Sitting of 7 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:— Banks of Issue; Debts of Parishes.—Read a second time: —Dean Forest; Municipal Corporations; New South Wales; Bribery at Elections; Western Australia.—Read a third time:— Tithe Compositions {Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Calcraft, from Wareham, for Church Extension, and against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.

LANDLORD AND TENANT—(IRELAND) —EXPLANATION.
Mr. O'Connellgave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to landlord and tenant in Ireland. He would take that opportunity to allude to a matter personal to himself. The House was aware that, a few evenings ago, the hon. and learned Member for Bandon (Sergeant Jackson) made a very serious charge against him (Mr. O'Connell) of oppressing his tenants in Kerry, by distraining in April for rent due in March. Not having been in Kerry of late, he (Mr. O'Connell) did not know whether some agent of his might not have distrained some of the tenants from malicious motives; therefore, he did not rise at the instant to contradict

1255
the statement. Since then, however, he had requested his son (Mr. Maurice O'Connell), who had the honor of being acquainted with Mr. Sergeant Jackson, to call upon that Gentleman to inquire the name of his informant, and his authority for the statement he had made; and, with the permission of the House, he would now read the letter he had received from his son, describing the result of his interview. It was as follows:—
"16, Pall-mall, Monday, June 7, 1841.
"My dear Father—I have just seen Sergeant Jackson. I told him that I came from you, to ascertain the name of the person whom he quoted in the House, the other night, as having stated, that he had known tenants of your's to have been distrained in April for rents due on the 25th of March previous, and also if possible, the names of the tenants.
"He said, that he did not know the names of the tenants; that a gentleman called on him some time since, in Dublin, and said he was a Kerryman, and his name Twiss; that Sergeant Jackson recollected having seen him on juries in Kerry, but does not know his Christian name or address; that this man then made allusion to a speech of your's about Irish landlords, and said that you yourself were a bad landlord; that he had been in Iveragh some time previous, had seen a number of cattle in pound in the month of April, and on inquiry, that he was told they belonged to tenants of your's, and had been distrained for the March rent. I asked what year this was in? Sergeant Jackson did not know, but said he had a memorandum of it somewhere, and promised to let me have a copy thereof. According to him, Twiss said he would swear to the facts.
"Your affectionate Son,
"MAURICE O'CONNELL."
He was able to state, that up to the month of January last, when he was last in Kerry, no such thing had occurred; and, therefore, up to that period, as well indeed as up to that to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, he was enabled to contradict the statement in the strongest possible terms. It was not for him to comment on the manner in which the charge had been made against him. The man's name from whom the information was received was not known— his address was not known—the only allegation was, that somebody had told the hon. and learned Sergeant, that so and so had taken place. He (Mr. O'Connell) begged to take that opportunity of denying, in the most distinct terms, that anything of the kind had occurred.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonobserved, that
1256
the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to what had taken place between him and the hon. Member for Tralee (Mr. Maurice O'Connell) was not precisely correct. The hon. Member for Tralee called upon him (Sergeant Jackson) that morning, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, said, that he came, by his father's desire, to ascertain the name of the person to whom he had referred in the address he made to the House, in the course of the late debate.
He stated that he knew the gentleman perfectly well—that he had seen him serving on juries in the county—that his name was Twiss—that he had waited upon him (Sergeant Jackson), and told him that he had seen a speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), attacking, in his usual strain, the landlords of Ireland—that he knew from his own knowledge, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was himself a very harsh landlord, and that he would tell him (Sergeant Jackson) what he had seen take place in Kerry, in the month of April. He mentioned the year—[Mr. O'Connell: What year?] He mentioned the year to me at the time, and I took a memorandum of it; but not having that memorandum by me at the moment, I could not venture to name the year to the hon. and learned Gentleman's son this morning. I offered, however, to write to the hon. Gentleman, to inform him of the year, as soon as I had ascertained it by referring to my memorandum. The statement that Mr. Twiss made to me was— that he had gone to that part of Kerry in which the hon. and learned Gentleman's property was situated in the month of April; and that he there found the cattle of a number of the tenants of the hon. and learned Gentleman distrained, and driven to the pound, for rent due on the 25th of March. That was the statement that Mr. Twiss made to me. I asked if he was quite certain of the accuracy of what he had stated. He replied that he was perfectly certain of its accuracy—that I was perfectly at liberty to make use of it, and that he was prepared to come forward and prove it in any court, on any occasion. In the presence of Mr. Twiss, I took pen and ink, and wrote down the substance of what he had stated to me, observing that I should make use of it in the House of Commons, if ever the hon. and learned Gentleman repeated his attacks

1257
against the landlords of Ireland. He staled that I was perfectly at liberty to do so, and that he should be ready at any time to come forward and substantiate ail that he had told me. I should not otherwise have mentioned the matter in the House.
Mr. O'Cornell: Now I appeal to the House to decide as to the fairness of this dealing. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, that he has a document. Ought he not to have had that document ready to produce when he made a charge of this nature? The hon. and learned Member says, that he made a memorandum, if he made a memorandum, ought he not to have ascertained the man's name? He knows as well as I do, that there are several Twisses on the Jury in Kerry. Ought, he not to have taken down his address? ["Order."]
The Speakersaid, if the hon. and learned Member had anything further to state in explanation of the facts, of course the House would be ready to hear it; but he submitted to him whether he ought to prolong this conversation when there was no question before the House.
Mr. O'Connell: I was merely saying this—that the name of the party accusing me is not given—that the address of the party is not given—that the date of the year is not given—and that the lands where this harshness is said to have been practised is not given. And this last fact is material; because I have but one property on which such a transaction could have happened, and that is the college property. On all the rest of my property the rent falls due in May and November. It appears, in short, that this charge has been made against me in the total absence of an accuser—in the total absence of any witnesses—in the total absence of dates—in the total absence of all particulars. I am, therefore, now entitled to pronounce it as gross a falsehood as was ever uttered.
Mr. Sergeant Jackson: Perhaps the House will permit me to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I will make it my business to put him in possession of all the particulars at the earliest possible moment. I promised his son to-day that I would furnish the information this evening, if I could lay my hand on the memorandum I had made.
Mr. O'Connell: I don't know how the hon. and learned Gentleman can give the particulars of a falsehood.

REGISTER OF ELECTORS—HERTFORDSHIRE.
On the motion of Mr. Thomas Duncombe, John Samuel Storey, the clerk of the peace for the county of Hertford was called to the bar.
In reply to questions from the Speaker,
Mr. Storeystated, that he had received an order from that House for a copy of the register of electors for the county of Hertford for 1840 and 1841; that he had not complied with the order, because the register was not in his possession, nor under his control; that he had no access to it; that by the 55th section of the Reform Bill, the sheriff of the county, not the clerk of the peace, was made the custos of the register; and that the register of the electors of the county of Hertford was accordingly in the possession of the sheriff of the county of Hertford. He was aware, he said, in reply to Mr. T. Duncombe, that under the 55th section of the Reform Bill he was bound to give a copy of the register to any one applying for it. He could not say what was the date on which he received the order of the House. The magistrates of the county of Hertford had constantly refused to print the register, and unless they allowed the expense there was no other way of defraying it. He (the witness), had, from his notion of respect for that House, refused to give that which would be but the copy of a copy of the register. The witness, in continuation said, that he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the copy in his possession. He refused to make a copy of a copy, because the order of the House required him to make a copy of the register itself. Did not send the copy in his possession because it belonged to the county.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, it was quite clear to the House that this order was sent to the clerk of the peace. The hon. Member for Ripon had been decidedly of opinion, that it was the duty of the clerk of the peace to furnish a copy of the register. It was quite clear, after the statement of the witness, that he was in possession of the register, and that it was his bounden duty, as clerk of the peace, to furnish a copy of it to the House. An hon. Member had asked him if it was an authentic copy, and he replied that it was. It seemed that his only object, as an individual; in not furnishing this copy, was to

1259
create delay, in order that the House might not be able to place it in the hands of the electors. It was for the House to say, whether it would have its order evaded for such a purpose. He thought it was quite necessary that this order should be enforced, and he would therefore move that the Clerk of the Peace, attend tomorrow with a copy of the register of the electors of Hertfordshire.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that his opinion coincided with that of the majority of the House, that if the House made an order it must be obeyed, but this was a matter independent of an Act of Parliament. He thought the orders respecting this Gentleman were rather hard. The House did not appear to pay anything for the copy ordered, but, on its own authority, ordered a copy to be returned. Such an order must sometimes operate harshly on an individual. This Gentleman could not make a copy himself, but must pay to have it done; and though this was no reason why the power of the House should not be vindicated, it was a reason for not pressing harshly against an individual who had not transgressed against the order. The House required a copy of the register, and he had not the means of furnishing a copy, for the register was not in his possession. The hon. Member was aware this gentleman had a copy of the register in his possession, and asked him if he did not know that it was a faithful copy, to which the witness answered in the affirmative. He was then asked why he did not send that, and he answered, because it belonged to the county, Could there be a better reason? If he had the register in his possession he (Sir E. Sugden), thought he ought to have obeyed the House, and afterwards appealed to its justice for payment, but it struck him that this gentleman had not the power of obeying the order. There had been a trial of legal skill between the hon. Member for Fins-bury, and the witness; but it appeared to him that the witness had the best of the argument.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that the witness acted under a mistake. He did not say he was to blame, for a more gross mistake, than that of the magistrates he was at a loss to imagine. According to the act the expense of furnishing copies of the registry was to be defrayed by the treasurer of the county, and it was also required by the act that the Clerk of the Peace should
1260
have several copies of the registry, to be delivered on payment.
Question, that the Clerk of the Peace, for the county of Hertford, should attend at the Bar of "the House to-morrow, and bring with him a copy of the register of electors for 1840 and 1841.
Agreed to.

PUBLIC OFFICES—PETITIONS.
Mr. G. Palmerwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he considered it fit that public offices should be used as places where public petitions ought to lie for signature, and especially whether the Excise-office should be used for the purpose of obtaining signatures to Anti-corn-law petitions?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that such conduct would be improper on the part of the Excise authorities, but he thought that the hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman, however, would give him the particulars, he would inquire into the matter.

