Joke 29,] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



cases he, when Secretary of State, had used this power ; and 



-with equal propriety Sir J. Graham had refused now. The case 



as like that of the secret senrice money, of the application ot 



was 





which every Government had refused to give an account. The 

 power now in discussion, if fit to be intrusted to a Government 

 at all, was one of which the whole value was bound up in its 

 secresy. It was rarely exercised, and only on very special in- 

 formation ; and it ought to be exercised without responsibility 

 to this kind of interrogatories.— Sir G. Grby said that Lord 

 Stanley had come boldly to the rescue, and not before his aid 

 was wanted. The charge now made was that a power, given 

 for one purpose, had been used for another; that it had been 

 so used, not to protect from some plot the Queen or the Consti- 

 tution, but to detect some unhappy exile, for the information of 

 some foreign Government.— Lord Sanuo.v amidst much inter- 

 ruption opposed the motion.— Mr. Wysk, on the other side, 

 attempted for some time in vain to make head against a similar 

 impatience, but at last obtained a sufficient hearing to state, 

 that he had himself seen two of the letters in question, which, 

 to his firm belief, bore marks of having been opened.—Mr. r. 

 DuKcoiiBB, inreplv, excused himself from the imputed want of 

 courtesy to Sir J. Graham in not having given fuller notice of this 

 motion. He contended that he had made out a pnmd facie 

 case, and that therefore inquiry ought to follow. The House 

 then divided— Against Mr. Duncombe's motion, 206— For it, 

 >62-Majority against it, 41.— The third reading of the Sugar 

 Duties Bill was postponed to Thursday.— On the motion for 

 going into committee on the Bank Charter Bill, Mr. Alderman 

 Tii om pson statedseveral objections which he had to the measure. 

 He thought the issues of the Bank should be 16,501,000/.— Mr. 

 Willi ams supported theGovernmentacheme.—Mr.MASTKRM an 



said that the limitation of the circulation to U.OOO.OOu/. would 

 most certainly greatly restrict commercial accommodation, 

 and would be extremely injurious to the commercial interests 

 of the country.— Mr. Mintz, knowing the injuriou* effects 

 which this measure would have upon the country, felt com- 

 pelled to move the committal of the Bill that day six months.— 

 Sir R. Pkkl having stated his determination not to make any 

 alterations which interfered with the principles of his Bill, 

 announced the modifications he was willing to concede. He 

 proposed to take, as the future maximum issues of country and 

 joint-stock banks, the average of the twelve weeks imme- 

 diately preceding the announcement of this measure. He also 

 proposed that, instead of the weekly accounts of issues origi- 

 nally intended, the accounts should be made up monthly. He 

 also proposed not to bring the limitation on issues into force 

 until the 10th of October, and to fix the penalty for exceeding 

 the legal maximum at an amount equal to the excess.— Mr. 

 Hum a approved of the measure. Mr. Wodkhousk, General 

 Johnson, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Morris, and Sir W. Jamks, 

 opposed it. The House divided— For Mr. Muntz's amendment, 

 18; for going into committee, 205; majority, 18/. The House 

 ■went into committee. On the second clause, Mr. Newdeoate 

 moved that the words "securities upon 14,000,000/." be omitted, 

 and that 22,000,000/. be substituted, as the average of three 

 years, but after a discussion, he withdrew his amendment, and 

 the clause was agreed to. Clause 3 was likewise agreed to, and 

 the Chairman reported progress. 



