The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 27, 1844.

munity by the corn laws ? The corn-laws were a direct
interference with the freedom of trade—the freedom of
industry ; and it was incumbent on those who main-
tained this interference to prove that the community was
benefitted by restriction.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman had stated that the tenants themselves were
the originators of the Pro-Corn-law Society. Coming
from an agricultural county, he knew how easy it was to
give a hint, through the steward, that the tenants were
required to attend. on some particular day, on behalf of
the interests of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He wanted
to know who it was that represented the agricultural
labourer in the Agricultural Societies. When the Pro-
Corn-law Society was formed, no one appeared to repre-
sent him ; no one said, on his behalf, that it was for his
advantage that security should be maintained. It was
denied by the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire that the
declarations of the Right Honourable Gentleman
at the head of the Government had had any
effect on the value of land, or on the bargains
between landlords and tenants. Why he himself
had seen in the London papers, the other day, an adver-
tisement of the sale of estates by Mr. George Robins, in
which one of the grounds stated why agriculturists
should come forward and give a large sum for them was,
that the Right Hon. Gentleman had declared that the
corn-law of 1841 was a final and irrevocable settlement of
this great question. Did an eminent auctioneer want to
get less for an estate than it was worth ? He regretted
those statements which disparaged the authority of the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government.
He regretted the disposition which was exhibited, to
put forced interpretations on his declarations.
As a friend to the English farmer—as one whose
interest was bound up with that of the agricultural class,
he complained of such an interpretation of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's statements. For what must be the
effect ? They were teaching them that the corn-law
protection was to he permanent, while at the same time
the Right Hon. Gentleman had never said that he con-
templated the permanence either of the present or of any
other corn-law,—(Hear, hear.) His assertion was that
at the present moment he did not contemplate a change,
that he had no measure then to submit ; that was a very
different Thing from saying that he contemplated the per-
manent maintenance of the protective principle. For
gentlemen to put that interpretation on his words
was to strengthen the fatal error into which the agricul-
tural tenantry had fallen, namely, that it was better to
rely upon what Parliament could do for them than upon
their own industry and enterprise. Gentlemen who did
this were not acting as the true friends of the farmer ;
they were not promoting the real and permanent inte-
rest even of the landed proprietors ; nor were they, in
any way, advancing the true welfare of the community at
large.—(Hear, hear.) Now the Hon. Member for Lin-
colnshire said he felt conscious that the incendiarism in
Suffolk, arose from the deep-rooted discontent of the peo-
ple, and that that discontent arose from distress. He said
that the farmers Must pay the labourers better wages,
the very expressionshowing that he had taken an erro-
neous view of the whole question of wages. Why people
could not pay what wages they pleased.—(Hear, hear.)
It was not in the power of individuals to regu-
late wages. From the redundancy of population, and
the pressure on the means of existence, men would
work for the smallest possible amount of
wages upon which they could live. Let them consider
whether there were not some causes arising from their
legislation which produced this discontent and distress
in a country which apparently had within itself all the
resources of happiness and prosperity. It was remark-
able that incendiarism should prevail in Norfolk, Suffolk,
and Essex, where protection was supposed to confer the
greatest benefit—counties which were, to a great extent,
grain-growing counties, and in which there were all
those means and appliances in the greatest abundance
which they were frequently told were essential to
the morality and good conduct of the popu-
lation. There were no counties in England in
which the clergy so abounded. To such an extent
did they abound, that if a gentleman's calling did not
happen to be known, he was set down as a clergyman.—
(Laughter.) Yet, notwithstanding these means and
appliances for good, a system of the most awful crime
prevailed ; for what system could be more appalling than
incendiarism ?—(Hear, hear.) They had a right to ex-
pect that they should be allowed to live in their homes,
without having their lives or property endangered. He
denied the insinuation thrown out by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that
this incendiarism might be the result of agitation in fa-
vour of the corn-laws.—(Hear.) He contended that that
insinuation was unworthy of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
He defied him to produce the smallest atom of proof
that any incitement to incendiarism had been thrown
out by the opponents of protection. For one placard
which had been circulated by the Anti-Corn-law
League in the county of Suffolk, he ventured to say,
that ten had been circulated by the Pro-Corn-law
League.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had laid
down the doctrine that the less corn there was in the
country, the greater would be the share of the labourer.
He ventured to say that they would then find that
during cheap years the wages of the labourer had
not given him a greater command over the comforts
and necessaries of life than he had in dear years. They
would find that in the cheap years the labourer had had,
it was in his power to obtain a larger quantity of food
than in the dear year.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman, the-Vice-President of the Board of Trade,
seemed to think that his Hon. Friend the Member for
Wolverhampton had no right to ask for an explanation
of the grounds on which protection was based, those
grounds being fully explained in Hansard's Debates.
Now he confessed that although he had read nearly alb
the speeches on this subject, he could not find one in
which the advantages of protection were clearly set
forth. The Right Hon. Gentleman said they
were visionary theorists and schemers, and
that without proof of the disadvantages of the corn-
law, they were not entitled to call upon the
Government to explain why it was maintained. Now
he took a completely different view of that question.
He maintained that those who maintained the corn-laws
were the visionary schemers ; for they interfered with
the natural course of things, they came forward with a
subtle and refined scheme of ascending and descending
duties for regulating the importation of cora, for makng
mankind happy, and trade and agriculture prosperous.
He (Mr. M. Gibson) did not concur in these extreme
opinions. He preferred trusting to plain common sense,
the natural course of events, and the operation of men's
interests upon their actions, rather than to that visionary
scheme which was maintained by the Government, but
which he hoped would notlong bemain tained in this coun-
try The NoblelLord, the Member for the City of London,
held extreme opinions in favour of a moderate fixed
duty; believing that that was the device for making
trade flourish, and for promoting the improvement of
agriculture and the happiness of society. To both the
devices he preferred that men should be allowed to buy
in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, believing
that Providence had intended that as the means of
securing general prosperity. He maintained that those
were the visionary schemers who interfered with the
natural freedom of industry. They had a right to call
upon them to explain clearly and definitely what were
the advantages which they conferred upon society by so
subtle a scheme, and if they failed to prove those advan-
tages, they were entitled to ask for the total and imme-
diate repeal of the corn-law. Now he wished to know
how the corn-law benefited that pf irticular class with
whom he was connected namely the manu-
facturers ? When a buyer went from the
town of Norwich to Manchester to purchase
a fall of goods for the purpose of rotailing them in Nor-
folk, would he give any more for thorn than a buyer from
America ? If he would not what was the advantage
conferred on the manufacturers 'by the corn-law ?
(Hear, hear.) But if he reversed the case he found that
the manufacturer had to give a, great deal more
for his wheat in Norfolk than he would have to give in
New Yorke—(Hear, hear.) This appeared to him to be
a very odd kind of reciprocity. He defied the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire to show that he had any pro-
perty in the raw material, the machinery, or the labour
which was employed in the production of a particular
fabric ; and how could he say, then, that he
was entitled to special protection as a landlord ?
Could it be said that the proprietors of the land had any
property in the industry of other men ?—(Hear, hear.)
Could it be said that by any right, h uman or divine, they
were entitled to deny to the manufacturers the freedom
of industry which they demanded '?—(Cheers.) They
came to this House on the same grounds as the Dis-
senters had formerly come—to comp lain of disabilities.—
They told the House that they. could. only live by the ex-
change of the products of their labclur. They said that
their trade was legitimate and prope tr, and the only call-
ing which they had to follow. Butt :he Legislature—not
for revenue—not for State necessiti'es—but for the in-
terests of a particular class—(Cheer :s)—prevented them
from obtaining the advantages which Providence had
placed within their reach.—(Hear, lit ear.) They did not
refuse to the aristocracy the enjoyment of their estates—
whether they were held by inherits .nce or by purchase.
They asked no more than that the a ristocracy should be
satisfied with their estates.—(Chee rs.) The landlords
had bought, or had inherited their e states, but they had
never bought or inherited any right aver the industry of
other men.—(Cheers.) The landlor -els were entitled to
the full value of their estates, but th ey were not entitled
to take the largest slice from the low? of the poorest class
of her Majesty s subjects. He cable don the Paymaster
of the Forces, after his long experiem ee, to state what was
the ground on which the landholders of the country
had a matter of right to interfere w ith the industry of
others. When he (Mr. Gibson) we is at Cambridge, he
read the works of Paley, as part of I ns academic course.
That great philosopher said that eve try restraint was, in
itself, an evil, and that those who im, ?ose it should prove
its advantages, and that it was not in cumbent upon those
who suffered from the restraint to pro ye that it was an evil.
—(Hear, hear.) On that ground, he (Mr. Gibson)
demanded the immediate abolition of this great evil and
cruel restraint. The total and hum tediate abolition of
the corn-laws was the only mode of s ettling the question,
for any other expedient will still lea ye uncertainty and
doubt. And when they came to v ested interests, he
must inquire what was the nature of the possession ? It
was an adverse possession, and no time could give a
title from an adverse possession.—( Hear, hear.) The
law was passed by a Legislature of ! landlords.—(Tory
cries of " Oh, oh !') Yes, it was a 1 Legislature of land-
lords, for no man could be a Meml ter of the House of
Commons who did not swear tha t he was possessed
of land of the value of 3001. a y ear.—(Hear, hear.)
The large manufacturing towns were not at the time re-
presented, and the aristocracy had an especial monopoly
of legislation by means of close boron ghs.—(Hear, hear.)
At the time of the passing of the cor n-law, Lord Liver-
pool avowed that the object was to prevent the settle-
ment which would otherwise take place between landlord
and tenant upon the restoration of 1 lease. But the de •
mands and entreaties of those who of ?posed the measure
were not attended to, and the law was passed against
the expressed will of the country, fc r that object alone
which Lord Liverpool avowed.--(l. tear, hear.) Were
not the landlords aware, at the tin se, that the peace
would induce the manufacturers of,oth ter countries to ex-
tend their works, and to come into, cc pmpetition with the

manufacturers of this country. Regardless of any other I
consideration, however, they adhered to rent—rent.—
(Cheers.) The object of every change of the corn-law
was to keep up rents.—(Hear, hear, and Oh, oh !)
Gentlemen might laugh and cheer, but this was not the
language of the League alone, it was the language of the
wisest statesmen, the greatest poets, and the first phi-
losophers
of the time. A poet, the first of modern time,
who was himself a lord and a landlord, expressed the
shme opinion in these words:—
" The last to bid the cry of warfare cease,
The first to make a malady of peace;
For what were all these country patriots born ?
To hunt, and vote, and raise the price of corn."
(Cheers.) That was the language of one of the most
eminent poets of this country, and he (Mr G.) would
tell the House what the noble poet said of the conduct
of the landed proprietors:—
" Safe in their barn, the Sabine tillers sent
Their brethren out to battle. Why?—for rent !
They roared, they dined, they drank, they swore they
meant
To die for England. Why then live?—For rent!
The peace has made one general malcontent
Of this " high market patriot"—WAß was RENT—
Their love of country—millions all mis-spent.
How reconciled ?—by reconciling rent.
And will they not repay the treasures lent ?
No ; down with every thing—but up with rent.
Their good, ill, health, wealth, joy, and discontent,
Being, end, aim, religion—Rent, rent, rent."
—(Great cheering.) But the noble poet did not except
the Church itself from its share of participation of mono-
poly in the corn-laws. He said:—
"So Mother Church' while all religion writhes.
Like Niobe, weeps o'er her offspring—TlTHES."
—(Cheers and laughter.) He knew that many excel-
lent men thought the corn-laws were necessary, and he
quoted those lines only to show that one of the landlords'
own class was convinced of the evils of those laws; and
he believed that the time was coming when the whole
community would raise its voice against them. It had
been said that manufactures were protected ; but the
manufacturers, in their petitions, had called for the
abolition of protection of every kind. The landlords,
however, did not stand upon the same grounds with re-
spect to protection as other interests in the community.
Protection did not increase the wages of labour or raise
the rate of profits; the unlimited competition prevented
that. But the landed aristocracy had all the benefit of
their protection to themselves from the limited nature
of their monopoly. It had been said that the
trade of the country was very great—that
our export of manufactures had largely in-
creased. But the manufacturers complained that these
laws deprived them of a trade which they might now
enjoy ; and the question between them and the land-
lords was, whether the latter had a right to deprive
them of that trade. The Noble Lord, the Member for
North Lancashire, had presented a petition in favour of
agricultural protection, signed by 16,000 persons, who
were represented to be manufacturers. Now, he would
ask the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) were one half of
them manufacturers ? _ _ _

Lord STANLEY—Those from Preston and Blackburn
were.

