The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-27 00:00:00

No. 5.

ALBERT GALLATIN, ESQ. TO DIR. SECRETARY CANNING.
Upper Seymour-street, Dec. 28, 18!6.
The Undersigned, &c. did not fail to transmit to his Go-
vernment the note which Mr. Canning, &c. did him the
honour to address to him on the 13th of November, in
reply to the answer which had been returned to the Under-
signed to Mr. Canning! note on the 11th of September.—
But, unwilling to continue a discussion which did not seem
likely to lead to any practical result, he abstained from
making any further observations on the subject, until he
should have received special instructions from his Govern-
ment in reference to a state of things which was altogether
unexpected at Washington at the time of his departure.
Having now received ti despatch from the Secretary of
State of the United States, the substance of which he is
instructed to communicate to Mr. Canning, the Under-
signed, is performing that duty, will, on those points to
which he had already alluded in his former note, have but
some explanatory remarks to add.
The right of Gres tliritain,which is flint of every nation,to

prohibit or allow foreign commerce with any part of her do-
minions, is unquestionable. That right, in reference to her
colonies, has never been denied by the United States, any
more than with respect to any other part of her possessions,
and it is also admitted, that she may, within her own juris-
diction, prescribe the conditions on which such commerce
shall be tolerated, and, at her will, again interdict altogether
the intercourse thus permitted.
On the other hand, the United States, unless restricted
by treaty, which in this case they are not, have precisely
the same right to prohibit, to allow, and within their own
jurisdiction, to regulate foreign commerce with their do-
minions, whether that commerce be with the foreign coun-
try itself, or with its colonies or possessions abroad. It
was not inadvertently that the, Undersigned used the word
" right," as applied to the United States; he did not ob-
ject to the use of the word, as applied to Great Britain.
What he attempted to show was, that this right, whick
was admitted, and although it might at any time be exer-
cised, had no bearing on the questions which had been the
subject of discussion between the two countries.
What has been contended for is, that since to any com-
merce there must always be two parties, the mutual con-
sent of both is always necessary, in order that such com-
merce may at all exist; that whatever its nature may be,
whether of ancient or modern date, whether with colonies
or with possessions of a different description, from the mo-
ment it does exist, 'it becomes a fit subject for negociation ;
and that there is no reason why an agreement should not,
on that, as on any other species of trade, be founded on
terms of just reciprocity, though relating to colonies, from
an intercourse with which foreigners had formerly been,
and might again be, excluded.
The various relaxations of the colonial system of Great
Britain, as they never were, nor could have been intended
for the benefit of the United States, and as they were al-
ways accompanied with restrictions exclusively favourable
to her, could not be viewed as a boon to them, and never
were accepted as such. The extent to which the com-
merce, when not laid under too severe restrictions, was
carried on between the United States and the British co-
lonies, is an irrefragable proof, that it was equally advan-
tageous to both parties. If equally advantageous, there
had been no favour conferred on either side, there was
no ground for a pretension by either party that the inter-
course should be regulated by unequal conditions.
No such pretension had in fact been advanced. The
proposals made by both parties, during the negociations of
the year 1821, were avowedly founded in a fair reciprocity
and brought the parties very near together. Unable still to
agree en some points, it was concluded to suspend the
gociation, with a distinct understanding that it should be
again renewed at some convenient day.
Mr. King was, in 1825, empowered to treat on all the
subjects of the previous negociation. He was instructed,
in the first instance, as being a subject of more pressing
urgency, to call on the British Government to remove the
impediments which prevented the execution of the St. Pe-
tersburgh Convention. If his instructions, on other sub-
jects, were not forwarded to him, it was because he was
engaged in discussions respecting that Convention, and it
was believed that the state of his health did not admit of
his entering at that time upon the more arduous duty of
resuming the suspended negociation.

