The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-09 00:00:00

LORDS' SUMMARY.

Their lordships commenced business shortly after
fivo o'clock.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the ccunty of
Lancaster, signed by 12,339 persons is favour of Protec-
tion to Agriculture.

SevQrafpetitions were presented by Lord BEAUMONT
and the Earl REDESDALE.

Lord BEAUMONT gave notice, for the Duke of flicu-
MOND, aids intention, on Thursday next, to move for
certain returns regarding local taxation. He also moved
that their Lordships should be summoned for that day.
Earl GREY presented a petition from the tenant
farmers of Forfar, in favour of the Ministerial plan for
the reduction of duties on the various articles of food.
The petition, however, deprecated the delay of three
years, considering it injurious to their i',►terests. The
Noble Earl trusted that the opinion of the petitioners
would have weight with her Majesty'n Ministers.

Earl ST. GERMANS moved the second reading of the
Public Works (Ireland) Bill. MI thought that the
measure would be found most beneficial in developing
the resources of Ireland. The Bill would bring home
to the peasantry of Ireland employment at their own
doors.

Lord MONTEAGLE supported the Bill, and deprecated
the conduct of the Government hi withholding from the
consideration of Parliament the whole of the reports
they had received relative to the probable condition of
Ireland, in consequence of the failure of the potato crop.
The Duke of WELLINGTON assured the Noble Lord
that the consideration he had suggested to him on Fri-
day last had been fully looked into, and every attention
would be given by the Government to the wants of
Ireland. Measures would be introduced in the course o
the present session for that purpose.
Lord STOURTON supported. the Bill.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

NEW MEMBERS.

Lord MORPETU took the oaths and his seat for the
West Riding of Yorkshire. On the entrance of the
Noble Lord, who was introduced by Lord John Russell
and Mr. By nn, he was greeted with loud cheers from all
sides of the House.

Mr. M'Carany, who was introduced by Mr. O'Con-
nell and another lion. Member, took the oaths and his
seat for the city of Cork.
THE AYSHIRE AND GALLOWAY RAILWAY.
Sir J. Y. BULLER brought up the Report of Sub-
Committee No. 2, when
Mr. HODGSON said that before the report was or-
dered to lie on the table, he wisLed to make a few ob-
servations. Ile wished to put a question to the Attor-
ney-General on a point of law, but at the same time he
had no desire to impugn the judgment of the Committee.
The objection which had been taken to the contract of
the Ayrshire Railway ryas, that the contract decd was
invalid, inasmuch as two of the trustees who were bound
to perform the covenants were also shareholders in the
Company. The Committee, when this objection was
urged, came to the resolution, that by standing order
No. 40, the contract deed was invalid, and did not bind
'll3 trustees to the performance of its covenants. It was
a Scottish Bill, and he thought that the objection which
had been raised could not consistently be maintained.
He wished now to appeal to' the opinion of the highest
constituted law officers in that House, whether or-not
the fact of a certain number of trustees holding shares in
the Company would render its contract invalid.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that
under the
standing. order which had been referred to by his Ron.
k'riai I, 10 was required Trita, that the parties so.

