The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING. MARCH 24, 1846.

not to inquire too nicely into the the tenure by which property
was held in Ireland, for the result would not be as satisfactory
as they might exeect. The Noble Earl then alluded to the
sa ate, of Scet!and, and the circumstance: under which the
Presin,terien religion lied been established in that country, and
asked why the people of Ireland should not have as good a right
to have the IZonian Catholic religion established as their reli-
gion as the people of Scotland had to establish Presbyterianism.
Tine, episcopacy of some of the aristocracy of Scotland was no
reason for its being established there, nor was it any reason
because the aristocracyjef Ireland were Protestant that their no-
' tions should be exclusively establishe:l there. It was said that
the property belonged to the Church of Eegland. He
wished to know what was the contiguity of the term " Church
of England ?" Was it an ancient term ? He admitted, in-
-deed, that the property belonged to the Church of Christ, but
he denied that it belonged by original right either to the Church
of England or to the Roman Catholic Church. It indeed be-
longed by Act of Parliament to the Church of England,
and here he came to the wsrst feature in the con-
nexion between the two countries. Has their legislation
been so universally right towards Ireland that it
should be right in that instance also? For his own part, he
would not consent that any portion of the church property
should be diverted from its legitimate purposes, but he did
think it a matter of indifference whether that property should
he applied exclusively to the one sect or to the other; on the
contrary he would look at the real foundation of justice, and he
would say that they ought Father to apply it to the wanas of
the many, than to make it applicable only to the purposes of
the few—of those wealthy classes of the community who main-
tained their chaplains in their own houses. That they might
daffy with this subject he had no doubt, but when his Noble
and Learned Friend spoke of putting down agitation, perhaps
ho ( Earl Fitzwilliarn) might he allowed to ask, if anything had
been dons for Ireland that had net been extracted
from England by agitation? If they had acted perfectly
just towards Ireland and all her Members, then indeed there
might be something in his Noble and Learned Friend's views
on this saliject—something in his expressions of putting down
agitation. But his Noble and Learned Friend knew well that
Ireland had never got anything except by agitation, and there-
fore his Noble and Learned Friend's dictum to put down agi-
tation, was saying neither more nor less than, put dawn the
means of getting anything for Ireland. What measure had
they got now ? One to prevent men from being out in the dis-
turbed districts after sunset or before sunrise. On these
grounds he would support the motion brought forward by his
Noble Friend. He thought that it eminently deserved the
atteetion of the country, for they were intimately connected
with the well-being of Ireland. The aristocracy of that coun-
try were in an anomalous position, as anomalous perhaps as any
other thing in Ireland. The aristocrany in England had grown
up from the people; but the aristocracy in Ireland was super-
imposed upon the people, and if ever there was an oligarchy
existing in any country, it existed in Ireland in her Irish House
of Peers, and still more in her House of Commons.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
The Marquis of CLAN RICA RDE was the more induced to
speak upon this matter, because the Noble Duke had said that
the existence of the Established Church was one of the
grievances of Ireland. The Noble Duke, he was sure, spoke
without any distinct recollection of the words in his petition;
but he would take upon himself" to assure the Noble Duke that
he was wrong in so stating, for he (Lord Clanricarde) had
never signed a petition stating that the Church of England and
Ireland was a grievance to the people of Ireland. Much might
be done to remedy the evils complained of, by regulat-
ing the temporalities of that Church, and reforming the
abuses that existed.—( Hear.) But to ono principle he
would never consent, namely, to take from the revenues of that
Church, and appropriate them to the support of the Roman
Catholic clergy. Noble Lords en the other side had, in his
opinion, mixed up two matters which ought to have been kept
widely distinct, namely, paying the Roman Catholic, clergy
from the funds of the Government, and preserving inviolate
the revenues of the English Church. He considered, however,
that a surplus fund might be formed for the purposes of pro-
viding
a joint education of the people. If they looked at Ireland
in its politieel aspect, they would find the Queen's Govern-
ment denuded of all authority, and the representa-
tive of Majesty occupying a position somewhat
similar to that of a superintendent of police.
When he said, also, he knew that Government had no hold on
the country, they had not attempted to restore the influence of
the legitimate authority, he said that the Queen's Ministry
were alone to blame for this state of things, He would ask,
was acit, the country in a different state when they received it
into their hands? He would prove from the charges of judges
made in 1842, that the country was in a state of tranquillity.
Every one of these charges confirmed that fact positively.
There was also a Bill brought forward by a Noble Lord, and
which he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had been accused of
opposing. The principle of the Bill was, that the
tenant should have compensation for any improvement
made on his farm, provided that he did not remain
long enough on the farm to mate a profit of it.
It was a just law—jest in itself and consistent with every
right of property and sound psinciple of law. He said that
the people of Ireland were in some degree alienated from Par-
liament, and had no confidence in it, axd that a great deal
more fill at the door of the Government; for the method of
aelministering the law must materially affect the confidence
of the people of Ireland in the Parliament. An objection
would be entertained to placing a man of violent party feel-
ing to preside over a court of criminal law, but there
would be no. objection to placing such a man in a civil
court. Sir E. Sugden was a most distinguished Member
of the other House, and a most violent party man, and did
any man in Ireland blame the appointment of Sir E. Sugden
to a law court on the ground of his being a party man ?
The politics of an individual did necessarily affect his appoint-
ment. He had the assurance of experienced persons, that the
state of Ireland had never been fraught with so much danger
to the interests of England, or to the empire, as it was at that
moment. He had received those assurances from persons who
were old enough to remember and speak of the time previous
to the year 1798, and he would believe what he heard, that at
no time of those disastrous periods was there so much danger
to be apprehended, Under these circumstance, and concur-
ring as he slid with the views of his Noble Friend, he felt it his
duty to give this motion his support.
The Duke of WELLINGTON acid he was very anxious
nut to omit a word which he saw in the paper, and which tended
to the interest of the people.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he felt it necessary to
refer to some observations of the Noble Earl who had spoken
the last but two. The Noble Earl had said that the aristo-
cracy of this country had grown from the people, but that the
aristocracy of Ireland were afflicted upon the people. He
would ask, whether there was any great difference between
their ancestors, who came over in the earlier ages sword in
hand, and the manner in which the aristocracy had been
afflicted in Ireland? The Noble Marquis opposite had stated
that the people of Ireland had no respect for the Imperial Le-
gislature of the country. He denied this to be true. An
agitation, he admitted, had long been going on to alienate the
affections of the people, not from the Imperial Parliament, but
from this country. 'that agitation, he was glad to say, had
not succeeded, and the people were as strongly attached as
ever to the Government and the country.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, after the speech of the
Noble Earl with respect to the Irish Church, it was quite im-
possible far him to support the Noble Earl's resolution. He
did not, however, wish it to be understood that he had in
the slightest degree any confidence in the Government, be-
cause he had not; and what was more he never should have
again.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he opposed the
motion, and attributed the distress of Ireland to absenteeism.
If Noble Lords who had estates in Ireland, instead of residing
at Brighton, or Paris, or other places on the continent,
would occasionally visit their property, and see justice done to
their tenants, they would be troubled with very few complaints

Gas.

