21 FEBRUARY 1846, Page 2

Debates anti• 1,EiroczebingsinVarliauttnt.

• COMMERCIAL POLICE OF THE GOITER/MEET.

The Holum of Commons resumed, on Monday, the adjourned debate on the motion for going into Committee on the Customs and Corn-importa- tion Acts.

The Earl of Man= was the first to address the House- and his first topia the sudden conversion of Lord Northland. Besides predicting rain to the country from the proposed measure he complained that it was par- tial, for protection was taken frcm ths' fannerand continued to the manu- facturer: his doctrine was, "If you take protection from one, take it from all."

Mr. MILNER GIBSON agreed with Lord March in thinking that the Protectionists were entitled tq claim that the same principle be applied to manufactures as to corn: that was exactly the view advocated by the League—

Ministers had been charged with inconsistency, but Mr. Gibson deemed this a matter of small moment, compared with the importance of the question to which the alleged inconsistency attached. The questions of Free-trade and Protection were prominently discussed at the last election; and it was not uncommon for • candidates who were put up on the Protection interest to assert that they and their party would do more for free trade than the Whigs could. Mr. Gibson contended that there was nothing in the former declarations of Sir Robert Peel which pledged him to support the principle of protection. What he said was, "Call me in, and I will prescribe." The agricultural party called him in; Sir Robert prescribed; and they were now complaining of the drastic dose which he had given.

Mr. Gibson addressed himself to some of the details adduced by Mr. William Miles as to the advahtages enjoyed by foreigners in the way of cheap production;

contending that the superior wages paidin Anierice,together with a freight of Ss. per quarter including insurances, more than countethaLenced any supposed advan-

tage which the fonsigner possessed. But if the Corn-laws were so essential an elaraart in the wine of land, why was there at this time no depression in the price? Lands had been sold at as many years' purchase since the repeal of the Omaislaws was announced as they had been before; lands had been taken at the same rental, and' even at'an increased rent. Withicia very recent period, a friend of his had communicated with sixty-three tenants in Suffolk, who, since the ru- mours became rife of an intention on the part of Government to propose the shell- ' tian of the Corn-laws, had agreed to renew their leases for long periods. Not one of the sixty-three asked for a reduction of rent; twenty of them stated that the

farmers had discussed the matter among themselves, and decided that it was not a ease in they should cad for say reduction. Sir Robert Peel stated, in 1839, that the Corn-law formed no element in the value of land; and this opinion, conjoined with other circumstances, led to the conclusion that that law was-maintained by the aristocracy for the advancement of their political power. Mr. Gibson contended for inime,dia6 abolition; and spoke of Sir Robert Peel as an excellent barometer of public opinion. If honourable gentlemen wished to

know what the great masses out of doors were about, let them ask what the right honourable Baronet was doing, and it would be found he was moving with public opinion. Much had been said of confidence in public men: the only confi- dence in public men, worth having, was the confidence that they would not set themselves against public opinion, or resist those changes which inquiry had shown to be necessary and ash.

Mr. liALSEY apprehended that one of the evils of the present policy would be a distrust throughout the country of the consistency of public

men arida lower tone of political morality, injurious to future Governments. Air. DICKINSON thought the Ministerial measure just and right, and should therefore support it. The proposed changes would increase rather than diminish production in this country; and as to the question of time, he thought the advantage lay on the side of immediate repeal.

Lord CHARLES CHURCHILL made his maiden speech, but it was not well heard. He was understood to claim protection on account of the peculiar difficulties to which the farmers of this country were subjeoted, compared with the facilities enjoyed by the foreign producer: Sir Wa.mara CLAY' rebuked the personalities into which the debate had degenerated—

Nothing more attracted attention than what was personal; and when, even so far distant as the Library, they heard a cheer of more than ordinary vehemence and more than usually prolonged, they were always perfectly certain that some honourable Member had said that which was excessively unpleasant to some other

honourable Member. But in thus indulging themselves against Sir Robert Peel, the Agricultural Members forgot that they were overdoing and overstating their case; for precisely in that degree in which they proved that Sir Robert Peel was surrounded by every motive which could lead bun to abstain from the course he had taken, and that they showed the mischief which he had done to himself by breaking up a noble party and losing the alliance of earnest friends, in that exact degree did they lead the public and the House to believe, what he willingly allowed, that Sir Robert had yielded to a tense of overwhelming duty.

After some argument founded on the hypothesis that no interest had ever pros pored under protection Sir William Clay gave it as his conviction that the land- owners would reap greater advantages from the change than any other class.

Mr. BUCK anticipated many disasters from the new policy— He had always found that when wheat was high in price pauperism decreased, and vice versa. Every farmer in the country would be ruined; thousands of acres

would be thrown out of cultivation, and tens of thousands of agricultural labourers out of employment. He contended that the farmers should be allowed to grow their own tobacco, their own sugar, and to malt their own barley.

Lord HARRY VANE would have preferred a small fixed duty to the present scheme; but, believing that the time for compromise had gone by he thought the only way to settle the question was to accept the proposal now made—

He could not say that he anticipated all the advantages from it which some expected; but at the same time he did not dread all the consequences which some

predicted. He thought the interests of the labourer and fanner would be pro- moted by the impetus which the change would give to improvement; and. that " hostile tariffs" would give way under the influence of a more liberal commercial policy on the part of England. These were the reasons that induced him to give a vote in opposition to the course he hail formerly pursued. Sir Join( TYRELL repudiated the notion entertained by the Free-traclers that the Protectionists were ashamed to meet the motion for inquiry into the peculiar burdens on land— In anticipation of Mr. Ward's motion' Sir Robert Peel had called togethenforty or fifty of the Agricultural Members to ascertain their views: Sir John Tyrell and others expressed their readiness to accede to the motion; but Sir Robert Peel ex- pressed an opposite opinion, stating that it was a claptrap motion, and that the expectations it held out could not be realized, and he should therefore move a negative in the House.

Sir John regretted that it was impossible to argue the general question without the introduction of personalities; for Sir P.obert Peel seemed to consider himself the Government, not permitting other members of the Administration to deliver an

opinion. The present scheme had been talked of as a settlement; but Sir John entertained no such expectation. The next change would be the abolition of the

differential duty on sugar; and, according to a prophecy by the late Dr. Arnold, Sir Robert Peel would not hesitate to yield up the Church itself to clamour pro- vided it were loud enough. It was said that Sir Robert Peel looked to the judg- ment of posterity: Sir Johu Tyrell thought the sooner posterity had an oppor- tunity of pronouncing an opinion on the merits of the lime:ter, the better; and he had no doubt it would do him the most ample justice.

Mr. JAMES exulted in the change which had taken place in public opin- ion on the subject of the Corn-laws-

In 1831 he seconded a motion made by Mr. Hunt for total repeal; and Colonel Terms, then Member for Bolton, was the only other speaker in its favour. The previous question was carried by a majority of 194 to 6; Mr. Joseph Hume him- self being not only in the majonty, but actually moving the amendment !

Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke at great length; his speech occupying eight or nine columns in the broad sheets of the morning papers—

Two matters had occupied the attention of the House: one, the manner in which a party should be conducted; the other, the measures by which the con tingency of a great public calamity should be mitigated, and the principles by which the commercial policy of a great empire should for the future be governed. On the first point the greatest part of the debate had turned: he did not under- value its importance; but surely it was subordinate to the second. On the party question he had little defence to make: he would admit at once that the measures he had brought forward were the very worst measures for party interests that could have been brought forward by him. He considered it unfortunate that the conduct of the measure, in so far as the Corn-laws were concerned, should have fallen into .his hands; but that which prevented its committal to other hands was the firm conviction under which Ministers laboured that a part of this empire was threatened with a great calamity. He had firmly believed, he still did firmly be- lieve, that there is impending over the country, and that there will come at no re- mote period, a calamity that they would all deplore. , When he was compelled to

.-silianion the hope of averting the threatened daiger and of bringing the question to a settlement, he took the earliest opportunity,.h consistently could of tendering his resignation to the Queen. "I offered no opinion as to the choice of a suc- cessor. That is almost the only act which is the personal act of the Sovereign; it is for the Sovereign to determine in whom her coufidence ought to be phieed. It was my duty to ascertain, in consequence of the request of the Queen, Whether tlesse of my colleagues who had dissented from me were either themselves pre- _ paled to forma Government, or to advise her Majesty, if they themselves were not prepared, to submit to other hands the formation of a Government,—meaning bpother hands, those who were favourable to the maintenance of the existing C,=-1aw." Those who differed from Sir Robert in the views he entertained did not think it advisable to form a Government; and her Majesty determiraed to call upon Lard John Russell to undertake the task. "My firm belief was that the noble Lord would have been enabled to undertake that duty: my firm persuasion was—the noble Lord will excuse me for saying so—my firm persuasion was, that he would have succeeded if he had undertaken it. I must say, the noble Lord ad disappoint me when he did not. at once undertake the formation of a Govern- ment on the principle of adjusting this question. I knew all the difficulties with which any man would have to contend who undertook the conduct of the Govern- ment. I luiew there must be a great dislocation of parties. I thought it unfair and die' honourable, under the impression that the noble Lord would be the Minis- ter, not to take those steps which I thought would diminish his embarrassments." In the former explanations of the Ministerial changes, Lord John Russell had read one letter, and stated that there were other letters of which he had no copies: since one of these letters had been referred to as of primary importance, Sir Bo- hart felt it his duty to read that also. On the 8th December, two days after his _resignation of office, and after hearing that Lord John Russell Was to be his sue- uessor, he wrote, in his privatst capacity,, the following communication to the Qneell-- "Whitehall. 8th December 1845.

"Sir Robert Peel presents his. humble duty to your Majesty ; and, Influenced by no other motive than the desire to contribute if possible to the relief of your Majesty from embarrassment, and to the protection of the public Interests from injury, is induced to make to your Majesty this confidential communication, explanatory of Sir Robert Peel's position and intentions with regard to the great question which is now. agitating the public mind.

