The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY *',VEN.IINr4,...IITE 26, 1844.

he promised the farmers a certain price for eorn.
I 1 believed his Right Hon. Friend made no promise of
the kind, but he said it would be desirable if the price

coull be kept within the limits of 545. and 586. flow
/1.1.(1 the lt,- worlced to realise this price? Vae price
b-tween April, H 42. and Dec smber, 1842 ? Th, aye-
ra.:2;o price was 55,,. which was within the limit.
In 18-13 the average price was but 505., which was bc-
l•ov the lintic, !;at this was a very abundant year. In
1844 the average price was 545. 6d. So that in two out
of three years, the average price had been within the
limit to which his Right Hon. Friend made allusion.
Another objection to the old law was, that it deranged
the currency, for the corn which was imported to supply
the sudden scarcity produced in this country must be
paid in bullion and not in goods. Was that true of the
present corn-law, though large quantities of corn were
imported under it ? In 1842 there was a greater quan-
tity of wheat and wheat flour introduced than in any
former year, and yet no derangement had been produced
in the currency. The Hon. Member for Wolverhamp-
ton himself admitted that night, that they had now a
trade on the Continent in corn, which was carried on
regularly and paid for in goods.—(No, no.) He (Mr.
Gladstone) was referring to the Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Wolverhampton, and the Hon. Member for
Stockport denied the statement for him.—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) He understood the Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Wolverhampton, to make such astatement, but
its correctness depended on higher authority even than
his, for there were introduced under the present law, in
the present year, 160,000 quarters of wheat. That was
a large quantity.—(lronical cheers.) Did Hon. Gentle-
men suppose that the same quantity was to be intro-
duced every year into the country without reference to
the abundance or scarcity of the harvest at home?—
(Hear, hear.) The average price of wheat in the present
year, was 565., and yet, with the price at this amount,
160,000 quarters had been introduced under the present
law. In the five first months in the present year,
although the price had not reached 575., 150,000 quarters
of foreign corn had been imported into this country.—
(Hear, hear.) He asked whether Hon. Gentknen
opposite would make the charge of unsteadiness of price
against the present corn-law which he admitted they
had, with some reason, urged against the former law ?
Neither could the charges of deranging the currency,
which had been brought against the former law, be
reasonably advanced against this. The present
law had been productive of considerable revenue.
In 1842, there was a large revenue derived
from the importation of corn. In that year
a revenue of 1,300,0001. had been derived from the
importation of foreign corn, although the duty did not
exceed 9s. a quarter. In 1834 800,000, or 900,000
quarters of corn had been imported, which paid 14s. duty.
Now it might be said that 14s. was a high rate of duty,
but it should be recollected that under the old corn-law,
when only ss. duty was raised, it was argued that the
very lowness of the duty was a proof of the evil of the
law, for said its opponents foreign corn could not be ad-
mitted at that duty, unless the price of corn in this
country had reached a height that showed its scarcity.
Under the present system abundance of foreign corn
entered the market at a comparative low rate of duty,
before the price reached 60s. a quarter. Those who op-
posed the present protective system were bound to prove
two things before they asked for its abolition—that the
present corn-law was bad, and that it was bad from its
protective tendency. The Hon. Gentleman who made
the motion had not attempted to show that by
the adoption of it those connected with the
soil would not be very materially injured by
the abolition of protection ; he had, indeed, said, he
(Mr. Gladstone) knew not upon what authority, that the
agricultur population formed but a seventh of the whole
people of the kingdom. Surely the Hon. Gentleman
must have overlooked Ireland. If the agricultural popu.
lation, with those immediately dependent on them, such
as tradesmen in the rural districts, were considered, they
would, he thought, amount to nearly one-half of the
whole population of Great Britain and Ireland. The
Hon. Gentleman had assumed that the condition of the
agricultural population was bad, but had not attempted
to prove that it was connected with the corn-laws, or in
any wise attributable to them. Yet, on grounds so
slight, he asked the House to revoke a solemn decision
so deliberately arrived at. He (Mr. Gladstone)
could not doubt for a moment as to the course
which the Government and Parliament would
take ; he could not for a moment doubt that
they would give no encouragement to an agitation which
was productive of mischievous effects, and which was
calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the
stability of the present law—a law which had been
made as an adjustment of conflicting interests, and
which it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to
uphold, unless it could be shown that it had failed in
the purpose for which it had been framed to effectuate.
—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he found himself in a posi-
tion nearly similar to that in which the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite had declared the Government was
placed in a few nights ago—a very unenviable one.
The Honourable Member for Wolverhampton had
asked the House not to go into a Committee
on the corn-laws, but to go into a Com-
mittee for the purpose of voting certain resolutions
which would at once destroy every sort of corn-law; he
asked the House to pledge itself against the application
of all protective duties in all cases whatever. On the
other side the Right Hon. Gentleman asked the House
to vote against the motion on the ground that they
ought to stand by and maintain the present corn-laws.
He was not prepared to vote with his Hon. Friend.
neither was he prepared to support the maintenance of
the present corn-law. The Right Hon. Gentleman
seemed to dispute what his Hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers)
had, he thought, taken too much pains to prove—that
cheapness and plenty were great blessings. They were
taught to pray for them in their prayer books, yet the
Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt the accuracy of
these assertions. The Right Hon. Gentleman went on
to say that the present law should be supported
on principle, and on account of the stability of price
it afforded. Well he thought that both the
Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Government nad, from time to time, and
particularly at the proposal of the new tariff, given
utterance to principles the very reverse of those which
the present corn-law rested upon. And he further
thought the experience of the present corn-law was too
slight to allow the warmest advocates of it to make any
very favourable predictions concerning it. There had
been two harvests since the accession of the present
Ministry—the most favourable harvests—and yet upon
this incomplete experience, the Right Hon. Gentleman
would have the House to assume that the present corn-
law ensured steadiness of price. He thought the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not be prepared to say that the
present law would stand one bad harvest. He would net
discuss the question as to whether the present Ministry
had more wisdom than their predecessors, but they cer-
tainly had better weather.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The Right Hon, Gentleman said, that nothing had been
done in the present year, to break down the protective
system. He said the alteration of the law respecting the
duty on wool was no diminution of protection, because
it was injurious to the wool-grower, as it prevented the
consumption of British wool. He (Lord John Russell)
entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman in his
statement, for he thought the duty on wool was injurious
and mischievous to the wool-growers in this country. He
thought this was the present state of the corn-laws. He
believed that there would be a far greater consumption
of wheat if they had a better corn-law, and therefore he
said that the present corn-law was injurious to the agri-
cultural interest themselves. If there should be a pros-
pect of a bad harvest, but a good harvest should actually
occur, the merchant, under the present law, would be
induced to make a considerable importation upon which
he would inevitably sustain a loss. If, on the contrary.
they should have a bad lar'vest, and that bad harvest
should occur suddenly, then a sudden importation would
take place, and the farmer would be the party to suffer.
The Hon;Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton,
asked the House to go into Committee for the putoose of
voting this resolution. The Hon. Gentleman, in the
latter part of his speech quoted what he considered pre-
cedents for a sudden abolition of duty. He (Lord J. Rus-
sell) must say that he did not think that his Hon. Friend
was able to produce precedents which at all bore him
out in his assertion. The precedents his Hon. Friend
had taken were the abolition of the beer-tax and the
slave-trade. He (Lord John Russell) thought these
were no precedents at all. The first consequence they
might expect from such a sudden change as the lion.
Gentleman proposed would be a great panic among all
persons concerned in agriculture. The landowner and
the farmer would be doubtful how:to employ their capital
with profit. The consequence of that would be diminu-
tion of employment of labour. A sudden change would
induce the merchant to make a much larger importation
than would be consistent with the demand in this coun-
try. Such a change would produce great expectations.
A large importation would immediately take place, and
this would produce not cheapness, but a glut in the
market, thereby creating great distress amongst the
agricultural portion of the community. Such was the
consequences which they had to expect from so sudden
a change to a state of perfect freedom. Let the House
look to the authority of those who had given opinions
upon this subject. Adam Smith and Mr. Ricardo as
writers, and Lord Grenville and Mr. Huskisson as
statesmen, had all expressed opinions upon this sub-
ject. Adam Smith said that a change from prohi-
bition to freedom ought to be made with caution.
Mr. Ricardo, in writing on this subject, said that the
duty ought first to be reduced to 20s . , and then
gradually reduced to 10s. Mr. Ricardo stated that even
a duty of 10s. would be more than reasonable, but at the
same time he considered that it would be better to make
a gradual reduction than to adopt a sudden change.
Then what were the opinions of Lord Grenville. Lord
Grenville speaking of the protective system in 1815, said
that any change in the protective system should be made
with caution, and not suddenly. Mr. Huskisson had also
proceeded upon the same principle. With respect to
cotton and wool, there was no very great danger, because
they were manufactured and sent to a third market,
where they competed with all the markets of the world.
There was no great danger, therefore, in complete free-
dom there. Yet, with respect to cotton, Mr. Huskisson,
reduced the duty from 60 per cent. to 10 per cent., and
he reduced wool to 15 per cent. With regard to other
articles, he did not go quite so far as in the case of silk,
in which the duty was 30 per cent., and in some cases
40 per cent. In all such cases he proposed a gradual
and cautious change, and not a sudden and abrupt one.
lie (Lord J. Russell) found himself unable to take part
in the vote of that night. He heartily wished that som.
compromise could be adopted with respect to this question
He did not expect that any vote of that House, however
majority might be, would put an end to agita-
dhaaaesntinnhrdcyeltauhsl
tion on the subject lie did not think that it was likely
neleytt
therefore,
country,
l nl
yae 0 settlement nwstn
euocrntoefuabdl
favourabledvei
soi
pbnugoert
soacfebaodt
lvhmeoteeout
oirtncaootth,henlrueseemindst
otteisalr
stttohhhafeoectsiileelnaexstieicsrs.riotteuiesnnrc-sr.
imsnandu9dfacitnuoreres
satnndolkicomnmoefrecaer werethat mthaedye
wtooulodurbiesh,ktelgi et
largeletotahrstytwaet:

hgging behind ; the in-pjai interest was sure to derive
aAva;ltag6 from 1:37: in flvour of commerce and

inallatozitrt

-13:-;forr, he

must say,

,Ithea.2,listhe argument O iii.-; Ow,. -Friend was against
;he wholr, protective s, stela of the country, he (Lord
. Rit,seli) lament*, ia,n tla.. tinestion was brought
f:rA ord. that the who?,-; was not stat,red.—
( dear.) He WOUid fairer for the country
to go througll the whok oystem of protection,
as it existed both with regard to corn and agricultu-
ral produce, and the produce of manufactures; to take
every kind of protection as it exis:ed, and show that it
was all unsound and injurious, for the purpose of abro-
gating it altogether.—(Hear, hear.) lie thought that
would be a fairer course in bringing this question for-
ward than continuing to harangue on the question of the
corn-laws, mixed up, as they frequently were, out of that
[loose, with attacks on the landholders of the country.—
(Cheers from the Ministerialists.) Those attacks could
conduce nothing to the settlement of this question.—
(Loud cheers from the Conservative benches.) He be-
lieved that these attacks on the agricultural interest in
general had done much to indispose the landholders—he
believed it had dine much to indispose the farmers to
:Lay settlement of the question.—(Cheers.) He believed
that the lion. President of the Board of Trade had much
foundation for his assertion that the farmers were more
indisposed to any change in the law than the land-
owners.—(Hear, hear.) The landholders were un-
doubtedly much averse to any change, because they be-
lieved, like the merchants and manufacturers of former
times, that the protective sy,tein was the most
beneficial to their own interests. But the faraiers were still
more indisposed to a change than they ware, believing
that the efforts made with so much pas don to procure
that change were made by me% whose zeal blinded them
to the true merits of the case. In the present state of
affairs they could not expect a settlement of the question,
and he regretted that the agitation should be prolonged
from year to year, as the Government was determined
for the present to continue the law. Still lie believed
that a time would come, when those principles which
were held to be sound on every other subject, would
finally be held to be sound with regard to the article of
corn. —(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. MILES said he did commisserate the present con-
dition of the Noble Lord—(Cheers and laughter)—but he
trusted that many gentlemen opposite would follow his ex-
ample, and not vote at all, rather than, while advocating a fixed
duty, countenance the abolition of the whole protective system.
The Noble Lord had expressed a wish that there should be a
compromise on this question; but he called on the Govern-
ment, and on the gentlemen of the landed interest, to submit
to no compromise.—(Loud cheers.) He felt truly happy
at having heard the speech that night delivered
by the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade.—
( Cheers.) A more honest speech in defence of that protection
to agriculture given by the Bill of 1842, he had never heard.—
( Cheers.) It completely bore out what had been elicited from
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, that
he was determined to stand by the arrangement of last year.
—( An Hon. Member—" But this year.") The Hon. Mem-
ber said this year; but he (Mr. Miles) had a confidence- in
words as they were stated.—(Cheers.) He did not agree
with the Hon. Member for Manchester, nor did he believe
the country agreed with him ; but he believed the country did
agree with the determination of the Government, to give a full
trial to their own Bill. As to the Protection Societies that had
been alluded to, it was said that they were losing ground, while
the League was gaining power. But it should be remembered
that the Protective Societies were only defensive, while the
League was an attacking body. The League interfered in
elections, but what had its interference done for it ?—( Loud
cheers.) Look at all the elections of the present year. There
was one Hon. Member, indeed, whom he was glad to see in that
House—the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie); but look
at all the other elections, those for Wiltshire, Salisbury, and
every place they had contested; what had these contests won
for them ? Look at South Lancashire !—( Loud cheers.)
What was the result there? One Hon. Gentleman was sent
to that House, as he said himself, to be the advocate of pro-
tection.—(Cheers.) But he must say that the League al-
ways saw everything in the most favourable light ; wherever
they were totally defeated, they were sure to claim a great
moral victory! —(Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Member
for Stockport had described the voters of the rural districts of
Lancashire as mere bipeds driven to the poll by their landlords.
—( Hear, hear.) But let them look at the votes given at
Manchester and Liverpool, even in these great manufacturing
towns the votes were very equally divided, and he believed
that the wealth and intelligence of these places were in favour
of protection. And what was the result of their vast efforts in
other parts of the kingdom—had they taken anything by it ?
On tke contrary—had they not raised up against themselves a
vast moral force, which they would find a great difficulty in
putting down ?—( Hear, hear.) Had they not arrayed against
them, in self defence, the whole of the farmers of
England?—( Loud cheers.) It should be recollected that
the landlords were the last to move in this question.
They were told that this law was now completely condemned
by public opinion. Though he did not approve of his motion,
he thought the Honourable Member for Knaresborough had
very fairly stated the case regarding the manufacturing popu-
lation. If the question were completely settled in the menu-
facturifig districts, why did they not hold their meetings there,
as they had done in many cases in the agricultural districts?
He believed it was because they dared not.—(Cheers.) It
was suspected in the manufacturing districts that their object
in cheapening bread was to cheapen labour.—( Hear, hear.)
To the agricultural population they declaimed on the advan-
tage of having-=a large loaf at a cheap rate. This was a most
delightful theme, and one exceedingly likely to catch the at-
tention of the audience, for he had no hesitation in saying that in
some parts of the agricultural districts, wages were much too
low.—( Hear, hear.) But, at the same time, having read
their papers and pamphlets, he must say that they entirely
failed to show how this loaf was to be obtained. It had fre-
quently been stated that the present corn-laws inflicted scarcity
on the people, but he thought that point had been satisfactorily
disposed of by his Right Hon. Friend. He maintained that
the people had their bread at a reasonable price, and that there
was no stoppage in the transactions of commerce, whilst he
taw nothing but ruin staring the farmer and labourer in
the face if the corn-laws were repealed. The
honourable Member then referred to a statement of Lord
Ducie to the effect that even with free trade wheat grown on the
Cotswold Hills would yield to the cultivator a profit of twelve
