Sitting of 24 August 1841

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
The Speaker having reported, the Lords Commissioners' Speech, and read it to the House,
Mr. Mark Philipsrose and spoke to the following effect:—I rise for the purpose of proposing that this House do present an address to her Majesty on her Majesty's gracious speech which we have just heard read, and which was delivered this morning to the newly assembled Parliament by her Majesty's Commissioners. I propose, that in the Address which we shall present to her Majesty, we shall convey to her our humble thanks for her most gracious Speech; and I propose that we should further express our satisfaction that her Majesty has availed herself of the earliest opportunity of resorting to the advice and assistance of both Houses after the dissolution of the late parliament. In these propositions I hope the House will concur with me, and after the sudden determination of the late Parliament, and the important topics which occupied its attention it can only be expected that we should, with the least possible delay, proceed to the consideration of those matters which are of so much importance in the present crisis, and which present themselves so strongly to our notice, in reference to the revenues of this country. I propose that we should assure her Majesty that we are much rejoiced to learn that her Majesty continues to receive from Foreign Powers the gratifying assurances of their desire to maintain with her Majesty the most friendly relations, and that we learn with much content that the objects for which the treaty of the 15th July, 1840, was concluded between her Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, have been fully accomplished; and that we share in the gratification which her Majesty derives from the fact that the temporary separation which the measures taken in the execution of that treaty created between the contracting powers and France has now ceased. I propose also, that we should add that we trust, with her Majesty, that the union of the principal powers upon all matters affecting the great interests of Europe, will afford a firm security for the maintenance of peace. If I may be permitted to express my own opinion upon that portion of her Majesty's Speech which has reference to

113
her Majesty continuing to receive from Foreign Powers the gratifying assurances of their desire to maintain with this country the most friendly relations, I can only say, that holding the position which I do as one of the representatives of a large manufacturing community in this country, I am one of those who value peace more if possible—than most other hon. Members of this House; for the least interruption of the general peace of the world must produce to that class which I represent some of the greatest evils possible to be imagined. I, look on it therefore, not only as a christian duty on the part of a Christian country to preserve universal amity, but, considering the evils likely to result in the effects which I have pointed, out, I unhesitatingly declare, that we cannot overrate too much the blessing to be derived from its continuance, and that we should, on that account, view with great satisfaction, that which we have heard in the Speech from the Throne, viz., that the temporary separation caused by the treaty of July, 1840, between this country and some of the other powers of Europe and France, has most happily terminated. I have always looked upon France as the natural ally of this country, and have watched with the most anxious jealousy anything which might tend to create a want of good feeling between us. I have always considered, that as two of the great leading countries of the world, they should be looked upon as the bulwarks of civil liberty—and that if anything tending to produce a result the contrary of that to which I have alluded were to arise, it would be matter which would be most sincerely to be regretted. I trust, that with reference to the general peace of Europe, and the relation between this country and all other nations, nothing will occur to alter the amity which at present exists. With reference to the question of peace generally, I repeat that its a advantages cannot be overrated in a great commercial country like this; and it would always be matter of great satisfaction to me, as a commercial man, to find her Majesty, in her Speech from the Throne, congratulating the country, instead of upon any successful termination of mere matters of diplomacy, or the great success of the British arms, that some new liberal commercial treaty with some commercial nation had been entered into, for it is to such means that we must look for the maintenance of the greatness of this country, rather than to the prowess of our fleet, or
114
the deeds of arms of our gallant soldiers. I would propose further, that we should, in our address to her Majesty, state our participation in the joy which her Majesty has expressed, that in consequence of the evacuation of Ghorian, by the Persian troops, her Majesty has ordered her Minister at the Court of Persia to return to Teheran. I am sure that I shall have the feeling of the House with me, in congratulating her Majesty upon this renewal of our good relations with Persia, which have been for a time disturbed. I would propose further, that we should express our regret that the negotiations between our Plenipotentiaries in China and the Chinese government have not yet been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and that it has been necessary to call into action the forces which her Majesty has sent to the China seas; but that, with her Majesty, we trust that the Emperor of China will see the justice of the demands which her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries have been instructed to make. With reference to China the House will perhaps permit me to offer a few observations which suggest themselves to my mind. I cannot but regret and deplore most deeply, on account of our British commerce, that the difficulties which have existed in our relations with China have not been already brought to a successful termination; but it is matter of congratulation to this country, that in attempting to vindicate our honour we have not been driven into any act of violence or bloody hostility against a nation who have been distinguished for want of good faith in their relations with this country, and that in the attack which has been made on the Chinese forts by a British force, the loss of British life has been incalculably small. I trust, that by the mode in which that attack was conducted, we shall have gained honour in the eyes of the civilized world; for instead of attempting to destroy a city which was placed in our power, we did not retaliate for the injuries which we had received, but, by our conduct, we showed, that we came to demand justice, and not to exercise revenge. In this respect, it appears to me, that England will take a proud station in connection with this unfortunate affair; and I trust, that although the Chinese nation, in all its dealings with our plenipotentiaries, has shown a great want of honour—that it has been so uncivilized as to pay no regard to the importance of truth in the interchange of com-

115
munications between her authorities, and the representatives of her Majesty, yet that the forbearance of those representatives, and the magnanimity of their conduct, will not fail to produce a good effect; and I am not without hopes, that although the trade of this country is suspended, so far as any present beneficial results are concerned, the consequence will be the ultimate establishment of our relations upon a much better basis than that on which they have heretofore stood, and that we shall be able to introduce into the practices of the Chinese somewhat of the system of commercial business, which civilized nations carry on one with the other. We should recollect, that we are not the only nation carrying on trade with China, but a large portion of the trade of that nation, is shared by the United States, and I have no doubt, that we shall have the co-operation of the United States to place that trade upon a better footing; for they must be as anxious as ourselves to place our relations with China upon a firmer footing. I trust, that this may be the ultimate result of the present proceeding, and it will be most satisfactory to me, who do not stand up here to justify the trade in opium, and who never vindicated the violation of the laws of China, which are opposed to the introduction of this noxious article, that we should see the money expended upon this pernicious drug coming to the shores of this country to be expended in our manufactures, and thus tending to improve the position of the Chinese nation in the civilized world, whilst, at the same time, the increased prosperity and happiness of our own manufacturing classes would be thereby greatly promoted. I propose further, that this House should express to her Majesty, that we rejoice to learn, that the differences which had arisen between Spain and Portugal, respecting the execution of a treaty concluded by those powers in 1830, for regulating the navigation of the Douro, have been adjusted amicably, and with honour to both parties, by the aid of her Majesty's mediation. It will always, of course, be observed, that the sense of justice and impartiality which guides the decisions of this country with reference to the disputes of foreign nations, tends to place England in the highest position among the nations of the world, and I sincerely trust, that that will be the result of the course taken by the Government of this country in this matter. I propose, further, that this
116
House should thank her Majesty for acquainting us, that the debt incurred by the legislature of Upper Canada, for the purposes of public works, is a serious obstacle to further improvements, which are essential to the prosperity of the United province; and that her Majesty has authorised the Governor-general to make a communication on the subject to the Council and Assembly of Canada; and also that her Majesty will direct the papers to be laid before us, and express our determination, that our earnest attention will be directed to matters so materially affecting the welfare of Canada, and the strength of the empire. With reference to this portion of the Address, I may perhaps be permitted simply to say, that I am sure, there will be only one feeling in this House, and that all will be sincerely desirous to do everything in their power to carry on the dealings between this country and so important a colony as Canada. Further, I propose, that the House should assure her Majesty, that her Majesty may rely with entire confidence on our loyalty and zeal to make adequate provision for the public service, as well as for the further application of sums granted by the last Parliament. I cannot for one moment doubt, that her Majesty's confidence in Parliament will be fairly carried out. The public credit has been always held sacred in this House, and it will, doubtless, in this instance, be the object of the Legislature to make the necessary provision to meet the public expenditure, in such a manner as shall be as little burdensome to the people as possible. I propose, in the next place, that we shall express our entire agreement in the necessity of the extraordinary expenses which the events in Canada, China, and the Mediterranean, and the necessity of maintaining a force adequate to the protection of our extensive possessions, and that this House will proceed at once to the consideration of the means of increasing the public revenues, and to assure her Majesty, that we participate in her anxiety that this object should be effected in the manner least burdensome to the people. In proposing, that this should form a part of the Address to her Majesty, I am very well aware, that there may be in this House some difference of opinion with regard to the mode of relieving the people to the utmost extent, but as we are called on by her Majesty to give our earnest consideration to the subject, I feel, that the House will not refuse

117
to give their attention to the matter, whatever may be the result at which we may finally arrive. With reference to the Import duties, permit me to say, that I have found the gentlemen throughout the mercantile world, unanimously in favour of such a change as was recommended by the committee which sat upon the subject in 1840. I am aware that in the last Session of Parliament many objections were raised against the report, and some cavils were raised at the description of evidence tendered on the questions on which the committee was called upon to deliberate. But it always appeared to me singular that an objection should be raised against the evidence, and yet that those who raised that objection should never have asked for the reconstruction of the committee or for an inquiry into their allegations, or whether or not the matters of fact were as they were represented, or whether there were other matters which should have been investigated. I can only say that the report of the committee has engrossed a very great portion of the public attention, and that the more it has been read amongst the manufacturers the more has that community expressed to me their deep sense of the necessity of some such change in the means to be adopted of raising the public revenue as that which is suggested. If I were to enter at large upon all the subjects involved in this question, I should trespass at greater length upon the attention of the House than they might be disposed to hear me; but, I must say, that it appears to me that on reference to many articles of import, I believe her Majesty has rightly expressed herself in her speech when she thus addresses us:—
" It has appeared to her Majesty, after full deliberation, that you may, at this juncture, properly direct your attention to the revision of duties affecting the production of foreign countries. It will be for you to consider whether some of these duties are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the revenue, while they are vexatious to commerce. You may further examine whether the principle of protection, upon which others of these duties are founded, be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the state and the interests of the people."
I, look therefore, with great confidence for some alteration in the present system. What this country wants, I conceive, is an extension of its markets, to relieve those distresses which now exist, and which I do not look upon as mere matter of accident,
118
or as a passing event, but which, it appears to me, is the result of something in our fiscal system which is at variance with the prosperity and the happiness of the people. I hope that on this subject I entertain no party views, for I cannot think that the distresses of the people of this country ought to be made the subject of party feelings. I hope that the House will in the best and fairest spirit of inquiry proceed to investigate the present position of the Import duties of this country, and that the more they inquire into this matter, the stronger conviction will be impressed upon their minds that that which is said is only just and reasonable towards the people who consume, and to those also who produce the various commodities referred to in the report. I will not detain the House by going into any details, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass by without again recording my opinion in favour of the alteration of the duties upon the colonial articles imported into this country. With reference to the subject of sugar, I must say, that from inquiries which I have made, I have found that the quantity of sugar imported into Liverpool, and upon which duty has been paid for home consumption since the discussion of last Session, has shown a material falling off from the quantity for the corresponding period for the antecedent year (although that quantity of the antecedent year was decidedly less than the average), notwithstanding the price had been reduced. This appears to me to indicate most distinctly, that the power of the people to consume this commodity has decreased from year to year, instead of its increasing with the population of the country. With reference to those fears and apprehensions which were expressed in reference to the sugar duties, having expressed my opinion in the course of the discussions which have already taken place upon that subject, I have only to say, that after a most anxious investigation, I have come again to the conclusion at which I arrived at the early part of last Session, that unless we proceed to make some alteration in reference to those duties, we shall paralyse some of the most important branches of the trade of this country; and which, if once we lose them, we shall never be able to re-establish. I will only point out the treaty of commerce with the Brazils. In two years that treaty will expire, and it appears to me that it is a matter of the greatest certainty that we shall not then be able to renew it on the same favourable terms on which it now stands.

119
It appears to me that we run the risk of losing the Brazils, whose trade forms a most important branch of the commerce of this country—more especially that portion of it connected with our cotton exports, for it must be concluded that they will be disposed to favour the manufactures of our continental rivals, unless we meet them by accepting a due interchange of their productions for our own. But I will not occupy the time of the House on this point. I merely point out the grounds on which I feel that this subject should be placed, and I cannot attach too much importance to the great results which will hang upon the decision ultimately to be arrived at. I would propose next that the House should humbly state to her Majesty that, in obedience to her express desire, we shall proceed immediately to consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn, and endeavour to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply, whether they do not embarrass trade, derange the currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the privations of the great body of the community. Since the last Session of Parliament the importance of the consideration of the Corn-laws has come home immediately to almost every honourable Member whom I now see sitting within the walls of this House. It is a question which was discussed at the late general election. It has been the subject of discussion by parties on both sides of this House, and I know of no election where it has not engrossed a large portion of public attention. Since the question was last debated, I regret to say, that the privations of the people have increased, and their condition has become materially worse. I will not go into particular instances, but I have in my possession a sufficient number of communications, made to me by clergymen and others, which convince me that a very extraordinary depression is hanging over the heads of the people of this country. By all the letters which I have received, and all the investigations which I have been able to make during the time which I spent in the manufacturing districts, without any wish to exaggerate what I heard and saw—for God knows there is no necessity for that— I must say, that, I believe that never, on any previous occasion, has there existed such oppression and misery as now prevail within those branches of trade with which I am conversant. If I had had leisure, and had been aware that I should have been
120
called upon on this occasion to address the House in the position which I now occupy, I should have made a tour of the manufacturing districts toinvestigate the condition of the manufacturing classes with my own eyes, I would have sought the assistance of some hon. Members of this House, if they would have accompanied me, in order that we might have come to some conclusion in reference to the exact position of the people, and the nature of the remedies proper to be proposed for the existing evils. But I had no time for this; and I can only state what I know of my own knowledge with regard to what I have seen, and call upon other hon. Members to state that which I myself may be unable to state, for want of that local knowledge which they doubtless possess. But if the House will permit me, I will state what I know to be the condition of a large body of the manufacturing population of this country. I am told that in many towns, individuals are existing, for it cannot be called living, upon the most miserable pittance. I will select the case of 102 individuals in Manchester in May last, living—or, as as it has been properly described, starving—upon 8¾d. each per week, or l¼d. per day. Some of these paid l¾d. each per week for rent, so that they had left only 7d. per week, or 1d. per day. This is a state of things most melancholy to witness, but it is only one instance of the dreadful facts described to me as existing in Manchester, Salford, and other places in that neighbourhood. The clergy complain that they cannot execute the duties which are imposed on them, because they have not the means to satisfy the physical wants of those to whose spiritual affairs it is their duty to attend. It is stated to me that parties are in such extreme distress that they are driven to subsist on the very smallest quantity of food—so little, that I will venture to say it is far less than was ever given in any gaol or union workhouse whatever in the United Kingdom; and I have heard of many cases where whole familiesare compelled to pawn the clothes which they wear, during the night, for the purpose of redeeming the bedding on which they are to take their nightly repose, and who are able to redeem their clothes in the morning only by replacing their bedding in the hands of the pawnbroker. Many families are compelled, also, to deal with the small shopkeepers for the smallest quantities which can be purchased; and instead of their transactions being carried on by pounds, they are conducted by ounces and half-

121
ounces—a system,of course, highly injurious to the purchasers in the loss attending the mere turn of the scales. I understand that many of these persons have had their cases personally investigated, and I would mention the names of individuals, but I do not know that my doing so would advance the argument which I have brought forward. The number of tailors now employed in Bolton, is considerably less than one-half what it was a few years ago, showing the distress of the inhabitants, and the want of labour among all classes. The wants of the shoemakers, I hear, are the same, and the associated carpenters are so poor, that where formerly they were in the habit of giving two meals and a night's lodging to any of their trade travelling in search of work, I learn that they are now compelled to restrict their charity to the lodging only. With reference to the operation of the Corn-laws upon these people, it does appear to me that, so long as they are prevented by any laws from finding full scope for their industry—so long as they are pressed on in the manner in which I have found them to be—there can be no change in their condition, and we shall continue to see as much misery as now exists—founded too, upon a feeling that they are unfairly dealt with, in consequence of the system of monopoly being carried so far as it is. It was with extreme disgust that the people of the manufacturing districts saw it stated, just before the late dissolution of Parliament, in some of the journals of the opposition party, that if the ploughshare should be turned through Manchester and other manufacturing towns, this country would not suffer from the change which would result. I ask, will hon. Gentlemen here adopt such an expression of opinion? I would ask, supposing such a thing to be possible to be effected, what would be the state of things with one of the landed interest on the next morning? How could he obtain the common materials used at his breakfast table? Whence would he derive his sugar, his tea, his coffee? for all those are articles brought to this country in exchange for our manufactures. Supposing our manufactures to be destroyed, could we go abroad with our wheat or our corn, and offer them in exchange for foreign goods at a price far greater than would be their value in that foreign country. I believe, certainly, that such could not be the case, and I trust, therefore, that the importance of the interest of commerce and our manufactures will never be treated lightly in this House, but
122
that hon. Members will agree with me that those interests are so dovetailed with the interests of agriculture, that they are inseparable. I have never seen any advantages afforded to manufactures by their protection, and excuse me for saying that all we ask is even-handed justice—that we wish for no protection. I will go back for a moment to the debates which took place upon the subject of the Corn-laws when they were first introduced in the year 1815, and I will venture to request the attention of the House to a most remarkable protest entered against them by some noble peers in another place. That protest, it appears to me, was dictated by sound wisdom, and the House will bear with me while I read a portion of it. It was signed by certain noblemen whose names will; always command respect, and was in the following terms:—
" 1. Because we are adverse in principle to all new restraints on commerce. We think it certain, that public prosperity is best promoted by leaving uncontrolled the free current of national industry; and we wish, rather by well-considered steps, to bring back our commercial legislation to the straight and simple line of wisdom, than to increase the deviation, by subjecting additional and extensive branches of the public interest to fresh systems of artificial and injurious restriction.
" 2. Because we think, that the great practical rule of leaving all commerce unfettered, applies more peculiarly and on still stronger grounds of justice, as well as of policy to the corn trade, than to any other. Irresistible, indeed, must be the necessity which could, in our judgment, authorise the Legislature to tamper with the sustenance of the people, and to impede the free purchase and sale of that article on which depends the existence of so large a portion of the community.
" 3. Because we think, that the expectations of ultimate benefit from this measure are founded on a delusive theory. We cannot persuade ourselves, that this law will ever contribute to produce plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So long as it operates at all, its effects must be the opposite of these. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty. To cut off any of the sources of supply, can only tend to lessen its abundance—to close against ourselves the cheapest market for any commodity, must enhance the price at which we purchase it; and to confine the consumer of corn to the produce of his own country, is to refuse to ourselves the benefit of that provision which Providence itself has made, for equalising to man the variations of season and of climate.
"AUGUSTUS FREDERICK (Duke of Sussex),PWILLIAM FREDERICK (Duke of Gloucester,) GRENVILLE,

123

WELLESLEY,

ESSEX,

TORRINGTON,

DUTTON (Marquess of Douglas),

CHANDOS BUCKINGHAM,

MONTFORT,

KING,

CARLISLE."

If the House will permit me, I will now read a short extract from a speech of Sir Robert Peel, the father of the right hon. Baronet opposite, which was delivered by him upon the same subject, and in the same year (1815). He said:—
"He was anxious to correct a mistake that seemed to prevail in the House, that the interests of the landholder and of the manufacturer were conflicting and incompatible. They were, in the view of enlightened policy, the same; and the success or ruin of the one was, the success or ruin of the other; inasmuch as the country generally had been enriched by the sale of our manufactures, the landholders had received their share of the wealth and advantages. It had been the wise policy of former Governments, to keep the price of the chief article of subsistence as low as possible; upon this principle, Mr. Pitt had acted with success, but the system was now about to be changed. It was undoubtedly true, that the rent of the land would be diminished by the unlimited importation of corn; but if the resolutions upon the Table, passed in their present shape, the manufactures of the towns would be destroyed, and the land must, consequently, be depreciated; corn might he grown, but paupers would be the only customers for it. It was, in truth, impossible to separate the two interests. The value of land within memory had increased in some places threefold. The owners had derived their benefit from the political state of things, and now they must suffer the depreciation produced by an alteration in that political state. With respect to our manufacturers, it was allowed, that during the war our triumphant situation on the seas had enabled us to force a trade without rivals; but now we were in open competition, it would be madness in us to throw fresh obstacles in the way of those who had so many to contend against. In his opinion, it might be fairly argued, that the manufacturer had been the great benefactor of the landed interest. He did not say, that his design was to serve the landowner. That had been the effect of the flourishing stale of our manufactures, and in the difficulties now to be encountered, the landowner ought to participate. By the measures now upon the Table, the wise system pursued for years was about to be subverted, and the labourers prevented from putting the real wealth of the country into that marketable shape by which this country had hitherto been made the envy of surrounding nations."
Sir, I can only express my deep regret that
124
the opinions so well expressed in the protest and in the speech of Sir R. Peel, which I have just read, should not have attracted more attention at the time, when they were indeed worthy of the most serious and deep consideration. Unfortunately, we have now really to deal with the state of things which was then only predicted by those parties, and I feel the most perfect conviction that our present position is not merely the result of temporary and accidental circumstances—that it is not a mere question of overtrading, or of the loss for a time of some of the most valuable markets, but that this country has now arrived at a position of difficulty which it will require all the knowledge and all the attention of Parliament, and some self-denial also to rescue it from. It has been often said that the present state of things is to be attributed to overtrading on the part of the manufacturers. Let us examine that statement. There has, in my opinion, been no overtrading since 1836. It is true that in 1834, in 1835, and 1836, credit was given to an extent, which every one must have deprecated who looked at it at the time as I did, and who was able to take a calm and dispassionate view of what was then being done. But, Sir, what was the real cause of that increase? If the manufacturers increased their manufactures and built new mills at that time, was there not then a population ready to be employed? Would the manufacturers have been so unwise as to borrow money for the purpose of erecting more mills and employ more hands if there had been any doubt upon their minds that there was ample population to work the machinery? Would they have attempted thus, as it were, to raise the market of labour against themselves by such an insane act? I believe that nothing of the kind can be imputed to them. Well, Sir, we have the same accumulation of population as then, but far less means to employ it. Still the population must be fed and clothed, yet large masses are at present in the position of being scarcely able to subsist, such is their degraded condition. It is, therefore, the duty of this House to ascertain by what means we can relieve the industry of the country, whether by the continuance of those existing fiscal regulations to which I have already referred, or by the adoption of a sounder and more liberal system—whether by abandoning monopoly we may not find markets open and people ready to take our produce, provided we will take their produce in exchange. Her

125
Majesty alludes, in her Speech from the. Throne, to the effect which the Corn-laws have on the currency. It appears to me; quite clear that neither the position of the Bank of England, nor indeed that of any of the banks of issue, can ever be one of security, or such as they ought to occupy, if the issues of the country are to be regulated by the state of the barometer, and if every time we are compelled to seek a supply of corn from abroad, a great drain of bullion is always to take place; I solemnly believe,; that, under the best regulated system of currency, wherever paper is found to be a mixed portion of the circulating medium, the present system of Corn-laws of this country could not exist without inflicting constant and serious injury. The moment the Bank finds its bullion extracted and sent to the Continent to purchase corn, it is compelled, in self-defence, to contract its issues, and a natural sympathy exists between that and every other issuing body throughout the length and breadth of the land. So that at the very moment, when, in consequence of the insufficiency of the home crops, it is necessary that every possible stimulus should be given to industry, trade becomes paralysed, and the means of the manufacturers to employ the people become crippled; thus making the evil of an insufficient crop be felt in a still greater degree, and adding to that distress which the unfortunate state of the seasons brings on the community at large. Much reference has been made to temporary periods of prosperity, but I must now repeat, in conformity with views which I have repeatedly uttered in this House, that notwithstanding these temporary periods of prosperity, still the evil of the existing system has been running on not less certainly nor less surely, though it has not been seen so near the surface as now. It is my opinion, that in those very years to which allusion is thus made, in 1834, 1835, and 1836, these Corn-laws were working their pernicious effects upon the country, and that had it not been for the credit then given, the crisis would have arrived some years sooner. It has, however, been customary for many persons to state, that they conceived the trade of this country could not be in a state of paralysis, because looking at the exports they perceived an increase in articles of production exported. Now, it is true, that there has been an increase in the export of cotton twist; but I have always been induced to regret that increased export, because, although we in-
126
crease our exports of cotton twist, we have lost the conversion of it into cotton cloth, and we are now driving on in that direction, that as soon as the continental manufacturers find themselves able to supply cotton twist as they have already done cotton piece goods, they will turn round upon us and say, "You have taught us to make cheaper than you can yourselves; can you expect us to have any consideration for you when you would not open your ports to our corn, and so forced us to make for ourselves?" This is what the continental buyer will say to us. Thus we have been forced to the most distant countries for markets for our manufactures; to countries where the currency is not fixed, nor the stability of affairs certain; and where, in consequence of the lengthened credit we are obliged to give, our own capital is employed in the improvement of their manufactures. Another fact connected with the supposed prosperity attending increased exports in 1839 and 1840, is, that there is no doubt that many manufacturers (I speak of the cotton trade and districts), who never in any previous year made shipments to the continental markets, have assured me that such has been the depreciated state of the market at home, that they have been compelled, in order to get rid of their stock, to consign considerably to foreign markets. Much of the supposed prosperity arising from increased exports is to be attributed to such operations as these, where the manufacturer, if compelled to sell in the home market, could only do so at a loss, or at best gain a fractional advantage by waiting for months, and where, therefore, he thought it better to make a sacrifice of the property abroad than at home, because, then it was out of sight, and would not depreciate the price of the article when regularly supplied to the home market. Many manufacturers have told me that they have thus been driven into those markets from the total failure of the market at home. I received a letter on the 20th of this month from a large calico printer in the county of Lancaster, who has been making purchases of cotton cloth at 5s. 9d. a piece, where before he had given for them nearly twice the amount. From the statements of this correspondent, it appears that there has been a gradual annual diminution of prices since 1835. In that year the price on the 1st of January was 9s. 6d. In 1836, it was 9s.; in 1837, 8s. 4d.; in 1838, 7s 8d.; in 1839, 8s.; in 1840, 6s. 6d.; on the 1st of January,

127
1841, it was 6s. 3d.; in June, it fell to 6s., and in the present month, at the time he writes, it had fallen to 5s. 9d. This description of power loom cloth is denominated twenty-seven inches cloth, which is of the greatest consumption in calico printing, and I take it therefore as the standard. Sir, I have to apologise to the House for the very dry manner in which I have been compelled to introduce this subject. I wish it had been in my power to have done so in a manner more worthy its attention, but the subject is too important to be neglected, and I must therefore crave the indulgence of the House. On that ground I crave its attention. It appears to me that we ought not to measure the probable consumption of the future by the actual consumption of the past. Since the alteration of the Corn-laws in 1828, we have each year been compelled to import some quantity of foreign grain, and this year we have imported a considerable quantity, but we still require more. It is not fair, however, to estimate that the consumption of past years, or of the present, is as much as the country could consume were the population placed in the situation in which they ought to be if the trade and manufactures of the country were in a sound and healthy state, and if the people, instead of being depressed and thrown out of work, had full employment, caused by the increased importation of corn from abroad in exchange for manufactures. Let us not be led to compare the present consumption of corn with what it would be under more advantageous circumstances. Experience has shown that the destruction of monopoly has always led to increased consumption. I would merely refer, in proof of this, to the great success which attended the endeavours made by Mr. Huskisson to liberalize our foreign commercial policy. Look how successful he was in his measure for opening the trade in the East. The most serious forebodings preceded that alteration in our policy, yet how futile were all those apprehensions and the prophecy that our trade with the East Indies would diminish if any alteration were made. Then, again, with regard to the silk trade; there were not wanting those who said that in two years it would be exterminated in this country. Its present state of increase is the best possible answer to those predictions. In other cases the same results occurred. In the article of wool—and I address myself here to the landed interest—in that article it is a most singular fact, that when wool was
128
protected by a duty of 6d. a-pound the farmers were in a state of depression, but when the duty was reduced the consumption increased, and wool has become an article of general consumption at a much higher price than before. The most wonderful results have been produced in regard to the consumption and manufacture of wool under the reduced duty. I refer to the subject only to show how little reliance can be placed on such predictions as those which always precede such changes as those now under discussion. The protection for corn now enjoyed cannot be maintained. The country is languishing under it, and I solemnly believe that the best means of restoring it to that position which every well wisher towards it would desire to see, will be found in the encouragement of manufactures by throwing down all obstacles to free industry and enterprise, and making and maintaining this as the greatest manufacturing nation in the world. I solemnly believe that by doing this the Legislature would confer the greatest and most lasting blessing on this country and on mankind. The subject is one, however, which must in all its details occupy the attention of the House; and I will not, therefore, enter further into it now. I would only again refer to that portion of her Majesty's speech which expresses her Majesty's sympathy with those of her subjects who are now suffering from distress and want of employment; and urge upon the House to join in our address in the earnest prayer of her Majesty, that our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her beloved people. Having seen so much of the distress to which her Majesty alludes as existing among her subjects, I cannot sit down without stating my honest opinion, that at the present moment the sufferings of the people, deep as they are, have been borne with a fortitude and patience above all praise; and I would only earnestly entreat the House to give the earliest attention to remedying the evils of the working classes; for on this House the eyes of the country are fixed, and from it the relief of sound legislation is most earnestly expected. The sympathy of her Majesty is felt by all. Sincere as it is, however, still in itself it will not create relief, and it is therefore for this House to adopt the course recommended by her Majesty, and take into its earliest consideration the subject referred to by her Majesty; and I am sure the House will join in the

129
prayer of her Majesty, that "our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her beloved people.'' The hon. Gentleman concluded by reading the Address.—(See p. 24.)
Mr. J. C. Dundassaid, that, in rising to second the Address which had just been moved, he felt himself relieved from the necessity of offering many observations to the House by the very comprehensive speech which his hon. Friend had delivered. His hon. Friend had entered so fully into almost every question which the Queen's Speech embraced, and had demonstrated at such length the merits of the Address, that he scarcely knew to what subject he might venture to allude. It would indeed be quite a work of supererogation for him to go through all the various topics on which his hon. Friend had expatiated with so much ability and precision. In common with his hon. Friend, and he was sure he might say in common with the whole House, he felt he might congratulate her Majesty that the peace of Europe was likely to remain undisturbed. In acknowledging the benefits of peace, he was sure he spoke the sentiments of all present, on both sides of the House; and they would all agree with him in thanking her Majesty on the prospect of the continuance of friendly relations with the great powers of Europe. He trusted he might look upon some of the topics in the speech as a good augury for the future. He trusted that the nations, of at least the civilized portion of the globe, had at length adopted a mode of adjusting their differences in accordance with the advanced state of civilization, by friendly mediation, rather than by resorting to the ancient method of war, which was never satisfactory, and nothing but the right of the strong. He was happy to think that the estrangement of France, which had been so much prophecied, had proved but temporary. They had now the assurance that that estrangement had ceased; and he was sure the whole House would be glad to do anything which should have the effect of strengthening the alliance of France and England. Much as he desired the maintenance of peace, he felt that it was almost impossible that nations having large colonial possessions and extensive commercial intercourse should be able at all times to boast of tranquillity in all quarters of the globe; and it had unfortunately happened, that in consequence of war and rebellions, this country had been obliged to increase its expenditure to an
130
extent which the revenue of this country could not meet. No one could be more sorry than himself that there should exist any necessity to call on the country for increased supplies; but if anything could in his mind mitigate the evil, it would be the fact that it had been the means of propelling her Majesty's Ministers in some degree into their present course of policy, and into the promulgation of those great measures on which the prosperity, and, he might add, almost the existence, of the manufactures and commerce of the country depended. He was not one of those who believed, that, though, under the present system, the commerce of the country might decline, still the agricultural interest would prosper. He was convinced, that the different interests of the country were so united, that if any distress affected one particular class, it must be felt by all. If the consumer of agricultural produce suffered distress, it was not possible but to conceive that the producer must also suffer from the diminution of the demand for the article. It was his earnest hope that the House might hit upon such measures as would to the utmost, mitigate the distress which had been so accurately described by his hon. Friend, and that, too, without injury to any class; but he was convinced that no such system could be adopted unless a large and liberal improvement in the commercial policy of the country were adopted. He felt confident, that if they allowed the manfacturing population to fall into a state of distress, the agricultural population must also suffer. Suppose the number of manufacturers out of employment were to be increased, the agriculturists would then find that the privations of the manufacturers would be reflected on them, and distress and disaffection would fill the union workhouses. However, he still had hopes that those evils might yet be averted, and that measures might be adopted which would effect an improvement in the condition of the people. He had the greatest confidence in the measures promulgated by his noble Friends near him; but he had not yet had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman had said, that until he had ascertained the condition of the patient, he would not explain his remedies; but doctors had been sometimes found to agree, and it might happen that the doctor to be called in would adopt the very remedies which

131
had already been prescribed by the doctor in charge of the patient. That such might be the case was his anxious wish. He had on previous occasions seen the right hon. Baronet adopt the recipe of the noble Lord on the Ministerial bench. He had seen measure after measure brought forward by his noble Friend, and carried, some with the acquiescence and some in Spite of the opposition of the right hon. Baronet opposite. He trusted that such might be the case on the present occasion; and that, backed by the phalanx which occupied the opposite benches, he would carry those great and popular measures which must one day or other, either with or without his consent, become the law of the laud. He would not go into details on the various subjects included in the Speech, but would content himself with seconding the Address.
The Address read by the Speaker.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that he trusted he should not be accused of undue presumption, if he presented himself to the notice of the Chair, and of the House, at that early period after his re-appearance within those walls, in order to propose for the adoption of the House a different course from that which had been urged upon their attention by the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed them from the opposite benches. It would certainly have been more in conformity with his wishes if he could have remained a bystander, on this occasion, and kept his place without mixing in the debate; but, at the same time, feeling as he did, the most complete concurrence in the views and opinions entertained by many hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and the most entire conviction of the propriety of the course which it had been proposed to adopt that evening with respect to the Address, by those around him, he felt, that however great his personal backwardness and disinclination from taking such a duty upon him, he could not, on the score of any personal considerations, suffer himself to shrink from coming forward to raise his voice against the course which her Majesty's Ministers had that evening thought proper to pursue in the speech which they had advised. But if he were liable to any charge of presumption for thus coming forward, perhaps he might hope to find something of a justification in the circumstances under which he appeared before them. The circumstances
132
were these:—It was not long since her Majesty had put a question to the country, and asked them to return an answer which might serve as some guidance to her in the future conduct of her Government. Now he appeared there as the bearer of a portion of that answer, and he hoped that, without presumption, he might say, that he appeared there as the bearer of not the least significant portion of that answer. He felt therefore, that he was not wholly without justification in coming forward so early, because in giving expression to his sentiments on this occasion, he should do that which would be acceptable to his constituents, and that he should not only express the sentiments of his own constituency, but, as he believed, of the greater portion of the people of this country. Yes, he believed that he embodied the wishes of the great mass of the constituencies of these kingdoms when he asked the House whether the hon. Members who now sat in the position of her Majesty's Ministers were those Ministers with whom it wished to intrust the government of the country? He felt that in this course he could not be subjected to any imputation of impropriety, because such had been the ancient course adopted on both sides of the House, and because it had often been the practice to engraft on the Address other and different sentiments from those which the original Address contained, and from the views and opinions of its supporters. This course was, besides, he thought, desirable in many points of view—it was respectful to the Crown— it was constitutional—it was intelligible; and lastly, he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had no cause to complain of the course which it was intended to pursue on that occasion, by those with whom he had the honour to act. In the first place, he said, the course he should propose for the adoption of the House was respectful to the Crown. The Crown having put the question to the country, and having desired that an answer should be given, the constituencies had sent him and the rest of the House there, to return that answer, and I it was not disrespectful to the Crown I that, at the earliest moment, they should make her Majesty acquainted with what was that answer, and communicate to her what they had learned from the country, in order that she might be relieved as soon as possible from any further

133
state of delay and uncertainty. It was a constitutional course too, and not only was it constitutional, but altogether in the spirit in which it had been the practice of each of the great parties in their turn to act in that House. If he wanted a precedent, he might refer to 1835, when his own predecessor in the seat which he then occupied in that House, undertook that course with respect to the Address proposed by the then Ministers of the Crown, and undertook it, perhaps, without quite so good a ground as he (Mr. S. Wortley) had, because he told the House that he had no fault to find with the Address; but the noble Lord desired, nevertheless, that the House should agree to make an addition to the Address, which he proposed. If, then, hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House did not think that the address on this occasion was faultless, he (Mr. S. Wortley) and hon. Gentlemen whose views were in unison with his had a still better right, he thought to ask the House to consent to an addition to the address on this occasion than had his predecessor on the occasion to which he had referred; and with respect to her Majesty's Ministers, he thought that they had not only no reason to complain, but that, in fact, the noble Lord ought to consider the course adopted by his hon. Friends as an act of most obliging courtesy. It was not a long time since the noble Lord had published an address to his new constituency, in which were these words:—
" As soon as the new Parliament meets, we shall take the first opportunity of asking for a clear and decided judgment upon the policy we have proposed."
The noble Lord, it seemed, proposed to call on the first opportunity, for a judgment on his whole policy; and he said that in doing that for the noble Lord which amounted to granting him the opportunity he spoke of, in saving the noble Lord the trouble of asking specifically for a judgment, they were doing nothing but what was fairly attributable to pure courtesy. But there was a still stronger reason, in his opinion, why the House should assent to his proposition; for he thought the House ought not to separate without expressing a strong opinion as to whether her Majesty's Ministers were or were not entitled, in the circumstances in which they were placed, to dictate to the
134
House of Commons what should be the course it should pursue. He wished to put as strongly as he could the nature of the case in which he stood with respect to her Majesty's Government, and if he were to endeavour to do so ever so earnestly he should not be able to do it half so well as was done in words which had been used by the noble Lord some years ago. In the year 1834, in the course of one of those repeated discussions which had taken place upon the Irish Church, the noble Lord said—
" I consider that the Government of this country must be carried on upon the principle which I may venture to describe—that the Government ought to be formed of persons agreeing in principle with the majority of the House of Commons, and I think it necessary to state that the House of Commons have a right, if the Ministers of the Crown have not their confidence, to express their opinion to the Crown, and have a right to require that the Ministers of the Crown should be persons in whose character and principles they are disposed to confide." [" Cheers."]
The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) cheered. No doubt he did not swerve from his principles; no doubt he adopted that doctrine, as genuine constitutional doctrine, from which he had no disposition to shrink; and he was on his part glad to concur with the noble Lord and to meet his wishes by giving an opportunity for the House of Commons to declare its opinion of the character and policy of her Majesty's present advisers. The hon. Gentleman who had proposed the address had taken great pains to impress upon the House that the distressed and unhappy condition of the manufacturing population was entirely consequent upon the rejection by the late House of Commons of that course of policy which had been recommended by her Majesty's Government. Now this was very well; but, for his part, he must say, that though it might be very convenient for her Majesty's Government to identify themselves as much as possible with these questions, and make the country believe that their course was wrapped up with free trade and the abolition of the Corn-law?, he should still insist that it was not on that occasion that they were to go into a discussion on the Corn-laws. Let it be understood that he was far from wishing that the hon. Member for Manchester should not be allowed to make his speech on free trade; or any other hon. Member his speech on the abolition of the

