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

CORN LAWS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition numerously
signed from Cornwall against the Government measure, also
from the counties of Banff and Devon to the same effect.

THE DRAINAGE BILL.

Lord MONTEAGLEiWesejecia petition from the linen
merchants on the river Bann, in the county of Antrim, against
the Drainage Bill.
RAILWAY STANDING ORDERS.

Lord AIONTEAGLE presented a— petition from the pro-
jectors of the Wexford, Carlow, and Dublin Junction Rail-
way, praying that in their case the standing orders be dispensed
with. The Noble Lord said that the occasion of the present
petition was, some of the agents of this Company, in ignorance
of the standing orders of that House, having served some of
the notices on Christmas Day and Sunday. As
soon as the mistake, however, was discovered it was
rectified by the issuing of fresh notices, which
though not in strict complianee with the standing orders, still
give the parties so served ample notice. He believed a Noble
Friend of his had a motion on the subject, which would be
submitted to their Lordships' consideration that night.
Lord STRANGFORD remarked that from the time the
Standing Orders' Committee discovered the errors in question
there was ample time to correct them.
Earl GREY, in reference to the motion of which he had
given notice, said that he was induced to take the step be had
in order to assimilate the standing orders of the House of Lords
to those of the House of Commons, and in that course he had
been encouraged by the Noble Duke opposite, and the Noble
and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. Subsequently, how-
ever, he had not received the support which he anticipated.
He had been induced to withdraw his proposed resolutions, be-
cause he did not anticipate that support which he at first ex-
pected from the Noble Lord on the Woolsack and the Noble
Duke opposite.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it would have given him
pleasure to support the resolutions, had they not been con-
trary to the practice of the House.
THE CORN-LAWS.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented petitions from
several parishes in the county of Cambridge against the pro-
posed measures of her Majesty's Government with respect to
the corn-laws. Their Lordships must be aware, that of all
other counties in England, Cambridge was, perhaps, the most
agricultural; and ever since the year when the protective
laws were passed, more improvement had been made
in agriculture in that county than in any other
part of England. He need not recal to their Lordships'
attention, the fact, that as much capital had been laid out in that
country in the improvement of the land, as the fee simple of the
land was worth—in fact, he might say, that within a very short
number of years, more than half a million of money
had been laid out in the drainage, &c., of the land.
tH,ee.wouid now explain to the House why a large portion of
proveeojections were forged. He held in his hand evidence to
a 4 6
that the objections were generally those of the keeper of
was
and
Thisuat ai nmaasnk ehdaidf tghreo 81 gl grossly perjuredatur o
lvm. himself.
declared that it
was They
hparoddbu
Worthing-
ton
whwoashe;
taatasndmayneyt subsequently a witness
This evidence applied'
eceedn able to export from
times, upon his oath,
toed that the writing was his.
isbeaaohr six
hundred notices.
that part of the country
aye
alone, through the port of Vi'
than had been sent from
au
otherp. larger amount of pro-
ducedom. With reference to the remaining part acrotu
ofn the in the king-
dom.had taken from the papers of the clerk of the peaeeacotunty, he
of the great improvement in it. Since the year itkaB no lesssa
than
nelnBt
' parishes had been enclosed, and in consequence of that the
value of the fee-simple of the land had been increased more
than 50,000/., and an increase of 50,000 had taken
place i 1n the population. The belief the population
was, that the protective
duties hadc aused the im-
provement that had taken place in agriculture, and
and improvement went hand-in-
they stated that protection . .
11 k
hand. The prayer of these petitions was liniversa y t e same
heir Lordships would
over the whole of the :country. T
recollect that there was a measure now in pro-
gres through the other House of Parliament. :Their
Lordships would do as they had always done—they would
take this measure into consideration with a view of benefitting
the labourer, :and ccntinuing the well being of the people
at large, and he felt that the result of their deli-
beration would be a correct ene. He understood
the principle on which the Government bad been dissolved,

