The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, UODQN, SATURDAY EV-E/4 ENG. MARrii 14, 1846.

bread.—(Hear, hear.) But the answer to all these evils ;
was the one grand argument, which he would not tire I
the iieuse oy rc peatteg ia eletell; it was the naseister evil
from which, he would say, arose all these distresses that
had been complained of—an evil which the House was
familiar with, but to which he might nut, pAilaps, more
than dare allude to; he meant the Bill of 1819.—(Ilear,
hear.) That measure was one to which he ascribed all
the evils that followed ; and until that was inquired into,
no remedy could be applied. He looked upon the prin-
ciple that guided the acts of the present Government to
be the same es the argument of the man who lost himself
in a wood, and who fixed his eye upon the polar star,
saying, that so long, as he kept that in sight, he would
be sure to get out of , the wood ; and on he went until
his course was stopped by a deep and rapid river, and he
had to turn back again to the south.—(Hear, hear.) Re
would contend then that if the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of her Majesty's Government persevered in this
measure, he would be compelled to come down to the
House with another measure, the object of which would
be to prevent the exportation of gold from this country ;
and the conseqeence would be, that this country would
have to fight against the hostile tariffs of other countries.
to which this ',old was exported. If the Russian, or the
Pole, or the German, sold his corn in this country, he
would insist upon receiving gold for it ; and instead of
expending that gold in purchasing the taxed manufac-
tures of this country, he took it to the Continent, when
he purchased untaxed manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) Os
those grounds, then, he would say, that protective laws.
were essential to the safety of national industry, na-
tional prosperity, and the stability of the Crown. Be •
fore he sat down, perhaps the House would permit him
to show that the opinions he was then propounding were
not new to the House. These opinions had been enter
tamed by the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home De-
partment in 1827, and had been published to the world
as his doctrines ; and so clearly, unanswerably, and dis-
tinctly, had they been put by that Right Hon. Gentle-
man that nothing could remove them from hie (Mr.
Spooner's) mind. He then appealed to his Right Hon.
Friend to ascertain whether he since had changed the
opinions then entertained by him ; and if he had, hr
trusted he would explain to the House the reasons for
so great a change.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He
should say, that to his Right Hon. Friend he owed that
adherence he then entertained, and which nothing could
induce him to abandon. It' he were wrong in entertain
ing these opinions, the blame lay with the Right
[lon. Gentleman, and he should, therefore, explain.
He called on all classes in society then, me chants and
manufacturers, if they realized an extended and profit
able commerce, to compel the Ministry to grant the
Committee required—a Committee that would coolly and
dispassionately, and without abstract notions of political
economy, consider the question in all its bearings.
Mr. NEWDEGATE seconded the motion.
On the question being put,
Sir G. CLERK said that before the report was brought
up more than one petition was presented, setting forth
the inconvenience and less of time to the various trading
communities in the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now
what was the manner in which the motion at present
before the House was brought forward, or what was its
obj. ct ? Why, a postponement for six months. He
(Sir G. Clerk) had expected that the Honourable Gen.
tleman would have shown that the great nnmber of re-
ductions proposed to be made would be attended by
serious loss ; but, instead of that, he had not instanced a

saigle objection.
Mr. SPOONER—I will do so by and by.
Sir G. CLERIC should then consider himself as
troubling the House, such beinc, the case, and would,
therefore, reserve his reply till by and by, when the
Hon. Gentleman had fully concluded.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE made a few observations, which
were inaudible in the gallery; after which,
Mr. SPOONER informed the House that it was not
his intention to press the measure to a division.— (Oh.
oh, and laughter.) He merely brought it forward for
the :purpose of stating, his opinions ati to what its re-
sults were certain to be, and he then tKgged to with-
draw it.—(Renewed cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.)
On the motion that the Tariff be read,
Mr. SPOONER said that be would not trouble the
House at any length, but he merely wished to say that
the reduction of the duty on foreign bronze manufactures,
from 15 to 10 per cent., would destroy that branch o,
valuable manufacture. It would throw a great man)
persons out of employment, and he therefore begged
leave to move that the item might be struck out of this

