, on the House resuming, said, I have to report to the House that I have this day waited on Her Majesty with the Address in answer to Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech, to which Her Majesty returned this most Gracious Reply:—

"I return My warmest Thanks for this loyal and dutiful Address.

"I anticipate with satisfaction the result of your deliberations, which will, I trust, promote the prosperity of all Classes of My People."

would beg to inquire of the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, whether it was his intention to proceed this Session with the Thames Embankment Bill, and if so, whether he intended to propose that the expense should be met by a tax upon coals?

said, that it was not his intention to bring on the Bill of last year for the embankment then contemplated, but he did intend to introduce a Bill for the purpose of embanking a part of the Thames higher up. It was not, however, his intention to propose that the expense should be defrayed by a duty on coals.

I wish to ask the question of which I gave notice yesterday Under ordinary circumstances I should not think of proposing it, because the inconvenience is unquestionable of calling on a Minister of the Crown for details of future measures alluded to in the Speech from the Throne. But, we are informed that words have fallen in another place, from a noble Colleague of the right hon. Baronet, which, though differently reported, and, I fear, differently construed, are yet generally understood to imply that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the course of this Session, to propose to the House any measure affecting the 1l. note currency of Scotland. The right hon. Baronet knows how deeply this matter excites the public mind of that country. If, therefore, the construction I have mentioned be a just construction of what has been said, and if the right hon. Baronet feel it to be compatible with his sense of public duty to give to the House any information on the subject, I trust, particularly after what has been elsewhere stated, that he will not object to lay that information now before us.

I certainly do not feel that it would be consistent with my sense of public duty to enter at the present time into any explanation as to the character of the measure, or to any part of it, which I shall, on as early a day as the performance of other public duties will permit, bring under the consideration of the House. The House will recollect that at the opening of the last Session, the attention of Parliament was called in the Speech from the Throne to the laws affecting the Bank of England and other banking establishments in this country. As soon as the Government announced its intention of bringing in legislative measures on these important questions, I was constantly pressed by Gentlemen representing various interests to give some information of the general outline of the measure which I was about to introduce. I steadily refused a compliance with those earnest solicitations, and stated then, as hon. Members will recollect, in my place, that I would give a full and fair explanation of the measure in all its details when I brought it under the consideration of the House, but not before. Now, I feel that I am bound to take a similar course with respect to any measure about to be introduced affecting the Banks of Scotland and Ireland. I shall reserve to myself the opportunity of stating the nature of those measures until the time arrives for bringing them fully before the House. With respect to the words which are represented as having fallen from a noble Colleague of mine in another House, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has put an erroneous construction on them. The case was, I believe, thus:—It was stated in the House of Lords that reference was made in Her Majesty's Speech to the currency of Scotland and Ireland, and what my noble Friend said he intended to say on that point was,—that the same reference which had last year been made in the Speech from the Throne to the banking establishments of England, had this year been made by those of Scotland and Ireland. Under these circumstances I trust the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I decline entering into any explanation of the intended measures until I ask leave of the House to introduce them; and I also hope that no inference will be drawn as to the intentions of Government from the explanations I have now given.

Sir, I rise for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, with reference to that part of Her Majesty's Speech which relates to the discussions that took place last year between our Government and that of France on the subject of occurrences that took place at Tahiti. Towards the close of the last Session a question was put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir C. Napier) on the subject of the discussions then pending, which the right hon. Baronet very properly declined to answer, on the ground that it would be detrimental to the public service to make any statement, or convey any information as to the nature of the correspondence between the two countries. But the right hon. Baronet followed that observation by an expression of his intention to submit at a future period full information on the subject. Now, without expressing any opinion as to the course which the Government has taken on this question, I may be permitted to say that no man more sincerely rejoices than I do that the dissensions which had sprung up between the two countries have been so happily arranged. For my own part, I should be extremely unwilling to press for the production of any correspondence which could have a tendency to create or renew any feeling of irritation, or to foment discord or jealousy between the inhabitants of the two countries. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that this question is exciting a very warm interest amongst a very large class of persons in this country, as it is regarded by them to be of high importance to both our national honour and our interest. At present the House knows nothing of this correspondence, and has none of the documents except what it has derived through the newspapers, or from documents which have been submitted to the French Chambers. I hope that if it can be done without running the risk of exciting those angry feelings to which I have alluded, that the right hon. Baronet will still be able to fulfil the intention he formerly announced. I therefore beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to produce any further documents for the purpose of affording Parliament full information on this subject.

Sir, the right hon. Baronet has stated correctly what fell from me on a former occasion in this House with reference to the subject to which he has referred. At the same time, I do hope that, as the various subjects under discussion between the two Governments have been brought to a termination honourable to the respective countries, and satisfactory to the parties themselves, Her Majesty's Government will not be pressed for the production of the correspondence which passed on that occasion. I must observe, however, that I am perfectly ready to lay before the House a portion of that Correspondence, namely, two letters from M. Guizot, and one from my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department; but, whilst I express my readiness to do so, I must intimate my opinion that this is all that is requisite for the purpose of elucidating the subject, and of vindicating the character of the nation; and I certainly do, at the same time, deprecate any further discussion on this topic, as not being in my opinion necessary or even called for, Mr. Pritchard having been appointed to a higher post, and to act in a wider sphere of action since the transaction referred to occurred; which appointment having since been confirmed by Her Majesty's Government, has been most fully carried out and acquiesced in. If I were to be called upon, and consequently obliged to produce the whole of the documents referred to by the right hon. Baronet, I should have to present to the House a correspondence which took place between the officers of the French and English Navy, and this would revive—I am sorry to express my sentiments—a most painful and irritating subject. It must also be observed, that the negotiations and the satisfaction that ensued were chiefly brought about by means of an almost daily personal communication between my noble Friend and myself, and the representative of the French Government here; and, consequently, the official agents of that Government had better opportunities for recording and preserving the occurrences and negotiations that took place than were possessed by my noble Friend and myself; the representatives of the French Government here being under the necessity of communicating what passed at these interviews by letter. But, whilst I make this observation, I must express a strong hope that the House is decidedly in favour of the principle upon which Her Majesty's Government acted throughout—namely, that of bringing the matter to an amicable termination; and, if that was achieved, of rendering that result a conclusive and final one. If the House is satisfied that Her Majesty's Government has acted with propriety, and in due regard to the honour and interests of the nation in this matter, I do hope that our statement of the broad features of the case will be accepted as conclusive; and that we shall not be called upon to produce a correspondence which arose out of irritating circumstances, and which would only tend at this moment to revive and prolong unnecessarily that irritation. I feel extremely obliged to the right hon. Baronet for the manner in which he put his question, and for the opportunity which he has thus afforded me of stating my sentiments on the subject; and I trust, for the reasons I have stated, that he will not be disposed to press the topic further.

If I understand the right hon. Baronet correctly, the result of the negotiations between the two Governments is satisfactory: and I agree, therefore, with him, that the production of any correspondence of an irritating nature between officers would be injurious to the Public Service. My right hon. Friend, I am sure, does not wish to have any such correspondence produced.

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during the present Session any measures for the better regulation of the Ecclesiastical Courts?

said, that his Colleagues and himself had already given notice of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce several measures of very great importance during the present Session; and he must say, from the experience of the two preceding Sessions, he despaired of being able to frame a measure respecting the Ecclesiastical Courts which would be acceptable or satisfactory to the present Parliament. He did not know how his right hon. and learned Friend felt disposed to act, but he himself had no intention of bringing forward any measure.

said, he would feel obliged for an answer to the question he was about to put, if it were convenient to the Government to answer it; if not, he would put the question on some other occasion. He alluded to the trade of the river La Plata, which had been so much obstructed of late, and it would give him great pleasure to hear that there was even an approximation to an arrangement of the subject. The British merchants entertained great apprehensions regarding the trade with these parts, as the Government of Buenos Ayres had interfered with the navigation of the river Plata. He had hoped, from the aspect which things presented last Session, that some combined operations on the part of the Governments of France, England and Brazil, would be attempted.

I can assure the House the prolongation of the lamentable hostilities between these two small Powers, which interfered with the commerce of other countries, has occupied the serious attention of the Government. We have already had communications on the subject with the Governments of France and the Brazils, and I cannot give a better proof to those in both countries who are interested in the cause of humanity and civilisation, of our present relations with France, than the assurance that the view taken by the French Government with respect to the continuance of these hostilities, is entirely in unison with our own. We trust also to have the concurrence of the Brazilian Government, in the measures which it was the intention of the English and French Governments to adopt. It is the intention of England and France to act in concert, and to make such a joint representation to these two Powers as we trust will induce them to terminate their hostilities. When the hon. Gentleman talks of combined operations, I hope he will not call for any explanations as to any future contingency. But I trust the good sense of these parties will induce them not to reject the joint offer of mediation by two such countries as France and England, with, as we trust, the concurrence of Brazil; and we do hope that our renewed efforts in the cause of peace, which is so much the interest of all parties, will be successful.

