The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, VI:EDNESDAy EVENING, MAY 13, 1846:

Committee to withhold their sanction from any railway which did
not appear to be the best that could be constructed for the public
accommodation in its district.

Mr. T. Wyng, of Thornley, a magistrate of Cambridge, and agent
to the Duke of Bedford, gave evidence in favour of the line, so far as
the arrangements for maintaining the drainage were concerned.
Mr. Fulton, one of the engineers, was examined as to the merits of
the line in his department. There were no engineering difficulties.
The cross-examination did not materially affect his direct evidence.
The Committee then adjourned. .

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 12.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

The Earl of_ SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from
the authorities of Winchester College praying their Lordships
to exempt that institution from the provisions of the Bill.
LOCAL BURDENS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented reports which, on his
motion, were referred to the Committee on Local Burdens.
A BISHOPRIC FOR MANCHESTER.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
Church Lay Society of Bath, very numerously and respectably
signed, praying their Lordships to form a new bishopric for
the town of Manchester and the adjacent districts. He thought
he need hardly say that he entirely agreed in the prayer of the
petition, and could see no argument why their Lordships should
not accede to it.

Rotherham Gas.

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition, numerously signed
by members of the Free Church of Scotland, praying their
Lordships to pass some measure to enable the members of that
church to obtain sites for the erection of places of public wor-
ship. He wished, however, to take that opportunity
to say that information had reached him that members
of the Free Church of Scotland had behaved unreasonably, and
had nut been contented with the sites which had been assigned
to them, and which would have answered their purpose, and
had insisted upon having other sites assigned to them with no
other object than to annoy the members of the Established
Church. But if a landowner refused to allow a site for the
erection of a place of worship for a considerable number of
those OR his property who professed the doctrines of the
Free Church, that, in his opinion, would be an
abuse of the rights of property, and their Lordships would be per-
fectly justified in passing a measure to enable those persona to ob-
tain sites by fairly remunerating the proprietors of the land.
The Duke of RICHMOND considered that, where a land-
owner held the whole of the parish, he should give a central
site for the purpose of building churches. He hoped to see the
unpleasant differences between the free church and the old
church healed. These churches would then make good preach-
ing stations for the old church.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Leith Paving.
Wesitruther Road.

Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from Barnet against
the Charitable Trusts Bill.

Lord ItIONTEAGLE also presented a petition from the
congregation of York-street Chapel, Walworth, against the
Bill.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the trustees of
the Wesleyan Chapel in Birmingham of a similar nature.

RAILWAY COMPANIES.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for returns of the amount of
capital proposed to be raised by railway companies in the pro-
sent session.

CORN-LAWS.

The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a petition from the
Corporation of the Bedford Levels, praying their Lordships
not to allow the Ministerial measures, with refetence to the
importation of corn, to be passed into law. The Noble
Lord said there was no part of her Majesty's do-
minions that had a better right to petition against the repeal of
the corn-laws than this Corporation, as the land of the Bedford
Level had been reclaimed from the sea at a great expense and
was maintained by great care and drainage. Before the em-
bankment and drainage of this tract of country it was entirely
useless, but since the time of Charles 11. it had
been reclaimed and now there was no port in
the empire that exported more wheat than the port
of Lynn. The average rent of land here was 255. per acre,
and the expenses were 16s. per acre before a single farthing
was forthcoming. The value and preservation of this entirely
artificial tract of land would be placed in great peril and
jeopardy if the present measure of her Majesty's Government
was carried. He thought it right that he should explain this
much in presenting the petition to their Lordships.
Earl FITZ WILLIA M said that, after the remarks which
had been made by his Noble Friend, it might be inferred, if he
did not make one or two observations to the House, that he
had suffered judgment to go by default. Notwithstanding
the prophecy of his Noble Friend, he (Earl Fitzwilliam )
would volunteer a counter-prophecy, and that was, that not-
withstanding that the Bill which was now about to be brought
before their Lordships were passed—a Bill giving perfect free-
dom of trade in foreign corn—( Hear, hear)—he en-
tertained not the slightest doubt that the Noble Lord and
himself would continue to recaive the rents they had been
accustomed to impose within that level, unless, indeed, they
had exacted more than their property was worth. He (Lord
Fitzwilliam) was sure that it was not so with his Noble Friend,
and he could also depose that it was not so with himself.
He repeated, that if they had not so raised the rents,
there was no danger that the proper rents would not
be received. He would venture to prophecy, therefore, that
in ten years hence the rents would be as good as those they
were receiving at the present moment. Great improvements
had no doubt been made by the introduction of an improved
system of agriculture, and by the introduction of a mode of
managing land superior to that formerly in use. Great im-
crovernents had also been made in drainage, and par-
ticularly in these levels, and those improvements would
doubtless progress with the growing necessity. He had
no doubt that under the new system increased energy would be
followed by increased success.

Wilsontown, Morningside, and Coltness Railway (Bathgate
Branch).
Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway (Thirsk and

Mahon Branches).
Boston, Stamford, and Birmingham Railway (Stamford to

Wisbech).
Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway.
Mallon and Driffield Junction Railway.
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway Extension
(No. 2).
North British Railway (No. 1).
Ayrshire, Bridge of Weir, and Port Glasgow Junction Rail-

way.
Stowmarket Navigation.
Birkenhea4 Improvement Commissioners.

York and North Midland Railway (East Riding Branches,
No. 1).
York and North Midland Railway (East Riding Branches,

No. 2).
North-Western Railway.
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway (Branches
to Paisley).
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway (Branches
to Thornliebank, Ilousehill, and Hurlet).
North Staffordshire Railway (Pottery Line).
North Staffordshire Railway (Churnet Valley Line).
North Staffordshire Railway (Harecastle to Sandbach).
Buckinghamshire Railway (Oxford and Bletchley Junction).
Sidmouth Market.