"

Your Majesty can, If you think fit,.make this communication known to the Minister Who, as successor to Sir Robert Peel, may be honoured by your Majesty's confidence. "On the tat of November last, Sir Robert Peel advised his colleagues, on account of the alarming accounts from Ireland, and many dist:detain this country, as to the failure of the potato crop from disease, imd for the purpoae of guarding against- contingencies which in his opinion were not improbable, humbly to recommend to your Majesty that the duties on the importof foreign grain should be suspended.for a limited period, either by order in Council or by legislative enactment; Parliament In either case being BUM- ' Monad without delay. "Sir Robert Peel Ibresaw that this suspension, thily justified by the tenor of the re- „pores° which he has referred, would compel, during the interval of suspension, the re- . eansideratton es the Corn-laws.

” If. the opinions of his colleagues had then been in concurrence with his own, he was redly prepared to take the responsibility of suspension ; and of the necessary conse- quence of suspension—a comprehensive review of the laws imposing restrictions on the Import of foreign grain and other articles of food; with a view to their gradual disibm- tit= and ultimate removal.

"He. was disposed to recommend that any new laws to be enacted should contain Within themselves the principle of gradual and ultimate removal.

" Sir Robert Peel is prepared to support, in a private capacity, measures which may be in general conformity with those which be advised as a Minister. "It would be unbeimming in Sir Robert Peel to make any reference to the details of ch -measures:

- " Your Majesty has been good enough to inform Sir Robert Peel, that it is your in- - . tension to propose to Lord John Russell to undertake the formation of a Oovernment. "The principle on which Sir Robert Peel was prepared to recommend the recon- sideration of the laws affecting the import of the main articles of food was in general accordance with that referred to in the concluding paragraph of Lord John Russell's letter to the electors of the city or London. "Sir Robert Peel wished to accompany the removal of restriction on the admission of such articles with relief to the land from such charges as are unduly onerous, and with such other provisions as, in the terms of Lord John Russell's letter, • caution and even Scrupulous forbearance may suggest.' "Sir Robert Peel will support measures founded on that general principle, and will exercise any influence he may possess to promote their success."

Anticipating that a difficulty might be felt by Lord John Russell on being called open to undertake office when an increased expenditure would be required, thus exposing his financial position to an unfavourable contrast with that of his 'predecessor, Sir Robert added the following assurance- " Sir Robert Peel feels it to be his duty to add, that, should your Majesty's future advisers, after consideration of the heavy demands made upon the Army of the country for Colonial service, of our relations with the United States, and of the bearing which -steam-navigation may:have upon maritime warfare and the defence of the country, deem It advisable to propose an addition to the Army and increased Naval and Military Eirtimates, Sir Robert Peel will support the proposal; will do all that he can to prevent It from being considered as indicative of hostile or altered feelings towards France; and will assume for the increase in question any degree of responsibility, present or prospective, which can fairly attach to him."

"Now" continued Sir Robert, "when it is charged on me that I am robbing others of the credit which is justly due to them, I hope that the explanation which I have now given' of the course I pursued when I was acting under the firmest persuasion that the adjustment ot this question would be committed to others, may tend to prove that I was not desirous of robbing others of the credit of settling this question or of trying to embarrass their course." (Much cheer- ing.) Other communications had passed during the Ministerial negotiations; and it was proposed to put him in possession of certain details as to the mode in- tended by Lm-si John Russell to arrange the question: but Sir Robert thought it better that he should not be made acquainted with such particulars. "I thought that my knowledge of them, or any appearance of concert between the noble Lord and myself, would have the tendency rather to prejudice than promote the adjust- ment of this question. I therefore declined to receive the communication of those details: but I think that the noble Lord must have been satisfied, that though I declined to concert the measures with him, yet it was my intention to give to the noble Lord in the adjustment of this question, according to his views of public policy, that same cordial support which it is his boast he now intends to give me. I believe that mast- have been the impression of the noble Lord—(" Hear, hear!" from Lord John Russell)—beeause, after communications with ma the noble Lord undertook the formation of a Government: and I am sure that the noble Lord will admit that no act of mine caused the failure of the noble Lord's attempt, and that I was in no way concerned in the reasons which induced the noble Lord finally to abandon that attempt. So much, therefore for the course which I have pursued with respect to those who had been hitherto opvoscd to me. I never made any inquiry as to who should constitute the new Government; I had no personal objections of any kind. My belief was that this question ought to be adjusted. I was prepared to facilitate its adjustment by my vote, and by the exer- cise of whatever influence I could command."

As to the party who had so long given him their support, it was natural that they should withdraw their confidence, acting as he had done at variance with the established principles on which party is usually conducted. But he would ask them' was it probable he would have sacrificed their favourable opinion and sup- port, tailless influenced by the highest considerations of public duty? He ought to know the motives of his party, and he believed there never existed a party in- fluenced by more honourable and disinterested feelings. This testimony was due to them. But for himself he must say, let the consequences be what they may, they could not rob him of the conviction that the advice which he had given was consistent with all the due obligations which party could impose. "I know what would have conciliated temporary confidence. It would have been to underrate the danger in Ireland—to invite an united combination for the maintenance of the existing law—to talk about hoisting the flag of Protection for native industry— (Cheers and laughter)—to insist that agricultural protection should be main- tained in all its integrity. By such a course I should have been sure to con-

ciliate temporary, confidence: but the month of May would not arrive without demonstrating that I had thereby abandoned my duty to my country, to my Sove-

reign, and even to party. (Loud cheers.) I had and have the firm persuader',

that in the present temper of the public mind, the state of public feeling and of public opinion with respect to the Corn-laws, independently of all adventitious cuturnstances makes the defence of these Corn-laws difficult enough. Yet I

have the firmest persuasion that if that calamity which I foresee in Ireland should arrive, and if the battle had to be fought for maintaining untouched the present

Corn-law, and for permitting a state of law to exist whereby a duty of 174. at- taches to the import of foreign wheat, such a degree of odium would have attached to the landed internit, if that battle had been fought, as would have done them the greatest injury." What were the facts which came under the cognizance of the Secretary of Stabs for the Home Department ? Why, that in one part of the empire four millions of the Queen's subjects were dependent on a certain article of food for subsistence, and that disease had seized that article. The Government saw, at the distance of three or four months, the gaunt forms of famine and disease followin f in the train of famine. I will refer to some documents, if the subject is not distaste-

ful, as it seemed to be when I last mentioned it; fbr you appeared to dislike-a reference to letters, and turned away from communications. But it is absolutely

neeessery, before you come to a final decision on this question that you should

understand this Irish case. (Cheers.). You must do so. (Renewed cheers.) I cannot conciliate your confidence by any expression of mret for the course I have taken. So, far from it, I declare in the flice, of this' House, that that day in

my public life which I look back on with the greatest satisfaction and pride is that 1st of November last, when I was ready to take the responsibility of issuing an order in Council to open the ports, trusting to you for an-approval of that step.

(Loud cheers.) I wished then, that by the first packet which sailed after the 1st of November the news might have gone forth that the ports were open. The pri- mary object of such a measure, of course, would have been to increase the supply

of food, and to take precautions against famine, although other collateral advan- tages might have flowed from it. I think that the hest step then to have taken

would have been to open the ports; and, supposing that our anticipations had proved incorrect—supposing that we had formed a false estimate of this danget —I believe that the generosity of Parliament would have protected us from harm." (Cries of " Hear, hear r front the Protection benches.)

Sir Robert read letters which had been received by the last two mails from Ire- land, not from official authorities, but from men from whose statements there could

not be-the slightest pretence of withholding confidence. The first letter was ad-

dressed to himself by Sir David Roche, formerly Member for Limerick, dated Cam-ass, near Limerick, February 11th. Sir David Roche stated, that at one time he was disposed to think that the part of the potato crop which appeared sound

before Christmas would have continued so; bat he had found he was in error— the greater- part was now obliged to be given to pigs andcattle, to save the owners from total loos. Sir David added—" NO doubt, fur six or seven weeks, while the remains of the potatoes last, destitution will not be general; but I pray you, Sir, look to it in time." The next letter contained the result of a very minute in-

vestigation made by Mr. W. W. Hemsworth, Sub-hapectonof 'Police, stationed at Stradbally, Queen's County, into the condition of one hundred and ninety families living in that neighbourhood. In his inquiries the officer was accompanied by the

Reverend Mr. Emerson, the minister of the parish. The result is thus stated—

"Many families whom we visited, and who had planted sufficient for their ordi- nary wants, including the seed necessary for the ensping season,.bave not had a potato of any kind for the last month." [" Observe,'" 'exclaimed Sir Robert Peel, this is in the month of February—five months at least before there can be any supply from the natural bounty of Providence."1 "Others have lost nearly ail; and the few that still remain are totally unfit for human food. In every instance

where we saw • potatoes in pits in the fields, we had them examined; and with scarcely. an exception we found them to be a mass of putrefaction, perfectly

disgusting evert to look at." The third letter was from Lms1 Stuart de Deems, the

Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Waterford. Among other particulars it mentioned this—" That in two districts alone of the union in question there are

even at this early period of the year, no less than three hundred persons whose

stores of provisions are upon the point of becoming exhausted." Lord Stuart suggested; that much good might be effected in keeping down prices by the es-

tablishment of Government corn-stores from which grain might be purchased at

first-cost price." The fourth letter was from Mr. Thomas Dillon, of Cahirciveen, a resident Magistrate: it stated, that having gone round his district within the last

ten days he had opportunities not only of hearing but of witnessing the destruction which had been committed, and which was gaining ground rapidly. Mr. Pillon added, that he almost felt confounded at the difficulty that must exist in procuring

a sufficiency of good seed for the ensuing crop. Sir Robert next quoted an official return from the highestauthority, embracing particulars from every electoral dis- trict with the exception of ninety-nine. The tlicts were—that "in four electoral

divisions the loss of potatoes has been nearly nine-tenths of the whole crop; in

ninety-three, between seven-tenths and eight-tenths; in one hundred and twenty- five, the loss approaches to seven-tenths of the whole crop; in sixteen, it ap- proaches to six-tenths; in five hundred and ninety-six, nearly one-half of the crop is entirely destroyed; and in five hundred and eighty-two divisions, nearly four- tenths of the crop are entirely destroyed."

