IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CORN.

HC Deb 07 July 1842 vol 64 cc1133-60

Mr. Bannerman

rose in pursuance of notice, to move the following resolution:— That it is the opinion of this House, that, considering the present state of the country, it would be highly expedient to vest in her present most gracious Majesty similar authority to that which was given to her predecessors, and this House, before the close of this Session, will cheerfully acquiesce in granting such powers as may enable her Majesty, with the advice of her Privy Council, to reduce or discontinue, should circumstances so require, the duties which now regulate the importation of foreign Corn, until the 1st. day of January, 1843, or for six weeks after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament. It might be said that if it were at all necessary that her Majesty's Ministers should have the powers he proposed to give them, they ought to come down to the House and ask for it: it might be said also, that this was a reopening of the discussion on the Corn-laws; and it might further be said that if the House agreed to this resolution, it would be tantamount to giving the right hon. Baronet a vote of confidence, and thereby leave in his hands a discretionary power either to relax the corn duties, or entirely to discontinue those duties which Parliament in its wisdom decided to impose. All these things might be said, but it was his decided opinion, that it was their duty be- fore the close of the Session, not only to agree to any measure which might be proposed by the Government, but to anticipate her Majesty's Government in any measure which might tend to alleviate the unparalleled, the alarming, and the long-continued distress which had existed in this country, and which he feared would not merely pervade the manufacturing districts, but would extend to almost every class of her Majesty's subjects. The existence of that distress was acknowledged on all hands; he, therefore, could not see any ground for refusing to give the power to her Majesty's Government which he proposed to do, and which, without doing injury to any party, might be beneficially exercised for the suffering multitudes of her Majesty's subjects. For a long series of years this country, it was almost needless for him to state, was a large exporting country for corn. From the year 1697 to the year 1765 the exports of grain exceeded the imports by many millions of quarters. Since the year 1797 this country had generally been an importing one for grain. Parliament had oftentimes interfered to prevent the exportation of corn and to encourage importation of foreign Corn. By the 8th of Anne, chap. 2, the Queen, by proclamation, was allowed to prevent the exportation of corn, and distillation from grain. The Parliament of that day anticipated a scarcity of grain, and they wisely provided against it by giving the Crown power to prevent exportation. By the 14th Geo. 2nd (1741), the same power was given to the King; and by the 5th Geo. 3rd (1765), his Majesty was authorized to prohibit the exportation of wheat, wheat-meal, and other articles of grain. A return was made to that House, dated 11th February, 1842, setting forth the various acts of Parliament which had been passed for the regulation of the exportation of corn. Useful as this document was, still it was defective. It referred only to those acts which related to the exportation of corn, amounting to thirty-one in number; but it did not set forth the acts relating to the importation of foreign corn, although there were twenty-one such acts. One of those statutes was rather important. It was the 35th Geo. 3rd, cap. 4. (1795), and was introduced by the Government in consequence of a Speech from the Throne, on the opening of that Parliament, in which his Majesty said, that he had observed, for some time past, with great anxiety, the high price of grain; and that that anxiety was increased by the apprehension that the wheat harvest for the then year would not be effectual to relieve the people from the afflictions with which they had to contend. In consequence of that speech, a law was passed to prohibit distillation and exportation of corn. On the 7th of December, 1795, he found the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating his budget to the House, speak thus:— Another important sum which they would have to look for in the course of this year would be, the bounties on the com to be imported into this country. On that head he could not pretend to speak with any certainty. It was a head of service to the amount of which he looked with hope rather than fear, and he should be extremely happy to find that he had a great sum to provide for upon that account. He thought, however, the sum of 1,000,000l. was as large a sum for bounties as was likely to be called for. From the year 1796 to the year 1805, no less a sum than 2,856,000l. was paid for bounty on the importation of foreign corn. He would now call the attention of the House to another important statute— the 39th Geo. 3rd, cap. 87. (1799). It authorised his Majesty to prohibit the exportation of corn, and to permit the importation of foreign corn in British and neutral ships, duty free, which act was continued by subsequent statutes to the end of the war. But important as were these provisions, there were others still more striking; for the statute went on to authorise the importation, duty free, of all sorts of pulse, of bulls, cows, oxen, calves, sheep, lambs, swine, beef, bacon, hams, tongues, potatoes, rice, poultry, and many other articles, without payment of any duty whatever. The next statute to which he would refer was one of a much more recent date than those he had hitherto quoted. It was a statute which was passed in the year 1826, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was Secretary of State for the Home Department, during Lord Liverpool's administration. On the 18th of April in that year Mr. Whitmore brought forward a motion for a committee to revise the Corn-laws. The Government resisted the motion. Great distress prevailed in the manufacturing districts during that year, and although the Government refused to interfere with the Corn-laws, yet Mr. Canning came down to the House on the 1st of May, and gave notice of a motion with regard to the distress which pressed upon the manufacturing population of the country. Mr. Canning, on that occasion, observed that— He was sure a measure of relief at the present crisis would come home to the feelings of every Member of the House; and whatever might be the inexpediency of interfering to disturb a measure which Government had refrained from altering, there were moments when general expediency should give way to cases of particular emergency. Under the existing distresses, it was the intention of Government to propose to the House a measure the least pregnant with evil, and the most calculated to do good. It was then proposed that wheat and wheaten flour then in bond should be allowed to be taken out of the warehouse at a certain duty, and that the King in council should have the power to allow the importation of foreign corn, the quantity not exceeding 500,000 quarters. The agricultural interest was most strenuously0020opposed to the Government on the occasion. [An hon. Member: What was the duty at that time?] 12s. a quarter. On the 5th of May the question was debated, and Mr. Canning quoted two letters which, with the permission of the House, he would read, as they served to show the very great and good effect which the measure proposed by Government had on the mercantile interests of the country — I hope it will not be considered an unfair inference, that if I show what we have already done, and the expectation of what we are about to do, to be producing great good, I may be allowed to anticipate still greater good from the consummation of our intentions. The account of what we proposed upon the subject of the bonded corn reached Liverpool on Wednesday morning; and on this day there are letters in town, one of which has been put into my hand just before I came down to the House. It is not from any friend of mine, nor an acquaintance, nor a political supporter either of mine or of my right hon. Friend who succeeded, me in the honour of representing that city in this House; but, on the contrary, from a gentleman decidedly opposed to me in politics. I know him, however, to be a man of high honour, unquestioned