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

CORN-LAWS.

Some confusicn 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 Corn-
mittee not having been present, it was agreed by their Lord-
ships present that they slit uld go into Committee that day
without an! 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 Lords'nirs, nor would
they have now done so, had it not been for the petition which
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 was
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 important 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 measure 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 petition 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,
by the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the East India
Dock Company, and by a very considerable number of Bank
directors.

A Norris Lonn—How many?
Lord STANLEY believed six—(Heer, 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 Purses, 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
silk 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 and
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' progre!s with the measure, so much as with a
view that their Lordship might hesitate before making the
vast experiment which he 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 been 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, and 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 signed by 14 other bankers, and appendetdtLoem-
t
were the signatures of 267 merchants and traders.
place the petitions side by side, and he was not afraid of the
result. the
Lord STANLEY said he had no intentionct owfasc,hahregianidg
not
Noble Lord with misrepresentation.
know he nature of the petition retfeeTrrdhraeeydfitohebmyeatnhtethNeodbalye
Lord, till it was brought to him ye_
when it was presented
before yesterday. The petitiono
pur-
ported to be the petition ftlaiendbatnekebresiievmeedrcihtanwtass,
then
traders of the City of London,
stated the petition. did not represent the general opin?tiohnel.
lie had
answer was, if it did not represent the general opinion, why
had no contrary petition being presentedaga,imnsptarite
been instructed to state, that if they would c
tures of the two petitions, they would find that they 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 up, they would find that it had contained
these words, and that they had subsequently been erased :
in the view of the petitioners, for
And so little ground i$ there,

urging your Lordships to pass this measure with the least pos.
Bible delay." Ftut it appeared this language conveyed an opi-
nion too strong for them to agree in. and it was left out, and
in the place of it, " That it ought to pass with the
least possible delay."—( Hear, hear.) But they did not
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 law.

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
the merchants, but from a very respectable portion of them.
One thing should not be lost sight of in referring to this pe-
tition. 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 an 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 the 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 proprietors,-
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,
oppose it in all its stages. During the period he had had the
honour of occupying a seat in that House be 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 Isis suport.
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 to see was not 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, but as it was commented upon else-
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 of 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 STANLEY 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 remark. had been addressed to
the subject of motives with regard to the passing of the Bill,
and he had stated, that although 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. If anything offensive was said, it
was entirely on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate. All that
he (Lord Stanley) bad 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 same ratio as corn. The
Right Rev. Prelate stated that two-thirds of his income was
derived 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
Bill for the Commutation of Tithes, and that opinion he had
uniformly held. With regard to four of his Right Reverend
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 it'
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 in
the habit of receiving a fixed income, he did
not believe that in deciding on the merits of the Bill
selfishness would form any ingredient in their decision. He
claimed no exemption from any charges fairly brought forward,
nor from any strictures made on the character of the bench, but
he thought that, with regard to the present, the imputation
made upon them was by no means deserved.
The Earl of MALMESBURY was of opinion that the
Right Rev. Prelate who had just spoken had evinced too much
susceptibility, with regard to the observations made by the
Noble Lord (Lord Stanley). There was not a single Peer in
that House who would more unwillingly utter a word bordering
in the slightest degree to impugn one sentence which had fallen
from the Right Rev. Prelate; but he could not but disagree
most strongly with him in an imputation which he had made
against the Noble Lords who differed with him on that question.
The Right Rev. Prelate stated that the Noble Lords were
actuated by selfish motives and interests in the course they
were pursuing on the present question. The Right Rev.
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 hail said was, that
the people would see a wide difference in the condition of the
clergy and the Right Rev. Bench, and judge accordingly 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 an 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 that however
superior the Right Rev. Prelate might be out of 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 Rev. Prelate was understood to say, that
he had not imputed selfish motives to the Noble Lord, nor to
those Noble Lords who voted contrary to him (the Bishop of
St. David's) on this question.
Lord HARDWICKE defended the Right Rev. Prelate,
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 who ad-
dressed the House on this question till the speech of the Right
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 Rev. Pre.
late had so broadly differed from the others. This was, 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 im-
proper. He might, on a great public question like the pre-
sent, have used words in the heat of debate, which he would
wish unsaid, but he was not aware that he had done so—if lie
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 reading
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 present.—
( 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, bear. ) He had
been the intimate friend of the Noble Lord who last addressed
the House, but could not allow him to impute motives to him
(the Bishop of Oxford) which he could not prove.
The Earl of WINCIIILSE A said, that if ever there had
been a lecture delivered in that House it was delivered by the
second Right Rev. Prelate who addressed the house in the
debate on this measure. The Right Rev. Prelate was pleased
to designate a speech made by a Noble Lord on the oilier side
of the House (Lord Stanley) as one the argument of which was
total rottenness. The Right Rev. Prelate said that this was
totally a landlords' question. This he denied, and, not with-
standing the eloquence of the Right Rev. Prelate, he had
failed to prove it so.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said, that he saw nothing in the
speech of the Right Rev. Prelate but what was perfectly con-
sistent with the rules of that House ; and he, for his own 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.

