19tbatts anb iiirocetainga in JarIiament.

COMMERCIAL P9LICT ON mien Govraszmonm.

The formal debate on the Ministerial propositions, in the House of Commons, commenced on Monday. The interest, both within and without. the House, was as great as on the evening when the new policy was un- folded. The strangers gallery was thronged, and the attendance of Mem- bers was unusually numerous. Piles of petitions lay on the floor and on the Members' seats, waiting a St moment for presentation. Lord Mor- peth's appearance at the bar, as Member for the West Riding of York- shire, was hailed with loud cheers by the Liberals: he was accompanied to the table by Mr. Byng and Lord John Russell; the aged Mr. Byng being himself supported by the arms of Lord Marcus Hill and Mr. Tnfnell.

The petitions presented from both sides of the House were numerous; but so far as signatures are concerned the Free-traders showed the moat. One petition attracted considerable attention: it was from fourteen labourers living in the village of Pewsoy, in Wiltshire—

They represented, that, so far from having profited by the operation of a law now professedly maintained for their especial benefit, their condition was one of destitution and degradation; the miserable wages allowed them being so nicely calculated as to be just sufficient to keep off starvation and prevent them from availing themselves of the workhouse. Not one of the petitioners was earning more than 6s. in the week; and out of this pittance some of them had to main- tain a wife and eight children. The aggregate weekly income was 4/. 2g.: the persons dependent for support upon that sum amounted to 76; so that the allowance to each was less than 2d. per day. The petitioners prayed for the total abolition of the Corn-laws.

Previously to the debate, Sir ROBERT PEEL corrected a mistake which bad occurred in his reply to a question last week— He had stated, that so soon as the House should affirm any resolution on the subject of the new Tariff, and allow the resolution to be reported, the Government would immediately permit the reduction in the duties to take place, such being the general usage. Upon this Lord John Russell had asked if the Corn-duties would be dealt with in the same way; and on the spur of the moment Sir Robert Peel stated that such would be the case; his impression being that the Treasury were in the practice of dealing with the Corn-duties in the same way as with other duties. That impression he had found to be erroneous; the practice being to make the reduction in Corn-duties take effect from the passing of the act. To this rale the Treasury would continue to adhere: but as it was of much import- ance that the decision of Parliament should be given as early as possible, it was the intention of the Government to give preference to the Corn Bill over all other parts of the general measure: it would be proceeded with before any other mea- sure connected with the Tariff; and, provided it met the sanction of the House of Commons, it would at once be sent to the Lords.

On the motion that the Speaker " do now leave the chair," in order that the House should go into Committee on the Customs and Corn-importation Acts

Mi. PHILIP MLLES moved, as an amendment, that the House "will upon this day six months resolve itself into the said Committee." He said he could not see any necessity for departing from a course of policy which had been pursued in this country from the earliest period of its history, and under which it had risen to great eminence—

True, there has been a failure of the potato crop in Ireland; but the crop in this country has been very large. That famine is not apprehended, is shown by the fact that wheat is at 56s. a quarter; a price which in 1842 Sir Robert Peel thought a fair one. Taking prices into account, and the circumstance that Sir Robert's colleagues had refused to assent to the opening of the ports, Mr. Miles was led to think that the cause of protection had been long doomed in the mind of the Minister, and that the propositions now made had sealed its fate. He did not deny that there were parts of the measure from which benefit would be derived; but he deemed the continuance of a moderate amount of protection essential to the welfare of the country. He had brought forward his motion not on account of the agricultural interest alone, but of all the interests of the country: he was connected with them all. He knew the difficulties which stood in his way in the House; but he should not be disheartened, knowing that a Large and influential party without the walls held opinions in accordance with his own.

One chief objection entertained by Mr. Miles to the proposed measures was, that he could see no end to them: every session would bring additional change; and when all these things are considered, he thought the opinion of the constitu- encies ought to be taken before the measures are allowed to pass. He did not think that the recent prosperity of the country was altogether to be attributed to the measures of Sir Robert Peel. When Sir Robert succeeded to office, trade was in a bad state, owing mainly to a succession of bad harvests. Railroad specula- tion sprang up; labour came to be in demand; prices rose; and the termi- nation of the wars in India and China gave a great impetus to trade. Adding to these the succession of good harvests, he could not admit that the prosperity boasted of was attributable entirely to Sr Robert Peel's policy. Neither was the state of exports a test of prosperity. The foreign markets had been glutted— China and India had been inundated—with British goods. When the proposed

measure passed into law, the country would be inundated with foreign g , to the discouragement of the home trade. Wages on railroads and public works might fora time be higher, but reduction would soon come. In many things the manufacturer possessed a great advantage over the farmer: his establishment was much better conducted—(Laugliter)—he could exercise a better control over his servants and he was not so heavily burdened with taxation. On this point Sir Robert 'eel's professed compensation was altogether inadequate; and Mr. Miles believed that the agriculturists would almost have been better pleased had nothing at all been offered. As to the Colonies, Mr. Miles thought the Ministerial scheme most imperfect. If the principle of the Canada Corn Bill were generally extended, he would not withhold his support. If Free-trade principles were to prevail, they ought to be extended to the Colonies; and the manufacturer of this country ought not to be allowed to have a monopoly of the Colonial market.

Sir WILLtard HEATHCOTE seconded the amendment; remarking that he would not imitate the example of those who charged Sir Robert Peel with dishonesty in submitting his new propositions—

The plan professed to be a great and comprehensive scheme of free trade; which it was not; but even if it had been impartial, he would still have looked upon It as a step in a downward course leading to evil. He was not afraid to avow that the I relation of the last twenty years in the same direction had produced

greater evils than had been supposed; but the extent had been concealed through the enormous growth of our Colonial trade. But now, for the first time, Govern- ment was declaring itself against the continuance of the Colonial policy, and was taking the first step towards severing connexion between the Colonies and the Mother-country.

In the course of his argument, Sir William adverted to a difficulty which pre- sented itself to those Members who sat on his side of the House—the risk of

upsetting the Government by opposing the Ministerial scheme. But as Sir Robert Peel had claimed credit to himself for not being actuated by personal objects, he ought to concede to his supporters the possession of the same motives; and if on their deciding against those measures, the right honourable Baronet were induced to throw up the Government, why, on him, and not on those who generally sup- ported Ilim, would be the responsibility attending such a course. For his own part, although thus differing from Sir Robert Peel on one important point, he would not be induced to withhold from him :a general support. -Mr. Wittaard LASCELLES did not see why the Ministerial measure shotild be made a test of Conservative policy. On the eve of the last general election, he had denied that restrictive principles belonged to the Con- amerative party. The great task which devolved upon the gentlemen sit- ting on the Ministerial benches was to refute the proposition that the result of all experience without a single exception confirmed every theory of the most eminent political economists in favour of free trade—

To this rule there was no exception; and he did not believe that when it was applied to agriculture there would be any exception in that case more than in the others. Painful as it was to do anything to break those party ties which so often cemented private friendship, he could not help expressing the satisfaction he felt in reflecting that be had laboured to place the right honourable Baronet in the position in which he stood, in the full confidence that he would apply his great knowledge, his undoubted powers, to the satisfactory settlement of the question before them.

Lord NORRETS expressed his regret at being obliged from a sense of duty not only to oppose the measure, but to withdraw all confidence from Sir Robert Peel's Administration— He disapproved of the .course adopted on many occasions of condemning Sir Robert Peel before his measures were known, and of pledging Members to adopt a certain line of conduct in the absence of all positive information as to the bear- ing of the meaanres to be proposed. He also condemned the practice of asking Members of Parliament, by letter or by deputation, to say how they intended to vote. For himself, he considered, after the letter of Lord Jelin Russell and the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, that the question of protection was entirely altered, and that the only course open to agricultural Members was to wait and see what the measures were, and then do the best they could under all the circumstances for the agriculturists. Such a proposal, however, as that which had been sub- mitted by Sir Robert Peel, he never could have contemplated. Sir Robert had on one occasion taunted Mr. Macaulay with nonadherence to his political principles, in words which were now exactly adapted to Sir Robert himself : the agricul- turists, like Mr. Macaulay's constituents formerly, "may find in the passionate exclamation of Dido the fit expression of their sorrow-

" Nusquam testa Ades.'

You remain deaf to their entreaties; you have nothing but the-miserable answer of ./Enass, after all his coquetting- "' Won hoe in leaders veal':

gave you no pledges.' "

Mr. Barri re COCHRANE remarked, that some persons, in arguing the maintenance of the Corn-laws, bad asserted that a matter of Chrisrian principle was involved: he could see no principle at all in the question, except one of policy—

Sir Robert Peel had been charged with inconsistency, and Hansard had been quoted against him: but Hansard Vas an arsenal in which every army might find its weapons; Mr. Canning had changed one way, Lord Ashburton has now changed the other way. There was a good deal of truth in a dictum of the late Mr. Sydney Smith, that " the Minister who proposed an unalterable law was an unalterable fool." The present Government possessed the confidence of the na- tion: in connexion with its proposed measure, it was a circumstance worthy of remark, that the commercial prosperity of this country had extended, and that its great wealth had grown up under free institutions principally under Tory Ministers, all in favour of the relaxation of commercial restrictions: such were Lord North, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Huskisson, and Mr. Canning. Mr. WILLIAm DEEDES expressed the readiness be would have felt to sup- port a proposition for opening the ports, if it had been considered necessary for the relief of Ireland. But although the ports had been opened, it did not necessarily follow that the law of 1842, which had worked so well for all interests, should be abolished. Many of the proposed alterations were good in themselves, but he thought there was no necessity for mixing thexii up with a revision of the Corn-laws.

