The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-11 00:00:00

:ouse then adjourned till Thursday.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. JAMES STCART WORTLEY took the oaths, and
his scat for Bute.
Leave was given to bring in several railway Bills,
among which was the Windsor, Slough, and Staines
Atmospheric
Mr. HUDSON brought in the York and North Midland
(Whitby Extension) Railway Bill, which was read a
tint, and ordered to be read a second time.

Sir JOHN EASTHOPE presented several petitions from
Leicester in favour of the Government measure for the
abolition of duties on food.
A vast number of petitions were also presented for and
against the measure.
Mr. HS DsoN presented a petition from Sunderland
For the immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. BYNO presented a petition from Kensington in
favour of the Ministerial plan for the reduction of the
duties on food. The petitioners, however, stated that
they would have preferred the total repeal of the corn-
laws to the delay of three years.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from London,
signed by 64,000 persons, in faTout of free trade.

Colonel &smoltr gave notice of his intention to
move for returns of the salaries of all persons receiving
above 500/. a year under the Government since 1795.
On the motion of Mr. Youxu, a new writ was moved
for Westminster, in the room of Captain Rous, who
had accepted the office of one of the Lords of the
Admiralty.
In answer to the following questions from Sir H. WIN-
S'ION BARRON. What amount of funds there are now
available for the purpose of lending, with interest, to-
wards carrying on public works in Ireland. Also, if it
is intended to propose or sanction any measure by
which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland
would be empowered to sell any portion of their estates,
and thereby pay off the 60,0001. they borrowed from the
Government?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was
a sum of 300,0004 placed at the disposal of the Board of
Works for Great Britain, upon which demands might
be made from Ireland, and there was a further sum of
60,0001. annually voted for Ireland. There was now
unapplied a sum of 52,000/. As to the question with
respect to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, there was a
sum of 100,000/, lent to them, which had been paid.
Mr. IlustE moved that a humble address be presented
to her MAJESTY, that she will be pleased to direct co-
pies of the existing tariffs and commercial regulations
of' each of the British colonies and possessions to be laid
before this House, in the same manner as the tariffs and
commercial regulations of Europe and America have
been laid before the Home- And also that there
be laid before this House copies of the existing
tariffs and commercial regulations of British India and
the dependencies thereof, on exports and imports, in the
same manner as those laid before the House of the
European and American States.'

After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
Mr. F. BARING recommended that the subject should
be referred to the Printing Committee.
Sir R. Ist;ms said that this particular report did not
come under the cogcizance of the Printing Committee.
But when an Hon. Member stated in his place that such
a report was full of errors, he thought that some oppor-
tunity ought to be afforded him of substantiating his
statement.