Southampton Port and Harbour.
Wishaw and Oiliness Railway (Greenhill Branch).
Sligo Harbour Improvement.
Scottish Central Railway (Alloa Branch).
Greenlaw Roads.

Port Ellen Harbour.

Chard Canal Railway.

Yeovil Market and Pairs.

Kilmarnock and Troon Railway.
GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY AND THE RIVER
____

MERSEY.

Mr MILNER GIBSON begged tollearn from the Noble
Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what course
the conservators of the River Mersey proposed to take in refer-
ence to the new bridge proposed to be erected by the Grand
Junction Railway Company over the River Mersey below
Warrington. The bridge was to consist of five arches and four
piers, and, if erected, would be a considerable impediment to the
free navigation of that river.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET was understood to say,
that the Board of Admiralty and the conservators of the river
did not propose to take any steps against its erection, believing
that it would not interfere with the navigation.
Mr. HUME said, that the application made by the Hon.
Member for Manchester was a very proper one ; and, if he un-
derstood the Noble Lord's answer correctly, he did not understand
what were the grounds which induced the Board of Admiralty
to acquiesce in such a course. He believed there were no less
than 20,000 tons of merchandise daily passing up and down
that river, and if these piers and arches were erected, the free
course of the river would be impeded, and the free navigation
of the river rendered extremely dangerous. He was sorry to see
so little regard paid to river navigation, as he believed it con-
stituted one of the principal sources of the commercial
prosperity of the country. He hoped his Hon. Friend would
take another opportunity, when seme of the Lords of the Ad-
miralty were present, of bringing forward the question, in order
that it might be considered.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS wished to know of the Noble Lord
if the bridge was intended to be a swivel bridge ? He would be
extremly sorry to oppose any well-regulated scheme for the
purpose of facilitating the transit of traffic either by land or
water, but he could not help entertaining a fear that the pre-
sent plan would be injurious to the free navigation of the
river. He would, therefore, like to know whether it was
intended to be a swivel bridge?
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that it was
not proposed to be a swivel bridge, but the arches
would be sufficiently high to admit of vessels
passing under them, with their masts standing and
he did not think that any obstruction would be caused.
Mr. AULIONBY considered that the country was very
much indebted to the Hon. Member for Manchester for bring-
ing the subject before the House. There was an opinion
abroad, he was not aware upon what quantity of truth
it was founded, but there was an opinion very
generally held that the Board of Admiralty had
too much to do to attend to these particulars. The
immense power which had been lately conferred upon railway
companies induced a neglect to the public interests. The
Committee had come to the decision that there should be no
interference with the navigation of the Mersey, unless with
the consent of the conservators of the river. They had no
knowledge of those persons who were appointed by the Admi-
ralty, and were changed from time to time. They might be
trustworthy, or they might not, and consequently they could
not know whether the interests of the public would be pro-
tected or not. However, if they allowed the papers which the
Hon. Gentleman moved for, they would be in a position to
know something more of the subject. It was of immenseim-
portance to the public, and he hoped his Hon. Friend would
continue to give his attention to the subject.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask the Noble Lord
( Granville Somerset) whether clauses were to be -.in-
troduced into the Bill that the bridge was to be built in a par-
ticular manner, or would there be a plan submitted to
the House so as to enable them to see the
exact mode in which it was to be constructed ? He
wished also to know, was there not a report made to the
Board of Admiralty, by Captain Evans, with regard to the
constructing a bridge across the Mersey, upon some former
occasion, and if so, would the Government have any objection
to lay that report before the Hou,e ?
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, who was perfectly in-
audible in the gallery, was understood to reply that the Govern-
ment would have no objection to lay the papers on the table
of the House.

Mr. THORNELY said that the Grand Junction Company
crossed the Mersey already by means of a bridge at Warring-
ton. He had been on a Committee, which sat some years ago,
when it was proposed to cross the Mersey by means of a bridge
between Warrington and Runcorn. On that occasion it was
made out, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that such a
bridge might be erected without injury to the navigation.
An HON. MEMBER presented several petitions against the
branch lines of the London and Birmingham Railroad Com-
pany.
Mr. ESTCOURT presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Warrington in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief
Bill.

