Debates anb Vroteebings in Varliament.

THE CORN IMPORTATION BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir JAMES GRAHA3f moved the third reading of the Corn Bill.

The Marquis of GRANBY moved an amendment, that the bill be read that day six months—

The object of the Corn-law was not, as had been falsely represented, to starve the people, but to procure a supply of food at a constant and moderate price. This was effected in two ways. First, by raising the subsistence of the people as far as possible from their own soil; thus making them independent of foreigners, and employing the people in the most healthy and manly occupation—one which would make honourable Members much more vigorous than sitting all night in that heated and ill-ventilated house. Next, as no human laws could prevent scarcity, the Corn-law, in case of its occurring, admitted first our Colonial pro- duce, and then Foreign if the Colonial was not sufficient. Under that Corn-law the price had been gradually cheapening for years. The Marquis proceeded to review Sir Robert Peel's reasons for considering the Corn-law unjust as well as impolitic, and to dispose of them with much naiveté. As showing the opinions entertained so long ago as 1610 on the subject of the free importation of food, he read a letter from Lord Francis Bruce to Mr. Richard Carew, containing the shrewd remark that the poor man would derive no benefit from cheap food if he had no money to buy it. Adverting to a return furnished to the House of Lords as to the rate of wages paid to forty-two families in the neighbourhood of Belvoir, with the price of corn during the period embraced, he asserted that one of the results was, that when corn was dear the living had been better, and the quantity of meat consumed greater than when corn was com- paratively cheap. To show that Sir Robert Peel was raised to power by the agri- cultural interest on the understanding that he would uphold the Corn-laws, he read an extract from the Quarterly Review of September 1842; and, after apply- ing its moral to the position of parties in the House, he proceeded to comment on Sir Robert Peel's assertion that those who would suffer most by the change would be the smaller class of farmers. Even if Sir Robert was right in his opinion that the aristocracy would not be injured by the alteration of the Corn-laws, this would be a poor recompense to them for the loss of the yeomanry of England. "And you, good yeomen, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture; let us swear That you are worth your breeding, which I doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base, That bath not noble lustre in your eyes. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot;

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge, Cry—God for the Queen I England 1 and Lord George!" (Cheers and laughter.) In conclusion, the Marquis remarked, that should Sir Robert Peel, in his capacity of pilot, leave the good ship a helpless and deserted wreck on the barren and inhospitable shores of Free Trade, he would venture to prophesy that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn and his crew would come for- ward and endeavour to get her off; but he feared that it would then be too late. Mr. MILNES GASKELL seconded the amendment— He denied that a law which protected the agriculturist at a time of low prices, and protected the consumer at a time of high prices, could be called impolitic or unjust. No doubt, the Abolitionists had acquired great influence in that House; and it was equally true that the former leaders of a once great party had bor- rowed their principles. If the measure was destined to be successful, either in this or the ensuing Parliament, he hoped that the effect would be less mis- chievous than he anticipated; but at least he, and those with whom he acted, would have the satisfaction of reflecting that they had struggled in defence of no speculative system, but of one under which the country had long enjoyed prospe- rity and power. The House was addressed by Mr. SHERIDAN and Mr. FLOYER for the amendment; by Sir Jour( BASTROP& against it; by Mr. WILLIAM MILES in its favour; by Sir JAMES GRAHAM against it; by Mr. CAYLEY mats favour.

Mr. SHERIDAN vindicated a statement be had made in a communication to the Times as to the rate of wages paid to agricultural labourers in Dorsetshire, and which had been disputed in the House by Mr. Floyer on Friday last- Ile produced evidence that the average rate in the neighbourhood of Dorchester did not exceed 78. or 7s. 6d a week. Mr. FLOYER contended that this was not a air quotation, bareeee in most cases the labourer derived other advantages in ad- lo his wages—such as a free house, some allowance of fuel, and some ground,—additions which raised wages to at least 108.a week. Sir Jolts ASTHO commented on these particulars as making out a strong case in be- half of thmeasure. He humbly but earnestly entreated those luminaries from Dorsetil put the question to the poor beings themselves, with whose condi- tion they effected to be so familiar- and if the poor creatures had life enough in them to anawer it, he would stake his existence that they would never reply that it made no fiifference to them whether corn was 58. or 78. a bushel. As to his own constiOtents of Leicester no words he could employ could adequately express the gratitude th felt to Sir Robert Peel for the great and comprehensive mea- sure.he had

Mr. limns adduced a great variety of statcal facts to show that the pro- posed measure would prove not only detrimental to the landlord, but detrimental

in a much greater degree to the tenant-farmer' and, more than all, detrimental to the agricultural labourer. The Colonies, too, would suffer, by the removal of laws which had tended so much to the advantage of the Mother-country not only in a commercial paint of view but as a matter of revenue. He recommended the House to resistidee-extravagant innovation proposed; and thus prevent the heavily taxed English farmer from having to encounter a hopeless competition with the

untaxed foreigner. The victory in that House might not be the Protectionists'; but, thank Heaven, there was another ordeal through which the bill must pas

before it became the law of the land, where, unawed by popular clamour, and as yet unswayed by the maxims of political economy, this measure would be keenly criticised—where the policy on which her Majesty's Ministers came into the Go- vernment would be silted; and when it was found that they brought in a law to abolish that which had given not only protection, but revenue, he thought that that assembly would pause, or at any rate interpose between the people and that Minister who now held office merely at the will of his former political opponents.

Sir Jamas GRAHAM remarked, that the House was evidently weary of the de- bate, and that the public were longing for the settlement of a question which now for nearly three months had been hanging in the balance. Still, that he might not seem to be wanting in respect to the mover and seconder of the amend- ment, he would occupy the attention of the House for a little.