Government had acted upon the suggestions made to them: stores of corn should be established to be disposed of at low prices, or given in return for labour. A Member—" It will be wanted for seed."

Sir ROBERT PEEL—" Yes. To get seed from foreign countries for the ensuing year is next to impossible. An eighth of the whole crop is required for seed; each acre of potatoes requires nearly a ton—three-fourths of a ton, at least, for seed: take the tonnage which it would require to bring in 10,000 tons of pots- toes from any part of Europe where potatoes may still abound; it is almost im- possible to supply the deficiency. You must look for seed to the accumulation

by making savings from the existing crop. It may be necessary for you to form that saving. When the pressure of famine is severe, the immediate want will be supplied—the danger of next year will be forgotten. The Government must

interfere, for the purpose of encouraging the saving in sufficient quantities, in order to secure a supply of seed for next year. How are we to do this? Why, by the substitution, I suppose, of some other articles of provision, to be given under wise regulations for the_purpese of preventing waste and of getting these seed- potatoes in exchange. I ask you, then, if in May next we had to come down here proposing large votes of public money; and if we were encouraging the clergy of

the Established Church, and the clergy of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and telling them, Individual charity in your localities must supply more than the

Government can supply; you must give corn in exchange for these potatoes, or for the sustenance of human life,'—could I have stood here, proposing votes of 200,0001. or 300,0001., and encouraging the charity of those who had little to dis- pense in charity, and would it have been tolerated, that at the same moment we should have been retaining a duty of 17s. on the introduction of corn? Suppose famine should ensue: do you believe that it would be for the credit and honour of the landed aristocracy of this country to say, 'We throw upon the Govern- ment the responsibility of taking-security, but not one letter of the existing Corn law shall be abandoned ? ' Would that be fidelity to the landed interest? No: I believe that whatever might have been the seeming consistency, that proposal Wetdd have been the real treachery which you impute to me, because I have 'thought it for your interest, and the interests of all, to relieve ourselves from the odium of stipulating for these restrictions in such a moment of pressure." (Re- peated cheers.) Parliament would have taunted him with the example of Holland and Belgium, where, though the pressure was less severe, measures of precaution have been adopted. Under similar circumstances to the present, what had been the course taken by English Parliaments deeply interested in the welfare of .agri- culture There have been times before when there has been the apprehension of scarcity in this country: what has been the remedy that the heart of every man suggested? What has been the remedy that the legislative wisdom took? Why, in every case, without exception, the removal for a time of the duties upon corn. (Cheers and counter-cheer:). f A member—" What at the end of the time?"] I will come to that imm • tely. I rejoice in the cheer which I met from that quarter—(Looking to the Protection benches)—what is it but an assent, apparent- ly an unanimous assent—:("Nor)—at any rate, a very general assent, that at a period of impending famine, the proper precaution to be taken is to encourage the free importation of food. I have a nght to infer, that if that had been the propo- sal, namely, that existing ditties upon corn and other articles of provision should be suspended, that proposal would have met with general assent (Cheers.) Then, if that be so I ask you to expedite the passing of this bill—(Laughter and clwersor to move as an amendment, that the du- ties upon all articles of provision -shall forthwith be suspended." (Renewed cheers.) The opponents of the Government plans seemed to say that they would consent to a suspension of the law till next harvest; and he was glad of the admission thereby implied, that it would not be wise to stipu- late for the present that no rice, or oats, or maize should be admitted, and that the duty on wheat should be maintained at 17s. Sir Robert Peel quoted some of the instances in which the polls had been opened—in 1756, 1767 1791, 1793, 1795, 1796, 1799. Had the ports been opened in November last, the supplies might have been more ample; but there was still the command of six months. Parliament must now make its choice. It must either maintain the existing law, or make some proposal for facilitating the introduction of foreign food. Then came the further question. "After the suspension of the existing law, and the admission of foreignimportation for a period of eight months, what do you propose to do with the existing Corn-laws? That is, of course, the question which any man would have to consider who advised the suspension of the Corn- laws.Well, my conviction is so strong that it would be utterly impossible, after establishing-perfect freedom of trade for a period of eight months, to permit the -existing Corn-law to come into operation at the end of it—my conviction is so strong that it would be impracticable and impolitic, that I could not entertain such an idea." It might be said, "Give us suspension now, and at the end of that suspension we will have the Corn-laws as they are now"; but any such notion was founded on a total misapprehension of public opinion. What! would they revive the existing Corn-law in all its provisions? Would they, for instance, refuse the admission of maize? "It was proposed last session to admit maize free of duty. The price of barley was falling, the duty on barley was increasing; and, without the slightest natural connexion between maize and barley, the duty on maize was increasing also. Then, might not the law be altered in that re- spect? Yes. But remember this, that in the course of last session notice was given that maize should be imported duty-free, because it was desirable to have maize for food for cattle. Do you think it possible in devising a new corn-law, to devise one, the leading principle of which ghoul& be this--that maize should conic in duty-free, because the admission of that article would be for the benefit of the fanner, as he might feed his cattle and pigs with it; but that there are certain other articles used for consumption by human beings, and in respect to them the law shall be maintained in all its force? Do you advise us now to fight that battle? Do you not feel that that very fact of suspension would constitute a new element in the consideration of things, and would give a tenfold stimulus to the agitation that previously existed? Do you invite us to fight that battle now? What would be the state of feeling upon the subject? Do you invite us to sus- pend the law with a guarantee of its revival ? " In reference to the changes of opinion which had been avowed by Members of the House, and as to which an attempt had been made to attach suspicion, Sir Robert asked if some of the most honourable men that ever sat on the Ministerial benches had not given conclusive proofs of sincerity. Did Lord Ashley, Mr. Start Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Egerton Lord Henniker, Mr. Charteris, or Mr. Daw- nay, vacate their seats from interested or corrupt motives? Passing from these considerations, Sir Robert invited attention to the course which the debate had taken, and to the admissions and expressions of opinion of those who had been loudest in their condemnation of the Government The first he would notice was the Member for Huntingdon, Mr. Thomas Baring. "The honourable Member thinks it is just the time for making a compromise on the subject--for a new corn-law! Why, if ever there was an unfortunate moment for a compromise, it is the present. What is the meaning of a compromise? Is it a new corn-law? Well, what is the security for the maintenance of that?" (Ironical cheers from the Protection benches.) The Member for Roxburgh- shire (Mr. Francis Scott) was the loudest advocate for pr.otection, and had a curious notion of the relation between a country and its minister. Mr. Scott had likened Sir Robert Peel to a hired advocate, and said that he had thrown up his brief: perhaps Mr. Scott was not aware that a minister of state took an oath to -unreservedly and freely deliver his opinion in council, according to his heart and conscience. Sir Robert apprehended that an obligation of that kind constituted a material difference between the position of a minister of state and the office of a retained counsel. But Mr. Scott, when insisting that he was bound by every con- sideration of consistency and honour to maintain the Corn-laws of 1842, had -admitted that within the last three years, in his own county, there had been such improvements in roads, such introduction of science into agriculture, such facili- ties for introducing cheap corn that in his opinion the time was come when the present Corn-laws must be altered. "And when I asked the honourable gentle- man, Whom are you counsel for? '—meaning, that if any obligation was imposed on ins to maintain the Corn-law of 1842, I could not quite understand why the • honourable gentleman could so readily abandon it—the honourable gentleman was perfectly indignant at being supposed to be a counsel. Claiming the func- tions of Anacharsth Cloots, who said he was attorney-general for the human race, the honourable gentleman said, I counsel !--that is an imputation on my honour: I am counsel for the agriculturists—I am counsel for the commercial interests— lam counsel for the whole country—I am counsel for the interests of humanity.'" (Much laughter.) Sir Robert did not himself aim after functions so comprehen- awe. The next was the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colqnhoun): and he told Sir Robert that hereafter and for ever he withdrew his confidence from him. But if ever there was a man who had less reason than another to censure a Minister for not establishing "a great principle "it was Mr. Colquhoun himself. "Why, he has voted with the honourable Member for Wolverhampton; and he has voted against him. (Great laughter.) He is an advocate for a fixed duty; but he has done all he could to maintain a sliding scale. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman has shared in my misfortune and read the pamphlet of John Campbell Colquhoun, Esquire, of Killermont. (Loud and continued laughter.) I must say that that pamphlet, as far as I can understand it, advo- cates repeal of the Corn-laws. ( A laugh.) If, then, the honourable gentleman has voted with the honourable Member for Wolverhampton, and has voted against • hint—if he is a determined supporter of a fixed duty, and yet ever since 1842 has done all in his power to -maintain the sliding scale; and if my con- Siruction of his pamphlet be correct, and he is an advocate of repeal,—I wonder hOw I should have fared withhim if I had hid down a great principle'? (Laugh.. ter.) I wonder what the honourable gentleman would have said, if, after havitig carried suspension I should have subsequently declared that at the end of that suspension the Government would stake its existence on the revival of the existing Corn-law. I venture to say., there would not have been a more strenuous opponent of such a course than the honourable gentleman: at least, I venture to say, there never was a gentleman so clamorous for the announcement of a principle who pur- sued a course which left him so completely at single-anchor to vote for any pro- posal that might be rnade." (Laughter.) The letter of Lord John Manners was next adverted to ' • Sir Robert inquiring if it could have been possible for the Government to rely on Lord John Manners's support had they resolved to advise a renewal of the Corn-law upon suspension ? "He says he is decidedly in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws, but that he thinks the present Parliament ought not to enact, nor the present Minister to propose, such a measure. Well, but that personal objection is no satisfactory answer to the country: the question for the country is, is the measure right or wrong ? Surely, no Member can justify himself in voting against a measure which he believes to be right, and which concerns such mighty in- terests." And now as to Mr. William Miles, the Member for Somersetshire: that gentleman had declared for the maintenance of the existing law in its integrity-, and given Sir Robert notice that henceforth he must not expect the renewal of Ins confidence. But Sir Robert implored that gentleman and others, although they might visit these penal consequences on Ministers, to plies the measure submitted to them if they thought it advisable at the present crisis. In stating that he had hitherto been a supporter of the Government, Mr. Miles was in a mistake. On the great question of "grease"—(Roars of laughter)—he was a determined opponent, under an apprehension that grease might be used by some people as a sub- stitute for butter. " Now, I must say, that I think the honourable gentleman, in taking his stand upon grease, did much more injury than benefit to the cause of pro- tection." A few more of Mr. Miles's arguments he was anxious to notice. As to flax, was its cultivation abandoned in consequence of the withdrawal of the duty? and at what period did it take place?

