Lords Sitting of 22 November 1852

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Duke of Brandon, after the Death of his Father.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.

THE EXHIBITION (SYDENHAM).
LORD PANMUREhaving presented a petition from the Free Synod of Aberdeen against the opening of the Exhibition (Sydenham) on any part of the Lord's Day,
The EARL of DERBYsaid, he was glad to have the opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention to the subject to which the petition had reference, and
274
respecting which he had not had a previous opportunity of giving an explanation. He begged to be permitted to state how the case stood with respect to the proposed charter which was sought to be obtained for the Crystal Palace, because misapprehensions had arisen concerning it which had taken a great hold on the public mind, and he should be gratified if the explanation he could give would relieve any of the parties from their apprehensions, and relieve him from the vast number of memorials which were presented to him almost every day of his life. When first it was determined to form the Crystal Palace Company, it was a great object with the Directors to have a charter of incorporation—not to give them any powers which the law did not give them before, but for the purpose of securing to the shareholders the advantage of a limited liability, which would afford great facilities for carrying into effect the objects they contemplated; and a memorial was presented to the Government accordingly. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) was not in this country at the time the Company made their application; but he (the Earl of Derby) saw the Directors of the Company; and when they had stated their views to him, he stated to them that he thought the most convenient course they could pursue was to put down in the form of a draught Charter the objects they had in view, and the restrictions to which they proposed to submit, in regard to the opening of the building on the Sunday, in order to obtain the countenance of the Government. He had since been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), and the parties were informed that they were to consider the conversation that had taken place as merely an explanation of the views of the Government with regard to restrictions as to the opening on Sundays; but as to the issuing of any charter at all, that was a subject for consideration on the part of the proper authorities. They had proceeded on the assumption that there was nothing in the law which prevented the opening of the Palace on Sundays, and thought they had only to consider what clauses it would be necessary to introduce on granting the charter. He had no hesitation in saying, for his own part, that (subject to the restrictions which the Company had declared its willingness to submit to), the opening

275
of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday, far from being a desecration of the Sabbath, would be a great benefit to the people of this overcrowded metropolis, by enabling them to avail themselves on the Sunday afternoon of the innocent recreation and amusement provided for them by the building and the beautiful grounds attached to it. If this scheme had involved an exhibition of articles of manufactures, machinery, and commerce, within the walls, and the attendance of the exhibitors to explain their inventions in arts, science, and manufactures, or if it had required the presence of a numerous body of attendants to guard and protect them on the Sunday, he might have taken a very different view of the subject. But the representatives of the Company had stated to him that their object was to close on the Sunday all the exhibition of machinery, manufactures, and commerce, and merely to throw open their beautiful park, garden, and conservatory, setting aside for that purpose certain hours, which would not interfere with the attendance of the population of London at Divine Service in the morning. It was further intimated to him by the Directors that it was their intention to run trains to the building itself, to issue return tickets, and to carry their visitors direct from the locality to London; they would thus be prevented from being scattered over the vicinity, and from being accumulated in the public-houses in the evening. It was also stated to him that it was the intention of the Directors to prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors in the precincts of the building and in the building itself. Subject to those restrictions, and to the risk of violating them, he still continued to be of opinion, notwithstanding the remonstrances that had been addressed to him, that, far from desecrating the Sabbath, the opening of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday would be useful to the population in giving them fresh air and amusement, and in promoting moral and social improvement among the working classes. Since these arrangements had been spoken of, a question had arisen as to whether the opening of the Crystal Palace could not be prohibited under the existing law, and whether under a certain statute—passed for a very different purpose, and enacting that the payment of money for admission into any place of amusement on a Sunday should be deemed an illegal offence—it could be opened at all. If that should be the ease, he need not Bay that no clause
276
inserted in the charter could render that legal which was declared illegal by law; and if such were the law, it could only be altered by the authority of Parliament, and they would not attempt to mislead the public opinion by giving a sanction which they could not really give. The alteration could only be made with the consent of Parliament; and he hoped that he might he permitted to say, on the part of Ministers, that if the payment for admission into the Crystal Palace on the Sunday were found to be contrary to the law, they would be the last persons to ask for the enactment of such a provision as would legalise it, however advantageous they might think it for the health, comfort, and morality of the population. When the clause to which he had referred was proposed to be introduced into the charter, it was looked upon by the Government, and by the promoters of the project, as a restrictive clause; but if the opening of the Crystal Palace should be illegal—a point which was then under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown—no clause authorising it would be inserted in the charter. In that case, the clause must be inserted, not by the consent of Her Majesty's Ministers, but by the authority of Parliament.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he had listened a few nights previous with great gratification to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, in which he referred to four or five subjects of legal reform; but he was disappointed at finding no mention whatever of an amelioration or amendment of the law of partnership. Under the present state of the law it was impossible for persons who had moderate means to associate their capital together, whereby their earnings would fructify in a laudable manner. Why should they not be permitted to associate together under the limited liability which the directors of the Crystal Palace Company were now so anxious to obtain? The consequence of the present state of the law was that they had to go to the Board of Trade for a charter, and the granting of that charter was regulated by no fixed rule whatever. That was a great grievance, because it gave to large capitalists the power to enter into speculations such as this; whereas a large number of small capitalists who were inclined to invest their money in such an undertaking were unable to do so. He would suggest to those who were much more competent to deal with the subject then he was, that it would be a most use-

277
ful and acceptable reform, if a law of partnership were passed something like that in operation in France, or like that in force in Ireland, which had been found to work most beneficially in that country.
