The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

the Government would be liberal in their grants, not
only to improve public works in Ireland, but the con-
dition of the agricultural labourers in Ireland.
The Earl of RODEN supported the second reading of
the Bill, but there wore some clauses in it which he
hoped to see improved and altered in Committee. He
hoped the condition of Ireland, in consequence of the
failure of the potato crop, would not turn out to be so
serious as was anticipated.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE concurred in the prin-
ciple of the Bill as far as it went.
Lord COTTENBAM agreed to the principle of the Bill,
but he considered that its details would require altera-
tion in Committee.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL was assured that ere long
there would not only be famine, but disturbances, in
Ireland. He trusted, therefore, that every facility
would be given, and that without loss of time, to the
employment of the poor of Ireland.
After some observations from Lord CAMPBELL, the
Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed
on Friday next.

The Earl of WILTON presented a petition from Man-
chester in favour of free trade.

Their Lordships then adjourned.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Lord Mon.PETti took the oaths and his seat for the
West Riding of Yorkshire. The Noble Lord was intro-
duced by Mr. BYNG, the Member for Middlesex, and
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and was most enthusiastically
cheered.

Mr. MiCARTHY, for Cork, took the oaths and his seat.
The Hon. Gentleman was introduced by Mr. O'CONNELL.
Leave was given to bring in several railway Bills.
The Edinburgh Waterworks Bill was brought in, read
a first, and ordered to be read a second time.

Mr. KENBLE brought in the London and South-
Western Railway Bill.
The report of the Sub-Committee on the Ayrshire
and Galloway Railway Bill, reporting that the standing
orders had not been complied with, was ordered to be
referred back to the Committee, after a short discussion.

Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from Liverpool,
signed by 2,000 persons, against any alteration in the
corn-laws.

The Earl of MARCH presented a similar petition from
Sussex, signed by 9,000 persons.
Mr. LEADER presented a petition frcm 'Westminster,
in favour of a total repeal of the corn•laws, signed by
73,000 persons. _ _

Several other petitions having been presented on the
subject of the proposed alterations in the commercial
policy of the country, among which were 103 by Lord
MORPETH (who was received with enthusiastic cheer-
ing), from various places in the West Riding of York-
shire in favour of the Ministerial measures generally,
with the exception of that part which related to the
corn-laws, of which laws they prayed the total and im-
mediate repeal,

Mr. FERRAND asked if the signatures to those peti-
tions were affixed to them with the free and unbiassed
wills of the parties signing, because he was prepared to
prove that many of the workmen bad been forced ?
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member may ask a ques-
tion on the presentation of a petition, but he cannot
make a speech.

The Hex. MEMBER repeated his question, to which
Lord MORPETH replied that, to the best of his belief
and the entireness of his conviction, the signatures had
been affixed by the free and unbiassed will of the parties
signing.

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY gave notice of an amendment in
the Committee on the Customs' Act, t 9 the effect that
wheat should be subject to a fixed duty of 55., barley
of 3s. 6d., and oats of 25., in place of the Ministerial

proposition.
Mr. M. MILNEs gave notice of an amendment to omit
in the resolution with regard to corn all words referring
to the duties payable after 1849.
Several unopposed returns having been agreed to,
The Members constituting the Committee on Parlia-
mentary Election Petitions were then sworn at the table.
In answer to Dr. BOWRING,

Mr. CARDWELL explained the measures which had
been adopted for the purpose of carrying out the recom-
mendations of the Committee on Colonial Accounts.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask if it was not the intention
that the sums levied as fines on factory owners should
be fairly divided among all schools, and not as they had
hitherto been, distributed at the rate of lON. to schools
connected with the Established Church to 301. to schools
connected with Dissenters.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that the sums were to be fairly
distributed, but that be understood that few applications
had been made for Dissenting or Catholic schools.

