Sitting of 27 February 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Sir Brook William Bridges, Baronet, for Kent (Eastern Division).
NEW WRITS.—For Buckingham County, v. Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer; for Midhurst, v. Right Hon. Spencer Horatio Walpole, Secretary of State; for Droitwich, v. Right Hon. Sir John Somerset Pakington, Baronet, Secretary of State; for Stamford, v. Right Hon. John Charles Herries, President of the Board of Control; for Oxford County, v. Right Hon. Joseph Warner Henley, President of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Plantations; for Essex (Northern Division), v. Right Hon. William Beresford, Secretary at War; for Abingdon, v. Sir Frederick Thesiger, Attorney General; for Colchester, v. Lord John Manners, First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings; for Portarlington, v. Francis Plunkett Dunne, Esquire, Clerk of the Ordnance; for Kildare, v. Lord Naas, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; for Dublin University, v. Joseph Napier, Esquire, Attorney General for Ireland; for Enniskillen, v. James Whiteside, Esquire, Solicitor General for Ireland; for Londonderry County, v. Thomas Bateson, Esquire, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Buckingham Borough, v. Marquess of Chandos, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Chichester, v. Lord Henry Charles George Gordon Lennox, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Lincoln County (Southern Division), v. Right Hon. Sir John Trollope, Baronet, Commissioner for Administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor; for Lincoln County (Northern Division), v. Right Hon. Robert Adam Christopher, Chiltern Hundreds; for Dorset, v. Right Hon. George Bankes, Judge Advocate General; for York County (East Riding), v. Hon. Arthur Duncombe, Commissioner of the Admiralty; for Tyrone, v. Lord Claud Hamilton, Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household; for Wenlock, v. Hon. George Cecil Weld Forester, Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household; for Cork County, v. Maurice Power, Esquire, Governor of St. Lucie.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Burghs (Scotland).
2° Personal Estates of Intestates.
3° Commons Inclosure.

BOROUGH OF HARWICH.
MR. BRAMSTONsaid, he rose to move that a new writ be issued for the borough of Harwich, that seat having been declared vacant by a decision of a Committee of the House. He was aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) had given notice of his intention to move that no new writ be issued for the borough in question without due notice having been previously given. He had heard that the hon. and gallant Member did not intend to persist in his Motion. If this report were correct, he (Mr. Bram-
916
ston would have the less difficulty in proposing the present Motion; but he had not the least desire to take the House by surprise, and if it should be the general feeling that the Motion was premature, he would have no objection to postpone it for a fortnight.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Harwich, in the room of Robert Wigram Crawford, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Bramston) was in error in supposing that it was his (Sir De L. Evans') intention to withdraw the Motion of which he had given notice. He had no such intention. He believed the borough in question to be one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt, in the kingdom, and he did not think that a, new writ should be issued for the borough without the most deliberate consideration. However, he had no desire to take any course that might be considered as throwing obstacles in the way of the new Government, which would be in opposition to the general feeling of the House; and he would be guided altogether by the amount of support he might receive. It was his own opinion, and he was happy to think that it was an opinion in which many hon. Gentlemen around him were disposed to concur, that it was desirable that such an investigation should be instituted into the abuses and malpractices which had so long prevailed in Harwich as would effectually put an end to them. There was a very strong feeling on his side of the House upon the subject of that borough; and this being the case, however desirous he might be to avoid raising any obstructions in the way of the recently appointed Government, he was compelled to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for South Essex. He (Sir De L. Evans) had given notice that he would, on an early day, call attention to the borough of Harwich, in the hope that an inquiry on the subject would illustrate the very objectionable practices resorted to at elections there, and in other boroughs. He had hoped to have been able to have made such an exposure of evil practices as would have induced the noble Lord, recently at the head of the Government, to introduce into his new Reform Bill some provision which might have the effect of removing one of the greatest stains upon our repre-

917
sentative system. He was grieved to be obliged to say that there were many corrupt boroughs in England, but there were strong grounds for believing that Harwich was the most corrupt of all. It was a decaying town—falling off in wealth, and wasting away in population; and there was; this remarkable peculiarity about it, that the number of voters increased in proportion with the poverty and progressive ruin of the town. This fact alone was sufficient to awaken suspicion and justify inquiry. It was his own opinion that so universal and so deep-rooted were corruption and bribery in Harwich, that there was but one method of putting an end to such practices, and that was by disfranchising the borough altogether. They might depend upon it there was no other mode of abating the nuisance. There was scarcely such a thing known as an election in Harwich which was not followed by an inquiry before a Committee of that House; but the worst of it was that when the Committee had once seated or unseated the Member petitioned against, there was an end to the matter, and the House did not care to institute any further investigation into the prevalence of corrupt practices in the borough. He looked on the present Motion as ill-timed and unnecessary, and would more as an Amendment that the writ be suspended for six months.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE, in seconding the Amendment, said, that regard being had to the changed circumstances of public affairs, he was sure that the House would give credit to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Mackenzie), who had just moved for certain writs, for declining to move a new writ for the borough of Harwich. Although it might not be known to many Members on the Ministerial side of the House, it was not the less notorious out of doors, that the present Solicitor General (Sir F. Kelly) intended to present himself before the immaculate electors of that borough; and he held in his hand an address to that right hon. Gentleman from certain of the electors of that borough, inviting him to come down to that purest and most estimable of constituencies. He therefore was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury should not have moved for a new writ for that unhappy place; but he certainly was not a little amazed that the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Bramston), who knew so well what Harwich was, should
918
have done so. That hon. Gentleman could not be ignorant of the state of Harwich, for he was one of the most prominent Members of the Committee appointed in 1841 to inquire into the affairs of that depraved and degraded borough. Many inquiries had, from time to time, been instituted respecting the electors of Harwich, but he (Mr. B. Osborne) would not go further back than to the Commission of 1842. The Commission appointed in that year had presented a Report which was eminently worthy of the attention of the House. They stated that three petitions had been presented against the return of Mr. J. Attwood and Mr. Beresford on the ground of bribery and corruption—that arrangements had been entered into by the agents of those gentlemen, which had been carried into operation by their principals, to the effect that Major Beresford should retire within a month, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds—that Sir Denis Le Marchant should be allowed to retain his seat—and that Mr. J. Attwood should guarantee the fulfilment of those stipulations by the payment of 2,500 l. The Commission, moreover, had had it in evidence from Mr. J. Attwood himself, that he had paid 2,000 l., and they also discovered that one of his agents had been so obliging as to pay 500 l. more. The Report then went on to state that the election of Messrs. Attwood and Beresford had cost 6,300 l.—that thirty-three voters had received for their votes sums varying from 50 l. to 100 l. a piece, and that the great majority of the whole constituency had been bribed. That was in 1842. And what occurred in 1847? Why, in 1847 a Committee of that House declared that J. Attwood, Esq. had not been duly elected to sit for the borough of Harwich, having been by his agents guilty of bribery; and the noble Lord who had just accepted the office of Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Lord C. Hamilton) had been very eloquent, a few evenings ago, about the corruptions which were proved to have prevailed at St. Albans, and had even declared that, in his opinion, Mr. Coppock would have been treated just as he deserved had he been called to the bar of that House to answer for his misconduct—a course which he (Mr. B. Osborne) regretted was not persisted in. But such a proceeding would not have remedied the evil of which the noble Lord complained; for what was Mr. Coppock but one of the effects of their present Parliamentary

919
system? Did the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton), a member of the Carlton Club, forget that Mr. J. Attwood was a member of that club? Did it occur to the noble Lord to take his name from the list of members of the club because Mr. J. Attwood, who had bribed more boroughs than any one of Her Majesty's subjects, was also a member? Away, then, with all these impurities, and away with the mock modesty which shrunk from the task of bringing the guilt home to the real offender. Why should they pursue and persecute the unfortunate Coppock, and spare the man who could subscribe to a magnificent club—give splendid dinners and entertain his friends? Such conduct he did not hesitate to stigmatise as pretended purity and mock modesty. It was to be hoped that, if the noble Lord recently at the head of Her Majesty's Government should ever again come into office, he would destroy, not conglomerate, such boroughs as Harwich. In 1841 there were 180 voters in that borough. The population since then had greatly decreased, and yet they were told that the number of electors at the present moment was no less than 282. Surely this was, to say the least of it, exceedingly suspicious. He hoped that the House would assent to the Motion for suspending the writ for six months, and he trusted that the day was not far distant when the inestimable borough of Harwich would be erased from the list of places entitled to send representatives to Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Writ for the Borough of Harwich be suspended for six months,' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FERGUS, as a Member of the last Harwich Election Committee, upon whose Report the present vacancy had occurred in the representation of the borough, said it was perfectly true that the decision of the Committee rested upon a technical point with regard to the time of closing the poll; but he could safely appeal to any man who had sat on that Committee to place his hand on his heart and say whether he was not convinced, from the facts which were elicited in the course of the inquiry, that the most fraudulent and iniquitous practices had been carried on in the borough; and that those prac-
920
tices were so habitually familiar to the inhabitants and electors as not even to create surprise amongst them, but rather to be regarded as a part of the legitimate proceedings at every election. It was proved that voters were abducted, and that treating to a most extraordinary extent prevailed at the last election. Bribery was not, however, shown to have existed; but it was well known that that was an offence which it was extremely difficult to establish before Committees of that House. With regard to the question now under consideration, he thought it would be a more dignified course, at the same time that it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the public, if a Commission similar to the one which was issued for St. Albans last year, were appointed to investigate the case of Harwich. He was satisfied there was not another borough in the kingdom in which corruption and fraudulent practices had been more widely prevalent. Moreover, it was universally acknowledged, and not denied; and he believed that no service the House could render would be more acceptable to the country than the appointment of such a Commission, which he felt assured would arrive at the same result as in the case of St. Albans.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsaid, he had sat on the previous Election Committee for Harwich, and it was his opinion, formed on the evidence given on that occasion, that the evil in that particular case was only to be cured by disfranchisement.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, the vacancy in any borough ought of right be filled up the moment it occurred. The rule was, where a Committee of that House had not recommended disfranchisement, or any other ulterior proceedings, as in the case of Harwich, that the House would not interfere to deprive the electors of the right, given to them by the Constitution, of sending Members to that House. He was not for affording protection or encouragement to bribery: far from it; but he did not think that they would be justified in withholding the writ from any borough against which bribery and corruption had not been distinctly proved by the judgment of that House. He would ask hon. Members who now sought to disfranchise Harwich, what had become of all their virtue during the last Session of Parliament? He trusted he should be pardoned for saying it, but the

