HC Deb 27 August 1841 vol 59 cc342-450

On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate,

Mr. R. Milnes

addressed the House. The hon. Member believed the prolongation of the debate could not be satisfactory either to the House or the country. It could not be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves to make statements, which because they were not answered, could not be supposed to be irrefragable. Gentlemen opposite would wish the question to be considered as one of principle on their side, and as one of party on the other, and this was nothing more or less than to place the subject in a false light before the country. Gentlemen knew this question was not, abstractedly considered, the question of the Corn-laws. The men, as Well as the measures, were the subject of decision, and could not be separated. Person and party were involved in the question, and the hon. mover of the Address put the question in a form which he knew they could not grapple with. Yes, the question was put forward in a manner with which they could not grapple, because they knew it only ought to be grappled with by men who occupied a legitimate and distinct position in the country. They knew that the principal accusation against the Government was, that they brought forward those measures impertinently and injudiciously, as they must have been aware that a satisfactory decision could not have been arrived at; and when they heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating that the question, regarded as one of revenue, shrunk into nothing before the moral and political questions involved, they heard it admitted as strongly as they could that it was only nominally a financial question, for that in reality it concealed other and higher considerations. He was unwilling to prolong a debate which ought for all practical and reasonable purposes to be shortened as much as possible, and which should be left to the leaders of the great parties in this country. The country had seen by the history of the present Government, that a Government; resting upon every-day popularity could not deserve the enduring confidence of the people. Such a Government was obliged by its very existence to affect a confidence in itself beyond the limits of record, to make matters essential, which it knew to be only subsidiary, and to make promises and offer expectations, which it knew could not be performed and realized. The hon. Member for Bath had said the other night that it was an amiable weakness on the part of the Government, that they had expressed a desire to pass measures which they had not the power of carrying. He thought that in politics, as in daily life, it was the business of reasonable men to desire only that which was attainable; and this appeared to him to be one distinction between the Government which was about to be formed and the present one, that the former would try to effect only that which it believed to be practically and immediately within their grasp. The appeal which had been made to the country was of two kinds; it was an appeal as to measures, and an appeal as to men. The country had decided as to the value of measures and the choice of men. And therefore, a Government situated like her Majesty's Government should feel every day's detention of office a burthen upon their backs. They were not in the position in which the Government of a free country ought to be, and they should rejoice in the hope of being liberated from office. He wished, for the sake of the historical reputation of this country, that her Majesty's Government had retired earlier from office; that they had not waited for a process of legal rejection. The few words which he had uttered would, he trusted, recal to hon. Gentlemen the real gist of the question before the House and show that the question before them was upon whom devolved the responsibility of governing the country.

Mr. Rennie

said, he had not intended to offer any observations for the consideration of the House, had it not been for the great change that had taken place in the manner of treating the present debate by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire brought forward his amendment; he told the House that the real question was one of confidence or no confidence; but, although every speaker up to the middle of last night concurred in those sentiments, he had heard a great change in the sentiments of those who had since addressed the House. This was to him a matter of surprise, considering that the resolution taken by the mover of the amendment to the Address had not been taken at the spur of the moment, but had been the result of a meeting that had taken place at the House of the right hon. Baronet opposite. The hon. Member who had just sat down had explained the real secret why hon. Members on that side of the House had not spoken; he had stated that they could not grapple with the statements of the hon. Member for Manchester. He wished to say one word on the subject of the Corn-laws, which had not as yet been alluded to. He hoped that there were some hon. Members connected with agricultural districts present, because he was anxious to call their attention to the important modes in which agricultural operations were carried on in the southern counties of Scotland, in Roxburghshire and the three Lothians. It appeared to him that the landowners had not brought to their aid the improvements which machinery had rendered available, as the manufacturers had done. By that means all the manufacturers had been enabled to carry on a competition with the manufacturers of the continent, and if a similar practice had prevailed among the agriculturists they would have had less objection to the ports being thrown open to the importation of foreign corn. The improved rents which were obtained in Scotland and the north of England were a proof that it was to enlightened agricultural improvements they owed their superiority over the English farmers. The country now found itself in a position of very great difficulty. Neither side had yet denied the great distress that existed amongst the millions of manufacturers of this country. They had called those millions into existence, and those millions must be fed. He never yet heard of any wish on the part of those who represented the manufacturers that that interest should be propped up at the expense of the landed interest. All they asked was equal justice—that they might be allowed to exchange their commodities for the commodities of other countries; and he thought that the landed proprietors, if they understood their true interest, would before this question was pushed too far, concede what was now so reasonably demanded of them. He would only repeat in conclusion, that the time was come when something should be done to satisfy the minds of the people of this country. He believed the people of England were essentially Conservative, but not so in the sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had changed their name, but he did not think they were entitled to be called Conservatives. The only politicians who had not changed their name were the Whigs. He trusted that when the right hon. Baronet came into power he would not allow the Session to pass without proposing measures for the alleviation of the sufferings of the people.

Mr. Wallace

thought, it was the duty of the House to discuss, at the earliest opportunity, the great questions referred to in the Speech from the Throne. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite claimed to themselves the right to represent the feelings of the people of England, but for his part he felt persuaded that no claim could be more unfounded. He believed in despite of the late elections that the people throughout the country were thoroughly favourable to Reform, and he was sure that if attention had been paid to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), namely, the improvement and the perfection of the Reform Bill, the phalanx opposite could not count the numbers which they now arranged in hostility to the Government. If her Majesty's Government had carried out the principles which they had promulgated in bringing forward the Reform Bill, no such majority would be seated opposite that day. Above all, if the Ballot had been passed, the dominion of Conservatism would have been at an end. ["Hear, hear,"] They had only to observe how unpalateable the mention of such subjects had ever been to the party opposite. [" Ironical cheers from the Opposition."] He was glad to hear those cheers, for he had never been cheered by the hon. Gentlemen opposite but when he had said something that was just and true. He would repeat, that all that was necessary for the triumph of the popular party was the extension of popular rights. He was chairman of three political unions, and he declared most sincerely he believed he was then discharging his duty to his country; and he would say of the people of his part of the country, that he would do all in his power to persusde them to agitation, for the purpose of getting an extension of the franchise, of obtaining the vote by ballot, and of inducing her Majesty's Ministers to review their conduct, and to render the Reform Bill what it was intended it should be. It was perfectly well known, that a great and deeply lamented Statesman, the late Lord Durham, had said, that a certain individual, whose name he did not mention, but who was believed to have been one of the Ministers who seceded, and was now a leading Member on the Opposition benches, the Member for Dorchester, was one of the principal opponents of its being more largely extended. Then let them look at the distress of the country, a distress, he solemnly believed, greatly aggravated by the Currency Bill of 1819, which was brought forward by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and which he could not designate otherwise than as one of the most reckless, and at the same time, one of the most gross pieces of political ignorance ever inflicted on the country. The landed interest ought to pay a greater portion of the national debt than any other class of the community. That debt had not been incurred to grant protection to the thews and sinews of the labouring men; still less did Peel's Bill give them protection, and the Corn-laws had been inflicted on the country as a matter of traffic between the landed interest and the Government of the day, to save the landed interest as much as possible from the effects of Peel's Bill. He held in his hand a pamphlet which had been written fourteen years ago by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester. That pamphlet had been presented to him (Mr. Wallace) by the right hon. Gentleman himself, at the time that he was carrying on a correspondence with that right hon. Gentleman relating to political matters as well as to the currency. He had read that pamphlet again within the course of the last few days, and agreed cordially with every sentiment it contained. He had seen no reason to change his opinions on the subject, and he considered that pamphlet contained more truth, more information, and was more generally useful, than any book that had been published on the subject. Why the right hon. Gentleman should have changed his opinion he would not then stop to inquire. He verily believed, that the greater part of the distress of the country was to be attributed to the Corn-laws. He had always been decidedly in favour of the immediate abo- lition of those laws, and as long as he had a seat in that House he would demand a total and immediate abolition of the Corn-laws. But in public matters he would always be content to take a part when he could not get all, and not follow the example of some hon. Gentlemen who refused roast beef because they could not get bread and cheese as well. He, however, considered that a duty of 8s. was far too much, and more than the working class could afford. And now, with respect to the Corn-law. He solemnly believed, that the great proportion of the distress existing in this country was attributable to that law. He believed, that the want of employment for operatives, of a return for capital, and of commercial enterprise by the distress of the Bank of England, all the evils of the currency, and the innumerable bankruptcies, which had gone on increasing from year to year, and now increase more rapidly than ever, were attributable to that cause. Since the year 1837 there had been one continued course of bankruptcy throughout the country, and it was entirely owing to the Corn-laws. The Bank of England had not sufficient capital to send abroad gold to buy corn. That Bank was, in fact, a joint-stock bank, and it ought to be called by that name. He had reason to believe, that twice since 1837 the Bank had been on the point of suspending its payments, and it was difficult to say what might yet occur. He hoped they would have fine weather for the harvest, and that the crops would be abundant. But if it should be otherwise—if it should happen that they had to send out gold to buy 3,000,000 quarters of foreign corn in the present distressed state of the commercial and manufacturing interests—he believed the consequences would be, that the Bank must suspend its payments, and he must add, that he was by no means sure, that a suspension of payments by the Bank of England would not be for the good of the country. There was one other point which he wished to mention. He wished to declare himself in the language of the hon. Member for Stockport, an out-and-out free trader. His own interests were vested chiefly in the land, but the constituency which he represented were too liberal, and too well-informed, to suppose that they seat him there to secure his own interest, and to neglect theirs. He would conclude by stating, that he would give, with the greatest satisfaction, his support to the Address. He would add, that if any hon. Members in that House, or parties without the House, would join him in an Address to the Crown, he would endeavour to frame such an Address, and put his name to it, and it would be to the effect, that her Majesty should refuse to sanction any new Ministry whatever until she could guarantee to the country that they would explicitly state the means by which they would do better than their predecessors.

Mr. Hindley

had given way to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool last night, because he had expected that noble Lord to break through the prudent taciturnity which had been hitherto preserved on the opposite side of the House, and because he was anxious to hear what would be said on such a question as the present by the representative of that great constituency which had formerly been represented by that enlightened opponent of monopoly, Mr. Huskisson. He had been disappointed; but from what he knew of that constituency he was sure that it had not decided in favour of monopoly against free trade. What private arrangements the noble Lord might have made with his constituents—what pledges he might have given to the merchants of Liverpool, he could not tell; but the presence of the noble Lord in that House was to him a conclusive proof that the hon. Gentlemen opposite had not been universally returned as the advocates of monopoly. He rose to bear his testimony to the statements of the hon. Mover of the Address as to the distress of the operatives; but they had been told that the question was as to the existence of an Administration, and he was truly sorry to find that when thousands and hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens were suffering the deepes distress so little was thought of their calamities, and that the attention of that House was mainly directed to the question who should direct the Government of this great country. The majority would of course use its power; it would not permit them to discuss the great questions that had been submitted to the House, and they must abide by the decision of that tyrant majority. When the hon. Gentlemen opposite had got into power he trusted that they would produce such measures as would; alleviate the present distress. There were hundreds in his neighbourhood who, when they rose in the morning, knew not how to get their daily bread; and this was owing to the Corn-laws. It had been said that it was owing to over-production; that it was owing to the manufacturers' want of common sense; but anything more unjust than that charge could not be conceived. He recollected that on one occasion of great distress Lord Liverpool had said, "Oh! they must be content to endure it, as it is only the result of an over-abundant harvest;" so that at one time they arraigned the gracious bounty of Providence, and at another time they accused the industry of their merchants and manufacturers. That doctrine of over production was utter nonsense. Had they produced too many coats and hats? He wished he had had with him a letter which he had received from an intelligent operative weaver, who stated that, though he was steady, industrious, and frugal, it was eleven years since he had been able to purchase a new coat. And upon his mentioning that fact to another operative, with whom he sometimes had communication, he was told that that man also had never been able to buy a new coat for fifteen years. To say to the humble mechanic, who had constructed articles which conduced to the comfort of life, that be was not to be at liberty to exchange those articles for food seemed to him the most monstrous injustice. But he would not now enter upon those questions. He should have been better satisfied if the amendment had contained some distinct pledge that another opportunity of considering them fully would be given. The noble Lord who had spoken on the other side seemed to say that that was the case, and be had thought that the amendment contained some such declaration; but upon referring to it, it became clear that it was the production of that master-hand, which, to use the expression of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, knew so well how to dress up a statement for that House, for whilst it contained something like an intimation that those measures would be taken into consideration, yet, upon a careful perusal, it would be seen that the House was by no means pledged to take that course. They had a right, he thought, to ask whether it was the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to give them an opportunity of arguing this question throughout, or whether they would shrink from such a discussion. He trusted that before they entered upon the question of continuing the Poor-law Amendment Act they would come to a distinct understanding as to the laws of food; for after preventing the people from earning a livelihood they could never have the cruelty to imprison them, and treat their poverty as a crime. He admitted that these commercial measure were brought forward under unfavourable circumstances; they ought to be the limbs of an Administration, but they were used rather as the crutches on which a falling Administration attempted to lean. Numerous charges had at different times been brought against the Ministers; but had they ever heard of a vote of want of confidence until the Government had expressed its intention of dealing with the Corn-laws? These things made him apprehensive that the opposite party did not mean to cede to justice what perhaps might be extorted from their fears. He was alarmed also at the declaration of a noble Duke, who had threatened the right hon. Baronet if he touched the Corn-laws that he should be turned out as easily as he had been turned in. The right hon. Baronet, if left to his own sound sense, might perhaps produce some measure that would be satisfactory to him; but the landed interest had assumed the monopoly of power, and therefore they could hold the monopoly of food. He was rejoiced at the notice of motion which had been given by the hon. Member for Rochdale that evening; he was glad that they were geting to take the bull by the horns. They had been taunted with the cry of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill;" but that House, had never given them the Bill as it was originally introduced; if they had the consequences would have been very different. He would ask the noble Lord now, whether be meant to abide by his finality pledge? Let them net charge the Chartists with bringing these questions before the country; they themselves bad raised the question of suffrage. By their constant denial of justice they bad caused the people to look to the causes by which they were prevented from obtaining that justice which they had a right to expect. In that demand he would stand by the people, not for the sake of any fancied theory of his own, hut because he saw that to secure the welfare of the country it, was necessary to hold to that faith. He would not further trouble the House; but he felt so much anxiety in these questions that he could not avoid trespassing on its attention for a few minutes.

Mr. Wigney

said, the whole questions before the House were those which appeared so prominently in the Speech so graciously sent down from the Throne; and he thought it did not become the honour and dignity of the House, merely to say that they would come to a vote of want of confidence in Ministers, before they would direct their attention to the many propositions in the Speech. He thought the great questions referred to in the Speech required mature consideration, and however he might approve of those sentiments, he was not prepared at once to come to a decision upon them. In his opinion, proper time should be given to discuss these measures, and unless they were so discussed, the time of the House might have been much more usefully occupied than it had been by that debate? The question was, how soon the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would walk over the floor of the House. There was no disguising that question, and much as he might wish to avoid it, the change was inevitable; and therefore the sooner it was completed, the better for the House and the country. He thought when that change took place, much as Gentlemen opposite had opposed many good measures, they would find they must adopt similar ones, and if they did so, he would give them his support.

