The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-13 00:00:00

RIDAY MORNINtis FEBRUAItY 13, 1846.

have just said, the withdrawal of protection to most of these
articles is total and immediate, and, with reference to some
other of them, the protection is merely nominal. I might men-
tion that in the case of the cutlery of Sheffield, knives, scissors,
raaors, and other articles, for which it has acquired such cele-
brity, that these articles have been imitated on the continent of
Europe—the Sheffield mark has been forged, and they have
then been introduced andlsold in this country as genuine Sheffield
manufacture. However this may be, certain it is that
not one of these interests—all of them directly affected—
yet not one of them, in the whole interval of the
fortnight which was allowed for the consideration of
this measure—not even in the excitement of some vehement
appeals which have been made in the principal cities and manu-
facturing towns— (Hear, hear)—not when all the represen-
tatives of these manufactures were assembled in large numbers
before the hustings at Wakefield—not a murmur, not a whisper,
or a demur, or a single feeling of disapprobati' n at this re-
moval of protection was heard to proceed.—( Hear, bear. )
The general feeling and the expression was, competition may
come, we are prepared to meet it ; all we ask is, a fair field and
no favour. And why, let me ask, why may not
that interest which so often plumes itself as being the
most important, the noblest, and the most English-like occu •
pation in the country—why should not that interest take a leaf
out of the book of these manufacturers, and consent to be no
longer the only interest dependent upon a nation's industry?
Now, Sir, with reference to my agricultural residence, and the
impressions I have derived from it We have now to learn for
the first time during the course of this debate, that the land-
owner pretends to himself, or rather endeavours to persuade
himself, that he has not been induced to take the; side he has
done for any reason connected with his ownlinterest—he consi-
ders himself only on a par with the manufacturer. He endea-
vours to persuade himself that he is not induced to take his part
against the corn-laws by any consideration of his own interest,
but it is the interest of his tenants and the agricultural la •
bourers which he has at heart. It is through the labourer's
breast, and by the wound that is irelicted upon him, that he
thinks he shall bleed. Now, valuable as I admit the services
of the agricultural labourer to be, and immense as I consider
the obligation on the part of these individeals to assert and to
cherish them, I think it, however, neither more nor less
than an act of positive injustice to the community at large to
select any interest as a special object of favour—
or, as they are not ashamed to term it, protec-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) In the next place, I ques-
tion if the protection you wish to preserve is not miscalled
and misplaced. The Hen. Member for Northamptonshire
(Mr. Stafford O'Brien) presented, in his own picturesque
and pathetic style, an interview between a landlord and a
farmer, whom he represeets as being turned off his land and
compelled to leave his farm and home, endeared to him by so
many pleasing recollections, because he could not give the same
rent as some enterprising member of the Anti-corn-law Leaeue.
—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. STAFFCRD O'BRIEN.—No, no.
Lord MORPETH —I thought I understood the Hon.
Member to represent the case of a person with more capital,
energy, and ability.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN.—I did say so; but he would
not necessarily be a Leaguer.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord MORPETH.— This argument would not apply,
for where they could hitherto buy six quarters of wheat
they could now only buy three quarters. The peo-
ple—the commercial people of this country and the agricul-
tural labourer, I consider have identical interests, and I say,
therefore, that this measure will be a benefit to both. It wig
hardly be disputed that the real interests: and well-being of the
agriculturist must depet d on the general prosperity of the
country, which has such an effect on the working classes, that
with the advance of commercial prosperity, their condition in a
like ratio became improved.—( Cheers.) Now, had not the
demand for labour always existed in a greater degree in years
when corn was cheap than in years when corn was dear ?
Had it not always been found, that with cheapness of bread,
there was an instant demand for labour.—(Cheers.) An Hon.
Gent, on the opposite side of the House, said, in talking of the
three years experience which they have had, that the prospe-
rity of that time did not arise from the working of the. tariff,
but that it arose from the activity in railway speculation.
Why, the Hon. Member for Rutlandshire, said, that in the
year 1839, great prosperity existed (he alluded to the late
lamented Member for Kendal), but it must be remembered
