The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 15, PR39.

foreign states for a supply of food ; and which might lead to the
serious injury of our commerce. Let them rather by the rejection of
the Treasure, encourage her Majesty's subjects, and look for a
supply of food to her Majesty's dominions.
Earl RADNOR assured the Noble Duke that he must be mis-
taken in referring to threats made by the Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam).
He thought the Noble Duke's reference to comparative prices in
countries where there were Corn.laws, and where there we 'e none,
were too vague to be met by direct argument. But facts would not
support the Noble Duke. Instead of the greatest variance in prices
being where there were no duties on corn, he would remind the
Noble Duke that in Amsterdam, the capital of a country which
produced very little corn of her own, the price of imported corn
was most uniform for one hundred and fifty years, until an act was
passed in 1815. If we could not have wheat from other countries
we might have abundance of barley at home, and with good barley.
bread and plenty of beer, bread, butter, and cheese, he thought our
labourers would not grumble much.---(Laughter and cheers.) But
the wants of this country would amount to 52,000,000 of quarters
a year, which would cost 78,000,000/. Now was it likely that the
countries receiving those vast sums of money from us would be
easily induced to discontinue that receipt ? If the Govern-
ment should order them to do so, was it likely they would comply ?
The Noble Duke had referred to a statement made by the Noble
Earl with respect to the variations in prices, and one was with re-
spect to wool. Now he (Lord R.) had an official paper which was
not conformable to that statement. Excluding the years 1629 and
1830, when the variations were not considerable, there had been a
remarkable variation in the five following years :
In 1831, the price was 67s. Id.
1632,
1633, ......... ~„
1834,
1833,
So that the variation from 1829 was 43 per cent., and a regular
fall. The Noble Duke talked of the encouragement and protection
of agriculture. If he meant protection for the farmer, this returii
was most ominous for the farmer. A farmer might embark his
capital on a concern in 1329 or 1830, after the operation of this
Bill, with the understanding that he was not only to secure steady
prices, but 665. Now from that time to the end of 1835, the price
regularly fell, and of course the farmer would every year be losing
more and more. Talk of encouragement and protection to ayricul_
ture ! It was encouragement and protection to the landlords. After
the five years of fall, what came next ? Why a regular rise,
In 1836, the price was 43s. I Id.
11137
1838

