POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

HC Deb 17 September 1841 vol 59 cc524-608

Sir R. Peel

having moved the Order of the Day, that the House go into a Committee of Supply,

Lord J. Russell

said:—I shall now, with permission of the House, proceed to make the observations which I yesterday said, I should feel it my duty to make, on the course which the right hon. Baronet proposes to pursue, and on the general aspect of affairs. The motion which the right hon. Baronet has now made, for the House going into a committee of supply, for the purpose of placing some of the public money at the disposal of the present Ministers of the Crown, being the earliest occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has asked the opinion of the House on the subject, I look upon as the most fitting opportunity on which to state the views which I entertain, both of the present condition of the country, and of the course which the right hon. Baronet stated yesterday it is the intention of her Majesty's Government to pursue. Before go into these topics, on which I differ greatly from the decision to which it appears that the Government have come, I wish to advert to one or two topics which I consider likely to he of great and permanent importance. With reference to foreign affairs, it appears to be quite unnecessary, that Parliament should continue assembled. The state of Europe, happily for all parties, affords every probability of a continuance of peace. The Speech which her Majesty directed to be delivered at the opening of the Session, gave Parliament the information, that the temporary separation which had existed between this country and France, had ceased, and that the most amicable relations existed. I fervently hope, that these amicable relations may continue to prevail; and I trust, that the life of that Prince who now reigns over the destinies of France so greatly for the benefit of that country, may long be spared to that people, and escape from the attempts of infatuated assassins. The affairs of Europe, then, are in a satisfactory condition; but there is, certainly, a question in relation to the United States of America, which, in some of its aspects, bears a very unsatisfactory appearance. When my noble Friend, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stated to the House the opinion given by the Secretary of State of the United States, it appeared very clear, that the Executive of both countries, that the Governments, both of her Britannic Majesty and of the United States, were perfectly agreed as to the character that should be attributed to the attack upon, and capture of the Caroline—that it was a question to be debated between nation and nation, and not to be treated as a case of private wrong. It appears, however, that one of the tribunals, that of the state of New York, has taken a different view of this question; but it appears to me, that such a view of the subject, as that of this tribunal, if carried out to its utmost consequences, would be destructive of all amicable relations between nation and nation. If two Governments, between whom a question arises, are not to decide whether that question is or is not an international one—if they are not to decide whether a person called to account, did or did not act under the authority of his Go- vernment—but if a local court, it may be of the smallest jurisdiction, is to assume to itself en authority over the case—this, I say, would place in peril all amicable relations between those two powers. The judge who decided the case seemed to admit, that the two executive authorities had agreed that the case was one to be decided between themselves; but he stated, that it was his opinion, that it was not a case which could well be considered as a case of war, and that, therefore, it properly came before his own tribunal. It appears to me that this is a doctrine to which no Government can agree. For, according to this doctrine, if Sir Graham Moore or any other officer employed in the capture of the Spanish frigates, at the beginning of the Spanish war, had been taken before a Spanish tribunal, it would be equally competent to the judge of that tribunal to say there was no declaration of war at the time these captures were made, and that, therefore, the captures were piratical, and the officers engaged in them liable to be tried for murder. But, on the whole, it appears, that although such may be the construction of the law adopted by the state of New York, yet, considering what has been stated on one side by my noble Friend, and on the other by Mr. Webster, with regard to circumstances attending the capture of the Caroline, it is perfectly clear, that there is an agreement of opinion on that subject between the two countries; and I believe, that the authorities of the United States, the President, and the Congress, will see, that it is necessary to prevent any occurrence taking place which will expose any subject of her Majesty to danger for executing the commands of his Sovereign. I am sure, that there prevails in this country, and I trust, that there prevails in America also, the strongest desire, that peace may be preserved between these two great countries. Having thus alluded to the only matter which appears to me to require any remark as regards our foreign affairs, I will now make one remark on the recent appointments which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to make as respects the Government of Ireland. I have seen those appointments with great satisfaction, for they seem to me an evidence, that the right hon. Gentleman is determined to carry into effect those conciliatory opinions which he has so often expressed with regard to that country. I entertain the highest respect for the character of the new Lord-lieutenant; and with regard to the noble Lord who has been appointed Secretary for Ireland, I think that that noble Lord has shown on various occasions a desire to place the people of Ireland in that condition with which alone as I think, they can, and with which alone they ought to be satisfied—a condition of entire equality with the people of this country. I may add, likewise, that I trust that the noble Lord (the chief Secretary for Ireland) will not re-introduce a measure, which in the hands of another noble Lord, has been discussed more than once in this House; but a measure, which I certainly consider a breach of the tacit engagement which was entered into with the people of Ireland in 1829, and which I think could not be acted upon without affecting, in a very short time, the popular character of the representation in that country. I have, I say, very great confidence that Lord Eliot, who is now chief Secretary for Ireland, will not introduce any bill of that kind into this House. I trust that what has been done of late years towards consolidating the peace, and improving the condition of that country, will receive further development at the hands of the present Government; and I can assure the noble Lord, though I certainly cannot expect that every step which the right hon. Baronet will take will meet with my concurrence, I will endeavour, as nearly as possible, to meet the views which I expect will be entertained by the noble Lord, acting under the direction of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury. I now come to that part of the subject on which I mean to treat, on which I have the misfortune to differ very widely from her Majesty's Government. We are now met in pursuance of an intimation, first given by the right hon. Gentleman, but in which the Members of Lord Melbourne's Government perfectly concurred, that as soon after the dissolution as possible, it would be desirable that Parliament should be re-assembled, in order to take into consideration the important affairs of the nation. Her Majesty was advised by her late Government thus to intimate her desire to this House, that the laws respecting corn should be taken into consideration:— Her Majesty is desirous that you should consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn. It will be for you to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply, whether they do not embarrass trade, derange currency, and by their operation, diminish the comfort, and increase the privations of the great body of the community. Now of the importance of these considerations there can be no doubt. Laws which embarrass trade, derange the currency, and increase the privations of the great body of the community, supposing that such is the effect of them, ought at once to be altered. Why there cannot be a more solemn duty for Parliament than to make such alterations, if the pernicious effects of these laws be such as are here pointed out. In answer to that speech we addressed the Crown and we stated— We assure your majesty that we are deeply sensible of the importance of those consideraations to which your Majesty has been pleased to direct our attention with reference to the commerce and revenues of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in corn. Upon this point the House was unanimous, for herein the amendment did not differ from the Address proposed by the then Ministers. But the amendment went on to say:— ." In deciding on the course which it may be desirable to pursue with reference to matters of such importance, it will be our earnest desire to consult the interests and promote the welfare of all classes of her Majesty's subjects; that we feel it to be our duty, however, humbly to submit to her Majesty, that it is essential to the satisfactory result of our deliberations on these and other matters of public concern, that her Majesty's Government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country, and respectfully to represent to her Majesty, that that confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her Majesty. The dismissal of the then Government was as it were the previous condition to considering these questions. The advice of this House was promptly acceded to by her Majesty, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite has constructed the Administration which is now formed, and which is distinguished by an unalterable attachment to the Constitution in Church and State, and to the sliding scale. But this condition having been complied with by the Crown, it certainly would seem that the time was come when these important laws ought to be taken into consideration. Far be it from me, and hope from any one on this side of the House, to say that you should attend exclusively to measures and not to men. I always have thought you ought to attend to both; but having the men in whom the majority of the House are pleased to bestow their confidence, I do not consider that the mere nomination of these men is to be accepted as a substitute for measures; but having the men whom you have confidence in, we ought at least to be enabled to judge of what measures they propose as grounds for the confidence of the country. How stands the case? The right hon. Gentleman states—and I am not disposed to quarrel with that statement—that his time has been lately occupied in the formation of the new Administration, and that he could not consider these important points; but although that may be a good reason as for the last fortnight, it does not seem to be any reason for postponing for five months the consideration of these important subjects. Let us consider the previous deliberations which the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him have held on these points. It was upon the last day of April that the measures relating to the budget were announced, and that I gave notice of moving for a committee of the whole House on the laws relating to the trade in corn. Now when I gave notice that I would introduce the subject in a month from that time, strong expressions of surprise were uttered, and it was immediately urged, that though it might be right to consider the laws relating to corn; and though it was right that the Government of the country should originate such a measure, yet that the delay of a month, the uncertainty for a month, was an intolerable evil, for which the Government of that day was justly censurable. It was thought proper shortly after to bring forward a motion declaring that the then Ministers ought not to retain office, and the decision upon that motion prevented my proceeding with the question relating to corn. But from that time to the meeting of the new Parliament and the formation of the new Ministry, the right hon. Gentleman has had four months to consider what course he might think it desirable to pursue, and he proposes now to add to those four months five additional months of delay, before he will communicate to the House of Commons the measures which the Government think proper on this subject. He does not say, as he might, "We stand upon the present Corn-law, we think no alteration necessary;" on the contrary, he said he would not accept office on the condition of being bound not to make any alteration in the Corn-law. It cannot be inferred from this expression that he thinks an alteration unnecessary, and yet the right hon. Gentle- man, who certainly went far, with others, in the expression of indignation at what he called a delay, and who said, I ought to be obliged, in some manner, to bring forward the question in less than a month, adds eight months to that period, and says he is justified in asking for this long delay. Sir, there are symptoms, likewise, in the construction of the Government itself, which induce me to entertain very great doubts whether any important alteration in the Corn-law is in contemplation. I am not alluding to the construction of the Administration with a view to any personal remarks, but merely for the purpose of deducing an opinion on this matter; and I may, therefore, say at once, that the nomination of the Duke of Buckingham to a place in her Majesty's Councils, and to a seat in the Cabinet, is to me a symptom that no considerable alteration in the Corn-laws is intended by the present Government. I do not doubt the conscientious opinion of the Duke of Buckingham. I do not doubt that he thinks that a protection such as the present law gives, or one at least equivalent to it, if not a greater protection, necessary to the agriculture of the country. I do not doubt that he has held that opinion with a view to the general interests of the country, and I do not doubt, likewise, that he will continue to hold that opinion. I have been told that when a sort of threat was uttered that the late Ministry should no longer hold office, because they had proposed an 8s. fixed duty on corn, and that any other Ministry which took a similar course would meet with a similar fate—I have been told that there were none who more demonstrated their approbation and acquiescence in that sentiment than the Duke of Buckingham. Why will not the right hon. Gentleman give a very decided pledge on this subject? As to a sliding scale, it may be such as to amount almost to a prohibition—and a sliding scale, too, may be so constructed as to give even less protection than the fixed duty which I propose. There is this uncertainty, and yet the right hon. Gentleman and some others who are united with him in the Government leave their opinions unknown, and they will not give even any indication of the measures that they mean to propose. And then, too, while I could not help observing that the noble Duke to whom I have before adverted is a Member of the Cabinet, there are other Members of the same party who are intrusted with high office, and yet who are not included in the Cabinet. For instance, there is Sir George Murray, who was Secretary for the Colonies, in a former Administration with the right hon. Gentleman, and was then a Member of the Cabinet. Now, Sir George Murray has given an opinion in favour of a fixed duty of 8s., or for a less duty than that, and Sir George Murray is not a Member of the present Cabinet. There is then a selection amongst those who have given a decided opinion, and who are Members of the party to which the right hon. Baronet belongs; there is a selection in favour of prohibition, and there is an exclusion of those who are supporters of the opinion that there ought to be a more free trade in corn. Is it possible then, that with all this, the country can wait in expectation for five months to know whether or not you will deem it expedient that a large and full measure will be brought forward by you, and whether a free trade in corn will be permitted by you. I do not think that this is an expectation, on your part, that can be fairly entertained. If no such intention be entertained by you, why then, I say—why twit me with the delay of a month, when it tells with tenfold force against yourselves? It would be much better to proclaim—for the sake of trade, that it may not encourage false expectations—it would be much better for the sake of agriculture, in order that it may not be depressed with unfounded fears; it would be much better to proclaim it, if such be your intention—that you mean to adhere substantially to the present law, and that you will not make any alteration in it. Of course you may attempt to correct the mode of taking the averages, and in so doing you may make the law more stringent, or perhaps you may lower the pivot some 4s. or 5s., and make the law less stringent; but in doing these things you will only leave the matter exposed to doubt and uncertainty as it is at present. That may be your opinion, but if it is, why not propose some such measure in the month of October? Why should you not do something by which the impatience and the expectation of the country may be set at rest, and this long delay not be interposed. The corn trade is a most important one, and, if you have no alteration to propose but one of the pivot, and nothing better to offer than a different number of shillings, and in a scale more graduated than it is at present, I cannot see why so long a period should elapse before the Cabinet should consult together to make up their minds as to the measures they were about to propose. I have stated what I consider to be the effect likely to be produced by the character of the Administration as well as the promise which the right hon. Gentleman held out. He is himself not " Medicin, malgre lui" on this question. His patient is now suffering, and it is not to be supposed, now that lie is called in, that he should say that the best thing is a little rest and quiet, and nothing further is to be done. I do not in the least share the imputations that have been thrown out against the gentlemen who own the land, that they must be actuated by peculiarly selfish objects of their own, with regard to the Corn-law. I must say that on this, as on all other questions of the kind, interest will most likely bias the view which men will take of a question in dispute by which they may be themselves affected. It has occurred before—it will occur again. When a free trade in silk was proposed, all the silk manufacturers, found that free trade was an excellent thing—the principle of free-trade being declared to be undeniably good; but then, with regard to the particular article of silk, the interests of the country required that it should have a special protection. Thus, too, it was with the shipowners. The principle of free trade was admitted by them to be proper, but then they thought that the interests of the country required that there should be a special protection for that portion of the trade in which they were especially interested. I do not see how it can be otherwise with Gentlemen engaged in land—they are not special exemptions to general laws. They do not entertain their views from mere interested motives, but they consider that, with their peculiar protection, the interests of the country are identified. Their feeling as to their own particular occupation of property is the same as that of any other class in the community. I ask, then, of the House of Commons to keep this in mind— what is it you propose by the delay? It would be a convenience to the Administration, and while I admit that, and while it is quite obvious that it would be a convenience to Gentlemen who have other pursuits, and who do not like to be in London during the autumn, and while it is clear that it would be for the advantage of those who think that rents would be affected by a change in the Corn-laws—while all these things are obvious, and you decide on taking such a course, then you cannot escape imputations of this kind. It will not fail to be imputed to you that the views which have influenced your decision have been not altogether for the public interest. At least, it requires a case to be made out something better than that which the right hon. Gentleman offered yesterday to the House, when he proposed that very long procrastination, which he then suggested. But let us now look farther to the state of the country—I allude particularly to the state of the manufacturing districts. I do not wish to say anything which might be construed into a declaration of my belief that any law you can establish can prevent those periodical and occasionally severe distresses amongst a manufacturing community. I do not think any laws you can pass will prevent those fluctuations which may arise either from the state of our foreign relations, or from a long course of over trading, or from accidents that may occur from time to time. But I think Parliament should be able to say, that we at least have no part in causing or continuing this distress; and for this purpose it is necessary that you should he able to show that your taxes and restrictions are for some necessary object in the state; that they are necessary for the purposes of revenue, or for the purpose of placing a certain part of the community, which is overtaxed, upon a condition of equality in that respect with other classes; or that they are necessary in order to make the transition more gradual, and not to bring a sudden state of embarrassment on any interest or class of subjects who have been unduly protected. But do the present Corn-laws come under the head of measures which can be thus defended? Are they necessary for the sake of revenue? On the contrary, it is quite clear that your present law defeats all purposes of revenue, and that if the measure which I had the honour to announce, and which was never discussed, of laying on a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter, had been adopted, the Exchequer would be now four or five hundred thousand pounds richer. There would be, in all probability, one million or twelve hundred thousand quarters more wheat admitted into this country. Is your present law necessary for protecting the agricultural interest? I think certainly that a fixed duty is far better in that respect, and that you have no cause to make out a prohibition on that ground. I never heard a cause made out certainly for a prohibitory duty on that ground. Lastly, you cannot say that this duty is necessary, in order to make a transition, because it has been adopted as a permanent system. If that is the state of the laws, I say that those who are distressed have a right to come to you, and ask you to consider their case— ask you to change any law which affects them—to change any law which impedes trade, and embarrasses industry, and as far as legislation can do it, to place them in a better condition. You may not be able to say—above all, you should not promise that by such a law you would place them in a state of entire prosperity, and that you would avert from them all fluctuations of distress; but would be able to say, whatever those distresses, we feel the deepest compassion for them, and for the restrictions which aggravate those distresses we are not responsible—Parliament has no share in producing or continuing them. Now, that is what you cannot justly say at present; and if such distress does exist, no personal inconvenience—no inconvenience, consequent upon our being obliged to remain for another six weeks to come to a decision—ought to prevent us from taking into consideration the laws which now regulate the trade in corn. There has been an address agreed to at Manchester, at a meeting called in compliance with a requisition, bearing a thousand and eighteen signatures, of the merchants, manufacturers, and respectable inhabitants of all classes. They approach the Throne to state— That it has long been the opinion of a large and enlightened portion of your Majesty's subjects, that the embarrassment and distress are to be attributed to the effect of those laws which restrict the supply of food, which prohibit a free exchange of the industry of the people of this country with that of others, and which impose indirect taxes, pressing severely on the community, for the purpose of protecting particular interests, without reference to the public revenue. That it was in vain, that your Majesty's people approached the late House of Commons by petitions signed by upwards of one million and a half of your Majesty's people— a number unprecedented on any other occason—earnestly praying for an inquiry into the effects and operations of those laws, with a view to their alteration or repeal. That your Majesty's people have been severely disappointed at the determined refusal of the late House of Commons to attend to the prayer of these petitions; but they have derived great consolation from the marked anxiety of your Majesty for their interests at the opening of the present Parliament, when your Majesty was graciously pleased to claim its attention to ' the laws which regulate the trade in corn; to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuation of supply, whether they do not embarrass trade, derange the currency, diminish the comforts, and increase the privations of the great body of the community.' That in reply to the gracious mediation of your Majesty in behalf of suffering industry, your Majesty's memorialists feel some satisfaction that the Parliament has at length acknowledged, ' that they are deeply sensible of the importance of those considerations to which your Majesty has been graciously pleased to direct their attention, in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in corn.' That all parties have therefore at length acknowledged the importance of considering these laws and their effects upon the great interests of the community. That the intense sufferings of the people will be greatly aggravated by a continued uncertainty of the settlement of these great questions, and by the natural inclemency of the approaching season; that it is therefore of the utmost consequence that your Majesty's gracious recommendation to Parliament should receive its serious attention without any delay, not only in order the sooner to apply legislative measures to alleviate the distress, but that your Majesty's suffering people may derive consolation and hope amidst their severe deprivations, from the knowledge that their wants are engaging the serious attention of the legislature, for the purpose of their alleviation. Your Majesty's memorialists therefore most earnestly and respectfully pray that your Majesty will take measures to continue the deliberation of Parliament without intermission, until these laws shall be so settled as to secure to your people the most plentiful supply of food at the cheapest rate, and thus to conduce to the general interests of the whole community. Now, Sir, this is not the opinion of the people of Manchester only, but the sentiments expressed by those in other towns suffering likewise under severe distress. If you separate without adopting any measures to meet the exigencies of the country, the only remedy which then can be applied is the one already hinted; namely, by the interposition of relief given out of the rates raised for the support of the poor. Sir, for occasional privations and occasional distress, that might be a reasonable proposition; but if the distress be not temporary; if it be connected generally with the state of free trade—I beg leave to say, that such a remedy will be quite inefficacious. Supposing the case were similar to that which occurred in some agricultural parishes before the introduction of the new Poor-law, when the produce and profit of the land were entirely consumed by the Poor's-rate, you will then destroy the source of manufacturing prosperity. But you must recollect, that it is in the power of those engaged in manufactures, when they find themselves subject to continual losses during a period of four years, one year after another — it is in their power to withdraw their capital from those manufacturing establishments to preserve that capital, and leave the persons depending on them without any relief; but to draw their entire subsistence from the land. I hare heard of instances in which this has taken place —in which persons funding one half of their capital have, to save the other half, put a stop to the working of their manufactories. In the course of the debate two years ago, when discussing the Corn-laws, the right hon. Gentleman argued against the notion then entertained that we were arrived at a state of great manufacturing distress, and I remember my observing then, that I did not think, that the case of manufacturing distress, such as it was stated had been made out, but that it was advisable, that the House should effect an alteration in the Corn-laws, because, if that manufacturing distress should really reach to a great pitch hereafter, your interposition would then be too late. My argument was, that so long as you had any possibility of retaining your markets, manufactures would continue to be sent abroad—so long as manufactures had the least chance of obtaining a profit on their goods, they would consign their goods to foreign markets; but when they had lost those markets—when you arrived at that period when your manufactures could not be sold abroad, you will then have lost those markets, it will then be too late for you to interpose, and the alteration of your laws will not bring a remedy to the evils which the laws have inflicted. I am afraid, that with respect to one branch of our manufactures—I mean our cotton trade—if it be not relieved by some alteration in our laws, and by a greater freedom of trade, it will be outdone by foreign competition; that our manufacturing establishments will be broken up, and that a large portion of the population, which cannot be relieved from the Poor-rate, will then be left without any resource. If there is any justice in these apprehen- sions, it is at least a matter for the consideration of Parliament. You may say, that these fears are unfounded; and in considering those matters which were laid before you in the Queen's Speech, you may say, that "we have come to the opinion that the manufacturing prosperity of the country is based upon a rock—that it is unshaken—that the Corn-laws do not affect it but tend to the welfare of the country—that such is the result of our solemn deliberation." Why, if that be the result of your solemn deliberation, so state it, and that will at least give the country the satisfaction of knowing that you have fully and fairly considered the subject. But what is now proposed is merely this, that you should grant certain sums of money, that you should propose the continuance of laws which expire at the end of the present year, and then, without any sort of inquiry, without any further consideration, and until five months hence you will not resume the consideration of these great questions. I consider, under this view, that the subject of trade is of more importance than that which relates to finance. As relates to finance, I think it would be far better, if in the course of the present year, you were to take some measures by which it might be hoped to produce an increase of the revenue. As far as regards the finances, it would be far better to adopt a plan by which you might hope to increase the revenue from establishing a greater freedom of trade; and even if there were not an immediate increase of the revenue, yet there would be, most probably, such an increase of trade and commerce, as finally to make the revenue equal to the expenditure. But nothing of the kind is to be attempted; and, it seems, now, that the only proposal is to obtain a vote of credit, which will enable the Government to continue the present state of things to the beginning of next year. I deeply regret the course that is about to be pursued. I am afraid it will not satisfy the country at large. I am afraid it will not give satisfaction to that part of the manufacturing community which is suffering distress. I am thoroughly persuaded, I never was more thoroughly persuaded than I am at this moment, that if instead of pursuing the course you have followed, you had adopted those measures that were proposed to you on the 30th of April, you would have produced a revival of trade— you would have caused an increase of the revenue—and you would have secured a far more important object, an increase of the comforts and happiness of the people. But you would have done more than this, by declaring to the whole world that you meant to conduct your trade with them by an interchange of your productions with theirs on the fairest and most liberal principles—and you would, in doing this, have greatly contributed to the future peace of the world. Convinced I am that there is nosecurity for peace equal to the feeling, that nations derive benefits from each other—that their intercourse will continue to shed additional blessings upon each other every additional year it is so continued; and that if interrupted far greater calamities must arise than in an ordinary war between two hostile nations. Therefore it is because the measures we proposed would have relieved the revenue, improved trade, and contributed not only to the welfare of the country, but the peace of the world, that I deeply regret their rejection. But, even now that they are rejected, I still think that the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government now in possession of office, ought not to decide at once that they would not enter into the consideration of those questions. I do not doubt that if they have made up their minds to pursue that course, that they will be supported by a majority that has already expressed its confidence in them. But I do expect, when the whole course of this year is reviewed, that it will be found on reflection by the people of this country, that great advantage would have been derived from a fair consideration, instead of the abrupt rejection of the measures we proposed. In adjourning their consideration until next year, you postpone the benefit you might have derived from them. In adjourning the consideration of such measures, you allow the distress to continue which it is now in your power to mitigate. I conclude now, by stating, that it is certainly not my intention upon this question to propose any motion, or to ask for any division, as to the course which the right hon. Gentleman is about to adopt; but as a Member of this House, I beg to say, that I am not responsible in any way for it.