, in moving for leave to bring in several Bills for the Consolidation of Railway Clauses, Companies, and Lands, in England and Scotland, stated, that the object of these measures had already been explained on a former occasion by a right hon. Friend of his, it being simply to embody in one uniform Act the various enactments relative to the subjects which were scattered through many Acts of Parliament. There was an immense number of statutes relating to these matters, which occasioned a great uncertainty as to their provisions and effect; and to remedy this inconvenience the Bills in question had been framed, three for England, and three for Scotland. With reference to the proceedings of the Board of Trade, in reporting on the different conflicting lines of railway submitted to the inspection of the officers of that Board, he must take that opportunity of assuring the noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick), that it never was the intention of the Government, nor, as far as he understood their sentiments, of the House, to render the decisions of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade final or conclusive. But it was felt that the House must have information on these most important subjects; and there was no doubt that good grounds existed for the decisions which had been already come to. He certainly should always look upon those decisions with a certain degree of deference and respect; but he never could consider that the House was bound to follow in the track thus marked out, any more than he himself should do as representing a constituency or as one of the body of Members. He trusted the Reports of the Railway Committee would, when regarded in this light, meet with the general attention of the House; but he attached no other weight to them than that which they would derive from their own intrinsic value and merits. He saw no objection to allow of sufficient time for consideration to those parties whose projects were adversely viewed, to renew their applications to Parliament after they had become cognizant of the Reports of the Railway Committee; and he therefore thought that fourteen days after those Reports were laid on the Table of the House might very fairly be granted for the purpose to enable parties so situated to deliberate. He trusted this course would meet the justice of the case, and that all parties would agree in its propriety and equity. This was all he had to say upon the subject. With respect to the Bills which he had to bring before the notice of the House, he trusted he should be permitted to lay them on the Table of the House, and to have them read a first time. He should then propose the Second Reading for Monday next, when his right hon. Friend would state their objects and details more fully to the House. The noble Lord moved for leave to bring in the first of the following Bills:—Companies Clauses Consolidation, Lands Clauses Consolidation, Railway Clauses Consolidation, Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland), Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland), Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland).

thought the explanation given by the noble Lord opposite, with respect to the principle which he had touched upon the preceding evening, perfectly satisfactory. For his own part, he should be perfectly content if a space of fourteen days were to be allowed for deliberation after the Reports of the Railway Committee were printed and made public; but then it must be clearly understood, that the fourteen days' delay was to date from the time at which these Reports became accessible, in order to enable the parties to have the full advantage of the period granted them to determine whether or not they would proceed He also understood the noble Lord to intimate that it was the intention of the Government, that when two competing lines were submitted to the consideration of the Committee of that House, the Reports of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade were also to be submitted to the same Committee. That was a point of extreme importance, and if it were conceded he should be quite satisfied. With respect to the Bills introduced by the noble Lord, he considered the House and the country were extremely indebted to the Government for having brought them in at so early a period of the Session, and he trusted they would soon become the law of the land. He would beg to ask one question of the noble Lord, which was, how soon it was likely the Reports of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade on those lines of road which had been advertised as decided upon, would be laid upon the Table? It was extremely desirable that they should be made public with the least possible delay. He had only one more observation to make, which was, that in order substantially to place all parties upon an equal footing, care would be taken by the Government that where two competing lines came before the House, one of which had been adversely reported upon by the Railway Committee, the one favourably regarded by this Board should not be pushed forward, and prematurely thrust through the Committee on the Bill. ["Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cried "hear, hear;" but the suggestion which he had made was of great importance, for if time were granted to parties whose plans had been adversely reported on, to deliberate whether they would persevere and proceed with their Bill, whilst others, their competitors, were permitted in this interval to push their Bill through all its important stages, the effect would be to give the latter a most decided and a most unfair advantage. It was therefore most essential that the Government should so arrange the course of proceeding as not to permit a Bill to be hurried on through its second reading to the Committee, but so to regulate its progress as to afford the House an opportunity of judging of the merits of a competing Bill. This regulation was most essential, in order fully to carry out the views stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who had distinctly promised, that whether a railway project had been favourably reported to the House, or otherwise, it should receive a fair and full examination, if its promoters demanded it, when the line of country which was adopted came under the consideration of a Committee of that House.

wished to offer a remark upon an observation which had fallen from the noble Lord, and which might be considered referable to himself. The noble Lord had expressed an opinion, that when a line of railway which had been favour ably reported upon came before the House, it ought not to be suffered to proceed until the parties to the competing line which had been adversely viewed by the Board of Trade should have determined whether they would proceed with their Bill or not. This arrangement or regulation would, in his opinion, be extremely objectionable, inasmuch as a company, though it had resolved to withdraw from competition, might yet delay to announce its withdrawal, in order to be able in the interim to extort a compromise from the parties to the line favourably reported on. What he would propose in this respect was not that a rival line should be compelled to delay its progress until its competitor was prepared to go on, or to announce its withdrawal from the contest, but that the latter should appear simultaneously before the Committee, whether prepared to proceed or not; and that the Committee should, upon an examination of its plans, sections, and estimates, as well as of the other elements of the line, adjudicate between the two, so as to enable one of them to get through Parliament during the present Session.

thought that his noble Friend (Viscount Howick) had been misunderstood by the hon. Member opposite. His noble Friend had not proposed that the progress of any Railway Bill should be arrested or suspended indefinitely, but simply that the House would allow of a delay of fourteen days clear from the period when the Report was made public, for the purpose of enabling parties adversely situated to determine whether they would proceed or not, a stipulation which appeared fair and equitable.

had expressed yesterday his desire that the matters brought under consideration by the noble Lord opposite should have an impartial consideration on the part of the Government, and that all parties should be placed upon a fair and equal footing in that House, so as to satisfy them that substantial justice was done. What he then said was, that parties were to be allowed to present their Petitions whenever they thought proper to do so within the stipulated period, but that they should not be compelled to do so until fourteen days had elapsed after the Report had been made public. He had since then had an interview with his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who had considered it not advisable to postpone the presentation to the House of those Reports which were already completed, until the whole of the Reports relating to other distinct and separate lines of railway under consideration were completed. His noble Friend, therefore, would be prepared in the course of the ensuing week to lay before Parliament the whole of the Reports affecting one particular line of country or district,—say, for example, that of West Kent, in which would be included all the railways that were classed under that head. After this, other lines similarly classed would follow in succession, and the whole of the Reports would thus be arranged under, perhaps, six or seven families, if he might so term them, of railways, being laid before the House as rapidly as the circumstances rendered it possible. He had communicated also with his noble Friend on the subject of the noble Viscount's observations of last evening, and he was entirely of opinion with himself that it never was the intention of the Government to fetter the House by any opinions or Reports presented or offered by the Department of which he was at the head; but that the preliminary examination to which railways were submitted at the Board of Trade, were merely instituted for the purpose of arriving at a proper knowledge of the grounds of each undertaking, and of the reasons which existed for or against it; in the firm confidence that, if the reasons set forth in the Report of that Board were good and sufficient, they would prevail against all the private influence that could be brought to bear upon the projects. He was, moreover, fully confirmed by all that had passed on this subject, that nothing could be more calculated to do harm, than that any Government should interfere, or in any way use its influence, in such matters. The Railway Committee of the Board of Trade had been instituted for the sole purpose of eliciting information upon the important subjects brought under its notice, and of affording that information to Parliament, and not with the most distant intention of compromising the neutrality of the Government upon such questions.

said, it was well known he was not particularly partial to railroads, and that he had no interest in any of them; but his principal object in rising was to put a question. In putting it he hoped he should not be wanting in due courtesy to the House or to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whom he highly respected. All impression had gone forth that some one of the five Members composing what were called the Railway Commissioners—he spoke with no disrespect of them; on the contrary, he had a great respect for those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, though, at the same time, he must say, he knew none of them personally—might have some interest in these matters; and that report having got abroad, he thought it would be wise if it were contradicted. The question, therefore, which he wished to ask was, whether any of those five Members composing the Commission, directly or indirectly, had shares in or were connected with any of those railway schemes which had undergone their consideration? He thought it right to ask this question, because there was an opinion abroad that they could not be looked upon exactly as that impartial Court of Inquiry which he was sure the House and the country wished them to be.

said, his information upon the subject of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member was very limited. He was not consulted upon the formation of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade, and all he could say was, that the parties most interested in the proceedings before the Railway Board had always, so far as he knew, expressed themselves exceedingly well satisfied with the candour and intelligence with which their schemes had been discussed. As to whether any of the Committee held shares in any railway, he really could give his hon. and gallant Friend no information; but he was quite sure that, if they followed his advice, they would get rid of all their shares in such undertakings, if they had any, as soon as they possibly could.

