said he had to present a petition from the borough of Leeds, signed by upwards of 23,000 of the inhabitants of all classes— merchants, manufacturers, bankers, retail traders, artisans, and manufacturing operatives. In presenting this petition, he should conform to the rule laid down by the House for the government of its Members, and state only its material contents; but he must claim the attention of the House to the allegations and to the prayer of this important document, engrossing, as it did, in clear and forcible language, the leading principles, arguments, and facts, upon which the petitions for the repeal of the Corn-laws were generally grounded. The petitioners alleged—

"That all men had an inalienable right to the free exchange of their capital, skill, and labour for the productions of the people of their own and foreign nations; and that all restrictions on the interchange of nations are unjust in principle and injurious in practice. That the welfare of all the industrious classes of the British empire was inseparably bound up with the prosperity of its foreign trade. That the manufacturers of this country for a long series of years had enjoyed great advantages from the amount of their capital, the perfection of their machinery, and the industry and skill of their workmen. These advantages (the petitioners said) were no longer in the exclusive possession of this country, but that the other nations of Europe, wisely availing themselves of twenty-three years of peace, and having accumulated abundant capital to form manufacturing establishments and to train skilful workmen, were not only supplying their home markets with manufactured goods, which in former years they imported from this country, but were successfully competing with the British manufacturers in the common markets of the world. That the formation and consolidation of the manufacturing system of the continent was, in their opinion, in a very great degree attributable to our Corn-laws, which, by excluding grain and other agricultural produce from our ports, which the European nations had alone to offer us, had prevented them from purchasing our manufactures, and compelled them to manufacture for themselves. That they regarded this state of our affairs, as a manufacturing nation, with unfeigned alarm, and they expressed their deliberate and solemn conviction, that in order to maintain successful competition with our foreign rivals, and to preserve the capital of the nation from destruction, either the Corn-laws must be repealed, or the wages of labour in this country would be forced down to the level of the money rates paid for labour on the continent of Europe."

And in conclusion they declared—

"That a large reduction of manufacturing wages, while the Corn-laws are maintained, which enhance the price of the prime necessaries of life from 60 to 70 per cent. above the price of the continent, for the benefit of a small class of the whole community, would not only be productive of severe privation and suffering amongst the vast operative population by which the petitioners are surrounded, but will incite intense and just indignation, threatening the stability and very existence of our social and political institutions."

And they earnestly pray,

"That as a measure of strict justice to all the consumers of food, as the only mode by which the foreign trade of the nation, and the comfort and prosperity of its whole population could be preserved from destruction—as a necessary means to the stability of our social institutions—and as a guarantee for the maintenance of peace amongst the civilised nations of the world, this honourable House would repeal the laws, relative to the importation of foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and carry out to the fullest extent, both as regards agriculture and manufacture, the true and peaceful principles of free trade, by removing all existing obstacles to the unrestricted employment of industry and capital."

In the allegations and prayer of the petition he cordially concurred, and he moved that it should be brought up.

rose to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of the Home Department upon the subject of a statement which had appeared in the public papers relative to a gentleman of the name of Frost, who was a magistrate of the county of Monmouth, and also a delegate to a body now meeting in the metropolis, calling itself the National Convention. It was stated that this individual had received a letter from Lord J. Russell, stating to him, that if he did not withdraw from the proceedings of the Convention he would recommend the Lord Chancellor to remove his name from the commission of the peace. He (Mr. Praed) wished to know whether it was true that official notice had been called to the fact that this magistrate was a member of the National Convention; and whether, after that official notice had been taken, he still continued to be a magistrate?

said it was quite true, that upon observing in the public prints that Mr. Frost had attended public meetings of a violent character, and had been appointed a delegate to the National Convention, he directed a letter to be written to him to account for these circumstances, explaining that it was not with any view to a legal prosecution, but with a view to ascertain whether he ought not to recommend the Lord Chancellor to withdraw his name from the commission of the peace. In Mr. Frost's answer, which was at very considerable length, he stated that he certainly had attended meetings at which there were some speeches made of a violent character, but that he was not answerable for such language, and did not approve of it—that be was a member of a body to be called the National Convention, but that it was a body for the sole purpose of preparing and presenting petitions to Parliament. Upon this explanation he replied, that he should not think it necessary to take any step at present; but that it was the duty of Mr. Frost, as a magistrate, to do all in his power to preserve and respect the peace.

inquired if the noble Lord would have any objection to lay the correspondence upon the table of the House?

replied, that he would rather not answer that question without further consideration.

then intimated that he should repeat the question to-morrow.

then said, that he rose for leave to bring in several bills respecting the administration of justice. The first was a bill for the better ordering of prisons. He had introduced a similar bill in the last Session, but although it had undergone a good deal of discussion in this House, and had eventually passed it with very little opposition, it had been thrown out in the other House. If he were asked to suggest a reason for its being so thrown out, he could only suppose that it was on account of some misconception on the part of their Lordships as to the nature of the powers proposed by the Bill to be given to the Secretary of State, which might have been imagined to have been powers for enforcing rules for the separate confinement of prisoners. That, however, was a misconception; and, with a view to make the intention of the Bill still more clear, he (Lord J. Russell) had altered the words of the clause, by which it would now appear that the power was only to be given to the parties usually authorised to make such regulations, in order to be submitted to the Secretary of State. There was also another provision which he had to propose, to enable the justices of the county, and of boroughs, to contract for prisons in their districts, and thereby the expense of sending prisoners thirty or forty miles be avoided. That provision he proposed to embody in a separate Bill, and therefore he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better ordering of prisons, and a Bill for the establishment of district prisons.