Sir Robert Peel

spoke to the following effect:—Mr. Speaker, the course which I took yesterday, in announcing to the House of Commons the proceedings which I proposed to adopt with respect to the public business of the country, is a sufficient indication that I had no wish, at the commencement of the harassing and arduous task committed to me, to commence it by any controversy of a party nature. At the same time I am perfectly ready to admit that my course of proceeding constitutes no rule for the noble Lord—that our respective positions are different, and that he is entirely at liberty to invite me to the discussion which he has opened; and although I had no wish to originate the discussion, yet I can assure the noble Lord that I am little disposed to avoid it; on the contrary, I am thankful rather than otherwise for the opportunity which the noble Lord has afforded me of commenting on the observations he has made. I refer, in the first instance, to those points on which there can be no material disagreement between us. I concur with the noble Lord in the earnest desire that our amicable relations may be maintained between this country and France, and, if possible, I shall more cordially concur with him in the prayer he expressed, that it may please Almighty God to continue his protection from the hand of assassins to that great man to whom the destinies of France have been entrusted. Sir, it is impossible to hear of those repeated attacks, of those infamous and senseless attempts, without feeling pain for the character of humanity and civilization. It appears as if Providence bad provided some compensation for them for the only results of these attempts is to provoke one general feeling of disgust towards their abettors, and of sympathy for the intended victims. It would appear as if some special protection was vouchsafed to that illustrious family; and my firm belief is, that so long as they continue to reign, they constitute a sufficient guarantee for the preservation of peace. I agree in the sentiments the noble Lord has expressed on this subject. I join in that which I believe is the feeling of every hon. mind, when I express the wish that not only may the assassins be defeated, but the assassin signally punished. I cannot anticipate that the change in the Government is likely to interrupt our amicable relations with France. I do not think that they are less likely to be amicable on that account. I have seen no indication on the part of France of an indisposition towards the present Government, nor any apprehension that our amicable relations were likely to be suspended. I should be surprised if it could be so; for I recollect, on the occurrence of these events, which shook to its foundation the throne of the elder branch of the Bourbons, I was one of those who, in conjunction with my illustrious Friend, the Duke of Wellington, and many of those who are now joined with me in the Government, seeing that it appeared the will of the authorities and the people of France that their government should be committed to other hands, we did, notwithstanding the reluctance of the other Powers with whom we were in most cordial relation—we did at once advise the Crown to recognise that Sovereign on whom the choice of the people of France appeared to have fallen. With respect to the character of that man, of whom, in future ages, France will be justly proud—I mean that statesman who now presides over the government of France—I cannot but regard it as an assurance that every thing just will be done to preserve peace with this country. Relying upon that character, and animated with my own convictions on the subject, I am sure, therefore, that, consistently with the maintenance of British honour, intimate relations of amity can be preserved with France. I think these intimate relations of amity very necessary. I think it would be exceedingly deplorable if anything occurred to interrupt them, for I think relations of amity between England and France are most essential to the general tranquillity. It must conduce to the advancement of social improvement and civilization. I do not now for the first time use this language to court the opinion or the favour of the French government— it is not language adopted for the occasion, nor to facilitate the purpose that I have in view. For the last ten years, in and out of office, my language has been invariably the same. I have taken every opportunity to do justice to the character of the King of the French — on all occasions I have expressed my earnest wish for the continuance of peace—on all occasions I have declared my desire that past hostile collisions between England and France may be forgotten; that each may repose beneath the laurels which it has gained, and that the two countries, each so distinguished for its military character and achievements, may be able to maintain the feelings of amity, without the slightest reflection upon either; I have always said, that there ought to be that feeling, and that it was essential to the maintenance of peace and order. These were my feelings when I was in opposition, and it is not likely, that on my accession to office, I should shrink from repeating them. With respect to our relations with the United. States, I view them as the noble Lord does, certainly with great apprehension and anxiety; yet, as it is manifestly the interest of those two great countries, united together by so many ties, and by community of language, to maintain peace—so little, too, can be gained by war, that the wound which is inflicted by the one upon the other, must be reflected back upon the hand that caused it, that I cannot help hoping, that the prevailing good sense of the community upon the Government of each, if the Government should want that adventitious aid, will result in the maintenance of peace. I say no more, but that it is my sincere desire, that peace be maintained; but at the same time I shall feel obliged to make no concession affecting the independence or honour of this country, for the purpose of purchasing a temporary tranquillity. I approach, now, the consideration of the question respecting which a controversy has arisen between the noble Lord and myself. The part of the speech of the noble Lord, which I most regretted to hear, was that in which he said it was not his intention to require the vote of the House of Commons as to the course which I have proposed to pursue. I do wish that he had taken the sense of a House of Commons elected in accordance to his advice and under his own auspices. I wish the noble Lord had taken the sense of the House of Commons as to the reasonableness and justice of that confidence which I ask from it, and that he had enabled me to judge whether the House of Commons approved or disapproved of the course that I mean to pursue. I should have thought it so reasonable, after a lapse of ten years (with the exception of three or four months) during which I had held the situation of a private individual, that on returning to power, after a lapse of ten years, that there would be a universal impression, that it must be but reasonable that I should not be called upon in a month to propose an alteration in the law respecting the trade in corn. I should have thought, that it would have been felt to have been most advantageous to have access to official information; that it would be most desirable that I might have the opportunity of examining that body of information, and considering those views, for the collection and propounding of which, gentlemen have received large emoluments —that I might see the information that had been collected, and the opinions that had been formed. I consider, that it is only reasonable to permit me and my col- leagues to have time to consider the propositions we must submit to Parliament. But if I am responsible for not proposing measures with respect to the Corn-laws, within one month of my accession to office, what must be thought of that Government—what must be thought of that Government which has held office for five years, and which never until the month of May, 1841, intimated on the part of the Government an united opinion on the subject? What, if you are so convinced of the tremendous evils inflicted upon the country by the operation of the Corn-laws—if you think that commercial distress is justly to be attributed to them—if you think really, that those laws lie at the root of the sufferings and privations to which the labouring classes in some districts are exposed, and yet never felt it to be your duty to come forward, but permitted five years to elapse, without, as a united Government, suggesting any proposition to remedy these evils, what is to be said of you? Why did you allow this to be an open question? You may say, that you had no hope to carry it. Well, then, I do not mean to follow your example. Having considered it, I do not mean to adopt the conveniency of an open question—proposing a thing here in order that it may be defeated there. You expect that I should state to the House of Commons the course I mean to pursue on the part of a concurring united government, and stake the existence of that government upon the issue. What upon this question with respect to which you feel now so deeply convinced? But, how was it you permitted Lord Melbourne to retain office, holding the opinions he did upon this subject, and saying "No" to the proposition for inquiry? I have made appointments to which you object. But whom did you select for the particular office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade? The man who refused all inquiry into the question of the Corn-law. I say this—if you were so deeply and so intimately convinced of the necessity for a change, it was your duty, as Ministers of the Crown, to propose that change in the House of Commons. It is in vain to say you could not form a government with-out making it an open question—it is in vain to say you could not carry it. The greatest mischief you can do to great principles is to leave them in abeyance as open questions. Five years elapsed, and without any action on the part of the Government in. respect of the Corn-law; five years up to April 1841. If this feeling were entertained with respect to those laws, why did you not call the attention of Parliament to them in the Queen's Speech of 1840? Why reserve these general denunciations against the Corn-laws until a period when you had appealed to the people, and been left in a minority of 80? You brought forward the question of the Corn-laws in May 1841, and with your opinions in respect of them you brought them forward in the way most calculated to prejudice the country against giving those laws a fair consideration; because, it is clear, that if the view you take of those laws be a calm, philosophical, and comprehensive view of their operation upon the industry of the country, no matter whether you raised five millions or one shilling of duty on corn, it was your duty to call the attention of Parliament to a system that was drying up the sources of national prosperity. Why did you not in the beginning of the year 1841 —it was not until then your doubts were dispelled—but what reason could there be that you did not then, at the commencement of the Session, insert in the Queen's Speech from the Throne, a recommendation analogous to that which you gave at a moment when it was utterly impossible to carry it? Your proposal for the alteration of the Corn-laws was to be a means of raising revenue, and the proposal in the Queen's Speech of the month of August, 1841, must be construed, not as a vague general recommendation to take the Corn-laws into consideration, but as a recommendation, and it can be considered in no other sense than to adopt a tax of 8s. a quarter upon foreign corn. That was the proposal then deliberately made by the Government. Do you adhere to it now, or do you not? When in August, 1841, you recommended the Corn-law to be taken into consideration, had your recommendation reference merely to some vague, general, and indefinite inquiry into the subject, or had it reference to the specific proposal made by you in the month of May preceding, on the authority of the Government, for the adoption of a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter upon the importation of foreign wheat? If you say you are not bound to adopt the fixed duty of 8s. a quarter, with what modesty can you call upon me to declare what measures I am prepared to adopt, if you are already beginning to see reason to doubt the policy of imposing a fixed and invariable duty of 8s. a quarter on the importation of foreign corn? If you say that the subject is one still open to consideration—that a new Parliament may entertain new views on the subject—if that be your opinion, it perfectly justifies me in maintaining my present reserve until I shall be enabled to give practical and permanent effect to whatever measures I may propose. But if, on the other hand, you answer as you must answer, that what you meant then and what you mean now is to impose a fixed duty of 8s. a quarter on foreign wheat to be levied invariably, and without reference to the price of the commodity, then, permit me to say that you owe to me and to others who acted with me, some acknowledgment for not having allowed such a proposition to pass. This much I will venture to say, that if that had occurred, which might very naturally have taken place at one time —namely, that instead of there being a happy change in the weather, it had continued unfavourble to the harvest, and corn had consequently risen in price to 90s. a quarter, we should, in all probability, have been assembled here now under your auspices, for the purpose of seeking parliamentary authority to abate that 8s. duty. The scheme of the 8s. duty would have had its effect, and there must be some who, contrasting the present operation of a law, which has admitted, or will admit, a great quantity of corn for the consumption of the people, at a duty of 1s., with the invariable imposition of an 8s. duty, will be of opinion with me, that circumstances might have arisen, that might have rendered the levy of 8s. exceedingly inconvenient and calamitous. I now approach the subject of finance. The noble Lord has lamented I have not brought forward some proposal for the purpose of rescuing the country from the deficit by the imposition of taxation. And here again I say, I regret that the noble Lord has not taken the sense of the House of Commons upon this point likewise. I could earnestly wish an appeal to have been made to the deliberate judgment of men of all parties. I have been in the possession of power three weeks. During that time I have had the charge of forming a Government, and of making those constitutional arrangements which became necessary upon the formation of a new Administration. I have, also, of course, been obliged to devote some part of my time to the consideration of our foreign relations. I could well have wished, therefore, to appeal to the House, whether it be a just, whether it be a fair proposal, that I should be called upon to bring forward a measure involving permanent taxation, And from whom does this charge come? I What is the position I inherit? For five; years right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have held the reins of power. In the year 1838—or rather in the year 1837— there was a deficiency, as between the revenue and expenditure of this country, of 1,428,000l. In 1838, there was a deficiency of 430,000l. In 1840, there was a deficiency of 1,457,000l. In 1841, there is a deficiency of 1,851,000l., making together a gradual accumulating deficit, on the 5th of April 1841, of 5,166,000l. In the year ending the 5th of April 1842, it is estimated, and estimated with lamentable truth, that the deficit for this single year will amount to 2,500,000l., making a total deficit—an accumulation of deficiency, if I may use the phrase—of 7,666,000l. This is the state of things, we have come into the administration of finance, we have been in office one month, and we are asked at once to produce our financial scheme. Is this even tolerably fair—tolerably reasonable? What lights, I ask, have I to guide me? If I adopted your budget, should I repair the deficiency. So far from it, I will now proceed to show, since the noble Lord has provoked me to this discussion, that if your budget had realized all your expectation, you must have proposed a vote of credit, in order to repair your deficiency. If your most sanguine calculations had been verified, you must still have asked for a vote of credit, partaking of the character of that which my right hon. Friend will hereafter propose, to the amount at least of 800,000l. Foreseeing that there was to be a deficiency of 2,400,000l., you proposed your financial measure to repair it. You proposed to diminish the duty on Baltic timber, increasing, at the same time, the duty on Canadian timber. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit for 600,000l., to be derived in the present year from this change in taxation. Now, I will prove to the satisfaction of the House, that not one shilling of that sum of 600,000l. would have been thus immediately applicable and available. Mr. Poulett Thomson, now Lord Sydenham, has expressly declared, that although concurring in the general principle of the policy of an alteration in the timber duties, care must be taken to diminish as much as possible the pressure upon individuals, and that it was his opinion, that the recommendation of the committee of 1835 should be adhered to. Remember I am not now discussing the commercial policy of an alteration of the timber duties; I am only considering a much more limited question—namely, its financial bearing upon the revenue of the country in reference to the proposal in the budget. I am only considering whether if I adopted your budget I should be released from the necessity in which I now find myself involved. On the 24th of April, 1841, Lord Sydenham says:—' Great alarm is naturally felt by those engaged in the timber trade in Canada, at the prospect of any alteration in the duties levied on wood in the United Kingdom. He says the question must be resolved by Parliament, according to the view it takes of the general interest. Here follows a paragraph which it is unnecessary to read at length. His Lordship proceeded to say:— If any change should be determined on, disturbing the proportion of duty paid on colonial and foreign timber, care should betaken to diminish the loss to individuals by making it gradual, which is most just and politic; but above all, I must express my hope, that whatever alteration is adopted, the recommendation of the committee of 1831, of which I was chairman, will be adhered to, namely, that the change should not affect the importations of the year, which would be an act of extreme hardship to the colony. Thus it will be seen Lord Sydenham advises an adherence to the recommendation of the committee of 1835. I turn, then, to the report of that committee, which is dated August, 1835, of which Lord Sydenham was chairman, and I find these are the recommendations alluded to:— Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that such reduction be made, so far as may be consistent with the interests of the revenue, without any augmentation of the duty on colonial timber. Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that in any alterations made, such alterations should not affect the shipments made in the year 1836. Now, this report is dated August, 1835, and states, that it is the opinion of the committee, that if any alteration were to-be made, that alteration should not affect the shipments made in 1836. That is to say, Lord Sydenham advises, that the alteration of the duty be postponed till 1837. Lord Sydenham, the Governor of Canada, who is responsible for the peace of that important colony, advised you to adhere to the recommendation of the committee of 1835. If you had done so—as I know you would —is it not clear, that not one shilling would have been had to meet the deficiency of 1840? Consequently, that item of 600,000l. must be entirely and absolutely struck out of the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I now come to the consideration of the sugar duties. Seven hundred thousand pounds—that was the sum to be raised by the importation into this country of foreign sugar, upon which a duty of 37s. was to he levied, being a differential duty in favour of British sugar of 12s. From this increased duty 700,000l. was to be raised. Now, such has been the reduction of the price of British sugar, without the introduction of foreign sugar, that there is good reason to doubt whether the estimates of the noble Lord, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be correct as to the quantity of the foreign commodity to be introduced. I have here a return of the prices of sugar from the 4th of May to the 7th of September, in each of the years 1840 and 1841, and I believe it will be found, that in the first of these periods the average price of British sugar was not less than upwards of 50s. The following is the table referred to by the right hon. Baronet:—