scribing should bind themselves to the performance of
the subscription deed. It appeared from the facts of the
case that the trustees were also shareholders, and agreed
to pay the amount of their subscriptions in common
with the other subscribers, and as trustees they also
covenanted to see the due performance of the contract,
so that in point of fact the covenanters were also
covenantees. Ho was of opinion that the whole deed
was not invalid. The question was whether the sub-
scription deed w as a compliance with the standing order.
It was perfectly true that in a court of law no action
would hold, because no party could sue himself, but in a
court of equity a party would be bound by the deed, and
would he obliged to pay the amount of his subscription.
His opinion undoubtedly was, that the standing order
had been complied with, and if the case had occurred
with respect to an English railway, there would have
been a compliance with the standing orders, because the
parties would have been liable, if not in a court of law, at
all events in a court of equity.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said it would not become him
after the opinion expressed by the Attorney- Go-
reral to discuss a point of law. He could only say
that the decisions to which the Committee had come
were in accordance with the decisions of Sub-Commit-
tees of last year. He thought, after the opinions which
had been expressed, that the better course to pursue
would be to allow the Bill to ;take the usual
course, and for it to be referred to the Standing
Orders' Committee, as the Standing Orders' Committee
would, of course, act upon the opinion which had been
expressed by the Attorney-General and sanctioned by
the House, and such an opinion should be taken as a
guide fur the future.
Mr. HODGSON bad t o c bj, ction that the Bill be
riferred back to the same conpuictee.
CORN-LAWS.
Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from the
town and county of Leicester, signed by 2,000 persons,
engaged both as manufacturers and agriculturists. The
petitioners stated that they heard with alarm of the
scheme proposed by Government for the purpose of re-
ducing those duties which protected native manufactures
and agriculture, and they thought that the best means of
security consisted in affording every facility for the de-
veloPment of the produce of our own soil.—(Hear, hear.)
That security would be amply uflorded under the exist-
ing corn-laws. The manufacturers stated that there
were documents before the House which would prove
the extremely low rate of wages, at present existing in
a district where there were more than 100,000 persons,
both manufacturers and agriculturists, and the pro-
duce of which amounted to 2,500,0001. annually.
Mr. BAMPTON presented a petition in favour of the
measures of commercial reform proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Government.
Mr. NORRIS presented a petition praying for a con-
tinuance of protection to agriculture.
Mr. R. YORKE presented a petition praying for a
total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition, signed by up-
wards of ten thousand persons in the county of Durham,
against the proposed alteration in the corn-laws.
Mr. M. CLARKE presented a petition in favour of
the repeal of the corn-laws.
Lord DALMENY presented a petition of a similar
nature.

An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
presented a petition, signed by nine thousand of the in-
habitants of Sussex, against any alteration of the corn-
laws.

Sir J. C. IMBHOUSE presented a petition, very nu
merously signed, in favour of tho contemplated alters.
tion of the corn laws.

Mr. MUNTZ (Birmingham) presented a petition from
the merchants, traders, and other inhabitants of Bir-
mingham, complaining that none of the restrictions en
copper ore were about being removed by the Go-
vernment.

Mr. BUNCOMBE presented three petitions from
Dundee, the seat of the linen manufacturers, in favour
of free trade, which stated that they (the petitioners)
were not afraid of competing with the whole world, al-
though every restriction should be removed.
Lord MORPETH (who was very loudly and gene-
rally cheered on rising) presented a petition from Wake-
field and Halifax, very numerously signed by merchants,
bankers, and others in Yorkshire, strongly expressing
their approbation of the Government measure respecting
the corn-laws.
Mr. FERRAND said he should wish ►to ask the
Noble Lord a question. He should wish to learn
whether the signatures to these petitioners had bean
the free and unbiassed act:of the petitioners?—(Cries of
" Order, crder.") He was prepared to prove that the
working men—(Order, order)—were obliged to turn into
the counting-houses of the large manufactories and sign
these petitions, before they received their weekly pay-
ments.—(Loud cries of " Order.")
The SPEAKER observed that the Hon. Member
might put put a question, but the rule of the House did
not permit that he should make a speech.
Mr. FERRAND—WeII, then, he would put the
question—were these signatures of the kind that he
described ?

Lord MORPETII—IIe had only to say that, to the
best of his belief and to the entirety of his convictions,
the signatures to the documents which he had pre-
svnted were the free and unbiassed acts of the peti-
tioners.

Sir W. MOLES WORTH presented a petition from
the borough of Southwark, in favour of a total and im-
mediate repeal of the eorn.laws.

The WEAKER observed, that perhaps it might be
bettcr fur the House to receive petitions on the corn-
laws after the order of the day had been gone into.
Mr. OWEN STANLEY gave notice that in the Com-
mittee on the corn and provision laws, he would move as
an amendment, a fixed duty of ss. on wheat, 2s. 6d. on
barley, and 2s. on oats, and so on in proportion.
Mr. M. MILNES gave- notice that in committee on
the resolution relating to the corn-laws he would move
the omission of all words after 1849.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that he would call
the attention of the House to the propriety of extending
the power of poor-law guardians, so as to enable them to
grant out-door relief to the people of Ireland.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE moved for a return of stile
number of all persons who bad removed from the agri-
cultural to the manufacturing districts, particularly in
Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire, in the years
1841, 1842, and 1843.—Agreed to.
Lord Somerset, Lord Sandon, Sir George Grey, Mr.
Wilson Patten, and the; O'Conor Don, who constitute
the committee on parliamentary election petitions, were
then sworn at the table.

