The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-05 00:00:00

• guished men, he must say, in speaking of any o fthese men, who had no doubt rendered service in their military capacity, thri , he should sie;gest that nor se ) of t'iase nie even Sir Henry Smith who had rendered important services—not even to him, should a reward be given which could not belong to him. He trusted that the news which they had received from India, through Lord Hardinge, was such as might lead to an amicable settlement of our differences in that part of the British dominions. With these remarks he heartily concurred with the sentiment of the Noble Lord who preceded him. Mr. ROEBUCK said that he rose with some feeling of tre pidation to perform a duty similar to that which the Noble Lord ( Francis Egerton) had discharged. He feared that he might be injuring the cause which he advocated, but he would venture to introduce the name of a gallant officer whose ser vices had not yet been mentioned—sir Charles Napier.— (Cheers. ) He had been fifty years in the army, and he had recently added a new kingdom to our Indian dominions with the least possible expenditure of blood and treasure.—( Hear, hear.) He wished to make no invidious comparison ; what he advanced proceeded from no feeling of jealousy, but it locked like a slur upon his claims to pass over the services of the con queror of Sinde. The Noble Lord had spoken of the modera tion to be expected from the policy of Lord Hardinge ; he (Mr. Roebuck) hoped that there would be no overdoing of moderation, and that there would be an end of that double species of government which was really the rule of the East India Company, while it pretended to be that of the native princes. In this instance the Seikhs had been the aggressors; and if possession were taken of their territory, it ought to be done in the open day and in the name of England. Mr. HOGG said that if the present debate were to be pro longed, every Hononrable Member might suggest the names of some officers distinguished for their military services and valour. Even in the recent campaign of the Sutlej, he could bring forward a list of names which every Member present would admit was deserving of reward. The inconvenience of such a course had been already stated with reference to the allusion which had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet with respect to the intention of the East India Company. He would state shortly to the House what those resolutions were. But before he did so, he was anxious, as Chairman of the East India Company, that it should be known that there were no suggestions or communications, directly or iu Erectly, between the Government and the East India Company, on the subject of the services of Viscount Hardinge and Lord Gough. It was his pleasing duty, as Chairman of the East India Com pany, to make a proposition to his colleagues on the subject, which was received by his brother directors in unanimity. He thought the proper wa y to reward public men was by a pension rather than by a grant of money. On Wednesday last he proposed that a pension of 5,0001. a year should be granted to the Viscount Hardinge during the period of his natural life, and commencing from the time when the troops came under the walls of Lahore, and a pension of 2,000/. a year should be granted for life to Lord Gough, commencing at the same time. These rewards were granted irrespective of the honour of the peerage which had been conferred upon them. He thought the Government should make some provision by which they would be enabled to support their dignity in a be coming manner. When the subject was brought before the two general meetings, according to the Act of Parliament, he had not the slightest doubt, from his knowledge of the con stitution of that body, and their desire to reward public service, that the proposal would be received with the same feeling of unanimity. There was an Act of Parliament which prevented the Governor-General receiving any pension other than his salary ; that obstacle would, he hoped, be removed. It was never intended to apply to such a case as the present. Lord Hardinge was not desirous of entering upon hostilities, but when they were forced upon him, he evinced the greatest dis crimination, and displayed energy almost unexampled in the annals of the army, and the result was, the campaign proved most successful. He hoped the Noble Lord would be able to devote himself to developing the great resources of our Indian Empire ; and Le trusted the Noble Lord had yet a long life before him to enable him to improve the social condition and happiness of the Indian Empire. Sir C, NAPIER begged to assure the House that no man more heartily rejoiced than himself at the honours and re wards which had been conferred upon Viscount Hardinge and Lord Gough. He did not think that any man, be he soldier or sailor, would grudge those gallant officers the rewards which had been announced to be in store for them, and it was a proud thing to think that, after a peace of thirty years, the blood which ran in the veins of the British soldiers of the Peninsula ran as warmly as ever it did. He mot agree with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord F. Egerton) in thinking that a sufficient reward had not been conferred upon that gallant officer Sir Henry Smith. With but 12,000 men he defeated an army greatly superior to him in force, in the most gallant manner that ever such an exploit was performed. When one read an account of Sir Henry Smith's action at Aliwal, and the manoeuvres which he went through, in order to relieve Loodianah, it was impossible not to feel impressed with a sense of the very great value, which his services had been to the country. He knew that it was a general feeling that when an officer was detached in command of a force by the Commander-in -Chief, the officer se detached was not en titled to a reward. It must be remembered, however, that Nelson was not a Commander-in-Chief when he was de tached by Lord St. Vincent with a squadron, and fought the battle of the Nile, for which he was rewarded with a peerage. Ile was most unwilling to enter into any remarks upon the observations made by the Honourable and Learned Alember for Bath with respect to his (Sir C. Napier's) owe relative, but he did not think that he should do his duty towards his gallant relative if he did not say that, in his opinion, that gallant officer had not received the reward to which he was en-. titled. It was a most remarkable thing that scarcely had the dispatches of Sir Henry Hardinge and Sir Hugh Gough ar rived in this country, announcing the result of the first battle with the Seikhs, when the Right Hon. Baronet immediately came down to the House and asked for a vote of thanks for them. The Right Hon. Baronet did the same when the dis patches informing the Government of the second battle arrived, and every gentleman knew with what enthusiasm those votes of thanks were passed by the House. But when they looked back to the manner in which his gallant relative was treated, they would find that a very different line of conduct was pursued. He did not receive a vote of thanks for one year after the news of his victory arrived in this country, and he (Sir C. Napier) remembered that when he spoke to the Right Hon. Baronet on the subject, he was told that it would be better to wait until his gallant relative had done something more. That brave officer, with only 2,000 men, attacked 24,000 of the enemy, in a strong position, and yet, in spite of the inferiority of his num bers, he obtained one of the most brilliant victories on record. He afterwards, with 5,000 men, defewed 38,000 of the enemy; and, nevertheless, he remained a twelvemonth without having received the thanks of the House, and was afterwards only re warded by a red ribbon being put round his neck and shoulder. Sir R. H. INGLIS would not follow the example of the Honourable and Learned Member for bath in his deprecation of the extension of our empire in India, and of the excursive policy, as he was pleased to term it, but which another class night term our aggressive policy; nor would he follow the ex ample of the Honourable and Gallant Officer who had just sat down in his eulogy of his gallant relation, Sir Charles Napier; neither would he fellow the example of his Noble Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton) in introduc ing the name of Sir Henry Smith; but he would coincide with his Noble Friend the member for London in stating that he thought it was not seemly that this House should be super seded in its privileges in rewarding the distinguished services of Lord Hardinge and of Lord Gough by the East India company. He perfectly agreed with that Noble Lord that if they were to reward these gallant officers they should do it be fore they ceased to live in this life, and not leave it until their remunerati on should be of no personal service to them. For these reasons he perfectly concurred in the vote. Mr. H UME had great satisfaction in assenting to the vote which th e Ri g h t H on. G ent l eman ha d proposed to the House. Hon. Members were aware that he was very chary in giving his as sen t t o any vote of public merles', but for this vote the re Were many weighty reasons. He believed the Court of Proprie tors would be unarimour in coming to the decision of giving an ample remuneration to the two gallant officers. With regard to Sir Ch ar l es 'N ap i er , h e t h ought the annexation of Sinde hai been o ne o f the most unfortun a t e c i rcums t ances o f our Indian, empire, and that its restoration, under our present successful circumstances, wou ld b e a grace f u l an d a politic act. ( /en . - He was very much sati s fi e d wi th t he E ast I ndia Co their distribution of rewar d s , as t h ey h ad allowed the m p Pa r ny iva in te so ldier, equally with the commissioned officer, to shareinthe rewards due to their merit and gallantry. Mr. MONTAGUE GORE thought there were some ec Year c ircumstances which enhanced the mer it o f Viscount Pn- ;Hardinge and Lord Gough. He meant to allude to the exten sive means which the occupation of the Sinde country, by the British Government, would open up the way to the introduc tion of Christianity—of a Christian policy and a Christian sway. These advantages, at no future day, would, he trusted, be spread saver the whole continent of India. The spread of edu cation, the cultivation of the arts of peace, the increase of com merce, in tbese conquered regions, would result to the glory of England. Captain LA YARD thought there was no private soldier who would not he glad that her Majesty had conferred high favours on Viscount Hardinge and Lord Gough. He thought, however, thai the gallant warriors who had fought at Albirera should re ceive some token for their valour. The East Irti; Company ought to be allowed to stand alone in their remun neration of them. Mr. BAILEY spoke a few words in so low a tone as to be inaudible in the gallery. Sir DE LACY EVANS trusted he should not be deemed presumptive in drawing attention to the ser vices of ether offi cers who had served nobly in the field. He alluded to Sir Henry Smith, whose services had not been particularly recog nised. He thought that it might not be exactly in accordance with precedent, yet he trusted that their names would not be excluded He was very glad of this opportunity of testifying to the gallantry of the officers and men engaged in the recent conflicts in India. The present grants met with his entire approbation. Sir JOHN HANMER rose for the purpose of expressing his complete concurrence in the proceeding before the House. lie was not at all aware of the circumstances of Viscount Han dinge and Lord Gough, but he thougat it highly desirable that they should be supplied with sufficient means to support them with proper dignity in the rank to which they had been raised, and to provide in a suitable manner for their families. Mr. HOGG said that the Government had the power of advancing private soldiers who had behaved in a gallant man • her, through the different grades of lieutenant, captain, and £0 on, in the army. It was their duty to be well versed in the science of the army. Sir Henry Smith had been placed on the staff at a large salary, as a reward for his services. There were ample means of rewarding gallant officers in a legitimate way 'without having recourse EvA t; grants of sums of money. Sir DE LACY had been placed on the S admitted that Sir Henry Smith staff, snitth with a salary of 5,000/. a-year. The case of sir liens y Smith peculiar. He had achieved a victory which an Chief might be proud of. He thought his case was one deservin g er.in- of some extra reward. Mr. WILLIAM antuld be extremely ot sorry to offer one single objection to this g. He did n agree with the doctrine that future generations should be taxed with the pensions of these two Noble Lords. He objected to principl e . H e thought the Noble Lords ought to be re: e w t a il o r i l d i t ' a ed in th e i r own third persons. In no case had pension s forr to the thryd service been generation. granted to the amount of ayea grill brilliant thn these did not think the services of Lord Ha r di as they were, greater than those of Lord Nelson,nr Lord Aber crombie, and Lord Dun can ; an d yet the descenda n t s o f Noble Lords had only 2,000/. a•-year. He was averse to when there were other means of reward. In the case of Sir H. Smith, for instance, lie had be en rewarded b e y a" a regiment, ass t w o had lately become vacant. Th ere were others who .achieved great services in India. Look at General Nott. He bad returned from Indie, after performing the greatest deeds. The East India Company granted him a pen sion of 1,000/. a year ; but he only lived a few months to en joy it, and he (Mr. Williams) had been given to understand, that the family of that gallant officer had been left in straight ened circumstances. Now, he hoped that the Chairman of the East India Company would take this case into his considera tion. Services such as those of General Nott, ought not to have been rewarded so niggardly as they had b een b y t h e East India Company. Mr. HOGG said, that General Nott had been appointed to I'n office secon d on ly to a seat in the council , and he would have been appointed to a seat in the council had he lived. General Pollock had survived, and he had been appointed to a seat in the council, which was worth 10,0001. a year. General_ leave had not l e ft th e serv i ce w hen pensioned. He was only on and' o t absence. H e di e d before he could return to India , two i mmediately afterwards a pension was conferred on his dau ghters, and a pension was also given to the widow, in addition to the former one. The East India Company had al:o Pensioned a grandson of General Nott. He (Mr. Hays) there fore thou ght that it wou ld h ave b een we ll if t h e H on . Gentle. 