921
fact was, that unless the writ had been moved for with a view to serve the purposes of a candidate attached to Her Majesty's present Government, they would have heard of no opposition to the writ from those who now opposed it. ["Oh, oh!"] Then, why was not a Motion brought on last year for sending a Commission? He simply contended that the Committee empowered to investigate the matter reported that the sitting Member ought to be unseated, but did not recommend any ulterior proceedings; and he thought, as there was no record on the table of the House showing any grounds on which the borough of Harwich ought to be disfranchised, they were bound, consistently with the ordinary rules of the House, to concur in the Motion that Mr. Speaker be directed to issue his writ.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise that his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House should have risen to be the advocate of corruption. He was sure his hon. Friend would be obliged by a correction of the statement, that if the Ministers who were lately in power had remained in office, no such proceeding as that proposed respecting Harwich would have taken place. Notice was given on the subject last Session, and notice was given this Session; and he had himself put a question whether steps would not be taken by the Government for the issue of a Commission? They who wished to see rotten boroughs disfranchised, and an end put to corruption, expected in the coming reform that the borough of Harwich would be one of the first to be dealt with. The late Ministers had sanctioned the course of not issuing the writ. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bramston) who had moved for the writ should have waited till the Ministers of the Crown were in their places. Ministers would have had a glorious opportunity of showing how far they were determined to support such practices as had prevailed in Harwich. The hon. Gentleman was, he (Mr. Hume) knew, as hostile to such practices as any one, and would, he hoped, yield to the opinions intimated by the House, and abstain from pressing the Motion.
MR. AGLIONBYobjected to the continued suspension of writs without steps being taken for inquiry. The constitutional way of proceeding would have been to have had a Commission issued long ago. On this point he held himself to be as free
922
from the charge of encouraging corruption as any Member of the House. It was not right for the House to encourage this unconstitutional mode of proceeding against suspected or convicted boroughs. They ought to take the manly course of disfranchising the borough if they had evidence of its corruption; but, since they had altogether failed in obtaining sufficient legal evidence, however strong the moral evidence might be, of bribery or corruption on the part of the borough of Harwich, he protested against their withholding the issuing of the writ. He would ask whether, at the last two elections for that borough, there had been a tittle of evidence to sustain the charge of bribery? He believed there was no proof at the last election or the one before, of either bribery or corruption.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had sat upon the Harwich Election Committee, and he could state that the evidence produced referred only to the premature close of the poll, in consequence of a riot, and not at all to bribery or corruption. Therefore there was no ground of proved malpractices to justify the refusal to reissue the writ. But he also objected to the Amendment before the House, on the ground that the practice of suspending writs was most unconstitutional. If the House allowed the principle, the result would be, on occasions, to place in the hands of a tyrannical majority a most unconstitutional power.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYbelieved that the practice of the House in the case of transferring the franchise from one borough to another, was to consider what had taken place in that borough, not at one election only, but at all preceding elections. That was the rule applied to the borough of St. Albans. At the same time, he considered it very unconstitutional to suspend the issuing of a writ for any borough, and to take no steps for purifying that borough. But, voting for suspending the issuing of the writ, as he should do in this instance, he should do so upon the understanding that Harwich would be dealt with in the same spirit in which St. Albans had been. He could not help agreeing with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that this was a glorious opportunity for Her Majesty's present Ministers, which it appeared they had failed to take advantage of. They should have come forward at once and proposed an inquiry into the practices not only at Harwich, but at Staf-

923
ford, at Malton, and in several other boroughs where there would have been found practices that required to be dealt with quite as much as with Harwich itself.
MR. KER SEYMERcould state, as Chairman of the first Harwich Election Committee, that no evidence had been given to justify a report that bribery and corruption had been proved. If this Amendment was carried, the mover of it would be bound to call upon the House to issue a Commission; and in the event of a Commission for Harwich being appointed, he (Mr. K. Seymer) would feel it his duty to ask the House to appoint another Commission to inquire into the state of affairs at Leicester at some recent elections. He had sat on the Leicester Committee, and the report of that Committee had been that the bribery proved to have been practised at Leicester required the attention of the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYthought that as such different opinions had been expressed by different Members of the Harwich Election Committee, with regard to the character of the evidence produced in this case, it would be advisable for the House not to come to any conclusion without being well informed as to the precise facts. He believed that on a former occasion it was clearly understood, at the suggestion of the present hon. and learned Judge Advocate, that the writ for Harwich should not be moved for without forty-eight hours' previous notice being given. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bramston), however, had moved that the writ be issued; and the hon. Gentleman was understood to say that he would not take the House by surprise, but that, if any opposition should be offered he would at once withdraw or postpone his Motion. At least, if the hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion, the best course would be to adjourn the debate for a fortnight. He (Sir G. Grey) had not understood from the observations of hon. Members who had sat on the Harwich Election Committee, that gross corruption had been proved to prevail at Harwich: if, however, that were so, the House should certainly be called on to issue a Commission. But under present circumstances he thought the discussion had better be postponed.
SIR DE LACY EVANSunderstood that sufficient evidence of corruption in the borough of Harwich had been adduced to prevent the present Judge Advocate from moving for a new writ. He (Sir De L.
924
Evans) would give notice that if the House suspended the issuing of the writ, he should move for a Commission of Inquiry.
MR. BRAMSTONsaid, he had entertained no intention whatever to take the House by surprise, and he should not have moved the issuing of the writ, if he had not understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) that he merely wished to make some remarks upon the question, without opposing the Motion. He (Mr. Bramston) admitted that he was a Member of what was called the "Roebuck Committee" of 1841, when the state of Harwich and other boroughs was inquired into; but the House had no right to concern itself now with what took place in 1841. Upon receiving a communication from some of the electors of Harwich, requesting him to move a new writ, he at once felt it to be his duty to look into the decisions of the two last Harwich Election Committees, and the result of his investigations was, that in the case of the inquiry which took place before the Committee of April, 1851, he found that Mr. Prinsep was deprived of his seat for want of the property qualification required by Act of Parliament; and that in the recent instance Mr. Crawford was unseated because a not took place in the town which brought the poll to a premature conclusion. No mention of bribery or corrupt practices was made by the Committee in their Report, or any recommendation for the issue of a Commission of Inquiry; but the Committee contented themselves with simply stating the facts to which he referred as grounds for a fresh election. In cases of bribery and corruption, he (Mr. Bramston) was as ready as any man could be to visit boroughs and even counties with the punishment such an offence deserved; still it was due to those boroughs that they should not be punished without evidence to convince the House of the guilt they had incurred. Having satisfied himself by consulting the Reports of the two last Committees that bribery was not proved or imputed against the borough of Harwich by those Reports, he felt that he was doing no more than his duty as one of the Members for the county of Essex when he acceded to the request which was made to him, and moved for the issue of a new writ. He would not, however, press his Motion further at this moment.
Ms. ELLISbegged permission to refer to one point in the remarks of the hon. Gentlemau (Mr. K. Seymer) opposite. He

925
begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, whatever might have been the scenes at Leicester at the period at which the hon. Gentleman had sat on the Leicester Committee, that, at the last election, he (Mr. Ellis) and his hon. Colleague had been returned for Leicester without the expenditure of a single shilling. And all he could say was that if Leicester should ever again be in the predicament in which she once was, he would be among the first to urge the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL MAUSOLEUM BILL.
Order for Second Reading read,
COLONEL CHATTERTONmoved that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEconsidered that it would be better to postpone the Bill until some Minister was present, as it was much more of a public than a private measure.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDtrusted the House would not consent to any postponement of the measure. No question of local or general interest was involved in this Bill, but the promoters, he should show, contemplated a direct fraud on the public. The prospectus put forth by them informed the public that they had already obtained 2,600 acres of land for the purposes of the Necropolis. Now, he could assure the House they had done no such thing. All they had done was to go to Lord Onslow and offer him 35,000 l. for his manorial rights over the land in question; but they had consulted no one else who had any interest in the land. Their allegation, therefore, was not true. The prospectus, which he held in his hand, was full of tropes and figures. The promoters told us they had a soil well adapted for the purposes of interment. Now, his idea on the subject was, that any soil in the world in which a ditch could be dug was adapted for the purposes in question. ["No, no!"] At all events, he thought any would be as favourable as the "dry yellow sand" of Woking Common. In another part of the prospectus the ground was declared to be "favourable to the rapid and vigorous growth of appropriate vegetation"—cypresses and forget-me-nots he supposed; and the promoters seemed so fond of this sort of language, that they went and told the noble Lord who was late the head of
926
the Government the same story. The writer of the prospectus in another part declared that the situation of the proposed Necropolis was so delightful that "solitude herself might here find retirement;" that the land possessed "an undulating surface," which meant, of course, that there were little vales and little hills; and this was in order that "the head of the humble may be laid low in the glen," that "the ashes of the world's favoured ones may be mingled with the dust of the mound, and the sculptured marble on the height proclaim the end of earth's greatness." Then it was stated that "the footsteps of commerce would not cross the pathway to the tomb," or profane this hallowed spot. But this was the fraud of which he complained. The promoters intended to take powers to purchase 2,600 acres, while they themselves calculated that 400 would be necessary for the purposes of the cemetery; and they proposed to let on building leases the remaining 2,200 acres as a mere commercial speculation.
SIR JAMES DUKEwas not answerable for the language of the writer of the prospectus to which the hon. Member for West Surrey had alluded; but he knew that the hon. Member himself frequently indulged in such tropes and figures. The real question, however, was, whether this was a scheme deserving of public support? It seemed difficult, in this great metropolis, to find necessary burial grounds; and if a number of gentlemen were associated together, and obtained the grant of a large tract of land, which they proposed to devote to the purpose he had mentioned, without any compulsory clause whatever, he did think it was a scheme which was well deserving the favourable consideration of that House. He could assure the House that he had no interest whatever in the scheme; he had only been called upon in his official position as Member for the City of London to accompany the deputation which had waited on the Prime Minister; but if the hon. Member for West Surrey, or any other Gentleman, entertained objections to any of the clauses in the Bill, the promoters, he believed, would be quite ready to submit to any regulation which the Committee might lay down to carry out that object. He believed, also, that the promoters had no intention whatever to devote the ground in question to purposes of speculation; at all events, he trusted the House would take care not to allow anything of that kind; and he would willingly