1839 (up to February)
The effect was to make the whole a mere gambling transaction, and
the tendency of the Corn Bill, of which the Noble Duke was so
fond, was the introduction of gambling in British agriculture. It
was said that the corn trade would be ruined by being free. Now,
let the House look to what had taken place in the silk trade. In the
five years before the alterations took place, the quantity of raw silk,
&c. entered for consumption, from 1825, averaged annually
2,626,000 lbs., and in the het five years it was 5,189,000 lbs. The
quantity of British silk manufactured and exported in the first five
years was 384,391 lbs., and in the last five years 722,102 lbs. ; so
that this trade had more than doubled, besides the immense increase
in the quantity entered for consumption.—(Hear, hear.) He would
now refer to another article more immediately connected with agri_
tural produce—wool; mid there the market had been opened with
precisely the same effect. The importation duty was taken off in
18e4 or 1825, and wool was allowed to be exported. The wool
growers said they would be ruined by the importation, and the
clothiers said they would be ruined by the exportation duties. But
neither the predictions of the one nor the other had been verified.
The quantity of foreign wool imported had been very considerably
increased. The first five years before the duty was taken off, it was
upwards of 17,000,000 lbs., and the last five it was upwards of
50,000,000 lbs. The quantity of British exported had gone on
increasing from 53,000 lbs. to 2,640,000 lbs. He now came to
what the Noble Earl had said about the valuation of the price
of wool. The prices had been Is. 5d., Is. 2P., Is. l d., is. 2p.
Is., Is. 40., 10d , 9d., ad., 10d., and then the prices began to rise
again. From 1831 the prices had been Is., Is. tid., Is. 4d., Is, 5d.,
Is. ad , ls. 7d., Is. 20., and Is. 3d.
The Duke of RICHMOND inquired where that statement was
obtained ?
The Earl of RADNOR replied from the Board of Trade ; and
as the Noble Duke had refused 21d. and 220., the case was not
over-stated.—(Hear, hear.) What reason was there to suppose
that the repeal of the Corn.laws would not have a similar effect ?
He believed that protection injured everything which
it was meant to protect.—(Hear, hear.) It had been an
injury to the silk arid woollen manufacture : and why should not
the agriculturist of England be enabled to compete with the fo-
reigner. Our soil and climate were not so bad, and we had better
huslaandmen, better cattle, better and more abundant markets. He
thought corn much better without protection, and should like to see
an entire repeal of theCorn-laws,and no substitute for them whatever.
He believed that if the farmers were left to compete without pro-
tection, it would be far better for them. The present protection, as
it was called, operated as a decoy to the farmers—it caused their
ruin, and it made them gamblers. There could be no doubt that
it was a great grievance to the labourers to have corn dear, because,
notwithstanding all that had been said, he would unhesitatingly de.
dare that it was a fallacy to suppose that the wages of the labourers
depended upon the price of provisions, The wages of the labourer
depended upon the demand and supply. He (the Earl of Radnor)
could not conceive how any Noble Lord could for one moment en-
tertain the notion that the present motion could be met with a po-
sitive negative; for how could their Lordships declare that the
Act had effected uniformity in prices ? In conclusion he would
say that it was his intention to vete for the motion of his Noble
Friend, and he had two proxies in his pocket to the same effect.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt bound to say a few words in
explanation. It was known to the Noble Earl, and to all Noble
Lords in that House, that numerous sums had been laid out in the
improvement of land under the existing Corn-laws, and that the
laying out of these sums had tended to the good of the country
was admitted by the Noble Earl opposite. Such being the case, he
entreated their Lordships not to consent to adopt the resolution,
which was in fact a first step to the abolition of those protecting
laws under which large sums had been laid out for the improvement
of the country. Notwithstanding all that had been said by the Noble
Earl to the contrary, he begged again to repeat that when he came
down to the House he came there upon public injuries, and not as
the advocate of any particular class of men, be they landlords, la-
bourers, or manufacturers—(Hear, hear)—and his Noble Friends
near him looked at the present question upon public grounds,
and upon public grounds alone.—(hear, hear.) There was
another point that the Noble Earl had adverted to in
his speech, which he begged to correct, and that was that he had
never stated the export of corn was prohibited from foreign nations.
What he had stated was, that during the war there had been an in.
stance of a foreign power having taxed foreign corn because the
price of corn was high.
The Duke of RICHMOND felt bound to oppose the motion of
his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend admitted that in his opinion
the motion did not go far enough, but he would take a little now, in
order that he might get more. He (the Duke of II.) was sur-
prised at the conduct of his Noble Friend. He considered it un.
like him to nibble in that manner at a question.—(Hear, hear.)
There was one very extraordinary thing about the pre-
sent question, which ha had never yet been able to
find out, and that was whether the advocates of the repeal of the
Corn.laws thought their repeal would reduce the price of bread or
not ? In one instance they said it would, in another that it would
not. Ile had heard numbers of persons declaim on the great ad.
vantage to be derived to the operatives of the country from cheap
bread, but he had never heard it pointed out of what that cheap
bread was to be made. Was that cheap loaf to be made of barley ?
—(Great cheering.) He believed that the manufacturers of the
country sought for the repeal of the Corn-laws—he would not say the
manufacturers, for he did not believe that the respectable part of
that body sought for the repeal of those laws. It was only a certain
number of large mill-owners that wanted the repeal because they
were not satisfied with moderate profits, but bought to lower the
price of wages that they might be the better able to compete
