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

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. FINCH took the oaths and his seat for the county
of Rutland, in the room of Mr. Dawnay, who has ac-
cepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

THE GOVERNMEtif POLICY.

Sir JOHN HAN ATER presented four petitions from
the inhabitants of Hull, in favour of the financial and
commercial policy of the Government. The Hon. Me-
mber also presented a fifth petition, praying the Govern-
ment to take into consideration the duties on tea.
RAILWAY BUSINESS.

The following railway Bills were read a second time,
and ordered to be committed, viz.:—
York and North Midland Railway (Whitby and Pick-
ering Extension).
Blackburn, Chorley, and Liverpool Railway.
Liverpool, Ormakirk, and Preston Railway.
Blackburn and Preston Railway.
Ashburton, Newton, and South Devo❑ Railway.
North Staffordshire Railway (Ilarecastle and Saudbach
line).
North Staffordshire Railway (Churnet Valley line).
East Lincolnshire Railway.
Epsom and Dorking Railway.
Forth Kent Railway.
North Kent Railway (City Extension).
London and South Western Railway (Hampton Court
Branch).
London and South Western Railway (London Bridge
Extension).
London and South Western Railway (Chertsey and
Egham Branch)
London and South Western Railway (Epsom Branch).
Staines and .4ichmond Junction Railway.
Grand Junction Railway (Huy ton and Warrington
Branch).
Manchester and Birmingham Railway.
Mr. W. PATTEN wished to bring under the attention
of the House the proceedings of Parliamentary agents
with respect to the introduction of their Bills
into the House. It appeared that those gentlemen were
in the habit of giving the Bills one name before the
Board of Trade, a second name when brought into the
Private Bill Office, and a third title when introduced
into the House. This practice was attended with great
inconvenience, and rendered it almost impossible for the
Classification Committtee properly to classify the Bills
referred to them. He trusted that the House would
take some steps to remedy their practice.
Mr. GREENE moved—" That it be an instruction to

the Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, and to all
Committees upon Private Bills, not to hear parties on
any petition hereafter referred to them, which shall not
be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the
rules and orders of this House."

Mr. ENT WISLE thought that people ought to comply
with the standing orders themselves before making any
complaints.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the original ;notion
Against it
Majoriry for the original motion —42
CORN-LAWS.

Mr. T. M. GIBSON presented a petition from Man-
chester, in favour of the Government measure on the
corn-laws.

THE CONVICTS FROST, WILLIAMS, AND

JONES.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions pray-
ing the House to consider the condition of the convicts
Frost, Williams, and Jones, with a view to entreat her
Most Gracious Majesty to mitigate their sentence.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Air. COLLETT gave notice that it was his intention,
instead of moving fur a Select Committee, to move for
a Committee of Privilege, in reference to breaches of
some privilege committed by Noble Lords, Members of
that House, the names of four of whom he could then
mention.—(A laugh.)
Lord DUNCAN gave notice of his intention to post-
pone his motion from the 19th to the 26th of February,
in reference to the window duties.
THE WAR IN INDIA.

l2ir R. INGLIS wished to put a question in reference
to the recent outbreak in India. He wished to know if
the Government had received any positive intelligence
as connected with that outbreak ; and if they :had, that
it might be communicated to the House.
Lord JOCELYN, in reply, stated that no official in-
formation had been received by Government in reference
to that transaction. No official despatch had been re-
ceived; but a private letter had been received from the
Governor of Bombay, dated December 23, enclosing a
private communication from the Government of India,
which informed them that large bodies of the Sikh
troops crossed the Sutlej, against whom the British
troops advanced on the 18th of that month; but after
a march of three hours they had to give up, in con-
sequence of the extreme darkness of the night
The first entrenchment was taken on the 21st. Since
this private letter no communication had been received
by her Majesty's Government ; but when the dispatches
of Sir Henry Hardinge were received, they would no
doubt be highly satisfactory.
Mr. F. FRENCH wished to put a question to the
Right lion. the Home Secretary, as to the removal of
the board of guardians at Tuam, near Castlereagh,
Ireland. He wished to know why they were removed.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in reply to the Hon. Member,
had to say that the board of guardians had
positively refused to open the workhouse or even to
administer the poor laws, and the consequence was, that
the poor law commissioners were forced to remove them.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD had to request from
Sir Robert Peel an answer to the following question:—
whether it is the intention of her Majesty's Government
to propose to Parliament any measure on the subject of
the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.

Sir R PEEL said that he certainly did hope that her
Majesty's Government would be enabled to introduce a
measure on the subject referred to by the Hon. Member.
Mr. COLQUIIOUN begged leave to ask a question
of the Hon. Member for Cork. He wished to know
whether it was his intention to press the motion of
which he had given notice? on to-morrow (Tuesday)
evening ?
Mr. O'CONNELL said he certainly would if the
House would permit him.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.—CORN-LAW S.