Tuesday.— Among a great number of petitions in favour of 

 agricultural protection one was presented by Lord Stanley, 

 signed by 17,000 manufacturers and agriculturists of the north- 

 ern division of Lancashire. His Lordship stated that among 

 these petitioners were 23 out of 47 of the principal manufac- 

 turers of Preston, employing 1588 horse- power out of 3522. It 

 was al*o signed by 25 of the principal employers of hand-loom 

 weavers in Blackburn and its neighbourhood.— In reply to 

 Lord J. RissKLi.,Sir R. Peel stated that the French Govern- 

 ment had entered into full and unreserved explanations with 

 the British Government touching the state of its relations with 

 Morocco. The Government of France had voluntarily given 

 the most positive assurances that it was their anxious wish to 

 avoid hostilities with the Moors ; they had likewise communi- 

 cated their general views with regard to Morocco, and had ap- 

 prised this Government of their general demands upon the Em- 

 peror, and the measures which they intended to adopt to enforce 

 these demands, which of course included the general instruc- 

 tions given to the Prince de Joinville. Since those assurances 

 from the French Government, telegraphic accounts of renewed 

 hostilities had arrived, of which he knew no more than was 

 conveyed in the despatch. Under the circumstances, he de- 

 clined to state the nature of the instructions given to the Prince 

 de Joinville.— Sir R. Pkkl asked Mr. Wysz to postpone his mo- 

 tion on the Irish State Trials, which stands for next Tuesday, 

 seeing that the writ of error was fixed for Tnursday in the House 

 of Lords, and the law officers of the Crown, especially the Irish 

 Attorney. General, would be inconvenienced by having their 

 attention withdrawn from it by a debate in the Commons. — Mr. 

 "Wysb said his motion related to a question of fact rattier than 

 of law ; and as he had already postponed it, he was unwilling 

 to risk any further delay .—Sir R. Pebl professed his willingness 

 to give up a Government night, if necessary, for the discussion, 

 after the writ of error has been decided.— Mr. Wyse then said 

 lie would postpone the motion, if he received a distinct assur- 

 ance of aid in bringing it on afterwards.— Mr. Villiers then 

 brought on his motion for the repeal of the Corn-laws. The 

 advocates of protection were driven to imitate the organisation, 

 ■without meeting the success, of the Anti-Corn-law League ; 

 and the continued discussion of the subject, while it took away 

 all cause for despair, gave them much reason for hope. Their 

 cause was based on truth and justice, and was gra- 

 dually gaining ground, while that of their opponents was 

 losing it; and the Anti-Corn-law League, by its conti- 

 nued efforts, was exerting an important influence on public 

 opinion. The Corn-law had never yet been placed on 

 any national or public ground. All the pretexts for it had 

 been sifted and found wanting ; the most plausible of them 

 all, that of independence of foreigners, had been proved 

 by facts to be the most foolish ; for during the thirteen 3 ears of 

 the existence of the Corn-law of 1828, we had imported 

 30,000,000 qrs. foreign grain, and after an experiment of 30 years 

 with this protective system, we had during the last five years, 

 instead of being able to depend on our own soil for bread, 

 been compelled to buy 17,000,000 quarters from foreigners. It 

 had been proved too that neither farmer nor agricultural 

 labourer had the slightest interest in the maintenance of the 

 Corn-law ; and the farmersjthemselves were becoming univer- 

 sally convinced that it was an obstacle in the way of their 

 prosperity. There never was a better time for the abolition of 

 ttiis law— free from political excitement, yet presenting a mass of 

 social misery, calling for relief and amelioration— habitual 

 associations connected with a good harvest, abundance of food, 

 ana plenty of employment, with a bad harvest, scarcity and 

 ™*™«.* *?" b I then «l uarrel w »th those who would make per* 

 S^wPh.?" benefits associated with a good harvest? To 

 blockade Grosvenor-square might seem ridiculous; not more so 

 in principle than to shut up our Custom-house by a sliding scale, 

 and confine an increasing population to the produce of a little 

 island. If they were in earnest in their desire to ameliorate 

 the condition of the people, they would aid him in getting rid 

 of a law whose effects he traced, by comparative statistics, in 

 the increase °f crime, the extension of disease, especially 

 typhus fever, and other calamities, all of which were aggravated 

 by scarcity, and diminished by abundance. He also referred to 

 the confessions and the legislation ot Sir R. Peel since he last 

 came into office; and after citing largely the opinions ot agri- 

 culturists on the subject of leases, agricultural improvement 

 and so forth, he concluded a speech of upwards of three hours 

 by moving—" That this House do resolve itself into a com- 

 mittee for the purpose of considering the f. Bowing resolutions : 