S tocli ton Gas,

- .
from the Irish people.
The Earl ST. GERMANS said that at that late hour it
was quite impossible for him to follow the Noble Earl, for the
Noble Earl had opened a wide field for discussion, and had
spoken of agrarian outrages, the administration of justice, the
church, the landlord and tenant commission, and the important
measure of fixity of tenure, every one of which subjects would
require the greater part of an evening to consider. The Noble
Lord who followed the Noble Earl had animadverted with
some severity upon the ,:onduct of the Government in the other
House of Parliament for not resisting Mr. Sharman
Crawford's Bill upon the subject of fixity of tenure. Now,
he had looked over that Bill, and he could
assure their Lordships that he found no mention whatever
of the subject of fixity of tenure. The Noble Earl had told
the House, that these agrarian outrages were connected en-
tirely with political grievances. Now, if that were so, the

same cause would produce the same effect elsewhere, and they
would have the same amount of agrarian outrages in the nor-
thern :.and midland counties, as they had in the western.
He said, therefore, that the supposition of the Noble Earl
was wholly unfounded. Government were of opinion that the
relation of landlord and tenant. in Ireland was not in a satis-
factory state. Accordingly, in the course of the last session,
they introduced a Bill for improving these relations. There
was, however, not sufficient time to get it through the House,
and it was, therefore, withdrawn. But there was another Bill
in the course of preparation, and he trusted it would shortly be
laid before their Lordships. It would respect the rights of pro-
perty, and at the same time improve the condition of the tenant.
With respect to the measure of Catholic Emancipation, he
differed from the Noble Duke, and the other parties whe
brought forward that measure. At the time of the union with
Ireland, the Protestant religion was the religion of the country,
and by the Act of Union they were bound to preserve it in-
violate. And as regarded the opinions of Mr. Grattan and Mr.
Plunkett, they always maintained a reservation in their
speeches. The evidence given by the Catholic prelates and
other advocates of the Catholic emancipation, was also
of a similar nature. They did not wish to affect the tem-
poralities of the Protestant Church. They entertained no such
desina Their prelates did not wish to sit in their Lordships'
House. They wished to keep their Church apart from the State.
ponly, f
thisand esouocnht
rhyo.
s
felt They
woHe uld
oonuwsl
idi
ds fished
reeedtah ett to
rnbee3r
had
laaopinion rheegnio
oug;rethabetodpeyexoaggeration with refe-
Cpheurracohn;methfeorwehaoclhe
iamountneoro
roefntchee troe,theneureedviedneuoest
exceed
the
ee
bent, The Nob'e Lord then referred to the measures which
cdI36()011 1.
had been adopted by the Government for the benefit of Ire-
land—to the grants for education—to the great increase in the
number of schools and scholars—the former being 273, the latter
3,700. The Government also proposed the establishment of
model schools in each county in Ireland. The grant to May-
nooth had been productive of great good ; and the new col-
legee, established to furnish a sound and liberal education to
the middle classes, would also be productive of great benefit.
After a few words from Earl GREY, and
Earl St. GERMANS had spoken in reply,
Their Lordships divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The Calico Prints Bill went through Committee.
The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a second time, and also
the south Sea Company Bili.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and their
Lordships adjourned at Half-past Twelve.

. -44

Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway Amendment.
Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway Extension.
Goildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway.
Wes; on-i•uper-Ml.n:! Pier.

Ba hire 'Railway.
Ild(lhousu Sewefing, Draining, and Lighting.
Plymouth Ceaseteny.

Yeovil i'vlarkel. aLd Fairs.

Dudley Canal and Birmingham Canal Companies

Birmingham, Wolvritampton, and Stour Valley Rail-
way (Stour Valley Line.)
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Rail-
way (Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Line.)
Midland Railway (Leicester and Swanuington
Alteration and Branches.)
Midland Railway (Burton-upon-Trent to Nuneaton).
SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.

Mr. VIVIAN moved the second reading of the South
Mlles Ralway Bill, when
Captain BERKELEY hoped that the Hon. Member
would not pe:e3s the second reading. It Wl3 well known
that the Board of Admiralty were opposed to the crossing
of the river Severn at the Aust ferry, which was con-
templated by the South Wales Company; and when the
Bill should be carried before the Committee of the
House, with this fact before them, it was certain that
the Committee would not allow th.e work to be pro-
ceeded with. He understood that, in order teget over this
difficulty, the parties promoting the measure had a
plan by which they proposed to carry the railway
under the river by means of a tunnel. The
Board of Admiralty would, in his opinion,
object quite as strongly to that mode as by the
former proposed plan or a bridge, as it would completely
prevent am. future improvement in the navigation of the
Severn. The lion. Gentleman then read a letter which
had been received from the Admiralty Board, in which
their Lordships expressed their strongest objection to
the river being crossed by a bridge ; and, in fact, any
method of crossing the river which should interfere with
its bed or navigation. He hoped that the second reading
of the Bill would be put cff for a week, in order that the
opinion of the Lords of the Admiralty as to the proposed
tunnel might be obtained. He should, therefore, move
that the second reading of the Bid be adjourned to this
day week.
Mr. RUSSELL hoped the House would bear in mind
the circumstances which attended the proposed railway.
He could assure the Hon. Gentlrean :that the Bill was
now framed in a mode which was deemed satisfactory
to the Admiralty. He had in his possession a letter
from the First Lord of the Admiralty, which stated that
the Admiralty Board would give their entire assent to
the mode proposed by crossing the river by means of a
tunnel.

Captain BARCLAY said, if he had known that the
Admiralty had given their consent to the making of a
tunnel, be would not have opposed the second reading
of the Bill.

The question was thm put from the Chair, and the
13111 was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
MIDLAND RAILWAY.—PURCHASE OF OAK-
HAM CANAL.

Mr. PACKE opposed the second reading of this Bill,
as ho did not deem it advisable that the canal should be
stopped. It was a question which involved the whole
canal interest of the kingdom, and he would ask the
House to consider how far a railway company should be
allowed to inkrfere with the working a canal, and
whether such a mode of proceeding woull not eventual),
prejudice the interests of the public. He begged to move
that the Bill be read a second time this day week.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought it was high time that
some check should be given to the monopAiling system
of the various railway companies. _ _

_ . .
Mr. FINCII thought there was no good and valid
objection to the second reading of the Bi 1. The canal
which the Honourable Gentleman had spoken of was the
worst in the kingdom, and the great body of the proprie-
tors of the canal were favourable to its sale. The rail-

-....—
way company proposed to furnish a better mode
of conveyance than that which was furnished at
present by the canal ; and he therefore trusted
that the House would not entertain the objection of
the Han. Gentleman to the second reading of the Bill.
After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET,

Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said that the Company
would enter into any arrangement to make the Canal
more advantageous to the public.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
FORTH AND CLYDE RAILWAY.