In reply to Mr. EWART, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said
it was not the intention of the Governinent to introduce
a measure for giving to parties aggrieved a right of ap-
peal in criminal cases.
Certain unopposed returns having been moved for and
agreed to,
The order of the day for resuming the adjourned de
bate was read, and
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN complained that the Govern-
ment had not yet thought fit to consult the agriculturists
at all on this measure. He had little hope of attracting
the attention of the House ; he had not changed, and
therefore he had nothing to explain, but remained in the
same state of bigotry in which he had ever been. The
law of 1815 might have been the greatest error
that the landed interest had ever committed,
but he would ask who had encouraged them to persevere
in that error? Year after year the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton had given them an opportunity of re-
trieving that error, and year after year the Right Hon.
Gentleman had urged them to persevere in it. He
would not impute to the occupants of the Treasury
bench dishonesty, but this country had hitherto been
governed by party ; and if parties were to be broken up
in this way, he would ask how the Government of the
country was to be conducted? Ile had no hesitation in
avowing that he was a party man ; and if ever there was
an opposition conducted by party tactics for party ends,
it was the opposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman to
the late Government. It was a bitter disappointment to
find him now eschewing all party. The Right Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last night said that the law of
1842 had failed. Had it failed to the SIDNEY HERBERT
of last year, or to the SIDNEY HERBERT of this year ?
If the law had failed iii regard to the question of ave-
rages, it must be a reason for re-adjusting those ave-
rages ; and if he found the sliding-scale fail, that was
no reason for giving up protection—they had still the
sliding-scale to fall back upon. If it had been merely a
question of duty, why had they raised such an agitation
on the subject? It was not on a mere question of im-
port duty that the present Government had dis-
placed the last. If the present Government had
changed their opinions, let them avow the change,
and give due credit to those who had always upheld
those principles; but let them not deprive them of the
credit due to them by saying that this was a mere
question of import duties. He was not careless of the
evils impending over Ireland; but a particular evil re-
quired only a particular remedy, and although the
ports might be opened to prevent a famine in Ireland, yet
there was no necessity for repealing the corn-laws. All
the authorities in Ireland agreed that the destruction of
agriculture in that country would be its ruin. He ad-
mitted the existence of the potato disease, and if it had
progressed he was convinced there would not have been
a potato left in Ireland. The rot had been stayed, but had
now recommenced, and he believed that the Government
was prepared to meet the emergency; but he denied that
the case of famine in Ireland would be met by the pro-
posed alteration in the corn-law. He believed that the
landowners in Ireland were greatly responsible for the
distress existing in the country, but he denied that a re-
peal of the corn-laws would provide a remedy for the
distress. From what had fallen from the Noble Lord
last night, he assumed that the principle on which the
Government was henceforward to be conducted was that
no favour was to be shown either to agriculture or
manufactures, but that each was to be left to find its own
level. He denied that the sciences of political economy
and of legislation were identical. The science of poli-
tical economy was the science of amassing and distri-
buting wealth, which was :only one of i:the many
elements which entered into the science of legislation.
Equal neglect was not impartial kindness, and it was
not right to leave the labour of the poor to unprotected
competition with foreigners, or to be crushed by the
rich. They in the House were all rich, and encouraging
the doctrine that they were to buy in the cheapest
market. They were encouraging a selfish doctrine,
which would alienate from them the affections of the poor.
It was a doctrine of political economy which few
of them could understand, but the selfishness of which
they could all of them perceive. It was unwise to pro-
pound that rule—it was dangerous to act upon
it. Agriculture was salubrious and condu-
cive to health, and a wise Legislature would pro-
tect and encourage such a calling. He objected
to any change in the present corn-laws, but if any
change were to be made, he agreed with the Noble Lord
opposite that it should be complete, and should take
place.at once. He did not believe that this was the
question of the great landed proprietors, but a tenant-
farmers' question, and for that reason he would
not consent to alter the law. The landlord
would weather the storm, but the enterprising
manufacturer would come in, offer a higher
price for the land than the farmer, make it
bear six quarters an sere instead of three, and the tenant-
farmer would be ruined, turned out of his farm which
had been held by his father and his grandfather before
him. He would raise his voice against the injustice of
such a proceeding, and would not assist in enabling the
Government to trample over men whose only, whose
fatal fault was, that they had trusted in them.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAM FORD asked how the protec-
tionists could claim a right to raise the price of food
artificially by Act of Parliament, unless they were pre-
pared at the same time to secure by Act of Parlia-
ment to the working men of this country con-
stant employment and a certain rate of wages?
In Ireland the agricultural labourer, the tenant-farmers,
and the landlords, had all been brought into a state of
the deepest distress by this system of protection,
and he considered that a system of free trade was their
only chance for a revival of prosperity. In the purely
agricultural districts of Ireland the distress was the
deepest ; for in the north, where there were
manufactures, there was comparative _prosperity.
One of the great causes of Irish distress was, that the
people were compelled to depend upon the potato for
subsistence, and hence they were subject to periodical
famines. Now, by reducing the price of corn, the people
where rendered independent of the potato, they would be
used to a better class of food, and the landlords would
be forced to improve the estates by which the produce
would be doubled. He cordially supported the proposi-
tion of the Government.

Mr. BAILLIE Mt that ire e
free trade. Foreigners believed
~,
at a cheaper rate than they should never be able to
convince foreign nations of th
ierefore they
protective
duties. truth of the doctrines of
could,
and cowe manufacture
had fostered their own manufactures by
duties. We had, by the aid of machinery, supplant
cotton manufacturers of India, and he doubted i 1 ;:hny
e
conqueror had ever inflicted so much misery as we had
by supplanting their native domestic industry.
Such had been the rei.ults of free trade to India ;
and seeing that, it vvas not to be wondered at
that foreign nations declined to try the experiment; and
the question was now, should we try the experiment on
ourselves ? The prosperity of the last three years vi as
owing to the prosperity of agriculture during those
three years ; and it was as necessary for us to protect
our agriculturists against foreign competition, as it was
for foreigners to protect their manufacturers against our
competition.t Such was the inferiority of our cli-
mate,
fully
.h to compote auceeesat it was impossible for our agricul-
turists with foreigners, The