WEEKS.	1840.	1841.
	per cwt.	per cwt.
	s.	d.	s.	d.
May 4	42	9	36	1¾
May 11	44	10½	35	10
May 18	44	9	38	2½
May 25	46	2½	39	11¾
June 1	45	1¼	38	2½
June 8	45	4¼	37	11½
June 15	44	6	37	8
June 22	45	10¼	36	7½
June 29	50	11	36	2½
July 6	55	11½	35	2¼
July 13	57	3	35	9½
July 20	57	2¾	36	0½
July 27	57	0¾	36	10¾
August 3	57	4¼	37	7½
August 10	56	9	36	3
August 17	57	1¼	36	3
August 24	58	1	36	4½
August 31	58	3¾	36	3
September 7	58	9	34	8¾

I have not the exact calculation of the averages, but I believe, that will be found a correct estimate. In each following week, from the 3rd of August to the 7th of September, the prices of British sugar per cwt. were as follow; 57s. 4¼d., 56s. 9d., 57s. 1¼d., 58s. 1d. 58s. 3¾d., 58s. 9d. Such were the prices in 1840. Let us compare them with he prices in 1841. During the same period if the latter year, namely from the 3d of August to the 7th of September, the weekly prices were 37s. 7½d., 36s. 3d¾., 36s. 3d. 56s. 4½d., 36s. 3d., and in the last week, sliding the 7th of September, the price of sugar was down at 34s. 8¾d. Thus in the week ending 7th September, 1840, the price of sugar per cwt. was 58s. 9d., and n the same week in the year 1841 it was 34s. 9d., being a reduction in price of 24s. The average price of sugar, then, in the present year, if you take all the weeks, Joes not exceed 36s. 8d., being subject to a duty of 25s. The noble Lord says the average price of foreign sugar in bond is 22s., the duty of 37s. makes it 59s.; to this must be added 2s. for the costs of admission into internal consumption, making thus a total of 61s. as the price at which foreign sugar can be profitably used, and without causing any ground for alarm to the British grower. But the British grower has contrived to supply the country with sugar at 36s., and, therefore, if the noble Lord's calculation be correct, there would have been little or no importation of foreign sugar. If that be the case, making sonic deduction for some that may have been brought in, what becomes of the 700,000l. which you expected? But I will take 500,000l., and having already got 1,400,000l. not in hand, but exactly the reverse, that being the amount of the deficit I have already shown to exist, and adding to that the 500,000l., the total amount of deficit amounts to 1,900,000l., for which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer must have made provision, either by taxation, or by a vote of credit. I now come, Sir, to the duty on corn, on which we were to raise 400,000l. But in order to justify the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the duty raised upon corn must have amounted to 1,500,000l. [Lord John Russell dissented]. I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I may be mistaken, but if I remember rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he estimated the produce of the Customs in 1841 to be equivalent to the produce of the Customs in 1840. Now part of the Customs duty of 1840 was 1,100,000l. raised from corn, and consequently that 1,100,000l. must be added to the 400,000l. for which the right hon. Gentleman took credit in his bndget because if there was any deficiency in the 1,100,000l. in 1840,it would probably give a corresponding one in the Customs duties of 1841; consequently, unless you could raise 1,500,000l. from com in 1841, the deficit in 1841—amounting, as I have already clearly shown, to 1,900,000l. — would have been increased in proportion. Sir, whatever approbation the noble Lord may receive from those who sit behind him —whatever cry may be raised about the injustice of the "bread tax" and a duty upon the subsistence of the people, there are some among them, I apprehend, who will not hear with very cordial satisfaction that a part of the budget was to levy 1,500,000l. upon corn. I know, indeed, that they will say that advantage to trade and regularity of commercial transactions would be promoted by a fixed duty upon coin, yet I think if those Gentlemen could divest themselves of their political character and associations, they would, consistently with their own views, rejoice that the project of a fixed duty was not carried into effect. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit for a deficiency of 2,500,000l., and short as has been my opportunity of considering the subject, I have yet devoted some time to it, and it appears questionable whether that deficit of 2,500,000l., is, in point of fact, all that we have to calculate upon; for I am bound to say, I think the promises of future years are anything but satisfactory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a provision of 400,000l. for the expense of the expedition to China, and said he should not be called upon to provide any similar sum in a future year. But, Sir, are those anticipations likely to be realized. I say nothing whatever of the policy of the operations, but I simply ask, is it not probable that the demand to be made upon us in a future year for the public services of the present year on account of the expedition to China, will far exceed 400,000l.? The estimated expense required for the year 1841, by the last return presented to the House so far as it can at present be ascertained was, 625,299l. That paper is dated 28th of May, 1840, and the periods to which it refers were long antecedent. I will venture to say that this expense of 625,000l. had been incurred in October, 1840, and of the expenses incurred since October 1840, what means have we of judging. This is all the information we have. A nota bene states, "No accounts have been received from which an accurate estimate can be made." But I do read in the newspapers accounts from persons likely to be well informed, which lead me to believe that the subsequent expense will be very great. Captain H. L. Fleming Senhouse, for instance, of her Majesty's ship the Blenheim, writing about Mrs. Noble, on the 10th of March, 1841, says— Sir—Under feelings of the deepest indignation at the barbarous and savage conduct of I he Chinese in the immediate vicinity of the Emperor's High Commissioner, Klepon, at Ningpoo, in the treatment of a poor unfortunate widowed shipwrecked female, by confining her in a cage of the cube of three feet by three feet two inches, and retaining heri n prison until the very moment almost in which she was about to bring into the world an orphan child of her departed husband, drowned in the wreck; at a time also when we had been exercising for eight months the most extreme and unparalleled forbearance and kindness to the Chinese; thereby incurring an expense of probably the full amount of the remuneration we are seeking; and at a time when we were actually liberating the prisoners without ransom or restriction, giving up their property to a large amount. Of course on this subject I wish to give no positive opinion there is no doubt that great additional expense must have been incurred. I speak now of finance, and finance only, but I say that no clear sighted or prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer, when calculating the expenditure of the country, can omit from his consideration, the probable future demands for the expense of the Chinese operations. I must own, indeed, that it appears to me the noble Lord has made a speech net calculated to create a favourable impression in the country, and of not a little tendency to add to the difficulties that encompass those who have taken office. I do not hesitate to avow that I look with alarm at the growing tendency to expense in our colonial possessions. In a paper just presented there is an estimate for the civil expenses of Hong Kong, at 9,000l. for the present year, including the cutting of a main road; and in the same paper the necessity of adopting enlarged and comprehensive views for the civil Government' of that island, was pressed upon the Government at home. This is the position in which I find affairs. This is the position in which I am called upon to estimate the probable expenditure and to make provision to meet it. I will now come to New South Wales. I find by a dispatch from Sir George Gipps to Lord John Russell, dated, 31st of January, 1841, that Sir George has issued a great number of bounty warrants for emigrants. I may observe that the total number of emigrants is stated in the despatch at 71,315, and the amount of bounties payable upon them is also stated at 979,562l. payable within two years. The noble Lord certainly contemplated with just alarm this enormous demand, and very properly rebuked the Governor for the course he had taken. The noble Lord said— The same mail which has brought to me this report of the commercial embarrassments of New South Wales, and of the overtrading and ill-advised system of credit to which you ascribe them, has also brought me your despatch, of the 31st of January, 1841, (No. 29), on the subject of bounties on emigration. From that despatch I learn that you have given orders for bounty, payable within two years, for no less a sum than 979,562l. This is a fact which has arrested my most serious attention, and which I cannot regard without deep anxiety. It will form the subject of a separate communication, which I shall address to you as soon as I am in possession of the results of certain inquiries which I have thought it right to institute. For the present I can only express my earnest hope that the commercial embarrassments which you have depicted will have suggested to you the absolute necessity of abstaining from the multiplication of such orders. On the part of her Majesty's Government, I must disclaim any responsibility for this proceeding, and any obligation to ratify your engagements to the enormous extent to which you have entered into them. On the other hand, as to the colony, it appears that at the moment of the commercial embarrassment to which you have referred, there were afloat in the market bounty-orders amounting to nearly 1,000,000l. sterling, the whole of which, it is but too probable, the colonial treasury may be called upon to redeem. It is difficult to measure the effect which such an operation must have had in stimulating that reckless spirit of commercial enterprise to which you ascribe the disasters of the colony; but it is clear that the effect must have been very considerable. It is impossible to regard a financial operation of this kind as one in which the British Treasury is not deeply interested. If proof of this were wanting it would be abundantly supplied by the experience of the present year, in the case of South Australia. The governor said, that the colony was involved in commercial distress, but he argued, I presume, that the case was no worse than that of the British Treasury, and that he, therefore, might as well imitate the conduct of the British Treasury, in saying, the greater our distress the more liberal be our expenditure. The noble Lord took immediate steps to reduce the expenditure; he recalled the bounties; but do whatever he might, there will not be left a sum less than 500,000l. to be provided for in the same way in other colonies. Demands will be thus made upon the colonial exchequers, which they will be unable to meet, and at what door they will knock for the payment of these liabilities needs no specific indication. Such items as these I must consider, and I ask and demand from the justice of this House, time and opportunity for proper deliberation upon them. I have taken you from Hong Kong to New South Wales, and I now come to South Australia. Such was the desperate state of that colony, that last year we provided 155,000l. to meet the exigency. Since then, a further expense of 14,000l. has been incurred, for which no provision has been made. Bills, to that amount, have been presented, which have been protested by the Treasury. It is quite clear that other bills are upon their road, and all I apprehend is, that we shall ultimately have to bear the expense both of the bills and the protests. Thus we have 155,000l. for South Australia. Then, with regard to New Zealand, bills to the amount of 33,000l. have been drawn upon the bankrupt treasury of New South Wales; that treasury which is already without the means of paying its own liabilities. But do not flatter yourselves that that is all, for there are indications that bills to the amount of 54,000l. more are on their way. Thus a sum of between 80,000l. and 90,000l. is required to meet that exigency. The estimate taken with respect to Canada was, I believe, 600,000l., but since the budget, a distinct intimation has been given, that the credit of this country is to be guaranteed to Canada for a loan of upwards of a million. I am not now questioning the policy of that, I say nothing of the propriety of adhering to engagements entered into under the circumstances in which Canada is now placed. I say again, here is a new obligation contracted on the part of this country. But you will say, that affording credit to a country is a very different thing from an advance in money. That is true, but you guaranteed to the extent of 100,000l. for fortifications, for which no provision has been made. [Lord John Russell: Yes;] I thought that this was since the despatch of Lord Sydenham had been received; but if I am in error, I am sorry for it. Still I give credit to the noble Lord for the vigilance he exerted to stop this course when it became known to him, and for the very proper rebuke he administered to the governor. But considering these things, am I not justified in reprehending that tendency to expense in our colonial establishments, which threatens ultimately to fall upon this country? And I also appeal to every man whether I have not preferred an al- most conclusive claim to the justice of permitting the Government to have time and opportunity to review these things. The noble Lord says, that Parliament ought not to separate without some financial measure being brought forward. I appeal again to all, whether it would not be desirable to see exactly the state of our relation towards the United States before we proceed further? Would it not be well to have the opportunity to settle that question? That is another reason why before we propose a general financial scheme, we should be allowed the opportunity for a few weeks to consider the exact position in which we stand. There is a commercial treaty negotiating between Naples, one with Texas and one with Brazils. Above all, there is one with France. I say nothing of the policy of that treaty, but it was under serious consideration, which was, I believe, postponed in consequence of the quadruple treaty of July, and the temporary alienation of France. That treaty proposes to allow of the importation of French wine and brandy at a greatly reduced duty. Is it not clear that such a proposition as that must materially affect the consideration of the amount of the tax levied on British spirits, on colonial rum, and on wines imported from other countries besides France? It has not been possible for me hitherto, even to read the correspondence upon this subject; and other more pressing matters will for weeks intervene, and prevent me from reading. Is not this in itself a conclusive reason why the House, whatever distrust the noble Lord may entertain respecting the constitution of some parts of the Government, should accede to the demand I make for time to allow me to consider what course I shall take? That demand is not, I beg the House to understand, founded upon considerations of personal convenience, but upon those of what is due to the public interests. If it be right that these things should be undertaken and brought to a close at the time they are undertaken, is it not right also that they should not be proposed on the responsibility of a Government without further time than has already been afforded to me and my colleagues for the consideration of comprehensive questions of this nature? The noble Lord did me justice, in a frank and handsome manner, with respect to the course I have pursued and the advice I have tendered to the Crown regarding the constitution of the Government of Ireland. But if I have already attracted some degree of confidence on that ground, let me re- mind the noble Lord what were the confident predictions made a short time back, with respect to the course I must take, relative to Ireland. Was I not told, night alter night, that I would not dare to form a Government for that country, that I could not form one which would attract general confidence? Was I not told that I must be the instrument—the reluctant and degraded instrument — of men who were ready to offer coarse insults to their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. Was I not told that they would hoist the standard of ascendancy and demand from me a complete and servile acquiescence in their views? That, it was said, would be the inevitable consequence of my accession to power; and yet not a month has elapsed, and the noble Lord admits that over that difficulty, at least, I have triumphed, and have constituted the government for Ireland in such a manner as gives assurance that the universal people of that country shall be treated with impartiality and justice. I have made no concessions for the purpose of purchasing support. I intend to administer the law with firmness, and, I hope, with dignity. I will not permit the administration of Irish affairs to be influenced by the hope of conciliating support in the House of Commons, but 1 declare that the engagement into which I have entered to administer impartial justice in that country, shall, as far as depends upon me, be strictly fulfilled. The appointment of Lord de Grey, who was with difficulty induced to undertake the important functions which remove him from occupations and enjoyments most refined and honourable to a man in his station, as also the appointment of Lord Eliot, and lastly, the appointment of Sir Edward Sugden as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, afford, I think, grounds as strong as any public appointments can give, for believing that it is my determination to adhere to the declarations I made as to the mode in which I should feel it my duty to administer the affairs of Ireland. My right hon. Friend, Sir E. Sugden felt himself under an obligation to accept the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland because he was in receipt of a pension, honourably acquired by him in consequence of the sacrifice of professional emoluments, but acquired after only a short discharge of public judicial duties. My right hon. Friend, therefore, acting upon the principles which have always actuated him, felt it his duty to resume the office he before held. He felt that the public had a claim upon him, but I do not hesitate to say, that if any circumstance had occurred to prevent the resumption of office by my right hon. Friend, I would have selected; from the Irish bar an Irish Chancellor: I would have paid that compliment to a bar which stands as high as any in the profession. The noble Lord, however, after having been, I will not say reluctantly compelled to admit, but after having at once admitted that I have triumphed over the difficulty that threatened my course with regard to Ireland, declared that, on account of the constitution of my Government in this country, and of certain menaces which he said had been held out in the House of Lords, that it is impossible for me to discharge my public duty upon other points relating to the domestic policy of the country. I can assure the noble Lord that it is my intention to act upon a sense of public duty, and to propose those measures which my own conviction of what is requisite for the public interests shall make me think it desirable to propose. It is right that there should be a distinct understanding as to the terms on which, a public man holds office. The force of circumstances, and a sense of public duty have compelled me to take upon myself the harassing and laborious office in which I am placed. What can be my inducement to take office, and to make the sacrifices which the acceptance of it enjoins? What can be my inducement but the hope of rendering service to my country, and of acquiring honourable fame. Is it likely that I would go through the labour which is daily imposed upon me if I could not claim for myself the liberty of proposing to Parliament those measures which I believe to be conducive to the public weal? I will claim that liberty—I will propose those measures, and I do assure this House that no considerations of mere political support should induce me to hold such an office as that which I fill by a servile tenure, which would compel me to be the instrument of carrying other men's opinions into effect. I do not estimate lightly the distinction which office gives. It is not valuable on account of the patronage which it enables its possessor to dispense, nor from the personal distinction it confers upon him; it is only valuable to any man fit to hold it for an hour, on account of the opportunity it gives him of serving his country, and the moment I shall be convinced that the power of doing that according to my conscientious sense of public duty, is denied to me, then I tell every man in the country that he has con- ferred no personal obligation on me by having placed me in this office; but, free as the wind, I reserve to myself the power of retiring from the discharge of onerous and harassing duties which under such circumstances, could no longer be discharged with satisfaction to myself or advantage to my country.

