Debates anb 113rotettrings in Varlianunt.

THE CORN-LAWS.

On Tuesday, Mr. C. VILLIERS brought forward, in the House of Commons, his annual motion for a repeal of the Corn-law : on which occasion he spoke for nearly four hours, and his speech is reported in the Morning Chronicle to the extent of seven columns. The form of the motion was, that the House should resolve into Committee to con- sider the following resolutions.

" That it appears, by a recent census, that the people of this country are rapidly increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this House, that a large proportion of her Majesty's subjects are insufficiently provided with the first necessaries of life. That, nevertheless, a Corn-law is in force which re- stricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its abundance. That any such /restriction, having for its object to impede the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of the community, is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expe- dient that the Act 5 and 6 Vie. c. 14 shall be repealed forthwith." In enforcing the propriety of adopting these resolutions, Mr. Villiers went over much ground that has become familiar ; and we can only give a general indication of his line of argument.

One of the reasons inducing him to renew the discussion was, lest by the

omission an erroneous opinion might he entertained that the cause had been weakened ; a more erroneous notion than which could not be conceived. He alluded to their opponents having been driven to enter the field of public agita- tion, but with no other seeming effect than that of agitating themselves. The assailants of the Corn-law were, in fact, daily gaining ground ; whilst those opposed to them were losing the ground they stood on. The fallacy of the ob- section to the free admission of foreign corn, that it would render this country dependent for its supply on other nations, was disposed of. This country already was in a state of dependence on foreigners ; shown by the fact that during thirteen years after the passing of the Corn-law of 1815, corn to the amount of 30,000,000L bad been imported even in spite of the restrictive duty. All other objections were equally futile. It was now ascertained beyond a doubt, that neither the farmer, nor the farmer's labourer, nor any other class in the community, derived any benefit from these laws, except the landowners. Looking metely to the agriculturists, the reduction of price would not neces- sarily throw land out of cultivation. The fact, he believed, was, that if a little science and economy were applied to almost any land, a very low price would still repay the labour of cultivation and give a profit. Lord Ducie declared publicly that all apprehension upon this score was a fallacy ; and that, sup- posing no rent to be paid, they could produce wheat on almost any land at a lower price than that quoted at any foreign port. It was obvious, therefore, that before land could be thrown out of cultivation, it must have given up paying rent ; the land must go to waste before the labourer would be thrown out of employment. The effect of the repeal of the Corn-laws in giving additional employment in manufacturing districts was dwelt upon by Mr. Villiers. He also combated the objection about throwing agricultural labourers out of work, by showing that the persons employed in agriculture only constituted one-seventh of the whole population : even if they were injured by the repeal, therefore, the rest of the people ought not to be debarred their natural right to purchase food at the cheapest market. The advantages of an abundant supply of food were ad- mitted by all; yet the direct tendency of the Corn-laws was to produce scarcity—that was their very object. The effect of restriction in producing the miseries and privations of the people was then considered. The effect of scarcity of food had been admitted by the Secretary of State to increase the mortality of the people; it deteriorated their moral condition, increased the number of crimes, (as an instance of which the incendiary fires were adduced,) and increased the amount of emigration. He quoted the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel against the Corn-laws, that they would have the effect of per- petuating war-prices in time of peace, and ruin the people for the benefit of the landowners. It bad been asserted by the Member for Berkshire, (Mr. Pusey,) that pros ection was necessary for the development of agricultural improvements. How did the state of agriculture countenance the doctrine that protection pro- moted improvement ? The speeches of Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Sir Harry Verney, to their tenantry, showed that agriculture had been greatly neglected ; that in fact the improved cultivation of land had not excited much attention, until the Anti-Corn-law League agitated the country. They now heard of the advantages of long leases, and of the shooting of rabbits and hares ; for which the farmers were indebted to the Anti-Corn-law League. It was indeed evident from numerous documents, that agriculture was behind-hand ; that it might be much improved ; and that the circum- stances under which land was now held prevented that improvement. The fact was, there was required from the landlords a sacrifice of both power and treasure.

By the facts and arguments he had adduced, Mr. Villiers contended that he had established these positions,—that the supply of food had been deficient; that great inconvenience resulted ; and that the protective system had led to the cultivation of land in a most slovenly manner. When they found such a state of things, why should they distrust the effect of commerce, influenced by com- petition, on the article of food as well as on others ? We relied on the system of men acting on their own interests, and discovering the wants of the com- munity, in every other case; and what reason was there for mistrusting it in this? Having brought his arguments to a conclusion, Mr. Villiers explained the reasons which induced him to bring the question forward in its present form. There would have been no advantage in asking for the consent of the House to a less stringent proposition. if he had proposed a more moderate measure, had he any chance of conciliating those who constituted the majority of that House ? If he proposed what was called a moderate fixed duty, would not the change be opposed. as strenuously as that he now submitted ? Would not vested interests " be disturbed, and the rights of " protection" infringed, as much by a five-shilling duty as by the total repeal? The change would be made effectual if made at once ; and there was no reason for delay. Mr. FERRAND took the lead in opposing the motion. He inveighed at much length against the Anti-Corn-law League, and their unfairness in refusing to hear any one who professed opposite opinions. He re- asserted that the advocates of free trade were opposed to its application to articles of their own manufacture ; and he renewed some of his old at- tacks on the millowners for their conduct to the weavers in their employ. Some laughter was produced by Mr. Ferrand alluding to an assertion by Lord Howiek, and regretting his absence; his Lordship being at the time opposite to him, fast asleep. Mr. Ferrand concluded by moving the following amendment as a substitute for Mr. Villiers's resolutions- " That although a Corn-law is in force, which protects the supply of food produced by British capital and native industry, and thereby increases its abundance, whilst it lessens competition in the market of labour, nevertheless machinery has for many years lessened among the working-classes the means of purchasing the same. That such Corn-law having for its object the protec- tion of British capital, and the encouragement of native labour employed in the growth of an article upon which depends the subsistence of the community, is just in principle, beneficial in operation, and ought not to be abolished. That it is, therefore, expedient that every encouragement and protection shall be given to native industry, which is the groundwork of our national greatness, and the source of our national wealth."

Captain BERKELEY protested against the attempts that bad been made to set the landed and the commercial interests of the country at variance. The best way to reconcile these dissensions was to abolish the Corn-law.

Mr. GLADSTONE, on the part of the Government, announced his in- tention to call upon the House to give the original resolutions a direct negative. He recommended Mr. Ferrand to withdraw his resolutions, that there might be no misunderstanding on the question on which the House would have to decide.