Mr. M. GIBSON—But those from Preston and Black-
burn did not amount to one half.—(Hear, hear.) But
the petitioners did not state what amount of protection
they asked for. They did not say the fixed duty, or the
rising and descending scale, or what other scale. As the
Noble Lord was the representative of a manufacturing
county, he wished to ask the Noble Lord, would he un-
dertake to rise in that House, and say that the corn-
laws conferred a benefit upon his constituents ?
Lord STANLEY said he thought so. He was sup-
porting the manufacturing interests still.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished the Noble Lord to give the
grounds on which he thought so.—(Cheers and laughter.)
They might laugh if they pleased, but the Noble Lord
did state the grounds once, and what were those
grounds ? Why, that they might be enabled to keep
grooms and gardeners.—(Cheers.) They had heard ex-
tremely little, considering the position the Noble Lord
held in that House, upon the subject of manufactures.
It was true, that he did once threaten the agriculturist
by the vision of Tamboff, but he had never satisfied
the manufacturers that the keeping out of corn was for
their benefit.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that they were
treating this question in a way that amounted to little
short of insult. Whenever gentlemen got up they never
came to the question.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
and the gentlemen on these benches—(Great laughter
from the Ministerial side of the House, in consequence
of the bench on which the Opposition leaders sit being
entirely empty)—the Noble Lord and those who sit on
these benches were not responsible for the law. Those
who sat on the other side of the House were responsible,
because they could alter the law. The Right Hon.
Baronet was their ruler—he was their Minister, because
they could not get a leader out of the Central Protec-
tion Society. The Right Hon. Baronet would not tell
them that he would keep up protection permanently. He
would tell them that the League was right in principle.
—(Laughter.) It might be all very well for gentlemen
to laugh and sneer, but he was dealing with facts as
they were. The gentlemen opposite were responsible
for the corn-law. They brought it in, and they kept it
up, and, doing so, they ought to tell him what good they
had done for the people by keeping up the law. The
right of the people was to freedom of industry. Those
who sat on the other side of the House kept it from
them, and he, therefore, on the part of the people, had a
right to call for a satisfactory explanation.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BANKES then rose to address the House. He
could assure the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
that they, on that side of the House, were most willing
to hear all the Hon. Member for Manchester had to
state, and it was only in consequence of the Opposition
bench being empty, that the laughter had taken place.
He agreed with the Hon. Members for Manchester and
Sheffield that it was desirable to keep as close to the
question as possible. If, however, any side had departed
from it, it was the Opposition rather than the Ministe-
rial. During the present session of Parliament number-
less petitions had been presented from agriculturists,
complaining of the interference of the League. The ac-
count which they had had that night of the proceedings
of the League was a summary of its life—it had existed
six years, and he trusted that it would not live six
months longer. lie had read many of the papers of the
League, but he was not aware until that night that
it owed its origin to the Honourable Member for
Bolton (Dr. Bowring), and he trusted the Honourable
Gentleman would live to write its epitaph.—(Laughter.)
There had been in the course of the present debate
some questions addressed to him which would have
rendered it fit that he should have offered some observa-
tions to the House, even if he were indisposed to do so.
It had been asked of him and others, why they had taken
part in the Factory Bill, and how they could reconcile
it to themselves to venture to interfere with the grand
manufacturers unless they were disposed to show the
same feeling towards the lower classes ; for his own
part, he was sure that had he felt that the in-
terference would have affected one class and not
another, he would not have consented to it. He must,
in the strongest terms, deny the statements of the Hon.
Member for Manchester, that they desired to main-
tain those laws for the purpose of crushing the
manufacturers. He was surprised that the Hon. Member
could for a moment have conceived that, in the vote on the
Factory Bill, he fixed upon one portion of his fellow
subjects and not upon another. Those who desired to
keep up protection to agriculture had no such wish or
object in view, and there was no such wish on the part
of those who had voted in favour of the factory question.
It had been asked whether those who voted were ready
to get up in that House and state why they had done
so ; he for one was ready to accept:the challenge. In
the vote he had given he was not guided by the state-
ments which he had read in newspapers or pamphlets—
he saw the men themselves, and it was not until after
many interviews with them that he ventured to give that
vote. If he was travelling from the question it was not
his fault, because he had been taunted to give his opinion
on the subject, which he was ready to do, and also to
defend the conduct he had hitherto pursued.
The Honourable Member for Wolverhampton, who
had brought forward this motion, had:adopted a different
tone to that which he usually did. Differing as he (Mr,
Banks) did from that line of arguments adopted by the
Hon. Member, yet still they had been conducted in such
a gentlemanly manner, hitherto they had been expressed
in such a proper tone and feeling that he could not but
think them worthy of attention ; but upon the present
occasion he had come forth in a new character. The
speech was delivered in an almost uninterrupted tone of
defiance. lie had asked whether they dared do this and
they dared do that ? That might be all very well in
another place—(Cheers)--that might do all very well in
Covent-garden, It did so the other night, because there
when an individual said " he dare" two policemen in-
stantly took him out. In that House, however, it should
be remembered, they had no policemen, " I (exclaimed
the Hon. Member) dare" tell the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton- that I desire to maintain protection
for the good of the tenant-farmer, and the whole popu-
lation.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " the landords.") Yes,
and the landlords. Nobody who argued this question
omitted landlords.—(A laugh.) But there was one
class that was omitted, and that was the tenant-farmers.
Those individuals had come forward in a body and re-
pudiated the doctrines of the Members for Stockport and
Bolton. He hoped there were some tenant-farmers in
the House last night to hear the speech of the Noble
Lord the Member for Sunderland. What said that
Noble Lord? Why did they not do in this country as
in Canadaj There there were no tenant-farmers, there
was only the landlord and the labourer. But it must be
remembered that that country was in a very different
state to this; and here they ought to legislate for the whole
—the tenant farmers as well as the labourers. The
move that had been made on the part of the tenant-
farmers was spontaneous, and was not encouraged by any
landlord ; but they were pleased to see that they were
persons who would attend to their own interests. On
his part there had been nothing to encourage them to rise
as men against the bullying system of the Anti-Corn-
law League. They had risen as one man, and he be •
lieved they would ultimately put it down. The Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. Mark Philips) had
asked him a question with respect to cotton.
The Hon. Member had asked him what greater advan-
tage it was to the manufacturer to have him for a cus-
tomer, than to have as a customer an American residing
in New York. He had asked if he supposed that he
(Mr. Bankes) would have to pay him more for his
cotton goods than his American customer. Why, if the
manufacturer were an honest man, he certainly should
not have to pay more, but the manufacturer would have
this advantage in dealing with him—that as a home-
customer he could be more certainly relied on.—(Alaugh.) Why, certainly, the home customer aught be
more certainly relied on.—(Hear and laughter.) There
might be a change in the American tariff, which might
altogether prevent the sale of our manufactures in that
country. Why, one of the persons who was at present
a candidate for the Presidential chair of that empire,
he supposed he might call it, went about with banners
inscribed, " Protection to native industry."—(Hear,
hear.) Now, suppose they should place a prohibitory

duty on the importation of our manufactures, did not
the Hon. Member for Manchester think that even he
would be a better customer to the manufacturer than
the inhabitant of New York ? It would be no difficult
matter to adduce many reasons to prove to the
Honourable Member for Manchester, the advan-
tages of the home trade. They were secure of that at all
events, as long as they could assure them a sufficiency of
money to purchase.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord,
the Member for Sunderland, who was not now in his
place, had, last night, referred to the condition of the
labourers in the county which he (Mr. Bankes) had the
honour to represent. The Noble Lord had said that the
Hon. Member for Stockport had stated more than once
that their condition was worse than the condition of any
other labourers, and that statement had not been contra-
dicted. It was true that the Hon. Member for Stock-
port had made the statement more than once. He was
in the habit of making statements more than once ; but
if those statements were contradicted, it was rather hard
that those persons would not take the trouble to attend
to the contradictions, but would continue to repeat them
as if they never had been contradicted. He would now
refer to the report of the Commissioners appointed to in-
quire into the condition of the women and children em-
ployed in agriculture, as a proof that the report which
had been laid on the table at the close of last session, had
been the foundation of much vituperation of the county
which he represented, and of the other counties of the
south of England. He believed that the true reason why
the county of Dorset had been fixed on in this manner,
was because it was represented by a Noble Lord
who had taken up the cause of the factory women
and children, and it was thought by Honourable
Gentlemen opposite that it would be a fair retaliation
to move for this Commission.—(Cries of " Oh, oh."
Now, he would read a few extracts from the report of
the Commissioners on the state of the agricultural
labourers in the county of Dorset.—(The Hon. Member
here read several extracts from the report alluded to,
from which it appeared that the women themselves
stated that out door work was beneficial both to their
health and spirits, and that the medical men who were
examined, stated that, in their opinion, such was the
case. The Hon. Gentleman also read an extract, de-
scribing the clothing club at Blandford, which, last year,
had expended 2,000/. in the purchase of articles of
clothing for its members.) He begged to call the atten-
tion of the Hon. Member to the amount expended by
this clothing club in a limited district, as a proof of the
value of the home market.—(Hear, hear.) He now came
to the subject of wages.--(Hear, hear.) The report
stated that, in the district of Blandford, wages were by
no means low, and, so far from placing the county of
Dorset lower than others as to wages, it showed that it
was not so low in this respect as Somcrsetshire and
Wiltshire. He did not say but that, in many parts of
the county, wages were lower than in the Blandford
district, owing to the superabundance of the population.
He wished the wages were everywhere as good as they
were at Blandford ; but he was certain of this—that
wages would not be made better by the repeal of the corn-
laws.—(Cheers.) That was the question before them,
and he felt convinced that, however much manufactures
might be extended by that measure, they could not be
so extended as to give employment to all those who
would be thrown out of employment in the agricultural
districts in consequence of that measure.— (Hear.)
Even if the exchange could be made, he was not satis-
fied that it would be for the advantage of the labouring
class. He had never drawn any distinction between
manufactures and agriculture—their interests were
amalgamated; but if they looked to the comfort, the hap-
piness, and the morality of the labouring classes, he could
not give the preference to the manufacturing over the
agricultural districts.—(Hear.) Admitting that the
agricultural labourer received less money, it must be
remembered that money was not all that contributed to
happiness. Admitting that wages were lower in the
agricultural districts, still the labourer had more
time to attend to his comforts ; and as to
happiness, he should certainly give the preference
to the labourer of the agricultural districts.
The Noble Lord (Lord Howick) had very much exagge-
rated the distress which prevailed in the southern coun-
ties of England. He hoped, as the Noble Lord had read
the accusations against the landowners there, he would
read their vindication in the report. The Noble Lord
had contrasted the condition of the people of Dorset-
shire with those in Northumberland. He (Mr. Bankes)
acknowledged that in some parts of Dorsetshire their
dwellings were bad ; but the report stated that in many
parts of Northumberland they were still worse. The
advocates of the repeal of the corn-law said the repeal
would not throw a single acre out of cultivation. 'Well,
he thought differently ; and he thought, moreover, that
the condition of those labourers, who would be still em-
ployed in agriculture, would be much worse than it was
at present. In those weekly displays at Covent-garden
Theatre in which the Hon. Member for Manchester cut
such a figure, great stress had been laid upon the de-
clarations of Lord Ducie, who, it appeared, had been
present at some of their meetings ; but he thought his
Lordship, however amiable and estimable his character
might be, entertained wrong opinions on this sub-
ject, and arrived at wrong conclusions.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought he might be termed rather a
farmer among lords than a lord among farmers. Having
detained the House so long, he would not trespass fur-
ther on their patience ; nor would he have taken up so
much of their time had he not felt it necessary to rebut
those calumnious assertions which had been put forth
regarding the landowners in that part of the country
with which he was so intimately acquainted.
Mr. HUTT would be very brief. He would support
the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
but not for the reasons with which he had recom-
mended it to the favourable consideration of the House.
He preferred the adoption of a low fixed duty to the
abolition of all duty on corn under present cicumstances.
A low fixed duty would not be paid for by the consumer,
but by the foreign exporter ; and if he erred in his
opinion, he erred in the company of most intelligent and
independent men. The Hon. Member concluded by
saying he would support the motion.
Mr. COBDEN then rose, and said—lt is not my in-
tention, Sir, to follow the example of the Hon. Members
for Northamptonshire and Dorsetshire, in making this a
question of the character or conduct of the Anti-Corn-
law League, for to my apprehension we are met here to
discuss the character of the corn-laws, and not that of
the Anti-Corn-law League.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," from both sides of the House.) If it were not so
very trite and familiar an anecdote, I would illustrate
the conduct of these Hon. Gentlemen by that of the bar-
rister who, in complaisance with the wish of the defen-
dant to abuse the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney,
lost his client's case.—(Laughter.) The corn-laws are
now on their trial, and there is only one way by which
they can be tried, and that is by their effects on the na-
tion at large.—(Hear, hear.) Whether the farmer or
the farmer's labourer is a little better or a little worse, or
whether the landlord is a little richer or a little poorer,
dues not, to my mind, form anything like the whole of
the question which we have to consider. Now, I never
heard but two arguments, on national grounds, in favour
of the corn-law. One is, that it is a part of a system of
protection. This is one ground upon which the corn-
law is defended. Is that a good ground of argument ?
The other national argument is, that without the corn-
laws you cannot meet the taxation or pay the interest on
the heavy debt which has been incurred. Now, with re-
gard to the argument that it is a part of a system of pro-
tection of native industry in all its branches. Is it so ?
If it be so—if you can show me that it does protect na-
tive industry, I will give up the corn-law. But have you
done so ? Can you protect the exporting manufacturer
of this country ?—(Hear, hear.) One Hon. Gentleman
has referred to the case of a person who is a candidate
fur the office of President of America, who had inscribed
on his banners the motto, " Protection to native indus-
try." Why, there is a party in America in precisely the
same situation as the manufactures here—l mean the
exporters of cotton. They receive no protection from
those parties who affect the cry of "Protection to native
industry." There is precisely the same discord in Ame-
rica, and precisely the same kind of agitation as that
in England. Everybody must recollect the course which
was taken by the South Carolinists when they threat-
ened to pass an Act of nullification. This is the case in
France. The wine-growers are the exporting producers,
and they require no system of protection for native in-
dustry. This is the secret which is at the bottom of the
opposition which now exists to the corn-law. How do
you suppose you will put that opposition down ? By
calling names ? No. Show me that the corn-law is a
just law, and we will dissolve the Anti- Corn-law League;
but, unless you can show that, do not deceive yourselves
by supposing that such displays as those which have
been indulged in to-night—such childish displays
I may call them—can ever effect the dissolu-
tion of the League. You talk of protection
to native industry in ail its branches. Now, I
will bring that question home to you, and I will ask
you to show me bow you protect the labourer of the
country. I have told you before, and state it to you again,
that you may depend upon it that these vague declara-
tions will not serve you in this house. I will have you
declare, and show, how you protect labour in this coun-
try. I will meet you on the poor-law question. I will
not avoid that discussion although an attempt has been
made to avoid it by the Ministry. You shall not avoid
it. It shall be brought before the country ; and the
working classes of the country shall thoroughly under-
stand the gross imposture you put upon them. Now with
regard to the revenue. It is said that without a protec-
tive duty on corn we cannot pay the taxation of the
country. I heard a remark fall from an Hon. Gentle-
man sitting opposite to me, who spoke with as much
gravity as if he believed what he was saying was un-
answerable—that unless we maintained the corn-law we
could not pay the taxation of the country. Why ifwe are to
be taxed to pay the taxes of the corn-grower,who is to be
taxed to pay the taxes of the manufacturer ? I think it
has been shown that you cannot protect the manufac-
turer; and the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, with great
candour, admitted that he does not pay more for manu-
factures than the foreign merchant pays for them, anti
therefore there was no protection for the manufacturer
either in the home or in the foreign market. I beard an
Hon. Gentleman say that unless we have a high range of
prices it is impossible fur us to meet the national
taxation. Does anybody suppose that the corn-laws
keep up anything but the price of corn? You would
have high prices, yet have you not admitted that manu-
factures are sold cheaper here than in any other part of
the globe? And I want to know why you cannot pay
the taxes the same as the manufacturers? There is a
great and fundamental fallacy lying under this argument
—that protecting duties tend to the benefit of the
country. Protecting duties on corn, as has been ex-
plained by the Noble, Lord the Member for Sun-
derland tend to lower both wages and profits; and how
in the world, I ask, can it, therefore, tend to
enable the country to bear the taxation? This is an
argument, let me remind you, which applies not merely
to the manufacturers as against the agriculturalists—
that is not the application of my argument. I contend
that you are losing sight of the great body of the people
when you come to use this argument about protection.
I want to know how it will affect that great, body of
• people who are neither manufacturers, farmers, nor

