HC Deb 23 January 1846 vol 83 cc134-63
LORD FRANCIS EGERTON

appeared at the bar with the Report on the Address. It was brought up and read. On the Question that it be agreed to,

MR. COLQUHOUN

said, that he must be permitted to ask for the indulgence of the House for a few minutes—not upon his own account, for he felt that he individually had no claim upon that indulgence—but because in what he should say, he know he would be expressing the sentiments of others in that House as well as his own. And he would, in the first instance, clear the way by expressing the sentiments which he held upon one of the questions raised last night—the question of agricultural protection. His opinions upon that subject had always been moderate. He had twice voted with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, for inquiry into the Corn Laws; and he had done so with a view of obtaining and preserving a moderate yet a certain amount of protection to British agriculture. He had ever been desirous of reconciling the various classes and interests of the kingdom, and he knew that if protection were extravagant it could not be permanent. He might have been wrong in his opinions, but they had always been moderate; and having said thus much of his individual views upon the question of protection, he would not enter upon the points raised last night by the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, and by the right hon. Baronet. He confessed, however, that when he had heard some of their arguments, his fingers had itched to say a word as to their maxims of free trade. One of the propositions laid down by the right hon. Baronet had related to wages. Now, the right hon. Baronet had become the disciple of the hon. Members for Wolverhampton and Stockport; and he certainly must suggest to them, as he had heard much abler arguments in favour of free trade from their lips, that they ought to indoctrinate their pupil somewhat better in its principles. It might be right to repeal the Corn Laws, but he begged of them not to repeal them upon wrong views of political science. The maxim of the right hon. Baronet to which he alluded, laid it down that wages had no connexion with the price of provisions. ["No, no!"] Yes, yes! He had taken down the words of the right hon. Baronet, who had stated, as broadly as he could, that wages had no connexion with the prices of provisions. Now, he had been for many years accustomed to read the works of œconomic philosophers, but this was a doctrine he could not find in any of their books—from Adam Smith down to Mr. Senior. And when the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire had told them that the tillage of the soil was a manufacture, precisely the same as the textile manufactures of the country, he would have been glad to show him some points of difference, which a mind so intelligent and so candid must have admitted to be substantial. But, as he had promised, he would not enter into these questions; nor would he follow the right hon. Baronet into the argument upon the potatoes, which he delivered in so solemn and so dread a tone. Having, however, read a recent speech of the hon. Member for Stockport, addressed to the people of Manchester, he could not but express a hope that the anxiety of the right hon. Baronet would find some other source of consolation than that afforded by the repeal of the Corn Laws; for the hon. Member for Stockport had told the people of Manchester that now was the time to open the ports, and repeal the Corn Laws, for that now little corn could be got from abroad, as the whole of Europe was contending for the supplies of grain from America. If this were so, he, indeed, trusted that the right hon. Baronet's anxiety for the condition of the poor would be relieved by some other means, and that his arguments, as rotten as the potatoes, would be supported in another and a better way. He did not, however, rise to discuss that night the question of protection. That question would come on for discussion on Tuesday, and he was not desirous of anticipating the appointed hour. But he was anxious last night, if he had not been anticipated by his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, to have said a word as to the relations which existed between the Minister and his party, and as to the view which he and those around him took of the relation between a party and the Minister. The right hon. Baronet had talked much of the last three years. From the experience of those years the right hon. Baronet now drew all his political economy and his general politics. But he wished to go a little—and only a little—further back. The right hon. Baronet had craved permission that his helm should traverse freely. He would not be bound by his opinions of the year 1842. When he had sat in opposition, and had acted with the right hon. Baronet, he had looked upon him as an eminent and distinguished leader; and when the right hon. Baronet told them of the labour, the burdens, and the responsibility of office, no men could better appreciate that labour than they did who sat there and enjoyed the benefits of the right hon. Baronet's labours. So far from grudging public men the patronage, the honour, and the power incident to their high position, they constituted, in his opinion, but a small remuneration for the heavy responsibility, the fearful anxiety, and the wearing toil which official men underwent. And, being himself upon the shady side of forty, he rejoiced at and admired the conduct of those, whether on this or on that side of the House, who undertook the duties of office and performed them with the zeal, the ability, and the diligence of the right hon. Baronet. But he remembered, when the right hon. Baronet had sat upon the other side of the House, that he had been followed by his party, not for his abilities alone, but because he professed certain intelligible principles. Those principles had been—a strong attachment to the Church—a support of a national education in connexion with that Church—the defence of the aristocracy of England, which he had not then discovered to be a proud aristocracy—and a warm attachment to the Crown. He had not then found out that the system of an aristocracy and of a Crown were inconsistent with a reformed House of Commons. Another principle had been maintained by the right hon. Baronet at the time to which he had alluded. It was a principle which he individually had held in moderation; but, as a party, they had all firmly maintained the necessity of agricultural protection. They had gone to the country upon these principles—principles recorded in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman—speeches which now showed who had deserted their common ground. He, of course, could not say what pledges were binding upon the right hon. Gentleman, or what was the force which he attached to political obligations—under what circumstances he held them to be binding, and under what he allowed them to be relaxed. He must judge of these points for himself: but they must be permitted to judge of their own position, and to estimate the value of their principles to the country. The right hon. Baronet might have gone upon another issue—he might have said, "The noble Lord the Member for London is a worse manager than I am—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth sits fishing for a budget, and catches a deficit while I fill my Exchequer. The Colonies are in difficulties; the noble Lord the Member for London, with all his great talents, has changed from the Home Office to the Colonial in vain; I can manage the Home Office hotter than the noble Lord, and I can also manage the Colonies." The right hon. Baronet might have said—and here he would have been induced to agree with him—"I will rule the Foreign Department of the country in a manner more prudent and pacific than the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton." He might have added, "I am the most experienced statesman you can get—I am the most practised and skilful debater—I am the most industrious and able man of business—I have served four Sovereigns. Take me without a single principle recorded—take me as a skilful tactician—take me as a chartered libertine, or rather as a libertine without a charter." If he had said this, and had gone solely upon that issue; if the country and his party had joined him upon it, then indeed they would have had no cause to complain, and, having accepted him upon such terms, they would be wrong if they did not continue to support him. But for himself, and for his friends, he had never viewed things in that light. That was not the combination which they had formed. They might be wrong. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought them bigoted and in error, mere fanatics in the cause of protection. Gentlemen opposite had a right to their opinions; they on his side of the House had also a right to theirs. But as the right hon. Baronet had gone to the country upon the principle of protection—as by this he had ensured support and obtained office, it was not a fair or upright course, without an appeal to the country, to abandon all those principles which had characterized them in opposition; but which they had left in the conduct of their Government. In these days of letter-writing, one epistle had proceeded, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, from the pen of the hon. Member for Montrose. The last month had been fertile in epistles; but the epistle of the hon. Member for Montrose had been characterized by the straightforward sense — and, in this instance, he was bound to add—by the manly intelligence which belonged to that hon. Gentleman. That hon. Gentleman was candid in his opinions. He said, "I want to upset the Church—I am opposed to you on that side of the House with regard to all questions civil and ecclesiastical—the matter is now a mere personal question, and I give it as my opinion that we shall get more from Peel than from Russell." But what appeared clear to the hon. Member for Montrose might also appear clear to them; and it might strike them that they would have a better chance of maintaining those institutions of which the right hon. Gentleman in opposition had been the advocate, by supporting the Whig instead of the Conservative Minister. They might be safer in the hands of the noble Lord than of the right hon. Gentleman. If the noble Lord was opposed to them, he was at least a gallant and a generous opponent. He at least would be straightforward. He would not have one profession for the country, and carry another principle into his Cabinet. He would not appeal to his veneration for the Church and his approval of protection, and then in office throw them overboard. The noble Lord would do none of these things; and the "memory of immortal services" would preserve his allegiance to institutions which he could not fail to venerate. But they were told that protection was gone—that their prospects were dark—and that it was better to take the measure of the right hon. Baronet, than the one still more sweeping which would be offered them by the noble Lord. With regard to the measure of the right hon. Baronet, he had heard great mystification. They had been urged to wait, to give the right hon. Gentleman a hearing—not to condemn him until they were certain of his guilt. Now, with regard to the coming measure, he would venture a prophecy. That evening was Friday; the measure was to be brought forward on Tuesday. Yet he would venture to foretell the character of the coming measure. They might delude themselves as they pleased — it would be the same as the noble Lord's, a measure of absolute repeal. The right hon. Gentleman had only one card left to play. There might be—and, no doubt, there would be, much talk of compensation, many nice and balanced schemes; many fiscal alterations, a world of commercial change and official mystification; but, as affected the question between the manufacturer and the farmer, the result would be the same. [Mr. WAKLEY: The landlord.] Well, say the landlord; but he had observed that farmers were more in earnest on this question than landlords. He found many landlords doubtful. They wanted to kick over the traces. They sought for a free charter, free trade in political principle; but what he had looked upon with admiration was, not the conduct of the county Members, many of whom had been vacillating and subservient, but the way in which the English yeoman stuck to his opinions, and when the horses turned restive, laid the lash vigorously over them. Some of the county Members had said, "You don't know what will be done. We are not sure that any change is contemplated by Government." "What do you say to Mr. Gladstone's letter?" "We have not read it." But the English yeoman was not to be baffled: "You have nothing to do with the Government; leave the right hon. Baronet to play his own game! Tell us, do you mean to adhere to your pledges?" And therefore when he said, between the farmer and the manufacturer, he was right, and between the farmers and the manufacturers, he repeated that the question now hung. But it was evident that the Corn Laws were gone. The right hon. Baronet had not a card in his hand but one. He had been playing spades for a number of years. That suit was exhausted, he must now change and bring out the only card left, the knave of clubs. The noble Lord opposite might make fewer modifications, less of a general scheme, no mystification; but substantially the measure would be the same, come from which side of the House it might. So he did not see that they would be in greater danger from the noble Lord than from the right hon. Gentleman. But there were many persons who always said that the right hon. Baronet was a safe man, whilst, in their opinion, the noble Lord was rash, and given to revolutionary views. Now, if he were asked his opinion as to the right hon. Baronet, with respect to questions of finance, and also with regard to the foreign affairs of the country, he would agree with those who said that the right hon. Baronet was a safe man. With respect to those portions of his government, he certainly was deserving of confidence and support. The financial and foreign departments had been managed with great wisdom, great prudence, and, therefore, with great success. But he did not and could not think that the whole politics of the country were wrapped up in those two, undoubtedly important, departments. There were other departments of equal value. There were other matters of primary consequence. There were interests which touched the heart and affected the vital parts of their social system. It was on these matters that he did not think the right hon. Baronet a safe guide. He could not say what the right hon. Baronet might do for the future, but he could tell them what he had done in the past. In the stormy sea of present politics—and where was the man who would deny that the sea was stormy?—to those men who said that the right hon. Baronet was the pilot to weather the storm, he would turn and ask them to look back to his past services under the four Sovereigns of whom he had been the eminent Minister. He challenged the Members who sat upon the Treasury bench—every one of whom, in talents and position, were far more eminent than he could claim to be—to point out a single complex interest of which the right hon. Baronet had not at one time been the eminent champion, and which he had not afterwards abandoned. This was a matter of history. There was the Protestant interest. What became of that interest in the hands of the right hon. Baronet, who had been its noblest defender? First supported and then deserted. In 1835—the right hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Fox Maule), whom he saw before him, would remember it—in 1835 the right hon. Baronet had been the friend and champion of the Church of Scotland. In what condition—by what delays—by what deferring of measures—had that Church been stranded? The right hon. Gentleman had been the earnest, the zealous, the eloquent champion of protective measures. He did not say that those measures could, under any circumstances, have continued; but since 1842 the right hon. Gentleman had not given them even a chance. The right hon. Baronet had, by avoiding discussion since he entered office, allowed the cause to go against them by default. Taunted by the hon. Member for Stockport—told that he was afraid to discuss the principle of protection — the right hon. Gentleman had contented himself with an attack upon the League—with a clever joke about the exhibitors of Covent Garden, he had never condescended to discuss those principles of political economy upon which, if upon any, protection could alone be maintained. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Hear.] The right hon. Baronet cheered. Did he then mean to say that protection could not be defended on these grounds? If the right hon. Baronet meant this, he asked him — a man of high ability — of rare eloquence — of extensive experience—whether he knew in 1839, 1840, and in 1841, that there was no ground of political economy upon which protection could be supported? Whether he were then aware that its maintenance was nothing but the monstrous error of an ignorant and bigoted party? Were all his arguments then addressed to them a delusion? Were all his appeals to the farmer dishonest? Was all the declamation as to poor soils and impoverished labourers cast out and thrown off? Were these the arts of a rhetorician? Was the country stirred, counties inflamed, and country gentlemen alarmed, for none but party or personal objects? And did the right hon. Gentleman now say that all those elaborate arguments—appealing to the passions of men—exciting panic and party feeling—were used by him while he knew them to be unsound? Was that his defence? If it was not, if the right hon. Gentleman told him that he had been convinced, if he had come to that conviction, and had abandoned his former views solely on account of the rotten potatoes of this season and of such rotten arguments as they had heard last night—it was an unsatisfactory and strange result! But, explain this as he might, the fact was undoubted that the protective interest was wrecked, and that this case must be added to the others as a further proof that every complex interest of which the right hon. Gentleman had ever been the champion, he had subsequently stranded. Fortunately, he must say that, when he heard the right hon. Baronet, in 1843, attempting to maintain the Corn Laws, without bringing forward those principles of political science on which they really rested, he felt that those laws were doomed; he felt that if the right hon. Baronet could bring forward no better arguments than those which he then adduced, or if the right hon. Baronet, aware of better arguments, was deterred from employing them, by the conviction that he could not adhere to them, and that he would be forced from them by "pressure from without," he felt that there was no longer any hope for the Corn Laws. I cannot, therefore, from experience, (concluded the hon. Gentleman,) place any confidence in the firmness or the skill of the right hon. Baronet, to maintain the institutions of the country. And I prefer—in that contest for those institutions which I see pending, and which, indeed, is opened now—I prefer to fight the battle, along with my hon. Friends, against an able and gallant Opponent, rather than continue to be led by one of the highest talent—the greatest experience—the utmost skill—and whom we should have gladly followed, had he been faithful to his principles, but by whom I cannot consent any longer to be led, as I plainly see that the course of his policy tends to the gradual but certain downfal of the valued and venerable institutions of the Empire.

