The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-14 00:00:00

441 A 1
IY'r
w
ree) 1 111
A
111111 nit
A I 9

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14. 1846.

Lord DENMAN, in the absence of the Lor d-
Chancellor,
took his seat on the Woolsack in the ion Tie of Lords, shortly
after Five o'clock.
Earl SOMERS presented several petitions against any alte-
ration in the corn-laws.
On the motion of Lord DENMAN, the Administration of
Criminal Justice Bat went through Committee.
ThefrErirl of Rinspatx. presented a petition from an indi-
vidual complaining of the course pursued by many parties
with respect to railway Bills, and praying that their Lord-
ships would make it a standing order of the House that all
parties, before they should be permittted to introduce
railway Bills, should be bound to prove that the provisions
of 'he Registration Act had been complied with.
The Earl of atutouary: moved the adoption of the resolu-
tions contained in the second report from the Lords Com
mittee on Railways, wbich was agreed to.
The Public Works Ireland Bill went through Committee,
and was ordered to be reported en Monday.
In answer to a question from the Earl of CLARatemoN,

The Earl of ABERDEEN stated that he had no objection to
lay on the table of the House the correspondence that had
taken place between the Spanish Minister and himself rela-
tive to the duty on Cuba sugar.
The Marquis of LoanoanEßET gave notice of his inten-
tion, on Tuesday next, to ask the Noble Duke (WELLING.
T 02,) the cause of the dismissal of Mr. Guiorromx from the
Poor-law Commission in Ireland.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said he would take care that

the Noble Marquis should have the information he required
on the day he had dated.
The (louse then adjourned till Monday.

The licuse of Commons sat at Four o'clock.
The Sheriff of London presented a petition from the city of
London in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws. Several rail-
way Bills were read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
A new writ for Nor; h Nottinghamshire was ordered,
to )m of Mr. G. Klaairr, deceased.
Lord DUNCANNON brought in the Matlock, Manchester,
and Buxton Railway Bill, which was read a first,

ordered to be read a second time.
Mr. Suturr brought under the consideration of the ouse
an irregularity that had taken place in a petition for a rail-
way Bill, which led to some discussion, in the course of which,
Mr. GREE.NE gave notice that he would move an order to the
effect that no petition for a private Bill should be received by
the House, unless it was regularly signed by all the parties.
Mr. FERRAND gave notice that on Monday he should ask
the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he should then be in office,
whether he proposed to till up the two offices new vacant in
consequence of the resignation of two of the Lords of the
Admiralty and if he were afraid to:appeal to the countrylby
nominating to the vacant offices, he should move that the
offices be abolished as useless.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAwFonp gave notice that he should ask
the Government on a future day if they intended to bring in
any measure during the present session to amend the law of
landlord and tenant in Ireland.

On the motion of Mr. LIDDELL, that the petition of ae
Shipowners' Society be printed,

Mr. HUME asked if it was intended to introduce any mea.

sure carrying out the recommendations of the Committee
with regard to regulating the merchant seamen's service ?
Sir G. CLERK said that Government were in communica-
tion with the Shipowners' Society on the subject.
Mr. FORSTER denied that the petition expressed the senti-
ments of the great body of shipowners of Great Britain.
Mr. LIDDELL replied, and the motion fur printing the pe-

tition was agreed to.
Mr. JAMES asked if the Government had received any ac-
counts of the dreadful affray which had taken place at Pen-
rith among the labourers employed on the Lancaster and
Carlisle Railway, and what measures had been adopted to
preserve the public peace.
Sir J. GRAHAM had received no official account whatever
from the Magistrates of the existence of any such dis-
turbance.
Mr. EWART asked if the Government had ever considered
whether it was necessary to make railway companies exer-
cise some superintendence over the labourers?
Sir G. CLERK said that the promoters of railway Bills
were obliged to provide a certain number of special consta-
bles to superintend the works.
In answer to a question from Sir R. INGus, as to the inten-
tion of the Government with regard to the rebuilding of
Westminster-bridge,
Mr. CARDWELL said the subject had been considered by
the Government, and that they had directed weekly reports
to be made as to the state of the bridge, and that when any-
thing special occurred the attention of the Government was
directed to it, so that ample care was taken of the public
safety.
Sir 11. INGus considered that answer unsatisfactory. lie
begged to ask when the Government considered the new
palace at Westminster would be ready for the accommoda-
tion of Parliament, and if it were not ready by 1847, whether
there would be any objection to the appointment of a Com-
mittee of Inquiry ?
Mr. CARDWELL thought it possible that the expectation