Captain LIIILL gave notice of a motion, to the
effect that he would on a future day move that the duty
to be paid on foreign corn for the next three years
should be given to the tenant farmers, who would
be injured by the measure of her Majesty's Ministers.
Dr. BOWRIING would ask whether any and what
measures had been taken by her Majesty's Government
to inquire into the character of the disease said to have
broken out at Roa Vista in consequence of communi-
cation with the Eclair.
Sir G. CLERIC said that such measures had been
taken as would meet the case.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Mr. YOUNG, a new writ was
ordered to be issued for the election of a knight of the
shire for the southern division of the county of Notting•
ham, in the room of the Earl of Lincoln, who has ac-
cepted the office of Secretary for Ireland.
FACTORY SCHOOLS.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department re-
specting the proceedings of the factory inspectors. He
found from their report that Mr. Horner had given 1501.
to schools connected with the Established Church, and
301. to.schools belonging to the British Society of Dis-
senters ; while another inspector had given 270/. to
schools connected with the Established Church, and
to schools not so connected. Now, it was the
intention of the Factories Act that the sums
appropriated by the Goyernmet for this purpose, should
be freely and equally divided amongst schools where
factory children wcre being educated ; and he wished
to know whether these grants were in future to be made
in accordance with the spirit of the Act.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM (who spoke in so low a
tone of voice as to be scarcely audible in the gal-
lery) was understood to say that the funds appro-
priated by the Legislature for the benefit of fac•
tory schools would be divided equally, and without
favour to one sect or another. The inspectors had, he
thought, made the distribution referred to by the Hon.
Member in this spirit, for most of the Catholic schools
refused to receive aid from those funds, while the:British
schools had only taken the money at the request of the
inspector himself.

CORN-LAWS.
Mr. COLLETT wished to direct the attention of
the Hight Hon. Baronet opposite to a paragraph
which had appeared in the public pints of that morn-
ing, and which had caused some anxiety in the com-
mercial world, in so far as it alleged that some flaw
existed in the corn-law which was passed in 1842. The
Hon. Gentleman then read a notice which had appeared
in the public papers with reference to a particular
point. as it bore on the condition of the people.
The question he wished to ask the Home Department
was, whether this statement was correct, and whether

the amount to be apportioned to this school was to be
regulated by the number of children which were edu-
cated in them, or by the amount of necessity which
existed in the district 'where they were placed.
Sir J. GRAHAM—It was utterly impossible to give
a precise answer to the lion. Gentleman's question.
but the circumstances were so various that no one could
lay down a positive rule, and he could only say, there-
fore, that directions had been given to render returns of
the number of children educated in the several schools,
and of the education of the inhalitants in the several
neighbourhoods. Oa these conditions his an-Aver weti!cl
dedend.

Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped he should not be deemed
wanting in courtesy to the Right Hon. Baronet
it he asked, without notice, whether the
sum be apportioned to the several schools,
was to depend upon the number of childrcii educated in
the schools, or whether a certain sum was to he appor-
tioned to each, whatever the condition of that school
might be ; he thought this was in:portant, and there-
fore he wished to ask whether th.l) same sum wes to bp
apportioned if the children or:tucated were 50 or 100 in
the school—in fact, wheth,:.r the sum given was to be in
proportion to the numlv.r in the school.
Sir JAMES GRAMM was under the necessity
to give the same reply as he had just made to
the previous
cruestion. They had first to ascertain
the number of scholars, and the revenue of these
schools, and the relief would depend on those circum-
stances.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
Mr. LIDDELL had a question to ask, for which ho
hoped to be excused, but in the absence of the Noble
Lord, the late Member for Dorsetshire, who it was
known had taken a great interest in the condition of the
juvenile population, but who, in consequence of his feel-
ing upon a point of honour, had resigned his seat, and
Wu' therefere, suable 19. pat she questim himself, he