MR. HUME

said, he considered himself called upon to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was in no sense applicable to the present question before the House. He, for one, approved highly of the conduct of the right hon. Baronet, and he most essentially differed from the sentiments put forth last night by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, when he declared in the face of that House and of the country, that it was the duty of every public man to be led by party, and that the leader of a party was not entitled to alter his opinions. It was in effect saying, that though a public man discovered himself to be in error, it was nevertheless his duty to maintain it. He wholly disapproved of such a doctrine. He paid ten times more respect to, and would honour fifty times more, the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, who said that for years he had been mistaken—that he was convinced the principle on which protection was based was wrong—and that the arguments in its favour were altogether untenable. Such language was highly honourable to the right hon. Baronet. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what was the use of Calling themselves a deliberative assembly, if their views were to remain unchanged upon any opinion they held during the whole time they were in Parliament? Were they to be regarded as a mere assembly of delegates? or did they come there to deliberate calmly and intelligently upon the affairs of the nation? He must tell the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that no man could be more anxious than himself to promote free trade, or to put the Church in a proper state; but he challenged the hon. Gentleman to point out a single Motion of his—and he would give him thirty years for the search—in reference to the English Church, which implied more than a reform of the abuses of the Church. He never made a Motion for the abolition of that Church, though he had ever been opposed to its pluralities and sinecures. He did, however, propose, upwards of twenty years ago, to abolish the Church of Ireland. England and Scotland had their established Churches, and if they were to have an establishment in Ireland, let it be the establishment of the majority. From the period when he made that Motion, they had tried various expedients with regard to Ireland; but they never would have peace in that country till the Church was put down. That was the remedy then, and it was the remedy now. Let no pet party have the preference in Ireland. The Catholics were entitled to equal rights and privileges with the rest of the people. The speech of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the past history of the right hon. Baronet was not applicable to the question before the House. The sole point was whether the right hon. Baronet had taken a course suited to the state of the country, and agreeable to the wishes of the people; and he would take it upon him to contradict the hon. Gentleman, by saying, that instead of the country generally being against the proposed change, nine-tenths of the country were in favour of it. As to the landlords, he believed they were going against their own interests; but he thought they did so in ignorance. He believed that the course proposed to be taken by the right hon. Baronet would be productive of the greatest possible advantage to the State, and that all classes—ay, even the Gentlemen themselves who were ready to give even factious opposition to these measures, would yet regret the part they had taken, because he believed there was not one of them who would willingly do an injury to their fellow men. So far, therefore, from hurling defiance and conducting themselves rather out of spite than in the way of argument, he did think that those hon. Gentlemen ought to address themselves to the question before them, and consider seriously whether or not the present was the time for that question being settled. Reference was made to what passed on the hustings four years ago; but were they to be told that a Member coming into that House was never to alter his opinions; or to propose measures that he thought best calculated to promote the good of the country, because he had not always entertained the same views? The hon. Gentleman had not considered this important fact, that if the right hon. Baronet entertained the opinions he expressed last night, and yet continued to support those measures which he formerly upheld, he would have acted contrary to the oath he had taken to his Sovereign to promote those measures only which he considered best for the country. He highly approved of the Queen's Speech, as a whole; but there was one thing to which he must object, and that was the passage in reference to the system for carrying on the abolition of the Slave Trade. That system he thought ruinous to the very object in view. If the right hon. Baronet would only consult the officers who had been employed on the coast of Africa, he would find that nineteen out of every twenty of them would tell him that, instead of lessening the evils of slavery, the system they had been acting upon had added to those evils, and had caused immense loss to England. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would take measures for informing himself on what principle those large squadrons were maintained on so unhealthy a coast, and that he would also make inquiry to ascertain in how far the evils of slavery had been increased. He highly approved of that part of Her Majesty's Speech which seemed to shadow out a great alteration in our commercial interests. He trusted they would from that day date a new era in the commerce of this country, and that the results of the next three years would be such as to induce foreign countries to follow our example. He hoped that every effort would be made by the right hon. Baronet to maintain a good understanding between France and England. He detested war, and he believed it was in the power of England and France united to maintain the peace of the world. He considered the expressions made use of by Her Majesty very proper, when She recommended an increase of the Navy and Army. In such circumstances as the present, he considered it as one of the best parts of the Speech. And he said so on this ground: when he found a country from which he expected other things, displaying a hostile spirit, and venturing to set at defiance all those rules and regulations which civilized nations ought to follow, and seemingly bent on nothing but obtaining its ends by the employment of physical force—he should be acting contrary to all the views he had entertained through life, which were to condemn what was unnecessary and extravagant, but to support whatever was needful for the public service, did he not approve of this part of Her Majesty's Speech. He hoped that there would be a unanimous feeling in regard to this part of Her Speech, and that there would be exhibited a desire to place in the hands of Her Majesty's Government the means to maintain the national honour and character. He said this the more because, on many occasions, he had been accused of desiring to cripple the resources of the country. He had never attempted such a thing, though, at the same time, he must say he had been anxious to see the public service placed on a footing as economical as might be consistent with its due efficiency.