with the manufacturers abroad. The foreign manufacturer
was told that the manufacturer of this country could not com-
pete with them, because the Corn-laws existed. Now if the fo.
reign manufacturers were not much greater fools than he believed
them to be, they would take care to foster their own manufacturers.
If the present Corn-laws were repealed large tracts of land in this
country would be thrown out of cultivation, and the agitation that
had taken place had already had the effect of preventing
many persons expending their capital in improvements.—(Hear,
hear.) No person would lay out money in improvements
while such agitations were going on. He was surprised to hear
his Noble Friend state that the farmers of England were not so good
as they ought to be. He would undertake to say that the farmers
of this country, as a body, were a most intelligent set of men.
Much had been said about the present question being a landlord's
W
nitbhiuhr
eerpeasaceacootuuwi rlhlnaus,au,
country,
nofudtudhadhuel
question. Now he would venture to assert that it was a landlord's
and agriculturist's, a labourer's and operative's question.—(Hear,
place. If then the repeal of the present laws would have so inju-
rious an effect upon the people of England, how much more inju
i
ttffiksrrsvneeyeawilo, employed
tiwhiutaasoi Otnisniplcl CorhtkE.o:yeesisneisl delyteiaeselnpi
tirnfge:
tpohoanahryel ugaewelbrptxaraeei obtcrynotbdtudehouelraaatertytyungteirdrrerrasi
landowner cetl Pu:
stapieLhoenlu°ti
anadriuuinusi prt eugi
Ittnys:s.f
pose te do away with the protection now afforded to the silk trade,
d
ter.) He heartily concurred in the motion of the Noble Duke, and
nibbling at any question. The repeal of the Corn-laws would ruin
would be carried within six months, lie would if possible sell off
whom he left behind him.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The Earl of RADNOR explained—What he had said was that if
wheat lands were thrown out of cultivation, it would be no bad
thing for the people of this country to fall back upon barley-bread,
butter, cheese, roast-beef and plum-pudding.—(Laughter.)
The Duke of RICHMOND hail not heard one word about the
roast.beef and plum-pudding before. Was the pudding to be made
with barley flour.
ld
The Earl of RADNOR did net know, for he had never made one
ulepodiehaotekwlftafiretaafsastheyktsttefhoh,, partoup eehl beliefwrrei
goeceerotcoriefrhg,uosovw,to,
performing
utioyh:h
nuh:uaogterlittltmaodhnfr.li yg,tuhef.
wegtnewiesaiteh, the present
r e
day werew h e n repealed,
that
t it
ke
cetdernetithhdyhuttwntermeeiwyry,ieghrtnaua.rporenstsi
—(Laughter.)
Viscount MELBOURNE—AIthough the subject had been very
much discussed, and although it was one with which he was not so
familiar as with some other subjects, and although he could not ex-
pect to throw much new light upon it, he felt it due to their Lord.
ships to say a few words on the eccaeion—a great deal of observation
had been made upon some expression which had fallen from his. Right
Hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade, who, in speaking
of that discussion which had taken place on this subject, had used
the modern phrase of agitation.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he (Lord
Melbourne) thought that, considering the situation held by
his Right Honourable Friend, and considering that it was a most
important question not only to the country, but more particularly to
the manufacturing interest, he thought that that expression was not
at ail improper. Ile did not think that it was at all wonderful, con-
sidering the vast multitudes who had taken part in the discussion,
which very nearly touched their own interests, that it had been at all
violently dis tissed, and certain he was that there had been not the
slightest danger to either the public peace or security. Though it
was extremely natural for his Right Honourable Friend to express
such an opinion, he (Lord M.) could not but differ from him. He
was sorry that it had been discussed, because it was one of an ex-
treinely difficult nature.—(Cheers.) It was one setting class
against class, and casting reflections upon all castes and grades in the
country. It could not be discussed at all, either on the one
hand or the other, without leaving behind it much bitterness and
discord.—(Hear, hear.) Ile was sorry that it should have been
brought forward at the present moment—that advantage should
have been taken of a temporary high price of provisions, to urge the
discussion of the question ; but, at the same time, it must be known
to all, that it was in vain for him, or even for persons of more weight
than him,to attempt to stop it—persons always seizedsuch opportuni.
ties of pushing forward their own
political purposes. The Noble Duke
opposite had referred to a subject which had been frequently brought
forward, vis.—the impolicy of this country depending upon foreign
countries fin' its supply of grain. Hs (Lord M.) was not entirely
He wouldld supposeist
t,
ti
satisfied upon that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
ever was, 'and
nobody we
sometimes to suppose such situations for the sake of argument. He
yurveer in
would a
uuid situationbe (a in
jau which nobody
it was convenient
ge)—but
would suppose that on this whole matter they were res integra.
That it was as it were a blank sheet of paper, upon which people
might make what impression they pleased—that it was one in
Which they had no interest—that they had given no protection to
any interest—that they had no great interest to contend with or to
manage, in fact, that they could do what they pleased
on the occasion, They were told that this was likely to be a large
manufacturing population—that thousands and millions were to be
congregated in large towns concerned in manufactures. He would
then say that he would very much doubt whether it would be wise
to establish laws which would bring up in that country a very large
manufacturing population dependent upon a foreign country fur
their supplies.—(Cheers.) When he considered the great financial
concerns of this country and its revenues, as they had been de-
scribed by his Noble Friend opposite—when he considered the situa.
tion in which they really were placed, he must say that the propo-
sition of his Noble Friend far throwing away all protection to the
agriculterel interest—he deplered before God that it was the wildest
and "Mddeet proposition Pe 1101 ever heard made.—(Hear,