landowners. If you raise the price of corn how will
that enable those people to pay their taxes ? They arc
people with a fixed income. If you tax them for the
purpose of paying your taxes, then you make there pay
not only their own taxes but yours too. Why, I real;
believe that the proprietors of land have a confused no-
tion that the national debt only means private mort-
gages. I have one or two facts to show what are the
consequences to the labourers of the country of high
p_ ices of corn. I have in my hand a list of the prices of
corn since the corn-law was established in 1815.
It is a very remarkable fact, that the price
of corn is a kind of barometer of the _ state
of taxation. The revenue of the country alwaysdeclines
just as the price of corn rises, and rises as the price of
corn falls. It is so much so, that, as I said before, it is
a perfect barometer of the state of the revenue. Now I
will take
,the four years from 1817 to 1820, when the
average price of corn was 84s. 4d. the quarter, and when
the farmers and landowners were rejoicing at high prices.
What was the effect to the reveuue ? Why there was an
addition to the annual taxes of the country of 2,400,000/.
imposed. I then take the six years up to 1825, when
there was unparalleled agricultural distress. During
those', years you had taxes repealed to the amount of
8,10,000/. Now I come to the next period of exceeding
low prices of corn, viz., in the years 1833, 1834, 1835,
and 1836, when the average price for the four years was
465. 9d. During those years there were taxes repealed
to the extent of four or five millions per annum. I now
come to the last dear years. During the years
1838 to 1842 the average price of wheat was
645. 7d. the quarter, being 20s. higher than
the previous four years. During these five years,
you had first of all five per cent. additional taxes, and
ten per cent. additional assessed taxes; and then came
the income-tax, amounting altogether to as much as
8,000,000/. sterling per annum. That was at a time
when rent was rising, when the landowners were laying
in extra rents, and when the farmers were in a state of
prosperity. Now, I want to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, who, I presume, will favour the House with his
opinion on this question—l want to ask him where is
the difficulty of carrying out the principles of free trade,
in everything? I wish to state, honestly and empha-
tically, that I am an advocate of free trade in every-
thing. If you go into Committee on the corn-law, and
the rules of the House will permit me, I will move that
every article that is protected be inserted in this resolu-
tion. Now, the Noble Lord the Member for the City of
, London expressed some surprise that we did not bring
forward a free trade motion. Why, the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government told us that we
ought to deal with corn in a very different manner to
any other article. Unfortunately to our sorrow, we
know that that is true, and we know that by abolishing
I the corn-laws we shall abolish other monopolies. Now,
lam for free trade in everything. And lest the Right
• Hon. Baronet should think this a revolutionary proposal,
I want to show that you can adopt free trade, and that
there is no national obstacle to its being carried out
immediately. I want to show you that, barring
your own class interests and the interest of
the landowners, and the farm labourers, there is no
national impediment to your carrying free-trade to-mor-
row.—(" Hear, hear," ironically from Lord John Man-
ners.) lam glad to see the Noble Lord, because the
Noble Lord professes an assumed benevolence. I am
glad to see the Noble Lord laugh. because it is a laugh
of incredulity. It shows that he votes for the corn-laws
because he believes there are national grounds for his
doing so. The Noble Lord cannot be sincere in his pro-
fessions of humanity in upholding the corn-law
for class-interests. I want to show you that you can
carry out free trade anywhere.—(Hear, hear.)
What is carrying out free trade ? Not by
removing all custom-houses. I have heard that an Hon.
Gentleman, in writing to his constituents, has said that
we wanted to abolish all custom-houses, and I have seen •
a letter in the Times newspaper declaring that such is
my doctrine. Free trade does not mean the abolition of
customs' duties. It means taking off the duties which
are levied for protection. How much was the amount
of that ? The whole amount of duty paid last
year for protective duties was 2,800,0001. ; that
includes the duty on corn, on timber, on silk,
and other items, in which there was a protective
duty. Now lam an advocate for removing the whole of
those protective duties. The whole duty paid on foreign
manufactures does not amount to 300,0001. How much
do you suppose was paid of duty for cotton and foreign
manufactures last year ? For cotton there was paid
3,700/. ; for lace, 7,600/. ,• china and earthen-
ware, 3,600/.; linen, 12,0001. ; wool, 16,7001. ; silk
manufactures, 240,6001.; the whole amounting to 284,000/.
Now abolish all these duties, let there be no proteetion
on manufactures ; we do not want them, for I began my
address by saying we have no protection. The test of
this is, that manufactures in this country are much
cheaper than they are anywhere else. The protection
on silk manufactures is generally on peculiar kinds, of
which the fabrics are rich and the patterns peculiar, I
say abolish the protective duties on silk and other manu-
factures, and if there is any one here who supposes that
I am for a free trade in corn, and not in anything else.
I repudiate his co-operation. I say you have no more
right to put a protective duty on silk than on corn.
Where we put out our proposal for subscription to the
Anti-Corn-law League among:the manufacturers of the
country, we distinctly stated that we did not ask a single
shilling from anybody who was not willing to abolish all
protective duties in connection with his own
trade. This is the case. The amount you have
to deal with would cause an apparent loss
to the revenue of two millions and a half ; but you must
recollect that by equalising the sugar duties you are
voting away two millions per annum in protection to
sugar. That is not enough for Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
and they want a little more ; but if you equalise the
duties on sugar, on coffee, and on other colonial products,
you will make up every farthing of the revenue you aro
going to lose by abolishing protective duties. You may
abolish every protective duty, and yet if you equalise the
colonial duties, the statesman will find himself without
the loss of one shilling of revenue. The Right Hon.
Baronet, when he wished to benefit by an opinion as to
an exception from his general rule, quoted with great
approbation the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume with re-
gard to slave grown sugar- Now, I have reason to know
that Mr. Hume's opinion on that point was the only part
of his evidence before the Committee which he regretted
having given. I was in correspondence with him at the •
time of his death as to the publishing of that evidence
with notes, and the qualification he had made with re-
spect to slave grown sugar, was the only part he re-
gretted ; and if he had lived he would have expunged it.
What was the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume with respect
to protective duties ? He was asked by the Committee
whether he thought the revenue would present any ob-
stacle to the simultaneous abolition of all protective
duties. His answer was " Certainly nut ; my hesitation
applies only to the interests affected by the change, not
the revenue, which I have no doubt would be instantly
increased by removing the protective duties." There
appears to have been on the Committee some gentlemen
who entertained an idea that it was not possible to pay
the State taxes unless they continued the protective sys-
tem ; and it was in answer to the questions of these
gentlemen that Mr. Deacon Hume made this statement.
He says that a highly taxed people cannot afford protec-
tion. An individual, whose expences are great, cannot
be generous. That the very circumstance of the people
being taxed for the good of the State is a reason why
they cannot be taxed between themselves. A people
obliged to pay high public taxes are less able to pay pri-
vate ones. Now, upon Mr. Deacon Hume's opinion, and
the facts I have stated, I take my stand against all
protection. If protection cannot be given equally, it
must be unjust to some portion of the community ; and,
if it is unjust to any portion, if they have the spirit
of Englishmen they ought never to submit quietly to
such a system. If you can apply generally, it can be of
no advantage to any one. Then, I say, abandon this
system. It is unsound, and cannot be defended on any
principle of sound policy. Therefore it is I ask you to
give your decision against this principle. You may say
"We are strong in power—we have the constituencies
with us."—(lronical cheers.) Yes, but how long will
you stand firmly on that pinnacle of power, if the
foundations of your pedestal are placed in jeopardy ?
You must show that you are on a just footing before
you can hope to maintain your power. Now, I have
never heard the question argued how protection benefits
the farmer, the farm labourer, or any other class of the
community. You tell me that you do this to benefit
the farmer and the farm-labourer, but my Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton has asked you to show
how it does that. Do you do so? No, you immediately
rise up and talk as you always do, in the future tense,
and you tell us what effect the opposite system has in
injuring the farmer and the farm-labourer, but you do
not tell us how the present system benefits them. But
I do ask the Right Hon. Baronet not to fly off into de-
tails—not I mean the mere expediency of this matter.
The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton has brought the
question fairly before the House. This is a question, I
admit, which is not sanctioned by the leading men on
this side of the House. But it is the sole question of
controversy out of doors. The question ou's of doors is
the principle of protection or no protection; and when
a gentleman on this side of the House, possessing so
large a share of the public confidence as my Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton, brings forward a pro-
position against protection, I say the Right lion. Baronet
will not be treating him or the people of this country
fairly, unless he fairly met the argument he brought
forward on this occasion. The Right Hon. the
President of the Board of Trade said that he
would not argue the principle of protection, because it
was recognised by the Legialature of this country. But
we come here to contest that principle, and to call upon
you to justify it. Is it not then sophistry, to say the
least of it, to tell us that because the principle has been
admitted we will not argue it, unless we make an excep-
tion to the mode in which the tax is laid on corn. But
I say again, we reject the principle, and call upon the
Hon. Baronet to show how that principle benefits the
country at large. The Treasury Benches on the other
side have shown a disposition to evade this question.
The Noble Lord, the Member for South Lancaahire,
(Lord Stanley), whose great talents for debating no-
body denied, was sent to this House to defend the corn-
laws. Now, I have never heard him open bis mouth on
the subject of protection, and I challenge him to justify
this principle. I challenge him to justify it to the ma-
nufacturers of Preston and Blackburn, not to the
minority who had petitioned in favour of i.t, but to
the majority who opposed it. I ask hinito show upon
public grounds, the justice of this law. I do not ask
him to engage in a personal skirmish in this House. I
do not ask him to engage upon that which he is so well
able to do—to engage in a slashing debate upon personal
topics. I ask him:to show upon public grounds, the us.
tice of the system of protection. If f,;he Right Hon.
Baronet rises in his place in this Howse, to -defend the
system, it will go forth to the country, and the people
would see whether the argument of •the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton was founded in rmson and on facts,
or whether the weight of argument by which they were
going to vote is on our side. Ido appeal. to the House
not to go the vote until some argumentbeen given
to show the justice of your principle of 'protection.

