HC Deb 01 February 1844 vol 72 cc42-139
The Speaker

in formed the House, that the Commons had been summoned to the House of Peers, where Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to deliver a Speech from the Throne, which he would now read. The right hon. Gentleman having read the Speech,

Lord Clive

rose to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to her most gracious Speech. In the performance of the arduous task he had taken on himself he felt, that although the difficulty of it was in some degree diminished by the circumstance, that the subjects on which he had to touch were for the most part of a favourable nature, yet, that in the discharge of that duty, he must crave the patient indulgence of the House. In the first place, be was glad that Her Majesty had been enabled to refer in such satisfactory terms to the relations of this country with foreign powers and to the continued assurance of their desire for the permanent tranquillity of Europe. The maintenance of peace throughout Europe was of such paramount importance, and so necessary to the prosperity of this country, that unless we could count with certainty upon its permanence all our efforts to promote the welfare of the kingdom, must be uncertain in their results. There were other and most important objects referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, and on some of these there might and would be differences of opinion; but on one point they were all agreed, and that was the hope held out of having the assurance, unvarying in its recurrence in each succeeding year, that the prospect of peace remained unclouded. That hope was the more cheering when to it was added a similar expectation with respect to France, and a prospect held out that those two powerful nations would go hand in hand in the peaceful career of national improvement. The situation of those two countries was in many respects so similar—they were separated by so short a distance, that there was scarcely anything which could injuriously affect the one without injury in the same degree to the other. But he could conceive no assurance of the friendly feeling existing between the two nations more strong than that conveyed by Her Majesty's recent visit to France, by the cordial manner in which she was received by the Sovereign and by the people of that country, and by the equally cordial greetings which awaited her on her return amidst her own subjects—and though the future historian, who might have to notice that visit as one of the happy incidents of tier Majesty's happy reign, would not have to record so gorgeous an array as on the last occasion when a chivalrous Sovereign of tins country visited France,—though he might not have to describe any thing like the splendours of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, neither would he have to notice the ambitious jealousies and political rivalries which all those splendours could but ill conceal. No; the visit of Queen Victoria to France—her reception there, and the crowds who welcomed her on her return, would be handed down to posterity as so many assurances of international peace and tranquillity between the two countries. In looking to the other topics of Her Majesty's Speech, the next which presented itself referred to a different part of the globe, the relation in which we stood with respect to China. It was most satisfactory to find that the peace which we had concluded with that country remained unbroken. The negotiations into which we had entered at the close of the war had been brought to a successful termination under the able management of Sir Henry Pottinger; and there was every reason to hope that our intercourse with that vast empire would increase daily. It was most satisfactory to find that the warfare which had been carried on at such an immense expenditure should have given place to negotiations, in which the skill and ability of our plenipotentiary had been for his country most usefully displayed. It was a matter of no ordinary difficulty to obtain such results from a power which for ages had held itself aloof from all foreign states. To England was reserved the honour of breaking down this barrier—by the removal of which commercial intercourse was now opened with China, not for this country alone, but for the whole of Europe and America. These results showed the consummate skill of Sir H. Pottinger, and the clear insight he had acquired as to the character of those with whom he had to deal. If the House turned to our Indian Empire it would find that there the results of our operations had led, as Her Majesty had informed them, to the annexation of part of Scinde to our possessions in the East. Her Majesty had also stated, that she had directed additional information as to the affairs of Scinde to be laid before them, which would, no doubt, be forthwith presented, he would not more fully enter into this subject, but he could not refrain from expressing his gratification at the successful gallantry of Sir C. Napier, and the army tinder his command. It was indeed impossible to refer to the subject without being struck with the invincible energy of our troops; nor could he refrain from expressing his admiration of the valour and discipline of our officers and men, Indian and European; it was indeed most gratifying to him, to see the zeal and energy with which the Sepoy fought by the side of his European fellow-soldier, and to feel that our native troops had maintained that reputation, which, from the earliest periods of our connection with India, their gallantry had earned. Turning next to our domestic affairs, that part of Her Majesty's Speech which referred to them could not excite other than most gratifying feelings. He alluded to the improvement which had taken place in our trade; owing to which much of the misery and distress that had unfortunately prevailed last year had been removed. It was also satisfactory to learn that this improvement in the condition of the people had been followed by a corresponding improvement in the revenue. And he rejoiced at being able to state that the improvement which had already taken place gave them the certainty, that the Income of the year would more than cover the Expenditure, and that a surplus would be left at the end of the financial year which might be applied consistently with the wise regulations of the legislature to the reduction of the national debt. Thus the improvement which Her Majesty at the commencement of the last Session had said she expected had been realized. But, passing by those financial topics to which Her Majesty had directed their attention, and which, owing to their own importance, would of themselves engage the attention of the House, he was sure that they would all cordially concur in thanking Her Majesty for the affectionate regard she had expressed for the welfare of her Irish subjects, and for the anxious desire which Her Majesty had expressed to concur with Parliament in the adoption of all measures which might tend to improve the social condition of Ireland, and develope the natural resources of that part of the United Kingdom. Under ordinary circumstances, and on ordinary occasions, in moving an Address to the Throne, he should feel most anxious to avoid every topic which could tend to excite differences of opinion; but on the present occasion he most particularly wished to guard himself against any reference to those subjects which were now under the consideration of the legal tribunals of the country. He would, therefore, content himself with calling on the House to express its thanks to Her Majesty for having specially directed their attention to the important subject of the Registration in Ireland. The appointment of the Commission for inquiry into the law and practice of the occupation of Land in Ireland had been productive of much valuable information on the subject, and there was good ground for believing that it would eventually be attended with the most beneficial results. Persons of all parties and of all shades of political opinions had come forward to give evidence on the subject of the inquiry, so, that in all matters of a local nature, the commissioners would be able to obtain the fullest information. Having now touched on the principal topics to which Her Majesty had directed their attention, he would not detain the House longer than while he expressed his thanks for the kind indulgence with which they had heard him. In conclusion, he would express a fervent hope, that in addressing themselves to the subjects which Her Majesty had laid before them, the result of their counsels might tend to promote the prosperity of all Her Majesty's subjects. The noble lord concluded by moving the following address:—

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to acknowledge Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, and to thank tier Majesty for tier condescension in assuring us that it affords Her Majesty great satisfaction again to meet us in Parliament, and to have the opportunity of profiting by our assistance and advice:

To assure Her Majesty, that we learn with great satisfaction, that Her Majesty entertains a confident hope that the general peace, so necessary for the happiness and prosperity of all nations, will continue uninterrupted:

That we rejoice to be informed, that Her Majesty's friendly relations with the King of the French, and the good understanding happily established between Her Majesty's Government and that of His Majesty, with the continued assurances of the peaceful and amicable dispositions of all Princes and States, confirm Her Majesty in this expectation:

To thank Her Majesty, for having directed to be laid before us the Treaty which Her Majesty has concluded with the Emperor of China, and which Her Majesty rejoices to think will, in its results, prove highly advantageous to the trade of this Country:

To express our thanks to Her Majesty, for acquainting us that, throughout the whole course of Her Majesty's negotiations with the Government of China, Her Majesty has uniformly disclaimed the wish for any exclusive advantages; and that it has been Her Majesty's desire, that equal favour should be shown to the industry and commercial enterprise of all nations:

Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us, that the hostilities which took place during the past year in Scinde, have led to the annexation of a considerable portion of that country to the British Possessions in the East:

That we are gratified to learn, that, in all the military operations, and especially in the battles of Meeanee and Hydrabad, the constancy and valour of the troops, Native and European, and the skill and gallantry of their distinguished Commander have been most conspicuous:

To thank Her Majesty for having given directions, that additional information, explanatory of the transactions in Scinde, shall be forthwith communicated to us:

To convey our thanks to Her Majesty, for having directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be immediately laid before us; and for Her Majesty's assurance, that they have been prepared with a strict regard to economy, and at the same time with a due consideration of those exigencies of the Public Service which are connected with the maintenance of our maritime strength, and the multiplied demands on the Naval and Military Establishments from the various parts of a widely extended Empire:

That we participate in the gratification expressed by Her Majesty, in the improved condition of several important branches of the trade and manufactures of the Country; and that with her Majesty we trust, that the increased demand for labour has relieved in a corresponding degree many classes of Her Majesty's faithful subjects from sufferings and privations, which, at former periods, Her Majesty has had occasion to deplore.

That we rejoice to learn, though for several successive years the annual produce of the Revenue fell short of the Public Expenditure, Her Majesty confidently trusts, that in the present year the Public Income will be amply sufficient to defray the charges upon it;

Humbly to assure Her Majesty, that in considering all matters connected with the financial concerns of the Country we will bear in mind the evil consequences of accumulating debt during the time of peace; and that we are firmly resolved to uphold that public credit, the maintenance of which concerns equally the permanent interests and the honour and reputation of a great Country:

To thank Her Majesty for having called our attention to the circumstances that in the course of the present year the opportunity will occur of giving notice to the Bank of England on the subject of the Revision of its Charter; and that it may be advisable that during this Session of Parliament, and previously to the arrival of the period assigned for the giving of such Notice, the state of the Law with regard to the Privileges of the Bank of England and other Banking Establishments should be brought under our consideration:

Humbly to thank Her Majesty for the assurance that Her Majesty is resolved to act in strict conformity with the declaration made by Her Majesty at the close of the last Session of Parliament, of Her firm determination to maintain inviolate the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and also of Her Majesty's earnest desire to co-operate with Parliament in the adoption of all such measures as might tend to improve the social condition of Ireland, and to develope the natural resources of that part of the United Kingdom:

That we recognize the just consideration of Her Majesty, in forbearing from observation on events in Ireland, in respect to which proceedings are pending before the proper legal tribunal:

That we are gratified to learn that Her Majesty's attention has been directed to the state of the Law and practice with regard to the occupation of land in Ireland; and that Her Majesty has deemed it advisable to institute extensive local enquiries into a subject of so much importance, and has appointed a Commission with ample authority to conduct the requisite investigation:

To thank Her Majesty for recommending that we should take into our early consideration the enactments at present in force in Ireland concerning the Registration of Voters for Members of Parliament: and for Her Majesty's gracious intimation that we may probably find that a Revision of the Law of Registration, taken in conjunction with other causes at present in operation, would produce a material diminution of the number of County Voters; and that it may be advisable on that account to consider the state of the Law with a view to an extension of the County Franchise in Ireland:

Humbly to thank Her Majesty for the assurance of Her Majesty's confidence in the loyalty and wisdom of Parliament, in committing to our deliberate consideration the various important questions of public policy which will necessarily come under our review; and that we unite with Her Majesty in an earnest prayer to Almighty God to direct and favour our efforts to promote the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's people.

Mr. Cardwell

said, in rising to second the Address which the noble Lord had moved, he might be permitted, like the noble Lord, to throw himself upon the never failing indulgence of the House, before he ventured upon the topics which the occasion naturally suggested, and to which he should be presumptuous indeed if he imagined that any language of his was equal. He would not trespass upon the time of the House by following the noble Lord into all the subjects which he had so ably handled: subjects of historical association, and of universal interest; and confessed that he rested with peculiar satisfaction on that part of the noble Lord's observations, in which he had invited the House of Commons to congratulate the Crown upon renewed communications of commercial enterprise, and reviving energies of manufacturing industry; upon the prosperity of our own people, stimulated and encouraged by peace with foreign nations; upon comfort generally diffused among the masses of our population, the permanence of whose sources was guaranteed by an Exchequer wisely replenished, and adequate to the national responsibilities. His connection with the industrious communities in the north of England led him to form his own conclusions chiefly upon evidence derived from them; and he was persuaded the House of Commons would recognise their importance upon their own account, and would acknowledge that intimately connected by infinite ramifications of common interest with every art of the social economy, and peculiarly sensitive as they were to the first action and reaction of commercial impulse and reverse, they presented an index by which the House might test the prospects for evil or for good of the country at large. He need not revert to those tales of sorrow, which in past Sessions their representatives had had to tell. They were familiar to the recollection of the House. But that heart must be insensible in which no emotions of lively gratitude had been kindled by the transition we had since experienced from stagnation and distress, in some parts from despair, if Englishmen had ever known despair, to renewed demand, and re-awakened confidence. We could not look at the returns presented by the Customs' department, and hesitate to acknowledge that large quantities of foreign produce had found their way into our home consumption, or that a corresponding amount of British industry had been employed at remunerating prices to furnish an equivalent. But, if in the presence of so many hon. Members more familiar than himself with the details of commerce, he might prosecute this subject further; we should find that in all, or nearly all the great branches of British manufacture, symptoms of returning health presented themselves, the same in character, different in degree, but fortunately often found in the highest degree, when from the importance of the article as a staple manufacture of the kingdom, their presence was the most satisfactory, and the most encouraging. In regard to cotton we should find that the stimulus which commenced with the low prices of last year, had steadily maintained itself; that, notwithstanding some increase in the price of the raw material, and some he believed groundless alarm with regard to the prospects of the future crop, and a partial improvement in the rate of wages, the courage of the producer had been sustained, demand was brisk; stocks were low, and all the indications of a healthy trade presented themselves. He had no intention of trespassing on the time of the House by reading many of the papers which he held in his hand; for he felt that this was not an occasion for presenting statements, which from their nature challenged dispute; and, that unless he could establish a case, resting upon broad grounds, commending itself to the experience of hon. Members on both sides, who were most conversant with the subject, he had no case at all to substantiate. But, if the House would allow him, he was de- sirous to read to them the particulars of two statements; not different from the rest in character, but selected, because in former discussions in this House, the localities to which they referred, had obtained an unenviable name from the depth of misfortune into which they had been plunged. The first was a letter from the clerks of the Union at Burnley, who said,— We beg to send you printed extracts from the Quarterly Abstracts of our Union since 1840, from which you will see the great improvement in the situation of the lower orders, particularly since 1841. Now, in comparing Michaelmas quarter last with Michaelmas 1842, he found the number of applicants was reduced from 12,595 to 5,051, and the amount of expenditure, from 4,230l. to 2,800l. And these were the figures to which they were referring when they wrote. Besides this, upwards of 10,000l. received from the Manufacturers' Relief Fund. There is a great and very evident improvement in the cotton trade here, and consequently in other businesses dependent upon it. We have three new mills upon the point of being erected, one of which is to be the largest in the neighbourhood. Several lately unoccupied mills are now let, and preparing for running; and a corn-mill and a woollen-mill are also being fitted up for the cotton manufacture. The labours of our board meetings, which usually detained the guardians to a late hour at night are now concluded in two or three hours, and the poor in the neighbourhood of Colne and Marsden, where the greatest pressure lay, are now in full employment (in weaving) at moderate and fair wages; indeed, everything wears a very different and much improved aspect. He was sure it would be gratifying to the House to know that this improvement had extended even to that desolate and forlorn class of persons, the handloom weavers. With regard to them he feared it would be transient, for the course of improvement, beneficial in its general consequences, was ruthless in its destruction of individual interests; but at least it was consolatory to know that even their distressed condition was for the time relieved. The other paper he proposed to read referred to Stockport, and he found that— The Poor-rates which in 1842, were 9s. in the pound, have been reduced to 4s. That in the workhouse there are not half the number of inmates there were a year ago, and not one able-bodied pauper in the house. At the present time, there are upwards of 3,000 more work-people employed than at the commencement of 1842, with the prospect of employment for at least 4000 more in the course of three or four months. There is a large printing establishment in the town, which works for the home market, and which has now upwards of 100 tables at work, whereas in 1842, they had not more than 40 in use. A new and extensive bleaching work is in progress, and will be in full operation in a short time. Several of the large cotton-mills which have been closed for years, are now at work, and two others have just been taken, and will be at work in a few months. Several of the cotton-mills have been considerably enlarged. The empty cottage-houses— The House had not forgotten the pictures that were drawn of the deserted condition of the town of Stockport. The empty cottage-houses are fast filling, and shops which have been untenanted for years are re-opening. The improved condition of the people is apparent in their more decent appearance as to clothing; it is also plainly visible in their looks—they are evidently better fed. The writer then went on to give the number of empty houses, and a statement of the deposits in the savings banks. He was aware of the objections which were made, when the savings banks were appealed to on this subject, but he thought that as one sign out of many, supported by independent collateral evidence, and particularly when the principal increase was in the number of small depositors of savings from the weekly wages of artisans, they would be admitted not to be without their value. He held in his hand the last report of the savings bank for Manchester and Salford, in which the committee have the pleasure to announce that the transactions of the past year have far exceeded in extent those of any former year." And then they went on to give the figures; and notwithstanding the improvement of 1843 over 1842, he found from a return which the actuary had kindly prepared for him, that the increase, particularly of small depositors of the first three weeks of January now last part, as compared with the first three weeks of 1843, had been exceedingly remarkable. Then, with regard to the trade in wool, that ancient staple of England, where from the greater price of the raw material, returning animation would be expected to show itself more tardily, the same symptoms would be found. There had been a considerable increase in the price of the raw material which he trusted had found its way into the pocket of the British farmer, and a rise of wages which doubtless had increased the comforts of the operative, but he hoped that these were only the natural remorœ of advancing trade, and served to keep it within the limits of a steady and safe demand. With respect to flax a spirited enterprise had been undertaken for promoting a rapid communication between the north of Ireland and the linen districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire; and he was sure the House would cordially unite in the hope that by the developement of her great agricultural resources, and the application to her manufactures of British skill and capital, Ireland might yet be destined to experience, and to appreciate the full benefit of her connection with England. There was one great branch of British manufacture, on which he feared he should be thought too bold, if he ventured to speak so sanguinely. He feared, that hon. Members connected with the iron districts would scarcely admit, that prosperity had returned to them. The excessive excitement of past years, had produced, no doubt, a corresponding and protracted depression; and yet even here, he thought, he might fairly report, that unequivocal symptoms of returning health presented themselves, He did not deny that the patient was diseased, sorely diseased, but he thought there were signs that the crisis of his disease was past. Furnaces that had been blown out had been rekindled, fresh hands employed, some addition had been made to the paltry pittance that was doled out rimier the name of wages, and he learnt from au intelligent and impartial report of his friend Mr. Austin, that the able-bodied labourer had ceased to be a burthen upon the poor-rates in the unions of South Staffordshire. Could they hesitate to form favourable anticipations for the iron market from the numerous plans for new railways, which in conformity with the standing orders, had been already deposited and which besides the inestimable advantages they would confer upon the country at large, must necessarily stimulate the trade in iron? Was it not a cause of congratulation to reflect, that we, who at the commencement of the present century were dependent for so large a part of our rough iron upon the Baltic, were now engaged in supplying the materials for that way which was to unite the two distant capitals of Russia? Again, the necessary consequences of the improvement in regard to cotton and wool had been felt by the machine manufacturers in a brisk demand for new and improved machinery. How much of their activity might be ascribed to the measure of last Session he was not informed: but he was given to understand that measure had excited much more jealousy among the makers of machinery on the Continent than among the users of machinery in England. These circumstances seemed to him to afford indications that could not be mistaken that this important branch of our manufacture would take its share in the general improvement. Again, could there be any more decisive evidence of returning activity than the rapid, gradual, and progressive increase recently exhibited in the traffic returns not of one, but of all the leading railways? or any greater proof of general abundance and of general confidence than the rise which had notoriously taken place in the stock of these great undertakings, a rise measured, he believed, in the last three months not by thousands, nor by hundreds of thousands, but by millions of money? And now, should he trespass upon the time of the House by pursuing this subject into the minor details of commerce, or might he not fairly assume, nay, should he not rather be fairly required to assume, that the same streams of returning health beat in the smaller pulses which they had seen to circulate in these great arteries of our inward life? And if this were so, it would be natural to enquire by what countries of the world this great stimulus had been mainly given to the trade of England? He would not read to the House the glowing anticipations contained in the circulars which he held in his hand,—circulars usually addressed at this season of the year by experienced men to their practical customers, composed for no political object, dressed up to serve no special purpose, guarded even from the suspicion of a tendency to raise the market by the jealousy such men naturally felt for their own repution. When he turned to these circulars, he seemed to be glancing at the index to a manual of geography, so numerous were the names of the countries to which by way of illustration they referred. But first and foremost they mentioned China, which within the past year had taken a great, a vast quantity, of English manufactures. And here, he trusted he might be permitted to express the cordial satisfaction with which he had heard that part of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, in which she communicated to Parliament the open and liberal spirit she had preserved in her commercial negotiations with China. The patent of England's precedence had been sealed in history. It was written in every line of those intelligent and thoughtful countenances that thronged her marts of commerce, and now in this sentence it was spoken in pregnant language, and with the power of example: and we should no longer speak in vain when we told the world that the bounty of commerce was twice blessed,—that we feared no rival, we shunned no competition,—and that we knew we should then be most prosperous when the most unlimited opportunities should be afforded for universal intercourse. The noble Lord had spoken so fully on the subject of France, that he trusted he should be excused if he passed it over in a few words, not insensible to the inestimable advantages of that good understanding to which the noble Lord had referred, and sincerely hoping that the commerce between the two countries might hereafter be raised to an amount in some degree corresponding to their natural opportunities, their mutual wants and products. But, while these practical writers, addressing their practical customers, spoke in glowing terms of China as an inexhaustible field for British enterprise, and of the Indus as opening a broad channel to the expansive streams of commerce, he confessed he had a peculiar satisfaction in observing that to distinguish the present as a safe and substantial and not a shadowy or speculative stimulus, they referred their readers not mainly to China, nor the Indus, to America, or France, but to that home market which, while it was the surest evidence of the general welfare, was the only safeguard to the manufacturer for the permanence of his trade. And, if such were the condition of these important districts, with respect to the revival of trade, other considerations presented themselves, equally affording matter of congratulation to the House. He was conscious that in matters of human government, there would, from the constitution of things, be differences of political opinion; and he was anxious no syllable should escape his lips which might seem to invite dispute, or to savour of any party predilection on his side, upon an occasion when the House of Commons would be desirous to present its unanimous expressions of loyalty to the Sovereign of an united people. But he believed, that universal accordance both within and without those walls would bear him out in stating, what the utmost assurance of personal knowledge, and the most genuine sentiments of personal gratitude called upon him to express—he meant an acknowledgment, that when under the pressure of dis- tress, the bonds by which the different classes of society in the north of England were bound together, in mutual co-operation, were, for a time, relaxed, Her Majesty's Government, by temperate severity, could vindicate the majesty of the law, and by well-timed clemency, could conciliate the returning affections of the people. He believed, that in the interval which had since elapsed, justice, tempered with mercy, had produced its natural fruits, guarding the operative against the counsels of sedition, and encouraging in the minds of the wealthier classes the sentiments of generous sympathy which the distresses brought to light, by those enquiries, were so well calculated to excite. Again, he was sure the House would be glad to learn from the report which he held in his hand, that a measure which in the last Session, received its unanimous concurrence, and from which great results were expected, had shown an early vitality, greater than its projectors probably anticipated, and had already produced the most gratifying fruit. This was not the time, or the place, to speak of individual acts of munificence, or of instances of self-devotion on the part of persons enjoying large endowments and possessing extensive patronage. But it must be satisfactory to the House to know that applications for about 150 new districts, were now before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and thus by means which had excited no opposition in any quarter, half a million of persons for whose spiritual destitution no adequate provision had been made, were brought within reach of the ministrations of our common faith. And, if upon another, and a kindred subject, their deliberations appeared to be less fortunate, and they seemed to arrive at no practical result, he believed that the earnest anxiety evinced within these walls to grapple with the subject of education, and the candour manifested on both sides in dealing with its difficulties, had produced a corresponding energy, he trusted also a corresponding candour, out of doors—that vigorous exertions had been made in different quarters—that if unhappily we could not make an united, at least we had made a simultaneous effort against the common enemies, ignorance and vice, and he trusted it might result in a general system of education, possessing that qualification without which he was persuaded, in a mixed government like ours, no system of education could work well—he meant, the general concurrence of moderate and reflecting men. He hoped he had fairly described the state of the industrious communities to which he had referred. And if such were their condition, physically and socially considered, should he be indulged for a few moments, if he endeavoured shortly to express what he believed to be their general feelings with regard to the career that was now opening before them? First, they were grateful to the Giver of all good, for returning prosperity, rendered doubly welcome by the bitter experience of distress. But with regard to the future, he was sure it was the firm conviction of their minds, that the prosperity to which England had already attained, was but the type and outline of that greatness whose full measure she was destined hereafter to accomplish. Confident in their own resources—resolute in their own determinations—with sanguine accuracy they had enumerated the armies and the fleets of commerce—and were bounded only by the limits of the habitable globe, in their visions of peaceful conquest. And were these the illusions of enthusiasm, or the sober realities of practical and earnest men? When they remembered that a century had scarcely elapsed since the empire of the East was opened to them by the genius of the noble Lord's progenitor,—that in the lifetime of their fathers that great manufacture was involved in the struggles of infancy, by whose wonderful development the products of the British loom had superseded the native article in the markets of Calicut,—where they reflected upon the accelerated motion given by the progress of improvement to the wheels of time, could they hesitate to acknowledge that they were upon the eve of some high destiny, which the boldest might not have ventured to predict in all its particulars,—but which the most advanced in years might expect to see, to a certain extent accomplished? And if these were not idle visions, by what spirit on the part of the people, by what policy on the part of the Government, were they to be realised? By that union of energy and prudence,—by that combination of expansive force with self-observant caution, which they believed to be the fortunate peculiarity of the national character. By the charter of their British birthright, they required that they should not be debarred from the utmost advantages of the most unlimited improvement. By that same charter they demanded that they should not be exposed to hazard by crude and precipitate legislation. They desired to give ear to the voice a experience, and to be guarded by the recollection of past reverses against the momentary intoxications of success. But above all, they were anxious to carry along with them in their ambitious enterprise the sympathetic interest of every other class of the community. They knew that precisely as their machinery was designed to be powerful in its capabilities, and energetic in its action,—in that same proportion must the building be secure in which it was placed, the foundation be solid on which it rested. Temporary jealousies would occasionally arise, and might result in quickened emulation, and increased improvement; but no one knew better than the prudent trader that from the time, if unhappily it ever should arrive, when settled distrust took place of mutual confidence, and co-operation between the different interests into which this country was divided, from that inauspicious hour must date the decline of her commercial greatness, and the decay of her domestic strength. Commerce had its hereditary associations,—its titles by descent,—its ever growing connection with the soil by the substantial ties of property. Such men would not sacrifice their well grounded prospects of perpetuity for the lure of a temporary gain. They were not such unthrifty husbandmen, they would not be found grinding their seed-corn. Adulation had likened the British merchant to the princes of Tyre: but he rejected the unsubstantial comparison, for Tyre was a deserted rock, a place for the nets of fishermen. He had learnt from history that purely commercial communities had risen to transient greatness, and had sunk into irremediable ruin. Born to a brighter hope, under the shelter of the British Constitution, in permanent connection with the domestic interests of England, he looked for a perpetual name; and confidently believed that by steadiness and sobriety in the vindication of principle, by facility and flexibility in the application of detail, the present signs of promise might be matured, in the wisdom of Parliament to the full fruits of great and generally diffused prosperity. He (Mr. Cardwell) could but return his sincere thanks to the House for the kindness with which they had heard him. He felt that by the length at which he had trespassed on their patience on subjects not unnaturally nearest to his own feelings, he had precluded himself from entering on many topics on which fortu- nately the noble Lord had preceded him. He would only therefore express his general concurrence with the noble Lord, and the sincere satisfaction with which he seconded the Address in the terms in which the noble Lord had moved it.