He did not agree with Mr. Miles in thinking that the measure would be re- jected by the Lords. "I will not venture to indulge in prophecy on that subject ; but my own anticipation is, that this question from the result of discussion both in Parliament and out of Parliament, is virtually settled; and my strong opinion is, that the free import of corn into this country will in a short time become the law of the land." He regarded the delay which had taken place in disposing of the question as particularly injurious to the farmers. A stock of 1,500,000 quarters of foreign wheat had gradually and progressively accumulated: had the stock which existed in January been admitted into the home market, the eon- sinner would have been greatly benefited, while the producer would not have been injured. Under the present circumstances, however, the chance was that the large accumulation which had been allowed to take place would come out of bond about the time that the home grower expected to bring the produce of the present year to market. Replying to Mr. Miles's arguments, Sir James denied that a corn-tax was a good financial measure; he did not think it expedient that revenue should be le- vied upon articles of the first necessity. Neither did he believe that the produ- cers of the article were satisfied with the present working of the law: but even if they were, they are not the only parties whose interests and wishes should be consulted—the consumers are interested; they constitute the great body of the public, and they are dissatisfied with restrictions which operate against the free importation of food. Mr. Miles had spoken of the " insignificant " amount-of "compensation" offered by the Government to the landed interest: Sir James denied that any such offer had been made. "I absolutely disclaim that the term 'compensation' has ever been used by the Government. (Cries of" Oh, oh!") I absolutely disclaim it. If this be a measure for the public good, then I should deem it highly disgraceful to the Government to propose, and still more disgraceful to the landed interest to accept, any compensation for the passing of a measure framed for the public good. But though the Government know nothing of any proposition of compensation, it is true that concurrent with this measure there have been brought forward by the Government some measures which are for the public good, at the same time that they are adapted to alleviate the pres- sure of the burdens on land."

A change had taken place in the mode of arguing the Corn-law question. ".1 myself am conscious, that when we debated this question at a former period, ar- guments were urged with reference to landlords exclusively—to their position, to their interests, as connected with their political position—which are now aban- doned; arguments which no honourable Member ventures now to urge upon this House, and which I do not believe even at the meetings in Bond Street any honourable gentleman would venture to propound." The question had now re- solved itself into this—whether laws restnciang the importation of corn were con- ducive to the happiness, comfort, and welfare of the labouring population, especially of the tillers of the soil. Sir James entered into this question at some length; ad- ducing the usual Free-trade arguments to show that the agricultural labourer could not be benefited by restrictions which increase the price of his food without insuring him corresponding wages; and that the artisan could not derive benefit from laws which not only raise the price of his food but limit and restrict the demand for his labour "This can no longer be regarded as an agricultural country. (Loud cries of" Hear. hear!") I repeat it: if you attempt to legislate for it as purely an agricultural 'country you will fail; for this country—be it for weal or wo—is also a great manufacturing country, and you must legislate now with regard to its great manufacturing and great commercial interests. Therefore you must look to the connection of manufactures and commerce with agriculture and land, and see how their interests are mixed up. You cannot have great manufacturing or commercial prosperity without operating on the demand for labour in the neighbouring districts. Coincident with the present time you have the Birken- head docks, the railways, and other great public works carried on there; and your manufacturers call for an increased supply of labour, and a demand arises in the agricultural districts, and a great number of labourers are taken from the rural districts. The effect, then, in the rural districts, is, that when manu- factures are flourishing wages rise in all parts." And then what was the position of the labourer? Now, let them be sincere in this matter. He appealed with confidence to the candour of honourable gentlemen below the gangway; and if he showed, as he contended he had, that the effect of this agricultural and commercial prosperity so operated as to raise wages in the agricultural districts when prices were low, then he must say, that if those gen- tlemen were sincere in their desire to legislate for the welfare of the labouring classes, they could not resist the passing of this bill. They could not but admit that wages rested mainly on demand and supply. The labourer' then, would have these three advantages—full employment, high wages, and a lower price of pro- visions. He confessed he was unwilling toprolong this argument. He had stated the reasons which bad affected his own mind: he was convinced that this mea- sure was beneficial to the labourers of either class, and quite satisfied that, with a view to the benefit of those classes, no course was open but to agree to it; whilst he was equally persuaded that no sophistry or ingenuity of argument would satisfy the people of this country that the pnce of food should be directly raised and that indirectly the wages should be lowered. Sir James adduced evidence to show that the Corn-laws had proved a source of deception and loss to the tenant-farmers; and that as regarded the landlords it was impossible they could derive permanent benefit from a system under which prices had undergone such fluctuations as to overturn any arrangement which might be made. The best security for good returns from the land JS to be found in the prosperity of trade and manufactures. "And here I must observe—and I state it without meaning the least offence to the gentlemen below the gangway— that they assume to themselves that they have a monopoly. of the land of the country, and that the opinion of all the landed proprietors is in favour of protec- tion. Now, I know not where you will find a very prosperous large landed pro- perty where this happy result may not be traced directly, either mediately or immediately, to the prosperity of trade and commerce. (Cheers, mingled with cries of "Oh, oh !") Allow me, without offence, to try this particular question with reference to the manufacturing districts. Take the county of Lancaster, for instance, the seat of the cotton-trade. Who are the great landed proprietors in that county ? There is the Earl of Derby, on whose land the town of Bury is built: is he opposed to this measure? There is also the Earl of Burlington: is he opposed to this measure? But it may be said that the Earl of Derby and the Earl of Burlington are not fair examples of the feeling of the landed proprietors in that county: well, then, take Lord 'Francis Egerton, who is connected both with commerce and agriculture, and the inevitable effect of whose experience is to render him a strenuous advocate of the proposed alteration. Let us go next to the West Riding of Yorkshire, the great seat of the woollen manufacture. There is Lord Fitzwilliam: is be opposed to this change? Or let us go to the seat of the cotton manufacture in Scotland. What is the county in Scotland which is most dependent on commerce and manufactures? Why, Lanarkshire: and what is the opinion of the Duke of Hamilton on this question? (Cheers and counter- cheers.) Yon may treat this argument with contempt if you please, but it will be impossible for you to hold yourselves forth as the exclusive representatives of the agricultural interest on this question. The honourable Member for Somerset- shire mentioned an extraordinary fact, that the price of wheat, which averaged_ 90s. in 1805, had fallen to 48s. in 1845, while the produce of the country had in- creased: why, he could not have a more conclusive argument, that, coincident with the growth of manufacturing prosperity in this country, the land would im- prove, the fee-simple of the land would rise, and the produce be greater. Sir James did not think that any fall of prise below that of the last three years would take place under this measure—C" Oh, oh !")—but he was satisfied that a geaterhody of the people would have employment, and a perfect security against that sudden rise of prices which was so inconsistent with the prosperity of the country."