hoped he should be excused for asking it without notice
that such an inquiry was required might be gathered.
from the remarks lately made by a j udge in one of the
criminal courts. No subject was more deservedly
worthy of the attention of the House. As he had stated
his views to the Right Hon. Baronet, .he would not then
detain the House by any observation 3, but simply ask
the Right Hon. Boronct if the gentleman was prepared
to take any steps towards the improvement and re-
formation of juvenile delinquents ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the subject had occupied the
serious attention of the former, as well as of the pre-
sent Government. Up to 1838, there was no institution
in this country devoted exclusively to the punishment
and reformation of juvenile offenders. Shortly
after an institution was formed in this metropolis
in which 300 of these persons were confined. In that
year, with the sanction of that Home, Parkhurst prison
was erected, which he thought had beeen conducive to
the moral improvement of those who were consigned to
it. In that institution there were now 660 confined. In
addition 200 juvenile convicts were confined in the Pen-
tonville prison (as we understood). If it was
the pleasure of :hat House to sanction what
would be brought forward by the Government on the
subject, and to give au annual grant for the mainte•
nance of ell those young prisoners after their conviction
by a jury, he would endeavour to induce the magistrates
of the various counties of England to set apart a portion
of the prisons under their direction for the reception
of juvenile offenders.—(Hear, hear.) If this
plan were carried out in each county,
he had no doubt that benevolent persons would aid the
Government in putting these unfortunate persons, on
leaving prison, in the way to earn an honest living, and
to r, store them to society.—(Hear.)
DRAINAGE BILL (IRELAND).
Sir WM. SOMERVILLE inquired if it was the
intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham)
to move that the House should go into Committee on
this Bill to-night.

Sir J. GRAHAM was understood to say that he
should make a motion to that effect tc-night.

REPEAL OF THE DUTIES ON CORN.

Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose and said —I am
desires to make a statement with reference to the ques-
tion which the Noble Lord the Meinber for the City of
London, put to me the other night, respecting the repeal
of the duties on corn—foreign corn—immediately after
the passing of a resolution to that effect by the House.
The reply which I gave to that question has created an
impression in the City that the Treasury intend to
repeal these duties, as well as other duties, as soon as
the House shall have signified its consent. I answered
that the Treasury would remit the duties
on foreign corn after the assent of the
House had been given to the resolution. I
find that my impression was a wrong one. In every.
case wherein the co:n duty had been altered by Par-
liament the reduction of the du:y had taken place from
the passing of the Act, and the Treasury have never,
in any case, undertaken to remit the duty. Now, Sir,
I should be exceedingly unwilling to assume, on the
part of the Treasury, any authority for which there
was no precedent, and I should also be exceedingly sorry
to assume it in this case, because I fear that an
assumption of thai authority for the first time would
have a tendency rather to prejndice than promote the
final success of the measure. It is the intention of her
Majesty's Government, therefore, to adhere to the
course which has uniformly been pursued at all former
periods of an alteration in the corn-laws, and to make
the reduction of the duty—if the measure should be
sanctioned by Parliament—take effect from the passing of
the Act. I believe in point of fact, that there will be
delay in taking corn out of bond, for if
there should be:,any chance of the measure not receiving
the sanction of the Legislature, parties would take corn
out of bond, when they were certain that, after a short
interval, they would be compelled to pay a duty of 17s.
At the same time, it is of much importance that the
decision of Parliament on the subject should be known,
and that -the trade should have an assurance as to
the principles which are to operate in the corn trade; and
her Majesty's Government propose to give apreference to
the corn-bill before all other subject, and as far as the
Government are concerned they will take no other Go-
vernment business until the decision of this branch of
the Legislature with respect to the proposed new corn-
law shall have been taken. We shall, therefore, not go
into any other amendment of the tariff until this house
shall have given its assent to the new corn Bill.
Mr. M. PHILLIP wished to know whether, if the
debate should be adjourned on Tuesday evening it would
be continued on Wednesday, and i; so, whether the sit-
ting on that day would be a morning one.
Sir R. PEEL said that if on adjournment took place
on Tuesday the House might proceed with the debate
on Wednesday ; and in that case he apprehended that
there would be no alternative but to commence at twelve
o'clock and adjourn at six, because the House had
already pas.,ed a standing order on the sabjeet of Wed-
nesdays sittings. He thought, hawever, it would bo
more convenient to consider the subject to-morrow
evening.
In answer to Sir G. PALMER,