Mr. FORMS presented petitions from Sirlingshire
and Perthshire in favour of the Forth and Clyde Rail-
way.
MANCHESTER, LIVERPOOL, ANTI) NEW-
CASTLE JUNCTION RAILWAY.

An HON. MEMBER presented a petition signed by
4,000 persons. in favour of the above railway.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the Scottish
Grand Junction Railway Bill, which was ordered to be
laid on the table.

Mr. ENTWISLE presented a petition from the
Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company against the
North British Railway.
LONDON AND NEWCASTLE RAILWAY.

Mr. DUNCAN presented two petitions in favour of
:his Bill.

BOLTON WATERWORKS BILL.

Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the township
of Little thlton, in Lancashire, against the Bolton Water-
works Bill.
WEST RIDING UNION RAILWAY.
The llox. GENTLEMAN then moved that the minutes
of evidence taken before the Sub-Committee on the
petition for the West Riding Union Railway Bill, on the
12th and 13th days of February, 1846, be refk.rred to the
Committee on the petition for the West Riding Union
Railway Bill, presented on the 10th day of this instant
March.

Sir G. CLERK considered that this mode of pro-
ceeding would be altogether irregular. The promoters
had had the consent of the Committee appointed to in-
quire into their petition, and they had leave from this
Committee, under peculiar circumstances, to present a
fresh petition to that House for leave toin-
troduce a fresh Bill. But the present petition
was to refer the evidence taken by the Com mittee
upon a former occasion to the. Committee which might
bo appointed to hear the petition since presented. He
did not consider that it followed that the Bill now to b. e
brought in upon the new petition was similar to the Bill
introduced upon the first petition. He had heard
no reason stated why the petition should be acceded to,
and he must, therefore, object to the motion of his
Honourable Friend. It was a motion of an unusual
character ; the petition upon the present . Bill
was altogether a new and substantive measure. It
would have to stand upon its own merits. Another
Committee would exercise their own discretion upon it,
or they might call further evilence, and would obtain
all tne information they might require. He could net,
therefore, see how evidence taken upon a former occa-
sion could be made to apply to the measure under con-
sideration.

Lord MORPETH considered that the customary
course of proceeding in this House would be against
entertaining the motion at present. With reference to
the Bill to which this petition applied, the promoters
were fully confident of its merits ; they did not
wish for any concealment whatever.—(Hear) The
Bill to be brought in was a fresh proceeding alto-
ther, and they would have the usual means of opposing
it ; and he therefore trusted that the House would com-
ply with the recommendation of the Hon. Member for
Oxford, and not entertain the petition.
Mr. MUNTZ said that he was not aware that he was
seeking for anything irregular in moving for the evi-
dence. He was not an interested party in the 8111, and
he would Le the last per: on to press -for anything ir-
regular ; he would, therefore, beg leave to withdraw his
motion.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
Mr. O'CONNELL brought up a report from Group 15
on the London and Brighton Railway, which was ordered
to lie on the table.
Mr HUME said he had two petitions to present,
partly of a private nature, and'yet they might be called
public, when the importance of the subjects to which
they referred was considered. They related to the na-
vigation of the couu try. The one was from the Parlia-
mentary trustees on the river Clyde. It stated that a
railway company, which had brought in its Bill last
Session, and which was for eleven days before a Com-
mittee, and which was at length rejected, had
this year come forward with the same propo-
sition. The trustees had opposed them, at an expense
of 5,0001., and they begged to be protected against this
continual annoyance. The other petition was from the
inhabitants of the town of Warrington, against a rail-
of goods passed up
way company which had made three several attempts to
0 tonsannually,
and the powers they
carnods s
down
othwen
sought would be a great injury to the navigation. He
begged to say that he would at some future time call the
Mersey.
rivery 3
,000,00 attention of the House to this subject, in order that
some means might be devised to prevent the annoyance

petitions against the
Midland
and landholders on
the banks
and expense.
Mr.
The petitioners stated
from the
atnhtee d
that the Company was about to purchase and disuse the
canal, and that would interfere with certain privileges
an I 3k
s AR
oaf Ni
Ki
theE.ay,
Y 3 6fpa
which they enjoyed under the Canal Act.
Lord WORSLEY moved that it be an instruction to
the Committee on Railways, Group No. 9, to proceed
with the consideration of the
.Glasgow Harbour Grand
Junction Railway Terminus Bill, but after a short dis-
cussion, in which Lord G. Somerset and another Hon.
Member took part, the Noble L.)rd withdrew his motion.

AMALGAMATION Oh' RAILWAYS.

Mr. W. PATTEN then moved that a Select Commit.
tee, to consider how far, and under what regulations, the
further amalgamation of railways would be consistent
with a due regard to the commercial and general inte-
rests of the country. In making this motion he did
not mean to disparage amalgamations of railways in
general, because he did believe that, with proper regu-
lations and proper rest. rictions, amalgamations might be
rendered more beneficial to the promoters and more con-
ducive to the general interests of the country. The ex-
tent to which it was proposed to. carry amalgamations
was so great that, in his opinion, it was desirable
that the House should be in possession of more accurate
information and more practicable results in relation to
amalgamation generally before the House proceeded to
commit itself to the extent now proposed. The amal-
gamation Bills before the House amounted to thirty-
three, and they comprised railway communications ex-
tending from one end of the country to the other. At
first sight, it would only appear that some of these Bills
related only to particular districts, but in two in.
stances there were Bills by
which five or six separate
companies were proposed to be placed under one ma-
nagement,and which proposed to remove that competition
which the public had hitherto relied upon for protection.
There were some of these Bills to which he thought
public attention was not sufficiently drawn, though they
materially affected the commerce of the country. It was
not alone on railway schemes that such was the case, for