Of this his Majesty's Government appears to have been
fully aware. On the 22d of March, 1526, Mr. Vaughan
addressed an official note to the Secretary of State of the
United States, in which he says—
" 1 have received instructions from His Majesty's Go-
vernment to acquaint you, that it is preparing to proceed in
the important negotiations between that country and the
United States, uow placed in the hands of the American
Minister in London. Mr. Huskisson has been already in-
troduced to Mr. R. King, as His Majesty's Plenipotentiary,
and the Minister of State, having the department of foreign
affairs, has received His Majesty's commands to associate
Mr. Addington, late His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in
America, with Mr. Huskisson, as joint Plenipotentiary, on
the part of Great Britain. The negociations will, there-
fore, be forthwith resumed ; and it will be fur the Govern-
ment of the United States to judge whether, considering
the state of health of Mr. R. King, which Mr. Canning
laments to say has been, since his arrival in England, far
from satisfactory, they will join any other negotiator in the
commission with him."

The President did deliberate on that friendly suggestion;
and the nomination of a person to be associated with Mr.
King was contemplated, when a letter from him, dated the
21st day of March, desiring permission to return, was re-
ceived; upon which, the duty of renewing those im-
portant negotiations, devolved, to his great regret, on the
Undersigned alone.
His instructions were of a character authorising the hope
that the result would be satisfactory : his departure was
hastened : on his arrival in England, the Order in Council
of July last had already been enacted. Indeed, it appears
that the determination not to renew the negotiations on the
Colonial Intercourse, and to regulate it exclusively by acts
of Parliament, had been taken before July, 1825, when
the acts to that effect were passed. Had Mr. King been
provided with the same instructions, which the Under-
signed received, they would have been equally unavailing.
Of that determination, the Government of the United
States had not the least notice. On the contrary, although
Mr. Vaughan's communication offered the opportunity of
making known the intentions of his Majesty's Government,
positive assurance was given of its being prepared to pro-
ceed in the important negotiations, and that the negotia-
tions would be forthwith resumed, without any suggestion
that the Colonial Intercourse would form an exception.
The acts of Parliament of the year 1825, in which that
intention was to be discovered, never were officially corn-
; municated. That of the 27th of June, passed only a few
days before that of the sth of July, and not specially re-
pealed by it, was not calculated to elucidate the object in
view ; and several causes concurred to induce a belief, that
this last act was not intended to affect the trade between the
British colonies and the United States, as carried on under
the act of June, 1822.

This belief, and the reasons for it, were distinctly ex-
pressed in a letter from the Department of State to a mem-
ber of Congress of the 25th of December, 1825, a copy of
which is enclosed. That letter was published in the Ame-
ritem newspapers ; a copy was furnished to Mr. Vaughan ;
and he is understood to have transmitted it to his Govern-
ment.

That opinion was corroborated by the construction ulti-
mately put on the act by the British authorities. It was
thereby provided that certain privileges granted to foreign
ships should be limited to the ships of those countries
which should comply with the conditions therein stated,
unless his illrlajesty, by his Order in Council, should in any
case grant such privileges, although the conditions had not
been performed. And the act was declared to come in full
force and operation, from the sth of January, 1826. It
had at first been determined at Halifax, that the port
should accordingly be shut against American vessels after
that day. This decision was afterwards revoked, although
the condition had cot been performed, and although no
Order in Council had granted the privileges in question.
tioa4etca repeal
It now appears that the act of the sth of July, 1825,
(6th Geo. IV. cap. 114), which contains no repealing
clause of former acts, refers, under the name of the loy;';f1
navigation, to another act of the same date (6 Ge°"ail„.
cap. 109) ; that this, although it contains also no re€l,7
sec. 51;325
clause, is understood and construed as having suPgr'l e call
clause,
acts on the same subject; and that
of the act of 1822 (3 Geo. IV. cap. 44, is to be
found in another act, also of the sth of July, . (6 Geo.
„pea the several laws
IV. cap. 103), entitled, "An act to
relating to the customs."
understanding their precise meaning' of ascertaining what
t to he case of the Jubilee,
of former acts were actually repealed,
and what still
The intricacy of those several acts, and the difficulty of
parts
seems to have led into error one of the highest tribunals of
in force, a difficulty
may well account for the construction put
Great Britain,
I ose acts in the United States ; affording, at the
upon t
same time, a sufficient reason for having preferred a re-
newal of the negociations to a pure acceptance of the con-
ditions, contemplated by the act of the sth of Jul, 1525,
(g George IV, ear. 14,1
1- -i) had it been only for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the act.
Even so late as October last, Mr. Vaughan, as appears
by his correspondence with Sir. Clay, was not provided
which,
with instructions that enabled him to give a satisfactory
answer to the inquiries, whether, according to the British
interpretation, American vessels might trade between the
British colonies and foreign countries, and whether discri-
minating duties of every species had been abolished.
The proposition made during the last Session of Congress
and to which. Mr. Canning has alluded, affords an addi-
tional proof of the imperfect understanding, owing to the
complexness of the several Acts of Parliament which at
that time prevsiled. re.nectine• their true ob;ect sod insen-