ssity
LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND wished to know from her Ma-
jesty's Government whether they had taken the Lunatic 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 [louse.

The Duke of RICHMOND said that with this explanation
he was perfectly satisfied. He had to present a petition from
Droitwitch en the subject. lle also wished to know if her
Majesty's Government had taken into their consideration the
subject of providing an asylum for juvenile offenders after the
term of their imprisonment had expired ?
The Duke of WELLINIIIPTOO.
RNTTshAaelid3otihuNabten.fhoTerLeLhta.hdeiirnquired
into the matter, and there would, no doubt, be a Bill broughto
in to provide for the deficiency which existed with regard to
juvenile offenders.
RECOVERY OF SMALL DEBTS BILL.
Bill.
Duke of BUCCLF UC.I-1. moved the firsntdroearddeinregdotfotlbiies
The Bill was accordingly read a first time, a
printed.
. had given
0 n Theirthe,
C Lordshipso
rn TILE
Importation
R having
Bill,resolved
o amendmentsu
Ag ei artOsac themselvesnad which
hdi
ni
(is, into
all
lti
cdo
he
ael
taus
thatbeledhl.it:
ICommitteetiinjo .
wur
dra .s
therrnhheisptluaktey ofto ir3nUovCektlhNe
tsnloojtpitesheewoaras agricultural ceaulwftouhrrimElhe former
interestsoeuv lednidngo
of this country, and it was to
if rossible, any portion of that evil which
avert, if
that all the words in the first clause, after the words " in
o
the schedule to this Act annexed be omitted." The effect
of this would be, that instead of as at present
Bill, there would be a protection of lOsproposed by the
The protection given by the measure W whenas at corn
onlyw a was
sa.ti4aBnsd.
this could not be looked upon as
atrsaereyo,nidt was a, dNeelubslprotection, but on the con-
and spirit of the hoped that now the Bill was read
delusion. He
who had voted for the principle
stahcerificiinngteresthsl,
at all would now be found ready to
their ofvottehse
onagraiculftourrmisetrs,
He would not further occupy their attention. Ills object was
that, after 1849, the schedule now in the Billl. should still eon-
tinue in it. He would now conclude, by moving that the
words in the clause, " after the Ist of February, 1849," be
omitted.

The Earl of RIPON rose to oppose the amendment just
proposed. A Noble Lord, who spoke the other evening,
stated that he could not see how they came to introduce a mo-
dified sliding scale, unless it were a species of compromise in
order to satisfy those wha had an objection to it. He (Lord
Ripon) meant to say most distinctly it was never introducad