of Hou. Gentlemen that Parliament would sit in the new
House in 1847 would not be realised.—(A laugh.) He, how-
ever, thought it would be neither necessary nor discreet to

appoint a Committee.
In answer to a question Prom Mr. CoLLErr, of Athlone,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in conse-
quence of a decision of the Judges in the Exchequer
Chamber overruling a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench,
and deciding that certain parties were entitles, in conse-
quence of the enactments of the corn-law of 1842, the re-
venue would suffer a certain loss, but it was still under the
consideration of the Government whether an appeal should
not be made to a higher tribunal.

On the motion of Sir W. CODRINGTON, a new writ was
ordered for the election of a Member for East Gloucester-
shire, in the room of the Hon. F. CHARTER'S, who had ac-
cepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate
being read, an immense number of petitions en the subject of
the corn• laws were presented.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS then rose to resume the adjourned
debate, and announced his intention to vote against
the proposition of the Government for removing pro-
tection from British agriculture. He had always
voted against a repeal of the corn-laws, he had fre-
quently spoken against the measure, and in reviewing
his past career on that subject, he found that he had nothing
to explain and nothing to regret, except the insufficient
mannner in which he had advocated the cause
of protection. His opinions were unchanged, and in
accordance with these opinions he should vote, for
he considered that protection was not enly necessary for
British interests, but also for the interests of our colonies
which were unrepresented in that House, and which were not
properly understood. He considered that the experience of
the last three years furnished no correct data on which to form

an opinion ; and, therefore, he considered that the Right Hon.
Baronet had failed to give any just reason for his change of opi-
nion. The corn-laws had not caused the distress of 1840, 1841,
and 1842, neither had the partial adoption of free-trade princi-
ples occasioned the prosperity of the subsequent years,
which prosperity, it should be recollected, had occurred
while the country was subject to a eorn-law. Protection, he
believed, was not for the benefit of one class, but for that of
all; and-he would not expose the British artisan unpro-
tected to competition with the protected labour of the fo-
reigner. He denied that the importation of grain produced a
contemporaneous export of manufactures; and a
comparison of the exports and imports of 1836,
and 1341, and 1842, would prove the truth of his position.
He considered it would be good policy to open the home
market and the West India market to our corn-producing
colonies. He had supported the measure for the introduction

of Canadian corn, but he felt bound to oppose the opening
of the home market to the foreign corn producer,
The Canada Corn Bill was ,a solemn compact, entered into
between the legislative bodies of Canada and this country, and
this measure not only violated that compact, but extin-
guished the whole colonial system, and made all the colonies
for commercial purpeSes free and independent states, leaving
to them the entire regulation of their own commercial affairs
It was a most incorrect assumption to declare, that Mr. Hus-
KISSON was a free-trader. He was a Protectionist, and his
colonial trade Acts protected British commodities in the colo-
nial markets by differential duties ranging front 10 to 70
per cent. All the colonies now imirosed deities on the im-
portation of the products of other colonies. •It could. only
be by the formation of them all into a league to establish
perfect free trade. The United States and the.Zollverein found
' such a union of sovereign states, with perfect free trade
amen g thenvelves. with stringent protection against all others.
We might form sods a leagw: ‘iith our colonies and our East
ti a d,pendeueles, and such a league as that would conduce
to :Ile tenv,Ter 'and the prosperity of the empire; but the esta
hhshittrnt •if the proposed system of free-trade would
render the fornehiOn of such a league impossible: By
this machinery they had destroyed the: manufactures of
India. and had forced the Indian manufacturers to become
sugar cultivators, and now by they introduction of -free=trade
they were ebeut to ruin these Indian agriculturists. The
Hon. ani Gallant Officer then read several extracts from
the works of Mr. Huskisson to prove that it was most im•
politic to depend upon foreigners for a supply of corn.
After apologising for having trespassed so long on the House,
the Hon. and Gallant Officer concluded by stating that,
giving the Prime Minister all credit for honesty of purpose,
so strong were his convictions as to the mischievous nature
of the proposed measure, that it was his duty to vote against
it as an experiment perilous and unnecessary.

