The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
THIS DAY, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20.

~., 110 USE OF COMMONS.
twelve.
'lle SPEastee. took the chair at twenty minutes past
~ Air. AItIES BULLER moved the third reading of the
.eret • er market Bill.
NEWPORT HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL.
LL broueht up the report of the Committeen
sassed leave of the Newport harbour improvement petition, and b
to bring in ailL
GLOUCESTER GAS BILL
„iMr• PHILLPOTTS broeght hp the report of the corn-
,,qee of the Glotibestbr Gas Petition, and obtained leave
tb3 lliiitg in S bill.
' M' GEORGE'S HOSPITAL.
i LiA.l4 HEAUCLERK brought in a bill for the better
ii:autimg the governors of Sc. George's Hospital, Hyde
iter`,•eorner, to carry on the purposes of the charity.
ps,"it• TAYLEURE brought up the report of the
lm
-
'"'kttee en the amendments to the Bridgewater Gas Bilb.ill
for"4' H. HANDLEY obtained leave to bring in a
enclosing land in a parish in the county of Lincoln.
la_ ISLINGTON CATTLE MARKET.
..u.T. CHILDERS presented a petition from a place in
t.,lahidaeshire, in favour of the cattle market.
eachars BIIA WE presented a petition from certain land-
-. in the county of Suffolk, to the same effect. it
Walt i 1 "M INGILBy presented a similar petition from
-Aleolnshire.
.
f titlr• HANDLEY presented a petition from the b.utchers
o-
-"deo and Westminster against the bill. The interest
of the landowners of both the eastern and western divisions
int,h,elcninty would be seriously affected by such a re-
tie th„ii'-',', sod although the contrary bad been asserted
w-ulitot that the establishment of two cattle markets
d r
et„,,4,1(1 he injurious to the grazing interests. He un e -
_ stood there were several petitions about to be presented
agtist that bill.
be r l.' mat
supported the petition. The hon. meha-
tel.rtt "stating his reasons for doing so, when he was in-
ykpted by
to e SPEAKER, who suggested that it would be better
,prets_erve.his observations for the second
. reading.
aho'"e Petition was then ordered to lie on the table, as were
110 kt;hree petitions from the freeholders and farmers of
tbetiirill.haeashire, Bedfordshire, and Norfolk, against
Mr, re,,
isouthe.„l"4NDLEY resented three petitions from the
p. division of Lincolnshire, from Northampton, and
trii,- 100 of the inhabitants of Smithfield, praying that
hithoight n passed.
e,uhe Hoer, aiy..e then rose to move the second
t-a"'ne of the bill. He said that though, according to
:ouldParlietnentary use e, he must term this a peivate bill, he
hardly concegiv a bill of mote general importance,
nd more interestinge the community at large. The
attention of Pa Ha nt° was not now for the first time
ealkled to the inrconveenietnceof Smithfield ; it was generally
toa which it was wholly insufficient for the purposes
wilicli'ch it Was applied ; the narrow passages through
tlace the cattle wile led to market had frequently ha-
"te.rneddytobie
thp:ople the neighbourhood to call for a
grievance, and even the salesmen them_
lice
had held that the market was insufficient, and that
oe live stock was necessarily subjected to cruelty and
iii„,,,,Y, and were slanAtered in a state of inflammation
-.lda must be extremely prejudicial to the general health
Of the metropoli.. In the year 1822 a select committee
hid been appointed to inquire into the state of Smithfield
'ballet, and they stated that the passage of live stock was
4 great nuisance to the neighbourhood, and also to the people
at, litge, and that the market did not afford anything
"e a sufficient accommodation. The City Remembrancer, When before the committee, though he could not be ex.
Petted to further the object of the present bill, inasmuch
Of the City would lose by the present bill the paltry sum
1,-• 2,000/. a year in tolls, had yet admitted that the city
„-41, applied twice to remove the market, six times to
;Llarge it, and three times to make some alteration in. it.
7° he admitted that the complaints made on the subject
""ittduced the Corporation of London to endeavour to
tr.7410e the abominable nuisance.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
ta 4„t thsY found that their vast possessions were too well
opritted to admit a further space to be allotted for
, accommodation of the grazers. Under these ci.rcuin ftarlees, then, an individual Caine forward offering to
riltirl'lTh weans by which this nuisance might be abolished.
vit!s individud was possessed of twenty-one acres of land,
,ll he offered for the purpose of a cattle-market. This
held he naore than five times the present size of Smith-
:ti which. market, which could only afford accommoda-
haerfenar 3,000 oxen, 20,000 sheep, with pigs, &c.,
of 1
n4s the new market contained twenty-one acres
!n4 all ready, surrounded with sheds capable of afford-
accommodation for 12 000 oxen and 40,000 sheep,
with „ . ,
pig'. ~e., and what he (Mr. N.) conceived to be
weleverth th
be
erectedY
.e attention of the house, an ahhattoir was to
with the view to give the butchers an oppor-