with any such motive ; if not satisfied with the principle of
the Bill, no miserable compromise of the kind would induce
him to support it. He supported the Bill on account of the
condition of the country, and he conscientiously believed it
would be for the advantage and improvement of the people.
The reason why the clause was introduced was, that in a great
change like that proposed to be made, some time should be
given before the process hitherto in operation should be abare..
Boned. He thought it was advisable that some time should
elapse before the principle of the Bill was brought into 1.112 l
operation, and the clause was introduced with that object. It
did not interfere with the principle of the measure beyond
meeting the temporary evils that would arise from
the great change proposed. With regard to the
amendment, if they agreed to it, it would involve a complete
alteration in the principle of the Bill because it would gi.le,
permanence to the principles of protection which was sought
to be got rid of by this Bill. Those who think the principles
of the Bill correct cannot therefore support the amendment of
the Noble Duke. The amendment was objectionable eve:l.s!
it regarded the object sought to be obtained. It was propo-e°
with the object of preserving a remnant of protection, when
they said almost in the same breath that such a remnant was
not worth having. Protection of such a sort, he believed,
would turn out most inefficient ; it would not be worth anything
to the agricultural interests. He would at present confine his
remarks to these general observations on the amendment,
giving the grounds on which he thought it ill advised to male
the alterations proposed.
Lord CLAN CARTY supported the amendment. Wbi_et
they looked at the present flourishing state of the country, tuel
could not avoid coming to the conclusion that they were oi
debted to protection for it. That protection was at the bottom
of all their prosperity hid been proved by conclusive
arguments in the admirable speech of the Noble Lord the Secre-.
tary for the Colonies, which, however mach it had been cavilled
at, had not been answered.—( Hear, hear.) They Were told
that the Government had acted from the force of circumstansr
—not the pressure from without or the pressure of the An,t.si.
...
Corn-law League, but from the growth of the population. "'
that point, though he was as desirous as any °Le to see the
people supplied with an ample amount of the necessariesoflife,
he did not think the measure in question would yield that result-
Ile believed if they removed protection from native industry it
would leave the condition of the population worse than it ".
before. He had heard it stated that the landlords woo°
be either very ignorant or very good-natured if they allovred thee.
corn-laws to be repealed. To that he would only
was for the general good of the people would also be for thbe..
terests of the landlord, and the principle of protection he .a
landlords
to be of that character. He thought that the Irish
had been hardly treated in the present question, as the measure
would press on them with peculiar severity. The effect
to tuba
say, that IC%:.
not be confined to them, but it would be brought home to
the
great body of the occupiers of land in the country. It was f
tenant farmer that would principally suffer by the passing %
this measure. He had read with delight a most able speen,
delivered by a Noble Lord whom he saw opposite (LOT°
Monteagle) some time ago, when he was a Member of the other
House of Parliament, on the subject of the repeal of the legi"
lative union between England and Ireland. Now the first point
on which that Noble Lord insisted, en the advantage to
Ireland of a maintenance of the union, was the privilege it ell:
joyed by trading freely in corn with this country, an advantag`i
which was increased by other countries being deprived of
that privilege. New, according to the Noble Lord's own show.:
ing, this measure would have the effect of ruining Ireland_
which was mainly an agricultural country. If the price orf
corn fell, so must their incomes and remuneration for labour
and capital expended in the production of that article of food.
In conclusion, he would remark, that all he asked for " be-
half of the farmers of the United Kingdom was the minimum
of protection, compatible with the interests of them and the
country at large.
The Earl of STANHOPE, in rising to oppose
this Bill,said that the Ministry did not dare to appeal to the country on
