39tbates anti iprorerbings In aparliament.

COMMERCIAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

In the House of Commons, on Monday the 23d, the adjourned debate was resumed, for the ninth night. Mr. EDWARD BULLER supported the motion; addressing himself to the commercial part of the question in reply to the reasoning of Mr. Disraeli. On the same side, Mr. Morrraau GORE avowed a change of opinion in favour of the Ministerial propositions; Mr. FITZGERALD promised his sup- port, for reasons founded on the condition of Ireland; Mr. Hurr, on Free- trade grounds; and Mr. MONCKTON MILNES for similar reasons. though he confessed that the adoption of such a policy by Sir Robert Peel dimin- ished his confidence in that Minister.

Captain HATESON opposed the motion • enlivening his speech with an old story about the reluctance of Mr. Bright's firm at Rochdale to "box over" dangerous machinery; and claiming moderate protection for all classes. Mr. LOCKHART followed on the same side. Captain HARRIS must adhere to his pledges. Mr. LIDDELL seasoned his opposition with the bitter declaration that the Whig proposals of 1841, for altering the .duties on corn, sugar, and timber, were "more judicious" than Sir Robert Peel's present measures!

The principal speech of the evening was delivered by Sir GEORGE CLERIC, Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Much of it was devoted to maintaining doctrines that had been challenged, and was of necessity old matter; but some points in it may be glanced at, as being happily worked out.

Be thought the Protectionists took too restricted a view of the apprehended scarcity. They were inclined to view it as applying exclusively to Ireland: but It should be remembered that potatoes were an article of great consumption in England and Scotland, and that disease had diminished the supplies m these countries as well as in Ireland. It required also to be borne in mind, that pro- vision had not only to be made for the present season, but for 1847 and 1848; as it was absolutely impossible to procure the necessary quantity of sound potatoes for seed to make up the loss within an earlier period. Sir George instanced the case of the English metropolis to show the extent of the deficiency in the sup- plies. From the 1st October 1844 to the 14th February 1845, 770,000 sacks were received; but in the corresponding period of this year the quantity was only .1540,000 sacks; being a falling-off of nearly a third. Then as to price: in Janu- ary 1845, the price in Covent Garden market ranged from 50s. to 80e. per ton; but in the same month this year the quotations were from 808. to 160e.; showing that the lowest price now was equal to the highest in a former year, and the highest just double. Moreover, the price of potatoes having placed them beyond the reach of the poorer classes' they were in many instances obliged to purchase bread; and in districts chiefly inhabited by the poorer classes, those bakers who 01 An additional despatch by Sir Henry Hardinse, not before us when the above was written, has been communicated to the House ofeommons ; and a brief notice of it will be folirld in our rostscript.

used to bake ten sacks of flour now consumed eleven, being an increase of 10 per cent on the consumption of flour.

He showed bow the sliding scale is an utter failure, having proved deceptions in its working. At the time when Holland and Belgium had opened their ports, it was found that though the price of corn in the London markets was exceed- ingly high—though the best wheat remained stationary, or rather rose in price—. the averages-were moving in the opposite direction, through the preponderance of grain of inferior quality. The duty rose, and corn was actually exported to the Continent. Had that exportation been considerable, Government must have opened the ports. This fact undid the main and chief argument for the upholding the sliding scale. The great argument in favour of that scale bad been, that it contained within itself a self-adjusting principle—that the duty should fall with a rise in price until it vanished altogether. Now here was a case' in 1845, when the sliding scale bad failed in adjusting the duty in proportion to the price. The law not answering its purpose in this respect, it would have been the duty of Go- vernment, had they opened the ports, to do as Lord Liverpool had done in 1827, when he asked for indemnity,—namely, be prepared to show how the existing law might be modified and altered so as to prevent the recurrence of the evil. A favourite argument with Protectionists was, that the sliding scale orevented, or at all events materially checked, the fluctuation of the market : butSir. George de- nied that there were the slightest ground for attributing any such virtue to the system; it never had any such ment: the fluctuation of the market had been con- siderably greater under the sliding scale than it was in the period intervening between the years 1786 and 1792—the period when the corn-trade was not tram- melled by any restrictions whatsoever. Sir George adduced some details to show that the apprehensions expressed by Mr. William Miles and others, of this country being inundated by supplies from Russia and America, were groundless. From the best information it appeared that the utmost quantity of wheat to be expected from Russia was 670,000 uar- ters ; and this was taking for granted that England would be the only purchaser in the Russian markets,—a circumstance by no means likely, looking at the de- mend which has hitherto proceeded from other countries for the surplus produce of Russia. As to America the apprehensions were equally ill-founded. If, then, from those countries which most excited the alarm of honourable Members we were not likely to have very much increase of supply, surely, instead of talking about inundations of foreign corn, it would be much better to consider whether, if our population increased in the same ratio that it bad followed lately, the increase of supply from Russia, however much the resources of that country might become developed, would enable us to give our population enough. In the last five years we had imported nearly 10,000,000 quarters of corn; but in that time, no one would say that the population had been over-fed; and if the importation for the next ten years was to be 3,000,000 quarters a year, instead of 2,000,000 quarters, not only would there not be an acre of land thrown out of cultivation, but he believed there would be a great demand for the home supply. Sir George demolished several of the commercial positions 1e)f Mr. Disraeli. That gentleman, for instance, asserted that as the demand for an article increases the pnce falls: Sir George disproved the assertion in the important cases of tea and cotton. Mr. Disraeli had bestowed much pains on the endeavour to show

