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

the measure of his Hon. Friend was carried through the House. T
The Right Hon. Gentleman also showed symptoms of the
most decided distress.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He 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 Rot to submit their legislation to
the ignoront apprehensions cf 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 Might 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 d d 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 20,001 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 corr.-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 lion. 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 got 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 hail 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 Ilonourable 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 peol le 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 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.)

import of Canadian wheat during the last year than (luring some 1
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. Ile wished the Government to take some means of
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 had been groat
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 200,000/., in consequence of the re-
duction of the duty from Ss. 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 bad 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
stand 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 lion. Friends the Members for
Manchester and Hull, that this was not a case 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
bad been brought forward, and he should most readily vote for
' the motion of the Hon. Member for Gateshead.

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 afrirded
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,ithad 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 eared
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 Peebleshire 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
o of the Hon. Gentle-
man who had last addressed thHouse was nut in any gre'.t
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-
tircly 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. One 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.
menta in agriculture, anti 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.
jects. 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 Hose. MEMBER—I did not say so. . .

But justi-ce was justice for all that; and the vironk the/ was
not the less because they inflicted it where it would be pa-
tiently borne.—( freer, 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 just and equitable settlement of
this question. It was also argued that a romise 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 argumeuts 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.) Canasta had been
put in a state of rebellion against teis country—it was a power-
ful colony, and would sot. 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 Hon. Gentleman who
made this motion, and thought it would have been better for
the people of this country if the corn-laws had never existed.
—( Hear, h-ar.) He would be the last to oppose a measure of
justice to Australia, but he thought the circumstances of
Cadada 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 Horn, 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 [louse 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. Ile 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
rote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Gateshead
(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 lion. 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 [lon. 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 Hen. 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 with 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 lion. 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 changee, 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 introductiou of a certain substance from
India called catch, for the purpose of dyeing. The agricultural
mindi
ferhe,aidwibtehoinu t dreadfullyhesale frightenedufit
s bark,
rk, a thatalthough
its
ghthe fact rights shouldatwas
baes
that the high price of bark had been in
een no way redu,7ed. A
pretty broad hint had been given to those connected with
'
Indian affairs, that if they interfered wish the
sale of bark, a 'pretty sharp look-out would be
kept on their proceedings
ru to whenever the charter of the East
mlnedmiabeCreotrtphaani
wshhoeuuldthceomtnetducetiorne-consideresl. He re-
cwuoitoulr
aait
ireduced
rate was talked of in 182`,, that the a° gf
gherieenvodurseal(olsfu2layuddiswtrhees
nsedlaswtityhearcetrhteaintotvaalgaubeolaifiPPreh fenthsieondsutoyf
o
upon that article was proposed, that the agricultonnrai mind had
anticipated little less than ruin, and yet notwithstanding all
these apprehensions, and these fears, he believed the price
of wool had not been affected to any sensible extent to 1
British farmer. At the latter end of 1842, great alarm htaltrt
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 ffreat alarm of
the agricultural mind ; and yet he believed that, notwith-
standing this affection of the agricultural mind, the
farmers of this country realisf,l 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, and yet the return showed that there had been no greater ,

Sir R. PEEL said that ho 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 ease 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 1443 to that
colony.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HOWICK 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 Hon. 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 House ? 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 Howick) wished to know if Aus-
tralia was leas 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 Canada 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 tozr 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 ho 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 lion. Baronet was dissatisfied with the
limited measure of his lion. Friend, let him (Sir R. Peel) in-
troduce a measure to include all the British possessions, and
he would not oppose it.—(" Hear, hear," anti cheers.) But
the real truth had not been stated respecting this question by
the Right lion. 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
results, led
from threats and menaces, instead of from justice and reason.
which could be safely This destroyed the grace of concession, and was a policy
llt,h, instead of producing moderation and legiti-
matecontinually to further and increased
demands. A just and
lyimipmarrstuiaeld by those alone was
power.
t
He did hope the House would be careful not to excite all the
British colonies by all
itonduet of the vtronwraienift such a policy to prevail. The
when it was remembered tbetwi the
it would
xnore to be denounced
here that she was indebted nothing to England for the cons

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 9, 1845.

cessions which had 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 lion. Member for Sheffield, that the corn
trade of Canada had been extended since the passing of the
Canada Corn Bill, and told the Government that if they interded
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.
The House then divided, when there appeared--_

For the motion ••• 93
Against it
Majority against it
Cnlonel WOOD then withdrew tke motion which be in-
tended to bring forward that night.
POST-OFFICE: AIMS 7.5.

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 pr csent railway legislation, the amalgama.
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 DALMENY moved, according to notice, for a Bill to
explain the 6th and 7th of Victoria, chap. 3, intituled 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 A nnuil 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.

COURT OF EXCISE—THURSDAY.
(name the Hon. Captain PERCY, J. HARRIaON, Esq., and J. C.
HERRIES, Erq.)

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 Bth of
March last, he went to the premises of defendant, 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 an water.
The other articles were brought by defendant himself. lie was
charged 3s. for the wine, beer, ac., 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 nfficer 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 Mild. 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.
neat was about going away defendant said it was very convenient
to keep these things in the house, as many friends called upon him
when they 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 Cotner was of opinion that the charge had been fully sot.
tained.

The Hon. Capt. PRIICY, in giving judgment, said that it appeared
the defendant would 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, 201. ;
for spirits, 201.; and for beer, 10/.—in all, the mitigated penalties
of 501.

William Cope, of No. 41, Keppel-street, Russell•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 6•. 6d. It was served by defendant
himself.

The defendant said that he had been frequently asked to retail
spirits, but had invariably refused, and called a witness to prove
that such had been his practice.
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 let
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
tivne 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-warehouseman, 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, wai 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 for
Corduroy, and Mr. Humphreys for Ell. Mr. Clarkson (with Mr.
Holder) 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. Dickina, the examiner of paper at her Majesty's Stationery.
ofUce, deposed that he saw the paper delivered on the 18th of
April. He signed thedelive6,-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 S.ouble 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
trim he gate 10s. a ream for this sort of paper, which was worth a
guinea.

Yarrington, of Compton-street, the ruler, proved that he
sent for the paper to Dodge's house, basing 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 vareels at Dodge's,
on the 17th of April. From a memorandum in that book he saw
it came from the booking house, No. 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 theperson 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 Toihunter and Mr. Magna), to execute a search warrant,
on the 21st of April. Dutton was not at home, and ctayed 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 the best way was to come forward
and speak the truth. He 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 45/. 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 Ell 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 Hall, the carman, who
was apprehended and let out on bail?

Mr. Holder, 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 at-
tend there.

Sir P. ',LURIE 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 corn.
naltted on others.