SIR R. PEEL

Sir, I never entertained any apprehensions that the contrast which might be drawn between the language used by Her Majesty with regard to the settlement of the unfortunate dispute that still prevails with the United States, and the language which has been held, I regret to say, by the Chief Magistrate of that country—I never thought that that contrast would be mistaken or misapprehended. We have no hesitation in avowing our sincere desire, for the interests of this country—for the interests of the United States—for the interests of the civilized world—to continue to make every effort which is consistent with national honour for the purpose of preserving peace. We have met that language, I think, in a temperate manner, and with, I hope, the most moderate, and temperate, and sincere professions of our earnest desire peaceably and amicably to terminate this dispute. I said on a former occasion, I never had any doubt that our intentions or our language would be misapprehended; and the speech which the hon. Gentleman, the uniform and consistent advocate for the strictest economy, has just delivered, convinces me that my anticipations will not be disappointed. I am sure that any proposals which Her Majesty's Government may think it their duty to make for the maintenance of essential purposes, or for the national honour, will be responded to and supported by this House. But let not me be mistaken. I think it would be the greatest misfortune if a contest about the Oregon Territory between two such Powers as England and the United States could not, by the exercise of moderation and good sense, be brought to a perfectly honourable and satisfactory conclusion. With regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman upon my right (Mr. Colquhoun), I beg to tell him and to tell others, that I do not intend to be provoked to lose my temper; and let me toll him that the question referred to is become far too important to be disposed of by mere personal crimination. I thought, after the deliberation which he had given to the speech I made last night, there would have been some reply to the arguments which I had urged; and that, after the lapse of twenty-four hours, he would not have contented himself with passing by those arguments without a single reference, and bringing under discussion what had been my policy with regard to the Church of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may depend upon it, that my policy with regard to the Church of Scotland will have no more bearing upon that great question, which must be considered and discussed in the House of Commons at a very early period, than any other circumstance utterly and entirely unconnected with it. The question must be decided by argument in this House upon its own merits. Sir, the hon. Gentleman charges me with having deserted my principles; and he says I have never, since the year 1842, made a speech on the Corn Laws founded upon the great principle of protection. If I failed in my duty, why did not the hon. Gentleman correct me? Why was it left exclusively to me to defend protection by arguments? When I was disappointing the hon. Gentleman in not arguing the question of the Corn Laws upon the great principle of protection, why did not the hon. Gentleman himself supply my deficiencies, and bring forward those arguments which I had omitted? Sir, I assure the hon. Gentleman I do not undervalue party obligations. I have said already that it was my earnest wish to reconcile party obligations to the convictions of my own mind, founded upon experience and observation, as to what was necessary to be done for the public good. I said last night, and I now repeat it, that it was my wish, before the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) should again bring forward the question of the Corn Laws, to have been able to communicate to those who had honoured me with their confidence, and of whose confidence I have always been proud—it was my earnest desire to have been enabled to inform them that I could not continue my opposition to the Motion of that hon. Gentleman. That was the course I wished to pursue, and that was the course I should have pursued under ordinary circumstances. But I felt we were threatened with a great calamity. Delay was impossible; and it would have been dishonourable to evade the responsibility which attached to those who were in office when that contingency occurred; and that consideration alone prevented me from making the effort which I would have made of reconciling party obligation with my public duty. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did see reason to doubt whether it were prudent for the agricultural interest to commit themselves to an interminable contest upon the subject of protection; and if I entertained honest and serious doubts as to the policy of their course, I think the hon. Gentleman will hardly contend to-night, that with that conviction I was bound to invite them to continue that contest. I think I should have acted a part which could not be questioned by any man, however disposed to attach weight to party obligation, if I had been able to take that course—to have summoned the party with which I had acted, and frankly to have avowed to them that I could not undertake the defence of protection; that I would not permit another Parliament to be elected with an implied guarantee that protection must for ever be defended; and that I must ask them to find, as I presume they would have found, some efficient substitute for so weak an advocate; for I should have been bound to tell them it was impossible for me, judging from the experience of the last four years, to continue to offer decided opposition to the reconsideration of the Corn Laws, and therefore I would have given them the opportunity, under ordinary circumstances, of finding another advocate. That was the course I was anxious to have pursued; but I certainly felt, to the full extent, the responsibility imposed on me by the particular calamity to which I have adverted; and I certainly did avail myself of the earliest opportunity that I could, consistently with my sense of public duty, to tender my resignation to the Sovereign, in order that others better qualified might have the opportunity of settling the question. What more could I do? I did not wish to retain office upon the ground of the necessity of the settlement of this question. I wished to meet the pressing emergency; but when I despaired of being enabled to do that with effect, then I tendered my voluntary resignation, and I enabled Her Majesty to call to her counsels one that was qualified in every respect to propose the adjustment of this question. For the circumstances which prevented the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) from undertaking that task, I am in no way responsible. The moment I tendered my resignation, and the moment I thought I was in a private capacity, knowing the embarrassment which I had occasioned by my resignation, which I felt, however, to be necessary for the public interest—from that day I signified to my Sovereign that, for the purpose of lessening the embarrassment, I would, in my private capacity, give all the aid I could to effect a just and fair settlement of this question. Sir, I have been accused of unfaithfulness to the Conservative interest. The hon. Gentleman said I have deserted the cause for which he has been contending, and I think he has said, by rather an unhappy metaphor, that his fingers were itching to make a reply. Well, now there are many who sit beside him, who have a perfect right to tell me that I have departed from the course which they think they had a right to have me take, and that, by having altered my principles upon the subject of the Corn Laws, I am now deserting them. I confess that, considering the individual from whom that accusation came, the charge does somewhat surprise me. As I said before, I expected to hear from the hon. Gentleman an answer to the arguments which I stated last night as the grounds for my coming to a conclusion different from that I had come to at former periods; but the hon. Gentleman said, not that he would answer them, but that my arguments were as rotten as the potatoes. Now I advise the hon. Gentleman, and I advise others, not to treat this question with too much levity. I say that unaffectedly, knowing something of the hon. Gentleman's charitable and benevolent disposition; and lot me assure him that two months will not elapse before he will sincerely repent the exhibition of any levity in the consideration of this question. You will find, before the lapse of those two months, that you cannot dispose of this question by jokes about mouldy potatoes. Since I spoke last night upon this subject, the Government have received only this morning a communication from the Commissioners who have been sitting in Dublin, which is a further confirmation of what I stated yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman's speech advanced further, I was not surprised at his unwillingness to combat the arguments which I adduced; because the hon. Gentleman consoled me for his condemnation upon the subject of the Church of Scotland—a question not immediately upon the Table, though that may have led to his present anxiety—he consoled me, I say, for this accusation, by a distinct declaration; first, that he cordially approved of the course taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to their whole foreign policy; and, secondly, that he thought them entitled to entire confidence in reference to finances; and he said, he thought the course which I had taken individually in reference to finance was marked by great wisdom, by great prudence, and by great success. I should like to have heard from the hon. Gentleman, who thinks that my financial course has been marked by great wisdom, great prudence, and great success, considering that the whole merit of that financial policy lies in the reduction of excessive duties, in the abrogation of monopolies, and the free import of commodities; I should like to have heard the arguments, I say, by which the hon. Gentleman contends for exclusion and the strict maintenance of protection. It is not the imposition of the Income Tax, the mere raising of five or six millions