integrity, and possessing great estimation as a mercantile character in the city where he resides. In this letter, dated from Liverpool, an extract of which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House, he says, ' There has been a slight improvement to-day in Manchester goods, but the moment it became known that it was the in- tention of Ministers to introduce a measure for our relief, by removing the restrictions which kept the bonded corn out of the market, cotton could not be obtained at an advance of 5 per cent.: and there seemed to be a very general restoration of confidence, arising from the feeling that Government would do all in their power to relieve the sufferers.' This was the language of one letter. Since I entered the House, however, I have received another, which is also not addressed to me, or to any friend of mine, and I believe the writer to be opposed to me in politics. I know, however, that he is a person of respectability. His letter, dated 3d of May, runs thus:—' The account of what has been proposed by Ministers has made us all alive, and led to a very general improvement in trade. Holders of cotton are all speculating upon a rise; and there are no sellers to-day.' Surely it could not be said, after this, that the measure recommended is not founded upon good principles; and, even if the practical effect may be in some measure over-rated, it must be a matter of congratulation to its proposers, and an encouragement to perseverance, when they see that the expectation of its effects is likely to produce a return of that confidence, without which the manufacturers cannot hope to be rescued from their present difficulties. The next quotation which he would take the liberty to read to the House was from the speech of a living statesman whom he saw on the opposite bench—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. During the discussion on the motion of Mr. Canning, it had been argued that it was needless to open the ports, or to take corn out of bond, because what the people wanted was work, and that without it they had no money to pay for the corn, whether bonded or not. How did the right hon. Baronet meet that objection. He said:— My hon. Friend who spoke last has said, and I have heard the observation repeated more than once by others, that there is no use in increasing the supply of corn in this country, and lowering its price; since they who are in want of money altogether cannot buy it at any price, however low. Why, Sir, what miserable sophistry is this? To suppose that there are no classes in this country except those who are abounding in wealth, and can command all luxuries—and those who are in the other extreme, and unable to purchase even the necessaries of life. But I put it to my hon. Friend, whether there are not between those two classes many intermediate Ones, who possess, in various degrees, the means of purchasing some of them the luxuries, some the comforts, and some the necessaries of life? Is it possible to contend, that no immediate advantage will result to the other classes from lowering the price of corn to them, if it shall have attained such an additional price in the market as to render it dearer than it is at present? Look at the distressed classes of manufactures; look at the number of unemployed persons who are suffering, at Rochford there are 10,000, at another place 12,000, at another 15,000. How are they supported at this moment? Why, Sir, they are supported by the benevolence of their neighbours. And if the effect of the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend be to enable those neighbours, with the contributions raised for their relief, to purchase additional supplies of corn, to be afforded to those who have no means of purchasing it, what folly is it to contend that lowering the price of corn, and thereby enlarging the quantities which such monies will purchase, will not relieve the unfortunate people in question? When my hon. Friend says that no case had been made out, I would ask what it is he means? Quite sure I am that I may appeal to the committee whether, in the very fact of those existing distresses, such a case is not made out? I am so confident that the general conviction of the distress which now prevails in the manufacturing districts must have come home to the mind and knowledge of every man, from the information which has been supplied on that head by the daily newspapers, as to be perfectly satisfied that the same motives which induce Parliament to concur in the proposition for letting out the bonded corn, will also induce it to give a discretionary power to the Government to do precisely the same thing, or a measure of similar effect; that is to say, to admit 500,000 quarters of foreign corn into our ports. Certainly no Member could controvert the arguments then used by the right hon. Baronet. He would now advert to the expressions used on the same occasion by the noble Member for North Lancashire, who at that time, as at present, he was bound to admit, entertained a strong feeling in favour of the distressed manufacturers. The hon. Member read an extract from the speech of Lord Stanley, in 1826, applauded the beautiful language in which his sentiments had been expressed, and continued by reading a quotation of precisely the same tenor from a speech by the Earl of Aberdeen. He had thus quoted to the House the opinions of these distinguished individuals, Members of the present Government, delivered in the year 1826. It would no doubt be urged that the years 1826 and 1842 were dissimilar in several respects, particularly as far as Parliament was concerned, because in the former year it had refused to legislate regarding corn, whereas in 1842 a measure had actually been passed at the instance of the right hon. Baronet, and after long discussion. But he begged to direct the attention of the House to the operation of the new law as far as it had gone, and as far as it would be collected from a return up to the 5th June, moved for by the noble Member for London. It appeared that on the whole there were in bond at the present moment 1,375,000 quarters of wheat, and how much had been taken out of bond? Only 92,000 quarters of foreign wheat at a duty of 12s., and 60,000 quarters of colonial wheat at a duty of Is. Thus it appeared that the right hon. Baronet was completely wrong in his anticipations as to the effect of the new law, since so small a quantity of wheat had been taken out of bond. The answer might be that if the price ascended more, wheat would come out at a lower rate of duty. But when was that to happen? And in the mean time the people might be deprived of the advantage of having for consumption a large quantity of corn now in bond, and as completely removed from their reach as if it had remained in Denmark or Prussia. This was a state of things that ought not to exist in the present condition and with the present prospects of the country. Before he sat down he would briefly advert to what had been said by the right hon. Baronet on a recent evening. He had stated that, in 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the manufacturing districts were in a most flourishing condition. That was an undeniable fact—it was undeniable, too, as the right hon. Baronet had observed, that little or no corn was imported in those years. The inference he had drawn was, that the exchange of corn for manufactures was not of much consequence to the manufacturers; but what was the case as to price? In the four years when manufactures were so flourishing, the price of wheat had averaged only 46s. 8d. per quarter: while in the following years 1837, 1838,1839, and 1840, the price had been as high as 64s. 4d., a difference of no less than about 17s. per quarter. In 1841 and 1842, the state of things had been even worse, and he left the House to judge, therefore, of the enormous amount paid by the consumers He had given these details in explanation of the statement of the right hon. Baronet, because he found that that statement had produced some effect out of doors. Having fortified himself already by the opinions of three Members of the present Government, he felt justified in asking the House to adopt the resolution he had laid upon the Table, and he would conclude by moving it, without attempting to add one word to the rebuke administered by the right hon. Baronet, to those who contended, in 1826, that it was an advantage to the poor to reduce the price of corn.