135
Corn-laws but he said, notwithstanding the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder, and notwithstanding the paragraph which her Majesty's Ministers had introduced into the Speech from the Throne, that that was not the question on that occasion, but the question was, whether her Majesty's present advisers were persons with whom the country would consent to intrust the Government. For his part he was not indisposed to discuss these questions on a fitting opportunity, he had never shirked them, he had discussed them often within a short period, and he said, the sooner the discussion of them came on in the House of Commons the better. But though he did not decline the discussion—though he wished that the House should have a speedy opportunity of apprising her Majesty of the sentiments of her people on these questions, still he said, that when the House had reason to believe, that the policy of her Majesty's present Ministers had not been in accordance with the views and opinions of the majority in that House—when they had reason to believe, that the present acts and policy of her Majesty's advisers had forfeited for them the confidence of the country, they ought not to discuss this question at present, or suffer their attention to be called away from the real question before them, which was, whether her Majesty's Ministers could safely be intrusted any longer with the management of the affairs of this country. On this occasion, therefore, he was tempted, and he felt it would be desirable, to go into a rather more extensive retrospect of the policy of her Majesty's Ministers than he should otherwise have supposed neccessary, if he had not felt, that he ought to state the real question before the House as he had done. Again, when he stated, that the Ministers had no longer the confidence of the people of this country, or of this House, he was bound, he thought, to state how that result had been effected. He thought, then, that it was caused by an oblivion of pledges, by an abandonment of principles, and of late in consequence of their tampering with the most serious and solemn questions which could by possibility affect the interests of the people for the sake of advancing their party interests. If, therefore, he took a greater range in the retrospect which he was about to institute than might be barely called for by the occasion, he thought that the Ministry could not
136
complain; but at any rate he should go back a good way, even to the time of Lord Grey's Administration. He saw the noble Lord the leader of the Government in this House, who had been a member of Lord Grey's Government; the noble Viscount had also been a member of Lord Grey's Government, Lord Melbourne had been a member of Lord Grey's Government; and various noble Lords in the other House, members of the present Cabinet, had been members of Lord Grey's Government. Therefore he thought that it behoved the House to look back and see what were the principles on which Lord Grey's Government had taken their stand, in order to see whether the present Government had given effect to the principles to the promulgation of which at the time Lord Grey came into office they were parties. He supposed that no one could forget what were the principles on which Lord Grey's Government had come into office. The country about that time had heard much of the wasteful expenditure of former Ministries — of their propensity to war—of their hostility to reform. Lord Grey, therefore, had announced that he came in upon these three great principles of economy, peace, and reform. Let it be observed how far these principles had been carried out by the present Ministry. To begin with the subject of peace, in the first place:—They had been told that the new Whig Government were to keep this country at peace during the time they were at the head of affairs. What was the result? Notwithstanding this assurance, they had had a war, though it was only a little war, at Antwerp; then they had a somewhat larger, but an unintelligible, war in Spain; then they had a war in India; then a war in China; and, last of all, a war in Syria. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the noble Lord pretended to arrogate to himself and his Government exclusive praise for having supported a policy of peace. That exclusive credit was what Lord Grey's Government also assumed, and though he (Mr. S. Wortley) did not mean to say that they ought to question the whole policy of a Government because of one or two such results as these, and some of these results might be right, and others might be wrong. But what mattered that? He said, what mattered that? Though there might be justification for some of those results which were wrong, that was not the opportunity for entering into those justifications. At

137
any rate, he maintained that the Government had no right to give it out that they had an exclusive secret for keeping peace with such results. If they looked to the period immediately subsequent to 1815, and from that year to 1830, they found that there had been nothing like a war, except that isolated, he might almost call it accidental, action of Navarino, yet in the last ten years there had been no less than five wars. Now, though there might be justification for some of these wars, yet he saw no defence in this against his charge upon the Ministry, which was not that they had entered into wars, but that after having claimed exclusive credit for keeping the country at peace and securing us from foreign conflict, they had nevertheless plunged the country into numerous wars. The next great principle which Earl Grey's Government vaunted was economy. They promised that they would be the most economical Government that the country had ever seen for many years. What was the result? They found that Government now with an accumulated deficiency in the revenue of between 7,000,000 and8,000,000ofmoney,and with the country in great difficulty. Now, he condemned not the Government wholly for this. God forbid that he should discourage or denounce the application to the various departments of the public service, to the navy especially, the money which it was proper should be applied to the current services; still, though he did not denounce or discourage such applications of money, he said, that a Government had no right to set out with vaunting propositions which had subsequently fallen to the ground. But now they came to the last article, the question of reform. He admitted that on this head they had to a considerable extent carried out their proposals. Parliamentary and corporation reform, were carried; but it was to be observed that whereas in the points of peace and economy little was to be gained but reputation, there werepersonswho would suspect that these reforms might not be wholly disinterested. He did not mean to say that there were not many who supported the measures of reform from pure motives, but many persons undoubtedly came to the conclusion that reform in Parliament and corporation reform might lead to more substantial advantage. There was undoubtedly that distinction between the cases This, however, was the only point in
138
which the professions of the Government could be said to be redeemed. He had no doubt that there were some Members in that House who recollected an observation made by Lord Althorp in one of the debates on the Reform Bill. That noble Lord said, "thank God, the day has for ever passed away when the Government of the country can be carried on by patronage." He would ask any one who had watched the proceedings of the Government for the last ten years, or rather for the last six years more especially, whether her Majesty's Ministers had not lavished more places and peerages amongst their supporters than any previous government? Let the House look almost to their last act in the last session, when they endeavoured to induce Parliament to pass a measure which would give them extensive patronage, but which could not be carried into effect during the probable period of their remaining in office. When a proposition was made by a right hon. Gentleman, that the patronage to be created under the Bill should be given to those who should be in office at the time that it would be brought into operation, and when there was no pretence for hurrying this measure through the House, her Majesty's Ministers made an indecent clutch at the patronage thus to be created; and because the House would not assent to their demands they abandoned the Bill. He felt that he should weary the House if he went through all the points in its recollection as to the delinquencies of this kind of which her Majesty's Ministers had been guilty. If they looked to various topics connected with the church — to topics connected with our colonies—to topics having reference to the internal government of the country, they would find numerous questions which gave rise to the same reflections which he had made on other parts of their policy, and which would give rise to the same charges against them as those which he had made for other of their acts. If they looked to the history of the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill, they would see a remarkable instance of the departure of the Government from its most solemn pledges. The hon. Member for Sheffield proposed the clause relative to appropriation in the Irish Tithe Bill of 1834. That proposition was strongly resisted by the Government on the ground that they intended to issue

139
a commission to inquire into the state of the revenues of the Irish church. They objected to the motion on the ground that it would be absurd to declare that they would apply this appropriation clause until the result of the inquiry was known, and until they found out whether there would be any surplus revenue. What took place in 1835? Her Majesty's present Government came before Parliament and proposed a resolution to the effect that no settlement of the Irish Tithe question would be satisfactory unless it involved the principle of appropriation. The commission had, at that time, been issued, but the commissioners had not made any report on the subject. This, then, was the answer to the observation that it would be absurd to legislate on the subject without inquiry. They shortly afterwards obtained office, and in 1838, when the subject had gone through discussion after discussion, they recommended that the Irish Tithe Bill should be passed without the appropriation clause. This was a striking instance in which her Majesty's Ministers had not fulfilled a solemn pledge, and upon which they had obtained the support of the country, and the power and patronage of the state. He would now come to that subject more especially before the country at present, and would shortly point out what had been the conduct of the Government with regard to the budget and to the proposed alteration of the duties on sugar and corn. When a proposition was made last year for a reduction of the duty on foreign sugar it was strongly resisted on the ground that it would not be fair to the West Indian colonies to do so, considering the peculiar situation in which they were at present placed. If he wanted a clear and succinct view of the arguments against this proposition he had only to refer to the speech made on that occasion by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If they looked to that speech made in 1840 they would see a complete answer to the arguments in favour of the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman so strenuously supported in the present year. He not only resisted the motion when it was brought forward in June, but he continued to do so in the month of August, when a short discussion took place, when the right hon. Gentleman made a similar statement of his opinion in opposition to the proposition for the re-
140
duction of the duty on foreign sugar. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that the difficulties of the question were not of a financial or commercial character, but were founded on the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman explained in the former debate on the subject, namely the present state of the West Indies. But in 1841, notwithstanding the strong opinions expressed in the previous year, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues came to the House and made the identical proposition which he had opposed before. This question and that connected with the Corn-laws had been mixed up with the view to induce the people to believe that, by rejecting them, they would be rejecting propositions for cheap sugar and cheap bread. In the course of the year he had seen with the greatest pain, the extensive sufferings endured by the people, and he must say, his sympathies had been strongly excited by the calm temper in which the people had discussed the subject, and had refused to make themselves the tools of the Government. The people of this country were enlightened by nothing more than by the course of proceedings of the Government. It had been proposed in a manner which had convinced the people that the proposition had not been made with just and legitimate intentions. If they had believed that such had been the case, the propositions might have had a greater effect, and they might have been listened to with greater attention. The people of this country, however, had been induced to look into the whole subject, and into the manner in which it had been brought forward, and the result had been that the people saw that much might be said on the other side of the question, and that they ought not to take all for granted because it came from her Majesty's Ministers. With respect to the corn question, it would be in the recollection of the House that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in a former debate on the Corn-laws, said, "it was his opinion, that if, upon a question of this kind, there was a general disposition to have an alteration of the law," (and there had been no manisfestation of any such disposition),
" If," he said, "upon a question of this kind, there was a general disposition to have an alteration of the law, and a general wish to have the question settled by some new measure of legislation; but that there was a diversity of opinion as

141
to the measure that ought to be adopted, the Government might safely step in, and frame such a measure as might be most conducive to the national interests, and propose it for the adoption of Parliament, thereby securing a greater support for it than the measure of any individual Member could obtain. Such, however, was not the position of the Corn-laws. There were Members on both sides of the House constituting a considerable majority, who thought that there ought not to be any alteration of the present laws. That being the case, the introduction of a measure by the Government would have only been adding to all the arguments and prejudices which influenced the votes and opinions of Members on the subject, and giving rise to party strife and contention, thereby not promoting but retarding the settlement of the question."
These were the sentiments of the noble Lord on the 26th of May, 1840, yet, in the very next year, the noble Lord came clown to the House to propose a measure of the very character he had described, though there was not an atom more of disposition to assent to it, on the part of the House than there was before. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side assured them that the great principles of free trade would take effect in spite of any opposition on the part of his Friends; the hon. Gentleman might, on his part, be assured that whatever was true and valuable and desirable in the principles of free trade, did not depend for its success upon individuals, one way or the other. If there was anything likely to promote the interests of the country in those principles, and he had no disposition to say there was not; he took the doctrines of free trade, not in the sense in which they had been attempted to be palmed upon the country by the present Ministry, but in the sense in which he had himself given them his steady support for many years. The Parliament might depend upon it that whether the present Ministry stood or fell, it would make no difference with respect to anything in those principles which was really worth having. The course of the Government on the Corn-laws had done Snore to forfeit for them the confidence of the country than anything else they had done; and this was, in a great measure, owing to the circumstance that in their conduct in this matter was exhibited a more complete dereliction from their former professions than in any other part of their conduct. Lord Melbourne, for instance, had repeatedly declared, in his place in the House of Lords, that any
142
idea of meddling with the corn-laws was the maddest scheme ever propounded. In 1840, when a question was put to the noble Viscount on this subject, he renewed the announcement, that it was not the intention of Government to propose any change in these laws; and he added, that to attempt to introduce the subject of a fixed duty would stir society to its foundations, and that he would never consent to any such proposition; yet in 1841, though the arguments remained in every respect the same as those which existed in 1840, though there had been distress in 1840 as well as in 1841—though there had been for years past a deficiency, as well as in 1841 — though the objections which they had stated to any such measure in 1840 were in full operation in 1841; yet, in 1841, Government did not scruple to come down and tell the House, in the words of the noble Foreign Secretary, that this was a question between the profits of the few and the interests of the many; and that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to strike a blow at the great monopolies which had so long re tarded the prosperity of the country. Now, if in spite of all these objections, they could see that the affairs of the country had been so conducted, on the whole, as to have led to a satisfactory and cheering result, he might consent to give the Government some credit; but what was the prospect before us? They were told, in her Majesty's speech, that she was enabled to inform them, that she continued to receive the most friendly assurances from the various powers of Europe; she told them that the question of the Ottoman empire was almost settled; but to those who were uninstructed in such matters, it would appear that the integrity of that empire was still in jeopardy; with insurrection in Candia, disturbances in Servia, and insubordination in Syria, the uninitiated in diplomacy were rather inclined to the opinion that things were not altogether in the best possible train in that quarter. Going on somewhat further, he said that in India we were engaged in a war of which it was difficult to foresee the end; we had overstepped one of the strongest of frontiers, and we had got ourselves into difficulties of which it was quite impossible to assign the extent or the termination. The noble Lord, in the Speech, told them that

143
in consequence of events which had taken place of late, this war was likely to cease; but the country required to have much clearer information on this point, and to know in particular whether the dynasty which our Government in India had undertaken to support, was at all likely to stand in the existing state of things. Going further eastward, we come to China, and here again we found ourselves engaged in a war, of which the course and the object were alike very difficult to be understood, and of which he defied any man to say what was likely to be the result. God knew he was not disposed to doubt that the conduct and valour of the British troops in that country were likely to accomplish all that could be accomplished by any forces; but, at the present moment, he could not think the Government justified in slating that they saw any distinct prospect of the war being brought to a satisfactory conclusion. While upon these topics, he could not but express his astonishment that, throughout the whole of the Speech, there was not one syllable of mention made of the state of affairs in another quarter of the globe, where it was impossible to deny that things at the present moment were somewhat of a threatening aspect. He did not suppose that the House or the country expected any explicit declaration or information from the noble Lord on that subject; but at a moment when there was no point in the whole range of foreign policy which commanded more interest, and excited more anxiety, it was worthy of notice, that neither in the Speech from the Throne, nor in the Address now submitted to the House for its adoption, was there a syllable of mention made as to the relations of this country with the United States. He trusted there was no reason to suppose that the noble Lord at the head of this department would leave affairs in that quarter of the globe in such a state as would compromise the honour of this country; but still it was impossible to deny, that at this moment the original causes which gave rise to all our anxiety on this subject were in full existence, that no change had been made in the circumstances which gave the threatening aspect to our intercourse with that power; and that it was very difficult for any man not supplied with the information which might be in the possession of the noble Lord to say
144
on what footing the interests of this country now stood with that power. He did not then think there was any case for congratulation on the state of our foreign relations. Was the aspect of affairs at home more satisfactory? On all sides here were to be seen general depression and stagnation of trade; much discontent: they saw the noble Secretary for the Colonies, in addressing his constituents of the city of London, telling them that he thought agitation justifiable, that he thought the Government justified in agitating the country, for the purpose of carrying certain questions [No, no]; yes, in one of his speeches to that constituency the noble Lord said, he had been accused of agitating on the Corn-laws, but he thought agitation on certain subjects quite justifiable, and he referred to the Habeas Corpus Act, which he said had been obtained solely by agitation; and here then was a Cabinet Minister, who, on the hustings bad given his express sanction to agitation. Then, again, let it be remembered that the present Government was in close and intimate relations with and depended on the support of those who, in one breath, sullied the name of their Sovereign with the most fulsome adulation, and in the next gloated over the prospect of a foreign war, and offered a treasonable welcome on the shores of Ireland to the armed enemies of her Crown. He thought, then, it had become the first business of Parliament to consider whether such a Government was a fit one to be longer trusted with the administration of affairs. The opinion of the country, unequivocally expressed, was, that they were not worthy of the slightest confidence; the late returns showed that Ministers had not the popular support which they enjoyed some years back. The noble Secretary for the Colonies had confessed that the result of the late elections showed that Government was in a minority in the House of Commons; and it was, therefore, the first duty of that House to express to her Majesty the opinion which it held in unison with its constituents, and to inform her of that which it was most essential to know, before they proceeded to the business of the country; before they assumed those responsibilities which it involved; and this they must do by declaring to her expressly that the present Government did not possess the confidence of the people.

145
Nor had their constituents merely sent them there to express this feeling. The constituencies regarded their delegation for the expression of this opinion as a means to an end. They expected that, as the right hon. Baronet had expressed it, new physicians should be called in; that those who, by the course objected to, had forfeited the confidence of the nation, should give way to those who would then be placed in a position in unison with the sense of the large majority of Parliament, It was on these grounds that he ventured to call on the House to adopt a different course from that proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and to ask the House to return such an answer to her Majesty as they had been commissioned by the country to give, once more recording on the journals of the House the judgment against the present Ministers, which had now been recognised and corroborated by the general voice of the people The hon. Gentleman read his Amendment.—(see p. 53.)
Lord Bruce, in seconding the amendment, declared that he rose with great reluctance to occupy the attention of the House, and were he not under the influence of a paramount sense of duty, he should not at such a moment be induced to take up any portion of the time of the House. He had the honour to represent an important commercial town—a town which he believed was destined, ere long, to engross a very large proportion of the import trade of the country. Now, though his constituents widely differed in local situation and in local interests from the constituents of his hon. Friend who moved the amendment, yet he was rejoiced to be able to state to the House that his own constituents most cordially agreed in sentiment with those of his hon. Friend, and, he might say, were in perfect accordance with the sentiments embodied in the amendment. This circumstance, he frankly acknowledged, was not without its weight, in inducing him to rise for the purpose of seconding that amendment. There was one other consideration which emboldened him to address the House on the present occasion, which was, that as a new Member he felt bound to express his sympathy with the late House of Commons. He was bound to express his own and his constituents acquiescence and concurrence in the sentiments and the feelings of that House, when they declared
146
that the Ministers of the Crown did not enjoy the confidence of Parliament. However insignificant a Member might be, yet perhaps the mere circumstance of his being perfectly new to that House would, in some degree justify his taking a prominent part upon an occasion like the present. On the fate of the amendment would depend the degree of sympathy which might be supposed to subsist between the Members of that House and their constituents, but the effect of the recent dissolution could alone show the sympathy which prevailed between the late House of Commons and the great body of the people; and they—the present House of Commons—ought not to feel themselves at liberty to proceed to any other business, and ought on no account, to enter upon the discussion of specific measures until after the expression of a general opinion upon the conduct and professed principles of the present advisers of the Crown. He felt that after the recapitulation of the grounds on which his hon. Friend moved his amendment, it would be unnecessary and unbecoming for him to trouble the House at any great length; but there was one point to which he could not help adverting, and that was, an admission contained in the address of the noble Lord opposite. From the style and composition of that production it was impossible to regard it as an ephemeral publication—it was formally and deliberately written, with a full consciousness that it was to be received as the carefully expressed sentiments of a Minister of the Crown. It was well known to the House that the noble Lord had therein described the late dissolution as a failure—that it had failed to produce from the country a verdict favourable to the Government. He agreed that in many cases success formed no sufficient criterion of merit; but if ever there was a case of ill success which unequivocally indicated demerit, he should say that the present was one—it was one by which Ministers were convicted of recklessness, incapacity or worse, from a House of Commons elected under their own auspices: they appealed to the country, and the decision had been unfavourable. The present conduct of the Ministers of the Crown could only be justified on the hypothesis, that the new House of Commons would reverse the judgment of the House which preceded them; but when the decision of the House should prove diametrically opposite to that

147
which they seemed to expect, then such conduct would be an additional proof of their incapacity, and would materially tend to aggravate the charges already preferred against them, and under the weight of which they must continue to remain. It was true, that before the noble Lord had addressed his constituents, the Ministers of the Crown might, with some appearance of justification, say that they did not up to the present moment possess any means of ascertaining the sense of Parliament upon their conduct and principles; but the noble Lord had the manliness not to avail himself of any such subterfuge. He frankly acknowledged that they had been defeated by an overwhelming majority. After that admission a thrill of astonishment and dismay passed through the nation when they found, that notwithstanding the position in which Ministers found themselves, the stream of dignities and emoluments continued welling forth, and flowed as copiously, if not more profusely, than at any preceding period. The noble Lord issued his address under peculiar circumstances; he delayed it, as he himself stated, until after he could ascertain the results of the returns. Having then made his calculations, did he express repentance or regret? Did he not, on the contrary, use his best endeavours to stir and excite agitation respecting class interests? Did he for a moment say one word of surrendering his trust, and requesting a transfer of power to oilier hands? Having lost the reality of power—the only thing which could make office desirable, did he intimate any intention of merely holding it so long as the public service might require his continuance in office, at the same time abstaining from the exercise of any authority not absolutely unavoidable? The Gazettes gave the he to any such supposition. The noble Lord told the public that he should face an adverse majority in that House—that he should be a party to such an anomalous state of things as a Government on one side of the House and a majority on the other; surely the country would say, that if any inconvenience to the public service arose from such a state of things there could be no one to blame for that but the present Ministers of the Crown, who had braved the indignation not only of two Houses of Commons but of the nation at large. There were two or three other points to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. He
148
denied that the existing deficiency of the revenue was to be imputed solely to the expeditions which the Government had fitted out, and thought that hon. Members ought seriously to look at the amount of the miscellaneous estimates. Although opposed to the views of the present Government, he was not the enemy of free trade, as explained and vindicated by Mr. Huskisson, of whose wise and cautious policy he fully approved. The cry of "cheap bread and cheap sugar" had been raised for party purposes; but the free trade, based on reciprocity, of which Mr. Huskisson was the supporter, had not been adopted by the present Government, and therefore, their measures should not have his (Lord Bruce's) support. He should at all times be prepared to vote for a free trade on principles of reciprocity, due regard being had to the interests which had grown up under our present commercial system, without which, as he conceived, the rights of the labouring classes could not be protected. Much had been on various occasions said about the interests of the capitalists and the landlords, but unless the measures of a Government were directed equally to secure the rights of the working classes, they never should be supported by a vote of his. It was true that the landlord might derive some increased value to his property from the increase of factories and other buildings upon it, and that the capitalist might more advantageously invest his capital, or he might withdraw it from a sinking concern; but the only capital of the labourer was his skill in his own particular walk, and it was a mockery to tell him that he could find a satisfactory compensation elsewhere. And that led him to say, that he sympathized from the very bottom of his heart with another expression in this amendment, and in which there was a coincidence between the amendment and the Address, namely, "In the gracious expression of her Majesty's deep sympathy with those of her subjects now suffering from distress and want of employment, we recognise an additional proof of her Majesty's tender regard for the welfare of her subjects, and that we cordially join in the prayer of her Majesty, that all our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of the people." He believed that a just regard for the interests of these very labouring classes was the most prominent and great-

149
est reason of all that could be deduced for their proceeding warily in the application of those principles. he could not but advert to the very harsh, and severe, and unjust terms in which it had been the; fashion to designate those who had taken an opposite view on these questions to that taken by her Majesty's Government. "In a day," said the noble Lord, "when all monopolies are denounced, I must be permitted to say that, to my mind the monopoly which is the most intolerable and odious is the pretension to the monopoly of public virtue. Never, to my mind, is that pretension advanced with a worse grace than when it is advanced by those who, but an hour ago — but a very short period ago—might with much: propriety be classed amongst those whose opinions are now the objects of their reproach." He feared that he had trespassed at too great length; but, as this was his first appearance in that House, he could only return his grateful thanks to the House for the attention with which it had listened to him. But there was still one subject to which for a very short period he must draw the attention of the House. He had observed in the general tenour of the observations made by the Ministerial portion of the press, and the supporters of the Government generally throughout the country, especially since the result of the elections was known, that there had been an attempt at a studied and elaborate recapitulation of all the possible difficulties and dangers which, in the event of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam worth being called to the head of the Government, with the affairs of the nation in their present posture, he would have to encounter. When he had read over these statements, containing reference to the disordered state of the finances, and to dangers at home and abroad, it had always struck him that the authors might indeed have contemplated, most of these circumstances with feelings of most deep and poignant self-reproach, and that none at least could have regarded them with any other feelings than those of sincere and patriotic regret, had it not been for the tone, the under-current of exultation, which had pervaded them. But whatever might be the feelings of these persons, he trusted that the right hon. Baronet (under the hypothesis they chose to assume), on being called to extricate his country from these embarrassments and difficulties, con-
150
scious of the high hopes entertained of him by the country, and of the generous confidence reposed in him by all classes at the late election, and manifested by the large majority in favour of the principles he espoused, returned to that House, would be able to face those difficulties, whatever they might be, not with a spirit of presumptuous defiance, not with the pretensions of empyricism, but with a sincere reliance on the good sense and honesty and fairness of the people; and with a still more constant reliance on the kindly support of that Providence, whose watchful arm had ever supported Great Britain in her difficulties, and which, so long as she had been true to herself, had ever guided her in the paths of honour. And when the period should arrive (which he hoped would be very far distant) when in the course of nature, or from circumstances, the hon. Baronet would resign, he trusted that those who were to succeed him, should find that he left them a flourishing exchequer, prosperity of trade, peace at home, honour abroad, and a happy and contented people.
Mr. Labouchere said: Mr. Speaker, the noble Lord who had just addressed the House with so much ability, as well as the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, who preceded him, have assured her Majesty's Government that they have arrayed against them a large majority. I do not stand here to controvert that assertion. The result of the debate in which we were engaged will show whether, and how far, that is the case. But if it should be true, I am too well acquainted with the disposition of the House not to feel assured, that, whatever may be the violence of party feeling, that state of things will only, afford an additional reason for giving to any Member, however humble, of that Government, who feels it his duty to address them, a patient and indulgent hearing. Sir, both those Gentlemen have expressed a great eagerness that the House should decide on the question now before us. I can assure them that that eagerness is equally shared by her Majesty's Government—that her Majesty's Government are rejoiced that the time has come when they are able to put before the House the policy on which they conceive the affairs of this country ought to be conducted, and to take the opinion of the House of Commons on that policy, feeling that if they

151
fail to receive that support from the House which can alone enable them to carry their policy to a successful conclusion, no time should be lost in devolving the responsibility of governing the country on other principles, upon those who may think fit to take upon them that task. I have listened with great attention and no small curiosity to the amendment moved by the other side of the House, and I confess, after hearing it read, I am at a loss exactly to understand what its import is, or to what policy it points. I clearly understand the expression of a want of confidence in her Majesty's present advisers, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, that it was totally unnecessary for him to take up so long a time in establishing that the House had a full right to express that opinion. I should be the last person in the world to deny that this House, irrespective of any particular measure, has the right, nay, that it is its duty to express such an opinion, on the general ground that it does not feel confidence in the Government. It is due to the Crown—it is due to the country, and I may be permitted to say, it is due to the Government itself,to declare such an opinion when it exists, and to leave them no doubt as to their real position. So far from objecting to such a course, I am rejoiced that it has been taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I acknowledge that I think it the fairest that could be pursued. But I did listen with great anxiety to discover what was the policy which the majority of this House, if a majority it is to be, is prepared to recommend to the Crown, in answer to the Speech from the Throne. I confess that, after having heard the amendment, dexterously worded as it is, and hearing the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, I am at a loss to understand what the import of that amendment is. Before, however, I come to that part of the subject to which the amendment specially refers, I will take the liberty of adverting to some observations that have fallen from the Mover and Seconder of the Address. The noble Lord who has just sat down, complained and said that the Government had no right to come down and meet the House of Commons—that the result of the late elections having been unfavourable to her Majesty's Government, they ought at once to have resigned office, and that they had insulted
152
the country and Crown, by continuing to hold the Government till the present time. The hon. Gentleman could hardly have observed in the neighbourhood of whom he was speaking when he made such an observation. I may remind him, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, in 1835, when he was a Minister of the Crown, and when the result of the general election placed him in an acknowledged minority—the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to meet the Parliament, knowing that a majority was arrayed against him. If he had any doubt, it must have been very soon removed. The expression of opinion commenced with the division on the Speakership, to which I will not now further allude. Then, there was the amendment to the address, which blamed the dissolution, and in which other matters were introduced, implying that the majority of the House did not repose confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was slow to take a hint, if he did not acknowledge that the amendment did not very decidedly express that the House of Commons was not disposed to give its support to his ministry. The right hon. Gentleman went on several weeks retaining office, exercising the power and patronage of a minister, and using all the executive functions of office for a period during which he was not able to carry a single vote or measure in the House of Commons. [An hon. Member: The malt tax.] I think that is rather an unfortunate suggestion, considering that that solitary victory of the right hon. Gentleman was obtained over his own ally, the present Duke of Buckingham; and those who enabled him to gain it were his political opponents; those who were opposed in principle to his Government, but who felt themselves bound as public men—and as he hoped public men always would feel themselves bound, when an improper attack was made on the revenue and public credit of the country— to support the Government which resisted it. I feel it right to remind the House of these circumstances, when I hear it made a subject of complaint, that her Majesty's ministers continued in office till the meeting of Parliament, after that my noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, with that frankness which I own I think he sometimes does push to a very great length, had written to his constituents—" I know we

153
are in a minority, and shall very soon be turned out." I only remind the House of these circumstances, that it may not be supposed we have acted in an unusual manner in retaining office until the House has formerly recorded its decision on our merits as a Government, and on those important measures, which, on the part of the Crown, we have laid before the House. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire went on at great length to state the reasons why he thought the Government had lost the confidence of the country, and said that we had abandoned all the principles on which Lord Grey came into office, and particularly those pledges which Lord Grey gave on entering office ten years ago for peace, economy, and reform. So far from being disposed to admit his allegations, I feel confident that the judgment of this country and of posterity will give us the credit of having maintained those three essential principles of Government, under very difficult circumstances, with as much steadiness and perseverance as it was possible to do. I begin with peace. The hon. Gentleman tells us that some cannon-shots had been fired in the world since we have been in office. That is not the meaning of a pledge of peace. The pledge which Lord Grey made was, that the Government would faithfully and anxiously adhere, as far as was possible, to a peaceful policy. As far as it was possible that endeavour had been crowned with success. No European war was suffered to arise— there was no general break up in that European confederacy which is the surest pledge of peace. At the time Lord Grey took office, it was said from high authority that it would be astonishing if peace could be kept for six months. However, notwithstanding interruptions of minor consequence, the inestimable blessing of general peace had been preserved for ten years. I can only say that if the prediction of hon. Gentlemen opposite be realised, and if the event of this discussion should bring their party into power for such a period as ten years—I think it will be, indeed, matter of congratulation for the country; and it will be most fortunate for the general interests of the human race if they should be able at the end of ten years to say, "The world has not suffered more from the calamities of war than during ten years of Whig administration," I next come to economy. The
154
hon. Member for the West Riding says, "You came in on a pledge of economy but you never did anything to make good your professions." The question of economy is a question of details which it is difficult to discuss on an occasion of this sort. But f say, that if we have been a lavish Government, it implies the severest censure on our political opponents. It is the peculiar province and duty of the opposition to watch over the expenditure of the country. All Governments are generally too prone to increase establishments and incur unnecessary expense; but, with respect to us, the reproach against us from the opposite side has generally been that we did not expend enough of the public money.
Mr. Wortleysaid he did not object to the increase of the army and navy made by her Majesty's Government, but to the policy which had made extraordinary expense necessary.
Mr. Labouchere continued: I cannot suppose that Lord Grey's pledge meant, "I will only expend a certain sum of money." Its meaning was, "I will administer the public money in an economical spirit." Lord Grey did not mean to say that it might not be necessary to increase the establishments of the country if the public service required it. The truest economy is to keep the army and navy on an efficient footing. But if in this or any other respect we have not kept the pledge of economy, it proves that no opposition has ever neglected its duty as the present one has done during the last ten years, for not one word has it said against our expenditure. The hon. Gentleman charges us with having failed to keep the pledge of reform. Reform in Parliament, reform in the boroughs count for nothing, because he says we have had a party interest in, those reforms. I do hope we shall always have a party interest in the reform of acknowledged abuses, and in promoting measures for the benefit of the people. I do not think that any reproach to us; but I may remind the hon. Gentleman that a great class of important improvements has been introduced during the time of Whig Administration, to which his observation cannot refer. We have introduced reform in the Church, in tithes, in the Poor laws, and many other important improvements during the last ten years, which cannot be attributed to any party motive. It is a matter of just

155
pride to me, and to those with whom I have the honour to be associated, to look back to those important changes which were carried forward in spite of predictions made by so many, by none with greater confidence than the hon. Member for the West Riding, who, in his opposition to the Reform Bill, accused us of subverting the constitution of the country, and introducing ruin and confusion. I rejoice to look back to that great reform, by which so widely beneficial an improvement was effected; and to feel that all that is valuable in the constitution of the country is more solid and sound than ever, and more loved and revered by the people than while it was defaced by those corruptions and abuses which have been removed. I hold the true object of reform to be to preserve by amending; and I cannot look back to the long series of measures which we have carried, without feeling that in that respect we have been successful in discharging our duty to the country. The hon. Gentleman says we are not now in the condition to discuss the measures of free trade which we have brought forward, and intimates that a notion has prevailed in the country, that those measures were not brought forward upon due reflection, and from a conviction of their paramount importance, but merely to serve a temporary purpose, and therefore they received no Fair consideration from the public. I can only say I do not believe there ever was a measure more deliberately considered before it was brought forward than those measures which have been so characterised. Sir, when we brought them forward we were perfectly aware that they were likely to encounter great opposition, and it was impossible to look back to the history of our commercial legislation for a few years without anticipating that such would be the case. It is a very remarkable circumstance, that while of late years attempts to improve the constitution have been successful, with respect to commercial reform, scarcely anything of importance has been effected for a long period, notwithstanding that there have been most important changes in the commercial condition of this country and of the world during that time. I say experience showed that we were undertaking a task full of difficulty. The hon. Gentleman professes himself a disciple of Mr. Huskisson, with whose opinions upon free trade he still concurs. Undoubtedly
156
Mr. Huskisson when in office did, with the support of the great body of the Whig party, who did not think it consistent with their duty to make the subject a party question, a course which I trust, Sir, whether sitting at your right hand or your left hand, the Whig party will always pursue— [Cheers]—I say Mr. Huskisson, supported by that party, did force upon his reluctant followers—and the hon. Gentleman opposite can recollect that many of them were extremely reluctant followers—some very important improvements in our commercial system. But when Mr. Huskisson went into opposition, what took place? The next year, in conjunction with Mr. Charles Grant, now Lord Glenelg, Mr. Huskisson brought forward the very question of the sugar duties, in a proposition going much further than her Majesty's Government— giving less protection to the colonies, and being more favourable to the consumer, and less to the colonial interest, but it was opposed by Mr. Huskisson's former colleagues. The hon. Gentleman, I believe, voted for it, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, opposed it, and the proposition failed. I have no hesitation in saying, that if that measure had been carried at that time, the beneficial results to the commerce and finances of this country, as well as the general comforts of the people, would have been incalculable. What was the next considerable attempt to make a change in the commercial system of the country? It was made by the Government of Lord Grey, of which the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was a Member. They brought forward the timber duties, and encountered the party opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That party opposition was successful. I am afraid those protected classes are so strong in the country, and the Legislature, that if public men, in opposition, will make those questions party questions —if they make use of them to harass and embarrass the Government to which they are opposed—then there never can be a Government strong enough to carry commercial reforms into effect. The question of the timber duties failed in that manner. I am not surprised that the succeeding Government were slow and reluctant in proposing considerable alterations in our commercial arrangements. I admit that

157
there is great evil in proposing questions of this nature, unless there is some chance of carrying them into effect. It is the duty of a Government fairly to weigh, on their own responsibility, the danger and evil of leaving things as they are, with the hazard of mooting such questions. And I must say, the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the hon. exception of the lamented Mr. Peregrine Courteney, when the question of the timber duties was brought forward, was such as to greatly discourage all attempts at the improvement of our commercial system. After the experience of that question, the Government was reluctant to bring forward any great measure of this description. It was also to be observed, that whenever the question of Corn-laws was brought forward by independent Members, it was defeated by large majorities. At the same time, this was very observable in the debates on the Cora laws, in the course of argument taken especially by the right hon. Baronet, the the Member for Tamworth. Gentleman connected with the agricultural interest desired us to look to the whole commercial system of the country, intimating that if alterations were necessary, justice should be done to all classes, and that in that case, they would not be indisposed to a re consideration of the Corn-laws. We thought, therefore, ("though the event has disappointed us), when we made up our minds to submit the whole commercial system for revision, that it was a fair and favourable opportunity to ask that powerful landed interest to consider whether their interests should not come under examination along with all the other interests of the country. I am told that the measure of the Government brought forward last Session, had all the appearance of precipitation and haste, and that it was impossible to believe the Government in earnest. I cannot make out the grounds for that imputation. Those measure were put fully before the House. We began with an important bill affecting the trade of the colonies, it being, I conceive, a necessary preparation before meddling with the duties on colonial produce, to redress the grievances of the colonies themselves. That measure, if it had been successful, would have given most important relief to the West Indies, by reducing the exorbitant duties now levied on all imports into that country. The
158
right hon. Gentleman proceeded to express a hope, that whatever course the House might think fit to pursue, with regard to the import duties of this country, they would take into consideration the hardships to which the West Indies were subjected; because, more particularly now that the produce of the East Indies had been admitted to the markets of this country on the same footing, nothing could be more unjust than to leave the West Indies, subject to those excessive burdens under which they were now labouring. He could not, therefore, help repeating that which he had said last Session, that he thought that the measure which he then proposed could never be characterised as a violent measure. It was, too, a measure that, whatever might be thought of other measures proposed by him, was one which could in a certain sense be said to stand well upon its merits. Whatever, then might be the merits of other measures proposed by them, the state of the West Indian interests were such as to call for their immediate consideration. Let them look, he would say, to the quantity of sugar imported into this country in the first six months of 1840, and then compare it with the quantity imported in the first six months of the year 1841. It would show how little could be relied upon the assertions of those who said that they could calculate upon a full supply of sugar from the West Indies. In the first six months of 1840, the imports of West India sugar was 899,000 cwt. In 1841, the supply was 707,000 cwt. being a diminution of nearly 200,000 cwt. from the West Indies. These were facts that justified him in saying that the attention of the House ought to be immediately directed to this subject; because he thought that these facts made out a case of the absolute necessary and imperative justice of the claim of the West Indians upon them. He hoped, then, that whatever might be the opinions of Gentlemen upon other questions, that, at least, this most crying grievance, as it affected West Indian interests, would not be neglected. It was felt by the Ministry that they were justified in coming before that House and calling its attention to the three greatest articles of consumption in this country. He must own that he had heard with great astonishment his hon. Friend, the Member for the West Riding, say, that he too, was a friend to free trade; but, then, he

159
would not meddle with the articles which had been mentioned in their budget. His hon. Friend was a free trader; but then he would except from free trade the trifling articles of corn, of sugar, and of timber. Was his hon. Friend to say that he was a Friend to some alteration, but not to so great alterations as the present Government had proposed — surely his hon. Friend could not say that the alterations proposed by them were excessive. They were much more moderate than the proposal of Mr. Huskisson and of Mr. Grant. Their measure, it was to be remembered, would leave a protection of 50 per cent. If then there was a change in the sugar duties, the alteration proposed would not have been as great as that which had formerly been submitted to the House. As to corn, more violent proposals than these had been made by some who sat on the opposite side; and he did not expect to find the hon. Member for the West Riding to denounce their proposal with respect to the timber duties as very wild or very extravagant. For himself, he must say that, so far from having altered any opinion that he had expressed last Session with respect to the Sugar duties, that everything that had occurred since had greatly tended to confirm the opinions that he had then given utterance to. But what was the state, what the present condition of the sugar trade? He held in his hand a return of the quantity of sugar taken into consumption for six months, that was from January to June in the present year. They had it was to be observed, been promised last year that they would have plenty of sugar for their consumption here, and that the revenue would not be injured. With this production full in their recollection, then, let them compare the amount of consumption and of revenue for the first six months of last year, and the corresponding months of the present year. He found that the quantity consumed in the first six months of 1840, was 2,050,000 cwt. of sugar, and that for the same period in 1841, the quantity consumed was 1,861,600 cwt. of sugar. The falling off in the revenue allowing for the 5 per cent, additional duty imposed, was, in the six months of this year, compared with the six months of the previous year 278,000 l Now, he really thought that he event proved that they were justified in seeking, as they had done, for a revision of the sugar duties, when they
160
were at the same time seeking to improve the revenue, and to increase the consumption of the article in the country. But the hon. Member for the West Riding had expressed his surprise that he had taken this course with regard to the sugar duties, when he had opposed a motion on the same subject made in the year 1839. It was to be observed that the sugar duties were comprised in an annual bill, which it was the duty of the Ministry to propose. In the discussion that took place upon this subject last year, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had fairly admitted that the opposition which he had offered in the preceding year did not preclude him from adopting the course which he pursued in the following year. He had on that occasion stated, that he did not oppose the principle that was contended for; but it it was only a question of time. There was no inconsistency in the course that he had pursued. The only inconsistency would have been, that when he was prepared for a general revision of their commercial duties, they had omitted such an article as that of sugar. Now, then, to the question of trade in corn. He must say, that he had listened with the most intense anxiety, and so, he was sure, must the country at large, that it would feel the most intense anxiety to know what were the views and opinions of the party opposite on the question of the Corn-laws. He must confess, that the manner in which they were mentioned appeared to him very enigmatical; however, he must say this, that upon the whole he gathered hope from it, because he could not conceive that any party would say the things in the solemn manner that they were uttered to her Majesty in the passage he was about to read to them, unless they had made up their minds to take the present subject of the Corn-laws into their consideration, with a view to their alteration. He could not conceive any course to be more dangerous; he could not conceive any course to be more pregnant with peril than spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas upon such a subject as this. No course could be more improper than to state to her Majesty—
" That we are deeply sensible of the importance of these considerations, to which her Majesty has been graciously pleased to direct our attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in corn."

