The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

Barcelona .....

5evi11e........ ....

- -
-IMPERIAL PA IA Al EN T.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 15.
CORN-LAWS.
Some confusion here ensued horn the fact of several Noble
Lords not understanding the position in which the question of
the Corn-laws then stood.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that it arose purely
from an accident that on the last night of debate they did not
go into Committee on the Bill. The Chairman of the Com-
mittee not having been present, it was agreed by their Lord-
ships pt esent that they slit uld go into Committee that day
without any further debate.
Lord STANLEY confirmed the statement of his Lordship,
and hoped that he would not be deemed irregular in presenting
a petition, which was every way worthy of their attention. It
was a petition from certain bankers and merchants in London.
They had not hitherto petitioned their Lordships, nor would
they have now done so, had it not been for the petition Vk hich
was presented, he believed, by his Noble Friend the President,
of the Board of Trade, purporting to represent the general feel-
ing of the bankers, merchants, and commercial men of the city
of London, in which it was stated that, in their opinion, the
passing of this measure would lead to the progressive prosperity
of every class in the country. If there were any class for whose
interest this Bill was supposed to be especially designed, it gas
the mercantile and commercial classes, and no doubt a con-
siderable impression was produced on their Lordships' minds by
a statement coming over from his Noble Friend, who
held himself a high official situation. It was the
presentation of that petition, and that alone, which
brought them from their private and important con-
cerns to present the petition which he had the honour of
laying before their Lordships. After adverting to the petition
which had been presented by his Noble Friend, the petitioners
went on humbly to state (and the signatures to the petitions
furnished statements that were correct) that they doubted very
much whether that petition could be considered as representing
the general opinions of the merchants, bankers, and traders of
the City of London. The petitioners humbly desired to leave
the consideration of this most imeortaet measure to the delibe-
rate wisdom of their Lordships, representing that, inasmuch as
the commercial and manufacturing interests of this country
were in a state of activity and prosperity, there was no ground for
asserting that the said treasure was essential to the progressive
prosperity of any class in the community, or even for maintaining
the present active state of commercial prosperity., The petitioners
humbly believed that the Bill in question was an experiment
on the most vital branch of national industry, involving conse-
quences the magnitude and extent of which it was impossible
to foresee, and calling for the most deep and anxious considera-
tion on the part 'of their Lordships' House.—( Hear, hear.)
Now he hoped he should not be told that this petiti n did
pray their Lordships to reject the Bill in question. He had
already stated that it did not do so. But they protested
against its being supposed that it was the general feeling of the
mercantile gentlemen of London that it was essential to the
interests of this country that this Bill should pass ; and
they prayed their Lordships not hastily to adopt so hazardous
and so great an experiment. Now, he felt that the importance
of this petition depended upon the signatures attached to it—
( Hear, hear)—and he should not, he hoped, be deemed
to be trespassing unduly on their Lordships' time—(Hear,
hear) —if he stated that the petition was signed
by the Chairman of Lloyd's, by the Chairman and
Deputy Chairman of the London Dock Company,
hy the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the East India
Dock Company, and by a very considerable number of Bank
directors.
A NOBLE LOED—Hovi many?
Lord STANLEY believed six—(f-ear, hear)—had signed
this petition. Perhaps the Noble Friend who asked that
question would like to know some of the principal names at-
tached to the petition. Among the merchants were some of
the greatest firms in the City---Sir Frederick Purees, Messrs.
Tritton, Messrs. Baring Brothers, Messrs. Frederick Tooke
and Co. Among the shipowners were the Messrs. Tindal and
the Messrs. Soames, two of the largest shipowners in the City.