but he did not understand the principle on which it had been
reconstructed; and until they did know the principles on which
it had been formed it could tot be expected to carry that
weight to which every Government measure should be entitled.
The House of Commons also, and he trusted that he was not
oue of order in speaking of another branch of the Legislature,
the House of Commons ho thought by the course they were
at present pursuing, were to a considerable degree losing the
confidence of the country. The measure coming up from the
other House under these peculiar circumstances would be con-
sidered in reference to the points he had just enumerated,
and he believed that that House, as the great pro-
tectors of the people—(and they all knew that the
liberties of the people were never invaded until
the authority of that House was trampled under foot)—as
the protectors of the liberties of the people, he trusted that the
deliberate resolution of that House would be to affirm the
justness of the prayer of this petition, and to reject a measure
which would be attended with so many evils.
Lord KINNAIRD said that the Noble Lord had alluded
to the pleasure which some Noble Lords on that side of
the House, who were the advocates of free trade, might
feel if their hopds were realised by the passing
of this measure. He (Lord Kinnaird regretted that that
measure was not to be immediate in its operation, and in this
opinion he coincided with a Noble Lord on the cross benches
( the Duke of Bichmond. )—( Laughter.) He considered that
it would be to the advantage of the farmer and of the agricural
interest generally, if the question were thus settled, for they
might depend upon it that agitation would not be allayed
while protection was in existence. It would
be of great importance to the lauded interest that
the question should be settled at once. If they had three
years delay, the agitation would continue, while every evil
that must arise in connexion with agriculture, would be
attributed to the alterati n of the protective duties.
landlords would be pressed for a reduction of rents and combi-
nations would take place among the farmers. Besides, by
the immediate settlement of the question they would get rid
of the Anti-Corn-law League and its interfer-
ence with the registration, as he could solemnly
assure their Lordships if the corn-laws were at once
repealed the League would be immediately dissolved.
Their Lordships could not amend the present measure of the
Government without throwing it out altogether. He, there-
fore, hoped that their Lordships would answer the prayer of the
country by tendering to the measure an immediate adoption.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY deprecated in the
extreme the speech which had been made by the Noble
Lord upon the question, when their Lordships were
The Marquiss of SALISBURY, in the course of a few
observations, which were most imperfectly heard in the re-
porters' gallery, said that he had ascertained from quarters of
the highest authorily that the Anti-Corn-law League was a
most unconstitutional body.—Cries of Hear," and " No, no.")
The Duke of RICHMOND said that the Noble Lord op-
posite had given him and the House very good advice ; bat he
begged to assure the Noble Lord that he (the Duke of Rich-
mond) was in the habit of taking advice from friends and not his
opponents.—(Laughter.) Ilowever, he would not now enter
upon the merits of a question which was at that moment
under discussion befere the House of Commons, entirely igno-
Commons. But he would ask ask what would be the result,
if those members who voted for this measure were to go again
to the country ? The result would bo, that every one of the
ninety-seven members would be turned out of the House of
Commons.—(Laughter.) They run away from their colours,
as had no doubt they would have done, had they been engaged
in the war in India.—( Laughter.) He could not understand
how men would make pledges at the hustings, and vote in direct
opposition to those pledges in the House.—(Hear, hear.)
He was one of those who would never 'believe that this
measure would pass until it did pass.—( Hear, hear.)
It seemed that there we.e advocates of frae ;trade in the
House. His Noble Friend who bad spoken has been an ad-
vocate for free trade for only about half a dozen years. He
was not an advocate of free trade during Lord Grey's Govern-
ment, and if be was he did not vote for it. It was underscood
that Mr. Fitzwilliam's motion was to he opposed by the Ca-
binet then ; and did his Noble Friend vote for it ? bird Mel-
bourne's Cabinet was not a free trade Cabinet. No,
it was for a fixed duty of Bs. That party altered
their opinion while they were in opposition. They did
not change their opinion when they came into power. They
did not tell the people one thing from the hustings, and after-
wards when they came into powerr turn round on all their
principles, and be the first to lead the attack against their con-
stituents. He was not surprised that the measure in the House
of Commons had a majority, but he should be very much
surprised if the measure passed that House. If by going
to the country they could only check it for a short time,
they should do so, but he believed that such a step would have
a better result, for protection had still many friends. Notting-
ham had behaved nobly; it had returned a protection Member
for each of its divisions ; Dorsetshire supported the principle;
Westminster had chosen a Radical sooner than one who had
changed his principles.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he wished to say a few
words in reply to some observations that had fallen from his
Noble Friend. It had been regretted by some of the Membersof
the House of Commons, that the measure was not put
fore and by the Noble Lords on the opposite side, one of the
grotnds on which the wish was founded was, that it would
have come from them with a better grace. When Lord
Melbourne's Government was asked whether the
fixed duty eight shillings was for revenue or pro-
tection, the answer was distinctly for protection.
Protection was the object in view in auy case, but a total
change had now come over the minds of men, and therefore it
was with surprise that oe had seen it reported that influential
men had risen in their place in the other House of Parliament,
stating that they wished the measure had been brought for-
ward by the opposite party. One word more on another subject,
alluded to by a Noble Friend of his own on that side of the
House. He stated that it was universally understood that the
Anti-Corn-law League was an unconstitutional body. Now
he was bound to say that that was not his belief. He believed
that the League was a constitutional body, established for con-
stitutional purposes, and though no Member of the League
himself, nor likely to become a member of it, still he
felt himself in justice bound to say that their friends ought to
congratulate them on the extraordinary success which, during
the short time they had been in existence, had attended their
exertions.

Lord BROUGHAM said that he intends to take the same
course which he had hitherto adopted on the motion of the No-
ble Lord connected with Yorkshire, and that was, to say nothing
What made him trouble their Lordships on the present occasion
was to express his opinion with respect to the Anti..
Corn law Lcague, and its being an unconstitutional body.
He (Lord Brougham) bad never held the opinion that it wa
an unconstitutional body; on the contrary, he held they were
a loyal and constitutional body, embodied for constitutionai
purpoess, namely, to obtain an alteration in the corn-laws by
by means of Parliament; but what he had stated was that
their proceedings were unconstitutional, although they them-
selves as a body were perfectly legal. He meant in collecting a
fund for the purpose of obtaining votes by the purchase of free-
That was his opinion ; still they said that they only encouraged
persons to purchase freeholds. Now he (Lord Brougham) did
not see how they could have placed 2,000 electors on the roll
of freeholders by this system of encouragement, unless they had
also assisted in finding money for the purchase of these freeholds.
The practise of parties going from one county to another in
order to procure votes, was a course of which he did not ap-
prove.—(Hear, Hear.)