On the matter of protection to agriculture, the occupiers and the agricultural labourers were more directly interested than the landlords; so far as he bad any opportunity of making himself acquainted with the sentiments of the farmers, he should say that they did much more to stimulate the landlords to resist a repeal of the Corn-law than the landlords did to excite them to that resistance. He dissented from the opinion that discontent among the peasantry was in- variable when prices of bread were high. He referred to the years 1839-40-41, as years in which there had been no exhibition of discontent by incendiary fires, though the price of bread was then high. In 1842 and 1843, on the contrary, when prices had been moderate, the discontent of the peasantry had been great. This brought him to the cause of the discontent which occasionally manifested itself among the agricultural population. Every one must see that that discontent arose from want of employment. He would, of course, not say that Mr. Villiers meant to encourage that discontent ; but he would ask, had not the energetic, and wide-spread, and persevering agitation of the question which the honourable Member so strenuously carried on, the effect of in- creasing discontent, the more especially when he told the country that one of its effects bad been to induce landlords to grant leases and to destroy bares and rabbits ? The honourable Member ought to see that the tendency of this agi- tation must be so to shock confidence as toproduce that want of em- ployment which was in truth the true cause of the discontent. In legis- lating on such subjects, the existence of public confidence was in the highest degree essential; and after having come to an arrangement of the question two years ago, he objected that, without any adequate trial, continual attempts should be made to disturb it. If Parliament consented to continue arguments on the subject, such a course would be fatal to every inte- rest in the country, therefore fatal to public credit : he claimed stability for the decision of Parliament. (Cheers, first on the Ministerial and then on the Opposition side.) Nothing had been alleged against the working of the pre- sent law ; therefore he concluded it was considered to be unassailable, es cially when it was recollected how the main arguments of Mr. Villiers in for- pe- mer years were directed against the sliding scale of duties. Mr. Gladstone claimed for the existing law a longer trial ; and contended that their experience of its operation fully bore out the expectations which were stated on its intro- duction. Sir Robert Peel had been accused of having promised the agricultu- rists a particular price for their corn : be had done no such thing; but he had referred to certain limits within which, on the whole, he thought it desirable, if practicable, that the price of corn should range ; and the limits he named were from 54s. to 58s. per quarter. Now, the law came into operation on the 29th April 1842 ; and from April to December 1842, the average price of wheat was 55s. 10d.—that was within the limits. In 1843, the average price of wheat was not 55s. 10d. but 50s. ld.—that was certainly below the limit: but that was a year of abundance ; and the farmer did not greatly complain. From the commencement of the present year to the 15th June, the average price was 54s. 6d. So that it singularly happened, that two out of the three averages under the operation of this law had been within those very limits alluded to by his right honourable friend. During the present year, for the last few months, and especially the last few weeks, when the corn-market generally be- came uneasy, the steadiness of the market had been remarkable in a moat peculiar degree. One objection to the former Corn-law was that it tended to disturb the currency by the uncertainty attending the trade in corn : this complaint was no longer made, and it was admitted that the trade in corn was become regular. He denied the accuracy of Mr. Villiers's estimate of the amount of the agricultural population : if they took into account all those depending on agriculture, they would exceed half the other labouring classes in the country. He again deprecated agitation, and expressed coufidence that the House would not disturb the settlement which had been arrived at after a long and fair examination and adjustment of conflicting interests. Lord Jon is RUSSELL confessed the awkwardness of his own position on the present motion ; for he could not vote for the total and imme- diate repeal of the protective duty, neither could he assent to maintain the present Corn-law. That law had not yet had the trial of bad harvests. When the harvest was abundant, then, of course, all the advantages of the plan would accrue : but when the appearance of a bad harvest was succeeded by a good one, then there was a considerable importation, by which the merchants were ruined ; or if a bad harvest took place suddenly, then there was a sudden and immense im- portation at a high price, at a low duty, by which the people Buffered greatly, while the farmer had only his short crop to meet it. It was said, the same evils would have to be encountered with a fixed duty : but there was this differ- ence, that with a fixed duty the merchant had at least one element of cer- tainty—he would know whether the duty were 5s., 6s., or 103.—that be had a certain sum to pay; and therefore there would be a regular trade, as with re- spect to any other commodity. He objected to the sudden change proposed by Mr. Villiers. Any alteration should be introduced gradually. On this point, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Lord Grenville, and Mr. Huskisaon were agreed. They held, in fact, the same doctrines on free trade as the Anti-Corn-law League; but the destructive feature of the League was that they proposed a sudden change in the protective system. Unable as he was to take a part in this vote, he heartily wished there might be some compromise with regard to this ques- tion. He did not think the present law was fit to sustain itself in stormy times. No majority, however large, would put an end to the agitation of this question. The present law was as much opposed to the views of those who desired increased protection as it was to those of the Free-traders; therefore it was impossible not to expect agitation against it. He objected to the ex- clusive manner in which the subject had been brought forward. The proper way to deal with the question of protection would be to consider all the pro- tections that existed, both as regarded agricultural produce and manufactures; and if they wished to show them all to be unsound and injurious, with a view to their abrogation, he thought it would be fairer to do that than to continue harangues upon the subject of the Corn-law, mixed as they often were out of that House with attacks on the conduct of landlords and on the agricultural

Interests generally, which tended in no degree to a settlement, but bad done much to indispoee the landlords, and still more the farmers, to the considera- tion of the question. [Lord John sat down without any cheers from either side of the House.]

Mr. MILES opposed the resolutions, and spoke against the agitation carried on by the Anti-Corn-law League. He relied on the Govern- ment for maintaining the Coro-law in its present state.

Lord HOMER. avowed himself a supporter of absolute repeal, as there was no longer any compromise possible. He was prepared to rest his support of the present motion expressly upon this single ground—that at present industry was inadequately rewarded ; that wages were low, and profits low ; and that all these things were to be ascribed in a great degree to the existing Corn-law.

The English labourers now produced more than formerly : whence then arose their present state of destitution ? It could not be attributed to taxa- tion ; for it would not be difficult to show that, in proportion to its wealth, this country is not so heavily taxed as other nations. He attributed the dis- tress to the competition for laud, induced by our insular condition. This caused higher rents to be paid than otherwise would be paid ; and produced a constant and progressive diminution in the share of the gross produce of the soil which was to be divided between the labourers and the capitalists. This accounted for the low rate of wages and profits as respected agriculture; and, as there was a tendency to equalization in other branches of industry, it also accounted for the low rate of profits and wages as respected manufactures and commerce. The way to meet this evil was to have recourse to the produce of other soils, and to leave labour unfettered. The low rate of profit tended to create overgrown establishments, and the ruin of the small trader ; circumstances which rendered more and more marked that broad distinction of very rich and very poor which was one of the great social evils of the present day. As an agriculturist, he felt persuaded that the interest of his class required that an al- teration should be made : but whether it were made or not, he was sure of this, that it was their solemn duty not to retain, on account of any imaginary ad- vantage to themselves, laws which were so depressing to the entire nation. They knew on the highest authority that there was a malediction on those who withheld from the labourer his hire ; and it was his belief that a legislature which deprived the labourer of his ability to gain the reward of that hire, was just as liable to the malediction as an individual would be. For his own part he declared, that in the guilt of the House in this matter he would have no share or participation. (" Hear, hear! ") The root of good government was sapped away when it was once supposed that those in whom political power had been centered had perverted it to their own purposes; and when the conviction once seized the people that the Corn- law existed only for the few, be warned them that the days of that law would be numbered. The question was what the people called "a regular knife and fork question." Their discontent was the immediate result of class legislation. That was what they constantly said; and he thought that they were right. Be believed that if the Corn-law were repealed, a stimulus would be given to all classes to meet with success foreign competition, and the labourers would obtain better wages. He appealed to Lord Ashley, and those who took so ac- tive a part in endeavouring to relieve the miseries of one class of their fellow- creatures, to assist in obtaining for all the labourers in this country their rights ; and not to thwart any longer that Providence which balances abundance in one clime against scarcity in another, and which teaches the skilful artisan to ex- change the product of his loom against that food which he was unable other- wise to procure. (Cheers.) On the motion of Colonel RUSHBROOK, the debate was then adjourned. The debate was renewed on Wednesday. There was little appear- ance of interest within the House or without: the Opposition-benches were very empty during the greater part of the night, and the front bench, generally occupied by the Whig leaders, was at times quite de- serted.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN took up the ball ; and directed his aim prin- cipally at the Anti-Corn-law League, of which be gave the history. He quoted speeches and read documents very abundantly, for the pur- pose of showing that the League had endeavoured CO carry their objects by intimidation, by exciting the people against the landowners, by false representations and delusive promises, and by unconstitutional inter- ference with the elections. In spite of their exertions, aided by funds amounting to 159,0001.—respecting the expenditure of which no account was rendered—the prestige of the League was fast failing. It had all the elements of sedition, and its proceedings were sufficient to warn any honest citizen from joining such a body of agitators. Captain LAYARD amused the House by several curious illustrations of his opinions against the Corn-laws drawn from his visits to China and to the Italian Operahouse. The Chinese illustration was derived from the custom of bandaging the feet of the ladies.

Be had represented to a Hong merchant how barbarous, cruel, and contrary to the dictates of common sense, the custom appeared to be, which the Chinese

had of bandaging the feet of their female children, and from which cruel opera- tion be supposed many must die. The Hong merchant said, the custom was cruel—many hundred children died from mortification ; but that a great many old women made a trade of it, and that the public good thus suffered for private advantage. The Corn-law did something even worse, for instead of putting on abort slippers it put the people on short commons; and though many Chinese children might die from mortification of the feet, the people of this country died from want of food in their stomachs. Captain Layard re- fbrred to the desertion of the Government by Mr. Ferrand and Mr. Disraeli, whom they at first put forward as great guns. Of the defection of the latter be said, the honourable Member for Shrewsbury might be compared to a clock, which went pretty regularly for some time, but not having been oiled, at length began to go rather irregularly. The hands at one time were supposed—the clock having gone for three hours, not only by Shrewsbury time, but by the clock of the House of Commons, in a dull, monotonous tick, without stopping,

upon foreign policy—to point to some diplomatic appointment abroad. (Loud laughter.) But the right honourable Baronet, knowing the maker too well—

knowing that it was no tried chronometer—would have nothing to do with it. (Laughter.) It had been hinted that the Shrewsbury clock, though it had not yet aspired to be the clock at the Horse Guards, by which all the other clocks

are regulated, had certainly been disappointed at not being the clock at the Admiralty, where time does not require to be so exactly kept. At last it became quite irregular, no longer chiming in with the right honourable Baronet. (Conti-

nued laughter.) Sir Robert Peel had been coquetting with the agriculturists, who were beginning to think him a false friend : Captain Layard advised him to leave them altogether, and frankly follow the practice as well as adopt the principles of free trade. He had seen Sir Robert at the Operahouse, witnessing the ballet of Ondine; and he could not avoid likening him to Cerito in pursuit of the shadow. The graceful Cerito seemed a fair and lovely representation of Free Trade, flitting and dancing as it continually is before the mental vision of the right honourable Baronet. And when Ondine, in her moonlight-flitting across the stage, is startled and alarmed at her own shadow, how just a repre- sentation, though certainly a more elegant one, of what happened to the right honourable Baronet, when be, coming out of the shade, first ventured to broach Free-trade principles! How he started back—not indeed so gracefully as the fair Cerito—when he saw, not indeed his own shadow, but the shade which cam* over the mournful countenances of the Agricultural Members ! He trusted that the right honourable Baronet would give up coquetting, after the manner of Cerito, with the shadow ; and that, becoming completely enamoured, when he opened his arms to embrace it, it would be found he had clasped the reality and not the shadow of Free Trade.