161
The Address then goes on to say:—
"That we feel it to be our duty humbly to submit to her Majesty that it is essential to the satisfactory results of our deliberations upon these and other matters of public concern, that her Majesty's Government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country, and respectfully to represent to her Majesty that that confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her Majesty."
He could conceive no course to be more improper and no course to be more dangerous, than using language of this kind, if they were not prepared to look to the Corn-laws, with a view to their alteration; and sure he was, that it would be more fair, that it would be more just, that it would be more honest, that it would be more consistent with their duty, as a great party, if they were determined to crush the hopes of the country, if they had made up their minds so to act, plainly to have stated it, and not to have used such language as this, if they intended it as a mere delusion. He therefore confessed, that as far as he was able to understand the enigmatical language of the amendment, that, on the whole, he was inclined to hope from it, that the conviction was forced upon them, that the time was come when it was absolutely necessary to reconsider the Corn-laws. [Hear, hear.] If that time were not come now, he was at a loss to understand when it would ever come. He confessed, that when they had before them the experience of the last two years, and compared them with the predictions that the Corn-laws would produce steadiness of price, and at the same time give them an abundant supply and a regular trade—if, when they saw those predictions so completely falsified, he was at a loss to know what quantity of experience could ever touch their minds. He must remind the House, that it was not a question as to whether they were to have a corn trade or not, for they had a corn-trade—a very large corn-trade—an increasing corn trade with foreign countries. He held in his hand an average return of wheat consumed in Great Britain during the present century. From 1801 to 1811, the average return for each year was 505,500 quarters, including 70,000 quarters of Irish wheat consumed in this country. The yearly average for the next decennial period, from 1811 to 1821 was 606,000 quarters. From 1821 to 1831 it was 995,000 quarters;
162
and from 1831 to 1840, the average on each year of corn imported was 1,500,000 quarters. The question then was, not whether they were to have a corn trade at all, but on what principle that corn-trade was to be conducted. In that case, what then was to become of the propositions of those who spoke of making his country independent of foreign nations? They had not rendered themselves independent of the foreign supply; and le would go further, and say, God forbid that they could do it! It would not be to the advantage of themselves nor of the world if they did so. There was another consideration connected with this subject which he could not help adverting to. He did so, because he did not observe that it had been before alluded to in that House, and yet it was one that he felt to be of considerable importance. He had to observe, that in the return he had read was included the quantity of corn sent from Ireland, as well as from their colonies and foreign countries. It was a remarkable fact, that up to the year 1833, the quantity of corn sent from Ireland was steadily on the increase; but that since 1833 the quantity of corn from Ireland was steadily and constantly decreasing. In 1833, for he would not trouble them with the figures of the preceding years, the quantity of corn imported from Ireland was 884,000 quarters, that was including corn and flour: in 1834 it was 779,000 quarters; in 1835, 661,000 quarters; in 1836, 598,000 quarters; in 1837, 534,000 quarters; in 1838, 524,000 quarters; in 1839, 258,000 quarters; and in 1840, 174,000 quarters. It was, he felt, right to call the attention of the House to this subject, because in his opinion, it was an. important consideration as connected with the corn-trade. He hoped and believed, that a diminution in the supply of corn from Ireland was not to be taken as a proof of the want of prosperity in that country; but that it was to be traced directly to the increasing prosperity in that country. The first reason he believed to be assigned for this falling off in the supply from Ireland was the consumption of more corn by the Irish themselves. Therefore it was, that the supply here was less than it used to be. The other great reason for the falling-off was the great extent of the cattle trade in Ireland. Owing to steam-boat communication, and the facility of having a better market for the sale

163
of meat and live stock, the agriculturists in Ireland produced articles of that description, and they were thus in a great degree diverted from the cultivation of corn. As he did not recollect that this part of the subject had been particularly referred to before, he thought it worth while to call attention to it on the present occasion. But if, as he had said before, Gentlemen who had hitherto been opposed to the alteration of the Corn-laws, were not convinced, by the experience of the last two years, he must despair of anything short of a famine convincing them that an alteration was necessary. This was a very wide subject, but there was one branch of it so very important, and the entire system received so complete an illustration from it, that he could not help trespassing upon the indulgence of the House by adverting to it; it was as to the manner in which the system of averages taken together with the sliding scale worked. He could wish, while dealing with this branch of the subject, that he might be favoured with the attention of hon. Gentlemen. Connected with the landed interest, he thought he would be able to convince them that such a system of fraud and of gambling as the present Corn-laws had introduced, never before was permitted— it was a system, he was sure, ruinous to the fair dealer, injurious to the country at large, most baleful to those connected with the land, most ruinous to the honest merchant, and that only sustained a trade, that could alone be compared to that carried on at Newmarket and the hazard tables. His attention had been called to this subject last year. Some gentlemen connected with the landed interest complained to him that there were very extensive frauds carried on in the corn market, and that the object of those frauds was to affect the averages. He inquired into this subject, and he found the complaints made to him were perfectly true, that they were substantially correct; but then the means of preventing them were totally out of his power. He asked the respectable gentlemen, who made the communication to him, to point out the means by which the fraud could be prevented, and they acknowledged that it was totally impossible to prevent that which was then taking place. The information that was then received was, that there was a very large quantity of corn in bonded warehouses, and that corn merchants were
164
combining together, by fictitious sales, so as to admit the corn then bonded at a low duty. He had moved for a return, which was then on the Table of the House, and which would elucidate the manner in which the fraud was effected. Those returns would show the number of quarters of wheat sold in the London market, at the end of July, and during the month of August. It would be seen that the quantity was very considerable. On the 24lh July, the quantity sold was 11,000 quarters; 31st July, 14,000 quarters; 7th August, 19,000 quarters; 14th August 12,000 quarters; 21st August, 15,000 quarters; and 28th August 15,000 quarters. He compared then the quantity of corn that was sold at other times, in order that he might see how far this state of things differed from the natural state of the London market He found that the sales were four times as great as what under ordinary circumstances took place. He then endeavoured to ascertain what was the effect of these sales. Of course these sales were effected at fictitious prices. Sacrifices were made by those who sold, for the purpose of influencing the weekly average. He endeavoured then to ascertain the effect of all this. He asked for returns of the average prices in the London market, as well as in the rest of the country. He had his returns of the six weeks' averages in the country, exclusive of London, and a return, including the London market, and the effect of the averages which regulated the importation of corn. He found, then, this to be the case; that by the time the averages came into operation on the 28th of August, and that the object of the speculators was accomplished — on the 28th of August, the average price in the London market was 79 s. 6d., the average price in the whole kingdom including London, was 72 s. 4d., and by that the effect desired was produced. But then the six weeks' average price, exclusive of the London market was 70 s. 10d, therefore it was to be assumed 70 s. 10d. was the fair and natural price of the corn; but instead of 70 s. 10d., the London market had made it 72 s. 4d.; and the consequence was, that instead of the duty being 6s. 8d., which the law intended it should be, the duty obtained was only 2s. 8d., and this took place in the first week in September, by which 1,217,000 quarters of foreign corn were introduced

165
on the payment of a duty of 2s. 8d. He wished to call especially the attention of Gentlemen of the landed interest to those facts, because they must sec from them that the present system only furnished a protection to gambling speculators, who played upon the averages, and which really deprived the landed interest of that advantage which the Legislature intended to give them, and made the trade in corn most injurious to the public at large. The course of the corn trade at present was this, that it gave no protection against scarcity. It did not operate in reducing the price of food until after the lapse of several weeks, of very high prices, and until there had been great suffering and privation on the part of the people. At the very time that he was thus speaking, he was sure that there was no one who heard him who would not say, that the present price of corn was a national calamity. He did not expect to bear any gentleman connected with the landed interest who would not say that he deeply regretted the price which bread had reached during several weeks. And yet the warehouses were full of bonded corn. There were considerably more than 800,000 quarters of foreign corn in bonded warehouses, but none could come out of it. On the contrary, every body knew that none would be brought out at the present extravagant duty—and great suffering there must be endured, until at length the averages were raised to the famine price, and then the corn would come in at a shilling. Thus it happened, that instead of the corn being gradually diffused over the country, and to its great advantage, it was now cooped up in their warehouses, and it would just come out at that moment when Providence might bless them with an abundant harvest—and when, instead of their farmers being able to rejoice in the blessing that heaven had bestowed upon them, they would find themselves encountered by a million and a half of foreign corn thrown into the market, at a nominal duty. It was obvious what the effect of all this might be. The price would be artificially lowered at the very moment when their poor and needy farmers would be obliged to go into the market and to dispose of their produce. And yet they were told that this was a system by which the landed interest was benefited, and that for their advan-
166
tage it was to be maintained whatever might be the desolation, and howsoever great the misery it entailed upon other classes. His hon. Friend, the Member for the West Riding, had said nothing of what his opinion was as to the Corn-laws, but he told them that he came there to speak the sentiments of a great constituency. Feeling that he did so, he should indeed be greatly surprised to hear his lion. Friend say, that the opinion of his constituents was favourable to the present Corn-laws. Ho confessed that if he could have heard that the opinion of the West Riding, was favourable to the Corn-laws he should have heard it with despair, with the utmost despondency, considering that he attached the greatest importance to the satisfactory settlement of this question. His hon. Friend had been particularly cautious in what he said upon this matter; but he was quite sure that whatever differences of opinion there might be on other subjects, yet, as to the present Corn-laws, they were unanimously disapproved of by the mercantile and manufacturing interests. His present object was to urge upon the House to take the subject of the Corn-laws into consideration. Her Majesty's Government did not conceal from this House or the country what their opinion was on this subject; for they could not understand why there should be one system for trade in corn and another system for trade in other articles. There was something so strange and so paradoxical in asserting that a difference ought to be made, that the burden of proof rested, in his opinion, upon those who maintained a principle adverse to the true policy of this country. If it was thought right to give protection to agriculture, he believed a fixed duty would be the most rational and least burthensome mode of giving it. If that were done, then a merchant would know what was to be depended upon. Then men would embark in a trade in corn, because it would be certain, and not find themselves at one day met with a duty of 1s. and the next with a duty of 20 s. Certainty was a sound principle as applied to corn, as well as to any other article. At the same time he must admit, that, without adopting the fixed duty, the present system of Corn-laws might be found susceptible of very great amelioration; indeed that it could be worse he could not conceive. There could scarely be a change proposed that must not be an

167
improvement upon the present absurd system; but still he believed that the nearer they approached to a fixed duty the better. He did not say but that by preserving the name of a sliding scale, great good might be effected; but still, he observed, that as far as there was or might be uncertainty n the Corn-trade, there would be, pro tanto, injury done to the community. He, therefore, could only say, that he retained the opinions that he had given expression to last Session, namely, that whatever protection they gave to the agriculturists, they ought to give it in the shape of a moderate fixed duty; and that, considering all the circumstances, such an arrangement would be the most beneficial for the country. But these were the measures that her Majesty's Government had laid before the House and the public, and considering what were the finances of the country, they proposed measures that they believed would be advantageous to their commercial interest, while they supplied the deficiencies of the State. He was astonished to find his hon. Friend express surprise at the budget that was proposed by her Majesty's Government. They thought that the time was come when it was incumbent on the House to take a calm and deliberate view of the Import duties of the country, which at the same time would relieve their trade and increase the revenue. He did not mean to enter into the whole of this question, but he would take for instance one branch of the Import duties which was connected with the corn duties—the duties upon provisions from abroad. He could not conceive why they should prohibit, as in effect they did, the importation of live stock. He was very glad in the last Session to hear Mr. Herries say, that he entirely concurred with himself on this point. He hoped that this was an opinion that was entertained by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They ought to have no duties prohibiting the importation of bacon, potatoes, and such other articles. These were things that he hoped would be amended. There was another important branch of these duties which he thought it was absolutey necessary for them to examine into. He meant the duties, that they imposed upon the raw materials of various manufactures. To give a single instance, look at the duties upon foreign copper, and the effect it had upon manufactures. Were Gentle men aware of what was the effect of the
168
present system with rega d to foreign copper? They prohibited foreign coppe from consumption in this country. They allowed it to be smelted in bond, but not rolled in bond. The Members for Birmingham would bear him out in this statement. The price of copper in England, compared with what it was abroad, was a treat grievance to a great branch of their manufactures. The consequence of the present system was, that this country, where, owing to the price of fuel and their skill, copper could be smelted best and cheapest, allowed it to be brought in and smelted, in bond, and then to be sent to a foreign country, so that their own means of smelting copper were turned against themselves, and were given as an advantage to foreigners. We did not allow copper to be rolled in this country. We insisted upon restricting the manufacture to the produce of our own mines. What was the consequence to the shipping interest? and this was a most important question. The consequence was, that foreign ships were coppered more cheaply than English ships. These things had, he could assure the House, a great effect upon trade; and struggling as they were with foreign rivals, they could not afford to throw away any advantage. He did not refer to this subject as a matter of revenue—he only alluded to it to illustrate the position he had advanced, that he was satisfied, that they might, with perfect safety to the revenue, make those relaxations in the Import duties, which might very materially diminish the pressure that existed upon the commercial and manufacturing classes. Of the existence of that pressure, he imagined there could be no doubt. He apprehended, that they would not on this occasion, as on former occasions when they discussed the question of Corn-laws, hear a denial of any particular pressure. Unfortunately, its existence was so notorious, that it could not be denied by any one conversant with the real state of things in this country. His belief was, that this state of things was connected in a very considerable degree with the want of employment that prevailed throughout the manufacturing districts, caused, as it was, by the want of demand for our manufactures in the foreign markets—markets, which they were losing, because they would not consent to take in return the only produce that they could send. He wished particularly to call the attention of

169
the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, to two important branches of trade, which affected the constituencies he represented; he alluded to woollens and to hardware and cutlery. In the last returns the export of British produce in the article, of hardware and cutlery in the year 1841, as compared with 1840, showed a diminution of 483,000 l., the export for the year 1841 amounting to 1,345,881l., while that for 1840, amounted to 1,828,521l. In the woollen trade, the decrease was still more considerable. In 1840, the export was 6,271,645l., while in 1841, it amounted only to 5,336,275l., showing a diminution of 935,000 l. Upon eleven articles of British produce exported there had been in the year 1841, a decrease of 1,383,000 l. This was a state of things well deserving the attention of the House. These were not questions that could be postponed with safety. Foreign markets once lost, could not be recovered; industry once paralysed, could not be easily revived. He did believe and feel, that it would be indeed a fatal policy if that House were to suffer any consideration to divert their attention from the immediate discussion of those measures by which this state of things was to be met and remedied. He trusted, that the Members of that House, and especially those connected with the landed interest, who boasted of their predominance and power in the House, would not commit the fatal mistake of disregarding the present state of things, but that they would act the wise part of consulting the interests of the community instead of neglecting the complaints and interests of the manufacturing classes. He quite agreed, that the interests of the landed and the manufacturing classes were intimately connected, but he thought when they came to questions of protection, that the case had not been fairly stated. He did not think, that they had a right to protect the land as against the interests of manufactures. He thought it a matter o course, that if trade and commerce flourished, agriculture must flourish likewise He defied any one to show him in any country of the world, at any period o history, where there was a great commercial and agricultural community, that such country was not prosperous. He would say, then, "Take care of trade and agriculture will take care of itself."
170
He would say, that if by artificial and n necessary restrictions, they tampered with the commerce of the country, the ruin might begin with commerce, but it would end with agriculture. There vas one other point he wished to advert to: her Majesty had invited the House of Commons to consider whether a variety of duties, trifling in amount, might not be removed without any danger to the revenue. Any one who had attentively considered the evidence taken before the Import Duties Committee would have no doubt upon the subject. There were 349 articles which produced 8,050 l.; there were 132 articles which produced only 3,100 l.; and 147 articles, which not only produced no duty, but upon which there was a drawback amounting to 5,000 l. As far, therefore, as the revenue was concerned, he was sure, that if they responded to the invitation of her Majesty, they might, without any danger to the revenue, afford considerable facilities to the trade of the country. He did not wish to detain the House at greater length, and would only say for himself, that he truly rejoiced that the time had come when that House must decide upon what principles, and by what persons, the affairs of the country should be conducted. He hoped, certainly, before the discussion was brought to a close, before the House should be called upon to express an opinion, that some more ample information would be afforded as to what were the views on those most important subjects of Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] Really the Gentlemen who were so kind as to laugh at this observation seemed to think, that there was only one question of any importance to be considered, namely, who were to be the Ministers of the day. He, for his own part, was very far from thinking, that that was a question of no importance. He did not profess to be one of those who believed in the maxim of "measures and not men." He thought it was the duty and the privilege of that House not only to be satisfied as to the measures proposed, but also as to the general confidence they had in the persons proposing those measures. He thought also, at a period of great public expectation, when these subjects were discussed far and wide throughout the country, and when the country was anxiously expecting to hear the opinions of the representative body he certainly thought the country, or at

171
least a large class in the country, would feel considerable disappointment if the only result of their deliberations should turn out to be a decision as to the substitution, by her Majesty, of one set of men for another, and if they refused to ex press an opinion upon those important subjects which her Majesty recommended; to the consideration of the House. Those questions had been alluded to in very doubtful and ambiguous language in the amendment. It might be possible, that; before the termination of the debate, that ambiguity would be cleared away. Thai Gentlemen opposite should announce what course they would adopt with regard to particular measures, it was not reasonable to expect; but at any rate, it was reasonable to expect, and he thought the House had a right to demand, an explicit announcement of the line of policy which they expected the House to be prepared to follow out with regard to those questions. Unless such an announcement was made—unless the House was given to understand, that the object of Gentlemen opposite was fairly, deliberately, and immediately to consider those questions— unless they were prepared to look into those questions with a view towards redressing any grievances that might be proved to exist—unless that announcement was made before the close of the debate, he thought the country would have great reason to feel disappointment at what must otherwise be considered a factious course of conduct. Would not their proceedings be, on all hands, looked upon as a mere party struggle, if the mercantile, the commercial, and the colonial interests, who had been anxiously expecting a decision upon these questions, were to be told that the only opinion they would express would be, as to whether one set of men or another should be in power, leaving the country, as far as the result was concerned, entirely in the dark. He certainly did hope, that the discussion on this occasion would not end in so unsatisfactory a manner. He could assure gentlemen opposite, that although he was as warm a partisan as any of them, he had too deep a sense of the condition of the country, not to entertain a strong feeling of the necessity for public men of all parties to consider these questions at once, with a view towards coming to a satisfactory decision, and with a view to putting them upon a basis which should relieve the country
172
from its present state of difficulty. He cared little, as far as he was personally concerned, for an adverse vote of that House, which should have the effect of transferring Gentlemen opposite to that (the ministerial) side of the House, provided he was satisfied that those who passed that adverse vote, would fairly carry into execution the measures of their predecessors. At least he felt confident of this: he had had a seat in Parliament for some years, and he had never seen any great question proposed, however powerful was the influence opposed to it, and whatever difficulties it might have to contend with, that had not, if founded on reason and justice, prevailed in that House; and because he was perfectly satisfied that the principles upon which the measures of the Government were founded were principles of reason and justice—because he was satisfied that experience would show, that the more these questions were discussed throughout the country, the more it would appear that it would be for the general interest that the Corn-laws, the timber-laws, the sugar-laws, and our whole commercial system should be placed upon a sound, practicable, and intelligible footing —because he was convinced of this, whatever might be the result of the decision of that house, he for one should feel no despondency, but should confidently look forward, and he expected the period was not distant, when those questions would be brought to a satisfactory solution; and whether that was effected by those with whom it had been his pride and happiness to have been connected during the whole of his political life, or whether Gentlemen opposite, as he had an opportunity of observing, not un frequently, during the years he had sat in Parliament, would support and carry the measures of their political opponents, when they found the pressure so strong that they could not any longer resist it, he could assure the House, that to him it was a matter of comparative indifference, by which of these two methods these questions should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. D'Isracliwas somewhat surprised, after all that had been heard last Parliament, at the application which had been made by the right hon. Member, the President of the Board of Trade, to Sir Robert Peel. He should have thought that there would have been a sense of dignity which would have restrained such an application.

173
The right hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech with a patriotic peroration. He was so convinced of the necessity for those measures, that, if the decision should be adverse to them, he should support them in opposition; and he made this observation, and was still a Minister! He had drawn a parallel, which they had not unfrequently heard, between the situation of the country now, and in 1835, but he had forgotten, because it was convenient to forget, that Sir Robert Peel had not sustained a vote of want of confidence. He had appealed to the country, and retired when he perceived that he continued to have an adverse majority without sustaining the humiliation of such a vote. The right hon. Gentleman had entered into the budget, and spoken of ascertaining averages. Was the Parliament dissolved for that? Or about copper? Or to consider the commercial tariff? It was well for the right hon. Gentleman to run from Walpole to Pitt, and from Pitt to Huskisson, and say the prosperity of the country had existed in spite of her tariff. Had he forgotten the eminent services of Sir Robert Walpole, and the great alterations made by him in the tariff? Had he forgotten the services of Mr. Wallace when Vice President of the Board of Trade? Why, the progress of commercial reform was only arrested by the Reform Act. Again—the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten, in the peculiar zeal which he and his colleagues now wished to exhibit for reform, all that had been done by the Administration of the Earl of Liverpool; and in the zeal the right hon. Gentleman now displayed, he owned he was surprised at the manner in which he thought fit to speak of the report upon Import duties. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the contents of that report as if they were emanations previously secret to the Government—he spoke of them as the discovery of a mass of knowledge teeming with conclusions which were so incapable of refutation as to make it absolutely impossible for the Government to hesitate instantly to legislate upon them. He (Mr. D'Israeli) had never underrated the value and interest of that important document; on the contrary, he maintained that the subject to which it had reference ought, long ere this, to have engaged the attention of the Government. He admitted that many of the conclusions were just, but he had yet to learn that the data upon
174
which they were founded were new. So far from that, those data were founded upon information which had long engaged the attention of all men who could pretend to the character of statesmen; and he knew that, sooner or later, they must at the hands of some Government form the materials for legislation. But this was not the question now before the House, nor was it the question which had been put by the Government before the country. No man could pretend that the late dissolution of Parliament, or the want of confidence which the country had expressed in the Government, was in consequence of any sympathy in respect of the Import duties; but it was because the Government was weak—inefficient—incapable of carrying those measures which they themselves believed to be necessary for the country; but, after experiencing signal, and under other circumstances, and in other reigns, overwhelming defeat, it was that the Government, thus ricketty and staggering, proposed the reconstruction of the commercial system of the country, and this was the reason why the last Parliament had recoiled; this was the question which went to the country, and these were the feelings which induced the country, on the appeal thus made to them, to sympathize with the late Parliament, and say, "We feel the necessity of maintaining the commercial superiority of Britain; but we think that the question is of such magnitude as to call for and require that calm consideration, as to prevent us intrusting it to a Government whose councils were only held to deliberate as to the mode in which a majority was to be managed on the next division." This, then, brought him to the consideration of the real question before the House: the question was, not whether the proposed measures were necessary, but it was whether a discussion of those measures ought to be discussed or entered upon under the auspices of the present possessors of official power. The late Parliament had recorded its want of confidence in the present Government upon that single and intelligible ground, and it was now for the House only to inquire whether the conduct of the Government since that vote entitled them to the renewed and renovated confidence of Parliament and of the country. And what had they done since that event? Was the dissolution under such circumstances such an act as entitled them to a renewal of

175
that confidence? Just or unjust as that dissolution might have been, one thing was certain—namely, that the result showed that the Government of the country had no knowledge of the feelings of the nation they governed. The noble Lord the Chief Minister of the Crown in that House must accept the alternative—when he dissolved the late Parliament he must either have believed he would succeed in the appeal he thus made to the country, or he was conscious that he must fail. If the first position were the case, the noble Lord had really been profoundly ignorant of the feelings of the country—or if, on the other hand, the noble Lord accepted the other alternative, he had agitated the country for mere party purposes. At best, therefore, the noble Lord must accept the crime or the blunder. If then the late dissolution—the first act of the Government since the vote of want of confidence —did not entitle them to a restoration of the confidence they had lost, he (Mr. D'Israeli) begged to ask whether the mode, the manner, or the spirit in which the Ministers of the Crown had conducted the late election contests—whether the tone and language in which they had appealed to the people, were or were not circumstances in regard to which they had abused their claims to the renewed confidence of the House of Commons? In the history of the country there had before been no instance of a Government dissolving Parliament under such circumstances, still less of addressing constituencies in such language as had been used on the recent occasion. There had been a time when even the allusion to the sovereign was shrunk from in this House; when, if made from the lips of a Minister of the Crown, such allusion would have called forth the indignant reprobation of every independent man;—the time had been when, if the name of the Sovereign had been mentioned as lately it had frequently been used and resorted to in the House in order to control and influence Parliament, such an attempt would have been held up to public scorn and indignation; but what would now be said of a Minister of the Crown, if, when, by a vote of the House of Commons, it had been declared the Government with which he was connected was no longer able to conduct the affairs of the nation, that Minister defied the House of Commons, by declaring the Government
176
to which he belonged was supported by the Crown—the best support a Minister could have? And yet these words had fallen from the lips of one who formerly was the disciple of very different opinions, and no sooner had Parliament been dissolved than the Government had sent round their clandestine champions to every borough in the country, profaning the name of the Sovereign, as if the Majesty of England was a second candidate upon some paltry poll. Such has been the conduct of the party who claimed a monopoly of loyalty. The noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), who had been an historical student, might, perhaps, remember some words written by one of the most brilliant ornaments this House had ever possessed: those words were to the effect, "that the Sovereign of a faction was only the Sovereign of half the people." He would not believe that the machinations of any men calling themselves Ministers—and why they still called themselves so was to him a mystery—could have succeeded in making, in this age, the Sovereign of this country the mere Sovereign of a faction; but this much he would say, that if such a miserable conjuncture could possibly arrive, that her Majesty should only be the Sovereign of the Whigs, she would not be the Sovereign of half, nor a quarter, nor an eighth, but of a miserable faction, in whose hands traditionary policy had placed the interests of the nation. Perhaps, the noble Lord would remember, that when Mr. Pulteney had been consulted by George 2nd, on the then state of the country, that right hon. Gentleman had recommended his Sovereign not to speak of the Tories as enemies, because "they formed two thirds of the people." Now, it would be a good thing if the Whigs, who had made some Gentlemen "right honourable," since they had lost the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country, would bear in mind these words of Mr. Pulteney. If they did so, he owned he was surprised, looking at the use which had been made during the last two months of the Queen's name, that they could still presume to call themselves Ministers of the Crown, or refrain from a blush, when they remembered the position in which they had placed their Sovereign. If then, the dissolution of Parliament—if the spirit in which the elections had been conducted were not incidents upon which to found their claim for renewed confi-

177
dence, was the House to yield that claim in consequence of the Speech which they had advised her Majesty to deliver from the Throne? On the contrary, was not that Speech the last effort of an expiring Government, desirous of laying the foundation of a nascent opposition? Was this the mode to treat the Queen, or the constitution of the country? It was the mere lip loyalty of the Reform Government, which was to re model the institutions of the country. The Administration had, in this Speech, taken refuge in their budget— like a dog, they had returned to the vomit; they had attacked the constitution, and insulted the nation—they had raised the cry of "cheap bread and cheap sugar," it was true; but still they must answer one question before this debate ceased and closed their fate. They had yet to tell Parliament by what tenure they now held office. They had no right to pretend, according to old constitutional decorum, that they had not the right to presume that the opinions of the new Parliament were adverse to them because the noble Lord, their leader, had volunteered an explicit declaration that the opinions of the new Parliament were completely fatal to them. Whether that declaration had been declared in a spirit of frankness, or in that of defiance, the House and the country must decide; but as they had continued to exercise the powers of Government for a long period after, confessedly they had lost the support of the representatives of the people, as recorded by their chief, he (Mr. D'Israeli) must quote to them the words of Mr. Fox:—
" That the party which continued in the exercise of political power, after they knew they had forfeited and did not possess the confidence of Parliament, were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour."
This was the opinion of the great oracle of the Whigs—this was, he believed, a just opinion, and that it was one on which he thought the House ought now to act as it had been acted upon in times when Parliament was unreformed, and when Danby found himself in a dungeon, and Strafford on a scaffold. Now, however, the Whigs held office by abusing the confidence of the Sovereign, and by defying the authority of Parliament.
Mr. Bernal, jun. said, I am surprised, Sir, at the accusations brought forward against her Majesty's Ministers by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, for
178
being returned to Parliament by the constituency which rejected the hon. Gentleman, I know that he understands free trade in politics very well. And I think that the accusation against her Majesty's Government comes with a peculiarly good grace from him, when I recollect that he went down to High Wycombe with letters in his pocket, one from Mr. O'Connell, and the other from Mr. Hume; and when I know also that he was proposed by his friend Mr. Treacher, the Radical, and seconded by his Friend Mr. Rose, the Tory. I leave it to the House to decide with how great force such a rebuke comes from him. But, Gentlemen—[cries of "order," and" chair."] I stand before you, Gentlemen, for I suppose you are Gentlemen. I hope, Sir, the House will make a little excuse for my inexperience; but, Sir, I stand before the House intimately connected with one of the great interests under discussion. By the West India interest I must stand or fall, and I declare that I cannot
" Compound for laws I am inclined to,
By damning those I have no mind to."
I wish therefore to take this opportunity of recording my vote in favour of the reduction of the duties upon sugar, feeling convinced that the best interests, and the ultimate prosperity of this country, depend much upon the upper classes being willing to make some sacrifices. Having endeavoured to take out the beam from my own eye, I think that I can with the greater propriety enter into a discussion of the Corn-laws. The hon. Gentleman who has seconded the amendment has very strongly deprecated any discussion of the Corn-laws; and, at the same time, he has fallen into the error, that dear bread and high wages go together. I believe that the arguments upon the Corn-laws, both pro and con, were pretty well understood. Yet I think that if we refer to an early period, and look to the occurrences of 1795, we may learn something. For some years preceding that period, the price of wheat had been 54 s. a quarter; it suddenly rose to 76 s.; there was, consequently great distress in the country. The wages of the labourers did not rise, but fell, and the magistrates, when they were appealed to, directed the relieving officers to pay the labourers additional wages out of the Poor rates. That was the first instance of wages being paid out of the

179
Poor-rates—and I ask whether it would not have been better, before we passed the Poor-law Amendment Bill, if we had first of all remedied the defects of the Corn-law, and founded a new system of Poor-laws on a new system of Corn-laws. What is the present Poor-law but a direct concession to the landlords, and no one else? I wish the landlords would follow my example—for what are we but brother monopolists? Let them accept the 8s. duty as a boon, now; else it may become—
" Small by degrees, and beautifully less."
Sir Charles Napierwould reply to the speech of the hon. Member for the West riding of Yorkshire, for he must confess that the speech of the hon. Member opposite, who had just sat down (Mr. D'Israeli), was utterly beyond his comprehension. The hon. Member for the West Riding, in speaking of the present Ministers, after throwing out his skirmishes pretty well, had made his grand attack upon them for not keeping the promises which they had made, on taking office, of peace, retrenchment, and economy. The hon. Gentleman said, that they had taken office in 1830,and eight or ten little wars had, during that time, been carried on by the Government. If the Government had carried on little wars, he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would allow him to say, that if those little wars had not been carried on with vigour and talent, they would not have been brought to the satisfactory conclusion to which they had been. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in power, they might possibly have had great wars, and with them great contracts and great loans. He doubted if any other person than the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would have preserved the peace of the country in the manner which that noble Lord had been able to do. The hon. Gentleman had accused the Government of making little wars. He had told them, that the Government which had held office for eighteen years before the time the present Government came into office, had made but one war—the war at Navarino; but that hon. Gentleman had forgotten that that Government made war with Algiers, and also in India had engaged in the Burmese war, in which he believed a great deal of money had been expended. But he had not told the House that while they were in office, they had
180
suffered France to go to war with Spain, and to march one hundred thousand troops into that country, and put down a constitutional Government in that country. What had been the results of the little wars which had been made by the present Government. They had given a free Government to Portugal. They had given Spain a free Government. [A Member here exclaimed Spain is an absolute government."] An hon Gentleman said that Spain was an absolute Government. He only knew that there was a Cortes in Spain, as there was a Parliament in this country; he was therefore justified in saying, that there was a free Government in Spain. The noble Lord had put an end to the most despicable tyranny that had ever been inflicted on a country in Syria. He had restricted Mehemet Ali within the limits of his own territories; and he hoped that Turkey would have had the sense to act in accordance with the noble Lord's views.
Lord Pollingtonsaid, the hon. and gallant officer who had just sat down had done well to attempt to dazzle the question by the success which had attended British arms in Syria and elsewhere, but what man could doubt what British valour could achieve when brought forward under the command of a Stopford and a Napier? But were those successes any proof of the wisdom which dictated the campaign? He admitted that the best view which could possibly be taken of the policy of the present Government was that which was directed to foreign affairs, but even in that respect they had been much to blame. He might ask, in what quarter of the globe would the British Ministers, retiring in 1841, not leave the British name less honored, less loved, and respected than they found it in 1830. He might point to the ill-suppressed rebellion in Canada, to the imminent peril of war with that country with which, above all, a war was to be deprecated. He could not shut his eyes to the open insult directed against this country in the deprivation of the liberty and the jeoparding the life of as meritorious a British subject as ever had the misfortune to serve a liberal Government. He might refer to the blockades established by Russia and France, by which the channels for British commerce had been shut up; to the Bosphorus, closed against our vessels, and to the suspended intercourse with Persia. He might advert to the present state of the frontier of India; to our