927
agree to any postponement of the Bill, with a view to give hon. Members an opportunity of examining it, and of having their doubts removed.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, that in the 11th clause of the Bill it was distinctly stated that it was proposed to devote the remainder of the ground purchased to purposes of building speculation.
MR. J. BELLsaid, when he saw the opportunity offered of removing the nuisance of intramural interment, he hoped the House would not hastily determine on discarding that opportunity. It was well known that the Metropolitan Interment Act had proved inoperative, and he trusted therefore that the House would not discourage private enterprise in this, as in other undertakings. He hoped that the second reading of the Bill would be affirmed, and that the company would be bound down by such clauses as would insure that public benefit which they declared would result from the scheme. The 11th clause of the Bill was one common to every railway or other Bill which had for its object the enclosure of land. He trusted that the House would lend its encouragement to a measure which had for its object the abatement of a great public nuisance.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONwould object to any Bill of this sort for making the burial of the inhabitants of this Christian country a purely commercial speculation. What had been stated of this Bill would not lead the House to draw a very favourable conclusion with regard to it; and he appealed to such Members of the new Government as were present whether, in the absence of the higher and more responsible Ministers, it was right that they should be committed to support so large and important a Bill as this, which, in fact, reversed the policy already deliberately adopted by Parliament with regard to this question.
MR. MOWATTsaid, the subject could not be disposed of in this offhand manner. Every one agreed that there was an absolute necessity for making provision for interments without this great city. The late Government had announced that their Bill was a failure; but yet the noble Lord who had just spoken seemed to think it a shocking idea to leave burials in the hands of private individuals. Were we, then, to leave the dead to bury the dead? It was all very well to condemn the present plan; but the noble Lord ought to have stated what better one he proposed. With regard
928
to the noble Lord's objection to making the interment of the dead a matter of commercial speculation, he would like to ask him when was it, or how could it be otherwise? What was the profession of an undertaker? He was sorry to say that clergymen had made the dead a matter of speculation, and there was not a cemetery in the metropolis where a clergyman did not claim a fee for interment. In the absence of any more rational objections than he had hitherto heard, he should vote for this Bill on principle, without knowing its particular merits, trusting that they would be fully gone into.
MR. MANGLESsaid, he did not object, and the people of Woking did not object, to a moderate portion of the common land being taken for the purpose of this Necropolis; but this Bill proposed to take every acre of common land, and either convert it into a cemetery or to private purposes. He never saw such a clause in his life as the 11th clause of this Bill, which rendered it lawful for the company to dispose of either by public auction or private arrangement, in fee-simple or on lease, all or any part of this land not required for the purposes of the company; and, wanting only 400 acres of land for their cemetery they yet applied for power to purchase 2,600 acres, in order that they might speculate with the surplus. The opponents of this Bill were the small freeholders and copyholders of Woking living around the common; and it was futile to suppose that men in such humble circumstances could incur the cost of opposing this Bill in Committee. The fact was, the scheme was a great job, and he should move the postponement of the measure.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
COLONEL CHATTERTONdefended the promoters of the Bill, who, he said, were guided by the most liberal principles. All the metropolitan Members were, he believed, favourable to the scheme, together with several of the parishes. He therefore hoped the measure would not be rejected.
MR. BETHELLsaid, the House had now ascertained the reason of the course which had been taken by the copyholders. They had readily assented to the principle of the measure, and had never commenced

929
any opposition until the bargain which they had attempted to make had failed; but surely it would be a matter of deep regret if the House permitted parties to come there and oppose the second reading of so important a Bill, simply because they had been baffled in making a bargain. Allusion had been made to a silly prospectus which certain persons had issued; but, really, what had that to do with the matter? Then, again, as to the rights of the copyholders; the fact was, there was no one with whom a contract could be made, except the lord of the manor. He was the only proprietor, and the rights of the copyholders were only a subject for compensation. Exceptions had been taken to the clause enabling the company to re-sell any portion of the land they had taken but which they did not require for the purposes for which they were established; but there was not a single Railway Act, nor a single Act for purposes similar to those contemplated by this Bill, which did not contain a similar enactment. Indeed, without such a clause it would he impossible to dispose of a single particle of land which the company had bought, but which they might not want.
SIR DE LACY EVANShoped the House, when they recollected the dreadful evils which arose from intramural interment in the metropolis, would not prevent the Bill from going into Committee.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, his constituents were deeply interested in the question of providing fit and proper places for the interment of such persons as died in the metropolis; and he should be very sorry if he appeared to oppose a measure that promised to remedy, to a certain extent, the evils of the present system. At the same time he thought that on a measure of such importance they should wait until some responsible Minister was in the House. They ought surely to know what were the views of the Government, and therefore he trusted the hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the second reading for a fortnight, when they would be able to learn if the Government were prepared to propose any measure dealing with the whole subject. At the same time he must inform the hon. Gentleman who had said that the whole of the copyholders were opposed to the Bill, that that was not the case. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) had had a correspondence with some of them, and they stated that their only objection was that they had not been
930
promised sufficient compensation. He begged, therefore, to move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. HUMEwould remind the House of the pressing necessity that existed for the measure, there being no fewer than 58,000 human beings who required interment in the metropolis every year. Last Session the Government, in opposition to the opinion entertained by him (Mr. Hume) and many other hon. Gentlemen, who would have preferred leaving the matter to private enterprise, had taken the subject into their own hands. They had failed, and now that a Bill was once more brought in, he would not consent to refer the matter again to the Government. As to the compensation due to the copyholders, that was a matter for the Committee.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, that if this was merely a question of making a cemetery, there would be no dispute or difficulty about the matter. When the hon. and learned Gentleman near him (Mr. Bethell) gave an opinion of law, it would ill become him (Mr. H. Drummond) to dissent from him; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman favoured the House with a fact, he should like to examine that fact a little. He should like him (Mr. Bethell) to quote a single instance amongst all the railways, where they took 2,600 acres, and only intended to use 400. He asserted it was not a cemetery company. They meant to make their money by their building leases, and it was in fact a building society under the mask of a Necropolis.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 104: Majority 12.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE MAYNOOTH GRANT.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEmoved that the House, at its rising, adjourn until Friday, the 12th of March.
MR. HUMEsaid, he supposed this was to allow time for the returns, and therefore he should not object to the Motion, but he hoped that hon. Members would have an opportunity given them of present-

931
ing the petitions which they had received within the last few days.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion for adjournment, but he wished to make a few observations with reference to a matter which was somewhat personal. It would be in the recollection of the House that he had given notice, on Monday last, that he should postpone his Motion on the subject of the grant to Maynooth to an early day after Easter. That notice had been received by hon. Members who then sat on his side of the House with very unequivocal marks of a nature such as to lead to the inference that he had altered his plans, and was about to give up his Motion. He would, however, at once put hon. Members out of pain by assuring them that he had not altered his opinions, and had not changed his determination, neither did he see any reason why he should do so. He certainly did not expect that his Motion would receive any opposition from Her Majesty's present Government. He could not pretend to say what course the Government would take on the question, but it would be contrary to his expectations if they should oppose him, the more especially as in last Session of Parliament the then Lord Stanley, now Earl of Derby, made use of the following words in the House of Lords. [Mr. Hume: He was not in office then.] Lord Stanley said—
"I do not hesitate to say, that you ought now to consider fully and deliberately, dispassionately, temperately, but at the same time firmly, the whole of the difficult question of the relation in which the Roman Catholic subjects of this country stand to the Crown." [3 Hansard, civ. 29.]
All that he (Mr. Spooner) asked for was inquiry, and he asked for it upon the ground of this fact, that the relations of Roman Catholics to the Crown stand at present in a very different position from what they did a short time ago. He was one of those who, though a general supporter of the late Sir Robert Peel, had always done the best in his power to oppose the endowment of the College of Maynooth. He had, therefore, nothing to retract or to regret in now coming forward and asking that that grant should cease; but he also felt that those who formerly voted otherwise need not be under any difficulty at present, for they must see that the whole conduct of the Roman Catholic hierarchy had completely changed since the endowment was given. If there had been any understanding whatever that this endowment
932
should continue, it was plain that it was intended it should be received as a mark of kindness towards the Roman Catholics, and that it was expected in return that at least the original objects of the Maynooth foundation should be carried out. What were those original objects?
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYrose to order. He begged to ask if the hon. Member was in order in bringing forward the question of the grant to Maynooth, on the Motion that the House should adjourn till the 12th of March?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was "in order" and usual for any hon. Member to address the House on a Motion for adjournment.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that the adjournment was often moved by hon. Members for the sake of addressing the House, and by no one had such a Motion been oftener taken advantage of than by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. The original object with which Parliament had granted the endowment to Maynooth was, to provide ministers of religion better instructed and with more kindly feelings towards the State. He would ask whether they had had any proof whatever that the College of Maynooth had provided ministers of the Roman Catholic religion more nationalised in temper and views, and less hostile to the Established Church? He, therefore, thought that whatever understanding there might have been, that understanding had been completely annulled by the subsequent conduct of the Roman Catholics. He had the great authority of the late Sir Robert Peel for inquiry into this question. On the 23rd of June, 1840, that right hon. Baronet said, in the House of Commons—
"I cannot agree that the system of education carried on at Maynooth is a matter of indifference to the Legislature. I think that the system pursued at Maynooth is a legitimate subject for the censideration of Parliament; and it would be an abandonment of duty for the House of Commons to avow the doctrine which would allow us to say to the Roman Catholic professors—here is the money, we are pledged to grant it—do with it as you please—inculcate doctrines subversive of order, and injurious to morality: we cannot interfere." [See 3 Hansard, lv. 57.]
He (Mr. Spooner) charged the system carried on at Maynooth with being at the same time subversive of order and injurious to morality, and he should be prepared to support that charge at the proper time. If he did not expect opposition to his Motion from Her Majesty's Government, still less did he expect it from Ro-