Among the shipbuilders were the Messrs. Curling, Young and
Co., the largest firm in the City. There were thirteen firms
which were connected with the foreign trade; several in the
Bilk trade, and several in the iron trade; all without ex.
ception who were engaged in the Canadian and Australian
trade—( Hear, hear)—besides many others engaged in the
foreign and colonial trade of the country. These had signed
the petition with no intention of interfering with the decision
of their Lordships' House, but they prayed that their Lordships
would not believe that the feeling of the commercial amid
mercantile classes universally called for the measure which
had been introduced into their Lordships' House, and only
sought to provide against the opinion of these classes being
misrepresented. By laying, therefore, that petition upon
their Lordships table, he ( Lord Stanley) meant not to stay
their Lordships' progress with the measure, so much as with a
view that their Lordships might hesitate before making the
vast experiment which ho was afraid they were about to
make, and that they might enter with caution upon alterations
so important in the affairs of the country.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that it would be in their
Lordships' recollection, that he had had the honour of
laying another petition on the table of the House,
signed by the merchants and bankers of the City
of London, in favour of the measure. He was not
aware that it was the intention of his Noble Friend to
present such a petition, otherwise he might have beets pre-
pared with an analysis of the signatures attached to that pre-
viously laid on the table, as a set-off against the statement
which their Lordships had just heard. He did not mean to
detract from the weight due to the petition just presented,
This petition of the merchants, bankers, and traders, it was
said by the Noble Lord( Stanley), did not represent the general
feeling of the community. What he (Lord Dalhousie) then
wanted, was, that the two petitions should be placed against each
other, an 4 let their Lordships weigh their relative numbers and
respectability. Let them not come forward with false pre-
tences. It was but just that he should mention that the peti-
tion
he presented contained the signatures of 24 or 26 Bank
directors. The directors, he believed, on the other side, were
six. It was siened by 14 other bankers, and appended to it
Let them
were the signatures of 267 merchants and trad
plaee the petitions side by side, and he was not afraid of the
result.
Lord STANLEY said he had no intention
was, ofhharegdinidg
nottiie
Noble Lord with misrepresentation.
yesterday—hewh en
eitbewiael,p,
.riese, meant,nt
merchants, the
pondday
know the nature of the petition referred to by the Noble
Lord, till it was brought to hint
The. petition
before yesterday.
nof the bankers,
ported to be the retitletraders of the City of London, and b
cti it as then
The
stated the petition did not represent the general opinion,
answer was, if it did not represent the general '
had no contrary petition being presenv,toeduldagainst iOtP?miolniev'h'hady
been instructed to state, that if they
hpaatrentiheye tures of the two petitions, they would fiicid)rilt
repre-
sented more than threefold those from whom his Noble Friend
(Lord Grey) presented a petition
Earl GREY said if they would examine the petition as
originally drawn np, they :I,iyould find that it had contained
these words, and that they lad subsequently been erased
" And so littlegrolind is there, in the view of the petitioners, for
urging your Lordshi to ass
Bible delay." But itPa d this measure with the least pos-
areluage yd an o-
nion too strong for thempetp , o agreethisina, nagnd it wasconve left out, and
in the place of it, that it ought to pass with the
least possible delay."—( Hear, hear.) But they did not ask
them to throw out the measure, and he wished their Lordships
to remember that this petition, which was presented as a coun-
ter-petition to the one he (Lord Grey) had been entrusted
with, stated that there should be no longer delay in passing it
into a lew.

Atter a few words from Lord ASHBURTON,
Lord BROUGHAM said it was important they should know
whether those petitions represented or did not represent the
feelings of those from whom they were stated to have emanated.

-----
His Noble Friend did not represent that it emanated from all
toe merchants, but from a very respectable portion of them.
One thing should not be lost sight cf in referring to this pe-
titian. By striking out that passage they showed that they
were not for unnecessary delay, and they felt that if the Bill
was to pass, the sooner it passed the better. He hoped their
Lordships would bear that in mind, as they were just now going
into Committee. If en amendment were there proposed, a
delay of some months would take place, and the prayer of the
petitioners would be thereby frustrated.
