moved, that the Speaker do issue his warrant for a new Writ for this borough, in the room of Lord Louvain, now Earl of Beverley. The hon. Member said, that the Speaker having inquired, when the subject was mentioned to him yesterday, whether the usual words "now summoned up to the other House of Parliament" were added to the Motion, and having been answered in the negative, that he was pleased then to recommend that reference should be made to precedents, for the purpose of seeing whether such addition to the terms of the Motion was not essential. The first authority to which he had accordingly referred was that contained in ' Hatsell's Precedents' where it is laid down, "that a person becomes a Peer by descent or by creation. When by the former, the instant the ancestor dies his heir becomes a Peer, and his seat in the House of Com- mons is immediately vacant; and there is no necessity to wait for the issuing of the Writ to call such heir to the House of Peers; for it is only a Writ of Summons to attend his service there; and without it, and though he should never take his, seat there, he is to all intents and purposes whatsoever a Peer of the realm; and if in some particular case, or to answer any particular purpose, this Writ of Summons should be delayed to be issued, the House of Commons would, nevertheless, consider his seat amongst them as vacated, and would order a new Writ. In the case of the late Lord Carlisle, when, upon the death of his father, a new Writ was moved, the Speaker said, he had asked the mover of it whether the Writ of Summons had issued? but that this proceeded from curiosity—his seat in the House of Commons being: vacant whether it had issued or not." The next precedent upon which he (Mr. Leader) relied, was the decision of the House of Commons itself on a recent occasion, in the Berkeley case, where a motion was made in 1811 for a Writ for a Member to serve in Parliament for the county of Gloucester, in the room of Viscount Dursley, then Earl Berkeley; and the hon. Member produced also the Journals of the House of Commons of that day, in which the House decided, on a division precisely under the circumstances of the present case, that the Writ should issue. The hon. Member then referred to Hansard's Parliamentary Debates,' and recurred to the arguments which were then used, and on which he relied as perfectly in point with the present case. It was stated in the proceedings of that day that Mr. Speaker had cited a variety of instances, and directed the Clerk to read certain passages from the Journals relative to the issuing of the writ for Stamford, in the room of General Barclay, then Earl Lindsay; and he contended that the words "summoned to Parliament" were essential. It was then contended by the mover for the Writ, that a summons was not necessary— that the county of Gloucester, in that event, might go unrepresented for months, or till the end of Parliament. It was argued on the other side, that if they went into the subject a Committee of Privileges must be appointed to ascertain whether or not he had the right. Several gentlemen at that time contended, that the question was not how Lord Dursley was affected, but how the House of Commons was affected; they contended also, that a peerage rendered a person incapable of sitting in that House: and it was likewise strongly urged that it was a mere question as to form, and though forms ought to be properly attended to, still Gloucester ought not to be deprived of its share in the representation for form's sake. He contended, therefore, that this was the dictum of the most eminent parliamentary authority, and the precedent of the House itself, for in the Gloucester case, the writ was issued as the motion was granted. Under these circumstances, he felt strongly that the first duty of the House was to fill up the vacancies in their own body. Lord Louvain was disqualified for sitting there, and, consequently, the borough of Beeralston ceased to be represented in that House. He, therefore, moved for a Writ for a new Election for the borough of Beeralston.

said, he was sure that the House would expect, and that the hon. Member would not only pardon him if he addressed them on this subject, but that they would all think that, on such a question, he was called upon to make some observations upon the motion of the hon. Member, and upon the grounds on which the hon. Member had founded his Motion. The Motion was, that a new Writ be issued for a certain borough, in the room of a person who was alleged by the hon. Mover to have ceased to be a Member of this House in consequence of his having, by the death of his father, succeeded to the peerage. Now, it must be quite clear to every hon. Member, that if the person alluded to was not a Peer, his place was not vacant, for no other ground of vacancy had been alleged. Such being the motion of the hon. Member, the hon. Member had said, that he would cite precedents and authorities to show that the House might, in such a case, order a new Writ, without a summons having been issued by the other House to the person situated as the hon. Member had described the member for this borough to be. He had carefully watched the hon. Member during the course of his argument, and the fulfilment of his pledge to produce authorities in support of his Motion. The hon. Member had first produced dicta—from a book of great authority he was ready to admit, but still only dicta—in support of this petition,—namely, that in such a case as the hon. Member had stated, it was not necessary that a summons should issue from the other House in order to unseat the person so situated as the member for Beeralston was said to be. There could certainly be no doubt, that if a Member of that House became a Peer, the House could order a new Writ to be issued in his room, and, consequently, unseat him, without the House of Lords having issued such summons; but then the House would require evidence—positive evidence —that such Member had really become a Peer. This had been the uniform course. The House must have proof,—sufficient proof,—and it was true that the issue of a summons by the other House was not essential to the sufficiency of proof. The issue of such summons alone would be sufficient proof—it had always been taken as such; but it did not follow from that, that the House might not have sufficient proof without the summons. For instance, if the House of Lords thought proper to refuse to issue the summons; or, if they were negligent in issuing the summons, such conduct on the part of the Lords could not estop the House of Commons from doing that which the law of the land justified them in doing,—nay, called upon them to do. The House of Commons, however, he repeated, must have sufficient evidence of the fact that the person had become a Peer. The result, then, of these observations, the House would see, was this, —namely, that the dicta which the hon. Member had cited were quite true; or, in other words, that the issue of the summons by the House of Lords was not the only conclusive evidence of a person having become a Peer. There might be other evidence of the same fact. Then, with regard to precedents, the hon. Member had cited only one, and that was the case in which a new Writ had been issued for Gloucester, in the room of Colonel Berkeley. Now to this case he entreated the attention of hon. Members, as well of those who had been Members of the House at the time that case occurred, as of those who had not then the honour of seats there. A single glance at the circumstances of that case would convince hon. Members that the Writ had been wrongfully issued. He had no hesitation in saying wrongfully; for the individual in whose room the Writ was directed to issue was still living, and was Colonel Berkeley, and not Earl of Berkeley. This precedent, therefore, would not, he was sure, be acted upon by the House; and thus they had got rid of the only case which the hon. Member had cited. Having thus gone through the grounds on which the hon. Member rested his Motion, let him call the attention of the House to the real aspect of the case. The House required proof that the seat was vacant. What proof had been adduced? None whatever; and if the House chose to entertain the Motion, they must, as the summons had not been issued by the other House, go into a solemn inquiry respecting birth, parentage, and right. This was the only course open to the House,—the only course they could pursue in any case so circumstanced as the present case was. With regard to this particular case, however, allow him to observe that he had felt it his duty to take all the steps that he could with propriety take, for procuring information, in order to direct the proceedings, as well of the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion, as of the House who were to decide upon that Motion. The facts of the case, as he had been informed, were these:—the hon. Member, in whose room a Writ was now moved for, was abroad,—at Rome,—and in consequence of his absence, some obstacles had presented themselves to the issue of the summons from the other House, but the summons had been applied for; that application was before the Lord Chancellor, and in a few days it was expected the application would be decided upon. Under these circumstances, which he had felt it his duty to state, he put it to the hon. Member, and to the House, whether it would not be prudent to wait the result of the application to the Lord Chancellor, rather than commence such an inquiry as would alone justify the House in unseating one of their Members. However, if the hon. Member felt inclined to press the Motion, he would of course put it.

hoped the hon. Member would not think of pressing his Motion, after what had fallen from the Chair.

would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion. He had been one of the majority in the case of Colonel Berkeley; and he should be very cautious how he committed himself in the same way a second time.