933
man Catholic Gentlemen, because he did firmly believe—and living, as he did, on terms of friendly intercourse with many Roman Catholic families, he had reason to know—that great ignorance prevailed amongst the members of that persuasion with respect to the doctrines that were taught, the principles that were inculcated, and the books that were used, at the College of Maynooth. If Roman Catholics would but give themselves the trouble of inquiring, instead of taking for granted what they were told by the priests, there was not one amongst them who would not cry out to have that system abolished, or brought into such a state as they themselves, as honourable and independent men, could desire. Since he gave notice of bringing forward this question before the House, it had been his duty to inquire more particularly into the system taught at Maynooth, and he would affirm, without hesitation, that that system not only did what the late Sir Robert Peel told them they would be justified in guarding against, namely, teach doctrines subversive of order and injurious to morality, but also that it inculcated principles and doctrines completely antagonistic to the word of God. [Cries of"Question!"] He could only attribute that cry of "Question" to a flinching from assertions that could not possibly be contradicted. He would repeat the assertion, that Maynooth inculcated doctrines antagonistic to the holy word of God; that it put the priests in the place of God, and exalted the Church above the Saviour; and that it inculcated principles and taught doctrines so horrible in themselves, that any nation that gave its money and its authority to support such a system was guilty of a great national sin, which would, if persisted in, certainly draw down great national judgments. He knew that he should be called a bigot, and should encounter the ridicule of some persons for the course he intended to pursue; but he would say, as a Member of that House, that he had diligently examined the subject, and was prepared to prove every word that he had asserted, and he dared not flinch from what he considered to be his duty, lest he should be guilty of being ashamed of Him who had said that those who were ashamed of Him and of His word, of them would He also be ashamed before His Father in Heaven. He would merely add that he should avail himself of the first opportunity to bring this question before the House. It was his intention
934
to ask for a Committee to inquire into the system of education carried on at Maynooth, and he pledged himself to prove the assertions which he had used, and to show that they were founded on facts that could not be controverted.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that after the long discourse—and he used the term in an ecclesiastical sense—of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, he thought that, in his joy at a change of the Ministry, he had intended to move as an Amendment to the Motion made by the Secretary for the Treasury, namely, that the House should adjourn for a fortnight, that the House should continue sitting de die en diem, investigating the system of education pursued at Maynooth, and the merits of the works of Ligueri, De la Hogue, and Peter Dens. He (Mr. C. Anstey) was sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to proceed with his Motion until after Faster, and then only if the Government did nothing on the subject.
MR. SPOONERwas sure the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to misrepresent him, but he had distinctly stated that it was his intention to bring on the Motion after Easter.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY: The hon. Gentleman meant to go on in this or some other Parliament after Easter. If the hon. Gentleman would carry out his proposal to its legitimate consequences, and bring in a Bill to repeal the Maynooth Act, he (Mr. C. Anstey), and he believed many hon. Members, Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, might support him, on the ground that it was inexpedient to give support to religious establishments out of the resources of the State. The hon. Gentleman spoke from behind the Treasury bench. If not in office it was merely because he had refused office, and no doubt his sentiments on this subject might be considered those of the Government. Maynooth, as a public establishment, would, he was persuaded, court inquiry. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in order in denouncing, in the way he had, judgment upon those who differed from him in religious opinions; but that he had erred in good taste in so doing, few, he believed, would deny. He did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, for he thought the most prudent course was to give him rope enough. He had now had as much rope as the indulgence of the House would

935
permit, and he (Mr. C. Anstey) thought that he had used it so as to hang himself most effectually.
MR. GRATTANsaid, his object in rising was to entreat that this discussion might not go on; and he now hoped that it would be allowed to close. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) had given notice of his intention; he might be right or he might be wrong in doing so; but at all events, if they were to part, let them part in peace. He hoped that hon. Members would now be allowed to present petitions. The hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) must be a most courageous man to speak in the way he had done; he reminded him (Mr. Grattan) of a great personage described by Milton, who from
"His horrid locks shook pestilence and war."
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to state that the Government had nothing whatever to do with the notice of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner). His hon. Friend had never been offered office, and, therefore, the idea which seemed to be insinuated that there was some difference of opinion between the Government and him had no foundation whatever. He would bring the Motion forward entirely on his own responsibility.
MR. B. OSBORNEwas quite ready to believe that on whatever side the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) sat, there was no measure of intolerance and bigotry that he would not advocate. He gave him, therefore, the most perfect credit for sincerity. Without, however, adverting to the subject of Maynooth, he should like to know whether the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), who he observed had just left the House, intended to persevere in the Motion he had put on the paper for a modification of the national system of education in Ireland, so as to make it accord with the convictions of the members of the Irish Established Church? The House ought to know whether the hon. Member intended to act upon that notice, or whether, as was too often the case in that House, it was one of those notices which were given in opposition, and dropped when the Opposition came into office?
MR. ROCHEsaid, that if evil effects arose from discussing these questions in the House, the responsibility must rest with those who introduced them. Religious questions, above all others, should be dealt with in a straightforward and manly
936
manner. And as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) found many supporters of his opinion in the country, he (Mr. Roche) hoped he would bring the question before Parliament at an early day. It was important to know the opinions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but when he looke4 at the appointments, particularly the law appointments, there could be little doubt on the matter. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland were steeped to the lips in opinions which he believed to be unfounded prejudices, and were determined to interfere with the religious liberty of Roman Catholics in that country. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the new Attorney General for England, were the most strenuous supporters of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in its most stringent form, so that the Roman Catholic body of England had not much favour to expect from them. He had no objection to have this question discussed on its broad and general bearing. The hon. Gentleman complained that 30,000 l. was given to support Maynooth by a Protestant State, whilst they were supporting in Ireland a Protestant Church which cost 800,000 l. a year.
MR. EWARTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) might fix a day for his Motion, as there was a ballot that night for notices. If the hon. Gentleman put his name on the balloting paper, he would have a chance of an early opportunity to do what he so much desiderated. The hon. Gentleman was in a glowing state on this important question, and it was better that his ardour should not cool.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock, till Friday, 12th March.
[A LIST OF THE MINISTRY formed by the EARL of DERBY is given on the following page. The acceptance of office by those Members of it who were also Members of the House of Commons necessarily vacated their seats: they were all re-elected, with the exception of the CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.]

THE MINISTRY.

  IN THE CABINET.
  First Lord of the Treasury

  Right Hon. Earl of Derby.

  Lord Chancellor

  Right Hon. Lord ST. LEONARDS.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Right Hon. BENJAMIN DISRAELI.

  President of the Council

  Right Hon. Earl of LONSDALE.

  Privy Seal

  Most Hon. Marquess of SALISBURY.

  Home Secretary

  Right Hon. SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE.

  Foreign Secretary

  Right Hon. Earl of MALMESBURY.

  Colonial Secretary

  Right Hon. Sir JOHN SOMERSET PAKINGTON, Bart.

  First Lord of the Admiralty

  Most Noble Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND.

  President of the Board of Control

  Right Hon. JOHN CHARLES HERRIES

  Postmaster General

  Right Hon. Earl of HARDWICKE.

  President of the Board of Trade

  Right Hon. JOSEPH WARNER HENLEY.

  First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings

  Right Hon. Lord JOHN JAMES ROBERT MANNERS.

  NOT IN THE CABINET.
  Commander in Chief

  Most Noble Duke of WELLINGTON.

  Master General of the Ordnance

  Right Hon. Viscount HARDINGE.

  Paymaster of the Forces, and Vice-President of the Board of Trade

  Right Hon. Lord COLCHESTER.

  Secretary at War

  Right Hon. WILLIAM BERESFORD.

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Right Hon. ROBERT ADAM CHRISTOPHER.

  Joint Secretaries of the Treasury

  WILLIAM FORBES MACKENZIE, Esq., and GEORGE ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Esq.

  Secretary of the Admiralty

  STAFFORD AUGUSTUS O'BRIEN STAFFORD, Esq.

  Under Secretary for the Home Department

  Sir WILLIAM HYLTON JOLLIFFE, Bart.

  Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs

  Lord STANLEY.

  Under Secretary for the Colonies

  Right Hon. Earl of DESART.

  Secretaries of the Board of Control

  CHARLES LENNOX CUMMING BRUCE, Esq., and HENRY JAMES BAILLIE, Esq.

  Lords of the Treasury

  Marquess of CHANDOS, Lord HENRY GEORGE CHARLES GORDON LENNOX, and THOMAS BATESON, Esq.

  Lords of the Admiralty

  Rear Admiral HYDE PARKER, C.B., Rear Admiral PHIPPS HORNBY, C.B., Captain Sir THOMAS HERBERT, K.C.B., Captain Hon. ARTHUR DUNCOMBE, and Captain ALEXANDER MILNE.

  Clerk of the Ordnance

  Colonel FRANCIS PLUNKET DUNNE.

  Attorney General

  Sir FREDERICK THESIGER, Knt.

  Solicitor General

  Sir FITZROY KELLY, Knt.

  Judge-Advocate General

  Right Hon. GEORGE BANKES.

  Chief Poor Law Commissioner

  Right Hon. Sir JOHN TROLLOPE, Bart.

  SCOTLAND
  Lord Advocate

  Right Hon. ADAM ANDERSON.

  Solicitor General

  JOHN INGLIS, Esq.

  IRELAND
  Lord Lieutenant

  Right Hon. Earl of EGLINTOUN.

  Lord Chancellor

  Right Hon. FRANCIS BLACKBURNE.

  Chief Secretary

  Right Hon. Lord NAAS.

  Attorney General

  Right Hon. JOSEPH NAPIER.

  Solicitor General

  JAMES WHITESIDE, Esq.

  QUEEN'S HOUSEHOLD.
  Lord Steward

  Most Noble Duke of MONTROSE.

  Lord Chamberlain

  Most Hon. Marquess of EXETER.

  Master of the Horse

  Right Hon. Earl of JERSEY.

  Master of the Buckhounds

  Right Hon. Earl of ROSSLYN.

  Vice-Chamberlain

  Right Hon. Viscount NEWPORT.

  Treasurer of the Household

  Right Hon. Lord CLAUD HAMILTON.

  Comptroller of the Household

  Right Hon. GEORGE CECIL WELD FORESTER,

  Chief Equerry and Clerk Marshal

  Right Hon. Lord COLVILLE.

  Mistress of the Robes

  Duchess of ATHOL.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths—proscribed by the Act of 10th Geo. IV., to be taken by Peers professing the Roman Catholic religion—the Lord Stafford; and sat first after the Death of his Father.

THE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, the place from which I have now the honour of addressing your Lordships, at once not only affords a justification for my rising upon this occasion, but imposes upon me, as I conceive, the duty of endeavouring to state as shortly and as distinctly as I can, and with as much frankness as may be in my power, and no more reserve than is imposed upon me by the position which I hold, to state not only the motives which have induced me to accept the arduous task which I thought myself bound not to decline, but also, as far as I can, to lay before your Lordships an outline of the course which, having undertaken such a responsibility, I feel it incumbent on mo to pursue.
But before I proceed I feel desirous—indeed I cannot deny myself the gratification—in the presence of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne), of expressing to him that which, not having been present in the House, I could not express at the last meeting of your Lordships, my grateful thanks for the kind and friendly terms in which he alluded to my present acceptance of office. My Lords, to any man accepting the high office I have now the honour to hold, such terms of commendation could not but have been welcome from whatever quarter they might come; but they are peculiarly gratifying to me in a public, and also in a private, capacity, as coming from one to whom, since my earliest boyhood, I have been accustomed to look up with hereditary respect and deference—for whom as years rolled on those feelings were ripened into sincere personal respect and esteem; and of whom I am proud to say, that the circumstances which have separated our political connection have not, either on his part or on mine, in the slightest degree impaired our private friendship. My Lords, I hope
890
that this is only a single example of many that might be cited, that, amidst all the conflicts of parties in this free country, men entertaining opinions far more widely different than those which have separated the noble Marquess and myself, may continue to entertain for one another feelings of personal regard unembittered by the contentions of party, and that, however different may be the views which a sense of public duty may compel us to maintain, there is nothing in this diversity of opinion which may dissever the personal friendship of English gentlemen. I have been told—and I hope the noble Marquess may have been misunderstood—I am told the noble Marquess intimated, on the last occasion of your meeting, his intention of shortly retiring from the active pursuits of political life, and those political duties which have been so long discharged by him with such signal ability and success. Now if the difference of opinion between man and man can diminish the feelings of personal friendship fur each other, it is impossible that such could be the case between me and the noble Marquess, who—and I am sure that I am only expressing the feeling of every individual in this House—has won the esteem and confidence, and I might almost say the affection, of every one of your Lordships who has witnessed the firm and uncompromising, the dignified, and yet the perfectly friendly and courteous manner, in which he has discharged for so long a period his high functions in this House. It must be an encouragement to future statesmen that they should be able to point to his example, and see how, after a period of, I believe, nearly fifty years spent in the public service, a statesman can retire with the friendship, the warm and cordial friendship of his political associates, with the cordial and sincere esteem of his political opponents, and with a character unblemished by a single stain on his political virtue or private honour.
My Lords, having thus relieved my mind of the debt of gratitude which I felt was due to the noble Marquess, I must proceed to a far more arduous portion of the task which I have now to perform.
My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to trouble your Lordships with any speculation or any statement of mine as to the occurrences which may have led to the downfall of the late Administration. Undoubtedly, my Lords, although there had been a general expectation that the resignation of Her Majesty's late advisers was

