Lords Sitting of 18 March 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Earls of MOUNTCASHEL, STANHOPE, SHAFRESBURY, and HADDINGTON, Viscount STRANGFORD, and Lord REDESDALE, from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Ross, against Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Marquess of ANGLESEY, from Amlwch, against the appropriation of any of the Revenues arising out of the Union of the Bishoprics of Bangor and St. Asaph's for Amending Bishoprics in England.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from a Poor-law Union in the North, and by Viscount GAGE, from another Union in Oxfordshire, for an Alteration in the Bastardy Clauses of the New Poor-laws.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Glasgow, against

787
Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Duke of ARGYLE, Earls of ERROL, and HADDINGTON, and the Marquess of BUTE, from several places, in favour of Church Extension in Scotland,—By the Earl of FALMOUTH, from Cornwall, against the Beer-laws.

CORN-LAWS.—GLASGOW PETITION.
Lord Brougham,in presenting a Petition from Congleton, in favour of the total repeal of the Corn-laws, said, that he had carefully read it for the purpose of not falling into any error in stating its contents.* He had heard that some gallant officer did not like a French general who was opposed to him, because he would never allow him to sleep even with one eye, and he was in the same situation with regard to his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), who was unfortunately his opponent on the subject of the Corn-laws; still, however, he ought to apologise to their Lordships for a misstatement of facts which occurred the other evening, and which the acuteness of his noble Friend had discovered. But in truth his noble Friend was unconsciously the cause of the error; for his noble Friend presented the other evening a numerously signed petition from Glasgow, and had described it as proceeding from a respectable body there in favour of the Corn-laws, which looked considerably against his statement. In consequence, however, of what had fallen from his noble Friend, he was waited upon the next day by Mr. Sturge, Mr. Walmesley, and by two gentlemen from Glasgow, who stated, to show that there was no ground for supposing that the opinion of Glasgow was unfavourable to the repeal, there was a petition signed by 43,000 inhabitants in its favour. When he came down to the House at five o'clock, one of the officers put into his hands a petition from Glasgow; he immediately put the two things together, and having no idea that Glasgow, great and important as it was, was so prolific of petitions with more than 40,000 signatures, as to send two on different subjects, signed by so numerous a body, he concluded that this was the petition referred to, instead of being, as it really turned out, a petition against Church Extension in Scotland. Still he owed the
* The noble Lord by mistake on the previous Friday, presented a petition from Glasgow, describing it to be against the Corn-laws, which, when examined by the Duke of Richmond, turned out to be a petition for Church Extension (Scotland).
788
apology he now made to their Lordships for the mistake.
The Duke of Richmondwas most happy in having detected the noble and learned Lord's error.
Earl Stanhopecould not help remarking that after the error that had so recently occurred it might so happen that out of the many petitions presented by the noble and learned Lord against negro slavery, there might have been some against white slavery, or perchance, some against the new Poor-law Bill.
Lord Broughamwould not have the noble Earl lay the flattering unction to his soul that any of the petitions had been against the Poor-law Bill. It was impossible that he could have made a mistake, for he had never, except in the last instance, presented a petition which he had not examined, of which the substance had not been extracted, and the subject matter marked on the back, generally by himself. So that the petition was first examined to make the abstract, secondly it was read by him to the House, and thirdly it was read by the clerk at the table, who would have returned it if he had made any mistake. And, so far from the noble Earl's supposition being correct, he had, on the contrary, presented many petitions in favour of the Poor-law Act, from many highly respectable persons, and men of sound judgment.

CHURCH EXTENSION.
Lord Broughamhad now read the petition from Glasgow to which he had before referred, and he found that it was a petition on a most important subject. No wonder that he had thought it was signed by 42,000, for so he would have judged by the bulk, and on a reference to its contents he found that it had actually 40,587 names appended to it.
The Duke of Richmond: If the noble Lord had read the outside of the petition he would have seen that it related to Church Extension.
Lord Broughamdid not like superficial knowledge. If he read at all he liked to open the book itself. The petition urged their Lordships strongly not to give any further grant or endowment to the Scotch church, and they played also for a separation between Church and State; it was agreed to at a public meeting held at the Grey Friars' church in Glasgow, on the 12th February, 1839, In presenting this

789
petition he must express his satisfaction at the declaration lately made by the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government upon this point.
The Earl of Aberdeencould not conceive that the declaration attributed to the head of her Majesty's Government—that they would not propose any grant during the present Session, and after the termination of the labours of the commission appointed by themselves—could be correct, or that no pledge had been given to do so; for unless the noble Lord held different language in that House and out of it, nay more, unless he held different language sitting from what he did standing, there was a pledge that funds to a certain amount, the noble Lord knew to what he alluded, should be applied.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Government had not at present come to the determination of making any proposition on the subject.