greater part of the grain grown in this country was in-
ferior in quality to the grain grown in Poland, and if
good Polish wheat were admitted to the markets, there
would be no sale for the inferior sorts of British wheats.
If it were a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, it
would be advantageous to turn a portion of our lands
into pasture and to purchase our wheat from abroad;
but this was a national question, and it would be most
unwise in us to depend upon foreigners for our food.
Considering, however, the position of parties in the
House and•the country, he considered that they had but
the choice of two alternatives—to support the Govern-
ment measure, or to throw out the Government and let
in Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Under these circumstances
he should support the Government measure as the one
least calculated to do evil.

Mr, LEFROY denied that the measure proposed by the
Government would benefit either the labourers, the
farmers, or the landlords of Ireland, and as an Irish
Mezabcr he felt bound to oppose it.
Lord CLEMENTS, as one most intimately acquainted
with the wants and wishes of the agricultural pcpuld-
tion of Ireland, declared that nothng could be more des-
-titute or deplorable than their state under the present
system of protection. The miserable state of the Irish
population had been recently brought under public notice
by the Times' commissioner, and there was not a single
statement of his that was overcharged.

The report of the Earl of DEVON bore testimony to
the extreme wretchedness of the Irish peasantry, and
the Earl himself bore witness to the truth of the state-
ments therein contained. He bad hardly ever known a
summer in Ireland without a scarcity in consequence of
failures of the potato crop; and although during the present
year many had provided against the impending famine by
lying in stocks of oatmeal, yet there were many thou-
sands too poor to do so ; and what, he would ask, had
been the benefit of protection to these poor persons? It
had not provided them either with food or employment,
considering the whole measure brought forward by the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government,
he should heartily give it his support, though he must
confess he would much rather have bad it come into
immediate operation than have been delayed for three
years.

The Marquis of G RANBY objected to the motion. He
was sorry to oppose any measure proposed by the Right
Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government,
but the present propositions were so sweeping
and so calculated, as he believed, to produce the worst
results, that he felt bound to oppose them, though, he
believed, the Right Honourable Baronet was sincere in
bringing them forward. He (die Marquis of GRANBY)
believed that protection was justice, and that those who
supported it II ould be honoured by posterity.
Mr. GREGORY supported the measures brought for-
ward by the Government, believing that the principles
of free trade were the principles of common sense.
He contended that agriculture had flourished, not thrOugh
protection, but in spite of protection. It had been said
that he ought not to vote for this measure as an Irish-
man, because Mr. O'CONNELL intended to support it for
some sinister purpose. Though he differed from that
Hon. Gentleman in many things, he did not believe that
any sinister motive had induced him to support this
measure.

Lord BROOKE could not support the measures pro-
posed by the Government. Although he was sure the
Right Hon. Baronet was sincere in his motives, he very
much doubted the sincerity of many of those who sup-
ported him. The Noble Lord the Member for Liver-
pool had let out the secret of that support ; it was from
the fear of losing the great talents of the Right Hon.
Baronet in conducting the Government. The Noble
Lord deprecated the course pursued by the Anti- Corn-
law League in its endeavours to increase the number of
voters, and denounced their proceedings as illegal and
unconstitutional.

Lord WORSLEY thought the Government were wrong
in proposing the measure, and he believed that the re-
sult would be that the Right Hon. Baronet would never
again be called the farmers' friend. If the corn-law was
to be altered or repealed, let it be altered at once, and
not delayed for three years. He believed that delay had
been most unwisely introduced by the Government, be-
cause, blink the question as they pleased, before that
time expired a new Parliament would be called, at the
election of the Members for which the agriculturists
would call upon those who asked for their suffrages to
support their interests, by re-considering the proposition.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he did not believe that
the repeal of the corn-laws would materially affect the
price of corn, but it would ensure the consumer the in-
valuable benefit of providing against those excessive high
prices which might take place if there was a deficient
harvest in this country. He was rejoiced to see that
the Noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of
Yorkshire—from whom he had often differed, but who
was one of the greatest ornaments of the House—had, on
the hustings, announced sentiments nearly similar to
those which he had attempted to announce that night.
He did not believe that the landlords would
suffer by the abrogation of the corn•laws ; but if
they were to suffer, he would rather thscend to a
lower station than submit to the obloquy of defend-
ing this law. It had been said that the proposi-
tion of the Go►ernment would break up that great Con-
servative party, but if it were not entertaine3, he
believed it would occasion throughout the country, not
the mere breaking up of a party, but anarchy, confusion,
and revolution.