that 1839 was only the beginning of that activity. What
do we find in that very year which we are told was so
remarkable for the prosperity of their manufacturers?—why,
that part of 33 to 35, and 39 to 41, the amount of employment
proves a decrease of 33 per cent., while the price of meat rose
to an enormous extent. Why it is so plain a principle that no
one now will deny it, that when corn is dear the food of the
working class must be proportionally entrenched upon.—( Hear,
hear.) I want you to take the most excessive view of this
matter—let them bring fewer bags of cotton, and even fewer
skins from the farmer, but still they the protectionists) must
bring "grist to their mill." The demands of the working
classes are, that they be enabled to buy in the cheapest
market ,the food which is necessary for their support.
But I have no hesitation in sayit'g, that these laws are no pro-
tection to the agricultural farmer or the agricultural labourer.
—(Cheers.) I deny that they are protected by those legislative
enactments. The Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, told
the House that the rate of wages did not rise in the same pro-
portion with the price of provisions. In my own neighbour-
hood, and I can speak from many years' experience, I am happy
to say that wages never varied at all. They have always
been in Nottinghamshire so high as 12s. a week. The labourer
who paid Is. 9d. for a stone of flour has to pay now 2s 6d.
This fact proves that his command over the necessaries of life
are materially diminished by the increased price of fool. The
difference of 10d. in a stone of flour, makes, on an average
of six in the labourer's family, adifference of 2s. 6d. a-week.
Now, I put it to the House, whether we should not attribute
that uncommon grievance to the income-tax. The labouring
man now, by the sweat of his brow, can only earn 311. a-year,
and I do think that the time is come to do something for them.
I will show the proportion in the articles of food in three
families, the tradesman's family, the professional man's family,
and the workingman's family.—( Hear.) I find in these families,
supposing them to consist of an average of six persons, the
tradesman's family pays 12/. 13s. for bread, being 15 per cent.
of his sole expenses ; the professional man's family pays
Si. 18s., being only 10 per cent. of his expenses; while the
working man pays, not 15 per cent., but 48 per cent.—
( Cheers. ) This proves how much more heavily such a re-
duction as he had alluded to was felt by the labouring man
than by the classes immediately above him. The professional
man pays for every article of food about one-third ; the food
of the tradesman is about one-half; whilst the working man
has to pay about threeefourths of his income, leaving him
only 25 per cent. for clothes, rent, taxes, and every
other outlay incidental to his family. Does not this prevent
him in a great degree from bettering his condition and giving
his children food ?—(Cheers.) I often thought that the fact
on this question was sufficient, and that nothing further need
be stated, namely, that there was no increase of the quantity of
corn grown in this country, whilst there ,was a daily increase
of 1,000 children,.or about three hundred and sixty-five thou-
sand a-year.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) When I assert that
as there is not an addition of 365,000 quarters of wheat to the
supply produced in this country, that it is most important, and
absolutely necessary to procure from abroad such supply—
( Cheers)--Ishould like to know where is the Pharasee or sinner
(and I do not say he is to be found among the protectionists)
who would deny the necessity of getting from abroad, to main-
tain and support the increased and increasing population of this
country, that food which cannot be procured at home.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Honourable Member for
Hcntingdon says that the Ministers ground their objec-
tion to the corn-laws on the necessity of giving food
to the people of Ireland, but I say to the Government that
they ought to be just before eley are generous; and although
the most Saxon feeling has never refused to give aid
when the necessities of Ireland required it ; yet it
ought not be at the expense of the Englis people.
The Hon. Member for Haddington says we ought not to apply
such a remedy to a temporary distress, but I do not know
what he means by a temporary evil. I do not like the prin-
ciples of the sliding-scale—a scale that never slided.—( Laugh-
ter.) I think no one can reproach the Hon. Gentleman
for the course he has adopted ; he may be ashamed, but he
can nes er be reproached for this measure.—( Hear, hear.)
And with' respect to this argument for the weather—l believe
it has been found by all those who have given their especial at-
tention to the variations of the weather, that the same circum-
stances of cold or hot, wet or dry weather prevail over large
circles of the country, and effect their produce in the same
proportion; and that breed, when prices are high in London,
will be found to be cheaper in Paris. The latter part of the