 —1. That it appears by a recent census that the people of this 

 country are rapidiy increasing in number.— 2. That it is in evi- 



dence before this House that a large proportion of her 

 Majesty's subjects are insufficiently provided with the first 

 necessaries of life. — 3. That nevertheless a Corn-law is in 

 force which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its 

 abundance. 4. That any such restriction having for its object 

 to impede the free purchase of an article upon which depends 

 the subsistence of the community, is indefensible in principle, 

 injurious in operation, and ought to be abolished. 5. That it 

 is therefore expedient that the Act 5 & 6 Vic, c. 14, shall be 

 repealed forthwith."— Mr. Ferrand, alter descanting on a 

 variety of topics, moved an amendment, the terras of which 

 were a copy of the motion of Mr. Villiers, with the variation 

 that machinery, not the Corn-law, was the cause of distress, 

 and protection and enccuragement to native industry its cure.— 

 Captain Berkeley condemned all associations as mischievous; 

 hut, acting on principle, he should vote as hitherto, with Mr. 

 Villiers, and in repudiation of the sliding-scale.— Mr. Glad- 

 stone said it would be his duty to meet the motion of Mr. 

 Villiers with a direct negative ; and he hoped, therefore, that 

 Mr. Ferrand would not place his amendment in the way of a 

 direct "aye" or " no," on a subject of so much importance as 

 the Corn-laws. He was not an advocate of extreme protection, 

 but confidence in the stability of a law was essential to the 

 complete working of a measure which, so far as it has been 

 tested by the experience of two peculiar and unusual years, 

 has realised the most sanguine expectations. In 1842 they had 



R. Peel relaxing hunselt at the Opera, witne«sinic inlhTT^ 

 of Ondine the " shadow-dance," which he compared t^S* 

 trade flitting before the mental vision of the Premier ?■* 

 motion of Mr. Villiers should have his support.-Colonel R, 

 ke spoke shortly on the condition of the agricultural 

 y of Suffolk, which was much better than had been r, 



BROO 



santry 



repre. 



spent eighteen nights in fair, hard discussion on the Corn-laws; 

 they could not renew it every year ; and he claimed something 

 like stability for the decision of Parliament. Sir R. Peel was 

 accused of having promised a particular price to > the farmer 

 for his grain. He had done no such thing, he had merely in- 

 dicated fhat it would be desirable, if it were possible, to keep 

 Jhe rice between 54,. and 58,. ; and in the three seasons from 

 1842 to 1844 these limits were not exceeded, and even the 

 minimum, during the last year had not been reached. 

 Even Mr. Villiers was obliged to confess that, under this Corn- 

 law a foreign trade was maintained, not so extensive or so 

 stTa'dy as he might desire, but sufficiently so for the supporters of 

 the measure, which, in addition to its other merits, had realised 

 a revenue, during the present year, of so much as seventeen 

 .hillings the quarter. The existing law had obviated the objec- 

 tions whicr. app.ied to its predecessor. The motion was directed, 

 not so much against it as against the whole protective system 

 sanctioned by the policy of the country ; and there was, there 

 fore, but one course for Parliament to adopt, in putting a check 

 to an agitation mischievous in its effects, by creating an im- 

 pression of the instability of a law which ought to be considered 

 as a settlement of the question.-Lord J. Russell found him- 

 self, like Sir R. Peel a lew evenings ago, in "no very enviable 

 position." He was not prepared, either to say that the Corn- 

 laws should be at once abolished, or that the existing law 

 should be maintained. There were inherentvices in the present 

 system which indicated its premature decay ; and when Mr. 

