The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEN ENG, MARCH 14,
_1846.

et sae
'lke] -`-'4OPE—I did not say the gentlemen of Ireland;
4r.theap,or of Ireland.
(uVtltlEßS—Well, then, the poor of Ireland.
neerr• Villiers) did not see that the poverty or
%el° ef Ireland could be at all connected with that
toy in and he asked 'whether it would not be neces-
GteiJnY case to have a poor-law for Ireland ? The
4sSit °PPOSed to that question admitted the ne-
e ttY Gf. that law. If there was a Legislature embrac-
b Itaise of Commons and a House of Lords sitting
the itould lie at that momende would not the first law which
„"gage their attention be a tax for the relief of
teree72r ? The other reat argument which was
epear to
by the Hon. Member or Limerick for the
propri ef the union,
was the absence of the landed
toe r°:rse Absenteeism he would admit might operate
44te inJurinusly on the interests of Ireland, but ab-
could not be laid to the fault of the Legislature
here▪ He would call the attention of Hon. Mem-
s4,e thii fact, that the estates of some gentlemen who
latieabsentees were better managed than those of the
1e,..r who resided in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Ilos, 4 • SCROPE explained. He begged to assure the
tek4 ember and the House that he did not wish for a
POorf the union • he merely said that if he were a
kittritnae living in Ireland, and subjected to those
to al? under which that country laboured, he would be
Kish t °cafe for the repeal of the union. He did not
thle 11, Understood however as being himself favor-
',,rPPeal of the union.
thrs te'WDE ;ATE said it appeared that the ideas
-:,,re• Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers)
ttele, Iconcentrated upon one subject—that of free-
eight that he could not hear of any circumstances that
4)ti ditate against that doctrine; for instance, the
lrodu ewer' stated that the exportation of agricultural
„"tiell—k/N,ln Ireland to this oountry was a grievous evil
I'4 tesi all times pressed upon Ireland, and he suggested
• e „()'n of finding elsewhere the means of supply to
ZtlitycL„trY, that Ireland might be relieved of that
r`,44l",„''''', and retain to herself her own agricultural
R‘te . Re would not condescend to stoop to circum-
e 1;2;4'41°1 Was his ardour in the cause of free-trade.
k„.! bti.Pou us the advantage that Ireland would de-
b"y 1,,,
manufactures established in that country,
ke,llY rQtaining her agricultural produce, all of which
, ould, as it had been said, be obtained by the
'ele ` the union. But if the repeal of the union were
ecit!ee t'Pen Ireland' the loss of a market for her pro-
e'aete"„ this country, it would only involve greater
„71,‘YtPna the people ; and he (Mr. Newdegate) must
me, „ In his opinion the repeal in that sense would
,11 I,"%radeantage either upon Englard or Ireland.
amidst cries of " Oh, oh," rose to say
i4ee er Terely wished to observe that the great griev-
,i'taL'reland was, not that she exported so much of
411,11,,11t,U_ral produce to this country, but that the
Gr
th! labour was so little.—(Hear, hear.) In fact,
" greatest curses which could be inflicted upon
,til^rie,,w''uld be the importation of the produce of
(Pry and Prussian labour into the markets of this
wu▪ ieh would naturelly cause the demand for
`(lie In Ireland to be even less than it was at present.
L'4,4%.„heat.) And such would be the result of the
et:7'ou "-li-easare of her Majesty's Government. He
iA~•tuat her Majesty's Government were, however,
"Ot%s:tne steps to remedy this evil ,in Ireland by
Otis stalls of money for the execution of public
,7111):h4°,1 he must say that, differing from them as he
tnally other occasions, in this, at least, he was
the th't they deserved the thanks of the country
iNiketepellatstlutirges which they had introduced for the pur-
an end, if possible, to the distress and
I,:,that at present prevailed in Ireland.—(Hear.)
Ohs t,,`'l'teit.eit then put the question, that leave be
les ;bring in the Bill.
SirJu,as granted, and the Bill was read a first
',..,0R-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. time.
t ~.,k-jRAHAAI then presentfr leave to bring in a
,44)t-tile amendment of the law relating to
Lkl,"),`"teent of the poor in England, the main features
trc, ns tears'ie the poor a claim to parochial re-
Les "e y industrial residence in the country
th!: firs given to bring in the Bill, and it was then
nst titae•
kr. TIMBER DUTIES.
titt, • lIINDE presented a petition from the ship-
-4r 1,7; atsociation, in which the petitioners stated that
i,th":rie-Prepared to give their assent to all the mea-
-1,;4,14,e1;nded in the Customs' and Corn Importation
"tboita:"Z the exception of that portion which proposed
tlie duty on timber.
,L44pt CORN-LAWS.
l'e'eo.bi.ErelelCE, in the absence of the Noble Lord
PEet; er for London (Lord John Russell), presented
etttsien from a number cf silk manufacturers, who
41ii that the silk trade was paralysed
th'citeg ~the suspense in the measures now
b le consideration of Parliament, and
k";lrrd ilaat the House would as speedily as
b rass the Bill into ,in order that activity
44. w restored to the trade of this country.—(Hear.)
ktere, • ‹.LICE resented a petition from the manu-
etWo°,,,,f LondonPto the same effect.
t, 14 . 63.'„S AND CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
'ltstorele`"'"ENE having brought up the report on the
%11r, 60tesolutions
th-; °ONER rose' to move that the report be re-
tbe,'s day six months—(Laughter)—and in pray-
Poss;bldlgence or the House he would state as briefly
,_'Netfi; to the reasons which induced him to propose that
,'ked "It• By adopting the resolutions now under
liitireiNtion, the House would abandon those principles
kltere ne thought were calculated to advance the
Gantrho
of all classes of society—(Hear, hear)—he
4lek,, the principles of protection to native kndustry—
hear)—be that industry agricultural or menu-
• L:`g• Native industry had ever been protected. It