891
not far distant, I, for one, so little expected that such an event would occur on the particular occasion which gave rise to it, that, as most of your Lordships are perhaps aware, I had, at the time, actually gone down to the country for the purpose of spending three or four days. I shall not attempt to speculate as to whether the particular vote arrived at by the other House on last Friday night, led to that determination of Her Majesty's late Government, or whether other reasons had led them previously to form that determination, which was only confirmed by that vote. It was on Saturday that I received the, to me, surprising intelligence of the result of the division in the House of Commons, and of the consequent resignation of Her Majesty's Ministers. On the evening of that day I had the honour of receiving from Her Majesty a command to wait on Her at the Palace at half-past two o'clock on the following day. My Lords, I had then to consider not what course it was my interest, but what course it was my public duty to pursue. I had to weigh deliberately and candidly on the one side all the overwhelming difficulties of the situation in which I was placed—all the awful responsibility of the task which I felt I might be called upon to perform; and I had to weigh on the other side what appeared to me the still more awful responsibility, if it could be imputed to me that from personal feelings and an unwillingness to take on myself either labour or responsibility, I had left by my act the Queen and the country in the present times without an Administration, however unworthy it might be. The noble Lord opposite will excuse me for saying that I saw little prospect of any other Administration being speedily formed; and, further, that I saw little prospect of advantage from the resignation of the late Ministry being speedily followed by their resumption of the reins of Government; and I therefore felt, that, however unequal to the task, however great the difficulties that might stand in the way—difficulties arising from my own position, and from those who, agreeing with me in opinion, are still unable to command a majority in the other House of Parliament—still, great as all these difficulties were, deliberately weighing and not overlooking them, I felt it my first duty to my Sovereign and my country to determine that at this time the country should not be without an Administration; and it was not, my Lords, without a deep conscious-
892
ness of the responsibility I was incurring, nor without a thorough conviction of my own inability to perform adequately the duties I was about to undertake, that I at once intimated to Her Most Gracious Majesty, on receiving Her commands to that effect, my readiness to attempt the task of the formation of a Ministry.
My Lords, by the concurrence of almost all those friends to whom I felt it to be my duty to apply, I was able, on the following day, to lay before Her Majesty an outline of the Administration; and in the course of the four days since elapsed I have been able to submit to and obtain the approval of Her Majesty to the list of those friends whom I have selected to discharge the principal offices of the Government.
At the same time, the Government being so formed, I feel it necessary that I should state to you, my Lords, frankly, freely, and without reserve, the course of policy which I shall deem it my imperative duty to follow.
My Lords, with regard to the Foreign Relations of this country, I am sure there is not one amongst your Lordships, and few indeed in the country, who will not earnestly desire to see maintained the blessings of universal peace. There is not one of my noble Friends who will not think that every effort on the part of Government should be made with a view to averting the remotest chance of incurring the miseries of war. My Lords, in my humble opinion that desire of preserving peace is not best supported by displays of large military and naval forces, by the assumption of an attitude of hostility, or by making preparations as if for war; neither, on the other hand, is the maintenance of peace to be secured by the adoption of the Utopian theories in which some gentlemen indulge, of universal disarmament; or, if not of universal disarmament, of placing this country in a position in which it is incapable of defence. My Lords, I believe that peace will be best maintained by observing to all Foreign Powers—whether powerful or weak—a calm, temperate, deliberate, and conciliatory course of conduct, not in acts alone, but in words also; by adhering with strict fidelity to the spirit and the letter of the obligations imposed upon us by treaty, and by respecting the independence of all nations, whether great or small, as well as by admitting their full right to regulate to their own will the internal affairs of their own administration. My Lords, I believe the constitution under which we have the happiness to live, is of all imaginable con-

893
stitutions the best adapted to secure the happiness and the liberty of the greatest number; and I should be glad to see our example diffusing itself through other nations and countries, and that the admiration which our constitution excites should cause it to be generally followed. But I hold, my Lords, that we have no right as a nation, to entertain particular prejudices, or particular sympathies, for this or that course of government that other countries may think fit to adopt, be these courses or forms of government the most absolute despotism, limited monarchy, constitutional republic, or, if such a thing could endure, absolute red republicanism; that which is the choice of a nation, so far as it affects its individual and internal concerns alone, it is the duty of a British Government to recognise. My Lords, I concur entirely in the observations that were made with great truth and dignity a few days ago by the noble Earl the late Secretary of the Foreign Department (Earl Granville), namely, that in our conduct of affairs with foreign nations, there is far more dignity, if any of the subjects of these realms conceive themselves to be injured by a foreign Power, in acting with forbearance than with violence—the dignified course in public as in private life is at once to offer, without waiting to be asked for it, such reparation as the circumstances of the case, and our own conscience, may show to be right. On the other hand, I am convinced that if we or any of the subjects of this realm have reason to complain of the conduct of any foreign country, the course is plain and simple: frankly and temperately to state the complaint we have to make, not indulging in vituperation and intemperance of language, but submitting equally to the honour and justice of other countries the claim we should be the first to acknowledge ourselves. I cannot but think, my Lords, that steadily acting on that principle, alike in reference to powerful as to weak nations, we shall be able not merely to maintain the blessing of peace, but also to place this country in an attitude of sincere friendship with the other nations of the world.
But, my Lords, the more I entertain this belief and hope that the preservation of peace and good understanding will continue amongst the nations of Europe; yet in proportion to this conviction, I feel it our duty, as a Government, not to omit those precautions which have been adopted by our predecessors for placing this coun-
894
try in a position by the internal organisation of its domestic affairs to be freed from the possibility of hostile apprehension. My Lords, I believe that our naval forces were never in a better or more effective condition than it is at this moment. I believe that for all purposes, whether as regards the protection of our own shores, the defence of the numerous and distant Colonies which form our Empire, or for the protection of that extended commerce which crosses every sea and fills every port in the wide world, I believe that for all such purposes our Navy was never in a more effective state than it is now. Our regular Army is also, I am happy to inform your Lordships, in a state of perfect efficiency, so far as its numbers are concerned. I repeat the words—"so far as its numbers are concerned," for, as to the duties which it has to perform, there is no Army in the world on which so heavy a load of military duties falls. But, my Lords, efficient as our Army is, well qualified as those are who constitute it, for the performance of the effective duties of their profession, that Army numerically—and I am rejoiced at the fact—cannot excite legitimately the apprehension or jealousy of any foreign Power. My Lords, the genius and disposition of the people of this country are hostile to a large standing Army. England has no desire of aggression, has no wish for extending her dominion by force of arms; much less has she any longing to engage in unnecessary quarrels with other countries, requiring a large increase of her military force. She, therefore, feels that to her a large standing Army is unnecessary. I know and feel, my Lords, what is due to the honour and character of this country; and I know and feel that, if it were threatened with hostile aggression, England, Scotland, and Ireland would rise as one man to defend it, and to repel the invader. I feel, my Lords, that thousands of loyal and gallant hearts would instantly rush to the rescue. I feel that we may rely with the utmost confidence upon the loyal hearts of the British people, who, I am sure, will rush at once, in case of necessity, to the service of the country; but, at the same time, it is impossible to deny that, if they are not a disciplined and organised force, they will meet any attempt of foreign aggression under fearful disadvantages, My Lords, various occasions have arisen before when propositions were made, not for creating, but for reorganising an old constitutional force, which has

895
been always relied on for the internal military protection of the country; but I think it is unfortunate that those propositions have been always made under the pressure of some immediate anxiety or apprehension of some immediate danger, and that when the anxiety and apprehension had passed away, all ideas as to the necessity of the precaution passed away too, and vanished like a dream. In such a course there is a double disadvantage. If the measures for the organisation of a new military force, which cannot be aggressive, but is of necessity defensive, be taken in haste—if the preparations which its organisation requires be adopted under the pressure of immediate necessity, then the preparations are attended with a very large expense; in the next place, they would probably be too late to meet the anticipated danger; and in the third place, from being hastily adopted, the provisions themselves would probably be inadequate. Besides, there is this further disadvantage in such a course. The very fact of your taking extraordinary precautions at once increases the panic and alarm which has given rise to the necessity for making them on the part of the Government, and tend in turn to excite the jealousy of those foreign Powers against whose supposed or intended aggression it is placing itself on its guard. Therefore, my Lords, the more confident I feel of the peace of Europe, the more I would urge upon your Lordships the imperative necessity at this time, and not when the next apprehension may occur—but now at this time—of taking the necessary measures, with due deliberation and sufficient promptitude, for giving, not a large military force to the country, but for giving, at all events, that organisation and that discipline which in times of danger, may be necessary for our defence. My Lords, I rejoice to think that, for the maintenance of the tranquillity of this country, no military force, regular or irregular, is, or is likely to be, required. On many memorable occasions, and more particularly on one within the last three or four years, the people of this country have shown, in a manner exciting the admiration and wonder of foreign nations, that the peace and tranquillity of England may be safely intrusted to the loyalty of the people themselves. I believe that this is not owing to the ability of its rulers—I am sure that it is not the number of our forces which keeps this country in tranquillity and contentment, but it is a
896
due and frank appreciation on the part of Her Majesty's subjects in every class of the community, of the inestimable value of those institutions under which they have the happiness to live, and a deep-seated conviction that under those institutions not only the just prerogatives of the Crown, but also the dearest liberties of the people, are preserved secure and inviolate. Under these institutions we are not only free and tranquil at home, but are, as we have always been—and God forbid that we should ever cease to be!—an ark of refuge for those whose misfortunes have driven them as exiles from their own homes to seek protection here. My Lords, with the disturbances and distractions of foreign countries we have nothing whatever to do; but when from those disturbances and distractions exiles and fugitives reach our shores they have always a right to claim, and I hope they will long continue to claim from us, the frank hospitality of England. But I say also, on the other hand, that it is the bounden duty of all who, flying from the misfortunes of foreign countries, find here a safe and tranquil asylum, not to abuse the rights of hospitality, and, above all, not to compromise the interests of this nation, which receives them into its hospitable arms, by organising here against their own country measures which they must know they can only carry on in safety under the shelter and protection of English law. I say, further, that it is not only the right but the duty of Government, without descending to a system—I must use a French word for it, for, thank God, we have not an English one which expresses it—of espionage, or surveillance, which is averse to all the feelings of the country—it is, I say, our duty as a Government to keep guard over the conduct of such persons as are disposed to abuse our hospitality; and if the fact of any plan hostile to the Government of their native land comes to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Ministers, it is our duty to put the foreign Government so menaced in possession of the facts, and thus place it on its guard against such machinations. Further than that I do not think it is right nor in the power of the Government of this country to interfere. If these persons, under any circumstances, and from whatever country, attempt to levy war against their own country, that is by our law a punishable offence; and it is the duty of the Government to visit such an offence with exemplary and con-