CORN-LAWS — MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had stated on Friday night, before the House separated, the course which the Government intended to pursue in regard to the committee of supply and the remainder of the estimates. He likewise then stated, that he would to-day announce his intentions in respect to the motion of the Corn-laws of which he had given notice. It would be in the recollection of the House, that he gave that notice on the day on which his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward his budget and the financial statement for the year. He afterwards renewed that motion and fixed the discussion of it for Friday last. It was his intention certainly to bring it forward as a question of considerable importance, not merely for the purpose of discussion— because it had been frequently debated before—but he wished to obtain from the House their opinion in regard to the policy of an alteration in the Corn-laws, and in regard to the principle of the alteration which he meant to propose on behalf of the Government. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had, however, fourteen days ago, given notice that he would move a resolution to the effect, that the present Ministers, having been

1261
unable to carry through the House the measures which they deemed essential to the public interest, did not possess the confidence of the House, and that their continuance in office was at "variance with the spirit of the constitution.. After the right hon. Baronet gave that notice, he stated to his colleagues, for their consideration, that if the right hon. Baronet should succeed in obtaining a majority in favour of his motion, that his (Lord John Russell's) opinion in that case was, that he ought not to act under the authority which he had obtained from the Cabinet, and ought not to bring forward the motion of which, on the behalf of Government, he had given notice. He stated, that in the event of the House deciding that her Majesty's Ministers did not possess its confidence, and therefore ought not to continue in office, that it would neither be respectful to the House, nor consistent with his duty, to submit a measure of so much importance as the Corn-laws to the present House of Commons. It was not till after the determination of the House on Saturday morning last, that he again stated the question in the Cabinet, and when he did so, he gave an opinion which coincided exactly with that which he had previously expressed. He found that his colleagues concurred with him in that opinion, and therefore it was, that he did not mean to bring forward any measure on the subject of the Corn-law at the present time. But in stating that it was not his intention to proceed with the Corn-laws, he might perhaps be allowed not to go into the general question, but to state, that he should not have been deterred from bringing forward the motion by any of the various reasons urged against an alteration by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He did not think that the reasons which induced the Government to postpone the consideration of the Poor-law Bill was at all applicable to the question of the Corn-law. It had been urged as a reason against proceeding with the discussion on the Corn-laws that it would increase the excitement already existing on that subject. He confessed, however, that it did not appear to him that the discussion of that question in the House of Commons was likely to have this effect. The reasons which he should have urged in support of his motion were grounded on the general policy of these laws, and he thought that he would have
1262
been able to show not only that the question was one deserving the consideration of the House of Commons, but that the arguments against an alteration were unsound. He thought that all the extravagant assertions as to the consequences of an alteration in the duty, that the agricultural interest would suddenly be overwhelmed in ruin, and that the general prosperity of the country would cease, were far more likely to be corrected by discussion than otherwise. Had he gone on with the discussion, one branch of his argument would have been, that having now a larger population than in any previous period, the laws affecting the importation of corn imposed a greater restriction on trade and a greater evil on the community than any law since the time of Charles the 2nd, except the law which was in force from 1815 to 1828. Another branch of the argument to which he should have adverted would have been the importation of corn during the last few years, with the duty at which that corn was imported; and he thought that the result of that branch of his argument would have been to show that it could not be contended that this country was altogether independent of other countries for supplies of corn. In regard to the statement that the present law was intended for, and was productive of, protection to the agriculturist, he thought he could have shown, from what had occurred since 1828, that it had not prevented agricultural distress, and that the fluctuating duty at present existing had not only the effect of preventing a regular and constant trade with other parts of the world, by which steadiness of price might be maintained, but that it was, in fact, the cause of great variations in price in Prussia, and the other parts of the continent. He thought likewise that he could have shown that a fixed duty had been supported by some of the ablest writers who had considered the subject, not with a view to popular applause, but calmly in their closets, and with a view to the interests and improvements of the people. Without going into another branch of the subject, he could not avoid noticing an accusation which had been made against the Government, but which he had never yet noticed, namely, that they had resolved on bringing forward the subject solely with the view of producing excitement among the people, and not with the view of really

1263
considering the question. Had he been permitted to bring forward the question, he thought that he could have shown that neither the intention nor the effect of the proposals [interruption]—They might allow him five or ten minutes to explain what would have been the general scope of his argument. He was about to say, that he could have shown that the intention of the proposal was not, nor would its effect be, to excite either extravagant hopes or false impressions. It was a proposal well worthy their attention, and was submitted to the House with a view of effecting an alteration in some of the most important laws which affected the condition of the people. In regard to the other arguments which had been urged against an alteration in the Corn-laws, he thought that he could have shown them to be equally inconclusive Let it be recollected that the whole principle on which the budget had been brought forward was, that prohibition should no longer be continued; and that the deficiency in the revenue might be provided for by an alteration of the prohibitory duty. It would have been a course which would have given some advantage to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making his proposals if he had left the Corn-laws altogether on one side —if he had left that question as it was during some years past—as it was under the Government of Earl Grey when he assumed office in 1830, an open question, and had not considered it as in any way connected with the proposal regarding the sugar and timber duties, and various other matters. He repeated that the question might have been left as it was in the time of Earl Grey and Earl Spencer, an open question; but he did not think that such a course would have been fair towards the agricultural interests. It did not appear to him that they could have brought forward the general principle that prohibition ought to be done away with—that their whole tariff ought to be renewed—that alterations should be made, in order to increase the revenue, without at the same time bringing the question of the Corn-laws before the Legislature. Therefore he thought it the fairer and plainer course of proceeding to adopt these principles, not merely with a view to increase the revenue, for that was the smallest consideration, but with a view to the various other and extended interests which would be affected
1264
by it, and therefore, at nearly the same time, he had thought it would be best to propose an alteration in the Corn-laws. He had now only one remaining statement to make as regarded the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the course of his reply on Friday last. The right hon. Baronet stated, as he understood, his belief in the report that the Government had had two budgets prepared—a fair weather budget and a foul weather budget. It was stated at the commencement of these discussions, as a charge against the Government, that the budget had been a sudden thought— that his right hon. Friend, had, he supposed, in the course of a single morning, prepared the whole of those extensive alterations which he had proposed. That was a charge so extravagant that he had taken no notice of it, and the inventors of it, he imagined, had become so convinced of its extravagance that they had dropped it. He did not think, that there was any man, whatever his political party might be, who, as a confidential adviser of the Crown, and holding a responsible office in the Government, could so far forget his duty as to frame two budgets in order to suit his own political situation. He regretted, that the right hon. Baronet had brought forward so absurd a statement, and in a manner that led the House to suppose, that he thoroughly believed it. There was not the least foundation for the assertion. The course which Government now proposed to pursue was that which he stated shortly on Friday last. They proposed to take the civil contingencies, and some of the estimates in regard to the service in Canada and in China. In regard to the miscellaneous estimates, they would take the same course which was pursued in 1830, on the death of his Majesty George 4th. They proposed to take a sum on account of the miscellaneous estimates for six months from the 1st of April last, sufficient to supply the immediate wants of the budget, and prevent inconvenience to individuals and public officers. He did not think there could be any objection on the part of the House to allow the Government to take this course. The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire said the other night, that the question of dissolution was not one which ought to be discussed in that House, and that it was a matter of prerogative; whether that

1265
opinion was right or not, he thought no man would say, that, after the division of Friday night, when 623 Members voted, and there was only a majority of one in favour of the resolution of the right hon. Baronet, and when he believed there were only eight Members of the House who were not accounted for, either as having declared their opinion in the House, or of having suggested their opinion by pairing off—and the eight Members who did not either vote or pair off, certainly not being to be depended upon by either party in that House for their support, either of the existing Government or of any Government which the right hon. Baronet might form—when such a division of opinion prevailed in the House, he thought, whatever might have been the case before as to the propriety of giving any advice to her Majesty with respect to an appeal to the country, it must now be generally acknowledged, both in that House and in every part of the kingdom, that it was not very likely, that, during the continuance of the present House of Commons, any steady majority would be found in favour or support of the Government of either party. Such being the case, he confessed it appeared to him as clear as any proposition in politics ever did, that the only method of solving this doubt and difficulty was, that the country itself should decide upon questions which so gravely affected the interests of the country. And, if, on that decision being made, it should be a decision in favour of the party now in opposition, he thought it would be unadvisable, on the part of the present Ministers, to commence or continue any struggle for the purpose of their continuance in the offices they now held. But if, on the contrary, the country should decide the other way, and give a majority to her Majesty's present Government, then progress might be made in those measures which he and his colleagues thought so essential to the welfare of the country. This was the only statement which he had to make on behalf of the Cabinet with respect to the course which the Government meant to pursue. He had at least stated everything as fairly and plainly as he could, with regard to the intention of her Majesty's Government. He knew not, whether there was any other question which he had not touched upon, and concerning which any doubt or suspicion could arise. If there were, and if, con-
1266
sistently with his duty, he could give any explanation upon it, he should be most ready to do so. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee of Supply.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he would attempt to state, as clearly, as fully, and he hoped, as calmly as the noble Lord had done, the view which he took of the present position of the House in reference to those questions which the noble Lord had alluded to. He would in the first place notice what the noble Lord had designated as the charges which he (Sir R. Peel) had, in his speech in reply, at the conclusion of the debate on Friday, brought against her Majesty's Ministers. He rather believed, that there was only one charge of which the noble Lord could complain, and that was with reference to the Budget. It certainly was not his intention on Friday night to take advantage of the opportunity which the right of reply gave him to urge other charges against the Government, considering the circumstances under which the noble Lord was placed, of not being in a situation to answer him. Technically speaking, he should have had a perfect right to do so, but nothing would have been more repugnant to his feelings. For instance, when he heard the noble Lord the other night speak of the great success of the foreign policy of his Cabinet, and the achievements which the British arms had made in China, it certainly came across his mind to state what he considered were the abatements that ought to be made from the glory of those achievements; but knowing that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would not have an opportunity of replying, he abstained from saying a single word upon the subject. And now, with respect to the Budget, he certainly did state that there was an impression throughout the country, that the Budget had been adopted at a very recent period; that had circumstances been more favourable towards her Majesty's Government, probably those extensive measures they now had heard of would not have been submitted to the House. The noble Lord, however, had assured him that he was wrong; and that her Majesty's Government, having viewed the state of the finances, had at an early period prepared these measures for the consideration of Parliament. The noble Lord having given him this assurance, he

1267
was bound to believe it, and he did so, and placed the most implicit confidence in it. At the same time, the charge which he made against the noble Lord, remained untouched, because the charge was this:— If her Majesty's Ministers contemplated these important measures, which partook leas of measures of finance than of measures of relaxation of the commercial policy of the country, then it would have been much better to have called the attention of Parliament to the subject at an early period of the Session, and even in the speech from the throne. These measures were mainly founded upon the report of the Import Duties Committee [Lord John Russell signified his dissent.] The three measures relating to the reduction of the timber duties, the alteration of the Corn-laws, and the equalization of the sugar duties, were certainly touched upon in the evidence taken by the Import Duties Committee. He would not, however, dwell upon this, as he did not wish to provoke an argument. But what he on Friday night stated was, that no Member of her Majesty's Government had attended that committee, and he further observed, that if her Majesty's Ministers were convinced that in the evidence taken before that committee they found arguments in favour of these great measures, it would have been better either to have re-appointed that committee at an early period of the present Session, or in case they considered the evidence sufficiently conclusive without taking that step, and such as would justify their proceedings upon the evidence they already possessed, then considering that these were less measures of finance than of an important relaxation of the commercial policy of the country, he thought the attention of Parliament should have been directed to them at an earlier period. In the absence of all explanation, that was the circumstance which created the impression that those measures were the result of a sudden determination, owing to the unfavourable position of her Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons. But after what the noble Lord had stated, he, of course, no longer retained that impression. On the subject of the Corn-laws, it Appeared to him, that the noble Lord had only one of two courses to pursue—either to bring on the Corn-laws, or to abstain from adverting to them altogether. Either one or the other of these two courses was open to the noble Lord. He would not presume
1268
to give an opinion as to which was the best course in the present position of her Majesty's Government, but he thought it was hardly fair to determine not to bring forward the Corn-laws, and then to give the House the main heads of the argument which he would have urged in favour of an alteration of those laws if he had determined to bring the question on. The noble Lord pointed out the four principal arguments upon which he intended to lay stress, and he would submit to the House that he could not state his view of those arguments, and attempt to impress upon the House those measures which induced him to take a different view of the question to what the noble Lord did, without provoking a very inconvenient discussion on the whole subject of the Corn-laws. It would be quite impossible. The noble Lord gave the heads of chapters of what would constitute his speech rather than the details of the speech itself, upon which, if he were to make any observations, he should be leading on a discussion which it was not the intention of the noble Lord to enter upon. He was the more disposed to give the noble Lord full possession of the advantage he had thus gained, and forego the opportunity of any discussion, because he confessed that the noble Lord's summary of his arguments had not made that impression on his mind which induced him to think any discussion necessary. Of course the noble Lord put in advance his four principal arguments, and they might safely conclude that the remainder were not so cogent as those he had put forward. He was perfectly willing, perceiving the immense inconvenience of the House being forced into a discussion upon the Corn-laws, hon. Gentlemen not being prepared, for it, to leave the noble Lord in possession of that advantage, which he thought was not quite fairly taken, by stating the main arguments upon which he intended to rely in case the discussion had been brought forward. The remaining point to which he wished to refer was the proposal of the noble Lord with respect to the votes in a committee of supply. He inferred from the statement of the noble Lord, that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to appeal to the sense of the people, and to call a new Parliament. He would express no opinion upon 'the propriety of that course. He would leave the responsibility of it entirely with her Majesty's Ministers. He had understood on