Sir James expressed his concurrence in the opinion expressed by Lord Gren-

ville in 1815. I cannot," said Lord Grenville, persuade myself that the laws regulating the importation of corn tend to produce either plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So far as they operate at all—both in theory, when carefully examined, or in practice—they appear to me to operate the other way. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty." "That proposition," said Sir James, "1 believe to be strictly true. I believe that it is impossible to tat off any of our sources of supply and not trench upon the means of securing abundance; I believe you cannot, show that you can limit the supply of any com- modity and not enhance the cost of the article. To reject the advantages which I have pointed out would be to deprive ourselves of the beneficial arrangements that have been made by Providence for the sustentation of man. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary for me to add, that I am most anxious to see this measure pass unmutilated: for I entertain a strong conviction, that if it becomes the law of the land, it will protect the labourer against the effects of dear prices imposed upon the first necessary of life; that it will prove a security to the farmer in his speculations and his profits; and more than all, that this measure will reconcile e prosperity of the landlord with the interests and the good-will of the com- munity at large—that it will extend our commerce, increase the prosperity of our manufactures, and place our foreign relations upon a safe and stable foundation. I conscientiously believe that it will be memorable in our history, as securing the prosperity, contentment, peace, and happiness of the great body of the people, without reference to the exclusive interests of any particular class." (Much cheering.) Mr. CAYLEY said, that Lord Grenville, in 1815, must have been thinking of prohibition' not of protection; the object of the present law was to protect, not to prohibit. As to the opinion of the large landed proprietors enumerated by Sir James Graham, it should be borne in mind that they formed precisely the class least likely to be seriously affected by the intended alteration in the Corn-laws. The small proprietors, the men of few acres, were sure to be the sufferers. Much liad been said about public opinion, but his conviction was, that a large majority of the middle and working classes were opposed to the repeal of the Corn-laws: this was well shown by the fact that the Free-traders of Manchester had declined to hold meetings of the working classes to support the Free-trade principle. But the question was not so limited in its bearings as the League seemed to think. "The Free-traders contended that profit and cheapness were the most important things: the Protectionists thought they were important too, but that they were not all; they thought there were higher considerations than mere profit—that religion, virtue, loyalty, patriotism, the social affections, and local attachments, were of greater value still. If this cheapness principle was to prevail as our only consi- deration in all these questions, what was to be the result? Was the Church, were the Colonies, to be conducted on this principle? The Colonies would receive a deathblow by this system. Would even the Monarchy be safe, since the system of America was less costly ? For the sake of the constitution, let the right ho- nourable gentleman pause." On the motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, the debate was adjourned about one o'clock.

On Tuesday, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. GEORGE PALMER, Mr. BENETT, Mr. PLIIMPTRE, Sir JOHN WA.L811, Mr. FRANCIS SCOTT, Lord BROOKE, Captain VYSE, and Mr. Savaren, supported the amendment; Mr. IlAsus and Mr. SHARMAN CR.AWFORD heartily supported the bill: Captain Pot- mix said he should vote for the third reading, but with reluctance.

Mr. NEWDEGATE addressed himself to the monetary view of the question; and anticipated a number of evil consequences to arise from the drain for gold which

would take place on the passing of the measure. Among these consequences were, distress to the agriculturist from an influx of cheap foreign corn, embarrass- ment to the mercantile community from the scarcity of gold, and want of employ- ment to the labouring classes from the inability of employers to find work for them. As to the relative proportions, in point of numbers, of the agricultural and manufacturing populations, a great mistake would be committed were the census of 1841 to be relied upon in forming an opinion. That return had been made out apparently to serve Free-trade purposes; for all persons employed in trade, mannfictures, and handicraft, were mixed up together, and made to appear as depending on the manufacturing interest, without any allowance being made for those whose employment was derived from the agricultural interest. The re- turn of 1831, on the other hand, was perfectly intelligible, and clearly showed from what sources the different classes drew their means of supportand upon what interest they depended. Mr. Spackman was engaged in analyzing the return of 1841, and the result of his labours would soon appear. In conclusion, Mr. New- degate expressed his regret that he and others of the former supporters of Govern- ment, in vindicating their opinions, were obliged to cast the deepest censure on the changes which the opinions of Government had undergone; for he could not think of these changes and the speech which introduced them to that House but with one feeling—that they were measures which had been long secretly deter- mined upon, which had originated in fear, which had been introduced to the House in a feehng of arrogance, and which if passed would result in disaster.

Mr. GEORGE PALMER verily believed, that at that moment, if every Member of the House were to put his hand on his heart and vote according to his con- science, there would be a majority of two to one against the measure.

Captain Pourrtz, trusted that if the bill passed, the Anti-Corn-law League would dissolve itself; its professed objects would then have been accomplished. This great measure was an experiment; and he never gave a vote with greater reluctance than he should give his vote on that occasion in its favour. Mr. BEriErr drew a comparison between the duration of life in the agricul- tural and the manufacturing districts; and contended that the discouragement or abandonment of agriculture would be to sacrifice the best interests of the country. Mr. PLusivran characterized the measure as a rash and perilous experiment-

xperiment The

The evil effects of the change would travel upwards from the agricultural la- bourer to the tenant-farmer and the landowner, and be felt from the agriculturist to the manufacturer, till it inflicted on the community a larger amount of misery and wo than it would ever be in their power to repair.