-~

Sir-R. PEEL said, I can assure the House that it isadvantage of the merchant. So the Nob'e Lord is pre •of rent. He remembered a speech delivered more than forty
not my intention to trouble it at any length to-night on , pared to guard the merchunt against loss from excess in years ago by Lord Eldon, in which he stated that it was haves-
this su'rject. I consider that the House has to-night the quantity of importation. I am afraid that Bible for any tax on agriculture to be remitted without throw-
been enraged for the benefit of that company which . concurrently wit!' a good harvest in this c nun-
ing the difference into the pockets of the landowner. The
generally performs at Covent-garden Theatre—(Loud , try there might be good harvests in other Right Hen. Baronet spoke of the capital invested in
the
thesoil.
.taHl e
ofgratnitieed
landowner
nßut ifu he meant
_it
cheers and laughter)—and I have very great reluctance I countries, and a great glut of corn coming into this .
in interposing myself, so as to prevent them from having country would be the result ; whereas, if the tenant has : °denied capital s
was a claim a aainsotwtheerre tehalsof ttrillevelsatwed,
Ahes
the full benefit of the occasion. lam exceedingly sorry a guarantee against a sudden glut, I cannot help think- ,to the farmer, the complaint wasg
that he didr not invest enough
that at an earlier part of the performances the front ing that shere must be more certainty in the application of capital in the land, and it was notorious that he was pre-
benches were not occupied. For a very considerable of capital. I have heard it asserted to-night I gave an , vented from doing so by the operation of this law. The Right
part of the debate, those places were without a single assurance that there should be an average price of 565. i Hon. Baronet spoke of farmers half a century old, who had been
occupant—(Renewed cheering)--until the Gallant Ad- (Hear, hear.) Sir, I ask how can any gentleman say ! brought up to look to this system of protection. But he could
,
miral came in and took his seat alone upon them.— so ?—(Hear, hear.) tell him that there were men in the towns, manufacturers, that
I
(Cheers.) I hope the assistance the Hon. Gentleman Mr. COBDEN—It was so understood. were quite as much entitled to protection. One more remark
and his friends gave to me at my benefit the other night Sir R. PEEL— on the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet. He said that theyl do hot know what was understood. It ;
—(Great cheering and laughter)—has not been the was said the other night that I gave some assurances on the found no fault with the present corn-law—that they only
!übdiect of the Bank Charter ; but I could only reply, that I I opposed
7 to themviolation to otetarhe
the
ein offiefureeßatrreaudee.t
Cause of depriving them of a fuller audience.—(Cheers.)
It wassatii
never
said_ any such thing.—(. Hear, hear.) And in this , tsfacatsora I only refer to it as a fact, that for the far greater per- had
i state again what he had stated before, that Right
the principles we
case
than
what I said was, that I
.clid not think that less average ,
1b • before the House true andthat
ring are ones,
tion of this evening almost the only occupants of the 563. would be remunerating, and that the price ought not
benches on the other side of the House, upon this to go lower than 51s. willing to contest them. He believed that no man who as-
great and important discussion of the corn-laws, Mr. COBDEN said that the Right Hon. Baronet ' was un- i ired to the character of a great statesman in this country could
have been that particular class of gentlemen who have derstood to guarantee the average at 565. , tong continue to allow that great principles were true, and yet
rehearsed their parts an another stage.—(Cheers and Sir R. PEEL—I have only stated what I said.—(Cheers.) ! oppose their being carried into operation.—( Hear, hear.) He
laughter. An Hon. Member—" Your own benches !") I said that I took 565. as the average of the last five years. I had spoken, too, of the predictions of his Hon. Friend, the
Well !at -least we were here.—(Cheers.) An Hon. read these words from the printed report of the debates. It is Member for Stockport. He believed that no man less in-
Gentleman commenced his speech by attacking my Hon. not my report. It is the report of a disinterested witness. Bulged in predictions than his Honourable Friend, but
( The Right Hon. Baronet then read an extract of his speech they l 8
were4or, e
dl
u - tie
e 14,4
the
ed e
elutit2,
couldtha t
uet unless
he
Friend the Member for Northampton for having con-
theprice of predictprovisionlas Burned a considerable portion of the time of the House by sfraalthHaatn,s,airtd'swDasebbeateest,idinthwhich he
of the
ttuorehavtoe
raised from its state of depression. There was rayfeature about.
referring to the speeches of the Hon. Gentlemen who tee the price of wheat, earl power
rat °it would beg Legislature this law that nothing but sophistry could get over ; that it
guarantee were members of the Anti-Corn-law League, and he ing a delusion to hold out hopes that such a species of prote'i-- was a law for making food scarce for the purpose of making it
thought that reference was entirely misplaced— tion would be given to agriculture.") Now, I ask could any dear. It was a law that raised rent, and had no effect in
(Hear, hear)—he said he ought to have addressed reasonable man, from this put that construction upon my raising wages, while it prevented the landlords from being
himself simply and solely to the main question words that I would uphold the price to Ms? I referred to subject to the same competition. So strong was his con.
before us.—(Cheers.) But I wish he had given that ad- former Acts, and I stated how they had failed, and that it was viction of the mischief of this law, its insidious principle, and
vice to his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhamps impossible for the Legislature to guarantee prices which were the danger that awaited the country from it, if it should be again
ton—(Loud cheers)—because it is the gentleman who determined by other considerations.—(Hear, hear.) That is I.lisitedidby a succession of bad harvests, that he was sure
what I saki; and I hope that in future the Hon. Gentleman i....t
osevoeurnmoevuerthhraotwrteheee
eGdeodvllrinmmenlieasd J
not
td ovisehrthhrioswl n the
commences the discussion who gives the tone to the
whole debate— (Cheers)—it is the leading performer
willuMrrathGere refeer i•t:iesOat I said, than to so high an authority as U
be repealed in a time of great excitement, or a wing
of peril.
heard from whom all the others take their cue.—(Cheers.) 1
- taunted witoirigliavin Robins.—(Laughter.)
predictionsaug ht er. )
which
hwaev e hale
et
beenbe e n He wished that these who were sent there to represent the
heard the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton speak I realised. Now, I wouldg
ask the House to look to the predic- whole community should treat this question as a national one,
believe for three hours and a half, and if I mistake not, tions which have been made by the gentlemen who so- taunt and not one merely of the interests of a peculiar class.
one hour and a half was occupied in the production of us—and which have not been realised.—( Hear, hear.) They Colonel SIBTHORP rose, amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh."
He was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
newspapers which contained the speeches which had predicted in 1812 that the averages would be lowered by the
down should talk about class legislation, when he voted for the
been delivered at every agri cultural meeting, and which addition of the new towns.
he with great solemnity referred to. And if that is the Mr. GIBSON said that the average had been lowered. introduction of slave labour produce.
course which the author of the debate takes, if that be Sir R. PEEL—On referring to the returns, it would be Mr. VILf LIERS replied. He would not occupy much of
seen that the averages are rather higher, in consequence of the h
the.in time of thet Holuseto,.foistioHaensn.weGrehnatdlehmeeen opposittoe
the
given
the example set, really the Hon. Gentleman is the last
person who ought to complain that other gentlemen
aadditioextractn
of
those new towns.—(The Hon. Baronet then read 1
ments which he made with regard to the agricultural
lvteunral pooer.st;hee-
came provided with similardocumentsin order to remind fromn e
wan
corn
-law
urdaildpanpoetr, . which was intended to
debate had now concluded because the Right Hon. Gentleman
show that the
him and his Hon. Friends of the speeches they have deli- gambling—that prices did not depend ncfwireu onencouragement
p fluctuations of had spoken, and he had heard that there was great uncertainty
vexed. I was glad to hear the second to to whi.ch the Hon. the weather, hut fluctuations of supply.) - Hon. Gentlemen even amongst his own supporters as to the character of that
Gentleman referred. He delivered a homily against opposite predicted, when the present systm was proposed, that sPeeth'—(t No, no.") The Right Hon. Gentleman was told
and that the
calling names. It is a bad practice, and I have re- it wouldre-
that if he made a broad and distinct declaration be a progress from bad to worse,
that he would resist the attacks of the Anti-Corn-law League,
marked that those who are most lavish of attacks on vival of trade was incompatible with the new corn-law. The
others are the first to shrink from the application of a Hon. Member for Stockport said that if the law were carried it would tend to unite the divisions of the party who supported
similar instrument when used against themselves.— into effect, Stockport would be a howling wilderness, and all the Right Hon. Gentleman. He would then hear no more of
(Hear, hear.) If there is any party in this House who the middle classes throughout the country would be reduced a ten hours' Bill or of the poor-laws.—(No, no ) From the
to the condition of paupers.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) mannerin which the
.conclusion of the Right Hon. Gentle-
deals largely in the practice of calling names, and affix- to
speech. was received he concluded that what he said was
Now, Sir, that prophecy has net been realised—( Hear, hear)
ing odious imputations on the motives of those who din- Now,
satisfactory to them.—( Cheers.) But in the year
—but I ree-et thot the improvement has
not been so great as
sent from themselves, that party is the one to which thePerfectly
the Right Hon. Gentleman made aspeech of
. a similar
a
we could. have wished. The Hon. Gentleman predicted that
character,
Hon. Gentleman belongs.—(Cheers.) Ido not defemi within six months the manufacturing interest would be in acharacterisedand
by levity, an utter disregard of
the practice, but the example provokes retaliation. state of dissolution. the privations of the poor—(Oh, oh)—at least there was no
And those who first resort to the practice are very Mr. COBDEN—And it was so. allusion to the condition of the poor. But Hon. Gentlemen
frequently the first to say the calling of names ought to Sir R. PEEL—What is the state of dissolution ?—( Hear.) should recollect what had taken place between 1839 and
he distinct front legitimate argument, and they beg that Has there beers
no improvement? In cotton the declared value 1814, and they should take care lest what had
in future the practice may he avoided. The Honourable of the exports in 1844, as compared with 1842, showed an in-
happened during this time should not _ occur again
Gentleman asked how the Anti-Corn-law League were crease of 16,300,000 lbs. The export of yarn had been in-
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board
to be combatted. I think they have greatly diminishes'. creasing. It had, however, since diminished, and the export ofTrde, had otffered. a sort of reproof to him, because he had
their' power by the use of the instruments they have had osfogwooit irre,
respect
emeotrteo advancedarth state of manufacture had inctreased. .eoccupiedsome
haddone
wanns
se
triinerjyadimngpeoTntrtacts4.erommaraitars.
that What
thoe
recourse to.— Bear hear.) They have provoked in- reedits, in 14? was 550,70077,wthleetrritmati3oriit
wotasth6s9,oocornol-. n
who opposed free trade were bound to show that they made ans
dignation on the part of the tenants of the country, at So with respect to glass, sill:, &c., the exportation had in- adequate supply for the wants of the people; and he had retie
' the free use they have made of unjust imputations, am.: creased during the continuance of the corn-laws. So that it extracts to show that under the present system there was no
they have provoked, by the attributing of base, and selfish, would be seen that the exports, as compared between 1842 and hope of an adequate supply. Now what was it which he lhad
brought before the House. He had shown that the people were
and interested motives to honourable men, a combination 1843, had considerably increased. But then it had been said,
against themselves. It was but a short time since, a take care ofyour imports. Now, what was the fact with re-
suffering great privations, because they had not access to the
a boast was made that the tenants and labourers were in spect to them ? Why, in 1842 the imports were 65,204,000/., first necessaries of life. He had reminded them that the po-
favour of repeal of the corn-laws; but I apprehend, and while in 1843 they were,70,093,000/. I am, continued the pulation was increasing at an enormous rate, that, if the census
I infer it from the altered tone I perceived in the Right Hon. Baronet, only stating these things for the was correct, it hadt increased
.by two millions, since he first be-
debate, that they have discovered that they have ravrpeose
beenof showadineg that the confident predictions that
t mightt
gun a:tee:pat to gelturei
question.—(Cries n, - C
of his ( statements, r les
af
' '
Question.") stthieo n'w"o)uldTohnelyy
out-stripped the; limits within which it would be of the Bill have made
anda beent
falsified.—(Heart particular
heaorp. operation oh e
procure contempt and detestation for themselves. they would
would
prudent to have confined themselves, and the use of the Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, is for total repeal. only get contempt for their maudlin professions. Night after
instrument they have employed has recoiled on them He appeals to feelings and measures which I think come ex- night had been occupied in talking about the sufferings of the
selves.—(Cheers.) The lion. Gentleman, then went ti tremely late. The Noble Lord said, that if there was a repeal people, but when their own interests were at stake, Hon. Gen-
the particular, motion, and said we would pot escape frorr of the corn-laws there would be an increased demand for in-
clement scouted discussion. He had asked them for some jus-
the discussion of it. It would appear from the speed dustry, and the result would be an immediate restoration of tification of the policy of stopping trade in food, he had asked
them to show why that policy was continued. He had
of the Hon. Gentleman that the question they were now prosperity. Now, there have been many years in which there
discussing wae,the total abrogation of all protecting duties. has been an unrestricted importation of foreign corn. There . been visited that mornine by a working man, who had detailed
was no duty on corn at the time of the war, but there was t
ci
bad
thesufferings wehich he had
d endured during the years
If that was the question,'
why was not notice given ac was
but little hope of change
no cessation from those privations which are inseparable of harvests;
and
h
cordingly ? Nothing would have been easier to frame
with . the present system of protection. What must be his
from society in a great agricultural and com-
than a motion, having for its object the repealof all
pro- mercial countr It •is my firm belief that i•f there reflections on reading that debate he could not say.
tective duties, hut it referred to one particular depart- was a repealY. of the corn.laws there would not be Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. On our re-ad-
merit of industry, which it was thought expedient should that demand for industry which is anticipated. The
mission to the gallery we understood that Mr. Ferrand had
cease and determine. The Hon. Gentleman shakes hi: Noble Lord said that the labourer should have a fair withdrawn his amendment, and that the House divided on the