Viscount VILLIERS gave his support to the measures proposed
by the Government, because be hoped it would prove to be a
permanent settlement of this much agitated questien.

Mr. Scorr had hoped that he should have been enabled to
afford. the Right Hon: Baronet that support whiCh he
had always hitherto afforded him; !hut it was' with pain
and regret, that, after, a careful examination of the sub-
ject, he felt now bound to vote against the Government.
He had always looked up to• the Right Hon. Baronet with
respect, but rue must sao,hat this sudden change of Opinion
on the part of the Right Hon. _Baronet had come upon him
with most stunning effect. But acting upon his
own donscientious convictions, • he felt bound to declare
that he felt it his duty 'to oppose the GoVernment measure
The Right Hon. Baronet was in the position of a counsel
who, having received a brief and a fee on one side,'went into
court and agreed on the other, recommending his original
clients to abandon their cause altogether, and who was fol-
lowed by his juniors, while the only reason they would con-
descend to give was, that they had changed their -minds.
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read,various quota-
tions from the speeches of the Members of the present Go-
vernment, for the, purpose of showing that their opinions
had been a series of contradictions ever since they had aban-
atined the principles of protection. He believed that the
measures now proposed would produce'most cruel and disas-
trous
but
he
results. The proposed measure was wide and bold;
it
would
edoubted whether it was wise and politic, and he foaled
iwioatsprhoov e a sduvc
oc
ce sf t e u
of
H f.
any unalterable
w n o ult ultra-protection-
ist,—he aa -wp,r_othe cet
was
opposed to monoPPlY,—he knew howi I' table a tax
upon grain was to be called a tax upon the bread
of the people ; and, therefore, he thought the duty
upon corn should never exceed the amount
sufficient
to give due encouragement to home culti •
vation •
and he should have been fully pn.pared to Have
gone with
the Right Hon. Baronet in reducing the amount of the pre-
sent protection to agriculture, for he felt that the expenses
of the farmer had been considerably reduced.
Sir R. PEEL asked the Honourable Member for whom he
was counsel ?
Mr. Saari., under considerable excitement, declared that
he WAS counsel for no one but his own opinions. He was
the hired advocate of no one—he was the delegate of no one.
He would have followed the Right HonOUrable Baronet if he
had remained true to his colours; and if he bad differed with
his constituents on this subject, be should have felt it his
measure woul
duty again to appeal to them. The proposed
inflict a heavy blow and'a great discouragement to the agri-

cultural interest ; would diminish the supply of food, create
great fluctuation in price, and lower the wages of the
labourer. It was said that this measure was but a mere
fiscal regulation ; why, it was a mere fiscal regulation that
coat this country the United States. He considered
tisk measure an innovation on the Constitution of Esg•
land, and it should never become the law of the land with
his consent. It was said that it was not necessary to con-
tinue protection in England, while it was admitted to he
necessary for the colonies. He could not see why any distinc-
tion should be drawn between the two. He could
not agree with the Right Hon. Baronet in the propriety
of adopting his mode of atmospheric railway legislation.

Mr. WARD considered the Hon. Member who had just sat
down was extremely difficult to follow ; for there
was not a single sentence that he bad uttered
which he did not contradict in the next. They
had waited long enough for the landlords to decide on
the subject of protection, and he thought it was now high
timefor the people to have a voice in the matter. Negotia-
tion had been tried on this question and it had led to nothing• ;
was it, he would ask, too late to try example ?
The first vote he gave in that llouse was in favour of the
corn-laws; but his views on that subject, like those of the
Right Hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord the Member for the
City of London, .had changed, and that after ma-
ture deliberation. If there were burdens on the
land, was it not monstrous to be talking about
them, unless they could be shown? He had fur three
years moved for a Committee on the subject, and every time
he had been defeated. He would give the extensive propo-
sition of the Right Hon Bart. his hearty and cordial supp,rt,
believing it to be the means of salvation for the
agriculturists themselves. At the present moment such w.is
the excitement of the agricuiturists that they were unfit and
incompetent to manage their own affairs. When a ela-s
arrayed itself against a community, it would soon lose its s.elf-
respect. All that he had in the world depended upon land,
but still he was convinced that protection to agriculture
ought no longer to exist. Protection was at variance
with the intelligence and just demands of the country.
He trusted that the majority with which the proposition of
the Government would be carried in this House would be of
such a nature as to induce it to meet with that reception in
another place to which it was entitled.