Mr. H.AsTiE vindicated the bill. He thought that all the arguments against it resolved themselves into apprehensions of a reduction of rent. Of this re- duction, however, he had no fear, as he did not think the price of wheat would be materially lowered by the change. Sir Joins WALSH deplored the policy which Sir Robert Peel had adopted : he con- sidered it a great and grievous error; but he hoped the House would understand him that be was not desirous of merely interposing a Parliamentary shield behind which he might securely launch his sarcasms at the right honourable Baronet. He avowed his implicit confidence in the purity of the Minister's intentions, simply because he was convinced of it. But while he imputed to the right honourable Baronet nothing more than an error of judgment, it was in the nature of things that if this was an error at all, it was an enormous error—one of those errors which shipwrecked statesmen and shook states to their centre. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD assured the Protectionists that it was bad policy in them to rest their opposition to the measure on the ground that it will reduce prices; for the more that argument was heard, the more would public favour , be attracted towards the measure itself. The aristocracy were damaging them- selves in public estimation by using such an argument. To him it appeared that the present was nothing but a landlord's question, viewed in the most false posi- tion.

Captain Vyse said, the House was now called upon to vote for a measure which no country under heaven had ever thought fit to adopt.

Mr. SEYMER put a question to the Ministerial Members—would they have sup- ported this measure if it had been proposed by Lord John Russell? (Combined Protectionist and Opposition cheers.) He believed that those honourable Members

—some of them had said as much—would not have supported it if so proposed: but then, they said they had. confidence in the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, and that they had not confidence in the noble Lord the Member for London. There must be a clear understanding as to this question of confidence. The Protectionist party had no personal objection to the noble Lord the Member for London; the great Conservative party withheld their confidence from him because they thought they perceived in his measures a tendency— merely a tendency—towards free trade. And should that party give their con- fidence to the right honourable gentleman the Member for lamworth, whose measures gave them free trade itself? But it was said the right honourable Baronet was such a delightful Minister for keeping up the Three per Cents. The country gentlemen were not so deeply concerned as they could wish to be with the Three per Cents: but the importance of keeping up a reputation for political consistency and honour was greater even than keeping up the Three per Cents; and unless this was kept up, Ministers would find before long that they could not keep up the Three per Cents.

On the motion of Mr. COLQUHOUN, the debate was adjourned till Thursday or Friday.

[The attendance at this debate appears to have been exceedingly scanty. The Times states that when Mr. George Palmer rose cries of "Divide, divide!" were heard from Lord George Bentinck; "who, upon counting noses, had calculated that among the scanty number of Members in the House the Protectionists had a majority." Mr. Palmer, however, proceeded; but before be concluded, "Sir John Tyrell having watched the depar- ture of honourable Members till only thirty-four were left in the House, moved that the numbers be counted. While the gallery was emptying, a few Members rushed into the House; and on the Speaker counting it, it was found that forty Members, the exact number necessary to constitute it, were present.")

TRADE WITH CAXADA.

On Thursday, Lord GEORGE BENTINCK submitted the following mo- tion— "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty may be pleased to direct that copies be laid before this House—I. of the Govemor-General Earl Cathcart's speech to the Legislative Assembly of the Canadas ; 2. of the despatch or despatches referred to in the Governor-General's speech as having been addressed, to her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, or of any others that may since have been received, remonstrating against certain presumed changes in the Imperial com- mercial policy ; 3. of any petition from the Quebec Board of Trade, addressed to her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies lathe course of the present year, on the subject of apprehended changes in the Imperial tariff, effecting the produce of the Canadas."

The state of the Canadian Colonies was at the present moment alarming. Under any circumstances, a question which related to the prosperity of those de- pendencies would necessarily command attention; but when it was considered that news had just arrived of the rejection by the Legislative Assembly of the commer- cial policy of the home Government,—the majority of 16, which the Government of Canada held in that Assembly at its meeting, having been converted into a mi- nority of 7,—it was peculiarly desirable that the attention of the House should be drawn to the situation of the Canadian Colonies before proceeding to a final deci- sion upon the Corn Importation Bill. In a commercial point of view the question was most important. The trade between England and Canada was equal to three-eighths of our entire trade with the United States and the whole continent of America; and our shipping engaged in the trade with the North American Colo- nies equalled one-sixth of our whole shipping engaged in our foreign trade. Lord George adduced some particulars to show the hostile feeling which the Free-trade proposals of the English Government had excited in Canada. Early in March, Mr. Gladstone sent a despatch to Lord Cathcart, the Governor-General, intimating the nature of tile measures; and Lord Cathcart., in his opening address to the Legislative Assembly, stated that he had addressed a remonstrance on the subject to Mr. Gladstone,—adding, that as regarded the question of a fair amount of protection being retained to the Canadas, the Assembly should have his hearty cooperation. A few days previous to the meeting of the Legislative Assembly, the Board of Trade of Toronto held a meeting, at which the mercantile and agricultural interests were represented ; and Mr. Workman, the Vice-President, stated subsequently, that some of their citi- zens, from whom he had not expected such sentiments, had declared that there was nothing left for Canada but annexation to the United States. It was only in 1843 that the Canada Corn Bill was passed ; that measure was considered a compromise, almost a bargain with the Canadas; and upon the faith of its con- tinuance considerable outlays of money were made. But now it was proposed to subject that outlay to the risk of being entirely lost. At the Toronto meeting it was stated that the withdrawal of the existing protective laws would be followed by the loss of the carrying-trade to the Canadian waters. The Solicitor-General of Canada had declared, that if England carried her measures of free trade the in- terests of Canada would cease to be identified with those of the Mother-country, and that the allegiance of that country would in all probability be transferred to the United States. Lord George turned to the United States, to see what the feeling was there. Mr. Gladstone in his despatch had stated that the Canadas possessed such advantages in water communication that they would be able to compete successfully with the inland navigation of the United States: but the New York Herald expressed a different o_pnuon, stating that the advantages in question only existed in the mind of the Colonial Secretary. The same journal- ist stated, that flour the produce of Upper Canada could be landed at Liverpool by way of New York cheaper than by way of Montreal. Now look at the import- ance of our North American trade. By the last returns, it appeared that the number of British seamen engaged in the timber trade amounted to 36,030; while the number of British seamen in British bottoms engaged in the trade with the United States was only 8,900. So that, with a colonial population of 1,600,000, more than four times the number of seamen were engaged compared with those employed in the trade with 20,000,000 of people. Our exports to these 1,600,000 amounted to 8,000,000/. sterling, while our exports to the 20,000,000 were only 7,900,0001. Lord George quoted a letter which appeared in the Times, from Mr. Pemberton, an extensive timber-merchant in the City, to show that Mr. Charles Buller was wrong in asserting, in a previous debate, that Canada West was not at all interested in the timber trade; the fact being, that the value of the lumber exported from the St. Lawrence last year was about 800,0001., of which at least three-fourths was the produce of Canada West. Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the motion for information—