140 bad inquired into the circumstance of this case, before be had made so grave a charge as that which he had just given utterance to. AIORR )S truved that .omet ing would be dare for the families ut those.who had fallen in the late engagement in Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that subject was best left in the hands of the Crown, and he deprecated entering into a dis cussion of the merits of the various officers who had lately been engaged in India. First, the name of Sir H. Smith had been mentioned, and that had led to the mention of the names of Sir C. Napier, General Nott, and General Pollock. He did nut think that that was the proper place to discuss the merits of those distinguished men. The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Williams) had said there was no precedent for so large a pension as 3,000/. Now there was the case of Lord Amherst, after the conquest of Canada, and there was also the case of Lord Rodney. Nine officers had 3,000/. a-year granted them for their lives, 2,0001. out of the English Pension Fund, and 1,000/. out of the Irish Pension Fund. With respect to the rewards of those officers who had been mentioned in the course of the discussion, he would remind the House that there was always a certain amount of patronage in the hands of the Crown, which, of course, would be used to reward such brilliant services as had lately been exhibited in India. Indeed such rewards had already commenced, inasmuch as Sir Charles Napier had been sent for to take the position, second in com mand, of the army. Of course the Crown would consider the claims of the relatives of those who had fallen. Sir Robert Sale had left a family ; and General M'Caskill, he understood, had left seven daughters. Of course these would be objects of consideration by the Crown, and he could say, on the part of the Crown, that as far as the limited resources, which were at the command of the Crown for such purposes, would permit, those families would be provided for. Mr. WILLIAMS explained. He said that he had only referred to the English Pension List, and was not aware that any pensions had been charged on the Irish list. Lord JOHN RUSSELL quite agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that this subjent ought to be left in the hands of the Crown. With reference to what the Right Hon. Baronet had said at the close of his address, he (Lord John Russell) would suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet the propriety of increasing the means at the disposal of the Crown for such purposes as these, so that the Ministers should not have either to refuse the claims of such cases as that of the survivors of Sir R. Sale, or to come down to the House to ask for a sepa rate grant. The resolutions were then agreed to, and were reported. THE CORN BILL. Mr. HUTT presented several petitions from the colonists of Australasia, in favour of the Government measure. On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the House to go into Committee on the Corn Importation Bill, Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he rose to oppose the Speaker leaving the chair. The Right Hon. Baronet for the last thirty years had been a supporter of the corn-laws, and had at various periods devised means for their improvement, and yet he told them that within the last three months he had undergone such a change that he considered these laws were not only inexpedient but unjust. Now before they proceeded further he thought the Right Honourable Baronet ought to put them in possession of the reasons which had induced him to come to this extraordinary decision.—( Hear, hear.) It had been urged against the protectionist party that on their heads rested the responsibility for the present stagnation in the com merce of the country. How could this be, though ? They were not responsible for this measure, which was the cause of the stagnation. They did not propose to make a change in the commercial laws of the country, and it was therefore only fair, seeing that the proposal produced the stagnation, that those who proposed it should bear the responsibility.—( Hear, hear. ) They had been told also that the farmers of England were desirous of seeing a speedy settlement of this question. He did not doubt that the farmers of England were desirous of seeing a speedy settlement of this question, provided that settlement was the rejection of the measure proposed by her Majesty's Ministry. —( Hear, hear.) But if he were to be told that the farmers of England expected that the price of their cern would be raised by the introduction of 1,500,000 quarters of foreign wheat— and such was really the fact—they would be justly liable to the accusation which had been made against them by the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who once said the farmers of England were as dull as the clod they broke. —( Hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said his Noble Friend had misap plied the force of his observation, when he proposed a fixed duty of Bs. He said those who argued that such would be injurious to the farmer, must be as dull as the clod the farmer broke, and not that the farmers of England were as dull as the clod they broke.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord G. BEN TICK thanked the Noble Lord for his expla nation, with which he was perfectly satisfied. —( Hear, hear.) It had been stated in that House, that they would be doing essential service to the farmers by allowing th e importation of Foreign wheat for Home consumption, because it would tend to assist the sale of their own produce. Now if he looked back to all the precedents of bygone years, he could not find a single instance in which the introduction of large quantities of foreign wheat had raised the price of Eng lish wheat. He recollected, in the year 1838, when the duty under the old sliding.scale suddenly fell •to Is., there were im ported, within the space of six weeks, 2,500,000 quarters of wheat. Was the effect of that importation to raise the price of English corn? Nothing of the sort. The effect of that .m -portation was to lower the price of wheat in the same six weeks to the full extent of 12s. per quarter. In July, 1842, again, just after the passing of the present sliding scale, the results were a large importation into this country of foreign wheat, for corn fell from 635. per quarter to 335, In 1843, the im portation of foreign wheat reduced the price of English corn 9s. per quarter ; and in 1844 and 1845, similar results fol lowed smaller importations.—( Hear, hear.) He thought he had shown them very clearly that the farmers of England might be easily deluded indeed, if they believed that the entry of 1,500,000 quarters of foreign wheat would enhance the price of their own English produce. Well, then, was there anything in the state of the markets, either as respected the price or the sup ply of food, which should induce them o forfeit the interest of the farmer for the sake of the consumer? The price of wheat at this time averaged from 555. to 655. per quarter, but had the supply in the consumption been decreased in consequence of the existing stagnation in trade ? No, it had not, for he had taken the trouble to compare the supply and consumption of the last four months, and he found that there was an in crease in the supply of wheat and consumption of 116 quarters. He trusted, therefore, that any farmers who might have been misled by false friends into the belief that their interest lay in a speedy settlement of this question, would learn from experi ence that their interest lay in a contrary direction. Well, but with respect to the price. They were told in this year of famine and starvation that the prices were extremely high. Instead, however, of this being so, he found that every description of grain had fallen in price. Barley had fallen I% per cent., beans 2% per cent., peas 6% per cent. as compared with last year. He had shown, and he hoped successfully, that the fluctuations in price had been much more and much less in England since the passing of the Bill of 1842, but he was told in reply to this, th a t th e fluctuations in other parts of Europe were occasioned by the state of the markets in this country. Upon looking into the returns and facts, however, he found this was not the case, and he repeated with confidence, the assertion he had already made. Now, when it was recollected that after the Corn Bill had once fairly come into operation—after the first great glut which suc ceeded to the month of August in last year, and that the fluc tuations in this country of the food of the people had never exceeded 30 per cent., he thought that those who relied upon the opinion that free trade in corn would introduce a greater steadiness in prices rested upon a broken reed.—( Hear, hear. ) The same, and even greater, fluctuation in prices as hitherto prevailed would still continue. That great authority upon the subject of free trade, Mr.fluskisson had, down to the last years of his life, maintained that it was of far more importance to the people of this country that prices should be steady than that they should be either very high or very low.—( Hear, hear. ) It was a fluctuation in prices that Mr. Huskisson objected to, as being dangerous to the interests of this country. And, therefore, if he, ( Lord G. Bentinck,) showed that the fluctua tion in prices abroad were not limited to wheat, but extended equally to rye and oats, which constituted the food of the majority of the people of the country, and if he showed themithat no such fluctuation occured in this country under the sliding scale, unless they were able to refute his statements, the ground of the promoters of this Bill was cut from under them. They had been :told by the Right Hon. Baronet the First Minister of the Crown, that if they made their selection to advance they would raise a watchword for all the nations of Europe and America. They were told too that Prussia had been shaken.—(Hea r , hear.) They were once told, he be lieved, by the Hon. and Learned 1%1.-mber for Bolton, that if we mitigated our laws with regard to the admission of foreign corn, they would relax their laws with regard to timber and corn—that they would, in fact, relax their tariff.—( Hear. ) Well, those countries had largely relaxed their laws both as re garded timber and corn—(Hear, hear)—but Prussia had not been shaken ; Prussia had not relaxed, but had rather drawn closer the reductions under which she bound her trade with foreign countries. They had been told, too, that if they re laxedmspuecliacesey: successfully, t fof h .; etlhi the tya r het, e r t e h F s e t r r er i n c e t efl i h o e e n tG s nogv a e n mr d oi Ton i d f e so t t h o e fw y Fo r e na l nd o c p Rtreewdo reciprocate ab f e r e e e e an - na t ob r h a l e d da e in representativesthe ft Chamberhe territorial of commercialcon sisted interests of that country, to obtain a l aw f or f ree trade in corn, and the r e l axat i on of her commercial policy gen era ll y , as re garded fo re i gn countries. The Right Hon. Baronet the First Minister of the Crown had come down to the House and stated that the Government of France was willing to relax her laws o (Lord G. crle to the entinck) wished that Ri g ht H onoura bl e Baronet House some offi c ial i n f orma ti on Hew id produce which would justify his having made that statement.