said, the question put by the hon. and gallant Colonel had not been answered. He believed the noble Lord was not capable of answering it, and that he was not in possession of any information upon the subject. That information must be obtained from other parties. It was quite true, as the hon. and gallant Colonel had stated, that reports were actively and extensively circulated in the city to the prejudice of the Railway Board. They were, indeed, general throughout the city; and it was there stated, broadly and openly, by parties acquainted with railway transactions, that some private information must have been communicated in the market, or certain parties would not have made such enormous sums of money as they were said to have gained during the last few weeks. The right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury, in the House yesterday alluded to the circumstance of how injurious it would be to the character of the Government if such reports were circulated and could not be contradicted, but at the same time he wished to have something in the shape of a tangible accusation. The right hon. Baronet must be aware there was the greatest difficulty in obtaining such information as that; but this was quite clear, that certain parties in the city (he had had this information that morning), who had been engaged in the sale of Railway shares, happened to have been right in their speculations, and not wrong in one single instance, for several weeks past. One Gentleman, on Saturday se'nnight, made 40,000l. by the sale of shares in that single day, those shares having gone up from a small premium to 9l. or 10l. in the course of a few hours. The noble Lord the Member for Sunderland had opened this question in a most able practical speech; the right hon. Baronet paid that attention to it which the subject deserved; he gave to it a consideration which showed that he was open to receive impressions from either side of the House; and he at once yielded to the request of the noble Lord to delay the discussion till this night. But the question then opened ought not thus abruptly to terminate; and if the only result to be obtained by the speech of the noble Lord was an extension of time with regard to the introduction of Private Bills, the good which he for one anticipated would be lost, and he should be disappointed. The right hon. Baronet, a few years since, when he sat on the Opposition side of the House, stated he had been himself employed—he might be wrong with regard to the exact number of days—sixty-three or sixty-five days upon a Railway Committee, he believed the Stafford and Rugby Committee; and that during the whole of that time he had seen a gigantic company, having at its disposal enormous funds, fighting another company in the Committee rooms of the House, beating justice and principle entirely out of doors. The right hon. Baronet stated he saw the iniquity then himself which had been perpetrated, and, sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, he remembered saying to himself, "Well, the right hon. Gentleman is very near office, and this is one of the evils that will be remedied upon his taking a seat on my side of the House." But yesterday, when the subject was introduced by the noble Lord, the right hon. Gentleman stated how difficult it was to control barristers in the addresses they were in the habit of making to Railway Committees. This was really a most extraordinary declaration for the First Minister of the Crown to make. Here was a Minister who could influence foreign powers—whose influence could blanch the cheek of a foreign despot, carrying on his infamous practices thousands of miles from the shores of this country, declaring in his place in Parliament it was a most difficult thing to control barristers in the addresses they made to Committees of the House! Now, he must say, that the conduct of Committees of the House with regard to Private Bills was not only injurious to the best interests of the country, but it was absolutely disgraceful to the cause of justice. It was detrimental to the character of the House, for they could not be ignorant of the practices that were carried on there. He had been informed that barristers of very moderate ability last Session made no Jess than 6,000l., 8,000l., 10,000l., or 12,000l., in the Committee rooms of that House. A difficult thing to control them! Why, if the right hon. Gentleman would only apply his vigorous mind to the subject, in the short space of four hours he could not fail to discover a mode to remedy the evil; and it was only for want of applying his mind to it, that the House had now no remedy before it. Of course, he entertained too much respect for the honourable profession of the law to throw out any insinuations against barristers, But somehow or other, generally speaking, the common sense public of England discovered the best mode of transacting their own business; they generally found out the best mode of accomplishing their object, in regard to all transactions wherein their pecuniary interest was concerned. Now, suppose the right hon. Baronet employed a physician, and said to him, "So long as I am ill I'll pay you ten guineas a day," when did he think he would get cured? Or, suppose the right hon. Baronet got into a cab at the end of Oxford-street, and said to the driver, "I want to go and see the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House. I don't know where that is, nor do you, but as long as you are looking for it, I'll give you a guinea an hour;" when did the right hon. Baronet think the cab-driver would find the Mansion House? Now, what was the common and ordinary rule of paying barristers? Why, they were paid by the job. That was the common and ordinary rule out of doors. ["No!"] Yes it was. A barrister got a fee in a particular case; and how long did the trial last? Why, it was a marvellous thing if it lasted two days. He had his fee for that, and he would get no more if it lasted a fortnight. He had a motive for bringing the case to a conclusion within a limited period. But before the Committees of the House the practice was totally different. He was not himself acquainted with the fact, but he had been informed that a barrister appearing in a Committee room of the House was paid by the day; therefore he had certainly no very strong interest in shortening the discussion there. Something of this kind had been related to him:—A bill which consisted of 183 clauses had to be discussed in a Committee; a junior barrister wanted time, in order to get his senior there. The senior was engaged elsewhere, and it was perfectly notorious that the seniors required Committees to be adjourned from day to day, and witnesses to be detained, at an enormous expense, until it was convenient for them to be present to take up the business. He had been informed of a junior barrister — he was very young — and he supposed merely carrying out his alphabet, but it seemed he did it with a great deal of boldness and ingenuity—who had addressed the Committee somewhat in these terms: "Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, the Bill which I hold in my hand consists of 183 clauses; each clause contains a distinct subject; and that subject, I find upon being sub-divided, embraces thirteen subdivisions. Sir, I shall go over these thirteen sub-divisions in each clause." And then the learned gentleman entered been the first sub-division of the first clause; he argued the question he had to introduce in a circle, for there was neither beginning nor end to it, and he thus discussed it for five hours, at the end of which it was intimated that the Speaker had taken the chair. On the following day one of the Committee said, "Good God! when is this Bill to terminate? I will go and insure my life, for we have not got out of one of his sub-divisions yet, and we have 183 clauses to go through, with thirteen sub-divisions in each. I am sure it will be the death of me." Really, when, common sense was applied to a practice of this kind, it did call loudly for some immediate remedy. Upon every view that could be taken of the subject it called for a remedy; there was not one aspect of it that could be presented to the mind that did not say to the House, "Apply a remedy to this crying evil." Some one was robbed in all transactions of this kind; it was not honest dealing. All parties in that House were robbed of their time, their comfort, their health, and their convenience, whilst there were other parties who were robbed of their money, and possibly ruined by these disgraceful proceedings. He thanked the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, for introducing the subject in his able speech yesterday; and he also thanked the right hon. Baronet for the manner in which he had listened to it, as well as for the course of conduct he had pursued in relation to it. He would only trouble the House with one other remark; it was with regard to the secret transactions of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade. The noble Lord had very properly alluded to the vast amount of property placed under the superintendence, or rather under the regulation, indeed, almost at the disposal of that Board. The noble Lord had also remarked, that in all other trials where property was the subject, the investigation was open before the public; if it was in relation to the value of a basket of oranges only, the inquiry was always conducted in public. The reports in circulation on this subject were most injurious to the character of the Board; and he had no hesitation in saying that they must ultimately reach the Government, so that its character would be implicated. Gentlemen opposite were perhaps scarcely aware of what was being said upon the subject in the city. What objection was there, if the Board were acting honestly by the parties concerned and the public, to throwing their doors open from this hour, so that the public might see what transpired there? If there were objections, if it was to be a secret tribunal, if there were insurmountable obstacles to making the inquiry public, he would say it was better that such a Board should be at once abolished; for it might not only inflict injury upon private individuals who had done no wrong, but he was positive it would bring the character of the Government of this country into irretrievable disgrace.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded to the enormous expenditure attaching to railway transactions before Committees of the House; and he concluded his speech by asking what reason could there possibly be why the inquiries of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade into the merits of railway schemes should not be conducted with open doors. He would give the hon. Gentleman one reason. It was the fear, if those inquiries were made publicly, as the hon. Gentleman would find, that before any very long time elapsed, the complaints he had made of the dilatoriness and the enormous expense of private business before Committees of the House, would be justly applicable to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. There was very great difficulty, he admitted, in inquiries not conducted with open doors; but it was to be recollected that, as the noble Lord had most justly stated, they were in no respect to be considered binding in their result. They were in the nature of preliminary inquiries; they did not pretend to be definitive inquiries. It was quite impossible they could be definitive; and the question was whether, upon the whole, it were expedient, considering the difficulty that attended these cases, that such preliminary inquiries should be made by that House itself. He confessed he had a very decided opinion, so far as it had been tried, that the experiment had worked well; but, at the same time, he fully granted to the hon. Gentleman that any instrument of inquiry which necessarily involved secrecy, was an inadequate and imperfect instrument. It could not lead to any certainty in the decision; and, therefore, he fell back upon the declaration of the noble Lord, that the Board did not profess to give anything like a definitive result to the House. He hoped the House would be content to look at this question, not with regard to general or abstract principles, but with regard to practical results; he hoped the House would consider that we were in a crisis in railway matters, in which a mass of proposals and of plans had been brought forward; that the whole speculative action of the country had concentrated itself upon railways; and that although there might be faults found with particular decisions, although there might be with regard to certain lines feelings of objections against any inquiry not perfectly public, yet he asked the House what would have been the condition, the prospects, and the state of the railway share-market, and of speculation in that market, if there had been no Board of this kind to simplify and reduce the business within practical limits so as to enable the House of Commons to proceed? He did not think any hon. Gentleman could estimate lightly the difficulties under which the House of Commons would have been placed at this moment, if 240 Railway Bills had been placed upon the Table, with no guide or clue whatever to assist them, but subject only to the operation of the ordinary rules, defective as the hon. Gentleman had shown them necessarily to be, under which the private business of the House was conducted. It was very likely that a fuller discussion of this part of the subject might take place at a future time. The interests involved were so immense, that he could not wonder at many parties being disappointed at what had taken place. The hon. Gentleman had adverted to the rumours which he said were abroad in the City. He would express his own confident opinion, not at all in opposition to the declaration of the hon. Member, that although injurious rumours might have gone abroad, up to this moment the public sentiment was, upon the whole, decidedly in favour of the decisions to which the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had come. The general impression, he firmly believed, was, that the very difficult functions which that Department had had to discharge, though by no means perfectly discharged, had been intrusted to competent persons, and approached by those competent persons in a spirit of candour and of impartiality. He must also say, in defence of the Department, that the utmost possible precautions had been used to insure perfect secrecy. The hon. Member for Finsbury said, that some notions had got abroad, before the publication of some Report of the Board, what that Report would be; but a very small part of the hon. Gentleman's sagacity would have enabled him to see that that statement by no means amounted to a proof, nor, indeed, to a strong presumption, that anything had been divulged by those connected with the Railway Department of the Board. If the decisions had been reasonable decisions, if they were founded in any degree upon the facts of the case, of course those parties who had gone before the Railway Department, who had paid attention to the questions put, and observed the facts that had come out in the course of the interview, would draw their own inference as to the probable results; and, therefore, in the proportion as any decision, reasonable in itself, might be anticipated by parties of active minds, they would probably operate accordingly. He was quite satisfied that, if the House were aware of the pains that had been taken to prevent the possibility of the premature transpiring of intelligence, they would agree with him in doubting whether it had transpired. It was impossible to be sure in all cases that you have succeeded in preventing this—durum per medios ire satellites; but you may be satisfied as to the precautions. The decisions of the Board, in point of fact, were not formally given until almost the very moment before they appeared in the Gazette; and no communication respecting them, either verbally or written, was made by any person being a Member of the Railway Department, except to other Members of the Department. Even with regard to the boxes in which the papers were kept, the utmost precautions were taken. The locks had been made for the purpose. The Members of the Department were aware that every effort would be used to get at some notion of the Reports before they appeared; and he must say, that although reports might be abroad, he was not, under the circumstances, surprised at them; but nothing that the hon. Gentleman had said, and nothing that he had heard from any quarter, tended to convince him that anything which could fairly be called information of the intentions of the Board of Trade had, in any case, gone before the public. Now with reference to the question asked by his gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln, whether any Member of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had shares in any railway. With respect to his noble Friend the President of the Board (Lord Dalhousie), he was for his acts subject to a Parliamentary responsibility, and it had never occurred to him to put the question to his noble Friend. With respect to three out of the four other Members who formed that Board—he alluded to Mr. Porter, to General Pasley, and to Mr. Laing—they were connected with railway matters before he (Mr. Gladstone) came to the Board of Trade, and he had never put to them the question whether they held any shares in any railroad. At the same time he had a very confident opinion that they did not possess any. There was one other Member of the Board for whose appointment he was himself responsible, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien had for a long time discharged, in the most satisfactory manner, the duties of private Secretary to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; that Gentleman had spontaneously made the statement that he was the holder of two or three shares, and, with his concurrence, an arrangement was made by which that gentleman disposed of his shares. He hoped that this explanation would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. As respected the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury, although it was easy to deprecate the expense of Committees of that House, and the mode in which the private business was transacted, it was very difficult to apply an effectual remedy. They could not do it by any sweeping measure; but he hoped the hon. Member would see they had already begun the work of piecemeal reduction. The present system with its defects was intimately mixed up with the modes and the habits of thinking of the people of this country; there was a great jealousy as to the protection of local interests, and of the right of every one to have a full representation of his views, and this did create complaints of embarrassment in the discharge of the duties of private Committees. At the same time he must call to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that last year he had proposed the experiment of referring certain classes of Railway Bills to Select Committees. He believed that experiment had upon the whole met with success, and that the experiment had tended to diminish the expenses, and to abbreviate the speeches of counsel. Still there were many difficulties to encounter, and he believed that his right hon. Friend could more easily, as the hon. Member said, blanch the cheek of a foreign despot, than shorten the speeches of counsel. There was, however, a complaint of another kind against the proceedings of these Select Committees, that they had too much shortened the representations made by different parties, and did not give full and free scope for the explanation of their views as to their measures. There were, in fact, two conflicting interests, and the difficulty could only be approached in a practical form. The question then before the House was, whether leave should be given to bring in one of several Bills abbreviating the Railway Bills; he was sure that his noble Friend would find many persons anxious to assist him in shortening and cheapening these forms and proceedings; but he would assure him he would find not only a difficulty from conflicting pecuniary interests, but also from the conviction of every man that he had a right to a full representation of his views before a public tribunal, subject to canvass this way and that. With respect to the proposal to provide further time for the introduction of the Railway Bills, he could only express his concurrence with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick), and his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel). He hoped that he himself had done pretty full justice to all parties; certain he was that the Gentlemen of the Board of Trade who had had such a difficult struggle amidst the accumulation of Bills brought before them, should receive every fair consideration and indulgence at the hands of the House; and, receiving that consideration and that indulgence, it would be found they had made such effectual inquiries as would diminish the heavy labours of Parliament, and bring within reasonable limits an amount of toil which would otherwise have been perfectly beyond their reach.