and cheers.) The manufacturers said they wanted no
protection—they were perfectly willing to give up all the protection
they now enjoyed—they might easily make the offer, because they
knew that it couldnot be taken advantage of. What was to become of
the public revenue ? They knew that they were perfectly safe in
saying that they were ready to give up that protection, but the
Government were not. His Noble Friend (Earl Radnor) had said,
suppose they received a great deal of cern from foreign countries,
would it ever afterwards be possible for foreign Governments to pro-
hibit the exportation of corn from their countries; but let their
Lordships look at the times in which they lived.—(Hear, hear.) He
really knew not what might be done by the conspiracies and villanies
which might arise among other parties. In 1792 who could ever
have dreamed of the burning of the Milan decree—who could then
have foreseen the efforts made by Bonaparte ?—(llear, hear.)
In his opinion it was not a desirable thing to depend in any very
great degree for the subsistence of a large population upon any
foreign country.—(Cheers.) He thought that it would be better
even to sacrifice something cf manufacturing prosperity, for the na.
tional safety and independence.—(Loud cheers.) It was his strong
feeling upon the subject,that they would, by carrying the resolution,
be guilty of much unwiseness and imprudence, if they were to give
up the national independence, for that something which would aug-
ment the commerce and capital of the country. He entirely agreed
with what had been stated by his Noble Friend the Earl of Ripon,
that he was not bigotted at all to this law. The House were bound
to look a t the vast change which a repeal of those laws
would make in all matters relating to lend—in improve.
ments, in fact, in all connected with land. He was not ready
to make any change unless he was perfectly convinced—
unless he was shown something that would render it worth while to
make the alteration. With respect to the resolution which had
been moved by his Noble Friend, he would !sive his vote against it
in any shape. He would rather that this Noble Duke had moved
the previous question, because most undoubtedly it stated some
truths. There had been fluctuations under the present law, though,
being not so nice as many Noble Lords, he did not care from what
side of the House the motion came.—(Laughter.) He would vote
for the proposition of the Noble Duke, if it was persisted in. At
the same time, he did so because he did not wish that it should ap-
pear upon the journals of the House, and because they had no
means of carrying it into effect. He did not pledge him.
self to the present law, nor did he pledge himself against
any amendment of it at a future time ; but he thought it
imprudent and unwise to adept the resolution.
Lord BROUGHAM had hoped from the turn which the debate
had taken at first that he would have been relieved from troubling
the House again upon this aubject ; but when he looked back upon
the debate, and found that with only one exception, every speech
which had been delivered only shewed the necessity and the justice
of the House agreeing in the proposition which he had made to
them only three weeks ago; he at mice abandoned himself to the
temptation.—(Laughter.) He doubted whether they would laugh
within five minutes by that clock, unless they thought it was sub-
ject worthy of laughter, that they had placed themselves in a posi-
tion which shewed them guilty of a dereliction of the most sacred
duty they owed to the country. If it was a matter of mirth to
Noble Lords—if it was a matter of self-gratulatron, let them enjoy
their mirth, and hug themselves in their gratulations. (Hear,
hear, hear,) What was his motion last Monday three
weeks—that a Committee should be appointed to enquire
into the whole facts of this great and important question. What
ground did he lay for an inquiry—propositions of facts, one after
another, offering proof of each upon oath, and he then called upon
them to take either one of three courses, either to admit the
fact he stated as true, to assert that they were impossible and
incapable of proof, or to say that they deserved no investigation
whatever they were pleased to turn upon each and all these pro-
positions a deaf ear. They turned a deaf ear to the prayers and
petitions of thousands of their fellow-subjects—and what was the
the situation in which they were now placed—they had refused all
inquiry, and now net one statement that had been made that night,
by any Noble Lord, but had been contradicted by another. No one
assertion that had been made by his Noble Friend (Earl Fitz-
william) but had been most distinctly and articulately
denied by the Noble Duke opposite. The statements made by that
Noble Duke were again deemed by his two friends who sat by him,
even they, though they were upon the same side, could cot agree
upon the facts, and to show the absurdity of the House in refusing