The Speaker

having read the Address,

Mr. Hume

inquired for form's sake whether any amendment could be moved on the second reading of the Address. If not, he hoped he should not be precluded from now making a few observations.

The Speaker

said, that it would be competent to the hon. Member to move any amendment when the question on each paragraph of the Address was put. The right hon. Gentleman having completed the reading of the Address,

Mr. Hume

said, he had seldom heard the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of any Address less objectionable to his mind than that which had just been delivered in its support, nor did he object to what had been proposed for the adoption of the House. He could not, however, entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, in the glowing terms in which he had described the renewal of trade, and the removal of the distress of the country. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would prove a true prophet; but as far as he (Mr. Hume) had been able to learn, he could not reconcile the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman with the facts that had reached him. He, however, acknowledged that the House met on the present occasion under more favourable auspices as regarded the state of employment of the population, than it did on the opening of the last Session of Parliament. Undoubtedly, there now existed some grounds for satisfaction, on the change although he could not look to it as a prospect of continued improvement to all classes of the community. The present mode of proceeding with respect to the Address in answer to the Speech front the Throne on the opening of Parliament was extremely objectionable. It was impossible to proceed to its consideration with that due deliberation that was esential to give importance to the Address. The present Speech consisted of twenty-three distinct and separate paragraphs, every one of which contained matter of considerable importance, and yet hon. Members were called upon, without even having a copy in their hands, to vote an Address in answer to that which dealt with so many various and complicated questions. He had formerly protested and had taken the sense of the House—against proceeding to consider the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne on the same night that it was proposed. Twenty-two years ago a stand had been taken against this mode of proceeding, and an attempt had been made to adopt another course, which would give the character and importance that ought to attach to an Address from that House. It could not be supposed that any Address drawn up by Her Majesty's Government in answer to their own Speech, and put into the hands of two hon. Gentlemen who knew as little about it a few hours ago as all the other Members did, if adopted thus hastily by the House, could be regarded otherwise than as a mere farce. Twenty-two years ago an hon. Baronet lately deceased, in conjunction with a right hon. Baronet then associated with him in the representation of Westminster, submitted to the House the very reasonable request that twenty-four hours should be permitted for the consideration of the Speech from the Throne, before an Address in answer should be voted, but their attempt failed: and now the Address is brought under consideration in two hours after the Speech from the Throne had been delivered. Was this course right? He (Mr. Hume) had no hesitation in saying that there were many parts of the Speech which he approved of. There might be other parts of it calculated to give offence to individuals, and many subjects were omitted from it which he thought of great importance to the welfare of the country. These omissions it would become his duty especially to notice, rather than to complain of any particular of which it was composed. In the first place there was no man who valued the maintenance of peace more than he did, knowing its importance to every country and especially to a commercial and manufacturing nation like Great Britain, and therefore, the paragraph on that subject contained in Her Majesty's Speech was roost agreeable to him. Indeed, he was prepared to go further with respect to the friendly connection between this country and France than did the Speech from the Throne. The preservation of amity between the two countries was calculated to produce the most beneficial results to themselves and to the world; and therefore he was prepared to rejoice specially in the re-establishment of amicable relations with that nation, and he might observe that the course taken by Her Majesty, in paying a visit to that country, must have tended more speedily to bring about that better understanding between England and France. He looked upon the financial difficulties of this country to have arisen from the departure by the preceding Government from the sound policy acted upon from 1830 to 1837, that the peace of the world and the prosperity of England would be promoted by the intimate union of England and France. It was his humble opinion that while these two countries were united in policy, not only the peace of the world would be secured, but that the union would bring with it all the advantages to the country which flowed from peace—the reduction of expenditure—diminution of taxation, and that this country had not as yet enjoyed those advantages was to be attributed to the mistaken and erroneous policy, of separating two countries calculated by their situation, and by their varied produce, to be the best friends to each other. He was therefore greatly pleased with that part of the speech which had reference to the wise policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government towards France—he hoped the same policy would be carried forward, and that it would lead to permanent peace, and encreased commercial intercourse with all their economical and beneficial results. The next subject in succession to which the hon. and learned Seconder of the Address alluded, was to the advantages this country was likely to derive; nay, had already derived from a commercial connexion with China. Now, he (Mr. Hume) begged the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and the hon. Members who sat behind hint to make themselves acquainted with, and then to ponder over, the tariff the Chinese had passed for foreign trade; and he would then ask the right hon. Baronet if he did not think that the Government of this country ought to feel ashamed that it had allowed the Chinese to outstrip them in enlightened principles of commercial policy. By that tariff, there was not a single article required for the food of the Chinese that was not admitted free from all duty and impost. The whole of the export duties in China were under only sixty-one heads, and 5 per cent on unenumerated articles. The whole of the imports into China were under forty-eight heads, and 5 per cent on unenumerated articles. Rice, paddy, and grain of all kinds duty free. Let this country act upon that principle, and great would be the benefits that would ensue. He (Mr. Hume) hoped the example of China would operate as a lesson to England. The Chinese had hitherto styled Englishmen as barbarians, and truly so, if their import duties, and prohibitory laws are to be considered, for if regard was had to the impediments England by her tariff had thrown in the way of her commercial dealings, we really are barbarians in principle and in practice. The great principle of admitting food duty free should be acted upon. There was another point bearing on the subject of our treaty with China, which he (Mr. Hume) thought most important to the character of this country, which, by other nations, had heretofore been looked upon as a monopolising country, anxious to grasp at every advantage connected with commerce in every part of the world, to the exclusion of others. Now, by the supplemental treaty concluded with China by Her Majesty's plenipotentiary, equal participation in the commerce with China was given to all other countries. This was highly creditable to the individual and to the Government who had promoted such a treaty; and it afforded the best possible answer to much of the obloquy cast by the French and Americans, and others, upon England for its former narrow commercial policy. So far then he (Mr. Hume) approved of the Speech from the Throne; but on the next paragraph, which states the annexation of a portion of Scinde to the British empire, he had prepared an amendment, which was very short, but very important. It was to the effect, That whilst this House agreed with Her Majesty in tier Majesty's commendations bestowed upon the officers and men employed in the late military operations in Scinde, it desired to withhold the expression of any opinion respecting the political negotiations, with the dethronement and imprisonment of the Ameers of Scinde, until it was in possession of more precise and satisfactory information. He (Mr. Hume) learned, that before he entered the House a notice had been given to the same purport by a noble Lord, and that the subject would come on for consideration at a very early period; under such circumstances he would not move the amendment as intended, but content himself at present with protesting against the whole political proceedings carried on in that unfortunate country, and he must state his opinion, that by those proceedings Great Britain had disgraced herself in the eyes of the whole world, and he regarded the whole of the transactions with extreme sorrow. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had seconded the Address had spoken in glowing terms of the peaceful progress of commerce; he (Mr. Hume) wished, that with regard to India, he (Mr. Hume) could say that the facts justified the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could not agree with the noble Mover of the Address, whose ancestor the first Lord Clive laid the foundation of British power in India, in speaking of the peaceful progress of commerce in that country. He could tell him that it was by conquest and in too many cases by unjust interference that commerce had there been forced. He (Mr. Hume) trusted the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) would lay before the House the instructions under which Lords Auckland and Ellenborough had acted, and all the papers connected with the important affairs of Scinde, that the House right be able fully to understand them; if the right hon. Baronet had in the last year brought them forward he (Mr. flume) thought much of the evils which had lately taken place there would have been spared that country. Therefore, whilst he (Mr. Hume) joined in commending the gallantry of the officers and men employed, he denied the policy in aid of which their services had been required. He now arrived at another important paragraph of the Speech, and it would be curious if he were to read what had been submitted to the Parliament with respect to the estimates. The same paragraph he had heard for the last twenty five years—he had extracted the paragraph from the Speeches in all that period, and it was identically the same in language as had been used in time of war and of peace, and it was really laughable; he mentioned this to show that the expenditure of the country was taken as a matter of course, and the House, therefore, ought not to put credit in the statements as to economy, or attention to the interests of the country, put forward by any Ministry. It was for the House itself to institute the necessary inquiry, and to exercise that control which was its special duty in these matters. True, that the predecessors of the present Government from 1835, had most unnecessarily increased the naval and military forces of the country, and had thereby brought about those financial difficulties which had justly expelled them from power. On the subject of economy and retrenchment he should feel it his duty to move an amendment before he concluded. He knew that many hon. Members did not like a reduction of expenditure—those who hung about the Treasury did not like it as they and their dependents profited by the public money when once out of the Treasury, in 100 ways; but he (Mr. flume) considered it one of the most important duties of Parliament—nay, it was the duty, it was best capable properly to perform—to examine carefully into the establishments required for the service of the country and into the charge or the estimates, and to ascertain the amount absolutely necessary for the public service. With that object in view—a strict control—the House ought to adopt the plan pursued in France and Belgium—a plan which was in strict accordance with the duty of the Commons of England which held or ought to hold the purse strings of the country. In the countries to which he referred the proposed establishments and the estimated expenses of the year were always laid before a committee; and the head of the department, to which each of the several estimates belonged, was called before that committee, to be examined as to every detail and item, and to furnish such explanations as the necessity of the case might seem to require. After this examination by committees, the estimates were laid before the whole House for its consideration and sanction. Now, it appeared to him that the Parliament of this country greatly erred in not being governed by a similar rule. So much for the expenditure for establishments as it affected the financial condition of the country. He should next apply himself to that part of Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne which related to the state of distress in our manufacturing interests and the causes thereof. It afforded him pleasure to agree, that the state of our manufactures afforded some grounds for congratulation, at least so far as cotton, wool, and hardware were con- cerned. In those branches it could not be denied that there was some improvement, but he very much feared that that improvement was only partial and temporary. There were no substantial grounds for expecting that it would continue. The sort of prosperity which we now enjoyed was to be imputed to speculations in consequence of the opening of the intercourse with China, and to that improvement which had taken place in the commerce with America. No man who looked at the state of destitution and distress which had so long prevailed in this country, and reflected on the causes of that distress, could say, that there were any grounds for expecting, that we could retain even the degree of prosperity which we did at present enjoy, unless we removed the causes that had produced the destitution. Of the various evils under which we laboured, want of employment was the most prominent; we lacked the means of employing our manufacturing industry, and this want was principally to be imputed to the effects of our restrictive commercial policy; it was this that shut us out from the means of employment. We refused to receive in exchange for the produce of our industry, the food other nations would willingly give us, and yet, with this great evil so strikingly before the Ministers of the Crown, they did not once advert to the subject in the Speech from the Throne. The Corn-laws were not mentioned in the Address. When the right hon. Baronet, in 1842, endeavoured to persuade the House to go along with him in the policy of removing all prohibitions, and of reducing high duties of imports, he was either right or wrong. The right hon. Baronet was, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, perfectly right in his enunciation of free-trade principles, and in the progress he made by his tariff; nothing could be more sound or philosophical than the doctrines which the right hon. Baronet put forward on the subject of free-trade, and in support of the alterations he proposed to Parliament, and, therefore, he (Mr. Hume) could not help asking the right hon. Gentleman why he had stopped short with his scheme? And he would at the same time ask, was there any Gentleman then present who was not seriously opposed to a repeal of the Corn-laws at some time or other? But what he (Mr. Hume) complained of was this, that the right hon. Baronet admitted, that the time might come when the trade of this country in corn must be perfectly free. But he carefully guarded himself against being supposed to give any decided opinion as to the probable period of its approach. He (Mr. Hume) submitted, that the head of the Government acted most unwisely in allowing the country to remain in doubt as to what his intentions were on a so very important subject. What was the result? The landlords had lately published Anti-League meetings throughout many parts of the country, in favour of the existing Corn-laws, whilst the Anti-Corn-Law League was agitating the country for the entire repeal. They had heard much of these meetings said to be of tenant farmers. He had the curiosity to look at some of the names of those who were present at a meeting held in Steyning of those who were called tenant farmers, and at this meeting there were the Earl of Egremont, the Earl of Winchelsea, the Duke of Richmond, Lord March, besides several other personages, equally wealthy and dignified. There were long lists of nobles and wealthy squires who attended at that meeting, and, he might say, all the meetings for a similar object were similarly composed, although stated to be meetings of tenant farmers. Never at any time, was there such a contest raised in this country. But these meetings, farcical in one sense, were, in another point of view, quite discreditable. He had hoped better things from the well known courtesy of the landed gentlemen and noblemen so assembled; he did not expect that they would have fallen into the error of abusing the Members of the Anti Corn-law League in so disgraceful a manner; and it had been said that these unworthy proceedings were occasioned by irritation caused by the state of doubt and uncertainty in which the head of the Government left the country as to what his views and intentions really were with respect to the Corn-laws and Tariff for the future. The tenant farmers were wholly at a loss to know what to do; they could not have a farm or lay out the proper amount for the improvement of the lands under the doubts they had, but this at least ought to be made known to the country, that the right hon. Baronet was precluded from proposing a fixed duty; he must go for a total repeal or keep the sliding scale; and, looking at the position in which he had placed the country and himself, it was greatly to be regretted that no reference had been made in Her Majesty's Speech to the subject of the Corn-laws. Looking to the statements and conduct of the right hon. Baronet on former occasions, he would say there was now every reason to presume that he entertained no intention of bringing forward any further measure of relief with respect to the Corn and provision laws. The right hon. Baronet upon a former occasion made it a matter of complaint against the noble Lord, the Member for London, that he had proposed a change in the Corn-laws without advising the Queen to announce such an intention in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session; and told the noble Lord that the introduction of such an important measure must have been an afterthought. It was upon this ground that he (Mr. Hume) would now state to the House and the country his fears that the right hon. Baronet had no intention of proposing any change in the Corn-laws in this Session. He (Mr. Hume) was sorry to think that the hon. Baronet had been prevented by his supporters from carrying out his plan of 1842, as to free-trade, and the language at the Anti-League meetings confirmed that opinion. The Duke of Richmond told the supporters of the sliding-scale that they ought to make such a demonstration as would cause the Minister to speak out plainly. His Grace did not recommend that they should use the language of menace; but he advised them to tell the Ministers of the Crown that the evil of which they complained was one of no ordinary magnitude, and that he (Sir R. Peel) ought to speak out and remove the uncertainty that existed as to his intentions. His complaint against the Speech from the Throne was, that it left the landed interest and the country in a state of uncertainly. The supporters of the right hon. Baronet told the country that the Corn-laws were of the very highest importance, and if so, was not the head of the Government the more to blame for leaving the country in the dark respecting them? Why not speak out, and tell the country what they had to expect? The speakers of the Anti-Corn-law League had been blamed for using strong language against the monopolists, but at a tenant farmers meeting at Northampton, Sir C. Knightly held language which he might offend the House by repeating. The hon. Member then went on to say that the hon. Baronet, the Member for that county had accused the Anti-Corn-law League of being enemies to settled institutions—that the body comprehended Jacobins, Radicals, and the refuse of mankind. The hon. Baronet described the League as the most pestiferous body that had ever existed since the days of the Jacobin Club. It was said, that the object of the League was to overthrow the Government. Though he (Mr. Hume) did not belong to the League, yet that was an imputation which he repelled with the utmost indignation. What! overturn the constitution and produce anarchy, was that likely to promote manufactures, or improve the condition of the working classes? He was a Radical, and would give the lie to such a charge. The coalition between the League and the Radicals had been likened to the alliance between Jonathan Wild and Jack Shepherd; but the imputation was in all respects most unjust. They were likewise accused of circulating blasphemous and indecent publications. There never was anything more unjust. The men who took an active part in the business of the Corn-law League were as careful of the public morals as any class of men in the whole community; and the attempt to fix upon them such an accusation was highly discreditable to those who were the landed aristocracy, although they called themselves tenant farmers; and still more discreditable was it for any set of men to tell a large body of their fellow subjects that the contest was begun, and that there must be a civil war if the head of the Government did not speak out and support the farmers in their monopoly of food. He was not ignorant of the difficulties with which Her Majesty's Government had to contend, but he could not forget that the right hon. Baronet had once told the noble Lord, the Member for London, that if he thought any measure necessary for the interests of the public, or involving any important principle of justice to any class of the people, that he ought to propose it to Parliament—even though hopeless of its being carried—and that if he were not able to carry such measures in Parliament, as he conscientiously believed to be just and expedient, he ought to resign. Now, the right hon. Baronet ought to act in conformity with his own recommendations to the noble Lord, the Member for London. Every one then present knew, that the right hon. Baronet had in 1842, declared himself a convert to free-trade principles, and that his right hon. Friend near him had declared that free-trade principles were the principles of common sense, and yet nothing towards the accomplishment of free-trade principles had been done during the last Session of Parliament. The Government told the people that things would mend, but they did nothing to advance that consummation, although the sufferings of the country were extreme. They left things to themselves, and there was certainly some improvement, but the Ministers deserved no credit for that change, for things were so bad that they could scarcely be worse; and, as nothing in this world was immutable, it did so happen that matters mended a little. It was stated, that in one district of the country, where there had been 12,000 paupers, there now were only 4,000; surely even 4,000 were too many to be idle, and without employment in any district, and this was a proof, amongst others, that the Corn-laws were as injurious to the landed interest as they were to the manufacturing or the commercial interests. The distress and destitution which prevailed, not only in different parts of the country, but in the metropolis, was in the highest degree alarming. The daily accounts of destitution and death from starvation were truly distressing, and associations, novel in their constitution, had been formed for giving relief, and Bishops, Cabinet Ministers and Peers, were at the head of these associations. We had poor unions for every parish, and numberless charitable institutions, and yet the distress was so pressing, that those extraordinary means were resorted to. It was in the power of Parliament to relieve that suffering. He (Mr. Hume) maintained, that the root of the evil was the restrictions which impeded the freedom of trade; it, therefore, became the imperative duty of Parliament to take into their immediate consideration, the whole of the laws which affected the importation of corn and other food, with the view of promoting commerce, and giving employment to the people; for there could be no effectual and permanent relief without employment; there could not be employment without increase of commerce, nor could there be that increase of commerce without giving to foreign merchants the facilities requisite to enable them to pay for the commodities which we vended to them. It was said, that an abolition of the Corn-laws would lower wages. If he thought that the importation of food would lower wages he should not propose it, but he expected from the free admission of corn, an increase of employment to pay for that food, and the equalization of prices all over the world. He would ask how could wages be lower than they were, when a shirt was made for when a curry-comb was sold for 1½d., and a knife and fork for l½d. where on earth was labour so inadequately paid as in England, where 1½d. was the payment for twelve hours' work? In every parish pauperism was increasing, and so were poor-rates. He gave the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department full credit for the manner in which he had supported the poor-law on the only sound principle upon which a poor-law could be worked, that of giving relief to the destitute and refusing it to able-bodied idlers. But he would tell the right hon. Baronet that the poor-rates, which had been reduced from 7,000,000l. or 8,000,000l. down to 4,500,000l., were now rising rapidly in amount, and had risen again to upwards of 6,000,000l. On this account it was, that the tenant farmers complained. It was the want of the free introduction of food and employment which caused this. The manufacturing districts had discharged their labourers, who were thus drawn back to their parishes and had increased the poor-rates, or which the farmer complained. If the effect of the introduction of foreign corn would be to lower wages, no one would be more opposed to such a measure than himself; but his opinion was this, that the importation of corn and beef, and of every kind of food which the people of this country wanted, would give increased employment to pay for the imports, and those who had half a meal, would get a full one; and that, instead of prices falling in England, they would be equalized all over Europe. It was on this ground that he thought the Government was doing great injury to the country by the course which it was adopting of keeping up the prohibitory laws; and he called on the House to pursue a different course. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would only agree to postpone the Address to give the people time to know what the Speech contained, he was perfectly satisfied that as quickly as the post could bring the information so quickly would the House have complaints poured out; although he was sorry to say the people were getting rather sick of presenting petitions to the House, yet they might be disposed to state to the House the truth, which had been withheld, and the right hon. Baronet would be surprised at their statements. For this reason he would advocate the delay. The monopoly of corn was one evil the removal of which would alleviate the existing distress. But there was another cause of distress that it was in the power of the House to alleviate. The House seemed to think, that the greatest merit existed in extracting money from the pockets of the people. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think it right to waste the money of the people in keeping up a great war establishment; but the expence of this was only adding to the misery of the people. A great cause of the distress was the imposition of the Income-tax. It was estimated that this tax would raise 3,700,000l.; but he regretted to see that the income derived from this tax amounted to 5,500,000l. Every pound of this tax affected the comforts of the people. That act, instead of (as was anticipated) falling only on the wealthy, had fallen very heavily indeed on many of the poorest classes. It would have been better for the hon. Baronet to have made no exception to incomes under 150l. for, in fact, a large portion of poor people had had to pay the tax without being able to get the return to which they were entitled, besides having much trouble and annoyance about it. These were the two principal evils of which he complained—the want of free trade and heavy taxation—and to these two points he wished to call the attention of the House. The distress in the country was admitted, and yet, the right hon. Baronet had not told them he would carry out his free trade principles, or that he would institute any inquiry or appoint a finance committee to inquire where reduction could be made in the public expenditure. Probably they would now hear from him if he did intend anything of the kind. His intention by his amendment was to request Her Majesty to co-operate with her Ministers in pursuing such measures. Of what use was it now to keep up a war establishment when we had not an enemy existing, and when we were at peace with all the world? He was anxious that the House should not be led away by any trickery in being told that now the revenue of the country was amply sufficient, and that the public faith ought to be kept up. If they wanted an example of the bad effects of not keeping good faith with the public creditor, let them look across the Atlantic, to the loss of credit and of property to the Americans by the repudiation of the public credit in a few of the States—the discredit had attached to all the States—and he sincerely hoped, that efforts would be made to rescue that Republic from the discredit attached to the whole, by not supporting the public faith. He was always one of those who was for supporting the public credit. Whilst he urged economy, he would not stop a farthing from the public credit. He believed, that for every pound they withheld from the public credit, they would lose millions. He would state to the House a great example of this from what had taken place within the last two months. The government of Virginia had had some difficulty in paying the interest of the public debt. The governor had urged the necessity of raising taxes for paying the public creditor. The message of the Governor to the Legislature of the State, reports,— That the outstanding public debt, to be 7,350,000 dollars, nearly 3,000,000 of which are held by foreigners, and 4,350,000 dollars within the State. A tax was levied last year to meet the expenses of Government, and the value of the State stock had been from 78 to 100 or par, since the passing of that law, making a difference in the value of the stock, in favour of the holder within the State, of 959,000 dollars; a greater sum than the ordinary annual revenue of the State, and twofold greater than the increased tax, the imposition of which had had so decided an effect in producing it. The actual profit to the state holders, therefore, in consequence of this measure, had been to add one third to the value of the stock, and they were able to use it for all the purposes of money. America had suffered greatly, and would suffer more, unless she made exertions to pay off her debt. He quite agreed, therefore, with the right hon. Baronet, that the public credit ought to be supported. He was the greatest enemy of the working classes who would not support the public credit. Nothing would so much interfere with the prosperity of commerce and manufactures, in the artificial state of this country as any resolution of not maintaining the public credit. But one way, and the best means of supporting the public credit, and public prosperity, would be, by reducing the expenditure of the country. The less they extracted from the pockets of the people by the Income-tax, and other taxes, the more they would have at their disposal to pay for articles of consumption. He would uphold the public credit, therefore, by reducing our establishments, by lessening the necessity of calling for money, and by general economy. He was perfectly satisfied, that an amount of expenditure equal to the 5,500,000l. which the right hon. Baronet now had from the Income-tax, might be saved with perfect ease—might be saved to-morrow, or as soon, at least, as the law for carrying the saving into effect could be brought into operation. Then, if our harbours were only made tree for the importation of food, there would be a great impulse to prosperity given. Look, for example, at one of the effects of our Corn-laws and restrictive policy, at the ships rotting in our docks from the want of free-trade! He could scarcely pity the shipowners, because they had been the greatest monopolists in the country, and they were now paying the penalty of it. But were there any appearances in the country like general or permanent prosperity? Let the right hon. Baronet look at the iron trade, or at any other trade but woollen, cotton, and hardware. Nothing but distress prevailed in every other branch of business, and could the affairs of a nation be healthy when this was the case? The nation was never in such a critical condition as now, and he entreated the right hon. Baronet to apply a remedy whilst it was in his power. Capital was abundant, labour was cheap and abundant, and the want of employment was the effect of monopoly and restrictive laws. Fifteen millions of bullion were lying unemployed in the Bank, and deposits to nearly an equal amount; capital was lying dead everywhere, and giving no employment or profit; the country could not recover from such a state of things as this, unless they opened the channels and freed the extension of commerce. He was told, that if they did open our ports to the produce of other countries, that other countries would not take our goods in return. But all our returns showed to the contrary. The returns showed that wherever we had obtained corn during the last three years, there our trade had increased to a large amount, and wherever we had relaxed former restriction, there trade bad sprung up. France was an example. Our trade with that country had been doubled during the last five years. We had relaxed our export duties on the produce of France, but France had not reduced her imposts on our goods, and yet our exports to that country had increased from 1,643,204l. in 1837 to 3,193,939l. in 1842. Every bushel of wheat imported, instead of lowering the price of the produce of the land, would give employment to the artizan to pay for it, and thus would keep commerce in a healthy state, and give to those a full meal who had but half a meal before. The consumption of butter and cheese, two important articles not affected by any tariff, had greatly decreased in consequence of the poverty of the country; for though a noble Lord in the enlightened county of Buckingham had declared that the cheese farmers had all been ruined by taking off the duty on the importation of foreign cheese, the fact was the duty had never been altered, yet the consumption and prices of cheese had fallen greatly from the poverty of the consumer. It was too true, that the consumption of butter and cheese and eggs—articles which helped towards the payment of the rent of the farmer—had decreased before those articles had been imported. The importation of cattle under the tariff had been so trifling, that all the cattle imported would not afford a breakfast for the people. The revenue of the year up to January, 1844, for Great Britain, was put down at 50,071,943l., and showed an increase on the whole year of 5,742,078l. But the whole of that increase, instead of being one arising from home consumption, arose from the proceeds of the Income-tax, the duty on corn (which the right hon. Baronet had said ought not to be the subject of taxation), and the money received front China. For these items 7,059,034l. ought to be deducted; and, with these deducttions, the ordinary revenue was positively 1,500,000l. less than it was two years ago, though it was a slight increase over the revenue of last year. Was not this a subject for reflection that the improvement of the revenue arose from casual runs, and not from the usual consumption and the ordinary taxes of the country? The hon. Gentleman who had seconded the motion had said that "the home market was the best market," (and this was a subject which the Corn-law supporters were constantly mentioning), but there was only one price for goods, there was no difference between the home market and the foreign market. The man who could sell things best abroad would sell abroad; and if he could sell his goods best at home he would sell at home. There had been this year 44,000,000l. of the principal manufactured produce of England exported as compared with 40,000,000l. in the former year. If they thought the home market the best, they ought to act on principle, and admit no foreign produce and send none out of the country. But here they were protesting against the foreign market and yet were sending out 44,000,000l. of produce, 4,000,000l. more than the produce of the year before. At present, half the population depended for their support on foreign trade, and if they lessened this amount of exports for abroad in any degree, they immediately threw out of employment numbers of persons, and threw them back for support on the agricultural districts. What was now the case? Every agricultural parish was burthened with poor thrown back upon it, by the operation of their restrictive policy, and the distress was aggravated by extracting too much money from the pockets of the people, instead of taking the course he recommended—that of retrenchment and economy, and giving free-trade. He was not satisfied with the eleventh paragraph of the Speech from the Throne, which stated:— I trust that the increased demand for labour has relieved, in a corresponding degree, many classes of my faithful subjects from sufferings and privations which at former periods I have had occasion to deplore. The Queen had been paying her visits into the country very properly, but she had only seen the holyday side of things. He wished she could have seen the misery which existed behind the gay doings around her. But she had not had the opportunity. He should, therefore, propose to add these words in the address:— To declare, that we should ill-discharge the duty we owe to her Majesty if we did not direct her most serious attention to the present condition of her faithful people; which, notwithstanding the improvement of some branches of industry, still exhibits such an extent of destitution and suffering as to demand from her Majesty's faithful Commons an ex- pression of their opinion of the causes, and the best means of removing the same. To assure her Majesty that although we fully appreciate the progress made by this Parliament in reducing the duties on many articles of import, we at the same time deeply lament that her Majesty has not been advised to call our immediate attention to the repeal of those pernicious laws which prevent free trade in corn and provisions, so essential to the sustenance and comfort of the people and to the prosperity of the state; and that we earnestly implore her Majesty's gracious co-operation for the repeal of those restrictive and prohibitory laws which give monopolies in sugar and other articles to certain classes of her Majesty s subjects, to the detriment of the rest, so that no duties may be levied on any imports except for the direct purposes of revenue to her Majesty's Exchequer. To submit most respectfully to her Majesty that an excessive and unequal taxation, disproportionate to the reduced value of property, the diminished profits on capital, and to the inadequate wages of labour, pressing on all ranks of the community, but especially on the working classes, is a principal cause of the existing distress, and that a reduction of the same is absolutely necessary for the relief of her Majesty's loyal, peaceful, and suffering people. That, as this country is, and, as we rejoice to hear, is likely to continue at peace with all the world, we humbly represent to her Majesty, that many branches of the civil, military, and naval establishments may be so greatly reduced as to procure for the people considerable relief from the pressure of taxation, without detriment to the public service. Before he sat down he should make a few remarks respecting Ireland, and he must say he thought the policy which had been pursued towards that country was most unwise. The question of Irish policy was equally, perhaps more important to England than it was to Ireland; yet here they were incurring an expense of a million and a half per annum to coerce Ireland, because they would not redress the grievances of that country which former Parliaments had pledged themselves to do. When the hon. Member for Kerry introduced the question of repeal into this clause, he (Mr. Hume) opposed it, because he thought it would be detrimental to the best interests of the country; but he said then, as he said now, that distress continued in that country, and great injustice existed; and it was for the House to make their selection—they must do justice to Ireland by removing her well-founded complaints, or they must let her have repeal. If he (Mr. Hume) could believe that justice would not be done to Ireland—if he could believe that the House would still remain deaf to the entreaties of Ireland, he should become a Repealer himself. Better let Ireland have her own Parliament than be kept in a state of constant disquietude. What a picture did Ireland now present! We were at peace with all the world, and now were making war against the Sister Kingdom! Good God!—[Cries of No! No!] Well, then, we were not making war against our fellow citizens, but our proceedings look very like war, and likely to cause civil war there: when he looked at the present condition of Ireland, and saw 50,000 armed men of the army, navy, and armed police, take military possession of that country, maintained there to keep down that country, and to deny her justice, he thought he was bound to express to the House his opinions of that pernicious policy. He held in his hand the copy of a petition agreed to at a meeting to be presented to that House, and he would ask, before he referred more particularly to it, whether it could be contended that the supporters of Mr. O'Connell consisted wholly of that riffraff and set of blackguards which some people wished to make it appear. The meeting to which he alluded was held a few days ago, and was presided over by the Duke of Leinster. The petition ran thus:— That the nation is filled with discontent, and that the proceedings of her Majesty's Ministers indicate apprehensions even of a civil war; the army has been greatly increased—barracks have been fortified—armed vessels have been stationed off the coast and upon the navigable rivers of the country: That the use of force, though it may be effectual for the suppression of disorder, cannot remove discontent: That the discontent which prevails in Ireland is deep-seated and wide-spread, and until the causes of it are removed peace cannot be secured on lasting foundations: That the great body of the people are dissatisfied at the general spirit in which they are legislated for and governed. The acts for reforming the representation of the people in Parliament have not given to Ireland an electoral body bearing anything like the proportion to its population which the electoral body of England does to its; and while England, with a population of about 15,000,000, has 471 representatives in the House of Commons—Ireland, with a population of more than 8,000,000, has but 105. The act for reforming the municipal corporations of England extends the municipal franchise to all rated householders in corporate towns. In Ireland, though it is a poorer country, the franchise is given only to householders rated for tenements of the value of 10l. a-year. In England the established church is the church of the many; in Ireland it is the church of the few. In England, persons professing the religion of the many are conspicuous on the bench of justice and in the councils of the Crown; in Ireland, although nearly five-sixths of the people are Roman Catholics, there are scarcely any Roman Catholics to be seen in the higher offices either of the law or the state. He (Mr. Flume) could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman on the right and on the left of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham and Lord Stanley) had gained little from their experience in 1834, when they brought in a bill, and made use of the arbitrary powers they had to compel Ireland to what they thought was submission. 'That measure ended—in what?—perfect failure. Had hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House forgotten the result? With an administration desirous to do justice to Ireland, the Government of that day erred grievously in bringing in a Coercion Bid. He could not tell what evil spirit urged them to that measure then, but, whatever it was, the same evil sprite was at work now. It could be nothing else. They must be the rooted enemies both of Ireland and of England to propose any such proceedings. Let him notice the result of a contrary policy, when conciliation and redress of grievances were tried, Ireland responded immediately to proper treatment: we held out the hand of friendship to that country, promoted reform, removed the domineering spirit that existed, gave them some ameliorations of church and other institutions; and how did Ireland respond? Why, the army was reduced from 20,000 to 8,500, and she was enabled to send to this country the principal part of the troops to assist in maintaining peace in Yorkshire. Let hint (Mr. Hume) ask, what agitation and discontent have occurred since then, that the present Government refused to grant to Ireland an equality of institutions. It ought never to be forgotten that this House refused to listen to Repeal, but had solemnly pledged itself to remove the grievances of Ireland—had failed to do so, and was now deluging the country with military, to the utter disgrace of any Ministry that should pursue such a course in the time of peace. On that ground alone, if they had no other, they ought immediately to institute an inquiry, as to the amount of expense and the loss to the revenue by such a policy. He was sorry to be led to make these remarks at such a time; but he was sure, if time had been allowed to set matters in order, if they had had forty-eight hours to sift Her Majesty's Speech, they (the Opposition) would have brought strong statements of the existing grievances in both kingdoms to bear, which would have had an influence with Her Majesty. He did not wish that the Address should be moved as some proposed, as a mere matter of form. The noble Lord who proposed, and the hon. Member who seconded the Address, said that they did not wish to raise any topics of argument to create opposition to the Address, but the fact was, that the matters for the Speech and Address, were the very matters that ought to be introduced for consideration, and if they failed to bring those subjects clearly before the House, they were shirking the question, and not doing that to which as Ministers of the Crown and Councillors of the State they had pledged themselves, viz., to consider and promote all matters that might promote the welfare of the country. They, the (Ministry) must be well aware, if their former arguments were to be depended upon, of the evils arising out of the present state of England and Ireland, and in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, they only wanted the moral courage to bring the subject forward. For his part, he sincerely wished they would do so, and with these few remarks he would propose the resolution which he had read.

Mr. S. Crawford

wished to propose an amendment to the tenth paragraph of the Address, which applied to that part of the Speech having reference to the Estimates. He wish to add to that paragraph the following words— To assure Her Majesty that her faithful Commons will be always desirous to vote such supplies as may be found just and necessary for the public service; but that under the existing circumstances of the country we shall deem it our first and most important duty to inquire into the various grievances complained of by her people, and to devise such measures as may be most effectual for redressing all just causes of complaint. His object was, that Her Majesty should be informed that the people had deep cause of complaint for grievances which required to be redressed. That House was the pro- per organ of communication between the people and the Crown; in fact there was no other organ of communication possessed by the people; and he thought, therefore, when that House addressed Her Majesty, it was their duty explicitly to inform Her Majesty what the feelings and the wants of the people were. There were many grievances which the people complained of, and for which Her Majesty's Government had manifested no disposition to provide redress. Those complaints had been at various times represented to the House, and one of the most important of those complaints was, that the people felt that they were not duly and fairly represented in that House—that by the limitation of the franchise the great majority of the people had no votes, and that, therefore, the Members of that House did not fairly represent the people. If those complaints were unfounded, why not inquire into them? Her Majesty should be informed of them, that if she thought fit she might desire her Ministers to concede an inquiry. They complained that in consequence of such a bad state of representation, their interests were abused by class legislation, which was not calculated to benefit the whole community. They complained that there was an accumulation of capital and property in the hands of the few, and that an unjust tax was imposed which at once raised the price of the poor man's food, and prevented him from getting employment. He would not enter into an argument at present as to the propriety or otherwise of the Poor-law, though he had a strong feeling upon that subject; but he would express his abhorrence of the policy which deprived the labouring man of his former claims on the country and at the same time continued a law which taxed his food. They complained also of enormous expenditure—that the estimates were based on too extravagant a scale, and of an unjust and partial system of taxation, which levied more from the poor man than from the rich. They complained of all these things, and they could not so much as get their complaints even inquired into, much less redressed. Therefore it was that he maintained, that those Members who represented the people in that House, should adhere to the constitutional principle of demanding that the grievances of the people should be heard before granting the supplies. Such a course was a constitutional course, and it was one, he contended, which should be resorted to on the present occasion. He conceived that the House of Commons was bound to cause the complaints of the people to be inquired into before voting away their money; and he further conceived it to be the duty of the Members of that House to take all fair and reasonable means to procure an investigation of their grievances, and their ultimate redress. It was too much the practice for the Speeches made from the Throne not to contain any references of any great value in relation to the object which ought to be brought under the consideration of Parliament; but he thought, if those Speeches did not contain such references, that it was the duty of the House to make them in their answer to the Address from the Throne. It was said by some, that to pursue such a course would be discourteous to Her Majesty. He denied that, and maintained that it was only the duty of the House to inform the Crown regarding the complaints of the people, which in his opinion would be the best means of securing the stability of the Crown by the loyal attachment of the people. With this view he had brought forward his amendment, feeling it to be absolutely necessary, that when the Speech from the Throne contained nothing but accounts of prosperity, the House of Commons should not omit to inform the Crown, that in their opinion there was great cause of complaint , and that though there was an increase of prosperity in commercial affairs, there was still a great mass of the population suffering under destitution, and various other ills such as they could scarcely be afflicted with for any length of time, and retain their habits of obedience and subordination to the laws. He brought forward this amendment at the request of his constituency at Rochdale, from whom he had received the most pressing solicitations to adopt the course which he had taken. In the furtherance of their views and his own desires he deemed it right to propose the amendment which he had read, and in doing so he wished to be understood to mean no discourtesy to Her Majesty. His only object was, as he had said before, to give Her Majesty that information which he thought she ought to receive from the representatives of the people. He would not press upon the House any further arguments, but move his amendment.