Viscount Palmerston

Whether the reasons which the right hon. Baronet has assigned for abstaining from making an exposition of his views before Parliament is prorogued, are satisfactory to himself and the hon. Members who sit behind him, he best can tell; but I take leave to say, that, having listened with great attention to all that has fallen from him, I do not think they will he considered satisfactory by the country at large. The right hon. Baronet has challenged my noble Friend to take the sense of the House upon this question. We know well enough from the result of the last election what the decision of the House upon that question would be, but, however the right hon. Baronet may plume himself upon his majority, I tell him to refrain from reposing too great and unlimited confidence on that support, for he should remember that there is a country as well as a House of Commons. I warn him not to rely too confidently that the opinion of the majority of this House—though, technically he is entitled to represent it as that of the country—will be borne out by the opinion of the people at large. The right, hon. Baronet stated, that he agreed, in general, with the observations made by my noble Friend on the present position of our foreign relations. It was not upon that ground certainly that my noble Friend thought any prolonged sitting of Parliament necessary. It is undoubtedly true, that as far as regards the foreign relations of the country, the right hon. Baronet might prorogue Parliament to-morrow, and no public inconvenience would result therefrom. This, at least, I may say, that we have handed over to the hon. Gentlemen opposite the foreign relations of the country in a state as satisfactory as secure, and as much calculated to inspire just confidence as they were ever in at any former period of the history of this country. It is not, therefore, on account of the slate of our foreign relations that it is necessary to keep Parliament sitting, or to call it together again at an early period. The first point to which my noble Friend alluded, as one with respect to which it was necessary for the right hon. Baronet to state what were the intentions of the Government, was the Corn laws, and I must say I think the reply given by the right hon. Baronet upon that point was anything but satisfactory. The right hon. Baronet says that he has been out of office for ten years, and therefore is unable as yet to form any opinion on this matter; but he has not been out of the country. He has not been out of public life, he has not been out of Parliament. He knows as well as any other man what is passing in the country. He has given his attention to the state of public affairs, and if any man is capable of forming an opinion upon matters connected with the great interests of the country, and more especially upon this particular question, it is the right hon. Baronet from his habits, attainments, and pursuits. The right hon. Baronet asked whether it were fair to reproach him with not being prepared with a measure on the subject of the Corn-laws, considering that the late Government were five years in office, before they brought forward their measure on the subject. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman use an argument of that nature, which is, in fact, applicable to every measure which was ever proposed, because whenever any measure is proposed any man might exclaim, "You are to blame for not having proposed this ten years sooner." Every measure has its period. Circumstances lead to the proposal of great measures at particular times, and it is no fair reproach to those who propose them, that they had not done so at an earlier period. It might be said that when we proposed our measure respecting the Corn laws, public attention had not been sufficiently directed to the subject, and that parties interested in the question had not been called upon to consider it with reference to their interests. But that objection can no longer apply. The question was proposed and discussed in the last Parliament, and therefore the right hon. Baronet does not stand now in the same situation as that in which, the late Government stood with reference to this subject. I think that (.he right hon. Baronet might have abstained on this occasion from again lending his authority to the frequently contradicted misrepresentation of what fell from Lord Melbourne on the subject of the Corn-law. The right hon. Baronet has again given his sanction to a studiously circulated misrepresentation of Lord Melbourne's observations. [Sir Robert Peel: No, I have not] I refer to what fell from Lord Melbourne in the House of Lords. The right hon. Baronet expressed his surprise that the Colleagues of Lord Melbourne should have remained in office with that noble Lord who had expressly disapproved of the measures which they wished to pass. What Lord Melbourne said can be seen, if any one will refer to the volumes which are so often in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If reference be made, it will be seen that what Lord Melbourne said was, that he repudiated any measure which tended to deprive agriculture of all protection; but that he was by no means prepared to say, that circumstances might not occur which would lead him to agree to a change in the existing Corn-laws. The misrepresentation of which I complain, but in which I now understand the right hon. Baronet to say he does not concur, is the assertion that Lord Melbourne declared himself opposed to all change in the Corn-laws, whilst, in fact, he limited his objection to a change which would leave agriculture destitute of all protection. The right hon. Baronet gives us to understand that he is prepared to propose a change in the Corn-laws, but that he will not propose it until he can do so as the head of a united Government. Now, looking to the constitution of his Government—seeing who are the members of his Cabinet — adverting to opinions expressed by some of those persons, and to opposite opinions expressed by persons holding high office in the Government, though not in the Cabinet, I venture to predict that if the right hon. Baronet is to wait to propose his measure until he can do so as the head of a united Government, he will require not only the five months during which he wishes Parliament to be prorogued, but somewhat nearer the five years which lie reproached us for having allowed to pass before we introduced our measure on the subject. I do not think that the want of leisure which the right hon. Baronet has pleaded is a sufficient reason for his not stating to Parliament and the country what his intentions are. My noble Friend did not urge him to do so this week, or the next, but my noble Friend stated, and I think justly, that, the question having been broached last spring, and those who now compose the Government having had ample time to turn it over in their minds, Parliament should not be prorogued till the beginning of February next, leaving the whole country in a state of uncertainty not only as to what alteration the Government mean to propose, but even as to whether they mean to propose any change at all. So far as individual feelings go, I may say that to us who have been for a long time performing most laborious duties, nothing could be more agreeable than the prolonged relaxation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to afford us; but on a question of such immense importance, affecting the dearest interests of the country, and the existence, almost of a large portion of the population, I think the right hon. Baronet is not justified in pursuing the course which he has chalked out for himself. The right hon. Baronet asks whether we would now stand by the measure which we proposed respecting the Corn-laws? Undoubtedly we would. The right hon. Baronet seems to have a very odd notion of the effect of the duty proposed by us. He said, "Suppose that, in consequence of a bad harvest in this country, the price of wheat had risen to 90s., would you then have proposed a duty of 8s.!" What has the price in this country to do with the question? If the right hon. Baronet had I assumed that the prices had risen very high in the countries from which corn was to be imported, then, indeed, he might argue that any duty at all added to the cost price, and to the expense of bringing it to this country, would prevent its importation; but the higher the price rises here, provided that it be not accompanied with a corresponding rise of price abroad, the more inconsiderable becomes the duty imposed on importation. The prospect of a bad harvest in this country, so far from being a reason why the 8s. duty should be abandoned, might furnish a reason why those who thought that duty too high before should be of opinion that, under the circumstances, it was not too high. That was his answer to those who objected to a fixed duty, upon the ground that, if corn were to rise to a high price, such duty could not be exacted. That was a false argument, founded on an inversion of true reasoning. But if there be any sense in the argument we have employed—if there be any truth 'in our general reasoning—corn could never attain a high price in this country under! a fixed duty, because it would be always flowing in a constant stream, and thus would prevent those fluctuations which are the cause of great suffering amongst the people, and are detrimental to the general interests of the country. I say, then; that we stand by our measure, and I wish to know what is the measure by which hon. Members opposite mean to stand. The right hon. Baronet assigned as a reason for not being able to attend to these important matters, that he had to undergo great labour in forming his Administration. I can easily believe that the right hon. Baronet has had no little trouble in that respect, and I am by no means disposed to underrate it, but we do not ask him to state what his intentions are to-night or to-morrow. We will willingly allow him weeks for consideration; but we contend, that it is not fitting that Parliament should be sent to the right-about from this time to the beginning of February, leaving the country all the while in total ignorance as to whether the Government means to stand by the Corn-law as it now exists—whether they mean to propose a modified sliding scale, or whether they intend to become converts to our scheme of a fixed duty, and propose it themselves to Parliament. I think that all parties— whether it be the agricultural interest which wishes to retain protection, or the manufacturing and commercial interests, which desire a greater freedom and extension of trade—will be of opinion that the new Government having had time to consider the question, ought not to let Parliament separate for so long a period, without stating what their intentions are respecting it. The right hon. Baronet says, that events have proved how lightly my right hon. Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the details of his budget. First, with respect to the timber duties, the right hon. Baronet stated, that my right hon. Friend would not have obtained the amount which he calculated upon by the change of those duties. Why not, I should like to know? What proof did the right hon. Baronet offer upon that point? Anything to be found in the statement of my right hon. Friend? No, but i merely a wish expressed by the Governor-general of Canada, and a report of a Committee of the House of Commons. The simple answer to that is, that the recommendation of the Governor-general, and the report of the committee did not constitute the measure proposed by us to Parliament, however great the weight which is justly due to that recommendation, and to that report, the measure which they pointed to, was not the measure which we proposed, and, therefore, all the elaborate argument of the right hon. Baronet, tending to show that the change my right hon. Friend proposed in the duties on timber, would not have produced the amount he calculated upon, was thrown away. Then the right hon. Baronet said, that the quantity of British sugar imported had greatly exceeded the amount calculated by my right hon. Friend, that the price of such sugar had fallen considerably, and that, therefore, foreign sugar, at the higher duty, would not have been consumed to the extent necessary to produce the amount of revenue which my right hon. Friend calculated upon. There, again, the right hon. Baronet has fallen into a mistake. My right hon. Friend made his calculation either way. He argued thus:— "If the supply of British sugar continues to be small, and the price high, I will get the sum I want by the higher duty of 41s. on the foreign sugar which will then come in; if, on the contrary, there should be an unexpected increase in the supply of British sugar, I shall then obtain the revenue I want from the duty of 24s. payable on that article, and any duty which may be paid on foreign sugar will be in addition to what I want." My right hon. Friend reckoned, that if the consumption of British sugar in 1841, should be equal to what it was in 1831, he should get his revenue from British sugar alone. The right hon. Baronet says, "that on looking over the departments of the Government, he finds the expenses of the country exceed those on which we had reckoned; that fresh demands are springing up from various quarters; and that nothing can be more unreasonable than to call upon him to slate his financial views, until he is accurately informed respecting all these additional expenses." My noble Friend did not ask the right hon. Baronet to make any detailed financial statement; he distinctly stated that he did not; all he wished was, that the right hon. Baronet should state his views upon those great questions which affect the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country. What the right hon. Baronet has alleged respecting the new demands which are coming upon the Government, in my opinion, forms no sufficient excuse for the course he proposes to pursue. When the right hon. Baronet told us, that with regard to China the expense for the year 1841 would much exceed the 400,000l. which were taken in the estimate, he also admitted that that excess would not require to be provided for by Parliament until 1842, and therefore would not add to the deficiency of the present year. The right hon. Baronet said, "I see in a return, that it is stated that no accounts have yet been received from China on which a detailed estimate can be formed; "but he must know that the reason of that is, that the expense of that expedition is to be defrayed in the first instance, by the East-India Company, and that it is only when the East-India Company have made up their own accounts, that they will be able to state their demand to the Government. It is, therefore, a kind of double operation, and is not so simple a one as if the bills were drawn on the Treasury in the first instance, by which means accounts would be more readily obtained. "But though," said the right hon. Baronet, "you have no official accounts, I have an account that enables me to form an opinion," and then he reads a letter cut out of a newspaper, and written by the captain of a man of war to a Mrs. Noble, who had unfortunately been taken prisoner by the Chinese, and who had suffered a great deal of barbarous usage, having been confined and carried about in an iron cage of very small dimensions. This letter written in the usual style of a private letter; is, it seems, to be quoted to the country and to the House of Commons as the ground on which financial calculations are to be made, and we are told that Capt. Senhouse (the writer of the letter) says "they are going on spending at such a rate, that they will soon spend all the Chinese have to pay." Why surely such private letters as these, are not to be gravely offered as grounds for parliamentary proceedings. But then came, "something tangible," and which was to make the House shudder at the expense. "The Superintendent in China proposes to male a main road through the whole extent of Hong Kong." I cannot undertake to say whether the island is five or seven miles in length, but if the right hon. Baronet has no other deficiency to provide for except the expense incurred by gravelling the road in Hong Kong, he will not have much difficulty in extricating himself from the embarrassments which at present seem to alarm him so much. Then we come to South Australia, and it certainly appears by the papers that were laid before the House yesterday, that an enormous expenditure was contemplated by the governor of that colony. But what has my noble Friend done on that subject? The moment he heard of the intended expenditure he stopped it. [No, no.] It is true he could not stop the whole expenditure, and the right hon. Baronet said that the sum of 500,00Ol. on that account remains to be provided for by this country. I believe, however, that I speak on good grounds when I say that 300,000l. of that sum, if not the whole of it, will be provided for by the colony. The right hon. Baronet then said that bills from New Zealand to the amount of 100,000l. were to be provided for, whilst an estimate on that account was only 6,000l. The right hon. Baronet must know that it is impossible for a Government to estimate accurately the expenses of distant colonial possessions. Excess of expenditure within certain limits is liable to happen in such colonies at any time, and if the right hon. Baronet postpones the statement of his views on finance until the colonies are brought into such order that the colonial expenditure is in perfect harmony with the estimates, I am afraid the House of Commons must wait for a longer period than next February before it can obtain the development of his policy. My noble Friend did not call upon the right hon. Baronet to state now his financial project for the ensuing year, hut he stated that he considered it incumbent upon a Government consisting of a party who have turned us out of office on certain great questions of trade and commerce, and who are now in power backed by a majority which enables them to carry their principles into practice, to tell the House whether they intend to pursue in office the course they pursued when out of office, namely, to refuse all relaxation of our commercial system, and to stand upon the principles of restriction and monopoly. It will not do for the right hon. Baronet to pretend he has not yet had the information necessary to enable him to make up his mind on the corn question. Every information necessary to enable him to do so has been long before the public, and a man who is not content with that may ransack the archives of the Foreign-office and Board of Trade, and read himself blind without arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Baronet has alluded to the commercial negotiations, now pending between this and foreign countries, as an additional reason for delay. It is true, that during the last two or three years, the British Government has been negotiating with that of France upon matters connected with commerce. There is a commercial treaty pending between England and Portugal—there has been a commercial treaty proposed to Naples; it is possible that commercial negotiations may be opened with the United States of America, and also with the Brazils—all these things are true, but they tend to make good our argument, and not that of the right hon. Baronet. The greater the number of countries with which we have unsettled negotiations relating to commercial intercourse, the wore expedient is it that we should proceed, without the loss of a day, to knock off those fetters which hitherto have crippled and embarrassed the commerce of this country. For the matters which we are now discussing are not matters for foreign negotiation. Shall we negociate with foreign countries as to whether we shall relieve our own people from the vexatious restraints to which the present law renders them liable? are the manufacturing and commercial classes of this country to be told that they are not to be relieved from the shackles which cripple them, unless her Majesty's Government can persuade Portugal, Brazil, Naples, and France, to agree to some certain things upon which negotiations are now pending. I say that, whether these countries agree to the propositions that are made to them or not, the course of policy that we suggest is wise and useful in itself, and it ought to be adopted without any reference whatever to the proceedings of foreign states. But would you not, indeed, be in a much better position to negociate with foreign countries, if you had done the things which we propose before you entered upon your negotiations? Will any one tell me that the negotiation with Brazil, whenever it is commenced, would not be carried on in a much better spirit, and with a much greater prospect of advantage to this country, it Parliament had adopted the measure which we proposed in the last Session? Will any man tell me that if we were able to say to other countries "We not only preach freedom of commerce, but practise it,"—it we could say—" when we tell you that restrictions on commerce and manufactures are injurious to yourselves, and therefore wish you to get rid of them, we are only telling you the truth, and asking you to do what we ourselves have done?" Will any man tell me that if we were able to address foreign nations in such language, our negotiations would not have ten times the effect that they will now have when the Government will be reproached by France, by Portugal, and the other countries with which we have negotiations pending, in some such terms as these: "You wish us to revise our tariffs, but we look to what you yourselves do—you act on the principle that high protecting duties are essential to the prosperity of your domestic interests—we only say the same thing in regard to our own case—do not expect us to do what you yourselves refuse to do." It is true, that there has been a negotia- tion going on with Trance for a reduction of the tariff on both skies? and, undoubtedly, had that negotiation come to a conclusion, if the English Government had agreed to any considerable reduction in the duties on brandy, it would have been necessary for my right hon. Friend (the late Chancellor of the Exchequer) to have made some provision for the temporary diminution of revenue which might have been expected to result therefrom. But so far from that being considered by the late Government, as a reason for postponing till next year, the development of their financial and commercial views, it was on that very account that the French government were told, that as they had not concluded the negotiation in the early part of this year, it could not be concluded until the beginning of the next; because it would be inconvenient to make any reciprocal agreement for the reduction of the duties between the two countries at a period when a considerable interval of time must necessarily intervene before the sanction of Parliament could be procured for the alteration. Therefore, I say, that the country will not consider satisfactory the reasons assigned by the Government for not being now, or within a short period from this time, prepared to state fully and fairly their views and intentions with respect to those great questions which have agitated the mind of the public during the last few months. And I again say, that I shall be greatly mistaken if the hon. Gentlemen opposite do not find, that however backed they may be in their present course by the votes of a majority of this House, they will not be backed by the opinions of any great class or interest of this country. The right hon. Baronet prides himself, and with some reason, on the choice which he has made of a Lord-lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland. My noble Friend (Lord John Russell), with the frankness and candour which distinguish him, was the first to bear testimony to the propriety of this selection; but my noble Friend did not say that those appointments were a guarantee to Ireland that its affairs would be administered in that spirit which the wishes and feelings of the country require. The right hon. Baronet, however, said that these appointments are such a guarantee. I hope they may prove to be so. As far as the appointments themselves go, they certainly are an indication of a right feeling towards Ireland. I will makeno prognostications—I only hope that the assurances of the right hon. Baronet may turn. out to be true, and that these appointments may not only be a source of hope, but a guarantee to Ireland. I am sure the right hon. Baronet must feel that that which he stated two years ago is not less true now, namely, that Ireland is the great difficulty of any person taking office and governing the country, through the party of which the right hon. Baronet is the head. The right hon. Baronet has stated, that which, no doubt, is his real sentiment and intention, that he will not hold office longer than he is able to act upon his own opinions and convictions. Every public man must be desirous of power if he deems that he has ability and strength to wield it. For a man who has formed strong and decided opinions upon public affairs, there cannot be any object of ambition mere honourable, than the attainment of a position which enables him to carry into effect principles and views which he thinks will tend to the honour and advantage of his country, to the promotion and extension of civilisation, and to the happiness and well-being of mankind. I have no doubt that the right hon. Baronet entertains those sentiments, and everything in his past life tends to confirm the declaration he has made this evening; but I should be sorry to consider the determination expressed on his part as any guarantee to the country, that his opinions will practically be carried into effect. For when I contemplate the motley mass of opinions and sentiments prevailing amongst the great party by which he is supported—and when we know how widely the opinions of many of those upon whose support he depends, differ from those which he himself entertains—1 must say, that however satisfactory that declaration of his may be, with regard to his own personal opinions and intentions, I fear it cannot be considered by the country as any guarantee that he will be able to carry those opinions and intentions into practical effect. That, however, time alone can show. I can only repeat, that I think the right hon. Baronet has not given any sufficient or satisfactory-reasons for abstaining now from stating the nature and character of the opinions which he may have formed, opinions which a man of his knowledge, his capacity and attention to public affairs, must long since have fixed and settled in his own mind. The only inference that the country can draw from the silence of the Government, and from the prolonged delay which is to be interposed to the progress of public business, is, that the Cabinet, of which the right hon. Baronet is the head, is not at present an united Cabinet—that as yet the opinions of those who compose it, and support it, are not in unison with those of the right hon. Baronet, and therefore, that he feels the delay that he mentions necessary, to enable him, as he says he well do, either to come before the House, as the representative of an united Government, or to state to the country in the other alternative, that he is unable to go on with the administration of public affairs. If that be frankly stated to the country—if the country be fairly given to understand that that is the reason for the delay, namely, that the Government are not as yet agreed as to the measures to be proposed, that upon the question of corn and free trade there are divisions in the Cabinet which the right hon. Baronet has not yet had time to heal—which he has not yet had the means of reconciling—then, certainly the good sense and good feeling of the country would induce it to wait. Only I would submit, that in that case, the result might be ascertained earlier than in February next; and that in October, as proposed by my noble Friend. The Cabinet ought to have settled what it means to do—what its own opinions are— what it intends to propose, and what it is determined to resist; and there is, I think, no sufficient reason for a delay till February?