summer of 1812 was distinguished by a very serene and even
temperature, while in North America, where 1 happened to 1
be, we had a succession of the most variable weather,
though the summers have the reputation of being ex-
ceedingly warm, and I was told by many that
it was the coldest season that they ever remembered.
It was in the recollection of the House that last autumn was
exceedingly damp, while they might have read in the papers
of the constant heat which prevailed in America, so great that
it was actually stated that several persons had died of it. The
harvests partook of the character of the weather, and, therefore,
when we have any seasons of a marked and unfavourable
character,. or when we arc drenched with rain, we may take
hope and courage; that, if we do but repeal these corn-laws,
the rays that are denied to us will ripen their distant harvests,
and their superfluities will be wafted over to us to atone
for our deficiencies. But with reference to the continent
of America, on which I find myself, I do not
wish to allude so much to any of the statistical deductions
which my residence there encouraged me to make, as they
may be calculated at any distance from its shores. I have felt,
I confess, that it was easier to make those calculations when
in sight of those endless woods and immense prairies which
invite the plough over their fertile plains ; I have felt that as
soon as the axe once rings among these forests, that fruitful
crops of wheat and maize may yet be transported
to supply the, deficiencies of the country. I have
felt, however, that the distance of the transit must prevent
those extraordinary imports whie.h Hon. Gentlemen have con-
jured up before their eyes. There must be a long time before
the valley of the Mississipi can contain the two millions of in-
habitants which it has been estimated to be able to sustain.
Surely it is a pity that we do not make available those faci- ,
lities which that vast continent unfolds for the growth and
transfer of commodities of which we have so much need. I
wish for a moment to mention to the House, before I cease' to
trespass on its attention, that notwithstanding much that I
have heard, and much that 1 have seen, I have not returned
from that country with any favourable impressioon of their
moderate tendencies, or their scrupulous attention to good
faith.—(hear, hear.) Nor do I return to my home with
any increased repugnance.—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) By
which
monarchial principles, which were the
elements of our own Constitution.—( Loud cheers.) But I
is t o c r t i me
feel that we cannot confront the example of general ease and
,e o mean to
mixed
aristocratic, say any diminished attachment to the
comfort which prevails among the American people.—( Hear,
hear.) We all know the story of the Irish labourer, who re-
fused to write home that he had meat three times a day, be-
cause nobody would believe him. We cannot confront the
growing aspirations of our own people—we cannot confront the
onward tendencies of the age in which we live, if we do not
consent to administer and to work out our aristocratic notions
in a more democratic spirit.—( Cheers.) Notwithstanding that
implied dissent, I contend that no aristocratic institutions
which* rest on exclusive privileges will be able to stem the
current of the ale.—(Cheers.) I contend that there is no
aristocratical body which rests on especial interests will escape
their certain downfal—(Cheers) —and that no aristocracy, no
matter how long descended, can exist with the corn-law
when the pressure will come, end that corn-law will be pro-
hibitory. I think t'sat that will be too hard a strain for any
title deed, no matter how ancient to resist. I am not imputing
to the great bulk of the aristocratic party, that any of their
members should have a disposition to come out to promote any
personal interest that may affect them individually, or to sup-
port measures for their exclusive benefit. Stet the,.
are the
interests not of individuale4 but of a class %%bleb they have
been in the habit of keeping prominent iu their view.
There is a concealed esprit de corps amongst them, and a re-
fined degree of selfishness sshisli merges itself into generosity,
and is easily mistaken for it. When we think that a party
with whom we. have long acted is likely to be outnumbered in
these circumstances, monopoly itself, when it has neared its
downfal, will be invested in a kind of stmpatliy, such as that
we feel for the culprit when he stands at bay. But we cannot
be permitted, when the general interests of the country are at
stake,.to indulge in any such misplaced and morbid sympathy
It is part of true patriotism, as well as philosophy, to put the
universal, in preference, over the particulars I would, there-
fore, conjure those who belong to the aristocracy of the
country, whether connected by hereditary right or
landed property, to rise alove any of the especial interests.
and to bear their part in the progressive spirit of the age. I
grudge to the other side the adhesion of the names efdthe