that we cannot profit by relaxations of our tariff because we shall be met by hos- tile tariffs: Sir George showed the reverse from the ease of France. See what was the experience of the last twenty years, during which they had reduced the duties on articles the produce of France as well as other countries. They had within that period reduced the duty on French silk and gloves, on French wines

and cambncs clover-seed, kid-skins, &c.; and the exports from this country to France greatly exceeded what they were when the prohibitory duties were in force. In 183 , they. amounted to 475,0001; in 1831, 602.0004 ; 1832, 674,0001 ; in 1833, 848,0001,• in 1834, 1,116,0004; in 1836,1,450,0001; M1836, 1,591,00(14;

in 1837, 1,64 '

6,0004 in 1838,2,214,0004 r in 1839, 2,298,0001; in 1840, 2,378,0004 ; in 1811, 2,902,0004; in 1842, 3,193,0004.; in 1843,2,534,0001 As to Mr. Disraeli's talk about our "territorial constitution," Sir George Clerk believed it would be a most, dangerous argument to put forward that the Corn-laws must be retained for the purpose of keeping up the influence of the landed interest: such an argu- ment would lead to the most dangerous consequences. As a landed proprietor, Sir George himself would disclaim such ideas altogether.

On the motion of Lord INGESTRE the debate was adjourned, about one o'clock.

The debate was resumed on Tuesday. Mr. MORGAN Joan O'Corani..r, and Mr. TRELAWNY supported the Free-trade policy. Mr. Mortaan. JOHN O'CosinELL avowed a charge of opinion as regarded the sliding scale; he now thought that total repeal was better. He taunted the Pro- tectionists with their inability to do without Sir Robert Peel. They were obliged to follow him, however much they might dislike him.

Mr. TRELAWNY descanted on the wayward conduct of Lord John Manners; and advised Mr. Disraeli to cultivate novel-writing and abandon statesmanship.

Colonel CONOLLY, ViSCOLUK INGESTRE, and Mr. PACKE opposed the measure.

Colonel Cosoux asserted that the potato disease, in so far as Kildare and Donegal were concerned, had been greatly exaggerated. He declared it ins- oh/186=111a to deny protection to the land. Viscount INGESTRE spoke of the " apostacy " of the Ministerial Free-traders, and urged the duty of rearguing seats when opinions were changed.

Mr. GouLauast (Chancellor of the Exchequer) apologized for addressing the House: he thought it almost unnecessary for him to enter into any argument upon the main question' looking at the ability with which it had been handled and disposed of by Sir Robert Peel and Sir George Clerk— Before going into the subject, he thought it his duty to make a personal ex- planation as to his share in the transactions connected with the Ministerial changes. On the 1st of November, Sir Robert Peel submitted two separate propositions ;to the Cabinet—either to open the ports by order in Council, or to assemble Parliament immediately for the purpose of effecting that object by legislative enactment. "Now, certainly, on both of these pestions I differed from my right honourable friend. In the first place, I think in all cases that direct interposi- tion of the Government, by an act of its own, with the execution of the law, is a hazardous and dangerous experiment, and one only to be justified by immediate and urgent and evident necessity. I could not then conceive that the state of Ireland required that immediate urgency of action, but might well remain to be dealt with by legislative enactment at a future period. I did express the opinion, therefore, that it was inexpedient by order in Council to open the ports for the admission of foreign corn; and I could not conceal from myself that any such step must be viewed in connexion with the abolition or abrogation of the Corn-law, which must be the necessary. consequence of the suspension of the law." He also objected at that time to the immediate assembling of Parliament; thinking that the failure of the potato crop in Ireland had not reached the extent calculated to give any colour of truth to the alarm which appeared to be entertained in certain quarters. At that period, the potato crop had not been generally dug; and Mr. Goulburn felt that by a little delay a more satisfactory case could be presented to the public, thus securing more general support for the immediate suspension and subsequent alteration of the Coon-laws than could otherwise have been looked for. For these reasons he gave his voice against the assembling of Parliament. The Government were Called upon to deal with a matter the consequences of which oould not be experienced until an early period of the spring; and he felt anxious that any measure which they might deem it necessary to propose should be sanctioned by a very large proportion of the Members of the House of Commons as well as by public opinion out of doors. He might be told that in opposing th .