1269
Friday night, after the conclusion of the debate, that the noble Lord gave a notice somewhat of this kind. He would read the words, and he thought he must be accurate, for he took down the very phrase in which the notice was given. Speaking of the course which her Majesty's Ministers intended to pursue in consequence of the division, the noble Lord said, "We propose to take a vote of supply on Monday, and take only such of the miscellaneous estimates the necessity for which was so immediate that any delay would occasion great inconvenience to the public service if not granted at the present moment." Those were the terms used by the noble Lord. Now, while he distinctly wished to avoid all implied approbation of the course which her Majesty's Ministers were about to take—namely, that of making an appeal upon the subject of the Corn-laws to the sense of the people, while he left entirely with her Majesty's Ministers all the responsibility upon that question, yet he must at the same time say that he was not prepared to offer the slightest obstruction in the way of her Majesty's Government taking that course. He presumed there was a material distinction between assuming no part of the responsibility of a certain line of conduct to be adopted, and abstaining from any act by which her Majesty's Government might be obstructed in the adoption of that course. His opinion was simply this, that, leaving the responsibility exclusively with the advisers of the Crown —if they were determined to assume that responsibility, and to advise the exercise of the unquestioned prerogative of dissolving the Parliament, that responsibility ought to be assumed, and that prerogative ought to be exercised, with the least possible delay. He would say, that such should be the case at all times and under all circumstances; because the discussion of any important measure by a Parliament which knew from significant intimations that its days were registered, and its fate was determined, was evidently most inconvenient. He would say, also, without wishing on the present occasion to introduce One word of ascerbation or asperity as to the course taken by the noble Lord, that the peculiar position in which her Majesty's Government stood, after the vote on Friday night, gave an additional reason for the enforcement of the observation he had just made, and imposed an additional obligation on her Majesty's Ministers to
1270
refer at once to the sense of the people. He did not think there could be a difference of opinion upon these propositions; as he had said before, inferring certainly from the course of the discussion which had recently taken place, and from the language held by Cabinet Ministers during that discussion, that her Majesty's Government had made up their minds, even If the decision of the House upon his resolution should be adverse, not to feel themselves bound to resign upon that adverse decision, but to take the sense of the people upon the measures they had proposed. When the noble Lord made the announcement on Friday night, that he should take such of the estimates as were absolutely necessary for the public service, he (Sir R. Peel) felt at once that it ought without delay to be conceded. But he must say that the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of a different kind. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the whole of the remaining estimates—the civil contingencies, the commissariat, and the miscellaneous for England and Ireland, for the period of six months. That appeared to him to be a material departure from the usual course. [Lord J. Russell: The votes will be from the 1st of April.] That he knew. Wishing not to take any subsequent advantage of the position in which he stood, he would proceed to state what were his opinions with respect to the course which her Majesty's Government ought to adopt. He had already said, and the House appeared generally to concur with him, that it was the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to advise the Crown to dissolve Parliament as soon as possible, without inconvenience to the public service. He was aware that it was necessary that the annual Sugar Duties Bill should pass through its proper stages; and nothing was further from his intention than to prevent the passing of that bill, and enable the Government to provide for the public service. He thought that, not only ought the act of dissolution to be immediately (by immediately he meant as soon as it could take place consistently with the manifest demands of the public service); but, he must say that, according to all usage and under circumstance of all the cases that were analogous to the present, the new Parliament ought to be convoked immediately. He said this, not only with reference to the important questions to which

1271
the public mind was alive, not only with reference to the immense advantage which it must be to all persons engaged in commercial speculations, or enterprise of any kind, to know what was to be the state of the law affecting the importation of corn —not only with reference to these considerations, but also with reference to the position of the Executive Government, which manifestly stood before the people as not possessing the confidence of the House of Commons. The combined force of these considerations compelled him to conclude that the interval ought to be as short as possible between the dissolution of the present Parliament and the calling together a new Parliament. No considerations of private or personal convenience of Members ought in the slightest degree to interfere. This was a great constitutional question, and reasons of great constitutional urgency precluded any consideration of a private nature. According to all analogy, and according to precedent under all former circumstances when Parliaments had been so dissolved, the succeeding Parliament had been at once summoned. The noble Lord would, no doubt, recollect that, in the year 1784, after Mr. Pitt dissolved the Parliament, as short an interval as possible was permitted to elapse before the succeeding Parliament was summoned. In 1807, after the Parliament of that day was dissolved, the succeeding Parliament was also called as soon as possible; and in 1831, when Lord Grey dissolved the Parliament, on account of some obstruction which the Reform Bill met with then, the dissolution was immediate, and the convocation of a new Parliament was also immediate. These were the three instances most analogous to the present in which that course was pursued. He thought, therefore, the House had a fair right to expect from her Majesty's Ministers that the new Parliament, if a new Parliament was to be called, should be assembled at as early a period as possible. If the noble Lord should think it consistent with his duty to make, on the part of her Majesty's Government, a public declaration that that was the advice which would be given by her Majesty's Servants to the Crown, he would say, that a declaration of that description from the noble Lord would be satisfactory to him (Sir R. Peel). He should consider a declaration made by the leader of the House of Commons, and who pos-
1272
sessed the confidence of the Crown, was a declaration on which he could explicitly rely, as on a formal resolution of the House, passed for the purpose of controlling the conduct of the Government. He, therefore, would at once say, that if the noble Lord would announce that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to pursue the precedents to which he had referred, and that they had determined at as early a period as the public service would permit, to dissolve the present Parliament and call a new one, it would be amply sufficient. The noble Lord would find there was no constitutional objection to his making such a declaration; none whatever; because, in the instance of the dissolution of the Parliament in 1807, the Crown distinctly notified to the Parliament that was about to be dissolved, that its successor would be immediately called. On that occasion, the following was the expression contained in the Speech from the Throne:—
" His Majesty trusts the early attention of the new Parliament, which he will forthwith direct to be called, will be applied to the prosecution of those important objects."
Therefore, there was no constitutional objection on the part of the Crown to make a public declaration as to its intention with respect to calling another Parliament. In 1820, on the demise of King George the 3rd, the same course was pursued. The King informed the Parliament, which he was about to dissolve, that he had determined to call, without delay, a new Parliament: and in 1831, the last instance, and an instance when Lord Grey presided over the Councils of his Majesty William the 4th, in the Speech from the Throne, it was announced in these terms:—
"I have observed, with satisfaction, your desire to introduce strict economy into every branch of the public service. I trust the efforts of the new Parliament, which I shall forthwith direct to be called, will be applied to the prosecution of the same object."
He hoped he had now shown first, that on four occasions, namely, on the occasion of 1784, and on the occasions of 1807, of 1820, and of 1831, the Crown did not object formally to notify to the Parliament, then sitting, that its successor would be immediately assembled, and he trusted, that in conformity with these precedents, the noble Lord would be able to give the present House of Commons that

1273
which he conceived they had a right to expect, the same assurance. He would say nothing in addition to what he had already observed with respect to the peculiar position of the Executive Government, only to remind the House, that that circumstance constituted an additional reason for the adoption of the course which he had suggested. Supposing the noble Lord should find himself unable to give any such assurance, then he begged to say, that although he would not obstruct the noble Lord with respect to the immediate dissolution of the Parliament, and although he would give him what ever estimates he might require for the immediate public service, yet he could not be a party to a vote which would imply an opinion on his part that the Parliament might be dissolved, and its successor not be immediately assembled. It was quite clear, he apprehended, that if the noble Lord took a vote for the various remaining estimates for a period of six months, that was to say, from the 5th of April last to the 5th of October, that would clearly enable her Majesty's Government to defer the meeting of the next Parliament until October or November, or even later. He must say, he considered that would be an unconstitutional proceeding, and to which the House had a right to refuse its acquiescence. He would repeat, therefore, that if the noble Lord would give the assurance, in his place, that it was the intention of the Crown to pursue the course which had been pursued on former occasions, in that declaration, he should place entire confidence, and he would not quarrel with the period for which the estimates were proposed to be taken. But he would submit to the House, that taking a vote on the estimates for three months would be amply sufficient. Still he begged the House to observe, that so determined was he not to take advantage of his present position, for the purpose of inflicting upon any branch of the public service inconvenience, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say, that there were certain votes for which a grant of three months would not suffice, from their having been anticipated, or if he proved that during the interval of the dissolution of the present and the assembling of the new Parliament an extended vote ought to be granted, he would grant the additional sum. But if the noble Lord could relieve him from adopting any hostile course on this occasion, he
1274
should be ready to withdraw all objection to the extended period for which the votes were asked; nor should he consider it necessary to require any absolute and formal guarantee in addition to any declaration the noble Lord might make as to the intentions of her Majesty's Government.
Lord John Russell: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I feel it necessary to address a few observations to the House, stating, in the first place, that I do not think, upon ordinary occasions, that giving the House any guarantee with respect to any advice which may be tendered by Ministers to the Crown would be convenient; not allowing that to be the usual course in ordinary cases, yet, considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, and knowing the mind of my noble Friend at the head of her Majesty's Government, and what are his wishes upon this subject, I cannot have any hesitation in saying, that the advice we shall give to the Crown will be, that no time should be lost in dissolving the present Parliament and in summoning a new one. We feel that to be the most convenient course; and I, as holding the seals of office, still more personally feel all the objections that can be urged against continuing to act in office after the vote to which the House came the other night—a vote which we feel imposes upon us the obligation as soon as possible to refer that decision to the judgment of a new Parliament.
Sir R. Peel: The answer which the noble Lord has given is the answer which I myself anticipated; and, therefore, in; fulfilment of my promise, feeling that in the noble Lord's assurance I can place the amplest confidence, I withdraw all: objections whatever to the period of six months, for which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeks a vote of supply.
Mr. Villierssaid, that as the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies and the right hon. Baronet had stated what they called their view of the position of parties and the course they intended to take, and as Members seemed after that to consider that all real business was over, he hoped he might make one or two observations upon that question which had caused that position of parties, and upon which they were now about to disturb the peace of the country; and if he did not know what grave considerations that question involved—how closely con-