Thetunity of slaughteringtheir cattle there.—(Hear, hear.)
r, live stock would no longer be compelled to be
driven into the roost crowded parts of the metropolis, and
a., I. was well known to some hon. members in that house
:that the streams and channels in some parts of the town
puere frequently running with blood, he need not press
n the the very great importance of having a c 0,.,,- Iltel3t place outside town where cattle might be slaughtered.
4:43 a painful sight to see the
acatdtlie,timn
tor! bring driven to London, Smithfield.e
of . 1513
f el from the country, they were brought up at the hour
(t'l, even p' clock on the Sunday evening, wet and cold,
i4,git ItirerPyclittle injury arose to them from the journey ;
lt was most creditable to the drovers that they couht
ra'l such a distance, and yet suffer such little incon-
Itaisoce.--(Hear, hear.) But on the next morn-
tit he (Mr• H.) could pledge to the house that he could
jearesly recognise his own bullocks, and any body going
'fat° Smithfield would imagine that it was a lean rand not a
t stock market ; because at the hour of 11
'o'clock of
lI'C previous evening, they were goaded through narrow
Passage', penned in
for the in the dark, and tied up ti, rails all
convenience of the salesmen. He (Mr. if.) could
44ure the hour that if lie were allowed to go hefoie the
teilouottuittee he should prove many instances of cattle being
cattle"' NI trampled on. The butcher went amongst the
the, ' 4, having selected two or those from
to
ons beat them about the head and bouts so as
Were fit them from time rest, to ascertain whether they
Were ,jil°r urchase. That process was repeated kintil they
the driviti. Another reason he had to complain of was
the sale; iag of those cattle a few miles out of toden after
Mete to that' were not driven by the drovers of, the fer-
vent, „r , Were responsible for time cattle, but by, the ser-
rea,ive4"' tt:: salesmen ; the brutal treatment the. poor cattle
a. %di contlitroonue rendered the meat depreciated and in
Lott produ, before it went to the retail purclraser. He
of what he ' to the cominittea very competenti evidence
do 60, as be stated ; he wished for the opportunity to
iro • as sure much good would rand!: from the
.itory ; „„,, ,
Rho, he ''''" he was quite sure that the
.c2rporation,
forego . Understood, were preparing oppositton, would
ml 4 it; they would give up the 2,000/. a;year which
toihfiannua"Y from toll., the four acres of, ground on
*O.. aeld could be applied to another use, and more
its appropriation to other
par'ld be gained than lost by
pnsett.
`fir GROTE said he slid not rise to opipose the bill
, •
at it was his duty to state that the corpotAtion of Lon-
de
„,11 Was strongly opposed to it. It seemed tO him, bow-
r.-'ker, that all the objection.; which had bee made to it
ptakl be fairly and reasonably heard in eommittee......
ars hear) ad on that ground be would vote fur the
'ht." reading. The hon. gentleman who introduced the
het,4"adverytr lyobsereed on the many attempts which had
ir'aric-1144, byu the corporation of Londota to render the
to beet 14
Little inconvenient as possible, and as little liable
the its4senrtllic7:4ft to the public as it wad espable of. As to
that the corporation did nob derive a profit of
more IL
he tevedl 2,0001. a year from Smithfield Market, he
amonot t e hon. member, so far from underrating the
the . , bad actually doubled it.—(Hear,
ttecieelotporation, there were many hear.) Besides
tetstedin• the neighbourhood of Smithfield
donws
henngagreed
in-
Whole
of the
Inarket, but all they desircl was,
and
be fairly
e.". f the a erits of the question should
"eldly a. were
the
, iscussed. Ind:_..
ma.
Ind:_.. "ILKS believed that the corporation had no
*ei'vttltuTals imerest in the question, whether the market
retaoe 1 to or Smithfield, but they knew that its
additionala the or
place would be attended with great
%led it, eaPense. Indeed, one butcher), who was exa-
tsuded t*re the former committee, stated it would be at
the with an 10(14'
whole
of . tonal expense to him of 1,0001. a year
agreed
~... Which he must charge to the consumer. He
should
ales the hon• member for London, that the house
the whole *of the second reading of the bill, in order that
e°lornittee. its details should he properly examined in
,ir H. .t.,
rOO, .. ARNEr *
, practle oxl ,L. commented upon the very barbs-
, and reped,;',l:_ited towards cattle in the city of Lon-
""'
and cella ‘4
their being slaughterted in the alleys,
the practice war:7istnidst a dense populatin. He thought
tires I should be '
't
graceful to the city or London, anti
ce ni , ungraceful
abolished. .as to the evi-
,meust -b`e in,_ekbe_utcaher alluded to by the hon., member, it
o thoushr
that the assertion of such a person, that

he would be put to an additional expense of a thousand
pounds a year, was not edtitled to any, weight
with the house. The house was bound to look at the
question as an important public one, and not to allow the
nuisance in Smithfield tl continue any longer.—( Hear.)