Mr. Hawes

could not concur in the observations of the hon. Member for Brighton. He was surprised that any Gentleman sitting on that side of the House, should deprecate the debating the important questions which had been alluded to in the Speech from the Throne. The hon. Gentleman must be the representative of a very strange constituency, when he stated, that the only subject for consideration was, the transfer of political power from Ministers on this side, to those on the opposite benches. He was astonished that any hon. Gentleman professing liberal opinions, should be ignorant of the anxious state of the public mind on the great topics before the House. If the only question was, what men should rule the country, it was immaterial to him whether the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, or the right hon. Baronet was in office; but the present debate involved the consideration of the most important measures, and the adoption of the greatest practical improvement in the commercial policy of the country, The speech last night of the right hon. Gentleman opposite excited his astonishment, as he, in the most confident tone, put forward statements respecting the finances of the country of such an extraordinary character, that if no one took them up, and exposed their fallacy, they might produce much misapprehension throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge was most anxious to invest the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all the attributes of a Katterfelto and the Wizard of the North. He, however, would take care that the mantle of the wizard was worn by the right person. A charge had been brought against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and chiefly in the other House, that, for the last ten years, 1,000,000l. annually had been added to the debt of the country, and that, during that time, the successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had taken no steps to meet the deficiencies, which charge the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly and implicitly denied, and referred to documents to show the groundlessness of the statement. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge did not dispute the facts or the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but certainly with great skill and ability, threw very considerable mystification over the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and did so in a way to lead, in the result, to the inference that the gross funded debt of the country had not been reduced. Now, how stood the facts of the case? In order to make a fair comparison between the state of the debt in 1831 and 1841, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a paper which had been laid before the House; with the view of ascertaining the amount of the gross debt in 1831, he took the amount of the funded debt from the annual finance accounts of that year, to which he added the additional value of the annuities which had been given in place of stock. He pursued the same course in estimating the amount of the debt in 1841. By this means he found the actual gross amount of the funded debt in 1831 was 838,549,000l., and in 1841 the amount was 815,957,000l. Now in this latter estimate, the West-Indian loan had been left out of the calculation. This loan, which was assented to by all parties for the sake of humanity, could not be made the groundwork of a charge against the present Government. He had never assented to that loan, but all other parties had taken glory to themselves for having made such a sacrifice for the abolition of slavery, and he perfectly recollected that the right hon. Gentleman himself was amongst the supporters of it. Striking, therefore, out of the estimate the amount of the West-Indian loan, and taking the amounts of the gross funded debt in 1831 and 1841, the result showed in the latter year—less the West-Indian loan—a reduction of the debt of not less than 22,592,000l. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that he had forgotten to take into his consideration the difference which had arisen from giving terminable in the place of permanent annuities. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in a measure to enable the commissioners of the debt to grant annuities on the transfer of stock; but was the additional charge met that would arise from this transfer? For it was obviously impossible to convert permanent into terminable annuities, without a charge for the period of the duration of the latter. This had been made by every Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer, for this was the mode in which they applied their surplus revenue in way of sinking fund, and the result was, that reduction had been effected to the amount of 22,500,000l. For instance, suppose there was a permanent annuity of 100l. a-year, which was to be transferred into a limit-able one, the amount would be, for instance, 110l. Now this 10l. a-year, in addition, went in extinction of the debt, so it was with the additional charge for that portion of the debt where there was terminable annuities. This was the conclusion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which indeed was perfectly in-contestible. He, therefore, thought that it was almost unfair of the right hon. Gentleman when he could point out no fallacy or decry any fact in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To say the least of it, it was a very bold proceeding to deal thus with a matter of finance, which he believed had seldom been equalled in that House. The right hon. Gentleman should have used a little more caution before he compared the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Wizard of the North, and designated him as the existing Katterfelto for having made a clear statement of figures. If the imputation were intended for nothing, it was better not to have applied the charge of legerdemain to a political opponent on such groundless foundation. The right hon. Gentleman also took great credit to himself for the present state of the sugar market, as a proof of the justness of the view that he had adopted when the subject was last before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if they took the consumption of sugar for the three months from the 5th of May, 1840, and this was compared with the consumption for the three months ending the 5th of May, 1841, there was a great increase in the consumption of sugar. If the rate of consumption for the latter period was to be taken as the probable rate for the whole year, the increase of consumption would be so great that it might be asserted that as much sugar would be consumed in this as in any former year. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that in 1825 the discussions in that House, in the then partial alterations that were made in the sugar duties, led to great inconvenience in the trade; when they came to a temporary settlement of the matter in the next year the markets became more buoyant, and the trade revived; and so it would be in the present instance, and referred to the increased consumption for the three mouths that he had taken. Now the right hon. Gentleman should recollect that the period of the year that he had taken, was not that from which anything like a probable amount of the consumption of the year should be estimated. The three months from May constituted the fruit season, when the consumption of sugar was considerably larger than at any other period of the year. If they took the same period of the antecedent year, the same principle would be found to obtain. The chief fact, however, which related to the consumption of sugar, was, that if corn was dear, the poorer classes would expend a larger portion of their incomes on the necessaries of life, and less would be expended on such a luxury, if he might so term it, as sugar. He found that the average of the con- sumption of sugar for the year 1840, was 15¼lbs. per head. The average price of sugar, according to the official returns, during the first six months of 1841, was 42s. 10d. per cwt., while the average price for 1840 was 44s.; so that he was justified in saying, that there was not a sufficient difference in the price to disturb the amount of consumption per head; he would therefore take it for the present year at 15¼lbs. Allowing for the increase of the population in the year, the consumption would only be 13½lbs. a-head for 1841, or a diminution of 11½ per cent. If bread, however, was dearer, the necessary consequence would be, that sugar' would not be taken to the same extent as when it was cheaper. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that there was a greater consumption in the present year, notwithstanding there was more distress arid suffering throughout the country, and when our manufactures were in a languishing state; this was a very good specimen of the political economy of the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of the higher classes the consumption remained the same; no doubt the high price would make no difference to the right hon. Gentleman, who on that account would not take less sugar, but this was not the case with the poor man. Let what was called a luxury rise in price, it would go almost entirely out of consumption with him. The effect of the increased price operated as a total denial of the article to him. Taking the average consumption at 15¼lbs. per head, the consumption of four persons would be 61 lbs. a-year. Of these four persons one might be supposed to belong to the richer and the other three to the poorer classes. The consumption of sugar amongst the higher classes was much greater than with the poorer classes. He believed, that it would be found according to the best statistical returns that had been prepared on the subject, that the consumption of sugar amongst the higher classes might be taken at 37lbs. per head. If this was the case, there would only remain 24lbs. for the other three persons, and thus the consumption of sugar amongst the poorer classes would be reduced to 8lbs. a head. Allowing for the increase of population in the year the consumption would be 54lbs. for four persons in 1841, or 13½lbs. per head. The rich person would still consume 37lbs., while only 17lbs. would, be left for the three poor persons, or about 5½lbs. per head. Such was the effect of the operation of high prices upon the lower classes. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman, then, with respect to the sugar duties, was not more correct than his observations on the state of the finances, and both excited in his(Mr. Hawes's) mind no little surprise. The right hon. Gentleman went into the question of the timber duties, and said that there could be no difference in the amount of revenue during the present year. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues took care to pursue such a course as to give no chance of an increased amount for either this year or the nest. The right hon. Gentleman therefore, could not take any merit to himself on this account. It now seemed, to be admitted by all parties that the timber duties was one of the questions to be dealt with by a Conservative. Government, and he trusted this would turn out to be the case. The great ground alleged in the other House for want of confidence, was the neglect on the part of Government of the finances of the country. They, had been told, that year after year they had gone on with a deficiency—that year after year they had made no provision fur this, and that now things had arrived at such a pass that they could not be allowed to remain as they were. Some Members of both Houses agreed in this assertion, but he should like to know what sort of ground there was for this accusation? The hon. Gentleman who moved the amendment to the Address not only dwelt on this point, but went into all sorts of subjects. He, amongst other things, said that questions of war might be right or wrong, and he would not say whether they were either, and the only reason that he gave for his proposition was, that as he had been elected Member for Yorkshire, he was bound to move a vote of want of confidence. He begged the House to see upon what ground the charge of neglect was imputed to the Government op the score of the finances. Financial deficiencies were incidental, not merely to Whig Governments, for they had happened on former occasions. For instance, in the year 1825–26, which was at a period when we sent a force to Portugal, and which, indeed, occasioned it, a considerable deficiency occurred in the revenue. At that period Government relied and he thought wisely—on the buoyancy of the country and on the effect that would be produced by making a step towards the adoption of the principles of free trade. Such was the beneficial effect of the latter proceeding, that within a very short period not only had the deficiency been fully made up, but there was such an increase of revenue as to enable the Government to make several reductions in taxation. But what was the present state of financial deficiencies? In the year 1838 there was a deficiency, chiefly occasioned by the re-hellion in Canada, amounting to 1,428,000l. In 1839 the deficiency was 430,000l., and he begged the House to mark how the revenue had recovered in the course of a year not less than a million. In the year 1840, there was a deficiency of 1,450,000l. occasioned by the war in China and Syria. When this occurred, of course, it became the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt some means to revive the state of the finances of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the first instance, added five per cent. to the duties on all the necessaries of life, and in this he was supported by the other side of the House, and was complimented on the energy which he had manifested on the occasion, and on his not being actuated by any fear of unpopularity from the course which he had adopted. On the present occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward not to add to the burthens of the people, but to lighten the heavy and oppressive charges on such important articles, as sugar, timber, and corn, and forsooth, in consequence of this, hon. Gentlemen opposite, met him with a vote of want of confidence. The party opposite were anxious one year to tax the people and were he next year just as anxious to prevent any reduction of taxation. When the people of England reconsidered these circumstances, and the decision which they had given at the late election, under delusion and intimidation, he was satisfied that they would arrive at a different verdict. This would be the result when they found the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been changed for another; the business of whom would be to invent new taxes instead of reducing them as the Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to do. He admitted, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had been returned by a large majority, and although with a hostile and powerful majority opposed to them, those with whom he acted would, as before, persist in bringing forward measures of liberal policy, feeling confident, as they were before, when hi a small minority, that they should ultimately carry them in triumph, as they were founded on the principles of truth and justice. He found in the amendment the following expression:— To assure her Majesty that we are deeply sensible of the importance of those considerations which her Majesty has been graciously pleased to direct our attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in corn. He would ask, although he did not expect to get an answer to his question, whether, when Gentlemen opposite had carried their amendment, they intended to act upon it. Did they mean to take into consideration the great subjects of commerce and revenue, and the laws which regulate the trade in corn? If they intended to do so, was it too much to ask for some explanation as to the course they intended to pursue. If they did not, but intended to postpone the whole subject, never were a people more insulted by a House of Commons, or a Speech, from the Throne treated with greater disrespect. He believed that what they intended to do was to adjourn the House immediately after they had carried their amendment and obtained place and power. They admitted that they were fully aware of the sufferings of the people; but still they were determined to postpone the consideration of the subject until next spring. Was ever a Speech from the Throne suffered to be treated in this way before? The House of Commons was to be prevented going into the consideration of this subject for nine months. He did not believe, that history furnished an instance of a communication from the Throne being treated with greater insult. The noble Lord who seconded the amendment had stated, that he was an advocate of free trade, and had identified himself with the support of the principles of Mr. Huskisson. He hoped the noble Lord would explain what measures be intended to submit to the House in conformity with the principles of that statesman. The party opposite claimed merit for the alteration of the tariff, and would have it believed that they intended to carry out their principles in altering and mitigating the laws referring to commerce. If they were sincere in this, did they mean to let the subject rest for nine months? What a contrast was this proceeding with that of the Liberal party in 1825 and 1826. Seeing, at that time, the measures which Mr. Huskisson had brought forward were highly beneficial and calculated to promote the good of the country, and that that statesman had been taunted and abused, and charged with being a cold-hearted metaphysician for having brought them forward, the great Liberal party of England came forward and gave their zealous aid to him so as to enable him to carry them in triumph. Again, in 1829, when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward the Catholic question, the Liberal party gave their liberal support to the Government. In 1830, the Speech from the Throne gave great dissatisfaction to the agriculturists in that House, and by the great forbearance of the Whigs, and the support of the Liberal party, the Government were able to carry the Address. On this occasion the measures alluded to in the Speech were acknowledged by Gentlemen opposite to be of great importance, and with respect to which there was proof upon proof that, if carried, they would greatly extend the markets for our manufactures. They determined to postpone all consideration of these subjects for almost twelve months, that they might get place and power. A system of policy more mean and sordid never was exhibited in any country, or, at any rate, the history of this country never furnished an instance of such a proceeding. The party opposite admitted the justice of the principles embodied in the proposed measures, but would not apply them; and notwithstanding the sufferings of the people, they refused to take them into consideration, for nearly a twelvemonth. The House had been told that it was a proof of great statesmanship to be silent on questions of this kind for the present. What was the explanation of their refusing to relieve the country from taxation? He believed the reason was, that the new Government was one of coalition and compromise, and they feared that if they spoke out and delivered their opinions on these questions, that these of one Gentleman would be found to clash with those of another—that the interests of one class of its supporters would be found to interfere with those of another, and that, therefore, they were obliged to be silent from the most unworthy purposes. He believed that no coalition Government could stand in this country, and he sincerely hoped that such a Government never might. Did hon. Gentlemen mean to say, that anything of the kind existed on his side of the House. The party opposite had two Whigs to form part of their new Government The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, stated that he had changed his place, but had never changed his principles. Had the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, changed? No, he was consistent in his conduct. He (Mr. Hawes) declared to God, that he would rather have that right hon. Gentleman for dictator and sole governor of the country than a Government mixed up of such discordant materials as the new Administration would be composed of. There was the strongest feeling existing in the country against the formation of anything like a coalition Government. On this point he would refer to the language of a modern historian, who, in allusion to the formation of the coalition Government in the last century, said that, In the first place, that Government had to contend against the hostility of the King, who never forgave their forcing themselves upon him, and they never possessed the confidence of the nation, who ever regarded the formation of a coalition Government as an abandonment of principle for the sake of place. Was it not notorious, that the party opposite were chiefly returned at the last election, on the pledge of the maintenance of the Corn-laws, and of affording protection to agriculture? The very first public step that all persons expected of the so-called adherents to the present Corn-laws, would be to propose an alteration. The very first duty that it was believed they would have to perform, was the revision of these very laws. It was not to him a matter of surprise, that they had come to a determination to re-consider these laws, for the effect of them was, to give protection to the farmer, by the sacrifice of the other portions of the community. It was scarcity on the part of the consumer that gave protection to the fanner. This was admitted in several of the agricultural reports. The last committee on the state of agriculture made no report, but it was stated in that House, that it was the opinion of the committee, that it was desirable to leave agriculture alone; but then, and even up to the present moment, the principle that he had stated was acknowledged to be true as regarded these laws. At present there was general distress, which he must attribute to the Corn-laws. They were said now to serve as a protection to the farmers, but they were only beneficial to that body when they were injurious to the people. In years of abundance they were injurious to the farmer in our home market, and in seasons of scarcity they prevented a proper supply of food being brought to market. In 1834, they were told that these laws should be maintained, as it was desirable that in the supply of food this country should be independent of foreigners. From year to year had they secured their independence? Had they not been obliged to obtain corn from foreign markets almost every year since the period he had just alluded to? In that year, when there was such an abundant harvest, the Corn-laws trembled in the balance, and they were then continued, as was alleged, simply on the ground that the people ought not to be dependent on foreign nations for the supply of food. The whole history of the Corn-laws, from 1820 to 1841, tended to show that this country must be dependent on foreign nations for a portion of its corn. This country was, and, indeed, ought to be so; for a great commercial country must derive an advantage from interchanging its produce with the industry of other nations. He contended, therefore, that for our own welfare, it was desirable that we should look to other nations for a portion of their raw produce. Another reason which had been alleged for a continuance of the Corn-laws, was, that our manufacturers had protection, and that therefore, the agriculturists should be protected. The manufacturers, however, repudiated protection. He was a manufacturer himself, and for one, desired most ardently that all protection should be removed. His hon. Friend, the Member for Stockport, who might almost be regarded as the representative of the manufacturers, in his speech, the other evening, in which he displayed such singular ability, denounced protection on behalf of the class with which he was connected. They were told, that agriculture was subject to peculiar burdens which did not fall on the other classes—that, therefore, they were entitled to protection. Would honourable Gentlemen opposite agree to give a committee to inquire into this subject? He would himself move for such a committee, to inquire into the burdens said to fall peculiarly heavy on the agricultural interest; and if the committee was appointed and the result of the inquiry appeared to be, that they were charged more than the other classes, he would willingly consent to give them protection to that extent. In the present system there was neither justice nor wisdom, and there was no security in the course which had been taken. What was the state of the present averages? In the week ending the 10th of July, the price of corn was 64s. 11d. per quarter, in the week ending July 23, it was 66s. 2d, on July 30, 68s. 3d., on the 6th August, 70s. 3d., on 13th August, 72s. 3d., and in the week ending the 20th of August, 74s. 1d. He took these returns from the official averages in the Gazette. The average price regulating the duty would, therefore, be 69s. 6d.. If, however, between the present time and the week ending September 9, the three weekly averages should average only 71s. 1d., then all the wheat now in bond would be admitted at a duty of 2s. 8d. If at that time the weekly averages should average 73s. 7d., being 1s. under the last average advertised, then wheat would come in at 1s. duty only. Now, how much wheat was there in bond? The foreign and colonial wheat and wheat-flour in the warehouses on the 5th of August, 1841, was in quarters, taking 3½ cwts. of flour, as equal to a quarter of wheat:—wheat 708,373 qrs., and flour 366,675 cwt., or, in all, 813,137 qrs.; and since that date, in the last three weeks, there had been imported into London, Liverpool, and Hull, about 106,972 qrs., making a gross total, to come in, perhaps, at the lowest duty, of nearly one million quarters by the end of this month, or a little later; so that the result of the fine protection to agriculture, of which hon. Gentlemen opposite talked so loudly, was to let all this large quantity of wheat into the country at the lowest possible duty provided by the sliding scale of the right hon. Baronet. He had occupied the House at some length, but he could assure them he was not desirous of intruding himself upon their time beyond what he believed to be due to the subject, and due to the great interests which he had the honour to represent in that House. The hon. Member for Yorkshire had said, he was the bearer of an answer from his constituents to the question which had been put to the country. No doubt the hon. Gentleman represented a very considerable portion of the community, and the hon. Member must feel it to be a proud and distinguished honour to have been elected by them; but he also, represented no inconsiderable portion of the community; one of the largest districts of this great metropolis had been pleased to send him to that House as their representative, and in that capacity he distinctly and emphatically gave in a totally different answer from that which had been delivered by the hon. Member for Yorkshire. His constituents had sent him there, not to uphold any particular interest, nor, unless he could do so on grounds of sound policy and honesty, to support any particular party in that House; and this he would say, that if the right hon. Baronet were to tome into power, and should really apply himself to serve and benefit the great interests of the country, without devoting himself to party or sectional interests, he, for one, as an humble individual, would give him his cordial support. As the hon. Member for Finsbury had said, he would not offer that right hon. Baronet any factious opposition; but his firm belief was, that the course which the right hon. Baronet must take, in accordance with all his former principles, and his party attachments, must be hostile to the views and interests of those whom he came there to represent; and he therefore believed it would be his duty to give that right hon. Baronet his earnest opposition. It had been put to the House, that no confidence was to be placed in the present ministry on general questions; and the hon. Member for Yorkshire had, with singular infelicity, selected the foreign policy of ministers as a ground for this assumption. The hon. Member, however, making the liberal concession that he had not quite made up his mind as to the question of right or wrong in the wars which had taken place; and that, indeed, he did not think the question of right or wrong had much to do with the consideration of the foreign policy of the Government. There was one great distinction to be drawn between the course taken by the right hon. Baronet, who was to be chief minister of this country, and that pursued by Lord Grey, when he was a candidate for that high station; that nobleman did not hesitate to pledge his party to peace, retrenchment, and reform; and he would take upon himself to say, that the great question of the peace of Europe had been maintained by the present Go- vernment, and maintained in spite of the greatest possible difficulties. Again, in the article of retrenchment, there had undoubtedly been a great deal effected by the Whig Government; and though he and other Radicals might perhaps think that retrenchment had not been carried to the extent which it ought to have readied, and of which it was susceptible, yet he could not say there was anything to induce him to transfer his confidence in favour of the party opposite, calling to mind, as he did, the whole history of their management in past times, of the finances of the country. The grounds, then, on which he retained the steady confidence which he had hitherto reposed in Government were these; that they had, in the main, preserved the great principles which they put forth clearly, distinctly, and tangibly before the world. On the other side of the House he found no principles at all; he heard of no measures being propounded, of nothing being in contemplation to meet the exigencies of commerce, the wants of the people, and to relieve the fearful distress of the community; all he heard from the Gentlemen who moved the amendment—he should probably hear something more that evening from the right hon. Baronet opposite—but all he had heard from the hon. Gentleman who had moved the amendment, was, that some time next year they would condescend to take into their consideration the slate of trade and the sufferings of the people. He must say, that if there was anything more particularly calculated to repress confidence in the Gentlemen opposite, it was the course taken in this debate by those Gentlemen. The right hon. Baronet had had the honour of being a colleague of Mr. Huskisson, and had he become really imbued with the principles of free trade as announced by that statesman, surely— after all the discussions they had had on the timber duties, the Corn-laws, the sugar duties, the general principles of protection, and the general conduct of trade without protection—it would not be too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what course he meant to take on those questions; but for the right hon. Gentleman who had so great an experience, and who, he was sure, was so desirous of serving his country— for him to rise in his place, as in all probability he would, to say to the people of this country, whose commerce was stag- nant, whose prospects of improvement were very distant, and who in the mean time were suffering the most complicated distress—for him to tell them that at some future time, he would endeavour to think over a remedy for their distresses, and the depression of their commerce, would be a spectacle unworthy of his high position, and deeply disappointing the just expectations of the people.

Mr. Goulburn

had never, for one moment, wished to throw any imputation upon the fair dealing and candour of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the last men upon whom any such reflection could be justly cast. All he sought td convey was, that he differed from the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of accounts, and his opinion upon that point he still retained.

Captain Folhill

said, the simple question before the House was one which might have been brought to a conclusion at a touch earlier period than, he feared, it was yet likely to be. That question was, not the question of corn, of timber, or of sugar, but whether her Majesty's present Government were capable or not of carrying on the business of the country. A resolution was passed by the late House of Commons to the effect that the Government did not possess the confidence of Parliament, and that their remaining in office under such circumstance was at variance with the Spirit of the constitution. He could not, therefore, but express his surprise at seeing that Government in office up to the present time, a Government which had been condemned by a resolution of the House. He was convinced that the right hon. Baronet would have sooner submitted to have his right hand cut off, than have been seen clinging to place after such a violation had been, proved against his Administration. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) in his treatise on the British Constitution, had stated, that The first disturbance which is likely to occur in such a constitution as ours, is a collision between the King as Sovereign, and the Parliament, formed of Lords and Commons, considered as his advisers. The King by the Constitution has, and must have, the power of naming his own servants, who are to carry on the business of the executive Government, but if these servants violate the laws, betray the cause, mistake the interests, or squander the blood of their country, it is as certain that the great council of the nation must have the power of demanding and enforcing their dismissal. A few pages further on might be found sentiments which even the right hon. Member for Tamworth might have written. They were in these words:— From the doctrine of responsibility of Ministers, it follows, that they ought to enjoy the confidence of the Commons. Otherwise their measures will be thwarted, their promises will be distrusted, and, finding all their steps obstructed, their efforts will be directed to the overthrow of the Constitution. He expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of the noble Lord, and he could only regret, that the noble Lord was not found acting up to the sentiments he had himself put on record. The present was not the moment to discuss the topics which had been brought forward respecting free trade, and he should give his vote in favour of the amendment, because he thought, that it would bring into power a Ministry which would support the honour of the Crown, and the true interests of the people.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

said, that of all the debates he had ever listened to, this was the most peculiarly-marked by sileuce— by silence on those precise topics which the country most anxiously expected to hear discussed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had either contented themselves with the assertion that Ministers had Dot and did not deserve to have the confidence of the country, without giving themselves the trouble to state any grounds for this opinion of theirs, or, like the hon. Member for Yorkshire, they had staled grounds on which the confidence merely of the opposition was withheld from Ministers. Upon the great questions of free trade and commercial reform, hon. Gentlemen opposite had been pertinaciously silent, and that other great question, the question of Ireland, had been equally omitted from all their speeches. These hon. Gentlemen, however, greatly deceived themselves, if they thought that because they passed these questions over in silence in the House, the country would not regard with a burning sense of indignation the conduct of those who thus kept concealed the distinction between their intended policy and that of the Government whom they proposed to supplant. Looking, however, to the prospects of the present harvest, it might, it was true, be somewhat awkward for hon. Gentlemen oppo- site to pledge themselves to any particular line of policy on the Corn-laws. It appeared to him that the position of the Conservative party on this question at the present moment, bore a great analogy to that of the Conservative party in 1828, in reference to Catholic Emancipation. After the most discouraging announcement from the Duke of Wellington and the right hon. Baronet, in 1828, of the impossibility of making any concession to the Catholics, the very next thing the public heard, was, that Catholic Emancipation had been determined on; it remained to be seen whether the Corn-laws would undergo the same fate at the hands of the proximate Premier. It would not be at all a subject of wonder with him to find the right hon. Baronet, when in power, availing himself of the principles and support of the present advocates of free trade in corn, as well as other articles, to the immense indignation of the stanch friends of monoply who now swelled his ranks, and who would then exclaim, as the stanch opponents of the Roman Catholics exclaimed, in 1829, Nusquam tuta fides. As to Ireland, how had the organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Times newspaper, treated the Orange outrage committed by the late high-sheriff of Fermanagh, in sealing the return of the Members for that county with his own seal, bearing the detestable device, "The Pope in the pillory, the pillory in hell, and the devil pelting priests at him," that return also being tied with orange ribbon, instead of being fastened in the usual manner? Why the Times abused Lord Ebrington for dismissing the person who had been guilty of this outrage, and went the length of saying "that a Protestant magistrate had been dismissed, merely for sending the return of Members stitched with yellow instead of red tape." Now he would put it to the Members for the universities in either country—he would put it to every Member of the church of England—whether the seal put on that return was not, in reference to his religion, a sort of blasphemy? [" Hear, hear, "from the Opposition benches.] He was glad to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite this disclaimer of the language of the Times newspaper; but still it had a very unfavourable appearance for Ireland, that for dismissing the man who had committed this outrage upon the Roman Catholic faith, Lord Ebrington should be denounc- ed by the organ of the Tory party, and that his conduct in the matter should almost appear to form a part of the grounds of want of confidence in the Ministry. The last intelligence from Ireland had informed the public of a practice of the worst tendency — the renewal, on the north eastern circuit of Ireland, of the old and unconstitutional practice of selecting jurymen, contrary to the instructions of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, who had placed the appointment of juries in Ireland on nearly the same footing as in this country. In a trial at Armagh, in which it was said some political feeling was mixed up, every Roman Catholic whose name had been placed on the list, was put aside by the Crown solicitor—a practice which, if it was permitted to revive throughout the country, would have the most disastrous effects upon the best interests and upon the tranquillity of Ireland. Nothing could more tend to poison justice in its source than the impression which would hence very naturally arise, that the selection of jurymen was a matter of political and religious bias. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted some years ago that one of his chief difficulties was Ireland, and he would find Ireland no less a difficulty now. There were men named as Members of the new Government, whose past conduct had inspired the Irish people with the very reverse of confidence or good will; at all events, it was to be hoped that the Irish people would have nothing to do with the noble Lord opposite; the consequences of his being invested with any control over that country might be most disastrous. The entire silence which hon. Gentlemen had observed upon the real questions in which the country was interested was a most remarkable feature in the present crisis; but the right hon. Baronet might find, that in some cases the extreme of caution was the extreme of bad policy; he might find ere long that the extreme silence which he had maintained was far more dangerous in its effects than the most unreserved candour and openness; for had he been open, he would only have had one party against him, whereas, as it was, he was exceedingly likely to have both parties against him. Looking, then, at the present disposition of affairs at home and abroad, be did not see any reason why the people should withdraw their confidence in the Ministers, and transfer it to the right hon. Baronet.

Mr. Christmas,

in reference to what an hon. Member had said last night, when he alleged that the late Member for Water-ford had been deprived of his seat, would contend that he had no right to say any thing of the sort. The registration regulations and the election petition arrangements had been referred to, but it must be admitted that whatever was good in the former was effected by the opposition, and all the merit of the latter was due to the same party. As to the point of confidence, he declared that he gave it to the right hon. Baronet, and withheld it from the Queen's Ministers, because he could depend upon the legislation of a Conservative Government, but upon that of the Melbourne Ministry he could place no reliance, since he had seen it proceed in a downward course of Radical innovation, until they had within the last ten years nearly realized, or at all events they had apparently attempted to realize, the absurdity of a monarchial government, surrounded by republican institutions. If he looked to the question of Canada, he could not help thinking that if the troubles there had not been created, they were at least materially increased, by the conduct of a Gentleman no longer a Member of that House. Then he could not help protesting against the mode in which allusion had been made a night or two ago, by the hon. and learned Member for Bath to the unfortunate case of M'Leod. That gentleman had stated that the United States had no constitutional power to reach the case, and that if M'Leod were convicted, he must be hanged. The Government ought to have interfered, considering that the act imputed to M'Leod as a crime was one performed in the execution of his duty to the country to which he belonged. That interference ought to have occurred to prevent the trial taking place at all; for that trial compromised our national honour, and though we might save the shedding of his blood, we could not redeem our character in regard to the original question. Strong allusions had been made to the question of the New Poor-law, and it seemed to be held that those who voted for it were bound always to uphold and defend it. Now, he could not agree to any such doctrine. He believed at the time it passed that it was a good measure, and therefore he voted for it, but surely he was not bound to uphold it for better or worse because he had so voted. The Whig Government, possessing power to pass any measure they pleased, having passed that law, would, if it had remained popular —if it had been found to work well, have been entitled to all the credit; let that Government, now that the Poor-law was found defective and known to be unpopular, take all the consequences of that unpopularity, let the House then look to the boasted Whig economy, and say on what side the balance of honest saving lay. An hon. Member formerly of that House had found his way to Ireland, and after filling a high judicial office for a few days, had retired with a pension of 4,000l. a-year. Let that recent act of the Whigs be contrasted with the last act of the Conservative side of the House. "When you Sir, (continued the hon. Member) were elected to the chair, what was the course of this side of the House, Did we determine on the election of one of our own party, as we might have done? Certainly not; and the effect of that forbearance has been that the country is saved from paying another 4,000l. a-year. But, Sir, I do not consider your re-election to the chair, which you so well and worthly fill, only as a triumph of Conservative economy, for to your eminent fitness no one objects, but also to show that we on this side of the House were not guided by a determination that that honourable post should at all hazards be filled by one of our own party. The hon. Member then proceeded to contend that no consideration of the cheapness of sugar should tempt the country to do anything to support indirectly so abominable a system as the slave-trade. He would not proceed through the items of the budget, but he might refer upon the Corn-laws to the conduct of certain Irish Members, who in their attacks upon those laws seemed determined to sacrifice the best interests of the country to party purposes. It had been said by these hon. Members that the Corn-laws were unpopular in Ireland; now, he having a considerable knowledge of that country, and representing one of its constituencies, knew that those laws were popular. If landlords' rents were reduced the other parts of the community must necessarily suffer; and if the Corn-laws were repealed disastrous effects would be felt by the agricultural and the mercantile classes. I shall give my vote, (concluded the hon. Member), for the amendment, a vote which I hope will have the effect of placing the right hon. Baronet in the office to which he is so justly en- titled and for which he is so eminently fitted. Cut in placing him in office, I am aware, though it is one of great honour, it is also one of great difficulty. That the right hon. Gentleman may meet with difficulties is certain, that he will reap glory may not be easy, but it will be I believe equally as certain, as his difficulties in spite of an opposition, which we have reason to believe will be no very scrupulous one.