said, that after the communication which had been made by Mr. Speaker, he could not think of pressing the Motion.—Motion withdrawn

presented petitions, very numerously signed from Manchester and its vicinity, praying for the Repeal of the duty on Printed Cottons. The hon. Member said, that this tax weighed most heavily and most injuriously upon the lower orders, and declared his intention of bringing the subject before the House, by moving that the duty be repealed, immediately after the recess. The duty on printed calicoes amounted to more than 1,000,000l. and not 400,000l. of that went into the Exchequer, in consequence of the numerous drawbacks, and the expense of collecting. The petitioners stated, that it diminished their profits thirty per cent, as well as being most vexatious. The labouring classes paid a duty of sixty or seventy per cent, while the dresses of the upper classes were not taxed above three per cent.

supported the prayer of the petitions. The tax upon printed cottons was most unequal and unjust, and it was fast destroying that branch of manufacture. This tax caused the garments of the poor to pay a duty of sixty per cent, while the garments of the rich did not pay a duty of more than five or six per cent. The extent of cotton-printing was at the rate of 300,000 or 400,000 pieces in the year. There were two millions of money in the gross collected from this duty, of which 500,000l. annually came into the Exchequer, and out of which 100,000l. was paid for the expenses of collection, leaving only 400,000l. to the revenue, which was taken out of the pockets of the great body of the people. Calico printing employed one-tenth of the inhabitants of Lancashire, and in Glasgow it was fast going down, in consequence of this tax, while the rival manufactures of ginghams and cotton-yarn were rising into prosperity. This was a tax that was levied on the industry of the people of England, and it ought to be repealed.

also bore testimony to the oppressive nature of this duty. It was extremely expensive to collect, and bore particularly hard upon the poorer classes, and he was anxious to have it repealed.

said, that this was another instance of the cruel manner in which the poor were taxed. He had no doubt that the industrious classes of the community bore at least four-fifths of the gross taxation of the country; and he should be glad to see a committee appointed, for the purpose of tracing the injurious operation of our fiscal code on the labouring population. The personal property of a man who had accumulated a few thousand pounds by a life of unremitted industry, was subject, at his death, to an enormous impost, while the real estate of the great land-owner did not pay a farthing.

had personal experience of the oppressive nature of this tax, and he had repeatedly brought the subject under the notice of the House, but no attention had been paid to him.

concurred in the observations which had been made on this subject, and supported the prayer of the petitions.

did not deny that this was a most oppressive tax, but there was also a still more oppressive and unjust tax, which he was of opinion ought, in the first instance, to be repealed—he alluded to the duty on coals. He had no doubt that the tax now under discussion was, like many others, an ill-regulated tax; but the question was, whether it and others could be repealed without any serious defalcation in the revenue. He was of opinion that the coal-duty was a still more oppressive, and far worse tax, and if they were to take away any taxes, they should first commence with one which pressed so very heavily upon the public. If they could not repeal the tax in question along with the coal-tax, consistently with a due attempt to keep up the public revenue of the country, he would certainly be for selecting the coal-tax for repeal; it was a most unjust and oppressive tax, for it bore harder upon the public the further they were removed from the place where the coals were obtained, and thus greatly augmented the difficulty of obtaining a supply of fuel. If there were to be a coal-duty, it ought to be laid on at the mouth of the pit, and thus it would fall equally on all, instead of being, as it was at present, exceedingly partial. There was no tax which should be repealed before the duty on coals. He was of opinion, that one of the evils of the present system of taxation was to be found in the restrictions it imposed on industry, by which employment was limited, both in England and Ireland.

was of opinion, that the best way of arriving at a right decision on subjects of this kind was, to call for a thorough revision of the Revenue laws, instead of taking up the question abstractedly, on particular points.

observed, that when the proper time arrived he would show that this tax pressed heavily on the agricultural interest. When a farmer had several daughters, it must of necessity be very onerous to him.

I rise to present five Petitions from various parts of the county of Tipperary, praying for a Repeal of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The first from the inhabitants of the united parishes of Kilsheelan and Kilcash; the second from the inhabitants of the parishes of Fethard, and Killusty; the third from the inhabitants of the parish of Temple Michael; the fourth from the parishioners of Ballingarry; and the fifth from the inhabitants of the barony of Eliogarty. The parishioners all ground their several prayers on nearly the same persuasion, of the injuries which have been inflicted by this international treaty: but as I stated on a former night I should abstain from all discussion of the merits or demerits of the question, until it should be brought before the House in a practical and distinct form, I will adhere to this resolution, and not trespass on the time or attention of the House by any ex-parte discussion at the present moment. Public opinion should be given its fair operation, and I am quite certain, when the time comes, public opinion will decide as it ought. But I cannot forbear entreating the attention of the House to this marked circumstance—that there is not one of these petitions which does not set out, after professions of attachment to the Sovereign of this country, and an anxiety to preserve unbroken the connexion, by alleging as the principal ground of their complaint, the state of extreme destitution in which the country remains at present. One fourth of the population is out of employment, according to the reports and evidence before this House. Is it to be supposed that so large a mass of the population of any country so fluctuating between the boundaries of life and death, will quietly sit down and starve, with blessings in their mouths on your paternal Legislature, without some effort to do themselves justice, and to wrest from circumstances a chance of better fortunes for themselves and their families. The people of Ireland naturally allege, that there must be mistake, or incapacity, or neglect, somewhere. In one of the petitions, that of the barony of Eliogarty, they do not attribute these results to any indisposition in an English House to attend to Irish interests, but, in a rational spirit, suppose, that distance of place, inadequate knowledge, and shortness of time, prevent, as in their minds they must always prevent, any Legislature, embracing so very many vast objects as this, from attending minutely to their domestic grievances. In a more wholesome state of society this might not be felt, or, if felt, might more easily be endured; but in Ireland, so far behind hand in the race of civilization, a more than ordinary share of attention, a more than usual spirit of kindness, is necessary. It depends upon you to refute, not by loose attacks, or partial denial, or vague promises, these allegations, but by substantial and active justice and energetic measures of remedy; and until the people be employed—until the surplus population be put into activity by capital—until the resources of the country are drawn forth by some positive application of the power of Government—not these complaints only will you hear, but thousands like them, from every part of the country. So impressed am I with this conviction, that I had anxiously waited during the whole of this short Session, to see whether either Government, or some of the Representatives of Ireland, would take up this question, and had intended, as no other hon. Member had taken up the matter, to give a notice of motion, having for its view the employment of the working classes in Ireland; but I shall defer my notice to a later period of the evening, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in his place; and I do this because I should prefer having the question taken up by his Majesty's Government, which can most effectually meet the wishes and the wants of the Irish people.

rose to present a Petition, and as it was neither on slavery nor on the repeal of the Union, he hoped to obtain the attention of the House. He regretted much at not seeing any of his Majesty's Ministers present. He recollected that on a late occasion some observations had been made relative to the absence of Ministers at the hour of half-past three. He approved of such observations, as he thought it was important that they should be present while petitions from the country were being presented. The petition came from a person of the name of Alexander Barlow, a linen merchant residing in Dublin. He stated, that the trade in linen was rapidly decreasing, in consequence of the importation into Ireland of cotton-twist, duty free, which caused the linen manufactories in Ireland to decline. Although he was not averse to the principles of free trade, about which some political economists talked so much, he was quite sure that on the present occasion the want of protection, with regard to the importation of cotton-twist, was a cause of very serious distress to Ireland. Previous to the year 1826, there was a protecting duty under the auspices of the Linen Board. He was ready to admit that there might have been jobbing carried on in this Board, but at the same time he was convinced that that Board, and the duty on cotton, which had originated with it, were of some utility to Ireland. This Board had been since abolished, and the consequence was, that the great manufacturers were enabled to make large fortunes, to the loss and detriment of the working classes. He considered that mill spun yarn, and the importation of foreign flax, tended much to the ruin of the trade in Ireland. This had been denied by a certain political economist, but he (Sir R. Bateson) would not give great credence to the opinions of that person, as he had heard him say, that absenteeism was no injury to Ireland, and that it made no difference whether the rents of that country were spent in Ireland or at Constantinople. On the whole, he was quite of opinion that such doctrines as had been advocated by that gentleman, would, if brought into operation, be very ruinous to Ireland. The petition which he had to present was the first of many, which after the recess, would be presented on the same subject. In conclusion, he wished to make one observation. Much had been said in the House against the system of agitation carried on in Ireland; to prevent that, let the House give employment to the poor, and protection to the staple trade of that country.

