The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-09 00:00:00

the measure of his Hon. Friend was carried through the House.
The Right Hon. Gentleman also showed symptoms of the
most decided distress.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) lie made
use of most extraordinary arguments. He did not know
whether they were official arguments taken from that pigeon-
hole in the Board of Trade to which the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton alluded, but they were arguments which
would not answer in the present state of society. If some
persons felt apprehensive as to the effect of this measure upon
the agriculturists, that was not to affect the Legislature.
They in that House were wit to submit their legislation to
the ignorant apprehensions of these persons.—(Hear, hear. )
He heard the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir Robert
Peel) say, that if he were satisfied in his own mind of a
measure being good, and for the benefit of the country, he
would not be deterred by unfounded apprehensions from
take the consequences, and passing the measure, and that was
the right course.—(Hear, hear.) One of the symptoms of
distress to which he alluded in the speech of the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir G. Clerk): was when he said that this motion
was not large enough—(Laughter)—that there was no general
principle involved, and that was the reason the measure ought
not to be adopted.—( Laughter.) That certainly was hardly
a fair objection against a motion which was supported by those
who were in favour of letting in corn from all their colonies,
and even from foreign parts. He admitted there was some force
in the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, that if this motion were passed they
were giving a partnership in monopoly to the colonies, which
would render the application of the principle of free-trade more
difficult. But he thought that the advantages of the measure
would counterbalance such a result. He thought it would be a
step towards the accomplishment of that which they had in
view—a more unrestricted corn trade. It was most unjust to-
wards the inhabitants of Australia that they should exclude
their produce from the best—he might say—the only market
they had. Besides, if they did not allow the inhabitants of
Australia to sell what they produced, how could they expect
to have it in their ewer to buy what was produced in this
country.? What, then, became of the argument that the
colonies would be their best customers ?—( Hear, hear.) He
would call upon the House not to persevere in such a course of
injustice.—( Hear.)
Mr. DARBY said that the Honourable Gentleman who had
just sat down misrepresented what the Hon. Gentleman
(the Vice-President of the Board of Trade) had stated. The
Canada Corn Bill was brought forward on specific grounds,
and when that measure was brought forward it was stated that
the other colonies were not to expect that their corn should be
imported on the same conditions that Canada corn was im-
ported, because the cases were different. If, as was stated,
only 20,000 quarters could be imported from Australia, then,
he thought, this was a much-a-do-about-nothing affair. He
hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment would not assent to the present proposition. If they
tampered in this way with the capital employed in agriculture,
persons would not invest any more capital in it, and, if that
took place, the public would be the sufferers. Great improve-
ments had lately taken place in agriculture, but by tampering
with the corn-laws they induced persons to withdraw capital
from agriculture. He believed they would have a worse and
more irregular supply than if they permitted those laws to re-
main. Comparing the price of iron and the produce of the
various trades in the country with the price of corn, he did not
see what right the Hon. Gentleman had to bring forward a
motion tending to shake the confidence of the agri-
culturists.—( Ironical cheers.) It was easy enough to
cry " Hear, hear," when the interests of agricul-
ture were brought forward; but whenever the subject
was corks, or shoes, or straw-plait, then Honourable
Gentlemen opposite gst up and alleged some specific grounds
in favour of those articles. He recollected that the Honourable
Member for Finsbury, who had such a universal idea of the
people at large—(loud laughter)—gave the most strenuous op-
position when the House was discussing the reduction on shoes.
Honourable Gentlemen were ready enough to claim exemption
when articles in which they were interested were under dis-
cussion, but when the subject of the agricultural interest
was brought forward, they never showed any specific claims.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. BARING must take an objection to one point of
the Hon. Gentleman's speech, namely, what he had said in
reference to those who had created the panic en the introduc-
tion of the Canada Corn Bill; for he thought the Hon. Gen-
tleman himself had made so good an alarmist speech—had
rung the tocsin as effectually to the agriculturists on this occa-
sion, as Hon. Gentleman on his side of the House could have
possibly done.—( Hear, hear. ) He considered it a question of
justice to one of their colonies—(Hear)—for they were bound
to deal with them on a principle of equality. He (Mr.
Baring) had voted against the Canada Corn Bill, but having
once admitted the principle, they could not refuse to act upon
it in all their colonies.—(Hear, hear.) It was said
by Honourable Gentlemen opposite that the present
motion was not sufficiently comprehensive—that was
rather a strange sort of argument, coming from the quarter it
did. The answer to it was this : Australia sought for this
concession ; she was entitled to it, because she was in the same
condition with respect to England that Canada was. Again,
it was said to be a very small boon. Yes, but Australia did
not think it too small to receive. Australia asked the favour
most respectfully and most earnestly, and he could not see
upon what principle Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were
generally so anxious to protect their own colonies, even at the
expense of the British public, could oppose the present motion.
The argument, as to the smallness of the benefit which would
be conferred on the people of this country, must have been
imported from the north—one of the new arguments drawn
from the late Treasury edition of them. —( A laugh.) But it
was said by the Hon. Member for Sussex, and indeed by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of
Trade, that this was a settled question, for that, at the time
the Canada Corn Bill was passed, special care was
taken by the Government to declare that Canada
alone should receive this privilege. This, truly, must be satis-
factory to the people of Australia. It was saying to them,
We cannot deny the justice of your claim, but the injustice
will not be for a year or two, but perpetual, because we have
said that Canada alone should be equitably dealt with.—
(Cheers.) It was also said that it would be inconvenient to
pass the measure, and that it would unsettle and disturb the
public mind. Why, the same argument might have been re-
sorted to on the Canada Corn Bill. It certainly was quite
true that it was sometimes found convenient to do justice to a
powerful and important colony, and inconvenient to act in the
same way to a weak and unimportant one.—(Hear, hear.)
But justice was justice for all that, and the wrong they did was