Mr. Warburton

wished to offer some explanation of the vote which it was his intention to give before the House went to a division. He acknowledged that it was at all times the duty of Members to inquire fully into the grievances of the people, but he must add, that he was not prepared to stop the supplies of the country till all the grievances of the people were inquired into; and he did not wish it to be inferred that such was his desire, or such the meaning of the vote which he should give. In former times actually to stop the supplies under great provocation from the Crown was a justifiable course for the House of Commons to pursue. When the Crown, for words spoken in that House, ventured to endeavour to commit Members of that House to the Tower, then to stop the supplies was a justifiable course for the adoption of the House of Commons; and the House and the Crown then both understood perfectly well what was meant; they knew that matters had proceeded to that extremity that civil war was inevitable, and by stopping the supplies the House of Commons meant that they were prepared to go to the fullest extent in vindicating the rights of the people. At that time, too, the evils of actually stopping the supplies were not of the enormous magnitude which would now be the consequence of so acting. Colonies, we then had almost none, nor were there extensive foreign establishments which it was absolutely necessary now to regard be, fore stopping the supplies, for by doing so they would positively throw all the foreign establishments of the country and many of the domestic, establishments into utter confusion. The Crown itself, too, it should be remembered, at that time, had a large amount of private resources on which it could rely. At that time, independently of what were supposed to be the privileges of the Crown it had large contributions from all the gentlemen who then supported those privileges. At present, on the contrary, the revenues of the Crown were entirely under the control of the House of Commons, and even if they were not so, the revenues of the Crown were almost as nothing compared to the necessary expenditure of the State. While he said, therefore, that to proceed to the extremity of stopping the supplies formerly, was a justifiable course, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it would now be proper. By voting, therefore, with the hon. Member he only desired to signify his opinion that the estimates were susceptible of a very considerable reduction. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that, in addition to a reduction in the naval and military services, very large reductions might also be made in other portions of the expenditure, particularly in the collection of the revenue, on which, when he had last the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman in that House, he had often heard him speak, and, as he thought, with great effect. He had no intention of addressing the House when he first entered, but he thought that his vote might be liable to misinterpretation if he voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale without explanation, and that it might be imagined that he was prepared to go to the extremity of stopping all the supplies till all the grievances of the people were redressed. They were of such magnitude, and embraced such a great variety of subjects, that a long period of time must necessarily elapse, before they could be properly investigated and understood. If they were to say, therefore, that the grievances of the country must be remedied before they were prepared to vote any supplies, the whole Session would expire before the sums necessary for the maintainance of the public establishments could be voted. With this explanation, he should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale.

Mr. Wallace

, like the hon. Member who had just sat down, did not intend to address the House when he entered. The explanation, however, which he should give for his vote, would be very different from that given by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton). He quite agreed with the statement, which that hon. member had laid before the House relative to the history of the ancient practice; but he thought that such was now the condition of the people, that it was necessary to go a little further than they did then, or else the House might stand still; so he thought they should go a little further. He would not be confined by any such fastidious laws as the hon. Member for Kendal bad laid down, but would proceed to assist in stopping the supplies whenever the country was not fairly dealt by. Yes, under any such circumstances he would stop the supplies. [Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he hoped yet to have an opportunity of vindicating those opinions. He did not say when. Let the occasion be when it might, he would not be deterred from taking the course he deemed proper. He was not to be restrained from doing right by any fear of ridicule. Upon these grounds he should support the hon. Member for Rochdale.

Lord J. Russell

said: Sir, understanding that the House is going to a division upon the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Rochdale, I think it may be as well, after the speeches delivered by that hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend, the Member for Kendal, as well as by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that I should take the present opportunity of declaring my opinions, not only upon that motion, but also upon the general Address which has been so well moved by the noble Lord, and so well seconded by the hon. Gentleman who followed him. Sir, with respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, if he means to say that the House of Commons ought to have the power to redress in such manner as the House shall think proper any grievances which the people suffer, I should say, that if the majority of this House is persuaded, that it is right to inquire into certain grievances, and if they think that certain remedies are necessary, I know of no power of the Crown, I know of nothing in this Address which should prevent the majority of this House from agreeing to such inquiry, or from adopting such measures of redress. Therefore, if that be the meaning of the hon. Gentleman, the insertion of this paragraph in the Address is totally unnecessary. But if the meaning is, as I have reason to suspect by what the hon. Member who spoke last said, that a minority in this House, in opposition to the judgment of the majority is to stop the supplies necessary, not for the use of the Crown, but for the purpose of maintaining the honour and safety of the country; if the meaning is, that a minority is to be able to stop those supplies until certain opinions, which are not the opinions of the majority, shall be forced upon that majority, by continual obstruction and delay, then I say, that to steps of that kind, I never can give my sanction, nor can I ever support any motion which tends to that object. I therefore take this occasion of saying in the first place, that I consider there is no necessity for the introduction of these superfluous words in the Address; and, in the second place, that I am glad to have this early opportunity of expressing my dissent from projects which I have heard of in other places, and which I have seen proclaimed and announced in public for forcing particular measures, by means of repeated obstruction and delay, upon a majority of this deliberative House of Parliament. With respect to the Speech, and with respect to the Address, I am very glad to find that the topics touched upon in them, and the manner in which those topics are treated, can meet with my concurrence, so far as is implied by my vote in favour of the Address. The hon. Member for Montrose has said, that as there are so many topics introduced in the Speech, it would be better that the House should take time to deliberate, and then pronounce its opinion upon each of those subjects. Why, according to the manner in which the Speeches of the Sovereign were prepared in former times, it was proper for the House, on account of the various topics which they embraced, to postpone a decision upon different portions of the Speech, and to take every topic into consideration separately; but according to the manner in which those documents have been framed of late years, a manner better adapted to our times, as the former may have been adapted to the times in which it was practised—it has been more customary to treat the various topics referred to in the Address, so as not to oblige the House to pronounce any opinion upon matters upon which there may be any doubt or conflict of opinion in the House, or to declare any decided opinion, except upon questions which have been frequently, and over and over again discussed, such as the maintenance of the Legislative Union between England and Ireland, and other subjects; but rather to thank the Crown for the communication made, and to reserve other topics for separate discussion upon separate motions made by Ministers of the Crown, or by other Members of the House. With respect to the annexation of Scinde, for instance, if I were called upon now to thank Her Majesty for having undertaken a military aggression against Scinde, and for having annexed that territory to the British empire, I should pause before I could agree to that; but the Address only thanks her Majesty for the communication of that fact to the House, and for the promise that papers relating to it shall be laid before the House. I differ from the hon. Member for Montrose on this point, and I beg him to consider whether, when topics are treated in this way, if they amounted to fifty-two instead of twenty-two,; there can be any great difficulty in paying the compliment to the Crown of agreeing to the Address without a division, and without any discordance in voting. Sir, there is one topic treated of in the Speech, but in such a manner as to preclude me from entering into it: yet upon that topic, at once, I think it necessary to say a few words—I mean the question of Ireland. I quite agree, that while the trials are pending before a judicial tribunal in that country, it would be impossible, with a proper regard to the proceedings of a court of justice, to discuss certain topics one way or the other, without involving the conduct of persons who are now obliged to defend their conduct before the judges. But I wish now most decidedly and pointedly, while abstaining from any discussion upon the affairs of Ireland, to preclude any supposition that I either give my approbation to the conduct which has been pursued by the Government, or to the unfortunate proceedings which have occurred in Ireland, or that I am at all satisfied with the measures which the Ministers have undertaken, or which they propose to take, with reference to the calamitous and most unfortunate state of that country. With these few words I should at once quit that subject, but that a right hon. Friend reminds me, that having given notice of a motion for a committee of the whole House upon the whole state of Ireland, it is right I should state that I mean to bring that question forward then, on the supposition that the trials are concluded by the time for which I have fixed it; but if not, I shall ask the House to give me the precedence which I have at present obtained, for some future day, of which I shall give notice. Sir, there are several topics in the Speech, in answer to which I am happy to be able to express my concurrence in the Address. I am glad to find, with respect to China, that a commercial treaty has been made with that empire, by which the trade between this country and China is likely to improve, and likewise that the Chinese government and our Government have agreed that the advantages which have been secured for our commerce shall be communicated to that of other nations. That is a course (I agree with the hon. Member for Montrose) becoming such a nation as ours, and it shows that we have great confidence in the industry and commercial enterprise of our people. I am glad that after the panic which prevailed some years ago, as to the exceeding might and power of the emperor of China—after the dread felt by those who now sit opposite of the almost irresistible strength of three hundred millions of people, we can now with them congratulate this country that we (the late Ministers) did not submit to the ignominy of suffering British subjects to be immured in a prison and threatened with a cruel death, if they did not yield to certain peremptory terms, but that we did vindicate British honour and the British name. The result has been, I am happy to say, so far from what was anticipated, that instead of the Chinese being encouraged in their resistance to our just demands, on the contrary, justice has been enforced by the military and naval skill of our troops, and by the diplomatic skill of Sir Henry Pottinger, who, in compliance with the instructions conveyed to him by my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton, obtained terms which, so far from being dishonourable, secured to us greater advantages than we ever before possessed in our intercourse with China. Sir, the Speech alludes, in the paragraph previous, I think, to the one of which I have spoken, to the good under-standing subsisting with France, and the pacific relations which prevail between this country and all the principal, nations of Europe. I most unfeignedly rejoice, in the first place, at this favourable state of our relations with France. I was one of a Cabinet which was frequently taunted on the subject of the French alliance. We were reproached with being devoted to the government of Louis Philippe—with being too fond of that alliance, in contempt and neglect of an alliance with other more despotic powers of Europe. It was imputed to us, that after that alliance had continued for a considerable time, we were the causes of the alliance being broken off, and of the good understanding which had subsisted being considerably impaired. I am happy to find, from declarations that have been made in the assembly of another country, by persons of no less influence and authority than the late Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs in France, that if there has been any decline in the intimacy of our alliance with France at a former time—if the good understanding between the two countries was in any degree impaired, it was not from any want of a friendly feeling, or an unwillingness to maintain the terms of the friendly alliance upon which the two countries had previously acted, but that France herself, for various reasons and from various motives, had begun to look for other aid and for different support—and that, in looking for such aid and such support, she ceased to value as she ought the good understanding and the alliance which had before subsisted with this country. Especially with reference to the treaty of July, 1840, I am happy to find that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of France has lately declared that France has now reverted to what was the ancient policy of the French empire—thus signifying clearly that for a time there was a departure from that policy. In the treaty of July, 1840, we were not looking for separate advantages for England, or endeavouring to secure the exclusive success of English policy, but we were acting upon that which was the real and the ancient policy of France—that being, as it has been declared, to maintain the integrity of Turkey, and to assist her in conjunction, not with one, but with almost all the great powers of Europe. In that spirit we acted in the treaty of July, 1840, and in that spirit France ought to have concurred, but for a time France was seduced by the worship of some Egyptian idol which took her away from the ancient policy of the country. I am glad to learn, that she has now reverted to that policy; and I think that the Ministers of this country, finding her disposed to act in consistency with the interests of this country, will act consistently with its best interests by strengthening that alliance. I am glad that we are on the most friendly terms with France. She is one of the most enlightened as well as one of the greatest countries in Europe. From France, as well as from England, have proceeded some of the greatest and most distinguished men of letters and science, whose labours have enlightened the world; and I trust that the two countries will never again have occasion to meet in those fields of warfare which, however they may exalt our military glory, cannot, but be productive of great calamity to mankind. Other parts of the Speech, Sir, touch upon the present state of industry and trade. I was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address that there are great signs of improvement in the manufacturing districts. I said last year that I thought there was a sign of great hopes of improvement in those districts. I have no doubt, although there is exaggeration in some quarters, that there has been much real solid improvement in those places. If we come to the causes of those improvements, no doubt one of the greatest was the harvest of last year and of the year before. I have made particular inquiry with respect to the effect of the harvest amongst the poor. With respect to the price of food and the effect to poor families, I have been told that the price of bread this year was to a poor family a saving of a shilling every week in the consumption of the family; and, if we take into consideration the number of families who are in that condition, we see that there must be a saving in the article of food to the amount of 7,000,000l. or 8,000,000l. sterling in the year, to be devoted to the purchase of articles of clothing or other goods of which the poor man stands in need. I think it is obvious then that the bounty of Providence goes far to account for the improvement which has taken place in our manufactures. But, Sir, this is quite independent of the policy of any change in the corn laws which may be thought proper or not proper. I think I must say, that the experience of last year can hardly be quoted in favour of any particular law. I doubt if we had a law for the total prohibition of foreign corn, whether the effect would be different from that of the present sliding scale. But, as the hon. Member for Montrose has spoken on this subject, I will venture to say a few words on what I think is the disadvantageous position of the landed interest and the farmers, as the result of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. There are three different schemes of legislation upon this subject, each of which is supported by a numerous party. One is the scheme—the old scheme—that all articles of British industry ought to be protected against foreign industry, a scheme maintained by those who exercise their skill and capital in certain branches of industry, because, as they contend British industry cannot flourish without such protection. That opinion has still very numerous advocates, and they would push protection much further than it goes at present. Another opinion is that there ought to be no laws for the protection of industry. Competition, it is said, should be totally free; and there should be no duties except for the purposes of revenue. No duties should be imposed with a view to enhance he price of any article, in order that the increased charge might go, not into the Exchequer, but into the pockets of the manufacturer or trader. There is another opinion which the right hon. Gentleman holds. Now, although the first opinion is totally erroneous, and although the second opinion is in itself absolutely true, yet in the condition of this country, having to raise the interest of a debt of 800,000,000l. and to support our establishments, and having for these purposes laid on many taxes at various times, some pressing on one class and some on another, when you make a change from what is erroneous to what is sound and true, you should make that change with great caution, and should rather look to how a fair competition with foreigners can be established with some advantages to our own producers, who have hitherto been unduly favoured than go at once into a system of entire freedom. That is the principle which the right hon. Gentleman stated two years ago in introducing his new measure with reference to the Corn-laws, but the misfortune of the present Corn-law is that it does not go that length. That Corn-law is founded on the principle of protection to native industry. All who defend the law, defend it on that ground. It is, therefore, a law which is left alone. It is repudiated in reference to all other productions of the country, and it can only be defended on a principle which you yourselves declare to be indefensible. That appears to me to be placing the agricultural classes at a disadvantage as compared with the rest of the community. If you would say, "Let all interests be protected," you would tie up corn in a faggot with the rest of the produce of the country, and enable it to resist the inroads that might be made upon it. Or, if you would say, that, having made other articles free you would make corn free; or, that having imposed a tax of 10 or 20 per cent. upon other articles, you would impose the same upon corn, you could defend your scheme upon the ground of having placed corn upon the same foundation as other articles. In the latter case you might say, "Corn does give a certain amount of revenue, we are unable to dispense with it, and we have shown no favour to one article of produce more than to another;" but you say that with respect to all other articles of produce and trade you will adopt a moderate duty, but in that one article, in which a majority of the House of Lords and a majority of the House of Commons are deeply interested, you will have a duty of 40 per cent., and that duty shifting and changing in a way which every commercial man declares to be irreconcilable with sound policy. That, Sir, does seem to me to be the difficulty of the present Corn-law. And when I see gentlemen at agricultural meetings, after expressions of distrust of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), much greater than I, one of the leaders of the Opposition, ever ventured to express, bid him openly come forward, declare that the Corn-law shall not be changed, and bind himself to it for perpetuity, I must say, such men make the most extravagant and absurd request that ever was made of any statesman in this country. The right hon. Gentleman told us last Session that he did not mean to alter the Corn-laws last year, but that, with respect to the future, he must judge of the condition of the country, and of the effect of this as of any other commercial law. I thought that the only answer the right hon. Gentleman could give—and I should certainly be very much surprised if I found him now saying—"I am so enamoured of my law, I think it in all respects so perfect, that I will stand by it under all circumstances." I should be surprised if he made that declaration; and I think that the agricultural cry is a most unreasonable one. It has, perhaps, some excuse in what passed in 1840 and 1841, when declarations were made—certainly not very intelligible to the landed interest, or very reconcileable with the free-trade doctrines of 1842. But I do hope that no Government of this country, seeing what the Corn-law is, and how irreconcileable it is with all the principles on which our other laws are founded, will ever declare themselves perpetually wedded to such a law, which is an anomaly in commercial legislation. Having stated thus much with respect to the topics which the hon. Member for Montrose has brought into the debate, I do not know that I have any thing to add than that I shall cheerfully give my concurrence to the Address; I wish no addition to be made to it of any kind; therefore I cannot vote with the hon. Member for Montrose, and at all events I shall give a most decided negative to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Rochdale.