1275
nected it was with the misery of many of our fellow creatures—he could really find matter for amusement in the predicament in which he saw some around him placed by it. It had been made matter of reproach, that the demand for a total repeal of the law was extravagant, that those who had leagued themselves together out of the House to instruct the people on the matter were too violent—that they should be more moderate—that they should leave it to the Government to bring it forward. Let the Government take it up, said some, and the landed interest will then consider it gravely—they will enter into it calmly —they will admit of some mitigation of the law, and settle the question. Now, then, he invited the attention of the country and the House to the present position of the matter. The question had been taken out of his hands; it had been so by the Government; and he had surrendered it with satisfaction, hoping that good might follow. They had proposed a measure, a moderate measure, fair as some called it, extravagantly in favour of the landed interest as he considered. How were they treated? Why worse than he had been— he had been allowed to have his say—he had been allowed to bring on his motion; but the noble Lord had not been suffered to bring on his. He gave his notice, announced the nature of his measure, and he fulfilled every condition which he had been told last year would secure serious attention to the subject, when down comes the right hon. Baronet opposite, and carries a resolution in the face of the noble Lord's notice, by a majority of persons whose interests are supposed to be involved in it, which has the effect of precluding the noble Lord from bringing forward his measure, of preventing a deliberate consideration of the subject, and in fact, of escaping themselves from a division. Well, then, that was the position of the question; the landowners were the majority of the House, they would not allow the law which gave them a monopoly to be altered, and they would not allow it to be fairly discussed. This was a question now seriously engaging the attention of every state in Europe, and the United States of America; their interests were all involved in it. They saw and understood the struggle. They knew the parties engaged in the conflict—which were those who profited by a monopoly of the subsistence of the people on the one side, and the advocates of unrestricted commerce with the rest of the world on the other; and this
1276
week presented them with the first scene in this battle, little creditable to the country, though, doubtless, a triumph for monopoly —a deliberate refusal on the part of the landowners to suffer the question to be fairly debated. This House only represented their interests, and they could do what they liked with their own. He referred the other night to the close analogy that existed between the slave question in America, and the Corn-laws of England; that resemblance was now strengthened. This was the state of the slave question in Congress. They refused to discuss it. Two years ago, it was mooted and the Members all rushed from the House as they had done to-night. That subject was offensive to the interests of the majority in Congress, as the Corn-laws were to the houses here, and they refused to discuss it. Did that discourage him?—far from it. Did he advise the country to be disheartened by it?—quite the contrary. No cause in the name of freedom had ever fared better at first. He was glad, indeed, that this course had been pursued. People hated what was unfair in this country, and this would rouse them. They would now see the relative strength of their friends and their enemies; they would see the necessity of acting with energy. He liked the course taken by the opposite side on this account—it was bold and daring, and intelligible to all. He preferred it to the trimming course pursued before. It bid defiance to the people. It would compel the people to meet it. He was glad that a more delusive course was not taken, which might have been. He was satisfied that there was no ground in justice whatever for any tax on the people's food. Had the Government measure been adopted or spoiled by the landlords, the question of total repeal would hardly have had fair play. That question was now again fully before the country, and he defied any man to show that the people were not entitled to that full measure of justice. They bore the burdens of the country, and he contended that none were borne exclusively by the landlords. He rejoiced that the question had been agitated in the country upon this broad, intelligible basis, and that the people had put the landlords to the proof of their claim to a permanent tax upon the food of the community. As he had said before, he saw nothing in what was occurring then that did not raise his most sanguine expectations of speedy success. The question must now exclusively engage the

1277
attention of this House till it was settled in some way. Constant reference would be made to it in all the business in the next Parliament, and he predicted a speedy dissolution again, and upon the same ground, of the Parliament about to be elected. The question never could be set at rest again, and he firmly expected that the end would be the total repeal of this iniquitous law. He believed that the country would have supported the noble Lord, had he disregarded all form on this occasion, and, in spite of the resolution so carried, had he brought on his measure. The country understood the noble Lord's position. The noble Lord had given his notice—he had fixed his day. The measure was offensive to the majority in the House, and they interposed a resolution, which they carried, declaring that he had not their confidence, and further interference was threatened. He had hoped that anything so unfair, so unusual, need not have been heeded by the Government. He was told, that in point of form the noble Lord was precluded from bringing it on, and that he could not have had a fair discussion if he was opposed in doing so. He thought, however, that it mattered little, for in truth the people understood the question, and the whole proceeding would mark it clearly to them in what way they ought to act in justice to themselves, and with regard to the interest of the country, now in such distress.
Mr. Wakleyreferred to the manner in which the right hot). Member for Tamworth on former occasions had deprecated excitement on the eve of a general election, although, at the present moment, he was anxious at once to go to the country, and to assemble Parliament again with all possible dispatch, in order to consider a great national question, which could not fail to excite the inhabitants of the empire from one end to the other. Now, popular clamour, pressure from without, and pledges of candidates on the hustings, were as nothing in the eyes of the right hon. Baronet. He did not complain of this; but he did complain that the right hon. Baronet, and those who acted with him, opposed the repeal of the Septennial Act, and would not hear of shortening the duration of Parliaments. It appeared not only inconsistent, but irrational, that the right hon. Baronet should wish to select a new Parliament for the discussion and decision of a question of such prodigious importance and interest, and
1278
yet should be adverse to more frequent elections. It seemed to him, that all the great interests of the country were to be treated as toys and trifles, in comparison with the interests of party. Only three weeks ago his hon. colleague (Mr. Duncombe) had brought forward a motion to induce the Crown to take into consideration the case of certain political offenders. "No (said the right hon. Baronet, on that occasion). Touch not the prerogative of the Crown: it is too bright a jewel to be gazed at by Radical eyes. You must not be allowed to interfere with the exercise of the royal prerogative." He was therefore content to leave the matter in the hands of that very executive Government in which he declared by his resolution of Friday night, that he had no confidence. This inconsistency was apparent enough to people out of doors, although the right hon. Baronet might not be willing to acknowledge it. He (Mr. Wakley) trusted, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would not obtain a majority by means of the dissolution: he hoped that neither of the great parties, strictly called Whigs and Tories, would obtain a majority upon the returns. He hoped, that the people would exercise their good sense, and that the result would be to extend the number and influence of that small party, to which, if to any, he had attached himself. That small party endeavoured to accomplish the public good without reference to individuals, and to maintain and advance the interests of the country, as contradistinguished from the sordid interests of party. He did not believe, that the right hon. Baronet himself wished to rule the country for party interests, and not for the general welfare. At no distant period he anticipated a scene of strife and confusion in this kingdom paralleled in no part of its history. The question of the Corn-laws was daily becoming more exciting and perplexing, and it struck many as extraordinary that Ministers, who, up to this Session, were increasing in Unpopularity, the moment they brought forward a subject which justly rendered them popular, that very moment they were obliged to quit the Treasury Bench, and to appeal to the country. The secret was, that the influence of party was much more powerful than the interests of the country, and this evening sums to an enormous amount would be voted away without any

1279
inquiry. How could such a system last? It could not last long against the good sense of the people. Before he sat down he wished to remind the right hon. Baronet of what he had said in 1835, when he met his new Parliament; but first he wished to remark, that he could not understand why so much deference was to be paid to the prerogative of the Crown at one time, and not at another. The people would thus see that the Crown was in truth but a puppet in the hands of a political faction, and they might in time be convinced that it was maintained, not for their benefit, but for the advantage of faction. What would be the result? They would say, that those who gained by the Crown ought to pay the expenses of the Crown, and the costliness of the establishment would be felt more and more every day. As to interfering with the royal prerogative by producing a change of Ministers, all he could say was, that he should like to see such changes every month, and a new Parliament every year, until the condition of the people was improved, and they were faithfully represented. To revert to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, to which he had already alluded, at the be ginning of the Session of 1835, he might observe, that the right hon. Baronet was not then so niggardly of his promises as he had been lately; he had refused to give a single pledge as to the future. This course might be ingenious, prudent, sagacious, and convenient; but it was not satisfactory to him (Mr. Wakley), nor would it be satisfactory to the people. What had the right hon. Baronet said, soon after the publication of his celebrated Tamworth letter on the debate in the new House of Commons, on the motion respecting the address:—
" I make great offers, which should not lightly be rejected. I offer you the prospect of continued peace, the restored confidence of powerful states, that are willing to seize the opportunity of reducing great armies, and thus diminishing the chances of hostile collision; I offer you reduced estimates, improvements in civil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical law, the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, the commutation of tithe in England the removal of any real abuse in the Church the redress of those grievances of which the Dissenters have any just ground to complain I offer you these specific measures, and I offer also to advance, soberly and cautiously, it is true, in the path of progressive improvement. I offer also the best chance, that these things
1280
can be effected in willing concert with the other authorities of the state; thus restoring harmony, ensuring the maintenance, but not excluding the reform (where reform is really requisite) of ancient institutions."
These were the offers and promises of the right hon. Baronet at that time. [Sir Robert Peel: and I repeat them now.] He was willing to admit, that as the opponent of Ministers, he had now and then rendered the country good service; but he was afraid, that the right hon. Baronet had also given Ministers his support at the very time when they least deserved support. The Irish Coercion Bill and the Poor-law bill were passed in 1833; and, instead of being opposed by the right hon. Baronet, they had been supported by him, while Tory candidates on the hustings had not scrupled to declaim against that very law which their leader had advocated. Formerly the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had belonged to a Government to which the right hon. Baronet was opposed, but after five or six years of friendly intercourse and sitting side by side, he was now, it appeared, fully prepared to take office under him. What did the noble Lord say upon the same occasion as that on which the right hon. Baronet spoke?
"But, Sir, of this I am confident, that no dissolution of any Government—no constitution of any administration can, since that great measure was passed—either impede or endanger the course of a temperate, salutary, and comprehensive system of Reform."
The country ought, therefore, at the present moment, to have some information given to it as to that "salutary and comprehensive system of Reform." Was it to be the sliding or the slippery system? Where was the pivot? Was the noble Lord's Irish Registration Bill to be taken as a specimen of that" salutary and comprehensive system of Reform"? That measure was thought by many to be directly opposed to the principles of Reform and representation. There ought to be no concealment of their future views by statesmen [Sir R. Peel: At the proper time]. It had been supposed that the right hon. Baronet sometimes said one thing and meant another, but at all events he had expressed himself very distinctly hostile to the extension of the suffrage, and to the vote by ballot. There had

1281
been no disguise about him upon those questions; but if he had a system of Reform of his own, the right hon. Baronet ought to state it. The country wanted the details, and the reserve was hardly fair towards those Reformers who might be disposed to support the right hon. Baronet as a Reformer. He (Mr. Wakley) trusted that public men during the coming election would be honest upon the hustings; for his part he was determined to exercise considerable industry in noting the declarations, whether of friends or foes. They should be sure to hear of it, if he had the honour of a seat, if they were guilty of any inconsistency and abandonment of their declarations when they got into the House. At the last election the Tories on the hustings declared against the Poor-laws, and on the strength of those declarations he had been urged to move for its repeal. People entertained a notion that the right hon. Baronet, as leader of the Tories, was opposed to the bill, and that if he did not vote against it, he would walk out of the House, and leave others to vote against it. He knew better; he knew that the right hon. Baronet would give the bill and the government his strenuous support, and accordingly when the hon. Member for Oldham(Mr. Fielden) moved for the repeal of the Poor-law Act, and he seconded the motion, out of a House of about 400 Members, they had only nineteen votes. These things lowered the character of the House, and lessened the confidence of the people. At a general election there was sometimes a great scarcity of candidates; now and then Members who could make long speeches were wanted, but oftener Members who had long purses. These were generally the most unscrupulous, and, having bought their seats, they resolved to sell them. However, he would keep an eye upon all, and would mark their declarations, especially on the new Poor-law: he would make a register of what candidates said upon the hustings, and, if he again had a seat, would take care to confront their conduct with their professions. At the same time he quite acquitted the right hon. Baronet of any disingenuousness: he had not said one word out of the House respecting the new Poor-law that was inconsistent with what he had said in the House.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that the reply of the right hon. Baronet on Friday last con-
1282
tained graver charges against the present Government than had, perhaps, ever been comprised in any previous speech. His right hon. Friend had disposed of one of those charges—that relating to the fair weather and foul weather budgets, and as he was well acquainted with the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could bear testimony that he had never varied from the opinion that the financial difficulties of the country were to be met, not by new taxes, not by a loan, but by dealing with the great interests in the manner proposed, to the great increase of the revenue, and the incalculable relief of commerce and manufactures. Another charge was equally unfounded. The right hon. Baronet supposed that Ministers had only determined to resign office or dissolve Parliament in consequence of his notice of a vote of want of confidence. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that this charge was just as unfounded as that of the two budgets, for the notice of the vote of want of confidence had not the slightest influence on the conduct of Ministers in that respect. The right hon. Baronet had also said, that if the measures regarding trade had been so long prepared, they ought to have been introduced into the Queen's speech. The truth, however, was, that they were not mere measures of trade; they were importantly connected with finance, and for this reason they had not been adverted to from the Throne. The budget had been brought forward at the earliest possible period, but without exciting false expectations and paralysing every branch of commerce, the intended change could not be announced until the period of the annual financial statement. The right hon. Baronet also contended that the measures were entirely founded upon the report of the committee on import duties. That report contained a great deal of useful information—more, perhaps, than any other document of the same kind; but the committee had made no discoveries, though they had been the means of circulating facts already well ascertained. The timber duties was not a new question in the budget; almost the identical measure had been proposed by Lord Althorp six or seven years ago, and the principle had received the sanction of a committee. Hon. Members on the other side seemed to think that the proposition respecting the Corn-laws was quite a sudden thought on the part of Government;