Mr. Gladstone

said, he was sure it was the unanimous feeling of the House that a proposition which had for its object to afford relief to the labouring population of the country ought to be entertained not only with temper and respect, but also with a desire to discover if it were calculated to effect the object for which it was intended. At the same time he must call upon the House to reject the proposition which had just been submitted to them, feeling that it was one which would fail of attaining the purpose which the hon. Mover had in view, as well as one which involved principles of the most dangerous and objectionable character. The hon. Gentleman had rested a great part of his case on the precedents of former acts. He would therefore briefly refer to those precedents. The hon. Gentleman referred in the first place to a series of acts passed during the revolutionary war, which gave to the Crown very large discretionary powers to permit the importation of foreign corn. He said, with regard to those acts passed during a period of war, they were entirely beside the present question. If they looked to the state of things existing at that period, it was altogether different from the present, whether as regarded the consumers or the producers of agricultural commodities. As regarded the consumers, those acts were passed when extremely high prices prevailed, when commerce was hampered and restricted, and when there was an absolute necessity for gathering provisions from whatever quarter they could be procured. The first act passed under such circumstances was in 1795, when the average price of wheat was 75s. 2d.; the act was renewed in 1799, when the price averaged 69s. There were but two years from 1799 to the termination of the war in which the average price of wheat was under 70s.; it was generally from 70s. to 80s., from 80s. to 90s., or from 90s. to 100s. It was under these circumstances that a discretionary power of opening the ports was granted to the Crown, in order to en- courage the importation of wheat from every quarter. Evidently, under those circumstances, it was a matter of the most vital necessity to the consumer to reduce the price, and on the other hand the producers had no reason to apprehend any reduction of price which could give them ground of complaint But, although we had a right to expect of the producers a total abandonment of their protective laws in time of war, it did not therefore follow that in time of peace, when prices were not extravagantly high, we could make any such demand. The hon. Gentleman referred to the only precedent which appeared to give a qualified support to his motion; he meant the precedent of 1826. There were many particulars in which the case to which that precedent was applied differed from that now before the House. In the first place, the act of 1826 was intended to admit only a very limited quantity of corn—500,000 quarters. That quantity would produce but a very immaterial effect on the price of corn in this country, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman would be at all satisfied with any such reduction in the price as might be occasioned by admitting that quantity. This precedent, then, carried the hon. Gentleman no further, and, in arguing his proposition, the hon. Gentleman must seek other grounds for it than an Act of Parliament which gave a discretion, not with respect to an unlimited, but, on the contrary, a strictly limited quantity of grain. That act passed, he believed, in the prospect of a deficient harvest, of which, he trusted, there was no likelihood at the present moment. The act was passed with the condition that it should be competent for the Government under it to levy any duty on the grain so taken out of the warehouses which should not exceed 12s. a quarter. The intentions of the act would have been fulfilled if 500,000 quarters had been admitted at a duty not exceeding 12s. The hon. Gentleman must be quite aware that to lay down such conditions as that at the present time would be perfectly ridiculous, when any man might introduce his wheat into the market on the payment of a duty, not of 12s., but of 9s. a quarter. Again, the system of Corn-laws existing in 1826, when this measure was passed, was entirely different from that which the House had lately sanctioned. There was a totally different system of averages; the port were opened for three months at a time and shut far three months at at a time, and they were liable to be opened or shut by the very nicest differences in the markets; which made the arrangements totally inadequate to meet the wants of the country. There was then also a prohibition of all importation until the price reached 80s.; corn could not then be introduced, as now, on paying the duty, whatever it was, which happened to be leviable at the moment of importation. The act of 1822, which introduced a different system, had never come into operation, and the act of 1819 was in force. He believed he was not incorrect in stating, that the existence of this prohibitory law and the necessity it was found to superinduce the granting those exceptional powers, was in itself one of the grounds on which an alteration of the then existing Corn-laws was proposed in order to put a stop to the system of absolute prohibition up to a certain price, and substitute one under which corn should be admitted at all times on payment of duty fixed by the act. Thus the Legislature dispensed with the necessity of leaving those large and arbitrary powers in the hands of the executive Government. He would not dwell at any length on a point which must have occurred to hon. Gentlemen—the danger of granting this unconstitutional power on a scale so enormous and unlimited as was contemplated by the hon. Gentleman. The proposition was one which, although not brought forward in that spirit, it would be almost impossible on any considerations drawn from the nature of a free constitution, to entertain. Was it to be supposed that on one of the most important questions that could engage the attention of the Legislature, a question affecting the subsistence of the people, affecting great masses of capital and labour, and nearly concerning the employment and comforts of the bulk of the community, Parliament was entirely to divest itself of its high function of providing for the public weal, and commit an arbitrary, unfettered, despotic power to the hands of the executive Government? Did the hon. Gentleman mean that the discretion which he proposed to vest in his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) as a mark of his high confidence in the Government —and he must say that a higher proof of confidence it would be difficult to give, for never had a more extravagant proof been given by any supporter of a Government than was now proposed to be given by one of its opponents—was it the hon. Gentleman's intention that this extraordinary indication of his confidence was to be at the disposal of the executive Government at a time when the average prices of corn were moderate, or was the discretionary power only to be exercised when they were extravagantly high? ["Mr. Bannerman meant when the price was at 57s.] He wished to know, because the powers which the hon. Gentleman proposed to give were so large that unless accompanied by instructions of some kind, they would leave those to whom they were confided in a state of the greatest embarrassment. But if the hon. Gentleman intended that they should be exercised at the present rates of prices, then he said that the hon. Gentleman was doing that indirectly which he ought to do directly. The hon. Gentleman ought to raise the question of the repeal of the law if he wished to effect that object, and not to propose to set it aside by placing absolute power in the hands of the executive Government, instead of Parliament, the regular constitutional authority. But if, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman meant that the power should only be exercised in times of scarcity, then his plan would have all the objections which must attach to the alteration of a great economical law as well as all the objections brought against the present Corn-law. It would have those effects of disturbing capital, labour, and confidence, which would attend the repeal of the Corn-law, without the beneficial effects which that measure might have. It would place in the hands of the corn importers the power of increasing the sufferings of the consumer by withholding their corn till the price reached an extravagantly high rate, in order that it might then be introduced at a very low duty, and augment the profits of the dealer. If, therefore, it was proposed that corn should be introduced at the present prices, which without being extravagant or exorbitant were high, this was a most unconstitutional proposition, and it was contrary to common sense and common reason that Parliament, instead of altering the Corn-law, should give the power of doing so to the Government—should divest themselves of their high functions and commit them to the Executive. If, on the other hand, it was intended that the power of introducing corn should only be exercised when prices rose very high, then the hon. Gentleman proposed to do that which had been urged as an objection to the graduated scale, namely, to hold out an inducement to the holders of corn to keep it back, until they could introduce it on terms most advantageous to themselves. If the hon. Gentleman's proposition had any meaning at all, it ought to have been brought forward in the shape of a motion for the repeal of the Corn-law. After the discussions which had taken place during the present Session he would not for one moment entertain any such question. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the operation of the law in a way which facts did not justify. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the limited quantity of corn which had come in for consumption since the operation of the present law. Now, it should be borne in mind, that they were still passing through a most critical period of the year; and he could not conceive anything which would have a more unfavourable effect on the minds of the holders of corn, or which was more calculated to induce them to keep back their grain than the knowledge that the hon. Member was moving the House of Commons to stultify and contradict the decision to which it had so lately come, and was actually proposing a measure which would give the holders of grain an opportunity of introducing it at no distant time into the British market free of duty. If there were any disposition, as he was confident there was not, to re-open the question of the Corn-laws, which it cost three months to settle, such a course would have a most unfavourable operation on the corn-market, and on the subsistence and comforts of the people. It was clear that the period o f the two feverish months which had elapsed since the Royal assent was given to the Corn-bill, could afford no rational means of judging of its effects. They must be content to wait longer before they could fairly say how it operated. But, judging merely from the experience of a few weeks, he was not prepared to go the length of saying, with the hon. Gentleman, that the operation of the new law had been totally unsuccessful. As far as the accounts were made up, it appeared that there had been an introduction, since the operation of the new law, up to the 13th of June, of 190,000 quarters. He admitted that this quantity was less than the wants of the country required. But, then, it was the hon. Gentleman, together with those who supported his motion, that contributed more than any other parties to induce the holders of corn to keep it back. He had, however, reason to suppose, that the holders of corn in this country, acting with that sagacity, which almost uniformly marked the operations of British merchants, would be inclined, particularly if they perceived that the mind of Parliament was fixed as to the Corn-law, to introduce a large supply from the bonding warehouses, which would afford seasonable aid to the revenue, and what was still more important, great relief to the consumers. If the contingency contemplated by the hon. Member (Mr. Bannerman) should unfortunately arise, it ought to be dealt with in the same way as it had been dealt with in 1826. The right way in his opinion to meet such a contingency was to act upon the constitutional principle and call the Legislature together to decide and determine as to the course the Government ought to adopt in regard to a question of such grave moment and deep interest to the commnnity. The proposition, then, of the hon. Gentleman, in whatever point of view contemplated, was such, he thought, as Parliament could not entertain.