Sir R. INoms wished to know whether it was intended
that an equal sum should be given to Church and Dis-
senting schools, or a proportionate sum ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was intended that the sum
should be apportioned to the wants of the school.
Mr. LIDDELL asked if the Government was prepared
to take any steps for the improvement of the juvenile
population of the metropolis ?
Sir J. GRAHAM explained the steps which had been
already taken for the improvement and reformation of
juvenile offenders in the metropolis; and stated, if it
were the pleasure of the House to vote the necessary
funds, he would feel it his duty to propose further mea-
sures for the reformation of juvenile offenders.
Sir R. PEEL explained, in relation to his reply to the
Noble Lord's question the other night as to his answer on
the subject of the reduction of the corn duties, that he
could find no precedent for the Treasury sanctioning
the reduction of the duty on the receipt of the report,
and that, therefore, he could not consent to any reduction
on the corn duties until the proposed alteration should
become law, but so convinced was he of the necessity
of proceeding with the alteration in the corn-laws at once
that he proposed to proceed with the measure for the
'alteration of the corn-laws, in preference to any other
public measure, and to every other alteration in the
tariff until it should become law.
In reply to Mr. M. PHILIPS,
Sir R. PEEL said that if the debate should bo ad-

jonrned over Tuesday, there would be no alternative but
to resume the debate on Wednesday at twelve and finish
it at six. The Right lion. Baronet also explained that
necessarily there must be an interval between the first
and second reading of the Corn Bill, during which he
might bring forward other articles in the tariff; but that
be would proceed with the Corn Bill with all the speed
that the forms of the House would permit.
On the motion that the order of the day for the House
resolving itself into Committee being read, a host of
petitions on the subject of the corn-laws were presented.
After the presentation of the petitions, which lasted
until after six o'clock,
Mr. PHILIP MILES rose to move the amendment of
which he had given notice, viz., that the House should
resolve into Committee this day six months. The pro-
posed change in our commercial policy was a change even
greater than that proposed by the Reform Bill, and on a
question involving such vital interests, the constituen-
cies of the country ought to be consulted, more especi-
ally when it was considered that this Parliament bad
been elected upon protectionist principles. He ad-
mitted the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, but the
uat crop and the wheat crop in that country was above

the average. There was no fear of a famine.
He could well understand that the Right Hon. Baronet
might feel alarm at the state of things in Ireland, but if
he had watched the state of the markets he would see

there was no cause of alarm. He would say' if
there was danger of a famine, open your ports, but
he contended that there was no danger whatever
.4 famine, and, looking at the course pursued by
the Right Honourable Baronet, he could not but
come to the conclusion that the cause of protection had
in the Right Hon. Baronet's mind been long doomed. He
thought the agricultural interests of the. country was
entitled to moderate protection. He recollected the
talent with which the Right Hon. Baronet had upheld the
doctrines of protection, and he could foresee the ability
with which he would control them, but he feared not
because ho felt that he had a large minority in that
House, and a large party out of it. Three months ago
the Member on the Treasury Bench supported 'the doc-
trine of protection, and if his opinions had undergone
such a change, he should have felt bound to follow the
example of the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire.
He could not see where these changes were to end, and
if these were agreed to, greater still must follow ;
changes which would shake tho public credit.
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to take a review of
the history of our commercial policy since the aceoLsion

of Sir R. PEEL to office, and contended that the pros-
perity of the industrious classes had been owing, not
to the free trade measures of the Government, but
to the immense increase of our railway system,
which had created a demand for labour, and in
consequence of which the prices of iron had
risen enormously—to the cessation of war in
India—and to the succession of good harvests ;
and he believed that much of that prosperity would
have taken place if the Noble Lord opposite had been
in power. Ile denied that the amount of exports
afforded a fair indication of commercial prosperity.
Foreign markets were glutted with our goods. It was
the home trade which afforded the finest ele-
ments for the calculation of the amount of
our commercial prosperity. With regard to the
corn-laws, the law of 1842 had worked well ; it
fled secut'ed steadiness of price, and he could not con-
sent to its alteration. The Right lioiguratle Baronet