LORD CAMPBELLrose to express the high satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that statement would be satisfactory to the great majority of the country. Their Lordships would recollect that he had been no friend originally to the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, but since it was transferred to Sydenham he was the warm friend of it, as conducive, not only to the recreation of the people, but to the cause of morality and religion. Under the restrictions which the noble Earl had stated, he believed the opening of it on the afternoon of Sundays, would not only be a recreation, but of the greatest advantage. There was an Act of Parliament in force, which prevented the taking money for admission into any place of public amusement or recreation on a Sunday; but he trusted that Parliament would relax that law in favour of the Crystal Palace Company, in consideration of the restrictions mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, and assented to by the Company.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

MEETING OF CONVOCATION.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYwished to put a question to the noble Earl opposite on a subject of great interest. He alluded to the sittings and to the proceedings of Convocation. Many petitions had been, or would be, presented on the subject. He wished to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to Convocation? It now stood adjourned to the 16th of February; he wished to know whether it would then be allowed to assemble again and proceed to business? He also wished to know whether, during that interval, the Committee appointed by the Lower House of Convocation would be permitted to sit?
The EARL of DERBY: As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned there is no intention of making any deviation from the customary and ordinary course that for many years has been pursued with respect to Convocation; nor do I understand that there has been any deviation from the ordinary practice, although undoubtedly the meeting of Convocation in the course
278
of the present year has been accompanied with considerable excitement, and has led to long discussion; but the proceedings of Convocation have gone this year no further than they have gone in all the preceding years—that is, they moved and voted an Address to the Crown at the commencement of the Session. It is true that the discussion upon that Address to the Crown —previous to which it would not have been decorous or proper that any power over Convocation should be exercised—lasted for a period of three days; but though it lasted for three days, this is not the first occasion on which there has been a discussion, or on which an Amendment has been moved in Convocation. In the year 1847 the discussion lasted through the whole of one day, and an Amendment was moved, praying the Crown to revive the active powers of Convocation. The power of proroguing Convocation, undoubtedly in the last resort, rests with the Crown; but I believe there has been no instance in which that power has been exercised by the Crown, at least for many years, the power being usually exercised by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, cither acting (for that is a doubtful point) upon his own authority, or with the advice of the other bishops, consensu fratrum. On the present occasion I understand that the usual and ordinary course has been adopted, and that the noble Earl is mistaken in speaking of the adjournment of Convocation, for I am informed that the usual course has been pursued, not of adjourning, but of proroguing Convocation in the usual form. The Address having been voted to the Crown, the Convocation has been prorogued by the Archbishop to a period not far from being coincident with the time of the meeting of both Houses of Parliament after the recess. There is nothing unusual in the prorogation of Convocation to a distant day for the purpose of receiving the answer of the Crown to its Address—it is not usual to receive an immediate answer— there is always a prorogation for the purpose of receiving the answer. I have not had the opportunity, since my noble Friend gave notice of asking the question, of communicating with his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury; but I have no reason to suppose that when Convocation meets again he will depart from the practice that has hitherto universally prevailed, nor do I apprehend that he will do more than lay before Convocation the answer to the Address, and then in the usual form prorogue

279