Mr. WILLIAM MILES—" After the last removal of the duty on flax."

Sir ROBERT PEEL--" Now the last reduction of duty was only 5d. per hundred weight.. (Laughter.) The duty on foreign flax was removed in 1824; at that time it was 10/ a ton; a reduction was then effected to the nominal duty of 5d. a hundredweight; and in 1842 the duty was altogether abandoned. Was it the re- moval of this duty of 5d. a hundredweight that involved the parishes of Aldeock and Chiaselborough in ruin ?" In Ireland no culture is more profitable than that of flax, which is unprotected; and it is obvious that the decay of Aldeock and Chisselborongh had arisen from other causes than the withdrawal of the protective duty. The debate had chiefly turned on the Corn-laws, but it was not necessarily a Corn-law debate. The proposal was, that the House should go into Committee to consider the principles of our commercial policy. "Now, as I stated before, it is the intention of her Majesty's Government to adhere to their proposal: I have stated the reasons why they will do it: they are inclined to prefer it, con- sidering especially the opportunity that three years affords for improvement in drainage. But at the same time,I also distinctly make this statement, that if the agricultural body are of opinion that it will be for their advantage—if they think that immediate repeal will be preferable to the deferred repeal which is the proposal of the Government--(" Hear!" from the Opposition benches) —if, by a union with honourable gentlemen opposite, they. should place me in a minority—then, the only consideration which I shall bear in mind will be, what course can I best take to give effect to the law so amended at your instance ? (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) I will do all I can to carry the pro- position of the Government—I prefer it—I proposed it believing it to be favour- able to the agricultural interest I do not say What course, speaking for myself, I might pursue. I don't say what effect success here might produce in another place, for which I have less means of answering than I have here: but this I will say, that my opinion as to the policy of a final adjustment of the Corn-laws will remain unaltered; and I shall decidedly prefer immediate repeal, even though carried against me, to throwing the country into confusion by the rejection of thiS measure. (Loud cheers.) Observe, I say it will be quite for myself to consider what course of personal conduct will be most conducive to the result I should have in view; but this I do believe, that the final adjustment of this question is now a consideration paramount to all others.' (Cheers.) As to the probable price of corn under the new measure, he could not pass an opinion; bat he thought that nothing was more erroneous than to suppose that the interests of agriculture were naturally and immediately interwoven with the price of wheat. In demonstrating the truth of this, Sir Robert adverted particu- larly to the fact that it is impossible to draw a just inference from the nominal price of wheat without at the same time taking the quality into account. He showed by reference to returns beginning in 1795, that the price of wheat had shown a tendency to decline. "A very remarkable series of facts also presents itself in the amount of the rental of land as compared with the price of wheat. The gross rental of land in 1815, as taken from the Property-tax return, was 32,502,0001. The price of wheat for five years ending in 1815, was 102s. 5d. For the five years ending " with 1842, the price of wheat was 64s. 7d.; while the gross rental of land in England had increased to 37,794,000/ Thus, coincident with a fall in the price of corn, there was an increase in the rental of land."

Sir Robert next commented largely on the speech of Mr. Stafford O'Brien; com- plimenting its ability. But what did the argument amount to? Just this, that after the law was passed, the tenant-farmer would come to his landlord and say that he could not afford to pay the same high rent; that the bones of his fore- fathers lay in the churchyard and it was most painful for him to quit the resi- dence of his ancestors and seek his fortune in another country. To this speech the landlord was to reply in terms of cold political economy. Sir Robert Peel created much amusement by imitating Mr. O'Brien's manner in dramatizing the imaginary dialogue; which he afterwards transposed, making the landlord offer aid to the farmer in the shape of capital saved by favour of the tariff and patron- age of agricultural education.] The Speech from the Throne contained a recommendation to review the existing duties, and ascertain whether such further reductions could not be made as would tend to insure a continuance of the advantages derived from the previous re- ductions. The answer made by the Commons did not convey a pledge as to the measure, but it conveyed an assurance that the recommendation should be con- sidered. And how was that assurance to be fulfilled? Would they refuse to go into Committee? "Will you stand still ?—for six months to come, will you do nothing? I say, in this country, to stand still is to retrograde." Sir Robert explained a misconception, and offered a challenge. " I never said that it was on the experience of the tariff for three years I had come to a change of opinion. I said this—that during three years I have seen coincident with abundance and low prices great prosperity; I have seen great contentment; I have seen the diminution of crime; I have seen the abatement of all social disorders; I have seen good health; I have seen increased commerce; and that experience of three years has convinced me that cheapness and plenty are at the foundation of your prosperity. (Cheers.) This is the challenge I offer, not connected with the tariff of the last three years alone, but with respect to the whole series of your re- laxations of prohibitory duties—show me one relaxation, one removal of prohibition, which has not contributed to the advantage of the great body of the consumers of this country." He had indeed been ashamed to read some of the petitions pm- sented on the subject of this protection. One was from shipowners, praying that the House might check all further rash experiments on British navigation, and reject the proposition for reducing the duty on foreign timber from 25s. to 158. Now, Sir Robert asked, "what has been the issue of the rash experiment you made in 1842 You found then a discriminating duty of 414, which you reduced to 258.

ve you d the Canada trade? At the port of Liverpool the average

311 the BritiesshfrlsoCtih American trade for eleven years g the reductiotz;374: duty was 153,000 tons; and since you removed the duty on Canadian timber, the average has been 194,000 tons of shipping employed at Liverpool in the Canada trade. On the average of seven years before the reduction of duty, 5,749,000 leads of pines were imported: in 1844, the quantity brought from Canada amount- ed to 6,211,000 loads; and in 1845, to 6,470,000 hide Yet the shipowners call on you to refuse a reduction of the duty on timber, as they called onyou to refuse a :eduction formerly from 458. to 25s. But you have a deficiency in that parti- cular article which will build ships that shall endure for twelve years: and these were the circumstances under which you have the modest proposal made to leave the discriminating duty at its present amount of 25s., instead of reducing it to 158.; and that is what the shipowners of all things ask as essential to their inter- ests!" Following up this subject, Sir Robert referred to the alarms excited in peevions times by proposals to reduce import-duties, and to the gra*ing results which had followed. When Mr. Huskisson proposed an alteration of the silk- duties, Lord Ashburton (then Mr. Baring) resisted the measure, asserting that the effect would be to ruin the silk-weavers and drive them to the poor-rates for subsistence. And what had been the result? the consumption, which for the ten years ending in 1823 was 1,940,902 pounds, is now, for the sinsk year 1844, 6,208,021 pounds. Similar fears were expressed in 1842 in reference to the trade in feathers. One extensive merchant told Sir Robert that the effect would be to annihilate the Irish and English feather trade: but that had written to him in the course of the present year, telling him that his rilt:Ilhad proved unfounded—that his trade was more prosperous than before; and mentioning that his great demand had been from ,Cornwall, thus showing that the CorniA, miners had been prosperous in consequence of plenty and abund- ance, and had been able to expend a sort of their earnings in feather goods. In conclusion, Sir Robert remarked, that the vote to be given did not involve a question of confidence in the Government, but the decision as to whether the House were willing to advance upon the path on which they had been proceeding, or whether they would retrograde. He entreated them to look at their physical advantages; at those nerves and sinews of their manufactures, the stores of iron and coal which abound in their territory. Let them look also at their acquired advantages. Why, England has ten times the capital of any nation in the world ! He asked them to bear in mind that many countries are watching their decision. Sardinia bad set the example of a liberal tariff; Naples would shortly follow; lie-could tell them that Prussia was already shaken; and France was desirous to follow the example which England is setting. Alluding to periods of great distress in this country., arising from bad harvests and depression in trade, Sir Robert remarked—"Will it not be a great and lasting consolation to us to be enabled to say to a suffering people These are the chastisements of an All-wise atid Beneficent Providence sent fer some great and humane purpose—to abate our pride probably, to convince us of our nothingness, or to awaken in us a sense of our dependence upon God: they are to be borne without murmuring; and we shall then be able to think that the dispensations of Providence have not been aggravated by human institutions preventing to the people the supply of food." [fir Robert Peel, after nearly three hours' vealdng, resumed his seat amidst long-continued cheers, especially from the Opposition.] About two o'clock the debate was adjourned.