It was something new to see Lord George Bentinck and his party affect so much sympathy with the feelings and opinions of the people of Canada. He could recollect the time when there was not a minority of 7 against the Govern- ment, but, in a House of only 88 persons, 8 on the one side and 80 on the other; and yet the noble Lord and the party acting with him thought fit to put aside the opinions of the people of Canada, to destroy their constitution, and rob them of what they held most dear. At that period Mr. Roebuck was authorized to state on the part of the Lower Canadian Parliament, that they had no desire for protective duties for their timber trade, and they prayed the House of Commons at once and entirely to sweep away the differential duties on the timber of Europe and that of the Canadian Colonies.

It had been trumpeted forth by the organs of Lord George Bentinck's party that the Government had been left in a minority of 7 on the Free-trade question in the Canadian Parliament; but it was not so. The division took place on a question of adjournment, and did not involve an expression of opinion on the sub- ject of free trade. As to the state of parties, del Lord George Bentinck not know that the party now in power was not the popular party of the great body of the Canadian people, but what were usually called the narrow English interests of the country—the Protectionists—the party whose leader was the Solicitor- General; who had discovered that there was no patriotism except what was founded on pecuniary profit, and no loyalty but what was based on self-interest? That very party, who had always pretended to such extraordinary loyalty and affection for the Mother-country, now, when they feared that some measure was to be adopted hurtful to their pecuniary interest, turned round and threatened England with annexation to America. It was not the people of Canada, whom the English Parliament had deprived of all they held dear—it was not the Lower Canadian French popnlation who talked of annexation to America: it was the English, Scotch, and Irish merchants, who had embarked their capital in a trade supported as they believed by protective duties, and who, the moment it was proposed to do justice to the people of the country by the adoption of free trade, threatened this country with Republicanism and annexation! And these were the people to whose opinions Lord George Bentinck attached so much weight!

With regard to Lord Cathcart, Mr. Roebuck could not say what his opinions were; but he presumed that if he were acting in opposition to the wishes of the Government he would not continue in office. Mr. Roebuck would suggest to the noble Lord, and those who supported lffin, a mode of reasoning which would find favour with the colonists of Canada. We, by our colonial system, have cramped and crippled the commerce of our colonies. Foreign nations could not import their produce into Canada, nor receive the produce of Canada in return, in the cheapest and most direct way. He would ask the noble Lord who now assumed to be a sympathizer with the feelings of the colonists, whether he was prepared for a perfect freedom of trade on the part of the colonists? Was he prepared to throw over the representatives of the shipping interest who sat behind him and incited him to speak? Were those who considered themselves the great friends of the shipping interest of this country willing to let foreign nations trade with our colonies in foreign bottoms? ("No!") No! That was the worth of their new sympathy with the colonists. But throw open the trade, and they would be satisfied. Lord George Bentinck and his party were now making a great outcry about the loss of the Canada Corn Bill: but who were the great opponents of that measure at the time it was introduced? Why, the landed interest. The Pro- tectionists went to the hustings and denounced Sir Robert Peel as the great enemy of the landed interest for having introduced that bill; and now they came and pretended a sympathy for the Canadians, and talked of the great advantage to be derived from the bill.

Mr. Roebuck replied to some of Lord George's trade statements. With regard to the assertion that our exports to the Canadas amounted to three-eighths of our whole exports to America, the explanation was to be found in the fact that these exports were not so much exports to as through Canada: in fact, they were ex- ports to the United States. As to the carrying-trade, what had been the effect of protection? Simply that of rendering the trade more expensive and round- about. If it was for the interest of the merchant to bring the trade by the Erie Canal, it was for the interest of the country that the trade should come by the Erie Canal. When the merchant consulted his own interest, he consulted that of the nation to which he belonged; and no legislative system whereby a round- about trade was fostered could do good to the nation which encouraged it.

Sir GEORGE CLERK suggested, in addition to the papers moved for, the production of Air. Gladstone's reply: and be supplied an explanation—

The division which took place in the Legislative Assembly had no connexion with free trade; and although the question of adjournment had been carried by a ma- jority of 7, it was announced that the Legislative Assembly had passed the bill re- pealing the duty of 3s. upon corn imported into Canada.

The motion was then agreed to.

HOURS OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES.

The adjourned debate.on the second reading of the Ten-hours Factory Bill was resumed on Wednesday. Mr. COLQUHOUN began, in support of the bill; Mr. LABOUCHERE spoke against it; Mr. COWPER, for; Mr. DEN- NISTOUN, against; Lord JOHN MANNERS, for; Mr. TRELAWNEY, against; Sir ROBERT INGLIS, for; Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, for; Mr. DUNCAN, against; Sir GEORGE GREY, (conditionally) for; Mr. BROTHERTON, for; MT. CARD WELL, against. Mr. Coi.ounous appealed to experience, which had shown that the past inter- ference of the Legislature, far from proving injurious, had proved highly advan- tageous. Every one had participated in the benefit; and this encouraged and warranted the House to go further in the same direction. He was told that one bad effect of the reduction of hours proposed would be to render competition with France still more severe. In this opinion he did not concur: be knew that in France the hours of labour were longer than in this country, but on the other band the English manufacturer possessed many counterbalancing advantages. In England money was cheaper, and so was machinery; and as to the compara- tive amount of labour performed by the operatives of the two countries, an Eng- lishman will produce as much in ten hours as a Frenchman in fourteen. For example, in Rouen and its vicinity a large number of the men employed on the railway were Englishmen, and they were paid nearly double the amount given to the French labourer: the English were employed for a shorter time in the day, but in that time they performed nearly twice the labour of the French. Mr. Col- quhoun thought it would be good policy in the manufacturers to yield to the reasonable wishes of their workpeople, and thus remove that sore and angry feel- ing which existed among the operatives as to the position in which they are placed. It wasperfectly notorious that the master manufacturers made enormous