the sitting of Convocation. I will not anticipate that the Archbishop will depart from the usual course, or that the intervention of the Crown will be in any respect necessary; but this I have no hesitation in saying, that the Ministers of the Crown have no intention to advise Her Majesty to depart from the ordinary course, or that they are prepared to sanction the revival of the active powers of Convocation, One word as to the committee to which my noble Friend has referred. Officially, I know nothing of the committee. I know, officcially, no more than this—that Convocation is prorogued, and that it has appointed a committee to investigate certain matters which had come before it. It is a question of law on which it is not fit that I should pronounce an opinion; but I confess I don't understand myself how a body that is itself prorogued can give any official powers to any other body during its prorogation. I would venture to give an opinion on the point with great diffidence; but if I did, my opinion of the committee is, that the powers of that committee are null and void, and that, on the other hand, there is no power on the part of the Crown, as they have no official cognisance of the committee, to prevent a number of gentlemen meeting together as a private body to consider what will be for the advantage of the Church. That is a question of a legal nature, on which I don't think I ought to pronounce an opinion. It will be seen that from the body of gentlemen meeting, no official communication has been made to the Crown; and, therefore, I do not see how any interference can be made on the part of the Crown to interrupt their sittings.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that in rising to make the inquiry of which he had given notice, he did not wish to urge on prematurely any debate, or to ask any question which it might be inconvenient for the Government to answer; but he thought it would be for the advantage of public business, and for the private convenience of their Lordships, that the House should know the nature and character of the public business to be proposed before the recess, and of that to be proposed during the remainder of the Session—in fact, generally, what course of public business the Government intended to pursue. He thought that the meeting of Parliament before Christmas did little to lighten the business or to shorten the
280
duration of the spring and summer Session; but it was notorious that Parliament was assembled at the present period of the year, in order that the great commercial principles of the country might be brought to a full, and, he hoped, a final and satisfactory settlement. At the opening of the Session, it was the duty of Government to frame a Speech from the Throne applying to the whole of the business which would be brought forward during its continuance; and certainly the House had had an intimation of a variety of measures which would be laid before it, but it had no definite knowlege either of the nature of those measures or of the precise time at which they would be brought forward. There was no need that he should enumerate what those measures were; but, in his opinion, there could be no objection to the noble Earl opposite telling their Lordships what were the measures, if any, which he intended to introduce before Christmas. The real fact was, that their Lordships were assembled for deliberation on one great subject only, and he thought that it was most wise to avoid any discussion on free trade and protection on the first day of the Session, for their minds were then overwhelmed with sorrow, and were engaged in reflecting on the mournful duty which had devolved upon them, and on the proceedings in preparation for the approaching funeral of the Duke of Wellington. He understood that the noble Earl at that time had postponed all discussion on free trade and protection till after the 26th, when his right hon. Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to make his statement of his fiscal and financial policy in the other House of Parliament. Since that time he had seen that Her Majesty's Government had announced its intention of proposing an abstract resolution, embodying their views on our commercial policy, previously to the 26th instant; but he thought that the noble Earl would have no objection to state to their Lordships what he intended to propose to that House on this subject before Christmas; for, as it was notorious that their Lordships were met for the purpose of considering what was to be the great basis of our commercial policy, it must have been within the contemplation of the noble Earl to take the sense of the House upon it previously to the recess; for it was not to be supposed that when Her Majesty said that "if we should be of opinion that recent legislation, in con-

281
tributing, with other causes, to the generally improved condition of the country, and especially of the industrious classes, had, at the same time, inflicted unavoidable injury on certain important interests, we ought dispassionately to consider how far it might be practicable equitably to mitigate that injury"—it was not, he said, to be supposed that that question would not at once be submitted to their Lordships. The speech of the noble Earl was of the same nature as the Speech from the Throne, but it touched upon the same subjects lightly. The question of free trade and protection rested on a great and firm principle, and not on the discovery of gold in one part of the world or another, nor on the sudden impulse of emigration in one year more than another—it was a question to be settled, he hoped finally and satisfactorily, on a firm and sound theory. He hoped that the noble Earl would have no objection to state what measures it was proposed to bring forward, and whether he intended to bring that question under consideration before the 26th instant?