had said in 1842 that 565. was a fair price for the I
farmer. He would like to know what he considered
fair price now ? The Right Hononurable Baronet
said that his proposed measure would not lower the price
of wheat, what then became of the argument of the cheap
loaf? There was a vast difference between cheapness
produced by a good harvest and cheapness produced by
importation. Mr. Huskisson had said that cheapness
produced by importation was the sure forerunner of
a scarcity. He considered that a free trade in corn
would lead to greater fluctuation in price than had ever
been known ; that it would be of greater advantage to
foreigners than to ourselves ; that it would produce
agricultural distress, and lower wages. If the mea-
sure passed, all other protective duties must be
repealed; navigation laws and reciprocity treaties must
be all swept away. Would the League dissolve if this
measure passed ? or if they should, would not others
rise: up in their place to agitate other questions ? The
manufacturers would find it exceedingly diff cult to
compete with foreigners unless they reduced their wages.
Ice, every other item except wages, the manufacturers of
this country were in every respect equal to the foreigners.
The manufacturer could do without protection better
than the agriculturist, because his position was better.
He could keep a closer superintendence over his work-
men than the agriculturist. He was not de-
pendent upon the weather. He could secure
his twelve hours' work, while the agriculturist could
not, he thought they ought not to be subjected to the
swim laws. The manufacturer was less burdened
than the agriculturist. On a factory paying
30,000/. per annum wages, the burdens were
ordy 500/. a year. The burdens on agriculture were
greater in proportion, and the compensation proposed
really amounted to nothing. The agriculturists would
have been better pleased if the Right Hon. Baronet had
offered them nothing at all. Then with regard to sugar
--scarcely had the free-labour sugar been admitted, than
they were told the colonists could stand a little
more competition. Would not the same course
be pursued wieh regard to the farmers? With
re and to the colonies, he would say treat
them as integral parts of the empire; extend free trade-to
them, and do not let the manufacturers enjoy the mono-
poly of the colonial market. He considered that the
manufacturing interest had been stimulated too much.
The progress of our manufactures was really alarming, and
he considered that he was best promoting the interests
of the country by maintaining the present system of pro-

tection.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE seconded the amendment. He con-
sidered the measure visionary and delusive, but he did not
join with those who accused the Minister of acting dis-
honestly, although he could not but think that the shock
given to faith in public men by the conduct of the Go-
vernment was much to be regretted. The scheme, (yen

if impartial, would not have met with his approval, and lie
considered the free-trade legislation of the last 20 years had
produced most disastrous effects, which had only been
remedied by the increase of our colonial trade. But
the scheme was not impartial, inasmuch as it did not
equally depriv_ all parties of protection. That branch
of labour to which manual labour entered
most largely was entirely deprived of protection,
which protection was continued to industry connected
with machinery, which did least require it. The
English farmer, living in a country where taxation was
heavy, and the money-price of articles very high, was
not in a position to compete with the foreigner;
and the position of the English farmer rendered it diffi-
cult to award to him any sufficient compensation. He
could not be insensible to the danger of depending
upon foreigners for a supply of food, nor could
he forget that the farmers now fed a populaion
three times the amount of that fed fifty years
ago, or that at this moment England was
the only European country possessing a full supply of
food. He would have supported a measure for facili-
tating the introduction of colonial corn, but the prf sent
measure was essentially anti-colonial. He would not go
into the question of compensation, or any particular ques-
tion, for so convinced was he of the impolicy of the mea-
sure, that he should oppose it generally. He was not
indifferent to the fate of the Ministry ; he would
not transfer his support to the Noble Lord
and his friends, for he differed with them even
more than he did with the Right Hon. Baronet.
The Right Hon. Baronet was bound to consult his sup-
porters as to his measures, and if, because they differed
from him, he chose to throw up the Government, on
him, and not on them, rested the responsibility.
Mr. W. LASCELLES had watched with jealous care
the course which the Government had pursued since
they first came into office, and he denied that this
change had been a sudden or an unexpected one. The
alteration in the Tariff involved the whole principle of
free trade, and when the Right Hon. Baronet had been
asked if be intended to alter the corn-laws, he had
stated that he did not then intend to propose any altera-
tion, but that he wot?ld not bind himself to their main-
tenance under all circumstances. In every instance in
which the principles of free trade had been

adopted prosperity had been the result, and
their experience had confirmed the theory of free trade.