had seen many persons who had been mixed up with these inquiries, but had seen no one who concurred in the views of the hon. Member for Finsbury. They were all anxious to believe that the secrets of the Board of Trade had been kept beyond the reach of suspicion; at the same time, he was not in the least surprised to hear these reports current, seeing there was a feverish speculation, such as had never before been known; and he believed that prices of shares had been affected, not solely by the particular merits of each undertaking, but largely by the spirit of speculation. He believed, that if there were any institution capable of putting a stop to the evils which had already existed, it was this preliminary inquiry of the Board of Trade.

submitted to the noble Lord who originated this discussion, whether it were necessary to allow twenty-one days for the liberty of presenting a Petition for a Bill after the reasons of the Board of Trade should be made known. He had made inquiries, and found that the expenses of a Petition for a Bill would not be more than 30l. or 40l. If this were so, he saw no reason for delaying the preliminary step of presenting the Petition, although he concurred in the opinion that parties should not be called upon to proceed and incur any larger expense before they had examined the reasons of the Board of Trade.

would only mention one remarkable fact connected with this subject. In the case of the Churnet Valley: Railway, the shares of which it was extremely difficult to keep at par at a certain hour of the day previous to the appearance of the Gazette, yet a few hours before the Gazette was published, they rose 9 or 10 per cent. There was no dispute as to that. Again, the intention of the Government with respect to the harbours of refuge, although the Report of the Commissioners had not been presented to Parliament, had been known for some days, and a paper just distributed, indicating the intention of Government on commercial measures, had appeared in one of the newspapers a fortnight ago. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that there was some source whence these facts were learned before the declarations of Government were made. It was a subject which deserved serious attention, as it affected the integrity of the Government, and its elucidation was necessary for the satisfaction of the public. Leave given to bring in the first Bill, and all the other Bills in succession.

said, before the question was put from the Chair, he begged to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House to a subject which he considered to be one of very great importance to themselves, as well as to that large class whom they represented both in and out of the House of Commons. He would do so with all deference to them. He had delayed doing so till the last moment. On all former occasions, when the agricultural districts had been in a state of distress, the Queen in her Speech to Parliament had made allusion to it. He had heard but one explanation given why the subject was not mentioned in the Speech on this occasion. An hon. Member of that House had stated that the reason why agriculture was not referred to in the Speech was, because the agricultural districts were not in a state of prosperity. Hitherto he had supposed that this was the very reason why some allusion was made to it in the Speech from the Throne. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might remember that last year he brought forward a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the state of agriculture, with a view to ascertain how far it was affected by protection. At that time wheat was 56s. a quarter, and he then stated that he believed that protection was a snare and a delusion to the farmers. Wheat was at the present moment, at 45s. 7d. per quarter; he would, therefore, ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they could justify themselves to the farmers, or to the House of Commons, in coming to Parliament—possessing, as they did, the full confidence of the farmers, and being endowed, as they were, with vast Parliamentary power—and using that confidence and that power in passing a law to keep up the price of the commodity in which the farmers dealt, and then going down to their several homes, and leading those farmers into contracts for the payment of high rents grounded upon that device and delusion. This was a point deserving mature consideration, and one which ought to be referred to a Committee of Inquiry. It was stated by Lord Beaumont, at the Great Protection Meeting, held on Monday last at the Freemasons' Tavern, that the farmers looked for protection up to the price of 56s., whereas the price was now only 45s. 7d.; and the noble Lord made use of an expression which had been previously used by the hon. Member for Somersetshire, (Mr. Miles), and asked "what has become of the promise of 56s."? This surely was a point which ought to be cleared up by that House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had attributed agricultural distress to legislation, and so did he; but they thought the farmers were suffering for want of more protection, whereas he thought they were suffering by protection. If, then, legislation was at the bottom of the distress of the farmers, was it not a fit question to be discussed in a Committee of the House of Commons? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt, represented a very numerous and powerful interest; but were not those interests which he and his Friends around him represented, also sufficiently numerous and important to merit the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into a question of this nature? He now rose in his place to propose to the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles), that on this, as on former occasions, there should be a Committee to inquire into the cause of agricultural distress. He was not without hopes that this proposition would be acceded to by the hon. Gentleman and the Friends who sat around him; for he (Mr. Cobden) had had the honour of mentioning to that hon. Gentleman his intention to submit, such a proposition to the House; and the opinion which the hon. Gentleman then expressed, and the courtesy with which he received the communication, gave him every ground to hope that he would accede to the proposition. If this should be the case, and if the hon. Gentleman and the powerful body to which he belonged were of opinion that a Committee should be appointed, they need not go to the Government to ask them to support it; for seeing that nearly the whole of the Members on the Opposition side of the House gave their support to a similar Motion brought forward by him last year, it must be obvious that if they now joined with the hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends, they might act independently of the Government, and compel the Government to acquiesce in the appointment of a Committee. But there was no doubt the Government would acquiesce in such a proposition, for they would see the importance of it. All that he asked for on this occasion was inquiry; he therefore had only to add, that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had not yet made up their minds to assent to this proposition, he should feel it his duty, after giving them a week or a fortnight to consider of it, to renew the Motion which he made last Session.

begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for having informed him that it was his intention to put this question, not merely to him individually, but to other hon. Members connected with agriculture. He was merely a representative of a part of the county of Somerset, and could not state either the wishes or the wants of the agriculturists of England in totality. If the hon. Member wished for the appointment of a Committee upon agricultural distress, his proper mode of proceeding would be immediately to apply to Her Majesty's Government, and ask them whether they would consent to such a Committee. Now, for himself, and he thought he might say for those Friends who generally acted with him, he could state that they had no intention of asking the Government to appoint a Committee to inquire into Agricultural Distress. The hon. Member for Stockport had referred to some speech which had been delivered at a public dinner lately held by the Agricultural Protection Society at the Freemasons' Tavern. He certainly did not consider himself bound by or answerable for, everything that might be affirmed, without previous concert with those connected with that great interest, by any noble Lord at a public dinner, especially recollecting, as he perfectly did, how exceedingly guarded the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government was, on a former occasion, in affirming that he would gurantee to the farming interest any fixed price for wheat whatever. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that from various circumstances, and from a variety of causes, and even from the very nature of agriculture itself, prices would vacillate between such prices as those—56s. and 46s. a quarter. Still the farmers had their own idea of the cause of their distress; but be did not think they would come forward at the present moment and ask for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the cause of that distress. The hon. Gentleman must take his own course; but he rather doubted whether the kind of concert which the hon. Gentleman had offered to him, and to those who sat near him, could be acceded to. He doubted much whether any such concert could be effected. Answering, however, for himself, individually, he might be permitted to say that he could not have the least objection to the appointment of a Select Committee; but he must beg not to be put upon it, having already sat on a similar Committee for two years without coming to any practical conclusion whatever; he should much rather leave it to abler and better hands to state what were the causes of, and what would be the best means to alleviate, the present agricultural distress. There were Gentlemen on that side of the House, he believed, who were both able and willing to state their opinions upon those points.

said, it had given him great satisfaction to hear the hon. Member for Somersetshire state, as far as he was himself concerned, he would give his vote for the appointment of a Committee. [Mr. Miles had not intimated that he would vote one way or the other.] He certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to say, he was favourable to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into agricultural complaints, and that he would support the Motion. [Mr. Miles: I said I would not object to it.] He was sorry that he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman; but he must say, it would appear rather remarkable, considering the experience of past times, if the House should reject so judicious a proposal as that suggested by his hon. Friend. If there were one subject more than another upon which the minds of the Members of the House ought to arrive at an accurate judgment, it was the subject of agricultural distress. In fact, it seemed a part of the Corn Law system to have periodical inquiries into agricultural distress. A Corn Law would not be a Corn Law without a Committee on agricultural distress. They had had complaints of distress under every Corn Law. They had had Committees of inquiry; and was there any difference in their position now? They had a Corn Law, they had distress — why not have inquiry? It appeared to him to be a most reasonable proposition, upon the special ground stated by his hon. Friend, namely, that it seemed to be the opinion on both sides of the House, that it was legislation which created agricultural distress. His hon. Friend thought that it was protection by legislation which did so, while hon. Gentlemen opposite were of opinion that it was the diminution of protection by legislation. But, in his opinion, they would have had the same distress if the Corn Law of 1842 had not been passed. He was not disposed to trace the reduction of prices to the reduction of the duty by the Bill of 1842; on the contrary, he thought it was the natural consequence of placing reliance on protection that there should be periods of agricultural digress. He regretted to see, notwithstanding all this, and notwithstanding the baneful influence of the principle of protection—it was no later than on Tuesday evening that they heard the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) declare that protection was the bane of agriculture—he regretted to find, notwithstanding all this, that the same evil system was beginning again. They had been told by men of high rank and influence, at the meeting lately held at the Freemasons' Hall, that the principle of protection would be maintained, and a solemn assurance was given to the farmers assembled there, that no further attempt would be made to meddle with the advantages they now enjoyed. Now, he really should like to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether he had ever given any such assurance—whether he could, by possibility, have given to the Central Society for the Protection of Agriculture, or whether he had given an assurance to any individual, however high in station, that he would not meddle with the existing Corn Laws, and not diminish the amount of protection which was at present afforded by that law? He had seen so much caution on the part of the right hon. Baronet not to give any pledges as to any future course he might deem it his duty to pursue, that he was warranted in not giving credit to that statement. But he thought it most desirable that the right hon. Baronet should disabuse the public mind us to his having given any solemn assurance to any body of men, or to any individual, that it was his intention to support the present Corn Law. It was necessary on the part of the right hon. Baronet, in order to avoid inducing the farmers to place too confident a reliance on that system of protection which had begun to be broken down, that he should reiterate those sound principles which he had already declared; and he would, therefore, ask the right hon. Baronet whether or not he had given any assurance to the Agricultural Protection Society?

concurred in the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Stock-port (Mr. Cobden), that in the Speech from the Throne no reference had been made to the distress which so generally prevailed in the agricultural districts. To none other, however, of the other propositions of the hon. Gentleman could he assent, nor could he for a moment think that a coalition could be entered into between the agriculturists and the League to effect the removal of that distress. And further, if the hon. Gentlemen persisted in a Motion or a Committee of Inquiry, he should not support him. He thought that an inquiry into the causes of agricultural distress was not needed. For his own part, he was satisfied to believe that the distress resulted from the changes which had been made in the Protective Laws. Whether that distress would be permanent or not, time would show; but that those changes had produced the present particular distress amongst the agriculturists, he had no doubt. The hon. Member who had last addressed the House, had referred to a speech of the noble Lord, the Member for London, in which that noble Lord stated that protection was the bane of agriculture. It remained for the House to consider whether the noble Lord had not very materially changed his opinion in that respect since the time he was in office; or whether, in proposing a fixed and protective duty, the noble Lord considered that that protection was no protection at all, and consequently whether his Lordship considered, that in making that proposition, he was proposing something which he believed would be no gain to the interest that he professed to serve. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, (Mr. Villiers), when speaking a few nights ago of the increased prosperity of the manufacturers, seemed to admit that to the same circumstance which had occasioned their prosperity was owing the depression of which the agriculturists complained; and then, with the same degree of unfairness, he seemed to contend that the agriculturists must still more be depressed, that the manufacturers might rise. He was highly gratified to hear that both parties were not to suffer together. He was glad that the distress suffered by one might prove a benefit to the other; but let them be satisfied with the prosperity that it produced to one, and not endeavour to increase the misery of the other. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, relative to the temptations that might be offered to Russia to enter into a modification of the protective duties, when the hon. Member said, that Great Britain should show some spirit of conciliation by taking the first step towards such a measure, he would say, that in the opinion of many people, England had made a pretty good stride already, and that it was for the other country to take the next step. He did not ask them for a Committee of Inquiry; he trusted that the Government would give them something better. The immediate cause of the present distress he took to be this—that though during the past year there was an average wheat harvest, in respect to almost every other description of crop, in the south particularly, there was a great deficiency; and therefore, since by the alteration of the Protective Laws the farmers could not look to wheat, as they might before have done, to make up the deficiencies in other crops, they were at this moment suffering very great and general distress. He would admit that the distress would not have been felt to so great a degree if the crops of oats, barley, and other produce had been equally good with the wheat crops; but it was not consistent with the fact to say that the alteration in the Protective Laws had not been the great cause of all. He was satisfied that it would not be desirable to appoint such a Committee as had been alluded to, and, should such a proposal come definitely before the House, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose it.