his motion for an inquiry, even his two Noble Friends behind him
differed as entirely in their facts as the Noble Lord opposite. One
of his Noble Friends denied that the price of provisions affected the
price of wages, or while'he said that it would take 3 or 4 years to do
so, his other Noble Friend was full of his belief that
it would take a period of 30 or 40 years.—(Laughter.)
Did not their Lordships admit that they had more gri unds for in-
quiry than before? Was not their position of last Monday three
weeks a dignified position compared with' their present ? They
were now about to rush forward to a motion, elating themselves with
the feeling of instantaneous triumph. But that triumph would be
over themselves, and disparaging to them as men of consistency, as
he would presently demonstrate to them, to their entire satisfaction.
—(Laughter) Really, he would recommend some of their Lord-
ships to study the English language.—(Laughter.) Some of them
were uuder.read, even in the works they used. With all respect,
then, he would inform them that the word " satisfaction" meant a
proof that could not be denied, rather than anything particularly
pleasant or agreeable. But to make himself better understood, h e
would prove to their conviction that they were about to place them..
selves in a dishonourable and, perhaps, a painful position. Their
Lordships refused inquiry—they refused a Committee—they re-
jected evidence at the Bar, which he had offered—they hooted his
motion out of the House—they would neither permit him
to prove the facts lie had stated, nor would they themselves dis-
prove them. If he (Lord Brougham) were wrong, why not
disprove his statements—if he were right, why net let him prove
them ? Having rejected his motion—having refused the evidence
which tendered—having preferred to remain in the darkness of
ignorance, rather than meet the light of inquiry—they were now
ready, on most disputed and most important facts, to do what ?
Why, to vote on one side of this disputed proposition of mere facts.
Was this the conduct of rational men ? It was not more rational
than the conduct of men who laughed at being convicted of their
own irrationality.—(Laughter.) He (Lord 13.) was a man of old-
fashioned ideas, but he spoke the truth when he said that the con-
duct of their Lordships would be most irrational in rushing to rote
on one side of a question, without waiting to hear the fat's which
had been offered to be prove by oath on the other side. The Noble
Viscount himself (Lord Melbourne) felt himself that he was going
to give a vote which was not true.—(Laughter.) Truly the Noble
Lord must feel himself in an awkward place, and no doubt he would
be much relieved if the Noble Duke had moved the previous ques-
tion as he had had a mind to do. The Noble Viscount said that he
was not very nice indeed—not very nice indeed ? Why to record by
a solemn vote that those facts were not true, the truth of which he
had offered to substantiate on oath, was not very nice indeed. To say
that without caring whether the facts on one side was true or not
you would vote on the other side—the man who would do so ap.
pearod to him (Lord B.) to be a man not only of no sincerity, but
also of the least possible honesty he had evepheard.—(" Hear" and
laughter.) He (Lord B.) meant to.throw out no threats, but he would
tell them a solemn warning, that the course their Lordships were
about to adopt would place themselves in a position in which no
rational man would wish to be recorded in after times, and be spoken
of during his own age, Their Lordships might rely upon it, that the
present assembly would be only one in England, Ireland, or Scotland,
in which their conduct would be viewed with the same satisfaction
which their Lordships felt to-night. He (Lord Brougham)
had heard -the most extraordinary remarks from the Noble
Duke, and his Noble Friend opposite, and the most singu-
lar and unintelligible misstatements respecting what lied
been said by one of her Majesty's Ministers in another place. It
was not his (Lord B.'s) business to defend the statements of that
Minister elsewhere, as his colleagues would not do it here. Never.
theless, the offices of common humanity would induce him (Lord B.),
since the Ministers here would not defend their colleague, to say a
few words in behalf of that misjudged individual, although he dif-
fered from him to a certain extent. For instance, he (Lord B.)
should regard a fixed duty as a monstrous and extravagant absur-
dity.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to see the Minister who, if
Parliament were not sitting, and wheat at 00s., would dare to up-
hold a fixed duty of 10s., which would make it still dearer.—(Hear,
hear.) But it Parliament were sitting, the Standing Orders might
be suspended, and a Free Duty Bill passed in a single day, and a fixed
duty would indeed be most absurd ; but he subscribed so far
to the statements of his Right Hon. Friend in the other House,
that the effect of the Corn-laws was to raise the price of English