then rose to bring in Bills relating to the Jurisdiction of County Courts and of petty Sessions. He would state very generally the improvements he wished to introduce. It was a subject which, in various shapes, and on various grounds, had attracted the attention both of individuals and of the commissioners appointed by the Crown, and likewise of committees of both Houses of Parliament. Every one had felt that, according to the present state of the law, there was a great deal of unnecessary expenditure, hardship, and delay, in the manner in which persons guilty of very petty offences were dealt with, inasmuch as they were committed to prison for the purpose of being tried at the quarter session, which did not take place for some time after their committal. Upon this subject the county-rate committee, after discussing various propositions, had expressed an opinion against giving any summary power to justices of the peace to inflict punishment with respect to offences termed felonies, and suggested the erection of a separate court, with paid magistrates, empowered to decide on these matters. The Committee of the House of Lords last year, after examining several witnesses, some of whom were certainly entitled as authorities to the highest respect, decided that the present system was exceedingly objectionable, and that it was desirable to give justices the power of summary jurisdiction in cases of larceny. In one of their resolutions the committee stated, that if the exercise of this power should be limited to the cases of young offenders, the whole advantage of it would not be obtained, because a great many of the offences were committed by adults. They therefore proposed that the magistrates sitting in petty session should have the power of summary jurisdiction in cases of larceny. The committee of the House of Commons which sat last year on the subject of the metropolitan police took, on the other hand, a different view of the question. They thought it advisable to give to magistrates the power of summary conviction in some cases, with respect to which they did not at present possess that power; but it was also their opinion, that as this was in principle a great innovation, and as it was depriving the subject in such cases of the right of trial by jury, such change should be introduced with caution, and in the first instance the power should only be confided to stipendiary magistrates having professional experience. There certainly was very great reason for proposing some change on this subject. In the first place, as respected the law, there was not, after the passing of the act introduced by the right hon. Baronet opposite, any longer that ground for refusing summary jurisdiction which formerly existed. The former state of the law was very absurd, for with regard to persons stealing live wood, or guilty of what was now called a malicious trespass, the remedy was not by a criminal proceeding, but by an action for trespass. The bill of the right hon. Baronet gave a power of conviction to magistrates when the property injured was under a small value. The consequence of that measure was, that when wood was cut down and carried away, the justices of the peace might immediately convict and sentence the offender to punishment; but if the offending party cut the wood into fagots and left it on the ground, or as Sergeant D'Oyley had put the case, if he cut the branches one day, and carried them off another, then the jurisdiction of the magistrate ceased, and the offender must be regularly tried at quarter sessions. This was not a satisfactory state of the law; and on the other hand, great evils arose from the imprisonment of persons for trifling offences for a long period previous to their trial. It was desirable that punishment should be speedy, and that the offenders should not before trial be liable to the contamination of a gaol for several weeks. Considering that these evils required some remedy, he proposed to give a power of summary conviction in certain cases of larceny, limiting the punishment, if inflicted by ordinary justices, to six months; and in point of age, limiting the offenders to be so dealt with to persons under fifteen years. With respect to stipendiary magistrates, he proposed to adopt the proposal of the police committee of last year, and to give them the power of summary conviction as well in the case of adults as of younger offenders, to whom he would give the benefit of an appeal, as had been given by one of Sir R. Peel's acts. The House of Lords had proposed that an option should be given to offenders either to be tried at quarter sessions or by a magistrate; but he agreed with Mr. Sergeant D'Oyley in thinking that it would not be right to make this a matter of treaty and negotiation between the court and the offenders. Such a proceeding would be a novelty in the established law of the land; and therefore, in giving the offenders the right of appeal, he was not disposed to allow them the option before trial of selecting their court. In making this change with respect to petty sessions, he likewise proposed, in accordance with the suggestions made both by the commissioners and by individuals to the Government, to introduce greater regularity and form into the proceedings. At present there was a great want of form at petty sessions. Various fees were taken by the clerks, who had no formal appointment, and this circumstance was productive of a great want of uniformity in the administration of the law. He proposed, that there should be regular returns of the number of petty sessions, and of each of the clerks appointed; and that a regular record of the proceedings, with respect to criminal law, should be kept. The two other bills which he proposed to introduce contained the substance of the measure introduced last year relative to county courts. The first bill would empower the Crown to appoint a salaried judge for the purpose of deciding in cases of small debts in various parts of the country. The bill would fix the amount to which the jurisdiction of these courts would extend, as well as the places in which they should be held. His learned Friend the Attorney-General had frequently complained of the number of courts of requests, of the great variety and irregularity in their administration, the proceedings being conducted by commissioners who had no knowledge of the law, and whose attendance was not constant. He thought, therefore, that the country generally would receive with favour an amendment of the law in this respect, and would be glad to see the Crown empowered to appoint such paid judges. He was not, however, sure that there would be the same agreement with respect to the mode in which they should be paid. He proposed, that a return of the fees received should be made to the magistrates at quarter sessions, and that they should fix the salary to be given to the judge not according to the amount of fees; and if the fees did not amount to the salary fixed, that the deficiency should be made up from the county-rate. Of the other part of the bill introduced last year, he now proposed to make a separate bill, and which related to the appointment of a salaried chairman of quarter sessions. Owing to the late improvements in the criminal law, restricting the punishment of death to a few offences, the jurisdiction exercised by the quarter sessions was now more important and extensive than before, and he therefore thought it would be advantageous to have a professional chairman at the head of those courts. He proposed, however, that an option should be left to the magistrates whether they would have a professional chairman, and that only on their application to the Crown should one be appointed. These were subjects of great importance, respecting which, he was anxious to learn the opinion as well of those who had long attended to the question, as of the country generally. It could not be denied, that the rendering justice more speedy, and the lessening of the length of time during which offenders were imprisoned before trial, were subjects which, remote as they were from politics, and exciting but little notice, were nevertheless matters of the greatest importance to the people at large. There having been much discussion on various sides with respect to different systems of prison discipline, he took this opportunity of stating his decided opinion that the system of separate confinement was the best that could be introduced; but finding many difficulties in the way of its establishment, it was his intention to propose a vote in the course of the present year to the House of Commons which would enable the Government to build a prison to be used for the purpose of experiment on the subject. The experiment was wholly new. He thought that some prisons in the United States of North America furnished him with some experience on the subject; but at the same time he did not think, that the minds of the people of this country would be satisfied unless something were done within reach of themselves. He found it still more important to make this attempt at this time, inasmuch as the sub- ject of transportation had been of late so much considered, and was likely to be much less inflicted than formerly. He would give ample time for the consideration of these bills, as he did not wish to hurry them through the House, and he trusted, that whether they were carried in the form in which they were proposed, or after having experienced some modifications, they would be the means of effecting considerable improvement.

did not mean to raise any objection to the measures of the noble Lord in their present stage, but he could not help adverting to the proposition made to pay the justices out of the county-rate. He thought that any attempt to pay the justices in this manner would be received very ill by the country. If the noble Lord would point out some other fund for this purpose than the county-rate, it would give considerable satisfaction. He wished also to call the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances which would affect private bills for the recovery of small debts, in consequence of this motion of the noble Lord. Of course, if his measure should be carried, it would supersede the necessity of introducing any merely local bills; but if it should not pass, the case would be very different.

