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

COMMONS' SUMMARY.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Lord MouPETn 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. M`CARTIIY, 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 not been complied with, was ordered to be
referred back to the Committee, after a short discussion.
Sir H. HALFonn presented a petition from Liverpool,
signed by 2,000 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 presented 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 on the
subject of the proposed alterations in the commercial
policy of the country, among which were 103 by Lord
MORP.E.TB (who was 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 been 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, to the effect that
wheat should be subject to a fixed duty of 55., barley
of 3s. 6d., and oats of 25., in place of the Ministerial

proposition.
Mr. M. Ilium 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. BOWRING,
Mr. CARDWELL explained the measures whick had
been 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. INams 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. PRILLIPPS,
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. name MILES rose to move the amendment of
which he bad 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 country ought to be consulted, more especi-
ally when it was considered that this Parliament had
been elected upon protectionist principles. He 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 had 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 not
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 revieef
of the history our commercial policy since the accession
of Sir R. PEEL to office, and conded 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 would
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-
Foreign markets were glutted with our goods. It was
the home trade which afforded the finest ele-
ments for the calculation of the amount of
our commercial prosperity. With regard to the
corn-laws, the law of 1842 had worked well ; it
had secured steadiness of price, and he would not con-
sent to its alteration. The Right Honourable Baronet
had said in 1842 that 565. was a fair price for the
farmer. He would like to know what he considered
a fair price now. The Right Hononurable Baronet