Mr. Villiers

said, that having so often had occasion to address the house on the subject that had been recommended to its consideration in the Speech from the Throne, he had listened with great anxiety during the present debate to the things which had been uttered on the other side against their discussion, to be saved if possible the trouble of repeating his Former observations, and for this reason he had given his best attention to those who had riot observed the rule of silence Which had been prescribed to the party—and who had undertaken to explain the question to which as they said they were confined on this occasion. He must confess, however, that they had failed to enlighten him. His hon. Friend the Member for Winchester had indeed wondered how any one dared now to speak on this subject, in short as it appeared to him how any one had the courage, in the face of the law and constitution, to discuss any other subject than that which he considered the subject before the House. It seemed to him, that his hon. Friend, whose skill in confusing juries he had often witnessed was not less successful on this occasion in confusing himself and the subject of debate, for, with every wish to do so he had really failed to understand what he meant. Another hon. Member thought questions respecting the suffering of the people were abstract questions and little in place at this time, and so on with several other Members who all upon some ground or other sought to justify themselves in avoiding the questions really proposed to them—but he owned that he saw as little in their reasons as in their silence, to make them think that this was not a fitting moment to discuss matters so deeply interesting to the people. He did not mean to say anything offensive to hon. Members On the other side, but he could not help thinking, that there was a way of accounting for their present silence considering the activity which they had lately displayed in giving circulation to every fallacy, in giving currency to every misrepresentation of the principles and objects of the Govern- ment measures. He could not but think, that hon. Members were somewhat ashamed of the means by which they had obtained their seats, and that when they came face to face with those whose policy and whose principles they had assailed so unscrupulously, they thought it the most prudent course to maintain a perfect silence. There was doubtless some discretion shown in not committing themselves to opinions, but the same discretion unfortunately was not observed elsewhere, and allusion here to the distresses of commerce, or the miseries of the people might check that ducal influence which assumed to itself the power of making Ministers, as grandees of old in this country had done, of making monarchs. While, on the other hand, the repetition at this moment of reasons for keeping the people in their misery, and preserving the tax on their subsistence, might have startled and disgusted the country in a manner not easily recovered, and this perhaps has rendered silence a very prudent course. In the performance of his duty, however, and, indeed, of his promise, to those who sent him there, he could not forego availing himself of the opportunity of discussing those vitally-interesting matters which the Crown had proposed for the consideration of the House. He would not be a party to wanton and marked disrespect shown to the Throne, in order to avoid the subject which of all others most nearly concerned the welfare of the people. Concurring as he did, entirely in the principles on which the financial arrangements of this year were proposed, and believing that if those principles had been carried farther, they would have been attended with unqualified advantage to the country, he should resist by every means in his power the opposite policy, which he considered to be identified with the amendment, for he could not shut his eyes to the notorious opinions of the hon. Member who moved the amendment; opinions so earnestly expressed by him in the important district which he represented; opinions by which he so largely profited, and which could not now be suppressed by any vague profession of attachment to the principles of free trade, or any shabby reference to the opinions of the late Mr. Huskisson. Considering the real opinions of that hon. Member, he could not but think him well qualified to represent the party and the policy directly opposed to the policy recently professed by her Majesty's Government. He considered, that the amendment placed in issue those great questions which now divided this country, and on which it was generally expected that Parliament was called together to decide. The time was now come which he had much desired to see, and which abler men had long expected, when the principles by which the trade and taxation of the country were to be regulated absorbed the consideration of the public mind. That case was now indeed ripe for hearing. The parties concerned were ascertained. There was on one side the community, on the other the aristocracy and the protected interests. The plea was the general interest, and the answer was vested interests and existing monopolies. It became the House, by every means, to elicit all the evidence which could prepare them for a judgment. He was satisfied that the country at large would view with impatience the attempt that had been made to draw their attention away to the mere vulgar topics of party. That story of party here was a short one, and soon told. The hon. Gentlemen opposite represented the aristocracy and the protected interests, and had achieved a victory over those who represented the general interests. How this great party had fallen from power was a question that might receive different answers. He certainly was disposed to think that the chief cause was to be found in the dissension which existed in that party. He believed, that the other Side had obtained a majority because, one section of the popular party had made use of them for the purpose of chastising the other. The fruits of this strange confusion of parties had been seen. Supporters of aristocracy and monopoly worked their way into the House, by appearing as the friends of the Chartist and the pauper, arid adopted against the Government the language of those who were discontented with its moderation. The reproaches of broken faith and unfulfilled pledges, indulged in by the hon. Member for Yorkshire, and others, were borrowed from the speeches of those whose hostility to the Government arose from its not going far enough. With such discordant allies, the party opposite was coming into power, not upon the principles which they themselves maintained, but upon the errors of their opponents. [Oh! oh!] Hon. Gentlemen opposite had listened with great attention to what the hon. Member for Bath, told them, and he said, that the grounds for condemning the Government was matte for Radical anger, and not for Conservative complaint. The Government had doubtless ceased to be popular. He was disposed to agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bath, had said. He did think that the Government had rather shrunk from the principles which placed them in power. They had been too much disposed to favour those who were more inclined to abandon than advance their principles. But he must in common candour say, that they had suffered as much for doing what would by many be thought right, as for doing what was wrong. There were two points in their policy which had weakened their popularity. He meant their policy towards Ire^ land, and their advocacy of the new Poor-law. He thought his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cork, (Mr. O'Connell) greatly exaggerated the prejudice which existed in this country against Ireland. He believed that it was less than his hon. and learned Friend represented; but it was impossible to deny that there did exist a great and unreasonable prejudice against Ireland. He did not know anything more unworthy or discreditable. He believed it was owing to the perverse principle of our nature, which leads us to hate those whom we have injured. It existed in almost every class. He trusted it was diminishing every day. He would venture to say, that many people in this country viewed with satisfaction the accession of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, to power, because they thought he would put down the Irish. The impression was, that the noble Lord was very hostile to the Irish. [No, no] He only said what the impression was, and he hoped the noble Lord would falsify it when he came into power; but it existed, and was undoubtedly a source of such popularity as attached to his accession to office. With respect to the new Poor-law, no one could deny that the Government had lost a great deal of popularity by their advocacy of that law. It was proverbial, and yet they had no possible interest or motive in that advocacy, but the belief in the improvement to which that new Poor-law would lead. He firmly believed that it was a great improvement on the old law, and if it had not been misrepresented, the people would see that themselves. In these respects unpopularity had been acquired by the Government by the honesty of their policy. He believed also, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had suffered From incautious expressions made use of with respect to the Reform Bill He always did think that a great deal more had been made of those expressions than there was any occasion for. He thought the honest and candid construction of the noble Lord's language was, that the noble Lord, being somewhat timid after the confusion which himself and his colleagues caused by passing the Reform Bill, was needlessly alarmed at the consequences of carrying out their principles. He could not believe, having no reason to suspect the intelligence or integrity of the noble Lord, that, in announcing the principle that the people ought to be fully and fairly represented, and that the system of nomination ought to cease, he could have considered the Reform Bill was a complete and final developement of that principle. It was very well for those who objected to all change, and who thought the old corrupt system ought not to have been disturbed, to oppose everything like farther reform. But he could not believe, that a Government of men who had caused such turmoil in the country as Lord Grey's Government had done in proclaiming the principle that the people should be duly represented, could have intended no more complete fulfilment of their principles than was contained in the Reform Bill. This, however, being said, was a source of unpopularity. He was disposed to overlook much of what the popular party condemned in the noble Lord, in consequence of the manner in which he had taken up the great principles of commercial reform. He was bound to say, that he believed the noble Lord had acted in everything he had said and done respecting the alteration of the Corn-laws, entirely from honest conviction. It was perfectly false that anything which had happened in that House, had influenced the noble Lord's determination to alter the Corn-laws. The determination had been taken before the occurrence of those decisions which were said to have led to it. There was perhaps no use in repeating this statement, because appearances were against it. The presumption was, that the decisions he referred to had influenced the Government, because their measures of commercial reform were not proposed before. However, he repeated, and he had no object in making the assertion but truth —as indeed there could be hardly any other motive for his saying anything in behalf of a Government about to go out, and he certainly was under no obligation to any of them; he repeated, however, because he knew, that the noble Lord had been most unjustly accused, that the noble Lord could have had no object in bringing forward the measures which he submitted to the House, but a conviction of the evil of the present law; and that he considered no man ought to continue a Minister without proposing its amendment or repeal. The party opposite was now coming into power, and it was impossible to be blind to the fact, that they were coming in in direct opposition to the principles of commercial freedom and unfettered industry. In the present alarming condition of the country —with commerce paralysed, capital unemployed, millions of industrious poor in the lowest state of depression, the opposite party were coming into power on the principle of maintaining the destructive system of commercial legislation which now prevailed. He had had lately submitted to him detailed proofs that the existing distress was of the most frightful nature, and in compliance with the request of those who represented the sufferers, he should call the attention of the House to the nature of those proofs. He held evidence in his hand, not referring to isolated cases, leading as the right hon. Baronet opposite had said, to no general conclusions, but such as established in the clearest manner the evils which resulted from the law. He had evidence of distress from numerous and widely-separated districts, and referring to people engaged in every department of trade. Hon. Members opposite were not disposed to receive very favourably anything coming from those clergymen who had lately assembled at Manchester. But it should be recollected that they were delegated by their congregations, including so many of our fellow subjects who were now suffering, and who had requested these gentlemen to go in their behalf to a spot where they knew the subject of their condition would receive attention. On their authority this evidence was collected, and the names and addresses of the parties who gave and collected it, were, in each case given, so that any one might test its correctness. The hon. Gentleman then said, that he had evidence referring to the trades, and coming from the places following:—- Hardware (Nos. 1,2).—Walsall, West Bromwich Darlaston, Willenhall, Wednesbury, Tipton, and Oldbury. Hardware (No, 3.)—Dudley. Nail Making.—Belper and Forfar, N. B. Herring Fishery.—Caithness, N. B. Silk.—Coventry, Macclesfield, Middleton, Derby, West Houghton, Spitalfields, and Bethnal-green. Woollens.—Leeds,Huddersfield, Golcar, Lock-wood. Rochdale, Bradford, Thornton with Denholme, Sowerby-bridge, Haworth, Wilsden, Allerton, North Owram, Middlebro', Ossett, Martin Top near Gisborne, Radcliffe, Dursley, Stroud, Stonehouse, Wotton-under- edge, Westbury, Bradford, Frome, Shepton Mallet, and Trowbridge. Cutlery.—Sheffield. Carpet Weaving.—Barnard-castle. Hat Making.—Denton. Shoe Making.—Daventry and Stone. Hosiery and Lace. — Nottingham, Mansfield, Sutton in Ashfield, New Basford, Beeston, Hyson-green, Leicester, Hinckley, Lutterworth, Loughborough, Earl Shelton, Arnsley, Ullathorpe, Oadby, Ilkeston, Belper, Melbourne, and Tewkesbury. Glove Making. —Hexham (Northumberland), Worcester, and Yeovil, Somerset. Agriculture.—Beds.—Leighton Buzzard. Bucks.—Amersham, High Wycombe, Newport Pagnell, Olney, and Stoney Stratford. Berks. — Reading and vicinity. Cambr.—Bassingbourn. Cheshire.—Knutsford. Devon.—Exeter, Bideford, Witheridge, and Great Torrington. Shipping. — Liverpool, Bristol, Hull, Bridport, Whitehaven and Falmouth. Cotton.—Manchester, Bolton, Preston, Carlisle, Kendal, Bury, Heywood, Wigram, Stock port, &c." "Mining,—Forest of Dean, Pontypool, Talywaen, Rhymney, Sirhowy, Abersychan, Llanelly, and Mnyddyshoyn district. Now he would not venture to weary the House at this time with the detailed contents of these documents, but he would read from one of them what he might term a specimen of the evidence which they afforded of the condition of the people—it referred to the Preston union, and was as follows:— Population, 51,072. Inhabited houses, 8,974; uninhabited,1,017. The poor-rate has regularly increased from 1836; it was then 4,725l, it is now 7,299l. It would have been much heavier, but for the large voluntary subscriptions which have been raised. The reports of the dispensary show that, in 1836, 1,911 persons were medically relieved; in 1840, 3,072. Deaths in the Preston union: 1838, 1,269; 1839, 1,277: 1840, 1,739—an increase in 1840 of 462 over the preceding year. This extraordinary increase in the number of deaths excited the attention of the registrar-general, who wrote to the clerk of the union, to inquire the cause. The following is an extract from the reply: 'The cause is, in a very great measure, insufficiency of food of a good quality, which has tended to engender death among the labouring class, who have been exposed to high prices for provisions (and those of an inferior kind), whilst in the receipt of decreasing wages.—JOSEPH THACKERAY.' Many suffer their great privations with much patience; others are discontented and sullen. Many give up all in despair, whilst not a few are confident that open rupture can alone relieve them. A very great indifference is felt towards constitutional efforts, such as petitions, &c, for the relief of their distress. Many of the hand-loom weavers live almost entirely on water-porridge, and are distressingly destitute of clothes and bedding. Now the people firmly, in his opinion justly, believed that the frightful mass of misery exhibited in this evidence was entirely owing to the restrictions which Parliament imposed upon their industry and their commerce with other countries. A state of things had now arrived, which had been always foreseen and long since expected by all the best heads that had been engaged on the subject when the population of this country would exceed its means of subsistence, and when it must depend on other countries, differently circumstanced, for a supply of food. There was nothing unnatural in that, when we had a population increasing at the rate of one thousand a day; and the time was at hand when this state of things would be universally acknowledged to have arrived. He was not one who was anxious to bring before them distinct cases of suffering for the purpose of their legislating upon them: that he knew was useless, but in this case it was generally alleged, and believed, that the distress was occasioned by the operation of the Corn-laws. That law they had passed, and that law they could repeal. When that opinion was well founded, and when such a general feeling prevailed, to that effect, he said that they were called upon to repeal it. Therefore it was, that he must say, that he had seen with the greatest sorrow the opinions which the right hon. Baronet opposite and the noble Lord had expressed upon this subject. He was sorry to see the right hon. Baronet labouring in his public address to justify those who would maintain the law as it was, rather than encourage them to prepare for its immediate change. Certainly he had expected and that expectation was formed from hearing what the right hon. Baronet had said in that House, that when he came into power, he would use the influence that he possessed over the party to which he belonged, in inducing them to change the opinion they maintained, with respect to the Corn-law; but now that the right hon. Baronet was on the eve of coming into power, he saw by his speech at Tamworth that he only displayed his ingenuity and talent, to show that there were other causes for the prevailing distress than the Corn-laws; and in thus acting, the right hon. Baronet helped to confirm the opposition that existed in the minds of the advocates of that law to any modification of it. When the right hon. Baronet was thus speaking he was, it was to be remembered, addressing himself to the world. Now, when the right hon. Baronet said, that the Corn- law was not chargeable with the present distress—that it was not the cause of it— he was sure the right hon. Gentleman could not deny, but that that law had something to do with the derangement of the currency; he could not deny that it had produced a scarcity of money necessarily exported abroad—he could not deny, that there was a scarcity of food during the last three years, and surely every man's means must be diminished when he had to sacrifice more of those means for the purpose of procuring food—each must suffer if he paid a higher price for food than he was in the habit of paying for it before. What, then, did the right hon. Baronet mean by saying, that the Corn-law had nothing to do with distress? Was it that high price for food was not an evil — that it was no evil to see the bullion going out of the country—to find credit contracted, and the Bank distressed? And yet all these evils followed from it. He did not mean to say, that the right hon. Baronet had made statements to that effect, but these were the legitimate consequences of his position. When, therefore, he declared that the law did not give au additional cause for the present distress, he said what was difficult to comprehend, and impossible to assent to. How any person of intelligence could come to that conclusion he could not understand. Let them, for instance, see how the law affected the agricultural class. It was calculated that there were about a million of families employed, in agriculture in this country, and it had been further calculated that each family received 30l. a year at least. If there were a million of agricultural labourers, then there were 30,000,000l. to be expended in some way or other. Now, it was found in the evidence before the committee that had been already referred to in this debase, that when wheat was 57s. the quarter, the class of persons described had, to pay 7s. 6d. out of their weeks wages for bread and flour; but when they knew, as in 1839 and 1840, that the average price of wheat in this country was 70s. the quarter, he asked them what they thought could be left to a man after paying for his bread, of his 10s. or 12s. a week, when he paid 7s. 6d. a week, and the quarter of wheat not more than 56s.? What would be left to him who had to pay for manufactures after expending so much in provisions. Surely, the manufacturing interest in that case must feel the loss of their share of the thirty millions. And what in fact did we hear from Leicester and other places, (the people of Leicester produced coarse goods, principally for the use of the agricultural labourers)? Was it not — that they received no orders during these years for these articles, because the people had to expend all their wages in food? The consequence was, that in Leicester, where a number were supported principally by manufacturing for the agricultural labourers, they had now no demand for their labour, they were thrown out of work, and 14,000 were depending upon support from the parish of Leicester. And yet with these facts before them, they heard that the high price of food was of more advantage to the labourer than otherwise, or that it was no evil—or that it would make no difference whether they had Corn-laws or not. He complained of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, but he complained still more of the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. In the right hon. Baronet's speech it was not asserted that the Corn-law was a positive good—the right hon. Baronet confined himself to the assertion, or the argument, that it did not produce distress. But then the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, in addressing the agricultural labourers, attempted to show that the high price of provisions was an advantage. Now, he could not believe that any man of common sense—certainly any man of extraordinary mind—could honestly believe that to be the case; because he thought, of all the delusions that had ever been practised upon human credulity that was the greatest. How could he, asked any man of intellect and common honesty, tell a poor creature that the less food there was in the country the better it would be for him; that in short the more scarce were the provisions, the more he would get. Why, there was nothing in witchcraft; there was nothing in cajolery on a large scale; nothing in the history of successful delusions practised upon the minds of ignorant men, equal to it that he had ever heard. They knew how it came to succeed. It was by using vague terms. It was by telling the poor that their wages would fall, and the poor people thought that if wages fell, their condition would be worse; and then those who used such an argument as this, if argument it could be called, told the people of the cruelty of their masters. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, selected Lancashire as the proper place to set the men against their masters; to tell them that it was the cruelty of their masters that made them free traders, and anxious to promote their doctrines: but that it would ruin them and deprive them of their comforts; that these masters would take them from occupations that they liked, and transfer them to others for which they were not suited. But the noble Lord had tried farther to persuade the people of that which he did not think could now be revived by any one; namely, the stale and exploded fallacy which had formerly been used with regard to the war taxation. He used the same fallacy with respect to rents that had been formerly employed with regard to the taxes; for he said, that the higher were the rents the more men were there employed. That was the old doctrine that had been started by Mr. Vausittart, when he said of the taxes, that they came back to the country in "refreshing showers," and that the more the people were taxed, the more the Government gave them employment. Thus it was, that the noble Lord stated of the landlords, that it would be highly dangerous to reduce their rents, because, if they were reduced, they could not keep so many grooms and gardeners. That they wanted now the gardeners to watch their pleasure-grounds; but if the Corn-laws were repealed, then the landlords would be obliged to reduce their expenditure, and to suit it to the means that they possessed. This was the way in which it was attempted to be proved, that great evil would follow from a change in the Corn-laws ! The grooms and gardeners were to be well employed! But, surely, the weavers and the stocking makers were human beings also, and not less worthy of their consideration; and he thought it was just as essential that they should be supported as the grooms and gardeners. He should like to have known what the noble Lord would have said, if a weaver had risen, and asked him what he would do if a machine was invented for making clothes cheaper than they were at present, what would he, who had such tenderness for grooms and gardeners, do with respect to new inventions, which injured the unfortunate artisan? Would he not scout the idea of taxing or suppressing machinery, and yet he did not know why there should be more sympathy displayed for grooms and gardeners, because the landlords might have less rents, than for the weaver, whose employment was superseded by the use of new machinery. The noble Lord said, that land must be cultivated and high rents kept up, for the purpose of employing labour; but the same argument might be used to keep up any existing trade or occupation. If the noble Lord advocated a new line of railroad, and the people in business who occupied the houses on an old line of road told him they would be ruined by being deprived of their occupation and advantage, why that would be a stronger case than that of the grooms and gardeners, and yet who would entertain it? But the noble Lord spoke of the main principle of his policy being protection. The noble Lord ought distinctly to announce to the country what he meant by protection, because he told them that he was a disciple of Mr. Huskisson. It was said, that he had been the colleague of that Gentleman, and he had announced himself as clothed with his mantle. Now, Mr. Huskisson had said a great deal, like other people in office, to square their opinions with existing circumstances; but still throughout the course that he had followed, it would be found that he had never upheld the principle of protection as opposed to the principle of free trade. It was not for them to state that Mr. Huskisson did so and so, but if they quoted his authority, they should look to his recorded opinions in 1825 and 1826, or they ought to look to the last speech that he had made in 1830, that with respect to the state of the nation, when he gave his opinion, as to the causes of distress and the proper remedies to be applied to them, and' when his opinions were unfettered, by any connection with Government. They might remember that a charge had beep roadie, in that House against Mr. Huskisson, and, it was made in a very unworthy spirit; very much, indeed, in the spirit in which the noble Lord opposite now attacked the advocates of free trade. He was charged with cruelty and heartlessness, and having no feeling for the rest of mankind. Then Mr. Huskisson explained his principles and vindicated his, policy. On that occasion he read a petition from the merchants of London, from which he would, quote a passage:— That of the numerous protective duties of our code, it may be proved, that while all operate as a heavy tax on the community at large, very few are of any ultimate benefits to the classes in whose favor they were originally instituted, and none to the extent of the loss occasioned by them to other classes. That in thus declaring, as your petitioners do, their conviction, of the impolicy and, injustice of the restrictive system, and in desiring every practicable relaxation of it, they have in view only such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately so, with the public revenue …… But it is against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue; against all duties merely protective from foreign competition, and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection, that the prayer of the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of Parliament. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your honourable house will be pleased to take the subject into consideration, and to adopt such measures as may be calculated to give greater freedom to foreign commerce, and thereby to increase the resources of the state. What then was Mr. Huskisson's object in reading that petition? Why, in the first place, to show that what was ignorantly called a heartless theory of his own, was anxiously maintained by all the great practical commercial men of the time, and for the purpose of declaring his entire agreement with them; and to that effect he spoke on the occasion. These were his words:— But I say now, as I always have said, that those who, either by their speeches in Parliament, or the exertion of their talents out of it, have contributed to bring the people in England to look with an eye of favour on the principles recommended in this petition, have done themselves the greatest honour, and the country an essential benefit. It was therefore plain, that Mr. Huskisson identified himself with the principles contained in the petition, and that his opinion was against all protective duties. Persons like the noble Lord, said, they were against prohibition, but for protection, why they were not opposed to each other, prohibition was only a means of protection. They might, to be sure, mitigate it; but then it was opposed to that sound policy laid down in the petition for the abolition of all protective duties that were not essential to the revenue. And as long as the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord adhered to the restrictive system so injurious, as he was convinced, to this country, he, for one, would withhold all support from them. He did not despond however, he saw the progress that public opinion was making; hardly a day passed in which they did not hear of fresh converts to free trade, and he never heard of any who, having been converted, ever honestly abandoned that opinion. He did not in the least regret the change of Go- vernment that was about to take place. He believed, that it was highly useful; he believed actually necessary, that some change should take place, to lead to the ultimate success of the measure. They should now have a large political party interested in converting the community on the subject. He was rejoiced that the dissolution had taken place; it had produced discussion on the subject; it had invited the attention of the people to it, and he was happy to see what had been the result. [A laugh!] If he stood there as a partisan, he must regret the result; but the subject on which he was now speaking was the one that chiefly engrossed his attention. He was there not to promote any party whatever; it was this question, that affected so largely the welfare of the country, that chiefly excited his interest in politics, and he was watching its progress. The dissolution, he was satisfied, had contributed much to advance it. More persons had been returned favourable to it than there had ever been before, and judging from the speeches of two or three, that they had already heard, they would by their influence, he was sure, render great service to the cause. It must be greatly promoted by the facts and arguments so ably put forward by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), and the effect of which produced at the time was creditable to the House. It was by constant discussion, that they had hitherto advanced, and it was by the same means they should ultimately succeed. He certainly would follow out in practice the promise that had been made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, and never cease, day and night, in eliciting facts that would strengthen the case, and in bringing into light every point that bore upon the subject. He could not now sit down without remarking, upon the heavy responsibility that rested upon those who were coming into office. He supposed that the right hon. Baronet opposite would have to form the next Government, and if so, he would have the complete power to do what he thought right; he had moral influence sufficient, he presumed, to convert his friends to his own opinion if they differed with him, and he had strength enough to execute what he proposed; therefore, it was, that he should treat whatever disaster might follow from the present system, or whatever advantage might accrue from a change, to the circumstance of his coming into power. If the sufferings of the people continued; if commerce languished; if trade were checked; if the means of employment were diminished; the whole of the responsibility must rest with the right hon. Baronet opposite. He believed that the right hon. Baronet had the power of changing our present commercial system, now so pregnant with evil, and the determination to support it, or to change it, would determine the opposition or the support that he would receive in the country.

Lord Francis Egerton

observed, that whatever might be the opinions that prevailed upon that or the other side of the House as to the course that ought to be taken in this debate, and the question that was immediately before the House, still he did not presume to offer any objection to Gentlemen on the other side, who considered it to be their duty to speak on a subject that he did not believe to be the immediate question for debate. So far from presuming to offer anything like dictation to Gentlemen on the other side, he must say, that he had listened with deep, painful, and respectful attention to the lengthened statements of Gentlemen who were adventitiously connected with districts, the distress of which they described, and also to their opinions as to the causes to which the distress was to be ascribed. He enjoyed— in the sense in which it was said a man enjoyed bad health—the melancholy privilege of appreciating, in some degree, the commercial distress that existed, and the consequent privations in those parts of the country to which hon. Members had particularly referred. He trusted, then, that if he did not enter into a detailed consideration of what those Gentlemen had thought fit to dilate upon—the causes of the evils that existed, and the immediate remedies to be applied to them—that when he declined to do this, it was not to be supposed that he was of opinion that this great and important subject was not fit for consideration. He was of opinion, that the present state of the civilised world was not only in that House and in the country, but in every deliberative assembly throughout civilisation, a matter to which the intelligence and knowledge of statesmen and men of learning were imperatively called to consider, as the great problem that pressed upon society—namely, the problem how, by human means or human contrivance, they were to distribute the productions, so as to meet the exigencies of a country possessing a large ma- nufacturing population. To this subject he was not unwilling to devote his attention; but, then, he did not think that this was the proper occasion for doing so. The Government of the country was now in an anomalous and strange position. They were in doubt as to how it was to be conducted and regulated, and he would be doing wrong, at such a time, to a subject on which he was equally anxious with the hon. Gentlemen opposite, if he were at such a moment to enter upon its discussion. It was not in the midst of undefined questions and conflicting arguments and opposing statements that the truth could be arrived at. It would not be difficult, perhaps, to point out, that there were as different views between the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the Gentlemen who advocated a total abolition of the Corn-laws, as there were on his side as to a fixed duty, and any other mode of protection. The hon. Member for Stockport appeared to him, in his observations, to have shown that the deterioration in the condition of the labouring classes began precisely at that period when a great political change took place, which gave power to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that the progress of that deterioration had been pari passu with the deterioration of the Government.