had attended many agricultural meetings, and had derived considerable amusement from what had taken place at them; but if one thing more than any other had struck him to be unfair in the proceedings of those meetings, it was the conduct of those Gentlemen who took upon themselves to be the counsel of the farmers, and their guardians and defenders both in doors and out of doors. Their conduct had been such for several years as made him believe that there was something rather hollow in the character they assumed. We read in a very ancient book of "dumb dogs that would not bark." Hon. Gentlemen who cultivated the soil, stated that the legislation of that House was the cause of the present agricultural distress. But were they not parties to that legislation? They were consenters to the measure which produced the distress. Surely no proof need be adduced for that, for there was a very large majority in favour of the measure which hon. Gentlemen now said had produced distress. Now the great majority of that House were landed proprietors. It did appear to him, then, that if by their legislation distress had been occasioned, the farmers had at least one claim to make upon those who voted for that measure, namely, that they should either retrace their steps, undo their work, and go back to what was right, or else they should go home to their estates, and reduce their rents down to a proper level with those circumstances which their legislation had placed their tenants in. He looked upon this refusal to inquire with very great suspicion. He believed it arose from this cause:—the public mind, and the representatives of the public mind in that House, were too much alive to allow any Committee to do what Committees were accustomed to do in former times. One of two things would be recommended—either that the taxes pressing upon the farmers should be reduced, or that greater protection to agriculture should be enacted. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether they believed it was possible to do either one thing or the other? They might as well attempt to stay the operations of nature as to go back to the protective principle in this country. They had long ago taken from themselves the power of reducing any taxes peculiarly pressing upon the farmer, for in their avaricious desire to gain high rents they had in past Sessions repealed almost every tax upon the farmers; and that which once went into the Exchequer, now went into the landlords' pockets in the shape of rent. Therefore, they did not deem it prudent, or even useful, to have a Committee. In his opinion it was most inconsistent that hon. Members who called themselves the guardians of the agricultural interest, should stand up and say that that great interest was being frittered away by measures passed by the very Ministers whom they had placed in office, and yet that they should not oppose those measures, nor give up the contest as hopeless, and acknowledge that they had been wrong. The hon. Member for Somersetshire had said that the right hon. Baronet, in proposing the New Corn Law, did not propose a protecting price varying from 54s. to 56s. The words of the right hon. Baronet on that occasion were these:—"As far as certainty of price was concerned, if 56s. could be guaranteed by legislation, that was the object of the Bill." That was certainly a guarded mode of expression on the part of the right hon. Baronet when addressing the British Parliament; but what had been the conduct of the landowners out of Parliament? It had been to make that guarded expression by the first Minister of the Crown a certainty to the farmers. Their stewards and land agents—the men who were paraded at the agricultural meetings as tenant farmers, had told the farmers that the Minister had secured to them 56s. a quarter; nay, the magistrates of counties had assessed property to the Poor Rate, upon the estimate that the price of wheat would be 56s. a quarter; and it was asserted that the Government had guaranteed that price by the new Corn Bill. This course had been pursued from the very moment that the Bill was passed; and yet every body who had any understanding at all upon the subject knew that no law whatever could secure a certain price for wheat. But, out of the House, the landlords persuaded the farmers that they possessed this power. Why, then, did they at the same moment tell the farmers that it was from the bad legislation of that House that the prices of their produce were injuriously affected; and that it was from this that they were now suffering distress? The cause was perfectly clear, as might be collected from the speeches recently delivered at a tavern in this town, and by he proceedings at No. 17, Bond Street, where, he believed, the Protection Society had opened a shop. He thought the sign over the door should bear this motto—"British Farmers regularly taken in and done for." It was really time that this landlord imposition upon the farmers should come to an end. What would they say if he told those who depended upon him in manufactures, that he was their friend, and that he would go to the House of Commons and vote for a law that should keep up the price of calico, and give them good wages, and that then he should find that they suffered the greatest privations from the vicissitudes in manufactures, occasioned by that very law? He declared he should not have the face to come before those men, and ask them to have any further confidence in his promises of anything that Parliament could do for the purpose of maintaining either prices or wages. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had explained why the agricultural districts were at present suffering. It was a very reasonable explanation. The hon. Gentleman said, that the price of wheat was low, because the quantity of corn was large; at least, above the average; sufficient to bring prices down: while, on the other hand, the other and inferior crops were very short, and that the farmers were extremely inconvenienced by the high prices they had to pay for the food for their cattle. Now, he believed this, and that the high prices of the inferior crops were caused by the very protection forced upon the farmers. Was Indian corn no food for cattle; and yet was there not a law to keep it out of this country? Were Egyptian beans no food, and yet was there not a law to keep them out? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had actually complained that the price fixed by the right hon. Baronet on foreign oats was not sufficiently high as a protective duty, and yet the duty already imposed, forced their own tenantry to purchase foreign oats at a price that enhanced the cost of the very food by which their cattle was fed, and by the feeding of which cattle they sought manure to raise in future years their crops of hay. He did not pretend to understand much of agriculture, neither was it necessary that he should in the discussion of this question; but he had read a letter in a paper published in the county of Wilts, written by a gentleman of the name of Mr. Nathaniel Hatherton, whom the editor stated to be a farmer of a very first-rate character and intelligence among that class. Mr. Hatherton said, that

"When oats were at 16s. a quarter two years ago, he fed out five quarters to an acre on twelve acres of the poorest land, and he had good reason to be satisfied; he had now by him 500 sheep, and he should lose more for the purchase of oats for feeding them, than the protection afforded by the Corn Law to his wheat crop was worth. He enjoyed protection on his wheat to the extent of 3s. or 4s. a sack, there being two sacks to a quarter; making it a protecting duty from 6s. to 8s. a quarter; but he must pay a protection penalty on oats to the extent of 8s. or 10s. a quarter. He considered that the reduction of price on food for cattle by a repeal of the Com Laws, would be full compensation to him for any deficiency of price in wheat arising from such a repeal, and that he for one was most anxious for a change."

Mr. Hatherton said, that, he was induced to write this letter from a strong feeling that something must be done for the farmers and labourers, and from a conviction that what was called protection was utterly worthless. This he thought was a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. It was true that in the manufacturing districts in the north of England there was a comparative state of prosperity. An hon. Friend of his had stated to him that the cotton spinners were making 50 per cent. on their capital. But his answer to his hon. Friend was this: that the cotton-spinners did not come to Parliament and ask for a law to enable them to overcharge their customers, as he had done constantly for his sugar. But how came it that the manufacturers were enjoying a state of prosperity, though they had no protection, while the agricultural classes were thus plunged into a state of distress? The process was somewhat resembling the action of two buckets in a well, the manufacturers were getting up rather full, while the agriculturists were going down and rather empty. That had been the case ever since the war ceased, when the landlords attempted to make an alteration in the price of corn by legislation. He contended that he and his Friends, who represented the Anti-Corn-Law League, stood in that House, and in the eyes of the country, in a much more favourable position than the hon. Gentleman who represented the Agricultural Protection Association. When the manufacturers were suffering, they did not conceal the fact; but the agriculturists denied the distress as long as it was possible, and they were startled when the hon. Member for Leeds moved, in a former Session, an Address to a Speech from the Throne, declaring that the agricultural distress had not been exaggerated, but that it was frightful in the extreme. The manufacturers never concealed their distress, but came to Parliament, as was their duty, and asked for a remedy. They moved for a Committee of the whole House, and for evidence to be heard at the Bar, or any sort of inquiry that could be had; but the Committee was denied to them. The landlords and agricultural Gentlemen voted against them constantly. But how had those same hon. Gentlemen behaved towards the population among whom they lived? He had lately been reading the Report of a Committee on the Game Laws in 1838. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire, or of Wiltshire (he did not remember which) gave evidence before that Committee. That hon. Gentleman now stated that the wages of the labourers were 7s. a week, but that they were at that period only 6s.; and that from that time to this, the labourers received about that rate. Now, the Anti Corn-Law League had more accurate information of the agricultural counties than the hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves possessed. The League had sent trustworthy men into every one of them; and he himself had had some opportunity of visiting several of those counties, and he could prove to demonstration that the farmers and agricultural labourers did not expend in manufactures, including all their clothing and bedding, more than 25s. a year each. Now he could prove that the labourers employed in his district spent at least three times as much on manufacturing produce; yet hon. Gentlemen opposite did not come to that House to tell this; and they dared not have a Committee to inquire into the cause of the difference. He had heard many and many a Conservative speak with the utmost exultation on the subject of free trade, and tell him that now the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had begun, there was no knowing where he would end. They had assured him, that as the agricultural interest by degrees found their terrors dissipated, the right hon. Baronet would do more than he had yet attempted, since he could have no interest but the good of his country. He knew that the right hon. Baronet was not without ambition; he would not have risen to his present office had he been without it, and he well knew the evils of that besotted system which had made the labourers in agricultural counties poor, dejected, and miserable. Last week he had been in Buckinghamshire, and what most struck him was the number of fields so full of ant-hills that no scythe could mow them; this was protected land, and in the very county of the man who was especially styled the labourers' friend, and who recently took upon himself to tell those lately assembled at Freemasons' Hall that there would be no alteration of the Corn Laws. What was the next object, harmonising so well with the ant-hill covered fields in the neighbourhood of Aylesbury? The multitudinous chimneys of the union workhouse. There resided the men who ought to cultivate the land, and who, week after week, were sent to jail for insubordination. He was young in the House, but he might be as old as some of those on the other side before he heard from them the state of things his own eyes had witnessed. One Conservative had actually declared to him that he would rather see free trade at once established, than see the farmers any longer humbugged by the landlords. It was in fact high time that this state of things was put an end to, and he had no other object in wishing to see the destruction of the present Corn Laws, than an anxiety for the general benefit of the whole community. Let the Legislature at once take its finger off the Statute Book, and repeal those laws, and our manufacturers, confident in their skill and energy, would fear no foreign competition. True it was, that if a total and immediate repeal had been granted in 1839 and 1840, serious panic and confusion would have been the consequence; but if such a boon were now granted, and the protective duty of 20s. were relinquished, no such result need be apprehended. Did not severe distress prevail in 1822? yet at that moment the prohibition was in existence; in 1835 and 1836, there was at least as much distress as now, and then that law might be said to be passing into oblivion, which many persons at this moment seemed to regret. A state of things was now approaching, when even landlords would be glad to have the present Corn Laws repealed; they would not then frown upon or growl at the Minister for making advances towards free trade; a population was growing up, for which employment must be found; at this moment they were competing with each other at wages of 6s. and 7s. a week, and, to the disgrace of the landowners and the Legislature, they were in a state of great destitution. Yet, while fierce competition was devouring the agricultural labourers and the tenants, the magnanimous landlords passed a law to secure themselves against all competition from foreign countries, and to keep up the price of the produce of the soil. The population was rapidly increasing, capital was accumulating, and the landowners, without the least regard to the other classes, restricted the exertions of the labourers, and of the tenants, to the narrow limits of their own possessions. He was aware that they could do little to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite; the leaders of parties were not easily convinced; but he had the satisfaction of knowing that intelligence was daily gaining ground among the tenants and the labourers, and they were beginning to discover the truth; they too severely felt their condition, and there was springing up amongst them a disposition which he should grieve to behold were he a landed proprietor. A charge had been brought against the party to which he belonged of exasperating this feeling. The opponents of the Corn Law had certainly told the tenants that the landlords were deluding them by the demand for protection; he had no wish to spread discontent among them, and had never said anything to them which had not over and over again been stated in Parliament. He and his friends had always maintained that the landlord had a right to labour at the market-price of labour; but they had denied the right of the landlord to screen himself from competition while he exposed his labourers to it in its severest and bitterest form. This was the charge brought against the landed interest, and they must not "lay the flattering unction to their souls," that prosperous years would put an end to agitation on the subject of the Corn Laws. The cry for repeal had gone on swelling and increasing in spite of prosperity in Lancashire and Yorkshire. It was impossible to state the sum which the League could not raise at this moment if money were necessary. All the measures the landed gentry had supported since he first entered the House, had been gradually escaping from their grasp, and all those which they had resisted had been as gradually made established law. The principle of protection was one which the Minister could not and dared not defend in this House; the most distingushed man of the Conservative party—the man whom the landed interest had placed and kept on the Treasury Bench—by the whole tenor of his conduct showed that he was abandoning his friends and going over to their enemies. What course, then, ought the landed interest now to pursue? Would it not be as well for them to make a virtue of necessity, and magnanimously at once abandon a cause which they must know to be hopeless? Let them relinquish a system which had produced the most tremendous evils; for if they continued to sow the wind, they could only expect to reap the whirlwind.