per sent. ; and cited the authority of three farmers in the
neighbourhood, stating that in that case the poorer portion of
the lands would be thrown out of cultivation. He thanked
the House for having heard him so long at that late hour—
(Hear, hear)—and he only asked the House to consider the
position in which the agriculturists were placed. In the agita-
tion of this question tip farmers had nobly done their duty.
—( Cheers and laughter. 1 Throughout the length and breadth
of the land they had declared that they would have no less than
the present protection, and after what had been said by his
Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, he had no
doubt that the protection would not be diminished. If agricul-
ture were allowed to perish, the best interests of the land would
perish with it.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Lord. HO WICK, who rose amidst loud cries of " Adjourn,"
said—that at this late hour, when an adjournment was wished
for by the House, he was reluctant to occupy any time. But
as it was also to be wished that the debate should close to-mor-
row night—(Cries of " Now, now," and " Go on, go on ")
he would take that opportunity of making the few observa-
tions which he had to make upon the question. He agreed
with his Noble Friend ( Lord J. Russell) that the form in
which the subject was now brought forward was inconvenient,
and that it would have been better if his Hon. Friend the
Member for Wolverhampton had moved fur a Committee of the
whole House; he would have more willingly supported it.
With all that inconvenience, he would support the motion.—
( Hear, hear.) The question was now between the existing
law and total repeal.—( Hear, hear.) It was the Government
that had brought the question to this state.—( Hear, hear. )
The House was driven to determine between two extreme pro-
positions, and he for one, would prefer the vote for the total
repeal of the law. They had just been told by a Member for
a large agricultural county, that the wages of the agricultural
labourer were much too low, and it had been shown that in
manufacturing districts the wages were too low. The Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had stated that
wages and profits were so low, that he could not risk a reduction
of the hours of labour.—( Hear.) Having these admissions, that
both agriculture and manufactures were suffering in the same
way, how could there be a more important inquiry, than was
proposed by this motion, into the cause of such a state of
things?—(Hear.) On that ground he was prepared to give
his support to this motion. There was a low and inade-
quate reward of labour, and a low rate of profits, which were
attributable entirely to the corn-laws.—(Cheers.) He would
confine the few observations he had to make to that one point.
The lion. Member for Knaresborough had moved an amend-
ment, that it was a calamity to the poorer classes that their
clothes and other matters should be made with greater rapidity
than formerly. lie wondered that he did not propose to go
back to the aboriginal system. —( Hear, hear.) In manufac-
tures there had been a great increase of productive power, and
so there had been in agriculture, but not to the same extent.
Each individual labourer in agriculture produced more of
human food than the labourer of the last century, and they
produced two or three times as much food as in the time of
Elizabeth the labourers did. Well then,- if labourers were
so successful in producing food and clothing at the present day,
how was it that they had less remuneration than in ancient days?
The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had admitted
the labourers were in a bad condition in the west of England ;
but why was it that the men had bad wages, and their masters
bad profits? Taxation did not affect it, because, during the
last '25 years taxes to a large amount had been taken off, but
the condition of the labourers and capitalists had not been im-
proved by it. If taxes did not afford any explanation what did?
Why, the monopoly of land in England. That he was right
in this view of the subject was proved by the fact, that wher-
ever land was abundant the wages of labour were high.
This was the case in Canada, and in South Australia. The
Canadian labourer, with less facilities for labour, was
paid better than the English labourer, and had better
food and habitations. The reason of this - was, that
there was a large field for employment, whereas the field was
extremely limited in this country. Monopoly and restriction
must diminish wages and reduce profits. This must always be
the effect of a restrictive system. It was a monstrous injustice
to prevent the poor man from making the most of his labour. It
was a peculiar injustice on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite, who, during the late debates on the Factory Bill, had
enlarged so much on the sacred right of every. man to the pro-
duce of his own labour, and that it was an injustice to interfere
by law with his right to dispose of it. Did they not now inter-
fere ?—( Loud cheers.) If the labourer could exchange the
produce of his labour for thirty quarters of foreign corn, and
they prevented him from from doing so, and compelled him to
exchange it for British corn, of which he could only procure
twenty quarters in exchange for the same amount of labour,
were they not robbing him of one-third of the fruits of his
labour.—(Cheers.) He did not assume that those were the
proportions ; but whatever were the proportions, in those
proportions they deprived him of the fruits of his hon-
est industry and gave it to another.—(Cheers.) They
took from that man that to which he was fairly entitled.—
(Loud cheers.) This was not taxation for the benefit of the
state.—( Cheers.) All classes were equally interested in main-
taining the necessary machinery of Government. But this
taxation was not for the purpose of raising money. Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite repudiated the idea of continuing these
laws for the sake of revenue.—( Cheers.) They continued them
for the purpose of protection—for the purpose of agricultural
protection, which was depriving every other class of the com-
munity of the power of exchanging the produce of their labour
with those who would give them the most for it.—( Cheers.)
It was shutting them out from the cheapest market, and com-
pelling the weavers, cutlers, and other labourers of this country
to go to the dearest market for the purchase of their food.—
( Cheers.) That was the real meaning of agricultural protec-
tion.—( Cheers.) It was a gross injustice to the other classes.
—(Cheers.) In all fully peopled countries there was a ten-
dency in profits and wages to fall—that tendency was in some
degree checked by that machinery of which the Member for
Knaresborough entertained so ill an opinion, but if they allowed
food to be freely imported from abroad, although it would not
stop that tendency, yet it would so check it that it would not
be felt as an evil by the great body of the community.—.
(Cheers. ) It was the means which had been appointed by
Providence to make the resources of thinly inhabited countries
available to older peopled countries.—( Cheers.) Was it right
to interfere with that process ? and not for the purposes of
I revenue, but for the benefit of a particular class to