Marquis of Granby and Lord Clive, for I feel that our aris-
tocracy has ever marched with that progress, and identified
itself with every glorious period recorded in our history. Let
them not refuse to bear their part in a settlement which, if
not adjusted with them, must be adjusted in spite of them.—
( Hear, hear.) I believe they continue to make it an esteemed
and honoured party—let them make it as much their pride,
as it is their duty, as well as their safety, to be the leaders
and not the loggers in the onward march of the British
people. —(Loud cheers.)
. .

GASKELL said that he considered that it was the duty of
a public man to maintain a character for consistency.—( Hear. )
Perhaps, without presumption, he might call him his Right
lion. Friend.—( Hear, hear.) During the last fourteen years
he had supported him, and he would be glad to support him on
the present occasion if he could reconcile it to his idea of duty,
but he felt it to be impossible for him to run counter to his
own implied engagements, and to his recorded votes.—( Loud
cheers.) Notwithstanding the eloquent speeches of the Right
Hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State and the Secretary at
War, he had yet to learn that this Parliament was elected for
the purpose of demolishing all protection to agriculture. In his
opinion they had been elected, not only to entertain a
total departure from those principles, but even the smallest
suspension of that protection which the corn-laws conferred.
—( Loud cheers.) He would not enter into the general ques-
tion. The state of indisposition under which he laboured pre-
vented him from doing so, and he would not detain the House
much longer. He would, however, briefly explain the grounds
of the principles which he intended to influence his conduct with
regard to this great question. During the last four years, in
which he had occupied a seat in that House he had invariably
opposed all measures of a similar nature which had been
brought forward by the Noble Lord the Member for London,
and the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton ; and he did so
under the guidance of those Members who were now bringing
forward measures precisely similar in their tendency. He was
always of opinion that Parliament was bound to give a mode-
rate protection to agricultere; and he was supporting it in that
opinion, with some of the greatest men of the present and past
generation.—(Loud cheers.) He was supported by Canning,
by Huekisson, by Earl Grey, by the Right Hon. Baronet—
(Hsar, hear)—by the Noble Lord opposite (Russell), by Lord
Ashburton, and others.—(Loud cheers.) He must be for-
given, therefore, if he said .that the impressions
made upon it by the Right Honourable Gentleman himself
and others were too strong to be ontvreighed by the arguments
which were now advanced in support of a policy directly the
reverse. —( Cheers.) There where other objections which he
considered were equally weighty against this measure. He
could not help thinking that the Right Hon. Baronet was not
the individual to propose, nor the preeent House of Commons
the body to sanction, such an alteration.—( Cheer.. ) He was
ready, however, to admit that the Right Hon. Baronet was
actuated by a sense of public interest in the proposition which
he had made, and that he had made sacrifices in bringing it
forward; but he had made sacrifices on a former occasion, and
the greatest was that in 1829. The present one was the next
in importance. With regard to the first, he lost the represen-
tation c f the college of Oxford—(Cheers)—and the confidence
of his party. This confidence,however, was afterwards bestowed
upon him, but now he has sacrificed that party which he had
ever declared to be his own pride.—( Loud cheers.) Nobody
could doubt but the great majority of the present Parliament
had been elected for the purpose of maintaining the principle of
protection to agriculture. He would say, notwithstanding
the speech of the Hon. Member for Wakefield, that it appeared
to him impossible for a Parliament so constituted, unless com-
pelled by the strorgest, the most cogent, and the most conclu-
sive reasoning, to concur in the proposal of her Majesty's Go-
vernment.-4 Loud cheers.) It was not the change of the
Right Hon. Baronet that filled his mind with apprehension,
but it was the change of so large a hods in that House
as would follow in the wake of the Right; Hon. Gentle-
man. And he confessed that such a change was calculated
to lead the public to a complete distrust in public men.—( Loud
cheers.) It might be asked, why were they not tied down by
pledges? Why did they not give pledges ? The reason why
they were not delegates was because they were trusted.—
(Loud cheers.) For himself, he could say with truth, highly
as he valued the dignity of a Parliamentary representative,
much as he prized the sphere of usefulness which that position
conferred upon them, he would rather forfeit his seat to-mor-
row than be obliged to give pledges as to the course which on