181
Chinese war, and the causes of that war— causes as disgraceful to this country as the war itself. He might, he repeated, refer to China, where not even the successes of the British arms had atoned for the blunders of British diplomacy. But that portion of the globe to which he wished more particularly to advert was the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire. The state of that province, before it came into the possession of the wonderful man who governed it previous to the last war, was well known. The state of the subjects of the Christian population, and the insecurity of life and property, were matters of notoriety. Under the sway of that great and wonderful man to whom he had alluded these things were much altered; and three years ago, when he was himself in the country, he witnessed himself the blessed effects of his domination. Aleppo had recovered much of its ancient prosperity, and British commerce had been extended in Beyrout and Damascus. Consuls had been appointed for the benefit of trade where they were never found before. The country seemed almost likely to obtain the 8ame greatness in that part of the world which Britain enjoyed in this. But all was changed when the British Government interfered. He therefore thought the foreign policy of the Government had not been so very successful. With regard to our home policy, the country had passed its verdict on that. He could not forget how in the Parliament of 1831, the noble Lord, the Secretary of the colonies, then the representative of Devonshire, smiled with complaisance on the contrast then afforded by the two sides of the House. On the noble Lords side sat the Members of all the cities and towns in the kingdom, and the knights of the shires, while on the other were the Members of Old Sarum and Gatton. How much were circumstances altered since the Reform Bill! The county Members now sat on the Opposition side, while the Members of Richmond, Malton, Calne, and Tavistock, sat on the Ministerial. He left the Government to their own topic of condolence and consolation, which had been paraded daily in the public prints, and re echoed in private conversations, that however weak as a Government they would prove formidable as an opposition. They would prove formidable only as those eastern barbarians whom the Roman legions learned to fear, but only on account of their poisoned weapons, which they hurled behind them in their retreat.
Mr. Roebuckwished to express his acknowledgments for the courtesy of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) in giving way to him. If the question now proposed to the House were simply an inquiry into the character of the present Ministry, he would have had very little difficulty in coming to an opinion upon it, although he might have had some difficulty as to the vote he should give. His opinion would have been adverse to the character of the Ministry; but his opinion would have been come to upon grounds so distinctly opposed to those which had been alluded to, or which would be alluded to by hon. Gentlemen, and right hon. Gentlemen, and noble Lords opposite, that he could not have reconciled it to vote against those he disliked, only because they too much resembled honourable Gentlemen opposite. But the question was not simply as to the character of the present Ministry, it was a question of comparative character, and a vote upon that must be given upon a general opinion of the conduct pursued upon this side of the House and upon that; and here he must observe that he could not understand the analogy drawn by the right hon. Gentleman when he compared himself to a physician. He thought that he should be called in before he gave advice, but surely he was called in when he was returned to that House. He would put an analogy that was more to the purpose. He would not dismiss one servant, till he was convinced that he should get a better. He must have some servant. He must have for a servant some one; and although he might think that his present servant was not altogether as efficient as he might be, that he might be somewhat indolent—and although he might not be all that he could wish, or altogether such as he might like, yet if he dismissed him, he might discover that if he were a sluggard, he might get one ten times worse—if he were untrustworthy, he might admit some one into his house who was absolutely wanting in honesty. He was not prepared then to dismiss his present servant till he was sure that the servant who would come in his place would be better than the one he should turn away. That he believed to be a fair analogy. How, then, was he to learn that the new servants were better, or more likely to be better, than the old? The hon. Gentleman who had moved the amendment had passed over all other points, and had said

183
that they had nothing to do with anything except with the character of the present Ministers—that they had nothing to do with their measures; now, they could know nothing of their characters, except by their acts. That was the subject he was called upon to investigate; he must compare the noble Lord and his supporters with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his party; he must compare their conduct in times pastas a guidance for the future: and he must determine as his judgment should then lead him, as to which conduct would be the most likely for the future to conduce to the well being of the country. That comparison he would render by a retrospective glance, in the fairest manner, at the character of both parties, and upon this alone would he form his judgment, and give his vote upon the present occasion. He found, in the outset of the inquiry, that the present advisers of her Majesty—the party which in the first reformed Parliament, that met in 1832, was predominant and paramount in the country—having full power to do anything they might desire, who then ruled all before them, and who were forced into power by the will, and the strong will of the people—he found that this party had been day by day losing influence, till they had become weak, tottering, and wretched, unable to do anything they might wish. And he found the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was at that time powerless, and who, it was thought, must thereafter lead a defeated and dispirited host, at the head now of a party eager to divide the spoil. How did this come to pass? The right hon. Gentleman, and the party opposite, were very willing, as it was their interest, to say that they had not only vanquished the Ministry in their persons, but in their principles. They were glad to say, "Here is the Ministry, the reforming Ministry, that was ever pushing on, the moving Ministry, conquered by the Conservative party." He found the Ministers interested in saying pretty much the same thing, although not in the same words, and in claiming for themselves the character of martyrs to freedom. He could not allow them to claim any such title. He could not believe that they were received by the Conservative principles of the people of England. They were ruined by forgetting —they would pardon him for expressing his opinion strongly — their principles. Flushed with their success in the year 1831,
184
the party at present in power determined to act on the principles of the party opposite, and they believed that the only parties they had to fear, was an extreme section of those by whom they were themselves supported. From that moment they became what the party opposite consistently were, Conservatives. Thrust into power, where they ought to have carried out Reform, they had stopped short. They had cast contumely on those who represented to them that the natural order of things would take place, that the other party were strong in wealth, that they represented, as he was free to confess, a strong feeling in the country; that they had with them the clergy, almost all the landed interest, and many of those in the professions. The Ministers did not care for this. They considered that their victory was complete, they declared that they had obtained what they had all along intended, a preponderance of the landed interest of this country, and they declared for finality. That was the cause of their loss of power, for hon. Gentlemen opposite were the legitimate representatives of the party against all change; and he believed that it was salutary to have such a party in all such societies. But if the Ministers on that side of the House had understood their position when they had seen hon. Gentlemen opposite refusing to make changes, they would have known that it was their place to work out reform by giving to it a moving principle. The Ministry told their supporters they found the party opposite too weak to do harm; they bade defiance to their friends who gave the warning; they heaped upon them hatred and contumely, and they had now their reward. That being his opinion of the cause of their present downfall, he would ask whether, if that were so, he could congratulate the people? He said no. He was deeply grieved that the golden opportunity had been passed, he lamented that Ministers had lost the opportunity they then had; they had lost power, and they could only win it back by a long and virtuous course of opposition. But then it was said, that the last election tried the great principles of the freedom of trade, but he denied that assertion. The question put to the country was, do you like the Whig Ministry? He could not permit great principles to be sacrificed to party purposes. The country answered, he was

185
grieved that the country had said so, but it did say, that it did not like that Ministry; and when he said, that the country had answered, let him not be misunderstood—he meant the constituencies. And when the Ministers complained, that the question had not been fairly tested, that there had been bribery, and intimidation, and corruption, he said that these were the natural accidents of that state of things which they had determined on. They had refused all means for putting down corruption and intimidation, therefore, he said, that they were condemned by that body which they had themselves created, and let them not complain that these bodies had acted according to their nature. Were the people, however, wise in flinging off the present Ministry? How was he to judge of the wisdom of his countrymen? He was prepared to review their conduct at home, in the colonies, and their conduct abroad, and wherever he found them failing, wherever he found them halting between two opinions, whenever they lost confidence, he found the right hon. Gentleman opposite as their evil genius. He said, that the right hon. Gentleman was their evil genius. In now making a comparison between the relative virtues of the two parties, he would take their conduct during the last ten years in the Reformed Parliament, taking one party as represented by the noble Lord, at present Secretary, he believed, for the Colonies, for they changed office so often he really forgot, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Tamworth, as the representative of the party opposite. Now, in judging of a party, or a Ministry, he thought it was but just and fair to take them in their large divisions, he would not look with microscopic eye into the smaller details, but he would take the whole scheme and scope of their policy. The first step which was taken by the noble Lord, who was the representative of his party, was the introduction of the Reform Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, the representative of his party true to his nature, opposed and checked that improvement which he now admitted to be good, and to which he now gave his adherence. So far he was not the friend of the people. By this term he did not mean anything offensive, for no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, as others did meant to be friendly to the people; but so far he was not the friend of the people
186
of England; he did not in these views agree with the people of this country. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had been successful, they would have had the old Parliament remaining, and they would lave had none of those improvements which had followed since. Take that as an instance, and, as a test, were the people of England right in determining in favour of those who had been opposed to the parliamentary reform? The next great improvement he would take was the English Municipal Reform Bill. That bill was also opposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There was nothing that he could do in fairness that he had not endeavoured to do against it. His vote and his influence were against it. He was then in Parliament, and he recollected very well the fight they had on the Municipal Bill, and to the principle of that bill both the right hon. Gentleman and his party were from the beginning to the end, opposed. If he had ruled, he never would have given municipal reform. Well, then, he would ask all those in England who now had a voice in the government of their own towns, when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would have refused them, up to the present time, everything like municipal reform, whether that was the party they would have in the Government, when they had to decide between the two.
Sir Robert Peeldoubted whether the hon. Gentleman was right in the fact, he did not recollect giving any opinion against the English Corporation Reform Bill.
Mr. Roebuckrecollected that the right hon. Gentleman's party did at the time vehemently oppose the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill; and further, that this bill was in many respects curtailed of its fair proportions by the noble Lord now silting at the right hand of the right hon. Gentleman (Lord Stanley). He now took an act on which he was bold to say for one—and in the face of the great party opposite he did say it—he could not separate the right hon. Gentleman from his party. He was about to speak of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. During the elections which had just passed, the Liberal party had been met by the most illiberal artifices, and every vulgar appeal had been made to the lowest passions of the people upon the subject of a measure which the Liberal party had passed, which

187
the right hon. Baronet himself had considered he was bound to support. Let them remember, then, that it was the Conservative party of England who had so put at defiance their leader, and that he dared not rebuke the conduct of his party. He might say that every hon. Member who had been a candidate at the late elections, had been compelled to submit to these foul means which had been taken by the opposite party for the purpose of winning for themselves a pitiful support in reference to that measure. He said that he could not separate the right hon. Baronet from his party. A few soft words were indeed heard from him—now and then he spoke of the advantages of the bill, but had he ever turned his face severely against those who had offered this opposition to its supporters. This should have been done, because there was not one of the leading Gentlemen opposite who did not know that the right hon. Baronet had supported this measure, because he believed that it would be for the benefit of the poorer classes. He had supported it because it was proposed by Ministers in the great spirit of wisdom and benevolence which had characterised their political life, and it had been fastened upon by the party opposite for all the base purposes to which they could apply it. Therefore he said, that, taking this broad view of the principles acted upon by both parties, blaming, as he had done, the backward conduct of Ministers, he placed the whole matter before the country, and he left them to await the result of the day on which they would see the decision of the last election. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite at this moment represented the opinions of the majority of the constituents of this country, and it was the duly of the House to await the result; but he believed that a change would come, and that the principle which actuated hon. Gentlemen opposite would work itself out, and that the mercantile interests of the country would rue the day when those principles first came into action, for they would find that they could not obtain that from the Conservative party, which the great interests of this country required from the Legislature. The people of England must rule themselves—that was his democratic opinion—and what was most wonderful, hon. Gentlemen opposed assented to it. He blamed the Ministry that they had made the constituency
188
what it was, but they had got the reward of their own want of foresight, for the constituency, acting upon the principles of human nature, had returned the right hon. Baronet and his fellows, in ignorance of the scope of their policy. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had chosen to taunt the Ministry by a reference to what he was pleased to term a small war." For his own part, he was one of those who of two evils was disposed to choose the least, and he was disposed to prefer a small war to a great one. But had any hon. Member opposite stepped in and said that the war, small as it was, was an unjust one? He found that our arms had been successful—that there had been an unanimous cry of approbation— that rewards had been scattered, and that very quickly—that thanks had been voted, and yet all these wars had produced no rebuke from the House. Why was not the majority of the House, he asked, employed, instead of being engaged in securing party objects, in picking out one of these wars, and saying, "Here I put my hand upon this which is an unjust war, and I lay it at your door—there is one of your evil deeds?" There had been no such motion. [A cry of "China."] China was mentioned. Had this been done? He had not been a Member of that House for some time, but he had read it in the ordinary chronicles, which were open to the public, what had taken place. The war with China was one which should have called for the indignation of every honest man, and he gave the greatest blame to those who prosecuted that war. He would now go on to another war—that of Syria. To this war there had been no objection made— on it no motion had been made. He had heard the remarks made by the noble Lord who spoke last night, respecting our relations with America; but the real difficulty had been to curb the warlike spirit of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The noble Lord had said, that a war in that quarter would be most sincerely deprecated, and yet he had sought to impugn the conduct of the Government in suffering the matter to proceed so far without some warlike demonstration. He was prepared to justify the conduct of the American government throughout all the proceedings in the case of Mr. M'Leod, and he blamed the noble Lord for having omitted to explain the real state of facts to the House. The

189
truth was that, by the present law of the United States, and in the present state of our diplomacy, we could not reach the evil which existed. The House would permit him lo explain why he stated that. He believed that much misconception existed upon the subject. Let him first state the facts of the case. A party of our troops and their commander crossed the frontier, seized a boat, and killed a certain number of American subjects. Some time after, one of the persons supposed to have been engaged in the proceeding was arrested, because he had left Upper Canada, where he had been an under sheriff, where he had got in debt through facilities afforded him by office. He passed over to New York, and there was arrested and committed for trial. A true bill was found by the grand jury, and M'Leod had to take his trial. The House should know that there were two sets of courts in America —the Federal Courts, which belonged to the United States, and the State Courts which belonged to the State of New York. The Federal Courts could not, by common law, take cognizance of murder; everything of which they take cognizance was by statute law, and they could have cognizance of murder in those cases only in which it had been committed within the peculiar districts assigned to them, such as the district of Columbia, or the parts of the States reserved for their jurisdiction; but in the State of New York, as a State, they had no jurisdiction whatever, the entire jurisdiction being in the hands of the State Court. The peculiar result of that system was that the power of pardoning a person found guilty in the State Court lay in the Government of the State, independently of any other power, while a person convicted by the Federal Court might be pardoned by the President, whose jurisdiction reached him. Mr. Forsyth, in his answer to Mr. Fox, stated that the government could not reach the case of M'Leod, and that it was entirely in the hands of the authorities at New York. There might be a deficiency in the legislative system of the United States, but they could not now remedy the evil. A similar case might have occurred some years ago in England. A woman might, under our old law, object to an appeal in favour of the murderer of her husband; and the king could not afterwards interfere for the purpose of pardoning the prisoner. Now, let them suppose that in Prince Louis Na-
190
poleon's late attempt at Boulogne, he had been accompanied by an English citizen, and that citizen had been murdered, while the persons who had killed him had been taken up, if the widow objected to their pardon, they would have had a case under the former English law precisely similar to the case of M'Leod. He did not think that Mr. Fox had been aware of the real state of the case, or that he had properly dealt with it in the first instance. If at the time that Mr. Forsyth had written his letter, to which he had alluded, a Minister had been sent over—ay, an ambassador extraordinary to the State of New York— that would have been the way to bring the matter to an issue, and some hope might have been entertained of our meeting the difficulty. But now September was almost come, the man might be found guilty, and then must be hanged. This was undoubtedly a most extraordinary case, and was not to be treated with that levity and heat with which he had heard it spoken of. He had read with great admiration the judgment of Judge Cowen upon the subject of the habeas corpus, and the matter had been thoroughly, and carefully, and gravely met by the judges of the land. All questions of policy, or political expediency, had been very properly thrown aside, and having considered the matters urged in behalf of the prisoner, the learned judge had said, that no power which he possessed could relieve him, but to trial he must go. It was urged before him, that he was acting under the command of a superior officer—that what he had done had been sanctioned by a British officer; but the judge, very properly said, that he could take no cognizance of that—that it might be pleaded elsewhere, but that plead it where they might, the two countries, not being in a state of war, England could no more defend or justify the murder, then justify a common larceny. He entreated hon. Members to read and understand this matter, and he believed, that if it had been better understood before, it would have been better for the negotiations which had been carried on. But he would ask the House, whether, in any part of the whole course of the Government proceeding, anything had been ever said by hon. Gentlemen opposite which would justify them in bringing forward any accusation against Ministers for their conduct in this matter. Had they pointed out any other course as

191
being fit to be taken? Had they done aught to smooth the difficulty by which the Ministers had been beset? He asked those who might follow him to justify those of his party in anything which should give them the smallest ground for justifying their conduct in anything. There was one topic, on which he would only touch, and that he must be permitted to say placed a blot on both sides of the House. He meant the case of the Ca nadas—that tragedy had not yet been played out. The Government had acted with the most unheard of injustice to one large class of the community; they had already given an honourable title to one noble Lord for carrying out their early promises, but he thought, that they had given him the reward before it was earned, and history would show whether they had not been guilty of injustice. "Divide et impera" was the old rule; they had united the Canadas, and they would find, that they could not govern them. They were bound neck and hand to the Parliament of Upper Canada, and let any noble Lord go into the Colonial office, which already presented anything but a bed of roses, and he would find, that with all his eagerness, he would be totally powerless before the Canadian Parliament. He had now gone through the general matters of home and foreign policy which had been made the subject of charges against the present Ministry; but he had not referred to France, in allusion to which he would, however, now make a few observations. The noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary had exhibited an anxious desire to promote peace with France, and undoubtedly the noble Lord who had seconded the amendment which had been proposed had not complained of this, but he had complained of the promises which had been made. Their conduct, he admitted, required no great deal of justification, it might be perfectly justifiable, but if that were so, was it not puerile to look back and say, that whatever they might promise, they could not act up to their promises, and therefore were liable to blame. The want of economy on the part of the Government was another of the evil geniuses which had haunted them, and upon this point hon. Gentlemen opposite had sprung up every moment, like the keys of a harpsichord. Army, Navy Ordnance, had each in turn formed the subject of their remarks, and he asked
192
where there was anything ever proposed by the Government, on that side of the louse, as a scheme of economy, which was not immediately condemned as a proof of the cheese-paring, cutting-down system carried on. The Government had, in truth, sacrificed themselves to every piece of bad advice given to them by their opponents, and they were now about to reap the reward of their folly. When great measures had been brought forward, he had found them halting in the path, and on that account blameable for their conduct; but, on the other hand, he had perceived in hon. Gentlemen opposite, a constant rejection of all measures of improvement—a steadfast opposition to all but the narrowest interests of this country. The people of England were about to await the result of a change of principle, in favour of which they been somewhat too precipitate in the change of their opinions.
Mr. Muntzshould not have risen to trespass upon the attention of the House, but with a view to justify himself on the ground of some expressions of opinion attributed to him throughout the recent contest. It had been said, "Oh! even the Radical Mr. Muntz, the Member for Birmingham, says, that the repeal of the Corn-laws will lower the price of wages." He had no objection to repeat, that such was his opinion, but, admitting that to be the case, was it just, he asked, that the state of starvation to which the people of this country had been reduced, should be allowed to continue? He had, it was true, expressed the opinion which was attributed to him, but he had accompanied that expression with a declaration, that in his opinion, the present state of things could not continue. He was confident, that whoever might govern—whether it was the noble Lord, or the right hon. Baronet, the whole subject must be gone into, and all interests must be considered before any decision was arrived at. He had merely risen to explain what he had really said, and would not further trespass on the time of the House.
Mr. Ewartroseto move the adjournment of the debate. ["go on."] He addressed hon. gentlemen opposite with all courtesy, and he begged to assure them that he made this proposition because hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House looked upon the questions involved in this discussion to be of too serious a nature to

193
be passed over, after so short a debate as had taken place that evening.
Mr. Brothertonreminded the House that the Speaker had now been in the chair upwards of nine hours. The hon. And learned Gentleman opposite had not sat in the House for some years, which was perhaps, a sufficient reason, why he opposed the adjournment of the debate. According to the old practice, Members did not mind how late they spoke after twelve o'clock, and at that time the debates in the House were not of so much importance; but since the passing of the Reform Bill large constituencies had been created who expected their representatives to express their opinions on the subjects discussed in that House. More Members therefore, required to speak than under the old system. It was quite an error to suppose that the people disliked protracted debates in that House. Nothing could be more popular in England than to afford hon. Members the most full opportunity of expressing the sentiments of their constituents. He hoped no further opposition would be offered to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.
Sir Robert Peelacquiesced in the motion for an adjournment, on special grounds. The Speaker had taken the chair at one o'clock that day, and he conceived that this was a sufficient special ground for acceding to the adjournment of the debate. It was one which would not occur on another occasion.
Lord John Russellcould not in the present state of the House (a great number of Members had left) do other than acquiesce in the motion for adjournment, There had been no expectation of a division on the question of adjournment, and therefore any division would be a loss of time. He hoped the House would acquiesce in the motion for an adjournment. He did not quite agree with the hon. Member for Salford, that protracted debates were desirable, but he did think that if the system were continued, there was one great evil attending them, though he did not exactly see what remedy could be provided. He alluded to the comparatively small attendance that took place on such occasions early in the evening, and indeed, until a somewhat late hour, so that although their proceedings bore the name of debates, yet the attendance of Members was not such as to attach sufficient importance to them. The adoption
of a contrary practice would not lessen the duration of a debate, or deprive hon. Members representing the constituencies that had been referred to of their privilege of addressing the House, but it would certainly attach more importance to the proceedings, and give them more the appearance of a debate. He hoped, under the circumstances, that no division would take place, but that the House would agree to the motion for adjournment.
Debate adjourned—House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Lord SEGRAVE, Cr. Earl FITZHARDINGE; and Lord BARHAM, Cr. Earl of GAINSROROUCH, took the oaths.
Writ delivered, electing Lord CASLEMAINE a Representative Peer for Ireland, vice Earl of BELMORE, d.
Bills. Read a first time:—Borough Improvements; Buildings in Towns; Drainage of Towns.

HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
The Lords Commissioners having taken their places according to the usual forms, and the Commons having come to the bar, the Lord Chancellor read the following Speech:—
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"We are commanded by her Majesty to acquaint you, that her Majesty has availed herself of the earliest opportunity of resorting to jour advice and assistance after the dissolution of the last Parliament.
"Her Majesty continues to receive from Foreign Powers gratifying assurances of their desire to maintain with her Majesty the most friendly relations.
"Her Majesty has the satisfaction of informing you, that the objects for which the Treaty of the 15th of July, 1840, was concluded between her Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, have been fully accomplished, and it is gratifying to her Majesty to be enabled to state, that the temporary separation which the measures taken in the execution of that treaty, created between the contracting
14
parties and France, has now ceased.
" Her Majesty trusts that the union of the principal Powers upon all matters affecting the great interests of Europe, will afford a firm security for the maintenance of peace.
" Her Majesty is glad to be able to inform you, that, in consequence of the evacuation of Ghorian by the Persian troops, her Majesty has ordered her Minister to the Court of Persia to return to Teheran.
" Her Majesty regrets that the negotiations between her plenipotentiaries in China, and the Chinese government, have not yet been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and that it has been necessary to call into action the forces which her Majesty has sent to the China seas; but her Majesty still trusts that the Emperor of China will see the justice of the demands which her Majesty's plenipotentiaries have been instructed to make.
" Her Majesty is happy to inform you, that the differences which had arisen between Spain and Portugal, about the execution of a treaty concluded by those Powers in 1835, for regulating the navigation of the Douro, have been adjusted amicably, and with honour to both parties, by the aid of her Majesty's mediation.
" The debt incurred by the Legislature of Upper Canada, for the purposes of public works, is a serious obstacle to further improvements which are essential to the prosperity of the United Province. Her Majesty has authorised the Governor-General to make a communication on the subject to the Council and Assembly of Canada. Her Majesty will direct the papers to be laid before

15
you, and trusts that your earnest attention will be directed to matters so materially affecting the welfare of Canada, and the strength of the empire.
" Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
" We have to assure you, that her Majesty relies, with entire confidence, on your loyalty and zeal to make adequate provision for the public service, as well as for the further application of sums granted by the last Parliament.
" My Lords and Gentlemen,
" We are more especially commanded to declare to you, that the extraordinary expenses which the events in Canada, China, and the Mediterranean have occasioned, and the necessity of maintaining a force adequate to the protection of our extensive possessions, have made it necessary to consider the means of increasing the public revenue. Her Majesty is anxious that this object should be effected in the manner least burdensome to her people, and it has appeared to her Majesty, after full deliberation, that you may, at this juncture, properly direct your attention to the revision of duties affecting the productions of foreign countries. It will be for you to consider whether some of these duties are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the revenue, while they are vexatious to commerce. You may further examine whether the principle of protection, upon which others of these duties are founded, be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the state, and the interests of the people.
" Her Majesty is desirous that you
16
should consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn. It will be for you to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply, whether they do not embarrass trade, derange currency, and, by their operation, diminish the comfort, and increase the privations of the great body of the community.
" Her Majesty feeling the deepest sympathy with those of her subjects who are now suffering from distress and want of employment, it is her earnest prayer that all your deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her beloved people."
The Commons withdrew.
Adjourned.
Their Lordships re-assembled at five o'clock.

HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
  Earl Spencerrose to move the Address, and spoke as follows:—On ordinary occasions it has been considered the best course for persons in my situation to avoid as much as possible topics that might give rise to the expression of a difference of opinion, but the present is not an ordinary occasion. Some of the questions which her Majesty has directed the Lords Commissioners to submit to the consideration of Parliament involve the highest interests of the country; they affect the future prosperity and stability of the empire, and it will be necessary for me to enter somewhat more in detail into the arguments on these questions than I should otherwise have done. In the performance of this duty, I hope, however, not to detain your Lordships for any great length of time. There are many topics in the speech of the Lords Commissioners which will meet with your Lordships' concurrence. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in an expression of satisfaction that this country is in friendly communication with the other powers of Europe. We must all, too, feel rejoiced at the renewal of our amicable relations with Persia. On the subject of China, also, but one opinion is likely to prevail: I admit that it is a point of great difficulty; but I apprehend that a great majority of your Lordships will think that

  17
  it was impossible to avoid the course that has been taken. The matter is still pending, and we earnestly hope that it will be brought to a happy conclusion. There are other points in the speech which are highly gratifying. It is highly gratifying to find that the mediation of her Majesty has effected a peaceable adjustment of the dispute which had arisen between Spain and Portugal. What is said respecting Canada is also a subject of sincere congratulation, but the matter is brought before your Lordships in a shape which does not call for the expression of a distinct opinion; it more properly belongs to the House of Commons; but I am satisfied that your Lordships will neglect nothing by which the interests of those colonies may be promoted, in order to complete the union between the two provinces, I believe, to their own great benefit, as well as to the advancement of the interests of the mother country. It is impossible for me individually not to express my great gratification at the ability my noble Friend the Governor-general has displayed; intimately as I have been acquainted with him for many years, the success of his great undertaking is to me a source of peculiar satisfaction. The next topic to which I may advert is the effect of the treaty of July, 1840. We all must rejoice that the objects of that treaty have been accomplished without involving Europe in war. For myself, I confess, when I saw that England had entered into a treaty with three powers, to the exclusion of France, I entertained most serious apprehensions. I saw that that treaty might result in a great national calamity, and I felt great regret that my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had entered into it; I was afraid that my noble Friend had abandoned the wise policy which seemed to have guided the course of his administration, and which hitherto had secured the peace of Europe. I must own, however, that what has since appeared-— the candid avowal of M. Thiers of what was his intention—the unexpected weakness of the Pacha of Egypt, and, indeed, the whole course of events, has shown me that I was mistaken, and that her Majesty's Ministers were in the right. I am quite ready, and not at all disinclined to admit my error, and I am now most happy to find that we are again connected with France in a great political union. Such a union, and perfectly good understanding, are essential to the preservation of peace in
  18
  Europe, and with such a union and good understanding, I hardly see how peace can be disturbed. I consider peace essential to the prosperity of this country, and indeed to the promotion of the best interests of all the great powers of Europe. As long as England and France are united, there is little danger of a European war. I look upon war, not only as a great calamity, but as a great crime. Not that I entertain the least idea that this country is not now as well prepared for war as at any former period of her history, but because I have a horror of war, and think nothing can justify it but the most imperative necessity. I do not believe that Great Britain is not in a condition to go to war. On the contrary, were it absolutely necessary that she should commence hostilities, I am satisfied that she could do so better now than at any former period. True it is, that the debt of the country has been greatly increased— that the amount of interest paid upon it is larger than formerly; but, looking at her condition and at her resources, and comparing her present wealth with its amount in 1792, I am satisfied that her wealth has increased in greater proportion than her debt. Therefore, on every account, I am without fear, but at the same time I am sincerely rejoiced that we have again formed a diplomatic union with France. I have stated, that the wealth of the country has increased in a greater proportion than her debt; but, in order to give this state of things full effect; in order that the wealth of the country may tell as it ought on the prosperity of the people; that it may tend to the lightening of taxation, it is necessary that we should take into consideration the mode in which taxes are imposed. It is our duty to ascertain whether by some alteration and revision we may not make taxes press with less severity on the people than at present. I know that it is not agreeable in any assembly (but not more disagreeable to your Lordships than to others) for any one to enter into a discussion upon the general principle of taxation; but it is the duty of the Legislature to look at such questions. In managing the affairs of this country, it must look fairly and steadily at the principles on which commercial prosperity must be founded, and consider whether those principles are carried out by the mode in which taxation is imposed. Our taxation is now upon a principle of restriction. Undoubtedly of late years, to a certain degree, we have relieved the country from restric-

  19
  tions; but we have a great deal more to do before we can be justified in saying, that we have done what we can to make taxation as little burdensome as possible. In arguing this point, we do not find that any body objects to the general principle; all agree, and it would be very extraordinary if they did not agree, on the general principle, because the arguments in its favour are so uncontradicted and self-evident, that it is impossible to resist them. Therefore every one admits, that the best policy is to give commerce its free course; not to interfere with the distribution of capital, in order that a man may employ his means in the way he thinks best calculated to promote his interests. This has been proved over and over again to be the best mode in which the great resources of the country can be applied. I should not be justified in pressing this matter on your Lordships' attention, but that we are always sure to meet with people who, admitting the general principle, contend for some exceptions. I had the honour many years ago of being a Member of the Committee of the House of Commons on foreign commerce, on which sat many able and experienced commercial men. I remember, that all were agreed, that the general principle I have stated was correct and just, provided the particular branch of trade in which each happened to be engaged were not included. I myself being disinterested, not having any thing to do with commerce, found myself dividing with different sections of the committee, according to their individual interests. This is always the case; individuals tell us that these general principles are excellent—incontrovertible; but that England is so peculiarly circumstanced that they cannot by applied to her or to them. Now, what is the peculiarity of her situation? It is peculiar in having to pay the public creditor an enormous amount of interest in the shape of an annuity; it is peculiar in having to raise by taxation an amount equal to pay that annuity. There are other peculiarities to which I will refer hereafter, but this is the main peculiarity. It is said, that England is so severely taxed, that it is impossible for her to compete with foreign countries without what is called protection. No doubt the perpetual annuity to the public creditor is a heavy burden, and that it is most important it should be lightened as much as possible. There are two ways of lightening it; first, by redeeming that annuity,
  20
  that is, paying it off; or, secondly, by an increase of the commerce of the country, which would be quite as effectual. If any of your Lordships have granted an annuity, redeemable at the pleasure of the debtor, not of the creditor, it is precisely the same thing to you whether the annuity be paid off, or whether your income is so increased as to enable you to pay the interest without feeling the pressure. I have great satisfaction in reflecting, that at one period of my life I was engaged with Mr. Pascoe Grenfell in putting an end to what was at one time considered a panacea for all the evils of the country. He laboured hard for many years, but he ultimately succeeded in preventing money being taken from the pockets of the people, in order to apply it to the redemption of the perpetual annuity to which I have referred. He contended, that if it were left in their pockets it would increase to a much larger amount than the sum it was employed to pay off. I contend, that the object of a Government ought to be, by increasing the wealth of the country, to increase the power of the country to pay the annuity to the public creditor. The ordinary rules of political economy enjoin us to promote in all ways the welfare of the country but we are at present placed in a situation where it is peculiarly our duty to do all we can to increase the wealth of the country. We ought to endeavour, as fast as we can, to apply the true principle of trade, and thereby to promote the general interests of the nation. With this view her Majesty has directed the Lords Commissioners to call your attention to this subject. During the late Session her Majesty's Ministers brought forward certain measures as a commencement of the system: one of their new arrangements regarded the timber duties. On that subject, if your Lordships have thought it worth while to pay any attention to my conduct, you will be aware, that the measure had my entire approbation: it was, in fact, a measure which I had had the honour of proposing. The present state of the law compels the people to use worse timber at a higher price. I know that some ten years ago it was thought a good speculation for persons, in order to import Baltic timber, to carry it out in the first instance to Canada. Could anything be more absurd than to carry timber across the Atlantic in order to bring it back to Europe? Yet such was the case, and the reason was said to be that it gave

  21
  employment to ships which had been engaged as transports during the war, and were so completely rotten that they could carry no cargo but timber, I trust that those ships are now all worn out, and that we shall hear no more of any such argument. What, then, would be the effect of the measure proposed last Session? It would give people the means of selecting that species of timber which is most fit for their use, and it would besides increase the revenue. As to the amount of increase, I do not intend to enter into any calculations now, but it is obvious that the augmentation would be in proportion to the increased consumption of a timber which paid a somewhat higher duty. Neither would Canada timber be excluded, because for a great number of purposes it is much to be preferred. On the other hand, for many other purposes, Baltic timber is the best, and it is a great hardship upon people that they should not have the commodity they like best, when at the same time it benefitted the revenue, the material was worse, and the revenue suffered. Another point to which Ministers had directed the attention of Parliament was the sugar duties. Precisely the same course of reasoning applies to them, only more pressingly, as the amount would be greater. At present our laws tend to confine the importation of sugar to our own colonies; we refuse to receive foreign sugar, and amongst the rest sugar from the Brazils. The treaty with the Brazils is now near its expiration, and it is of great importance to decide the question soon with a view to the renewal of that treaty. Sugar, though not actually a necessary of life, is nearly so; and. by maintaining the existing system, you increase the cost of the commodity most materially to the middle and lower classes. So far, too, from benefitting the revenue, you are injuring it. An objection has been raised which would have the utmost weight with me if I thought it well founded. It is said, that to alter the sugar duties would interfere with the accomplishment of that great and noble measure by which slavery was abolished. If this objection were proved, I should be the last to consent to a change of the law upon such terms. We may loot back to many glorious achievements by this country in war, arts, and literature, but in my mind to none with so much satisfaction as to that achievement, accomplished with such unexampled unanimity, which is known as the abolition of slavery. It was wrought by many years of patient
  22
  struggle, and by an enormous pecuniary sacrifice, and liberty was restored by it to a vast mass of our suffering fellow creatures. If I thought there was the least danger of retarding a general manumission of the negro population by the reduction of the sugar duties, I could hardly bring myself to consent to the measure. Our great experiment has not succeeded, and cannot be said to have succeeded, until we have induced other nations to follow our example — until slavery is abolished, not only in our own colonies, but in every country of the world. Surely no greater obstacle to the attainment of this end can be imagined than to hold out to other nations that the effect upon us of the abolition of slavery has been such, that it is impossible for Great Britain to enter into competition with countries where slavery still continues. The general disposition of political men is to follow examples, but how can we expect other governments to imitate us, when we tell them, in effect, that we have done wrong as regards our own interests, and that we are afraid of admitting the sugar of colonies where slavery exists, because we have abolished it in our own? The last question to which I feel myself bound to refer is one specifically recommended to their attention by her Majesty's speech—the state of the law respecting the importation of foreign corn. On this subject the grossest misrepresentations have been spread abroad both on one side and the other. I am myself entirely dependent upon agriculture, and I, for one, can not believe that the price of corn will fail in consequence of the proposed change, so as to throw thousands of acres out of cultivation. Than this, in my opinion, nothing could be more lamentable, but I have no hesitation in saying that the present Corn-laws are no protection to the farmer. I do not believe, that by their abolition the price of corn would be materially altered. The price must always be fixed in proportion to the expense incurred in the cultivation, and the trade price must be settled generally by the price in this country. It was a complete mistake to suppose that the worst lands would be thrown out of cultivation, for they could only become a barren waste. The land thrown out of cultivation, if any was, would be that arable land which could be turned into pasture. Taking all these things into consideration, it is quite impossible to conceive that the price of corn would be very much diminished. I do not mean to say that it would not be diminished in a small degree,