The debate was begun on Tuesday by Lord Joni Maiming; who de- plore& the disadvantageous position which a Member occupied when he could enlist under the banner neither of the Member for Northamptonshire ink of the Member for Stockport— He deprecated the idea of deciding a question involving the food of a people, upon the principles of political economy. Count Carl, President of the Council of Public Fsionomy at Milan, a great authority, entertained a similar opinion; his celebrated work, that statesmen aught to separate the subject 27faorodkit'iTall questions of a merely comnierckl nature. Men, he observed, could do without wine or oil; but the first necessary of life—that which was es- sential to human existence—ought not to be subjected to the ordinary rules of commercial intercourse. The consequences to arise from free trade had been greatly exaggerated; and Lord John was therefore anxious to consider any pro- position for a settlement of the question, whether it proceeded from Lord John Russell or Sir Robert Peel. But he was persuaded that any such proposition, to be satisfactory or successful, should be made not on narrow, temporary, evanes- cent, suspicious, or self-contradictory grounds but placed on broad, great, and general principles—not as the expedient of a terrified Cabinet, hurried through a mystified Parliament into &premature law—but submitted to the patient discus- sion and free and calm verdict of the English people- without which, a measure of such a revolutionary character could not be productive of present good or of lasting benefit. After the speech which had been delivered by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Manners was at a loss to see how the Government could have adopted any other course than that which they have pursued: but how different would have hen the position of Ministers if the right honourable Baronet had opened the ports during the past winter, and if upon the meeting of Parliament he had told them, to use his own metaphor, that he would no longer steer the ship in the same course? Then he might have well vindicated the full performance of his duty. gut, unfortunately, it would seem that the members of his Cabinet were not pre- pared to support him: Sir Robert Peel had stated very unfairly the argument touching the resumption of the Corn-laws after the opening of the ports: he asked, did they wish fora guarantee that the Corn-laws would be restored? Why, every Member knew that no guarantee of the kind could be given; for the ports could not be closed, after having been opened, without the consent of Parliament.

• Even now, if the danger were so imminent and the remedy so easy, the shortest course would be.to open the ports before the end of the week, with the consent of Parliament, and leave it to the good sense of the people of England to deter- mine whether the law should be revived.

- Lord John Manners gave it as his opinion that a scheme which admitted the produce of the Colonies and Indian corn duty-free, and other foreign corn at a moderate fixed duty, would place the corn-trade on a basis satisfactory to the mercantile interests of the country, would bind the members of our vast Colonial empire to usi by the closest ties of interest, and would afford security to the English farmer. This view he fortified by a quotation from the circular of Messrs. Ferguson and Taylor, of Manchester, suggesting a fixed duty of be. or 6s. Lord John Manners deprecated all rash and hasty interference with the great in- terests which had grown up under the system of protection; and advised the House not to lend itself, under the dictation of the Minister, to a policy calcu- lated to alienate the sympathies and affections of the rural elesses. While, there- fore, he was not afraid of free trade, and most anxious for a settlement of the great question at issue, he should nevertheless give his most hearty vote for an aea1 to the country, and his most determined opposition to the proposal that House do now go into Committee.

The motion was vigorously supported by Captain LAYAR.D, and Sir 63ARLES NAPIER; temperately opposed by Mr. RO/3ERT PALMER, and fiercely by Mr. Sitsw.

Mr. BRIGHT regretted that the principle of protection had not been dis- cussed, now that Sir Robert Peel had taken the place of Mr. Villiers— The discussion of this principle was the only thing the country cared for • for he could assure the House, that they never committed a more grievous mistake in their lives than in supposing that the great body of the people cared one straw for the quarrel which had broken out in the Conservative party. What did the Agricultural Members seek to protect ? In 1842 they refused to sanction a reao-

lation moved b Mr. Cobden, to the effect that before the new sliding scale passed the House should ascertain if it were possible to raise the rate of wages to the labourers. The moment, however, that this resolution was rejected, the House took into its favourable consideration a law the object of which was to raise the price of the produce of their own land. Mr. Benett, the senior Member for Wilt- shire, actually stated at a recent agricultural meeting, that if he had his life to live over again, be knew no condition which he would choose with more alacrity or contentment than the condition of our agricultural labourers. Mr. Benett had, no doubt, enjoyed peculiar opportunities of becoming acquainted with the condi- tion of the labourer; but Mr. Bright would rather take the opinion of the labourer himself. The House had heard a good deal about a certain meeting which had taken place at Goatacre; and the League had been blamed for getting it up: but a second meeting had taken place at Bremhill, at which an agricultural la- bourer, one Job Gingen, took the chair: he knew not whether this man was the pattern labourer to which Mr. Benett referred, but that labourer said cf himself, "I be protected, but I be starved." But distress was not confined to Wiltshire Mr. Bright had received from a friend certain particulars connected with twenty- eight agricultural labourers in Tiverton, Devonshire, showing among other things that the wages paid to them were only 7s. a week. Let Mr. Stafford O'Brien say, if it was " protection " to give the labourer 7s. or 8s. a week? Much had been said about the peculiar burdens on land; but there was another burden about which nothing was said—the burden of game; and he could tell the House, that the Duke of Rutland, who had two sons in the House ready to vote against the Government proposition, in 1844 paid 9151. as damage upon 389 acre of land. How then could the Agricultural Members demand restrictions to be put upon foreign corn, when, for the amusement of the owner, the produce of the land was thus diminished ? But he really believed that the Protectionists wee not in earnest. They were no doubt angry with the Government; but they were not really afraid of the consequences of withdrawing protection. He had heard of men going manfully to the battle-field : belied even heard of men being so reck- less and daring that they went whistling to the place of execution; but never in the whole course of his existence did he see men go to meet irretrievable rain, both for themselves and their tenantry, with faces so jovial as were those of ho- nourable Members opposite. Sir Robert Peel had been called a traitor. It would ill become him to defend the right honourable Baronet, after the speech which he delivered last night— (Loud cheers)—a speech which, he would venture to say, was more powerful and more admirable than any speech ever delivered in that House within the memory of any man in it. (Continued cheers.) He watched the right honourable Baronet last night go out of the House; and he must say—it was the first time he did it—he envied him the feelings which met have animated his breast. That speech was wafted on the wings of scores of thousands of newspapers to every part of the kingdom and of the world; and it would be carried to the abodes of the labourers, conveying to them joy and hope. This was the man whom the Protectionists had chosen to be their leader. They placed him in office: but they should remember that a man in office was not the same man as he was in oppe-,, sition; they ought to consider the responsibilities of office. "There is not a among you who would have the valour to take office and raise the standard of Protection, and cry 'Down with the Anti-Corn-law League, and Protection for ever!' There is not a man in your ranks who would dare to sit on that bench as the Prime Minister of England pledged to maintain the existing law. (Loud' cheers from the Free-traders.) The right honourable Baronet took the only honest course—he resigned. He told you by that act, I will no longer do your work. I will not defend your cause. The experience I have had since I came into office renders it impossible for me at once to maintain office and the Corn- laws. The right honourable Baronet resigned—he was then no longer your Wm- ister. He came back to office as the Minister of his Sovereign and of the People— not the Minister of a class who first raised him into office for their own special and private purposes. Why, the right honourable Hemet did not use you badly: he offered no obstacle to your taking office." (Loud min f "Hear, hear!" ifs which the voice of Sir Robert Peel was conspicuous.)

A programme of a new Tory Ministry had just appeared in the Times, and would be worth while to look at some of the members. There was the Member for Norfolk, who attempted to oppose Mr. Cobden at Norwich, and who thought fit to move a string of resolutions which be said embodied the opinions of Henry Clay, "the President of the United States": if Mr. Wodehouse was not better read in history than his speeches had exhibited him to be, not much general , knowledge could be expected to reside in the new Tory Cabinet. Then came the Duke of Richmond; and what did he say? Why, that Mr. Cobden had made 30,0001. profit in a week, and yet that one agricultural tenant alone paid a larger sum to the r-rate than any one man who held a mill. Regard that man as a. Minister 1 k at what he said last night: did he not say the agriculturists should send agitators to the North to tell the working classes there that cotton would burn as well as stacks ! Why, the country would not allow a Ministry or this character for a month nor a week.

Mr. Bright characterized the Ministerial measure as one of greatness, reflect- ing much credit on the Government. Great measures, however, like great pic- tares, had their defects; and the defect of the present measure was that it did not altogether abolish the Corn-laws. He thought the farmers themselves would feel more satisfied with the change were all restrictions removed from corn at once.

Mr. HUDSON closed the evening, with several old arguments for protectiort. About half-past two o'clock, the debate was adjourned to Thursday.

The debate was continued on Thursday; but as our space is so fully occupied already, and as the speeches, however able, comprised for the most part arguments that had repeatedly been advanced before, we can only enumerate the speakers and notice a few points in passing.

The motion was supported by Lord Duncan, Sir Wrissiai MOLES- WORTH, Mr. HENRY BERKELEY, Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE, Lord ALFRED' PAGET, and Mr. BINGHAM BARING.

In the course of a close argument on the 'political economy of the question, Sir WILLIAM MOLES WORTH looked forward to the time when improved agricultural science would produce corn in this countrso cheap a rate as to outbid the foreigner even in supplying a population larger than the present; to a time, too, when the iron net-work of railways would have converted all Great Britain into one vast city, agricultural commodities being brought in a few hours, uninjured, to the best market in the world.

Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE heartily supported the Minister; challenging the Protectionists to form an Administration—or to vote "want of confidence." But in fact they dared not face opinion in the country. At Westminster they dared not produce a candidate, though he might have stood on the hustings in Covent Garden up to his knees in native cabbages. He asserted that the tenant-farmers do not care a straw for protection, and that they would vote for the measure if they could vote by ballot. (An emphatic "Hear, hear !” from Sir Robert Peel.) Had such a measure been adopted in 1842, it might have saved Ministers the painful boast that they had sent down a regiment of Guards and a park of artil- lery to Manchester. Mr. Duncombe warned Sir Robert Peel, however, of a danger to one part of his scheme: it is already rumoured, that, after the 'Corn-law is disposed of, the manufacturers mean to oppose the alteration in the law of settle- ment. Let him look to that, or the entire measure would be made comparatively worthless..

The motion was opposed by Alderman Tnotaraotr, Mr. BENET; air TOLLEMACHE, and Sir THOMAS ACLAND. Alderman Trevaresoss gave the Minister fall credit for 'the patriotism of his motives, but doubted whether he would attain the desired results; suggested that other means might be taken to relieve the people from taxation, such as re- ducing the duty on tea to 6d. a pound, on sugar to ld.—a boon to the consumer, and conducive to trade with China; and he finished by expressing a hope that, after twenty years' support of Sir Robert Peel, he had said nothing to give once. [Sir Hobert Peel answered by an assenting " Hear, hear I "] Mr. BzwErr, who said that perhaps he spoke for the last time' [on account of

his advanced age and ' infirmities,] prophesied that underfree trade great capitalist farmers would the little farmers, just as the great have crushed the little manufacturers.