order in Council he was displaying a want of that boldness and sagacity which ought to distinguish a Minister. But if he did commit an error, it was in judg- ment and not intention. In consequence of the differences of opinion which pre- vailed in the Cabinet on these points, it was agreed to postpone their further consideration. Shortly after this, the fearful ravages committed by the potato disease in Ireland became manifest; and when the facts were known the case was relieved from its difficulties. He felt convinced that the alteratioa of the Corn- laws had now become a question of necessity; and he was prepared, under all the circumstances, to give his opinion that these laws ought to undergo a change. He felt, however, that the change ought to be effected by others: he therefore cordially' concurred in the resignation which followed; and he could assure the House, that when he tendered his resignation he had not the remotest conception that he should ever have to deal with the question in any other capacity than as a private Member of Parliament. Should any one doubt this statement, he was prepared to prove it by evidence of the most incontestible character. He had been asked why he did not resign his seat for the University of Cam- bridge in consequence of his changed opinions. On this subject he begged to state, that the view he took of the duties of a representative differed very materially from those which had recently been expressed in that House. He did not consider that he was in the position of those who considered themselves called upon to resign their seats if they saw grounds for changing their opinions. For himself, he had reserved in the most unequivocal manner the tidiest right to adopt what- ever course he might consider best for the general interests of the country. On the subject of the Corn-laws he had given no pledges whatever to his constituents. After some remarks aa the impracticable position assumed by the Protection- ists in objecting even to "consider" the Ministerial proposals, Mr. Goalburn ad- dressed himself to some prominent arguments adduced against the extension of the Free-trade principle. As to the shipping interest, he denied that it had been injuriously affected by the relaxation of protective duties; and he could prove the contrary to be the fact. In the year 1842, the tonnage of British vessels engaged in the foreign trade amounted to 2,600,000 tons; in the year 1845, it was 3,669,000 tons; showing an increase consequent on the relaxation of protective duties of one million of tons in that brief period. As to the Baltic trade, it would be found that the shipping engaged in it had undergone in the two years ending 1844 an increase of 1,000 ships and 200,000 tons; and during the same period the shipping engaged in the trade with British North America hadincreased by 1,294 ships and 249,000 tons. Ministers had been asked to consider the effect which their proposals would have on Canada; and the remark was made that Canada had a right to complain of the free introduction of foreign corn. Mr. Goulburn bad every desire to pro- mote the prosperity of the Colonies but if in dealing with a colony England placed its produce upon the same footing as she did the produce of her own soil, that colony had no right to complain. If the Canadians assert that the advan- tages possessed by them are diminished, they must remember that they stand in the same position as the Mother-country. • Mr. Goalburn entered into a defence of the Ministerial propositions in detail; but the arguments and illustrations, though cogent, were such as had previously been adduced during the debate.

Mr. FERRAND spoke against the measure and Ministers; travelling over a great variety of topics, and quoting voluminously from speeches to show that the Free-trade converts were bound as honest men to resign their seats and take the chance of reelection. A few passages will show the strain which he adopted—

He was prepared to prove before a Committee of the House, that the 'petition for free trade presented by Lord Morpeth from the West Riding of Yorkshire was signed by many persons who were compelled to do so by theirleague employers. lie could prove also, if necessary, that one man had attached 14,000 signatures to a petition, without ever leaving his house or asking a single person to write his name. Mr. Ward had stated that Mr. Ferrand had received a subscription of 2,0001- to enable him to fight the West Riding election: if Mr. Ward would be so obliging as to tell him where he could find the money, he would allow him twenty per cent for his trouble. His letter to the electors of the West Riding had been described by Mr. Ward as an able production: Mr. Ferrand was be- • ing to think it was so, as it had never been answered by any member of the League. As to the West Riding election, Mr. Ferrand was sure that if Mr. Lascelles or Mr. Lane Fox had gone to the poll, Lord Morpeth would have been defeated. It had been said that the working men repudiated Mr. Ferrand's counsel: if they did so, why did they follow him ? He knew that the reverse was the case; and he would mention a circumstance in proof. At the election of Lord Morpeth, a per- son who stood on the hustings twice during the proceedings proposed to the eight thousand working men whom the master-manufacturers had compelled to attend at Wakefield, that they should give three groans for Ferrand; and twice the work- ing men refused—not a man was found to respond to the call.

Quotations from speeches delivered by Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Escott, Mr. Beckett, and several others, were then given, with characteristic commentaries by Mr. Ferrand. Here is a specimen. Sir James Graham stated, in an election speech, that the Whig Government had fallen to rise no more; adding—" The question is whether this country is to be governed on Conservative principles,. or whether Messrs. Roebuck, Warburton' and O'Connell were to sway the destinies of this great empire." Mr. Ferrand begged now to ask who were the supporters of the present Government? Why, they were the Democratic Roebuck, the Democratic Warburton, and the Democratic O'Connell, who not Ion.' ago was the "convicted conspirator." In the election speech already referred to, Sir James Graham, when deprecating such alliances as the Whigs had formed, quoted the following lines—

"The day when thou, Imperial Troy, must bend, And see thy warriors fall, thy glories end. • • • May I lie cold before that dreadful day, Tress'd with a load of monumental clay!' (*The reading of this quotation from Pope's Iliad excited much merriment in the House.] The debate was adjourned about one o'clock, till Thursday.

Previously to the resumption of the debate on Thursday, Mr. ROEBUCK begged to ask the Protectionists, when the debate was likely to terminate? especially and bitterly denouncing the idle personalities and vulgar vitupe- ration indulged in by Mr. Ferrand, "for two hours and a half by the clock." Sir ROBERT INGLIS and Mr. COLQUHOUN angrily rejoined; reminding Mr. Roebuck that charges of personality came with ill grace from him: exclaimed Sir Robert—" Qnis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? "

The debate having been resumed, Mr. Ross, Mr. BROTHERTON, and Mr CARDWELL supported the motion.

Mr. BROTHERTON touched on the law of settlement; remarking, that if the present law should be abolished, lie considered the blinisterial proposition honest and ,just, and he should support it.