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, the question which has just been put to mo by the noble Marquess is one of considerable importance. I shall endeavour to make my answer satisfactory; but, in answering the question as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government—which I have not the slightest difficulty in answering—I must call your attention to the general circumstances under which we are now met together. I will not call to your recollection the circumstances under which Her Majesty's present Government accepted office, nor the species of understanding on which the business of the last Session of Parliament was conducted—when we thought it right to refuse an immediate appeal to the country, which would have interrupted the ordinary business of the Session, and when we further expressed our opinion that at the earliest possible period an appeal ought to be made to the country at large. My Lords, reference to the country at large will and must undoubtedly and immediately decide whether Her Majesty's Government is or is not in the enjoyment of that amount of the confidence of the country and Parliament which will enable it to administer satisfactorily the affairs of this great nation. There was one important question on which undoubtedly reference to the country was made—namely, on what principles the
282
commercial and fiscal affairs of the country were to be managed. Those principles have been matter of controversy for many years, and all parties, whatever their opinions may be, must agree in this, that it is most desirable that at the earliest possible period they should be definitely and finally settled. My Lords, on the great question involved in them, without disguising my opinions, I declared last year, for myself and for those who did me the honour of acting with me—I will not say whether the declaration was wise or unwise, worthy or unworthy of a British Minister—but I declared I should be guided by the sense which the community at large might express through its representatives, and that I should not bring forward any measure in accordance with my own views if I found that those views were not supported by a large majority of the country, for I thought that the question ought to be finally closed at the earliest period; and therefore, my Lords, though I resisted the applications for an immediate dissolution of Parliament, and for its being summoned to meet again in July, I gave a solemn pledge that before the autumn was at an end Parliament should have an opportunity of deciding on the future fiscal and commercial policy of the country. My Lords, it was in the fulfilment of that pledge that Her Majesty was advised to summon Parliament to meet early in November for the purpose of laying before it the views which were entertained by Her advisers. A further pledge was also given by mo in the course of last Session, that, in order to prevent any interference with the ordinary business of the Session, an opportunity should be given to the country to decide on any measures which Government might think it desirable to introduce for the purpose of reversing or modifying that policy. My Lords, it is always unpleasant and mortifying to any public man to have to confess that his sentiments on any subject of great importance are not in unison and accordance with those of the great body of his fellow-subjects; but, mortifying as it may be, I have no hesitation in now saying, that the result of the late general election has been such as to convince me that, although a number of the constituencies and their representatives are desirous of giving their support to Her Majesty's present Ministers, a very large number, some of whom might be desirous of giving their support to Her Majesty's present advisers on other subjects, are determined not to assent to any altera-

283
tions in our present commercial system; and that, in consequence, any alteration in that system, so far from being called for by a large majority, would, on the contrary, be negatived by a very large portion of the community and their representatives in Parliament. I therefore did not hesitate to advise Her Majesty, in the Speech from the Throne, to declare, in terms as explicit as I thought it proper and fitting as a Minister to place in the mouth of the Sovereign, not, indeed, any opinion as to the policy to be pursued, but only an expression of fact, that the principle of Unrestricted competition was one which the wisdom of Parliament had decided should be adopted. If, my Lords, there was any ambiguity in the tone of that Speech, I think it must have been removed by the declaration which I made in the House myself on the night of the Address, and by the speech which the leader of the House of Commons made elsewhere, to the effect that, whatever we might think or desire, we were willing and ready to act on the principle of unrestricted competition, which it had been decided should guide our fiscal and commercial policy, and that, my Lords, as frankly and unreservedly as if we had ourselves been the authors of it. I doubt much, whether language could be framed pledging the Government more explicitly to any line of policy, or giving a more satisfactory assurance to those Gentlemen who were apprehensive of our tampering with or altering the existing system. But, my Lords, we went further; for, although we thought that those who differ from us might have rested fully satisfied with those expressions—and we know that many were satisfied—and agreed with us in postponing the declaration of our financial policy until the ordinary period of laying it before the country; yet with a full sense of the disadvantages arising from the imperfect calculations which must attend measures brought forward in so short a space of time, we thought the more honest and upright course was, not to confine ourselves to vague expressions, but to lay before Parliament in full detail those measures of commercial and fiscal policy which we were prepared to recommend to the adoption of Parliament, and by which Parliament would be able to judge at once of the sincerity of our professions and the wisdom and policy of our performance. On the very first day of the Session I took the liberty of informing your Lordships, and I believe a formal notice was given to the