Ar ?moues ACLAND, looking forward to the carrying of the measure, pro- mised that he would do his best to make the agriculturists keep up their hearts: the best way to take advantage of a good law, such as that of 1842, is to improve estates as much as possible; that is no less the best way to meet a bad law. If the measure were fairly carried, he would offer no factions opposition—he would not worry the measure. Sir Robert Peel, however, would know better than to push it if he obtained no more than a bare majority.

The debate was adjourned, for the seventh time, at a quarter-past twelve o'elook.

SPECIAL BURDENS ON LAND.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord BEarraicoor moved for a Select Committee "to inquire into the burdens on real property, and the impedi- ments to agricultural transactions caused by the present system of Excise- duties, Poor-laws, and Local Taxation."

As a reason for his proposing an inquiry which the agriculturists had hitherto refused, he advanced the measures introduced by Sir Robert Peel. Mr. ?Mut- loch, Mr. Ricardo, and Lord Brougham, (in 1820,) had admitted the existence of peculiar burdens on land: Sir Robert Peel proposed to discontinue the counter- vailing protection; and therefore it became necessary to remove the burdens. Lord Beaumont would have preferred to continue both burdens and protection; thinking the arrangement an economical bargain for the country, as conducing to independence of foreign supplies and encouraging native industry:: but if one were removed, both must go; and there seemed to be no choice left in the matter.

In a report of the Poor-law Commissioners, twenty-four distinct rates are enu- merated; but Lord Beaumont divided them into two classes,—those which are solely of local benefit and .concern; and those which are imposed for national pur- poses. Among the local rates, he classed the drainage, local police, sewers, and such taxes; of those for national purposes, the principal are the taxes for the maintenance of the poor, for the administration of justice, and for the defence of the country by means of the militia. Originally it was not intended that real property exclusively should pay the poor-rate—by the act of Elizabeth every man was to pay according to his ability. The modern practice, however, is quite dif- ferent: in Westmorehind the land is rated at a rack-rent, houses at two-thirds, and mills at one-half. The capitalist can gather able-bodied labourers from the land, employ them till there is a check on trade, then close his mill, cease to pay rates for it, and send back the poor to the rural districts. That influx the farmer must support; and many actually employ more labourers than they need rather than increase the poor-rates. It is said that the increase of towns relieves the land; but 'nothing can be more absurd: the increase of towns diminishes the quantity of the land to bear the burden: the spread of Brighton is an example. Sr James Graham proposes to alter the law of settlement; but the alteration would be quite inadequate to remedy the evil: the system of settlement makes the labourers bondmen to a parish, and entails enormous expenses for removals ap- peals, &c.: the remedy would be to abolish settlement altogether—making free trade in labour if there be free trade in corn.

Reviewing some other taxes, Lord 'Beaumont mentioned the highway-rate the tax on bricks, stamps on the transfer of property, as burdens on land. He ad- mitted that the tithe Is not so, since it has been commuted. He insisted, however, that the malt-tax is -a very serious burden. It is said to be paid by the beer- consumer: but it is not altogether so; for it enhances price, and the farmer is not allowed to malt barley for his cattle. The hop-duty is another harden, though of small amount. Meanwhile, the agriculturist contributes as 'muchas =Tether to the general taxes—post-office, customs, stamps, 8m.

He brought forward the present motion not as interfering with the other pea- Hon introduced by Government, but as a necessity arising out of the circum- stances. If public opinion should decide in favour of removing protection, he should submit, and, instead of turning sulky, should do his beet to promote peace between class and class: but in order to ascertain the decision of public opinion, Government ought to appeal to the country.

Lord BROUGHAM rose to second the motion; but the Marquis of Laws- DOWNE and another Peer insisted that it was out of order to do so, as superfluous in that House; and so Lord BROUGHAM confined himself to sup- porting the motion in the usual way—

In recognizing peculiar burdens on land, he wentfurther than Lord Beaumont; for he insisted that tithe is such a burden, and the land-tax-is another: but he did not Agree in thinking that the best way to compensate those burdens is to impose a tax on corn. It must be remembered, that while all the community, the landowners included, pay personal taxes all the community, the landowners excluded, do not pay the land-burdens. And Lord Brougham enlarged on the power of the manufacturer to dismiss his labourers, which the farmer cannot do.

Lord DACRE, with some reprehension of the Anti-Corn-law League, and a Mr. Bright's declaration that the making of forty-shilling freeholds could" lay the hereditary Peerage in the dust," supported the motion.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved, by way of addition, that the Committee be authorized" also to inquire and to report on the legislative exemptions and pecuniary advantages prcrvided by law in respect to taxation as affecting landed property "— The only object of this amendment was that the inquiry should not be partial. Lord Monteagle contended at some length, that tithe is no burden on land; not Merin; from rent. As to poor-rates, if they are not fairly assessed, let the as- sessment be made more equal: but the practice of Scotland illustrates the bad working of the attempt to impose that tax directly on ways and means; and never let the House contemplate the possibility of making the rate general and state tax. As to the administration of justice, half the expense is already borne by the state, and the other half ought to be retained for the sake of giving local Control over prosecutions. Barley has enjoyed peculiar reductions of duty: the malt-duty has been lowered from 43s. in 1816 to 20s. ea at present; and in 1880, the beer-tax was abolished; so that two-thirds of the taxes pressing on barley have been removed since the war. Meanwhile the malt-grower enjoys a monopoly; for sugar is prohibited for distilling. The iarmer is not forbidden to malt barley for fattening cattle though he must do so under somewhat severe seetriations: but indeed, Dr: Playfair, Air. Graham, aud Professor Liebig, have shown that the malted state of barley is not the most, suitable for the fatten- ing of mule.

Whatever the burdens, land enjoys peculiar exemptions---exemptions from the legacy and probate-duty, from home-duty, duty on farm-servants, auction- duty, and many others. Replying to Lord Deere, Lord Irlontengle argued for the expediency of abolish- ing the cause which keeps the League in existence. the rseati.of Ilse= said attevr words, alniost inaudibly, but apparently in support of the motion. Lord S'rawimv also supported it; banking the arguments of the mover, and combating the speech of Lord Monteagle-

He insisted that tithe is distinct from rent, since it is to be paid before any other charge on the land,including the profit of the farmer: it is therefore strictly a burden on the land; but it is one from which manufacturers are exempt Ile would like to compare this case of the manufacturers, and take the case of two stacks, one raised from the land, which before a spade was put in, or rather before the produce was realized—before the labourer received his pay, the tenant his profits, and the landlord his rent—was subject to the burden of paying one- tenth, and the other stack being able to be brought to market subject to no such payment or condition; and he would ask whether these two stacks came into the market under equal conditions, 'and whether the actual cost of raising the corn in the cue case was not greater than in the other. The one, too, was burdened with an obligation, imposed not for the exclusive benefit of the class upon whom it was imposed, but for the general benefit of the whole community, and payable before any profit could be derived.

He could not go into Committee, however, without protesting against the as- sumption that the question of protection is already settled. He allowed that the wishes of the country, deliberately, calmly, and seriously expressed, and steadily maintained, must and ought to have great weight with Parliament: but there should be no doubt on a change so immeasurably great; for unless it be accom- plished with that opinion in its favour, instead of being an undoubted good, it could not fail to be an undoubted evil. He did not rest the maintenance of the Corn-laws on the individual interests of any body of men; the question could not therefore be disposed of by pecuniary compensation: the qbestion must be weighed by the effect of abolition on the great social, moral, and political interests of the whole community.

The Duke of .Rionatown also refused to consider the question as • settled—

He could not believe that any Members of the Commons would be daring

enough to violate every pledge by passing the bill. or could he hold out the slightest hope that if the bill were to pass the agitation on the subject would cease: the enlightened, the honest, the mdependent yeomanry of England, feel the injury that they would receive from. these measures; they fear that their families will be condemned to the workhouse; they see that, the moment an honest man resigns his place, [in or under the Government,] deserters are re- warded: did noble Lords believe that the yeomanry would not take a leaf out of the book of the Anti-Corn-law League? Hitherto they had abstained from sending down lecturers into 'the manufacturing districts to excite the workmen against the employers: but had the League shown like abstinence ? 'No; t.h% had sent down their lecturers into all the agricultural districts for theparpow blaekguarding, if he might use the term, all the farmers and all the landlords. They told them that their stacks would readily burn; but the agricaltmistsimd never told the manufacturers that it was as easy to fire cotton asatacks. If the yeomen did send down men to excite the working people in the manufacturing districts,—though he hoped that they would not do so, but would pursue, as they ought to do, the more dignified course and make their appeal to Parliament,

not let noble Lords vote for this measure because they would think therebyto allay the excitement -

The Duke congratulated their Lordships, the agricultural interest, the labourers, and all conii..d with domesticindustry, that his noble friend [Lord Stanley] had seceded from office, and was likely to bring the benefit of his great eloquence and ability to aid the cause of domestic industry.