Mr. CARDWELL made his first appearance as a disputant on the Corn-law question, and showed a mastery of the subject, while he clothed his arguments in clear and neat expression. He contended that the Corn-laws had not answered the purpose intended, whether as regarded the farmer or the labourer; and fore- told that their abolition would permanently and largely promote the prosperity of all interests, including the agriculturaL • Opposition was avowed by Mr. BECKETT DENISON, Mr. CHRISTOPHER, Mr. Fittest, and Mr. Saimaa.

Mr. BECKETT DENISON complained of Mr. Ferrand for stating to the House that Sir Robert Peel, in asking him to second the address, had deceived him as to the measures to be brought forward. Nothing of the kind had been done; and he believed that Sir Robert Peel was altogether incapable of deceiving anybody. Mr. Denison expected that a similar measure to that of 1842 would be sub- mitted : but lie frankly owned that he did not expect that a total abolition of the Corn-laws would be proposed, even accompanied by the sliding scale for a period of three years. He couldnot support such a measure, and must consequently vote against the Minister. Mr. Denison explained his views at considerable _length on the subject of the Corn-laws: he had never supported the priuciole of protection for the sake of the landlords—he had done so solely lion the belief that its application was essential to the wellbeing of the working classes. He denied that the return of Lord Morpeth for the West Riding of Yorkshire was a true index of opinion there on the subject: this would be seen at the next ge- neral election.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER had supported Sir Robert Peel for twenty years except on an two occasions,—in 1829, d ID the present year: he felt it painful to be obliged to differ from him again; but Sir Robert had made out no case in favour of so sweeping a change. He acknowledged the advantages of a strong Government; but he would infinitely rather see a weak and powerless Government controlled by a strong Opposition, such as existed before the accession of the present Minis- try to power, than see affairs so managed that it was impossible for any mass to say what a day or an hour might bring forth. As to the law of settlement, if the proposal respecting it were found practicable, he should support it. Mr. Fixcii thought the conversions of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell to the Free-trade doctrine bordered not only on the miraculous but on the ridicu- lous. He undertook to "reply" to Sir Robert Peel's speech; and arrived at the conclusion that every argument adduced in it told against the new measure. The Minister had yielded to clamour against his better judgment; but Mr. Finch thought that no man was fit to be a British statesman who was not clamour- proof. He deprecated in strong language the adoption of a policy which would place England at the mercy of foreign countries for the food of her popolatioe. The Protectionists would be outvoted in the coming division; but in the next Parliament their numbers would be increased to three hundred.

Mr. SEYMER (his first appearance in debate) denied that the tenant-farmers were indifferent or opposed to protection. His own supporters were tenant-farmers, many of whom were the tenants of Free-traders. These men naturally enough held back till they knew what the wishes of their landlords were; and the landlords, much to their credit, told the farmers to act on their own convictions. Mr. Seymer bad heard the farmers utter some free remarks on the conduct of public men, but not one word of disaffection to the institutions of the country.

Mr. VILLIERS turned his animated speech principally on the personal re- lations and party tactics of the debate—

He claimed Mr. Seymer as a Free-trade supporter. [" NO, no /"from the Pro- tection benches.] Did the honourable gentleman deny that he ever stated, in the county of Dorset, he was for immediate repeal?

Mr. SEYMER—" I said that I would, so far as my humble abilities went, oppose to the utmost this measure of her Majesty's Ministers; and I said that, failing in my opposition to them, I thought upon the whole, if we were to have a repeal of the Corn-laws at the end of three years—if we could not succeed in preventing that—it would be better to have it at once."

Mr. VILLIERS continued. The statement now made proved the accuracy of the newspaper reports. Mr. Seymer admitted that if the Corn-laws were to be repealed, it would be far better to have them repealed immediately than at the end of three years. Mr. Villiers therefore claimed him as one of his supporters, and maintained that he ought to vote for the motion which he intended to bring forward. Mr. Seymer had told the House that a great number of farmers were supporters of protection, bat, holding land under landlords of Liberal politics, had referred to their landlords before they gave their suffrages; and he had told also that those landlords gave them leave to vote as they wished: but Mr. Seymer did not give one proof that the tenant-farmers were independent. He said they were loyal and well-affected. The farmers, no doubt, were a very estimable, good sort of people, speaking ge- nerally; and, considering the temptations to which they were exposed by the Vio- lent, disloyal, and disaffected language of the upper classes, from the highest to the lowest—[ . Crie.s of " Oh, oh!" front the Protection benches drowned the i

conclusion o the sentence.] The farmers' complaints were not against the State: they had a good domestic grievance which they were anxious their land- lords should redress; and they were too sensible a set of men to be influenced by the violent and interested language of their landlords.