in the way of the importation of
fool ) Was it just--was it wise for their
own to (1.: this?—(Cheers.) He wished he could bring
the subject required, the condition
of ;,il2, i,:ocitte!!, • classes. it was a sacred duty, acknowledged
by lioin sides the House. to do the utmost to improve the
of tit ~erking class: s.—( Cheers.) Their condition
its wret..h, I ; had only to look around them to
sat;siy such raw- the ease. The state of the
capitaiists exhibited a thousand symptoms of the unhappy con-
sequences of this state of things.—(Cheers.) The higher the
profits were the smaller amount of capital was required to en-
able the tradesman to get a living. On the other hand, a low
rate of profit necessarily threw all the trade of the country into
few hands, to the utter ruin of persons of humble means.
This gave rise to thcise overgrown establishments which ruined
the smaller traders, and occasioned that marked division of
society into a few rich and many poor, which the Right Hon.
Baronet had, when he introduced the property-tax, deplored as
cne of the greatest of social evils. Hence originated the diffi-
culties under which the middle, classes were suffering; hence
the over-crowding of professions. The state of the labouring
classes was worse. They had heard of the miserable state of
the labourers in the agricultural districts.—(" No, no,"
from Colonel Sibthorp.) The Gallant Member for Lincoln,
like himself, came from a part of the country which was
c imperatively prosperous, and Lincolnshire was a proof of the
truth of his argument ; for Lincolnshire owed its prosperity to
the fact that, within the last century, a considerable quantity of
additional land had been brought into cultivation. In the north
of England the agricultural labourer was comparatively well
off; hut it must be admitted with regard to the agricultural
labourers in the south of Englanl, that nothing could be more
deplorable than their condition. In Dorsetshire, Suffolk, and
Wiltshire, the greatest distress prevailed. The case of the
sempstresses of London was a symptom of the same evil—of the
pressure of a crowded population upon the means of subsis-
tence, which forced them to offer their labour for the lowest
amount of remuneration. Some persona proposed emigration
as a remedy ; but her Majesty's Government did net concur in
this view. He agreed in the views entertained on this subject
by the lion. Member for Liskeard, but in his opinion that
would not be a care to the present evil. If they did not re-
move the evil, they ought at least to forbear to aggravate the
evils of the poor of this country. That was all the poor asked,
and they had a right to ask it. They wanted a fair day's wages
for a fair day's labour.—( Hear, hear.) It was but an act of
justice to relieve the poor from the pressure of artificial restraints.
All other remedies would prave ineffectual. The poor-laws
were alleged by some to be the cause of the evil. He admitted
that in cases of sickness and injury the poor had a right to be
relieved, but general charity, besides being a degradation,
would only aggravate the present evil. Others said it was
owing to greedy masters who ground down the poor. Now,
he did not believe that the manufacturers or the farmers were
to be blamed for the lowness of wages, but wages were
governed by causes over which neither had any control,
being regulated by the quantity which the supply bore
to the demand for labour.—( Hear, hear.) They had the
power, if they chose to exercise it, of giving the poor relief
by taking off those restrictions which every man knew in his
conscience to be inconsistent with those principles
which Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite maintained, in what
they called the abstract.—( Hear, hear.) He told them to be-
ware how they persevered in such a system. This was a ques-
tion of rents, and nothing elsa.—( Hear, hear.) He wished
well to land and the landed interest, because his interest was
involved with theirs, and he was firmly persuaded, if they looked
well into the matter, they would find it for their own advantage
not to persevere in a course of legislation which was injurious
to all the other classes of the community. The history of re-
striction for the last thirty years furnished abundant instances
of agricultural distress. It was their bounden duty to consider
what was the condition of the humbler classes. This duty they
should not neglect. A malediction had been pronounced by
divine authority against those who withheld from the la-
bourer his hire, and he thought the malediction would equally
apply to those legislators who persevered in maintaining a law,
the evils of which were fully as great as depriving the
labourer of his hire. In that guilt he (Lord Howick) could
not take his share. They should beware how they trifled
with the feelings of the people. All experience proved that
justice had been too long withheld from the people; but justice
would be in the end extorted, and, he feared, something more
than justice. There were symptoms which showed that they
were not far distant from that end. He knew that in the
present constitution of that House, no danger might be anti-
cipated from any sudden political change. But what he appre-
hended was, that a commotion would mime without doors,
having for its object a very different distribution of political
power than that which at present existed. The people were
under the impression that political power was at present ex-
ercised by the few for the benefit of that few, and the oppres-
sion of the many. The people of the country were, he feared,
being impressed with the conviction that, under the present
system they could not obtain justice. There was, he feared, a
bitter dislike of existing institutions becoming prevalent
amongst them, and when once the persuasion that these insti-
tutions were adverse to their welfare got possession of the peo-
ple, that moment the days of the existence of these institutions
were numbered.
Col. SI 3THORP—There was no such dislike.

