The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 27.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Lard CAMPBELL presented a petition from the me-
dical me❑ of Fife, praying for better accommodation fur
the surgeons in the navy ; also against prisoners being
called on to plead guilty or not guilty.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition
against the Removal of Districts (Scotland) Bill.
BIRTH OF A PRINCE.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER announced that
the address of congratulation to her Majesty on the birth
of a Prince had been presented to her Majesty, and that
she had been graciously pleased to receive the same,
and that she had condescended to return the
following most gracious answer :—" My Lords,
I have received your loyal and affectionate
address with much satisfaction. I thank you most cor-
dially for your congratulations on the birth of another
Prince, and fur the assurance of the interest which you
take in my domestic happiness."
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, the gracious
answer of her Majesty was ordered to be entered on the
journals of the House.
ARREARS OF APPEALS IN CHANCERY.
Lord BROUGHAM took the opportunity of deny-
ing the statement which bad been made, that in conse-
quence of the illness of the Lord Chancellor there had
been an arrear in the appeals of that House. The ap-
peals in arrear in that House were, he contended, none.
The same could not be said with regard to appeals in
the Court of Chancery, but they were much less than they
were on the 22d Nov., 1830, when he (Lord Broagham)
took the seals, and that would be proved by the returns
of appeals for which he moved. He deeply regretted
that his Noble and Learned Friend would not be soon able
to resume the public performance of his duty. He be-
lieved that some temporary arrangement would be made,
and he hoped this opportunity would be taken of the
forced absence of this most able, upright, and learned
judge, to make a permanent arrangement for the exe-
cution of the functions of this the highest judicial officer
of the country.
The motion for returns were agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL APPEALS BILL.
The Bishop of LONDON moved that the second read-
ing of the Appeals to the Privy Council for the Eccle-
siastical Courts (in matters of doctrine) Bill, be post-
poned to Monday next.—Agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, in pursuance of the
notice which he had given, presented several petitions
complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a
return to a sj stem of protection. He wished to ask
the Noble Earl opposite how long he would consider
it before the present system had had a fair trial?
Earl GREY was not aware that the law of 1846 con-
hired any clause limiting the time during which it was
to be continued in operation, and he was not aware of
any intention to introduce any measure for repealing or
altering it.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MALMESBURY thought that if the
Noble Earl meant what he had just said—aad the Noble
Earl was a man who generally said what he meant, and
meant what ho said—he was a minister better fitted for
the ancient empire of the Medes and Persians than for
the constitutional Government of Great Britain.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) The Noble Earl seemed to enter-
tain a great dislike for these discussions, but so long as
the different Parliamentary papers were delivered to
their Lordships for their perusal, he must expect to have
them thus incidentally discussed. The information
contained in the papers recently delivered was at once
most important and most alarming. The return
of all the in-door and out-door paupers for each year,
from the year 1848 to the year 1850, was most
apelling. It proved the entire fallacy of the dictum of
the Noble Premier in that House, that pauperism had
decreased in the last five years. On the contrary, its
increase in England and Wales within that period had
reached to the vast amount of 125,000 persons. The last
year of protection was the year 1846, tae last of free trade
was the year 1850. In 1846 the price of wheat was 545;
in 1850 it was 38s. a quarter; and yet, when the price
of wheat was one-third less than it was formerly,
the number of 'paupers was 125,000 more. The free-
trade Government had made two promises to the people,
when they deluded them into the repeal of the corn-laws.
They had given them a promise of reciprocity and they
had given them a promise of the prosperity of the lower
classes. Reciprocity they had not got; the prosperity of
the lower classes had not happened. He had expected
at any rate, after all the promises they had received, to
find something like prosperity in the agricultural dis-
tricts; but in going through this list [holding out a
paper in his hand] he found no signs of prosperity either
in the agricultural or manufacturing districts. In Chel-
tenham, which was not exclusively either an agricultural
or a manufacturing place, there were in 1846, the last
year of protection, 990 paupers; in 1850, the last year
of free trade, 1,319. Again, in Liverpool, in 1846,
there were 12,200 paupers; in 1850 there were
17,800. In Manchester, in 1846, there were 13,900;
1850, 13,926. In Preston, in 1846, there were 3,021
paupers, and in 1850, 5,187. Ile would not enter
into other details on this subject, for it was the
same everywhere; but ho would give their Lordships
just one specimen from a district purely agricultural.
In the Isle of Portsea in 1846 there were 3,200 paupers;
in 1850 there were 6,200, or nearly double.—[A Noble
Lord said "Look to Newcastle."] He had been referred
to Newcastle. Well, he would read the entry under the
town of Newcastle. I❑ 1846 the number of paupers was
49,000. [We suspect that the Noble Lord, in his haste,
quoted the figures incorrectly, for, according to the last
census, the whole population of Newcastle was not more
than 69,430.] In 1850 there were 7,966.—(Crisi of
"Hear, hear," on the Ministerial benches.) With these
facts before them, it was impossible fur Noble Lords
opposite to argue that their policy had turned out bene-
ficially. He then read to their Lordships ♦arious re-
turns recently laid on their table, all of which, he in-
sisted, conspired to establish the same point. For in-
stance, in 1845, when the old corn-laws were in force,
the returns of corn sold in England and Wales were
5,700,000 odd quarters of wheat; in 1E49, the last year
for which the same returns had been received,
they were only 4,500,000, so that the decrease of
the corn sold in England and Wales between the years
1845 and 1849 was just 1,200,000 quarters. With these
papers, showing that all their promises had failed, that
they had not gained the advantages of reciprocity by their
generous system towards the foreigner, that they had
not diminished the amount of pauperism, and that their
low prices had not checked the importation of foreign
corn, he did not think that he was wasting the time of
the House in calling its attention to the facts, or in de-
claring that the old corn-laws must be restored, if their
Lordships had any hope of seeing the country restored
to its former prosperity.