he held in his hand a list of canals which it was sought
to amalgamate or unite with the railways the object being
most manifestly to encourage the old system of water
carriage, which was found to be most inconvenient. The
question assumed such an importance, that he believed if
the House did not take measures to regulate and restrain
the speculations of capitalists, the result vvouhl be very
ruinous to the country. To give an illustration of what was
going to take place, he might mention that there was a
project to connect Scotland with the city of Bristol,
crossing an immense district of country. Now, it struck
him that it would be impossible to get a company who
could raise a sufficient capital to carry out such a prtjeet.
Ho would not have objected to the Chairman of the
Committee of Selection appointing a group of Members
posses-,ing the confidence of the House, to make the
necessary arrangements which were sought to be obtained
by the motion which he (Mr. W. Patten) now sub-
mitted. He for one, however, at the same time must
say that such a course would be an unusual one, and
one to which some objection might be taken. It was a
question also that might he left to the consideration
amalgamations
twtp}oaoifaai
o:3netPatten)
he.
pithenamml
t)apeeCcv
roemoro.o bmtmuael
nmlmdr
ft
foritt
have
Committee aupponprbnoooe Invernessvinsi
dput
consideration
such
objectionl aaer .
proceeded
sdhuoeet
tbfhd: the
Morrison),nhcv sc
iettitslutngshib uogreybe idajsnaectt,
gni
subject
naodtinrn,:hec, oseafeh. fets.(
should
sprutelleuls:
rddeett.
off till the middle of the session, the consequence would
lie, that many of the Bills would either have to be adju-
dicated on without the result of the inquiry, or else the
Bills would have to be put off till next session, to
the great inconvenience of the promoters of these
schemes. It was to obtain the opinion of all parties
throughout the country, whose practical knowledge and
experience enabled theta to give advice, end in order
to place the best information on the subject before the
House, that he prop° e;1 the present Committee.
—(Hear, hear.) He thought the report of the Board of
Trade on this question had not been attended to
enough last session. Had the Committee acted more
on the suggestion of that report than they did, much of
the evil complained of would have been avoided.

Mr. ENT\YISLE concurred in the remarks that fell
from the Hon. Member who supported the appointment
of the Committee. He b .I.ieved that it would be found, upon
investigation by the Committee, that the amalgamations pro-
posed toy existing companies were, in many instances, and
most instances of a defensive character. The amalgamations
took place in order that the companies might the better defend
themselves against rival schemes, which were only started to
terrify the existing companies into a compromise. He be-
lieved that the Committee would be of great benefit to the
country. He therefore heartily seconded the motion.
Sir G. CLERK said this question was one of paramount im-
portance; but he confessed that he did not exactly gather
from the speech of his Hon. Friend what was the precise ob-
ject to which the Committee was to direct its investigation.
If that Committee was to lay down several rules under which

certain railways should amalgamate, and under what circum-
stances amalgamation should not be permitted, it appeared to
him that they would have little else to do but to give Parlia-
mentary sanction to the principles which were laid down in
the twenty-first report of the Board of Trade last year. He
thought that it that were the object of the Com-
mittee, it was an exceedingly desirable one.—(Hear.)
The question was, in what manner could these general rules b 3
made applicable in individual cases ? He hoped that whatever
tribunal these cases might be brought before, that they would
look with extreme jealousy upon all those proposals of amalga-
mation. He had no doubt that many advantages could be ob-
taMed by the public by a uniformity of management. These
benefits might, however, be effective, by means of arrange-
ments in the different companies ; these arrangements would
not possess that permanent nature which a Parliamentary
sanction would give them; they might be altered an 3 modified
by the company. The Board of Trade last year had pointed
out some objections, which it would have been quite as well for
the interest of the public had they been acted upon. In con-
clusion, he considered that the Committee appointed by the Hon.
Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison) should be instructed to
inquire how far these general rules might be made applicable
to individual cases.

Mr. BARING con3idered that the question as to the manner
in which the House. was to deal with future railway legislation
was not a vestion to ba discussed at that
time. He thought that was a future consideration.

He would recommend that a Committee of five should be

formed, to whom they would give a power, in cases of unopposed
Bills, to send for any witnesses they might choose. He was

very much afraid that; from the Committee for which the Hon.

Nleinber had moved they would get no report, except a very
hurried one. His Hon. Frikd had said very pertly that the
report of the Board of Trade had not been sufficiently attended
to by him, but that very report stated " That nothing could be
more difficult than to lay down any general principle for cases
of amalgamation ;" and if they were not to lay down a rule,
they would ever have the same uncertainty. Their only course,
therefore, was to refuse to appoint the Committee, and throw
it upon the Government to bring forward some measure on
their own responsibility which would meet the difficulties of the
case. _