On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned
debate being read,
Mr. ASTELL presented a petition from the parish
of St. Albans, praying the llouse not to pass the mea-
sure proposed by Government with reference to free
trade.

Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
county of Cork approving of the present measures of
her Majesty's Government. The petitioners stated that
they were engaged in manufactures, and that as they
neither had, nor desired to have, any protection on their
trade, they prayed the House to abolish all protection to
agriculture.
Mr. W. MILES presented several petitions from
Somersetshire against the present Government scheme.
Ile also presented a petition from distillers in
the souther❑ parts of Scotland, in which the petitioners
stated that they had embarked all their capital,
in their present trade, and that if the present measure
of her Majesty's Government were carried into effect,
not only themselves, but all in their employ would be ine-
vitably ruined, and they therefore prayed the House
not to persist in their present measure.
Lord WORSLEY presented a petition from Notting-
ham against the proposal of the Government, and in
favour of protection to native industry. The measure
of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Go-
vernment was in direct contradiction to those
principles which had brought him into office, and the
petitioners prayed that before the measure was passed
into law the country might be appealed to through the
medium of a general election; they felt confident that
a minority would then be found which would continue
protection to agriculture.
Mr. THORNELEY presented a petition from Finston,
in Staffordshire, in favour of free trade generally; and
the petitioners prayed that the repeal of the corn-laws
might be immediate.
An Hon. MEMBER presented petitions from sixty-
three parishes in Herefordshire, against the measures of
her Majesty's Government, and in favour of native
industry.
An Hon. MEMBER presented a petition, signed by 920
inhabitants of the town of Wellington, praying for the
removal of all restrictions on food.—(Hear.)
Mr. ORD presented a petition from the shipowners of
Newcastle, in favour of the Government measure.
Mr. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Mon-
mouthshire and other places, praying that the measure
of her Majesty's Government respecting a repeal or the
corn-laws may not pass into a law.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from several places
in Scorland in favour of the measure now proposed by
her Majesty's Government.
TIMBER DUTIES. _ _

Mr. HUTT presented a petition from one of the
largest ship owners in Hull, praying that the measures
of her Majesty's Government may pass into a law, as it
woul: have a salutary effect on the ship building of this
country, which was in a very depressed state at present,
in consequence of the duty on timber.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions in
favour of a total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from E4stbourne,
to the same effect.
Mr. BRIGHT presented petitions from places in
Northumberland, Cheshire, Worcestershire, Kent, Dor-
setshire, and Staffordshire, to the same effect.
Lord PALMERSTON presented two petitions limn
Scotland to the same effect.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from New-
castle-on-Tyne to the same effect.
Rir R. PEEL had a petition to a similar effect
from Tamworth.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioners con-
sidered that the measures proposed by her Majesty's Go-
vernment would give an impetus to agriculture
and tend to define plenty throughout the land, and there-
fore they desired to see it passed. This petition was
signed by the Mayor and several of the Town Council.
The Right Hon. Baronet presented petitions from Dun-
fermlin' the Corporation of Glasgow, Renfrewshiro,
Pollock, and Boston, in Lincolnshire to the same effcct.
THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned
debate being read

Lord MARCH said he could assure the House that
it was not his intention to enter at any great length
into the consideration of the question then before
it, or to trouble them with any statistical de-
tails, as Honourable Members who peeceded him
on Friday night had gone so fully into the
'natters that he would consider it presumptuous in him-
self to follow in that course. At the close of the de-
bate on Friday night a Noble Lord, the Member for
Dungannon, astonished him (Lord March) not a
little indeed.—(Hear and a laugh.) Although
from the recent conversions that he had noticed
he ought not to feel surprised.—(Hear, hear.)
That Noble Lord, in the short period of one month, had
made two speeches in that House, one on either 'side of
the question.—(" Hear," and a laugh.) However, it
was not for him (Lord March) to say to what that
change in his ideas was owing ; but he should
say that he did not seem to have attended to
the debate, for his speech had been al-
most one-sided. The Hon. Member for Bridport had
made a statement, and he (the Noble Lord) wished to
urge on him the necessity which every man of honour
in that House would admit to be correct, that no man
should make a statement in that House without being fully
convinced of its truth and accurrcy. He stated that a
Noble Duke, who was a Member of the Administration,
that passed the Reform Act, threatened to swamp the
House of Lords.