Sir R. PEEL said that he woull not exclude himself
from any interval during the progress of the Bill which
he was about to introduce on the corn•laws, but he might
inform the Hausa that it was his intention to proceed
with that Bill without delay until its final stage.
Sir G. PALMER was proceeding to make some fur-
ther remarks, but resumed his seat amidst cries of " Or-
der, order."

CORN LAWS.
Mr. CHRISTIE presented a petition in favour of a
total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Sir GEORGE STAN TON presented a petition iu
favour of the existing corn-laws.
Mr. RICHARD HODGSON presented a petition in
favour of a total repeal repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. G. BANKES presented a petition from a borough
in the county of Dorset. The petitioners, he said,
prayed fur a continuation of protection to agriculture
until the sense of the nation shall have been taken.—
(Cheers.) He had also a petition to present from the
same county, and also from different places in Hamp-
shire, and-from Ferrybridge, signed by an immense
number of individuals, all praying for protection to Bri-
tish industry.
Mr. B. HAWES presented a petition from Lambeth,
signed by 2,000 ;ndividuals, in favour of a total and im-
mediate repeal of the corn-laws,
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Newport,
in favour of a total and immediate repeal of the corn laws.
Mr. CLIFTON presented a petition, signed by
12,000 of the inhabitants of North Lancashire, praying
the House to continue protection to agriculture.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition in favour of
a total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from Edin-
burgh in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws.
PAPER HANGINGS.

Mr. T. DIINCOMBE presented a petition from
paper-hangers of Finsbury and its vicinity against thLt
portion of the Government measure which had refer-
ence to a reduction in the duties on paper-hangings.
CORN-LAWS.

Mr. BRIGHT presented petitions from Exeter, signed
by 1,864 persons ; from Stockport, signed by 9,000
persons ; and from 25 other parishes, praying for a
total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Dr. BOW RING presented petitions from operatives
in Warwick, and also from a parish in Wales, of a
similar nature.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition from Marylebone
and Paddington, signed by 27,000 persons, praying for a
repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. STRUTT presented a number of petitions from
the ceunty of Lancashire, also praying for a repeal of
the corn-laws.
Mr. ROSS presented a similar petition from the opera-
tives of Belfast.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to present petitions
From several parts of Devonshire, in favour of a total j
and immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. SCOTT presented a similar petition.
A petition from an Host. MEMBER, signed by 6,000,600
inhabitants of a town, the name of which we did not
catch, praying for a repeal of the cern laws.
Mr. BENNETT presented a petition praying that
nothing would be done respecting the corn laws until an
appeal was made to the constituencies of the country.
Mr. HAWES rose to present petitions from a great
number of towns and villages, one of which petitions
was signed by 26,000 inhabitants, praying fur an imme-
diate settlement of the corn-laws by repealing the same.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a petition from
South Lancashire, signed by 14,500 inhabitants, pray-
ing for the immediate repeal of the corn-las s. Also an-
other petition from the Chamber of Commerce, Man-
chester, for a similar object. The petition generally
approval of the commercial policy adopttd by the Mi-
nistry with all becoming respect, they prayed that with
the present session protective duties of every kind would
terminate. He had also to present another petition from
the Manchester Commercial Association; it coincided
with the expressions of the other petitions, approved
of the commercial policy of the Government; but prayed
for an immediate repeal.
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from Abingdon, in favour of the propositions of the
Government with respect to corn and other arti-
cles.—(Great laughther.)
Mr. MILES presented several petitions in favour of the
existing protractive duties imposed on corn, one was
from Somerset, another from a parish in London,
another from the county of Glamorgan, and another from
a parish in the county of Gloucester. The petitions
prayed, that if there should be a reduction made in the
present duties, an appeal would be first made to the
country.

Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower
Hamlets, in favour of the Ministerial measures relating
to corn ; it was signed by 80,000 individuals.
Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Bath,
signed by the Mayor and 67,000 mhsbitants, praying
for the immediate and total repeal of the corn-laws.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented a petition to the
same effect from the borough of Southwark and another
from St. Luke's, Chelsea. ,
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the borough
of Finsbury signed by 53,700 persons, and expressing a
strong approval of the measure proposed by the Goverr.
ment, but praying that the abolition of the corn-laws
should take place immediately. Also a petit.° I t t he
same effect from a town in Montgomeryshire. Also a
petitition signed by fourteen agricultural labourers in
Pusey, Wilts" i:e, in which they sat i that the system
of protection had reduced them to the lowest state 9f

degradation and misery. The petition states, that not-
withstanding the system of protection they have been
obliged to submit to labour only suited to beasts of
burden. They have been harnessed to carts. The
aggregato number of their families, some of which
comprised eight individuals, amounted to eighty-six.

COMMONS' SUMMARY.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Lord MORPETH took the oaths and his seat for the
West Riding of Yorkshire. The Noble Lord was intro-
duced by Mr. BYNG, the Member. for Middlesex, and
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and was most enthusiastically
cheered.
Mr. WCARTHY, for Cork, took the oaths and his seat.
The Hon. Gentleman was introduced by Mr. O'CONNELL.
Leave was given to bring in several railway Bills.
The Edinburgh Waterworks Bill was brought in, read
a first, and ordered to be read a second time.:
Mr. KEMBLE brought in the London and South-
Western Railway Bill.
The report of the Sub-Committee on the Ayrshire
and Galloway Railway Bill, reporting that the standing
orders had ir)t been complied with, was ordered to be.
referred back to the Committee, after a short discussion.
Sir 11. HALFORD presented a petition from Liverpool,
signed by 2,020 persons, against any alteration in the
corn -laws.
The Earl of MARCH presented a similar petition from
Sussex, signed by 9,000 persons.
Mr, • LEADER pres.entel a petition from Westminster,
in favour of a total repeal of the corn-laws, signed by
73,000 persons.
Several other petitions having been presented cn the
subject of the proposed alterations in tho commercial
policy of the country, among which were 103 by Lord
MORPLTH (wheilvas received with enthusiastic cheer-
ing), from various places in the West Riding of York-
shire in favour of the Ministerial measures generally,
with the exception of that part which related to the
corn laws, of which laws they prayed the total and im-
mediate repeal,
Mr. FERRAND asked if the signatures to those peti-
tions were affixed to them with the free and unbiassed
wills of the parties signing, because he was prepared to
prove that many of the workmen had bean forced ?
The SPEAKER—The Hon: Member may ask a ques-
tion on the presentation of a petition, but he cannot
make a speech.
The HON. MEMBER repeated his question, to which
Lord .MORPETH replied that, to the best of his belief
and the entireness of his conviction, the signatures had
been affixed by the free and unbiassed will of the parties
. .

signing.

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY gave notice of an amendment in
the Committee on the Customs' Act, t ) the effect that
wheat should be subject to a fixed duty of 55., barley
of 3s. Gd., and oats of 25., in place of the Ministerial