Mr. Villiers

said, that having had such frequent occasion lately to hear of the distresses of the people, and knowing how closely they connected their present condition with the Corn-laws, he had attended the House that evening to learn from the right hon. Baronet what measures of relief, or what amendments of those laws of which such high expectations had been formed would be announced by him; he could not, therefore, suffer this opportunity to pass without expressing his deep disappointment which he was convinced he should share with millions of his countrymen as to the course now understood to be determined upon by the Government, and he could not help considering, that the prorogation of Parliament to the distant day, intended no less than the reasons assigned for it were about as great a mark of contempt for the sufferings, feelings, and interests of the people as he had ever known manifested. Why, really, as an independant observer of what had been passing during this year, he had thought that the whole year had been spent in waiting for the present moment, for from the begin- ing of the year till this time, every obstruction has been offered to public business, every measure has been suspended, attention has been refused to all but party objects because it was alleged the late Government was not competent to carry on the business, and had not the confidence of the country. It was said that those who now occupied their places were the fit men to originate measures of relief, were the only men now capable of devising remedies for the evils that existed, and that the country would continue depressed as long as the last Ministry continued in power. That was said by Gentlemen opposite, and as the late Ministers had lost favour in the country, it was credited where it was uttered. What, then, must be the feeling of the country when every condition as far as the change of the Ministry went had been fulfilled, and when the right hon. Baronet, after giving out that he would express his opinion what was required for the health of the State, and what was necessary to meet its disorders, when he was placed in a responsible situation, when he held the reigns of power, and when he was called upon to act, instead of hearing of anything to soothe the patient and allay the grief and sorrow which distress was occasioning throughout the country to find that having wasted six months in placing him in that situation they must waste six months more in giving him time to express an opinion, before, indeed, he could admit that there was distress, or be able to assign any cause for it, and this, too, when we are at the end of the fourth year since large masses of the people have been praying in the most respectful manner, in annually increasing numbers, that you will inquire into the operation of these laws, which they believe, and have the highest authority for believing, are the cause of their distress, by embarrassing the commerce, diminishing employment, and raising the cost of food, and after they have applied to this House in every form, soliciting it by every means to inquire into and to hear their evidence— to hear it publicly at the Bar of this House, or more privately in a committee, by commission, or in any way that you may think it right to satisfy you of the truth and justice of their statements and the extent of their privations, and all of which has been steadily and sternly refused; and when at length the people had persuaded the last Government that the grievance was enormous, that it was generally felt, and that it could not be wisely, justly, or honestly left unheeded, and that they proposed, with the sanction of a united Cabinet, a measure which, though falling short of complete justice, as any measure must that left a tax on the food of the people, in order to swell the incomes of the rich; he said when a measure of that kind was proposed which met many of the great evils of the present law, and very generally, as a compromise, was satisfactory to the commercial class. Was there any obstruction, any opposition that could be offered to it, that was withheld from the Government in consequence of that proposition. The right hon. Baronet prevented its discussion, and he, in fact, upon that measure, acting upon a previous unpopularity of the late Government, actually effected their removal from office; but they were suffered to do so on the assumption, which they favoured, that they were ready and more able to undertake the Government of the country, allowing their organs and their followers to encourage a belief among the people, that they would relieve their distress. With what grace, then, he asked, did they come forward, when every man was expecting to hear something announced, and eager to listen to any measure, knowing they had power to carry it, and plead for further time to enable them to bring forward measures, the nature of which they had not given the most distant hint of. Had any thing fallen from the right hon. Baronet that evening to justify this course? What had the roads in Hong kong, or the expenditure in New South Wales to do with the matter? He could have fancied that many of the reasons assigned by the right hon. Baronet might have been reasons for his not being in such haste to seize the Government, and that he might have said that, with a due regard to the public business, or out of consideration for the distresses of the people, we will not take any step that should prevent what is essential to carry on the Government, or preclude full inquiry into, and ample discussion respecting the sufferings of the people, or the cause which had produced them. The present avowed incapacity, or want of information, under which the right hon. Baronet was labouring, might as well have occurred to him last May, when he prevented the discussion of the Corn-laws; or last June, when he insisted upon the Parliament meeting in August. But, with what grace could he now postpone the consideration of all the measures that vitally affected the people upon the ground that he was not prepared, or that he required more time to inform himself upon them. What ground had the people to hope or any thing? What evidence had they of any good intention for the future on the part of the Government? What had fallen from the right hon. Baronet to lead them to expect that he would remedy their ills? True it was, that equivocal language had been used—and that language had been used with some ingenuity, calculated to give hope to both parties; but had any Member of the Government said anything which could be fixed upon as declaring a determination, upon due deliberation, to act upon enlightened and intelligent principles, and with the view to justice, in the framing of any new measure? What more was now known of the opinions of the right hon. Baronet upon the vital question of the Corn-laws, though he had reached that position in which he had promised that he would be prepared to declare his opinions? What pretext, he asked, had lie for believing on the right hon. Baronet for saying, that the people might depend upon his proposing better digested measures for their relief, when all that they would know before next February was, that the light hon. Baronet had called to his councils the men who had always been most prominent in upholding monopoly who had been the constant enemies of free trade, and whom they had no reason to suppose would abandon their opinions. Where, then, were the people to gather hope from? They might look to the speeches of men who had lately been re-elected, after being nominated to their new places, and what would they find? Anything connected with distress? Any ingredient of the long-promised specific alluded to, or any definite cause assigned for that which was engrossing the attention of such multitudes of people in the country? No, they would find nothing but vows of vehement attachment to the Constitution, of love for the State Church, ample acknowledgment of the favours they had just received from the First Lord of the Treasury; but of what would give the people hope or comfort, not a syllable. Why the people were never so disaffected to the Constitution as the upper classes when they were out of power, and that has been shown during the time that the other side had been in opposition, for everything has been done to lower or degrade the Sovereign in the eyes of the people. [No, no.] Why it is notorious—he hoped it would cease now, but he referred to it to show, that even the example of their disaffection had no effect upon the people, for it had signally failed, and he verily believed that from an opinion very prevalent, that the Sovereign did really sympathise with the sufferings of the people, that she was more popular now than any Sovereign had been for many years past. Oh no! the people of this country do not want to destroy the constitution, but they want you not to pervert it for purposes to serve your own interests, and deprive them of the benefits by it intended for them. The institutions of this country, that are of any value, will never be in danger from the people if those above them do not set the example of disaffection, if they show proper respect for themselves, and do justice to the people. The people know as well as those who use these topics, that it is only done to divert attention from the real questions before the country, and which affect them, and what they complain of is, that all this talk about preserving institutions is all foreign to the question which they are now urgently asking, namely, whether you intend to mitigate or abolish the monopolies by which they are so aggrieved for the purpose of swelling the rent rolls of the landowners. This is the question that they ask, this is the question that has not been answered, but this is the question that must be satisfied if peace and contentment are to be restored in this country. And what prospect is offered of that by the course that is now about to be pursued, when every inquiry is refused, and every consideration of public grievance is postponed. Why the people have nothing left but to agitate and agitate, till they make you so uneasy that you must give them some attention, and they must resort to means which really defeats the object of representative Governments, for it causes measures to be carried out of this House before they are carried in it, and this I expect will be the case with this great question of the Corn-law, and that it will share the fate of so many other great questions which have been extorted from the upper classes, through fear, and not from reason or justice. This is the lesson the conduct of the upper classes has always taught the people, and surely it is worth considering whether, in the present state of the country, it is wise or right to drive the people into this course, for driving them it is, and no complaint can be made with justice of their large and irregular assemblies, where they can tell you that you have refused to discuss or listen to what affects their interests in this House, and that they are not re- presented. They know well enough that if they do not agitate, you will say they do not care for the subject, though they will probably hear in February that you will do nothing for them because you cannot yield to clamour. This, however, will all tend to diminish that number, now small and becoming less in this country, who expect that this House will ever earn the love or respect of the people, and will add to that much larger party who affirm that no justice will be done to the people, or attention given to the general interests, till the representation is placed, upon some wider basis than it is at present. It was difficult, indeed, to imagine any thing more likely to confirm numbers in that view than the contemptuous utter disregard of their interests contemplated by this prorogation. I do, then, regret this course, and I must, on behalf of those whom I have represented in bringing the Corn-laws so frequently before the House, condemn it in the strongest manner. I consider that no valid reason his been assigned for it; and that a postponement of public duty to the personal convenience of Members is an insult to a population, many of whom are starving, many in the lowest state of distress, and all desiring that they may at least have the consolation of having their case deliberately considered, believing themselves, and being able to refer to the greatest authorities for believing, that there is a close connection between their suffering and the operation of the Corn-laws. He felt, indeed, so strongly the impropriety of this prorogation in the present state of the country, that as no opportunity was to be afforded for a vote, he thought he should have neglected his duty to his constituents had he not expressed his opinion thus strongly upon it.

Mr. Brotherton

, as the representative of a constituency deeply interested in this question, could not abstain from offering a few words expressive of his feeling upon the subject. It must be admitted, that great distress had existed for the last four years, and he was enabled to state that distress, so far from diminishing, was daily increasing. This led him to feel, that great responsibility attached somewhere, and that something ought at once to be done to afford relief. Yesterday there had been a very large meeting in the town of Manchester, to address her Majesty, and praying her Majesty not to prorogue Parliament until there should be some discussion upon those questions, that related to the trade of the country, and more especially to the provision laws. He believed, that that meeting, which was quite unanimous, was as large a one as ever was held in the town-hall of Manchester. It was composed of merchants, manufacturers, and operatives all of whom were agreed, that something must be done to relieve the trade of this country. He believed, that the people were beginning to understand the cause of their distress; at any rate, they were strongly impressed with the belief, that a great cause of the manufacturing distress arose from the Corn-laws; and he (Mr. Brotherton) trusted, that something would soon be done by the House to alter those laws. It was now seen, that the distress was not merely confined to the working classes. It was making great inroads amongst the middle and higher classes. Merchants and manufacturers were daily becoming insolvent. Hundreds and thousands of persons were out of employment. In the borough he had the honour of representing, eleven out of every 100 cottages were untenanted, many of the mills were stopped, or working short time. This, too, was but the common case of the manufacturing districts. In 1836, all these houses were occupied, now there were 1,500 untenanted. In every direction crime and disease, the natural consequences of extreme want, were rapidly increasing. In 1836, the number of prisoners tried at the New Bailey, was 1031, but in 1840, 1664. From the reports of the dispensaries, it appeared, that disease had increased to an immense extent. He had letters from physicians and others, which declared, that much of the disease amongst the labouring classes arose from the want of sufficient food. This being the present state of the population in the manufacturing districts, he (Mr. Brotherton) would call upon the Government to consider what an awful responsibility would attach to them if they allowed the present sitting of Parliament to pass over without some intimation of the course they intended to pursue. He agreed, that time should be given for the due consideration of many of the measures which the right hon. Baronet might have to propose—those measures, for instance which related to finance; but with regard to the Corn-laws, not a moment should be lost in declaring what the intentions of the Government might be. It was nothing to him (Mr. Brotherton) what particular party might be in power. He expected nothing from any party. His principle and declaration would always be, "perish party, but give the people bread." All that he wanted was good measures, and he would support any men who would give them to the country. He believed the present Corn-laws to be unjust, inhuman, and impolitic, and that they could not be supported by any man who acted upon the principles of justice. He was well aware that no argument in that House was so strong as the argument of a majority of votes, and that nothing he could say would have much weight when the opinions of a known majority were against it. Still for that he did not care. He stated what he believed to be the truth, leaving the responsibility upon those to whom it belonged. He deeply regretted, that the right hon. Baronet had not thought fit to give any intimation of his intention as to the Corn-laws; and this lie would tell the right hon. Baronet, that no system of policy would long endure, founded upon those laws. He confessed he saw not any reason or right whatever for any tax at all upon bread; and he denied the title of the landlords to any such impost. It was not generally considered, as it ought to be, that whether a tax went into the Exchequer or not, it mattered little to the people if they had to pay it. Corn could not be admitted into this country till it reached a famine price here; but if corn were let in at a reasonable rate constantly, it would never rise at home to this famine price, all the world being open for importation. Why should not Parliament permit the people of this country to exchange their commodities freely for those of other nations? Then the Legislature would not be chargeable, as at present, with the injurious fluctuations that constantly arose in prices. His belief was, that there was already in the country a firm resolution for a change in the Corn-laws; and it was in the highest degree unwise in the Government to withhold their opinion of what that change should be.