Mr. Cobden

was not aware that he had stated anything that could justify the conclusion the noble Lord appeared to have arrived at.

Lord Francis Egerton

said, he was merely stating a coincidence, which, perhaps, was but fortuitous. Great promises had been made to the people, that they would receive material comforts from great political changes, in which promises he had at the time but little faith; and these promises he found followed by a deterioration in the condition of the labouring population, which, having commenced in 1839, had continued to progress up to the present moment. He could assure the House that he did not desire to proceed to the consideration of the question before them in any tone of exultation or triumph on account of the late elections. Such would not be in accordance with his feelings, nor would it be consistent with that state of distress in which the country they were told was at this moment. He was only there to say, that he represented the wishes, the feelings, and the opinions of his constituents, when he assented to the amendment proposed in the Address. Va- rious objections had been offered as to the course adopted on this occasion; but these objections did not come from those most interested—the Members of her Majesty's Government, who had spoken in this debate. In framing the amendment, it was said by the hon. Member for Meath and the hon. Member for Finsbury, that it was disrespectful to her Majesty. His experience showed him that what was called her Majesty's Speech, was only the Speech of Ministers, and as such to be dealt with. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, did not object to that course, and said that it was fair, open, and honourable, but then he said, that in ascribing a want of confidence in Ministers, they ought themselves to be prepared to state what they would do, supposing that they (the Opposition) came into power. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that their not doing so, was like the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted. But he told the right hon., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they would not play Hamlet at all until the company was formed, and the theatre prepared, so as to be ready for the performance. How did anybody know that his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, was to be a Minister of the Crown, and that therefore ho was to have measures to prepare? How did they know it? He asked them that? They knew it but for this reason—because, for ten years past, every measure of theirs had been discussed—every plan of theirs commented upon nullum tetigit quod non ornavit. It was because he had so acted that it was very probable he would be a Minister of the Crown; but, then, they assumed the fact, and they it was who offered disrespect to her Majesty, by attempting to declare how the prerogative would be exercised. If his right hon. Friend would take advice from his gray hairs, he would not comply with the unreasonable demands made upon him. But, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer called upon them to state the offences that they imputed to the Government, and for which the country was to withdraw its confidence from them. For himself, he would say, he was exceedingly unwilling to do so. He had rather be excused from touching upon them at all; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not heard enough of them in the five nights' debate, which had occurred not long ago, then he was a Chancellor of the Exchequer very difficult to satisfy; and he did not believe that the events which had since occurred, when the motion against them was carried, as he admitted, by a very narrow vote, had materially improved his situation in that respect. He would not give his own opinion as to whether the course pursued by the Government in the dissolution of the old, and in meeting the new Parliament, would be satisfactory to the people, but he thought that course did not tend to promote the relief of distress; on the contrary, he thought it had, in some respects, aggravated that distress, and that it was unwise and impolitic. His opinion was confirmed by the declaration made by his right hon. Friend behind him (Sir R. Peel) in the last Parliament, when he predicted that a dissolution under such circumstances would not remedy any practical evil that existed. It had been stated that the Government acted upon the precedent of his right hon. Friend in 1835. If that was a bad and questionable precedent, the justification was equally bad and questionable; but, in his opinion, the circumstances of the two cases were widely different, and there was no precedent at all. His right hon. Friend came into power in a new Parliament, with numbers much more closely balanced. He dissolved the Parliament, and he thought he was justified in doing so, as the result gave him a very large accession of supporters, His right hon. Friend thought that the opinions of the people were gradually coming over to his views and general policy, and although his anticipations in that respect were not fully, they were very largely justified. It was stated that his right hon. Friend met the Parliament under a certainty of defeat. He remembered no such thing; on the contrary, he well remembered that the betting on that occasion was even before coming down to the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury said that the present Government did not, on that occasion take the ungenerous and unjust course of at once proceeding to a vote of want of confidence. Why, that was the very course which his right hon. Friend begged and entreated that they would pursue. Undoubtedly, his right hon. Friend failed in obtaining the opinion and judgment of the country, but his failure was even more glorious than success. In a passage in the Life of the great Emperor of Europe, Napoleon, it was stated that it was not in the early days of his victories—it was not when Kings crowded to his closet—that he ex- hibited the resources of his master mind, but in his last disastrous campaign in which, with exhausted resources, he contended against the collected forces of Europe. He thought that impartial history would pass a similar verdict upon the passage he had alluded to in the career of his right hon. Friend. He must say he much doubted whether impartial history would pass the same verdict upon the course at present pursued by the noble Lord opposite. He knew not what the muse of history might have said if great success had crowned the noble Lord's efforts; he would not say that success would have justified that course, but certainly now there could be no doubt that the course of dissolving Parliament was either a fault or a miscalculation. If it was a fault, it was a fault and something more, and if a miscalculation it was so great a one as indeed justified that want of confidence which he believed the country entertained of the judgment if not of the principles and views of the noble Lord. No doubt the noble Lord intended to weed the manufacturing districts of some obnoxious plants, and was not aware that in that operation he might mow down some of the flowers of his own flock. The Tories of the noble Lord's manufacturing flock had fallen before the scythe of the reaper. The constituencies of England felt that on some occasions neither wealth nor accomplishments, nor spotless private character, nor unimpeachable public integrity, could compensate for the single defect, that the possessors of these virtues were firmly and conscientiously attached to the opinions and participators in the measures of the noble Lord opposite. For this single defect, in one constituency he could name, high rank, extensive property, and far more, worth and accomplishment, were found to be vain. But in his fall, he had exhibited a grace and a dignity that extorted the applause of his warmest antagonists, and hushed the shout of triumph that might be permitted in the victory over an ordinary and vulgar antagonist. What conclusion was he to draw from incidents such as these? It was this, that if he concurred with his hon. Friend in the amendment he had moved to the Address, he thought he would be doing that which would meet the commands, he might say the wishes, of those who sent him there. They had sent him there, successful not by his own means, strong not by his own strength, but that of a large mass of pub- lic opinion, and victorious by such assistance, and not by any superiority of his own, over his antagonists, who were not always very moderate in their language, not always very careful in their means, or very scrupulous in their statement of facts when their opponents were likely to suffer by a mistake which might not be easily corrected at the moment; and this success, at which he felt no undue pride or triumph, he merely alluded to, as an instance of what he considered to be the state of public opinion in the country upon the snbject before the House.

Mr. O'Connell

said, the noble Lord has distinctly admitted, beyond controversy, the deep distress of the manufacturing classes. The noble Lord spoke of that distress with becoming feeling, and said, that a most difficult problem to solve was, how that distress could be relieved. I will furnish the noble Lord with a simple and efficacious remedy; give the distressed classes a loaf of bread. The noble Lord has not leisure to discuss the awful consequences of that distress, but whether the pleasantry which the noble Lord has indulged in be in good taste or not, it is not for me to say. This is a subject of the utmost importance, and I claim this deference for my opinions on the Corn-laws, that I stand here the representative of two of the largest agricultural communities in the country. I am the representative of more than one million of the people of the Irish nation. Yes, I have been returned for two counties, without canvass or solicitation, without my personal presence, or my asking for a single vote, and with my opinions on the Corn-laws being well known. My opinions I am not in the habit of concealing, and no opinion of mine is better known in those counties than that I am for the total abolition of those laws. There is another testimony in my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, with respect to the feelings of the Irish constituencies, for he fully informed his constituents that he would vote against those laws. This is a proof that the Irish people do not estimate the advantages which the agricultural interest derives from the Corn-laws. Indeed Ireland illustrates the fallacy of some of the topics used by the supporters of these laws. It is said, that they increase the rate of wages. If they have that operation any where, surely it is in Ireland. Ireland has the full benefit of the Corn-laws, and yet there is the lowest rate of wages in any part of the kingdom. Ireland is an agricultural country; you have taken care she shall not be a manufacturing country; but the people see distinctly that Corn-laws do not raise the rate of wages, and they feel, and I feel, that it is a robbery upon the operative to make him pay more for his bread than his earnings enable him to pay. Yes, they feel that these Corn-laws are an aristocratic impost upon the food of the poor man. If the Corn-laws did not increase the price of bread to the operative, they would not contend for them; no, they contended for them in order to increase their rents. What, is the problem so difficult to be solved as to the mode of relieving the existing distress? I ask, is there any proposition more clear than this, that having cheaper bread, and a greater quantity of it, would be an immediate mode of relief? But you want to reduce that quantity. You want to increase your rents and not to give cheaper food, and then you come with your doleful lamentations about the state of distress. The people understand and feel it to be a mockery. They ask for bread, and you give them a stone, and then you come and boast of your triumph and your overwhelming majority against the Ministers who propose an alteration. For my own part, I only agree to the Ministerial plan of 8s. protection as an instalment of the debt of justice due to the people, with the full determination of getting rid of it ultimately. The question between you and the people is, whether there shall be a tax upon their bread—whether there shall be an impost upon their food—and whether you shall increase your revenues by increasing the price of that without which existence is insufferable? [No, no.] I say yes, yes. And you insist upon continuing this plan of starvation, in spite of the evidence read by my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, showing an accumulation of disease and death, following the dearness of provisions and the scarcity of food. You may talk as you please; you may boast of your triumphs as you like, but you must come round to this. The question between you and the people of England is, whether they shall pay millions more by the year for food than they can get it for from other countries. It has a double aspect of iniquity; for, while it increases the price of the poor man's food, it impedes the progress of our manufacturing interest. If you allow foreign corn to be imported, we shall at once find immediate payment for our manufactures, and an increased demand. At present you diminish labour by increasing the price of food, and then you come with lamentations about the state of distress, and about the difficulty of solving the problem of how that distress is to be relieved. I recollect a story of a Frenchman, who complained that he never fattened his horse. He had tried a thousand remedies; he had fed him with spices and tobacco, and different other articles; when, one day, a friend asked him, "did you ever try oats?" He declared he had not. Now, I say to you, by way of experiment, in order to solve the problem as to the best mode of relieving the present distress, try bread. Give the poor man food, and then, if he does not thrive and prosper, go to any quack doctor that chooses to set up, and, for my part, I should not interfere. Everybody knows that the great mistake in the Reform Bill was that of augmenting the representation of the counties, and not giving to the better instructed town populations a more adequate share in the representation. I do not ask for a preference. I ask for equality. You, however, gave the preference to the 50l. tenant at will clause, and I ask how much of your triumph is owing to the fatal policy of having thus augmented the members for the counties of England? Your majority consists almost entirely of them. I complain that the Whig Ministers did not go far enough. They halted too soon. They did not answer the just expectation of the people by working out their own measures so as to give the people a fair representation. I complained because of the unequal preference given over the manufacturing and commercial classes. The supporters of dear bread, however, succeeded, and they have again succeeded in obtaining a majority. What, then, are the merits of the two great parties who contend for the government of this country? I will contrast them. What fault, I ask, is to be found with the Government for the last ten years? They have done much to increase the franchise. They have almost totally abolished the hideous, uncivilised punishment of death. They have done more, and I speak of my own profession— they have wiped out the stain of injustice in the criminal law which permitted the counsel for the Crown to address the jury, shutting out the prisoner's counsel. That is a measure of great importance, although shorn of part of its utility in the House of Lords, where they introduced a clause, giving two speeches to the counsel for the prosecution, and only one to the prisoner's counsel. Although, therefore, there was such an unjust diminution of the benefit conferred by that measure, I think the Ministers deserve credit for going so far in ameliorating the law, and merit the gratitude of the country. They have done more. They have increased the circulation of information of every kind, by diminishing the stamp duties on newspapers and periodicals from 4d. to 1d. It should not be forgotten that they did these things. There was another great advantage arising from this measure, namely, it got rid of the temptation to a violation of the law by the sale of unstamped publications. Ministers cannot be deprived of the glory of having accomplished these things, even though their career be about to terminate. There is another measure of great public utility, namely, the penny postage. The reduction of the newspaper stamp duty allowed the circulation of information. The reduction of the postage duty allowed the circulation of the effect of that information. It keeps up the tie between parent and child, between brother and brother, and for the first time places in the reach of the poorest person the easiest mode of communication. Before that measure the poor man paid one-third of his weekly earnings for a single letter, and was in this painful contrast with the man of fortune—that the man of fortune could hold communication for the ten-thousandth part of his income. Again, the present Ministers opened the trade with India and China. They have also advanced the principles of religious liberty. They have relieved the Catholic and Dissenter from the necessity of bowing before a clergyman whose tenets they did not believe, and whose mission they deny. They have allowed them to celebrate their baptisms and marriages, and to preserve their burial scenes free from intrusion. The present Ministry have made a great step towards the abolition of tithes in Ireland. They have succeeded in striking off one-fourth of the entire burden. They would have gone farther, they would have appropriated the surplus, had the Parliament permitted, to purposes of public utility. I do not reproach them for having given up that clause, for I was one of those who, despairing of carrying it, urged their giving it up. I do not shrink from my share of the blame, but I say that in abolishing one-fourth of the odious impost they have set an example, and established a principle, which may enable, at no remote period, a future Parliament to abolish it altogether. But that is not their only claim. Were they not the persons who introduced reform into this House? Did they not abolish 115 rotten, boroughs in England and thirteen in Ireland? Have they not done more for England, and have they not abolished the restricted, narrow, and sell elected corporations? Have they not almost identified the electors with their representatives in the new corporations? They have done so, and it affords a painful constrast to the conduct pursued towards Ireland. They have done more, and let the fact be proclaimed to the world, they have emancipated 800,000 slaves. Early in Mr. Pitt's political life, he joined with Mr. Wilberforce, in pressing for the abolition of the slave trade. He succeeded in every other measure he undertook, but in this he was in a minority, and these minorities continued until the Whigs came into office, in 1805. They were only eight months in office, but they signalised themselves by the abolition of the slave trade. They gave a lesson to the nations of the earth, and the generosity with which the British nation made such sacrifices was compensated by the perfect safety which attended their humane experiment. The party which did this deserved popular support. That party had called upon Englishmen to estimate all these valuable and important ameliorations in the law, both as regarded religious liberty and human freedom. I will not dwell upon their conduct in Ireland. They have given ten years of almost complete repose to the people of that country. They have, for the first time, taught the people of Ireland that the Government may select persons not for their creeds but for their virtues—not for their religious opinions but their merits— that exclusion shall no longer be the fate of one party, and that offices of power, honour, and emolument shall no longer be confined to a faction. I thank them in the name of Ireland for what they have done, and for what they intended to do. I thank them for the good they have performed, and for the greater good they were prevented from effecting. I ask why a party of this kind should be thrown out of power? I will not stop to argue upon the question whether they fall short of their own undertakings—I will not stop to discuss how many of the more ardent friends of reform have been disappointed and irritated—I will not stop to ask why they did not carry out their own principles by extending the representation to the operative classes, to whom it must soon be extended. But I will say this, that you at least ought to be the last to complain of their labours not having been more extensive in that direction. What are the claims of the Tory patty upon a liberty-loving people? What has the Tory faction ever done for public liberty? When were they the advocates of freedom of conscience? Never. They have been exclusionists from first to last, and only yielded to the impulse of the pressure from without, adhering to the principle of exclusion still. I have spoken of a few instances of the benefits conferred by the Whig party in ten years; I will give the Tories a century, and I ask them to tell me what they have done for public freedom to put in comparison? They opposed the emancipation of the negro as long as they could. They opposed Parliamentary Reform. They supported the abuses of the old corporations; and yet, this is the party, it appears, which the people of England prefer. This was the party that all along opposed religious liberty, that kept the people of Ireland in chains until their limbs grew too large, and they burst their fetters. When they could no longer keep from the people of England their liberty, they revenged themselves by diminishing the franchise of the people of Ireland. That franchise was so restricted, that the curse of the noble Lord's bill was scarcely necessary to effect its early annihilation. You gave to England corporate reform, under which every man rated to the poor-rate, however low became a burgess. You gave Ireland a corporate reform, obtained only after four years' struggle, but it was at last conceded by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. How did your leaders treat the Irish people? In the city of Dublin there has been an enumeration to the poor-rate, and the number of ratepayers on the books is 15,000. Everyone of these, if he resided in Bristol or Liverpool, would become a burgess; but happening to be on the other side of the Channel, 5,000 of them are excluded. Heaven help us! misery makes us acquainted with strange company. The hon. Member for Evesham has condescended to patronize Ireland. But, first, all agitation must be put down. Has the hon. Gentleman wit enough to know that agitation is impotent, unless founded oh a just cause? and I ask any one, possessed of the old spirit of Englishmen — a spirit which, I believe, has considerably evaporated — would you endure that Ireland should have got a corporate reform, giving to every rate-payer the right to be a burgess, whilst England was restricted to one-third? How would the old spirit of an Englishman prompt him to answer that question? If he answered that he would bear it patiently—I will not say that I would treat him with contempt, but I should think he deserved to be so treated. If, on the other hand, he said he would not endure such injustice, I would hail him, and say to him, neither will we, the people of Ireland, endure it. I want to know what the Tory party have done to recommend them to the good will of the people of England? It was said formerly, that no people in the world were more desirous of public freedom, or more attached to the privileges and the rights of freemen, and they carried them out, in the madness of their zeal for liberty, by dragging one monarch to the scaffold, and driving another, a wanderer and a beggar, through the nations of Europe. What party was it that supported these monarchs in their attempts upon the liberties of the people? It was the party that was now coming into power. Their very name dated its creation from the period of the Revolution, and from that period to this what proof have they given of their love of liberty? They opposed the House of Hanover as long as they continued attached to principles of liberty; they opposed them to the very verge of rebellion, and they became loyal only when they got the Crown into their custody in the reign of George 3rd. Have the party shown no disposition to return to their ancient disloyalty during the present reign. They have not as yet the Grown, in their custody. Accordingly the loyalty of the party out of that House is expressed in base calumny, and the vilest, and need I say most unfounded slanders? One would have imagined that the youth and sex of her Majesty might have awakened some feeling of sympathy and regard. Yet it was you who framed these calumnies against your young and beautiful Queen—you deny that, at your orgies, you insulted her by your marked preferences. What said the reports, in the newspapers—your own newspapers? "The health of the Queen was drunk with the usual honours;" and the health of another person—need I name her?—" with nine times nine, and loud and long-continued cheering," accompanied by that music invented by the saint of Canterbury, and entitled "the Kentish fire." And what is there in you to countervail all this? What public good have you ever done? What cause of public liberty have you ever advocated? I have read your history, and I am astonished that the people of England should be so fallen as to consent to give you their confidence. And how was that seeming confidence obtained? Never was such gross bribery known since the world began. Take the great leading organ of your party, the Times, which states the fact distinctly, and no other paper has contradicted it. The Times is the authority on the point of bribery; and somebody belonging to it has tried his chance at elections two or three times, and has succeeded once, and was sorry for it. You may boast your majority, but take it with this reflection, that it was all owing to gross and unlimited bribery. The Times is a liar of the first magnitude, and yet he admits as much. Another cause of your temporary success is your antipathy to Ireland, and the use you made of it. Look at the late speech of your champion, the Earl of Winchilsea: shame on you for listening to it. This, your hatred of Ireland, was one of the leading topics in all your addresses, from Chester to Canterbury. And yet, with all these foul and hateful means, you could not have succeeded but for the sordid and selfish interests of the owners of land, and those dependent upon them. Yes, the farmers were brought to believe that their interests were knit up with those of the landlords, and that the alteration of the Corn-laws would depreciate both, and it was in a sordid, selfish feeling, that they combined to obtain a majority against those who proposed the scheme. And with this majority, there you stand the enemies of civil and religious liberty, and hating from your heart that country, which, from its heart, returns your hate despising as she hates. There you stand, the haters of your right hand in war; with respect to whom you delight to make odious distinctions of political and moral rights—denying her the same franchise, the same representation, and the same corporation reform as you yourselves enjoy. You refuse her also that equality in religion, which, if your parchment union were a real union, would be her's by right. And now you are going again to govern Ireland. Who is to go over there? Is the Orange flag again to wave over the Lord Lieutenant's head? On your last advent to power you sent us a gallant officer—brave as his own sword—and a noble Earl who took the first opportunity to exhibit himself in public, when the Kentish fire was set up to greet him, and the Orange flag waved over his head. True, the man who did this was punished. But how? Three years afterwards, the right hon. Baronet opposite called him in this House a vagabond. He had three years of perfect impunity and enjoyment of office, and at the end of that time he was signally punished by being called a vagabond,— and the vagabond holds his office to this day. And now for the future—What is your plan, what is your prospect? Is it possible to suppose that Ireland can be governed by mere good words? The county of Cork has a population of 750,000 souls, and a constituency of only 3,000. Of this Ireland complains. I have often gone over statements of this kind [hear], and on each occasion I have met with the same cries of derision which I now hear. But do you think that, as an Irishman, those cries can have any other effect than to inflame my spirit to defy, and move my energies to oppose and resist the enemies of my country who utter them. Do you think that because you have got a majority that you will put down the spirit of Ireland? do you think that with this bribed brute-force majority you can reconcile her to a rule of injustice at your hands, or drive from her memory and her affection a Government under which she has made such advances in moral feeling and tranquil happiness? But this tranquillity, which she has enjoyed under the present ministry, is, indeed, in your estimation, her only fault. It is a picture which you cannot bear to contemplate. True, there have been, as there are in all countries, and in all times, some instances of sanguinary outrage in Ireland. But before you make a sweeping condemna- tion for the faults of a few, look nearer home, I pray you. Look at the fact, that in Liverpool alone at the last assizes there were as many offences of a serious nature for trial as in the whole of Ireland. Ireland has calumniators, and always will have—and, shame to say it, too many of them men born upon her soil. Children thus hating and reviling their country— and can we wonder at it, when the enemies of Ireland have always received all the rewards of place and favour which power and authority could confer. Will you continue to follow this system now? You may pretend to administer the affairs of Ireland impartially, without this unfair regard to persons, but if you do, you will find that you will not have a single member of your party voting for you. And if you do not attempt to act impartially, I will not say, that you will lose Ireland— God forbid that you should! but you will deserve to lose her, and you will assuredly lose place and power. But can you act impartially—have you the men and means amongst you to do so? Look at the ranks of your party, and who do we see? Look at the noble Lord opposite, who, as he has made himself most profoundly haled in Ireland, is, I suppose, by the principle that action and reaction are equal, most beloved in England. How will it be with the noble Lord, who calumniated the honour and integrity of the people in Ireland, in order that he might deprive them of their franchise? When I reflect what endeavours I have made to purify the stream of justice in Ireland, that I have voted, night after night, in support of a Ministry who did not go half as far in the good cause as I did, solely with a view to accomplishing, through their hands, the purifying of the stream of public justice, I look with dread and sorrow to what we may now expect from you. Do you mean to restore the sheriff of Fermanagh? No doubt you will find means to initiate him, no doubt you will try means to tranquillise Ireland; and then you will think you have made all safe. But you will find yourselves wrong; there is but one safety valve for a great and suffering people, and that is, to afford them the means of giving expression to their distresses and their grievances. Your majority will carry you into power; but how long will you remain there? Look at the starving and unemployed millions of your fellow-countrymen; your factories desolate, and your cities rendered hideous by squalid misery and thick contagious mortality. Look at your declining commerce, the result of your unjust and pernicious system of legislation. Do you suppose that the people of this empire will be long before they form a fair estimate between the friends of freedom and its foes? You are coming into power; how long will it be, I wonder, before you will have cause to regret it? Power is in itself always unpopular, and you will not be long in office before your acts are criticised with severity, and the warmth of your temporary friendships begin to decline. Your alliance with the Chartists will soon be at an end. Anything but the Whigs for the hon. Member for Winchester; and this was precisely the cry of the Chartists, who said, "Let us bring in the Tories, and we shall soon multiply the number of Chartists." The Tories consider themselves a distinct and superior class, and look upon all the rest of the community as slaves. Seventy-five per cent, of the population of this country is entirely unrepresented; the people begin to feel this, and see the effect of it in the Corn-law, of which they now so bitterly complain. They begin to see the misery which results from want of freedom and insufficient food. They feel that the Reform Bill has been a failure, and that that measure which would best secure them from intimidation and corruption, namely, the ballot, is denied them. There are abundant distresses, abundant causes of complaint in the country; and how do you propose to meet them? Will you impose new taxes? I do not wish for evil in order that good may come of it; but if I could do so, I should wish that you would try some of these new taxes. Never did a party come into office surrounded with greater difficulties and dangers, and with less of that mens divinior of civil and religious liberty to recommend them; and I can only conclude by observing, that as "men's infirmity is God's opportunity," the party now coming into office may be compelled, in spite of themselves, to do justice to Ireland.