Sir T. FREMANTLE was a metnber of the former
committee, and be could st ,te, that every member of it
was deeply sensible af the great nuisance of Smithfield
market. The city of London also were so impressed with
it, that one of the hon. members for London (Alderman
Wood), came down the folio.e ing session with a bill to en
large the market) for which purpose the city were
ready TO expend two hundred thousand pounds. One of
the plans proposed, and a most preposterous one it was, was
to erect an immense platforM, and to drive the sheep into
the first story.—( A laugh.) The house, however, threw
out the bill. He remembered a right bon. baronet, now
no more (Sir J. Mackintosh) was so convinced of the
necessity for removing the market altogether, that he
advised the house, as the only means of accomplishing
that object, to prevent all attempts to improve it. The
house adopted the suggestion, and the bill was lost. He (Sir
T. Fremantle) said that, in consequence of the charterof the
city of London giving the corporation the monopoly of all
cattle markets within seven miles of London, a market had
actually been established at Southall, in Middlesex, just
seven miles distant, and thither did many of the butchers
in London and the neighbourhood resort once a week, so
much did they dislike the meat brought to Smithfield
market.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the practice of
slaughtering in London, this bill would not compel
butchers to abolish the present practice; but it would
afford convenience for slaughtering out of town, if they
thought fit. Slaughtering in London was a very great
nuisance, and he hoped that the scenes of cruelty which
were practised at the slaughter..houses would be abolished.

After a few words from Sir THOMAS FOULKES, the bill
was read a second time without a division.

Col nel LYGON presented a petition from the trustees
of the Worcester roads, which was referred to the corn.
mit tee.

Mr. HODGES brought up the report of the committee
on the Greenhithe Pier Bill, which was referred to the
committee of standing orders.
Lord SANDON brought up a bill for the amendment
of proceedings in the local courts of Liverpool, which was
read a first and second time.

Mr. WALKER brought up a bill for working mines
and quatries in Ireland, under the regulation of a joint
stock company.—Read a first time.

CORN LAWS.