—( Hear, hear.) What was, in fact, the course adopted by the First Minister of France ? The Belgian tariff, having been brought under discussion in the Chambers of France, that groat Minis ter, M. Guizot, seized an opportunity of expressing his admi ration of the present policy of her Majesty's Government ; but whilst he gave the highest praise to the policy of the Right Hon. Baronet, who had introduced this measure, he frankly told the people that France was not prepared to follow in his steps.—( Hear, hear.) They had, therefore, found that France had not adopted the watchword of " free trade," although they rejoiced in being afforded an opportunity of enriching themselves at the expense of this country. Were not, therefore, the peop le of thiscountr h y e e ha nt d itled too grounded ask l the Right Hon Baronet on what foundation hear.) The language of Mons. Guizot was remarkable— the promise which he had made as regarded France ?—(Hear, (Hear, remarkable— ( Hear, hear)—and so beautiful that he was f s A ure . t l h l a a t st t — he No is a greater friend one . if h a m he b e read n a th p e as i sa st ge o from p h ri is speech . a ( ( I Housed r Hear.e s s woulded hear.)to t hf forgive r gF A ir l ve . enehhim Guizot C said, ofthis country—(Hear, hear) of the agricultural interests say solid foundation most than I am of the influence of landed proprietors, and I will —1 am sure that interest is base o d f o t n hi a s country.l, for my for the prosperity and security tural interests of the country. No own part, am a most sincere and decided one eafnriednednyofthtahteEagnrgilcauntd liberties and prosperity, to her territorial of the wisest in particular owes all her strength, ar i s a t o g o r r e l a o t y part aristocracy."—{Hear, e h a e r r , statesmen that ever governed any great hear.') Those were the sentiments oneo e f at country.—(Hear, hear.) They were the sentiments, too, o Ministers, of one of the wisest Monarchs th f a o t n e e v o e f r r t e h i e r„ w ed i_se i s n t Europe, and they were the sentiments that enter tained some time ago by the ablest and best st h a a te d sm be a e n n of this country—( Hear, h ear )— an d h a ppily, in his opinion, would it have been f or E ng l an d if h e h a d now, as Mi n i s ter, been sitting on the benches before him, who entertained the same sentiments that had been expressed by M. Guizot in the Chamber of France.—( Hear.) Speaking of the plan of Sir R. Peel, that great Minister said, " It is a great and beautiful spectacle given to us, but there is nothing in it which we should hurry ourselves to apply to this country."--( Hear, hear.) Monsieur Guizat also observed, that in their proceed. ings he hoped they would not manifest the impatience and want of prudence which had reigned elsewhere—(Hear, hear),--he cause the industry of France might not be in a position to sub mit to the trials to which the commerce of England would be subjected. He (Lord George Bentinck) wished that Minis ters of this country had the same prudence as had been mani fested in the Chambers of France. What were the sentirr,ents of the Mi n i s t er o f C ommerce, Monsieur Gridaine? "Those who think we should not hesitate to give it the example given to us by the Engli s h P ar li ament, advise a prematureanddan gerous act." And on the division on the question whether they should imitate our example, they rejected it by a majo rity of 236. We had no reason to suppose that Prussia would reciprocate with our policy. The progress of her reve nue, under her restrictive laws, had not been such as to en courage the adoption of any free-trade measures.--( Hear, hear.) When the Right Hon. Gentleman said that Prussia had been shaken, he (Lord George Bentinck) thought that he would find himself in the same critical position as that in which his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary-at-War had found himself. It was atatud, too, that America would relax her duties with re gard to this country, but he believed that the last news from America displayed no symptoms of that sort. The last news thst he received ttom America was, that there was no great probability of any such step being taken. And where was the potato famine, which they were first told would occur in the month of February, and was then postponed till March, and then again till the month of Msy, and which had been still further postponed till the month of July I Had that po tato famine arrived ? He believed that the price of potatoes in Ireland had fallen rather than risen within the last few weeks, and certainly, except as regarded a few lo calities, they need entertain no apprehensions as to a famine in Ireland. Scarcity there might be; but scarcity and famine were not synonymous terms. It had been stated that the city of Cork was one among the most affected districts; and I learn from one of the public journals that the corporation of that cit. received revenues amounting to 7,0001. or 8,0(101. per annum, and yet they had subscribed no more than 1001. to relieve a starving people. But he was sure that if the cor poration of the city of Cork had been convinced that destitution did exist in their city to the extent represented by her Ma jesty's Ministers, they would have come forward with a mere liberal sub,cription than 10il. The Noble Lord proceeded to read an address from Mr. Browne to Lord Stanley, in which it was stated that the markets of W es tp or t' and Castlebar had suddenly become very excited, but that the two last markets had been supplied with potatoes and meal at a less price than has beets known at this period of the year for many years past. A number of letters to the same effect, from persons residing in Ireland, were also read by the Noble Lord. Extracts were also read from a Sligo paper, of the first of May, stating that the markets were completely over-stocked with potatoes, and that there had never been known at the present season of the year each an abundant supply of that edible. The Noble Lord went on to say that in the South Riding of Tipperary the labourers refused to work under Is. 4d. per day. A letter was also read from the Earl Glen gall, who stated that the insurrections which had lately taken place in Clonmell did not arise from the destitution of the people. The disturbances which took place in Carrick-on-Scour, , were not attributable to distress. In the Newry 7'eleyraph it was stated that potatoes were now to be had at reduced prices, and that sales were difficult to be effected. He thought it in vain for her Majesty's Ministers to pretend to say, in the face of this state of things, that there was any necessity for now going into committee on the subject of the repeal of the corn-laws. lie had now shown, in the most satisfactory manner, that so far as Prussia was concerned—so far as France and America were concerned—our adoption of free trade principles did not induce them to meet us in a reciprocal spirit, and our expectations had, consequently, ended in disappointment. Ile thanked the House for the patience and attention with which they heard the statements which he had felt it his duty to make on this great question. Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I shall, in the first place, notice that part—the concluding part of the Noble Lord's apeech, where he refers to the present condition of Ireland. And I did certainly expect that, after the reports laid upon the table in reference to the subject, the Noble Lord would not have made an unfair selection from them, but a full and entire re presentation of the statements contained in them. I did not expect that the Noble Lord would have adopted such a mode of selection. Sir, I know that scarcity is net uni versal throughout Ireland. I know that in many parts of the country it does not exist at all. I know that in some parts it does not exist to the same extent that it does in others, and gentlemen may therefore write with perfect accuracy from some localities that there is no scarcity or famine among the popula tion, but it cannot be denied that there does exist disease— disease existing out of scarcity—( Hear, hear )—and the remedy which her Majesty's Government have thought proper to apply to meet the case is to purchase food.—( Hear, hear.) From what sources have the money come from to enable them to do so ? Is there a large fund at their disposal for such a purpose ? No ; the source they have had to depend on is taxation. The Noble Lord says that sixty tons of potatoes have been recently imported into Liverpool and Bristol from Ireland, and he asks us why we did not go into the market and buy up this food. for the supply of the deficiency produced by the scarcity? What is the remedy which he proposes ? Why, that we should buy up this food, which was intended for the consumption of the people of this country ; and because we have not done so, he turns round upon us and accuses us of supineness or neglect. With regard to the allusions made to the reductions in 'he price of potatoes, I will ask why is the price reduced? It has been reduced, because we have made extensive purchases of Indian meal, and this food has, to a very great extent, supplanted po tatoes.—(Hear, hear.) Why, I will refer to the reports laid before us. Are the people of Ireland bound together in a con spiracy, for the purpose of inducing us to believe that they are suffering under famine? The reports were laid before you.— ( Hear, hear.) No concealment was attempted with regard to them. They were open to contradiction, if any one was able to prove their falsity ; but no one ever attempted to do so. Now, what did the Noble Lord assent to for the purpose of meeting this state of things ?—( Hear, hear.) Why, he agreed to suspend the operation of the corn-laws, and to permit the importation of foreign corn into Ireland for three years.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Bentinck. ) Now he, ( Sir R. Peel) believed that if the Noble Lord imagined that there was no foundation whatever for the cry of famine which prevailed, such consent was a most extraordinary act on the li part of the Noble Lord.—( Loud ironical cheers.) If the Noble Lord believed that there was no famine, then what could have induced him to concede to the suspension of the corn-laws. (Loud ironical cheers.) If the duty of legislators be to discourage all unfounded outcries and agitation, then I cannot understand by what motives the Noble Lord was influenced in encouraging by his concession what he believed to be unfounded in fact.—( Loud cheers, and " Hear, hear," from Lord Bentinck. ) I protest, Sir, I do not understand the Noble Lord.—(lronical cheers.) The Noble Lord says that he will allow the free importation of foreign corn into Ireland for three years, and in the same breath denies that there is any scarcity in that country.--( Loud ironical cheers.) If the Noble Lord manifested such a feeling out of deference to the Irish Members, in regard to the corn-laws, it would not be too much to assume that the same feeling would have actuated him with regard to the Coercion Bill. He acted differently, however, and he thought there was a necessity for the passing of the Coercioii Bill. Now, if he thinks there is no necessity for the free importation of foreign corn into Ire land, why does he countenance that delusion which he says is calculated to raise the price of food, and to aggravate the evils which exist in that country. Sir, you would find that a tem porary suspension of the corn-laws in Ireland, will not meet the requirements of that country. You will find that there is this year even a smaller quantity of land set apart for potatoes, than for some years past. This arises partly from the circum stances of the farmer being able to get no remuneration from the con-acre system formerly adopted, and partly from a disinclination on the part of the cottiers to cultivate potatoes, from an apprehension that the rot would still continue. If this be the case, the consequence will be that the period of scarcity will extend to even a longer period than August, and a greater supply of food will be necessary to meet the defi ciency. I therefore deny that there is an exaggeration on the part of the Government with respect to the scarcity in Ireland. If we neglected any necessary precaution which we might have adopted for the purpose of meeting this calamity, and if any evils resulted which might have been warded off by timely measures, one universal condemnation would have burst upon us, and the censure you now lavish upon us for superfluous precaution would be levelled against us for supineness and neglect.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord says I stated the other night that in the course of this discussion the opinion which I had entertained upon the subject had un dergone a change, and that those restrictions which I some time since thought impolitic I now believe to be unjust. Sir, I adopt, and deliberately repeat that statement. Ido believe the restrictions upon the importation of food to be inconsistent with justice and sound policy.