The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-30 00:00:00

~~ titni ,nt

LONDON, FRIDAY. JANUARY 30, 1846.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at Five o'clock.
The Toll bars (Scotland) Bill was read a second time.

The Duke of RICHMOND, in presenting several peti-
tions in favour of protection to domestic industry,
stated, that he and they entirely dissented from
the Ministerial proposition with regard to com-
mercial !policy, and that he considered the scheme
as unjust and uncalled for, and that he denied the
truth of the assertions on which the plan was based.
It was perfectly ridiculous to talk of this as a compro-
mise. It was no compromise at all ; and, besides, he
was averse to all compromise. They ought to have
stated what would be the price of corn under the system
before they talked of compromise. The farmers felt
they had been illtreated, and it would be dangerous to
pass the measure in opposition to their wishes. He
hoped their Lordships would throw out the Bill, and
force the Minister to appeal to the country. He
had no fear of the results, notwithstanding the
bribery of the Anti-Corn-law League ; but he,
Lord KINNAIRD, as a Member of the Anti-
Corn-law League, denied that they bad bribed.
He would not hold himself responsible for all
the language that had been held by them, and he
thought the Noble Duke would scarcely hold himself
responsible for all the language made use of at Pro-
tection Societies.
The Duke of RICHMOND would hold himself re-
sponsible for the language used at Protection Societies.
Lord KINNAIRD congratulated the Noble Duke. He
therefore held himself responsible for the gentleman
who had compared a Member of the other House to
Satan, and for the burning of the Times newspaper at
a protection meeting. The League had not bribed—
they had merely enabled persons to obtain the franchise
according to law. The Noble Duke, in advocating an im-
mediate appeal to the people on every great question,
was merely advocating Chartist doctrines, and if he
were to succeed, he would merely give rise to an agitation
for a further reform in Parliament.

After a few words from the Duke of BuckiNcßam,

Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask, with regard to Ore-
gon, if it were true that on a globe published under au-
thority, the American boundary had been drawn as laid
down by the American Government?

The Earl of ABERDEEN thought his Noble Friend al-
luded to some prior transaction. He had no objection to
lay before the House the instructions under which the
party had acted.

Earl GREY said t!-:at with regard to the proposals
for the reform of our commercial policy, if they were
to be opposed, he thought it would be better to meet
them by a resolution in favour of protection. He ap-
proved of the principle of the measure, but should have
preferred a repeal of the corn-laws at once. The three
years' duty was producing a state of indecision.
and was a mere mockery, continuing the uncertainty and
agitation which was the great evil of the present state
of things. The real security of the landed interest
consisted in granting leases ; and anything that pre-
vented this rendered that interest insecure. So low
was the stock of corn in foreign countries, that any al-
teration now would be attended with little effect ; but
these three years delay would dam up the current of
exportation from abroad for three years, and at
the end of that time would let in a flood of
foreign corn, to- the detriment of all parties.
He trusted that their Lordships would prevent this part
of the measure from passing. With regard to the mea-
sures of compensation, although some of them were just
in themselves, to talk of them as compensation was delu-
sive. The only real compensation would be to eats.
blish the principle of free trade completely in every-
thing as well as corn. If they were to sell cheap corn,
they ought to buy cheap coffee, cheap timber, and cheap
everything else, If the home producer would support
cheap competition why could not the colonial prcducer,
He trusted that if the experiment were tried as regarded
landowners it would be carried out as regarded others, to
the great benefit equally of the Treasury and the con-
sumer. He was sorry too to see that the fallacy which
he had thought utterly exploded of making a distinction
between free and slave labour sugar, that most absurd of
all fallacies, was still to be maintained. Ile had always
felt deeply attached to the principles of free trade, and
from the moment of his entrance into public life he
had denounced the principles of protection as, from first
to last, a mistake ; that the principles of free trade were
principles of common sense, and the sooner they were
adopted into our Legislature the better.
Lord AsanuteroziTeared that neither the Government
nor the House would ever be able to carry out the prin-
ciples of free trade, as advocated by the Noble Earl, in a
country placed in such a complicated position as this
country was placed in, owing to the great burdens which
were borne by this country. It was impossible tbat the
British farmer could meet the foreigner upon equal terms;
and all the authorities upon this subject, such as Mr.
HUSHISSON, Mr. RICARDO, and others, admitted that the
British farmer was entitled to compensation on account
of his peculiar burdens. As long as they bad the debt
in the state in which it was, and as long as
foreign countries continued in their present state, it was
perfectly Utopian to hope to establish a system
of free trade. The Noble Lord then complained
of the conduct of the League in opening a shop
in every town in the kingdom, for the pur-
pose of providing what he termed fictitious votes.
He thought it the duty of the Government to provide
some remedy for this evil.
Lord MONTEAGLE denied that the revenue duties were
obstacles to the freedom of trade. His Noble Friend
had, in the most strange manner, confounded revenue
duties—which were no obstacles to freedom of trade—
with protective duties, which were obstacles to the free-
dom of trade. For instance, neither the tea nor tobacco
duties were obstacles to the freedom of trade. Few men
had been consistent on the principle of free trade ; but
with one exception, all public men had advanced towards
free trade. When the burdens of the country were
greater than they were now, the petition of the mer-
chants of London had, in 1815, laid down the broad
principle of free trade, and had been supported
by the highest authority in both Houses of
Parliament. If our burdens were great, that was a
reason for leaving industry unfettered. With regard to
the delay of three years in the repeal of the corn-laws be
considered it would be prejudicial to those for whose ad-
vantage it was intended, bat he accepted the measure as
a whole as the greatest step that had yet been made in
regard to free trade.
Lord AsnnunTon explained.

