The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-13 00:00:00

ettenin "-A111.4

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 184 e.

Their Lordships commenced business at Five o'clock.
The Marquis of ELY took the oaths and his seat.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a great number
of petitions from places in the counties of Buckingham
and Oxford against any alteration in the corn-laws.
The Duke of Buccuzucu laid several reports on the
table.

Petitions in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws were
presented by Lord HATHERTON and Earl
of the Committee on Railways. 'The Noble a
le b GREY.
e report
that the object of the resolutions come
t t
The Earl of DALHOUSIE laid on the b
tb Earl stated
o
mittee was to assimilate the proceedings 2fthe
the Cem-
Co-
mittees of the House of Lords with those of the Hot
se
of Commons upon Irish Railway B;11s. It was his in-
tention to-morrow to move the adoption of the report.
L9rd MONTEAGLE gave Ilaiee of his intention on
Monday, in case the motion of Lord BEAtimoNT, with
respect to the burdens cn land, was carried, to move, as
an addition, for a return of the burdens from which
they were exempt, in order that both sides of the ques-
tion might be properly understood.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved, pursuant to
notice, for returns with respect to the commission of
crimes in Ireland. He was shocked to see the increase
of crimes of the deepest dye in that country, and he
could not but think that great blame was due to the
Government. It was not only the combination against
life, but that against property, in Ireland, that ought to '

be put down by the Government. The greater part of
Ireland, he asserted unhesitatingly, was in a state of in-
surrection, and no step had been taken by the Govern-
ment to put it down. As the law at present existed, the
poor man, if he was honest, must be crushed. The
state of Roscommon was such, that life and property
was not protected there. He considered that it was
high time that somel hing should be done with respect to
the criminal law in Ireland. The House had now set
three weeks, and the intentions of the Government on
that subject had not yet been made known to Parliament.

Earl ST. GERMANS said it was the intention of the
Government, at an early period, to lay on the tattles
of the House a Bill which he trusted would have the
effect of remedying the evils complained of by the Noble
Marquis.

After some observations from Earl FARNHAM an .l
Earl CLARE,

Earl GREY said he was glad to hear that it was the
intention of the Government to introduce a mea-
sure upon the subject that had been introduced br
his Noble Friend. There was something radi-
cally wrong in the state of Ireland, which requii ed
Legislative enactments to remedy. He hoped, when the
measure was introduced, some account would be given of
the general policy of the Government with respect to
Ireland.

The returns were then agreed to, and the House sd-
j•urned.

The House met at Four o'clock.

The Marquis of CIIANDOS took the oaths and his seat
for Buckingham, and Lord HENRY LENNOX for Chi-
chester.

On the motion of Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, tha
second report of the Committee on Railways was agreed
to after a short discussion.

Several petitions were presented in favour of and
against railway Bills.
On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET, the following
Members were appointed a Committee for the classifi-
cation
of Railway Bills :—Lord COURTENAY, Mr. Fox
MAULE, Mr. W. PATTEN, Sir W. SOMERVILLE, and Mr.
PAKINGTON.

Mr. HUDSON brought up the Newcastle and Darling-
ton Railway Bill.
Several Railway Bills having been introduced, and
various petitions presented,

Admiral DUNDAS said that he understood it was in-
tended to send Captain JOHNSTONE, who had been tried
for murder recently at the Old Bailey, to some colony
The man certainly ought to be hanged, and he hoped lie
would not be transported. He also wished to know if it
was intended to institute an examination of persons
before they were permitted to assume the office of
masters of merchant seamen vessels.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Government had no power
over Captain JOHNSTONE, he having been acquitt, d
on the ground of insanity, except to keep him in a state
of close confinement in Bedlam for life. He also stated
that A was the intention of Government to take mea
sures for examining the masters of merchant vessels
before their appointment.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, in answer to a question,
stated that the subject of providing a retirement for staff
officers was under the consideration of her Majesty's
Government, and that the China medals, to the amount
of 17,0001., would be ready for distribution in the course
of a short time.

➢lr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN complained of certain inac-
curacies in the published statistical reports of the Board
of Trade, and took the opportunity of indulging in a
personal attack on Mr. M'GREGOR.
. - .

Sir GEORGE CLERK said the Honourable Gentleman
had given no notice of his question, but that if he wcti!d
state to the Board in what the errors consisted, he would
take care the subject should be inquired into.