—(Great cheering from the free-traders.) The Noble Lord may have a right to blame me for making that discovery at so late a period, and may say that I ought to have seen this injustice at least three or four years ago.—( Hear, hear, from the Country party.) I admit it, Sir, I admire those who have intuitive perception to tell them that ehich is right in respect to matters relating to commercial policy—l say, Sir, I admire those who, after patient and deli berate consideration, adopt at once the right course. I admit that those are much more entitled to the credit attending such a course of policy than others, who, at a later period of life, adopt their sentiments.—( Hear, hear.) But it is the duty of those who have reason to change their opinions to have the manliness to come forward and own their convictions. Sir, I think it is dishonest for a man, after being convinced in his own mind upon a particular subject, and yet endeavouring to gain credit for consistency, to be either unwilling or afraid to admit the change.—( Hear.) I admit that this alteration in my opinions may disentitle me to the Noble Lord's confidence, but yet I must recollect that the question for the country is not a personal one.—(Hear, hear.) It is not a question as to what period a man ought to undergo a change in his political opinions. The real question is, are these measures consistent with justice the that ho r i ele s l i nt u neoh n setii d esdeseses p rcij o tr.ay l ep i policy y oml ? That, Sir, is the only question we h ave n ow tr f ysteauo circumstance such blame necessity i e r measure, me f toi tf ea g er n r arguing smuit o enh t ge havingttophri youres s question —are h t and discovered f sooner yo confidence, tuh yse oa uye restrictions politic and just? I have no hesitation in y adin in g ten ,, t ,a io s n prtooposegtoi, but t to as thi a s fgqustutiurged goe e t :esquestion considerationodoifn ttuhht was l w ned saying I do not think they are consistent with ju3- 1 e eaamdrvreeiabiotni mature tsro o ee7irdtag.enui hesitation arguments deliberation—afte r Sir, eearn:tt orlntb7w_ now, haieti af speeches as t re h s:ai i ege s hncebeaaestrreheol been toy t f e el h te n i the Noble Lord, I consider that these restrictions are based upon injustice. Ido not think you can maintain the restrictions upon the supply of food by legislative interference, unless for some great public reason, or to accomplish some greatpublic good. The application of the principle with regard to other articles is a strong presumption why we should apply it also to food ; and it is because I see no difference between the two course utwubshtrhaest oeoce fhtto not t r cases—because I cannot see that the removal of these restric tions would make you a whit more dependent on foreign coun tries--because I believe that the price of wages is not regulated by the price of food—because I understand, from the most intelligent farmers, that their maintenance is not necessary for agricultural purposes. For these reasons I consider that their maintenance is repugnant to that natural order which should prevail, and, therefore, that they are unjust.—(Loud and continued cheering.) I listen to th e arguments of those who say that there is a ne cessity for the continuation of the duties on corn because the country is under a very heavy taxation. I believe it to be most illogical to contend that, because the t m population is heavily t axe d f or t h e necessary great mass o o f f the te Government of this co un t r y, i t i s also necessary to tax them in the same rate for corn.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that by importing corn for foreign markets, and by being able to show that there is no sliding -scale to operate against them, we shall inspire them with a confidence which will not be in jurious to the supply of that article. I cannot say, with some lion. Members, that there is anything like dependence on foreign nations. There will be a mutual exchange of the pro duce of other nations for the manufactures of this country ; and that, I think, must answer the charge of dependence. Well, now look at oar manufacturing population ; can you say that the great body of the people employed in the manufacturing districts are or can be interested in the maintenance of these laws of taxation on cern ? When I was told that the removal of these laws would affect the Tithe Computation Act, I said, and I now repeat it, that there cannot be any alarm as to that Act. Now, with respect to the great manufacturing class, when we for a moment see that they are not half employed, and that this arises from the want of a principle of exchange of their manu factures for the corn of other countries, I cannot but think they must be anything but injured by hear.) I believe, therefore, that the great mass of the manufacturing class will be very greatly benefited by the removal of these laws.—( Hear, hear.) By increasine the demand for their labour, and by giving them a greater value for that labour, we shall confer a lasting benefit upon them.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the argument, that the introauction of maize will lessen the demand for wheat, I am of opinion • that such an argument does not stand g ood, for the consumption of maize will decrease when corn is sent in. If you were to draw a line from Inverness to Southampton, you would sec how many are interested in maintaining these re strictive laws. I do not think Lancashire is interested in keeping up this taxation, and it would be very difficult to show that the agricultural portion is interested in keeping up t he price of food.' Now with regard to Ireland? The Noble Lord informed us that Lord Essex said the farmers who had capital and skill would be able to contend against these laws, but not otherwise. There are 588,000 farmers in Ireland, and Lord Essex also said that these farmers were without capital end skill. W e ll, th en , w h at h as agr i cu lt ura l p ro t ect i on d on e for them 1—( Hear, hear. ) If, then, it can be said that this is the e • " case with respect to these farmers, can it, on the other hand, be" said that pr o t ec ti on h as b een f or th e i r interest?— (Cheers.) - With respect, to the agricultural labourer, THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING MAY 5, iB4C. r what has it d one f or t h em ? I n th e di s t r i c t s where they are, are they not many parts of the year starving? This was the case, not for once in a way, but they were so every year, If then this is said to be the case of the labourer in Ireland, can it be said that protection has done anything for them, where for several months in the year destitution and famine were amongst them ? Has there been in any of the statements of those Hon. Members who ad vocate the necessity of these laws—have they, I say, attempted to show that protection was for the benefit of the manufactur ing and labo ur i ng c l asses — t h at protect i on h as done anything for them? I d en y th a t t h ey h ave done so .—( Hear, hear.) I cannot deny that so great a change as the one proposed can be made without Injury to some. 1 regret that no great change can be made without acting in some way to the distress of many interests. It is so in all great changes. No one will deny that the deems away of protection will injure those who have not capital and skill in a slight degree ; and it is allowed by those who opposed the present measure, that those who have capital and skill will not be distressed ; but that admission proved at once the unsoundness of the principle of protection. The question is, then, seri this system be maiutaineiS ? The sooner we meet—and the country I believe is also of the same opinion —the sooner we meet the difficulty the better.— ( Hear, hear.) I believe the agric u lt ur i s t mus t ac k now ledge that this system of protection is far from being a sound and permanent system. If the system of protection is not a sound and permanent one, it cannot be called a good one, and the sooner a real and per manent settlement of these laws is made the better it will be or all.—( Hear.) I am of the same opinion as Guizot, the eminent French statesman, that a territorial aristocracy is most essential to a great country. I believe this most certainly, but the question is, what is the most legitimate way of maintaining a territorial aristocracy ? I consider that in maintaining a territorial aristocracy we should not lose sight in the present interest that of future advantages ; and it was to be considered whether it was for their benefit to maintain an exorbitant price of food . Can the interest of the landed aristocracy be upheld by maintaining this protection? My tirm opinion is, that we shall maintain the territorial aris tocracy by giving up these laws.—( Hear, hear.) I agree, also, with Mr. Burke, " That a territorial aristocracy is most essentially for the good and well-being of this country ;" but that great man very wisely drew the distinction between what did and what did not constitute the privileges of that class of so. ciety. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire ( Mr. Bankes), in speaking on this question on a former evening, made a charge against me, which, though it was intended to censure me, was, in reality, most comelimentary. That Honourable Mem ber said that I had adopted the policy of Turgot, and that, by so doing, I was about sowing the seeds of a revolution. Now, by adopting the policy of a repeal of the laws which resrict food, I am doing the very re verse of anything approaching revolutionary principles. On the contrary, I am for sowing the seeds of content by giving the labourer the full value of his labour.— (Hear, hear. ) I do not believe that the value of land or the privilege of land will be injured by the change of these laws. On the contrary, I am of opinion that the value of land, and its privileges in this compact state of society, is so mixed up with the manufacturing and other interests of this country, that what would be for the benefit of one must of necessity be for the benefit of the other ; and this is the natural and proper order of interests. And if that is the case is it not better that the territorial aristo cracy should make some sacrifice to bring about such a state of society ? How many other advantages have they not given up, and no injury was the result ? How long ago is it when land was the only means of entering this House?— (hear, hear.) When they found that privilege defeated, for it was easily got over, and by the abandonment of this there has been no injury, and the character of this House has not suffered by the ehange.—( Loud cheers.) W e have had this Bill before us for three months, and the country has known for that time this law is coming into operation in February 1846. And what has been the opinion of it s i n j ur i ous results ? The best proof of its anticipated results is that there have been farms to let nowhere. Do they let at a reduced rental?— ( Cheering.) On the contrary and this is the best answer to those who dread the repeal of these laws. —(Cheers. ) I believe it is for the benefit of the landed interest that these laws should be settled, and that a permanent system should be adopted. I do not see any foundation for the prosperity of the landed interest bs the continuance of these laws, and I believe that the interest of the landed proprietors will be served by the settlement of this great question. I say so because I believe I do net consider it necessary to the best interests of the country that those restrictions should be continued, or that in fact any reasons whatever—l mean sound and solid reasons—could be given in support of the continuance of those restrictions. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that I do c .nsider that the removal of all restriction upon foreign corn will be perfectly consistent with the duties of this Par liament to the country.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) I think I have now answered the questions of the Noble Lord.— ( Hear, hear.) But now let me say, that after having paid the best attention I could to the reasons that have been assigned in favour of the continuance of those restrictions, and after having given them all the best consideration I could bring to bear upon them, I can only arrive at this conclusion, that I still believe that the continuance of those restrictions would be impolitic and unwise.—( Hear, hear.) I am aware that the Hon. Members who now cheer me still retain their impres • shins upon this subject, n otwithstanding the discussions that have taken place in this House upon it. Their views no doubt may be more just than mine, and more wise and more prudent, but still I am compelled to say that even at the risk of paying the penalty of their censure, and of the forfeiture of their confidence, lam still determined to persevere in the course I have adopted against the further preservation of those rest rictions.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) The Noble Lord has also taken this opportunity of referring to our international policy, and has told the House that my pro mise cannot be fulfilled. Why, the answer to that is, that we are only now beginning to consider this question.