Lord HOWICK feared the symptoms of it were too manifest.
How else could the universal prevalence of Chartism in the ma-
nufacturing districts be accounted for ? It had been asked why
the League did not hold meetings in the north of England—in
the manufacturing diatricts. The question was thus solved.
It was not because the Chartists were favourable to the existing
corn-laws, but because they expected that by uniting themselves
with the middle classes, they would ultimately overthrow both
the corn-laws and the institutions of this country. It was
what these men termed a knife and fork question—it was a
question of food. They believed the cause of the dearness and
scarcity of food was class-legislation. They must be mistaken
in the remedies which they proposed, but he (Lord H. )firmly be-
lieved that class legislation was the chief cause of their miserable
condition. He would further say that he did believe that God had
so constituted the world that, with fair legislation, honest in-
dustry could not but obtain just remuneration. If they
wished to obliterate those impressions from the minds of the
working classes, they must improve their condition. If they
wished to take away from them the desire far a new distribution
of political power they must give them cheap food.
Reference had already been made in the course of that debate
to the existence of incendiarism. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man the President of the Board of Trade, said he was not pre-
pared to deny that distress was one great cause of the pre-
valence of that crime. He (Lord Howick) was persuaded
that this was the cause. The discontent which prevailed had
arisen from the pressure of distress. Some very interesting
letters had lately appeared in the Times en this subject. The
writer of those letters attributed the distress existing
in Suffolk to a perverson of the new poor-
law, and to the re-establishment of some of those
abuses which existed under the old law. It appeared
that the agricultural labourers were not paid according to the
value of their labour, but according to what the overseer con-
ceived to be their wants. The wages of single men were con-
sequently much reduced. He (Lord Howick) thought this
was a matter which the Poor-law Commissioners ought
to inquire into and check.— ( Hear, hear.) But he
thought the whole matter was to be traced to the existence of
the corn-laws. If the corn-laws were not in existence there
would not be that competition for land which at present ex-
isted, whereby the farmer was prevented from giving his
labourers a fair remuneration for their labour. He (Lord
Howick) believed that the corn-law was an obstacle to agr -
cultural improvement. It was one cause of the indisposition
which existed to take leases. It was a distrust in the stability
of the existing law which prevented improvement. So long
as there was a fear of foreign competition so long
would there be a want of agricultural improvement.
He would ask the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire,
not to show himself ready to undertake a great experiment
for the sake of ameliorating the condition of the working
classes only with respect to those with whom his own interests
were not affected. He asked him not to shrink from the same
experiment with the same noble object, where his own class
and his own party were affected.—( Hear, hear.) If no
other means could prevail, he asked him to join them against
those measures of restriction which no one dared to defend on
principle, which the very President of the Board of Trade
had shrunk from defending on any sound principle of com-
merce; when that Noble Lord saw the unhappy state of the
population in conjunction with these laws, that some-
thing must be wrong, that there must be impedi-
ments in the way of that system which Providence evidently
meant to be the system of the world, by which the abun-
dance of one nation was sought to supply the scarcity of another.
Seeing this, he asked the Noble Lord to join them in refusing
any longer to tolerate protection, while the great body of the
people were oppressed by the excessive competition of the
means of life, that system of laws, the object and effect of
which was acknowledged to be the restriction of the facilities
for introducing into the country the supply of food for the
maintenance of the people.—(Cheers.)
On the motion of Colonel RUSHBROOKE, the debate
was then adjourned.
WELSH TURNPIKES.

Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill to con-
solidate and amend the laws relating to the turnpike trusts in
Wales. The Right Hon. Baronet stated the purpose of his
measure, which is to send down a Commission to inquire into
the value of the trusts, to report upon the same, and, the secu-
rity of the tolls being given, to empower the Exchequer Loan
Commission to advance money to the trusts, the whole of
which are gradually to be placed under the management of
county instead of local boards. The county boards were to ad-
minister the roads throughout each county : the roads were to
be vested in them, and by the Act provision was made gene-
rally for reducing the present amount of tolls. Provision was
also made for the appointment of a superintendent with a resi-
dence in South Wales.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
COUNTY RATES.

Sir J. Y. BULLER obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
amending the law respecting the assessment and levying of
county rates.
SALE OF BUTTER AND CHEESE.

On the motion of Mr. CRIPPS, the House went into Com-
mittee on the Acts relating to the sale of butter and. cheese,
and in Committee.

Mr. CRIPPS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend
those Acts.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

The third reading of this Bill was adjourned to Friday next
FIELD GARDENS.

Mr. COWPER brought in a Bill to enable parishes to
make further provision for the increase of field gardens for the
labouring poor.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past One.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 25.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

Messengers from the Commons brought up the Salmon
Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, and the Brighton and Chiches-
ter Railway Bill.
OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE.

The Earl of RADNOR rose for the purpose of re•
newing the motion which he had made the other even-
ing on the subject of opening letters at the Post-office ;
and he really thought that, consistently with the argu-
ments which he had used the other evening, the Noble
Duke ought to consent to the motion. The principal
argument used against the motion was, that there was
no allegation that the power vested in the Secretary of
State of issuing warrants for opening letters at the Post-
office had been abused. Now their Lordships could not
but be aware, from what had occurred in another place,
that accusations had been made that the power had been
used for purposes for which it was not necessary, and
no attempt had been made to disprove those accusations ;
and he felt that it was necessary that something should
be done to retrieve the character of the country.—(Hear.)
He would not enter into any argument as to the pro-
priety or impropriety of the existence of this power in the
hands of the Secretary of State of stopping letters, al-
though he thought that it ought not to exist, nor as to
the propriety of extending the power of these warrants
to the opening of more than one letter. He thought the
law required that a separate warrant should be
issued for the opening of one letter. He believed that
the law intended to confine that power to matters re-
lating to internal policy only. He did not believe that
that law WaS intended to give the Secretary of State the
power of stopping letters at the Post-office, except in
cases where the personal safety of her Majesty, or the
L well-being of the realm, was at stake.. NOW) no one

