§ Mr. Christophersaid, that seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Home Department in his place, he would venture to put to him a question upon the subject of the Corn-laws. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) having given a notice of motion on this subject for the 19th instant, and the noble Lord having publicly declared in favour of a fixed duty in preference to the present graduated scale, he wished to know whether, when the motion was made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton on the 19th, it was the intention of the noble Lord to meet that motion by an amendment, recommending a moderate fixed duty, or whether it was his intention to meet it with a direct negative?
Mr. Villiershoped the House would allow him first to say, in answer to the hon. Member's question, that it was not his intention to raise the general question upon the motion of which he had given notice. He would merely move that the House do hear evidence in support of particular petitions, and it was his intention subsequently to move the House upon the general question.
§ Lord John Russell, after the explanation of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, would say, that it certainly was not his intention to move any Amendment, proposing a fixed duty, to that hon. Member's motion. He was not likely to commit himself so far as that with regard to a motion which he had not heard 156 stated. But the impression on his mind was, that it would be his duty to oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as to hearing evidence at the bar. He had not as yet found sufficient reasons or precedents to induce him to adopt that course. At the same time he must say, that as there would be a great deal of discussion relating to facts, when a mode was proposed which he thought conformable to precedent, and not inconvenient to the House, by which these facts could be ascertained, he should be willing, although not ready to propose it himself, to support a motion so to ascertain the facts. As the hon. Gentleman had referred to this question, perhaps he might be permitted to add, with reference to the observations that had been made elsewhere, and which had startled him, that since the formation of the Government of Lord Grey, this question had always been an open question with the Members of the Government. Lord Althorp stated, in 1834, that the Cabinet was right in resisting any alteration of the Corn-law, but he stated, at the same time, that his own opinion was in favour of an alteration, but not at that time. His opinion was similar to that of Lord Althorp, in favour of alteration, but, in 1834, he considered that the time for alteration, had not arrived. He must, however, now declare, that in 1839, the time had arrived for entertaining the question.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid, he did not mean to follow the example of the noble Lord, and to discuss this important question, whether or not, upon such a subject as the Corn-laws, that agitated the public mind so much, Government ought or ought not to have a collected opinion. That was not the question put to the noble Lord, but the noble Lord, in professing to answer a question, had gone into a history of the opinions of the Cabinet with respect to the Corn-laws. That was a very inconvenient course. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Wolverhampton whether the House were to take for granted that he would bring forward the motion of which he had given notice.?
§ Subject dropped.