The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-16 00:00:00

from the Legislature.--( Hear, hear.) He contended that the
foreign coin trade was as good a branch of industry as the
trade in agriculture which was carried on in this country,
and that they were entitled to carry on their trade
free and unmolested.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon Member for Huntingdon talked of an an arbiter com-
ing amongst us to settle thi,t question by sonic compromise.—
( Hear, hear, from the protectionists.) If such an arbiter did
come amongst them, he maintained that hisdecision would be un-
doubtedly in favour of the manufacturers.—( Opposition cheer. )
It was said that the repeal of the corn-laws would reduce the
value of land, but he confessed he could not see how this could
be, for ever since the corn-law question had been agitated land
had fetched as good a price as it did before.—( Hear hear. )
Land had been taken at the same rent also as bofore, and in
some cases at increased rentals, and if they had a
better test of the value of any given produce, or another
that was likely to be effected by a Legislative measure, it was
in the willingness or unwillingness which capitalists evinced to
invest their money in that commodity. Well, then, land
fetched as good a price now, and tenants were equally as ready
to give good rents as they were years ago. it ,w this could
not be, because they had confidence in the prott ction party
maintaining the corn laws, for if they did they would be convinced
of the mistake they were falling into, when they remembered
that the most eminent statesmen, the Right Hon. Baronet on
one hand, and the Noble Lord on the other, were arrayed
against them. —( Hear, hear.) Al! parties were just as ready
as ever to invest capital in land, anti he could mention an
instance which hail occurred in the county of Suffolk within
a recent period, and which had been communi-
cated to him by a friend of his, where sixty-
three land tenants who were paying exceedingly
high rents, notwithstanding the rumours about the repeal of
the corn-laws, had made agreements for renewing their leases
for very long periods, and not one of these 63 tenants had
asked for a reduction of rent.—( Hear, hear.) Twenty of
them stated that the farmers had discussed the question
amongst themselves, and they had decided that they
were not justified in calling for a reduction of rent.—
( Loud cheers.) He was not prepared to mention the name
of his friend, but if any Honourable Member required
it, he would be ready to communicate it privately to him.
Let him ask what was the meaning of all those alarms about
the repeal of the corn-laws ; were they (the protectionists) not
jealous of the advance of trade, and was not that the cause of
their resistance to the measure?—(Cheers, and cries of " No.")
He should be sorry to see among the ancient aristocracy
of England—the high families of this country—guilty of
such unworthy feelings as to be jealous of manufacturing
prosperity. But such, he feared, was not the case.—
( No, no, from the protectionists. Was it not a fact
a fact that it was a test of the fitness of a
manufacturer to a seat ir. the Upper House, that he should be
the purchaser of an estate.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gontleman at the head of her Majesty's Government,
on a former occasion. said that he was sure the
repeal of the corn laws would not be in any measure
to the landed interest, and would not in the slightest degree
tend to alter the value of land.—( Cheers.) That was his (Mr.
Gibson's) opinion, and he did not see any reason why the aris-
tocracy of England should be jealouse as they were
(No no) —of the advance of free-trade principles
He did not see any reason why they should entertain such
feeling; for, after all, he very much questioned,
whether many of them were not descended from
the manufacturing classes of- this country.—(Cheers.)
He contended that it had been the system-Of the country, and
could be proved, that possession of 'land had led to the highest
offices in the State, He contended'ihat. the ,landed gentry
monopolised to a great extent the principal offices
and emoluments in society.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) For
it was a boast that they make Ministries and unmake them .at
their pleasure.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member forShrews-
bury had said truly, that " the aristocracy of the country was
a territorial aristocracy." All this he brought forward to show
the great advantages enjoyed by the landed proprietary of the
country. He believed that competition from so many causes
being unlimited, that they need fear nothing from the aboli-
tion of the corn-laws. He did not bring these matters for-
ward as charges aguinst the aristocracy ; but as far as his read-
ing and experience went, he was led to the conclusion that they
had used their functions for their private and pecuniary interests,
and for the advancement of their own political power.—
( Hear, hear.) There was one portion of the present question
to which he wished to allude, namely, that, if the corns laws
were to be totrily abolished, why that abolition should
not take place at once ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Why should they defer to another day what
justice was said to require, and what the eecessities of the
country peremptorily called for ?—Cries of " Hear, hear.")

