he proposed would be to drain the country all its bullion, but the experience of the last five Y e l s i showed. that the exports of manufactures to contine n t , corn•growing countries had increased, whilst expor ts . other countries had diminished. He could not avoi d ' .e t ferring to the objection that his measure was too vi" leg o i He wanted to know who it was th a t sa id s o. Di d n ot the majority in that House sa y th a t th e y w ould stick ea the law as it at present stood ? W ou ld h e then have ",,g, any chance of conciliating them by p ro posing a s`D:h moderate fixed duty?—(Hear, hear.) Would ne,,, re same objections be made to both proposals? at were many gentlemen in that Hon •e who said that w,. st they objected to was a regular trade in corn • and if the were the case there could be no hope of inda;';',. them to agree to a moderate fixed ctis Whenever, they could bring themselves to ant that t !: ey were not justified in restricting the supe e , - .. food, they might be expected to be as anxious for_,trbt trade in corn as any other class of society. The 1 14 a, Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of T r i ;el had observed, the other day, th a t if th e y w i s hed toee., ; any change in commerce th e y s h ou ld d o it effectuantio and he agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman as w o . evils arising from un c e r t a i n ty. Th e Ri g ht lion. li t he amen had triumphantly r e f erre d t o th e f a ct that to consequence of repealing the duty on wool had Fe e ou ts improved price in the market ; y e t a ll the argen ie hstl which were used against free trade in corn any been urged against free t ra d e i n w ool. „ 316 eiil other measures exhibited a simil a r r e sult. 'n ie ce cot know any instance in which more capital ha",, t , of invested, on the faith of an e x i s ti ng l aw , than in t"„, the beer duties. No consider a ti on w h a t ev er was ~ - for those vested interests. N o r did h e s ee any r e- b ° o why all should not be pr e p are d t o ma k e sa crifices w the great public welfare required it. He did not that the change in that case bad been attended bad evil,. although, perhaps, at first some pers ons d ei suffered from it. Again, i n r es p ec t t o the exner, ts hoe of machinery. When it was prop ose d t o repeal tn e wel e for preventing that exportati o n, man y o f those avh° t he engaged in manufactures opposed the repeal ' 34 fo r ground that they had inve s t e d th e i r ca pital in 1 ef f factures in the faith of the law, and that, if mae l l for were exported, they would lose the f or eign delva n their manufactures. A bee ° Mr. BORTHWICK—But th a t measure ha d eighteen years in progress.---(Hear, and a laugh.) i r ty Mr. VILLIERS—But the corn-law had been t dis. years in progress.—(Hear, hear.) The people were O f contented with the law for permitting the exporta n his s machinery, and there had b een grea t co mplaints 4 3 hie it, but he did not think diet it had done any oi l ' al of thought thrt everything which promoted the freeclo or) exchange of products must be beneficial.—(Hear , h e eoie When the abolition of the turnpike trusts was under ° n! sideration, it was alleged that a great number of Pe oroi. ith had invested their property in these trusts upon the of the Acts of Parliament. But the change was ° e el dered necessary for the public advantage, and it li d made. There was another change to which he ° m e. the attention of the House. That was the old poorly —(Hear, hear, from Mr. Ferrand and other.) o ld thought that was a case in point. He bell, ved th e .not poor-law was prejudicial to the people themselves. e v o . they did not think so.—(Hear, hear.) Their exP c ee te lions rested upon it—th e i r h a bit s a n d characters t r ite it formed by it. But th e c h ange was made againt ir itr • feelings—(Hear, hear)—a su dd e n and somew'hat', t he gent change, utterly disr egar di n g the feelings ' 9 ' esr .) people who were the most conc e rne d i n it.—(Hear' h oo f' The Houseiought never to have passed the new law without having first repeal, d the corielatiit'•be (Cheers.) But in respect to thi s motion, he we e oe st told again that there were ve s t e d i n terests whichcor be respected. Had they respected what the peoP," ifea r, sidered their vested rights in the le or-lawa? - "L f the hear.) Had they regarded the vested rights ;°,,„ th° people when they _passed the corn-law to r a ' — r icili price of bread in order to raise the fortunes of the e ra (Cheers.) Had they done anything to enable the P, fro, to meet the change in the poor-law?