proposition.
Mr. M. Mensrs gave notice of an amendment to omit
in the resolution with regard to corn all words referring
to'the duties payable after 1849.
Several unopposed returns having been agreed to,
The Members constituting the Committee on Parlia-
mentary Election Petitions were then sworn at the table.
In answer to Dr. Bowansc,
Mr. CARDWELL explained the measures which had
keen adopted for the purpose of carrying out the recom-
mendations of the Committee on Colonial Accounts.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask if it was not the intention
that the sums levied as fines on factory owners should
be fairly divided among all schools, and not as they had
hitherto been, distributed at the rate of 1001. to schools
connected with the Established Church to 301. to schools
connected with Dissenters.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the sums were to be fairly
distributed, but that he understood that few applications
had been made for Dissenting or Catholic schools. •
Sir R. INGLIS wished to know whether it was intended
that an equal sum should be given to Church and Dis-
senting schools, or a proportionate sum ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was intended that the sum
should be apportioned to the wants, of the school.
Mr. LIDDELL asked if the Government was prepared
to take any steps for the improvement of the juvenile
population of the metropolis ?
Sir J. GRAHAM explained the steps which had been
already taken for the improvement and reformation of
juvenile offenders in the metropolis; and stated, if it
were the pleasure of the House to vote the necessary
funds, ne would feel it his duty to propose further mea-
sures for the reformation of juvenile offenders.
Sir R. PEEL explained in relation to his reply to the
Noble Lord's question the other night as to his answer on
the subject of the reduction of the corn duties, that he
could find no precedent for the Treasury sanctioning
the reduction of the duty on the receipt of the report,
and that, therefore, he could not consent to any reduction
on the corn duties until the proposed alteration should
become law, but so convinced was he of the nececssity
of proceeding with the alteration on the corn laws at once
that he proposed to proceed with the measure for the
alteration of the corn-laws, in preference to any other
public measure, and to every other alteration in the
tariff, until it should become law.
In reply to Mr. M. PHILLIPPS,
Sir R. PEEL said that if the debate should be ad-
jonrned over Tuesday, there would be no alternative but
to resume the debate on 'Wednesday at twelve and finish
it at six. The Right Hon. Baronet also explained that
necessarily there must be an interval between the first
and second reading of the Corn Bill, during which he
might bring forward other articles in the tariff, but that
he would proceed with the Corn Bill with all the speed
that the forms of the House would permit.
On the motion that the order of the day for the House
resolving itself into Committee being read, a host of
petitions on the subject of the corn-laws were presented.
After the presentation of the petitions, which lasted
until after six o'clock,
Mr. PHILIP MILES rose to move the amendment of
which he had given notice, viz., that the House should
resolve into Committee this day six months. The pro-
posed change in our commercial policy was a change even
greater than that proposed by the Reform Bill, and on a
question involving such vital interests, the constituen-
cies of the coun'ry ought to be consulted, more especi-
ally when it was considered that this Parliament had
been elected upon protectionist principles. Ho ad-
mitted the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, but the
oat crop and the wheat crop in that country was above
the average. There was no fear of a famine.
He could well understand that the Right Hon. Baronet
might feel alarm at the state of things in Ireland, but if
he bad watched the state of the markets he would see
there was no cause of alarm. He would say if
there was danger of a famine, open your ports, but
he contended that there was no danger whatever
of famine, and, looking at the course pursued by
the Right Honourable Baronet, he could not but
came to the conclusion that the cause of protection had
in the Right Hon. Baronets mind been long doomed. He
thought the agricultural interests of the country was
entitled to moderate protection. He recollected the
talent with which the Right Hon. Baronet had upheld the
doctrines of protection, and he could foresee the ability
with which he would control them, but he feared is( t
because he felt that he had a large minority in that
House, and a large party out of it. Three months ago
the Member on the Treasury Bench supported the doc-
trine of protection ; and if his opinions had undergone
such a change, he should have 'Felt bound to follow the
example of the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire,
He could not see where these changes were to lead, and
if these were agreed to, greater still must follow ;
changes which would shake the public credit.
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to take a review
of the history our commercial policy since the accession
of Sir 11. PEEL to office, and conderl that the pros-
perity of the industrious classes had been owing not
to the free trade measures of the Government, but
to the immense increase of our railway system,
which had created a demand for labour, and in
in consequence of which the prices of iron had
risen enormously—to the cessation of war in
India—and to the succession of good harvests,
and he believed that much of that prosperity woukl
have taken place if the Noble Lord opposite had been
in power. He denied that the amount of exports
afforded a fair indication of commercial prosperity.
Foreigt; markets were glutted with our goods. It was
the home izede which afforded the finest ele-
ments for the Cstleuletion of the amount of
our commercial prosperity. With regard to the
corn-laws, the law or" 1842 had worked well ; it
had secured steadiness of price.; And he would not con-
sent to its alteration. The Right .7.iCneourable Baronet
had said in 1842 that 565. was a fair price for the
farmer. He would like to know what he cone:tiered
a fair price now. The Right Hononurable Baronet
still his proposed measure would not lower tho price of
wheat, what then became of the argument of the cheap
loaf.