Sir JOHN WALSH recapitulated the usual arguments against the re- moval of protection. He also reviewed the arguments of several Free-trade authorities—

He considered it impossible for the two great party leaders in the House of Commons to advocate repeal upon any other principle than that it would not be i injurious to the agricultural interest. This was a great leap in the dark, and his own conviction was that the measure proposed was a hazardous and perilous ex- periment Ireland, too, was involved. There were two links and bonds of union with that country: one was the trade in agricultural produce, the other the Pro- testant Church of Ireland. If the one be destroyed, the other may experience a similar fate.

Mr. ALEXANDER Horn doubted how far the present House of Commons could consider themselves legally cognizant of the present question— They were returned in 1841 as a Protectionist Parliament, and Sir Robert Peel was the leader. It was true that the Premier had told them that his measures were consistent with true Conservative policy. In days long gone by, there was a Prime Minister who also possessed vast power; but he experienced a fall. single expression produced a most important effect upon the destiny of that Minister: he used the words " Ego et Rex meus"—from that moment hispower declined. The Minister of the present day, if he acted on the same principle and used similar language, saying, " I and my party," might find his power as un- stable as that of Wolsey. Lord SANDON had not been convinced by the arguments adduced by Sir Robert Peel that his new policy was the right one; and yet he had resolved to support it— He feared the effect would be to render the sphere of competition larger and larger; and he saw no ground in the experience of three years peculiar and arti- ficial circumstances to justify the risk. The danger was not so great even to the landlords as it was to the farmers and labourers. These and other reasons had induced him to consider well before assenting to so great a change. But the coun- try must be governed. Upon a question like protection, he thought that unless it was supported by the great mass of enlightened opinion, there was no chance of its maintaining its ground, in such a country as this. Me knew that when opin- ions hostile to protection had been pronounced by the great leaders on both sides of the House, and that it was now opposed by all the gentlemen who had ever sat in the Government except two, it was no longer a matter for discussion; but the onZ question was the way of doing it. He looked upon it, as the French said, as un crit accompli—it was settled. It might be railed against, but the country must governed; and when the only persons who could govern the country were of one opinion, the sooner it was settled the better it would be for all parties. Let the gentlemen around him struggle and resist, there might be months or a year of embitterment, during which they might unsettle every branch of trade, and agriculture itself; but they must come to the same result. He saw, there- fore, that it was only a question of time. He did not feel the same excessive ap- prehensions from the experiment as some others did, otherwise he would have been prepared to act with them. He thought Government were taking a dan- gerous step; but he did not think that millions of acres would be thrown out o cultivation in consequence, or that millions of labourers would be thrown out of employment. He saw in the act, indeed, a hazardous experiment: at the same lime, not sharing to their full extent in the apprehensions felt by others, and not seeing how, in the result, they. must not ultimately come to what was now pro- posed, he felt bound to give it his support. The Corn-laws were not a question of religion, of faith, or of morals; and he must pursue that course which he believed to be most consistent with the real interests of the country. Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the motion; remarking that he was the first to rise on the Opposition side of the House, and that he could give his support with better heart and hope than Lord Sandon.

Lord John began with some general arguments in favour of removing protec- tion. He admitted that the theoretical writers had thrown little light on the proper mode of effecting the transition to a different state; and he allowed that the transition could not be made without the risk at least of some suffering. He derived courage, however, from the success which has attended the dreaded transition from prohibition to protection made by Mr. Hnskisson, and recently by Sir Robert Peel

Sir Robert Peel now proposes to go beyond the reduction of protective duties to their absolute removal. " I am of opinion, that if the right honourable gentle- man had undertaken this task in 1842 in a different spirit, and had made a far greater reduction in the duties on corn than he then made, it would have been better for the agriculturists as a body, and better for the country in general: but as matters stand now, I am ready to say, seeing the contest that is going un- seeing the struggle that would go on if you attempted any intermediate step either of a sliding scale over a few shillings or a small fixed duty—I am prepared to say, as indeed I have already said in public, that I think the abolition of the duty IS the most expedient course for a Government to propose to Parliament. Con- sidering the plan of the right honourable gentleman as a great measure—as a mea- sure that is to lay the foundation of a completely new principle with regard to our commercial legislation,—that principle being neither to foster one trade nor the other, neither to attempt to promote agriculture nor manufactures, but to leave them ' to flourish or to fade' according to the energies and skill of the people of this country —and believing that is the Bound principle, I am prepared to give every support I can to the plan brought forward by the right honourable gentleman." With regard to the new system of Corn-duties proposed by Sir Robert Peel for three years, everything tended to strengthen the opinion expressed by Lord John in December in favour of immediate change. The farmers ex- claim—" If we are to have the system of free trade instead of protection let us know at once what that system is to be." If there is any danger to the English farmer from competition, it can only be increased by the lapse of time; and the circumstances of the present year, with the failure of the crops abroad, render it to him peculiarly favourable for the change. " I think, the way in which the immediate prospect of the duty being reduced to 4s. has been encountered in the market,—for, I believe, the price of corn has generally rather risen than other- wise,—is a proof that there is no great danger at the present moment. If there be any danger to encounter, it is when, both on the Continent of Europe and in the United States, preparations are made, the ground has been cultivated, and the seed has been sown, with a view to send in large supplies to the English market, and then at that very moment the duty is to cease. It is as if the right honour- able gentleman were to furnish the farmer with a greatcoat provided he wore it only in the summer, and were to make it a condition that he should take it off when Christmas arrived. I will put it to the right honourable gentleman whether he will not reconsider that part of his plan. (Loud cheers.) But, as I have al- ready said, I wish the plan of the right honourable gentleman to succeed; I wish to see his measure with respect to corn successful in this and the other House of Parliament; and no vote of mine shall tend in the least to endanger a measure of such a character. If, therefore, when we come into Committee the right honour- able gentleman tells me that he has considered the representations made from various parts of the country, but that upon the whole he considers the delay of three years and the duty to be imposed in the mean time an essential part of his plan, I for my part shall go out with the right honourable gentleman upon it." (Loud cheers.) Much need not be said with regard to other parts of the plan. Sugar might for the present be passed over. Duties on manufactures, of a protective kind, unless yielding a large amount of revenue, ought, in justice to the agriculturist, to be removed altogether: they ought to be shown that protection is abandoned as a principle vicious in itself and injurious to the country. Sir Robert Peel has proposed to give relief with respect to certain local burdens: those amendments of the law are upon their own ground just; but no compensation ought to be offered. Formerly Lord John had doubts whether the land did not sustain more than its due share of local burdens: but he found that whenever a proposal for inquiry was made, it was resisted; which made him suspect that a case could not be made out. If he had had to propose a scheme, it might have differed from Sir Robert Peel's; but there would not have been any more very material relief. Sir Robert had this alternative—either to devote the surplus in the exchequer to the equali- zation of burdens, or to remove those burdens by an increase of taxation. " Now, that increase of taxation, I think, would be a most inexpedient course. I believe it would expose the landed interest to very great unpopularity; I believe nothing they could gain in point of money would be equal to the odium which would at- tach to them, if it was to be said that the taxes of the country were to be in- creased in order to provide a compensation for the abolition of the Corn-laws. For these reasons, therefore, I say at once that I concur in the general scheme of the right honourable gentleman. I wish that the repeal had been immediate in- stead of deferred; bat, in the present state of affairs, seeing the attachment that there is on the part of a large portion of the community to this protective system, I think the advantage so great of getting rid of that system as respects corn in three years, and of almost every other protection giving way immediately after- wards, unless it be really some case which will bear argument, that I am unwil- ling to disturb in any way the settlement of this question." Lord John notic.d a remark by Mr. Lascelles, that the present measures would be more successfully carried by those now in power than by the Whigs. Plans of moderating duties are not properly Whig measures, nor are they exclusively Tory measures; and when such plans were proposed by the Whig Ministers in 1841, they were opposed by many who would have supported them but who were pre- vented by party ties. Mr. Lascelles was an honourable exception to that rule. But if Sir Robert Peel is more able to carry these plans, it will be by the aid of the Opposition. (" Hear, hear!" from Sir Robert Peel and some other Mem- bers.) " If the right honourable gentleman has the glory of adopting plans of commercial freedom which will benefit his country, which will enable the poor man to get a better reward for his labour, which will increase the demand for all the productions of this country, and which, after these questions are settled, will I hope, open the way to the moral improvement of the people of this country, hitherto prevented by their want of adequate means of comfort,—if the right honourable gentleman has the glory of carrying a measure fraught with such large and beneficial results, let ours be the solid satisfaction, that, out of office, we have associated together for the purpose of aiding and assisting the triumph of the Minister of the Crown." (Much cheering.) Sir ROBERT INGLIS commented severely on those who deserted Pro- tection— It must have afforded no small amusement to his honourable friends opposite to see those on his side firing into each other's ships. He sneered at the discrepancy -between Lord Sandon's speech and vote. He deplored the abandonment of a policy under which this country has flourished for centuries; arguing that it has promoted an equability of prices that has not prevailed abroad; and quoting a newspaper remark against bringing up a people on the cheapest possible food, as they have nothing to fall back upon in times of scarcity. He did not accuse his right honourable friend of sordid motives; he was satisfied that his recent changes were dictated by motives most pure and honourable—he could be actuated by no conceivable motive but a sense of duty. Precisely in proportion, however, was he to be distrusted; for if be were now a great statesman, all his former pro- positions must be wrong, and all his past conduct that not of a statesman—he mast hold himself as having hitherto acted as a statesman who was insensible to the real wants and necessities of the country. There was his noble friend (Lord John Russell)—whatever he said—if he said he would carry out the Appro- priation-clause, or that he would support the Established Church—he might be relied upon for making good to the utmost of his power. Sir Robert Inglis would rather trust an enemy who would tell him what he meant to do, than one who— he would not exactly call him an enemy—(Ironical ckeers.from the Ministerial benches)—but one who had acted as the right honourable Baronet had done; for the right honourable Baronet could not fail to see how he had brokeu up a great party. He deeply deplored that event; but he should, if possible, say nothing to excite an angry feeling.