, in rising to move for the reappointment of the Select Committee on Church Leases, said, that he would not trespass on the time of the House by urging at any length the reasons for its reappointment, and he would content himself by simply stating that the main object was to enable the Committee to decide whether they would report upon the evidence already taken, or call for further evidence. The Committee would consist of the same Members of whom it was composed last session.

did not intend to oppose the renewal of this Committee, but he thought it was equally just and desirable that the Church and the Dissenters, the House and the country, should be made fully aware what was the specific object which her Majesty's Ministers expected or intended to attain through its reappointment. He knew very well that the Committee was originally moved for, in order to ascertain whether, by a different system of management, an improved value might not be conferred upon the property of the Church, through the medium of arrangements which might be beneficial both to the Church and to the lessees. So far all was well, but the great and important question undoubtedly was, to what purpose should any surplus so created be applied? Here it was, that the Church and the Dissenters were entirely at issue—that the hopes of the one party and the apprehensions of the other were excited. Her Majesty's Ministers might perhaps succeed in pleasing neither, but could not possibly satisfy both. Was it their intention to propose that this surplus should be devoted to purposes strictly ecclesiastical? If so, the Church would of course contemplate the renewal of the Committee without any alarm or distrust; but then the Dissenters would consider its renewal as a matter of perfect indifference—nay, even as a source of bitter disappointment. If, on the other hand, her Majesty's Ministers were resolved to propose that this surplus, instead of being dedicated to the promotion or attainment of objects sanctioned by the Church itself, should be diverted to so unjust and preposterous a purpose as that of exempting Dissenters from Church-rates, then indeed the Dissenters might rejoice in the resumption of the Committee's labours; but the Church, and all its friends in both Houses of Parliament, as well as out of doors, must view its reappointment with jealousy and alarm. It was impossible to suppose, that if the Dissenters could thus exact for themselves an exoneration from the payment of Church-rates, they would rest satisfied with accomplishing that object. They might on precisely the same principle insist upon being relieved from contributions to the support of the clergyman who officiated within its walls. The national Church was a national institution; its clergy should be maintained and its fabrics supported at the national expense, and the Dissenters could not on conscientious grounds object to an impost for securing and promoting either object, to which they were liable, not as holding certain principles, but as possessing certain property, which from time immemorial had been liable to that burthen. He knew that the dignitaries of the Church were not disposed to become mere annuitants on their own property; he knew that the clergy were not a little uneasy at the studied silence or cautious ambiguity which her Majesty's Ministers had lately adopted in regard to the appropriation of the surplus which it was now intended to create, and he hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would gladly avail themselves of this opportunity to give explicit information to all parties.

begged to say, that the question to which the hon. Baronet's observations applied had been purposely excluded from the consideration of the committee of last year. The only question to which their attention was directed was whether it was possible to create a surplus, and therefore, the question of the hon. Baronet would be more appropriately put when the Committee had finished its labours.

observed, that there was no doubt that the question might arise, supposing the Committee should report that it was possible to create a surplus, and he, therefore, gave as early an intimation as possible that he adhered to the opinion which he expressed last year, when the motion for the appointment of this Committee was originally made. He begged it to be distinctly understood that he made no concession to the principle upon which that Committee was appointed in offering no opposition to the present motion. The House agreed to appoint the Committee, and the question was fully debated at the time, and it would certainly not be convenient to discuss the question now, whether it should be reappointed, thinking, as he did, that it would be most expedient to pursue the inquiry which had already been partially prosecuted. He could not, however, allow the motion for its renewal to pass without stating that he entirely dissented from the principle upon which the Committee was originally appointed, and that to any attempt to divert any expected surplus from purposes purely ecclesiastical he should give every opposition in his power.

approved of the reappointment of this Committee at the commencement of the Session, and he would take this opportunity of recording his opinion in favour of the measure already proposed to the House by her Majesty's Government. The measure ought to be gladly hailed by every member of the Established Church, because it would give a certain source of revenue for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, it would remove the cause of the strife which had been engendered between the Church and the Dissenters, and would relieve many poor persons who could not at present afford to pay the tax which was imposed upon them.

rose to move for a return of the price of wheat, and he apprehended that when the return was made, it would be found that within the last year the price of corn varied from 52s. 8d. to 78s. 4d., making a difference of exactly 50 per cent., and that in 1835 the price of corn at one time was 36s. 8d., being a difference between the highest price of last year and the lowest price of 1835 of 113 per cent. The use to be made of this fact was this: it showed that the existence of the system of Corn-laws had not answered the purposes for which they were intended. The object of those laws was to give stability in price to the consumer, and a remunerating profit to the farmer; but these objects being confessedly unattained under the present system, he contended that both parties had a deep interest in its abolition. He regretted the other night to hear from the right hon. Baronet opposite the declaration of his opinion that at present there existed no necessity for an alteration, coming, as that declaration did, from a gentleman possessed of so much information and standing so high in that House, and being one whose opinion and authority, connected as he had been with manufactures, would materially influence the issue of this question. He regretted to hear that declaration, and he still more regretted to hear the right hon. Baronet rest a defence of the present system upon the returns which he had read, as indicative of the prosperity which this country enjoyed under the present system of Corn-laws. He would maintain that those returns had nothing to do with the question. He was not aware that the fact of the commerce of the country having recovered from its temporary depression, and resumed its accustomed channels, was a matter of any consequence, and he could see nothing in that circumstance which could affect the question of the abolition of the Corn-laws. He had offered that statement to the House as an indication of the state of commerce in the country, and not as bearing either for or against the policy of the Corn-laws. Neither did he think it expedient to raise any discussion on that occasion upon the subject, and when the right hon. Baronet opposite drew what he must call an unfair conclusion from his statement, he was precluded by the forms of the House from offering any explanation. There were, however, some points to which he had adverted in that statement which had a bearing, and an important bearing, upon this subject. He had shown that there had been an increase in the exports of last year, as compared with the average of the four preceding years, of rather more than 3,000,000l., amounting to about seven per cent. in the whole. But upon looking at the articles in which this increase had taken place, it would be found that it did not show so much manufacturing prosperity as the right hon. Baronet seemed to think. Thus it would be found, that there had been an increase of 158,000l. in the export of sheep's wool, an article to produce which there was no labour applied; the increase in the exports of coal and culm was 180,000l.; of salt, 57,000l.; of iron and steel, 686,000l.; and of copper bars and other metals, 284,000l.; making altogether an amount of 1,375,000l., and exhibiting an increase in the export of articles on which a very small quantity of labour was bestowed. Another class of articles in which there was an increase was yarn, on which labour was only partially bestowed. Thus, there was an increase of 56,000l. in woollen yarn, of 368,000l. in linen yarn, and of 1,430,000l. in cotton yarn, making an excess over the four preceding years of 1,854,000l. But when we came to the manufactured article the case was altered. In the cotton manufacture there was an increase of only four per cent., in linen nineteen per cent., and in woollen there was a decrease of 385,000l., or about six per cent. In hardware and cutlery there was also a diminution of thirteen per cent. It was considered by the opponents of the Corn-laws that these facts had an important bearing upon the question, as showing that the manufactures of the country were not in a prosperous condition. They also tended strongly to show that the manufactures of other countries were increasing rapidly, and that other countries so regulated their laws as to allow the admission of the raw or partially manufactured material, and enabled their people to supply themselves, while they made no demand for the finished products of our industry. It could hardly be contended by the right hon. Baronet that we ought to wait till our commerce was obviously on the decline before we introduced any alteration in the present system, as he apprehended that it would be too late then to recover our lost ground. It was a notorious fact that our merchants and manufacturers felt and complained of the competition which foreign countries were now enabled to maintain with them. Those countries could now not only supply themselves, but by sending their surplus produce to other parts of the world they were enabled to undersell us in the foreign market, owing to the cheapness with which they could afford to furnish their goods. We had excluded the corn and the timber of Prussia from our markets, and the consequence had been, that a hostile feeling had been generated in that country against the English, and Prussia had been enabled to consolidate a league in Germany, which could not fail materially to injure the manufacturers of Great Britain. British manufactures were not so extensively exported to that country as they formerly had been, and the policy of those countries which formed the Germanic league was to limit their importations to British yarns. With respect to the United States, the manufacturers of England were subjected to a similar course of policy. Formerly the manufactures of this country were admitted into the United States on payment of a duty of twelve per cent., but that duty was afterwards raised to twenty-five per cent., and ultimately much higher, and that course the Americans had been driven to adopt in consequence of our excluding their agricultural produce from our markets. In a despatch from Mr. Addington, in the year 1824, it was distinctly stated, that the Americans would not have adopted such a course, that they would not thus have increased their duty on British manufactures, but for the prohibition which the Legislature of this country had enacted against the importation of corn from the United States. But, independent of these considerations, he would ask why the manufacturers of this country should be subjected to a burden of the nature imposed upon them by the Corn-laws? If other countries could procure food at a cheaper rate than it could be obtained in England, the consequence would inevitably be, that in the contest which was going on betwixt the different manufacturing countries of the world England would be defeated. It might be thought that when the commerce of the country was on the increase, there was little necessity for interfering with the Corn-laws; but the manufacturers saw the danger which awaited them, and he could not think that it was wise to refuse to their earnest requests an inquiry into a subject in which they felt the deepest interest. For himself, he believed the Corn-laws were not necessary for the protection of the agriculturists, for in this country, where the amount of wealth was so great, and where luxurious habits prevailed to such an extent, he could not conceive that ever the agriculturists could want a market for their produce or their labour. He would, therefore, urge the House to give the prayers of the manufacturers on this important question their most attentive consideration: he could not but express a hope that the Legislature would repeal those laws effectually and for ever. He trusted also, that the House would not refuse to hear evidence at the bar, but that they would listen to every statement tending to illustrate the evil tendency of the Corn-laws which might be made, in order that they might be able to arrive at a satisfactory determination on a subject of so much importance, and in order to satisfy the minds of those who were afraid that the continuance of those laws would seriously injure the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a "Return of the prices of wheat, as inserted in the Royal Gazette, for every week in the year 1838; and a similar return for each of the four preceding years; the whole arranged in corresponding columns."