Mr. W.M. MILES supported the amendment. He could not
consent to any compromise ; things must eLher remain as
they were, or they must adopt the proposition of the Go-
vernment, or that of the free-traders. They were now
attempting to legislate against the experience of centuries,
It was the height of made ess to take away protectiou at
once. It appeared to him astonishing that the failur eof
the crop in one article of food, should have caused such
changes in the minds of public men. If the question
was between the plan of the Right Honaurable
Baronet and that of the Noble Lord the Member for the
city of London, he as an agriculturist must confess
that he should prefer the immediate abolition of the core-
laws to the termination of it in three years. He believed
that less misery and wretchedness would be caused by the
Noble Lord's plan than that of the Right Hon. Baronet.
He contended that the country was not prepared for these
changes—that, instead of gaining adherents, the Right Hon.
Baronet was losing supporters ; and that, if the operatives
and labourers understood their own interest, they would one
and all rise against these measures, and with curses execrate
the time that even a free-trade Minister sat upon the Minis-
terial bench. He believed the Right Hon. Baronet had Lieu('
from Conservative motives, but he believed he was pur-
suing a course of policy destructive to the country ;
but if they were to have free-trade, he much preferred that
open, manly, straightforward conduct of the Noble Lord,
the Member for London, to the temporising, cautious policy
of the present Minister.
After mutual explanations from Mr. BAILLIE and Mr. MILES,
The Earl of Mattex moved that the debate be adjourned.

Lord NORTHLAND considered the measures would be ruinous
to the agr;cultural interest; but he felt bound to vote for them,
because he had confidence in the Right Hon. Baronet, but he
had none in the Noble Lord. He thought the question must
be settled, and that it had better be settled by the Right
Hon. Baronet.

Mr. FERRAND would like to ask the Noble Lord, what con
fidence he had in the Right Hon. Baronet, when he was drag
ged out of the coal-hole to vote for liberal education ?
(A laugh.)

Colonel T. WOOD, considering the measure absolutely
necessary for the maintenance of the prosperity of the CORD-
try, would vote in favour of it.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN complained of the extreme in-
convenience of the Members availing themselves of the motion
of adjournment to discuss the question in debate. He had a
perfect right to make a new speech on the subject, which he
was not going to do. This was not a question of party, en I
he protested against the precedent which was set of raising a
debate on the main question on the question of adjourn-
ment.

The debate was then adjourned until Monday.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
House adjourned.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Duke of BUCK-
INGHAM presented various petitions against a repeal of the
corn-laws, " and praying their Lordships not to take any
steps with respect to those duties until an appeal had been
made to the country, in order that the real feeling of the
people might be obtained on the measures brought forward
by her MAJESTY'S Government." By a most curious co-
incidence, almost at the very moment the Noble Duke was
addressing the Peers, his own son, the Marquis of CuANDos,
and Lord HENRY LEXNOX, took their seats for the fir,t
time in the House of Commons. May we venture to
ask his Grace, if the election of these Noble Lords
is to be taken as an evidence of the real feeling of the people ?
It was hardly to be believed that even a Peer, that even a
Duke, would have had the audacity to rise in his place and
speak of " an appeal to the country," and " the real feeling
of the people," while the elections of Chichester, and Buck-
ingham, and Newark, were the subjects of general indigna-
tion and disgust. It is beautiful indeed to hear the protec-
tionist Peers accusing the Premier of inconsistency. It is
true that he is guilty of heinous offences; he has dared
to think of principles rather than parties, to con-
sult the exigencies of the times, not the pages of HAN-
SARD; he has dared—unparalleled effrontery—he has dared
to think less of the Peers than of the people! Most incon-
sistent truly in a Conservative Prime Minister.