Major FITZ1iA.UR1C.E deprecated these eternal changes, and the abandon- ment of protection; and suggested an alternative measure—

It appeared to him, that a most beneficial change might have been tirade in the Corn-law by the trifling alteration of taking the averages by weight instead of by measure. They would then have had bread' and wheat at corresponding prices; whereas now the case was quite the reverse. The effect of this alteration, too, would have been to destroy the great monopolists in Mark Lane.

For his part, he preferred the bold manly. system of Mr. Cobden, to the mince- meat, lady-like interference of the Premier; to whom the farmer might turn round and in the bitterness of his disappointment exclaim- " Blow, blow, thou wintry wind ;

Thou art not so unkind

As man's ingratitude." (Laughter.) Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT combated some representations that there was no sufficient dearth in Ireland to warrant the proposed interference; which he proceeded to vindicate on more general grounds— He avowed that the law of 1842has failed on its first serious trial by adverse circumstances. It is the fact that the food of the country is deficient in quantity and inferior in quality. He regretted even now that the measure of summarily opening the ports had not been agreed to by Government. In cases of public emergency, promptness and vigour ought to be exercised—(" Hear, hear!" from the Opposaton)--and under those circumstances, he thought, if Government had undertaken the responsibility, the battle would have been half won. Lord Sandon had expressed his regret that the measure should have been proposed by Sir Robert Peel's Government: "I have no hesitation in saying," continued Mr. Her- bert, " that I held the same opinion, and that I strongly advocated the necessity of incrusting it to other hands than ours. The noble Lord [John Russell] is a recent convert to free trade; but I think that, as latterly lie bas, from his party connexions, been so much mixed up with the cause, he had a better right than we had to bring forward this measure; and I for one should have been heartily glad if he had undertaken its conduct." He regretted Lord John's insinuation that the Whig Ministry could have carried the measure if supported by Sir Ro- bert Peel's friends.

Lord Join; RUSSELL—" I alluded to the year 1841. I did not refer to any-

thing that has recently occurred." •

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT—" Then I must have misunderstood the noble Lord. But I must say, that the support we volunteered to him was spontaneously and cordially tendered; and we stated to the noble Lord the grounds on which we felt that a private concert between the leaders of parties would have been resented by the House of Commons as an infringement of their rights of free deliberation. The noble Lord admitted the truth and soundness of those arguments; but I will say, for my right honourable friend and myself', that no support could have been more frankly offered, or would have been more cordially and heartily given, than that which we tendered to him."

Mr. Herbert went on to combat the exaggerated fears of the change; showing

that corn cannot be imported at extravagantly low rates; and asking for proof how the country could be injured by extended commerce. But there were other reasons more cogent. He felt that it was more consistent with honour—(A loud cry of " Oh ohr from the Ministerial side. Mr. Herbert pound, and then con- tinued.) He was not speaking of the honour of the Government, or of his own personal honour: that, he thought had been satisfied. "After much doubt on a question on which I had entertained fixed opinions, reluctantly, slowly, I changed my opinions. I did not make light of party engagements. I saw these evils. I knew the intimidation that would arise; I knew of the threats that would be held out of what I should experience if I visited my constituents, because I had chosen, in the exercise of my duty, to follow the dictates of my conscience rather than of personal interest. I speak in no tone of bravado; for if such a punishment were to be inflicted on me, it would be to me a matter of the deepest mortification: but I counted the cost of these things. I knew that my duty to the country required that I should not stand here as the delegate of a mere local interest, to make a scramble with other delegates to get as much as 1 could from the general pickings. I thought that such a position it would be disgraceful in me to hold, and one which my constituents never dreamt of imposing on me; and, thereupon, I acted as I have done. So much, Sir, for my personal honour." The honour he spoke of was that of the landed interest only and now is the time to concede with honour, when there is no appearance that the concession is extorted by vio- knee. The agitation of the League has been that not of force but of reason; but to that agitation, some day, force may be added. On the subject of the Corn- laws the state of the public mind has altered since 1815, when Lord Liverpool and the men of that time brought it forward as an exception tea recognized principle. " It has been so dealt with ever since. In 1841, when the noble Lord opposith brought forward his budget, I frankly avowed my complete adhesion to the prin- ciples of free trade, but I objected to the mode of their application to corn. I said that corn was an exception from them, on account of the rapidity with which they would be applied. But now the public mind is enlarged upon the subject. You have men Of all classes, of all shades, of all colours, and engaged in all domestic pursuits, beginning to think that one part of the community has a benefit over another. Then, if we are to stand upon such ground as that, we stand upon a mine, upon a rotten footing; and we cannot maintain it."

" It has been said, that party is part of our constitution. I think it is contrary

to the whole spirit of our constitution. I am not one of those who wish to see the constitution of this country rendered more Democratic than it is; I cannot think that the public mind wishes it to be more Democratic than it is. I think late events have rather shown that the mantles of despotic Kings who disgraced the world have fallen upon Democratic rather than upon temperate and mixed Go- vernments. I wish to see the Aristocratic element preserved in our constitution; and it is upon that account I say, do not peril it on a question in which your motives may be impugned, when once you are convinced, as I am; that these laws are not for the good of the community. I say that, with that opinion, no earthly power can induce me to rise from this bench to defend them." Within the last fifty years great changes have taken place in the constitution of the country. The manufacturing power has incread to an enormous degree: it has become a permanent element in our society; it is the great source of our maritime power; by extending it you are able to carry your institutions into every part of the world, to civilize and exalt the remotest and wildest regions: the men who con- tribute to those advantages are entitled to a full share of the advantages of the state. He awaited to see the two interests of agriculture and manufacture firmly united; and he believed that the Government measure tended to that union. He should regret to see the influential class of country gentlemen debased even by the suspicion of interested motives; and he called upon them to improve the opportunity of repairing the greatest error ever committed by any body of men- the law of 1815.

After Mr. Herbert's speech the debate was adjourned, about one o'clock.

The adjourned debate was opened on Tuesday by Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN; who addressed himself particularly to the speeches of Lord John Russell and Mr. Sidney Herbert, criticizing particular passages— In adverting to the change of opinion among the members of the Government, Mr. O'Brien remarked, that it was his wish to say nothing offensive; but the disappointment was too bitter, too great, and too general, to be disguised any longer from a fear of personal offence. Mr. Herbert had asserted that the law of 1842 had failed; but the word "failure" might be understood in two ways—had it failed to the Sidney Herbert of last year, or the Sidney Herbert of this? And how was it possible to frame a law which would satisfy both those gentlemen? As to Ireland, he did not hesitate to say that there never was a country which milled more urgently for measures of relief; but the supporters of the Ministerial scheme had failed to show that the relief demanded would be supplied by its adoption. Mr. Herbert had mentioned that he lived in the midst of a population as to whom he scarcely knew how they existed: but he might be told that the poverty which existed in the agricultural districts was greatly to be attributed to the landowners themselves. In Northamptonshire the labourers lived in comfort; their wages from 12s. to 14s. a week. Mr. O'Brien proceeded to a general attack on political economy, and the applicability of the abstract doctrines of political science, quoted by Lord John Russell, to the case of British industry; and he specially condemned the coldhearted maxim of "buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest" He protested against the proposed changes; although he confessed the opinion that the effect of sudden repeal would not be to throw a large quantity of land into the market nor to deteriorate the price. If it were a landlord's question at all, it would only apply to the small holders. The tenant- farmer was the most deeply involved; and unless the landlord acted towards him with better faith and kindlier feeling than the agricultural interest itself had ex- perienced at the hands of others, the tenant-farmer must go forth to the world a ruined man.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD wished particularly to view the question in its relation to Ireland—

He differed from Mr. Stafford O'Brien, and the majority of Irish landlords, in thinking that the Corn-laws did not benefit that country. His own conviction was, that dear food was the greatest curse that could be inflicted upon the Irish people. Nothing promoted the happiness of a community so much as cheap bread ; and if the Corn-laws were repealed, the Irish landlords would find employment for their capital in the cultivation of their estates.