not the less because they inflicted it where it would be pa-
tiently borne.—( Hear, hear.) He thought, sooner or later,
justice would be done, and was glad to see two or three Hon.
Gentlemen on the other side of the House give expression to
opinions highly favourable to a ju,t and equitable settlement of
this question. It was also argued that a promise had
been made to the agriculturists that to Canada alone
the favour should be extended. But who made that
promise ?—( Hear, hear.) An objection had been raised,
and with great force, against the Canada Corn Bill, that it
would induce smuggling, and that foreign corn—American
corn—would be surreptitiously introduced. This argument did
not at all apply to Australia—(Hear, hear)—there they were
sure that they would have fair dealing, and nothing else. But
Canada had other arguments in favour, which Australia had
not ; they were urged with great force by the Members of the
Government at the time. Canada was the neighbour of a
great and restless power.—( Hear, hear.) Canada had been
put in a state of rebellion against teis country—it was a power-
ful colony, and would not, as the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite then said, be trifled with. Well, he (Mr. Baring)
did not deprecate this sort of argument, but did it follow that
a loyal, true, and peaceable people, should be treated unjustly
and be deprived of privileges because they were not sufficiently
strong and turbulent to extort them?—(Cheers.)
Mr. STUART WORTLEY agreed with many of the
arguments that had been used by the lion. Gentleman who
made this moi ion, and thought it would hive been better for
the people of this country if the corn-laws had never existed.
—( Hear, hear.) He would be the last to oppose a measure of
justice to Australia, but he thought the circumstances of
Canada and Australia were widely different. He knew this fact,
that it was only two years since the experiment of introducing
Chilian wheat was made, but this was under the foreign duty.
There was only the further carriage from Cape Hem n, and he
did not think that this would materially injure the
agricultural interest ; and he did not think, therefore, that
there should be any exception taken to the introduction of
such corn into this country. This trade could not exist to any
great extent. But, supposing this benefit was to be extended
to any material extent, what would the Canadians say to us?
They would say that We had given them what we conceived to
be a benefit, and the House had deprived them of all,advantage.
For his part, whether with respect to the importance of this
question, or to the interests of the agricultural interests in this
country, there could be no objection to admit Australian corn.
The Australian subjects had at least been peaceable subjects,
and he did not see why they should not enjoy the same advan-
tage as that possessed by the Canadians. He thought that
this argument went to the whole case, and though the Austra-
lian colonists were not precisely in the same position, yet on
account of the superior benefits which they possessed in some
respects, he should feel compelled to vote against the motion.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the Hon. Member who had just
sat down had concluded his speech by saying that, however re-
luctantly, he was compelled, from his view of the question, to
vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Gate-head
(Mr. Hutt). Whenever that Hon. Member rose, he (Mr.
Bright) was always at a loss to understand from his speeches
on which side he thought upon the question before the House.
There was an amiable partiality to both sides in the whole of
that Hon. Gentleman's speeches, but there never was any dif-
ficulty in ascertaining en which side he intended to vote. He
was afraid, in this speech of his upon the corn-laws, that there
would be but small consolation for the Hon. Member for
Northamptonshire and the great party of the agricultural interest
which he represented. The Hon. Member invariably expressed
his great regard for infant colonies, and yet he showed the ex-
tent of that interest, by wishing to interfere with their trade
in corn, and yet the corn.laws exist for all. In the speech of
his lion. Friend the Member for Manchester, a very apt dis-
tinction had been drawn with respect to the peculiar principles
advanced by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. In
that speech the text had been supplied, and the Hon. Member
for Sussex (Mr. Darby) had taken upon himself the duty of
commenting upon that text ; and all he could say of that
speech was, that the commentator was worthy of the
text. They who were cotton spinners, and many
who were interested in the iron trade, it had been
said in the speech of the Vice- President, to whom he
had alluded, were only anxious -to reduce the price of wheat
when the price of their materials was high. Now, it was not
a question of price at all wi'h him, or the friends with whom
he acted. And they were not more anxious to reduce the
price of cotton and of iron, when the price of wheat was low,
than when it was high. All they asked on the part of the
Anti-Corn-law League, and of the country was, that they
might obtain a return for the exertions of their honest industry,
The Hon. Member for Sussex had been most anxious to pre-
serve the interests of the agricultural class in that county,
but he (Mr. Bright) thought it was highly unjust
that the interests of any one class of men should be upheld
at the expense of the whole body of the people. It had been
the custom in that House, in the speeches made by Gentlemen
opposite, on the proposition of any one of these changes, to in-
variably bring forward the dangerous effect on the agricultural
mind. Now, it appeared to him that this agricultural mind was
a very obscure and intangible sort of an affair. He remarked
that some few years since the agricultural mind had been very
greatly distressed on the introduction of a certain substance from
India called cutch, for the purpose of dyeing. The agricultural
mind had been dreadfully frightened that its rights should be
interfered with in the sale of its bark, although the fact was
that the high price of bark had been in no way reduced. A
pretty broad hint had been given to those connected with
Indian affairs, that if they interfered wi'h the
sale of bark a `pretty sharp look-out would be
kept on their proceedings whenever the charter of the East
India Company
ratere-
membered
a taitil,a,act should come to be re-considered. He
.1112 the inhttrhoadtticthti.eonagorf
jewuoltoulraalt
ma reducedin
grievous loss, and when had'd
been dreadfully distressed
year the
apprehensionsiti o
abolition
o f
the. d u
duty
upon that article was pro
anticipated little less than ruin, that the agricultural mind had
these apprehensions, and these fears, yet rbirevitelidstatnhdingall
of wool had not been affected to any sensible extent et
pricetlie
British farmer. At the latter end of 1842, great alarm had
been excited by the alteration in the tariff, through which
cattle was to be introduced to this country from abroad. Cattle
had been introduced to some extent, to the very great alarm of
the agricultural mind ; and yet he believed that, notwith-
standing this affection of the agricultural mind, the
farmers of this country realised a fair price for several months
past. When the introduction of Canadian wheat was talked of,
a great panic had been excited among the agriculturists of this
country, arid yet the return showed that there had been no greater