wanted.thefarm
I was ,Ll.ed to employ more men thanthhaet
'be pulie of RICHDIoND complained
-.
he was to be foi;:fd farmer
to sell cheap bread, he should be
secured cheap labour. If they had cheap bre d h
it •w y should
they not have cheap beer? It would be better to repeal
the malt tax than the brandy duties. He was for pro-
tection to all classes, and he hoped the farmers would
not enter into a compact with the League. He thought
that if they were to have free trade, it would be better to
have it at once. Protection had ever existed in this
country, and all the farmers wanted was fair play.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE then rose to submit to their
Lordships the ici:64 which he proposed should be
j
adopted with regard to railway Bills. In former
years those Dills bad been few in number, but

during the present year there had been deposited 818 ,
plans of projects in the Board of Trade, and there now
stood for the consideration:of the House 687 Bills. There
could be no doubt but that the number of railway Bills
to be considered during this session would be so great
as to render it impossible to find Committees to consider
these Acts. The capital required for these Bills
amounted to 370,000,0004 of money. Now, this sum
would not be all required, because many were compe-
ting schemes ; but making every deduction, not a less
sum would be applied for than 100,000,000/. Last year
they had authorised 118 Bills, requiring 56,000,000/. ;
the previous years 46 Bills, requiring 14,000,0001;
making a demand; of 70,000,000/. in three years ;
thus making an average call during the next three
years of 20,000,000/4 and the lowest estimate of the
amount required during the next year would be
100,000,0004 It was necessary for Parliament to con-
sider whether the diversion of this enormous amount of
capital to railway enterprise must not be detrimental to
the interests of the country, and whether some
limitation ought not to be placed upon it ?
Already had the price of labour and materials been en-
hanced to an inconvenient degree. Neither was it fur
the interest of railway enterprise itself to permit this
state of things to continue. It had been said that the
evil would provide its own remedy ; but still Parliament
ought not to invest companies with great powers, to keep
them suspended over the heads of parties interested,
and to permit them to indulge in reckless expen-
diture. On these grounds, he thought it right
that some limitation should be placed on these schemes.
He thought the Executive Government was right in not
taking upon itself the responsibility of not placing a
check upon these schemes. It was for Parliament to
decide on the subject; Government had applied their at-
tention to it, and had made preparation to lay before
Parliament all the necessary information. It would be
useless and unprofiitable to lay that information on the
table for discussion before the House, and the Govern-
ment thought it the more useful plan to refer the matter
to a Select Committee, and he therefore begged to move
for the appointment of a Committee for the purpose.
Lord BROUGHAM, when called upon to increase the
grants of money for railroads from 20,000,000/. a year
to 53,000,0001. a year, said it became Parliament to
pause and inquire before they consented to such a
grant. He would suggest some alteration in the manner
of conducting the Private Bill business, in order to
secure a proper consideration of these Bills. He would
never wish to take from the privileges of the House, but
Parliamentary Committees were the worst tribunals to
sit judicially and decide upon the disposal of millions of
property, and he trusted that some more satisfactory
tribunal might be established.

Lord KINNAIRD trusted the Noble and Learned Lord
would bring forward some measure to remedy this evil,
which was undoubtedly a great one. The Noble Lord
gave notice that on Monday he should move for a re-
turn of fees paid to this House on introducing railway
Bills, and also on petitions. In one case he knew the
costs of opposing a Bill had been 8001., and out of that
sum 3001. had been paid in fact to the officers of that
House.

Lord ASHBURTON supported the motion for the ap-
pointment of the Committee, and agreed that it was ne-
cessary to put some limitation on railway specuLtti.n.
He was inclined to refer the prosperity. of the last three
years and the increased employmentlxiven to the labour-
ing classeP, tothe increased expenditure consequent upon,
the formation of railways rather than to the relaxation
of the protective duties.