Mr. Villiers glanced at Mr. Finch's speech. It was the most extraordinary address he had ever heard; and he defied anybody to make anything at all out of it but this—that it was of importance to put an end to trade with America- and France, because it was with those countries England might possibly go to war. The aspect of the House at the present moment presented a striking contrast to what took place on the passing of the Corn-law in 1815. In that year the bill NOS passed as quickly as the forms of Parliament would allow. The people were crying out against its enactment in the streets; soldiers surrounded the House; and Members complained that time was not allowed them to present the petitions forwarded against it: so quickly did that act for the benefit of the rich pass. But now, when the Protectionists were called upon to rescind that law in the face of a scarcity of food for the people, the debate had been more protracted than any within memory. Mr. Villiers did not think he would be doing justice to his constituents if he did not, on their behalf, express his joy and satisfaction at the concession which had at length been mad; and to the wisdom, the truth, and the justice of the pro- position, and the avowals which had been made by her Majesty's Ministers. As to the opprobrium and abuse which had been heaped on Sir Robert Peel for proposing the measure, Mr. Villiers thought that he had not submitted it wilhngly, or from any fault of his own. He had proposed it after being convinced that it was right, and after having offered to others the task of proposing it if they chose. Public opinion rejoiced at seeing the Minister act so independent a part. "He has thrown off those trammels of insolent domination which threatened him that if he ventured to touch this subject—if he ventured to deal with the privileges of their party—be should no longer coritinne in the service of the State. (Cheers.) The right honourable gentleman, under a sense of duty to his country, seems to have disregarded their determination, and to have come forward and proposed a measure calculated to advance the interests of the whole community; and upon the community let him throw himself for support. I believe that the public generally are delighted to see the Minister relieve him- self at last from the trammels of a class. And I further believe, that they will carry him through, not only with this measure, but in every measure in which he will consult the public interest, and will have the boldness and courage to propose popular measures." The measure wasimperfect; but, looking at the opw- sition which it had encountered from the ge,nllanien opposite, lie had no doubt that the country would accept that opposition as an apology for its deficiencies and incompleteness. "Those honourable gentlemen on the Protectionist benches are not aware what service they are rendering to the right honourable gentleman— what popularity they are gaining for this measure, and how much they are raising the feeling of the people against themselves. I believe that all the vio- lence, all the passion that has been exhibited on that side of the House with respect to this measure, has endeared it more than ever to the public; and every Member who rises to declare that he will not support this measure of great public advantage, elevates the right honourable gentleman on the pinnacle of public admiration."

And look at the amendment. It did not convey a dissent from any particular part of the scheme; it was a general denunciation, amounting to this— 'Away with the measure altogether; we will have none of it." Now, had not many

of the Protectionists said that some parts of the scheme were most excellent, and would be most desirable? (Cries of " No, no!" and " Name! ") " Yes' I will

name. Look at Hertfordshire: Lord Essex stated that Indian corn would be one of the greatest boons to agriculture that was ever conferred arm it; you admit that it is a boon to agriculture; but, because you have such a dread of giving food to the people, you will not allow those who want to feed their cattle to give the measure its support." (Expressions of dissent.) Mr. Stuart, the Protec- tionist Member for Newark, might shake his head; but would he let in that dan- gerous grain, that it might supersede some of the nobler grains ? " You say the Irish people may starve. (Cries of " No, no!" frona the Protectionists.) Oh, that is very well now. You say you would open the ports, I dare say. But since when have you said that? Since you have discovered that there is nothing to tome in. There was no talk of it till late in the autumn."

They talked of "maintaining the system of protection": he challenged any one to form an idea of what was meant by the " system" or " principle of protec- tion." They were obliged to resort to Lord Stanley's definition, which was ex- pressed in the words "competition subject to regulation." But had not this " system " of protection all dwindled down into a question involving the supply Of food by the sliding scale? Not one of the Protection speakers had risen to vindicate the system without beginning at once to discuss the horrors of free trade in food, and to depict the advantages of the sliding scale! All the Protec- tion speakers, however' had failed to show in what way the sliding scale had benefited agriculture. In fact, the object of the law was to secure, so far as it could, "high prices" to the farmer; and he was taught to rely upon such prices rather than to Increase the produce of the soil by improved cultivation. Still the farmers and the labourers had not prospered. A farmer who had prospered daring the last thirty years was so rare a bird, so strange an animal, that if the Protectionists could catch him they should stuff him and send him to the British Museum. "Then as to the labourers, have we had any evidence about them? We have been told that the Goatacre meeting was a thing got up by the Anti- Corn-law League. That, however, is not the fact; the League had nothing what- ever to do with that meeting. No; it was only one of a series of meetings which have been held for some years past by the labourers of Wiltshire, who have al- ways declared the same thing—that they could not be worse off than they are, and that to them any change must be for the better." After adverting to the injurious effects of high prices, Mr. Villiers commented on the opinions expressed by Mr. Stafford O'Brien Mr. Philip Miles, the Quar- terly Review, the Standard, and the Morning Herald, as to the propriety of dikouraging the extension of manufactures and limiting the supplies of food. And yet it was propo.sed, by persons entertaining such opinions, that they should form a Government! But how did they propose to carry it out? They might rely upon their territorial influence the county constituencies, and the House of Lords; but if they would look at the question in all its bearings, they would see that the Corn-laws must be supported now by force or by opinion, Force was tried when the law was introduced, and subsequently people were cut down who met to petition against it. If the Protectionists desired now to support the law by other means than that of force, he asked whether they bad taken any security Whatever againit the recurrence of another bad harvest? "A Government with a noble Duke at its head—(Laughter)—and consisting of some honourable gen- tlemen whom I see opposite—(Renewed lauhter)—what position would such a Government find itself in with a period ot scarcity and tumult in the land? Should you not do as you did in 1841? Should you not come to the right ho- nourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and pray of him to take the reins of power and restore a state of peace and order." A remark had been made by the Member for Dorsetshire, that he was not so much afraid of agitation with respect to the question of high prices, as he was of such men as Necker or Turgot getting into the Government: Mr. Villiers im- proved that allusion to the period of the French Revolution—" Turgot was called to power in 1775; and no man could have obtained office entertaining more en- lightened views. He said that he knew he should be calumniated, and that a confederacy would be formed against him because he represented to the King that a certain class ought not to live on the substance of the nation; but he ac- cepted office notwithstanding, because he wished to die with the character of desiring to do as much good as possible for his country. What was the first act which he did when he obtained power? He repealed the Corn-laws. (Loud cheers.) He said that there were two things which should be taken care of by every country if it was desirous of escaping bankruptcy and revolution; and this he said, be it remembered, fifteen years before the revolution broke out in France. The two things which he said ought to be cared for were, that the revenue should be maintained, and that the occurrence of scarcity should be avoided; and he added, that above all things the trade in corn should be kept free. Consistently with these views, the first act of Target in 1775 was to set free the internal corn- trade of France, and to place on record his views with respect to the expediency of setting free the external corn-trade. He said there was a regular barrier when he came into power between each of the provinces, and that this was of such a nature as to form a constant interference with the trade in corn of every province; causing each province to depend upon itself for its supply of food, irrespective of other provinces, in a season of scarcity. He then proceeded to put the financial department in a better and more secure position. And what was his fate? If you look to Condorcet's Life of Turgot, you will find that there was a combina- tion formed against him of all those people in the country who lived on abuses, and who derived incomes from the public revenue without giving any service to the public in return. The combination included young nobles, kept mistresses, and the farmers of the public revenue. That was the description of persons who combined against Turgot; and against every Minister from 1775 to 1789 who foresaw the consequences of which Turgot complained, and wished to prevent them. That was the Minister whom the honourable Member for Dorsetshire feared might be imitated by a Minister of this country. In 1788 a scarcity of food took place in France; and in 1789 something of a comprehensive change, as described by the honourable Member for Shrewsbury, took place,—a change which struck its roots deeply, but which was not the result of the particular cause which the honourable Member for Shrewsbury suggested, but which was caused by the scarcity of food."