Sir R. Peel

Mr. Speaker, if I felt more acutely than in fact I do, either for myself or the party with whom I am connected, the weight of the censure and vituperation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has cast at us, still I could find some topic of consolation in the fact, that whatever may be his present abuse of the Tory party, it falls infinitely short of that he has lavished upon his own beloved Whigs. The hon. and learned Gentleman has in fact reduced himself to a condition in which his praise and censure are equally valuable. If these are men who have been so good to Ireland—if these are men who for ten years have preserved that country in happiness and tranquillity, what could justify the hon. and learned Gentleman's loading them with every species of calumny? Are these "the brutal and bloody Whigs?" And when the hon. and learned Member accounted for the cause of their difficulty and embarrassment in the government of Ireland, did he not bear in mind that there is not a distinguished Member of that party who has not been honoured with his vituperation. For ten years, too, this Government had ruled over Ireland and secured to her tranquillity and order. For four of those ten years my noble Friend near me was Secretary for Ireland—for four out of those ten years the man whom you deprecate was the immediate agent of the Whig policy with regard to Ireland. I ask, is it the fact that these men had acted in a way to deserve so well of Ireland? and if so, what has been the object and motive of the hon. and learned Member in coming down night after night increasing the difficulties and embarrassment of this Government, and denouncing them to the country by every calumnious expression which an imagination fertile in calumny could invent. I am sorry if I have been betrayed into a single expression of irritation on the present occasion, but I think I have received sufficient provocation from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is my earnest wish to discuss this question now before the House in the spirit and temper becoming the gravity of the occasion, and the magnitude of the interest involved. I have been in opposition to the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House for a period, with only a brief exception, of tea years. I have always endeavoured to conduct this opposition, in a way reconciling at the same time the practical exposition of my own opinions, and my direct condemnation, when necessary, of the measures of her Majesty's Government, with the absence of every expression of acrimonious or personal hostility; and, certainly, on the present occasion, when, according to the apparently prevailing feeling of the House, our opposition is likely to be attended with success, I shall not allow myself to be betrayed into a different tone than that which I have always endeavoured to adhere to. If the consequences anticipated from this debate be well founded—if it be true that the fortunes of the country, so far as the Government is concerned, are to be committed to other hands, those who, apparently in public opinion, are called to the exercise of power, ought to survey the position of public affairs with feelings far more elevated than those connected with mere party conflicts. I hope I contemplate—if the anticipation of hon. Gentlemen be correct, and that it is likely that I am to be called to any concern with public affairs—I hope I contemplate those difficulties and dangers which hon. Gentlemen have adverted to, and which may, in some degree, account for the want of confidence in the present Administration—I hope, I say, I contemplate them with no unmanly fear or shrinking from the responsibility that belongs to public station. But at the same time it is perfectly consistent with that feeling to entertain an awful sense of the obligations which high office imposes, and of the responsibility which public duty involves. It is in the spirit of that contemplation, rather than that of party rancour or party exultation, that I proceed to give my opinions on the topics adverted to in the course of this debate. Let me first briefly notice two or three points of the Address, on which no great difference of opinion exists. The first is that in which we express our satisfaction:— That we learn with much contentment that the objects for which the treaty of July, 1840, was concluded between her Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, have been fully accomplished; and that we share in the gratification with which her Majesty is enabled to state that the temporary separation which the measures taken in execution of that treaty created between the contracting Powers and France, has now ceased. Sir, no man who hears me feels a more sincere satisfaction than I do that that "separation" has ceased. No man who hears me feels a more cordial satisfaction than I do that France has been enabled consistently with her honour to enter again into the councils of Europe. I do hope, however, that that re-union will not be nominal, but will be accompanied with the restoration of those feelings of amity and that cordial good understanding between this country and France which are essential to the security and tranquillity of Europe. I have read with the greatest satisfaction the sentiments recently expressed at a meeting in France (I do not allude to any opinions delivered in the Chamber of Deputies) by a man so eminent, holding so important a station, and who has proved himself so truly deserving the character of a great statesman as the present minister of France. I have seen, I say, with the utmost gratification the frank declaration made by that minister that he rejoices at the prospect of a restoration of the good understanding between France and the other powers of Europe. In the next paragraph "her Majesty trusts that the union of the principal powers upon all matters affecting the great interests of Europe will afford a firm security for the maintenance of peace."I, for one, with the rest of this House, also reciprocate that sentiment. What is the first interest which it behoves the European powers to attend to? Is not the lime come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military armaments which they have so sedulously raised? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments? What is the advantage of one power greatly increasing its army or navy? Does it not see, that if it proposes such increase for self protection and defence, the other powers would follow its example? The consequence of this state of things must be, that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any one power, but that there must be an universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations. They are in fact depriving peace of half its advantages, and anticipating the energies of war, whenever they may be required. I do not mean to advocate any romantic notion of each nation trusting with security the professions of its neighbour, but if each country were to commune with itself, and ask "what is at present the danger of foreign invasion, compared to the danger of producing dissatisfaction and discontent, and curtailing the comforts of the people by undue taxation?" the answer must be this, that the danger of aggression is infinitely less than the danger of those sufferings to which the present exorbitant expenditure must give rise. The interest of Europe is not that any one country should exercise a peculiar influence, but the true interest of Europe is to come to some one common accord, so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. I do wish that the councils of every country (or that the public voice and mind if the councils did not) would willingly propagate such a doctrine. There is a great revolution in public affairs of late. The peace of twenty-five years, the intercourse of commerce, new connections, new interests which have sprung up therefrom, have effected a great change in public affairs. Take France for example: why, there is no country in Europe, if common sense ruled her councils, that could wish to see France curtailed of its fair pretensions to the rank to which it is entitled. There is a supposition, too common I believe in France, that the old feeling of national hostility prevails in this country. That notion is founded on a complete delusion, and if you were to canvass public opinion in this country on the subject you would find that in the proportion of ninety-nine to one there is no other wish than that France should consolidate the free representative institutions by which she is governed; and there is not one feeling of hostility directed against her successful competition in the paths of science, of the arts, of literature, of manufacturing industry, and of commerce. And if France were in any danger of an unjust aggression, the security of France would not be found in the number of her regiments, but in the mind and public spirit with which she would rise as one man to revoke and dispel the danger. It is the same with that magnificent country, which has abolished the name and distinctions of separate states, Germany, at this moment, from Hamburg to the Tyrol, and from Berlin to the southern confines, burns with a spirit which would intimidate and overbear any invader. These are the securities against aggression, and the securities for peace. Not high-raised towers nor moated gates, Not cities proud with spires And turrets crown'd; not bays nor broad arm'd ports, Where, laughing at the storm, Rich navies ride; not gay and spangled courts, Where low-bowed baseness Wafts perfume to pride. No; but man, High-minded man, with powers As far above dull brutes endued, In forest, brake, or dell, As these excel cold rocks or brambles rude. At the call of patriotism, Germany or France would rise now with an energy which France displayed in 1793. I give this opinion, subject, I know, to the imputation, "All this man is afraid of, is war, and he would have the States of Europe reduce its establishments in order to gain some paltry advantages."I hope the time is not yet come when public men can be influenced by such low and grovelling imputations. You can't conduct war as Bonaparte did. No power in Europe can do it. You can't make the country you conquer bear the price of the conquest. The thing is impossible. With states, as with individuals, that most unpleasant day—the day of reckoning— conies round; and when, in their sober moments, men calculate the relative advantages of immense armaments, and the illusions of military glory, with the cost of the taxes to pay for such exploits, they come to take a calmer and more discreet view of the comparative advantages than they could be expected to do in the moment of excitement. The expression of these sentiments is perfectly consistent with an earnest determination, if occasion should require it, to risk anything that the honour and interests of the country may require. I come now to a point of home policy—but I must say, that I did see with great pain the omission of any notice in the Speech of our relations with the United States—not that I necessarily blame that omission. I am sure it was not a casual one—I am sure it was not inadvertent. My regret is this, that I fear you have nothing satisfactory to say. Questions were asked of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs by the hon. and learned Gentleman to which the noble Lord made a reply that must necessarily have suggested other questions. When the noble Lord laid down the principle that we had nothing to do with the municipal institutions of other countries —that our demand must be made on the public organs of those countries, and that their own international laws and regulations could not be held out as an answer—when the noble Lord read a dispatch from Mr. Webster recognising, as I understood, the principle for which the noble Lord contended, and which was dated in March last—if the question had been an ordinary one some further questions must necessarily have been asked had not the noble Lord deprecated those questions being put. I understood from the noble Lord that he thought it would be more conducive to the great interests of peace, and consistent with the national honour, that the questions should not be pressed; and drawing this inference from what I considered to be the opinion of the Noble Lord—though I shall refrain from pressing the question, or seeking any further explanation from him—the noble Lord, I am sure, will permit me to say, that the explanation given by him is anything but full or satisfactory. I will not detain the House any more on these matters, but proceed at once to the consideration of those great subjects which are adverted to in the Speech and in the Address that the House is called on to assent to. The speech of the noble Lord delivered by her Majesty—calls on us, if I understand the object of it, for an expression favourable to the measures recommended by her Ministers last Session. The Speech has special reference to those measures, which were intended to supply the deficiency in the public revenue, and which relate to the timber duties, the sugar duties, and the corn duties. I do not mean to avoid the expression — I should rather say the repetition —of my opinion on the subject of these propositions. I stated before the last Session terminated, what course I intended to pursue, and what view I took, with reference to these subjects, I have been told that the country would disapprove of the secrecy which I maintained—I have been told, that it was unworthy of any person looking to the possession of power to withhold the developement of his plans for remedying the financial embarrassments of the country. But I gave an opinion then to which I will adhere now—to which I will adhere now with the greater resolution, because it has been supported and confirmed by the voice of the country. That opinion was, that at present I ought to be regarded as an individual; that I am not called upon by any consideration of public duty; that, in fact, I am precluded, by my own sense of public duty, from developing the detailed measures by which, if called to power, I would attempt to rescue the country from its present difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, asked me whether or no, if I dis- sented from the Ministerial measures, I, therefore, dissented from the principles of free trade. Sir, I protest against the principles of free trade being tried by these individual measures. I protest against the conclusion, that because you oppose these individual measures, therefore, you imply an opinion adverse to the removal of the restrictions on commerce, or hostile to the doctrines of free trade. In the first place, if I do profess a general conviction of the truth of the principles of free trade, I cannot be charged with a new or hasty adoption of them. When I was Secretary of State, in 1825, I was intrusted with the preparation of the Speech from the Throne, and I recommended the removal of restrictions on commerce in a manner as it appears to me more calculated to promote that removal, and to make it acceptable and satisfactory, than the mode which had been adopted by the Government opposite, of trying the principles of free trade in a mere scheme of financial policy. In 1825, this was the language of the Speech which I recommended to his Majesty:— His Majesty commands us not to conclude without congratulating you upon the continued improvement in the state of the agricultural interest, the solid foundation of our national prosperity; nor without informing you, that evident advantage has been derived from the relief which you have recently given to commerce by the removal of inconvenient restrictions. His Majesty recommends to you to persevere (as circumstances may allow) in the removal of similar restrictions. And his Majesty directs us to assure you, that you may rely upon his Majesty's cordial co-operation in fostering and extending that commerce, which, whilst it is, under the blessing of Providence, a main source of strength and power to this country, contributes in no less a degree to the happiness and civilization of mankind. Now, these were the sentiments to which in 1825 I was a party. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, a fair right to say, "don't content yourself with these general declarations in favour of free trade—of the principles by which you will be guided, since they throw on you the onus of establishing the exceptions."I may say again, when the right hon. Gentleman talks of assuming the mantle of Mr. Huskisson, I can say, with truth, that I did cordially co-operate with Mr. Huskisson in his financial measures, and that I did receive from Mr. Huskisson the assurance that, from no Member of the Government had he received more cordial support than from myself, in carrying his measures and in mitigating the difficulties with which he had to contend. The right hon. Gentleman says, that he did not propose these measures alone, but that there were other measures intended to carry out the same views. It is true there were other measures founded on the principles of free trade, of which I have spoken, and he says there were also others of a more extensive character in contemplation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to express any opinion on those which were only in contemplation. But with respect to those which he did propose, what course did I take? One of these measures was a new regulation of the duties on Brazilian coffee, in order to abolish those absurd restrictions which prevented the direct importation of coffee, and to prevent the sending it in future round by the Cape. On that measure the right hon. Gentleman met with no opposition from me. On the contrary, it had my cordial support. Another measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was, the equalization of the duties on East-Indian as well as West-Indian produce. The right hon. Gentleman met with some slight opposition from this side of the House; but I well recollect that I expressed an opinion in favour of this measure. There was a third measure for diminishing the cost of production in the West Indies, by allowing the free importation of timber and provisions, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman cannot say he met with any formidable objection from me in carrying that measure into effect.

Mr. Labouchere

It was opposed by the right hon. the Member for Cambridge University.