by taking 3 per cent. from the income of the country, that the hon. Gentleman compliments as being marked by wisdom, prudence, and success. No; the hon. Gentleman, recollecting his former commercial liberality—still retaining, in spite of his attack upon me, the opinions of his earlier years, the hon. Gentleman's nature overcame him—the compliment made its escape from the suggestions of his own heart and conscience, and he praised my policy as wise, prudent, and successful, because I had obtained increased revenue by the diminution of protection. I am accused of deserting the principles of the hon. Gentleman, of deceiving him, and leaving him in the lurch! Why the hon. Gentleman, now the chosen advocate of protection, was in the year 1838 a decided advocate of the total repeal of the Corn Laws. [Mr. COLQUHOUN: No.] A Motion was then made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the Corn Laws. If I recollect rightly the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was not able to vote with the hon. Gentleman. I have a very strong impression that in the year 1838 the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), alarmed at the prospect of an immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, notwithstanding the vagueness and inconvenience of the Motion, was not able to support it. Am I right? ["Yes, yes."] And I had the satisfaction of voting with the noble Lord in opposition to that Motion; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun), more liberal than either myself or the noble Lord, was enabled to vote with a minority of about 90 against 300, under the banners, not of protection, but of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. I dare say the hon. Gentleman meant to make some Motion, when the House got into Committee, for the final adjustment of the question; yet still we pretty well understand what was the meaning of voting for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton; and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun) did not vote for the repeal of the Corn Laws, he is the only one out of the whole ninety Members who thought his vote would bear any other construction. But do I upbraid the hon. Gentleman for having changed his opinions? Not in the slightest degree. The hon. Gentleman, from a repealer of the Corn Laws, has become the decided advocate of protection. I have offended the hon. Gentleman on account of the Church of Scotland, and I have offended him upon account of the Corn Laws, and the hon. Gentleman inflicts the punishment which is justly due upon my misdeeds. Connected with the Church of Scotland and with Maynooth, he takes the opportunity of my expressions on the subject of the Corn Laws to visit me with that punishment; but, as I said before, the hon. Gentleman's early opinions broke through all those restraints of party; notwithstanding, I hope he will not lose their confidence, of course. He is now the chosen advocate of protection; but you must not forget, and I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to forget, that he was compelled to compliment me, in the first speech he has delivered on this question, for the great wisdom, the great prudence, and the great success of my financial operations. If they were wise, if they were prudent, and if they have been successful, in spite of the League, and in spite of the Church of Scotland, do let me have the hon. Gentleman's support, for I am going to act upon precisely the same principles on which I have hitherto acted; and to entitle myself still further to the hon. Gentleman's confidence, I hope for it upon account of my wisdom, and upon account of my prudence, and upon account of my success. The hon. Gentleman was very warm upon an expression that fell from my lips last night. I used the words, "an ancient monarchy, a proud aristocracy, and a reformed House of Commons." The expression "proud aristocracy" was an inadvertent expression; I wish I had the power of weighing every expression that I use. But I do assure the hon. Gentleman, upon my honour, that when I used the words "proud aristocracy," I meant merely to refer to those qualities which entitle a great body to be justly proud. It was not to pride of birth, or to arrogance of manner that I referred; but the superbiam quœsitam meritis, the just pride founded upon great services, not hauteur; the exhibition of great talents, and the performance of great functions. The last thing that entered into my mind was to use any expression by which the most sensitive could be offended. I regret that I did use the expression; but, as I said before, upon my honour I did not intend it. Nothing was meant further than the pride which the most exalted and most worthy could possess. Sir, I hope I am fully compensated for the bitterness of the hon. Gentleman by the sincerity of the compliments he paid me; but I have one further observation to make, and it is to repeat that which I stated at the outset, that I am determined that none of these accusations and impeachments shall disturb my temper. I believe I am influenced by considerations of a public nature — by the considerations of public duty alone; and I feel a strong persuasion that in advising a settlement of this question upon just and equitable grounds, I am giving advice the most useful to that interest with whose welfare my own is intimately connected. Feeling that conviction, I shall not swerve from my course through any merely personal considerations.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I do not intend to enter to-night upon the subject to which the right hon. Baronet has last alluded; but I do wish to ask him a few questions with regard to those parts of the Royal Speech which refer to our foreign relations. First, as to the Oregon question. I entirely participate in the feelings which the right hon. Baronet has expressed, that peace may be maintained with the United States of America, and may be preserved consistently with the honour of the country. But, Sir, there have been mentioned some circumstances in documents reported to be presented to the Congress of the United States of America, which I think makes it desirable to have some explanation from the right hon. Baronet. I thought last year the President of the United States assumed a tone upon this subject, and made declarations and propositions to Congress, which were not common in the usages of nations, nor becoming towards a friendly and independent country. But it would appear from the late Message of the President of the United States, and from documents he has presented to Congress, that a proposition for a compromise was made to the Representative of Her Majesty in the United States by direction of the President. I conceive that that proposition in itself alters the state of the question. I am not prepared to state whether that offer was a satisfactory or a wholly unsatisfactory one; but it did seem to me to be an opening which would require upon the part of this Government a statement of their opinion with regard to the terms upon which this country was willing to settle the question of the Oregon. I observe from the documents which I have mentioned that the proposition was not received by Her Majesty's Minister, but was declared inadmissible. I confess I think that was a hasty proceeding upon the part of the Representative of Her Majesty. I wish, therefore, to ask whether negotiations have since been resumed, and whether negotiations are now going on upon the subject? I will not ask for any of the Papers, although they have been made public by the United States Congress, to be presented to this House; but I am ready to leave the matter entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government until they declaim that some issue, satisfactory I hope, has been made, before I ask for any information as to the precise state of the negotiations. Let me say one word further with regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. Her Majesty requires the attention of this House to the increased estimates, to provide for the efficiency of our naval and military establishments: I can well understand, in the position of this country, the increasing demands which are made every year for naval and military purposes in different parts of the world. It may be requisite to ask for some increase in those establishments while we are in a state of profound peace, and there is nothing which can at all threaten our foreign relations. I trust it is upon this ground alone, and not upon the ground of any apprehensions arising from our discussions with the United States, that Her Majesty recommends the House to increase the estimates for our naval and military forces. For my part, I confess, I have thought for some time the demands especially upon our military forces are such, that, efficient as that force is, it is not too much to increase the numbers we have hitherto retained in our service. The other question I have to ask is with regard to the allusion in the Speech to the desolating and sanguinary warfare which is afflicting the States on the Rio do la Plata. It is stated to be the endeavour of Her Majesty's Ministers to effect the pacification of those States, and it is understood we have endeavoured to effect the pacification of those States by forcible and warlike measures. If that is the case, I somewhat doubt the grounds upon which that interference has taken place. It is stated in the first place that the commerce of all nations has been interrupted. That may be a ground in certain cases for endeavouring to compose these differences; but a further ground is given, namely, that acts of barbarity have been perpetrated. Acts of barbarity are very dreadful to contemplate; but I doubt whether it be wise for Parliament to regard them as grounds for forcible intervention. We have heard of dreadful acts of barbarity in other parts of the world, but they did not require, in the opinion of wise statesmen, the intervention of this country. The question I ask is, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to lay on the Table any Papers explanatory of the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government have thought it necessary to interfere in the warfare which is being carried on in the Rio de la Plata?