thought, that the doctrines urged by the hon. Member would be highly injurious to the country. What! did the hon. Gentleman recommend that a duty should be put on cotton; on the very article which was the principal source of employment to the poor in the country? He rather thought that a bounty should be granted for its importation. The hon. Gentleman had said much about the failure of the linen trade in Ireland. The reason of this, in his opinion, was, that Ireland did not apply that skill of which she was capable to the improvement of her manufactories, and, in consequence, her trade in linen had emigrated to Scotland and Yorkshire. He agreed with the hon. Member, that the system of agitation carried on in Ireland tended much to injure that country. No sooner was one subject over than another was started, and the people were kept from applying themselves to procuring permanent employment.

said, unfortunately they had little or no capital in Ireland. If the hon. member for Abingdon would introduce his, the people there would feel most happy.

said, the hon. Baronet laboured tinder a strange confusion of ideas, for he had recommended that the two most important subjects, as regarded England and Ireland, namely, the Slave Trade and the Repeal of the Union, should be deferred for less important considerations. It had been truly stated, that the linen trade of Ireland had declined, but that, he thought, was owing to the quantity of absentees. He assured the House that there was no risk in investing capital in Ireland, where it was quite as safe, and indeed safer, than in England. The great evil in that country was want of capital, which, if invested there, would promote industry and prevent agitation. Much had been said by the hon. member for Abingdon about agitation in Ireland, but he must deny that any existed there, if by that term was meant any thing that led to rebellion and insurrection. To be sure, if it was merely meant that people felt warmly when their interests were concerned, there was no occasion to deny that; but in other respects, the whole of Ireland was in a state of the profoundest tranquillity; and he would take upon himself to say, that that tranquillity had emanated from the agitation that had pre- viously existed on the question of religion, and when agitation was called for and necessary. The consequence of what had then been done was, that now the Orangeman and Catholic were daily shaking hands, and feuds on the score of religion had entirely ceased.

complained of these discussions upon petitions. He had been attending three or four nights running to present a petition, and had always found, from hon. Gentlemen indulging in such long speeches, that before his turn came, the time allotted by the House for the presentation of petitions had elapsed. He must claim the right, on the part of the people, of having their petitions heard, if he sat there all night.

said, the cause of the decay of the linen trade in Ireland was the restriction under which it laboured, and for this Irish Members were principally to be blamed; for he recollected when, seven years ago, bounties and such restrictions were taken off the linen trade in Scotland, he and other Members, amongst them the hon. Baronet, the member for the Queen's county, predicted that the Scotch linen trade would flourish, and the Irish trade decay, and such turned out to be the fact. It was to the removal of those restrictions that he attributed the start which the Scotch trade had taken, and he was sure the best way would be, to leave that and all other trades and occupations to themselves.

said, that with respect to what had just dropped from the worthy Alderman, he thought that unless some other arrangement was made, the petitions of the people might as well be at once thrown aside. He had attended five days in his place to present a petition, and though he had always been down at the House by twelve or one o'clock in the day, and set his name down immediately, he had no opportunity of so doing. He therefore trusted that the rule for public business to commence at five o'clock, which was now existing, would undergo some modification and restriction.

said, it would be well for hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind what really was the rule adopted by the House. The rule was, that he should attend at three o'clock, and that the public business of the day should commence at five o'clock. After the public business was disposed of, however, an opportunity would be afforded to hon. Members to present such petitions as had not been received before five o'clock. He had never failed, after the public business was finished, to go through the remainder of the list in his hands, and the hon. Gentleman's name was one of those called over by him last night.

said, he had not the least idea that his name would have been called over at half-past one o'clock in the morning.

had heard the Speaker call over the names, and he (Sir M. W. Ridley) was the only one out of twenty who answered. It was by the inattention of Members, not the want of opportunity, if they were unable to present their petitions.

said, he was absent on account of illness; and it would be impossible for hon. Members to avoid indisposition, if they were required to attend till a late hour in the morning.

said, that although the hon. Gentleman might be incapacitated by ill health from attending, he could assure the House that it was possible to bear the fatigue, for if any one was compelled to attend, he was.

seeing the hon. Member for Carmarthen in his place (Mr. R. Trevor), rose to request him to postpone the motion of which he had given notice, respecting an alleged libellous publication, because the noble Lord who represented the Government in that House was unavoidably absent on, account of a family misfortune.

expressed his readiness to accede to the request of the noble Lord. The hon. Member was about to state the reasons which induced him to bring forward the question, when he was called to order by

who informed the hon. Member that, as he did not intend to persevere in his motion, he could not at that time enter into a discussion on it.

postponed it to Thursday.

proposed that the second reading of the Bill on the subject should be postponed until after the recess, on account of the many interests it in- volved. During the holidays the Government would consider the subject, and see whether any measure could be prepared, better calculated to protect the different parties interested.

had no objection to the postponement, though he was sorry that any delay should take place on so important a question. He could assure the House, however, that the Bill already before it had been fully considered by the Members of the late Government, and that every endeavour had been made to meet the interests of those most concerned in the measure. In the event, therefore, of any new Bill that should be introduced being found objectionable, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would have the candour to revert to the present one.

said, that he had one or two questions to ask, and he would take this opportunity of asking them. From the correspondence between the American Minister and Lord Aberdeen, it appeared, that we had conceded to the United States the principle of a right in those States to a direct intercourse between them and our West-India colonies. Into this most injurious arrangement he would not enter at present, but when the time arrived, he should be able to show irresistibly that to grant such a principle, without equivalent, was most unadvisable. The late President of the Board of Trade had stated, that in so doing the Government had acted on the principles of Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson; but he denied that this was the case, and he could positively state, that Mr. Huskisson, shortly before his death, declared, that he never would agree to such an arrangement without an equivalent, and that it was directly contrary to the feelings of Mr. Canning on the subject. He therefore thought that he had a right to complain, for in 1826 Mr. Canning, and afterwards Lord Dudley, had stated that they never would consent to the concession of that principle without some very adequate cause. On the faith of that assertion the merchants of Canada, and our colonies in North America, had embarked their capital on the trade between Canada and the West Indies; but now this very principle was conceded, and their trade would be ruined. He had read the correspondence between Mr. Maclean and the Earl of Aberdeen, and he could see nothing in it but the greatest arrogance on the part of America—first making claims to which she had not the slightest pretence, and then threatening, if they were not conceded. In his opinion, that correspondence was a disgrace to the Administration under which it was carried on. One of the questions which he wished to ask of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) was, whether the present Government (after the late Government had conceded the principle of a direct intercourse between the United States and our West-India possessions, reserving to themselves the right of regulating their duties, as the Americans were to have the right of regulating theirs) was not aware that Mr. Maclean was re-opening the negotiation, thereby daring—and he used the word advisedly—to interfere with this Government in the regulation of our duties; and the consequence of which would be, that, after the recess, another schedule of duties would be put forward? He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Herries), whether the late Government had not written to the usual officers at the Canadas, slating what would be the scale of duties, and that his communication was to be considered official? He wished to know positively if the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the scale of duties which had been sent out to the colonies, and whether official notice of that scale were sent to all the colonies, as that to which the Government was determined to adhere? The hon. Member then censured in strong terms the conduct of the late Government, which, he said, had tended to confer great advantages on the inhabitants of the United States. Our Ministers had been completely outdone by the superior diplomatic skill of Mr. Maclean, who had shown himself far better informed than our negociators in all that concerned the interests of our colonies, as well as in ail that concerned the interests of the United States. If there were any power of which we ought to be jealous it was the United States. She already almost equalled this great maritime country in the extent of her shipping; and while the measure under discussion would tend to dry up one source, and the principal source of our national wealth—he meant our shipping, it would add 200,000 tons to the shipping of the United States. The hon. Member concluded by requesting the Government to inform him if it was now carrying on negotiations with Mr. Maclean relative to this subject, and he requested his right hon. friend below (Mr. Herries) to answer the question he had put to him.