Lord CLIVE, believing that an honourable understand-
ing existed between himself and his constituents, that he
should maintain the system of protection, felt it to be
his duty to vote against the proposition of the Govern.
ment.

Mr. COLQUHOUN rose to address the House, and was
met by loud cries of " Adjourn ! adjourn !"
Sir R. PEEL suggested that if the debate were to be
adjourned, it should be adjourned to Thursday.
_ _

Mr. BROTUERTON then moved that the debate be ad.
journed to Thursday, which was agreed to.
The other orders of the day were agreed to, and the
House adjourned.

Much interest, it appears, had been excited in various
quarters by the first night's debate on the corn-laws
in the Commons. The House was thronged on Monday evening
at an early hour, and numerous groups were col-
lected in the streets, as if in anticipation of some
momentous dise.osure, or splendid oratorical displays from
leading Members on both sides of the House. But never was
disappoint meat greater ;—for, taking the discussion altogether,
it was from beginning to end the most heavy, dull, contempti-
ble Parliamentary exhibition that could well be imagined. Ob-
solete opinions raked up, old tales repeated, Tory abuse of
the Tory leader, lamentation over the downfal of the
strong - Ministry, speeches without argument, and
quotations from old songs, and of the most com-
mon- place and even ridiculous character, occupied
the popular branch of the Legislature for some
six or seven hours. Even the speech of Lord JOHN RUSSELL
possessed the smallest possible interest. He had nothing
new to tell, he had no arguments to answer; not one of the
speakers on the other side advanced any charge against him
or his party, and the same scene will be repeated for at least
three or four nights more. On no occasion in tho history, of
Parliament was there ever such a lack of even third-rate
speakers (for those of the first and second class do not
exist), as are to be found among that party who regard
themselves as the pillars of the Stste, the guardians of
England's rights, and the only real friends of the poor,
helpless labourer, the oppressed farmer, and even the operative
manufacturer. It is unfortunate, as well as singular, that
sach a good cause should be so destitute of defenders, and that
all the able men of both parties should be so blind to the
best interests of their country as to forget even their poli-
tical animosities and unite in ruining these pa-
triots and philanthropists. A fatality has seized
our statesmen. PEEL and RUSSELL, and O'Cosi-
NELL end IlustE, have formed a most unholy and
dangerous alliance, the very Court has lent its aid
to carry out their mischievous schemes, and there
are few to resist their machinations except such
men as MILES and FiTnIAURICE, and BUCKINGHAM
and RicilMoND, backed by the Spitalfields' weavers.
What the result may be our readers can easily divine,
Blind must prevail over matter, and statesmen of long expe-
rience—men, too, who have no interest in changing their
opinions, except for the welfirre of their common country,
who, for this, have sacrificed -political ties, personal friend-
ship, and renounced long-cherished principles from the fullest
conviction--must in the end obtain the victory and carry their
plans into effect. In the meantime, however, their task is
very irksome. They are compelled to listen to the most vapid
and incoherent harangues, and nothing is advanced by their
opponents except what excites ridicule or contempt-
Mr. HOPE compares PEEL to WOLSEY, tells why the LORD
CHANcELLOB. sits on a sack of wool, and laments that
the commercial system of centuries is to be put an
end to, like " a mere flea-bite." Captain FrrzstautneE
showed that it came to the same tbing, whether
a man was killed by one thrust of a sword or by
inserting into his body ten thousand. needles ; that
Sir RoaLity PEEL'S views were traced in steam, and after
lamenting the protracted agonies of British farmers,
said they might well sing " Blow ye wintry
winds." These are fair specimens of the orations
made by the protectionists last evening, and we fear also of
those yet to come. The public, however, will bear with
them patiently; for they are of good omen. They announce
that monopoly will be destroyed without further agitation,
and that the most important commercial reforms that ever
distinguished and blessed a nation will be carried by the
most peaceable means.

The accounts from Ireland of the progress of famine and
of its attendant pestilence are really fearful. We have re-
ceived from Mr. Syx)rorr, the Secretary of the Dublin Man-
sion-house Committee on the Potato Disease, the recently
published report of the Committee on the subject, which