bat 1,,,5° the policy on which we had ever acted, and it
;14 bf a Close adhesion to that policy that the country
mrl `en raised to that pitch of commercial greatness
klePallufacturing renown, which it now. so justly
ss,d•—(llear, hear.) It was also raised in
.his
ttki Under the' blessings of Providence, to that station
t4sse'"dition. which it at a past period occupied, by
tbtragpf that principle and by it they were enabled to
11'1,471.'" against the effects of revolutionary wars. It was
Pied that principle that the colonies had pros-
!itc,,,Atlear, hear.) It was their commerce that
the envy and admiration of Napoleon, and
t'le*.,,`,"h he would have given half of his empire. He
l't;," that if they abandoned the principles of protec-
tb,'; native industry, they would destroy the interest
fierce shipping trade, their colonies, and their com-
hgear.) And what were the reasons that
'',(isa,l
`"a given for abandoning this principle to native
:44-ttrY Why they had been told that past experi-
ireic,ll.ved that a protected article was not damaged by
(7litisi;`,protection, but that the price of it alter the pro-
-I:Qad been taken away universally increased.—
''Wear.) That was the statement of the Right Hon.
,1411 Lt the head of the Government.—(Sir R. Peel
`,1i:(17, his dissent.) He most undoubtedly con-
-11,4e "gat, that was the view of the Right Hon.
d;"leti%-" The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to the
1,71 hence of the last' three years —(Hear.) And what
,eslt "ell them ? He told them in the first place to
4,4 vet the importation of cattle since the duties had
16 a I0oved• Th t ground had been shown to be un-
thleorudnantabsweered and unanswerable speech of
Member for Lynn—(l-lear)-
414'. irl„!lis (4Mr Spooner's) opinion, was, of all Mem-
'eat llou'se the most able to speak upon that
aT(tlearZhea'r.) Food.. was too scarce to feed the.
• se, that tune—(Opposition cheers)—and that was
why they could not be kept. That fact
1:00 thew prices, and those low prices brought a panic
hor farmers, and the natural consequence was. that
'etitt.4 supply of cattle produced an increase in the
lis'Zkcortiear hear ) But they were told that from ex-f
j't;:it; they 'h
d nothing to fear from the abolition o
)'s4iiti 'a to anative industry. As a case in point he
L'"te Tote the glove trade. Before the abolitiont ofe
ci,,Rtie-"n, upon gloves, there were in this country the
4al' t!i'Ve manufactories in Europe • but out of
411nufactorines that then existed' there were
telt °1
40; and in his own immediate neighbourhood
:Cvere now 800 houses uninhabited, which . before
(:dition of the duty on gloves were inhabited by
101 engaged in the glove manufacture.—(Protec-
le:te eheer.) He knew a great number of glove
Ilielitlaeturers, who at the time alluded to were opulent,
'Pksevy',lll consequence of the great impoytation. of
tit One cloves, they could scarcely maintain their families.
t"ae;,,t'tne they contribed large sums to the national
f▪
r"lbut now, in consequence of the carrying out of
1"'It th'e trade principles, ciples, they were consigned to drag
t."l4,„reaa.inder of their days in comparative poverty
elitenrity, (Hear, hear.) He knew also that t.he
,`,1,0! the country had been very greatly in-
"mule' that experiment. And the only capital of
lt,"1 i• lt"," labourer was possessed, namely, his skill,
knowledge of the trade in which he had
h.q.o Cen reUght was decreased.—(Hear, hear.) A
upute a particular trade finds it almost im-
• Ipito abandon that trade and enter upon a new
telaaLe fact that it was almost impossible for a
sec up other trades than those to which he had
the .141,sitetned was most ably and powerfully proved
t 441 Noble Lord the Member the city of London,
ape elehrated work upon the British Constitution.
at
th!ty,, Other things, the Noble Lord had showed the
it Q tnat when a man was forced to abandon his
er°llla °llld take up another; he told us, in fact, that
tli:t°t;,be done ; and he clearly made out this prin-
pei_ was not safe to be. guided explicitly by ge-
e %be inelples in measures like the present, but that
t'kle 441 look to the practical effect of proposals which.
th~aft look
• Now, with
gykel the industry of this country.
Nooe the silk trade. It had been clearly shown by
se4 Yes ord, the Member for Lynn,
buyingthinat with re-
(tti ked
s'n,l„itlirtcle, the principle the cheap-
N`tais g in the dearest was merely clap-trap.—
th'e r.) He (Mr. Spooner) was prepared to bear
Ale Lord in the able statements which had
t 1.% yourse by that. Noble Lord, and he would request
to study
portion of the Hon. Members of that
Ludy the interest of the silk trade since the
Ma giveenf, its protection, before they came forward
le,' tele their support to the present measu which
reel, elated to undermine the interests not only
11, who but of the commerce of this country.ot
e
alNire ;at next was the reasoning in favour f h
vslt had been said that the country was blessed_t.e
donne afe'nudant harvest in a particular year, and h
,t, Mister of the day said it was, in fact, too abun-
y
At4lloo4ntib that a remedshould be applied in conse-
Oen -..ut there f d immediately a very wet
, a„,,, owe
tliss":‘re the same Prime Minister was compelled to
t,;" the at the country was suffering in consequence ;
Len euei!nPelation was too abundant, and that emigra-
too t tto L
nt Pertio be encouraged. That was to say, that the
otlt 4°f the population of the country was to be
lee of i
At try w and that the blood, bone, and sinew of th_e.
Waatllat tin,ere to expend their energies in a foreign landb
thiit4PPele—teetwe Committees were sitting—one of whic
bk.f„t'ould-b"e: to, ascertain what were the best measures
Dae,"ttiff3 adopted for preventing the importation of
oilirose nto this country ; and the other sat for the
qv, worf,deeising the best means of emigration, or, in
coe„-8e
are for devising the best means of sending out
4 the mouths that were to be fed by this