Colonel RUSIIBROORE and Lord RENDLESHAM opposed the motion. The former stated, in reference to the alleged causes of incendiarism, that the farm-labourers in Suffolk had never been so well fed or so well clothed as at present, and that they were very contented. Mr. WARD protested against having the time of the House wasted by attacks ou the Anti-Corn-law League. The imitation of the League by the Pro-Corn-law League, in all things but its talent, ought to have prevented Mr. S. O'Brien, one of the patrons of the latter, from attacking their prototype so unsparingly. After some other personalities—allusions to the absences of Lord Ashley and " Young England," &c.—Mr. Ward went on to express a hope that Sir Robert Peel would carry out his own views without restraint from his usual supporters ; and contrasted the qualifications of Sir Robert as a leader in the cause of free trade with those of Lord John Russell. Would he do but one half of what he professed in theory, the Free-traders would be too happy to receive him as their leader. He was the more wanted from the dogged pertinacity of the noble Member for London, w ho stuck by his fixed duty, which nobody asked for. (Cheers and laughter.) "Whenever you get tired of the right honourable Baronet," said the noble Lord, " whenever that unhappy lover's quarrel breaks out afresh, look to me. (Laugh- ter.) If the worst comes to the worst, you have me at your service ; and you know I adhere to the 'great principle' of a fixed duty—we'll talk about the amount when the proper time comes." (Renewed laughter.) If the right honourable Baronet only held out the hope that the time might come when be would part company with the drag-chains now hanging about him, and work out even a small portion of the large and extensive theories which he put in so comprehensive a shape before the country, there was no man whom he should half so much like to follow as a leader. The right honourable gentleman made great battle tar a bad cause : if he had to urge sound principles, his eloquence would render them perfectly irresistible. The present Corn-law, it was said, should have a fair trial. For how many years was the trial to continue ?—was it one, two, three, four, or ten years ? lie very much doubted whether the President of the Board of Trade would have made the speech he did yesterday, if the timely shower which we bad did not raise the hopes of the agriculturists. (Laughter.) Sir JOHN TROLLOPE asserted the right of agriculture to protection, from the special demands on it and the restrictions under which it was placed. Lincolnshire could grow tobacco with great advantage ; but the law prohibited its production in England. The Pro-Corn-law League, he said, had been formed by the tenants, and not by the landlords, for the purpose of protecting the agricultural interest from the attacks of the Anti-Corn• id W League. Mr. MILKER Grusost advocated an absolute repeal of the Corn-law, as the best means of settling the question, for landlords, farmers, and labourers.

It could not be settled until all restriction was abolished ; and the farmers were only deceiving themselves if they relied on Sir Robert Peel's declaration in favour of maintaining the existing law. Sir Robert had never given a distinct pledge to that effect : all lie had said was that he had no change to propose at present. He called upon the Paymaster of the Forces to come forward and say what was the ground on which the landed proprietors of this country claimed to them- selves, as matter of right, the privilege of interfering with the freedom of the industry of others. He had learned from Paley, that every restraint was, per se, an evil, and that it was incumbent on those who defended it to prove its advan- tage beyond the shadow of doubt. Unless, then, they proved the advantages of the Corn-laws, he contended that be was entitled to demand the immediate abolition of this restraint. He called upon landlords to consider the nature of the possession for which they now claimed a vested interest. At the time when these laws were passed, Parliament was exclusively composed of land- owners. The late Lord Liverpool remarked of the Corn-laws, that they were passed with a view to prevent the settlement between the landlord and the tenant which would have taken place in consequence of the peace. There were many who thought that the country would settle down quietly without the interference of the Legislature, and that an equitable adjustment of contracts would take place : but were their demands attended to? No ; Parliament proceeded at once, and without inquiry, to pass this law, simply because they were unwilling that rents should fall from the rate they had maintained during the war. They regarded only their own interests of the moment—rent, rent, rent, was their cry. It was not only the Anti-Corn-law League which said this, but he would show that one of the most eminent poets of the country had held equally strong language. Lord Byron had said of the conduct of the land- owners in Parliament at the close of the war- " The last to bid the cry of warfare cease.

The first to make a malady of peace;

Fur what were all these country patriots hdrn ? To bunt, and vote, and raise the price of corm"

Again, the poet observed of their conduct during the war itself-

" Safe in their barns, these Sabine tillers sent

Their brethren out to battle—why ? For rent Year after year they voted cent per cent,

Blood, sweat, and tear, wrung millions—why ? For rent I

They roared, they diued, they drank, they swore they meant To die Cro England—why then live ? For rent I The peace has made one general malcontent Ot these high-market patriots; war was rent I

Their love of country, millions all misspent,

How reconcile ?—By reconciling rent.

And will they not repay the treasures lent ? No, down with everything, but up with rent! Their good, ill, health, wealth, joy, or discontent. Being, end, aim, religion—rent I rent ! rent I " It had been clearly and distinctly stated in the other House of Parliament, that the Corn-laws were maintained for the benefit of the aristocracy and of the landed proprietors. The. people, however, would no longer submit to the tyranny of the landowners.

Mr. G. BANKES reconciled his opposition to this motion with his vote

on the Factory question, on the broad ground that this measure would be injurious to the labouring population. He combated the state- ments of Lord Howick respecting the condition of the population in Dorsetshire ; and contended that they were as well fed, clothed, and lodged, as the labouring population in Northumberland. He remarked on the tone of defiance in which Mr. Villiers had delivered his speech, daring the Members on the Ministerial side of the House to make as- sertions ; seemingly forgetting that he was not at a League meeting at Covent Garden Theatre, where if any one "dared" to dissent from the regular speakers, be was taken out by a Policeman.

Mr. Harr supported the motion for a Committee, but with a view to a low fixed duty ; he would not at present support en absolute repeal. Mr. CoBDEN complained of the abase which had been lavished on the

League ; for the purpose, as it would seem, of diverting attention from the main subject.

This conduct reminded him of a barrister who got a brief banded to him in a bad case, which was marked " No case ; please to abuse plaintiff's attorney." The League, however, was too strong to be put down by calling names. The real question they had to consider was, whether the Corn-law, and the system of protection of which it was a part, was just to the nation at large, and tended to promote the national prosperity. it was a one-sided system of protection, confined to the products of agriculture. By the Corn-law they were continuing the great evils of class-legislation, which were deeply felt in all trading and manu- facturing communities. Mr. Cobden avowed himself an advocate for free trade in all commodities: what he wished most earnestly for was, a fair and full op- portunity of being able to show that a carrying-out of free trade in every de- partment of commerce was the true interest of the nation. As a question of revenue, the duties raised on protected articles were not worth putting in the balance against the evils the protection occasioned. The total amount was but 2,500,000/. ; which might be amply compensated by equalizing the duties on Colonial produce. He referred to the opinions of Mr. Deacon Hume, to show that the removal of protection must have the effect of improving the revenue. He challenged the Ministers, and Lord Stanley more particularly, to satisfy the people that protection was for the good of the nation.