Tariff.
Mr. MUNTZ said that he hoped his Hon. Friend
would withdraw that motion.—(Laughter.) He did no!
believe that the native manufacturers would sustain no
injury. by this reduc ion ; on the contrary, he believed
that they would be seriously injured. He had only on(
fault to find, and that was, that all other articles were
not included in a similar reduction, as the same principle
applied to all things in the Tariff. He wished to ask the
Right Hon. Baronet if he intended to remove the duty
from this branch of manufacture in 3 years ?
Sir R. PEEL, in answer to the question of the first
llon. Member for Birmin ;haul, who says that if we re-
duce the prosective duties on Birmingham bronze manu-
factures from 15 to 10 per cent., the manufactures will
be ruined. I can only state that with a protective dut)
of 15 per cent., the quantity of bronze manufactures
from abroad, entered into this country during the past
year has paid 781. duty.—(Laughter.) I will venture to
say that the Birmingham manufacture of bronze will not
be ruined under a 10 per cent. protective duty, but in the
course of a year or two will be benefited by it. With
respect to the question put by the other Hon. Member,
who, I think, dissents very wisely from the motion of his
colleague, I was asked the same question the other
night by the Noble Lord, and said in answer that I was
not prepared to fix any period at which this duty is to
cease. If the Hon. Member will come forward some
years hence, and say on the part of the manufacturers
that this duty should cease, I am not prepared to say
that I will resist his appeal.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the Right Hon. Baronet was
not correct rslen he said that a reduction of so much
percent. would not affect the trade. He believed that
it would have a most material effect, What the Right
Hon. Baronet had said about the principle of free trade
was right so far as it affected one cltss of articles, but the
duty ought to be taken off all classes. lie was anxious
that the duty should be taken off copper, and he hoped
that the Right Honourable Baronet would consider that
article. If the principle were not thoroughly carried out,
they would never have free trade in the the true sense of
the word.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the answer of the Right
Hon. Baronet, and the query of the Hon. Member for
Birmingham had come very nearly to him. He was
bound to say, that although he had a large constituency in
Birmingham he had not felt it his duty to take any part
in this debate without consulting the great body of
manufacturers. He had done that at any rate, and he
could assure the House that this question had been con-
sidered day by day, and the more nearly they approached
it the greater were their feelings of distrust. They felt
that they would not be able to recover the first shock
which the Noble Lord had admitted would prevail to a
great extent when protection was withdrawn. With
respect to the statement of the Hon. Member for Bir-
ming,ham who had last spoken, he would read a letter he
had that day received from a manufacturer in Birming-
ham, in which that very item was mentioned. His cur-
reepondent stated, that in almost every case the menu-
fecturer agreed that the proposed reduction would
be injurious to the trade, as they would have.
to compete with Franco, Prussia, and Belgium.
where the metal was as cheap as in this
country, and there manual labour was much cheaper.
The produce of Birmingham and Sheffield were forbid
den in France and Belgium, and in Russia the duty was
so high as to amount almost to a prohibition. The du-
ties on all English produce had been, within the last two
years, increased in every country in Europe. Each
country was endeavouring to be able to supply its own
wants. The writer of that letter was in every way com-
petent to give an opinion, as he had consulted with
others of the same class. He would conclude by say-
ing,.that neither of the Hon. Members for Birmingham
were at all aware that he (Mr. Newdegate) had received
this communication.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he would ask his Hon.
Friend not to divide on this question. There were two
principles recognised in this tariff, and neither of them
had been extended to the farmer. The main question
was with regard to the differential duties in the import
of raw materials. There were twenty-one differential
duties, and more than 100 protective duties in this Tariff.
He would a k the Right Hon. Baronet how he hoped
to maintain protection for the minor articles, when the
principle of free trade was acknowledged with
regard to the principle articles of comfort ?—(Hear.)
It was said that the manufacturers had in large numbers
solicited the removal of protective duties. In this re-
spect they had shown more consideration than the far-
mers, for the farmers had not advanced in procession to
ask for the abrogation of protection. But he would ask
the Right Hon. Baronet a question before sating down,
to show the distinction between buck wheat flour and
flour made from the ordinary wheat? He challenged
him, or if he could not answer, he would ask the Hon.
Member for Grantham (Sir George Clerk), who could
see as far through a mill-stone as any one, the distinc-
tion between these two kinds of flour.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER, in answer to the call of several Hon.
Members not to divide the House, said he would not
withdraw his motion, though he would not press it to a
division.