1283
but in the debate upon the subject last year be had advocated a moderate fixed duty, and had even gone so far as to say, that the duty ought to be 7s. or 8s. The noble Secretary for the Colonies, in his speech upon the same occasion, had supported a moderate fixed duty, though he might not have stated what the amount of that fixed duty ought to be, and he went so far as to add, that if, in consequence of the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, the House went into committee, a resolution to that effect would be moved by some Member of the Government. It did not need the report of the Committee on Import Duties to show that the subject of the sugar duties was of great importance. Ten years ago Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Grant had brought in a bill on the same principle as that which Ministers would have introduced, indeed, it went further, as regarded the differential duties. He would also ask the House and the right hon. Gentleman to consider the course taken by the Government in the present Session on matters of trade. If hon. Gentlemen would recollect the course taken by the Government in those matters, they must do Ministers the justice to say, that their measures were not taken in consequence of any particular party difficulty at any particular time, but from the general opinion that it was their duty as a Government thoroughly to review and consider the whole of our commercial and fiscal policy. What was the first motion of which he had given notice after the meeting of Parliament? The bill for putting the East-Indies and the West-Indies in an equal condition; and although that measure had not produced a great effect upon the East-Indians as free-traders, he did not regret that this measure was now the law of the land. He had next thought that it would be right to relieve the West-Indies from some of those burdens of which they had long complained, and for which protection had been granted to them. With that object he had brought forward the Colonial Duties Bill, and he regretted extremely that the state of the Session was such as to raise a doubt whether that measure could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He recollected, however, that when he was bringing it forward he was asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the larger
1284
measure, and he had stated then, what he would state now, that he was ready to defend the Colonial Duties Bill upon its own merits, and that, whether it were intended or not to alter the sugar duties, he was not prepared to say. It was clear from the question, that the right hon. Gentleman saw clearly to what the first measure would probably lead. He mentioned these things because he heard it said that the Government in a fit of desperation, and for the object of party, had brought forward these measures. He thought that nothing would be more unworthy of a Government or of an individual, for the sake of mere party interest, to tamper with great questions of this nature. He conscientiously believed, that the Government did not deserve the aspersions that had been cast upon them, and he was indeed surprised that hon. Gentlemen who had watched the course of the Government upon these questions should so treat their present proposal. It was the wish of the Government in the present Session to make other important changes. They had made an alteration in the rum duties; they had prepared bills for the alteration of the sugar, timber, and corn duties; but they had not intended to stop there. It was his intention in the Customs Bill to have introduced many measures which would have conferred important benefits on the commercial community, and in those proposals he would have followed the same principles as in the other measures of trade which they had submitted. Nothing was more unfair than to charge them with having flung themselves upon extreme measures. They saw that the country was gradually dividing itself into two great parties; they saw great interests banded together on one side, and the great commercial and manufacturing population on the other; and he must say, that he thought that all the evil of former times that had arisen from opposing factions was as nothing compared with what would have taken place now, if they had allowed these things to occur without the interference of the Government and of the Parliament to restore tranquillity and content, by the only measure which would restore them, a measure of fairness and justice to both parties. If the Government had shown no consideration for any prejudices that might still exist, if they had had recourse to extreme measures of free trade, and had trusted to popular clamour to

1285
carry them, he admitted that they would have been liable to just imputation; but it was ludicrous to hear it stated that the measures which the Government had proposed were founded on extreme opinions. Good God; When they left a protection of 50 per cent, upon sugar, and a still higher protection on timber and a very large protection to the home grower of corn, to hear that they had yielded to clamour, and to have it said that the Government had not fairly and impartially considered these questions in all their bearings ! In conclusion, he would only advert to the charge which the tight hon. Gentleman had thrown out against his (Mr. Labouchere's) conduct, in not having attended the meetings of the committee on import duties. It was true that he had not attended. The committee was appointed late in the Session of Parliament; he was at that time engaged on four other committees, one of which—the Inland Bonding Ware houses—he regularly attended, and it was utterly impossible for him to attend more. But it was not accurate to say that no Member of the Government attended that committee. One of the Lords of the Treasury did attend, and another, as well qualified as any in that House to take part in such measures, his right hon. Friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, also attended. It was very curious to mark how he had been dealt with during the present Session, with respect to committees of the House. When he brought forward the East-India Rum Bill, he was taunted with going against the recommendations of a Parliamentary committee; and now he was reproached with bringing forward a measure which was, no doubt, in accordance with the spirit of the committee on import duties, and he was represented to have servilely followed that committee, as if he had no opinions of his own. Now, since he had been in office, he had always followed one course—he had always thought that he had abundant means of information within his own office upon these matters, and that he ought not to throw the responsibility upon any committee; but, at the same time, he had never opposed any motion for a committee which might be thought necessary by any independent Member, and which was brought forward by him. Of course, when the committee had made their report he gave to it his respectful attention and consideration, but he had never felt bound to
1286
adopt its recommendation against his own opinion, and that had always been the course which he had thought most conducive to the public advantage. He did not know that it was necessary for him to trouble the House at greater length; he would not have risen if it had not been for the charges brought forward in his reply by the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped that they had been satisfactorily answered.
Colonel Sibthorp really supposed that it was high treason in that House for any hon. Members upon that side of the House to make any accusation against her Majesty's Government; but he would nevertheless, say, that he had no opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the budget, or in anything else that he did. He declared moreover, his belief that the Government had done no one act to benefit the public, or to promote the dignity of the Crown and the character of the country. They did not hesitate to employ the secret service money to the extent of 13,000 l. in St. Alban's and other places, nor to promise to their supporters and friends places and promotion, whilst they charged those who exercised the common rights of hospitality with bribery and corruption. There was 1,815 l. to be paid to Mr. Vizard, including the annual salary of 1,500 l. a year, and l,800 l. as a last payment to Dr. Bowring. He had nothing to say against the one or the other of those gentlemen, but he objected to fooling away money in this way. He would, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if he now consented to a general vote, he would be at liberty to take the sense of the House on these details in the next Parliament? He would tell his constituents on the hustings, and he hoped soon to be there, that a more profligate, lazy, and inefficient Government had never sat on those benches. He thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very excellent man out of the House, but he must say he could not think as much of him in it; and it was known that he was never given to pay compliments. He, therefore, required an answer to his question; because he did not think it consisent with his duty to give up public life whilst he had health left, and if, as no doubt he would, he should again appear at that table, he told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would be found as willing to oppose those details as he was at the present moment.

1287
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he had been asked by the gallant Officer, whether he would have a full opportunity hereafter of discussing all the items in the Miscellaneous Estimates; and in reply, he must say, that with regard to Dr. Bowring, the gallant Officer must be aware that the sum charged had been already paid last year, but that, as he did not intend to retire from public life, it would be perfectly competent for the gallant officer to make any observations and speeches that he might now postpone. But as (he early part of the present discussion had turned on the charges brought forward the other evening in the reply of the right hon. Baronet, he trusted that the House would bear with him a few minutes whilst he made some short observations. The right hon. Baronet had charged him with having a double budget, and had since received communications from other hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, that the right hon. Baronet had made the accusation of the suppression of one budget, because in a proposed Queen's speech the right hon. Baronet had received information which could prove the fact. Imputations of this kind, as they grew, became more and more particular, and he was informed since he came into the House, by several parties, that the right hon. Baronet had actually in his possession information that proved the charges against the Government. Of course, he took it for granted that these hon. Gentlemen were not without some cause for their assertion.
Sir R. Peelsaid that he had not the slightest information more than, was in the possession of other Members. What he spoke of the other night, was not from more information than was possessed by other Members; it was a suggestion of the moment, and what he said was matter of surmise, and not from any particular information that he had.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas perfectly satisfied with what the right hon. Baronet had said, but during the whole course of the dehate, it was a confident imputation put forward by hon. Members one after the other. So far for the double budget. He thought, however, that he could show the House, that this was not the only point on which the right hon. Baronet was wrong. He would state some figures, for the purpose of setting the right hon. Baronet right upon some mat-
1288
ters of detail. The right hon. Baronet had said the other night, "I should find, on being restored to power, that we, who left a clear surplus of 2,000,000 l. of revenue—that we, who in three years reduced twenty millions of debt, as well as reduced the interest one million annually, must deal with a deficit of eight millions, after an administration of five years." Now, in the first place, the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the 2,000,000 l. of surplus was not correct. True it was, that in the last year of office the right hon. Gentleman had a surplus revenue of a considerable amount, but it was spent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge took off taxes, and so far from leaving a surplus of two millions, he had, as it was stated by Lord Asbburton, left a surplus of not more than 300,000 l. His own Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it only at 1,600,000 l., and he afterwards lost several taxes, commuted others, and repealed more. What was the practical result? When Lord Spencer brought forward his budget, he stated the amount, which the right hon. Gentleman left him to spend, and at the time he made the statement, it was his interest to place it as high as possible; and what his right hon. Friend said was, that the surplus was 300,000 l., as the amount of the excess of income over expenditure, as left by the right hon. Gentleman's Government; and if he, therefore, gave the right hon. Baronet the benefit of a doubt, and raised the amount from 300,000 l. to 500,000 l., he would overestimate the surplus that was left. He thought, that the right hon. Baronet had seen a little double when he talked of the two millions. The next point on which he conceived the right hon. Gentleman to be in error, was as to the twenty millions of debt which the right hon. Baronet had said that he had paid off. Now this statement was not quite correct, and it was not quite incorrect. It was true, that the amount of the capital of the debt had been reduced twenty millions, but if hon. Gentlemen were in the belief that twenty millions had been paid off out of the surplus revenue of the right hon. Gentleman, they were under the greatest delusion. 10,000,000 l. had been converted into terminable annuities; no doubt this was an exceedingly good arrangement, but when the right hon. Gentleman said, that he had paid off twenty millions, it was not