He must appeal to the Honourable Member whether the
Noble Duke did not resign his seat in the Cabinet when
such principles were broached, and he was sure that if
the Hon. Member was present, he would bear him out
in that statement.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the
Noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, would
bear him out in that statement. Now, with regard to the
immediate question before the House, he believed that it
would be the ruin of the agricultural classes of this
country. It was said that free-trade would be of im-
mense advantage to Ireland. This he could not believe,
for he had not heard of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Cork taking part in the debate. During the five
nights the question had engroast d the attention of that
House, the Hon. and Learned Member had
not risen in his place to state that her Ma-
jesty's Ministers were about to confer a great advantage
on Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned
Member had done no such thing. The Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of her Maj sty's Ministers had said
that the agriculturists should lay out more capital on
their land in order to make it more profitable. He had
said that the agriculturists did not yet know what great
benefits were to be derived by the improvements in
chemistry, as applied —to land—that they were yet
in their infancy. He (the Hon. Member) na..intained
that if they were in their infancy, they required protection
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the
speech which he made the other night, stated that the
feelings of the whole bulk of the community were in fa-
vour of a repeal of the corn-law. Now he would main-
tain that the contrary was the case, and that the great
feeling of the country was in favour of protection.—
(Hear, hear.) It was his opinion that the measure of
the Government was opposed to the wishes of the peo-
ple ; and if the Right lion. Baronet wanted a proof of
his statement, he would only refer him to the elec-
tions about taking place for Gloucester, Sussex,
and Dorsetshire. An Hon. Gentleman opposite men-
tioned the city of Chichester ; but he would tell him
that in a canvas made by his brother for five days in
that town there were not over twenty gentlemen in
favour of free trade. There was a show of hands cer-
tainly in favour of the measure.—(Hear, and cheers.)
His brother offered to go to the poll, but the free traders
refused, from the best of all possible reasons, because
they were certain of being beaten.—(Loud laughter.)
Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had as yet de
livered their opinions on this subject. Ile would wish to
know if they had changed, and what motives induced
them to support the Government ? The Noble Lord
did not say that in the year 1841. He was then an advocate
of protection to agriculture. It was no concern to him (the
Earl of March) how the Noble Lord at that time chose to
pledge himself to his constituents. But he (Lord Lincoln)
was sent to Parliament for the purpose of following and sup-
porting a party in favour of agricultural protection—( Hear)—
of which the Right Honourab'e Baronet at the head of the
Government was supposed to be the head.—(Cheers and
laughter from the Protectionists.) That party wos cer-
tainly opposed to the proposal of the Noble Lord the
Alember for the City of London; that party advocated
protection to agriculture in the strongest manner. He did
not impute to the Noble Lord (Lord Lincoln) any impure
motives in changing his opinions; but if he and the other Noble
Lord ( Lord John Russell) had altered their opinions on this
question he conceived that they were bound to consult their
constituents, and see whether they approved of the change.—
(protectionists' cheers.) Their constituents sent them to Par-
liament to protect agriculture,—( Hear, hear)— and they
were therefore in honour bound to support that in-
terest.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet
at the head of the Government, vt hen he was member for
University of Oxford, and chose to alter his opinions, at once
resigned his post. The Noble Lord (Lord Lincoln) in the
year 1841 had addressed his constituents in different language
to that which he now held. He then said that free-trade was
all humbug—(Laughter)—and that if protection were to be
taken off agriculture, it should also be taken off every article
of manufactures, to every one of which a large protection
was at present given by the Government.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, he opposed the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet,
because he (the Earl of March) considered the principles of
free trade which were advocated for corn were equally favour-
able and good with respect to every other article.—(lfear. )
He opposed the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R.
Peel), because it put forward no new arguments on the sub-
ject. It was not his wish to sacrifice one class of her Majesty's
subjects in the country for any other, because he thought the
interests of the agriculturists with those of the manufacturers
were closely and intimately united. He thought what was in.
jurious to one class, was equally so to the other. He -found
it impossible to advocate the measure before the House, from
the speech made by the Right. Hon. Baronet himself, if there
were uo other reason ; but when he (the Earl of March) felt
that it was wrong on principle and in justice, and detrimental
to all classes of her Majesty's subjects—Cries of " Oh,
he could not sanction such a measure.—(Cheers. )
Mr. BAILEY COCHRAN said he dial not wish
to misrepresent the conduct of the Noble Lord,
and that he was sure the Noble Lord would do
him the justice of thinking so. It was stated by the Noble Lord
that a certain Noble Duke stated that he would not oppose the
creation of Peers should such be necessary, and it appears that
such was proposed to be done.
Mr. GIBSON said it would be unnecessary for him to detain
the House at any great ;length en the subject of the corn-laws.
The main object which the party with which he was connected
had in view, was the abolition of all protection, and in that re-
spect he should be always happy to go with the Noble Lord
with his friends around him. But the question before them
was not protection to the manufacturers, but whether
they shold resolve themselves into a Committee of the whole
House to take into consideration the duty which regulated
the imports with a view to a repeal of these duties.—( Cries of
" No, no.") He imagined that each part of the Right Hon.
Baronet's plan would be discussed separately, and he imagined
that the question before them was the question of the corn-
laws.—( Hrar, hear.) He thought the question of what
Ministers had said at former times, or the relations in which
they stood to Hansard, was really of small moment to the
more important question of whether it was right or prudent to
repeal the corn-laws.--( Hear. ) They told him that the present
Parliament was elected to maintain protection, and therefore
this Parliament could not deal with protection, because that
question was settled at the general election of 1841. Now it
was because the question was settled at that election, that he
thought the present Parliament was the best fitted to decide
upon the proposition before them. If the question
of the abolition of the corn-laws had not been
mentioned in 1841, when it might have been urged that the
question could not be entertained by the present Parliament,
but the question of the repeal of the corn-laws was entertained
by the electors of 1841, and no Parliament could better decide
upon it than the present, for if they went to the electors again,
he was sure a more respectable class of men could not bereturned,
nor a class in whom the electors would have more confidence.
A great many Honourable Gentlemen opposite were in a po-
sition to entertain that question. Even at the present moment
a gentleman, a candidate for Suffolk, declared to his consti-
tuents that he would leave himself open to whatever he should
consider best for the interests of his country.—( Hear, hear. )
Now that gentleman, though a Protectionist at present, might,
on hearing the question discussed, be induced to give a vote
for the abolition of all protection. It happened to him (Mr.
M. Gibson) to know that appeals were made en behalf of the
friends of the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of
her Majesty's Government on these grounds as well
as on the grounds of protection. It had been urged
in the manufacturing districts that the Right Honourable
Baronet and his party would do more for free-trade principles
than would the Noble Lord the Member for London and his
party, were they in office; and he (the Hon. Member) was
reproached with being one of a party that could not effect so
much as the Administration of the present Premier. The
supporters of Sir George Murray took that ground ; though
every man of common sense knew that the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of her Majesty's Ministry professed free-trade
prin-
ciples,
and that he could do more for their advancement than
could Lord John Russell if in power. If there existed a charge
of deception or misleading of persons outside that House, that
charge should rest against the representatives of the agricultural
interest. They made the the tenant farmers believe that Parlia-
ment would maintain these protective laws. He could only say,
that, for himself, he had advised Hon. Members not to pursue
that course. He had advised them not to keep telling the
tenant farmers that the Right Hon. Baronet would support
those laws. They did, however. pursue their own course; they
persevered in telling the tenant farmers that those laws would
be supported, and they were now reaping the benefit of that
perseverance after. The Right Hon. Baronet had taken his
place in the Ministry on peculiar grounds. When called upon
to propose law in respect to the law effecting the agriculturist,
he was asked to state his vies ; and his reply was, " call me in,
and then I shall prescribe for you." They had called him
in, and he had prescribed for them a draught more
bitter than they seemed inclined to swallow.—( Laughter. )
They were told that the British farmer was unable to compete
with the Polish, because he had certain expenses in
the cultivation of the soil which were not borne by