who had considered what had occurred in another place,
could entertain a doubt but that certain foreigners had
had their letters opened and examined, out of no con- .
-sideration for the safety of the State of England,
or of her Majesty.—(Hear, hear.) Petitions had
been presented to the other House from divers persons,
complaining that their letters had been opened and read
at the Post-office. One of these was a. foreigner of con-
siderable 4iterary attainments, who was admired and
beloved by all who knew him. It was admitted that a ;
warrant had been issued for opening the letters of one
of these persons. Last night. a petition had been pre-
sented with a similar complaint from another tbreigner—
that person had not bean mixed up in the polities of this
country, bat he had, unfortunately for himself, been
mixed up in the liberal politics of foreign countries. He
had taken range here, and had been well received ; but
whilst here he had been exposed to the having Ins let
tern examined and his secrets made known to those who,
if they could not wreak their vengeance on him, could
at least do so on his friends.—(Hear, hear.) These cir-
cumstances had produced a great feeling in the
public mind of this country, and he (Lord H.) could not
help feeling shame, and disgrace for his country, in
which which such conduct was tolerated.—(hear, hear.)
He could not help thinking that the Noble Duke who
had done more to revive the character of this country
than any one living, who was conspicuous for the gal-
lantry, the straight-forwardness, and the open-hearted-
ness of all his conduct—(Cheers)—would not willingly
consent to make this country the police-office of every
petty state in Europe.—(Cheers.) Ile hoped the Noble
Duke participated in his feeling on this subject, and he
would therefore renew the motion which he made the
other night, that, an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, praying her Majesty to lay before their Lord-
ships copies of all warrants issued by her Majesty's Se-
cretary of State authorising the opening of letters at the
Post-office.

The Duke of WELLINGTON was grateful to the
Noble Lord for the expressions he had used with regard
to himself, and was sensible of the kind feelings of the
Noble Lord towards him personally ; but as their Lord-
ships were aware he had a duty to perform to that
House with regard to motions of this description, and
his duty was to urge their Lordships to resist this mo-
tion as not consistent with the public interests or the
public security. Parliament had thought fit to entrust
the Secretary of State with certain powers to issue war-
rants for the opening of letters addressed to individuals
at the Post-office. Those powers had long existed in
this country, and had been exercised from the days of
Queen Anne. The Post-office laws had been revised in
the last year of his late Majesty and the first year of the
reign of her present Majesty, and an Act confirming
those powers had then passed. The Postmaster-General,
in taking office, made a declaration that he would cause
all letters to be delivered as directed, except when re-
quired by a warrant from the Secretary of State to send
those letters to be examined, in accordance with that
warrant. There could be no doubt but that power had
been confided to the Secretary of State, and he submitted
to their Lordships that tie Secretary of State was bound to
exercise that power whenever his duty rendered it ne-
cessary for him so to do. Under these circumstances,
he was sure their Lordships would well consider before
they would enter into any inquiry upon the exercise of
that power. They ought to have certain proof that this
power had been used for an improper purpose, before
they made any inquiry upon the matter. With regard
to the discussion of that subject in another place, he did
not know that there was any proof whatever that any
letter had been opened, except that a warrant had been
issued for the opening of one letter. He had no know-
ledge whatever on the subject himself, and had no ac-
count whatever to give upon it ; but he would submit to
their Lordships, that unksss they were convinced by the
evidence before them that the power entrusted to the
Secretary of State for the Home Department had been
abused, they ought to resist this motion, and he therefore
could not consent to the motion.

The Earl of TANKERVILLE said he had in his pos-
session documents which proved that the practice of
opening letters at the Post-office was of frequent occur-
rence. He had in his possession warrants which had
been issued for opening the letters of all foreign Minis-
ters of every rank and grade. Those warrants were
issued by the Right Hon. Charles James Fox. The
same kind of warrant was also issued with respect to the
letters of Lord George Gordon. He (the Earl of Tan-
kerville) thought this was a power which ought to be
exercised by the Government.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said their Lord-
ships must have felt interested in the statement which the
Noble Earl had just made. From what his Noble Friend
had stated, it would appear that the affairs of the Post-
office were not regulated as they ought to be, for he had
stated that he had in his possession documents of im-
portance, which ought, properly, to have remained in the
Post-office. It would be remembered that the ease to
which the Noble Earl had referred was one which took
place at a time of war, when it was absolutely necessary
for the Government to make themselves acquainted with the
correspondence of all foreign Ministers. But in the present
case, the individual respecting whose letters the warrants
had been issued was a private individual, and had never
been engaged in any way against the peace of this country.
In the case of Lord George Gordon the exercise of such
a power was necessary, because the times were disturbed,
and the peace of the country was endangered. It was
said this was a matter of confidence in the Goveanment,
but they were also told that the Minister acts on his
own responsibilty. What was this responsibility if, when
a matter of this kind became known, the Minister stood
upon the confidence that must be placed in the Govern-
ment !—(Hear, hear.) If any Cabinet Minister got up
and declared upon his own knowledge and his own cre-
dibility that there was anything dangerous to the Go-
vernment of this country going on he would believe
him.—(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that such a
power ought to be placed in the hands of the Govern-
ment ; but when it was deemed necessary to open a let-
ter it ought to be signified to the person to whom the
letter was addressed, and there was n• reason why a
Government should be ashamed to do this if there was
just grounds for opening the letter.—(Hear, hear.) But
it was contrary to all honour and justice to intercept a
man by having a watch over his correspondence.—
. (Hear, hear.) He hoped his Noble Friend would make
some motion on the subject, either for a Committee of
Inquiry, or for the particular warrant. The people of
this country would have no confidence ir. any Govern-
ment that would resort to the hateful practice of opening
letters which passed through the Post-office.
The Earl of TANKERVILLE explained.
The Earl of lIADDINGTON admitted that there
was nothing which ought to be so sacred as private cor-
respondence passing through the Post-office, and no
Minister could take a more fearful responsibility on
himself than by rashly, or lightly, or without necessity,
touching any letter passing through that department.—
(Hear, hear.) It seemed to be admitted, on all hands,
that this rower was necessary, and, indeed, it must exist
in every country which had a Government at all.
When the Government, the country, or the Crown, was
endangered, such a power was absotutely necessary, and
was admitted by all. But he would go further than
those who seemed to think that anything which occurred
abroad could not be a legitimate object for the exercise
of such a power. Ho could conceive plots and cabals
taking place on the continent of Europe, of which this
country was made the centre of correspondence, the
result of which might be to involve the world in a war,
and this country amongst the rest. He held, therefore,
that it was a power that must be vested in the Secretary
of State. Doubtless, the power was au odious one—
a most unpleasant one for a Secretary of State to hold ;
but, from its very form and nature, it was one, regarding
the execution of which no disclosures could be made.
Their Lordships, in his opinion, could not wisely or
properly-interfere with a confidence which, it should be
recollected, was not a voluntary and a free, but a necessary
confidence. And he ventured to assert that there was no-
thing in the character of the present Government to call
for or to justify any such interference. Of course, it
might occur that a Secretary of State was misinformed
or imposed upon, but whether his Right Hon. Friend
(Sir J. Graham) had been so or not he could not say,
for he knew no more of the matter than the rest of their
Lordships. He trusted the House would not sanction
the motion, but, by negativing it, assert the confidence
which, in all such matters, must necessarily be placed in
the Secretary of State.
Lord CAMPBELL said, if any Member of the
Government had only come forward and asserted, on
his own personal responsibility, that the interference
complained of had been necessitated by circumstances, he
should have been satisfied.—(Hear, hear.) But no one
did this. The Noble Lord who spoke last admitted that
he was totally unacquainted with the circumstances of
thr case, and other Members of the Government de-
clined to give any satisfactory answer to the complaints
that were made. For his (Lord Campbell's) part, be-
tween the breaking open of a letter, and the breaking
open of a desk he could see no difference.
Lord DENMAN—Yes, it is much worse.
__