  23
  but nothing to the extent which has been sometimes represented. During the continuance of the present laws there have been 11,309,000 qrs. of foreign corn imported into this country, and of this only 1,300,000 qrs. were introduced when the duty was above 13 s. 8d. It was not then worth the while of the foreign merchant to import wheat into this country unless he could receive 50 s. a quarter clear of duty: and this fact did not contradict any theory favourable to a repeal of the present laws. It bad been stated, that in the Channel Islands the average price was 41 s.; but I cannot believe that any large quantity could be introduced into this country at such a price. Your Lordships need not be under any apprehensions of the effects of the change in reducing the price of corn. I am quite aware that the principle of free trade is not altogether palatable to a considerable portion of their Lordships; but I must say, that I am convinced that the time will come when the principle of free trade will become general. It has generally been my fate to be in a minority; but I have seen that minority gradually decrease, and I feel confident that the question of freedom of trade, and of opening an intercourse with other countries to the greatest possible degree will eventually be carried. I may be asked, why I advocate the repeal of the Corn-laws, if the change would not cause an alteration in the price? What I want is to alter the price on the continent, in order that the manufacturer on the continent may be less able to compete with our manufacturer. Opening the trade will be of great advantage to every interest in the country. It will increase the prosperity of the country, because there is no doubt that on the prosperity of the manufacturer depends in a great degree the prosperity of the agriculturist. But what have the Corn-laws done? It is not when prices are high that persons engaged in agriculture want any assistance, but when prices are low. Under the present system, however, when prices are low, the Corn-laws depress them still more. I must repeat that I am quite aware that to a large portion of those whom I am addressing, these observations are not agreeable; but, I speak as a landed proprietor, as one interested in the produce of the soil, and I do hope and trust that your Lordships will relieve the agriculturist from the unmitigated evil of the present Corn-laws. The present Corn-laws, by their sudden changes, throw out Such an enormous temptation to frauds in
  24
  forcing up the price of corn, that they produce an evil which could hardly be exceeded. The measures proposed by the Government, I am confident, will ultimately prevail; but I must confess that I feel deeply apprehensive of the delay likely to take place. The country had suffered already from the long delay of one great measure—the Catholic Relief Bill. The present state of Ireland was owing in a great measure to the delay in passing that measure. Delay, too, will increase the agitation which already is at work on this subject. It will increase the heat and ill feeling engendered by a long contest. If their Lordships delay so long as to drive capital abroad, they will find it impossible to retrace their steps. The prosperity of the manufacturing portion of the community will have been destroyed, and will not return. Considering the great masses of our population congregated in towns, and requiring increased means of subsistence, I must say, that nothing can be more artificial than such a state of society; and I hope and trust that the time is not far remote when the alterations which I advocate will be carried into effect. The House ought to remember that when capital diminished in a country, the diminution rapidly went on. In concluding, I must say, that I should feel deep regret if the House do not agree to the address which I am about to propose. With most of her Majesty's Ministers I have long been in the habit of acting. I felt confidence in them when they came into office, I feel sanguine as to the policy which they will pursue, and I am glad to say, that I feel every confidence in them still. I must add, too, that I feel still as deeply as ever my attachment to the party to which I belong. The noble Earl then read the following Address,—
  MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble Thanks for Your Majesty's most gracious Speech.
  We desire to express our Satisfaction that Your Majesty has availed Yourself of the earliest Opportunity of resorting to the Advice and Assistance of Your Parliament after the Dissoution of the late Parliament.
  We assure Your Majesty that we are much

  25
  rejoiced to learn that Your Majesty continues to receive from Foreign Powers gratifying Assurances of their Desire to maintain with Your Majesty the most friendly Relations.
  We learn with much Contentment that the Objects for which the Treaty of July 1840 was concluded, between Your Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, have been fully accomplished; and we share in the Gratification with which Your Majesty is enabled to state, that the temporary Separation, which the Measures taken in execution of that Treaty created, between the Contracting Parties and France, has now ceased. We trust with Your Majesty that the Union of the principal Powers upon all matters affecting the great Interests of Europe will afford a firm Security for the Maintenance of Peace.
  We participate in the Joy with which Your Majesty informs us, that, in consequence of the Evacuation of Ghorian by the Persian Troops, Your Majesty has ordered Your Minister at the Court of Persia to return to Teheran.
  We regret that the Negotiations between Your Majesty's Plenipotentiaries in China and the Chinese Government have not yet been brought to a satisfactory Conclusion, and that it has been necessary to call into action the Forces which Your Majesty has sent to the China Seas but with Your Majesty we still trust that the Emperor of China will see the Justice of the Demands which Your Majesty's Plenipotentiaries have been instructed to make.
  We rejoice to learn that the Differences which had arisen between Spain and Portugal, about the Execution of a Treaty concluded by those Powers in 1835, for regulating the Navigation of the Douro, have been adjusted amicably and with Honour to both Parties, by the Aid of Your Majesty's Mediation.
  We humbly thank Your Majesty for acquainting us that the Debt incurred by the Legislature of Upper Canada for the Purposes of Public Works being a serious Obstacle to
  26
  further Improvements, which are essential to the Prosperity of the United Province, Your Majesty has authorized the Governor General to make a Communication on the Subject to the Council and Assembly of Canada. We also thank Your Majesty for having directed the Papers to be laid before us, and we assure Your Majesty that we will not fail to direct our earnest Attention to matters so materially affecting the Welfare of Canada and the Strength of the Empire.
  We beg to express our entire agreement with Your Majesty, that the extraordinary expenses which the events in Canada, China, and the Mediterranean, have occasioned, and the necessity of maintaining a force adequate to the protection of our extensive Possessions, have made it necessary to consider the means of increasing the Public Revenue; we participate in Your Majesty's anxiety that this object should be effected in the manner least burthensome to Your People; and it is our opinion that we may at this juncture properly direct our attention to the revision of Duties affecting the productions of Foreign Countries; we are prepared to consider whether some of these Duties are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the Revenue, while they are vexatious to Commerce; and to examine whether the principle of protection on which others of these Duties are founded, be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the State and the interests of the People.
  We beg to state to Your Majesty that, in obedience to Your Majesty's expressed desire, we will proceed to consider the Laws which regulate the Trade in Corn, and to determine whether those Laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply, whether they do not embarrass Trade, derange the Currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the privations of the great body of the community.
  We assure Your Majesty, that we fully share in the deep sympathy which Your Ma-

  27
  jesty feels with those of Your Majesty's Subjects who are now suffering from distress and want of employment, and we fervently join in Your Majesty's prayer, that all our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of Your Majesty's Subjects.
  The Marquess of Clanricardecould assure the House that he felt very sensibly the difficult and disadvantageous position in which he was placed in rising to support this Address, and how much he stood in need of all their Lordships' indulgence; because in following his noble Friend who had moved the Address, which he wished their Lordships to adopt, his noble Friend had adduced sufficient reason on the only part of that Address in which any difference of opinion could be apprehended—sufficient, at least, in his mind, to induce any calm, dispassionate assembly to adopt the Address, and bad, therefore, rendered it difficult for him to adduce any new argument; and also because anything which came from his noble Friend came with so much weight, not only on account of his eloquence and great ability, but also on account of the high position which he held as a great landed proprietor and a great constitutional statesman. He felt, that in touching upon any of the topics referred to by his noble Friend he must appear tedious to the House. He would however endeavour to state some of the principal grounds on which he hoped and trusted their Lordships would adopt the Address which his noble Friend had just read. Upon a great portion of the Address he apprehended that there would be no difference of opinion. He thought it must be a subject of satisfaction to the House to hear that her Majesty received from foreign powers assurances of their desire to maintain with her Majesty the most friendly relations; and it must also be gratifying to them to learn that the treaty which was signed last year had been now fairly brought to an end. The policy of that treaty was discussed last year pretty fully in the House, and as it might be said to have been pretty generally approved and to have received the sanction of Parliament, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House longer on this point, except to add, that it must be very satisfactory for them to see, that notwithstanding the difficulties which occurred in carrying that treaty into execution, the judicious employment of her Majesty's forces, and the skill and valour of those forces, com-
  28
  bined with the honourable forbearance, and steadiness, and determination displayed by her Majesty's government and the Government of Russia, had enabled them to arrive at so speedy and satisfactory a conclusion as had been come to. It was, he believed, a matter of notoriety that a treaty had been agreed upon by the parties to the treaty of last year and by France, relative to the navigation of the Dardanelles; but as that treaty had not yet been ratified it had not been mentioned in the speech from the Throne. The separation of France from the other great powers of Europe might therefore be said to be at an end. All the doubts and anxieties which had been excited in the public mind on this point, he hoped would soon subside, and thus the peace of Europe would be further guaranteed. The paragraph in her Majesty's speech in which her Majesty informs the House, that in consequence of the evacuation of Ghorian by the Persian troops, her Majesty had ordered her Minister to the Court of Persia to return to Teheran, must also be a matter of satisfaction to the House, and gave us reason to hope that the points still to be settled with the Shah would be amicably arranged. On those portions of the Address which related to foreign affairs it was unnecessary to trouble their Lordships at any length, because he believed they were all matters of congratulation; but he could not disguise from himself, that there were other points on which his noble Friend had dilated on which he (the Marques of Clanricarde) differed from many noble Lords on the other side of the House, and it was only because he had the greatest reliance on their patriotism, that he could hope that they would accede to this Address. This topic it was, therefore, unpleasant for him to open. In fact, it was difficult for him to do so without touching upon points which must be familiar to the House, for almost every thing had been adduced on one side of the question or the other by authorities whose knowledge of the best principles of national finance, commerce, and political economy gave them great weight. But in maintaining his own opinion, he hoped he might say, if not altogether unbiassed, his bias would not be suspected of prejudice. The manufacturing interest and the agricultural interest had disclaimed any bias, but he felt great distrust of such general disclaimers, for a knowledge of human nature told us, that when a class of individuals had a particular interest, their bias generally went with

  29
  their interest. He begged leave to say, that it was not only as one having the honour of a voice in their Lordships' deliberations that he advised, but as one whose whole property was involved in land, he implored them to accede to the opinions expressed in the Address, advocating an alteration in the Corn-laws—laws which, in his opinion, did most injuriously affect the landed interest. He said, that the landowners had the greatest of all interests in the corn trade, and if there was one class more than another which had a deeper interest in the general prosperity of the empire, it was also the landowners. It was directly proved, that no parties could so much profit by any increase of the wealth of the country as the landed interest, because the land was of a limited quantity, but the power of expansion of the commercial wealth of a country was unlimited. If they gave expansion to the commerce of a country, it was impossible to say how far it might go—where it would stop; but the land was limited, and if they would allow their fellow subjects to acquire wealth whilst they retained their land, their land would increase enormously in value, either for selling or keeping. But he maintained, that the landed interest were the direct sufferers from the present law. A trade of any sort must be profitable in one of two ways —either there must be a regular business with steady profits, or, when fluctuations take place, they must be attended with so much profit at one time as to overbalance the Josses at another. Now, he ventured to affirm, that any reference to the operation of the present Corn-laws would show, that it had terribly aggravated the fluctuations of the trade in corn, and that the profits of those fluctuations had never gone into the pockets of the British farmer, but, on the contrary, the loss had invariably fallen upon them. If they referred to the tables which had been laid before Parliament, they would find, that the quantity of corn—by that term he meant wheat—imported into England since the passing of the present law, amounted to 13,000,000 quarters, while the prices of it averaged from 56 s. to 57 s. a quarter. But they all knew, that in the year 1834, wheat was down as low as 35 s. and 36 s., while, since that period, the price had increased to 64 s. in 1839, and even up to the average of 70 s. If, therefore, the farmer could gain at all, he ought to have gained with those prices, but he would venture to say, that he had not gained by the high prices; on the con-
  30
  trary, he had lost by them, because, if their Lordships looked to the returns to which he had alluded, they would find, that in 1834, when prices were low, only 28,000 quarters of foreign corn had been imported, while, in 1839, when prices were high, there were entered for home consumption 2,711,723 quarters. The returns also showed, that of the 13,000,000 of quarters of foreign corn imported into this country since the commencement of the present law, upwards of 10,000,000 quarters had been admitted at an average duty of 2s. 10d. This was what they called a protective duty given to the farmer by the present law. It was thus clearly proved from these returns, that in 1834, when prices were down at the low rates which he had stated, the British farmer sold all his corn, but when the prices increased to the high rate, then the averages were worked up— whether properly or not was another consideration—then, after the people had been kept in want for a certain time, until the duty was low enough, was foreign corn admitted, and sold at the high prices, while the British farmer had sold his at the low prices. If they calculated the gain made by those who sold at the high prices, and the loss sustained by those who sold at the low prices, it would be found that the British farmer had sustained an enormous loss in consequence of the operation of the present law, and that the protection said to be afforded to him by it was entirely a delusion. There was another part of the subject to which he could not help calling the attention of their Lordships—it regarded the different quantities of the supply. If they gave, as they fancied that they gave, to the British farmer protection against the introduction of foreign corn—if they wished to give him a monopoly of the market, it was their duty to see that the market was supplied by the farmer, and that he was able to meet the wants of the community. Unfortunately that was not the case. It was notorious, that in 1838, and in other seasons when prices were high, large quantities of foreign wheat had been introduced by capitalists, in the hope of reaping the advantages to be derived from a low duty and high prices. It was quite clear, that in 1834, when the harvest was abundant, there was not more corn than what the wants of the country required, because in the course of the two following years foreign corn still continued to be entered for home consumption. It was calculated, that there was a deficiency

  31
  in the harvest of 1839, compared with that of 1834, of from 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 quarters, but taking it at 7,000,000, being the lowest calculation, and taking from that amount the quantity entered for home consumption, they would still find an alarming difference in the market supply of corn. Their lordships would perceive that the prices had been forced up in the years which he had mentioned as being years in which foreign corn had been introduced, in consequence of the scarcity at home. This sufficiently proved, that they had not enough of home grown corn to supply the market. He asked their Lordships how they could account for the difference of 5,000,000 quarters in the supply between the periods he had mentioned, unless it was, that a great part of the population had bread in one year, but were without it in another? Was not this an appalling fact—no matter whether the difference was either 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 quarters? Was it not, he asked, an appalling fact, when they found such an immense difference in the consumption of the country in one year over another, proving, as it most undoubtedly did, that a great portion of the population were at certain times not supplied with bread, and occasional want and scarcity of food, if not a degree of starvation? There had been one argument used against any alteration of the present laws—one that had been greatly insisted on during the last election, but which he though most puerile and absurd, although it seemed to have had great weight with some persons—it was said, that it was unsafe for this country to have recourse to foreign countries for a supply of so essential an article of food as corn. But what had experience shown? They had no need to go back to the history of other countries, ancient or modern, to Venice, or Genoa, or Holland, or to Rome, whose power and position most nearly resembled our own— they had the experience of the present day to go upon—the fact was going on at that very instant. If it was dangerous to depend on foreign, countries for such a supply, it was a danger which they had already incurred. If it was an unfortunate state of things to be so situated, it could not be denied, that they were then in that unfortunate condition, for the fact was, that they were now dependant on foreign supplies The question which Parliament had to consider was, whether they would make such an alteration in the present law as would ensure a regular supply, sufficient for the
  32
  wants of the community, or whether they would continue to subject the nation to hose ruinous fluctuations — occasionally starving the people, and bringing ruin upon he very farmer himself. The fact, that since the existence of the present law, this country had imported altogether 13,000,000 quarters of wheat, was a sufficient proof that they were dependant on foreign nations or at least one-sixteenth or one seventeenth part of the wheat consumed in this country. But they had been told that they could not depend on this; that war might break out, and that the ports would be shut against us. This might sound well in theory, but it lad been proved, not only by sound reasoning, but also by experience, that the force of the physical wants of mankind was stronger than any fiscal regulations. What occurred in 1809 and 1810 was a complete refutation of this argument. At no other period were the ports on the continent so effectually closed against this country, yet how effectually their Lordships might judge, from the notorious fact, that the imports of corn from the continent to England in 1809 and 1810 were immense. In the House of Commons in 1811, Mr. Horner stated, in argument upon the currency, that 2,000,000 quarters of corn had been imported within the year. Mr. G. Rose replied, on the part of Government, and said, that it was quite true that such a quantity of foreign corn had been imported, but justified it because there was a scarcity in this country nearly amounting to a famine. That, therefore, which was now represented as dangerous, had been proved to be no danger at all He would not detain their Lordships by dwelling on the evil effects of the present laws in regard to the currency of the country. In periods of great distress these laws had a most injurious operation. Then was just the time, when bullion was most necessary to the country, that these laws forced the precious metals abroad, deranging the monetary system at a time when, above all others, it was most desirable to have it in a sound state. It was difficult for the manufacturer to contend against such a state of things. What they complained of was, the inequality of the present laws. He agreed with the noble Lord who moved the Address, that supposing a fixed duty established or all duties abolished, the price of corn would not be depressed so much as many people imagined. But under the present system the manufacturer had to contend, not against the

  33
  average price so much as against the high prices, which every now and then occurred. He was ready to admit, that if corn became cheaper, wages would most undoubtedly fall. That he knew was a favourite argument with the noble Lord on the other side, but the value of a man's labour was not to be estimated merely according to a nominal amount of wages in reference to money alone. If, under an alteration of the Corn-laws, the workman was enabled to procure a greater quantity of food for the same amount of labour than he could at present obtain, no matter what might be the nominal rate of wages, if for a certain sum of money he should get a larger supply of food and clothing than he could before, then most undoubtedly would his condition be bettered, and to all intents and purposes would he be a richer man. No one he thought would dissent from that proposition. If the manufacturer had but fair play, there could be no doubt but that the market for manufactures would be greatly extended. Whenever our Government proposed to any foreign government an alteration of their tariff, they were invariably referred to the restrictions which this country had placed on the importation of foreign corn, and this was always found to be an article in the way of a new liberal commercial treaty. So long as the price of corn remained lower on the continent than it was in this country, they would force the manufacturers of this country to export machinery, and mechanics would go abroad, where they could obtain a sufficiency of food, because the food was not permitted to come to them. The consequence was, that foreign countries obtained the skill and the machinery of this country, the market was shut against those manufactures which, if trade was opened and an alteration made in the present Corn-laws, would be received from this country ready made. He was well aware that in arguing for a lower price of corn he might be answered by it being said, that this could be obtained by lowering the sliding scale. He objected to the principle of the sliding scale, for the effect of it was to interfere with and derange the currency, while its past operation, he thought, had been altogether injurious. The principle of it was, that the corn for the supply of the population should be grown at home, and that the ports should only be open for the admission of foreign corn in seasons of scarcity and want; but the principle of a fixed duty is, and the effect of it would be,
  34
  to ensure at all times to the people a steady supply of foreign corn—not excessive at one time and too small at another, but a regular and steady supply, equal to the demand. In his opinion, the protection afforded to the farmer by the sliding scale was altogether a fiction—if made so low as to have the effect of a fixed duty, it would still be a delusion on the agriculturist. It was much fairer for the advocates of a sliding scale to say that they were going to alter it materially, than to profess that they were going to maintain it with some modifications. Such subtlety might be suited for the hustings, but it was unbecoming when used in debating the question in Parliament. If the advocates of an alteration in the sliding scale meant to establish a regular trade in foreign corn, they ought at once to say so to the people. The Address which he had the honour to second spoke fairly and frankly on this point; it differed in this respect from former documents of the like description. Nothing could be more explicit; and all that noble Lords opposite had to do to negative it would be to move the insertion of the word "not," in the different parts of the address. He only wished they would be as explicit and frank in the declaration of their principles as the Address itself, because he had been watching the opinion of the leading men on the other side in regard to this question, and he had seen a great deal of most unbecoming evasion, which he trusted their Lordships would not adopt. He recollected the outcry against their Lordships some years ago—it was said, that they had lost the esteem of the country, and that their aristocracy would be overthrown. In this alarm he never participated; but if their Lordships practised the evasion which some leading men had done on this question, he feared that their influence would be in considerable danger. It might be very well for the advocates of a sliding scale to say, that there was no occasion to discuss this subject—that their past conduct in relation to it was well known—that they would afford protection to the agricultural and landed interest. He and those who voted with him were quite prepared to do that. The phrase meant nothing. Would it not have been better for them to have said, "We will give the agricultural interest protection by maintaining the present scale exactly as it is?" This would have been better than merely giving general and evasive answers which could bind no one.

  35
  He wished their Lordships to avoid this, and to take a more decided course. It was infinitely better that they should do so, under the circumstances in which they were at present placed. Ministers held their tenure of office on this question of a fixed duty. If their views were rejected by Parliament, they would have to leave office; and it was infinitely better that those who should succeed them should not be supposed, when they came into office, to flinch from the principles which they professed when out. He knew not whether such a course had been adopted to gratify the country or their party, but this he knew, there was no question, if viewed as a party matter, on which the Government could be defeated with more satisfaction to themselves for having brought it forward, than on this question of Free trade When he recollected the various acts of the present Ministry — their reform of abuses, which twelve years ago was thought impossible—the reform in Parliament and in the municipal corporations, by which the recurrence of abuse had been rendered almost impossible—when he recollected they had reformed the abuses in the tithe system in Ireland, and placed the church in both countries on a better footing—when he recollected this, he thought they could not better terminate their official existence, they could not fall in a better cause, than in a struggle against unnecessary, and therefore, unjust taxation, and in an attempt to relieve the people from a pressing and enormous grievance. He hoped, therefore, noble Lords opposite would fairly meet the matter at once, and state their reasons against extending the trade of the country, and against enabling the people to pay into the treasury a revenue sufficient to dispense with the necessity of any new taxation. He hoped they would state their objections fairly, for, as he had said before, if Ministers were so unfortunate as to be overthrown on this question, they could not be defeated with more honour to themselves than in defending the principles embodied in the Address.
  The Earl of Riponfully concurred in the observation made by his noble Friends who moved and seconded the Address, that there were some topics referred to in the Address to which their Lordships would probably offer no objection; and for his own part he would most willingly have followed the example that had been generally set by their Lordships in the last eight years, and not offer any opposition to the Address,
  36
  beyond a general reservation as to certain parts, had he felt himself at liberty to do so. He would have preferred to have taken that course on the present occasion if he could have done so honestly to his own feelings. Whilst, however, there were some points in the Address which he could not pass over without directing the particular attention of their Lordships to them, and upon which he entirely differed from the sentiments of the proposed Address, he felt himself also called upon to make some observations upon those parts in which he concurred. He alluded particularly to the state of our foreign relations. He owned that he cordially rejoiced at the complete restoration of those amicable feelings which had subsisted between France and England, and had for a time last year suffered some interruption. To the prudence, judgment, and moderation of the King of the French they owed much for the restoration of those amicable feelings and relations. They had also to thank his ministers, who by their sound judgment and due appreciation of the feelings known to exist towards France at this side of the water, had so ably seconded the good sense and good feeling of their Sovereign. By their combined exertions supported by the concurrence of the French people they had put an end, for a time at least, to all grounds of alarm as to any disturbance of the peace of Europe, which had been risked by the reckless conduct of some of their predecessors in office. But let him add that his satisfaction at those circumstances would be much greater if he saw that the great question out of which those temporary differences had arisen were now settled on a firm and lasting basis. But it must be evident to their Lordships that matters in those quarters had not yet been so settled. The Pasha of Egypt was still a powerful vassal, while the Sultan was a powerless sovereign, and the preservation of the improved condition of affairs in that quarter depended not more upon the fact of a good understanding between the five great powers of Europe, than upon the manner in which their efforts might be directed to that great object of their alliance, the preservation of the Ottoman Empire and the general peace of Europe. He also concurred with his noble Friend in rejoicing at the renewal of our amicable relations with Persia, but his noble Friend (the Marquessof Clanricarde) had alluded to some points still unsettled between this country and Persia, though he had not told their Lordships

  37
  what they were; but whatever they were, he hoped that the exertions of our diplomatic agent who had proceeded to Teheran would soon bring them to an amicable termination. He attached the more importance to the restoration of amicable relations with Persia, on account of its intimate connection with other courts of immense importance, not noticed in the speech. He alluded to the war—for such it really was—which was now going on on the north bank of the Indus, of the commencement of which we had but scanty information, and of which no man could predict what would be the end. These operations had been marked in the first instance by a certain flash of success, and we had succeeded, at a very considerable sacrifice of men and money, in placing on the throne of Affghanistan a decrepid old man, who had previously been thirty years an exile from that kingdom. But although we had already exhausted in those operations all the surplus treasure of the Indian Government, and had been obliged to resort to a loan for the purpose of maintaining our position beyond the Indus; it was clear that without the continued presence of the British troops, the throne of Shah Soojah was utterly insecure, whilst we were perpetually engaged in a desultory and harassing warfare, as much for our own security in the country as for the maintenance of the tottering authority of the Sultan. In the Punjaub also, with whose ruler Runjeet Singh we had made a treaty, which led to the attack of Affghanistan, all now was utter confusion. He had recently died, the succession to the throne was previously disputed, and the interposition of that large and distracted country, between our own frontier and the scene of our operations beyond the Indus, seriously complicated our position, and rendered it equally difficult to say how we could remain with safety or retire with honour. There was, however, another kind of warfare noticed in the speech, which was still more singular in its character. It was a war carried on at a great expense and a great sacrifice of human life, but carried on against an enemy who would not fight. We knocked his castles about his ears, destroyed his ships, and took away his guns, and then asked him to enter into a negotiation to give us redress for an attack, to bear with which would be a compromise upon our honour as a nation. To this negotiation a kind of half consent was given,
  38
  but before its conclusion the island of Chusan, which we had taken and held for some time at a great loss of life, was hastily restored to the Chinese Government, some of the troops were ordered to return to India, as if all was settled, and a treaty (such as it was) sent over to this country, for the ratification of the British Government. In the mean time the Chinese authorities did not observe even its preliminary arrangements, and the British Government refused to ratify it; so that, after all, the affair is still unsettled; and not a particle of information is given to us either as to the cause or the course of this ridiculous and discreditable war. Nor have we any means of judging whether it has arisen from the blundering instructions sent from home, or to the blundering execution of them on the spot. On the subject of our relations with the United States of America, he studiously refrained from saying a word, for there were some delicate points connected with it on which he thought it better to refrain from saying anything for the present. He now came to a part of the speech upon which it was evident his noble Friends opposite did not anticipate an unanimous vote from their Lordships. He certainly was not surprised that his noble Friends should entertain such an anticipation; for under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it utterly impossible that there could be an unanimous vote upon it. He meant that part of the speech which referred to the ministerial proposition for improving the finances of the country— propositions affecting the general state of trade and commerce, and of the trade in corn in particular. According to the views of the Government, the three questions propounded by them were inseparably linked together, and could not be properly discussed or considered except in relation with each other. From the terms of the speech it was to be assumed that the Government retained (although it certainly had not hitherto been famous for retaining in one session what it had advanced in the previous one)—it was to be assumed that the Government still retained its opinion that the measures it had suggested with respect to the duties on timber, sugar, and corn were absolutely necessary to meet the difficulties of a great financial crisis. If he thought that those measures were calculated to meet the difficulties of the crisis; nay, even if he thought, being calculated to meet those

  39
  difficulties, they were nevertheless liable to serious objections, he should yet hesitate in proposing to their Lordships to express any opinion with reference to the principles on which the Government had brought them forward, and had conducted the finances of the country. But it was because he thought, that, in this matter of the finances of the country, there had been the greatest possible mismanagement, and that the plan of the Government was quite inadequate to remedy the evil, that he felt himself bound to state, that he could not think that their Lordships could do otherwise than express their opinion that her Majesty's Government did not possess the confidence of that House. Upon various occasions within the last two years he had taken opportunities of explaining to their Lordships the views which he entertained upon these subjects, and the very great apprehensions which he felt that the ministry were embarking in a ruinous course. He had also upon those occasions expressed an opinion that some most decided, vigorous, efficient, and certain scheme ought to be proposed for the purpose of extricating the finances of the country from the immense difficulties in which they were involved. For the last four years the revenue had been annually diminishing, and in the course of that time the expenditure had exceeded the income by no less a sum than 5,000,000 l. It was, moreover, a singular fact, and one he thought deserving of serious consideration, that during those four years the mode that had been taken in order to fill up the deficiency in the revenue was one that, however advisable to resort to occasionally, under the pressure of a single and sudden emergency, was utterly unjustifiable as a general principle, or as applied to a series of years. How had the deficiency been made up? The mode of doing it was not known till the present year, when a paper was called for in the other House of Parliament requiring the Government to explain how the deficiency had been met; and how was it done? Principally by tampering with the savings banks, by borrowing money from the savings banks, or at least what was equivalent to borrowing money from them—by converting part o their stock in Exchequer bills into an addition to the permanent funded debt of the country. Such a course of proceeding, al though not contrary to the law, was, to say the least of it, highly objectionable. To make use of the savings banks year after
  40
  year for the purpose of propping up a fallen revenue, without the knowledge of Parliament—without any communication with he House of Commons—was, in his opinion, an unconstitutional proceeding, and one which no Government ought to have recourse to. It was objectionable upon he constitutional point as being done without the knowledge of Parliament; but it was even more objectionable as regarded the savings banks themselves. What were the savings banks? Institutions or the receipt and safe custody of the savings of our poorer fellow citizens; of those men, who, by honest industry and praiseworthy prudence, were enabled to save something of the fruits of their toil to gild the evening of their laborious lives, and who were induced by the Legislature to entrust those savings to the public custody. But if the Government upon every emergency were to be at liberty to touch these funds, for the purpose of propping up a failing revenue, what security would the depositors have for the safe custody of a property which was to them invaluable. He did not mean to say, that any positive mischief had actually occurred; but the principle was wrong, and was calculated to cause distrust in the minds of those whom the Legislature had invited to entrust their savings to a department of the Government, and whose distrust might be encreased by the very fact of the transaction not being carried into effect in the open day, and the face of Parliament and the country. In his opinion, therefore, the Government were not justified in persevering in it for so long a time. The other course which they had pursued, if not equally unjustifiable, was still liable to great objection; he meant the practice of diminishing the balances in the Exchequer by a very great amount. To meet the financial difficulties in which they were involved, the Government had diminished those balances to a comparatively very low sum. That was a very improvident mode of dealing with the difficulty against which they had to contend, and if it were resorted to upon every such emergency as had arisen within the last few years, the result would soon be that there would be no floating balance at all. No course of proceeding could be more objectionable if carried on systematically for a series of years. There was another point connected with this part of the subject, upon which he begged to make one or two observations. It appeared, that, during the course

  41
  of the last ten years, additions had been made to the annual charge of the public funded debt of the country to the amount of nearly 1,000,000 l., for which no provision whatever had been made by Parliament. This was not, perhaps, objectionable at the period at which it was first done; because at that time there was a positive surplus of income over expenditure, so that the additional expense thrown upon the country by the process of raising the money did not add to the public burdens—it merely diminished the surplus. But during the last four years there had been a constant deficiency of revenue to meet the expenditure of the country, and yet no provision whatever had been made for the 1,000,000 l. added to the public debt. It was a large sum, and, taken together with the additional expense incurred by the mode of not raising a sufficient income to meet the expenditure, and, with the revenue lost by the too hasty adoption of the Post office scheme, the gross amount of both in their effect upon the balance of income and expenditure, was not less than 2,200,000 l., pretty nearly the whole amount of the deficiency which Parliament had been called upon to provide for in the course of the present year. This exhibited a mismanagement—a want of arrangement on the part of the Government— which was quite unpardonable. The finances of the country could not bear to be treated in such an unskilful manner. His noble Friend (Earl Spencer), who moved the Address, had observed, that commerce could not wait for any long consideration on the part of the Legislature— that its defects, if remedied at all, must be remedied with promptness and despatch. But brief as the period, that commerce could wait, might be, finance could not wait so long. Finance was more delicate, more sensitive than commerce. In finance we might be ruined before we knew where we were. He could only designate the proceedings of the Government, therefore, upon this point of finance, as most shortsighted, most imprudent, and most impolitic. Upon previous occasions he had stated the view which he took upon this subject, and he did so under a strong sense of the very serious danger to which the country was exposed by the condition in which its finances were placed. He hoped, however, that he had never stated anything beyond what the case actually required. He had endeavoured to exaggerate
  42
  nothing, to impute no blame, to abstain, as far as possible, from anything calculated to excite inconvenient discussion; and he had had the satisfaction of hearing from his noble Friend at the head of the Government, that he admitted all the statements he had made—that he admitted most of the inferences he drew, and, in fact, although he did not admit all, he did not refute any. He thought, therefore, that he might take the liberty now, when two years had elapsed—when he found the condition of the finances so precarious, and attended with so much danger—he thought he might now take the liberty of again noticing the subject to the House, to point to the financial mismanagement of the Government, as constituting, in his judgment, a ground for the expression of want of confidence. In 1840, the Government, sensible of the necessity of doing something, proposed to meet the exigency of the time by a considerable addition to the taxes. This showed that they felt the necessity of making some effort to meet the crisis; but the scheme they adopted was but a clumsy contrivance, and was accompanied by a notification of a plan contemplated by the Government, which if it had been carried into effect would have been quite in contravention of the whole principle of the finance project of that year; he meant the negotiations for a commercial treaty with France, which was at that time going on, and was announced to Parliament at the time of the budget. Now, the main part of the scheme of 1840 consisted in the imposition of new duties on the customs generally and an additional duty specifically upon spirits. But if that treaty with France had been carried into effect, it would have been necessary to call upon Parliament to undo a great deal of what had been done the year before, in order to put the expenditure of the country upon a right footing; for it was clear that there were certain articles of French produce upon which our duties must have been relaxed under any commercial treaty with France, and therefore the increase of duty to which such articles would have been subjected by the plan of 1840, must have been taken off in the subsequent year, thus destroying all previous calculation, and throwing commerce into uncertainty and confusion, by a policy at once vacillating and contradictory. They now came to the present year, and they found the deficiency of revenue to be the same. No; it was not the same;

  43
  it was aggravated, because in addition to the deficiency of the year before, the deficiency calculated for the present year would exceed 2,000,000 l., and then the Government came down with a scheme which they professed to consider a plan for putting our revenue on a sound footing—namely, the alteration of the duty on the three articles to which the noble Lords opposite had referred, and it was stated by the Government that these alterations would have the triple elicit of improving the revenue, extending our commerce, and benefitting the consumer. He should have no difficulty in showing, that not one of these alterations could possibly effect all these objects. He would point this out. The manner in which it was proposed by the Government to deal with timber was this: they said, that the proportion between the duty on foreign and on Canadian timber was unduly favourable to the latter. He did not defend the disproportion in the abstract, he admitted that it did require revision; but what he questioned was, the prudence and the policy of the mode in which the Government proposed to revise it. They proposed to increase the duty on Canadian timber by doubling it, that is, by raising it from 10 s to 20 s., and to reduce the duty on Baltic timber by 5s., that is, from 55 s. to 50 s.—increasing the duty on Canadian timber 100 per cent., and reducing that on foreign timber by 9 per cent. Now, what the noble Lord had stated was true, that it was admitted that Canadian timber was not so fit as the Baltic for certain purposes —though this was not quite a clear proposition, since in Canada there were buildings, churches and other edifices, that had been standing for 120 or 130 years; but his noble Friend had said at the same time that it was admitted, that a great deal of Canadian timber was perfectly fitted for other purposes—namely, for the internal timber of houses. In those cases its superior cheapness compensated for any deficiency in its quality of durability. Now, the scheme of the Government to benefit the consumer was by increasing the duty 100 per cent. How could that benefit the consumer? Then it was said, that it would answer the purpose of revenue. How could that be? Perhaps it might, if it had the effect of compelling the people to substitute Baltic timber for Canadian timber; for, supposing the same quantity of timber to be consumed, it would pay a higher duty. But how would
  44
  that benefit the interest of the consumers of Canadian timber? and the only effect of the change in a commercial point of view would be a certain encrease in the trade to the Baltic, counterbalanced by an equivalent diminution of trade with our North American colonies. And how are the consumers of Baltic timber benefitted? Mr. Macgregor, who had laid a rigmarole paper before the import duties Committee—who got a gentleman from the office of the Board of Trade before them, though it was impossible he could know what he was going to do or to say—had laid a proposition before the committee for altering the duty, which he (Lord Ripon) believed was the foundation of the whole scheme, and this gentleman said, that the duty on Baltic timber amounted to from 50 to 200 per cent. Take it at 100 per cent.; then, if the duty were 55 s., the cost of the article would be 110 s. per load. And what is the benefit given to the consumer? Why 5s. out of 110s Was there any person, knowing anything of business, who supposed that a reduction of 5s. in 110 s. would benefit the consumer? It might put money into the pocket of the merchant or the builder, but not one farthing into that of the consumer; therefore, this tax could not answer the triple object proposed by the Government. He called it a complete fallacy, and he considered such a scheme for supplying the deficiency of the revenue as little short of madness. Then as to sugar; the amount of the reduction of the price of sugar which would be obtained by the measure of the Government, was calculated at a fraction of a farthing per pound. Now, unless the price of the article should be reduced at least 1d. per pound, it would be folly to expect that the consumer would derive anything from it. He was not prepared to say, that there was no period at which the duty upon foreign sugar could be reduced, and he could not bind himself to such a proposition. But the noble Lord who had moved the Address had told their Lordships, that if he thought the foreign slave trade would be promoted by the alteration of the system of the sugar duties, with all his love of free trade, he for one, would not consent to it. Now, he thought it must have that effect; he thought there was, at least, great danger of its having that effect, and this, in his mind, was an objection to the scheme. He had been engaged in the noble work of extinguishing slavery in our colonies. That

  45
  great experiment was now in a course of trial, and he believed it was working remarkably well, and he had no doubt that the produce of sugar in our free colonies would, at no distant time, be largely increased, and sold at a cheaper rate. The measure was one which he had the honour of opening in their Lordships' House, and he, therefore, took a deeper interest in the question. He thought the measure of Government would have the effect he had mentioned, and that, at all events, it was unwise to risk it. He knew it was said that all this was sickly sentiment; that those who opposed the measure on the ground that it would tend to the increase of slavery, pretended a deal for the abolition of the slave trade which they did not feel; and that under that pretence they cloaked their reluctance to afford to the people the benefit of cheap sugar. He did not think this was sickly sentiment, and, as far as he was concerned, he had ever been forward to join in any project, to extinguish the slave trade, and the first vote he had given in Parliament, when a very young man, had been in support of Mr. Fox's bill for the abolition of the slave trade. But there was another subject to be considered in this question, which had not been noticed by the noble Mover. It had been only within these two or three years that it had been deemed expedient to put the sugar grower in our territories in the East Indies on the same footing as the grower of West India sugar. The climate of India was adapted to a variety of products, and could grow an immense quantity of excellent sugar, and it was our duty to develop the resources by every means in our power. It should be recollected, that the vast progress of our cotton manufacture in this country had extinguished the cotton manufacture in India, and the policy of this country had always been (upon the wisdom of which he gave no opinion) not to permit the East India Company to put any duty upon the manufactures of England, except a nominal one of about 2½ per cent., which produced a trifling revenue, but afforded no protection to the manufacturer of the East. He said, that justice required that we should pause before we let the foreign slave owners come into competition with the growers of East India sugar. Was there anything sickly in that? It appeared to him that objections without end applied to every part of the Government scheme, which he thought would appear still more strongly, when he came to consider that
  46
  most important part of the whole case, he meant the alteration of the Corn-laws. That was a subject so difficult, so delicate, and, in some points of view, so dangerous, that he hardly knew in what manner he should best approach it. He wished to express his view of the question, but not to trouble their Lordships more than was necessary. He thought he should be able to show that the measure was one in which their Lordships ought not to concur. The noble Mover of the Address had told their Lordships that he was an advocate for free trade—for free trade in every thing, and, above all, a free trade in corn. But the noble Lord very fairly referred to the monstrous exaggerations which prevailed upon this subject. But the first question to be asked was, what is the real proposition of the Government? Is it free trade, or merely a question of the best mode of giving a protection? In his opinion, whatever might be the professed object of the Government, within whatever bounds they might incline to limit their views, the whole question is in substance, and in the view of all parties in the country, a question of absolute free trade, without any protection whatever. Why were the two noble Lords selected to move and second the Address? It was customary for the Mover and Seconder to confer with the Ministers previously, and he must assume, that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government was aware, when he selected the two noble Lords as the Mover and Seconder of the Address, that they would argue the question on the principles of free trade, and no other, it was not unfair or unjust to infer that this is the end of the whole scheme. The country cannot have the slightest doubt, from what had been said in pamphlets and newspaper on newspaper, and from the bitter reproaches and calumnies cast upon the defenders of the Corn-laws, and from the arguments of the anti-corn-law league, that there was to be an abolition of all protection; and that nothing short of that would satisfy those who impugned the existing Corn-law with such unmitigated and fierce hostility. And their Lordships must therefore make up their minds to that if they adopt this Address, and give their confidence to such a Government. If this was a question bonâ fide whether there should be a fixed duty of 8s., or a sliding scale—if it was a question as to the mode of giving protection, which was the most convenient and the fairest—would that be