Mr. HENRY BAILLIE feared that the effect of the proposed measure would be to inundate the country with foreign manufactures, to the great injury and it may be the annihilation of our native manufactures. Neither did he think that the British farmer could compete with foreign producers; and one of the consequences would be dependence upon foreigners for a large, instead of, as at present, a small portion of food. Still, rather than .run the risk of Lord John Russell's return to power, he would vote with Ministers.

Mr. LEFROY, as an Irish Member, differed with Mr. Sharman Crawford, in thinking that free trade in corn would not benefit Ireland. The adoption of the Ministerial plan, he contended at some length, would cause a double share of privation, distress and misery, in that country.

Lord CLEMENTS directed the attention of Mr. Stafford O'Brien to the fact that in Ireland corn was grown at the cheapest rate and sold in the dearest market; and what was the condition of the people? Why, nothing could be more melancholy, destitute, or deplorable, than the condition of the labouring population— He bore testimony to the accuracy of the details supplied by the Times Com- missioner; and read an extract from the report of Lord Devon's Commission, showing the miserable condition of the labouring population. For himself; he had hardly known a summer pass in his own country without the occurrence of a scarcity: as to present prospects, they were gloomy; but the issuing of the com- mission to inquire into the state of the potato crop had operated beneficially, in forewarning the people of the necessity of self-reliance and exertion. Many per- sons in his neighbourhood had not yet paid for the food they were obliged to buy last summer; and who would give them credit for what was required this sum- mer? A clearer idea of the state of the people might be gained from a report of the trustees of a fund in the county of Leitrim; in which it was stated, among other facts, that in one parish a population of 21,225 persons lived in houses of the annual value altogether, including the market-town, of 221/. 18s. The re- turns given of the Mohill Union were of a remarkable character; for there, the occupiers who did not pay rates, or rather those whose holdings were valued at 41. and under, amounted to 6,104; and, in the Carrick Union—a fact no less extra- ordinary—while the number of those paying rates were 10,344, those not paying rates were 5,742: and, from those returns it would be seen, as regarded the latter locality, that 26,175 acres were altogether in the occupation of persons unable to pay rates, or who did not pay them.

Lord Clements concluded by declaring, that he would support the Ministerial scheme with great pleasure; but with still greater if Sir Robert Peel would con- sent to make the abolition of the Corn-laws immediate.

The Marquis of GRANBY addressed himself to some Anti-Corn-law arguments; and arrived at the conclusion that much risk was involved in the adoption of the proposed measures. He advised those gentlemen who entertained doubts on the question to pause before they plunged into "a vortex of revolution."

Mr. GREGORY declared his adhesion to the Ministerial policy; explaining his views in a long and elaborate but spirited Free-trade essay—

He contended that agriculture had flourished in spite of protection, and not in consequence of it. He reminded the agricultural Members of the alarms ex- pressed at the proposal to allow Irish produce to be imported duty-free into Eng- land, and of similar apprehensions when the Tariffof 1842 was premed; all of ce

'which had been dissipated by experience. He referred to the baffled efforts of Napoleon to prevent the exportation of corn to England; and to the fact that during the war the cordage which was required for the Navy was supplied by countries with which England was at war at the time. He adduced these facts as a reply to the objection that foreign powers may combine and withhold their agricultural produce. He contended that farming ought to be conducted on the fixed principles of trade; and thought it was an insult to the English farmer to tell him that he was unable to compete with the boors of Russia and Prussia. As to Ireland, the circumstance of Mr. O'Connell's being in favour of free trade was good proof that he did not believe the effect would be to render the people poorer, and consequently the less able to pay their contributions. Mr. Gregory thought the present was a peculiarly fitting time for introducing the new policy: there was general prosperity, and no great quantity of corn abroad to be brought in to the derangement of the home market. Had the measure been submitted at an earlier period, it would not have come with the same weight of authority. Mr. Cobden had unquestionably reaped imperishable fame from the talent and energy he had displayed in this controversy; but would pt have been wise or right to yield to a priori arguments—interested a priori arguments—until those argu- ments had had their foundation based upon experience? Lord BROOKE expressed his regret, that on rising in Parliament for the first time, he should be under the necessity of opposing Sir Robert PeeL Justice to his constituents, however, as well as to his own convictions, com- pelled him to adopt this course—

He was quite willing to give every credit to the Premier for sincere and proper motives in adopting his new course; but many of his supporters could not lay claim to the same credit. Their change of opinion was so sudden as to look like miraculous: but Lord Sandon had given the interpretation. Lord Brooke thought that these gentlemen had grown old with the Parliament, which they all knew was near its dissolution; and everybody was aware that when men became very old, and near their latter end, they generally lost the proper use of their faculties: great loss of memory had been displayed by agricultural Members in forgetting their pledges, and proposing to sign away the property of their constituents.

Lord WonsLEx quoted largely from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, to mark the change which had taken place in their opinions— In 1839, when Sir Robert assailed the Whig. position, he repudiated any tam- pering with the Corn-laws; described in glowing language the progress of agri- cultural improvement; and stated that although England was to become the workshop of the world," still his party would not forget, amid all the ,presages of complete happiness, that " it had been under the influence of protection to agri- culture, continued for two hundred years, that the fen has been drained, the wild heath reclaimed, the health of a whole people improved, their life prolonged, and all this not at the expense of manufacturing prosperity but concurrently with its wonderful advancement." Sir James Graham's rural attachments were equally strong. He said—" A change more creel could despotism itself inflict than a change from the breezy call of incense-breathing morn, to a painful and grievous obedience to the sad sound of the factory bell—the relinquishment of the thatched cottage, the blooming garden, and the village-green, for the foul garret or the dark cellar of the crowded city—the enjoyment of the rural walk of the innocent rustic Sabbath, for the debauchery, the temptations, the pestilence, the sorrows, and the sins of a congregated multitude?" Lord Worsley quoted from speeches delivered by the same parties in 1842 in connexion with the new Corn-law; show- ing that the principle of protection was still upheld. Mr. George Smythe, the new Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Gladstone, the Secretary for the Colonies, expressed similar attachments; the latter asserting that the present Parliament was pledged to the maintenance of protection. Lord Worsley maintained that the success of the proposed measure must not be considered as settling the question. At the next general election' the farmers would not only urge their representatives to resist the repeal of the Corn-laws in 1849, but would urge them to obtain relief from unequal taxation. He repudiated the notion that he and others who entertained similar opinions were actuated by selfish motives; and in proof, mentioned that he intended to vote for the reduction of the Timber-duties—a measure which would affect the interests of landlords but not of tenants. He warned Sir Robert Peel against relying upon his oppo- nents for support: nothing tended more to the breaking up of the Whig Govern- ment than the persevering cry that went through the country from the Carlton Club, that Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell were kept in power by the support of Mr. O'Connell.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM prefaced his address by mentioning that the chief cause of his rising was the able and powerful speech of Mr. Stafford O'Brien; but his first answer was directed to the last speaker— He did not blame Lord Worsley for referring to his former opinions. " I admit that the past declarations of opinion made by a Member of this House, who either leads or aspires to lead a party, and declarations made by a first Minister of the Crown, if at variance with the course he now adopts, are subjects not unworthy of reference, and which call for explanation. Thehonourable Member for North- amptonshire made a direct appeal to the Government, and challenges us, if we had changed our opinions, manfully to own it. I answer that challenge. I do frankly avow my change of opinion; and by that avowal I dispose of all the speeches —(Loud cheers from the Opposition, with counter-cheers from the Protection benches, rendered inaudible the rest of the sentence.) I act on the advice given by the honourable Member for Northamptonshire: I was prepared to make that avowal; it was my duty to make it, and I do make it. I only ask the House to have patience, and to indulge me while I point out both the reasons of the change and the grounds on which I submit that I stand in a position worthy of a Mem- ber of this House, and that I have been influenced by considerations which ought to be entertained by one occupying the position in which I am placed. Now, what are the tests by which a change of opinion on the part of a particular Mem- ber are to be tried. The first test, I think, ought to be this—does the change of opinion promote his personal interest? Perhaps, under the circumstances, I may be allowed for a moment to say that all I possess in the world belongs to me as a landlord; I have nothing to hope for or to look to except in the possession of landed property. I have inherited that property—a large tract of inferior soil; and I can confidently say of my private position as a land- lord, that if this change be injurious to the landed interests, it will affect me as seriously as anylanded proprietor in this House. (Cheers.) Now as to my position as a Minister of the Crown, allow me to ask you to apply this test—does my change of opinion as a Minister of the Crown tend to increase or strengthen the power of Government? Why, can there be a doubt, after the scene of the last two evenings in the course of the debate on this side of the House, that my right honourable friend, who before the commencement of the session, he being the chosen leafier and possessing the confidence of a great party in this House, and also immense influence out of this House, so far from gaining strength to his party, has done that which it has been already said has dissolved his party, by the conduct which he has pursued from a sense of public duty? (Cheers.) I will try another test, and it shall be the last—has the Minister, by a change of opinion, acted unfairly towards his political adversaries, and availed himself of that change to exclude them from office? I think it is not expedient, at this time to touch further upon that subject; but my right honourable friend, with my entire concurrence, frankly tendered to her Majesty the office which he held as the bead of the Administration. I certainly concurred in that resigna- tion; and I can truly and sincerely say, it was my earnest desire that this measure should have been brought forward by the noble Lord opposite, in whose hands I think it would have been more properly placed. I state that unfeignedly and frankly: I thought, after all that has occurred, it would have been better for the public, better for public men. (Loud cheers) I am stating my sincere opinion- ' think it would have been more for the public advantage, and for the credit of public men, if what has been proposed, as it has become our duty now to propose it had been brought forward by the noble Lord opposite: and I may say, and I am sure the noble Lord will bear testimony to the truth of what I am saying, that both in writing and verbally I assured the noble Lord, that if he, as a Minister, brought forward a measure such as was indicated in his letter to ids constituents of London, I as a private Member of Parliament would' have given to that mea- sure my frank and cordial support." Having disposed of these personal matters, Sir James addressed himself to the more prominent general arguments. He declared that the measure was brought forward not because Ministers thought it expedient merely, but because they deemed it right and necessary. The great question to be decided was this—ls the maintenance of the existing Corn-laws conducive to the interests of the great- est number of the community ? Upon this point, Sir James Graham replied to Lord Woraley's extract with others from the speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel

in 1839 and already quoted from by Lord Woreley himself. " I consider [said Sir Robert Peel] this statement, that the condition of the labourer has been ren- dered worse by the operation of the Corn-law, a most important one; and I have no hesitation in saying, that, unless the existence of the Corn-law can be shown to be consistent, not only with the prosperity of agriculture and the maintenance of the landlord's interest, but also with the maintenance of the general interests of the country, and especially with the improvement of the condition of the labour- ing class, the Corn-law is practically at an end.' That was the declaration of my right honourable friend, as early as the year 1839." Sir James next quoted a passage from a speech delivered by himself in Jane last year—" It is decidedly ray opinion that the prosperity of agriculture must always depend on the pro- sperity of the other branches of the native industry of this country, and that the public prosperity is on the whole best promoted by giving a fair and uninterrupted current to the natural flow of national industry. I will go further, and say, that it is my opinion, that, by safe, gradual, and cautious measures, it is expedient to bring our laws with reference to the trade in corn into a nearer relation with the sound principles which regulate our commercial policy with respect to every other branch of industry." Unforeseen circumstances, however, have rendered a gradual and progressive

diminution of duties impracticable. " First, with respect to the harvest of this country. It was a harvest, as was truly stated by my right honourable friend the Secretary at War, of a peculiar character. In point of quantity it was not a deficient harvest; in point of quality, I believe, in the experience of the oldest farmers, there never was so great a variety; and the effect of that has been to point out and to establish the great imperfection of the averages under the existing law. In no former years, I believe, has there been such a variety of quality in the corn brought to market; the price varying from 40s. for the worst, I believe, up to 70s. or 75s. for the best. An alteration was made in the law in 1842 in regard to the averages, which had a very decisive effect in one respect— it altogether prevented fraud. By extending the period and multiplying the towns in respect to the taking of the averages, fraud was prevented; but as relates to the interest of the consumer, this had a very adverse effect; for fraud, whenever it had been exerted, was always in favour of the consumer, and for the purpose of opening the ports; and, in my. real opinion, the general defect of the measure of 1842, though it was not so intended, was that it rendered protection more stringent. This was demonstrated, I must say, by the operation of the scale regulating the duties in the course of last autumn. Prices were rising; the price of the quartern loaf in this metropolis was 90., and approaching to the war price. When the quartern loaf had so risen, the duty indicated by the sliding scale was 14s. or 15s. per quarter. In point of fact, the sliding scale would neither slide nor move. And that was its condemnation." In addition to this imperfect working of the averages, there was the failure of the potato crop, involving at the least the loss of halt the crop in Ireland. Sir James described the impression which this calamity produced in his mind. " I foresaw, and I am afraid rightly, that it would be indispensably necessary to give to the suffering community of Ireland aid from the public purse of this country to meet this great calamity. Already some advance of the public money has been asked for, and I am afraid that further advances may still be necessary. Then this great question presents itself—Can in fairness any Minister of the Crown propose the people of Great Britain to take out of the taxes of Great Britain public money to aid in the sustenance of their fellow countrymen in Ireland, while artificially, by laws so designed, the price of the food of the people of Great Bri- tain is enhanced? Other persons may be bold enough to make such a proposi- tion; but I confess that no power on earth should have induced me to be responsible for such a proposal. I told my right honourable friend, that if such a coarse should be necessary, Il strongly advised the suspension of the existing raw--{"_Efear, hear!" from the Protectionist benches)—and that suspension, I And, is nowgenerally approved of on this side of the House. The humane, the

emus feelings of the landlords of England, could not tolerate for a moment

that distress such as that likely to visit Ireland should not be met. But to give this aid to the Irish people, and at the same time to enhance the price of the food of the great community who contribute towards the taxes of England, and who by their hard industry are only able to pay those taxes, living in some instances on potatoes—is' a proposition which I never could have maintained as a Minister. But it bas been intimated, that, under these circumstances, honourable Members generally on

you once suspend the present law, what is the proposition which, y on this side of the House would be glad to open the ports. Then arises at the termination of that suspension, is to be made? I have told you that I am satisfied, that even when scarcity has arisen, when the price of the quartern loaf was high, and when high prices ought to have been counteracted by the self- operation of the scale, that scale does not operate. I have told you that I thought the present an unsatisfactory law• and, according to my opinion, I could not, after its suspension, have supported its reimposition." The question had been asked, " Have you seen any reason since 1842 for

changing your opinion ?" His answer was, that since 1842 those who were charged with the administration of affairs have had experience not to be mistaken. There was also the painful and lamentable experience of 1842 itself, a year of the great- est distress, and he might say of the greatest danger. He was certain from what he had since observed, that that turbulent disposition, that dangerous disposition, maim arose from the want of adequate sustenance, combined with low wages. A

contrast had been exhibited in the last two years. With abundant

harvests there had been cheapness and full employment, with peace and dimin- ished crime. Dangerous symptoms, however, began to appear in November last. " From a report which I have received from Mr. Saunders with respect to the West Riding of Yorkshire, I find that at that time there was not merely a rise in prices, but a strong apprehension of still higher prices in several parts of the West Riding, particularly in Bradford, and that several works were put on short time. In several of the cotton districts, also, I learn the mills were about to be put on short time. When, therefore, we looked to the circumstances of the whole country in the months of November and December, we had no option left, as the general guardians of the condition of the great body of the community, but to pursue the course which we have pursued?

Much had been said about the danger of depending upon foreign nations for a

supply of food. " But when we consider that the population of Great Britain in 1815 was 18,000,000, and that at the present moment it is 23,000,000, it seems to me that the time has arrived when it may well become a question, not whether Great Britain can alone supply the amount of food necessary for the population, but whether it will not be difficult at a moderate price to secure food for the whole of that population even with the aid of foreign countries. For myself, I have no apprehension of any great fall of prices from the abolition of the Corn- laws."

Sir James appealed to the experience of all who heard him, whether a great change of opinion had not been discernable among the working classes on the subject of the Corn-laws? Until lately, the opinion prevailed among operatives that low prices invariably led to low wages; but the experience of the last three -years had not been thrown away uponthem. As to subsidiary questions between them and their employers, he would tell Mr. Ferrand, that they would be easily settled. "I can very well understand how those working men should overtax their industry, and even call on their wives and daughters to work, that they may obtain subsistence. Necessity might drive them to such resources. But if they can understand that by a change of your law they may be able, without working so long themselves without requiring their wives or daughters to work as they do now, to live in dreater comfort than they have ever known, I have not the smallest doubt that arrangements will be made between masters and men as to the period of labour; and so every ground or pretext for legislative interference will be taken away. I was rejoiced to learn that the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire,—with whom I have often differed, but whose absence from this House I have never ceased to regret, as depriving it of one of its brightest ornaments,—I was rejoiced to learn that the noble Lord, on the hustings of the West Riding, in the presence of the operatives, expressed senti- ments similar to those which, in less perfect language, I have endeavoured to con- vey. I say with reference to the interests of the country gentlemen of England, let us have certainty in regard to the value of our land. You cant however, only ob- tain that certainty by a change of this law ; and that certainty will compensate you for many disadvantages. But in addition to certainty, I say you will have peaceful enjoyment. You will have enjoyment without the jealousy of your poorer neighbours; you will have the full enjoyment of their good-will without any abatement of their hereditary respect. And, Sir, if I may be allowed to refer to the sentiments of se humble a member of the landed gentry as I am myself, I must say that I do not think the landlords will have to make any great sacrifice; but, entertaining the opinions which I now entertain, founded on the experience I at present possess, I say that if the sacrifice were ten times greater than, I believe, it will be, I for one, sooner than it should be said of myself, or of any member of that class to which I belong, that we had wrung from the sufferings of the poor a small increase of rent, or that our present position was inconsistent with the welfare and the hap- piness of the great body of the community,--speaking for myself, I should rather descend to a lower station, and abrogate my inheritance, than submit patiently to such a charge, and be unable to say in my conscience that there was no truth in it (Cheers.) Sir, it has been said that a great party is broken up; it has been said that political ties are severed; it has been said that social relations are disturbed by this proposal; and it has been anticipated, and it is probable, that our Administration will in consequence be dissolved. But I say, Sir, that although I should regret the former portion of these consequences, I have the consolation of believing in my conscience, that this proposal will save a great and powerful nation from anarchy, from misery, and from ruin." (Much cheering.) Lord CLIVE closed the evening's discussion. He expressed his belief that the country ought to be appealed to-

" Let Parliament give the agriculturists of England the solemn satisfaction of believing that they had conceded this question to the wants and interests of their fellow subjects, and not that it had been forced upon them by the dexterity of two discordant Cabinets."