Mr. Villiers concluded by calling upon the Protectionists to give a hearty con- currence in the enlightened measure now submitted to their acceptance, and by so doing make their peace with the people. If they lost the opportunity, he pre

-

dieted they would follow the fate of every person and class who had tyrannized over the English race and nation.

The debate was then adjourned till Friday.

PACIFICATION OF IRELAND.

House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of Sr. GERMANS moved reading of " the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill (No. 2)"; ro- t nothing but necessity could justify the Government in propos- :"-, easure or the House in adopting it— his day to make out his case by producing documentary evidence , of Ireland; as he had no right to take for granted that their Lord-

. of any knowledge on the subject. From the returns in the 1/44dk:figb. the Government it appeared, that in 1844 there were in Ireland 144

in the last year, i only 136; offences of firing houses in 1844, 104—in

Yr assaults ; aggravated assan 1844, 504—in the present year, 544; common assaults last year, 251—the present year, 242. Passing over offences against pro- perty, which are comparatively rare in Ireland, he would refer to offences against the public peace. Last year there were robberies of arms, 159—in the present year,

551; appearing n arms, last year, 79—in the present year 89; administering un- lawful oaths, last year, 59—in the present year, 223; sending threatening letters

or notices, last year, 662—which had increased to the fearful extent of 1,944 in the present year; houses attacked, 254 last year—in the present year, 483; firing into dwelling-houses, last year, 77—the present year 138. The total amount of these crimes was last year 1,495—which has risen to 3,462 in the present year. The grand total of offences against the person, property, and the pablic peace, was, last year, 3,102—in the present year, 5,281. One consolatory circumstance might be mentioned: in eighteen counties in Ireland crime has diminished in the last two years- in four counties it has been stationary; and it is only in ten that it has increased. These are Cavan, Fermanagh, King's County, Longford, Westmeath, Clare, Roscommon, Limerick, Tipperary, and Leitrim. In addition to such official returns, Lord St. Germans read a number of statements and detailed reports of the more remarkable homicides and outrages that had occurred; the authorities being Justices of the Peace and other trustworthy persons: but the incidents have been rendered familiar by the newspapers. In connexion with these details he remarked, that of the many outrages which had occurred-137 homicides, and many aggravated assaults—the House would be surprised to learn that there were only five which had been committed on the persons of gentlemen. The dwellings of the upper ranks were comparatively safe, as the inmates were armed and could defend themselves; but the position of the small farmer or cottier was different If he complies with a threatening notice and leaves his small holding, he becomes an outcast and a wanderer; and if regard for his family induces him to brave the danger and remain, what is the consequence ? In the dead of the night, his door, which cannot resist the smallest pressure, is forced open; a band of armed and disguised ruffians break in; they drag him from his bed, and either murder or maim and mutilate him in presence of his wife and children. Lord St. Germans was prepared to show that the Government had put in force the existing law so far as practicable. In the disturbed districts the Constabu-

lary had been increased. In Cavan county, in 1836, there were only 179 po- licemen' but now 400; and in other counties large augmentations had taken place. This increase was independent of military parties. There had also been an increase in the number of Stipendiary Magistrates; but he regretted to say that all had proved ineffectual.