—iiiidif.;condition been limited to the commerce and ne-
e intercourse between their dominions
at
tCohaluonaieitee;d
might have satis-
bsatad,eist beeni so intended
na-
vigation tei itxo,
pn
br oeysf
aretldha,ce
anßagr itththi
and the British colonies on the same footing in every re-
spect, as the intercourse between the United States, and
the colonies of the most favoured nation ; she condition,
though not altogether free of objection, would at least have
been apparently reciprocal. • To require besides,
that it
should be extended to the commerce and navigation of Great
Britain generally, that it should embrace that intercourse
between her and the United States which is regulated by a
special convention, that they should grant any privilege in
that intercourse to British vessels, not stipulated by that
convention, as the price for the permission of trading with
the British Colonies,
was a total departure from the princi-
ples of a just reciprocity.
But it appeared also extremely difficult, if at all possible,
to understand what was meant, by placing that commerce
and navigation on the footing of the most favoured nation.
If Great Britain only asked to be placed on that foot-
ing, on giving the same equivalent which any other
reign nation may have given to the United States, in
order to have privileges which she does not enjoy, the
navigation law of the United States has already made
provision in that respect. There is no privilege en-
joyed in the United States, by the commerce and na-
vigation of any Foreign nation, which Great Britain :nay
not obtain, by allowing to them the same reciprocal ad-
vantages which they enjoy in the ports of such Foreign
nation, and on which such privilege depends. To com-
ply with the condition thus understood, the United States
would have had no new act to perform. This could hardly
be presumed to have been the intention of the act of Par-
liament.

But if, by that act, it was intended to require, as the
condition for allowing, to American vessels the privilege of
trading with the British colonies, that the commerce and
navigation of Great Britain and of her possessions abroad,
should, without any other equivalent, be generally placed
on the same footing with the commerce and navigation of
any other foreign nation, which, by reason of reciprocal ad-
vantages allowed to American vessels, may, now or here-
after, be entitled to greater privileges than Great Britain
now enjoy., the condition was inadmissible.
British vessels, and those of several other nations, may
now, by virtue of treaty, stipulations, or of other reciprocal
regulations, import into the United States, articles of the
produce or manufacture of the countries to which such
vessels respectively belong, on the same terms, and on the
payment cf the same duties of tonnage, and on the cargo, as
if imported in American vessels. In every instance the
privilege is reciprocal, and will cease with respect to any of
those countries, whenever vessels of the United States
laden with produce of the United States may cease to be
admitted into the ports of such country en the same terms
as its own vessels. _ . _