Lord COLVILLE, who was very inaudible, was understood
to say that he had listened with very great attention to ihe ar-
guments used by the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley ), and he felt
that they were perfectly conclusive on the subject. He did
not confine himself to its operation on landed proprietor!,
farmers, and cultivators of the soil, but he believed that it
would be injurious to all classes of the community, and was
only a link in a chain which would entail the most disastrous
results on the people of this country. He should, therefore,
eppose it in all its stages. During the period he had had the
honour of occupying a seat in that House he had great plea-
sure in fighting under the banners of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, but in the present measure he regretted he could not
give them his support.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S rose for the purpose of calling
attention to a statement made in a speech, and delivered by a
Noble Lord whom he regretted ".o see was net in his place;
He would venture to say, however, that the Noble Lord had
been totally misinformed on the subject, or he would not have
endeavoured to impress such an erroneous view on their Lord-
ships' attention. He referred to a distinction which had been
drawn by a Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) between the sources
of the revenues of the Right Rev. Prelates on the bench, and
the other portion of the clergy. He was sure the Noble Lord
did not intend any reproach upon the Right Rev. Bench, in
alluding to that subject, hut as it was commented upon 05e-
where, and might possibly be misconstrued by the country at
large, he was entitled to show that the facts on which he
grounded his observations were totally erroneous. As to his
own income he had to say that the one-third of it only was
derived from fixed payments, and that two-thirds was subject
to the variation cf the prices of agricultural produce. He
did not mean to make any observations on the income of any
of the other pre!ates, but with respect to his own he was suffi-
ciently well informed, and the statement he had now made was
perfectly correct.
Lord S IANL EY complained of not having been informed
of the intention of the Right Rev. Prelate to refer to this sub-
ject. The Right Rev. Prelate did not hear what he (Lord
Stanley) said on that occasion. The speech of the Right Rev.
Prelate which called forth his remarks had been addressed t°
the subject of motives with regard to the passing of the Bill,
and he had stated, that al'hough their Lordships might not be
influenced by selfish motives, yet such an opinion would attach
to their character out of doors if they did not pass it. In com-
menting upon these expressions, he (Lord Stanley) said that
the Right Rev. Prelate would be as little inclined to be influ-
enced by his own interest as any of their Lordships in coming
to a vote on that question. It anything offensive was said, it
was entirely on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate. All that
he (Lord Stanley) had said was that his (the Right Rev. Pre-
late's) motives would be as pure as those of their Lordships, and
that should the present Bill pass, the parochial clergy, whose
incomes fluctuated with the value of corn, would become
losers unless all other articles fell in the tame ratio as corn. The
Right Rev. Prelate stated that two-thirds of his income was
derives from a source subjected to the variations of the price
of agricultural produce; but as there was one-third of it, he
admitted, derived from money payments, he (Lord Stanley)
endeavoured to show that, under those circumstances, he
would not be a loser by the change. Had the Right Rev.
Prelate consulted him in private, he would have explained to
him that he intended nothing derogatory to either him or any
of the other Prelates on the bench in the observations he had
thought it his duty to make on that occasion.
The Bishop of SALISBURY was not in the House the
other night when the observations that occurred took place;
but it was stated to him in a somewhat invidious manner, and
was commented upon more invidiously. He was ashamed to be
called on to explain. He could not be influenced by such motives,
in giving his vote on that Bill. There were twenty-six of his
Right Reverend Brethren who occupied seats in that House,
and of that number fourteen of them could not in any degree
be classed in the category of the Noble Lord. The injustice,
however, to the parochial clergy, he apprehended did not
arise from the passing of the present measure, but from the
i3ill for the Commutation of Tithes, and that opinion pea had
ueiformly held. With regard to four of his Right Rewerend
Friends, three of them paid annually to the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners fixed and certain charges, and the operation of the
Bill, if it reduced the price of corn, must necessarily be injurious
to their interests, yet three of them recorded their votes 50
favour of it. Two-thirds of his Right Reverend Friends were
therefore removed from the imputation of being influenced by
such motives, and though one-third of them were certainly ht,
the habit of receiving a fixed income, he (11.1
not believe that in deciding on the merits of the Hl'
selfishness would form any ingredient in their decision. He
claimed no exemption from any charges fairly brought fcervrard,
nor from any strictures made on the character of the betw:ht but
he thought that, with regard to the present, the imputation
made upon them was by no means deserved. The Earl of MALMESRURY was of opinion that the
Right Rev. Prelate who had just spoS en had evinced t oo much
susceptibility, with regard to the observations made. by the
:12
Noble Lord ( Lord Stanley). There was not a singe Peer
that House who would store unwillingly utter a word t»rderiuQ
in the slightest degree to ierpugn one sentence which had fallen
.