After a few words from Lord SEYMOUR and Mr.
MILNER GIBSON, Mr. T. DUNCONBE said he had seen
Mr. M'GREGOR since the attack had been made
in his statements the other night, and that it appeared
that the error complained of was merely a typographical
one, and no error of calculation.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN having stated that he intended
no personal attack on Mr. M'GREGoR, the subject
dropped.
The adjourned debate was then resumed by

Mr. COLQUHOUN, who assured the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government that he was
mistaken in stating that he (Mr. Colquhoun) had at one
time held opinions in favour of the doctrine of total and
immediate repeal of the corn-laws, and that now he held
doctrines of protection. He had not been in favour
of total and immediate repeal, but he had been in favour
of a fixed duty, and in 1838 and 1839 he had voted for
the motion of Mr. VILLIERS for a Committee on those
grounds, and in that division he had voted with Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. LAnoucnnaE, and Mr. F. BARING,
all at that time advocates of a fixed duty ; and at
the time that he had contested Kilmarnock with Dr. Bo-
w he had declared himself in favour of a fixed duty,
and of the principle of protection to agriculture, lie
believed it would be impossible to maintain the prin-
ciple without the sympathy and consent of the
manufacturing classes, and he believed that at tii:.t
time those classes had been in favour of a fixed duty,
and he could not help thinking that seven years ago
a fixed duty would have afforded a satisfactory settle
ment of the question. He would confess that he could
not have voted in favour of an abstract resoluti,n—in
favour of protection generally—for he held the opinions
which had been propounded by Mr. Husxissort ; and
so far as the policy of the Right Hon. Baronet had
carried out those opinions, he had afforded the
Right Honourable Baronet his support. But
the Right Honourable Baronet could not quote the
authority of Mr. HusaissoN in support of his present
policy. Mr. Llusicissox withdrew protection from
manufactures, but he continued it to agriculture; be-
cause it was the duty of every state to impose upon
foreign commodities duties equal in amount to those
levied on domestic products. Manufacture possessed such
natural advantages in the mineral riches of the courtly
that it stood in no need of protection ; but agriculture,
from the uncertainty of the seasons, laboured under
great natural disadvantages, and therefore stood in need
of protection. The arguments of the Right Hon-
ourable Baronet for withdrawing protection were not
tenable. The causes of the enhanced prices of
food were not the alterations of the tariff, but the agricul-
tural panic, which limited the supply, the failure of the
green and grass crops, the murrain in cattle, and the
additional employment afforded to the labouring classes
by the formation of the new railways. Then, with re-
gard to the argument of wages, he could not agree
with the Right Hon. Baronet in opinion, that the
price of wages was not affected by the price of food.
He considered that the arguments brought forward on
that point in 1839 were unanswerable ; and although it
might be very well for the Hon. Secretary to say We
have changed our opinions, and therefore there is an
end of our former arguments—there was not an end
of them—there they stood, as strong, as able,
as convincing arguments as ever. ...The Right
Honourable Baronet might have done with those
arguments, but they had not. Wages did not imme-
diately follow the price of provisoes, but they did ulti-
mately ; if from any cause the labour market should
become glutted, how low soever the price of food might
fall, the rate of wages would fall in a still greater ratio ;
and he would direct their attention to the social condition
of Ireland as an example of what must result from such
a state of things. He denied that the repeal of the co; n-
laws would give such an increased development to our
manufacturing industry as to raise the rate of wages
The great development of our manufacturing industry
during the present century had not produced that effect,
and the repeal of the corn-laws would not greatly in-
crease that development. It was practising a delusion
on the working classes to tell them that they would
receive the same rate of wages after the repeal of
the corn-laws that they had received before that repeal.
He did not think it was possible for any measures of
commercial legislation to improve the condition of the
labouring classes or to raise the rate of their wages. It

could only be done by direct legislative interference, or
interference that they were told was contrary to the
doctrines of political economy, but if they did not inter-
fere to improve the condition of the labouring classes they
would find that there would eventually be a convulsion
which would shake society to its very foundations.
Admitting that the repeal would produce a develop-
ment of foreign trade, a deficient harvest in this
would produce a deficient demand

country

'or manufactures from the home market, and

the increased development of the foreign market
would not make up for the deficiency in the home
market. Then, again, they would, by removing protec-
tion, destroy their colonial market, for the loss of which
no development of their foreign commerce could compen-
sate them. The present proposition was not a free trade
code—silks, earlhenwares, and lace were protected. Why
was that protection retained ? Because the Right Hon.
Baronet thought they were not strong enough to stand
alone. Why, then, should it be removed from agricul-
ture ? He would like to see the Honourable Member
for Durham take a farm in Buckinghamshire on a lease,
and cultivate it on the principles of free trade, as be had
once said he should like to do ; and he thought that the
Hon. Gentleman, before his lease was out, would be
glad to take advantage of any flaw in the lease to break
it, and get rid of his bargain. He asked them in coin
mon justice, if they continued protection to any
manufacture, to continue it to that which was
the most precarious in its results agriculture.