this question. They would, however, be compelled to do so
before the lapse of twelve months. He denounced many mem-
bers of the Cabinet, as base, pusillanimous, and perfidious, for
the part which they had taker, on this Bill. They had acted
as base sycophants and servile adherents of a Minister—bad
acted like filthy reptiles, and ought never to have been take,"
nut of that obscurity in which they had formerly been. I
assured their Lordships that he ever had been and ever wool e
be an honest, consistent, and firm advocate of all branches of
native industry. Though their Lordships were not elected 11
constituencies, they were yet responsible to their God and
their country for their conduct.—(Hear, hear.) He con'
tended that even if the present corn-laws were Per-
mitted to remain untouched, the British farmer
would not then have sufficient protection.--(Heari )
e' ,
Could it be believed that the same persons that had brought
forward the sliding-scale in 1842, on the ground that it gay'
additional protection to the British farmer, should now intro-
duce a measure to abolish protection altogether ? In voting Or
the amendment of the Noble liuke on the cross-benches (the
Duke of Buckingham) he should not consider himself bound to
support the sliding-scale. He should consider himself per;
fectly free on this question to vote hereafter as he *1001"
please. —( Hear, hear. )
Lord BEAUMONT supported the amendment because the!
were about, after the experience of three years only, to abandon
a most important source of the public revenue. The second
ground on which he should support that amendment was. he'
cause he believed, quite contrary to the opinion of the Noble
Earl opposite, that instead of it being an advantage to the
farmers to have this delay and allow the principle of free trad.e,
to enter into operation gradually, it would be serious and
dangerous to him. The third and, perhaps, the strongest
reaon for his vote in support of the amendment was this, that
whilst they had no right whatsoever now to legislate on this
subject this, year, for another Parliament which would sit before
the time came on for their Act coming into operation—whilst
they had no right this year to adopt a principle which they durst
not and would not attempt to put immediately into forces
but whieh they saddled upon others—another Parliament would
be elected which would be called upon to settle this question.
Again, at the present moment, things were in such a state
that they could not know how long they would last. If they were
right, why not carry out the principle ?—( Hear, hear.) It
certainly did not savour of courage on the part of the Ministry
to act in the manner in which they had done, and he did not
not know whether it was quite honest on the part of the pre-
sent Parliament to carry such a measure as the present in the
manner proposed. Why, what were they doing ? They were
diffusing the great and paramount evils which they themselves
knew would be attendant upon it, and they were thrusting
them upon a future Parliament. It was also a fact that they
were giving an opportunity to foreigners to be prepared at the
end of three years to overflow the market ; and not alone that,
but they gave opportunities to bad tenants to exhaust their
land. Again, they would prevent persons, the year before the
measure came into operation, from sowing corn, and there
would be a great deficiency in the home market. He felt cer-
tain that such would be the effect of the measure of the Go-
vernment. If the Government considered they were right in
their principle, they should have gone on with it,
out of mercy to the 13riti,h farmer. Whoever bad framed the
Bill was the greatest enemy to the British farmer that could
be.—( Hear, hear.) But if they passed the Bill as it at present
stood, ho would tell them that they would be making the
farmer a free-trader. What right would they have to tax his
malt, or prevent his growing tobacco, and the thousand other
restrictions which had been imposed upon him by their statues,
and which would not be removed by the present measure ?
They had no right to continuo those restrictions, and pass the
corn-law. It was not just, nor ought it to be borne.
He considered that giving up a fixed duty was a gross sacrifice
of revenue ; and, by carrying this principle out revenue would
suffer, while no one would be benefited. On these grounds,
therefore, he would support the amendment of his Noble
Friend on the cross benches.