f,ene the Right Rev. Prelate ; but he could not taut disagree
most strongly with him in an imputation which
uestion.
against the Noble Lords who differed with him on that
Lords _err
The Right Rev. Prelate stated that the Noble w
actuated by selfish motives and interests in
thecourse
were pursuing on the present question. Thu Right
rt theyv.
Prelate had misrepresented a speech of his with respect to the
manner in which the clergy of this country would be affected
_
by the Government measure. Now what he had said was, that.
e
the people would see a wide difference in the coo dition of the
clergy and the Right Rev. Bench, and judge accrerdingly of the
comparative injury which the measure would entail on both.
Not one word had dropped from him which could, in the
slightest degree, cast ,n imputation on the Right Rev. Bench.
There was one Right Rev. Prelate, for whom he entertained
the greatest respect, and by whose counsels he would ever be
guided, out of that House, as far as the infirmities of human
nature would allow him, but this he would say t'iat however
superior the Right Rev. Prelate might be out '.if the House,
he (the Noble Lord) was in all civil matters his peer in every
degree.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S, in a very low tone, ex-
plained. The Right Rey. Prelate was understood to say, that
tie had not imputed selfish motives to the Noble Lord, nor t°
those Noble Lords who voted contrary to him (the Bishop of
St. David's) on this question.
Lord HARDWICKE defended the Right Rev. Prehater
who he did not consider to have used one word contrary to
the rules of debate in that House. Nor did he think that
anything had been said by any Right Rev. Prelate wlie_. ad-
dressed the House on this question till the speech of the itbt
Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The Right Rev. Bench
had always abstained from indulging in anything like harsh or
unseemly language. The conduct of the Right Rev. Prelates
in the debates of that House was a bright example for their
Lordships, and it was to be regretted that one Right Re r. Pre-
late had so broadly differed from the others. This vies, no
doubt, owing to the want of knowledge of how the debates
were conducted in their Lordships' House, and not from any
wish to deal in harsh language. From whatever cause the
imputations of the Right Rev. Prelate had been made, it was
to be exceedingly regretted.
'the Bishop of OXFORD said it was necessary for him to
say one word in reply to the lecture which had been read him.
He fearlessly challenged any one of their Lordships to show
him that he had used anything which could be ,called
I proper. He might, on a great public question like the pre-
sent, have used words in the heat of debate, which be would
wish unsaid, but he was not aware that he had done so--if he
had offended any Noble Lord he humbly begged his pardon.
He could not, however, allow himself to be taunted with being
a young man, and therefore unqualified to understand the
rules of their Lordships' House. Why, he had been rea ding
for twenty years and studying books, men, and things, and
that being the case, he thought himself capable of giving a
plain opinion on a great national question like the presen c.—
( Hear, hear.) He did complain to their Lordships of the
pseudo lectures which had been read to him, because. he
thought that he had not deserved it.—( Hear, hear.) He. lead
been the intimate friend of the Noble Lord who last addreesed
the House, but could not allow him to impute motives tp him
(the Bishop of Oxford) which he could not prove.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said, that if ever t'Aere had
been a lecture delivered in that House it was delivered by the
second Right Rev. Prelate who addressed the 'douse is the
debate on this measure. The Right Rev. Prelate was pkased
to designate a speech made by a Noble Lord, on the other side
of the House (Lord Stanley) as one the aresament of which was
total rottenness. The Right Rev. Preleete said that Otis was
totally a landlords' question. This h's denied, and, notwith-
standing the eloquence of the Righ's Rev. Prelate, iae had
failed to prove it so.