—( Hear.) Surely, the Noble Lord cannot expect, nor can this House ex pect, that foreign countries can so soon be prepared to relax their systems of restriction, in order to meet this Bill, which is only now about being read a second time.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Yet, notwithstanding that, I do think it must be already apparent that other countries have already taken measures in consequence of the discussions that have taken place in this House upon this subject, for we have seen that very recently the commercial systems of the two Sicilies have been very much relaxed. It is true that those are small countries, but considering the very small progress we have made in the removal of restrictions, I think that was doing a goad deal.—( Laughter.) Well, then, with respect to France —the Noble Lord has told the House that I promised that France wonld immediately follow this course of policy. Now I beg to say that I said no. such thing.—(Cheers and laughter.) What I did say was, that I slid consider that the maim ity of the representatives of the French people represented a nation much too enlightened to persevere in the preservation of restrictions upon English goods imported into that country, but that, for the present, the representatives in both Cnambers, as now con stituted, were too much :influenc e d b y a f ee li ng i n favour of re strictive duties to yi e ld at once in favour of any measure for their removal. But I also stated that I did believe that there are now in France many eminent men, members of both Cham bers, who would, ere long, lead the way upon a mation for a relaxation of those restrictive duties. That is what I said (Cheers) and what I then said I still believe, and that is, that the interests of the great body of the consumers of this country and those countries must and will prevail.—( Loud cheers.) And I furthermore believe that if you now adopt this measure of commercial re form, you will most materially benefit the best interests of this country. I beg to tell the House this, that there are at this moment in France societies formed for the purpose of carry ing out a more liberal system of commercial intercourse with this country, and that they are of opinion that they should no longer continue to buy dear cotton and dear hardware, the pro duce of this country, and that France wonld materially benefit by the removal of the restrictive duties that now compel them to do so. But I never promised this House that France would at once yield to the removal of those restrictions. —( Hear, hear.) I am not, on that account, the less confident that if you will set them the example, it will, beyond all doubt, prevail.—( Hear, h-ar. ) If you set them the example, it will be discussed in France, and when it is once well understood what must be the result of the discussion ? I say it must prevail.—f Hear, hear.) I believe that the same arguments apply to the United States. Like France, they may nut be likely to take effect immediately, but I do again say, that in every civilised country a movement is about taking place upon this subject.—( Hear, hear.) Well, but suppose you adopt a different course—suppose a course be a retrograde movement—then I say you will find, when it is too late, that you were wrong, and that I have been right. It has been said that we are going to take in the silks and brandies of France, and the timber of Prussia, at prices less the restriction duties, and that we shall get nothing in return. Why, then, I ask, if we do not—what do we suffer ?—( Hear, hear.) Again, it has been said, that when we take in the silks and brandies of France, and the timber and corn of Prussia, so far from getting an equivalent, we end out our gold. I must say, in reply to that, that I cer tainly have not seen any diminution in the quantity of gold in this country ; or if there has been, it went to supply the internal commerce of this country, and not that of either France or Prussia. And here I am going to say what may appear still more startling, and that is, that I wish it had.— ( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) Now, let me ask, where do we get this supply of gold? I say, in 'answer to all these arguments, that this country will always be able to command a supply of gold to meet its exigencies, and that there will be no drain whatever upon the resources of the Bank of England. If those foreign countries will take nothing but our gold in payment for their corn, timber, silks, and brandies, recollect, also, that their articles cannot be purchased by this country without a return of that gold. I do say then, that by your giving free access to foreign manufactures by the removal of those restrictive duties, you will receive bet ter articles than any now imported, and you will also intitte this country to the same measure of policy from those countries. I say, furthermore, that if France could be induced to allow at once access equally free for the manufactures of this country at once, it would be better still for our tradesmen ; but as that cannot be obtained without delay, let us not on that account lose a single d day.— ( Hear, hear.) And I have that confidence dl ihnavtehe uponin influence which such an example, set by England, countries that they will speedily impression, that at no remote period principlemy follow o h it i , s cs a . and I rely u ion the namely, dono t r thatoee recede e we in advice, which the uni versally prevail, and therefore, I reiterate_ Right Hon. ne a d nd ' Honourable Baronet sat shall course of commercial policy." The tNakobolefoLroorinlehamsostotorn, u„chAdcovnandenem, this down amidst loud cheers. on which had taken place, said, that in the doeussi e, he had Mr. G. BANKES said, that the Right Hon. Baronet had Baronet had, perhaps, forgotten the very emphatic declaration which he made on the last occasion, when an opportunity that those always maintained the same position ; but the offered of declaring his sentiments, sentiments were not fully: declared ; and that the very important distinction which the Right Hon. Baronet made between his present de claration, and any former declaration , which he made on the übject ; a declaration which it well became Members of that [reuse to remark upon, and which had been so properly re marked upon elsewhere. Some few weeks past, the House was led to the conclusion that. the maintenance of those laws, then under discussion, was injurious, and now the Right Hon, Baronet said, that he wished them to consider that,. the maintenance of those laws was unjust. Fe e4c, It would have been singular, if the first opportunity hear. had not been taken by one of those who retained the opinions which the Right Hon. 13 tronet had so long advocated.— (Hear, hear. ) However little qualified they might have been to tread in his steps, in w hi c h h e took the lead and honoured him by his leadership, to eupple that place which he hail va cated. It became them, if they had seen no change, and could find in the arguments which he now used no answer to the arguments which, during ,„ many years, he so strongly ' used—(Hear, her. )—to take the earliest opportunity of ex pressing their regret at the new chanee in his op i n i on—the new stand which he had taken, still endeavouring, as it should seem, to keep a-head of the Noble Lord on the other side of the House—(lmmense cheering from the protectinnists `,— aad to drown him in his course of operation. He was bound, of course, to hold in every respect a per son so eminent as his Right Honourable Friend at the head of the Government, and was bound to give hi m every credit for belief in opinion which he now thought he en tertained ; and he assured him that he felt how humble it would be to him to deny it to one of his station and charac ter, and he would use no expressions but those of the deep re gretrteined—no feelings but those which which he ente • were 'II • of that nature, when he found so striking an illustration, as he feared it must be, of the fact that no confidence was to be placed in him by those who were conscious of their superiorit He could have and the superiority of his leadership. no feel ing but that of sincere so rrow and regret at the loso of such a guide, and it would indeed he a consolation to him if he could follow him in the line which he then pursued. Listen ing to the arguments now offered by the Right Hon. Baronet, he did not perceive any reasons in the speech which he had delivered, for the change which had taken place. He could perceive no new lights addressed to their atten• tion. He had heard the same line of argument often • pursued by men of not equal, but still of great ability on that side of the House. The arguments raised by the Right Hon. Baronet had been long answered, by the answers he had made in opposition to the statements which had then fallen from him. It would not become him to recapitu late those answers, or to set in juxta-position one with another the speeches which he had formerly spoken and those which he now addressed. He might be permitted so far to exercise his own humble judgment, as to avoid weighing the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet given in former years, with those now made. He was bound to declare that he thought his former speeches brought to his mind the conviction that those former opinions were the best grounded ; and the Right. Honourable Baronet left those opinions which he formerls assumed, and quitted them for arguments far belo%; him. His Honourable Friend the Member for Lynn had a question put to him about four nights since by the lion. Member for Limerick, in which he asked the course that could hest be adopted in regard to the alleged want in Ireland. Hi' Hon. Friend, with a degree of caution in his reply which might have preserved him from the sarcasms of the Prime Minister said he could see nu benefit in the course proposed, and he would lend himself to no such delusion, but that sooner than b. accused of any such obstinacy or indifference to the state of Ireland, he would accede to the 'measures proposed. If the Members for Ireland, on their own reponsibility as representa tives of that country in that House, would state to the House their belief that such a course would be a benefit to Ireland, they would at once consent to it. If the Governmen thought that such a measure would be a benefit, why did they not adopt it, instead of directing to them night after nigh; the charge of delaying relief for Ireland. The debate com menced with such taunts, but now they were effectually si lenced. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to an observa tion which he (Mr. Bankes) had made on a former occasion with reference to a minister of France, at a period in many respects resembling the present state of the question before Parliament, in which he stated, with the member for Wolver hampton, who referred also to this Minister of the Crown, at a very dangerous and critical period, qualified as he was as a great and eminent man for the high station he filled, he wanted one quality—namely, moral courage ; and the want of that quality led, as he believed, to all the disasters that fell upor that unfortunate kingdom. M. Necker was a minister in that country—a man possessing unbounded private wealth, and, having nothing to induce him to engage in mean politics, was a man of great talent, and no man doubted the honesty of his purpose, but the want of one great qualification involved his country in misfortune. He had referred to that circumstance before, and would refer to it again ; for be did think that the character of that Minister and that of the present Minister o• England had many points strongly resembling one another, both in that which was amiable and great and that which was weak and vaccinating, He was quite incompetent to follow the Right Hon. Baronet intothe subject of the currenc . , but he ( Mr. Bankes) was surprised to hear him say that it was a matter of little conse quence at what price the gold that was used for that purpose was obtained.—( Hear, hear.) There would be many oppor tunities for him (Mr. Bankes) to address the House on the subject; still on the present occasion he thought he had suffi ciently met the points raised by the Right Hon. Baronet. Not one good reason had been given for the change which had taken place in the minds of many Hon. Members in this House but the operations of that League to which so much reference had been made.—(Heer, hear.) They had seen it avowed that the formation of the League had encouraged a similar bond of union in the sister kingdom, and the Irish Members hao come over to support the present question on the ground that the success which now followed the exertions of the League. would also attend their labours in Ireland. It was these h ew , that led him to regret so much the course the Right Hon. Baronet had taken, and why he felt it his duty to oppose him He (Mr. Bankes) was satisfied the triumph of the League hers would be the signal for the success of the repeal combina- tion in the sister country.