said, that he had not the slightest objection to the course adopted by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He had no objection to the production of the returns which had been moved for, and he must say that nothing could be more natural than for the hon. Gentleman to attempt—although the attempt must be perfectly useless—to remove the impression which was made, not on his mind alone, but he would venture to say on the mind of every person who had heard, and of every one who had read, the important statement which, on the first night of the Session, the hon. Gentleman had made to the House. He was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should wish to remove the impression made by that statement, because of its material bearing on the important question of the Corn-laws, and because of its tendency to destroy the force of the strongest argument of the opponents of the existing Corn-Laws—namely, that the manufacturing interests was in danger from the continuance of the existing system. The hon. Gentleman's arguments went to show the fallacy of such a position, and to prove that the manufacturing interests were in a most prosperous condition; and he was not therefore surprised that the hon. Gentleman should wish to explain away the force of the declaration which he had, unintentionally no doubt, made on the first night of the Session. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the speech which he had made after the hon. Gentleman. Now, he had no objection that the hon. Gentleman should set himself right with those persons whose interests he advocated, and whose views he supported, and if the hon. Gentleman could, he should even be willing to allow the hon. Gentleman to set himself right with those persons at his expense; but still he could not help thinking that the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman was not quite fair. He could understand how the speech which the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester had delivered on the first night of the Session had produced a strong sensation in Manchester, and if the office which the hon. Gentleman held was elective, he could conceive the reason for his anxiety to remove the impression which his statements had made in certain quarters. He could imagine that the hon. Gentleman would not be able to pass the northwest corner of Palace-yard, on his way to or from the House, without hearing disagreeable questions from certain persons assembling in that neighbourhood, which, after the statement he had made on a former night, he would have some difficulty in answering satisfactorily, and he was in no degree, therefore, surprised that the hon. Gentleman should attempt, if he could, to reinstate himself in the good opinion of those whose interests he represented, and of those by whom he had been elected to the office of president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, But he (Sir R. Peel) felt that this attempt must be vain, and that it would be impossible for the hon. Gentleman to obliterate, by any after-statement, the impression which his declaration on the first night of the Session had made. The hon. Gentleman complained that he had not entered on the general question of the Corn-laws on the occasion to which he alluded. But on the first night of the Session it was impossible to discuss every important question, and many parts both of our domestic and foreign policy necessarily remained untouched during the discussion on the address. That was not the proper time for discussing the general question of the Corn-laws, but during the debate on the address he had distinctly stated that he adhered in every part, and in all their fulness, to the opinions which he had expressed on the subject of those laws in the years 1828 and 1829—namely, that it was for the interest as well of the manufacturer as of the agriculturist—that it was for the general interest of the community—that the public mind should not be agitated by discussions on this important subject, and that they should adhere to the existing system. He was quite aware that the present was not the proper time to raise a discussion on this great question. Every person in that House must feel that the present was not the occasion on which he ought to say anything which could give rise to a debate, and he was sure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would agree with him that a more fitting opportunity would soon arrive for the discussion of this most important subject. He was sure the sense of the House would be against such a course of proceeding, and he should therefore limit himself to the single point of setting himself right with the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the present motion, and with explaining to the House and to the country, the arguments which he had founded on the statements made by the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester on the first night of the Session. He had expected that those who advocated a change in the existing system of Corn-laws, and who pressed for their abolition, would have brought forward as their chief argument evidence amounting to proof, that the manufacturing interests were suffering the greatest depression, that the shipping of the country was diminished and diminishing, and that the internal trade of the nation was less prosperous than it had formerly been. Such, he expected, would have been the arguments of those who advocated the abrogation of the Corn-laws; but he was greatly relieved, and he was sure that the manufacturers as well as the agriculturists, throughout the country, must have been greatly relieved, by the statement made by the hon. Seconder of the Address, that the manufacturing interests was most prosperous, that the amount of shipping was on the increase, and that the internal trade of the country was also prosperous. Those statements, coming from the quarter they did, was a most gratifying declaration; and all the arguments which had been adduced on this subject on the first day of the Session, went to confirm that declaration. Those arguments, one and all, told the farmers, as plainly as words could, that the manufactures and commerce of the country were in a most satisfactory state, and that their opponents admitted that trade was prosperous, and rapidly on the increase. The admissions and statements of the President of the Chamber of Commerce were most important, and he was anxious to bring them before the House as correctly as possible. They were most important, and the more so, because they came from an unwilling advocate of the existing system, and were advanced, no doubt, unintentionally; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would allow him to state the grounds upon which he had founded the arguments of which the hon. Gentleman complained. The President of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester on the first night of the Session, said,

"The House would, perhaps, indulge him for a short time, whilst he referred to the present state of the manufactures and commerce of the country. Two years ago great commercial distress and the utmost uneasiness prevailed in all branches of trade."