The Earl of GALLOWAY saint, that he saw nothing in the
speech of the Right Rev. Prelate but what was perfeetty con-
sistent with the rules of that House; and he, for his owe& part,
sincerely thanked him for the information he had given. on the
subject ; for that speech certainly convinced him (the Earl of
Galloway) of the necessity of the measure.
LUNATIC ASYL:CMS BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND wished to know from her Ma-
jesty's Government whether they had taken the Lumatfic Asy-
lums Bill into their consideration with a view to its amend-
ment ?

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that her Majesty's Go-
vernment would re-consider the Bill before it was again brought
before the House.

The Duke of RICHMOND said that with this eiciplantti°_l
he was perfectly satisfied. He had to present a I:►atietwillrhemr
Droitwitch en the subject. He also wished to.i
_b
d r4-ation the
pisrae'.'di?
doubt, be a b iLI brought
offenderscnfi
Majesty's Government had taken into their
subject of providing an asylum for juvenile
that he had inquired
movedwinh existed with.
reacting
of
this
term of their imprisonment had ex
The Duke of WELLINGTON
into the matter, and there would,
regard to
juvenin to provide forß uthcecdLefivcvien:
ile offenders.
RECOVERY 'H
the first --'''''
OF SAIALL DEBTS 7,-ffir y
Bill.
The Duke OntVERY
e, and oritred to be
printed. r
THE CORN IMPORTATION BI
The Bill was accordingly read a first tirp
LL.
At se ves into a Committee
the Corn Itnportation Bill,
ki rose and said, that it was
Their Lordships having resolved the 1
which would, dg.
onThe dory of BUCKINGHA
, dmenti whieh lie land given
then
former move
etvheen i
natal, p 4
notice
The Bill before tiseir Lord-
ships was one
to the agricultural interests of
propose that all the words 0 great and inealculdble ury
avert, if possible, any par this Country, and it was to
titnon of that evil which cause d him to
of this would be ti-
Bill
protection
twi
0- °Dula be a the first clause, after the werds "in
the schedule to this Act annexed be omitted." The effect
.rat instead of as at present proposed by the
pi otection of 10s. when corn seas at 481.
given by the measure was at'4Bs. only Is., and
this could not blooked upon as protection, but on the con-
trary, it was a delusion. He hoped that now the Bilil was read
a second time, Noble Lords, who had voted for the, principle
and spirit of the Bill, would now be found ready to
support the interests of the agriculturists,, without
at all sacrificing their votes on a former occasion.
Ile would not further occupy their attention. His 'object was
that, after 1849, the schedule now in the Bill shoul at still con-
tinue in it. He would now conclude, by movin c that the
words in the clause, " after the Ist of February, 1849," be
omitted.

The Earl of RIPON rose to oppose the amen dtment just
proposed. A Noble Lord, who spoke the othtsr, evening,
stated that he could not see how they came to intrtat lace a mo-
dified sliding scale, unless it were a species of coo.promise in
order to satisfy those wha had an objection to it. lie (Lord
Ripon) meant to say most distinctly it was nave?, introduced
with any such motive ; if not sal isfied wean the principle of
the Bill, no miserable compromise of the kind would induce
him to support it. He supported the Bill on account of doe
condition of the country, and he conscientiously believed it
would be for the advantage and improvement or the people.
The reason why the clause was introduced was, that in a great
change like that proposed to be made, some thne -;tiould be
given before the process hitherto in operation should be aban-
doned. He thought it was athrisable that some time should
elapse before the principle of the Bill was br,
operation, and the clause was introduced with t'Aat object. It
did not interfere with the principle of the r measure beyond
meeting the temporary "1 evils that ,o ht into full
mid arise from
the great change proposed. With regard to the