Sir R. Peel

The measure, as I remember, was but slightly opposed, but not by me. I shall now refer to another passage of the Speech. It will be for you to consider whether some of those duties are not so trifling in their amount as to be unproductive to the revenue, whilst they are vexatious to commerce. Now, you ask me if I contend against that principle of reducing the public burdens. Not the least. I consider nothing more proper. If such duties exist, there can be no rational objection to reduce them; but, for the other part, that we ought to consider, Whether the principle of protection upon which others of these duties are founded be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the State and the interests of the people. I cannot contend against the principle, and my only reason for contending against the Address is, that it solicits an opinion on the three measures which form part of the budget; and what I fear, is, that were I to allow it to pass in consequence of any acquiescence in its general words, that you might consider it, and that the public would take it, as an acquiescence in the detailed measures. I now come to the details of those measures. With respect to the timber duties, I said, before the House separated, that I would reserve the consideration of that question, whether, circumstanced as the Canadas are, there may not be political considerations which may contravene the general principle of free trade which you desire to establish. What were the facts in our possession relative to the question of the timber duties? The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, informed the House that Lord Sydenham had declared that the proposition for the repeal of the timber duties would greatly add to his embarrassments. Lord Sydenham added, that there might be other measures which, if adopted, would reconcile the Canadas to the reduction of the timber duties; but, to this hour, we have never heard what those measures were. What is the state of Canada at this moment? What is the state of that colony as it is affected by our relations with the United States? I saw lately published in the newspapers a despatch from the noble Lord—a despatch of a peculiar nature— such a despatch, as, I believe, was never published before. In that despatch the noble Lord frankly informs the Governor-General of Canada, and publishes to the whole world, that he has referred a project for the fortification of Canada, not only as would be done in ordinary times, to the Master-General of the Ordnance, but to the Duke of Wellington, and that 100,000l. a-year is to be appropriated to that purpose. Thus, it was proclaimed to the world at this moment, that we are not content to rest upon the superiority of our navy, but intend also to fortify Canada. What is the object of all this? It is for the object of convincing the United States that we have made up our minds to defend Canada at any risk, and also of assuring the people of Canada, that notwithstand- ing our financial difficulties, notwithstanding the embarrassments in which we are involved, we are ready to take upon ourselves the debt contracted by Upper Canada. I do not contest the wisdom of the measure. It may be right to tranquillise the public mind in Canada—it may be wise to spend a hundred thousand pounds annually in fortifications in that colony— it may be proper to resort to the extraordinary step of publishing to the United States the communications which have taken place on the subject with the Duke of Wellington; but if these proceedings are correct, they indicate a state of public feeling, and a state of public danger, which justify my reserve and hesitation as to increasing, at this juncture, the embarrassments of the Canadian Government. I will not say a word more on this point, and I hope that I shall be excused from taking any step to increase the notoriety of the document to which I have adverted. I suppose it was the noble Lord's wish that it should obtain the widest publicity; but I shall deeply regret if I have contravened his intention. Here, however, is the document, published at full length in an English newspaper. I now come to the sugar duties. Upon that subject I must maintain precisely the same language which I held previously to the dissolution. At any rate, you shall not have cause to charge me with having, before the dissolution, employed language which now that I have obtained a majority, I am inclined to modify; and that whilst I have assisted in removing you from office, on account of distinct measures which you have proposed, I contemplate confirming myself in power by proposing measures of the same nature. I tell you frankly that I contemplate no such thing. I maintain now the same opinions as before. I say, that seeing you have proposed to admit the sugar, not only of the Brazils, but of Cuba, at a reduction of duty to the amount of 12s.; seeing that your own measure was so ill-considered that you were obliged to alter it: within a week of its introduction—seeing that you made no stipulation whatever, at the time of offering that great advantage to those countries, in respect to slavery— it did appear to me, in the first place, that looking at the risk we would run of aggravating the horrors both of slavery and the slave-trade, particularly as far as Cuba was concerned, and considering that you had taken no precautions upon that subject, which, even if your views were just, you might, and ought to have taken, by exacting conditions from the government of those states, it would be unwise and impolitic to make the alteration proposed, the more particularly when the prospect of an increased supply of sugar from the West-India colonies and the East Indies was such as to give assurance of a reduction in the price of the article. I freely admit, that I cannot reconcile tins course with the just principles of free trade. The principles of free trade, strictly applied, would require a disregard of the considerations respecting slavery; but those considerations did weigh in my mind, and I also mistrusted your calculations as to the probable supply of sugar from our own colonial possessions. I do not blame the right hon. President of the Board of Trade for changing his opinions with respect to this question in 1841, and I must say, that although I have had plenty of provocation in the course of this debate to pursue an opposite course, I think, it would be much better for us to abstain, as far as possible, from taunting each other with changes of opinion. But, although I do not mean to taunt the right hon. Gentleman, I must pay him the compliment of saying, that the grounds on which he opposed a reduction of the sugar duties in 1840, were urged with great ability. In 1840 the right hon. Gentleman opposed the reduction of the sugar duties on the ground that the West-India colonies were tottering under the weight of a great experiment; he said that sugar stood upon a different fooling from cotton and coffee— that it required a peculiarly laborious cultivation, and that, consequently, the loss of life on a sugar estate was greater than was sustained in cultivating any other kind of colonial produce—and that the people of England required that a fair trial should be given to the great experiment of free labour. These were the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman resisted, on the proposition for reducing the duty on foreign sugar in 1840. These reasons satisfied my mind, and I voted with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not mean to say, that the light hon. Gentleman had not a right to change his opinions, if circumstances created a necessity which would overrule the grounds on which that opinion rested; but the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman resisted the reduc- tion of the sugar duties in 1840, were not of an incidental or temporary nature. I thought that there was a prospect of the price of sugar being reduced in consequence of an increased supply from British colonial possessions. Now, what is the fact? The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it in his speech the other night. He made an able speech, entered into a great variety of details, but he, too, forgot the part of Hamlet. He altogether omitted to allude to the price of sugar. The price of sugar, the produce of British colonial possessions, on the 1st of September, 1840, was 58s. 4d.; on the 8th of January, 1841, it was 50s. 10d; and the present average price is 36s. 2d. I do not say that this reduction in the price of sugar, the produce of our own colonial possessions, is a conclusive argument against the admission of foreign sugar to compete with it. The principle of free trade would disregard any considerations founded upon the low price of sugar. In point of fact, low prices might be perfectly compatible with monopoly. I merely refer to the reduction in the price of the article as a conclusive proof that the prophecies of the Ministers on the subject have been falsified. The right hon. Gentleman, however, may say, "True, the price of sugar has fallen; but there has been a great decrease in consumption— the consuming power of the people has abated."If that were the case, it must, of course, be taken into account in estimating the value of the reduction in price; but will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him why he confined his estimate of the consumption of sugar to the first six months of the present year? During those six months there was a great derangement of the trade in sugar, because the Ministerial propositions had been announced, and everybody expected a great change in the duties levied on foreign sugar. These circumstances must account for the diminished consumption in the first six months of the present year, or at least for a smaller quantity than usual having been taken out of dock for consumption. What, however, has been the case within the last three months? I have been told, that in the three months ending the 5th of August, 1841, the consumption of sugar, the produce of the British plantations, and the Mauritius, was 937,000 cwt., and that in the three months ending the 5th of August, 1841, the con- sumption has been 992,000 cwt. Is that statement true or not? If it be true, why did the right hon. Gentleman confine his estimate to the first six months of the year? If it be true, it is a most important and consolatory fact. I value it less on account of the augmentation of the revenue than as indicating an increase in the consuming power of the people. If it be true, that reduction in price has been accomplished by increased consumption, I refer to the circumstance as encouraging the hope that the period had arrived when there would be a stop to the downward progress of depression. I now approach the more important and exciting question of the Corn-laws. In order that I may make no mistake, allow me to refer to the expressions which I made use of on this point before the dissolution. I said, that on consideration I had formed an opinion, which intervening consideration has not induced me to alter, that the principle of a graduated scale was preferable to that of a fixed and irrevocable duty; but I said then, and I say now, in doing so I repeat the language which I held in 1839, that I will not bind myself to the details of the existing law, but will reserve to myself the unfettered discretion of considering and amending that law. I hold the same language now; but if you ask me whether I bind myself to the maintenance of the existing law in its details, or if you say that that is the condition on which the agricultural interest give me their support, I say that on that condition I will not accept their support. [" Cheers."] Hon. Gentlemen cheer; but am I not maintaining precisely what I said before? I know it is the fashion; but I confess it appears to me to savour of intolerance, for some Gentlemen opposite to assume that they are right, and that those who differ from them are not only in error —that was the infirmity of our inferior judgments—but that in holding our opinions, we are actuated by base and sordid motives. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are great errors in the mode o taking, the averages. Would any man of common sense debar himself of a full opportunity of correcting those errors? There may be various modes of correcting those errors, but I purposely avoid entering into details. As I said before, I reserve to myself the unfettered power of considering details. Now, you are not satisfied, and the whole stream of obloquy which has been directed against me, and which after the experience of about thirty years produced as little irritation and uncomfortable feeling in my mind as it could in the mind, perhaps, of any man, has flowed from this, that I will not state what alterations I intend to propose. It is said, "But although you prefer the principle of a graduated scale, you do not tell us what your scale will be."I ask any reasonable man whether a more preposterous demand was ever made upon a public man than that he should not only declare his preference of a principle, but explain to the whole world and bind himself irrevocably to the precise mode in which he will carry it out. You made the demand in May last, and you have remained in office ever since. You said in May last, "You are coming into power; we are going out. There is a candidate for power on the eve of his advent to office, and he will not tell us what his sliding scale will be." What if I had done so? Your demand proceeded on the assumption that you were about to quit office. If I had explained my plans on the 18th of May, you would, in the interval between that time and the present, have occupied yourselves in attacking my details, and as far as lay in your power, rendering it impossible for me ever to carry them into effect. If I had, on the 18th of May, stated the details of a plan which subsequent events have proved I could not have proposed, at the earliest, until the middle of October, my opponents throughout the country would have been engaged in sifting and condemning my plan, and I should have been told that I was bound by an irrevocable pledge to adhere to it. If I had attempted to deviate in the slightest degree from what I had originally laid down, I should have been subjected to this observation:—" Here is a man who came forward with the details of a plan which he offered to carry when in opposition, and now he has got into power he has altered its details."I was an individual Member of Parliament, standing in a peculiar position I admit, because honoured with the confidence of a powerful party; but I contend that I was under no obligation to furnish you with a budget. If this is expected from me, why should we maintain an immensely expensive civil government? If an individual without the means of obtaining information which are possessed by Ministers, is expected to furnish such measures as have been demanded from roe of what use would be our civil Government with its expensive establishments. I'll prove you really feel you ought not to require what you ask from me. I'll prove that you feel the justice of my objecting to it. Why will you give me a year to consider the Poor-law Amendment Act? That has long been the subject of discussion. Why not demand of me the production of the details of a measure on that subject. It would be just as reasonable. You know that to afford an opportunity of sifting and attacking a measure in popular assemblies, which is to be brought under the consideration of Parliament tends to prejudice its consideration. But it was said, "Tell us what your pivot will be." Suppose I had done so, and proceeded afterwards to form a Government. I must, I presume, have informed her Majesty, that the great principle of the Government was involved in an adherence to my pivot. I was to go to each colleague to ask him to assent to belong to the new Government; but I was to tell him there is one irrevocable principle to which you must subscribe; not merely an alteration of the Corn-laws—not a preference of the graduated scale over a fixed duty—but this precise and particular mode of taking the averages, and this particular pivot and price is finally determined upon, and from which you cannot depart, because I have publicly pledged myself to it. I leave a blank for the name. Can any reasonable man gravely say that was the course I ought to have pursued? Why there never was a more preposterous demand made upon a public man than that I, not being in office, but supposed by you to be a candidate for power, should declare what precise measure on the subject of the Corn-laws, in the event, the distant event —the event contingent upon your inclinations—I should propose? I stated that before the elections, and no demand, no solicitations, no ridicule shall induce me to depart from it. What was the question between us? On your side of the House are Gentlemen who are advocates for free trade, many of them not Members in the last Parliament, and they may not know what the real question at issue is. We both acknowledge the principle of protection to agriculture. The first finance minister of the Crown being asked if this measure of a fixed duty was a tax or a protection? answered, "It is a protection." We start then from the same point. The Government proposes a fixed duty of 8s. to be levied upon foreign corn at all times, and under all circumstances. No matter what may be the glut in the market —no matter what the price of corn, whether 90s. or 100s.—the proposal of the Government was, and I suppose is, that the duty of 8s. should be rigidly exacted. Will the hon. Member for Stockport have the goodness to apply his calculations to the Government proposition of an 8s. duty; and when he estimates the amount of duty upon bread, which is taken from the pocket of the poor man, as compared with the amount of duty that is taken from the pocket of the rich man, I ask him to tell me whether his calculations are not literally and precisely as applicable to a fixed duty of 8s. as they are to a graduated scale? When I have adopted a fixed duty, and accepted it as a final settlement of the Corn-law question, what security shall I have that their fiery denunciations, which have daily and nightly been lavished against the bread tax, will not apply with equal force to a duty of 8s., as to a duty levied under a graduated scale. [An hon. Member: it depends upon the amount.] No, it does not. If a certain quantity of flour be necessary for the consumption of a poor family, and a certain other quantity is necessary for the consumption of the family of the rich man, every one of those elaborate calculations of the hon. Gentleman will apply, with precisely the same effects, to that fixed and unvarying duty, as they do to the shifting duty, without reference to the amount; and every argument of a popular nature, calculated to produce dissatisfaction and discontent, will apply, with at least equal force, to a fixed and irrevocable duty levied directly under the name of a tax upon bread, as they do to that duty which is levied on the principle of a graduated scale. The principle of free trade is as much opposed to the one as to the other. And I ask, would that be a satisfactory state, if we are to have a mere intermediate adjustment of the Corn-law, public declarations being made by some of the most eminent Members in the House—some saying that they accept the fixed duty only as an instalment—others avowing that they consider it only as a stepping-stone to free trade, and all telling us openly that they do not accept it as a final settlement, but upon its being gained, they will proceed to immediate agitation for a total repeal? That is one consideration that causes me to doubt the advantage, and if I may borrow an expression from the noble Lord, which makes me doubt the "finality" of such a settlement, let me ask this question of the noble Lord: Suppose you had passed your law in May last, fixing the duty at 8s. upon corn; suppose the weather continued unfavourable, more so than we have now reason to hope it will be; but suppose the harvest had been decidedly bad, and towards the end of September, or the beginning of October, the price of corn had risen to 90s. a quarter, would you insist upon your fixed duty of 8s. That case might have arisen. That is no improbable conjecture. You say you want to give security to commerce. Now what is the meaning of that? That men may speculate in corn—that they may know the amount of the fixed duty—that they may take their chance of making great gains by pouring in corn from the continent when the English price is at 90s., subject only to the fixed duty of 8s. Of course, then, the principles of free trade require a rigorous exaction of that duty. Or is there to be a discretionary Board of Trade to remove the duty if they should think fit? That surely would not be in accordance with the principles of free trade. You say that the remote consequence you contemplate is, that the price will not rise. That is not the speculation of those who contend for a total repeal; but I speak to those who advocate a fixed duty. I was about to say, that the tax upon corn was contemplated to come into immediate operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated that tax as forming part of his budget for the year; and I merely refer to the right hon. Gentleman to prove that no delay was in contemplation, but that he estimated the 8s. duty as a part of his ways and means. Well, suppose the prospects of the harvest to be gloomy; suppose' that there had been a defective supply, and the price had risen in consequence; suppose, I say, all this as taking place in September or October next, would you have insisted upon a rigorous exaction of your 8s. duty. [A Hon. Member: Yes.] You would! Then I publicly notify to the country, upon the authority of a great manufacturer and a stern free trader, that be corn at the price of 80s., or 90s., or 100s., his rigid adherence to the principles and doctrines of free trade will compel him to exact the duty of 8s. Then, when the hon. Member for Stockport should come forward with the distressing details of the misery of the poor, when others should come forward with their sympathy; and, as I sincerely believe, their unfeigned sympathy; with the sufferings and distresses of the poor, sufferings of which they themselves are cognisant; when they should say, "Here is corn at a price of 90s. or 100s., a foreign supply is pouring in;" then their neighbour and friend (the hon. Member who answered "yes") will say, "No matter what may be the distress that prevails, no matter what may be the extent of privation; no matter what the amount of suffering, yet still the 8s. duty must be exacted, there is no power to remit it."In vain would it be to show, that under the existing scale it would have been admitted at 1s. In vain would it be to draw a comparison between the state of the law now, defective as it may be, admitting corn when there is scarcity, in vain would it be to draw a contrast between that state of law which admitted foreign corn when prices were at 80s. or 90s. with that state of law which required 8s. irrevocably and under all circumstances. No matter these considerations—hon. Gentlemen would adhere strictly to the 8s., and would say, that the importer of corn was entitled to the letter of his bond. It may be very well to make all this parade of strict adherence to principle, but I tell you, that under those circumstances the duty of 8s- could not be levied. You would be obliged to admit a relaxation of it either by the power of Parliament, or by some subordinate authority. How will you provide for that relaxation? Will you provide, that when corn shall arrive at a certain price, the council shall be required to abate the duty? If you do, then you must maintain the system of averages. And then I say, that in that case the right hon. Gentleman must apply himself to the correction of the system of averages, for there would be the same temptation, as now, to deal with the averages when there should be a price fixed, enabling the council to relax its duty. If on the other hand you take no such power, then that principle of law which provides for the total redemption of the duty when corn is inconveniently high. is far more likely to work well than that principle which requires irrevocably and: under all circumstances a fixed duty. With respect to the fluctuations in price I confess, having paid my best attention to his subject, that I have great doubts whether your expectations, that free trade a corn will produce a great fixity in price will be realised. It does appear to me, that there are and must be such fluctuations in the price of corn, from the very nature of the commodity itself; a commodity not dependent upon production by machinery which can be limited, but dependent upon circumstances varying and accredited, as the seasons or as the quantity of corn produced. That the proposal of a fixed duty, therefore, would be an improvement in the law as regards ensuring fixity of price, I very much doubt. In considering this part of the subject, it will be important to compare the price of grain in those countries in which Corn-laws do not operate with the prices in this country. And here let me say incidentally that, in considering this question, I wish to disregard every party and political feeling whatsoever, and treat it as only it ought to be treated. With respect to the fluctuations, then, in the price of corn, they have been great— greater than could have been wished. The main object to be attained is a comparatively fixed price. Now, then, let us compare the variation in the price of corn in the United States with the variation here. America is a country not subject to the operation of any Corn-law: America is a country with a perfect free trade in corn internally, and with a produce more than than the inhabitants can consume. It is not, therefore, supposed to be subject to the fluctuations which a country like England, partly dependent upon foreign supply, must necessarily be. I have here a paper which gives the price of corn in the different countries of the world, and particularly in the United States. I take the State of New York, and unless I have made some error, or there is an error in the print itself, there is an account of a very remarkable fluctuation in price. In November, 1834, the price of the Winchester quarter of eight bushels was 33s. 4d.; in October, 1S36, it was 54s.; in January, 1837, it was 63s. June, 1839, it was 67s. 4d., and in October, 1839—mark, in the same year, it was 39s. 7d. Thus, in the State of New York alone, in the course of six months, the price of corn varied from 67s. 4d. to 39s. 7d. Whence arose that fluctuation, how was it to be accounted for, unless by the nature of the intervening harvest producing so immense a variation? In October, 1840, the price was 31s. 9d. So that we see the price fell from June, 1839, when it was 67s. 4d.,to October, 1840,to 3ls. 9d., a great deal more than 100 per cent. But it has been said, that the Corn-laws of England derange all the markets of the world; yet Mr. Whitmore tells us, that little corn can be obtained from the United States—that the average price is 40s., and that we must not expect a very material import from America, and that the markets there, from their distance, are not liable to much derangement from the Corn-laws of England. As regards fluctuations arising from seasons and similar causes, the variation must be as great there as here. Why, in January, 1837, when corn was 63s. a quarter in New York it was only 55s. 6d. in England; and in October, when it was 64s. in New York, it was only 45s. 9d. here. Here then, in a country subject to no Corn-law, the operation of the seasons occasioned these high prices. If I look to other papers presented to Parliament in the present Session, and which I have yet had scarcely time to look into, I find that the very second page contains a most extraordinary statement relative to the produce of Russia. Here is an account from your own consul, stating that St. Petersburgh sent out, besides the supply for its own inhabitants, from 175,000 to 210,000 imperial quarters. But he says, likewise, that in a season of abundance that supply might be trebled. It is clear that on account of the variation of the seasons there cannot be otherwise than a fluctuation in price. Your own consul tells you that the supply may be three-fold, if the changes in the weather are favourable. He also adds, that in order to give an idea of what that country was able to produce when the harvest was good, he begged to state that he had been informed by one of the principal merchants in the corn trade that, in 1835, the government of Tambov alone produced 38,000,000 quarters of grain. [An hon. Member, "It is impossible"]. You say it is impossible? Now these are the men who asked me in May last to produce my Corn-law measure, ready arid complete in all its details, anticipatory of the information now furnished, and which they say, after all, is wrong. When I read your own information, the first exclamation I am greeted with is, that "It is impossible!" That information, however, was derived from your own consul, in answer to a despatch transmitted by the directions of Lord Palmerston, arid asking for minute and particular information. In the same document I find that the cost price of wheat at first hand at St. Petersburgh is stated to be from 13s. 6d. to 14s. 1d.; oats, 4s. 5d. to 9s. Now, if these facts be true, is it not quite possible that a great fluctuation in the price of corn may arise from other causes than the operation of the Corn-law. Now, speaking in the spirit in which, as I before said, this question ought to be discussed, I cannot help thinking, that you, who contend for such inestimable benefits to arise from a change in the Corn-law, as correcting all fluctuations, are greatly exaggerating the advantages to be derived therefrom. I am sure that I listened with the greatest pain to those accounts of manufacturing distress detailed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose character and opportunities for observation entitle them to the greatest respect. But some of these details were so afflicting, so harrowing, that I involuntarily said—What must be the mode in which the Poor-law is there administered Surely it must be impossible that an unfortunate man can be found dead upon his loom after his labour was completed, and no inquiry instituted, no helping hand stretched forth to him. However that may be, this much I know, that we ought not to content ourselves with a bare expression of our sympathy, but those in authority ought in the first instance to demand by whose laxity it was, and by whose neglect it was, that such a horrible instance of suffering could have been permitted to occur in a Christian community. If I could bring myself to think—if I could believe that an alteration of the Corn-laws would preclude the risk of such distress—if I thought it would be an effectual remedy, in all cases, against such instances of lamentable suffering as that which have been described, I would say at once to the agricultural interest, "It is for your advantage rather to submit to any reduction of price, than, if an alteration of the Corn-laws would really be the cure for these sufferings, to com- pel their continuance." I should say, that it would be for the interest, not of the community in general, but especially of the agriculturists themselves, if, by any sacrifice of theirs, they could prevent the existence of such distress. If any sacrifice of theirs could prevent their being the real cause of the distress—could prevent the continuance of it—cculd offer a guarantee against the recurrence of it, I would earnestly advise a relaxation, an alteration, nay, if necessary, a repeal of the Corn-laws. But it is because I cannot convince my mind that the Corn-laws are at the bottom of this distress, or that the repeal of them, or the alteration of their principle, would be its cure, that I am induced to continue my maintenance of them. I own to you that mine is but a gloomy view of the subject. I fear that in the complicated commercial, and manufacturing concerns of this country, no legislative remedy that you can by possibility devise will be an effectual remedy against the recurrence of such distress as has been described. There is something in the sudden invention and application of machinery—conferring I admit, in several instances, inestimable advantages upon the country, as increasing its productive powers—but it is at the same time necessarily attended with the infliction of distress upon those who have previously subsisted on the produce of manual labour. In the course of the inquiries that I have made into this subject, I have been most forcibly struck by documents which appear in the first report of the Poor-law commissioners, giving art account of the state of manufactures in Lancashire in 1835; and, if such things as are there described, can exist— if there can be such stimulants applied to production, then I fear that the inevitable consequence must be, that, when the check arrives, when the markets are encumbered with produce, when wars in China, wars in Syria, and disturbances in Europe affect the vent of supply, then the inevitable result must be that there will be a recurrence of that distress, general and in detail, which has been described in such forcible terms in the course of the present debate. Now, this is the account which Dr. Kay a gentleman possessing the confidence of the Government, now holding an office of great importance under the Government, but who, at the time I am speaking of, was employed as a Poor-law commissioner—this is the extraordinary account which he gives of the state of manufacturing industry in July, 1835. I recommend the whole document to the attention of every hon. Gentleman who sits in this House. Dr. Kay says, that within two years a new power, equal to that of 7,507 horses, will be brought into operation—that 45,032 fresh hands, at the rate of six mill hands to each horse power, will be required, and that in addition to that 45,032, an equal number of mechanics and labourers will be required, making in the whole 90,064 fresh hands in the then state of Lancashire for working the new power about to be brought into operation. The erection of this power pre-supposes the outlay of an immense capital. Dr. Kay says that it involved an outlay of 3,752,000l. This is independent of the mills which were in existence in 1834. The document goes on:— Whence must the population required by the manufacturers be derived? And it recommends that a suitable agent to encourage immigration, ab extra, be established.

Dr. Kay

gave an account of the population of one township as follows:—

"Township of Hyde, 1801 830
"Township of Hyde, 1811 1806
"Township of Hyde, 1821 3355
"Township of Hyde, 1831 7138
of which 5,000 must be the result of direct immigration, to be obtained by establishing an agent in Manchester to encourage immigration— In June 1835, Messrs. Henry and Edmund Ashworth state that it is calculated that nearly twenty thousand persons would be required in the neighbourhood of one of our seats of manufactures alone—that of Staleybridge.

When you have got this population together, what takes place? In a short time you find them suffering from distress for which there is no remedy without drying up the sources of our prosperity—the application of machinery. When you have erected your new power, and collected the hands necessary to work it—when you have established your mills, and drawn together the 10,000 or 20,000 persons who are to keep them in motion—then the ingenuity of man discovers some new mode of producing similar articles of manufacture with a great curtailment of manual labour. This immediately gives rise to great want and great distress j thousands are thrown out of employment, and seem for the time to be deprived of the means of existence. Is not this a necessary consequence of mechanical inventions, and will they not continue to exist after an alteration in the Corn-laws. What I deprecate, then, is the exaggerated view that is taken of the advantage of an alteration of the Corn-laws, as a remedy for the distress from which some portions of the population are suffering. Let the whole question be looked upon in a philosophical point of view—let it be borne in mind that there are other causes than the Corn-laws that occasion distress, and do not take the unjust, the unwise step of attributing all the ills our fellow-men endure to the operation of those laws. I will not enter further into the discussion of this part of the question, lam sure the deep importance of it will have justified me in the eyes of the House for the extent to which I have gone; but I shall now draw my observations to a close. I cannot acquiesce in the Address moved by her Majesty's Ministers. It involves an approbation of the specific measures that were involved in the budget to which I expressed my dissent. It would imply also that confidence in her Majesty's Ministers which I do not feel. I do not think that the noble Lord will quarrel with the proceedings that have been taken. I think he will feel that it is infinitely fairer— infinitely more direct, more just, after the appeal which has been made to the people, to come at once to the issue, whether the Government has or has not the confidence of the country, than to permit the noble Lord to remain in ignorance upon that point, and to take the ordinary course of thwarting his measures. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, who in his speech last night, affected the most extraordinary and sentimental loyalty, who seems to suffer more from an irritation of the feelings of romantic and chivalrous loyalty than any other Gentleman in the House—the hon. Member for Finsbury says, that we are acting in opposition to the Queen's wishes, by moving an amendment to the Address. Why, this is strange doctrine from one professing a great regard for the constitution. We, the House of Commons, are to be prevented from performing our duties in, respectfully submitting our opinions to the Sovereign, by the fear of contravening the Sovereign's private wishes! And the hon. Gentleman contrasts the course which I am now pursuing with that which was pursued by my opponents in 1835. The hon. Gentleman says, that after the generous treatment I experienced, after the forbearance which was manifested towards me—after the earnest desire that there was to permit me deliberately and fairly to lay upon the table of the House those measures for the public good which I proposed to recommend to the attention of the legislature—after all this I ought to feel discouraged from taking so indecent and hostile a step as to declare a want of confidence in her Majesty's Ministers on the first day of the meeting of Parliament. True, when I was in office, I think I remember the opposition to the election of Speaker, and the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, whom I see opposite, that, being beaten on the question of the Chair, I ought at once to have resigned. But if that hint were not sufficient, there was another in store for me on the succeeding day; for an amendment was moved to the Address, which censured me me, in direct terms, for having advised the Crown to dissolve the Parliament. What affectation, then, is it for the hon. Member now to come forward and state, "True, there was an attempt to censure you; but no want of confidence was implied—the vote was not a vote of want of confidence, but an abstract, dispassionate, impartial view, taken by great patriots, of the single measure of dissolution, and you, the unhappy object of the censure of those great patriots, were to continue in the administration of power, not considering that as an indication of the slightest distrust." Now I will destroy that illusion by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; because last year, speaking upon this very question of want of confidence in Ministers, he made use of these expressions; —" He (Sir Robert Peel) advised the King to dissolve the Parliament. I do not deny his right to give this advice, any more than the right of the next Parliament to give an opinion on that advice. We know what that opinion was, it condemned the advice given by the right hon. Baronet in this most essential particular; and the House of Commons, by a majority of seven, pronounced a verdict against the right hon. Gentleman—a verdict which amounted to a vote of no confidence, as much as any vote could do." No doubt it was meant as a vote of no confidence. It was a perfectly legitimate mode of trying the question, and it was but a short time that I survived it. [An hon. Member: The right hon. Baronet remained in power some time after that vote.] I am proud of having retained power till I found that the sense of the House of Commons was decidedly against me. Then I resigned—then I threw up a power that I felt I could not properly continue to hold. But I had previously fought the battle of the Speakership, and several other battles. Do not suppose that I call upon a minister, upon the first intimation of dissent or distrust, at once to throw up office. No; he owes obligations to the Crown which would not warrant him in taking so precipitate a course. After the division on the Speakership, I knew that the fate of my government was sealed, and I at once determined to resign; but, at the same time, I do not think I was exercising an undue discretion in continuing in power as long as I did. My position at that time was perfectly different from that of her Majesty's Government at the present moment. It is now upwards of two years since the Government declared their own opinion, that they had not sufficiently the confidence of this House to enable them satisfactorily to discharge their public duties, and I firmly believe that their retention of power, in defiance of the important constitutional principle, which declares that any ministry that undertakes to administer the affairs of this country, must possess the confidence of the House of Commons, has weighed more with the constituencies of England than any other misdeed of which the noble Lord, and his colleagues have been guilty. Lord Melbourne declared, that the worst Government was that which could not execute its measures. He declared that great interests might be exposed to hazard by a minister's attempting to hold office after he had lost power. Those words made their impression upon the public mind; and the result of the late and general election was, in my opinion, a vindication on the part of the people of the great constitutional principle—a principle which every friend to popular government —every friend to the representative system of government ought to hold in honour, namely, that the favour and support of the Crown ought not to maintain for a long and indefinite period a Government in existence against the will of the representatives of the people. It compromises the prerogative of the Monarchy so to retain power, because it exhibits the prerogatives of Monarchy without their just influence. It exhibits the House of Commons wanting in its just influence when it can thwart the measures, and censure the acts, but cannot decide the fate of a Ministry—And now, when you appeal to the constituency—the constituency which you yourselves have framed, professing to consist of the middling classes, and selected from them, as less liable to undue influence than if you had widened the franchise— when you make that appeal to them, and tell them that, in your opinion, as expressed by your chief, you are retaining power at the hazard of great interests; when the House of Commons has declared, that you do not possess their confidence—when you thus appeal to the people, the day of retribution comes, and the people, vindicating- the constitutional principle, confirm I he decision of the House of Commons. The public opinion has been frankly expressed. That opinion, I firmly believe, is unfavourable to the Government. You say, that that opinion is unjust—you say, that the people are too fastidious. These are unjust reflections upon public opinion, and upon those you have made the depositaries of a great public trust. I do not believe that the constituencies of this country are so disqualified to form an opinion of the character, conduct, and acts of public men. But this I am sure of, that their judgment must be decisive, if you intend to retain the popular mode of Government. There is no appeal from it. I might have said in 1835, "It is very hard to condemn me; I have brought forward no measures; it is very hard that the people should declare against me before I have an opportunity of explaining what I mean to do?" What would have been your constitutional reply? "The people are to judge of that—they have decided against you—you are not to remain here holding power and executing public trusts—the people are against you —you must submit to the will of the people." That is the constitutional principle, and it is in deference to that principle that we have moved this amendment, partaking, I trust, as little as possible of any unnecessary acerbity, but embodying an expression of the public opinion which must be decisive. The result is expected to be the resignation of power of the present government. It is not for me to speculate what may be the result of that—others have speculated upon it. I contemplate with calmness, without anxiety, nay, with confidence, whatever may be the result. If power do not devolve upon me I shall make no complaint. If power do devolve upon me, I shall accept it with the consciousness that I have gained it by direct and constitutional means, and that I owe it to the voice of the people of this country, and to the favour of the Sovereign. I am told that in the exercise of that power, I must be the instrument of maintaining opinions and feelings which I myself am disposed to repudiate. With my views of Government—with my views of the obligations which it imposes, the duties which it entails, the sacrifices it involves—I am little disposed to add to those sacrifices, by accepting it with a degrading and dishonourable condition. I am told that I must necessarily be the instrument of effecting objects in Ireland which I myself disapprove. I am asked whether I dare affront my associates and partisans. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. H. Grattan) had alluded to the conduct of a public functionary in Ireland, who, he said, had offered an insult to the religious feelings of his fellow-countrymen, by some public act of an offensive nature. I am not afraid of expressing my opinion with respect to acts like this; and I say at once, that there is no man in this House —no Roman Catholic Member in this House —who heard with deeper pain or deeper regret than I did, that a gratuitous, an unprovoked insult, and an unnecessary insult had been offered to the religious feeling of the people of Ireland. If I cannot gain power or retain it, except by encouraging and favouring such feelings, I say at once, that the day on which I relinquish power, rather than defer to such feelings, will be ten times a prouder one, than the day on which I obtained it. If I do accept office, it shall be by no intrigue —it shall be no unworthy concession of constitutional principle—it shall be by no unnatural and factious combinations with men (honest I believe them to be) entertaining extreme opinions, but from whom I dissent. If I accept office, it shall be by walking in the open light, and in the direct paths of the constitution. If I exercise power, it shall be upon my conception. —perhaps imperfect—perhaps mistaken— but my sincere conception of public duty. That power I will not hold, unless I can hold it consistently with the maintenance of my own opinions, and that power I will relinquish the moment I am satisfied that I am not supported in the maintenance of them by the confidence of this House and of the people of this country.