SIR R. PEEL

With respect to the first question put by the noble Lord, relative to the Oregon, I may state that a proposition was made by Mr. Buchanan some time since, with the authority of the President of the United States, to Mr. Pakenham, which suggested the division of the territory. It is unnecessary to say whether the proposal should have been accepted or not. Mr. Pakenham thought the terms then proposed so little likely to be accepted, that he did not feel himself warranted in transmitting that proposal to the Government here. Mr. Buchanan then immediately stated that the proposition was withdrawn. That is the state of the negotiation at present, so far as I am informed, with respect to the proposal of Mr. Buchanan. With the highest regard for Mr. Pakenham, with the greatest respect for his talents, and with the utmost confidence in his judgment, yet I think it would have been better, if he had, without reference to the nature of the proposition, transmitted it at once to the Home Government, for it might probably have been the foundation of some future and final settlement. Since that proposal has been withdrawn, this country has again repeated to the United States the offer of referring the matter to arbitration. The answer to that proposition, which was made by Mr. Pakenham, has not yet been received. With respect to the increase in the naval and military estimates, I think it is impossible for any one, considering the rapid progress of steam navigation, and the constantly increasing wants of our colonial possessions, not to see that the demands on the troops of this country are so urgent, that it is extremely difficult to fill up our regiments. New Zealand, for example, is making heavy demands upon us; and Hong Kong requires a considerable garrison. With every confidence in Foreign Powers, yet Her Majesty's Government do not think it wise altogether to neglect our national defences. We wish that there should be no uneasiness or anxiety as to the result of war, should it unhappily arise. During the last few years, there has been almost a total disregard of our national defences. Her Majesty's Government have deemed it their duty to make preparations, not such as to alarm Foreign Powers, but such as every country has a right to make for its own security against foreign aggression. There is no estimate which may not be justified on entirely defensive grounds; and we should have felt it our duty to have proposed an increase in the estimates, naval, military, and ordnance, without reference to our disputes with the United States.

SIR R. INGLIS

said, few people were more alive to the importance of maintaining peace with all the world than himself; nevertheless, he could not but consider it a happy circumstance, that the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose were received with an unanimous cheer from both sides of the House; for it showed that the people of this country were prepared to bear any burden rather than have the lives, the property, the honour of the country assailed for a single moment. He must congratulate his right hon. Friend, and the House generally, on the demonstration made upon the first proposal to increase the national defences.

The O'CONOR DON

wished to say a few words with respect to Ireland, and the present fearful calamity which prevailed there. So far as he had been able to form any opinion, he concurred in the correctness of the accounts which had been furnished to Sir R. Peel respecting the failure of the potato crop in Ireland; and he feared that no precautions which the Government could take would avert the calamity which seemed impending over that unfortunate country. Her Majesty had been pleased to manifest Her sympathy with Ireland on the approaching distress; and he was sure that Her Majesty's feelings would be highly appreciated by the people of that country, who would give Her every credit for the feelings of benevolence with which She was animated. Her Majesty had also alluded in the Speech from the Throne to the recent frequency of assassinations in Ireland. He felt the deepest regret to be obliged to admit that there were parts of Ireland in which there was, unfortunately, too much crime, which all must deplore; and it was impossible for any words to express the abhorrence which he felt at the barbarities which were being committed in some parts of Ireland at this moment. At the same time, while he was glad to think that measures were to be proposed for the suppression of crime, he regretted to hear the right hon. Baronet state that he was not prepared to propose any measure for the adjustment of the differences between landlord and tenant. [Sir R. PEEL: I did not say so.] He understood the right hon. Baronet to say, that he was not prepared to bring forward any such measure, in consequence of his having other measures to propose of more paramount importance. Now, the impression on his mind was, that no measure could be proposed of greater importance towards introducing tranquillity into Ireland, than that of the adjustment of the differences between landlord and tenant. He, therefore, implored the right hon. Baronet to turn his attention, and that of the Government, at as early a period as possible, to the consideration of this question.