Earl GREY deprecated premature discussion of the great question here- after to be decided, and limited his regard to the .immediate question— He could make not the slightest objection to the.appointmant of .the Committee:- but, as one having a common interest in the prosperity of land, he greatly la- mented that this question had been raised.; because, if it were considered impar- tially and on sound financial. principles, the result would be 'found to be, that the landowners, instead of bearing a larger proportion of the public burdens than 'they reasonably ought, bores less proportion. 'Bunions are such things as inter- fere with the application of capital to lands the commuted tithe is not of that kind, because, whatever the capital applied to the land, nuts shilling is added to the tithe-charge. He denied that the malt-tax has the smallest effect in di- minishing the demand for barley; or that the farmer is debarred from that bruising and moistening of his .barley which better fit it to feed cattle t.luut the process of imalting. _Beer, no doubt, la a luxury to the poor man; but tee, coffee, and sugar, are also luxuries, more heavily taxed, and therefore more de- sirable to be cheapened. Land in this country beam a higher value than in any other: in America the best prairie land is worth, in fee-simple, but 4e. an acre: iuthis country, the annual value, as rent, is 99s. or .508. What thus increases the value ?—the increased population: the dense population is the cause of poor- rakes: thus the burdens come with the resources of wealth. Again, turnpike roads are maintained by those who use them; other roads, by-the land, which most -profits by those roads; and a manufacturer might .as well object to pity for his gas as the landowner for the roadsround his estate.

Lord ASHBURTON maintained the existence of peculiar burdens. lint. doubted the expediency of appointing the Committee, as it was more likely to be a scene of wrangling on. general principles than to produce any im- portant collection of facts.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

The Committee seas nominated on Tuesday, as follows- TheLord President, (Duke of Buceleuch,) Lord Privy Seal, (Earl of Bedding- ton,) Duke ofilichroond, Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Marquis of Lans- downe, Marquis offish:burl, Earl of llardwicke, Earl of Radnor, Earl of Claren- don, Earl of Malmesbury, Earl Grey, Earl of Stradbroke, Earl Lovelace, Earl of Elleeberough, Lord Deere, Lord Beaumont Lord Retlesdale, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Colchester, Lord Brougham,' kLord 'Stanley, Lord Ashburton, .Lord Cotten- ham, and Lord Monteagle.

.STATE OF IRELAND.

In the House of 'Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. O'Ccontats called attentioa to the state of famine and disease in Ireland; moving for a Committee of the whole House to consider the subject.

He emphatically disclaimed party motives or party Objects. There was every prospect of a most calamitousaeason before the people of Ireland. The extent of that calamity had been disputed; and there had been a time when there was a prospect of some portion of it being possibly averted; but he believed that hops had now quite vanished. 'The calamity was pressing, was imminent—more pres- sing, more imminent, andinore fearful than that House was aware of In onler to understand it properly, however, the House should know the previ- ous state of that country. For some years the population of Ireland, instead serf increasing, has been failing and wasting away. Between 1821 and 1831 the po- pulation of -Ireland increased nearly a million viz. ,965,570 souls; but between 1831 and 1441 the increase hadonly been about million, -viz. number, or 437,980 souls. Attempts had been made to account for this decrease in theincrease of emigres tion; but the argument was most:unisatisfactory. Those who used it gave no re- turns of emigration between 1821 and 1831, but confined themselves to the emi- gration between 1831 and 1841: there was no reason at all to imagine that the emigration was less-between 1821 and 1831 than it had been between 1831 and 1-841. This fact, therefore, stared him full in the face, that in ten years the:po- pulation went back hali a million; there were half a million fewer human beings in Ireland between 1831 and .likkl than .there had been between 1821 sand 1831. The Commissioners of Poor-law Inquiry, in 1835, reported that 2,300,000 of the agricultural population are in a constant state approaching to starvation. The report of Lord Devon's Commission—perhaps a better Com- mission was never formed by any Government-eltates that "the agricultural labourers of Ireland suffer the greatest privations and hardships; that they de- pmd upon precarious and casual employment for subsistence': that they are badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for their labour'; that it would be impossible to describe adequately the sufferings and privations which the cottiers and labourers and their families in most parts of the country endure'; that in many districts their only food is the potato, their only beverage water '; that 'their cabins are seldom a protection against the weather'; that a bed or blanket is a rare luxury'; and that 'nearly in all, their pig and their manure-heap constitute their only property'; that 'a large proportion of the entire population comes within the designation of agricultural labourers, and endure sufferings greater than the people of any other country in Europe have to sustain.'" The rural population were calculated by the last census at seven millions, and five millions of these were in the condition described by Lord Devon's Commission. After a government of Ireland by England for forty-five years, such is the result. It may be said that it is the fault of the Irish steeple: but Lord Devon's Report does not say so; the Commissioners describe the people's patient endurance, and impute to their temperance any improvement that has taken place in their condition. Coincidentally with those sufferings, the Irish have witnessed an in- creasing exportation of corn and cattle: from 1842 to 1845, the exportation of wheat has increased from 112495 quarters to 372,719; barley, 50,287 to 93,095; oats, 1,274,326 to 1,679,958; floar, from 314,311 to 1,422,379 hundredweight; while oatmeal alone has decreased, from 1,551,172 to 1,059,185. Thus, 2,145,772 quarters of grain and 2,481,564 hundredweight of flour was exported; showing that there was an abundant crop in Ireland, and that a large quantity of grain was sent for the consumption of England; while the Irish people were starving. So blessed was Ireland by Providence, so cursed by man.

To show the extent and formidable nature of the present calamity, Mr. O'Con nail entered upon a lengthened citation of documents, much of which is already well known,—such as the reports of Professor Lindley and Dr. Lyon Playfair, the reports of the Dahlia Mansionhoase Committee, documents quoted by Sir Robert Peel, various newspaper reports; all mingled with private letters. 'The general eftect of these letters is, that the disease of the potatoes had already destroyed the greater part of the crop; that the stored potatoes also rot; that the seed for next year is endangered; and that newly-sown potatoes (sown in November) ex- hibit tokens of equally destructive disease. Meanwhile, more than half the la- bourers are unemployed, and are likely to continue so for the next three or four months. This is an extract of a letter from Tralee, dated the 2d instant—" Po- tatoes, I regret to say, from the progress of the rot, advanced a third; and this, as I stated a few -days past, at a period when the rate of remuneration for agri- cultural labourers is 2id. per day, and diet a few wet lumpers. This is low enough, bat the tradesmen in this town are not earning that same. The inevit- able consequence of this is already manifesting itself. Fever is on the increase both here and in Killarney; and unless the most vigorous efforts are made to facilitate public works, and employ those able and willing to exchange their labour for the means of purchasing commodities for human consumption, the pestilence of 1817, also the result of scarcity, will bear no proportion to what is likely to ensue shortly. In that year disease did not appear until the approach of sum- mer; then the poor creatures lay in dozens in the market-house of Killarney, and in other dilapidated ruins with which that neglected town abounds for a long time past." The Reverend .7. Fitzpatrick writes thus from Castletown, in the county of Cork—" In some districts in Armagh, I was informed that the de- struction was progressing with sac& terrible rapidity, that of potatoes raised, thrice

and stored up in pots as free from all taint, not more than one-third was Mind t for use some days ago." One writer reports "a great many petty rob- beries committed about the suburbs of Tallamore"; "the unfortunate people baying no other remedy to keep them from starvation." A writer at Youghal says that many of the lriboaring population are obliged to live upon the diseased potatoes, and that the larger portion have not a supply for more than two months. Another mentions the stationing of dragoons in Gat, to repress any outbreak that might arise on account of the exportation of corn. Bat it is not less remark- able than creditable, that not a single instance of riot or disturbance of the pub- lic peace, owing to the want of food, had yet occurred in any part of Ireland.

Want of due nourishment produces typhus fever; the cure for which is a supply of the necessaries of life. Mr. O'Connell instanced the fevers of 1735, 1741, 1798-9, 1817, and 1826; all of which were cared by subsequent abundance. During the fever of 1817-18, a million and a half of people suffered from the epidemic. All writers on fever in Ireland remark that it is accompanied by smallpox: that disease begins to be very prevalent in Ireland: the number of cases in Hardwicke Hospital have increased from 22 in 1812 to 86 in 1845; the deaths from 5 to 15.

Ireland does not come begging. She has resources of her own. There is the revenue of the Woods and Forests in Ireland, of which 74,0001. has been expended on Trafalgar Square within the last few years: let that sum be made the smarantee for the loan of a million, with a sinking-fund. Money might be bor- rowed on the rents of the Irish landlords, and met by an income-tax of 10 per cent on the resident landlords and of 40 per cent on absentees. The emergency demands extraordinary measures. "You are not to talk of ordinary rules—it is a case beyond every rule. The temple are not to blame: it has pleased Provi- dence to inflict this calamity on them. It is your business to mitigate it as well as you can. There are railroads—why should you not take strong measures in respect to railroads? I should be happy to see the construction of railroads placed in the hands of the Government, with a power equal to that of legislation. I should be happy to see Government authorized by the voice of this Heine and the House of Peers to appoint a Railway Board which should take all the neces- sary preliminary steps for the commencement of these undertakings—which should have power to apportion the necessary land, dispensing with the rules and regulations which fence in railway schemes here. Famine is coming, fever is coming; and this House should place in the hands of Government power to stay the evil. Whenever 100,000/. is °realised for a railway, there should be advanced another 100,0001. as a loan, so a to leave the capital which might employ the people still in the hands of itsS biers, charging them one per cent if the money WAS only lent for one year, four or five per cent if not repayed for two or four years. Let the House enable the Government to take some measure of the loind. I know how many objections there are; bat I am speaking of a case wipe- nor to every objection. Great evils require great remedies; and the remedy, to be effectual, must be commensurate with the disease. I am sure it will be ob- vious that I am not arguing from any partisan views of my own. I am speaking from the depths of my conviction and my renscience when I say that deaths to an enormous amount will be the consequence of neglect. I wish for a Committee of the whole House. My plans may be undigeeted, but still I would press for a Committee. Show the Irish people your anxiety to relieve them. I do not blame the Government for what they have done. On the contrary, I applaud them for the measures which they have taken. I have given these measures my earnest support. I have not been looking for objections. But, after all, they are miserable trifles, not adequate to the requirements of the country. They would do for an ordinary time—they would be sufficient for an ordinary scarcity; but they are not sufficient when famine and fever and death are abroad."