PARDONS IN IRELAND.
The Marquess of Westmeathwished to call the attention of the noble Marquess opposite to the fact, that on the last occasion on which he drew the attention of the House to Irish affairs, he stated that the noble Marquess had liberated a criminal from the gaol of Westmeath without requiring bail from him, and that the noble Marquess had on that occasion roundly contradicted him. He had since written to Ireland under an impression, that his original information was true, requesting to be furnished with the best information on the subject, and he now had received confirmatory evidence, namely, a copy of the letter of Mr. Drummond, secretary to the noble Marquess, dated Dublin Castle, December 11, 1837, in which he communicated his Excellency's commands to the gaoler, that Thomas Cook, confined in the gaol of Mullingar, should be discharged from custody; and he was discharged without bail. He could not now help expressing his astonishment at the noble Marquess's contradiction, and at the same time of stating, that in his opinion such a course of proceeding was not calculated to facilitate public business.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he did not see anything so extraordinary in the step he had been taking. On the occasion to which the noble Marquess referred, he spoke from a minute in his own handwriting, which he then held in his
790
hand, expressive both of his intention and of what he did, which was, that if the man should behave himself well for two months, he should then he discharged on giving security. He did behave well, and in a petition presented to him at the expiration of that period, he stated that he was prepared to give security, himself in 20 l. and two others in 10 l. each. He had made a minute from which he spoke, in his own handwriting, that the man should be discharged on giving security. Whether any inadvertence had subsequently taken place in making the ultimate order, he could not say, but he had never known an instance in which such an order to take security had not been attended to, although, as the noble Marquess seemed so certain, that there had been an omission here, he could not take upon himself to say there really had not been. He had however, given orders, that his sureties should be taken, and his opinion was, that his order had been complied with.

WEST INDIA LABOURERS.
Lord Seafordwished to ask the noble Marquess, another question, on a different subject, whether her Majesty's Government had received any communications from Sir Lionel Smith, relative to the working of the free labourers in Jamaica, besides those already on the Table? He put the question at the request of a very numerous meeting which had been convened on the subject, conceiving that the House ought to be in possession of the fullest information from all parties. He trusted, that his noble Friend, if he had received any more communications, would make no objection to their production. He wished also to know whether the noble Marquess had any objection to produce any communications he had received from the agent of Jamaica.
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied, that there was every intention on the part of the Colonial office to give as full information as they were competent to afford relative to the working of the free system in Jamaica. Whether Sir Lionel Smith had received any information other than that which had been laid on the Table, he (the Marquess of Normanby) could not tell, but if he had he had not communicated it to the Colonial office, and should the office receive any further communications from the stipendiary magistrates or other persons, they should be

791
laid on the Table of the House. He had no objection to put the House in possession of every information relating to the House; he could not, however, have included the statement of the agent for Jamaica in the papers already produced; but if the noble Lord would move for it, he had not the slightest reason for opposing the motion.
Earl St. Vincentsaid, that if they were to consider this subject, it was most important that the true state of the island should be known? The statement laid on the Table could not be confided in; it was made ex parte, and if the Colonial office gave credit to it they would be led into error. When the subject came before them, then it would require the exercise of their utmost wisdom and discretion.
The communication from the agent of Jamaica ordered to be laid on the Table.

WAR IN THE EAST.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas anxious to ask the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government whether, when the papers were presented and printed, the noble Viscount would make any statement explanatory of the war we were engaged in in the East, or whether there was any other information to be presented to the House?
Viscount Melbournereplied, that there was considerable additional information to lay on the Table of the House on the subject, but that he would not make any statement until the whole information was before their Lordships.
Lord Ellenboroughinquired whether the noble Viscount would make any motion on the production of the papers?
Viscount Melbourne: No. He had not stated that he would make any motion, but he would make a statement when the whole of the papers were before the House.

GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from the cotton spinners who were convicted a year and a-half ago of an illegal combination. It would be recollected that owing, not to his learned friend, the Lord Advocate, but to the blundering of some other persons, the parties had been kept in prison a long time before trial. They had now been nearly two years in prison, and the last year was in the hulks, and they complained of the hardships they had suffered. If the men had been convicted a
792
few miles south of Glasgow, and under the laws of England, they would have only been liable to three months' imprisonment, and they prayed their Lordships, as the highest court of judicature, to interfere in their behalf. If mercy were extended to them they would acknowledge that they owed their release to the clemency of the executive; and he would take upon himself to say, that he was satisfied, from the anxious inquiries of persons who had seen and conversed with the convicts, that if they were released, nothing whatever would be done by their friends or advocates to make unseemly or unbefitting expressions; and nothing but gratitude for the mercy that had been bestowed.
Petition laid on the table.

POOR-LAWS.
Earl Stanhopewas desirous of calling the attention of their Lordships to a petition which he held in his hand, which was one of great importance and worthy of their Lordships' attention, as it offered another example, although it might be considered superfluous, of the tender mercies dispensed by the three dictators at Somerset-house, under the New Poor-law Act. It was the petition of John Berry, a labourer, of the Union of Worksop, but residing in the Union of Ecclesall, Bierlow. The petitioner was a native of the parish of St. John, now in the Union of Worksop, and had long resided in the county of Nottingham. He was born in the year 1748, so that his life was already extended beyond the usual period of human existence; and, therefore, he (Earl Stanhope) would ask, upon that statement alone, if no legal provision had ever existed in this country for the relief of the poor, and if the statute of Elizabeth had never been passed, whether a person who during a considerable number of years had maintained himself and family, and shared in the public burdens, had not an undoubted right to demand assistance and support from this country? It appeared that for nearly fifty years the petitioner had been a housekeeper, and that he had regularly paid poor-rates, and never had been chargeable to the parish until of late years. So that not only by a natural right, but by a positive statute, he was entitled to claim relief, of which he and others, in similar circumstances, had been violently dispossessed. Yes, he would

793
say violently dispossessed, without the opportunity and advantage of being heard in their own defence, of that relief by what was falsely called an assembly of the representatives of the people. The petitioner had now attained the age of 91 years, and of course it could not be expected, even by the Poor-Law Commissioners themselves, that he was able to earn his living by his own labour; nor could any flaw be found in his character as to industry and sobriety. It appeared that from the time he had become chargeable to the parish until the enactment of that most monstrous measure of iniquity and oppression, the new Poor-law, he received the small stipend of 4s. per week for the support of himself and wife, 2s. of which they had to pay every week for rent; so that all this poor couple had to subsist upon was just no more than 1s. each per week. But even this miserable pittance, insignificant as it was, appeared too large to the guardians of the union, who, he supposed, found themselves obliged to act under the arbitrary commands of the three dictators of Somerset-house. The result was, that 2s. were withdrawn from the weekly allowance of this aged couple, and having to pay rent to that amount, they had nothing left for subsistence. When they ventured to remonstrate with the guardians against this reduction, their claim for a restoration of the former allowance was refused, and they were told that any further application would render them altogether destitute of relief, for the whole should be withheld. What was the consequence? The goods of this unfortunate and venerable man were seized for rent, and would have been wrested from him, had it not been for a benevolent friend, who interposed and rendered him the necessary assistance. Looking to the moral and religious character and conduct of the petitioner, considering that he had spent a long life in industry, and had proved himself a useful and valuable member of society, he would ask, whether he should not be relieved from penury in his old age, and allowed to spend the remainder of his days in his own home? He would read to their Lordships two or three passages from the petition itself. It stated, "That your petitioner, though very infirm, is very grateful for the many mercies he has received." In speaking of "mercies" their Lordships would understand that the
794
petitioner meant the mercies of Providence, and not the mercies of the New Poor-law. But the petitioner "hopes that he and his aged wife may be permitted to remain and die where now all that they are attached to in this world are resident. He had always understood, that having paid poor-rates during full fifty years, he would be entitled to a maintenance in his old age; that coarser food than bread and water," alluding, he supposed, to the diet, which had been praised in that House by a noble Earl—"that coarser food than bread and water would not be his portion; that, being a free born Englishman, unaccused of any crime, he should not be cast into prison; that being a Christian"—and he begged the attention of their Lordships to this part of the petition—"accustomed regularly to worship God on the Sabbath-day in his holy temple, he should not be debarred from so doing while he had strength and inclination so to do; that after having lived so long happily and affectionately with his wife, he never looked forward to the time when, in violation of the commands of God, they might, unaccused, be put asunder in different prisons, while at their death their bodies might be given to surgeons to be dissected; that your petitioner, understanding that these and many other (as he conceives) unjust hardships, and even some worse, may be inflicted on him and others in similar situations by officers till now unknown in this country, while the long enjoyed right of appeal to neighbouring magistrates against the oppression is taken away from them, most humbly solicits your right hon. House that the good, well-understood, poor-laws may be restored to this his long-loved, long-enjoyed, native country, and your petitioner, for the very short period now remaining of a long life, will, as in duty bound, gratefully pray.—JOHN BERRY."
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he could not help thinking that there was a great deal of misunderstanding respecting the case adverted to by his noble Friend. Upon one point, undoubtedly, there was a decided mistake. The relief of individual cases was not under the direction of the Board of Commissioners at Somerset-house; it depended entirely on the local boards of guardians; and therefore, whatever errors might he committed, it rested entirely with the board of guardians. He apprehended that inquiry would throw a