The debate was adjourned till Thursday.

The debate was resumed on Thursday by Mr. Cor.Qtruotrw; who made a personal explanation, and took a minute review of the arguments ad- duced in support of the Ministerial policy—

The circumstance of his having voted on some occasion for the annual motion of Mr. Villiers had been instanced by Sir Robert Peel as an act of inconsistency on his part. But there was no inconsistency, because a motion for the mere ap- pointment of a Committee did not exclude the votes of those who thought a fixed duty preferable to the sliding scale; and among that number was himself. If inconsistency could attach to him for these votes, it attached also to Lord John Russell, Mr. Labouchere, and many others, who adhered in those times to the principle of a fixed duty.

He proceeded with arguments against the measure; of which we can only note a few samples. As to the three-years experience, he not only thought that it supplied too narrow a basis for supporting so at a superstructure, but he would maintain that no superstructure at all could be raised upon it. The advance which had taken place in the price of butcher's meat had been specially referred to: that advance was not owing to the improved tariff, but to the great increase of employment caused by railways, and to causes arising out of the panic, and the failure of the green crop of 1844. Sir James Graham had disposed easily of his difficulties when reminded of his previous tenets. He said, " I have changed my opinion, and there is an end of it." But there was not an end of it (Cheers from the Protectionists.) It was not because a gentleman who spoke both like an orator and a poet had changed his opinions that all the world changed with him. His right honourable friend's words would not pass away. They were winged shafts, which pierced men's minds and remained there. His right honourable friend must remember that the words which he had used adhered in men's memories, had moulded men's sentiments, and altered men's views.

Mr. Colquhoan admitted that the labouring classes might for a time be bene- fited by cheap bread; but if the labour-market were suddenly checked, wages would fall, and the condition of the country would not be permanently improved. England would then be in the condition of Ireland, where deficient employment, cheap food, low wages, and a most wretched population, were found. Mr. Col- quhoun quoted evidence to show that employers anticipated a reduction of wages as the consequence of cheap bread. Free trade might do something to stimulate trade, but little to develop manufactures; but he feared that the pressure of com- petition abroad, and the pressure of a dense labouring population, loaded by its own numbers, at home, would keep down wages to a level far below what a humane man would desire to see established—to a level which was necessary for the exist- ence of manufactures, but which would leave but very hard toil and very scant remuneration to the recipients. Passing from the home trade, Mr. Colquhoun adverted to the Colonial. At a moderate estimate, British goods to the value of 15,000,0001. were consumed annually in the Colonies. It could not fail to be seen, however, that protection to sugar and other Colonial produce could not long sur- vive a repeal of the Corn-laws: and when this occurred, did the Free-traders imagine they could preserve for their manufactures the exclusive advantage of the Colonial market? But the Ministerial propositions were not adjusted on an im- partial principle. For what reason was protection to be continued to lace, hats, silk, metal, china or earthen-ware? And if protection were to exist at all, why take it away from that which had been called a manufacture, and which was at all events the most difficult and capricious manufacture of the whole? Mr. Colquhoun gave a challenge to Messrs. Cobden and Bright. He had heard that thesegentlemen would like to go down to Buckinghamshire, and show us how, after the repeal of the Corn-laws, they could manage a farm on strict Free- trade principles. He wished they would put the plan into execution. He would engage that some of his friends connected with Buckinghamshire would give them one of the best farms in the county, on as long a lease as they pleased, and at the lowest rate of rent, with but one condition—that they should exhibit the ledger at the end of the year. He suspected that should there be a break in the lease at the expiration of seven years, the amateur farmers would take advantage of it— that Mr. Bright would say, after Lord Francis Egerton, " Claudite jam rivos pueri—sat prate biberant "; interpreting the line—" My friends of Manchester, close your purses; for the fields of Buckmgharnshire have drained mine." Mr. Colquhoun next expounded his views as to the principle on which institu- tions ought to be maintained and defended in this country; and in doing this he attached many shortcomings to Sir Robert Peel. Fair discussion was that prin- ciple; but he regretted to say that Sir Robert Peel had not met the Free-trade question, or met other questions, or maintained other institutions, by an open avowal of principle. In default of this, Mr. Cobden had carried the Free- trade question by applying to it the principle of open discussion, and by strong, able, and earnest appeals to the people. On that ground, so long as Sir Robert Peel remained the master spirit and the presiding genius of the Government, Mr. Col- quhoun would be unable to give him any adhesion or marks of confidence. And as an instance, he could not vote for the motion, but for the amendment.

Mr. CHARLES Wrxxx described the commercial policy of this country before the time of Mr. Pitt as a continual intermeddling with trifles. He would have been better pleased had the measures now submitted gone fur- ther; but this was erring on the safe side, and he was willing to give them a fair trial.

Mr. GILBERT HEA'THCOTE characterized the new policy as rash, violent, and hazardous—

The adjustment of interests was not equitable. Protection was to be wholly withdrawn from agriculture, but the manufacturer was to enjoy a protection of 10 per cent. This was compelling the agriculturists to sell their corn at Free- bade prices, and buy their goods at prices enhanced by taxation and protection. He denied that the prosperity so largely founded upon by Sir Robert Peel was attributable to the changes of 1842: the country was a hundred times more in- debted to Mr. Hudson for that prosperity than it was to the head of the Govern- ment. But men's interests were not the only thing to be considered; their feel- ings also should be consulted. The present measure had inspired the country with strong feelings of alarm, anxiety, distrust, an utter want of confidence in public men, and a total alienation of regard for Ministers: and this they would find to be the case when next on the hustings. He did not think that foreign countries would relax their tariffs to meet English views; and he foretold that the corn which would overwhelm our native agncalturists would come in from the North of Europe. Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN did not anticipate any great reduction in the price of corn from foreign importations. The case of the Channel Islands afforded better data than quotations of prices on the Continent at periods when there was no demand from this country: in the Channel Islands, the trade was perfectly free, and still the average price of wheat was not less than 50s.

Mr. THOMAS BARING deemed it a misfortune to differ on this question from friends on whose judgment he placed reliance, and whose general policy met with his entire approval— But he did not think that the grounds on which Sir Robert Peel had founded his change of policy were conclusive. It was true that a largely increased con- sumption had taken place in those articles on which the duties had been lowered; but an equal increase had taken place in articles the duties on which had not been changed. He did not agree in the opinion that the three-years prosperity was owing to the cheapness of bread: he thought it had arisen from railway en- terprise and the activity of trade. As to the food question, he thought that much exaggeration had prevailed as to the potato disease; of other descriptions the supply exceeded an average. The critical condition of Ireland could not be over- looked; but that was a special case, calling for a special remedy; and could not justify a total revolution in the commercial policy of the country. Of bonded corn the supply, as shown by a return moved for last session, did not last year exceed 450,000 quarters; while at the present moment it amounted to a million. It was not easy, however, to allay fears when once they were excited; and no effort had been made to do so. The press had taken up the cry of scarcity; the Anti-Corn- law League had made it their theme; and Lord John Russell had given sanction to it in his letter, and had converted it into a means of making a clean conscience and uniting a party by confessing his previous errors. Yet, on reviewing what had taken place, he must think the great want of the country had been the want of a Ministry, and that the most appalling scarcity had been the scarcity of states- men ready to sit at the same council-table. Sir Robert Peel, when attempting to make out his case, had quoted from a circular of Messrs. Gibson and Lord, dated the 22d of January, showing the great anxiety which existed at the close of last year in regard to the depression of the trade at Manchester. Mr. Baring would quote from the same circular a paragraph which was not read by the Premier, but which contained the opinion that one disturbing cause was the apprehension of scarcity, and the holding of meetings to get up petitions for the opening of the .ports. This had precipitated the Railway crisis; and the resignation of Ministers completed the chain of disturbing events.

Mr. Baring was no advocate for indiscriminate or permanent protection. Like taxation for revenue, protection was in itself an evil, and could only be justified by necessity. Entertaining this opinion, he did not look at the measure of 1842 as final; but there was an understanding that that law, if it worked well, would not be changed by its authors. Looking at all the circumstances of the case—at the conflicting opinions which existed—it appeared to him, that if ever there were a time when a compromise appeared desirable it was now. [This proposition ex- ailed some merriment.]