hrrad.—(Hear, hear.) But the answer to all these evils
was the one grand argument, which he would not tire
the House by repeating in detail; it was the monster evil
from which, he would say, arose all those distresses that
had been complained of—an evil which the House was
familiar with, but to which he might not, perhaps, more
than dare allude to; he meant the Bill of 1819.—(Hear,
hear.) That measure was one to which he ascribed all
the evils that followed ; and until that was inquired into,
no remedy could be applied. He looked upon the prin-
ciple that guided the acts of the present Government to
be the same as the argument of the man who lost himself
in a wood, and who fixed his eye upon the polar star,
saying, that so long as he kept that in sight, he would
be sure to get out of the wood ; and on he went until
his course was stopped by a deep and rapid river, and he
had to turn back again to the south.—(Hear, hear.) He
would contend then that if the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of her Majesty's Government persevered in this
measure, he would be compelled to come down to the
House with another measure, the object of which would
be to prevent the exportation of gold from this country;
and the consequence would be, that this country would
have to fight against the hostile tariffs of other countries,
to which this gold was exported. If the Russian, or the
Pole, or the German, sold his corn in this country, he
would insist upon receiving gold for it ; and instead of
expending that gold in purchasing the taxed manufac-
tures of this country, he took it to the Continent, where
he purchased untaxed manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) On
those grounds, then, he would say, that protective laws
were essential to the safety of national industry, na-
tional prosperity, and the stability of the Crown. Be •
fore he sat duwn, perhaps the House would permit him
to show that the opinions he was then propounding were
not new to the House. These opinions had been enter
wined by the Right Hon. Secretary for the Hone De-
partment in 1827, and had been published to the world
as his doctrines ; and so clearly, unanswerably, and dis-
tinctly-. had they been put by that Right Hon. Gentle
man that nothing could remove them from his (Mr,
Spooner's) mind. He then appealed to his Right Hon.
Friend to ascertain whether he since had changed the
opinions then entertained by him ; and if he had, la
trusted he would explain to the House the reasons for
so great a change.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He
should say, that to his Right Hon. Friend he owed that
adherence he tfien entertained, and which nothing conk
induce him to abandon. If he were wrong in entertain
ing these opinions, the blame lay with the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and he should, therefore, explain.
He called on all classes in society then, merchants ane
manufacturers, if they realized an extended and profit
able commerce, to compel the Ministry to grant the
Committee required—a Committee that would coolly and
dispassionately, and without abstract notions of political
economy, consider the question in all its bearings.
Mr. NEWDEGATE seconded the motion,
On the question being put,
Sir G. CLERK said that before the report was brought
up more than one petition was presented, setting forth
the inconvenience and loss of time to the various trading
communities in the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now.
what was the manner in which the motion at present
before the House was brought forward, or what was its
object ? Why, a postponement for six months. He
(Sir G. Clerk) had expected that the Honourable Gen.
tleman would have shown that the great nnmber of re
ductions proposed to be made would be attended by
serious loss ; but, instead of that, he had not instanced a
single objection.
Mr. SPOONER—I will do so by and by.
Sir G. CLERK should then consider himself as
troubling the House, such heir).g the case, and would.
therefore, reserve his reply till and by, when the
lion. Gentleman had fully concluded.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE made a few observations, which
were inaudible in the gallery; after which,
Mr. SPOONER informed the House that it was not
his intention to press the measure to a division.—(oh.
oh, and laughter.) He merely brought it forward for
the :purpose of stating his opiiiions as to what its re-
sults were certain to be, and he then begged to with-
draw it.—(Renawed cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.)
On the motion that the Tariff be read,
Mr. SPOONER said that he would not trouble the
House at any length, but he merely wished to say that
the reduction of the duty on foreign bronze manufactures,
from 15 to 10 per cent., would destroy that branch of
valuable manufacture. It would throw a great many
persons out of employment, and he therefore begged
leave to move that the item might be struck out of this
Tariff. _ _ _