Lord John Russell

then rose and said: If I have to request the attention of the House at this late hour, and at the close of a lengthened debate, I must beg the House to recollect that it was not till a late hour on this the Fourth night of the debate, that any leader of the party opposed to Ministers, rose to justify the amendment on the Address-expressive of a want of confidence in the present Ministry. I complain not of the motion which has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I think that the meeting of a new Parliament affords the first and best opportunity of deciding the question whether the party now in the possession of the Government, or any other party is entitled to the confidence of the House. But when I say this with regard to the House of Commons, I say it is with them, as with all depositaries of power in this country, there must be reasons given for their proceedings. As a Sovereign would not be justified in appointing a minister without merit of any kind from mere caprice, so neither is a House of Commons justified from a mere consciousness of power in setting aside appointments made by a due and legitimate exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. What, then, are the arguments in support of this motion? The only reasons which have been urged, have been those adduced by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, who moved the amendment to the Address, and the noble Lord who seconded it, and by the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. But between the arguments used by those hon. Members, and those addressed to the House by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, I must observe, in the first place, that there was a most remarkable discrepancy. The hon. Gentleman felt it incumbent on him, in bringing forward a motion of such magnitude, involving such vast consequences, to ground himself on the best reasons he could state to prove to the House the necessity of the motion. The arguments which the hon. Gentleman brought forward, were founded on the con- duct of the present Government from the time of its commencement under Lord Grey, in 1830, up to the present year. The right hon. Baronet opposite, has made a speech to night in which he stated his opinions on the present state of affairs, but the whole of his objections rested on the budget proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the measure connected with the Corn laws, which I intended to propose in the course of the present year. Now, Sir, I beg, in the first place, to address myself to the arguments of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I must say, that there never was a motion of so much importance, and extending over so long a period, that had more meagre arguments for its support. When former Ministers were attacked, those who attacked them usually stated some grounds for their doing so—some defect in their policy which made it the right, the incumbent duty, of the House of Commons to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. The American war—considered as a most impolitic war, in which much blood and treasure were squandered, and the loss of thirteen of our colonies—was the accusation made against Lord North. A motion of a like nature against Mr. Addington, was made on the ground of his being engaged in a war against a formidable enemy, with the naval preparations of this country in an inadequate state. These were grave motives, adequate grounds if supported by facts, for the interference of the House of Commons with the executive. Without going into other and similar instances, let us now look to the state of things to which the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire has referred, and in doing so I beg the House will grant me its indulgence while speaking in defence of the Government, and while I review the facts connected with the foreign relations and the internal state of the country. The hon. Member said, that Lord Grey came into office pledged to maintain peace; but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very truly said, that this pledge meant that Lord Grey's government would act in the spirit of peace,—not that they would brook insult or neglect the essential interests of the nation for the sake of avoiding war. Now what has been the result of the foreign policy of the Government? It has been, without any material interruption to the peace of Europe, a successful policy. In regard to the first question to which the hon. Gen- tleman has alluded, the question of Belgium, that country has been the motive for war, and the source of disturbance to Europe in the days of Queen Elizabeth, in those of William the 3rd, in the time of the French revolution, and down to the close of the last war. That difficult affair has been by means of negotiations amicably settled, begun by the Government of Lord Grey, but concluded by that of Lord Melbourne. Other questions arose concerning Portugal and Spain, countries which had also been the cause of involving Europe in trouble and in war. I am not here disposed to enter into any argument in regard to the merits of the policy pursued towards these two countries, but I say that in both instances it was a successful policy. We were in favour of placing Donna Maria on the throne of Portugal. She was placed on the throne of Portugal. We were in favour of the present Queen of Spain and of a free constitution, against the pretensions of Don Carlos and Absolutism. The Queen is now on the throne, and the constitution exists in Spain. Take another instance of our foreign policy, we were of opinion that Mehemet Ali should no longer retain Syria. The chief powers of Europe concurred with us in this respect, and the result of our policy was, that Mehemet Ali was deprived of Syria. In India attempts had been made to shake our power, and Dost Mahomed had been put forward as an instrument by which the safety of our possessions in that quarter were threatened. Hostilities were undertaken, and Dost Mahomed is now at Calcutta, seeking refuge under the shelter of the British Government. There are other transactions which are now in operation, the result of which it is impossible for some time to know. I allude to those in relation to China; but putting this part of our policy out of the question until its results be known, I say that our foreign polity has been eminently successful. And while the peace of the world has not been disturbed, the reputation of the British name has been raised, both under the Governments of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne; and the lustre which always attends a policy pursued with perseverance, and crowned by success, has been shed upon our councils. Then again, the state of the fleet has been the subject of attack both in this House and by a portion of the press, but the gallant Admiral who commanded on the coast of Syria, and the gallant officer, a Member of this House, who seconded him in the operations, have amply sustained the ancient renown of the British navy. With these few observations, I am ready to leave this part of our defence. I do not think it necessary to enter into any explanation of the particular parts of that policy; but I do say, as regards the foreign affairs of this country, that the present Government will leave the name of England high in the estimation of the world—with a character not diminished, but raised, by the course which we have adopted. In regard to the next department—I mean that over which I now preside, the colonial department— I know not what you can say otherwise but that the colonies are in a state of advancing prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to one of these colonies in connection with the timber duties, and in reference to the opinion which the governor-general of that colony had expressed on the subject. With the permission of the House I shall say a few words on the state of that province generally. In Canada you had given the power of popular representation to the French population, a great portion of whom were not well disposed to British connection, and still less well disposed towards British habits and institutions. The result was, after long bickerings—after an attempt to deprive that popular assembly of the power of disposing of its funds—and after some attempts at conciliation in pursuance of the report of 1828, the dispute ended by the disaffected breaking out into a violent and open rebellion; that rebellion was successfully put down by the energy of the Governor-general, Lord Seaton. His military energy and the resources placed at his disposal enabled him to suppress that insurrection, but much still remained to be done. The minds of men were disturbed, and in a British colony, inhabited to a considerable extent, by men of British race, without British institutions no permanent prosperity could be looked for. We have restored free institutions to Canada, and everything which I have heard induces me to believe that these institutions will prosper—that there will be, as there has been already on several occasions, a majority in favour of British connection and animated with feelings of loyalty towards the Crown. In these circumstances I stated to the Governor-general that all the questions relating to the province had been taken into our consideration, and that we were of opinion, seeing that Canada had a frontier of nearly 1,200 miles in extent, with so powerful a neighbour, that some means should be adopted to secure the future peace of the province, as well as its future prosperity. There were certain measures which, if adopted, would, in the opinion of the Governor-General, reconcile the colonists to an alteration of the timber duties. His opinion was, that the prosperity of the Canadas would be crippled unless some assistance was afforded them in regard to the public debt of the province. We concurred in the opinion of Lord Sydenham. I stated it was our wish to support to the utmost of our power, her Majesty's subjects in Canada, and that we were determined that those loyal to the Crown should not be abandoned by the Crown—that means would be taken to shew that we were interested in their prosperity, and that we wished to make common cause with them and to share the risk of any future contingencies that might arise. The right hon. Gentleman has not disapproved of that policy. My belief is that it is the only policy which could be pursued. If you are determined to act as some philosophers advise, and as I believe, a noble Lord in the other House advised—to separate the mother country and the colony, then you should make it an amicable separation at once but if you are determined to maintain the connection between the two countries, you must not hesitate, you must not waver, your first course must be to support the loyal subjects of the Crown. Leaving, however, this consideration, the present state of things is, that our colonies are well affected to the mother country, improving in every part of the world in wealth and in strength, and except the chance of external danger to the Canadas, there is is not, I believe, at the present moment any room for apprehension. I come now to the domestic Government of this country. Is there any thing in the present state of the country calculated to give rise to alarm, if you proceed to take the measures which we have proposed for its well-being into your consideration? I will speak presently of the distress that exists: but, in regard to the disposition of the people, I may fairly say, that that disposition is a disposition of loyalty, tranquillity, and of obedience to the laws. In regard to Ireland, there has not been, under our Government, any outrage that may not be traced to a state of things existing many years back, and no one can affirm that any feeling of alienation has existed towards the Crown, during the administration of the present Government. Well, then, the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, has come forward to propose a vote of want of confidence in a Government which has been successful in its transactions abroad — successful in its Government of the Colonies — successful in its Government of Great Britain and Ireland. You may tell me that you have party reasons for the course which you have taken; you may tell me that your party is strong, by means which I may yet have to speak of; you may tell me that there are others to whom you are disposed to transfer your confidence; but I say that though this is a right which the House can exercise, you have no moral claim to exercise it where you have not proved any defect in the administration. Again, I affirm that you have not proved that any great interest of the country has suffered in the hands of the present Government. Why, Sir, we have had debates on this question before now. I remember we had a great debate in the commencement of the Session of 1840 on a motion of want of confidence made by Gentlemen opposite against the present Government, when the gravest charge brought against the Government, was a speech that I made at a dinner at Liverpool, at which reporters were not present, and, consequently, not one-half of what I said was published, and the half that was so, required the qualification of the other half. Another of the charges then brought against Government was, that the Registrar-general had appointed a person to the office of registrar of marriages at Birmingham, who turned out to be a Socialist. But in a Government of a great country, I doubt whether these are sufficient grounds to induce this House to withhold its confidence, and to depart from their usual course of proceeding. Well, we had another great debate in the present year on the same subject, and then the accusation was, that the Government had not been able to carry a particular measure to which I must now allude, although by doing so I may perhaps weary the House, but yet on such an occasion, when our reputation has been repeatedly attacked, I trust that the House will extend its indulgence towards me. I mean the question of what is usually called the appropriation clause; let me first observe, that clause was not, as is so earnestly imputed, brought forward for the first time for the purpose of driving the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, from office in 1835. Many Members of the party who now sit on this side of the House, had repeatedly stated, that the revenue of the Irish Church was too large for the services it performed. It was thought a part of the revenue could be usefully diverted to the education of all classes, Catholic as well as Protestant. It so happened that the Marquess of Wellesley, then Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, recommended a measure in respect to the tithes, and recommended at the same time the appointment of a commission to inquire into the different religious persuasions in Ireland. Soon afterwards the hon. Member for Sheffield brought forward his motion, with which many, in fact a great majority of the then Government agreed, and among others Earl Spencer; while the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, whom I see opposite, left office because he held opinions totally opposite. The consequence would have been, that the Ministers who remained in office under Lord Melbourne, would have felt it their duty to have brought forward the question of the Irish Church, and a new appropriation of part of its revenues founded on the information gathered by the commission that bad been issued. At that time Lord Althorp succeeded to the peerage. The Government was dismissed, and a new Government occupied our offices. Were we to alter our opinions on that account? Were we, who had consented to separate from the noble Lord opposite, whose talents would be valuable to whatever party he attaches himself—were we to say, that because a Gentleman to whom we had always been opposed had become Prime Minister that we would consent to abandon propositions for his sake, which we had not yielded to a Friend and a colleague? That certainly could not be expected, and accordingly under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman, we brought forward a resolution of appropriation affecting the revenues of the Irish Church. The course taken by the right hon. Gentleman after two divisions against him was the resignation of office. He might have resigned office on the vote of censure contained in the amendment to the Address, which I thought the stronger vote against the Ministry, than the vote on the Irish Church. Or he might have remained in office till a more direct resolution was proposed. He took a course which I then thought, and which I admitted, was in accordance with the Constitution; he resigned office. It was for him to choose the time of his resignation. He had never been in a majority, and it was for him to say when the period foul arrived when he could no longer hold office. We immediately proposed a bill, containing the appropriation clause—we passed it twice through this House—it was defeated in the House of Lords. We had then two different courses to pursue. We might have gone on proposing the appropriation clause, and have had it continually defeated, leaving the tithe question unsettled; or we might have taken the course we did adopt. We thought the first course would be pregnant with evil to Ireland. It might be said, "You ought to have gone on proposing your appropriation clause, and you would have preserved your consistency." But for the sake of that consistency, we should have entailed upon Ireland the evils of an agitation with respect to tithes for many years to come. Besides, the honourable and learned Gentleman, the Member for Cork, has stated this night most truly to the House, and others have also stated, that this clause had ceased to give content in Ireland. We, when we brought the clause forward, thought, that by it we should give satisfaction to the Irish people; we thought that this clause would have tended to reconcile the people of Ireland to the Protestant Church Establishment. But after that proposition had been defeated two several times, we did not think it likely to attain the end we had proposed; and even if we had proposed it in a future year, it would not have allayed the hostility of the people of Ireland, because a concession so small in amount could only be valuable if it were carried early and with good will. But then, Sir, it is said, it was our duty to have resigned office. I think, Sir, that it was our duty to consider what was best for Ireland. We were aware that, though we could not carry the appropriation clause, the other party was most decidedly opposed to that clause. Therefore, with regard to the appropriation clause, we were unable to carry it, and the other party were opposed to it; so that our resignation could make no difference 5 but with regard to the practical Administration of the Government of Ireland, there was a difference. There was a great, a marked, an important difference between the principle which the party with which I act, adopt, and that of the party who follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and notwithstanding all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and notwithstanding all his fair intentions, which I do not doubt, I believe that he must place power in Ireland in the hands of what I cannot help believing is a small minority; and not only small, but also an exasperated minority in that country. The right hon. Gentleman's orders may be beneficial, they may be impartial—they may be in accordance with the wishes of a wise and beneficent Sovereign; but the execution of them must, I fear, be left with a small portion of the people, feeling no sympathies with the majority, and carrying those orders into effect in a spirit, and perhaps with a rancour, that cannot fail to exasperate the people of Ireland. ["Oh! Oh! "from the Opposition.] The right hon. Gentleman and many of the party opposite, may think that I have formed a wrong impression. I do not wonder at that, but I must say, that as far as our experience has hitherto gone, and I must say also, from the mode of speaking of the great majority of the people of Ireland, from the mode of speaking of them and their clergy, usually adopted by the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and from the mode which I have heard adopted by an hon. Member of this House in calling a crowd assembled at a hustings by no other name than "savages. "I think that we cannot expect that those who adopt such language will fulfil the wishes of the right hon. Baronet, however benevolent. Holding these opinions, we thought it our duty to remain in office, although the appropriation clause was not carried: because, although we could not ensure to the people of Ireland the benefits of that clause, we could give to them that just and impartial administration of the Government, which we could not expect them to receive from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In respect to the internal condition of this country. I have one more remark to make. One of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, and of others on his side of the House, which is a constant resource for them when speaking on the subject of the Corn-laws is, that our exports have gradually increased, but this fact shows at least that the security and the tranquillity of the country have not been disturbed in consequence of the great changes which we proposed. The Reform Bill which we proposed was undoubtedly a great change, and the right hon. Gentleman and others felt it as such, and described it as dangerous to the public tranquillity; yet, since that period, our exports year after year have been increasing, and during the last five years they have been greater than they ever have been. This may not show a flourishing state of trade, for goods may have been exported at a loss, but one thing it does prove, and that is, that the great changes which we have instituted, have not been attended with any doubt as to the security of property, and that no disturbances were to be apprehended from them. Then, Sir, we are assailed from another quarter, and the hon. Member for Bath says— Year after year you have departed from the principle with which you commenced, if you had gone on with reform, and continued in the path in which you set out, you would have retained the support and confidence of the country, and you would still have retained office. I can only say, in answer to that objection, that it can hardly be expected by a gentleman of the pure political principle of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bath, that we could have proceeded in that course, if it were contrary to our conscientious opinion. We have opinions, with regard to the consequences of another course, and we have our views, with regard to the Reform Bill, and the danger of constant and perpetual changes, which led us to resist the changes proposed to us. The hon. Member for Finsbury, in 1837, and other hon. Members since, have recommended another course; and they tell us, that if we had taken that course, we should not be at this day about to lose the reins of power. Now, if I were to tell the hon. Member for Bath, that should he profess violent Conservative opinions, and declaim against the Poor-law Bill, he might come into office under a Tory Government; he would say, in reply, that such conduct would be contrary to his opinion, and that he could not honourably profess such principles. We tell him the same thing, and when he says to us, "consider the course you took after the Reform Bill; you lost the confidence of the Liberals, and you did not gain the good opinion of the Conservatives; "I tell him, that we perceived the consequences as well as he did, we knew we could not expect to conciliate the Conservative party to the policy of the present Government, and we never expected to do so; we knew likewise, that our course would weaken the attachment of eager Reformers to our Administration. But it was our opinion, that we could not consistently and honestly support the plans which were proposed; and if any hon. Gentlemen says, that if we had taken such steps, and had adopted such plans, we could have remained in office, while our refusal to do so is the cause of our loss of power; and if our principles were opposed to such changes, I say, "welcome the consequence. "If we could retain power consistently with our own principles—and our own opinions—well; but we would not retain power by the adoption of schemes which we considered dangerous and unsound. That was a course, which, as a Minister of the Sovereign, I could not adopt, and I hope, that it is one which the Government of the country will never adopt. Well then, I come at last to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and I observe, that he has applied himself to one subject, and that subject the budget. Yet even upon that subject the right hon. Gentleman has no more committed himself than he did before. He was not required to develope or to give the details of his measures, because, that he was never asked —it was never proposed to the right hon. Gentleman to develope his plans in detail; but what he was asked to do, was, to give an explanation of his general principles. We say, "Here is a deficiency in the revenue—here is a diminution of trade—here is poverty in the community; we think, that an approximation to the system of free trade will be of advantage in all respects," and we ask whether "you consent to this principle;" and to this day the right hon. Gentleman has not made any answer to that question. He tells us, to be sure, that he is not to be expected to go and tell his Sovereign that there is one principle to which he shall adhere, and that is a particular arrangement of the pivot; but it seems there is a principle to which he adheres, from which he will not be moved; and that is the sliding scale. Now I am at some loss to conceive why the right hon. Gentleman, taking every other matter into consideration—leaving himself at large with respect to almost every other matter—should be so determinedly wedded to this fancy. He will not say to his Sovereign, that he will adhere to the pivot; but the Address which he would make to his Sovereign would be this:—" To be sure I formerly stated, with regard to the Roman Catholics, that their admission to power would be the destruction of the Church, and the ruin of the constitution; but they have been admitted, and the constitution goes on perfectly well. As to reform in Parliament, it was to be entirely destructive to the monarchy and subversive of all our institutions; but it was passed, and still the constitution, some how or other, flourishes under this plan, and none of those institutions which were so threatened have suffered in the smallest degree, and so satisfied am I with the Reform Act, that I mean to make it the guide of my future conduct, and the foundation of my future proceedings. The admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament — the admission of Dissenters' into offices—entire religious liberty —the change of the constitution of Parliament—the destruction of fifty or sixty boroughs, and the admission of numerous classes to the exercise of the franchise—these are trifling matters, on which a change of opinion may take place, but the sliding scale is a principle which I never can or will give up; it is so necessary, that come what may—be the change in the Corn-law what it may, the maintaining inviolate the sacred principle of the sliding scale is the great matter to which I shall devote my future public life. "I am extremely sorry to differ so much from the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say, that all the information which I have acquired; all that I have read of the writings of enlightened men on the question of the Corn-laws, have only convinced me more and more that the graduated scale—the sliding scale—is the main cause of the evils under which the country is at present suffering. If you have a fixed duty, no doubt you have a tax on corn; but you may have a certainty of trade. If you make it a moderate fixed duty, you will have a continued admission of corn, with regular and continued markets; but, if you have a sliding scale, you can have nothing but uncertainty and fluctuation. I will take the liberty to state, in the first place, how contrary, as I think, the sliding scale is to the general notions of free trade, which the right hon. Baronet professes. The right hon. Gentleman read the Speech delivered from the Throne in 1825, which recommended to Parliament the adoption of measures founded on the principles of free trade, and he declared himself to be one of those by whose advice that recommendation was made. In the course of that year there were comments made on that Speech, not only by Mr. Huskisson, who showed by details the evils of prohibition, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, Mr. Robinson, who was attached at that time to the principles of free trade. He said, The House, I am happy to say, has gone along with me, in promoting this great object and I trust that the country is by this time convinced of the good sense which dictates the policy of getting rid both of positive prohibitions and of prohibitory duties. Much has already been done, but much remains to be done; and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson) to take an early opportunity of submitting to the House a plan for reducing, within moderate and reasonable bounds, all the remaining prohibitory duties, and thus to strike as it were from our recollection all those errors and prejudices which have so long shackelled the energies of our own commerce, and restricted the productive industry of the world. Unhappily, these prohibitory duties, so far from being struck from our recollection, are even before as at the present time, and commended by those who then promised their abolition; but the declaration of Lord Ripon was received with very great approbation by the House; and the hon. Baronet, who is now the Member for North Wilts (Sir F. Burdett), especially declared that all those restrictions should be taken away, that there ought to be free trade with all the world, and that if there was that free trade, he was convinced that this country would rise to a degree of prosperity which had never before been witnessed. Great conversions, undoubtedly, occasionally take place, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Ripon) is now expressly opposed to doing away with the prohibitory duties, and the hon. Baronet to whom I alluded, at a public dinner at which he recently presided, took occasion to attack her Majesty's Ministers, on that very ground But I hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) say, that the present Corn-law was founded on that very recommendation; now, let us see whether it does not come under the description which the Earl of Ripon has given of prohibitory duties. I have here a description of the effect of the present Corn-law for three or four years. The Speaker in praising the present Corn-law says, that during 1834, 1835, and 1836, the duty was 47s. per quarter. Now, a duty of 47s. per quarter is neither more nor less than a prohibitory duty. You may tell me that it is right that it should be so; that when corn is cheap it is right that there should be a prohibitory duty; but do not tell me with one breath that you are going to do away with all prohibitory duties, and with the next impose a duty of 47s. per quarter on corn. But in point of fact, a prohibitory duty is that which destroys all regular commerce in corn; and I will refer to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Launceston, who appears to have been studying the question of the Corn-laws; for his argument, according to my mind, is in favour of the view which I take of the case. He said, that "In 1838 the harvest was deficient, and British wheat rose in price, and the doors being opened for the importation of foreign corn, it was allowed to come in at 285. 1d. per quarter. In 1839 the duty was 1s. 7d. only, and then there came in 1,718,771 quarters of corn, an amount more than 1,740 times as many quarters as were brought in, in 1835 and 1836, when the duty was at 47s. per quarter." Now, I ask, can there be any regular trade when such a state of things exists. A man might engage in commerce, and might import a large quantity of foreign corn, which, from the state of the market, he would be unable to introduce. For three years his commodity might be shut out, and he might be ruined by the waste and destruction of his corn, whilst some other speculator might come in in the fourth year and secure a very great prize. If the House will permit me, I will state a little more of what occurred in the years 1838, 1839, and 1840, because it will illustrate those fluctuating duties, to which the right hon. Baronet is as much attached as to the most valuable part of the Constitution. In 1838, the maximum of duty was 34s. 8d. and the minimum was 1s. From the 1st of January, 1838, to the 2nd of August, in that year, during seven months the duty fluctuated from 18s. 8d. to 34s. 8d., but on the 26th of July, the corn jobbers commenced operations; they held back the inferior corn, and by bringing forward the best corn raised the averages, and the duties ranged from 18s. 8d. to 16s. 8d., to 10s., to 2s. 8d., and finally to 1s. It was expected, that a great deal of corn would come out at 6s. 8d., which would have made up the deficiency of the revenue for the year; but only 4,130 quarters came in between the 30th August and the 6th September, and the quantity entered at 1s.. was 1,520,000 quarters: at 2s.. 8d., 131,000 quarters; at 6s.. 8d., 4,000 quarters. In 1839, the quantity of wheat entered was 2,521,494 quarters; and of this, 776,000 at 1s.., 147,000 at 2s.. 8d., and 1,340,000 at 6s. 8d. The jobbers, foreseeing that they might enter their corn at a low duty, sold only the best wheat, and kept back the worst; the consequence was, that by the 1st September they had raised the average to 73s. What followed this proceeding? It may be said, "You have flow a large quantity of foreign corn entered, and that ought to relieve the people, as corn will continue to enter." But the same jobbers who by fictitious sales Were enabled to lower the duty and raise the averages, then took an opposite course, and sent bad wheat to market, by means of which process they raised the duty arid lowered the averages. Having acted against the farmer in the first instance, they acted against the consumer in the second instance. [Cheers.] The right hon. Baronet seems to doubt the fact, but I am speaking from information derived from the Board of Trade. The price of wheat, in common transactions between the farmer and his customers, and the price of bread during these great fluctuations of duty scarcely varied; therefore the effect of this intricate and artificial scheme is merely to promote jobbing and fraud in the trade in corn, and to enable speculators to make enormous fortunes at one time by depriving the consumer of the supply of corn, and at another by depriving the farmer of his just remuneration. I own, that this seems to me a system fraught with great evils, and not to be corrected by any alteration of the averages, or by any change of the sliding scale. It appears to me to be a system so vicious in its nature and so false in principle, endeavouring by complicated legislation to defeat the natural operations of trade, that we ought to abandon It and establish a fixed duty whether of 8s. or any other sum Parliament may think fit to establish. I ask you to fix your duty; or, in other words, to allow persons to send their orders abroad, to bring the article into the market, and to dispose of it like any other commodity. This year 900,000 quarters will enter during the month of September; but suppose a merchant to send orders to America for corn to arrive at a later period, he may find at the time that there is so heavy a duty as to make it ruinous to him to sell it, and he may be compelled to keep the corn for more than a year, to his enormous loss. This state of things is not only injurious to trade, but evidently injurious to the great body of the people. Tell me, if you will, that you want to be independent of foreign supply, but can you? You import corn at the rate of a million of quarters a year; in one year you had two millions and a half of quarters brought in. If you are afraid that foreign nations will not give you a supply, you are in as much danger when you want two millions and a half of quarters, as under any system of trade, however free. Your state at the present moment is that of dependence. The notion of independence of foreign supply is one which does not accord either with your present Corn-law, or with any you may hereafter venture to establish. But then if you do not mean to be independent of foreign supply, if you expect a portion of the people to subsist upon foreign corn, let us get it equally and steadily, and let it be brought to market in the regular way, obtaining a certain sale and a ready purchase. As to a fixed duty, the right hon. Baronet says, "Suppose you had a fixed duty, could you venture to keep it if corn rose to 90s.. or 100s.. per quarter? "I believe, that the remission of duty in that case would be rather to the advantage of the importer than the consumer, just as under the present scale a 10s.. rise in the price in Germany is to the advantage of the foreigner, and to the disadvantage of the consumer. At the same time, my impression is, that if there were a Scarcity of corn, you would not be able to preserve a fixed duty of 8s.. But I think the best answer is, that which the right hon. Baronet himself suggested, that if you had a regular market for corn, and a regular trade, you would very seldom have an actual scarcity. This appears to me so manifest, so self-evident, as not to require any argument. In proportion as you restrict the field from which your supplies are to be drawn, in that proportion you increase the fluctuation. If you restrain the supply of a single county to the produce of that county, the fluctuations would be much greater than if you extended it to the whole kingdom. If you derive your corn from only one kingdom, the fluctuation will be much greater than if you derived it from many kingdoms, from Poland, Russia, Germany, France, and America. There will be Variations of seasons in dif- ferent parts of the globe, and with the commercial enterprise and manufacturing industry of this country, you will be so certain of a supply from one or more of them, that I can scarcely believe, you would run any danger of scarcity. But if, on some rare occasion, that danger did arise, you might give power in your Act of Parliament to the Queen in council, to admit corn, duty free, for a certain time, and requiring the meeting of Parliament within a month or six weeks from the date of the order in council. If you enacted, that it should be admitted duty free at 72s. or 73s., similar frauds would be practised to those which exist under the present artificial system; but I think you might safely leave with the Crown a discretionary power of that kind. Let it be recollected, that this is a plan which has been adopted with regard to sugar and some other articles, so that there is nothing new in this policy. Mr. Huskisson, for two or three years, introduced a bill at the end of the Session, by which he let in all corn in bond at a much lower duty than that fixed by law, in order to guard against the possibility of scarcity. Much has been said about the great cheapness of corn which would follow this alteration. My own belief is, that corn would be cheaper than at present; without pretending to any very accurate means of knowledge, I should say, that the general average price might be 50s.; but, whatever it may be, it will be a much more steady price than at present. When I say a steady price, I mean not an average price taken on a number of years, but generally steady; to illustrate my view, you may have corn for one five years at 40s., and for another five years at 80s.; the average will be 60s.; but in the same way the price may be 55s. for one period of five years, and 65s. for another, and the average here will also be 60s. The average will be the same, but the case to the people and to the consumer will be widely different. But the main object to which I look is not the greater cheapness of corn, but additional employment to the people. With respect to wages, it has been said, that if you admit corn, wages will be lower. If this be stated as a disadvantage to the people, it is a complete fallacy; for if you suppose that out of 10s. wages a labourer spends 7s. in bread; if you lower the price of his bread to 5s., it is clear that 8s. are to him as valuable as 10s. were before. But if I am right in supposing that the demand for labour will increase, then by all the rules which govern price, the labourer will, in fact, secure higher wages than before. The change will produce such a demand for labour that wages will really be higher, and men now in a state of destitution will then be able to procure employment. Such is my case for our preference of a fixed duty to the sliding scale. The right hon. Gentleman, in arguing the question of the general vote of want of confidence, has again asserted that we retained power in the year 1839, after there had been a vote in this House against us; but the real test then was far him to have brought forward a vote of confidence, if he had, in fact, a majority in this House. If he did not then bring forward a motion for a vote of Want of confidence, it could only be because he had not really a majority against us on the general question. That fact was soon afterwards proved, for early in the following year a motion for a vote of a want of confidence was brought forward, and we had a majority of twenty-one in our favour. Therefore, it can scarcely be said, that in that year we retained office in spite of a majority of this House against u s. I consider after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, although it did not declare anything that could give certain expectation either on the one side of the other, that he and the party of Which he is the leader, are ready to agree in a vote of want of confidence on account of the measures proposed by us with respect to trade, and especially with regard to the trade in corn. Be it so. I am of opinion, that by bringing forward these measures, and stating them as far as we could during the last Parliament, and again advising their being referred to in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, we shall have added much to the progress of those measures. An hon. Gentleman who spoke to-night said, that when the right hon. Gentleman came into power, he expected to see a decline of this country, as all old countries must decline. Now, that is not my opinion, my belief is, that if Only common sense is exercised in conducting its affairs, not only will this country not decline, but it must increase in prosperity. I have shewn, in what I have addressed to the House, that neither as regards the foreign affairs, nor our colonial establishments, nor our domestic state, is there the slightest tea-son for alarm or apprehension. But there is, I think, owing to various causes, such an embarrassment in trade, that it behoves you, not Only because those principles are good for all time, but because those principles are good at the present moment, to put in practice the maxims of free trade which were embodied in the King's Speech of 1825, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a party, and which were afterwards advanced by Mr. Huskisson and by Mr. Robinson, Ministers of that day. I am convinced, if you refuse to make corn an exception to those general rules—that if you do not attempt to say that to corn alone, those principles you yourselves acknowledge to be wise, shall shall not be applied—if you are prepared to give up the present restrictions, and adopt a more rational system, I am convinced that, as the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wiltshire, said, many years ago, there can be no bounds to the prosperity and power of this country. I have no reason to conclude that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will refuse to put into practice the opinions of which he has this night declared himself the advocate. I am sure, if he does, it will be from the want of inclination, not from the want of power; for, as for any supposition of his wanting power to deal with the Corn-laws, as we proposed to deal with them, I think he may despise it. I know not what course be may pursue, but the full responsibility remains with him. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say, that he is shackled and thwarted by party trammels, because it is clear that the party to which he belongs could not resist liberal measures if he were to propose them. There are various divisions in the party to which he belongs. I hear language of the most contradictory kind from it, and I read the same in the organs of the party in other places, and at the late elections the same contradictions took place. To speak of one instance. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment on the Address—the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire —stated it the election that one great object with him was to alter one of the essential provisions of the present Poor-law, holding as he did, that the confinement of the poor in workhouses was unnecessary. Now, this is one of the many instance if of a total difference of language between the leaders and the followers. If the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the West Riding, is really of opinion that confinement in the workhouses is not necessary, then clearly he must think that confinement under such circumstances is a hardship, and ought to be abolished. I think it is necessary—that it is necessary as a test of destitution—and I feel bound to vote for its continuance, however painful it may be. But the hon. Member for the West Riding goes and raises a flame on that subject — makes a cry through the West Riding, and when he has ejected Lord Morpeth, that honest servant of the public, he comes down to this House the first night of the Session, not with any proposition with regard to this law,—which, if not necessary, ought to be repealed,—but with a proposition to deprive the present Ministers of power, and place in their stead a noble Duke, and the right hon. Member for Taraworth, who had declared themselves supporters of the Poor-law, and a noble Lord and a right hon. Gentleman who were among the original promoters and proposers of the measure. So that it will clearly appear to the world, when that law is re-enacted, that the cry raised against the Government on the subject of the Poor-law was a mere fallacious and delusive cry, that Gentlemen were ready to take advantage of their unpopularity, which they most probably think we do not deserve; that having ejected the Government, their purpose is served; that then the Poor-law may safely be re-enacted by those leaders of the party opposite, who honestly supported the law, and we may remain under the influence of that misrepresentation, as we have done under fifty others[ironical cheers]. The idea of misrepresentation seems to be denied by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, one of the charges against us is, that we are enemies of the Church. What injury have we done to the Church? We have carried a tithe law, by which the property of the Church is made more secure—by which the clergyman obtains a larger income than formerly, without quarrel or dispute with his parishioners. We have also passed another law regulating the incomes of the higher clergy. And what have we done? We have reduced the Archbishop of Canterbury to the miserable pittance of 15,000l. a year —we have cut down the Bishop of London to no more than 10,000l. a year. The Bishop of Durham receives a wretched stipend of 8,000l. a year. These two bills were our propositions, and, on the other hand, when a proposition was made that in our opinion, tended to the injury of the Church, we incurred the enmity of the Dissenters by opposing it. But this is only one of the misrepresentations I complain of. I do not complain of the conduct of the leaders of the opposition, except, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester. With that exception, I have not to complain of the acrimony of the tone of the leaders of the opposition. Indeed, on the contrary, in one of the last debates that occurred in this House, I mean on the motion of want of confidence, the hon. Gentleman was pleased to speak in language which I cannot quote, of the competency of the members of the present Ministry for the different offices which they filled. But while there was this proper tone on the part of the leaders of the opposition party, calumnies on the Ministers of the country of the grossest kinds have been uttered at the recent elections, and have been made in the public press —calumnies, I will say, for their extent and nature, never equalled. [Hear, hear.] Gentlemen opposite seem surprised at my alluding to the press. For my own part, I really think, that the right hon. Gentleman showed himself to be far more sensitive on the subject of some foolish stories which had appeared in a newspaper, and the notice he took of tales so little worthy of attention, excited considerable surprise in every mind. Accusations against my colleagues and myself of a much more serious character, have been made in the way I have described, with regard to our conduct in the most important points, and even involving our personal characters, and I think the authors of them have been fully aware of the falsehood of these attacks when they made them. These had been among the most prominent causes of the success of the opposite party, and although such means have thus been used against us with such effect, I trust, that when that party come into power there will be some cessation of this mode of attack, and that those who succeed us will not suffer in the same way. In conclusion, I have only to express my conviction, that if this country is governed by enlarged and liberal councils, that its power and might will spread and increase, its influence will become greater and greater, that liberal principles will prevail, and civilization will be spread to all parts of the globe, that you will bless millions by your dominion and mankind by your example.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 269; Noes 360;—Majority 91.