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it would appear from what
the Hon. Gentleman had said, that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had very much neglected the subject of railway legislation.
Mr. BARING—Last year.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Hon. Member should recol-
lect that the House must take a share of the blame with her
Majesty's Government—(Bear, hear)—because they had in a
great measure acted contrary to the advice of those who had
been apeointed to consider the question of railway amalgama-
tion. They had not received very favourably the report which
the Board of 'frade made last year. That report laid down
the principle upon which (speaking gent rally) amalgamation
should be permitted ; and it then proceeded to apply those
principles to every case of amalgamation which was brought
before Parliament during the last session. It was distinctly
admitted in that report, that it was very difficult to lay down
universally the principle on which an amalgamation should
proceed.—( Hear, hear. ) And it was admitted, that there
might be cases in which amalgamation might be permitted
with the greatest advantage to the public interests—( Hear,
bear)—because, wherever there was a number of distinct
and independent lines, forming a great channel of com-
munication between distant parts, and the proprietors of
those lines desired to amalgamate, it would certainly be to the
interest of the public that the desired amalgamation should be
permitted. On the other hand, the Board of Trade declared
it to be their conviction, that an amalgamation between power-
ful companies, whose lines of railway lay in the same district,
would deprive the public of many advantages which railway
communication was calculated to afford.—( Hear, hear.)
Although the House did not receive that report of the Board
of Trade last year, he still thought that the recommendations
in that report were wise and comprehensive, particularly as
far as amalgamation were concerned ; and he only asked
the House to bear a share of the responsibility which had been
thrown upon the Government. The House must recollect
that they had jealously overruled the decisions of the Board of
Trade. However, they were now convinced by experience
that amalgamation in certain cases might be justifiable, and
conducive to the public ,interest, and he believed, that with
some modifications, it would be well to admit the proposal of
his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to an im-
portant class of railway Bills, namely, those which had their
termini in the city of London, or within the metropolitan dis-
tricts, they proposed to reserve them for the consideration of a
Special Commission, to bo appointed by the Crown ; and of
course the progress of those Bills would be suspended for the
present. Now, might they not adopt this course with respect
to amalgamation, substituting a Comrnitteefor the Commission,
and refer the amalgamation Bille, which were at present before
them, to the best Co nmittee they could appoint, who should
consider the question of anial.eamation as bearing upon those
Bills before them, and leave it for the general Committee to
consider at its leisure the principles which ought in
future to guide them, when dealing with amalgamation
Bills? They would thus have a Committee on the
general subject of railway legislation, a Commission to consider
railways which had their termini within the metropolitan dis-
tricts, and a Committee upon the amalgamation Bills, which
were now pressing, who might giro their opinions to the
House as to what other tribunals these amalgamations shOuld
lie referred in future, and as to the general principles applic-
able to railway amalgamations, so far as the present session
was concerned.—( Hear.)
Mr. FOX MAULE regretted that the House slid not last
year carry out the admirable report of the Board of Trade on
this subject, but he hoped the Committee, if they appointed
one, would be directed to take this report into their particular
consideration.—( Hear. ) In reference to the amalgation Bills,
if it was proposed to refer them to a Committee, which
should merely report cn them with reference to the principle
of amalgamation, it was so far well; but if the Committees
should be empowered to go into the merits of the Bills, it
would only be getting up a system of rivalry between the lines
under consideration and rival lines. His own opinion was
that, if the Committee proposed by his Hen. Friend should be
appointed, there should be some general measures laid down,
somewhat, he would suggest, similar to the rules adopted by
the Bord of Trade, and which rules should be adhered to by
the House. That was the only way, in his opinion, to do
justice to the Bills; but whatever course would be adopted he
( Mr. Mettle) was prepared to support the proposition of his
Hon. Friend opposite.
Lord EBRINGTON said it appeared to him that the act
of amalgamation was a voluntary act. The subject of amalga-
mation vas so important, and pressed so generally on the com-
munity, that the Committee moved for could not possibly de-
cide on the question. The question, it appeared to him, de-
pended on this—whether they would adopt the principle of
competition, or take security on behalf of the public a:ainst
monopoly—thus sanctioning monopoly, but putting it under
proper regulations ? He was certain the result of the Commit-
tee, keeping such object in view, would he most beneficial.
Now, hew were they to deal with railway legislation in gene-
ral? The Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) la-
mented that more attention had not been paid to the very able
reports of the Board of Trace within the last year. Now, he
should remind that Bight Hon. Gentleman that he (Lord
Ebrington), as also many Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of
the House, that expressed their approbation of the ability
with which these very reports had been drawn up.—(Hear,
' hear). He considered they were to blame in not attending
more to the suggestions of the Board of Trade. Not only the
House hut her ;Majesty's Government had overlooked the labo-
rious exertions and able investigations of that board. He
thought that in this respect the Government had not paid
sufficient deference to the decisions of their own friends.
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Member was labouring under
a mistake respecting the duty of the Government. The
Government, as a Government, in his (Sir R. Peersd)hoepinirld
had no right to interfere with the private Bills; and
had," by
be sorry to adopt a principle to the
yrade. It
adopting the recommendations of ft Beard
heetret ofatnh'er
was only when a great principle was involved that the Govern-
ment, in its capacity as such, was found to come forward in
support of the reports of the Board of Trade. Beyond this
they could not reasonably interfere.
Lord EBRINGTON said, in speaking of the Government,
he only alluded to what the Right Hon. Beronet had stated in
the discussion that took place early in the session.
Mr. 11. HINDE confessed, for one, that he had looked to see
the Government support the reports of the Board of Trade,
as those reports had generally been made with great judgment
and discretion. He thought greater attention should have
been paid to the recommendations of the Board of Trade. If
the present Committee was agreed to, and parties had to be
submitted to its ordeal, and then had to pass through a
Select Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of
their Bills, the delay and expense would be very great.
If some means could be devised by which the investigation of
one Committee would be sufficient instead of two—a great ad-
vantage would be obtained. Powers ought to be given to the
Committee to inquire into all the matters for which two Cerr_
mittees, according to the present mode of conducting the busi-
ness of the House, were now required.
Sir GEORGE GREY agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) that the Goverrunnent ought not
to interfere with private Bills. After the discussion vellittli had
taken place, he confessed he thought that the appointment of a
Committee, before the Committee on the Bill, was unneces-
sary. If a preliminary Committee were to sit, it would only
perform the functions cif the Board of Trade of last year. He
hoped that the inquiries of the Committee would be limited to
some definite and particular object.
Mr. PAKINGTON, as a Member of the Classification
Committee, would state that the Hon. Member for South
Lancashire, had submitted this motion at the suggestion of the

Committee of Selection, whose object in making the sugges-
tion was to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the
magnitude and importance of the subject. '1 his question of
amalgamation was not only the most important, but one of the
most ditricalt questions connected with railway subjects.
It was more so now; there were no less than 33 amalgama-
tion schemes before the House at the present moment. The
Committee, therfore, thought it their duty to bring the mat-
ter under the consideration of the House. He considered that
if the Committee had gone on quietly allowing that state of

things to go on, they would soon have had all the communica-
tion of the country in the hands of two or three gigantic com-
panies. Ile begged to state, that so far as his own opinion
was concerned, he would be content to follow the course indi-
cated by the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment.

Mr. BARING considered that the House was get-
ting into a state of considerable confusion. There were a
mass of railways before them, the merits of which should be
disposed of without unnecessary delay. The House had three
propositions before it as to the manner of disposing of these
momentous questions. First, there was the proposition of the
Hon. Member far North Lancashire (Mr. Entwisle), fir the
appointment of a Select Committee to determine upon certain
general principles which were to govern the various Commit-
tees in dealing with amalgamation Bills hereafter. Then came
the proposition for the Committee of the lion. Membee for
Inverness ( Mr. Morrison), of which the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had justly said
that they would hare quite sufficient to occupy their attention
without attending to the question of amalgamation. And then
they had a proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of the Government, which he (Mr. Baring) must say
lie considered the most business-like mode of dealing with the
question—that a Special Committee be appointed,- to whom,
as a group, all the amalgamation Bills would be referred, and
who, having examined these Bills, should report to the House
upon the subject. He (Mr. Baring) differed with the Right
Hon. Baronet only on one point—he would have wished that
the Committee should have been empowered to examine into the
merits of the various Bills, and not have been confined, as was
proposed, to the. mere examination of the tendencies of those
amalgamations. He thought that they ought to decide upon
the comparative merits of the Bills brought before them. Ile
thought that these amalgamation Bilis should be all grouped
together, and that it would give rise to less inconvence to the
promoters of the several Bills. Let them go to that Com-
mittee, and let it determine on the nature of these Bills, for
why should they subject them to a remote trial. He did not
consider that the suggestion of the Member for Bath could
by any means be adopted, as it would be a source of endless
confusion ; what he would recommend was, that they should
extract all the amalgamation Bills, and put them into one group.
They should then refer them to a Committee of five, to be em-
powered to examine into their merits, and make their report
to the House, which report should be decisive of the fate of
these Bills, they would thus obtain the very report for which
they were now seeking. He should like to hear what argu-
ments would be urged against giving to this Committee a
power to decide upon the merits of this Bill.
Mr. PACKE said that if the motion were agreed to, the
public would suffer much loss.
Mr. MORRISON did not think that the sending of those
Bills to a Committee, for the purpose of considering their
merits, would be the proper plan. They had had enough of
such legislation ; what they now wanted was the laying down
of a principle which the Government should apply in all cases.
For instance, before they were prepared to decide upon this
great question of amalgamation, as had already been suggested
by his Hon. Friend, it should be determined to what extent
they would sanction the amalgamation of such great railway
companies as now possessed what must be called great
legal monopolies.—( Hear, hear.) If that had been
done some years ago many evi!s of which they
had now to complain in railway matters would not
now exist. He thought that railway companies coming now
before the House, praying for powers to amalgamate should be
treated as new companies, and therefore subjected to all those
preliminary conditions to which the promoters of all new Bills
had to submit.—(Hear, hear.) But, independently of that,
there were a great many things that had been quite neglected,
which were very necessary in these matters ; and those things
could have been dorm without at all affecting their tariffs. For
instance, he might quote the present system of carrying
goods on railways, which much needed amending. They
ought to require that railway companies should charge every
person alike ; and he would propose that if one party was
charged more than another, lie should have power to recover
back the overcharge in one of the legal tribunals. Thee
matters ought to be settled at once, and they could easily do it,
for whenever a company came for new prices their line ought
to be treated as a new one. There cu4ht in his opinion to be
one general rule applied to railways, and all company's required
to charge one rate of fares. But he might be told, that a line
which passes through a poor country could not charge so low
fares as a company which ran through a populous country. His
answer, however, to that was very simple. If the line would not
pay at particular fares, the line ought never to have been made.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that if the Vice-President
of the Board of Trade were to apply his attention to the amal-
gamation of railways, the result of his opinions would furnish a
much better guide than could be obtained from the appoint-