Mr. H. G. Ward

entirely concurred in one or two observations of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He admitted that it would have been a much more direct and desirable course for his hon. Friend to have proposed the repeal of the Corn-law; but, unfortunately, such a motion could not be carried. Since, then, the law could not be repealed, the object was to modify and moderate the evil. The enemies of the present system saw a state of affairs approaching pregnant with difficulty and danger, and they wished to take a course which was open to them, and which would diminish the difficulty and mitigate the danger. The only means left to them was to increase and enforce the responsibility of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of this motion as an extraordinary mark of confidence. He admitted that it was so, but there was a great deal in the state of the country which required it. The friends of the suffering classes were taking the precise course which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had recommended in 1826, and yet his right hon. Colleague insisted that it was unconstitutional, and that no such power ought to be entrusted to any executive Government. He might leave him to settle that point with the right hon. Baronet, and certain it was that all the arguments this night advanced against the motion had been anticipated and answered by Mr. Huskisson in 1826. He had disposed of them all. What was the point upon which the whole case turned? That there were emergencies in the state of this country, under the factitious system which her lawmakers had chosen to establish, which must overrule everything, and which would only be met by extraordinary powers. The supporters of the present motion contended that the present was one of those emergencies; it was impossible to witness the rapid increase of distress in all quarters, without investing Government with the power of administering immediate relief. The present Administration had brought this state of things upon themselves, by insisting upon having a law which kept a million of quarters of wheat from a starving population. If Ministers chose to have this law, they ought to have it with all its responsibilities; and let them answer to Parliament, when it again assembled, for the exercise of the power. Such had been the argument of Mr. Canning in 1826, and that was all that was now sought by the motion before the House. It was his belief that the country gentlemen would be more disposed to refuse placing trust in the right hon. Gentleman than himself. They would not be willing to give him in such a case the power that he was disposed to confide in the right hon. Gentleman. The country gentlemen, he believed, were afraid that the right hon. Gentleman would apply the principles of the tariff to the Corn-law. Their sentiments, he believed, were those that on a former occasion had been expressed, on the part of the agricultural interest by Sir John Brydges when similar powers were proposed to be confided in the Government, for he declared that giving such a power would be "a death-blow to the agricultural interest and a death-blow to the Constitution." He it was, he believed, who said, "Perish commerce, but live the Constitution." Upon a former occasion Mr. Huskisson had met every one of the arguments that had been used now, and he showed that Parliament refusing such powers as were now proposed to be given to the Government would incur a fearful responsibility. As to the Constitutional part of the question, he must say that, as it was one on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had so strongly insisted, it was to be wished that he had read the debates which had taken place regarding it very attentively. If he had looked to these debates, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have ventured to touch upon such a point. The right hon. Baronet the head of the Treasury had, on the former occasion, insisted that the Government should have the responsibility that they claimed—that it should rest with his Majesty's Government, and the right hon. Gentleman had well said that there were two kinds of courage — the courage of resisting improper demands, and the courage of assenting to proper demands when they were encountered by an improper clamour. He must say that he wished the Government had had the manliness to admit their error at the commencement of this Session, and to say that the sliding-scale was founded on a false principle. From what he saw, he anticipated that the House would be called upon to meet before the winter, in order that it might meet the fearful state of things that might be expected to arise. He supported the present motion, although he admitted that he should have preferred the question being brought forward in a fairer and fuller shape. This was at best but a temporary remedy for a permanent evil, and as such he preferred it to no remedy at all.

Lord Worsley

remarked, that the present motion did not attract that degree of attention and observation which it might have done if brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. In his opinion, it was a motion for upsetting the Corn-law altogether. In saying this, he could not but admit that the Corn-law had not attained that object which it proposed to have in view. Now he objected to it on this ground, that the resolution would put it into the power of the Government to destroy the protection of the agriculturists. Such a power he would be sorry to give to the present Government. The only effect of it would be to induce speculation—to incite parties to get up the price of wheat, and to cause the greatest distrust to agriculturists, who could never know when they were safe. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, that there would not be a deficient harvest; now he must say that he was sorry to maintain that of which he felt convinced, that there would not be an average crop. He found that under the present law the same tricks were played as under the old with the averages; and he must declare that he was not disposed to place in the power of the Government to decide and judge when corn ought to be admitted. Such a power he would not place in the hands of any Government. Let, he said, Parliament be the authority on this point, and not the Government of the day.

Mr. M. Milnes

said, he believed the Government was strong enough and virtuous enough to take upon themselves any responsibility whatever, and he therefore very much regretted that they had not willingly acceded to the motion that was made from the opposite side of the House. When he saw, day after day, these frightful accounts of the accumulating distress of the country and the scandalous price of corn, until the last two or three days, when the price was somewhat diminished, he felt that they ought to do nothing whatever to discourage the feeling of the country, that the Government would do everything in their power to relieve the enormous difficulties that now pressed upon the people. He thought that in such circumstances we should be prepared for the worst, and that the Government, having brought in the present Corn-bill under the conviction that the price of corn would be diminished by it, should fake upon themselves the responsibility of relieving the enormous exigencies of the country. He felt very deeply on this question; and nothing but the conviction of the importance of it would prevent him from voting with the party with whom he should always wish to vote.