795
very different light on this case. There could be no doubt that if this petitioner and his wife had nothing but what they received from the board of guardians, it was not enough. But he could not help thinking that it would be found they had relatives somewhere who were able to support them, and that what was given by the hoard of guardians was given in aid of such support. He had no doubt that a case like the present would receive every consideration from any board of guardians, because he trusted that feelings of humanity were prevalent among those gentlemen of which they were generally composed. He wished the noble Earl would make a little more inquiry into the matter.
Earl Stanhopesaid, if he had read the petition at length, the noble Baron would have found that this needy person had no relatives whatever, although he might receive casual aid from benevolent individuals. He was so entirely ignorant of the Poor-laws as not to know that the Commissioners were not immediately engaged in dispensing relief; but he knew that the boards of guardians were compelled to act in conformity with the general directions which were issued from Somerset-house.
Lord Broughamhoped the noble Earl would have no objection to have the petition copied, and a copy sent to the three dictators at Somerset-house, as the noble Earl called them. It was but fair that they should know the contents of the petition. He would say for those three most worthy, honourable, and respectable individuals, who had a most painful, laborious, and difficult duty to exercise, that he never heard one case brought forward in which they did not anxiously court inquiry. In fact, they had even gone out of their way, notwithstanding the amount of their ordinary business, to prosecute inquiry themselves.
Earl Stanhopesaid, those three worthy, hon. and most respectable persons, as the noble and learned Lord had called them, seemed to work like moles in the dark, for the newspapers were filled with cases that excited horror and indignation in the public mind, but they never condescended to say, whether they inquired into them, or what was the result of any inquiry they made. They could not be unacquainted with the case of the petitioner.
Lord Broughamrecommended the noble
796
Earl to give notice of a motion for bringing forward all the cases he pleased, with the names, and he would then undertake to meet the noble Earl as he met him last year. It did so happen, that having met him last year, he did not find him so ready to come on this year. He could not tell the reason of that.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he could assure the noble and learned Lord, that if he wished him to produce individual cases, he should be ready to do so; but he feared that the House would not be so ready to go into them. He thought there were cases enough to occupy a whole week in merely stating their respective facts. Perhaps his better course would be to move, if the noble Lord opposite had no objection, for a return of any correspondence which had taken place with respect to cases A, B, C, and so on, naming the cases.
Lord Brougham.—If you name the cases I have no objection.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he would do so, if he could be certain of a full and fair inquiry. There had already been an inquiry into some cases before a committee. But what he wanted to see was an inquiry conducted as a case was conducted before a jury in a court of law, which would insure a fair decision. What had happened in the committee of last year? According to the opinion of the committee on four of the papers which came under the investigation, nothing was wrong; but he had given his reasons for dissenting altogether from that opinion. Then with regard to the Bridgewater case, that had not been investigated; the inquiry had commenced, but was "broken off in the middle, like the story of the bear and fiddle." The Suffolk cases were every one of them most clearly proved. No doubt could be entertained of the truth of those cases. But the investigation was conducted in a manner that could not by possibility give satisfaction to this country. He could not with propriety decline serving on that committee, inasmuch as he was one of the defendants, having produced one of the cases which was the subject of inquiry. What was the manner of conducting that investigation? The moment any witness expressed an opinion which was unfavourable to the New Poor Law, he was assailed on all sides; some questions were put to him to confound him, others to confute him; and others hail not for their object the investigation of truth, not to discover