 Gladstone appealed to the two last years, he merely proved 

 that the present Government, instead of being wiser, had on y 

 enioyed much better weather than their predecessors. Would 

 the existing Corn-law stand two successive bad harvests ? It 

 violated the commercial principle ; while a fixed duty, whatever 

 might be its amount, six, eight, or ten shillings, enabled the 

 merchant to make his calculations with certainty. But he ap- 

 prehended that a sudden repeal of the Corn-laws would cause 

 panic, affect the employment of capital in agriculture, and lead 

 to a greater importation than was consistent either with the 

 profits of the importing merchant, or the security of the home 

 cultivator. The only portion of the proposition of the Anti-Corn- 

 law League which had the slightest claim to originality was the 

 immediate abolition ; all their other arguments had been antici- 

 pated by the masters of the science, Adam Smith, Ricardo, or 

 such statesmen as Mr. Huskisson or Lord Grenville, who, how- 

 ever, guarded their views by great caution as to the mode of 

 arriving at their accomplishment. He regretted that he could 

 take no part in the present motion, and heartily wished that 

 some compromise could be effected which might have the effect 

 of subduing agitation; if trade and com mercefl urished.theland- 

 ed interest need not be afraid of decay. The better way would 

 be to revise the whole system of our protective duties, instead of 

 dealing in perpetual harangues against the Corn-law, the main- 

 tenance of which was more desired by the farmers, than by the 

 landlords themselves. But he could see no end to agitation so 

 long as the Government were determined to maintain the 

 existing law.— Mr. Miles commiserated the position of Lord 

 J. Russell, thanked Mr. Gladstone for his straightforward, 

 honest speech, and called on country gentlemen to listen to no 

 compromise at all. The Anti- League was merely a defensive, 

 the Anti-Corn-law League an aggressive association, whose 

 interference, however, at elections had proved anything but a 

 successful experiment. The working population were well 

 aware that the object of the League was to cheapen bread in 

 order to lower labour— aconclusion which none of their speeches, 

 pamphlets, or papers, attempted to meet, while the prices at 

 which foreign grain can be imported, showed that utter ruin 

 waited the farmer if free importation were immediately per- 

 mitted. He adduced a statement, signed by three practical 

 farmers, contradicting Lord Ducie's statements as to the ex- 

 pense of growing Wheat on the Cotswold Hills, and denied that 

 the Corn-laws constituted a landlord's question. — Lord Howick 

 expressed his regret that the motion of Mr. Villiers was put in 

 an inconvenient form ; but seeing that the question was now 

 between the existing law and a total repeal, he felt it to be his 

 duty to support it. The inadequate reward of industry— the 

 low rate of wages and of profits — was attributable directly to 

 the Corn-law. This state of things arose where land was 

 limited in proportion to the population ; the reverse where land 

 was abundant, and presented a field for the employment of 

 capital and labour. Protection interposed between the labourer 

 and the free exchange of his labour to the best advantage, and 

 was, therefore, a gross injustice. The noble Lord concluded a 

 lengthened speech by warning the House against perpetuating 

 evils which, if nnremoved, would generate greater mischiela. 

 Chartism, and other discontents, arose from no love of the 

 Corn-law ; though the working man might not support the 

 Anti-Corn-law League, he demanded a fair day's wages for a 

 fair day's work; and the institutions of the country were not 

 safe without an amelioration of the condition of the labouring 

 population. The debate was then adjourned. 



Wednesday.— Mr. T. Duncombb gave notice, for Tuesday 

 night, to move for a select committee to inquire into the de- 

 partment in the Post-office, commonly called the Secret Office, 

 the duties of the persons employed therein, and the authority 

 under which the functions of the said office are discharged.— 

 The adjourned debate on the Corn-laws was resumed by Mr. S. 

 O'Brien, who read copious extracts from speeches, newspaper 

 articles, pamphlets, &c, in order to give an historical view of 

 the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-law League, whose conduct 

 and operations he ridiculed and condemned. Out of the entire 

 amount it had collected, there were, he said, no less than 

 156,000/. of the expenditure of which no detailed account had 

 been given. It had been singularly unfortunate in its election 

 experiments— all its successes were at first, but its reverses 

 have come last. Alter six years of agitation, carried on with 

 great resources, ability, and energy, the League found that the 

 practical good sense of the English people was proof against 

 its machinations; the poor were not with it ; and he thought 

 he had succeeded in exposing its mi>chievousneHS and tolly. — 

 Captain Lata an. when in China, had condemned the practice 

 of crippling the female foot, but was told that the old women 

 who made a living by it prevented the abolition of the practice. 