. _
The motion was then negatived without a division.
On the article of bronze powder being read,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said this was an article in which
he thought the duty should be done away with alto-
gether. Bronze powder was an article used in the
manufacture of stained paper, and as the duty on paper
hangings was proposed to be very much reduced, he had
received representations from the trade, that if the home
market was thus to be thrown open to foreign paper-
hanging manufacturers, all duty should be taken away
from the raw materiel. The present alteration of. the
duty on stained paper would only benefit t'le rich, as the
duty still to be retained of twopence a yard would effec-
tually shut out the inferior kinds, while the superior
kinds being admitted duty free would materially affect
those who were engaged in this kind of trade. The
mannracturers complained that in this matter they were
hardly used, as they would have to enter into competi-
tion with the foreign manufactures, while they had the
Excise duty to pay and this duty on bronze powder, which
they used in many descriptions of paper. Already lie had
been apprised that several paper-hangers had intimated
that if any loss arose from this tatift it should not be
taken out of the profits of their business but from the
wages of their workmen.—(Loud cheers from the pro-
tection benches.) One extensive paper-hanger in Isling-
ton, lately called his workmen together, and gave them
notice to this effect. Another one he (Mr. Duncombe)
had heard of, had kept back one-fifth of the workmen's
wages until the tariff was passed, with the intimation
that if it passed, any loss should be deducted.—(llear,
hear.) It was unfair that the loss should fall upon the
men, and, therefore, it behoved the Government to take
care that all duties on raw material were done away with,
so that the cause, if ouch a course,. be .taken, might be