the foreign farmer—(Hear)—and that in a farm Of
three parts arable land and one of pasture, labour rated
at 355. an acre, and local taxes at 25., making altogether a
tax of 375. an acre. They were also told that the average
quantity of wheat was four quarters to the acre ; now by
a common process of calculation they would find that
nine shillings a quarter on wheat was the item eomplanied
of as constituting the debility.—(Cries of " No, no," from the
Ministerial side.) Yes, the other items were borne by the
foreign farmers as well as by them, and they had re-
pudiated with indignation any intention of preserv-
ing high rents by maintaing protection. Could it
be denied that this was a fair statement ? Agricul-
tural labour in America was much more expensive than
it was in England.—( Hear, hear.) It was very well known
that the wages of agricultural labourers were at lesst double
in America as compared with agricultural wages in
England.— )Hear, hear.) It was urged by the protectionists
that they lay under peculiar burdens, bet the only local taxa-
tion which he knew of was Is. per quarter on corn, and
surely that could not disable English agriculturists from com-
peting with those in foreign countries.—( Hear.) It appeared
to him a perfect mystery bow they were disabled from
entering into such a corn petition. Why, the very fact of
the freight of Ks. or 10s. per quarter on wheat coming
from the United States, together with all other ex-
pense!, more than covered the amount paid by
English agriculturists in local taxation. The English
turists were protected by the natural corce of things,
and they could not rightfully complain of any injustice being
done to them by the present ministerial mea-
sure. He contended, that even if they could show that
they lay under any disabilities with regard to the price of
labour, they did not pay near as much as was paid by the foreign
agriculturist in importing his grain into this country,
and they were, therefore, entitled to no protection,