and prudence, and to sow discontent and disaffection for the
future ? He wished that they should admit corn on the same
grounds from Australasia as from Canada. The Hon. Gentle-
man then read extracts from the dispatches of the Governor
of Van Diemen's Land to show the beneficial results which
would accrue to the inhabitants of Australia. That gentleman
had formerly been a Member of that House for Warwick, his
large property connected him with the great agricultural inte-
rest of that county, and if he were at all interested, it would be
on the opposite side. He was delighted at having the oppor-
tunity of holding up some proof of the disinterestedness of that
excellent Governor. He objected to the duty now charged
upon colonial produce, because it was stated some years ago by
the Right Hon. Baronet to be the maximum. The Right
Hen. Gentleman he believed had not disapproved of his opi-
nions on this subject. He knew very well that his real oppo-
nents were gentlemen who sat below the gangway on the other
side. He would undertake to prove that the Hon. Member
for Northumberland never adopted his own views on
agricultural protection. He also objected to this discrimi-
nating duty, because it intimated to the people of Australia and
to the world that the former were less deserving of the favour
of the Government than ,their brother colonists. He would
contend for it, that if the agricultural produce of that. colony
were permitted to come into England, it would give an impetus
to British manufacture, and increase employment; and thus the
idle labouring population would not be thrown back upon the
country for parochial relief. He declared when he looked at
the returns as to the state of the population in these realms,
and the obstruction that was offered to every description of
improvement in Ireland, all this affected him to a degree that
he could not express.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask, why not
give to Australia the same advantage that was given to the
United States? There could be no disguising the fact that
this state of things had induced smuggling to a great extent
along the coast ; and would this country, then, persevere
in holding a state of law that would encourage such
a practice? Would this country continue laws that
would encourage the produce of America, and de-
preciate that of Australia? Surely not. This, then, was
his case ; and all he asked for was, the same protection to corn
brought from Australia, as that given to the corn brought from
Canada. He asked it not only as an act of justice, but as an
act of prudence and good government.— ( Hear, hear.) One
word more, and he had done. He heard the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, upon the in-
troduction of an important measure lately, speak of a small but
dark cloud that appeared in the western horizon. He did not
mean to say that the Right Hots. Baronet was then actuated
by any feeling of fear ; but, again, he would say that this Go-
vernment ought to give the people of Australia equal rights and
privileges with all her Majesty's subjects.
Sir W. JAMES said he would occupy the attention of the
House but for a few minutes. He supported this measure not
only in compliance with the wishes of his constituents, but also
because he conceived it was one which was in accordance with
the general policy of her Majesty's present Government.—
(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend who had proposed the mea-
sure might have gone into the question of the corn-laws and
the colonial government, but he ( Sir W. James) conceived he
had acted more wisely and prudently by not doing so.
Sir G. CLERK said he felt that he laboured wader great
disadvantages in attempting to reply to the eloquent speech of
his Learned Friend opposite ; but he could not permit the
measure he had proposed to go to a vote without stating why
it was that he (Sir G. Clerk) intended to negative it. He
conceived he (Mr. H.) had greatly exaggerated the benefits
which he said would follow from the adoption of the measure.
He ( Sir G. Clerk) did not think that any of these advantages
would follow it. The great trade upon which Australia de-
pended was its wool trade. As for its trade in corn, it would
be impossible that it could have the accounts of the state of the
agriculture of this country, in any one year, in sufficient time
to be of any benefit to it in its trade in corn.
He knew perfectly well that he would be asked this question—
.' Why, then, if you suppose that no great quantity of wheat is
likely to be brought from these colonies, do you offer any ob-
jection to this motion ?" Now, although the Hon. Gentleman
had attempted to throw some ridicule on the settlement of the
corn-laws which took place in 1812, he (Sir G. Clerk) still
remained of opinion that it was very unwise constantly to be
tampering with the laws relating to that article, in the produc-
tion of which so great a portion of the capital of this country
waa invasted. He would call to the recollection of the House
the statement which was made by his Noble Friend the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, when ha submitted the Canada Corn Bill
to the consideration of Parliament in 1843. He stated then
distinctly that the measure had been brought forward in con-
sequence of declarations which had been made—which, al-
though not binding on the Legislature, had been acted upon by
the Colonial Legislature. If the Hon. Gentleman would look
to the returns which had been laid on the table of the House of
the quantity of wheat flour which had been brought from Ca-
nada in the last year into this country, he would find that the
amount was very small. The Hon. Gentleman must re-
member that if the existing Canada Corn Bill
was an anomaly, the present motion would only
introduce a fresh anomaly into the leg:slation of
this country. He ( Sir G. Clerk) had stated that the South
Australian colonies would derive no advantage from the mo-
tion if it were carried, as those colonies did not at the present
moment raise sufficient corn to support the people of that
country. It appeared that during the last three years 48,000
quarters of wheat had been imported into the South Austra-
lian colonies from Valparaiso, and a considerable quantity from
Calcutta. Now, it was perfectly clear that if this motion were
adopted it would cause an outlet for the corn of South Ame-
rica, through which it would come to this country. Under
these circumstances, looking to the small amount of corn raised
in the south Australian colonies, even including Van Diemen's
Land, he did not think that the Hon. Gentleman had made
out such a case as ought to induce the House to tamper with
and alter the existing corn law of this country. As far as
price w 3.3 considered he apprehended that the very small quan-
tity of corn that came from South Australia would not effect
the price of corn in this country. But they knew perfectly
well from experience what panics had been created in this
country by the alterations which have already been
made by the Government, not only as regarded the
trade in corn, but as regarded also the trade in many
other articles the produce of this country. He knew
perfectly well that if they were to make the proposed
alteration a great deal of alarm would be created.
amongst the agriculturists of this country. It would do much
more harm to this country than any benefit it might confer on
the Smelt Australian colonies. He knew that to tamper with
the corn-laws at the present moment would so far shake the
confidence of the farmers of this country, as to be productive of
much greater injury, not only to them, but to the community
at large, than any benefit which the Hon. Gentleman expected
would be conferred upon the colonies. For these reasons he
should oppose the motion.
Mr. LABOUCFIERE would occupy a very small portion of
the time of the House in stating the reasons which induced him
to support the motion which his Hon. Friend had brought for-
ward with so much ability and judgment. He had opposed the
measure of her Majesty's Government with regard to the im •
portation of Canadian corn, and subsequent reflection had not
induced him to regret the part he had taken with respect to
that measure. He thought then, and he thought now, that it
was not desirable in a greater degree than already existed to
raise up a protected interest with regard to corn in the British
colonies. He had objected to the measure because he thought
that a protected interest would form an obstacle to the altera-
tions in the general corn-law of England, which he thought
ought to be made, and which he believed would be made. This
was one of the reasons which had induced him to object to the
Canada Corn Bill. He stated at that time what he felt now,
that it was impossible to keep together a vast colonial empire
except on the principles of equal treatment and justice. He
felt if such a Bill as the Canada Bill were to be passed, that it
would only be justice if they should require it to extend such a
measure to the other colonies. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had argued this question in a very singular manner. First of
all, he dealt -with the justice of the case, and the
necessity of dealing, in an equal manner, with
the various British colonies. He said that it would
be quite impossible, if the motion were agreed to,
that any core would be sent to this country from Australia.
That, to a certain degree, met the question of justice. He was
then obliged to find some reason for refusing this boon, which
• was so trifling. He said that, trifling as it was, it would alarm
the great agricultural interest in this country. Now he (Mr.
Labouchere) thought a worse compliment never could be paid
by a Minister than this. In the first place, he said that no scan
of common sense and intelligence could look into this subject
and have the smallest apprehension that any quantity of corn
would be sent to this country ; and then he said that, notwith-
standing this, the agricultural portion of the community would
take ()Teat alarm at a measure like this. The agriculturists
had been alarmed at the Canada Corn Bill, believing it to be a
means of introducing American corn to this country ; but he
(Mr. Labouchere) could not conceive the most timid agricul-
turist in England fearing that corn would come over half the
• surface of the earth to this country. He (Mr. Labouchere)
concurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman that it was not wise
to be always tampering Kith commercial laws of this descrip-
tion. Changes produced a want of confidence ; but still he
thought no one engaged in the corn trade, and still less
those who were engaged in the cultivation of corn, could believe
that this measure would produce any sensible change in their
interest. One great objection which he had to the present corn-
law was that it could neverlast. It was utterly impossible that it
could last. The reasons upon which he supported this motion
• were of the simplest kind. He did not profess to believe that
soy advantage would accrue to the colonies in consequence of
' it. But on the other hand it must be remembered that that
• • Mich was trifling to grant might yet be much to refuse.
Vihen the British colonies came forward and asked to be put
on the same footing with regard to these duties as Canada, he
thought that if they were not able to give a better answer to
them than the answer which had been given by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the request ought to be granted. With
these views he should certainly give his support to the motion
" of his Hon. Friend.