labour and to lower that of the Continent, and to force the 13ritish
manufacturer into an unequal and ruinous competition with his
foreign rivals. There was one country, namely France, which had
extensive manufactures and also Corn-laws, but the reference
made to that country had nothing to do with the present question. 1
the Corn-law in this country made labour cheaper there than here,,
and gave the foreign competitcr an advantage over us, the French
Corn.law was of no advantage to us. Saxony had been referred to
but that country had no corn to export, but it had hosiery, with
which, going into Poland, where our Corn laws dammed up the trade,
and where consequently the manufacture and provisions were sold
at an unnatural low price, while ours were unjustly high. But the
arguments on his (Lord B.'s) side was extended all over the surface
of Europe, throughout which the Corn..laws made labour univer-
sally cheaper, and goods unjustly low, while our prices were die.
tressingly high. Thus the Corn laws were felt as a general hard.
ship both at home and abroad. The Noble Duke had said there
was no Corn-law In Dantzic, but this was no more necessary than
was a Sugar-law in Jamaica, or a law about the importation of coals
in Newcastle, because those countries grew those commodities.—
(Laughter.) But Dantzic, he would remind the House, was a
transit port, not producing corn itself; but affording the means of
shipping for Poland and other countries. The Noble Lord had
alluded to a resolution of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, in order
to show that Corn laws were not so much disliked amongst commer-
cial men as their Lordships might think. But then he would remind
them that those gentlemen, however respectable, were no authority in
politics. The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce was instituted in
1785, and its fundamental principle of protecting trades and manu-
facture from the evil operation of the Corn-laws. This body was
in fact elected by a few Directors, whose number consisted in 36,
and who were always enabled to outvote the 150 shareholders/ Now
by passing the resolution referred to, they had abandoned and
violated their own principles. He (Lord B.) really thought that a
quo warranto might issue against the Glasgow Chamber of Com-
merce. The Noble Duke said, if we have a free trade in corn, let
us have a free trade in all other commodities. In answer to this,
he would refer to the resolution that had that day been passed by
the Anti-Corn-law Delegates, and who, instead of being mill-owners,
as had been said, were, for the most part, unconnected with mills.
The Chairman, Mr. Sturge, of Birmingham, was a corn dealer, and
several others were dyers, bleachers, manufacturers, calico printers,
and all of those had that day come to a unanimous resolution,
caldng for a free trade not only in corn, but in all commodities
whatever.—(Hear.) It had been said that the taxes were paid by
the landowner. He denied that. Why, take the Malt-tax, for in.
stance, the five or six millions a year raised from which were not
paid by the farmers and landlords, but by the consumers in general.
The Malt-tax was paid by those who drank beer, and the poor un-
happy wretches who drank gin. There was not one of those misera-
ble phantoms who frequented the gin-shops of this great capital, to
the injury of fortune, the ruin of health, the degradation of cha-
racter, and the sinking themselves almost to the level of the brute
that perishes—there was not one of those miserable phantoms who did
not supply a part of the tax on malt. In like manner the con-
sumers of agricultural produce pay the Land-tax as the consumers
of cotton would have to pay a tax of Sl, per bale if it were levied,
They were all aware of the school of political economy which had
been introduced by Canni. To this school, after being re-
lieved from certain over fine theories, belonging to statesmen
of this country, for whose talents and noble disposition lie
(Lord B.) had always felt a profound admiration, though he
differed from them on many subjects. He alluded to Mr. Pitt:
who was a convert, aye, and an apostle of that school, that no tax
ought to be Imposed at all but one tax—and did Mirabeau and
Tergot, meaning to abolish all taxes and convert them into a land-
tax, intend that all the taxes were to be paid by the landlords ?
They were not what we called Liberals—their doctrines were as
irrational as their views were philosophical—but their views never
led them to lower the pillar of Monarchy. Yet their doctrine was
that all taxes should be converted into one. Why? Because in
that way they held that the taxation would be spread over every
member of the community, and that every person consuming
bread would pay a portion of that tax. No man could ever doubt
that a tax so laid on land should find its way to every consumer.
As to the Poor.rates he utterly denied that the land paid them.
The Learned Lord paid his share, but so did the manufacturer.