support—(Laughter)—and begging them to lose no time !
in canvassing the county, so as to anticipate those who might I
be disposed to vote against him.—( Hear, hear.) He could
assure the Noble Lord that this was the first intimation he had
of the whole proceeding. He had also been in the county of
Nottingham for the last few days, and had seen a gentleman
who said that no such canvass had taken place, and that if it
had they would have voted for him (Mr. Hildyard), and not
for the Noble Lord.— ( Hear, hear.) Now he must say that
he hoped he had now refuted the assertions of the Noble Lord
to the satisfaction of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Ile must
say at the same time that he thought that the charge was most
uncalled-for, and most ungenerous on the part of the Nobte
Lord, particularly as he (Mr. Hildyard) was absent in the
country. The Noble Lord must have known that he (Mr.
Hildyard) had, during the whole of the election, done every-
thing on his part to secure his election. He had not said a
singl word which could be construed into a personal hostility.
He did not even retaliate the charges, or indulge in the person-
alities which were then made use of by the Noble Lord.
These personalities were regretted by the Noble Lord's
enemies, and they were not denied by his friends. He
only trusted that his fate, which was so regretted by his
Noble Friends, would be the fate of many others at the
next general election.—( Cheer. from the protectionists. )
The Earl of LINCOLN said, he regretted taking up the
time of the House on anything personally interesting to him-
self. When he addressed the House on Friday last he was
not aware of the lion. Member's absence from his place in
Parliament; in fact he thought he was then in the House.—
( Hear, hear.) With regard to the charge which he alluded
to on Friday night, what he ( Lord Lincoln) said was, that
the Hon. Member had charged him, through his friends, with
a lavish expenditure at the election. He did not say that the
Hon. Member had charged him with bribery ; what he had
said was, that his friends were charged with lavish expendi-
ture. Now he could assure the Hon. Member, that friends
were not so easily to be found ready with a lavish expenditure ;
and as for himself (Lord Lincoln) he had not expended
more than the legal sum for the purposes of the else-
tion.—( Hear. hear.) If the Honourable Member had stated
before what he had stated that evening, he would never have
heard a word about the matter in that House. The lion.
Member, when applied to about such charges, refused to
explain anything about it. He could assure the Hon. Mem-
ber that he had no ill-will against him. however, as be was
unwilling to lay under the charge of having stated a falsehood,
he should say a few words more. The Hon. Member had
stated that he did not take the county by surpsise, and that
it had not been canvassed by him, and that he was not aware
that an election was to take place until he had heard of it from
him (Lord Lincoln). Now he (Lord Lincoln) was aware that
the Noble Lord did not start for the county until the Monday
after the Saturday upon which he had got his (Lord Lincoln's)
letter ; while he (Lord Lincoln) should say that the
county had been canvassed two months before he had
vacated his seat, for an unknown candidate, and
for a gentleman who it was intended should be his (Lord
Lincoln's) opponent, but that he was obliged to be absent.
Well, then, upon his (Lord Lincoln's) arrival at Newark, on
the Monday morning, he was told it was known that he had
been appointed Secretary for Ireland, and he found the whole
of the election machinery at full work, by which means he was
defeated ; and the only additional expense he was put to in
consequence was the employment of an increased number
of solicitors. In conclusion, he had only now to say that the
Hon. Member was mistaken if he supposed that he ( Lord
Lincoln) had the least ill-feeling towards him, and that he
(Lord Lincoln) was perfectly satisfied with the explanation he
had given.—( Hear, hear.)
COMMUNICATION WITH NEW YORK.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in
answer to a question, that he believed it was intended to have
weekly instead of fortnightly communications between Liver-
pool and New York.