Mr. FINCH, in resuming the debate on a petition for
the repeal of the corn liws, presented by the hon.
member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, observed,
that a petition of so important a nature, although the
time of the house was so valuable, ought not to be
allowed to pass through without due observation, and
he found that the public were better satisfied when
questions of this kind were treated with that general
attention which they dem ,nded. This question, how_
ever, was so large and comprehensive, that it was
almost impossible to enter into even the first prin-
ciples of it in one day. As an agriculturist,
he felt, he could say, a great deal of interest in it,
but the house would observe that the agriculturists had
not this time dragged the subject before the house. He
thought the more this question was discussed the more
impracticable and impolitic it would appear to attempt
to do away with the present system of corn laws. Two
or three statements had been made by the tight hon. Vice
President of the Board of Trade that were so much at
variance with sound reasoning and fact that ho felt
bound to trouble the house with some comments upon
them. That right hoe. gentleman had said that the
agricultural interests were at present in a very depressed state.
It was true; but that right hon. gentleman said, that the cause
of the distress was the present system of corn laws. Now,
every one who was moderately acquainted with the present
state of distress among the agriculturists knew, that so far from
being the cause of their distress, it was the very thing which
saved
tmhepmfircom utter ruin.— (Hea, , hear.) To go back
to
the. year 1815, in the first instance, there was a
most impolitic
speculation in foreign ,:orn, which de.
passed the markets; close upon the her.- of this came the
failure of the country banks ; afterwards a most disastrous
season, in which the crops, though they at first appeared flou-
arischhianngg,ewienretdheqsmtrooyneedy
system,
ystseumcrssive heavy rains; then came
manufacturers, and rendered thwembicuhnaPbrlienctioPaicloYmaeffeicntteod the
e
markets to purchase agricultural produce. After this, again,
came an unusually dry season, which reduced the midland
counties to such a state that they presented the appearance ra-
ther of of the deserts of Arabia than any thing else; and the
succession of evils left the agriculturists, as they were at
present, in a state approaching to bankruptcy.—(Hear, hear.)
This was the position in which the agricultural interests were
at present. They look, during the present year, to some-
thing like a revival in prices, in order to meet the disasters;
and the time chosen for bringing about the great change which
the petition referred to, was when the agricultural interests
required some additional profits. He (Mr. F.) denied that the
present corn laws were the cause of the distress. A more so.
phi.ncal statement than that could not be made; and he re-
gretted that the Vice. President of the Board of Trade should
have committed so great an error as to make such an assertion.
He was aware that a portion of his Majesty's Ministers were
the advocates, and strenuously contended for, fixed protecting
duties upon corn, but in his (Mr. E's) opinion such a measure
would be utterly impracticable—(Hear)—and would be attended
with the most injurious effects to the agricultural interests in
seasons of scarcity. Another error in such a measure of fixed
duties would be, that if the prices were always to be the same,
they would be too high in seasons of abundance, and too low in
seasons of scarcity. Nothing, from the nature of the specu.
lation, must vary so much as the price of corn, and to at-
tempt to regulate it would be found utterly impracticable.
He approved of one thing in the conduct of the hon. member
for Liverpool upon this question—that he hadbrought it before
the house manfully and fairly. He had brought it in its full
length, breadth and width, and presented it as a subject of such
magnitude that the house must consider it. He (Mr. F.) con-
sidered a system of free trade a chimera. If they could revive
the golden age they might have a free trade—if they could cal-
culate upon permament and uninterrupted peace they might
have it, but the moment a war broke out the system
of free trade would be at an end.—(Hear, hear.) They
would be endeavouring to establish what would be in peace
of no practical value, and when a war broke out must be at.
tended with incalculable loss to the agricultural interest. The
abolition of the corn laws would lead to a total revolution in
their social, manufacturing, agricultural, commercial, and
financial relations, and would in all probability destroy Eng-
land's greatness.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If they went into a
system of free trade with the foreign grower, they should start
with equal weights. They should take 25 pounds off the backs
of the British agriculturist out of thirty, in order to place
them on an equality with the foreign growers.—(Hear.)
It had been alleged that this was a question between the British
manufacturer and the British agriculturist, but he (Mr. F.) de.
Med that such was the case. The manufacturer was much
better able than the agriculturist to compete with foreign coun-
tries, but the British agriculturist must be beaten in the foreign
market, from the great additional expenses and taxes which he
was obliged to bear in comparison with the foreign grower. On
the hypothesis ofreducing trade to a state of perfect freedom,
an overwhelming tax should be laid on capital. Public
credit should fall, and every print shop in the city of
London would have a caricature of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer wet lost his budget.—(A laugh.) All trade
should be rendered free, if any part of trade was made so :
and let the house then consider the destitution that would fol-
low to millions of farmers and manufacturers. A mass of
misery would be presented ; distress would not be confined to
an insignificant or a small portion of the people : it should ex-
tend to all the inhabitants of the country. He (Mr. F.) was not
speaking of a body of 2 or 3 hundred thousand persons whose
voice could be stifled, or claims refused : no, he spoke of the
agriculturists, who were 12,000,000 in number, and those
who were their immediate dependants, who amounted to a po-
pulation of 16,000,000. Over" the one fourth of England was
agricultural ; the one-third of Scotland and the three.fourths
Ireland were likewise agriculturaL Now such a population
should immediately raise a clamour for taxation—a cry
that could not be resisted, and let it be considered to
what a crisis things :would be brought; yet such would be
theinevitable result of a free trade. He saw a statement
made in a review the other day—a review he did not praise i
either for ts tone of politics, its classical elegance, its sound.
tnnesehst it
of criticism, or its literary acquisitions—but the state-
contained was a true one.—(Hear, hear.) It
supposed that trade
agriculturists would be had become unrestricted, and
it foretold the consequences.cnnvettedTtlinetosea
hwoderyeofthraetioramlletsththe
the utmost mgesaintoi
compatible wintlikv
short
atohe.word, and would not be satisfied
wwoitthildannyotthbien
tehrsal., unsparing taxation, which
what was worse, would itosthabten
ministers
ntavailableerests
remedythe
country,t
ots
wants.and.
He regretted his Majesty
they might hear the different reasonssweasre.not in the house, that
trade. They were such as could not be Olveredc overcome
or
byn oatnyoon openingst_
deration, and they would tend to confirm the
v.argumentsp already.n
delivered on that topic.l pie regretted that themi 1171 rem ent
of earn by
of the Board of Trade was absent, as he
the discussion of the subject what a hostg
should be made to the best interests of the kingdom by the enemiesn
troduction of a measure that went to remove restrictions on trade-
He believed that if the markets were thrown open the Irish.
linen trade would be destroyed, as would also the China trade,
the silk trade, and the sugar trade. It was evident that in
consequence of the opening of the markets the West India in-
terest in particular would be overwhelmed with the greatest
distress, so as utterly to destroy all hopes of success of the
deenpolty
a i
all;
great experiment of last session, which was so
teresting to all friends of humanity; but this was
they would be obliged to purchase foreign sugar, and to en-
courage foreign trade, at the expense of their own. After con-
siderable discussion the house had come to the conclusion
that it would be unadvisable to proceed with any change in the
corn laws at present. He would merely observe that he had
no objection to a free trade between England and Ireland, or
England and Scotland, much more between different parts

