The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-03 00:00:00

FRIDAY

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 2.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
BIRTH OF A PRINCE.—ADDRESS TO HER
MAJESTY.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose and said—My
Lords, I have to propose before we proceed to the con-
sideration of any other subject, a motion to which I am
sure that your Lordships will willingly yield prole-
nce.—(lie hear.) It is in allusion to an event
which occurredar yesterday morning.—(Hear, hear.)
e
I am sure that your Lordships will feel that
it is subject of congratulation to your Lordships, in com-
mon with all classes of the community in this country,
that her Majesty should have given birth to a Prince.—
(Hear, hear.) All classes of the country, lam sure,
join with your Lordships in congratulating her Majesty
upon this increase tother domestic happiness, and I will
not therefore detain your Lordships longer, but will
propose that a humble address be presented to her Ma-
jesty, congratulating her Majesty upon the birth of a
Prince.—(Cheers.)
The Duke of RICHMOND said—In my own name,
and in the name of those Noble Lords who sit on this
side of the House, I beg to express our hearty con-
currence in the expressions of grateful congratulation
to her Majesty, and I second the motion.
The motion was then agreed to nemine contradicente.
PETITIONS.—AGUICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition in
favour of the Tea Hours Bill from Yorkshire; also a
petition from Morayshire complaining of agricultural
distress. The farmers could not grow wheat at the
present prices, and were laying down their lands in
grass. He had rather cultivate the whole of his
estates himself than trust to cotton Manchester
men to cultivate them. It was an insult to the
farmers to tell them that local distress existed, but
that the whole state of the 'couttry was satisfactory. The
repeal of the duties on bricks was no aid to the farmer.
There were more bricks in one manufacturing chimney
than in many agricultural cottages. The farmer was
bound to pay a certain amount of property-tax, while
ruanaansuhfaisetperroefir y
profits. Such
upon what he chose to
a course of proceeding would
tr
legit u
affect the loyalty of the fifteens. He had to present seve-
ral petitions ;rom various members of the agricultural in-
terest, praYing f a return to the principles t,t. protee-
tMn. He asked the farmers not to be violent, but per-
.severing, and to show that when the 3 elmanry put
their shoulder to the wheel they could not be driven
from the point by a body of Manchester manufacturers.
So long as the present rate of taxation continued, so long as
faith was kept with the public creditor, the farmer
could not compete with the foreigner. No remission of
a small portion of taxation would put the farmer is the
same position as he wculd be if he had adequate pro-
tection. If they persevered in this course of proceed-
ing they would have a recurrence of such acts of vio-
lence as had recently taken place in the county of
which he rejoiced to say had been put down
bWwyatrheiek'
rural police.
Earl GREY said, in 1844, a Sussex farmer had drawn
attention to the fact that at that time 70 farms were ad-
vertised for sale in Sussex, showing that agricultural
distress was thee, under a system of protection, even
greater than it was at present in 1850, under a system
of tree trade. The real weight which hail broken the
neck of the British farmer was the miscalled protection
under which he was oppressed. The existing arrange-
ment with regard to the property-tax payable
by the farmer, had been adopted at the sug-
gestion of the party with which his Noble Friend
acted. and he himself, as a free-trader, hid opposed it.
The farmer who expended large sums in the improve-
ment of his farm sutf:xed from the rule, while those who
did not improve paid nothing in good years.
The Duke of ARGYLL thought undue stress had
been laid upon the expression of the Noble Marquis
(Lansdowne) that free trade was an experiment. It was
extremely difficult to procure the repeal of a prin-
ciple when it was contained in an Act tf
Parliament, and he could not consider that this was an
experiment to be watched, or that the principle could be
easily reverse', and he came to the conclusion that the
experiment, if such it could be called, could not be re-
' versed at any moment they pleased. He considered
the present to bo an exceptional state of things,
and that they could not argue as to the permanent
price of agricultural produce from the present
thee. The same complaints of the low price
of agricultural produce were made in France
that the Noble Duke male in this country, and t'sere-
fore he concluded that the present state of matters was
exceptional. At the same this state of affters showed
that money cheapness might go too tar, a principle which
was acknowledged by all authorities on this subject. If
the present state of affairs was to be considered
permanent, considerable changes must be made in the
distribution of the public burdens of this country. It
had been admitted by Lord John Russell, before the re-
peal of the corn-laws by Sir R. Peel, that in the event
of that repeal there must be some relief given to the
agricultural interest from the burdens which pressed upon
them, and he thought that some different method of apply-
ing the property tax on the farmer should be adopted.
The Earl of FEVERSI-1 AU denied that the present
state of agricultural distress was exceptional. There
was no chance of any improvement taking place so long
as a free-trade policy should be continued. Was it
just, he would ask, to continue the present duty upon
malt? That tax was paid by the agricultural interest
both as producers and as consumers, for they wet
great consumers of male—(Hear, hear.) The agricul-
tu:ists were the most loyal and the best class of the
community, and their petitions had not been treated
with the respect to which they were entitled. The dis-
tress among the agriculturists was general and universal
throughout the county.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS admitted the existence
of distress among the owners and occupiers of land, hut as