In conformity with the navigation law of the United
States, the prohibition to import, in foreign vessels, mer-
chandise not the produce of the country to which Fuels
vessels respectively belong, extends only to the vessels of
such nations as have adopted a similar regulation. Great
Britain is accordingly one of the few nations to which the
prohibition applies.
In pursuance of the treaty concluded in December, 1825,
between the United States and Central America, what-
ever may be imported into or exported from either country
in its own vessels, to or frem any foreign
7 with it,
may, in like manner, and on payment of the same duties,
be imported or exported in the vezzels of the other country.
If, therefore, it was meant by the condition required,
that the commerce and navigation of Great Britain, and of
her possessions abroad, should be gratuitously and generally
placed on the footing of the most favoured nations, the
and, as the price
place whatever,
United States, in order to COMO-
w 0:21
itlhoelosnaill,eer allowed terms, nn (titoh()enA pay-
mentlelike
for the permission to trade with the British colonies, would
to admit the importion of British
produce of every
although
i merchandisenllattvhiß,eoorutiibeggtfiehis,ehtnhttie:lieeoselens)mloieißilngues
vre,pdidetoo— obliged.--1,
importation
laGe
.tvht,n:iieo:
sipfe
II
i.
vessels, even without being 3, if the condition was intended to applY to
Ame-
rican vesicle in British ports ; 2, to admit the Importation,
foreign country,
vessels,
should have expired, and
f imported in Americpanrivveislesegless,
discriminat-
educe in American vessels, should still be prohibited ;
to which the
thepr corresponding privilege
granted subsequent to the date of the Act of Parliament, to
ginchtoargßerditwisiltihpsonryts, of
admit the importation of such foreign produce in British
jug, duties, and generally to allow to British vessels, with-
t3r, all the reciprocal advantages
vessels of Central America are entitled.
If this was not the intention of the Act of Parliament,
if the words "commerce and navigation of this country,"
were meant only to include the circuitous intercourse, the
weaning] must be admitted
expressions used to convey that
out reciprocity,
Thiscast interpretation
to have been much too general.
the obser,va io _ that have no-
has been suggested only by
„le •s correspondence with
curred in the course of Mr. Cam g
or any other admissible con-
the Undersigned. If such,
struction was intended, the motsattioobnvomfutshway of prevent-
ing both an erroneous interPien refers' o condition, and
any unfounded expectetioni ice to a renewal of
Have been
the negotiations, would
liament an official communica-
tion of the Act 0, - accompanied ith a full
, , of the conditi
and free explanati°J.estv,t •on required,. `and of the
intentions of his .16-1 Government on the whole subject.
_,,,ent of the United Sta d b
The Gover tes is animate y
the most sineere desire t maintain with that of Great
Britain
0„, merelyorea the forms of courtesy and amity, but to
cultivate !" ;
,1, 1 and lasting friendship, to settle every
controverrieu (ideation between them upon prineiplee of
ustice an( reciprocity, and by an enlarged liberality in
their mutual intercourse to advance the real prosperity of
both..

- Entertaining this desire, it has learnt with regret the
resolution of his "Majesty's Government to close the door
against those friendly explanations, and that free and mu-
tual exposition of the wishes and views of the parties, so
essential between two nations whose interests and happi-
nees are Co interwoven as those of Great Britain and the
United States, and which eau be but partially and imper-
fectly interchanged, if muteal legislation is substituted to
negotiation and to the ordinary mode of treating.
As the only alternative which this course has left, it was
the President's iatention to lay the whole correspondence
which has passed between the two Governments on that
subject, including the instructions given to the several Ame-
rican Ministers near his Britannic Majesty, before Congress
at their present Session. It will remain with that body to
decide, whether the Colonial Intercourse shall be alto-
gether closed, whether that portion of it left open by the
Order in Council shall continue co, or on what conditions
teorandte pamtiaby be
lewpitli placed.
The the interests of the United States that
The Undersigned has been further instructed to give at
the same time, to his Majesty's Government, the assurance
that notwithstanding its late decision, that of the United
States will he ready, at Washington or at London, to treat
of the Colonial Intercourse, whenever it may be the desire
or inclination of Great Britain to negociate on that sub-
ject.—The Undersigned, &c.
(Signed) ALBERT GALLATIN.
The Right lion. George Canning, &c.
(Enclosure in No. 5.)
THE HON. It. CLAY TO TUX ZION. C. C. CANBULEXat
Department of State, Dec.
Sir—l have perused the letter which you left with me,
and which is herewith returned, respecting the construe-