284
same effect in the other House of Parliament, that within the period of one fortnight—namely, on Friday next—my right hon. Friend and Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in detail, lay before Parliament those measures which he thought necessary to propose, in order to carry out the policy which Her Majesty's Ministers had decided upon adopting. I was rather surprised, I confess, at the language used by the noble Marquess opposite. He said, that after making that declaration, the Government had thought it desirable—I beg pardon—that the Government had, in the meantime, given notice of their intention to move, previously to the 26th of November, a specific Resolution affecting the principle in question. The noble Marquess will forgive me for saying that that is neither a candid nor a correct statement. Her Majesty's Government gave no such notice. They were perfectly satisfied to rest until the 26th, when facts, and not words, would give proof of the sincerity of the course they intended to pursue. However, my Lords, another Gentleman in the other House, unconnected with the Government and opposed to it, did think fit to anticipate that, which would have been much more satisfactorily discussed after the commercial policy of the Government was before the country, by giving notice of an abstract Resolution, which he proposed to submit to the consideration of the House of Commons; and so far from the Government giving notice as the noble Marquess has assumed, the fact was, that that hon. Gentleman was appealed to on behalf of the Government, not to withdraw any notice of Motion he might think proper to give, but to postpone the debate on his abstract proposition until the House should be in possession in detail of the intentions and measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far, my Lords, with reference to an abstract Resolution proceeding from the Government. Now, my Lords, as I have touched, I will say one word upon the Resolution proposed by that hon. Member in the other House of Parliament. It was couched— and, I presume, intentionally—in language and terms which the framer of it must have known it was impossible for the Government or their supporters to accept. It was not confined to expressions as to the policy which was necessary to be pursued for the future, but contained reflections and opinions in which the Mover must have known it was impossible for us to agree.

285
For my own part, I must confess that, after the declarations made by the Government on the first night of the Session, and after its announcement that it would proceed to an immediate promulgation of their measures, I think there was no necessity for proposing any specific resolution on the subject. But granting that there was such a necessity, I think that any Gentleman who has at heart the real interests of the country, and the affirmation of the principles he advocates, should so frame the Resolution as to omit everything unnecessary, and to affirm the principle which he sought to support by the largest possible majority, if not the unanimous vote of the House of Commons. That Resolution, however, as I before stated, is couched in terms which the honour and credit of the Government rendered it impossible for them and their supporters to give an assent, So far as regards the affirmation of a principle, it goes no farther than pledging Parliament, so far as any Resolution can pledge Parliament, to the adoption of a principle for the future; it goes no farther than that Amendment, which, for the purpose of recording the opinions, intentions, and principles of the Government, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed on the notice paper of the other House of Parliament, Therefore, for the affirmation of a principle, that Motion was and is unnecessary. I know not, of course, what other views may be in contemplation by those who instigated the Motion. If their intentions be to overthrow the present Government before the period at which they shall have an opportunity of developing and explaining their policy, I only hope, if that be the case, that the hon. Gentleman who moves the Resolution, and the heads of those various sections into which the Opposition in the House of Commons is divided, have well considered the full amount of responsibility which they take upon themselves—that they have considered, not how they may combine the largest amount of force for overthrowing the Government, but, having regard to the interests of the country, they will also consider, the Government being overthrown, whether they possess among them the materials, and that uniformity and unity of action and intention which are necessary to form another, and to preserve the country from the inconveniences of a Ministerial interregnum. It may be that they have no intention to take upon themselves such responsibility, or of seek-
286