On the order of the day being read,
Mr. DISRAELI thought that it was but right that the
House should be put into possession of the facts on which his
Noble Friend (the Noble Lord the Member for Devon) had
stated the circumstance on which he had acted. The Noble
Lord had not made any specific charge, but the statement
which he had made was founded on the fact that the Noble
Lord (the Member for the Falkirk Burghs) had engaged every
professional agent in the county.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The order of the day was again read.
Mr. NEWDEGATE regretted that on thisimportant ques-
tion he was placed in the prominent position he now occupied ;
but it should be borne in recollection that the Noble Lord the
Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire was in the posses-
sion of the House, and made a speech which reminded him of
the spirit of the days of Pitt and of Canning, rather than of
the spirit that pervaded the debates of the present day. He
must take permission to speak to the Noble Lord's arguments,
on whose authority, too, he was quite ready to rely, on the state-
ments of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home
Department (Sir J. Graham). That Noble Lord had
stated that twenty millions of bushels of corn were grown
annually in Prussia, but to this opinion he could not assent.
He had been at some pains to collect the prices of wheat at
-New Orleans, the outlet of the Western States of America,
and during the last three years the average price of wheat was
245. Bd. per quarter; and, according to the best information
he could get on the subject, the expense of transit and car-
riage was 105. per cwt. They might expect, therefore, that
wheat would be introduced into this country at an average
of 31s. ; and how, 1:e would ask, could the British farmer
contend against prices like this?—( Hear, hear.) He would
now refer to the statements of the Right Honourable
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, which appeared to him to have been particularly
directed to the Members of the protectionist party.
For his part he could see no reason for apprehension, but if
there was any danger which might have acted upon the appre-
hensions of her Majesty's Government, it was probably a
stagnation of trade.— (Hear, hear.) Now he was much of
the same opinion, but he considered that they would have a
stagnation of trade, whether these measures were carried or
not. He could not help thinking that certain measures, intro-
duced by the Government in 1 5,44, were very much the cause of
the depression. When they remembered the speech of the Noble
Lord the Member for London, and how he warned them on
that side of the House, that unless they yielded in favour of
public opinion, when expressed in such combinations as the
Anti-Corn-law League, they could not be surprised at
the course which had been adopted. The Nohle Lord
quoted to them the course of events on the passing of the
Reform Bill, of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, when public
opinion overcame her Majesty's Government, and even when
at a later period the monster meetings and agitation in Con-
ciliation Hall had again caused the firmness of the Minister to
yield.—(Hear, hear.) Ile told them that success was ine-
vitable. If that were so, the Noble Lord was prepared to
yield to another agitation in another country, and its chance
of success stood in all respects equal. Upon this subject he
would allude to the opinion of the Hon. Member for Cork,
whom he did not then see in 1-is place, but he trusted that he
might b allowed in his absence to allude to these opinions.
The Hon. Member then quoted varir-us extracts from the
speeches of Mr. O'Connell, made about the passing of the
grant to Maynooth, which augured favourably of the repeal
movement, in consequence of the passing of the Maynooth
grant, and other measures of a popular character. Were not
the present circumstances such as to jnstify the anticipations of
the Hon. Member? When the present corn-laws were re-
pea'ed, what could prevent the Right Hon. Baronet from con-
ceding to the Hon. Member for Cork what he did not refuse
to the Hon. Member for Stockport?—( Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved the greatest loss which would be sustained by the pass-
ing of the present measure would be the loss of character and
the want of confidence in public men.—(Hear, hear.) He
fully coincided with the Hon. Member for Huntingdon that
the greatest suffering to which the public were subject
in these times was from the dearth of statesmen.
The Hon. Secretary for the Home Department had stated
that he thought the natur e of the present currency system in-
consistent with the maintenance of our present state of com-
merce. Was it unreasonable of him (Mr. Newdegate) to sup-
pose that an alteration, such as proposed by the Right Hon.
Bart., was only the precursor of more serious alterations, which
it would be better for the country if they had never been
adopted. The Right Hon. Baronet said that he thought that
the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had said something about an
exportation of bullion as soon as these measures had passed. In
order that he might not mispote the Right Hon. Baronet, he
would read what he had said. The Right Hon. Baronet
ageeed with the Hen. Member for Shrewsbury, that in the
present state of the monetary system an exportation of bullion
would be injurious. How did that agree with the opinion of
the Right Hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government, who
said that he did not care if an exportation of bullion took place,
and indeed he rather wished it? But again the Right lion.
Baronet had admitted a little more than the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He
said, that after this panacea of free trade had been enacted,
when the time of peculiar emergency and scarcity arrived
there must be a large exportation of bullion. Who could
doubt that that would be the case ?—( Hear, hear.) He
would ask the House, knowing the effects of an
exportation of bullion remembering the prices of
1825—(Hear, hear)—and the prices of 1839, whether after
they had reduced the wages of labour in this country, which
he contended they must do, in order to gain the extension of
trade which they desired—( Hear, hear)—whether such a com-
mercial crisis would be felt more or less?—( Hear, hear.) But
then the Right lion. Baronet went on to explain how, in the
ordinary course of trade, the opening of the ports would pre-
vent the exportation of bullion. The Right Hon. Baronet had
said, " he could not separate the question of the foreign from
the home trade, and that as soon as the consumption of our
manufactures at home would not be equal to the demand, those
goods wou'A be exported to the foreign market, which would
soon be glutted, and in that case it would be necessary to take
payment for those goods in"corn." Well, now, supposing that
was the case, all that would be effected, and the manufacturers
would have the opportunity of shifting the loss, which would
be entailed upon them, by the reduction in the prices conse-
quent upon the glutted state of the market. There would be
a forced importation of corn into the home market, and the
manufacturers would relieve themselves from the loss in the
first instance, by causing a glut of corn, which they would take
in exchange for their goods. But how would that act upon
the country? Every one who knew anything of forced ex-
changes of goods would know that it was quite clear that
bullion would be brought back as well as grain. They would
then have a forced exportation in payment or the
goods they sold in the foreign markets, and they would not be
able to recover from that glut, because the remittances would
be in csrn, and all their ordinary imports, which did not de-
pend upon the exclusion of the foreign trade, would be, dur-
ing the whole time abstracting their bullion. The conse-
quence of this state of things would be distress to all classes
in this country. He believed that when Adam Smith and
Ricardo recommended free trade, they contemplated a different
system of currency to the present system ; and, in fact, the
Right Hon. Baronet had admitted it. He thought this coun-
try would have bitterly to regret the determination of the
Right Honourable Baronet. The Right Honourable Gm-1
tleman at the head of the Home Department
hapdrordaluce.
much of the fall of prices in agricultural
He would call his attention to the opinionof Malthus,
in his letters to the landed interest. lie had abandoned those
principles; but were they good in 1826 and bad now? Were
circumstances changed, or the pressure of the national debt less?
Mr. Malthus said that if the price of wheat were to fall to
50s. there could be no doubt the stockholder would be bene-
fited at the expense of the industrious man, and instead of the
interest paid by Government being five per cent., according
to the present monetary system, the result would bl that they
would in reality pay seven, eight, and nine per cent. The
price that was contemplated was not, however, 505., it was
355. He would now turn to the question whether the corn-
laws were just or unjust. It was a novel position for the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State when he callsd the corn-
laws unjust. It was in fact a virtual confession that he had
been unjust for a period of thirty • ears to the people of this
country. He (Mr. Newdegate) felt assured that the effect of
these laws would be to drive seven or eight milli' n quarters
of grain out of the market. The marketshomei would be in-
undated with foreign corn. He maintained that this country
would never be rendered independent of foreign countries by
free trade. He had expressed reasons which induced him
to believe that the corn-laws were not unjust. Ile would
advert to the statements which had been made by the Noble
Lord the Member for London. He had advised the Members
of the Upper House of Parliament, as they would per-
serve their position, to succumb to the popular
feeling.—(Hear, hear.) He, however, as an humble
individual would recommend them to convince the people of
this country that they had the honesty to act in accordance
with the dicates of prudence and wisdom. The Upper House
was a court of justice as well as an arena for legislation.
Grievous misstatements existed as to whether the population of ,
this cotwtry were dependent or not on agriculture, lie bad