A NOBLE LORD suggested that it was important that
the report of this Committee should be presented at the
earliest possible period, in order to prevent the pay-
ment of deposits on those Bills which were report, d
against. On the other hand, they would do great injus-
tice, if they did not give the ►ubject due consideration.
There should be laid down some principle on which
these were to be considered. There were great diffi-
culties attending the subject. It would have been
better to have applied some check at an earlier date,
and thus have prevented an useless expenditure of
money.

Earl GREY hoped they were not to be considered as
pledging themselves to the novel principle of limiting the
amount of capital to be invested in enterprise. Parlia-
ment. ought to consider if parties had sufficient capital—
if the object in view was for the public good—if it
unjustly interfered' with private interests. Parliament was
stepping beyond its functions if it attempted to decide how
much capital should be withdrawn from other enterprises
to be invested in railways. Individuals were the best
judges of that point. They would be committing great
injustice, if, upon a hasty and superficial examination,
they took upon themselves to determine which of the
railway schemes should be proceeded with, and which
not. He would sugg( at, that instead of having two
Committees of the two Houses, it might not be possible
to havg one joint Committee of both Houses.

Lord ASHBURTON considered it almost impossible to
ascertain whether the companies possessed sufficient
capital or not.

Lord MONTEAGLE considered it was impossible for
their Lordships to discharge their functions with credit
or satisfaction, so long as the House of Commons in-
sisted on treating railway bills as money bills. He
hoped, in order to afford due consideration to Irish
railway measures, the House of Commons would consent
to an equal division of the consideration of railway
Bills.

Lord REDEBDALI believed that it was impracticable
for Parliament to deal with 600 Bills in one session, and
therefore it was necessary to make some alteration in
the existing system.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE then nominated the Com

mittee.

Lord Baouatum proposed that it should be a Com
mittee of secrecy.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought there was no
danger of the proceedings of the Committee becoming
known.

The motion was then agreed to, and their Lordships
adjoured till Monday.

The House of Commons met at Four o'clock.

Petitions were presented for various railway Bills.
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice that, on Monday next, he
would move the re-appointment of the Committee on the
game-laws.

On the motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL it was agreed
that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday
next, after a short discussion.

In answer to a question from Mr. T. DUNCONBE, Sir
JAMES GRAHAM stated that it was the intention of the
Secretary -at-War, at an early period of the session, to
introduce a Bill for the amendment and consolidation of
the Militia Act.

In answer to a question from Mr. BRIGHT, as to when
the militia would be called out,

Sir J. GRAHAM stated that, under tho present law, it
was competent for the Government to call out the militia
at a fortnight's notice.

Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, said he had no objection to lay on the table the
papers with respect to the hostilities in Rio de la Plata,
as far as they had reference to the grounds on which
France and England had united on this question, but th*e
papers relating to the atrocities committed he must at
present decline producing.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in answer to a question from Mr. B
ESCOTT, stated that he had not yet determined whether
he should, during the present session, again bring in the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.

Mr. HASTIE, on the part of the bankers of London,
complained of their being compelled by the standing
orders to pay the money they received for railway de-
posits into the Bank of England in the name of the
Accountant• General of the Court of Chancery. lie
thought there ought to be some relaxation of the stand-
ing orders in this respect, as the greatest confusion
would prevail. He believed that all purposes would be
answered by paying the money into the Bank of Eng-
land and sufficient protection afforded to all bona fide
railways. He would make a motion on the subject on a
future day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
deposits, when paid in to the name of the Accountant-
General, were as available for the purpose of trade as if
paid into the Bank in any other way. All that was
required to get it out was the order of the Court
of Chancery.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said that the money that was
paid into the Bank of England in the name of the
Accountant-General was froze up and totally unavailable
fur the purposes of trade. As to obtaining an order in
Chancery, that, as was well known, was the work of time.
Sometimes zuch a document was not obtained for twenty
years.

Mr. HUDSON thought that the whole difficulty wonld
be got over by the transfer of India Bonds, or Consols,
or Exchequer-bills, instead of cash being required to
be paid into the Bank.

Mr.
MUNTZ could not see what objection the Govern-
ment had to receive their own Exchequer-bills.
Sir R. PEEL trusted the House would not interfere in
this matter, as he felt convinced that the spirit of im-
proper speculation would never be put an end to unless
the public sustained some inconvenience.

After a f?w observations from Mr. F. BARTxg the sub-
ject dropped.

On the motion of Sir C. NAPIER, a Committee was
appointed to inquire into the manner in which the Poor-
law Commissioners hare exercised the powers for the