Sir R. Peel

Before I notice the motion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Rochdale, and on which I apprehend the first division will be taken, or make any remarks on the observations which have fallen from the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Montrose, I am sure you will excuse me for expressing, in concurrence, I believe, with the general feeling of the House, the satisfaction with which I heard the speeches of my noble Friend and the hon. Gentleman who moved and seconded the Address. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, a political opponent of theirs, stated distinctly that be recollected on no occasion to have beard an Address to the Throne moved and seconded with greater judgment and greater ability than have been displayed on the present occasion. I am sure that the ability which my noble Friend and the hon. Gentleman manifested, accompanied with a sincere and unaffected diffidence and distrust of their own powers has, I will not say won for them, but confirmed them in the general favourable opinion of the House; and I trust that the possession of that favourable opinion, as indicated more than once, will induce them to overcome that feeling of distrust and diffidence in their own powers, and stimulate them to apply their abilities to the public service of the country. Sir, it is my intention to offer a decided opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale. More from what has passed in other places than from what he distinctly intimated to-night. I apprehend that motion is intended as the foundation of measures to be adopted for the purpose of stopping the supplies; and Sir, if I concurred in opinion with the hon. Gentleman—if I entertained the opinions which he entertains with respect to the advantage of introducing more of the democratic or popular influence into the constitution of this country—I should be equally energetic in deprecating his motion. I can conceive nothing more injurious to the popular principle of the constitution than to abuse the privileges we possess, and which are calculated for our guidance on great occasions. The power of moving constant adjournments is a power of which it may be right that individuals or a minority should continue in possession, but it is intrusted to them, like other powers under a great responsibility; and they are seriously affecting the popular principle, and injuring those interests of which they are, I am bound to suppose, the sincere and strenuous advocates, if they lightly call into -action instruments which ought only to be invoked on great occasions. The hon. Gentleman says, that he will stop the supplies until the grievances of the country are redressed—why, what various opinions are entertained both as to grievances themselves and as to the best mode of their redress? If the hon. Gentleman and those who concur entirely in opinion with him were to form the Government of this country, and possessed a great majority in Parliament, they would be setting an example fatal to their own power if they allowed a small minority, differing from them as to the nature of grievances and the mode of re-dress, to obstruct the conduct of public business by abusing privileges conferred on them for the public benefit. The important privilege of moving an adjournment is conferred on the minority as a protection against an oppressive majority. I myself have seen no case in which the majority have been disposed to act in such a manner as to justify the adoption of such a course. But, above all, that great instrument of which we are in possession—namely, the power of stopping the supplies—is one which it is of the utmost importance that we should maintain intact, and refrain from impairing its efficiency in a great emergency by an inconsiderate and unjustifiable use of it, because a small minority differs from a great majority as to what constitutes a public grievance. I have known many occasions on which both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. gentleman on his left (Mr. Wallace) have come forward with strong declarations as to their intentions; but in the course of the Session their own good judgment and sense of public duty have prevailed over their rash declarations made at its commencement; and I have that confidence in the good sense and judgment of both the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Rochdale and Greenock, that I am inclined to think they will feel on reflection that being the guardians of the great popular instrument by which popular privileges, popular interests, and popular rights, may have to be defended—namely, the power of stopping the supplies—they will not discredit it by resorting to it on any trifling and unjustifiable occasion. Now, with respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose, I agree with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London much more than with the hon. Gentleman, that in these times, and according to the practical working of the constitution, it is much better, if we can, to avoid wording the Address in a manner that shall compel a division, and on this account, that a government might have great advantage in unfairly resorting to the opposite course. They know what is to be the nature of the Speech, and the nature of the Address; they might, therefore, if they were inclined, relying on a large majority, get a pledge on some particular question by summoning their friends to attend on the first night of the Session. If I, as a minister, wanted to elicit from the House of Commons any declaration on the first day of the Session in favour of a particular act of the Government, or a particular line of public policy, I should feel it but fair to give public notice of my intention, in order that the opponents of such a measure might be enabled to attend and discuss it. The hon. Member for Montrose said there were twenty-three paragraphs in the Address, and how is it possible for us to express a deliberate opinion on each of them worthy of the House of Commons on the first night of the Session? He says, give us at least twenty-four hours to consider. Well, now if I gave the hon. Gentleman twenty-four hours to consider these twenty-three paragraphs, I very much doubt whether, considering the importance of the subjects to which they advert, the interval of twenty-four hours would enable the House of Commons to come to a very satisfactory decision on each of those questions. The hon. Gentleman did not show quite so much modesty and distrust in his own opinion as I should have expected, from the demand he made of twenty-four hours' delay; for he came forward with three or four amendments ready prepared, and said the House ought not to allow one moment to pass before it affirmed his opinions. When he called for time to consider the topics mentioned in the Address, I certainly expected that he would have followed up his own advice, and not called on the House to pronounce a positive opinion in concurrence with his own on these four or five important questions introduced by him into this debate. Sir, the subjects adverted to are of so much importance, that it is infinitely preferable for the public interests, and the conduct of public business, that we should reserve each for separate discussion rather than attempt to pronounce any collective opinion on all the matters referred to in the Speech and the Address. I should be sorry to see the practice revived of reading the Speech at the Council the day before the meeting of Parliament, and I think the present practice most fair and most advantageous. I think it advisable not only that a Minister should avoid introducing into the Speech of the Crown any subject that might provoke warm, perhaps acrimonious, debate, or on which political opinions might differ; but I think it advisable that he should avoid committing the House of Commons without full notice on any question introduced, rather than read the Speech the day before, and expect the House of Commons to be ready to discuss all matters that might be contained in it. Sir, I am glad to hear that the general tenor of the Speech meets so much the approbation of the noble Lord. Reserving himself entirely on the question of Ireland, with regard to which the noble Lord has given a distinct notice, I must say I heard with great satisfaction the noble Lord means to give to the Address his hearty and cordial concurrence, which more than consoles me for some of those taunts in which he has indulged in the course of his speech. With respect to France, the noble Lord in his own vindication thought it necessary to refer to the period when there was an unfortunate and material discordance in sentiment and action between France and this country. I shall not indulge in any acrimony or refer to what were the causes of that difference. I contemplate as I believe the House contemplates, with great satisfaction the re-establishment of better feelings between the two countries; and I think it is infinitely better not to disturb it by any reference to the period when there might have been a difference of opinion. If we were to attempt to assign the precise amount of blame to which each party might be liable, I think we should be much more likely to run the risk of reviving animosity than allaying it; but on the main fact, the policy and advantage, not to this country, but to the interests of peace and of civilisation, of maintaining a friendly understanding with France, I have the satisfaction of thinking that this great popular assembly is almost unanimous. Referring to the course which I took in opposition, I never have concealed my, sentiments as to the policy of establishing that good understanding, and I will explain fully what I mean by that good understanding. I do not mean any secret engagements between France and this country which can give offence to any of the other Powers of Europe; our understanding ought to be patent and open to all the world. We seek not to interfere with or prejudice the rights of any other country—we covet no invasion of the territory of any of them—we wish not to diminish the just influence and authority of any of them—we wish not to propagate particular opinions in other countries with reference to systems of government—we do not wish to shake the attachment of any subjects to their Sovereigns; but the time is come when we ask ourselves in France and England this question,—Are our interests so opposed to each other that there is a necessity for our fomenting party interests in other countries, and placing ourselves at the heads of rival factions because the forms of government are different from our own? If there is no such opposition—if we are agreed in the general principles on which a good understanding should exist, I say again it is for the interest of humanity and civilization that that good understanding should be permanently established. Does England covet any portion of France? Does France covet any portion of England? Do we seek any extension of territory at the expense of each other? Are our institutions opposed to each other? Each has a popular form of representative responsible government. This I say, on the part of this country, that I am perfectly certain that that good understanding with France would not be a cordial, and could not be a permanent one, if it were purchased by either country at the expense of the concession of one single point of national honour or the compromise of any one principle. In two countries of such high honour and of such great power it is absolutely necessary for the cordiality and for the permanence of that good understanding, that there should neither be any secret engagement, or special contract with which any other country can find fault; neither should it be in the power of the Minister of the one country to boast that he has promoted, or attempted to promote that accord by obtaining, for one any advantage over the other. On the part of France, I say at once, that no such concession has been made by the French government—there has been no compromise of any right; on our own part, I make the same declaration. There has been no concession on our part—also no compromise of any right, or of any principle whatever. Now, what is the position of the two countries? We stand each of us at the western extremity of Europe, governed by similar institutions, and if we are not agreed our disagreement must influence the policy of every country with which we are connected. We are also in contact not only with the western states of Europe, but more than other countries with that great quarter of the globe which lies on the other side of the Atlantic. If we are to have different interests, if there is to be an English party in every state and a French party, I can only say that England and France will be the curses of the world, there will be no advance in well-constituted institutions; we shall be powerful enough to obstruct; but, for want of concord and agreement, we shall be unable to promote the successful results of the domestic policy of any state. This very day I read a letter from our representative at Athens, a very able and distinguished man, Sir Edmund Lyons, referring, I will not say to the conflict, but to that great discussion which is going on in Greece, and which, I trust, will be most favourable to the future interests of that country with respect to the establishment of a free constitution; the advice given by Sir E. Lyons is in conformity with the public sentiment in this country. His advice is in favour of the establishment of such institutions as are most in consonance with a limited monarchy, with all the privileges of a limited monarchy, and yet, at the same time, with a free expression of the popular will. If there is discordance between France and England at a period of such a great social revolution in Greece—if, as I said before, there is an English party and a French party, and this man is at the head of the English party, and another man at the head of the French party, there is little probability that the march of events will be smooth, and the result of that effort to establish these institutions successful. But when Sir E. Lyons is enabled to write on the 10th of January last, as he did write, and as I read this day. This is the advice which, when consulted, I have given, and I rejoice to say that I can rely upon the entire, the cordial, the persevering support of the same opinions from M. Piscatory, the Minister of France, I ask, is not that alone a decided proof at such a crisis of a nation's fate, of the great advantage of agreement between two such countries as England and France? The hon. Member for Montrose, who is the representative of one set of opinions in this House, I presume I may call him the organ of extreme popular opinions, and the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, the representative and organ of a great party in this House opposed to the Government, have declared their concurrence in the sentiment I have ventured to express as to the importance of that agreement. I believe they are the feelings of the great body of the people of this country. There is no wish here to recur to past animosities, or revive those feelings of national antipathy and hostility, which ought to be converted on account of our vicinity into sentiments of reciprocal and mutual good-will. Such feelings are, in fact, entertained, notwithstanding our past conflicts, by the great body of the people. We admit the glory of France; we admit her military renown. No country in the world has attained a higher reputation in war, by the skill of her great commanders and the intrepid valour of her soldiers, than France. I do hope that great and powerful people will feel so conscious of their honour and renown, that they will not think it necessary to countenance feelings of hostility, or recur to past military operations for the purpose of securing to France that reputation of which they don't stand in need. I believe the cordial concurrence of the House in an Address, declaring satisfaction at friendly relations between the two countries will go far to satisfy the people of France, that such are our honest and unaffected feelings. Sir, with respect to Ireland, I shall follow the example of the noble Lord. Her Majesty declares her reluctance, while the legal proceedings are pending, to refer to those proceedings; and it is indeed impossible to refer to parties connected with affairs in that country without in some way alluding to the trials now going on. The noble Lord has named a day (in anticipation that those trials will then be closed) when he intends to bring forward the affairs of that country; and I am on that account the less disposed to refer to those matters. Sir, almost the only other subject of importance to which the noble Lord alluded was that of the Corn-laws. The hon. Member for Montrose stated, that in 1841 I complained of the then Government for not intimating in the royal Speech their intention of bringing forward that subject, and I recollect observing that, considering the magnitude of the subject and the complicated interests it involved, when the Government had made up their minds to bring it forward, they should have taken that course which the present Government pursued in 1842, when there was a distinct reference in the royal Speech to the Corn-laws, and a recommendation to take them under consideration. The hon. Member added, that as the subject is not mentioned in the Speech this Session we do not, he supposes, intend to alter the existing law. Sir, he is right in that supposition. Had the Government entertained any such intention, they would have intimated it in the Speech from the Throne; and he is, therefore, correct in the inference he draws from our silence. The noble Lord said, he thought the agriculturists—whom, sometimes, curiously enough, he defends against me, while at others, he attacks them himself, have reason to complain of my conduct. He says, there are three classes of opinions on the subject of the Corn-laws. [Lord J. Russell: "On commercial policy, generally."] I thought the noble Lord spoke with reference to the Corn-laws. One opinion, he said, was, that it was desirable to protect native produce; that the present protection was not sufficient, and that it ought to be carried to a greater extent, regardless of our foreign trade. Another opinion, he said, was, that there ought to be an immediate and total repeal of all duties on corn; that if taxation existed, it should exist only as the means of raising revenue, and should not be instrumental to "protection," properly so called. A third opinion, he said, was (and he added that he thought I had the honour to concur with him in the general principle), that although it might be true that in a new state of society, and abstractedly speaking, there should be no protection for native interests, yet in a country like ours, with such complicated relations and such large vested interests, and with so vast an amount of taxation, it would be dangerous to apply principles even abstractedly right, incurring the risk of a great disturbance of capital and of great injury to those engaged in existing arrangements. Sir, in that general principle I do certainly concur. I believe the abolition of the Corn-laws would produce great confusion and distress. There is, however, this difference between us—the difference between the fixed duty and the graduated scale. Now, here I retain my own opinions. Agreeing in the general principle as I have stated, with the noble Lord, he proposes to secure his protection by a fixed duty, and he says Members of Parliament are liable to the invidious imputation of being actuated by personal interests in advocating the sliding-scale. Surely the same suspicion attaches to the fixed duty plan. The noble Lord might say I propose this fixed duty for the purposes of revenue, but if that duty be carried high, though intended by him for revenue merely, it operates in the same way as a graduated duty—it operates as a protection. If the noble Lord intend it for revenue merely—if he think there is no claim on the part of the agricultural interest to protection in any shape whatever, then I re ain my opinion that the noble Lord will find it extremely difficult to resist the argument that if this duty be laid on foreign corn for the purpose of revenue only, and not for protection, why not apply it to corn of domestic produce? When the noble Lord is defending his fixed duty on wheat as a fixed duty imposed, not for protection, but for revenue, he will have the case of barley and of malt quoted against him, and will be told that with respect to other descriptions of corn, such as barley, we do raise a large revenue from our domestic produce, and that if you think it right to have a duty on wheat, not for protection, but for revenue, why not lay a tax on wheat ground at the mill, and not confine yourselves to taxes on the imports. Why not pursue, with respect to wheat, the course you have taken with respect to barley, and subject both foreign and home produce to equal duties—provided you are sincere in enforcing your duty, not on account of protection, but really mean to impose it on account of revenue. And what would you say to the representatives on whom you say it is so invidious to bestow protection on their own interests? Would you say, "I am exceedingly sorry to give you protection; it is a very invidious thing, and I think you have no right to it, but I am obliged to confer this unexpected benefit on you most reluctantly, because I mean to enforce my duty on foreign corn, not for protection, but for revenue." The noble Lord, I think, would find it difficult to prevail on his constituents to adopt that distinction. Sir, I stated last year—not because I contemplated alteration in the law at any future period, but because the question was put to me, that the Government were nut then prepared to alter the existing law. But when pressed on the part of the Government to make a declaration that at all times, and under all circumstances, I would adhere to the existing law, I said that such a declaration on my part was inconsistent with the duty which I owed to the Crown, but I did not state that for the purpose of reserving to the Government any escape from this question. The hon. Gentleman has said that you have three courses open to you; that you may either repeal that law, for as far as a fixed duty is concerned, says the hon. Gentleman, it is utterly impossible for you (the Government) to propose it. I do not know what it is impossible for any man to do. I hope hon. Gentlemen do not think that her Majesty's Government are making any reservation with respect to this. But when the noble Lord shall think that, in the opinion of the agricultural portion of the community, protection may be set aside in favour of total repeal, whenever that alteration in public opinion shall have taken place, I am strongly inclined to think that the noble Lord ay ill he the party to propose a fixed duty, and not myself. But the experience of the present Corn-law has not in the slightest degree shaken my opinion in preferring the principle of the graduated scale to that of the fixed duty. I gave it the preference at the time I proposed it, and nothing that has yet happened has induced me to change my opinion. I say, therefore, now, as I said last year, though I should not, on the part of the Government, think it consistent with my public duty to conciliate support by an engagement to adhere, under all circumstances, to a particular law respecting the imposition of duties—yet I can with equal truth say, I have not contemplated, and do not contemplate, an alteration in the present Corn-law. Why should the Government contemplate such an alteration? I believe the prices of corn since the alteration of the present law have been at least as fixed and subject to as little alteration as at any previous time. Look to the prices of corn during the last three or four months. It is very difficult to find any period when the prices of corn were more regular or more fixed, with fewer variations than in any former period. The price has varied from 50s. to 52s., and, I believe, that for the last three or four months that has been the extent of the variation. And then as to the price of corn in relation to dearness. I have here an account of the average prices of corn for the last fifty-four years, from 1790. I find that the present average price of wheat is 50s. 1d. Out of the fifty-four years, there are only seven in which the average price has been less than the present price; whilst in forty-seven years it has been higher. Consequently, neither on account of the price of corn, nor on account of variations in that price, am I led to form a more unfavourable opinion with respect to the operations of the present law, than I entertained at the time when, on the part of the Government, I proposed it; and I can consistently again say, that the inference drawn by the hon. Gentleman from the silence on this subject in her Majesty's speech is correct, and that though the Government do not bind themselves by engagements inconsistent with their duty to the Sovereign and the country, they have not contemplated, and do not contemplate any alteration of the law which at present regulates the importation of corn. Sir, I do earnestly hope, that the general state of the country, justifies the expression with regard to it introduced into the Speech from the Throne. I do believe, there has been a material improvement in some important branches of manufactures and trade. There was a great change in the Customs duties in 1842, and there was, I think, a disposition to draw too hasty a conclusion, as to the operation of that change. Government asked for time, in order to have an opportunity of judging what would be the effect of the alteration. When we mentioned, last year, that we thought there were indications of improvement, though the noble Lord says he joined us in the expression of that opinion, yet I recollect well the statement was doubted by Gentlemen on the other side and we were told we had nothing but prospects of increasing depression. I hope, that it is now admitted, that a material improvement has taken place in some branches of manufacture. The iron trade, I am aware, is still in a state of depression, but as was justly said, by my hon. Friend, the demand for increased means of communication throughout the country, the proposals for new railways, the increased prosperity of those manufactures which require a considerable quantity of iron, will all have the effect of increasing the consumption of that article, and do trust, that the operation of these causes will influence the iron trade in turn, and that we shall not only find indications of, but substantial and active improvements. With respect to the revenue,—her Majesty's Government, professing not to represent it in too bright colours, state a fact to the House which is consistent with truth, viz., that, in the present year the course of deficiency has been suspended, and that the revenue of the present year will at least be amply sufficient to meet the existing charges. I trust, therefore, that the House believe, that we do meet Parliament in the present year under improved circumstances. Looking to our foreign policy, and to the questions which we have arranged with the United States—a country with which we maintain relations, probably, as important even as those which we maintain with France—if we have not settled all the questions of difference with that country, we have at any rate removed those immediate obstructions to a good understanding, which two years ago, threatened the relations of amity that subsisted between us. With France, without concession or compromise, on the part of either Government, we are justified in stating, that the most friendly understanding prevails; and we have found, that friendly understanding telling with advantage in every quarter of the globe in which the interests of the two countries come in contact. The balance between revenue and expenditure is equalised, and at any rate we have this year put a stop to the accumulation of debt. That depression which visited some of the great interests of this country, and which caused such deprivation and suffering amongst the working classes is at least in a considerable degree, converted into growing prosperity—a prosperity which I trust will become still greater. I know perfectly well, that although suffering and privation are relieved, there still exists, in many parts of the country, distress which we cannot view without sympathy, but this, I trust also, is in the course of being lessened, if not removed. And on the whole I do trust that I am justified in stating that in the performance of our duties towards the Crown and the country, with respect both to foreign relations, the condition of trade and the state of the revenue, that we are enabled to present ourselves before the assembled Parliament of this country as having fulfilled the expectations which we held out as to the prospects of the empire, and the effects of the measures we proposed, and that you will deem we have not been wanting in the duties which we owe, to our Sovereign and the country.

Viscount Palmerston

I entirely concur with my noble Friend the Member for London, in thinking that there are many satisfactory points in the account given by her Majesty's Government of the state of the public affairs of the country. It must be gratifying to every man to learn, that the distress which so long oppressed the manufacturing industry of the country is beginning to disappear; and also that the revenue is beginning to recover from the depression under which it laboured, and that the income for the current year is likely to exceed the expenditure. Whether these two results might not have happened at a still earlier period, if the measures which we proposed to Parliament in 1841 had been adopted, is a question I will not now discuss. Though I entertain a decided opinion on that point, I shall also follow the example set by those who have preceded me in debate, and abstain from making any observations in reference to certain proceedings in progress in Ireland—a reserve dictated by obvious reasons, and which I shall not attempt to depart from. With regard to the Corn-laws also, for similar reasons, I shall not enter upon any argument at present, especially as many opportunities will doubtless arise, in the course of the Session to discuss them. But without entering generally upon that question, I may be permitted to remark upon the extraordinary position maintained by the right hon. Baronet opposite in regard to this matter. The right hon. Baronet says, that if we lay a fixed duty upon foreign corn for the purpose of revenue, we ought also to lay a similar duty upon corn produced at home. I cannot at all admit that proposition, because if it were admitted it would go, as I apprehend, to the abolition of all customs duties, except those which countervail the excise, or we must extend to all articles manufactured at home the same duties which are levied on the importation of similar articles manufactured abroad. There is no inconsistency in the proposition of a fixed duty on foreign corn, nor is there any departure from the established practice of the revenue. We levy duties on many articles which come from abroad, without levying any duties on similar articles produced at home. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in levying a duty on corn imported from abroad, without levying a duty on that grown at home. The doctrine of the right hon. Baronet would go much further than he was aware, for it would hear upon the great question, whether we ought to raise the revenue by direct or indirect taxation. I am for indirect duties, and I see no reason why corn coming from abroad should not be the subject of indirect taxation, the same as any other imported commodity. I concur in the satisfaction expressed at the successful termination of the negotiations with China; and I am glad that the stipulations of the treaty allow the privileges obtained by England to be shared by all the other nations of the world. I think these were very wise and fitting provisions to introduce; and whether the merit of proposing them rests with the Government of England or that of China, they are highly creditable to the parties who framed the treaty. [Sir R. Peel: It was by a supplementary treaty.] To proceed then to our other foreign relations, no one feels greater satisfaction than myself, that the relations with France are replaced on that footing of good understanding so eminently important, not only to the interests of the two countries, but to those of Europe generally, and to the world at large. I feel the greater satisfaction upon this score from the recollection that the Government of which I was a member was able to boast of preserving a similar state of uninterrupted union between the two countries during the first six years we were in office. It was lately stated, and very truly, by one of the most eloquent members of the French Chambers, himself a practical statesman, and well informed as to the events he was discussing (Monsieur Thiers), that from the years 1830 to 1836 the most cordial and sincere relations of friendship existed between the two countries; and that that union, if not absolutely and indispensably necessary at that time for the peace of Europe, did contribute most essentially to preserve it. When we were taunted and reproached during that period, not indeed by the right hon. Baronet, or by his colleagues, but by many of his supporters, for alleged subserviency to France, I said that as long as the mutual interests of the two countries remained the same, I should continue to cultivate the friendly relations existing between them; but that as soon as those interests diverged I should adopt a policy conformable to the interests of this country. In time it so happened that the interests of the two countries did diverge, it was not from any fault of ours that this divergence took place, because, we always maintained an uniform and consistent course of policy; but the views of France happened to differ from ours on certain essential points, and our respective lines of policy became necessarily divergent. Down to the treaty of 1840, however, the general principles of the two governments were the same. The object of that treaty was to rescue Europe from great imminent danger with which it had for several years been threatened by the state of things in Syria. In framing this treaty, we had no peculiar objects of our own in view—no selfish interests to advance; and if it was the misfortune of England to differ with France on that occasion, we did so in common with the other great powers of Europe, who all took the same view that we did of the great question then in hand. I am truly glad, however, to find that the irritation which arose out of those events has now subsided, and that a cordial good understanding has again been established between the two countries. With regard, however, to the results of that friendly understanding, I feel bound to say that they are not in all respects the same as those which accrued from the good understanding which existed with France during our Government. The result of the amicable relations between England and France, from 1830 to 1836, was eminently conducive to the interests of liberty, and to the welfare and happiness of mankind. The result of that friendly understanding was, that Belgium was saved from invasion, by which she was threatened for the purpose of re-subjugating her people and reannexing her to the kingdom of the Netherlands. The next result was, that Portugal was freed from the despotism of Don Miguel, and obtained the enjoyment of a constitutional government. Spain also became possessed of the inestimable advantages resulting from a popular and representative constitution. Another result of the friendly relations between France and England was, that the two countries laid aside the reciprocal jealousy which had existed between them, as two great maritime powers, and concluded the treaties of 1831 and 1833, by which they gave each other a mutual Right of Search for the suppression of the slave-trade, and the consequence was, that the slave-trade, which had till then been carried on under the flag of France, was immediately suppressed. Such were the fruits of the union between the two countries while we were in power, but I look in vain for similar results from that union which is so much boasted of now. If we turn to Spain, we see the Regent, whom the right hon. Baronet declared to be the best security for the progress of civil liberty and for the maintenance of order and tranquillity in that country, expelled; the popular constitution suspended; a mili- tary despotism established in its stead, and the Spanish nation governed by proclamation instead of being governed by law. That is the result of the good understanding between the two Governments as far as Spain is concerned. With regard to the slave-trade, I much fear that instead of fresh measures for its suppression, we are about to see the abrogation of the treaties providing for the mutual Right of Search. Indeed, it has been asserted by the French minister, that negotiations for that purpose have been begun. But I can tell the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues if that be done, and that mutual right of search, which is the only effectual check upon the single security against the slave-trade, be done away with, the slave-trade will be revived under the flag of France, and a great injury will be done to the interests of humanity. The right hon. gentleman referred to the treaty concluded last year between this country and the United States, as having removed the most material points of difference between the two countries, and facilitated the settlement of others. On looking, however, to the late speech of the President of the United States, particularly to that part which treated of the Oregon territory, I regret to say, I do not see symptoms of that good understanding which some persons anticipated from the treaty of last year. One of the reasons assigned by the Government for the concessions in the Washington Treaty was, that the American people were convinced of their right to the disputed territory, and were determined to enforce that right by arms. Now, I perceive, that precisely the same language is used in the last speech of the President with regard to the Oregon territory, for it is there announced that the whole American people hold that they have a right to the whole of that territory, and it is recommended that military posts should be established in it in order to protect emigrants who go thither. I fear that the arguments which have been used to the English Government with so much success as to the north-eastern boundary will be equally powerful, mill have the same effect as to the territory on the shores of the Pacific. In the Speech from the Throne in February, 1842, it was announced, that negotiation were pending with certain Powers, which Her Majesty hoped would lead to conventions founded on just principles of mutual advantage, and calculated to extend the trade and com- merce of the country. We have never yet heard which are those several Powers, nor what has been the result of those negotiations. It may be presumed, that among those Powers were France, the United States, Portugal, Spain, and Brazil. I believe, that with none of those Powers has any convention of the nature referred to been hitherto concluded. Perhaps we shall hear in the course of the night, or at all events in the course of the Session, what were those negotiations, and what have been their results. With some Powers we know there have been no conventions concluded—with France, for instance, it has been declared by the French government in their chambers that our negotiation is at an end. Any commercial negotiation with the United States has been placed out of the question by the determination of our Government to maintain the sliding-scale. The public papers have informed us, that the negotiation with Portugal has failed, and it is well known that nothing is likely to be done with Spain. We have heard of a negotiation going on with Brazil, and it has been reported that the point at which it went off was, that the British Government declared to the government of Brazil, that they were prepared to admit sugar the produce of free labour, but not sugar the produce of slave labour; and that, therefore, unless Brazil abolished, or considerably modified slavery, Brazilian sugar could not be admitted. That proposition might have been made in perfect good faith and good feeling by the British Government, but it seems to me, that they have shown very little knowledge of the feelings, habits, and prejudices of the Brazilian people; for you might as well ask the country gentlemen of England to abolish the Corn-laws as the Brazilians to abolish slavery. I am bound to suppose that proposition was made sincerely; but assuredly, if it had been intended to attach to the negotiation a condition which would to a certainty make it fail, the ingenuity of man could not have devised a method more sure to accomplish the object in view. It is said, that the Government intend in the course of the Session Ito introduce measures connected with the criminal law. To so important a subject as that we might have expected some allusion in the Speech; but there is none, unless, indeed, it be said, that the subject is included in the truly comprehensive words of the last passage of the Speech:— I commit to your deliberate consideration the various important questions of public policy which will necessarily come under your review, with full confidence in your loyalty and wisdom, and with an earnest prayer to Almighty God to direct and favour your efforts to promote the welfare of all classes of my people. Certainly, a recommendation so general of all the matters that may be brought under the consideration of Parliament may be said to include a reform of the courts connected with the criminal law, but the measure I allude to is one of considerable importance, and to which some specific allusion in the Speech might reasonably have been expected. To the Address itself I see no objection. It is framed according to the most approved precedents for such things, committing nobody to any opinion, and I shall, therefore, vote for the Address as it stands, and, with my noble Friend, negative the amendment.