Earl GREY replied, that the Noble Lords opposite
must not be surprised if the Government refused to enter
into these incidental debates on the corn-laws until it
was acquainted with the real object sought to be
achieved by them. It had been stated on a former oc-
casion, that when the corn-laws were on the point of
being repealed, the advocates for their repeal had per-
petually discussed the policy of them with a view of in-
fluencing public opinion, and without submitting any
regular motion to the House. But, at that time,
there was no doubt as to the object of such discussions—
it was either the qualified or the total repeal of the
corn-laws. At present, however, they stood in a differ-
ent situation. He was ready, whenever the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Stanley) pleased, to debate the question
whether the measure of 1846 ought to be changed or
not; but when he entered upon such a debate he wished
to know distinctly what were the views of Noble Lords
on the other side; for their Lordships were at present
in a singular state of ignorance on the subject. Not one
of the Noble Lords opposite had yet stated distinctly
whether they wished to go back to the old sliding scale
of 1828 or not. Did the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley)
wish simply to repeal the Act of 1846, and return to the
law under which they had the agricultural distress of
1833, 1835, and 1836, or did he want something else?
In another place it had been declared, upon ♦ery high '
authority, that what was desired was a fixed duty of Ba.
upon wheat—the measure so scornfully rejected in 1841.
Another gentleman in that place had said that what
ho wanted was an alteration of the various burdens
upon land; but, on the other hand, that notion of
relief, by altering taxation, had been denounced
as altogether nugatory and delusive by the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Stanley), in a very eloquent and remark-
able speech which he made in reply to certain memorials
that had been presented to bias. What, then, did Noble
Lords opposite want? A fixed duty, a sliding scale, or a
change of taxation? What alteration iu the existing
policy of the country did they mean to propose? lle
(Earl Grey) could only say that when the Government
knew the specific measures which were to be proposed,
ho had no doubt they would be able to show good rea-
sons against their adoption.—(Laughter from the Oppo-
sition.) His own opinion remained unshaken. He firmly
believed that to the alteration oftheir commercial policy in
1846 they were, under Providence, indebted for the safety
i❑ which this country had passed through a period of un-
exampled difficulty. The Noble Earl (Malmesbury) had
quoted returns with respect to the number of paupers
relieved in England and Wales during the last five
years; and he had endeavoured to show that the number
of paupers now receiving relief was considerably greater
than the number relieved in 1846, the last year of protec-
tion. But if the Noble Earl looked at the return he
would find that, though there was now an increase in the
number of paupers, as compared with 1846, yet that
the year 1850 showed a reduction in the number as com-
pared with 1847, 1848, and 1849. The Noble Earl was
however, well aware that there were circumstances in
the condition of the country, independently of the price
of corn, which might account for the difference between
the number of paupers relieved this year and in 1846.
The year 1846 was the very height of the railway mania,
and he believed that at that time the companies ex-
pended several millions of money mainly in labour.
Now, however, there were not as many hundred thou-
sands of pounds expended in such labour as there were
then millions. Since 1846, also, they had had to en-
counter all the consequences of the famine in Ireland;
and it was notorious that that famine had been the
means of bringing into all our great manufacturing towns
very large numbers of Irish paupers, for whose relief it
was necessary to provide. He thought theao circum-
stances would fully acount for the increase of paupers
this year as compared with 1846. When he found the
revenue prospering to an unexampled extent, when he
saw trade sound and active, notwithstanding all the diffi-
culties arising from a short crop of cotton, and when he
looked at the general state of the country, he did not think
the returns to which the Noble Lord had alluded gave
the slightest reason to doubt the-success of the policy of
1846.—(Hear, bar.) The Noble Earl had referred to a
return of the quantities of wheat that had been sold in
difThrent years, and had stated that the sales of 1849
showed a falling off as compared with 1845 of some
1,200,000 quarters. He should have thought that his
Noble Friend must have seen how fallacious that com-
parison was; for the return for 1849 showed mainly the
sales of the crop of 1848, and it was notorious that that

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 27.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
HER MAJESTY'S REPLY TO THE ADDRESS.
Mr. LASCELLES, Comptroller of her Majesty's
Household, appeared at the bar of the House, and an-
nounced that he had presented the humble address of
the Commons, congratulating her Majesty upon the
birth of a Prince, to which her Majesty had been
pleased to return the following most graeieus answer:7
" I thank you most sincerely for your dutiful and aff9c-
tionate address; and I receive with much saliefaction