Sir ROBERT PEEL began by bantering the Members of the Anti-Corn- law League on their performances at Covent Garden Theatre- " It is not my intention to occupy much of their time upon an occasion when this House has been engaged for the benefit of a company which generally performs at Covent Garden. It is with great reluctance that I do any thing having the least tendency to prevent their enjoying a full benefit ; and I must say 1 was very sorry to observe, that during the early part of the performance the front bench on the other side of the House was wholly unoccupied. (Laugh- ter.) I can assure the honourable Members opposite—many of whom assisted at my benefit the other night—that I had no desire to be the cause of depriving them of a fuller audience. Throughout the evening I have been here, as well as my honourable friends near me, to witness the performances of that class of gentlemen now present who have rehearsed their parts upon another stage." Be was glad to find that Mr. Cobden had delivered a homily against calling names. " Well, it's a very bad practice; but it happens that those who are the most lavish in their attacks upon others, and in throwing imputations upon the motives of others, are very often those who shrink the most from the applica- tion of a similar instrument to themselves. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) 1 think, if there be any party in this House who deal largely in the practice of affixing odious imputations to the motives of those from whom they dissent as to political measures, it is that very party of which the honourable gentleman is so distinguished a member. I dont defend the practice, but the example provokes retaliation. The honourable gentleman says, How is the Anti-Corn-law League to be defeated?' I believe that they have greatly diminished their own power by the use of the instrument which they have em- ployed. I believe that the Anti-Corn-law League have provoked on the part of the tenantry of this country the utmost indignation, from their use of unjust imputations, and from the practice of attributing base, selfish, and interested motives to honourable Members. I believe they have provoked that indig- nation which has led to the combination against their proceedings." (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Adverting to the argument adduced by Mr. Cobden against protective ditties, Sir Robert pointed out the apparent inconsistency of the desire to abolish all protective duties with a motion for the removal of only one. If it were intended the others should follow, it would surely have been fairer to the agriculturists to have at least made the propositions concurrent. But without regard to other protective duties, Sir Robert defended the Corn-laws. I defend protection to agriculture—( Vociferous cheers from the Government benches, and from the benches behind)—on the principle, and to the extent lam bound to say, to which I have defended it before." (Renewed cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He had a strong feeling that agriculture in this country was entitled to pro- tection, on account of the special burdens it had to bear, especially the poor-rates, and the restrictions to which it was subjected. He was confident that even those who professed themselves anxious for immediate repeal of the Corn-law would be frightened by their own act if they succeeded. He believed that it was for the interest of all classes in this artificial state of society to deal cau- tiously and dispassionately with the removal of such prohibitions. According to abstract principles of political economy, the doctrines of free trade were, no doubt, true. But Parliament could not act upon abstract principles in treating a question like this. The agricultural labourers in Ireland, when thrown out of work, might indeed seek employ in Manchester or Coventry ; but in point of fact many circumstances would prevent them. " You may rejoice and in- dulge in these theories of modern philosophy and political economy ; but when you have endangered and destroyed the peace and happiness of a nation, you will have but a sorry return for your pains. (Cheers.) Looking, then, at the long endurance of the protection, at the amount of capital involved in agri- culture, and the position of the population dependent on agriculture, and at the interests not merely of the landlords and tenants, but the comprehensive in- terests of all classes of the community, I must give my solemn and unqualified opposition to this proposal fbr the immediate removal of the present protection to agriculture. But I will not shrink from the other question : am I prepared, then, as I am opposed to the immediate removal of protection, to bring under the consideration of the House any modified proposition for altering the amount of protection determined upon two years ago, and carried into effect with the general good-will and concurrence of the agricultural interest ? I say at once, I am not prepared to do so." (Cheers.) Sir Robert again alluded to the absence of the leading Members of the Oppo- sition on this question. Lord John Russell had declared himself a friend to agriculture and an opponent of the present motion : why then was he not pre- sent to vote against it ? " The noble Lord was prepared to give protection to agriculture. On what ground does he withhold the light of his countenance and the benefit of his address from those honourable gentlemen with whom he is agreed ? The noble Lord said last night, that he found himself in a similar situation to that which I had described the Government to be in—one of diffi- culty. No doubt, we have had to complain of difficulties as well as other Go- vernments. But we have met our difficulties. We gave our votes : we did not shrink from our difficulties; we did not think of discharging our duty by run- ning away from them." (Cheers and laughter.) if protection was to be given to agriculture, he felt convinced it was infinitely better to maintain the exist- ing liw than to attempt to conciliate support by any modification whatever. (Cheers.) Fur the trader and the consuming classes, the present law was in fact more advantageous than a fixed duty of 88. Under the present regula- tions, the admission of foreign corn is more regular, and prices more steady, than they would be were a fixed duty imposed. Sir Robert denied most em- phatically that in 1842 he had given the agriculturists the assurance that the present law would secure them a price for wheat varying from 54s. to 58s., or an average price of 56s. He quoted the report of his speech on the occasion; from which it distinctly appeared, that he had then stated it would be a mere delusion to say that a fixed price could be guaranteed by any duty, fixed or otherwise. Sir Robert showed by reference to the prices of corn since the passing of the present law, that the predictions of its opponents had been contradicted and his own expectations verified. In the first place, it was predicted that the averages would be lowered 4s. or 5s. by the additional towns ; no such effect had been produced. Then Mr. Cobden declared, that by enacting the law things would go from bad to worse ; that the revival of trade would be im- possible ; and that Stockport, the town he represented, would become like a " howling wilderness." Had any of these predictions come to pass? On the contrary, the trade in corn bad become steady ; the manufactures had in- creased ; the trade of the country had revived, and was in a state of compara- tive prosperity. Alluding to the speech of Lord Howick, and to the expectations he expressed of the beneficial influence the repeal of the Corn-law would have on the wages of labour, Sir Robert denied that any such results could follow. He did not believe that by any legislative enactment, or in any state of things, the labourer could be at all times assured of a fair remuneration for his labour. He concluded by repeating on the part of the Government, that they do not intend, and have not intended, to diminish the protection which the existing Corn-law gives to agriculture. (Much cheering.)

After a few observations from Lord Howicw, Mr. E. Elam's, and Mr. BORTHWICK, in explanation, and some remarks from Mr. BRIGHT and Colonel SIBTHORP, who were heard with great impatience, Mr. VILLIERS replied. He confined himself to comments on Sir Robert Peel's speech; of the nature of which he believed both sides of the House had been in ignorance until it was uttered ; and he intimated that the speech had been delivered for the purpose of retaining the wavering supporters of the Government.

If honourable gentlemen opposite were pleased with the right honourable Baronet's present speech, and if they fancied that the right honourable Baronet would prove faithful to them, he asked them to reflect on all that had taken place since 1839. He did not charge the right honourable Baronet with having broken faith with his party unnecessarily ; but he wished to remind them, that he might again be compelled to do so by the force of circumstances.

Mr. FERRAND having withdrawn his amendment, the House divided upon the original motion—

For the motion 124 Against it 328

Majority against the motion 204 The announcement of the numbers was received with much cheering from the Ministerial benches.

POST ESPIONAGE.

The opening of letters at the Post office was again brought before the notice of the House of Commons, by Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, on Monday; when he moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire " as to any letters which might have been opened, delayed, or detained in the General Post-office since the month of January last ; and also into any warrants which might have been issued by the Secretary of State authorizing such opening and detention, and how far those warrants had been obeyed ; the Committee also to report to the House its opinion as to the expediency of continuing or altering the law on the subject of such warrants." On this occasion he came fortified with another case— that of M. Stolzberg, formerly a Captain of Artillery in the Polish ser- vice ; who, in a petition to the House, stated generally that he had dis- covered that letters addressed to him had been opened at the Post-office, though there never was the slightest excuse for the violation of his cor- respondence. Mr. Duncombe again urged Sir James Graham for an explanation of the principles which had guided him in the exercise of so important a power.

The question had now been presented to the House and the country in two points of view. In the first place, he pot it to Sir James, " Have you adhered to the strict letter of the law ; and if you have, how were the letters of Captain Stolzberg or Mr. Mazzini or any others opened ? Have you violated the letter of the law in the issuing of your warrants ; or have you not abused the power vested in you in opening those letters at all ? " He maintained that the Go- vernment had done both. He charged them with having abused their power in opening those letters at all ; and he also charged them with a wrongdoing in the manner in which they directed this to be done. He contended that this country had nothing to do with the squabbles between foreign powers and their subjects, and that a power granted for the detection of treasonable designs at home should not be called into exercise on behalf of foreign governments. That the conduct which had been pursued towards Mr. Mazzini had been suggested to the Government of this country by a foreign state he entertained no manner of doubt. In an article which had appeared in the Milan Gazette, and been copied into other foreign journals having the same tone of politics, it was stated that England had sent out most satisfactory information to the Court of Austria, and that there was a disposition on the part of the Government to give aid to the Pope in his Holiness's disputes with some of his own subjects : the article added, that Mr. Mazzini would no longer be a person unknown to the London Police. (" Hear, hear! ") As to the extent in which the power had been used—if the House should give bins a Committee of inquiry, he should be able to show, that for two years this system of espionage had been carried on, not only in the General Post-office in London, but also iu some of the provincial offices ; and that this was done with the sanction and authority of Government. The mode of exercising this system of espionage had been nearly as objectionable as the system itself. The secrecy with which it was conducted rendered it doubly odious: if the letters had been stamped on the outside " opened by authority," much of the odium of the practice would have been removed. As it was, letters were detained, examined, and copies taken of them ; the letters %sere then resealed and folded; and this was so inge- niously done that the unfortunate individual could not be aware that the Go- vernment was in possession of his family secrets. He would ask the right ho- nourable Baronet the Home Secretary, whether he would dare to use a copy of a letter thus clandestinely obtained in a trial in a court of justice, for any poli- tical offence—a conspiracy for instance ? (A laugh.) If he were to offer the document as an attested copy of an extract of a letter opened in the Post- office by warrant of a Secretary of State, Mr. Duncombe believed that Judge, Jury, and all parties present, would unite in taking him by the shoulders and thrusting him bodily out of the court.