COMMONS SUMMARY.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. FINCH took the oaths and his seat for Rutland-
shire in the room of the Hon. Mr. DAWNAY.
Several Railway Bills were read a second time, and
ordered to be committed.
A discussion took place upon the mo:ion of Mr.
GREENE, "'That it be an instruction to the Committee on
Petitions for Private Bills not to hear parties on any
petition hereafter to be referred to them, which should
not be prepared and signed in strict conformity with
the rules and orders of the House."
Mr. ENTWISLE moved, as an amendment to the
motion, to leave out the word " hereafter;" which, upon
a division, was lost by a majority of 42.
The original motion was agreed to.
Mr. T. DuNcomuE gave notice of his intention, to-
morrow week, to bring forward the petition on behalf
of Frost, Williams, and Jones.
Lord DuNcaN postponed his motion for the repeal of
the window duties to the 26th of February.
In answer to a question from Sir It. Iticus,
Lord JOCELYN said that the Government had received
no information with respect to the war in India, further
than that which had appeared in the public papers. He had
nu doubt that in a few days the Government would be
in possession of information which would show that the
aggressions that had taken place had been properly and
fully resented.
Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. S
CRAWFORD, said he was in hopes the Government
would be enabled, during the present session, to intro-
duce a Bill relative to the law of landlord and tenant in

Ireland.
Mr. O'CoNNELL, in answer to a question, said it was
his intention, if he possibly could tomorrow, to bring
forward the motion of which he had given notice, rela-
tive to the disease and famine existing in Ireland.
Several petitions were presented for and against pro-
tection to agriculture and native industry.
Lord WONSLEY presented petitions from Lincoln-
shire, praying that the House would not place any
confidence in her MAJESTY'S Ministers.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented petitions in favour of the
total repeal of the corn-laws.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from Tamworth,
signed Mayor, Corporation, Town Council, and
a great b
portionythe
the inhabitants, in favour of the Go—
or
vornment measure for the removal of restrictive duties.
The Right Honourable Baronet presented several other
petitions to the same effect.
The Earl of MARCH resumed the debate on
the Customs and Corn Importation Measure.
He considered that the debate on this men-
sure had been entirely on one side. He be-
lieved that the taking away of protection to native in-
dustry in England would ultimately tend to the
ruin of the country. lie maintained that protection
was necessary both to agriculture and manufactures.
The feelings of the country were opposed to the mea-
sures of the Government, and as a proof of that lie
thought he might refer to what was taking place at the
elections for some of the counties. He thought the
interests of the manufacturer and the agriculturist
were united, and that one could not be injured or bene-
fited without injuring or benefiting the other.
lie believed this measure would injure all classes, and
therefore he gave it his determined opposition.
Mr. M. GIBSON agreed with the Noble Lord that it
protection was not given to the growth of corn, non,
should be given to manufactures. Those with whom
he was acting had always advocated the abolition Of
protection of every kind. The question now we',
whether the corn-laws should be abolished or not. The
parties who advocated protection in that House had
led the tenant-farmers to believe that protection
would b permanently adhered to. For those
misstatements they were row reaping the fruits
of the agitation of this question. The Protectionists
had called on the Right Honourable Baronet, instead Of
the Nimble Lord, to prescribe for them, and they were
now suffering under the severe dose he had administered
to them. The Right Honourable Baronet, in leaving a
protective duty of Is. on foreign wheat, gave to the
agriculturists more than an equivalent for the bur-
dens which they bore. The price of bread of
1 tte ha-I increased, and could it there-fore be said
that the repeal of the corn-laws was likely to reduce
its value. In Suffolk nut less than sixty-three
farmers had renewed their leases, and not ask for any
decrease of rent. What, then, could be thought of
those w ho wished to retain protection, who thought the
aristocracy of the country were determined to support
their own interests without any consideration to those of
the community. The landed gentry monopolised all the
places in society, and it was only a short time since that
one of their body said they could make and unmake
Ministers. Ile did not see, if the corn-laws were to be
repealed why that repeal should not take place now, and
not be delayed for three years ? lie believed the agri-
cultural interest would be more benefitted by the im-
mediate than by the dela) ed repeal of the corn-laws.
He urged upon the Government to consider the nee( s-
city of making the repeal of the corn-laws immediate ;
believing that nothing would settle the different questions
that were under agitation in the country but the
adoption of that course. He felt convinced that those
wh
ri-
iiot as o
of
.".bout
Himself,
ie
aedtiertti wo were
uld ci stronglyb induced esda ibuye (a)
ny
consideration to forego usking the sense of the Housa
upon the question. The protectionists might ask for a
dissolution it' they would, but it would be only a post-
pot:en:ea of the measure. He entreated of llon. Mem-
hers to put a stop to their futile opposition.
Mr. IIAI.SEY opposed the Government proposition.
lle asserted that the proceedings of the League were
neither honest or constitutional, and if' they were legal
he Ousted the Government would adopt :melt measures
as would soon put a stop to their legality. lie advocated
equal protection to agriculture and ooniteereie
t Mr. DicKerssore supported the Ministerial plan, be-
f lieving the best course to pursue to Peevent scarcity of
food in this country would be to give every facility to
its admission into England from foreign countries.