Mr. MUNTZ said that he hoped his Hon. Friend
would withdraw that motion.—(Laughter.) He did not
believe that the native manufacturers would sustain no
injury by this reduc.ion ; on the contrary, he believed
that they would be seriously injured. He had only one
fault to find, and that was, that all other articles were
not included in a similar reduction, as the same principle
applied to all things in the Tariff. He wished to ask th.
Right Hon. Baronet if he intended to remove the duty
from this branch of manufacture in 3 years ?
Sir R. PEEL, in answer to the question of the first
Hon. Member for Birmingham who says that if we re
duce the protective duties on Birmingham bronze manu
factures from 15 to 10 per cent., the manufactures wil
be ruined. I can only state that with a protective dut)
of 15 per cent., the quantity of bronze manufacture:
from abroad, entered into this country during the past
year has paid 781. duty.----(Laughter.) I will venture to
say that the Birmingham manufacture of bronze will not
be ruined under a 10 per cent. protective duty, but in th 4
course of a year or two will be benefited by it. With
respect to the question put by the other Hon. Member,
who, I think, dissents very wisely from the motion of hi:
colleague, I was asked the same question the other
night by the Noble Lord, and said in answer that I was
not prepared to fix any period at which this duty is to
cease. If the Hon. Member will come forward some
years hence, and say on the part of the manufacturers
that this duty should cease, I am not prepared to say
that I will resist his appeal.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the Right Hon. Baronet wa,
not correct when he said that a reduction of so much
per cent. would not affect the trade. He believed that
it would have a most material effect. What the Right
Hon. Baronet had said about the principle of free trade
was right so far as it affected one cl ,ss of articles, but the
duty ought to be taken off all classes. He was anxious
that the duty should be taken off copper, and he hoped
that the Right Honourable Baronet would consider that
article. If the principle were not thoroughly carried out,
they would never have free trade in the the true sense of
the word.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the answer of the Right
Hon. Baronet, and the query of the Hon. Member for
Birmingham had come very nearly to him. He was
bound to say, that although he had a large constituency in
Birmingham he had not felt it his duty to take any part
in this debate without consulting the great body of
manufacturers. He had done that at any rate, and he
could assure the House that this question had been con-
sidered day by day, and the more nearly they approached
it the greater were their feelings of distrust. They felt
that they would not be able to recover the first shock
which the Noble Lord bad admitted would prevail to e
great extent when protection was withdrawn. With
respect to the statement of the Hon. Member for Bir-
mingham who had last spoken, he would read a letter he
had that day received from a manufacturer in Birming-
ham, in which that very item was mentioned. His cor-
respondent stated, that in almost every case the manu-
facturer agreed that the proposed reduction would
be injurious to the trad., as they would have
to compete with France, Prussia, and Belgium,
where the metal was as cheap as in this
country, and there manual labour was much cheaper.
The produce of Birmingham and Sheffield were forbid
den in France and Belgium, and in Russia the duty was
so high as to amount almost to a prohibition. The du-
ties on all English produce had been, within the last two
years, increased in every country in Europe. Each
country was endeavouring to be able to supply its owe
wants. The writer of that letter was in every way corn
petent to give an opinion, as he had consulted with
others of the same class. He would conclude by say-
ing, that neither of the Hon. Members for Birmingham
were at all aware that he (Mr. Newdegate) had received
this communication.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he would ask his Hon.
Friend not to divide on this question. There were two
principles recognised in this tariff, and neither of them
had been extended to the farmer. The main question
was with regard to the differential duties in the import
of raw materials. There were twenty-one differential
duties, and more than 100 protective duties in this Tariff.
He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet how he hoped
to maintain protection for the minor articles, when the
principle of free trade was acknowledged with
regard to the principle articles of comfort ?—(Hear.)
It was said that the manufacturers had in large number:
solicited the removal of protective duties. In this re-
'spect they had Shown more consideration than the far-
mers, for the farmers had not advanced in procession to
ask for the abrogation of protection. But he would ask
the Right Hon. Baronet a question before sitting down,
to show the distinction between buck wheat flour and
flour made from the ordinary wheat? He challenged
him, or if he could not answer, he would ask the Hon.
Member for Grantham (Sir George Clerk), who could
see as far through a mill-stone as any one, the distinc-
tion between these two kinds of flour.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER, in answer to the call of several Hon.
Members not to divide the House, said he would not
withdraw his motion, though he would not press it to a

Thethmeo
at motion lwe aosr then
znegativedr wbeilt.nhgourteaadd,ivision.
big
;ether.
Ai t
h er.
r. T. D
thought
BrUo
thenNzeC Od Mu
powdert
duty 3E sawida shouldthiss ba w
ne done
an
orntieclaaewr tatircsleewdiintihnwahltitchohe.
manufacture of stained paper, and as the duty on paper
hangings was proposed to be very much reduced, he had
received representations from the trade, that if the home
market was thus to be thrown open to foreign paper-
hanging manufacturers, all duty should be taken away
from the raw materiel. The present alteration of th,
duty on stained paper would only benefit the rich, as the
duty still to be retained of twopence a yard would effec-
tually shut out the inferior kinds, while the superior
kinds being admitted duty free would materially affect
those who were engaged in this kind of trade. The
manufacturers complained that in this matter they were
hardly used, as they would have to enter into competi-
tion with the foreign manufactures, while they had the
Excise duty to pay and this duty on bronze powder, which
they used in many descriptions of paper. Already he had
been apprised that several paper-hangers had intimated
that if any loss arose from this tariff it should not be
taken out of the profits of their business but from the
wages of their workmen.—(Loud cheers from the pro-
tection benches.) One extensive paper-hanger in Isling-
ton, lately called his workmen together, and gave them
notice to this effect. Another one he (Mr. Duncombe)
had heard of, had kept back one-fifth of the workmen's
wages until the tariff was passed, with the intimation
that if it passed, any loss should •be deducted.—(Hear,
hear.) It was unfair that the loss should fall upon the
men. and, therefore, it behoved the Government to take
care that all dutieson raw material were done away with,
so that the cause, if such a course be taken, might be