, --.....
The inhabitants of towns paid their sharey, and an immense propor-
tion it was.—(Hear, hear.) If those who said that the land paid
them would take the trouble of going into Staffordshire, Lanca-
shire, and Yorkshire, they would hear a very different
tale told. If these things were disputed, be again offered
_ _

evidence to prove them. He called on their Lordships
t• resolve them;elves into a Committee, and so completely
was he satisfied that the result of that debate would prove
a demonstration of his proposition, that whenever his Noble Friend's

motion was negatived, which it was clear it would be, he should not
wait till tomorrow, but this very night he should call on their
Lordships, and he should take the sense of the House upon it, to
resolve themselves into a Committee, for the purpose of considering
what might be done
,with respect to the Corn.laws.
The Duke of RICHMOND explained.
A NOBLE Loan put a question to Lord Brougham, the nature a
which we could not hear.

LordBROUGHAM said this was excessively irregular, for no
penion had a right to put A question in the miCelle of a debate. lie

cou'd 1 ell the Noble Lord that if there was any part of the Empire
that had no chance of having its interest neglected it was Ireland.—
(Laughter.) It seemed to have occupied the attentioe of both
Houses for nine days out of ten for the last ten years, and he should
almost as soon expect Scotland to be neglected as Ireland.—
(Laughter.) '
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the motion proposed by
his Noble Friend appeared to him to be a truism, and such
a motion would have been more properly disposed of accord.
ing to the technical forms of proceeding by moving the pre-
vious question, than in any other mode. But he felt
bound to state, that if he voted against the motion of
his Noble Friend, it was not because he wished to preclude himself,
or any future Government, from considering whether it Might be
expedient to substitute a more efficacious, a less objectionable, form
of protection to the agriculture of the country than that which now
existed, if such a mode of protection could be found ; but solely be-
cause he saw no convenience or advantage in entertaining that ques-
tion now without he was prepared to proceed and follow it up by the
substitution of another protection, which not one of the Noble Lords
who had supported this motion had shown themselves ready to pro-
pose, and from their silence on the subject he bad a right to assume
that they had no such system to propose. The Noble Earl (Radnor)
had said that he would vote for this motion as a first step, but had
he told the House what his second step would be; and was any man
justified, on a question involving such important interests, to vote
for a measure inefficacious in itself, merely because it was a first
step; he could not embark in any such proceeding, and he could not
contemplate without alarm the repeal of the Corn4aws. 'rho No.
ble and Learned Lord had stated that he was prepared to with.
draw ell protection. Any one who looked to the necessity of
raising the revenue of the country must be aware that every manu-
fac:urer in England who stated this must state it with the
knowledge that it was a prayer that could not be complied with.
But if it were the opinion of the manfacturers or of the Noble
and Learned Lord that we were to get out of our present artificial
state—to shake off the financial trammels with which the country
was impeded. Let the proposition be laid distinctly before the
House—let it be stated by the substitution of what other methods
it was proposed to provide for the payment cf the
public debt and the exigencies of the public service, and then he
should be prepared to go into the plan. Bus without pretending to
go into any argument, he must say that he could not concur in the
proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend, that the taxation of
this country did not hear on the agricultural interest in an equal or
greater proportion than any other class.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Not
thinking it was necessary to refer to those topics which his Noble
and Learned Friend stated they might have heard at the bar of the
House, but looking to the necessity of maintaining the protec-
tion in its present shape until it could be shown to exist
more effectually, more distinctly, and less objectionably in another,
he felt bound to vote against placing a resolution, although a
truism, on the journals of the House. In giving his vote, he
did not wish it to be understood as an affirmation that the pre-
sent system had answered, but that it was not conve-
nient to entertain a change until it was openly before
them, and they were enabled to judge fully of its extent.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON thought the Noble Lord who
had brought forward the question had not proved his case.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM had not intended to have said anything in
reply, but after the speech of the Noble Marquis, the President
of the Council, he felt bound to express his heartfelt
satisfaction at that speech, for he had so involved his own views,
in the selection of the language he had used, that the Noble Lords
on the other side of the House had but a slight glimmering of what
his opinions were—that glimmering however had shown him (the
Earl Fitzwilliam) that the opinion of the Noble Marquis was that,
whatever might be the fate of the present motion, the question
must come before Parliament, for the purpose of making an altera-
tion in the present law.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided,
when there were—

l 1 1

Contents present....
Non-contents ..
Proxies for the motion
Ditto against

Majority against the resolution - 200
The House adjourned at ONE o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COSIMONAS, MARCkt 14.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before four o'clock,
Colonel BRUEN was introduced by Sir Thomas Fre-
mantle and Colonel Perceval, and took the oaths and his
seat:for Carlow.

11fr."..HOPE brought in a Bill for extending the Line of
the Gloucester and Biriningham Railway, which was read
a first time, and ordered to be read a second time.
Mr. LOCKHART brought in the \Vishay,/ Railway
Bill, which was read a first time.

Sir IL FLEET WOOD brought up the Preston and
Wyre Railway Bill, which was real a first time.
On the motion of Mr. D. BROWNE the Moy Naviga-
tion Bill was read a first time and ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. HINDLE Y presented two petitions in favour of the
Westminster Improvement Bill.—Referred to the Com-
mittee.