—(Hear, hear.) Not having change, his opinions, and thinking in the way he had expressed himself. he was bound to oppose the change proposed.—( Cheers. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL, whose opening observations were rather imperfectly heard in the gallery, said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down charges the Government with having changed their opinions on this question. The only argument in the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman directed against the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) is the chance of opinion he has ex hibited. But let me ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle man what other course, supposing the Right Hon. Baronet has changed his opinions, he and the Government could have possibly pursued ? Take the case as it arises before us.—Sup pine we diminish the scarcity and disease of the potato crop in Irelanl, still you must admit that great distress prevails. You must also admit that relief for this distress is required by some extraordinary measure. This forms one reason why the corn laws should be argued ; and an additional consideration why the corn laws should be discussed is the proposition that large sums should be raised from the land and from the taxes of the country, in order to be applied to the relief of the people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) These were sub stantial reasons why they should consider the propriety of still maintaining the law that declared that food should not be admitted from foreign countries to supply the wants of the people.---( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet thought the law ought to be maintained, then he should have so declared himself ; but if that was not his opinion—if he felt that those laws could not be maintaieed with advantage to the empire, and that temporary grants and remedies were calculated tomeet the difficulty—what course would you ask him to take, but to declare that to be his opinion, and to act accordingly.— ( Hear, hear.) With such views and opinions, what course could you expect of the Right Hon. Brronet, but that which he has taken. No doubt this is not consistent with his former course, but does the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say that no reason has been given for the change, or that these reasons had not induced the Right Hon. Baronet to take his present course. I think we have had argument sufficient to show that those laws which impose a high duty on the importation of food are a great evil. It has been distinctly proved that their maintenance is productive of distress and crime among the population, and that in proportion to the dearness of food these increase and extend.—(Hear, hear.) I know of but one ex ception to the course which the Right Hon. Baronet has taken in favour of that which the Noble and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) recommended. We have the precedent of Gil Bias. —( A laugh.) I recollect that Gil Bias, when assistant of Dr. Sangrado, says that he had been his assistant several months, and that, though in all cases bleeding and the application of hot water was applied to both old and young, and to every manner of disease, yet there were no cures, but they all ended in death.—(Hear, hear.) Dr. Sangrado says, True, but you must still adhere to it, for I have writ ten a book to show that my system must do good. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who last addressed the House speaks of evils, like to those that took place abroad, that will fall 'upon us if we agree to this measure, and he has likened the Right Hon. Baronet to Necker. For myself, I do not see any point of resemblance between the abolition of the corn-law and the French revolution. That revolution ori ginated from the oppression of the people, and the tyranr.y of the Court and the aristocracy. These were the causes of the French revolution, which I trust will not be said of the aristo cracy here. I value the security and safety of the aristocracy of this country, but I feel that it depends for these, on their observation of public opinion, and their not persisting to main tain laws to which the country object. I wish to maintain the landed aristocracy, but to do so, however, it is not meet that they should from year to year maintain laws, the effect of which is to raise the price of the produce of their land, and to increase their incomes.—( Hear, hear.) Anxious as I am to support a landed aristocracy, if they shall continue to oppose the majority of this House and the wishes of the country, I feel that their power will be much weakened. I am satisfied that they can take no position so dangerous to themselves as obstinately to maintain these laws. And when, Sir, this law has expired—when the Bth of February, 1849 has arrived—in what position will those landed proprietors be placed who are now arguing against the injustice of disconti nuing this law? They will not have the disadvantage of being deprived of the protection which is given by law to all all other classes. They will have the same protection as that given to manufacturers; and in that respect, therefore, they are placed on the same terms ; and with regard to all other matters, I do not know a position in respect to any country in the world—l do not know any position more honourable, more advantageous, and more pleasant to fulfil than that of the Eng lish aristocracy. They are in possession of property which is increased, and which has been increased enormously from the time when manufactures and commerce, towards the latter end of the last century, took their start; and with their property has increased their political power which, as compared with all classes of the community, has enabled them to obtain places in the House of Commons, and to possess almost. entirely all places in the House of Lord—to possess, in addition, all the advantages which this country gives. I do net know that any class in the world can compare with the English aristocracy ; and, with respect to their political power, I do not know that any higher honour awaits them, than that they should share that political power, with the members of other classes of the community, who show that intelligence and ability which ought to raise them to the position highest in the nation. I say that the English aristocracy may be proud and delighted to share with those whose ability and intelligence enable them to fill those places. It appears to me, that the arguments ad vanced by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in answer to the state ment of the Right Hon. Baronet, that foreigners will take nothing in exchange for their manufactures but gold, is a most extraordinary one. I think that the manufacturers of this ' country will give nothing for the gold required by us, but what it is worth; and, therefore, any alarm felt with reference to any scarcity of gold in this country, is preposterous. I think you will find that, in those three years in which a great quantity of gold was imported, that in the course of the two or three succeeding years the price of corn has completely regulated itself ; and so the manufactures that we take and give in ex change will regulate the markets under the new law which we proposed. And now, Sir, I may say a few words with respect to that division which is stated to have taken place between the Hon. Member for Lynn and other lion. Members on that side of the House. I do not think that the opinion! which have given rise to this division have now been revived for the first time this session. It does appear to me that during this year the opinions divulged by the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Right. Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and other Hon. Members acting with him, were altogether different from the opinions of the Hon. and Learned Member who had last spoken, and of those other Honourable Members who had supported him. We have had, from the com mencement of these Ministerial measures, ample proofs that great difference of opinion have existed.--( Hear, hear,) The Right Honourable Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury said that in the last three years he had discovered that free trade in certain articles had been productive of benefit, and he intended to proceed further in the same course— (Hear, hear)—but if he had been of the same opinion with other of his friends who stilt voted forthe maintenance of free trade, what I ask could have induced him to make any ex periment in free trade? Why, because his ideas were more enlarged than those of other gentlemen who sit on that side of the House, and therefore it was that the divisions arose in re spect to hie Canadian commercial policy, the corn-laws, and the Maynoeth question. What can he conclude from this ? That in the union to put an end to the late Government there was no party united on views of public policy, and therefore I think it was far better that the Right lion. Baronet should go en in those views which he himself entertains of public policy, and that those gentlemen should act on those opinions wh , eh they entertain, and should vote accordingly. The Hon. and Learned Member has spoke of the association which exists under the Anti-Corn-law League, and of that other associa tion which exists across the Channel for the repeal of the Union. i reg that lion. Gentlemen to consider—as he dislikes the line which those associations take—as he dare not approve of the course of policy which has been in agitation for many years, and as he does think that improvement should commence in Parliament instead of emanating from the people—instead of coming from the public themselves—l beg the Hon. and Learned Member, that he will consider the experience of late years. For many years we contended for the question of Parliamentary reform, and I remember saying in this House, that if we did not yield to popular opinion white it flowed like a river, we should afterwards find it rush upon us like a torrent. I was afterwards laughed at for thm that expression, but. w h en th a t p o p u l a r demonstration rea c hedwould House, th en it was seen th a t the wiser measure to have been to have made concessionsod w ith regard previous that agitati on . (Hear, hear.) to this question of corn, and also with whether ith regard to the question of Ireland, I pray the Hour considerto would not be wiser that those questions should be settled before it will be dictated to by popul ar agitation. This ought to be done. I feel that if we mean to give a great example to all the nations of the worid—if we mean to teaeh them the way to live, we, in the House of Commons, ought deeply to consider which of our institutions, which of our laws, are founded i truth, in reason, and in justice.—( Great cheering.) You found fault with the Right Hon. Baronet because he declared that the corn-laws were unjust. Why are these laws not restrained? If they are not founded for the benefit of the people the laws are unjust. If other laws are stamped with injustice, do you wait until Ministers tell you they ought to be done away with? Take example by what has been done in the case of the Catholic question—by what has been done on the question of reform of Parliament, and by what will be dune with the present corn-laws. I in sist only on those laws which can be maintained. Stand only by those institutions which are good, and give up those ques tions which are altogether unworthy of your support. In this way I feel convinced that Government will show a worthy example, and prove to all other nations that this country contains a wise and intelligent people.