The Speaker

then read the Address as amended. Upon the question, that a committee be appointed to draw up the Address,

Lord John Russell

suggested, that the committee should be named by the hon. Gentleman who had moved the amendment.

Mr. Wortley

moved as the committee, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Lord Stanley, Sir Henry Hardinge, Lord Granville Somerset, and others.

Lord John Russell

remarked, that the House would meet this day. He had no motion to make; but it was understood, that the House would meet this day.

The House adjourned.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, hn. G. R. Clive, E. B.
Aglionby, H. A. Cobden, R.
Ainsworth, P. Colborne, hn. W.N.R.
Aldam, W. Collins, W.
Anson, hon. Colonel Cowper, hn. W. F.
Anson, Sir G. Craig, W. G.
Archbold, R. Crawford, W. S.
Armstrong, Sir A. Currie, R.
Bainbridge, E. T. Curteis, H. B.
Bannerman., A. Dalmeny, Lord
Barclay, D. Dalrymple, Captain
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Dashwood, G. H.
Barnard, E. G. Dawson, hn. T. V.
Bell, J. Denison, W. J.
Bellew, R. M. Denison, J. E.
Berkeley, hn. C. Dennistoun, J.
Berkeley, hn. Captain D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.
Berkeley, hn. F.
Berkeley, hn. G. Divett, E.
Bernal, R. Drax, J. S. W. E.
Blake, M. Duff, J.
Blake, M. J. Duke, Sir J.
Blake, Sir V. Duncan, Viscount
Blewitt, R. J. Duncan, G.
Bodkin, J. J. Duncombe, T.
Bowes, J. Dundas, Captain D.
Bowring, Dr. Dundas, F.
Bridgeman, H. Dundas, hn. J. C.
Brocklehurst, J. Easthope, Sir J.
Brodie, W. B. Ebrington, Viscount
Brotherton, J. Ellice, rt. hn. E.
Browne, R. D. Ellice, E.
Browne, hn. W. Ellis, W.
Bryan, G. Elphinstone, H.
Buller, C. Esmonde, Sir. T.
Buller, E. Etwall, R.
Byng, G. Evans, W.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S. Ewart, W.
Callaghan, D. Ferguson, Colonel
Carew, hn. R. S. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Cave, hn. R. O. Fitzalan, Lord
Cavendish, hn. C. C. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. Fitzwilliam, hn. G. W.
Chapman, B. Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Childers, J. W. Forster, M.
Clay, Sir W. Fox, C. R.
Clayton, Sir W. R. French, F.
Clements, Viscount Gibson, T. M.
Gill, T. Murray, A.
Gordon, Lord F. Napier, Sir C.
Gore, hn. Captain Norreys, Sir D. J.
Granger, T. C. O'Brien, C.
Grattan, H. O'Brien, J.
Greenaway, C. O'Brien, W. S.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. O'Connell, D.
Grosvenor, Lord R. O'Connell, M.
Guest, Sir J. O'Connell, M. J.
Hall, Sir B. O'Connell, J.
Harford, S. O'Conor Don
Harris, J. Q. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Hastie, A. Ogle, S. C. H.
Hatton, Captain V. Orde, W.
Hawes, B. Oswald, J.
Hay, Sir A. L. Paget, Colonel
Hayter, W. G. Paget, Lord W.
Heathcoat, J. Paget, Lord A.
Heneage, E. Palmerston, Viscount
Heron, Sir R. Pechell, Captain
Hill, Lord M. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Hindley, C. Philips, G. R.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Philipps, Sir R. B. P.
Hobhouse, H. W. Philips, M.
Holdsworth, J. Phillpotts, J.
Hollond, R. Pigot, rt. hn. D.
Horsman, E. Pinney, W.
Hoskins, K. Plumridge, Captain
Howard, hn. C. W.G. Ponsonby, hn. C. F A. C.
Howard, hn. J. K.
Howard, Lord Ponsonby, hn. J. G.
Howard, hn. E. G. G. Powell, C.
Howard, P. H. Power, J.
Howard, hn. H. Protheroe, E.
Howard, Sir R. Ramsbottom, J.
Humphery, Mr. Ald. Rawdon, Colonel
Hutt, W. Redington, T. N.
James, W. Rennie, G.
Jardine, W. Rice, E. R.
Jervis, J. Ricardo, J. L.
Johnston, A. Roche, Sir D.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Roche, E. B.
Lambton, H. Roebuck, J. A.
Langston, J. H. Rumbold, C. E.
Langton, W. G. Rundle, J.
Larpent, Sir G. de H. Russell, Lord J.
Layard, Captain Russell, Lord E.
Leader, J. T. Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Listowel, Earl of Scholefield, J.
Loch, J. Scott, R.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B. Scrope, G. P.
Macnamara, Major Seale, Sir J. H.
McTaggart, Sir J. Seymour, Lord
Maher, V. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Mangles, R. D. Shelburne, Earl of
Majoribanks, S. Smith, B.
Marshall, W. Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Marsland, H. Sombre, D. O. D.
Martin, J. Somers, J. P.
Maule, rt. hn. F. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Mitcalfe, H. Stanley, hn. W. O.
Mitchell, T. A. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Morris, D. Stanton, W. H.
Morrison, J. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Mostyn, hn. E. M. L. Stewart, P. M.
Muntz, G. F. Stuart, Lord J.
Murphy, F. S. Stuart, W. V.
Stock, Mr. Serjeant Wason, R.
Strickland, Sir G. Wawn, J. T.
Strutt, E. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Talbot, C. R. M. Westenra, hon. J.
Tancred, H. W. White, L.
Thornely, T. White, S.
Townely, J. White, H.
Traill, G. Wigney, I. N.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Wilde, Sir T.
Turner, E. Williams, W.
Vane, Lord H. Wilson, M.
Villiers, hn. C. P. Wilshere, W.
Villiers, F. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Vivian, hn. Major Wood, C.
Vivian, J. H. Wood, G. W.
Vivian, hon. Captain Wood, Sir M.
Wakley, T. Worsley, Lord
Walker, R. Wrightson, W. B.
Wall, C. B. Yorke, H. R.
Wallace, R. TELLERS.
Warburton, H. Parker, J.
Ward, H. G. Tuffnell, H.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bodkin, W. H.
Acland, T. D. Boldero, H. G.
A'Court, Captain Borthwick, P.
Ackers, J. Boscawen Rose, Lord
Acton, Colonel Botfield, B.
Adare, Viscount Bradshaw, J.
Adderley, C. B. Bramston, T. W.
Alexander, N. Broadley, H.
Alford, Viscount Broad wood, H.
Allix, J. P. Brooke, Sir A. B.
Antrobus, E. Brownrigg, J. S.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bruce, Lord E.
Archdall, M. Bruce, C. L. C.
Ashley, Lord Bruce, Lord
Ashley, hon. H. Bruen, Colonel
Astell, W. Buck, L. W.
Attwood, J. Buckley, E.
Attwood, M. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bagge, W. Bunbury, T.
Bagot, hon. W. Burdett, Sir F.
Bailey, J. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Bailey, J. jun. Burroughes, H. N.
Baillie, Colonel Campbell, Sir H.
Baillie, H. J. Campbell, A.
Baird, W. Carnegie, hn. Captain
Baldwin, C. B. Cartwright, W. R.
Balfour, J. M. Castlereagh, Viscount
Bankes, G. Chapman, A.
Baring, hon. W. B. Charteris, hon. F.
Barneby, J. Chelsea, Viscount
Barrington, Viscount Chetwode, Sir J.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Cholmondeley, hon. H.
Bateson, Sir R. Christmas, W.
Beckett, W. Christopher, R. A.
Bell, M. Chute, W. L. W.
Benett, J. Clayton, R. R.
Bentinck, Lord G. Clements, H. J.
Beresford, Captain Clerk, Sir G.
Beresford, Major Clive, hon. R. H.
Blackburne, J. I. Codrington, C. W.
Blackstone, W. S. Cole, hon. A. H.
Blakemore, R. Collett, W. R.
Compton, H. C. Hale, R. B.
Colville, C. R. Halford, H.
Connolly, Colonel Hamilton, C. J. B.
Coote, Sir C. H. Hamilton, J.
Copeland, Mr. Ald. Hamilton, W. J.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Hamilton, Lord C.
Courtenay, Viscount Hanmer, Sir J.
Cresswell, B. Harcourt, G. G.
Cripps, W. Hardinge, H. hn. Sir H.
Crosse, T. B. Hardy, J.
Darner, hon. Colonel Hawkes, T.
Darby, G. Hayes, Sir E.
Darlington, Earl of Heathcote, G. J.
Dawney, hon. W. H. Heathcote, Sir W.
Denison, E. B. Heneage, G. H. W.
Dick, Q. Henley, J. W.
Dickinson, F. H. Henniker, Lord
D'Israeli, B. Herbert, hon. S.
Dodd, G. Hill, Sir R.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Hillsborough, Earl of
Douglas, J. D. S. Hinde, J. H.
Douro, Marquess of Hodgson, F.
Dowdeswell, W. Hodgson, R.
Drummond, H. H. Hogg, J. W.
Duffield, T. Houldsworth, T.
Dogdale, W. S. Holmes, hon. W. A'Court
Duncombe, hon. A.
Du Pre, C. G. Hope, hon. C.
East, J. B. Hope, A.
Eaton, R. J. Hope, G. W.
Egerton, W. T. Hornby, J.
Egerton, Sir P. Hughes, W. B.
Egerton, Lord F. Ingestre, Viscount
Eliot, Lord Ioglis, Sir R. H.
Emlyn, Viscount Irton, S.
Escott, B. Irving, J.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Jackson, Mr. Serjeant
Farnham, E. B. James, Sir W. C.
Fellowes, E. Jermyn, Earl
Feilden, W. Johnson, W. G.
Ferrand, W. B. Johnstone, Sir J.
Filmer, Sir E. Johnstone, H.
Fitzharris, Viscount Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Fitzroy, Captain Jones, Captain
Fleming, J. W. Jones, J.
Follett, Sir W. W. Kelburne, Viscount
Forbes, W. Kemble, H.
Forester, hn. G. C. W. Ker, D. S.
Forman, T. S. Kerrison, Sir E.
Fuller, A. E. Kirk, P.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Gladstone, W. E.
Godson, R. Knight, H. G.
Gordon, hon. Captain Knight, F. W.
Gore, M. Knightley, Sir C.
Gore, W. O. Law, hon, C. E.
Gore, W. O. Lawson, A.
Goring, C. Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Legh, G. C.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Leicester, Earl of
Granby, Marquess of Lennox, Lord A.
Grant, Sir A. C. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Greenall, P. Lincoln, Earl of
Greene, T. Lindsay, H. H.
Grimsditch, T. Litton, E.
Grimston, Viscount Lockhart, W.
Grogan, E. Long, W.
Lopes, Sir R. Reid, Sir J. R.
Lowther, J. H. Repton, G. W. J.
Lowther, Viscount Richards, R.
Lowther, hon. Col. Rolleston, Colonel
Lyall, G. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Lygon, hon. General Round, C, G.
Mackenzie, T. Round, J.
Mackenzie, W. F. Rous, hon. Captain
Mackinnon, W. A. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Maclean, D. Russell, C.
Mac Geachy, F. A. Russell, J. D. W.
Mahon, Viscount Ryder, hon. G. D.
Mainwaring, T. Sanderson, R.
Manners, Lord C. S. Sandon, Viscount
Manners, Lord J. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
March, Earl of Scott, hon. F.
Marsham, Viscount Seymour, Sir H. B.
Martin, C. W. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Martyn, C. C. Sheppard, T.
Marton, G. Shirley, E. J.
Master, T. W. C. Shirley, E. P.
Masterman, J. Sibthorp, Colonel
Maunsell, T. P. Smith, A.
Meynell, Captain Smyth, Sir G.
Miles, P. W. S. Smythe, hon. G.
Miles, W. Smollett, A.
Milnes, R. M. Somerset, Lord G.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Morgan, O. Stanley, Lord
Morgan, C. Stanley, E.
Mundy, E. M. Stewart, J.
Murray, C. R. S. Stuart, H.
Neeld, J. Sturt, H. C.
Neeld, J. Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.B.
Neville, R. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Newry, Viscount Taylor, T. E.
Nicholl, J. Taylor, J. A.
Norreys, Lord Tennent, J. E.
Northland, Viscount Thesiger, F.
O'Brien, A. S. Thompson, Mr. Aid.
Ossulston, Lord Thornhill, G.
Owen, Sir J. Tollemache, hon. F. J
Packe, C. W. Tollemache, J.
Pakington, J. S. Tomline, G.
Palmer, R. Trench, Sir F. W.
Palmer, G. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Patten, J. W. Trollope, Sir J.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Trotter, J.
Peel, J. Turnor, C.
Pemberton, T. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Pennant, hon. C. Vere, Sir C. B.
Perceval, Colonel Verner, Colonel
Pigot, Sir R. Vernon, G. H.
Planta, rt. hon. J. Vesey, hon. T.
Plumptre, J. P. Villiers, Viscount
Polhill, F. Vivian, J. E.
Pollington, Viscount Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Pollock, Sir F. Waddington, H. S.
Powell, Colonel Walsh, Sir J. B.
Praed, W. T. Welby, Q. E.
Price, R. West, J. B.
Pringle, A. Whitmore, T. C.
Pusey, P. Wigram, J.
Rae, rt. hon. Sir W. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Ramsay, W. R. Williams, T. P.
Rashleigh, W. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Reade, W. M. Wodehoupe, E.
Wood, Colonel Yorke, hon. E. T.
Wood, Colonel T. Young, J.
Wortley, hon. J. S. Young, Sir W.
Wyndham, Colonel
Wyndham, W. TELLERS.
Wynn, rt. hn. C.W.W. Fremantle, Sir T.
Wynn, Sir W. W. Baring, H.
Back to