fortune"; but the operative found that he was crushed to the earth with dimin- ishing wages.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that if he could persuade himself that the great body of the people would be benefited physically and morally by the advtion of the proposed measure, no other consideration could induce him to oppose it. But it was because he felt that the adoption of this measure was fraught with danger to the permanent interests of that great body of the people, that he felt constrained to warn the House to consider well the consequences of the measure before they adopted it. It was not enough to say., "Here is a great moral and physical evil; it is better that labourers should work ten hours than twelve; let us by legion": tion strike at the root of that evil." If it were possible to deal with subjects in that way, the task of legislation would be easy enough. But what was the pro- posal ? It was neither more nor less than to diminish by one-sixth the produc- tive power of the great manufacture of the country. The labour-market of this country is the nicest and most delicate subject the Legislature can interfere with. He was ready to admit that they were now discussing a question not of principle, but of degree. But the results of previous interference should teach the house caution before it sanctioned farther experiment. In Warrington there were three occupations in which the children of the poor were chiefly employed. One was factory labour—by far the lightest and most humane; the next wes

fustian- cutting—harder and more severe; and the third was the making of pins—an occupation the effects of which on the eyesight it would be quite painful to describe. The Legislature had regulated the labour of children in factories, but not hi fustian-cutting or pin-making establishments; and the consequence was that children, when too young to be sent into factories, were sent to fustian- cutting and pin-making establishments. Would they say that they would carry their interference into fustian-cutting and all other establishments? They were stopped by the utter impossibility of doing so. If they adopted the principle of interference generally in all labour throughout the country, and called upon the vigilance of the Government to see the law properly carried out, they must then turn one-third of the people into commissioners to watch the other two-thirds. Mr. Labouchere was convinced that if the working classes themselves were satis- fied that a reduction of wages was to be the consequence of this bill, they would as one man protest against it. There was no such thing on record as a strike for shorter hours of work; and that could not be from fear of the masters, since the men when they really had an object at heart, would combine to enforce it, and strikes for higher wages were frequent. Again, instances were numerous of men leaving mills that were working short time to go to those that were working the longer time; but there was no such thing on record as a workman's leaving a mill that was working twelve hours to go to one working eleven or ten. If those things did not satisfy honourable gentlemen what was the real feeling of the working classes upon the subject, he knew not how to carry conviction to their minds.

Mr. WILLIAM COWPER maintained that the operatives desired the limitation with the utmost ardour, and cared more about it than about any other measure. This was shown by the petitions which had been presented on the subject, and by the representations of the Short-time delegates. As to wages, the operatives had declared to Lord Ashley, and in various other ways that they are willing to run the risk of any reduction. With regard to strike s, the operatives had be- come alive to the bad consequences, not only to themselves but to their employers, of the adoption of such means of redress; and they preferred an appeal to the Legislature. Should wages be reduced, there is every reason to expect that the cost of living will be so much lessened from the repeal of the Corn-laws as to counterbalance the disadvantage. At all events, the operatives are willing to run the risk. There could be no doubt that our capitalists had many of them amassed fortunes by manufactures. He was glad for the sake of the empire that it was so; but he thought, that being the case, they ought not to grudge the loss, if some small loss should fall upon them in consequence of the operation of this measure. If they refused to do so, he thought it not unlikely that the opportu- nity might be taken of telling them that which had been told the landowners— that they ought not to expect their interests should be allowed to stand in the way of the interests of the great mass of the people.

Mr. DENNISTOUN endeavoured to convince the House that the measure would be attended with serious consequences to the manufactures of the country. It was not only a fact, but an astounding fact, that if, by the operation of this mea- sure, one day's less production a week was caused, it would amount as nearly as possible to the entire quantity of cotton goods consumed in this country. He stated it as a fact, that of the whole quantity of cotton spun into yarn there was only one-eighth consumed in this country; therefore the effect of this measure would be at one blow to prevent the production of the whole quantity of cotton- yarn consumed at borne. The total quantity of yarn spun in England in 1843 was 399,000,000 pounds weight; of this there were exported 341,000,000 pounds, leaving for home consumption 58,000,000 pounds. ibis circumstance ought to be taken into account in connexion with the severe competition to which the English manufacturer is already exposed from foreipt rivals. Mr. Dennistonn did not advocate long hours: he thought twelve hours' labour too long; but what he deprecated was any legislative interference on the subject.

Lord Jolts MANNERS asserted that the question had been virtually settled out of doors by the operatives themselves. On the side of it were enlisted, not only the affections, his might even say the passions, but also the deliberate opinions and convictions of the people. Lord John proceeded to reply to the arguments adduced against the measure by Sir James Graham during the previous debate; commerring particularly on the argument founded on the increased competition to which the manufacturers would be exposed from the withdrawal of the pro- tection hitherto extended to them. Lord John reminded the House of the utter disregard with which the manufacturers spoke about the protection in question. They laughed it to scorn, contending that protection to native industry, so far from being beneficial, was absolutely hurtful; and now, when all protection was about to be withdrawn from agriculture, and the duties partially reduced upon manufactures, they turned round and said, that so great was the stress of foreign competition, that if they only removed the protection they enjoyed of wce king twelve hours a day, they could not compete with foreign manufactures. Now, he begged the working men of England to remark, that, according to Mr. Laboa- chere's showing, the price that they were to pay for this measure of free trade was two additional hours of labour per day. As to foreign competition, had the House not been hearing day after day and night after night the ceaseless ridi- cule of the bugbear of foreign competition ? Had Sir James Graham not been the foremost to call upon the agricultural interest of Englund to disregard the idea of dreading foreign competition? A reduction of wages had been foretold, and as- signed as a reason for opposing the bill: but Lord John believed, that so far from wages permanently falling in consequence of the adoption of this bill, they would find that it would only tend to spread them more equally over the surface of the whole year's labour,—that, instead of a period of intolerable toil followed by a period of no work at all, there would be an equal flow of labour from one end of the year to the other.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS remarked, that the principle of interfering with the dura- tion of labour had already been conceded by the House; and the question for de- cision now was whether '2arliament had arrived at that point beyond which it ought not to go. He thought it had not, and therefore he should support the bill. Sir Robert quoted Hansard to show that Sir James Graham was mistaken in asserting that the late Sir Robert Peel did not support a ten-hours bill. He also contended that the House had not expressed a deliberate opinion against the ten-hours proposal.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained. When he spoke of the late Sir Robert Peel, he had in his eye the bill which that gentleman introduced, and which was a