advised his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) not to answer the question of the hon. Member, for it was plainly not the duty of Government to give him any information concerning an existing negotiation, which might materially injure its progress. With respect to the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Harwich (Mr. Herries), he must say, that it was a direct violation of the Treaty we had concluded with the United States. There could be no doubt that negotiations were going on, for the American Minister would not fulfil his duty if he were not to endeavour to stop the progress of the measure. That negotiation must, however, lead to a new transaction. His right hon. friend could not adopt the principle of the bill proposed by the right hon. member for Harwich. Before that bill could pass, if the Government meant to pass it, he would call for a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Maclean and his Majesty's Government. The principle of the bill brought in by the right hon. member for Harwich, was the old principle of protection for our colonies and prohibition for other people. He for one would earnestly caution the House how it again adopted that now exploded and fallacious doctrine.

rose to answer the question put to him by the hon. Member, and appealed to the House whether the observations made by his hon. friend, and the reference to the subject under discussion, had been fair and open. The question before the House was, whether or not the bill should be postponed; and on that occasion he would not, nor was it fair to discuss the principles of the measure. He regretted that, having already spoken, he was unable to answer the observations of the hon. Member, who attacked the late Government, which were as capable of being answered as the remarks of his hon. friend. He had never heard statements more susceptible of being answered, he had never heard assertions made, more contrary to truth, nor had he ever heard greater mistakes than had been then made and committed. If he were not prevented by the forms of the House, he would expose the fallacy of these assertions by one single circumstance, and he regretted that he was unable to do so. He denied positively, that Mr. Canning had said that he would never open the trade of the colonies to the Americans. He had always stated, that if the American government would withdraw its regulations of 1821 and 1823, he would then consider of opening that trade. As to what his hon. friend (Sir H. Parnell) said, he must observe, that to declare, during a pending negotiation, that our Government was entirely in the wrong, was itself highly wrong; nothing could be more injurious. He should be ready to demonstrate, on any proper occasion, that the Americans were altogether wrong, and the English Government altogether right. In fact, the Americans had not a shadow of a right for their claims. The question was, whether we had a right to regulate the transfer trade of our own colonies in relation to a foreign State. Any Minister who should say, that we had not such a right, and power to do so, would not be worthy of holding office for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by apologizing for saying so much, and begging the House not to draw any conclusion unfavourable to his views, for not having said more, as, having spoken, he was not at liberty to answer the observations of the two hon. Members. With respect to the scale of duties mentioned by the hon. Member, he must say, that no official information could have been given to the colonies that such would be the scale of duties, because that had to be settled by the Parliament, and could not be settled by the Government. At the same time the persons connected with the colonies, who had access to the public offices, and must have such access, had certainly reason to believe, that such a scale would be adopted, and they had probably sent such information to the colonies.

deprecated the language used by the hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) as to America, and condemned the bill as contrary to the interest of the United States and our own West-India colonies. It increased the price of commodities in the West-Indies from fifty to 100 per cent, and rendered production there dearer in that proportion. He should always oppose the bill.

hoped, that when the bill was again brought forward, the ques- tion would be discussed in conjunction with the general question, and not on any partial grounds.

declined to answer the question of the hon. Member, and lamented that he should have indulged in such language against America. If that Power had injured us, redress could better be obtained by calm remonstrance than angry expressions.

moved, that a petition he had presented to the House yesterday evening, from Lord George Hill, stating that some of the names signed to the petition from Carrickfergus, complaining of his return, had been forged, be referred to a Committee. This was an important subject, involving the privileges of the House, which was quite sufficient ground on which to rest his Motion. He might assert the fact which constituted the offence on the authority of the noble Lord the sitting member for Carrickfergus, and he did not suppose, that the House could object to the Motion.

had some doubts as to the propriety of the course recommended, but would leave the matter to the decision of the House.

thought the statements of the forgery ought to be first verified on oath, as had been done in other cases.

opposed the Motion, and stated, that the petition complained of was an election petition, complaining of the noble Lord's return, and accusing him of corrupt practices. It was a genuine petition, and not a fraud, as alleged by the hon. Baronet.

was of opinion, as it touched the privileges of the House, that the Motion should be granted.

bore testimony to the character of some of the petitioners, and denied that the statements against them were substantiated.

had several petitions to present from different parishes in Sussex, complaining of the weight of taxation, and of the tithe-sys- tem. To one of them, from the inhabitants of Horsham, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the case of the petitioners being very hard. One of them had informed him, that previous to the late turn-out of the labourers, there was none in his parish unemployed, or who received less than 12s. a week, while many received a great deal more. This petition prayed that the tithe-system might be altered, and gave a plan for that purpose; and he should therefore ask to have it printed. The other petitions were chiefly from those interested in agriculture, and the agricultural interest throughout the country was in the deepest distress. he wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord interested in the bill for bettering the condition of the labouring poor, to a statement he had to make respecting the wages received by the labourers in a certain parish in Sussex. A few days ago, a gentleman, having the largest estate in a large parish of Sussex, gave him an exact account of the wages he paid to his labourers last year; which confirmed the opinion, that where they get employment they are well paid; that, generally, it is only the poverty of the fanners and landowners which prevents them from employing more hands, and where they do employ additional hands, it may happen that all have not sufficient. It would be as wrong for him to impute the disorganized state of the country to the Government having refused to go into an examination of the distress of last year, as it would be in the Government to attribute the distress to fair and adequate wages not being given to the labourers. The gentleman he had already alluded to, and he would mention the fact to shew that wages had not been raised by the late disturbances, informed him that none of his old labourers, single or married, received less than 12s. a week, and that he paid more to those who behaved well. The average rate of wages in the parish was not less than 1s. 8d. a day. To his carter he gave 16s. a week; to his second carter he gave l3s. a week; and to other superior men he gave l5s. and 18s. a week. This information was derived from a gentleman who went into all the minutiae of farming, and was, therefore, perfectly competent to explain these details. in the adjoining parish, no farmer whatever paid his labourers last winter less than 2s. a day. In the parish in which he (Mr. Curteis) had resided for the last two winters, wages had not been less than 2s. a day; which he paid himself, although it was wrongly reported the other day, that he paid his labourers only 1s. 9d. Yesterday he saw another gentleman, from a parish in Sussex, who told him that he knew but of one instance where wages were less than 2s. a clay. Indeed he said that more persons paid above 2s. than less. He would again urge upon the Government, that it was the poverty of the farmer, and nothing else, which caused the distress of the labouring classes. The agriculturists of this country were not so selfish as to act unjustly towards the labourers they employed. That being the only opportunity he should have before the recess, he would embrace it to say, that he highly approved of the sentiments uttered the other night by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, particularly in so far as they related to the agriculturist. That statement would be received with pleasure throughout the country. At the same time he was bound to say, that he heard with some degree of jealousy and alarm what fell from a noble Lord, then absent. He stated, that he had some inclination to agree with those who were in favour of free-trade. He wished to tell that noble Lord, whom the country had hitherto looked up to as a true friend of the agricultural interest, that if he favoured the doctrines of the political economist, so far as to advocate the introduction of foreign corn free of duty, he would bring destruction on all the interests of this nation. Nothing would tend so much to the ruin of the manufacturing and commercial interests, as the introduction of foreign corn free of duty. He did not stand up to advocate any particular system of Corn-laws, but the English agriculturists must, should, and would have protection, though he cared not in what way. He had received a statement from the parish of Burridge, in Sussex, which was most appalling. There are 7,000 acres of land in the parish; the tithes amount to 700l, the highway-rate to 700l., and other charges in proportion. How was it possible, he would ask, that the agricultural interest could contend against such taxes and claims as these? Yet would the political economists, in their wisdom, advocate the introduction of corn free of duty. To act on their principles would be perfect insanity. The agriculturists were not the selfish people they were supposed to be, and let them be freed from taxes and duties, and they would undertake to compete with the foreigner. Then he would agree that it might be advisable to have a perfectly free trade in corn; but till then, he hoped the Government would not yield to any of their former friends, or, if there be any in the Administration, to any of the political economists, they are associated with. The hon. Member concluded by presenting the several petitions to which he alluded at the beginning of his speech.