head, but I urn not wrong in saying that this motion has day's wages for a fair day's work, and that the repeal of the original motion, when the numbers were,
reference to only one particular branch of industy. Now corn.laws would ensure it to him. For my own part I believe For the motion
I defend protection to agriculture—(Cheers)—on tie that no legislation could effect that, and what would not be the Against it
.....
principle and to the extent that I defended it before. J disappointment if, after the repeal of the corn-laws had taken
—204
Alajority against the motion
am about to address no new opinions on the subject to place, it turned out that that perfect prosperity which the Noble The other orders of the day were then disposed .of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.
Lord prophesied did not occur, and that the labourer did riot
the House. I have a strong feeling that, speaking
obtain a fair day's wages for a fair da 's work 9 Would they not
generally—l am now speaking of the amount then revert back to the Noble Lord y
and call upon him to make
of protections—that the agriculture of the country is good that which he had promised. ' The analogy betweenCa-
entitled to protection from considerations of justice as nada and this country is totally in
; because it could well as of policy. I consider there are special peculiar, easily be shown why there was an increased demand fur
burdens on laud which entitle it to this protection— labour in Canada and other colonies which there was not in
burdens imposed on the land for the relief of the poor. others. Now, I look to the state of the United States, and I
On considerations of policy, I think agriculture is en- find that, even there, where there are no restrictions upon
titled to protection, because I think that great public food, there exists great distress. In New York and Phila.
evils would be the result if this motion were carried to- delphia, there is certainty on the part of the labouring com-
munity. On these grounds, Ido not believe that the removal
-fleeting, thinking men out of the Anti-Corn-law League
night—that is to say, I do trot believe there are ten re-
of restrictions will realise the expectations of the Noble Lord.
Ii ttheannelcri
tome
Hou fo_r the indulgence with which they have
who are of opinion that if the announcement were made
to-morrow, that the House of Commons resolved that totallys
disaapmpero
whileveof Ithveen, ventured
.ttiounaswsiginefitthee h
reasonslfonGewntl
from next Monday week all protection were suddenlj man has made for the abdurtrelmoval of all prohibition, only
and immediately to be withdrawn from agricultural not adopting any new opinions and principles for the present
produce, such a precipitate withdrawal of protection occasion, only in opposition to the Noble Lord, who, with me,
would be for the advantage of the general interests of admits the principle of protection. I prefer the principle of
the country. --(Hear, hear.) Suddenly to withdraw all the Bill of 1842 to the principle of the Bill of the Noble Lord—
protection from the coffee and ginger producers of (Cheers)—and 1 have only to repeat the declaration which, on
the colonies, and to withdraw all protection from agri- the part of her Majesty's Government, I made at the com-
mencement of the present session, that we do not intend, and we
culture and manufactures, would have the effect of
aral have not intended, to diminish the protection which the existing
sin the commercial industy of the counts and
produce general distress, and the labourers o ,
corn-law gives to the agricultural interest.—(Loud cheers from
would yf
the the Ministerial side of the House. )
country would be involved in the general ruin. Tin Lord HO WICK rose to 8
The Right Hon Gen
question, then, we have to consider to-night is, whether tleman had so entirely tnistaken expl
ain.what he (Lord Howic.k) had-
We shall affirm this resolution, which, though confined said last night, and it related to a matter of so much import-
to the question of corn alone, involves the sudden ante, that he trusted the House would allow him to state what
and immediate removal of all protection fame it was that he really had said. The Right Hon. Gentleman
our colonial and domestic products. We should had imputed to him that he had said that a repeal of the coro-
deal dispassionately and gradually with the removal of laws would produce such an immediate effect as to insure, under
those protective duties lookin to the mone ex ended all circumstances, to every labouring man a fair day's wages for
in the cultivation of the soil, and seeing that yrelapnd is ,
a fair day's work. Now he had said no such thing. He had
I
said that, in his opinion, society was so constituted by Provi-
Wholly dependent on agriculture.—(Cheers.) I know deuce, that if it were net interfered with by artificial restric-
that according.
, to your algid principles of political coo- tions labour would always, in a sound and wholesome state of
nomy, I cannot abstrectedly contest your principles.— society, secure its due reward. He had said that it had been
(Hear, hear.) Speaking mathematically, they may be admitted, on both sides of the House, that there had been a
true. It may be true that the population fi om which progressive diminution in wages and in profits. He had said
production is sought to be withdrawn, ought to be ern- that there existed in this country artificial restrictions, and that
plowed in other avocations. But is that practicable ? if those artificial restrictions were removed in the majority of
—(Hear, hear.) If we are not mere philsophers or men cases, and under ordinary circumstances, they would secure to
of science, laming to deal with abstract and imaginary the poor, industrious man, a fair return for his labour, and that
quantities, but men having to deal with the comfoi is am. a system or legalised relief was a proper resource under extra-
subsistence of millions of human beings how can wt ordinary circumstances, but one which ought not to be had re-
disregard those considerations which are presented to the course
It.
iO under
i, ordinary
would ci circumstances.—(Cheers. cu s taar st .—t
the
Ch e
versioners.
)which the
contemplation of the legislator and the statesman ? Name Lord had given of the certainly
words wphich he had spoken last
You may reset has ing voted on the strict principles of night, and he would abide by that construction on all future
rigid philosophy and political economy ; but when you occasions; but the Noble Lord would perhaps permit him to
- have endanged the peace and prosperity of the cuuntry. read the passage of his speech by which he had been misled.
you will have but a sot :y return. Therefore, I say, for The Noble Lord had said we might give a new value to labour
eonsiderations of justice, looking at the long endurance by diminishing competition, and he had then proceeded to say
of this protection—looking at the amount of capital in • that all that the poor man asked for was a fair day's wages for
vatted—looking at the nature of the population—looking a fair day's work, arid they had a right to ask this, and the
Legislature had the power to give them this, by simply reliev-
at the fearful magnitude of the interests, not from a re-
ing them from those artificial restrictions which prevented them
geed merely fur the interests of landlords and tenants
from furnishine their labour to their best custome
' but the - . interests of all classes of the community—l 'mat (Cheers.) He read the passage for the -f
h •
giveimy decided and unqualified opposition to the pro- that the Noble Lord had eof
exrpullose hoi showing
owwiitihig
- penal
e rfsur the immediate repeal of the corn-laws.— out those qualifications which the Noble Lord had intended,
• 1 um asked whether am
speaking now of the first proposal. If would bear the construction which he had placed upon them.
whother lam prepared to bring under Lord HOWICK said that the passage which the Right
tire • consideration of the nouse any modified Hon. Gentleman had quoted was perfectly consistent with the
proposition, I reply at once that lam nut prepared explanation which he had given. He did not usually look over
• The Hon. Gentleman says that mf, Right Hon. Friend the reports of his speeches, but it so happened that he looked
sand myself are using language di erent froni that which this morning at the report of his speech in the papers—(Loud
we used at a former period. We are not holding difth laughter)—and owing to the late hour at which he had spoken
reat language. We said then, and we say now, that WP de his observations had been so much abridged that many ins-
' slut ierntemplate any alteration in the corn-law.—(Hear,)
portant qualifications had been entirely omitted in the news-
hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for the City of Paper reports.
had originally entertained no intention of ad-
London, whose absence on this occasion I regret— dressing the llouse,
andheshould not have done an haul it not
(Lairghter)—has declared his intention of not voting been for the allusion which had been made to
against the proposal of the Honourable Gentle- him by the Right Honourable Gentleman.—( Hear, hear.)
wale Now the Honourable Gentleman has very fairly There was no choice left him between supporting the present
called upon us to declare to night whether we ate motion and voting for the continuance of the existing corn-laws,
' fir or against a total repeal of the corn-laws. Nothing and he should, therefore, support the motion. With regard to
Can be tatrer than the course pursued by him. You
what the Right Hon. Gentleman had said on the subject of the
erehnot impute to him that he wants to catchduty, silk he would observe that it was not all for protection,
s„ sty votes by an equivocal motion. The Noble
and that if they were to raise a revenue by duties on imports,
it wasluxurylike silk,
better to raise it on an article of - Lout toys distinctly that he is not prepared than on food, and the whole of the duty on silk
for ine'nedliate repeal, being of opinion that agri- was only one-half the duty imposed upon food.
culture is entitled to protection. On what ground does He had always, in discussing the question of the corn-laws,
he withhold from his party the light of his countenance, and those other propositions which would most affect the work-
. and the advan tae of his efforts, against the proposition ing classes, said, begin with reducing the duty on the raw ma-
ul the him. Meeuher for Wolverhampton ? The Noble terial, reduce the tax on food, enable the poor man to enter
into competition with his rivals in foreign countrie e He
Lord said that he found himself in a position in' which
2i, Government had been, namely, in a very unenviable thought, considering the whole question, it would be absurd to
e
say the present corn-laws would be permanent • could the
one. At any rate, we have not solved the difficulty by
for instance, be maintained in this metropolis% would thy; running away. The Noble Lord says, that because we
artizans here be content to compete with -paying one-third
maintain' the existing corn-lacy, he cannot vote with us, more for their bread than in any other town in Europe ?—( Hear,
though hos concurs with us in denouncing the proposi hear.) This country formerly possessed exclusive advantages
tion of tin; nun. Gentleman. The Noble Lord has not regarding strain and machinery, which no other countries en-
al ways been. so squeamish.—(flear, hear.) The other joyed ; but those advantages they possessed no longer, and it
night the Noble Lord vindicated himself from voting with became therefore imperative on the Legislature to enable our
these to whoen he was opposed, by saying that he mechanists to compete with those of other countries.
should never have carried the Reform Bill and various Mr. P. BORTHWICK rose amid loud cries of "Divide,"
~their Bills, if he bad not combined with those with whom, and one or two exclamations of " Turn him out !" He at.
tteneeh generally. opposed to them, he occasionally con- tempted to explain, amid great confusion, some aspersions
which had been cast upon him in the course of the debate.
ciirred itt approbation or disapprobation of a particular
measure.
The Hon. Member, however. failed in obtaining a hearing.
Well, the Noble Lord does concur with
its in Mr. BRIGHT then rose and was received with loud cries
. disapprobation of this particular measure, yet he cannot , den •e, an ming e c eers and uproar. He
of " Divide •al " d • I d h
make up his mind to give that vote which his judgment said that he could assure the House that he did not intend to
•on ca---er ) ']'he judgment
tells him is the propel hon
es • e Hon. Lem- take up many minutes of their time. He felt that he would
her for Gateshead, on the o!r nd, who is the advo- not be performing his duty to those who had sent him to that
Cate of a fixed duty, intends to vote with the Hon. Gen- House if he did not state the grounds upon which he would
tleman (Mr. Villiers), who has clone all he can to reset- give his vote that night. He was exceedingly glad that the Right
diate his company, and who tells him that his resolia. on. Baronet had spoken upon this question that night, for
tion is as much directed against
fixed duty as agaaat when he spoke upon it he generally brought the question
a.
a sliding scale. I think the 'ion. hien/her has just as into a narrower compass than it was before. Three years
little defence for givin his vote as the Noble Lord ago the Right Hon. Gentleman opposed them upon the same
. g , .
Now ground that he did then, thatthe • I burdens the
. specie. . upon
has for stopping away. (Loud cheering.)
landowners and farmers
were a claim and a just claim to pro-
-1 he more
the more I hear this question discuesseo, t
maintain
convinced am I that it is infinitely better to On
his ground, and had only addressed himself to the
the present protection than to attempt to conciliate sup- poor-rates_(Cries of "No, no.") He would not like to mis-
_ The
in favour of any slight moditication.—(Cheers.) represent any Member of that House, but certainly the only
The real, practical question, is between the tuainte- speteloafi the
nance of the existing law and the total and unqualified 1
1 tha
Lancashire,
repeal ; and I cannot conceive of any public advantage not so large a county where the landowners and
farmers were a portion of the population as corn-
, arising from the substitution of the Noble Lord's duty I d •
are with other classes as they were in other counties.
The
, for the oxisting system. Ido believe that, for the gene- I t
I Noble Lord was perhaps aware, and
if so, he would perhaps
fit of the. consuming classes, the present system works communicate the knowledge to his colleague, that there
better than a fixed duty of Bs. a quarter could possibly such things as p;'or-rates in his county, and if the poor-rate
werewe r e
do. I have' ,never heard a better argument in favour of a ground for taxing the community, to enable the land-owners
, a graduated duty_ in preference to a fixed one, than we to; pay their poor-rates, they were also a ground for taxing
heard from t hes Noble Lord last night. The Noble Lord the community for the manufacturers to pay their poor-rates.
'goes quite Ras far as I do in objections to the He would ask, where was the difference between the two cases?
Amoral of alli., protection. Ile asked last night what He would be glad if the Right Hon. Baronet, When he spoke
:could we reason ably expect from a sudden revolution, on this question, would be a little more explicit. No one was
the most insignificant
fro
more capable of going into details, Oen
T a state of considerable protection to one of free-
• T'trade?
~, The lundlord and tenant would, said the Noble If the poor-rates were lessened on farms. what differ_
ence would it make to the farmer, seeing that, when
• 'l'l b° in doubt as to the in which th • • l
manner . their capita the
poor-rates were lowest, rent was at the highest,
,could be Proft bl te. y employed. lam afraid that a low fixed and, when the poor-rates were high, rent was low ?
duty would
e
further stated, tha.
, t the effect would be a diminution.
in the poor-rate
The paid more rent than his neighbour on the other s • Y
employment of e labour, and that there
. . would be a much would be told that he had but little tithe and little poor-rate to
greater import& tton then would be consistent with the pay, and that the difference went to the landlord in the shape