SIR R. PEEL

I beg to state, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member, that my attention and that of the Government has been occupied with this question: but all I can say to the hon. Member on the subject at present is, to ask him to put his question to me in a few days hence. I can assure him that I did not mean to imply that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to bring forward a measure on the subject.

MR. BANKES

could assure the House that he had no disposition to mix up any acrimonious feeling with the important questions which now occupied their attention; and if he referred at all to circumstances which in part, and in part only, had been explained of the late strange transactions relating to the resignation and the re-appointment to office of the right hon. Baronet, it would be done, he would assure that right hon. Gentleman, in the same tone as he would use if he had the honour to meet him in his own parlour; but he merely wished to elicit some further explanations regarding transactions which were at present inexplicable. The right hon. Baronet, it appeared, had changed his opinion; but he did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the prospect and the apprehension of the famine to which he had referred was the cause of that change; and one point as to which they had a right to be satisfied, and on which he thought they were entitled to explanation, was the period when that change came over the mind of the right hon. Baronet; for if that was in the course of last Session, he thought the party who had hitherto considered themselves honoured in following his lead, might have cause to complain that they were not then instructed as to this change of opinion, and the alteration in his course which it might be necessary for them to anticipate. He did not understand that the right hon. Baronet's change had taken place in consequence or at the time of his apprehensions of famine. There was another point to which he would direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet, as he thought it had been unexplained, and he would venture to say was inexplicable according to the information as yet afforded to the public. The point was this, if the right hon. Baronet did feel, as he was sure the right hon. Baronet did, because he said he felt, the great and imminent necessity of coming to an immediate course of action to prevent the mischiefs which he foresaw would arise—and early in November brought under the consideration of his Colleagues his change of opinion, and the necessity which he felt of acting upon it, and then when defending his opinion found was in a small minority in his own Cabinet, and therefore postponed his decision till some day afterwards in the same month. Before that day arrived anincidentoccurred—thenoble Lord opposite wrote and published a letter, and the circumstance of the publication of that letter changed the course, as he understood the explanation of the right hon. Baronet, which he had resolved upon. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say that he had been placed in a different position by the publication of that letter, and that he could not pursue the course which otherwise he would have felt it his duty to adopt. Now, he was at a loss to conceive how the publication of a letter, even by a person so eminent in his station as the noble Lord, could have such an effect upon the leader of the councils of the Cabinet—supposing he had made up his mind to pursue a certain course—how that incident should cause a change in that course in any one particular. He would, then, observe, that the conduct of the noble Lord appeared to him to be inexplicable—that, agreeing with the right hon. Baronet in the necessity and emergency of the case, agreeing with the right hon. Baronet that it was essential, not only that there should be an alteration in the law, but that they should make that alteration immediately effective—the noble Lord having undertaken to form a Government—having accepted office under the auspices of Her Majesty—was yet deterred from his great undertaking by an accident so trivial as the fact of one of the proposed Ministers not choosing that another should have a particular office. It was not for them, undoubtedly, to cavil at the decision of the noble Earl; but it did seem strange of these two great persons in the State, the one holding the post of Prime Minister in the first instance, and the other holding the same post in the second instance— for Lord John Russell had accepted office—how these two statesmen should have been deterred from pursuing the course they had resolved upon by circumstances so trivial—the one by the publication of a letter, the other by a difference between two noble Lords—and should have abandoned the prosecution of that which they thought was called for by the emergencies of the nation, and leave the country in a predicament, which was a fearful one in their opinion. Happily, the danger did not exist; but in the mind of the right hon. Baronet the danger was real. Upon his mind a strong impression had been made; and how happened it that circumstances so trivial should have induced those two eminent persons to forego the opportunities which were thus put into their hands? The noble Lord did not wish to resort to the experiment of a dissolution of Parliament; but why not, if his measure was a good one? Why not dissolve the Parliament? It was reformed, and reformed under the auspices of the noble Lord; the constituencies were of his own appointment, planned in the scheme which he considered to be the most perfect that could be devised. Why not then appeal to the constituencies of the reformed Parliament, and take their opinion on the subject? Was it because he felt that that opinion would be adverse and contrary to his own? He had a right to assume that such was the case; because, if it had been otherwise, the noble Lord would have had no difficulty in proceeding to a dissolution. If he found that circumstances so trivial as these could divert persons so eminent from following up the opportunity of carrying their own measures, could he believe that they felt the great and imperious necessity which they would persuade the House they felt for making this great and important change? The right hon. Baronet, in his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, seemed to challenge an answer to the arguments contained in the speech which he delivered last night. Now he had understood that it was rather wished that the discussion of the merits of the project should be postponed to a later day; and, therefore, if he did not at the present moment attempt to answer the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, he trusted that it would not be imputed to any disrespect; and however incapable he knew himself to be of meeting the right hon. Baronet in the arena of argument, yet he would not at present absolutely admit that he was unable to answer them. But with reference to the facts and statements of his right hon. Friend—he could not avoid using that term, and he was sure he should be sorry to lose his private friendship—with reference to those facts he felt that he was in a condition to give a denial to many of them. The right hon. Baronet had pointed to the season of prosperity which they were now enjoying; and upon that he grounded his wish for a change. He thought this was a surprising argument: his hon. Friend, however, wished to infer that this prosperity had been attained by a gradual and regular progress, and that the increase of prosperity had been in proportion to the progress of his measures. But he would remind the right hon. Baronet that at that period last year he was one of a deputation that attended him from twenty-two counties in the kingdom, complaining of serious distress. The right hon. Baronet could not have forgotten that fact; he could not but remember that he received that deputation with the courtesy which he was accustomed to show; and that he heard from the mouths of farmers themselves the statements of their distress. He did not know if the right hon. Baronet had it in his power to controvert these statements; but certainly he did not on that occasion controvert one of them though he recollected that the right hon. Baronet referred, as he had last night adroitly referred, to the subject of protection of wool. He remembered the right hon. Baronet, addressing one of the deputation, said, "Well, what do you say to the wool?" and he remembered that then, with the gallantry and open-heartedness which belonged to that noble person, the Duke of Richmond stepped forward, and said, "Sir Robert, that observation applies