897
dign punishment. But, short of that, which is in the eye of the law an offence, I say that, while on the one hand we perform the duty of friendship and all that is required by the comity of nations to be done to Foreign Powers, we cannot, on the other—I will not say to avert the hostility, but to secure the friendship of those Powers with whom we have contracted the closest intimacies—we cannot, I say, even for that purpose, strain the law and constitution of this country beyond the limits warranted by the law itself.
My Lords, I have now stated to your Lordships the principles upon which I think that our foreign policy should be regulated and conducted. I will not shrink, my Lords, from dealing with questions of far greater difficulty; I will not shrink from speaking frankly upon the subject of our commercial and financial policy.
My Lords, I need not remind your Lordships that in the year 1842 I was a warm and cordial supporter of the financial measures then introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel. I not only entirely approved of the revision of our Customs duties which at that time he proposed, but I also approved of the principle which, as I then understood, he announced of imposing duties on the principal articles of importation for the purpose of raising revenue; and not only for the purpose of raising revenue, but also for the purpose of levying duties in a given proportion to the extent to which the articles the subjects of duties admitted or did not admit the expenditure of future British labour. I understood the principle then laid down to be acquiesced in—I freely acquiesced in it—that there was to be the freest possible admission of all the raw materials which form the basis of domestic industry. My Lords, a different system has, to a certain extent, been adopted since that period; and I cannot but think that, if we look to the whole of our financial system, there is ground for believing that it is open, in point of principle and in point of practice, to considerable and useful revisions. Your Lordships will, I trust, forgive me if I contrast the system which prevails with regard to the Customs duties in this country, with that which prevails in another country which I have heard lauded as a free-trade place: I allude to the tariff of the United States. Now, my Lords, the tariff of the United States levies upon almost all articles of importation duties, more or less extensive, duties in some respects to an oppressive amount; but, in almost every
898
instance, the whole of those duties levied are avowedly upon those articles which mainly enter into competition with the produce of their own soil, and of their own industry. My Lords, we appear to have proceeded recently upon a different principle; for while we admit with entire freedom many of those articles which do so enter into competition with our own produce, we load with an inordinate amount of taxation a certain small number of articles which enter directly, and to an immense extent, into the necessary consumption of the masses of the community. And I beg of your Lordships not to lose sight of this fact, that when the whole supply of any article is furnished from a foreign country, the whole amount of the duty imposed upon the import of that article, falls necessarily upon the consumers in the shape of an increase of price: but when you impose a duty upon an article of which a portion is supplied at home, and of which a portion is supplied from abroad, there the measure of the duty is by no means the measure of the increase of price; but that increase of price is only in proportion to the amount of foreign produce which may be excluded by the imposition of any duty whatsoever; for, consequently, the supply is diminished, and thereby, to a certain extent, the price is enhanced. Now, my Lords, I say that, as between these two principles, it appears to me that the American system is the easiest to be defended upon principle, and the least burthensome in practice to the consumer. My Lords, I will not shrink from expressing again that which I have expressed on former occasions, and repeating in office as I have stated out of office, that, in my individual opinion, I see no ground why, from the general system of imposing duties upon foreign imports, the single article of corn should be made a solitary exception.
My Lords, I state this as my opinion; but, at the same time, I have always said, and I repeat it again, that I think this is a question which can only be satisfactorily solved by a reference to a well-understood and clearly expressed opinion of the intelligent portion of the community. My Lords, any possibility, any idea of dealing with a system so vast and so extensive as the financial policy of the country, including within its range not only the whole system of duties on foreign imports, but also the incidents and the pressure of domestic and local taxation—I say, my Lords, any scheme so large and so ex-

899
tensive requires to be dealt with by a Government strong in the confidence, not only of the country but of Parliament, and able to carry, with the concurrence of Parliament and of the country, measures adopted and matured with great deliberation, with such care and foresight as it is impossible that any Administration could give to such a subject, called suddenly to deal with public affairs at the commencement of a Parliamentary Session. My Lords, I have said before, I know the position in which Her Majesty's Government is placed—I know that, in the other House of Parliament my Colleagues and I are in an undoubted minority. I know not whether we shall be enabled to command a majority in favour of our views even in the House which I have now the honour of addressing. But I say, my Lords, that the same motives which induced me to sacrifice all other considerations to avoid the responsibility of leaving the Sovereign and the country at this time without a Government, weigh on my mind with equal force to induce me to think that the public interests would not be consulted, at this period of the year and in the present circumstances of the world, by an unnecessary interruption, for a considerable period, of the sittings of the other House of Parliament, for the purpose of maturing and of carrying out (if it is to be or can be carried out) the policy which I consider advantageous to the interests of the country. While, then, I state frankly and freely what that policy is, and what my opinions are upon the subject, I confess, my Lords, that, situated as we are, we have a much humbler, but, at the same time, perhaps not a less useful, task before us. I avow that we cannot command a Parliamentary majority. I avow, my Lords, that, in the face of this conviction, I have felt it to be my duty not to decline the responsibility which has been thrown upon me. I know that in conducting the affairs of the country under such circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will have to appeal to the forbearance of its opponents, and in some cases to the patient indulgence of its friends; but, my Lords, I have that confidence in the good sense and judgment of the House of Commons, that they will not unnecessarily introduce subjects of a controversial and party character for the mere purpose of interrupting the course of sound and useful legislation, and of driving the Government out of that moderate and temperate course which the Government
900
has prescribed to itself. My Lords, I think there are subjects enough, without dealing with those large and complicated questions—there are subjects useful enough to attract the attention and to occupy the time of this and the other House of Parliament. I believe, my Lords, that if, avoiding unnecessary party questions, we apply ourselves to the great measures for which the country has long called—measures of legal reform, simplifying and improving the administration of law and justice—measures of social reform, improving the condition and comfort of the people—I believe that, even as a minority in the House of Commons, we shall not be uselessly or dishonourably conducting the public affairs of the country. And, my Lords, I must say that, if interrupted in such a course by a merely factious opposition, I have that confidence in the good sense of the country, that that factiousness will, at no distant period, recoil upon its authors.
My Lords, among the measures of social improvement to which I have just adverted, I do not include one to which Her Majesty's late Government have thought it necessary to direct the attention of Parliament. My Lords, it was announced by Her Majesty's late Government that they intended to introduce, and I believe they did actually introduce, into the other House of Parliament, three measures in some degree connected together: the first for disfranchising a borough in which gross and notorious corruption was proved to have prevailed; the second, for facilitating the means of examining into, and correcting and controlling such corrupt practices in other boroughs for the future; and the third, comprising a somewhat miscellaneous assortment of topics, but comprising as a leading feature a large and extensive alteration of the electoral system of the country. Now, my Lords, with regard to the first measure, without dealing with the individual question, I avow, my Lords, that no man is prepared to go further than I am—and I am sure in this I speak the sentiments of my Colleagues also—to check, by all possible means, that gross and disgraceful system of bribery which, I am afraid, has increased very considerably in the course of the last twenty years, and which, in the intensity of the evils which it has produced has thrown into the shade the evils which existed in the local influences by which constituencies were previously controlled. My Lords, I say that

901
no man can go further than Her Majesty's Government, in seeking to cheek that system, as far as it can be checked by legislation—in seeking to visit it with condign punishment, whenever a full and fair investigation has proved the existence and enormity of the offence. Nor, my Lords, do I pretend for a moment to say that the system of representation introduced in 1831 was a perfect system, or incapable of amendment. I think there may have arisen, and will arise in the course of time, abuses requiring change, and evils demanding a remedy; but, my Lords, I say, before you seek to apply a remedy, before, at all events, you pledge yourselves indefinitely to an unsettling of that which is, and settle nothing, be quite sure that you know the course which you are about to adopt; be satisfied of the nature of the evils which you mean to meet; be satisfied that the remedy which you propose to apply is not calculated to aggravate already existing evils. And I do entreat your Lordships—and if I were speaking in the presence of the Members of the other House of Parliament, I would entreat them, and through them the country—seriously to consider the incalculable injury, not only to the monarchy, but ultimately to the real and true liberties of the country, which may arise from constantly—from time to time—unsettling everything and settling nothing; rendering the country dissatisfied with that which is, without in the slightest degree removing the dissatisfaction of those who are prepared to go much further than any of your Lordships or Parliament could desire. My Lords, on the part of Her Majesty's Government I have to state that it is not our intention to proceed with the measure of Parliamentary Reform which was recently introduced by our predecessors in office. On the other hand, if you will show or prove to us the existence of any substantial grievances, no men will be more ready than my Colleagues and myself to endeavour to remove those grievances in the manner we consider best calculated to ensure that end without involving future danger to the constitution or the internal peace of the country.
My Lords, I know not whether it has been correctly stated, but still I have heard it stated, that my noble Friend—I hope I may call him my noble Friend, although opposed to him on political grounds—who preceded me in the situation I have the honour to hold, intended, for some cause which I cannot well divine, to combine
902
with his plan for an extensive reform in our system of Parliamentary representation, another plan for a general improvement in the education of the people. My Lords, I believe that, for the purpose of improving education, no extension of the suffrage and no alteration in the constitution of Parliament was either necessary or could have the slightest influence or effect. I believe—and I rejoice to believe—that the feelings of the community at large—that the convictions of all classes, high and low, rich and poor, have now come to this conclusion—that the greater the amount of education which we are able to give, and the more widely it is spread among all conditions of men, the greater chance there is for the tranquillity, the happiness, and the well-being of the community. But, my Lords, when I use the term "education," let me not be misunderstood. By "education" I do not mean the mere development of the mental faculties, the mere acquisition of temporal knowledge, the mere instruction, useful as, no doubt, that may be, which may enable a man to improve his social condition in life, and give him fresh tastes and fresh habits, and with those habits the means of procuring for himself their enjoyment. Valuable as that instruction may be, when I speak of "education," I speak of this alone—an education which includes culture of the mind and culture of the soul—laying the foundation of all knowledge upon the basis of the Scriptures and Evangelical truth. My Lords, I desire to look upon all those who are engaged in the work of spreading knowledge, even though they be of different communions from that of which I am a sincere and attached member—I desire to look upon them rather as fellow-labourers than as rivals in the warfare we conjointly wage against vice and ignorance. But I trust, my Lords, I shall say nothing which can be offensive to any of those who differ from me and belong to other communions, when I say that, for the promotion of education and of religious knowledge among the people, I rest mainly and chiefly upon the exertions—the able, the indefatigable, and enlightened exertions of the parochial clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland. My Lords, I look upon that Church as the depositary of what I believe to be the truth, and as an instrument of incalculable value in diffusing good here, and leading to still more incalculable good hereafter. My Lords, I