 There, for the benefit of a class, the women were put on short 

 steps; here, for the benefit of another class, we put the people 

 on short commons. He amused the house by observations on 

 Mr. D'lsraeli, and by relating his pleasure at having seen Sir 



sented, and to which the incendiary fires had been wrnn 

 attributed.— Lord Rbvulesham, Sir J. Trollop*, and Mr r 

 Bankks spoke against the motion; Mr. Ward Mr £' 

 Gibsov, Mr. Hutt, and Mr. Cobdbn in favour of it -sir ft 

 Peel said they had been engaged that night for the benefit of th 

 company which usually performed at Co vent Garden Theatr/ 

 During the greater portion of the performance, the front ranker 

 the Opposition benches had been deserted, their usual occupanSI 

 absent, perhaps, from a lively recollection of the assistance eiYen 

 by the members of the Anti Corn-law League the other night u 

 his benefit. Mr. Cobden complained of the habit of caUinr 

 names— a bad practice, but one of which the League had $«t 1 

 prominent example, and, by attributing selfish motives to ho 

 nourable men, had raised up that feeling of indignation which 

 had greatly diminished their own power and influence. The mo- 

 derate tone adopted in the present discussion was an indication 

 that they felt the recoil of the weapons they had abused. The 

 agriculture of this country was entitled to protection, from re*, 

 sons both of justice and policy ; there were peculiar and special 

 burdens borne by the agriculturists; and there were not ten re- 

 flecting men out of the League who did not believe that a sud- 

 den withdrawal of protection, whether it were given to domestic 

 or colonial produce, would cause great confusion and embar. 

 rassment. In the artificial state ot society in which we lived 

 we could not act on mere abstract, philosophical maxima which' 

 isolated, he could not contest; we must look to the circum- 

 stances under which we have grown up, and the intertsts 

 involved. Ireland dependent on England for a market for her 

 agricultural produce was a case in point. He was not prepared 

 to alter the Corn-law of 1842, and did not contemplate it; and 

 seeing Lord J. Russell had avowed himself a consistent friend 

 to protection, and was opposed to total repeal, he thought he 

 was somewhat squeamish in flying from his difficulty, and de- 

 clining to vote against the motion. The noble lord, however, 

 in arguing for a fixed duty had adduced a powerful reason for 

 a graduated scale, when he expressed his fears that a total re- 

 peal would lead to a glut without cheapness, and ruin to the 

 agriculturist without advantage to the community. Adverting 

 to the alleged promise of a price from 54s. to 58s., as the result 

 of the Corn-law of 1842, he read the passage of his speech, to 

 show that it bore no such construction. They were taunted 

 with their " predictions;" but Mr. Cobden and his friends had 

 uttered predictions of impending ruin to trade and com- 

 merce, which no modification of the sliding-scale could 

 avert or protract. Yet since the passing of the law of 

 1842, there had been a great increase and improvement 

 in all the leading branches of our manufacturing industry. 

 Lord Howick affirmed the right of the working man to ex- 

 pect a "fair day's wages for a fair day's work," from the 

 Legislature— a benefit which no Legislature could secure, and 

 no state of society— as witness the United States— could per- 

 permanently afford. He therefore deprecated the holding out 

 expectations which could not be realised, and the disappoint- 

 ment of which might lead to dangerous results. As to the 

 Corn-law, the Government did not intend to alter it, or dimmish 

 the amount of protection afforded to agriculture. -Lord Howies 

 explained that what he did say was, that in a sound and whole- 

 some state of society, not interfered with by artificial restrictions, 

 labour would always secure its own reward. Tots was what ne 

 meant by allowing the working man to obtain a fair day s wages 

 for a fair day's work.— After some remarks from Mr. E. ellics, 

 Mr. Borthwick, and Mr. Bright, Mr. Villiers said that there 

 was nothing for him to reply to, since nobody haddared to con. 