1289
accurate. What would any hon. Gentleman say if he were told by his steward— "I have converted 100,000 l. of your debts and changed them into terminable annuities, so that your debts are all paid off." Here, again, the right hon. Baronet had seen a little too much. Then the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the annual payment on account of the national debt had been reduced nearly a million. He would like to have the right hon. Baronet's figures, for he could find no such reduction. If he had been an opponent of the right hon. Baronet in Parliament, and he had intended to bring forward a charge against his Government, he should have felt it to be his duty to give him some notice of what he proponed to do, but he thought, that the right hon. Baronet had acted towards him with home unfairness in bringing forward this charge at a period when there was no opportunity of his replying [Sir R. Peel: I made the same statement on the debate on the sugar duties] The right hon. Baronet had undoubtedly made some statement on that debate, to which he offered an explanation, which was received with shouts of derision by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he was not aware that any statement had been made by him such as the right hon. Baronet had brought forward on the debate on the resolution of want of confidence. But with regard to the matter in question, he found that his figures did not tally with those of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of the reduction of the interest of the national debt between the years 1827 and 1831, by the amount of one million. He found, however, that the amount, was, in 1827, 28,825,000 l., while in 1831, it was 28,341,000 l., so that the reduction was 484,000 l. only, and the right hon. Baronet had arrived at an incorrect conclusion to the extent of upwards of half a million. He would now go to those deficiencies to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded, and which he had stated to have amounted to seven millions. What the right hon. Baronet had intended to say, of course, must have been taken to be, that during the period of the Government of the present administration the expenditure of the country had exceeded its income by that amount. He found that for the year ending the 5th April, 1836, the surplus revenue was 1,376,000 l., while for the
1290
year 1837, it was 1,863,000 l. In the course of the years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, the deficiency amounted altogether to 6,163,000 l.; so that the surplus of two years being 3,239,000 l., and the deficiency for the four years being 6,163,000 l., the actual result of the deficit was only 2,924,000 l.
Sir Robert Peel: What was the deficiency for the last five years?
The Chancellor of the Exchequertook the calculation for six years, and the right hon. Baronet would recollect that the present Government had, in 1835, taken upon itself the West Indian loan of twenty millions; so that, if he took away the surplus of that year, he ought also to relieve them of the loan. But the result of this calculation was, that instead of the diminution being 7,000,000 l., it was less than 3,000,000 l.. But there was another point to which he should refer, and to which it had not been his intention to allude at the present time, but for the statement made by the noble Lord, which would prevent his giving that information which he had proposed upon the debate upon the Corn-laws. The objection was made when the budget was first brought forward, and it was asked, "How do you calculate your corn? Last year you received 2,700,000 l. for corn; you calculate on an increase of 400,000 l." He bad stated to the House that the customs yielded twenty-two millions, and he calculated upon their future produce being of about the same amount—the produce of corn being altogether thrown aside. Upon the average of the years from 1835 to 1839, with the addition of 5 per cent., he calculated that the total amount produced would be 21,500,000 l. That was the entire amount, throwing aside, as he had already said, anything that might be derived from corn. Taking the average amount received for corn during the last six years, and also since the time when the Corn-law first came into operation, it was just that he should calculate the increased produce at 500,000 l. The House was well aware that corn and malt to a certain degree counterbalanced each other. If there was a bad harvest, a large revenue was received from the importation of corn, but if it was a good harvest, and less was received from that source, the amount of malt duty increased. Taking the corn duty, therefore, at 500,000 l., he might expect the malt to yield 5,506,000 l., which

1291
was under the estimate, and under the produce for every year since 1835, except 1838. During those years, with the exception of 1838, corn and malt had produced more than he had calculated. The year 1838 happened to be a year in which corn was introduced at a low duty, which had produced the result to which he had referred.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had placed him in the same situation of difficulty in which he complained that he had himself been placed, because he had entered into an explanation of circumstances which he was unprepared to meet. If the right hon. Gentleman had intimated to him that he had intended to call upon him to sustain the calculation which he had produced on a former evening, he should have come prepared to give what answer he could. Upon the debate upon the sugar duties, he (Sir Robert Peel) had said, that during the last five years there had been a deficiency of nearly eight millions—a statement which he afterwards corrected by reducing the amount which he named to 7,600,000 l. He wished now to state the grounds on which he sustained that view. In a paper laid on the Table of the House, and signed "Robert Gordon," it was shown that during the last five years, there had been an accumulated deficiency of 7,600,000 l. In calculating that deficiency, he had taken it from the year 1838 to 1841, and also the estimated deficiency for the present year ending-April, 1842. In 1838, the deficiency was 1,428,000 l.; in 1839, it was 430,000 l.; in 1840 it was 1,457,000 l.; in 1841, it was 1,851,000 l.; and the estimated deficiency for 1842, was 2,400,000 l.; so that the total amount of deficiency was 7,566,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: You are not calculating it as a matter of surplus at all.
Sir Robert Peelhad no right to set off the surplus revenue of the years 1836 and 1837 against the deficiency. The present Government began with a great surplus of revenue, but in the last five years a melancholy contrast had been presented. If he was to take the whole seven years, of course the deficiency would not be so great, but when right hon. Gentlemen spoke of the present alarming state of the finances of the country, and their prosperity during the first two years of their
1292
administration, they only aggravated the charge to which they were open.
Mr. Herrieshad heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great surprise. He had not been able to contradict the fact that for the last five years there had been a continually increasing deficiency, now amounting to seven millions and a half. Of all the arguments he ever heard he thought it the most extraordinary that, because they had a surplus for two years, that surplus should be put forward as a set-off against continually recurring deficiencies. But, if that argument was good, why did the right hon. Gentleman stop at the two first years— why did he take credit for the six millions and a half of surplus that existed when Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman add Lord Althorp's surplus of six millions and a half to the three millions that he claimed credit for, and thus he might on the same ground claim credit for nine millions? Now, with respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, he begged to say that during the years between the peace and 1828, when his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge was Chancellor of the Exchequer, thirty-one millions were paid out of the public moneys in the remission of taxes. During the administration of his right hon. Friend he had applied ten millions to the reduction of the public debt. During the time that Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had applied six millions and a half to the reduction of the debt. Lord Monteagle had applied about three millions to the same purpose. However, during the last five years the deficiency amounted to seven millions and a half. In answer to this it was said that the present Government had taken off a large amount of taxes; but were they the only Government that had done so? When Lord Monteagle brought forward his first budget, he had done justice to the efforts of former Administrations in the reduction of taxation. He had said that he could only be a gleaner in the field, that the harvest had been gathered by the Wellington and Liverpool Administrations. He told the House that since the peace forty-two millions of taxation had been reduced, of which thirty-three millions had been reduced by the Liverpool and Wellington Administrations. He hoped, there-

1293
fore, he should not again hear of any more exclusive claims for the present Administration on account of the reduction of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there had not been a surplus of more than a few hundred thousand pounds left by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, and had therefore urged that his calculations were erroneous. Now it was the duty of a Finance Minister to make provision according to the best estimates he could procure, and state to the House what would be the probable surplus, and he was fully justified in acting on those estimates, although he might be disappointed in the result. His right hon. Friend had estimated his surplus at 1,600,000 l.; it did so happen that during the next year, owing to circumstances which it had been impossible to foresee, the actual surplus had fallen short of that amount; but the following year Lord Althorp found the surplus greatly increased. He went into these details for the purpose of showing the great contrast between this and all former Administrations. AH former Administrations had had a surplus, but the present Administration had a deficiency.
Mr. Humewas amazed at the charges brought against the Government by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet was quite as responsible for the deficiency as the Government. The Government had been foolish enough to suffer themselves to be entrapped into increased expenditure by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had told them at the time what must be the consequence of such profuse expenditure; but they had chosen rather to listen to hon. Gentlemen opposite than to him, and therefore the right hon. Baronet had no right to the claim he had put in, that he would have managed the finances better. The whole excess of expenditure had been owing to the misconduct of the Tories and the weakness of the Whigs—Tories urging them to an extravagant expenditure, and the Whigs having the weakness to yield to them. Did the right hon. Baronet forget that five millions taxation had been reduced, and yet the revenue had only fallen by one and a half millions? He would admit that from 1836 there had been no relief, but the revenue had been annually increasing, and the average revenue of 1839, 1840, and 1841 exceed-
1294
ed that of the four preceding years by 600,000 l. There had been no deficiency of revenue, and the present deficiency was entirely owing to an increased expenditure, against which he had protested year after year. The army, the navy, and all the establishments, had been increased in consequence of the representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to which the Government had had the weakness to yield. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had themselves created the deficiency, and now they turned round upon the Government, in a manner very little creditable to any party, and taunted the Ministers with the deficiency, which they themselves had occasioned. Let hon. Gentlemen point out one instance, with the single exception of the vote to Prince Albert, in which they had ever given an economical vote; and even on that occasion, when he had moved to reduce the grant to 21,000 l., they had divided against him. But they said if they had been in office they would have managed better, they would have had no deficiency. No; because they would have laid on new taxes. Then they raised this outcry in order to blind the people as to the real question at issue. A more bare-faced attempt to mislead the public he had never heard of. He had seen many things in that House, and had frequently blushed at the effrontery of hon. Members, but a more shameless and scandalous attempt to impose upon the public, he had never known. If they were so anxious to have the deficiency made good, why did they stand in the way of the remedy the Government proposed? Up to the month of January last, he should have cared little whether the Administration had been Whig or Tory, but now when the Ministers brought forward measures calculated to benefit the country, he felt bound to give them his support. He was glad to see they were bringing forward measures calculated to turn public attention to the real causes of the distresses of the country. The real author of the committee on the import duties, was the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, as it was in consequence of the right hon. Baronet's speech on the Corn-laws, that he had been induced to move for that committee. The right hon. Baronet had said, that he had no objection to consider the question of the Corn-laws, but that he did not think it right to the landed interest to bring for-

1295
ward that question alone, but that all the interests should be considered together, and in consequence of that speech he had moved for the committee. He rejoiced at the prospect they had of removing the shackles from industry. They had last year laid on an additional 5 and 10 per cent, on the assessed taxes, and in that the right hon. Baronet had concurred, but when he had proposed last year to meet the deficiency by making the landed interest, which was not taxed at all, contribute a proportion to the public burdens by imposing on landed property a legacy duty similar to that paid on all personal property, and which would have produced a revenue of 3,000,000 l., the right hon. Baronet voted against him. The fact was, that as long as land was not touched, hon. Gentlemen opposite cared not how they increased those taxes the burden of which was borne by the working classes. The complete failure in the expected increase from the additional tax might have shown the hon. Baronet how vain it was to attempt to raise the revenue by any further tax upon industry. Let the House of Commons reduce the expenditure which bad led to the deficiency, and he believed, that that would be the ultimate result. Her Majesty's Ministers had been supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite in every proposition for increasing the public burdens. They had been very helpless to do any good, but powerful to do ill when supported by the Opposition in measures which he conceived to be against the principles upon which they took office. He rejoiced that her Majesty's Government had brought forward so large and comprehensive a measure, and that the present Parliament was about to be dissolved. The time was come when an appeal should be made to the people. It was necessary for the interests of the country, that the House should be more decided one way or the other. It could not longer remain in its present position. He was confident that the electors would not throw away the opportunity afforded to them of returning a better Parliament. Those Gentlemen who supported the resolution went to the country with a declaration that they would not remove the taxes which were put into the pockets of individuals by the protective duties; that they would not allow sugar to be cheaper, and were determined to continue that tax, by which five millions were paid last year out of the
1296
pockets of the industrious classes. They declared, that they would not admit cheap corn; that they would keep up all the necessaries of life at the highest price. He would repeat, that he looked with confidence to the results of the elections. It was a great disadvantage that the Corn-laws should not be previously discussed. The want of a single additional Reformer to secure the discussion of that subject was greatly to be deplored. He regretted that they had not had the opportunity of proving that 8s. protection was a tax amounting to 30 or 40 millions a-year, upon the industry of the country and that that would go into the pockets of the country gentlemen. The right hon. Member for Tamworth and his party had come forward by their resolution to prevent the discussion of this subject; that was, in fact, their sole object in proposing it, and he hoped the country would so understand it. The situation of the country was truly distressing. There was a population starved by the landholders, laws were passed which positively starved the people by inches. Whilst some countries were cursed with an unproductive soil, and others with calamities arising from the climate, the people of England were doomed to be starved by the landed proprietors. It was melancholy to think that they could lay their heads on their couches whilst there was so much misery of their creation, the result of their monopoly. Every one who had voted no confidence in her Majesty's Ministers had, in fact, voted against the discussion of the Corn-laws, because they wished to have the advantage on the hustings of having said little or nothing on the subject. He deplored the ignorance which existed with reference to it, and hon. Gentlemen opposite shared in the ignorance which existed as to the real cause of the distress. Still he looked with confidence to the coming struggle, believing that the people of this country would not allow class interests to prevail. It would be impossible for any who took the course of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that' of setting themselves against all reduction of taxation, and all relief to the working classes, to reflect for a few moments and not feel that they had a heavy responsibility resting upon them. He would be sorry to feel himself liable to those charges which he now made against them and against every man who wished to keep up