•
Con Put/ at1446:4 Upon tbe lite British Act of Parlia-
ra.enti opening tie trade and intercourse between the Bri-
tash Aalerl;atic colonies and foreign countries. And I have
also exr..nined the Acts of Parliament of the 4th and sth of
George
reitrred to in the sth section of the above-
w.entioned Act. The result is a belief, that the Halifax
construction is not that which was intended by the British
Government, or, if it be, that it was designed by an order in
council to except the trade and intercourse with the United
States from the operation of the act, when so interpreted.
I should strongly incline to think, but for the opposite view
entertained at Italia', that the act to regulate the trade of
the British possessions abroad, pttsseu in July last, did not
intend to disturb or affect the trade betiveen the British
American colonies and the United States, but meant to
leave that trade on the footing which it was put by the
afore is act of the 4th of George IV., and the subsequent
act of idernnity of the sth George IV.
That the British 'Government did not look forward to
such, an operation the act of Parliament as is about to be
enforced at Hr.:ales, I think clear from the following con-
siderations :

First- ft would be inconsistent with professions made by
that Government to this, and with negotiations between
tkge two Governments, contemplated, if not yet resumed.
Second. No notification has been given at Washington
or at London of such a purpose as that which, for the first
time, is indicated at Halifax.

Third. The British Minister here is unadvised by his
Government of any intention to close the colonial ports
against our vessels : and

Fourth. No information has been received here from any
British colonial port, except Halifax, of such intention.
If the Halifax construction be correct, I am persuaded
that the British Government must have intended to have
created an exception to our trade, by an Order in Council,
which had not arrived at the date of the last advice* from
Halifax.

If I am right in that conjecture, the order may yet reach
that place before, or a few days after, the day Exec' (the sth
of January next) for the commencement of the act.
I am, &c. (Signed) H. CLAY.
The Hon. C. C. Cambreleng, &c.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 27.

The Duke cf BUCKINGHAM presented a Peti-
tion from Brasenose College, Oxford, against the Bill
now before the House, respecting property devised to the
college by the late Wm. Hull, Esq.
The Duke of ATHOL presented a petition from the
Agriculturists of the Carse of Gowrie, against any alteration
in the Corn Laws.

Several public accounts were presented at their Lord-
ships' bar.

Sir H. lirvrAx and others, from the House of Commons,
brought up some . Private Bills, which were read a first
time.

Lord KENT ON gave notice, that he would to-morrow
present a petiron from a Gentleman named Parker, re-
lative to certain transactions that had taken place at the
Cape of Good Hope. He had consulted the Secretary of
State far the Colonies on the subject, and understood that
that Noble Earl would be in his place to-morrow.
The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from the
inhabitants of Ashburton, in the coun:v of Devon, and
from a parish in Cornwall, against anv further concessions
to the Roman Catholics.—Laid on the table.
Lord TEYNHAM, in presenting a petition from the
Millers of Dartford, in Kent, against the proposed altera-
tion in the Corn Laws, said it was his intention to submit
to their Lordships certain resolutions on the subject. He
fit it his duty to do this, although a Noble and Learned
Lord (Lord Redesdale) had on a former night given notice
that he meant to bring forward 'genie specific resolutions
on the same subject.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE could not concur in the
course t-hich the Noble Lord winced to adopt. In hie
opinion it was an innovation on the proceedings of Par-
liament to auticipate by resolutions any measure that was
to cone from the other Housc. He would ask their Lord-
ships -how th,!!..shosild like for the other House to follow
the example of the Noble Lord, in reference to any measure
which should originate in this ? The better mode was to
follow the old practice, and wait till the Dill from the
other House came up in the regular way.
Lord TEYNHAM would not move his resolutions till
the Bill came up from the other House.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had to call their Lord-
ships' attention to a circumstance which he considered a
breach of the privileges of the House. According to one
of the standing orders of the House, which, however, was
not enforced, strangers were not admitted below the bar
during their proceedings, and by one of the regulations of
the House, no person was allowed to enter with a stick or
umbrella. It appeared that on a recent occasion a person
who had come in as a spectator lost an umbrella, and he
brought an action in the Court of Requests against the
officer of the House, to recover the value of it, and after-
wards sex ved him with process in the House.—Now their
Lords would perceive, that this was obviously a breach
of privilege, and he thought the proper mode, in the
first instance, was to call the officer to the bar, and hear his
statement.