Now, he thought he had heard the hon. Gentleman add—"but the House would be glad to hear that this state of things had passed away, and that the commerce of England, at the present moment, was in a most satisfactory condition." Now, he for one, felt the greatest relief from that statement; but he thought he had also heard the hon. Gentleman say—"he did not recollect any former period of commercial embarrassment at which the return to a healthy state of commerce, and of comparative prosperity, followed so rapidly on the depression." Could anything be more satisfactory than such a statement, coming as it did from one who must have had the best opportunities of making himself acquainted with the condition of our trade and commerce? But he had further heard the hon. Gentleman state, that in the fifteen or seventeen principal articles of trade there had been a great and growing increase. He thought he had heard him say, that in the article of linen the increase amounted to 19 per cent.; that in silk the increase was 2½ per cent., and that the aggregate increase in the export of the principal objects of British manufacture of the year 1838 over the average of the four preceding years, was 7¾ per cent. But the hon. Gentleman said, that he (Sir R. Peel) ought not to argue that, because, in 1838, there was an increase over 1837, that therefore the country was in a state of absolute prosperity, and required no alteration of the Corn-laws in order to protect the manufacturing and commercial interests. But he never could have used that argument. He never could have compared 1837, a year of depression, with 1838, when there was an increase; for the hon. Gentleman himself had taken the four preceding years, and compared them with 1838, and it was the hon. Gentleman's own statement which he had adopted. The hon. Gentleman had said,

"He did not think that 1838 was an improper year to contrast with the four preceding years in order to show that the depressed state of our manufactures no longer existed. The years 1834 and 1835 were years of steady prosperity, 1836 was a year of overtrading, and 1837 a year of great depression,"

And he (Sir R. Peel), had taken the four years chosen by the hon. Gentleman, and which he had compared with 1838; and it was upon the hon. Gentleman's own statements of the increase in those years that he had founded his arguments. The hon. Gentleman had also said, that

"His attention had been called to the shipping interest, and he was happy in having it in his power to lay before the House particulars exhibiting the state of the shipping of England, which, though it was represented a few years ago to be in a state of great embarrassment and adversity, had now assumed a vigorous condition and was rapidly extending."

Now, hearing those arguments, and con- sidering moreover the high authority whence they came, and the weight to which they were consequently entitled, he had ventured humbly to caution the House against agitating the public mind by discussions on the important question of the Corn-laws, and against taking any precipitate step for the repeal of these laws, when their opponents admitted that the manufactures, the commerce, and the trade of England, were in a most prosperous condition. That was a just and natural argument; but whether the hon. Gentleman would assent to the conclusion which he had come to, he very much doubted. He would not, however, enter on the subject at any great length, as his single object was to show that he had said nothing on a former night which was not entirely warranted by the arguments contained in the hon. Gentleman's own speech. The statements he had made were, perhaps, involuntary. It was, no doubt, his intention to support his own view of the question, and to advance arguments hostile to the existing Corn-laws; and if the hon. Gentleman was, by the warmth of his feelings, induced to make a statement which the hon. Member regretted, he could not feel surprised that the hon. Member should wish to set himself right with those whose opinions he represented. The conclusion, however, which he had drawn from the statement made by the President of the Chamber of Commerce, was the natural argument from the premises it contained, and that statement had left on his mind an impression that the hon. Gentleman had done more to uphold the existing system than all that had been done by its open and avowed supporters.

"Via prima salutis,

(Quod minimè reris), Graiâ pandetur ab urbe."

The statement was the more important, because the hon. Gentleman was an involuntary advocate; and he might depend upon it, that while that statement remained, all the motions he might make, all the explanations he might give, and all the arguments he might advance, would be completely insufficient to remove the impression which it had made on all men not entirely committed on the subject. That statement must have confirmed those who were formerly wavering in their support of the Corn-laws, must have removed the doubts of those who hesitated and had not made up their opinion, and convinced all men that the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country were in the most flourishing and prosperous condition. All those, again, whose minds might have been unsettled by the statement so generally advanced by the opponents of the Corn-laws, that the manufacturing and shipping interests were suffering, must have had their minds relieved, and must have been convinced that the manufacturing and shipping interests, and the internal trade of the country, were such as to remove every cause of gloom.