went of the proposed Committee.
Mr. DUNCOMBE was of opinion that the amalgamation
of railway Bills was a matter attended with very considerable
difficulty. He had, on one occasion, been a member of a
Committee which had to deal with the amalgamation of the
Grand Junction line and the Birmingham and Gloucester
Railway. In that inquiry the Committee complained very
much of having no distinct reference to guide them in coming
to a decision. He was of opinion that a preliminary Commit-
tee should ke appointed, as the House at presenk certainly was
not in a position to deal with the amalgamation Bills. The
lion. Member for Inverness seemed to be satisfied that some
of the amalgamation Bills might be allowed to pass. Hon.
Gentlemen used the term amalgamation iiTltoo loose a man-
ner, and frequently in ignorance of what this term really
meant. He (Mr. Duncombe) supposed that amalgama-
tion meant that the conducting of the affairs of two
railways should be brought under the superintendence
of one Board. But there existed two kinds of
aanalgamation, one of which consisted of union for the public
advantage, and the other of union to promote private interests.
Now it was to provide against the monopoly which the latter
kind of amalgamation would result in, that the House should
be specially careful. He thought that a Committee should be
appointed to make a preliminary inquiry into the nature and
objects of any preposcd amalgamation ; and such Committee
would not at all interfere with the motion of his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Inverness..

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entertained
similar opinions with those pronounced by the lion. Gentle-
man who had just sat down. lie believed that it was neces-
sary that some definite rules should be laid down with respect
to the amalgamation of railways, for it was perfectly true,
as the Hon. Gentleman had observed, that nothing could be
more indistinct than the case of amalgamation which had
been brought before the House. He must say, that looking
at the subject in all its hearings, the best mode of proceeding
appeared to him, to appoint a Committee in which the House
could have confidence, and of which Committee the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade should be chairman, to in-
vestigate the merits of the various amalgamation Bills, and
report their opinion accordingly. It struck him (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer), that this mode of proceeding could
not interfere with the motion of the Hon. Member for Inaer-
ness, and would, at the same time, tend very materially to
facilitate the progress of public business.
Mr. lIIJAIE would humbly submit to the House that no
more amalgamations of railway companies s'aoulcl be allowed to
take place until the report of the Committee of 1845 had been
produced, and he would further propose that the consideration
of every case of amalgamation should he postponed until the
report of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire
into the subject should be obtained.
Mr. W. R. COLLETT considered that whenever amalga-
mation had taken place, the public had been greatly benefited—
the fares had invariably been lowered, and every pains had been
taken to meet the public convenience. lie had always enter-
tainesl the opinion that the House was favourable to the amal-
gamation of railways, and felt surprised that there should now
exist any desire to throw a difficulty in the way.
Lord HARRY VANE suggested that certain general prin-
ciples might be laid down, so that those who had to deal with
the matter might be able to form some definite judgment as to
the practicability and utility of any proposed amalgamation.
Ile could not see that any bad result would be the consequence
of postponing the consideration of the amalgamation Bills to
another session. Until the matter had been thoroughly sifted,
it would be difficult to say, whether, when deciding on any
amalgamation Bill, the Committee were not preventing the con-
struction of a lino which would be more be.neficial to the public.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN then briefly replied, and proposed
that the adoption of the report of the Railway Committee of
1845 should be added to the original motion.
In reply to a question from Mr. SMYTHE,
Mr. W. PATTEN said it was not his intention to exclude
the consideration of the amalgamation of canals from the atten-
tion of the Committee, and he would insert the word "canal."
in every case after railway.
The resolution as amended, was then
put from the Chair, and
agreed to.
Mr. HUME wished to ask two questions of the Noble
Lord the President of the Board of Control. He wished to
know if there was any truth in the reports which appeared in
the Paris papers with respect to our affairs in India ? The
second question which lie wished to have answered was
whether the Government had taken into their consideration
the present system of communication with India by our over-
land mail? He thought that the Government should do some-
thing to save them front depending upon such reports, by
establishing abetter means of communication, more especi..lly
when it was shown by Mr. Waghoen that he had been enabled
to anticipate the overland mail by forty-eight hours.
Lord JOCELYN said thet, as the Indian mail had not
yet arrived, he could not give a positive answer as to the cor-
rectness of the reports in the Paris papers. With respect to
the second question, he would say that the Governmenthad it
under their consideration, and would, no doubt, adopt some
measure to meet the inefficiency of the present means of com-
munication.
Sirm at R.
rtnhtne e
ht Houseo of this
ho
country,
w thi s
in-
f io
as the subject was most important to many, perhaps his ex-
planation; PEELiad
gorzeihsheedd tt o
he
planation; would far to allay any anxiety. The intelligence
-was telegraphed from Marseilles to Paris, and the French
Government immediately communicated it to her Majesty's
Government. This was all the authority at present for the re-
ports in question.
Lord PALMERSTON wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government,
with respect to their relations with Buenos Ayres. lie wished
to know if they were at all acting in the war which was going
en between the Republic of Buenos Ayres and Monte Video?
The language of the Government in Parliament was the
language of peace, but the acting of their ministers at these
places were the acts of war. There had been advertisements
for ships to remove the British subjects from Buenos Ayres
to Monte Video, and this looked as if the Government of this
country had taken part with tl.e latter republic. If they
were at war with Buenos Ayres it was right that the Govern-
ment should communicate the fact, and if not it was proper that
such should be stated. He thought it necessary for her
Majesty's Ministers to say whether or not they had sanctioned
the acts of their ministers at these places. Without reading
the instructions of the Government to their consuls, it was
difficulte
et o
omr ak e
war.o u t
iwi letewt
sehr
eric
taoo t
ktnhole f groemn t ltehme ainzi dt allot end.
Baronet if the country was at war with Buenos Ayres?
Sir R. PEEL thought, as the notice of the Noble Lord was
not very formal, it would be better that he should simply
answer the question, and he would recommend that no
discussion should take place. It was with great reluctance
that her Majesty's Government had interfered with the affairs
of Buenos Ayres, and it was not till protesting became almost
intolerable that this country interfered. The independence of
the republic was established through the interference of this
country, and it was acknowledged by the Brazils. The inte-
rests of England were greatly connected with the two repub-
lics, and the mercantile interests were very much injured by
the continuation of hostilities- The Government of this
country represented to France that the war seas most injurious
to the mercantile interests, and in conformity with those re-
presentations, treaties were made and accepted in 1 811 by
Monte Video, and rejected by Buenos Ayres. By these
treaties England had no other object but the restoration of
peace—no accession of territory was sought, for that was out
of the question. Englansli and France at a later period sent a
special mission, recommending a cessation of hostilities, and, it
possible, to restore peace. The proposals were again accepted
by Monte Video, but were rejected by Buenos Ayres. It was
then agreed by the two Governments that they would not in-
terfere by force unless actually compelled. The instructions
whi,-h had been given by this country to their Ministers