Lord MORPETH supported the motion at considerable length—

Mr. Baring had just told the House that the greatest want experienced during the autumn was the want of a Ministry: that species of scarcity must have been specially felt by the agricultural party, which boasted of being backed by the voice of the country—of contesting successfully every vacant seat—almost every vacant seat; and still they seemed to be lamentably without leaders and without a head. Mr. Baring had spoken of a compromise: but the feeling of the country and of the House appeared to be that the time for compromise had gone by. A compromise had been offered by the leaders of the Liberal party; but it was re- jected by those who had hailed Mr. Baring, upon the present occasion, as an auxiliary. Lord Morpeth adverted to some of the arguments against the Ministerial scheme. It had been accused of meddling unnecessarily with agriculture: but it meddled as much with manufactures as it did with agriculture, at least as tar as it could. As to the opinion entertained by manufacturers and traders in regard to the abandonment or modification of protective duties, his position as Member for the West Biding of Yorkshire enabled him to speak. " The abolition of pro- tection with regard to manufactures is, like that upon corn, entire; but, unlike that on corn, it is immediate. The constituency by whose choice and ap- proval I have been honoured represents, as is well known, a great variety both of manufacturing and agricultural pursuits. It comprises the largest woollen, the largest worsted, and the largest steel manufacturers in the empire; and it embraces, I believe, the largest linen manufacturers in England. It com- prises, besides, very extensive iron and cotton manufacturers. Now, not one of those interests—all of them directly affected, some of them liable to injury from the withdrawal of protection—not one of those interests, during the interval of a fortnight which was specially exacted for the consideration of the measure by the friends of protection, nor even under the excitement of some rather vehe- ment appeals, which were made in the principal cities of the district, nor when the representatives of these manufacturing interests were assembled in great num- bers before the hustings at Wakefield,—not one of them uttered a single murmur, or a whisper, or a wish for the continuance of protection. Competition may come,' they said, but we are prepared to meet it; and,' as I was expressly told, ' all we wish for is a fair field and no favour.' Let me ask, then, why that inte- rest which so often plumes itself on being the most important, the most noble, the most English in the country, does not take a leaf out of the book of these be- grudged manufacturers, and consent to be no longer the only department of our national industry which scorns fair odds and would strive to keep its own? " Lord Morpeth proceeded to contend, that wages and employment diminish in years of scarcity. It was obvious that in dear years the active demand of the working classes must be diminished: not only must they buy less which would tell upon the landowner and the farmer, but they must also eat less, which would tell upon themselves. To the agricultural labourer the effect of high prices was disastrous: he actually spent 73 per cent of his earnings on food, and 27 per cent was all which remained to clothe and educate his children, and pay rent. Lord Morpeth put it to the House whether the increase of 2e. 6d. a week upon the cost of flour did not strip the labourer of the command of other necessaries and luxuries of life, and of the means of bettering his condition, and giving his children edu- cation ? "I have sometimes thought that the whole logic of this question is so compendious in its form, and so self-evident in its bearings, that it has only to be stated, andlthat a simple syllogism might do the work of both: thus—there is not more than a sufficient quantity of food grown in this country for our present sup.. ply; (I think he will be a hardy man who denies that;) there is an addition, it is computed, of 1,000 children a day, or 365,000 a year, to our present popula- tion; I make bold to assert that there is not, year by year, an addition of 365,000 quarters of wheat to our native-grown produce; then does it not result that it is most important to procure an additional supply from abroad, and that this ought to be obtained at the cheapest rate possible ? "

The Government had been told that it was wrong to apply a permanent remedy to a temporary evil: his reply was, that the evil and the mischief which had arisen might arise every year; and was the country to be continually mocked with this delusion of sliding scales that did not slide, and of restrictive laws, that, according to the course of the season, required to be constantly modified or re-

ed? It was no reproach to Sir Robert Peel that he had been influenced in course by the state of the seasons. "I can see no disparagement of free trade—it is rather a confirmation of the truth and justice of the principles on which it rests—that it does follow the laws of nature, and bends to the rules that guide the seasons in their course. You might justly apply, without exaggeres tion, to free trade those striking lines that the poet applied to the Roman Empe- ror who was befriended in the battle-field by the tempest-

" Tibt mittat ab antris

..EcdulS iratas hyernes; tibt mtlitet tether, Et conjurati verdant ad praelia vents."

It was no discouragement to free trade, but rather a confirmation of all that was just in it, that the stars in their courses did not set against it, but in its favour. The seasons, too, exercised a compensating influence: if in the wet countries of Europe the produce was affected so as to raise the price of corn, and while bread was dear in London, it would be compensated for by seasons of an opposite character in other portions of the world, perhaps on the North American continent. This topic Lord Morpeth illustrated by his own experience when travelling in the United States.

Incidentally, he touched upon the social and political impressions which he had derived from his visit. "Much that I witnessed there, much that I heard there, and more that has reached me since, has certainly not tended to give me a very favourable impression of the orderly working, of the pacific and moderate ten- dency, of the scrupulous adherence to good faith, to be derived from a consti- tution of pure and unchecked democracy: and I did not return home with any increased repugnance—(Loud cheers from the Opposition benches)—I mean to saT—(Laughter)—any diminished attachment to the aristocratical and monars ekes] element in our own constitution. But both then and since, there and I have felt the perfect conviction that we could not confront the example of general ease, comfort, and abundance, which pervades the whole bulk of the American people." 'Neither can we confront the master tendencies of the age, the country, and the world at large in which we live, if we do not consent to administer the working out of our aristocratic institutions in rather more of a democratic spirit." Where, fore Lord Morpeth counselled the aristocracy, not to oppose or stand aloof for the settlement of the great question at issue—" Let them not refuse to bear their part in a settlement whitheif net adjusted with them, must be adjusted in spite of them. They may bear their part, and, if they will, a distinguished and pro- minent part. I believe they may continue to bear what has, for the most part, been a respected and honoured part in our system of national polity: but this system comprehends, besides themselves, the multiplied energies of trade and industry—the sober-thinking, and staid determination of the large middle class— the hard-working industry and urgent privations of the immense working class— the powerful agency of a powerful and enlightened press' and all the busy stirring progress of an advancing age. Let them throw in their lot together; let them consider this and other kindred subjects as a great whole, and make it as much their pride as their safety to be the leaders and not the laggers in the onward march of the whole British people." Mr. GALIKELL, as a man honourable to his own engagements, must with- hold his support from the proposed measure—

For fourteen years it had been his pride to follow Sir Robert Peel both in op sition and in power. He was proud of the connexion, and was prepared to

any sacrifice consistent with personal honour to support it; but, looking at his implied engagements and recorded votes, he could not go along with him. In spite of the speeches he had heard, Mr. Gaskell had. still to learn that new cir- cumstances had arisen sufficiently pressing to justify a Parliament elected to maintain agriculture in departing totally from its principles. And on this sub, ject he must be forgiven if he said, that the arguments he had heard advanced in former times by the right honourable Baronet and others had left an impression on his mind much too deep to be outweighed by the arguments which had lately been brought forward. He, for one, could not dispose of arguments and speeches which carried conviction to his mind, in one single sentence. The sudden change of opinion which had taken place among the agricultural Members was calculated to lead to a permanent feeling of distrust and dissatisfaction in the public mind. Direct pledges on the subject of protection may not have been given on the hus- tings, but implied engagements were entered into; and he could assure such Members as he was alluding to, that it was no lightithing to shake the confidence of the people of England in their representatives. Mr. ROEBUCK said, he could approach the question without reference to personal or party interests— He had nothing to retract, nothing to explain or justify, but much to assail. (Laughter.) A singular spectacle had recently been observed on the other side of the House—Members abandoning their seats in deference to some implied understanding with their constituents. He should like to know what was the meaning of not being a "delegate," if it was not that daring the time for which Parliament was by law established each Member must be guided by his own per- sonal convictions? In his own person he was the representative of a large con- stituency—(Laughter)—who had on several occasions been displeased by the votes he had given; hat had he, owing to the "pressure from without," yielded up his seat, an instant cry would have been raised on the opposite side that he was no longer a representative but a "delegate." In some cases, however, resig- nations had taken place not so much at the command of those usually styled con- stituents, as from deference to the proprietors of certain close boroughs. [Mr. Roebuck was asked repeatedly to "name !" but he advised the parties not to insist upon particulars, as he was perfectly prepared to state them, though he then ab- stained.] Such proceedings marked a sore place in the constitution. As to the conversions, he did not doubt the statements which had been made by Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and Lord John Russell; but he thought it strange that the transformation should not have occurred till the end of the year 1845. Mile, therefore, he discarded every imputation upon their honour, he could not but con- sider their proceedings an extraordinary satire upon their understandings. Allu- sions had been made to the breaking up of a great party as a consequence of the new movement: this was a matter to which Mr. Roebuck attached no import- ance—the question for him was, what were the exigencies of his country? Passing from the position and pleas of parties, Mr. Roebuck entered upon the question of agricultural protection generally; showing with much clearness, that its intention and tendency were to make food scarcer and dearer, and thereby to raise rents. It was impossible that the farmers or labourers could prosper under such a law, although gentlemen opposite protested that it was for their

sakes that they wished the law preserved. It might be said that the benefits which were anticipated from the abolition of protection would not follow; and it might so happen that the tenant-farmers and labourers would not find so sudden au improvement in their condition as some expected; but there could be no doubt that the increasing outlets for the produce of our industry, and the general en- couragement to production, would have the effect of greatly improving the con- dition of the people of this country. There would, however, be a correspond- ing stimulus to population; and with the increase of people, a tendency to deteriorate, which it would require moral training to counteract. Mr. Roebuck hoped that Parliament would avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by the repeal of the Corn-laws to improve the moral as well as physical condition of the people, by adopting a great system of national education. If they did this, then might they claim the character of true reformers.