analysed the statements of M. Guizot and had found them
inaccurate. He had tested their veracity, and he would bring
before the House an analysis which showed the truth. Mr.
Spackman must be a gentleman well known to Ilunourable
Members on both sides of the House, and be proved, by his
account of the census of 1841, that the majority of the popula-
lation of this country were engaged in agricultural pursuits.—
( Hear, hear.) The same gentleman proved that the census
had been taken upon an erroneous data, and this Mr. Speck-
man contended would be manifest, if the instructions
for preparing the census were laid before the world. He
(Mr. Newdegate) believed that it would, and it was his inten-
tion to avail himself of the earliest opportunity of moving for
those instructions.—( Hear, hear.) The census, in fact, had
grossly misled the public, and he would endeavour to find out
how it was, or for what reason so palpable a fraud had been
practised upon the would.—(Hear, hear.) Why, in many
countries that were purely agricultural, and carried on little or
no trade in manufactures, the majority of the population were
stated to be engaged in manufactures. He believed, however,
if a proper return were obtained, it would be shown that there
were 7:1,689 engaged in agriculture over the number engaged
in manufactures. The real number, he beleved, would stand
thus : —16,949 000 of the inhabitants of this country were en-
gaged in agriculture, and 9 837,000 in manufactures. This,
in his opinion, was sufficiently conclusive against the present
policy of the Government, and he therefore would not detain
the House further, but, thanking them for their attention, he
would sit down, regretting the course Government wt re pur-
suing, and declaring his intention to vote against the third
reading of this Bill.—( Cheers. )
Mr. PALMER said it was only of late that free-trade noi
tions and opinions had made any way, either in the House or
the Cabinet, and he dared to say, if every Member could put
his hand upon his heart and vote conscientiously for this mea-
sure, two-thirds of the House would he opposed to it.—( Hear,
hear.) He could boar out the opinion of the Hon. Member
for Warwickshire, that the population, like many other returns
bearing upon the subject, could not be relied upon, and he for
one had long ago protested against the fallacy of these returns.
—( Hear, hear.) They were prepare.) by officers under the
thumb of the Government, who well knew the inclinations and
opinions of the members of the Executive ; and these returns
were prepared, not with a view of putting the public in poss
session of correct information upon the subjects upon which
they treated, but of pandering to the opinions and inclinations
of those who constituted the Government.—( Hear, hear.)
He repeated, then, that these returns were falacious, and he
hoped, in future, no reliance would be placed upon them,
without it could be shown that they had been fairly end cor-
rectly made.---(Hear, hear.) With regard to the measure it-
self, he was firmly convinced that it would prove ruinous to
the majority of the inhabitants of this country ; and if this
House did not throw it out, he trusted the other would.
An HoN. MEMBEtt moved that the House be counted.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but forty Members
being present,
Mr. PALMER proceeded. He contended that the repeal
of the corn-laws would not extend our manufactures, because
as the manufactures of other countries increased the less those
countries would require from us. In all those articles which
they could not do without he thought they ought to depend
upon themselves for. Corn could not be done without, and
therefore its growth in this country ought to be protected.
Those who would first suffer by the measures of the Govern-
ment would be the small farmers, and from them distress would
spread to all classes in the country.
Captain POLHILL believed that this measure would very
materially affect the interests of the tenant farmers. In-
deed so strongly was his impression upon that subject that he
thought it necessary some time ago to press upon the attention
of the House the necessity of introducing into this measure a
clause which would enable that class of agriculturists to claim
such amounts as they should prove before a Se ect Committee
to have lost by the operation of this measure. The Right
Honourable Gentleman in the chair had however informed
him that it was out of his power to propose any
such clause. An article in the Times stated that if such a
Committee were appointed, they would have no less than
300,000 applicants for relief. Now, if he were of opinion that
so large a portion of his fellowecreatures would be iniured by
this measure, he should moat decidedly give his vote against the
third reading of the Bill before the House. The progress of
this measure had been delayed, to the great injury of the agri-
cultural, as well as the manufacturing classes ; and he trusted
that the Legislature would speedily settle the question either
one way or the other. He trusted that, after the passing of this
measure, those gentlemen who had firmed the association called
" The Anti-Corn•law League," would do everything in their
power to dissolve that association, which might in itself be
legal, but which at the same time he considered unconstitue
tional. This great measure had been introduced as an experi-
ment, and he sincerely hoped that it might realise the most
sanguine expectations of its promoters. He hoped that their
cheering prephecies would be fulfilled. He could not sit down
without expressing his sincere thanks to the Noble Lord the
Member for Lynn ( Lord G. Bentinck), for the very able man-
ner in which he had advocated the claims of the agriculturists.
He had certainly done great credit to himself arid the party
which he led. Considering it of the utmost importance to the
well-being of the country that this question should be speedily
settled, he (Captain Polhill) would give his vote for the third
reading of this measure, in order that the excitement which at
present prevailed might be allayed.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENNETT wished to address himself to a point in
which he had for the last fifty years taken the greatest interest,
viz., the interests of the labouring classes of this country ; and
he wished to know from the members of her Majesty's Govern-
ment how they could prove that this measure would effect that
object ? The Hon. Member proceeded to quote from a speech
delivered by Mr. Charles Buller, on 7th March, 1844, in which
that Hon. Gentleman said that the condition of the manufac-
turing labourers was far worse than that of the agricultural
labourers. It was contended by all that this measure
would tend to increase the prosperity of the mane.
facturers at the expense of the agriculturists; the
labouring poor of this country would consequently be brought
more into large towns, where, as had been shown by the Hon.
Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), their lives would be
shortened fifty per cent. ; and yet that same Hon. Gentleman
now came forward to give his support to this measure. If the
wages of the agricultural labourer were low, it was owing to
their employers having imitated the example of the manufac-
turers, by buying in the cheapest market and selling in the
dearest.-4 Hear.) 'Who could blame them ? It was human
nature. Even if this measure would increase the wealth and
greatness of this country, he wished to know whether the hap-
piness of the communi, y at large would increase with the in-
crease of wealth and greatness ? And if it did not (which was
his firm opinion), he contended that no sufficient case had
been made out for the adoption of this measure. He contended
the Government had not acted with sufficient foresight in thus
proposing a measure the result of which they did not know.
Mr. PLUMPTRE also considered the experiment about to
be made by her Majesty's Ministers was a very rash one.
They had thrown every thing into confusion, and divided a
great party, and destroyed the confidence of a large
party, and, how matters would finally be settled
he really could not tell ; and he thought the effect of these
measures on the question of tithes had not been sufficiently
considered ; and he maintained that it was necessary that the
price of corn in this country should be kept up to 51s. per
quarter, in order to enable the corn-growers of this country to
cope with the foreign producer. The injury which would be
caused by the passing of this measure, would be one which
would extend to all classes of the community, and poverty.
ruin, and misery would spread far and wide ; and he hoped
the evils he anticipated from the passing of this measure, would
not take place, and that the good providence of God would con-
tinue to watch over the country, and preserve it from thest
evils. He had no selfish feelings in the matter, and it was
with regret that he felt himself bound in his conscience to give
his vote against the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. HASTIE thought it would be desirable to know the
proportion of the rental of the United Kingdom which was
received from corn.