—(Cheers.) Sir. DISRAELI said that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire, had vindicated his Noble Friend, the Mem ber for Lynn, from the imputation which had been cast upon him by the first Minister. He was surprised indeed that the motives which influenced the Noble Lord on that occasion hould have been misinterpreted. He came forward to pro pose a remedy which he thought was necessary for the state of Ireland. He admitted and appreciated the exigency which existed, and he proposed a measure with which to meet that exigency. That was the position of hie Noble Friend. It was true that his Noble Friend offered more, but that was obviously an argumentum al absurdum. He said, " You suggest a remedy which pleases the passions of the multitude —which may be misinterpreted, and which has been misinterpreted in our multifarious debates." He said that he would prove, if they had recourse to the proposed remedy, that wf i r t ii w te hn o d u a i. d sh.e b oa e ms iunrheeeffiine which e a n c t c ; hu a eb n de d i h ef e , de w de c i s teo h i v e bi d en g t w o ot g hr u teh a l r lev t s l so,Ne himself of laow i it re d a u h ns i dt s i e be admitt e d th at hi s Noble Friend had a ri g ht to' seize upon a point like that, w hi c h he (Mr. Disraeli) considered a most judi cious point, and which had had the as he tendency to clear very much stohepdraecbtaisteesdian waspthaartliliamouenset,araynndraittor the t Rig ht hardly wo r thy ht Baronet to take such an ad vantage of it as tha i t g which he had shown. The Right H on . Gentleman hadsiti he had been blamed for his p recaut i on. Now he, (Mr. thataisr Disraeli) could hardly believe that any g e n tl eman i n that House, wheel) re ever he might sit, could blame th e G overnment for the precautions they had taken. They had been blamed not for the precautions they had taken, but for the policy they had recommended. They had not been blamed for establishing hospitals, they had not been blamed for importing maize. They had not only not been blamed for such conduct, but they had expressed their willingness to support any measure that was necessary to meet an emergency. What they objected to was, that on account of this emergency they should be ealled upon to construct a new commercial policy—(Loud cheers.) —that new commercial policy being absolutely opposed to every principle which the Government had hitherto professed. The time was but short between the last protection speech made by the Right Hon. Baronet, at the termination of the last session of Parliament, and the commencement of the present, when he met them with a new profession of political and eco nomical faith. Out of respect to his late supporters, be might have detached the emergency from his new system. The Noble Lord who had just addressed the House had assumed that the argument which bad been used was whether they were pre pared to oppose that which was for the interest of the multi tude. He (Mr. Disraeli) wasnot prepared to oppose any mea sure that was for the interest of the multitude. That was he real question before them. He thought the point which sad been taken by his Noble Friend was not only a legitimate mint but one which was most necessary to take. He ( Mr. D. ) was not prepared for a debate,"but he could hardly offer that is an excuse for not answering the speech of the Right Hon. aaronet. It was not a speech that he had heard for the first iine. He had heard it in other places, in different localities, old he might be allowed to add from master hands. That speech, he thought, had sounded in Stockport, and be Nought it had been delivered in Durham. It had been given n another House, which had always been the privileged -est if the drams, and he supposed that the inferior company had at , ength adopted the popular performance. When he had heard hat speech he said to himself, in the language used in railway committees, " This must be the member for Stockport's line." - (Laughter.) With respect to the efficacy of this measnre, he should be prepared to argue on a future occasion. If the neasure of the (iovernment had not a tendency to occasion a great displacement of labour—labour of that kind which was of the most permanent character—if it was not calculated to treate social suffering, then he would say that the measure was ► good measure, and one which he was not prepared to ippose. That was the real question. That was the question which, et the right moment, he should, with he indulgence of the House, be prepared to meet ; and if he lid not meet it, then he hoped it would not for a moment be supposed that he admitted the justice of the series of assump tions which had been used by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the state of Ireland, and the 533,000 farmers without capital, upon which he said, " See what protection has done." Who was to say that but for pro tection these 530,000 farmers would never have existed ? They might take any case of wretchedness—even the Wiltshire la bourers, with their 6s. or 7s. a week—and they might say, " See what protection has done." Why, he had been in Lin colnshire, and he had found the labourers flourishing there, and why could they not say. " See what protection has done there." The Right Hon. Baronet said, " How can you jus tify your system of protection, even if it does benefit agricul ture? Can you justify it to the manufacturers?" He (Mr. Disraeli) could justify it to the manufacturer. He protested against the inference drawn from the assumption of the Right Hon. Baronet. Unless it could be shown that the manufac turer were benefited equally with the agriculturist, he ad mitted that protection could not be maintained.—( Hear. ) Take the case of manufactures. He had taken some pains to trace the origin of manufactures in most countries, and he found that all the flourishing manufactures at present existing in Europe, and in the United States of America, had sprung from capital, arising from a system of protection—capital de rived from landed property, protected by the Legislature. It was that capital which had fostered and formed the manufac tures; and the industry, the noble industry of the north of England, which was so often the subject of discussion in that House, was as much owing to the agricultural capital of England as it was to the genius of its great mechanical inven tions, and its many local advantages. In the early state of the cotton manufactures, about the commencement of this century, it was the capital of Lombard-street that produced the means for the development of those fabrics. Now, what was that capital? Whence did it spring? Take the case of a great house like Gurney's. The capital intrusted to them fed the manufacturers of Lancaehireenore than probably any other capital in England. And what was the means that allowed them to discount a manufacturer's bill for half a mil lion sterling? He knew the instance to which he referred, and he had no doubt it was familiar to many gentlemen around him. Why, it was the capital of the farmers of the county of Norfolk, of Lincoln, and other counties that allowed the Lom bard-street house to supply the capital which was the princi pal developement of the industry of Lancashire.—(Hear, hear.) True, the industry of Manchester had outlived the ne cessity for support in this way, but do not let it be forgotten that it was once supported by capital, derived from protective pro perty ; and that brought him to another point of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech, who had inferentially said, " If manu facture require no protection, how can agriculture require it ? —With what justice can agriculturists claim protection ?" As an abstract principle he protested against it—it was not sonud, nor was it argumentative. It was not for the state to inquire what interests had protection, and what had not—they were to inquire what interests required protection.--( Hear, hear. ) Peculiar burdens he never .thought was a sufficient argument in favour of protection to agriculture But manufacturers had peculiar advantages which agriculture had not. No gentleman could deny this, for they were always getting up and telling them that with their peculiar advantages of soil and situation they required no protection. These advantages, it was said, did not exist in any other country in the world. But the farmer had not these advantages. He did not picture his soil as the best in the world, or that there was any peculiar bles-kg in it. There was no argument in the assertion of an abstract opinion, that one interest ought net to be protected because another did not require protection. It was not argument ; it was nothing more than a mere sentiment that suited very well the hustings, but did not be come the walls of the Senate. He was not asserting that the farmers of England required protection, but if it Isere necessary he would enter into a consideration of this question without reserve, if an opp irtunity were given him of doing so. '1 he case they had to deal with was not a case supported by petty views and slender arguments. for he admitted, that un ens% they could make out a complete and overwhelming case, they would not have a foot to stand on.—(Hear, hear.) They had heard something about the aristocracy, but he for one de nied the existence of a territorial aristocracy. There was an aristocracy of wealth, and he thought the measures and pro.. ceedings of Government had a tendency to increase its power —a power in his mind not in general very beneficial to the people. He protested against the rhetorical position taken up by the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, and the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London. when they argued the case as if the aristocracy of England were a privileged e aristocracy. " Take warning," said they, from what betel the aristocracy of France, and do not be too hardy le in What main taining these privileges." What were the .st r d iv i t ) privileges ten: was the aristocracy_? No aristocracy often upheld the cause of aristo cracy of wealth. He himself had o . in musing such words, he was not to be what was called the territorial computation o f understood thecou a n s t simply maintaining maintaining the interests of barons and baronets, for certainly he should never have risen to defend it had the territorial con stituion of the country been of so trivial a character. But really this territorial constitution had obtained far this country p d l i e out ut to fr a o l m l c l ht a haa s ne s d e d so often ee a ae n nsr d tai auk b ye p o npi r a e cur aipb r i oa l o n; public liberty and the blessings of l oca l government and of limitation—itsel self-governmen t. vern e n was t l s tp r a e pa mtoeenvtertyo classthe o c f on t s h t e ab o le om o m f u a nity vi . llag H e e , himself the duty of arguing the necessity of a preponderance in the agricult ura l i nterest ; and he remembered, on one occ t - sion, somebody got up and said nothing could be more im proper than holding nut the necessity for a preponderance of one class of the community over another. He did not assume, however, that the agricultural interest consisted merely of the proprietors of land. The agricultural interest was that great body of the people who were connected with the cultiva tion of the earth ; and if they materially changed the balance between the population depending upon the two great industries of the country, they shook the territorial constitution, they destroyed the security of local Government, they subverted the guarantee of public liberty, they changed in fact the cha racter of England, and brought about an extensive social revo lution. There was nothing excessively restrictive in the principle of this territorial constitution, or he was sure it would not have been tolerated for a single moment in England. He had taken the trouble to examine into the history of all the families that had sprung up since the time of Horace Walpole, and who had formed great seats of industry both in Lancashire and in Yorkshire. With the exception of one instance there was not an individual who had accumulated great wealth who had not deposited that accumulated capital in the soil of England, and become the founder of a powerful and dis tinguished family.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, these privi leges, which attach to the territorial constitution, were open to all; and the fact that every family invested itself in the soil, proved that there was nothing in our laws alien to such an investment. There was no difficulty in buying land ie the country, for, during the last twen y years, in the county with which he was connected, more than one-third of the sol had changed hand+, and, in some instances, the purchasers were subscribers to the Anti-Corn-law League.—t Hear and laughter.) Then away with then:, false views about a terri torial aristocracy. They were not a body distinguished from other classes ; it was nothing more than an hereditary right taking that position which property and intelligence de served. He woulel not.trespass further upon the time of t h e le House, and he should reserve himself for the more favo z s rab ion opportunity of the third reading to discuss the larger q s might i be involved in the incidental debate. His argum ent it e . He stron weak, but he would not shrink from meeting the should here have resumed his seat, we re observation of the Right Hon. Baronet , which Baronet had made allow to pass unnoticed. The Right q h nn e o w t o for r d one not Hn use of a political argument which hadh l on g been prostituted, and kicked about from one side of te House to the other, namely, that ofmeeting h os tile tariffs with free - tra d e. He could n o t on with such respect a o subject the first tu en L e i n speak t he in adebn Crown, n i l u t. e t H mari neren Gentlemen oposite thought that the p o int was quite certain. It was one of the most abstruse, one of the most complicated, t venture t e tof and one of the most difficult political questions that could be argued.—( Hear, hear.) He had ventured once in a popular , assembly to speak upon such subject, he had venturedonceto express some opinions of his own, and he observed the next day that it was stated that he -had entered into a commercial case about the balance of trade. Now he entirely dissented from the idea that they could fight with hostile tariffs ; and duties upon imposts, in his opinion, if they ‘N er e not met by counterrai:ing dutit s, were a tax upon the industry of the country.