would intreat hon. Members opposite not to come to the conclusion hastily, that because our exports during the last year assumed the aspect stated, it followed as a matter of course that upon every article exported a profit had been reaped, or that the manufacturer was necessarily in a prosperous condition. He did not mean to enter, any more than the right hon. Baronet had, into a general discussion on the Corn-laws, but he might be allowed to advert to an article of deep importance to those whom he represented. He could, if necessary, touch upon every article mentioned by the hon. Member for Kendal, in the tabular statement he had laid before the House, but it was his intention to confine his observations solely to one great object—the article of cotton-twist. There were Gentlemen in the House representing other great interests in the country, and he would not trespass on their ground, by speaking of facts and circumstances, connected with other branches of manufacture. With respect, however, to the large increase in the exportation of cotton-twist, whatever conclusion might be drawn from the fact of that increased exportation, it was only due to himself and his own constituents to state what his own impression on the subject was; and he had the satisfaction of knowing, that he was speaking in the presence of Members on the other side of the House, called on to represent interests similar to those he represented—Gentlemen practically acquainted with the different branches of cotton manufacture—and if anything should fall from him of an extravagant nature, he hoped those Gentlemen would set him right. With respect to the increase of cotton-twist, the conclusion he (Mr. Phillips) came to was this, that instead of seeing any thing cheering, he drew conclusions from it far from satis- factory.—It was well known, and indeed was stated by the hon. Member, for Kendal in seconding the Address, that we had suffered the greatest possible disruption of credit, and had suffered from the suspension of trade in the United States in 1837. We had consequently lost in the American market a demand for cotton manufactured goods from this country; and it was not to be supposed that the manufacturers of Manchester were disposed to supply further goods to men who were then in their debt. What, therefore, was the position of the spinner? He was reduced to this dilemma; he found that under all circumstances it was better for him to continue his machinery in operation than to permit it to lie still. It was practically ascertained that his loss was greater if he allowed his machinery to stand still than if he went on working it. He was therefore compelled to go on, and was producing twist in the same quantities as in the preceding year, but he failed in finding a market for that manufacture. The merchant was not to be found as a purchaser, from the circumstance that he had lost his customer in the United States, and the spinner was driven to export his produce; might it not happen that his property could not be disposed of without a great loss a year ago? However, he would bind himself to say that if evidence was to be examined at the bar of that House that his statements would be established by facts, and arguments not very easily to be controverted. He would be bound to say that that evidence would show, that the manufacturers had been compelled from their large stock to export their articles, and that thus the foreign market had been glutted, and the operations of the spinner rendered profitless; in short, he drew conclusions exactly opposite to those drawn by the right hon. Baronet. He regretted, that the hon. Member did not make his statements with a qualification on the first night of the Session, it would have placed the state of the measure in a much clearer light than that in which it now appeared to be regarded by hon. Members opposite. There was one other subject to which he wished to allude, and that was the increase which had taken place in the exports of some of the metals. He did not agree with some hon. Gentlemen in the extent to which they went as to the exportations of iron. It would be found on investigation that a considerable portion of the increased export was in the shape of iron rails for railways. As regarded the other portions which had gone for the purpose of furnishing our opponents on the Continent with the means of manufacturing machinery, he did not hesitate to say, if he could separate the portion of the increase applied to that object, he should deplore to see an increase in that which he was perfectly convinced was intended to be applied to purposes which would ultimately prove detrimental to us. He had presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, signed by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Wood), and if any individual in the House thought that his hon. Friend differed in opinion from the manufacturers at Manchester, they did him great injustice. Before he sat down he begged to refer hon. Members opposite to some of the allegations of the petition. They particularly directed the attention of Parliament to the fact that foreign competition at this moment had arrived at such a pitch, with respect to foreign hosiery, that this country only exported one-fourth of that which was exported by the Saxon manufacturers, and that we had scarcely any hold of the markets of the United States, three fourths of which were supplied by the Saxon manufacturers. He earnestly entreated the attention of hon. Members opposite to the inquiries which must be made, to the extent to which machinery was carried on on the Continent—manufactured, as the petitioners stated, from the most recent improvements introduced into this country, placing the foreigner in this position, that he could take advantage at once of all the improvements at which the manufacturers of this country had arrived step by step. They did not therefore meet us on fair grounds. The importance of the subject was such, that he hoped and trusted that it would be debated with calmness and deliberation. He trusted hon. Members would see the necessity, in a question which occupied so much public attention, of sifting it with the utmost vigilance, and he trusted they would not refuse to receive evidence at the bar of the House in support of his petitions.

begged to offer an observation or two as to the state of the woollen manufacturers. In 1838, as compared with the four preceding years, there was a decrease in the quantity of exports to the amount of 385,000l., and that year had been represented as one of prosperity. In Saxony, and other parts of the continent, the woollen manufacturers were gaining ground, and the effect was, to produce much uneasiness for that ancient manufacture of this country, once so important, but now a declining manufacture—declining, he sincerely believed, from the existence of the Corn-laws, because we could not enter into competition with those who manufactured this article on the Continent of Europe. With respect to the exportation of wool, it might be thought that this was an advantage to this country, but when it was considered, that it was exported for the purpose of nurturing and bringing up rival manufacturers, instead of that being a matter of congratulation, it ought to be a matter of deep regret. On comparing the four years preceding 1838, there had been an increase in the export of our sheep and lambs' wool to no less an amount than fifty-seven per cent, these having been, on averaging these four years, in the former instance 374,000l., and in the last year the export was 432,000l.; so that, although it had been represented by his hon. Friend, that there had been an increase of exports, in reality that increase was, so far as related to the manufactures of the country, a disadvantage, and not an advantage. There was another subject to which he might shortly advert. Formerly, at the German wool fair, the English were the great purchasers, lately the English had been only third-rate purchasers. Why was this? Because the English manufacturers were decreasing while the Continental manufacturers were increasing. No subject could be more clearly demonstrated than that the exports of this country indicated rather decay than prosperity, particularly in the export of raw materials. He would also state to the House another fact. In the Leipsic fair, for the four years before the German commercial league was formed, the quantity of woollen cloth exhibited for sale was 50,000 ends, about 25,000 pieces. In the last year the quantity of woollen cloths exhibited for sale, and manufactured in Germany, was 350,000 ends, making an increase of somewhere about 600 per cent. Now, these were not facts made to support a particular theory, but they were facts which related to the decay of our manu- factures, and that decay arising out of the circumstances of the taxes on some articles being from 60 to 70 per cent, higher here than on the manufactures of the continent. He did not know what weight the House might choose to give to these facts. He believed them to be facts, and had the best authority for his statements—for where he could possess himself of official information he had always done so. With respect to the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal, he must admit that there was nothing very unfair in the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) making the statements which he had made, founded on the representation of the hon. Gentleman. He thought it was very natural that an advocate for another view of the subject should have made that statement, but it was clear that though there might be a general prosperity, taking the aggregate of all our exports there might be a decrease with regard to our manufacturing prosperity. In order to sustain that view he had ventured to present these facts to the House; he hoped the House would not agree to the conclusion at which the right hon. Baronet had somewhat hastily arrived—conclusions which he would not have come to had the right hon. Baronet analyzed those extracts with more care.