But the Noble Lords who venture to teach him, do they
"themselves excel?" Are they themselves consistent?
What is now the watchword in their ranks ?—"Dissolve the
Parliament—appeal to the country !" But the Noble Lords
are safe, or they fancy they are safe. ' Could an appeal to the
country elicit the real feelings of the people, they would be
the very last to desire it. It is Well to call "spirits front the
vasty deep" when the spirits cannot answer; it is well
to talk of an appeal to the people when the
people may not respond to such appeal. Would Noble
Dukes wish for elections were there no pocket boroughs?
Would his Grace of BCCKINGHAM talk of a dissolution were.
the Reform Bill not fettered with his own CiraNnos' clause?
Yet let them beware—but no, such caution is now useless.
The day of ,grace has passed, `i concession has reached its
limits." Rather let their motto be "carpe diem," let them
rejoice while they may, let them enjoy the triumph of bring-
ing their sons into Parliament, .or of turning them out ;
it is for the last time. The most violent Anti
Reformer eo ardly. expect. things to continue as
they are. - Is it likely that a country so greet
and glorious as this, a country which owes her greatness and
glory to her people, a country even now shaking off the re-
strictions on her commerce; the fetterson her industry, about
to come fo,rth 'ten times.MOre glorious than ever—is it likely
that such a country, boasting of her freedom, would submit
to the arbitrary dictation of an exclusive few, whose chief
claim to distinction is their. strawberry crown, whose right to
rule is derived from some hereditary acres? Is it likely that
the people who, in 1831 and 1832, rose up the stronger from
all opposition, would be ready in 1846 to bow down to the
shadow of the tyrant they then defied?

" What!. we who burst the.bon 'age our fathers bore so long,
That oppression bad seemed sacred in its venerable wrong."
What ! we who fought, and not in vain, against the grow-
ing thraldom of years who beat the borough-mongers,
even with their own corrupted Parliament—shall we submit
now to the last remnants of a system so unfair, so dishonest, so
un-English ! This is no longer a matter of doubt; the mind
of the nation is—made* up. Noble Lords may know the
real feelings of the • people •as soon as they wish,
or even sooner. The only marvel is, that such a state
of things should have endured so long; that the
remnants of feudal tyranny should, in the nineteenth
century, be placed beside; the evidences of the people's power ;
that the elections of the West Riding and of Chichester
should occur almost at the same time ; that when the
Minister of England proposes great measures of commercial
reform, concerning the. welfare, perhaps the existence of
thousands, he should be attested in his glorious undertaking
by the selfish opposition of a privileged few, eager only for their
own interesti, and by 'their . very eagerness defeating their
own objects. What avails their
.senseless clamour, they in
only—

" The pebbles stiffening in a torrent's course,
They cannot hinder time from flowing on."

It will flow on in spite of .them ; .and, if, they are not care-
ful, it may carry them away. A little while must solve the
difficulty, whether there is to be si.disaolution or not. Noble
Lords may be anxious for such an event; yet, should it come,
they will' find themselves bitterly deceived. In a single
election they are able to hold their own; but when the whole
country isappealed to, even the enslaved pocket boroughs may
venture to gain courage by example, they may dare to act in
defiance of their masters, as in days gone by, when the spirit
of reform roused the sympathies of the nation ! But should
it be otherwise, should the protectionists chance to triumph,
such a triumph would be the most unfortunate thing that
possibly could happen to them. Then their day of reckoning
would arrive, then the people might stand at the doors of the
House of Commons and ask, as we do now, by what right do
many enter. What could the new Members have replied last
night had any demanded why they were there? Could Lord
livemT Lutorox call himself a representative of the
people ? And such only should take their seats within
the Lower House. Would it not be fairer to allow
the sons, or the protegia of a Peer, to sit by
• his side in his own House ? Then, indeed, we should
know what to expect. The SovEamalt- alone can create
Peers, bat a Peer can not only create commoners, but can
entitle them to the privileges of representatives of the people.
In everything there is some good and the good of a bad
thing is that it must be mended, so we will not despair ; aa.