OPENING OF LETTERS.
[The following is a fuller report of the concluding
speeches in the debate in the House of Lords on the open-
ing of letters at the Post-office, than we had space for in
our Morning Edition of yesterday.]
Lord DENMAN said he did not consider this motion
as any impeachment of the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, nor was he aware of any circum-
stances which would lead him to say that the Secretary
of State had acted improperly in the exercise of this
most odious and perilous power ' • but he thought that
circumstances had appeared, and were at present the
subject of public discussion, connected with the exercise
of that power, which made it imperative upon Parlia-
ment to inquire into the mode in which it was exercised
—(Cheers)—for the purpose of seeing whether or not,
hereafter, there should be proper- limits applied to that
power, whether certain restrictions should not be im
posed upon the exercise of it, and whether rules should
not be laid down within which alone the power could
ever be usefully, beneficially, or consistently with honour,
exercised at all.—(Hear.) It appeared that a letter had
been opened from an individual who did not appear to
be involved in any treasonable concerns whatever. He
did not mean to deny that the Secretary of State might
have been bound to open that letter ; for one of the un-
fortunate circumstances of the power he possessed was
that the Secretary of State was compelled, in a measure,
to exercise that power in the dark. Talk of his respon
sii-ilify—was he responsible to the House of Commons ?
Nu : it was a matter of secresy, which he could not dis-
close. Was he responsible to the House of Lords ?
No : the House of Lords must suppose that the Secre-
tary of State had done what he felt justified in
doing. Was he responsible to the Government ?
No : because the Noble Duke and the other Mem-
bers of her Majesty's GOvernment had no know-
ledge of the circumstances.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But
the question was, whether, upon the words of the Act
of Parliament, it was intended that this power should be
exercised to such an extent ? The statute of Anne de
Glared that the Post-office authorities should be subject
to certain penalties for the delay of any letter, except the
delay was made under the warrant of the Secretary of
State.—(Hear.) That was the extent to which the
statute went.—(Hear.) Then, as to the warrant, he
should think that the warrant would flow not from the
Secretary of State alone, but from all the Ministers, act-
ing upon the necessity of the case, which might be so
overpowering_ as to form an excuse for the exercise of
such extraordinary power. But that power appeared to
exist without the slightest responsibility, and in such a
manner, that 'he did not think the English Parliament
or the English people would any longer endure.—
(:flieers.) He did not consider this a question of expe-
diency or inexpediency, but a question of right and
wrong.—(Hear, hear.) He should no more believe it
necessary to show that it was wrong for this power to
exist in the person of one individual than he should
think it necessary to contend that it was wrong to pick a
pocket.—(Hear.) It might indeed be necessary, under
some extreme circumstances, that measures of personal
restriction, or Affecting a man's property, should be re-
sorted to ; burpat there should be this kind of irrespon-
sibility in the exercise of the power he never could agree.
As to Mr. Fox, he issued such a warrant, no doubt ; far,
coming into office at the period which he did, at a time
of the utmost disturbance, when all Europe was leagued
against England, and England was by no means at
peace with herself, it would have been a most unwise
abandonment of the power he possessed if he had not
issued his warrant to the Postmaster-General at that
time. But it must have cost him dear. What must be
the feelings of such a man as Secretary of State, upon
opening a private letter, and becoming acquainted with
circumstances of which he would wish to be ignorant,
and afterwards meeting the individual in private life
with the consciousness that he was in possession of
secrets which that individual would not wish any third
person to know.—(Hear.) He thought Mr. Fox must
have said to himself, under such circumstances,—
`• Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
" Moliri, et lath fines custode tueri !"—(Cheers.)
It was said by his Noble and Learned Friend, and said
truly, that some political rival, or political enemy, might
succeed him in office, and then he might be improperly
called on to answer for that which was no crime, and
therefore, he must keep the warrant, which was his jus-
tification ; but, suppose, with the experience he pos-
sessed, he had been rash enough to transmit that docu-
ment to his solicitors, his successor in office would hare
deprived him at once of his defence, and he might then
have been . punished fur the act. Fortunately, there
uas an inconsistency in human nature, which prevented
people who did. possess and exercise hateMpowers,
acting consistently with themselves upon other occa-
sions ;_ and a high and dignified character would keep a
man from abusing a power to the extent to 'which it
was now supposed to have been abused.—(Hear, hear.)
But undoubtedly it never could be exercised without
great pain to any honourable mind called upon
to exercise it.—(Hear, hear.) But, then, beyond the
posseSsion of it, the acting upon it, and the using
of it, there were circumstances of concealment, and
something very like forgery.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") Those things had a tendency to demoralise the
public mind.—(Hear.) It was well known that many of
the subordinate officers and servants of the Post-office
unfortunately were too much in the habit of overlooking
the obligations which honesty ought to impose upon
them ; and he could not think that the knowledge that
the great heads of that department, and persons of sit-
perior positions, used such a power, would be any check
upon the improper and dishonest desires of such per-
sons when letters were entrusted to their care.—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him to be too much, that when the
Government of this country imposed upon all its natives,
as well as upon those of all parts of the world, the ne-
cessity of paying them a large revenue for doing the
duty of letter-carriers, that they should at the same time
retain in their hands the power of opening all the letters
they were entrusted to convey.—(Hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON—RepeaI the Act.
Lord DENMAN thought it might be a very impor-
tant question whether or not the Act should be repealed ;
or, at least, whether restrictions might not be imposed
which should leave a certain degree of power, much
more definable and responsible than that existing at
present—a power subject to the revision of Parliament.
—(Hear, hear.) He apologised to their Lordships for
detaining them with these observations ; but this sub
ject not having occupied his mind until theset: amass-

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 27, 1644.

r tions were recently brought under public notice, he had
• considered it, and thought it necessary to declare his
' conviction that there ought to be some restrictions put
' upon the exercise of this power.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DEVON said that from the speech of the
Noble Lord it would appear that he advocated the repeal
of the existing Act. He did not see what could be
gained even if the warrant were obtained, for it would
give no information except that it was issued, and that
was admitted. If the motion before the House were
granted, it would justify similar motions in every other
case. He did not think there were sufficient grounds for
the motion of the Noble Earl.
Lord RADNOR, in reply, said, that after what he
had heard from both sides of the House he should not
press his motion to a division ; but withdraw it, mean-
ing upon some future occasion to bring it forward in
another shape.—(Hear, hear.) In what form he should
again introduce this subject to their Lordships' atten-
tion he should take a little time to consider.—(Hear,
hear.) He could understand why the Noble Duke
could not state whether or no this transaction was the
consequence of some intimation frotn a foreign power,
because he afterwards said he knew nothing at all about
it.—(A laugh.) He apprehended that a Secretary of
state w„uid not go to his colleagues to ask them if he
should issue a warrant not. But after this matter had
been discussed so much, after it had been brought for-
ward in the House of Commons, and mentionel by him
in their Lordships' House, and again debated in the House
of Commons on the previous night, and after the great
sensation it had created in the country, it was not a little
singular that all the Cabinet Ministers except the
Secret•ry of State, who issued the warrant,
should know nothing about it.—(Hear, hear.)
If any one of those Noble Lords opposite had got
up and stated that they knew that there were sufficient
grounds fur issuing the warrant, he should have been
ready to believe him ; but none of them had ventured to
say that.—(gear, hear.) But the ignorance of the
Noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty was made
rather more onerous than if he had known anything
about the matter, by the. attempting to justify the con-
duet of the Home Secretary by supposing the existence
of souse political intrigue between the British Govern-
ment and a Foreign Power, and affirming that a Secre-
tary of State might open a letter which might lead to
the opening of a war in, that Foreign State, which war
might possibly lead to the opening of a general war.
That was rather a far-fetched justification.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He did not admit that the opening
of a letter was a slight injury.—(Hear.) One letter was
spoken of ; but a great many letters had been opened,
and the practice had been going on for a length of time,
which would be proved before a Committee of Inquiry.
(Hear.) The letter of a gentleman might be pried
into for the gratification of some enemy, or, as it was
surmised, to pander to the purposes of some Foreign
Power. Thus individuals were injured, and the character
of this country degraded.—(Hear.) This was a subject
upon which the country felt keenly, and demanded in-
quiry and a proper understanding.—(Hear.)
The motion was then, by consent, withdrawn.

COURT OF SEWERS.
A special meeting of the Court of Sewers for the City and
~iberty of Westminster and part of the County of Middlesex,
was held yesterday at the Court-house, Greek-street, Soho-
square, for the purpose of further considering the correspond-
ence between the solicitors of Mr. George Bird, the con-
tractor, and the solicitors of this Court, on the subject of the
failure of certain portions of the main line of the Ranelagh
main sewer, iii the Gloucester-road, Paddington ; and for
other business. The chair was taken at 12 precisely by T.
L. Donaldson, Esq.
Mr. G. Bird was seated in Court, and his solicitor, Mr.
Garrard, took part in the proceedings.
The CHAIRMAN having briefly stated the objects for which
the Court had been called,
Mr. LESLIE suggested that the matter in question should
go before a jury. He was decidedly averse to any settlement
between the solicitor of Mr. Bird and those of that Court, and
should give such a proposition all the opposition in his
power. He could not see why the subject now before the
Court should be so quietly determined between the pro-
fessional men ; and he thought that they (Commissioners)
should declare that the suns of money paid to Mr. Bird for
fulfilment of his contract should either be refunded, or that
that gentleman should be compelled, at his own cost, to re-
store the sewer in a workmanlike manner.
Mr. CII3IBERLEGE said that he had paid particular at-
tention to the various reports drawn up upon this sub-
ject by Mr. Phillips, the clerk of their works ; and' he
thought that the honour' of that Court would be im-
pugned, unless they adopted some measures to guard
themselves against the infringement of that and their
future contracts. He was of opinion that the Court ought to
appoint some eminent engineers, in addition to their own
officers, to report on the works in question. He had no
wish to speak disrespectfully of Mr. Bird. He believed him
to be an estimable man ; but if they were to place any faith
in the reports of Mr. Phillips—and he (Mr. Cumberlege) saw
no reason to doubt them—they must come to the conclusion
that the works had not been properly done, and that the
contract had been infringed. The Hon. Commissioner then
moved a resolution in accordance with his speech.
Mr. LESLIE said he should support the resolution proposed
by his friend Mr. Cumberlege.
Mr. ILAWKES felt it his duty to oppose the resolution. He
thought it world be impossible for any contractor to under-
take any important work at the instance of the Commis-
sioners, if they were to be treated in the manner in which
Mr. Bird was proposed to be treated by Mr. Leslie and others.
Mr. GARRARD said that if the Court resolved itself into
a Committee of Inquiry, he would produce competent wit
nesses, men of good standing, who would prove the truth of '
every statement he had, on the part of Mr. Bird, advanced
on last Court day.
The resolution Was, after some further discussion, negatived.
Mr. LESLIE asked if he might be allowed to put a question
to their own solicitor at that stage of the proceedings?
The CHAIRMAN-..1f it did not involve a speech—(A laugh)
—he thought the Court would have no objection to a ques-
tion being put, if it was material to the subject they were
discussing.
An lION. COMMISSIONER asked if the question had any re-
ference to the propriety of Mr. Bird's restoring the sewer to
its original state?
Mr. LESLlE—Certainly it had. The question he wished
to ask of Mr. Smith was, if he had any doubt as to the liabi-
lity of the contractor to that Court?
The CHAIRMAN begged to know if the Hon. Commissioner
referred to a general or particular liability?
Mr. LESLIE repeated his question.
. The CHAIRMAN thought that, if the question referred to a
general liability, the putting it was of no value whatever;
if to a particular liability, he thought it ought not to be put.
An llcq. CostsussrostEn(Mr. Allanson, we think) said that
Mr. Bird took the oontract to carry out the sewer in a certain
line, and according to a certain plan ordered by that Court.
He did carry out that plan, under the inspection of their
clerk of the works. Now, he thought that, if the contract
had been infringed upon, either by a departure from those
plans, or by the uses finferior materials, it was the duty of the
officer paid by that Court to say, at once, to Mr. Bird, "You
are not doing according to your contract," and he ought, at
once, to have stopped the works before they had further pro-
gressed.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Leslie.) If he did not
perform his duty, he ought not to be retained in his situation.
—(Hear, hear.) In all public works they left it to the clerk
to see that those wcecks were properly attended to, and that
they were finished at; they ought to be. They ought to re-
member that the works they were now deliberating on had
been paid for by then r, with the sanction of that officer, and
why now should they come to Mr. Bird, end say "You
have done your svork badly, and we must take you
to task for it." It was a matter of gross injustice
to Mr. Bird, for they must not forget that it would not be
that gentleman's pocket alone which would be affected, his
reputation was also sit stake. He repeated that it was a mon-
strous injustice to e Kpeet him to restore those works at his
own cost. Ile thought a more sensible proposition for all
parties would be for that Court to appoint some eminent en-
gineer, Mr. W. Cubblitt for instance, to meet another gentle-
man, nominated by ?gr. Bird ; that they, after examining the
works, might come tt, some conclusion, or perhaps leave the
settlement of any diff.'erence between them to a third disin
terested person, who -would act as umpire in the matter. He
would embody a resolution to that effect, and read it to the
meeting.
Mr. GARRARD hewed to state that he had consulted Mr.
W. Cubbitt, and that that eminent engineer did not wish to
interfere id the question.
Mr. ALLANSON said that in that case he would leave the
name blank, and it. might be filled up by the Court after-
wards.
Mr. LESLIE—By a species of ballot perhaps.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Allanson's m ion having been put by the Chairman,
Mr. LESLIE said, that he objected to it on a point of form.
They had already, (es a previous day, come to the resolution
of placing the matter in the hands of their solicitors, and the
resolution of that (evening would rescind the prior one, by
transferring the question to the surveyors.
After considerable discussion, the resolution was in a mo-
dified form, carried by a majority of three.
The CHAIRMAN S mid, that the next subject to which the
Court would direct .its attention was "to consider the Report
of the surveyors, herewith enclosed, with plan and section,
on the drainage of Plumptree-street, Belton-street, and Bow-
street, in connexion with the metropolis improvements."
The report argued upon the necessity of, and recommended
that a new sewer shaould be formed in connexion with the
proposed line of new -streets, reaching from the New-road to
the river, and embr acing the badly drained locality of Long-
acre and its densely populated, neighbourhood. The report
further recommend ed that the sewer might be immediately
commenced, as thou se at present in existence were .much too
inadequate for khe purpose of drainage; and it also stated
that it was especial ly necessary in or ler to relieve the sur-
charge sewer which passed through St. Martin's-lane.
A letter was also read from the Lords Commissioners of
Woods and Forests; ‘on the subject.
Mr. LESLIE objet ted to the levying of a new tax on the
already over-taxed inhabitants, fur the purpose of adding to
the value of a CI wernment speculation, which they were
pleased to term imp! ovements. By receiving and acting upon
that report they wonld be destroying all the shores at present
in existence, and re lding to the value of Government pro-
perty at the expense; of the general public. It behoved non-
professional Commissioners in that Court to be very careful
how they gave theim' votes in those cases of improvements,
for how did they 1 a sow that gentlemen opposite had not an
interest in, the very buildings for which this sewer was in-
tended.
The CHAIRMAN must really call the Hon. Commis-
sioners to order. lie thought it most indecorous to impute
motives to any Commissioner in that Court.
Mr. LEsLIE was :sorry that simple truths were so badly
received in that Co I rt.—(Laughter.) He was not imputing
motives. He was :merely stating a possible case ; and if
the Chairman were so minded he (Mr. Leslie) could state
many of a similar c liaracter.
An Host. COMMI RiIONER begged to correct a term used by
Mr. Leslie. He ht al called the ntiw improvements a Govern-
ment speculation. .Now, he found, by the book its his hand,
the evidence take a before the House of Commons, that
Government would actually lose by the so-called speculation,
to an amount exce: xling 99,0001.
Mr. LESLIE wish, at to know the intended width of the new
street.
The CHAIRMAN- -. Fifty feet.
Mr. LESLIE said that that of itself was sufficient to show
that the Governm ant property would be improved in value.
He thought, and I le repeated that the Woods and Forests
ought to pay fur tl teir own sewers.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 26.
(BeforelSir JAMES WIGRAM.
VOREGOR V. TOPHAM.
The Court was engaged during the day with the further
hearing of the above part-heard cause. We shall give the
particulars with the judgment.