said, it certainly did seem rather extraordinary that upon the motion of his hon. Friend (if he would allow him to call him so) the Member for Kendal, for returns of the average prices of corn for every week during a certain period specified, a motion that was not likely to lead to any discussion, that not only his hon. Friend should come down with a vindication of his former statements, but that other hon. Gentlemen should be prepared with figures for the purpose of entering into partially (and it necessarily must be very partially) the whole state of the manufacturing interest of this country on such an occasion as this. He was not going into any details, far less would he go into the general merits of a question of such vast importance as the Corn-laws, and its bearing upon the manufactures of England. He did not pretend to have any acquaintance with that branch of industry, the woollen manufacture. But by a most singular coincidence they were again furnished with a valuable statement on the authority of the hon. Member for Leeds, because that hon. Member did not omit to state that there had been a considerable decrease in the exportation of woollen manufacture. But, said his hon. Friend, with that spirit of fairness which characterized all his statements, true the House must be led by this statement to understand that manufactures have decreased, but that must not be taken as a proof that the woollen market was in a state of decrease, far less that any decrease in the manufacture must be attributed to the Corn-laws. But, said the hon. Member, the woollen manufacture has declined, and I will tell you why: there has been a vicious system of banking in the United States. There had been great distress in America; the Americans were great consumers of woollen goods, but the distress caused by the banking system had rendered it impossible for them to deal to the same extent. [Mr. G. W. Wood had made no allusion to that subject]. He begged his hon. Friend's pardon if he had in any way misrepresented what he had said. But this he was confident his hon. Friend would not deny: in stating the depression of the woollen trade, he cautioned the House against considering that as a proof of the decline in the want of manufactured woollens, but as an indication of the distress among the best customers, which rendered them incapable of taking our manufactured goods at the former prices. He quoted from memory and therefore would not he too positive; but his hon. Friend was reported to have said, with regard to woollen manufactures,—"The exports of these articles had experienced a decline to the extent of 6 per cent, a circumstance which he believed was entirely attributable to the fact, that a large proportion of our woollen exports went to the United States and to that country not having been able, during the past year, to take anything like her usual proportion of this part of our manufactures. That was a depression which he had no doubt would be removed in the present year." The hon. Member for Leeds seemed to think it a matter for deep lamentation that there had been an increase in the exportation of British wool of 58 per cent., because, that tended to show, that other manufacturers availed themselves of our raw material. He spoke from memory, but he believed, that the importation of cotton into Liverpool would show a great increase, an increase to the extent of 1200 per cent. In 1831 the increase was 4,000 bags; it had gone on increasing to 8,000 and from that to 24,000, and from that to 48,000, and last year 50,000 bags more of the raw material were imported than in 1831. The hon. Member for Manchester had contended, that if it could be shown, not that the amount of our manufactures had increased, but that machinery had increased for the purpose of increasing manufactures, there would be a ground for saying, that our manufactures were prosperous; but in point of fact the manufacturers have for the last two or three years been going on exporting at a loss. Now, it was possible that that might be the case. It might be that men with a large amount of capital embarked in business, would submit to a loss of two-thirds for a time; but it was incredible, that if it were notorious to the whole country and to the manufacturing interest that business would be carried on for two years at a loss, it was incredible that during those two years an almost unheard-of amount of capital was embarked in new mills and factories, which had risen up on every side to an amazing extent. He was not then about to enter into details upon that subject, but he believed there was not a town in Lancashire in which there was not an increase of factories and mills for manufactures; and from information for which he was indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston, it appeared, that in the course of 1836 and 1837 there were built no less than nineteen new cotton factories in the town of Preston alone, involving the building of 1,500 new houses for workmen, and that one of those factories alone cost 60,000l. It seemed to be incredible and impossible, that in one new town during these two years of notorious distress they should see nineteen new competitors coming into the market, building 1,500 houses for the workmen, and expending 60,000l. upon a factory. He begged pardon for trespassing on the House on that occasion, and would leave these facts to speak for themselves.

said, the noble Lord, in commenting on the speech of his hon. Friend, had done so with all his usual dexterity, but with scarcely his usual fairness. He had thought proper to assert that his hon. Friend's speech did not at all go to remove the impression which those facts which had been stated the other night had a tendency to create. That was not giving a fair impression of the speech of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend did not deny now what he had then asserted, with respect to the increase of our exports, but gave an explanation at which he was surprised. He now said, that instead of the amount of exports being the cause of congratulation, they were good ground of alarm. He said that every year cotton twist of finer and finer qualities was exported, showing that the foreign manufacturers were acquiring the art of manufacturing that article into fabrics. He begged to state this as the case of the advocates of the repeal of the Corn-laws. Their case rested merely on this ground—the increasing prosperity of the foreign manufacturer. The opponents of the Corn-laws asserted, that the foreign manufacturers were increasing in skill continually—that they would shortly rival us, and rival us successfully. And it was with such a prospect before us, that he agreed with his hon. Friend, that the increase in our exports this year, and the character of such increase, were calculated rather to excite alarm. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord, he (Mr. Clay) quite agreed that they had a right to assume, where men would embark capital, that there was a profit; but our exports had not at all increased in proportion with the increase of population.

said, that in his judgment the noble Lord must be mistaken in the statement which he had made; and from his knowledge of that part of the country, he thought it would be impossible to show that nineteen new factories had been erected, not in Preston, but in the whole of the cotton manufacturing districts within the period the noble Lord had mentioned. There had been considerable prosperity in that branch of trade prior to 1836, and then, undoubtedly, several new factories were built; but he was certain, that within the last two years nothing of the kind had taken place. Oldham he knew to be in a state of lamentable depression, and, as far as his information extended, he was convinced, that the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester was perfectly true, and that manufacturers had been obliged to export their goods at a sacrifice. Although this was so, still they went on, but this fact only showed the danger of such statements as those which the hon. Member for Kendal had made. He did trust that such statements would not induce the House to refuse in- quiry into the Corn-laws, because it was most important that some investigation on that subject should take place.

said, that he had stated, that in the building of those large factories it was not only requisite to enter into arrangements for building them before the time of erection, but he had likewise stated another observation to the noble Lord opposite—namely, that during the last year there were no additions to the number of factories in the course of erection. He was to leave town, tomorrow, to attend a large meeting at Preston, and be hoped he should have the satisfaction on his return to explain the real state of trade there.

in reply, was understood to say, it would have been very easy to have pointed out, that the great increase which prevailed was in the raw material, on which no labour was bestowed except by the foreign manufacturers. The hon. Member had referred to the banking system in America. He had made no reference to the banking system in America. He had said there was great distress in this country, and we ought to find a remedy for it; but that did not arise from any error on the part of the manufacturers. He thought, that the information he had been laying before the House, whether for better or worse, was matter of importance and that, therefore, the arguments on both sides of the question should be taken into consideration. The petitioners apprehended, and the documents which he had read proved in a very satisfactory way the reality of those dangers which they apprehended, from the competition of the manufacturers abroad.

said, that, however he might differ from the hon. Gentlemen opposite upon other points, he should say, that he thought such a bill would be productive of much advantage. The police were a most meritorious force, and he should feel it his duty to suggest at a future stage of the bill, that there should be an increase of the present amount of pay. When he considered the amount of pay in Bristol, in Liverpool, in Manchester, and other large towns, and when he recollected the efficiency of the London police force, he was convinced, that in justice to that body, they ought to increase the pay, for they had more arduous duties to perform, and they did so in a manner which gave universal satisfaction. At present they were ill requited for their important duty. He felt so strong a sense of the injustice which was done to the police force by insufficient remuneration, that he considered himself called upon to direct the attention of the House to the subject, and in doing so he should remark, that he never received a single complaint in relation to the pay from any one connected with that body. It was most important, that the House should adopt his suggestion, by which means they could ensure the services of a good and faithful body of men, whose conduct was such as to merit the praises of all. He should bring forward a suggestion to this effect at some future stage of the bill.

wished to be informed whether the proposed bill was to be founded upon the report of the committee which had sat last year? The country was indebted to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, for the attention which he had devoted to the subject, and the information he had elicited. He apprehended, that the bill of the right hon. Gentleman had for its object the extension as far as possible, of the Metropolitan Police Act. That act had given the greatest satisfaction. Indeed, the only persons who had cause to be dissatisfied with it were the thieves and rogues. He apprehended, that the proposed bill would not materially alter an act which had been universally approved of, and which had been found so efficient,—Leave given.