1297
monopoly and to prevent that alteration which was called for by an increasing population. He took the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as a pledge by the Government, that they were prepared, should they continue in power, to carry out a large and liberal reform. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they would only examine the subject, would see the necessity which existed for such a measure. How could they visit the manufacturing districts, and reconcile it to their consciences to maintain the monopoly? The people at present paid all the taxes—the landed proprietors did not pay one shilling. He would take upon himself to prove that the landed proprietors of this country were as free from taxes as were the nobility of France in 1789. The only difference was, that in France the injustice was more open. The country gentlemen had a monopoly amounting to more than double what they paid towards the public expenditure. Last year they had on a moderate calculation eighty millions of money raised from the industry of the people, whilst that they contributed did not amount to twenty-five millions. He contended, therefore, that they were in a better condition than the noblesse of France at the period to which he had referred. The events of history should teach them what was to be expected from such a state of things. At this moment the landed proprietors from one end of the country to the other did not pay one quarter of the fifty millions of taxes; their monopoly, therefore, was a legal plunder upon the mass of the people. The common sense of the people would teach then; how to act in their present position. From one side they had to expect relief, from the other nothing but taxation and oppression; and he had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be foiled in their attempt to secure a majority in the next House of Commons.
Mr. Goulburnwished to say a very few words. If he had expected, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have entered so largely into the question of finance, he should have come down to the House furnished with the papers which had been quoted by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, in the debate of Friday last. But he had left the House early in the evening under the impression that Ministers were anxious to go at once into the committee
1298
of supply, and that therefore all debate would be avoided. He would now merely allude to one point which had been mentioned by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman had, as he understood, for he was not in the House at the time, stated, that the statement of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, as to the reduction of 20,000,00 l. in the national debt was erroneous. He (Mr. Goulburn) could confirm that statement in every particular, and not on his own authority either, for in 1831 Mr. Spring Rice made a statement of what had been the amount of the national debt at the time of the Duke of Wellington's entering into office, and also at the time of his leaving it. According to that statement, the Duke, on entering office, found the capital of the debt to amount to 777,000,000 l., and on leaving it the amount was only 757,000,000 l., while the interest was, during the same period, reduced from 25,000,000 l. to 24,000,000 l. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that his right hon. Friend had no right to take credit for the reduction of the capital, seeing that it had been effected by the creation of terminable annuities. That might be true if the capital only had been reduced, but the fact was, that the interest had also been reduced, although the direct tendency of the creation of the terminable annuities must have been to cause its increase. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would agree with him, that his right hon. Friend had acted quite fairly in taking credit for a reduction of the national debt effected during the time he had held office.
Sir De Lacy Evanssaid, the hon. Member for Kilkenny had been comparing the aristocracy of this country with the noblesse of France, and he thought the comparison a very good one, except that the French aristocracy had not introduced so much sophistry and complication into their system of finance as were to be found in that of this country. The public would yet understand the true nature of the case; and, whatever successes might attend the right hon. Baronet and his party, the present disastrous state of affairs would, he had no doubt, turn out to the advantage of the country. He believed, that the people would yet make the hon. Gentlemen opposite understand, that they knew the object of the right

1299
hon. Baronet's motion was to prevent a discussion on the Corn-laws and a dissolution. He must say, that the right hon. Baronet had pursued a fallacious and unworthy course; but he would find it difficult to screen himself under such tactics. The public would learn that the whole design of the enormous verbiage of the late debate was to stifle the question of the repealing the Corn-laws. The right hon. Gentleman had shown great sensitiveness about interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, when the hon. Member for Finsbury brought forward his motion for the liberation of political offenders in England and Wales; but he said not one syllable upon the merits of the question, and yet twenty four hours afterwards, he brought forward a motion of a most decisive character interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, and now, in his speech upon that motion, he twitted her Majesty's Government for not being able to sustain the prerogative of the Crown against the attack of the hon. Member for Finsbury on the preceding evening. These were inconsistencies which the public would detect and understand. He ventured to say, that so great was the injustice by the existing system of fiscal duties and taxation, that the terms "fraud" and" plunder" were not too strong to apply to that system. ["Hear, hear."] That was the sort of language which he would hold upon every occasion. He might be wrong, but he believed he was right. Therefore it would be unworthy of him to go before his constituency and not use the same language which he used in that House.
House went into Committee of Supply.
On the motion of Sir R. Peel, the sum of 31,786 l. was voted for the expenses of the British Museum.
In answer to Sir R. Peel,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that all the estimates except that for the China expedition, would be for the half year. That estimate was for the whole year, because it was matter of account with the East India Company, who had to make up their accounts in order to pay their dividends.
The vote (400.000 l.) for the Chinese expedition was then agreed to
A rote of 1,624,791 l. for the Commissariat, Canada, and the miscellaneous service was also agreed to.
The House resumed.
BOROUGHS IMPROVEMENTS.] On the motion that the committal of the Boroughs Improvements Bill be postponed until tomorrow,
Sir E. Knatchbullobjected to the postponement of bills in this way. It was the duty of the Government at once to state what measures they intended to proceed with.
Mr. Townley Parkerobserved, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies stated, that he did not intend to proceed during the present Session either with this bill or the Buildings Regulations Bill; they should therefore be withdrawn at once.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that his noble Friend would state to-morrow what bills he intended to proceed with, and what he proposed to postpone.
Sir Robert Peelunderstood the noble Lord to state, that he would not proceed with these bills during the present Session; it would therefore be better to remove these bills from the notice paper.
Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Sir J. Y. Bullermoved the committal of the Municipal Corporations Bill.
Sir C. Douglasopposed the motion, on the ground that it would have a most injurious effect on his constituents.
Mr. Divettwished this bill to be postponed until next Session.
Sir J. Y. Bullersaid, he had been accused of bringing in a bill to plunder the town of Exeter, and he was anxious that the measure should be proceeded with, in order that those who were concerned might learn how groundless the accusation was, and that the bill would, on the contrary, be most beneficial to Exeter.
Sir Robert Peelthought, that the bill was good and just in itself, but he entertained some doubts as to proceeding with it. He feared, that by doing so, they would be overloading the statute book with public general acts for local places. To a great extent this measure only applied to Exeter; but if it succeeded, they would be asked for acts of a similar character for a number of other places in detail. In his opinion it would be better to pass some general measure on the subject.
The House divided on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair:—Ayes 58; Noes 31: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Lygon, hon. General

Ainsworth, P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barry, G. S.

Nicholl, J.

Berkeley, hon. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bolling, W.

Palmer, G.

Brotherton, J.

Parker, R. T.

Campbell, Sir J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Patten, J. W.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Courtenay, P.

Philips, M.

De Horsey, S. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ewart, W.

Pryme, G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pusey, P.

Gordon, R.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Greg, R. H.

Richards, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Grimsditch, T.

Stewart, J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Turner, E.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

White, A.

Hope, hon. C.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Howard, P. H.

Wilde, Sir T.

Hurt, F.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Inglis, Sir R, H.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Buck, L. W.

Knatchbull, right hon Sir E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Philips, G. R.

Dugdale, W. S.

Roche, Sir D.

Ellis, W.

Rundle, J.

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Shirley, E. J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J

Smith, R. V.

Hawes, B.

Style, Sir C.

Hector, C. J.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Hodgson, R.

Thornely, T.

Hume, J.

Turner, W.

Leader, J. T.

Vernon, G.

Lowther, hn. Colonel

Walker, R.

Macaulay, it. hn. T. B

Wood, C.

Morris, D.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

O'Brien, C.

TELLERS.

Pease, J.

Divett, E.

Pechell, Captain

Douglas, Sir C.

Bill went through Committee

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Fox Maulemoved the second reading of the Bribery at Elections Bill.
Sir R. Peelwished to know whether it was intended to proceed with this bill?
Mr. Fox Maulereplied that his noble Friend would be in his place to-morrow, and would state the bills he intended to press.
Sir R. Peeldid not object to the second
1302
reading of the bill; if the noble Lord intended to press it he would give his best consideration to its details, but he thought that it was desirable that the House should have full time to consider them. To say the least of it, it was a bill which required a good deal of consideration.
Mr. Fox Mauletrusted that the House would at least agree to the principle of the measure.
Colonel Sibthorpstated, that if the noble Lord attempted to proceed with this bill, he would oppose every clause of it. A more clap-trap and objectionable bill had never been brought into Parliament. He had opposed a similar bill some Sessions ago, and the only object of the present measure on their part was to entrap Members in a way never attempted before by a Government. The Government was capable of any dirty trick which an Administration could resort to.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, he should not oppose the second reading, but he objected to the mode in which the clauses were drawn up relating to treating.
Bill read a second time.

CLERK OF THE PEACE (LANCASTER).
On the motion that the Clerk of the Peace (Lancaster) Bill be committed,
Sir E. Wilmotmoved, as an instruction, that the committee be empowered to make provision for compensation for losses sustained by officers, by reason of charters granted to certain towns.
The Attorney General opposed the motion.
The House divided on the question that the instruction be given:—Ayes 22; Noes 46; —Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Parker, R. T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Patten, J. W.

Codrington, C. W.

Plumplre, J. P.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Rushout, G.

Courtenay, P.

Scholefield, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Gladstone, J. N.

Shirley, E. J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodgson, R.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hurt, F.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Douglas, Sir C.

Morgan, O.

Wilmot, Sir E.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Bernal, R.

Archbold, R.

Bowes, J,

Barry, G. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

1303

Divett, E.

Philips, M.

Ellis, W.

Philips, G. R.

Evans, W.

Pigot, right hon. D.

Gordon, R.

Protheroe, E.

Greg, R. H.

Pryme, G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Roche, Sir D.

Hastie, A.

Rundle, J.

Hawes, B.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Hayter, W. G.

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Hector, C. J.

Style, Sir C.

Hindley, C.

Thorneley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Turner, W.

Howard, P. H.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hume, J.

Walker, R.

James, W.

Wallace, R.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Warburton, H.

Marsland, H.

Wilde, Sir T.

Morris, D.

Wood, C.

O'Brien, C.

Pease, J.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Captain

Maule, F.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Brotherton, J.

House in Committee.
Mr. Boilingmoved a clause that the Borough of Bolton be exempted from the operation of this bill.
On the question that the clause be read a second time,
The Attorney General intimated to the hon. Member that the bill affected Lancaster only.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 9; Noes 52;—Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Courtenay, P.

Sibthorp, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Dugdale, W. S.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Knatchbull, rt. hon.

Boiling, W.

Sir E.

Grimsditch, T.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Barry, G. S.

Hume, J.

Blackburne, I.

James, W.

Bowes, J.

Macaulay, rt. Hn T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Marsland, H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Morris, D.

Campbell, Sir J.

Parker, R. T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Patten, J.W.

Darby, G.

Pease, J.

Divett, E.

Pechell, Captain

Ellis, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Evans, W.

Philips, M.

Gordon, R.

Philips, G. R.

Greg, R. H.

Pigot, right hon. D.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hastie, A.

Pryme, G.

Hawes, B.

Roche, Sir D.

Hayter, W. G.

Rundle, J.

Hector, C. J.

Scholefield, J.

Hindley, C.

Shaw, right hon. F.

1304

Shirley, E. J.

Warburton, H.

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Wilde, Sit T.

Style, Sir C.

Wood, C.

Thornely, T.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

TELLERS.

Walker, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Wallace, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Bill went through Committee.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Punishment of Death Sugar Duties.—Read a second time:—Assessed Taxes Composition; Militia Ballot Suspension; Vaccination; Ordnance Survey; Court Houses (Ireland); Turnpike Roads.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Devonshire the Earl of Roseberry, and Earl Fitzwilliam, from places in Scotland, Hampshire, and other places, for an Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Harewood, the Earl of Brownlow, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Earl of Cawdor, from Yorkshire, Carmarthen, Lincolnshire, and Suffolk, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.