Mr. Roebuck

said, the debate of that night had exhibited a somewhat extraordinary spectacle to the inhabitants of the three kingdoms. He had always been taught that the time for the expression of the opinions of the House on the policy of the Government, was on agreeing to the Address to the Crown in answer to the Speech. The noble Lord (John Russell), however, had told them that this was an error—that agreeing to the Address was now a mere form; and his opinion had been echoed by the right hon. Baronet opposite. So that it now appeared that ail they had to do in that House, on the first night of the Session, was to come down to hear two gentlemen utter their opinions in favour of the Government, attired in somewhat extraordinary dresses. Was it supposed that the world out of doors would believe that at a time when the very unity of this country was threatened, nothing was to be said in Parliament on a course of policy which thus endangered the safety and strength of the state? At that moment they all knew that the danger was menaced of a dissolution of the Union between England and Ireland. They could not escape that—the danger was there. And yet at such a moment they were called upon by the leaders on either aide of the House to be utterly silent; to be, as it were, careless of a circumstance most fatal to the happiness and prosperity of both countries. And why? Because there was a trial pending in Dublin! For no other reason whatsoever. He (Mr. Roebuck) would appeal to those who sat on that (the opposition side)—to that portion of the House which connected itself with the liberal feelings of the country—and ask them what would be the feelings of the great body of the people of Ireland when they were told that the Opposition had passed over in total silence the policy of the Government, and that they had not attempted to come to the rescue of those who were now being oppressed by that policy? And why? Because such a course was agreeable to both parties. Because it was agreeable to the right hon. Baronet opposite to have an easy night of it—to have what is called an unanimous address to the Crown. He was sure that nobody on that (the Opposition) side of the House, would wish to do any thing that was not loyal and obedient to Her Majesty, but the course taken to-night involved a very different question—one brought before them under great and extraordinary difficulties. Believing, as he did, that the Union with Ireland was a blessing necessary to the welfare of both kingdoms, he was most anxious to mark to the people of Ireland that there was a deep sympathy for them existing in that House; that when the representatives of the people met to discuss the affairs of the country they were not blind to the grievances under which the Irish laboured; but which they thought the people of England refused to sympathize with, and in consequence of which they demanded a separation from this country. They were told that a time would come when they could discuss the grievances of Ireland. He maintained that the time was now come. It was a very curious thing, but there were two questions that were now moving the people of England and Ireland—the one was the repeal of the Corn-laws and the extension of trade, and the other was the repeal of the Legislative Union between England and Ireland—and yet these were the two questions which the leaders on both sides concurred to-night in consigning to utter oblivion! ["No."] The noble Lord the Member for Sunderland said "No." But did not the noble Lord the Member for London distinctly say that he differed from the hon. Member for Montrose, because be brought the Corn-laws under discussion, and, though the noble Lord was compelled to make some passing observations, did he not say he considered himself not called on to do more than vote against the amendment. The right hon. Baronet, too, said it was not desirable to discuss these different questions on the proposition of the Address to the Throne. Then, why did hon. Members come there at all? Why not stay away, and let the thing supposed to be done be done without them. However as the case stood, his sole desire was, to divest himself personally of all responsibility as to the course of conduct which was about to be pursued. He believed much injury would be done to the Union with Ireland, through the feelings of the people, by their conduct to-night. He was convinced that when it went to Ireland that the House of Commons had passed over in silence the grievances of that country, Mr. O'Connell might say, "I have carried the separation of the two countries." They were playing his card. They were doing all they could to aid in the separation of the two countries. He was convinced Mr. O'Connell would think that the proceedings of that night had done more towards furthering his object than his own acts during the past year. Upon the noble Lord the Member for London the responsibility of the conduct of the Opposition rested. On him, as the leader of the Liberal party, must rest the responsibility of the course they had taken; but the noble Lord seemed to think that he could lead the Liberal party, absolutely evading the questions that were agitating the two countries—the repeal of the Corn-laws, and the grievances of Ireland. He was obliged from necessity to yield and to withhold the proposition which he had intended to make, but he did so, still thinking that the trial now going on in Dublin did not preclude hon. Members from commenting on the policy of the right hon. Baronet towards Ireland, and protesting his belief that the people of Ireland had been on this occasion deserted by the great Liberal party of this country.

Viscount Howick

did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had fairly represented the views of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), or of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member in the opinion he had expressed, that because it was not thought convenient, on the occasion of proposing the Address to her Majesty in answer to the Speech from the Throne, to enter into a full discussion of the leading and various important questions of public policy, that therefore the Address was a mere matter of form. Now, it appeared to him that nothing could be more inconvenient than, on the occasion of proposing the Address, they should enter at large into a variety of important questions upon which much difference of opinion prevailed. His hon. and learned Friend had said, and said truly, that the present situation of Ireland was one that was calculated to inspire alarm in the mind of every man who was anxious for the peace and welfare of that country; and the whole of England (said the hon. and learned Gentleman), was scarcely less agitated on the great and important question of the Corn-laws. But if those questions were so momentous and important—as no doubt they were, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House, whether it could possibly lead to any satisfactory result, that in one and the same debate they should discuss those two totally distinct questions, and mix up in that discussion a great number of other questions equally important and equally distinct? Her Majesty's Speech was useful as giving, at the commencement of the Session, a general view to the House of the more important business to be brought before it, and the debate on the Address was useful as giving to Members an opportunity of making remarks generally on the policy of the Government and upon the general condition of the country; but if on such occasions they were to discuss such topics as those to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, and come to a decision upon them, could it, he would ask, have any other effect than to lead to a useless consumption and waste of the public time, which would thus be occupied in discussions which could not be final, but which must be brought before the house again in a more practical shape? When, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was the object of his noble Friend to consign the two great questions of Ireland and the Corn-laws to oblivion and silence, he must say that his noble Friend had been most grossly misunderstood. On the part of his noble Friend he was sure, and most certainly upon his own, there was no desire to shrink from either of those two great questions. They were, in his opinion, of great and vital importance, and he would say that not an hour should be lost in bringing them under consideration; but, notwithstanding what had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Lord Howick) must express his entire and cordial concurrence in what had fallen from his noble Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman, as to the extreme inconvenience (to give it no harsher term) of introducing a discussion on the important subject of Ireland pending the judicial investigation now in progress in that country. For what would be the practical effect of such a discussion? It would be impossible to debate the question of the policy pursued by the Government towards Ireland, or the measures calculated to allay agitation and give peace to that country, without at the same time, inquiring into the policy of those pending trials and the manner in which they had been conducted; and could they, he would ask, enter into any discussion of that kind without incurring the risk of appearing to be making speeches in that House, addressed not so much to those who heard them as to the jury who were to decide a question solemnly committed to them in the ordinary course of law? It was, perhaps, a necessary inconvenience of trials of this nature that they had a tendency to introduce too much of political feelings and political passions into the jury-box; and they should beware how they did anything to aggravate that inconvenience. If there was one evil more than another complained of in past times in Ireland, it was that political passions and political interests did occasionally intrude into the administration of justice. For many years this had been a reproach and a curse to Ireland: and would it now be fitting for those who wished well to that country to enter into a discussion which would have the effect of renewing that evil, and making the jury-box, even more than it formerly was, the scene of party warfare and political strife? But when those trials which were now progressing should be completed, he trusted his noble Friend would bring the subject fully before them; and he hoped the House would be impressed with its deep importance, and the absolute necessity of taking some measures, before it was too late, to rescue Ireland from the dangers with which she was now threatened. With regard to the question of the Corn-laws, it would, he thought, be equally unadvisable to enter into any debate upon it then. It was, in fact, much too large a question to be done justice to on an occasion like the present. At the same time, he could not avoid remarking upon the observations that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He quite admitted to the right hon. Baronet, that there were many strong objections which might be alleged to the proposal of a fixed duty on mere revenue considerations; but he still adhered to the view, that as a fair compromise between conflicting opinions on the subject, and he would say not without reference to revenue, that proposal would be in itself the best to be adopted. But if the right hon. Baronet on the one side chose to join with the determined opponents of the Corn-laws on the other in opposing the compromise of a fixed duty, he must then agree that the imposition of such a duty would be impossible. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was the best friend to the agricultural body in so determining, or whether he would be consulting their best interests in making a fixed duty impossible, which he granted the right hon. Gentleman had gone far to do, it was not for him to say. The controversy had been kept up so long, that he doubted whether, without the present unfortunate speech of the right hon. Baronet, the time for compromise had not gone by, and whether the House must not now come to a decision definitely on the one side or the other; and if the right hon. Gentleman and those who thought with him laid so much stress on the objections which had been urged against a fixed duty, it would be worse than idle to make such a proposition. The question, then to be solved would be whether the existing Corn-law should be maintained, or whether corn should be imported free? That was the point the right hon. Gentleman wished to bring matters to—that was the question he wished to bring to issue, and, when the question was discussed, he should adhere to the opinions he had uniformly held since he had first entered Parliament, and had expressed both in that House and on the hustings of an agricultural county. He adhered to that opinion, but without hesitation or a moment's delay, if he must choose between the two conflicting extremes, his choice would be in favour of the alternative of a free importation. If the right hon. Baronet should place him in that position, he would say unhesitatingly that that would be his choice. As he had already said, it would be worse than idle for those on the Opposition side of the House, when the right hon. Gentleman expressed such strong opinions as those he had declared that evening, to bring forward any proposition for a fixed duty. At the same time, should the right hon. Baronet reconsider his opinion, and he should find there was any disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and supporters to agree to what he could not but look upon as a fair and just compromise, he should for one most gladly close with the offer. He would add but a few words in declaring his most cordial and unreserved concurrence in the opinion as to the foreign policy of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman had given expression. Like the right hon. Baronet, he thought there was no greater curse to the world at large, and to the interests of civilization and humanity, than the carrying on in every court in Europe, and in every country in the world, a party struggle between what was called the English party and the French party. He abominated the whole system of such interference; and he would say, that the more they abstained from giving advice to other countries as to the management of their internal affairs, the better. And for this reason—the representative of England or of France, or of any other great nation, accredited to another country, with the most sincere desire for the welfare of that country, might, and no doubt would, give the best advice in his power; but that advice was not always taken, and little by little he would become exasperated at those who did not look upon him as an oracle, and would favour that party who were most impressed with his superior wisdom. The ministers of France and of England might take opposite views of what was most conducive to the interests of Mexico or of Portugal, and little by little, totally contrary to the wishes of their respective governments, a sort of French and English party was created. A struggle for ascendancy between those parties resulted, and the unfortunate country where the system was carried on became the prey of factions which were occasioned, and of animosities which were embittered, by this kind of interference. He therefore joined with the right hon. Baronet in deprecating anything of the sort; and he had heard with much regret the expressions of his noble Friend the Member for Tiverton, who, adverting to the present condition of Spain, had said that under that union of interests and that good understanding to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, and that union of interests which existed between France and England, the late Regent of Spain, to whom he paid a high and well-merited compliment, had fallen from power, and that a state of military despotism, if not anarchy, had succeeded. He joined in lamenting the unfortunate state of things now existing in Spain; but while he did so, he rejoiced that the right hon. Baronet and the Government of the French King bad abstained from taking any active part in preventing its continuance. He imputed blame to neither Government for what had occurred, and he only hoped that they might abstain, in like manner, from all interference for the future, and that they would leave the Spaniards to settle their own affairs for themselves, as the most likely means of restoring that country to the state of constitutional government and security of person and property which all must equally desire. It was not his intention to trouble the House further on that occasion; but after what had been said on both sides of the House, and entertaining, as he did, a strong opinion on the important points to which allusion had been made, he felt bound to express his opinion as he had done.

Mr. Wyse

was most anxious to prevent the feeling going abroad, that the representatives of Ireland in that House were insensible to the condition in which that country stood at the present moment, or that they would lose any opportunity that presented itself of expressing their indignation at the position in which they were placed, and their anxiety and apprehension as to the dangers which now threatened this great empire. He was by no means insensible to the importance of preserving the jury-box free from the taint of party. It was his wish, and that of every one on that side connected with Ireland, that the jury should fairly try and fairly pronounce their verdict in the matters now in course of judicial investigation in Ireland; but be must at the same time strongly protest against the opinion that it would interfere with the course of justice to discuss those general questions of policy which were not for the jury but for that House to determine. Looking, however, at the present condition of the country, he, as one of the Irish representatives, was determined not to allow the debate to pass over without expressing his opinion, that at the earliest possible opportunity it was the duty of Government to bring under consideration the whole question, and that their serious attention should be directed to the dangers with which that portion of the empire was now threatened. He and others had gone home to their constituents at the close of the last Session with feelings of grief and indignation—having no measures of improvement to offer them, but only a bill of pains and penalties; and he had returned to the House still more impressed than before with the deep conviction that Ireland could only be governed henceforth by conciliation and justice. The war of opinion in Ireland was wide spread, and hostility between parties bitter; but the House of Commons was by its conduct aggravating the evil and increasing the hostility. In a short time there would be no neutral party in Ireland. There would be none but the violent men on the one side and on the other—do what they would, in such a state of things it would be impossible to prevent collision and a war, which perhaps might be less bloody than a civil war, in which the parties were ranged against each other with arms in their hands—but a war of parties, which might be still more pernicious than a bloody war in its moral effects. The time was now come when the Government of Great Britain, or rather the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), should state openly, whether he bad given his sanction to the recent proceedings in Dublin, and also whether it were his intention that Ireland should in future be governed by tyranny or by a course of co-operation.

The O'Connor Don rose

to express his full concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford. He had been instructed by his constituents to declare their marked disapprobation at the course which had been adopted towards Ireland—but as it seemed to be the general impression that all discussion should be postponed until the noble Lord, the Member for London, brought forward his motion on the state of Ireland, be should not interfere with what appeared to be the general understanding. His only object therefore in rising was to prevent its being supposed, that in not opposing the Address he coincided with the policy and views of the Government. If he did not express his dissent more at length he could assure the House that it was not the less felt, and he joined most heartily with his hon. Friends around him, in condemning some of those measures and views of Ministers in reference to Ireland, to which they would have other opportunities of discussing

Mr. M. Gibson

said the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale simply asked the majority of the House to pledge itself to inquire into the grievances of the people, at the same that they, by agreeing to the Address, undertook to provide for the exigencies of the country and the public expenditure. It appeared to him to be both rational and constitutional, and he knew of no better opportunity for the House to guarantee to the people an enquiry into their grievances, than when they pledged themselves to impose the necessary taxes to defray the expenses of the country. If the forms of this House were attempted to be used vexatiously to interrupt public business, that attempt would be opposed by the great majority of the intelligent community, whatever their political opinion, and he was quite sure that those forms could only be used to suspend business when some unfair advantage was taken by a strong party to press business through the House improperly, and without discussion. He thought there was some force in the remark, that during a debate on the Address it was difficult to discuss particular public questions with any great effect or advantage; at the same time he considered it a fitting occasion to offer any general remarks on the state of the country, and to reply to any observations that might have fallen from the Minister of the Crown. In his opinion the earliest opportunity should be taken by the House of stating their concurrence in the recommendations and opinions of the Speech from the Throne, or of meeting the statements of Ministers by argument, and stating fairly their objections to them. In reference to what had fallen from the Mover and Seconder of the Address, he was not disposed to deny that a great improvement had taken place in many branches of the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country; but while he concurred so far with the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman, he must qualify that concurrence by saying, that he had no great confidence in the permanence of that prosperity. He thought it was fitting Parliament should take the earliest opportunity of ascertaining what were the causes of those great fluctuations in the principal branches of industry—why at one time they should be subjected to great depression, and at another be attended with unnatural prosperity. With regard to another subject he was glad the right hon. Baronet had taken the advice of the noble Lord, and had refused to pledge himself to the maintenance of the existing Corn-laws. The inference he had drawn from the right hon. Baronet's speech was, that he refused to yield to the entreaties of the agriculturists to pledge himself to maintain permanently the protective system. They had seen that when the right hon. Baronet had made up his mind to any particular line of policy he was ready to pledge himself to maintain it, as he had done in the case of the legislative union between England and Ireland; but he was quite sure that neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor any other Minister would, under present circumstances, or in the present state of the country, pledge himself to maintain the protective system of commercial policy, or that in speaking of the subject he should do more than say, that he had not at present any measure to propose on the subject. The right hon. Baronet had taken a most judicious course in leaving it as he had done—an open question: The right hon. Gentleman pledged himself as to the Corn-law only for a month. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, the right hon. Gentleman's words were, "That any alteration within a month would be attended with great disadvantage and discourage existing interests,"—that was all, and he defied the Government, or any member of it, to stand up and say," I will maintain permanently the existing Corn-laws." He was glad the right hon. Baronet had taken that course, for though he differed from his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) that it would be desirable for the right hon. Baronet to pledge himself, especially if it were to maintain the protective system—as the right hon. Baronet could never give effect to such a pledge; yet, looking at the great influence of the right hon. Baronet and the condition of the occupying tenants, his pledge might have a most prejudicial result to the country; for the landowners would say to their tenants, the protection on agriculture will be maintained—you may take leases at increased rents. That would be the consequence of such a pledge were it given. He hoped, however, the occupying tenants would see what an unstable foundation they had been resting upon in former times, and how dangerous it was to invest their capital on the faith that what was called protection to agriculture, would or could be kept up. He was convinced that the day would come when they would re- gard as their worst enemies those who would induce them to rely on protection. But he would take the advice of his friends around him, and not trespass on the House by further dilating upon these important subjects. There would be other and early opportunities for their discussion, and he would therefore only now say, in conclusion, that he hailed with great satisfaction the movement, which hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking upon themselves to conduct, for the maintenance and continuance of what they called the system of protection. If these Gentlemen thought the system was for the benefit of the landholder or for the benefit of the labourer, they did quite right to express that opinion in public. All he asked was, that in giving expression to it they should confine themselves to rational argument—to rational argument and intelligent reasoning, not allowing themselves to be betrayed into language alike abusive, scurrilous and disreputable. No one was justified in making use of such language—least of all, perhaps, was it to be justified when it was employed in the course of argument upon a vitally important question. If he was ever betrayed into violence, he was always ready to express his sorrow, and he felt convinced that others would do the same. All he asked was fair argument, conducted rationally and in an intelligent spirit, and if this were secured he felt a complete conviction that the landowners would soon be brought to a sense of the vast national importance of a system of free-trade, of its importance not only to the commercial interests of the country, but to the landed proprietors themselves, because they must share with others the general, the inevitable benefit which would follow from its establishment.