Dr. BOY/RING seconded the motion ; expressing a hope that the odious power would be withdrawn, or cease to be exercised ; unless the Home Secretary courted the reputation of an Italian " sbirro," and the Government that of a " Cabinet Noir."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM complained of the want of sufficient notice of the motion. He professed the greatest possible respect for public opinion— his anxious wish to stand well in the opinion of his fellow-countrymen ; yet, holding a high and responsible office, he did not feel justified, for the gratification of his private feelings, to make any sacrifice of what he considered to be his public duty. Reflecting on this, he had come to the conclusion, that, as the law had vested in the Secretary of State the power of issuing warrants of the kind, it would not be for the public good that he should, in his place in that House, answer such interrogatories as the honourable Member had thought fit to put to bins. With regard to the present case, the assumption was that a warrant had been issued ; but to that assumption he would not Pay ay or no—whether it was so or not. The honourable Member bad assumed that he had exceeded his duty and violated the spirit as well as letter of the act of Parliament. If he could prove these allegations—if he could show that letters had been opened or detained at the Post-office without authority—the party so offending was liable to punishment, as being guilty of a misdemeanour. if he, as Secretary of State, bad exceeded the law, he was also guilty of a misdemeanour, and might be prosecuted. The legal tribunals of the country would do justice between the humblest individual and the highest civil authority. He stood on his own responsibility. (Cheers on the Ministerial side, echoed ironically by the Oppo- sition.) The power under which the act complained of had been done had existed since the Revolution. In exercising that power, he had in no instance departed from the usage which was sanctioned by the highest constitutional authorities, his predecessors. In the most solemn manner be gave his denial that there had been any exercise of power that was not justified by those au- thorities : wherever there appeared any doubt, be had always acted under the best advice. He had well weighed the law, and he had not only adhered to the form of the law but also to the usage of all his predecessors in all similar cases. He demurred to an inquiry in that House, and would resist the motion.

Mr. MacauLev argued against leaving such a power in the hands of any Minister.

If the opening of a letter in the Post-office was permitted, the power might with equal reason be extended to opening a letter in a desk. They were not now to determine whether they were to adopt the practice of employing spies, as it was done by foreign governments. The voice of the country had pro- nounced against it : yet to continue the spy system in epistolary communica- tions, was the same in effect as to carry it on by Police spies. No doubt there might be an advantage in breaking open letters. No one denied it ; but then was it fitting that it should be done ? In the same way, did any one doubt that there was an advantage in having Police spies? But this country did not ap- prove of them. The French had an advantage in having Police spies. No one doubted that the spy system enabled them to bring to justice many who must otherwise have escaped. It was the same thing as to torture. There could be no doubt that as long as the English law sanctioned the use of the torture a great many crimes were detected by it. It bad, too, its advantages. ("Hear, hear ! " and cries of "Oh, oh ! " from the Ministerial benches.) Yes; for the instant that Guy 'awkes was shown the rack, out came at once the entire story of the Gunpowder-plot. Even this torture, as well as the spy system, had these advantages : but this country had determined long ago that such were per- nicious, debasing, and dangerous modes of maintaining its institutions. Their ancestors declared that they would rather take the risk of great crimes being committed, than owe their security to that system or those means which would destroy the manly spirit of the people, on which far more reliance could be placed than all the schemes and decrees that could be invented for maintain- ing their greatness and independence as a nation. The Home Secretary was bound to give some explanation of the manner in which he bad exercised a power so contrary to the general spirit of the constitution. The absence of such explanation induced the conviction that this practice had been carried on to a very great extent by him, and under peculiar circumstances of con- cealment. It may have been employed to inspect the letters of Members of that House connected with the Anti-Corn-law League. ("Hear, hear!") Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated any general inferences being drawn from the silence of the Home Secretary ; and intimated, though not in express words, that the power of opening letters had been exercised only in a few cases.

The right honourable gentleman opposite said that he had a right to assume, from the silence of his right honourable friend, that this power had been very extensively used; and that the letters of certain gentlemen, who formed a par- ticular party in this House, might have been subject to its operation—might have had their letters opened by the authority of the Government. (Marked cries of " Hear, hear I " from one or two Members on the Opposition benches.) But what would be the consequence if his right honourable friend were to hold himself obliged on all occasions to answer any question as to the fact of his having exercised a power reposed in him by act of Parliament in any particular case which might be put to him ? They might have petitions sent to the House every day by one person or another, and his right honourable friend would be continually called upon to declare whether or not he had exercised a power reposed in his discretion in any particular case. His right honourable friend said, and said truly, that this was no new practice; and that it had not been carried by him further than had been done under preceding Administra- tions, including those of Mr. Fox and Lord Grenville : he said further, that be bad acted in all cases in conformity with the law ; and if the House, after this declaration, was to take steps to insist upon going into the details of every act under this authority, he thought that they might in the end find that they had done as much injury to individuals themselves as to the public service. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the power of opening letters ought to be given ; and that it should be exercised secretly, otherwise its object in detecting conspiracy would be rendered nugatory, as the parties would be put upon their guard. But the power was to be exercised only in times of public danger. It was on thatground Sir Robert Walpole, when questioned respecting his use of it, had defended himself; and he gave as an instance the case of the Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Atterbury, whose plots were mainly carried on by means of correspondence through the Post-office, and copies of which were afterwards produced against him. The Home Secretary should on the present occasion have taken a similar course to that adopted by Sir Robert Walpole ; and, without stating what had been his conduct in particular cases, he should have stated the principle upon which he considered this power ought to be exercised—namely, for the prevention of public danger, whether at home or abroad, and whether for the discovery and defeating of conspiracies at home in regard to this country or in regard to foreign states. When Government set itself up upon the principle of refusing all inquiry, they put an end to all the grounds upon which they should enjoy confidence.

Mr. SHED, and Captain BERNAL supported the motion for inquiry. Mr. WAHLEY wished to consider the question as a test to the House of Ministerial " responsibility." Ministerial responsibility he had often heard of, but had never seen nor known where it was to be found.

Mr. M. hIrr..NEs thought that further explanation should have been given ; though he would not vote for a Committee. Mr. JOHN S. WORTLEY and Lord SANDON opposed the motion. Lord HOWICK, in reply to Sir James Graham's taunt that if he had overstepped his authority there were courts of law to appeal to, ob- served, that no one doubted the legal right ; it was solely a question of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament.

Lord STANLEY protested against the assumptions which had. been argued upon as facts, notwithstanding the general declarations of the Home Secretary that in the discharge of his duty he had not exercised the power of opening letters more frequently than it was exercised under preceding Governments. It was essential to the due exercise of the power that it should rest solely on the responsibility of Ministers ; in which respect it resembled the appropriation of the Secret Service money. It was a power that had been seldom used either by this or by preceding Governments, and then only on informati n which ap peared fully to warrant it. " The power is one of great delicacy—to be exercised with great caution ; but it is a power which, if you mean a Minister to exercise, must be exercised with secrecy, without his being responsible or called on to account for his conduct—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear !" and " Oh, oh ! " from the Opposition)—witbont, I say, being called on to answer interrogatories as to particular cases, or state the reasons for and the grounds on which be has exercised that high and most important discretion." (" Oh, oh! " and ironical cheering from the Opposition.) Sir GEORGE GREY denied that the question necessarily involved the disclosure of State secrets.

The inquiry was demanded on the broad ground that the power which was conferred for one purpose had been used for another ; that, instead of limiting it to the detection of treason at home, it bad been exercised at the bidding of a foreign government to obtain evidence against some of their subjects who had taken refuge in this country. " It is quite an unfair representation of the case to say that we are calling on Government, on any specific case, to lay the whole facts and circumstances of such case before the House. But 1 ask the noble Lord—I ask the House, whether it was incompetent for him, or inconsistent with his public duty, to pledge his word to Parliament—to give his assurance that the case in which the power was exercised was one in which the exercise of that power was contemplated by those who conferred it—that is, a case of apprehended danger to the State ; and further, that he never had exercised, or could think of exercising, the power at the bidding of any foreign government." (Cheers.) Mr. WYSE, after continued interruption from the impatience of the House, got an opportunity to say that he had seen the letters addressed to Mr. Mazzini, and no doubt remained on his mind that they had been opened.

Two letters were addressed at the same time to Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Hamil- ton by the same person. They had been posted at the same time. The one reached Mr. Hamilton at the proper hour, a little after ten o'clock; the other reached Mr. Mazzini a little after twelve o'clock ; and the post-marks had been altered by another stamp having been pressed upon them. ("Hear, hear ! ") Mr. DUNCOMBE replied, and the House divided—For the Committee of inquiry, 162 ; against it, 206 ; Ministerial majority, 44.

The same subject was renewed in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, by Earl RADNOR ; who moved an address to the Queen for a return of all warrants granted by the Secretary of State for opening letters at the Post-office. The Duke of Wellington, he felt confident, would not sanction proceedings which made this country the Police-office of other European nations.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, the power to open letters existed by law, and there was no proof of its having been abused. There was no proof, indeed, that any letters had been opened : it appeared that a warrant had been granted for the opening of one person's lettersthat was all that had been proved ; and he had no knowledge on the subject.