  47
  a question upon which to agitate the country as this had done—to set class against class, to rouse the worst feelings of our nature, and to create such a ferment throughout the country, as would render any useful consideration of the question utterly impracticable. Thequestion could not be settled so. He would, if their Lordships pleased, say that both parties were guilty of exaggeration; but the dangerous and violentagitation, the agitation which threatened disorders, and the breaking up of all social feelings, appeared to him to be on the side of those who clamoured for what they called "cheap bread," though cheap bread it would not bring, even according to the distinct and honest declaration of the noble Earl himself, who advocates so warmly the extreme principle of no protection whatever. When charges against those who supported the Corn-laws, of being hardhearted monopolists, were spread amongst the people—he did not say by the Government—he did not accuse them, but by persons of influence—it was a most dangerous agitation. He regretted to find in a report—he would not call it a charge, but an insinuation—that, as the Legislature is composed of great landed proprietors, the people were led to believe, that they were ready to strain measures with a view to keep up their rents. Then their Lordships had been told to look at the question in connection with the existing law, and it had been said, that the existing law had entirely failed in its object. He would show, that the law in its operation had not only not failed, but that it had produced the effects which it had been intended to produce. Their Lordships would find, from a return of the averages of corn for several years to the last year, that the average price of corn, for the last twelve years, had been 58 s. 6d., which was not at all an extravagant average; and if they divided the period into two parts—aud that was the fairest way— it would appear that the average price of wheat, in the first six years, was 59 s. 1d., and of the second six years 57 s. 6½., so that the averages of the two portions very nearly agreed; showing that there had been in the operation of the act, something approaching to an equality of price to justify his saying, that the scheme had not failed. But, in order to make the point still more clear, he would divide the period into three parts: in the first four years the average was high, 63 s. 10½d.; during these years, the averages being high, and there being
  48
  therefore a necessity for the importation of foreign corn, the importation in those four years amounted to 4,936,822 quarters. In the last four years the price was nearly the same, 64 s. 4½ d. and the importation was 6,780,823 quarters; so that during these two periods, the law performed its office of supplying the corn that was wanted. In the second period the average was 46 s. 8¾d., considerably below both the first and last, and the importation was only 205,889 quarters. But it had not been an excess of importation that had produced the low price, but the increase of production here, and this shows that the law had effected its proper purposes. Those purposes being to admit all that could be wanted when the price was high, and our own supply scarce, and to exclude it when our own abundance caused the price to be materially reduced. It was said, that if there had been a fixed duty, there would have been comparatively no fluctuation at all; that commerce would have been free and easy, and everything would have gone on well. This, however, was contrary to experience in respect to many other articles. Upon a former occasion, he had shown their Lordships, that, taking a series of years, in the prices of wool, cotton, hemp, silk, and articles without end, imported in large quantities from every part of the world, there had been greater fluctuations than in the prices of corn. The noble Lord who seconded the Address had alluded to the objection made to the proposed scheme, on the ground of its making this country dependent upon foreign supply, which was a dangerous thing, and he had argued that he saw no danger in this; but it appeared to him that it was the true ground upon which he felt himself justified in supporting the Corn-laws, and he could not, after all the consideration he could give to the subject, divest himself of grave apprehensions, if we were to depend on the importation from abroad of the main part of our supply, and neglect the cultivation of corn in our own country, we might find the difficulty aggravated every year; for although the noble Seconder did not think that the importation of foreign corn would throw land out of cultivation, yet if he listened to the arguments of others who wished to abolish the Corn laws, and who called this a landlord's question, they argued that land had been brought into cultivation, which would not have been so brought but for the Corn laws. Why, if so, according to their argu-

  49
  ment, the abolition of the Corn laws must have the effect of throwing that land again out of cultivation. He (Lord Ripon) did not say that land had been so brought into cultivation, he thought there were other causes. But if we habitually depended upon foreign countries for corn, we incurred risk—and risk in such a matter was a great thing; we ought to see the effect of the measure before we placed such interests in jeopardy by so tremendous a change. It was not clear to him, if they admitted foreign corn, and discouraged the growth of our own, that they would find foreign countries always in possession of corn to send us. In Dr. Bowring's report, a curious circumstance was mentioned. He was arguing against the Corn laws as preventing the extension of commerce, and he says that the German League had a population of 22,000,000, and the total quantity of corn grown in the League for these 22,000,000 of people did not exceed 13,000,000 quarters, wheat, barley, oats, and everything, of which the people consumed 13–14ths: if so, the whole quantity they were capable of exporting would not equal 1,000,000 of quarters per annum. And yet the Government scheme assumed that we must import no less than 3,000,000quarters of wheat, and 3,000,000 quarters of other corn every year, which exceeded the whole quantity ever imported in any one year, whatever might have been the stimulus of excessively high prices, and however remote the corners which have been ransacked to attain them. In no one year did the imports of corn ever amount to 2,500,000 quarters, and yet there must be an importation of 3,000,000 quarters of wheat per annum. Why did the Government set this up as a measure of finance? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had assumed that the customs on corn produced a given sum per annum, and he built his calculations on the produce of the customs for the last two or three years; in this period about 1,000,000 l. a year had been received on corn. The Government said they expected to raise by their project, 400,000 l. But if they did get 1,600,000 l. a year, the whole calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong; and the result of the estimate, which was founded upon the last two years giving l,100,000 l., was, that 3,000,000 quarters of wheat must be annually imported at the 8s. duty, and another 3,000,000 at the medium duty, in order
  50
  to produce the required sum of 1,600,000 l.; in fact, there must be a perpetual importation of wheat, whether it was wanted or not, before the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could be realized. But, on the supposition that the project of the Government were carried into effect, no man could entertain any reasonable doubt that a very large portion of the corn land in this country would be thrown out of cultivation—an evil, which, if it once commenced, no one could say where it would stop, or what would be its disastrous consequences. One of his noble Friends had laughed at the idea of foreign powers interposing laws to prevent the importation of corn into this country. But was it not true that there was a law now in force in Russia which permitted the importation of foreign corn. Why was this? Because the supply for the last few years had been below the demand. If, however the Emperor of Russia could permit the importation of foreign corn, for two or three years, it would seem that without his permission it could not be imported, so that there was not a free trade in corn in Russia after all, for the Emperor could put an end to it whenever he thought proper. He could not help thinking, then, that it would be the height of imprudence to rely habitually upon any foreign supply of corn, for such a course must inevitably lead to the risk of exposing this country to want and even to famine. There was only one other part of the case to which he wished to advert, that was the mercantile view of the question. It was said, "If you establish free trade in corn, you will have such a great and increased exportation of manufactures, that our trade will flourish to an enormous extent, and the landholder will profit in the general prosperity that the increased trade would produce." No doubt, that if the prosperity was general, the landholders would profit by it; but he thought there were grave reasons for doubting, whether, if they were to alter their Corn laws, they would acquire that extensive trade from those particular countries whence it was expected. Just see how the question became narrowed when they looked at those countries. The trade could not come from the greater part of Europe, because the greater part of Europe had protective Corn-laws. Holland, France, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Naples, Sicily, the Papal dominions, Austria, and even Bavaria,

  51
  in the interior of Germany, had Corn laws for their own protection. How then could any one possibly argue that those countries would be induced to take our manufactures by a reduction of the duty on their corn? It was said, that the Prussian league was entirely owing to the Corn-laws, and if they were repealed, nothing could be more easy than to induce the Prussian government to alter their system, and to receive our manufactures. Now, he begged leave to say, that he did not believe that the Germanic league had anything whatever to do with the state of the Corn-laws or the commerce of this country in its original conception. The fact was, that the real character of that league was political; it was part of a great political scheme, propounded and carried into effect by men who were under the influence of a spirit of devotedness to their father land, and of zeal for the prosperity of their great and noble scheme—a scheme devised for the purpose of nationalizing the north of Germany, and giving to it a coherence and solidity which experience had proved to be entirely wanting in the antient German empire, and in that partial and flimsy substitution for it by Napoleon, of the confederation of the Rhine; and here he would remark, that the existence of that Germanic league, and whatever incidental obstacles it might impose upon our trade, the commercial scheme connected with it, was one of the safest guarantees for the peace of Europe that had been brought into existence since the termination of the last war. What reason, then, was there for thinking that any of those countries he had mentioned would take our manufactures if we said that we would take their corn? No man who knew Germany could fail to discover that the principle which animated the German government and people was that of securing protection for their own manufactures. They might be wrong, or we might be wrong; but it was a very natural feeling, and one which had pervaded all nations in all civilized times. It might have been carried to great excess; indeed it has been carried to very great excess in this and other countries, and he, as well as others, had been instrumental in checking that excess. But he believed that none of those governments would make any relaxation in their laws merely because we proposed to take their corn. As to Russia, if ever there existed a country whose policy was of a restrictive character
  52
  against the productions of other countries, it was Russia. From the time of the Empress Catherine, the laws of Russia had been most rigorously enforced, under the severest penalties, against the introduction of foreign manufactures. The Russian government had made great sacrifices, whether wisely or not, he would not at present say, to establish manufactures in every part of the country: they had done so; those manufactures were greatly extended, and some were very flourishing, though others, probably, were not so, as all could not be expected to succeed there, any more than here or in other countries. But they had extended greatly, nevertheless, and the interests of a large portion of the people were bound up in them. Looking then at the history of nations, and the motives by which men were governed, he could not believe, that for the mere sake of giving a little extension to their trade in corn they would all at once abandon all their settled policy, upwards of a century old, and let our manufactures come in to what they could not but deem an injurious, perhaps a ruinous, competition with their own. It appeared, then, that the Government scheme was vicious and fallacious. At all events, it was uncertain. And it was part of the wisdom which her Majesty had expressed a hope would guide their deliberations, not to shut their eyes to such great evils as those to which he had alluded. Having now gone through these various topics at some length, he had to state that under all the circumstances of the case, looking to the course that had been taken with respect to the finances of the country —looking to the course which her Majesty's Government had proposed to pursue— and looking to the declaration which had been stated by the two noble Lords opposite, that they intended to stand or fall by those propositions, and deeming the propositions, as they stood, liable to the grave doubts and difficulties which he had stated, he should move an amendment to the Address, which would express a want of confidence in her Majesty's Ministers. He thought it needless to attempt to say anything to justify this course, beyond the grounds he had already stated. The Government, the country, and all parties were in a position which evidently rendered it impossible for the public business to go on. They must come to some plain and distinct expression of opinion as to the principles upon which the Government of the country should be conducted. He should, therefore, propose

  53
  such an amendment as he hoped, and believed, their lordships would adopt. He desired that they should present themselves before her Majesty as her loyal, and faithful, and devoted subjects, whose attachment to the Throne was founded upon the principles of the constitution, not adopted to serve the purposes of the moment—as a body of men who, whilst they respect the prerogatives, and venerate the dignity and the person of the Sovereign, know how to appreciate the duties which their station imposes upon themselves, and equally desire to maintain the lights and liberties of the people. He should wish their Lordships to approach her Majesty with those feelings in their hearts, sensible of their human infirmities, and with the fear of God before their eyes, looking to him for that wisdom which was necessary to guide their councils and deliberations, and to direct all their efforts to the utmost—as, notwithstanding all misrepresentation and all gainsaying, he would assert, it was their earnest desire, for the welfare and happiness of the country.
  The noble Earl concluded by proposing the following Amendment to the latter part of the Address:—
  "We Humbly represent to your Majesty, that we observe with great concern that the public expenditure has of late in each of several successive years exceeded the annual income, and that we are convinced of the necessity of adopting measures for the purpose of remedying so great an evil:
  We assure your Majesty that we are deeply sensible of the importance of those considerations, to which your Majesty has been graciously pleased to direct our attention, in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in corn:
  That in deciding the course which it may be advisable to pursue with reference to such matters, it will be our earnest desire to consult the interest, and promote the welfare of all classes of your Majesty's subjects:
  That we feel it, however, to be our duty humbly to submit to your Majesty that it is essential to the satisfactory results of our deliberations upon these and other matters
  54
  of public concern, that your Majesty's Government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country; and respectfully to represent to your Majesty that that confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of your Majesty:
  We assure your Majesty that in the gracious expression of your Majesty's deep sympathy with those of your Majesty's subjects who are now suffering from distress and want of employment, we recognize an additional proof of your Majesty's tender regard for the welfare of your Majesty's subjects; and that we cordially join in the prayer of your Majesty, that all our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of your Majesty's people.''
  The Marquess of Clanricardeexplained, that he did not say he was for a total abolition of the Corn-laws immediately: he thought he had said he was for a moderate or low duty on corn at first. But he was free to say, he hoped that in a very short time those laws might be repealed. He had not said that he did not think any foreign powers would not impose laws preventing the importation of their corn into this country; on the contrary, hereferred to a time when such laws were imposed; but his opinion was, that no such laws could prevail against the reciprocal wants of nations.
  Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that curiosity had been excited on his part at the beginning of the speech of the noble Earl opposite, which had not been entirely gratified. He had undoubtedly thought, that the noble Earl in the task he had undertaken would have endeavoured to state to their Lordships what measures he would be disposed to pursue under the present circumstances of the country. Instead of that, however, the noble Earl had concluded with an amendment, in which he did not point out any one measure which it would be desirable to pass, but merely stated, that her Majesty's Ministers did not possess what was in Parliamentary language called the confidence of that House. That was neither more nor less than saying—and that was the important proposition involved in that statement— "we are the many, and you are the few." That was all that was meant by that statement, and it would appear from the

  55
  words the noble Earl was desirous of adding, that he was desirous of nothing more than of avoiding a declaration of any mode which he would propose to extricate the country out of the difficulties in which she was placed—difficulties which the noble Earl admitted—but for which he did not condescend to point out the remedy. The noble Earl he apprehended did not deny the difficulty in which the country was placed, he did not deny the deficiency in the revenue, on the contrary, that deficiency formed the groundwork of the amendment he had proposed. Then, if the noble Earl did that, if he enunciated those premises, the logical conclusion of his amendment ought to have been, that such and such other measures would have been more advisable than those proposed by her Majesty's Government. Nil horum! The noble Earl said nothing but this, "We are the many, and you are the few." That, indeed, was what the people out of doors looked at when a change of administration was coming on. But that had not been the usual manner in which pro positions of the kind had been stated within the walls of Parliament, nor the manner in which those who were to incur subsequent responsibility had generally conducted themselves on such occasions. He would beg to refer the noble Earl to his own conduct on a former occasion, some ten or eleven years ago, when the noble Earl was connected with a party then coming into power, as he was now a member of a party wishing to take office. What did the leaders of that party do on that occasion? Did they make a mystery of the measures they intended to propose? What did the noble Earl, under whom the noble Earl then served as a Cabinet Minister, do upon that occasion? He said there were certain principles which his party adopted, and which they intended to carry into effect. The great measure of reform in the representation was the measure they afterwards effected, and upon the principle of which they came into power. Earl Grey did not say, "we are the many, and you are the few," but boldly stated certain principles which he designed to be the basis of his policy. In like manner, in 1807, when the administration of Lord Grenville was overturned, and the Duke of Portland and Mr. Perceval came into power, certain measures were opposed, and contrary principles were avowed and carried into effect. And
  56
  so, upon all former great changes, he apprehended that some principles were stated, and some measures propounded for the consideration of Parliament, as the groundwork for making them. But the noble Earl was a prudent man in his generation. The noble Earl had said, the country was in difficulties, but he left Parliament in a state of profound ignorance as to what their remedies were to be. The noble Earl said we had a deficient revenue—how did he propose to equalize the revenue with the expenditure? Did he intend to sweep away the taxes that now fettered the commercial industry of the country, and to substitute a new land or property tax? Would that be the measure the noble Earl would propose? He believed, that if any party in that House were to propose to accept the Government of the country upon the principle of imposing a new land tax, or property tax, there would not be so large a majority in favour of the amendment of the noble Earl as they might expect to see in the course of the present evening. If the noble Earl did not intend to propose that, what did he intend to propose? The noble Earl did not deny the difficulties of the country, for they were undeniable, and no man who had paid any attention to the state of manufacturing and commercial industry in the country, could by any possibility deny them. The noble Earl emphatically stated, that the chief ground on which he was prepared to defend the Corn-laws was the necessity of this country being independent of foreign supply. It was all very well for the noble Earl to make a flaming speech on that subject, and to call upon their Lordships to maintain the independence of the country, but how stood the fact? Could this country be independent of foreign supply? If their Lordships would refer to the last half century, and divide it into cycles of any number of years, they would find, that in each succeeding cycle the dependence of the country on a foreign supply of grain was greater than in the preceding one. He would prove that in a very few moments. In the twelve years which elapsed from 1775 to 1786, both inclusive, the average annual import of grain was 179,000 quarters; in the succeeding cycle, ending with 1798, the average annual importation was 324,000 quarters; in the next cycle, ending with 1810, the average annual import was 693,000 quarters; in

  57
  the twenty-five years which had elapsed from 1815 to 1839, both inclusive, the average annual import was 614,000 quarters; and, taking the last eleven of those years, the average annual import was 863,000 quarters. Thus it appeared, that the average annual importation of corn which, in the first cycle of twelve years amounted to 179,000 quarters, had, in the course of half a century, risen to 863,000 quarters. Under these circumstances, to talk of this country being independent of foreign supply, was to talk of something that could not by possibility have any existence, and, therefore it would be better not to talk of it at all. The only subject which practical men ought to consider, was upon what terms the importation of corn should take place—whether under what was called the sliding scale, or upon payment of a low duty, or without any duty at all. Foreign supply we must have, and the simple question was, upon what terms should we have it. The population of the country was increasing at a much more rapid rate than any increased supply we were able to draw from our own internal resources. The enumeration of the population would be before Parliament in a few weeks, and then it would probably be seen, that the population of these islands was increasing at the rate of not less than 250,000 souls a year. To supply that increase of population 250,000 quarters of wheat would be required, and as many acres of land must be brought into cultivation as there were quarters of wheat wanted. Their Lordships, however, would be deluding themselves and the country if they held out the expectation, that the requisite quantity of corn could be supplied by any quantity of land which they could bring into cultivation in this country. He was aware, that under the stimulus of high prices, tracts of land had been brought into cultivation which, under other circumstances, it would by no means have been desirable to plough. This was the case with the downs of Sussex, and even Salisbury plain—land which was never intended by nature to produce corn, and to bring which into cultivation merely involved a waste of capital, without any advantage to the country at large. On the contrary, taking an agricultural view of the matter, he must say, that bringing such land into tillage was positively injurious. Left to itself the land was, to a certain degree, profitable, but,
  58
  having been broken, up, it was allowed, when a cycle of low priced years came, to go to grass, and then a century would elapse before it would be as valuable as it was before it was first broken up. As he had before observed, the time had come when it was necessary for Parliament to consider upon what terms foreign corn should be admitted into this country. The pecuniary effect of the sliding scale was to encourage speculation, the object of the speculators being to raise the price of the article to the highest price, in order that they might import foreign corn at the lowest duty. The speculators had no abstract love of high prices, and did not desire to make the food of the people dear, but it was necessary for their purpose that it should be so, in order that they might get rid of the duty. The present price of bread corn the must use the phrase, although he had before been rebuked for doing so) was between 75 s. and 80 s. a quarter. The rise of price had been owing, in some degree, to the prospect of an unfavourable harvest, and also to the operations of the speculators in foreign corn, who, not content with the ordinary sales which take place in the country, created a vast number of fictitious sales, in which the farmers were in no respect concerned. Farmers are deriving no benefit from the present high prices, for if any of their Lordships had had occasion to travel from the Land's end, or from John O'Groat's House to London, they must have observed that the farm yards were perfectly destitute of corn, and it was manifest, therefore, that no part of the present advance in the price of corn would go into the farmer's pocket. It went into the pocket of the corn dealer; and at the time he was realising from 9s. to 10 s. a bushel, it was exceedingly probable that many a farmer was actually obliged to buy corn for the subsistence of his family and his cattle. This was a state of things by no means beneficial to the agricultural interest, and he doubted whether it could be beneficial to the landed interest as distinct from the agricultural interest. That was the opinion at which he had arrived from a consideration of the evidence given before Parliamentary committees by land valuers and agents of the most respectable character. The effect of high prices was, to cause a higher rent to be demanded from agricultural occupiers than the actual state of

  59
  things would justify. The noble Earl below him had correctly stated, that 57 s. a quarter was a fair basis for the rent a tenant should pay; but if he would inquire, the noble Earl would find, that that was not the basis at which, under the operation of the present Corn-law, land-valuers look in settling the rent of land. It went considerably beyond that sum, and, in fact, the very construction of the law was calculated to infuse into the minds of both occupiers and landowners that the sum ought to be 63 s. or 64 s. a quarter, and that was actually the basis upon which the rent of land was calculated. If rents had been calculated at 63 s. and 64 s. per quarter, whilst, in point of fact, the average price of corn had been only 56 s., 57 s., or 58 s., in that fact alone was to be found the history of agricultural distress. That was the true explanation of all the petitions presented to that and the other House of Parliament some years ago, in consequence of which committees were appointed to inquire into the distress of the agriculturists. Rent was, in fact, fixed at a higher level than circumstances could justify. He was anxious that the Legislature should retrace its steps with reference to this question. A great deal of very good language had been introduced into the amendment, but, after all, it told nothing, and it was intended to tell nothing. The agricultural interest would not be a bit the wiser for it. A great authority had stated elsewhere, that the sliding scale must be maintained, but not a word had been said as to the point at which it was to begin or end. As to that the noble Earl opposite also had said not a word. For the reasons which he had stated, he considered the sliding scale a very bad scheme, but he was willing to admit that it might be so adjusted as to obviate some of the objections which he entertained to it. It might be so arranged as to prevent the price of food being raised so enormously as it was at present, by taking 45 s. or 50 s. for what was called the pivot, instead of 62 s. or 64 s. Upon all these points, however, their Lordships were left in a state of blessed ignorance by the amendment of the noble Earl. Whatever might be the intentions of those who were about to succeed his noble Friends in the Government, he certainly gave them credit for concealing their intentions most effectually; but, after all, he would not be very much surprised if, after the lapse of a certain
  60
  time, the law should be altered. He did not know how long it would be before the alteration took place—that would depend upon the nature of it. If the alteration was to be a small one, the country would have it soon; but if the alteration was intended to be a great one, it would be necessary, to save appearances and for decency's sake, to defer it a little longer. He, however, had a lively recollection of what in common parlance was called Catholic Emancipation. He came into Parliament when the battle began, and he had the satisfaction of seeing it brought to a successful issue. The battle of commercial freedom was now about to be fought, and he believed that the same spirit of truth which had led to success in the former battle, would lead to triumph in this. The fortress of monopoly, was at present, in appearance, vigorously defended, but he believed, and he was of opinion that the noble Earl opposite believed so too, that it would shortly be surrendered. He thought also that the noble Earl himself might very likely be a party to its surrender,and he would tell their Lordships why he thought so. The noble Earl was the author of the law of 1815, which was introduced to make this country independent of foreign supply. [The Earl of Ripon: Not so.] He recollected perfectly well that that was the ground on which the law of 1815 was introduced and defended. It was, however, abandoned in favour of the law of 1828, which was a great stride in the road of improvement, although he preferred the measure proposed in 1827 by Mr. Canning. We had now got to 1841, another cycle of thirteen years—just the time for a fresh change. It was probable, however, that the existing law would be allowed to go on for another year. Much, of course, would depend upon the courage of noble Lords opposite in facing public opinion. If they could not venture upon a radical change of the law, there would be a little tampering with it. It would be discovered that the harvest of 1841 was very bad—that there was a short supply in the country—that it was necessary to introduce a small supply from abroad—that there were 230,000 quarters in bond, ready to be brought into the market, and, perhaps, an order in council might be resorted to for that purpose. For his part, he congratulated the country on the present position of the question; it had made a great stride in

  61
  public opinion, in consequence of having been taken up by the executive. It might cause the downfall of the present Administration, but that was a matter about which he felt comparatively little. He spoke sincerely, and he believed he might venture to say that his noble Friend near him cared as little for the result. The question had been brought fairly before the country by the executive, and men who never brought their minds to bear upon the subject were now attentively considering it. There might, to be sure, have been large numbers of persons, such as the anti-corn-law league associated in Manchester and other towns; but the great mass of public opinion had never before been brought to bear upon the question. For having produced that result, therefore, Ministers were entitled to the gratitude of the country, and whatever might be the result of that night's debate—whatever might be the triumph of noble Lords opposite, the time would come when the people of this country would gratefully acknowledge the obligations under which they stood to the Government for having had the courage to bring this great measure before them. He said, for having had the courage to do so, because whoever observed the power of the landed interest must be aware that any Government which ventured to place itself in opposition to them was committing an act of political suicide. The landed was the most powerful interest in the country, and he was anxious that it should continue to be so; but tie wished it to unite justice with power. He wished it to exercise its power with justice to the rest of the country. The landed interest might rely upon this, that it could not long maintain itself against all the other interests of the country, when they should bring their minds to bear upon this important question.
  Lord Lyttletonsaid, I cannot vote for the Address proposed by my noble and most respected relative, without troubling your Lordships with a few remarks. My Lords, I vote for that Address, in order to signify assent, as far as imperfect knowledge will justify me in forming an opinion, to those measures of commercial policy which are most pointedly alluded to in that Address; with the exception of that on the sugar duties, and that not on commercial grounds; and also to that general system of policy concerning trade, which would seem to be indicated by those
  62
  measures, and which I suppose we may now take for granted that her Majesty's Ministers, had they the opportunity, would proceed to act on. But inasmuch as, considering the nature of this occasion, and of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, a vote given in favour of the Address might very fairly and reasonably, unless otherwise explained, be construed as a vote of general confidence in the Government, I hope to be excused if I explain to your Lordships some of the reasons why I cannot allow my vote to be so considered; both with regard to some circumstances connected with the introduction of those measures, and with regard to some other points not immediately connected with them. It is not that I can see much force in some of the objections commonly taken to the conduct of the Government: I cannot see that it was wrong in them to introduce those measures, as being a weak Government; because those same measures might fairly be expected to convert that weakness into strength. Nor can I think, even after the remarks of the noble Earl, that it was wrong in them to appeal to the people on those measures by a dissolution of Parliament, on the risk of what is called popular agitation. Popular agitation seems to mean little but popular discussion; and if ever it be allowable to let the people judge of public measures, these measures would seem to be such as they might most reasonably be supposed qualified to understand. But I cannot but accept another objection, no less commonly made — for I cannot pretend to novelty in producing it—namely, that at the time when Ministers introduced those measures, they had no right according to the constitution of this country to stand before the then existing Parliament as Ministers of the Crown at all; and especially that it was almost an absurdity and a contradiction for them, to stand before that Parliament under those circumstances, and still to call themselves a Whig Government. My Lords, let me recapitulate a few facts. I will say nothing of what happened in the Session of 1840; something might be said; but I pass that over. But in the last Session, Ministers were beat on an important clause of the most debateable and disputed bill—indeed, the only party bill, as it is called, which they had yet introduced, on April 26, by a majority of 21; on April 29, on another clause, by a

  63
  majority of 11; they gave up the bill, but still retained their places; they brought in their budget; they were beaten on the sugar duties by a still greater majority; they still remained in office, till this succession of negations by the House of Commons was changed into a most undeniable position, and they were declared unworthy of the confidence of that House. My Lords, I do not trouble your Lordships with argument on what has been already so amply debated; I will only say that I for one, am too much of a Whig to approve of such conduct. For what is the defence? What is the defence on the constitutional question? Precedents are appealed to. That we do not object to. But what precedents? Several; but chiefly, as the most recent and appropriate, those of 1784 and the property tax of 1814, the precedents of Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh; what are we to say to this? Why, noble Lords opposite may find themselves pinched by such an argument; her Majesty's opposition anywhere may feel themselves bound to answer it; but for us who call ourselves Whigs in this matter; who hold, not indeed that the people are the true and ultimate source of all power, but that a popular constitution is the best mode of bringing into free action that wisdom and virtue which have a real, divine right to sway the destinies of nations—for us it is sufficient to reply that Mr. Pitt's conduct appears to us utterly unjustifiable and unwarrantable; justified, as the phrase is, by success, and drowned, as it were, beneath the flood of prosperity and glory that followed it; but in itself unwarrantable, and that of all the authorities that can be alleged on a constitutional question, Lord Castlereagh is about the one to whom we should attribute the least weight: I hope I may speak without offence of an historical character. Such at least is my view. My Lords, I must beg your Lordships' indulgence, if I leave the engrossing topics which have chiefly been the subject of discussion this evening, and say something of remote matters, which have weighed with me in refusing entire confidence to the Government. It may perhaps be supposed that what has had the most weight with me, has been the conduct of the Government with respect to ecclesiastical legislation. My Lords, I certainly have considered that the Government were not deserving of entire confidence, for their
  64
  mode of dealing with an institution which I believed they did not rightly appreciate. But considered relatively to any Government that might be supposed likely to succeed them, I have not been in the habit of thinking it certain that their removal would benefit the Church. I had little confidence in the existing Government on these subjects; I had not much more in those who might be supposed to be their successors. Moreover, I did not consider it material to what are called the interests of the Church, what Government might or might not be in power; believing, that if the Church herself, by which I mean if we, every one of us, did our duty as churchmen and not only as citizens, the Church would then vindicate her position in the country, and any Government that might be in power would find that the best thing it could do for its own purpose, would be to let the Church alone. My Lords, in mentioning what has perhaps weighed most with me in my conduct, I must, beg your Lordships' pardon for reviving a very antiquated and perhaps defunct subject; I allude to the once celebrated appropriation clause. Of the circumstances attending that clause I need not remind your Lordships; the resolutions on which it was founded I will take the liberty of reading to your Lordships. On April 2, 1835, it was carried on the motion of Lord J. Russell, "that this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the temporalities of the Church of Ireland." On the 7th of April it was carried, "that it is the opinion of this Committee, that any surplus which may remain after fully providing for the spiritual instruction of the Members of the Established Church in Ireland, ought to be applied locally to the general education of all classes of Christians." On the same evening, "that it is the opinion of this House that no measure on the subject of tithes can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution." My Lords, I say that if ever words had a meaning beyond the mere letter; if ever circumstances and context should be taken into account in determining the meaning of words, the meaning of those words was, that coming into office on the adoption of those resolutions, nothing should ever induce them to be parties to a measure which did not embody their principle.

  65
  That is the plain common sense view; on that principle they came in; that principle they abandoned; from that moment I have not been able to avoid the conviction, that they stood in office on ground not their own, and in virtue of an unfulfilled covenant. No agreement in general policy, no private feelings should ever induce me to adhere fully to a Government whose public engagements were unfulfilled, and when political integrity was gone. My Lords, I will not dwell upon other points, in which it has seemed to me that the Government acted wrong, and specifically in contravention of Whig principles; such as the Jamaica bill, and their conduct on the Bedchamber question. My Lords, undoubtedly if I thought that the interests of this country, and the liberal principles to which I am attached, would suffer seriously from the removal of the present Government, it might greatly modify my conduct on this question. But I for one have little fear of this. I believe that whatever Government is in office, the principles of liberal policy will be pursued; that this is the real, permanent result of the Reform Bill, and that there is no danger of an opposite result. The question, therefore, rather is with me, whether the political character of the party which may at any time be in office, is such as will allow of their conforming to those principles without dishonour to themselves. My Lords, I am not prepared to say that those who will probably succeed the present Government are of character other than this; and I believe this to be the opinion of many whose liberal principles are undisputed. I do not forget the words of the great master of political wisdom: he that supports every administration subverts all Government. But when Mr. Burke wrote this, of the two parties whom he had in view, the one was in his belief partly the designing agent, partly the passive instrument of a system which went to subvert in an essential point the constitution of this country. It may be held by some persons that this is the intention of either of the parties who are at this time likely to be in power; I at least have no such belief. My Lords, aware of your Lordships' indulgence, I have ventured to trouble your Lordships, simply with the view to explain and qualify the vote which I feel it my duty to give.
  Viscount Melbourne said: The nature
  66
  of this motion, and the circumstances under which it has been made—notwithstanding its great importance, the arguments on which it has been founded, and the fair, candid, clear, and distinct spirit in which it has been submitted—do not make it necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with many observations. I listened to my noble Friend who moved the amendment with great deference for his abilities, with great deference for his information, and with great respect for his candour, and I must say, that seeing the superstructure he was about to raise, a more meagre, slender, or fragile foundation it would be impossible to have laid down. The noble Lord made a sort of omnium gatherum speech; impressed every thing into his service, as well what we had done last year as during the present and on such a collection of heterogeneous materials he founds a motion of this magnitude—a motion so important in its consequences, and a motion, allow me to say, perfectly new to this House. My Lords, it came like a thunder-clap upon me. I own I was ignorant that there existed in this House the spirit on which that motion seems to proceed. We all know that there were a great many factious motions in the late House of Commons, and continual motions of want of confidence, but there was not the least intimation that your Lordships sympathised with, or countenanced any such proceeding. Your Lordships were reposing a tranquil confidence in the present Government, when suddenly, on the grounds stated by the noble Lord, unexpectedly, contrary to all former precedent, belieing in fact the manner in. which you have heretofore conducted yourselves, the noble Lord has come forward with this distinct motion of a want of confidence in her Majesty's Government. And what is the ground for such a proposal? He states certain omissions in the speech from the Throne. He says there is no mention of the expedition to the north of the Indus, or the Affghanistan territory. With respect to that omission I can only say, that no events have lately taken place in that quarter of the globe which seemed to call on her Majesty's Ministers to advise her Majesty to make any observation on that subject. But the noble Lord coupled with that expression of regret at not seeing this expedition noticed, a complete condemnation of the whole policy which has been pur-

  67
  sued, and wholly condemns the steps which have been taken with respect to Candahar, as well as the grounds on which they were taken. Why, my Lords, there was very full information lately laid before the House on this subject, and if the noble Earl disapproved of the policy on which the Government proceeded, surely he showed himself considerably wanting in his duty not to bring the question before your Lordships, instead of reserving it for the foundation of this new and unexpected proceeding with which he has threatened us to night. But, then, it appears that we also neglected to mention the state of things in the Punjaub, and it is stated,that we formed improper alliances— with Runjeet Sing, for instance. The noble Lord added that Runjeet Sing died. I suppose he does not mean to say, that we are responsible for that. It is not so very unnatural an occurrence, that, on the death of an Oriental Prince, the country which he governed should fall into disorder. That is a circumstance sufficiently common. The noble Lord then finds fault with the expedition to China. I believe, however, that it is pretty generally admitted that the steps taken by the Chinese authorities did call for and justify this country in adopting such measures as those which have been acted upon by the Government. The present occasion is not a fitting one—nor is it my wish—to make any observations on the conduct of that expedition. It would be highly premature to do so. But that that is an expedition of great difficulty, and that it will have to contend with the passive resistance pointed out by the noble Lord, I fully admit; and all I can say farther with respect to it is to express an anxious hope that these measures may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. My noble Friend condemns not only what has taken place, but what would have taken place under circumstances which have not arisen. He says we have not concluded a treaty with France, which, if agreed to, would have involved us in great difficulty. But as that treaty has not been concluded, and as those difficulties have not arisen, I certainly do not consider it necessary for me to go into a vindication of a policy which, in fact, has not been carried into effect. The noble Lord then proceeds to a further consideration of the whole state of affairs, and of those measures brought under the consideration of the House and of the country by
  68
  the determination of her Majesty's Government. He finds very considerable fault with those measures, although he agrees on the principles of all of them. He says the principle of the proposed alteration in the timber duties is correct, but he is doubtful as to the manner in which it is to be carried into effect. He questions the propriety of raising the duty on Canadian timber, but at the same time he gives his adhesion to the general principle on which the Government measure is founded. Her Majesty's Ministers never asked for anything more—a general sanction of the principle of their measure, allowing Parliament to deal as it should think fit with the details. On the sugar duties, too, he only objects to one or other trivial part of the measures which have been brought forward; but his grand objection to the proposed change is, that it will encourage the slave trade. I must freely say, that having as great a hatred and detestation of the slave trade as any man in the country, and being anxious to take measures to diminish, and, if possible, to eradicate that traffic, I do not believe it is by means of commercial hostility, by cutting off the intercourse of slave employing countries, and refusing the produce of slave growing states, that that object can be effected. My noble Friend argues, that it is but justice to our Indian colonies that you should not interfere with the trade of sugar at the present moment, as supplied by slave states. But my noble Friend must recollect that if he makes that admission now, he shuts himself out from ever adopting those measures which at some future day he thinks might be right and proper, because his present objection will, by the lapse of time, grow stronger and stronger. That Indian interest to which he alludes will be on the increase, in point of importance; it will be more difficult to meddle with it; it will be stronger in itself, and will, consequently, give greater weight to any objections it may urge against tampering with the trade; it will, in fact, be in a position to put an end to all hopes of ever adopting such a measure as that contemplated by the Government and by the noble Lord. My noble Friend then comes to that great question which undoubtedly interests your Lordships most deeply, and that is the question of the trade in corn. My Lords, notwithstanding all the statements which he has