Lord CAMPBELL—True; it was worse. The breach
of confidence was greater, from the secresy which neces-
sarily encompassed the transaction. Seeing that no
avowal of justifying circumstances was made by the
Government, he thought a prima facie case had been
made out for consideration and inquiry. There were
two foreigners who declared that their letters had been
opened—one no doubt in correspondence with friends in
the Austrian states, the other with the Pope's dominions.
Unless the Ministers declared that they had not acted
for the gratification of foreign governments, he could
not see how their Lordships, with any sense of propriety,
could refuse to inquire into the grievance complained of.
Could any body say that it was for the purpose of avoid-
ing a foreign war, that the opening of these letters had
taken place? The matter ought not to be allowed to
rest. The character of the country had been compro-
mised, and it was indispensable to the honour of the
country that further investigation should be made.
Lord BROUGHAM, in answer to what his Noble
Friend (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had said with re-
spect to the retention of certain documents
of importance by the Postmaster-General, when
he left office, would only say that it was absolutely
necessary that the Postmaster-General, in leaving office,
should retain those documents as they were his ;protec-
tion. The warrant was only in tke proper custody when
it was in the custody of the Postmaster himself. 'With
respect to the motion before their Lordships he (Lord
Brougham) could not see how they could fairly call on a
public officer, merely upon the assertion that a power
had been exercised, to produce certain documents and
papers. Another objection to the motion was, that it
would produce no good result. Tie did not think that
the production of the warrant would throw any light on
the subject.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE explained,.
Lord DENMAN said he did not consider this motion

..s.•
as any impeachment of the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, nor was he aware of any circum-
stances which would load him to say that the Secretary
of State had acted improperly in the exercise of this
most odious and perilous power ' • but he thought that
circumstances had appeared, and were at present the
subject of public discussion, connected with the exerci4e
of that power, which made it ittlerattve. %Toll Parlia-