of this country, because they could establish a perMinent
system, except, indeed, in case of a civil war, a misfortune
which he should be very sorry to.calculate upon. But suppose
the agricultural interest were to undergo the losses which
must follOw in caie of the abolitiOn of the corn laws ; suppos
the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other mighty magi.
clan, were to discover a new budget ; suppose the West India
interest annihilated, and encouragement given to foreign trade
and foreign slavery; suppose the China trade, the silk trade,
and other trades were to be ruined; and suppose Ireland were
to lose the chief benefit which she derived from the union with
this cotintry, viz., the English corn market; what class of persons
in this country were to be benefited? They would be dependant
tipori foreign nations for their supply of food, as the price of corn
would be equalized in consequence of the competition with fo-
reign markets. He would only ask the Manufacturers *hat ad-
vantage they were to derive from it ? It might answer very
well whilst they were at peace with all the great importing
countries of Europe, but if the system of the hon. member for
Liverpool were adopted, and a war should unfortunately break
out between this country and the other states of Europe, it
would raise the price of corn to such a rate as might lead to a
revolution. It was impossible that a change of this sort could
take place—a change so deeply affecting the resources of
the country, the interests of the great mass of the people, and
in particular the interests of the:West India colonies,—a change
Which would destroy the home market without in any degree
improving the condition of the manufacturer—it was impossi.
lfle that a change in the corn laws of so violent a nature could
ever be sanctioned by that house.—(Hear, hear.)
_ _ _ _

Sir HENRY PARNELL said that as he had a petition to
present upon this subject he hoped the house wou!d excuse
him if he made a few observations upon the question.
The honourable member who spoke last had rested his
case upon the great interest which the farmers had in
the question. Now, whenever this was stated in that house,
he considered it absolutely necessary that it should be contra.
dieted in the most direct manner; and he had no hesitation in
asserting that it was a great delusion practised upon the farmers
by the landlords, when they told the farmers that they were in-
terested in the continuance of the corn laws. He would un-
dertake to say, that if the question was fairly discussed, and the
farmer made fully to understand his own interests, it would be
impossible to maintain the monopoly of the corn laws any longer.
A farmer was a person who earned his livelihood by the appli--
cation of his capital to a particular pursuit—for instance, the
tillage of land. His interest, therefore, depended upon the
rate of return for his capital, which again depeneed upon the
price of the produce of land with reference to rent. If the
price of the produce fell, that is, if it were reduced in conse-
quence of the repeal of the Corn Laws, his, the farmer's inte-
rest, must be put to rights, and his losses prevented by a re-
duction of rent.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When it was proved
beyond alldoubt that the interest of the farmer depended upon
the price of the produce of land, in reference to rent, the
farmer must be satisfied that he could have no • interest
whatever in the continuation of the corn laws.—(Hear.)
It was merely a question which affected the landlords. An
hon. gentleman had stated that twelve millions of persons
were interested in the question, but that argument was good
for nothing, for it only interested a few 100,000 landlords.
The additional price of food had only the effect of raising the
rents for the benefit of the landlord. If landlords, in conse-
quence of the corn laws, were to receive less than at present
by half a million or a million a year, that money would remain
in the pockets of the consumers. The actual amount of the
income of the country would not be lessened, although landlords
would have less income; but the money, being in the hands of
the consumers, would • employ more labour and do as much
and even more good than if it were in the pockets of the land-
lords. As to all the evils which some gentlemen apprehended
from the abolition of the corn laws, they had no foundation
whatever.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Now with regard to the ex-
cessive amount of taxation to which it was said the landloi oa
were put, that had been greatly exaggerated. It was said that
the malt tax was a. tax on laud—but who paid it ? The land-
lords paid very little of it, for it fell on the mass of the commu-
nity, As to the county and highway rates, though they fell on the
land, they were expended in the improvement of the iad—such
as making roads, &c , from all -of which the landlords bene-
fitted.—(Hear, hear.) Now with regard to the poor rates, the
landlords complained of their excess, but it should be known
how much the landlords might 111, e done if they had endea-
voured in time to prevent the abuse of the poor laws.—(Hear,
hear.) Neither did he agree in the supposed injurious effect
which the abolition of the corn laws would have on our manu-
factures. All the arguments upon that subject were
entirely useless. The whole question was involved in
one principle, and the great evil was that under the
peculiar circumstances of the country, there was an enormous
quantity of capital unemployed, and a superabundance of la-
bour. That capital and that labour wanted employment, and
the house ought to endeavour to remove all the impediments
which prevented their employment.—(Hear, hear.) In pro-
portion then to the reduction in price would be the increase of
consumption and the employment of capital. Here then was
an argument for the removal of the impediment complained of.