done away with. If the reduction in the duty on stained
paper was made to 2d. the yard, they ought also to re-
move all import duty on bronze powder and metal leaf.
—(ilear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK, in answer to the Hone
Member said that *the excise duty complained of
was but very trifling, being but per lb.
Now he would ask the Hon. Member, what was the
weight of twelve yards of superior kind of paper ? Why,
just twenty ounces; so that the duty was not quite id.
a square Yerd.—(Hear, hear.) Against this they had a
protective duty of 2d. a yard, while the duty on rags,
and nearly every other article of raw material was done
away with. Though there was still a duty on varnish ;
very little of it was imported, it being made principally.
in this country, and the duty on the raw material,
which entered into its composition, was done away with.
Bronze powder .was but used in a small quantity of
paper, and he was told that buyers now provided them-
selves at Birmingham, where the article was so much
iniprovel that they used it in preference to that imported.
[IQ might also state that the duty on ultra marine and
other pigments had been done away with; and, there-
fore, he saw no reason why the paper-stainers of this
country should not compete with those of any other
country in the world.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND complimented the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), for the able
protection speech he had made. He admitted that the
tendency of the Tariff would be to reduce wages.—(Hear,
hear.) lie (Mr. Alderman Copeland) was persuaded
that not only would the paper-stainers suffer in this
respect, but shoemakers, and many other trades. He
would go with the lion. Member entirely on the present
occasion.—The subject then dropped.
On the article buck wheat being read,
Mr. S. O'BRIEN repeated the qurstinn be had put to
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), about buck-wheat
flour and ordinary wheat flour. Unless the Right Hon.
Baronet could tell them wherein it was different, and
now it was to be distinguished from ordinary flour, he
(Mr. S. O'Brien) considered the article should be struck
out of the resolution.
Mr. THORNELY said when he was in America he
had seen buck-wheat used.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the question he put to the
Right Hon. Baronet was, suppose two samples of flour,
one of buck-wheat and another of ordinary wheat flour,
how could he distinguish between them ?
Sir R. PEEL replied by taste. He could not state
any other certain means of doing so.
On that portion of the resolution relating to butter
and cheese being read,
Mr. GROGAN complained that the alteration pro-
posed in those articles would seriously affect the farmers
engaged in making them. All experience went to show
that in this particular branch of agriculture, it was with
the greatest difficulty the farmers could maintain their
;round in the market egainst home competition.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving that
the butter be left out of the present tariff altogether, and
thus leave the article still at 255. per cwt.
Sir. G. CLERK said, that considering the importance
.)f this article, being an important component part of
the food of the masses, he was inclined to believe that
t duty of 25 per cent. was too high. Considering, also,
chat the price of butter varied in this country from 20s.
to 100 s. per cwt., he was disposed to think that 10 per
cent. was a sufficient and ample protection against foreign
eempetitioe.
Mr. TOLLEMACHE said that, since the duty had
been taken off butter, 150,000 casks of that commodity
had been imported from America, greatly to the disad-
vantage of the British producer ; for it must be remem
bered, that the price of land in this country, devoted to
the produce of cheest; and butter, varied from 101. to
121. per acre ; land of the same quality could be got fur
little or nothing in America.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said the duty pail last year upon
foreign butter was 247,0001., and upon cheese, 147,0001.
That duty would be, no doubt doubled, under the present
tariff, and it would be so much taken from the British
Farmer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed
with the Hon. Baronet that the reduction of the duty
would prove injurious to the producer, but it was im-
possible fez. Government to look at this question without
considering the consumer. He admitted that they were
making a large amount of revenue, but at the same time
he confidently hoped that the importation of the articles
would be so much increased as to render that reduction less
in amount than it was at present supposed it would be.
When it was considered that butter was an article which
entered into the every-day wants of the people, he was
hero his lion. Friend would feel that it was the duty of
the Government to take care that at no time there should
oe any scarcity in the supply of that necessary article.
fie therefore, for the reasons he had already stated, did
not anticipate that there would be so large a reduction
in the revenue as some Lion. Members had predicted
would follow this measure, while he was convinced the
measure itself would contribute materially to the benefit
of the lower classes, in so far as it would always keep at
a steady and moderate price.
An Hoer. MEMBER declared that since the paseing of
the new tariff a great number of farms in this country
had been converted into dairies ; and he know of his
own knowledge that the present change proposed by the
Government was looked upon with great alarm.
Lord G. BENTINCK thought the arguments adduced
by the Right lion. Baronet the President of the Board
of Trade were sufficient to justify the House in adopt
ing the amendment in preference to the original motion.
flia Right lion. Baronet began by telling them that