to me, and to me only. There is not one of the Gentlemen present who was of my opinion with respect to the wool duty; there is not one of them who objected to the duty on wool being removed; on the contrary, they thought it would be productive of the results which it seems to have produced." Now, it was no argument against them, supposing it to be the fact, that they had never before adduced any doubt as to the propriety of his measures. The right hon. Baronet turned round to his hon. Friend who first spoke, and said, in a tone of great triumph, "I have you with me in my schemes of finance, which you admit have proved efficient for the prosperity of the country." Undoubtedly the right hon. Baronet had them with him; he had their votes, their support, their good wishes. But did it follow that they were never to stop in a course which they might think right, but which they knew was limited? Was it fair to them to adduce these arguments and say, "You have gone with me so far, and therefore you are bound to go the whole — you are bound togo the whole length which I propose." The right hon. Baronet said, you approve of my financial measures. So he did—he admired his financial measures. He gave him full credit for the state and condition of the country; but did it follow therefore that he should wish to change that state and condition? The right hon. Baronet talked much—and he was aware of the pleasure it must give him, filling the high station he did—of the diminution of crime; but allow him to say that the progress of that diminution had not been gradual—in some cases crime had increased in an alarming degree. It was so in the spring of last year, when all the assizes presented the heaviest calendar that had ever been known; and at that time the price of wheat was the cheapest. That might not be the cause of this circumstance; nor did he mean to say that these two facts, which were coincident, had any necessary connexion with one another; but if the diminution of crime was to be adduced on the one side, he had a right to bring the circumstance he mentioned forward on the other. He was happy to say that the decrease in crime was now very decided through the whole of the western counties; but there was that exception at the particular period he mentioned, for which he did not pretend to account. Now there was a passage in the Queen's Speech—which he must say was a document drawn up with great care, with so much care that he believed any person who attempted it, would find it difficult to fix on a part to which to move an Amendment—but yet there was one expression to which he would take exception. The Speech said—and the Address, which was a mere echo to the Speech, also said—that they should endeavour to make the changes as little injurious as possible to the great interests of the country. But what was to become of the little interests—amongst other little interests take the small farmers' interests, and of whom it was said they had little or nothing to do with the question. Of this, however, he had a very different opinion; nor had any Member of those little interests, so far as he had heard, made any change or turn of opinions for the occasion, as others had. With respect to the larger interests, the great interests of the manufacturers, he was happy to have it considered that he might be permitted to stand upon the same basis with them. He had no objection to do so; but then he must take up that position fairly, free from those restrictions which pressed on him. Give him, therefore, the benefits that interest possessed: these were terms they should not refuse him. But let him make this remark, that even in the great manufacturing interests were little interests, as there were both great and little in the agricultural interest. There were the hand-loom weavers, for instance. There were the weavers and framework knitters of Nottingham. With these interests the distress was of the worst kind. He had heard these interests had been and were struggling with the greatest privations, and struggling with such lowness of wages, that even the rate of remuneration in the agricultural counties, the low wages which he sincerely lamented, were high and large in comparison with the gains of these poor operatives. He wished, therefore, whether those little interests were or were not forgotten in the Speech from the Throne, that they should not be neglected here. No means had ever been suggested in all the declamation made on the subject of free trade for supplying that amount of employment which must be displaced by the change; and he thought the Government should be told that they should not stir one step in advance, until it had been provided, not only that the great interests should be secured, but also that the little interests of the State should not be left to starve. Starve, however, they would, if certain projects were carried any further. The noble Lord (Lord F. Egerton) who moved the Address with much eloquence, concluded with remarks he heard with much pain; because in those remarks appeared a ground of change, if not the chief ground of change of opinion held by the noble Lord and others, consisting in the danger which he thought he saw in the conflict of classes and of opinions, in a manner so fearful to the Constitution, that he trembled at the result — a conflict which he saw was carried on both with bribery and chicanery. He gave to the noble Lord the Member for London much joy upon the result of his Reform Bill, seeing that a noble and accomplished Lord changes his opinion upon a grave matter, because of the bribery and chicanery which have prevented any chance of free and unbiassed elections. And certainly no man could avoid feeling much apprehension, when it was seen that clubs and associations had been formed, in which language was held not far different to the expressions used in the old Jacobin Clubs of Paris. He did view, as all men must view, the existence of such clubs with the gravest apprehension; but he viewed with no less apprehension the circumstance that a Necker stood at the head of the Government. The right hon. Baronet, however, would know that when that comparison was made, it meant no disparagement. Necker was full of zeal for the public good, and, as respected his abilities, high in the general estimation and confidence, when he commenced that career which terminated so unhappily to his country— Dignus imperare si non imperasset. Before he concluded, let him not forget to mention this—that the farmers had been losers by the system which had been followed, and losers for some years. That interest had been gradually recovering from depression. The goodness of the harvest, though not abundant, was at least an average crop; and that had assisted them greatly. They were, indeed, recovering; yet this was the moment chosen again to disturb them, and to shake their confidence — confidence shaken so much, that it was not to be restored by the present Government. He, therefore, under the circumstances, called upon the right hon. Baronet to appeal to the country; and he could assure him that he was ready to abide by the issue of the appeal. Whatever the issue of the appeal, he would abide most cheerfully by the decision made by the country, if that application were made by the right hon. Baronet in a legitimate manner.

MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD

said, as a Member from Ireland, knowing the state of the country, he could vouch for the truth of the statements made last night by the right hon. Baronet; and especially as to the condition of those parts of Ireland which were usually the least subject to distress. At least one half of the potato crop had failed in the part of the country from which he came; and, in the course of a few weeks, a scarcity of the most frightful nature would be the result. The poorest people had suffered most. Potatoes were already more than double the price they used to be; and oatmeal was one-half higher than last year. In the Union where, last September, there were only 200 inmates, there were now 300 or 400; more than there had ever been before. The Poor Law guardians had called a meeting to concert measures to provide food for the people. He mentioned these facts, which had come to his knowledge, because they corroborated the statements of the right hon. Baronet.

Address agreed to, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.

SIR R. PEEL

said, he had reason to believe that Her Majesty would be prepared to receive the Address at half-past two o'clock to-morrow.

MR. BROTHERTON

hoped hon. Members would attend and make a House tomorrow, and not keep Her Majesty waiting, as they did last year.