  69
  made—notwithstanding all the deductions which he draws from the fluctuations in the price of other articles, I cannot but feel certain that the adoption of a fixed duty would give greater steadiness to our market in corn. It appears to me self evident that such must be its effect. I know from the nature of the trade in corn that the prices will alter and fluctuate; but that a fixed duly will produce a greater steadiness of price, and a more even and regular current of trade, it is in my mind impossible to question. I will fairly state very shortly to your Lordships the great arguments which have always weighed with me on this subject. I have certainly been, on former occasions, for putting off the agitation and discussion of this question, which, whenever it came on, I knew must be attended with the circumstances which my noble Friend has described. But I always knew that come it must. I always knew that it was not to be avoided. I always knew that it was entirely a question of time. And I beg of your Lordships to consider what I have always looked upon as the pinch of this question, namely, that these laws have been introduced and supported by those who have a direct interest in maintaining them. They were sanctioned by two houses of Legislature, one of which is entirely composed of landholders, and the majority of the other consists of the same class. I say that is not a state of things which you should look on with complacency. I am not accustomed to speak in the language of dictation or of admonition; but I tell you it is not safe for the governing powers of a country to stand in such a situation as to be open to an imputation of so popular, so plausible, and so specious a nature as that which I have described; and I do assure your Lordships that you will find it absolutely necessary to put these laws some day or other on a more reasonable and satisfactory foundation. I do not think your Lordships fairly chargeable with the imputations which are often urged against you. I do not believe you passed these laws from interested feelings. No man more deeply regrets or more decidedly condemns the general language, arguments, and topics which are pressed into the discussion of this question. I do not think they are condemned by religion; I do not think they are contrary to morality; nor do I think they are the work of those who had
  70
  nothing else in view but their own interest; but feeling sure that no such consideration influenced you (though I do not mean to deny, that you had that due regard to your own interest which, as the noble Lord justly observes, every man must feel) that nothing base, or mean, or sordid, ever entered into your intentions when passing that act—I call upon your Lordships to free yourselves from the imputation, to redeem yourselves from the possibility of being so charged. Nothing is so foolish as to have the discredit of that which you do not do. If you are really free from imputation yourselves, as I have no doubt you are, I earnestly entreat your Lordships to consider whether it would not be wise to attempt at least to put these laws on a more satisfactory and reasonable foundation. It is very well to say "what your arguments lead to is total abolition—that is what you mean." But that is not so. We know that there have been many measures founded on arguments which went farther than the measures themselves, and which yet have been acquiesced in and found sufficiently satisfactory. Depend upon it that that measure which is generally considered fair will produce the satisfaction which naturally results from it. It is on these grounds that I am for an alteration with respect to the duty on corn; and I am also persuaded (without going into any minute arguments upon the subject) that a fixed duty is a principle which would be found safe and tenable, and would answer all the ends of giving a sufficient protection, and, at the same time, of diminishing much of the general discontent and suspicion which at present prevail on the subject. My noble Friend contrived, as I said before, to bring a great number of small things into his speech, and being conscious, perhaps, that he was on stilts throughout a great part of his address, his charges became tempered down towards the conclusion, to the legal but not constitutional conversion of the funds in the savings banks, and to the imputation that there was but a small balance in the Exchequer. Why if there is no discontent on the part of the managers, and no distrust on the part of depositors of the savings banks, and if no inconvenience is felt from the state of the balance in the Exchequer, such topics can not be said to form a just foundation for a motion of this description. The meaning

  71
  of this motion in plain English is, "we have now a majority in the House of Commons." To judge by some of the declarations at the hustings, I suppose there is such a majority. At the same time it must be recollected that Members are sent "ad consultandum de rebus arduis regni." We are not, therefore, to judge, what the conduct of Members may be by their declarations on the hustings; but I must say, that if I felt alarmed at some of the avowals made there as to the majority against Ministers, I derived some consolation from the arguments and speeches made by their opponents, for I hoped that a sense of justice and honour would never suffer them to persevere in the opinions which they announced, and which they rested on such shallow pretences. My noble Friend on the cross benches (Lord Lyttleton) has also excluded us from his confidence, and perhaps we should be as well off without his vote. I think, however, my noble Friend overstates what he lays down as a Whig doctrine, when he says that on the last Irish Registration Bill we did not resign. We acted on a tenable principle, according to reason and to the conduct of former Governments. He next makes a strong attack on us on account of the appropriation clause. All that was meant was, that no settlement of the tithe question would be satisfactory which did not appropriate some part of the revenues of the Church to some other general purpose, such as education. What was that but saying we would do our utmost to carry it. I am very sorry that clause was not carried, and I think it would very much contribute to the stability of the Irish Church if it had received the sanction of Parliament. We brought it forward two or three times in this House, and when we found it impossible to carry it, we gave up all hope of its being assented to by Parliament. And my noble Friend says this was wrong; that it was anti-Whig. Does my noble Friend admit Sir Robert Walpole to be a Whig? If so, I beg to remind him that Sir Robert Walpole introduced his Excise Act with professions very like those which we felt justified in announcing when we introduced those late measures which have been the subject of so much discussion. His testimony in favour of that act amounted to this:—"It will benefit land, it will greatly improve commerce, it will generally facilitate trade. It
  72
  is impossible to state benefits of a far higher nature than those which this measure would confer; but if the interested clamour and prejudice of individuals should prevail against me, I will give up the scheme, and not only that but I will never bring forward another of a similar nature, and if I am defeated, I don't believe that another will be found bold enough to face the storm which has overwhelmed me. I don't think this measure absolutely necessary (for that can hardly be said of any measure), but I look on it as highly beneficial, and if I am obliged to abandon it I shall not only give it up, but I will never carry into effect its principle." That is all a Minister of discretion and prudence can do. It is nonsense to persist in measures which it is impossible can succeed. In conclusion I can only repeat that considering the nature and object of this motion, as far as I can understand them, I look on it as quite unprecedented, and certainly never was a motion supported on more weak grounds or more insufficient arguments.
  Lord Lyttletonexplained. What he said was, not that the conduct of Government on the appropriation clause was anti-Whig, but that it was a violation of constitutional principles.
  The Duke of Wellingtonspoke to the following effect: I am happy, My Lords, to find that the noble Viscount repudiates these charges altogether which have been made by his supporters against your Lordships, and those parts of the noble Viscount's speech must, my Lords, be therefore, most satisfactory to your Lordships. But, my Lords, it appears to me, that the noble Viscount has treated the speech of my noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) in a manner not deserved by him. My noble Friend in that speech said nothing that was not perfectly within the rules of Parliament—did nothing which was not perfectly correct. My noble Friend stated that he should make no objection to some portions of the address; on the contrary, my Lords, he expressed his concurrence in them; and in commenting on parts of the speech of the noble Lords who preceded him, and on some of the paragraphs of the address, he pursued a course which is by no means an uncommon one in this House. He observed, that no information whatever had been afforded the House by her Majesty's Ministers upon several topics; and he commented on the state of

  73
  the war at present waging in China. In parts of the speech and the address, my Lords, my noble Friend only did that which has been always the practice in similar cases. But there were other parts of the speech on which my noble Friend thought proper to move the amendment he has submitted to your Lordships, and this is the course which the noble Viscount has thought fit to oppose on the most stringent grounds. My Lords, the noble Viscount states —and he states truly— that it is not a habit in this House of calling on your Lordships to give an opinion on abstract questions of policy. That my Lords, is perfectly true, and I have myself endeavoured to bring the House to that view on more than one occasion—that is, to prevent the expression of any opinion on abstract questions of policy, in the shape of an address or otherwise, until it should be brought before your Lordships in the shape of a distinct legislative measure. More than once I have succeeded in persuading your Lordships to withhold such opinion, and on some occasions even I have supported the Government against them, however much I may have disapproved of their policy in respect to it. But, my Lords, on this occasion there comes a question of the greatest importance before us—of the greatest importance, not only in principle, but also in the details—not in a tangible and distinct shape, but in the unusual form and manner of a Speech from the Throne; and it, therefore, behoves us to deal with it in the best way we can—in the only way left us. My Lords, it was but natural that, when my noble Friend was persuaded to move an amendment to those parts of the address that he objected to, he should state to your Lordships the grounds on which he based his opposition to them. It was a natural—it was a proper course; and yet it is for this that the noble Lord had attacked him. To these grounds, however, the noble Viscount did not reply or refer, though that would have been the more obvious course for him to follow. These grounds, my Lord, as stated by my noble Friend, are neglect and mismanagement of the finances of this country by her Majesty's Government, the future consequence of which, as he truly states, it is impossible to foresee, and the improper, impolitic, and unconstitutional means which they took to recover themselves. These things he proved by reference to the actual
  74
  state of the finances, when it was found necessary to review them in the last Parliament; and he showed that, in point of fact, after a period of about five years, a debt had not alone been accumulated of five millions, but there had also been a vast deficiency in the public revenue. My noble friend likewise stated truly, that this debt and deficiency was to be attributed to the practice adopted by her Majesty's Government of carrying on extensive operations, of which nobody approves, mind you, more than I do when done as they should be, and at the same time not making due provisions for the increased expenditure occasioned by their carrying on war in several places with a peace establishment, being the most crying of these evils, and neglecting to employ the proper means for meeting the increased charge and putting an end to the impending danger. The next allegation against them, my Lords, is for not making financial provision in the way of ways and means for the expense and charge incurred by the country by the exertions made to put an end to the danger which menaced it. My noble Friend has stated that, though a large amount of army and ordnance was kept on foot since 1831, no provision had been made for the additional expenditure in the usual way of an application to Parliament, but that irregular and unconstitutional modes were adopted by her Majesty's Government for finding means of defraying those expenses. In this, my Lords, my noble Friend spoke but the simple truth. In one case the whole charge of a war had been thrown on the East India Company, and then converted into a debt on this country; in another the funds of the savings' banks have been tampered with; in another the exchequer bills have been funded; and, in short, several most irregular modes have been adopted. Then, my Lords, what happened? Besides these expenses; besides the failure of the Government to make due provision by the mode of ways and means to defray the charges incurred by their military and naval operations; besides these, my Lords, her Majesty's Government thought proper to repeal a large amount of taxes, by which means they reduced the revenue of the country to such a degree as materially and inevitably left a most serious deficiency. This deficiency, my Lords, amounts to the sum of two and a half millions, besides the

  75
  large debt incurred. Now this being the case, my Lords, I think that all these grievances, so clearly stated by my noble Friend, and it would only impair their effect for me to restate them here, were sufficient to justify him in calling on your Lordships to vote against the Address on this occasion. The noble Viscount taunts my noble Friend with having objected to the French treaty of commerce. If the noble Viscount had attended more closely to my noble Friend's speech he would have made less mistake in it. What my nobly Friend said was, that part of the scheme of the Government would have been destroyed if that treaty had been concluded, and that they should have to call on Parliament to undo the next year what they had done in that. My noble Friend only stated, that they were fortunate in not having concluded it; and I think my noble Friend is fully justified in the deduction he made from that fact; namely, a want of foresight, and a neglect of the finances of the country on the part of the Government of the noble Viscount opposite. What my noble Friend did say was, that the Government had been saved the disgrace inevitable to that portion of their proceedings by the treaty not being carried into execution. My noble Friend has clearly shown the unfitness of the Government for managing the finances of this country. And the reasons my noble Friend adduced would be sufficient to call for your Lordships' vote against them, if there were none others; but I confess, my Lords, I have other reasons for calling on your Lordships to condemn them, which I shall state to your Lordships fully and freely, however painful it may be for me to do so. My Lords, in the course of the months of May and June last, her Majesty's Government found themselves under the necessity of intimating that they should advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. My Lords, I hardly think the moment they selected for making this announcement was, to say the least of it, the most fortunate they could have chosen, and when you come to consider the excitement under which the country then laboured, brought on by the discussion of these subjects in question to night, I think your Lordships will be of the same opinion. Considering, my Lords, what passed on the subject of the budget at large, and also on the subject of the Corn-laws, in the House of Commons
  76
  during the month of May and the early part of June last, I cannot but think that it might have been more advisable of the noble Viscount to avoid counselling her Majesty to introduce certain words delivered in the speech from the Throne, in June last, in reference to those topics, and which were certainly calculated to excite animosity between classes of her Majesty's subjects in this country, especially at the period of a general election; these words being seconded by the expression of an opinion that her Majesty had a strong feeling on the subject of these laws; that she felt the depression upon the trade and industry of the country; the burdens of the community at large were entirely involved in the question of these laws; and that her Majesty had no other object in view in dissolving Parliament than the desire of securing the rights and promoting the interests of her Majesty's subjects. Now, my Lords, I know it has been said, that on former occasions the sovereigns of this country have adopted the same course as her Majesty, in dissolving Parliament, and appealing to the opinions of her people, and that words even stronger than those have been made use of by them at such periods. But, my Lords, I deny the fact.
  Viscount Melbourne: I referred to the words of George the 3rd at the opening of Parliament in 1784.
  The Duke of Wellington: I have the words here, and I beg your Lordships to observe the difference between the Speech of George the 3rd, and that framed by the noble Viscount for her Majesty. The language is very different:—
  " On a full consideration of the present situation of affairs, and of the extraordinary circumstances which have produced it, I am induced to put an end to this Session of Parliament; I feel it a duty which I owe to the Constitution and to the country, in such a situation, to recur as speedily as possible to the sense of my people by a new Parliament. I trust that this measure will tend to obviate the mischiefs arising from the unhappy divisions and distractions which have lately subsisted; and that the various important objects which will require consideration may be afterwards proceeded upon with less interruption and with happier effect. I can have no other object but to preserve the true principles of our free and happy Constitution, and to employ the powers entrusted to me by the law for the only end for which they were given, the good of my people."
  Now, my Lords, begging the noble Vis-

  77
  count's pardon, the case of George the Third is totally and entirely different from the case of her Majesty. That case was one wholly within doors—this is one wholly without. That was a dispute within the walls of Parliament—a dispute between prerogative on the one hand and privilege on the other—a question in which I will not deny that many men felt a deep interest; but it was exclusively a question in the House of Commons. This is a question of a very opposite nature. I hope the noble Viscount will see the difference; I am quite sure your Lordships' perceive it. The circumstances of the two cases are totally different—the terms in which the two speeches are couched are extremely different. But there is another point, my Lords, which aggravates the case as against the noble Viscount — it is that he should have permitted her Majesty to make such a speech. I am willing to admit, that the noble Viscount has rendered the greatest possible service to her Majesty. I happen to know that it is her Majesty's opinion that the noble Viscount has rendered her Majesty the greatest possible service in making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the Government of this country, initiating her into the laws and spirit of the Constitution, independently of the performance of his duty as the servant of her Majesty's Crown—teaching her, in short, to preside over the destinies of this great country. My Lords, knowing this, I feel that the noble Viscount should not have embarked her Majesty, in the month of June, in that Speech from the Throne, still less should he have embarked her in the Speech of this day. In this Speech of to day not only is her Majesty made to call on Parliament to answer on the part of those subjects—being, as they are, perhaps, the most invidious that can be presented to Parliament. My Lords, I frankly confess I am sorry for this. I respected the noble Viscount for the services which I have reason, as I stated, to know he rendered to her Majesty; and I could have wished him not to have embarked her Majesty in such a course as he has taken on this occasion. My Lords, it grieves me to say thatthenoble Viscount has given the country to believe, that those who are opposed to the proposed alterations, are therefore opposed to her Majesty. Give me leave to tell him that it is unjust to say so. My Lords, it is not more than fourteen months ago since
  78
  I heard the noble Viscount himself making use of the strongest language I ever heard in opposition to a motion merely for taking the Corn-laws into consideration. The noble Viscount on that occasion declared before God, that with reference to the abolition of the Corn-laws, he believed the man must be mad who dreamed of such a thing. Now, my Lords, I do not pretend o say that the noble Viscount has not a perfect right to change his opinions. I believe he thought that he had good grounds for doing so, and I think I have myself read the report which induced him to change it. But this I do say, that before your Lordships and the country were placed in this situation with regard to the Queen, the noble Viscount was bound to give Parliament and the country an opportunity of obtaining that know edge and information as to the true merits of the question, which he imagines himself to have obtained. I have, in the course of my life, seen many alterations made in the finances, the trade, and the commerce of the country. I was in the country at the period of the restoration of the currency, and also at the period of the inquiries into the China trade. I remember the occasions of other great financial and commercial alterations. How, my Lords, were these subjects discussed? In what manner were they brought forward, and in what way was this and the other House of Parliament enabled to judge of their propriety? Why, by the formation of committees, consisting of the first men in the country and in Parliament—of leaders in debate, and of men who by their varied qualifications were perfectly qualified to form opinions on such subjects. It is by such inquiries as these, my Lords, calmly and patiently conducted, that men are enabled to judge respecting the consequences of great changes of this nature, and of the bearings and tendencies of each particular part of what is intended to be done. But, instead of such a course being pursued, what has been done in the present instance? Nothing. No inquiry whatever has been made or instituted by Government. A gentleman in the House of Commons thought fit to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the import duties. Your Lordships are aware, that there exists a body calling itself the Anti-Corn law League, consisting of a number of persons in and out of Parliament. When the committee in question

  79
  was moved for, a noble Friend of mine I observed,
  " The committee appears to be very comprehensive in its constitution. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (alluding to the President of the Board of Trade) will state whether its inquiry is to extend to the subject of the Corn-laws?"
  The President of the Board of Trade replied, that it was not possible to answer the question put by the noble Lord; that it was not easy to foresee to what points the Committee would limit itself; and he added,
  "I imagine the point is (observe, my Lords, it is not to inquire into the Corn-laws) to classify all the information that can be procured, relative to the duties on the importation of commodities, and state that information to the House. And, (continued the President of the Board of Trade) I think that the labours of the Committee will be found exceedingly useful."
  And then, my Lords, we had the Import Committee, and its report from which the noble Viscount and others drew their convictions and conclusions. But the conclusion which I drew was this— that not one-tenth part of the requisite information was brought before Parliament and the public. I further think that the Committee and Report were ex-parte ones, upon which no legislative measures ought to have been founded. But what I chiefly complain of is this—that before the noble Viscount put this speech into the mouth of her Majesty, he did not give us fair and full information to guide us as to what we ought to do. I believe, my Lords, that conduct like this is sufficient to induce you to say that the noble Lords opposite do not deserve your confidence. And here, my Lords, I should finish what I have to say, but I wish to say a few words respecting the budget, about which so much has been said, and on which we shall have to give an opinion. As regards the timber duties, the noble Lords, before they attempt to renew the propositions made some years ago by the noble Lord opposite, ought to recollect the position of our American possessions at the present moment. They ought to consider whether, since that proposition was made by the noble Earl, vast quantities of land have been sold, covered with timber. I wish, then, my Lords, to submit, whether the purchasers of this land would not be entitled to some compensation for the loss
  80
  they must sustain by the proposed alterations? And with respect to the alteration in the sugar duties, I wish to inquire whether, when the West-India planters were deprived of the labour of slaves—(the apprenticeship of the negroes have also ceased sooner than was expected)—I wish I say, to submit whether they were told that in a year or two afterwards they would be deprived of all the benefits arising from the fair protection of their sugar; and I wish further to inquire if they will not be entitled to some compensation for this loss? The noble Viscount has attempted to answer the arguments of my noble Friend (The Earl of Ripon) as to the encouragement of East India industry. Now, I ask, your lordships whether, in consequence of measures lately introduced, many persons were not led to believe, that it was the object of Parliament and of the Government to encourage the introduction of sugar from India. A quantity of capital must have been invested in procuring this sugar, and in bringing it to England. And the persons who have laid out their money in this way, have, of course, done so on the faith of Government, and cannot they likewise fairly claim some compensation? This proposition will, therefore, require the greatest caution and consideration. But, my Lords, there is another difficulty which the Government have almost entirely left out of sight. I mean those points bearing on our relations with the government of Brazil? They have alluded to questions arising out of the commercial treaty; but I wish to know, will there be none raised about the treaties for the suppression of the slave trade which had never been carried into execution? I want to know whether it is proper to throw away all means of successful negotiation, instead of retaining in our hands something which would ensure proper attention to other matters that ought to be considered in our connection with Brazil? This great point the Government appear to have entirely forgotten. My Lords, with respect to the Corn-law question, my opinions are already well known. I shall not now argue the propriety of these laws, but I shall be ready to discuss them when a discussion is brought forward by a Government having the confidence of her Majesty's Parliament. But, my Lords, I earnestly recommend you, for the sake of the people of this country—for the sake of the humblest orders of the

  81
  people—not to lend yourselves to the destruction of our native cultivation. Its encouragement is of the utmost and deepest importance to all classes. My Lords, I have passed my life in foreign countries, in different regions of the earth, and I have been in only one country in which the poor man, if sober, prudent, and industrious, is quite certain of acquiring a competence. That country is this. We have instances every day; we have seen only within the last week, proofs that persons in the lowest rankscan acquire not only competence, but immense riches. I have never heard of such a thing in any other country. I earnestly beg of you not to lose sight of this fact, and not to consent to any measure which would injure the cultivation of our own soil. I have seen in other lands the misery consequent on the destruction of cultivation, and never was misery equal to it; and, my Lords, I once more conjure you not to consent to any measure tending to injure the home cultivation of this country.
  Viscount Melbourne: In consequence of the new matter which the noble Duke has introduced in the course of his speech, I feel obliged to trouble your Lordships with a very few words in addition to what I have already said. The noble Duke has referred to the Speech which her Majesty was advised to make at the close of the last Parliament, and says, that it is very much calculated to point public indignation against particular persons, and that I said, that those who opposed the measure proposed on the subject of the Corn-laws were opposed to her Majesty. Now, my Lords, I am totally unaware of having ever made such a statement. [The Duke of Wellington had not said the noble Viscount.] I certainly so understood the noble Duke's observations. With respect to the Speech which her Majesty was advised to make, at the close of the last Session of Parliament, it was framed upon the model of the Speech of his late Majesty, George 3rd, advised by Mr. Pitt, on the dissolution of Parliament in 1784. Parts, of course, were omitted, which did not apply to the circumstances of the present case, and when the Speech was drawn up I thought it was milder in form than the Speech of George 3rd. But however that might be, the Speech was that of her Majesty's Ministers, and did not in any way, as the noble Duke said it would, commit the Sovereign to its senti-
  82
  ments. Undoubtedly there had been much discussion on the subject of the measure we proposed, and all that we intended to state was, that it was adopted by her Majesty's Ministers as most likely to prove of advantage to the commerce of the country. Undoubtedly some allusion was necessarily made to this proposition, but I think, that it was not done in a way which was open to the animadversions made by the noble Duke. The noble Duke then said, that my opinions on this subject were probably changed in consequence of having read a certain report of a committee of the other House of Parliament. Now there is nothing at which I should feel more indignant than that I should be supposed to have learned anything from that report. The noble Duke says, that I have changed my opinions on the subject of the Corn-laws. Undoubtedly I have done so. We are all very much in the habit of taunting one another with having changed our opinions, but the fact is, we are always changing our opinions. No doubt the new Corn-law was a very great error, yet all the greatest authorities were in favour of that measure at the time. This is perhaps the measure on which there has been a greater—I should say progress of opinion, rather than change of opinion—than any other. The noble Duke has also referred to some observations which I made use of in reference to this subject, but the measure the advocacy of which I said was a sign of insanity, was the total repeal of the Corn-laws. In all the speeches which I have made on this subject I have opposed the projected alterations on temporary grounds only, owing to the circumstances of the time being such as to render it unadvisable to make any alterations of the kind. With regard to the changes now proposed, I know that violence and animosity are great evils, but great measures cannot be carried without them, and therefore, if the circumstances be considered otherwise favourable to a great and awful change, I do not think, that we should be deterred by apprehensions of temporary animosity and violence from attempting it.
  The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that up to the moment when the noble Viscount declared, that any man must be mad who would propose a repeal of the Corn-laws, he had given no hint, that he thought any part of them might be touched. With regard to the contents of

  83
  the Speech from the Throne, it was at all times desirable that the Sovereign should Dot be pledged.
  The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he should follow his usual course of not addressing their Lordships at any length, but having been in the Cabinet with some of the Members of the present Government, and having since his retirement supported them when in his power to do so, he could not come to a deliberate vote of want of confidence in it, without stating his reasons for doing so. He hoped, that his noble Friends would give him credit for acting on this, as on other occasions, in an open and manly way. The question of the Corn-laws was, in his opinion, of paramount importance to the best interests of the country, and he was astonished to hear his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) so distinguished as a grazier, contend, that it was not the poor but the rich land that would be thrown out of cultivation, or converted to grazing land, if the Corn-laws were repealed. But even if his noble Friend was correct in his view of it, which he was satisfied he was not, by his own showing the farmer would be the loser, for if the change would not be attended with loss, he would make it at this moment. What, however, was the fact?—that the poor land, that which it cost the most to till, and which produced the least return, would be thrown out of cultivation, and become a barren waste, and not the fertile soil of Lincolnshire, where his noble Friend grazed such beautiful short horns. A great quantity of land in the county in which he resided would be thrown entirely out of cultivation. When his noble Friend asserted, that the English farmer could compete with the foreign grower, he forgot the heavy weight of taxation which the English farmer was compelled to bear. He had great respect for his noble Friend's opinion upon any other subject, but regarding corn, he was sadly mistaken, he was sorry to hear him declare himself favourable to the total repeal of the Corn-laws, for unless the malt duty, and the various other taxes pressing peculiarly on land were repealed, the English farmer could not exist without protection. To adopt the recommendation of Ministers, would, in fact, be to adopt a scheme which one of themselves had not long since pronounced the project of a madman. That
  84
  great and influential class, the farmers of England, would be ruined in order to enich foreigners. He called upon the House to recollect the debt of gratitude due to the farmers of England; for many years, but especially during the last twenty years, they had devoted their time, their talents, and their capital, to the improvement of the soil, and at the moment, when much had been done, and when they hoped to be repaid some of their outlay, or to realise a moderate profit on the capital which they had expended on the soil, the Government wanted to turn round upon them, and to compel them to compete with the serfs of Poland. Many of them have long leases of their farms, and therefore cannot quit them, even if they could find any other profession to follow. "What, my Lords (said the noble Duke), are the landlords to do under such circumstances? If they are honest men they must reduce their rents, but of what avail would that be if they could not be placed as to taxes and other charges in the same situation as the foreigner. I have no hesitation in saying, that if unfortunately a bill of this sort pass through Parliament, I will be the man to move, that every tenant, if he think fit, may have the power to throw up his lease. No similar declaration would be heard from the free traders and their friends—the farmers were to be ruined—they were to be driven from the land which they loved, and on which they had lived from youth to age, and, together with their unfortunate labourers and their families, were to be driven into the workhouse for their daily bread." He felt most strongly upon this question. It had been said to night, that the men who were to succeed the present Government in office would themselves soon turn round upon the landed interest and refuse it protection. If they did, he knew what course the landed interest would take. They would turn out the new Government as they had turned out the present one. If the new Ministers came forward with an 8s. duty, the same men who brought them into power would thrust them out of it. But he did not believe they would pursue so "mad" a course— they knew too well the justice due to the cultivators of the soil; and were also well aware that the home market was of great importance to the manufacturing interest, and that commerce and manufacture

  85
  could not flourish if the agricultural interest were destroyed. Before he sat down he wished to say a few words on a rather delicate topic, which had been alluded to by his noble Friend the Mover of the amendment, who had expressed his deep regret, that the money of the savings banks had ever been touched. Although the Government had applied the money of the depositors to temporary purposes, he hoped that those depositors would receive an assurance that their property was quite safe. Thisassurance ought tobegiven by Government in the most distinct terms, for many of those who had placed their earnings in the savings banks were not well educated, and they would not understand it unless the plainest language were employed to convince them that their money was secure. He had commenced by stating, that he should only say a few words, and he hoped he had kept his promise.
  The Marquess of Lansdownerejoiced that he had given way to the noble Duke who had uttered his strong opinions in terms which had not caused him at least much surprise. He did not feel so competent, as his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) to discuss with the noble Duke, points peculiarly agricultural; but with reference to a general view of the subject, he could not but. complain, after the explanation afforded by his noble Colleague (Viscount Melbourne) that the noble Duke had persevered in the taunt that his noble Colleague, according to his own confession, must be mad, because he had once stated that any man who proposed a repeal of the Corn-laws in toto would be so. No such proposal had been made by the present Government; and if it were meant that any man must be mad who contemplated some change in the existing Corn-laws, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) apprehended that all who had taken part in the discussion already, and all who would take part in it hereafter, must be looked upon as insane. They all contemplated some change or other, be it more or less, and the only question was, as to the time of making it, and whether they should enter Bedlam by one door or another. He did not believe that the noble Duke himself was entirely exempt from this species of lunacy, and though he might not yet be so far gone as others, and possibly might be the last mad man of the day, mad he would go in the end, and would allow of a change when it could not be resisted.
  The Duke of Richmonddenied that he had ever said that his noble Fried (Viscount Melbourne) had proposed a total repeal of the Corn-laws. He was very sorry, by interposing, to spoil the joke of the noble Marquess; but it was necessary to set him right as to what he did say.
  The Marquess of Lansdownewas glad to infer that the noble Duke did not consider it perfect lunacy for a man to recommend some change in the Corn-laws. Before he proceeded farther, he most willingly complied with the request of the noble Duke, that he would make some distinct declaration respecting the security of the money borrowed from those most valuable institutions with which this country was ever blessed—the savings' banks. He regarded them with the deeper interest from having been himself instrumental in their first establishment in England. Depositors might rest satisfied that their money was perfectly safe, and that the Government and the Parliament, in the face of the country, pledged the revenues of the State for the security of the most sacred of the public funds. All that had been done was to convert one species of security into another, and whatever suspicion might be indulged in by noble Lords for the purposes of debate, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not believe that such a suspicion had ever entered the minds of that most suspicious class of persons, the saving portion of the community. He had risen before the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) in order to offer a few remarks upon what had fallen from another noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), who had delivered a speech which did him the highest honour, and to which he had listened with the greatest pleasure, although he felt it his duty to comment on some parts of it. No part did the noble Duke higher honour than what he had said respecting services of a peculiar nature rendered by the present head of the Government to the young Sovereign of this country—connected as he was, by office and personal intimacy, with his noble Friend, it was little for him to bear testimony, on his own knowledge, to the accuracy of the statement of the noble Duke; but what ever might be the issue Of this night's discussion, he was rejoiced, that the recognition of those services went forth to the world stamped with the high authority of the noble Duke. The noble Duke, how-

  87
  ever, accompanied that declaration by some censure of the terms employed in two royal speeches, the one delivered on dissolving the last Parliament, and the other this day read from the woolsack. He must deny, emphatically, that Ministers had committed her Majesty to anything, but to the opinion "that the trade and industry of the country were of paramount importance," and to the declaration that "she felt the greatest anxiety to provide for the exigencies of the public service in a manner least burdensome to the community." The noble Duke had, moreover, expressed some dissatisfaction that measures, on which no definite opinion was pronounced from the throne, had not been preceded by an inquiry by which due information might have been conveyed to Parliament and to the country. The noble Duke and other Peers had adverted to a report of a committee, not proposed by any Member of the Government, but by an individual Member of Parliament. Their Lordships would, however, recollect that not once, twice, or three times, but constantly, within the last twenty or five-and-twenty years, all these subjects had been over and over again investigated by committees. Sometimes these inquiries were made at the instance of discontented manufacturers, sometimes by discontented agriculturists; and on no fewer than five separate occasions reports had been presented to one or other House of Parliament. To none of these committees had the noble Duke adverted, yet some of them came exactly within the category laid down by him of having been composed of the most eminent statesmen. In 1821 and 1822, a committee of a most important nature, connected with these questions, was appointed; and he would just inform the House what members composed it, and made the report. They were Sir Robert Peel, Lord Althorp, Mr. W. Lamb (Lord Melbourne), Mr. Huskisson, and Mr. Robinson. What did the House imagine this combination of illustrious statesmen of different parties agreed in recommending? They recommended a fixed duty as the best protection that could be given to agriculture. Yet, if he were not very much mistaken, this Mr. Robinson was the same individual who had been afterwards created Viscount Goderich and Earl of Ripon. It might be supposed, after what that noble Lord had said to-night, that he could
  88
  not be the same person, but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had taken some pains to ascertain his identity; and, for his own part, he was satisfied upon the point. The present Ministers were, therefore, only humble followers of that great statesman, Mr. Robinson, who now wished to deny his own offspring, and to cast it, like a foundling, at the door of anybody who would be charitable enough to give it shelter. The report stated that "such a system is fit to be kept in view rather as the ultimate tendency of the law than as practicable, within a very short period," and this was delivered in the session of 1821–2, and from that date until 1841–2, that was to say for about twenty years, the noble Earl, instead of tending towards such a system, had, it seemed, been getting gradually further and further from it. The result would be, that Ministers were never likely to have the benefit of the aid of the noble Earl in this undertaking; the longer he lived the less likely he was to approach the fixed duty he had recommended in 1821–2. The noble Earl might recollect a Greek tragedy which begun with a soliloquy by a person who had waited ten years in vain for the signal to announce the termination of the siege of Troy; but the noble Earl had out-watched the watcher; he had doubled the ten years; and twenty years, instead of inducing him to think that a fixed duty on corn might be adopted, had convinced him that it was more dangerous than ever. The progress of affairs during a long peace—the advance of foreign manufactures—the proved uncertainty of supply —had no effect upon the mind of the Earl of Ripon, though they might have operated forcibly on that of Mr. Robinson. In the report to which he had referred, Ministers had placed some confidence— it was their harbour of refuge in the midst of the storm of opposition, and, backed by the opinion of Mr. Robinson and his colleagues of the committee, they had sought by a fixed duty to obtain a sure supply at a certain price, which, to the manufacturer the farmer and the labourer was the great desideratum. This system, the perfection of a law upon the subject, they had sought to establish, warranted by experiments already made upon the same principle in other spheres of commerce. They had been encouraged also in this course of policy by perceiving that the same principle in the case of wool had entirely suc-

  89
  ceeded. When it was proposed to remove the restrictions on wool, the same cry was raised, and the same prophecies indulged —the poor lands would be thrown out of cultivation, the farmers would be ruined, and the labourers starved; but, nevertheless, aided by a great portion of the opposition of that day, he himself having taken part with the Government (for they had not sought; to unite themselves with powerful classes for the poor end of getting into office) the restrictions were removed, and the result had been a great increase in the importation of foreign wool, conjointly with an advance in the price of our own wool. Thus both landlords and tenants were benefitted by a change which, it was asserted, would be their ruin, and not an agriculturist had been found to suggest a return to the former system. His noble Friend had been taunted with making a distinction between the principles of fixed duty and total repeal. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was a friend of free trade, but he knew that perfect freedom was not consistent with the maintenance of the revenue. All that could be done was to make as near an approach to perfectly free trade as was consistent with the interests of the revenue; and in the instances before the House it had been thought that the changes would increase instead of diminishing the revenue; and, while it afforded relief to the subject, would be no disadvantage to the Government or to any party. Above all, it was thought that the condition of the farmer would be improved, and that a system might be established which would accomplish this object, while it insured regularity of supply to the community, without bolstering up the machinery of varying averages, the preservation of which would inevitably lead to feelings of dissatisfaction and discontent. His noble Friend had omitted many of the transactions which he might have recounted, he had overlooked treaties concluded, reconciliations effected, and expeditions that had been successful, but no wonder that with opinions from which he could not escape on corn, timber, and sugar, he should fly for grounds of attack to China and Afghanistan, the papers relating to which were not completely before the House. These were not, he thought, sufficiently broad foundations on which to build the superstructures that had been erected on them.
  90
  This policy of his noble Friend evidently arose from no other motive than his desire to avoid touching upon the great questions at issue. He commended that policy, and the prudence which dictated it. He had been much struck, not only with what was expressed, but with what was omitted in the amendment. There was no point of the subject to which noble Lords were called upon to pledge themselves. If there were any who thought that the continuance of the sugar and timber duties, as they existed at present, were essential to the interests of the colonies as that of the Corn-law was to the prosperity of the agriculturist—if they were comforted and consoled by that amendment, they were certainly the most easily comforted and consoled people he had ever met with. There was little else said in condemnation of the Government. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, with his characteristic manliness and fairness, had given his approval to the sums voted for defraying the expenses of the late various military expeditions, though frequently implying that the establishments were not large enough, but with those establishments and influence in every part of the world we had successfully maintained the national honour and interests, and they had been maintained—not only been maintained, but the power of England had been asserted and proved in a manner which would not be speedily forgotten. It would be a satisfaction to the Ministry, that in the face of an opposition the most formidable and active which had ever thwarted an administration, no opportunity had been supplied of proving that the honour of the country had ever been tarnished in their hands. It would be also matter for satisfactory reflection, that although for the present they were unsuccessful in bringing their great commercial measures to a satisfactory issue, they had fairly taken up and proposed these great measures. They were prevented from conducting them to the grand point they aimed at, but the situation of the next administration, when placed in such a position, as would enable it to enjoy a greater share of the confidence of both Houses of Parliament, than they had been enabled to possess, would be one of deep responsibility. "To whom much is given, of him much shall be required." The sooner the time arrived which should place them in possession of that greater