was anxious to meet the question in the calm spirit which had marked the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport and that of the hon. Member his Seconder, and expressed his intention of not opposing the appointment of the Committee of which the hon. Member for Stockport had spoken. When the hon. Member for Durham had been a little longer in the House, before he reached the age of several Members on his own side, he hoped he would learn that to make a bullying speech was not the way to deal with the gentry of England. He would learn that, whatever might be the varying opinions as to free trade on one side and the other, or however anxious Government might be to steer a middle course between the two, yet that the best men on both sides would deeply deplore a system which would bring to questions of the nicest, calculation and difficult political economy, angry feelings and excited passions. If the hon. Member imagined that he could set the tenantry of England against their landlords, by such vituperation and abuse, he could tell him distinctly that he never was more mistaken, and he would be miserably disappointed. It was strange that in the seventh year of his agitation, the hon. Member—though he had so completely failed out of doors—should not yet have discovered the propriety of a different course. As to the hon. Member's astonishment at the Conservative Members not having brought forward recently the subject of agricultural distress, perhaps the hon. Member would leave them to manage their own matters; and they, seeing how grossly he had mismanaged his own, would not be anxious to adopt his advice. To what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet on a former occasion, he had listened with great anxiety, hoping to have heard some expressions in reference to agricultural distress, and he did not disguise the disappointment he had felt at the right hon. Baronet's silence on that subject. But, of course, feeling a general confidence in the Administration, and not having acquired very extensive experience in that House, it was not for him to leap up and give utterance on every occasion to his feelings of disappointment at the course they might pursue. He desired therefore to have it understood that Members on the Ministerial side must not be considered as insensible to agricultural distress (which, he was happy to say, did not exist to a great extent in his own county), because they did not on every occasion express their disappointment at the silence of the Ministry upon the subject. The hon. Members opposite had formerly predicted that so long as protection continued, manufacturing distress would prevail; whereas it had turned out that this distress was removed, though the protection was retained to agriculture. Doubtless, no system of protection could in the complicated relations of this country preclude the recurrence of distress. Predictions and panaceas he would alike relinquish to the league. For himself, he had never disguised his conviction, that the different classes of the community were at too great a distance from each other, and that not merely agriculturists or manufacturers, but that the richer orders altogether were not fulfilling all their duty to the poor. He was certain that among the labouring population of the country there was much that tended to pauperism — much that tempted to crime. But he maintained that the landed proprietors of England had always proved themselves the friends of the poor, which the poor well knew; and the hon. Member who had been for nearly seven years trying to persuade them of the contrary, might just as well have been at Botany Bay all the time.

said, the Member for Northampton had risen apparently to reply to the hon. Member for Durham, but if what fell from him was correctly reported, the same impression could only be made out of the House which he was sure had been produced within it — namely, that he had offered no reply to what constituted the serious charges brought against the proprietors who maintained the Corn Law. One charge against the law, the hon. Member for Durham had urged with peculiar point, and which became the hon. Gentleman to answer if he had been able. It was, that while the labourers were exposed, by their increasing numbers and want of employment, to a sad and fearful competition with each other, and that while the tenants were unprotected in an active and eager competition among themselves for land, the landlords, who were the legislators of this country, enacted a law to protect themselves against the competition with the produce of other lands, whereby they greatly enhanced the value of their own properties at the expense of the community. This was the purpose of what they termed protection, and from its obvious injustice, should receive some defence. The tenants were suffering, and the labourers were suffering; the one was compelled to give too much for his land, the other to receive too little for his labour; but the landlord procured high rent for his land, and paid little for his labour; for the numbers of tenants and labourers seeking occupation increased, while the land for the tenant, and food for the labourer, were limited; personality was no reply to this charge, or to such an adequate cause of agricultural poverty. And considering how frequently the depression of the agricultural interest had been traced to the failure of price promised by protection, it did become those who clamoured for mere protection as a remedy for the evil, to meet the charge so brought against it. The hon. Gentleman had seemed satisfied with shewing what he considered was an inconsistency in the friends of free trade, by referring to what he called their false prophecies as to commercial prosperity. He said that the League had said that manufactures and trade would never be prosperous until the restrictions on trade were removed; and yet he said they admitted they were at present prosperous, whilst the restrictions had not been removed. The hon. Gentleman should have considered his Friend the Member for Dorsetshire when he stated that the restrictions had not been removed; for, as they both were farmers' friends, they had better agree on the reason they gave them for their present distress; for while the hon. Member had just said that the restrictions had not been materially changed, the hon. Member for Dorsetshire said that to that relaxation alone did he impute the present agricultural distress. In answer, however, to that, and to the observation upon what had fallen from him the other night, which the Member for Dorset had made, he begged to explain what the views of the friends of free trade were, and what he did really say on that occasion. What was contended for, in arguing for free trade, was, cheapness and plenty; that cheapness which made the necessaries and comforts of life accessible to the poor. This, it is contended, would be obtained if commerce were not impeded; and this, in whatever way attained, would be attended with happy results to the people. This, in one respect, has been effected this year by what he termed an intervention of Providence, in spite of legislative obstruction. They had had a glorious harvest; this had produced abundance, which, aided by some facility given to trade by the relaxation of the Tariff, had occasioned the present comparative prosperity. The restrictive system had, as the hon. Gentleman said, been generally maintained; but, through the mercy of Heaven, the usual results had been defeated, and the country had now an opportunity of seeing what was the effect of that plenty and cheapness of food of which the landowners usually spoke with such dread and alarm. That this abundance should be constant was the aim of free trade. This boon of Heaven now conferred especially by a good harvest, was constantly within their reach by commerce; that the blessings which were thus enjoyed should not be interrupted in future, was what the friends of free trade were contending for, but which hon. Gentlemen too well knew it was the object of what they called their protection to prevent. Their object was to raise prices; their complaint is that prices are low; their desire is to cause them to rise again. It was on these occasions they had formerly complained of distress, and in all their inquiries it was this they had in view. They knew by the means which the law put in operation to keep prices high, it had several times occurred that produce had been destroyed; and witnesses, whom they had called upon their inquiries to learn how they could be relieved, had prescribed the limitation of quantity, and had advised, as some said they had practised, that of sowing less grain in order to limit that quantity, which created plenty and cheapness in the market. The distress which hon. Gentlemen complained of was literally from no other cause but that prices had fallen, and fallen because the quantity essential for the people had been more nearly adequate than before. Their distress proceeds now, as it had proceeded before, from the delusion under which men crushed each other by competing for land, expecting to be remunerated by high prices for the high rents they engaged to pay, and being, as usual, disappointed. If this were otherwise — if this distress proceeded from other causes, from causes over which as it is repeated out of doors, they had control, how came it that the inquiry which the hon. Member for Stockport suggested was not acceded to? Why allow these things to be said here, without reply, or satisfying the farmers and labourers that they were untrue? Other causes were doubtlessly alleged in other places, but that was an additional reason why the facts should be inquired into by the House, and the truth proved. He had heard it said, and the notion he knew was common among farmers, that the distress was owing to the corn that had been allowed to come in from one of the colonies. [An hon. Member: Who said so?] Why, some of the special friends of agriculture who met at the Freemasons' Tavern the other night. Yes, so tenacious are the proprietors of this country of their system of excluding competition with themselves, that they will not even allow the produce of a British colony to compete with their own produce. Colonies which they have been willing that this country should make any sacrifice to conquer, and pay millions to subdue when they have manifested discontent, yet, when they claim the right of every British subject, in sending their produce to the British markets, the landlords are so afraid of the effect on the price of their own produce, that they would exclude the produce of those countries. He must again say it was a serious charge against this law that it not only did mischief to the community at large, but was peculiarly prejudicial to the interests that it was professed to protect; and that when this charge was made, with an offer to prove it if inquiry was granted, he thought it would go forth to the world that the protectionists had but little faith in the justice or wisdom of their system, when they objected in this House to face the light.