ing to overthrow the Government; and if that be so, then, considering that this Motion can do nothing towards affirming a principle further than we are ready and willing to affirm that principle ourselves, where is the utility of it? And if it be not intended to overthrow, but only to weaken and discredit the Government, by forcing on them a Resolution in terms which are offensive to them and their supporters—if that be the only intention which the movers have in view, my Lords, I have then great confidence in the House of Commons and the country, and I believe that they will not sanction and support a proceeding which, if that be the intention, must be purely factious, and, if successful, must involve very serious difficulties in its train. Thus much, my Lords, in regard to the course which we are about to pursue, and which we have announced the intention of pursuing, and the impediments that have been thrown in our way. My Lords, I have already said that I concur with the noble Marquess opposite that we meet together at this unusual period for the purpose of discussing any alterations which it may be intended to make in the existing commercial system, for the purpose of closing at once and for ever the controversy on the subject of protection and free trade. My Lords, if it had been the intention of the Government to offer any proposition for the purpose of reversing or altering the system as established, due notice of such a proposition would have, at a very early period, been given to this and the other House of Parliament; but, on the contrary, both here and there the most distinct intimations have been given that we had no intention of proposing measures founded in such a spirit, and that our commercial and financial policy would be based on a different system. It, therefore, does not occur to me, nor is it desirable, that your Lordships should be invited to pronounce a distinct and positive opinion on that which is not threatened by any one of us—unless, indeed, a controversy be raised on the part of those who dissent from the course which the Government has thought it necessary to pursue, or are desirous of submitting to Parliament the propriety of deviating from that course. The noble Marquess has said, and with truth, that in opening this Session of Parliament the Government ought to advert to those various measures which, in the course of the Session, they feel it their duty to submit to both Houses of

287
Parliament. But, my Lords, we have done somewhat more. We thought it advisable to summon together the present Session for the purpose more especially of dealing with that commercial and financial question; and although we are prepared in the other House of Parliament, in which such questions must arise, to deal with that commercial and financial question— that policy by which we intend to stand or fall—before the Christmas recess, and to take the opinion and judgment of that House on that policy, and on those measures which we may submit to it; though we have thought it expedient in this House to avail ourselves of the unexpected time given for renewing our inquiries into that preliminary legislation which must take place on the subject of the East Indian territory at a very early period; though my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in a speech full of the most lucid and clear argument, has submitted to the House an outline of those great measures of legal reform which he desires to have an opportunity of submitting to Parliament; though the principles of legal reform dealt with by the introduction of Bills into the other House of Parliament, not for the purpose of immediate discussion, but for the deliberate consideration of that House; and though my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland is possibly at this very moment engaged in laying before the other House of Parliament measures of the utmost importance in regard to the social condition of Ireland; it is not the desire or the intention of the Government to introduce at this unusual period of the year, or to call for the decision of Parliament upon, any measures except those which are strictly necessary for the purpose of giving entire fulfilment to the understanding which prevailed, and the pledges which were given; but, beyond that, it is not our intention to submit any important measures for the consideration of Parliament; nor do I think it is likely that your Lordships' House will be called upon by Her Majesty's Government to pronounce a decision on any important subject.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEconfessed he was not entirely satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl, which he thought was not sufficiently explicit. He begged, with all deference to the noble Earl, to repel the charge that he was actuated by any factious motives. He thought he had said that the resolution of which the Government had given notice, in the other
288
House, was by way of amendment; but even supposing that he had not, was it not monstrous to suppose that he intended to deceive any one as to the mode in which the resolution appeared on the Votes of the other House of Parliament? It was not true, accurately speaking, that the Ministers were at all driven by the resolution proposed to embody their views in another resolution, and moving it as an amendment; for it was perfectly competent for them to have accepted the resolution proposed, to have negatived it, or to have avoided a decision by moving the previous question. The Government had, however, decided on taking a different course, and (whether wisely or unwisely he did not say) upon embodying their views in a counter resolution; and he was, therefore accurate in saying that, since he had given notice of his question, Government had placed before the House of Commons a resolution embodying their views upon the commercial policy of the country.