he was convinced that a return to a system of protection
was an impossibility, he believed that he was no friend
to the farmers who taught them to expect it.—(Hear.)
He believed that the repeal of the system had preserved
this country from those revolutions which had devas-
tated the rest of Europe. The present state of the agri-
cultural interest that, be believed, an exceptional state,
for ho found that the state of agricultural distress was
even greater in European countries under the protective
system, such as France, than it was in this
country. He believed that the stocks of corn in Europe
and America were nearly exhausted. Prices were rising
in New York, and it was the apprehension that we might
return to a protective system that had caused our markets
to be deluged with foreign corn, and which kept
down the price at present in this country. He thought
it was the duty of Government to inquire into the bur-
dens upon the agricultural interest, and to remove those
which pressed unjustly, but he considered those were
the worst enemies of the agricultural interest who en-
couraged them to indulge a hope that we should ever
return to a system of protection,
Lord STRADBROKE saw no ground for hoping that
the present depression of agriculture would pass away,
and he knew from his own experience that farmers were
all anxious to get rid of their farms and emigrate. Not-
withstanding the statements that had been made, both
in and out of ratliarnent, as to the beneficiul effects of
free trade, he believe.' that the conviction was gaining
ground among all classes, that we must either return to
the system of protection or
equalise our taxes. He
oould not understand why the moneyed men should es-
cape the parochial burdens which fell upon the owners
IT
and occupiers of property. -e Was grateful to the Noble
Duke for bringing the subject forward, and he hoped
that discussions would take piece upon it from time to
time, until the bearings of this question were fully un-
derstood.
Earl ST. GERMANS made a brief explanation.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, he entirely differed
from his Noble Friend on the cross benches, as to the
statement 'that it was the repeal of the corn-laws which
had prevented a revolution in this country, and the
feeling of satisfaction which prevailed in conse-
quencel. ; but he would tell him what did prevai
it was the good feeling of the people of this country.
It was because they rejoiced in their constitution,
g
and one of the most important rights of that chn-
stitution was the power it gave them of complaining
of their grievances.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Relative
had also stated that what had been said in that House
had had the effect of inducing importers to send corn
into this country, which had been sold at a .
loss. He
d had was not aware that anything he bad ever said h
that effect, but if it had done so, all he could say was,
that he was very glad of it,—(Cheers and laughter.)
true to their cause and
His earnest advice to the farmers was to be united, and
fight their own battle—not take the advice of his Noble
Relative, bat to take the advice of those who had re-
mainedand supporters in 1846. W
hy, what earned the repeal
of the corn-laws but an agitation at Manchester? and if
the farmers only remained united, and kept up a con-
stant agitation, they would get protection back again,—
who were their advisers
Steyning, in
(Hear.) He had another petition to present from
party than a practical character. They complained
tree trade were not called upon
that they had been called upon to erect a new gaol,
and to pay a
heavy rate for that purpose. The
been affected by
parties who were said to have
Sussex, which was less of a political or
to pay to that rate, and
as gaols were not exclusively of soy one class they did
-
not understand why the expense should be thrown upon
me
the ruined farrsand , the
wealthy men should be
exempted. They were called upon also by law to build
lunatic asylums in every county. They did not make
lunatics. A great many would be made among the
farmers if they continued free trade, that he could tell
theree—(A laugh.) He certainly did feel very much in.
dined to move a - this petition, for he felt it
resolution on
was a practical grievance and he was glad to hear it
admitted by his Noble Friend opposite, that the law was
in a most unsatisfactory state. After such a statement
he thought that he and his colleagues were called upon,
as advisers to her Majesty, to come forward with an
amendinent. He was had brought the subject
forward that night becgause he had extorted several ad-
missions from the Government, and, as they were not too
strong just now in the other House of Parliament, he
was not without hope that by continuing to press them
he would ultimately succeed.
After a few words from Lord VIVIAN,
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL' in presenting a pe-
tithed to a • •lar effect, said t
bat it was not the farmers
similar
alone who were sufferi; • the shopkeepers of London
were also losing greatly in consequence of thirty toil-
lions less being spent in London than before the repeal
of the corn-laws. Many of them were verging on bank-
ruptcy, and if the system was continued many failures
might be expected.
The matter then dropped.
Orli* motion of Earl GREY, the West ludia Ap-
peals Bill was read a third time-
The Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act
_rend-
ment Bill was read a second time, pro forma.
The Earl of WARWICK presented a petition from
Stratford-on. Avon against Postq)ffice labour on Sunday.
Their Lordships then adjourned

EVENING, MAY
_3l 1850.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 1.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. Iltrrcunts, the new Member for Lyming ten,
took the oaths and his seat.
THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read q. third time:—

Colonization Assurance Company Bill ; Faculty or
Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow Bill; Nottingham
Freem,At's All.tments Bill; Royal Collega of Surgeons.
of Edinburgh Bill; and South-Eastern Railway (Amend-•
meat of Acts, Powers to raise Additional Capital) Bill.