—(Hear, bea. n i said the Hon. Gentleman, "but you " (addressingort- Ferrand) " are going to conciliate the rich by suP l in y ing the present corn-laws, for there is no othe i l 7, this which you can gain thei r f avour t h en. by law and assailing those who propose to repeal trade' (Ikar, hear.) There was anoth er l aw , the slave „'se against the abolition of whi c h th e same oppositto node made and upon the same grounds as was 00 7:,„1 tha t against the abolition of the co r n-l aw . He avaag be was able in this case to cite th e au thority 0 ' 3 - le d by man whose political conduct was not o ften restS e ebe t e cnsiderations of mere humanity. (The Hem in ,0 then read an extract from a spee c h of Mr. r i te wh ich debate upon the abolition of the slave trade, i n d the, Mr. Pitt declared that he " could not understanwea principle on which a few individu a l s should he t a be live to set up their interests against th e r ights ai'd, c iples s , of millions. He did not under s tand s uch a Pr' i l te al,,!, a plea for upholding so wicked so i n f a mous ti SY heti ld why, for the sake of a few plant ers , th o usands 5 Ile 5 "; doomed to perpetual and intolerable misery 0 0° horred the odious system, and he ca ll e d upon a. 0. O 0 a c render' to rise with - one voice and d eman d its aholi t T e c old admitted that he spoke with warmth, and if otherwise he would det es t hi ms elf for hi s or b Iron.") That declaration of Mr. Pitt might be ae to the present case.—(Hear, hear.) Whe n " e f tha t ' sidered the enormous mischief done to hundred: ~,e t eo 3, ,' sands, aye of millions, by the operation of th i eon- or he asked the House would it for the sake o f &p ies the interests of a few great men, abandon P rin aeat e " the greatest advantage and refuse to redeem the g wrong?—(Cheers.) t of Mr. HAWES seconded the reso lution. m ail Mr. FERRAND rose to move the Gille n " liee es which he bad given noti ce . H e sa id it would% eite! n sible for the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) e l re es e the working classes think that he had their int to t h view. The working classes had opened their e t f; t projects of the Anti. Corn-law League, and ed n ot w he was so despised and detested, that they dar , cts , •e e e one public meeting in the manufacturing distil 0 , 4 ,0_ 0 Working classes' themselves were diametricallY i-„ted to a repeal of the corn-laws. Why did not t b h o ' lcity . e l l 4 go into the manufacturing districts,_ th ,,y o°lo broadly put the question ? If they did so , rt inF,i o a ca'l upon the House to listen to their ass e ' i r only Manchester those who attempted to express the _J o , t shaa' boa which w rr hose in the presence of the League were most ton he treated. The Hon. Member for Wolverhangte of read a letter from a landed proprietor on the o s_ ld rea c h agricultural poor, but he (Mr. Ferrand) w n "_„ t 011' 4 , letter from a working man, stating the treati s alT' 3t he had received from the Anti-Corn-law Leal: es o f was disgraceful to them and to the inagistrtet.cooo:i, v v town. On the 14th of February the Al i o, 3 1 ', a 143 01 4 3 , 1 0 League' held a meeting in the Free-TraL Chester, which. the Hon. Member for Sr, to be open Colonel Thompson declared in their speeo e,_ s e oft. _ jo g to the public. On the 20th of February an d on e hal e . rand received a letter from a working ma n ' othe trn' a t made(A laugh)—of ever inquiry the Coul- read be denied. The Honourablehseta then a las a letter signed by six persons, , 0 4, 0 0 1 ,_„i t . he net give affirming that a working_on,":, the et . 0 : 11,0 rose in the meeting and put the ( vest% seizie ilp er. ' t e e e m a e l d n ts, vouch ivi n e . man—" Is this a public meeting ?' , s at a the policemen, who " rushed upon him like ? c :t s t._ —Laughter)—dragged him over the w her e c oe t floor, and conve3ed him to the station-t_oalereed was detained four hours, and then disci , •I j a' tt his jr,Q CO to a F n e 3 r • r a a c n c d u ,s s ) ationbeingtold recommendation made a; t 4 b a e ilis m c ara . l'P l i i i i e m ti tha t be . police had acted quite rightly, ye __ . _ s fla w coming a stipendiary magistrate, wL e "1 10 1 ;„ ja ll b ' ote public money for public services? ericultursi hi' for Wolverhampton said that if the went 5 t j a free-trade in corn, they would find temp was f aa jleati rers were deprived of employment iannioag, wages in manufactures. The experiment Ferran d) oos s° 1836 and 1837, and since that he (eel% , in that. the Hon. Member for Stockport state_ __ soa , in _ t e e that there were hundreds of thousands 01 .. P e _ l we e, ~h manufacturing districts living on Is. 3t l n s ,_, ees the tow steit r, having no other covering at night but_ deo they wore in the day. Was that the et were invited' _ th which the agricultural labourers hear d lo w ere hear.) The manufacturers had been the y _ t O House, for they were many, anu_u„ht also g oo wealthy, but the working. men " b t ,, be heard.—(Hear.) Those men whom . w i t h o , h , would not dare to face, and whom they trest a T tio ft . ' tality when they opened their mouths to speak ttb These men had, for years petitioned the Hous e riculturecaor hat they had met not for the protection, but the promo ion of agriculture—that was the distinction—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—and that he regr e tt e d th e p rac ti ce of the country was not that of granting leases ; he said at the same time that if any te nan t o f hi s s h ou ld ca ll on him to grant one, he should hesitate a long time before he refused his request.