trovert his arguments. Sir R. Peel had ^^ h ^,t he P had 

 with which the agriculturists were much pleased $ but he Had 

 made"he C same e 2E : of speech for them in I83fcan< had tnrc-a 

 them overboard afterwards, because the sta e^^/^l^J 

 and th* distress of the people had made it indispensable to give 



took place relative to the eligibility ?i Mr. : J°" . bavinf 



committee on the Middle Level ^"W^^SSb.U. A 

 suggested that the hon. member w » 8 r ^ e " 8 ^ r Vate Bills were 

 resolution to the effect that coBijjMSOMnnttB 



competent to construe the *™ l **™*} h £ t £mm\^™> 

 cide on the validity of the vote ot any ™ ot J ts me + 

 0.1 the motion of Mr. Gladstone. >*£*«*£ *& tne ag-ricul- 

 W. Jamks asked if it were true ha th * w ages h , IllIip , 



tural labourers in Norfolk a°J. Sa ^ n Vthere it was not cos- 

 week ; and that, in some of the J" 10 "^ 'relief unless the 

 ternary for the board of guardians to grant rene 



iru 01 Buai"""" -7 ° • Pll hv the la" 001 

 applicant produced a sort of wnn d room, signM y m 



of his parish, to the effect that they ^J^^f - 



wor£-8ir"j! Graham replied that, asto 



that in 



he was 

 the parish 



not prepared to answer; but it was iru« l aru i e , to re- 

 nt Havering the board of guardiam s ha ^^ work tad had 

 quire a certificate that the applicant : had sou* m fe fll| 



been refused. Until Sir W. James ^^^Zch a practice^ 

 notice, he had been unaware of the «' 8teDC c e ^ sidere d it to he a 

 He heard of it with extreme regret, tor ^ co. uDJ(lgt t o 



restraint upon relief not recognised b)la^, a added, h* 



the applicant. The Poor-law CommjjMo iiers. hemoal ent 

 received no previous complaint on the subeto^ 

 they had notice of it they gave d^ionsto communicate 

 Commissioner to interfere in the mattw. * nd " ti ce should* 

 with the Board of Guardians, so that such a pr ^ ^ £ 

 at once put an end to.-ln reply to .Mr £-™ hwE tr.a » * 

 Russell, Sir J. Graham stated that ^ * P J alara nd cffi-JJJ 

 Norfolk and Suffolk would furnish the mo regu fires *b«* 

 means of obtaining the real cantes nf the mc« ft 1 m ^ 

 have occurred in these counties , ; and that n b i< 



commission of inquiry into their origin at p 

 On the motion for the third reading -ol the »«* ,Mr. 



GUf- 



and Sir R. Peel took P*^"^™ rnme nt, in f^rie* 

 would have been better if the Gownj>« ^ ole B ^ 



ation of the Sugar Duties had r*"%*™ n0 fair as** 

 as announced tor next year. There w ,_„ Ta ,. a ndt&e ; 



of the year 



"w^tS'e other h7d been »™£™£X»>% 



V J: *~ii UmicA and the cons>equen _ _ nllCf 



been affirmed in a full House, "***^Z **»«&* 

 carried could not have materially awfjji tb e chert** 

 question on the rescinding was one between fe8U it *- 



?he House and the pride of the Ministry > * n lar a> s$ % 

 damaging to the influence and authority nf_ a V >J oyed.-*, 

 ^independence of which had .^^tweei. the***; 

 Pkel denied that there was any \ Al ** T " l ™ tt for re*i* n e V# 

 adopted by Lord Althorp, in rescind J"*" 1 * / Duti es »o«. ^ 

 Malt Tax, and his own in the ^\*£&ernne* ^f^ 

 still conscientiously of opinion tha .the £» an d •■"{ opl tf 



was the best, both for revenue and con8, J7.„ roa iont ta°^. 

 torcSShing discreditable in the ^^^^0 ."-.jj 

 on reconsideration, the plan best sustainea ^^ d ffl 

 ment. He commented with sarcasm ni 1 the B ^ - 



which free trade encountered from £« e a J r * a ea , u re8, ** £i0** 

 cates of protection , they asked 'JP^V^i^ 

 small ones, whether relating to cne esej w » j i * w jj 



then read a third time and passed^ The 1 f BlU . 



sumption of the committee on the Bant ^ p 