wished to claim the attention of the House for a single minute, what he had to say being in reference to the distress of the labouring classes; and as he thought he could suggest a practical mode for administering relief to them, it was his duty not to hesitate to trespass on the House. He wished to allow labourers to occupy portions of land not exceeding an acre, by which they might be able to raise a subsistence for the maintenance of their own families. He had received visits from farmers, and from persons who had devoted their time to the welfare of the country, and they one and all assured him that in no instance where the experiment had been made, had it been known to fail. For his own part, he had been in the habit of directing considerable attention to the welfare of the poor, and he did not think, that at the present moment there was any other mode whatever by which relief could be afforded to them, and by which the burthens which bore so heavily on the farmer, and consequently on the landlord, could be mitigated. In the county which he had the honour to represent, there existed this extraordinary phenomenon, for such he could not help considering it;— there was a parish with between 4,000 and 5,000 acres of uncultivated land, and applications were daily made to the overseers for work. There were many families quite unemployed, and although all the inhabitants of that parish, with one exception, and that exception an absentee proprietor, concurred in the propriety of enclosing only twenty acres, which would immediately furnish employment to those persons, such was the state of the law, that the parish could not turn that waste land into account. When the pressure of distress was so severely felt by all classes, not merely by the rich, but by those only one degree above the poor themselves, it was strange, that a thing so obvious to common sense as the apportionment of a part of this uncultivated land to the poor, which they were willing to receive in lieu of what they now had from the rates, should not be acted upon, and still stranger was it that the prohibition to acting on that common sense view, arose from the law. A practical farmer lately meeting a labourer, not far from Lord Winchilsea's property, he inquired into his circumstances, and found that he had a wife and eight children, that his wages were 12s. a week, that he had a cottage, for which he gave 2s. a week, but that having no garden to it, he was obliged to get 5s. a week from the parish. The gentleman asked him whether he would forego the parish allowance if he were permitted to take one or two acres of land, paying rent for it in the same way as the farmers round about. He answered that he only wished he could get the land, for by that means he should be able to give employment to his family, and to bring them up in habits of prudence and industry. The. produce of one acre under spade-husbandry was equal to three acres cultivated in the ordinary way, so that there could be no doubt of the benefit to the party taking land to cultivate by the spade, and to the parish there would be a saving in that individual instance of 13l. a year. If, upon further consideration, it should seem desirable, that the subject should be brought before the Mouse, he should probably, after the recess, ask permission to bring in a bill to enable parishes to give their waste land to the poor, and perhaps also to grant them small loans to obtain seed to cultivate the land.

was satisfied, that the country and the House would receive the opinions just delivered, with the greatest possible respect. This question was one of the greatest and most important which the Government could take into consideration. Of all the questions that concerned the internal welfare of this country, there were none so important as those which the two hon. Members had raised; and of all the branches of those questions, there were none more important than those which they had in part discussed. The hon. member for Sussex spoke of the Corn-laws, and of the importation of foreign corn; the other hon. Member had stated, that spade-husbandry alone could relieve the labouring classes, or at least he meant to make spade-husbandry a primary object. Those questions had occupied the attention of some of the most celebrated men in the kingdom, who had written on the subject of political economy, and the state of the poor, and could not be supposed, therefore, to be questions easily settled. For his part, he agreed with the hon. member for Surrey, that the adoption of spade-husbandry would be exceedingly valuable; and he regretted, that he had not a letter in his pocket, which he had received from Essex, in which the advantages of that system were set forth. That letter stated, that a system of spade-husbandry had been adopted near Tilbury Fort in Essex, and effectually stopped a disposition to insubordination, —an adequate price being at the same time paid for the land. The people were before this in a state of insurrection. In consequence, however, of the suggestion having been made to him, and of his acceding to it, small portions of land had been let, at a low rent, to 600 or 700 people. The hon. Member, however, must not forget the extreme difficulties of the question, that this parish was singularly situated, and that the plan might not, therefore, be equally advantageous elsewhere. If he were not afraid to occupy the attention of the House too long, he could show how a measure he was about to bring forward, concerning the clergy, would promote the same object; but that would open too wide a field. In the parish he spoke of, the population was in the proportion of eight poisons to every 100 acres of land; and the hon. member for Surrey, who was well acquainted with agricultural matters, must know, that, when there existed so great a superabundant population, it would be impossible to provide for them by spade-husbandry, unless we could do away with our old system of agriculture—a question perhaps not unworthy of consideration. He thought our present system of agriculture a bad one; for he had lived in countries where it was impossible not to see the advantages of a different system. He alluded particularly to the Florentine States, which, although one of the least communities of Europe, is, by its system of husbandry, made one of the most happy and prosperous. The House must, however, take care not to adopt an important principle of information without due consideration, which might plunge into distress a valuable portion of the community. The other night a, Gentleman brought forward a measure affecting the settlement of the poor. As a country gentleman and as a Magistrate, he knew that that was a question of vast importance. The House was quite empty; the question was nearly decided; but the words, "settlement of the poor," having caught his ear, he took the liberty of rising, and suggesting, that it should be postponed to a more fit opportunity. He would suggest, however, to the two hon. Members, although they had entered into these questions incidentally, that no man had ability and capacity of mind sufficient to settle such important subjects as these were become; they raised questions which interested the welfare of the whole community, and required all the talents of the country to adjust them. On the subject of the Poor-laws, he wished to say, that their principle was excellent, and their mal-administration the cause of all the evil of which the people complained.

wished, that he could think, with the hon. member for Surrey, that the plan he alluded to would be beneficial, because it could be easily applied; but he was convinced, from his own experience, as well as that of others, that the benefits to the poor from such a plan would not answer expectation. Some years ago, he observed some cottages in his parish, not belonging to him, which had no gardens, whilst all his cottages had. He laid out a piece of land, and divided it into gardens for those cottages, letting each garden at the nominal rent of 6d.; in allotting these pieces of ground, he consulted some respectable labouring men, of sense and experience in such matters, who had been in his service twenty or thirty years, as to the size they should be of. The precise extent he did not recollect, but by their advice they were made excessively small, large enough, they said, for a man following his daily occupations to cultivate. He thought they were too small, and probably, if the thing were to be done over again, he should make them larger. He agreed with the hon. member for Surrey, that a garden to a poor man was not only good from the profit it yielded him, but for the employment it found for his wife and children, and also for himself in his leisure hours; but he did not believe, except in particular situations, and under peculiar circumstances, that it could answer for any labourer to hold more ground than he could, cultivate as a kitchen garden. Taking the average of land in Hertfordshire at 20s. an acre, a man by cultivating that land by the spade, could not get 6d. a-day from it. He had no objection to try the experiment, and he had land in Staffordshire, and other parts of England, from which he was willing to give up a part, rent-free, for the purpose of trying the experiment, but he was convinced it would not answer. He once had an argument on this subject with a foreigner, a friend of his, who was staving at his house, and to settle it, he took the opinion of some of the most intelligent men in his neighbourhood. One of them was a gardener, who had been thirty years in his service; a very sensible man. He asked them whether they would take any quantity of land, naming it themselves, rent-free, to gain a livelihood for their family by spade-husbandry; and they, one and all, knowing thoroughly the nature of the subject, and being intelligent labouring men, declared that they would not. There was, perhaps, some land which might be the better for spade-husbandry, but there was some which would not be improved by it; but he would not enter into that theoretical question, his only intention being, to express his opinion that, unless under very peculiar circumstances, a labourer could not be benefitted by holding more land than he could convert into the purposes of a kitchen garden; and if there were any country gentlemen in the House who thought otherwise, he called upon them to give some land for that purpose. He could only say, for his own part, that he was willing to give every one of his labourers, or any labourer on the parish, sufficient to carry the plan into effect; nor would this be such matter of great liberality; for, looking at the thing closely, the landowners would save in poor-rates what they might lose in rent. "Why," it was said," not give the labourers two acres a piece?" Why, for this reason— that they could not make use of it; but, although he did not think it would succeed, he was ready to try the experiment.