Sir JOHN WALSH said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Secretary for the Home Department, when discussing the
subject on the previous night, passed over the arguments of the
Honourable Member for Somersetshire with the same careless.
ness as he threw aside his own previous opinions—( Hear, hear)
--but he did not consider that his Hon. Friend had made out
an unanswerable case that the free importation of corn would
be most disadvantageous to the country, and to the agricultural
interests in particular. He would ask, was it not an admitted
fact that corn could be grown and transported from the northern
parts of Europe at a less cost than it could be produced by the
English farmer, and it could not be too generally known that
that corn was about five shillings a quarter better than that
ordinarily grown by the British farmer.—( Hear, hear.) It
was well said that there was no royal road to learn
mathematics, but let them depend upon it there
was no cheap way to improve land.—( Hear, bear.)
Another branch of the subject to which he would allude, and
which was lost sight of entirely during this debate, was the
operation of these laws on the price of wages. The Right.
Hon. Baronet (the Secretary for the Home Department) said
that the price of the food had no connexion with the price of
wages. That might apply to such a country as America. In
Jamaica also the theory might be applicable, but the case of
England was totally different. This country was densely
populated, and there was a rapid increase in the population
constantly going on. The Right Hon. Gentleman has referred
to the experience of the last three years to justify the proposed
measures, but he (Sir J. Walsh) feared that such a space of
time was not a proper criterion to form- a correct judg-
ment on this point. There might be many circumstances
to operate so as apparently to justify the conclusion come to,
but he did not believe that the theory would hold good i'
applied to a longer period. The Right lion. Gentleman ( Sir
R. Peel) said that he was actuated by the most disinterested
and purest motives. It was not necessary for him to make such
a declaration to him (Sir J. Walsh), for he avowed his implicit
confidence in the purity and integrity of the Right Hon.
Baronet's intentions.—( Hear, hear.) But while he gave him
credit for disinterestedness of purpose, he could not avoid
stating that the course which he now proposed to pursue was
an enormous error—an error which shipwrecked statesmen
and shipwrecked states.— (Hear, hear.) What he said he
said with the utmost respect to the Right Hon. Baronet,
could
he deeply regretted the course he had taken, though ho cu
not help expressing his belief in the integrity of the motives by
which he was actuated.—( Hear, hear.)
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
causing a fall in the price of agricultural a
produce,heargument
sto of the
theu
wasne ba a‘ s er± te
upon a fallacy. He wished to remind the Hon. Gentleman, and
those who held
that opinion, that the effect of
that argument would operate in two ways. If
a fall in agricultural produce, that
itr caused
reduction
would go to the benefit of the labourer. He would,
therefore, impress upon them, that such an argument would go
to strengthen the imputation, that this was a landlord's
question, and not one in which the labourer was concerned. If the
prices fell, the labouring classes would be proportionably benefited
He would, therefore, impress upon the Hon. Gentleman not to
place his argument on such a foundation. The Hon. Gentle-
man also referred to the question of capital, but he would ask
were not the labouring classes the origin of all the wealth and
prosperity of the, country ? The Hon. Gentleman also re-
ferred to the prices of wages bearing a relative proportion to
the price of food, lie denied that such was the case, for it had
been over and over again proved that there was no
such dependence, and it had been shown
that the labourer was much better off when
food was cheap, and his wages were proportionably higher than
when it was dear.—( Hear, hear.) The principle reason why
he rose was to allude to the arguments which had been made
use of with respect to the condition of Ireland. It had been
said there was no distress in that country. This was an erro-
neous statement. The markets did not furnish a sufficient
criterion whereby to form an accurate judgment on this point.
In some parts of Ireland potatoes were not extremely high in
price ; but if an argument was found from that circumstance
in favour of the condition of the people, it was an erroneous
one, for the reason why the food was cheap was because
the people were not in a condition to purchase it.
Where the people were in a condition to purchasefood, it hiad. risen to a very alarming extent. Corn had risen, and oXias had
risen beyond the means of the people to purchase' and
good proof that distress really did exist to a
most' lamentable degreee. From the causes which he had stated, the markets
had not shown the distress in its real bearing. He maintained* that it was for the interest of the aristocracy to give to all
classes of the people food at the very cheapest rate. The
people could not be contented without such a state of
things were brought about. He might be told that
reducing the price of food would also bring deem
the rents of the landlords. He did not care for that as as
Irish landowner—as an English representative he felt bound, to
meet so great a change when it was demanded for the good o'
the people. He would bear his share of the injury; as it was
his duty and every landowner's duty when the wants of the
cotultry reqqireclit,,(Hear, hear!) Fox pich KCAPM he fo4