nient to inquire into the mode in which It was exercised
—(Cheers)—for the purpose of seeing whether or not,
hereafter, there should be proper limits applied. to that
tetwer, whether certain restrictions should not be im-
posed upon the exercise of it, and whether rules should
not be laid down within which alone the power could
ever be usefully, beneficially, or consistently with honour,
exercised at all.—(Hear.) It appeared that a letter had
been opened from an individual who did not appear to
Le involved in any treasonable concerns whatever. He
tlid not mean to deny that the Secretary of' State might
have been bound to open that. letter ; for one of the tin-
fortunate circumstances of the power he posAes.sed vs es
that the Secretary of State was eeropelled, in a measure.
to exercise that power in the dark. Talk et' his respon-
sibility—was he responsible to the House of Commons
No : it was a matter of secresy, which he court not dis-
close. Was he responsible to the House of Lords ?
No : the House of Lords must suppose that the Secre-
t try of State had done what he felt justified in
doing. Was he responsible to the Government ?
No : because the Noble Duke and the other Mem
hers of her Majesty's Government had no know-
ledge of the circumstances.—(Dear, and a laugh.) But
the question was, whether, upon the words of the Act
of Parliament, it was intended that thisi power should be
exercised to such an extent ? The statute of Anne de-
clared that the Post-office authorities should be subject
to certain penalties for the delay of any letter, except the
delay was made under the warrant of the Secretary of
State.—(Hear.) That was the extent to which the
statute went.—(Hear.) Then, as to the warrant, he
should think that the warrant would flow not from the
Secretary of State alone, but from all the Ministers, act-
ing upon the necessity of the case, which might be so
overpowering as to form •an excuse for the exercise of
such extraordinary power. But that power appeared to
(NIA without the slightest responsibility, and in such a
manner, that he did not think the English Parliament
or the English people would any longer endure.—
(Cheers.) He did not consider this a question of expe-
diency or inexpediency, but a question of right and
wron.—(Hear, hear.) He should no more belies a it
necessary to show that it was wrong for this power to
exist in the person of one individual than he should
think it necessary to contend that it was wrong to pick a
pocket.--(Hear.) It might indeed be necessary, under
some extreme circumstances, that measures of personal
restriction, or affecting a man's property, should be re-
sorted to ; but that there should be this kind of irrespon-
sibility in the exercise of the power he never could agree.
As to Mr. Fox, he issued such a warrant, no doubt ; for,
coming into office at the period which he did, at a time
of the utmost disturbance, when all Europe was leagued
against England, and England was by no means at
peace with herself, it would have been a most unwise
abandonment of the power he possessed if he had not
issued his warrant to the Postmaster-General at that
time. But it must have cost him dear. What must be
the feelings of such a man as Secretary of State, upon
opening a private letter, and becoming acquainted with
circumstances of which he would wis to be ignorant,
and afterwards meeting the individual in private life
with the consciousness that he was in possession of
secrets which that individual would not wish any third
person to know.—(Hear.) He thought Mr. Fox must
have said to himself, under such circumstances,—
" Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
" Moliri, et late fines custode tueri I"—(Cheers.)
It was said by his Noble and Learned Friend, and said
truly, that some political rival, or political enemy, might
succeed him in office, and then he might lee improperly
called on to answer for that which was no crime, and
therefore, he must keep the warrant, which was his jus-
tification ; but, suppose, with the experience he pos-
sessed, lie had been rash enough to transmit that docu-
ment to his solicitors, his successor in office would have
deprived him at once of his defence, and he might then
have been punished for the act. Fortunately, there
%%as an inconsistency in human nature, which prevented
people who did possess and exercise hateful powers,
acting consistently with themselves upon other occa-
sions ;_ and a high and dignified character would keep a
man from abusing a power to the extent to which it
was now supposed to have been abused.—(Hear, hear.)
But undoubtedly it never could be exercised without
great pain to any honourable mind called upon
to exercise it.—(Hear, hear.) But, then, beyond the
possession of it, the acting upon it, and the using
cif it, there were circumstances of concealment, and
something very like forgery.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") T hose things ha a tendency to demoralise the
public mind.—(Hear.) It was well known that many of
the subordinate officers and servants of the Post-office
unfortunately were too much in the habit of overlooking
the obligations which honesty ought to impose upon
them ; and he could not think that the knowledge that
the great heads of that department, and persons of su-
perior positions, used such a power, would be any check
upon the improper and dishonest desires of such per-
sons when letters were entrusted to their care.—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him to be too much, that when the
Government of this country imposed upon all its natives,
as well as upon those of all parts of the world, the ne-
cessity of paying them a large revenue for doing the
duty of letter-carriers, that they should at the same time
retain in their hands the power of opening all the letters
they were entrusted to convey.—(Hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON—RepeaI the Act.
Lord DENMAN thought it might be a very impor-
tant question whether or not the Act should be repealed ;
or, at least, whether restrictions might not be imposed
which should leave a certain degree of power, much
more definable and responsible than that existing at
present—a power subject to the revision of Parliament.
—(Hear, hear.) He apologised to their Lordships for
detaining them with these observations ; but this sub-
ject not having occupied his mind until these transac-
tions were recently brought under public notice, he had
considered it, and thought it necessary to declare his
conviction that there ought to be some restrictions put
upon the exercise of this power.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DEVON said that from the speech of the
Noble Lord it would appear that he advocated the repeal
of the existing Act. He did not see what could be
gained even if the warrant were obtained, for it would
give no information except that it was issued, and that
was admitted. If the motion before the House 'were
granted, it would justify similar motions in every other
case. He did not think there were sufficient grounds for
the motion of the Noble Earl.
Lord RADNOR, in reply, said, that after what he
had heard from both sides of the House he should sot
press his motion to a division ; but withdraw it, mean-
ing upon sonic future occasion to bring it forward in
another shape.—(Hear, hear.) In what form he should
again introduce this subject to their Lordships' atten-
tion he should take a little time to consider.—(Hear,
hear.) He could understand why the Noble Duke
could not state whether or no this transaction was the
consequence of some intimation from a foreign power,
because lie afterwards said he knew nothing at all about
it.—(A laugh.) He apprehended that a Secretary of
State wotfld not go to his colleagues to ask them if he
should issue a warrant or not. But after this matter had
been discussed so much, after it had been brought for-
ward in the House of Commons, and mentioned by hint
its their Lordships' House, and again debated in the House
of Commons on the previous night, and after the great
sensation it had created in the country, it was not a little
singular that all the Cabinet Ministers except the
Secretary of State, who issued the warrant,
should know nothing about it.—(Hear, hear.)
If any one of those Noble Lords opposite had got
up and stated that they knew that there were sufficient
grounds for issuing the warrant, he should have been
ready to believe him ; but none of them had ventured to
say that.--(Hear, hear.) But the ignorance of the
Noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty was made
rather more onerous than if he had known anything
about the matter, by the attempting to justify the con-
duct of the Home Secretary by supposing the existence
of some political intrigue between the British Govern-
ment and a Foreign Power, and affirming that a Secre-
tary of State might open a letter which might lead to
the opening of a war in that Foreign State, which war
might possibly lead to the opening of a general war.
That was rather a far-fetched justification.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He did not admit that the opening
of a letter was a slight injury.—(Hear.) One letter was
spoken of ; but a great many letters had been opened,
and the practice had been going on for a length of time,
which would be proved before a Committee of Inquiry.
(Hear.) The letter of a gentleman might be pried
into for the gratification of some enemy, or, as it was
surmised, to pander to the purposes of some Foreign
Power. Thus individuals were injured, and the character
of this country degraded.—(Hear.) This was a subject
upon which the country felt keenly, and demanded in-
quiry and a proper understanding.—(Hear.)
The Earl of HADDINGTON explained.
The motion was then, by consent, withdrawn.
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE laid on the table 9 re-
port from the Commission of National Education in
Ireland.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE moved the second
reading of this Bill, and explained the object of it,
but in su low a tone of voice that he was nearly inaudi-
ble in the gallery. The trusts were to be under the
direction of a board, consisting of the Lord Chancellor,
the Master of the Rolls, and ten others, to be appointed
by her Majesty's Government, who were to be such as
would possess the confidence of her Majesty's Roman
Catholics in Ireland.
The Earl of WICKLOW expressed his concurrence
in the Bill. He was the more gratified with it because
it showed that the subject of an endowment for the
Roman Catholic clergy was under the consideration of
the Government. He was afraid, however, that the
present Bill would render that most wise and salutary
measure most difficult.
The Bishop of EXETER supported the measure be•
cause he thought it was but au act of justice to the
Roman Catholics to place them on the same footing as
the other Dissenters of the country. With regard to the
endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, that was a
measure which would receive all the opposition in his
power, from whatever source it proceeded, because it
would be inconsistent with the support which was given
to the Established Church. He thought the grant to
Maynooth ought to be a warning to them not to endow
the Catholic Church.

Lord MONTEAGLE expressed his concurrence in the
Bill, but if they wanted to elevate the character of the
priesthood of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they must
increase the grant to Maynooth, and not rest satisfied
with allowing them the miserable pittance they now re-
ceived,
The Earl of HADDINGTON could not conceive how
the operation of this Bill could have any reference to the
endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. Her Ma-
jesty's Government believed the measure would be as.
tisfactory to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and as
such the Government had great pleasure in bringing it
forward.
Lord HATHERTON said that he was sure this we.
sure would be hailed as a boon by the Roman Catholic
otergy of Ireland. He concurred with his Noble Friend
near him in the sentiments he expressed with regard to
Maynooth. The grant they made to Maynooth was