said, that a system of the sort under discussion, in the course of the last two years, had fallen under his observation, and the result of that experience was favourable. It might, however, be one of those particular cases which the hon. Baronet spoke of, and certainly, in that part of the country the land was very good. Small portions of land had been let at exceedingly high rents, indeed so high, that no landlord could in conscience have demanded, or in practice have had a chance of obtaining from a fanner, namely, at the rate of 3l. an acre, the tenant paying the rates. For a rood, 15s. was paid to the landlord, and 2s. to the poor-rates, and its produce was at least 5l. The crop was generally potatoes; and taking the produce at 100 bushels, producing one with another 1s. a bushel, the result would give a crop valued at 5l. The plan had this advantage, that besides encouraging the labourers to cultivate this rood with the utmost care and economy, it enabled them to bring a new capital of labour into action; for when a garden was brought into a friable state by good culture, it might be kept in that state by two children of from twelve to fourteen years of age, whose labour was thus made profitable, without being brought into the general labour-market. If there were a glut of labour in the parish, a labourer that found his wages too low, would withdraw his portion from the market, and sell himself, as it were, two or three days' labour, for the cultivation of his own garden. Upon this experience he certainly could bear his testimony to the great advantage of spade-husbandry, even where the allotments of ground were at high rents, and placed under careful restrictions.

thought, the hon. Member had entered upon the discussion of questions which must be left to the landlords themselves. He did not pretend to have much experience in these matters, but he knew that if a cottager was not to be a thief, he should have a good-sized garden; for it was too much to expect that he should see his family want; and when once he had broken through the law, there was no saying at what he would stop. Some persons called out down with the rents, and if the House wanted a revolution, be it so, but the country was not in such a condition, that one class of the community could be relieved at the expense of another. He had a petition in his hands, which he should not then present, from a number of the inhabitants of London, at the head of whom was an Alderman, once in this House, complaining of great distress. They state, that their trade and profits are diminished, and that their property is annihilated. He could well believe the statement, for cases came before him as a Magistrate, which fully confirmed it. In one of the London parishes, above sixty householders were lately summoned for non-payment of their rates. A poor woman, the wife of one of them, went to him in tears, and told him, that she had been threatened with a warrant, to compel her to pay the poor-rates. He found upon inquiry, that her husband had been twenty-seven years in the army, but had for some years past set up in a little way of business, and was then unable to go abroad, because he had pawned his hat and coat, to make up a sum to pay the assessed taxes of which the petition he had referred to prayed the repeal: she brought the tax-gatherer's receipt, with a list of all her duplicates. They had begun with pawning little articles of luxury, such as a ring or two; then came coats, shirts, bed, and, finally, bed-covering, and the last article pawned was for 6d. They had submitted to the last extremity rather than go to the poor-house, and wanted only to be excused the poor-rates to make one effort more. The agriculturists could not be relieved at the expense of the trading classes. If the distress were confined to one particular district, the remedy of the hon. member for Surrey, or of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, might, perhaps, be beneficially applied; but the Parliament could not cure the existing grievances by any such means. To talk of putting down rents was sufficient to excite the poorer classes against their landlords. What right had the House to interfere with rents? for men make their own bargains. The farmer had his land too cheap at the beginning of the war, and by the rise of prices, the agricultural interest prospered; since then, we had been retracing our steps, and labourer, farmer, and landlord, had successively felt the effects of it. Rents had come down, and must come down, simply because the farmers could not afford to pay them. In London all leasehold property had been destroyed, some which was of equal value to freehold. In Cheapside, some of the houses, the leases of which cost thousands, could hardly be kept up by dividing them into three or four little shops. The ground-landlord alone in London maintained his station, and he could name persons in the City who received 30,000l. or 40,000l. a year for ground-rents. Bricklayers, carpenters, painters, and all concerned in the building of houses had been ruined, whilst the ground-landlord had still the same rent, and every article he consumed might be had at a cheaper rate. They were told, forsooth, that they ought to send more manufactured goods abroad. In fact, the country did that, and sent 150 instead of 100 pieces of cloth, but got no profit. His conviction was, that the Legislature must either raise prices, or bring down taxation. His hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, must not imagine that he is the only individual anxious to reduce the taxes, for he was desirous of going as far as any man in all practicable reductions. Some of the great pensions must be swept away, if the House wished to avoid those convulsions and revolutions, which must necessarily follow perseverance in extravagance. The country would infallibly be ruined, if the Parliament had not the wisdom, firmness, and honesty, to meet the necessities of the times. When Gentlemen discussed questions about the distress, however disorderly it might be to depart from the particular subject under discussion, entering upon various topics was unavoidable. He rose principally to deprecate this system of debate, deeming it better to have a distinct discussion brought on by a regular notice. The House had been told, that it ought to wait for a general examination of the taxes, and not ask for reductions on particular items; but in that he could not agree, for the House ought immediately to reduce those taxes which affect the middle classes, for if they were in a state of prosperity the lower classes need not fear want of employment. Some persons talked everlastingly about the necessity of importing foreign corn, because they said foreigners would not otherwise take our manufactured goods. But in the last year we imported 3,500,000l. worth of corn, while foreigners had taken 1,000,000l. less of our goods; so that there was scarcely a position in political economy which experience did not contradict. On the 15th February next, he meant to lay upon the Table a string of Resolutions, being a mere statement of facts, to show the nature, extent, and particular periods of the great depreciations in the value of our trade and manufactures.

on moving that the petition be printed, begged to thank hon. Members who had given him their advice, and par- ticularly the hon. Alderman, for his lesson about bringing this subject forward. He could only say, that he was inclined to obey his constituents, from seeing so many false representations going forth as to the inclinations of the agricultural interests. He bowed with deference to the House, but he was bound to say, with perfect courtesy, that the hon. Alderman was not one of those persons who would stop his mouth when expressing the sentiments of his constituents.—Petition to be printed. The hon. Member also presented petitions from the Rector, Curate, Parish Officers, and Inhabitants of Iden, Playden, and Guldeford, for the repeal of the Malt-tax.

knew full well that there were many places in Sussex in which wages were extremely low. He did not say this as a matter of blame to the individuals employing labourers in those parishes, for it was shown before the committee over which he had the honour to be placed, that the lowness of wages arose from there being in some parishes a greater number of labourers than could be employed at an adequate remuneration, and from the poor-laws having being wrested from their original intention, and administered in a manner so different from what they were in the north of England. He hoped that those who had the management of the poor would retrace their steps, for till that were done, it would be impossible that the peasantry could be placed in a comfortable condition.