butter was the staple manufacture of Ireland, upon
which it was now proposed to reduce the protection by
one-half ; and he followed up that statement by de-
claring, what might appear to be incredible to some
Hon. Members, that there were annually introduced
into this country from the sister island up-
wards of one million hundred weight of butter.
ff they were going to release the protection to butter at
the rate of 10e. per hundred weight, the amount that
would be lost to Ireland would be half a million sterling
annually.—(" Hear, hear," from the protective portion
of the House.) He should like to know if this would
reduce the price of the article to the consumer ?
—the contrary would be the result. If then they were
not going to reduce the price of butter by caking
off the duty, what adventaee could result to
the country ?—(Hear, hear.) 'This was proved by
dthe c t
iargumentsonslanGdovienrnmheerntm.
oTsthsitsarpele-
article of produce, and this surely was not the Session
thenw-ooufldherinAj
injure Ireland
of Parliament to do anything that could injure that
country.—(Hear, hear.) Why in this very session they
`were called upon to vote 230,000/. for the relief of Ire-
land, and in the very same breath they were asked to
-pass a measure which would injure it to the amount
of half a million sterling annually.—(Cries of " Hoar,
hear, hear," from the Noble Lord's supporters.)
What said a very excellent authority on Irish subjects?
The Times Commissioner said, that the small farmers in
the county of Kerry—the frieze-coated farmers of that
place—had made deposits in the savings' banks to the
amount of 200,0001., which was an average of 34/. for
each depositor. Such, then, will be the injury to these
men ; they will be injured to that amount each.—(Hear,
hear, and No, no.) The protective laws upheld the in-
terests of these men, and her Majesty's Ministers pro
posed to do away with them. This large amount
of deposits was made by six thousand little
farmers, and it was now proposed to injure them to that
amount.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") What
said the Right Hon. Gentleman?—why, that whatever
was the duty on butter, it would have the same effect on
the Dutch. Why not protect the producers of this coun-
try, and not look after the Dutch ?—(Hear, hear.) They
were also asked to take off 70,0001. on cheese. The re-
duction of the malt tax, would not be allowed because it
would benefit the drinkers, and the brewers, so of course
her Majesty's Ministers would not allow of such a thing.
—(Laughter.) If this measure wits introduced fur the
benefit of the consumer, why not then propose the
reduction of the duty on tea ? The reduction of that
duty would be as great a benefit as another.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had not attempted
to take that off, because it was not the produce of Groat
Britain.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") For these
and other reasons, he most cordially concurred with his
Hon. Friend behind him in opposing this reduction.—
(Divide, divide.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment --102
On our re admission, we found
Mr. NEWDEGATE addressing the House. He said
he had received many letters besides the one which he
had alluded to. The same post which brought that
lett:er brought him also one from a manufacturer, who
said he perceived it was but one step in the course of
the Right Hon. Baronet. That letter ended with a fer-
vent wish that the measure before the House might be
passed.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that they objected to cheese
as much as butter, but they would not divide the House,
as they considered the question of butter carried that of
cheese.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER objected to the proposed reduction
on copper.
Sir H. HALFORD objected to the reduction on cot-
ton, as injurious to the stocking and frame-working
manufacturers of Leicester and Nottingham. He would
quote from an authority which had been often relied on
in that House—Mr. M'Gregor, in answer to a question,
whether it would be proper to admit the manufactures
of Saxony ? His answer was, that he would admit them
on an equitable duty, whether it would destroy the trade
of Leicester and Nottingham or not—(Cries of
" Hear hear")—but, if it did, it would be better for
the whole country to subscribe sufficient to relieve the
distressed than continue the tax on the property of the
country. The Saxons, in the year 1815, had only 9,000
stocking-frames ; in the present year they had 25,000,
which were all employed for the purposes of ex-
portation.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GISBORNE did not rise to contradict the state-1
mints made by the Honourable Member who had just
vet down. He believed that what he had maintained re-
specting the wretched condition of the frame knit-
workers was but too true. He, himself, lived
for ten years in a village in Leicestershire,
and during that time the condition of this
class was most miserable. He had also occasion
e
the
e t andh
do
eshseet ctr
aol
tut
eel ds bearh testimonyconditiongreat
f tr oma
mte hae
to know the state of the poor-rates in many of the vil-
lages
souprp eresoasrli•ovSseceontfalratounmrde,
support
enoainitci
eti,hsiitoshfd
setepheaei rntmgmotehrnei ts
rmoefiasdei nirnydeu,s sas tnradyn.dh
he could,
and those who were dependent for their
cieouhl
accuracydad, t mha eas rnet yo-
its existence. He now lived in a large place, where
e thee do
out
te b y staplerepresentationstem ahnousfiaehcretsu
hadrein, and
mt
haadht
made note
eiregrettedty.
toolt
hosiery
ttoru sayly b thatfooremn
might be that they would not be more likely to
flourish under the measure at present under discussion,
but if anything could give them relief, it would be open-
ing their ports to all parts of the world, and allowing a
free interchange with all nations. lie did not receive