ordinary occasions he should pursue on public questions. But
there were implied engagements from which any
representative could not deviate without total abandon-
ment of centidence and a complete forfeiture ;of all claims
to be considered as the 'representative of his constituency.—
(Cheers.) His Right Hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire,
said that they Were not to be considered as mere ambassadors
and delegates of local bodies.—(Cheers.) Let that Hon.
Gentleman take care that the course which he pursued was a
ceurse which must inevitably lead to that local delegation,
which he repudiated—(Loud cheers)—and to a greater ex-
tension of that principle. Another doctrine which had been
broached was one calculated to fill his mind with the greatest
astonishment and alarm—a doctrine which was broached in a
quarter which was usually regarded with the greatest deference
and respect. That doctrine was, that at the head of the Go-
vernment was strongly advocated a measure from
which a portion of his colleagues dissented; that that Govern-
ment must, unless those colleagues came over to his opinion,
be broken up.—( Cheers.) In the speech of the Hon. Member
for Liverpool, and in that of the Hon. Member for Inverness,
this doctrine appeared to be sanctioned, but if it were generally
recognised, he considered that it was a doctrine which would be
utterly fatal to the independence of Parliamentary men—utterly
inconsistent w ith the usages which Parliament have always
been iefluenced by—that it would have the effect of making
them mere agents and local delegates, and be totally at vari-
ance with the spirit of the Constitution.—(Loud cheers.)
There was one other point to which he would call the attention
of the House. If those gentlemen who were returned to vote
against the principles of the Right Hon. Baronet should again
present themselves to their constituencies, afterhaving voted 4
contrary to their promises, what shall they have to offer for
their breach of trust ?—( Hear, hear.) When the agricultural
portion of the country shall be called upon to tender their
votes at the hustings, how would they respond to that call ?
( Hear, hear.) Would they not reply to that call with feelings
of indifference? would they not say that they
had no cause to represent no interest to
protect?—( Hear, hear.) It was no light thing to show the
constituency—it was no light thing to show to the people—that
their representatives advocated one set of principles at the
hustings, and voted otherwise in the Legislature.—( Cheers.)
He had given this subject his most serious consideration—he
had given it his most serious consideration independent of party
feelings, and he had come to the conclusion that this was a
measure fraught with the utmost danger to the agricultural in-
terests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He regretted that he
was compelled to differ in the most important measure of mo-
dern times with the Right Hon. Baronet, but it was with a
clear conscience he should vote against the measure. —(Cheers. )
Mr. ROEBUCK—The Honourable Member, who was for
some time most inaudible to the gallery, was understood to say,
that considering the various and conflicting opinions expressed
by many Honourable Members on the question before the
Howe, he naturally approached it with great difficulty. There
satwasdown a remark
hmadebalythe HonsooumreabalnesGween ntlemltanmiwot
who had
very
hadjust
proper for those who had made pledges to their constituents to
recommend the giving up of those seats. It would be
well for those Hon. Members to give up the seats which 'they
had retained on such promises. It was, however, a
matter of consideration for Parliament to show that the people
were properly represented by the character of the measures
which were brought forward. It was a great question in the
debate as to the character of delegation. He wished to know
if the delegation was nothing? What he wished to know was
the representative. Representing as he did a large constituency
in his own person—( great laughter)—he may have represented
himself in a very singuiar manner, so as to excite the laughter
of Hon. Members, but he was the representative of a large
portion of the people, but if he were to have thrown up his seat
in that House, when conscientiously compelled to differ from his
constituents, he would have had to do so long since, for
it would be remembered, that he had many times voted con-
trary to their wishes. It was not the country that called upon
Hon. Members to resign their seats, it was the close bole ughs.
—(Loud cries of " No, no," " Name, name.") He hoped
that lion. Members would not cry out name, for it so hap-
pened that he could put his fingers on the names of those
places. lie would say that those who should hereafter read
the discussion of this measure, would be surprised at the senti-
ments expressed by many. The practical statesman who
shall come hereafter, will take the practical philosophy of
legislation and would not be projudiced by party views. It