Mr. Honosow HINDE was in favour of a moderate protection to agri- culture—

The true policy of this and of every country was to adopt such a system as would prevent the possibility of an extravagantly high price of food, and to guard against fluctuations. He did not think that Sir Robert Peel could imagine that his Government could long survive the break-up of his party: he must see that when he carried his measure there would follow the inevitable necessity of his banding over the Government to the gentlemen opposite. The discussion was again adjourned, till Friday.

An incidental discussion' amusing as developing some personal pecu- liarities, occurred on Wednesday. Lord GEORGE Bram:Nen moved for a return of the quantities of foreign grain in bond, with the number of the importers and the quantities held By each— His object was to show the number of persons upon whom the Government in- tended to bestow the boon of a reduction of duties- for he did not believe that the consumers would have the benefit. He understood that 1,000,000 quarters of wheat were in bond, and a reduction in the duty from 14s. to 4s. would place half a million of money in the pockets of three or four hundred speculators. This he considered exceedingly wrong: it was robbing the public Exchequer. Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT suggested an addition to the motion—a return of all the individuals who were to eat the bread of the bonded corn! The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER acceded to the motion; but re- Minded Lord George Banana that Mr. Stafford O'Brien had expressed his willingness to have the ports opened; in which case, the question would not have been between a duty of 14s. and 4s., but between a duty of 14.1. and nothing. He begged also to state, that importers of foreign grain had Air the most part no intention of paying high rates of duty, but conducted their speculations on the chance of being able to relieve the grain at the Shilling duty. Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. WODEHOUSE, and Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, re- peated their assurances that the agriculturists were perfectly willing to submit to any sacrifices to meet the apprehended scarcity. They stipu- lated, however, for the restriction of the relief to Ireland, where the real danger existed. Lord GEORGE BEIrrincir twitted Mr. Escott with having made a sug- gestion as " incomprehensible " as his conduct in reference to his con- stituents—holding his seat for Winchester, though deserting the cause for which he was elected. Mr. Eseorr rejoined; remarking, that as all the persons who consumed the bread would benefit from the lower duty, they Ought to be included in the return. As to Mr. Escott's position with his tiOnstituents, Lord George Bentinck was totally ignorant of the facts. PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND.

mi the House of Lords, on Monday, the second reading of the bill author- -id* the Government to place 50,0004 at the disposal of the Board of Works, to be expended in facilitating public undertakings in Ireland, and liy this means to create employment for the people, was moved by the Earl Of ST. GERMANS.

The bill met with a favourable reception; but Lord Monteagle having introduced a variety of other topics when expressing his approval of the grant, a discussion of some length was the consequence.

Lord MONTEAGLE quoted passages from the reports of Professor Lindley and Dr. Playfair, to show that the horrors of scarcity were fast approach- ing in many districts of Ireland. He approved generally of the Govern- ment measure; but took some exception—

He objected to the transfer of 190,0001. a year, the expense of the Constabulary force, to the National Exchequer, thinking that a better arrangement could be made. At present, the expense of the Constabulary was defrayed by each county in proportion to the number of men required. Those counties which were in a disturbed or unsettled state were thus called upon to defray the additional ex- pense incurred in preserving the peace; while counties peaceably disposed reaped the advantage by having to support a greatly-diminished force. If the aggregate expense, therefore, were transferred from the counties, it would be giving an un- fair advantage to those districts where the people misconducted themselves and broke the peace. He suggested that the expense of the force should be defrayed as at present; and that the Government should contribute 190,0001. a year to be expended on works of public utility: that would prove one of the most efficient instruments of civilization which could be devised.

The Duke of WELLINGTON stated, that the relief of the counties from the expense of the Constabulary had been recommended by Lord Devon's Commission. The Government entertained every desire to afford efficient relief to the people of Ireland; and Lord Monteagle's suggestions would not be overlooked.

Other Peers took part in the discussion; and at the close the bill was read. a second time.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, a fifth bill for encouraging pub- lic+ works in Ireland was intrOduced, and read a first time, on the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. Its object is to authorize Grand Juries, at the ap- proaching Spring Assizes, to appoint extraordinary presentment sessions, with power to make the money levied by rates for county works more im- mediately applicable than it could be under the present acts. Under such provisions, 130,0001. could be immediately applied to giving employment; and permissive power is to be given to levy 80,0001. more, to come into play at the Summer Assizes. • Iirreply to Sir H. W. BARRON, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the total sum applicable to carrying on public works in Eng- land and Ireland is 300,0001., and that an additional 60,0001. is reserved exclusively for Ireland. On Wednesday, Mr. Samaras CRAWFORD, referring to the apprehended scarcity of food in Ireland, suggested the propriety of introducing a bill to empower the Boards of Guardians to give out-door relief. Under the Poor-law Act for England a discretionary power was given to grant out- door relief; and he thought a similar arrangement should exist in Irelaart Sir JAMES GRAHAM would not assent to an alteration in the law for the mere purpose of meeting a temporary difficulty. With the view of showing the great interest which Government were taking in the state of that country, Sir James enumerated precautionary measures before the House to guard against want of employment, scarcity of food, and the casualty of fever. Mr. FRENCH questioned the efficiency of the measures referred to by Sir James Graham to meet the apprehended evil: he feared that employment would be too long postponed to be of use. Mr. French described the Poor-law as particularly unpopular. Opposite testimony on the point was given by Colonel CONOLLY and Mr. Moan O'Fraasia.; and the discussion dropped.

NEW WRITS have been issued—for South Nottinghamshire, in the room of the Earl of Lincoln; for Westminster, in the room of Captain Rous; for the County of Mayo, in the room of Mr. M. Blake; for the North Division of Nottinghamshire, in the room of the late Mr. Gaily Knight; for East Gloucestershire, in the room Of the Honourable Francis Charteris. RAILWAY BILIS. The Select Committee on Railways appointed by the Com- mons has presented a second report. The leading recommendations are—the appointment of a " Classification Committee," to which all Railway Bills shall be presented, and who shall "inquire and report [to the House] what Railway Bills compete with, or ought to be considered in connexion with, any Railway Bills the promoters of which shall have proved themselves entitled to the privilege agreed to be granted in certain cases by the resolutions of this House of the 7th July last," and "shall form into groups all other Railway Bills which in their opinion it would be expedient to submit to the same Committee.' Another recommenda- tion is, that each member of a Committee on a Railway Bill, before he is entitled to act, shall sign a declaration that his constituents have no local interest, and that he himself has no personal interest in the result of any bill referred to his consideration. The bulk of the report is occupied with minute details as to the attendance of Members, the management of matters in the Committee, and the submitting of reports to the House. It was adopted on Thursday.

On Tuesday, the Lords agreed to some alterations in their Standing Orders, to enable the House to work better with the Commons.

CRIME IN IRELAND. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for certain returns showing the number of murders, and attempts at murder, which had taken place in Ireland since the 1st January 1842, with the rewards offered, &c. The Marquis attached blame to the Execu- tive Government for not adopting measures to prevent the extension of violent crimes. If the existing laws were not sufficient to accomplish the object, apph cation for increased powers ought to have been made to Parliament. The Earl of St. GERMANS, intimated that on Monday he should submit a bill to the House framed in accordance with the recommendations in the Queen's Speech, and in- tended to accomplish the object referred to by Lord Clanricarde. REFORMATION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS. In reply to a question from Ma LIDDELL, as to whether the Government were prepared to take any steps towards the improvement and reformation of juvenile offenders, Sir JAMES GRAHAM ad- verted to what the Government were attempting at Parkhurst and Millbank; adding, that if the House should sanction an annual grant to promote the im- provement of juvenile offenders convicted by a jury, certainly it would be his en- deavour to induce the Magistrates in the various counties in England to give directions for setting apart a portion of the prisons for the special punishment, and to establish schools for the discipline of these children. When the schools had been established, he would recommend that the public in each county should also erect an asylum of refuge, in which, on their escape from prison, those offenders might be received before they were restored to society. CASE OF THE TORY. IR reply to Admiral DUNDAS, Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated, that as Johnstone, late master of the ship Tory, had been declared by the Jury to be insane, the Government had no power to inflict punishment; but it would be his duty to place him in close confinement for the rest of his life. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION in Russia. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord KINISAIRD inquired whether any information had been received from the English Ambassador at St. Petersburg as to the persecutions to which the nuns of St. Basil, at Minsk, had been subjected for refusing to become members of the Greek Church? He described the tortures to which the wretched women had been exposed; and expressed his belief that a remonstrance from this country might have some effect in preventing a repetition of the barbarities. The Earl of ABERDEEN replied, that no official information on the subject had been received. Reference had been made to it by one of the consular agents; and the opinion ex- pressed was that the accounts were grossly exaggerated. There had been reli- gious persecution; but he did not believe that it had been accompanied by the barbarities alleged. The difference between the parties was not a point of doc- trine, but consisted in their acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope. At Rome, lately, the Emperor of Russia disclaimed all knowledge, of the occurrence, and promised inquiry and redress. England had no means nor right of inter- ference in the matter.