The Earl of RO&SLYN eaid that the circumstance of
bringing the action alone, even independently of the service
of process, was a breach of privilege.
Strangers wen! then ordered to withdraw, and we un-
derstood that the individual whose conduct was complained
of was ordered to attend to-morrow.
On being re-admitted below the bar, we found Earl
BATHURST presenting returns on the subject of the
lave Trade. Among them was a copy of the Convention
on the subject between Great Britain and the Brazils. His
Lordship, at the same time, presented accounts relative to
the exports and imports ofgrain.
Lord HOLLAND wished that those accounts should be
printed.

Earl BATHURST said they were printed by command.
The Noble Earl then presented a petition from the Cor-
poration of Perth, complaining that the proposed altera-
tion in the Corn Laws, tended to enhance tL•e price of food,
and gave the landed interest a still greater advantage than
they had already. He felt it his duty to present this pe-
tition ; but, at the same time, he did not concur in the sen-
timents it contained.—Laid on the table.

The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from
certain persons lately arrested at Vauxhall, praying for an
alteration in the Law against Coining. The petitioners
114, ed that they were not conscious of acting criminally in
what they IsatLtione, as they thought that under Mr. Peel's
Act, there was no restriction with regard to bullion. They
therefore, prayed, that they might not be punished, but that
it might be made a penal offence for persons to follow their
~xample.—The petition was ordered to lie on the table.—
Adjourned at Half-past Five o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MoKDAY.

General DUFF presented a petition from the Corpora-
tion of Rakers of the town of Leith, in favour of the Leith
Police Rill, now pending in that House, and praying that
the same may be pasacd into a Law.—Read and ordered to
lie on the table,

A MEMBER brought up a Report from the county of
Dublin Election Centruittee, stating that Mr. A. J. O'Neil,
one of the Committee, had been absent on Saturday last,
that absence being occasioned from illness.
Dr. Wakefield, a medical man, was then called to the
bar. He stated that Mr. O'Neil could not have attended
the Committee on Saturday, without hazarding his hell.,
which kept him confined to his house on that day.
The Report Was then received.
Lord LEVESON GOWER was instructed to move, on
the part of the petitioners against the county of Galway
Election, that the Committee should be adjourned until the
2d of April, in consequence of the absence of material wit-
nesses in Ireland, and who it was highly necessary should
be brought forthwith to this country.—The motion was
then granted.
Sir W. W. WYNN brought up the Report of the
Reading Election Committee, which stated that the Com-
mittee found that Mr. George Spence, who was returned,
ought not to have been returned, and that Mr. Fysche
Palmer, who was not returned, the Committee declared to
be the person duly elected to sit as Member for Reading._
The Report was then received, and the Deputy Clerk of the
Crown was ordered to attend to-morrow (this day), to
amend the return.

Mr. BURRELL presented a petition from certain Land-
holders in the county of Sussex, praying that the landed
interest might be protected.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT presented a petition from George
Fordham, a member of a Dissenting Convregation, praying
that all the rights and privileges enjoyed by the members
of the Church of England, should be extended to all classes
of Dissenters.—Ordered to lie on the table.
A MEMBER, presented a petition from the Corn
healers and Millers of Skibbereen, against the importation
of Foreign Flour, and a similar petition from the Corn
Dealers of Bandon Bridge.
Sir C. COLE presented a petition from the Merckants,
Ship-owners, and ship-hunders of the town of Swansea,
sgarnet the employment of steam vessel. coastvra Sir J• voiticr: supported petition, and th nsidered
at tlie coasting trade ought to be protected.
The petition WWI Teed and laid on the table

of Ilitvertord West, against the removal of the Packet
Establishment from that place.—Laid on the table.
Mr. KENNEDY presented a petition from the Royal
Burgh of Perth, praying the House not to pass the Laws
respecting the Corn Trade, now pending in that House,
as they considered these laws would have the effect of en-
hancing the price of provisions.—Ordered to lie ou the
Table.