bound to vote for this measure, and to give it every support
his power.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. F. SCOTT had waited in expectation of hearing
some better reasons than had been adduced in favour of thi
mea,ure by the Hon. Gentleman who sat on the opposite side
o f the House. The reasons and arguments adduced in the
present debates had been used over and over again by the Hon.
Members long before the Right Hon. Baronet had taken the
measure up, and if that was the fact, why did he not conform
to this policy before.—( Hear, hear.) 'Why did he for
thirty-six months delay adopting- the - present course? It
had been said that the landlords' acres did not accumulate with
the population of this country. This was too true, but it could
not be denied that our foreign possessions would more than
meet the wants of the country, It could not be denied that
Canada had corn to send in when that should be required. He
had ever studied the wants of the working-classes, and on that
side of the House were not their interests always advocated?
When those with whom he had acted advocated the interests
of the poorer classes, who opposed their endeavours? Who
was it that threw impediments in the way but those who now
were so loud in the advocacy of them?— (" Hear, hear," from
the protection benches.) This measure was, beyond all doubt,
one which would be also detrimental to Ireland, and that fact
had already been proved by the arguments that had been ad-
duced. The Hon. 'Member then referred to the exports of this
country to China, in the articles of silk, woollen, and cotton.
He would then say that all that England wanted was even
justice, and if the Government were going to do justice to the
manufacturers, why would they not also deal evenhanded jus-
tice to the agriculturists ?—( Hear, hear.) It could not be
denied that the agriculturists were as willing to bear their share
of the burdens of the country as any other portion of the public.
( Hear, hear.) He would ask why would not the Government
propose reductions upon other necessaries of life as well as
corn sent in here, on which the duty was now 250 per cent. ?
Mr. Pitt got up the colonial system, and had he lived to the
present time he (Mr. Scott) would engage to say he would
have regarded the system in the same manner as the eider Mr.
Pitt. The elder Mr. Pitt, in speaking of the colonies, said
that we bound the colonies by our laws, regulations, and re-
strictions in trade, navigation and manufacture, and that the
protection which we extended to them, whether the protection
of a military force, or protection in those every day transac-
tions between them and other countries, called commerce,
should not be withdrawn. They had encouraged where
they ought to have prohibited, and prohibited where they
ought to have encouraged. We had so extensive a colonial
trade that it amounted to one-fourth of all our produce ex-
ported, and, therefore, it was madness, by a measure like this,
to sever the connexion between them and the mother country.
Look at the feeling which had been expressed in Canada.
They said that we imposed rules on them, quartered troops on
them, and confined them with our regulations and
laws ; and when they asked to send ail --they could
send to us, their wheat and their timber, we replied
that the Baltic was nearer to us, and that we
had rather take it from them. Because they were submissive
and patient, and the others were irritated, we would rather
deal with them. The West Indies, in the same manner, op-
posed the remarks of the Right Hon. Baronet, when he said
that he could not consent to tax the necessaries of life when
they came from a foreign country, but he would do so when it
came from the colonies. He felt he had already occupied the
House too much, and he should now no longer trespass on their
attention, but would conclude by thanking the House for the
indulgence it had afforded him.
Lord BROOKE said he rose on this occasion to make a few
observations relative to the measures then before the House.
He could assure the House that, after having spoken on a
former occasion, he would not trespass on them again so soon,
especially after the kind indulgence afforded him on the former
occasion, if the measure were not of sufficient importance to
induce him to do so. He assured the House he was un-
willing to allow this opportunity to pass, without en-
deavouring to justify the course which he on a former
occasion took, in giving his vote against the measure of the
Right Hon. Baronet. He was not about to enter on this
subject, for which he very well knew he was not qualified, but
he -must contend that on the fir.t introduction of this measure,
and the principles it involved, and the results likely to accrue
from it, he would, like other Members of the House, give his
decided opposition to it. They were told, three months ago,
to wait and see how the distress of the people would be in-
creased. The corn-laws had been preserved for many years
by the wisdom and judgment of several successive statesmen.
The propose& measure was not one that would warrrant the
people in placing any confidence in its promoters. The Noble
Lord then entered into an elabee ate comparison of the prices of
corn from the year 1770 to the present period, showing
.that
there had been very little variation in prices. He should be
glad to see agriculture and commercego hand-in-hand together
without either being depreciated to aggrandise the other, or one
having an undue advantage over the other.
Captain VYSE would not have addressed the House on the
present occasion had lie not felt it to be his duty to his consti-
tuents. No man ought to give a silent vote on so important a
question as the present. The only reason they had for passing
this measure was the alleged distress in Ireland, but that dis-
tress had been contradicted by unanswerable proofs—proofs
which had never been answered by the Ministers of the Crown.
It was very easy to raise the cry of cheap bread, but was it so
easy to allay it? They were called on now to pass a measure
which was without precedent, and to please whom? To
please the agitators of the country—to please the Hon. Member
for Stockport, and his brother agitators, who had carried their
measures thus far. He would oppose this measure to his
utmost.