- . -
done away with. If the reduction in the iiuty on stained
paper was made to 23. the yard, they ought also to re- I
move all import duty on bronze powder and metal leaf.
—(Hear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK, in answer to the Hon.
Member said that the excise duty complained •of
was but very trifling, being but lid. per lb.
Now he would ask th Hon. Member, what was the
weight of twelve yards of superior kind of paper ? Why,
just twenty ounces, so that the duty was not quite id.
a square yard.—(Hear, hear.) Against this they had a
protective duty of 2d. a yard, while the duty on rags,
and nearly every other article of raw material was done
away with. Though there was still a duty on varnish ;
very little of it was imported, it being made principally
in this country, and the duty on the raw material,
which entered into its composition, was done away with.
Bronze powder was but used in a small quantity of
paper, and he was told that buyers now provided them-
selves at Birmingham, where the article was so much
unproved that they used it in preference to that imported.
He might also state that the duty on ultra marine and
other pigments had been done away with; and, there-
fore, he saw no reason why the paper-stainers of this
country should not compete with those of any other
country in the world.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND complimented the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), for the able
protection speech.he had made. He admitted that the
tendency of the Tariff would be to reduce wages.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Alderman Copeland) was persuaded
that not only would the paper-stainers suffer in this
respect, but shoemakers, and many other trades. He
vould go with the. Hon. Member entirely on the present
secasion.—The subject then dropped.
On the article buck• wheat being read,
Mr. 5, O'BRIEN repeated the question he had put to
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), about buck-wheat
dour and ordinary wheat flour. Unless the Right Hon.
3aronet could tell them wherein it was different, and
)ow it was to be distinguished from ordinary flour, he
(Mr. S. O'Brien) considered the article should be struck
art of the resolution.
Mr. THORNELY said when he was in Anierica he
had seen buck-wheat used.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the question he put to the
Right Hon. Baronet was, suppose two samples of flour,
ts.e of bnck-wheat and another of ordinary wheat flour,
how could he distinguish between them ?
, Sir R. PEEL replied by taste. He could not state
my other certain means of doing so.
On that portion of the resolution relating to butter
ind cheese being read,
Mr. GROGAN complained that the alteration pro-
pied in those articles would seriously affect the farmers
engaged in making them. All experience went to show
,hat in this particular branch of agriculture, it was with
_he gieatest difficulty the farmtrs could maintain their
;round in the market against home competition.—(Hear,
'sear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving that
he butter be left out of the present tariff altogether, and
thus leave the article still at 255. per cwt.
Sir-G. CLERIC said, that considering the importance
,f this article, being an important component part of
~he food of the masses, he was inclined to believe that
s duty of 25 per cent. was too high. Considering, also,
that the price of butter varied in this country from 20s.
to 100 s. per cwt., he was disposed- to think that 10 per
sent. was a sufficient and ample protection against foreign

tinpetition.
Mr. TOLLEMACHE said .that, since the duty had
-teen taken off butter, 150,000 casks of that commodity
sad been imported from America'' greatly to the disad-
vantage of the British producer • .for It must be remem-
iered, that the price of land in ;his country, devoted to
the produce of cheese and butter, varied from 101. to
12/. per acre ; land of the same quality could be got for
little or nothing in America.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said the duty paid last year upon
,oreign butter was 247,000 L, and upon cheese, 147,000/.
Chat duty would be, no doubt doubled, under the present
rariff, and it would be so- much taken from the British
armer.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER agreed
with the Hon. Baronet that the reduction of the duty
would prove injurious to the • producer, but it was ins-
.tossible for Government to.look at this question without
considering the consumer. • He admitted that they were
(flaking a large amount of revenue, but at the same time
ae confidently hoped that the importation of the articles
would be so much increased as to render that reduction less
in amount than it was at present supposed it would be.
When it was considered that butter was an article which
antered into the every-day wants of the people, he was
sure his Hon. Friend would feel that it was the duty of
he Government to take care that at no time there should
ae any scarcity in the supply of that necessary article.
tie therefore, for the reasons he had already stated, did
'tot anticipate that there would be so large a reduction
in the revenue as some Hon. Members had predicted
would follow this measure, while he was convinced the
neasure itself would contribute materially to the benefit
tf the lower classes, in so far as it would always keep at
a steady and moderate pride.
An Host. MEMBER declared that since the passing of
the new tariff a great number of farms in this country
lad been converted into dairies ; and he knew of his
iwn knowledge that the present change proposed by the
Government was looked upon with great alarm.
Lord G. BENTINCK thought the arguments adduced
ty the Right Hop. Baronet the President of the Board
if Trade were sufficient to justify the House in adopt-
ng the amendment in preference to the original motion.
the Right Hon. Baronet began by telling them that
-tatter was the starle manufacture of Ireland. upon
vhich it was now proposed to reduce the protection by
fle-half ; and he followed up that statement by de-
daring, what might appear to be incredible to some
[lon. Members, that there were annually introduced
nto this country from the sister island up-
cards of one million hundred weight of butter.
If they were going to release the protection to butter at
he rate of 10s. per hundred weight, the amount that
vould be lost to Ireland would be half a million sterling
‘nnually.—(" Hear, hear," from the protective portion
,f the House.) He should like to know if this would
reduce the price of the article to the consumer ?
—the contrary would be the result. If then they were
tot going to reduce the price of butter by taking
tff the duty, what advantage could result to
%he country ?—(Hear, hear.) This was proved by
he arguments of her Majesty's Government. This re-
!action then would injure Ireland in her most staple
trade of produce, and this surely was not the Session
if Parliament to do anything that could injure that
ountry.—(Hear, hear.) Why in this very session they
were called upon to vote 230,000/. for the relief of Ire-
land, and in the very same breath they were asked to
pass a measure which would injure it to the amount
if half a million sterling annually.—(Cries of " Hear,
'war, hear," from the Noble Lord's supporters.)
What said a very excellent authority on Irish subjects?
Cho Times Commissioner said, that the small farmers in
the county of Kerry—the frieze-coated farmers of that
place—had made deposits in the savings' banks to the
tmount of 200,0001., which was an average of 341. for
each depositor. Such, then, will be the injury to these
men ; they will be injured to that amount each.—(Hear,
sear, and No, no.) The protective laws upheld the in-
terests, of these men, and her Majesty's Ministers pro
Nosed to do away with them. This large amount
tf deposits was made by six thousand little
'armors, and it was now proposed to injure them to that
amount.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") What
,aid the Right Hon. Gentleman?—why, that whatever
was the duty on butter, it would have the same effect on
the Dutch. Why not protect the 'producers of this coun-
try, and not look after the Dutch ?—(Hear, hear.) They
were also asked to take off 70,0001. on cheese. The re-
-luction of the malt tax, would not be allowed because it
would benefit the drinkers, and the brewers, so of course
her Majesty's Ministers would not _allow of such a thing.
—(Laughter.) If this measure was introduced for the
benefit of the consumer, why not then propose the
reduction of the duty on tea ? The reduction of that
duty would be as great a benefit as another.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had not attempted
ro take that off, because it was not the produce of Great
Britain.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") For these
tied other reasons, he most cordially concurred with his
lion. Friend behind him in opposing this reduction.—
(Divide, divide.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment lll
Against it
Majority against the amendment --102
On our re-admission, we found
Mr. NEWDEGATE addressing the House. He said
he had received many letters besides the one which be
had alluded to. The same post which brought that
letter brought him also one from a manufacturer, who
said he perceived it was but one step in the course of
the Right Hon. Baronet. That letter ended with a fer-
vent wish that the measure before the House might be
passed.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that they objected to cheese
as much as butter, but they would not divide the House,
as they considered the question of butter carried that of
cheese.—(Hear, hear and laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER objected to the proposed reduction
on copper.
Sir H. HALFORD objected to the reduction on cot-
ton, as injurious to the stocking and frame-working
manufacturers of Leicester and Nottingham. He would
quote from an authority which had been often relied on
in that House—Mr. M'Gregor, in answer to a question,
whether it would be proper to admit the manufactures
of Saxony ? His answer was, that he would admit them
on an equitable duty, whether it would destroy the trade
of Leicester and Nottingham or not—(Cries of
" Hear hear")—but, if it did, it would be better for
the whole country to subscribe sufficient to relieve the
distressed than continue the tax on the property of the
country. The Saxons, in the year 1815, had only 9,000
stocking-frames ; in the present year they had 25,000,
which were all employed for the purposes of ex-
portation.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GISI3ORNE did not rise to contradict the state-
ments made by the Honourable Member who had just
set down. He believed that what he had maintained re-
specting the wretched condition of the frame knit-
workers was but too true. He, himself, lived
for ten years in a village in Leicestershire,
and during that time the condition of this
class was most miserable. He had also occasion
to know the state of the poor-rates in many of the vil-
lages of Scotland, and he could bear testimony to the
oppressive nature of those rates which, in a great mea-
sure, arose from the destitute condition of the frame-
knit-workers, and those who were dependent for their
support on this department of industry. He had many
opportunities of seeing this misery, and he could, there-
fore, speak with the more readiness and accuracy as to
its existence. He now lived in a large place, where
hosiery formed the staple manufacture, and he regretted
to say that the representations he had made were too
truly borne out by the hosiers in that city. It
might be that they would not be more likely to
flourish under the measure at present under discussion,
but if anything could give them relief, it would be open-
ing their ports-to all parts of the world, and allowing a
free interchange with all nations. He did not receive