The Earl of TANKERVILLE stated, that he had found among the papers of a near relation, who had been twice Postmaster-General, a warrant directing the Postmaster to detain and open all letters addressed to or coming from all foreign ministers : that warrant was dated in 1782, and signed by Charles James Fox. There was another warrant, directing that all letters addressed to Lord George Gordon should be opened.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE insisted upon inquiry.

It was quite clear that the power existed; and there was no doubt it bad been exercised in opening the letters of a foreigner, from whom no one appre- hended danger either to her :Majesty or to the safety of this country. If any one of the Ministers would state that there was reasonable cause to suspect Is Mazzini was engaged in a treasonable correspondence to overturn the Go- vernment of this country, it would be a sufficient explanation. Though he should not support Lord Radnor's motion' as he objected to its form, he felt that it was impossible the matter could be allowed to rest. He hoped a Com- mittee of inquiry would be appointed, or that the particular warrant for open- ing M. Mazzini's letters might he produced.

The Earl of FIADDINGTON maintained that the power, if to be exer- cised at all, could not properly be limited to our own domestic affairs, because the honour and the safety of England might be seriously com- promised in a matter not immediately bearing upon the domestic affairs of the country.

The power was a very odious one ; one which it was very unpleasant for a Secretary of State to exercise, and of which from its very nature it was almost impossible for that Minister to make any disclosure. No Parliamentary ground had been shown for such interference. It had not been shown that there was any thing in the character of the present Government more than the last, or more than modern Governments generally, that could lead to the sup- position that the power had been wantonly exercised. Possibly the Secretary of State had been misinformed. He could not say if it were so, as he knew just as little on the subject as the noble Lord who raised the question ; he could only say that the Secretary of State might have been misled, and yet have had good grounds for believing that a pariicular letter which he directed to be opened was dangerous : but if that were to constitute a ground for inquiry, then would he say that the power could no longer exist.

Lord CAMPBELL expressed dissatisfaction at the want of explanation: neither the Duke of Wellington nor the First Lord of the Admiralty knew anything about the matter. If the greatest abuses had been committed, the same answer might have been given as had now been afforded. The Secretary of State might say, " Oh, my mouth is closed, I will not answer a word "; while all his colleagues might re- ply, " We know nothing about it." (Laughter and cheers.) Ile admitted that the power ought to belong to the Government for the safety of the state ; but between opening letters in the Post-office, in the abuse of that power, and breaking open a man's desk, he saw no difference. [A Peer observed, " It is worse ! ] Yes, it was worse, much worse; for it was done in secrecy, and added to the crime a breach of confidence. He maintained, that the opening of letters in the Post -office was not justifiable except in those cases, and those cases only, in which the Secretary of State was justified in issuing his warrant; and as regarded the present case, he certainly thought a prima facie ground for inquiry had been established. Lord BROUGHAM opposed the motion ; on the ground that as no abuse of the power was charged against the Home Secretary, he could not be fairly called upon to explain his conduct merely because he had exercised the power which it was admitted he legally possessed.

Lord DENMAN, without wishing to attach blame to the Home Secre- tary, considered that circumstances had appeared connected with the power of opening letters which made it imperative upon Parliament to inquire into the mode in which it was exercised ; for the purpose of seeing whether or not, hereafter, there should be proper limits applied to that power—whether certain restrictions should not be imposed upon the exercise of it—and whether rules should not be laid down within

which alone the power could ever be usefully, beneficially, or consist- ently with honour, exercised at all. ("Hear! ")

The responsibility of the Home Secretary was merely nominal ; for he seemed to be responsible neither to the House of Lords nor to the House of Commons, and to act independently of his colleagues. The power appeared to exist without the slightest responsibility, and in such a manner that he did not think the English Parliament or the English people would any longer endure. (Cheers.) He did not consider this a question of expediency or inexpediency, but a ques- tion of right and wrong. He should no more believe it necessary to show that it was wrong for this power to exist in the person of one individual, than he should think it necessary to contend that it was wrong to pick a pocket. It might indeed be necessary, under some extreme circumstances, that measures of personal restriction, or affecting a man's property, should be resorted to; but that there should be this kind of irresponsibility in the exercise of the power be never could agree. ("Hear, hear ! ") Adverting to the noticed exercise of the odious power by Mr. Fox, he said Mr. Fox must have seen strong ne- cessity for it before he would have brought himself to issue such a warrant. He touched upon the breach of trust that the opening of letters implied. The Government of this country imposed upon all natives, as well as upon those of all parts of the world, the necessity of paying them a large revenue for doing the duty of letter-carriers: it was too bad that they should at the same time retain in their hands the power of opening all the letters they were intrusted to convey.

The Duke of WELLusexoe, interrupting Lord Denman, said—"Repeal the act!"

Lord DENMAN, taking up the Duke's cue, said it was a very important ques- tion whether or not the act should not be repealed ; or, at least, whether re- strictions might not be imposed which should leave a certain degree of power, much more definable and responsible than that existing at present—a power subject to the revision of Parliament. (" Hear, hear ! ") Ultimately, Lord RADNOR withdrew his motion, intending to bring forward the subject in another shape.

BANK CHARTER.

Before the Commons went into Committee on the Bank Charter Bill, on Monday, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON protested against the limitation of the Bank issues on securities to 14,000,0001. ; its capital being 16,500,0001., consisting of 11,000,0001. lent to the Government, three millions representing the value of Bank Stock, and two millions and a half of "rest"

Mr. W. Wituaais supported the measure, because it would carry out the principles of the bill of 1819.

Mr. MASTERMAN expressed dissatisfaction at the limitation of the issues of the Bank to fourteen millions: it had excited much alarm among the commercial community. There ought to be a power given to expand the circulation should a necessity arise.

Mr. Mow= discussed at some length the principles of the measure, and the standard of value. He denied Sir Robert Peel's doctrine that the value of a pound sterling was always the same ; and contended that it was impossible to maintain a low price of money with a high price of corn. Under the present system, the foreign trade of the country was carried on without profit. He moved that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months.

Sir ROBERT PEEL twitted Mr. Muntz with the inconsistency of his opinions expressed before a Committee of the House on the Currency, when he advocated a metallic standard. The effect of a silver standard such as Mr. Muntz proposed, and the introduction of " the little shil- ling," would be to cheat those who had relied on the national faith, to raise the prices of all articles of consumption, and thus to injure the working-classes, whose interests he professed to advocate. To the sug- gestions that had been made by Mr. Thompson to increase the amount of issues to the estimated value of the property of the Bank, Sir Robert could not accede; for the Government had decided they could not allow a greater issue, not based on gold, than fourteen millions. Neither could he accede to the proposition of a discretionary power to extend the issue if a necessity should arise.

On some points, not affecting the principle of the measure, the Govern- ment had given way to the propositions made to them. "When this bill was brought forward on the 6th of May, it was thought expedient to fix some defi- nite perod, so as to regulate the future issues of Country and Joint-Stock Banks; and for that purpose we proposed to take the average of the last two years, or the last three years. We have not thought it expedient to adhere to the period of two years, because it did appear that that might include the lowest amount of Country circulation. Independently of this, it was said that that period would not furnish an amount equal to the maximum which would be required for future circulation ; and it was apprehended that we should de- range many transactions by fixing too low an average. What we propose to do is, to take the average of the twelve weeks which immediately preceded the announcement of the measure on the 27th of April. During the three months that we have chosen, prices were about the ordinary level in manufactures, and commerce was in a comparatively flourishing state. The month of April is included within the period, and so likewise is the month of February. The months on which these average issues will be taken are, as I have already stated, the months of February, March, and April; and they will, as I think, present a fair test of the whole year. Representations have been made to her Majesty's Government that some inconvenience might arise from compelling banks to confine their maximum of issue to one single week. I do not see that much inconvenience would arise from compelling a bank with no branches to confine its issue within one week; but with respect to a bank which has numerous branches, it is possible that such a one might be subjected to con- siderable inconvenience. All we require is, that the fair maximum of issues shall not be exceeded—that it shall be kept within certain limits. We pro• pose, therefore, instead of confining the maximum to a week, to extend that period to a mouth. The average for each month must not exceed the maxi- mum. Suppose there is a diminution in the issues within a given month : in that case, the bank is not to be allowed in the month following to exceed the maximum of its issues in order to make up for the diminution in the preceding month. The other point is, to provide the period when this limitation of issue shall take place; which we think should be upon that day which, if I may say so, is the commencement of the year with Joint-stock Banks—the 10th of October. On that day their issues are renewed ; and on the 10th of October next, therefore, we propose that the limitation shall commence. There is only one other point. At present there is a penalty for exceeding the issue, of three times the amount of the excess committed: we propose, relying upon the good faith of the gentlemen who conduct Country Banks, that the penalty shall simply equal the amount of the excess—that is to say, those who exceed 1,0001. shall be liable to a penalty of 1,0000 Mr. HUME asked, did Sir Robert mean that one-third of the amount of the issues was to be secured in bullion only in reference to the Bank of England, or in reference to the whole of England? He wished him to consider the propriety of repealing the legal tender of Bank of Eng-

land notes, and require every bank in England to retain a portion of gold to insure its own notes.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that all his prejudices were in favour of Mr. Hume's proposition. At the same time, when they were about to make a considerable alteration in the banking system, he was anxious to make no more changes than were absolutely necessary for the working of the system. He feared that if they made the Country Bank notes immediately convex-. tible, the result would not follow which the honourable gentleman seemed to anticipate. In quiet times, they would not find the Country Banks anxious for a handsome and liberal supply of gold to be kept in their coffers producing nothing ; but they would wait till the time of pressure came, and then the Bank of England would be their only resource. Mr. WALLACE condemned the plan altogether.