twelve-hours bill. As to the opinion expressed by the House on the ten-hours proposal, the question had only been raised once substantially, and the proposal was rejected. Mr. SHA.RMAN CRAwFORD said, that the operatives were decidedly in favour of the bill; and the limitation was also called for by considerations connected with the physical and moral wellbeing of the population. He adduced a number of facts to show the injurious effect which excessive labour in factories had upon the human frame. Mr. Chadwick, in his report, says—" It was a matter of constant complaint to him, by the recruiting officers in the various districts of Lancashire, that the sons are less tall than the fathers, and that the difficulty is constantly increasing of obtaining tall and able-bodied men." In his examination, Sergeant Farrell stated—" He had been engaged in the recruiting service ten years. For ten recruits formerly got he could now only get one, and that one was frequently rejected. He ascribed this to the circumstance that when persons go to work in factories early, they do not grow to the proper size, have always some deformity, and are pale, sickly, and thin in flesh. The surgeon refuses them for being too thin, not being round-chested, and not standing straight." Sir GEORGE GREY thought that somewhat exaggerated views were entertained on both sides. Some gentlemen were so carried away by their feelings of bene- volence and humanity, that they were apt to forget and overlook certain con- sequences of their measures which would aifect materially the commercial interests of the country, as well as those of the operative classes. On the other hand, he thought there had been an inclination rather to overrate those same considerations, and to carry ont to too great an extent anticipations of the probable consequences involved in so great a social change. Similar fears had been expressed on pre- vious occasions; but experience had shown that they were baseless. He should therefore support the second reading of the bill, but reserve to himself the right of judging ot the details. - Mr. CARDWELL advised the House to abstain from legislating on a subject to which the great mass of the employers were opposed. The success of previous interferences had been owing in a great degree to the sympathy with which the employers regarded them, and their consequent willingness to carry them out. The House ought to recollect that 800,000 persons were dependent upon the branch of manufacture which would be most affected for wages; and it should also be recollected that that manufacture yielded more than one-half of the total ex- rts of the country. He entreated the House to take care that while on the one d it diminished the cost of the necessaries of life, it did not on the other so lower the price of labour as to prevent the operatives from benefiting by the change, and devoting any portion of their wages to the purposes of moral and so- cial improvement. If the House adopted this bill, it would peril all its former legislation on the subject, and by an injudicious enactment produce a constant struggle and a lasting contest between masters and men.

- At this stage, Mr. WARD moved the adjournment of the debate, amid much confusion, and cries for a division.

- Mr. GEORGE BARNES claimed to be in possession of the House; and moved an adjournment till Monday. He blamed Ministers for rendering sin adjournment necessary: they ought to have put forward their represen- tative at an earlier hour.

• This led to a good deal of talking on both sides. At last it was agreed to adjourn the debate till Monday; when a night will be named for taking up the discussion. This point was decided just as the clock pointed to the hour of six—the utmost limit for a Wednesday's sitting.

• , RELIEF FROM RELIGIOUS •DISABILITIES.

Oh Monday, the Bishop of EXETER moved in the Lords, that the opinion of the Judges be taken on a question which had arisen out of the bill in- troduced by the Government for the repeal of penalties still attaching to Roman Catholics and other Dissenters from the Established Church- ' By the bill, so much of the act passed in the 1st year of Elizabeth as made it punishable to assert the supremacy of the Pope was to be repealed; and unless that offence could be met by some other law, it would be exceedingly dangerous to part with the protection which the existing act affords. tialess there was some inherent vigour in the constitution of England which would make it penal to put forth the power of the Pope, we should be no longer protected from the assertion of that power. The question he wished to ask was, did the constitu- tion possess that inherent power? was there in other laws, if this were repealed, Sufficient power to meet such offences? was it punishable to deny the Queen's supremacy ? The Bishop adduced a number of historical facts to show the evils which had arisen from the assertion of the Pope's supremacy; and referred to the power claimed by the Pope of absolving subjects from their oaths of alle- giance, and interfering in other respects with the internal affairs of other states. The motion with which he concluded recited the acts passed in the 1st, 5th, and 13th of Elizabeth, prescribing punishment for publishing the Pope's supremacy, and bringing in bulls and other Popish instruments into this country; and asked the opinion of the Judges whether such offences could be met and punished by the law of England?

The LORD CHANCELLOR could reply at once in the affirmative—

The 1st of Elizabeth expressed in the fullest and most comprehensive terms the authority of the Sovereign of this country in all ecclesiastical and spiritual matters; and the abrogation of the penalties would not affect that part of the act. The Roman Catholic Church regarded the Pope as supreme in ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction only; and this fact had been acted upon by the British Legislature in altering the terms of the oath to be administered to members of the Roman Catholic Church. How could Parliament allow the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, one of the fundamental doctrines of which they admitted to be that the Pope was the ecclesiastical and spiritual head, and then say that those who professed the religion, and in the conscientious discharge of their duty maintained this doctrine, should be subject to the penalties of high treason and of prtemunire, and that all their personal estates and possessions should be taken from them ? His belief was, that the common law of England Was sufficiently strong to protect the Government and realm of England from any usurpations on the part of the Pope. Ile would lay that down as a position, and he would at the same time lay down this also—that any one who introduced into this country any bull, rescript, or other writing calculated to interfere with the supremacy of the Crown in hngland, would be liable to the severest punish- ment. For his own part, he did not think it necessary that the opinions of the Judges should be taken on the case. - Similar sentiments were expressed by Lords BROUGHAM, DENMAN, and CAMPBELL: but the last remarked, that when the bill passed the Pope -might have greater authority in England than he had in Italy, France, or -Austria; for which reason, he recommended the establishment of a con- cordat with the see of Rome.