rl
...

rA

there were now laid on the table, and he could assure the Noble
Lords and the House that those instructions did not amount
to a declaration of war. The question put by the-Noble Lord
was, whether we were or were not at war with Buenos Ayres?
This country was not at war with that republic, although it
was true that a blockade of Cuba and the River Plate, by the- -
instructions of the Government, had taken place • but this did
not amount to a declaration of war. The expedition up the
River Panama had not been contemplated by the Government,
but no doubt the explanation of the minister there would be
quite satisfactory as to such a proceeding. With regard to the
removal of several of her Majesty's subjects from Buenos Ayres,
the Noble Lord, he apprehended, was under an erroneous im-
pression. The fact was this, some subjects of her Majesty,
being alarmed for their personal safety, left Buenos Ayres and
went to Monte Video, and applied to Mr. Owsley for assistance
and protection. Their removal was quite voluntary; Mr.
Owsley contributed as much as he could to their comfort and
safety, but being persons of agricultural pursuits, and the
country not affording scope for the exercise of their pursuits,
Mr. Owsley found it necessary to remove them, with their
own consent. He believed that he had then answered the
questions of the Noble Lord as far as was necessary ; further
than that he could not go, without provoking a discussion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he rose to express a hope that the
Right Dien. Baronet would give, either at that moment, or as
soon as possible, some further information on the subject. The
Right Hon, Gentleman had admitted there had been ships
taken and ordered for sale. Now, certainly, it required some
Order of Council to justify the Admiral in such proceedings;
and with respect to the operations of the troops, he wished to
know how they could be accounted for.
Sir R. INGLIS wished to make an observation, About two
centuries ago—(Laughter)—a fleet sailed up the Medway, and
laid waste everything. They had an instance, also, of a Rus-
sian fleet committing the most enormous ravages. Now, be-
tween these cases and the present he saw no difference what-
ever, to satisfy the friends of peace. How, for instance, could
the Quakers be satisfied that England was not at war with
Buenos Ayres, when all the incidents of war that occurred at
Navarino, and in other naval engagements were enacted ?
He wished to know what the distinction between war and
peacdestruction
owfwhen
puenr (tlye b olt forms
f sueheetnheset
irtu
tsa s loss
evd peace, f lei fe a andagain
i n
wished to ask what was the difference between it and war?
Sir R. PEEL said that if the Hon. Baronet referred to the
records of the year 1828, the period of Navarino, he would
find that there was a declaration of war, and that England ac-
tually was at war.—( Hear, hear.) In the present instance,
the blockade was directed by the command of her Majesty's
Ministers, and whatever responsibility attached to such the
Ministers and representatives of her Majesty were ready to
undertake. He thought her Majesty's subjects, sailors and
soldiers, engaged in the blockade, were entitled to the greatest
credit for their gallantry in the affair; and he should conclude,
by stating, that he was not then prepared to lay before the
House further information in respect to the matter, but as
soon as he could do so, consistently with the public interest, of
course he would take an early opportunity of laying it before
the House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, that in the last serlon of
Parliament he had presented several petitions in reference to
the subject then before the House, and he then begged to say
\epltyyeae,NtFxr
sltaoohst
persons,
taxation
epeoi etprnarn
petitionAeyaasri navigation i
inggcti
‘aleeitfdsoiEworoan;
saios,
fnefout
oit
petition
oeEn River Plate.
that whatever the policy of Government might be, he hoped
they would osu.ldcpßrAoi%
MEASURES.
Rochdale,
immediateto
00nl
itereemdo
punlcatttiheo
den
y
ordered as
bs andiygn theeadb abolition
Government.tiBo,n 0f
table.

Sir H. PEEL said he had been requested to present two
petitions. The first was from Liverpool, and the commercial
interests of that city prayed that the Government would not
delay its decision in abolishing protective duties. No petition
was ever more respectably signed than was the present by gen-
tlemen of all parties. He had been informed, that in the
course of a few hours 414 of the signatures of the most respect-
able gentlemen in that city had been attached. Every banking
hou ein the city subseiibed to the document. It bore the sig-
natures of 1114 merchants and shipowners, and 193 ship-
brokers. The petitioners stated that every branch of trade
was paralysed by the uncertainty and indecision tha
at present existed ; and they prayed that the Go-
vernment would, at as early a day as possible,
pronounce its decision. The second petition was from
Manchester, and bore the signatures of 1,122 gentle-
men, attached in the short space of twenty-four hours. It
had been signed by the eminent bankers, by fifty-five members
of the town-council, and by the greater number of the large
houses engaged in the East and West Irplia trade, the Canada,
Russian, and American trade; and he cSir H. Peel) had been
assured that the capital pos.,e,,sed by those on whose behalf the
petition was signed, did not fall much short of thirty millions.
—( Hear, hear. ) The petitioners stated that they observed
wit!' much satisfaction the course adopted by her Majesty's
Government, and prayed that, while they admitted the pro-
priety of giving due deliberation to matters of such grave im-
portance, the House would pronounce its decision on as early
a day possible..--( Hear, hear.)
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

An Bos. MEMBER (N, hose name we could not learn) pre-
sented 46 petitions from Buckingham, against the measures in-
troduced by her Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. El WA LL presented some petitions in favour of the
measures submitted by Ministers.—Ordered to lie on the table.
:THE CORN-LAWS.