Sir B. Peel

hoped, that it was hardly necessary for him to protest against the hon. Member's perversion of the opinions he had expressed. The hon. Member, he presumed, intended to be facetious; he saw him, indeed, smile as he spoke. The hon. Member was an advocate of the total abolition of the Corn-law within a month. He said in his speech, that if there was to be such abolition within a month, nothing but distress and confusion would take place. Upon this, the hon. Gentleman, argued, that all he had intended to convey, was, that he was not prepared to consent to a repeal of the Corn-law within a month. Now, the words he had used were explicit, and the House would not fail to bear them in mind. He had said, that if he had in- tended to propose, or not to resist, an alteration of the Corn-law, some mention of the subject would have been made in the Speech from the Throne. He had said, that the Government had not contemplated, and that they did not contemplate, such alteration; and he had also said, that which, he believed, every one would consider it to be the duty of a minister to declare, that for the purpose of conciliating a party, he would not, on behalf of the Government, and in a matter relating to the abolition of duties, rather than involving a great principle, fetter himself to the provisions of any particular law as to a principle of eternal truth.

Mr. Plumpire

had heard all that the right hon. Baronet had stated in his speech, and he must say, that he felt perfectly satisfied with the declaration that had been made. He felt quite sure, that that declaration would be received with much gratification in the county of Kent. With regard to what the hon. Member opposite had said about clamour, he quite agreed, that the existence of the Corn-law, was not to be determined by clamour. No such change could take place without ruin to the country, and the country was not to be ruined by the outcries of a noisy minority.

Mr. Brotherton

said, that in voting for the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale, he wished it to be understood, that it was simply with a view of expressing his desire that the grievances of the people should be inquired into and redressed, and not as sanctioning any attempt by factious opposition to stop the supplies. He had been asked by some of his constituents to vote for the amendment, and he had inquired of those who waited upon him, whether they meant that a small minority should waste the time of the House of Commons during the Session by fruitless endeavours to frustrate every measure in order to gain an object, respecting which, the public were as much divided in opinion as the House? "You would be the first," he had said to his constituents, "you would be the first, I am sure, to object to such a course, and to blame me for delaying really useful business." Besides, he did not think that the amendment itself was the best means of attaining the object the hon. Mover had in view. As he was up, he would take leave to say a few words on the Corn-laws. He was ready to admit with the seconder of the amendment, that there had been some improvement in certain branches of manufacturing industry, but he had reason to apprehend that that improvement would not be of long continuance after the declaration the right hon. Baronet had made that night. The right hon. Baronet's declaration must cause dismay and alarm to the whole manufacturing interest. He confessed that he did not draw the same inference from the speech of the right hon. Baronet as his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. He had understood, from the cheers of hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the right hon. Baronet did intend to persist in the sliding-scale; and that a fixed duty would not be proposed by him. He wished the country to understand who were its masters, that the manufacturing industry would be loaded to the last feather; and that when the landed interest made a concession, it would be when the manufacturers were not quite starved to death. Their making any concession showed that they understood the principle. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address, would do away with the fallacy that the manufacturers sought to reduce wages by lowering the price of bread. When the price of bread was lowered, it was now admitted that wages advanced, and that there was an improvement in the home trade. He had seen the circulars alluded to, showing that the home trade was improved when provisions were lowered, and that when food was dear wages fell, and the home trade was injured. When provisions were low the revenue prospered, because, as the noble Lord the Member for London had shown, the people had more to lay out in articles paying excise duty. All these were admitted facts by Gentlemen opposite; yet, notwithstanding that it had been proved that protection did not benefit the labourers; that it did not benefit the farmers, but only the land-owners; those who made the laws, at last came boldly out and told the people they were determined to maintain protection for their own benefit. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet had spoken out, because he had conceived that more delusion would have been kept up in the country as to what the right hon. Baronet would do. He had now declared for the present scale of protection. So long as this country consumed 3,000,000 quarters of corn more than was grown in it there would necessarily be an advance in the price of food; for not a bushel of corn would come in under the 20s. sliding-scale, till there had been a considerable advance; the agricultural improvements now going on would not wholly supply this quantity; and if there was a bad harvest, what was to become of the people? Were they determined to keep the protection at the sacrifice of the lives of the people, and the sacrifice of the commerce of the country? For himself he would use every endeavour to get rid of a law which he knew to be unjust—which in his conscience he believed to be impolitic, which was at once most abominable, and contrary to every principle of humanity. He now saw the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lincolnshire in his place; and he had recently read in the newspapers a speech delivered in that county, in which it was said the best way to treat the hon. Member for Stockport, if he came into Lincolnshire, was to throw him into the river. "You then," exclaimed the hon. Member, "do not hesitate to sanction assassination." Mr. Chaplin, who uttered those sentiments was, as he had been informed, a large landed proprietor, who owned some 20,000 acres of land, which within the present century were not worth more than 1s. an acre, but were now worth 20s. to 25s. What protection had the labouring man for his labour? None: yet here was a man owning 20,000 acres who could not live without protection. Hon. Members had tried formerly to show that protection benefitted the labourers and the farmers, and it now clearly appeared that it only benefitted themselves. The law was unjust; the country would see it was unjust; hon: Gentlemen opposite had the power, and as long as they had the power they would keep the protection, but he hoped it would not be long before the people would send others who would take away that power.

Mr. C. P. Villiers

said, that there was much force in the observation of the hon. Member for Bath, that if they were precluded from making any observations on the omissions in the Speech and the Address, as well as what was inserted, it was but an idle form for hon. Members to attend on such occasions. He thought his hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose, had done good service by making his amendment. It tended to promote discussion on matters most important to the country. The only reason why be (Mr. Villiers) did not move the amendment, or second it, as he had been requested to do, was, that as it was his own intention to bring the subject of the Corn-laws in a distinct form before the House, he did not think the present altogether the most judicious, or the fairest way of discussing the subject, and because he considered, that as the attention of the constituencies had been greatly directed to this subject, the discussion ought not to be brought on without such ample notice being given on the subject as should afford them time to communicate "with their Members, and should also afford time to that great and useful combination, to spread more of that information connected with the subject, which it had been doing with so much effect, and the fruits of which, be trusted, would be visible in the next division. In his opinion, it was roost important that this subject should be further discussed out of doors; and, in fact, he believed, that it must be carried out of the House before it could be carried in it. If he had had doubt before on that matter, it had been removed by what had occurred that evening, because, if anything had been elicited by that discussion, it was, that the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, could not, consistently with his own opinion and judgment, maintain the present restrictive system, and that under present circumstances he could not abandon it; that was the position of the present question; the right hon. Baronet felt that he could not maintain it consistently with the well-being of the masses of the community, and yet from the nature of our constitution, and with the opinions of the Legislature, he was unable to abandon it. Who the persons were, who composed the majority of the Legislature in both Houses of Parliament, had been depicted by the noble Lord the Member for London. The noble Lord's view of the character of that body—and let them mind it was not the description of any Radical or person of extreme opinions—was that a majority of both Houses of the Legislature were pecuniarily interested in the question. This had been often said, and often denied in that House, but he (Mr. Villiers) asked if it was not true, and whether the noble Lord had not properly described them? He believed it had been the case ever since the revolution of 1688, since which time the aristocracy had completely governed the country, in fact it was not the Queen's Government, not the Government of the people, but the Government of the landed proprietors and of no others, and the Ministers appointed to rule this country, considered themselves alone amenable to that aristocracy. It was not wonderful then, considering the importance men attach to power, that the right hon. Gentleman should say that he was not prepared to give up the restrictive law, when, if he did not maintain it, the landed proprietors would not allow him to maintain his place. By taking them by surprize he may have been suffered to make some slight alterations in the system—but his government could not last a week—certainly not a month—if he came forward in his place in that House and stated that the protective system under which the people had suffered and would continue to suffer so much was to be abandoned. This was the justification for the combination to which he had alluded going before the electors, and throwing the responsibility upon them for injury done to the country to the extent it had been. He said that the protective system was the most important subject that could be agitated; upon that system everything turned; it affected the commerce, it affected the revenue, and it affected the physical condition of the people. That system, if they could judge from their outward manifestations, the landed proprietors were determined to maintain, although it could not be upheld consistently with the good order or with the well-being of the country. These demonstrations were it seemed now sanctioned by the right hon. Baronet, but he knew that this did not make a bad system a good one, nor did he think that they were likely to do much harm while the Government through some of its organs were holding very different language. He found some of these arguments in a publication which professed to be the organ of the Government, in a work which was known to be patronised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone); and if he (Mr. Villiers) was not mistaken, the article itself must have been written by the right hon. Gentleman. In this article the system of restriction was reviewed; and let them see whether those who opposed it were the incendiaries and the dangerous persons they were represented to be. It was well to know which was right, although gentlemen opposite were strong. The Government were claiming credit for an improvement in the general condition of the country; but they had not beard any reason assigned for this. What were the causes of these fluctuations? The whole question was discussed in the work just published. It entered into consideration of the commercial policy of the Government, which had consisted in diminishing the protection which existed before, and lowering the duties in the tariff; and reasons were given why this policy should be recommended and continued. The subject was treated under six heads—its effects upon the happiness of the people—its effects upon the extension of trade—its effects upon! the demand for employment—its effects on the shipping interests—its effects on the national revenue—and its effects on the agriculturists; and under each head every reason which had been assigned by those who called for the repeal of the Corn-laws was put forth, and every consequence as likely to arise from the adoption of free-trade was admitted, as well as the good which had partially arisen from the alterations already made; and yet they were to be told, that we were liable to so heavy a debt, and living under such an artificial system, that it would be impossible further to reduce the tariff duties. First, this article said of the effects of free-trade upon the happiness of the people— By the reduction of the duties upon the importation of corn, cattle, timber, wool, silk, provisions, vegetables, raw materials, and manufactured articles, the people will be enabled to obtain cheaper food, clothing, dwellings, furniture, and other advantages. These effects have not been instantaneous and immediate upon the passing of the new laws. It was impossible that they could be so. They can only be brought about gradually; but they are, at the same time, certain and inevitable. They have been already experienced to some extent, and will continue to be more so, in correspondence with the increase and prosperity of trade. Whatever tends to increase the supply of food and the necessaries of life—to make them more cheap and abundant, and more attainable by all classes—must also tend to promote and advance the general happiness of the people; and upon the happiness or contentedness of the people must, more or less, depend the general prosperity and security of the State. In reference, therefore, both to the tariff and the Corn-laws, the present Government have an especial claim upon the gratitude and support of the country. Next, as to its effects upon the extension of trade, it says- The reduction of duty is calculated to produce a general reduction of prices. And the consequence usually attributed to reduced prices is an increased consumption. The im- mediate effect of increased consumption is to advance and increase trade. Both our domestic and foreign trade will be increased in consequence of reduction of duty. The prosperity and adversity of different trades depend so much upon each other, that what tends to advance or depress one department, will come in time to affect, in a corresponding degree, every other. Whatever, therefore, increases or facilitates the means of consumption, especially of the essential or necessary articles of subsistence and use, by raising a demand for them, will stimulate and advance the trade under which they are produced; and every improvement in one branch of trade, or the circumstances of those connected with it, will improve every other trade to which it is related, and the circumstances of the parties depending thereon. Thus in respect to our foreign trade, speaking generally, an increased consumption of foreign articles will lead to an increased demand for the different articles of manufacture which we export. Now, as to the increased demand for employment, it would occasion An increased consumption both of domestic and foreign produce must not only improve and extend trade, but, in order to furnish the enlarged supplies necessary for exportation, will increase the demand for labourers, and thus render employment more general and remunerative among the labouring population. Then it would increase the profits of the shipping interest:— The increase of our foreign and colonial trade will necessarily occasion a greater demand for ships. They are indispensable for the conveyance of all our articles of merchandise, our exports as well as our imports; and these additional ships must be manned, provisioned, and furnished with all the varied articles indispensable to their safe and efficient navigation. In the supply of these articles various trades must be brought into activity, and therefore an improvement in the shipping trade will necessarily occasion an improvement in other trades more or less dependent upon the shipping interest. Now for its effects upon the agriculturists:— The wide-spread alarm which seized the minds of the agriculturists, cattle-dealers, and graziers, upon the first announcement that one portion of the tariff would materially facilitate the importation of live cattle from foreign countries, and consequently tend to diminish the price of food, has at length given place to more settled and correct opinions as to the manner and extent in which they will be affected. The money value of rents will in all probability, fall. It is, in fact, difficult to understand how the present rents will be long maintained. But this reduced sum, if spent at home, will purchase a larger quantity of commodities, and of luxuries, corresponding to the general fall in prices. The interest of money, there is also every reason to believe will continue to be low, and hence the interest paid on mortagages will be less. The extensive improvement in trade which must sooner or later follow these enlightened measures, must be largely participated in by the agricultural interests, and therefore, instead of having any cause far discontent or apprehension, they have everything to hope for from the increase and extension of general commerce. Such are a few of the advantageous effects which the enterprising policy of the Peel Government, founded upon the great measures of commercial reform to which we have alluded, is calculated to produce. These were the doctrines put forward in a Review, under the especial patronage of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—Foreign and Colonial Review. He had some information upon this subject, and he would only refer the House to the fact that, during the last Session, the right hon. Gentleman was charged with writing a particular article in the same review; and it had not been denied by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Villiers) asked, then, whether this was not trifling with the people? He asked, whether, in the condition of the whole community, the restrictive system was to go on? They all knew, that the population went on increasing; there was an extent of distress and destitution, which ought to shock every man of common humanity. Although it was said, that the distress was diminished, he had never before read such descriptions of destitution as every day met their view. It was perfectly horrid to find women destroying their own offspring because they could not endure to see them starve, to find the people hurrying to gaol because they were better off there, than in their own houses. Here was a work published under the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to show, that the adoption of a different system, would extend the comforts, and provide for the necessities of the people; yet they had been told that evening, that there was no chance of having the present system altered; that, whatever might be the consequences to the people, there had gone forth a decree from the landed interest that if there was the slightest change in the system, the least alteration, or if the protection was to be in any way diminished, the Ministers would not be allowed to retain their places. It might be said, that this always had been the practical working of the constitution, and such intimations might have been privately given to the Minister, but he had never before known any thing so indecent or haughty, and so dictatorial, as he had recently heard uttered at public meetings. That a Minister should be openly threatened with expulsion, if he did not do what was most injurious to the community at large, unless he maintained such a system as would put most rents into the pockets of the great dictators themselves. Noble dukes gave the sign, and the squireens followed. There was not a term of abuse which was not lavished on the right hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Villiers) had no desire to see the right hon. Gentleman removed from his present place, if this system was still to be administered, no one could doubt either his competency or his capacity, his only regret was, that the right hon. Baronet had not, if he might use the term, the spirit to turn round upon these people, and show them their utter helplessness without him, their utter inability to administer without him the Government upon their own system. With all their rank, and property, and pride, they were obliged to fall back upon those who had talents and experience, and capacity. If the right hon. Gentleman had the courage to adopt the system which he himself believed to be sound, he would rally the people to his support, and he would do more than by any other means to establish a high reputation for himself, which he represented as alone making office valuable to him. Those who had the power to prevent his now doing this, had not the capacity to form a Government. Let them attempt themselves to carry out their own views and see what would become of them. Who were the victims of all this timidity on the one side, and of avarice on the other; of this attempt to maintain a consistency for a month or a year on the one side, and of a struggle to retain that to which they had no right, on the other? It was the people. Could they wonder, then, that the hon. Member for Rochdale should seek to stop the supplies when those crying grievances existed, without a hope of redress? Was his hon. Friend, the Member for Stockport, to be blamed when, with this before him, he was labouring from morning to night, not going to the extreme means of the hon. Member for Rochdale, but trying to influ- ence opinion, so as to compel the House as at present constituted to do justice to the people? Had they any right to blame him, or could they wonder at the organization of which he was the head? They knew that evils existed, for which it was DOW hopeless to expect redress; these were the justifications for his exertions, and with those evils existing, if it were thought that by stifling discussion upon them they could make theta less felt, in his opinion a greater error could not be committed.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone

had been unwilling to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he now wished to correct one misconception, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to make quotations from an article in a periodical publication, the authorship of which the bon. Gentleman had been pleased to ascribe to him. Now, he was not the author of that article, he did not know whose article it was, and he had never read a line of it.

Sir John Hanmer

said, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had spoken wrongfully, when he urged the distressed condition of the people as if it were disregarded; for he never spoke of it without striking upon a chord, which vibrated strongly in the hearts of every Member on that side of the House. On no occasion could the charge be brought against the landed proprietors—no matter whether they might be considered right or wrong in their views on political economy—that they were regardless of the interests or callous to the sufferings of their poorer fellow-countrymen. Such an imputation was altogether untrue. It was an imputation which could be rebutted by almost every act of every gentleman who came forward in public life connected with the landed interest. The sources of those fluctuations of prosperity and adversity which the hon. Member for Manchester thought it so desirable should be investigated by Parliament, were in his humble opinion by no means difficult to be discovered. The manufacturing interests of Great Britain depended to a great extent on their trade with foreign nations; and it was upon the principles, or upon the conditions of our foreign trade, that the vicissitudes of which the hon. Gentleman complained, greatly depended. Those principles were ably discussed in a late number of the very publication to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had alluded; but not in the sense in which that Gentleman and his associates usually spoke and acted. They were advocates for an immediate and entire abolition of all import duties on foreign corn, without any reference to the amount of duty which those foreign nations from whom that corn was obtained thought fit to impose on articles of English commerce; but he would put it to any man whether such import duty levied by other countries, on articles of English manufacture, roust not operate very sensibly on the value of' the productions of this country, and tend more or less to produce those depressions, from one of which he was sorry to say the country had so lately suffered, and was but now recovering. Gentlemen talked of free-trade, and free-trade was a very goad thing; but he should beg to deny that it could be called free-trade to admit the productions of another country duty free, while they altogether disregarded the impediments which that country placed in the way of the exportation of English productions. If they allowed another nation to tax them by imposing duties on their manufactures, while they admitted the productions of that nation duty free, he distinctly denied that was free-trade. Nevertheless, be knew there were many persons who were inclined to disregard the imposition of all import duties, who said their burthen lay on those who imposed them; and he was very far from saying that a combination of circumstances might not arise in which it would be prudent for them to exercise their judgment in imposing very low or moderate duties; but he denied that the existence of those circumstances could be shown by Gentlemen opposite on the present occasion. He would not, then enter more at large into the subject; because there would be many direct opportunities for fully debating that important question; but he could not allow the present time to pass by without expressing his sincere and earnest hope that the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government would not fail to follow up the policy which he had recommended in the last Session to Parliament of rendering the colonies integral parts of the mother country. He thought they might at all times act upon the principles of free-trade with their colonial dependencies, for they would not in their, instance have the same difficulties to contend against which they would have to expect in their relations with independent states. That subject was still more deserving of attention because, from the vast extent and the great variety of the climate in the colonies, there was scarcely any article of commerce which they might not expect to have produced in some one or other of them. He hoped they would, at the same time, not disregard their connexions with foreign countries, but that they would be at all times ready to take every opportunity of extending justly and wisely the foreign trade. But however this might be, the constant endeavour of every Government ought, in his judgment, to be to concentrate the energies of their colonies, and thus increase the efficacy of English labour at home and abroad. Who was there that forgot the summer and autumn of 1842, when Lancashire and Yorkshire were turned out into the streets, and hundreds of thousands of once industrious artizans, stood displaying their misery, and calling for a fair day's wages fir a fair day's work. He trusted that the justice of that demand would be always allowed in this country, would never be obliterated from the mind of any man who had the honour of a seat in that House; he who forgot it was unworthy to be the representative of any constituency, or to speak in the name of the people, or to cross the threshold of the House of Commons. It was a just demand that the people made, and one which was in the power of Parliament to fulfil. The efficacy of English labour could be maintained by Parliament, but in the present temper of foreign nations, it might best be maintained, by looking to those communities which did not place hostile duties upon our productions; and he trusted that Parliament would not lose sight of them, if it would discharge the duty it owed to the daily augmenting claims of the industry of the country. Generally he concurred in the Address—and should not have delayed its adoption by any discussion of its topics, direct or incidental, if it had not been for the speeches of the Members for Manchester and Wolverhampton.

Mr. Scarlett

thought it strange that the very first time this Session at which a Member of the Anti-Corn-law League had addressed the House, he had misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. He congratulated every true lover of his country, that the misrepresentation had been set right, because it was a matter of great importance that all pretence should be taken away from the Anti-Corn-law League of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. These misrepresentations, not accidentally, but designedly made, were the stock in trade of the Anti-Corn-law League, and had carried throughout the country a great amount of discontent. The outlay upon land had been impeded by those misrepresentations, and the country was now in a state of vexation arising front the conduct of that body, which was very difficult to be imagined by those who had not witnessed it. As the mention of that body had been introduced in that debate, he would take the first occasion to say that he was astonished that they should exist in any country. It was inconsistent with the existence of any government, that a body of men should combine for the purpose—the avowed purpose of interfering—of a general interference with the election of Members of Parliament. If it were a gross breach of the privileges of that House for a Peer to interfere in an election, how much more was it criminal for a conspiracy of men to raise money to practise a general interference in the election of Members of Parliament. It was a great breach of the privileges of that House, and inconsistent with all Parliamentary usage. He never knew any such body before, nor could such a body exist consistently with the public safety. There was another point. It was calculated to sow dissension amongst all classes of the country, intimidate the Legislature, and unsettle the public mind upon the great questions lately settled by Parliament, as well as to throw contempt upon the authority of Parliament. He thought, moreover, that the authors, the promoters, and the subscribers to this League, taking to itself, as it did, a sort of dictation to the country, ought to be regarded as a great criminal conspiracy, deserving of every discouragement and mark of displeasure.