any instructions or any remonstrance from- his- consti-
tuents on this tneature. Bbth working men and mas-
ters seemed to think that their interest would not suffer
by the proposed alterations, but that it would rather ire,
prove under the influence of free trade.
Colonel ROLLESTON could not agree with the in-
ferences which had been made by the Hon. Member for
Nottingham on the condition of the frame-work-knitters.
If this class had been reduced to such a condition,
having the protection which they at -present enjoyed,
surely the reduction of that protection one-half would
not be the 'most effectual mode of improving
their condition. How such a conclusion could
be come to by his Honourable Friend he was
at a loss to determine. So much he had to say with
regard to the Hon. Gentleman's remarks. He would
now apply a few words to the Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of the Government in reference to what
they would all allow was the greatest interest in this
country. This was not, perhaps, the time to go into
the subject in detail, but he thought that the Right Hen.
Gentleman and the Noble Baronet should not interfere
with that interest, unless after the most mature and
grave deliberation. .He trusted that the House would
enter into the consideration of the subject in a fair,
full, and open manner.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES rose for the purpose of saying that
if the Hon. Member for Leicester did not divide upon
this question, he (Mr. Milnes) would—(Laughter)--and
he would do so, because he considered that the present
was a favourable opportunity for the landed gentry of
England to clear themselves from the unjust accusations
which had been made against them.—(Hear, hear.)
Those accusations were to this effect, that because pro-
tection had been removed from agriculture, they were
determined to make up the deficiency of their incomes
by inflicting upon the manufacturing interests duties
which would operate upon them most prejudiciously.
He believed that the frame-knit workers' trade was at
present in a most critical condition in consequence of
the suspense as to the settlement of the prasent
measure of the Government in favour of cheap food;
and he believed that as soon as that measure was passed
into a law, the individuals employed in that trade would
so far recover themselves as to be able to compete with
the foreigner.
After a few words from Mr. PACK, which were in-
audible in the gallery,
Sir G. CLERK said that Hon. Members had drawn a
very melancholy picture of tho frame-knit-workers, but
the House mu4t bear i mind that that state had
been brought about by the present system of protection.
The Hon. Member for Leicester had stated that, a very
short time ago, that trade exported goods to the value of
1,000,000/. sterling per annum.; but that at present the
amount was reduced to 400,000/. ; and he had also ad-
mitted that thedscrease was in a great measure attri-
butable to their character, which had been lost in the
foreign markets by their dishonest practices. Now, the
only method in his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion of improving
the condition of that branch of manufacture was by ex-
tending their foreign trade, and the measures now pro-
posed by the Government had a tendency to increase
the amount of their exports. Under those circumstances
he was perfectly certain that he should not be actins
right unless he resisted; the amendment of the Hon.
Member.
Mr. STRUTT rose for the purpose of stating that
the object of the meeting of frame-knit-workers which
had lately been held at Nottingham, had been misre-
presented. The object of that meeting was to petition
for the repeal of the corn-laws and the general free-
dom of trade. The ground which those manufacturers
took was this, they were placed in such a position by
the operation of the corn-laws, that it was
impossible to compete with the foreign manufitc-
tures, and the consequence was that they were
reduced to their present lamentable position. Their
object, therefore, in meeting was not to petition for any
protection whatever, but simply to ask to be placed upon
the same footing as the manufacturers of other nations,
with whom, they would then be able to compete.
Mr. W. ELLIS said that he entirely concurred in the
observations that had been made by the Hon Member in
reference to this petition. He (Mr. Ellis) was cognizant
of many of the facts that had been stated in reference to
this subject. He had himself canvassed' the town of
Leicester, and during that canvass he had been told tales
of distress the most horrifying that it was possible to
conceive.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said there was not a year in
which he did not hear those complaints of distress in
Nottingham, and therefore he was compelled to believe
that there must be something vicious in the system
which prolonged such a state of things.
Mr. MILES said he had heard the Hon. Member
opposite state that the result of this measure would be
that the people of this country would receive an
abundant supply of bread. Now he had been many
years in Nottingham, and he should say, as the result of
his experience, that the Saxons would throw into this
country such a supply of their manufacutures as would
materially injure the manufactures of this country.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said, that in his opinion, the
Saxons had its much to do with the matter as the New
Zealanders.—(Laughter.) Neither did he believe that
the trade at present was in the bad state in which it had
been represented. Nothing certainly could be more
dreadful, more miserable, or more degraded, than the
condition of the operatives ; for this reason, that they
never got a fair share of the profits. Hon. Gentlemen
might suppose that by raising the duty from 20 to 40 per
cent. they would be bettering the condition of the opera-
tives. It was no such thing.—(Hear, hear.) He knew
very well, that while the manufacturers were getting
18s. per dozen for hose, the operatives engaged in fabri-
cating them did not get more than Bs. per dozen, which,
decidedly, was not a fair share of the profit —(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") Now, why was that the case? Simply
because there were middlemen, who stepped in between
the manufacturer and the operative.—(Hear, hear.)
Let them do away with that system, and they would
need no protection.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord INGESTRE rose amid loud cries of " divide."
He wished to ask if, in the meetings referred to, held at
Leicester and Nottingham, there had been a single ope-
rative present ?
After a few words from Mr. FaEwEN and Lcrd
WORSLEY, which did not reach the gallery, owing to
the loud cries fora division,
Lord G. BENTINCK begged to be permitted to say
one word in favour of the hose-weavers. Hon. Gentle-
men would have the House believe that part of their dis-
tress was owing to protection.—(Hear, hear.) Now he
should like t.) know, if protection were the bane
of the hose-weavers, how it came that the Saxons, who
were also protected, not only maintained their position
in the market, but were also driving the English article
out of the market ?—(Hear, hear.) The accounts
given by Mr. Mac Gregor with regard to the manufac-
ture of Saxony proved that they could there afford to
make stockings at 3d. per pair. His Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury had told the House, that in this
country they could only make them at Bs. per dozen pairs;;
and he (Lord G. Bentinck) wished to know bow
the stocking-makers in Nottingham were to compete
with the Saxons at a protective duty of 10 per cent.
His Noble Friend (the Member for Lincolnshire) came
to that House to seek for protection for agriculture, to
benefit the English labourer, and yet he expressed his
readiness to try an experiment on those half-starved
stocking-makers of Leicester. Did not his Hun. Friend
(the Member for Leicester) tell the House that there
were more than 100,000 people in the stocking trade ;
and was his Hon.. Friend prepared to try free-trade ex-
periments with the 100,000 poor stocking-makers ?
After a few words, in explanation, from Lord
WORSLEY,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when there ap-
peared—
For the amendment lO2