COURT OF QUE EA" WENCH, June 26.
(Sittings lit Banco after Term.)
THE QUEEN CN TIIE PROSECUTION OF THE BLACKWALL RAIL-
WAY COMPANY, V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF TIIE LA-ND-
TAX FOR THE CITY OF LONDON.-MANDAMUS.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained for a mandamus,
calling upon the defendants to hear an appeal against
their assessment, made by the applicants, and to
examine witnesses in support of that appeal. The
Railway Company had appealed against the assess-
ment, and defendants had refused to hear them by
counsel, but had heard them by their solicitor, who proposed
to call witnesses to prove the value of the property. This
the Commissioners refused to do, relying on the valuation of
their assessor. Cause was shown against the rule to- day,
and it was contended that this was not such a case of re-
fusing as warranted the interference of the Court. The Com-
missioners had in fact heard the appeal, and if the parties
fclt themselves aggrieved they might have gone to the
sessions. •

Lord DEN AN, in givirg judgment, said that it could not
be contended that the defendants had not heard the appeal.
The refusal was an irregularity, but not such as would justify
the Court in saying that the appeal had not been heard. The
rule must, therefore, be discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 26.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
The cases which came before the Court this morning were
devoid of interest except to the parties concerned.

The CriaißmAN c untended that the proposed sewers, being
a great public bene Cut, ought to be immediately commenced.
When finished, the 'Woods and Forests would be charged at
the usual rate of 1111 per foot frontage on all their line of
property. He should, therefore, propose that the Court
approve of the repot •of the surveyors.
The resolution w as carried.
After some forth( it discussion on the subject, an amended re-
solution was put, to this effect that the Lords Commissioners
of Woods and Forests slnould, ere the sewer was finished, pay
into the works a sum of 1,0501.85., being the rate of sewerage
upon their line of pr opet.•ty.
Some other busiperi s having been transacted, the Court
adjourned.

debt due for some years, and hoped witness would forgive his
transaction with Hawker. Witness said it was a villainous
transaction, and the less said about it the better. Plaintiff
said he could not defend it.
• Cross-examined—Witness has since betted with plaiutifl
on two or three occasions.
Mr. Portman and Captain Rous were called, to prove that
they had not betted with plaintiff on the Derby of 1841, as
represented by him to Hawker.
The defendant's counsel was about to call other witnesses,
when

The Learned JUDGE interfered, and observed that he really
did not see the necessity of calling witnesses to contradict
facts fully proved.
Mr. KELLY then declined to call further witnesses, and
Mr. JERVIS addressed the jury in reply, contending that
the defendant had not shown any justification for assaulting
the plaintiff, _after having taken awl kept a guinea for a
ticket. As to the racing morality which this trial dis-
played, he thought it more than questionable. If the turf
improved the breed of horses, it demoralised the character
of Englishmen. The only criterion of a man's character
appeared to be the length of his purse, and the plaintiff
was not a defaulter, as he had, in flict, paid all he ever owed
Mr. Hawker.
Baron ROLFE told the jury that if they believed Lord
Eglinton had given the plaintiff notice to quit the grand
stand, and he had refused, and was afterwards removed with-
out more force than was necessary, the defence was substan
tiated. As to the assault, no doubt it was committed, but it
was unintentional, if the justification was proved.
After considerable hesitation, the jury returned a verdict for
the defendant, on the plea ofjustitication.
JUNE 26
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, Westminster, before the LORD CHIEF
BARON and a Special Jury.)
BRITTEN V. KEELING.
The Court, this morning, was densely crowded the moment
it was opened, great curiosity being excited to hear the de-
tails of this case. It was an action for the recovery of i
damages from the defendant for alleged criminal conversation
with the plaintiff's wife. The Solicitor-General was leading
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Fitzroy Kelly for the defendant.
Before, however, the pleadings were opened, Mr. Kelly rose
and said, he appeared on behalf of the defendant, but being
anxious as much as possible to spare the feelings of the par-
ties to this most unhappy business, he had advised those who
instructed him, to consent to a verdict being taken for the
plaintiff, with 3,0001. damages. Such verdict was entered
accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 25.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins before Baron ROLFE and a Special
Jury.)
WOOD V. LEADBITTER.
This was an action for an assault, in forcibly expelling the
plaintiff from the grand stand at the last Doncaster races.
The defendant, amongst other things, pleaded that he was
the servant of the Earl of Eglinton; that the close on which
the plaintiff had entered was the close of Lord Eglinton ; that
by command of his Lordship, the defendant ordered the plain-
tiff to leave the close; and that upon the plaintiff's refusal,
the defendant laid hands upon him and expelled him, using
no more force than was necessary. To this plea, the laintiff
replied that he was in the close in question at the time the
assault was committed by the license of Lord Eglinton, upon
which issue was joined.
Mr. Jervis, with Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Petersdorff, repre-
sented the plaintiff; and Mr. Kelly conducted the defendant's
case, assisted by Mr. Wortley, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Peacock.
The case on behalf of the plaintiff was, that he had pur-
chased, at the regular office a ticket for the grand stand at
Doncaster, for which he paid a guinea, and which was to
have secured him admission to the grand stand during the
races. That, on the first day of the races, upon presentation
of his ticket, he was admitted to the grand stand, but shortly
after the defendant accosted him, told him he had positive
orders to eject him, and, upon the plaintiff's declining to go
out, the defendant seized him rudely by the collar, and the
plaintiff still resisting, the defendant struck him a severe
blow upon the knuckles ; and by the force of the defendant, and
others assisting him, the plaintiff was hustled off the stand.
The plaintiff's case was supported by the evidence of a
person named Hicks, who accompanied plaintiff when he
purchased and paid for his ticket, and also accompanied him
to the grand stand, to which both were admitted. The as-
sault was proved by a person named Dixon, the son of a
cheesemonger in Tottenham-court-road, who frequented
races about London, and in this way became acquainted with
the plaintiff.
Mr. KELLY, on behalf of the defendant, expressed his sur -
prise at the audacity which the plaintiff exhibited in coming
before a court of justice. The stewards of races, for the pro-
tection of the public, determined to exclude from the betting
ring all defaulters. The plaintiff was not only a defaulter,
but he was a swindler and a cheat. He had been excluded
from the Liverpool races, and also from the Goodwood races;
and Lord Eglinton, upon the suggestion of Lord George Ben-
tinck, had excluded him from the Doncaster races. 'er the
purpose of entrapping persons, the plaintiff made bets upon
commission. He solicited a person named Hawker to make
bets on his behalf. Hawker assented, and the plaintiff sent
him several letters containing the particulars of bets made
by him on Hawker's account, in reference to the race for the
Derby stakes, in 1841. The plainiiff informed Hawker that
he had made bets for him with Colonel Anson, Mr. Greville,
Mr. Payne, Captain Rous, and other persons, which, in
fact, he had never made. The horses against which the bets
were made, unfortunately for the plaintiff, and contrary to
his expectations, won. fie was then obliged to confess to
Mr. Hawker that he had deceived him, and that he could
not pay him the amount which Mr. Hawker was entitled to
receive, if the bets had been genuine. Had the results of the
race been different, Mr. Hawker would have had to pay the
plaintiff between 2,0001. and 3,000/., which the plaintiff
would have put in his pocket. When Hawker discovered
the fraud practised on him he appealed to the Jockey Club,
and laid the whole case before them. They cited Wood to
appear before them, but he declined to come. After this it
was thought Wood was an improper person to associate with
honest men, and he was accordingly excluded from Liver-
pool, Goodwood, and Doncaster. By the encouragement of
racing, :a breed of horses had been secured for this country,
which was the admiration of the world ; and the question
really was, whether the noblemen and gentlemen who
patronised this noble and truly English sport were or were
not to have the power of excluding from their meetings
swindlers and persons whose character was such as made it
impossible for gentlemen or honest men to associate with
them? In the present case, Leadbitter, the defendant, was
of course a nominal party. Lord Eglinton, acting under the
sanction of the Jockey Club, was the real defendant.
In support of the defendant's case, after calling two or
three witnesses to prove that the plaintiff was civilly re-
quested to leave the stand by Leadbitter, and declined, he
was removed.
Lord George Bentinck was examined. He proved that he
was the senior steward of the Liverpool races in 1843. Lord
Stanley and Mr. Mostyn were his colleagues. A notice
was published that defaulters were not to be admitted to the
betting ring. The plaintiff came into the betting ring, and
a general complaint having reached witness's ears that he
had found his way there, plaintiff was called upon to appear
before the stewards. The charge made against plaintiff by
Hawker was repeated to him. He was asked if he could
deny it. Plaintiff said he had settled with Hawker, and
that Hawker, in fact, owed him money. The stewards were
of opinion that no settlement or compromise with Hawker
made any difference in the character of the transaction, and
unanimously resolved that the plaintiff must quit the stand.
He begged to be allowed to go off quietly, but witness said,
"No, they would make an example of him," and he was
taken off by a police-constable, and his ticket taken from
him. Witness afterwards saw the plaintiff at Goodwood
races, where he was spoken to by. Mr. Roper, the Duke of
Richmond's steward, and left the course. Also saw the de-
fendant at Doncaster. Represented to Lord Eglinton, who
was sole steward, that the plaintiff ought not to be allowed
to remain in the betting ring. Lord Eglinton, in witness's
presence, ordered defendant to remove plaintiC Witness
did not make a bet of 1,800/. to 100/. against Metternich and
Eringo for the Derby of 1841, nor did he bet 4,500/. to 100/.
against the Duke of Wellington. Made no bets with plain-
tiff, as agent of Hawker, on the Derby for 1841.
Cross-examined—Knew the plaintiff's father, who kept a
hell. He betted with plaintiff's father, who is a defaulter,
and owed witness 100/. on the Derby. Hawker complained
of plaintiff's conduct to the Jockey Club, but afterwards took
back his papers, saying he was satisfied. The money paid
by the plaintiff was not returned when he was sent off from
the course at Liverpool, as it is part of the regulation that
the ticket-money shall be forfeited. The object is to pro-
tect the public from being robbed. It is not unusual to em-
ploy persons to bet. Witness has employed a person named
Glen, a baker, in Regent-street, to bet for him. Glen has bet
for witness against a horse called Grey Milton. The horse
did not run after the bet was made. The horse was the pro-
perty of witness. Witness did not allow him to run, not
because he had betted against him, but because there was no
chance of his winning. Glen did not bet for witness on Run-
ning Rein, at the last Derby. A man may be temporarily
a defaulter, and afterwards pay up his debts, and cease to be
a defaulter: A temporary defaulter, whose default is not
connected with any fraud, is often re-admitted to the betting
ring. The ring was like a market—like the Stock Market,
where every man who played fairly, whatever his condition
might be, was admitted. Gaming-house keepers and such
persons were not excluded. Witness did not think it dere-
gatory to bet with an honest man, however humble his con-
dition might be.
Re-examined—lf a man was temporarily unable to pay,
but afterwards paid honestly, and there was no fraud in
the transaction, he was free from any imputation ; but if
there was falsehood or fraud in the transaction, he could
never expiate his offence by any payment. No man ceased
to be a defaulter until he paid 20s. in the pound, and ac-
cording to the regulations at Doncaster such a person was
liable to be removed. The Raciug Calendar and Bell's Life
in London were read by nearly all sporting men. Grey
Milton died a maiden horse, that is, he never won a race.
Before witness withdrew him he had given public notice that
unless he greatly improved he should not run him for the
Derby. Previous to the Liverpool races in 1843 there was
an advertisement inserted in the Racing Calendar, and also
in the Morning Chronicle, Morning Herald, Morning Post,
Times, Sun, and several other papers, containing the regula-
tion, one of which was that no defaulter should be admitted
to the grand stand, or if admitted should be expelled and
forfeit his ticket money. There were similar regulations
published in reference to the. Goodwood and Doncaster races
last year.
Mr. Jaavis—They have not been published in the Morning
Advertiser, and that is the only newspaper we read.—(A
laugh.)
Mr. KELLY—Has :your client instructed you to say that is
the only newspaper he reads?
Mr. Howard, an attorney, was called, to depose to some
conversation which he had with plaintiff, in reference to this
transaction ; but objected to disclose it, on the ground that it
was a privileged communication, and was therefore not called
upon to give evidence
Lord Stanley corroborated what had fallen from Lord
George Bentinck as to the occurrence at the Liverpool races.
The plaintiff said he could not deny that he had falsely stated
to Hawker that he had made bets ou his account. Witness
said that what had happened afterwards with Hawker was of
little importance, and the stewards unanimously agreed to
exclude plaintiff from the betting ground.
Mr. Mostyn, who was also a steward at the Liverpool
races, gave evidence to the same effect.
The Duke of Richmond said he was the owner of the land
a rs
on which the Goodwood races were held. Hearing the cha-
-t
racter of the plaintiff from Lord George Bentinck, witness THE WEATHER.—LIVIHIPOOL,, 11-
...LONDAY AFTER'
this town, and to a
authorised his solicitor to give him proper notice, and oblige NOON.—Throughout the whole of tosduy,
considerable extent, the neighboistisood also has been visited
him to quit the course.
Mr. Roper, the Duke of Richmond's solicitor, stated that by a succession of heavy thunderestorms. The telegraph re-
at the last Goodwood races he gave the plaintiff notice to quit ported that at six o'clock this morning great quantities of
shortly after which a thick haze
the ground, and the plaintiff said, as the ground was private rain had fallen at Holyhead,
property, he could not resist. prevailed along the whole Welsh coast, and at half-past
George Hawker resides at Stroud, Gloucestershire. Knows seven a storm commenced here ef greater violence than any
plaintiff, who solicited witness to allow him to make bets on we recollect to have experienced this year. The lightning
his behalf in reference to the Derby in 1841. Afterwards was of the forked character, and extsemelv vivid; the thun-
informe.l witness that he had made such bets. In the event der was very loud, and the rain fell in torrents. The at-
of Coronation winning witness would have to receive mosphere yesterday and in the night was of a most oppres-
-11,825/., and to have paid several other sums, which would sive heat, but the rain has not yet cooled it, and from time
have left a balance of 2,6401. coming to witness upon the bets i to time the storm lies exhibited itself with many of the cha •
made by plaintiff. Coronation won, and plaintiff then ad- racteristics of one in the tropics. At the moment we write
!flitted that he had not made the bets, and that he was unable there appears no signs of its abatement. The rain never-
to pay. plaintiff' gave witness 1501. about a fortnight after theless will be of greet service, as moisture was much needed
the settlement day. This was all the money witnesss ever re- by the ground. 'No damage has yet been done that we have
ceived. Represented plaintiff's cond„ttotheJockey Club, but heard of, except the destruction of a tree or two on the
Wood declined to appear. Witness afterwards lost about Cheshire side.
1,25 W. at the gaming-house kept by the plaintiffs father Died at Tunbridge Wells, on the 19th instant,
at No. 2, Bury- street, St. James's, and suggested to plaintiff Edward Hill Creasy; Esq., aged 54 years. Mr. Creasy'
to set off his debt against the loss, which Was agreed to. whose death we here record, in conjunction with Mr. Bar-
The witness admitted, on cross-examination, that he is a nerd Gregory, originally startedgnt thaend-Bbyrighton Gazette, of
the integrity of
defaulter to the extent of 500/. or 600/. Witness had raised as an auctioneer and house large sums of money on a reversionary interest. Was dis- his dealings raised himself etoathee summit of his profession in
charged in 1842 as an insolvent debtor. Disputed the which he has continued, we believe, the principal proprietor up
validity of various debts on the ground that they were given to the present period. He also carried on au extensive business
for gaming transactions. Had given various creditors post this town. He
has left behind a large circle of personal
obit bonds.
friends whose esteem he had won and by whom he will be
Mr. George Payne is a member of the Jockey Club. Never much regretted, As journalists we have ever been opposed.
betted with plaintiff as principal or agent on Coronation, for to Mr. Creasy; but we have nevertheless eatsat" faction
the Derby race of 1841. At the last Wolverhampton races in bearing this willing and unsolicited testimgrony to his pri-
the plaintiff accosted witness, paid him an instalment of a vote wortb.—Brightan Guardian.