said: I will not suffer myself to be drawn by the example of the hon. Gentleman into any discussion on the subject of the Corn Laws; for we had no reason to expect that such a discussion would be entered into on the present occasion. There was nothing irregular in the course pursued by the hon. Member for Stockport. Nothing could be more moderate than the tone in which he made his proposal, nor did it appear to be his intention to provoke any discussion on the subject of the Corn Laws. I understood him to declare his intention to repeat in a certain contingency a Motion which he had made last Session; and, in order to show that he was acting in no hostile spirit, he invited some friends of mine on this side to co-operate with him in support of his Motion, stating that, with their co-operation, the opinion of the Government on the subject would be of little consequence because by means of the entente cordiale, the combined parties might force acquiescence. The hon. Gentleman, with perfect fairness, stated that he did not ask an immediate adhesion. I think he said he would give my hon. Friends a fortnight to consider the subject. I must say I think my hon. Friends the Members for Northamptonshire and Somersetshire would have done much better to have availed themselves of the fortnight's consideration to talk the matter over, rather than to have committed themselves so hastily as they have done this evening, in their individual capacity, in support of the hon. Member for Stockport's Motion. However, they have committed themselves; but I earnestly advise other hon. Friends of mine not to be so exceedingly liberal, but to avail themselves of the hon. Member for Stockport's very fair proposal, to take at least a fortnight for the purpose of giving the proposal a fair consideration, and then, after a lapse of that period—after having conferred with each other to make up their minds—not individually, but collectively, to support or oppose the Motion of the hon. Member. I must say that the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate was met in a corresponding spirit and temper by the hon. Gentleman behind him. There was a kind of taunt thrown out, and it was with great regret that I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham, without the slightest provocation, enter into reproaches and vituperation which were entirely uncalled for, and little calculated to promote the object he has in view. The hon. Gentleman also told my hon. Friend that he was not surprised at his unwillingness to consent to the Committee, as it was impossible that he could derive any benefit from its appointment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester asked me a question, which I think he was hardly entitled to ask, particularly as he has stated—and that without any communication with me, or without any suggestion from me—as he has undertaken to correct the report that I intended to make an altera- tion in the Corn Laws, and I do not, therefore, see that he requires any enlightenment upon the subject. It is, I hope, only necessary to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House (as the refusal to answer even improper questions sometimes leads to erroneous conclusions) that I have had no communication with the Agricultural Protection Society, nor have I given any assurance to any body in the slightest degree at variance with the declaration of my opinion last year. My hon. Friend has stated that he very much regretted I did not, in the course of my observations a few nights since, refer to the distressed state of agriculture. I can only assure my hon. Friend that I do believe that in some parts of the country there is considerable distress, and I trust it is hardly necessary for me to say that I feel sincere sympathy for that suffering; but I do not believe that you can state generally as a truth that agriculture is universally in a state of distress and suffering. I believe, however, that there are some parts of the country in which distress exists, and that if you look at England, Scotland, and Ireland, you will find different districts of the country in very different conditions. I do not deny that agricultural distress does exist in different parts of the country, arising from physical causes, and the failure of the hay crop, and of the turnip crop, and the drought of last year. I say it is impossible to deny that in some districts there is great distress arising from these natural causes, and this I sincerely deplore; but I distinctly state that I do not think the agricultural distress can in any degree be fairly attributed to the operation of those laws introduced by me in the course of the last few years. I do not think that the change in our law has been the cause of the agricultural distress, and I feel bound to say that I cannot look to Parliament for any further legislative interference. I think the restoration of the former amount of protection impossible, and even were it possible, I should not sanction the reestablishment of increased protection as a relief to the distress at present existing, which I attribute to natural causes, and which I deplore.

said: I am not a Member of the League or of the Anti-League, nor am I a Member of the Administration who have held the scales so evenly between the contending parties during this discussion; but I cannot resist the opportunity of endeavouring to answer one of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Durham, and repeated with considerable emphasis by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. I do not think it right that this debate should close without some answer being made to that argument; and I apologize to hon. Members who represent more immediately the agricultural interest for venturing to speak of it myself. The hon. Gentleman said the landowners of England were to blame more especially in this—that while they protected themselves against competition, they subjected their tenants and peasants to an almost unlimited, fierce, and cruel competition, I could say, in answer to that assertion, that if it be true that the competition to which the peasants of England are subjected is so fierce and cruel, what would it be, supposing the argument of hon. Members respecting the agricultural interest to be correct, if, in addition to such competition, you added that which would arise from the introduction of foreign corn? Surely the hon. Gentleman must have seen that his argument was open to that objection; it has been used repeatedly at every agricultural protection dinner that has taken place; why the argument most insisted on upon those occasions was, that the introduction of foreign corn would render liable to great and severe competition the peasants and labourers of England. I do not wish upon this occasion to state my opinions on this subject of the Corn Laws; but I could not sit still and hear that argument asserted in two different speeches without endeavouring to show its fallacy. I wish also to call the attention of the House to another statement of the hon. Member for Durham, which seemed to me most extraordinary. He said that the agricultural members of England saw the prosperity and fortunes of the farmers being frittered away by the policy of the Government. Now, I would ask, if such be his opinion, the policy of the Government being, as he would say, more or less a free trade policy, how can he expect those to whom the interests of the tenants are committed to sanction any further steps in that direction, and to go on to an unlimited free trade? I shall certainly take the warning given by the right hon. Baronet, and not be presumptuous enough to pledge myself to the course I may pursue hereafter; but I cannot sit down without expressing my cordial concurrence in what has been so well and truly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, that we are all too much disposed in this House to look upon ourselves as agricultural or manufacturing Members, and too little disposed to take into consideration the more important question of rich and poor in this country; and still further do I express my concurrence in his approbation of the tone and temper of the hon. Gentlemen who brought forward and seconded the proposition on the other side, as affording fair ground for hope that the day is not far distant when we shall be able to meet cordially, and heartily co-operate in measures likely to ameliorate the condition of the labouring classes of this country.

said, that if the noble Lord had taken the advice of the right hon. Baronet, and not spoken at all, it would have been wiser than to have risen to answer the arguments of hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. The noble Lord admitted that the agriculturists and farmers were exposed to great competition, and he also, he believed, admitted that the Corn Law was made for the benefit of the landowners, and not of the tenants; but the noble Lord forgot the population of this country, and that it must be fed, and that to be fed it must be employed; but it was admitted that the agriculturists could not employ the people. If they referred to the census they would find that about one-eighth, not more, of the population belonged to the agricultural interest. Now, the population was increasing to a considerable extent, and it must be employed and fed. They could not be employed in agriculture, and they must, therefore, be employed in manufactures; but that could not be done unless our commerce was extended; and, therefore, it was only by removing the restrictions on commerce that employment could be found for the people, and that they could be fed. He conceived that all classes would be benefited by free trade, and that agriculture manufactures, and commerce would all be well and prosperous if they only acted upon that principle. He contended that the Corn Laws were for the protection of the landlords, to increase the price of provisions, and to raise rents; and had always stated his opinion that they were most unjust and most injurious to the country. He, therefore, implored hon. Members to consider those laws, and if they were found to be unjust and injurious to repeal them.