Against it
Majority for the Government }
_BB
proposition
Mr. BANKS considered it was not expedient that
they should proceed further that night, and, therefore,
he should move the adjournment of the question.
Mr. LABOUC 11ERE complained that trade and
commerce were suffering in consequence of the Tariff
they should postpone those, items to which there was
opposition, and go through ofthe Tariff. The
the rest
any
being unsettled. What he would suggest was, that
former were very few, and this arrangement would do
much to facilitate business.
Lord JOHN MANNERS protested against saying
that the trade and commerce were suffering from the op-
position of 120 Members on his (the protection) side of
the House.
Sir GEORGE GREY coincided with the suggestion
of Mr. LabouChere.
Mr. TRELAWNEY was of opinion that the oppo-
sition of Hon. Gentlemen was only to occasion delay, so
as to hinder the Right Hon. Baronet from getting the
revenue.
Sir R. PEEL said, all the consideration he had given
to this measure was for the interest of the country.
The arrangement made was, that they should take the
second reading of the Corn Bill as early as possible, and
he should wish, if it were possible, that they should
commence the second reading on Tuesday. They would
go on on Monday to complete the Tariff, as proposed
with respect to the corn-laws. Having made that ar-
rangement, he confessed that he was very unwilling to
depart from it, if they had any prospect of completing
the debate on Monday'. He repeated that, as far as the
public. interest was concerned, it would be the best that
could be done to go on with the Tariff on Monday, and
the Corn Bill on Tuesday.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that as far as he
was concerned, he had not the least objection to the pro-
position of. the Hon. Baronet. He and his friends were
not prepared to discuss the Tariff, and they had as yet
allowed it to pass through the Committee without any
objection. There were however certain articles to
which he wished to state an objection, such as silks,
spirits, and French brandy, and the debate would more
than occupy the space of one night.
and if they were able they
Sir R. PEEL said that he trusted that it was possible
finishctoonti e
t this
Tariff
debate onn ml,llmodnadyrty, at any rate they woubl
,
would proceed with the Corn Bill on Tuesday.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it seemed far more
likely to be for the commercial interest of the country,
if the Tariff were continued as early as possible. He
was pursuaded that many of his Hon. Friends, who had
u
motions for Tuesday, would readily waive their right, in
order to allow the Right Hon. Baronet's proposition to
he carried into effect.
Lord SANDON made a few observations, which in
the confusion slid not reach the gallery.
OUT-PENSIONER'S PAYMENT (GREENWICH
AND CHELSEA) BILL.