Sir THOMAS GOOCH presented a petition from the
Magistracy and Inhabitants of the Liberty of Bury St.
Edmund's, praying an alteration in the Game Laws.—Laid
on the table.
General GASCOYNE moved for a return of all the
Ships, British and Foreign, with their respective names
and tonnage, which had entered and cleared out of the

ports of London, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, Hull, and
North and South Shields, from the sth January last, up to
the latest period.—Agreed to. ,
Mr. HUME had to present a petition from a numerous
class of persons—the Manufacturers of Bolton-le-Moors—
who stated that they had experienced great distress, in
consequence of the unprecedented low wages ; they there-
fore prayed the House to have a minimum of wages fixed.
Mr. Hume thought as the great landowners were to be
protected by the laws then passing through the House, the
principle of those laws being to fix a steady remunerating
price for their produce, the petitioners, who were the pro-
prietors of labour, ought to be protected by the justice of
the House equally as well as the landowners. The peti-
tioners claimed to be heard in Committee, as to Cie merits
of the prayer of their petition.
Mr. MABERLY supported the petition. He consi-
dered that the persons now petitioning had just as good a
right to have a remunerating price fixed for their labour,
as the great landholders had for their capital. Ile thought
that this case ought to show the danger of such a principle
as that of attempting to fix remunerating prices ; for if
one class of society wars protected on such a principle—as
in the case of the great landholders---every other trading
class in society ought to claim the same protection.
Lord ALTHORP and Mr. CURTEIS defended the
landed interest.
Mr. HUME, in moving that the petition be printed, said
if the wages of the people were in proportion, there would
not be so much injustice in the protection which was af-
forded to the landed proprietors. If high returns were
had from all manufacturers for their manufactured articles,
then there would not be so great an objection in endea-

vouring to keep up the price of corn. But it was nut so ;

and the consequence of the measure which was now in
progress in respect of corn would be, that the interests of
one part of the community would be seriously injured at
the expence of another.
Mr. CALCRAFT wished that every man engaged in
labour should receive a fair remuneration for his exertions.

The Hon. Member for Aberdeen seemed desirous of.
it believed that the landed interest wished to protect them-
selves at the expense of the rest of the community. This
was not the fact. Neither was it correct to state that the
propositions which were submitted to the House would have
the effect of securing to the agriculturist a high remunerat-
ing price for corn.—(Hear.)—The law, as proposed by
the Bill, would not keep up the price of wheat to 60s. a
quarter. The country would be supplied at a less price
than that. Where was the ground, then, for condemning
the agriculturist? He denied that the proposed Bill would-
have the effect of keeping corn at a high rate. Was there any
Hon. Member in that House who could show, by argument,
that such would ba the result of the measure? He believed that
those who represented that such would be the case were
under a delusion. He would again repeat that the resolu-
tions contained in the Bill had not such an object as that
ascribed to them by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, and
that no such result would flow from them as that Hon.
Gentleman apprehended. There was not a man in that
House who did not wish that every individual, no matter
what his trade might be—whether engaged in cotton-
spinning or agricultural pursuits—should have a fair and
full remuneration for his exertions..—(Hear.)

After a few words from Mr. MABERLY and Lord
STANLEY the petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUME gave notice, that, on Tuesday, the 15th of
May, he should submit a motion to the House, on the pre-
sent state of the Protestant Church in Ireland.
GALWAY ELECTION.

Lord LEVESON GOWER brought up the resolutions
on the report of the Galway Election Committee, and
moved that the Committee might adjourn to "Monday, the
2d of April, on account of the absence of some material
witnesses.—Agreed to.