The Marquis of BUTE said that if the Bill did not offer
such a protection as was necessary to the farmers, it was his
opinion, and that of all the farmers with whom he had ever
spoken, that it was better to have no protection at all. In
those branches of commerce in which he was engaged he had
found protection to fail ; and he had his doubts whether pro-
tection would be really beneficial to agriculture. His expe-
rience enabled him to say that the farmer did not participate in
the fears expressed in that Howe ; nor did he believe the
measure would have the injurious effects predicted.
The Earl of HARDWICKE said he would not have again
risen, did he not feel the great importance of the subject. lie
did not agree with the Noble Marquis who had just sat down,
in the opinions he expressed with regard to farmers, who he
believed were strongly in favour of protection. Much was
said about stability with regard to these laws, but he believed
that it they went on as they did they would have no stability.
(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend must have a bit of laud
which no one else could produce—that no land should be culti-
vated for wheat sinless it could produce thirty-two bushels an
acre.

Lord KINNAIRD—I said thirty bushels.
The Earl of HARDWICKE—WeII then that was lowering
it again, and that was an important admission from the head
of the League.—(Laughter.) He would like to see all land
produce twenty bushels an acre. Not to aultivate land with-
out producing that amount required by the Noble Lord would
indeed be to starve the people. ( The Noble Lord
then proceeded to read several statistical documents in
support of his arguments.) He lived himself upon
land of a heavy clay soil, which produced but twenty
bushels an acre ' • it was just that soil which would be thrown out
of cultivation by the introduction of the present measure. To
make that land produce thirty bushels an acre would be to
expend au immense capital which would never, with this Bill
passed into a law, bring an adequate return. Mr. Cobden
said to the landlord:, you will raise your rents—to the farmer,
you will increase your profits—to the manufacturers, you will
lower your wages.—(Haar.) This gentleman was the Pro-
metheus of the day.—(Laughter.) He had something good
to offer every one, not, however, forgetting the manufacturers-
-( Hear, hear.) When they came to the poor clay soils of Eng--
gland, after the passing of the. Bill, they would find notbing
but a ruined tenantry, and a barren land. What would. the
-
county constituency of this country say—would they nave
confidence in the measures of their Lord/hips' Holl3e, They
were a loyal people, but they were like all Plihe'avtheeyeverere
not dead to an injury, and they would demand
t(
Hear, hear y;
thing wiped off in the shape of taxatio.
nt;(1 the amount of
With the prospect of a plentifullehtar.l,
was the
strongest
grain whirls this measure would
reduction would take place in the
reason to believe that a great
if the Bill passed, a feeling
price. He was persuaded atht
country, which
would lead to
would be excited throughout the •
he
webhteich were now placed upon the land..
collectingeorfet tithes,rev etnhuee tax
withdrawal of protection,•
felt certain that with
the withdrawal
and • they would
mode
equalization
commercial classes a fair
a general change in the
There wouldp n• and the other borders
sharehave t
ofo transfer
te bhuarvdt
9:1 -
e
relieve the 'severe on landed that were made to bear
at present so property. Before sitting down,
he would refer to a petition, from an important body, on the
present question. He referred to the Bedford Cur
poration,„
the members of which were greatly
alarmed at the proposed
withdrawal of protection. The land of the level was entirely
kept in its present state by artificial draining, principally
through the steam engine, and after the expenses of preservinte,
it were met, the returns were so small as only to yield lie.
an acre. They took this low rent, as there were hopes tls
ultimately the land would be preserved by natural drainit4, as
the course
of things was tending to that point. If they bflowed.
the • all to pass, they would be doing that which would, he was
persuaded, inflict a most serious injury on the cultivators of the
soil. Still, whatever might be the operation of the Bill, he
considered the measure ought not to be carried without an ap-
peal to the people. He was against any change of opinion in
the Government leading to such a measure being carried by
the House, until such time as the constituencies of the empire
were appealed to.—(Cheers.)
Lord KINNAIRD rose to reply to the Noble Lord, and to
support the Bill as it stood, as he thought it would be far the
benefit of the farmers themselves. He supported the Bill, be-
cause he believed its adoption would lead to the removal of all.
protective duties. Noble Lords should consider that there
was a great difference between a protective duty and a duty
for the purpose of raising a revenue. From twenty years' ex-
perience he felt certain that land could not be profitably culti-
vated unless they could raise thirty bushels an acre on it; and
if that were done, it would enable them to sell it at a mode-
rate price. He admitted that some danger might arise frnrra
the sudden importation of a large quantity of foreign grain,
but he did net think it would be so great as apprehended.
He would mention a fact on this point. A friend of
his told him that there was corn now in bond that could not
be sold profitably at less than 60s. a quarter. This was wheat.
that had been introduced at the early period of the session—
( Hear, hear)—this, therefore, need not alarm them. A Right
Rev. Prelate the other night said the reduction of price would
be met by a reduction in wages ; but that he (Lord Kinnard)
did not think would he the case. He believed it would be the
interest of landlords to pay good wages to ensure efficient
service, and he further theught, with efficient farmers and a,