797
whether the fact was true or false, but neither more nor less than to make the witness believe, that he was greatly mistaken in his opinion. He wished the investigation had been conducted as inquiries were in a court of law; then the whole of the cases, not excepting the Bridgewater case, would have been proved. If the course which had been pursued was intended to gain time, or to cast oil on the troubled waves, it might have succeeded, but that was all it had accomplished, or could accomplish.
Lord Wharncliffemust complain of the manner in which the noble Earl had spoken of the committee, because, although the Bridgewater case was not finished, the other four cases were entirely heard. It did so happen that the length of the evidence on the Bridgewater case drove them so far into the Session that the committee found they could not get through it. He thought he had a right to ask what his noble Friend meant by stating that attempts were made to confute, or confound witnesses. It was the duty of witnesses to state facts, and in order to get at facts witnesses must undergo an operation which was not very pleasant, but they underwent the same in the courts of law—they must be cross-examined. In courts of law witnesses were very closely examined and cross-examined, and he was bound to say that his noble Friend had no right to complain of the conduct of the committee. Indeed, he was quite sure, that if the witnesses who gave information, or really had information to give, were asked the question they would not say, that they were not treated fairly by that committee. With respect to the petition, which happened to come from a place not far from his own residence, he was quite sure, from his knowledge of the union to which the man appeared to belong, that it was impossible he could be treated with injustice. The Chairman of the union was the Duke of Portland. Any man who knew that noble Duke must be ready to admit that he was the last man likely to do anything unjust or partial in any degree to any individual. But the truth was, that there was a considerable departure at times from the rule, that no relief should be given out of the union workhouses. It appeared, however, that the union had refused to relieve this man. But there must be some particular reason for that refusal, and he thought it would have been courteous if
798
the noble Earl had communicated with the Duke of Portland. It appeared from the petition, that, after the man had applied to the union, a neighbouring gentleman wrote to the Duke of Portland on the subject, and that the letter was laid before the board, who passed a resolution—"That the case should not be taken into consideration." Now, there must have been some reason for taking that course; and, as his noble Friend had made this charge against the Worksop Union, it would have been only courteous and just to have made the noble Chairman acquainted with his intentions.
Earl Stanhopehad not condemned the investigation of the committee on his own authority. He rested on the evidence itself. Notwithstanding what had been stated, he would maintain, that during the investigation it was attempted to confute the witnesses rather than elicit truth, and he must say, that the examinations were the most pettifogging he could conceive.
The Duke of Richmondhad seen nothing during the examinations which was not strictly correct. Committees of the House of Lords ought, however, he thought, to object to witnesses saying, "Somebody told me this or that." The way was to bring that somebody before the committee, and not record mere hearsay evidence. In regard to the case which had been brought forward by the noble Earl, it ought to be recollected that under the old system it was not competent for the overseers to order relief out of the parishes, while under the new system relief might be ordered out of the parish, provided the locality was within the union. Under the old system, therefore, matters as regarded the petitioner would have been worse than under the New Poor-law.
Petition laid on the Table.