—(Laughter.) He also alluded to another source of mischief to the farmer, that arising from the extensive preservation of ga m e , an d stated that he had no hesitation in saying, if any tenant complained on this ground, he would give directions for the destruc tion of hares and rabbits to the extent that should pre vent his experiencing any loss. All this was very laudable; he read it for the purpose of showing the admission it contained ; but, he vi mild ask, had this example been followed in any one instance throughout Staffordshire ? He had very great doubts of it. At the same dinner at which this was stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, Pro fessor Buckland was present, and he declared that the agriculture of that district was very bad; that he had seen more thistles in a single field there than were to be found in all Lincolnshire, and advised them to run down and have a look at the model farm of Earl Ducie, near Bristol. At another dinner the Noble Lord (Stanley) said that the farmers were only beginning to bestir themselves, and mentioned the advantages to be derived from tile draining, but said he should probably be told that this was an expensive operation, and that a tenant could not undertake it. To this the meeting was said to have vociferously responded with "Hear, hear."-- (Laughter.) He alluded to long leases, and the passage was received with marked applause, the meeting being in hopes to get something more out of the Noble Lord OR the subject of leases. But the Noble Lord said there were many other topics—(A laugh) —on which he had to address then.—(Laughter.) At these meetings there always seemed to be some prac tical man present who generally commented on these speeches from Noble Lords and Gentlemen. On this occasion a practical agriculturist named Neilson was present, and he spoke strongly in favour of leases, and against the conditions to which tenants were generally bound with respect to cultivating the estates. On the same subject they had also the authority of Sir B. Varney, and the Hon. Member for Bridgewater. These speakers at agricultural dinners seemed all to agree in one particular, namely, that there were certain circum stances which utterly precluded improvement. The Hon. Member then read an extract from a speech of Colonel Powell, stating that one thing alone was neces sary for agriculture, namely, fresh rents, corn rents, and long leases: He also read an extract from the speech of Sir Robert P;gott, President of the Worcester. shire Agricultural Society, to the effect that if:the tenant had a fixed tenure in land it would be an advantage both to tenant and landlord. There were no other means of accounting for the prosperity of the SeOteh farmer. He• would not weary the House with any further extracts. It would not ho disputed, that agriculture was capable of FREE LABOUR. Mr. MUTT gave notice that on this day fortnight he should bring before the House the subject of_ the immi gration of free negroes into the West Indies. TIIE WAR IN MOROCCO. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask the Right _ _ Hon. 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 had delayed it until communications should have been received. lt appeared that re-inforcements had lately been sent by the French Government to the frontier of Algiers, and it was said that the whole force wa: 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. Any question which should lead to hostilities, ands till m )ra Si war and invasion on the 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 persons and property of English subjects in Morocco were protected ; and there was an article in the treaty which had special reference to the provision ing of Gibraltar, being evidently considered by the parties who framed it of the utmost importance. Then, if any aggression or occupaticin on the part of France should tend to interrupt the means of communica tion of this country with the States of Morocco, that would occasion very serious inconvenience. —(Hear, hear.) NO doubt the Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had communicated with the Government of the King of the French on this subject ; and he (Lord John Russell) wished to ask the Right Honourable 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 sub j ect upon which he wished to put a question to the Right Iron. Gentleman—that was with respect to any instructions which had been given to the Admiral who was appointed to command the expedition. —(Bear, 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 general 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 or the States of Morocco. It was im possible to contemplate those States, and their present condition, without feeling deep interest. The re lations which had so long subsisted with Morocco, and the fidelity with which that empire had always 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.