Mr. CHILDERS wished to know whether the cattle of the
landlord and corn grower was not an important point to be con-
siderea ? Was that nothing which required protection? Was he
to suffer the foreign grower to come into the market, and beat
him out of the field? According to the right hon. gantleman,
the country would go on well, while the landlords would be
utterly ruined. That appeared to be the upshot of his argu-
ment, and a weaker argument he had not heard since he had
been in that house.—( Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. LANGDALE opposed the petition. In answer to the
right hon. baronet he expressed his opinion that a fall of 10s.,
so far from relieving the landlord, would leave him no rent at
all. The increase of demand must cause an increase of
price to the grower.—(Hear.) The man who possessed land
might consider it as his manufactory, and he ought to be
allowed to turn it to the greatest possible advantage. But
what was the fact? He could not change his wheat into malt
without being immediately met by the Excise, who would for.
bid him to do so. What would a manufacturer of cotton
twist say, if, when he proposed to turn his cotton into some-
thing else, he was met in this manner ? Suppose the agricul.
ttuhreistchthaonucgelhltor of ofditshtielliEngxchhegis
Exchequer, you
iynotuo
sshpairliltenfot
do No,
that.sals
Or suppose he said I will grow tobacco ? Oh, no, says the
Chancellor of the Exchequer again, I get three millions
a year by the growth of tobacco.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") Now all those things ought to be taken into
full consideration. If they meant to have a free trade, let:them
give all parties an equal and fair chance. But the fact was, we
were under an artificial system, and that system must be kept
up: look at it which way they would, foras long as the national
debt existed they must submit to the evils of the system, and
they must support it too.

Sir CHARLES BURRELL and Col. TORRENS rose together; the
latter, however, gave way.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL shortly addressed the house.
He thought that the subject might well have been allowed to
rest upon the admirable speech of the right hon. member for
Tamworth, who had, in his opinion, combated and successfully
overcome all the arguments of the hon. member for Bath. He
considered the landed interest of the country was entitled to
the protection of that house, and he should therefore give his
support to the petition.
Mr. BENETT considered the real question to be, whether
the farmer was or not entitled to protection. If land could not
be cultivated so as to give a profit to the farmer, the conse.
quence would be that the landlord would become farmer and the
fanner would become labourer. There was another class, how-
ever, in whose welfare he felt a more deep interest than that ofthe
farmer itself, that class was the agricultural labourer. It had
been said that England was essentially a manufacturing coun.
try; he denied that proposition, he thought it essentially
an agricultural one, and he should wish it to be so, believing
that the agricultural labourer had more means of enjoyment
than the manufacturer ; still, however, the agricultural la-
bourer was placed in by no means an enviable situation.
With respect to the political economists of the day, he must
say that they looked more to the means of gaining wealth than
to the good of their country.

Colonel TORRENS said that notwithstanding the censure
cast on the principle introduced in the speech of the hon
member for Dundee. He (Colonel Torrens) was prepared
to maintain that important principle, viz., that the farmer
had an interest in the high price of corn. The farmer
had, however, a large, enduring, and permanent interest
in low prices, like that of all employers of capital. The
cost of cultivation was different in different qualities of soil,
end if they admitted foreign corn, they might throw out
of cultivation those poor soils that produced little corn,
but they would not throw out the superior soils, and on those
soils the farmer would get higher profits than before. Suppose
a farmer obtained 10 bushels per acre from a certain descrip-
tion of soil upon which the expense of cultivation was equal to
that of soil which produced 20 bushels per acre, it would be
no disadvantage to him to have the inferior soils thrown out of
cultivation. If they looked to the question with attention they
would find the interests of the farmer were different from those
of the landed proprietor, for the one had an interest in low
prices and the other in high. The hon. member for Wiltshire
had said that he was an advocate for cheap corn if the expense
of cultivation was lowered, and he (Colonel Torrens) con.
curred in that principle.
Mr. ROBINSON said that the corn question was then in
the same position as when he had entered that house, and he
therefore concluded, that either the subject was not so easy
as some honourable gentlemen imagined, or else there
were conflicting interests which influenced hon. gentlemen's
minds in coming to different conclusions. The hon. member
for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) had stated that the great deficiency
was, the immensity of the National Debt; for if they looked
to the discussions which had taken place for the reduction of
taxes or of corn duties—they would find that, after all the
ingenuity which had been expended upon the subject, it was
the National Debt which stood in the way, and it was the
burdens upon land which made the landlords op.
posed to any reduction of the corn duty. (Hear, hear.)
The public debt, then, stood in the way. He would not argue
the degree of protection which should be given to the agricul.
turist, but he was in favour of affording protection to all
classes. In voting for the motion the other night he did not
vote for a free trade in corn ; indeed, he had told his consti-
tuents candidly that he bad never yet been able to
bring his mind to the policy of a free trade in corn.
He agreed with his hon. friend the member for Wiltshire,
that it was the labourer who should be protected chiefly, and
not only the capitalist. The house should relieve, as much as
possible, the industry of the people from taxation, and put the
burdens upon property.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He did
not say that even that would entirely relieve all
classes, but it was only then that a free trade in corn could
be allowed. The 16,000,0001., the amount of the customs'
duties, could not be easily made up; but if they were lowered