Mr. P.M. Stewart thought the hon.

Member had mistaken the price of corn for the duty—the duty was falling but the price of corn was rising. He supported the motion, because he was convinced that the necessities of the country required it. In saying this, he admitted that he belonged to that small section in that House, destined, he believed, soon to increase, which was for the entire abolition of the corn duties. He believed that it was the object of the Government to have a steady trade in corn; but he could tell them that in such an object they had totally failed. He could tell them that the best authorities in Mark-lane declared that they could scarcely know that the law with regard to corn had been altered—that the trade was now as much a matter for speculation as it formerly used to be. There were now 1,400,000 quarters of corn in bond — that was the precise quantity—and the traders were now playing for the 9s., as they formerly did for the 21s. He could tell the right hon. Baronet that his scale was considered the safer of the two for the speculators; for although the stake was smaller, the risk was less. The speculating, and the playing for the low duty was, however, the same as it had been. He did not know, however, that he should have taken part in this debate, if he had not received that day a letter from New Orleans, which gave an admirable statement of the wants and wishes of the Americans, and so strongly confirmed the views of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison). He should now read the letter, and leave to the right hon. Baronet to make the fitting comment upon it. The letter said this:— New Orleans, June 6, 1841. We wish we could add that the alteration in the British Corn-laws had been of that nature, to allow the industrious agricultural population of our back states to have placed a greater breadth of their now idle, though rich, lands under cultivation. Unfortunately, no such inducements are held out by an uncertain and varying duty. The new Corn-law of England must act disadvantageously on distant markets, and throw all the favourable opportunities for importing grain into the hands of more the contiguous speculators. Our farmers see themselves not only deprived of what is to all a familiar, and to many a native market; but are also debarred from drawing thence the supplies they are most in need of but for which an adverse policy will permit of no exchange. (Signed) "LIZARDI & Co."

As to the precedent of 1826, he was not disposed to agree with the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade with regard to the opinions he expressed as to the present situation of affairs not being similar. He thought there was a great similarity in the circumstances of 1826 and 1842; but then, indeed, it might be owned that the manufacturers were not distressed the one-hundredth part then that they were now—they had the same misery now that they had then—they had heard that misery described in the debate on the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock—they had then, as they had now, a Royal Letter to raise money for the poor; and what, on such an occasion, were the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth? That discretionary power, with which it may be a matter of prudence, and a means of safety to invest them, in the apprehension that there may be a grievous pressure experienced by the people from the possible rise of agricultural produce beyond its present prices. These words were uttered by the right hon. Baronet on the 5th May, 1826. The average price of wheat then in the London market was 61s., and now it was 63s. The average price of oats then in the London market was 23s., and now it was 20s. 4d. He wished to refresh the right hon. Baronet's memory on these points. And then as to the constitutional question, he should again beg to quote the right hon. Baronet, who said, first — I think that circumstances may occur, in which the admission of foreign corn may tend to reduce the poor-rates; and then the right hon. Baronet added— I have no doubt that if we were now to separate, and a case should arise to render the introduction of foreign grain a matter of necessity, Ministers would be threatened with an impeachment, and every word used against the Government of 1766 would be triumphantly thrown in our teeth. He repeated the words of the right hon. Baronet, and he said, that the power ought to be exercised by the Government to prevent a public calamity. He gave his support to the motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.

Mr. Wallace

observed, that it had been most distinctly proved that very great distress prevailed. Distress, he said, to such an extent, and so great, that it was sufficient to alarm the Government. The Parliament was omnipotent to protect the people, and be thought that they should tell the advisers of her Majesty to let her Majesty know the situation to which her subjects had been reduced. He must say, seeing the situation in which the country was, he hoped that the Corn-law would be again mooted this year in the House, and it were not so, he was ready to re- sort to any measure which would compel the Ministry, for the want of supplies, to take the proper means to protect the people from starvation, as he believed they were exposed to it under the present law. He referred to the number of public works, and the money expended on them, to show how easily the people may be provided for by other means than those of mere charity.

Mr. J. Parker

said, that in 1826, when a proposition was made to dispense with the customs laws, and to admit corn at a low price for the purpose of relieving the distresses of the people, it was supported by the party to which the right hon. Baronet belonged; but the difficulties of 1826, arising from the panic of 1825, were not to be compared with the difficulties of the present time. The evil of the Government Corn-law was, that it left our trade with America and other distant corn-growing countries open to all the uncertainty which had been objected to against the old law; but had the proposition of an 8s. fixed duty been adopted, it was his belief that those evils would have been avoided and our trade extended. He had attempted, unsuccessfully, to introduce a clause in the Government bill to meet the difficulty he complained of, though he felt that no course could be satisfactory which attempted to grapple with the perplexities and uncertainties of the sliding-scale. It was anticipated by many persons that an emergency might occur in the course of the ensuing autumn, and he, and those who supported this motion, were desirous of arming the Government with a power to enable them to meet it, and he felt that the knowledge on the part of the country that the Government had such a power would increase the public confidence, and tend to improve our trade and commerce.