in presenting some papers to the House by command of her Majesty relating to the treaty of commerce recently entered into between this country and Austria, would take the opportunity to remark on some observations which had been made in another place, and by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who seemed to have misunderstood the nature of the treaty. It had been stated, that the treaty was substantially the same as the treaty of 1829. The treaty of 1829 was, like this treaty, a treaty of reciprocity with regard to the navigation of the ships of the two countries. But the treaty of 1829 specifically excepted the Austrian commerce from the benefit of the treaty. This treaty extended to that commerce the benefit of the treaty. This treaty also permitted Austrian ships to bring to British ports the produce of those portions of Asia and Africa which lay in the Mediterranean after the produce should have been brought to an Austrian port. By the treaty of 1829 an Austrian vessel would not have been entitled to the benefit of the treaty coming to an English port from an Austrian port, if it had not brought the produce of Austria, but the produce of Asia. This was the enlargement of the treaty. Another point was, that the benefits of the treaty were, by mutual consent, applied to the ships of either party coming not direct from the ports of the other country, but from any ports above Galacz—that was, the Turkish ports above the Danube. By this treaty there had been effected a great and important change in the commercial system of the empire of Austria; because for a very great length of time the old principle of the Austrian tariff was a principle that, except in favour of certain articles, was a system of prohibition. The Austrian Government had determined to change that system, and to substitute for the system of general prohibition, a system of universal admission on the payment of reasonable import duties. So that not only did this treaty contain very important provisions for enlarging the sphere of commerce of the two countries, but the Austrian Government, taking an enlarged view of commerce, had effected that very important change. He considered that these two treaties, the treaty of Austria and the treaty of Turkey, would open a very great and increased field for the commercial industry of this country, and that these treaties were likely to be attended with very great advantages to the commerce of this country. It was also a satisfaction to think that they would be even more beneficial to the commerce of the two countries with which they were effected, for he was persuaded that the commerce of Austria and Turkey would derive even more benefit from them than this country. This country was indebted greatly to our two Ambassadors for the zeal with which they had conducted the very long and difficult arrangements which had conduced to this result. It was not merely sufficient that the Government should be willing to co-operate with us in carrying this object into effect, but it was obvious that a great number of local difficulties and prejudices had to be surmounted. And he was bound to say that, not only was great credit due to Sir Frederick Lamb and to Lord Ponsonby for the important share they had taken in this affair, but that Mr. M'Gregor, who had been employed under Sir F. Lamb in the negotiation at Vienna, and Mr. Henry Bulwer, who had been employed in the affair under Lord Ponsonby at Constantinople, had also rendered very important services to this country.

said, the noble Lord had quite misunderstood him if the noble Lord supposed that he had said one word in disparagement of these treaties, especially as to that with Austria. With regard to the treaty with Turkey, the design and principle of which he held to be good, he was only afraid that, in the present social state of that country, very great difficulties, perhaps a complication of the political relations of this country, would arise. This, however, would not be the fault of the treaty, but of the condition of Turkey at present. As to Austria, he was quite aware that the present treaty went beyond that of the year 1829, and he had not attempted or intended to represent it as a mere renewal of that treaty. What he (Sir R. Peel) had said was, that he thought that the hon. Gentleman, in omitting to state that the treaty made in 1829 was the same in principle, had concealed an important fact. This treaty was in principle the same as that signed in 1829 by his noble Friend the Earl of Aberdeen. The traffic with Malta and other places in the Mediterranean provided for in the present treaty was not alluded to in the treaty of 1829, and he had expressly stated on a former occasion that the increase and improvement in steam navigation would naturally account for this extension of the principle contained in the treaty of 1829. But he wished to ask the noble Lord whether English commerce could fully avail itself of the opening which the treaty held out without some concurrent arrangement with Turkey—in other words, whether there were not ports in the Mediterranean over which Turkey might have a control, and therefore whether it was not in the contemplation of her Majesty's Government to invite Turkey to enter into an engagement by which the full advantage of the Austrian treaty would be secured.

replied, that no such concurrence as that hinted by the right hon. Baronet would be necessary, and he (Lord Palmerston) would simply explain why it would not be so. The object of the treaty was to give the same privilege to the ships of each country in direct trade with the two countries—that was to say, that Austrian ships from Austrian ports should be received in British ports as British vessels, and that British ships from British ports should be received in Austrian ports like Austrian vessels. But the treaty contained a restriction to this effect, that either Austrian or British vessels coming from Turkish ports in the Danube should be admitted into the ports of either country as if they came from ports of their own countries. Therefore, the right hon. Baronet would see that no engagement was necessary between Austria and England as to the footing on which ships coming from ports in the Danube should proceed.

inquired, whether it would not be in the power of Turkey, if so inclined, to impose restrictions on the navigation of the Danube, so as to interfere with the advantages held out by this treaty, unless Turkey was concurrent in the treaty?

I apprehend it will not.

observed, that there was another point which had not been touched upon, to which he begged to call attention. He wished to ask whether Austrian ships could bring goods, the produce of Asia or Africa, to English ports? This, under the old navigation laws could not be done, and it had been suggested to him, that a clause had been introduced into a bill of last Session, brought forward at a period when Members paid but little attention to the business of the House, by which clause, the ancient and former provisions of the navigation laws were re- pealed. Now, that was a most important Act, and it would have been much better if it had been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, for undoubtedly the clause made an alteration, very proper, perhaps, but certainly of a most important character. He wished to inquire whether, by the repeal of that part of the navigation laws, by the clause of last year, all nations in reciprocity with England were not specially enabled to bring goods, the produce of Asia and Africa, from the Austrian ports.

said, that he was glad the right hon. gentleman had put the question, because it enabled him to refer to a most important part of the treaty. A distinction had always existed between goods, the produce of Asia and Africa, from ports within the Mediterranean, and similar goods from ports outside the Mediterranean. With a view to provide for such cases, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) introduced a clause into the bill which had been alluded to, and which had not passed without entire attention, by which the Crown was permitted, as in other cases, by orders in Council on commercial matters, to afford the advantages given to British commerce to the ships of other European countries, and to allow them to bring the produce of Asia and Africa as well as the goods of their own nations. But a condition attached to this, that some equivalent or countervailing advantage should be given to British commerce, and that had been effected under the Austrian treaty, which had secured the privilege to English ships of bringing into the ports of Austria the goods of any port in the world on the same terms as Austrian ships. In return for that privilege, it had been accorded to Austria to do that which English ships could—namely, to bring the produce of Asia and Africa from Austrian ports in the Mediterranean. All that had been done by the clause referred to, had been to enable the Crown, as in other cases where an advantage of this kind was obtained, to secure that advantage by a very small and moderate concession.