An outline of the proposed measure was next submitted. It provides for the proclaiming a district in which murders or attempts to murder have been com- mitted, and enables the Lord-Lieutenant to station in that locality an additional force of Constabulary, the expense to be wholly borne by the district. There is also a provision of great importance, founded on the fact that many of the mur- ders are concocted in public-houses at night, and executed during darkness. To meet this, a power is to be conferred on the Executive Government of forbidding persons to be out of their dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The bill enables the Lord-Lieutenant to award to a person maimed, or to the representatives of a person murdered, a reasonable compensation, "though I can hardly call it com- pensation." [Lord Campbell—" Solatium,"] " Solatium I will call it." The power of withdrawing the proclamation is to be conferred also on the Lord-Lieute- nant. Offences against the act are to be treated as misdemeanours. But he would not go into all the details now, as ample opportunities would be snbse- quently presented. As to the cause of crime, he could not coincide in the opinion that it arose from defective political institutions. He had shown that crime had actually diminished in many counties where the political circumstances were the same as those which existed in the disturbed districts. Neither were the outrages directed against the existing authorities, but were universally perpetrated on individuals who had in- curred on private grounds the vengeance of the perpetrators. It was true that many of the outrages partook of an agrarian character; but he was bound to say that the great cause of the evils which prevailed in Ireland was to be found in the

existence of secret and illegal associations. It was necessary to meet the existing evil; and when the object shall have been attained, and a feeling of "security extended to every peasant in Ireland, then the country may look forward to satis- factory results from the measures on which the Government were at that moment engaged, and those which Parliament had already adopted.

All the speakers concurred in the necessity of the measure, although diversity of opinion existed as to some of the details.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought, that with respect to any measures which could be supposed conducive to the future peace and prosperity. of Ireland, the measure now proposed was an indispensable precursor. He would not pledge

himself to all the details; but one thing he highly approved of—the casting on the disturbed district the expense of maintaining the additional force required by its own misconduct.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked, that the first duty to be discharged was to make Ireland a habitable country. He lamented the want of one provision in the bill, making it possible to obtain conviction for crime by having the trial in a part of the country where the jivers were not subject to the shot of the assassin. Lord FARNHAM adverted to some particulars connected with the murders of Captain Macleod and Mr. Bell Booth, to show the state of matters in Cavan. In the latter case, a number of persons, he believed, were actually present at the murder; the murderer himself had remained in the country; the houses he visited daily were well known; but up to the present time he had not been arrested. The cause of Mr. Booth's murder had never been ascertained: he had not been a member of the Orange Society for the last ten years. Lord Farnham thought the cause of crime was to be traced to Riband Societies. The Marquis of GLANRICARDE objected to the permanency of the bill; its duration ought to be limited.

The Earl of CLesicsarrv felt justified in saying, that the present system in Ireland was altogether an unsound one, and that some change was required.

Lord CAMPBELL objected to the opinion expressed by Lord Brougham as to the propriety of conferring power to change the venue. He also objected to the bill's

being permanent.

The Earl of WICKLOW expressed his unqualified concurrence in the bill as it stood.

Earl GREY could not but remember that the present was not the first bill of this description which Parliament had been called on to pass: although it was

now near half a century since the Union, it would be difficult in that time to point out any consecutive five years in which the criminal laws had been in force in Ireland. He held that Parliament was bound to go to the root of the evil, and to endeavour not merely to repress by strong powers the commission of outrage, but to take away that spirit of discontent and disaffection which was the original source of the disposition to commit outrage; keeping in view the neressity of adopting ulterior measures having for their object the removal of just grievances.

The bill was read a second time.

POLITICAL AND AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT IN IRELAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday Mr. O'CoriNELL, put several questions, as to whether the Government intended to enlarge the Irish franchise, or introduce a bill giving compensation to tenants for improve- ments.

Sir Rgamar PEEL replied, that the Government hoped to bring in a bill to encourage the improvement of land in Ireland, by providing compensa- tion to tenants. They hoped also to bring in a bill to amend the laws re- lative to the registration of voters, which would effect some change in the

county franchise. A bill for regulating the municipal franchise would be proposed; the object of which would be to place the municipal franchises in the two countries as nearly as possible on the same footing.

LORD LINCOLN AND THE IRISH CHURCH.

On Wednesday, Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN called attention to a matter concerning the interests of the Established Church in Ireland, which had caused much sensation out of doors— .Mr. Evelyn Denison, when recommending Lord Lincoln to the electors of South Nottingham from the hustings, on Saturday last, mentioned a conversation be- tween himself and Lord Lincoln on the subject of Irish policy; and stated that the result proved satisfactory to him. Now, when it was recollected that Mr. Denison had supported Mr. Ward's motion for appropriating the temporalities of the Irish Church to public purpose., the circumstance that Lord Lincoln's explanations were satisfactory to Mr. Denison raised a presumption as to the lengths to which the new Irish Secretary was prepared to go in dealing with the Jriah Church. If that Church were to be destroyed, Mr. Stafford O'Brien would rather that the work were done by Lord John Russell than by the present Govern- ment.

