The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-29 00:00:00

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.

On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
The Duke of RICHMOND rote and objected to the course
now proposed lo be taken. It was contrary to the usual prac-
tice of the House to enter upon business of that kind until the
presentation of petitions was over, especially did he object to
any departure from the usual course when such an important
Bill as the Corn Bill was under the consideration of the
HOLM'.

CORN-LAWS.
The NOBLE DUKE then proceeded to present a petition
against the Ministerial measure, on the corn-laws, from the
landowners, tenant-farmers, and others, resident at Chelms-
ford, in the county of Essex.
Petitions in favour of the Government measure were pre-
sented by Lord Radnor, by the Earl of Ripon, and by Earl St.
Germans.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented petitions from
the county of Essex against the Corn Importation Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT presented similar petitions.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE, in presenting a petition,
said that the petition which he had the honour of pre-
senting was numerously signed by the merchants,
bankers, and traders of the City of London. The
petitioners prayed that their Lordships would pass the mea-
sure which her Majesty's Government had introduced be-
fore the House. The petition was signed by
twenty-four of the Directors of the Bank of
England, by nineteen of the bankers of London,
and by two hundred and seventeen of the merchants and
traders of the City.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure that whether
as regarded the intelligence of the persons signing
the petition, or the material interest which
they had in the measure which was then before
their Lordships, their Lordships would give that
petition the consideration it deserved. He would not
enlarge on the influence which ought to attach
to that petition, but he might remind their Lord-
ships that a petition was presented in 1820 which
had given rise to the system of commercial policy which
had been from that period step by step pursued. In the same
way he trusted that this petition from the merchants of Lon-
don would cause their Lordships to sanction a course of policy
which would lead to renewed and extended commercial policy.
Lord ASHBURTON would venture to say that it would be
easy to obtain a petition as large, andi 3 numerously signed,
informing their Lordships that in tor.: en iio .113 measure
was fraught with danger to the interests of the people of this
country._(Cheers from the cross benches.) He thought it
necessary to say these few words upon the subject. The petition
merely expressed their individual opinion.
Lord BROUGHAM quite agreed with the Noble Lord, that
this petition was one expressing the opinions of individuals.
But. if it be true that such a petition could so easily be brought
forward by his Noble Friend upon such a question, he pro-
nounced the City of London to have totally changed their opi-
nion since his Noble Friend presented their memorable petition
against the corn-lawsin the year 1815.
Lord MONTEAGLE did not consider that the signatures
to this petition might not necessarily infer a perfect una-
nimity of opinion upon the subject. It did not follow,
that a petition of quite another effect might be presented here-
after. He hoped the Bill would not be disposed of by the vote
of to-night, he therefore invited his Noble Friend to use all
his influence with the merchants of London to produce a
counter-petition from them.
Earl DALHOUSIE did not intend to provoke any dis-
cession on this occasion. He did not state that it was a pe-
tition of the City of London, but a petition, signed by mer-
chants and bankers of the City of London, and wished to draw
the attention of their Lordships to the respectable nature of
the signatures attached to it.
The Duke of RICHMOND —I should like to know, my Lords,
how many of these persons have got any of the bonded corn ?
—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM must say that the Noble Duke had
made an ingenious observation in the form of a remark, but he
confessed he did not hear the same observations made when the
petition was presented in 1820.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord ASHBURTON said the petition alluded to by his
Noble and Learned Friend contained an expression of the
opinion of the merchants of the City of London against re-
strictions in trade generally, and not against the corn-laws.
He doubted, however, whether even that petition was signed
by the majority of the most considerable merchants of the City
of London.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask his Noble Friend whether
the petition against the restrictionson trade generally contained
any exception as to corn ?--( Hear, hear.)'
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from the
landowners and tenant-farmerslof the county of Essex against
the Corn Bill.
Earl DALHOUSIE presented petitions from the mer-
chants and brokers of Liverpool, from certain operatives
of Stockport, from the merchants of Kingston-upcn-
Hull, and from the Commercial Association of Man-
chester, in favour of the Corn Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
Also a similar petition from the American Chamber of Com-
merce, Liverpool.—(Hear, hear. )
VENTILATION OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIA-
M I NT.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had received a
communication from Dr. Reid in some degree explanatory of
the intense heat which their Lordships had suffered on the
last night of debate. He had also received a communica-
tion from a Mr. Gurney, who offered to ventilate the
House upon a new principle. He would not recommend
them to adopt any theory, but to resort to the good old prat-
ciide by which the former !louses of Parliament was venti-
lated, and which succeeded perfectly well. (Hear,
hear.) There was one fact which he would
state to their Lordships with reference to Thursday night.
The thermometer, brought in at 61, had, before the candles
were lighted up, risen to 75. He would ask that the letter
might be laid before the House.
Lord BROUG HAM had no objection whatever to make to
his Noble Friend's motion. He had' experienced much injury
from the excessive heat on Monday night, and what he wanted