CORN-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Mountcashellpresented a petition from the County of Cork against any alteration of the Corn-laws. As he had not had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on this important subject on a former evening, he trusted their Lordships would permit him to make a few observations in regard to the effects which he conceived a repeal of the Corn-laws would produce as respected Ireland. Ireland would, in his opinion, be the greatest sufferer by a repeal of the Corn-laws, because Ireland was not a manufacturing country,

799
and was dependent almost entirely upon agriculture. If sufficient remuneration were not afforded to the growers of corn in Ireland, a great number of farms would be laid down in grass, and the people would, in consequence, suffer severely, as they would not be able to export such a quantity of agricultural produce as they had hitherto done. But a large portion of land would inevitably be thrown out of cultivation altogether, and the effect of such a step would be to throw a large number of labourers out of employment, and in Ireland the difficulty of obtaining work was very great. The land, too, being turned into pasture, the price of potatoes would increase, and as potatoes were the chief means of subsistence of the poor, the labourer, while he had less employment, would also be less able to provide for himself and family, because of the increase in the price of provisions. But that was not all, for if a number of labourers were thrown out of employment, the price of labour would be reduced by the competition which would take place, so that while there was little employment, and while provisions were at a high price, their means of obtaining the necessaries of life would at the same time be greatly diminished. He had little hesitation in saying, that the effect of a repeal of the Corn-laws would be to reduce the already low price of labour in Ireland by 3d. or 4d. per day. Their Lordships were aware of the advantages which the poor in Ireland derived from the rearing of pigs, but if the quantity of potatoes raised was diminished on account of the number of farms turned into grass, and if the price of all other kinds of agricultural produce were increased,—and such would be the effects of a repeal of the system of Corn-laws,—it would be no longer possible for the poor to rear the same quantity of pigs as before, and they would suffer very severely in consequence. It was, however, argued, that the landlords must reduce their rents; but those who knew anything of Ireland must be well aware of the difficulties in the way of such a step. A great number of the Irish estates were heavily encumbered, and the landlords had to maintain their families, to pay the interest of mortgages and debts, so that in many cases a reduction of rents would be attended with very great hardship. In his opinion a repeal of the Corn-laws would, cause some degree of suffering to
800
the landlords; but the farmers would suffer still more, and the labourers and poor most of all. Such, in his opinion, would be the effects of the repeal as regarded Ireland. With respect to England, he thought the manufacturers themselves would ultimately suffer more from a repeal of the Corn-laws than the landlords or farmers. It was allowed that the home market was by far the most valuable for the manufacturers, and who were the purchasers in the home market? In the home-market the landlords, farmers, and labourers, were the chief consumers, and if the income of the landlords, farmers, and labourers were diminished, it would be impossible they could continue to consume the same quantity of manufactures as they did at present. It was impossible they could do so; and it was clear, that in proportion as their means were diminished, the less would they consume of the manufacturing produce of the country. It was plain, therefore, that although the agriculturists would suffer in the first place, the manufacturers would ultimately suffer, and more severely. A repeal of the Corn-laws would, he was persuaded, be ruinous to the country. It was calculated that the landed property of the United Kingdom was worth 3,258,000,000 l., and if the Corn-laws were repealed, and the rents diminished but one third, what would be the effect as regarded property? In such a case the value of the whole landed property would be reduced one-third,—that is, the value of the land would be reduced by upwards of 1,000,000,0001 l., or 200,000,000 l., more than the amount of the national debt. He begged their Lordships to consider what the effect of such a reduction would be on the national debt. A great number of foreigners had invested their capital in the English funds, and if the value of the land were diminished to such an extent, would not a question arise with those foreigners whether their security was not so greatly decreased as to make it prudent for them to sell out? And what would be the effect of such a step? The inevitable consequence would be a large fall in the price of stock, so that the English capitalists would suffer severely. But there was another point of view in which the question ought to be considered. A repeal of the Corn-laws would diminish the consumption of all articles on which Customs and Excise

801
were levied, and the consequence would be a falling-off in the national revenue, and Ministers would have nothing to pay off the interest of the debt, and support the various institutions of the State. For these reasons he could not but think, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be a measure equally impolitic and ill-advised. If there was not enough of corn raised in this country, he wished they would give some encouragement to our American colonies; and if the duty were considerably reduced, and colonial corn admitted, such a course would be of the greatest advantage to Canada.
Petition lard on the Table.