Mr. SEYMER said that a mistake had been made by the
Right Hon. Baronet, when he stated that the Dorsetshire la-
bourers were only paid seven shilling a week, and that rent,
&c., was to be deducted from that sum. He could assure
the Right Hon. Baronet, that the wages of the labourers in
that county were at least seven shillings, and, in addition to
this sum they had free cottages, besides other advantages. He
would wish to ask a question rom the Right Hon. Baronet.
Would he have supported this measure if it had been proposed
by the Noble Lord the Member for London ? He could not
see how they could answer the question. The only difference
hitherto between the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet
was in political opinion. But when the Right Hon. Baronet
came round to support the same political principles as the
Noble Lord, he could not see upon what grounds they could
support the one in preferency to the other. There was a great
uncertainty in agricultural operations which did not belong to
manufactures, and he could not see how any increase in pro-
duction would make up for a reduction in price. This
uncertainty in the operations of agriculture appeared to him a
justification of the sliding-scale, which was now proposed to be
abandoned. Under the present circumstances of the country
he considered the sliding. scale more applicable than any other.
The present course of policy in the House was paying court to
the doctrines of political economy, which he was persuaded
were losing its hold upon the feelings of the country, as shown
in the proceedings taken in mining and factory operations, and
which he trusted would even be shown by Hon. Members to-
morrow. They had heard a great deal of what wages would
he under free trade, and the Right Hon. Baronet had told them
that wages were not regulated by the price of food. To that he
would say that the continual cry of the free-traders had been
to increase the demand for produce, and that demand could
only be created by reducing the price of the articles, which
would involve a reduction in the rate of wages.—( Hear, hear. )
When they said they were not independent of foreigners, he
thought they forgot their colonies. The colonies, properly
conducted, would prevent anything like a dependance upon
foreigners. He could not understand the rise of the colonies
under a system of free-trade. Ho would turn for a moment
to the subject of the failure of the potato crop. He had never
understood that failure. He believed that the Rsght Hon.
Baronet would have been perfectly justified in opening the
ports in November last. If that were the case, what could be
said of his colleagues who out-voted him on that occasion. They
must then have been violent protectionists—much more violent
than he would have been under similar circumstances. Now
they were violent free-traders. He would not impute motives,
but he would say, that he did not understand their conduct.
The Right Hon. Baronet had first introduced his measure
upon consideration of policy, but finding it so violently op.
posed, it became a question of justice. When it was taken to
another place, where he had no doubt it would be still more
violently opposed, no doubt it would be considered by the
reverend en ators at Covent Garden Theatre, a religioos ques-
tion. He said, then, that the manufacturing interest were
far from unanimous upon the question, or rather those who
were engaged in the operative department of manufacture.
They were decidedly in favour of a Ten Hours Bill, but con-
sidered that the protectionists had sacrificed that measure and
rescinded their votes in its favour, because they wished to keep
in a protectionist Minister. They argued, therefore, that if
the corn-laws were to stand in the way of the passing of a ten
hours' 11111 the sooner they were abolished the better. It was
this feeling which had induced the manufacturing operative to
become a supporter of this Bill, and not from a conviction that
free trade would immediately benefit him or his country.—
(Cheers.) He was asked, or rather the protectionist party
was asked, why or wherefore was the price of land kept up so
high ? He would tell them why. It was because of the
advantages which were attached to the possession of land.—
( Hear, hear.) A millionnaire could pass down Cheapside with-
out anybody knowing or noticing him. He might be run
over by an omnibus and killed, and although the accident
might occur within one hundred yards of his own
house no one would recognise him unless he
had his card-ease in his pocket.—( Hear, hear.) On the other
hand, the millionnaire might go down into the country and pur-
chase a large estate. He then assumed the advantageous posi-
tion of a magistrate, became a deputy Lord-Lieutenant, and
highly preserved his game.—( Cheers.) It was these things
that kept up the price of land, and while these advantages
were attached to the possession of land, its price would continue
high.—( Hear, hear.) Before he concluded, he wished to ad-
dress an observation to the Hon. Member for Stockport. That
Hon. Gentleman had said that the farmers were with him, but
wouldof
his ietr
rboern; c elsfs aey
wt oe
rteo,s sheh i
wma isnpae
rbs
01 ann,,kneyt tanegconvince
withitim
many strong-armed yeoman who were perfectly ready and wil-
ling to do so.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would conclude
by observing, that the protectionists had every just reason
for vigorously opposing the progress of this measure. The
Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud and continued
cheering from the protectionists.
Mr. COLQUHOUN moved that the debate be adjourned,
which was agreed to, on the understanding that the division
on the third reading should take place on Thursday evening.
RAILWAY COMPANIES DISSOLUTION BILL.
This Bill was then read a second time on the motion of Sir
GEORGE CLERK.

-----
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-put Twelve o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
TUESDAY, MAY 12.
The following Petitions for Railway's were reported, and the Bills
ordered to be brought in by the undernamed lion. Member,::—
Midland (Birmingham and Gloucester Branches)—Mr. Hudson and
Mr. Phillpotts.
West Biding Union (No. 2)—Vlscount Morpeth, Mr. 13. Denison, M r.
C. Wood, and Mr. Entwisle.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEE.
The following resolutions were reported from this Committee:—
I. That, in the case of the Poole Harbour petition, fin• leave to
present the Bill, the sessional order ought not to be dispensed with. :
2. That, in the case of the Wilts, Somerset, and Southampton
Railway petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
3. That, in the case of tha Warwick and Worcester Railway
petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
4. That, in the case of the London and Birmingham Railway
(Newport Pagnel Branch) petition, for additional provision, the
standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
5. That, in the case of the Portsmouth Harbour Pier petition
for additional provision, the standing orders ought to be dispensed
with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce such additional
provision, on proving before the Committee on the Bill the assents
of all the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the property affected by
the proposed alteration. And that the Committee on the BM do exa-
mine in the first place how far such order has been complied with,
and do report the same to the House on the report of the MIL

6. That, in the case of the Bideford and Tavistock Railway peti-
iioia, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
7. That, in the case of the West Biding Union Railway petition
(No. 2), the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the
parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

8. That, in the case of the Bain's Patents Assignment petition for
I, ave to present a petition for a Bill, the standing order ought to be
dispensed with : —That the parties be permitted to present a petitioa
accordingly.
9. That, in the ;can of the Midland Railway (Birmingham and

FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE NEWS, &c., SEE
THE SUPPLEMENT TO "THE SUN" OF THIS
DAY.

London: Printed and Published by AITTBDO YOUNG-, Of NO: 112,
ofs
1
Strand,"Printer. at The Sun Office, N 0.112, Strand. in the Precinct
the sayob iai the County of =Wei? WeitettclAY• MAY 1 ,
0 i 0!
i I

Aberdare
Aberdein
Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liverpool Junction (Ardwick and
Guide-bridge branches.)
Bedford and London and Birmingham
Belfast and-Ballymena
Berks and Hants
Blackburn and Preston
Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington, and Colne Extension
Blackburn, Darwen, and Bolton
Brighton and Chichester
Brighton and Chichester (Portsmouth Extension)
Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings (Reymer branch)
Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings (Hastings, Rye, and Ashford
Extension)
Birmingham and Gloucester, Gloucester Extensions, Stoke
branch, and Midland Junction
Bristol-and Exeter branches