The Committee divided; and Mr. Muntz's amendment was neg."- lived, by 205 to 18.

Mr. NEWDEGATE moved an amendment, that the words " securities for 14,000,0001." be left out, and " 22,000,0001." inserted; being the average amount of the circulation of the last twenty-three years.

Sir ROBERT PEEL explained what would be the operation of the bill respecting which Mr. Newdegate seemed to entertain an erroneous opinion. If the bill passed, there was really nothing in it to preclude the Bank from Bening 28,000,0001. or 30,000,000/. of its currency, if it could find profitable employment for it. The bill gave the Bank the power of issuing 14,000,0004 based upon securities, and 16.000,0001. based upon gold ; and they bad every reason to believe, that if the bill passed the circulation of Bank paper would not be confined to 14,000,0004 as the honourable gentleman seemed to think, but would extend to 22,000,0004 or 24,000,0004 as be desired. The difference be- tween them was not as to the amount the Bank should issue, but as to the basis upon which these issues should be made. if the Bank were to possess the power the honourable Member desired to give it, and if it exercised that power of issuing upon securities without having any gold basis to meet the issue, why, the probabilities were that the Bank would be speedily ruined.

After some further conversation, the amendment was withdrawn ; the clause as amended was agreed to, also clauses 3d and 4th ; when the Chairman reported progress.

On the motion for going into Committee on the bill, on Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated in reply to a question from Mr. WODEHOUSE, that when Parliament should have affirmed the principles respecting the currency of England contained in this measure, then the Government would apply themselves, after friendly communication with th.. parties interested in the banking establishments of Scotland and Ireland, to frame and bring forward measures for the regulation of the currency of those kingdoms similar to the measure now before the House, and which upon the whole had met with such general concurrence. Mr. RABIES CURRIE approved of the bill, and complimented Sir Robert Peel on his general monetary arrangements since 1819. He expressed his dissent from the memorial of London Bankers.

The bill having gone into Committee, an amendment was proposed in the fifth clause, to the effect that if any banker should cease to issue his own notes, her Majesty in Council might authorize the Bank to issue, on securities, additional notes to make up the deficiency. The Committee divided, rejecting the amendment by 83 to 38.

A desultory conversation took place, in which many Members ex- pressed their opinions, and asked for explanations. Inn reply to a ques- tion from Mr. MINTZ, Sir ROBERT PEEL made this statement—

Assuming the circulation of the Country Banks to be 9,000,0004, and that of the Bank of England 21,000,0004 and that the Country circulation of 9,000,0001. was suddenly withdrawn, the case would stand thus. They per- mitted the Bank of England to issue 14,000,0001. of the 21,000,000/. upon securities, and assumed that an issue upon bullion of one-third, or 7,000,0004 would insure the whole convertibility of the 21,000,0001. Supposing, then, the 9,000,0001 to be voluntarily withdrawn by the Country Banks and sup- plied by the Bank of England, they admitted at once that 7,000,0001. would not be sufficient to support the convertibility of 30,000,0004 and would apply the same principle to the additional 9,000,000/. which they had applied to the 21,000,0001.—namely, that 3,000,0001. be issued upon bullion and 6,000,0004 upon securities. If the estimate of the total circulation of notes throughout the country should be 30,000,0001., then there must be a stock of 10,000,0004 of bullion in order to support that circulation, upon the same principle that a stock of 7,000,0004 was assumed to be sufficient to support a circulation to 21,000,0001. In the course of the conversation, Mr. W. THOMPSON said the bill might be considered a warning to Country bankers, that at the end of eleven years, during which it was to continue, there would be only one bank of issue. Mr. TURNER hoped, if that were the intention of the Government, they would avow it. Sir ROBERT PEEL " would give no opinion on what Parliament might do in ten years." The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

SUGAR-DUTIES Bus..

On the motion for the third reading of the bill, on Thursday, another discussion arose on the question of slave-labour, and the right of the Colonies to protection. Mr. HAWF.S and Mr. P. STEWART repeated the assertion that the sugar and coffee of Java are produced by slave-labour : Mr. Stewart alluded to Siam as a country where the system of slavery was particu- larly reprehensible. Mr. GLADSTONE quoted authorities to prove that the agricultural labourers in Java are free to quit their employer's service, and that the proportion of slaves to the rest of the population is but one in three hundred: as to Siam, the Government had not come to a detertuiva- don, therefore they had nut included it in this bill. Mr. MANGLES protested against the bill, so prejudicial to the East India sugar-growers.

The East Indies had not been put on an equality with the West Indies in the importation of sugar till 1837; and now that the cultivation of sugar there was greatly extending, and a large amount of capital had been invested in it, this measure came to crush their exertions. The East Indies could nut cope with Java and Manilla without a higher differential duty. Mr. Mangles also protested against the measure on behalf of the West Indian Colonists, who had been deprived of the means of providing a sufficient supply of free labour.

Lord STANLEY taunted Mr. Mangles, as one of the advocates of free trade, with wanting more protection for the article of sugar, in which he was interested. The East Indies had been peculiarly favoured by great plenty of labour ; yet an advocate for free trade was not satisfied with a protection of 10a., and wanted more monopoly. With respect to the supply of labour to the West Indies, the Government had Feria..

vered, in opposition to the distinct disapproval of Lord Auckland, in encouraging the emigration of Hill Coolies from the East Indies to the West, since the experiment had partially succeeded.

Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. BRIGHT spoke against the maintenance of differential duties. Lord Sawnoe and Mr. BORTHWICK supported the interests of the West India planters. The latter also reopened the ques- tion of inconsistency during the late divisions on the Sugar-duties, and defended his own votes : the first vote was against the proposition of the Ministers, the second against the proposition of Mr. Miles ; for he dis- approved of both. Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS justified his votes on the same ground.

The subject of voting was also alluded to again by Lord Jonw Rus- sets.; who drew this distinction between rescinding the vote of the House of Commons on the Sugar-duties and on the Malt-tax—that the first division on the Malt-tax took place without previous notice. Lord John defended the late Government from an imputation, incidentally made by Lord Stanley, that they had thwarted the introduction of free labour into the West Indies.

The order in Council favouring the immigration of Hill Coolies was made in 1838, with the intention of continuing it till 1840; but the opposition the plan of Lord Glenelg met with in Parliament induced the Government to withdraw the order. The same plan was embodied in a bill introduced by the Govern- ment in 1840; but again it was defeated. Sir ROBERT PEEL defended the conduct of the Government in pre- vailing on the House to rescind its vote on this question. Ile would maintain that there was no difference between the circumstances of the Sugar-duties vote and the vote on the Malt-tax ; that there had been no in- consistency in those who had voted against both proposals, nor any degradation of the character of the House. Had the Government considered merely the safest course to adopt for themselves, they would have proposed the continuance of the existing duties; that was the advice tendered to the Government as a solu- tion of the difficulty. But, considering it advisable, in consequence of the in- creased demand for sugar, to admit the competition of free-grown foreign pro- duce, they had adhered to their original proposition. They had to meet diffi- culties arising from the opposition of those who were the strenuous advocates for the continuance of protection to native industry; but when they came to deal with details, by far the most formidable opposition they had to encounter was from those who were loudest in their advocacy of free-trade ; of which Mr. Mangles had that evening furnished an illustration.

The bill was read a third time, and passed.

POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

The practical working of the Poor-laws in Ireland was made the subject of a short discussion in the House of Lords on Thursday. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for copies of any declarations in eject- ments or notices to quit that have been served upon the Irish Poor-law Commissioners, or upon the Guardians of any Union. The object in bringing forward the subject was to elicit from the Government their opinion respecting the steps it would be necessary to take in con- sequence of the report of Mr. Pennethorne relative to the state of the Workhouses.