Proper system of cultivation, that they could easily compete
With foreigners. If the farmers of Scotland by a regular
system of cropping, and a skilful system of farming, could, in
the face of an adverse climate, compete pith English farmers
who had better land in a superior climate, surely, they in
England could compete with the foreigner who only raised
10 bushels of wheat per acre, and bad to bring it 2 000 miles
distance. He knew, that as far as this country was concerned,
that though the measure was in progrc,s. a rise in rent
had taken place in a great number of farms.
That was the case in Scotland and England. It was the case
even of the tenants of some Noble Lords then in the House.
The great estate agent, Mr. Simpson, who must be known to
the majority of their Lordships, who had been till recently a
thorough-going protectionist, and who had had extensive ex-
perience in landed property, stated, at a public meeting a few
days ago, that he was free and proud to confess that the sliding_
scale and all other scales had fallen from his eyes—(Laughter)
—the result of which was that he was now a thorough-going
abolitionist.—( Hear, bear.) Being anxious to know on what
grounds Mr. Simpson had chanced his opinions, he (Lord
Kinnaird) wrote to him for an explanation. In reply, Mr.
Simpson stated that the result of his experience wa•. that any
restriction on the importation of corn was injurious to the
tenant-farmers of this country. He (Lord Kinnaird) had al-
ready quoted an instance in which, instead of rent falling since
the determination of the Ministers on this subject, estates were
let at considerably higher rents than before. He believed
that the tenant-farmers did care about this Bill. He believed
too, that in many instances their fears had been excited by
Members of the Legislature who had advocated the cause of
protection, Their Lordships would have themselves to blame
If any depreciation of rents were to follow the passing of this
measure, and his advice to them was a; a landlord that they
should not listen to any cleims for reduction. He might state
that in many instances, however much it might be in accordance
with their feelings, they were doing great injury to the
farmer by letting land to him under proper value, because
when they did so, the farmer, instead of exerting himself to in-
crease the produce of the land, was willing to rest, and
had rested for many years, believing that he was safe
with what was called " the protective principle."
He should have wished to have gone extensively into this
question, but as many of their Lordships were anxious to ad-
dress the House he had curtailed his observations. In conclu-
sion he wished to call their Lordships' attention to one point.
He thought that whatever might be their feelings with regard
to that body with which he was connected, they at least would
give them credit for having remained perfectly quiet; indeed
to such an extent had they remained silent at this crisis that
some Noble Lords believed that the people in towns had said
that they would not get up an excitement on this subject.
( Hear, near.) He believed that a Noble Lord said the other
might that they could not do so.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he
(Lord Kinnaird) could assure them, from all the applications
to the members of the Anti-Corn-law League, begging of
them to move at this moment, that the people in the towns
were anxiously waiting for thepassing of this Bill. The Anti-
Corn-law League had, instead of conforming to those repeated
applications, thought it more wise, and mote respectful to Par-
liament, and to their Lordships' House, that. they should re 111
-
main quiet, so that they might not be considered to have moved
for the purpose of intimidating their Lordships.—( Hear.)
That might have been said of them had they moved en this
question at the present moment. He was glad to know that,
although it had been said by Noble Lords that her Majesty's
Ministers had been intimidated by the League in bringing
forward this measure—( Hear, hear, and laughter from
G the Protectionist benches)—their Lordships had greatly
mistaken the feeling of the country—they greatly mistook
the feelings of Scotland, with which be was more intimately
connected—because he would say that if this measure were de-
feated the greatest disappointment would be felt throughout
the breadth of the laud, and all he would say was, that he hoped
that this amendment of the Noble Duke might not be adopted,
as it would have the effect of defeating the Bill.—(Hear.)
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
For the amendment
Majority in favour of the clause 33
The House then resumed, and
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again to-morrow (this day).
The House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'clock,