JAMES GRAHAM stated that he had no knowledge of the conversa- tion alluded to; neither could he tell what course of Irish policy would satisfy Mr. Denison: but as to the destruction of the Irish Church, Sir James did not think that Lord John Russell intended any such thing.

'Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Mr. Denison had told him the whole of the conversation in question; but he was not prepared to repeat it—

Lord Lincoln had mentioned that he thought a liberal and firm policy ought to be pursued; adding, that he would say more on the subject when he became better acquainted with it. As to the destruction of the Irish Chinch, Lord John begged to decline the task of accomplishing it. He had not done, nor had be intended to do, anything which in his opinion would tend to that object. He would not dis- guise the fact, that he looked forward to the introduction of several measures of Church Reform in Ireland, though the present was not the proper time to discuss them. lIe would have the Irish Church so reformed as to be better able to bear the attacks which might hereafter be made upon it; but he repeated, that he would not do anything which would lead to its destruction. Mr. O'CosusEr..a took occasion to mention, that he did not wish to deprive the Protestants of their Church; but he should like to see a difEerent allo- cation of the Church temporalities.

THE OPERATIONS ON THE SUTLEJ. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Duke of WELLINGTON intimated that the President of the Board of Control would on Monday submit certain resolutions relative to the conduct of the troops engaged in the recent operations on the left bank of the Sutlej. In the Commons, on the same evening, Sir ROBERT PEEL gave a similar intimation; the vote of thanks to be moved by himself. On Thursday, the Duke of RICHMOND inquired if Ministers were prepared to lay on the table any papers which would show whether or not it was the opinion of the Government that hereafter a Governor-General of India should accept a secondary office in the Indian arm'? At some time or other such an arrange- ment might prove extremely prejudicial to the interests of the country. The Earl of RIPON admitted that great inconvenince might arise from mall a di- vision of authority; and assured the Duke of Richmond that the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject.

THE GAUGE QUESTION. In answer to Lord EL...mann), on Tuesday, the Earl of Harsaousin stated that the recommendations of the Railway Gauge Com- missioners would not be acted upon till the Government and Parliament had an opportunity of examining the evidence on which the report was founded. As soon as the evidence was printed it would be submitted to the House.

THE GAME-LAWS. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord DACRE moved the second reading of a bill intended to discourage poaching. The principal pro- vision was one requiring the dealer in game to keeps book, in which he should be required to enter the day and month of the year on which he purchased any game, together with the number and description of such gam; and the name and residence of the person of whom he purchased. it. With the view of reimbursing tenants for damage done to their crops by the game belonging to a neighbouring occupier, one of the clauses contained a provision enabling Magistrates at Petty- sessions to order, on complaint being made, an investigation into the amount of damage done by game to the complainant's property, and to make award of com- pensation. The bill was read a second time-' not, however, without an expression of doubt from some of their Lordships as to the propriety of passing it.

-FRIENDLY Socia-rias. Mr. THOMAS DONCOMBE moved, on Wednesday, the second reading of a bill intended to extend the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act. By a recent decision of Mr. Justice Wightinan, societies which could not be construed as bearing some relation to the declared object for which the act was passed,—namely, the encouragement of societies for mutual relief and maintenance in sickness, &c.—were secluded from its operation. In consequence of this decision, many societies now existing, and exceedingly useful to the working classes, could not be legalized. Mr. Duncombe proposed by his bill to extend the appli- cation of the act, by adding the words "whether of the same description as here- tofore mentioned or otherwise." Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought it would be ne- cessary for him to consult Mr. Tidd Pratt before giving his entire approval to the bill. Sir James did not approve of the introduction of the proposed words, as they would include within the act societies of whatever kind—such as societies to organize strikes or to advance political objects—provided they were not illegal; and many things were not illegal which the State might not deem it good policy to encourage. The bill was read a second time; to be committed on Wednesday next.

"NEWENHAM'S DIVORCE BILL. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition to the Lords, on Tuesday, from Mrs. Wortham, the mother of the girl who was ab- ducted by James Burton Newenham, and conveyed to Gretna Green, where they were married. The case excited considerable interest at the time. Mr. Newen- ham's object was to get possession of an income of 4001. a year, to which the girl had succeeded; and no existing law can prevent him from obtaining possession of it, at the expiry of the two years' imprisonment to which he was subjected for the abduction. A child had been born since the marriage. The petition prayed the House to pass a bill dissolving the marriage, but not bastardizing the child. At the suggestion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the petition was ordered to be printed.

Tax GREEK LOAN. In reply to inquiries made on Monday by Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that the Greek Government had not yet wade any provision for paying the interest on the loan; and in failure of that provision it would fall on the guaranteeing powers to make arrangement for the payment. As to the robbery of despatches, forwarded to Sir Edmund Lyons by the mail, Sir Robert read an extract from a letter which he had received from Sir Edmund, mentioning that the courier intrusted with the Government despatches and the London mails was stopped twenty miles from Athens, and every letter which was sufficiently thick to contain paper-money or despatches was opened, and strewed upon the road; excepting only an official letter from M. Ralli, the Greek Consul- General in London, to Al. Coletti, which was untouched. One despatch and its enclosure reached Sir Edmund without an envelope; and if there was any other despatch it was lost.

NEW WRIT for Bridport ordered, in the room of Mr. Alexander Dundas Ross Wishart Heinle Cochran; who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.