The EARL of DERBYremarked that, without wishing to prevent the noble Marquess from making any observations which he might wish to lay before the House, he would suggest that, in order that he might place himself in conformity with the rules of the House, he should propose some substantive Motion to the House upon which the discussion might be carried on.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that he would conclude by moving that the Clerk should read that portion of Her Majesty's Speech relating to the commercial policy of the country. He did not think that the noble Earl had a right to assume that this passage of the Speech from the Throne, or the speech which he himself made on the first night of the Session, was a sufficient record of the deliberate opinion of that House on this great question. But if the noble Earl thought so, then he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) must say that nothing could be more insignificant or unworthy of the occasion than the noble Earl's treatment of this subject on the first night of the Session. This great question was founded on principles that had not been discussed only since 1846 in England, but which had been discussed in Europe for centuries, and also very much in America of late years. Protection had been maintained by many writers and statesmen of great eminence in other countries as well as in this; but, on the other hand, those on that side of the House contended that free trade was the sound doctrine; that it

289
was one that had the best authorities in its favour; that the experience of the last few years had conclusively proved its truth; and that it was the principle upon which the commercial policy of the country should rest. Was he then to he told that when a Government—composed of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen, whose lives had been passed in opposing it—had at last accepted it in the qualified way to which the noble Earl had referred, that a speech from the noble Earl, and the passage from the Speech from the Throne, was sufficient to bind the House of Lords on this great subject? He maintained that it was not. Whatever might be the vote of the House of Commons on this subject, it did not bind that House; and if Parliament was assembled to decide this question, it should have been submitted to that as well as to the other House of Parliament, and determined upon broad and comprehensive principles, without reference to the stream of emigration which had gone forth from the country, or the amount of bullion that had come into it. He knew not what effect the noble Earl's threat of resignation might have upon the country. He did not know whether he thought that because he was able to go down to Windsor and swear in eighteen Privy Counsellors in one day, and to form a Government consisting of Three Secretaries of State, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a First Lord of the Admiralty, not one of whom had ever held office before; or whether he thought that they had displayed such wonderful abilities during the time they had been in office that the Houses of Parliament would be debarred from a hostile vote by the impossibility of selecting adequate successors from the Privy Councillors on either side of the House. But without wishing to say anything uncomplimentary, he must remark that when Parliament was told, "Take care what you do, for possibly we may resign, and you will have to concoct a Government without us;" he thought that they had only to look round on the benches of either House of Parliament, in order not to be frightened by such threats. Of this he was perfectly assured, that not only the Members of that House, but the country, entertained a sincere conviction that free trade had been explictly and firmly adopted, and that the recorded opinion of both Houses to that effect ought to be obtained before the recess. The noble Marquess concluded by moving that the paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech relat-
290
ing to the improved condition of the country be now read.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that he was struck with the mode in which the noble Earl opposite, after discussing the general policy of the Government in a manner calculated to produce a great effect, had endeavoured to stop the noble Marquess when he sought to make a few observations. As the noble Earl had used the word "factious" in reference to the Resolution which had been brought forward in the other House, he wished to say a few words in defence of its mover. The noble Earl had tried to persuade them that there was no difference between the original Resolution and the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he apprehended that the difference was this, that the original Resolution said that the adoption of free trade was a just, wise, and necessary measure, and the Amendment said nothing at all of the kind. The noble Earl was very fond of accusing those on that side of the House of adopting factious courses; but he could not discover anything extraordinary in the course pursued by the Opposition; for when he looked at the equivocal line of conduct which had been pursued by the noble Earl and his friends since 1846, he thought it was necessary to extract from them pledges of a stronger character than were usually sought from Ministers of the Crown. The noble Earl had convicted himself in that respect by the very language he had used. The noble Earl said that he went to the country prepared to bring in protective measures if he found the country prepared to support him, but, on the other hand, prepared to adhere to a free-trade policy if the country was in its favour. Now, he (Lord Wodehouse) must confess that it was utterly inconceivable to him how, with any regard to political morality, such a course could be adopted by a Minister of the Crown. If the noble Earl, as he gathered from his speech, still thought that protection was the policy which should regulate the commercial and financial affairs of the country, he should, in justice and in honour, either resign office, or endeavour to induce the country to adopt measures founded upon this principle. If he still believed that it would be beneficial to carry out those principles, he should stand or fall by them. But what was the couse which he had adopted? Living in an agricultural district where nearly all Members of Parliament supported his Lordship's Government without

291