Captain ROUS thought that the present measure was quite
consistent vt-,th the Canada Corn-bill, and he could not un-
derstand how those gentlemen on his side of the House who
supported the one, could oppose the present motion.—( Hear,
hear.) If there was a distinction to be made at all, he was
of opinion that it should be made in favour of Australia; for
the population of Australia was British, without any foreign
admixture; and they had a most affectionate regard for the
mother-country. Besides no smuggling could take place from
Australia. But the reverse of this was the case with Canada ;
there the population was composed of indians, Americans, and
French, as well as English. There were rebellions there
which had cost this country large sums to suppress. They
cared little whether they would be under the American stripes
or the Union Jack ; and there were the greatest facilities for
smuggling Irons America. He could not understand, there-
fore, why there should be any preference shown in
favour of Canada. Ile hoped the House would not act so un-
justly towards the people of Australia and wait till a spirit of
discontent arose amongst them.—( Hear, hear.) He would
read an extract of a letter which he had received from a mer-
chant in the city who traded exclusively with Australia. The
Hon. and Gallant Gentleman then read the extract to the
effect, that this country need not fear any great competition
from Australia, fur that it could not send to this country more
than 20,0`0 quarters of wheat for several year:, and the price,
though only as. 3d. there, would be vastly increased from the
great freight which would be charged. He was of opinion
that the worst policy they could pursue was not to admit corn
free of all duty.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the mother
country, and the colonies, he thought they ought to be con-
sidered as one large country, and that equal justice should be
done to all.—( Hear, hear.) He wag sure it was the most
unwise policy to show a preference for one colony more than
another, and he was persuaded that if they made the American
colonies an integral portion of the kingdom they would still
remain British colonies instead of the United States of Arne_
rica•
All he should say in conclusion was this, that if they
acted so unjustly towards Australia they would break a link in
the chain which bound that eolony to the mother country.
Mr. M. GIBSOi said, that the Hon. and Gallant Gen-
tleman who had just sat down propounded sound views re-
specting the motion which had been submitted to them ; and
knowing how much the llonouralerand Gallant Gentleman
the agriculb
turists of s ufrolk, and how
was looked up to by
much weight they gave to his o inion, he trusted that P
• his views would tend to remove the alarm entertained by the
Hear, h)
agriculturists respecting his motion.—( ear. He was
afraid the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Vice-rhe resmidoetniotnofathde
Board of Trade) was premature in opposing
e and
he hoped, notwithstanding his opposition. after the speeches
they had heard from the other side, the First 111inUter of the
Crown would give his assent to the proposition of his Hon.
Friend.—( Hear, hear.) Nor would that be an unusual course,
for wheqhis•Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth brought
Aeorartri terkin motion, the Right Hon. Gentleman (the
Vie4gProent of the 4aard of Trade) was too precipitate in
giving, a negative;
.f6iitilt. negative was afterwards re-
gcirtded by the Right 'Nan, -Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), and