observed, that the hon. member for Sussex had said, that the agricultural interest must, should, and would have protection. Had the House ever heard the commercial or manufacturing interest declare that they must, should, and would have protection? Was that proper language for any hon. Member to use? Was not the House to consider every measure calmly and deliberately, with a view to the public good; and was the public good to be sacrificed to the violence of the agriculturists?

could not understand why the hon. Member should remonstrate because it had been said, that the agriculturist must, should, and would have protection. He joined with the hon. member for Sussex in that declaration, and thought that he was entitled to the thanks of his constituents for making it. He hoped that the agriculturists might yet be allowed to demand and receive protection.

was sure, that the hon. member for Sussex would retract the expression in the sense put upon it by the hon. member for Bridport in the present distracted state of the country, and especially of the agricultural interest, the use of such language might have the most injurious consequences. There was quite enough excitement out of doors already, without having a seeming sanction given to it by Gentlemen in that House.

thought the language of the hon. member for Sussex such as he had no reason to be ashamed of, and such as would excite the grateful feelings of his constituents. He went further than the hon. Member, for he said, that the agricultural and manufacturing interests, both must, should, and would have protection, for language of that kind the people had a right to address to their Representatives, and their Representatives to address to the House. He was glad, therefore, that the hon. member for Sussex had spoken in so bold, manly, and firm a tone. With regard to the Corn-laws, he must say, that the averages, which form their distinguishing feature, are most injudicious and inconvenient. The agricultural interest had a right to fair protection, but that would be best afforded by a regular equal duty, not liable to be altered by the machinations of the corn-market. There was no doubt that the alteration in the currency had had a great influence on the present condition of the country, and if means were not taken to enable the industrious classes to pay the taxes, the taxes must be reduced. He agreed in what had been said respecting the necessity of doing away with the great sinecures and extravagant exactions that were made to support them. The Returns of such matters, including pensions, on the Table, were very defective, and the omissions ought to be supplied. When the people saw noblemen putting, as appeared by that list, 15,000l. a year into their pockets, they thought, with justice, that it was full time inquiry should be made what they had done to earn so much. The really efficient public officers ought to be liberally and generously paid, as became a great nation, but all sinecures, not granted for public service, he would have cut down without listening to the cry about vested interests. Vested interests, indeed! the vested interests of the people had been shamefully encroached upon; they had been plundered by the creation of sinecure places. He meant to include among them the chief clerkship of the Court of King's Bench, held by a nobleman of the land, who, by being clerk to a Court, put 10,000l. a-year into his pocket. What was that for? He desired to see the dignity and splendor of the aristocracy maintained, but not at the expense of the hard-earned money of the people. If that nobleman had done this country any service, or was doing it any service, he would make no objection; but he put this sum into his pocket, and employed a clerk to do his duty. There was also the hon. member for Edinburgh—that he was not in the House was no fault of his (Mr. Ruthven's).

rose to Order. He put it to the Speaker whether the motion before the House admitted such a debate.

said, when a petition was on the Table, complaining of distress, it was very difficult to say what hon. Members should not speak of, as occasioning that distress. He could not, therefore, support the hon. Baronet in rising to order.

in continuation. He would attend with deference to the suggestion of any Member of that House, and to the decision of the Chair, with the greatest respect and gratitude. At the same time he must say, as he was not touching upon any thing relating to the Church, or Jewish Emancipation, that he did not expect that the hon. Baronet at least would have held him to be out of order. If it could be said that sinecure places did not affect the distress of the people, he was indeed out of order. He was speaking of the hon. member for Edinburgh, who complained the other night, that rumours were abroad of his receiving 7,000l. a year from the country, whereas it was only 5,000l. a year, and of that he had had the great misfortune to lose 400l. on one occasion, and 300l. on another, by the negligence of clerks. He had not much to complain of; but the Representatives of the people had a right to complain of his receiving such a sum. To honourable and distinguished men, who had served their country, he grudged not the rewards they enjoyed, but he did grudge those sinecure pensions to men who had never served their country, and who, most probably, never would do anything to serve it. He felt that a great deal was due to the public on this account; but he hoped that all hon. Members who agreed with him on this subject, would have a little patience, and not annoy Ministers till they had had time to bring forward their measures of retrenchment, for which he was disposed to give them every credit.

observed, that there were few subjects on which so much time was misspent as in deprecating further discussion. When hon. Gentlemen, one after another, deprecated discussion, there was a reasonable ground to be alarmed at the probable length to which it would run. On the presentation of these petitions the House had discussed, at length, the principles of free-trade, the benefits of spade-husbandry, the Poor-laws, and, at length, the abuses of sinecure pensions; while the petition, on which all those questions had been raised, related to the abolition of the duties on malt. He should not have risen, had not the hon. member for Lincoln, and the hon. Member who last spoke, not much in the spirit or feeling of the hon. member for Sussex, got up to reiterate, confirm, and proclaim a phrase that hastily escaped from him, with reference to what he conceived to be the claims of the agriculturist. What the hon. member for Sussex said, unguardedly, they had deliberately proclaimed and enforced. He wished those hon. Gentlemen to consider to what practical, useful end, such language could contribute,—to what could it tend, but to excite the poorer classes? Were there no other interests vested in land besides those of the land-owners? was the occupier of the soil, and was the labourer not to be considered? God forbid that we should ever see the time when the peasantry should be encouraged to say, that they must and would have protection! That sort of language had tended to excite the present disturbances; and he must on all occasions deprecate its use in the strongest manner.

also deprecated the use of any language in the House calculated to excite the labouring population, and especially the agricultural labouring population, in these times of difficulty; but he had no hesitation in stating, that the construction put upon the words of the hon. member for Sussex was perfectly unwarrantable. The hon. Member, in presenting a petition from his constituents, in the ardour of his feelings for their welfare and best interests, stated to the House that, in his opinion, the landed interest must and would be protected. What was the fair parliamentary construction of that phrase? In his mind, and he believed, in every candid and dispassionate mind, it was, that, in the opinion of the hon. Member, it was necessary for the safety of the country, for its best interests, that the agriculturist should be protected; meaning by the landed interest, not the landlord, alone, but the peasantry, and all depending on the cultivation of the soil. That was his conviction of the true construction of the words of the hon. member for Sussex; and he repeated, that they had been misconstrued in a manner which their plain common sense meaning did not Warrant. The hon. member for St. Ives commenced by saying, that he deprecated the introduction of the subject of spade-husbandry into discussion; but he concluded by saying, that he yielded to no man in his conviction of its advantages, especially as he had seen them in foreign countries. Further, Sir, the hon. Member said, "that these were subjects of great and extreme importance; that the subject of the Corn-laws was of extreme importance, but," said he, "they are not subjects to be taken up in this way, but are for the consideration and settlement of the executive Government alone." [Mr. Long Wellesley denied that he meant or said, that the House was not to discuss such questions.] He thought discussions of that nature, in the present times, most interesting and important to the country; and he could not concur with the hon. member for Blechingly, and others, who blamed and remonstrated with the hon. member for Sussex for the use of such words.

said, it would be with regret that he should see the expressions of the hon. member for Sussex go forth to the public unrefracted, as at the present moment they might produce effects much to be lamented. He did not mean to follow the hon. member for London through all the topics of his speech, but he seemed to consider the principal cause of the distresses of the country was low prices. But he begged to say, in contradiction to that, that it was his firm persuasion, that one of the principal causes of that distress was the high price of the necessaries of life.