knowing what his principles were, he (Lord Wodehouse) had a good opportunity of knowing what the feeling amongst his supporters was; and he knew that they expected that if the noble Earl could not carry out protection, he should give them something as nearly equivalent to protection as he could; that he would somehow enable them to regain the money they had lost in 1846. Now, he apprehended that was precisely the point upon which the Opposition were at present at variance with Her Majesty's Government. The former wanted, not only that the principle of unrestricted competition, "which in its wisdom Parliament has been pleased to adopt," should be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, because the country had not given them a majority to adopt other measures, hut they also wanted to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers adopted that policy as being conducive to the prosperity and to the interests of the country, and whether they did not rather intend to propose the measures nearest to protection which they could consistently with retaining their places. If free trade or unrestricted competition was the policy which had conduced to the general prosperity of the country, then that principle should be applied as far as the condition of the country, the taxation of the country, and all the other circumstances in which we were placed, would admit; but if the principle of the present Government were affirmed— that, the policy of 1846 having been adopted, it was not desirable, under all the circumstances, to change it, but rather to mitigate the injury inflicted as far as possible, not for the benefit of the whole country, but of certain classes supposed to be injured—then, so far from that controversy being closed, we had only, in truth, arrived at another stage of it; it would still be carried on with the same vigour as before, but in the end it must result in the signal defeat of the Government. When the noble Earl applied the term "factious" to the conduct of those opposed to him, he (Lord Wodehouse) would remind him (without any intention of imputing motives) that his own conduct since 1846 would bear that interpretation as well as that of any man in the Country. When they considered the way in which he broke up the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel in 1846, and remembered his declarations year after year to the farmers that he would stand by protection, and then saw the manner in which, when he was called upon to take
292
office in 1852, he declared that he would bow to the feelings of the country, he thought he had the same right to stigmatise his conduct as factious, as the noble Earl had to apply the same language to the Opposition. He (Lord Wodehouse) would not have risen to say a single word had not the noble Earl made, what seemed to him, a most deliberate attempt to take all the advantage of the discussion to himself, and to prevent any one else having an opportunity of speaking. Considering the immense amount of abilities which all were perfectly aware was concentrated on the Government benches in both Houses of Parliament, but particularly in that, he must say that he thought it was extremely remarkable that they so seldom heard the sweet voices of the noble Lords opposite. It was curious that the noble Earl opposite should always get up to take all the debate upon himself, not only to reply to the speech of the noble Lord who might have immediately preceded him, but also to the speeches of all the noble Lords on the opposite side of the House who had spoken before him in the course of the discussion: that, he thought, scarcely consistent with one of the principles held by the disciples of free trade—he meant the division of labour.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I do not rise to answer the speech of the noble Baron who has just resumed his seat. It is unnecessary for me to make any observations on the temper, the language, and good taste of that speech. My conduct has been before the public for—I am sorry to say—nearly thirty years; and I am not now going to defend myself against imputations which I feel to be utterly unworthy of further notice. The noble Baron may be a competent judge of what is due to his own personal honour; I claim to be the best judge of what is due to mine; and I want no advice from him as to the mode in which I should maintain it. One word as to the charge of my having endeavoured to prevent the noble Marquess from addressing the House. I am sure the noble Marquess himself will acquit me of such a design. It appeared to me, from the turn which the discussion was taking, that it was likely to run to a considerable length, and I interrupted the noble Marquess merely for the purpose of suggesting that he should place himself within the rules of the House, and not with the remotest intention or wish of preventing him from addressing to your Lordships any observations

293
he might think proper to make. The noble Marquess, as I gathered from his remarks, seems to think that I have not fairly described the course which the Government have taken in submitting a Resolution to the House of Commons previous to the 26th instant. The noble Marquess speaks of this step as being a spontaneous one on the part of the Government. Surely the noble Marquess must know that it was not a spontaneous step, but one rendered necessary in consequence of a notice of Motion given from the side of the House opposed to the Government; and we thought it the best and the most conciliatory mode of meeting that Motion. I have no wish to enter into irrelevant discussion at this time. I have stated frankly and plainly the course which Her Majesty's Ministers intend to pursue; and all I ask is, that before pronouncing condemnation on our measures, Parliament will wait to see them.
LORD WODEHOUSEbegged to state, in explanation, that if he had said anything, without intending it, to reflect upon the personal honour of the noble Earl, he withdrew it.
The EARL of DERBY, after the handsome apology of the noble Lord, should cease to remember a single word of what he had said.
On Question, agreed to; and the said paragraph was read as follows:—
"It gives Me Pleasure to be enabled, by the Blessing of Providence, to congratulate you on the generally improved Condition of the Country, and especially of the Industrious Classes. If you should be of opinion that recent Legislation, in contributing, with other Causes, to this happy Result, has at the same Time inflicted unavoidable Injury on certain important Interests, I recommend you dispassionately to consider how far it may be practicable equitably to mitigate that Injury, and to enable the Industry of the Country to meet successfully that unrestricted Competition to which Parliament, in its Wisdom, has decided that it should be subjected."
House adjourned till To-morrow.