was not explanation, but air.—( Loud laughter.) He should not
care a straw for any explanation which might be offered to their
Lordships by the ventilation of the House.—( Hear.) It was a
hard thing that he was to be tortured like some low animal by
Dr. Reid, or any other doctor.—(Laughter.) He really
believed that at the bottom Dr. Reid was a heartless de-
ceiver.—( Laughter and cheers.)
Lord CANNING handed in the letter alluded to by the
Noble Marquis.
CORN-LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Earl GREY—Before I address the House on the subject of
the order of the day, I beg to present two petitions relating to
that subject—one from the Town Council of Hastings, beg-
ging your Lordships to pass the Bill now before the
House immediately and unimpaired; also a similar petition
from Wilts. My Lords, I am conscious that the subject
which is now before the House has been both in and out of
Parliament,, by speeches and writings, so long and so fully dis-
cussed, that your Lordships may well be of opinion that no
new argument remains to be urged upon it, and that you must
therefore naturally be anxious to bring this debate to a
close. My Lords, I cam assure you I should not have
contributed to the delay, I should not have ventured to tres-
pass upon your Lordships' attention on the last night that we
sat, with what, I 'fear, must be thought pertinacity, were it
not that, having for many years taken a deep interest in this
question, I could not reconcile it to myself to stand aloof from
this, I trust, the final battle of that great cause, or to
allow this debate to conclude without showing the deep interest
I took in the debate. My Lords, I must further say, that one
strong inducement—one principal reason which urged me to a
strong desire to address your Lordships, was my feeling
that a great impression had been made upon your Lordships by
the speech which we heard on the first night of the debate, and
which was listened to with such just and general admiration—
of course I mean the speech of my Noble Friend
the late Secretary for the Colonies, for whose absence this
evening, from whatever cause it may arise, I very greatly
regret.—(Hear.) My Lords, I can assure you I listened to
that speech with as much delight as any of your Lordships
because, though I think my Noble Friend made an admirable
speech, he was much misinformed in what he stated to your Lord-
ships. His reasons were unsound, and his conclusions were
unjust; but still his arguments were so ingenious, and were
put with so much skill, and clothed in language of such ex-
treme beauty—in fact the whole speech was so brilliant a dis-
plays of rhetorical talent, that for upwards of three :hours it
received the attention of every Noble Lord who listened to
it, making it unlike most other speeches—not a labour
but a pleasure to hear. I know that some of
the arguments in that speech have already been answered, es-
pecially by the Noble and Learned Lord who followed him in
the debate, and by a Noble Friend of mine, who now sits
behind me, and who spoke on the subject last evening.
But it seems to me that there are still some por-
tions of that speech to which it is required that your
Lordships' attention should be called, I am not vain or pre-
sumptuous enough to suppose that I am fit to enter into
the lists with my Noble Friend, but I have such confidence in
the powers of truth, that I believe that the cause even in my
humble hands may be successfully recommended to your Lord-
ships, and that on some of the more important parts of my
Noble Friend's speech,: I shad succeed in satisfying your
Lordships that he has been wrong. The first observa-
tion I shall have to address to your Lord-
ships is, that through the whole course of the
debate it has struck me very forcibly that those Noble Lords
who have been opposed to the Bill have all avoided explicitly
reviewing and defending that which I take to be the main
point and hold of the existing corn-laws, as well as of all other
laws upon the same subject. It is clear that
,the real
ivanei mtne trui t
oeof dn hat
nhu
dm object
e e
bl
i
duced, is that of securing a remunerative price f
laws and the object of all laws intro-
corn, or in other words to raise the price of food to the
people by an artificial supply. It appears to me that, as I have
yj
etcot
ofa
l submitthteos
these laws;
it is Lordships,onewhicht
hisi s
requirest he real
to be proved by argument, and in the absence of all argument,
unless cogent reasons can be adduced in favour of so artificial
a restriction of the supply, it must be concluded that laws which
will give cheapness of food to the people are much to be desired.
They represent that the repeal of those laws will accomplish
other than those which I think are its real objects. In
particular, most Noble Lords who have spoken, assert that the
gbfierheeepasetrombject of the present law, was to secure a certain supplia
to protect us from the great danger of dependence upon foreign
natitoaenirnnds
e e
faonNryfoawto, other
my peprl
peopleof thatf ftohoisd which is necessaryHe
ar ht the
existhis
aittet
etdh et
oargauynat :eta tts wt hi
si which
quite manyout
of Nobley t ,Lords
er toh
rveeo.pa
rudt
light than
without meaning a
meacnolinog muraanbiy loef
aenrgcuernl;ma_ay
not the real object for which the continuance of the law
is supported. Let me just ask you this? Spose a
similar argument; and under similar circumstances,
thefow ,eproce
turgedthese
on.manufactures
ea
npb:yai
cuo
tsfu,
rt
ehwseo d those Noble Lords, who now
andur ththeatsiotcheeritygooof6 opurroi
manufac-
turing for the whole woo!:
c3nsumption—that corn-osltaievwoessugn?itvrey,pinnwisdielclai
dtiscuorpfelcslmoistltuotrahuca.st
from our markets by the high
ed
Lords, if under such circumsta
House were, whether we should eomestic
is
y
pendent country was much higher than in the rest of the world,
question before the
I such high protective
population will be without on ofsherierittliane aric;toinons:
duties on cotton: and suppose of this country wered "Do not be
to same to us an say,
should feel perfectly
so rash as to you will leave
e
repeal those duties, as
yourselves d dr
ilaicenrepeuseprflaopestetaerietlwi
iertezoeof
.1
were
3iecfrtsoter:neno
xtioierwnl
u,Otdm-i
manufacturers
so
gowns, and you
lament your be
rashness." I want to know wile, ber we
feeling for the
Consumer;
sinthceadt
dtichtaatteidt wsuaschtahicsoduirssient;eraensdteld