Mr. Muntz

should not discharge Iris duty to his country if he were to allow the speeches of the noble Lord, the hon. Member, and the right hon. Baronet to pass without comment. He came there it seemed to learn of the prosperity of the country. It was strange that he always heard a better report of his own business and the business of his neighbours anywhere but at home. Whatever improvements there had been—and he wished to concede all—not one single article had advanced in price at that moment, and in many instances, there had been a reduction. The question of employment was a question of profit. The middle class of tradesmen were made the vehicles fire feeding tire lower classes, and he was willing to concede to the latter all that he could, for he was gratified that their condition was improved—but it was far from satisfactory to those who employed them to be the mere vehicles for employing them, and he would advise the hon. Baronet not to crow before he was out of the wood. Let, the employers have an advance in price—let them see how their foreign trade would hear the prices, and no one would rejoice More thou ire should that both men and masters should be well and profitably employed. A good deal had been said about the revenue, but it was right, that it shrink' be properly understood. He did not so torah object to the property tax, because he thought that the right hon. Baronet should in any way relieve the country from the financial difficulty in which it was placed, and he had both voted and spoke in favour of that tax; but when he looked at the sum raised by that tax and the Chinese money, he did not see any corresponding improvement in the original sources of revenue. If he made a profit and loss account of it as a matter of business, he should carry the six millions to the credit of the capital of the concern, which ought to be taken as a debt owing. Now, making an allowance for the property tax and the Chinese money, and allowing for loss In the tariff, where was the bonâfide profit in the revenue? He doubted whether the country was in a state of so much prosperity, and he cautioned the Government that the: had nothing to boast of. The noble Lora and the right hon. Baronet knew huh more than they were told of; he had n, doubt they believed all that they were told lint He had somes little doubt whether their information was correct or not. His own knowledge was very extensive on the subject; he had information from all parts of the world, and he could only say, that matters were so nicely balanced that single two-and-a-half per cent. would destroy all the export trade which the main facturers and merchants had. He wool advise hon. Members to be more caution in speaking of the prosperity of the noun try without better grounds, and whenever it was proved to be permanently established no one would more cheerfully join the Government in proclaiming it than h would.

Mr. Mark Phillips

thought it not true that we were in a state of great prosperity, although there undoubtedly had been a improvement since the House last met; but if they looked lot the time at which the lowest prices prevailed in the borough which he represented (Manchester), he believed they would find that prices were never so low as at the end of 1842. The fact was, there had only been an improvement since the month of July. There were however, undoubtedly evidences of improvement of a gradual, and he was once inclined to hope, of a permanent nature; but this had arisen, he was afraid, more from extra employment, than from any cause which was likely to be permanent. He thought the low price of provisions formed one cause of improvement; it was at least a great advantage to the labouring class, and he wished the Legislature would take measures to secure permanent low prices of provisions for them. But it was a most important consideration for those who had lately been suffering so much that they were told that they were not to look to the right hon. Baronet for any amelioration. He feared that declaration would have a bad effect; that it would have the effect of lowering the prices of manufactured articles. On the other hand, he was assured from his acquaintance with the midland counties, that we could not expect many months to pass over our heads without a rise in the price of corn. He could not, therefore, look forward so confidently to permanent prosperity, in this respect, as many hon. Members. With respect to the cotton trade, any rise of price in the raw material in this country, would lead to serious disturbance of our foreign trade. Cotton was now from I/2d. to¾d. per lb. higher in this country than abroad, and we could not therefore hope to compete with foreigners, until there was an equalisation in the prices here and elsewhere. He had been in hopes there would have been such an advance on the price of the manufactured article as would have enabled the manufacturer to share the advance of his profits with the labourer, but he had been disappointed, and he therefore warned hon. Members not to take such views as would lead them into a course of hurried legislation on the ground of our permanent prosperity. With respect to trade with China, he must take leave to warn those who are engaged in trade with that country, as he before had done in that House, to exercise caution in their proceedings. He thought there was too much speculation abroad already; he hoped he might be mistaken. That, how- ever, was his opinion; but the consequence of large shipments of goods to that country must be that some reduction in the duty on the article which we received in return must be made, if they were to be profitable; and he should have heard with great satisfaction that it was intended to make a fair reduction on that important article and on sugar, as the two might be taken together and considered as necessaries of life in this country, The two questions were connected, and they must reduce the duty on one, if they wished for an increase in the consumption and produce to the revenue of the other. He could only say, that he could not at present induce himself to believe that there was a likelihood of permanent prosperity. They had yet to deal with articles that had hitherto been tenderly dealt with, and unless a change was made in the great articles of importation, effects which they had before deplored would again return; but if the House dealt with those questions of sugar and corn, he thought the country would be placed on a footing of commercial prosperity that would affect the interest of the whole community. With reference to the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale, he must say, that having listened to his argument for stopping the supplies, still he was not prepared to follow such a course, although he had been urged to it by a great number of his constituents.

Mr. Hindley

said, that, having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale, he had been prepared to vote with him, without having any idea that the hon. Gentleman had asserted his intention of moving to stop the supplies. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe, he considered it more able than innocuous, and calculated to prove dangerous to the country from the false impression it conveyed of the existing state of affairs. He admitted that things were better than they were a year ago. He admitted that there was a greater demand for labour, and that manufacturing capital was better remunerated than it was then; but, with respect to the former, the noble Lord the Member for London had explained the reason. He had shown, that because the price of food had diminished, the working classes were able to spend that on their backs which they formerly spent on their stomachs; and when it was recollected, that for every shilling that wheat fell in value, the working classes spent on manufactures a million, which they had previously required for food, the change that had taken place could be easily accounted for. Now, as regarded our foreign trade, he held in his pockets letters, showing that gentlemen connected with the export trade in Manchester were working without any profit. One house during the last twelve months had been working without a farthing of profit, another for the last three months, and if they looked to the Manchester journals, they would see that there was an utter stagnation of trade owing to the uncertainty of the present prices. His hon. Friend the Member for Manchester had alluded to the speculation in the raw material, and the hon. Member for Clitheroe said, "Yes, notwithstanding the high prices, notwithstanding the advance in the raw material, manufacture went on and capital was forthcoming." Now did not hon. Gentlemen know that manufacturing firms could not stop their mills and works without considerable loss. As to speculation in cotton it could not be prevented; but he complained that the influence of the sliding-scale—that darling scheme of the right hon. Baronet—was the cause of this speculation, and occasioned the position in which Manchester then stood. In 1838 there was a had harvest, and consequently agents were sent on the continent to get food; he met one of them going right and left to purchase food. These agents were unable to exchange our manufactures for food, and were obliged to take gold out from this country to make their purchases. The consequence was a great fall in the price of our manufactures, and the ruin of many an honest capitalist and many an honest manufacturer. Things were brought to extremities, as things always were under artificial arrangements, prices went below their level, but they were now recovered from that artificial state. A reaction had now been produced, and they had a plethora of money at the present time, and they did not know what to do with it. Men rushed into the Liverpool and American markets and raised the prices 50 per cent., artificially and contrary to all principles of common sense. He asked the right hon. Baronet opposite to tell him what a prudent man ought to have done during the past six months. Ought he to have bought cotton? In the Address to her Majesty something was stated about the Bank of England. Now, he wanted to know whether the Bank of England would encourage this dangerous system? The present system of gambling ought to be discountenanced; they ought to put down the gambling tables in Liverpool which affected millions of honest men. We had been called a nation of shopkeepers, a name of which we ought to be proud; but let us not be designated henceforth as a nation of gamblers. No, let trade be conducted on principles of honesty and common sense, and he was persuaded that, relying upon the resources, the industry, and the enterprise of this great empire, they would finally attain success.

Mr. Fielden

thought the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale was not an improper one. What was to be done in the variety of opinions broached in that House? On the one hand, there were the Members of the Anti-Corn-law League, who told the House that, unless the Corn-laws were repealed, the prosperity of the manufacturers, now boasted of, would soon cease; and, on the other hand, the right hon. Baronet told them, that if the Corn-laws were immediately repealed, ruin and confusion would ensue. Who, then, was to decide between these parties? One party spoke for and represented the landed interests, while the other represented an immense portion of the wealth of the country, as evidenced by the amount of subscription raised in furtherance of their cause. This, then, was one of the grievances to be inquired into by the house itself, and it was only one of the grievances. Petitions after petitions had from time to time been presented from the people, setting forth the grievances under which they suffered, and which were still unredressed. The people complained that but one out of every seven of the whole male population had any voice in the representation of the country, and yet that they were taxed. They seek also to have a fair day's wages for a fair day's work, and, unless this was secured to them, there would be nothing in the land but discontent and dissatisfaction; and, unless also the existing agitation in the country was put an end to, all confidence would be destroyed. Let these grievances be inquired into and some remedy be provided, and then, and not till then, let the supplies be gone into. On all these grounds he had great pleasure in supporting the amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale.

Mr. S. Crawford

said, that he felt he had been rather called upon by the observations of some of his hon. Friends behind him, to offer some explanation as to the course of proceeding he intended by the amendment he proposed. He had no intention whatever of proceeding to stop the supplies by any vexatious adjournment; his object was this,—that by moving amendments on supply, he should bring some substantial grievance under discussion. Such was the outlines of the course he intended to pursue, and those Members who might now vote for his motion would not be pledged to any future proceedings he might adopt.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed by Mr. Crawford be inserted.—Ayes 29; Noes 285:—Majority 256.

List of the AYES.
Barnard, E. G. Hume, J.
Bernal, Capt. Johnson, Gen.
Blewitt, R. J. Plumridge, Capt.
Bodkin, J. J. Ricardo, J. L.
Bowring, Dr. Roebuck, J. A.
Bright, J. Thornely, T.
Brotherton, J. Trelawny, J. S.
Cobden, R. Villiers, hon. C.
Collett, J. Walkey, T.
Currie, R. Warburton, H.
Duncombe, T. Ward, H. G.
Elphinstone, H. Williams, W.
Fielden, J. Yorke, H. R.
Gibson, T. M. TELLERS.
Gisborne, T. Crawford, S.
Hindley, C. Wallace, R.
List of the NOES.
Ackers, J. Bell, M.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bentinck, Lord G.
Acland, T. D. Beresford, Maj.
A'Court, Capt. Berkeley, hon. C.
Alford, Visct. Blackburne, J. L.
Allix, J. P. Blakemore, R.
Antrobus, E. Boldero, H. G.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Borthwick, P.
Arkwright, G. Botfield, B.
Astell. W. Bradshaw, J.
Attwood, M. Bramston, T. W.
Bagot, hon. W. Broadley, H.
Bailey, J. Browne, hon. W.
Bailey, J. jun. Brownrigg, J. S.
Baillie, H. J. Bruce, Lord E.
Baird, W. Bruen, Col.
Balfour, J. M. Buck, L. W.
Bankes, G. Buckley, E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Bunell, Sir C. M.
Barneby, J. Busfeild, W.
Barrington, Visct. Butler, P. S.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Campbell, J. H.
Beckett, W. Cardwell, E.
Castlereagh, Visct. Greene, T.
Chapman, B. Gregory, W. H.
Charteris, hon. F. Grimsditch, T.
Chetwode, Sir J. Grimston, Visct.
Childers, J. W. Halford, H.
Cholmondeley, hon. H. Hamilton, J. H.
Christopher, R. A. Hamilton, G. A.
Chute, W. L. W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Clayton, R. R Hanmer, Sir J.
Clerk, Sir G. Harcourt, G. G.
Clive, Visct. Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Cochrane, A. Hawes, B.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Heathcote, Sir W.
Collett, W. R. Heneage, G. H. W.
Compton, H. C. Henley, J. W.
Connolly, Col. Henniker, Lord
Coote, Sir C. H. Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Copeland, Ald. Herbert, hon. S.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Hervey, Lord A.
Courtenay, Lord Hillsborough, Earl of
Cripps, W. Hinde, J. H.
Curteis, H. B. Hobbouse. rt. hn. Sir J.
Darby, G. Hodgson, F.
Davies, D. A. S. Hodgson, R.
Denison, J. E. Holmes, hon. W. A'C.
Denison, E. B. Hope, hon. C.
Dickinson, F. H. Hope, A.
Divett, E. Hope, G. W.
Dodd, G. Hornby, J.
Douglas, Sir H. Horsman, E.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Hotham, Lord
Douglas, J. D. S. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Douro, Marquess of Howard, P. H.
Dowdeswell, W. Hussey, A.
Drummond, H. H. Ingestre, Visct.
Duffield, T. James, Sir W. C.
Dugdale, W. S. Jermyn, Earl
Dundas, F. Jocelyn, Visct.
Dundas, D. Jolliffe, Sir W. G.
Du Pre, C. G. Jones, Capt.
Eaton, R. J. Kelly, F. R.
Ebrington, Visct. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.
Egerton, W. T. Knight, H. G.
Egerton, Sir P. Langston, J. H.
Eliot, Lord Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Emlyn, Visct Law, hon. C. E.
Escott, B. Lefroy, A.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Legh, G. C.
Evans, W. Leslie, C. P.
Fellowes, E. Leveson, Lord
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Flower, Sir J. Lincoln, Earl of
Follett, Sir W. W. Lindsay, H. H.
Fox, S. L. Lockhart, W.
Fuller, A. E. Long, W.
Gaskell J. Milnes Lowther, hon. Col.
Gladstone,rt. hn. W.E. Lyall, G.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Godson, R. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Mackenzie, T.
Gore, M. Mackenzie. W. F.
Gore, W. R. O. Maclean, D.
Gore, hon. R. M'Neill, D.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Mainwaring, T.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Mangles, R. D.
Granby. Marq. Manners, Lord C. S.
Greenall, P. Manners, Lord J.
March, Earl of Rumbold, C. E.
Marshall, W. Rushbrooke, Col.
Marsham, Visct. Russell, Lord J.
Martin, C. W. Russell, C.
Marton, G. Sanderson, R.
Master, T. W. C. Sandon, Visct.
Masterman, J. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Scott, hon. F.
Meynell, Capt. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Miles, P. W. S. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Miles, W. Sheppard, T.
Milnes, R. M. Shirley, E. J.
Mitchell, T. A. Smyth, Sir H.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Smythe, hon. G.
Morgan, O. Somerset, Lord G.
Morgan, C. Stanley, Lord
Morris, D. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Mundy E. M. Stewart, J.
Neeld, J. Stuart, H.
Neville, R. Strutt, E.
Newdegate, C. N. Stint, H. C.
Nicholl, rt, hon. J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Norreys, Lord Tennent, J. E.
Northland, Visct, Thesiger, F.
O'Brien, A, S. Thompson, Ald.
Ossulston, Lord Thornhill, G.
Oswald, A. Tollemache, J.
Owen, Sir J. Tomline, G.
Packe, C. W. Trench, Sir F. W.
Pakington, J. S. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Palmer, R. Trollope, Sir J.
Palmer, G. Trotter, J.
Palmerston, Visct. Tufnell, H.
Patten, J. W. Turnor, C.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Pennant, hon. Col. Vane, Lord H.
Philips, M. Verner, Col.
Plumptre, J. P. Waddington, H. S.
Pollington, Visct. Walsh, Sir. J. B.
Pollock, Sir F. Wilbraham, hn B.
Powell, Col. Wilde, Sir T.
Praed, W. T. Wilshere, W.
Pringle, A. Wodehouse, E.
Pryse, P. Wood, Col.
Pusey, P. Wood, Col. T.
Rawdon, Col. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Reid, Sir J. R. Wortley, hon. J. S
Repton, G. W. J. Wyndham, Col. C.
Rice, E. R. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Richards, R. Young, J.
Rose, rt, hon. Sir G. TELLERS.
Round, C. G. Fremantle, Sir T.
Round, J. Baring, H.
Mr. Hume

then moved his amendment, on which the House again divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 235:—Majority 186.

List of the AYES.
Barnard, E. G. Butler, P. S.
Berkeley, hon. C. Chapman, B.
Bernal, Capt. Childers, J. W.
Blewitt, R. J. Christie, W. D.
Bodkin, J. J. Cobden, R.
Bright, J. Colborne, hn. W. N. R.
Brotherton, J. Crawford, W. S.
Busfeild, W. Duncombe, T.
Dundas, Adm. Plumridge, Capt.
Dundas, F. Ponsonby, hon. J. G.
Dundas, D. Ricardo, J. L.
Elphinstone, H Roebuck, J. A.
Evans, W. Strutt, E.
Fielden, J. Thornely, T.
Gibson, T. M. Trelawny, J. S.
Gisborne, T. Villiers, hon. C.
Granger, T. C. Wakley, T.
Hastie, A. Wallace, R.
Hawes, B. Warburton, H.
Hindley, C. Ward, H. G.
Johnson, Gen. Williams, W.
Marshall, W. Wood, B.
Mitchell, T. A. Yorke, H. R.
Murphy, F. S. TELLERS.
Napier, Sir C. Hume, J.
Pattison, J. Bowring, Dr.
List of the NOES.
Ackers, J. Clive, Visct.
Acland, Sir T. D. Cochrane, A.
Acland, T. D. Collett, W. R.
A'Court, Capt. Compton, H. C.
Adare, Visct. Connolly, Col.
Adderley, C. B. Coote, Sir C. H.
Allix, J. P. Copeland, Ald.
Antrobus, E. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Courtenay, Lord
Arkwright, G. Cripps, W.
Astell, W. Curteis, H. B.
Attwood, M. Darby, G.
Bagot, hon. W. Davies, D. A. S.
Bailey, J. Denison, E. B.
Bailey, J. jun. Dickinson, F. H.
Bankes, G. Dodd, G.
Baring, hon. W. B. Douglas, Sir H.
Barneby, J. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Barrington, Visct. Douglas, J. D. S.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Douro, Marq. of
Beckett, W. Dowdeswell, W.
Bell, M. Drummond, H. H
Bentinck, Lord G. Duffield, T.
Beresford, Major Duncombe, hon. A.
Blackburne, J. I. Du Pre, C. G.
Blakemore, R. Eaton, R. J.
Boldero, H. G. Egerton, W. T.
Borthwick, P. Egerton, Sir P.
Botfield, B. Eliot, Lord
Bradshaw, J. Emlyn, Visct.
Bramston, T. W. Escott, B.
Broadley, H. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bruce, Lord E. Fellowes, E.
Bruen, Col. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Buck, L. W. Flower, Sir. J.
Buckley, E. Follett, Sir W. W.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Fox, S. L.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Fuller, A. E.
Campbell, J. H. Gaskell, J. Milne
Cardwell, E. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Castlereagh, Visct. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Chetwode, Sir J. Godson, R.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Christopher, R. A. Gore, M.
Chute, W. L. W. Gore, W. R. O.
Clayton, R. R. Gore, hon. R.
Clerk, Sir G. Goulburn, rt, hon. H
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Munday, E. M.
Granby, Marq. of Neeld, J.
Greenall, P. Neville, R.
Greene, T. Newdegate, C. N.
Gregory, W. H. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Grimsditch, T. Norreys, Lord
Grimston, Visct. Northland, Visct.
Hale, R. B. O'Brien, A. S.
Halford, H. Ossulston, Lord
Hamilton, G. A. Oswald, A.
Hamilton, Lord C. Packe, C. W.
Hanmer, Sir J. Paget, Lord W.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Pakington, J. S.
Heathcote, Sir W. Patten, J. W.
Heneage, G. H. W. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Henley, J. W. Peel, J.
Henniker, Lord Pennant, hon. Col.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Herbert, hon. S. Pollington, Visct.
Hervey, Lord A. Powell, Col.
Hillsborough, Earl of Praed, W. T.
Hinde, J. H. Pringle, A.
Hodgson, F. Pryse, P.
Hodgson, R. Pusey, P.
Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct. Repton, G. W. J.
Hope, hon. C. Rice, E. R.
Hope, A. Richards, R.
Hope, G. W. Round, C. G.
Hornby, J. Round, J.
Howard, P. H. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hussey, A. Russell, C.
Ingestrie, Visct. Ryder. hon. G. D.
Jermyn, Earl Sanderson, R.
Jones, Capt. Sandon, Visct.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E. Scarlet, hon. R. C.
Knight, H. G. Scott, hon. F.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Law, hon. C. E. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Lefroy, A. Shirley, E.
Legh, G. C. Sibthorp, Col.
Leslie, C. P. Smith, A.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Smythe, hon. G.
Lincoln, Earl of Somerset, Lord G.
Lockhart, W. Stanley, Lord
Long, W. Stuart, H
Lowther, J. H. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lyall, G. Tennent, J. E.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Thesiger, F.
M'Geachy, F. A. Thompson, Ald.
Maclean, D. Thornhill, G.
M'Neill, D. Tollemache, J.
Mainwaring, T. Tomline, G.
Mangles, R. D. Trench, Sir F. W.
Manners, Lord C. S. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Manners, Lord J. Trollope, Sir J.
March, Earl of Trotter, J.
Marsham, Visct. Turnor, C.
Martin, C. W. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Master, T. W. C. Vane, Lord H.
Masterman, J. Verner, Col.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Waddington, H. S.
Meynell, Capt. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Miles, P. W. S. Wellesley, Lord C.
Miles, W. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Wilde, Sir T.
Morgan, O. Wilshere, W.
Morgan, C. Wodehouse, E.
Wood, Col. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Wood, Col. T. Young, J.
Wortley, hon. J. S. TELLERS.
Wortley, hon. J. S. Fremantle, Sir T.
Wyndham, Col. C. Baring, H.

House adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.