any instructions or any remonstrance from his consti-
tuents on this measure. *Both working men and mas-
ters seemed to think that their interest would not suffer
by the propese3 alterations, but that it would rather im-
prove under the influence of free trade.
ROLLESTON could not agree with the in-
ferences which had been made by the Hon. Member for
Nottingham on the condition of the frame-work-knitters.
If this class hal boen reduced to such a condition,
having the protection which they at present enjoyed,
surely the reduction of that protection one-half would
not be the most effectual mode of improving.
their condition. How such a conclusion could
be come to by his Honourable Friend he was
at a loss to determine. So much he had to say with
regard to the llon. Gentleman's remarks. He would
now apply a few words to the Right Hon- Gentleman
at the head of the Government in reference to what
they would all allow was the greatest interest in this
country. This was not, perhaps, the time to go into
the subject in detail, but he thought that the Right Hen.
Gentleman and the Noble Baronet should not interfere
with that interest, unless after the most mature and
grave deliberation. He trusted that the House would
enter into the consideration of the subject in a fair,
full, and open manner.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES rose for the purpose of saying that
if the Hon. Member for Leicester did tot divide upon
this question, he (Mr. Milnes) would—(Laughter)—and
he would do so, because he considered that the present
was a favourable opportunity for the landed gentry of
England to clear themselves from the unjust accusations
which had been made against them.—(llear, hear.)
Those accusations were to this effect, that because pro-
tection had been removed from agriculture, they were
determined to make up the deficiency of their incomes
by inflicting upon the manufacturing interests duties
which would operate upon them most prejudiciously.
He believed that the frame-knit workers' trade was at
present in a most critical condition in consequence of
the suspense as to the settlement of the present
measure of the Government in favour of cheap food;
and he believed that as soon as that measure was pass:d
into a law, the individuals employed in that trade would
so far recover themselves as to be able to compete with