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15.
The SFEAKIER took the chair at Four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second time, and ()Mecca to
committed :
Clonntel and Thurles Railway
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway
Great Southern and Western Railway (Cork Extension)
Killarney Junction Railway
Mallow and Fermoy Railway
Thornson's Charity Estate
. Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway.
REPORTS.
The reports on the following Bills were brouebt up, the
alterations and amendments agreed to, and the Bills ordered
to be engrossed:—
Banffshire Railway
Caledonian Railway (Dundyvan Branch)
Hertford and Hatfield Railway
London and Birmingham Railway (St. Alban's and Luton
Branch)
North British Railway (Gretna Branch)
St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Railway
Schoolmaster's Widows Fund
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway (Crick-
heath and Wem Lines)
Stockton Gas.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GLASGOW TERMINI
AND BRANCHES) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed
Argyll Canal.
.Ashburton, Newton, and South Devon Railway.
Blackburn, Clitheroe, and North-Western Junction Railway.
Edinburgh Paving.
Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction Railway.
Glasgow, Southern Terminal Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Polloc and Govan
Branch).
Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway.
Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and Aeon and other
Branches).
Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and Warrington Branch).
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway, and Grimsby
Docks Consolidation.
Harrogate Waterworks.
Heywood Waterworks.
Lancashire and Yorkshire North Eastern Railway.
Lesmahagow, Dalserf, and Coatbridge Mineral Junction Rail-
way
London and Croydon Railway (Thames Junction Branch)
Alonkland and Kirkintilloch Railway (Chapel Hall Branch)
Morayshire Railway
Morecombe Hat hour and Railway
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway
Norfolk Railway Extensions ( Yarmouth Extension)
Portbury Pier and Railway (No. 2)
Scottish Central Railway (Denny Branch)
South Wales Railway (No. 2)
Wishaw and Coltness Railway (Greenhill Branch)
Yeovil Markets and Fairs
Yorkshire and Glasgow Union Railway.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the report on the South-Eastern
Railway (No. 2—Greenwich Railway to Chilham, near Can-
terbury, with branches) Bill being read,
Mr. HUME said it was a question whether both the con-
tending lines should be submitted back again to the Committee,
and that was the only way in which the justice of
the case could be met. Another course, and perhaps
the best, would be to postpone the consideration of
both schemes to the ensuing session. These wet e the views
that he entertained on the question.
Sir G. COCKBURN :aid the Admiralty had done that
which, under the circumstances, they thought best to pursue.
Their opinion was that going through Greenwich Park should
not be allowed till further experiments were made as to the
effects on the Observatory. They ought, in his opinion, either
to commit both Bills, or postpone them till another year. The
Admiralty, entertaining the views it did, had made the report
which had been referred to.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said he defied any one to read Professor
Robinson's report without being satisfied that there was the
greatest danger to the accuracy of the observations at Green-
wich if the tunnel through the park was allowed. He spoke
not as to the merits of the two schemes, but to the
important question of the Observatory. He thought, how.
ever, they ought to place the the South-Eastern Company
in the same position they were in before they had altered their
scheme in deference to the wishes of the Admiralty.
Mr. ESTCOURT briefly supported the decision of the Com-
mittee. He referred at some length to the report of the Corn.-
mittre on the Bill, and held *hat if the Committee had de-
cided otherwise than they did that the pr ject of the South-
Eastern Company would have been mutilated and valueless.
After a few words from Mr. A GIJON tIY,
Mr. PROTHEROE defended the proceedings of the Com-
mittee, and stated that they selected the South-Eastern
project• because it was of a far supepororbth I.otorna-
t.
ner
to the line projected by the North Kent.
extent w The N
i,ll
line would have interfered to a gr
mental property near the metropolis, whereas the South-
Eastern line would not, and would pass through the property
of Mr. Angerstein, who formerly opposed, but who now sup-
ported that project. The line selected was one of an im •
portant public character, inasmuch as it would be a direct
railway from London to Gravesend and Rochester, He pre-
ferred that the 13111 should be committed to the members
of the Cmmittee who had heard the whole of the evidence.
After ao few words from Mr. Rice, Lord Emelyn, and Mr.
H. Bayley,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL thought the justice of the case would
be met if the House would allow both parties to come before
them again next year. The Intel% st of the public would not
be injured, and such a course would be quite consistent with
the position of both Bills. He saw no mode so well adapted to
meet the case, and he believed if it were adopted both parties
would come forward then better prepared.
Mr. WARBURTON hoped that whatever determination
the House should come to, one point at least would be resolved
on, namely, that Greenwich Observatory should not be de-
stroyed. Let any man read the evidence given upon that
subject, and then lay his hand upon his heart, and say
that this would not be the result if a railway were
constructed through Greenwich Park. Sir John Her.chell,
Mr. Baggage, the astronomer fromCia‘tham ; Mr. Challis,
Dr. Robinson, the astr inosner f
decisive and weighty evidence ron
Armagh, had all givers
againstOce the railway, in con-
sequence of the injury the
and Professor Airy was the only eminent atry would sustain ;
and scientific
man who had given evidence ill
runlinatd aerraiett,erif
He hoped the House would support the Observatorycontrary
Green-
wich; that they would not allow a railway to
there was the slightest chance of the Observatoey being de.
stroyed by it.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. PLUMPTRE said the South-Eastern were prepared
to
abandon that part of their scheme which passed' under
rthe
Observatory, and adopt the loop, if the House would allow
them to do so.
After a few words from one or two Hon. Members, who
called upon the Government to place the South-Eastern
Company in the same position that they stood in before the
Admiralty gave their consent,
On the motion fur resuming the adjourned debate on the
consideration of the report of the South-Eastern Railway Bill
(Greenwich to Chilham),
Mr. AGLIONI3Y wished to know what the House
was about to do on this subject, and what position
it stood in. If they were about to recommit the
Bill, he would offer no objection ; but if they were about to re-
commit it to the same majority which had before decided the
question, they would have the same decision as before. The
present inconvenience arose from the fickleness of the Board of
Admiralty, and the stipulations which they had made, so as to
retain the power to themselves of stopping up the line. Such
a course had produced considerable injury to the South-
Eastern Company, and was calculated to do them still more.
He thought this was necessary, for the expenses, were of a
material consideration, and unless these were satisfied there
would be no guarantee to the shareholders.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished now to inquire whether it was
competent for him to move whether it is proper to require its
recommittal this day six months?
The SPEAKER—Certainly; there was a substantive mo-
tion before the Home, and he conceived that till the raotioa of