Sir R. Peel

Sir, the proposition which has been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen for vesting this discretionary-power in her Majesty's Government rests mainly on two grounds:.—the first ground is that of authority, and that authority is chiefly confined to the precedent of 1826; the second, and by much the more important ground, is that of reason and the public advantage. Now, it is quite clear that this second consideration constitutes the much stronger ground of argument on this question; but still reliance has been placed on the precedent of 1826, and it has been applied to the present case, and therefore I think I am justified in recalling to the recollection of the House the real nature of that precedent and its bearing on the present subject of debate. In 1826, the then existing law, if I am not! mistaken, prevented the importation of foreign wheat unless the average price in this country had attained 80s. I think that was the amount. Now, the Government of that day had to consider whether? they would submit to Parliament an alteration of the existing law, which was admitted on all hands to be desirable,—no, I will not say on all hands, but this I may say, that there was then a general opinion in the country that the law which prevented the importation of corn till it reached a price of 80s. was a law which required revision. In that year—I mean the year 1826—the Government did not think it advisable to submit any proposition to Parliament which had for its object an alteration in the Corn-laws; but they still felt it would not be unsuited to the circumstances of the country if they proposed that the executive Government should be invested with a discretionary power of admitting foreign wheat for one year at a duty of 12s. per quarter. To some extent I admit that the limitation as to duty could not strictly be considered as confined to a 12s. duty, although it cannot be denied that that was to be the amount of duty payable on any quantity imported above 500,000 quarters in any one year. The state of the law was this —there was a limitation as to quantity, but there was no limitation as to the duties payable on that quantity; for 500,000 quarters of wheat might be introduced at any duty which the Government thought proper to impose. Now, what were the observations of Mr. Canning on that occasion? He said, that there was then in the distressed districts a large quantity of corn in bond which would not be brought into immediate consumption; and he further remarked that on a late occasion the Government had decided that no alteration should be made in the Corn-laws. In addition to this, he said that months might elapse (he might perhaps have been more accurate if he had said several weeks might elapse) during a very critical period of the year, and Parliament be not sitting at the time. That circumstance alone, Mr. Canning held, would justify the precaution which, in the year 1826, was proposed by the Government for the adoption of Parliament. The House will observe that the circumstances under which this precaution was taken were very peculiar. A critical period of the year was at hand; it was apprehended that at that moment Parliament would not be sitting; and it was known that there was no sufficient quantity of corn in the country out of bond. I trust I need say nothing more to show that the circumstances in which the country was placed in the year 1826 differed very materially from those in which we now stand in the year 1842. What took place after the arrangement made in the year 1826? So sensible was Mr. Canning of the extreme inexpediency of investing the executive Government with a power so embarrassing and a responsibility so great, that in the very next year he proposed to relieve them from the painful trust, which nothing but the urgent circumstances of the preceding season could at all justify. The sliding-scale was introduced by Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Canning. By the introduction of that principle you dispensed with the necessity of investing Government with a power so great, and, generally speaking, so inexpedient. The fact was undeniable, that the objects of the acts of 1827 and 1828 were for the purpose of avoiding the necessity which you now say exists. I do not mean to rely much on the supposed constitutional power; but this I will say, that if unforeseen circumstances should arise, there is no Government likely to be intrusted with the administration of affairs in this country which will be wanting in the courage to take the power requisite for saving the country, rather than incur the peril of exposing it to any deficiency of food. On the whole, then, I am sure the House will agree with me that it is much better to trust the Government on their own responsibility to exercise this extreme power rather than provide beforehand for an exigency which might not arise. Having thus disposed of the question of precedent, I come to the far more important consideration of the public weal —to the expediency and the reason of the thing. There is hardly any circumstance in which the condition of the country in 1826 does not differ from the condition in which we are placed in 1842. In the former year the responsible advisers of the Crown did not call for any interference with the Corn-laws. In 1842 her Ma- jesty's Government felt it to be their duty to refer the Corn-laws to the consideration and decision of the Legislature. They proposed a material change in those laws, and that change received the sanction of Parliament. We now have-a new Corn-law, determining the amount of the duty, and yet two months after that you propose to give the Government the power of altering that rate of duty. Now, I object to introducing this new principle into the Corn-laws. What is it that you propose to do? You propose to give greater security by investing the Government with the power of altering the rate of duty as they please. I can understand a repeal of the law, but if you do this, how can you notify to foreign countries what the law is to be? You first pass a law, and then you throw the whole subject into utter uncertainty. How will this operate upon foreign countries? If you make this proposed change in the law, you do that which will be exclusively beneficial to those countries which are our nearest neighbours. The news of any change effected by the executive Government would reach America in four or five weeks; but during those weeks Holland and the adjoining countries would pour in an indefinite supply, and America would be excluded from the opportunity of administering to our wants. The whole effect of the arrangement would, therefore, be most unfair towards those countries which are placed at a distance from England. I object to the proposition, not only on the grounds I have stated, but on this ground also, that it would carry with it a degree of uncertainty which would operate most unfairly in those quarters in which it was intended to give a decided advantage. If a measure of this kind were to receive the sanction of Parliament its immediate effect will be to hold out inducements to the proprietors of bonded corn to withhold that corn from the market. What does the House say to a proposition for enabling the Privy Council during the sitting of Parliament to alter the votes of both Houses, and determine the price at which foreign corn is to be admitted? I want to know at what price it is that Government is to admit foreign corn? [An hon. Member: "Corn ought to be admitted now."] If corn ought to be admitted now, why leave any discretionary power on the subject to the Privy Council? Why not at once propose to Parliament that which you wish to sanction as a proceeding of the Government? Why not at once submit to Parliament a proposition for admitting corn at a Is. duty? Whether you have a fixed duty or no duty at all, it is impossible for you to prevent speculation. That applies to all articles, whether admitted duty free or at a fixed duty, namely, that if parties foresee that there is a probability of a rise in price, they will withhold their corn from the markets for the purpose of realizing greater profit. At the same time I admit that a varying rate of duty has a tendency to increase speculation. Under all times and circumstances there must be a disposition, arising from a probability of arise in price, to keep back the article from the market. Now, what is the present state of the case, according to the returns of the averages recently made? The following is the result of the average prices to the 23rd of June. In this return is given the quantity of wheat imported and the quantity taken out for home consumption. In that week there was a tendency in prices to rise, and the averages were rather on the increase; and I heard you say, with respect to the former law, there was no instance of corn being taken out of bond for foreign consumption when there was a tendency in prices to rise. In the last week there was an apparent tendency of that kind, and the quantity of foreign wheat imported during the week ending the 30th of June, 1842, was 68,481 quarters, and the quantity of corn entered for home consumption in the week was 25,756 quarters. I do not mean to say that that was a very large quantity of corn, but that quantity was taken out in the face of a rise of prices, and the duty paid was 10s. a quarter,["Hear."] Now, don't be too confident; I won't fall into that error; I won't undertake to say what the operation of the law will be under the experience of seven weeks only; but don't be too confident in your predictions that corn will be retained in bond till the 1s. duty shall arise. In my opinion those who entered it, if they thought that, not only made a great mistake, but also run a great risk. The rate of duty now is 9s. a quarter. A proposition was made by the late Government for a fixed duty of 8s. upon the importation of corn; the present rate of duty is 9s. If, according to the existing law, that rate of duty shall diminish on account of the increase of price, corn would become admissible without any act of interference on the part of her Majesty's Government. If you had applied a fixed duty of 8s. there would be more reason in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The whole amount of the difference in the amount of duty in the present week is 1s., 9s. being the amount of duty, and 8s. being the proposition of the late Government. No proposition was made for the purpose of enabling the Government to reduce the duty last year. That was considered to be most objectionable when there was no prospect by the operation of the law of insuring the admission of corn at a low rate of duty. The intervention of the Privy Council in a matter of this nature was felt to be so objectionable that no provision was made for a remission of the duty. That was the argument held by many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They argued that when prices were high in this country they would insure the importation of foreign Corn, and then foreign Corp could afford to pay the duty—that, provided you have high prices of 70s., there was no reason why a duty of 8s. should not be paid. I have heard speech after speech, and read pamphlet after pamphlet, tending to show that there was no necessity for the interference of the Privy Council, because when prices were high a certain amount of duty would be paid; and it was also said that the remission of the duty would be no benefit whatever to the consumer; the price of corn would immediately rise as the duty was limited, and the whole benefit would go into the pocket of the importer. What is now the proposition? There is a prospect of realizing an 8s. duty, and a tolerable prospect also of realizing a 6s. duty on foreign corn. it is said that there are 1,400,000 quarters in bond; suppose they are admitted at 7s., you will realize about 400,000l. or 500,000l, of revenue, as you contended, without the least injury to the consumer. As you contended, the remission of duly would put so much money into the pockets of the importers, and there would be no benefit to the consumer. If you give this power corn will be held back in the hope that such a degree of pressure may arise that Government will give way, and the ordinary operations of commerce will be disturbed; but if Government give way you will lose the amount of duty which, upon your own showing, you might realize without any disadvantage. What does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock tell us? He says, that he thinks, from the state of the weather, and the mixture of genial rain and sunshine, there is a prospect of an early harvest in the country. I wish his expectations may be realized. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he has made extensive inquiries, and he is fully confident that there will be an early harvest—so early, indeed, that, to use his own words, the sickle will be amongst the wheat in the middle of July. Well, what effect will that prospect have upon the holder of foreign corn if you now step in and induce him by this power to hope that the Government would be compelled to exercise that power, and admit the corn he has brought here upon a much lower rate of duty? What confidence can foreign countries have in our commercial arrangements, if after this adjustment by Parliament of the Corn-laws, we, within two months of that adjustment, say that it is to be set aside, and not to be acted upon as law, but that there is to be a discretion given to the Privy Council to act as they please in that matter? I have attempted to argue this question much more upon the grounds of reason and public advantage than upon the authority of precedent; if this power be exercised by the Privy Council it is impossible to deny that it is a most dangerous power, and that it cannot be exercised without difficulty. Those foreign countries you wish to favour most will be less benefitted by it, because the moment it is notified that corn will be admitted at a 2s. duty the neighbouring countries will be the first to take advantage of it, and those more distant will be thus kept out of the market. Above all, consider the possible effect of disturbing all the commercial transactions undertaken under the law—consider the probable effect of your promoting by your interference that outlet of corn which if you don't interfere might take place, and which might have the effect of lowering prices and increasing the means of subsistence; also don't throw out of consideration the probable and needless loss to the revenue—the sacrifice of that revenue which will be paid, and cheerfully paid, if you permit the law to remain as it is. I do trust that these combined considerations will induce the House to come to the conclusion that it is not for the public advantage to take from the law the certainty of its operation, and to invest her Majesty's Government with responsibility most difficult for them to exercise, and most dangerous in its exercise, from the risk which you incur not only of losing revenue, but of postponing the period at which natural supplies were to be expected.