t_~.

-

~.~

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MA Y 9, 1845.

import of Canadian wheat during the last year than during some
years previous. Some persons who objected to the introduction of
American wool had exhibited an obstinate rejection of the prin.
ciple of friendly interchange between country and countryt
under the supposition that all that which did not tend to a presen
and immediate advantage was an injury to our national inte-
rests. He wished the Government to take some means of

cessions which bad been made to her, and probably induce
other colonies to follow her example of demanding instead of
entreating concessions from the English Government.
Mr. NE WDEG ATE added his testimony to the truth of the
statement of the Hun. Member for Sheffield, that the cern
trade of Canada had been extended since the passing of the
Canada Corn Bill, and told the Government that if they intended
to deal fairly with their own measure they would look to the
manner in which corn had been introduced into Canada from
America.
After a few words from Mr. PLUMPTRE,
Mr. HUTT shortly replied. He had no hopes, he said, of
succeeding that evening, but the time was not far distant
when Government would be compelled to carry it by the threat
and intimidation of the colonies.

allaying this alarm, for he thought that it was not right, how-
ever great or important the agricultural interest might be, that
on every proposition for improvement in commercial policy,
the members of the landed interest should come down to that
House and oppose it on the ground of its being detrimental to
their welfare. He thought that such a power as this should
not be intrusted to that interest, for it had shown by its con-
duct that it was unable to view any great question of econo-
mical or geographical science aright. There hail been great
alarm some time back on the proposal to reduce the duty on
American lard, and yet, by the reduction of that duty, the
revenue had been largely increased. The duty on American
lard had last year been 200,00 W., in consequence of the re-
duction of the duty from Bs. to 2s. per cwt., and yet no person
in this country could say that he had received one farthing
less for his lard. No doubt it would be a very comfortable
doctrine if the juste milieu system could be adopted, and duties
could be remitted without any injury to the home producer.
If the tar-stick of the custom-house officer could be intro-

duced into a firkin of butter, and render it unfit for home

consumption—if when Canadian or foreign corn was imported
it could be imbued with anything that could render it unfit
for human food, there would not be the slightest objection on
the part of Gentlemen opposite to its introduction. But what
they wanted was that wheat might be introduced
for the bread-eater from every part of the world on the most ad-
vantageous terms. In a discussion in another place, the other
night, on the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, a Noble
Lord had stated as a reason for enlarging the establishment of
Bishops that the population was increasing at the rate of 1,000
a day. He would use the very same argument, and would ask
the House to provide a table for this increase of 1,000 a day.
He imputed no dishonourable motives to the gentlemen of the
agricultural interest, but he wished that that interest would
statist forth in the power of its native strength—that it would
trust to no unworthy support, but that it would lay aside its
crutches, throw off its bandages, and rely solely upon its own
resources. It would not be filled with such an unnecessary
alarm and come down to the House to contest such matters of

small importance as that of the introduction of wheat
evidently was to the landed interest of this country.
He thought with his Hon. Friends the Members for
Manchester and Hull, that this was not a ease in which the opi-
_ _

nions of the country were to be led by the influence of a man
on this side of the House or that. He rejoiced to see that
there was a breaking down of parties, and that the people of
England were fast coming to the conclusion that there was a
unity of interest in all parties of the community, and that no
one, whether agricultural or commercial, was to be sacrificed
to the other—that all were to be taken into the same common

consideration, For these reasons he was glad that the question
had been brought forward, and he should most readily vote for
the motion of the Hon. Member for Gateshead.