—(Hear, hear.) In answer to the Noble Lord, he must state that the Government of France had entered into full explana tions with regard to the state of its relations with Mo rocco. The French Government had stated most posi tively that it was their most anxious wish to avoid hos tilities between France and Morocco. They stated the circumstances which led to the rupture. Those were, that when the Chieftain who had opposed the French in the north of Africa, 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 Eiriperor, if not by the Emperor . himself, to renew hostilities. That led to an interruption of the friendly relations of France with Morocco, anti hostilities were commenced by the directions of the Emperor. There was subsequently a casual collision of the French and Moorish troops. An amicable conference subsequently took place, during which, according to the telegraphic es;patch, 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 upon hostili ties with Morocco ; and they regretted the necessity of their doing so. They had communicated to` her Majesty's Government their general views with regard to Morocco, and had apprised this Government , f 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 Adin:ral. He thought the Noble Lord would not expect that he should expbiin the purport of those instructions. —(hear, hear.) He 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 farther now ; but when the time came 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 Hon. Gentleman must excuse him if, on a future occasion, he again alluded to this subject.. 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 instanq 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; and in case that Bill was read a third time on Thursday, 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 lie 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 courso 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 introdur3e 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 SuFpension 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. FERRAND wished to know why no Commis sioner had visited 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 wearers 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. If the Right 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, ho 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 ba 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. IVYSE said in answering the Right Hon. Baronet he must claim the indulgence of the House. He had already deferred his notice on account of the discussions which were going on in the Court of Queen's Bench ; but it must 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 (Nlr. 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 thy for its discusiion.—(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 specifi2. undertaking upon the subject, until lie had conferred with Hon. Members of the House, who were deeply interested in the matter.—The conversation then d ro Ted. COL. STODDART AND CAPTAIN CONOLLY. Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the Right Hola. 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 Bukhara? 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 movnent, with out having had notice of it. If the Hon. Met aber 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. DUNCOMBE, seeing the Right lion. 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 be printed by order of the House of Commons. He begged to know whether Right lion. Baronet intended to bring in such a Bill; and if so, when ? Sir J. GRAHAM was not aware that any such Bill was in circulation ; a Bill had been printed for the pur pose of being shown to a few persons in confidence, and of obtaining information. Mr. DUNCOMBE said he bad 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 beesa printed, and shown in confidence to a few persons, as the most convenient mode of obtaining information on the ques tion involved, and ascertaining their opinions ; but he had not yet decided on what shape the Bill was to as sume, or the provisions it was to contain. SEES OF ST. ASAPIT AND BANGOR. Mr. W. O. 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 occasion, 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 math', he bogged 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, be would 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 t hat 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 free 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 c. 14, shall bo repealed forthwith." The Honourable Member said the purpose of the motion of which he had given notice 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 had been supported by Members of the greatest ability, who had left nothing unsaid that could be urged in its favour, and yet this bad been done in vain. It might, perhapx he asked, upon what grounds, therefore, he now proceeded to renew this appeal. Ile 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 subject, bad been silent upon it during this session, their opponents would not have been slow to infer that either by their overwhelming influence, or their persuasive eloquence, 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 judging fairly between the contending parties. He saw little reason for despair. and some for hope, in this continued discussion on this question. He was unable to expl a i n , un l ess f rom a conviction of the substantial justice of the anti-corn-law cause, why the Government had not allowed any month of last