On the question being put as to going into Committee on
this Bill, Captain PECHELL rose and objected to their
going through Committee at that late hour, and particu-
larly as the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at
War, had afforded the House no explanation on the sub-
ject of this Bill.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT hoped the Gallant Officer
would not persist in opposing the committal of the Bill,
for it was of the utmost importance that the Bill should
pass at as early a peTiod as possible. It was not prq.

posed to etnbote the sailors;, and he htified-,thi3 state-
meta would remo'v'e the Objectitin Of the Noble and
Gallant Member.'

Sir. C. NAPIER said that after the explanation of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, he had no objection to the Bill
passing through Committee. At the same time, how-
ever, it must be distinctly understood that the power of
the Admiralty, in respect of the saibr pensioners, was
not to be transferred to the Secretary at War.

The Speaker then left the chair, and the House went
into Committee on the Bill.

On the first clause being proposed,
Captain PECHELL expressed himself dissatisfied
with the explanation of the Hon, Gentleman the Secre-
tary at War. If it„ was not proposed to embody the pen-
sioners who were sailors, why not amend the Bill ac
cordingly? It was but natural for sailors to prefor being
under the command of a naval rather than a military
officer.

After a few words from Mr. S. HERBERT and Captain
PECHELL.

The Bill passed through Committee proforma, and the
House having resumed, the report was ordered to be
brought up on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half-past One.

ASSIZE IN TEL LIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, March 12.
CROWN COURT.

James Baylis, George Lee, John Willis, and Henry Willis,
were together indicted for a burglary on the Bth of Novem-
ber last, at Eldersfield, when nine cheeses and a quantity of
eggs, meat, and bread were stolen. The facts of the case
seemed sufficiently conclusive as to the guilt of the accused,
but, strange to say, the jury, after a few minutes, returned a
verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. Huddlestone appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoners
were defended by Mr. Beaden and Mr. Cooke.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
George Hill was indicted for stealing a gelding, one cart,
and a set of harness, the property of William Hill.
Mr. Huddlestone conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Selfe defended the prisoner.
It appeared by the evidence for the prosecution, that there
had been some negotiation between a parson of the name of
Southwell, and the prosecutor, for the purchase of this horse,
but as they did not agree about price the treaty was broken
off. A short time afterwards the prisoner, who was a ser-
vant of the prosecutor, drove the prosecutor's son to Stam-
ford, and, returned with the horse and cart safe, having re-
ceived instructions from the prosecutor's son to return to
Stamford the following day, for the purpose of bringing him
home. Accordingly, the prisoner on the following morning
left the house of the prosecutor at an early hour with the
horse and cart, but instead of proceeding to Stamford, as
directed, he took the horse to Bridgenorth, having previously
left the cart at a half-way house. At Bridgenorth he dis-
posed of the horse to Mr. Southwell, who had been in treaty
for him before, and appropriated the money to his own use.
Mr SELFE addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending
that if, when the prisoner left home in obedience to the di-
rections of the prosecutor's son, he had no intention of steal-
ing the horse, whatever subsequent dishonesty he might have
been guilty of, he could not be convicted on the present in-
dictment. _ _

The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
There was another indictment of a like nature against the
prisoner.—Sentence deferred.
Worcester, March 13.

CROWN COURT.—(Before the LORD CHIEF Bmtort.)
Emma Crantnore, aged 29, was charged with having, on
the 19th of February last, at Alvechurch, concealed the birth
of her female child.

Mr. Huddlestone conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Beadon, was a
dress-maker, and the body of the child was discovered in a
state of putrefaction by her mistress, under the bed, wrapped
in a piece of black cloth and an old petticoat.
The Learned JUDGE being of opinion that this fact did not
constitute a concealment within the meaning of the Act
stopped the case, and the jury, under his direction, returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
Daniel Willis, aged 25, a man of remarkably muscular
frame and ruffianly appearance, was placed at the bar,
'charged with highway robbery, at Chaddesley Corbett, in
this county.
The prosecutor, an infirm old labourer, had met the pri-
soner at, a public7house, where he paid for his beer; and, in
return for his hospitality, was the same night waylaid by
him, thrown down, and robbed of his purse, containing
two half-crowns and a sixpence. The prisoner nearly
strangled him, and knelt upon his chest till the blood
gushed from his ears; after which, leaving him in an in-
sensible state, he made off, taking also a stick and tobacco
' box belonging to the man who but an hour before had en-
tertained him.

These facts having been proved by the counsel for the
Crown (Mr. Whitmore), his Lordship summed up, and the
jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner, who had been previously convicted, and
against whom there were two other indictments, was sen-
tenced to ten years' transportation.