......
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 93
Against it
Majority against it
Cnlonel WOOD then withdrew the motion which he in-
tended to bring forward that night.
POST-OFFICE ABUS".S.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE posponed his motion relating to
Post-office abuses till that day fortnight. He then presented
a petition, of such large dimensions as to create great laughter
throughout the House, from Mr. Wallace and several other
petitioners, against the present railway legislation, the amalgams.
tion of great lines, and against railway monopoly, and stated
that he would found a motion on it at some future period. He
also moved that it should be printed with the votes. Petition
laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Lord DALNIENY moved, according to notice, for a Bill to
explain the 6th and 7th of Victoria, chap. 3, intitaled an Act
to exempt from county, borough, parochial, and other rates,
land and buildings occupied by scientific or. literary societies.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. GROGAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend
the laws relating to coroners, and the expenses of inquests in
Ireland.
Mr. CARDWELL got leave to bring in certain amendments
to the Annual Indemnity Bill.
Mr. S. HERBERT obtained leave to bring in a Bill re-
lating to Military Savings' Banks.
The House then adjourned, at a Quarter-past Eleven.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought it would have been better if the
Hon. Member for Durham had confined himself to the simple
question before the House, instead of widely entering into the
whole question of agricultural protection. Protection was not
confined to the agricultural classes ; for, if he remembered
aright, some years ago, the importers of cottcn had called upon
the Minister of the day, and expressed their apprehension that
their trade would be greatly injured in consequence of foreign
competition, if some degree of protection were not afforded
them. Their application was, however, wisely resisted, and
the result proved that their apprehensions were groundless, and
they now stood in a position, as respected their commercial
prospects, which proved the wisdom of that Minister. He
(Mr. S. O'Brien) was ever opposed to the total, the immediate,
and the unconditional surrender of protection to agriculture,
and he thought that the Hon. Member who had brought for-
ward this motion, and the Hon. Members who had supported
it, had altogether lost sight of the complicated interests
which were involved in the settlement of the ques-
tion.—( Hear.) How did the Australians themselves consider
this matter? They stated in a return laid before that House,
that the agriculture of the country was comparatively nothing,
but they affirmed that the pastoral interest was with them all
in all. For free trade, or no trade, in agriculture they cared
not ; but they prayed that the pastoral character of their
colony might not be interfered with, as in that trade consisted
all their wealth and all their prosperity. If they entered on
this question at all, he thought it better that they should take
it as a whole, but that was perhaps too late now. He thought
they had no right to take this question piecemeal, and he
should therefore support the Government in opposition to the
motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. WARD thought the Right Hon. Baronet had great
reason to congratulate himself on the clearness of the argu-
ments used by the Hon. Members who generally supported
him. The Hon. Member who had spoken last thought that
they should not take the question piecemeal—that they should
at once enter on the whole question. This was neither more
nor less than the Peebleshiro argument—( Loud laughter)—of
voting agai, st the trivial grant, and conceding the round sum
at last.—( Continued laughter.) So the Hon. Member for
Northampton thought, that instead of doing justice to Australia
in detail, they should, in the Peebleshire fashion, take the
whole question of the colonies at once into consideration. The
Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire was afraid,
that if they conceded this motion it would stimulate Canada to
make still larger demands upon this country. The time must
shortly come when the agricultural, like the cotton trade,
would cease to tremble for its own interest, and when it would
merge those individual interests in the general desire to add to
the prosperity of the community.
Sir R. PEEL said that the argument of the Hon. Gentle-
man who had last addressed the House was not in any great
degree calculated to induce Hon. Members on that (the Mi-
nisterial) side of the House to vote for this motion. Hon. Gen-
tlemen on that side had stated, on the occasion of passing the
Canada Corn Bill, that no American corn would be introduced
into this country through that colony. Other Hon. Members
had invited votes by affirming that corn would be imported in
this manner, and the Hon. Gentleman in addressing the House
had expressed his satisfaction that an immense importation of
corn would take place from America, smuggled into Canada,
and transhipped into this country.
Mr. WARD explained. The Right Hon. Baronet was en.•
tirely misquoting him. He had not stated so.
Sir R. PEEL.—It certainly was his own intention to vote
in opposition to this motion. There were two other proposi-
tions on the subject of free trade in corn, which would come
before the House in the course of the session. Ono was a pro-
posal for the total repeal of the duty on corn, and the other
proposition would be discussed in a fortnight, on the motion of
the Noble Lord the Member for London. His motion was to
this effect, that the present corn-law tended to check improve-
ments in agriculture, and to impose an unreasonable restraint
upon farm speculation, and that the House should take the law
into its consideration with the view to arrangements which
would be found beneficial to all classes of her Majesty's sub.
jests. They were to have a discussion on the policy of alter-
ing the existing statute, and another on the propriety
of making liberal arrangements, with the view of
benefiting all classes of her 'Majesty's subjects.
These two proposals were to be set before the House ; but not
satisfied with the proposal of the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton, and of the Noble Lord the Member for Lond n, here
they had another brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Gateshead, the effect of which was to admit the
produce of one part of the colonies to the same privileges which
Canada possessed. The Canada Bill was passed in 1825,
and he would just ask the house to refer for a moment to
the circumstances under which that measure was passed.
The maximum of the duty was fixed at a sum which was con-
sidered commensurate with the resources of the colony, and the
circumstances of the mother country. He thought that if
Gentlemen would dispassionately look over all the debates that
had occurred upon this question of Canadian preference—
An Hoss. Mean:mi.—l did not say so.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not aware under what circum-
stances the Honourable Member had denied his authority, but
it was quite clear, from the facts which the Hon. Member him-
self had stated, that the condition of the Canadian colonies re-
quired arrangements of a different character from those of our
other colonies. He did not think it would be wise to take
the case of a single colony. It ought to be the duty of the
Legislature to take into consideration the circumstances of all
the colonies, and not to make Canada an exception, or to
point out a colony in another portion of the globe, as exempted
or wronged. He believed the evil of the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Gateshead would outweigh the good. If
the claim of Australia was founded in justice, it ought to weigh
with them ; but he contended that the case of Australia was not
identical with that of Canada, and he was, therefore, unwilling
to extend the provisions of the Canadian Bill of 1843 to that
colony.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord HOIVICK said he never heard the Right Honourable
Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government make a
speech in which he had failed so much. It was evident that a
very painful task had been imposed upon him.—( Hear.) No
one who had listened to that speech could entertain
a doubt of the justice of the motion of the lion. Member for
Gateshead (Mr. Hutt). The Right Hon. Baronet had endea-
voured to get up a laugh at the terms of the resolution, and
said there was no use in their discussing the present motion,
as the subject of the corn-laws was shortly to be discussed. It
was true they were going to discuss the corn-laws, but it was
also well known how the House would go on that question
whenever it was brought forward. From the existing Parlia-
ment, no material alteration in the corn-laws was to be ex-
pected. How, then, in justice could they refuse to accede
to the motion before the Hems It was said by the Right
Honourable Baronet that the cases of Australia and Canada
were not precisely the same, and he endeavoured to show a
difference. But he (Lord Flewick) wished to know if Aus-
tralia was less an integral part of the British empire than
Canada, and if it was so, as he contended it was, then was it
not enti led to the same privileges? The only difference that
he knew between Australia and Canada,was that in Canasta there
was an opportunity for smuggling into this country foreign
grain as colonial produce, which could not be the case with
Australia. While Canada could get American corn and
introduce it at, 3s. per quarter, Australia was not in a position
to do anything of the kind, for the nearest place that any
grain could be got from was Chili. This would require a
long and expensive voyage, and the freights would be so
great that they might rest perfectly assured that foreign corn
could not be introduced through that channel. It was clear
from this that the agricultural interest need not be afraid.—
( Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was completely secure as far as
danger from that quarter was concerned. With regard to Ca-
nada, there was no such security, as it was clear that a consi •
derable portion of American corn crossed into Canada, as flour
without duty, and admitted into this country at
Canadian rates.—( Hear.) In comparing Australia with
Canada every argument told in favour of the former and
against the latter. He wished to know whether the Right
Hon. Baronet opposed the assimilation of the duties in these
two cases, from a fear that the alteration would lead to the
importation of too much corn, and alarm his agricultural
friends? Or did he refuse it because the boon was so small
to the colonies that it would be of little service to them, though
it excited no fear amongst these same agricultural friends ? On
either view of the question he did not think the Right Hon.
Baronet was justified in opposing the motion. The importance
to the colonies of being allowed to send even a small
amount of grain was very great, and the opportunity of doing
so ought not by any means to be refused. It had been ob-
jected to the motion by the Right Hon. Baronet, that it did
not include all the colonies, but he (Lord Howick) thought
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt) had acted very wisely in the
course which he had pursued. He had brought forward one
crying case of injustice, in order to have it remedied. If this were
remedied, he was no doubt prepared to go further, and to
extend his consideration to all other parts.—( Hear, hear.)
But if the Right Hon. Baronet was dissatisfied with the
limited measure of his Hon. Friend, let him (Sir R. Peel) in-
troduce a measure to include all the British possessions, and
he would not oppose it.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.) But
the real truth had not been stated respecting this question by
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ports-
mouth ( Mr. Baring), when he said that the Go-
vernment acted with regard to Canada as they had
acted elsewhere, they refused to a sense of justice what
they conceded to intimidation.—( Loud cheers.) Their policy
in other quarters had been to lead parties to expect concessions
from threats and menaces, instead of from justice and reason.
This destroyed the grace of concession, and was a policy
which, instead of producing moderation and legiti-
mate results, led continually to further and increased
demands. A just and impartial policy was that
alone
nu
teihttwawhot
fai
icshh er
theercmoaGseuomlid be safely pursued by those in power.
He did hope the House would be careful not to excite all the
British colonies byynabedlerlenorbewmtdeiencitnght such a policy to prevail. The
when
atiwasnothingt would theto inducenrge l
at no d
Canadal
for
rthe denouncedtoc ob ne
..
h