He, therefore, should feel it his duty to support the
Government measure, however painful it might be to
him to differ from many of his friends.

Lord NORREYS regretted that he was obliged, not
only to oppose the Government on this question, but
to withdraw his confidence altogether from the Right
Honourable Baronet. He had refused to pledge himself
to oppose the Government measure until he knew what
it was. He considered the conduct of the Cen-
tral Protection Society unconstitutional, and had re-
fused to give any pledges, but having beard the
Right Hon. Baronet statement he felt bound to offer him
every opposition in his power. He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet ought not to have returned to power until
he had cpened the eyes of the agriculturists, by telling
a Noble Duke, who had taken a great interest
in these questions, to endeavour to form an ad-
ministration. and the Right Honourable Baronet
would have found less difficulty in carrying his measure.
But he could scarcely have expected that the Right
Hon. Baronet, who in 1840 had objected to an Bs. duty,
should now propose a 4s. duty, to end in total repeal
He did not tax the Right Honourable Baronet with
dishonesty but with want of political foresight.
if the question were carried, it would be only because the
House preferred having the question by the Right Hon.
Baronet, to having it settled by the Noble Lord al-
thoagh, for his part he doubted whether they would not
be better off in the hands of the Noble Lord than in those
of the Right Hon. Baronet. Whatever might be the
confusion resulting from this measure the Right Hon
Baronet must be responsible for it.
Mr. BAILLIE COCHItANE went through the history of
the corn-laws from the time of Henry VI. up to the pre-
sent time. He could not see in all this any question of
principle, and he thought a corn-law admitted of every
variety of enactments. Neither did-he consider that,
even upon a question of principle, it were
requisite to appeal to the people. and quoted the autho-
rity of Mr. Pire. in support of his opinions. He denied
that the House of Commons was a mere assembly of dole.
gates, it was a deliberative and a legislative assembly, and
Members had a right to change their opinions.
The question of the corn-law was one of great difficulty.
It was impossible to propose an unalterable law on the
subject ; indeed, whoever imagined .an unalterable law
was an unalterable fool. Looking to the social changes
which had taken place in the last sixteen years—to the
increase of our population and of our manufactures, he
could not contend for an unalterable corn-law. It was
necessary to alter our commercial policy in consequence
of these changes, and of the changes introduced by the
Reform Bill, so as to make it in accordance with the
feelings and interests of the people. The country had
confidence in the present Government, and. he should
support the commercial alterations which they had pro-
posed. He believed that there had been a great change
in the feelings of the farmers of late with
regard to the repeal of the corn-laws, espe-
cially in Scotland. The Right Honourable
Baronet was neither a god nor a tyrant, but he
believed him to be a man anxious to do good
for his country. He voted for this mea-
sure because ho had confidence in her MAJESTY'S
Ministers, and because he was anxious for the welfare
and happiness of the poorer classes of his fellow subjects.
Mr. DEEDES could not support the proposition of her
MAJESTY'S Government with resnect to the
corn-'aws, believing that that proposition would shake
public confidence, and drive the English agriculturists out
of the English market. The measure with respect to corn
had been revised and corrected in 1842, by Parliament.
and it was astonishing that the very men who then pro-
posed that revision and correction were now declaring
that it was wrong. In early life he had looked up to
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government
RS his political leader ; but he could consider him in that
light no longer. He considered that the agriculturists
of this country, under the existing law, had not
had more protection than they were entitled to.
He believed that the proposition of the Government was
only an experiment upon the native industry of the
country. He felt convinced, that if those propositions
were to become law, the country would ke placed at
the mercy of foreigners for the necessaries of life. On
that ground alone, he should feel himself bound to op-
Pose the measures of the Government.

'lice liouae was Lbea addressed by bit' J. WALSH and
Mr. 13. blori, ag441,5t the blin,isterial proposition.