903
say it is not only the interest, but the duty, of Her Majesty's Government to uphold and maintain that Church in its integrity, not by penal enactments directed against those who differ from her communion, not by violent abuse and invective against the religious faith of those whose errors we may deplore, but to whose consciences we have no right to dictate—but by stedfastly resisting all attempts at aggression upon the rights, privileges, and possessions of that Church, come from what quarter, and backed by what weight of authority, they may, and by lending every power of the Government to support and extend the influence of that Church in its high and holy calling, of diffusing throughout the length and breadth of the empire (for I speak not of this country alone) that knowledge which can only be derived by the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures.
My Lords, I believe that I have now stated—perhaps at more length than I ought to have done, but I hope not with undue and unnecessary frankness, and with only such reserve of necessary details as is inseparable from the position in which I stand—those principles upon which we propose to conduct the administration with which we are intrusted. My Lords, for my own part, when I look to the difficulties which surround us—when I look to the various circumstances which must combine to give us a chance of successfully encountering the various obstacles which beset our path—I confess I am myself appalled by the magnitude of the difficulties which we have to meet. But I believe, and know, that the destinies of nations are in the hands of an overruling Providence. I know that it is often the pleasure of that Great Being to work out His own objects by weak and unworthy means. In His presence, I can solemnly aver, that no motives of personal ambition have led me to aspire to that dangerous eminence on which the favour of my Sovereign has placed me. In the course of my duties, no considerations shall sway me, except those which have led me to accept it—the paramount considerations of public duty. And with this feeling in my mind, and with a deep conviction of the sincerity of my own motives, and trusting to the guidance and blessing of a higher Power than my own, I venture to undertake a task from which I might otherwise have shrunk, appalled by its magnitude. And, my Lords, be the period of my administration longer or shorter, not only
904
shall I have obtained the highest object of personal ambition, but I shall have fulfilled one of the highest ends of human being, if in the course of it I can, in the slightest degree, advance the great object of "peace on earth, and good will among men"—if I can advance the social, moral, and religious, improvement of my country, and if I can contribute to "the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and her dominions."
EARL GREYsaid: I do not intend, my Lords, to dwell upon the several topics discussed by the noble Earl, but I wish to say a few words on one point, in the way of protest, against a principle which the noble Earl has laid down in his statement. The noble Earl has declared, with that frankness which I expected from him, what the principle is on which the financial and commercial policy of his Administration is to be conducted. The noble Earl has described that principle with great clearness, and the comparison which he drew between the tariff of the United States and the tariff of this country, for the purpose of explaining it, was a perfect illustration. It is true, as the noble Earl says, that the principle which has been adopted in this country, within the last few years, has been so to impose the duties levied under the Customs laws, that they shall fall entirely, or much as possible, on goods imported from abroad, which do not compete with similar articles produced in this country. On the other hand, the noble Earl has told us that the principle acted on in the United States is the very reverse. The noble Earl has told us that in the United States they do not tax some of the great articles of consumption produced only abroad, such as teas; but that they do tax articles which are partly produced at home and partly imported from abroad, and with the avowed object of giving what is called "protection" to their own produce. The noble Earl says the effect of this system of taxation is, that it only partially raises the price of the imported commodity, and does not levy so large an amount of taxation from the people. Upon this the noble Earl bases an argument which, I confess, I was not quite able to follow, but which seemed to me intended to show that the price of the article was not affected. Now, it has long been an argument with us, that when you impose a duty on an article partly imported from abroad and partly produced at home, you raise the price to the consumer, not only of the imported article, but of that

905
which is produced at home; and that, so far from its being favourable to the revenue, the direct opposite is the case. You levy a very large tax upon the consumer, not one sixpence of which is paid into the revenues of the State. The article of corn is one on which a duty of the kind alluded to by the noble Earl formerly existed. The revenue derived from that duty was very inconsiderable. But the noble Earl wished to reimpose the duty which previously existed. If he does so, I have no doubt he will not only raise the price of the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 quarters of corn imported into this country, but of the much larger quantity which is produced in this country, the amount of which will not go into the Exchequer. Suppose that the noble Earl imposes a duty of 5s. per quarter on the 4,000,000 quarters imported, he will raise a revenue of 1,000,000 l. to the Exchequer. But the price of the four or five times that quantity grown in this country will also rise in exactly the same amount as the duty so imposed. The revenue derived by the Exchequer from corn will amount to 1,000,000 l.; but the sum of 6,000,000 l. will be paid by the consumers. This is the effect of the principle of a protective duty. By acting on the other principle, by repealing those duties which we always argued were a frightful tax upon the community, without bringing any money into the Exchequer, the effect has been, as I had the pleasure of stating on the very first night of the Session, that within the last few years duties have been repealed to the amount of twelve or thirteen millions, and that instead of the Customs revenues having diminished, they have reached a higher amount. Both theory and practice have proved the correctness of this principle. My Lords, I heard with great regret, with a consternation which I am altogether at a loss to describe, that the noble Earl intends to apply this, as I think, most unsound principle of commercial and finance to the food of the people. I have heard with consternation that a measure is to be proposed, with the authority of Government, for again imposing a tax of this kind.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, I must beg to correct that statement. What I said was, that I saw no reason, in my own opinion, why corn should form an exception from the general principle of imposing duties upon foreign produce; but that that was a question which ought to be settled, and which could only be settled, by the deliberate judgment of the large and in-
906
telligent community of this country. And I decidedly stated that neither with regard to that, nor with regard to dealing with the great and complicated question of our financial policy, had I any intention of making any proposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government until that public opinion should be decidedly and emphatically expressed.
EARL GREY: I am greatly relieved by hearing the explanation of the noble Earl. To a certain degree I understood him, but not exactly as he has now stated. What I understood him to say was, that he laid down what he considered a sound and proper principle of commercial legislation; that the application of that principle required great care and great deliberation, and that a measure founded upon it could not be produced in a hurry. I, therefore, did not expect (and I thought this perfectly reasonable) that the noble Earl would produce any such measure as this at an early day; but undoubtedly I did understand that the noble Earl did look to revise the commercial policy of this country upon the principle he has stated, as a means of revenue, and that in that general revision of our commercial policy, corn was not to be an excepted article. If I was wrong in so understanding the noble Earl, I beg his pardon; but I still think that, to the best of my understanding, the words delivered by the noble Earl could not be otherwise understood. Now, upon that, allow me to make this observation—
The EARL of DERBY: I have already corrected the misapprehensions upon the part of the noble Earl, and stated what I believe I did say, and what I know it was my intention to say. The noble Earl says that he is much relieved by the explanation, and then he proceeds to repeat his version of that which he had understood me to say, but which I hope I have satisfied your Lordships the noble Earl misunderstood, and now upon that misunderstanding, so corrected, he is proceeding still to argue.
EARL GREY: I appeal to your Lordships whether this interruption on the part of the noble Earl is strictly regular. I said I was greatly relieved. I then explained in what sense I had understood the words of the noble Earl, and then—though I was glad to find he had put a somewhat different construction upon them—I was then about to say that even now the distinction is not very clear; so that at first it must have been difficult to put any other construction upon the words of the noble

907
Earl than in the exercise of my judgment I fairly placed upon them. Even at this moment I am not quite convinced that I accurately apprehend the noble Earl: because I do not know, from what the noble Earl has stated, whether that revision upon what he conceives sound principles of legislation, is contemplated by Her Majesty's Government or not. Now, this is a question on which I do not press for any immediate answer or decision; but, as one deeply interested in the landed interest, as a member of the community, every class of which is deeply interested in that question, I do implore the noble Earl to let no long time go by before he explains distinctly and clearly the views of Her Majesty's Government on this most important, exciting, and agitating question. After the events of the last ten years, the question of a tax on the food of the country is not one to be kept long in suspense. We are entitled to know—I do not say to-night, I do not say in a fortnight, but I do say at a very early period—the clear and decided intention of Her Majesty's Government. I implore the noble Earl, in justice to the great interests which are affected by leaving this question in doubt, that he will not leave that doubt to continue longer than is absolutely necessary; because, let your Lordships only consider the effect of that doubt. There is not a transaction between landlord and tenant, not a transaction in trade, commerce, or manufactures, which is not vitally affected by our being left in ignorance of what is to be the policy of the country on this all-important subject. In justice, therefore, to all these great interests which ore affected, I do hope and trust that we shall not be long in learning more clearly, and in having some distinct explanation of the views of the Government. We are not to be told that this is a question to be cast loose, and decided by public opinion. That is not the way in which a Government can deal with a question of this sort. It is the duty of an Administration to have a policy on such subjects, and having that policy distinctly to avow it, and take the responsibility of submitting it to Parliament.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that he was in hopes that no further debate would have taken place after the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby); for he was of opinion that after he had, in so ample, frank, and honourable a manner explained to the House the position in which he stood, the consideration which had induced
908
him to undertake this great task, and the difficulties of the situation in which he was placed, the noble Earl should have been the only speaker. He lamented that his noble relative (Earl Grey), instead of taking a comprehensive view of that speech, had chosen to single out from it one particular topic, and that the most exciting. Their Lordships might well deem that that was a question upon which he felt no little interest; for he believed that he was, in both Houses of Parliament, the very first person to attack the ancient—no, not the ancient—but what he might call the mediæval system of commercial legislation. But he thought that the speech of the noble Earl was not entitled to be animadverted upon in the way in which it had been by his noble relative. He thought that a better system than the present might be devised; but he doubted whether, even after the noble Earl had collected the sentiments of the intelligent public on the subject, it would be advisable to endeavour to revise it. There were many wise laws which wise men would not undertake to propose at all times; and he ventured to express a fear (although he thought that there was a great error in the view which his noble relative took of the effect which a duty would produce upon the price of corn) whether, under the circumstances of the country, and after the people had for some time enjoyed the benefits derived from a virtual abrogation of duty, and tasted the sweets of cheap bread, they could be induced to submit to the smallest imposition of duty even for the purposes of revenue. He entirely dissented, however, from the position of his noble relative (Earl Grey), that whatever duty was imposed upon a quarter of foreign corn, raised the price of every quarter of corn grown at home by exactly the same amount. That fallacy had been promulgated by two different parties. One party promulgated it because it suited their interests when addressing the audiences assembled in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, and when they were bidding for the support of the manufacturers and the great masses of the people; while another set of Gentlemen, who had now taken possession of the Ministerial benches, also propagated it for their own purposes while they were bidding for the support of the farmers. The result was, that that fallacy, as he believed it to be, had made a very great impression on the community. He thought it would be difficult for even the most critical opponent to find much fault with the other