.hat such had been his practice.

COURT OF EXCISE-THURSDAY.
(Before the Hon. Captain PERCY, J. HkRRISON, Esq., and J. C.
HERRIES, Esq.)

Samuel Brandon, proprietor of the cigar divan, 163, Strand, was
charged on three informations with retailing wines, spirituous
liquors, and beer without license.
Henry Taylor, an officer of Excise, stated that on the sth of
March last, he went to the premises of defendint, known as the
" Strand Cigar Divan," at the corner of Strand.lane, and having
purchased cigars, entered into conversation with the defendant.
He said he expected a friend to meet him there to play at billiards,
but as he had not arrived he would go and meet him. Witness
then left the shop, but shortly afterwards returned, and some further
conversation took place. He played at billiards, and some time
afterwards ordered a bottle of lemonade, but upon his remarking
that it was very cold drinking, defendant said that he could have
a bottle of ale, and that he (defendant) " would call it lemonade."
The bottle of ale was brought from a chest in the room, and served
up to him. He was afterwards supplied with wine, brandy and
water, &c. The defendant's son mixed the brandy and water.
The other articles were brought by defendant himself. He was
charged 3s. for the wine, beer, &c., and 4d. for a cigar. He then
left the shop.
The defendant said that on the night In question he had
been drinking rather freely, as was his usual custom ; he kept a
bottle of spirits and a bottle of wine up stairs for his own use,
and that having mixed a glass of spirits for his own use, he had
presented his glass, out of feelings of humanity, to the witness,
as he complained of the inconvenience under which he laboured
through the public-houses being closed. To the best of his be.
lief, the officer had taken out his cigar case and filled it with the
best cigars, which accounted for the charge of 3s. For the spirits
he made no charge whatever.

The officer was recalled—The statement of defendant scarcely
contained one word of truth. Never carried a cigar case in his
life, consequently could not have had one fined. The defendant
partook of the spirits and water on his (witness's) invitation. An
other person was present, who ordered sherry and water. As wit-
ness was about going away defendant said it was very convenient
to keep these things in the house, as many friends called upon him
when tlsey could not get them elsewhere.
The defendant said he kept the spirits in his room upstairs for
his own convenience, it not being prudent to send the servant into
the cellar at all times ; and ridiculed the assertion that he should
call ale " lemonade." Such an idea was too absurd to be for a
moment entertained. At the same time he would put it to the
Court that, as he had been convicted on a former occasion, was it at
all likely he should be guilty of such an offence again, having be.
fore suffered for it severely ?
The COURT was of opinion that the charge had been fully ans.
tained.

The Hon. Capt. PERCY, in giving judgment, said that it appeared
the defendant wou'd take no warning from a former conviction.

They would now try the effect of a heavier penalty, and the judg-
ment of the Court was, that he be fined—for the sale of wine, 20/. ;
for spirits, 20/. ; and for beer, 101.—in all, the mitigated penalties
of 591.