  91
  share of confidence the better; for then he hoped that the cloud which seemed to hang over the opinions of the majority of that House would be dispersed; and that their views would at last become visible; and, when that event occurred, if their intended policy should appear to tend towards liberal measures and liberal principles, he was sure he was speaking the sentiments of every noble Lord near him, when he said, that they should have their most unanimous and cordial support.
  The Earl of Coventryrose amidst loud cries of "Question, question." After silence had been obtained the noble Earl exclaimed — "I am Lord Coventry; a few words from me." "I think the country is in a safe state, and I hope to find it placed in the hands of the Duke of Wellington. My Lords, I hope I have not detained you."
  The Marquess of Northamptonsaid that, as he intended to vote for the Address, he thought it necessary to state to their Lordships the reasons which influenced him in so doing. When either House of Parliament passed a vote of want of confidence, they did something more than the thing itself. They passed not only a vote of want of confidence against the existing Government, but they passed a vote of confidence in favour of those who were supposed to succeed them. Their Lordships were called upon to pass that vote completely in the dark. He would never consent to any vote expressing approbation of any Government unless he knew what were the measures which that Government intended to bring forward. The finances of the country now required that something should be done. What could they do? They must adopt the plane recommended by her Majesty's present Ministers—or borrow a loan—or further increase the taxes. Which of these three plans were they prepared to adopt? There was another reason which induced him to support the original Address. In his opinion it was a very inconvenient course for the House to go out of the subjects contained in the Address to vote something on some other subject. He certainly did not quite agree with his noble Friends as to the sort of speech which they had placed in the mouth of her Majesty. It went too much into details. He was bound to confess that whilst he voted against the Address he did so with reluctance—for he disagreed with his
  92
  noble Friends on the subject of the sugar duties, and also on the subject of corn. He differed with them as to the first point, because he thought that the change which they proposed would lead to an increased cultivation of sugar, and an increased cultivation of sugar must lead to an encouragement of the slave trade. He thought that some negotiations might be entered into with the Brazils by which this country would consent to receive their sugar if they entered into an agreement to abolish slavery. As to the Corn laws, though perhaps they might be changed with advantage, he did not approve of the fixed duty sanctioned by the Government. The sort of Corn law he would support would be one which contained the qualities both of a fixed duty and a graduated scale.
  Lord Broughamsaid, that, with the opinions which he entertained as to the important subjects contained in the Speech then under discussion, and as to the conduct of the Government in bringing forward the great question of the Corn-laws, the timber duties, and the sugar duties—with these opinions, and having so often maintained the side which he supported with regard to these important subjects by argument, their Lordships would be aware that he would give his vote in favour of the Address in that form which had been recommended to them by his noble Friend behind him; but, in so doing, it would not be necessary for him to trespass upon their time by any argument at all. Yet he could not give his vote in favour of that Address without guarding on some important particulars against the inference that might be drawn from his vote that he wholly approved of the conduct of the Government even in respect to those questions to which he had alluded. Those questions had been that night fully and fairly considered in the most able, eloquent, and impressive address by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Ripon). His noble Friend, at the head of the Government, and in whose department this subject more especially lay, had certainly given no manner of answer to that speech. He seemed to think, continued the noble and learned Lord, that it was no duty of his to answer that speech, and yet he ventured to call upon your Lordships' House to disregard it. I differ entirely from my noble Friend, and when we are found sitting together, on the opposite side of the House, if a speech should be made on this side of the House, to recommend a measure which we together oppose—to propound a

  93
  measure which we together resist— a measure, as we think, dangerous to the country, and hurtful to the constitution—if such a speech be then made on this side of the House, (and I hope there will not), I shall most sincerely hope to hear a more elaborate, a more statesmanlike, a more effective answer from my noble Friend sitting there, than it has been my good luck to hear tonight from my noble Friend sitting here. It was from no want of ability on the part of my noble Friend, it was from no want of knowledge on the subject, but he seemed to think—I know not how—that it was not worth his trouble to answer the speech of my noble Friend opposite. He seemed to think that there was an end of the concern—that the question had been decided, though no vote had been taken; that something which has happened elsewhere has put an end to all doubt, hope, chance, thought, anxiety as to the business, and he seemed to be giving himself and his Government up as martyrs to these propositions— to these popular measures. And he did this wilfully. It was not from the badness of his cause nor from his want of skill to handle it, but simply and entirely from the carelessness and indifference of my noble Friend. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to say that the defects of his noble Friend's (Lord Melbourne's) speech had well nigh been supplied by the speech of his noble Friend, who had last addressed their Lordships, but there was one thing which he had left unanswered, and, as it was a very material point, relating to the whole question of the Corn-laws, he would briefly solicit their attention to it. He referred to his noble Friend's (the Earl of Ripon's) manner of dealing with the averages. The whole gist of the question as to the comparative advantages of a sliding scale and of a fixed duty—indeed the whole gist of the entire question of the Corn-laws, was this—which of the two schemes would give the better prospect of a fixed, constant, and not fluctuating price. His noble Friend the noble Duke (Wellington) who always saw at one view what was the point on which every question turned, and who always manfully met and fairly argued it, when they had last argued the question he (the noble Duke on one side, and unfortunately for him, he himself on the other) had applied himself to that point, and endeavoured to satisfy their Lordships that the present system was the more likely to secure a fixed, regular, and not fluctuating price. So had argued the noble Earl op-
  94
  posite to-night, and the way in which he had made out his case was this:—he took a number of years, and, having the price of each year, divided the whole number of years, and thus obtained the average of a certain period. He took the first four years of his calculation at 50 s., the next four at a little more, the next series at under 60 s., and then, dividing each series separately found out the average during that time. Why, he would undertake to prove anything in figures, if they would allow him to choose his own figures, and then to de vide them as he liked. He objected to taking any one year. It did not answer the purpose they had in view. Suppose they divided the year into fifty-two periods, and obtained a quotient from the prices of all these fifty-two weeks, it would give no idea of the fluctuation which had taken place during the time. In one week the price might be 20 s., in another 40 s., in another 60 s., in another 80 s., up to 120 s. Why taking them altogether, and dividing them by twelve, you obtained an average of the whole period, but no one could possibly tell how steady or how unsteady, or firm, or how fluctuating the price of corn had been during the fifty-two periods taken in his calculation. So with respect to any given period. The list from which his noble Friend had argued wag simply a list of averages—and the question was not a question of average, it was a question of price—and the average was the very thing which then they did not want to know. In the paper of averages during the last six years, the three first years of the series being 1835, 1836, 1837, and the three last being 1838, 1839, and 1840,— (and here he was meeting the noble Lord upon his own ground, and upon that he would show that there had been a very great fluctuation, even with this steady, firm, secure scale)—he found that during the first series of three years, the average price, was somewhere about 43 s. The average price of the first three years was 43 s. Now, what was the average of the last three years? Why it was no less than 63 s. or 64 s.—a fluctuation, taking these two periods, of no less than from 43 s. to 63 s., or no less than 50 per cent. He thought it his duty thus to remind the House of the defective state of the argument, and of the extreme fallacy of any arguments founded on averages; and he was the more induced to enter into this part of the question from a conviction that it bore very closely upon the main point at

  95
  issue. Upon some of the other topics which had been broached in the course of the present debate, it would be preposterous for him to enter, for many of these, as they had been taken up both on the one side and the other, appeared to him to have no relation whatever to the issue on which the House had to decide. With these remarks he might perhaps have been contented to sit down, did he not apprehend, that in voting for the Address as he intended to do, his conduct and motives might be misapprehended; he therefore should not vote without stating briefly, and in a manner as little offensive as possible, the grounds upon which his opinions had been adopted. His noble Friends were quite aware of his opinion of the objection he was about to state. If he were to allow the Address to be put to the vote, and should say to it, "content," then he could have no right to complain if there should afterwards be any misrepresentation as to the reasons by which he had been influenced in so voting. He apprehended, that he might be exposed to much misrepresentation, if he allowed the measures mentioned in the Address to pass without notice. The position in which her Majesty's Ministers stood, he deemed to be a matter of great regret in a constitutional point of view. It appeared to him, that his noble Friends behind him had been guilty of a great error of judgment on one subject, but he rejoiced that they had brought forward the question of the Corn-laws. Though not satisfied with the nature or the extent of what they proposed to do, he still rejoiced that they had brought the subject forward, for the hare taking it up gave a prospect of success to the larger, safer, wiser measure. As to the timber duties, he should, with the same qualifications, say, that he likewise rejoiced to see them brought forward at the present moment. On the subject of the measures regarding sugar, he should now only express his regret that the opportunity which they presented had not been taken advantage of for the purpose of entering into negotiations with the Powers which governed Cuba and the Brazils, with a view to the extinction of the slave trade. But in counselling a dissolution of the late Parliament, it did appear to him that his noble Friends had been guilty of a great error of judgment. It was wrong towards the state, it was wrong towards the Sovereign, and it was doubly wrong towards the interests of those questions themselves, which, as responsible ad-
  96
  visers or the Crown, they had brought under the consideration of Parliament. He could not for a moment doubt that his noble Friends entertained a sanguine hope—nay, they would not be justified merely by a sanguine hope—they must have entertained a confident expectation of receiving a favourable answer, when they advised the Sovereign to make an appeal to the country. They must, when they gave that advice, not only have entertained a confident expectation, but have felt absolutely certain, that a majority would be returned in favour of them, and of their measures, They could not have entertained the least doubt that they would have a majority—not a bare majority, not such a majority as that which for some time past had enabled them to linger rather than to live—not a majority of twos or threes, or now and then of eighteen or twenty; but such a majority as would enable them to carry on the business of the country —such a majority as might fairly be called a working majority. On this they could have felt no uncertainty when they tendered that advice to the Sovereign. He was not permitted to suppose that they entertained a shadow of doubt upon the subject. Why did he say so? Because on no other conceivable supposition had they a right to tender such advice— to advise the Crown to dissolve a Parliament—to council a Sovereign to exercise the highest and most important of the prerogatives; but to counsel the Crown to have recourse to that prerogative, for the purpose of what, if it were not to return a majority in their favour, and a decided majority? For the purpose of returning a larger minority than their adversaries might gain, if they succeeded to power and dissolved. He wished to use no offensive expression, and therefore he should only say, that that was an advice which no British Minister dared to avow that he had given to his Sovereign. But he went further, he acquitted his noble Friends of having, by possibility, been guilty of giving such advice. It would be to advise the Sovereign to become a party to a mere factious manœuvre; therefore he denied that it was possible that any one of his noble Friends could have given such advice. Wherefore it was evident that they must have held the most confident expectation of a large, or at least a very considerable majority, in their favour, at the general election. If it were said that an appeal had been made to the people on the subject of these measures, and that it had failed, and

  97
  that the people at the elections had returned an answer opposed to that policy, he took leave to deny that position. He felt bound to do so from his regard to the best interests of that people, of those questions, and of that state policy. If he merely cared for the party that had brought these measures forward—if he were wholly regardless of the importance of the free trade, of the Corn-laws, and of the policy recommended by the Government,—if he wanted to make a pretext of this kind for the purpose of bolstering up a party, then he might say, that the country had returned a verdict—not against the Government—not against the men, but against their measures. But did those men suffer nothing in character who had given such a judgment? Would the interest of the people have suffered nothing by returning such a judgment; and, above all, would the questions themselves suffer nothing by such large majorities pronounced against them? Undoubtedly a great injury would be done to these measures; they would be sacrificed in the hopeless attempt to prop up the fallen fortunes of a party in power who brought them forward. He would not admit that that was the construction to be put on the verdict which the country had returned. He thought their Lordships would perceive that the verdict was on one issue and the trial on another—that the country had given their verdict against the men, but that on the subject of their policy no verdict had been returned, or opinion expressed. That policy had received a scanty measure of justice—first, as to the time, next as to the shape, then, as to the measures themselves. If his noble Friends two years and a half ago, had opened their eyes to their own real position, and to the exigencies of the case with regard to the trade of the country, if they had only allowed that evidence to be brought to their Lordships' bar which had been tendered on oath in support of this question, and had been defeated by their Lordships, and on the renewal of the question the Session after had persisted in lending it their aid and support, and then, after two years' support, with no possibility of any sinister motive being imputed to them, they had found it expedient, for any other reasons, such as their defeat on the Irish Registration Act, to appeal to the country, by dissolving Parliament, he ventured to say, that they would have had a very different reception from what they had had, whether they put the question on the merits of the
  98
  policy itself, or on the merits of the Ministers who had brought it forward. But though it was perfectly untrue that they for the first time took up the Corn-law question in the month of April last, when defeated on the other bill—though it was undeniably true that a considerable time before that they had directed their attention to it—though it was undeniably untrue that they had only conditionally come to a resolution to bring forward the Corn-law question if they should find it needful, and if they should be driven to straits— though it is undeniably incorrect to slate that that was their course; ["Some Lords laughed,"] he had no more doubt of the fact than that he was standing before their Lordships. The correspondence with the Governor-General of Canada proved that the bringing forward of these measures had not been suggested after the defeat in April. Nevertheless, it was impossible to deny that the coincidence in point of time went out to the country in such a manner as to throw great suspicion on the conduct of the Government. He had stated to their Lordships why that suspicion was altogether groundless, or very much exaggerated; but that the suspicion did exist, and in every part of the country, was undeniable. It was that by which the advocates of the repeal of the Corn-laws were everywhere met—that of their having so long delayed taking this course, and then to have appeared to the people only to have taken it when driven to it—and that they did not take it up on its own merits, but as a handle for the purpose of regaining their popularity at the elections. That was the prevailing opinion, at the late election, and if they would inquire of any of those who stood as candidates, or of any of those persons who were less liable to be biassed in their judgments, because they were bystanders and witnesses rather than parties in those contests, he would venture to say, that with extraordinary unanimity the same answer would be given by them all as to the character and the results of those contests. But that was not all. The shape in which the measures were brought forward appeared to be another and a very serious impediment to success. The measures were good in themselves. The principles upon which they were founded were sound. They were calculated to relieve the trade of the country, but they were not brought forward as measures for relieving that trade. Upon that foundation they could have stood, and

  99
  stood firmly; but they were brought forward as measures of finance. That was a rotten foundation, and upon that foundation they could not stand. They were sound and well-constructed measures as measures of commercial policy, but as measures of financial policy, it was impossible to listen with patience to any argument in their favour. The smallest statement of figures, the most cursory glance at accounts, the slightest knowledge of financial matters, would make it impossible for any man to say that they ought to be regarded as measures of taxation and finance. Take the corn question for instance. His noble Friend had argued with respect to the timber and sugar duties, but taking the Corn-laws, could any mortal believe that any portion of the revenue could be regarded as certain, or that a source of revenue could be relied on, which was to be dependent upon the seasons and the price of grain at home? Look at the averages, look at the prices which had prevailed during the years 1834, 1835, and 1836, and they would find that not one farthing of revenue could be got from that source. During every one of those years the duty, the freight, and the charges of shipping would have made it impossible for a single bushel of foreign grain to be brought into this country. His noble Friend had, with his usual ability, stated, that under the price of 64 s. no foreign wheat could be imported. Perhaps his noble Friend had taken rather a large idea of that subject. [Earl Spencer: 56 s.] Well, take the price at 56 s., or even lower than that, at 51 s. or 52 s., still the prices in those successive years he had mentioned would have made it utterly impossible for one single bushel of foreign grain to be imported from either Dantzic, Rotterdam, or Hamburgh. Therefore, the answer he had to give was perfectly satisfactory; it could not be a financial measure, it could not be a tax upon which the revenue could place any dependence. The only argument on the other side of this important question was, that in those years of greatest cheapness at home there was an increased consumption of excisable articles; consequently, though the same amount of revenue was not to be expected from corn, the deficiency was made up in that way It certainly was the duty of a prudent financier to take the bad as well as the good years into account, and to set one against the other, but they had no right to take the bad years and say that they were the consequence of the corn tax, and that the
  100
  corn tax was a total failure. But the measures had been brought forward of a frame and an amount which was not likely to insure for them that success which might have been expected had they been placed on a larger ground. In that House their Lordships might calmly deliberate upon subjects which they might hold to convey lessons of practical instruction, for wise and sober legislation; but when they appealed to the people on grounds of a philosophical and commercial nature, they must take something more tangible than refinements upon principles. No doubt the measures proposed were improvements upon the present state of things; but the greatest defect of the Government scheme was, that it professed to be a free trade scheme, and yet it commenced with doubling the duty on colonial timber. It raised the duty of 10 s. to 20 s.; it added 100 per cent, to the duty upon colonial timber, and called that free trade. True, it took off 9 per cent., that was to say 5s. out of 55 s. on Baltic timber; and though they who were sitting in deliberation there were aware, that upon the whole that was a considerable improvement; yet, if the Government went to the country upon the question of free trade, and called upon the people to support them because they were propounding measures of free trade, they should not let the people see that the first thing in their budget was, that they took off 9 per cent, from Baltic timber, and added 100 per cent, on Canadian timber. The effect must be, as it had been, that the people would see it was not a measure of free trade; and, therefore, they must withhold their concurrence. On that ground alone, therefore, free trade had not had a fair trial in the country, and a proper verdict had not been obtained upon it. Then, as to sugar, if they had shown the people that there was a measure in contemplation for which they deserved the support of the people; if they had so far reduced the duty on sugar as to make that all but necessary of life easily obtaina e by the lower classes, most undoubte y they would have a right to expect, and in all probability would have received, the support of the people. But what was the difference of price which they proposed to effect?—1s. 6d. per cwt., or very little more than half-a-farthing in the pound—six-tenths of a farthing in the pound! Why, every one who knew anything of trade, knew very well that the dealer alone, and not the consumer, would benefit by such a trifling reduction. As to the Corn-laws,

  101
  it was a very considerable improvement upon the sliding scale to substitute a fixed duty. He was against any sudden, total repeal of the Corn-laws, or of what was called the protective duties, but he thought it ought to be gradual, yet total, and no doubt in a few years the repeal might be completed. He might be quite wrong, and no doubt many of their Lordships thought he was. But they were now looking to the measure upon which an appeal had been made to the people, who had been called upon to give their support to a free trade in corn, a free trade generally, but, above all, in that which formed the basis of all other commodities, and which was the staple food of the people. Free trade in corn was said, to have been the object of the Government in making an appeal to the people. But what did the people see? Instead of a free trade in corn it was a tax upon food—a tax of 8s. per quarter, upon every quarter of corn imported. That was the shape in which the question went to the country; that was the ground upon which the support of the people was asked; that was the plan of free trade for the purpose of bringing down monopoly. It must be clear that a fixed duty totally prevented the possibility of a reduction in the price of the commodity. Cheap bread could not come from that quarter; no one had a right to say that cheap bread had any connexion whatever with the imposition of that duty. The total repeal of the Corn-laws would certainly reduce the price of corn; but the Ministerial proposition would not at all. He had always argued before their Lordships, as elsewhere, that the agriculturists as greatly exaggerated the effects to be anticipated one way, from the repeal, as the manufacturers did the other way. A fixed duty, however, of 8s. could not possibly produce any reduction in price. Why, the average duty lately had been 5s. 6d. or thereabouts, so that here was a positive increase of some 2s. 6d. A total repeal would, certainly, producing a reduction perhaps of from 5s. to 8s. per quarter, be a relief to the people. The Government had not the right to speak of their measure as calculated to cheapen corn, seeing that it could not possibly lower the price of corn one farthing. Still, as a measure substituting a fixed duty for a sliding scale, it would produce most important and most beneficial results. It would reanimate drooping manufactures, and relieve the poor, not by cheapening bread, but by giving them more money wherewith to procure it. On these
  102
  grounds he was clearly of opinion that the result of the late election could not be said to have been a verdict against the repeal of he Corn-laws, or against the principle of free-trade; but that it had been clearly against the general policy of the Government, and that it indicated a distrust of he Administration, which he could not but say he thought justified that statement in the amendment—of which, by-the-bye, not one word had been said by those of his noble Friends who had spoken upon it—the statement, that her Majesty's Ministers had lost, not the confidence of Parliament merely, but "the confidence of the country." "The confidence of this House "would have been a very incorrect expression indeed, inasmuch as the Ministers never had possessed it, but it could not be denied, that the elections had decisively demonstrated, that they had lost the confidence of the nation. Now, there was one other point, and one of paramount moment, to which he could not but advert. And lest it should be said (by those who might be desirous of destroying the effect of what he said), that he was "only wise after the event," he begged to recall to the recollection of his noble Friends and of their Lordships, that he had in this House on the 21st of June stated the substance of what he had now said, or was about to say, "before the event,"—that he bad always declared that he would never agree to be bound by the result of the "appeal" (as it was called) "to the country," regard being had to the circumstances under which that appeal would be made, the time at which, and the shape in which, as well as the measures upon which, it would be made: he had declared, that he would not consider the election as any test of the opinions and the principles of the people; but now he came to a more weighty and momentous point, involving principles of the highest constitutional importance. He frankly avowed, that he conceived, after the result of the recent elections was known, it was the duty of his noble Friends to have resigned. They ought not any longer to have remained in office; they ought simply, straightforwardly, manfully, to have resigned. Two years and a half ago, when the Ministers, after having stated to Parliament that they had lost the confidence of the Legislature, returned to place under circumstances to which he would not particularly allude—it was unnecessary to do so—and when they assumed office without power, all real power

  103
  being vested in the hands of the majorities of either House opposed to them, he had then foreseen what he believed then would be, no doubt had been, and was, the actual truth of the case—that this retention of office would be one main cause of their losing the confidence of the nation. He had then blamed them, but their remaining in office since the result of the recent elections was known was a mere "error in judgment," — the confidently believed it was no more than that)—he was persuaded office must have since been a burden to them. It could be nothing but a burden— but the consequences certainly had been most unfortunate. For it had happened that they had, through having thus retained office, had to advise their royal mistress upon one of the most important occasions on which the discretion and the authority of the Crown could be exercised—the declaration of the causes of summoning the Parliament—the statements of the Sovereign in opening the Imperial Parliament. Most unconstitutional would it be to hint, that any opposition to the Speech was an indication of opposition or hostility towards the Sovereign. Nothing could be; more clear than that the Speech was the speech of the Ministers, and was to be dealt; with as any other act of theirs with all, possible freedom. At the same time it was just as clear, that it being most desirable to have a good understanding between the Crown and the Parliament, all things ought to be studiously avoided which could have any tendency to provoke or impel any thing that resembled a rejection, a refusal, a negation of the Address in answer to the Speech, even though that Speech was the act alone of the Sovereign's responsible advisers. But now, the Ministers having remained in office after the result of the elections was known, with a perfect knowledge of that result, had prepared a speech which was to have a fate as absolutely, as distinctly known, as any event could be before it happened—a speech which they knew—which they confessed they knew— must meet with rejection in both Houses of Parliament. If he were told that until men came to act in Parliament, nothing could be known of their votes, as hustings declarations did not always bind, or if he were told that until a division was taken, they could not tell which way a man's vote might be given, then would he again say, unfortunately, "litera, scripta manct." A noble Friend of his had announced to his constituents, in a public letter, that an
  104
  overwhelming majority of Members had been returned against the Government. The fact must, therefore, hare been known to his noble Friend near him, and a speech was accordingly prepared, to be rejected by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Parliament. The opinions which that speech contained could have been entered upon the journals of the House just as well and in a much more regular and constitutional manner, in a manner more conformable to the practice of the House, than that which had been chosen by his noble Friends. He wished he could close these observations without saying a word in reference to the conduct of late elections; but since they had occurred, the unprecedented corruption which had been practised at them in every form all over the country, had hardly once been absent from his mind. Bribery, to an extent he believed unparalleled, influence and intimidation of the worst description, violence, turbulence, threats, actual outrage by imprisonment, by wounding, and sometimes by murder, disgrace, he was sorry to say, very many of the recent elections. Such was the picture which had been presented to them, not merely by the addresses of disappointed candidates, and the reports of eye witnesses, but they had actually seen, by the records of courts of justice, not only that bribery and intimidation, and actual violence of a most hideous character, had been resorted to, but that they had taken place without any exception of party, and were common to both of the great parties contesting those elections. He could state just as bad cases on the one side as the other; but he would not now detain their Lordships by doing so. Of this, however, he was certain, that unless Parliament interposed—unless an inquiry were instituted, both the parties which divided that House and divided the country, must make up their minds to share, and share equally, the blame of protecting and screening, by refusing to punish persons guilty of those practices. He believed that their Lordships had great power in the matter. He believed, that if, with their means of inquiry, some of which were peculiar to that House, they were to institute an inquiry into the mal-practices which had taken place at the late elections—with no view to punish, of course with no view to seats in the other House, as in that they could not meddle, but merely with regard to future legislation on the subject—he believed that not only would the character of

  105
  their Lordships' House be greatly raised in the estimation of the country, but that the inquiry could not possibly be gone through without such a successful result as would lead to some useful, and, to some extent, at least, efficacious remedy, for this enormous evil. One remedy was in the hands of all, a remedy in which, without legislation, every man might bear his share. Bribery was much too lightly talked of, and too lightly thought of. The old practice of paying so much a-head, not being considered a bribe, led to that which was actual bribery, to the giving of money for electioneering purposes, and eventually to a corrupt state of things, which no man could defend, but of which most men spoke far too lightly. It was not merely the purchase of a vote, it was not the giving of money to a man corruptly to influence him in discharging an important public trust, it was not merely that that turned elections into a perfect mockery, but it was the perjury which was thereby encouraged, by which corruption was sown, as it were broadcast, over the face of the electoral body in this country, which it behoved them to notice. There was not a man who received a bribe for the purpose of influencing his vote, who did not run the hazard of perjury; there was not one man in a hundred of those willing to take a bribe, who did not take it, and go to the poll prepared to take the bribery oath, and therefore perjure himself. He was certain, that if all those who were engaged in elections would take this view of the matter, a very different course would be pursued, and stronger reprobations expressed than those hitherto known. The result of the division to which they were about to come would, of course, create a change in the Government of the country. He could only say, that he did not join in the taunts which had been indulged in by some of his noble Friends near him, respecting the probable course of their successors. He hoped they would come over to his noble Friends. If they did, he should be the first to hail their arrival amongst them. He agreed with his noble Friend, the President of the Council, that so far from feeling the least disinclination to their adoption of the measures of the present Government, he would gratefully receive from them the smallest contribution, and instead of deeming it to be his duty to triumph over them and say, "You are doing precisely the same thing which you turned us out for attempting to do." He would say to them, "Do so and wel-
  106
  come, and you shall have my best support." A noble Lord had blamed the conduct of his noble Friend, the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, with reference to the appropriation clause; and the noble Viscount had defended himself by referring to that of Sir Robert Walpole in, respect of the tax upon excisable commodities. Notwithstanding the remarks of his noble Friend, he thought that that noble Lord had a perfect right to state as he had stated—but he had stated it far too strongly when he said that the noble Viscount had in that instance exhibited a total want of political integrity. He did not agree with him: he thought that he had only exhibited a great fulness of the desire to remain in office. The comparison he thought inapposite. The case of Walpole would have been like that of the noble Viscount, if Sir Robert Walpole, in the teeth of the Minister whom he afterwards supplanted, had brought in a resolution, as leader of the Opposition, that no plan of finance deserved the support of Parliament and the country which did not involve a tax upon excisable commodities, and if, after the lapse of a short period obtaining a majority in the House of Commons upon that motion, when he turned out his rivals and got into their place, he then brought in a budget in which a tax upon excisable commodities formed a prominent feature, and finding that he would be beaten upon it, withdrew it summarily, said nothing at all about it, and still retained office. Then the case of Sir Robert Walpole would have borne some resemblance to that of his noble Friend, and might indeed have formed some precedent for his conduct. Apologizing again for the length at which he had intruded himself upon their Lordships attention at so late an hour, he would conclude by stating that he would heartily vote for the Address.
  Their Lordships divided on the original question: Contents96; Not Contents 168: Majority 72.

  List of the CONTENTS.

  DUKES.

  Northampton

  Sussex

  Anglesea

  Norfolk

  Conyngham

  Somerset

  Westminster.

  Bedford

  EARLS.

  Sutherland.

  Lichfield

  MARQUESSES.

  Gosford

  Lansdowne

  Effingham

  Normanby

  Ducie

  Clanricarde

  Chichester

  Headfort

  Thanet

  107

  Uxbridge

  Godolphin

  Erroll

  Cottenham

  Albemarle

  Leigh

  Scarborough

  De Freyne

  Fitzwilliam

  Talbot, of Malahide

  Radnor

  Carew

  Craven

  Campbell

  Minto

  Kinnaird

  Spencer

  Say and Sele

  Belfast

  Poltimore

  Yarborough

  Colborne

  Camperdown

  De Mauley

  Cork

  Mostyn

  Clarendon

  Byron

  Surrey

  Beaumont

  Leitrim

  Camoys

  Oxford

  Berners

  Morley

  Foley

  Fingal

  Brougham

  Charlemont

  Vivian

  Bruce

  Portman

  Lovelace

  Monteagle

  Zetland

  Stourton

  Gainsborough

  Congleton

  Fitzhardinge.

  Hilford

  VISCOUNTS.

  Wrottesley

  Torrington

  Cloncurry

  Melbourne

  Gardner

  Duncannon.

  Bateman

  BISHOPS.

  Lyttleton

  Ely

  Plunket

  Derry

  Montfort

  Norwich

  Hatherton

  Hereford

  Methuen

  Lichfield

  Teynham

  Chichester

  Wenlock

  Worcester.

  Lovat

  BARONS,

  Dormer

  Dacre

  Sudely

  Strafford

  Langdale.

  List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

  DUKES.

  Westmeath

  Richmond

  Ormonde.

  Beaufort

  EARLS.

  Marlborough

  Devon

  Rutland

  Denbigh,

  Buccleuch

  Lindsey

  Montrose

  Winchilsea

  Portland

  Sandwich

  Dorset

  Essex

  Wellington

  Cardigan

  Buckingham.

  Abingdon

  MARQUESSES.

  Coventry

  Tweeddale

  Jersey

  Lothian

  Morton

  Salisbury

  Haddington

  Abercorn

  Dalhousie

  Bute

  Airlie

  Thomond

  Leven

  Ely

  Selkirk

  Exeter

  Balcarras

  Camden

  Aberdeen

  Cholmondeley

  Dunmore

  Londonderry

  Orkney

  Hastings

  Seafield

  Ailesbury

  Stanhope

  108

  Warwick

  BISHOPS.

  Hardwicke

  Carlisle

  De la Warr

  Rochester

  Bathurst

  Exeter.

  Talbot

  LORDS.

  Digby

  De Ros

  Beverley

  Clinton

  Liverpool

  Willoughby d'Eresby

  Courtoun

  St. John

  Roden

  Saltoun

  Clanwilliam,

  Colville

  Mount Cashell

  Reay

  Longford

  Rollo

  Wicklow

  Sondes

  Clare

  Boston

  Lucan

  Walsingham

  Bandon

  Bagot

  Donoughmore

  Southampton

  Rosslyn

  Rodney

  Wilton

  Carteret

  Clancarty

  Berwick

  Powis

  Kenyon

  Charleville

  Braybrooke

  Orford

  Rolle

  Harrowby

  Bayning

  Verulam

  Wodehouse

  Brownlow

  Blayney

  St. Germans

  Carbery

  Bradford

  Farnham

  Beauchamp

  Clonbrock

  Glengall

  Crofton

  De Grey

  Alvanley

  Eldon

  Redesdale

  Falmouth

  Ellenborough

  Howe

  Sandys

  Somers

  Castlemaine

  Stradbroke

  Churchill

  Amherst

  Colchester

  Cawdor

  Maryborough

  Ranfurly

  Ravensworth

  Ripon.

  Delamere

  VISCOUNTS.

  Forester

  Maynard

  Rayleigh

  Sydney

  Downes

  Hood

  Bexley

  Strangford

  Wharncliffe

  Gage

  Fitzgerald

  Doneraile

  Lyndhurst

  Hawarden

  Tenterden

  Ferrard

  Cowley

  St. Vincent

  Stuart de Rothesay

  Melville

  Heytesbury

  Lorton

  Wallace

  Gort

  De L'Isle

  Canning

  Ashburton.

  Canterbury.

  Proxies.

  ARCHBISHOP.

  Onslow

  York.

  Limerick

  DUKE.

  Lonsdale.

  Northumberland.

  VISCOUNTS.

  MARQUESSES.

  Sidmouth

  Winchester

  Beresford.

  Wellesley.

  LORDS.

  EARLS.

  Dynevor

  Plymouth

  Wynford.

  Buckinghamshire

  109

  Paired off.

  CGNTENTS.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Earl Roseberry

  Lord Douglas

  Lord Belhaven

  Earl of Eglinton

  Lord Dinorben

  Earl of Galloway

  Lord Sherborne

  Earl Manvers

  Lord Hastings.

  Viscount Exmouth.

  Address as amended agreed to.
  The following Protests were entered against the Amendment adopted by their Lordships.

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENT:—
  1.Because we are adverse in principle to all restraints upon commerce. We consider that public prosperity is best promoted by leaving the national industry to flow in its natural free current; and we think that practical measures should be adopted to bring our commercial legislation back to a straight and simple course of wisdom, instead of continuing a system of artificial and injurious restriction.
  2.Because we think that the great principle of leaving commerce unfettered, applies more peculiarly, and on the highest ground of justice, to the trade in those articles which constitute the sustenance of the people. The experience of a quarter of a century has proved that the Corn-laws passed subsequently to the year 1815 have neither produced the plenty, the cheapness, the steadiness of price, nor any of the other benefits anticipated by the advocates of those laws; while, on the other hand, all the evil consequences predicted at the time by those opposed to monopoly have been realised.
  3.Because the practical effect of the variable scale of duties has been to introduce a system of speculative jobbing and of fictitious sales, for the purpose of raising the averages, in order to enter corn at the minimum duties. It is impossible, under this system, to ascertain whether sales are real or fictitious, and it is well known that during the last two years the averages have been raised by bringing for sale, into the principal markets of the kingdom, only the best qualities of corn, and that the inferior grain has been withheld from those markets until the high average price reduced the duties to minimum rates.
  4.Because the inevitable effect of a system which prevents a regular trade in corn is to derange the course of commerce, whenever the accidents of the seasons occasion a deficiency in the harvest. The fall of the foreign exchanges and exports of bullion, consequent on a sudden demand from large quantities of corn from countries with whom our restrictive laws preclude interchange in ordinary years, have already, on more than one occasion, brought the banking institutions of the country to the verge of bankruptcy, and occasioned general commercial distress.
  5.Because the prosperity of a great manu-
  110
  facturing and commercial nation depends, in a great measure, upon foreign trade and access to foreign markets. The multitude of restrictions and prohibitions with which our tariff is encumbered, throw great obstacles in the way of trade, without any corresponding advantage to the revenue, and the system of excluding foreign produce has already had a most prejudicial effect in inducing those countries to encourage native manufactures, and to retaliate by corresponding restrictions upon British merchandise. In the present state of our relations with other powers, it appears impossible to persist longer in this restrictive system, without imminent danger of losing some of our best markets.
  Lastly, Because we think it one of the first duties of a government to impose no unnecessary burdens upon the industrious classes. A system which excludes, or imposes high duties on foreign produce, for the sake of protecting particular interests, violates this obligation on the one hand, by impeding the free course of industry, and, on the other, by enhancing artificially the cost of subsistence.
  Under present circumstances, the maintenance of this system involves, in addition to those indirect burdens, the necessity of imposing a large amount of direct taxes to make good a deficiency in the revenue, which would not exist, if all articles of consumption and merchandise were admitted into our ports at moderate duties.

  (Signed) AUGUSTUS FREDERICK,

  SCARBOROUGH,

  ZETLAND,

  CHARLEMONT,

  DE MAULEV,

  MONTFORT,

  CLEMENTS,

  FOLEY, and

  RADNOR,

  HATHERTON, and

  For the first, second, third, and last reasons.
  GOSFORD,

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENT:
  1.Because the Address adopted by the House, in failing to respond to the recommendations contained in her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne, is to be regarded as a deliberate condemnation of the policy of her Majesty's Ministers, and, as such, must tend to their speedy retirement from the ser vice of the State, and to the substitution of others as advisers of the Crown, whose known maxims of Government afford no ground of hope that any measure emanating from their councils can adequately meet the difficulties of the present crisis of public affairs.
  2.Because that part of the policy of those Ministers to which such condemnation most pointedly applies has been merely an endeavour upon their parts practically to enforce the enlightened and intelligible principle, that it is more just and wise, with a view to the

  111
  provision of a sufficient public revenue, to remove restrictions upon commerce, and thus extend its operation, than to perpetuate monopolies and increase taxation.
  3.Because the political party from which successors to those Ministers must probably be chosen, has uniformly proved itself, whether in or out of power, to be hostile to the reform of abuses, to the rights of conscience, and to the freedom of the subject, and, consequently, must fail, as advisers of the Crown, to command that respect, without which the affairs of a great empire cannot be success fully administered.
  4.Because the uniform practice of that party, when in power, has been to foster social differences and religious animosities among the inhabitants of Ireland, a system of misgovernment as injurious in its ultimate results to those whom it professed to favour as to the large number it directly oppressed, inasmuch as its baneful effect has been to divert the attention of the country from important national objects, and to prevent that cordial union of its intellect and strength which would render a continuance of bad Government impossible.
  MOST ESPECIALLY DISSENTIENT:
  5.Because that political party has, either by the actual enforcement, or the constant at tempt to enforce, its own vicious principles of government, made itself justly odious to the large majority of the Irish people. Whatever may be the temporary professions of an Ad ministration composed of members of that party, by the Roman Catholics of Ireland it can only be regarded as a government of their inveterate enemies, who, to the very last, approved and defended the iniquities of the penal code, and who, since its extorted repeal, have been foremost in every attempt to curtail their civil and political privileges. The Catholics must feel, if for no other reason, that the party which insulted when it could not injure, will be sure to injure whenever it can. Between an Administration so constituted and subjects thus justifiably distrustful, but conscious, at the same time, that they are now too numerous and strong to be outraged with impunity, there is little hope that the primary object of all good government can be certainly attained, viz., a prompt and cheerful obedience to the laws, founded upon the conviction that the laws are just and justly administered—on the contrary, in looking to the probable course of events in Ireland, there is too much reason to apprehend that the restoration to power of a party notoriously inimical to so many millions of her Majesty's subjects, must produce in the minds of the latter such a general and deep discontent, as in its consequence must speedily endanger the public peace, and ultimately impair the strength of he British Empire.
  (Signed)CLONCURRY.