CORN-LAWS—WAGES.
On some petitions being presented for the repeal of the Corn-laws,
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he would take that opportunity to advert to an extraordinary doctrine contained in a petition presented on Friday evening last by a noble Lord opposite (Lord Braybrooke). It was there set forth, that the agricultural labourers would rather have dear bread, and fair wages to pay for it, than cheap bread with inferior wages; and the
1248
inference to be drawn from the argument advanced on that occasion by a noble Earl (Stanhope) whom he did not then see in his place, was, that a high price of corn was actually advantageous to the labourer. Now, it was inconceivable to him how it was possible that the consumer of any article could be benefitted by having the price of that article raised. The noble Earl, to whom he had alluded, had, in support of his argument, referred to two periods, in one of which, corn being dear, the agricultural labourer was well off, and in the other, corn being cheap, great agricultural distress prevailed. In answer to that, he begged leave to point to the evidence given before a Committee of their Lordships' House in 1836, when several competent witnesses (extracts from whose evidence the noble Lord read) stated, that in 1835–36, when corn was cheap, the agricultural labourer was in a very comfortable situation. Further, to show the distress occasioned by the dear-ness of corn, and the relief derived from having corn at a cheap rate, the noble Earl referred to the annual amount of poor-rates from 1821 to 1839, from which it appeared that the Poor-rates were increased or diminished as the price of corn rose or fell. It was impossible to adduce more direct evidence of the prevalence of distress than was supplied by the increase of the Poor-rates; and the return which he held in his hand showed, that in proportion as the price of corn was raised, the amount of the Poor-rates was increased; and, on the other hand, a reduction in the amount of the Poor-rates always accompanied a decrease in the price of corn. It was, therefore, evident to him, that dear corn was disadvantageous to the labourer, and that cheap corn was advantageous to him. Again, if they looked to the crimes committed in the agricultural districts, it would be found, by reference to a paper laid before Parliament (from which the noble Earl read an extract) that the number of crimes diminished when corn was cheap, but that crimes increased when corn became dear. How, he would ask, was it possible that the labourer could be better off by purchasing corn at a dear rather than a cheap rate? Why should such a contradiction be true with reference to corn, which was not true with respect to any thing else? If, for instance, one of their Lordships wished to buy a pair of horses, would he

1249
not feel better pleased to purchase them at a cheap than at a dear rate? As to the rate of wages, it did not depend on the price of corn, but on the relative proportion of the demand and supply in the labour market. If there were but little employment, and large numbers competing for it, wages must fall; but if, on the contrary, the demand for labour was extensive, and the labourers few, wages must naturally rise. In conclusion, he would contend, that the statement, that dear corn was advantageous to the labourer was contrary to all evidence and to all experience.
Lord Braybrookewas not so much enamoured of these incidental discussions as his noble Friend, and, therefore, he would not go at length into the subject. It was unquestionably stated in the petitions which he had presented from Essex, that the labourers were better off when corn fetched a high price than when it was sold at a low one; and in that opinion he concurred. He had for three years been chairman to a board of guardians, and he had made it his hobby to inquire into the situation and to ameliorate the condition of the agricultural labourers; and he could state from experience, that, in 1834, 1835, and 1836, when corn was cheap, a great deal of agricultural distress prevailed.
The Earl of Stradbrokealso felt convinced, that a very low price of corn did not operate beneficially for the agricultural labourer.
Lord Ashburtondid not understand how bread could be brought down to a lower price without a diminution of wages. He knew not how it was possible that any poor man, or any rich man, could be so exceedingly credulous as to suppose that the price of bread could be reduced one half in this country, and that the rate of wages should remain the same. If this could be so, what became of the argument on the part of the manufacturers, that they could not compete with other countries on account of the high rate of wages which they were obliged to pay? If wages did not fall when the price of bread was reduced, then the expectations of the manufacturers would prove to be an entire fallacy. If the argument of the noble Earl opposite was correct, then must the great mill-owners learn from him that their calculation, as to a reduction of wages, was wholly fallacious. With re-
1250
spect to the farmer, was it possible that he could continue to pay 12 s. a week when he had to compete with the produce of foreign countries, where the wages of the labourer were exceedingly low? Any person of the most common understanding—any person outside the walls of a lunatic asylum—must see, that the British farmer, who paid his labourers 2s. a-day, could not compete with the foreigner, who only paid 3d. or 4d. a-day—as was proved by a document on their Lordships' Table, if the proposed alteration were carried, how was it possible for any man to say, that the cultivation of the land would still go on? Under such adverse circumstances, if the farmer wished to realize his capital, he had better go to Pomerania, Holstein, Mecklenburgh, or some other place in the north of Germany, where cultivation might be carried on at a cheap rate. If they looked at the common sense of the thing, they must see that the farmer could not go on, if the proposed plan prevailed! and it was a delusion to suppose that a high rate of wages, and a great reduction in the price of corn, could exist together.
The Earl of Radnorwould ask, how were they to compete with the low wages in Ireland? The noble Lord (Ashburton) had said, that in parts of Germany, the aveage amount of labourers' wages was 4d. a day, and that if the duty were reduced on foreign corn, this country could not compete with that. But did the noble Lord forget that 4d. a day was the average price of wages in Ireland as well? It was so stated in the Poor-law reports. It was stated, that the highest average price was 6d. a day, and that the labourers were employed but eight months of the year, which reduced the average price to 4d. The noble Earl referred to a document which he said had been circulated through the country by the Society for the Protection of Agriculture, of which society he believed the noble Lord (Ashburton) was a member. That document stated, that the Government were about to permit the introduction of foreign corn at such a low rate of duty, as to deprive the agriculturist of all protection—a statement which was not correct, and which he was surprised to find issuing from such a society.
Lord Ashburtonwas understood to justify the publication of that document, in consequence of the statement which had

1251
been circulated throughout the country, in order to create an opposition to the present corn laws, and to obtain signatures to petitions for their repeal—a statement to the effect that a reduction of the duty upon foreign corn would give cheap bread to the labourer. He admitted that he did belong to the society alluded to, but let it be recollected, that it was a society which had been established, to counteract the effects of the Anti-Corn Law Society, which was exciting agitation through the country, creating the grossest abuses, and putting forth statements of the most delusive and fallacious character. He and other noblemen had reluctantly joined the society referred to by the noble Earl, but with the conviction of its necessity, and the determination to act entirely on the defensive. If agitation had not been excited and carried to such an extent upon this question, the noble Earl would never have heard of the Society for the Protection of Agriculture.
Earl Fitzwilliamadmitted, that the English labourers were better fed, and better clothed than foreign labourers, but the superiority of their condition, in his opinion, was to be attributed, not to the monopoly of the corn trade, but to the more advanced civilization of this country.
The Marquess of Salisburyfelt the inconvenience of these occasional debates, and thought that the noble Earl who introduced them, ought to bring forwar a separate motion on the subject. The object of the noble Earl was, to reduce the wages of the labourer to the lowest possible extent. If this were not his object, he could have none, for it was utterly impossible that the English grower could compete with the foreigner, except by such reduction. He was in the habit of mixing a good deal with agricultural labourers, and there was not one who had not expressed to him his desire for dear bread, and comparatively high wages.
The Earl of Harewood,admitted that the state of the manufacturing classes in this, country was never worse than it was at present. He admitted the great distress which at present existed, and which, he was greatly afraid, would continue; but be denied that that distress was to be attributed to the existing price of corn, or had anything to do with the corn laws. He attributed that distress to a very different cause. In that part of the country
1252
where he resided, there were a great number of factories, and, indeed, every time he returned home, he perceived that fresh factories had been established. Was it possible to believe that persons who had real capital to build those factories with would embark their money in such speculations, at a time when the trade generally was in such a sinking and discouraging state? No; but the facts of the case were these, these factories were generally established upon false and fictitious capitals, the consequence of which was, the sudden breaking up of those concerns, which necessarily entailed the greatest distress upon the poor of the neighbourhood. The present state of the country was not, then, produced in consequence of corn being dear—wot on account of the inability of manufacturers to get sale for their goods, but because the trade of the country was carried on in an unnatural manner, and upon a principle of underselling each other, and because the foreign markets, instead of being stocked by a good and wholesome supply, were actually glutted with a superabundant quantity of goods from this country, a great part of which, after being sent out, was sold at a loss. He was of opinion, that if they attempted to make any alteration in the existing corn laws, they might confer great advantage upon the employers, but they would inevitably injure the labouring classes.
The Earl of Warwickonly rose to refer to the conduct of a society which had been mentioned by the noble Earl—the Anti-Corn Law League. They had been sending emissaries through the country, and writing letters to every Dissenting minister whose chapel was his own, requesting him to expose to his flock the "anti-Christian" operation of the Corn-law. He would read an extract of a letter sent by the council of the association to a Roman Catholic clergyman, in which he was invited to preach a sermon to his congregation, snowing the unjust, immoral, and anti-scriptural character of these laws. As such agitation was carried on by the association against the present laws, surely the Society for the Protection of Agriculture might be allowed by fair and legitimate means, and they used no other, to meet their attacks, and resist their opposition.
Earl Fitzwilliamgave notice, that tomorrow se'nnight he should move a re-

1253
solution, to the effect that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to take the subject of the corn-laws into consideration early in the next Session. Preparatory to that motion, he should tomorrow move, that either some of his excellent Friends, the clerks at the table be directed, or a select committee be appointed, to enumerate the various signatures of parties who had petitioned on this subject on either side of the question.
The Marquess of Salisburysuggested, that there should also be appended a statement of the residence and professions of those who had affixed them to their signatures.
Lord Broughamsaid, that after hearing the notice given by his noble Friend, he could not help calling their Lordships' attention to the fact, that he had two years ago brought forward a motion, which, if carried, would really have been the means of throwing some light upon this subject; but which their Lordships had rejected. Amongst other fallacies which the inquiry which he then proposed would have removed was, that cheap bread would lead to low wages. This was an assertion which he had never believed; on the contrary, he stated at the time he referred to, that he was prepared to prove upon oath at their Lordships' bar, that the very contrary would be the case. Their Lordships, however, rejected his motion, and also a motion which he afterwards made for appointing a committee on the subject. In reference to those motions, he must observe, further, that at the time he brought them forward, there was no temporary excitement existing in the country, caused by peculiar distress, or high price and scarcity of food; neither was there any other cause of political excitement existing in the country, to mar the salutary effect which he sought in the inquiry he proposed. He thought it peculiarly unfortunate, therefore, that her Majesty's Government, and their Lordships had not consented, at that time, to take up the subject; because he felt certain that if they had done so, both the minds of their Lordships, and of the country, would have been convinced by the facts which would have been adduced, of the propriety of making some alteration in these laws. With respect to the agitation now set on foot on the subject, though he was glad her Majesty's Government had been induced to change their views on the subject,
1254
yet he could not help thinking that the time and circumstances under which it was now brought forward were unfortunate; and that the question would lose as much on the one hand, through those causes, as it gained on the other by the support and co-operation of her Majesty's Government. He doubly regretted, there-lore, that the question had not been taken up at the time he had proposed. The noble and learned Lord then presented petitions for the repeal of the corn-laws, from the royal burghs of Annan in council assembled; and from a place in the county of Banff; also a petition from certain inhabitants of St. James's, Westminster, agreed to at a public meeting, in favour of a fixed duty on corn. With respect to the last petition, the noble and learned Lord observed, that he thought the petitioners should have carried their prayer further, namely, for a total abolition; nevertheless, he rejoiced that the Government had brought forward the subject, and proposed even the moderate remedy of a fixed duty, which he for one, however, should accept only as the most likely means of arriving at a total repeal.
Petitions laid on the table.
Adjourned.