was a remarkable thing that the Hoe. Baronet who had
brought forward the principles embraced in the
present measure should have waited till 1846 before he should
have changed his principles; and it was stated to be a remark-
able thing on that side of the House, by the Noble Lord (Lord
(J. Russell). Ile was sure the Noble Lord was actuated by
he most Honourable motives, and he would give the Right
lion. Baronet the benefit of the same motives. The Right
Hon. Baronet had waited till the disease of the potato in Ireland
was fully proved, and he deemed that that was a good reason
for a change in his principles. lie was not attacking this
change of principle, but he was merely stating his opinion of the
Right Hon. Baronet as a statesman. He should not look at this
question as one emanating from a great party—it was no party
question. The Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken said
much of party, but he ('Mr. Roebuck) could see nothing of
party principle ; but it was arriving at the right principle after
a great delay. It was, however, so far as the lion. Member
was concerned, a principle not to be applied—for he said do not
allow it to come into Committee. lie would come to the
principle of the party passed, but now, as avowed, broken up.
The professors of those principles say, de not take off protec-
tion. The lion. Member for Rutland said, if you take off pro-
tection, all the corn of the world will come into this country.
He said if you took off protection corn would fall from 575. to 19s.
Tho Honourable Member said that it required protection,,so
that it would be seen that the people of this country paid, instead
of 195., 575. per quarter. He should look at the party who
benefited by this great cost to the country. Who were they?
They were the tenant famers and landowners. The Gen-
tlemen who opposed the taking off of protection were very
anxious to maintain wages. But how did they carry out the
principle? Why, by making the labourer pay 575. instead of
19s. per quarter. They say, we are about to destroy the agri-
cultural labourer by taking off protection. How were they
about to do this? Was it by reducing the price of food ? lie
had not heard it attempted to be proved by those who opposed
this question that the condition of the labourer would scot be
improved by the measure before the llouse. They had said
that he would be ruined, but had they endeavoured to prove it.
This was the necessary consequence of such a mode of pro-
ceeding. The Hon. Member had spoken of the injustice and
oppression of those enactments, as some of the consequences of
a long Parliament ; but how comes it that he had taken no
accourn of the position of the labouring classes. The tenant
farmer also required to have his condition attended to. The
tetant farmer, by the operation of this law, might still retain
his farm, but the law would materially affect him. The
Honourable Member for Northampton had stated, that
under the operation of the new law, a certain
portion of land would not produce as much corn
under the operation of the new law, as it would at present;
and if the same argument held good in all such cases, he
woulsask if the
didthenottenantthe liom Aen
farmerwasittbr g
oe employaruhe that iscaitalin
this 1
way,people
employed in other branches of business should do the same?
—( Hear, hear,) Let it go to the public then, that the pro-
tectionist party wished to keep up the price of food at fifty.
two shillings, instead of nineteen shillings, per quarter.—(No,
no.) If it was not than he (fir. Roebnek) wished to know
what their object o as.—( Hear, hear.) Was it not their object
to raise the price of food?—(Hear, hear.) And for what
purpose was that done, but to raise their own rent-rolls?
( Renewed cries of " Hear, hear.") He had heard a Right
lion. Gentleman on the opposite' benches describe what the
cause was that induced the supporters of the corn-laws
to maintain them, and . that . was; in his own
words, to maintain his position. in .society, or rather,
as he (Mr. Roebuck) el inuld translate it, to put
money in his pocket at the expens(; of the unfortunate people
of the country.--(No, no, and hear, hear: ) No, no; why
under pretence of
.protecting agriculture, was it not the fact
that the protectionists put money in their pockets?—(No, no.)
Why let any Hon. Member show him the converse of the
assertion.— ( Hear, hear.) It was easy to cry s" No, no,"
and make a noise and a fuss ; but let the contrary be proved
to the satisfaction of the House. He asserted that it could
not.—( Hear, heer. ) He might as well take the present
opportunity of stating that it would be beneficial if the Legis•
lature, whilst contemplating the relaxation of duty on human
food, would take advantage of the same opportunity to im-
prove the moral as well as the physical condition of the people.
—( Hear, hear.) There certainly would be the oppoitunity of
a greater outlay- of capital; but if care were not taken, the
caladium c.f the people would fall Inols if the measure should