From that report it appeared there bad been the greatest mismanagement in the erection of the buildings. No provision for drainage had been made until one hundred workhouses were contracted for, and many nearly completed; there had been no provision for the supply of water; and the buildings were in many cases defective. The estimate of Mr. Nicholls had been found to be far below the real cost of bringing the Poor-law into operation : instead of 800,0001., one million was now said to be the least possible sum. The complaints of the Guardians against the extra charges were almost universal ; and they conceived themselves to have been deceived by the Poor-law Commissioners. From these causes, and the difficulty of collecting poor-rates, the Guardians had been in many instances unable to pay rent ; as the returns he moved for would prove. The Marquis mentioned many cases to show the difficulty and almost the im- possibility of collecting the rates, though the Police and the Military had been employed for the purpose. In Ballinaaloe Union, several hundred men had been engaged in collecting 141.; in another Union in Galway, troops had been marched forty miles to collect the rate; and the result of their labours did not half pay the cost of collection. Had the Commissioners condescended to consult the local authorities, matters might have been much more satisfactorily arranged; but according to the present system of management, the Poor-laws had proved an additional evil, instead of a benefit to Ireland. The Duke of WELLINGTON did not object to the production of the papers. He admitted that the report of Mr. Pennethorne showed that the complaints made against the execution of the works had been to a great extent justified. A Committee had been appointed in the Commons to consider the whole sub- ct ; on their report a bill would be founded ; and when the bill came to their LLordships, the matter would be regularly considered; and if the Marquis of Clanricarde then thought further inquiry was necessary, the Duke would not refuse. He had supported the measure for introducing Poor-laws into Ire- land, because he thought it was required there ; and he still hoped it might succeed.

The motion was agreed to.

THE SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.

A discussion took place in the House of Lords, on Monday, previous to going into Committee on this bill. The Duke of Wra.ratiarort stated, in reply to a question from Lord Monteagle, that he was not yet autho- rized to give the Queen's consent to the bill, but it might be given at any stage. He did not oppose going into Committee; reserving ex- planation of the course be should pursue. Lord MONTEAGLE, as one of the Commissioners who bad recom- mended the union of the two sees, explained the circumstances under which the measure for the union was agreed to. The report of the first Commission on the susject was made in March 1835, recommending a consolidation of the sees, and the creation of a bishopric in Manchester. The income assigned to the united bishopric was 5,000/. ; so that there remained about 4,7001. per annum balance of the former income of the two bishoprics. The greater portion of this amount was made up of the tithes paid by a population very many of whose ministers, it was matter of univer- sal complaint, were most inadequately remunerated, though the appropriation of the tithes thus abstracted from them would place them in a position of due comfort and respectability. In the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, recommending the union of the sees, it was made a feature that the balance thus arising could most advantageously be applied to increasing the incomes of the poorer clergy. True, it had been thought that it would be necessary to apply this fund to endow the bishopric of Manchester ; but that necessity was now superseded. It was not at the time known that there would be a surplus of episcopal revenues, out of which the new bishopric of Manchester might be advantageously and fittingly endowed, without diverting from the clergy of the Principality of Wales any of those endowments to which by law they were entitled. But it had since been discovered that fifteen dioceses which had been examined into would yield a surplus of 8,000/. a year; and there was no doubt that further investigation respecting the remaining diocese' would show an available surplus, at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners, fully equal, at least, to the endowment of the bishopric of Manchester. There was thus more reason why the amount of the tithes should be applied to increase the incomes of the poor Vicars in the North of Wales, in the way that common justice and the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners dictated. Sure he was, that the population of this district would feel that the true interests of the Church would be better consulted by more fitly remunerating the clergy, than by giving additional Bishops to North Wales. One of the parishes contained a population of 2,500, and comprised 10,000 acres ; yet in that district there was but one church. In the island of Anglesea, in many instances two churches were attended by only ORB minister, and in some few there was only one minister to three churches. He advocated the union also on the ground that to increase the number of Bishops in Parliament would be a dangerous innovation.

The Bishop of BANGOR said, Lord Monteagle was mistaken in supposing that the parochial tithes had been taken from the working clergy to swell the revenue of the Bishop : the parochial tithes enjoyed by the Bishop were anciently appropriated to the Archdeacons of Bangor and Anglesea. The Bishop of Skusittritv, in supporting the measure, complained of the delay that had taken place in constituting a Bishop for Manchester. The Bishop of Nottwicst also adverted to the delay ; and expressed his surprise that, if the expense was the occasion, the wealthy people of the district had not come forward and provided the necessary funds. With regard to the tithes in North Wales, he believed there was a general complaint of their unjust appropriation, and their alienation from the support of the clergy. A great portion of the Dissent that prevailed in the Principality arose from the alienation of tithes from the clergy.

The bill went through the Committee, and was ordered for a third reading on Monday.

MISCELLANEOUS.

VOTING IN COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS. The Committee OR the Middle Level Drainage and Navigation Bill having applied to the House for instruction, whether a Member having property within the limits of the pro- posed improvements could vote on the Committee, a discussion took place on Wednesday and Thursday, which ended in an instruction that he could not. The Member referred to is Mr. Eliot Yorke, who had voted in the Committee on all questions until the 19th instant.

POST-OFFICE. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice, on Wednesday, that he should on Tuesday next move for a Select Committee to inquire into "the Secret Office " department of the Post-office, the duties of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the office are dis- charged.

ENCLOSURE OF COMMONS. A Select Committee has been appointed, on the motion of Lord WoasLEs', to inquire into the expediency of facilitating the enclosure and improvement of commons, the exchange of lands, and the division of intermixed lands ; and into the best means of providing for the same.

TURNPIKES IN WALES. Sir JAMES GRAHAM brought in a bill, on Tues- day, for consolidating the turnpike-trusts in South Wales. He explained, that by the provisions of the measure Commissioners would be appointed who would visit each separate turnpike-trust throughout the six counties of South Wales; and having investigated each debt, taking evidence of the same, an award would be made by them, founded on the marketable value of the trust, and the amount tendered to the owner or creditor. If the creditors did not object, the matter would be settled: but if they did, then notice would be served upon them by the Commissioners, and the question would be arbitrated upon ; power being given by the bill to make such arbitration binding on both parties. When the Commissioners should have visited in this manner all the trusts throughout South Wales, and should have ascertained the gross amount of debt owing upon the aggregated turnpike-trusts, they were to make a report to the Ex- chequer Loan Office, and to procure an advance of the sum necessary to liqui- date these debts; this advance being secured as a first charge upon the tolls' themselves, in the form of an annuity for thirty years, a residuary charge being created upon the county-rates. When the debt should have been thus liqui- dated, all the existing acts and trusts were to be extinguished, and the collec- tion of the tolls would thenceforward rest with the county. A board of ma- nagement was to be created, consisting partly of certain ex.officio members partly of a number of the Magistrates, and partly of the rate-payers. The bill was read a first time.

BEQUESTS TO ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS. A bill WEIS read a second time in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, on the motion of Lord WHARE cnirra, to give facilities to persons who might wish to make bequests to the Roman Catholic priesthood : it provided that the Commissioners should con- stitute trustees for that purpose, and they would be bound to administer the trust for the benefit of the Roman Catholic ministers. The bill was opposed by the Bishop of EXETER, and was supported by Lord MONTEAGLE.

PAUPERS' CERTIFICATES. It was stated by Sir JAMES GRAHAM, 04 Thursday, in reply to a question from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that the practice of denying relief to the poor, except on the production of a certificate that the farmers in the neighbourhood bad no work to give them had existed its some few parishes in Suffolk and Norfolk; that he was grieved such an illegal system should have arisen; and that the Poor-law Commissioners had given directions to discontinue the practice.

THE SUPPRESSION or BROTHELS BILL went through Committee in the House of Lords on Monday ; when the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, in reply to some further attacks by Earl Fitzhardinge on the Dean and Chapter of West- minster, stated that the houses of that description belonging to the Dean and Chapter were held under forty-years leases, and could not be effectually in- terfered with : but the Chapter had in several instances bought up the leases and had pulled down some of the houses ; they had also purchased freehold land in the neighbourhood on which houses of a similar kind stood, to prevent the keepers of houses of ill-fame from taking them. In all future leases, prohibitory clauses would be introduced.

FRANCE AND MOROCCO. Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, on Tuesday, to a ques- tion from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, relative to the hostilities between France and Morocco, and the collection of French forces on the borders of that empire. The French Government had entered into full and unreserved explanations with her Majesty's Government as to its relations with the Emperor of Morocco. It had made a voluntary and positive assurance of its earnest wish to avoid hosti- lities with the Emperor of Morocco ; and it had stated that the circumstances which led to the interruption of the peaceful relations existing between Morocco and France were mainly owing to the fact that the chieftain, now su well known, and who had distinguished himself so much, Abd-elsKader, had nine times oat of ten, when pursued by the French arms, sought refuge in the dominions of the Emperor of Morocco, and had been enabled by the aid of the subjects of the Emperor, if not by the Emperor himself, to renew his attacks on the French frontiers. That led to the concentration of the French forces on the bounda- ries of the Morocain empire. The actual hostilities, of which accounts were some short time ago received, were, lie believed, not premeditated ; nor had ha any reason to believe that these hostilities on the part of the Morocain forces were committed by order of the Emperor, but were rather a casual rencontre, from the hasty zeal of troops not accustomed to the usages of modern war- fare as carried on in civilized countries, and without any express direction. He sincerely hoped that that alone would not necessarily lead to the interruption of peace with France.