Thanking the House for the attention with which he had been heard, Mr. O'Connell moved, " That this House will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the state of Ireland, with a view to devise means to relieve the distress of the Irish people." Sir Jas Gasman admitted the importance of the subject, and explaineet the steps which Ministers had taken— He could not sai that in any material particular Mr. O'Connell had exagge- rated the facts. He himself might indeed not calculate the number wholly de- pendent on potatoes quite so high as 5,000,000; but at least one half of the popu- lation of Ireland is so dependent. One half of the people of Ireland depend for their daily food upon a plant which has failed. Some estimate the loss of the crop at one half: supposing, however, that the loss were only one quarter, this would be the state of affairs—In addition to the six weeks during which in or- dinary years the population was dependent on food of a more expensive sort, there would be a deficiency of one fourth in the simply consumed in ten months and a half: thus making in all, by adding the six weeks and the fourth of ten months and a half together, a period of four months of the present year daring which four millions of people must be fed on food of a higher quality than pota- toes. Surely a more alarming case could hardly be submitted to the considsra- tion of Parliament." But that is not all: information received within the 114 fortnight shows that the disease still makes progress. He agreed with Mr, O'Connell, that up to this time the conduct of the Irish peasantry in general, with such alarming prospects and under such distressing circumstances, VMS ex- cellent. No riots had taken place—no tumults. Everywhere the utmost patience had been exhibited. He had heard with painful interest of 190 labourers coming to a meeting of a Board of Guardians stating that their food was failing them, that no wages were offered to them, that all they wanted was work for wages; and he must say that a more touching case than this could not be conceived.

From some of Mr. O'Connell's conclusions Sir James expressed dissent. The failure of the population, for instance might be imputed to other causes besides distress: such as the attraction of brisk trade and good wages in England and Scotland.

Sir James stated the measures adopted by Government. The Commission for the purpose of administering remedieshas been reduced in number, in order to ita better working: it will now consist of Mr. Twisleton, Professor Kane, and Sir R. Browne. Parliament had already given its assent to the Public Works Bill, by which a grant of 50,0001. was made. That House had consented, on the Piers and Harbours Bill, to a further grant of 50,0001. In the Drainage Bill a clause.

was inserted for the purpose of promoting inland navigation. 'There were great works contemplated joining. the Northern Lakes with the navigation of the. Shannon, and opening up the navigation to some of the Western Lakes. Accord- ing to plans and estimates which had undergone a careful examination, the ad- vance for these works was estimated at 120,000/ Assuming that grant to be hereafter made, no less than 220,0001. would be expended on grants to public works in Ireland. Now, as to advances and loans under the Drainage Bill, as it now stood, there was 5,000/. for preliminary expenses—the same item in the Piers and Harbours Bill amounting to 2,0001.; and in the County Work, which stood for further consideration of the Committee that evening, there was a further loan of 100,000L; making 228,0001. in the shape of loans, and of grants, 220,0001.; 468,0001. of the public money being thus proposed to be applied either in the shape of grant or of loan. In the last session of Parliament, railway bills were- passed authorizing an outlay of no less than 9,000,0001. In this country it wale generally assumed that the whole outlay was completed in the course of three years. But assuming that, from the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, the pe- riod of outlay would be much prolonged it was not too much to assume that in the present year, under acts already passed, 2,300,0001. would be expended on railroads in Ireland. He was not saying that the expenditure of capital in such works would meet the special evils of the calamity which they apprehended. A railroad, however, only affords employment for those who reside within five or ten miles of the line: it is a peculiar difficulty in the present failure of the potat& crop that it is not partial and local, but general; and he admitted that the Pew. law was quite inadequate to provide for the emergency. But he hoped the House would give the Government credit for not having neglected any precaution which prudence and a sympathy with the sufferings of the people could have suggested.- (Loud cries of" Hear, Awe/ "from both sides.) But he hoped the House would excuse him from giving in detail the manner in which it was proposed to most the evil. Such a coarse was not consistent with the public interest, and he hoped tbe House would not expect him to adopt it. It was sufficient to say, that in no one particuLer had the extreme difficulty of the case been lost sight of. Instructions were issued so early as November on all the leading points; and he could assure the honourable and leaned gentleman, that be the calamity as extensive as it might, the Government would not be taken by surprise. (Cries of" Hear I* from both sides.) Steps, too, have been taken to provide against fever: poor-, houses will farmsh appropriate asylums; and should they not prove sufficient, Government would be prepared to introduce a bill founded on the precedent of 1832 as to the cholera hospitals. Sir James suggested that the subject should be left to the Executive Govern- ment "I am unwilling, by the prolongation of this discussion even for two hours, to interrupt the important discussion in which we have been engaged. I for one am humbly of opinion—having foreseen in November the extent of the calamity with which we are threatened—that the first and primary duty of the Legislature is to remove all obstructions to the free importation into this counter of all articles of necessary consumption. I am satisfied that to that duty every other on the part of the Legislature is secondary and subsidiary. I fear it will, be necessary for me, notwithstanding the measures I have mentioned, still further to call on Parliament for the generous exercise of that great virtue inherent in all representative assemblies, a prompt sympathy with the sufferings of the people; and, foreseeing that danger, rnowbeaeech them to take the primary and essential step of effecting the undeniably necessary relaxation of the prohibitions which- now exist as to importation of human food." (Loud cheers from the Oppositiomy Subsequently, Sir James Graham rose again, and added—"! forgot to ask the- honourable and learned gentleman, if, relying on the Executive Government to- meet the evil with which we are threatened, he would consent to withdraw Ids motion for a Committee." [Mr. O'Connell was understood to assent.] Mr. SRAM expressed his willingness to provide employment for the people, but at the same time his belief that the accounts from Ireland were exaggerated. Mr. Joists O'Cowerakt, supported the motion at some length; and, in e very digressive speech, touched upon several standing grievances,—export of corn from Ireland, frustration of her natural resources by misrule, the, crushing of Irish manufactures, absenteeism, unequal taxation, Ike. Lord Joists Russzsr. suggested that the opportunity was very unfit for a general review of Irish grievances; advised the House to stick to the subject before it; and bore testimony that there was every disposition in the House to come to the relief of Ireland. He urged Mr. O'Connell te- withdraw his motion-

" I own it appears to me, having listened to the statement of the right honour- able gentleman, that the measures which the Government has taken thus fir have been judicious measures; and that they have avoided the two evils, of either injustice on the one hand, or what perhaps would have been equally dangerous, an ostentatious display of relief on the other, which might have caused an aggra- vation of the distress they were anxious to relieve."

Mr. LAWSON declared his willingness to relieve Ireland; but dissented from the view that the endeavour necessarily involves repeal of the Cam- laws.

Mr. O'Commu, withdrew the motion; reserving his right ta reiutmednee it later in the session, if necessary.

INTERFERENCE OF PEERS WITH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. JOHN CoLutrr brought under notice a breach of its privileges committed by Peers in interfering with the election of Members of Parliament—

The interference of Peers with elections had become too common, too open, and too notorious to be longer submitted to; and he charged the Dukes of Bucking- ham, Newcastle, Richmond, and Marlborough, with such interference. He ac- cused them of causing the resignation of certain Members sitting for boroughs over which they exercised control, and of causing the vacancies to be supplied by persons of more subservient politics. Thus, Sir Thomas Fremantle had been obliged to resign his seat for Buckingham, Mr. William Ewart Gladstone (a great public loss at the present time) for Newark, Lord Arthur Lennox for Chichester; their places being supplied by the Marquis of Chandos, Mr. John Stuart, and Lord Henry Lennox. The election of Lord Charles Churchill for Woodstock was to be attributed to undue influence on the part of the Duke of Marlborough. Quoting Dockls Parliamentary Companion, and newspaper reports, Mr. Collett referred to the undue interference exerted by the same parties at the general election of 1841 in the boroughs in question, and repeated as often as vacancies had occurred. He also quoted from historical documents to show the value which the House attached to its privilege, and the punishments inflicted for infringing it; and con- cluded by moving the appointment of a Committee of Privileges to inquire into the causes which led to the resignations of the late Members for Chichester Newark, Woodstock, and Buckingham; also into the circumstances connected with the election of their successors; with the view of ascertaining whether or not the privileges of the House had been infringed. Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. He deemed the inquiry particu- larly called for at the present moment, the allegation being that the cause of the recent resignations was a desire to thwart and retard the Ministerial propositions. The Peers in question, together with their nominees, had heaped every species of abuse on Sir Robert Peel, and had imputed to hint the worst of motives.

Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the motion; as not resting on recognizable Parliamentary grounds- . For himself, he was not aware that imputations bad been cast upon his motives: bufalthough he had been aware that such things had occurred, no feelings of irritation would have influenced him in assenting to or dissenting from this mo- tion. It would be absurd to deny that Peers do exercise an influence at elections; and he hoped the day would never come when legitimate influence could be extinguished. No laws could put an end to the operation of those friendly feelings which a Peer, a great landowner and a Lord-Lieutenant of a county, was able to attract towards him by acts of kindness and liberality to his tenants and to those about him. The question was, are there any Parliamentary grounds for fearing the exercise of illegitimate influence? Mr. Collett affirmed that there were; but he adduced no evidence, except extracts from newspapers; and if the House were to entertain motions so utterly unsupported by evidence, there would be no end to them. As to Sir Thomas Fremantle, Sir Robert knew that be had resigned his seat from a nice sense of private honour, originating in a pledge which be gave at his election to support the present Corn-laws; and his constituents, without any suggestion from the Duke of Buckingham, Sir Robert Peel believed, called for the redemption of the pledge. Mr. HUME advised that the motion be withdrawn on the ground that no evidence to warrant it had been produced. But the House should have listened to his own applications to have the Standing Order against the interference of Peers in elections done away with.

Mr. Commrr withdrew his motion.

Thum PACIFICATION BILL. On Monday, Earl Sr. GERMANS introduced to the Henn of Lords a bill for the better protection of life and property in Ireland, and for faillitating the apprehension of offenders. It ism read a first time and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next; when the Ministerial plans will be de- veloped.