909
parts of the noble Earl's speech. The noble Earl correctly, and with great clearness, stated the duty of this country to foreign nations; and he (Earl Fitzwilliam) trusted that in the administration of the Government he would adhere to the principles, and act upon the maxims, which he had declared in his speech. There was one subject on which he had heard the remarks of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) with great satisfaction. He quite agreed with him that it would not do for the Government of this country to be every few years tampering with its constitutional rights. He heard, therefore, with great satisfaction that the noble Earl did not intend to proceed with a certain measure which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, for the purpose of what was called a further reform in Parliament. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) thought these further reforms in Parliament most dangerous. He believed that if this question were to be agitated every ten or twenty years, the quiet and sensible part of the people would imbibe a great indifference to the popular franchise. He believed that if these changes were to be introduced, a very large section of the community would be of opinion that it would be much better to live under a mild and tranquil despotism. Well, he did not say all of the people; but a very considerable portion of them would prefer living under a mild and tranquil despotism, than to have these incessant discussions upon constitutional rights, and the constant change of those rights. He rejoiced to have the assurance of the noble Earl that this exciting question was not to be renewed by him. With respect to the Government generally, he trusted that the noble Earl who had been called on to form an Administration would be allowed to have proper time, and would not be pressed into a precipitate declaration of the precise principles upon which his Government was to be conducted, or the particular measures which they intended to propose to Parliament. He should also much regret to see any of that sort of opposition given to the Government which they might not in that place call factious opposition, but to which the public out of doors would be disposed to attach such a character.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he could not help rising to utter his protest against the censure which the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) had just thought fit to cast upon his noble Friend
910
lately at the head of the Colonial Department, for the very judicious and, in his mind, perfectly justifiable comments he had made on a most important part of the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). The noble Earl complained that his noble Friend had not taken a comprehensive view of that speech. Now he should very much object to such a course, because, if taken, it would lead to a very wide and extended discussion, which he thought on that occasion it would be best to avoid. At the same time, after the peculiar language and peculiar views held by the noble Earl opposite, he considered it perfectly right in his noble Friend near him to express the sentiments he did; and in those sentiments he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) cordially concurred. He would remind the noble Earl and the House that the question referred to had not been first brought before Parliament by his noble Friend or by the late Government, but that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) on the very first night of the Session thought it so necessary that the Government of the country should have an opinion on the subject, that he blamed the omission of such a matter in the Speech from the Throne. It was not mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech or in the Address in answer thereto; but the noble Earl thought it necessary to declare his opinion that it ought to have been noticed, and that with the price of corn which then ruled, the cultivation of wheat in this country must cease to an alarming and a dangerous degree. Well, if that was the opinion of the noble Earl on the first night of the Session, was it wonderful that when he came forward that night to make an exposition of the principles of his Government, the peculiar language he had used should be remarked upon by his noble Friend? Why, what was the language of the noble Earl? As he understood it, the noble Earl declared that his opinions remained unchanged, and when he had got a majority in his favour he would act upon them; but that until he had obtained that majority he would not act upon them; in other words, so long as the majority was adverse to his views, the present laws should continue unaltered; but that as soon as the majority went round to him, the laws should be changed. Now, he said that such language as that, coming from the head of a Government, would involve every transaction affected by these laws in incalculable uncertainty and embarrassment. Passing from that point, he must

911
next say that, although he agreed with the main part of the doctrine laid down by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) with regard to the intercourse between the Government of this country and foreign nations, there were yet some remarks that had fallen from him which, just at this particular moment, he had not heard with great satisfaction. Neither was he entirely satisfied with the mode in which he had treated another subject on which the Government ought to be more frank and explicit, but which the noble Earl had touched extremely lightly—namely, the state of what he had himself termed, on the first night of the Session, "the Protestant securities" of this country. On the opening night of the Session the noble Earl went out of his way to declare on that subject, that either the law as at present constituted was defective, or that the late Government were deficient in energy in their administration of it. The natural inference that might be drawn from these expressions was, that the present Administration intended to alter the law, or to administer it in a different spirit from their predecessors. He hoped, however, that no such inference could justly be drawn, and he hoped so particularly for the success of the Administration of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Eglinton) who, he understood, was to govern Ireland; and he was greatly relieved to hear that as yet all the Government intended to do with regard to Protestant interests was to render aid and assistance to plans of Church extension. If he did not agree with other of the noble Earl's remarks, this was not a good time for entering into them; but he must, in conclusion, repeat that, looking at the importance of all the transactions of this country, it was highly essential that his noble Friend should have expressed the opinion entertained by himself and by many others on the same side of the House, that a subject of this gravity should not be left in abeyance in the indefinite manner now proposed, but that it would be better, as soon as they had given it due consideration, to come forward and frankly and fairly avow the opinions of the Government.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid: My Lords, I wish to state very shortly the impression which the speech of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) has made upon my mind. Although the noble Earl below me (Earl Grey) has expressed very much the sentiments which I entertain, yet there are one or two points on which I wish to
912
offer a few remarks. My Lords, long and intimately connected as I had been with the eminent man (Sir Robert Peel) whose untimely fate we all deplore, and whose loss, in proportion as the difficulties of the country increase, we shall have more and more cause to lament, I think this is not an unfitting occasion—the very first which presents itself—for me to declare a determined adherence to his policy, and the resolution, as far as in my humble power lies, to carry out the great system of commercial policy which he established. My Lords, I have no right or title to speak authoritatively for others; but I shall be much surprised and disappointed if all those who supported him, with me, in establishing that policy, shall not be found to entertain the same sentiments as I now express. My noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) has described the principles upon which he considers the policy of the country on commercial matters should be guided; and he has on other occasions as well as to-night drawn a distinction between customs duties imposed for the purpose of revenue, and those imposed for the purpose of protection. The distinctions between these duties are, I confess, not very intelligible to me. They appear to me shadowy and unreal; but at all events with me, they have no application, for I am equally prepared to oppose the imposition of a duty upon corn, whether for the purposes of revenue or protection. My Lords, I think the time is past when any such tax can ever again be levied. I consider the system established by my late right hon. Friend to have been most eminently successful; and I am convinced that the persistance in that system will render its wisdom more plain, and its benefits more apparent. I therefore take this, the earliest opportunity of declaring my firm adherence to the policy of that legacy which he left behind him. I do not think it necessary to enter further into the other topics of the speech of my noble Friend. I have already adverted to that point on which I am totally at variance with him; and as far as I know there is no other subject with regard to which I may not hope to offer him my support. In all that portion of his speech which relates to the policy to be pursued towards Foreign Powers, I entirely acquiesce. My noble Friend and I have acted together for the last ten or twelve years, both in and out of office, in full concert and communication on those subjects, and I am not aware that there is

913
any shade of difference between us in that respect; and in all that he has said tonight I fully concur. On the other portions of his speech I will make no observation, nor do I think that any is called for at this moment. I can assure my noble Friend that I am aware—fully aware—of the great difficulties with which he is encompassed, and he may rely on receiving from me, whenever it lies in my power, the most cordial and the most sincere support.
LORD BROUGHAM: I hope the noble Lord at the head of the Government will have no objection to agree to the proposition that I am about to make, namely, that we should not adjourn longer than is absolutely necessary, and that there is nothing to prevent us from meeting next week upon judicial business. Our sittings have already been interrupted—I am aware, almost unavoidably so; but I think that, if possible, we ought to meet next week for causes. There is another thing I wish to know from my noble Friend. He has stated, clearly enough, that all subjects are to remain for a certain time in abeyance, with only one exception, that of questions relating to social improvement. Now I hope and trust he included under the head "social improvement," that great and most important subject, the amendment of the law. I have no doubt that he meant so to include it; but I think he did not mention it by name. With respect to the conversation on the subject of the corn laws, I wish that it could have been avoided, and I do not mean to enter upon it even for a moment—not that I differ at all from my noble Friend near me upon that great question (Earl Grey); and of his alarm I for a moment partook, from what was stated by the noble Earl. But I think I heard something more than my noble Friend can have done, which at once quieted my apprehensions; for I think the noble Earl stated that these were his individual opinions, but that whether the Government were prepared to act upon those opinions, or to introduce measures grounded upon them, must depend upon what is the general opinion of the country—to which proposition I entirely accede, and would be the first myself to subscribe. How that general opinion is to be taken—[A laugh]—at what time it is to be taken, I am not aware. I certainly do not think I have said anything to excite mirth, for I understood the noble Earl to say, and I
914
was happy to hear it, that a dissolution in the present state of affairs was out of the question; and that the opinion of the country being only obtained by a dissolution, the appeal to it must, of course, be postponed till that event. In the meantime, whatever other measures do not depend on that event, and do not depend on the opinion of the country, such measures (I understood the noble Earl to say) will be proceeded with. I repeat that I hope he meant that the amendment of the law is among those measures; for it is a subject which, if it ought not to stand the very first amongst questions of "social improvement," at least ranks second to no other.
The EARL of DERBYreplied: I have to thank the noble and learned Lord for affording me an opportunity of explaining more clearly my meaning. With regard to the question of law reform, I think I did state, as I certainly intended to state, that, exclusive of those great party questions in which it is notorious that the Government are in a minority, and which they would, therefore, only bring forward with the certainty of defeat—exclusive of those more exciting topics, we shall propose to Parliament to deal with those great measures generally called for by the country—legal reform and social improvement; and I am sure that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, when he has taken his seat in this House, will apply his vigorous powers of mind to the consideration of that subject, and the promotion of those objects which were recommended by the Chancery Commissioners in their Report. With regard to the subject of the adjournment of this House, I am about to propose that the House should only adjourn, as usual, till Monday next; and on that day it may be seen whether it is not possible to proceed with the judicial business. In the meantime, your Lordships will understand, that if the House sits, it will only sit for the transaction of judicial or of private business; and that no matter of more general interest shall be dealt with while the House of Commons finds it necessary to adjourn until the re-election of the Members of the Government who have seats there.
LORD BROUGHAM: Doubtless the House, without a formal resolution, will come to the understanding which the noble Earl has stated, not to proceed with any thing but private business.
House adjourned to Monday next.