Mr. Ward

had no wish to lengthen a discussion which seemed to be confined entirely to one side of the House, but he had no hesitation in saying, that after the communication which had been made on that and the previous evening, he thought the sooner the proceedings of the House were brought to a close the better. Upon a former occasion, he had told the right hon. Baronet, that he was one of those who considered, that having won his way to power fairly, he was entitled on the part of so humble an individual as he was, to a very respectful consideration of any measure he might bring forward. He thought, that he had stronger ground on that account to express the deep regret he felt that the right hon. Baronet did not afford him an opportunity of giving that respectful attention to any measures whatever. At the late general election, the constituencies were told, that the battle against the Whig Government was fought on well defined principles by the Conservative party, and that on the meeting of the new Parliament the country would be told what those principles were. He, therefore, had been looking to this period, not, indeed, for an explanation in detail of the financial measures which the new Government might deem it proper to propose, but at least, for some explanation as to the course to be pursued in reference to a question to which the attention of the labouring classes in the great manufacturing districts was solely turned, and upon which, in fact, any future system of finance that may be adopted must necessarily hinge. As it was, however, the country had only one act of the right hon. Baronet to consider for the next five months, and that was not the question of how the people were to be supplied with food, but who the Gentlemen were whom the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to associate with himself in the Government of the country. And this certainly was not calculated to inspire any confidence of coming to a satisfactory arrangement upon the question of the Corn-laws at any future time. The right hon. Baronet told the House in the most honourable spirit, that he would not condescend to be the instrument of working out the ideas of other people on this question, but that he hoped next year to come forward as the organ of a united Cabinet, and to propose an alteration of the Corn-laws in which all his Colleagues should be agreed. Judging from the persons in the Cabinet opposed to any alteration of the Corn-laws—when they saw the Duke of Buckingham and the hon. Member for Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull), who was opposed even to allowing foreign corn to be ground in bond—when they saw these individuals in the Cabinet, he could not conceive how any one could expect great concessions on the subject of the Corn-laws; nor could he draw any inference favourable to an alteration of the present system from a speech which had been made by the hon. Member recently appointed to the office of Vice-president of the Board of Trade. He feared the effect of another winter, inasmuch as a great portion of the distress which existed would undoubtedly be attributed to the operation of those laws. That distress had not been exaggerated by the hon. Member for Salford. He had on a former occasion mentioned the circumstance of there being in Sheffield 2,000 houses unoccupied, and he thought at the time, that it was just possible some hon. Members might imagine he had overstated the number. He had, however, received a letter two days ago, in which he was informed, that according to the abstract of the late census, no fewer than 3,223 houses were untenanted in Sheffield. He feared, that it would afford but little consolation to the country to know, that the right hon. Baronet meant to delay producing his measures until he could do so with an united Cabinet.

An hon. Member

on the Ministerial side said, that as a new Member he could not conceal his astonishment, that hon. Gentlemen opposite, thinking as they thought, speaking as they spoke, and acting as they acted, did not intend to press this discussion to a division. They might, no doubt, be in a minority, but that was no reason why they should not let the country know their opinions by the manner in which they voted. If they did not do so this way, there were no other means of accomplishing it but by every Gentleman opposite stating his opinions, which, heaven forbid be should be called on to do. He would not prolong the discussion. He had just come from his constituents, and he would go back to them perfectly contented, because he knew, and they knew, that the Government was in the hands of persons in whom they could place confidence, who, he trusted, would take time to consider the measures which they meant to bring forward and to carry.

Mr. Cobden

said, he was not astonished at the hon. Member who had just sat down expressing his wish for a division. Divide was still the cry, they still had a majority of ninety-one. They had brought forward no argument—had not made use of a single reason. They had not appealed to any principle, but the cry was, "Let us divide." He warned hon. Members from setting a bad example to the coun- try. They had heard a great deal of argument against brute force—against physical force, and a numerical ascendancy; but the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was not any better than an appeal to numbers. He did not rise for the purpose of replying to that hon. Gentleman, but to add his testimony to that of the hon. Member for Salford, because he thought it due to the Government and to the House, that they should be told of the distress, and of the all-important question which they were setting aside on the present occasion. He would not have the House believe, that the excitement in the north of England on this subject had been produced by the efforts of a few interested individuals. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite were unconscious of the state of public opinion on this question, and he was the less disposed to doubt this when he saw it admitted on all sides, and admitted in the morning organ of the party opposite this very day, that the late elections had not been so much a triumph of public opinion as a victory of the purse. [Oh, oh.!] He only stated what the great organ of Gentlemen opposite admitted, and if hon. Members were sitting there merely from the strength of their pockets, and not from public opinion, then there were good grounds for supposing, that they were ignorant of the real state of the feelings of the country on this question. Why had bribery been resorted to—why had hon. Members gone to boroughs with their constituents in their pockets? If public opinion had been in their favour, if they could have been returned on principle, where was the use of bribery? It was because they had been elected and returned by bribery alone that he thought himself justified in saying, that they were profoundly ignorant of the condition of the country. He had come there to state his opinion of the distress in the district from which he came, and he thought it his duty to bear testimony on this head, and to tell the House, that if they adjourned, or were prorogued, without giving the Corn-laws their consideration, the responsibility would not rest with those representatives, the real and not purchased representatives of those districts in which the greatest distress prevailed. They had heard of the distress that existed in Sal-ford. There were other boroughs in which the distress was equally great. In the borough of Stockport, which he represented, the distress was fearful; one out of every five houses in Stockport was un-tenanted, half of those occupied were not paying rent; nearly half of the manufacturers mills were closed, and thousands of working people, who, to other countries would be a valuable possession, were wandering about the streets seeking employment, but unable to find it. Yet, in the face of such facts, were they to wait five months for measures of relief? God knew whether or not he (Mr. Cobden) should have constituents in five months. If emigration went on for the next six months as it had done for the last twelve months, he feared he should find very few of his constituents left. If, however, they were to have the discussion adjourned for six months, he begged leave to place the responsibility, and the particular consequences to the labouring population which would flow from such a course, on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had fraternised with the Chartists to some purpose during the last twelve months. A coalition had taken place between them, which he believed was now about to be dissolved; but let them beware, when going back to a people deprived of work, discontented and dissatisfied, that the cause of the delay was placed on the right shoulders. It was right that the working classes should know that they had six months of privation, and suffering before them, merely because certain hon. Members were desirous not to miss the pleasures of shooting. He told the House, that the distress of the operatives arose in a great measure from the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were the cause why the operatives of this country had reduced wages and diminished rations. It was right that the labouring man should know who robbed him. Hon. Gentlemen ought not to imagine that the manufacturers of Lancashire sought to diminish the wages of the working classes. He said solemnly that no greater calamity could befal the manufacturers of Lancashire than to be driven to the necessity of reducing wages. He hoped the capitalists in Lancashire were sufficiently enlightened as to their own interests, to know that the worst thing for them would be to have a badly remunerated working population; for, as Burke said, "We are all the pensioners of the working classes" they are our greatest consumers and our greatest customers, and self-interest alone would prompt us to maintain the rate of wages. He would venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that the capitalists in the north of England had carried on their trade at a positive loss. He ventured to say that, during the last five years, the fixed capital of Lancashire had been depreciated fully fifty per cent. He challenged contradiction when he asserted that, during the last three years, the floating capital of these capitalists had been depreciated in consequence of its having gone to pay the very labourers, who, by short work and occasional cessation of employment, had still been kept employed at the same nominal rate of wages as before. This had been done, too, by draining the trades unions of their funds. In some towns more had been paid out of the trades' unions in support of unemployed operatives, than what was contributed by the poor-rates for support of the paupers. But the time had now come when the funds of the trades unions were exhausted, and he was sorry to see by the Gazette that the floating capital of the manufacturer was also exhausted. What were the consequences? In the unfortunate borough which he represented, they were threatened with a collision between the masters and the operatives, the operatives resisting a reduction of their wages, which had been nominally kept up, but which would now be permanently reduced by 20 or 30 per cent. The strife once begun, it would speedily spread over the whole of Lancashire. In such a state of things, and when he came to tell the House of the destitute stale of the working-classes, was he to be told by Gentlemen opposite that if the operatives were not employed they ought to be sent to the workhouse? He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had, in a recent debate, in reference to a most distressing case, expressed himself to that effect [Sir R. Peel: No, no]. The right hon. Baronet said on that occasion that the parish authorities had surely neglected their duty. But, as representing the working men of Stockport, he told the House that they would not be made paupers—they abhorred and would resist the law which would grind them down to the ranks of pauperism. If they failed in this, they would take the next step open to them, and submit to the secondary punishment of the penal code, by which they might be transported to a country where landlords were not monopolists, and where the working man would not be told that he must become a pauper when he was unable to support himself. No argument had been brought forward that evening—no statement had been made in the least degree consolatory to the starving population of this country. He had heard a good deal of humerous bantering, occasional sallies of mirth, but nothing had been said to alleviate the fears of the manufacturing and commercial world. He believed they were not aware of the state of society for which they pretended to legislate. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tarn worth began his speech by saying that he was not inclined to have a party contest on the present occasion; but it was in fact a controversy, and one in which the real question at issue had been overlooked. He protested against the House of Commons being made a mere debating club [Hear, hear]. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should recollect that he was tolerably well seasoned in physical force, and not easily to be put down. He was about to tell them that he protested against the right hon. Baronet opposite considering that they were sent to the House of Commons to listen to the controversies between him and the noble Lord the Member for London. He was not there to listen to party controversies, but he came to consider the interests of the people at large. When the right hon. Baronet began, by saying that he did not enter on the discussion on party principles, he expected to hear some argument to justify the delay which he asked. But no. The right hon. Baronet said, that he wished to have time. For what? In order, it seems, to consult those functionaries of his Government who may have important communications to make on the subject. Had not the right hon. Baronet the opportunity of reading the evidence taken before the Import-duties Committee? Did he not see there not only the evidence of the public functionaries of the Board of Trade, but also the evidence of a Gentleman not now in the service of the Government, for he had retired full of honours; he alluded to the evidence of Mr. Deacon Hume. In that report the right hon. Baronet might consult the evidence given by Messrs. D. Hume, Porter, and Macgregor, on the operation of the Corn-laws. The country had read that report; it had been re- printed in America, and read in almost every log-hut, yet the right hon. Baronet said he must have an opportunity of consulting the functionaries of Government for evidence on the question. Was that the reason why the subject was to be deferred for eight months? Another argument, which he was almost ashamed to call an argument, had been used by the right hon. Baronet, when, in addressing the late Ministers, he said, "You put off your measure for five years, and did not introduce it until May last." But what did this prove? Nothing. Yet the right hon. Baronet was about to do the same thing, and indefinitely to postpone his measure. The right hon. Baronet made another attempt at an argument. He asked the late Ministers, "Do you stick to a fixed duty of 8s.?" This was not the way to govern with satisfaction to the country. Yet this was the way in which the Prime Minister treated an important question in which the happiness of the suffering and starving millions depended. He treated it by tauntingly asking the late Ministers whether they still adhered to the principle of a fixed duty of 8s. He protested against the consideration of the question of the Corn-laws being deferred on any of the grounds alleged by the right hon. Baronet opposite. The whole responsibility of doing so in the face of such a winter as they anticipated, must rest entirely with the right hon. Baronet. He had, within the last fourteen days, been informed by a gentleman of Manchester, well entitled to credence, that there were great apprehensions entertained for the peace of Manchester during the ensuing winter. The working man might suffer without complaint, but as Englishmen, they would not sit quiet and see their children starving around them. He knew a borough in which there was great difficulty in finding a mayor, the person on whom the inhabitants fixed, shrinking from the office, fearful that there would be convulsions next winter. He stated the fact. Gentlemen opposite might smile, but it was a fact, nevertheless. He would tell them more. Those persons on whom the Government had hitherto relied to keep the peace in the manufacturing districts had now little motive left to keep the peace. Their fortunes have been impaired—the capitalists have been ruined. He might be told that bayonets would be employed to keep the peace, but they could not do this, unless they carried bread with the bayonets. He warned them that the limes were perilous. They all knew the circumstances under which the Corn-law was passed. It was passed when the House of Commons was surrounded with military, and at the point of the bayonet. [No, no]. He said the Corn-law of 1815 was so passed. Was that a fit example for a constitutional country to exhibit? It was a law that had been baptized in blood, begotten in violence and injustice, perpetuated at the expense of the tears and groans of the people, and he prayed to God that it might not end in violence, which their conduct in refusing to discuss it had, without doubt, a tendency to provoke.

Viscount Sandon

thought that a sense of prudence, if not of decency, might have restrained the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down from alluding to the Members of that side of the House (the Ministerial) as having been returned by means of bribery, and not on the ground of public opinion. He believed that the electors of the Members on that side of the House had been remarkable for their purity. Whether he looked to the great towns or to the great counties which they represented, he felt convinced of the truth of what he stated. Neither London nor Liverpool, nor any of the great towns in. Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Middlesex, had been carried by corruption. If the hon. Gentleman had but cast a glance at Bridport, Shrewsbury, and Nottingham, and a hundred other places, he might from a sense of prudence, have refrained from casting reflections on those who were opposed to him. The hon. Gentleman said, he was anxious to discharge himself of the awful and responsible duty which he imagined to hang on him relative to the condition of the manufacturing districts. The hon. Gentleman, it seemed, felt alarmed at the storm he had raised, and was anxious to relieve himself of the blame of the mischief which he had largely contributed to create, and to throw it on the Ministry, because they were not prepared at present to consent to a repeal of the Corn-laws. He feared that the people of this country would soon find that they had been under the guidance of those better fitted to mislead than to instruct them. What had the hon. Gentleman told the House? He said that the Corn-laws had been carried by bloodshed, and at the point of the bayonet, and only reluctantly admitted that he did not speak of the present Corn-law, or of the one before it; but of the Corn-law of 1815, under which there was an absolute prohibition against the importation of wheat till the home price rose to 80s. He would not enter into the merits of the present Corn-law; for the hon. Member himself must be aware of the rate of fluty at which corn is admitted by the present law, and at what a rate it was admitted under the former law. There had been a greater increase in the importation from foreign countries under the present than there ever had been under any former law. He was not more insensible to the hardships of the manufacturing classes than the hon. Gentleman was, who seemed in himself to monopolise all the humanity of the House. There was as much humanity on that (the Ministerial) side of the House towards the working classes, as was felt for them by the mill-owners of Lancashire. The present agitation was a vain attempt of the mill-owners to divert the attention of the people from the grievances which their own practices had brought upon them. It was not fair in them to lay exclusive claim to motives of humanity, and to stigmatise all others as devoid of such feelings, merely because they differed from them on a question of political economy, on which able men of both sides had held different opinions. If Ministers had come down, as Gentlemen opposite had done, with some nostrum of their own, with a remedy that would at once relieve the distress under which the manufacturing interests were undoubtedly labouring, then they might have been culpable if they had delayed to produce or to proceed with it, but it was well known and not disguised, that the present Ministry did not attribute the present distress to the existence of the Corn-laws, and that no measure which they might produce to the House would be brought forward founded on the distress which at present existed. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce did not at first attribute the distress to the Corn-laws, but to the operation of the Bank of England and the joint-stock banks. If they asked any Lancashire manufacturer his opinion in private of the cause of the distressed state of trade, he would tell them that it was not owing to the Corn-laws, but to the fact of its having been carried beyond its bounds at a time when it was stimulated by a capital artificially applied, and that they were now suffering from the effects of this over-trading. These were the causes which the manufacturers stated in private, while in public they harangued the multitude, and talked of bloodshed, bayonets, and exclusive humanity. He should like to hear some hon. Gentleman opposite get up and plainly tell them whether, if Ministers had carried their proposition for a fixed duty of 8s. three months ago, the distress would have been sensibly diminished. Whether the price of bread would have been lowered in consequence he did not know, but he thought that they would hardly contend that the state of their commerce and manufacturing industry would have been different from what it is at present. He had thought it was his duty to state what he had done, in consequence of the taunts of the hon. Member for Stock-port, from which it would appear to be implied that all those on his side of the House were representatives of Sudburies or Bridports. He repeated that he did not attribute the present distress to the Corn-laws, and therefore it was, he believed that no alteration in those laws could materially affect the condition of the labouring classes. The sentiments which he had expressed to the House he had avowed to his numerous constituents, and had not incurred any unpopularity in so doing.