the foreigner.
After a few words from Mr. PACK, which were in-
audible in the gallery,
S:r G. CLERK said that Hon. Members had drawn a
very melancholy picture of tho frame-knit-workers, but
the House must bear h mind that that state had
been brought about by the present system of protection.
The Hon. Member for Leicester had stated that,: every
short time ago, that trade exported goods to the value of
1,000,000/. sterling per annum ; but that at present the
amount was reduced to 400,000/. ; and he had also ad-
mitted that that decrease was in a great measure attri-
butable to their character, which had been lost in the
foreign markets by their dishonest practices. Now, the
only method in his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion of improving
the condition of that branch of manufacture was by ex-
tending their foreign trade, and the measures now pro-
posed by the Government had a tendency to increase
the amount of their exports. Under those circumstances
he was perfectly certain that he should not be actine
right unless he resisted; the amendment of the Hon.
Member.
Mr. STRUTT rose for the purpose of stating that
the object of the meeting of frame-knit-workers which
had lately been held at Nottingham, had been misre-
presented. The object of that meeting was to petition
for the repeal of the corn-laws and the general free-
dom of trade. The ground which those manufacturers
took was this, they were placed in such a position by
tioahepossoibpleerattioon
eomofpete with
the corn-laws, that it was
the
foreign manufac-
tures, and the censequence was that they were
reduced to their present lamentable position. Their
object, therefore, in meeting was not to petition for any
protection whatever, but simply to ask to be placed upon
the same footing as the manufacturers of other nations,
with whom they would then be able to compete.
Mr. W. ELLIS said that he entirely Concurred in the
observations that had been made by the Hon Member in
reference to this petition. He (Mr. Ellis) was cognizant
of many of the facts that had been stated in reference to
this subject. Ho had himself canvassed the town of
Leicester, and during that canvass he had been told tales
of distress the most horrifying that it was possible to
conceive.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said there was not a year in
which he did not hear those complaints of distress in
Nottingham, and therefore he was compelled to believe
that there must be something vicious in the system
which prolonged such a state of things.
Mr. MILES said he had heard the Hon. Member
opposite state that the result of this measure would be
that the people of this country would receive an
abundant supply of bread. Now he had been many
years in Nottingham, and he should say, as the result of
his experience, that the Saxons would throw into this
country such a supply of their manufacutures as would
materially injure the manufactures of this country..
Mr. DUNCOMBE said, that in his opinion, the
Saxons had as much to do with the matter as the New
Zealanders.—(Laughter.) Neither did he believe that
the trade at present was in the bad state in which it had
been represented. Nothing certainly could be more
dreadful, more miserable, or more degraded, than the
condition of the operatives ; for this reason, that they
never got a far share of the profits. Hon. Gentlemen
might suppose that by raising the duty from 20 to 40 per
cent. they would be bettering the condition of the opera-
tives. It was no such thing.---(Hear, hear.) He knew
very well, that while the manufacturers were getting
18s. per dozen for hose, the operatives engaged in fabri-
cating them did not get more than Bs. per dozen, which,
decidedly, was not a fair share of the profit —(Cries of
"Hear, hear.") Now, wby was that the case? Simply
because there were middlemen, who stepped in between
the manufacturer and the operative.—(Hear, hear.)
Let them do away with that system, and they would
need no protection.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord INGESTRE rose amid loud cries of " divide."
He wished to ask if, in the meetings referred to, held at
Leicester and Nottingham, there bad been a single ope-
rative present
After a few words from Mr. FREWEN and Lcrd
WORSLEY, which did not reach the gallery, owing to
the loud cries fora division,
Lord G. BENTINCK begged to be permitted to say
one word in favour of the hose-weavers. Hon. Gentle-
men would have the House believe that part of their dis-
tress was owing to protection.—(Hear, hear.) Now he
should like to know,
if protection were the bane
of the hose-weavers, how it came that the Saxons, who
were also protected, not only maintained their position
in the market, but were also driving the English article
out of the market ?—(Hear, hear.) The accounts
given by Mr. Mac Gregor with regard to the manufac-
ture of Saxony proved that they could there afford to
make stockings at 3d. per pair. His Hon-. Friend the
Member for Finsbury had told the House, that in this
country they could only make them at Bs. per dozen pairs ;
and he (Lord G. Bentinck) wished to know how
the stocking-makers in Nottingham were to compete
with the Saxons at a protective duty of 10 per cent.
His Noble Friend (the Member for Lincolnshire) came
to that House to seek for protection for agriculture, to
benefit the English labourer, and yet he expressed his
readiness to try an experiment on those half-starved
stocking-makers of Leicester. Did not his Hun. Friend
(the Member for Leicester) tell the House that there
were more than 100,000 people in the stocking trade ;
and was his Hon. Friend prepared to try free-trade ex-
periments with the 100,000 poor stocking-makers ?
After a few words, in explanation, from Lord
WORSLEY-,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when there ap-
peared—
For the amendment lO2
Against it l9O
.......
Majority for the Government
_BB
proposition .......
Mr. BANKS considered it was not expedient that
they should proceed further that night, and, therefore,
he should move the adjournment of the question.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE complained that trade and
commerce were suffering in cunsequenca of the Tariff
being unsettled. What he would suggest was, that
they should postpone those items to which there was
any opposition, and go through the rest of the Tariff. The
former wore very few, and this arrangement would do
much to facilitate business.
Lord JOHN MANNERS protested against saying
that the trade and commerce were suffering from the op-
position of 120 Members on his (the protection) side of
the House.
Sir GEORGE GREY coincided with the suggestion
of Mr. Labouchere.
Mr. TRELAWNEY was of opinion that the oppo-
Bar to occasion delay, so
Baronet from getting the
saist itoon
hoifn-dlieornt.hGe enntilgehratenuo%'o.s only
revenue.
Sir R. PEEL said, all the consideration he had given
to this measure -was for the interest of the country.
The arrangement made was, that they should take the
second reading of the Corn Bill as early as possible, and
he should wish, if it were possible, that they should
commence the second reading on Tuesday. They would
go on on Monday to complete the Tariff, as proposed
with respect to the corn-laws. Having made that ar-
rangement, he confessed that he was very unwilling to
depart from it, if they h ad any prospect of completing
the debate on Monday. He repeated that, as far as the
public interest was concerned, it_ would be the best that
could be done to go on with the Tariff on Monday, and
the Corn Bill on Tuesday.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that as far as he
was concerned, he had not the least objection to the pro-
position of the Hon. Baronet. He and his friends were
not prepared to discuss the Tariff, and they bad as yet
allowed it to pass through the Committee without any
objection. There were however certain articles to
which he wished to state an objection, such as silks,
spirits, and French brandy, and the debate would more
than occupy the space of one night.
PEEL said that he trusted that it was possible
to finish debate on Monday, at any rate they would
continue the Tariff on Menday, and if they wore able they
proceed with the Corn Bill on Tuesday.
owouldfii
rni:
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it seemed far more
likely to be for the commercial interest of the country,
if the Tariff were continued as early as possible. He
was persuaded that many of his Hon. Friends, who had
motions for Tuesday, would readily waive their right, in
order to allow the Right Hon. Baronet's proposition to
I be carried into effect.
Lord SANDON made a few observations, which in
the confusion did not reach the gallery.
OUT-PENSIONER'S PAYMENT (GREENWICH
AND CHELSEA) BILL.