On the order of the day, that this Bill be read a second time,
being put.
Mr. ELIOT Y ORK E said that, unaccustomed as he
was to address the House, and, knowing his own deficiency, he
hesitated to appear before them ; but he was urged on to the
discharge of the duty by the petitions which he held in his
hand, signed as they were by an immense number of agricultur-
ists, and therefore he could nit then, as formerly, give a silent
vote on the question, lest the truth of his own opinions
should be doubted, and the sincerity of his professions Mt-
rcetee.—(Hear, hear.) Ilia intention on that occasion was to
rime that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
—( Hear, hear.) In advancing to that subject he would say,
if the Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the
House folt as he did, he entreated of them not to be deterred
by what had taken place, but by every form which the House
• recognised, and by the adoption of every course which it
sanctioned, to unite and exert themselves for the defeat of the
measure then before the House.—( Hear, hear.) He objected
to the Bill te,rairse it sought to repeal a principle which
had been recrgnised by the people of England as
identified with their best interests.—( Hear, hear.)
It was stated that no apprehension is manifested in the agricul-
' tural districts on thii subject, but he could answer that the sen-
. .

time nts of the district which he represented were not in its
favour. That district was an area of 1,600,000 acres. It was
formerly a wilderness, now it was a great corn-growing district.
But in order to bring it to this state a large expenditure had
taken place. Not less than live millions had been expended to
bring these wastes into cultivation ; and all this had been done
on the faith of protection.—( Hear, hear.) At the present
moment they were subjected in that district to an annual tax of
from Bs. to 12e. per acre, or an aggregate tax of 80,0001. per
annum. If prices fell, as he expected they would, the amount
of distress that must tesult would be appalling. He did not
expect a reduction in prices this year, while so much capital
was expanded on public works; but as soon as that capital was
withdrawn their prices would fall, and general depression over-
take all engaged in agricultural operations. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then read several extracts, from correspondence he had
had with parties in the agricultural districts in support of this
view of prices, showing that, next year, with the Government
measure in operation, and an average crop, the price of
wheat would be from 40s. to 455. per quarter, and that the
wages of the labourers would have to be reduced at least 2s.
per week. lie had that day received a letter from a gentleman,
stating that at the present moment an eminent corn merchant
in Gloucester had imported,' wheat from Odessa at 375. per
gunner. He had also received information that several parties
engaged in agriculture intended to remove abroad, and de-
vote themselves to the raising of wheat, if the Government
measure was carried into effect. All this showod that it was

impossible for the farmers go on under the new system, and
meet payments. He had been furnished with several calcula-
tions on the subject. One was, that in a farm of 400 acres,
on which there was a loss under protection ,of 3471., under
free-trade the loss would be 8561. Ps. 2d.—( Hear, hear.) On
another farm of 800 acres, it was calculated that the loss under
the corn measure would not be less than 6'35/. I Is. Bd., or a
suns nearly equal to the whole rent.—(Hear.) Yet this was a
farm that paid 1,200/. per annum for labourers' wages. The
Hon. Member then referred to certain returns respecting the
amount of disease to the agricultural districts in various years,
showing that in those leers when corn was cheapest disease
and distress most abounded. He also referred to the tables of
prices, furnished by Mr. Crooke, showing that the effect of an
overabundance was to produce a state of suffering and distress
in the agricultural districts, and among the labouring classes.
could
ipresent law a
required,
e 7 ficai
ssr
the
ed moderateGevernin prices,
Government wanted
a nd was
low allp r
itcheast.
Ltrheesys dani dd sloe,
sct h
we n h e
geee
thee d shown
heli oltn
avbe
utrhiantg lowei prices
ass,meantHear
On this point he would refer to the authority of Lord
Fitzwilliarn, who said, that the repeal of the corn-laws meant
ruin to the farmers and destitution to the labourers.-.-
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. E. Yorke) would therefore
oppose the Bill by every means in his power, so as to
defeat the money corporation that was seeking the repeal of the
corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) But he would go still further to
prove the injurious operation of the relaxation of the protec-
tion principle. In the year 1844, the rates in the agricultural
districts were much higher than in the year 1842, though, in
the former period, the system had been relaxed. He further
objected to the measure before the House, on account of its
injustice. He did not deprecate the law from any selfish
or exclusive grounds, but because it would be an act
of spoliation in a great and important interest, which they
were bound to defend. And if the measure was carried by
the Government, he hoped they would not escape without that
denunciation and desecration which they deserved, and which
their treachery had justly earned..--(Hear, hear.) He ob-
jected to this measure. because, while it took away all
protection from the. agriculturists, it left on land and houses
Hoots
he
dfee
.ctchodauennegtprel
country. He
uponnlHes
se
theydi this
ncootn hesitates matter.e nconsented
They
to
oeo y s musta
all the great public burdens. of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
d
He did not avow these principles for the purpose of Making a
narrowly into this subject, and they should not have his assent
speech.
lttaaonxtgahtlogpneroowfphich the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary
say,
remodelin looktthh ee
fbrealuodwuhpiomn
.th the b. uv,b.
al isc
iheHesawmoeuldwsiatiylaawpoorsdtatcoythien
in 1839 used, that the Government had been guilt
of a gross
npeowyl i tpircossealsyteins
religion. The proselyte was only used to strike a blow, and
the blow having been struck, the apostate was kicked over, be-
cause he was not then trusted by those who had usedhim.
H. e (Mr. Yorke) begged to move chat the Bill be read a second
time that day six months.
Sir J. Y. BULLER agreed with the views expressed by his
Hon. Friend, and, supporting those views, he could not consent
to allow the Bill further to proceed. He had supported the
last alteration in the corn-laws, believing that no further alter-
ation would be proposed, at all events during the present Par-
liament. He had been greatly disappointed when he had heard
of the determination of the Government. He had not yet re-
covered from that disappointment.
Mr. 11PGEACHY would support the measure of her Ma-
jesty's Government, because
he believed it wise and politic.
Having supported the reductions
in the tariff, and looking to
the effect of those reductious, he thought there was
every encouragement to proceed. —( Ilear, hear.)
Every man
who looked candidly and fairlyinto the position,
and the difficulties of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the Government, during the last year, would not, in his
opinion, use any harsh expressions towards him for the mea-
sures which he had brought forward ; they i . would n fact con-
fess that he had acted the part of a wise and experienced
statesman. Every dispassionate man, who viewed the position
of the poorer classes of this country, would refrain from charg-
ing the Right lion. Baronet with inconsistency for having pro-
posed his present measures. There was one point to which he
would allude for a moment, as he conceived that the prevalence
of the present system wa,s. injudicious,.r and injurious to the in-
terests of the country. Ihe NI, hig party themselves, until a
veryrecent period, were protectionists, and a great portion of
the political difficulty of the present crisis was increased by the
fact of the Noble Lord, the Member for London, having been
unable to accept the reins of Government, which had been
abandoned by the Right Hon. Baronet and his colleagues. It
was evident that the cause of that non-acceptance of office was
the weakness and dissensions of that political party. Such a
course would surely lead to the most injurious consequences.
What would be the practical results of such a course? Why,
that the country would be governed by the Exeter-hall or
Anti-Maynooth.Committee, or by 17, Old Bond-street ur the
Central Protection Society, and all its most remote provincial
branches. But there was one other point en which he would

0 N p