Sir M. WOOD presented a petition from some inha-
bitants of Holborn, against the Bill for making a new
street there.

Mr. BAINES moved the second reading of the North
Midland Railway Bill.—Agreed to
Mr. F. KELLY presented a petition from Ipswich,
against the Northern and Eastern Extension Railway Bill.
POSTAGE.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Perth, and
another from Emsworth, in Hampshire, praying for a re-
duction in the rate of postage; also a petition from James
Hunter, now residing in Lancaster, but belonging to Ren-
frew, in Scotland, who stated that he could not communi-
cate with his friends because he could not pay postage,
and that the taxing of these communications was con-
trary to the laws of G d and man, and praying that the
rate of postage might he reduced to Id.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND.)
Mr. BRADY presented a petition from Connaught,
complaining of the Report of the Irish Railway Commis-
sioners, which had deprived that province of the benefits of
railway communication; also a petition from the same dis-
trict, complaining of the present system of education in
Ireland.

CORN-LAWS.

Petitions were presented by Colonel Lowther from
Yorkshire, by Lord George Lennox from three parishes
in Sussex, by Mr. Raikes Curry from Northampton,
paying fora repeal of the Corn-laws. The last petition
had been signed by a large party of Chartists who had giren
in their adhesion to the Corn• law agitation. By Mr. F.
Dundas, from Orkney and North End; and by Mr. Las-
cellcs, from 1,000 inhabitants of Wakefield, to the same
effect.

Petitions in favour of the present system of Corn-laws
were presented by Lord Dalmeny, from Stirling ; by
Mr. Hayter, from Gloucestershire; by Lord Cole, from the
Grand Jury of the County Fermanagh ; by Mr. Hope John-
stone, from Dumfries ; by Mr. Grant, from Banff; by Sir
Edmund Filmer, from Kent; by Lord Norreys, from Ox-
ford ; by Mr. Barneby, from Hereford ; by Sir William
Somerville, from Meath; by Mr. Goddard, from Crick-
lade ; and by Lord Clive from Montgomeryshire.
Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions from Ross and
Lanark, praying for a grant in aid of Church Extension in
Scotland.

Mr. BL E NNE R HA SSE TT presented a petition from
the county Kerry, signed by 2,000 persons, against any
alteration in the existing Corn.laws, also a petition from
the Grand Jury of the same county in favour of the
Government plan for constructing railways in Ireland.
Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from
Christ Church, Monmouth, against any alteration in the
Corn-laws.

Mr. W. G LAD STO NE presented a petition from the
Church of England Lay Association, against the Eccle-
siastical Duties and Revenues Bill.

Sir H. PARNELL presented a petition from Dundee,
against the Small Tenements Assessments Bill.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL presented a petition
from the Diocese of Chichester, against the Ecclesiastical
Duties and Revenue Bill.

Mr. WODE HO USE gave notice of his intention to
move for a copy of the memorandum entered by Mr. Hus-
kisson at the Board of Trade, in reply to the correspond-
ence with the Foreign-office respecting the intercourse
with Prussia in foreign timber and heat ; also for a
copy of the return of the exports of wheat.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Kildare
and Wexford, praying the House either to give them the
benefit of the Union, or repeal it altogether. On
the motion of the Honourable and Learned Member
returns were ordered of the number of persons licensed to
sell beer by retail, and also a return of the number of
retailers of coffee and tea. On the motion of the same
Hon. and Learned Member the petition that he presented
yesterday from the Lord Mayor of Dublin, with respect to
Railways in Wales, was ordered to be printed. The Hon.
Member stating it was his intention to call the attention of
the House to the subject after the Easter recess.
Mr. BA GGE presented a petition from East Dereham,
Norfolk, against any system of national education which
shall not be founded on the doctrines of the Established
Church.

Colonel SEALE presented a petition from Darlington
against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. PRINGLE presented a similar petition from
Roxburgh.

Lord—DUNGANNON presented a petition from a
place in the County of Durham, complaining of the desti-
tute state of the Church in Canada.

Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition to the same
effect.

Mr. MANSELL presented a petition from a place (the
name of which we could not hear), praying for the total
Repeal of the Corn-laws.

Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petition from Aber-
deen, praying for the total abolition of the Corn-laws.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the Diocese
of Winchester, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Reve-
nues Bill.

Sir G. SINCLAIR presented a petition from the Pres-
b}•tery of Kirkwall, and one from a parish in the county of
Caithness praying for further endowments to the Church
of Scotland.