other duties must be increased or new Ones ievitti in make it
up. In a country so overloaded with taxation and burcleiled,
with such a country a perfect free trade was a mere chimera,
and not capable of being carried into eftect.--(ltear.)
Sir a VERNEY said the land was greatly iiirdeneil by
Mortgages, local taxation; and, otherwise, all of which shoal.
be got rid off' before a free trade in ,corn
,could be allowed.
Another source of difficulty and of taxation, on the land was
the expense of prosecuting felons ; the county and pool rates
were highly oppressive ; he knew some parishes in ithich
the poor rates were between 15s. and 16s. in the pound.
The HON. MEMBER for Wiltshire advised the agriculturists
to combine to obtain a reduction of taxation ; but he (Sir. H.
Verney) could not agree in that recommendation, for he thought
it would be imprudent for them to finta theniseiVes into a poll.
tital union. .

Lord SANDON said that; in looking at this questiciii, he
judged frOm affidavits, not from mathematical demonstration.
There was the evidence of facts to prove that Towering prices
had ruined the capital of the farmer. What was the first effect
of a fall of prices ? Did the landlord immediately, When the
Price of corn fell, lower his rent 20 per cent. ? No, he
says that it was a chance which might be made up for by a
better crop the next year, but the next year it might be the
same, and thus the farmer would continue to pay his rent out
of his capital. With regard to throwing land out of cul-
tivation, he could not look with indifference to so
great a number of the agricultural classes being. thrown
out of employment, upon the mete chance of finding
employment in other ways. It was the duty of a good govern
ment not to raise up one interest at the expense of another.
Then he looked at the possible extension of trade from the
opening of the corn trade.—(Hear, hear., hear.) They must take
their corn from foreign states--but would those states, for the
sake of the 200,000 or 300,000 bushels of corn, which we
should want, be induced to give up the protection which they
had been so long weaving round their manufactures ? Would
the United States do it, or Russia ?—when the constant
labour of every Prussian minister for many years had
been to foster their manufactures ?—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He must confess, that he could not see how any increased de-
mand in foreign markets for our manufactures would take place.

Mr. STRICKLAND said it had been well observed by an
hon..gentleman, that free trade in our present artificial state was
a chimera, but then he would ask were they to go plodding
on content with the system? He believed those who intro.
duced the corn laws were now convinced that the coun-
try would have been better had they never passed.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) Although he was entirely independent
on the prosperity of agriculture- he did not believe the mer-
chants and manufacturers of this country had ever said their in.
terestsought tobepredominant. He believed rather the feeling
was general that monopolies of all kinds should be done away
with, and that the whole community should be considered and
dealt with as one family. Is was on this ground he was an
enemy to the present system of corn laws, because it was a
monopoly.

—On the motion of Mr. EWART, the debate was adjourned,
upon which the Speaker left the Chair.

LIST OF TH.
Of 44 (Teller included) OE

ENGLAND.

Bankes, W. J.—[)orsetsh ire
Bentinck, Ld. G.—Ring'sLynn
Bethel), R.—East Yorkshire
Blackstone, W. S.—Wallingford
Campbell, Sir H. P.—Berwick
Finch, G.—Stamford
Forester, G. C. W.—Wenlock
Forster, C. S.—Walsall
Fremantle, Sir T.—Buckingham
Gaskell, D.—Wakefield
Gladstone, W.L.—Newark-on.
Trent
Goulburn, H.—Cambridge Uni.

E MINORITY
Sir R. Peel's amendment.
Norreys, Lord—Oxfordshire
Peel, Sir R.—Tamworth
Sandon, Lord—Liverpool
Somerset, Lord G. C.—Mon.

mouthihire
Stormont, Viscount Norwich
Tennyson Right Hon. C.—
Lah
Trevor, Hon. a R.—Caennar.

thenihire
Wood, T.—Brecknockshire
Wynn, Right Hon. C. W. W.—
Montgomeryshire

versity
Gri mston, Vise.-Hertfordshire
Guest, J. J.—Merthyr Tydvil
Holcomb, J.—Dover
Halford, Henry—South Leices-
tershire
Hardinge, Right Hon. Sir H.—

SCOTLAND.

Arbuthnot, General—Kincar-

dineshire
Ferguson,' G.—BanlEhi re
Gordon, Capt. W.—Aberdeen-
shire
Stewart, E.—Wigton, &c.