Sir R. Peel

said, that, as the hon. Member for Stockport had so grossly misrepresented what had fallen from him on a former day, he rose to offer an explanation of what he had stated on the case alluded to. He had heard the hon. Member for Bolton describe the case of a poor man who had been found dead upon his loom, surrounded by his family in a state of starvation. He heard that statement, and after expressing his deep sympathy for the sufferers, expressed a hope some inquiry would be instituted. And, the very first thing I did, said the right hon. Baronet, on my accession to office—for the story dwelt upon my mind—was to write a letter the very day I kissed hands to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on this subject. I said, that the story had sunk deep into my mind, and that, if true, it was a disgrace to the society in which such distress was suffered to exist. I suggested that some inquiry should be made into the mode in which the Poor-law was administered at Bolton. My advice was taken, and the result is, that an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner has been sent down to that place, and is now there, prosecuting his inquiries into the distressing circumstances to which I have referred. This is the foundation of the charge now brought against me; and because I expressed almost horror at the statement of the hon. Member for Bolton, I am now taunted with saying, that the working classes should be content with the condition of paupers, and that the only question was as to the administration of the Poor-laws.

Mr. Hawes

said, that if the hon. Member for Stockport was in error as to what bad fallen from the right hon. Baronet, other Members were in error also, because the right hon. Baronet's speech was not reported in accordance with the explanation he now gave. But turning to the question before the House, they had at last got a speech from an hon. Member opposite, and that of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool did throw some light on the future commercial policy of the Government. The noble Lord had said that it was perfectly well known that her Majesty's present Ministers did not impute the prevailing distress to the state of the Corn-laws. They were therefore disposed to forego the discussion of them with the general assertion on the part of the noble Lord, that the leading authorities in political economy were opposed to a change in the Corn-laws. He had given the noble Lord credit for some reading on the subject, and he had therefore been surprised to hear him state, that the great authorities were in favour of the existing system [Lord Sandon: No, no]. He had understood the noble Lord to say, at least, that the authorities entitled to weight were divided. Now, it happened that upon this question there was a singular concurrence of opinion, and he challenged the noble Lord to name one great authority who was not against the continuance of the Corn-laws [Lord Sandon: Mr. Huskisson was in favour of them]. Unluckily for the noble Lord the last speech Mr. Huskisson made in this House was in favour of free trade in corn. He (Mr. Hawes) was glad to have sounded the depth of the mine of knowledge of the noble Lord; and if he took the trouble to read Mr. Huskisson's speeches from first to last on this subject, he would find that there was an obvious and gradual progression of opinion towards free trade in corn. He did not claim for himself or his Friends any superior sympathy for the suffering classes, but though he did not charge those who sat on the opposite benches with personal want of feeling, he was entitled to consider how far their policy did or did not lend towards relief. While he gave them credit for feeling, he had a right to denounce the policy of the party, as avowed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, to be pregnant with mischief and misery to the lower orders of the community. The right hon. Baronet had concurred in the Address to her Majesty at the opening of the Session, and then it was said, We assure her Majesty that we fully share in the deep sympathy which her Majesty feels with those of her subjects who are now suffering from distress and want of employment; and we fervently join in her Majesty's prayer that all our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her Majesty's subjects. He wished to know what sort of sympathy with distress was evinced by the postponement of the consideration of the mode of relieving them for a period of five months. But the right hon. Baronet said he was not yet prepared: he had not duly consulted and considered. This was strange, recollecting the full discussion which took place before the right hon. Baronet came into power, and the length of time that the whole question had been under the view of the country. However, it now appeared that the doors of Parliament were to be shut, and that the people were to endure their distresses, until some half year hence it pleased the Gentlemen on the other side to take the case into consideration. This was certainly a singular way of evincing sympathy, but, at the same time, he gave the other side full credit for personally possessing it. He agreed in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stockport respecting that part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, which, judging from the applause which it received from his followers, was most effective, where he vindicated himself for a delay of five months by complaining that the noble Secretary for the Colonies had taken five years to make up his mind on the subject. This might be remissness or negligence on the part of the noble Lord, but what had the public to do with the comparative merits of the two sets of Ministers? The public wanted measures—the suffering population required relief, and yet the right hon. Baronet had refused even to discuss the means of affording it. The right hon. Baronet excused himself on the score of deficiency of knowledge; but, if he would only avail himself of the official aids within his reach, he would not belong in arriving at the conclusion that a change was necessary, and that distress was only to be removed or alleviated by a change. The Tight hon. Member, the Member for Dorchester, addressing his constituents the other day, told them that he looked upon a fixed duty as next to impossible, and that the only alterations that could be made would be to render the averages I more certain and accurate. In fact, it was not in the power of the advocates of the present Corn-laws to defend them upon any of the three grounds on which they had been originally proposed—that they would preserve steadiness of price— protect the farmer—or secure a home-growth equal to the home consumption. These three grounds must now be abandoned. As to the appeal to the late Ministers, whether they would now maintain a fixed duty, he would ask what right had any man to inquire whether it were intended to maintain a fixed duty under all circumstances? The inquiry also came with an ill grace from those who were themselves opposed to a fixed duty, as not only injudicious, but impracticable, whereas, under the sliding scale, all was fluctuation and uncertainty, and the supply of corn was consequently diminished. A great deal of strong feeling had been manifested against the hon. Member for Stockport, because he spoke strongly of the consequences of delay upon the suffering classes; but that hon. Member had urged nothing that had not been said a month ago; everybody had predicted that discontent would follow the refusal to modify the Corn-laws, and add to this discontent the loss of trade and severe personal suffering, and who should say, that the peace of the country would not be in danger? That danger he laid at the doors of the Gentlemen opposite: they had thought fit to refuse even a discussion of the causes of distress. One hon. county Member, who had addressed the House, without adding one word of argument, seemed to rejoice that there would be no discussion; but if the enemies of the Corn-laws were in the wrong, how could it be proved but by discussion? Let it be shown, as the noble Lord had contended, that dear bread was beneficial to the people. [Lord Sandon: No, no.] That was the result of the noble Lord's argument. He was a supporter of the Corn-laws. The Corn-laws made bread dear, and as the Corn-laws, according to the noble Lord, ought to be preserved for the benefit of the nation, it was for the good of the people that bread should be dear. Such was the inevitable effect of the reasoning of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had also been pleased to taunt the Opposition side of the House with being participators in an infamous system of bribery. Be it so. He knew nothing of bribery. He represented no freemen, and had purchased no seat; he had incurred no election expenses he was ashamed to detail, and he hoped the noble Lord could say the same. If the noble Lord's election bills were compared with his, a wide difference would be found in them. [No, no.] Did the noble Lord mean to say that there had been no subscription for his election? [Lord Sandon intimated his assent.] He did not, of course, include subscriptions and money paid by committees. He knew nothing of them in j his own case. If there had indeed been; gross and shameful bribery anywhere, he hoped it would be shewn that they had committed a high crime of most pernicious effect upon the country. Bribery had certainly done more to shake the confidence of the people in the House than any measures of bad legislation, and all who were guilty of bribery, were guilty of a crime which sapped the foundation of the representative system. He concluded by expressing his deep sorrow that the right hon. Baronet had expressed no opinion on corn, sugar, timber, finance, taxes, or any other subject on which the country was expecting information. Notwithstanding this silence, he expected the confidence of the country just as much as if he had brought forward the best practical and intelligible measures for the advancement of trade, and the relief of distress.

Mr. Litton

believed, that many of the observations made in the course of the present discussion, were calculated to create discontent and excitement, but not to afford a remedy for the evils which were complained of. Still he could not allow the debate to close without, on the part of the Irish people, praying the present Government to take full time to form a deliberate judgment on the important subjects which had been adverted to that evening. He believed, he expressed the unanimous opinion of the Irish people, when he said, that if the measure with respect to the Corn-laws had passed as proposed by the late Government, it would have involved Ireland in immediate and, irremediable ruin. He was sure that many Irish Members who voted with the late Government on other questions, would, have felt it their duty to vote against them on such a measure. He regretted the misery suffered by the population of Stockport and other places, but were the interests of the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of agricultural population in Ireland to be altogether forgotten in this discussion? They would be subjected to penury, misery, want, and destitution, and in many cases to the actual deprivation of the necessaries of life, if anything like the measure of the late Government had passed that House. It was well known, that from the agitation which had prevailed in Ireland of late years, but which he trusted would not be allowed to last much longer, there had not been much of British capital or industry introduced into Ireland; and its overgrown population depended for existence almost on the labour and profits derived from land. The immediate effect of such a measure as that proposed by the late Government would have been, not only to deprive the Irish population of employment, but to prevent the progressive reclamation of land now advancing in Ireland, to the great advantage of the country. The prosperity of almost all the towns in Ireland depended on the prosperity of the agricultural interest. With respect to the franchise, the Conservatives had always wished that Ireland should have a full, fair, and bonâ fide franchise; and he asked what would become of the franchise if the measure of the late Government had passed? A man must have 10l. value beyond the rent he paid, and many thousands enjoyed the franchise in Ireland according to the present price of corn. But if the late Government measure passed, and corn were reduced (for that was the argument of its advocates) whilst rent remained the same, as it must where leases existed, the result would be, that one half of the Irish franchise would be cut up. In every point of view Ireland seemed to have been totally forgotten by those who professed to be its only friends. Ought an entire country to be sacrificed for the comforts of two or three millions of people? Me entirely disagreed with those who said that the accession of the present Government had occasioned uneasiness in Ireland. The voice of every one almost who had anything to lose, had hailed its formation with acclamation, and the change of Ministry had been rejoiced at even by the lower classes, who were now promised a prospect of freedom from agitation and an opportunity of pursuing their course of industry unchecked. The appointment of the Government had given confidence to all, that justice would be impartially, strongly, but firmly administered.

Mr. Sharman Crawford

thought, it would not be denied by the hon. Member who last spoke, that though he was not certainly an Irish representative, he was not without a considerable stake and interest in the country whose interests were alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nothing in his opinion would be so advantageous to Ireland as the total repeal of the duties upon the import of foreign corn into this country. He was not prepared to advocate at all the late Government measure upon corn. He was for a total repeal of the corn importation duties. In Ireland there might safely be reckoned above 2,400,000 labourers, who were employed in agricultural districts, receiving not more than 6d. a day for their labour. Nothing in respect to the price of corn here could make their situation worse. It was not to be expected, therefore, that there should have been petitions from Ireland against the measure of the noble Lord, of the last Session, founded upon a permanent 8s. duty upon the import of foreign corn. Ireland did not subsist upon her trade to England in corn for in raw commodities. She exported provisions largely to this country; and of dead pigs exported from Belfast, the number in one recent year exceeded 40,000, all of which went to the manufacturing districts in the north of England. The feeling created in Ireland by the accession of the present Ministers to office, he believed, was generally a feeling of apprehension. He would, however, look to the Government of the right hon. Baronet with the hope of a better result than that anticipated by some upon his side of the House. He trusted, and earnestly hoped the right hon. Baronet would introduce a measure calculated to relieve the distress but too generally experienced by the manufacturers; whatever was done with that intent ought to be done quickly. He was neither a party to a fixed duty nor to the sliding scale. His inquiry was directed to whether there should be any protection or none to our agricultural produce; and he confessed, that, however, unpromising the appearance of the House might be for the experiment (there being not one-third as many Members on that side of the House as on the Ministerial side), he should prefer seeing the question, tested by a division to-night. It ought to be tested by a vote and a division, and not by a mere war of words, as on the present occasion. No matter what might be the minority, the result must be beneficial to the public, and promote truth and knowledge. It would put the public in possession of the opinion of parties in that House, and leave them to protect their interests by petitions, as they had on other occasions. With respect to the proposed Poor-law Continuance Bill for a period, he thought it would be quite expedient that such a measure should be accompanied by a clause restricting the commissioners of the Poor-law from forcing the Poor-law into districts, in the interval, where no unions had yet been formed under the existing law; and in proposing this limitation of their authority, he confessed he should be gratified to find that the proposition came, as it certainly ought, from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

wished to take the opportunity of protecting himself from the supposition that he concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Member for the City, with regard to the Irish appointments; and still more to guard himself from the inference drawn by the right hon. Baronet from what had fallen from the noble Lord. He had great personal respect for the character of Lord Eliot; but he doubted whether he had power or firmness, or perhaps both, to carry out his just or benevolent intentions. It was known that the noble Lord, the new Secretary for Ireland, had formerly provoked the hostility of his party, by the course he pursued regarding the Irish Corporation Act, wishing, as he did, to put, as in England, all sects upon an equality, Upon that occasion the just and liberal sentiments of Lord Elliot were controlled and overruled by his friends in the House and out of it, and he much feared that a similar result would hereafter attend his labours. Neither did he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) anticipate anything favourable from the disposition of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department. He, therefore, feared the worst but if the noble Lord could induce his colleagues to remove the monstrous inequality of the municipal franchise, he would deserve the highest praise, and would render a most essential service to-Ireland. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), that the best interests of Ireland, instead of being injured, would be importantly benefited by an alteration in the Corn-laws; the change proposed by the late Government would have done much good, and upon this point, he believed, that the eyes of his countrymen were beginning to be opened, notwithstanding the bold assertions of" the hon. and learned Member for Coleraine, and his Cassandra-like predictions. For himself, he believed that the Irish would receive an advantage from the proposed change, and from the total abolition of protective duties, provided the alteration were gradual, and that existing interests were disturbed as little as possible.

Mr. Hardy

said, that hon. Gentlemen ought not to attribute the present distress in the manufacturing districts to the Corn-laws, when there had been great prosperity in those very districts during the existence of these same laws. If he wanted to know the cause of the present distress, he would go for information to-the hon. Gentleman the Member for Old-ham (Mr. Fielding); he was a blunt Englishman, and would speak the truth. He told them that, in 1820, the annual produce of the four kinds of cotton manufactured was 180,0001bs., which fetched 96s. to the manufacturer, whilst the annual quantity now used was 480,000lbs.; the sum received by the manufacturer was reduced from 96s. to 27s. If people would go to jointstock banks for accommodation, and would build manufactories, because they saw others prosper, and if they would manufacture 480,000 lbs. instead of 180,000 lbs.; and if their prosperity had not kept pace with the increase of manufactures, it must be because they had glutted the market. Then, the hon. Member for Salford had alluded to the number of Houses in Salford and Manchester that were uninhabited, and the hon. Member attributed this to distress, arising from the Corn-laws. Now, the last time it had been his lot to travel by the Manchester and Leeds Railway, his attention was attracted to the large bodies of men and women with packs at their backs, who were standing up in that part of the train, where they could be carried for 2d. or 3d. a distance of eight or nine miles, and, on enquiry, he was told that, in consequence of the railroad, these people had forsaken the cellars in which they had resided in Manchester and Salford, and were now living in little cottages in the country. They now lived in houses for 2l. instead of paying 5l. for cellars. This might account for the houses being uninhabited as the glut of manufactures might account for the want of prosperity. He believed that the true way of removing the present pressure under which the manufacturing interest laboured was to reduce the amount of goods manufactured, and return to the old system of carrying on business. Was the House aware of the real state of the case as respected the protection given to manufactures? The manufacture of cotton, if he was not mistaken, enjoyed a protection of from 20 to 25 per cent. [Several Members, "10 per cent."] Now, it was singular, he thought, that during all the discussions about the Corn-laws they never heard anything, not a word, of the protection given to cotton. Whether they repealed the Corn-laws or not, one thing was clear, that foreigners were cherishing their own manufactures most tenaciously and would persist in doing so and in competing with us; and the manufacturers of this country showed that they thought so too, by requiring protection for their cotton manufacture. As for the speech of the hon. Gentleman, opposite, who had an estate in Ireland but a seat in England, he had no doubt that no attempts had been left untried to inoculate the people of Rochdale with the virus of anti-Corn-law opinions, and so the speech of the hon. Gentleman was sufficiently accounted for. Much had been said of the extent to which bribery had been carried on in the last election. Now, there were many ways of bribing; there were many ways of treating. They might treat, and they might promise to treat, and he believed there never was an election where promises to treat were carried to a greater extent than was done in the last. In fact, it was a national promise. Her Majesty's late Ministers promised to treat the people with a big loaf for a little penny. The cry went out to all the constituencies. Yet, in spite of that, the constituencies had returned a vast majority of the opponents of her Majesty's late Ministers. Moreover, it must be remembered that there were now in this country two elections everywhere, —one on the day of nomination, the other on the polling pay. On the former it was a mixed election, made by the people generally as well as electors on a show of hands; and he believed that if hon. Members inquired they would find that the election by show of hands was, in a great majority of cases, in favour of the Conservative candidates. Gentlemen might smile but the truth would come out by and by, when the election petitions, of which there were a great number, came to be disposed of. Then it would be shown on which side the bribery was, when the right hon. Baronet should have had time fully and fairly to consider all the disastrous circumstances in which the country was at present involved. Why should the period necessary for such a task be denied the right hon. Baronet? The late Ministry had a much longer time given them to digest their late measures—they had taken from August, 1840, to April, to consider the voluminous report in which the hon. and learned doctor (Dr. Bowring) and other hon. doctors opposite, figured so conspicuously; and having taken all this time to consider the matter, they had determined to take the sense of the country on their policy. But if the Poor-law had really been that law which the noble Lord had always represented it to be—namely, a law framed for the benefit of the people, why was it not permitted to go to the hustings too, and why did the noble Lord postpone the re-consideration of the measure until after the election? The reason was, that the Poor-law was not popular, and therefore the noble Lord shrunk from going before the people with it, and postponed the re-consideration until a future day, advising instead that the cry of the big loaf should be got up throughout the country. That course in his (Mr. Hardy's) opinion, was not fair; for the Poor-law was that law of all others in which the poorer classes were interested, and they ought to have bad the full state of the question pla d before them at the election.