Viscount Howick

said, the right hon Baronet had professed to argue this question upon reason and public advantage, and on both grounds had failed to make out his case. It was perfectly true that there were not many minute coincidences in the details of the circumstances of this year and the year 1826. In fiscal matters it was very seldom the case that two years were exactly alike; but he contended that the broad principle was the same in both cases. In 1826 the country was suffering under extreme distress; and it was felt that the state of the Corn-laws then prevented the application of that relief which otherwise would have been available. He thought, in the intensity of the existing distress, and the impossibility which there was of any reduction in the price of corn, that there was justification for attempting what he believed would afford some mitigation of the present suffering. He did not think, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, that the necessary operation of the resolution proposed by his hon. Friend would be to increase the uncertainty in the price of corn. The operation of the resolution would be, to prevent the duties rising beyond a certain amount for a definite time. He thought it a mistake to say that distant markets would not obtain the advantage of this. At this moment the importation of corn from distant markets was prevented by this circumstance—that though the duty on foreign corn was now only 9s., it was very possible that large importations from various markets, or abundant harvests of our own, might make the averages fall before cargoes from America or Odessa could arrive, and with that fall there might be a corresponding increase in the duty; and therefore the distant speculators were prevented from coming into the market, The effect of this was completely to prevent the shipments of corn from distant markets to this country. The right hon. Baronet talked of the probability of foreign corn being admitted at a 6s. duty; but what was the advantage of that to the consumer? The advantage was entirely to the growers of corn in Poland; it gave them the monopoly of the market, and excluded the competition of the distant grower. The duty might go down to 6s., or fall to 1s., but it would not be to the advantage of the consumer, but of those holding this corn. If the principle of the resolution were admitted, it was competent for the House to declare that no higher duty than 6s. or 8s. should be imposed. If they decided on that, they would give confidence to the market, and thereby cause a demand for labour, and relieve our distressed manufacturers. In the present state of the distress of the country, those Gentlemen who were in favour of the existing Corn-law ought, above all others, to concur in this motion, because their apprehension was, that if a permanent fixed duty were established, so much new land would be brought into cultivation abroad, that it would inflict great injury on our British agriculture; and they therefore refused to give their sanction to a fixed duty. He did not think the argument of the hon. Baronet, used to prove that the existing law was not productive of the evil, conclusive. The right hon. Baronet had told them, with an air of considerable triumph, that 25,000 quarters of corn had been entered for home consumption during the last week; but this was only out. of 1,500,000 quarters in bond. He did not pretend that the measure of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen was free from objections; but these objections arose not from the measure itself, but from the nature of the permanent law they had passed. As they had passed that law, and it was not likely that Parliament would consent at this moment to repeal it, he, for one, as the most likely mitigation of the evils of that law, would support the motion of his hon. Friend.

Mr. C. Buller

would just observe, that the stupendous quantity of corn which the right hon. Baronet stated had, in one particular week, been taken out of bond and entered for home consumption, namely, 25,000 quarters, was just half a day's consumption for the whole country.

Lord J. Russell

remarked that the right hon. Baronet had admitted that the law, as it at present stood, had increased speculation and variation in prices, an additional argument against the right hon. Baronet's Corn-law. The right hon. Baronet further had contended that they were not to judge of the effects of the new law from seven weeks' experience; but let the House bear in mind it was not the experience of seven weeks that was the question, but the experience of the sliding-scale, that had been pointed out to Gentlemen opposite over and over again when the measure was passing. Every discussion that had taken place, directly or incidentally, on the Corn-laws, showed the false principles on which Government had proceeded in legislating on the subject, and he must confess that he was some what pleased that, in arguing this question, the right hon. Baronet had been obliged to testify to many of those principles which had been urged from that side of the House. As to the proposition now made, he must confess he could not sanction it, because it would be placing in the hands of the executive Government the entire distribution of the food to the country. His opinion was, that the law which had just been made ought to be repealed, and replaced by an entirely different one; and he did not see that the present proposition would at all act as a useful alteration of that law. If an emergency arose during the recess, no doubt the Government would be ready to assume the responsibility of advising her Majesty to take the necessary steps for meeting that emergency, relying upon Parliament to sanction the proceedings which necessity had compelled them to adopt.