William Cope, of No. 41, Keppel-street, Russeil•square, whole.
sale wine and spirit dealer, was charged with retailing spirits with-
out license. _ .

Mr. Robert Dawson, an officer, proved being served with a
bottle of spirits at the shop or warehouse of defendant. It was
pale brandy, for which he paid Gs. 6d. It was served by defendant
himself. _ _ _

The defendant said that he had been frequently asked to retai
spirits, but had invariably refused, and called a witness to prove

Mr. Brown, supervisor, said a detection of a similar description
had been made on the premises of defendant on a former occasion,
when he was cautioned by the officers.
The Court fined him in the penalty of le/.
Louis Meunier, of the Prince of Wales Hotel, Leicester-place,
Leicester square, was convicted in the penalty of 21. 25., for selling
spirits in premises adjoining his own. It appeared that a commu-
nication had formerly existed between them, but it had for some
time been cut off, by order of the magistrates. He promised to
confine his trade to one house for the future.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Yesterday John Ell, the under.warehoustanan, at Messrs.
Mag-
nay, stationers, College-hill, was re.examined before Sir P. Laurie,
charged with stealing six reams of paper on the 18th of April,
Henry Corduroy, a carman, was also charged with stealing, and
John Dodge, a bookbinder in the City-road, was charged with re.
ceiving the same.
Mr. Oldknow attended on behalf of Dodge, Mr. Wontner
Corduroy, and Mr. Humphreys for En. Mr. Clarkson (with Mr.
nobler) conducted the prosecution.
The evidence previously given traced the six reams of paper to
have been carried in Messrs. Magnays' waggon to the Stationery.
office, near Buckingham Palace, and to have been left at a Parcels
Delivery Company's receiving.house in the Waterloo-road, ad.
dressed to Dodge.
Mr. Clarkson now called Mr. Hogg, the landlord of a public-
house in York-street, Westminster, to corroborate the policeman's
statement that Ell came to Westminster in a cab to meet Corduroy
at his house on the 18th of April. They had been in the habit of
using his house many years, and sometimes went together into the
parlour.
Mr. Dickins, the examiner of paper at her Majesty's Stationery.
office, deposed that he saw the paper delivered on the 18th of
April. He signed the delivery-note and gave it back to the car.
man. He identified his signature to the note delivered by the
carman at Sir W. Magnay's, and produced the counterpart.
This completed the evidence on the first charge.
A second charge was preferred against Ell and Dodge.
Mr. Magnay identified seven reams of blue double foolscap, three
reams of which he found at Dodge's house, and four reams which
Dodge told him he had sent away to be ruled for account-books.
Dodge said he bought this paper of Ell, and had received part of it
the day before (the 17th of April).
Mr. Humphreys noticed, that all that was said about Ell was in
his absence, and therefore was not evidence against him.
Mr. Magnay said he found the paper at the ruler's. Dodge told
him he gave 10s. a ream for this sort of paper, which was worth a
guinea.
Mr. Farrington, of Compton-street, the ruler, proved that he
sent for the paper to Dodge's house, having received a note from
him to do so. He also received written instructions from Dodge
as to the manner of ruling.
William Ryan, in the service of the Parcels' Delivery Com-
pany, proved by his book the delivery of some parcels at Dodge's,
on the 17th of April. From a memorandum in that book he saw
it came from the booking-house, N 0.23, in the S division, which
meant the house in the Waterloo.road.
Alexander Geddes, from the booking.house in the Waterloo-
road, identified Ell as the person who brought the packages.
Mr. Magnay identified some other paper found on Dodge's pre.
mises, which he admitted he had purchased of Ell.
Sir P. LAURIE committed the prisoners for trial on these charges.
The third charge was against Ell, for stealing, and against Alfred
Dutton, of Union-court, Old Broad-street, for receiving. Mr.
Dutton carries on business as an account -book maker.
Michael Haydon, a City policeman, stated that he went with
Inspector Tosihunter and Mr. Magnay to execute a search- warrant,
on the 21st of April. Dutton was not at home, and stayed out all
night: Mr. Magnay and witness stayed at the house all night ;
Dutton came home at nine o'clock in the morning, and said he was
aware he was wanted, and thought thebest way was to come forward
and speak the truth. lie had purchased all the paper, bound and
unbound, in the place, from Ell. He had some misgiving that
something was wrong, and told Ell so, but Ell said it was all right,
and to assure him of that, the paper should come in future in Messrs.
Magnay's cart ; it was perquisites from the Stationery-office, and
if Dutton did not like to have a pound put into his poket, there
were hundreds who would. No invoices were found, but there were
memorandums of payments to Ell.
Mr. Magnay confirmed the officer's statement.
Sir P. LAURIE inquired the value of the paper seized.
Mr. Magnay said about 451. The books and paper were packed
in cases as if in a hurry for removal.
Mr. Humphreys maintained that his client was not in the least
touched by any evidence given in this case. What Dutton said
about ElI was not, in law, evidence against him.
Mr. Wakelin, for Dutton, said he had acted like an honest man
throughout. He surrendered ; he told all he knew ; he admitted
he bought the paper of Ell ; but he had uniformly denied that he
knew the paper was stolen. Where was Flail, the carman, wh
Was apprehended and let out on bail?
Mr. nobler, the solicitor for the prosecution, said he was lying
dangerously ill, or he should have called him.
Mr. Clarkson admitted his case was weak, and if he were pressed
by the other side he must ask for a remand over the next
sessions. He hoped, however, his witness would be able to et-
tend there.
Sir P. Lauate said there could be no moral doubt of the
guilt of the receiver, and he should send him to trial. Com-
mitting Ell on this case was of little importance, as he was com.
mitted on others.