thought, that the hon. member for Sussex attached no improper meaning to the words he used; but he would suggest to him, that his best course would be, to explain distinctly to the House the measures he proposed for the protection of the landed interest. [Mr. Curteis—Not to night.] He trusted, at any rate, that the hon. Member would not continue to deal in generals, but bring something specific forward for the benefit of the agricultural interest. The same advice might be tendered to the worthy Alderman with respect to the manufacturers, and to the hon. speaker opposite, who spoke of sinecures. There was not a man on the list to which he had alluded, who did not wish to have it fully discussed; and he trusted that any Gentleman who thought that any pension was too large would make a specific motion on the point, and not mislead the public by speaking in general terms. The hon. Member acknowledged that he would be out of order, if the people did not suffer from the two particular sinecures to which he was then alluding. Now, it so happened, that those sinecures were not paid by the people, but by the suitors of the Court, and to strike them off would not reduce the taxes of the country.

said,—in moving that they he upon the Table, he should not attempt to answer separately all the Gentlemen who had addressed him; but he begged to be understood as not having stated anything with respect to labourers in Sussex, that was not correct. There was no doubt great distress in different parts of the country; and many farmers paid lower wages than those he had stated; so that both the hon. member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) and he might be correct. With regard to what was said by the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), he begged to state, most distinctly, to all present, that he did not think that any one could imagine that he was countenancing anything like an appeal to force, or anything but fair petition and just argument. With reference to the words must, should, and would, his opinion was, that the agricultural interest must be attended to, or the country would be ruined; that it should be attended to, would depend upon the exertions of the representatives of the agriculturists in that House; and that it would be attended to, if the House yielded its attention to a just cause.

presented two Petitions from the county of Sussex, so entirely different from that presented by the hon. member for that county, that he felt himself obliged to state the nature of them at some length. The first was from Horsham, and had been in his possession for a considerable time. The hon. member for Sussex stated, that the wages paid to labourers in the part of the county in which he resided, were adequate to 16s. or 18s. a week; but these petitioners stated that they had observed with pain, during a series of years, the gradual reduction of wages, the necessity of the times having compelled the farmer, step by step, to diminish the rate of wages, the consequence of which was, that the condition of the labourer had been materially deteriorated. The petitioners, a respectable class of persons, added that they had witnessed with much grief the gradual impoverishment of the lower classes, who, notwithstanding the heavy pressure of distress for a long period, bore their sufferings without complaint. They added also that the time had now arrived when their distresses and their sufferings could be no longer borne. They went on to state, that the peasantry of the neighbourhood, unable longer to bear their grievances, surrounded the town of Horsham in large bodies, and could not be induced to separate or to return peaceably to their homes, until their employers had agreed to give them an advance of wages. All that this body of the peasantry required was, that their wages should be raised to the rate of 2s. a day, which was a pretty decisive answer to the statement of the hon. member for Sussex, that the wages of the agricultural labouring classes in that county amounted to 16s. or 18s. a week. He could but deplore, that outrages should have been committed, since he was satisfied that the working classes must ultimately be injured by them. The petitioners further stated, that they should be unable to pay the advanced rate of wages which the violence of their labourers had extorted from them, unless they were themselves relieved. They said, that the country required to be relieved from the enormous amount of taxation under which it laboured, and especially that the taxes should be removed from malt, hops, soap, candles, and coals. They hoped, that a practical and constitutional reform of Parliament would take place, believing that no great good could result to the country, and no material improvement take place, until such a reform should be made. They expressed a hope that some appropriation might be made of such parts of the Church property as were not absolutely necessary for the proper support and maintenance of the clergy. They also called upon the House to abolish all useless salaries and unmerited pensions, and to carry retrenchment to the furthest possible extent. That was the substance of the prayer of the petitioners of Horsham. He would proceed to notice another petition, from Selsea, in the same county. signed by every individual of the parish, with the exception of the Rector and six or seven half-pay officers. The latter, of course, deriving their incomes from the Government, did not altogether like to attach their names to a petition of this kind. The reason which induced the worthy Rector to abstain from doing so was a very sufficient one; he was in possession of a very good Living. These petitioners also stated, that they had viewed with great pain the wretchedness and misery to which the labouring poor had been gradually reduced; and they expressed an earnest hope that the House would take into its consideration the subject with a view to devising some measure of relief. They stated, that in their opinion that would be best afforded by a reduction of taxation, and by such a reform of Parliament that every Member sent to the House should be the real representative of the people; for which purpose they were confident that the vote by ballot would be absolutely necessary, in order to protect the poor against the influence of the rich. He was convinced that the statements contained in these petitions were perfectly correct; and could not but think that the high rate of wages mentioned by the hon. member for Sussex, must be limited to a very few parishes. He was sorry that the hon. Member had left the House, because the explanation which he gave was not such an explanation as the occasion required. When he heard one class of the community talking of protection to themselves, and that protection of such a nature as must necessarily operate to deprive others of sharing equally in the necessaries and comforts of life—when he heard from an hon. Member in his place, that that particular class should, would, and must have protection, it was incumbent upon the House to call upon him to explain what be meant, Was it to deprive other classes of that fair protection to which they were justly entitled? Was it to uphold one class at the expense of all others? Was it by giving a monopoly to one to entail distress upon the rest? Was such a line of conduct deserving approbation? Was the language used by the hon. Gentleman not unworthy of a Member of that House? In this point he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Nottingham (Mr. Lumley) whose observations were worthy the attention of every Member. The allegation of the hon. member for Sussex, that the landed interest ought to have protection, or in other words, that Parliament should afford to them the means of keeping up the price of food, could never be assented to by the House; and he must deprecate in the strongest manner the language used by the hon. Member. He said, that the time would never come when the trade in corn could be free, but the time was fast coming, for even now the distresses of the country rendered it imperative on the Legislature to take this subject into its most serious consideration, with a view to opening our markets to foreign corn. Let but the trade in corn be free, and he should not be at all fearful of the country being able to employ a greater population than at present, and maintain them in comparative comfort.

was desirous to see every interest of the country in a flourishing condition; and was not anxious to have one interest protected at the expense of another; but, at the same time, he could not subscribe entirely to the opinions of the hon. member for Middlesex. It was not his intention to trespass on the attention of the House. His only object in rising, indeed, was, to point out the complete fallacy of the averages upon which the admission of foreign corn depends. In July last, it appeared that wheat rose to the price of 64s. per quarter; and the duty paid on the averages struck at that time was 22s. Since then, however, the price of wheat had fallen to 54s. per quarter, but so fallacious was the system upon which the averages were struck, that the same duty was paid now as when the price was 64s. He mentioned this as a proof that the parties benefitted by the present system were not the agriculturists, as was intended by the Legislature, but a certain knot of jobbers and. brokers who contrived to admit or to exclude foreign corn pretty much as they pleased. He gave no opinion as to whether a duty should or should not be levied on corn, but at all events a system which was open to such abuse as that he had described required correction.

cordially concurred in the desire of the petitioners, that the taxes on malt, hops, soap, candles, and coals, should be removed; but he could not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, in advocating so warmly a free trade in corn. If the hon. Member considered the effect that a free trade in corn must have on the agriculturists, he would see how impossible it would be for the farmer to meet the heavy payments of rates required from him. The hon. Member contended, that the benefit of the manufacturer would also be the benefit of the agriculturist. He admitted the truth of that as a general principle, but not when applied to the Corn-laws.

could not entertain so favourable an opinion of the condition of the labouring classes in Sussex, as the hon. member for that county. He was convinced that there was not a single agricultural labourer of Sussex who had not, in one period or other of his life, been obliged to have recourse to the parish for relief. This had been proved in evidence before a Committee appointed by the House, and he therefore entreated the gentlemen of Sussex, who, he was sure, were most anxious to better the condition of the poor, gradually to adopt the system now practised in Northumberland, where, instead of having poor-rates at 6s. in the pound, and wages low, the wages were high and the rates low.

felt much surprise at the language used by the hon. member for Sussex. He did not expect to have heard the Representative of an English county declare in that House, that the landed interests must and should be protected in such a manner as could not fail of being detrimental to the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country.