On the question being put as to going into Committee on
this Bill, Captain PECHELL rose and objected to their
going through Committee at that late hour, and particu-
larly as the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at
War, had afforded the House no explanation on the sub-
ject of th-s Bill.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT hoped the Gallant Officer
would not persist in opposing the committal of the Bill,
for it was of the utmost importance that the Bill should
pass at as early a period as possible. It was not pro-

posed to embody the sailors, and he hoped this state-
ment would remove the objection of the Noblo and
Gallant Member.

Sir C. NAPIER said that after the explanation of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, he had no objection to the Bill
passing through Committee. At the same time, how
ever, it must be distinctly understood that the power of

;he Admiralty, in respect of the sailor pensioners, was
tot to be transferred to the Secretary at War.
The Speaker then left the chair, and the House went
nto Committee on the Bill.

On the first clause being proposed,
Captain PECITELL expressed himself dissatisfied
with the explanation of the lion. Gentleman the Secre-
tary at War. If it was not proposed to embody the pen-
sioners who were sailors, why not amend the Bill ac-
cordingly ? It was but natural for sailors to prefer being
under the command of a nasT.l rather than a military
officer.

After a few words from Mr. S. HERBERT and Captain
PECHELL.

The Bill passed through Committee pro forma, and the
House haring resumed, the report was ordered to be
brought up on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half-past One.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, March 12.
CROWN COURT.

James Baylis, George Lee, John Willis, and Henry Willis,
were together indicted for a burglary on the Bth of Novem-
ber last, at Eldersfield, when nine cheeses and a quantity of
eggs, meat, and bread were stolen. The facts of the case
seemed sufficiently conclusive as to the guilt of the accused,
but, strange to say, the jury, after a few minutes, returned a
verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. Huddlestone appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoners
were defended by Mr. Beaden and Mr. Cooke.