COURT OF REVIEW, June 26.
. (Before Sir J. K. L. BRUCE.)
His Honour sat this morning as Chief Judge in Bank-
rupkcy, and disposed of several cases which involved no point
of public interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
CLERKEN WELL.
Two sweeps, named Housley and G, Win, were charged
with the following outrageous conduct
Between seven and eight o'clock in the morning an-
other sweep, named Palmer, was coming out of a house
in Ball's Pond, Stoke Newington, when he was attacked
by Housley, who, actuated by feelings of envy at
Palmer's having' obtained employment, then knocked
him down, and kicked him on the head, so that blood
flowed from his eye and nose. Police-constable 175 N,
hearing cries of " Murder," ran up and seized Housley,
but he tore himself away from the constable, and, taking
up the leg of a mahogany chair, struck him twice on the
head with it. The constable again grappled with him,
but Griffin ran to the rescue of his associate. In the
first instance he attempted to throw a sackful of soot on
the officer, but failing in that struck him with his
clenched fist, and endeavoured with all his might to
rescue Housley. Other p dice-constables, however,
arrived, and both prisoners were secured.
The prisoners, when asked for their defence, impu-
dently said that Palmer had no business coming into
their district.
Mr. GREENWOOD sentenced Housley to pay a fine of
21., or a fortnight's imprisonment, for the assault on
Palmer, and to a week's imprisonment, without. fine, for
the assault on the constable. Griffin was sent to prison
for five days, without fine.
A young man, named Mason, of miserable appear-
ance, was charged with refusing to perform the work
assigned him in the Holborn Union workheuse.
The evidenee of Baldwin, the task .master, and of
Barlow, the porter, went to prnv ethat the prisoner had
been received as a casual pauper into the workhouse en
the previous night ; that he had slept and breakfasted
there that morning, and, when asked to perform the
work assigned him by Act of Parliament, four hours'
labour at picking coir yarn, he refused. When told
that, if he persevered in his refusal. they would bring
him before the magistrate, he said he did not care if
they brought him to h-1.
The prisoner, in answer to questions fro n the Magis-
trate, said he had been ten years at sea ; he had been
in London for the last fortnight, wandering about the
streets half-starved.
Mr. GREENWOOD—Why did you not perform the task
assigned you ? Prisoner—Because when I came into the
workhouse last night, after being out all day in the rain,
they gave me no supper, and although my clothes were
all wet I was obliged to lie on boards all night.
Mr. GREENWOOD (to the porter)—Did he get his sup-
per ? The porter replied in the negative.
Mr. GREENWOOD (to the prisoner)—But you got your
breakfast, and would have got your dinner if you had
picked the yarn.
The prisoner said he did not think the treatment he
received justified them in asking him to work.
Mr. GREENWOOD said as the prisoner had refused to
do the work, and persevered in that refusal, he must
send him to prison for five days.
Prisoner—Thank your Worship ; I wish It were for
five years. He was committed.
QUEPN-SQUARE.
ATTEMPT TO EXTORT MONEY.—William Burns, a
man about thirty years of age, having the appearance of
a cabman, was placed at the bar, before Mr. Bond.
charged by Mr. Lympus Hurst, a gentleman, holding an
appointment in the Royal Hospital Chelsea, and who
resides in Priory-place, Walworth-road, with endeavour-
ing to extort money from him.
The complainant, when he entered the witness box,
was seized with faintness, and was removed from the
Court into the air. On his return, he stated that
about one o'clock this morning, as he was crossing West-
minster-bridge towards the Surrey side, on his way home,
the prisoner, who was accompanied by two women, came
up to him and said in a determined tone, " I want some
money." He asked him what he meant by such a de-
mand, and feeling alarmed at his conduct which was unlike
that of a beggar, or of a person in distress, and fearing
that it was his intention to rob him, he told him that he
had no money and went on. The prisoner, however,
followed and pushed against him repeatedly. A police-
man, who appeared to have been watching the
prisoner, came up, and he gave him into
custody, when the two women who were
with him absconded. The complainant further said
that he had taken sortie whiskey-and-water during the
evening, but was perfectly conscious of all that occurred.
Policeman, 53 B, corroborated the preceding evidence.
When the prisoner was taken to the station-house and
searched, four sixpences were found on him which he
attempted to swallow, but was prevented from doing so.
He was quite sober.
Policeman, 25 B, said he had known the prisoner for
some time, and had frequently seen him in the society of
convicted thieves. He had been a cabman. He did not
know how he obtained leis living.
The prisoner said he had been to the Bower Saloon
with the women, that he was drunk at the time of the
occurrence, and pushed against the complainant by
accident. He did not demand money of him.
Mr. BOND said he had no doubt but that it was his in
tention to commit a felony; and he must have been suc
cessful had the complainant been a person easily inti-
midated. He should commit him to the House of Cor-
rection for six weeks, with hard labour.

MAI?YLEBONE.
James Timms, a bargeman, was charged with having stolen
a quantity of coals from a wharf on the Paddington canal. It
had been often complained that coals had been taken by
persons passing up and down in boats, and police-constable
Humbury, 102 D, while on duty there this morning, observed
the prisoner very cooly taking the quantity of firing he re-
quired from a heap of coals on the bank. He (witness) went
up the towing-path and took him into custody.
The prisoner denied having stolen them ; but he was fully
committed for trial.

UNION-HALL.
Thomas Whitfield, carman, in the employ of Messrs. Car-
penter, of the Greenwich Steam-mills, was charged before
Mr. Cottingham with stealing a sack of flour; and John liar-
vey, living in the New-cut, was charged with receiving the
flour, knowing it to have been stolen. On the premises of
the last-named prisoner two waggon-loads of stolen property
were discovered.

It appeared that at a late hour the preceding night, Brooks,
an active policeman of the L division, took Whitfield into
custody in the act of delivering a sack of flour at the other
prisoner's house. The firm having been apprised of the cir-
cumstance, it was then ascertained that their carman had no
instructions to leave any flour at the premises of the other
prisoner, and when they were subsequently examined, up-
wards of three waggon-lOads of stolen property, consisting of
timber and furniture, was discovered.
The prisoners declined saying anything at that stage
of the inquiry, and the Magistrate remanded them until
Saturday, refusing to accept bail for Harvey's appearance,
George Rookwood, a potman in the service of Mr. Herring,
landlord of the George Canning, was charged with plunder-
ing his employer of upwards of 40/.
The prisoner was in the habit of delivering beer and spirits
to his master's customers; and as Mr. Herring was about to
quit the premises, he discovered that his man had received
money to the above amount, for which he had not accounted,
When he was taxed with the offence he immediately
The prisoner
was and waremanded. Wing 'Light.s taken into custody the prec