Mr. C. Hindley

had not intended to take pan in this discussion, but after the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member, who was the representative of a commercial community, he could not discharge his duty to the House if he remained silent. He did not know whether the constituents of the hon. and learned Member were leaving their houses to enjoy the fine air of the country; but his own constituents were not enjoying any such pleasure. If the statements of the hon. Members for Salford and Manchester were true as to the number of houses uninhabited, it was not because the families had left thorn for the sake of better air, but because five or six families now dwelt in one house, not being able to pay the rates and rents as they did formerly. They were next told by the hon. Member that the present evils were attributable to over production, but he asked the House where there was evidence that there were too many articles in calicoes, or linens, or woollens, amongst the population? What would they say when he told them that there were hundreds and thousands of the individuals who made these articles and were not able to purchase them. The people had not too many calicoes or too many coats, but too little food. He said it was the duty of the House to consider the means of giving them more food. He asserted that there was not a more industrious population than the working population of this country, and there was no country in which labour ill paid. He remembered when he was at Eberfelt, that a manufacturer told him he would rather pay a good English workman four dollars a day than employ one of his own at one-fifth the sum. He now wished only to address one word to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. In the course of his speech on the want of confidence debate, the right hon. Gentleman had asked how it was possible that the administration of the Poor-law could be so remiss in the country. During a recent visit to the country, he had been called upon for charity to relieve the sufferings of a workman who had been obliged to leave one master in consequence of the improvements in machinery, which had taken away all demand for his labour in spinning, and he had gone from one master to another till he was again thrown out of employment by the failure of his employer. He said to the man, "with the improvements constantly making in spinning, do you think that you will be able to get employment? had you not better go to the parish?" The man replied, "To the parish I have gone"—it was to the township of Royton, in the parish of Oldham; and what did the man with his wife and three children get? Why, 1s. 6d. a week to support the five persons in his family; and this was the allowance to support a man who had fallen into distress, not in consequence of any fault of his own, but because there had been improvements in machinery, and because his employer had failed, For, himself, he was no party man, and he did not care which party was in power, so that the party in power would act for the advantage of the people of England; and when he found such circumstances as he had related, he was bound to ask was there no remedy? Yet the right hon. Baronet proposed to renew the Poor-law Kill for nine months without alteration, and would deprive this poor man of an appeal to the magistrates, or any other source, from the merciless frugality of this relieving officer. The people were compelled to starve, or to go into the bastiles. Had it not been for the statements of the hon. Member he would not have risen, but he could not in justice allow those remarks to pass; the people whom he represented were full of apprehension for the future, and of suffering for the present, and he implored the right hon. Baronet to take measures at the earliest moment to raise the condition of the suffering classes.

Mr. Milnes

I agree, Sir, with the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken, that the operation of the Poor-law and that of the Corn-law is closely connected, and thus I am justified in asking hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow the same privilege to my right hon. Friend with regard to the Corn-laws, that the hon. Member for Finsbury, the stern and determined advocate for the repeal of the Poor-law has not been unwilling to award him. The question of the Corn-law is deep in the mind of the people of England, and they do not wish it to be hastily and triflingly dealt with. It is a question, that has driven and twisted its roots into every interest of the country, and they cannot be violently torn up without great peril to the whole community. And therefore, am I surprised, that her Majesty's late advisers should, with the tumult of the late elections in their ears, require my hon. Friend to come down with some absolute panacea to remedy all these evils. I believe such a panacea to be in the hand of no living man. And in fact, this seems to me to be the real distinction between the late and the present Government, that while they laid so much stress on their financial specific, her Majesty's present Ministers would endeavour in a spirit of calm and earnest inquiry to trace these disastrous effects to their just causes, and would then, and only then, lay their deliberate judgment before the House, and I must admit, that I do not anticipate from that judgment any of those immediate and startling effects which hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to expect If my right hon. Friend were to hold out any such hope, I do verily believe he would be deceiving the country. These are not evils to be so remedied. Do not hon. Gentlemen opposite declare that these are no momentary or chance abuses, but that they are profound social diseases growing out of a long course of corrupt legislation, and were not her Majesty's Ministers "particeps criminis" till within a few weeks of their dismissal? And in this case, what right have you to demand a sudden and empirical cure? I do not know that I should have troubled the House on this occasion but for two remarks that fell from the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs; the first was, that it was our business to keep the country in mind as well as the House of Commons. Sir, I will not admit this distinction. We sit here representatives of the will of the people of England—at least, so says the Reform Bill. An opposition may be conducted in two ways—it may be of that corrective and critical character, which would render it a most useful part of the Legislature, or it may be of that factious nature, which, not recognizing in the present House of Commons the due expression of the opinion of the people of England, thinks that the first step to any ultimate good must be a reform of the Reform Bill. I see no middle line between these two, and I would put it to the noble Lord, who commenced this debate, whether this latter position is reconcileable with his repeated declarations of finality and the resistance to organic change, which of late years he has manfully maintained, at least as regards England. The second remark of the late noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs was, that free trade was good per sc, and that its advantages did not depend on the acts or engagements of foreign powers. Now Sir. I have heard from an old English moralist, that adultery is so great a crime that it can only be committed by two persons, and analogically it seems to me that free trade is only so great and absolute a good when it takes place between two consenting parties. But the principle of the noble Lord would put all intermutual confidence cut of the question, and this appears to me the most important feature in the case. And, as hon. Gentlemen are inclined to dwell on this comparison more than I intended, I will conclude by stating my confidence, that the right hon. Baronet will continue to profess and propogate the principles of free trade in a fair and legitimate way without having resource to any of the questionable means by which her Majesty's late Ministers intended to accomplish their purposes.

Mr. V. Smith

could at last congratulate the House, that the hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle on which his right hon. Friend would conduct his administration, and that was the principle of legitimate propagation: the principle, not of adulterate, but of legal free trade, would be amply undertaken on the assurance of the hon. Gentleman by this new Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not confined himself to promises on the part of the right hon. Baronet's Government, but he had laid down the course that the Opposition would adopt, and he had complained of its factions nature. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt the explanation made by the hon. Gentleman, and he hoped that in the few observations to which he should confine himself, and which he had intended to address to the House before the speech of the hon. Gentleman, he should not merit the appellation of factious. There had been in the memory of man an opposition which had declared "We will obstruct and oppose all your measures." To an obstructive opposition be believed he never had been, and never would be a party. The only object of his then rising was not because they (the Opposition) found fault because there was no panacea, which the hon. Gentleman declared, and he agreed with him (the right hon. Baronet) never would produce, or with the silence that prevailed as to the future measures of the Government, although he might consider it slighting to the House and to the country; but the object of his attack, if attack it could be called, was a very different error, and one for which the right hon. Gentleman was not often reproached—the error of indiscretion. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the future financial difficulties of the country, and he had dwelt particularly upon the colonial difficulties. As this affected a department, with which he (Mr. V. Smith) had been recently connected, he trusted that he would not be thought irregular if he referred to it. It appeared that, although from the trouble of forming his Ministry, the right hon. Gentleman could not enter upon a consideration of the many papers by which he would have been enabled to produce any measures, he had dipped into a recent paper containing the despatch of Sir George Gipps, the governor of New South Wales, and the answer to that despatch of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), and upon that information the right hon. Gentleman had told the House, that the colonies of New South Wales, of South Australia, and of New Zealand were in a state approaching to a national bankruptcy. The error into which hon. Gentlemen opposite would run, would be great if the right hon. Gentleman's statements should induce them to believe that such was the condition of these colonies. The paper which had been produced to the House certainly stated, that in New South Wales, the governor, Sir George Gipps, had issued orders for immigration bounties to an enormous extent, but the reason for this conduct on the part of Sir George Gipps, who had acted as preceding governors had done, in issuing these bounty orders, being for sums given to persons who should land in safety healthy immigrants, was to promote immigration, and he had issued the large number of orders, because "as each permission remained only in force two years, no inconvenience was likely to arise from the practice," and it would cause no distress in the colony. He admitted that this was not a sound reason, but the orders of his noble Friend would prevent any difficulty occurring to the colony, because all the bounty orders were to be brought to the emigration commissioners before the 1st of September last, and after the 1st of November next, no emigrants to claim the bounties could proceed to the colonies. It was clear, therefore, that after that time there would be a cessation of emigration till the right hon. Gentleman, or the noble Lord at the head of the colonial department, should have heard from Sir George Gipps. The effect of this order of his noble Friend would be, that no mischief would accrue to the colonies, although some difficulties might be experienced by the holders of bounty orders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had done much worse by holding out to the people of this country any doubt as to a national failure in New South Wales. From the information he had been able to gather, he believed it to be one of the most prosperous of her Majesty's colonies. And with respect to New Zealand, it was perfectly true that the governor had called upon New South Wales, being at the time a dependency of that colony, though it was now a separate colony, for a larger amount of money than had been expected. Because, like all governors, the governor of New Zealand had taken to heart the peculiar interests of the colonists under him, and did not pay so much attention to the treasury al home. He believed that this was only z branch of the amicable differences that had arisen between the Colonial-office and the governors. The country ought not to entertain the impression that the colonies of New South Wales or of New Zealand are in a state of irremediable distress, and, therefore, he had been tempted to trouble the House with these few observations to prevent the persons who were flocking by thousands from this country to these colonies, from believing that the will find the progress of their prosperity would be checked by any national bank ruptcy on their arrival there; that the people might know, although the House should not propound or pass any measure; for their relief here, that if they leave this country for those colonies in despair their condition will not be equally destitute and hopeless there.

Sir. Robert Peel

in explanation, only wished to refer to the despatch of the 16th July, 1841, addressed by Lord John Rus-6ell to Sir George Gipps. The noble Lord said, I have received your despatch of the 1st February, 1841, marked 'confidential,' in which you report to me the commercial embarrassment which had existed for the preceding three months.‥‥ I cannot receive your report of occurences so disastrous. (Le them mark the terms) occurrences so disas- trous as those which you have now announced to me, without adverting to the question, whether your government may not be in some sense responsible for these evils, however far beyond your power the correction of them may be.‥‥ The same mail has brought me your despatch on the subject of bounties on emigration. From that despatch I learn that you have given orders for bounty, payable within two years, for no less a sum than 979,562l. And then the noble Lord went on to say. On the part of her Majesty's Government, I must disclaim any responsibility for this proceeding, and any obligation to ratify your engagements to the enormous extent to which you have entered into them. He (Sir R. Peel) gave the noble Lord entire credit for the prompt measures he had taken to prevent the evils to the colony, but if he read this despatch, he could but feel great anxiety for the difficulties of the colony, and for providing a remedy.

Lord John Russell

in explanation said, that he certainly had viewed the state of things represented by Sir George Gippg with very considerable apprehension, but he did not look upon the mischief likely to be produced as being so great as was suggested, because the annual produce derivable from the land sales, about 158,000l., would nearly supply the amount of the bounty orders usually issued.

Mr. Fielden

begged to direct the attention of the House to the deplorable distress that existed throughout the whole county of Lancaster, and in other manufacturing districts. He thought the House should not prorogue until something had been done to remedy this frightful state of things. He was astonished too to find that the cruelties of the new poor law were to be continued for another year: and it was with surprise he found the hon. Member for Finsbury allowing the Poor-law commissioners to continue in power a single hour after the 31st of December. He (Mr. Fielden) would remind the House of the number of petitions that had been presented on this painful subject, especially one from Manchester, signed by 50,000 persons, praying that the authority of the commissioners, should hot be extended a single hour after the 31st of December. But this prolongation ought to make the House more feelingly alive to the distress which they wanted but the will to alleviate, for they already had the power—for surely the Government and Parliament could do this; let them then determine not to prorogue Parliament until something had been done. The people of England were as well able to produce every necessary now as at any period of our history; the cause of the change was, that they had no longer in their own hands the fruit of their labour, but it was wrung from them by excessive taxation—whether it was from taxes upon corn or upon sugar it mattered not; but, disguise it as you might, the great cause of the present alarming distress of the people was the excessive taxation under which they laboured. Within a month the House could adopt measures that would give confidence and hope to the people. It was, therefore, their duty to enter into the consideration of this question in a committee of the whole House. If it would not do so he, at least, would record his opinion of what ought to be done in these words: "Resolved, that the distress of the working people at the present time is so great through the country, but particularly in the manufacturing districts, that it is the duty of this House to make instant inquiry into the cause and extent of such distress, and devise means to remedy it; and, at all events, to vote no supply of money until such inquiry be made." He believed if that House did its duty, and applied an early remedy to the distress that existed, old England would yet right herself, but if that remedy were long delayed, they would have occasion deeply to regret the consequence. It was, at least, the bounden duty of that House to inquire into the cause of that distress. Some persons had said that the principal cause of the pressure on the manufacturing districts was over-speculation and over-production. He admitted that the production in manufactures had for some time past exceeded the demand, but the distress was not the consequence of that over-production; on the contrary, he believed that the over-production had been occasioned by the depression which had weighed upon our manufacturing population. The people were taxed far beyond their ability to pay, and the taxes so wrung from them were expended in extravagance and waste; looking, then, at this state of things, and at the distress and destitution which prevailed, it was only reasonable to expect that if that House refused to consider the condition of the people, and to apply a remedy to the evil, the result would be revolution. He would conclude by moving his amendment in the terms lie had already staled.

Dr. Bowring

seconded the resolution. He thanked the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) for his attention to a case which he had had the honour to call to his notice, and all he asked of him and of those around him was that the same sympathy which had been already extended to the sufferings of one might be dealt out to the sufferings of all. The poor might be told to wait, but wailing was very difficult for the suffering many. If hon. Members opposite would only consent to look into the condition of the poor, it could not but be felt that they would ill discharge the duties which they had undertaken, unless they provided a remedy for their distresses. At home, and abroad, great demands were made on the attention of the House. At home, sufferings existed which could not be denied. The case, to which he had before alluded, afforded ample proof of this fact, for the report of the relieving officer was sufficient to establish it. He said that the pauper had applied for relief three months before, and he had made inquiries; he found that the man was in work, and that he earned at the rate of 3s. per head for his family per week; the standard which had been adopted by the guardians was 2s. 3d., and it was not a case, therefore, for relief no assistance was given, and no further application was made until a demand was made for a coffin, and for money to pay the funeral dues. He did not complain of the conduct of the guardians on this occasion, for he had reason to believe that they were not cognizant of the facts: but he begged the House to bear in mind that there were thousands and tens of thousands of suffering beings whom the Poor-law did not reach, and for whom the commissioners could find no remedy. There was a vast deal of solitary sorrow associated with honourable and high-minded pride, which suffered much—ay, even to death, before its tale of misery was told. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had stated his belief that the Corn-laws were not among the prominent causes of the distresses which existed; but he had not denied the existence of those distresses, and he had not said that the House of Commons was not called upon to look into their causes, and to see whether they could not discover a remedy for them. Connected with these sufferings there was much of political discontent, in which there was so much of real grievance, that their consideration was absolutely necessary. He prayed that the people might not plead in vain, or their condition would be most painful.

The House divided on the question that the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply be read—Ayes 149; Noes 41: Majority 108.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D.	Fuller, A. E.
Ackers, J.	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Acton, Colonel	Gladstone, W. E.
Allix, J. P.	Gore, W. O.
Antrobus, E.	Goring, C.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Ashley, Lord	Greenall, P.
Attwood, J.	Greene, T.
Bagot, hon. W.	Grogan, E.
Bailey, J.	Hale, R. B.
Baird, W.	Halford, H.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Hamilton, W. J.
Barrington, Viscount	Hamilton, Lord C.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Harcourt, G. G.
Beckett, W.	Hardinge, rt. hn.SirH.
Borthwick, P.	Hardy, J.
Boscawen Lord	Hawkes, T.
Bramston, T. W.	Henley, J. W.
Broadley, H.	Henniker, Lord
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Herbert, hon. S.
Bruce, Lord E.	Hodgson, R.
Bruce, Lord	Hogg, J. W.
Buck, L. W.	Hope, hon. C.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Hope, G. W.
Campbell, A.	Hornby, J.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.	Hoskins, K.
Chelsea, Viscount	Hughes, W. B.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Cholmondeley, hon. H.	Irton, S.
Clayton, R. R.	Jermyn, Earl
Clerk, Sir G.	Johnson, W. G.
Cochrane, A.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Cole, hon. A. H.	Jones, Captain
Collett, W. R.	Ker, D. S.
Cresswell, C.	Kerrison, Sir E.
Cripps, W.	Knightley, Sir C.
Dawney, hon. W. H.	Law, hon. C. E.
Dickinson, F. H.	Legh, G.C.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Leicester, Earl of
Douglas, J. D. S.	Lindsay, H. H.
Dowdeswell, W.	Litton, E.
Duffield, T.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Dugdale, W. S.	Mac Geachy, F. A.
Escott, B.	Manners, Lord J.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	March, Earl of
Ferrand, W. B.	Marsham, Viscount
Filmer, Sir E.	Martin, C. W.
Fitzroy, Captain	Masterman, J.
Fleming, J. W.	Maunsell, T. P.
Forbes, W.	Miles, P. W. S.
Forman, T. S.	Miles, W.

Order of the Day read.

cc604-8
1. SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. 766 words
cc607-8
1. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 123 words