Lord BEAUMONT observed that a great mistake had arisen from confound- ing dogmas of faith with matters of discipline—

There was no doubt that the supposed authority and power of Rome, of inter- fering with the government of any other country, did not in any way exist; and this depended on no concordat- It did not exist in any part of Europe. The Go- vernment of Austria allowed of no communication with Rome, by clergy or laity, except through the Bishops; and the Bishops were answerable to the state.

The Bishop of EXETER, seeing the House against him, withdrew his motion; but spoke of reviving the controversy in Committee. MB. TOULYIN SMITH'S CASE.

On Thursday, Mr. SPOONER moved for a Select Committee to consider the petition of Mr. Toulmin Smith— He had two objects in view: first, to clear the character of Mr. Smith from certain aspersions which had been cast upon it; and second, to call attention to the state of the law respecting searches made by the Excise. Mr. Smith, who is a special pleader in the Temple, complained that, in the middle of the day, his house was entered by a Policeman and some Excise-officers, for the purpose of searching for an illicit still. One of the features of the case was, that the search- warrant had been granted on a suggestion in an anonymous letter, that a Mr. Smith, residing in a populous place, was suspected of having an illicit still in his house. After obtaining access into the house, the officers had acted with unne- cessary violence, and the warrant had not been exhibited. A charge of extortion had been made against Mr. Smith in connexion with this matter; but how did the fact stand ? Mr. Smith, after receiving a very unsatisfactory answer to his application to the Board of Excise for redress, had said, in the heat of the moment, that he would not be satisfied unless he had his costs, amounting to DV., paid him. This claim he afterwards withdrew. Mr. Spooner was ready to prove that the officer offered compensation to Mr. Smith, and that he refused it. Mr. Smith had also been induced, by the advice of his friends, to give notice of an action against the Magistrate and the officer: but he had himself been from first to last averse to it, and had only yielded to the advice of his friends on the understand- ing that if he got damages they should be applied to some charitable purpose. Did that look like extortion ? But, admitting all that had been said against Mr. Smith, did conduct, however injudicious on his part, subsequent to the outrage, justify the outrage itself? Mr. Spooner insisted that some alteration must be applied to the state of the law under which such outrages took place.

Mr. CARDWELL admitted, that up to a certain point Mr. Smith had been in a position to make out a strong ease; but if anything had subsequently occurred to weaken it, the blame was his own—

The officer, on discovering his mistake, apologized to Mr. Smith; and, in a letter addressed subsequently to the Commissioners, that gentleman virtually acquitted the officer of any personal blame in the mode of executing the warrant. On the day after the search, Mr. Smith wrote to the Commissioners, offering not to com- mence proceedings, provided they would, before three o'clock that day, write him an assurance that the officer should be reprimanded. The reply was that an ex- planation would be asked for; but that, until they heard both sides of the case, they could not give the required assurance. Mr. Smith sought an immediate apology, and the payment of 10/. to cover expenses; but this demand the Board ot Excise held to be perfectly inadmissible. The Board received the explanation, but considered it unsatisfactory, and admonished the officer,—a punishment which deprived him of promotion for three years. An apology and 251. was sub- seqnently asked on the part of Mr. Smith. The officer with some difficulty raised the 251.; but he refused to sign the apology, as it inculpated the Magistrate who signed the warrant At length the apology was arranged and signed; Mr. Smith put it in his pocket, but rejected the 251.; stating that he should use the docu- ment in the actions which he intended to raise against the officer and the Magis- trate. Neither of the actions, however, had yet been heard of. Mr. Cardwell thought there was no necessity for the proposed inquiry, as the facts were on the table of the House.

Sir THOMAS WILDE supported the motion; not on the ground of Mr. Smith's individual case, for he did not think he had exhibited much dis- cretion in the matter, but with the view of inquiring into the practice of the Excise in acting upon anonymous informations without previous inquiry.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the Board, and reprobated the con- duct of Mr. Smith.- Mr. HAWES, Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. WAICLEY spoke in favour of in- quiry; Mr. GoDLBunx opposed it; Mr. ESCOTT blamed the Magistrate who granted the warrant; Mr. MILES defended him.

The House divided—For the motion, 125; against it, 134; Ministerial majority, 9.

IMPOSSIBLE ATTENDANCE. On Wednesday, Mr. GISBORNE submitted a case for the opinion of the Speaker. He had been summoned to attend on the Committee of the Liverpool Waterworks •' but he was anxious to be present at the debate on the Factory Bill, and between the two duties he felt himself placed in a position of great difficulty. The present system of things was one which was calculated to cause much perplexity and difficulty to Members, and loudly called for the correction of the House. Sir GEORGE GREY thought that Members should be permitted to use their own discretion. Mr. BERNAL expressed a dif- ferent opinion: the House ought to make some rule on the subject. The SPEAKER remarked, that Mr. Gisborne's attendance was not compulsory.

TILE SOUTH NOTTIN'OHA3ISIIIRE ELECTION. On Tuesday, Mr. HILDYARD and Lord LINCOLN adjusted their differences; Mr. Hildyard withdrawing the charge which he had previously made against the Nottingham Free-trade Com- mittee, of having bribed persons to vote against him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. On Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL, in reply to a question from Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE, stated the order in which he intended to proceed with the more important measures before the House. After the Corn

Bill had been read a third time' '

he would take the remaining stages of the Tariff Bill, on the understanding that it was wished by some Members to take a dis- cussion on one of the remaining stages of that measure. Then, as many gentle- men wished for an opportunity for discussion before going into Committee on the Poor-law Settlement Bill, he should feel bound, after the passing of the Corn Bill, to give an opportunity for that discussion: but he proposed to take the Tariff Bill immediately after the Corn Bill. After the passing of the Corn Bill, and after the discussion on the remaining stages of the farieBill, and after the discussion of the Settlement Bill, he was willing to give the first day he could to the Factory Bill.