LaunCeitbn-
Hawkes, T.—Dudley
Henniker, Lord—East Sussex
Herbert, Hon. S.—South Wilts
Herrie, J. C.—Harwich
Humphery, John—Southwark
Irton, S.—West Cumberland
Marryatt, J.—Sandwich
__

IRELAND.
Castlereagh, Visc.—Down
Corry, Hon. H. L.—Tyrone Co,
Meynell, Capt. H.—Lisburne
Young, J.—Cavan

TELLER.
Ross, C.—Northampton

Moreton, H. G. E—East Glou.
cestershire

Nicholl, J —Cardiff

PAIRED OFF.
Bruce, Lord E.—Marlborough

LIST OF TH.
Of 12 (Tellers included) wit(
comb's motion, " That the
to prosecute R. Randall."
Ferguson, G.—Banffshire Sandon, Lord—Liverpool
Gladstone, T.—Portarlington Shaw, F.—Dublin University
Hughes, W. H.—Oxford Wynn, Right Hon. C.—Mon.
Inglis, Sir R H.—Oxford Uni. gomeryshire
versity
Miles, W.—East Somerset TELLERS.
Pryme, George—Cambridge Halcomb, John—Dover
Ruthven, Edward—Kildare Ruthven, E. S.—Dublin

'E MINORITY
o voted in favour of Mr. Hal•
Attorney-General be directed

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY)

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, MARCH 19.—Wind S.E.—No arrivals.
PORTSMOUTH, MARCH 19.—Wind E.—TheDon Pedro Portu-
guese frigate, of 50 guns, sailed from here yesterday for Lisbon.
FALMOUTH, MARCH 18.—Wind E., strong.
DARTMOUTH, MARCH 18.—Arrived the Chase, Robinson,
from Bordeaux.

JERSEY, MARCH 17. Arrived the Tom and Mary, Alex-
andre, from Honduras.
LIVERPOOL, MARCH 18.—Arrived the Standard, Patrick,
from St. Petersburgh. Off port the Atlantic, from Nassau.
DUBLIN, MARCH 18.—Arrived the Margaret, Stratford, from
Messina.

LIMERICK, MARCH 18.—Arrived the Ariel, Carter, Water
Lily, Ruby, and Garyowen, Pounds, from London. The Tri-
ton, bound to Liverpool, on shore in Clare river, is discharging
the cargo into lighters, and it is reported that the vessel will be
condemned.

GLasoow, Martell 18.—The Spray, Gilchrist, sated from
Demerara the 9th December; the Olive, Nicol, from Ballina,
about the end of December; and the Diana, 111`Ewing, from
Liverpool, about the end of November, all bound to the Clyde,
and neither have since been heard of.

SHIELDS, MARCH 18.—The John and Elizabeth, Day, of
Yarmouth, on shore on the Herd Sand, is full of water—part of
the cargo and the stores have been landed, and it is expected
she will be got off, but in a very damaged state.
HULL, MARCH 18.—The Mary Ann, Foy, sailed from hence
early in January for Ulverstone,and has not since been heard of.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

VICE. lIANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

14's linnonr the VICE CHANCELLOR took motions tc-day
iNkINCTION.-BERRY S. COOMBS.

Sir Eowagu SUGDE;:'f Opp11:4 tips morning, upon notice,
fth sewhich
machines,,
tor special injunction to re Q
,ivain (n•ndant, his servants
or workiger, from
.Making or cii,po4l.l?; of any instantaneous
light
,t
iti
rt,
theottle norac imitationtu re o
f
o
Which he had obtained his Majestis relters patent. From the
stateir:entof of the leained counsel it appezh'ed that the plaintiff
had obtained a patent for an improVed inventiOn for securing
volatile and other fluids, i'.nd concrete and other substances in
various descriptions of bottles atie vessels ; and in order to
distinguish the articles he manufactured, he impressed upon
them the Royal arms, with a clown, and alsiti the word
" Tile defendant had also obtained a patent fof some
article's it;hith tiranufaettired similar to the plaintiff, and
upon which he had lAA the satire Marks. The present appli-
cation did not complain Of hie' inTringenient of the plaintiff's
patent, but its object Was mefely to limit the defendant in the
use of the Word " patent," and alert the figure of a croWn,
!hese marks havidg t 4 tendency to lead the public to the
belief that the articles were nrantlfactured by the' plaintiff,
he having used them long previous to the obtaining of a patent
by the defendant. The learned counsel was ploceeding, to read
the affidavits in support of the application, but aftd a InOTt
consultation with Mr. Knight, the leading counsel for the de:
fondant, he stated that he believed the Court might be saved
the trouble of going any further into the case, Lithe defendant's
Counsel had agreed to an injunction restraining him from
using the mark of a crown or the word patent. As to the costs,
he should advise the parties to settle that question among
themselves.