Mr. Hume

should support the motion, because, as matters stood, he saw no chance of obtaining anything better this Session. He would tell the right hon. Baronet that since his Corn-bill had passed, the distress of the country had been doubled, and he was convinced that nothing could stay the starvation that was spreading throughout the country but opening the ports for the importation of corn free of duty. He regretted that the noble Lord the Member for the city of London did not support the motion, for he was satisfied that it was the only mode of sympathising with the people.

The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 175: Majority 62.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Visct.	Bernal, Capt.
Aglionby, H. A.	Bowring, Dr.
Ainsworth, P.	Brocklehurst, J.
Aldam, W.	Brotherton, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Buller, C.
Berkeley, hon. capt.	Buller, E.
Bernal, R.	Busfield, W.

Byng, G.	Leader, J. T.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Callaghan, D.	Mangles, R. D.
Carew, hon. R. S.	Marshall, W.
Cave, hon. R. O.	Marsland, H.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Milnes, R. M.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Morris, D.
Chapman, B.	Morison, Gen.
Childers, J. W.	Muntz, G. F.
Cobden, R.	Napier, Sir C.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	O'Brien, J.
Craig, W. G.	O'Connell, M. J.
Crawford, W. S.	O'Connell, J.
Divett, E.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Duncan, G.	Ord, W.
Duncombe, T.	Paget, Col.
Dundas, Adm.	Parker, J.
Dundas, D.	Pechell, Capt.
Easthope, Sir J.	Philips, G. R.
Ebrington, Visct	Philips, M.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Phillpotts, J.
Ellis, W.	Plumridge, Capt.
Elphinstone, H.	Pryse, P.
Evans, W.	Rice, E. R.
Ewart, W.	Ricardo, J. L.
Ferguson, Col.	Scholefield, J.
Fielden, J.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Smith, B.
Forster, M.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Fox, C. R.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Gibson, T. M.	Stewart, P. M.
Gill, T.	Stuart, Lord J.
Gordon, Lord F.	Strutt, E.
Gore, hon. R.	Tancred, H. W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Thornely, T.
Hall, Sir B.	Towneley, J.
Hastie, A.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hawes, B.	Tufnell, H.
Heathcoat, J.	Turner, E.
Hill, Lord M.	Walker, R.
Hindley, C.	Wallace, R.
Hollond, R.	Watson, W. H.
Howard, P. H.	Wawn, J. T.
Howick, Visct.	Williams, W.
Hume, J.	Wood, B.
Hutt, W.	Wood, C.
James, W.	Wood, G. W.
Johnson, Gen.	Yorke, H. R.
Langston, J. H.	TELLERS.
Langton, W. G.	Bannerman, A.
Layard, Capt.	Ward, H. G.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Bennett, J.
A'Court, Capt.	Bentinck, Lord G.
Antrobus, E.	Berkeley, hon. G. F.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Blackburne, J. I.
Archdall, Capt.	Blakemore, R.
Arkwright, G.	Boldero, H. G.
Bagot, hon. W.	Botfield, B.
Bailey, J., jun.	Bramston, T. W.
Baillie, Col.	Brodie, W. B.
Baillie, H. J.	Bruce, Lord E.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Buck, L. W.
Barrington, Visct.	Buckley, E.
Bateson, R.	Buller, Sir J. Y.

Cardwell, E.	Jackson, J. D.
Chapman, A.	Jermyn, Earl
Chelsea, Visct.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Christopher, R. A.	Jones, Capt.
Clayton, R. R.	Kemble, H.
Clerk, Sir G.	Knightley, Sir C.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Codrington, C. W.	Law, hon. C. E.
Corry, rt. hn. H.	Lawson, A.
Courtenay, Lord	Lefroy, A.
Cresswell, B.	Legh, G. C.
Cripps, W.	Leicester, Earl of
Damer, hon. Col.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Darby, G.	Lincoln, Earl of
Dawnay, hon. W. H:	Litton, E.
Denison, E. B.	Lockhart, W.
Dickinson, F. H.	Lowther, J. H.
Douglas, Sir H.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Lyall, G.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Duffield, T.	Mackenzie, T.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Eaton, R. J.	Mainwaring, T.
Egerton, W. T.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Eliot, Lord	March, Earl of
Escott, B.	Marsham, Visct.
Farnham, E. B.	Masterman, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Meynell, Capt.
Fielden, W.	Miles, P. W. S.
Ferrand, W. B.	Mitchell, T. A.
Flower, Sir J.	Morgan, O.
Forbes, W.	Mundy, E. M.
Fuller, A. E.	Neeld, J.
Gaskell, J. M.	Norreys, Lord
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Packe, C. W.
Gladstone, T.	Pakington, J. S.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Palmer, R.
Gore, M.	Patten, J. W.
Gore, W. O.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Goring, C.	Peel, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Phillips, Sir R. B. P.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Pigot, Sir R.
Granby, Marquis of	Pollington, Visct.
Greenall, P.	Pollock, Sir F.
Greene, T.	Pringle, A.
Grimsditch, T.	Pusey, P.
Grimston, Visct.	Rashleigh, W.
Grogan, E.	Reid, Sir J. R.
Halford, H.	Rolleston, Col.
Hamilton, W. J.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Russell, Lord J.
Harcourt, G. G.	Sandon, Visct.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Hardy, J.	Scott, hon. F.
Heathcote, G. J.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Heneage, E.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Henley, J. W.	Sibthorp, Col.
Herbert, hon. S.	Smith, A.
Hervey, Lord A.	Somerset, Lord G.
Hodgson, F.	Stanley, Lord
Hodgson, R.	Stewart, J.
Hogg, J. W.	Stuart, H.
Hope, hon. C.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hornby, J.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Hughes, W. B.	Thesiger, F.
Hussey, T.	Thompson, Ald.

Tomline G.	Wodehouse, E
Trench, Sir F. W.	Wood, Col. T.
Trevor, hon. G. R	Worsley, Lord
Trollope, Sir J.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Trotter, J.	Yorke, hon E. T.
Vemer, Col.	Young, J.
Vesey, hon. T.
Waddington, H. S.	TELLERS.
Walsh, Sir J. B.	Freemantle, Sir T.
Wilbraham, hn. R. B.	Baring, H.