—( hear. hear,) If they did not meet hostile tariffS with hostile tariffs there would be a t ransmission of gold. He had not the slightest doubt that if they did not do so they would pursue a policy which would be a poison to this country: Tne Right Honourable Baronet had turned round and said that if they did not adopt his policy they would be met by the hos tile tariff of France. Of course he could not suppose that the commercial transactions with that country could produce:any ef fect upon the currency of the country, which was at -this moment in the least describable position of any in the world. The Right. Hon. Baronet had said that the reciprocating ' policy would benefit these counties in a considerable degree. Now he (Mr. Disraeli) was perfectly willif ' ee to admit to war indignant e conom i st w h o might r i se in defence of low price'S r that high prices certainly produced great inconvenience. Witfo' said there was any advantage in high prices ?—(Hear, hear.) But the effect of low prices would act injuriously upon a country that was at present immensely involved in public debt, and whose private debts were scarcely less considerable.:— ( Hear, hear.) New, lie was only noticing—he was not pre— tending to argue the question at the present moment.—(A&% Hon Member on the Opposition benches " Hear.") Well, het` was quite ready to enter into the question then, if they wished ; but he was merely alluding to some observations of the Right. Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) He really thought it too cool a pass for the Right Hon. Baronet, not only to change his opinions, but to meet every thing that was opposed to his arguments with the cry of " absolutely absurd.".-... (Ikar. hear.) Now he remembered—he was not going to quote a protectionist, nor even a conservative, in fact it was very difficult to quote the opinions of a Conservative, for'a Conservatism was so indefinite a term—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—but he remembered a gentleman some years ago— a really ingenious economist, and even a Member of that House, and one who had produced the budget of the Noble Lord, a budget which had been so willingly accepted. His (Mr. Disraeli's) attention had been called to this subject, and although it might be said that the argument had died away amongst popular assemblies, it had not die 4 away amongst students who were free from the passions. oL . either France, Italy, or England. The greatest economists ct f t u he ro d ay still sbed an consideredopportun i ty i t of a them oo m t point,oat elaborate and it a n w a a l s y s one is! which Why biteasvtnwa,seewonnhlon w tyatiahog attachede n, n , i previous th at h e rea d " the i nterc h ange to any every recent particularp übli c at i p o o n b t n i o e s t : but written one b ya m who was free from the influence of party passions ; he was a man too of a high order of intelligence, and his name ' w o H o a o u s u n s e , I i n d ot only himself as s t s P o e an n e te d an absoluteb hereditary economist.r o u t d h e e r ; an side He eb o ad f alluded and to Mr. John Mill. He believed that that gentleman's opinions - were not influenced on the question on which he had written by apolitical bias. And what was the conclusion to which he has come on the subject of commercial interchadge between different nations? That it was impossible for any country to meet hostile tariffs by any other course than that of adopti ng say, no. N similarly hos o t w ile , tariffs.itwas r H at e br inconvenientt e houghtheheard t an m nH ako a spee Hon. Member. eh t w h h a e t n ti o w n e a o d o i u d r a n o o y t o e f x p t e b c a t t, quotation u se h w a ul a he would have bav o bu b t k een n o d w o rt . de nied he would have brought the book with him.—( Hear. ) He was of the same opinion as the writer from whom he had quoted. He believed that this country could not carry on her a t r d a u d i e w tt iug i t ro o e countries arr tariffs. p e a t o o a n d t o e p ed h h deo ,t o b s a ti t l tariffs s the without t hporuet sent restrictive system, they would furni,h more labour to the poor of this country ; and that if an opposite system were adopted they would be afflcted with a depre'sion in wages —(H.•ar, hear)—and an accompanying diminution of pro fits. Now, he was very sensible of the late hour at which he was addre. , sing the House.—( Hear.) The discussion had been brought on most unexpectedly as regarded himself. He was very gltel that the Noble Lord had made the observations which had fallen from him. The observations which had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet could not in his (Mr. Disraeli's) opinion be anything more than a random flash of rhetoric. —( Hear, hear.) When another opportuity occurred for meeting the great argument, he was sure that he would not shrink from fighting that great battle in which they were en gaged.—( Cheers.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. No division hoe ever took place. On our re-admission into the gallery, we found that the House had resolved itself into a Committee. Upon Clause 1 being put from the chair , — Lord G. BEN TINCK moved that the ' Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when there appeared In favour of the motion B5 Against the motion •••• 181 Majority -----96 On our re-admission into the gallery, we found The CHAMNIAN putting the question, that the blanks in the first clause be filled up. Mr. LAWSON then moved that the Chairman do report progress, and not sit again.—( Laughter, ) The Committee again divided, when there appeared— For the motion ~. 55 Against it 166 Majority —lll Mr. PACKS moved that the Speaker do now leave the chair.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. CHARLES BULLER thought it but just to the House to come to some understanding as to the mode of con ducting this debate en the clauses. He thought it was not necessary for Hon. Members on the other side of the House to resort to this system of dividing, without it was really neces sary to their case. He understood from the lion. Members that they would not adopt the mode of opposition that was not directly necessary, and he hoped the House would come to some regulation on the matter. Colonel SIBTHORP said that it was not fur his side of the House to know what was the understanding of the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down. It was not because the other side of the House did not consider it interesting to them that they were to give up any line of policy they might think proper to adopt.--( Cries of " Question.) He had moved for some returns, and they were not produced by the Right Hon. Baronet—( Question, question.) They were on the question, and it was for them to divide, and they would see who was right. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the returns would be furnished the Hon. and Gallant Member; but they required some time to make out. Mr. ROEBUCK said, if they were to go into Committee they had better do so at once. Sir R. PEEL said he supposed that the Noble Lord, in moving that the Speaker do leave the chair, meant that no further progress should be made with the measure to night. Now he would ask why should they not go on?—(Cries of " Go on, go on.") After a few words from Messrs. Ewart, Packe, and Dr. Bowring, Lord'orEOßGE BENTINCK said be could not see why any objection should be raised to-night to his moving that the debate should not be proceeded with, when he remembered an instance very recently, mil en a Minister of the Crown, under the very same circumstances, moved the adjournment of the debate at three minutes past twelve o'clock.—( Hear, hear. ) Now, he bad a motion before the House, in respect to Canada, for tomorrow; but he would not. give way now unless he should be assured that he would have Thursday for that dis cussion. Sir R. PEEL said, that as far as the Government or him. self were concerned, he was perfectly willing to oblige the Noble Lord by a postponement until Thursday, but he could not control the decision of the other Hon. Members. _ _ Lord G. BENTINCK said, that if Thursday was allowed to him he was perfectly willing to give way to-morrow. Mr. MILNER GIBSON made a few observations which did not reach the gallery. Mr. MILES said that he had collected some information es to the present position of Canada, from a Canadian newspaper, and from that information, and other circumstances, he was impressed with a belief that ample time should `be given for a full investigation of any measure that might affect this colony. After an ob•ervation from Sir R. PEEL, which did not reach the gallery, ~. Lord G. BEN TINCK said that he thought that they were t'utitled to have ;he Poot-law Removal Bill read a second time, before proceeding with the Corn Bill.—(Oh, oh.) Mr. BANK ES said that there was no intention on his part, or on the pari, of his Hon. Friend, to oppose the Poor-law Removal Bill. The only complaint they had to find with it was that it did not go far enough. Sir J. GRAHAM said that it could not be brought on irn mediately. Mr. BANKES said it was necessary that some time should be allowed, as the Bill gave a considerable increase to ob jection pow ers to o f t h th e e After some further conversation, principle imr-1 a Poor-law f the m Bill. i allow the second reading ssioners. There was n o Law Settlement Bill to of the Poor Law the d is cuss ion the be taken as a matter of course, and take House going into Committee on the Bill. on Mr. BANKES thought there could be no objection to motion for the Sir JAMES GR AHAM had no ob j ection to a n arrange ment into Committee, made that s o that he 'net of this kind, providing that some time would be allowed make use o a se n d o the gooyin suggestions might between to o n i be considered advisable to incorporate in the Bill. After a few words from Mr..l. ABEL SMITH, the Chair. man reported prog ress , an d obtained leave to sit ' again to morrow. POOR REMOVAL BILL. On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM this Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday next. POLLING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. MACARTHY brought up the report on this Bill, awl said he had prepared a clause to the effect that each voter should vote in the township from which he derived his qualifi• cation. The report, with the amendment, was received and agreed to, MR. CHARLES BULLER. Mr. HAWES moved that Mr. Charles Buller have leav e to attend as counsel before the House of Lords. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought' that it would be expedient that some precedent should be had for such a practice, because it would be derogatory to the dig nity of the House if an Hon. Member were to appear as counsel for a Bill in one place and to vote for that Bill in that House. Mr. CHARLES BULLER thought it was rather hard that Members could have a vote on matters affecting' their direct interest, when, he as counsel, would be much less interested. In his case, however, the Bill had already passed the House of Commons, and he did not, therefore, see why he should be pre . eluded from exercising his profession of a barrister in another place. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that in a matter of such vast im portance he would suggest that the Speaker ascertain whether any precedents existed to guide the House in a decision of that nature. Mr. HAWES said he would withdraw his motion for the" present. The motion was then withdrawn. The House adjourned at half-past One o'clock. oitiaplerilirera.ne"stablish_ ~, I G arcade, E I N i a n n ir g d O t o t P i doubt whether you are in London or bewild,ing as to cause a a beautiful view of Naples, are in old Rome. "Ct i , r :f i a lß lo n n I o L n o oc A t D a Q v - E G R L T aig,srEsatinii,,:olderur.eihi n—ag:rtih:ce}.3ffN i nhThisSystem—viz., t homi , in, —, unique ßriaa::re::. "Arch:nana.ndtothey f fle o oy(s l , b l oo o jr nnic s t tabii never s r net e togd h aceka , :tie. a uo: n i st apprentices ngodfm,tt attention pile ctr . t :se,inti succeedstit,askingieonan,)atron f tiy, advantagesfur the young hn eg sma Ifne t fm h r o e am i: to wait upon them; every person has clean brushes, they never being used twice, without b e i ng washed ; and parties are not pressed to buy thi ngs t h ey do not want. Address, Ross au Sons, 119 and 120, Wshopsgate-street. [ADvEirrisEmENT.]— I'HE EARL OF ALDUOROUGII AND HoLLowAv's PILLS _At, astounding cure by this miraculous incaicine, after every other means had failed. See extract of his loidshp's lett er, d ated Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 41, 1845 : " To Prof essor llolloway,—Sir, I beg to acquaint you that your pills have effect e d a cure of a d i sor d er in my liver and stomact. which a'l the most em i nen t P t t h e faculty, at home and all *Ter the C ,, on ' i n""t• hall not been able to effect—nay, not even the waters ct Larls,iad or Marienbad.—(rdiciied) Aldh""gh*" Thus wonderfid Pills Nvid cure any disease of the liver or stomach, Sold (also Hol— loway's Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244. Strand, an , l of all medicine venders throughout the civilised world. Mr. Walker had an interview with Sir G. Clerk yesterday . at the office of the Board of Trade.