not be accompanied by an enlarged educational policy; other-
wise, did they not avail themselves of that opportunity, the con..
dition of the people would be much and seriously deteriorated.
--( Hear.) And when they had provided for the destitute condi-
tion of the people, and had put the labouring classes upon a
fair footing; then, and not till then, would they deserve the
name of Legislators.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS rose to move that the debate
should be then adjourned.—(Cries of "No, no," and " Ad-
journ, adjourn.")
Mr. HODGSON HINDE said that, on the first night of this
debate, he had expressed his opinion in a few words. He be-
lieved that it was perfectly competent to speak on the original
question on the motion of adjournment.—(Laughter.) For a
considerable number of years he had enjoyed the honour of a
seat in that House, and he had also the honour of representing
a very large constituency. He confessed that his opinion was,
that native industry ought to be protected, and, in making
that declaration, he was in a peculiar position, as his'con-
stituency was entirely commercial, while he himself was en-
tirely connected with the agriculturist. He believed that it
had been said that it was the interest of this country to buy
in the cheapest market and to sell in the dearest one. That
was certainly true to some extent, but it admitted of a modifi-
cation. The true policy of this, and every other country, was
to increase the home supply of food, but he did not think that the
plan proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was the one that
would have that effect. It was necessary that we should make
ourselves independent of every foreign nation for our supply
of food. We bad centrived to do so when every other nation was
opposed to us during the war, but the system at present wassuch'
that our shipowners could not compete with foreign countries.
If the Right Hon. Gentleman would repeal the duties on co-
lonial produce, it would be calculated to do some good in se-
curing their prosperity, but the present plan would fail in ac-
complishing the objects for which it was to be carried. He
would refer to the Hon. Member for the West Riding of
Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth), who said, that great benefit would
arise from the meaeure in unfavourable seasons. That when
there was an unfavourable harvest in Northern Europe, there
would be, in all probability, a favourable harvest in Ame-
rica, and vice versa. Would not this take place
by extending the advantages now proposed for the
benefit of foreign countries for the colonies alone? In that
ea e they would not be dependant on the caprice of foreigners.
The Hon. Member for Liverpool, and another Hon. Member
who had addressed the House, had expressed themselves in
disapprobation of the measure, yet said they would rote for it,
because it would avoid the greater evil, of the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London coming into office. He (Mr.
Hodgson Hind) could not take this view of his public duty.
Was the Noble Lord ( Lord Sandon) so blind as to suppose
that if he supported the Government, in its present measures,
that Government could remain in office?—( Hear, hear. )
Could he suppose that after the events of the present
session, the present Ministry could continue to rule the
country? The Government, in proposing their measures,
he believed were greatly mistaken. He denied the assertions
that the Conservative party depended on the Right Hon.
Baronet any more than the Right Hon. Baronet depended on
the party. Without that party the Right Hon. Baronet would
never have come into power. Therefore he should not now
exert his ivauence to defeat the objects though that party had
produced his elevation. They had heard a great deal of the
calamity of famine that . was about to happen. If that
calamity takes place it will be immediately, whilst the Right Hon.
Baronet's remedy will not come into operation for three years.
He, hovrever, described the condition of the country as ex-
ceedingly prosperous. He stated that the people were con-
tented, happy, and peaceful, to an extent never known before.
The great error of the Government was, that they had no
sound discretion, and they all remembered the epitaph—it
might apply to the course pursued by them—that was placed
over the victim of quackery—
" I was well, I would be better, and here I am."
—(Laughter. )
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS moved the adjournment of the
debate.

FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)

BILL.
The House then went into Committee; and, after a few
words from Sir R. FERGUSON, passed the different slauses
of this Bill.

The House then resumed, and the Citations (Scotland) Bill,
was then read a third time and passed.
DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Drainage (Ire-
laud) Bill, when

111 r. F. FRENCH suggested some slight alterations, which
were acceded to.

Lord CLEMENTS said he was exceedingly obliged
to the Government for introducing such a Bill,
and that if the Government enabled the landlords of
Ireland to drain their property independent of the
Board of Work's, it would give very great satisfaction. He
hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would not deem it his duty to
stop such a useful measure. He (Lord Clements) knew that
several parts of Ireland were frequently inundated from ob-
structions in rivers, which a few pounds would remove.
Several clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.
On the metion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the Committee
on the County Works Presentments (Ireland) Bill was post-
poned till Monday.
Mr. AGLIONBY brought up the report on the Edinburgh
and Northern Railway, the Brighton and Chichester, and
several other railways.
The House adjourned at Half-past One.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

WEDNESDAY; FEB. I l.

The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the Bills
ordered to be brought in I.y the undernamed Hon. Members :
Wished), St. Ives, and Cambridge Junction-31r. FeHowes, Mr.

Childers, and Mr. Allix.
Manchester, Sheffield, and Midland Junction—Mr. G. H. Cavendish,

Mr. Evans, and Mr. B. Denison.
Lancaster and Carlisle (Extension to Caledonian Railway), and Lan-
caster and Preston Junction Amalgamation—Colonel Lowther and

Mr. C. Howard.
Bristol and South Wales Junction Railway and Ferry—Mr. P. ➢files,

Mr. H. Berkeley, and Sir J. Guest.
York and North Midland (Widening and Enlargement)—Sir J. H

,
Lowther and Mr. Hudson.
Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester (Deviations and Branches)—Mr.

B. I)enison, Mr. Beckett, and Mr. Aldam.
Grand Junction (Huyton and Aston, Huyton, Prescott, and St.
Helen's, Warrington and Kenyon, Warrington and Parkside,
Shoxvhill and Portobello, and Edghill and Huyton Branches)— Mr.
Patten and Viscount Sandon.
North Union—Mr. Patten, Mr. Clifton, and Captain Lindsay.

Kirkintillock and Kilsyth—Mr. Craig and Mr. bennistoun

Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Deviations, and Eastbourne, Hail•
sham, Seaford, and Newhaven Branches—Mr. Fitzroy and Mr.

Elphinstone.
London and Brighton (Wandsworth Branch)—Mr. Kemble and
Captain Pechell.
Newcastle and Darlington (Sunderland and Wearmouth Dock Pur-
chase and Branchos)—Mr. Liddell, 31r. Ilinde, and Mr. Hudson.
Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction—Mr. Parker and Mr. Vernon.

The following hallway Bills were presented, read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second time :
London and Brighton (East Grinstead Branch)—" for making a
Branch Railway from the London and Brighton Railway to or near
to the town of East Grinstead, in the county of Sussex."

Vv
Newcastle and Berwick--" for enabling the Newcastle and Ber-
wick Railway Company to make certain Branch Railways in the
county of Northumberland."
Grand Junction (Huyton and Warrington Branch)—" for enabling
the Grand Junction Railway Company to make a Branch Line of
Railway from llnyton to Warrington, tnd for amending the former
Acts relating to the said Company."
Manchester and Birmingham —" to empower the Manchester and
Birmingham Railway Company to make certain Branch Railways."
London arid South-Western (Farnham and Alton Branch)—" to
enable the London and South-Western Railway Company to make a
Branch Railway to Farnham, in the county of Surrey, and Alton, in
the countx'of Southampton."

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL-OFFICE.
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 11.
Surrey Grand Junction Railway—Committee on Petition, Thurs-
day, Feb. 19.
Blackburn and Preston Railway—Second reading, Monday, Feb.l6.
Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Preston Railway—Second reading, Mon-
day, Feb. 16.
Cork Passage, and Kinsale Railway—Committee on Petition,
Thursday, Feb. 19.
Oldham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Birkenhead Railway—Com-
mittee on Petition, Thursday, Feb. 19.
Ashburton, Newton, and South DeVon Railway—Second reading,
Monday, Feb. 16.
North Staffordshire Railway (Harecastle and Sandbach Line)—
Second reading, Monday, Feb. 16.
North Staffordshire Railway (Churnet Line)—Second read-
ing, Monday, Feb. 16.
Midland Railway (Birmingham and Clone-eater Branches)—Com-
mittee on Petition, Thursday, Feb. 19. •
einem Junction Railway—Committee on Petition, adjourned till
Monday, Feb. 16.
Manohcatcr and Southampton Railway—Committee on Petition,
adjoOrned till Tuesday, Feb. 17,